PUBLISHKD WRI >\' I- Si>A Y \ \ ' [No. T 04, of VoJ. lI.J Discourses on Davila—No. 52. BUT amidst all these scenes of anarchy, car nage and defolatiori, aiul aniidit so many pretentions to reformation, were there no pro jects to change the form of government?— Yes, there were ; and lonie persons appeared as zea lous to deltroy the monarchy and nobility at that time, as any of the national allembly, any of the men of letters, or public creditors of the present day in Fiance. One of these has left an ellaylo ■very curious that it is worth preserving : It con tains all that can be said or thought, as far as I know, against monarchy and nobility, and (liows that the dodtrines which now prevail in France are no new discoveries or inventions : They are nearly two hundred and fifty years old. Neither Turgot, Rochefoucaulr, or Condorcet, have the merit of these invention?. Stephen Boetius, as we learn from his friend Montaigne, died in 1563. His vehement Philippic against monarchy and ariltocracy, mult have been written therefore more than 230 years ago—it mult have been writ ten an hundred years before Marchement Ned ham's Right Constitution of a Commonwealth. Inllead of taking praise to themselves, the men of letters in France, if their present systems fuc ceecLand prosper, ought to eredl statues and llrike medals to Boetius and Nedham, whose political dilciples they certainly are. If by divine power a man flioukl be miracu loufly formed of mature reason and full informa tion of every thing, but men, nations and go vernments : and you Ihould aik hiin, what he thought of tWenty-five millions of men, compo fmg the whole of a great nation, furrenderii.g the whole sovereign legislative and executive power over themselves to one individual, and or daining that all that power should descend to his male pofteriry forever ; he would probably think it the moll irrational, and ridiculous idea ima ginable. If you were to tell him that alrriofl: all the nations of the earth had done it, he mull be aftonilhed and very inquisitive to be informed of the causes, physical, moral or political, ■which could have prevailed upon reasonable creatures to consent to such an inllitution. Is there any other answer that could be given to him than this ? Mankind found by experience, government necellary to the preservation of their lives, liberties and properties, from the iujuftice of one another. That they had tried all poffi ble'experiments of elections of Governors and Senates: But that they had found so much di ■verfity of opinion and sentiment among them. So much emulation in every heart, so many ri valries among the principal men, such divisions, confufions and miseries, that they had almoll unanimously been convinced that hereditary fuc cefiion was attended with fewer evils than fre quent elections. This is the true answer, and the only one, as 1 believe. It is to be regretted that Boetius, who disco vered so much ingenuity in reasoning against the one, and the few, had not told the many, how they (hould govern themselves. He is for pujl ingdown, but (hows not how to build up. That lie who abates a writ ihould give a better, is as reasonable a rule in legislation as in law. If Boetius, or the National Mlembly had proposed a sovereignty in three branches forming a mutual balance, whi?h would have prevenred the one, the few and many from running into the fins that molt easily beset them ; they would have teen justly applauded : but to throw the whole power into the hands of a majority of that mul titude against which Boeiius raves with more in temperance, if poflible, he does against Kings, is an experiment which must be fully tri ed and found beneficial before it can be appro ved. But as the reader will be more entertained and inftrurted by the discourse of Boetius, than w ith the discourse on Davila, he shall be no long er detained from it. LONDON, March 3. Extra!}