The King does not banish Hereford and Mowbray by his own arbitrary decision. The decision to banish them is made in consultation with a council and one of the members of this council is John of Gaunt himself (Hereford's father):
...Draw near,
And list what with our council we have done.
(I.iii.123ff.)
Thy son is banish'd upon good advice,
Whereto thy tongue a party-verdict gave:
Why at our justice seem'st thou then to lour?
Things sweet to taste prove in digestion sour.
You urged me as a judge; but I had rather
You would have bid me argue like a father.
(I.iii.233)
If I remember correctly, a council was established by Parliament to handle the question of Bolingbroke's accusation against Mowbray. Presumably the council that Richard consults with here is the same council. At any rate, it shows Richard acting within legal or semi-legal forms in the banishment of these two, so it is not an act of arbitrary power, as I suggested before. (I say semi-legal, because I think it was unusual for Parliament to delegate a power of this sort to a council.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think it is an act of arbitrary power. Magna Charta calls for people to be banished only when they break a law and are found guilty of a crime by a jury of their peers. This is not what happens here.
Post a Comment