180 
“that, every thing which is common or 
public in other conftitutions, 1s appro- 
priated by one perfon, who is conceived 
to poffefs the property of it, and to 
adminifter it at his own pleafure. Yet 
the office of kimg, as meaning only the 
vifible hexd of a ftlate, and adminiftrator 
of its executive power, was not at all 
incompatible with the refpublica; and 
therefore the term republic is, without 
f{cruple, applied. to Sparta and other 
Grecian ftates, which admitted kings 
into their form of government. 
Our Engilith word commonwealtb, or 
commonweal, is precifely analogous to 
réfpublica, and has been ufed in a fignifi- 
cation at leaft as extenfive, by accurate 
writers. Thus, Locke, in his Treatife 
on Civil Government, fays, ‘* By com- 
gionweaith, I muft be underfiood, all 
along, to mean, not a democracy, or any 
form of government, but any independent 
community, which the Latins fignified 
by the word civitas.’’ And this ts the 
fenfe in which, he fays, King James 
(furely no enemy to kingly authority) 
ufes it. Nay, amidft the different forms 
of a commonwealth, Locke mentions that 
in which the power of making laws is 
lodged in oxe man, and his heirs after 
him; but this is on the fuppofition that 
it is a truft committed by the people; a 
cafe, L believe, which fcarcely ever hap- 
pened. Almoft all abfolute monarchies 
have been founded in congueft.or afur- 
pation, and therefore, from the firft, 
abolifhing the idea of a commonwealth. 
No people in their fenfes could ever fay 
tO aman, you, and your heirs for. ever, 
fhall have the uncontrolled difpofal of 
the lives and properties of us and our 
heirs for ever. And, indeed, the lan- 
guage of all abfolute monarchs js con- 
tradictory to every idea ofa fo ko/non ; 
for when they fay, my glory, my domi- 
nions, my fleets and armies, they afiume 
to themfelves ail that in a commonwealth 
belongs to the flate, at large, and fpeak 
as proprietors, not agents or truftees. 
The proper ufe, then, of the werd 
commonwealth, is relative to the origin 
and authority, not the form, of govern- 
ment ; and every conftitution which pre- 
ferves the principle of a community of 
right and intereft, as the bafis whereon 
all civil authority is founded, may, under 
avariety of changes as to form, full re- 
tain the denomination of a common- 
wealth. 
The term republic; as adopted in our 
language, has, by ufe, acquired a more 
/ 
Commonwealth and Republic. 
limited fignification than commonwealth ; 
being generally applied to denote the 
rule of many, 1 oppofition to monarchy. 
Thus Dr. Johnfon, in his Diétionary, 
defines a republic to be a ‘* State in 
which the power is lodged in more than 
one.’ Itis manieft that this definition 
includes all thofe conftitutions which 
(by a kind of folecifm in language) are 
called mixed monarchies; and we may 
wonder that Dr. Johnfon fhould fo de- 
cidedly arrange the Englifh conftitution 
among thofe which his principles muft 
leadhim to regard with averfion. But 
that he has defined it Juftiy, according 
to the modern ufe of the word, I have 
no doubt; for it is folely the circum- 
fiance of divifion .of the fupreme power, 
which feems to determine uur application 
of the word republic. Thus, the here- 
ditary  ariftocractes of Italy, and the 
partial!ls-eleéted ones of Holland and 
Switzerland, have that title, as well as 
the Swifs democracies, and the’ Ameri- 
can reprefentative-government. Nay, 
the exiftence of a 4g in Poland; does 
not prevent that government from calling 
itfelf a republic at this day“; any more 
than it formerly did thofe of Hungary 
and Bohemia. Thefe were properly 
republics, with kings at their bead, andl 
remember a letter in a printed collec- 
tion, in which a prelate (I think Def 
Rundle) gives the fame name to. the 
Englifh government. The fir confti- 
tution given to France afrer the Revo- 
lution, certainly came under the fame 
defcription. 
_ Since, then, in the ftricteft language, 
every ftate which recognizes a‘ commu- 
nity cf intereft in its members, is a 
commonwealth ; and every form of govern- 
ment which has. fecured thefe interefts, 
by “ lodging power in more than one,” 
is republican; why thould thefe terms 
bear a reproachful fignification, in a 
country too, where all parties profeis to 
aét upon thefe common interefts, and 
where a divifion of power has been the 
great objeét of the conftitution ? Ought 
they not rather to be employed to mark 
out thofe principles in which all friends 
of civil liberty, in its moft tempered 
form, agree ; and to ftand in oppolition 
to nothing but ryrazay and defpoitjm? The 
ridiculous cant words of Wg and Tory 
carry with them no proper meaning, but 
that of a fadionx, and may eafily be brought 
to fitany fet of principles, however hof- 
_—— 

* This was written while Poland {till exifted, 
tile 
[ April 
¥ 
- 
ae 
