Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the newspaper. When we examine one of these classes we see that it is divided into smaller groups, to each of whom a special task is allotted; and we see that the individuals of each group have separate parts of the work to do. When we observe and consider still further, we see that none of the higher kinds of the work could be done, were it not for a vast number of favourable positive and

negative conditions; and when we look into these, we find that they are the results of the previous labours of thousands of heads and hands. From this point of view a newspaper is not merely the history of the preceding twenty-four hours. It is this, indeed, but it is something infinitely greater. It is the history of all human progress and modern civilisation.

ENGLAND UNDER THE

JUDO

UDORS.

FIELD OF THE CLOTH OF GOLD-PROGRESS OF POPULAR LIBERTY.

[graphic]

ENRY VIII., it cannot be denied, notwithstanding his many faults, was in many respects a representative English

king. In his best days there was a certain rough generosity about him, a certain dignity and state of appearance and kingliness of mind, that won him the love of his own subjects, and the respect and admiration of foreign powers. The meeting between him and Francis I. of France, on what was called the field of the cloth of gold, was one of the most characteristic events of the reign, and well illustrates the period.

"This expensive congress was held between Guisnes and Ardres, near Calais, within the English pale, in compliment to Henry for crossing the sea.

Some months before, a defiance had been sent by the two kings to each other's court, and through all the chief cities of Europe, importing that Henry and Francis, with fourteen aids, would be ready in the plains of Picardy to answer all comers, that were gentlemen, at tilt and tourney. Accordingly, the monarchs, now gorgeously apparelled, entered the lists on horseback; Francis surrounded

with Henry's guards, and Henry with those of Francis. They were both at that time the most comely personages of their age, and prided themselves on their expertness in the military exercises. The ladies were the judges in these feats of chivalry; and they put an end to the encounter whenever they thought proper. It is supposed that the crafty French monarch was willing to gratify Henry's vanity, by allowing him to enjoy a petty pre-eminence in these pastimes. He ran a tilt against Monsieur Crandeval, whom he disabled at the second encounter. He engaged Monsieur de Montmorency, whom, however, he could not throw from the saddle. from the saddle. He fought at faulchion

with a French nobleman, who presented him with his courser in token of submission."

It is said that many of the English and French nobility ruined themselves by their profuse expenditure on this occasion. But what sort of government was this Tudor government, under which England certainly became glorious, and seems on the whole to have been contented?

"It has long been the fashion, a fashion introduced by Hume, to describe the English monarchy in the sixteenth century as an absolute monarchy. And such undoubtedly it appears to a super

[graphic][merged small]

ficial observer. Elizabeth, it is true, often spoke to her parliaments in language as haughty and imperious as that which the Great Turk would use to his divan. She punished with great severity members of the House of Commons who, in her opinion, carried the freedom of debate too far. She assumed the power of legislation by means of proclamations. She imprisoned her subjects without bringing them to a legal trial. Torture. was often employed, in defiance of the laws of England, for the purpose of extorting confessions from those who were shut up in her dungeons. The authority of the Star-Chamber and of the Ecclesiastical Commission was at its highest point. Severe restraints were imposed on political and religious discussion. The number of presses was at one time limited. No man could print without a licence; and every work had to undergo the scrutiny of the Primate, or the Bishop of London. Persons whose writings were displeasing to the court were cruelly mutilated, like Stubbs, or put to death, like Penry. Nonconformity was severely punished. The queen prescribed the exact rule of religious faith and discipline; and whoever departed from that rule, either to the right or the left, was in danger of severe penalties.

Such was this government. Yet we know that it was loved by the great body of those who lived under it. We know that, during the fierce contests of the sixteenth century, both the hostile parties spoke of the time of Elizabeth as of a golden age. That great queen has now been lying two hundred and thirty years in Henry the Seventh's chapel. Yet her memory is still dear to the hearts of a free people.

The truth seems to be that the government of the Tudors was, with a few occasional deviations, a popular government, under the forms of despotism. At first sight, it may seem that the prerogatives of Elizabeth were not

less ample than those of Lewis the Fourteenth, and her parliaments were as obsequious as his parliaments, that her warrant had as much authority as his lettre-de-cachet. The extravagance with which her courtiers eulogised her personal and mental charms went beyond the adulation of Boileau and Molière. Lewis would have blushed to receive from those who composed the gorgeous circles of Marli and Versailles such outward marks of servitude as the haughty Britoness exacted of all who approached her. But the authority of Lewis rested on the support of his army. The authority of Elizabeth rested solely on the support of her people. Those who say that her power was absolute do not sufficiently consider in what her power consisted. Her power consisted in the willing obedience of her subjects, in their attachment to her person and to her office, in their respect for the old line from which she sprang, in their sense of the general security which they enjoyed under her government. These were the means, and the only means, which she had at her command for carrying her decrees into execution, for resisting foreign enemies, and for crushing domestic treason. There was not a ward in the city, there was not a hundred in any shire in England, which could not have overpowered the handful of armed men who composed her household. If a hostile sovereign threatened invasion, if an ambitious noble raised the standard of revolt, she could have recourse only to the trainbands of her capital and the array of her counties, to the citizens and yeomen of England, commanded by the merchants and esquires of England.

Thus, when intelligence arrived of the vast preparations which Philip was making for the subjugation of the realm, the first person to whom the government thought of applying for assistance was the Lord Mayor of

[merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small]

intreated the council, in sign of their | The great charter was often violated. perfect love and loyalty to prince and country, to accept ten thousand men, and thirty ships amply furnished."

People who could give such signs as these of their loyalty were by no means to be misgoverned with impunity. The English in the sixteenth century were, beyond all doubt, a free people. They had not, indeed, the outward show of

But the people had a security against gross and systematic misgovernment, far stronger than all the parchment that was ever marked with the sign manual, and than all the wax that was ever pressed by the great seal.

It has been said that the Tudors were as absolute as the Cæsars. Never was parallel so unfortunate. The govern

ment of the Tudors was the direct opposite to the government of Augustus and his successors. The Cæsars ruled despotically, by means of a great standing army, under the decent forms of a republican constitution. They called themselves citizens. They mixed unceremoniously with other citizens. In theory they were only the elective magistrates of a free commonwealth. Instead of arrogating to themselves despotic power, they acknowledged allegiance to the senate. They were merely the lieutenants of that venerable body. They mixed in debate. They even appeared as advocates before the courts of law. Yet they could safely indulge in the wildest freaks of cruelty and rapacity, while their legions remained faithful. Our Tudors, on the other hand, under the titles and forms of monarchical supremacy, were essentially popular magistrates. They had no means of protecting themselves against the public hatred; and they were therefore compelled to court the public favour. To enjoy all the state and all the personal indulgences of absolute power, to be adored with Oriental prostrations, to dispose at will of the liberty and even of the life of ministers and courtiers, this nation granted to the Tudors. But the condition on which they were suffered to be the tyrants of Whitehall was that they should be the mild and paternal sovereigns of England. They were under the same restraints with regard to their people under, which a military despot is placed with regard to his army. They would have found it as dangerous to grind their subjects with cruel taxation as Nero would have found it to leave his prætorians unpaid. Those who immediately surrounded the royal person, and engaged in the hazardous game of ambition, were exposed to the most fearful dangers. Buckingham, Cromwell, Surrey, Seymour of Sudeley, Somerset, Northumberland, Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex, perished on the scaffold.

But in general the country gentlemen hunted and the merchant traded in peace. Even Henry, as cruel as Domitian, but far more politic, contrived, while reeking with the blood of the Lamiæ, to be a favourite with the cobblers.

The Tudors committed very tyrannical acts. But in their ordinary dealings with the people they were not, and could not safely be, tyrants. Some excesses were easily pardoned. For the nation was proud of the high and fiery blood of its magnificent princes, and saw in many proceedings which a lawyer would even then have condemned, the outbreak of the same noble spirit which so manfully hurled foul scorn at Parma and at Spain. But to this endurance there was a limit. If the government. ventured to adopt measures which the people really felt to be oppressive, it was soon compelled to change its course. When Henry the Eighth attempted to raise a forced loan of unusual amount by proceedings of unusual rigour, the opposition which he encountered was such as appalled even his stubborn and imperious spirit. The people, we are told, said that, if they were treated thus, 'then were it worse than the taxes of France; and England should be bond, and not free.' The county of Suffolk rose in arms. The king prudently yielded to an opposition which, if he had persisted, would, in all probability, have taken the form of a general rebellion. Towards the close of the reign of Elizabeth, the people felt themselves aggrieved by the monopolies. The queen, proud and courageous as she was, shrank from a contest with the nation, and, with admirable sagacity, conceded all that her subjects had demanded, while it was yet in her power to concede with dignity and grace." Carefully weighing these facts, we are able to see how, whilst the Tudors seemed more despotic than the Stewarts, the former kept the crown, and the latter ost it, and were driven forth as fugitives.

« AnteriorContinuar »