This antecedent then,we may observe,is a definition:a definition,to wit,of the phrase `supreme authority'.Now to define a phrase is,to translate it into another phrase,supposed to be better understood,and expressive of the same ideas.The supposition here then is,that the reader was already,of himself,tolerably well acquainted with the import of the phrase `power of making laws':that he was not at all,or was however less acquainted with the import of the phrase `supreme authority'.Upon this supposition then,it is,that in order to his being made clearly to understand the latter,he is informed of its being synonymous to the former.Let us now introduce the mention of the person:let us add the word `person'to the definition;it will be the same definition still in substance,only a little more fully and precisely worded.For a person to possess the supreme authority,is for a person to possess the power of making laws.This then is what in substance has been already laid down in the antecedent.
7.Now let us consider the consequent,which,when detached from the context,may be spoken of as making a sentence of itself."Wherever',says he,`the supreme authority in any state resides,it is the right of that authority to make Laws'.By `wherever'I take it for granted,he means,`in whatever persons':by `authority',in the former part of the sentence,.power;by the same word,`authority',in the latter part of the sentence,persons.
Corrected therefore,the sen tence will stand thus:In whatever persons in any state the supreme power resides,it is the right of those persons to make Laws.
8.The only word now remaining undisposed of,is the word `right'.And what to think of this,indeed I know not:whether our Author had a meaning in it,or whether he had none.It is inserted,we may observe,in the latter part only of the sentence:it appears not in the former.Concerning this omission,two conjectures here present themselves:it may have happened by accident;or it may have been made by design.If by accident,then the case is,that the idea annexed to the word `right'is no other than what was meant to be included in the former part of the sentence,in which it is not expressed,as well as in the latter,in which it is.In this case it may,without any change in the signification,be expressed in both.