BOLINGBROKE You have a son, Aumerle, my noble cousin.
Had you first died and he been thus trod down,
He should have found his uncle Gaunt a father
To rouse his wrongs and chase them to the bay.
I am denied to sue my livery here
And yet my letters patent give me leave.
My father’s goods are all distrained and sold
And these and all are all amiss employed.
What would you have me do? I am a subject
And I challenge law. Attorneys are denied me
And therefore personally I lay my claim
To my inheritance of free descent. (2.3.124-135)
The second part of Bolingbroke’s speech is mostly legal in its approach, but he frames it in terms of emotion, family, paternal love and loyalty. You have a son, Aumerle (a useful reminder of the existence of this hitherto quite minor character, whom we might remember is a particular ally, and cousin, of King Richard, who gave a sarcastic account of his parting with Bolingbroke to amuse the king, in 1.4. He’s going to keep popping up). If you had been the first to die, rather than my father, your brother Gaunt, and your son Aumerle thus trod down, oppressed, ill-treated, then Aumerle would have found his uncle Gaunt a father, unquestioningly acting on his behalf and in support of his rights, rousing his wrongs and chasing them to the bay, a metaphor from hunting, where to rouse means to locate and flush out a quarry, and to chase it to the bay means to run after it to the point of exhaustion. Bolingbroke is suggesting that Gaunt would have supported Aumerle’s cause with fierce tenacity, never giving up. (The identity of the quarry is left indeterminate, although the minds of at least some in the audience might wander to the stag—King Richard’s personal badge.)
Then Bolingbroke gets down to the legal business, employing legal terms with a precision which might particularly recommend him to the Inns of Court students in the audience, an important and influential constituency for early modern playwrights. I am being prevented from suing my livery, claiming that to which I am lawfully and rightfully entitled, my inheritance, my titles, my estates. My letters patent give me leave: the official paperwork’s all in order! I have documents! But that’s just the start. My father’s goods are all distrained, requisitioned, seized (distrain is a specifically legal term; it has the added implication that something has been seized in order to compel its rightful owner to do something, such as pay a fine, or as a punishment)—and those goods have been sold off, my inheritance, the family things, my father’s stuff. It’s all been employed amiss, abused, wrongfully used. So, uncle, regent: what would you have me do, in these circumstances? I am a subject, and I challenge law, I seek redress and justice, as is my right, as an Englishman under English law. I can’t call on intermediaries, I can’t appoint representatives—attorneys are denied me—and therefore I’ve done the only thing possible: personally I lay my claim. I’ve come to claim my inheritance of free descent, exactly as the laws of inheritance (which you have so vocally defended) set out.
