being superseded, the government of the ancient Barbary States, three or four centuries before the Christian era, had become a mixture of aristocracy with an infusion of democratical elements. We find, accordingly, that Polybius and Aristotle, the most competent authorities on this subject, place the constitution of Carthage among those mixed forms where power is divided between the people, properly so called, and the patrician order, which has gradually risen from them. The one compares it to the administration of Sparta, before anarchy or despotism had paralysed its rulers; and the other likens it to that of Rome, when, as yet, no demagogue had insulted the majesty of the senate.*

The rights enjoyed by the people appear to have been chiefly displayed in their public assemblies; but as to the precise extent of their privileges, and the manner in which they were exercised, history does not convey any satisfactory information. It is generally admitted, however, that the popular part of the government was invested with a certain influence in the election of the chief magistrates or kings,a right which, while it imposed on the leading families a feeling of dependence, raised the great body of the commons to a suitable degree of political elevation. But we learn from Aristotle, that the distinction now mentioned was often prostituted to the lowest purposes; that the electors, in most cases, were actuated by considerations of gain rather than of national honour or advantage; and that, in his time, the highest offices in Carthage were obtained by bribery. We are informed by the same author, that there was placed in the hands of the people the * Aristotle, as just quoted. Polyb. lib. vi. c. 2.

prerogative of deciding in all questions concerning which the king and the senate could not agree; and, on this principle, it was not uncommon to find them deliberating on matters of the deepest importance, such as declarations of war and treaties of peace.

The senate, it is however acknowledged, possessed a paramount authority in all state affairs; and in fact, previous to the wars with Rome, exercised nearly the whole power of the commonwealth. But it is not certainly known whether that assembly was permanent, or consisted of a body of citizens which was from time to time renewed, nor even what was the exact number of its constituent members. The ascendency which it had acquired strengthens the probability that it was not entirely dependent on the suffrages of the people; and there is equal reason to conclude that, like the Roman senate, it amounted to several hundreds, whose rank or services entitled them to a voice in its decisions. This inference derives confirmation from the fact, that out of it was chosen a more Select Council, which, it is said, was held in the greatest reverence, and enjoyed an unquestionable control over the senate itself. In respect to the origin of this supreme committee, Justin gives the following account:"As the house of Mago became dangerous to a free state, 100 judges were chosen from among the senators, who, upon the return of generals from war, should demand an account of the things transacted by them, that they, being thereby kept in awe, should so conduct themselves in their military commands as to have regard to the laws of their country." As this tribunal consisted of a number so considerable, it may be concluded that the assembly from which it

was drawn comprehended no small proportion of the older and more wealthy families.*

This council, clothed with powers at once very extensive and arbitrary, became, in the end, dangerous to that liberty which it was its peculiar duty to protect. It is manifest, however, that during the flourishing period of the republic it answered the purpose for which it was designed; checking at once the power of triumphant commanders and the insolence of aspiring demagogues. At a later period, as has now been suggested, it degenerated into the most intolerable despotism; many officers being known to commit suicide rather than incur the hazard of its tyrannical rigour.

On the whole, it is the opinion of Heeren, that the duties of the Carthaginian senate, including both the larger and the smaller body, were of the same nature and extent as those of the Roman. There is no doubt that all business relating to foreign affairs was under their management; the official reports being laid before them by the kings or suffetes, who presided at their meetings. They likewise received foreign ambassadors; deliberated on all national concerns; and decided upon the expediency of peace and war, although, as a matter of form, the question was sometimes submitted to the people. The power of the senate, therefore, seems to have been unlimited, so long as its determinations agreed with those of the nominal sovereigns; and, consequently, its members held in their hands the greater part of the legislative authority. To their care, also, were confided the welfare and

* Justin. lib. xviii. c. 3-7; lib. xix. c. 1, 2.

security of the city, as well as the direction of the public revenue.*

But the highest office in the Carthaginian commonwealth was that of the kings, as they are usually denominated by the Greek writers. These were a class of rulers who, in their rank and duties, corresponded to the Consuls of Rome and to the Judges of the Hebrew tribes prior to the age of Samuel. All which is positively known respecting them is, that they were elected from the principal families of the state; that they presided in the senate; and that, in some other respects, they possessed a high degree of authority. It remains doubtful, however, whether there were two in office at the same time, or only one; and an equal uncertainty exists as to the duration of their appointment. The prevailing opinion among the best-informed authors of the present day is, that they continued in power during their whole lives.

It would appear that a distinction was uniformly preserved at Carthage between the duties of the king or judge, and those of the general who led the national troops into the field of battle; though, on certain occasions, it should seem, the union of the civil and military jurisdiction was not deemed incompatible. It was held sufficient, as a security for public freedom, that the rank of sovereign did not imply the more dangerous authority of chief commander; that the latter could not be held by the suffetes without a special nomination by the senate, confirmed in the assembly of the people; and that at the close of the campaign his powers expired, and could not be revived without the regular forms of a new appointment.

* Historical Researches, vol. i. chap. 3.

In the administration of justice the Carthaginians. seem to have acted more wisely than the Greeks, and to have employed regular magistrates for the decision of all lawsuits. The people, accordingly, never assembled in a body to exercise the judicial functions, as they were wont at Rome and Athens, where so much injustice was perpetrated on public characters. This arrangement must have prevented many evils, as popular tribunals are well known to have formed one of the most dangerous institutions possessed by the free states of antiquity; and it appears also to have been founded on an aristocratical principle quite opposed to the irresponsible judgment of the multitude. In these respects the usages of Carthage bore a close resemblance to those of Lacedæmon, though it must be acknowledged that the information conveyed by Aristotle is so limited as not to afford materials for any certain or general conclusion.

The account now given, imperfect as it is, may nevertheless be sufficient to show the general character of the ancient constitution which distinguished the Barbary States. In a commercial community, depending on a single town, little else could be expected than that the more opulent families would seize the government, and form an aristocracy of which the main power rested in the senate; the members of which, too, would derive their chief dignity from the splendour of their wealth and conquests, and draw their strength from the mutual jealousy of the popular factions, and even from the religion of the people. On this foundation their polity remained firm and unshaken during several centuries; nor was it until after the first peace with

D