The Growth of the English Constitution from the Earliest TimesFreeman, Edward A. (Edward Augustus)
History
The Growth of the English Constitution from the Earliest Times
Freeman, Edward A. (Edward Augustus)
Constitutional history -- Great Britain
prætextu, ab omni dignitate et honore regiis, _si quid dignitatis et
honoris hujusmodi in eo remanserit_, merito deponendum pronunciamus,
decernimus, et declaramus; et etiam simili cautela deponimus.” They
then declare the throne to be vacant (“ut constabat de præmissis,
et eorum occasione, regnum Angliæ, cum pertinentiis suis, vacare”).
Henry then makes his challenge, setting forth that strange mixture of
titles which is commented on in most narratives of the event, and the
Estates, without saying which of Henry’s arguments they accept, grant
the kingdom to him (“concesserunt unanimiter ut Dux præfatus super eos
regnaret”). A more distinct case of deposition and election can hardly
be found; only in the words which I have put in italics there seems a
sort of anxiety to complete, by the act of deposition, any possible
defect in Richard’s doubtless unwilling abdication.
The French narrative by a partisan of Richard (Lystoire de la Traison
et Mort du Roy Richart Dengleterre, p. 68) gives, in some respects, a
different account. The Assembly is called a Parliament, and the Duke
of Lancaster is made to seat himself on the throne at once. Then Sir
Thomas Percy “cria ‘Veez Henry de Lencastre Roy Dengleterre.’ Adonc
crierent tous les seigneurs prelaz et _le commun de Londres_, Ouy Ouy
nous voulons que Henry duc de Lencastre soit nostre Roy et nul autre.”
For “le commun de Londres” there are other readings, “le commun,” “le
commun Dangleterre et de Londres,” and “tout le commun et conseil de
Londres.”
(16) It should be remembered that Charles the First was not deposed,
but was executed being King. He was called King both in the indictment
at his trial and in the warrant of his beheading.
(17) Monk raised this point in 1660. See Lingard, viii. 607.
(18) Lingard (viii. 612) remarks that at this particular moment “there
was no court to influence, no interference of the military to control
the elections.” The Convention may therefore be supposed to have been
more freely elected than most Parliaments.
(19) The Long Parliament had dissolved itself, and had decreed the
election of its successor. By the Act 13 Charles II. (Revised Statutes,
i. 733) the Long Parliament is “declared and adjudged to be fully
dissolved and determined;” but it is not said when it was dissolved and
determined. See also Lingard, ix. 5; Hallam’s Constitutional History,
ii. 21, where the whole matter is discussed, and it is remarked that
“the next Parliament never gave their predecessors any other name in
the Journals than ‘the late assembly.’”
(20) See Norman Conquest, i. 365, 366.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account