assisted in checking the population, they had in so doing so increased the relation of the national resources to the number of its inhabitants, that the comfort and wellbeing of the bulk of the people was rather increased by them than injured, and, as far as the commonalty was concerned, England soon recovered itself. It was not so with the great houses. The diminution which they had undergone is made sufficiently obvious by the list of temporal Peers summoned to Henry VII.'s first Parliament, who were but twenty-seven in number.1 They were further weakened by Henry's constant policy, which was directed to destroy the influence they gained from their numerous retainers. More than one statute in the reign was directed against the practice of keeping such followers, and Lord Bacon's story of the heavy fine inflicted upon the Earl of Oxford for his too great magnificence and too numerous household when he received the King is well known. The growth and importance of wealth also tended to the decay of the old principle that gentry depended upon lineage. Sir Thomas Smith, in the reign of Edward VI., says 1 Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bediord, King's uncle; title extinct 1497. William Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel; title passed to Duke of Norfolk by marriage 1579. John de Vere, Earl of Oxford; title extinct 1702. Edmund Grey, Earl of Kent; title extinct 1740. William Berkeley, Earl of Nottingham; title extinct 1492. Edward Stafford, Earl of Wiltshire; title extinct in 1499. Richard Woodville, Earl Rivers; title extinct in 1492. Thomas Stanley, Earl of Derby. William Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon; extinct 1486. Edward Courtenay, Earl of Devon. Ralph Graystock, Knight; the Barony of Graystock passed to Lord Dacre of Gilsland, and thence to the Howards of Carlisle. Richard de Beauchamp, Knight; ex- George Neville de Bergavenny. Of the nobility Richard de la Warre, Knight; ancestor of John Blount de Mountjoy, Knight; title John Stourton de Stourton, Knight; ancestor of the present Earl Stourton. John Sutton de Dudley, Knight; title in abeyance. John Denham of Caredenham, Knight; title extinct 1502. John Arundel de Maltravers, Knight, son of the Earl of Arundel; title went to Duke of Norfolk. Edward Grey, Viscount Lisle; title extinct in 1504. John Grey de Powys, Knight; extinct in 1552. Henry Clifford de Clifford, Knight; ances tor of the present house of de Clifford. John Ratcliffe de Fitzwater; title extinct 1641. William Beaumont, Viscount Beaumont; title extinct 1507. This list does not represent the whole peerage of England. For political reasons some names are absent. For instance, Howard, Lord Surrey, was under attainder, and the Earls of Northumberland are not mentioned.-Dugdale's Summons to Parliament. that "none was created a baron who could not dispend a thousand pound per annum, or at least a thousand marks." George Neville, Duke of Bedford, was degraded by Parliament in 1477 because he was poor. The performance also of certain offices was held to make a man a gentleman. In the place therefore of the old nobility and gentry of race there arose a nobility dependent on wealth and on the favour of the Court, who became naturally pliant instruments in the hand of the King, to whom they owed their elevation.1 On reading the list of the executors of King Henry VIII.'s will, it is at once obvious that not one of them is other than a new-made man. Under these circumstances the change in the balance of the constitution was complete. Unchecked by its natural counterpoise, the nobility, the Crown was in effect absolute, for the Commons, who might have been expected to step into the place which the nobles had vacated, were brought face to face with the power of the Crown, and, deprived of their natural leaders, had not yet found sufficient strength among themselves to make good their position against it. The King indeed thought fit, when a dangerous or difficult step had to be taken, to support his authority by application to the Commons, and would graciously accept their advice when it chimed in with his own wish or was instigated by his own agents; but how completely they accepted their position of inferiority is shown by the statutes declaring the royal proclamations to have the power of laws, and giving the King the right of nominating his successor by will.* This change in the character of the nobility necessitated a change in the character of the army. It was no longer the connection between tenant and feudal chief which com The character of the army. pelled men to take the field. For defensive purposes the whole nation was regarded as one great army. To each class and rank was appointed its proper equipment, which every individual had to keep up at his own expense; and this militia was placed under the command of the most prominent noble or nobles in the county, who, as lord-lieutenants, were the representatives of the royal power there, and whose duty it was to collect and organize the armed men of their 1 "And if any knight should have acquired sufficient number of these fees to be able to keep up a great establishment, he may get himself created an earl by the King. Howbeit the present King Henry makes but few."-Italian Relation, p. 38. 2 Thomas, Lord Wriothesley; William, Lord St. John; John Russell, Lord Russell; Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford; John Dudley, Viscount Lisle; Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of Durham; William Paget, Anthony Browne, Edward North, Edward Montague, Anthony Denny and William Herbert. 8 31 Hen. VIII. 4 35 Hen. VIII. c. 1. -1558] THE ARMY 465 district. For foreign war the troops were raised by voluntary enlistment, receiving regular pay and rations during their service.1 These enlistments were generally made through the medium of some nobleman or gentleman, with whom the King entered into a contract. Thus, in 1492, Henry VII. contracted with George, Earl of Kent, to provide "vj. men of arms, his owne person comprised in the same, every one of them having with him his custrell and his page; with xvj. demi-launces, xvj. archers on horsbak, and lx. archers on fote, of good and hable persons for the warre, horsed, armed, garnished and arrayed sufficiently in all peces and in every thing as after the custume of warre ought to appertayne.” 2 It was in accordance with this view of England as an armed nation that laws were made regulating the price of bows, encouraging the importation of bow staves, and insisting upon the substitution of archery for other less useful sports. The distance even at which the butts should be placed was a matter for legislation. Two hundred and twenty yards was the minimum allowed for public practice. In spite of such enactments, however, archery gradually declined, as Latimer tells us :-"Men of England in times past, when they would exercise themselves, for we must needs have some recreation, our bodies cannot endure without some exercise--they were wont to go abroad in the fields a shooting, but now it is turned to glossing and gulling within the house.. Charge them upon their allegiance that this singular benefit of God may be practised, and that it be not turned to glossing and bowling within the towns, for they be negligent in executing these laws of shooting." In the place of archery arose the use of firearms. This seems to have necessitated the creation of something like a standing army. There were mercenaries constantly kept at Calais, and the Protector Somerset employed a body of musketeers.* the time of the insurrection in Norfolk and Devonshire, when the state of affairs was critical, and the Government were in need of every man they could get, these troops were brought over and employed against the rebels in pursuance of the advice of Paget. The feeling against the use of mercenaries in civil contests was very strong, and those who fell into the hands of the insurgents met with no quarter : -"abhorred of our party," says Hooker, who was present, "they were nothing favoured of the other." 1 33 Hen. VIII. c. 9. 3 Sixth Sermon before Edward VI. 5 2 See also 7 Hen. VII. c. 1. At "They were assaulted with good courage, on the one side by our footmen, on the other by the Italian harquebutters."-Despatch of Russell, quoted by Froude. 5 "Send for your Allemayn horsemen." Paget to Protector, Strype's Mem. vol. iv Pursuit of wealth. Such a change in the principle which linked the various parts of society together as that which is implied in a change from feudalism to personal government, could not take place without affecting materially the social life of the nation. It has been said that it was no longer race, but wealth, which made the gentleman. The pursuit of wealth therefore became a much greater object than it had hitherto been, and the enjoyment and exhibition of wealth were carried much farther. The Court set the example of this display. Giustiniani, the Venetian Ambassador, in the earlier part of Henry VIII.'s reign, describes in glowing terms the splendour of the young King. He speaks of him as revelling in his conscious strength and beauty and wealth. But the greater nobility by no means fell behind their master. The magnificence of their dress was an object of wonder to foreigners. Indeed constant sumptuary laws were made to restrain the love of dress which was at that time rife in England. Shakspere tells us of the vast expenditure in dress at the Field of the Cloth of Gold. The Duke of Buckingham wore at the marriage of Prince Arthur, in 1501, a gown "wrought of needlework and set upon cloth of tissue furred with sables, the which gown was valued at £1500 ”—at least £15,000, of our money. Sir Nicholas Vaux wore 66 a gown of purple velvet, pight with pieces of gold so thick and massy that it was valued in gold beside the silk and fur at £1000; and a collar of Esses, which weighed, as the goldsmiths reported, 800 lbs. worth of nobles." Their wealth, and indeed that of the whole richer Ostentation of part of the nation, is shown in the vast profusion the English. of their households. The necessity for an immense quantity of food was indeed characteristic of the whole people. "I have it on the best information," says the author of the "Italian Relation," "that when the war is raging most furiously they will seek for good eating and their other comforts, without thinking what harm may befall them." An idea of the magnificence of a great establishment may be gained from the entry on the Feast of the Epiphany, 1508, in the household book of Stafford, Duke of Buckingham. On that day there were fed at dinner and supper together 459 persons, and the provision would seem to have consisted of 678 loaves, 66 quarts of wine, 259 flagons of ale (each flagon containing four quarts), 36 rounds of beef, 12 carcases of mutton, 2 calves, 4 pigs, 5 salt fishes and a salt sturgeon, 3 swans, 1 Stowe's Annals. -1558] THE WEALTHY CLASSES 467 6 geese, 10 capons, 1 lamb, 2 peacocks, 2 herons, 22 rabbits, 18 chickens, 16 woodcocks, 9 mallards, 23 widgeons, 18 teals, 20 snipes, 9 dozen of great birds, 6 dozen of little birds, 3 dozen larks, 9 quailsin all 343 birds. At such feasts there was an astonishing display of plate, which was indeed very characteristic of the English at that time. “There is no small innkeeper, however poor and humble he may be, who does not serve his table with silver dishes and drinkingcups; and no one who has not in his house silver plate to the amount of at least 100 pounds sterling is considered by the English to be a person of any consequence."1 When Cardinal Wolsey, in 1528, entertained the French Ambassadors at Hampton Court, "there were two banqueting-rooms, in each of which a cupboard extended the whole length of the apartment, filled to the top with plate. And every guest-chamber had a basin and ewer of silver, and a great livery pot of silver, and some gilt; yea, and some chambers had two livery pots, with wine and beer, a silver candlestick, having in it two sizes: yet the cupboards in the banqueting-room were never once touched."2 The richer English were also profuse in many other articles of luxury; carpets, tapestries, and silks, they were very fond of; and, if we may judge from the inventory of Wolsey's goods, they were in the habit of purchasing large quantities, which they kept in store. This profusion of plate and of articles of luxury, especially in connection with the existing poverty, of which more will be said hereafter, was caused principally by wealth having increased beyond the means of its employment, and by the natural channels for its employment being closed by mistaken legislative enactments. Trade had not yet been much developed, and all export of the precious metals was strictly forbidden, under that mistaken view, which lasted some centuries longer, that the wealth of a nation consisted in the amount of bullion existing in it, and that it could be secured only by the exports being larger than the imports. Thus, while trade at home was limited, there was no means of employing superfluous money in foreign countries. A still further check was given to the employment of wealth by the laws which forbade usury, and by the view that the taking of interest was a sort of moral crime. There 1 Italian Relation of England, p. 29. 2 Stowe's Annals. 3 Perlin, Description d'Angleterre (1552), p. 11: "Les Anglois se servēt fort des tapisseries, des toilles pinctes, qui sont bien faistes, auxquelles y a force et magnifiques roses, courōnées ou il y a fleurs de Liz et Lions, car en peu de maisons vous pouves entrer que vous ne trouvies cest tapisseries." 4 11 Hen. VII. c. 8. PER. MON. h |