, and which
would entail distraction and misery on the nation, to the latest
posterity. That the succession, at least, of the crown, was then
preserved inviolate: the lineal heir was placed on the throne; and the
people had an opportunity, by their legal obedience to him, of making
atonement for the violence which they had committed against his
predecessor. That a descendant of Lionel, duke of Clarence, the elder
brother of the late duke of Lancaster, had been declared in parliament
successor to the crown; he had left posterity; and their title, however
it might be overpowered by present force and faction, could never
be obliterated from the minds of the people. That if the turbulent
disposition alone of the nation had overturned the well-established
throne of so good a prince as Richard, what bloody commotions must
ensue, when the same cause was united to the motive of restoring the
legal and undoubted heir to his authority? That the new government
intended to be established, would stand on no principle; and would
scarcely retain any pretence by which it could challenge the obedience
of men of sense and virtue. That the claim of lineal descent was
so gross, as scarcely to deceive the most ignorant of the populace:
conquest could never be pleaded by a rebel against his sovereign; the
consent of the people had no authority in a monarchy not derived from
consent, but established by hereditary right; and however the nation
might be justified in deposing the misguided Richard, it could never
have any reason for setting aside his lawful heir and successor, who was
plainly innocent. And that the duke of Lancaster would give them but a
bad specimen of the legal moderation which might be expected from
his future government, if he added,[**typo?] to the crime of his past
rebellion, the guilt of excluding the family, which, both by right of
blood and by declaration of parliament, would, in case of Richard's
demise or voluntary resignation, have been received as the undoubted
heirs of the monarchy.[*]

* Sir John Heywarde, p. 101.

All the circumstances of this event, compared to those which attended
the late revolution in 1688, show the difference between a great and
civilized nation, deliberately vindicating its established privileges,
and a turbulent and barbarous aristocracy, plunging headlong from the
extremes of one faction into those of another. This noble freedom of
the bishop of Carlisle, instead of being applauded