292
Constitutional History.
[chap.
Edward's and to crush the nobles, scarcely a month after his death the
ɪegard to the opposing factions of the coürt had rallied to themselves, under
new designations but in real identity, the very same elements,
forces and rival influences that had been arrayed against each
other in the earlier struggle of the Roses. The private warfare
of the great houses continues throughout with scarcely abated
vigour. The very policy of Edward with regard to those
houses was novel and hazardous ; for he departed from the
immemorial practice of his predecessors in order to crush the
Measuresof offender of the moment. Since the accession of the house of
extirpation. . . , r∙
Ftantagenet the kings had avoided entorcιng perpetual for-
feitures, except in extreme cases. The^Mortimers, the Des-
pensers, the Percies, the Montacutes, had all, after long or short
terms of eclipse, been restored to their estates and dignities.
Edward, whose own family owed its existence to this rule, was
the first king who ostentatiously disregarded it. By bestowing
the Percy earldom on John Neville, that of Pembroke on
William Herbert, and that of Devon on Humfrey Stafford of
Southwick, he laid down a principle of extermination against
political foes which was foreign to English practice, and arrayed
against himself the strongest and best elements of feudal life,
the attachment of the local populations to their ancient lords.
Summaryof That these particular features of the policy of the York kings
ЖХ warrant us in believing that they had a definite design of
assuming absolute power, it would be hazardous to affirm.
They more probably imply merely that there was no price
which they were not prepared to pay for power, and that they
were restrained by no political principles or moral scruples
from increasing their hold upon it. Edward IV in more than one
point resembled Edward III, and cared more for the substance
of power than for the open and ostentatious pretence of ab-
solutism which had cost Richard II his throne and life. Of
Richard III we know little more than that lie was both abler
and more unscrupulous than his brother : for both it may be
pleaded that we have to read their history through a somewhat
distorted medium. It may seem but a halting conclusion to
assert that their attitude towards the constitution was opposed
XVIII.]
Conclunon.
393
to that of the Lancaster kings rather as a contrary than as a Contrast of
contradictory. The Lancaster dynasty was not strong enough Lancaster,
to maintain and develop the constitution ; the York dynasty
was strong enough to dispense with it but not to destroy it.
The former acted on the hereditary traditions of the baronage,
the latter on the hereditary traditions of the crown. The
former conserved, without being able to reinvigorate it, all that
survived of the early ennobling idea according to which the
national life had thus far advanced. The latter anticipated,
without definitely formulating it, much of the policy which was
to mark the coming era, to grow stronger, and then to decay
and vanish before tlɪe renewed force of national life ; a force
which had recovered strength during the compulsory rest and
peace enjoyed under the Tudors, and awoke under the Stewarts
to a consciousness of its identity with the earlier force which
had guided the earlier development. So, to speak loosely and
generally, the Lancastrian rule was a direct continuity, and
the Yorkist rule was a break in the continuity, of constitutional
development; both alike were stages in the discipline of
national life. Neither of the two tried its experiment in good
days. The better element had to work in times of decay and
exhaustion ; the worse element had the advantage of the new
dayspring ; for the revival of life which is the great mark of
the Tudor period had begun under Edward IV. There was a
disparity in both periods between national health and consti-
tutional growth.
Thus then the acquittal of the house of Lancaster docs not General
imply the condemnation of the house of York : nor do those coneluaion∙
circumstances which might mitigate our condemnation of the
latter, at all affect our estimate of the general character of the
former. In tracing the history of both, the personal qualifica-
tions of the rulers form a conspicuous element ; and it might
be an interesting question for imaginative historians to deter-
mine what would have been the result if Henry VI and
Edward IV had changed places ; if it had fallen to the strong
unscrupulous masculine Yorkist to work the machinery of a
waning constitutional life, and to the weak incompetent Lau-