"His treacherous father hath neglect his word,
And done imparshall past by dint of sword."
is considered by Mr. Baron Field as unintelligible. It seems to me that
the correction of it is obvious, and the explanation probable, though
not exactly fitting what had been said before, which is merely that Lord
Stanley had refused to come to Richard, not that he had actually joined
Richmond, much less fought for him. I read--
"And dome imparshall;"
_i.e._ and _doom impartial_, and interpret, "pass'd upon himself impartial
judgment," or rather on his son, as is said just before:--
"The father's fact condemns the son to die."
It is possible that doom by dint of sword may mean, to be executed by
dint of sword; that is, on the son. The _doom_ in the Scotch court, in
the _Heart of Mid Lothian_, is not the verdict, but the punishment.
Immediately before, we have this passage, also described as
unintelligible:--
"_King._ Did not your selves, in presence, see the bondes sealde
and assignde?
"_Lo._ What tho my lord, the _vardits own_, the titles doth resign.
"_King._ The bond is broke, and I will sue the fine."
I see no emendation for this but the _vardits own_ to mean, "the party
who has the verdict in his favour," and the speech to be a question. The
King tries to persuade himself that there is, _ipso facto_, no room for
forgiveness. Lovel answers, upon the principle of the rule of law, "Qui
vis potest renunciare juri pro se introducto."