Harrington ſays, "Government de jure, or according to ancient prudence, is an art, whereby a civil ſociety of men is inſtituted and preſerved upon the foundation of common intereſt; or, to follow Ariſtotle and Livy, it is an empire of laws and not of men. And government, to define it according to modern prudence, or de facto, is an art, by which ſome man, or ſome few men, ſubject a city or a nation, and rule it according to his or their private intereſt; which, becauſe the laws in ſuch caſes are made according to the intereſt of a man, or a few families, may be ſaid to be the empire of men and not of laws."
Harrington, Politicaſter, ſcene 2, agrees, that law proceeds from the will of man, whether a monarch or people; and that this will muſt have a mover; and that this mover is intereſt: but the intereſt of the people is one thing—it is the public intereſt; and where the public intereſt governs, it is a government of laws, and not of men: the intereſt of a king, or of a party, is another thing—it is a private intereſt; and where private intereſt governs, it is a government of men, and not of laws. If, in England, there has ever been any ſuch thing as a government of laws, was it not magna charta? and have not our kings broken magna charta thirty times? Did
the law govern when the law was broken? or was that a government of men? On the contrary, hath not magna charta been as often repaired by the people? and, the law being ſo reſtored, was it not a government of laws, and not of men? Why have our kings, in ſo many ſtatutes and oaths, engaged themſelves to govern by law, if there were not in kings a capacity of governing otherwiſe? It is true, that laws are neither
