The name is absent

nation complained of the foreign policy of Suffolk; and urged
on the king the expulsion of Somerset from the council. The
rebels, under Cade, almost justified on the ground of mis-
government, sought their object by charges of treason against
men who, however selfish or incapable, were at all events faithful.
The duke of York, who might have ruled England in strength
and peace as he had governed Normandy, and might have won
the wild English as he had won the wild Irish, could not push
the claims of the nation for efficient justice without urging Iiis
own claim first to the foremost place in council and then to the
crown itself. It was the lack of the strong hand in reform, in
justice, and in police, the want of governance at home, that
definitely proved the incapacity of the house of Lancaster, and
that made their removal possible. It was the fatal cause of their
weakness, the moral justification of their fall. The dynasty that
had failed to govern, must cease to reign. And it was in the
physical and moral weakness and irresolution of Henry VI, and
in his divided councils, that this fatal deficiency was most fatally
exemplified. Yet hewas set aside and his dynasty with him on
an altogether different occasion, and a widely discordant plea.

373. The house of Lancaster had reigned constitutionally,
but had fallen by lack of governance. The house of York fol-
lowed, and, although they ruled with a stronger will, failed
altogether to remedy the evils to which they succeeded, and
. contributed in no small degree to destroy all that was de-
structible in the constitution. The record of the public history
of the reigns of Edward IV and Eichard III shows how far
they were from securing internal peace or inspiring national
confidence. England found no sounder governance under Ed-
ward IV than under Henry VI ; the court was led by favourites,
justice was perverted, strength was pitted against weakness,
riots, robberies, forcible entries were prevalent as before. The
house of York failed, as the house of Lancaster had failed, to
justify its existence by wise administration. As to the con-
stitutional side of the question, the case is somewhat different.
One good result had followed the constitutional formalism of
the three reigns ; the forms of government could not be altered.

XViII.]             The House of York.                a8ι

But they might be overborne and perverted ; and the charge The house
of thus wresting and warping them is shared by the house of anticipated
York with the house of Tudor. Henry VII, combining the the Tudors,
interests of the rival Roses, combines the leading characteristics
of their respective policies ; with Lancaster he observes the
forms of the constitution, with York he manipulates them to
his own ends. The case against the house of York may be
briefly stated ; it rests, as may be imagined, primarily on legal
and moral grounds, but under these there lurks a spirit defying
and ignoring constitutional restraints. Edward IV claimed the
throne, not as an elected king, but as the heir of Richard II ;

the house of Lancaster had given three kings ‘ de facto non de
jure ’ to England ; their acts were only legal so far as he and
his parliaments chose to ratify them. He did not then owe, on
his own theory, so much regard to the constitution as they had
willingly rendered. Nor did he pay it. He did not indeed
rule altogether without a parliament, but he held sessions at
long intervals, and brought, or allowed others to bring, before
them only the most insignificant matters of business. His Manipuia-

.    °     .... ^t*on ^of par-

statute-roll contains no acts for securing or increasing public Iiamentary

°                                 institutions,

liberties ; his legislation on behalf of trade and commerce con-
tains no principles of an expanding or liberating policy. To
register grants of money, resumptions of gifts, decrees and re-
versals of attainders, exchanges of property, private matters of
business, has become the sole employment of the assembly of the
estates ; there is no question of difficulty between liberty and
prerogative ; no voice is raised for Clarence ; no tax is refused
or begrudged. Outside parliament misrule is more obviously
apparent. The collection of benevolences, regarded even at the Benevo-
time as an innovation, was perhaps a resuscitated form of some
of the worst measures of Edward II and Richard II, but the at-
tention which it aroused under Edward IV shows how strange it
had become, at all events under the noιmal rule of the inter-
vening kings. The levies for the war with Scotland were raised Commfa-
under the old system of commissions of array which had been dis- array,
used since the early years of Henry IV. The numerous executions
which marked the earlier years of Edward’s reign show that he

<<   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   >>

More intriguing information