按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
was afterwards claimed as a right。
England； since the conquest； hath known some few good monarchs；
but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones； yet no man in his
senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very
honourable one。 A French bastard landing with an armed banditti； and
establishing himself king of England against the consent of the natives；
is in plain terms a very paltry rascally original。 It certainly hath no
divinity in it。 However； it is needless to spend much time in exposing
the folly of hereditary right； if there are any so weak as to believe it；
let them promiscuously worship the ass and lion； and welcome。
I shall neither copy their humility； nor disturb their devotion。
Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose kings came at first？ The
question admits but of three answers； viz。 either by lot； by election；
or by usurpation。 If the first king was taken by lot； it establishes a
precedent for the next； which excludes hereditary succession。 Saul was
by lot； yet the succession was not hereditary； neither does it appear
from that transaction there was any intention it ever should be。 If the
first king of any country was by election； that likewise establishes a
precedent for the next； for to say； that the RIGHT of all future
generations is taken away； by the act of the first electors；
in their choice not only of a king； but of a family of kings for ever；
hath no parallel in or out of scripture but the doctrine of original sin；
which supposes the free will of all men lost in Adam；
and from such comparison； and it will admit of no other；
hereditary succession can derive no glory。 For as in Adam all sinned；
and as in the first electors all men obeyed； as in the one all mankind
we re subjected to Satan； and in the other to Sovereignty； as our innocence
was lost in the first； and our authority in the last； and as both disable
us from reassuming some former state and privilege； it unanswerably
follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parallels。
Dishonourable rank！ Inglorious connection！ Yet the most subtle sophist
cannot produce a juster simile。
As to usurpation； no man will be so hardy as to defend it； and that
William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be contradicted。
The plain truth is； that the antiquity of English monarchy will not
bear looking into。
But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession
which concerns mankind。 Did it ensure a race of good and wise men
it would have the seal of divine authority； but as it opens a door
to the FOOLISH； the WICKED； and the IMPROPER； it hath in it the nature
of oppression。 Men who look upon themselves born to reign；
and others to obey； soon grow insolent； selected from the rest
of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance；
and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large；
that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests；
and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant
and unfit of any throughout the dominions。
Another evil which attends hereditary succession is； that the throne
is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age； all which time
the regency； acting under the cover a king； have every opportunity
and inducement to betray their trust。 The same national misfortune happens；
when a king； worn out with age and infirmity ； enters the last stage
of human weakness。 In both these cases the public becomes a prey
to every miscreant； who can tamper successfully with the follies
either of age or infancy。
The most plausible plea； which hath ever been offered in favour of
hereditary succession； is； that it preserves a nation from civil wars；
and were this true； it would be weighty； whereas； it is the most
barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind。 The whole history of
England disowns the fact。 Thirty kings and two minors have reigned
in that distracted kingdom since the conquest； in which time there
have been （including the Revolution） no less than eight civil wars
and nineteen rebellions。 Wherefore instead of making for peace； it
makes against it； and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on。
The contest for monarchy and succession； between the houses of York
and Lancaster； laid England in a scene of blood for many years。
Twelve pitched battles； besides skirmishes and sieges； were fought between
Henry and Edward。 Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward； who in his turn
was prisoner to Henry。 And so uncertain is the fate of war and the
temper of a nation； when nothing but personal matters are the ground
of a quarrel； that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace；
and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land； yet；
as sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting； Henry in his turn
was driven from the throne； and Edward recalled to succeed him。
The parliament always following the strongest side。
This contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth； and was not entirely
extinguished till Henry the Seventh； in whom the families were united。
Including a period of 67 years； viz。 from 1422 to 1489。
In short； monarchy and succession have laid （not this or that kingdom only）
but the world in blood and ashes。 Tis a form of government which the word
of God bears testimony against； and blood will attend it。
If we inquire into the business of a king； we shall find that in some
countries they have none； and after sauntering away their lives
without pleasure to themselves or advantage to the nation；
withdraw from the scene； and leave their successors to tread
the same idle ground。 In absolute monarchies the whole weight of business；
civil and military； lies on the king； the children of Israel in their
request for a king； urged this plea 〃that he may judge us； and go out
before us and fight our battles。〃 But in countries where he is neither
a judge nor a general； as in England； a man would be puzzled to know
what IS his business。
The nearer any government approaches to a republic the less business
there is for a king。 It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name
for the government of England。 Sir William Meredith calls it a republic；
but in its present state it is unworthy of the name； because the corrupt
influence of the crown； by having all the places in its disposal；
hath so effectually swallowed up the power； and eaten out the virtue
of the house of commons （the republican part in the constitution）
that the government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France
or Spain。 Men fall out with names without understanding them。
For it is the republican and not the monarchical part of the constitution
of England which Englishmen glory in； viz。 the liberty of choosing an house
of commons from out of their own body … and it is easy to see that when
republican virtue fails； slavery ensues。 Why is the constitution
of England sickl