breach of faith, will lead to a sentiment of such general indignation being aroused by it, that the vindication of the broken law may be as safe in the hands of those least directly interested as of those most so.

SECTION V.

OF GREAT AND SMALL STATES, AND OF THE EQUILIBRIUM

OF STATES,

THE question as to what is the most suitable magnitude for States to attain, in order best to promote the interests of Peace and of general prosperity, is too purely abstract to be matter of profitable speculation. Some political theorists, indeed, have endeavoured to answer it, and it is well known that M. Comte mapped out the whole world into 120 Republics, only some of them roughly corresponding to existing States. These enquiries are not without their value, as they tend to disclose principles which may be useful guides in solving the narrower and more immediate problems of practical politics. These problems spring out of directly historical causes, and it is only by glancing at these causes that the true purport of modern problems can be so much as understood.

In reverting to the later history of Modern Europe, from the time, say, of the Peace of

Westphalia, in 1649, it will be seen that two distinct political tendencies have constantly manifested themselves, as bearing on the dis

Consolidation tegration of

and disin.

States in Modern

Europe.

Alleged reasons for these changes.

tribution of Europe into separate States. One of these tendencies has been that of compounding large States out of small ones; the other, that of disintegrating States and making small States out of large ones. Both of these tendencies have been beneficial, and the combination of both tendencies together, more beneficial than either of them alone. The recent consolidation of Germany, Italy, and Austria, expresses quite as manifest an inclination of forces in the modern political world as does the separation of Belgium and Holland, the creation of the Kingdom of Greece, the establishment of the Principalities of Servia and Roumania, and the persistent recognition and support of the independence of the Netherlands, of the Swiss Confederation in its successive forms, of Portugal, of Denmark, and of Sweden and Norway.

Different principles have been alleged in favour of the several political modifications which have produced these results, and these principles have often been alleged in favour of carrying the movements still further. Sometimes geographical limits have been assigned as a sort of natural mark of the territory of a State. Sometimes community of race, religion, or language, have been assigned as ground for political distribution or re-distribution.

Still more frequently has a still vaguer prin

ciple of political cohesion been found in alleged nationality, which seems to imply a reference to an unity of political traditions in the past,— possibly, a very remote past. One or other of these grounds for extending an old, or forming a new, political aggregate, have been familiarly alleged by aggressive despots and revolutionary leaders. The truth is, that, in considering any special case in which the propriety of extending the limits of a State, of adjusting the frontiers of two bordering States, or of forming a new State, comes into question, all the circumstances must be taken into consideration together; and, though the condition of the population, in respect of race, language, religion, and nationality, is essential to the enquiry, yet no one of these characteristics can, by itself, be admitted to dominate over the reasoning; and not even all of them together can afford a certain clue to a decision.

Nevertheless, the general consequences which attend the formation of great and of small States respectively, and, especially of the combination of the two in certain proportions, can be approximately assigned, as a guide to general political action.

The relative value of great and of small States, is capable of being fairly estimated by referring to the recent changes which have been made in the constitution of certain States

with a Federal organisation, such as Switzerland, Germany, and the United States. In all these countries the purely Federal constitution has Relative advan- been rapidly giving way to a strict republican

tages of large

and small

States.

or parliamentary form of Government, and this change has not only been promoted through a conscious experience of the inferiority of the earlier stage, but seems to have been abundantly justified by the subsequent results. In all three cases, external strength and influence, internal harmony, fiscal convenience, and invigoration of the national spirit, have taken the place of weakness abroad and disunion at home.

But this is no argument in favour of the indefinite aggregation of small States into larger ones. If pushed beyond a certain limit of extension, a State may include an amount of territory, and a sort of population which, under its existing constitution, its Government cannot control; and its constitution may not easily admit of the only radical changes which would enable it to extend its dominion. Beyond a certain point, again, an extension of the frontier may bring the State face to face with new rivals, or with new occasions of difference or dispute. This is especially true when the new territory of a State enters, as a wedge, into the territory of another State, or is enclosed, on the land-side, wholly by the territory of another State, or borders the territory