stances. The legal relationships of the clergy and the nobility certainly still contained considerable difficulty and want of harmony, but it was only in consequence of the weakness of mind of Henry VI. that this degenerated into a dynastic aristocratic civil war. The political suicide of the barons in this wild conflict and the exhaustion which followed the war, could not but tend to strengthen the monarchy as an institution. The knighthood and the cities were in a great measure drawn into these struggles-much against their will, for, from their social position, they were more bent upon the peaceful development of their insular political system in both county and parliamentary organisation; and even the increasing yearning of the lower orders after independence was more inclined towards a royal government than [to] an organised rule of nobles."—ED.]

304

General

characteris

tics of the

Tudor Period.

REIGNS OF HENRY VII., HENRY VIII, EDWARD VI., MARY.

THE Tudor period is almost synchronous with the 16th century, an age remarkable for its material prosperity, its Intellectual and Religious activity, and its Political retrogression. The mighty impulse given to Commerce by the discovery of America and of the passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope, coupled with the certainty imparted to the science of navigation by the use of the compass, caused an enormous increase of the wealth of the middle classes. Intent upon the acquisition of private gain, the merchants and traders were for the most part satisfied to leave questions of government to others, so long as they themselves were permitted to pursue their avocations in peace. Simultaneously with the extraordinary expansion of Commerce there were other causes at work which tended to withdraw men's minds from the consideration of purely political topics.

The revival of Learning, and its rapid dissemination among all classes through the medium of the printing-press, the profound religious agitation of the Reformation, and the spirit of bold erquiry which it excited concerning matters of the deepest interest hitherto generally accepted as beyond dispute,-all contributed to concentrate popular attention upon intellectual and religious progress, to the neglect of politics. On the continent of Europe, the introduction of standing armies, and the revolution in the art of war which made it 'a distinct science and a distinct trade,' had emancipated rulers from the chief restraint on their power-the fear of an armed people—and enabled them to either utterly sweep away, or reduce to empty formalities, the national assemblies which had once been as free and as potent as our own early Parliaments. The free Constitutions of Castile and Arragon were successfully overthrown by Charles V. and Philip II.; and the States-General of France, after languishing for a time, ceased altogether in 1614, until resuscitated in 1789, for their final meeting on the eve of the Great Revolution. In England, too, Parliamentary institutions passed through a season of trial. That they did not perish here as on the Continent, was mainly due to our insular position, which rendered the nation comparatively secure against foreign invasion, and thus obviated for a lengthened period the necessity of employing

regular troops.' In a less degree the personal character of Henry VIII. was also instrumental in the preservation of our liberties. Tyrant as he was, he was yet animated by a scrupulous regard for the letter of the law. While his fellow-tyrants abroad were everywhere overthrowing free institutions, Henry was in all things showing them the deepest outward respect. Through his reign he took care to do nothing except in outward and regular legal form, nothing for which he could not shelter himself under the sanction either of precedent or of written law.' If he could get the letter of the law on his side he was satisfied; otherwise his conscience was uneasy.' This peculiar character of Henry's tyranny, his anxiety to do everything in proper Parliamentary and Judicial form, while it degraded parliamentary and judicial institutions at the time, really did a great deal to strengthen and preserve them for better days.'3 The Parliament was indeed so disgracefully subservient and sycophantic that there was little temptation for the King to endeavour to destroy an institution which served to cover his most outrageous proceedings with a convenient and plausible appearance of popular approbation. When Henry had cut off Anne Boleyn's head on one day and married Jane Seymour the next morning, the Parliament gravely listened to a speech from the Lord Chancellor, assuring the world that the King did not do it in any carnal concupiscence,' and immediately proceeded to pass an Act declaring that it was all done of the King's most excellent goodness'!+ Such being the temper of the national representatives, it is not surprising to find Henry holding high their privileges, as in Ferrers's case, or writing to the Pope, in 1529: The discussions in the English Parliament are free and unrestricted; the Crown has no power to limit their debates, or to control the votes of their members. They determine everything for themselves, as the interests of the Commonwealth require.'"

The reaction towards Absolutism which had set in during the latter part of Henry VI.'s reign, culminated under Henry VIII. We have got into a state of things,' observes Dr. Freeman, 'when Parliaments were ready to proscribe anybody, or to ordain anything, when judges were ready to declare anything to be the law, when juries were ready

Macaulay, Hist. Eng. i. 34. Henry VII. had a small body-guard of 50 archers, and Hen. VIII. 50 horse-guards, each attended by an archer, demilance and coutelier, making 200 in all; but even this small force was, probably on account of the expense, soon given up.

Freeman, Growth of Eng. Const. 1o1; Fortnightly Review, Sept. 1871, on 'The

Use of Historical Documents.'

Freeman, Fortnightly Review, Sept. 1871.

Speech of Lord Chancellor Audley in 1536, Lords' Journals, p. 84; 28 Hen. VIII. c. 7 Froude, Hist. Eng. ii. 503.

3 Supra, 275.

Froude, Hist. Eng. i. 187.

1

to find any verdict, when bishops and convocations were ready to declare anything to be true and orthodox, at the mere bidding of the capricious despot on the throne. We have reached the state which our fathers called unlaw, not the state when law is silent, but the state when law had turned about and become its own opposite, the state when the institutions which were meant to declare right, and truth, and freedom, had been turned into engines of wrong, and falsehood, and bondage.' Independently of the general political apathy to which allusion has been made, the extraordinary subservience of Parliament during the Tudor age, so unlike its demeanour at an earlier and at a later period, is to be accounted for by the fact that the old nobility, the leaders in former struggles for liberty, had been cut off in the Wars of the Roses, and the Commons had not yet acquired sufficient importance and self-reliance to act alone. The temporal Lords summoned by Henry VII. to the Parliament of 1485 were only 29 in number, and of these several were new creations. The new nobility which grew up under Henry VII. and his son owed everything to the Royal favour, and were restrained from independent action alike by gratitude, by interest, and by fear of the resolute vengeance which those monarchs unsparingly dealt out to all who opposed them. A watchful jealousy of all individuals likely to disturb their power was a characteristic of all the Tudor sovereigns. The nobles found safety and advancement by acting the part of courtiers rather than of Parliamentary barons. Henry VII.,' says Lord Bacon, 'kept a strait hand on his nobility; and chose rather to advance clergymen and lawyers, which were more obsequious to him, but had less interest in the people.' The same policy was pursued by Henry VIII. and Elizabeth The remnant of the old nobility, the Percies, Nevilles, and Howards, were disgusted at the advancement of men like Wolsey, Cromwell, Cecil, Bacon, and Walsingham. The rebellion of the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, in 1569, was as much a protest against the 'newe set-upp nobles,' as against the 'new-found religion' and the incarceration of Mary Queen of Scots, the representative of the ancient Faith. At the same time the House of Commons, under the restricted franchise introduced by the Act of Henry VI., consisted largely of nominees, servants and pensioners of the Crown. Under

1 Fortnightly Review, Sept. 1871.

* In their proclamation the rebels justified their proceedings on the ground that the Queen was surrounded by divers newe set-upp nobles, who not onlie go aboute to overthrow and put downe the ancient nobilitie of the realme, but also have misused the Queen's majestie's owne personne, and also have by the space of twelve yeares nowe past set upp and mayatayned a new-found religion and heresie contrary to God's word,' -Lingard, Hist. Eng. viii. 45.

Henry VIII., Government interference with elections became a common practice, and in the reigns of Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth, petty boroughs were specially created in order to be corrupt. But the very fact that it was found needful to pack the House of Commons, and the anxiety which the Tudor monarchs generally displayed to secure the sanction of Parliament for all their proceedings, afford the strongest testimony to the real power and importance of the national assembly. Under Elizabeth, the Commons began to resume their firm tone and bearing, and thenceforth never desisted until they had won back their ancient liberties and established them on a sure foundation.

During the 120 years spanned by the Tudor dynasty, the Constitutional historian has scarcely any general progress of free principles, any important measure of improvement to record. The power of the Crown steadily increased until it acquired dangerous proportions; but it was usually exercised with discretion; and the want of a standing army acted as a perpetual restraint which did not indeed prevent the Crown from sometimes treating an individual in an arbitrary and even in a barbarous manner, but which effectually secured the nation against general and long-continued oppression.' In the meantime, amidst the political lethargy of the great mass of the people, a silent transfer of power was taking place. The commercial wealth of the middle classes enabled them to buy up the estates of the old landed proprietors, and Feudalism gradually died out.3 The persecution of

[Whilst calling the Tudor age the period of the "restoration of Constitutional Government," Gneist, Hist. Engl. Const. cap. xxxi. p. 462, goes yet further and says: "The fundamental institutions, upon which the vital energy of the parliamentary constitution is built up, were developed and extended by the Tudors in a manner that in itself affords us sufficient proof that these monarchs sincerely desired the maintenance of the constitution. The combination of the sovereign rights with the local system continues in every direction, and striking its roots deeper down, draws the smaller households into the activity of self-government.' The above passage is worth citing in order to show the different conceptions entertained by the distinguished author of this work and that of his great rival in the same field of research, Professor von Gneist, as to the ground work of our political institutions. The latter, in the Editor's humble opinion, is too analytical in his treatment of the subject. Self-government the leading idea pervading his masterly work; but he often disregards, in his minute examination into the prime sources of our political system, many leading and fundamental principles upon which Mr. Taswell-Langmead has insisted and clearly enunciated. This is not the place to enter upon a criticism of the respective views of these constitutional lawyers, but the Editor could not well avoid referring to them here.-ED.]

Macaulay, Hist. Eng. i. 31.

3 The law of strict entail established by the Statute De Donis conditionalibus The Law of (13 Edw. I. c. 1, called also the Statute of Westminster the Second) endured for Entail. about 200 years. But in the 12th Edw. IV. a decision of the Judges in the celebrated Taltarum's case had restored the power of alienation by means of the