Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume VI.djvu/634

622 ENGLAND Grandsons of peers yielded precedence to newly made knights. The dignity of knight- hood was not beyond the reach of any man who could by diligence and thrift realize a good estate, or who could attract notice by his valor in a battle or a siege. It was regarded as no disparagement for the daughter of a duke, nay, of a royal duke, to espouse a distinguished commoner. Thus Sir John [Sir Eobert] How- ard married the daughter of Thomas Mow- bray, duke of Norfolk. Sir Richard Pole married the countess of Salisbury, daughter of George, duke of Clarence. Good blood was indeed held in high respect, but between good blood and the privileges of peerage there was, most fortunately for our country, no necessary connection. Pedigrees as long, and escutch- eons as old, were to be found out of the house of lords as in it. There were new men who bore the highest titles. There were untitled men well known to be descended from knights who had broken the Saxon ranks at Hastings, and scaled the walls of Jerusalem. . . . The yeoman was not inclined to murmur at dig- nities to which his own children might rise. The grandee was not inclined to insult a class into which his own children must de- scend." It would be wrong to infer from the real power and great consideration of parliament, that the king was not a sover- eign of the first rank. He was very powerful, and did many things difficult to reconcile with the idea of the chief of a constitutionally governed country. Much depended on person- al character, but even the weakest of kings possessed great prerogatives, and found not much difficulty in occasionally evading or vio- lating the law, without causing public commo- tion. "With three or four exceptions, all the English sovereigns that reigned between the days of Hastings and Bosworth were men of distinguished talents and much energy; facts that explain why liberal principles made no greater progress, and also show the earnestness of the English for free institutions, which were gained by no ordinary means from monarchs of such abilities, who were naturally averse to everything that tended to lessen their authori- ty. The Tudors made great changes in various respects. Yet, says Froude, " in the house of commons, then as much as now, there was in theory unrestricted liberty of discussion, and free right for any member to originate what- ever motion he pleased. But so long as confi- dence existed between the crown and the people, these rights were in great measure sur- rendered. The ministers prepared the busi- ness which was to be transacted; and the temper of the houses was usually so well un- derstood that, except when there was a de- mand for money, it was rare that a measure was proposed the acceptance of which was doubtful, or the nature of which would pro- yoke debate; So little jealousy, indeed, was in quiet times entertained of the power of the crown, and so little was a residence in Lon- don to the taste of the burgesses and the country gentlemen, that not only were their expenses ' defrayed by a considerable salary, but it was found necessary to forbid them ab- senting themselves from their duties by a posi- tive enactment." Throughout the entire exis- tence of the Tudor dynasty there were in- stances of the sovereigns retreating from posi- tions they had assumed, when they found they had done what was unpopular ; and they re- treated so well as always to save their dignity, and to prevent their prerogatives from being called in question. The resistance which the Tudors experienced when they endeavored to tax their subjects too highly can leave no doubt that the power of the people was as great as ever it had been, and that the new dynasty, whatever else it succeeded in chang- ing, did not effect any change in the English character. They certainly bore hard upon the aristocracy, but this rather helped them with the people. The peerage was not then exten- sive. The first parliament of Henry VII. con- tained but 29 temporal peers, while in the par- liament of 1451 there had been 53. The aris- tocracy had suffered immensely in the wars of the roses. The Tudors not only struck down many of its noblest members, but also elevated men from among the gentry and lawyers. The names of Russell and Seymour were not noble until the time of Henry VIII., or later. The Dudleys then rose to note. But whether new or old, the aristocracy were the true serviles of the Tudor times, not the people. Henry VIIL, the most arbitrary of all the Tu- dors, says Bolingbroke, " by applying to his parliaments for the extraordinary powers which he exercised, and by taking these powers for such terms and under such restrictions as the parliament imposed, owned indeed suffi- ciently that they did not belong of right to the crown. He owned likewise in effect, more than any prince who went before him, how absolutely the disposition of the crown of England belongs to the people of England, by procuring so many different and opposite settle- ments of it to be made in parliament." The increased weight of the commons in the Tudor reigns is proved by the desire of the govern- ment to obtain victories at elections. New boroughs were then created for the express purpose of adding to the government's influ- ence in the house of commons, and to this ac- tion are attributed the irregularities that have existed in the popular representation of Eng- land. Government interfered in elections, and bribed members of the house. Henry's daugh- ter, Mary, dissolved two parliaments because they would not do what she desired ; and the third was not always compliant. The abbey lands could not be restored to the church, nor the English crown settled on Philip II., because of the hostility of parliament to both schemes. The reformation had great political effects, the chief of which was the increase of the power of the crown. Henry VIIL was pope of Eng-