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 amuse government, or lull them afleep by fuch denials, till their scheme should be ripe for execu

tion.

ESSAY

ESSAY IV.

On KINGLY GOVERNMENT. and Hereditary Succeffion.

ONE principal objection against the British conftitu

tion 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 thousand 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 slander itself never accused of tyranny, fuch as Gustavus Erickson 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; becaufe, in all ftations 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 ne66 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, almoft 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; so as to be, at one time, in poffeffion of a great part of Africa, of Spain, of Sicily and of Sardinia, befides other places? Were there ever any wars more bloody, more obftinate, or more deftructive, than thofe which the waged with Rome, her fifter republic? Did ever any kingdom on earth engage in as many wars as Rome did without a

ny provocation?. Was not this the beaft, dreadful and terrible, and ftrong exceedingly, having great iron teeth, which devoured the whole earth, brake it in pieces, and stamped it with its feet*? To defcend to later times, did not the Venetian republic, in a fhort time, raise itfelf, by war, from a fishing village, to be a powerful state. And, if it were not a difgrace to all other republics to reckon France among the number, has not France, fince her convention called her a republic, fhewed as much of a difpofition to war and conqueft, as ever she did in the days of Lewis XIV. She indeed made a decree, that she was to engage in no war but for her own defence, and the fulfilled it by invading the territories of the Emperor, and attacking Mons and Tournay, before he had either declared war against her, or had an army in the field to oppofe her. Did the not over-run Savoy, while its fovereign had fo little thought of war as not to have the veftige of an army to opppofe her? Did The not first violate the rights of Holland, by her decree for opening the Scheldt, and then invade her territories with a powerful army, before Holland had moved a tongue against her? Did the not declare war against Britain, and ftop all our fhips in her ports, before our court had formed any resolution of making war upon her? So far is it from being true that republican government is more favourable to peace than monarchy, that the scope it gives to the ambition of individuals, and the neceffity that thofe in power are under of finding employment for that ambition, unavoidably hurries them into wars; and it will not be denied, that fome of the ftrongeft advocates for that fort of government have attempted

to

Dan. vii. 7.

to prove its fuperiority to all other forms, by this, that it best provides for war t. If the nations of Europe fhould all difmifs their kings, and set up a popular government, with a view to fecure themselves against war; it would be the fame policy as if the Dutch, in order to drain their marshes, should break down all their dykes.

"But our king has too much power and influence; "fo that he over-rules the other branches of the legiflature, and every thing is carried in Parliament, according to the pleasure of the court." As a proof of this, we are reminded of a vote paft in the House of Commons, fome years ago, "that the influence of the

crown has increased, is increafing, and ought to be "diminished." But, could fuch a vote have paffed, if Parliament had been fuch a tool of the crown as is alledged? Befides, the influence of the crown is not now the fame as at the time of that vote. In confequence of it, two acts of Parliament paffed, in order to reduce the influence complained of, as low as could be done without hurting the balance of the conftitution. By the one all perfons holding government contracts, were disabled from fitting in the Houfe of Commons; and all officers of the revenue from voting in the election of members of Parliament: and by the other, a number of finecure places were abolished, the falaries of which amounted to L. 72,368 a year. But, in order to know what weight is in the argument of there being too great pow er or influence in the Crown, let us take a view of thofe branches of the prerogative, that are confidered as most exceptionable.

The king has the power of calling, proroguing, and diffolving

See Alg. Sydney's discourses on government, ch. ii. fect. 23.