triotiſm or public ſpirit. In ariſtocracies there is more wiſdom to be found, than in the other frames of government; being compoſed, or intended to be compoſed, of the moſt experienced citizens; but there is leſs honeſty than in a republic, and leſs ſtrength than in a monarchy. A monarchy is indeed the moſt powerful of any, all the ſinews of government being knit together, and united in the hand of the prince; but then there is imminent danger of his employing that ſtrength to improvident or oppreſſive purpoſes.
Thus theſe three ſpecies of government have, all of them, their ſeveral perfections and imperfections. Democracies are uſually the beſt calculated to direct the end of a law; ariſtocracies to invent the means by which that end ſhall be obtained; and monarchies to carry thoſe means into execution. And the antients, as was obſerved, had in general no idea of any other permanent form of government but theſe three: for though Cicero[1] declares himſelf of opinion, “eſſe optime conſtitutam rempublicam, quae ex tribus generibus illis, regali, optimo, et populari, ſit modice confuſa;” yet Tacitus treats this notion of a mixed government, formed out of them all, and partaking of the advantages of each, as a viſionary whim, and one that, if effected, could never be laſting or ſecure[2].
But, happily for us of this iſland, the Britiſh conſtitution has long remained, and I truſt will long continue, a ſtanding exception to the truth of this obſervation. For, as with us the executive power of the laws is lodged in a ſingle perſon, they have all the advantages of ſtrength and diſpatch, that are to be found in the moſt abſolute monarchy; and, as the legiſlature of the kingdom is entruſted to three diſtinct powers, entirely independent of each other; firſt, the king; ſecondly, the lords ſpiritual and temporal, which is an ariſtocratical aſſembly of perſons
