annexed to it; and there cannot be greater than in the present case; for it is not a bare speculation that kings may run into such enormities as are above-mentioned; the practice may be proved by examples, not only drawn from the first Cæsars, or later emperors, but many modern princes of Europe; such as Peter the cruel, Philip the second of Spain, John Basilovits of Muscovy, and in our own nation, king John, Richard the third, and Henry the eighth. But there cannot be equal absurdities supposed in maintaining the contrary opinion; because it is certain, that princes have it in their power to keep a majority on their side, by any tolerable administration, till provoked by continual oppressions; no man indeed can then answer, where the madness of the people will stop.
As to the second part of the objection; whether the people of England convened by their own authority, upon king James's precipitate departure, had power to alter the succession?
In answer to this, I think it is manifest from the practice of the wisest nations, and who seem to have had the truest notions of freedom, that when a prince was laid aside for maleadministration, the nobles and people, if they thought it necessary for the publick weal, did resume the administration of the supreme power, (the power itself having been always in them) and did not only alter the succession, but often the very form of government too; because they believed there was no natural right in one man to govern another, but that all was by institution, force, or consent. Thus, the cities of Greece, when they drove out their tyrannical kings, either chose others from a new family, or abolished
