The Difference between an Absolute and a Limited Monarchy

sent into Kent to hold a special commission of oyer andterminer on those who had been concerned in the rising ofIndanger Cadel. On June 2, 1451, another correspondent writesof assault.that Fortescue had been expectillg every night for a week tohave been assaulted in his house, but nothing had come of it;' the more pity ' adds the unfeeling writer 2. Mr. Gairdnerthinks that this was 'probably for no other reason thanhis high impartiality 3.' Lord Clermont attributes theanimus of the writer to Yorkist sympathies4, and wemust attribute the threatened assaults to the same cause.Whatever may have been Fortescue's impartiality in purelylegal matters, and there is no reason to doubt it, it iscertain that in politics he was, as he himself confesses, ' aIIC sl~nres partial man"' or, as we might say, a party-man. And therethe ur~populnrityof is concl~sive evidence that about this time he had unfortheCourt tunately identified hinlself so closely with the party ofparty.Suffolk and Somerset, as to become involved, whetherjustly or unjustly, in their unpopularity. In the proclamationissued by Cade in the name of the Commonsof Kent at the time of their rising the King is requestedto send 'some trcw Justyce wyth certeyll trew lords andknyghts' into Icent, to enquire of all 'traytors and brybors.'And it is addcd : ' to syt upon this enqwerye we refuseno juge except iij chefe juges, the which ben fals to beleveG.'' Paston Letters, i. 139. The imply that Fortescue hzd at thissentence is obscurely worded, but time a private house in London?the above seems to be the sense We have seen that he had proofit. ' The Chief Justice is not perty in Middlesex ; above, p. 44.here, ne noon other Justice, except Ib. lvii.Danvers is now made Juge of the ' U. S. p. 59.Colnune Place, and is forth into Works, p. 532.Kent with the Lords! The words G Three Fifteenth Century' is forth ' &c. must, I think, refer Chronicles, p. .98. The otherto Fortescue. Mr. Gairdner has two ' Chief Judges ' were Sir Johnhere copied a strange mis-state- Prisot, Chief Justice of the Commentof Fenn's that Hody was at mon Pleas, and Peter Arderne,this time Chief Justice. We habe Chief Baron of the Exchequer.seen that Fortescue succeeded The fact that I'risot was, with theHody as early as January 1442. exception of Fortescue, the only' The Chief Yistice hathwaited one of Henry VI's judges whoto ben assauted all this sevenyght was not re-appointed on the acnyghtlyin hes house, but nothing cession of Edward IV, seems tocome as yett, the more pite ;' ib. confirm the idea that he was R185-6. Do the words ' hes house' strong Lancastrianpartizan. WhatIn the satirical dirge upon the death of Suffolk composedabout the same time Fortescue is introduced along withothers of the court party as taking part in this parodyof a funeral service1. And his name occurs again in alist of unpopular persons indicted bcforc the Chancellor(Kemp) and the Duke of Buckingham in August, 1451~.In February, 1454, the Lords consulted the judgcs with ConsuItetIreference to the case of Thorpe. Thc answer givcn by :,";!'Orl'e'iFortescue in the name of all his colleagucs is \\ell kno~vn.They refused to say anything which could be construedas a claim on their part to determine the privilcgcs ofParliament, but they stated what the custom had beenin previous cases ".In May of the following year took place the first battle Death ofof St. Alban's, in which, as WC have seen, Fortescue's younger his poungcrrbrother.brother Sir Kichard Fortescue was killed *, an event whichis not likely to have made him more favourably inclinedtowards the Yorkists. In June we hcar that Sir WilliamOldhall the well-known Yorkist, who had becn attaintcd inParliament in June 1453, was waiting in sanctuary for thereturn of Fortcscue to London, in order that he might sucin the King's Hcnch for the reversal of his outla~vry. Thishe succeeded in effecting a few days later 5.In February, 1456, we find a dispute bctween Sir PhilipArderne had done to make him- Wot. Parl. v. 239 b. On theself unpopular I do not know. question of privilege involved in' 'Bc:ccttus qzri iizt~1'Cigit and Thorpe's case, cf. S.C.H.iii. 491-2 ;dredit also,Iiogers, gas coigne,.^. uxxvi ; Ilat-Seyth John Fortescw, all this sell's Precedents, I. 28-35. Acfalstreson.'cording to the precedents laidThree Fifteenth Cent. Chron., p. down by Fortescue, it would seem102. In the shorter version of that the imprisonment of Thorpethe same song printed by Mr. was not a breach of privilege, andWright, Political Songs, ii. 232 such is Mr. Rogers' opinion. Hutff., the name of Fortescue does not even on the most unfavourableoccur.view the hreach was trifling com-This list is printed by Mr. pared with that of which the othcrWright, Political Songs, 11. hi. f. side had bernguilty in the case ofIt is worth while to compare it Young, for Thorpe's imprisonwiththe song quoted in the last ment did not arise, as Young's did,note. Very many of the names out of his conduct in Parliament.are the same in both. This list is ' SeeStowe,p.399 b ; above,p.qr.dated August, 29 Hen. VI., i.e. Paston Letters, i. 336 ; cf. ib.1451. 343-4.E 2