92 SOCIAL DISTINCTIONS, AND THE 



that passionate demonstrations against special privileges were 

 not confined to the lower classes, but were freely expressed, 

 and energetically vindicated, even against the modest authority 

 of academical corporations. 



The king had revoked the charters of manumission. They 

 were not indeed legal, and could not be binding. It was a 

 plain maxim of law, that no grant or remission on the part of 

 the king could be permitted to injure another. Thus it held, 

 that though the king could remit a forfeiture, as, for instance, 

 the right which he acquired in lands taken by the crown for 

 treason, he had no power to extend a similar grace to those 

 whose lands, by any minor offence, had escheated to the lord ; 

 for this would be to give away another man's right. Hence 

 the charters could not be valid. 



The case was laid before both houses in the Parliament held 

 on the 1 6th of September. Sir Hugh Segrave, the treasurer, 

 informed the Commons "that the king had been forced to 

 " grant the insurgents letters patent, under the great seal, 

 " enfranchising to a considerable extent those who were only 

 " bond servants and villains of the realm ; for which the king, 

 cc knowing it to be against law, desires them to seek remedy, 

 cc and provide for the confirmation or revocation thereof. If 

 cc they desire to enfranchise and manumit their villains by 

 cc common consent, he will assent to it." The answer given 

 unanimously is, " That all grants of liberties and manumission 

 cc to the said villains and bond tenants, obtained by force, are 

 " in disherison of them, the Lords and Commons, and to the 

 " destruction of the realm, and therefore null and void -" and 

 they add, "that this consent they would never give to save 

 " themselves from perishing all together in one day." 



We are not informed of the circumstances which induced 

 Richard, or rather his councillors, to lay such a suggestion 

 before the Commons a suggestion implying so different a 

 purpose from that contained in the answer said to have been 

 made to the Essex delegates. That answer may have been 

 partly the expression of indignation, partly of fear, and there- 



