nations underſtand their own intereſt better than another; and therefore they may be truſted to judge of the public good: and in all the caſes above ſuppoſed, they will be as free as they deſire to be; and therefore may with great propriety be called free nations, and their conſtitutions free republics. There can be no way of compelling nations to be more free than they chooſe to be.
But Mr. Turgot has miſtaken the ſenſe of republican writers, eſpecially of the Engliſh ones. What republican writers he had in view I know not. There is none that I remember, of any name, who has given ſo abſurd a definition of liberty. His countryman Monteſquieu, who will ſcarcely be denominated a republican writer, has ſaid ſomething the moſt like it; but it is manifeſt that his meaning was confined to equal laws, made by common conſent. Although there may be unjuſt and unequal laws, obedience to which would be incompatible with liberty; yet no man will contend, that a nation can be free, that is not governed by fixed laws. All other government than that of permanent known laws, is the government of mere will and pleaſure, whether it be exerciſed by one, a few, or many. Republican writers in general, and thoſe of England in particular, have maintained the lame principle with Dr. Price, and have ſaid, that legitimate governments, or well-ordered commonwealths, or well-conſtituted governments, were thoſe where the laws prevailed; and have always explained their meanings to be, equal laws made by common conſent, or the general will—that is to ſay, made by the majority, and equally binding upon majority and minority. As it is of importance to reſcue the good old republican writers from ſuch an impu-
