LETTER II.
My dear Sir,
MR. Turgot is offended, becauſe the cuſtoms of England are imitated in moſt of the new conſtitutions in America, without any particular motive. But, if we ſuppoſe that Engliſh cuſtoms were neither good nor evil in themſelves, and merely indifferent; and the people, by their birth, education, and habits, were familiarly attached to them; was not this a motive particular enough for their preſervation, rather than endanger the public tranquillity, or unanimity, by renouncing them? If thoſe cuſtoms were wiſe, juſt, and good, and calculated to ſecure the liberty, property, and ſafety of the people, as well or better than any other inſtitutions ancient or modern, would Mr. Turgot have adviſed the nation to reject them, merely becauſe it was at that time juſtly incenſed againſt the Engliſh government?—What Engliſh cuſtoms have they retained which may with any propriety be called evil? Mr. Turgot has inſtanced only in one, viz. "that a body of repreſentatives, a council, and a governor, has been eſtabliflied, becauſe there is in England a houſe of commons, a houſe of lords, and a king." It was not ſo much becauſe the legiſlature in England conſiſted of three branches, that ſuch a diviſion of power was adopted by the ſtates, as becauſe their own aſſemblies had ever been ſo conſtituted. It was not ſo much from attachment by habit to ſuch a plan of power, as from conviction that it was founded in nature and reaſon, that it was continued.
