22 Constitutional History. [chap.
The dukes
degraded.
Henry
threatened
with in-
surrection.
would be to stir up elements most dangerous and disastrous
to the realm ; mercy and judgment were to be commingled in
the decision ; the dukes of Aumale, Surrey, and Exeter were to
be ιeduced to their former rank as earls of Rutland, Kent, and
Huntingdon ; the marquess of Dorset was to become earl of
Somerset again, and Ie Despenser to cease to be earl of Glou-
cester. Salisbury’s fate was not decided by the sentence ; his
confession was somewhat more damaging than those of the
others, and he had not been admitted to state his case to the
king. He was left to prove his innocence in a trial by battle
with the lord Morley his accuser1. Hall, the person who was
regarded as one of the actual murderers of Gloucester, had been
sentenced to death on the 17 th of October, and executed the
same day2. The proceedings exhibit Henry as a somewhat
temporising politician, but not as a cruel man. The offence
against Gloucester and Arundel in which he had participated
was mixed up with the offence against himself ; and he might
have availed himself of the popular outcry to revenge his own
wrongs. His conduct was condemned as weak and undecided,
and he was threatened in an anonymous letter with an insurrec-
tion if the guilty were not more severely punished3. The lords
and the knights of the shire denied on oath their knowledge of
the writer ; but subsequent events gave a sad corroboration to
its threat, and popular fury completed the task which the king
had mercifully declined.
Formal pro-
test of the
commons.
It was probably as a direct consequence of these proceedings
that the commons, on the 3rd of November, made the protest
already referred to : ‘ that as the judgments of the parliament
1 I,rois≡art (ix. 116) says that Salisbury, who had been imprisoned, was
received into favour on Rutland's intercession. Preparation was made for
the trial by battle, but Salisbury’s fate was decided before it could take
place (see Williams’ note on the Chronique &c., p. 224; Lingard, HLt.
Eng. iii. 200) ; and lord Morley the challenger recovered costs from the
earl’s sureties ; Adam of Usk, pp. 44, 45.
2 Rot. Pail. iii. 452, 45 3 ; Adam of Usk, p. 36.
3 ‘ Quasi illi (the King, Arundel and Percy) caecati Hiuneribus sal-
vassent vitam hominum quos vulgus Sceleratissimos et morte dɪgnissinɪos
reputabat ; ’ Ann. Henr. p. 320. Hardyng at a later period recommends
to Edward IV the example of Henry in favour of clemency as a piece of
sound policy ; Chron. p. 409.
гит.]
Protest of the Commons.
2.3
belong solely to the king and lords, and not to the commons,
except in case that it please the king of his special grace to
show to them the said judgments for their ease, no record may
be made in parliament against the said commons, that they are
0r will be parties to any judgments given or to be given here-
after in parliament. AVhereunto it was answered by the arch-
bishop of Canterbury at the king’s command, Itbw that the
same commons are petitioners and demander®, and that the
king and the lords have of all time had, and shall of right have,
the judgments in parliament, in manner as the same commons
have shown ; save that in statutes to be made, or in grants
and subsidies, or such things to be done for the common profit
of the realm, the king wishes to have especially their advice and
assent. And that this order of fact be kept and observed in all
time to come 1∙,
The revival of the Acts of 1388 and the repeal of those of
1397 involved some readjustment of personal claims, which
formed an important part of the work for the remainder of the
session. The earls of Suffolk2, Arundel, and Warwick3 required Parliament
restitution ; the three persons 4 excepted from the pardon of ɪ399'
1388 had to be secured by a royal declaration of their loyalty.
The sentence against Haxey, already set aside by Richard, had
to be again annulled 5 ; and the pardons granted by Richard in
1398 to be confirmed. The king refused however to restore Keparation
the heirs of the condemned judges, or to replace the heir of IoiesJst
Vere as high chamberlain. Archbishop Arundel was allowed
to demand reparation from Walden, whom Richard had forced
into the primacy ; and the prince of Wales was empowered to
bear the titles of duke of Aquitaine and Lancasterδ.
The necessary work of the parliament was soon dispatched : Taxation
, v x and Iegis-
a subsidy on wool was granted for three years, and a fifteenth iation.
1 Rot. Parl. iii. 427.
’ Ann. Henr. p. 312 ; Kot. Pat. Cal. p. 238 ; Rot. Parl. iii. 668.
Rot. Pail. iii. 435, 436 ; Chron. Henr. ed. Giles, p. gt
ɪhe thιee were Richard ClifFord now Privy Seal, Richard Metford
bi⅛hop of Salisbury, and Henry Rowet afterwards bishop of Bath and
eHs and archbishop of York : the latter was the kind’s confidential
⅜ent ; Rot. Parl. iii. 428.
Rot. Parl. iiɪ. 430, 434. 6 lb. iii. 427, 441, 442.