with no impropriety of language that a prelate (I think, Dr. Rundle) called the English government "a republic with a king at its head :" at least, he employed his terms with more accuracy than Addison, in his Vision of Liberty (Tatler, No. 161) who uses the word Commonwealth as synonymous with Democracy, and makes the Genius of Monarchy the representative of the English constitution; thus confounding the latter with the pure monarchies of the continent, in which there is no divison of the supreme power. If then, in the strictest language, every state which recognises a community of interest in its members is a commonwealth; and every form of government which has secured these interests by "lodging power in more hands than one' is republican, why should these terms bear an obnoxious import in a country where all parties profess to act upon these common interests, and where a division and balance of power has been the great object of the constitution? Ought they not rather to be employed to denote those principles in which all the friends of civil liberty, in its most tempered form, agree, and to be set in opposition to nothing but tyranny and despotism? The cant words Whig and Tory carry with them no proper meaning but that of a faction, and may be accommodated to any set of principles, however inconsistent with former declarations. But the term republican or commonwealth's-man has a determinate meaning, and might, I should suppose, without hesitation, be avowed by all who hold that good of the whole; and that this II. On the words PEOPLE and Few words stand more prominent in political discussions than that of people, which is taken in different acceptations by writers and speakers of different parties, who often artfully endeavour, by the sense in which they employ it, to convey impressions favourable to their arguments. Yet if we consider the term in its proper and original import, little doubt, I imagine, will remain of the signification that it ought to bear in correct language. The Latin populus (whence people is obviously derived) properly and strictly signifies the whole body of a nation or civil community, and is exactly analogous to the Greek nos. That this is its primáry meaning cannot be doubted, when we observe its application to such a body when spoken of in general terms. For although no phrase is more familiar in Latin writers than Senatus Populusque Romanus, yet this limited sense is subordinate to the former ; and the populus here denotes a part of the community only because the senatus is taken out of it:-it is, in fact, all the rest. In the opening of his History we find Livy proposing to treat on the affairs populi Romani; whom he soon after terms princeps terrarum populus; conformable to which lofty appellation is Virgil's government was instituted for the A people reigning wide, and proud in war This is, likewise, the first sense ascribed by Dr. Johnson to the word people; and indeed he might have been content with this only sense, together with its variation of "men in general;" for when, after his usual mode of splitting senses, he adds those of, " vulgar,' and of "persons of a particular class," it is evident that his references authorize those significations only by prefixing some other word, as common people-country people, &c. The proper use of the word is preserved in the ordinary phrase of Prince and People as placed in contra-distinction; and I conceive a prince, king, or supreme governor, holding his office for life, and not amenable to the common laws of the state, to be the only person not included in the enumeration of people. No particular class of the community is exempted from the number; and though we have the division of Lords and Commons, both are equally portions of the people of this realm. This conception of the term is the only one which accords with the genius of a free state, to which it is essential that laws and privileges should be common to all its members, and that no line of separation should be drawn between one part of the subjects and another, at least in important concerns. Without a common appellation there cannot be a common interest; and every designation which excepts a portion out of the general mass, sets it up as an object of ill-will or suspicion, unless where it implies some distinction clearly connected with the public welfare. In those countries where patricians or noblesse have prided themselves in marking as strongly as possible their superiority to ple beians, and have supported it by the greatest number of exclusive prerogatives, they have been most liable to be deserted in times of public danger by the body of the nation, which has not been dis posed to sympathize with them in losses of which it did not partake, or greatly to deprecate changes by which its condition was as likely to be ameliorated as to be made worse. To confound people with popu lace has been a very common, though a shallow artifice of men who have at times been opposers of those notions of equality, which carried to a certain extent, are the basis of all that deserves the name of freedom in governments. They have studiously, in all their reasonings, endeavoured to inculcate the idea of two classes in society, the respectable, orderly, and enlightened-and the base, turbulent, and ignorant-to the latter of which they have affected to appropriate the name of people and, whenever the rights, voice, or will of the people have been brought forward, they have chosen to regard them as applicable to the mere rabble. It is true, such is the distribution of the advantages of social life in human communities, that in almost all countries the mass of the people have been left destitute of the opportunities of mental cultivation, and by the want of property, and the ordinary comforts of existence, have been rendered discontented, and debased in the scale of rational beings. But this part of society forms no proper class; for every thing between the lowest and the highest condition of subjects (especially in a country like ours where free scope is given to the exertions of industry and ingenuity) is gradational, and no line can be drawn which shall separate the well-informed, well-principled, and independent members of the community from their opposites, -the only distinction worthy of consideration in a political view! -Moreover, it is perfectly false in fact, that the two pretended classes act separately upon public occasions; for the low are incapable of any combined or determinate exertions without the counsel and aid of the high, to whom they are generally subservient in their schemes, whether selfish or patriotic, with no other views for themselves, than some vague notions of rectifying abuses by which they suppose themselves aggrieved, and which notions are easily made to coincide with plans for general good. Let those persons, therefore, who accustom themselves to use the word people in a contemptuous sense, and to regard it as implying all that is ignoble and worthless in society, consider what right they have to exempt themselves from the number to which this designation belongs. If not part of the people, what are they? What other appellation can they claim, which shall mark a distinction in their favour? Are there not occasions in which they are proud of participating in the title? Have they never challenged a fellowship with a brave, a free, and enlightened people? The phrase, majesty of the people (borrowed from the Romans) is said, when first pronounced in parliament, to have excited a laugh, but, when persisted in by the speaker, to have made a serious impression. In reality, it includes all the genuine majesty of a nation; for the ma jesty of a king is only a figurative attribute, derived to him as a kind of personified image of the combined power and dignity of the people; from them it is reflected; and to them, when they choose to assert it, it must return. A Lewis XIV. strutting among his courtiers, and led by their flattery to believe, that in his person actually resides all the greatness of the state, is, in fact, a more ridiculous object than a self-constituted body of political mechanics, who, at least, possess the strength of their united arms. But to bring the monarch to reason, and to over-awe the turbulent populace, the general mass of wisdom and power existing in the people is alone to be relied upon. III. On the words LOYAL and To the well-founded observation, that from the shades of difference which words often acquire in passing from a primary to a derivative language, inferences may be deduced concerning the modes of thinking in different countries, the English use of the words which are the subjects of this section may at first sight appear a remarkable exception. Leále, Lealtà, in Italian; Loyal Loyauté, in French, have the signification of frank, sincere, honest, and of good faith; whereas Loyal and Loyaltyin English (manifestly the same words in their origin) are entirely limited in their sense to fidelity and attachment to a king, except that by a kind of metaphor, our poets sometimes apply them to denote the same affections towards a mistress. This diversity was the source of much mistranslation after the French revolution by our newspaper writers, who were doubtless surprised to find that people, when become republican, ostentatiously applying the term loyal to their sentiments and proceedings. Had these translators, however, been better acquainted with the language, various instances would have occurred to them explanatory of its true meaning.Thus Moliere, in the "Tartuffe," ironically names a Norman serjeant-at-mace Mons. Loyal; upon which one of the characters in the play remarks, Ce Monsieur Loyal porté un air bien déloyal: This Mr. Honest looks very like a knave. Philip de Comines even applies the word to the Creator, who, he says, has "loyaument tenu à toutes gens," the promise which he made when he created man. The motto of one of our ancient noble families is " Loyaulté n'a honte," which might be rendered, Faithfulness incurs no shame; -though possibly such a version would not be adopted at the present day. It is not difficult to conceive how a word signifying fidelity in general, should come to be exclusively applied to what might appear the most meritorious exercise of the quality; but the wonder is, that England should have been the country in which alone the word has been so limited. There is no doubt that, according to modern usage, the sole meaning affixed to the English word loyalty is that passionate attachment to the person and interests of the reigning king, as such, which almost all public men profess, and which many seem to consider as the first of political virtues. I am not able exactly to trace the progress of this appropriation of a word, which once had among us at least the intention of signifying faithfulness to an obligation of service of any kind. Thus Shakespear not only, in the high-flown language of a lover, speaks of writing loyal cantos of neglected love; but makes the good old Adam say to Orlando, I will follow thee This dutiful attachment of a servant to his master is a sense of the word not noted by Johnson, who limits its use to fidelity to a prince and a mistress. He quotes however, a line of Milton as exemplifying the meaning of "faithful in love," which appears to me to refer to the more extended signification above hinted: it occurs in the poet's beautiful address to Wedded Love: by thee Founded in reason, loyal, just and pure. The word is here evidently used as a synonym to constant and faithful to an engagement, without limitation to a particular instance. I should suppose that the reign of Elizabeth, which, to the profound veneration for royalty that prevailed under her father, added the chivalrous devotion of which her sex was then the object, was the period in which the modern ap propriation of the term principally took place. Possessing this double claim to the reverence and sentimental attachment of her subjects, she was treated with a fervor of submission nearly amounting to adoration; and the passion of loyalty appears fully formed in the language both of the poets and the statesmen of that day. James I. was not a sovereign adapted to inspire the real feeling attending this display; nor, perhaps, would his son have done so in any high degree, had it not been for the contest between republicanism and monarchy which agitated his reign, and of which he was finally the victim. The partisans of the latter thought they could not too strongly express their attachment to regal govern ment; and the sufferings of the king, with his dignified behaviour under them, were calculated to excite the warmest emotions in his behalf. Loyalty was therefore renewed in all its force, both as a passion and a principle, and in the breast of a cavalier it took place of every public, and almost of every private affection. It required no personal favours for its support; for, as Butler in a serious strain observes, when become triumphant; and the duty of almost unbounded submission and attachment to the person wearing the crown was inculcated by the clergy as conjunct and scarcely inferior to that of similar affections towards the Supreme Being. Charles II. little as he was entitled to these sentiments from his personal character succeeded to them in their full force; and notwithstanding the opposition his schemes incurred during part of his reign, it closed with laying every other political principle at the feet of loyalty. In the works of Dryden and other poets as well as in those of numerous prose writers, secular and ecclesiastic, this was the prime public virtue held up for admiration and imitation; and if any thing remained to be done in restricting the meaning of the term to devotion to the possessor of the crown, it was now completely effected. As the purpose of this discussion is merely verbal, I shall not enter into a consideration of the worth and propriety of such a principle under a mixed constitution like the English. I cannot, however, forbear to advert to a passage of Lord Clarendon, a writer whom no one will suspect of heterodox opinions concerning monarchy. Speaking of the public character, he says. "He had never any veneration for the court but only such loyalty to the king as the law required;" in which sentence he seems to point out, and without censure, a measure for this affection, which distinguishes it from the blind and pas sionate attachment that some would inculcate under its name. 2 P |