those days, and traditionary history stuffed with tables, it was very easy after the lapse of a few generations, to trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet-like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the disorders which threatened, or seemed to threaten, on the decease of a leader and the choice of a new one, (for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly,) induced many at first to favour hereditary pretensions; by which means it happened, as it hath happened since, that what at first was submitted to as a convenience was afterwards claimed as a right.

England, since the Conquest, hath known some few good Monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones; yet no man in his senses can say that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honourable one, A French bastard landing with an armed banditti, and establishing himself King of England against the consent of the natives, is, in plain terms, a very paltry, rascally original—it certainly hath no Divinity in it. However, it is needless to spend much time in exposing the folly of hereditary right; if there are any so weak as to believe it, let them promiscuously worship the ass and lion, and welcome. I shall neither copy their humility nor disturb their devotion.

Yet I should be glad to ask how they suppose Kings came at 6rst ? The question admits but of three answers, viz: either by lot, by election, or by usurpation. If the first King was taken by lot, it establishes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary succession. Saul was by lot, yet the succession was not hereditary, neither does it appear from that transaction there was any intention it ever should. If the first King of any country was by election that likewise establishes a precedent for the next; for to say that the right of all future generations is taken away by the act of the first electors in their choice not only of a King, but of a family of Kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of Scripture, but the doctrine of original sin, which supposes the free-will of all men lost in Adam; and from such comparison, and it will admit of no other, hereditary succession can derive no glory. For as in Adam all sinned, and as in the first Electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind were subjected to Satan, and in the other to Sovereignty; as our innocence was lost in (he first, and oar authority in the last; and as both disable us from reassumtng some former state and privilege, it unanswerably follows that original sin and hereditary succession are parallels. Dishonourable rank ! inglorious connection ! yet the most subtile sophist cannot produce a juster simile.

As to usurpation, no man will be so hardy as to defend it; and that William the Conqueror was an usurper is a fact not to be contradicted. The plain truth is, that the antiquity of English monarchy will not bear looking into.

But it is not so much the absurdity as the evil of hereditary succession which concerns mankind. Did it insure a race of good and wise men, it would have the seal of Divine authority, but as it opens the door to the foolish, the wicked, and the improper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind, their minds are easily poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the Government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.

Another evil which attends hereditary succession, is, that the throne is subject to be possessed by a minor at any age; all which time the Regency, acting under the cover of a King, have every opportunity and inducement to betray their trust. The same national misfortune happens when a King, worn out with age and infirmity, enters the last stage of human weakness. In both these cases the publick becomes a prey to every miscreant who can tamper successfully with the follies either of age or infancy.

The most plausible plea which hath ever been offered in favour of hereditary succession, is, that it preserves a nation from civil wars; and were this true, it would be weighty; whereas, it is the most barefaced falsity ever imposed upon mankind. The whole history of England disowns the fact. Thirty Kings and two minors have reigned in that distracted kingdom since the Conquest, in which time there have been (including the Revolution) no less than eight civil wars and nineteen rebellions. Wherefore, instead of making for peace, it makes against it, and destroys the very foundation it seems to stand on.

The contest for Monarchy and succession between the houses of York and Lancaster, laid England in a scene of blood for many years. Twelve pitched battles, besides skirmishes and sieges, were fought between Henry and Edward. Twice was Henry prisoner to Edward, who in his turn was prisoner to Henry. And so uncertain is the fate of war and the temper of a nation, when nothing but personal matters are the ground of a quarrel, that Henry was taken in triumph from a prison to a palace, and Edward obliged to fly from a palace to a foreign land. Yet as sudden transitions of temper are seldom lasting, Henry in his turn was driven from the throne and Edward recalled to succeed him. The Parliament always following the strongest side.

The contest began in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and was not entirely extinguished till Henry the Seventh, in whom the families were united. Including a period of sixty-seven years, viz: from 1422 to 1489.

In short, Monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes. This a form of Government which the word of God bears testimony against, and blood will attend it.

If we inquire into the business of a King, we shall find that in some countries they have none; and, after sauntering away their lives without pleasure to themselves, or advantage to the nation, withdraw from the scene, and leave their successors to tread the same idle round. In absolute monarchies the whole weight of business, civil and military, lies on the King; the children of Israel in their request for a King urged this plea, "that he may judge us, and go out before us and fight our battles." But in countries where he is neither a Judge, nor a General, as in England, a man would be puzzled to know what is his business.

The nearer any Government approaches to a Republick the less business there is for a King. It is somewhat difficult to find a proper name for the Government of England. Sir William Meredith calls it a Republick; but in its present state it is unworthy of the name, because the corrupt influence of the Crown, by having all the places in its disposal, hath so effectually swallowed up the power, and eaten out the virtue of the House of Commons (the republican part in the Constitution) that the Government of England is nearly as monarchical as that of France or Spain. Men fall out with names without understanding them. For 'tis the republican and not the monarchical part of the Constitution of England which Englishmen glory in, viz: the liberty of choosing an House of Commons from out of their own body; and it is easy to see that when republican virtue fails, slavery ensues. Why is the Constitution of England sickly? but because Monarchy hath poisoned the Republick; the Crown hath engrossed the Commons.

In England a King hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which, in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation, and set it together by the ears. A pretty business, indeed, for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society, and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.

In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense; and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves; that he will put on (or rather, that he will not put off) the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day.

Volumes have been written on the subject of the struggle between England and America. Men of all ranks have embarked in the controversy, from different motives, and with various designs, but all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest, the appeal was the choice of the King, and the Continent has accepted the challenge.