The Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy

competent hands which ruled it. Had he been allowed toattain to power in the ordinary way, he would probablyhave been the means of conferring great advantages onEngland. This seems proved by the beneficial results ofhis rule when, as during his first Protectorate, he had arecognized constitutional position. His second Protectoratewas too short to enable him to effect anything. But onboth occasions he showed an anxious desire that hisauthority should be strictly defined and precisely limited,which was in striking contrast with the way in whichGloucester on a similar occasion grasped at an extensionHis claim of his powers. For the final step taken by York in laying'O crown the in- claim to the crown there is absolutely no justification ondefensible. constitutional grounds, except in the eyes of those whohold a theory of royalty according to which there does notexist probably a single legitimate sovereign in the world.The right of the house of Lancaster as resting on prescriptionwas far too strong to be set aside for a mere defect ofgenealogy1. Rut York was forced into this step, partlygecause he had learned by experience that from the rancourof Margaret he could be safe only on the throne,partly because she had so thoroughly identified the dynastywith the misgovernment of a party, that a change ofThe acces- government implied a change of dynasty also. And thoughlv the agreement made with York as to the, succession, andin form the subsequent acceptance in Parliament of Edward IV,only alegitimist wore the guise of a legitimist restoration, that was ooly therestoration outward aspect of the change. The real grounds of it laymuch deeper. It was made possible. not by,the goodnessof the Yorkist pedigree, but by the hadnmof the Lancastriangovernment. And the Speaker of the Houseof Commons, in his address to the crown on the latteroccasion, showed that the Commons were aware that' This prescriptive right was Blakman, pp. 303, 305 (see themwell stated by the Lords in their cited, S. C. H. iii. 201). It is wellreply to York's claim ; Rot. Parl. stated also by Hallam, M. A. iii.v. 376 b. Better still, perhaps, by 195. Cf. Fortescue, De TituloHenry himself in the touching Edwardi, etc., cc. g, 10, 13.words preserved by his panegyristthere were reasons for the change other than genealogicall.Nor can it be said that it was only by weakness that LsterLanthehouse of Lancaster fell. From the death of Cardinal ~ ~ ~ ~Beaufort in 14-17 the rule of Henry VI, or rather of stitutional.Margaret and her ministers, was not merely weak butflagrantly unconstitutional. It violated in the most essentialpoints the compact by which the house of Lancaster cameto the throne. By its steady maintenance of ministerswhom the nation distrusted and abhorred, by its disregardto the wishes of the nation constitutionally expressed, byits attempts to tamper with the independence and libertiesof Parliament2, that house destroyed its own best title tothe throne; and its fate, however melancholy, cannot becalled undeserved. Dr. Stubbs has said from his ownpoint of view that 'the acquittal of the house of Lancasterdoes not imply the condemnation of the house of York3.'From the point of view here taken it would be equally trueto say, that the condemnation of the house of Lancasterdoes not imply the acquittal of the house of York. Andyet the latter has been very unfortunate, in that it hasSome extractsfrom this speechare given in the notes to Chap.xix.The imprisonment of Youngin 1451 for proposing in Parliamentthat York should be declaredheir to the crown was a flagrantattack on what Hallarn justly callsone of the ramparts of the Constitution,freedom of debate. Therewas nothing illegal or unconstitu-tional in Young's proposal. Thecausing Parliament to meet in outof-the-wayplaces, and proroguingit frequently, till the members, outof very weariness, passed the courtmeasures, is distinctly complainedof by Gascoigne. At the Parliamentof Leicester in 1450, ' dictumfuit in public0 quod nisi cornmunitasAnglia articulis propositisconsentiret, parliamentum nonfiniretur, et plures minas et a regeet a suis juvenibus consiliariissustinuit communitas istius parliamenti;' p. 189. But the climaxwas reached at the Parliament ofCoventry In 1459, where theYorkists were attainted, when ' notime was given for the [Yorkist]earls to pack the House of Commons; the knights of the shirewere chosen on the nonzination of@c Lancastrian leaders ;' S. C. H.111. 179. (The italics are mine.)The petition of the sheriffs for indemnitywas not merely, as Dr.Stubbs says, on account of thehaste with which the electionswere held, but because they hadbeen made in virtue of letters ofprivy seal instead of writs underthe great seal. The parliamentwas illegally summoned ab inifio,and could not legalize itself; Rot.Parl. Chron. v. p. 367 83. ; cf. ib. 374 ; End.Const. Hist. iii. 286.