βθ Constitutional History. [chap.
Arnold Hi an who showed by the length and ingenuity of his speeches,
Sgeechesin that he was capable of rivalling the curious orations with
mentaorf'a which the parliaments were usually opened by chancellor, arch-
,4°1' bishop, or justice. Thirning had directed that no one should
leave the parliament until the business of the session was com-
pleted. Savage, after making the usual protest, on being
presented to the king, recounted the principal points of
the justice’s speech, and expressed a hope that the commons
might have good advice and deliberation, and not be pressed
suddenly with the most important matters at the very close
of parliament. The king, through the Earl of Worcester,
replied that he imagined no such subtilty. Not satisfied
with this, three days after, the commons again presented them-
selves, and again returned thanks for Thirning’s speech, and
Discussions administered another reproof1. It might happen, the speaker
and speaker, said, that some of their body, out of complaisance to the
king, might report their proceedings before they were com-
pleted, a course which might exasperate the king against
individuals; he prayed that the king would not listen to any
such tales. Henry made the requisite promise. The speaker
then proceeded to expatiate in a set speech on the course
to be adopted with respect to a number of lords who had
been challenged by the French as traitors to King Richard.
Henry thanked them for their advice. On the occasion how-
ever of a third address on the 31 st of January, the king,
tired of Savage’s eloquence, declined to hear any more petitions
by word of mouth, and requested the commons to put all their
Bedress to requests in writing2. The object of the whole proceeding was no
supι⅛ doubt that which was stated in one of the petitions so de-
livered, that the king's answer to their requests might be
Susak declared before the grant of money was made. This petition
was presented on the 26th of February; the king in reply
promised to confer with the lords on the point, and on
the last day of the session refused the demand as unprece-
dented 3. This petition and its answer involve one of the most
1 Kot. Parl. iii. 455.
Ib. iii. 455> 456.
3 ɪb. ɪii. 458.
XVIIi.] Parllamenl of 1401. ɜɪ
distinct statements of constitutional Ilieory that had been ever
advanced.
Savage no doubt was capable of formulating so much and Another
. . . 1 η speech of
more ; in another of his speeches he compares the estates to a Savage.
Trinity, that is to say ‘ the person of the king, the lords spiritual
and temporal, and the commons.’ But the crowning instance
of his ingenuity is found in the closing address, in which he
draws an elaborate parallel between the parliamentary session
and the Mass ; the office of the Archbishop at the opening of
the session is compared to the reading of the epistle, gospel,
and sermon ; the king’s declaration of a determination to main-
tain the faith and the laws is compared with the propitiatory
offering; the closing words tIte missa est’ and ‘Deo gratias’
are equally appropriate in both cases1. The ‘ Deo gratias ’ of
the commons was expressed in their money grant, for which the
king thanked them and then dissolved the parliament. The
grant made was a fifteenth and tenth, for a year, with tunnage
of two shillings and poûndage of eightpence for two years2.
The claims of the commons were not confined to matters of The com-
1 - . -∣-ι∙∙ll 1 ∙ л 1 ∙ ∙ . niθnS fore
theory ; the king was obliged, to comply with their petition their de-
that he would revoke the assignment of certain pensions the ting,
charged on the subsidy of wool which in the last session had
been granted for a special time and purpose. They further
prayed him to institute a careful examination into the in-
ventory of king Richard’s jewels3, a petition which, according
to the historian of the time, Henry met with a declaration
that he had received none of Richard’s property, but was in
reality poor and needy. They urged that the record of parlia-
mentary business should be ingrossed before the departure of
the justices, whilst the facts were still present in their
memory4, no indistinct hint that the record was not always
trustworthy ; the answer was that the clerk of the parliament
should do his best with the advice of the justices and subject
t° the advice of the king and lords.
' Rot. Parl. ɪii. 466.
2 lb. iii. 455 ; Dep. Keeper’s Rep. ɪɪ. App. ɪɪ. p. 181.
3 Rot. Parl. iii. 457 ; Ann. Henr. p. 335.
4 Rot. Parl. ɪɪi. 457, 458.