The Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy

?sal fic- what was in reality a breach of continuity: in both it wastlons.found necessary to pass over the immediate heir, so thatParliament had not merely, as in the case of Edward 11,to claim the right of setting aside an unworthy king, buthad implicitly to make the further claim to regulate thehfally were succession. So on both occasions probably many wereled furtherthan they carried by the course of events further along the path ofhad in- revolution than they had intended. There were many whotended.would gladly have seen Henry restored to his Duchy ofLancaster, and who were prepared heartily to support himin insisting that Richard should abandon his recent unconstitutionalproceedings and return to his former mode ofgovernment, who yet felt themselves duped, when theyfound that he used the opportunity which they had givenhim to seat himself on the throne. So too there weremany who were truly anxious that by means of the comingof the Prince of Orange the religion, laws, and libertiesof England should be securely established in a free parliament,but who were disappointed when James 11'spusillallimity paved the way for the elevation of his sonixenryandin-law to the crown. Both Henry and William came as\\ i111~1nc,,Ee the deliverers of a church which was threatened alike intleliverels doctrine and in property by a hostile form of religion, andof Chn~chI , of a nation perplexed and unsettled by a feverish attempt"o".at arbitrary rule. In both cases questions of foreign policyForcignPO~,LY.had much to do with the result. But whereas at the closeof the seventeenth century it was absolutely necessary for thesalvation of Europe that England should be rescued fromher subservience to France, at the close of the fourteenthcentury, on the other hand, France was by no means adangerous power. It was her very weakness which temptedthe unscrupulous and hypocritical aggression of Henry V.Theory of In both cases one of the chief advantages secured by theroyalty.change of dynasty was that the royal authority was placedupon a proper footing, and seen to rest upon the consent ofthe nation. Richard 11, like James 11, had imbibed anentirely baseless view of English monarchy. The assertionthat he had declared the laws to be in his own mouth andbreast, is an exaggeration of his enemies: but iftrue, such language is no worse than James 11's prattleabout 'his sovereign authority, prerogative royal, andabsolute power, which all his subjects were to obey withoutreserve'.' By the change of dynasty theories of thiskind were got rid of. Whether from choice or fromnecessity, the Lancastrians always professed to rule as constitutionalkings.The Lancastrian period must always be of importance, Importasthe period in which political liberty, at any rate in ance of theLancastritheory,reached its highest point during the middle ages. an period.In fact the people acquired a larger measure of liberty thanthey were able to use: and the Commons, though boldin stating their grievances, were often helpless in devisingremedies. In the words of Dr. Stubbs, ' Constitutionalprogress had outrun administrative order2.'And this,combined with other causes which will be noticed later,made possible those disturbances which culminated in thecivil war, and which wearied out the national patience,until even Tudor despotism seemed more tolerab!e thanconfusion.The advantages of Lancastrian rule were mainly prospec- Its adtive,and its chief claim on our gratitude is the fact that it z:nysupplied the precedents on which the constitutional pnrty in prospectheseventeenth century based their resistan-tive.~e to that caricatureof Tudor despotism which the Stuarts attempted toperpetuate? Viewed in relation to contemporary history itwas prenlature ; and it combines with the fruitless rising ofthe Hussites in Bohemia, with the abortive attempts of theChurch to reform itself in the Councils of Pisa, Constance,and Basle, and with the equally abortive attempts torestore administrative and constitutional unity to the disintegratedGerman Empire, to stamp upon the fifteenththat character of futility which has becn SO justlyascribed to it4.Hallam, Const. Hist. iii. 71. ' Weak as is the fourteenth' Stubh~, Const. Hist. iii. 269. century, the fifteenth is weakerS. C. H. iii. 2-5 ; cf. Rogers' still ; more firtde, more bloody,Gascoigne, pp. lviii; ff. more immoral.' S. C. H. ii. 624.B 2