Thi 11IGHT CONSTITUTION of a COMMON WEALTH EXAMINED, (in continuation.) FLORENCE too, and Cofinus, are quoted, and the alternatives of" treachery, revenge, and cruelty ; all arising, as they did in Greece, from the want of a proper division of authority and an equal balance. Let any one read the liiltory of the lirft Colinio, his wisdom, virtues, and un bounded «opularity, and then conlider what would have been the consequence if Florence, at that period, had been governed by our author's plan of successive single aflemblies, chosen by the people annually. It is plain that the people would have chosen such, and such only, for re presentatives as Cofimo and his friends would have recommended : at lealt a vast majority of them would have been his followers, and he would have been absolute. It was the aristocra cy and forms of the old constitution that alone served as a check upon him. The speech of Uz zano must convince you, that the people were more ready to make him absolute than ever the Romans were to make Casfar a perpetual dicta tor. He confefles that Cofimo was followed by the whole body of the plebeians, and by one half the nobles: Thar if Cofimo was not made malter of the Commonwealth, Rinaldo would be, whom he dreaded much more. In truth, the govern mental this time was in reality become monarch ical, and that ill-digested aristocracy, which they called a popular State, exiftedonly in form ; and the persecution of Cofimo only served to ex plain the secret. Will it be denied that a na tion has a right to choose a government for them selves ? The question really was no more than this, whether Rinaldo or Cofimo ihould be mas ter. The nation declared for Cofimo, reversed that banishment into which he had been very un juftiyfent by Rinaldo, demanded his return, and voted him the father of his country. This alone is full proof, that if the people had been the keepers of their own liberties, in their fuceel five aflemblies, they would have given them all to Cofimo ; whereas, had there been an equal mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and democra cy, in that constitution, the nobles and commons would have united against Cofimo the moment he attempted to overleap the boundaries of his legal authority. Uzzano confeffes, that unless charity, liberality and beneficence, were crimes, Cofimo was guilty of no offence, and that there was as much to apprehend from his own party as from the other, in the point of liberty. All the sub sequent attempts of Rinaldo to put Cofimo to death and to banifli him were unqualified tyran ny. He saved hislife, itistrue, by a bribe, but what kind of patrons of liberty were those who would betray it for a bribe ? His recall and re turn from banifliment feerns to have been the ge neral voice of the nation, exprcfled, according to the forms and spirit oftheprefent without any appearance of such treachery as our author suggests. Whether Nedham knew the real history of Florence is very problematical; all his examples from it are so unfortunate as to be conclulive against his proje