In Europe a criminal is an unhappy being who is struggling for his life against the ministers of justice, whilst the population is merely a spectator of the conflict; in America he is looked upon as an enemy of the human race, and the whole of mankind is against him.
[Footnote u: See Appendix, I.] I believe that provincial institutions are useful to all nations, but nowhere do they appear to me to be more indispensable than amongst a democratic people.

In an aristocracy order can always be maintained in the midst of liberty, and as the rulers have a great deal to lose order is to them a first-rate consideration.

In like manner an aristocracy protects the people from the excesses of despotism, because it always possesses an organized power ready to resist a despot.

But a democracy without provincial institutions has no security against these evils.

How can a populace, unaccustomed to freedom in small concerns, learn to use it temperately in great affairs?
What resistance can be offered to tyranny in a country where every private individual is impotent, and where the citizens are united by no common tie?
Those who dread the license of the mob, and those who fear the rule of absolute power, ought alike to desire the progressive growth of provincial liberties.
On the other hand, I am convinced that democratic nations are most exposed to fall beneath the yoke of a central administration, for several reasons, amongst which is the following.