moted, but by a fixed conſtitution of government, and ſtated laws, known and obeyed by all.—Mr. Turgot, indeed, cenſures the "falſity of the notion, ſo frequently repeated by almoſt all republican writers, 'that liberty conſiſts in being ſubject only to the laws;' as if a man could be free while oppreſſed by an unjuſt law. This would not be true, even if we could ſuppoſe, that all laws were the work of an aſſembly of the whole nation; for certainly every individual has his rights, of which the nation cannot deprive him, except by violence, and an unlawful uſe of the general power."
We often hear and read of free ſtates, a free people, a free nation, a free country, a free kingdom, and even of free republics; and we underſtand, in general, what is intended, although every man may not be qualified to enter into philoſophical diſquiſitions concerning the meaning of the word liberty, or to give a logical definition of it.
Our friend Dr. Price has diſtinguiſhed very well, concerning phyſical, moral, religious, and civil liberty: and has defined the laſt to be "the power of a civil ſociety to govern itſelf, by its own diſcretion, or by laws of its own making, by the majority, in a collective body, or by fair repreſentation. In every free ſtate, every man is his own legiſlator. Legitimate government conſiſts only in the dominion of equal laws, made with common conſent, and not in the dominion of any men over other men."
Mr. Turgot, however, makes the doctor too great a compliment, at the expence of former Engliſh writers, when he repreſents him as "the firſt of his countrymen who have given a
