the principle of all its growth. But a still more progressive race--
that by which secular civilisation was once created, by which it is
now mainly administered--had a still better instrument of
progression. 'In the very earliest glimpses,' says Mr. Freeman, 'of
Teutonic political life, we find the monarchic, the aristocratic,
and the democratic elements already clearly marked. There are
leaders with or without the royal title; there are men of noble
birth, whose noble birth (in whatever the original nobility may have
consisted) entitles them to a pre-eminence in every way; but beyond
these there is a free and armed people, in whom it is clear that the
ultimate sovereignty resides. Small matters are decided by the
chiefs alone; great matters are submitted by the chiefs to the
assembled nation. Such a system is far more than Teutonic; it is a
common Aryan possession; it is the constitution of the Homeric
Achaians on earth and of the Homeric gods on Olympus.' Perhaps, and
indeed probably, this constitution may be that of the primitive
tribe which Romans left to go one way, and Greeks to go another, and
Teutons to go a third. The tribe took it with them, as the English
take the common law with them, because it was the one kind of polity
which they could conceive and act upon; or it may be that the
emigrants from the primitive Aryan stock only took with them a good
aptitude--an excellent political nature, which similar circumstances
in distant countries were afterwards to develop into like forms. But
anyhow it is impossible not to trace the supremacy of Teutons,
Greeks, and Romans in part to their common form of government. The
contests of the assembly cherished the principle of change; the
influence of the elders insured sedateness and preserved the mould
of thought; and, in the best cases, military discipline was not
impaired by freedom, though military intelligence was enhanced with
the general intelligence. A Roman army was a free body, at its own