"If then, we are a part of the British empire, we must be subject to the supreme power of the state, which is vested in the estates of parliament." Here again, we are to be conjured out of our senses by the magic in the words "British empire" and "supreme power of the state." But, however it may sound, I say we are not a part of the British empire, because the British government is not an empire. The governments of France, Spain, &c. are not empires, but monarchies, supposed to be governed by fixed fundamental laws, though not really. The British government is still less entitled to the style of an empire. It is a limited monarchy. If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They defined a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition is just, the British constitution is nothing more nor less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate. This office being hereditary, and being possessed of such ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government's being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend. An empire is a despotism, and an emperor a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy. For, although the will of an absolute monarch is law, it must be registered by parliaments. Even this formality is not necessary in empire.

What It Means

This is a placeholder explanation generated by the low-overhead model. It interprets ""If then, we are a part of the British empire, we must be subject to the supreme power of the state, which is vested in the estates of parliament." Here again, we are to be conjured out of our senses by the magic in the words "British empire" and "supreme power of the state." But, however it may sound, I say we are not a part of the British empire, because the British government is not an empire. The governments of France, Spain, &c. are not empires, but monarchies, supposed to be governed by fixed fundamental laws, though not really. The British government is still less entitled to the style of an empire. It is a limited monarchy. If Aristotle, Livy, and Harrington knew what a republic was, the British constitution is much more like a republic than an empire. They defined a republic to be a government of laws, and not of men. If this definition is just, the British constitution is nothing more nor less than a republic, in which the king is first magistrate. This office being hereditary, and being possessed of such ample and splendid prerogatives, is no objection to the government's being a republic, as long as it is bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend. An empire is a despotism, and an emperor a despot, bound by no law or limitation but his own will; it is a stretch of tyranny beyond absolute monarchy. For, although the will of an absolute monarch is law, it must be registered by parliaments. Even this formality is not necessary in empire." in the context of "John Adams, Novangulus (6 February 1775)" to mean that wisdom is timeless.