held up to ridicule, and the exiftence of it denied? Why did they erect conventions among us, upon the plan of that of France; fend deputies to them from their different departments; and there, in defiance of the conftitution, take upon them to tranfact the bufinefs of the nation? That there was a defign among those, who very falfely call themselves the Friends of the People, to fubvert the conftitution, and to change the whole form of the government, is fo plain, that no difinterested perfon has any doubt of it. Nor was it ever denied, unlefs by those who were themselves concerned in it; and wished to amufe government, or lull them afleep by fuch denials, till their scheme fhould be ripe for execu tion. 1 ESSAY ESSAY IV. On KINGLY GOVERNMENT, and Hereditary Succeffion. NE principal objection against the British conftitution is, that we are governed by a king: whereas we are now taught that all kings are tyrants; and that under a monarchial government, however limited, no people can be free. This affertion could only proceed from a man, who feeling in himself that pride, cruelty, and malignity, which would render him a tyrant if he had power in his hands; and concluding that all men are like himself, takes it for granted, that no man can enjoy power without abufing it. But the affertion has been contradicted by the experience of four thoufand years. Will any perfon believe, that David and Solomon, Afa and Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah and Jofiah, were all tyrants? Were Numa and Ancus Martius tyrants, Vefpafian and Titus, Trajan and Antoninus? Many princes of later times might be mentioned, whom flander itself never accused of tyranny, fuch as Guftavus Erick fon of Sweden, and his grandfon Guftavus Adolphus, Henry IV. of France, James I. of Scotland, and many more. Kings are men of like paffions with o thers: : thers and therefore it is not to be wondered at, if there have been fewer good kings than bad ones in the world; because, in all stations of life, there are more bad than good men. And the proportion of bad men, who have been kings, is not greater than of those who have been coblers. What tyrant has occupied the throne of Britain, fince the Revolution? Or what one act of tyranny can malice itself impute to our present gracious fovereign ? "But kings," they tell us, " are deftroyers of man"kind. They have been the authors of all the wars "that have laid the world defolate: and peace will ne"ver be enjoyed, till kings be exterminated." This affertion, if true, would go far to end the conteft. But, unhappily no affertion can be more falfe. It is true, that the wars in which kings have been engaged, are more numerous than those which have been managed by republics; because the number of kings in the world has always furpaffed the number of republics, at least in the proportion of ten to one. But republics have, in all ages, been more inclined to war than kings, almost in the fame proportion. Was not Athens a republic, which not only maintained a conftant war for ages together, against neighbouring kings, but had well nigh enflaved all the other states of Greece, till Sparta, with her two kings, rofe up to oppofe her? Was not Carthage a republic? And did not the extend her conquests, almost as far as her trade; fo as to be, at one time, in poffeffion of a great part of Africa, of Spain, of Sicily and of Sardinia, besides other places? Were there ever any wars more bloody, more obftinate, or more destructive, than thofe which he waged with Rome, her fifter republic? Did ever any kingdom on earth engage in as many wars as Rome did without a their interefts were directly oppofite to thofe of the reft of mankind. The fame is the cafe in Spain, with this difference, that their Hidalgos are ftill more numerous, and their contempt of the people more fupercilious. In most other nations of Europe it is little otherwife. But, with us, all the nobility, including the Scottish peers, do not amount to fix hundred. They are fubject to all taxes, and contribute to the expences of the ftate as the commóns do. As individuals, they have no jurisdiction over the meanest of the people. They not only intermarry with the commons; but their children fink into commoners, and mingle with the crowd. Many of them betake themselves to trade, to agriculture, and even to manufactures. The eldeft fon only enjoys the peerage; and even he is a commoner during his father's life. Thus, as they derive their honour from the king; and, to preferve their own luftre, muft fupport that of the Crown :-fo their interest is the fame with that of the people; and, for the fake of their own families, they muft watch over the people's rights because any encroachment upon them would affect their own children as much as thofe in the lowest ranks of life. ་ But, if ever the nobility should find, or think it their intereft, to oppress the people; they cannot have it in their power, while our conftitution remains. One branch of the legislature is always chofen by the people: and it must be the fault of their electors if the members of the House of Commons are not men of abilities and of integrity; for furely a competent number of fuch men may ftill be found in Britain, degenerate as the times are. If any law, prejudicial to the people, fhould pafs in the Houfe of Peers, even though it were fupported by the whole influence of the Crown,-the Commons have power power to reject it. Every attentive perfon muft have obferved, that, fince the Revolution, the Houfe of Commons is the moft powerful branch of our legiflature:, and long may they continue to be fo! for, while that is the cafe, the people of Great Britain can never be oppreffed; unless they are betrayed by their own chofen reprefentatives. Paffing many other advantages of a political nature, which I do not confider myfelf as qualified fully to difcufs; one thing that should recommend our conftitution, in a peculiar manner, to diffenters of every denomination, is, that its genius is more tolerant, and more favourable to religious, liberty, than that of moft other nations. know that fome penal laws, on account of religion, are ftill in force; and others are only fufpended. Were administration rigorous in the execution of exifting laws, we might be ftill exposed to confiderable hardships. But we all know and feel that we enjoy a degree of religious liberty, which our fathers would have purchased at a great expence, and to which our brethren in other countries are abfolute ftrangers. We are allowed to worship God according to the dictates of conscience: and no man is punished for maintaining, nor even for propagating his religious opinions, if they are not deftructive of the public peace. We are fubjected to no additional taxes, nor to any positive inconvenience, beyond our brethren who adhere to the religious establishment. We enjoy the fame protection, in our perfons, our property, and our civil liberty, as they do. Even in our religious affemblies no man is fuffered to disturb or offer us any violence. We labour, indeed, under fome legal incapacities, which, to a few ambitious perfons among us,, may seem hard: but how triffling are the fe in comparison of the privileges we enjoy! And |