Hume | Page 7

learning and of liberty.
Most people in this island have divested themselves of all superstitious
reverence to names and authority; the clergy have much lost their credit;
their pretensions and doctrines have been much ridiculed; and even
religion can scarcely support itself in the world. The mere name of king
commands little respect; and to talk of a king as God's vicegerent on
earth, or to give him any of those magnificent titles which formerly
dazzled mankind, would but excite laughter in every one."--(III. 54.)
In fact, at the present day, the danger to monarchy in Britain would
appear to lie, not in increasing love for equality, for which, except as
regards the law, Englishmen have never cared, but rather entertain an
aversion; nor in any abstract democratic theories, upon which the mass
of Englishmen pour the contempt with which they view theories in

general; but in the constantly increasing tendency of monarchy to
become slightly absurd, from the ever-widening discrepancy between
modern political ideas and the theory of kingship. As Hume observes,
even in his time, people had left off making believe that a king was a
different species of man from, other men; and, since his day, more and
more such make-believes have become impossible; until the
maintenance of kingship in coming generations seems likely to depend,
entirely, upon whether it is the general opinion, that a hereditary
president of our virtual republic will serve the general interest better
than an elective one or not. The tendency of public feeling in this
direction is patent, but it does not follow that a republic is to be the
final stage of our government. In fact, Hume thinks not:--
"It is well known, that every government must come to a period, and
that death is unavoidable to the political, as well as to the animal body.
But, as one kind of death may be preferable to another, it may be
inquired, whether it be more desirable for the British constitution to
terminate in a popular government, or in an absolute monarchy? Here, I
would frankly declare, that though liberty be preferable to slavery, in
almost every case; yet I should rather wish to see an absolute monarch
than a republic in this island. For let us consider what kind of republic
we have reason to expect. The question is not concerning any fine
imaginary republic of which a man forms a plan in his closet. There is
no doubt but a popular government may be imagined more perfect than
an absolute monarchy, or even than our present constitution. But what
reason have we to expect that any such government will ever be
established in Great Britain, upon the dissolution of our monarchy? If
any single person acquire power enough to take our constitution to
pieces, and put it up anew, he is really an absolute monarch; and we
have already had an instance of this kind, sufficient to convince us, that
such a person will never resign his power, or establish any free
government. Matters, therefore, must be trusted to their natural
progress and operation; and the House of Commons, according to its
present constitution, must be the only legislature in such a popular
government. The inconveniences attending such a situation of affairs
present themselves by thousands. If the House of Commons, in such a
case, ever dissolve itself, which is not to be expected, we may look for

a civil war every election. If it continue itself, we shall suffer all the
tyranny of a faction subdivided into new factions. And, as such a
violent government cannot long subsist, we shall at last, after many
convulsions and civil wars, find repose in absolute monarchy, which it
would have been happier for us to have established peaceably from the
beginning. Absolute monarchy, therefore, is the easiest death, the true
Euthanasia of the British constitution.
"Thus if we have more reason to be jealous of monarchy, because the
danger is more imminent from that quarter; we have also reason to be
more jealous of popular government, because that danger is more
terrible. This may teach us a lesson of moderation in all our political
controversies."--(III. 55.)
One may admire the sagacity of these speculations, and the force and
clearness with which they are expressed, without altogether agreeing
with them. That an analogy between the social and bodily organism
exists, and is, in many respects, clear and full of instructive suggestion,
is undeniable. Yet a state answers, not to an individual, but to a generic
type; and there is no reason, in the nature of things, why any generic
type should die out. The type of the pearly Nautilus, highly organised
as it is, has persisted with but little change from the Silurian epoch till
now; and, so long as terrestrial conditions remain approximately