d over their evil; but they suppose that the
King can model the constitution at will, or, in other words, that his
government is a pure despotism. The question then arising is, whether a
pure despotism in a single head, or one which is divided among a king,
nobles, priesthood, and numerous magistracy, is the least bad. I should
be puzzled to decide: but I hope they will have neither, and that they
are advancing to a limited, moderate government, in which the people
will have a good share.

I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new constitution by
nine States. It is a good canvass, on which some strokes only want
retouching. What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the
general voice from north to south, which calls for a bill of rights.
It seems pretty generally understood, that this should go to juries,
_habeas corpus_, standing armies, printing, religion, and monopolies.
I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modifications of
these, suited to the habits of all the States. But if such cannot be
found, then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of
_habeas corpus_, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, in all
cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies
in all cases, than not to do it in any. The few cases wherein these
things may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude, wherein the
want of them will do evil. In disputes between a foreigner and a native,
a trial by jury may be improper. But if this exception cannot be agreed
to, the remedy will be to model the jury, by giving the _medietas
linguae_, in civil as well as criminal cases. Why suspend the _habeas
corpus_ in insurrections and rebellions? The parties who may be
arrested, may be charged instantly with a well-defined crime: of course,
the judge will remand them. If the public safety requires, that the
government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony in
those than in other emergencies, let him be taken and tried, retaken and
retried, while the necessity continues, only giving him redress against
the government, for damages. Examine the history of England. See how
few of the cases of the suspension of the _habeas corpus_ law have been
worthy of that suspension. They have been either real treason, wherein
the parties might as well have been charged at once, or sham plots,
where it was shameful they should ever have been suspected. Yet for the
few cases, whe