12 Constitutional History. [chap.
duke of Lancaster, stood forth and spoke in English’—here
also we may discern a deliberate and solemn formality—cuIn
the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, I Henry of Lancaster
challenge this realm of England and the crown with all the
members and the appurtenances, as I that am descended by right
line of blood, coming from the good lord king Henry Third, and
through that right that God of his grace hath sent me with
help of my kin and of my friends to recover it, the which realm
was in point to be undone for default of governance and
undoing of the good laws1.” After which challenge and claim,
the lords spiritual and temporal, and all the estates there present,
being singly and in common asked what they thought of that
pinquitate sanguinis, quam probavit ex antiquis quidem gestis quorum
veras copias пес dum vidi ;, secondly by election, and thirdly by Richard’s
assignment. It is a curious thing that neither chronicles nor records pre-
serve the exact form of the pedigree which was alleged at the time of
Henry’s challenge. Hardyng, the chronicler, who was brought up in the
household of the earl of Northumberland, says that it was based on a story
invented by John of Gaunt, that Edmund of Lancaster, from whom his
wife Blanche was descended, was the elder son of Henry III, but was set
aside in favour of Edward I, who was his younger brother. The earl had
told Hardyng that on the 21 st of September this claim had been laid before
the lords, tested by the Chronicles of Westminster, and rejected ; but not-
withstanding was alleged by Henry. (Chron. pp. 352, 353.) Adam of
Usk says that about that day the subject was broached in the commission
of doctors who were inquiring into the question of succession, and quotes
the chronicles by which it was refuted ; ed. Thompson, p. 30. This is no
doubt the true account of the matter. See Hall, Chron. p. 14. Hardyng’s
story that John of Gaunt procured the insertion of the forged pedigree in
several monastic chronicles is not borne out by any known evidence. If
true, it must be referred to the year 1385 or 1394, when it is said that he
tried to obtain Henry’s recognition as heir, and when the EarI of March
Waspreferred; Eulog. iii. 36τ, 369. Probablyotherstoriesweretold. It
was said in the controversy on the Yorkist title, that Philippa of Clarence
was illegitimate ; Fortescue, Works, i. 517 ; Plummer’s Fortescue, pp. 77,
353. But the words of Henry’s challenge do not necessarily imply that he
meant to assert the forged pedigree ; they need imply no more than that
succession through females was regarded as strange to the customs of
England. It is on the exclusion of females that Fortescue urges the claim
of the king’s brother as against the grandson by a daughter, in the
treatise ‘de Natura Legis Naturae;’ and, if that were accepted, Henry
might fairly call himself the male heir of IIenry III. It was, moreover, on
this principle probably that he tried to restrict the succession to male heirs
in 1406.
1 Rot. Parl. iii. 422, 423 ; Mon. Eves. p. 209 ; Ann. Ric. p. 281 ; Raine,
Northern Registers, p. 429. There are some slight variations in the wording
as given by these authorities. See also Otterbourne, p. 219; Eulog. iii.
384 ; Capgrave, Cliron. p. 273.
XVΠI.]
Deposition of Richard.
13
challenge and claim, the said estates with the whole people,
without any difficulty or delay, with one accord agreed that
the said duke should reign over them.’ Then immediately the
king showed to the estates the signet of king Richard which he
had delivered to him as a sign of his good-will. Thereupon
Arundel took him by the right hand and led him to the throne.
Henry kneeled down before it and prayed a little while ; then
the two archbishops Arundel and Scrope seated him upon it.
By a strange and ominous coincidence, the close kinsmen of the
two murdered earls joined in the solemn act. Arundel had
avenged his brother; Scrope had yet to perish in a hopeless at-
tempt to avenge his old master and the cousin who had laid down
his life for Richard. When Henry had taken his seat, Arundel
preached a sermon contrasting Henry’s manliness with Richard’s
childishness1, and, after the king had expressly disavowed any
intention of disinheriting any man on the plea that he had won
England as a conqueror2, he nominated the ministers and officers
of justice, received their oaths, and fixed the day for his coron-
ation. The session broke up ; the members were to meet again Parliament
on the 6th of October under the writ of summons already pre- by writ of
pared3, and the king was to be crowned on the feast of S. Edward 3°'
the Confessor, October 13. The proceedings of the deposition
were completed on the ɪst of October, when Sir William
Thirning1 in the name of the commissioners appointed to convey
to Richard the sentence of the Estates, declared his message to
the unhappy king and renounced his homage and fealty.
Richard replied ‘ that he looked not thereafter, but he said
1 The text was ‘ Vir doɪninabitur populo;’ ɪ Sam. ix. 17. Rot. ParI.
‘“s V3, .
‘ It is not my will that no man think that by way of conquest
ɪ would disinherit any man of his heritage;’ Rot. Pari. iii. 423;
Raine, Northern Registers, p. 429; Otterbourne, p. 220. Cf. Adam
0i3v≡⅛> p∙ ¾2∙
Richard’s parliament of Sept. 30 is superseded by the new one called
c*r 2?*’ 6’ but the writs for expenses include both ; Prynne, iv. 450 ; that
° Riehard being described as , minime tentum.’ Although it was im-
possible for elections to be held in the six days intervening, the writs of
∞mons do not intimate that the same members are to attend ; Lords’
tj1eζ0.r,t.'v∙ 7f>8 1 but the king apologizes for the short notice and declares
at it ɪs meant to spare labour and expense; Rot. Parl. iii. 423.