ηC> Constitutional History. [chap.
blame of continuing the war when success was hopeless, if such
blame be just, does not fall on Henry V, who died at the
culminating point of his successes, and whose life, if it had been
prolonged, might have consolidated what he had won. Judged
by the standard of his time, judged by the standard according
to which later ages have acted, even whilst they recognised its
imperfection, Henry V cannot be condemned for the iniquity or
for the final and fatal results of his military policy. He believed
war to be right, he believed in his own cause, he devoted him-
self to his work and he accomplished it.
HenryVas ʌ similar equitable consideration would relieve him from
a religious 1
persecutor, the imputation of being a religious persecutor. He lived in an
age in which religious persecution was rife ; in which it was
inculcated on kings as a duty, and in which it was to some
extent justified by the tenets of the persecuted ; for one of the
miseries of authoritative persecution is that it arrays the rebel
against both spiritual and temporal authority. There were
indeed geιms of social and political destructiveness inherent in
the Lollard movement, but the government, in the policy of
persecution, regarded the Lollards as active traitors, and not
only regarded them as such but made them so, leagued them
with the Welsh and Scots, and implicated them in every con-
spiracy against the reigning house. This may be lamentable,
but it is a consideration which equity cannot disregard. Pos-
terity may well condemn all persecutors who have loved perse-
cution ; it cannot without reservation condemn those who have
persecuted merely as a religious or as a legal duty. Henry V
persecuted, as his father had done, but, even when he perse-
cuted on religious and not on political grounds, he did it
with a singular reluctance to undertake the vindictive part
of the work1. To his mind it was a correction for the soul
of the sinner, and a precaution against evils to come, not
a mere exercise of justice. There is proof enough of this
in the way in which he personally attempted to convert the
1 Henry was improved by Thomas Walden for lɪis great negligence in
regard to the duty of punishing heretics ; Tyler, ɪi. 9, 57, quoting Von der
Hardt, i. 501, and L’Estrange, ii. 282 ; Goodwin, App. p. 361.
χvπι.] Character of JJenrij Γ. 77
heretic Badby1, and in the impolitic delay which encouraged
Oldcastle.
If we set aside the charges of sacrificing the welfare of his Greatness
, , of Henry’s
country to an unjustifiable war of aggression, and of being character,
∙tι religious persecutor, Henry V stands before us as one of the
greatest and purest characters in English history, a figure not
unworthy to be placed by the side of Edward I. No sovereign
who ever reigned has won from contemporary writers such
a singular unison of praises2. He was religious, pure in life,
temperate, liberal, careful and yet splendid, merciful, truthful,
and honourable ; ζ discreet in word, provident in counsel,
prudent in judgment, modest in look, magnanimous in act
a brilliant soldier, a sound diplomatist, an able organiser and
consolidator of all forces at his command ; the restorer of the
English navy, the founder of our military, international and
maritime law3. A true Englishman, with all the greatnesses
and none of the glaring faults of his Plantagenet ancestors, he
stands forth as the typical medieval hero. At the same time
he is a laborious man of business, a self-denying and hardy
warrior, a cultivated scholar, and a most devout and charitable
Christian. Fortunately perhaps for himself, unfortunately for
his country, he was cut off before the test of time and experience
was applied to try the fixedness of his character and the possible
permanence of his plans. In his English policy he appears
most distinctly as a reconciling and uniting force. He had the
advantage over his father in two great points : he was not even
in a secondary degree answerable for the difficulties in which
Henry IV had been involved by the very circumstances of his
1 Wals. ii. 282.
2 For Henry’s character see Walsingham, ii. 344: ‘le plus Vertueus et
prudent de tons les princes Christiens rengnans en son temps ; ’ Wavrin,
p. 167. He was severe, ‘et bien entretenoit la disciplene de Chevallerie
comme jadis fasoient les Bommains ; ’ ib. p. 429. See Aeneas Sylvius,
Be Viris Hlustribus; Pauli, v. 175∙ Elmham and Titus Livius are
professed panegyrists.
3 Henry’s Ordinances for his armies may be found in Excerpta Historica,
p. 28; Nicolas’ Agincourt, Appendix, pp. 31 sq.; his dealings with the
navy in the Proceedings of the Privy Council, vol. v. pref, cxxviii. sq. ;
and in Sir H. Nicolas’ History of the Navy ; Black Book of the Admiralty,
vol. i. pp. 282, 459, &c. See also Bernard’s Essay on International Law,
in the Oxford Essays.