on H-Iiicli lie could not have counted, he had won. It was very-
much owing to his influence that the great schism was closed at
Constance ; it was the representative of the English church
who nominated pope Martin V¹, the creator of the modern
papacy : and although the result was one which ran counter to
the immemorial policy of kings and parliaments, of Church
and State, the mischief of the consequences cannot be held to
derogate from the greatness of the achievement. It is not too
much to suppose that Henry, striking when the opportunity
came and continuing the task which he had undertaken without
interruption, might have accomplished the subjugation and
pacification of France, and realised the ambition of his life, the
dream of his father and of his Lancastrian ancestors, by staying
the progress of the Ottomans and recovering the sepulchre of
Christ. This was not to be ; and he had already done more
than on ordinary calculations could have been imagined, com-
passed more than it was in England’s power alone to hold fast
or to complete. England was nearly exhausted ; it could only
have been at the head of consolidated France and united
Europe that Henry could have led the Crusade. In him then
the dying energies of medieval life kindle for a short moment
into flame ; England rejoices in the light all the more because
of the gloom that precedes and follows : and the efforts made
by England, parliament, church, and nation, during the period,
are not less remarkable than those made by the king. They
show that the system of government was capable of keeping
pace with the great mind that inspired it, although the mass
of the nation was, as it soon proved to be, not sufficiently
advanced to maintain the system when the guiding hand was
taken away.

329. The two men into whose hands the administration of
Henry’s dominions now fell were in singular contrast with one
another. The two brothers were but a year apart in age.
John was thirty-three, Humfrey thirty-two. There was per-

¹ The bishop of London nominated him ; Wals. ii. 320. See Lenz,
Konig Sigismund, p. 184. Whoever was the nominator, the election was
the result of the league between Henry and Sigismund.

XVIII.]

Iiaps as little personal jealousy between them as could exist
between two brothers so situated. Bedford was never jealous
of Gloucester; Gloucester, if during his brother’s absence he
acted with little regard to his wishes, and aimed at power for
himself irrespective of the national interest, was always amen-
able to Bedford’s advice when he was present, and never
ventured to withstand him to his face. In character however,
and in the great aim and object of life, there was scarcely
anything in common between them. They seem, as it were, to
have developed the different sides of their father’s idiosyncrasy,
or to have run back to a previous generation. Humfrey has all Contrast
the adventurous spirit, the popular manners, the self-seeking the two
^x               ɪ ɪ                      .                      ^σ brothers.

and ambition that marked Henry IV ; he is still more like the
great-uncle whose title he bore, and to whose fate his own death
was so closely parallel, Thomas of Woodstock. John has all the
seriousness, the statesmanship, the steady purpose, the high sense
of public duty, that in a lower degree belonged to his father. He,
although with a far higher type of character, in some points
resembled the Black Prince. Bedford again has all the great
qualities of Henry V without his brilliance ; Gloucester has all
his popular characteristics without any of his greatness. The
former was thoroughly trusted by Henry V, the latter was trusted
only so far as it was necessary. The Beauforts were no doubt τhe⅛ reia-
• ι                 V      117          1 TT 7           tions with

intended by Henry to keep the balance steady. He knew that the Beau,
while to the actual wielders of sovereign power their personal
interests are apt to be the first consideration, to a house in the
position of the Beauforts the first object is the preservation of
the dynasty. He had confided in them and had found ' them
faithful ; Bedford trusted them and also found them faithful.
Gloucester, as Clarence had been, was opposed to them, and
the jealousy which he missed no opportunity of showing was

one cause of the destruction of his house. Gloucester was the Mischievous
evil genius of his family ; lɪis selfish ambition abroad broke up Gloucester,
the Burgundian alliance, his selfish ambition at home broke up
the unity of the Lancastrian power ; ho lived long enough to
^ruιn his nephew, not long enough to show whether he had the
"^rιll or the power to save him. Yet the reaction provoked by

vol. in.                   H

<<   <   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   >   >>