Such a mode of reasoning on such a subject is inadmissible, because it finally amounts to an accusation upon Providence, as if she had left to man no other choice with respect to government than between two evils, the best of which he admits to be "an attaint upon principle, and an outrage upon society." Passing over, for the present, all the evils and mischiefs which monarchy has occasioned in the world, nothing can more effectually prove its uselessness in a state of civil government, than making it hereditary.

Would we make any office hereditary that required wisdom and abilities to fill it?
And where wisdom and abilities are not necessary, such an office, whatever it may be, is superfluous or insignificant.
Hereditary succession is a burlesque upon monarchy.

It puts it in the most ridiculous light, by presenting it as an office which any child or idiot may fill.

It requires some talents to be a common mechanic; but to be a king requires only the animal figure of man--a sort of breathing automaton.

This sort of superstition may last a few years more, but it cannot long resist the awakened reason and interest of man.
As to Mr.Burke, he is a stickler for monarchy, not altogether as a pensioner, if he is one, which I believe, but as a political man.