iſſuing, with remainder to lord Thomas, lord John, and lord Humphry, the king’s ſons, and the heirs of their bodies reſpectively. Which is indeed nothing more than the law would have done before, provided Henry the fourth had been a rightful king. It however ſerves to ſhew that it was then generally underſtood, that the king and parliament had a right to new-model and regulate the ſucceſſion to the crown. And we may obſerve, with what caution and delicacy the parliament then avoided declaring any ſentiment of Henry’s original title. However ſir Edward Coke more than once expreſſly declares[1], that at the time of paſſing this act the right of the crown was in the deſcent from Philippa, daughter and heir of Lionel duke of Clarence.
Nevertheless the crown deſcended regularly from Henry IV to his ſon and grandſon Henry V and VI; in the latter of whoſe reigns the houſe of York aſſerted their dormant title; and, after imbruing the kingdom in blood and confuſion for ſeven years together, at laſt eſtabliſhed it in the perſon of Edward IV. At his acceſſion to the throne, after a breach of the ſucceſſion that continued for three deſcents, and above threeſcore years, the diſtinction of a king de jure, and a king de facto began to be firſt taken; in order to indemnify ſuch as had ſubmitted to the late eſtabliſhment, and to provide for the peace of the kingdom by confirming all honors conferred, and all acts done, by thoſe who were now called the uſurpers, not tending to the diſheriſon of the rightful heir. In ſtatute 1 Edw. IV. c. 1. the three Henrys are ſtiled, “late kings of England ſucceſſively in dede, and not of ryght.” And, in all the charters which I have met with of king Edward, wherever he has occaſion to ſpeak of any of the line of Lancaſter, he calls them, “nuper de facto, et non de jure, reges Angliae.”
Edward IV left two ſons and a daughter; the eldeſt of which ſons, king Edward V, enjoyed the regal dignity for a very ſhort time, and was then depoſed by Richard his unnatural uncle;
- ↑ 4 Inſt. 37. 205.
