meet them. But poverty was neither so deep nor so widespread as it is now, nor as it soon became, and the monasteries and gilds (when they did their duty) were possibly quite as efficient as a modern Board of Guardians. On the whole, then, the fifteenth century was a period of prosperity and content, in spite of both civil and foreign wars; and even the wasteful reign of Henry VI., with its unsuccessful wars with France,1 and huge subsidies to carry them on, though it made the Government unpopular and caused widespread national discontent and occasional insurrections in Kent and Wiltshire, did not materially injure the general welfare. The king himself, however, was nearly bankrupt. The Wars of the Roses which followed (1455-86) do not seem to have affected the country at large very much, being mostly fought in a series of much exaggerated skirmishes by small bodies of nobles and their followers. So, at least, one might infer from the small effect they had upon wages and prices. They ended in charity sufficed for the necessities of the poor. Most of the legislation on the subject was directed against idleness and random begging. The statutes of 1388, 1495 and 1504 were among the first attempts at a law of settlement and organised relief. But these acts refer only to professional mendicants, (including pilgrims, friars, and even University scholars) and it is probable that for the poor who remained at home and were not vagrants no such legislation was needed (ih. p. 603). It was vagrancy more than unrelieved poverty that was the cause of legislation. 1 For this war cf. the useful summary in Burrows Commentaries on the Hist. of Eng., pp. 215-221 and Green, History of the English People, i. pp. 547-563. 2 Cf. Stubbs, Const. Hist., iii., pp. 86-125. 3 This was the rebellion under Cade, in Kent, (June 1450). It was purely political and has no such social significance as the Revolt of 1381. See Stubbs, Const. Hist., iii. xviii. p. 150. In Wiltshire the Bishop of Salisbury was murdered. Ib. p. 152. Ib. pp. 117 and 144. 544 'Happily a war of barons and their retainers rather than of the nation generally. The towns suffered but little." Burrows, Commentaries, p. 222. On the other hand, Denton, Fifteenth Century, p. 115, says that the Wars of the Roses were of a most devastating character, and that one-tenth of the population were killed. If so, it is extraordinary that so little effect is noticeable in manorial accounts. The statements of the Chroniclers as to numbers slain must be received in this case, as in that of the Black Death, with the utmost caution. "Rogers, Six Centuries, pp. 332-334. "It had no bearing on work and wages," (p. 334) the ruin of the majority of the feudal aristocracy,1 and at the same time opened a further path for the influence of the industrial classes, whose favour Henry VII. had the wisdom to court, and in return was supported by them in his policy of weakening the power of the great barons. He encouraged commerce,2 and secured peace for his kingdom while gaining by rather dubious methods considerable wealth for his treasury.3 In his reign the nation prospered, and the Middle Ages came to a close in a progressive and industrious England (1500 A.D.). But before the next century was completed great changes had taken place, one class at least had received a severe blow, and some of the worst difficulties of modern days had already begun. 1 For the mutual destruction of the nobles cf. Gairdner, Lancaster and York, p. 227. It is quite true, however, as Denton remarks (Fifteenth Century, p. 261) that the wealth of the few who remained was greatly increased, e.g. the peers Buckingham, Northumberland and Norfolk. 2 E.g. by his treaties with Denmark in 1490 (Rymer, Foedera, xii. 381) with Florence (ib. xii. 390) in the same year, and the "Intercursus magnus' with Flanders in 1496, (ib. xii. 578). 3 He had as much as £1,800,000. Gardiner, Student's History of England, i. 357. One proof of prosperity is that the nation could never have stood the burden of the French Wars as it did unless it had been fairly prosperous. Another proof is the growth of sheep-farming, which, as said above, indicates growing manufactures. Yet a third is the making of commercial treaties, as mentioned in note 2. SPECIAL NOTE. A study of the map opposite, showing the distribution of wealth in the various counties at the close of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth century, will give a clear idea of the general state of the country. The wealthiest counties werc, at this period, nearly all agricultural; while the north and north-western counties, now so rich, were then among the poorest. Compare the maps opposite pp. 263, 350, and 454. This Map is based on the assessment of counties made in 1503 by Henry VII., for a special "aid." The table of counties in order of their assessment will be found in Rogers' Hist. Agric., iv. 89. The basis adopted is the number of acres to every 1 of assessment, the richer counties thus having the least number of acres to the £1. NOTE. This Map should be compared with that opposite page 263. Light Red. Light Green. 31 |