the king of his title. This king was likewise the first to assume the title "Majesty." The title "King of France" had been assumed by the English kings down to the 1st January, 1801, when the lilies were for the first time erased from the royal arms. Until then, in diplomatic communications on the part of England, a "most Christian king" was recognized, but never a "king of France." Even James II., at St. Germain, was always titular "king of France," by a fiction based upon a fiction. Louis XVIII. was subsequently the first king of France with whom England entered into diplomatic intercourse as virtual "king of France." The title which George III. assumed in 1801 was "Dei gratiâ Britanniarum Rex, Fidei Defensor," which title has till now continued. The representation of the State, both abroad and at home, centres in the king. He is the fountain of all offices, dignities, honours, and of all jurisdiction. By a fiction he is personally present in all the courts of law; in all state and criminal prosecutions appears as prosecutor; he is the visible head of the church, and all the revenues of the country pertain to him. The parliament likewise is but an outflow of his power; he summons and prorogues it, creates peers, and dissolves it. He is entrusted with the execution of the laws; his consent makes bills binding laws, and when once assented to, he dare not alter them in any particular, still less dare he impose taxes upon his subjects without their consent. All the prerogatives of the king are actually existent, but parliament is the grand centre from which they emanate, the crown having scarcely power sufficient to impose effectual check upon Lords and Commons. In describing the public law of England, it is needful in the outset to form a notion of the theoretical rights of the sovereign in order to appraise his actual power. To achieve a complete sketch of the English kingdom, it will be expedient, when describing the parliament, to revert anew to the actual state of the prerogatives of the crown. How far cabinet and parliament may arrogate the exercise of such prerogatives depends now-a-days materially upon. the sovereign himself and on his personal capacity; the royal prerogative, for instance, under George III. had a far different import from that under George II. "The King of England," says Lord Brougham, "does not resemble the Grand Functionary of the Abbé Sieyes, the hog to be fatted at the rate of £120,000 a year ('Cochon à l'engrais à la somme de trois millions par an'). The English animal, according to the Whig doctrine, much more nearly answers this coarse description, for the Abbé's plan was to give his royal beast a substantial voice in the distribution of all patronage, while our lion is only to have the sad prerogative of naming whomsoever the parliament chooses, and eating his own mess in quiet."* The leader of the Tories in the Upper House, Lord Derby, on the other hand, has urgently protested "that the Queen was not a mere automaton, that she exercised an influence and a control over the concerns of the country."+ The sentiment of the English nation, saving, perhaps, the dominant Whig class and certain radical elements in towns, is of a bias strongly monarchical, reverencing in the sovereign, after a fashion more enthusiastic than on the Continent, the symbol of the state power and state authority. "They who remember the winter of 1820," remarks Lord Brougham, in his portrait of George IV., "must be aware that the same individual who, a week before the death of George III., had travelled to and fro on the Brighton or Windsor roads, without attracting any more attention than any ordinary wayfaring man, was now, merely because his name was changed to King' from 'Regent,' greeted by crowds of loyal and curious subjects, anxious to satiate their longing eyes by a sight of a king in name." Touching the accession of Queen Victoria, the same keen observer remarks:-" A young lady of eighteen, suddenly transplanted from the nursery to the throne, might, however great her qualifications, he deemed hardly fit at once to hold the sceptre of such a kingdom in such times. But all apprehensions on the subject must have instantly ceased when it was observed that there broke out all over the country an ungovernable paroxysm of loyal affection towards the illustrious lady, such as no people ever showed even to monarchs endeared, by long and glorious reigns, to subjects upon whom their valour and wisdom had showered down innumerable benefits. At any rate the feeling of enthusiastic loyalty and devotion to the sovereign, merely because she was a sovereign, could not be doubted, and it could not be exceeded."§ *Statesmen, i. 13. † Ann. Reg., 1854, 11. Statesmen, ii. 48. For many centuries the English sovereigns, as heirs of Edward the Confessor, were assumed to be inheritors likewise of his sanctity and his virtues. Amongst the lower classes this intuitive feeling reigned supreme, the craftier sovereigns having always shown themselves graciously disposed and imbued with benevolence.* In their quality of "saint," English kings, down to the reign of George I., repeating portions of the Liturgy in solemn audience, touched for the "king's evil," by imposing their hands on persons afflicted with scrofula.† During the sway of the Stuarts, the very physicians inclined to believe that it was only the hallowed hand of the king that could effect such wondrous cures. The legal relation of the subjects to the king is embodied in the oath of allegiance. Every Englishman on attaining the age of twelve years is subject to take this oath; as a rule it is only required on assumption of any office. It was originally an oath of a purely feudal character, and down to the revolution of 1688 was sworn "to the king and his heirs," since then, "to the king" merely. From the Reformation the oath of supremacy has been superadded, and, since 13-14 Will. III. c. 6, the oath of abjuration, the latter being directed against the claims of the Pretender. How this oath has been modified in later years we have above seen. The duty of an English subject towards his king—“ natural allegiance" arises from the moment of birth, and cannot be abrogated by "abjuring the realm"; from the fact of the feudal relation in which all Englishmen are conceived to stand to the sovereign, not allowing it to be changed on one side merely.‡ In contrast with this is the "local," or "temporary allegiance," owed by an alien residing temporarily in the country. Sir Matthew Hale is of opinion that to a de facto king, as well as to a king de jure, the duty of allegiance is owing as soon as he has taken possession of the crown.§ In perfect accordance with this is a resolution by the judges under Henry VIII., "that as soon as any one is crowned, all discussion touching his right to the crown is inadmissible." The parliament, likewise, In Shakspeare's Henry V., act 4, sc. 1, the king says:"Five hundred poor I have in yearly pay, Who twice a day their wither'd hands hold up Towards heaven," Even Henry VIII. provided many of the poor with food. Macaulay. Smollett, c. 7. Bl. i. 457. § 1 Hale, P. C. 60. of that period acknowledged that it was no treason to serve the de facto king.* Edward IV. punished the treasons which had been perpetrated against Henry VI., although Henry VI. and his house were, by the house of York, regarded as mere usurpers. This opinion that only the actual king is the real king to whom allegiance is due, we find also expressed in Shakspeare's Henry VI. Part III. act 3, scene 1, where two gamekeepers say to the Lancastrian king, who refers to his character as their sovereign— "We were subjects but while You were king." The mode of action adopted by Edward IV., the legal observance above mentioned, both of the judges and parliament, the exclamation which Shakspeare attributes to common folk, serve to indicate how inaccessible to English minds was the conception of the mere term "legitimacy." * 11 Hen. vii. c. 1. CHAPTER II. INHERITANCE AND LOSS OF THE CROWN. The Claims to the Crown Regulated by Law and not by Birth.-Transfer of the Crown to the House of Hanover.-No Elective Monarchy.-Deviation from the Ordinary Line of Succession.-Order of Hereditary Succession.-Succession in Females.-The Coronation and Coronation Oath.-Presumed Abdication. THE Crown in England is hereditary by the common law of the land, and not by any divine right. "While I speak of a hereditary, I by no means intend a jure divino title to the throne."* This opinion of the renowned commentator is based upon the statutes passed after the Revolution of 1688. The statute, 6 Anne, c. 7, declares it high treason if any one shall "maliciously, advisedly, and directly, by printing or writing, maintain and affirm that the kings and queens of this realm are not able, with and by the authority of parliament, to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to limit and bind the crown and the descent, the limitation, inheritance, and the government thereof." The hereditary right is consequently of a nature liable to modification dependent upon circumstances. An indefeasible right of succession does not exist, the king and the parliament may exclude every rightful claimant from succession, and, by law, call to the throne an expectant further removed.† The Exclusion Bill, which under the reign of Charles II. was rejected by the Upper House, only failed to pass because the Lords contested, not its legality, but merely its necessity. William and Mary, as well as Anne, acquired their right to rule not by right of "descent," but by way of donation or "purchase," by which lawyers mean the method of acquiring a title to an estate otherwise than by descent.‡ They merely strove to solder the hereditary right to the revolutionary title in the best manner possible. The Tories, in the reign. * Bl. i. 209. + Ibid. Bl. ii. 204, Purchase in law is used in contradistinction to descent, and is any other mode of acquiring real pro perty, viz., by devise, and by every species of gift or grant; and as the land taken by purchase has very different inheritable qualities from land taken by descent, the distinction is all-important. K |