For the death of him that hath the sovereign power in property leaves the multitude without any sovereign at all;that is,without any representative in whom they should be united,and be capable of doing any one action at all:and therefore they are incapable of election of any new monarch,every man having equal right to submit himself to such as he thinks best able to protect him;or,if he can,protect himself by his own sword;which is a return to confusion and to the condition of a war of every man against every man,contrary to the end for which monarchy had its first institution.
Therefore it is manifest that by the institution of monarchy,the disposing of the successor is always left to the judgement and will of the present possessor.
And for the question which may arise sometimes,who it is that the monarch in possession hath designed to the succession and inheritance of his power,it is determined by his express words and testament;or by other tacit signs sufficient.
By express words,or testament,when it is declared by him in his lifetime,viva voce,or by writing;as the first emperors of Rome declared who should be their heirs.For the word heir does not of itself imply the children or nearest kindred of a man;but whomsoever a man shall any way declare he would have to succeed him in his estate.If therefore a monarch declare expressly that such a man shall be his heir,either by word or writing,then is that man immediately after the decease of his predecessor invested in the right of being monarch.
But where testament and express words are wanting,other natural signs of the will are to be followed:whereof the one is custom.And therefore where the custom is that the next of kindred absolutely succeedeth,there also the next of kindred hath right to the succession;for that,if the will of him that was in possession had been otherwise,he might easily have declared the same in his lifetime.And likewise where the custom is that the next of the male kindred succeedeth,there also the right of succession is in the next of the kindred male,for the same reason.And so it is if the custom were to advance the female.For whatsoever custom a man may by a word control,and does not,it is a natural sign he would have that custom stand.
But where neither custom nor testament hath preceded,there it is to he understood;first,that a monarch's will is that the government remain monarchical,because he hath approved that government in himself.Secondly,that a child of his own,male or female,be preferred before any other,because men are presumed to be more inclined by nature to advance their own children than the children of other men;and of their own,rather a male than a female,because men are naturally fitter than women for actions of labour and danger.Thirdly,where his own issue faileth,rather a brother than a stranger,and so still the nearer in blood rather than the more remote,because it is always presumed that the nearer of kin is the nearer in affection;and it is evident that a man receives always,by reflection,the most honour from the greatness of his nearest kindred.
But if it be lawful for a monarch to dispose of the succession by words of contract,or testament,men may perhaps object a great inconvenience:for he may sell or give his right of governing to a stranger;which,because strangers (that is,men not used to live under the same government,nor speaking the same language)do commonly undervalue one another,may turn to the oppression of his subjects,which is indeed a great inconvenience:but it proceedeth not necessarily from the subjection to a stranger's government,but from the unskillfulness of the governors,ignorant of the true rules of politics.And therefore the Romans,when they had subdued many nations,to make their government digestible were wont to take away that grievance as much as they thought necessary by giving sometimes to whole nations,and sometimes to principal men of every nation they conquered,not only the privileges,but also the name of Romans;and took many of them into the Senate,and offices of charge,even in the Roman city.And this was it our most wise king,King James,aimed at in endeavouring the union of his two realms of England and Scotland.Which,if he could have obtained,had in all likelihood prevented the civil wars which both those kingdoms,at this present,miserable.It is not therefore any injury to the people for a monarch to dispose of the succession by will;though by the fault of many princes,it hath been sometimes found inconvenient.Of the lawfulness of it,this also is an argument;that whatsoever inconvenience can arrive by giving a kingdom to a stranger,may arrive also by so marrying with strangers,as the right of succession may descend upon them:yet this by all men is accounted lawful.
