But the will of the King is as much the law of the land in Britain as in France, with this difference, that inſtead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the more formidable ſhape of an act of Parliament. For the fate of Charles the firſt hath only made Kings more ſubtile—not more juſt.
Wherefore laying aſide all national pride and prejudice in favour of modes and forms, the plain truth is, that it is wholly owing to the conſtitution of the People, and not to the conſtitution of the Government, that the Crown is not as oppreſſive in England as in Turkey.
An enquiry into the conſtitutional errors in the Engliſh form of government, is at this time highly neceſſary; for as we are never in a proper condition of doing juſtice to others, while we continue under the influence of ſome leading partiality, ſo neither are we capable of doing it to ourſelves while we remain fettered by any obſtinate prejudice. And as a man who is attached to a proſtitute is unfitted to chooſe or judge of a wife, ſo any prepoſſeſſion in favour of a rotten conſtitution of government will diſable us from diſcerning a good one.
Of Monarchy and hereditary Succession.
MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be deſtroyed by ſome ſubſequent circumſtance. The diſtinctions of rich and poor may in a great meaſure be accounted for, and that without having recourſe to the harſh ill-ſounding names of oppreſſion and avarice. Oppreſſion is often the conſequence, but ſeldom or never the means of riches; and though avarice will preſerve a man from being neceſſitouſly poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy.
But there is another and greater diſtinction, for which no truly natural or religious reaſon can be aſſigned, and that is, the diſtinction of Men into Kings and Subjects. Male and female are the diſtinctions of nature—good and bad the diſtinctions of Heaven; but how a race of men came into the world ſo exalted above the reſt, and diſtinguiſhed like ſome new ſpecies, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happineſs or of miſery to mankind.
In the early ages of the world, according to the ſcripture chronology, there were no Kings; the conſequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of Kings which throws mankind into confuſion. Holland, without a King, hath enjoyed more peace for this laſt century, than any of the Monarchical governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the ſame remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the firſt Patriarchs hath a happy ſomething in them, which vaniſhes away when we come to the hiſtory of Jewiſh Royalty.
Government by Kings was firſt introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Iſrael copied the cuſtom. It was the moſt proſperous
