If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They define a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition is just, the British constitution is nothing more or less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate. This office being hereditary, and being possessed of such ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government's being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend.

If worthless men are sometimes at the head of affairs, it is, I believe, because worthless men are at the tail and the middle

Set before us the conduct of our own British ancestors, who defended for us the inherent rights of mankind against foreign and domestic tyrants and usurpers, against arbitrary kings and cruel priests; in short against the gates of earth and hell.

Liberty, according to my metaphysics is a self-determining power in an intellectual agent. It implies thought and choice and power.

Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty.

The world grows more enlightened. Knowledge is more equally diffused.

If we do not lay out ourselves in the service of mankind whom should we serve?