As William IV left no child to inherit the crown, he was succeeded by
his niece, the Princess Victoria, daughter of his brother Edward, Duke
of Kent. (See Genealogical Table, p.323.) In her lineage the Queen
represented nearly the whole past sovereignty of the land over which
she reigned.[1] The blood of both Cerdic, the first Saxon king, and of
William the Conqueror,[2] flowed in her veins,--a fact which
strikingly illustrates the vitality of the hereditary and conservative
principles in the history of the English Crown.
[1] The only exceptions are the four Danish sovereigns and Harold II.
[2] See Genealogical Table of the Descent of English Sovereigns in the
Appendix.
The fact stands out in stronger relief if we call to mind what England
had passed through in that intervening period of time.
In 1066 the Normans crossed the Channel, invaded the island, conquered
its inhabitants, and seized the throne. In the course of the next
five centuries two kings were deposed, one died a captive in the Tower
of London,[3] and the Catholic religion, as an established Church, was
supplanted in England by the Protestant faith of Luther.
[3] Namely, Edward II (S233), Richard II (S257), and Henry VI (S305).
Somewhat less than a hundred years after that event, Civil War broke
out in 1642; the King was dethroned and beheaded, and in 1648 a
republic established. The monarchy was restored in 1660, only to be
followed by the Revolution of 1688, which changed the order of royal
succession, drove one line of sovereigns from the land, and called in
another from Germany to take its place. Meanwhile the House of
Commons had gained enormously in political power, and Cabinet
Government had been fully and finally established (S534). In 1832 the
Reform Bill was passed, by which the power of the people was largely
extended in Parliament; the two great political parties had been
reorganized; yet after all these events, at the end of more than ten
centuries from the date when Egbert first became Overlord of all the
English, in 829 (S49), we find England governed by a descendant of her
earliest rulers!
587. The Power of the House of Commons and of the Cabinet fully and
finally recognized.
Queen Victoria was but little over eighteen when called to the
throne. At her accession a new order of things began. The Georges
insisted on dismissing their Cabinet ministers, or chief political
advisers, when they pleased, without condescending to give Parliament
any reason for the change. We have seen too that William IV tried to
do the same thing, but had to acknowledge that he was beaten (S582).
William's unsuccessful attempt was never repeated. The last vestige
of "personal government,"[1] that is, of the determination of the
Crown to act contrary to the will of the majority of the nation, as
expressed by the Cabinet, died with the late King.
[1] See the reign of Victoria in McCarthy's "History of Our Own
Times."
With the coronation of Victoria the principle was established, once
for all, that henceforth the Sovereign of the British Empire cannot
remove the Prime Minister or his Cabinet (S582) without the consent of
the House of Commons; nor, on the other hand, would the Sovereign now
venture to retain a ministry which the Commons refused to support.[2]
This limitation of the prerogatives of royalty emphasized the fact
that the House of Commons had practically become the ruling power in
England; and since that House is freely elected by the great body of
the people, in order that it may declare and enforce their will, it
follows that the government of the realm is essentially democratic.
In fact, so far as reflecting public opinion is concerned, no republic
in the world is more democratic.
[2] In order to guard herself against any political influence adverse
to that of the Cabinet (S582), and hence of the majority of the House
of Commons, the Queen was compelled to consent (1841) that the
Mistress of the Robes, or head of her Majesty's household, should
change at the demand of the incoming Prime Minister; and it was
furthermore agreed that any ladies under her whose presence might be
politically inconvenient to the Prime Minister, should retire "of
their own accord." In other words, the incoming Prime Minister, with
his Cabinet, has the right to remodel the Sovereign's household--or
any other body of offices--in whatever degree he may think requisite,
and the late Prince Albert could not even appoint his own private
secretary, but much to his chagrin had to accept one appointed for him
by the Prime Minister. See May's "Constitutional History of England"
and Martin's "Life of the Prince Consort."
Custom, too, has decided that the Sovereign must sanction every bill
which Parliament approves and resolves to make law. Queen Anne was
the last occupant of the English throne who ventured to veto a bill,
by refusing to assent to it. That was in 1707, or more than two
hundred years ago, and there is little probability that any wearer of
the crown will ever attempt to do what she did. In fact, an able and
authoritative English writer has not hesitated to declare that if the
two Houses of Parliament should agree to send the reigning Sovereign
his own death warrant, he would be obliged to sign it, or abdicate.[1]
[1] See Bagehot's "The English Constitution."
An English sovereign's real position to-day is that of a person who
has much indirect influence and but little direct power,--far less in
fact than that of the President of the United States; for the latter
can veto a bill, and can remove any or all of his cabinet officers at
pleasure.