LECTURE XXVIII.

Of the history of England, from the beginning of the reign of Edward II. in the year 1307, to that of the reign of Henry IV. in the year

IN a former part of this Course I employed three successive lectures in tracing the progress of the English government from the establishment of a feudal monarchy, which was the consequence of the Norman conquest, to the successive introduction of the two distinct classes of the representative members of the legislature, the knights of shires and the bur

gesses. These two classes however do not appear to have been yet formally associated in one common assembly, separated from the temporal lords and the prelates, but seem to have existed only as the elements of a future combination. The combination appears to have been effected in the period which I now propose to consider, comprehending the three reigns of Edward II, Edward III, and Richard II; and the reign of Richard II, with which it concludes, evinced the importance of the new assembly of representatives, even by the efforts which the king successfully employed to corrupt its independence.

Of the three reigns which I propose now to consider, the first and third have a remarkable resemblance, and are not less remarkably contrasted to the intermediate one of Edward III, both Edward II. and Richard II. having been weak and incapable princes, and both having been ultimately driven from the throne, whereas the reign of Edward III, which lasted the extraordinary number of fifty years, was successful abroad, and useful at home, and constitutes in the whole one of the most brilliant periods of the English history. We thus observe two successive alternations of illustrious and feeble sovereigns, the imbecility of Edward II. having immediately followed the glorious government of the first prince of that

name, as that of Richard II. succeeded the splendid rule of the third Edward. Such alternations may however be easily shown to have been favourable to the formation of a mixed constitution, in which various powers were to be combined in very complicated relations. The principles of political activity, elicited in the reign of an able and enterprising sovereign, find an opportunity of more free exertion in the weakness and agitation of that of an incapable successor, but would probably become mischievously violent, if permitted to enjoy the same liberty through two successive reigns; and though another able and enterprising prince may again excite new energies in the social system, yet under such a government all the various agencies of the state will be retained in their subordination, and hindered from producing disturbance and confusion.

The influence of the vigorous government of Edward I. has been already shown to have consisted partly in effecting the re-establishment of order after the protracted struggles of the preceding period, and partly also in bestowing a very important improvement on the system of English legislation, and in introducing into the councils of the nation the order of burgesses, which completed the representative part of those assemblies. When public

order had been thus restored, the principles of a sound legislation had been established, and the materials of the popular part of our mixed constitution had been completed, the contrasted government of Edward II, it may easily be shown, would prove most directly favourable to the farther growth and improvement of that constitution, by affording to the yet humble representatives of the popular interests the opportunity of acquiring political importance.

The weakness of Edward II. was conspicuous in the very commencement of his reign. Retiring from Scotland, which his father had prepared to subdue for the third time, and disbanding the powerful army, which had been provided for the enterprise, he at once convinced his subjects of his utter incapacity for the duties of a sovereign. The remainder of his reign of twenty years was consonant to such a beginning. Successively devoted to two unworthy favourites, Piers Gavaston and Hugh le Despenser, he abandoned to their rapacity and mismanagement the interests of his people, and to support them against the popular hatred involved himself in struggles, which at length became ruinous to his own authority.

Hist. of England, vol. 2. p. 359, 260. Lond. 1770.

the European kingdoms, especially that of England, were at this time unacquainted with the office of a prime minister; and that a prince so feeble as Edward II. had no other means of procuring tranquillity, than the dangerous expedient of devoting his whole authority to some baron, who should be enabled by his own power to maintain the ascendancy of the crown. For supplying this deficiency of political arrangement preparation was made by the struggles, which were provoked by the unworthy favourites of this incapable prince; these struggles may accordingly be considered as the prototypes of the constitutional interference of the parliament in the selection of the ministers of the crown, irregular indeed and violent as the constitution was yet very imperfectly formed, and the habits of all classes of people were tumultuary and disorderly, but still tending to dispose the minds of men to exercise a more peaceable and legitimate interposition in the management of the executive government, when a more perfect constitution, and more improved political habits, should have qualified them for such proceedings. If Edward, instead of attaching himself to incapable favourites, had adopted the expedient mentioned by the historian, and committed his authority to his cousin the earl of Lancaster,