common sense-第4节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



of　giving　hereditary　right　to　his　descendants；　because　such　a　perpetual

exclusion　of　themselves　was　incompatible　with　the　free　and　unrestrained

principles　they　professed　to　live　by。　　Wherefore；　hereditary　succession

in　the　early　ages　of　monarchy　could　not　take　place　as　a　matter　of　claim；

but　as　something　casual　or　complemental；　but　as　few　or　no　records　were

extant　in　those　days；　　and　traditional　history　stuffed　with　fables；

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　first？　　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　be。　　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

we　re　subjected　to　Satan；　and　in　the　other　to　Sovereignty；　as　our　innocence

was　lost　in　the　first；　and　our　authority　in　the　last；　and　as　both　disable

us　from　reassuming　some　former　state　and　privilege；　it　unanswerably

follows　that　original　sin　and　hereditary　succession　are　parallels。

Dishonourable　rank！　Inglorious　connection！　　Yet　the　most　subtle　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　ensure　a　race　of　good　and　wise　men

it　would　have　the　seal　of　divine　authority；　but　as　it　opens　a　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　early　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　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　public　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。



This　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　67　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。　　Tis　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　ground。　　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　republic　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　republic；

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　it　is　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　republic；

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。









THOUGHTS　ON　THE　PRESENT　STATE　OF　AMERICAN　AFFAIRS







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　d