The Leading Facts of English History by D.H. Montgomery - HTML preview

PLEASE NOTE: This is an HTML preview only and some elements such as links or page numbers may be incorrect.
Download the book in PDF, ePub for a complete version.

241. Victory of Poitiers (1356).

After a long truce, war again broke out. Philip VI had died, and his son, John II, now sat on the French throne.

Edward, during this campaign, ravaged northern France. The next year his son, the Black Prince (S238),

marched from Bordeaux into the heart of the country.

Reaching Poitiers with a force of ten thousand men, he found himself nearly surrounded by a French army of

sixty thousand. The Prince so placed his troops amidst the narrow lanes and vineyards, that the enemy could not

attack him with their ful strength. Again the English archers gained the day (S238), and King John himself was

taken prisoner and carried in triumph to England. (See map facing p. 128.)

242. Peace of Bre'tigny, 1360.

The victory of Poitiers was folowed by another truce; then war began again. Edward intended besieging Paris,

but was forced to retire to obtain provisions for his troops. Negotiations were now opened by the French. While

these great negotiations were going on, a terrible thunderstorm destroyed great numbers of men and horses in

Edward's camp.

Edward, believing it a sign of the displeasure of Heaven against his expedition, fel on his knees, and within sight

of the Cathedral of Chartres vowed to make peace. A treaty was accordingly signed at Bre'tigny near by. By it,

Edward renounced his claim to Normandy and the French crown. But notwithstanding that fact, al English

sovereigns insisted on retaining the title of "King of France" down to a late period of the reign of George III.

France, on the other hand, acknowledged the right of England, in ful sovereignty, to the country south of the

Loire, together with Calais, and agreed to pay an enormous ransom in pure gold for the restoration of King John.

243. Effects of the French Wars in England.

The great gain to England from these wars was not in the territory conquered, but in the new feeling of unity they

aroused among al classes. The memory of the brave deeds achieved in those fierce contests on a foreign soil

never faded out. The glory of the Black Prince (SS238, 241), whose rusted helmet and dented shield stil hang

above his tomb in Canterbury Cathedral,[1] became one with the glory of the plain bowmen, whose names are

found only in country churchyards.

[1] This is probably the oldest armor of the king in Great Britain. See Stothard's "Monumental Effigies."

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

87/333

8/15/12

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

Henceforth, whatever lingering feeling of jealousy and hatred had remained in England, between the Norman and

the Englishman (S192), now gradualy melted away. An honest, patriotic pride made both feel that at last they

had become a united and homogeneous people.

The second effect of the wars was political. In order to carry them on, the King had to apply constantly to

Parliament for money (SS217, 220). Each time that body granted a supply, they insisted on some reform which

increased their strength, and brought the Crown more and more under the influence of the nation. (See Summary

of Constitutional History in the Appendix, p. xi, S13.)

The it came to be clearly understood that though the King held the sword, the people held the purse; and that the

ruler who made the greatest concessions got the largest grants.

It was also in this reign that the House of Commons (SS213, 217, 262), which now sat as a separate body,

obtained the important power of impeaching, or bringing to trial before the upper House, any of the King's

ministers or council who should be accused of misgovernment (1376). (See S247, and Summary of

Constitutional History in the Appendix, p. xi, S13.)

About this time, also, statutes were passed which forbade appeals from the King's courts of justice to that of the

Pope,[1] who was then a Frenchman, and was believed to be under French political influence. Furthermore, al

foreign Church officials were prohibited from asking or taking money from the English Church, or interfering in

any way with its management.[2]

[1] First Statute of Provisors (1351) and of Praemunire (1353) (S265). The first Statute of Praemunire did not

mention the Pope or the Court of Rome by name; the second, or Great Statute of Praemunire of 1393, expressly

mentioned them in the strongest terms. See Constitutionals Documents in the Appendix, p. xxxi. [2] Statute of

Provisors (1351), and see S265.

244. The Black Death, or Plague, 1349.

Shortly after the first campaign in France, a frightful pestilence broke out in London, which swept over the

country, destroying upwards of half the population. The disease, which was known as the Black Death, had

already traversed Europe, where it had proved equaly fatal.

"How many amiable young persons," said a noted writer of that period, "breakfasted with their friends in the morning, who, when evening came, supped with their ancestors!" In Bristol and some other English cities, the

mortality was so great that the living were hardly able to bury the dead; so that al business, and for a time even

war, came to a standstil.

245. Effect of the Plague on Labor, 1349.

After the pestilence had subsided, it was impossible to find laborers enough to til the soil and shear the sheep.

Those who were free now demanded higher wages, while the vileins, or serfs (S113), and slaves left their

masters and roamed about the country asking for pay for their work, like freemen.

It was a general agricultural strike, which lasted over thirty years. It marks the beginning of that contest between

capital and labor which had such an important influence on the next reign, and which, after a lapse of more than

five hundred years, is not yet satisfactorily adjusted.

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

88/333

8/15/12

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

Parliament endeavored to restore order. It passed laws forbidding any freeman to ask more for a day's work

than before the plague. It gave the master the right to punish a serf who persisted in running away, by branding

him on the forehead with the letter F, for "fugitive." But legislation was in vain; the movement had begun, and statutes of Parliament could no more stop it than they could stop the roling of the ocean tide. It continued to go

on until it reached its climax in the peasant insurrection led by Wat Tyler, under Edward's successor, Richard II

(S251).

246. Beginning of English Literature, 1369-1377.

During Edward's reign the first work in English prose may have been written. It was a volume of travels by Sir

John Mandevile, who had journeyed in the East for over thirty years. On his return he wrote an account of what

he had heard and seen, first in Latin, that the learned might read it; next in French, that the nobles might read it;

and lastly he, or some unknown person, translated it into English for the common people. He dedicated the work

to the King.

Perhaps the most interesting and wonderful thing in it was the statement of his belief that the world is a globe, and

that a ship may sail round it "above and beneath,"—an assertion which probably seemed to many who read it

then as less credible than any of the marvelous stories in which his book abounds.

Wiliam Langland was writing rude verses (1369) about his "vision of Piers the Plowman," contrasting "the wealth and woe" of the world, and so helping forward that democratic outbreak which was soon to take place among

those who knew the woe and wanted the wealth. John Wycliffe (S254), a lecturer at Oxford, attacked the rich

and indolent churchmen in a series of tracts and sermons, while Chaucer, who had fought on the fields of France,

was preparing to bring forth the first great poem in our language (S253).

247. The "Good Parliament" (1376); Edward's Death.

The "Good Parliament" (1376) attempted to carry through important reforms. It impeached (for the first time in English history)[1] certain prominent men for fraud (S243). But in the end its work failed for want of a leader.

The King's last days were far from happy. His son, the Black Prince (S238), had died, and Edward fel entirely

into the hands of selfish favorites and ambitious schemers like John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. Perhaps the

worst one of this corrupt "ring" was a woman named Alice Perrers, who, after Queen Philippa was no more

(S240), got almost absolute control of the King. She stayed with him until his last sickness. When his eyes began

to glaze in death, she plucked the rings from his unresisting hands, and fled from the palace.

248. Summary.

During this reign the folowing events deserve especial notice:

1. The acknowledgment of the independence of Scotland. 2. The establishment of the manufacture of fine

woolens in England. 3. The beginning of the Hundred Years' War, with the victories of Cre'cy and Poitiers, the

Peace of Bre'tigny, and their social and political results in England. 4. The Black Death and its results on labor. 5.

Parliament enacts important laws for securing greater independence to the English Church. 6. The rise of modern

literature, represented by the works of Mandevile, Langland, and the early writings of Wycliffe and Chaucer.

Richard II—1377-1399

249. England at Richard's Accession.

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

89/333

8/15/12

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

The death of the Black Prince (SS238, 241, 247) left his son Richard heir to the crown. As he was but eleven

years old, Parliament provided that the government during his minority should be carried on by a council; but

John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (S247), speedily got the control of affairs.

He was an unprincipled man, who wasted the nation's money, opposed reform, and was especialy hated by the

laboring classes. The times were critical. War had again broken out with both Scotland and France, the French

fleet was raiding the English coast, the national treasury had no money to pay its troops, and the government debt

was rapidly accumulating.

250. The New Tax; the Tyler and Bal Insurrection (1381).

In order to raise money, the government resolved to levy a new form of tax,—a pol or head tax,—which had

been tried on a smal scale during the last year of the previous reign. The apttempt had been made to assess it on

al classes, from laborers to lords.

The imposition was now renewed in a much more oppressive form. Not only every laborer, but every member of

a laborer's family above the age of fifteen, was required to pay what twould be eequal to the wages of an able-

bodied man for at least several days' work.[1]

[1] The tax on laborers and their families varied from four to twelve pence each, the assessor having instructions

to colect the latter sum, if possible. The wages of a day laborer were then about a penny, so that the smalest tax

for a family of three would represent the entire pay for nearly a fortnight's labor. See Pearson's "England in the Fourteenth Century."

We have already seen that, owing to the ravages of the Black Death, and the strikes which folowed, the country

was on the verge of revolt (SS244, 245). This new tax was the spark that caused the explosion. The money was

roughly demanded in every poor man's cottage, and its colection caused the greatest distress. In attempting to

enforce payment, a brutal colector shamefuly insulted the young daughter of a workman named Wat Tyler. The

indignant father, hearing the girl's cry for help, snatched up a hammer, and rushing in, struck the ruffian dead on

the spot.

Tyler then colected a multitude of discontented laborers on Blackheath Common, near London, with the

determination of attacking the city and overthrowing the government.

John Bal, a fanatical priest, harangued the gathering, now sixty thousand strong, using by way of a text lines

which were at that time familiar to every workingman:

"When Adam delved and Eve span,

Who was then the gentleman?"

"Good people," he cried, "things wil never go wel in England so long as goods be not in common, and so long as there be vileins (S113) and gentlemen. They cal us slaves, and beat us if we are slow to do their bidding, but

God has now given us the day to shake off our bondage."

251. The Great Uprising of the Laboring Class, 1381.

Twenty years before, there had been similar outbreaks in Flanders and in France. This, therefore, was not an

isolated instance of insurrection, but rather part of a general uprising. The rebelion begun by Tyler and Bal

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

90/333

8/15/12

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

(S250) spread through the southern and eastern counties of England, taking different forms in different districts. It

was violent in St. Albans, where the peasants, and farm laborers generaly, rose against the exactions of the

abbot, but it reached its greatest height in London.

For three weeks the mob held possession of the capital. They pilaged and then burned John of Gaunt's palace

(SS247, 249). They seized and beheaded the Lord Chancelor and the chief colector of the odious pol tax

(S250). They destroyed al the law papers they could lay hands on, and ended by murdering a number of

lawyers; for the rioters believed that the members of that profession spent their time forging the chains which held

the laboring class in subjection.

252. Demans of the Rebels; End of the Rebelion.

The insurrectionists demanded of the King that vileinage (S113) should be abolished, and that the rent of

agricultural lands should be fixed by Parliament at a uniform rate in money. They also insisted that trade should

be free, and that a general unconditional pardon should be granted to al who had taken part in the rebelion.

Richard promised redress; but while negotiations were going on, Walworth, mayor of London, struck down Wat

Tyler with his dagger, and with his death the whole movement colapsed almost as suddenly as it arose.

Parliament now began a series of merciless executions, and refused to consider any of the claims to which

Richard had shown a disposition to listen. In their punishment of the rebels, the House of Commons vied with the

Lords in severity, few showing any sympathy with the efforts of the peasants to obtain their freedom from feudal

bondage.

The uprising, however, was not in vain, for by it the old restrictions were in some degree loosened, so that in the

course of the next century and a half, vileinage (S113) was gradualy abolished, and the English laborer acquired

that greatest yet most perilous of al rights, the complete ownership of himself.[1]

[1] In Scotland, vileinage lasted much longer, and as late as 1774, in the reign of George III, men working in

coal and salt mines were held in a species of slavery, which was finaly abolished the folowing year.

So long as he was a serf, the peasant could claim assistance from his master in sickness and old age; in attaining

independence he had to risk the danger of pauperism, which began with it,—this possibility being part of the

price which man must everywhere pay for the inestimable privilege of freedom.

253. The New Movement in Literature, 1390 (?).

The same spirit which demanded emancipation on the part of the working classes showed itself in literature. We

have already seen (S246) how, in the previous reign, Langland, in his poem of "Piers Plowman," gave bold

utterance to the growing discontent of the times in his declaration that the rich and great destroyed the poor.

In a different spirit, Chaucer, "the morning star of English song," now began (1390?) to write his "Canterbury Tales," a series of stories in verse, supposed to be told by a merry band of pilgrims on their way from the Tabard Inn in Southwark, London, to the shrine of St. Thomas Becket in Canterbury (S170).

There is little of Langland's complaint in Chaucer, for he was generaly a favorite at court, seeing mainly the bright

side of life, and sure of his yearly alowance of money and daily pitcher of wine from the royal bounty. Yet, with

al his mirth, there is a vein of playful satire in his description of men and things. His pictures of joly monks and

easy-going churchmen, with his lines addressed to his purse as his "saviour, as down in this world here," show www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

91/333

8/15/12

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

that he saw beneath the surface of things. He too was thinking, at least at times, of the manifold evils of poverty

and of that danger springing from religious indifference which poor Langland had taken so much to heart.

254. Wycliffe; the First Complete English Bible, 1378.

But the real reformer of that day was John Wycliffe, rector of Lutterworth in Leicestershire and lecturer at

Oxford (S246). He boldly attacked the religious and the political corruption of the age. The "Begging Friars,"

who had once done such good work (S208), had now grown too rich and lazy to be of further use.

Wycliffe, whose emaciated form concealed an unconquerable energy and dauntless courage, organized a new

band of brothers known as "Poor Priests." They took up and pushed forward the reforms the friars had

dropped. Clothed in red sackcloth cloaks, barefooted, with staff in hand, they went about from town to town[1]

preaching "God's law," and demanding that Church and State bring themselves into harmony with it.

[1] Compare Chaucer's

"A good man ther was of religioun,

That was a poure persone [parson] of a town."

Prologue to the "Canterbury Tales" (479)

The only complete Bible then in use was the Latin version. The people could not read a line of it, and many

priests were almost as ignorant of its contents. To carry on the revival which he had begun, Wycliffe now began

to translate the entire Scriptures into English, 1378. When the great work was finished it was copied and

circulated by the "Poor Priests."

But the cost of such a book in manuscript—for the printing press had not yet come into existence—was so high

that only the rich could buy the complete volume. Many, however, who had no money would give a load of farm

produce for a few favorite chapters.

In this way Wycliffe's Bible was spread throughout the country among al classes. Later, when persecution

began, men hid these precious copies and read them with locked doors at night, or met in the forests to hear

them expounded by preachers who went about at the peril of their lives. These things led Wycliffe's enemies to

complain "that common men and women who could read were better acquainted with the Scriptures than the

most learned and inteligent of the clergy."

255. The Lolards; Wycliffe's Remains burned.

The folowers of Wycliffe were nicknamed Lolards, a word of uncertain meaning but apparantly used as an

expression of contempt. From having been religious reformers denouncing the wealth and greed of a corrupt

Church, they seem, in some cases, to have degenerated into socialists or communists. This latter class

demanded, like John Bal (S250), —who may have been one of their number,—that al property should be

equaly divided, and that al rank should be abolished.

This fact should be borne in mind with reference to the subsequent efforts made by the government to suppress

the movement. In the eyes of the Church, the Lolards were heretics; in the judgment of many moderate men,

they were destructionists and anarchists, as unreasonable and as dangerous as the "dynamiters" of to-day.

More than forty years after Wycliffe's death (1384), a decree of the Church council of Constance[1] ordered the

reformer's body to be dug up and burned (1428). But his influence had not only permeated England, but had

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

92/333

8/15/12

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

passed to the Continent, and was preparing the way for that greater movement which Luther was to inaugurate in

the sixteenth century.

[1] Constance, in southern Germany. This council (1415) sentenced John Huss and Jerome of Prague, both of

whom may be considered Wycliffites, to the stake.

Tradition says that the ashes of his corpse were thrown into the brook flowing near the parsonage of

Lutterworth, the object being to utterly destroy and obliterate the remains of the arch-heretic. Fuler says: "This brook did conveeey his ashes into Avon, Avon into Severn, Severn into the narrow sea, and that into the wide

ocean. And so the ashes of Wycliffe are the emblem of his doctrine, which is now dispersed al the world over."

[2]

[2] Thomas Fuler's "Church History of Britain." Compare also

Wordsworth's "Sonnet to Wycliffe," and the lines, attributed to an

unknown writer of Wycliffe's time:

"The Avon to the Severn runs,

The Severn to the sea;

And Wycliffe's dust shal spread abroad,

Wide as the waters be."

256. Richard's Misgovernment; the "Merciless Parliament."

Richard had the spirit of a tyrant. He declared "that he alone could change and frame the laws of the kingdom."

[3] His reign was unpopular with al classes. The people hated him for his extravagance; the clergy, for failing to

put down the Wycliffites (SS254, 255), with the doctrines of whose founder he was believed to sympathize;

while the nobles disliked his injustice and favoritism.

[3] W. Stubb's "Constitutional History of England," II, 505.

In the "Merciless Parliament" (1388) the "Lords Appelant," that is, the noblemen who accused Richard's counselors of treason, put to death al of the King's ministers that they could lay hands on. Later, that Parliament

attempted some political reforms, which were partialy successful. But the King soon regained his power, and

took summary vengeance (1397) on the "Lords Appelant." Two influential men were left, Thomas Mowbray,

Duke of Norfolk, and Henry Bolingbroke, Duke of Hereford, whom he had found no opportunity to punish.

After a time they openly quarreled, and accused each other of treason.

A chalenge passed between them, and they prepared to fight the matter out in the King's presence; but when the

day arrived, the King banished both of them from England (1398). Shortly after they had left the country

Bolingbroke's father, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, died. Contrary to al law, Richard now seized and

appropriated the estate, which belonged by right to the banished nobleman.

257. Richard deposed and murdered. (1399).

When Bolingbroke, now by his father's death Duke of Lancaster, heard of the outrage, he raised a smal force

and returned to England, demanding the restitution of his lands.

Finding that the powerful family of the Percies were wiling to aid him, and that many of the common people

desired a change of government, the Duke boldly claimed the crown, on the ground that Richard had forfeited it

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

93/333

8/15/12

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

by his tyranny, and that he stood next in succession through his descent from Henry III. But in reality Henry

Bolingbroke had no claim save that given by right of conquest, since the boy Edmund Mortimer held the direct

title to the crown.[1]

[1] See Genealogical Table, under No. 3 and 4, p. 140

The King now fel into Henry's hands, and events moved rapidly to a crisis. Richard had rebuilt Westminster Hal

(S156). The first Parliament which assembled there deposed him on the ground that he was "altogether

insufficient and unworthy," and they gave the throne to the victorious Duke of Lancaster. Shakespeare represents

the falen monarch saying in his humiliation:

"With mine own tears I wash away my balm,[2]

With mine own hand I give away my crown."

[2] "Richard II," Act IV, scene i. The balm was the sacred oil used in anointing the King at his coronation.

After his deposition Richard was confined in Pontefract Castle, Yorkshire, where he found, like his unfortunate

ancestory, Edward II (S233), "that in the cases of princes there is but a step from the prison to the grave." His death did not take place, however, until after Henry's accession.[1] Most historians condemn Richard as an

unscrupulous tyrant. Froissart, who wrote in his time, says that he ruled "fiercely," and that no one in England dared "speak against anything the King did." A recent writer thinks he may have been insane, and declares that whether he "was mad or not, he, at al events acted like a madman." But another authority defends him, saying that Richard was not a despot at heart, but used despotic means hoping to effect much-needed reforms.[2]

[1] Henry of Lancaster was the son of John of Gaunt, who was the fourth son of Edward III; but there were

descendents of that King's THIRD son (Lionel, Duke of Clarence) living, who, of course, had a prior claim, as

the folowing table shows:

Edward III

[Direct descendant of Henry III]

1 2 3 | 4 5

———————————————————————————————-

| | | | |

Edward, the Wiliam, d. Lionel, Duke John of Gaunt, Edmund

Black Prince in childhood. of Clarence Duke of Lancaster Duke of

| | | York

Richard II Philippa, m. Henry Bolinger

Edmund Mortimer Duke of Lancaster,

| afterward

Roger Mortimer Henry IV

d. 1398-1399

|

Edmund Mortimer

(heir presumptive

to the crown after

Richard II)

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

94/333

8/15/12

www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html

[2] See Gardiner, Stubbs, and the "Dictionary of English History."

258. Summary.

Richard II's reign comprised: