110. The close of the Hundred Years' War was followed in England by the Wars of the Roses, between the rival houses which were struggling for the crown. The badge of the house of Lancaster, to which Henry VI belonged, was a red rose, and that of the duke of York, who proposed to push him off his throne, was a white one. Each party was supported by a group of the wealthy and powerful n.o.bles whose rivalries, conspiracies, treasons, murders, and executions fill the annals of England during the period which we have been discussing. Vast estates had come into the hands of the higher n.o.bility by inheritance, and marriages with wealthy heiresses. Many of the dukes and earls were related to the royal family and consequently were inevitably drawn into the dynastic struggles.

[Sidenote: Retainers.]

The n.o.bles no longer owed their power to va.s.sals who were bound to follow them to war. Like the king, they relied upon hired soldiers. It was easy to find plenty of restless fellows who were willing to become the retainers of a n.o.bleman if he would agree to clothe them with his livery and keep open house, where they might eat and drink their fill.

Their master was to help them when they got into trouble, and they on their part were expected to intimidate, misuse, and even murder at need those who opposed the interests of their chief. When the French war was over, the unruly elements of society poured back across the Channel and, as retainers of the rival lords, became the terror of the country. They bullied judges and juries, and helped the n.o.bles to control the selection of those who were sent to Parliament.

[Sidenote: Edward IV secures the crown.]

It is needless to speak of the several battles and the many skirmishes of the miserable Wars of the Roses. These lasted from 1455, when the duke of York set seriously to work to displace the weak-minded Lancastrian king, Henry VI, until the accession of Henry VII, of the house of Tudor, thirty years later. After several battles the Yorkist leader, Edward IV, a.s.sumed the crown in 1461 and was recognized by Parliament, which declared Henry VI and the two preceding Lancastrian kings usurpers.[191] Edward was a vigorous monarch and maintained his own until his death in 1483.

[Sidenote: Edward V, 1483; Richard III, 1483-1485.]

[Sidenote: Death of Richard in the battle of Bosworth Field.]

[Sidenote: Accession of Henry VII of the house of Tudor, 1485.]

[Sidenote: End of the Wars of the Roses.]

Edward's son, Edward V, was only a little boy, so that the government fell into the hands of the young king's uncle, Richard, Duke of Gloucester. The temptation to make himself king was too great to be resisted, and Richard soon seized the crown. Both the sons of Edward IV were killed in the Tower of London, and with the knowledge of their uncle, as it was commonly believed. This murder made Richard unpopular even at a time when one could kill one's political rivals without incurring general opprobrium. A new aspirant to the throne organized a conspiracy. Richard III was defeated and slain in the battle of Bosworth Field in 1485, and the crown which had fallen from his head was placed upon that of the first Tudor king, Henry VII. The latter had no particular right to it, although he was descended from Edward III through his mother. He hastened to procure the recognition of Parliament, and married Edward IV's daughter, thus blending the red and white roses in the Tudor badge.[192]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FRANCE UNDER LOUIS XI]

[Sidenote: The despotism of the Tudors.]

The Wars of the Roses had important results. Nearly all the powerful families of England had been drawn into the fierce struggles, and a great part of the n.o.bility, whom the kings had formerly feared, had perished on the battlefield or lost their heads in the ruthless executions carried out by each party after it gained a victory. This left the king far more powerful than ever before. He could now dominate Parliament, if he could not dispense with it. For a century and more the Tudor kings enjoyed almost despotic power. England ceased for a time to enjoy the free government for which the foundations had been laid under the Edwards and the Lancastrian kings, whose embarra.s.sments at home and abroad had made them constantly dependent upon the aid of the nation.[193]

[Sidenote: France establishes a standing army, 1439.]

111. In France the closing years of the Hundred Years' War had witnessed a great increase of the king's power through the establishment of a well-organized standing army. The feudal army had long since disappeared. Even before the opening of the war the n.o.bles had begun to be paid for their military services and no longer furnished troops as a condition of holding fiefs. But the companies of soldiers, although nominally under the command of royal officers, were often really independent of the king. They found their pay very uncertain, and plundered their countrymen as well as the enemy. As the war drew to a close, the lawless troopers became a terrible scourge to the country and were known as _flayers_, on account of the horrible way in which they tortured the peasants in the hope of extracting money from them. In 1439 the Estates General approved a plan devised by the king, for putting an end to this evil. Thereafter no one was to raise a company without the permission of the king, who was to name the captains and fix the number of the soldiers and the character of their arms.[194]

[Sidenote: The permanent tax fatal to the powers of the Estates General.]

The Estates agreed that the king should use a certain tax, called the _taille_, to support the troops necessary for the protection of the frontier. This was a fatal concession, for the king now had an army and the right to collect what he chose to consider a permanent tax, the amount of which he later greatly increased; he was not dependent, as was the English king, upon the grants made for brief periods by the representatives of the nation.

[Sidenote: The new feudalism.]

Before the king of France could hope to establish a compact, well-organized state it was necessary for him to reduce the power of his va.s.sals, some of whom were almost his equals in strength. The older feudal dynasties, as we have seen, had many of them succ.u.mbed to the attacks and the diplomacy of the kings of the thirteenth century, especially of St. Louis. But he and his successors had raised up fresh rivals by granting whole provinces, called _appanages_,[195] to their younger sons. In this way new and powerful lines of feudal n.o.bles were established, such, for example, as the houses of Orleans, Anjou, Bourbon, and, above all, of Burgundy. The accompanying map shows the region immediately subject to the king--the royal domain--at the time of the expulsion of the English. It clearly indicates what still remained to be done in order to free France from feudalism and make it a great nation. The process of reducing the prerogatives of the n.o.bles had been begun. They had been forbidden to coin money, to maintain armies, and to tax their subjects, and the powers of the king's judges had been extended over all the realm. But the task of consolidating France was reserved for the son of Charles VII, the shrewd and treacherous Louis XI (1461-1483).

[Sidenote: Extent of the Burgundian possessions in the fifteenth century.]

By far the most dangerous of Louis' va.s.sals were Philip the Good, Duke of Burgundy (1419-1467), and his impetuous son, Charles the Bold (1467-1477). Just a century before Louis XI came to the throne, the old line of Burgundian dukes had died out, and in 1363 the same King John whom the English captured and carried off to England, presented Burgundy to his younger son Philip.[196] By fortunate marriages and lucky windfalls the dukes of Burgundy had added a number of important fiefs to their original possessions, and Philip the Good ruled over Franche-Comte, Luxembourg, Flanders, Artois, Brabant, and other provinces and towns which lie in what is now Holland and Belgium.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Louis XI]

[Sidenote: Ambition of Charles the Bold, 1467-1477.]

Charles the Bold busied himself for some years before his father's death in forming alliances with the other powerful French va.s.sals and conspiring against Louis. Upon becoming duke himself he set his heart upon two things. He resolved, first, to conquer Lorraine, which divided his territories into two parts and made it difficult to pa.s.s from Franche-Comte to Luxembourg. In the second place, he proposed to have himself crowned king of the territories which his forefathers had acc.u.mulated and in this way establish a strong new state between France and Germany.

[Sidenote: Charles defeated by the Swiss at Granson and Murten, 1476.]

Naturally neither the king of France nor the emperor sympathized with Charles' ambitions. Louis taxed his exceptional ingenuity in frustrating his aspiring va.s.sal; and the emperor refused to crown Charles as king when he appeared at Trier eager for the ceremony. The most humiliating, however, of the defeats which Charles encountered came from an unexpected quarter. He attempted to chastise his neighbors the Swiss for siding with his enemies and was soundly beaten by that brave people in two memorable battles.

[Ill.u.s.tration: BRONZE STATUES OF PHILIP THE GOOD AND CHARLES THE BOLD AT INNSBRUCK]

[Sidenote: Death of Charles, 1477.]

[Sidenote: Marriage of Mary of Burgundy to Maximilian of Austria.]

The next year Charles fell ingloriously in an attempt to take the town of Nancy. His lands went to his daughter Mary, who was immediately married to the emperor's son, Maximilian, much to the disgust of Louis, who had already seized the duchy of Burgundy and hoped to gain still more. The great importance of this marriage, which resulted in bringing the Netherlands into the hands of Austria, will be seen when we come to consider Charles V (the grandson of Mary and Maximilian) and his vast empire.[197]

[Sidenote: Work of Louis XI.]

Louis XI did far more for the French monarchy than check his chief va.s.sal and reclaim a part of the Burgundian territory. He had himself made heir to a number of provinces in central and southern France,--Anjou, Maine, Provence, etc.,--which by the death of their possessors came under the king's immediate control (1481). He humiliated in various ways the va.s.sals who in his early days had combined with Charles the Bold against him. The duke of Alencon he imprisoned; the rebellious duke of Nemours he caused to be executed in the most cruel manner. Louis' political aims were worthy, but his means were generally despicable. It sometimes seemed as if he gloried in being the most rascally among rascals, the most treacherous among the traitors whom he so artfully circ.u.mvented in the interests of the French monarchy.[198]

[Sidenote: England and France establish strong national governments.]

Both England and France emerged from the troubles and desolations of the Hundred Years' War stronger than ever before. In both countries the kings had overcome the menace of feudalism by destroying the power of the great families. The royal government was becoming constantly more powerful. Commerce and industry increased the national wealth and supplied the monarchs with the revenue necessary to maintain government officials and a sufficient armed force to execute the laws and keep order throughout their realms. They were no longer forced to rely upon the uncertain pledges of their va.s.sals. In short, the French and the English were both becoming nations, each with a strong national feeling and a king whom every one, both high and low, recognized and obeyed as the head of the government.

[Sidenote: Influence of the development of modern states upon the position of the mediaeval Church.]

It is obvious that the strengthening of the royal power could hardly fail to alter the position of the mediaeval Church. This was, as we have seen, not simply a religious inst.i.tution but a sort of international state which performed a number of important governmental duties. We must, therefore, now turn back and review the history of the Church from the time of Edward I and Philip the Fair to the opening of the sixteenth century.

General Reading.--For the political history of this period, LODGE, _Close of the Middle Ages_ (The Macmillan Company, $1.75), is the best work, although rather dry and c.u.mbered with names which might have been omitted. For the general history of France, see in addition to ADAMS, _Growth of the French Nation_ (The Macmillan Company, $1.25), DURUY, _A History of France_ (T.Y. Crowell, $2.00). The economic history of England is to be found in the works mentioned at the end of Chapter XVIII. The following collections of doc.u.ments furnish ill.u.s.trative material in abundance: LEE, _Source-book of English History_ (Holt, $2.00); COLBY, _Selections from the Sources of English History_, (Longmans, Green & Co., $1.50); ADAMS & STEPHENS, _Select Doc.u.ments of English Const.i.tutional History_ (The Macmillan Company, $2.25); KENDALL, _Source Book of English History_ (The Macmillan Company, 80 cents).

CHAPTER XXI

THE POPES AND THE COUNCILS

[Sidenote: The problem of the relation of church and state.]

112. The influence which the Church and its head exercised over the civil government in the Middle Ages was due largely to the absence of strong, efficient rulers who could count upon the support of a large body of prosperous and loyal subjects. So long as the feudal anarchy continued, the Church endeavored to supply the deficiencies of the restless and ignorant princes by striving to maintain order, administer justice, protect the weak, and encourage learning. So soon, however, as the modern state began to develop, difficulties arose. The clergy naturally clung to the powers and privileges which they had long enjoyed, and which they believed to be rightly theirs. On the other hand, the state, so soon as it felt itself able to manage its own affairs, protect its subjects, and provide for their worldly interests, was less and less inclined to tolerate the interference of the clergy and their head, the pope. Educated laymen were becoming more and more common, and the king was no longer obliged to rely upon the a.s.sistance of the clergy in conducting his government. It was natural that he should look with disfavor upon their privileges, which put them upon a different footing from the great ma.s.s of his subjects, and upon their wealth, which he would deem excessive and dangerous to his power. This situation raised the fundamental problem of the proper relation of church and state, upon which Europe has been working ever since the fourteenth century and has not completely solved yet.

[Sidenote: Edward I and Philip the Fair attempt to tax the clergy.]

The difficulty which the Church experienced in maintaining its power against the kings is excellently shown by the famous struggle between Philip the Fair, the grandson of St. Louis, and Boniface VIII, an old man of boundless ambition and inexhaustible energy who came to the papal throne in 1294. The first serious trouble arose over the habit into which the kings of England and France had fallen, of taxing the property of the churchmen like that of other subjects. It was natural after a monarch had squeezed all that he could out of the Jews and the towns, and had exacted every possible feudal due, that he should turn to the rich estates of the clergy, in spite of their claim that their property was dedicated to G.o.d and owed the king nothing. The extensive enterprises of Edward I led him in 1296 to demand one fifth of the personal property of the clergy. Philip the Fair exacted one hundredth and then one fiftieth of the possessions of clergy and laity alike.

[Sidenote: The bull _Clericis laicos_ of Boniface VIII, 1296.]

Against this impartial system Boniface protested in the famous bull _Clericis laicos_ (1296). He claimed that the laity had always been exceedingly hostile to the clergy, and that the rulers were now exhibiting this hostility by imposing heavy burdens upon the Church, forgetting that they had no control over the clergy and their possessions. The pope, therefore, forbade all churchmen, including the monks, to pay, without his consent, to a king or ruler any part of the Church's revenue or possessions upon any pretext whatsoever. He likewise forbade the kings and princes under pain of excommunication to presume to exact any such payments.

[Sidenote: Boniface concedes a limited right to tax churchmen.]

It happened that just as the pope was prohibiting the clergy from contributing to the taxes, Philip the Fair had forbidden the exportation of all gold and silver from the country. In that way he cut off an important source of the pope's revenue, for the church of France could obviously no longer send anything to Rome. The pope was forced to give up his extreme claims. He explained the following year that he had not meant to interfere with the payment on the clergy's part of customary feudal dues nor with their loans of money to the king.[199]