of private men, that this rule should be clear and indifputable : and our conftitution has not left us in the dark upon this material occafion. It will therefore be the endeavour of this chapter to trace out the conftitutional doctrine of the royal fucceffion, with that freedom and regard to truth, yet mixed with that reverence and refpect, which the principles of li berty and the dignity of the subject require.

THE grand fundamental maxim upon which the jus coronat, or right of fucceffion to the throne of these kingdoms, depends, I take to be this: "that the crown is, by common "law and conftitutional custom, hereditary; and this in a "manner peculiar to itself: but that the right of inheritance "may from time to time be changed or limited by act of "parliament; under which limitations the crown still con"tinues hereditary." And this propofition it will be the -bufinefs of this chapter to prove, in all it's branches; first, that the crown is hereditary; fecondly, that it is hereditary in a manner peculiar to itfelf; thirdly, that this inheritance is fubject to limitation by parliament; lastly, that when it is fo limited, it is hereditary in the new proprietor.

1. FIRST, it is in general hereditary, or defcendible to the next heir, on the death or demife of the laft proprietor. All regal governments must be either hereditary or elective: and, as I believe there is no inftance wherein the crown of England has ever been afferted to be elective, except by the regicides at the infamous and unparalleled trial of king Charles I, it must of confequence be hereditary. Yet while I affert an hereditary, I by no means intend a jure divino, title to the throne. Such a title may be allowed to have fubfifted under the theocratic eftablishments of the children of Ifrael in Palestine: but it never yet fubfifted in any other country; save only fo far as kingdoms, like other human fabricks, are subject to the general and ordinary dispensations of providence. Nor indeed have a jure divino and an hereditary right any neceffary connexion with each other; as fome have very weakly imagined. The titles of David and Jehu were VOL. L. equally

S

equally jure divino, as those of either Solomon or Ahab; and yet David flew the fons of his predeceffor, and Jehu his predeceffor himself. And when our kings have the fame warrant as they had, whether it be to fit upon the throne of their fa thers, or to deftroy the house of the preceding fovereign, they will then, and not before, poffefs the crown of England by a right like theirs, immediately derived from heaven. The hereditary right which the laws of England acknowlege, owes it's origin to the founders of our conftitution, and to them only. It has no relation to, nor depends upon, the civil laws of the Jews, the Greeks, the Romans, or any other nation upon earth: the municipal laws of one fociety having no connexion with, or influence upon, the funda-' mental polity of another. The founders of our English monarchy might perhaps, if they had thought proper, have made it an elective monarchy: but they rather chofe, and upon good reason, to establish originally a fucceffion by inheritance. This has been acquiefced in by general confent; and ripened by degrees into common law: the very fame title that every private man has to his own eftate. Lands are not naturally defcendible any more than thrones: but the law has thought proper, for the benefit and peace of the public, to establish hereditary fucceffion in the one as well as the other.

Ir must be owned, an elective monarchy seems to be the most obvious, and beft fuited of any to the rational principles of government, and the freedom of human nature and accordingly we find from history that, in the infancy and firft rudiments of almost every ftate, the leader, chief magiftrate, or prince, hath ufually been elective. And, if the individuals who compofe that ftate could always continue true to first principles, uninfluenced by paflion or prejudice, unaflailed by corruption, and unawed by violence, elective fucceffion were as much to be defired in a kingdom, as in other inferior communities. The beft, the wifeft, and the bravest man would then be fure of receiving that crown, which his endowments have merited; and the fenfe of an unbiaffed ma jority would be dutifully acquiefced in by the few who were -of

of different opinions. But history and obfervation will inform us, that elections of every kind (in the prefent state of human nature) are too frequently brought about by influence, partiality, and artifice : and, even where the cafe is otherwise, these practices will be often suspected, and as conftantly charged upon the fuccefsful, by a splenetic disappointed minority. This is an evil to which all societies are liable; as well those of a private and domeftic kind, as the great community of the public, which regulates and includes the reft. But in the former there is this advantage; that fuch fufpicions, if false, proceed no farther than jealoufies and murmurs, which time will effectually fupprefs; and, if true, the injuftice may be remedied by legal means, by an appeal to those tribunals to which every member of fociety has (by becoming fuch) virtually engaged to fubmit. Whereas, in the great and independent fociety, which every nation compofes, there is not fuperior to refort to but the law of nature; no method to redrefs the infringements of that law, but the actual exertion of private force. As therefore between two nations, complaining of mutual injuries, the quarrel can only be decided by the law of arms; so in one and the fame nation, when the fundamental principles of their common union are fuppofed to be invaded, and more especially when the appointment of their chief magiftrate is alleged to be unduly made, the only tribunal to which the complainants can appeal is that of the God of battles, the only procefs by which the appeal can be carried on is that of a civil and inteftine war. An hereditary fucceffion to the crown is therefore now established, in this and moft other countries, in order to prevent that periodical bloodshed and misery, which the history of ancient imperial Rome, and the more modern experience of Poland and Germany, may shew us are the confequences of elective kingdoms.

2. BUT, fecondly, as to the particular mode of inhérit ance, it in general correfponds with the feodal path of defcents, chalked out by the common law in the fucceffion to landed eftates; yet with one or two material exceptions. Like eftates, the crown will defcend lineally to the iffue of the reign

ing monarch; as it did from king John to Richard II, through [194] a regular pedigree of fix lineal generations. As in common

descents, the preference of males to females, and the right of primogeniture among the males, are ftrictly adhered to. Thus Edward V fucceeded to the crown, in preference to Richard his younger brother and Elizabeth his elder fifter. Like lands or tenements, the crown, on failure of the male line, descends to the iffue female; according to the antient British custom remarked by Tacitus ; " folent foeminarum " ductu bellare, et fexum in imperiis non difcernere." Thus Mary I fucceeded to Edward VI; and the line of Margaret queen of Scots, the daughter of Henry VII, fucceeded on failure of the line of Henry VIII, his fon. But, among the females, the crown defcends by right of primogeniture to the eldest daughter only and her iffue; and not, as in common inheritances, to all the daughters at once; the evident neceflity of a fole fucceffion to the throne having occafioned the royal law of defcents to depart from the common law in this respect and therefore queen Mary on the death of her brother fucceeded to the crown alone, and not in partnership with her fifter Elizabeth. Again: the doctrine of reprefentation prevails in the defcent of the crown, as it does in other inheritances; whereby the lineal defcendants of any person deceafed ftand in the fame place as their ancestor, if living, would have done. Thus Richard II fucceeded his grandfather Edward III, in right of his father the black prince; to the exclufion of all his uncles, his grandfather's younger children. Laftly, on failure of lineal defcendants, the crown goes to the next collateral relations of the late king; provided they are lineally defcended from the blood royal, that is, from that royal stock which originally acquired the crown. Thus Henry I fucceeded to William II, John to Richard I, and James I to Elizabeth; being all derived from the conqueror, who was then the only regal ftock. But herein there is no objection (as in the cafe of common defcents) to the fucceffion of a brother, an uncle, or other collateral relation, of the half blood; that is, where the relationship proceeds not from the fame

couple of ancestors (which conftitutes a kinfman of the uhole blood) but from a single ancestor only; as when two perfons are derived from the fame father, and not from the fame mother, or vice verfa: provided only, that the one ancestor, from [195] whom both are defcended, be that from whofe veins the blood royal is communicated to each. Thus Mary I inherited to Edward VI, and Elizabeth inherited to Mary; all children of the fame father, king Henry VIII, but all by different mothers. The reason of which diversity, between royal and common descents, will be better understood hereafter, when we examine the nature of inheritances in general.

3. THE doctrine of hereditary right does by no means imply an indefeafible right to the throne. No man will, I think, affert this, that has confidered our laws, conftitution, and history, without prejudice, and with any degree of attention. It is unquestionably in the breast of the fupreme legiflative authority of this kingdom, the king and both houses of parliament, to defeat this hereditary right; and, by particular entails, limitations, and provifions, to exclude the immediate heir, and veft the inheritance in any one elfe. This is strictly confonant to our laws and conftitution; as may be gathered from the expreffion fo frequently used in our ftatute book, of "the king's majesty, his heirs, and fucceffors." In which we may observe, that as the word, "heirs," neceffarily implies an inheritance or hereditary right, generally fubfifting in the royal perfon; fo the word, "fucceflors," diftinctly taken, must imply that this inheritance may fometimes be broken through; or, that there may be a fucceffor, without being the heir, of the king. And this is fo extremely reasonable, that without fuch a power, lodged fomewhere, our polity would be very defective. For, let us barely fuppofe fo melancholy a cafe, as that the heir apparent fhould be a lunatic, an idiot, or otherwife incapable of reigning: how miferable would the condition of the nation be, if he were alfo incapable of being fet afide!-It is therefore neceffary that this power should be lodged fomewhere: and yet the inheritance, and regal dignity, would be very precarious indeed, if this power were expressly