married James IV. king of Scotland, king James the sixth of Scotland, and of England the first, was the lineal descendant from that alliance. So that in his person, as clearly as in Henry VIII, centered all the claims of different competitors, from the conquest downwards, he being indisputably the lineal heir of the conqueror. And, what is still more remarkable, in his person also centred the right of the Saxon monarchs, which had been suspended from the conquest till his accession. For, as was formerly observed, Margaret the sister of Edgar Atheling, the daughter of Edward the outlaw, and grand-daughter of king Edmund Ironside, was the person in whom the hereditary right of the Saxon kings, supposing it not abolished by the conquest, resided. She married Malcolm king of Scotland; and Henry II, by a descent from Matilda their daughter, is generally called the restorer of the Saxon line. But it must be remembered, that Malcolm by his Saxon queen had sons as well as daughters; and that the royal family of Scotland from that time downwards were the offspring of Malcolm and Margaret. Of this royal family king James the first was the direct lineal heir, and therefore united in his person every possible claim by hereditary right to the English as well as Scottish throne, being the heir both of Egbert and William the conqueror. AND it is no wonder that a prince of more learning than wisdom, who could deduce an hereditary title for more than eight hundred years, should easily be taught by the flatterers of the times, to believe there was something divine in this right, and that the finger of Providence was visible in its preser[209] vation. Whereas, though a wise institution, it was clearly a human institution; and the right inherent in him no natural, but a positive right. And in this and no other light was it taken by the English parliament (2); who by (2) It is difficult to say in what light it was considered by that parliament, which, in the preamble to the statute, declares with nauseous pedantry, that "upon the knees of their hearts they agnize their statute 1 Jac. I. c. 1. did "recognise and acknowledge, that "immediately upon the dissolution and decease of Elizabeth "late queen of England, the imperial crown thereof did by " inherent birthright, and lawful and undoubted succession, "descend and come to his most excellent majesty, as being "lineally, justly, and lawfully, next and sole heir of the blood "royal of this realm." Not a word here of any right immediately derived from heaven: which, if it existed any where, must be sought for among the aborigines of the island, the ancient Britons; among whose princes indeed some have gone to search it for him w. BUT wild and absurd as the doctrine of divine right most undoubtedly is, it is still more astonishing, that when so many human hereditary rights had centred in this king, his son and heir king Charles the first should be told by those infamous judges who pronounced his unparalleled sentence, that he was an elective prince; elected by his people, and therefore accountable to them, in his own proper person, for his conduct. The confusion, instability, and madness, which followed the fatal catastrophe of that pious and unfortunate prince, will be a standing argument in favor of hereditary monarchy to all future ages; as they proved at last to the then deluded people: who, in order to recover that peace and happiness which for twenty years together they had lost, in a solemn parliamentary convention of the states iestored the right heir of the crown. And in the proclamation for that purpose, which was drawn up and attended by both houses*, they declared, "that, according to their duty and allegiance, "they did heartily, joyfully, and unanimously acknowledge w Elizabeth of York, the mother of queen Margaret of Scotland, was heiress of the house of Mortimer. And Mr. Carte observes, that the house of Mortimer, in virtue of its descent from Gladys only sister to Lewellin ap Jor- "constant faith, obedience, and loyalty to his majesty and his royal “progeny." "and proclaim, that immediately upon the decease of our "late sovereign lord king Charles, the imperial crown of "these realms did by inherent birthright and lawful and ❝ undoubted succession descend and come to his most excel"lent majesty Charles the second, as being lineally, justly, ❝ and lawfully, next heir of the blood royal of this realm: " and thereunto they most humbly and faithfully did submit "and oblige themselves, their heirs, and posterity for ever." THUS I think it clearly appears, from the highest authority this nation is acquainted with, that the crown of England hath been ever an hereditary crown; though subject to limitations by parliament. The remainder of this chapter will consist principally of those instances, wherein the parliament has asserted or exercised this right of altering and limiting the succession; a right which, we have seen, was before exercised and asserted in the reigns of Henry IV, Henry VII, Henry VIII, queen Mary, and queen Elizabeth. THE first instance, in point of time, is the famous bill of exclusion, which raised such a ferment in the latter end of the reign of king Charles the second. It is well known that the purport of this bill was to have set aside the king's brother and presumptive heir, the duke of York, from the succession, on the score of his being a papist, that it passed the house of commons, but was rejected by the lords; the king having also declared beforehand, that he never would be brought to consent to it. And from this transaction we may collect two things: 1. That the crown was universally acknowledged to be hereditary; and the inheritance indefeasible unless by parliament else it had been needless to prefer such a bill. 2. That the parliament had a power to have defeated the inheritance: else such a bill had been ineffectual. The commons acknowledged the hereditary right then subsisting; and the lords did not dispute the power, but merely the propriety, of an exclusion. However, as the bill took no effect, king James the second succeeded to the throne of his ancestors: and might have enjoyed it during the remainder of his life, but for his own infatuated conduct, which (with other concurring circumstances) brought on the revolution in 1688. THE true ground and principle, upon which that [211] memorable event proceeded, was an entirely new case in politics, which had never before happened in our history; the abdication of the reigning monarch, and the vacancy of the throne thereupon. It was not a defeasance of the right of succession, and a new limitation of the crown, by the king and both houses of parliament: it was the act of the nation alone, upon a conviction that there was no king in being. For in a full assembly of the lords and commons, met in a convention upon the supposition of this vacancy, both housesy came to this resolution; " that king James the second, hav❝ing endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom, "by breaking the original contract between king and people; "and, by the advice of jesuits and other wicked persons, hav"ing violated the fundamental law; and having withdrawn "himself out of this kingdom; has abdicated the govern❝ment, and that the throne is thereby vacant." Thus ended at once, by this sudden and unexpected vacancy of the throne, the old line of succession; which from the conquest had lasted above six hundred years, and from the union of the heptarchy in king Egbert almost nine hundred. The facts themselves thus appealed to, the king's endeavour to subvert the constitution by breaking the original contract, his violation of the fundamental laws, and his withdrawing himself out of the kingdom, were evident and notorious: and the consequences drawn from these facts (namely, that they amounted to an abdication of the government; which abdication did not affect only the person of the king himself, but also all his heirs, and rendered the throne absolutely and completely vacant) it belonged to our ancestors to determine (3). y Com. Journ. 7 Feb. 1688. (3) The convention in Scotland drew the same conclusion, viz. the vacancy of the throne, from premises and in language much more bold and intelligible. The mystery of the declaration of the English con For, whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to. And that these consequences were fairly deduced from these facts, our ancestors have solemnly determined, in a full parliamentary convention representing the whole so[212] ciety. The reasons upon which they decided may be found at large in the parliamentary proceedings of the times; and may be matter of instructive amusement for us to contemplate, as a speculative point of history. But care must be taken not to carry this inquiry farther, than merely for instruction or amusement. The idea, that the consciences of posterity were concerned in the rectitude of their ancestors' decisions, gave birth to those dangerous political heresies, which so long distracted the state, but at length are all happily extinguished. I therefore rather choose to consider this great political measure upon the solid footing of authority, than to reason in its favor from its justice, moderation, and expedience: because that might imply a right of dissenting or revolting from it, in case we should think it to have been unjust, oppressive, or inexpedient. Whereas, our ancestors having most indisputably a competent jurisdiction to decide this great and important question, and having in fact decided it, it is now become our duty at this distance of time to acquiesce in their determination; vention, betrays that timidity which it was intended to conceal. "The "estates of the kingdom of Scotland find and declare, that king James "seventh, being a professed papist, did assume the royal power, and “acted as a king, without ever taking the oath required by law; and "had, by the advice of evil and wicked counsellors, invaded the fun"damental constitution of this kingdom, and altered it from a legal and "limited monarchy to an arbitrary despotic power; and had governed "the same to the subversion of the protestant religion and violation of "the laws and liberties of the nation, inverting all the ends of govern"ment, whereby he had forefaulted the crown, and the throne was "become vacant." Tyndal, 71. Fol. Cont. of Rapin. |