be denominated free: as the ſociety governs itſelf, it is free, according to the definition of Dr. Price. The enquiry of theſe writers, in ſuch paſſages, was not into the higheſt point of liberty, or greateſt degree of it, which might be eſtabliſhed by the general will, and the common ſenſe of intereſt, in their reſults or laws. They have taken it for granted, that human nature is ſo fond of liberty, that, if the whole ſociety were conſulted, a majority would never be found to put chains upon themſelves, by their own act and voluntary conſent.
But all men, as well as republican writers, muſt agree, that there can be no uninterrupted enjoyment of liberty, nor any good government, in ſociety, without laws, or where ſtanding laws do not govern. In deſpotic ſtates, in ſimple monarchies, in ariſtocracies, in democracies, in all poſſible mixtures of theſe, the individual enjoys continually the benefit of law, as he does thoſe of light and air, although, in moſt of thoſe governments, he has no ſecurity for the continuance of it. If the laws were all repealed at once, in any great kingdom, and the event made known ſuddenly to all, there would ſcarcely a houſe remain in poſſeſſion of its preſent inhabitant, in the great cities.
The great queſtion therefore is, What combination of powers in ſociety, or what form of government, will compel the formation of good and equal laws, an impartial execution, and faithful interpretation of them, ſo that the citizens may conſtantly enjoy the benefit of them, and be ſure of their continuance. The controverſy between Mr. Turgot and me is—whether a ſingle aſſembly of repreſentatives be this form. He maintains the affirmative. I am for the negative: becauſe
