guifed in the means, never fail to appear in their effects. As a great mafs of the community are thrown thereby into poverty and difcontent, they are conftantly on the brink of commotion-and, deprived, as they unfortunately are, of the means of information, are easily heated to outrage.Whatever the apparent cause of any riots may be, the real one is, always, want of happiness. It fhews that fomething is wrong in the fyftem of government, that injures the felicity by which fociety is to be preserved.

Having thus endeavoured to fhew that the focial and civilized state of man is capable of performing within itself almoft every thing neceffary to its protection and government, it will be proper on the other hand, to take a review of the present old governments, and examine whether their principles and practice are correfpondent thereto.

CHAP VI.

OF THE ORIGIN OF THE PRESENT OLD GOVERN

MENTS.

IT is impoffible that fuch governments as have

hitherto exifted in the world could have commenced by any other means than a total violation of every principle facred and moral. The obfcu

rity

rity in which the origin of all the prefent old governments is buried implies the iniquity and dif grace with which they began.

It could have been no difficult thing in the early and folitary ages of the world, while the chief em, ployment of men was that of attending flocks and herds, for a banditti of ruffians to overrun a country, and lay it under contributions. Their power being thus eftablished, 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 fhortest 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 intereft 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, or to any clafs of men in a nation? Does it add an acre to any man's eftate, or raife its value? Are not conqueft and defeat each of the fame 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 instinct in animals does not act with stronger impulfe than the principles of fociety and civilization operate in man. Under all difcouragements he purfues his object, and yields to nothing but impoffibilities.

CHAP. VII.

OF THE OLD AND NEW SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT.

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 itfelf by keeping up a fyftem of war-the latter

The one

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. measures its profperity by the quantity of revenue it extorts; the other proves its excellence by the finall quantity of taxes it requires.

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

The firft general diftinction 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.

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

With refpect 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

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 pofterity, we have not now the right of taking from ourselves the rights which would then be ours. On what ground then do we pretend 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 circumstances to which hereditary fucceffion is fubject.

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 fucceffion, by being fubject to them all, is the most irregular and imperfect of all the systems of govern

ment.