his death. The love which monarchs have for mankind does not extend so far, as to induce them to put their sons to death, for the happiness of their subjects. Selfishness or some offence against themselves, is the cause which influences them, in the severity which they exercise on their offspring.

Herod, a monarch who was also called the Great, was not actuated by any just motive, or regard for the community, when he put his wife and three sons to death, A groundless jealousy and fear, was the cause of that suspicious tyrant's cruelty. If scoundrel was added to the word great, it would then, perhaps, form a very proper surname for such men as Herod. But if great mean, or be used to mean, any thing laudable or excellent, it is a shameful abuse of language, to call men of that description great.

Kings can so easily acquire names from their fulsome flatterers; that it is much safer to form our opinions from actions, than from names or general characters.

NOTE 69, Christian. II. king of Denmark and Sweden, was called the cruel. He formed a plot to extir pate all the principal nobility of Sweden; and succeed. ed so well, in the execution of his design, that only one of them escaped and that one was compelled to conceal himself to save his life: for a large sum of money was offered for his head.

:

The history of Peter the cruel, king of Castile, furnishes another instance of the proper application of the surname which he bore. His cruelties were so enormous, that they compelled, even, his, tamest subjects to

rise with indignation against him; and to drive him in dispair from the kingdom. But, notwithstanding his crimes, and the general indignation and consent, by which he was expelled, he was soon reinstated again by the assistance of a foreign despot. The cotemporary king of England, by reinstating so shameful a monster as Peter, has furnished a remarkable instance, of the cruel and execrable interference of monarchs, in the affairs of other nations: and a proof of their malace against mankind in general; or, at least, of their total indifference to their sufferings. Here is a nation groaning under the most grievous and intolerable oppression, rising in the majesty of justice, against their cruel and tyrannical oppressor: yet the moment they have dethroned the villain, who, if he could have attained his power justly, had forfeited it by his horrible cruelties, they are attacked by a foreign prince, who compels them to receive again, the infuriated monster, whom they had previously nauseated and vomited out. This, together with numerous instances of the same nature, recorded in history, manifestly prove the malevolence and combination of princes, against the general happiness of mankind. This opinion or assertion, that such a combination has existed, is not, therefore, a mere chimera, or hyperbolical exaggeration. If we judge from their conduct, and that is the best criterion, monarchs are certainly the associated enemies of the human race: for if a nation depose a tyrant, they are immediately assailed by the united fury of foreign and contemporary princes, who resolve to reinstate the deposed monarch;

even if he had become insefferable, by the perpetration of the moat wanton barbarities. While all men of honesty and generosity feel the honourable emotions of indignation against an oppressor, and of compassion for the oppressed; monarchs are so far from feeling an abhorance of the one ; or compassion for the other; they are so far from being actuated by the celestial sympathies of pity, for the extreme sufferings of an oppressed people; that they manifest the greatest rage and animosity against them, whenever they refuse to bear the utmost calamity, which the most brutal of tyrants can inflict.

If we believe them, it is perfectly right for monarchs to destroy each other to gratify their ambition; but, if a people who have patiently endured tyranny until it can no

longer be born, should destroy an oppresser who is un worthy of life, it is, according to the cant of princes, a most dreadful offence. They can feel no commisseration for thousands of men, who are upright and honest; but for one detestable man, who was called a king; and who has been justly punished for his crimes, they can appear to be greatly affected. But, notwithstanding whatever monarchs, sycophants, and royalists, may say to the contrary; he who steps forward when the people are oppressed, to meliorate their condition, proves that he is a person of the greatest beneficence; he proves that he is a worthy, and a good man, because he subjects his life to the greatest danger, for the benefit of others.

If a monarch has been banished from his country, for treating his subjects with wanton cruelty, while they

were passive and obedient, what must be expected from his ferocity after his restoration, when his malignant soul is provoked and enraged, by the former opposition of his subjects? The most dismal, shocking, and melancholy scenes, must naturally be expected to follow. The people would be slaughtered without mercy; the best would be cruelly butchered by the worst; and actions, worthy of the bliss of paridise, would be charged as their greatest offence. What must princes be, when they can deliberately assist in subjecting a generous people to the fury of a malicious, implacable tyrant, who has been justly exiled for his crimes? what must they be, when they can reflect that the most beneficient men in a nation will be publicly and barbarously executed at his restoration; and yet assist in the accomplishment of that diabolical work? They may be compared, with the most propriety, perhaps, to a coalition of fiends: for they conspire against mankind, for the total abolition of general happiness. How deplorable, therefore, is the condition of the world, under monarchy. A nation must either tamely submit to all that folly or wickedness can impose; and must endure to see her best members successively mangled by the orders of a tyrant; or become liable to an internal and external war with confederated princes; and to the danger of being subjected, after an unsuccessful struggle, te he inexrable rage of these united and barbarous enemies of man.

That monarchs are confederated against the rest of mankind, and consider themselves as a distinct race

of beings, is evident also from their opinions and marriages. They hold it to be impolitic and derogatory, to intermarry with any but royal families. If they would select their companions from their subjects, they could choose from a much greater number; and could find persons far superior in mental and personal accomplishments. But this would not fortify them so effectually against the rest of the human race: and therefore, they generally confine themselves to a choice from the families of monarchs, whose power and resources may be called in, if necessary, to aid them in oppressing their subjects. To support this confederacy, is evidently their chief concern, in forming the matrimonial contract; for so little are they influenced by any other consideration, that it is not uncommon for them, to enter into that contract with persons whom they have never seen; or persons of the most disagreeable kind. Consequently, as love cannot be the inducement to such marriages, mutual assistance in oppression, must be the principal object.

:

NOTE 70. Lewis XIV. king of France, was surnamed deo datus, or given by God and yet Lewis was one of the most wicked and execrable of tyrants. He arrogated divine honours; persecuted and butchered the protestants; and committed all sorts of attrocities.

NOTE 71. Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, murdered his brothers; and was ironically called Philadelphus, in allusion to his crimes.

As almost every monarch is addressed by some hon

R