toleration. On the other hand, though Henry IV., who was immeasurably
superior to his warlike son in intellect and statesmanship, had
favoured the growing commercial spirit, it had received nothing but
injury under Henry V., and little better than contempt under Henry VI.
The accession of the Yorkists was, then, on two grounds a great
popular movement; and it was followed by a third advantage to the
popular cause,--namely, in the determined desire both of Edward and
Richard III. to destroy the dangerous influence of the old feudal
aristocracy. To this end Edward laboured in the creation of a court
noblesse; and Richard, with the more dogged resolution that belonged
to him, went at once to the root of the feudal power, in forbidding
the nobles to give badges and liveries (this also was forbidden, it is
true, by the edict of Edward IV. as well as by his predecessors from
the reign of Richard II.; but no king seems to have had the courage to
enforce the prohibition before Richard III.),--in other words, to
appropriate armies under the name of retainers. Henry VII., in short,
did not originate the policy for which he has monopolized the credit;
he did but steadily follow out the theory of raising the middle class
and humbling the baronial, which the House of York first put into
practice.] shown itself on this point more liberal in its policy, more
free from feudal prejudices, than that of the Plantagenets. Even
Edward II. was tenacious of the commerce with Genoa, and an
intercourse with the merchant princes of that republic probably served
to associate the pursuits of commerce with the notion of rank and
power. Edward III. is still called the Father of English Commerce;
but Edward IV. carried the theories of his ancestors into far more
extensive practice, for his own personal profit. This king, so
indolent in the palace, was literally the most active merchant in the
mart. He traded largely in ships of his own, freighted with his own
goods; and though, according to sound modern economics, this was