I9O
Constitutional History.
[chap.
Flight of
Margaret.
Parliament
of Oct. 7,
x460.
The Coven-
try acts
repealed.
The duke of
York asserts
his right to
the throne ;
and puts in
his pedigree.
The king is
informed,
and orders
a search.
the 30th a parliament was summoned in the king’s name to
meet at Westminster on the 7th of October1. On the 5th of
August AVarwick was recognised as captain of Calais. On the
8th the rebel lords were declared loyal. The queen fled to
Scotland ; the duke of York returned to England before the
day of the meeting of parliament.
354. The duke of York saw that his hour of triumph was
now come : regardless of the oaths which he had so often
sworn, and of the mercy which had been, until the parliament
of Coventry, so constantly extended towards him, he determined
to make his claim to the crown. The parliament was opened
by the new chancellor in due form: John Green, member for
Essex, was chosen speaker2, and on petition of the commons
the acts of the last parliament were repealed at once3. On the
third day of the session, the duke, having previously dislodged
Henry from his apartments in the palace4, appeared in the
chamber of the lords, and, going up to the royal seat, laid his
hand on the cushion as if about formally to take possession. The
gesture was viewed by the assembled lords with more wonder
than approval. Archbishop Bourchier asked what he wanted,
and whether he wished to go in to see the king. The duke re-
plied, 11 do not bethink me that I know of any within the realm
for whom it were not more fitting that he should come to me and
see me than for me to attend on him and visit him5.’ This out-
spoken boast did not procure him any distinct support, and it was
clear that the royal position could not be stormed6. On the 16th
of October therefore the duke’s counsel laid before the lords his
pedigree and the formal claim to the crown, as heir of Edward HI,
through Lionel of Clarence7. The next day the claim was re-
ported to the king, who was probably well prepared for it. He
replied by requesting the lords to search for materials by which
the claim might be refuted, and they appealed to him as a diligent
1 Lords’ Report, ɪv. 945. 2 Rot. Part. v. 373, 374.
3 Rot. Part. v. 374. ' * Eng. Chron. p. 99.
5 W. Wore. p. 774; Eng. Chr. p. 99 ; Eabyan, p. 637. Hall gives a
long speech, Chr. pp. 245 sq.
6 Whethamstede, i. 377-380: W. Wore. p. 774.
’ Rot. Parl. v. 375.
XVIII.]
Claim, of the duke of fork.
I9I
student of chronicles to do the same1. On the 18th the judges Thejudges
, t, ® decline to
were consulted ; but, although feιr J ohn Fortescue the chief justice give an
_ . 1 . opinion.
afterwards wrote a treatise on the question, they were not now
prepared to answer ; they replied that the question was not for
them hut for the lords of the king’s blood to decide. The king’s
counsel, sergeants, and attorney general, sheltered themselves
under the same excuse. Thus left to themselves the lords drew Five objec-
. -11,1. 1 tions drawn
up five articles of objection to the duke s claim ; they could not upby the
recognise it without breaking the solemn oaths which they had
so often taken ; the acts of parliament by which the succession
was settled were still the law of the land and were of such ‘author-
ity as to defeat any manner of title made to any person;’ it was
a serious question whether the right of the crown did not pass by
the entails so often made upon the heirs male ; the duke did not
even bear the arms of Lionel of Clarence, but those of Edmund
of Langley his younger brother; lastly, king Henry IV had
claimed the crown by hereditary descent from Henry III, not
by conquest or unrighteous entry, as the duke’s counsel had
asserted2. The first three arguments were sound, the other
two worse than useless. The duke presented a formal reply ; Answer of
the allegation of the oath he met by the assertion that oaths the o⅛jec-
made contrary to truth, justice, and charity, are not obligatory; ɪorʤ.
that the oath of allegiance binds no man to that which is in-
convenient and unlawful, and that he was prepared to defend
himself at the due time in the spiritual court against the charge
of perjury ; to the second and third articles he replied that the
succession rested only on the act of 1406, which by itself
afforded conclusive proof that Henry IV had no valid claim by
descent ; as for the heraldic question, although he had not
assumed the arms of Clarence, he might have assumed them oχ∙
even those of Edward III; he had abstained, and the country well
knew why he had abstained, from making either claim before
now. As for the descent of the house of Lancaster as stated by
Henry IV, it was in no wise true, and should be thoroughly
disproved5. On Saturday, the 25th of October, the chancellor Aeom-
informed the lords that a way of compromise had been devised ⅛v'2ed.
1 Rot. Part. v. 375, 376∙
“ lb. v. 376.
’ lb. v. 377.