ly sanctioned the banishment of Henry of Bolingbroke and the Duke of Norfolk, together with the other hasty and tyrannical measures which were precipitating the fate of the unhappy Richard.

On the death of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster the King, with the concurrence of the Chancellor, seized all

the possessions and jurisdictions of this powerful [A. D. 1399.] family as forfeited to the Crown, although the sentence against Henry of Bolinbroke had only been banishment for ten years, and it had been expressly stipulated that he should be entitled by his attorney to enter into possession of any succession that might fall to him in the mean time. This act of injustice made Henry desperate, and led to his invasion of England and his claim of the

crown.

Edmund Stafford, the Chancellor, did not accompany Richard in his ill-judged expedition to Ireland, and he seems to have remained in possession of the Great Seal in London till after Henry had landed at Ravenspurg,—had been joined by the Duke of York at St. Alban's, had taken Bristol,—had put to death the Earl of Wiltshire and others of the King's ministers whom he found there,—had got possession of Richard's person on his return from Ireland,—and was de facto the master of the kingdom.

As might be expected, the records at the conclusion of this reign are very defective, and historians and antiquaries have been much puzzled respecting the manner in which the office of Chancellor was then disposed of. There is no entry to be found of any transfer of the Great Seal under Richard from the time when Stafford, Bishop of Exeter, was first sworn in; but from Privy Seal bills still extant, it is certain that before Richard's formal deposition, and the elevation of Henry to the throne, Thomas de Arundel, Archbishop of Canterbury, and JOHN SEARLE, who had been made Master of the Rolls in 1394, were successively invested with the office of Chancellor.

The transfer of the Seal to Arundel must have been between the 15th of July and the 23d of August, the former being the last date of the Privy Seal bills addressed to the Bishop of Exeter, and the other the earliest date of those addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury; and on the like evidence Searle's appointment must have been between the 3d and 5th of September.

The learned and acute Mr. Duffus Hardy conjectures that Richard had recalled the Archbishop from banishmeut, and again made him Chancellor*; but, with the greatest respect for this high authority, I think it certain that the change was made, though in Richard's name, yet without his privity, and by those who were about to dethrone him.

When Bolingbroke and the Duke of Norfolk were banished, it was prescribed that they should have no intercourse with Archbishop Arundel, then in exile, and considered a very dangerous

* Hardy's Chancellors, 46.

man; but as soon as Bolingbroke had renounced all thoughts of reconciliation with Richard, he entered into a close alliance with the Archbishop, and they jointly planned the invasion of England during Richard absence in Ireland. The Archbishop, with his nephew the young Earl of Arundel, embarked with Henry at Nantes, landed with him in Yorkshire, advised and supported him in all his proceedings, and actually placed the crown upon his head. From the time when Richard surrendered himself to the Earl of Northumberland at Conway, which was on the 18th of August, he was a prisoner, and having been forced to issue writs for the calling of a parliament to depose him, he was carried to London, and kept in close custody in the Tower. We may conjecture that an order was extorted at the same time for delivering the Seal to the Archbishop, and that by him the writs were sealed.

It seems at first sight more difficult to account for Arundel's parting with the office so suddenly; for Searle was certainly Chancellor by the 5th of September, and Richard's reign nominally continued till the 30th of the same month, when parliament met, and his deposition was pronounced. Searle was in the interest of Henry, and was continued by him in office.

The probability is, that the Archbishop, who cast all the parts in the drama of the revolution, intending that he himself, as metropolitan and first in precedence in the realm, should lead Henry to the vacant throne in Westminster Hall, and crown him in Westminster Abbey, conceived that it would have a better effect if he should appear only in his sacred character, and the civil office of Chancellor should for the time be filled by another. He, therefore, may have handed it over to Searle, his creature, in the belief that he should be able to resume it at pleasure.

I do not find Searle's name mentioned as taking any active part in the parliamentary proceedings on this change of dynasty, and he was probably only permitted to sit on the woolsack in the House of Lords, and to put the question as Speaker.

On Michaelmas-day, the Archbishop accompanied Henry to the Tower, Richard, while a prisoner there, having said that, "he was willing to resign as he had promised, but that he desired to have some discourse with his cousin the Duke of Lancaster and the Archbishop of Canterbury before he fulfilled such his promise." The record of the deposition on the Parliament Roll relates that "the King, having had discourse with the said Duke and Archbishop, exhibiting a merry countenance as appeared to those that stood round about, holding the schedule of renunciation in his hand, very willingly read the same and subscribed it, and absolved all his subjects from their allegiance to him." When this instrument, supposed to have been so freely and cheerfully executed, was read in parliament next day, "it was demanded by the Chancellor of the estates and people then present, to wit, first, the Archbishop of Canterbury, to whom, by reason of the dignity and prerogative of his metropolitan church it belongs in this behalf to have the

first voice amongst the rest of the prelates and nobles of the realm, whether for their interest, and the utility of the kingdom, they would be willing to admit such renunciation and cession?" This being carried with great applause the Archbishop thought it would be well to have another string to his bow, lest hereafter the free agency of the act of resignation should be doubted by some suspicious persons, and he caused articles to be exibited against Richard for misgovernment, and a solemn sentence of deposition to be pronounced against him.*

The throne thus being declared vacant, Henry of Bolingbroke, who had taken his seat at the head of the temporal lords, rose and made his memorable claim, “in the name of Fader, Son, and Holy Ghost," having humbly fortified himself with the sign of the cross on his forehead and on his breast.

The states, with the whole people, having consented that the said Duke should reign over them, the Archbishop, taking him by the right hand, led him to the royal chair of state, which had been placed at the upper end of the hall; and when the new King kneeling down before it, had prayed a little while, the Archbishop caused him to sit in the royal seat, and delivered an oration from the text, Vir dominabitur populo" A man shall reign over my people,” 1 Sam. ix. 17.; in which he pointed out the evils of the rule of children, and the abuses of the late reign, and the blessings to be expected from the mature wisdom of him who was now to wield the sceptre; concluding with these words "And so, in the stead of a child wantoning in foolish stubborn humours, a man shall reign and such a man, that it shall be said of him, A king shall reign in wisdom, and he shall execute judgment and do justice in the earth."†

On the 6th of October following, a new parliament met under writs of summons issued under Henry's Great Seal, to ratify these proceedings.

Lord Chancellor Searle was still silent, and the session was opened by a speech from the Archbishop, who took for his text these words out of Maccabees, "Incumbit nobis ordinare pro regno," — propounding the constitutional doctrine, “that a King is not to rule by his own will or humour, but to be governed by the honourable, discreet, and sage men of the realm.”‡

His motion for confirming what had been done in the deposition of Richard and the elevation of Henry, was passed with the dissentient voice of one, who strenuously resisted it, and earned the bright testimony " that he was the only honest man in this parliament, scorning life and fortune in respect to his Sovereign's right and his own allegiance." The noble speech of the Bishop of Carlisle on this occasion, as given by Sir John Hayward, greatly exceeds, not only in boldness, but in lucid arrangement, close reasoning, and touching eloquence, any thing that could be expected

* 1 St. Tr. 135, 1 Parl. Hist. 242. VOL. I.

23

† 1 Parl. Hist. 249. ↑ Ibid 285.

from that age.* The oration was listened to; but as soon as the orator had concluded it, he was attached of high treason, and sent prisoner to the Abbey of St. Alban's. Though his life was safe, he was deprived of his bishopric. The Pope, as a testimony to his integrity, made him titular Bishop of Samos.

The Archbishop then moved that the King should be prayed to create his eldest son Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, and Earl of Chester, which was carried unanimously; and thereupon the King, sitting in his royal seat in full parliament, put a coronet on the head of Prince Henry, and a ring of gold on his finger, and gave him a golden rod in his hand, and kissed him.†

The Archbishop had next to manage a very delicate matterthe disposal of Richard's person in order to his keeping in safe custody, for the King would have his life saved." Twenty-two spiritual and thirty-six lay lords being all who were present, were severally asked their opinion, and they all assented to the resolution, "that he should be put under a safe and secret guard, and that no person who had been familiar with him should be about his person, and that it should be done in the most secret manner that could be devised."‡

We must not enter into the controversy how the unhappy Richard came to his end,-whether by violence or famine;—and before passing on to the Chancellors of his successor, we can only make a few observations on the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery during his reign.

The practice of referring matters by parliament to the Chancellor still occasionally prevailed. Thus in 15 Rich. II. two petitions were addressed to the King and the Peers, and the answer to each was the same,-" that the petition be sent to the Chancery, -the Chancellor to hear both parties, and further let there be done by authority of parliament that which right and reason and good faith and good conscience demand.Ӥ

But the circuity of a petition to parliament or to the Council was now seldom resorted to. I have shown the opinion to be unfounded, that the equitable jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was not of earlier date; but there can be no doubt that about this time, it was very much extended. The petitions of the Commons in the 13th of Richard II.," that the Chancellor might make no order against the common law, and that no one should appear before the Chancellor where recovery was given by the common law," carry in them an admission that a power of judicature did reside in the Chancellor, so long as he did not determine against the common law, nor interpose where the common law furnished a remedy. The King's answer, "that it should continue as the usage had been heretofore," clearly demonstrates that such an au

* 1 Parl. Hist. 274. See a beautiful abstract of it at the conclusion of Hume's History of Ric. 2. vol. iii. 43., and see Shak. Ric. 2. act. iv. scene 1.

§ Rot. Parl. vol. iii. 297.

thority, restrained within due bounds, was recognised by the constitution of the country.

The use of the writ of subpoena to compel an appearance by the defendant, gave new vigour to the process of the Court, and the necessity for previously filing a written statement of the grievance alleged to require relief in equity, introduced the formal proceeding by “Bill and Answer," instead of a mere loose petition to be heard in a summary way, ore tenus. In fact, the practice of addressing bills directly to the Chancellor had become quite common, and many of them are still extant.

The greatest indignation broke forth in this reign against the Masters in Chancery, who were considered overgrown and oppressive sinecurists. In 5 R. II. a complaint was exhibited against them in parliament, "that they were over fatt both in boddie and purse, and over well furred in their benefices, and put the Kinge to veiry great cost more than needed*,”—yet nothing effectual was done to reform them.

The execution of Tressilian, and the punishment of the other common-law judges under Lord Chancellor Arundel, was attended with much violence, but had a powerful influence in creating a respect for parliamentary privilege, which they had attempted 'utterly to subvert.

Upon the whole, down to the accession of the House of Lancaster, our juridical institutions, including the Court of Chancery, had gone on with a steady improvement, but they remained nearly stationary from this time till the union of the Roses in the reign of Henry VII.†

CHAPTER XVIII.

CHANCELLORS AND KEEPERS OF THE GREAT SEAL DURING THE REIGN OF HENRY IV.

JOHN SEARLE, who had nominally been Chancellor to Richard II., and presided on the woolsack as a tool of Archbishop Arundel, was for a short time concontinued in the office by the new Sovereign.

[SEPT. 30, 1399.]

Little is known respecting his origin or prior history. He is supposed to have been a mere clerk in the Chancery brought forward for a temporary purpose to play the part of Chancellor. Having strutted and fretted his hour upon the stage, he was heard of no more. It proved convenient for the Staffords, the Beau