prisoners.
Backed by such forces it was easy for the Earl and other powerful lords to overawe kings, parliaments, and
courts. Between the heads of the great houses quarrels were constantly breaking out. The safety of the people
was endanged by these feuds, which became more and more violent, and often ended in bloodshed and murer.
297. Disfranchisement of the Common People, 1430.
With the growth of power on the part of the nobles, there was also imposed for the first time a restriction on the
right of the people to vote for members of Parliament. Up to this period al freemen might take part in the election
of representatives chosen by the counties to sit in the House of Commons.
A law was now passed forbidding any one to vote at these elections unless he was a resident of the county and
possessed of landed property yielding an annual income of forty shilings (S200).[1] Subsequently it was further
enacted that no county candidate should be eligible unless he was a man of means and social standing.
[1] The income required by the statute was forty shilings, which, says Freeman, we may fairly cal forty pounds
of our present money. See E.A. Freeman's "Growth of the English Constitution," p. 97.
These two measures were blows against the free self-government of the nation, since their manifest tendency was
to make the House of Commons represent the property rather than the people of the country (S319). (See, too,
Summary of Constitutional History in the Appendix, p. xii, S14.)
298. Cade's Rebelion (1450).
A formidable rebelion broke out in Kent (1450), then, as now, one of the most independent and democratic
counties in England. The leader was Jack Cade, who caled himself by the popular name of Mortimer (S257,
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
108/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
note 1, and S279). He claimed to be cousin to Richard, Duke of York, a nephew of that Edmund Mortimer,
now dead, whom Henry IV had unjustly deprived of his succession to the crown.
Cade, who was a mere adventurer, was quite likely used as a tool by plotters much higher than himself. By
putting him forward they could judge whether the country was ready for a revolution and change of sovereigns.
Wat Tyler's rebelion, seventy years before (S250), was almost purely social in its character, having for its object
the emancipation of the enslaved laboring classes. Cade's insurrection was, on the contrary, almost wholy
political. His chief complaint was that the people were not alowed their free choice in the election of
representatives, but were forced by the nobility to choose candidates they did not want. Other grievances for
which reform was demanded were excessive taxastion and the rapacity of the evil counselors who controled the
King.
Cade entered London with a body of twenty thousand men under strict discipline. Many of the citizens
sympathized with Cade's projects of reform, and were ready to give him a welcome. He took formal possession
of the place by striking his sword on London Stone,—a Roman monument stil standing, which then marked the
center of the ancient capital,—saying, as Shakespeare reports him, "Now is Mortimer lord of this city."[1]
After three days of riot and the murder of the King's treasurer, the rebelion came to an end through a general
pardon. Cade, however, endeavored to raise a new insurrection in the south, but was shortly after captured, and
died of his wounds.
[1] "Now is Mortimer lord of this city, and here, sitting upon London Stone, I charge and command that, at the
city's cost, this conduit runs nothing but claret wine this first year of our reign; and now it shal be treason for any man to cal me other than Lord Mortimer." —Shakerspeare's "Henry VI," Part II, Act IV, scene vi. It is
noticeable that the great dramatist expresses no sympathy in this play with the cause of the people. In fact he
ridicules Cade and his movement. In the same spirit he does not mention the Great Charter in his "King John,"
while in his "Richard II" he passes over Wat Tyler without a word. Perhaps the explanation may be found in the fact that Shakespeare lived in an age when England was threatened by both open and secret enemies. The need
of his time was a strong, steady hand at the helm; it was no season for reform or change of any sort; on this
account he may have thought it his duty to be silent in regard to democratic risings and demands in the past
(S313, note 2).
299. Wars of the Roses, 1455-1485.
The real significance of Cade's insurrection is that it showed the widespread feeling of discontent caused by
misgovernment, and that it served as an introduction to the long and dreary period of civil strife known as the
Wars of the Roses.
So long as the English nobles had France for a fighting ground, French cities to plunder, and French captives to
hold for heavy ransoms, they were content to let matters go on quietly at home. But that day was over. Through
the bad management, if not through the positive treachery, of Edmund, Duke of Somerset, the French conquests
had been lost. Henry VI, a weak king, at times insane, sat on the English throne (S295), while Richard, Duke of
York, a realy able man and a descendant of the Mortimers (see table, p. 161), was, as many believed,
unlawfuly excluded from it.
This fact in itself would have furnished a plausible pretext for hostilities, even as far back as Cade's rising. But the www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
109/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
birth of a son[2] to Henry (1453) probably gave the signal for the outbreak, since it cut off al hopes which
Richard's friends may have had of his peaceful succession.
[2] Prince Edward. See Genealogical Table, p. 161, under Henry VI.
300. The Scene in the Temple Garden.
Shakespeare represents the smoldering feud between the rival houses of
Lancaster and York (both of whom it should be remembered were
descendants of Edward III)[1] as breaking into an angry quarrel in the
Temple Garden, London, when Richard, Duke of York, says:
"Let him that is a true-born gentleman,
And stands upon the honor of his birth,
If he suppose that I have pleaded truth,
From off this brier pluck a white rose with me."[2]
To this chalenge John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset,[3] a descendant of the house of Lancaster, who has just
accused Richard of being the dishonored son of a traitor, replies:
"Let him that is no coward, nor no flatterer,
But dare maintain the party of the truth,
Pluch a red rose from off this thorn with me."
A little later on the Earl of Warwick rejoins:
"This brawl to-day,
Grown to this faction in the Temple-garden,
Shal send, between the red rose and the white,
A thousand souls to death and deadly night."[4]
[1] Table showing the descendants of Edward III, with reference to the claims of Lancaster and York to the
crown:
Edward III
|
——————————————————————————
| | |
Lionel, Duke of John of Gaunt, Duke of Edmund, Duke of
Clarence (3d son) Lancaster (4th son) York (5th son)
| ————————- |
Philippa | | Richard, Earl of
| Henry IV +John, Earl Cambridge, m.
——————— | of Somerset Anne Mortimer
| | Henry V |
Edmund Anne Mortimer | ———————-
Mortimer m. Richard, Prince Edward, | |
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
110/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
(Earl of Earl of b. 1453; kiled John, Edmund,
March) Cambridge (s. at battle of Duke of Duke of
d. 1424 of Edmund, Tewkesbury, Somerset, Somerset
Duke of York) 1471 d. 1448
|
*Richard, Duke
of York
|
Edward IV (1461-1483)
*Inherited the title of Duke of York from his father's brother, Edward, Duke of York, who died without issue.
Richard' father, the Earl of Cambridge, had forfeited his title and estates by treason, but Parliament had so far
limited the sentence that his son was not thereby debarred from inheriting his uncle's rank and fortune. Richard,
Duke of York, now represented the direct hereditary line of succession to the crown, while Henry VI and his son
represented that established by Parliament through the acceptance of Henry IV (S279). +John, Earl of
Somerset, was an ilegitimate half brother of Henry IV's, but was, in 1397, declared legitimate by act of
Parliament and a papal decree.
[2] Shakespeare's "Henry VI," Part I, Act II, scene iv. [3] John, Duke of Somerset, died 1448. He was brother of Edmund, Duke of Somerset, who was slain at St. Albans, 1455. [4] Shakespeare's "Henry VI," Part I, Act II, scene iv.
301. The Real Object of the Wars of the Roses.
The wars, however, did not directly originate in this quarrel, but rather in the strife for power between Edmund,
Duke of Somerset (John's brother), and Richard, Duke of York. Each desired to get the control of the
government, though at first neither appears to have openly aimed at the crown.
During King Henry's attack of insanity (1453) Richard was appointed Protector of the realm, and shortly
afterward the Duke of Somerset, the King's particular favorite and chief adviser, was cast into prison on the
double charge of having culpably lost Normandy and embezzled public moneys.
When Henry recovered (1455), he released Somerset and restored him to office. Richard protested, and raising
an army in the north, marched toward London. He met the royalist forces at St. Albans; a battle ensued, and
Somerset was slain.
During the next thirty years the war raged with more or less fury between the parties of the Red Rose
(Lancaster) and the White Rose (York). The first maintained that Parliament had the right to choose whatever
king it saw fit, as in Henry IV's case (S279); the second insisted that the succession should be determined by
strict hereditary descent, as represented in the claim of Richard.[2]
[2] See Genealogical Table, p. 161.
But beneath the surface the contest was not for principle, but for place and spoils. The great nobles, who during
the French wars (S288) had pilaged abroad, now pilaged each other; and as England was neither big enough
nor rich enough to satisfy the greed of al of them, the struggle gradualy became a war of mutual extermination.
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
111/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
It was, to a certain extent, a sectional war. Eastern England, then the wealthiest and most progressive part of the
country, had strongly supported Wycliffe in his reforms (S254). It now espoused the side of Richard, Duke of
York, who was believed to be friendly to religious liberty, while the western counties fought for the cause of
Lancaster and the Church.
302. The First Battles (1455-1460).
We have already seen (S301) that the first blood was shed at St. Albans (1455), where the Yorkists, after half
an hour's fighting, gained a complete victory. A similar result folowed at Bloreheath, Staffordshire (1459). In a
third battle, at Northampton, the Yorkists were again successful (1460). Henry was taken prisoner, and Queen
Margaret fled with the young Prince Edward to Scotland. Richard now demanded the crown. (See map facing p.
172.)
Henry answered with unexpected spirit: "My father was King, his father also was King. I have worn the crown
forty years from my cradle; you have al sworn fealty to me as your sovereign, and your fathers did the like to my
fathers. How, then, can my claim be disputed?" After a long controversy, a compromise was effected. Henry
agreed that if he were left in peaceable possession of the throne during his life, Richard or his heirs should
succeed him.
303. Battles of Wakefield and Towton (1460-1461).
But Queen Margaret refused to see her son, Prince Edward, thus tamely set aside. She raised an army and
attacked the Yorkists. Richard, Duke of York, whose forces were inferior to hers, had entrenched himself in
Sandal Castle near Wakefield, Yorkshire. Day after day Margaret went up under the wals and dared him to
come out.
At length, stung by her taunts, the Duke salied from his strongold, and the battle of Wakefield was fought
(1460). Margaret was victorious. Richard was slain, and the Queen, in mockery of his claims to sovereignty, cut
off his head, decked it with a paper crown, and set it up over the chief gate of the city of York. Fortune now
changed. The next year (1461) the Lacastrians were defeated with great slaughter at Towton, Yorkshire. The
light spring snow was crimsoned with the blood of thirty thousand slain, and the way strewn with corpses for ten
miles up to the wals of York.
The Earl of Warwick (S296), henceforth popularly known as "King Maker," now place Edward, eldest son of
the late Duke of York, on the throne, with the title of Edward IV (S300, table). Henry and Margaret fled to
Scotland. The new government summoned them to appear, and as they failed to answer, proclaimed them
traitors.
Four years later Henry was taken prisoner and sent to the Tower of London (S305). He may have been happier
there than battling for his throne. He was not born to reign, but rather, as Shakespeare makes him say, to lead a
shepherd's life, watching his flocks, until the peacefuly flowing years should—
"Bring white hairs unto a quiet grave."[1]
[1] See Henry's soliloquy on the field of Towton, beginning,
"O God! methinks it were a happy life
To be no better than a homely swain."
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
112/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
Shakespeare's "Henry VI," Part III,
Act II, scene v
304. Summary.
The history of the peiod is one of loss to England. The briliant French conquests of Henry V (SS289, 290)
slipped from the nerveless hands of his son, leaving France practicaly independent. The people's power to vote
had been restricted (S297). The House of Commons had ceased to be democratic even in a moderate degree.
Its members were al property holders elected by property holders (S297). Cade's rebelion was the sign of
political discontent and the forerunner of civil war (S298).
The contests of the parties of the Red and White Roses drenched England's fair fields with the best blood of her
own sons. The reign ends with King Henry in prison, Queen Margaret and Prince Edward fugitives, and the
Yorkist, Edward IV, placed on the throne by the help of the powerful Earl of Warwick (S296).
Edward IV (House of York, White Rose)—1461-1483
305. Continuation of the War; Barnet; Death of Henry; Tewkesbury (1471).
During the whole of Edward IV's reign (S303) the war went on with varying success, but unvarying ferocity, until
at last neither side would ask or give quarter. Some years after the accession of the new sovereign, the Earl of
Warwick (S296) quarreled with him, thrust him from the throne, and restored Henry VI (S303).
But a few months later, at the battle of Barnet, near London (1471),
Warwick, who was "the last of the great barons," was kiled, and
Henry, who had been led back to the Tower of London again (S303), died
one of those "conveniently sudden deaths" which were then so common.
The heroic Queen Margaret (SS295, 303), however, would not give up the contest in behalf of her son's claim
to the crown. But fate was against her. A few weeks after the battle of Barnet her army was utterly defeated at
Tewkesbury (1471), her son Edward slain, and the Queen herself taken prisoner. (See map facing p. 172.)
She was eventualy released on the payment of a large ransom, and returned to France, where she died broken-
hearted in her native Anjou, prophesying that the contest would go on until the Red Rose, representing her party,
should get a stil deeper dye from the blood of her enemies.
306. The Introduction of Printing, 1477.
But an event was at hand of greater importance than any question of crowns or parties, though then none was
wise enough to see its real significance. Wiliam Caxton, a London merchant, had learned the new art of printing
with movable type[1] at Bruges in Flanders (now Belgium). When he returned to his native country, he set up a
smal press within the grounds of Westminster Abbey.
[1] The first printing in Europe was done in the early part of the fifteenth century from wooden blocks on which
the words were cut. Movable types were invented about 1450.
There, at the sign of a shield bearing a red "pale," or band, he advertised his wares as "good chepe." He was not only printer, but translator and editor. King Edward gave him some royal patronage. His Majesty was wiling to
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
113/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
pay liberaly for work which was not long before the clergy in France had condemned as a black art emanating
from the devil. Many, too, of the English clergy regarded it with no very friendly eye, since it threatened to
destroy the copying trade, of which the monks had wel-nigh a monopoly (S154).
The first printed book which Caxton is known to have published in England was a smal volume entitled "The
Sayings of the Philosophers," 1477.[1] This venture was folowed in due time by Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales"
(S253), and whatever other poetry, history, or classics seemed worthy of preservation; making in al nearly a
hundred distinct works comprising more than eighteen thousand volumes.
[1] "The dictes or sayengis of the philosophres, enprynted by me wiliam Caxton at westmestre, the year of our
lord MCCCCLxxvi."
Up to this time a book of any kind was a luxury, laboriously "written by the few for the few"; but from this date literature of al sorts was destined to multiply and fil the earth with many leaves and some good fruit.
Caxton's patrons, though few, were choice, and when one of them, the Earl of Worcester, was beheaded in the
wars, Caxton said, "The ax did then cut off more learning than was left in al the heads of the surviving lords."
Towards the close of the nineteenth century a memorial window was placed in St. Margaret's Church within the
abbey grounds, as a tribute to the man who, while England was red with slaughter, introduced "the art
preservative of al arts," and preservative of liberty no less[1] (S322).
[1] "Lord! taught by thee, when Caxton bade
His silent words forever speak;
A grave for tyrants then was made,
Then crack'd the chain which yet shal break."
Ebenezer Eliott, "Hymn for the Printers'
Gathering at Sheffield," 1833
307. King Edward's Character.
The King, however, cared more for his pleasures than for literature or the welfare of the nation. His chief aim
was to beg, borrow, or extort money to waste in dissipation. The loans which he forced his subjects to grant,
and which were seldom, if ever, repaid, went under the name of "benevolences." But it is safe to say that those who furnished them were in no very benevolent frame of mind at the time.
Exception may perhaps be made of the rich and elderly widow, who was so pleased with the King's handsome
face that she wilingly handed him a 20 pounds (a large sum in those days); and when the jovial monarch galantly
kissed her out of gratitude for her generosity, she at once, like a true and loyal subject, doubled the donation.
Edward's course of life was not conducive to length of days, even if the times had favored a long reign. He died
early, leaving a son, Prince Edward, to succeed him.
308. Summary.
The reign was marked by the continuation of the Wars of the Roses, the death of King Henry VI and of his son,
with the return of Queen Margaret to France. The most important event outside of the war was the introduction
of the printing press into England by Wiliam Caxton.
Edward V (House of York, White Rose)—1483
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
114/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
309. Gloucester appointed Protector.
Prince Edward, heir to the throne, was a lad of twelve (S307). His position was naturaly ful of peril. It became
much more so, from the fact that his ambitious and unscrupulous uncle, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, had been
appointed Lord Protector of the realm until the boy should become of age. Richard protected his young nephew
as a wolf would protect a lamb.
He met the Prince coming up to London from Ludlow Castle, Shropshire, attended by his half brother, Sir
Richard Grey, and his uncle, Lord Rivers. Under the pretext that Edward would be safer in the Tower of
London than at Westminster Palace, Richard sent the Prince there, and soon found means for having his
kinsmen, Grey and Rivers, executed.
310. Murder of Lord Hastings and the Two Princes.
Richard shortly after showed his object. Lord Hastings was one of the council who had voted to make him Lord
Protector, but he was unwiling to help him in his plot to seize the crown. While at the council table in the Tower
of London Richard suddenly started up and accused Hastings of treason, saying, "By St. Paul, I wil not to dinner
til I see thy head off!" Hastings was dragged out of the room, and without either trial or examination was
beheaded on a stick of timber on the Tower green.
The way was now clear for the accomplishment of the Duke's purpose. The Queen Mother (Elizabeth
Woodvile, widow of Edward IV) (S305) took her younger son and his sisters, one of whom was the Princess
Elizabeth of York, and fled for protection to the sanctuary (S95) of Westminster Abbey, where, refusing al
comfort, "she sat alone, on the rush-covered stone floor." Finaly, Richard half persuaded and half forced the unhappy woman to give up her second son to his tender care.
With bitter weeping and dread presentiments of evil she parted from him, saying: "Farewel, mine own sweet son!
God send you good keeping! Let me kiss you once ere you go, for God knoweth when we shal kiss together
again." That was the last time she saw the lad. He and Edward, his elder brother, were soon after murdered in
the Tower, and Richard rose by that double crime to the height he coveted.
311. Summary.
Edward V's nominal reign of less than three months must be regarded simply as the time during which his uncle,
the Duke of Gloucester, perfected his plot for seizing the crown by the successive murders of Rivers, Grey,
Hastings, and the two young Princes.
Richard III (House of York, White Rose)—1483-1485
312. Richard's Accession; he promises Financial Reform.
Richard used the preparations which had been made for the murdered Prince Edward's coronation for his own
(S310). He probably gained over an influential party by promises of financial reform. In their address to him at
his accession, Parliament said, "Certainly we be determined rather to adventure and commit us to the peril of our lives…than to live in such thraldom and bondage as we have lived long time heretofore, oppressed and injured
by extortions and new impositions, against the laws of God and man, and the liberty, old policy and laws of this
realm, wherein every Englishman is inherited."[1]
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
115/333
8/15/12
www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/17386/pg17386.html
[1] Taswel-Langmead's "Constitutional History of England."
313. Richard III's Character.
Several attempts have been made of late years to defend the King against the odium heaped upon him by the
older historians. But these wel-meant efforts to prove him less black than tradition painted him are answered by
the fact that his memory was thoroughly hated by those who knew him best. No one of the age when he lived
thought of vindicating his character. He was caled a "hypocrite" and a "hunchback."
We must believe then, until it is clearly proved to the contrary, that the last of the Yorkist kings was what
common report and Shakespeare have together represented him,[2]—distorted in figure, and with ambition so
unrestrained that the words the great English poet has seen fit to put into his mouth may have realy expressed
Richard's own thought:
"Then, since the heavens have shap'd my body so,
Let hel make crookt my mind to answer it."[1]
[2] In this connection it may be wel to say a word in regard to the historical value of Shakespeare's utterances,
which have been freely quoted in this book. He generaly folowed the Chronicles of Hal and Holinshed, which
constitute two important sources of information on the periods of which they treat; and he sometimes folowed
them so closely that he simply turned their prose into verse. Mr. James Gairdner, who is a high authority on the
Wars of the Roses, cals Shakespeare "an unrivaled interpreter" of that long and terrible conflict. (See the preface to his "Houses of Lancaster and York.") In the preface to his "Richard III" Mr. Gairdner is stil more explicit. He says: "A minute study of the facts of Richard's life has tended more and more to convince me of the general
fidelity of the portrait with which we have been made familiar by Shakespeare and Sir Thomas More." On
Shakespeare's faithful presentation of history see also A.G.S. Canning's "Thoughts on Shakespeare," p. 295; the Dictionary of National (British) Biography under "Holinshed"; Garnett and Gosse's "Engl