conſtitution was kept intire; which upon every ſound principle of government muſt otherwiſe have fallen to pieces, had ſo principal and conſtituent a part as the royal authority been aboliſhed, or even ſuſpended.
This ſingle poſtulatum, the vacancy of the throne, being once eſtabliſhed, the reſt that was then done followed almoſt of courſe. For, if the throne be at any time vacant (which may happen by other means beſides that of abdication; as if all the blood royal ſhould fail, without any ſucceſſor appointed by parliament;) if, I ſay, a vacancy by any means whatſoever ſhould happen, the right of diſpoſing of this vacancy ſeems naturally to reſult to the lords and commons, the truſtees and repreſentatives of the nation. For there are no other hands in which it can ſo properly be intruſted; and there is a neceſſity of it’s being intruſted ſomewhere, elſe the whole frame of government muſt be diſſolved and periſh. The lords and commons having therefore determined this main fundamental article, that there was a vacancy of the throne, they proceeded to fill up that vacancy in ſuch manner as they judged the moſt proper. And this was done by their declaration of 12 February 1688[1] in the following manner: “that William and Mary, prince and princeſs of Orange, be, and be declared king and queen, to hold the crown and royal dignity during their lives, and the life of the ſurvivor of them; and that the ſole and full exerciſe of the regal power be only in, and executed by, the ſaid prince of Orange, in the names of the ſaid prince and princeſs, during their joint lives; and after their deceaſes the ſaid crown and royal dignity to be to the heirs of the body of the ſaid princeſs; and for default of ſuch iſſue to the princeſs Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body; and for default of ſuch iſſue to the heirs of the body of the ſaid prince of Orange."
Perhaps, upon the principles before eſtabliſhed, the convention might (if they pleaſed) have veſted the regal dignity in a fa-
- ↑ Com. Journ. 12 Feb. 1688
