(45) The history of the resistance of these two Earls to King Edward, which led to the great Confirmation of the Charters in 1297, will be found in all the histories of the time, old and new. See also Stubbs, 431, 479. I feel no difficulty in reconciling respect for Edward with respect for the men who withstood him. The case is well put by Stubbs, 34, 35.

(46) The exact value of the document commonly known as the statute “De Tallagio non concedendo” is discussed by Professor Stubbs, p. 487. It is perhaps safest to look on it, like many of the earlier collections of laws, not indeed as an actual statute, but as good evidence of a principle which, from the time of the Confirmation of the Charters, has been universally received. The words are—

“Nullum tallagium vel auxilium per nos vel hÆredes nostros de cetero in regno nostro imponatur seu levetur, sine voluntate et assensu communi archiepiscoporum, episcoporum et aliorum prÆlatorum, comitum, baronum, militum, burgensium, et aliorum liberorum hominum in regno nostro.” This, it will be seen, is the same provision which I have already quoted (see above, Note 36) from the Great Charter of John, but which was left out in the Charter in the form in which it was confirmed by Henry the Third. See Stubbs, 330, 332, 336.

(47) I have said this before in Historical Essays, p. 41. On the strongly marked legal character of Edward’s age, and especially of Edward’s own mind, see Stubbs, 417.

(48) The great statute of treason of 25 Edward the Third (see the Revised Edition of the Statutes, i. 185) secures the life of the King, his wife, and his eldest son, and the chastity of his wife, his eldest daughter, and his eldest son’s wife. But the personal privilege goes no further. As the Law of England knows no classes of men except peers and commoners, it follows that the younger children of the King—the eldest is born Duke of Cornwall—are, in strictness of speech, commoners, unless they are personally raised to the peerage. I am not aware that either case has ever arisen, but I conceive that there is nothing to hinder a King’s son, not being a peer, from voting at an election, or from being chosen to the House of Commons, and I conceive that, if he committed a crime, he would be tried by a jury. Mere precedence and titles have nothing to do with the matter, though probably a good deal of confusion arises from the very modern fashion—one might almost say the modern vulgarism—of calling all the children of the King or Queen “Princes” and “Princesses.” As late as the time of George the Second uncourtly Englishmen were still found who eschewed the foreign innovation, and who spoke of the Lady Caroline and the Lady Emily, as their fathers had done before them.

Another modern vulgarism is that of using the word “royal”—“royal visit,” “royal marriage,” and so forth—when there is no royalty in the case, the person spoken of being a subject, perhaps a commoner.

(49) On the parliamentary position of the clergy see Hallam, Middle Ages, ii. 263. And as far as the reign of Edward the First is concerned, see the series of summonses in Stubbs, 442.

(50) On this important constitutional change, which was made in 1664, without any Act of Parliament, but by a mere verbal agreement between Archbishop Sheldon and Lord Chancellor Clarendon, see Hallam, Constitutional History, ii. 405.

(51) This is true on the whole, especially at the beginning of the institution of the States General, though there were also roturiers who were the immediate burgesses of the King. See Thierry, History of the Tiers Etat, i. 56 (Eng. trans.). It is in that work that the history of that branch of the States General should be studied.

(52) The question of one or two Chambers in an ordinary monarchy or commonwealth is altogether different from the same question under a Federal system. In England or France the question between one or two Chambers in the Legislature is simply a question in which of the two ways the Legislature is likely to do its work best. But in a Federal constitution, like that of Switzerland or the United States, the two Chambers are absolutely necessary. The double sovereignty, that of the whole nation and that of the independent and equal States which have joined together to form it, can be rightly represented only by having two Chambers, one of them, the Nationalrath or House of Representatives, directly representing the nation as such, and the other, the StÄnderath or Senate, representing the separate sovereignty of the Cantons. In the debates early in 1872 as to the revision of the Swiss Federal Constitution, a proposal made in the Nationalrath for the abolition of the StÄnderath was thrown out by a large majority.

(53) On the old Constitution of Sweden, see Laing’s Tour in Sweden.

(54) This common mistake and its cause are fully explained by Hallam, Middle Ages, ii. 237.

(55) “The two Houses had contended violently in 1675, concerning the appellate jurisdiction of the Lords; they had contended, with not less violence, in 1704, upon the jurisdiction of the Commons in matters of election; they had quarrelled rudely, in 1770, while insisting upon the exclusion of strangers. But upon general measures of public policy their differences had been rare and unimportant.” May’s Constitutional History, i. 307. The writer goes on to show why differences between the two Houses on important points have become more common in very recent times.

(56) The share of the Witan in early times in the appointment of Bishops, Ealdormen, and other great officers, need hardly be dwelled upon. For a debate in a WitenagemÓt of Eadward the Confessor on a question of peace or war, see Norman Conquest, ii. 90. For the like under Henry the Third, see the account in Matthew Paris, in the year 1242 which will be found in Stubbs, 359. The state of the case under Edward the Third is discussed by Hallam, Middle Ages, ii. 184. See also May, ii. 86. But the most remarkable passage of all is one in the great poetical manifesto which I have several times quoted: it is there (Political Songs, 96) made one of the charges against Henry the Third that he wished to keep the appointment of the great officers of state in his own hands. The passage is long, but it is well worth quoting at length.

(57) Take for example the Act passed after Edward the Fourth’s success at Towton. Rot Parl. v. 466. Among other things, poor Henry the Sixth is not only branded as an usurper, but is charged with personally stirring up the movement in the North, which led to the battle of Wakefield and the death of Richard Duke of York. “The seid Henry Usurpour, late called Kyng Henry the Sixt, contynuyng in his olde rancour & malice, usyng the fraude & malicious disceit & dissimulacion ayenst trouth & conscience, that accorde not with the honoure of eny Cristen Prynce, ... with all subtill ymaginacions & disceitfull weyes & meanes to hym possible, intended & covertely laboured, excited & procured the fynal destruction, murdre & deth of the seid Richard Duc, and of his Sonnes, that is to sey, of oure seid nowe Soverayne Lord Kyng Edward the fourth, then Erle of Marche, & of the noble Lord Edmund Erle of Ruthlande; & for th’ execution of his dampnable & malicious purpose, by writing & other messages, mowed, excited, & stured therunto the Duks of Excestr’ & Somerset, & other lordes beyng then in the North parties of this Reame.”

(58) This statute was passed in 8 Henry VI. A.D. 1420. The complaint which it makes is well worth notice, and shows the reactionary tendencies of the time. The county elections had been made by “very great, outrageous, and excessive number of people dwelling within the same counties, of which most part was people of small substance, and of no value, whereof every of them pretended a voice equivalent, as to such elections to be made, with the most worthy knights and esquires dwelling within the same counties.” To hinder “the manslaughters, riots, batteries, and divisions,” which were likely to take place—it is not said that they had taken place—no one is to be allowed to vote who has not “free land or tenement to the value of forty shillings by the year at the least above all charges.” It is also provided that both the electors and the elected are to be actually resident in the county. The original French is worth quoting.

“Item come lez eleccions dez Chivalers des Countees esluz a venir as parlements du Roi en plusours Countees Dengleterre, ore tarde ount este faitz par tro[~p] graunde & excessive nombre dez gents demurrantz deinz mesmes les Countes, dount la greindre partie estoit par gentz sinon de petit avoir ou de null valu, dount chescun pretende davoir voice equivalent quant a tielx eleccions faire ove les plius valantz chivalers ou esquiers demurrantz deins mesmes les Countes; dount homicides riotes bateries & devisions entre les gentiles & autres gentz de mesmes les Countees verisemblablement sourdront & seront, si covenable remedie ne soit purveu en celle partie: Notre seigneur le Roy considerant les premisses ad pourveu & ordene par auctorite de cest parlement que les Chivalers des Countes deins le Roialme Dengleterre, a esliers a venir a les parlementz en apres atenirs, soient esluz en chescun Counte par gentz demurrantz & receantz en icelles dount chescun ait frank tenement a le valu de xl s. par an al meins outre les reprises; & que ceux qui seront ensy esluz soient demurrantz & receantz deins mesmes les Countes.” Revised Statutes, i. 306.

The necessity of residence in the case of either electors or representatives was repealed by 14 Geo. III. c. 58.

The statute goes on to give the Sheriff power to examine the electors on oath as to the amount of their property. It also gives the Judges of Assize a power foreshadowing that of our present Election Judges, that of inquiring into false returns made by the Sheriff.

Another statute of the same kind was passed later in the same reign, 23 Henry VI. A.D. 1444-5, from which it appears that the knights of the shire were ceasing to be in all cases knights in the strict sense, and that it was beginning to be found needful to fence them about with oligarchic restrictions.

“Issint que lez Chivalers dez Counteez pour le parlement en aprÈs a esliers so ent notablez Chivalers dez mesmez lez Counteez pour lez queux ils serront issint esluz, ou autrement tielx notablez Esquiers gentils homez del Nativite dez mesmez lez Counteez comme soient ablez destre Chivalers; et null home destre tiel Chivaler que estoise en la degree de vadlet et desouth.” Revised Statutes, i. 346.

Every enactment of this kind bears witness to the growth of the power of the Commons, and to the endeavours of the people to make their representation really popular.

(59) Take for instance the account given by the chronicler Hall (p. 253) of the election of Edward the Fourth.

“After the lordes had considered and weyghed his title and declaracion, they determined by authoritie of the sayd counsaill, for as much as kyng Henry, contrary to his othe, honor and agreement, had violated and infringed, the order taken and enacted in the last Parliament, and also, because he was insufficient to rule the Realme, & inutile to the common wealth, & publique profite of the pore people, he was therefore by the aforesayed authoritie, depriued & deiected of all kyngly honor, & regall souereigntie. And incontinent, Edward erle of Marche, sonne and heyre to Richard duke of Yorke, was by the lordes in the sayd counsaill assembled, named, elected, & admitted, for kyng & gouernour of the realme; on which day, the people of the erles parte, beyng in their muster in sainct Ihons felde, & a great number of the substanciall citezens there assembled, to behold their order: sodaynly the lord Fawconbridge, which toke the musters, wisely declared to the multitude, the offences & breaches of the late agremente done & perpetrated by kyng Henry the vi. & demaunded of the people, whether they woulde haue the sayd kyng Henry to rule & reigne any lenger ouer them: To whome they with a whole voyce, aunswered, nay, nay. Then he asked them, if they would serue, loue, & obey the erle of March as their earthly prince & souereign lord. To which question they aunswered, yea, yea, crieng, king Edward, with many great showtes and clappyng of handes.... The erle, ... as kyng, rode to the church of sainct Paule, and there offered. And after Te deum song, with great solempnitie, he was conueyed to Westmynster, and there set in the hawle, with the scepter royall in his hand, where to all the people which there in a great number were assembled, his title and clayme to the croune of England, was declared by, ii. maner of ways: the firste, as sonne and heyre to duke Richard his father, right enheritor to the same; the second, by aucthoritie of Parliament and forfeiture committed by, kyng Henry. Wherupon it was agayne demaunded of the commons, if they would admitte, and take the sayd erle as their prince and souereigne lord, which al with one voice cried, yea, yea.... On the morow he was proclaymed kyng by the name of kyng Edward the iiij. throughout the citie.”

This was in Lent 1461, before the battle of Towton. Edward was crowned June 29th in the same year. The same chronicler describes the election or acknowledgement of Richard the Third, p. 372.

(60) One special sign of the advance of the power of Parliament in the fifteenth century was the practice of bringing in bills in the form of Statutes ready made. Hitherto the Acts of the Commons had taken the form of petitions, and it was sometimes found that, after the Parliament had broken up, the petitions had been fraudulently modified. They now brought in bills, which the King accepted or rejected as they stood. See Hallam, Middle Ages, ii. 222.

(61) Macaulay, i. 38. “The knight of the shire was the connecting link between the baron and the shopkeeper. On the same benches on which sate the goldsmiths, drapers, and grocers who had been returned to Parliament by the commercial towns, sate also members who, in any other country, would have been called noblemen, hereditary lords of manors, entitled to hold courts and to bear coat armour, and able to trace back an honourable descent through many generations. Some of them were younger sons and brothers of great lords. Others could boast even of royal blood. At length the eldest son of an Earl of Bedford, called in courtesy by the second title of his father, offered himself as a candidate for a seat in the House of Commons, and his example was followed by others. Seated in that house, the heirs of the grandees of the realm naturally became as zealous for its privileges as any of the humble burgesses with whom they were mingled.”

Hallam remarks (ii. 250) that it is in the reign of Edward the Fourth that we first find borough members bearing the title of Esquire, and he goes on to refer to the Paston Letters as showing how important a seat in Parliament was then held, and as showing also the undue influences which were already brought to bear upon the electors. Since Hallam’s time, the authenticity of the Paston Letters has been called in question, but it has, I think, been fully established. Some of the entries are very curious indeed. In one (i. 96), without any date of the year, the Duchess of Norfolk writes to John Paston, Esquire, to use his influence at a county election on behalf of some creatures of the Duke’s: “It is thought right necessarie for divers causes Þ^t my Lord have at this tyme in the p’lement suche p’sones as longe unto him and be of his menyall S’vaunts wherin we conceyve yo^r good will and diligence shal be right expedient.” The persons to be thus chosen for the convenience of the Duke are described as “our right wel-belovid Cossin and S’vaunts John Howard and Syr Roger Chambirlayn.” This is followed by a letter from the Earl of Oxford in 1455, much to the same effect. In ii. 98, we have a letter addressed to the Bailiff of Maldon, recommending the election of Sir John Paston on behalf of a certain great lady not named. The letter is worth giving in full.

“Ryght trusty frend I comand me to yow prey[~i]g yow to call to yo^r mynd that lyek as ye and I comonyd of it were necessary for my Lady and you all hyr Ser[~u]nts and te[~n]nts to have thys p’lement as for [~o]n of the Burgeys of the towne of Maldon syche a man of worchep and of wytt as wer towardys my seyd Lady and also syche on as is in favor of the Kyng and of the Lords of hys consayll nyghe abought hys p’sone. Sertyfy[~=i]g yow that my seid Lady for her parte and syche as be of hyr consayll be most agreeabyll that bothe ye and all syche as be hyr fermors and teÑntys and wellwyllers shold geve your voyse to a worchepfull knyght and on’ of my Ladys consayll S^r John Paston whyche standys gretly in favore w^t my Lord Chamberleyn and what my seyd Lord Chamberleyn may do w^t the Kyng and w^t all the Lordys of Inglond I trowe it be not unknowyn to you most of eny on man alyve. Wherefor by the meenys of the seyd S^r John Paston to my seyd Lord Chamberleyn bothe my Lady and ye of the towne kowd not have a meeter man to be for yow in the perlement to have yo^r needys sped at all seasons. Wherefor I prey yow labor all syche as be my Ladys ser[~=u]ntts tennts and wellwyllers to geve ther voyseys to the seyd S^r John Paston and that ye fayle not to sped my Ladys intent in thys mater as ye entend to do hyr as gret a plesur as if ye gave hyr an C^li [100l.] And God have yow in hys kep[~=i]g. Wretyn at Fysheley the xx day of Septebyr.—J. Arblaster.”

(62) On the effects of the reign of Charles the Fifth in Spain and his overthrow of the liberties of Castile, see the general view in Robertson, iii. 434, though in his narrative (ii. 186) he glorifies the King’s clemency. See also the first chapter of the sixth book of Prescott’s Philip the Second, and on the suppression of the constitution of Aragon by Philip, Watson, Philip the Second, iii. 223.

The last meeting of the French States-General before the final meeting in 1789 was that in 1614, during the minority of Lewis the Thirteenth. See Sismondi, xiii. 342.

(63) The legal character of William’s despotism I have tried to set forth almost throughout the whole of my fourth volume. See especially pp. 8, 617; but it is plain to everyone who has the slightest knowledge of Domesday. Nothing can show more utter ignorance of the real character of the man and his times than the idea of William being a mere “rude man of war,” as I have seen him called.

(64) On the true aspect of the reign of Henry the Eighth I have said something in the Fortnightly Review, September 1871.

(65) Both these forms of undue influence on the part of the Crown are set forth by Hallam, Constitutional History, i. 45, ii. 203. “It will not be pretended,” he says, “that the wretched villages, which corruption and perjury still hardly keep from famine [this was written before the Reform Bill, in 1827], were seats of commerce and industry in the sixteenth century. But the county of Cornwall was more immediately subject to a coercive influence, through the indefinite and oppressive jurisdiction of the stannary court. Similar motives, if we could discover the secrets of those governments, doubtless operated in most other cases.”

In the same page the historian, speaking of the different boroughs and counties which received the franchise in the sixteenth century, says, “It might be possible to trace the reason, why the county of Durham was passed over.” And he suggests, “The attachment of those northern parts to popery seems as likely as any other.” The reason for the omission of Durham was doubtless that the Bishoprick had not wholly lost the character of a separate principality. It was under Charles the Second that Durham city and county, as well as Newark, first sent members to Parliament. Durham was enfranchised by Act of Parliament, as Chester city and county—hitherto kept distinct as being a Palatinate—were by 34 & 35 Hen. VIII. c. 13. (Revised Statutes, i. 522.) Newark was enfranchised by a Royal Charter, the last case of that kind of exercise of the prerogative. Hallam, ii. 204.

(66) I do not know what was the exact state of Old Sarum in 1265 or in 1295, but earlier in the thirteenth century it was still the chief dwelling-place both of the Earl and of the Bishop. But in the reign of Edward the Third it had so greatly decayed that the stones of the Cathedral were used for the completion of the new one which had arisen in the plain.

(67) On the relations between Queen Elizabeth and her Parliaments, and especially for the bold bearing of the two Wentworths, Peter and Paul, see the fifth chapter of Hallam’s Constitutional History, largely grounded on the Journals of Sir Simonds D’Ewes. The frontispiece to D’Ewes’ book (London, 1682) gives a lively picture of a Parliament of those days.

(68) On the relations between the Crown and the House of Commons under James the First, see the sixth chapter of Hallam’s Constitutional History, and the fifth chapter of Gardner’s History of England from 1603 to 1616.

(1) This was the famous motion made by Sir Robert Peel against the Ministry of Lord Melbourne, and carried by a majority of one, June 4, 1841. See May’s Constitutional History, i. 158. Irving’s Annals of our Times, 86.

(2) This of course leaves to the Ministry the power of appealing to the country by a dissolution of Parliament; but, if the new Parliament also declares against them, it is plain that they have nothing to do but to resign office. In the case of 1841 Lord Melbourne dissolved Parliament, and, on the meeting of the new Parliament, an amendment to the address was carried by a majority of ninety-one, August 28, 1841. The Ministry therefore resigned.

(3) This is well set forth by Sir John Fortescue, De Laudibus Legum AngliÆ, cap. 36: “Neque Rex ibidem, per se aut ministros suos, tallegia, subsidia, aut quÆvis onera alia, imponit legiis suis, aut leges eorum mutat, vel novas condit, sine concessione vel assensu totius regni sui in parliamento suo expresso.”

(4) How very recent the establishment of these principles is will be seen by anyone who studies the history of the reign of George the Third in the work of Sir T. E. May. Mr. Pitt, as is well known, kept office in defiance of repeated votes of the House of Commons, and at last, by a dissolution at a well-chosen moment, showed that the country was on his side. Such conduct would not be deemed constitutional now, but the wide difference between the constitution of the House of Commons then and now should be borne in mind.

(5) Though the command of the Sovereign would be no excuse for any illegal act, and though the advisers of any illegal act are themselves responsible for it, yet there would seem to be no way provided for punishing an illegal act done by the Sovereign in his own person. The Sovereign may therefore be said to be personally irresponsible.

(6) See Macaulay, iv. 435. It should not be forgotten that writers like Blackstone and De Lolme say nothing about the Cabinet. Serjeant Stephen supplies the omission, ii. 447.

(7) The lowly outward position of the really ruling assembly comes out in some degree at the opening of every session of Parliament. But it is far more marked in the grotesque, and probably antiquated, ceremonies of a Conference of the two Houses. This comes out most curiously of all in the Conference between the two Houses of the Convention in 1688. See Macaulay, ii. 660.

(8) See Note 56, Chapter ii.

(9) See Macaulay, iv. 437.

(10) “Ministers” or “Ministry” were the words always used at the time of the Reform Bill in 1831-1832. It would be curious to trace at what time the present mode of speech came into vogue, either in parliamentary debates or in common speech.

Another still later change marks a step toward the recognition of the Cabinet. It has long been held that a Secretary of State must always accompany the Sovereign everywhere. It is now beginning to be held that any member of the Cabinet will do as well as a Secretary of State. But if any member of the Cabinet, why not any Privy Councillor?

(11) In February 1854 Mr. Cayley moved for a “Select Committee to consider the duties of the Member leading the Government business in this House, and the expediency of attaching office and salary thereto.” The motion was withdrawn, after being opposed by Sir Charles Wood (now Viscount Halifax), Mr. Walpole, and Lord John Russell (now Earl Russell). Sir Charles Wood described the post of Leader of the House as “an office that does not exist, and the duties of which cannot be defined.” Mr. Walpole spoke of it as a “position totally unknown to the constitution of the country.” Yet I presume that everybody practically knew that Lord John Russell was Leader of the House, though nobody could give a legal definition of his position. A discussion then followed between Mr. Walpole and Lord John Russell on the nature of ministerial responsibility. Mr. Walpole said that “members were apt to talk gravely of ministerial responsibility; but responsibility there is none, except by virtue of the office that a Minister holds, or possibly by the fact of his being a Privy Councillor. A Minister is responsible for the acts done by him; a Privy Councillor for advice given by him in that capacity. Until the reign of Charles the Second, Privy Councillors always signed the advice they gave; and to this day the Cabinet is not a body recognised by law. As a Privy Councillor, a person is under little or no responsibility for the acts advised by him, on account of the difficulty of proof.” Lord John Russell “asked the House to pause before it gave assent to the constitutional doctrines laid down by Mr. Walpole. He unduly restricted the responsibility of Ministers.” ... “I hold,” continued Lord John, “that it is not really for the business the Minister transacts in performing the particular duties of his office, but it is for any advice which he has given, and which he may be proved, before a Committee of this House, or at the bar of the House of Lords, to have given, that he is responsible, and for which he suffers the penalties that may ensue from impeachment.”

It is plain that both Mr. Walpole and Lord Russell were here speaking of real legal responsibility, such responsibility as might be enforced by impeachment or other legal process, not of the vaguer kind of responsibility which is commonly meant when we speak of Ministers being “responsible to the House of Commons.” This last is enforced, not by legal process, but by such motions as that of Sir Robert Peel in 1841, or that of the Marquess of Hartington in June 1859.

I have made my extracts from the Spectator newspaper of February 11, 1854.

(12) We read (Anglia Sacra, i. 335) of Æthelric, Bishop of the South-Saxons at the time of the Conquest, as “vir antiquissimus et legum terrÆ sapientissimus.” So Adelelm, the first Norman Abbot of Abingdon, found much benefit from the legal knowledge of certain of his English monks (Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon, ii. 2), “quibus tanta secularium facundia et prÆteritorum memoria eventorum inerat, ut cÆteri circumquaque facile eorum sententiam ratam fuisse, quam edicerent, approbarent.” The writer adds, “Sed et alii plures de Anglis causidici per id tempus in abbatia ista habebantur quorum collationi nemo sapiens refragabatur.” But knowledge of the law was not an exclusively clerical accomplishment; for among the grounds for the election of King Harold himself, we find (de Inventione SanctÆ Crucis Walthamensis, p. 25, Stubbs) that one was “quia non erat eo prudentior in terra, armis strenuus magis, legum terrÆ sagacior.” See Norman Conquest, ii. 538, iv. 366, 478.

(13) On the growth of the lawyers’ theory of the royal prerogative, and its utter lack of historical standing-ground, I must refer once for all to Allen’s Inquiry into the Rise and Growth of the Royal Prerogative in England.

(14) See Norman Conquest, ii. 330.

(15) The history of this memorable revolution will be found in Lingard, iii. 392-405, and the legal points are brought out by Hallam, Middle Ages, ii. 214. He remarks that “In this revolution of 1399 there was as remarkable an attention shown to the formalities of the constitution, allowance made for the men and the times, as in that of 1688;” and, speaking of the device by which the same Parliament was brought together again, he adds, “In this contrivance, more than in all the rest, we may trace the hand of lawyers.” The official version entered on the rolls of Parliament by command of Henry will be found in Walsingham, ii. 234-238. Some care seems to be used to avoid using the name of Parliament in the account of the actual proceedings. It is said just before, “Rex perductus est Londonias, conservandus in Turri usque ad Parliamentum proximo celebrandum.” And the writs are said to have been sent “ad personas regni qui de jure debeant interesse Parliamento.” But when they have come together (“quibus convenientibus”) care seems to be taken to give the Assembly no particular name, till, in the Act of Richard’s deposition, the actors are described as “pares et proceres regni AngliÆ spirituales et temporales, et ejus regni communitates, omnes status ejusdem regni reprÆsentantes;” and in the Act of Henry’s election they are described as “domini tam spirituales quam temporales, et omnes regni status.” In the Act of deposition Richard’s resignation of the Crown is recorded, as well as his particular crimes and his general unfitness to wear it, all which are classed together as reasons for his deposition. The actual formula of deposition runs thus:—“propter prÆmissa, et eorum prÆtextu, ab omni dignitate et honore regiis, si quid dignitatis et honoris hujusmodi in eo remanserit, merito deponendum pronunciamus, decernimus, et declaramus; et etiam simili cautela deponimus.” They then declare the throne to be vacant (“ut constabat de prÆmissis, et eorum occasione, regnum AngliÆ, cum pertinentiis suis, vacare”). Henry then makes his challenge, setting forth that strange mixture of titles which is commented on in most narratives of the event, and the Estates, without saying which of Henry’s arguments they accept, grant the kingdom to him (“concesserunt unanimiter ut Dux prÆfatus super eos regnaret”). A more distinct case of deposition and election can hardly be found; only in the words which I have put in italics there seems a sort of anxiety to complete, by the act of deposition, any possible defect in Richard’s doubtless unwilling abdication.

The French narrative by a partisan of Richard (Lystoire de la Traison et Mort du Roy Richart Dengleterre, p. 68) gives, in some respects, a different account. The Assembly is called a Parliament, and the Duke of Lancaster is made to seat himself on the throne at once. Then Sir Thomas Percy “cria ‘Veez Henry de Lencastre Roy Dengleterre.’ Adonc crierent tous les seigneurs prelaz et le commun de Londres, Ouy Ouy nous voulons que Henry duc de Lencastre soit nostre Roy et nul autre.” For “le commun de Londres” there are other readings, “le commun,” “le commun Dangleterre et de Londres,” and “tout le commun et conseil de Londres.”

(16) It should be remembered that Charles the First was not deposed, but was executed being King. He was called King both in the indictment at his trial and in the warrant of his beheading.

(17) Monk raised this point in 1660. See Lingard, viii. 607.

(18) Lingard (viii. 612) remarks that at this particular moment “there was no court to influence, no interference of the military to control the elections.” The Convention may therefore be supposed to have been more freely elected than most Parliaments.

(19) The Long Parliament had dissolved itself, and had decreed the election of its successor. By the Act 13 Charles II. (Revised Statutes, i. 733) the Long Parliament is “declared and adjudged to be fully dissolved and determined;” but it is not said when it was dissolved and determined. See also Lingard, ix. 5; Hallam’s Constitutional History, ii. 21, where the whole matter is discussed, and it is remarked that “the next Parliament never gave their predecessors any other name in the Journals than ‘the late assembly.’”

(20) See Norman Conquest, i. 365, 366.

(21) See the discussion on the famous vote of the Convention Parliament in Hallam, Constitutional History, ii. 260-263. Macaulay, ii. 623. Hallam remarks that “the word ‘forfeiture’ might better have answered this purpose than ‘abdication’ or ‘desertion,’” and he adds, “they proceeded not by the stated rules of the English government, but by the general rights of mankind. They looked not so much to Magna Charta as the original compact of society, and rejected Coke and Hale for Hooker and Harrington.” My position is that there is no need to go to what Hallam calls “higher constitutional laws” for the justification of the doings of the Convention, but that they were fully justified by the precedents of English History from the eighth century to the fourteenth.

The Scottish Estates, it should be remembered, did not shrink from using the word “forfeited.” Macaulay, iii. 285.

(22) See the Act 1 William and Mary “for removing and preventing all Questions and Disputes concerning the Assembling and Sitting of this Present Parliament” (Revised Statutes, ii. 1). It decrees “That the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons convened at Westminster the two and twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight, and there sitting on the thirteenth day of February following, are the two Houses of Parliament, and so shall be and are hereby declared enacted and adjudged to be to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever, notwithstanding any fault of writ or writs of summons, or any defect of form or default whatsoever, as if they had been summoned according to the usual form.” The whole history of the question is given in Macaulay, iii. 27-31. The whole matter is summed up in the words (iii. 27), “It was answered that the royal writ was mere matter of form, and that to expose the substance of our laws and liberties to serious hazard for the sake of a form would be the most senseless superstition. Wherever the Sovereign, the Peers spiritual and temporal, and the Representatives freely chosen by the constituent bodies of the realm were met together, there was the essence of a Parliament.” In earlier times it might perhaps have been held that there might be the essence of a Parliament even without the Sovereign.

(23) Macaulay, iv. 535. “A paper had been circulated, in which the logic of a small sharp pettifogger was employed to prove that writs, issued in the joint names of William and Mary, ceased to be of force as soon as William reigned alone. But this paltry cavil had completely failed. It had not even been mentioned in the Lower House, and had been mentioned in the Upper only to be contemptuously overruled.” From my point of view the cavil is certainly paltry, but it is hard to see that it is more paltry than the others.

(25) I have said something on this head in Norman Conquest, i. 94, but the whole thing should be studied in Allen’s great section on the Tenure of Landed Property; Royal Prerogative, 125-155. It is to Allen that the honour belongs of showing what bookland and folkland really were.

(26) I have given a few examples in Norman Conquest, i. 589. Endless examples will be found in Kemble’s Codex Diplomaticus.

(27) See the complaints on this head as late as the time of William the Third, in Macaulay, iv. 646. On the Acts by which the power of the Crown in this matter is restrained, see Stephen’s Commentaries, ii. 520. See also May’s Constitutional History, i. 229.

(28) See May, i. 234—248.

(29) This is discussed in full by Allen, Royal Prerogative, 143-145. The great example is the will of King Ælfred. See Codex Diplomaticus, ii. 112, v. 127.

(30) See May, i. 249; Allen, 154-155, who remarks: “By a singular revolution of policy there was a recurrence in the late reign to the ancient policy of the Anglo-Saxons. The crown lands were virtually restored to the public, while the King obtained the right of acquiring landed property by purchase, and of bequeathing it by will like a private person.”

(31) Edward the First was the earliest King whose reign is dated from a time earlier than his coronation. He was out of the kingdom at his father’s death, and his right was acknowledged without opposition. But even in this case there was an interregnum. The regnal years of Edward the First are not reckoned from the day of his father’s death, but from the day of his funeral, when Edward was acknowledged King, and when the prelates and nobles swore allegiance to him. See the account in the Worcester Annals, Annales Monastici, iv. 462, and the documents in Rymer, i. part ii. 497. See also the remarks of Allen, 46, 47. The doctrine that there can be no interregnum seems to have been put into shape to please James the First, and it was of course altogether upset by the great vote of 1688. Now of course there is no interregnum; not indeed from any mysterious prerogative of the Crown, but simply because the Act of Settlement has entailed the Crown in a particular way.

(32) On this see Norman Conquest, i. 107, 263, 625. See the same question discussed in quite another part of the world in Herodotus, vii. 3.

(33) The helpless way in which Blackstone himself wrote was perhaps pardonable in the dark times in which he lived. But it is really too bad when lawyer after lawyer, in successive editions, gives again to the world the astounding rubbish which in Blackstone’s day passed for early constitutional history. In Kerr’s edition of Blackstone, published in 1857, vol. i. p. 180, I find repeated, without alteration or comment, the monstrous assertion of Blackstone: “I believe there is no instance wherein the Crown of England has ever been asserted to be elective, except by the regicides at the infamous and unparalleled trial of King Charles I.” And in Serjeant Stephen’s Commentaries [1853], which are not a mere edition of Blackstone, but “New Commentaries partly founded on Blackstone,” the same words are found in vol. ii. p. 403, only leaving out the epithet “unparalleled,” which might with truth have been allowed to stay. In another place (iv. 481-2) we read how “after the Saxon government was firmly established in this island” came “the subdivision of the kingdom into a heptarchy, consisting of seven independent kingdoms, peopled and governed by different clans and colonies.” It seems then that in 1857 there were learned gentlemen who believed in a kingdom subdivided into a heptarchy. But when, in the next page, Blackstone tells us how Ælfred set about “to new-model the constitution, to rebuild it on a plan that should endure for ages,” and goes on in the usual style to attribute everything whatever to Ælfred personally, this seems to have been too much, and the editor gives an extract from Kemble by way of correction. One wonders that, if he had read Kemble at all, he had not learned a little more from him. It is amusing again when Blackstone tells us (i. 186, Kerr), “From Egbert to the death of Edmund Ironside, a period of above two hundred years, the Crown descended regularly through a succession of fifteen princes, without any deviation or interruption: save only”—all the cases where it did not descend regularly, according to Blackstone’s notions of regularity: But it is almost more amusing when Serjeant Stephen (ii. 410) throws Blackstone’s exceptions, which are at least historical facts, into a note, and gives us instead as his own exceptions, the statement, very doubtful and, if true, utterly irrelevant, that Æthelstan and Eadmund Ironside were illegitimate (see Norman Conquest, i. 669-673). We of course get the usual talk about the usurpations of Harold, Stephen, John, and Henry the Fourth, and about the rights of Eadgar and Arthur of Britanny. For the former we get a quotation from Matthew Paris, to whom it would have been more to the purpose to go for the great speech of Archbishop Hubert. The comments on the succession of John (i. 189, Kerr) are singularly amusing, but too long to quote.

One point however must be mentioned. To prove the strictly hereditary nature of the succession, Blackstone (i. 189, Kerr) quotes the Statute of 25 Edward III. “that the law of the Crown of England is, and always hath been, that the children of the King of England, whether born in England or elsewhere, ought to bear the inheritance after the death of their ancestors.” We are bound to suppose that these learned lawyers had read through the statute which they quoted; but it is wonderful that they did not see that it had nothing whatever to do with fixing the hereditary succession of the Crown. The original text (Revised Statutes, i. 176) runs thus:—

“La lei de la Corone Dengleterre est, et ad este touz jours tiele, que les enfantz des Rois Dengleterre, queu part qils soient neez en Engleterre ou aillors, sont ables et deivent porter heritage, apres la mort lour auncestors.”

The object of the statute is something quite different from what any one would think from Blackstone’s way of quoting it. The emphatic words are those which are put in italics. The object of the statute is to make the King’s children and others born of English parents beyond sea capable of inheriting in England. As far as the succession to the Crown is concerned, its effect is simply to put a child of the King born out of the realm on a level with his brother born in the realm; that is, in the view of our older Law, to give both alike the preference due to an Ætheling.

(34) It is as well to explain this, because most people seem to think that a man becomes a Bishop by virtue of receiving a private letter from the First Lord of the Treasury. We constantly see a man spoken of as Bishop of such a see, and his works advertised as such, before a single ecclesiastical or legal step has been taken to make him so.

(35) See Norman Conquest, iii. 44, 623.

(36) The succession of a grandson, which first took place in England in the case of Richard the Second, marks a distinct stage in the growth of the doctrine of hereditary right. It involves the doctrine of representation, which is a very subtle and technical one, and is not nearly so obvious or so likely to occur in an early state of society as the doctrine of nearness of kin. No opposition was made to the accession of Richard the Second, but there seems to have been a strong notion in men’s minds that John of Gaunt sought to displace his nephew. In earlier times, as the eldest and most eminent of the surviving sons of Edward the Third, John would probably have been elected without any thought of the claims of young Richard.

(37) In Yorkist official language the three Lancastrian Kings were usurpers, and Duke Richard was de jure, though not de facto, King. Henry the Sixth is, in the Act of 1461, “Henry Usurpour, late called Kyng Henry the sixt.” The claim of the House of York was through an intricate female descent from Lionel Duke of Clarence, a son of Edward the Third older than John of Gaunt. A claim so purely technical had never been set forth before; but we may be quite sure that it would not have been thought to have much weight, if Duke Richard had not been, by another branch, descended from Edward the Third in the male line, and if he had not moreover been the ablest and most popular nobleman in the country.

(38) A prospective election before the vacancy of course hindered any interregnum. In this case the formula “Le Roi est mort; vive le Roi,” was perfectly true. The new King was already chosen and crowned, and he had nothing to do but to go on reigning singly instead of in partnership with his father, just as William went on reigning alone after the death of Mary. In Germany this took place whenever a King of the Romans was chosen in the lifetime of the reigning Emperor. In France, under the early Kings of the Parisian dynasty, the practice was specially common, and the fact that there seldom or never was an interregnum doubtless helped much to make the French Crown become, as it did, the most strictly hereditary crown in Christendom. In England, the only distinct case of a coronation of a son during the lifetime of his father was that of Henry, the son of Henry the Second, known as the younger King, and sometimes as Henry the Third. In earlier times we get something like it in the settlement of the Crown by Æthelwulf, with the consent of his Witan (see Old-English History, 105, 106), but it does not seem clear whether there was in this case any actual coronation during the father’s lifetime. If there was not, this would be the case most like that of Duke Richard. The compromise placed the Duke in the same position as if he had been Prince of Wales, or rather in a better position, for it might be held to shut out the need of even a formal election on the King’s death.

(39) See note 59 on Chapter II.

(40) See Norman Conquest, iii. 623.

(41) See Hallam’s Constitutional History, i. 8. It is to be noticed that the settlement enacts that “the inheritance of the Crown, &c., should remain in Henry the Seventh and the heirs of his body for ever, and in none other.” This would seem to bar a great number of contingent claims in various descendants of earlier Kings. As it happens, this Act has been literally carried out, for every later Sovereign of England has been a descendant of the body of Henry the Seventh.

(42) The will of Henry the Eighth is fully discussed by Hallam, i. 34, 288, 294; Lingard, vi. 213. There are two Acts of Henry’s reign bearing on the matter. In the earlier one, 28 Henry VIII. c. 7, the Crown is entailed on the King’s sons by Jane Seymour or any other wife; then on the King’s legitimate daughters, no names being mentioned; the Act then goes on to say, “your Highnes shall have full and plenar power and auctorite to geve despose appoynte assigne declare and lymytt by your letters patentes under your great seale or ells by your laste Will made in wrytynge and signed with your moste gracious hande, at your onely pleasure from tyme to tyme herafter, the imperiall Crowne of this Realme and all other the premisses thereunto belongyng, to be remayne succede and come after your decease and for lack of lawfull heires of your body to be procreated and begoten as is afore lymytted by this Acte, to such person or persones in possession and remaynder as shall please your Highnes and according to such estate and after such maner forme facion ordre and condicion as shalbe expressed declared named and lymytted in your said letters patentes or by your said laste will.” The later Act, 35 Henry VIII. c. 1, puts Henry’s two daughters, Mary and Elizabeth, into the entail, but in a very remarkable way. The Acts declaring their illegitimacy are not repealed, nor is the legitimacy of either of them in any way asserted; in fact it is rather denied when the preamble rehearses that “The king’s Majesty hath only issue of his body lawfully begotten betwixt his Highness and his said late wife Queen Jane the noble and excellent Prince Edward.” The Act then goes on to enact that, although the King had been enabled to “dispose” the Crown “to any person or persons of such estate therein as should please his Highness to limit and appoint,” yet that, in failure of heirs of the body of either the King or his son, “the said imperial Crown and all other the premises shall be to the Lady Mary the King’s Highness daughter, and to the heirs of the body of the same Lady Mary lawfully begotten, with such conditions as by his Highness shall be limited by his letters patents under his great seal, or by his Majesty’s last will in writing signed with his gracious hand.” Failing Mary and her issue, the same conditional entail is extended to Elizabeth and her issue. The power of creating a remainder after the issue of Elizabeth of course remained with Henry, and he exercised it in favour of the issue of his younger sister Mary. Mary and Elizabeth therefore really reigned, not by virtue of any royal descent, but by virtue of a particular entail by which the Crown was settled on the King’s illegitimate daughters, as it might have been settled on a perfect stranger. It was an attempt on the part of Edward the Sixth to do without parliamentary authority what his father had done by parliamentary authority which led to the momentary occupation of the throne by Lady Jane Grey. Mary, on her accession, raked up the whole story of her mother’s marriage and divorce, and the Act of the first year of her reign recognized her as inheriting by legitimate succession. The Act passed on the accession of Elizabeth, 1 Eliz. c. 3, is much vaguer. It enacts “that your majestie our sayd Sovereigne Ladye ys and in verye dede and of most meere right ought to bee by the Lawes of God and the Lawes and Statutes of this Realme our most rightfull and lawfull Sovereigne liege Ladie and Quene; and that your Highness ys rightlye lynyallye and lawfully discended and come of the bloodd royall of this Realme of Englande in and to whose princely person and theires of your bodye lawfully to bee begotten after youe without all doubte ambiguitee scruple or question the imperiall and Royall estate place crowne and dignitie of this Reallme withe all honnours stiles titles dignities Regalities Jurisdiccons and preheminences to the same nowe belonging & apperteyning arre & shalbee most fully rightfully really & entierly invested & incorporated united & annexed as rightfully & lawfully to all intentes construccons & purposes as the same were in the said late Henrye theight or in the late King Edwarde the Syxte your Highnes Brother, or in the late Quen Marye your Highnes syster at anye tyme since thacte of parliament made in the xxxvth yere of the reigne of your said most noble father king Henrye theight.”

It should be remembered that Sir Thomas More, though he refused to swear to the preamble of the oath prescribed by the Act of Supremacy, was ready to swear to the order of succession which entailed the Crown on the issue of Anne Boleyn. On his principles the issue of Anne Boleyn would be illegitimate; but he also held that Parliament could settle the Crown upon anybody, on an illegitimate child of the King or on an utter stranger; to the succession therefore he had no objection to swear.

For a parallel to the extraordinary power thus granted to Henry we have to go back to the days of Æthelwulf.

(43) The position of the daughters of Henry the Eighth was of course practically affected by the fact that each was the child of a mother who was acknowledged as a lawful wife at the time of her daughter’s birth. There was manifest harshness in ranking children so born with ordinary illegitimate children; but, in strictness of Law, as Henry married Anne Boleyn while Katharine of Aragon was alive, the daughter of Katharine and the daughter of Anne could not both be legitimate. The question was, which marriage was lawful. It should also be remembered that the marriage of Anne Boleyn was declared void, and her daughter declared illegitimate, on grounds—whatever they were—which had nothing to do with the earlier question of the marriage and divorce of Katharine.

(44) See Hallam, i. 129; Lingard, vi. 239, 243. The Act 13 Elizabeth, c. 1, declares it to be treason “yf any person shall in any wyse holde and affyrme or mayntayne that the Common Lawes of this Realme not altred by Parlyament, ought not to dyrecte the Ryght of the crowne of England, or that our said sovrayne Ladye Elizabeth the Quenes Majestie that nowe is, with and by the aucthoritye of the Parlyament of Englande is not able to make Lawes and Statutes of suffycyent force and valyditie to lymit and bynd the Crowne of this Realme, and the Descent Lymitacion Inheritaunce and Government thereof.” The like is the crime of “whosoever shall hereafter duryng the Lyef of our said Soveraigne Ladye, by any Booke or Worke prynted or written, dyrectly and expresly declare and affyrme at any tyme before the same be by Acte of Parlyament of this Realme established and affyrmed, that any one particular person whosover it be, is or ought to be the ryght Heire and Successor to the Queenes Majestie that nowe is (whome God longe preserve) except the same be the naturall yssue of her Majesties bodye.”

This statute may possibly be taken as setting aside the claims of the House of Suffolk; but, if so, it sets aside the claims of the House of Stewart along with them.

(45) James’s right was acknowledged by his own first Parliament, just as the claims of other Kings who entered in an irregular way had been. It should be marked however that he was crowned before he was acknowledged. The Act 1 Jac. I. c. 1, declares that “immediatelie upon the Dissolution and Decease of Elizabeth late Queene of England, the Imperiall Crowne of the Realme of England, and of all the Kingdomes Dominions and Rights belonging to the same, did by inherent Birthright and lawfull undoubted Succession, descend and come to your moste excellent Majestie, as beinge lineallie justly and lawfullie next and sole Heire of the Blood Royall of this Realme as is aforesaid.” It is worth noticing that in this Act we get the following definition of Parliament; “this high Court of Parliament, where all the whole Body of the Realm and every particular member thereof, either in Person or by Representation (upon their own free elections), are by the Laws of this Realm deemed to be personally present.”

(46) The fact that James the First, a King who came in with no title whatever but what was given him by an Act of Parliament passed after his coronation, was acknowledged without the faintest opposition is one of the most remarkable things in our history. Hallam (i. 294) remarks that “there is much reason to believe that the consciousness of this defect in his parliamentary title put James on magnifying, still more than from his natural temper he was prone to do, the inherent rights of primogenitory succession, as something indefeasible by the legislature; a doctrine which, however it might suit the schools of divinity, was in diametrical opposition to our statutes.” Certainly no opposition can be more strongly marked than that between the language of James’s own Parliament and the words quoted above from 13 Eliz. c. 1. But see the remarks of Hallam a few pages before (i. 288) on the kind of tacit election by which it might be said that James reigned. “What renders it absurd to call him and his children usurpers? He had that which the flatterers of his family most affected to disdain—the will of the people; not certainly expressed in regular suffrage or declared election, but unanimously and voluntarily ratifying that which in itself could surely give no right, the determination of the late Queen’s Council to proclaim his accession to the throne.”

(47) Whitelocke’s Memorials, 367. “The heads of the charge against the King were published by leave, in this form: That Charles Stuart, being admitted King of England, & therein trusted with a limited power, to govern by, & according to the Laws of the Land, & not otherwise, & by his trust being obliged, as also by his Oath, & office to use the power committed to him, for the good & benefit of the people, & for the preservation of their Rights and Privileges,” etc.

(48) The Act 1 William and Mary (Revised Statutes, ii. 11) entailed the Crown “after their deceases,” “to the heires of the body of the said princesse & for default of such issue to the Princesse Anne of Denmarke & the heires of her body & for default of such issue to the heires of the body of the said Prince of Orange.” It was only after the death of “the most hopeful Prince William Duke of Gloucester” that the Crown was settled (12 and 13 Will. III. c. 2; Revised Statutes, ii. 94) on “the most excellent Princess Sophia Electress and Dutchess Dowager of Hannover, daughter of the most excellent Princess Elizabeth, late Queen of Bohemia, daughter of our late sovereign lord King James the First of happy memory,” “and the heirs of her body being protestants.”

(49) We hardly need assurance of the fact, but if it were needed, something like an assurance to that effect was given by an official member of the House during the session of 1872. At all events we read in Sir T. E. May (ii. 83); “The increased power of the House of Commons, under an improved representation, has been patent and indisputable. Responsible to the people, it has, at the same time, wielded the people’s strength. No longer subservient to the crown, the ministers, and the peerage, it has become the predominant authority in the state.” But the following strange remark follows: “But it is characteristic of the British constitution, and a proof of its freedom from the spirit of democracy, that the more dominant the power of the House of Commons,—the greater has been its respect for the law, and the more carefully have its acts been restrained within the proper limits of its own jurisdiction.”

Has Mr. Grote lived and written so utterly in vain that a writer widely indeed removed from the vulgar herd of oligarchic babblers looks on “the spirit of democracy” as something inconsistent with “respect for the law”?

(50) The story is told (Plutarch, Lycurgus, 7), that King Theopompos, having submitted to the lessening of the kingly power by that of the Ephors, was rebuked by his wife, because the power which he handed on to those who came after him would be less than what he had received from those who went before him. ?? ?a? fas?? ?p? t?? ?a?t?? ???a???? ??e?d???e??? ?? ???tt? pa?ad?s??ta t??? pa?s? t?? as??e?a?, ? pa???ae, e??? ?? ???, e?pe??, ?s? ??????t??a?? t? ??? ??t? t? ??a? ?p?a???sa et? t?? f????? d??f??e t?? ???d????. Aristotle also (Pol. v. 11) tells the story to the same effect, bringing it in with the comment, ?s? ??? ?? ??att???? ?s? ??????, p?e?? ?????? ??a??a??? ??e?? p?sa? t?? ?????? a?t?? te ??? ?tt?? ?????ta? desp?t???? ?a? t??? ??es?? ?s?? ?????, ?a? ?p? t?? ???????? f??????ta? ?tt??. d?? ??? t??t? ?a? ? pe?? ????tt??? p???? ?????? as??e?a d??e??e?, ?a? ? ?a?eda?????? d?? t? ?? ????? te e?? d?? ??? d?a??e???a? t?? ?????, ?a? p???? Te?p?p?? et???sa?t?? t??? te ?????? ?a? t?? t?? ?f???? ????? ?p??atast?sa?t??? t?? ??? d???e?? ?fe??? ????se t? ????? t?? as??e?a?, ?ste t??p?? t??? ?p???se? ??? ???tt??a ???? e????a a?t??. The kingdom of the Molossians, referred to in the extract from Aristotle, is one of those states of antiquity of which we should be well pleased to hear more. Like the Macedonian kingdom, it was an instance of the heroic kingship surviving into the historical ages of Greece. But the Molossian kingship seems to have been more regular and popular than that of Macedonia, and to have better deserved the name of a constitutional monarchy. The Molossian people and the Molossian King exchanged oaths not unlike those of the Landesgemeinde and the Landammann of Appenzell-Ausserrhoden, the King swearing to rule according to the laws, and the people swearing to maintain the kingdom according to the laws. In the end the kingdom changed into a Federal Republic. See History of Federal Government, i. 151.

(51) It is simply frivolous in the present state of England to discuss the comparative merits of commonwealths and constitutional monarchies with any practical object. Constitutional monarchy is not only firmly fixed in the hearts of the people, but it has some distinct advantages over republican forms of government, just as republican forms of government have some advantages over it. It may be doubted whether the people have not a more real control over the Executive, when the House of Commons, or, in the last resort, the people itself in the polling-booths (as in 1868), can displace a Government at any moment, than they have in constitutions in which an Executive, however much it may have disappointed the hopes of those who chose it, cannot be removed before the end of its term of office, except on the legal proof of some definite crime. But in itself, there really seems no reason why the form of the Executive Government should not be held to be as lawful a subject for discussion as the House of Lords, the Established Church, the standing army, or anything else. It shows simple ignorance, if it does not show something worse, when the word “republican” is used as synonymous with cut-throat or pickpocket. I do not find that in republican countries this kind of language is applied to the admirers of monarchy; but the people who talk in this way are just those who have no knowledge of republics either in past history or in present times. They may very likely have climbed a Swiss mountain, but they have taken care not to ask what was the constitution of the country at its foot. They may even have learned to write Greek iambics and to discuss Greek particles; but they have learned nothing from the treasures of wisdom taught by Grecian history from Herodotus to Polybios.

I have discussed the three chief forms of executive government, the constitutional King and his Ministry, the President, and the Executive Council, in the last of my first series of Historical Essays.

(52) Iliad, i. 250:—