revolutions, whilst the brief efforts of the peasants for vengeance, which were drowned in their own blood, have remained as a stigma flung in the face of the country populations whenever they utter a word claiming some amelioration in their condition. Whence the injustice? The bourgeoisie was victorious and successful. The rural populations were vanquished and trampled upon. The bourgeoisie, therefore, has had its poets, historians, and flatterers, whilst the poor peasant, rude, untutored, and ignorant, never had a lyre nor a voice to bewail his lamentable sorrows and sufferings." _Prof. De Vericour, Wat Tyler (Royal Historical Society, Transactions, number 8, volume 2)._ ALSO IN: _G. Lechler, John Wiclif, chapter 9, section 3._ _C. Knight, Popular History of England, volume 2, chapter 1._ ENGLAND: A. D. 1383. The Bishop of Norwich's Crusade in Flanders. See FLANDERS: A. D. 1383. ENGLAND: A. D. 1388. The Merciless or Wonderful Parliament. See PARLIAMENT, THE WONDERFUL. ENGLAND: A. D. 1399. Accession of King Henry IV. ENGLAND: A. D. 1399-1471. House of Lancaster. This name is given in English history to the family which became royal in the person of Henry of Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster, who deposed his cousin, Richard II., or forced him to abdicate the throne, and who was crowned king (Henry IV.), Oct. 11, 1399, with what seemed to be the consent of the nation. He not only claimed to be the next in succession to Richard, but he put forward a claim of descent through his mother, more direct than Richard's had been, from Henry III. "In point of fact Henry was not the next in succession. His father, John of Gaunt [or John of Ghent, in which city he was born], was the fourth son of Edward III., and there were descendants of that king's third son, Lionel Duke of Clarence, living. ... At one time Richard himself had designated as his successor the nobleman who really stood next to him in the line of descent. This was Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, the same who was killed by the rebels in Ireland. This Roger had left a son Edmund to inherit his title, but Edmund was a mere child, and the inconvenience of another minority could not have been endured." _J. Gairdner, Houses of Lancaster and York, chapter 2._ {818}