Luropefrom the Peace of Utrecht. 
di'’spensations “with » this’ divine right, 
‘which “made way for the present, (at 
that rate wnhallowed and illegitimate), 
dynasty of the Bourbons, of which this 
sate grand monarque was the sometime 
representative.—[See note, p. 584.) 
‘© When the Merovingian kings had be- 
€ome so contemptible as to fall entirely un- 
der the authority of the mayor of the palace, 
Pepin sent to the Pope to propose to him, 
as @ case of conscience, whether it were fit, 
in the present situation of Europe, that a 
man incapable of reigning, should hold in 
France;the rank of king, whilst the royal 
power. was exercised: by another, who made 
aright use of it. The Pope answered, that 
it was better to give the title of king to him 
who exercised the authority. In conse- 
-quence of this decision, Childeric and his 
son Were imprisoned in a monastery, and 
Pepin assumed the crown. Little more 
than a hundred years after this, we find the 
chief of the second race confessing that he 
held his crown by the authority of the bishops. 
In a manifesto against the Archbishop of 
Sens and others, who had revolted, he said, 
“I ought not to have been deposed before 
{had been judged by the bishops, who gave 
me the royal unction ; they are the thrones 
of God, and I have always submitted my- 
self, as I am still ready to do, to their cor- 
rection.” At length another revolution 
deposed the dynasty of Charlemagne : Hugh 
Gapet seized the throne, and made prisoner 
Charles of Lorrain, the legitimate heir. 
“ These events undoubtedly throw some 
doubts upon the infallibility of the monar- 
chical dogma. Lewis indeed alleges that 
Hugh Capet took possession of the crown 
with the approbation of Providence ; but it 
is not clear why an enterprize sanctioned 
by divine authority In the 10th century, 
should never again be repeated without ex- 
citing the divine displeasure.” 
The author, after discussing through 
several pages the reasons and causes 
why the very circumstance of a prince, 
being educated for arbitrary power, 
should render him the more unfit or 
incapable to exercise it with wisdom 
and benignity, proceeds to the “still 
more important branch of the inquiry— 
“ Whether, in spite of these defeincts 
the rulers, the people under them enjoyed 
the benefits which are reasonably to be ex- 
ed from a mild and just government ?” 
“ The objects of men in suffering the re- 
straints of civil government are chiefly the 
following :—First; to obtain protection 
against the violence of the members of their 
own. society. Secondly; to obtain means 
of. protection against the violence of other 
societies or states. ‘These are the primary 
ends, of all government... But as all power 
leads directly to abuse, there come to be 
other ends equally necessary to be obtained, 
Monvniy Mac. No. 405, 
O85 
in order to protect the community from the 
very ‘government which they themselves 
maintain and support for the purposes of 
defence and security. The two principal 
of these are; the one, that no other res- 
traints be’ imposed than those which are 
necessary to provide for the safety of the 
citizen and the state; and the other, that 
no other distinctions be made between dif- 
ferent classes of the people than such as 
have in them more of benefit to the society 
at large, than of injury to those who are 
deprived ofthem. In these two conditions 
consist liberty and equality; I mean civil 
liberty, and equality in the eye of the law. 
“Now these conditions were not ob- 
served in the absolute monarchies of Europe. 
Generally speaking, they had the following 
glaring defects :—Fitst. Justice was not 
fairly done between man’ and man; but 
either partially exercised, or basely sold, to 
the great injury of the people at’ large.— 
Second. The money that was raised to pro- 
vide for the expenses of justice, and of de- 
fending the state against foreign enemies, 
was squandered among the yilest of the na- 
tion, bestowed on sycophants, knayes and 
harlots ; wasted in dress, riot and debau- 
chery.—Third. Persons were placed in the 
most impertant situations, charged with the 
conduct of armies, or the management of ne- 
gociations, without any qualification but in- 
terest and subserviency.— Fourth. Powers, 
which the experience of other governments 
had shewn not to be necessary, were exer- 
cised by princes, and. their ministers; for 
instance—the power of imprisoning and 
otherwise destroying the subject at will; a 
power grievous in its application, and pecu- 
liarly liable to abuse.—Fifth. Restraints 
were placed upon the freedom and industry 
of the people by the most oppressive and 
unwise regulations; by dividing them into 
different little states’ independent, of each 
other; by grinding. and destructive taxes ; 
by absurd laws on commerce and manufac- 
tures: by controlling the liberty of speech 
and writing; and by religious persecutions. 
—Sixth. Unjust, cruel, and invidious dis- 
tinctions were made between different 
classes, by giving to one class a monopoly 
of the benefits, and an exemption from the 
burthens of the state. At the same time 
these distinctions, dearly purchased as they 
were, were of no advantage to the commu- 
nity, for they were only to be obtained by 
means of political corruption or worse vices. 
* Such being the fanlts of these govern- 
ments, 1:0 sooner had the people become 
enlightened in any one of the nations which 
lived under them, than they asked for a 
reform. Jt was evident indeed to all saga- 
cious minds long before the event happened, 
that it was impossible to allow the people 
to become instructed, without very great 
alterations in the administration of the 
state. There were but two ways open for 
preventing a collision between the people — 
4 ¥F and 
