rity in which the origin of all the present old governments is buried implies the iniquity and difgrace with which they began.

It could have been no difficult thing in the early and folitary ages of the world, while the chief employment of men was that of attending flocks and berds, for a banditti of ruffians to overrun a country, and lay it under contributions. Their power being thus established, the chief of the band contrived to lofe the name of robber in that of monarch-and hence the origin of monarchy and kings.

Governments founded on unjuft principles do not afford a stamina whereon to ingraft reformation-and the shortest and most effectual remedy is, to begin anew.

Can we poffibly fuppofe, that if governments had originated in a right principle, and had not an interest in pursuing a wrong one, that the world could have been in the wretched and quarrelfome condition we have feen it? What inducement has the farmer, while following the plough, to lay afide his peaceful pursuits, and go to war with the farmer of another country? Or what inducement has the manufacturer? What is dominion to them, ór to any class of men in a nation? Does it add an acre to any man's eftate, or raise its value? Are not conqueft and defeat each of the same price, and taxes the never-failing confequence? Though

this reafoning may be good to a nation, it is not to a government. War is the pharo-table of governments, and nations the dupes of the game.

If there is any thing to wonder at in this miferable scene of governments more than might be expected, it is the progrefs which the peaceful arts of agriculture, manufacture, and commerce have made beneath fuch a long accumulating load of difcouragement and oppreffion. It ferves to fhew, that inftinct in animals does not act with stronger impulse than the principles of fociety and civilization operate in man. Under all difcouragements he pursues his object, and yields to nothing but impoffibilities.

CHAP. VII.

OF THE OLD AND NEW SYSTEMS OF GOVERN MENT.

NOTHING can appear more contradictory than the principles on which the old governments began, and the condition to which fociety, civilization, and commerce, are capable of carrying mankind. Government, on the old fyftem, is an affumption of power, for the aggrandizement of itfelf-on the new, a delegation of power for the common benefit of fociety. The former fupports itself by keeping up a fyftem of war-the latter promotes

F

promotes a fyftem of peace, as the true means of enriching a nation. The one encourages national prejudices the other promotes univerfal fociety, as the means of univerfal commerce. The one measures its profperity by the quantity of revenue it extorts; the other proves its excellence, by the fmall quantity of taxes it requires.

Though it might be proved that the system of government now called the NEW, is the moft ancient in principle of all that have existed, being founded on the original inherent Rights of Man: yet as tyranny and the fword have fufpended the exercise of those rights for many centuries paft, it served better the purpose of distinction to call it the new, than to claim the right of calling it the old.

The first general distinction between those two fyftems, is, that the one now called the old, is hereditary, either in whole or in part; and the new is entirely reprefentative. It rejects all hereditary government.

Firft, As being an impofition on mankind. Secondly, As inadequate to the purposes for which government is neceffary..

With respect to the first of these heads-it cannot be proved by what right hereditary government could begin; neither does there exift within the compass of mortal power a right to establish it. Man has no authority over pofterity in mat

ters

1

ters of perfonal right; and, therefore, no man, or body of men, had, or can have, a right to set up hereditary government. Were even ourselves to come again into existence, instead of being fucceeded by posterity, we have not now the right of taking from ourselves the rights which would then be ours. On what ground then do we pre

tend to take them from others?

All hereditary government is in its nature unjuft, and an impofition on fociety. An heritable. crown, or an heritable throne, or by what other fanciful names fuch things may be called, have no other fignificant explanation than that mankind are heritable property. To inherit a government is, to inherit the people, as if they were flocks and herds.

With refpect to the fecond head, that of being inadequate to the purposes for which government is neceffary, we have only to confider what government effentially is, and compare it with the circumftances to which hereditary fucceffion is fubje&t.

Government ought to be a thing always in full maturity. It ought to be fo conftructed, as to be fuperior to all the accidents to which individual man is fubject; and, therefore, hereditary fucceffron, by being fubject to them all, is the moft irre gular and imperfect of all the fyftems of govern.

ment.

We have heard the Rights of Man called a levelling fyftem; but the only system to which the word levelling is truly applicable, is the hereditary monarchical fyftem. It is a fyftem of mental levelling. It indifcriminately admits every fpecies. of character to the fame authority. Vice and virtue, ignorance and wifdom; in fhort, every quality, good or bad, is put on the fame level. Kings fucceed each other, not as rationals, but as animals. It fignifies not what their mental or moral characters are. Can we then be surprised at the abject ftate of the human mind in monarchical countries, when the government itself is formed on fuch an abject levelling fyftem? It has no fixed character. To-day it is one thing-to-morrow it is fomething elfe. It changes with the tem per of every fucceeding individual, and is fubject to all the varieties of each. It is government through the medium of paffions and accidents. It appears under all the various characters of childhood, decripitude, dotage, a thing at nurse, in leading-strings, or in crutches. wholefome order of nature. children over men, and the

It reverfes the It occafionally puts conceits of non-age

In fhort, we can

over wisdom and experience. not conceive a more ridiculous figure of government than hereditary fucceffion, in all its cafes, prefents.

Could it be made a decree in nature, or an