to renounce it, and ſet up the governments of ancient Goths and modern Indians—what would they ſay? That the Americans would be more reprehenſible than the Cappadocians, if they ſhould liſten to ſuch advice. It would have been much, to the purpoſe to have inſerted a more accurate inveſtigarion of the form of government of the ancient Germans and modern Indians; in both, the exiſtence of the three diviſions of power is marked with a preciſion that excludes all controverſy. The democratical branch, eſpecially, is ſo determined, that the real ſovereignty reſided in the body of the people, and was exerciſed in the aſſembly of king, nobles, and commons together. Theſe inſtitutions really collected all authority into one center of kings, nobles, and people. But ſmall as their numbers, and narrow as their territories were, the conſequence was confuſion; each part believed it governed the whole: the chiefs thought they were ſovereign; the nobles believed the power to be in their hands and the people flattered themſelves that all depended upon them. Their purpoſes were well enough anſwered, without coming to an explanation, while they were few in numbers, and had no property; but when ſpread over large provinces of the Roman empire, now the great kingdoms of Europe, and grown populous and rich, they found the inconvenience of not knowing each its place. Kings, nobles, and people
