The Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy

The 'Declarationcer-:gS.Ft-three claimants of a kingdom, viz. the brother of the deceasedmonarch, who is described as ' King of -the Assyrians andMonarch of the whole of Greater Asia1,' his daughter, andthe daughter's son. The grandson maintains that thougha woman cannot reign she can transmit a claim to thekingdom, the brother denies that she can do either, thedaughter affirms that she can do both. It is needless tosay that the judgement is in favour of the late king's brother.The arguments are of great subtlety and of interminablelength. Men were more patient of length and dulness inthe Middle Ages than we are now; still one is inclined topronounce that, considered as a political pamphlet, thework lacks the primary condition of success, namely readableness.All these works were written in Scotland duringthe time of the author's exile there, that is between April1461 and July 1463. Lastly, to this class must be assignedthe tract which Fortescue wrote to refute the foregoingworks, in order to obtain the reversal of his attainder. Itmust therefore have been written between October 1471and, October 1473, and is conseqq ntly, with the possibleexception of a portion of the Mo?zarchia, the latest of Fortescue'sworks; and we may therefore say, without verymuch risk of serious error, that his literary activity beginsand ends with the question of the Succession. This piece isentitled ' The Declaracion made by John Fortescu, knyght,upon certayn Wrytinges sent oute of Scotteland, ayenst theIcinges Title to the Roialme of England2.' In it he refutesmany of the historical arguments which he had used in hisprevious writings, by saying with sufficient plausibility thatsince his return to England he has had the opportunityFortescue's of informing himself better by consulting documents andchange offro,ltonthe chronicles to which he had no access in exile. But hisSl~cce:sion ingenuity is chiefly displayed in getting over the force ofquest~on. the text, ' Eris sub potestate viri, et ipse dominabitur tui3,'on which he had based so much of his argument againstfemale succession. This, he now says, does not mean thatI Works, p. I 16. Ib. 523-541.S Genesis iii. 16.a woman must be under the power of every man, but onlythat she must be under the power of some man. Nowevery woman is under the power of the Pope. Thereforethe text in question does not prove that a woman maynot reign, and is no bar to the king's title either to Englandor France1. It was fortunate for Fortescue thathe had not to write his recantation in the days of QueenElizabeth 2.I shall speak next of the miscellaneous writings of For- Miscellatescue,leaving the constitutional works, as the most neOL1sw'it' ings ofimportant, to be dealt with last. In this class the most Fortescue.important tract is the 'Dialogue between Understanding 'UnderandFaith3.' It is moreover the only one the authenticity :,"$",h!of which is tolerably certain. It is a touching and beautifullittle tract, and deals with the old question which hasperplexed men's hearts ever since the days of Job; theprosperity of the ungodly and the affliction of the righteous,with special reference however to the revolutions of kingdoms.Understanding, like David, is 'grieved at thewicked.' ' Alas !' she cries, ' howe many just and peasiblecreatures have borne the payne and angwissh of this werre !Also howe many men of honest livyng have suffred dethe!' Works, PP.. 533-4.Lord Carhngford (Works,pp. 366" f.) is able to illustrateseveral of Fortescue's argumentsfrom John Knox's writings againstthe 'regiment of women,' which,though primarily directed againstILIary Tudor, gave scarcely lessoffence to Queen Elizabeth. Itis fair to add that there are somepassages in the De Noturn* LegisNatt~rce which prepare the wayfor this change of front, and somewhatlessen the amount of incon-sistency. Thus in ii. c. 46 hesays, Non talnen omnis aut ali-qua mulier sub omnis viri potestatevivere jubetur, . . . . sed indiffinite[Dominus] ait, "Eris subpotestate viri," quo si sub alicujusviri po~estate ipsa fuerit, judiciiillius censuraln illa non declinat ;proposicio namque indiffinita veraest, si in uno supposito ipsa sitvera ;' Works, p. 164. This passageseems clearly alluded to inthe ' Declaration,' U. S. ; cf. alsoii. c. 23. These passages howeverrefer to the case of women whoaye under some temporal dominlon.The idea that the necessitiesof the case were satisfied bysubjection to the spiritual authorityof the Pope had not then occurredto Fortescue. Fortescue's ownsubmission to Edward IV isamply justified by the principlewhich he lays down in the Befensio,that on the failure of themale line one who is connectedwith the royalfamily only throughfemales may be elected 'per Domlnoset comunitatem regni,'rather than a complete stranger;Works, p. 508 ; cf. ib. I 53.Ib. 483-490.