[Illustration: 1_250_henry4.jpg HENRY IV]
HENRY IV
{1399.} The English had so long been familiarized to the hereditary
succession of their monarchs, the instances of departure from it had
always borne such strong symptoms of injustice and violence, and so
little of a national choice or election, and the returns to the true
line had ever been deemed such fortunate incidents in their history,
that Henry was afraid, lest, in resting his title on the consent of the
people, he should build on a foundation to which the people themselves
were not accustomed, and whose solidity they would with difficulty be
brought to recognize. The idea too of choice seemed always to imply that
of conditions, and a right of recalling the consent upon any supposed
violation of them; an idea which was not naturally agreeable to a
sovereign, and might in England be dangerous to the subjects, who, lying
so much under the influence of turbulent nobles, had ever paid but an
imperfect obedience even to their hereditary princes. For these reasons
Henry was determined never to have recourse to this claim; the only
one on which his authority could consistently stand: he rather chose to
patch up his title, in the best manner he could, from other pretensions:
and in the end, he left himself, in the eyes of men of sense, no ground
of right but his present possession; a very precarious foundation,
which, by its very nature, was liable to be overthrown by every faction
of the great, or prejudice of the people. He had indeed a present
advantage over his competitor: the heir of the house of Mortimer, who
had been declared in parliament heir to the crown, was a boy of seven
years of age:[*] his friends consulted his safety by keeping silence
with regard to his title: Henry detained him and his younger brother in
an honorable custody at Windsor Castle.
* Dugdale, vol. i. p. 151.
But he had reason to dread that, in proportion as that nobleman grew
to man’s estate, he would draw to him the attachment of the people, and
make them reflect on the fraud, violence, and injustice by which he had
been excluded from the throne. Many favorable topics would occur in his
behalf: he was a native of England; possessed an extensive interest from
the greatness and alliances of his family; however criminal the deposed
monarch, this youth was entirely innocent; he was of the same religion,
and educated in the same manners with the people, and could not be
governed by any separate interest: these views would all concur to favor
his claim; and though the abilities of the present prince might ward
off any dangerous revolution, it was justly to be apprehended, that
his authority could with difficulty be brought to equal that of his
predecessors.
Henry, in his very first parliament, had reason to see the danger
attending that station which he had assumed, and the obstacles which he
would meet with in governing an unruly aristocracy, always divided by
faction, and at present inflamed with the resentments consequent on
such recent convulsions. The peers, on their assembling, broke out into
violent animosities against each other; forty gauntlets, the pledges of
furious battle, were thrown on the floor of the house by noblemen who
gave mutual challenges; and “liar” and “traitor” resounded from all
quarters. The king had so much authority with these doughty champions,
as to prevent all the combats which they threatened; but he was not
able to bring them to a proper composure, or to an amicable disposition
towards each other.
{1400.} It was not long before these passions broke into action. The
earls of Rutland, Kent, and Huntingdon, and Lord Spenser, who were now
degraded from the respective titles of Albemarle, Surrey, Exeter, and
Glocester, conferred on them by Richard, entered into a conspiracy,
together with the earl of Salisbury and Lord Lumley, for raising an
insurrection, and for seizing the king’s person at Windsor;[*] but
the treachery of Rutland gave him warning of the danger. He suddenly
withdrew to London; and the conspirators, who came to Windsor with a
body of five hundred horse, found that they had missed this blow, on
which all the success of their enterprise depended.
* Walsing. p. 362. Otterborne. p. 224.
Henry appeared, next day, at Kingston upon Thames, at the head of twenty
thousand men, mostly drawn from the city; and his enemies, unable to
resist his power, dispersed themselves, with a view of raising their
followers in the several counties which were the seat of their interest.
But the adherents of the king were hot in the pursuit, and every where
opposed themselves to their progress. The earls of Kent and Salisbury
were seized at Cirencester by the citizens, and were next day beheaded
without further ceremony, according to the custom of the times.[*] The
citizens of Bristol treated Spenser and Lumley in the same manner. The
earl of Huntingdon, Sir Thomas Blount, and Sir Benedict Sely, who
were also taken prisoners, suffered death, with many others of the
conspirators, by orders from Henry. And when the quarters of these
unhappy men were brought to London, no less than eighteen bishops and
thirty-two mitred abbots joined the populace, and met them with the most
indecent marks of joy and exultation.
But the spectacle the most shocking to every one, who retained any
sentiment either of honor or humanity, still remained. The earl of
Rutland appeared, carrying on a pole the head of Lord Spenser, his
brother-in-law, which he presented in triumph to Henry as a testimony of
his loyalty. This infamous man, who was soon after duke of York by
the death of his father, and first prince of the blood, had been
instrumental in the murder of his uncle, the duke of Glocester;[**] had
then deserted Richard, by whom he was trusted; had conspired against
the life of Henry, to whom he had sworn allegiance; had betrayed his
associates, whom he had seduced into this enterprise; and now displayed,
in the face of the world, these badges of his multiplied dishonor.
* Walsing. p. 363. Ypod. Neust. p. 556.
** Dugdale, vol. ii. p. 171.
{1401.} Henry was sensible that, though the execution of these
conspirators might seem to give security to his throne, the animosities
which remain after such bloody scenes, are always dangerous to royal
authority; and he therefore determined not to increase, by any hazardous
enterprise, those numerous enemies with whom he was every where
environed. While a subject, he was believed to have strongly imbibed all
the principles of his father, the duke of Lancaster, and to have adopted
the prejudices which the Lollards inspired against the abuses of the
established church: but finding, himself possessed of the throne by so
precarious a title, he thought superstition a necessary implement of
public authority; and he resolved, by every expedient, to pay court to
the clergy. There were hitherto no penal laws enacted against heresy; an
indulgence which had proceeded, not from a spirit of toleration in the
Romish church, but from the ignorance and simplicity of the people,
which had rendered them unfit either for starting or receiving any new
or curious doctrines, and which needed not to be restrained by rigorous
penalties. But when the learning and genius of Wickliffe had once
broken, in some measure, the fetters of prejudice, the ecclesiastics
called aloud for the punishment of his disciples; and the king, who was
very little scrupulous in his conduct, was easily induced to sacrifice
his principles to his interest, and to acquire the favor of the church
by that most effectual method, the gratifying of their vengeance against
opponents. He engaged the parliament to pass a law for that purpose: it
was enacted, that when any heretic, who relapsed, or refused to abjure
his opinions, was delivered over to the secular arm by the bishop or
his commissaries, he should be committed to the flames by the civil
magistrate before the whole people.[*] This weapon did not long remain
unemployed in the hands of the clergy: William Sautré, rector of St.
Osithes in London, had been condemned by the convocation of Canterbury;
his sentence was ratified by the house of peers; the king issued
his writ for the execution; [**] and the unhappy man atoned for his
erroneous opinions by the penalty of fire. This is the first instance of
that kind in England; and thus one horror more was added to those dismal
scenes which at that time were already but too familiar to the people.
But the utmost precaution and prudence of Henry could not shield him
from those numerous inquietudes which assailed him from every quarter.
The connections of Richard with the royal family of France, made that
court exert its activity to recover his authority, or revenge his death.
[***]
* 2 Henry IV. chap. vii.
** Rymer, vol. viii. p. 178.
*** Rymer, vol. viii. p. 123.
But though the confusions in England tempted the French to engage in
some enterprise by which they might distress their ancient enemy, the
greater confusions which they experienced at home, obliged them quickly
to accommodate matters; and Charles, content with recovering his
daughter from Henry’s hands, laid aside his preparations, and renewed
the truce between the kingdoms.[*] The attack of Guienne was also an
inviting attempt, which the present factions that prevailed among the
French obliged them to neglect. The Gascons, affectionate to the memory
of Richard, who was born among them, refused to swear allegiance to
a prince that had dethroned and murdered him; and the appearance of
a French army on their frontiers would probably have tempted them
to change masters.[**] But the earl of Worcester, arriving with some
English troops, gave countenance to the partisans of Henry, and overawed
their opponents. Religion too was here found a cement to their union
with England. The Gascons had been engaged by Richard’s authority to
acknowledge the pope of Rome; and they were sensible that, if they
submitted to France, it would be necessary for them to pay obedience
to the pope of Avignon, whom they had been taught to detest as a
schismatic. Their principles on this head were too fast rooted to admit
of any sudden or violent alteration.
The revolution in England proved likewise the occasion of an
insurrection in Wales. Owen Glendour, or Glendourduy, descended from the
ancient princes of that country, had become obnoxious on account of
his attachment to Richard: and Reginald, Lord Gray of Ruthyn, who was
closely connected with the new king, and who enjoyed a great fortune in
the marches of Wales, thought the opportunity favorable for oppressing
his neighbor, and taking possession of his estate. [***] Glendour,
provoked at the injustice, and still more at the indignity, recovered
possession by the sword; [****] Henry sent assistance to Gray; [*****]
the Welsh took part with Glendour: a troublesome and tedious war was
kindled, which Glendour long sustained by his valor and activity, aided
by the natural strength of the country, and the untamed spirit of its
inhabitants.
* Rymer, vol. viii. p. 142, 152, 219.
** Rymer, vol. viii. p. 110, 111.
*** Vita Ric. Sec. p. 171, 172
**** Walsing, p. 364.
***** Vita Rir. Sec. p. 172, 173.
As Glendour committed devastations promiscuously on all the English,
he infested the estate of the earl of Marche; and Sir Edmund Mortimer,
uncle to that nobleman, led out the retainers of the family, and gave
battle to the Welsh chieftain: his troops were routed, and he was taken
prisoner:[*] at the same time, the earl himself, who had been allowed
to retire to his castle of Wigmore, and who, though a mere boy, took
the field with his followers, fell also into Glendour’s hands, and was
carried by him into Wales.[**] As Henry dreaded and hated all the family
of Marche, he allowed the earl to remain in captivity; and though that
young nobleman was nearly allied to the Piercies, to whose assistance
he himself had owed his crown, he refused to the earl of Northumberland
permission to treat of his ransom with Glendour.
The uncertainty in which Henry’s affairs stood during a long time with
France, as well as the confusions incident to all great changes in
government, tempted the Scots to make incursions into England; and
Henry, desirous of taking revenge upon them, but afraid of rendering his
new government unpopular by requiring great supplies from his subjects,
summoned at Westminster a council of the peers, without the commons, and
laid before them the state of his affairs.[***] The military part of the
feudal constitution was now much decayed: there remained only so much of
that fabric as affected the civil rights and properties of men: and
the peers here undertook, but voluntarily, to attend the king in an
expedition against Scotland, each of them at the head of a certain
number of his retainers. [****] Henry conducted this army to Edinburgh,
of which he easily made himself master; and he there summoned Robert
III. to do homage to him for his crown.[*****] But finding that the
Scots would neither submit nor give him battle, he returned in three
weeks, after making this useless bravado; and he disbanded his army.
{1402.} In the subsequent season, Archibald, earl of Douglas, at the
head of twelve thousand men, and attended by many of the principal
nobility of Scotland, made an irruption into England, and committed
devastations on the northern counties. On his return home, he was
overtaken by the Piercies, at Homeldom, on the borders of England, and
a fierce battle ensued, where the Scots were totally routed. Douglas
himself was taken prisoner; as was Mordác, earl of Fife, son of the duke
of Albany, and nephew of the Scottish king, with the earls of Angus,
Murray, and Orkney, and many others of the gentry and nobility. [******]
| When Henry received intelligence of this victory, he sent the earl of
Northumberland orders not to ransom his prisoners, which that nobleman
regarded as his right by the laws of war received in that age. The king
intended to detain them, that he might be able by their means to make
an advantageous peace with Scotland; but by this policy he gave a fresh
disgust to the family of Piercy.
* Dugdale, vol. i. p. 150.
** Dugdale, vol. i. p. 151.
*** Rymer, vol. viii. p. 125, 126.
**** Rymer, Vol. viii. p.. 125.
***** Rymer, vol. viii. p. 155, 156, etc.
****** Walsing p. 336. Vita Ric. Sec p. 180. Chron.
Otterborne. p. 237.
{1403.} The obligations which Henry had owed to Northumberland, were
of a kind the most likely to produce ingratitude on the one side, and
discontent on the other. The sovereign naturally became jealous of that
power which had advanced him to the throne; and the subject was not
easily satisfied in the returns which he thought so great a favor had
merited. Though Henry, on his accession, had bestowed the office of
constable on Northumberland for life,[*] and conferred other gifts on
that family, these favors were regarded as their due; the refusal of any
other request was deemed an injury.
* Rymer, vol. viii. p. 89.
The impatient spirit of Harry Piercy, and the factious disposition of
the earl of Worcester, younger brother of Northumberland, inflamed the
discontents of that nobleman; and the precarious title of Henry tempted
him to seek revenge, by overturning that throne which he had at first
established. He entered into a correspondence with Glendour: he gave
liberty to the earl of Douglas, and made an alliance with that martial
chief: he roused up all his partisans to arms; and such unlimited
authority at that time belonged to the great families, that the same
men, whom, a few years before, he had conducted against Richard, now
followed his standard in opposition to Henry. When war was ready to
break out, Northumberland was seized with a sudden illness at Berwick:
and young Piercy, taking the command of the troops, marched towards
Shrewsbury, in order to join his forces with those of Glendour, The
king had happily a small army on foot, with which he had intended to act
against the Scots; and knowing the importance of celerity in all civil
wars, he instantly hurried down, that he might give battle to the
rebels. He approached Piercy near Shrewsbury, before that nobleman was
joined by Glendour; and the policy of one leader, and impatience of the
other, made them hasten to a general engagement.
The evening before the battle, Piercy sent a manifesto to Henry, in
which he renounced his allegiance, set that prince at defiance, and, in
the name of his father and uncle, as well as his own, enumerated all the
grievances of which, he pretended, the nation had reason to complain;
He upbraided him with the perjury of which he had been guilty, when, on
landing at Ravenspur, he had sworn upon the Gospels, before the earl of
Northumberland, that he had no other intension than to recover the duchy
of Lancaster, and that he would ever remain a faithful subject to King
Richard. He aggravated his guilt in first dethroning, then murdering
that prince, and in usurping on the title of the house of Mortimer, to
whom, both by lineal succession, and by declarations of parliament,
the throne, when vacant by Richard’s demise, did of right belong. He
complained of his cruel policy in allowing the young earl of Marche,
whom he ought to regard as his sovereign, to remain a captive in the
hands of his enemies, and in even refusing to all his friends permission
to treat of his ransom; He charged him again with perjury in loading
the nation with heavy taxes, after having sworn that, without the
utmost necessity, he would never levy any impositions upon them. And he
reproached him with the arts employed in procuring favorable elections
into parliament; arts which he himself had before imputed as a crime
to Richard, and which he had made one chief reason of that prince’s
arraignment and deposition.[*] This manifesto was well calculated to
inflame the quarrel between the parties: the bravery of the two leaders
promised an obstinate engagement; and the equality of the armies, being
each about twelve thousand men, a number which was not unmanageable by
the commanders, gave reason to expect a great effusion of blood on both
sides, and a very doubtful issue to the combat.
We shall scarcely find any battle in those ages where the shock was more
terrible and more constant. Henry exposed his person in the thickest of
the fight: his gallant son, whose military achievements were afterwards
so renowned, and who here performed his novitiate in arms, signalized
himself on his father’s footsteps; and even a wound, which he received
in the face with tin arrow, could not oblige him to quit the field.[**]
* Hall, fol. 21, 22, etc.
** T. Livii, p. 3
Piercy supported that fame which he had acquired in many a bloody
combat. And Douglas, his ancient enemy, and now his friend, still
appeared his rival amidst the horror and confusion of the day. This
nobleman performed feats of valor which are almost incredible: he seemed
determined that the king of England should that day fall by his arm: he
sought him all over the field of battle: and as Henry, either to elude
the attacks of the enemy upon his person, or to encourage his own men by
the belief of his presence every where, had accoutred several captains
in the royal garb, the sword of Douglas rendered this honor fatal to
many.[*] But while the armies were contending in this furious manner,
the death of Piercy, by an unknown hand, decided the victory, and the
royalists prevailed. There are said to have fallen that day on both
sides near two thousand three hundred gentlemen; but the persons of
greatest distinction were on the king’s; the earl of Stafford, Sir Hugh
Shirley, Sir Nicholas Gausel, Sir Hugh Mortimer, Sir John Massey, Sir
John Calverly. About six thousand private men perished, of whom two
thirds were of Piercy’s army.[**] The earls of Worcester and Douglas
were taken prisoners: the former was beheaded at Shrewsbury; the latter
was treated with the courtesy due to his rank and merit.
The earl of Northumberland, having recovered from his sickness, had
levied a fresh army, and was on his march to join his son; but being
opposed by the earl of Westmoreland, and hearing of the defeat at
Shrewsbury, he dismissed his forces, and came with a small retinue to
the king at York.[***] He pretended that his sole intention in arming
was to mediate between the parties: Henry thought proper to accept of
the apology, and even granted him a pardon for his offence: all the
other rebels were treated with equal lenity; and, except the earl of
Worcester and Sir Richard Vernon, who were regarded as the chief authors
of the insurrection, no person engaged in this dangerous enterprise
seems to have perished by the hands of the executioner.[****]
* Walsing. p. 366, 367. Hall, fol. 22.
** Chron. Otterborne, p. 224. Ypod. Neust. p. 560.
*** Chron. Otterborne, p. 225.
**** Rymer, vol. viii. p. 353.
{1405.} But Northumberland, though he had been pardoned, knew that he
never should be trusted, and that he was too powerful to be cordially
forgiven by a prince whose situation gave him such reasonable grounds
of jealousy. It was the effect either of Henry’s vigilance or good
fortune, or of the narrow genius of his enemies, that no proper concert
was ever formed among them: they rose in rebellion one after another;
and thereby afforded him an opportunity of suppressing singly those
insurrections which, had they been united, might have proved fatal to
his authority. The earl of Nottingham, son of the duke of Norfolk, and
the archbishop of York, brother to the earl of Wiltshire, whom Henry,
then duke of Lancaster, had beheaded at Bristol, though they had
remained quiet while Piercy was in the field, still harbored in their
breast a violent hatred against the enemy of their families; and they
determined, in conjunction with the earl of Northumberland, to seek
revenge against him. They betook themselves to arms before that powerful
nobleman was prepared to join them; and publishing a manifesto, in which
they reproached Henry with his usurpation of the crown and the murder of
the late king, they required that the right line should be restored,
and all public grievances be redressed. The earl of Westmoreland, whose
power lay in the neighborhood, approached them with an inferior force at
Shipton, near York; and being afraid to hazard an action, he attempted
to subdue them by a stratagem, which nothing but the greatest folly and
simplicity on their part could have rendered successful. He desired a
conference with the archbishop and earl between the armies: he heard
their grievances with great patience: he begged them to propose the
remedies: he approved of every expedient which they suggested: he
granted them all their demands: he also engaged that Henry should give
them entire satisfaction: and when he saw them pleased with the facility
of his concessions, he observed to them, that, since amity was now in
effect restored between them, it were better on both sides to dismiss
their forces, which otherwise would prove an insupportable burden to
the country. The archbishop and the earl of Nottingham immediately gave
directions to that purpose: their troops disbanded upon the field:
but Westmoreland, who had secretly issued contrary orders to his army,
seized the two rebels without resistance, and carried them to the king,
who was advancing with hasty marches to suppress the insurrection.[*]
* Walsing. p. 373. Otterborne, p 255.
The trial and punishment of an archbishop might have proved a
troublesome and dangerous undertaking, had Henry proceeded regularly,
and allowed time for an opposition to form itself against that unusual
measure: the celerity of the execution alone could here render it safe
and prudent. Finding that Sir William Gascoigne, the chief justice,
made some scruple of acting on this occasion, he appointed Sir William
Fulthorpe for judge; who, without any indictment, trial, or defence
pronounced sentence of death upon the prelate which was presently
executed. This was the first instance in England of a capital punishment
inflicted on a bishop; whence the clergy of that rank might learn that
their crimes, more than those of laies, were not to pass with impunity.
The earl of Nottingham was condemned and executed in the same summary
manner: but though many other persons of condition, such as Lord
Falconberg, Sir Ralph Hastings, Sir John Colville, were engaged in this
rebellion, no others seem to have fallen victims to Henry’s severity.
The earl of Northumberland, on receiving this intelligence, fled
into Scotland, together with Lord Bardolf;[*] and the king, without
opposition, reduced all the castles and fortresses belonging to these
noblemen. He thence turned his arms against Glendour, over whom his son,
the prince of Wales, had attained some advantages; but that enemy, more
troublesome than dangerous, still found means of defending himself in
his fastnesses, and of eluding, though not resisting, all the force of
England.
{1407.} In a subsequent season, the earl of Northumberland and Lord
Bardolf, impatient of their exile, entered the north, in hopes of
raising the people to arms; but found the country in such a posture as
rendered all their attempts unsuccessful. Sir Thomas Rokesby, sheriff
of Yorkshire, levied some forces, attacked the invaders at Bramham, and
gained a victory, in which both Northumberland and Bardolf were slain.**
This prosperous event, joined to the death of Glendour, which happened
soon after, freed Henry from all his domestic enemies; and this prince,
who had mounted the throne by such unjustifiable means, and held it
by such an exceptionable title, had yet, by his valor, prudence, and
address, accustomed the people to the yoke, and had obtained a greater
ascendant over his haughty barons, than the law alone, not supported by
these active qualities, was ever able to confer.
* Walsing. p. 374.
** Walsing, p. 377. Chron. Otterb. p. 261.
About the same time, fortune gave Henry an advantage over that neighbor,
who, by his situation, was most enabled to disturb his government.
Robert III., king of Scots, was a prince, though of slender capacity,
extremely innocent and inoffensive in his conduct: but Scotland, at
that time, was still less fitted than England for cherishing, or even
enduring sovereigns of that character. The duke of Albany, Robert’s
brother, a prince of more abilities, at least of a more boisterous and
violent disposition, had assumed the government of the state; and, not
satisfied with present authority, he entertained the criminal purpose
of extirpating his brother’s children, and of acquiring the crown to
his own family. He threw in prison David, his eldest nephew; who there
perished by hunger: James alone, the younger brother of David, stood
between that tyrant and the throne; and King Robert, sensible of his
son’s danger, embarked him on board a ship, with a view of sending him
to France, and intrusting him to the protection of that friendly power.
Unfortunately, the vessel was taken by the English; Prince James, a
boy about nine years of age, was carried to London; and though there
subsisted at that time a truce between the kingdoms, Henry refused to
restore the young prince to his liberty. Robert, worn out with cares and
infirmities, was unable to bear the shock of this last misfortune; and
he soon after died, leaving the government in the hands of the duke of
Albany.[*] Henry was now more sensible than ever of the importance of
the acquisition which he had made: while he retained such a pledge, he
was sure of keeping the duke of Albany in dependence; or, if offended,
he could easily, by restoring the true heir, take ample revenge upon the
usurper. But though the king, by detaining James in the English court,
had shown himself somewhat deficient in generosity, he made ample amends
by giving that prince an excellent education, which afterwards qualified
him, when he mounted the throne, to reform in some measure the rude and
barbarous manners of his native country.
* Buchanan, lib. x.
The hostile dispositions which of late had prevailed between France and
England, were restrained, during the greater part of this reign, from
appearing in action. The jealousies and civil commotions with which both
nations were disturbed, kept each of them from taking advantage of the
unhappy situation of its neighbor. But as the abilities and good fortune
of Henry had sooner been able to compose the English factions, this
prince began, in the latter part of his reign, to look abroad, and to
foment the animosities between the families of Burgundy and Orleans,
by which the government of France was, during that period, so much
distracted. He knew that one great source of the national discontent
against his predecessor was the inactivity of his reign; and he hoped,
by giving a new direction to the restless and unquiet spirits of his
people, to prevent their breaking out in domestic wars and disorders.
{1411.} That he might unite policy with force, he first entered into
treaty with the duke of Burgundy, and sent that prince a small body
of troops, which supported him against his enemies.[*] Soon after,
he hearkened to more advantageous proposals made him by the duke of
Orleans, and despatched a greater body to support that party.
{1412.} But the leaders of the opposite factions having made a temporary
accommodation, the interests of the English were sacrificed; and this
effort of Henry proved, in the issue, entirely vain and fruitless. The
declining state of his health, and the shortness of his reign, prevented
him from renewing the attempt, which his more fortunate son carried to
so great a length against the French monarchy.
Such were the military and foreign transactions of this reign: the civil
and parliamentary are somewhat more memorable, and more worthy of our
attention. During the two last reigns, the elections of the commons had
appeared a circumstance of government not to be neglected; and Richard
was even accused of using unwarrantable methods for procuring to his
partisans a seat in that house. This practice formed one considerable
article of charge against him in his deposition; yet Henry scrupled
not to tread in his footsteps, and to encourage the same abuses in
elections. Laws were enacted against such undue influence; and even a
sheriff was punished for an iniquitous return which he had made:[**] but
laws were commonly at that time very ill executed; and the liberties of
the people, such as they were, stood on a surer basis than on laws and
parliamentary elections.
* Walsing. p. 380.
** Cotton, p. 429.
Though the house of commons was little able to withstand the violent
currents which perpetually ran between the monarchy and the aristocracy,
and though that house might easily be brought, at a particular time,
to make the most unwarrantable concessions to either, the general
institutions of the state still remained invariable; the interests of
the several members continued on the same footing; the sword was in the
hands af the subject; and the government, though thrown into temporary
disorder, soon settled itself on its ancient foundations.
During the greater part of this reign, the king was obliged to court
popularity; and the house of commons, sensible of their own importance,
began to assume powers which had not usually been exercised by their
predecessors. In the first year of Henry, they procured a law, that no
judge, in concurring with any iniquitous measure, should be excused by
pleading the orders of the king, or even the danger of his* own life
from the menaces of the sovereign.[*] In the second year, they insisted
on maintaining the practice of not granting any supply before they
received an answer to their petitions, which was a tacit manner of
bargaining with the prince.[**] In the fifth year, they desired the king
to remove from his household four persons who had displeased them, among
whom was his own confessor, and Henry, though he told them that he knew
of no offence which these men had committed, yet, in order to gratify
them, complied with their request.[***] In the sixth year, they voted
the king supplies, but appointed treasurers of their own, to see the
money disbursed for the purposes intended, and required them to deliver
in their accounts to the house.[****] In the eighth year, they proposed,
for the regulation of the government and household, thirty important
articles, which were all agreed to; and they even obliged all the
members of council, all the judges, and all the officers of the
household, to swear to the observance of them.[*****] The abridger of
the records remarks the unusual liberties taken by the speaker and the
house during this period.[******] But the great authority of the commons
was but a temporary advantage, arising from the present situation. In a
subsequent parliament, when the speaker made his customary application
to the throne for liberty of speech, the king, having now overcome
all his domestic difficulties, plainly told him that he would have
no novelties introduced, and would enjoy his prerogatives. But on the
whole, the limitations of the government seem to have been more sensibly
felt, and more carefully maintained, by Henry than by any of his
predecessors.
* Cotton, p. 364.
** Cotton, p. 406.
*** Cotton, p. 426.
**** Cotton, p. 438.
***** Cotton, p. 456, 457.
****** Cotton, p 462.
During this reign, when the house of commons were at any time brought to
make unwary concessions to the crown they also showed their freedom by
a speedy retractation of them. Henry, though he entertained a perpetual
and well grounded jealousy of the family of Mortimer, allowed not their
name to be once mentioned in parliament; and as none of the rebels
had ventured to declare the earl of Marche king, he never attempted to
procure, what would not have been refused him, an express declaration
against the claim of that nobleman; because he knew that such a
declaration, in the present circumstances, would have no authority, and
would only serve to revive the memory of Mortimer’s title in the minds
of the people. He proceeded in his purpose after a more artful and
covert manner. He procured a settlement of the crown on himself and his
heirs male,[*] thereby tacitly excluding the females, and transferring
the Salic law into the English government. He thought that, though the
house of Plantagenet had at first derived their title from a female,
this was a remote event, unknown to the generality of the people; and
if he could once accustom them to the practice of excluding women, the
title of the earl of Marche would gradually be forgotten and neglected
by them. But he was very unfortunate in this attempt. During the long
contests with France, the injustice of the Salic law had been so much
exclaimed against by the nation, that a contrary principle had taken
deep root in the minds of men; and it was now become impossible to
eradicate it. The same house of commons, therefore, in a subsequent
session, apprehensive that they had overturned the foundations of the
English government, and that they had opened the door to more civil
wars than might ensue even from the irregular elevation of the house
of Lancaster, applied with such earnestness for a new settlement of the
crown, that Henry yielded to their request, and agreed to the succession
of the princesses of his family;[**] a certain proof that nobody was, in
his heart, satisfied with the king’s title to the crown, or knew on what
principle to rest it.
But though the commons, during this reign, showed a laudable zeal for
liberty in their transactions with the crown, their efforts against the
church were still more extraordinary, and seemed to anticipate very
much the spirit which became so general in little more than a century
afterwards. I know that the credit of these passages rests entirely on
one ancient historian;[***] but that historian was contemporary, was a
clergyman, and it was contrary to the interests of his order to preserve
the memory of such transactions, much more to forge precedents which
posterity might some time be tempted to imitate.
* Cotton, p. 454.
** Rymer, vol. viii. p. 462.
*** Walsingham.
This is a truth so evident, that the most likely way of accounting
for the silence of the records on this head, is by supposing that the
authority of some churchmen was so great as to procure a razure, with
regard to these circumstances, which the indiscretion of one of that
order has happily preserved to us.
In the sixth of Henry, the commons, who had been required to grant
supplies, proposed in plain terms to the king, that he should seize all
the temporalities of the church, and employ them as a perpetual fund
to serve the exigencies of the state. They insisted that the clergy
possessed a third of the lands of the kingdom; that they contributed
nothing to the public burdens; and that their riches tended only to
disqualify them from performing their ministerial functions with proper
zeal and attention. When this address was presented, the archbishop of
Canterbury, who then attended the king, objected that the clergy, though
they went not in person to the wars, sent their vassals and tenants
in all cases of necessity; while at the same time they themselves, who
staid at home, were employed night and day in offering up their prayers
for the happiness and prosperity of the state. The speaker smiled, and
answered without reserve, that he thought the prayers of the church
but a very slender supply. The archbishop, however, prevailed in the
dispute; the king discouraged the application of the commons; and the
lords rejected the bill which the lower house had framed for stripping
the church of her revenues.[*]
* Walsing. p. 371. Ypod. Neust. p. 563.
The commons were not discouraged by this repulse: in the eleventh of the
king, they returned to the charge with more zeal than before: they
made a calculation of all the ecclesiastical revenues, which, by their
account, amounted to four hundred and eighty-five thousand marks a
year, and contained eighteen thousand four hundred ploughs of land. They
proposed to divide this property among fifteen new earls, one thousand
five hundred knights, six thousand esquires, and a hundred hospitals,
besides twenty thousand pounds a year, which the king might take for his
own use; and they insisted, that the clerical functions would be better
performed than at present by fifteen thousand parish priests, paid at
the rate of seven marks apiece of yearly stipend.[*] This application
was accompanied with an address for mitigating the statutes enacted
against the Lollards, which shows from what source the address came. The
king gave the commons a severe reply and further to satisfy the church,
and to prove that he was quite in earnest, he ordered a Lollard to be
burned before the dissolution of the parliament.[**]
* Walsing. p. 379. Tit. Livius.
** Rymer, vol. viii. p. 627. Otterborne> p. 267.
{1413.} We have now related almost all the memorable transactions of
this reign, which was busy and active, but produced few events that
deserve to be transmitted to posterity. The king was so much employed in
defending his crown, which he had obtained by unwarrantable means, and
possessed by a bad title, that he had little leisure to look abroad, or
perform any action which might redound to the honor and advantage of the
nation. His health declined some months before his death; he was subject
to fits, which bereaved him, for the time, of his senses; and though he
was yet in the flower of his age, his end was visibly approaching. He
expired at Westminster, in the forty-sixth year of his age, and the
thirteenth of his reign.
The great popularity which Henry enjoyed before he attained the crown,
and which had so much aided him in the acquisition of it, was entirely
lost many years before the end of his reign; and he governed his people
more by terror than by affection, more by his own policy than by their
sense of duty or allegiance. When men came to reflect, in cool blood, on
the crimes which had led him to the throne; the rebellion against his
prince; the deposition of a lawful king, guilty sometimes, perhaps, of
oppression, but more frequently of indiscretion; the exclusion of the
true heir; the murder of his sovereign and near relation; these were
such enormities as drew on him the hatred of his subjects, sanctified
all the rebellions against him, and made the executions, though not
remarkably severe, which he found necessary for the maintenance of
his authority, appear cruel as well as iniquitous to the people. Yet,
without pretending to apologize for these crimes, which must ever be
held in detestation, it may be remarked, that he was insensibly led
into this blamable conduct by a train of incidents which few men possess
virtue enough to withstand. The injustice with which his predecessor had
treated him, in first condemning him to banishment, then despoiling him
of his patrimony, made him naturally think of revenge, and of recovering
his lost rights; the headlong zeal of the people hurried him into the
throne; the care of his own security, as well as his ambition, made him
a usurper; and the steps have always been so few between the prisons of
princes and their graves, that we need not wonder that Richard’s fate
was no exception to the general rule. All these considerations make
Henry’s situation, if he retained any sense of virtue, much to be
lamented; and the inquietude with which he possessed his envied
greatness, and the remorses by which, it is said, he was continually
haunted, render him an object of our pity, even when seated upon the
throne. But it must be owned, that his prudence, and vigilance, and
foresight, in maintaining his power, were admirable; his command of
temper remarkable; his courage, both military and political, without
blemish; and he possessed many qualities which fitted him for his high
station, and which rendered his usurpation of it, though pernicious
in after times, rather salutary, during his own reign, to the English
nation.
Henry was twice married: by his first wife, Mary deBohun, daughter and
coheir of the earl of Hereford, he had four sons, Henry, his successor
in the throne, Thomas, duke of Clarence, John, duke of Bedford, and
Humphrey, duke of Glocester: and two daughters, Blanche and Philippa;
the former married to the duke of Bavaria, the latter to the king of
Denmark. His second wife, Jane, whom he married after he was king,
and who was daughter of the king of Navarre, and widow of the duke of
Brittany, brought him no issue.
By an act of the fifth of this reign, it is made felony to cut out any
person’s tongue, or put out his eyes; crimes which, the act says, were
very frequent. This savage spirit of revenge denotes a barbarous people;
though, perhaps, it was increased by the prevailing factions and civil
commotions.
Commerce was very little understood in this reign, as in all the
preceding. In particular, a great jealousy prevailed against merchant
strangers; and many restraints were by law imposed upon them; namely,
that they should lay out in English manufactures or commodities all the
money acquired by the sale of their goods; that they should not buy or
sell with one another; and that all their goods should be disposed of
three months after importation.[*]
* 4 Henry IV. cap. 15, and 5 Henry IV. cap. 9.
This last clause was found so inconvenient, that it was soon after
repealed by parliament.
It appears that the expense of this king’s household amounted to the
yearly sum of nineteen thousand five hundred pounds, money of that
age.[*]
* Rymer, tom. viii. p. 610.
Guicciardin tells us, that the Flemings in this century learned from
Italy all the refinements in arts, which they taught the rest of Europe.
The progress, however, of the arts was still very slow and backward in
England.