of Anne, essayed to represent the hereditary right of the Queen as emanating directly from Edward the Confessor.* Accordingly, she also touched for the "king's evil," a thing which her revolutionary predecessor had scorned attempting. The Act of Settlement, 12-13 Will. III. c. 2, of 1701, has guaranteed the accession of the House of Hanover to the throne. The act simply excluding the son of the Pretender and the next "Catholic" heirs of the same, the succession to the throne remained accordingly in the House of Stuart, and was only transferred to its Protestant branch exceptionally, inasmuch as, passing over Queen Elizabeth of Bohemia, daughter of James I., it transferred the crown to the surviving daughter Sophia, Dowager Electress of Hanover, to the exclusion of the heirs who were incapacitated to accede to the crown.†

If we accept the Bill of Rights as consistent with law, this was not a proceeding of a specially revolutionary nature; those only were excluded who, by reason of their religion, had become disqualified from satisfying, conformably with the Bill of Rights, the duty of English kings as heads of the "catholic" Church of England. The act determines accordingly, that the king of England shall in future belong to the Church by law established.

An elective monarchy has never really existed in England. If the "Chronicle of Dunstable" makes mention of the "election" of Richard I. by the clergy and the people, all that is meant thereby is the assent of the "homage" (homagium) by tender of the oath of fealty. A fixed line of succession to the throne was first established in the 13th century.

The descent of the crown is governed in England by the same

Lytt. vii. 42, "Hereditario jure promovendus in regnum, post cleri et populi

solemnem electionem.

rules which regulate the descent of real property at common law, with two exceptions, which Lord Lyndhurst has pointed out.*

1. That the half-blood is no bar to the succession, provided that the common father was of royal blood.

2. That in the case of two or more daughters, the eldest only succeeds, and that the kingdom is not, like any other feudal estate, apportionable, as succession to the throne cannot be severed.

In all other respects hereditary succession takes place exactly in the same way as the inheritance of family estates and real property. Just as in the common law, the first-born excludes where there are many claimants of like degree, and the male branch of the same line excludes the female. example :

Thus, for

Here the Prince of Wales excludes the first-born, the Princess Royal. In this hereditary succession, "right of representation” likewise occurs, for instance :

Edward III.

Edward the Black Prince (dies before Edward III.)

Richard II., grandson of Edward III. succeeds,

excluding his uncles or younger children of the grandfather.

Within the same line, in the event of there being no males to inherit, the eldest princess succeeds, and a queen regnant, since 1 Mary, c. I enjoys the same rights as a king, e. g. :—

Mary.

Henry VIII.

Elizabeth.

Edward VI.

Edward VI., although the youngest born, took precedence of

* Bowyer, 153.

his two elder half-sisters. Upon his death, however, his two childless half-sisters succeeded, the elder first. The females of the nearest branch exclude the further removed collaterals. Here also the "right of representation" obtains :

Had the Duke of Kent outlived William IV., he would have succeeded to the throne. In his stead came his surviving daughter the Queen Victoria, excluding the Duke of Cumberland, the eldest brother of the deceased king; as, however, the crown in Hanover is hereditary in the male branch only, Queen Victoria was, on the other hand, excluded by her uncle from that succession.

Under Elizabeth it was held that the royal dignity, as limited by the law, precisely by reason of such legal limitation, was well fitted to adorn the head of a woman. Aylmer, afterwards Bishop of London, published a book against Knox to uphold the "regiment" of women. He says therein :-" England is no mere monarchy as some, for lack of consideration, think, nor a mere oligarchy, nor democracy, but a rule mixed of all these wherein each one of these have, or should have like authority. In the parliament house the King or Queen representeth the monarchy, the noblemen, which be the aristocracy, the burgesses and knights the democracy. If the parliament use their privileges, the king can ordain nothing without them; if he do, it is his fault in usurping it, and their fault in permitting it. Hence it is not in England so dangerous a matter to have a woman ruler as men take it to be, for it is not she that ruleth, but the laws; the executors whereof be her judges appointed by her; she maketh no statutes or law but the honourable court of parliament.*

The coronation invests the king, as the privy council, on occasion of the coronation of George IV., acknowledged,† with no further rights than those previously possessed by him, for the king never dies; hence the maxim, applicable to all German hereditary succession, "Le mort saisit le vif," holds good of the

*Hallam, Const. Hist., 281.

+ Hughes, c. 61.

succession to the throne. Hence no profering of the crown is needful, nor is an interregnum possible.*

The coronation is deemed necessary, however, to confirm the rights of the people, to sanction the laws and constitution of the realm. As we have seen, by the fact of coronation every doubt touching the lawfulness of the king is removed. The coronation oath also serves to sanction the feudal relation between prince and people.

The coronation oath has been settled by William I. and Mary, s. 1, c. 6. Conformably with which the king must swear to rule "in accordance with the statutes of parliament and the laws and customs of the realm, to maintain right and justice, to uphold the Protestant religion, and the privileges and rights of

e clergy." By 5 Anne, c. 8, the sovereign must further swear to protect and uphold the Protestant religion and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. By the 'Act of Settlement' every king must, moreover, either at his coronation or in his first parliament, sign the declaration against Popery, according to the Test Act.

Should a sovereign refuse either to take the oaths or allow himself to be crowned-which would have an equal significancesuch refusal would be regarded as an 'abdication.' All acts which the sovereign may have done previous to the coronation remain, nevertheless, entirely valid.†

At the coronation, the office of Lord High Steward of England revives for one day; he sits as judge in Whitehall, and has to decide respecting the pretensions of those who claim the privilege of discharging certain functions at the coronation. ("Court of Claims.")

On this occasion also, the office of Lord High Constable again comes into being; the last person invested therewith was the Duke of Wellington. At the coronation banquet a knight, fully equipped (a member of the family of Dymock), appears in the banqueting hall, and challenges all who contest the rights of the sovereign to meet him in mortal combat. During the ceremony, besides the coronation oath, the homage' of the bishops and peers takes place.§ As George IV. was crowned in perfect accordance with the ancient observance, and the coronation had excited a sad

* Vide page 119.

+ Bl. i. 235.

Henry VI., Part III., act 4,

sc. 7:

"Montgomery. And whoso'er gainsays King Edward's right,

By this I challenge him to single fight." § Gneist, i. 161.

rather than an imposing impression,* by reason of the personal character of the king, and other circumstances, the respective state ceremonial has since been materially simplified. The court held at Whitehall, the coronation banquet, and the 'champion,' have been altogether dispensed with.

The deposing of James II., in the opinion of English jurists, affords a precedent for any future case. "So far as the precedent goes," says Blackstone, "but no further, can we at present determine the law as an aid against oppression. If, therefore, any future ruler should endeavour to subvert the original contract between prince and people, and to violate the fundamental laws of the realm, and should withdraw himself from the kingdom, we should regard this combination of circumstances as an abdication of the government; and the throne would, in such case, become vacant. The law has, moreover, since the revolution particularized certain cases, in which the lawful heir and the king regnant shall lose the throne. Such a case would occur, as we have observed, if he refused to assume the duties of a king, and abstained from taking the coronation oath. As the sovereign of England must belong to the Church Established, his conversion to any other church would be forthwith regarded as an abdication. In like manner, the king may not marry a Catholic, and marriage with one would be regarded as a resignation of the crown.§

Queen Caroline's application to be crowned was refused. Popular commotion, or infractions of the public peace were expected, and the Government did all in their power to attract the populace from the vicinity of the Abbey. Troops lined the streets and barricaded the approaches.

At length came his Majesty along the platform extending from Whitehall to Westminster Abbey, with tottering steps, scarcely able to support the

glittering crown, which produced so sad a contrast with the sunken features."Hughes, c. 61.

+ Bl. i. 210.

In the west Gothic kingdom the bishops in such case expressly released the vassals from their services.

§ George IV., while Prince of Wales, lived a long time in simulated marriage with Mrs. Fitz-Herbert, a Catholic lady.