Chapter II
Of the Origin of the Present Old Governments

It is impossible that such governments as have hitherto existed in the world, could have commenced by any other means than a total violation of every principle sacred and moral.  The obscurity in which the origin of all the present old governments is buried, implies the iniquity and disgrace with which they began.  The origin of the present government of America and France will ever be remembered, because it is honourable to record it; but with respect to the rest, even Flattery has consigned them to the tomb of time, without an inscription.
 
It could have been no difficult thing in the early and solitary ages of the world, while the chief employment 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 established, the chief of the band contrived to lose the name of Robber in that of Monarch; and hence the origin of Monarchy and Kings.  [begin page 235]

The origin of the Government of England, so far as relates to what is called its line of monarchy, being one of the latest, is perhaps the best recorded.  The hatred which the Norman invasion and tyranny begat, must have been deeply rooted in the nation, to have outlived the contrivance to obliterate it.  Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew-bell, not a village in England has forgotten it. 

Those bands of robbers having parcelled out the world, and divided it into dominions, began, as is naturally the case, to quarrel with each other.  What at first was obtained by violence was considered by others as lawful to be taken, and a second plunderer succeeded the first.  They alternately invaded the dominions which each had assigned to himself, and the brutality with which they treated each other explains the original character of monarchy.  It was ruffian torturing ruffian.

The conqueror considered the conquered, not as his prisoner, but his property.  He led him in triumph rattling in chains, and doomed him, at pleasure, to slavery or death.  As time obliterated the history of their beginning, their successors assumed new appearances, to cut off the entail of their disgrace, but their principles and [begin page 237] objects remained the same.  What at first was plunder, assumed the softer name of revenue; and the power originally usurped, they affected to inherit.
 
From such beginning of governments, what could be expected but a continued system of war and extortion?  It has established itself into a trade.  The vice is not peculiar to one more than to another, but is the common principle of all.  There does not exist within such governments sufficient stamina whereon to engraft reformation; and the shortest and most effectual remedy is to begin anew.
 
What scenes of horror, what perfection of iniquity, present themselves in contemplating the character and reviewing the history of such governments!  If we would delineate human nature with a baseness of heart and hypocrisy of countenance that reflection would shudder at and humanity disown, it is kings, courts and cabinets that must sit for the portrait.  Man, naturally as he is, with all his faults about him, is not up to the character. 

Can we possibly suppose that if governments had originated in a right principle, and had not an interest in pursuing a wrong one, the world could have been in the wretched and quar- [begin page 238] relsome condition we have seen it?  What inducement has the farmer, while following the plough, to lay aside his peaceful pursuit, and go to war with the farmer of another country?  Or what inducement has the manufacturer?  What is dominion to them, or to any class of men in a nation?  Does it add an acre to any man's estate, or raise its value?  Are not conquest and defeat each of the same price, and taxes the never-failing consequence? Though this reasoning may be good to a nation, it is not so to a government.  War is the faro-table of governments, and nations the dupes of the games. 

If there is anything to wonder at in this miserable scene of governments more than might be expected, it is the progress which the peaceful arts of agriculture, manufacture and commerce have made beneath such a long accumulating load of discouragement and oppression.  It serves to show that instinct in animals does not act with stronger impulse than the principles of society and civilisation operate in man.  Under all discouragements, he pursues his object, and yields to nothing but impossibilities.