Explain Classical Liberal attitudes to the state

Classical Liberals are naturally suspicious of the state but begrudgingly accept it. The state is a "monopoly on violence" and as such it exists by default to limit and curtail certain individual freedoms. As maximising what Berlin termed an individual's "Negative Liberty" - freedom from being told what to do or coerced in some way - is the paramount goal of Classical Liberals, there is clearly a tension between early Liberal thinkers like Locke and the Manchester Liberals in their thoughts about the state, and those who would later carry the mantle of "Classical Liberalism" like Nozick would go even further and argue that the state exists primarily to take away individual liberty in favour of the collective, which is obviously anathema.
However, Classical Liberals ultimately endorse the state - they are not anarchists. One reason is that you can't have markets without the state, because markets are based on property rights, and Classical Liberals tend to believe either that a free market is the only escape from serfdom (Hayek) or actively creates a better world (Smith.) Moreover, the state can preserve individual liberty through a codified constitution and a democratic government elected through popular consent and containing checks and balances against authoritarian rule. Such a Liberal democratic state is the best placed actor to ensure the upholding of human rights, and to stop individuals being coerced by the powerful.
Therefore, the relationship between classical liberals and the state is in some sense a devil's bargain - classical liberals mistrust the state but begrudgingly accept its many potential benefits to uphold individual liberty.