[Illustration: 1_298_edward5.jpg EDWARD V.]
EDWARD V. AND RICHARD III.
{1483.} During the latter years of Edward IV., the nation having in
a great measure forgotten the bloody feuds between the two roses, and
peaceably acquiescing in the established government, was agitated only
by some court intrigues, which, being restrained by the authority of the
king, seemed nowise to endanger the public tranquillity. These intrigues
arose from the perpetual rivalship between two parties; one consisting
of the queen and her relations, particularly the earl of Rivers, her
brother, and the marquis of Dorset, her son; the other composed of the
ancient nobility, who envied the sudden growth and unlimited credit of
that aspiring family.[*]
* Sir Thomas More. p. 481.
At the head of this latter party was the duke of Buckingham, a man of
very noble birth, of ample possessions, of great alliances, of shining
parts; who, though he had married the queen’s sister, was too haughty to
act in subserviency to her inclinations, and aimed rather at maintaining
an independent influence and authority. Lord Hastings, the chamberlain,
was another leader of the same party; and as this nobleman had, by his
bravery and activity, as well as by his approved fidelity, acquired the
confidence and favor of his master, he had been able, though with some
difficulty, to support himself against the credit of the queen.
The lords Howard and Stanley maintained a connection with these
two noblemen, and brought a considerable accession of influence and
reputation to their party. All the other barons, who had no particular
dependence on the queen, adhered to the same interest; and the people
in general, from their natural envy against the prevailing power, bore
great favor to the cause of these noblemen.
But Edward knew that, though he himself had been able to overawe those
rival factions, many disorders might arise from their contests during
the minority of his son; and he therefore took care, in his last
illness, to summon together several of the leaders on both sides, and
by composing their ancient quarrels, to provide, as far as possible,
for the future tranquillity of the government. After expressing his
intentions, that his brother, the duke of Glocester, then absent in
the north, should be intrusted with the regency, he recommended to them
peace and unanimity during the tender years of his son; represented to
them the dangers which must attend the continuance of their animosities;
and engaged them to embrace each other with all the appearance of the
most cordial reconciliation. But this temporary or feigned agreement
lasted no longer than the king’s life; he had no sooner expired,
than the jealousies of the parties broke out afresh; and each of them
applied, by separate messages, to the duke of Glocester, and endeavored
to acquire his favor and friendship.
This prince, during his brother’s reign, had endeavored to live on good
terms with both parties; and his high birth, his extensive abilities,
and his great services, had enabled him to support himself without
falling into a dependence on either. But the new situation of affairs,
when the supreme power was devolved upon him, immediately changed
his measures; and he secretly determined to preserve no longer that
neutrality which he had hitherto maintained. His exorbitant ambition,
unrestrained by any principle either of justice or humanity; made him
carry his views to the possession of the crown itself; and as this
object could not be attained without the ruin of the queen and her
family, he fell, without hesitation, into concert with the opposite
party. But being sensible that the most profound dissimulation was
requisite for effecting his criminal purposes, he redoubled his
professions of zeal and attachment to that princess; and he gained such
credit with her as to influence her conduct in a point which, as it was
of the utmost importance, was violently disputed between the opposite
factions.
The young king, at the time of his father’s death, resided in the Castle
of Ludlow, on the borders of Wales; whither he had been sent, that
the influence of his presence might overawe the Welsh, and restore the
tranquillity of that country, which had been disturbed by some late
commotions. His person was committed to the care of his uncle, the earl
of Rivers, the most accomplished nobleman in England, who, having united
an uncommon taste for literature[*] to great abilities in business
and valor in the field was entitled by his talents, still more than by
nearness of blood, to direct the education of the young monarch. The
queen, anxious to preserve that ascendant over her son which she had
long maintained over her husband, wrote to the earl of Rivers, that he
should levy a body of forces, in order to escort the king to London, to
protect him during his coronation, and to keep him from falling into the
hands of their enemies.[**] The opposite faction, sensible that Edward
was now of an age when great advantages could be made of his name and
countenance, and was approaching to the age when he would be legally
entitled to exert in person his authority, foresaw that the tendency of
this measure was to perpetuate their subjection under their rivals;
and they vehemently opposed a resolution which they represented as the
signal for renewing a civil war in the kingdom. Lord Hastings threatened
to depart instantly to his government of Calais:[**] the other nobles
seemed resolute to oppose force by force: and as the duke of Glocester,
on pretence of pacifying the quarrel, had declared against all
appearance of an armed power, which might be dangerous, and was nowise
necessary; the queen, trusting to the sincerity of his friendship,
and overawed by so violent an opposition, recalled her orders to her
brother, and desired him to bring up no greater retinue than should be
necessary to support the state and dignity of the young sovereign.[***]
* This nobleman first introduced the noble art of printing
into England. Caxton was recommended by him to the patronage
of Edward IV. See Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors.
** Hist. Croyl. Cont. p. 564, 565.
*** Sir Thomas More, p. 483.
The duke of Glocester, meanwhile, set out from York, attended by a
numerous train of the northern gentry. When he reached Northampton,
he was joined by the duke of Buckingham, who was also attended by a
splendid retinue; and as he heard that the king was hourly expected on
that road, he resolved to await his arrival, under color of conducting
him thence in person to London. The earl of Rivers, apprehensive that
the place would be too narrow to contain so many attendants, sent his
pupil forward by another road to Stony Stratford; and came himself to
Northampton, in order to apologize for this measure, and to pay his
respects to the duke of Glocester. He was received with the greatest
appearance of cordiality: he passed the evening an an amicable manner
with Glocester and Buckingham: he proceeded on the road with them next
day to join the king: but as he was entering Stony Stratford, he was
arrested by orders from the duke of Glocester:[*] Sir Richard Gray, one
of the queen’s sons, was at the same time put under a guard, together
with Sir Thomas Vaughan, who possessed a considerable office in the
king’s household; and all the prisoners were instantly conducted
to Pomfret. Glocester approached the young prince with the greatest
demonstrations of respect; and endeavored to satisfy him with regard
to the violence committed on his uncle and brother: but Edward, much
attached to these near relations, by whom he had been tenderly
educated, was not such a master of dissimulation as to conceal his
displeasure.[**]
The people, however, were extremely rejoiced at this revolution; and the
duke was received in London with the loudest acclamations: but the queen
no sooner received intelligence of her brother’s imprisonment, than she
foresaw that Glocester’s violence would not stop there, and that her
own ruin, if not that of all her children, was finally determined.
She therefore fled into the sanctuary of Westminster, attended by the
marquis of Dorset; and she carried thither the five princesses, together
with the duke of York.[***]
* Hist. Croyl. Cont. p. 564, 565.
** Sir Thomas More.
*** Hist. Croyl. Cont. p. 565.
She trusted that the ecclesiastical privileges, which had formerly,
during the total ruin of her husband and family, given her protection
against the fury of the Lancastrian faction, would not now be violated
by her brother-in-law, while her son was on the throne; and she resolved
to await there the return of better fortune. But Glocester, anxious to
have the duke of York in his power, proposed to take him by force
from the sanctuary; and he represented to the privy council both
the indignity put upon the government by the queen’s ill-grounded
apprehensions, and the necessity of the young prince’s appearance at
the ensuing coronation of his brother. It was further urged, that
ecclesiastical privileges were originally intended only to give
protection to unhappy men persecuted for their debts or crimes; and were
entirely useless to a person who, by reason of his tender age, could lie
under the burden of neither, and who, for the same reason, was
utterly incapable of claiming security from any sanctuary. But the two
archbishops, Cardinal Bourchier, the primate, and Rotherhand, archbishop
of York, protesting against the sacrilege of this measure, it was agreed
that they should first endeavor to bring the queen to compliance by
persuasion, before any violence should be employed against her. These
prelates were persons of known integrity and honor; and being themselves
entirely persuaded of the duke’s good intentions, they employed every
argument, accompanied with earnest entreaties, exhortations, and
assurances, to bring her over to the same opinion. She long continued
obstinate, and insisted that the duke of York, by living in the
sanctuary, was not only secure himself, but gave security to the king,
whose life no one would dare to attempt while his successor and avenger
remained in safety. But finding that none supported her in these
sentiments, and that force, in case of refusal, was threatened by the
council, she at last complied, and produced her son to the two prelates.
She was here on a sudden struck with a kind of presage of his future
fate: she tenderly embraced him; she bedewed him with her tears; and
bidding him an eternal adieu, delivered him, with many expressions of
regret and reluctance, into their custody.[*]
The duke of Glocester, being the nearest male of the royal family
capable of exercising the government, seemed entitled, by the customs of
the realm, to the office of protector; and the council, not waiting for
the consent of parliament, made no scruple of investing him with that
high dignity.[**]
* Sir Thomas More, p. 491.
** Hist. Croyl. Cont, p. 566.
The general prejudice entertained by the nobility against the queen and
her kindred, occasioned this precipitation and irregularity; and no
one foresaw any danger to the succession, much less to the lives of the
young princes, from a measure so obvious and so natural. Besides
that the duke had hitherto been able to cover, by the most profound
dissimulation, his fierce and savage nature, the numerous issue of
Edward, together with the two children of Clarence, seemed to be an
eternal obstacle to his ambition; and it appeared equally impracticable
for him to destroy so many persons possessed of a preferable title, and
imprudent to exclude them. But a man who had abandoned all principles of
honor and humanity, was soon carried by his predominant passion beyond
the reach of fear or precaution; and Glocester, having so far succeeded
in his views, no longer hesitated in removing the other obstructions
which lay between him and the throne. The death of the earl of Rivers,
and of the other prisoners detained in Pomfret, was first determined;
and he easily obtained the consent of the duke of Buckingham, as well as
of Lord Hastings, to this violent and sanguinary measure. However easy
it was, in those times, to procure a sentence against the most innocent
person, it appeared still more easy to despatch an enemy without any
trial or form of process; and orders were accordingly issued to Sir
Richard Ratcliffe, a proper instrument in the hands of this tyrant,
to cut off the heads of the prisoners. The protector then assailed the
fidelity of Buckingham by all the arguments capable of swaying a vicious
mind, which knew no motive of action but interest and ambition. He
represented that the execution of persons so nearly related to the king,
whom that prince so openly professed to love, and whose fate he so much
resented, would never pass unpunished; and all the actors in that scene
were bound in prudence to prevent the effects of his future vengeance:
that it would be impossible to keep the queen forever at a distance from
her son, and equally impossible to prevent her from instilling into
his tender mind the thoughts of retaliating, by like executions, the
sanguinary insults committed on her family: that the only method of
obviating these mischiefs was to put the sceptre in the hands of a
man of whose friendship the duke might be assured, and whose years
and experience taught him to pay respect to merit and to the rights of
ancient nobility: and that the same necessity which had carried them so
far in resisting the usurpation of these intruders, must justify them
in attempting further innovations, and in making, by national consent,
a new settlement of the succession. To these reasons he added the offers
of great private advantages to the duke of Buckingham; and he easily
obtained from him a promise of supporting him in all his enterprises.
The duke of Glocester, knowing the importance of gaining Lord Hastings,
sounded at a distance his sentiments, by means of Catesby, a lawyer, who
lived in great intimacy with that nobleman; but found him impregnable
in his allegiance and fidelity to the children of Edward, who had ever
honored him with his friendship.[*] He saw, therefore, that there were
no longer any measures to be kept with him; and he determined to
ruin utterly the man whom he despaired of engaging to concur in
his usurpation. On the very day when Rivers, Gray, and Vaughan were
executed, or rather murdered, at Poinfret by the advice of Hastings,
the protector summoned a council in the Tower; whither that nobleman,
suspecting no design against him, repaired without hesitation.
* Sir Thomas More. p. 493.
The duke of Glocester was capable of committing the most bloody and
treacherous murders with the utmost coolness and indifference. On taking
his place at the council-table, he appeared in the easiest and most
jovial humor imaginable. He seemed to indulge himself in familiar
conversation with the counsellors, before they should enter on business,
and having paid some compliments to Morton, bishop of Ely, on the good
and early strawberries which he raised in his garden at Holborn,
he begged the favor of having a dish of them, which that prelate
immediately despatched a servant to bring to him. The protector then
left the council, as if called away by some other business; but soon
after returning with an angry and inflamed countenance, he asked them,
what punishment those deserved that had plotted against his life,
who was so nearly related to the king, and was intrusted with the
administration of government. Hastings replied, that they merited the
punishment of traitors. “These traitors,” cried the protector, “are the
sorceress, my brother’s wife, and Jane Shore, his mistress, with others
their associates: see to what a condition they have reduced me by their
incantations and witchcraft:” upon which he laid bare his arm, all
shrivelled and decayed. But the counsellors, who knew that this
infirmity had attended him from his birth, looked on each other with
amazement; and, above all, Lord Hastings, who, as he had since Edward’s
death engaged in an intrigue with Jane Shore,[*] [20] was naturally
anxious concerning the issue of these extraordinary proceedings.
* See note T, at the end of the volume.
“Certainly, my lord,” said he, “if they be guilty of these crimes, they
deserve the severest punishment.” “And do you reply to me,” exclaimed
the protector, “with your ifs and your ands? You are the chief abettor
of that witch, Shore: you are yourself a traitor; and I swear by St.
Paul, that I will not dine before your head be brought me,” He struck
the table with his hand: armed men rushed in at the signal: the
counsellors were thrown into the utmost consternation: and one of the
guards, as if by accident or mistake, aimed a blow with a pole-axe
at Lord Stanley, who, aware of the danger, slunk under the table; and
though he saved his life, he received a severe wound in the head, in the
protector’s presence. Hastings was seized, was hurried away, and
instantly beheaded on a timber-log, which lay in the court of the
Tower.[*] Two hours after, a proclamation, well penned, and fairly
written, was read to the citizens of London, enumerating his offenses,
and apologizing to them, from the suddenness of the discovery, for the
sudden execution of that nobleman, who was very popular among them; but
the saying of a merchant was much talked of on the occasion, who
remarked, that the proclamation was certainly drawn by the spirit of
prophecy.[**]
* Hist Croyl. Cont. p. 566.
** Sir Thomas More, p. 496.
Lord Stanley, the archbishop of York, the bishop of Ely, and other
counsellors, were committed prisoners in different chambers of the
Tower; and the protector, in order to carry on the farce of his
accusations, ordered the goods of Jane Shore to be seized; and he
summoned her to answer before the council for sorcery and witchcraft.
But as no proofs, which could be received even in that ignorant age,
were produced against her, he directed her to be tried in the spiritual
court for her adulteries and lewdness; and she did penance in a white
sheet in St. Paul’s, before the whole people. This lady was born
of reputable parents in London, was well educated, and married to a
substantial citizen; but unhappily views of interest, more than the
maid’s inclinations, had been consulted in the match, and her mind,
though framed for virtue, had proved unable to resist the allurements
of Edward, who solicited her favors. But while seduced from her duty by
this gay and amorous monarch, she still made herself respectable by
her other virtues; and the ascendant which her charms and vivacity
long maintained over him, was all employed in acts of beneficence
and humanity. She was still forward to oppose calumny, to protect the
oppressed, to relieve the indigent; and her good offices, the genuine
dictates of her heart, never waited the solicitation of presents, or
the hopes of reciprocal services. But she lived not only to feel the
bitterness of shame imposed on her by this tyrant, but to experience,
in old age and poverty, the ingratitude of those courtiers who had long
solicited her friendship, and been protected by her credit. No one,
among the great multitudes whom she had obliged, had the humanity to
bring her consolation or relief; she languished out her life in solitude
and indigence; and amidst a court inured to the most atrocious crimes,
the frail ties of this woman justified all violations of friendship
towards her, and all neglect of former obligations.
These acts of violence, exercised against all the nearest connections
of the late king, prognosticated the severest fate to his defenceless
children; and after the murder of Hastings, the protector no longer made
a secret of his intentions to usurp the crown. The licentious life
of Edward, who was not restrained in his pleasures either by honor or
prudence, afforded a pretence for declaring his marriage with the queen
invalid, and all his posterity illegitimate. It was asserted that,
before espousing the lady Elizabeth Gray, he had paid court to the lady
Eleanor Talbot, daughter of the earl of Shrewsbury; and being repulsed
by the virtue of that lady, he was obliged, ere he could gratify his
desires, to consent to a private marriage, without any witnesses, by
Stillington, bishop of Bath, who afterwards divulged the secret.[*]
* Hist. Croyl. Cont. p. 567. Comines. Sir Thomas More, p.
482.
It was also maintained that the act of attainder passed against the duke
of Clarence, had virtually incapacitated his children from succeeding
to the crown; and these two families being set aside, the protector
remained the only true and legitimate heir of the house of York. But
as it would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove the preceding
marriage of the late king, and as the rule which excludes the heirs of
an attainted blood from private successions was never extended to the
crown, the protector resolved to make use of another plea, still more
shameful and scandalous. His partisans were taught to maintain, that
both Edward IV. and the duke of Clarence were illegitimate; that the
duchess of York had received different lovers into her bed, who were the
fathers of these children, that, their resemblance to those gallants
was a sufficient proof of their spurious birth; and that the duke
of Glocester alone, of all her sons, appeared by his features and
countenance to be the true offspring of the duke of York. Nothing can
be imagined more impudent than this assertion, which threw so foul an
imputation on his own mother, a princess of irreproachable virtue,
and then alive; yet the place chosen for first promulgating it was the
pulpit, before a large congregation, and in the protector’s presence.
Dr. Shaw was appointed to preach in St. Paul’s; and having chosen this
passage for his text “Bastards lips shall not thrive,” he enlarged on
all the topics which could discredit the birth of Edward IV., the duke
of Clarence, and of all their children. He then broke out in a panegyric
on the duke of Glocester; and exclaimed, “Behold this excellent prince,
the express image of his noble father, the genuine descendant of the
house of York; bearing no less in the virtues of his mind than in the
features of his countenance the character of the gallant Richard, once
your hero and favorite: he alone is entitled to your allegiance: he must
deliver you from the dominion of all intruders: he alone can restore the
lost glory and honor of the nation.” It was previously concerted, that
as the doctor should pronounce these words, the duke of Glocester should
enter the church; and it was expected that the audience would cry out,
“God save King Richard;” which would immediately have been laid hold of
as a popular consent, and interpreted to be the voice of the nation;
but by a ridiculous mistake, worthy of the whole scene, the duke did not
appear till after this exclamation was already recited by the preacher.
The doctor was therefore obliged to repeat his rhetorical figure out
of its proper place: the audience, less from the absurd conduct of
the discourse than from their detestation of these proceedings, kept
a profound silence: and the protector and his preacher were equally
abashed at the ill success of their stratagem.
But the duke was too far advanced to recede from his criminal and
ambitious purpose. A new expedient was tried to work on the people.
The mayor, who was brother to Dr. Shaw, and entirely in the protector’s
interests, called an assembly of the citizens; where the duke of
Buckingham, who possessed some talents for eloquence, harangued them on
the protector’s title to the crown, and displayed those numerous virtues
of which he pretended that prince was possessed. He next asked them
whether they would have the duke for king; and then stopped, in
expectation of hearing the cry, “God save King Richard.” He was
surprised to observe them silent; and turning about to the mayor, asked
him the reason. The mayor replied, that perhaps they did not understand
him. Buckingham then repeated his discourse with some variation.
enforced the same topics, asked the same question, and was received with
the same silence. “I now see the cause,” said the mayor; “the citizens
are not accustomed to be harangued by any but their recorder; and know
not how to answer a person of your grace’s quality.” The recorder,
Fitz-Williams, was then commanded to repeat the substance of the duke’s
speech; but the man, who was averse to the office, took care, throughout
his whole discourse, to have it understood that he spoke nothing of
himself, and that he only conveyed to them the sense of the duke
of Buckingham. Still the audience kept a profound silence. “This is
wonderful obstinacy,” cried the duke: “express your meaning, my friends,
one way or other: when we apply to you on this occasion, it is merely
from the regard which we bear to you. The lords and commons have
sufficient authority, without your consent, to appoint a king: but I
require you here to declare, in plain terms, whether or not you will
have the duke of Glocester for your sovereign.” After all these
efforts, some of the meanest apprentices, incited by the protector’s and
Buckingham’s servants, raised a feeble cry, “God save King Richard:” [*]
the sentiments of the nation were now sufficiently declared: the voice
of the people was the voice of God: and Buckingham, with the mayor,
hastened to Baynard’s Castle, where the protector then resided, that
they might make him a tender of the crown.
* Sir Thomas More, p. 496.
When Richard was told that a great multitude was in the court, he
refused to appear to them, and pretended to be apprehensive for his
personal safety; a circumstance taken notice of by Buckingham, who
observed to the citizens that the prince was ignorant of the whole
design. At last he was persuaded to step forth, but he still kept
at some distance; and he asked the meaning of their intrusion and
importunity. Buckingham told him that the nation was resolved to have
him for king: the protector declared his purpose of maintaining his
loyalty to the present sovereign, and exhorted them to adhere to the
same resolution. He was told that the people had determined to have
another prince; and if he rejected their unanimous voice, they must look
out for one who would be more compliant. This argument was too powerful
to be resisted: he was prevailed on to accept of the crown: and he
thenceforth acted as legitimate and rightful sovereign.
This ridiculous force was soon after followed by a scene truly tragical;
the murder of the two young princes. Richard gave orders to Sir Robert
Brakenbury, constable of the Tower, to put his nephews to death; but
this gentleman, who had sentiments of honor, refused to have any hand
in the infamous office. The tyrant then sent for Sir James Tyrrel,
who promised obedience: and he ordered Brakenbury to resign to this
gentleman the keys and government of the Tower for one night. Tyrre,
choosing three associates, Slater, Dighton, and Forest, came in the
night-time to the door of the chamber where the princes were lodged; and
sending in the assassins he bade them execute their commission, while he
himself staid without. They found the young princes in bed, and fallen
into a profound sleep. After suffocating them with the bolster and
pillows, they showed their naked bodies to Tyrrel, who ordered them to
be buried at the foot of the stairs, deep in the ground, under a heap of
stones.[*] These circumstances were all confessed by the actors in the
following reign; and they were never punished for the crime; probably
because Henry, whose maxims of government were extremely arbitrary,
desired to establish it as a principle, that the commands of the
reigning sovereign ought to justify every enormity in those who paid
obedience to them. But there is one circumstance not so easy to be
accounted for: it is pretended that Richard, displeased with the
indecent manner of burying his nephews, whom he had murdered, gave his
chaplain orders to dig up the bodies, and to inter them in consecrated
ground; and as the man died soon after, the place of their burial
remained unknown, and the bodies could never be found by any search
which Henry could make for them. Yet in the reign of Charles II., when
there was occasion to remove some stones and to dig in the very spot
which was mentioned as the place of their first interment, the bones of
two persons were there found, which by their size exactly corresponded
to the age of Edward and his brother: they were concluded with certainty
to be the remains of those princes, and were interred under a marble
monument by orders of King Charles.[**] Perhaps Richard’s chaplain had
died before he found an opportunity of executing his master’s commands;
and the bodies being supposed to be already removed, a diligent search
was not made for them by Henry in the place where they had been buried.
* Sir Thomas More, p. 501.
** Kennet, p. 551.
CHAPTER XXIII.
[Illustration: 1_301_richard3.jpg RICHARD III.]
RICHARD III.
{1483.} The first acts of Richard’s administration were to bestow
rewards on those who had assisted him in usurping the crown, and to gain
by favors those who, he thought, were best able to support his future
government. Thomas Lord Howard was created duke of Norfolk; Sir Thomas
Howard, his son, earl of Surrey; Lord Lovel, a viscount by the same
name; even Lord Stanley was set at liberty, and made steward of the
household. This nobleman had become obnoxious by his first opposition
to Richard’s views, and also by his marrying the countess dowager of
Richmond, heir of the Somerset family; but sensible of the necessity of
submitting to the present government, he feigned such zeal for Richard’s
service, that he was received into favor, and even found means to be
intrusted with the most important commands by that politic and jealous
tyrant.
But the person who, both from the greatness of his services and the
power and splendor of his family, was best entitled to favors under
the new government, was the duke of Buckingham; and Richard seemed
determined to spare no pains or bounty in securing him to his interests.
Buckingham was descended from a daughter of Thomas of Woodstock, duke
of Glocester, uncle to Richard II.; and by this pedigree he not only
was allied to the royal family, but had claims for dignities as well as
estates of a very extensive nature. The duke of Glocester, and Henry,
earl of Derby, afterwards Henry IV. had married the two daughters and
coheirs of Bohun, earl of Hereford, one of the greatest of the ancient
barons, whose immense property came thus to be divided into two shares.
One was inherited by the family of Buckingham; the other was united to
the crown by the house of Lancaster, and, after the attainder of that
royal line, was seized, as legally devolved to them, by the sovereigns
of the house of York. The duke of Buckingham laid hold of the present
opportunity, and claimed the restitution of that portion of the Hereford
estate which had escheated to the crown, as well as of the great office
of constable, which had long continued by inheritance in his ancestors
of that family. Richard readily complied with these demands, which
were probably the price stipulated to Buckingham for his assistance in
promoting the usurpation. That nobleman was invested with the office of
constable; he received a grant of the estate of Hereford;[*] many other
dignities and honors were conferred upon him; and the king thought
himself sure of preserving the fidelity of a man whose interests seemed
so closely connected with those of the present government.
* Dugdale’s Baron. vol. i. p. 168, 169.
But it was impossible that friendship could long remain inviolate
between two men of such corrupt minds as Richard and the duke of
Buckingham. Historians ascribe their first rupture to the king’s refusal
of making restitution of the Hereford estate; but it is certain from
records, that he passed a grant for that purpose, and that the full
demands of Buckingham were satisfied in this particular. Perhaps Richard
was soon sensible of the danger which might ensue from conferring
such an immense property on a man of so turbulent a disposition, and
afterwards raised difficulties about the execution of his own grant:
perhaps he refused some other demands of Buckingham, whom he found
it impossible to gratify for his past services: perhaps he resolved,
according to the usual maxim of politicians, to seize the first
opportunity of ruining this powerful subject, who had been the principal
instrument of his own elevation; and the discovery of this intention
begat the first discontent in the duke of Buckingham. However this may
be, it is certain that the duke, soon after Richard’s accession, began
to form a conspiracy against the government, and attempted to overthrow
that usurpation which he himself had so zealously contributed to
establish.
Never was there in any country a usurpation more flagrant than that
of Richard, or more repugnant to every principle of justice and public
interest. His claim was entirely founded on impudent allegations, never
attempted to be proved; some of them incapable of proof, and all of
their implying scandalous reflections on his own family, and on the
persons with whom he was the most nearly connected. His title was never
acknowledged by any national assembly, scarcely even by the lowest
populace to whom he appealed; and it had become prevalent merely for
want of some person of distinction, who might stand forth against him,
and give a voice to those sentiments of general detestation which arose
in every bosom. Were men disposed to pardon these violations of public
right, the sense of private and domestic duty, which is not to be
effaced in the most barbarous times, must have, begotten an abhorrence
against him; and have represented the murder of the young and innocent
princes, his nephews, with whose protection he had been intrusted,
in the most odious colors imaginable. To endure such a bloody usurper
seemed to draw disgrace upon the nation, and to be attended with
immediate danger to every individual who was distinguished by birth,
merit, or services. Such was become the general voice of the people;
all parties were united in the same sentiments; and the Lancastrians, so
long oppressed, and of late so much discredited, felt their blasted
hopes again revive, and anxiously expected the consequences of these
extraordinary events. The duke of Buckingham, whose family had been
devoted to that interest, and who, by his mother, a daughter of Edmund,
duke of Somerset, was allied to the house of Lancaster, was easily
induced to espouse the cause of this party, and to endeavor the
restoring of it to its ancient superiority. Morton, bishop of Ely, a
zealous Lancastrian, whom the king had imprisoned, and had afterwards
committed to the custody of Buckingham, encouraged these sentiments;
and by his exhortations the duke cast his eye towards the young earl of
Richmond, as the only person who could free the nation from the tyranny
of the present usurper.[*]
* Hist. Croyl. Cont. p. 568.
Henry, earl of Richmond, was at this time detained in a kind of
honorable custody by the duke of Brittany; and his descent, which seemed
to give him some pretensions to the crown, had been a great object of
jealousy both in the late and in the present reign. John, the first duke
of Somerset who was grandson of John of Gaunt, by a spurious branch but
legitimated by act of parliament, had left only one daughter, Margaret;
and his younger brother, Edmund, had succeeded him in his titles, and in
a considerable part of his fortune. Margaret had espoused Edmund, earl
of Richmond, half brother of Henry VI., and son of Sir Owen Tudor and
Catharine of France, relict of Henry V., and she bore him only one
son, who received the name of Henry, and who, after his father’s death,
inherited the honors and fortune of Richmond. His mother, being a widow,
had espoused in second marriage Sir Henry Stafford, uncle to Buckingham,
and after the death of that gentleman, had married Lord Stanley; but had
no children by either of these husbands; and her son Henry was thus, in
the event of her death, the sole heir of all her fortunes. But this was
not the most considerable advantage which he had reason to expect from
her succession: he would represent the elder branch of the house of
Somerset; he would inherit all the title of that family to the crown;
and though its claim, while any legitimate branch subsisted of the house
of Lancaster, had always been much disregarded, the zeal of faction,
after the death of Henry VI., and the murder of Prince Edward,
immediately conferred a weight and consideration upon it.
Edward IV., finding that all the Lancastrians had turned their attention
towards the young earl of Richmond as the object of their hopes, thought
him also worthy of his attention; and pursued him into his retreat in
Brittany, whither his uncle, the earl of Pembroke, had carried him,
after the battle of Tewkesbury, so fatal to his party. He applied to
Francis II., duke of Brittany, who was his ally; a weak, but a good
prince; and urged him to deliver up this fugitive, who might be the
source of future disturbances in England; but the duke, averse to so
dishonorable a proposal, would only consent that, for the security
of Edward, the young nobleman should be detained in custody; and he
received an annual pension from England for the safe keeping or the
subsistence of his prisoner. But towards the end of Edward’s reign, when
the kingdom was menaced with a war both from France and Scotland, the
anxieties of the English court with regard to Henry were much increased;
and Edward made a new proposal to the duke, which covered, under the
fairest appearances, the most bloody and treacherous intentions. He
pretended that he was desirous of gaining his enemy, and of uniting
him to his own family by a marriage with his daughter Elizabeth; and he
solicited to have him sent over to England, in order to execute a scheme
which would redound so much to his advantage. These pretences, seconded,
as is supposed, by bribes to Peter Landais, a corrupt minister, by
whom the duke was entirely governed, gained credit with the court of
Brittany: Henry was delivered into the hands of the English agents,
he was ready to embark; when a suspicion of Edward’s real design was
suggested to the duke, who recalled his orders, and thus saved the
unhappy youth from the imminent danger which hung over him.
These symptoms of continued jealousy in the reigning family of England,
both seemed to give some authority to Henry’s pretensions, and made him
the object of general favor and compassion, on account of the dangers
and persecutions to which he was exposed. The universal detestation of
Richard’s conduct turned still more the attention of the nation towards
Henry; and as all the descendants of the house of York were either women
or minors, he seemed to be the only person from whom the nation
could expect the expulsion of the odious and bloody tyrant. But
notwithstanding these circumstances, which were so favorable to him,
Buckingham and the bishop of Ely well knew that there would still be
many obstacles in his way to the throne; and that, though the nation had
been much divided between Henry VI. and the duke of York, while present
possession and hereditary right stood in opposition to each other,
yet as soon as these titles were united in Edward IV., the bulk of the
people had come over to the reigning family; and the Lancastrians had
extremely decayed, both in numbers and in authority. It was therefore
suggested by Morton, and readily assented to by the duke, that the only
means of overturning the present usurpation, was to unite the opposite
factions, by contracting a marriage between the earl of Richmond and the
princess Elizabeth, eldest daughter of King Edward, and thereby blending
together the opposite pretensions of their families, which had so long
been the source of public disorders and convulsions. They were sensible,
that the people were extremely desirous of repose after so many bloody
and destructive commotions; that both Yorkists and Lancastrians, who now
lay equally under oppression, would embrace this scheme with ardor; and
that the prospect of reconciling the two parties, which was in itself
so desirable an end, would, when added to the general hatred against
the present government, render their cause absolutely invincible. In
consequence of these views, the prelate, by means of Reginald Bray,
steward to the countess of Rich-* *mond, first opened the project of
such a union to that lady; and the plan appeared so advantageous for her
son, and at the same time so likely to succeed, that it admitted not of
the least hesitation. Dr. Lewis, a Welsh physician, who had access to
the queen dowager in her sanctuary, carried the proposals to her, and
found that revenge for the murder of her brother and of her three sons,
apprehensions for her surviving family, and indignation against her
confinement, easily overcame all her prejudices against the house of
Lancaster, and procured her approbation of a marriage, to which the age
and birth, as well as the present situation of the parties, seemed so
naturally to invite them. She secretly borrowed a sum of money in
the city, sent it over to the earl of Richmond, required his oath to
celebrate the marriage as soon as he should arrive in England, advised
him to levy as many foreign forces as possible, and promised to join
him on his first appearance, with all the friends and partisans of her
family.
The plan being thus laid upon the solid foundations of good sense and
sound policy, it was secretly communicated to the principal persons of
both parties in all the counties of England; and a wonderful alacrity
appeared in every order of men to forward its success and completion.
But it was impossible that so extensive a conspiracy could be conducted
in so secret a manner, as entirely to escape the jealous and vigilant
eye of Richard; and he soon received intelligence, that his enemies,
headed by the duke of Buckingham, were forming some design against
his authority. He immediately put himself in a posture of defence,
by levying troops in the north; and he summoned the duke to appear at
court, in such terms as seemed to promise him a renewal of their
former amity. But that nobleman, well acquainted with the barbarity and
treachery of Richard, replied only by taking arms in Wales, and giving
the signal to his accomplices for a general insurrection in all parts of
England. But at that very time there happened to fall such heavy rains,
so incessant and continued, as exceeded any known in the memory of man;
and the Severn, with the other rivers in that neighborhood, swelled to
a height which rendered them impassable, and prevented Buckingham from
marching into the heart of England to join his associates. The Welshmen,
partly moved by superstition at this extraordinary event, partly
distressed by famine in their camp, fell off from him; and Buckingham,
finding himself deserted by his followers, put on a disguise, and took
shelter in the house of Banister, an old servant of his family. But
being detected in his retreat, he was brought to the king at Salisbury;
and was instantly executed, according to the summary method practised
in that age.[*] The other conspirators, who took arms in four different
places, at Exeter, at Salisbury, it Newbury, and at Maidstone, hearing
of the duke of Buckingham’s misfortunes, despaired of success, and
immediately dispersed themselves.
The marquis of Dorset and the bishop of Ely made their escape beyond
sea; many others were equally fortunate; several fell into Richard’s
hands, of whom he made some examples. His executions seem not to have
been remarkably severe; though we are told of one gentleman, William
Colingbourne, who suffered under color of this rebellion, but in reality
for a distich of quibbling verses which he had composed against Richard
and his ministers.[*]
* Hist. Croyl. Cont. p. 568.
The lines were--
“The Rat, the Cat, and Lovel that Dog,
Rule all England under the Hog;”
The earl of Richmond, in concert with his friends, had set sail from St.
Malo’s, carrying on board a body of five thousand men, levied in foreign
parts; but his fleet being at first driven back by a storm, he appeared
not on the coast of England till after the dispersion of all his
friends; and he found himself obliged to return to the court of
Brittany.
{1484.} The king, every where triumphant, and fortified by this
unsuccessful attempt to dethrone him, ventured at last to summon a
parliament; a measure which his crimes and flagrant usurpation had
induced him hitherto to decline. Though it was natural that the
parliament, in a contest of national parties, should always adhere to
the victor, he seems to have apprehended, lest his title, founded on
no principle, and supported by no party, might be rejected by that
assembly. But his enemies being now at his feet, the parliament had no
choice left but to recognize his authority, and acknowledge his right
to the crown. His only son, Edward, then a youth of twelve years of age,
was created prince of Wales: the duties of tonnage and poundage were
granted to the king for life; and Richard, in order to reconcile the
nation to his government, passed some popular laws, particularly one
alluding to the names of Ratcliffe and Catesby; and to Richard’s arms,
which were a boar, against the late practice of extorting money on
pretence of benevolence.
All the other measures of the king tended to the same object. Sensible
that the only circumstance which could give him security, was to gain
the confidence of the Yorkists, he paid court to the queen dowager with
such art and address, made such earnest protestations of his sincere
good-will and friendship, that this princess, tired of confinement, and
despairing of any success from her former projects, ventured to leave
her sanctuary, and to put herself and her daughters into the hands of
the tyrant. But he soon carried further his views for the establishment
of his throne. He had married Anne, the second daughter of the earl of
Warwick, and widow of Edward, prince of Wales, whom Richard himself had
murdered; but this princess having born him but one son, who died about
this time, he considered her as an invincible obstacle to the settlement
of his fortune, and he was believed to have carried her off by poison;
a crime for which the public could not be supposed to have any solid
proof, but which the usual tenor of his conduct made it reasonable to
suspect. He now thought it in his power to remove the chief perils which
threatened his government. The earl of Richmond, he knew, could never be
formidable but from his projected marriage with the princess Elizabeth,
the true heir of the crown; and he therefore intended, by means of a
papal dispensation, to espouse, himself, this princess, and thus to
unite in his own family their contending titles. The queen dowager,
eager to recover her lost authority, neither scrupled this alliance,
which was very unusual in England, and was regarded as incestuous, nor
felt any horror at marrying her daughter to the murderer of her three
sons and of her brother: she even joined so farther interests with those
of the usurper, that she wrote to all her partisans, and among the rest
to her son, the marquis of Dorset, desiring them to withdraw from
the earl of Richmond; an injury which the earl could never afterwards
forgive: the court of Rome was applied to for a dispensation: Richard
thought that he could easily defend himself during the interval, till
it arrived; and he had afterwards the agreeable prospect of a full and
secure settlement. He flattered himself that the English nation, seeing
all danger removed of a disputed succession, would then acquiesce under
the dominion of a prince who was of mature years, of great abilities,
and of a genius qualified for government; and that they would forgive
him all the crimes which he had committed in paving his way to the
throne.
But the crimes of Richard were so horrid and so shocking to humanity,
that the natural sentiments of men, without any political or public
views, were sufficient to render his government unstable; and every
person of probity and honor was earnest to prevent the sceptre from
being any longer polluted by that bloody and faithless hand which held
it. All the exiles flocked to the earl of Richmond in Brittany, and
exhorted him to hasten his attempt for a new invasion, and to prevent
the marriage of the princess Elizabeth, which must prove fatal to all
his hopes. The earl, sensible of the urgent necessity, but dreading
the treachery of Peter Landais, who had entered into a negotiation with
Richard for betraying him, was obliged to attend only to his present
safety; and he made his escape to the court of France. The ministers of
Charles VIII., who had now succeeded to the throne after the death
of his father, Lewis, gave him countenance and protection; and being
desirous of raising disturbance to Richard, they secretly encouraged the
earl in the levies which he made for the support of his enterprise upon
England. The earl of Oxford, whom Richard’s suspicions had thrown into
confinement, having made his escape, here joined Henry; and inflamed his
ardor for the attempt, by a favorable account which he brought of
the dispositions of the English nation, and their universal hatred of
Richard’s crimes and usurpation.
{1485.} The earl of Richmond set sail from Harfleur, in Normandy, with
a small army of about two thousand men; and after a navigation of six
days, he arrived at Milford Haven, in Wales, where he landed without
opposition. He directed his course to that part of the kingdom, in hopes
that the Welsh, who regarded him as their countryman, and who had been
already prepossessed in favor of his cause by means of the duke of
Buckingham, would join his standard, and enable him to make head against
the established government. Richard, who knew not in what quarter he
might expect the invader, had taken post at Nottingham, in the centre
of the kingdom; and having given commissions to different persons in the
several counties, whom he empowered to oppose his enemy, he purposed in
person to fly, on the first alarm, to the place exposed to danger. Sir
Rice ap Thomas and Sir Walter Herbert were intrusted with his authority
in Wales; but the former immediately deserted to Henry; the second
made but feeble opposition to him; and the earl, advancing towards
Shrewsbury, received every day some reënforcement from his partisans.
Sir Gilbert Talbot joined him with all the vassals and retainers of the
family of Shrewsbury: Sir Thomas Bourchier and Sir Walter Hungerford
brought their friends to share his fortunes; and the appearance of
men of distinction in his camp made already his cause wear a favorable
aspect.
But the danger to which Richard was chiefly exposed, proceeded not so
much from the zeal of his open enemies, as from the infidelity of his
pretended friends. Scarce any nobleman of distinction was sincerely
attached to his cause, except the duke of Norfolk; and all those who
feigned the most loyalty were only watching for an opportunity to betray
and desert him. But the persons of whom he entertained the greatest
suspicion, were Lord Stanley and his brother Sir William, whose
connections with the family of Richmond, notwithstanding their
professions of attachment to his person, were never entirely forgotten
or overlooked by him. When he empowered Lord Stanley to levy forces,
he still retained his eldest son, Lord Strange, as a pledge for his
fidelity; and that nobleman was, on this account, obliged to employ
great caution and reserve in his proceedings. He raised a powerful body
of his friends and retainers in Cheshire and Lancashire, but without
openly declaring himself: and though Henry had received secret
assurances of his friendly intentions, the armies on both sides knew
not what to infer from his equivocal behavior. The two rivals at last
approached each other, at Bosworth near Leicester; Henry at the head of
six thousand men, Richard with an army of above double the number; and
a decisive action was every hour expected between them. Stanley,
who commanded above seven thousand men, took care to post himself
at Atherstone, not far from the hostile camps; and he made such a
disposition as enabled him on occasion to join either party. Richard had
too much sagacity not to discover his intentions from these movements;
but he kept the secret from his own men for fear of discouraging them:
he took not immediate revenge on Stanley’s son, as some of his courtiers
advised him; because he hoped that so valuable a pledge would induce the
father to prolong still further his ambiguous conduct: and he hastened
to decide by arms the quarrel with his competitor; being certain that
a victory over the earl of Richmond would enable him to take simple
revenge on all his enemies, open and concealed.
The van of Richmond’s army, consisting of archers, was commanded by the
earl of Oxford: Sir Gilbert Talbot led the right wing; Sir John Savage
the left: the earl himself, accompanied by his uncle the earl of
Pembroke, placed himself in the main body. Richard also took post in his
main body, and intrusted the command of his van to the duke of Norfolk:
as his wings were never engaged, we have not learned the names of the
several commanders. Soon after the battle began, Lord Stanley, whose
conduct in this whole affair discovers great precaution and abilities,
appeared in the field, and declared for the earl of Richmond. This
measure, which was unexpected to the men, though not to their leaders,
had a proportional effect on both armies: it inspired unusual courage
into Henry’s soldiers; it threw Richard’s into dismay and confusion.
The intrepid tyrant, sensible of his desperate situation, cast his eye
around the field, and descrying his rival at no great distance, he drove
against him with fury, in hopes that either Henry’s death or his own
would decide the victory between them. He killed with his own hands Sir
William Brandon, standard-bearer to the earl: he dismounted Sir John
Cheyney: he was now within reach of Richmond himself, who declined
not the combat, when Sir William Stanley, breaking in with his troops,
surrounded Richard, who, fighting bravely to the last moment, was
overwhelmed by numbers, and perished by a fate too mild and honorable
for his multiplied and detestable enormities. His men every where sought
for safety by flight.
There fell in this battle about four thousand of the vanquished; and
among these the duke of Norfolk, Lord Ferrars of Chartley, Sir Richard
Ratcliffe, Sir Robert Piercy, and Sir Robert Brackenbury. The loss was
inconsiderable on the side of the victors. Sir William Catesby, a great
instrument of Richard’s crimes, was taken, and soon after beheaded, with
some others, at Leicester. The body of Richard was found in the field,
covered with dead enemies, and all besmeared with blood: it was thrown
carelessly across a horse; was carried to Leicester amidst the shouts of
the insulting spectators; and was interred in the Gray Friars’ church of
that place.
The historians who favor Richard (for even this tyrant has met with
partisans among the later writers) maintain, that he was well qualified
for government, had he legally obtained it; and that he committed no
crimes but such as were necessary to procure him possession of the
crown: but this is a poor apology, when it is confessed, that he was
ready to commit the most horrid crimes which appeared necessary for that
purpose; and it is certain, that all his courage and capacity, qualities
in which he really seems not to have been deficient, would never have
made compensation to the people for the danger of the precedent, and for
the contagious example of vice and murder exalted upon the throne. This
prince was of a small stature, humpbacked, and had a harsh, disagreeable
countenance; so that his body was in every particular no less deformed
than his mind.
*****
Thus have we pursued the history of England through a series of many
barbarous ages, till we have at last reached the dawn of civility
and science, and have the prospect, both of greater certainty in our
historical narrations, and of being able to present to the reader a
spectacle more worthy of his attention. The want of certainty, however,
and of circumstances, is not unlike to be complained of throughout
every period of this long narration. This island possesses many ancient
historians of good credit, as well as many historical monuments; and
it is rare, that the annals of so uncultivated a people as were the
English, as well as the other European nations after the decline of
Roman learning, have been transmitted to posterity so complete, and
with so little mixture of falsehood and of fable. This advantage we
owe entirely to the clergy of the church of Rome; who, founding their
authority on their superior knowledge, preserved the precious literature
of antiquity from a total extinction;[*] [21] and, under shelter of
their numerous privileges and immunities, acquired a security by means
of the superstition, which they would in vain have claimed from the
justice and humanity of those turbulent and licentious ages.
* See note U, at the end of the volume
Nor is the spectacle altogether unentertaining and uninstructive, which
the history of those times presents to us. The view of human manners, in
all their variety of appearances, is both profitable and agreeable; and
if the aspect in some periods seem horrid and deformed, we may thence
learn to cherish with the greater anxiety that science and civility,
which has so close a connection with virtue and humanity, and which,
as it is a sovereign antidote against superstition, is also the most
effectual remedy against vice and disorders of every kind.
The rise, progress, perfection, and decline of art and science, are
curious objects of contemplation, and intimately connected with a
narration of civil transactions. The events of no particular period can
be fully accounted for, but by considering the degrees of advancement
which men have reached in those particulars.
Those who cast their eye on the general revolutions of society, will
find that, as almost all improvements of the human mind had reached
nearly to their state of perfection about the age of Augustus, there
was a sensible decline from that point or period; and men thenceforth
relapsed gradually into ignorance and barbarism. The unlimited extent
of the Roman empire, and the consequent despotism of its monarchs,
extinguished all emulation, debased the generous spirits of men,
and depressed that noble flame by which all the refined arts must be
cherished and enlivened. The military government, which soon succeeded,
rendered even the lives and properties of men insecure and precarious;
and proved destructive to those vulgar and more necessary arts of
agriculture, manufactures, and commerce; and, in the end, to the
military art and genius itself, by which alone the immense fabric of the
empire could be supported. The irruption of the barbarous nations which
soon followed, overwhelmed all human knowledge, which was already far
in its decline; and men sunk every age deeper into ignorance, stupidity,
and superstition; till the light of ancient science and history had very
nearly suffered a total extinction in all the European nations.
But there is a point of depression, as well as of exaltation, from which
human affairs naturally return in a contrary direction, and beyond which
they seldom pass either in their advancement or decline. The period in
which the people of Christendom were the lowest sunk in ignorance, and
consequently in disorders of every kind, may justly be fixed at the
eleventh century, about the age of William the Conqueror; and from that
era the sun of science, beginning to reascend, threw out many gleams of
light, which preceded the full morning when letters were revived in the
fifteenth century. The Danes and other northern people, who had so long
infested all the coasts, and even the island parts of Europe, by their
depredations, having now learned the arts of tillage and agriculture,
found a certain subsistence at home, and were no longer tempted to
desert their industry, in order to seek a precarious livelihood by
rapine and by the plunder of their neighbors. The feudal governments
also, among the more southern nations, were reduced to a kind of system;
and though that strange species of civil polity was ill fitted to insure
either liberty or tranquillity, it was preferable to the universal
license and disorder which had every where preceded it. But perhaps
there was no event which tended further to the improvement of the age,
than one which has not been much remarked, the accidental finding of
a copy of Justinian’s Pandects, about the year 1130, in the town of
Amalfi, in Italy.
The ecclesiastics, who had leisure, and some inclination to study,
immediately adopted with zeal this excellent system of jurisprudence,
and spread the knowledge of it throughout every part of Europe. Besides
the intrinsic merit of the performance, it was recommended to them by
its original connection with the imperial city of Rome, which, being the
seat of their religion, seemed to acquire a new lustre and authority by
the diffusion of its laws over the western world. In less than ten years
after the discovery of the Pandects, Vacarius, under the protection of
Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, read public lectures of civil law in
the university of Oxford; and the clergy every where, by their example
as well as exhortation, were the means of diffusing the highest esteem
for this new science. That order of men, having large possessions to
defend, was in a manner necessitated to turn their studies towards the
law; and their properties being often endangered by the violence of the
princes and barons, it became their interest to enforce the observance
of general and equitable rules, from which alone they could receive
protection. As they possessed all the knowledge of the age, and were
alone acquainted with the habits of thinking, the practice as well as
science of the law fell mostly into their hands: and though the close
connection which, without any necessity, they formed between the canon
and civil law, begat a jealousy in the laity of England, and prevented
the Roman jurisprudence from becoming the municipal law of the country,
as was the case in many states of Europe, a great part of it was
secretly transferred into the practice of the courts of justice, and
the imitation of their neighbors made the English gradually endeavor
to raise their own law from its original state of rudeness and
imperfection.
It is easy to see what advantages Europe must have reaped by its
inheriting at once from the ancients so complete an art, which was
also so necessary for giving security to all other arts, and which by
refining, and still more by bestowing solidity on the judgment, served
as a model to further improvements. The sensible utility of the Roman
law, both to public and private interest, recommended the study of it,
at a time when the more exalted and speculative sciences carried no
charms with them; and thus the last branch of ancient literature which
remained uncorrupted, was happily the first transmitted to the modern
world. For it is remarkable, that in the decline of Roman learning,
when the philosophers were universally infected with superstition and
sophistry, and the poets and historians with barbarism, the lawyers, who
in other countries are seldom models of science or politeness, were yet
able, by the constant study and close imitation of their predecessors,
to maintain the same good sense in their decisions and reasonings, and
the same purity in their language and expression.
What bestowed an additional merit on the civil law, was the extreme
imperfection of that jurisprudence which preceded it among all the
European nations, especially among the Saxons or ancient English.
The absurdities which prevailed at that time in the administration of
justice, may be conceived from the authentic monuments which remain of
the ancient Saxon laws; where a pecuniary commutation was received for
every crime, where stated prices were fixed for men’s lives and members,
where private revenges were authorized for all injuries, where the use
of the ordeal, corsnet, and afterwards of the duel, was the received
method of proof, and where the judges were rustic freeholders, assembled
of a sudden, and deciding a cause from one debate or altercation of the
parties. Such a state of society was very little advanced beyond the
rude state of nature: violence universally prevailed, instead of general
and equitable maxims: the pretended liberty of the times was only an
incapacity of submitting to government: and men, not protected by law in
their lives and properties, sought shelter, by their personal servitude
and attachments, under some powerful chieftain, or by voluntary
combinations.
The gradual progress of improvement raised the Europeans somewhat above
this uncultivated state; and affairs, in this island particularly, took
early a turn which was more favorable to justice and to liberty. Civil
employments and occupations soon became honorable among the English: the
situation of that people rendered not the perpetual attention to wars so
necessary as among their neighbors, and all regard was not confined to
the military profession: the gentry, and even the nobility, began to
deem an acquaintance with the law a necessary part of education: they
were less diverted than afterwards from studies of this kind by other
sciences; and in the age of Henry VI., as we are told by Fortescue,
there were in the inns of court about two thousand students, most of
them men of honorable birth, who gave application to this branch of
civil knowledge: a circumstance which proves, that a considerable
progress was already made in the science of government, and which
prognosticated a still greater.
One chief advantage which resulted from the introduction and progress
of the arts, was the introduction and progress of freedom; and this
consequence affected men both in their personal and civil capacities.
If we consider the ancient state of Europe, we shall find, that the far
greater part of the society were every where bereaved of their personal
liberty, and lived entirely at the will of their masters. Every one that
was not noble, was a slave: the peasants were sold along with the land:
the few inhabitants of cities were not in a better condition: even the
gentry themselves were subjected to a long train of subordination under
the greater barons or chief vassals of the crown; who, though seemingly
placed in a high state of splendor, yet, having but a slender protection
from law, were exposed to every tempest of the state, and, by the
precarious condition in which they lived, paid dearly for the power
of oppressing and tyrannizing over their inferiors. The first incident
which broke in upon this violent system of government, was the practice,
begun in Italy, and imitated in France, of erecting communities
and corporations, endowed with privileges and a separate municipal
government, which gave them protection against the tyranny of the
barons, and which the prince himself deemed it prudent to respect.[*]
* There appear early symptoms of the jealousy entertained by
the barons against the progress of the arts, as destructive
of their licentious power. A law was enacted, 7 Kenry IV.
chap. 17, prohibiting any one who did not possess twenty
shillings a year in land from binding his sons apprentices
to any trade. They found already that the cities began to
drain the country of the laborers and husbandmen: and did
not foresee how much the increase of commerce would increase
the value of their estates. See further, Cotton, p. 179. The
kings, to encourage the boroughs, granted them this
privilege, that any villein who had lived a twelvemonth in
any corporation, and had been of the guild, should be
thenceforth regarded as free.
The relaxation of the feudal tenures, and an execution somewhat stricter
of the public law, bestowed an independence on vassals which was unknown
to their forefathers. And even the peasants themselves, though later
than other orders of the state, made their escape from those bonds of
villenage or slavery in which they had formerly been retained.
It may appear strange that the progress of the arts, which seems, among
the Greeks and Romans, to have daily increased the number of slaves,
should, in later times, have proved so general a source of liberty; but
this difference in the events proceeded from a great difference in the
circumstances which attended those institutions. The ancient barons,
obliged to maintain themselves continually in a military posture, and
little emulous of elegance or splendor, employed not their villains
as domestic servants, much less as manufacturers; but composed their
retinue of freemen, whose military spirit rendered the chieftain
formidable to his neighbors, and who were ready to attend him in
every warlike enterprise. The villains were entirely occupied in the
cultivation of their master’s land, and paid their rents either in corn
and cattle, and other produce of the farm, or in servile offices, which
they performed about the baron’s family, and upon the farms which he
retained in his own possession. In proportion as agriculture improved
and money increased, it was found that these services, though extremely
burdensome to the villain, were of little advantage to the master;
and that the produce of a large estate could be much more conveniently
disposed of by the peasants themselves, who raised it, than by the
landlord or his bailiff, who were formerly accustomed to receive it. A
commutation was therefore made of rents for services, and of money-rents
for those in kind; and as men, in a subsequent age, discovered that
farms were better cultivated where the farmer enjoyed a security in
his possession, the practice of granting leases to the peasant began
to prevail, which entirely broke the bonds of servitude, already much
relaxed from the former practices. After this manner villenage went
gradually into disuse throughout the more civilized parts of Europe: the
interest of the master, as well as that of the slave, concurred in this
alteration. The latest laws which we find in England for enforcing or
regulating this species of servitude, were enacted in the reign of
Henry VII. And though the ancient statutes on this subject remain still
unrepealed by parliament, it appears that before the end of Elizabeth,
the distinction of villain and freeman was totally, though insensibly
abolished, and that no person remained in the state, to whom the former
laws could be applied.
Thus personal freedom became almost general in Europe; an advantage
which paved the way for the increase of political or civil liberty, and
which, even where it was not attended with this salutary effect, served
to give the members of the community some of the most considerable
advantages of it.
The constitution of the English government, ever since the invasion of
this island by the Saxons, may boast of this pre-eminence, that in no
age the will of the monarch was ever entirely absolute and uncontrolled;
but in other respects the balance of power has extremely shifted among
the several orders of the state; and this fabric has experienced the
same mutability that has attended all human institutions.
The ancient Saxons, like the other German nations, where each individual
was inured to arms, and where the independence of men was secured by
a great equality of possessions, seem to have admitted a considerable
mixture of democracy into their form of government, and to have been one
of the freest nations of which there remains any account in the records
of history. After this tribe was settled in England, especially after
the dissolution of the heptarchy, the great extent of the kingdom
produced a great inequality in property; and the balance seems to have
inclined to the side of aristocracy. The Norman conquest threw more
authority into the hands of the sovereign, which, however, admitted
of great control; though derived less from the general forms of the
constitution, which were inaccurate and irregular, than from the
independent power enjoyed by each baron in his particular district or
province. The establishment of the Great Charter exalted still higher
the aristocracy, imposed regular limits on royal power, and gradually
introduced some mixture of democracy into the constitution. But even
during this period, from the accession of Edward I. to the death of
Richard III., the condition of the commons was nowise eligible: a kind
of Polish aristocracy prevailed; and though the kings were limited, the
people were as yet far from being free. It required the authority almost
absolute of the sovereigns, which took place in the subsequent period,
to pull down those disorderly and licentious tyrants, who were equally
averse from peace and from freedom, and to establish that regular
execution of the laws, which, in a following age, enabled the people
to erect a regular and equitable plan of liberty. In each of
these successive alterations, the only rule of government which is
intelligible, or carries any authority with it, is the established
practice of the age, and the maxims of administration which are at that
time prevalent and universally assented to. Those who, from a pretended
respect to antiquity, appeal at every turn to an original plan of
the constitution, only cover their turbulent spirit and their private
ambition under the appearance of venerable forms; and whatever period
they pitch on for their model, they may still be carried back to a more
ancient period, where they will find the measures of power entirely
different, and where every circumstance, by reason of the greater
barbarity of the times, will appear still less worthy of imitation.
Above all, a civilized nation like the English, who have happily
established the most perfect and most accurate system of liberty that
was ever found compatible with government, ought to be cautious in
appealing to the practice of their ancestors, or regarding the maxims
of uncultivated ages as certain rules for their present conduct. An
acquaintance with the ancient periods of their government is
chiefly _useful_, by instructing them to cherish their present
constitution, from a comparison or contrast with the condition of
those distant times. And it is also _curious_, by showing them the
remote, and commonly faint and disfigured originals of the most finished
and most noble institutions, and by instructing them in the great
mixture of accident, which commonly concurs with a small ingredient of
wisdom and foresight, in erecting the complicated fabric of the most
perfect government.
NOTES.
[Footnote 1: NOTE A, p. 86. Rymer, vol. ii. p. 26, 845. There cannot
be the least question, that the homage usually paid by the kings of
Scotland was not for their crown, but for some other territory. The only
question remains, what that territory was. It was not always for the
earldom of Huntingdon, nor the honor of Penryth; because we find it
sometimes done at a time when these possessions were not in the hands of
the kings of Scotland. It is probable that the homage was performed in
general terms, without any particular specification of territory; and
this inaccuracy had proceeded either from some dispute between the
two kings about the territory and some opposite claims, which were
compromised by the general homage, or from the simplicity of the age,
which employed few words in every transaction. To prove this, we need
but look into the letter of King Richard, where he resigns the homage of
Scotland, reserving the usual homage. His words are, “Sæpedictus W.
Rex ligius homo noster deveniat de omnibus terris de quibus antecessores
sui antecessorum nostrorum ligii homines fuerunt, et nobis atque
hæredibus nostris fidelitatem jurarunt.” Rymer, vol. i. p. 65. These
general terms were probably copied from the usual form of the homage
itself.
It is no proof that the kings of Scotland possessed no lands or baronies
in England, because we cannot find them in the imperfect histories
and records of that age. For instance, it clearly appears from another
passage of this very letter of Richard, that the Scottish king held
lands both in the county of Huntingdon and elsewhere in England; though
the earldom of Huntingdon itself was then in the person of his brother
David; and we know at present of no other baronies which William held.
It cannot be expected that we should now be able to specify all his fees
which he either possessed or claimed in England; when it is probable
that the two monarchs themselves and their ministers would at that very
time have differed in the list: the Scottish king might possess some
to which his right was disputed; he might claim others which he did
not possess; and neither of the two kings was willing to resign his
pretensions by a particular enumeration.
A late author of great industry and learning, but full of prejudices,
and of no penetration, Mr. Carte, has taken advantage of the undefined
terms of the Scotch homage, and has pretended that it was done for
Lothian and Galloway: that is, all the territories of the country now
called Scotland, lying south of the Clyde and Forth. But to refute this
pretension at once, we need only consider, that if these territories
were held in fee of the English kings, there would, by the nature of the
feudal law as established in England, have been continual appeals from
them to the courts of the lord paramount; contrary to all the histories
and records of that age. We find that, as soon as Edward really
established his superiority, appeals immediately commenced from all
parts of Scotland: and that king, in his writ to the king’s bench,
considers them as a necessary consequence of the feudal tenure. Such
large territories also would have supplied a considerable part of the
English armies, which never could have escaped all the historians. Not
to mention that there is not any instance of a Scotch prisoner of
war being tried as a rebel, in the frequent hostilities between the
kingdoms, where the Scottish armies were chiefly filled from the
southern counties.
Mr. Carte’s notion with regard to Galloway, which comprehends, in the
language of that age, or rather in that of the preceding, most of the
south-west counties of Scotland; his notion, I say, rests on so slight a
foundation, that it scarcely merits being refuted. He will have it, (and
merely because he will have it,) that the Cumberland, yielded by King
Edmund to Malcolm I., meant not only the county in England of that name,
but all the territory northwards to the Clyde. But the case of Lothian
deserves some more consideration.
It is certain that, in very ancient language, Scotland means only the
country north of the Friths of Clyde and Forth. I shall not make a
parade of literature to prove it; because I do not find that this point
is disputed by the Scots themselves. The southern country was divided
into Galloway and Lothian; and the latter comprehended all the
south-east counties. This territory was certainly a part of the ancient
kingdom of Northumberland, and was entirely peopled by Saxons, who
afterwards received a great mixture of Danes among them. It appears from
all the English histories, that the whole kingdom of Northumberland paid
very little obedience to the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, who governed after
the dissolution of the heptarchy; and the northern and remote parts of
it seem to have fallen into a kind of anarchy, sometimes pillaged by
the Danes, sometimes joining them in their ravages upon other parts
of England. The kings of Scotland, lying nearer them, took at last
possession of the country, which had scarcely any government; and we are
told by Matthew of Westminster, (p. 193,) that King Edgar made a grant
of the territory to Kenneth III.; that is, he resigned claims which he
could not make effectual, without bestowing on them more trouble and
expense than they were worth: for these are the only grants of provinces
made by kings; and so ambitious and active a prince as Edgar would never
have made presents of any other kind. Though Matthew of Westminster’s
authority may appear small with regard to so remote a transaction,
yet we may admit it in this case, because Ordericus Vitalis, a good
authority, tells us, (p. 701,) that Malcolm acknowledged to William
Rufus, that the Conqueror had confirmed to him the former grant of
Lothian. But it follows not, because Edgar made this species of grant
to Kenneth, that therefore he exacted homage for that territory. Homage,
and all the rites of the feudal law, were very little known among
the Saxons; and we may also suppose, that the gla’n of Edgar was so
antiquated and weak, that, in resigning it, he made no very valuable
concession, and Kenneth might well refuse to hold, by so precarious a
tenure, a territory which he at present held by the sword. In short, no
author says he did homage for it.
The only color indeed of authority for Mr. Carte’s notion is, that
Matthew Fans, who wrote in the reign of Henry III., before Edward’s
claim of superiority was heard of, says that Alexander III. did homage
to Henry III. “pro Laudiano et aliis terris.” See p.555. This word seems
naturally to be interpreted Lothian. But, in the first place, Matthew
Paris’s testimony, though considerable, will not outweigh that of all
the other historians, who say that the Scotch homage was always done
for lands in England. Secondly, if the Scotch homage was done in general
terms, (as has been already proved,) it is no wonder that historians
should differ in their account of the object of it, since it is probable
the parties themselves were not fully agreed. Thirdly, there is reason
to think that Laudianum in Matthew Paris does not mean the Lothians, now
in Scotland. There appears to have been a territory which anciently
bore that or a similar name in the north of England. For (1.) the
Saxon Chronicle (p.197) says, that Malcolm Kenmure met William Rufus in
Lodene, in England. (2.) It is agreed by all historians, that Henry II.
only reconquered from Scotland the northern counties of Northumberland,
Cumberland, and Westmoreland. See Newbriggs, p.383. Wykes, p.30.
Hemingford, p.492, Yet the same country is called by other historians
Loidis, comitatus Lodonensis, or some such name. See M. Paris, p.68.
M. Westi p.247. Annal. Wayerl. p.159, and Diceto, p.531. (3.) This
last-mentioned author, when he speaks of Lothian in Scotland, calls it
Loheneis, (p.574,) though he had called the English territory Loidis.
I thought this long note necessary in order to correct Mr. Carte’s
mistake, an author whose diligence and industry has given light to many
passages of the more ancient English history.]
[Footnote 2: NOTE B, p.86. Rymer, vol. ii. p.543. It is remarkable that
the English chancellor spoke to the Scotch parliament in the French
tongue. This was also the language commonly made use of by all parties
on that occasion. I bid, passim. Some of the most considerable among the
Scotch, as well as almost all the English barons, were of French origin:
they valued themselves upon it; and pretended to despise the language
and manners of the island. It is difficult to account for the settlement
of so many French families in Scotland; the Bruces, Baliols, St.
Glairs, Montgomeries, Somervilles, Gordons, Frasers, Cummins; Colvilles,
Umfrevilles, Mowbrays, Hays, Maules, who were not supported there, as in
England, by the power of the sword. But the superiority of the
smallest civility and knowledge over total ignorance and barbarism, is
prodigious.]
[Footnote 3: NOTE C, p.91. See Rymer, vol. ii. p.533, where Edward
writes to the king’s bench to receive appeals from Scotland. He knew the
practice to be new and unusual; yet he establishes it as an infallible
consequence cf his superiority. We learn also from the same collection,
(p. 603,) that immediately upon receiving the homage, he changed the
style of his address to the Scotch king, whom he now calk “dilecto et
fideli,” instead of “fratri dilecto et fideli,” the appellation which he
had always before used to him. See p. 109, 124, 168, 280, 1064. This is
a certain proof that he himself was not deceived, as was scarcely indeed
possible, but that he was conscious of his usurpation. Yet he solemnly
swore afterwards to the justice of his pretensions, when he defended
them before Pope Boniface.]
[Footnote 4: NOTE D, p. 104. Throughout the reign of Edward I., the
assent of the commons is not once expressed in any of the enacting
clauses; nor in the reigns ensuing, till the 9 Edward III., nor in any
of the enacting clauses of 16 Richard II. Nay, even so low as Henry
VI., from the beginning till the eighth of his reign, the assent of the
commons is not once expressed in any enacting clause. See preface to
Ruffhead’s edit, of the Statutes, p. 7. If it should be asserted, that
the commons had really given their assent to these statutes, though
they are not expressly mentioned, this very omission, proceeding, if you
will, from carelessness, is a proof how little they were respected. The
commons were so little accustomed to transact public business, that
they had no speaker till after the parliament 6 Edward III. See Prynne’s
preface to Cotton’s Abridg.: not till the first of Richard II. in the
opinion of most antiquaries. The commons were very unwilling to meddle
in any state affairs, and commonly either referred themselves to the
lords, or desired a select committee of that house to assist them, as
appears from Cotton. 5 Edw. III. n. 5; 15 Edw. III. a. 17; 21 Edw. III.
n. 5; 47 Edw. III. n. 5; 50 Edw. III. n. 10; 51 Edw. III. n. 18; 1 Rich.
II. n. 12; 2 Rich. II. n. 12; 5 Rich. II. n 14; 2 parl. 6 Rich. II. n.
14; parl. 2, 6 Rich. II. n. 8, etc.]
[Footnote 5: NOTE E, p. 105. It was very agreeable to the maxims of all
the feudal governments, that every order of the state should give their
consent to the acts which more immediately concerned them; and as the
notion of a political system was not then so well understood, the other
orders of the state were often not consulted on these occasions. In
this reign, even the merchants, though no public body, granted the king
impositions on merchandise, because the first payments came out of their
pockets. They did the same in the reign of Edward III.; but the
commons had then observed that the people paid these duties, though the
merchants advanced them; and they therefore remonstrated against this
practice. Cotton’s Abridg. p. 39. The taxes imposed by the knights on
the counties were always lighter than those which the burgesses laid on
the boroughs; a presumption, that in voting those taxes the knights and
burgesses did not form the same house. See Chancellor West’s Inquiry
into the Manner of creating Peers, p. 8. But there are so many proofs,
that those two orders of representative were long separate, that it is
needless to insist on them. Mr. Carte, who had carefully consulted the
rolls of parliament, affirms, that they never appear to have been united
till the sixteenth of Edward III. See Hist. vol. ii. p,451. But it is
certain that this union was not even then final: in 1372, the burgesses
acted by themselves, and voted a tax after the knights were dismissed.
See Tyrrel, Hist, vol. iii. p. 754, from Rot. Claus. 46 Edward III.
n. 9. In 1376, they were the knights alone who passed a vote for
the removal of Alice Pierce from the king’s person, if we may credit
Walsingham, p. 189. There is an instance of a like kind in the reign
of Richard II. Cotton, p.193. The different taxes voted by those two
branches of the lower house, naturally kept them separate; but as their
petitions had mostly the same object, namely, the redress of grievances,
and the support of law and justice both against the crown and the
barons, this cause as naturally united them, and was the reason why they
at last joined in one house for the despatch of business. The barons had
few petitions. Their privileges were of more ancient date. Grievances
seldom affected them: they were themselves the chief oppressors. In
1333, the knights by themselves concurred with the bishops and barons in
advising the king to stay his journey into Ireland. Here was a petition
which regarded a matter of state, and was supposed to be above the
capacity of the burgesses. The knights, therefore, acted apart in this
petition. See Cotton, Abridg. p. 13. Chief baron Gilbert thinks, that
the reason why taxes always began with the commons or burgesses was,
that they were limited by the instructions of their boroughs. See Hist,
of the Exchequer, p. 37.]
[Footnote 5: NOTE F, p. 105. The chief argument from ancient authority,
for the opinion that the representatives of boroughs preceded the
forty-ninth of Henry in., is the famous petition of the borough of
St. Albans, first taken notice of by Selden, and then by Petyt, Brady,
Tyrrel, and others. In this petition, presented to the parliament in the
reign of Edward II., take town of St. Albans asserts, that though they
held “in capite” of the crown, and owed only, for all other service,
their attendance in parliament, yet the sheriff had omitted them in
his writs; whereas, both in the reign of the king’s father, and all his
predecessors, they had always sent members. Now, say the defenders of
this opinion, if the commencement of the house of commons were in Henry
III.’ reign, this expression could not have been used. But Hadox, in his
History of the Exchequer, (p. 522, 523, 524,) has endeavored, and with
great reason, to destroy the authority of this petition for the purpose
alleged. He asserts, first, that there was no such tenure in England
is that of holding by attendance in parliament, instead of all other
service. Secondly, that the borough of St. Albans never held of take
crown at all, but was always demesne land of the abbot. It is no wonder,
therefore, that a petition which advances two falsehoods, should contain
one historical mistake, which indeed amounts only to an inaccurate and
exaggerated expression; no strange matter in ignorant burgesses of that
age. Accordingly, St. Albans continued still to belong to the abbot. It
never held of the crown, call after the dissolution of the monasteries.
But the assurance of these petition *ers is remarkable. They wanted to
shake off the authority of their abbot, and to hold of the king; but
were unwilling to pay any services even to the crown; upon which they
framed this idle petition, which later writers have made the foundation
of so many inferences and conclusions. From the tenor of the petition it
appears, that there was a close connection between holding of the crown
and being represented in parliament. The latter had scarcely ever place
without the former; yet we learn from Tyrell’s Append. vol. iv. that
there were some instances to the contrary. It is not improbable that
Edward followed the roll of the earl of Leicester, who had summoned,
without distinction, all the considerable boroughs of the kingdom; among
which there might be some few that did not hold of the crown. Edward
also found it necessary to impose taxes on all the boroughs in the
kingdom, without distinction. This was a good expedient for augmenting
his revenue. We are not to imagine, because the house of commons have
since become of great importance, that the first summoning of them would
form any remarkable and striking epoch, and be generally known to
the people even seventy or eighty years after. So ignorant were the
generality of men in that age, that country burgesses would readily
imagine an innovation, seemingly so little material, to have existed
from time immemorial, because it was beyond their own memory, and
perhaps that of their fathers. Even the parliament in the reign of Henry
V. say, that Ireland had, from the beginning of time, been subject to
the crown of England. (See Brady.) And surely if any thing interests the
people above all others, it is war and conquests, with their dates and
circumstances]
[Footnote 7: NOTE G, p. 233. This story of the six burgesses of Calais,
like all other extraordinary stories, is somewhat to be suspected;
and so much the more as Avesbury, (p. 167,) who is particular in his
narration of the surrender of Calais, says nothing of it; and, on the
contrary, extols in general the king’s generosity and lenity to the
inhabitants. The numberless mistakes of Froissard, proceeding either
from negligence, credulity, or love of the marvellous, invalidate very
much his testimony, even though he was a contemporary, and though his
history was dedicated to Queen Philippa herself. It is a mistake to
imagine, that the patrons of dedications read the books, much less vouch
for all the contents of them. It is not a slight testimony that should
make us give credit to a story so dishonorable to Edward, especially
after that proof of his humanity, in allowing a free passage to all the
women, children, and infirm people, at the beginning of the siege:
at least, it is scarcely to be believed, that, if the story has any
foundation, he seriously meant to execute his menaces against the six
townsmen of Calais.]
[Footnote 8: NOTE H, p. 236. There was a singular instance, About this
time, of the prevalence of chivalry and gallantry in the nations of
Europe. A solemn duel of thirty knights against thirty was fought
between Bembrwigh, as Englishman, and Beaumanoir, a Breton, of the party
of Charles of Blois, The knights of the two nations came into the field;
and before the combat began, Beaumanoir called out, that it would be
seen that day who had the fairest mistresses. After a bloody combat, the
Bretons prevailed; and gained for their prize, full liberty to boast
of their mistresses’ beauty. It is remarkable, that two such famous
generals as Sir Robert Knolles and Sir Hugh Calverley drew their swords
in this ridiculous contest. See Pere Daniel, vol. ii. p.536, 537, etc.
The women not only instigated the champions to those rough, if not
bloody frays of tournament, but also frequented the tournaments during
all the reign of Edward, whose spirit of gallantry encouraged this
practice. See Knyghton, p. 2597.]
[Footnote 9: NOTE I, p. 253. This is a prodigious sum, and probably near
the half of what the king received from the parliament during the whole
course of his reign. It must be remarked, that a tenth and fifteenth
(which was always thought a high grant) were, in the eighth year of this
reign, fixed at about twenty-nine thousand pounds; there were said to be
near thirty thousand sacks of wool exported every year. A sack of wool
was at a medium sold for five pounds. Upon these suppositions it would
be easy to compute all the parliamentary grants, taking the list as they
stand in Tyrrel, vol. iii. p. 780; though somewhat must still be left to
conjecture. This king levied more money on his subjects than any of his
predecessors; and the parliament frequently complain of the poverty of
the people, and the oppressions under which they labored. But it is to
be remarked, that a third of the French king’s ransom was yet unpaid
when war broke out anew between the two crowns. His son chose rather to
employ his money in combating the English, than in enriching them. See
Rymer, vol. viii. p. 315.]
[Footnote 11: NOTE K, p. 281. In the fifth year of the king, the commons
complained of the government about the king’s person, his court, the
excessive number of his servants, of the abuses in the chancery, king’s
bench, common pleas, exchequer, and of grievous oppressions in the
country, by the great multitudes of maintainers of quarrels, (men linked
in confederacies together,) who behaved themselves like kings in the
country, so as there was very little law or right, and of other things
which they said were the cause of the late commotions under Wat Tyler.
Parl. Hist. vol. i. p. 365. This irregular government, which no king
and no house of commons had been able to remedy, was the source of the
licentiousness of the great, and turbulency of the people, as well
as tyranny of the princes. If subjects would enjoy liberty, and kings
security, the laws must be executed.
In the ninth of this reign, also the commons discovered an accuracy
and a jealousy of liberty, which we should little expect in those rude
times. “It was agreed by parliament,” says Cotton, (p.309), “that the
subsidy of wools, woolfels, and skins, granted to the king until the
time of midsummer then ensuing, should cease from the same time unto
the feast of St. Peter ‘ad vincula’ for that thereby the king should be
interrupted for claiming such grant as due.” See also Cotton, p. 198.]
[Footnote 12: NOTE L, p. 290. Knyghton, p. 2715, etc. The same author
(p. 2680) tells us, that the king, in return to the message, said,
that he would not for their desire remove the meanest scullion from
his kitchen. This author also tells us, that the king said to the
commissioners, when they harangued him, that he saw his subjects were
rebellious, and his best way would be to call in the king of France to
his aid. But it is plain that all these speeches were either intended
by Knyghton merely as an ornament to his history, or are false. For (1.)
when the five lords accuse the king’s ministers in the next parliament,
and impute to them every rash action of the king, they speak nothing of
these replies, which are so obnoxious, were so recent, and are
pretended to have been so public. (2.) The king, so far from having any
connections at that time with France, was threatened with a dangerous
invasion from that kingdom. This story seems to have been taken from
the reproaches afterwards thrown out against him, and to have been
transferred by the historian to this time, to which they cannot be
applied.]
[Footnote 13: NOTE M, p. 295. We must except the twelfth article, which
accuses Brembre of having cut off the heads of twenty-two prisoners
confined for felony or debt, without warrant or process of law; but as
it is not conceivable what interest Brembre could have to treat these
felons and debtors in such a manner, we may presume that the fact is
either false or misrepresented. It was in these men’s power to say any
thing against the persons accused. No defence or apology was admitted;
all was lawless will and pleasure.
They are also accused of designs to murder the lords; but these
accusations either are general, or destroy one another. Sometimes, as in
article fifteenth, they intend to murder them by means of the mayor and
city of London; sometimes, as in article twenty-eighth, by trial and
false inquests; sometimes, as in article twenty-eighth, by means of the
king of France, who was to receive Calais for his pains.]
[Footnote 14: NOTE N, p. 296. In general, the parliament, in those days,
never paid a proper regard to Edward’s statute of treasons, though
one of the most advantageous laws for the subject that has ever been
enacted. In the seventeenth of the king, the dukes of Lancaster and
Glocester complain to Richard, that Sir Thomas Talbot, with others of
his adherents conspired the death of the said dukes in divers parts of
Cheshire, as the same was confessed and well known; and praying that the
parliament may judge of the fault. Whereupon the king and the lords in
the parliament judged the same fact to be open and high treason; and
hereupon they award two writs, the one to the sheriff of York, and the
other to the sheriffs of Derby, to take the body of the said Sir Thomas,
returnable in the king’s bench in the month of Easter then ensuing. And
open proclamation was made in Westminster Hall, that upon the sheriffs
return, and at the next coming in of the said Sir Thomas, the said
Thomas should be convicted of treason, and incur the loss and pain of
the same; and all such as should receive him after the proclamation
should incur the same loss and pain. Cotton, p. 354. It is to be
observed, that this extraordinary judgment was passed in a time of
tranquillity. Though the statute itself of Edward III. reserves a power
to the parliament to declare any new species of treason, it is not to
be supposed that this power was reserved to the house of lords alone, or
that men were to be judged by a law “ex post facto.” At least, if such
be the meaning of the clause, it may be affirmed, that men were at that
time very ignorant of the first principles of law and justice.]
[Footnote 15: NOTE O, p. 301. In the preceding parliament, the commons
had shown a disposition very complaisant to the king; yet there happened
an incident in their proceedings which is curious, and shows us the
state of the house during that period. The members were either country
gentlemen or merchants, who were assembled for a few days, and were
entirely unacquainted with business; so that it was easy to lead them
astray, and draw them into votes and resolutions very different from
their intention. Some petitions concerning the state of the nation were
voted: in which, among other things, the house recommended frugality to
the king; and for that purpose desired that the court should not be
so much frequented as formerly by bishops and ladies. The king was
displeased with this freedom; the commons very humbly craved pardon. He
was not satisfied unless they would name the mover of the petitions.
It happened to be one Haxey, whom the parliament, in order to make
atonement, condemned for this offence to die the death of a traitor.
But the king, at the desire of the archbishop of Canterbury and the
prelates, pardoned him. When a parliament in those times, not agitated
by any faction, and being at entire freedom, could be guilty of such
monstrous extravagance, it is easy to judge what might be expected from
them in more trying situations. See Cotton’s Abridg. p. 361, 362.]
[Footnote 16: NOTE P, p. 312. To show how little credit is to be given
to this charge against Richard, we may observe, that a law in the 13th
Edward III. had been enacted against the continuance of sheriffs for
more than one year. But the inconvenience of changes having afterwards
appeared, from experience, the commons, in the twentieth of this king,
applied; by petition, that the sheriffs might be continued; though
that petition had not been enacted into a statute, by reason of other
disagreeable circumstances which attended it. See Cotton, p. 361. It was
certainly a very moderate exercise of the dispensing power in the king
to continue the sheriffs, after he found that that practice would be
acceptable to his subjects, and had been applied for by one house of
parliament; yet is this made an article of charge against him by the
present parliament. See article 18. Walsingham, speaking of a period
early in Richard’s minority, says, “But what do acts of parliament
signify, when, after they are made, they take no effect, since the king,
by the advice of the privy council, takes upon him to alter, or wholly
set aside, all those things which by general consent had been ordained
in parliament?” If Richard, therefore, exercised the dispensing power,
he was warranted by the examples of his uncles and grandfather, and
indeed of all his predecessors from the time of Henry III., inclusive.]
[Footnote 17: NOTE Q, p. 318. The following passage in Cotton’s
Abridgment (p. 196) shows a strange prejudice against the church and
churchmen. “The commons afterwards coming into the parliament, and
making their protestation, showed, that for want of good redress
about the king’s person in his household, in all his courts, touching
maintainers in every county, and purveyors, the commons were daily
pilled, and nothing defended against the enemy, and that it should
shortly deprive the king and undo the state. Wherefore in the same
government they entirely require redress. Whereupon the king appointed
sundry bishops, lords, and nobles, to sit in privy council about these
matters; who, since that they must begin at the head, and go at the
request of the commons, they, in the presence of the king, charged
his confessor not to come into the court but upon the four principal
festivals.” We should little expect that a popish privy council, in
order to preserve the king’s morals, should order his confessor to be
kept at a distance from him. This incident happened in the minority of
Richard. As the popes had for a long time resided at Avignon, and
the majority of the sacred college were Frenchmen, this circumstance
naturally increased the aversion of the nation to the papal power; but
the prejudice against the English clergy cannot be accounted for from
that cause.]
[Footnote 18: NOTE R, p. 450. That we may judge how arbitrary a court
that of the constable of England was, we may peruse the patent granted
to the earl of Rivers in this reign, as it is to be found in Spellman’s
Glossary in verb. Constabularius: as also more fully in Rymer, vol. xi.
p. 581. Here is a clause of it: “Et ulterius de uberiori gratia nostra
eidem comiti de Rivers plenam potestatem damus ad cognoscendum et
procedendum, in omnibus et singulis causis et negotiis, de et super
crimine lesse majestatis, seu super occasione eseterisque causis
quibuscunque per præfatum comitem de Rivers, ut constabularium
Angliæ----quæ in curia constabularii Angliæ ab antique, viz, tempore
dicti domini Gtilielmi Conquætoris, sen aliquo tempore citra, tractari,
audiri examinari, aut decidi consueverant, aut jure debuerant aut
clebeni, causasque et negotia prædicta cum omnibus et singulis
emergentibus, incidentibus et connexis, audiendum, examinandum, et fine
debito terminandum, etiam _summarie et de plano, sine strepitu et
figura justitiæ, sola facti veritate inspecta,_ ac etiam manu
regia, si opportunum visum fuerit eidem comiti de Rivers, vices nostras,
appellatione remots.” The office of constable was perpetual in the
monarchy; its jurisdiction was not limited to times of war, as appears
from this patent, and as we learn from Spellman; yet its authority was
in direct contradiction to Magna Charta; and it is evident, that no
regular liberty could subsist with it. It involved a full dictatorial
power, continually subsisting in the state. The only check on the crown,
besides the want of force to support all its prerogatives, was, that the
office of constable was commonly either hereditary or during life,
and the person invested with it was, for that reason, not so proper an
instrument of arbitrary power in the king. Accordingly the office
was suppressed by Henry VIII., the most arbitrary of all the English
princes. The practice, however, of exercising martial law still
subsisted; and was not abolished till the Petition of Right under
Charles I. This was the epoch of true liberty, confirmed by the
restoration, and enlarged and secured by the revolution.]
[Footnote 19: NOTE S, p. 459. We shall give an instance. Almost all
the historians, even Coraines, and the continuator of the Annals of
Croyland, assert that Edward was about this time taken prisoner by
Clarence and Warwick, and was committed to the custody of the archbishop
of York, brother to the earl; but being allowed to take the diversion of
hunting by this prelate, he made his escape, and afterwards chased the
rebels out of the kingdom. But that all the story is false, appears
from Rymer, where we find that the king, throughout all this period,
continually exercised his authority, and never was interrupted in his
government. On the 7th of March, 1470, he gives a commission of array
to Clarence, whom he then imagined a good subject; and on the 23d of the
same month, we find him issuing an order for apprehending him, Besides,
in the king’s manifesto against the duke and earl, (Claus. 10. Edward
IV. m. 7, 8,) where he enumerates all their treasons, he mentions no
such fact; he does not so much as accuse them of exciting young Welles’s
rebellion; he only says, that they exhorted him to continue in his
rebellion. We may judge how smaller facts will be misrepresented
by historians, who can in the most material transactions mistake so
grossly. There may even some doubt arise with regard to the proposal of
marriage made to Bona of Savoy; though almost all the historians concur
in it, and the fact be very likely in itself; for there are no traces in
Rymer of any such embassy of Warwick’s to France. The chief certainty in
this and the preceding reign arises either from public records, or from
the notice taken of certain passages by the French historians. On the
contrary, for some centuries after the conquest, the French history
is not complete without the assistance of English authors. We may
conjecture, that the reason of the scarcity of historians during this
period, was the destruction of the convents, which ensued so soon
after. Copies of the more recent historians not being yet sufficiently
dispersed, those histories hare perished.]
[Footnote 20: NOTE T, p. 490. Sir Thomas More, who has been followed,
or rather transcribed, by all the historians of this short reign, says,
that Jane Shore had fallen into connections with Lord Hastings; and this
account agrees best with the course of the events; but in a proclamation
of Richard’s, to be found in Rymer, vol. xii. p. 204, the marquis of
Dorset is reproached with these connections. This reproach, however,
might have been invented by Richard, or founded only on popular rumor;
and is not sufficient to overbalance the authority of Sir Thomas More.
The proclamation is remarkable for the hypocritical purity of manners
affected by Richard. This bloody and treacherous tyrant upbraids the
marquis and others with their gallantries and intrigues as the most
terrible enormities.]
[Footnote 21: NOTE U, p., 507. Every one that has perused the ancient
monkish writers know that, however barbarous their own style, they are
full of allusions to the Latin classics, especially the poets. There
seems also in those middle ages to have remained many ancient books that
are now lost. Maimesbury, who flourished in the reign of Henry I. and
King Stephen, quotes Livy’s description of Caesar’s passage over the
Rubicon. Fitz-Stephen, who lived in the reign of Henry II., alludes to
a passage in the larger history of Sallust. In the collection of letters
which passes under the name of Thomas a Becket, we see how familiar all
the ancient history and ancient books were to the more ingenious and
more dignified churchmen of that time, and consequently how much that
order of men must have surpassed all the other members of the society.
That prelate and his friends call each other philosophers in all the
course of their correspondence, and consider the rest of the world as
sunk in total ignorance and barbarism.]