could emerge. So sudden a transition from prosperity to the ruin of
public freedom, without the intervention of any foreign enemy, excites a
reasonable conjecture, that the constitution in which it could take
place, however vigorous in appearance, must have lost that soundness of
political health which had enabled it to endure through so many ages. A
short view of its preceding state, and of that in which it was at the
time of the revolution now mentioned, will best ascertain the foundation
of such a conjecture.

Though the Romans, upon the expulsion of Tarquin, made an essential
change in the political form of the state, they did not carry their
detestation of regal authority so far as to abolish the religious
institutions of Numa Pompilius, the second of their kings, according to
which, the priesthood, with all the influence annexed to that order, was
placed in the hands of the aristocracy. By this wise policy a restraint
was put upon the fickleness and violence of the people in matters of
government, and a decided superiority given to the Senate both in the
deliberative and executive parts of administration. This advantage was
afterwards indeed diminished by the creation of Tribunes of the people; a
set of men whose ambition often embroiled the Republic in civil
dissensions, and who at last abused their authority to such a degree,
that they became instruments of aggrandizement to any leading men in the
state who could purchase their friendship. In general, however, the
majority of the Tribunes being actuated by views which comprehended the
interests of the multitude, rather than those of individuals, they did
not so much endanger the liberty, as they interrupted the tranquillity,
of the public; and when the occasional commotions subsided, there
remained no permanent ground for the establishment of personal
usurpation.