attention, and fully persuaded that when it does it will be considered with all the candour and deliberation due to its importance, I have ventured to collect my sentiments on the subject, and in a friendly manner offer them to your consideration. Should they suggest any hints that may tend to improve or embellish the fabrick you are about to erect, I shall deem myself happy in having contributed my mite to the benefit of a people I esteem, and a country to which I owe every obligation.

Taking for granted, therefore, the necessity of instituting a Government capable of affording all the blessings of which the most cruel attempts have been made to deprive us, the first inquiry will be, which of the various forms is best adapted to our situation, and will in every respect most probably answer our purpose?

Various are the opinions of men on this subject, and different are the plans proposed for your adoption. Prudence will direct you to examine them with a jealous eye, and weigh the pretensions of each with care, as well as impartiality. Your and your children’s welfare depends upon the choice. Let it therefore neither be marked by a blind attachment to ancient prejudices on the one hand, or a restless spirit of innovation on the other.

Although all writers agree in the object of Government, and admit that it was designed to promote and secure the happiness of every member of society; yet their opinions as to the system most productive of this general benefit have been extremely contradictory. As all these systems are said to move on separate and distinct principles, it may not be improper to analyze them, and by that means show the manner of their operations.

Government is generally divided into two parts: Its mode or form of Constitution, and the principle intended to direct it.

The simple forms of Government are Despotism, Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. Out of these an infinite variety of combinations may be deduced. The absolute unlimited control of one man describes Despotism, whereas Monarchy compels the Sovereign to rule agreeable to certain fundamental laws. Aristocracy vests the sovereignty of a State in a few nobles; and Democracy allows it to reside in the body of the people, and is thence called a popular Government.

Each of these forms are actuated by different principles. The subjects of an unlimited despotick Prince, whose will is their only rule of conduct, are influenced by the principle of fear. In a Monarchy limited by laws, the people are insensibly led to the pursuit of honour; they feel an interest in the greatness of their Princes; and, inspired by a desire of glory, rank, and promotion, unite in giving strength and energy to the whole machine. Aristocracy and Democracy claim for their principle publick virtue, or a regard for the publick good independent of private interest.

Let us inquire from which of these several vines we should take a scion to ingraft on our wild one; see which is most congenial to our soil, and by the extent and strength of its branches best calculated to shelter the people from the rage of those tempests which often darken the political hemisphere. I will not deny, whatever others may do, that individuals have enjoyed a certain degree of happiness under all these forms. Content, and consequently happiness, depend more on the state of our minds than external circumstances, and some men are satisfied with fewer enjoyments than others. Upon these occasions the inclinations of men, which are often regulated by what they have seen and experienced, ought to be consulted. It cannot be wise to draw them further from their former institutions than obvious reasons and necessity will justify. Should a form of Government directly opposite to the ancient one under which they have been happy, be introduced and established, will they not, on the least disgust, repine at the change, and be disposed even to acts of violence in order to regain their former condition? Many examples in the history of almost every country prove the truth of this remark.

What has been the Government of Virginia, and in a revolution how is its spirit to be preserved, are important questions. The better to discuss these points, we should take a view of the Constitution of England, because by that model ours was constructed, and under it we have enjoyed tranquillity and security. Our ancestors, the English, after contemplating the various forms of Government, and experiencing, as well as perceiving the defects of each, wisely refused to resign their liberties either to the single man, the few, or the many. They determined to make a compound of each the foundation of their Government, and of the most valuable parts of them all to build a superstructure that should surpass all others, and bid defiance to time to injure, or anything, except national degeneracy and corruption, to demolish.

In rearing this fabrick, and connecting its parts, much time, blood, and treasure, were expended. By the vigilance, perseverance, and activity, of innumerable martyrs, the happy edifice was at length completed, under the auspices of the renowned King William, in the year 1688. They wisely united the hereditary succession of the Crown with the good behaviour of the Prince; they gave respect and stability to the Legislature, by the independence of the Lords, and security, as well as importance to the People, by being parties with their Sovereign in every act of legislation. Here, then, our ancestors rested from their long and laborious pursuit, and saw many good days in the peaceable enjoyment of the fruit of their labours. Content with having provided against the ills which had befallen them, they seemed to have forgotten that although the seeds of destruction might be excluded from their Constitution, they were, nevertheless, to be found in those by whom their affairs were administered.

Time, the improver as well as destroyer of all things, discovered to them that the very man who had wrought their deliverance was capable of pursuing measures leading to their destruction. Much is it to be lamented that this magnanimous Prince, ascending a throne beset with uncertainty and war, was induced, by the force of both, to invent and practise the art of funding to supply his wants, and create an interest that might support him in possession of his Crown. He succeeded to his wish, and thereby established a moneyed interest, which was followed by levying of taxes, by a host of tax-gatherers, and a long train of dependants on the Crown. The practice grew into system, till at length the Crown found means to break down those barriers which the Constitution had assigned to each branch of the Legislature, and effectually destroyed the independence of both Lords and Commons. These breaches, instead of being repaired as soon as discovered, were, by the supineness of the nation, permitted to widen by daily practice, till, finally, the influence of the Crown pervaded and overwhelmed the whole people, and gave birth to the many calamities which we now bewail, and for the removal of which the united efforts of America are at this time exerted.

Men are prone to condemn the whole because a part is objectionable; but certainly it would, in the present case, be more wise to consider whether, if the Constitution was brought back to its original state, and its present imperfections remedied, it would not afford more happiness than any other. If the independence of the Commons could be secured, and the dignity of the Lords preserved, how can a Government be better formed for the preservation of freedom? And is there anything more easy than this? If placemen and pensioners were excluded a seat in either House, and elections made triennial, what danger could be apprehended from prerogative? I have the best authority for asserting, that with these improvements, added to the suppression of boroughs, and giving the people an equal and adequate representation, England would have remained a land of liberty to the latest ages.

Judge of the principle of this Constitution by the great effects it has produced. Their code of laws, the boast of Englishmen and of freedom; the rapid progress they have made in trade, in arts and sciences; the respect they commanded from their neighbours; then gaining the empire of the sea; are all powerful arguments of the wisdom of that Constitution and Government which raised the people of that island to their late degree of greatness. But though I admire their perfections, I must mourn their faults; and though I would guard against, and cast off their oppression, yet would I retain all their wise maxims, and derive advantage from their mistakes and misfortunes. The testimony of the learned Montesquieu in favour of the English Constitution is very respectable: “There is (says he) one nation in the world that has for the direct end of its Constitution political liberty.” Again he says, “It is not my business to examine whether the English actually enjoy this liberty or not; sufficient