[The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol.I., Part B. by David Hume]@TWC D-Link book
The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol.I., Part B.

CHAPTER XVII
55/73

This noble freedom of the bishop of Carlisle, instead of being applauded, was not so much as tolerated: he was immediately arrested by order of the duke of Lancaster, and sent a prisoner to the abbey of St.Albans.No further debate was attempted: thirty-three long articles of charge were, in one meeting, voted against Richard; and voted unanimously by the same peers and prelates who, a little before, had voluntarily and unanimously authorized those very acts of violence of which they now complained.
That prince was deposed by the suffrages of both houses; and the throne being now vacant, the duke of Lancaster stepped forth, and having crossed himself on the forehead and on the breast, and called upon the name of Christ,[*] he pronounced these words, which we shall give in the original language, because of their singularity.
"In the name of Fadher, Son, and Holy Ghost, I Henry of Lancaster, challenge this rewme of Ynglande, and the croun with all the membres, and the appurtenances; als I that am descendit by right line of the blode, coming fro the gude king Henry therde, and throge that right that God of his grace hath sent me, with helpe of kyn, and of my frendes to recover it; the which rewme was in poynt to be ondone by defaut of governance, and ondoying of the gude lawes."[**] In order to understand this speech, it must be observed, that there was a silly story, received among some of the lowest vulgar, that Edmond, earl of Lancaster, son of Henry III., was really the elder brother of Edward I.; but that, by reason of some deformity in his person, he had been postponed in the succession, and his younger brother imposed on the nation in his stead.

As the present duke of Lancaster inherited from Edmond by his mother, this genealogy made him the true heir of the monarchy, and it is therefore insinuated in Henry's speech: but the absurdity was too gross to be openly avowed either by him or by the parliament.

The case is the same with regard to his right of conquest: he was a subject who rebelled against his sovereign: he entered the kingdom with a retinue of no more than sixty persons.
* Cotton, p.

389.
** Knyghton, p.2757.could not therefore be the conqueror of England; and this right is accordingly insinuated, not avowed.

Still there is a third claim, derived from his merits in saving the nation from tyranny and oppression; and this claim is also insinuated: but as it seemed, by its nature, better calculated as a reason for his being elected king by a free choice, than for giving him an immediate right of possession, he durst not speak openly even on this head; and to obviate any notion of election, he challenges the crown as his due, either by acquisition or inheritance.
The whole forms such a piece of jargon and nonsense, as is almost without example: no objection, however, was made to it in parliament: the unanimous voice of lords and commons placed Henry on the throne: he became king, nobody could tell how or wherefore: the title of the house of Marche, formerly recognized by parliament, was neither invalidated nor repealed, but passed over in total silence: and as a concern for the liberties of the people seems to have had no hand in this revolution, their right to dispose of the government, as well as all their other privileges, was left precisely on the same footing as before.


<<Back  Index  Next>>

D-Link book Top

TWC mobile books