(continued)

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.

12