the commonwealth there than in Constantinople. Whether a
commonwealth be monarchical or popular the freedom is the same."
The mountain has brought forth, and we have a little
equivocation! For to say that a Lucchese has no more liberty or
immunIty from the laws of Lucca than a Turk has from those of
Constantinople; and to say that a Lucchese has no more liberty or
immunity by the laws of Lucca, than a Turk has by those of
Constantinople, are pretty different speeches. The first may be
said of all governments alike; the second scarce of any two; much
less of these, seeing it is known that, whereas the greatest
Bashaw is a tenant, as well of his head as of his estate, at the
will of his lord, the meanest Lucchese that has land is a
freeholder of both, and not to be controlled but by the law, and
that framed by every private man to no other end (or they may
thank themselves) than to protect the liberty of every private
man, which by that means comes to be the liberty of the
commonwealth.

But seeing they that make the laws in commonwealths are but
men, the main question seems to be, how a commonwealth comes to
be an empire of laws, and not of men? or how the debate or result
of a commonwealth is so sure to be according to reason; seeing
they who debate, and they who resolve, be but men? "And as often
as reason is against a man, so often will a man be against
reason."

This is thought to be a shrewd saying, but will do no harm;
for be it so that reason is nothing but interest, there be divers
interests, and so divers reasons.