Shakespeare's Kings (22 page)

Richard
no
longer
had
any
fight
left
in
him.
Thinking
only
of keeping
his
throne,
he
issued
new
writs
of
summons
to
the
forthcoming Parliament
omitting
the
offending
proviso,
ordered
his
sheriffs
to
round up
the
five
accused
and
ensure
their
appearance,
and
made
no
objection when
the
commissioners,
disempowered
as
they
were,
instituted
a thorough
purge
of
his
entire
household
-
where,
in
the
buttery
alone, they
found
a
hundred
superfluous
servants.
Nor
were
the
warrants
for arrest
confined
to
the
original
five.
Others
were
issued
in
the
names
of Sir
Simon
Burley,
who
lost
not
only
the
office
of
Vice-Chamberlain but
also
that
of
Warden
of
the
Cinque
Ports
(and
Dover
Castle
which went
with
it);
of
the
King's
Steward,
Sir
John
Beauchamp;
and
of
six of
the
judges
who
had
subscribed
to
the
Nottingham
declaration,
all
of whom
were
removed
from
the
bench.
Vast
numbers
of
courtiers,
male and
female,
of
all
ranks
and
conditions,
were
summarily
dismissed.

Few
parliamentary
sessions
can
have
been
more
dramatic
than
that
which opened
in
the
White
Hall
of
the
Palace
of
Westminster
²
on
3
February 1388.
The
King
seated
himself
on
his
throne
at
the
far
end,
with
the prelates
on
his
right,
the
secular
lords
on
his
left,
and
the
Bishop
ofEly
on the
woolsack.
³
Then,
at
his
signal,
the
great
doors
were
flung
open
and the
five
Appellants—Gloucester,
Arundel,
Warwick,
Derby
and
Nottingham
-
in
surcoats
of
gold,
marched
arm
in
arm
into
the
Hall.
At
the
very outset,
they
sounded
a
note
of
warning.
Gloucester,
stepping
forward,

di
sclaimed
any
intention
of
personally
deposing
the
King
and
usurping his
throne;
in
such
matters,
he
announced
-
and
here
was
the
sting
—
he would
abide
by
the
judgement
of
his
peers.
Deposition,
in
other
words, remained
a
possibility.
The
long
preamble
of
the
appeal
was
then
read,
in French,
followed
by
no
less
than
thirty-nine
separate
accusations
—
the whole
reading
took
two
hours
—
after
which
the
defendants
were
summoned
by
proclamation
and,
when
four
of
the
five
failed
to
appear,
the Appellants
demanded
judgement
by
default.
At
this
point
the
King's spokesmen
struck
back:
before
there
could
be
any
question,
they claimed,
of
the
guilt
or
innocence
of
the
accused,
there
was
the
legality of
the
appeal
to
be
considered.
The
Appellants
had
spoken
of
treason; there
was,
however,
a
perfe
ctly
good
statute
of
1352
on
this
subject, and
it
was
clear
that
none
of
its
provisions
applied
to
any
of
the
present charges.
Moreover,
though
an
appeal
of
the
kind
now
being
made
was a
recognized
process
in
common
law,
no
precedent
existed
for
its
being heard
in
Parliament.
In
these
circumstances
the
King's
advisers
had
thought
it
their
duty
to consult
a
number
of
judges, Serjeants
and
other
experts
in
both
civil
and
common
law
—
including
several
justices rece
ntly
appointed
by
the
Appellants
themselves.
Every
single
expert consulted
had
declared
the
appeal
invalid.

Richard's
grim
satisfaction
as
he
heard
these
words
can
well
be imagined;
but
his
enemies
were
ready
for
him.
Neither
civil
nor
common law,
they
retorted,
had
any
relevance,
for
these
were
merely
the
creations of
Parliament,
which
remained
supreme.
Thus
crimes
which
affected the
person
of
the
sovereign,
committed
by
persons
many
of
whom were
themselves
peers,
could
be
tried
only
by
the
Lords
of
Parliament themselves,
with
the
King's
assent.
Whether
this
was,
as
some
historians have
suggested,
the
first
great
declaration
of
the
ultimate
sovereignty of
Parliament
over
the
law
of
the
land
or
whether
the
Appellants
were merely
working
on
the
Lords'
natural
vanity
to
further
their
own interests
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
narrative;
but
the
appeal
was
upheld.

Now
at
last
the
charges
could
be
considered.
The
defendants,
it
was averred,
had
taken
advantage
of
the
King's
youth
and
inexperience
to usurp
his
power.
They
had
prevented
him
from
attending
Parliament. They
had
enriched
themselves
and
their
associates.
They
had
suborned judges
and
perverted
the
law.
They
had
conspired
against
the
Duke
of Lancaster
and
other
nobles,
including
the
Appellants
themselves.
They had
induced
the
King
to
negotiate
with
the
King
of
France.
They
had adversely
influenced
the
loyalty
of
the
people
of
London.
They
had
led the
King
to
pack
the
Commons
with
his
followers.
They
had
neglected, and
caused
the
King
to
neglect,
the
defence
of
the
realm.
They
had been
responsible
for
the
quasi-regal
status
conferred
upon
Robert
de Vere
in
Ireland,
without
English
or
Irish
consent,
while
de
Vere
himself had
been
guilty
of
perverting
justice
in
Chester
and
had
finally
incited civil
war.