acquaint us, that they are conſtrained to believe human nature, no better than it ſhould be. The latter fays, there is no power on earth but has grown exorbitant, when it has met with no controul.
The former. "Such are the principles that govern human nature; ſuch the weakneſs and folly of men; ſuch their love of domination, ſelfiſhneſs, and depravity, that none of them can be raiſed to an elevation above others, without the utmoſt danger. The conſtant experience of the world has verified this, and proved that nothing intoxicates the human mind ſo much as power. In the eſtabliſhment, therefore, of civil government, it would be prepoſterous to rely on the diſcretion of any men. A people will never oppreſs themſelves, or invade their own rights; but if they truſt the arbitrary will of a body or ſucceſion of men, they truſt enemies."
Shall we fay that all theſe philoſophers were ignorant of human nature? With all my ſoul, I wiſh it were in my power to quote any paſſages in hiſtory or philoſophy, which might demonſtrate all theſe ſatires on our ſpecies to be falſe. But the phenomena are all in their favour; and the only queſtion to be raiſed with them is, whether the cauſe is wickedneſs, weakneſs, or inſanity? In all events, we muſt agree, that human nature is not fit to be truſted with Mr. Turgot's ſyſtem, of ail authority in a ſingle aſſembly.
A ſingle aſſembly will never be a ſteady guardian of the laws, if Machiavel is right, when he ſays, "Men are never good but through neceſſity: on the contrary, when good and evil are left to their choice, they will not fail to throw every thing into diſorder and confuſion. Hunger and poverty may make men induſtrious, but laws only can
