Gloucester's Alleged Confession

Hume claims that the truth of Gloucester's confession "may be entirely depended on"--that it was "genuine, and obtained without violence."

His evidence is this: In the first parliament of Henry IV, Judge Rickhill, who brought the confession over from Calais, was tried on the charge of fabricating the confession, but was acquitted, even though "Glocester's party was prevalent."

To Hume, Rickhill's acquittal "may even appear marvellous, considering the times." (Hume believed him to be innocent.)

Alliance with France

But Hume does admit that Richard's alliance with France may have played a part--and this does not reflect well on Richard:

"[Glocester's] aversion to the French truce and alliance was public and avowed; and that court, which had now a great influence over the king, pushed him to provide for his own safety, by punishing the traiterous designs of his uncle."

So Richard murdered Gloucester at the urging of the king of France?!

The Guilt of the Duke of Gloucester

Hume gives a couple of possible reasons that might have at least somewhat justified Richard's murder of Gloucester.

1. Froissart reports a scheme to depose Richard and place Roger Mortimer, whom Richard had named as his successor, upon the throne. Mortimer allegedly declined and so Gloucester schemed to divide the kingdom in four parts and bestown them upon himself, his two brothers, and the earl of Arundel.

"The king, it is said, being informed of these designes, saw that either his own ruin or that of Glocester was inevitable; and he resolved, by a hasty blow, to prevent the execution of such destructrive projects."

2. Right before his execution, Gloucester allegedly made a confession and Hume is convinced that the report of this confession is genuine.

In this supposed confession, Gloucester allegedly confessed to the following crimes:

1. Speaking contemptuously of the king's person and his government
2. Deliberating concerning the lawfulness of throwing off his allegiance to him
3. Took part in a secret conference, where his deposition was proposed, talked of, and determined.

Hume concludes that the plot was not so far advanced as to justify Richard in taking such drastic action as he proceeded to take: "It is reasonable to think, that his schemes were not so far advanced as to make him resolve on putting them immediately into execution. The danger, probably, was still too distant to render a desperate remedy entirely necessary for the security of government."

Richard's Character

1396:

According to Hume, Richard's "personal character brought him into contempt....Indolent, profuse [i.e. "spending or giving freely and in large amount, often to excess"], addicted to low pleasures; he spent his whole time in feasting and jollity, and dissipated, in idle show, or in bounties to favourites of no reputation, that revenue which the people expected to see him employ in enterprizes directed to public honour and advantage."

Richard II's Alliance with France

1396: Hume says that Richard agreed to marry the daughter of King Charles of France "chiefly that he might fortify himself by this alliance, against the enterprizes of his uncles and the incurable turbulence as well as inconstancy of his barons."

The Inexorable Tyrant

To Hume, it is Gloucester who is "the inexorable tyrant." He describes Gloucester in this way after Gloucester refuses to pardon Simon Burley, even after queen Anne pleads with him on her knees for three hours.

The Accusation of the Five

1388: The Duke of Gloucester and his party became aware that the king was plotting against them and decided to strike first.

They armed themselves and confronted Richard in London. They sent four messengers to the king: the archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Lovel, Lord Cobham, and Lord Devereux. Through these messengers they demanded that the king should deliver up to them "the persons who had seduced him by their pernicious counsel."

A few days later, they accused the following men of being enemies of the state:

1. The archbishop of York
2. The duke of Ireland
3. The earl of Suffolk
4. Sir Robert Tresilian
5. Sir Nicholos Brembre

The duke of Ireland raised forces and tried to oppose the Duke and his party, but was defeated. The duke of Gloucester then appeared with 40,000 men and compelled Richard to summon a parliament. This provided Gloucester and his party with an opportunity, as Hume puts it, "by observing a few legal forms, to take vengeance on all their enemies."

Five men came forward in parliament to bring accusations against the five counsellors:

1. The duke of Gloucester
2. The earl of Derby
3. The earl of Arundel
4. The earl of Warwic
5. The earl of Nottingham.

The proceedings, says Hume, "were well suited to the violence and iniquity of the times." Brembre, the only one of the accused who was in custody, was sentenced to death after only the appearance of a trial in the house of lords (whom, says Hume, were not by law his proper judges).

He was executed along with Tresilian, who had been apprehended in the meantime.

Hume sees these men as being not guilty of any of the accusations against them, but rather as being men who faithfully defended their king first against the unlawful commission established by Gloucester and his party and then against the detention of the king against his will. To Hume, the actions of the accusers and the judges in parliament were "without any regard to reason, justice, or humanity."

(Hume says that "the royal prerogative was invaded by the commission." You can see why Americans didn't especially like Hume's version of the English history, as I think Forrest McDonald points out.)