Front matter (continued 5)

But fortune interposed and Warwick fell. For England's sake perhaps it was well that it should be so. If he had succeeded, and Edward had been driven once more from the land, we may be sure that the Wars of the Roses would have dragged on for many another year; the house of York had too many heirs and too many followers to allow of its dispossession without a long time of further trouble. The cause of Lancaster, on the other hand, was bound up in a single life; when Prince Edward fell in the Bloody Meadow, as he fled from the field of Tewkesbury, the struggle was ended perforce, for no one survived to claim his rights. Henry of Richmond, whom an unexpected chance ultimately placed on the throne, was neither in law nor in fact the real heir of the house of Lancaster. On the other hand, Warwick's success would have led, so far as we can judge, first to a continuance of civil war, then, if he had ultimately been successful in rooting out the Yorkists, to a protracted political struggle between the house of Neville and the old Lancastrian party headed by the Beauforts and probably aided by the Queen; for it is doubtful how far the marriage of Prince Edward and Anne Neville would ever have served to reconcile two such enemies as the Earl and Margaret of Anjou. If Warwick had held his own, and his abilities and his popularity combined to make it likely, his victory would have meant the domination of a family group—a form of government which no nation has endured for long. At the best, the history of the last thirty years of the fifteenth century in England would have been a tale resembling that of the days when the house of Douglas struggled with the crown of Scotland, or the Guises with the rulers of France.

Yet for Warwick as a ruler there would have been much to be said. To a king of the type of Henry the Sixth the Earl would have made a perfect minister and vicegerent, if only he could have been placed in the position without a preliminary course of bloodshed and civil war. The misfortune for England was that his lot was cast not with Henry the Sixth, but with strong-willed, hot-headed, selfish Edward the Fourth.

The two prominent features in Warwick's character which made him a leader of men, were not those which might have been expected in a man born and reared in his position. The first was an inordinate love of the activity of business; the second was a courtesy and affability which made him the friend of all men save the one class he could not brook—the "made lords," the parvenu nobility which Edward the Fourth delighted to foster.

Of these characteristics it is impossible to exaggerate the strength of the first. Warwick's ambition took the shape of a devouring love of work of all kinds. Prominent though he was as a soldier, his activity in war was only one side of his passionate desire to manage well and thoroughly everything that came to his hand. He never could cease for a moment to be busy; from the first moment when he entered into official harness in 1455 down to the day of his death, he seems hardly to have rested for a moment. The energy of his soul took him into every employment—general, admiral, governor, judge, councillor, ambassador, as the exigencies of the moment demanded; he was always moving, always busy, and never at leisure. When the details of his life are studied, the most striking point is to find how seldom he was at home, how constantly away at public service. His castles and manors saw comparatively little of him. It was not at Warwick or Amesbury, at Caerphilly or Middleham that he was habitually to be found, but in London, or Calais, or York, or on the Scotch Border. It was not that he neglected his vassals and retainers—the loyalty with which they rallied to him on every occasion is sufficient evidence to the contrary—but he preferred to be a great minister and official, not merely a great baron and feudal chief.

In this sense, then, it is most deceptive to call Warwick the Last of the Barons. Vast though his strength might be as the greatest landholder in England, it was as a statesman and administrator that he left his mark on the age. He should be thought of as the forerunner of Wolsey rather than as the successor of Robert of Belesme, or the Bohuns and Bigods. That the world remembers him as a turbulent noble is a misfortune. Such a view is only drawn from a hasty survey of the last three or four years of his life, when under desperate provocation he was driven to use for personal ends the vast feudal power that lay ready to his hand. If he had died in 1468, he would be remembered in history as an able soldier and statesman, who with singular perseverance and consistency devoted his life to consolidating England under the house of York.

After his restless activity, Warwick's most prominent characteristic was his geniality. No statesman was ever so consistently popular with the mass of the nation, through all the alternations of good and evil fortune. This popularity the Earl owed to his unswerving courtesy and affability; "he ever had the good voice of the people, because he gave them fair words, showing himself easy and familiar," says the chronicler. Wherever he was well known he was well liked. His own Yorkshire and Midland vassals, who knew him as their feudal lord, the seamen who had served under him as admiral, the Kentishmen who saw so much of him while he was captain of Calais, were all his unswerving followers down to the day of his death. The Earl's boundless generosity, the open house which he kept for all who had any claim on him, the zeal with which he pushed the fortunes of his dependents, will only partially explain his popularity. As much must be ascribed to his genial personality as to the trouble which he took to court the people. His whole career was possible because the majority of the nation not only trusted and respected but honestly liked him. This it was which explains the "king-making" of his later years. Men grew so accustomed to follow his lead that they would even acquiesce when he transferred his allegiance from King Edward to King Henry. It was not because he was the greatest landholder of England that he was able to dispose of the crown at his good will; but because, after fifteen years of public life, he had so commended himself to the majority of the nation that they were ready to follow his guidance even when he broke with all his earlier associations.

But Warwick was something more than active, genial, and popular; nothing less than first-rate abilities would have sufficed to carry him through his career. On the whole, it was as a statesman that he was most fitted to shine. His power of managing men was extraordinary; even King Louis of France, the hardest and most unemotional of men, seems to have been amenable to his influence. He was as successful with men in the mass as with individuals; he could sway a parliament or an army with equal ease to his will. How far he surpassed the majority of his contemporaries in political prescience is shown by the fact that, in spite of Yorkist traditions, he saw clearly that England must give up her ancient claims on France, and continually worked to reconcile the two countries.

In war Warwick was a commander of ability; good for all ordinary emergencies where courage and a cool head would carry him through, but not attaining the heights of military genius displayed by his pupil Edward. His battles were fought in the old English style of Edward the Third and Henry the Fifth, by lines of archery flanked by clumps of billmen and dismounted knights. He is found employing both cannon and hand-gun men, but made no decisive or novel use of either, except in the case of his siege-artillery in the campaign of 1464. Nor did he employ cavalry to any great extent; his men dismounted to fight like their grandfathers at Agincourt, although the power of horsemen had again revindicated itself on the Continent. The Earl was a cool and capable commander; he was not one of the hot-headed feudal chiefs who strove to lead every charge. It was his wont to conduct his first line to the attack and then to retire and take command of the reserve, with which he delivered his final attack in person. This caution led some contemporary critics, especially Burgundians who contrasted his conduct with the headlong valour of Charles the Rash, to throw doubts on his personal courage. The sneer was ridiculous. The man who was first into the High Street at St. Albans, who fought through the ten hours of Towton, and won a name by his victories at sea in an age when sea-fights were carried on by desperate hand-to-hand attempts to board, might afford to laugh at any such criticism. If he fell at Barnet "somewhat flying," as the Yorkist chronicler declares, he was surely right in endeavouring to save himself for another field; he knew that one lost battle would not wreck his cause, while his own life was the sole pledge of the union between the Lancastrian party and the majority of the nation.

Brave, courteous, liberal, active, and able, a generous lord to his followers, an untiring servant to the commonweal, Warwick had all that was needed to attract the homage of his contemporaries: they called him, as the Kentish ballad-monger sang, "a very noble knight, the flower of manhood." But it is only fair to record that he bore in his character the fatal marks of the two sins which distinguished the English nobles of his time. Occasionally he was reckless in bloodshedding. Once in his life he descended to the use of a long and deliberate course of treason and treachery.

In the first-named sin Warwick had less to reproach himself with than most of his contemporaries. He never authorised a massacre, or broke open a sanctuary, or entrapped men by false pretences in order to put them to death. In battle, too, he always bid his men to spare the Commons. Moreover, some of his crimes of bloodshed are easily to be palliated: Mundeford and the other captains whom he beheaded at Calais had broken their oath of loyalty to him; the Bastard of Exeter, whom he executed at York, had been the prime agent in the murder of his father. The only wholly unpardonable act of the Earl was his slaying of the Woodvilles and Herberts in 1469. They had been his bitter enemies, it is true; but to avenge political rivalries with the axe, without any legal form of trial, was unworthy of the high reputation which Warwick had up to that moment enjoyed. It increases rather than lessens the sum of his guilt to say that he did not publicly order their death, but allowed them to be executed by rebels whom he had roused and might as easily have quieted.

But far worse, in a moral aspect, than the slaying of the Woodvilles and Herberts, was the course of treachery and deceit that had preceded it. That the Earl had been wantonly insulted by his thankless master in a way that would have driven even one of milder mood to desperation, we have stated elsewhere. An ideally loyal man might have borne the King's ingratitude in silent dignity, and foresworn the Court for ever: a hot-headed man might have burst out at once into open rebellion; but Warwick did neither. When his first gust of wrath had passed, he set himself to seek revenge by secret treachery. He returned to the Court, was superficially reconciled to his enemies, and bore himself as if he had forgotten his wrongs. Yet all the while he was organising an armed rising to sweep the Woodvilles and Herberts away, and to coerce the King into subjection to his will. The plan was as unwise as it was unworthy. Although Warwick's treason was for the moment entirely successful, it made any confidence between himself and his master impossible for the future. At the earliest opportunity Edward revenged himself on Warwick with the same weapons that had been used against himself, and drove the Earl into exile.

There is nothing in Warwick's subsequent reconciliation with the Lancastrians which need call up our moral indignation. It was the line of conduct which forced him into that connection that was evil, not the connection itself. There is no need to reproach him for changing his allegiance; no other course was possible to him in the circumstances. The King had cast him off, not he the King. When he transferred his loyalty to the house of Lancaster, he never swerved again. All the offers which Edward made to him after his return in 1471 were treated with contempt. Warwick was not the man to sell himself to the highest bidder.

If then Warwick was once in his life driven into treachery and bloodthirsty revenge, we must set against his crime his fifteen long years of honest and consistent service to the cause he had made his own, and remember how dire was the provocation which drove him to betray it. Counting his evil deeds of 1469-70 at their worst, he will still compare not unfavourably with any other of the leading Englishmen of his time. Even in that demoralised age his sturdy figure stands out in not unattractive colours. Born in a happier generation, his industry and perseverance, his courage and courtesy, his liberal hand and generous heart, might have made him not only the idol of his followers, but the bulwark of the commonwealth. Cast into the godless times of the Wars of the Roses, he was doomed to spend in the cause of a faction the abilities that were meant to benefit a whole nation; the selfishness, the cruelty, the political immorality of the age, left their mark on his character; his long and honourable career was at last stained by treason, and his roll of successes terminated by a crushing defeat. Even after his death his misfortune has not ended. Popular history has given him a scanty record merely as the Kingmaker or the Last of the Barons, as a selfish intriguer or a turbulent feudal chief; and for four hundred and ten years he has lacked even the doubtful honour of a biography.

FOOTNOTES

THE END

Printed by R. & R. Clark, Limited, Edinburgh.

English Men of Action Series.

Crown 8vo. Cloth. With Portraits. 2s. 6d. each.

COLIN CAMPBELL. By Archibald Forbes. VE. By Sir Charles Wilson. CAPTAIN COOK. By Sir Walter Besant. DAMPIER. By W. Clark Russell. DRAKE. By Julian Corbett. DUNDONALD. By the Hon. J.W. Fortescue. GENERAL GORDON. By Sir W. Butler. WARREN HASTINGS. By Sir A. Lyall. SIR HENRY HAVELOCK. By Archibald Forbes. HENRY V. By the Rev. A.J. Church. LORD LAWRENCE. By Sir Richard Temple. LIVINGSTONE. By Thomas Hughes. MONK. By Julian Corbett. MONTROSE. By Mowbray Morris. SIR CHARLES NAPIER. By Sir W. Butler. NELSON. By Sir J.K. Laughton. PETERBOROUGH. By W. Stebbing. SIR WALTER RALEIGH. By Sir Rennell Rodd. RODNEY. By David Hannay. CAPTAIN JOHN SMITH. By A.G. Bradley. STRAFFORD. By H.D. Traill. WARWICK, the King-Maker. By C.W. Oman. WELLINGTON. By George Hooper. WOLFE. By A.G. Bradley.

MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd., LONDON.

English Men of Letters.

NEW SERIES

Crown 8vo. Gilt tops. Flat backs. 2s. net each.

MATTHEW ARNOLD. By Herbert W. Paul. JANE AUSTEN. By F. Warre Cornish. SIR THOMAS BROWNE. By Edmund Gosse. BROWNING. By G.K. Chesterton. FANNY BURNEY. By Austin Dobson. CRABBE. By Alfred Ainger. MARIA EDGEWORTH. By the Hon. Emily Lawless. GEORGE ELIOT. By Sir Leslie Stephen, K.C.B. EDWARD FITZGERALD. By A.C. Benson. HAZLITT. By Augustine Birrell, K.C. HOBBES. By Sir Leslie Stephen, K.C.B. ANDREW MARVELL. By Augustine Birrell, K.C. THOMAS MOORE. By Stephen Gwynn. WILLIAM MORRIS. By Alfred Noyes. WALTER PATER. By A.C. Benson. RICHARDSON. By Austin Dobson. ROSSETTI. By A.C. Benson. RUSKIN. By Frederic Harrison. SHAKESPEARE. By Walter Raleigh. ADAM SMITH. By Francis W. Hirst. SYDNEY SMITH. By George W.E. Russell. JEREMY TAYLOR. By Edmund Gosse. TENNYSON. By Sir Alfred Lyall. JAMES THOMSON. By G.C. Macaulay.

IN PREPARATION.

MRS. GASKELL. By Clement Shorter. BEN JONSON. By Prof. Gregory Smith.

MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd., LONDON.

English Men of Letters.

Edited by Viscount MORLEY

Library Edition. Crown 8vo. Gilt tops. Flat backs. 2s. net per vol.

Popular Edition. Crown 8vo. Cloth, 1s. 6d. Sewed, 1s. each.

Pocket Edition. Fcap. 8vo. Special Cover Design. Cloth, 1s. net each.

ADDISON. By W.J. Courthope. BACON. By Dean Church. BENTLEY. By Sir Richard Jebb. BUNYAN. By J.A. Froude. BURKE. By Viscount Morley. BURNS. By Prof. J.C. Shairp. BYRON. By Professor J. Nichol. CARLYLE. By Professor J. Nichol. CHAUCER. By Sir A.W. Ward. COLERIDGE. By H.D. Traill. COWPER. By Goldwin Smith. DEFOE. By W. Minto. DE QUINCEY. By Professor D. Masson. DICKENS. By Sir A.W. Ward. DRYDEN. By Professor G. Saintsbury. FIELDING. By Austin Dobson. GIBBON. By J. Cotter Morison. GOLDSMITH. By W. Black. GRAY. By Edmund Gosse. HAWTHORNE. By Henry James. HUME. By Professor Huxley, F.R.S. JOHNSON. By Sir Leslie Stephen, K.C.B. KEATS. By Sir Sidney Colvin. LAMB, CHARLES. By Canon Ainger. LANDOR. By Sir Sidney Colvin. LOCKE. By Thomas Fowler. MACAULAY. By J. Cotter Morison. MILTON. By Mark Pattison. POPE. By Sir Leslie Stephen, K.C.B. SCOTT. By R.H. Hutton. SHELLEY. By J.A. Symonds. SHERIDAN. By Mrs. Oliphant. SIDNEY. By J.A. Symonds. SOUTHEY. By Professor E. Dowden. SPENSER. By Dean Church. STERNE. By H.D. Traill. SWIFT. By Sir Leslie Stephen, K.C.B. THACKERAY. By Anthony Trollope. WORDSWORTH. By F.W.H. Myers.

MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd., LONDON.

Twelve English Statesmen.

Edited by Viscount MORLEY.

Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. each.

WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR. By Edward A. Freeman, D.C.L., LL.D.

TIMES.—"Gives with great picturesqueness ... the dramatic incidents of a memorable career far removed from our times and our manner of thinking."

HENRY II. By Mrs. J.R. Green.

TIMES.—"It is delightfully real and readable, and in spite of severe compression has the charm of a mediæval romance."

EDWARD I. By Prof. T.F. Tout, M.A. History, The Owens College, Manchester.

SPEAKER.—"A truer or more life-like picture of the king, the conqueror, the overlord, the duke, has never yet been drawn."

HENRY VII. By Dr. James Gairdner, C.B.

ATHENÆUM.—"The best account of Henry VII. that has yet appeared."

CARDINAL WOLSEY. By Bishop Creighton, D.D.

SATURDAY REVIEW.—"Is exactly what one of a series of short biographies of English Statesmen ought to be."

ELIZABETH. By E.S. Beesly, M.A.

MANCHESTER GUARDIAN.—"It may be recommended as the best and briefest and most trustworthy of the many books that in this generation have dealt with the life and deeds of that 'bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth of happy memory.'"

OLIVER CROMWELL. By Frederic Harrison.

TIMES.—"Gives a wonderfully vivid picture of events."

WILLIAM III. By H.D. Traill.

SPECTATOR.—"Mr. Traill has done his work well in the limited space at his command. The narrative portion is clear and vivacious, and his criticisms, although sometimes trenchant, are substantially just."

WALPOLE. By Viscount Morley.

ST. JAMES'S GAZETTE.—"It deserves to be read, not only as the work of one of the most prominent politicians of the day, but for its intrinsic merits. It is a clever, thoughtful, and interesting biography."

PITT. By Lord Rosebery.

TIMES.—"Brilliant and fascinating.... The style is terse, masculine, nervous, articulate, and clear; the grasp of circumstance and character is firm, penetrating, luminous, and unprejudiced; the judgment is broad, generous, humane, and scrupulously candid.... It is not only a luminous estimate of Pitt's character and policy; it is also a brilliant gallery of portraits. The portrait of Fox, for example, is a masterpiece."

PEEL. By J.R. Thursfield, M.A.

DAILY NEWS.—"A model of what such a book should be. We can give it no higher praise than to say that it is worthy to rank with Mr. John Morley's Walpole in the same series."

CHATHAM. By Frederic Harrison.

ST. JAMES'S GAZETTE.—"It comes near the model of what such a book should be."

MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd., LONDON.