to pre-eminence in the state. He was uniformly one, whose actions had
made him eminent; whose conduct had gained him previous applause; whose
valour the very assembly, that elected him, had themselves witnessed in
the field; whose prudence, wisdom and justice, having rendered him
signally serviceable, had endeared him to his tribe. For this reason,
their kingdoms were not hereditary; the son did not always inherit the
virtues of the sire; and they were determined that he alone should
possess authority, in whose virtues they could confide. Nor was this
all. So sensible were they of the important sacrifice they had made; so
extremely jealous even of the name of superiority and power, that they
limited, by a variety of laws, the authority of the very person, whom
they had just elected, from a confidence of his integrity; Ambiorix
himself confessing, "that his people had as much power over him, as he
could possibly have over his people."

The same custom, as appears from Tacitus, prevailed also among the
Germans. They had their national councils, like the Gauls; in which the
regal and ducal offices were confirmed according to the majority of
voices. They elected also, on these occasions, those only, whom their
virtue, by repeated trial, had unequivocally distinguished from the
rest; and they limited their authority so far, as neither to leave them
the power of inflicting imprisonment or stripes, nor of exercising any
penal jurisdiction. But as punishment was necessary in a state of civil
society, "it was permitted to the priests alone, that it might appear to
have been inflicted, by the order of the gods, and not by any superiour
authority in man."

The accounts which we have thus given of the ancient Germans and Gauls,
will be found also to be equally true of those people, which had arrived
at the same state of subordinate society. We might appeal, for a