tation, let me beg your patience while we look into ſome of them.
Ariſtotle ſays, that "a government where the laws alone ſhould prevail, would be the kingdom of God." This indeed ſhows that this great philoſopher had much admiration of ſuch a government: but is not the aſſertion that Mr, Turgot condemns, viz. that liberty conſiſts in being ſubject to the laws only.
Ariſtotle ſays too, in another place, "Order is law, and it is more proper that law ſhould govern, than any one of the citizens: upon the ſame principle, if it is advantageous to place the ſupreme power in ſome particular perſons, they ſhould be appointed to be only guardians, and the ſervants of the laws." Theſe too are very juſt ſentiments, but not a formal definition of liberty.
Livy too ſpeaks of happy, proſperous, and glorious times, when "Imperia legum potentiora fuerunt quam hominum." But he no where ſays that liberty conſiſts in being ſubject only to the legum imperio.
Sidney ſays, "No ſedition was hurtful to Rome, until, through their proſperity, ſome men gained a power above the laws."
In another place he tells us too, from Livy, that ſome, whoſe ambition and avarice were impatient of reſtraint, complained that "leges rem ſurdam eſſe, inexorabilem, ſalubriorem inopi quam potenti."
And in another, that "no government was thought to be well conſtituted, unleſs the laws prevailed againſt the commands of men." But he has no where defined liberty to be ſubjection to the laws only.
