[21] Stallworthe to Sir W. Stonor.

[22] Morton, p. 69, in Rastell. This is the evidence of a bitter enemy.

[23] The will is given in the _Excerpta Historica_, pp. 246-248. He also appointed William Catesby, another meritorious but shamefully maligned public servant, to be his executor.

[24] 'My Lord Lyle has come to my Lord Protector and waits on him.'

Stallworthe's second letter (_Excerpt. Hist._ p. 16).

[25] Croyland, p. 566.

[26] Davies, _York Records_, p. 134.

[27] The date of Richard's accession is fixed by the _Year Book_. 'Les Reports des Cases.' See Davies, _York Records_, p. 157 _n_.

[28] 'A wise man and a good, and of much experience.'--Morton, in Rastell.

{103}

CHAPTER IX

CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE

At Richard's accession we may pause to glance at the condition of the people of England 420 years ago, not in any minute detail, not probing the matter to any depth, but with the object of having the general surroundings in our minds, while contemplating the brief reign of our last Plantagenet.

The Lancastrian usurpation, effected by Henry of Bolingbroke (Duke of Lancaster), caused much ruthless slaughter, and led to the atrocious Act _De heretico comburendo_, pa.s.sed to secure the support of the clergy for the usurper. His son, Henry of Monmouth, was a fanatic, but otherwise a man of a far n.o.bler nature than his father. He secured his position by a popular but most unjust war with France, and by his own fascinating personality. From his landing at Havre to the death of Talbot at Chatillon, this war covered a period of thirty-eight years, from 1415 to 1453. It did not, however, exhaust the wealth of the country, nor did the other more odious policy of the Lancastrians in pa.s.sing an Act for the burning of heretics, destroy all freedom of thought. But the war filled the country with lawless military adventurers, and the persecution unsettled men's minds.

{104}

The cause of the War of the Roses was the misgovernment of the faction which ruled in the name of Henry of Windsor, the feeble-minded grandson of Charles VI. of France, whose malady he inherited. Recognition during half a century had made the parliamentary t.i.tle of the usurpers secure. Owing to the absence of an hereditary t.i.tle, the House of Commons had never been more powerful. The Speakers were practically Chancellors of the Exchequer, and prepared the budgets. Speaker Tresham, who was murdered in 1450 by Lord Grey de Ruthyn, was the first to propose a graduated income tax, and was a great statesman. But the House was not strong enough to control an unprincipled executive. The usurpation would never have been challenged, after a Parliamentary recognition of sixty years, if the administration of the usurping faction had not been intolerably bad. The Duke of York was the rightful hereditary heir to the throne. His grandfather had been recognised as heir by a Parliament of Richard II. The Duke was a just and moderate statesman. Until a month before the battle of Wakefield his sole purpose had been the reform of abuses.

The war, however, was not a war of the people. Although London warmly supported the house of York, it was a war fought out by two parties of the n.o.bles and their retainers, including some old veterans of the French war. The struggle did not in the least degree affect the ordinary life of England. Mr. Thorold Rogers tells us that, though he has read hundreds of doc.u.ments compiled for private inspection only, chiefly manorial accounts, covering the whole period of the war, he has never met a single allusion to the troubles. 'The people,' he adds, 'were absolutely indifferent. {105} Except the outrages of Margaret's army in 1461, no injury was done to neutrals. The war was as little injurious to the great ma.s.s of the people, in its immediate effects, as summer lightning. It had no bearing on work or wages.'

[Sidenote: The Peerage]

It is also a mistake, though a frequently reiterated one, that the English n.o.bility, as a cla.s.s, was almost destroyed by the War of the Roses. Nothing of the sort happened. Several n.o.blemen fell in battle, others lost their lives on the scaffold. There are long lists of traitors in the bills of attainder. But the death of a n.o.bleman did not include the deaths of his heirs; and most of those who were attainted eventually received pardons. After the heat of battle was over, Edward IV. was placable and good-natured. He never refused a pet.i.tion for pardon.[1] Only two peerages became extinct from causes connected with the war. The Beauforts came to an end, and the Tiptoft peerage lapsed, the accomplished Earl of Worcester being childless.

The lay peerage, including peers temporarily under attainder, numbered fifty-four on the accession of Richard III., quite as numerous as it was before the war.

We have not, therefore, to contemplate a devastated country and a decimated peerage at the time when our last Plantagenet King ascended the throne. England was fairly prosperous, and the numbers and wealth of the n.o.bility had not been reduced. But how different was the whole face of the country! The outlines of the hills are alone the same.

There were immense areas of forest and swamp where now the landscape consists of enclosed fields like a green chessboard. There were few enclosures,[2] but tracts of common land for each {106} manor, and cultivation in long strips near the villages and manor houses. The beaten tracks, some following the lines of the old Roman roads leading to the towns and castles, were often almost impa.s.sable in winter. King Richard was the first to establish any kind of post. The scenery was very beautiful on the hills and in the forests, in the quiet valleys, and in the swampy fens. Wild animals, many now extinct, were then abundant, hunted occasionally, but, to a great extent, left in peace over vast areas of absolute solitude. It was a very beautiful England, but how utterly different from the England of the twentieth century!

The n.o.ble and gentle families pa.s.sed most of their time in their counties, hawking and hunting, mustering their armed retainers, often disputing about their respective rights, sometimes trying to settle disputes by force regardless of law. Yet many were law-abiding and maintainers of the King's peace, and a few were giving some attention to the new learning to which Caxton was now opening the door. Some of the elders had seen service in the French war which came to an end thirty years before. Only a great n.o.ble could raise or command a military force, but reliance was placed on the experience of some veteran, such as Hall or Trollope, to organise and direct as chief of the staff. In those troublous days the King might, at any time, have to send forth commissions of array.

[Sidenote: Castles]

Castles then studded the country, and the ruins of some of them still give a correct idea of their accommodation and general plan. Old Norman keeps reared their ma.s.sive fronts, surrounded by lodgings and outworks of later construction. The keeps contained stately halls, guard rooms, and chapels. The more modern and more comfortable lodgings followed the lines of the {107} outer defences, generally having covered communication with the keep. Such were King Richard's home at Middleham, the royal castles of Richmond, Conisborough and Tickhill. Hedingham, the home of the Veres in Ess.e.x, Rochester, the Tower of London, and a few others are still standing. Lord Bourchier, the Treasurer, had quite recently built a castle of brick at Tattershall in Lincolnshire, with a lofty keep still intact. The Treasurer's device of a purse frequently recurs there.

The castles of the later period were, however, generally built without the central keep. They consisted of square angle towers connected by curtains, one of which usually formed the great hall, as at Lumley.

These were more numerous and probably more commodious. Bolton and Lumley are good examples. There was already a tendency to increase the conveniences and amenities of the old castles by the enlargement of windows and in other ways, as is shown by the fine oriel window at Barnard Castle, the work of Richard himself. The royal residences at Eltham, Sheen, and Windsor are believed to have been designed more for comfort and pleasure than for defence; although Windsor is a place of strength, with circular keep, and means to resist an enemy both in the upper and lower wards. The general tendency, during the last half of the fifteenth century, was to build for comfort rather than for defence.

In the courts and at the gates of the castles of n.o.blemen there were guards wearing more or less of defensive armour, morions or bacinets on their heads, and brigandines of quilted linen or leather with small plates of iron sewn on them. Glaives or bills, crossbows with quarrels or darts, and bows and arrows were in the guard rooms.

{108}

The sons of the surrounding gentry were brought up and taught martial exercises and the other accomplishments of a gentleman of the time, at the castles of the lords their patrons, a custom which bound the n.o.bility and lesser gentry together by common interests and common pursuits.

Much time was occupied in hunting and hawking, and the adherents of the House of York were more especially the votaries of the n.o.ble art of venery. The first English book of sport had the second Duke of York for its author, and was ent.i.tled 'The Master of Game.' The Duke declares that 'hunters live more joyfully than any other men,' and his work shows that he was a keen observer with a wonderfully accurate knowledge of natural history. With such a master and guide in their family the scions of the royal House of York were the leading sportsmen in the country, closely followed by their friends and numerous cousins among the n.o.bility and gentry. The 'Book of St. Albans' by Juliana Berners the Prioress of Sopwell, treating of hawking, hunting, fishing, and the laws of arms, was also a work of that period, and was first printed at St. Albans Abbey, by John Insomuch, the Schoolmaster, in 1481.[3] Juliana divides the wild animals into beasts of venery--the wolf, wild boar, stag, hart and hare; beasts of the chase of the sweet foot--buck and doe and the roe--and of the stinking foot, wild cat, badger, fox, weasel, marten, squirrel, and others. She is particular in explaining the terms to be used in venery, that one must say a covey of partridges but a bevy of quails, and so forth. Closely allied to the arts of war and of venery was the law of arms, of which every gentleman of that day had {110} some knowledge. Charges on shields and standards, on surcoats and liveries were regulated by the heralds, and after the ordinance of Henry V. were granted by the Sovereign. But in the most flourishing days of chivalry, those of Edward III., this was not essential. There was no Heralds' College,[4] and the only really interesting armorial bearings are those used in the days of the Plantagenets. With Tudors and Stuarts heraldry lost its chivalric significance, and coats of arms subsequently granted are unmeaning and vulgar.

{109}

[Sidenote: Peerage of Richard III]

PEERS

_Relations of the Sovereign_

* Duke of Suffolk (_brother-in-law_), K.G.

*+Earl of Lincoln (_nephew_), K.B.

*+Viscount Lovell (_dearest friend_), Lord Chamberlain, K.G.

*+Earl of Northumberland (1_st cousin_), K.G.

* Lord Greystoke (1_st cousin_).

* Lord Abergavenny, K.B. }(_cousins_).

Earl of Westmoreland (_sick_) }

_Minors_

Duke of Buckingham } (_cousins_) Earl of Ess.e.x } Earl of Salisbury (_son_).

* Earl of Warwick (_nephew_).

Earl of Pembroke (_nephew_).

_Staunch and true_

*+Duke of Norfolk, Ld. Admiral, K.G.

*+Earl of Surrey, K.G.

* Lord Audley, Ld. Treasurer.

*+Lord Zouch, K.B.

*+Lord Ferrers.

Marching to join the King * Earl of Kent, K.B.

* Lord Dacre.

* Lord FitzHugh.

* Lord Lumley.

* Lord Ogle in the Marches, * 2 Lords Scrope.

_Other Peers_