723 K 1 
allowed to have fubfifted under the- theocratic eftablifli- 
merits of the children of Ifrael in Paleitine; but it ne¬ 
ver yet fubfitted in any other country; fave only fo 
far as kingdoms, like other human fabrics, are fubjeft 
to the general and ordinary difpenfations of Providence. 
Nor indeed have a jure-divino and an hereditary right 
any neceflary conneftion with each other, as fome have 
very weakly imagined. The titles of David and Jehu 
were equally jure divina as thofe of either Solomon or 
Ahab ; and yet David (lew the fons of his predeceffor, 
and Jehu his predecelfor himfelf. And, when our kings 
have the fame warrant as they had, whether it be to lit 
upon the throne of their fathers, or to deftroy the houfe 
of the preceding fovereign, they will then, and not before, 
pofiefs the crown of England by a light like theirs, im¬ 
mediately derived from heaven. The hereditary right, 
which the laws of England acknowledge, owes its 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 fundamental po¬ 
lity of another. The founders of our Englifli monarchy 
might perhaps, if they had thought proper, have made it- 
an elective monarchy ; but they rather chofe, and upon 
good reafon, to eftablifh originally a fucceflion by inheri¬ 
tance. 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 ellate. Lands 
are not naturally dele endible, any more than thrones ; 
but the law has thought proper, for the benefit and peace 
of the public, to eftablifh hereditary fucceflion in the one 
as well as the other. 
It mull be owned, an eleflive monarchy feerns to be 
the moll obvious, and befl fuited of any to the rational 
principles of government, and the freedom of human na¬ 
ture ; and accordingly we find from hiftory, that, in the 
infancy and firft rudiments of almoft every (fate, the lead¬ 
er, chief magiftrate, or prince, hath ufually been elective. 
And, if the individuals who compofe that ftate could al¬ 
ways continue true to firft principles, uninfluenced by 
paflion or prejudice, unaflailed by corruption, and unawed 
by violence, elective fucceflion were as much to be defired 
in a kingdom as in other inferior communities. The 
beft, the wifeft, and the braved, man, would then be fure 
of receiving that crown which his endowments have me¬ 
rited ; and the fenfe of an unbiaffed majority would be 
dutifully acquiefced in by the few who were of different 
opinions. But hiftory and obfervation will inform us, 
that eleftions of every kind (in the prefent ftate of human 
nature) are too frequently brought about by influence, 
partiality, and artifice; and, even where the cafe is other- 
wife, thefe pradtices will be often fufpected, and as con- 
flantly charged upon the luccefsful, by a fplenetic difap- 
pointed minority. This is an evil to which all focieties 
are liable ; as well thofe of a private and domeflic kind, 
as the great community of the public, which regulates 
and includes the reft. Butin the former there is this ad¬ 
vantage, That fuch fufpicions, if falfe, 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 thofe tribunals to which 
every member of fociety has (by becoming fuch) virtually 
engaged to fubmit. Whereas, in the great and indepen¬ 
dent fociety which every nation compofes, there is no fu- 
perior to refort to but the law of nature ; no method to 
redrefs the infringements of that law, but the aftual ex¬ 
ertion of private force. As therefore between two .na¬ 
tions, complaining of mutual injuries, the quarrel can 
only be decided by the law of arms ; fo in one and the 
fame nation, when the fundamental principles of their 
common union are fuppofed to be invaded, and more ef- 
pecially 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, 
fcligxsnly procefs by which the appeal can be carried on is 
N G. 
that of a civil and inteftine wav. An hereditary fuccef- 
fion to the crown is therefore now eftabliflied, in this and 
moll other countries, in order to prevent that periodical 
blood (lied and mifery, which the hiftory of ancient im¬ 
perial Rome, and the later experience of modern times, 
have (hown to be the confequences of elefiive kingdoms. 
2. As to the particular mode of inheritance; it in ge¬ 
neral correfponds with the feodal pathoT defeent, chalked 
out by the common law in the fucceflion to landed eftates; 
yet with one or two material exceptions. Like them, 
the crown will defeend lineally to the iflue of the reign¬ 
ing monarch ; as it did from king John to Richard II. 
through a regular pedigree of (ix lineal generations. As 
in them, the preference of males to females, and the right 
of promigeniture among the males, are ftriclly adhered 
to. Thus Edward V. fucceeded to the crown, in prefer¬ 
ence to Richard his younger brother, and Elizabeth his 
elder filler. Like them, on failure of the male line, it 
defeends to the iflue female ; according to the ancient 
Britifli cultom remarked by Tacitus, Solent Jam in arum duElu 
bellare, et Jexum in imperils non difeernere. Thus Mary I. 
fucceeded to Edward VI. and the line of Margaret queen 
of Scots, the daughter of Henry VII. fucceeded, on fai¬ 
lure of the line of Henry VIII. his fon. But, among the 
females, the crown defeends by right of primogeniture to 
the elded daughter only and her iflue ; and not, as in 
common inheritance, to all the daughters at once ; the 
evident neceflity of a foie fucceflion to the throne having 
occafioned the royal law of defeents to depart from the 
common law in this refpedt; and therefore queen Mary, 
on the death of her brother, fucceeded to the crown alone, 
and not in partnerfliip with her filler Elizabeth. Again, 
the doctrine of reprefentation prevails in the defeent of 
the crown, as it does in other inheritances; whereby the 
lineal defendants of any perfon deceafed (land in the 
fame place as their anceftor, 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; and 
his prefent majefty fucceeded precifely in the fame manner. 
Laftly, on failure of lineal defendants, the crown goes 
to the next collateral relations of the late king; provided 
they are.lineally defended from the blood-royal, that is, 
from that royal (lock 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 (lock. But 
herein there is no objection (as in the cafe of common 
defcents) to the fucceflion of a brother, an uncle, or other 
collateral relation, of the half-blood ; that is, where the 
relationfhip proceeds not from the fame couple of ancef- 
tors (which conftitutes a kinfman of the whole-blood), 
but from a (ingle anceftor only; as when two perlons are 
derived from the (ame father, and not from the fame mo¬ 
ther, or vice verfa ; provided only, that the one anceftor, 
from whom both are defended, be that from whofe veins 
the blood-royal is communicated to each. Thus Mary I. 
inherited to Edward VI. and Elizabeth inherited to Ma¬ 
ry; all born of the fame father, king Henry VIII. but all 
by different mothers. 
3. The doftrine of hereditary right does by no means 
imply an indefeaffble right to the throne. No man will 
aflert this, who has confidered our laws, conllitution, and 
hiftory, without prejudice, and with any degree of atten¬ 
tion. It is unqueltionably in the bread: of the fupreme 
legiflative authority of this kingdom, the king and both 
honfes of parliament, to defeat this hereditary right; and 
by particular entails, limitations, and provifions, to ex¬ 
clude the immediate heir, and veil the inheritance in any¬ 
one elf. This is ftriftly confonant to our laws and con¬ 
ftitution ; as may be gathered from the expreflion fo fre¬ 
quently ufed in our llatute-book, of “the king’s majefty, 
his heirs, and fucceflors.” In which we may obferve, 
that, as the word heirs neceffarily implies an inheritance 
or hereditary right generally fubfifting in the royal per- 
fon, fo the word fuccejfors, diftinctly taken, mult imply 
that 
