it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already
supposed to be wiser than him. A mere absurdity!

There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy;
it first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him
to act in cases where the highest judgment is required. The state of a king
shuts him from the world, yet the business of a king requires him to know
it thoroughly; wherefore the different parts, by unnaturally opposing
and destroying each other, prove the whole character to be absurd and useless.

Some writers have explained the English constitution thus: The king,
say they, is one, the people another; the peers are a house in behalf
of the king, the commons in behalf of the people; but this hath all
the distinctions of a house divided against itself; and though
the expressions be pleasantly arranged, yet when examined,
they appear idle and ambiguous; and it will always happen,
that the nicest construction that words are capable of,
when applied to the description of some thing which either
cannot exist, or is too incomprehensible to be within
the compass of description, will be words of sound only,
and though they may amuse the ear, they cannot inform the mind,
for this explanation includes a previous question, viz.
HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST,
AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK? Such a power could not be the gift
of a wise people, neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS CHECKING,
be from God; yet the provision, which the constitution makes,
supposes such a power to exist.

But the provision is unequal to the task; the means either cannot
or will not accomplish the end, and the whole affair is a felo de se;