injustice to their children, say, "that your children and your
children's children shall reign over OURS for ever." Because such
an unwise, unjust, unnatural compact might (perhaps) in the next
succession put them under the government of a rogue or a fool.
Most wise men, in their private sentiments, have ever treated
hereditary right with contempt; yet it is one of those evils,
which when once established is not easily removed;
many submit from fear, others from superstition,
and the more powerful part shares with the king the plunder of the rest.

This is supposing the present race of kings in the world to have had an
honourable origin; whereas it is more than probable, that could we take
off the dark covering of antiquities, and trace them to their first rise,
that we should find the first of them nothing better than the
principal ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners
or preeminence in subtlety obtained the title of chief among plunderers;
and who by increasing in power, and extending his depredations,
overawed the quiet and defenseless to purchase their safety
by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no idea
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