. . [Transcriber's note: Obvious printer's errors have been corrected. The original spelling has been retained. ]

 HENRY VIII. 

 _BY THE SAME AUTHOR. _

 FROM THE ACCESSION OF EDWARD VI. TO THE DEATH OF ELIZABETH (1547-1603). (Political History of England, Vol. VI. ). With 2 Maps. 

 THE COMMONWEALTH AT WAR. 8vo. 

 THE WAR: ITS HISTORY AND MORALS. 8vo. 

 THE REIGN OF HENRY VII. FROM CONTEMPORARY SOURCES. Selected and arranged with an Introduction. Crown 8vo. 

 Vol. I. Narrative Extracts. Vol. II. Constitutional, Social, and Economic History. Vol. III. Diplomacy, Ecclesiastical Affairs and Ireland. 

 * * * * *

 UNIVERSITY OF LONDON INTERMEDIATE SOURCE-BOOKS OF HISTORY. 

 ILLUSTRATIONS OF CHAUCER'S ENGLAND. Edited by MISS DOROTHY HUGHES. With a Preface by A. F. POLLARD, M. A. , Litt. D. , Fellow of All Souls, and Professor of English History in the University of London. Crown 8vo. 

 ENGLAND UNDER THE YORKISTS. 1460-1485. Illustrated from Contemporary Sources by ISOBEL D. THORNLEY, M. A. , Assistant in the Department of History, University College, London. With a Preface by A. F. POLLARD, M. A. , Litt. D. Crown 8vo. 

 LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO. , LONDON, NEW YORK, BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS. 

 HENRY VIII. 

 BY

 A. F. POLLARD, M. A. 

 Professor Of Constitutional History At University College, London; Examiner In Modern History In The Universities Of Oxford And London; Author Of "A Life Of Cranmer, " "England Under Protector Somerset, " Etc. , Etc. 

 _NEW IMPRESSION_

 LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON FOURTH AVENUE & 30th STREET, NEW YORK BOMBAY, CALCUTTA, AND MADRAS 1919

 _First published by Messrs. Goupil & Co. In June, 1902, with numerous illustrations. _ _New Edition, May, 1905. _ _Reprinted, January, 1913, and October, 1919. _

PREFACE. (p. V)

It is perhaps a matter rather for regret than for surprise that so fewattempts have been made to describe, as a whole, the life andcharacter of Henry VIII. No ruler has left a deeper impress on thehistory of his country, or done work which has been the subject ofmore keen and lasting contention. Courts of law are still debating theintention of statutes, the tenor of which he dictated; and the moral, political, and religious, are as much in dispute as the legal, resultsof his reign. He is still the Great Erastian, the protagonist of laityagainst clergy. His policy is inextricably interwoven with the highand eternal dilemma of Church and State; and it is well-nighimpossible for one who feels keenly on these questions to treat thereign of Henry VIII. In a reasonably judicial spirit. No periodillustrates more vividly the contradiction between morals andpolitics. In our desire to reprobate the immorality of Henry'smethods, we are led to deny their success; or, in our appreciation ofthe greatness of the ends he achieved, we seek to excuse the means hetook to achieve them. As with his policy, so with his character. (p. Vi)There was nothing commonplace about him; his good and his badqualities alike were exceptional. It is easy, by suppressing the oneor the other, to paint him a hero or a villain. He lends himselfreadily to polemic; but to depict his character in all its variedaspects, extenuating nothing nor setting down aught in malice, is atask of no little difficulty. It is two centuries and a half sinceLord Herbert produced his _Life and Reign of Henry VIII_. [1] The lateMr. Brewer, in his prefaces to the first four volumes of the _Lettersand Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII. _, published under the directionof the Master of the Rolls, dealt adequately with the earlier portionof Henry's career. But Mr. Brewer died when his work reached the year1530; his successor, Dr. James Gairdner, was directed to confine hisprefaces to the later volumes within the narrowest possible limits;and students of history were deprived of the prospect of asatisfactory account of Henry's later years from a writer ofunrivalled learning. 

 [Footnote 1: The edition cited in the text is that of 1672. ]

Henry's reign, from 1530 onwards, has been described by the late Mr. Froude in one of the most brilliant and fascinating masterpieces ofhistorical literature, a work which still holds the field in popular, if not in scholarly, estimation. But Mr. Froude does not begin untilHenry's reign was half over, until his character had been determinedby influences and events which lie outside the scope of Mr. (p. Vii)Froude's inquiry. Moreover, since Mr. Froude wrote, a flood of lighthas been thrown on the period by the publication of the above-mentioned_Letters and Papers_;[2] they already comprise a summary of betweenthirty and forty thousand documents in twenty thousand closely printedpages, and, when completed, will constitute the most magnificent bodyof materials for the history of any reign, ancient or modern, Englishor foreign. Simultaneously there have appeared a dozen volumescontaining the State papers preserved at Simancas, [3] Vienna andBrussels and similar series comprising the correspondence relating toVenice, [4] Scotland[5] and Ireland;[6] while the despatches of Frenchambassadors have been published under the auspices of the Ministry forForeign Affairs at Paris. [7] Still further information has been (p. Viii)provided by the labours of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, [8]the Camden, [9] the Royal Historical, [10] and other learned Societies. 

 [Footnote 2: This series, unlike the _Calendars of State Papers_, includes documents not preserved at the Record Office; it is often inaccurately cited as _Calendar of State Papers_, but the word "Calendar" does not appear in the title and it includes much besides State papers; such a description also tends to confuse it with the eleven volumes of Henry VIII. 's State papers published _in extenso_ in 1830-51. The series now extends to Dec. , 1544, and is cited in the text as _L. And P. _. ]

 [Footnote 3: Cited as _Spanish Calendar_; the volume completing Henry's reign was published in 1904. ]

 [Footnote 4: Cited as _Ven. Cal. _; this correspondence diminishes in importance as the reign proceeds, and also, after 1530, the documents are epitomised afresh in _L. And P. _. ]

 [Footnote 5: Three series, _viz. _, that edited by Thorp (2 vols. , 1858), a second edited by Bain (2 vols. , 1898) and the _Hamilton Papers_ (2 vols. , 1890-92). ]

 [Footnote 6: Vol. I. Of the _Irish Calendar_, and also of the _Carew MSS. _; see also the _Calendar of Fiants_ published by the Deputy-Keeper of Records for Ireland. ]

 [Footnote 7: _Correspondance de MM. Castillon et Marillac_, edited by Kaulek, and of _Odet de Selve_, 1888. ]

 [Footnote 8: The most important of these is vol. I. Of Lord Salisbury's MSS. ; other papers of Henry VIII. 's reign are scattered up and down the Appendices to a score and more of reports. ]

 [Footnote 9: _E. G. _, Wriothesley's _Chronicle_, _Chron. Of Calais_, and _Greyfriars Chron_. ]

 [Footnote 10: _E. G. _, Leadam, _Domesday of Inclosures_, and _Transactions_, _passim_. ]

These sources probably contain at least a million definite factsrelating to the reign of Henry VIII. ; and it is obvious that the taskof selection has become heavy as well as invidious. Mr. Froude hasexpressed his concurrence in the dictum that the facts of history arelike the letters of the alphabet; by selection and arrangement theycan be made to spell anything, and nothing can be arranged so easilyas facts. _Experto crede_. Yet selection is inevitable, andarrangement essential. The historian has no option if he wishes to beintelligible. He will naturally arrange his facts so that they spellwhat he believes to be the truth; and he must of necessity suppressthose facts which he judges to be immaterial or inconsistent with thescale on which he is writing. But if the superabundance of factscompels both selection and suppression, it counsels no less arestraint of judgment. A case in a court of law is not simplified by acloud of witnesses; and the new wealth of contemporary evidence (p. Ix)does not solve the problems of Henry's reign. It elucidates somepoints hitherto obscure, but it raises a host of others never beforesuggested. In ancient history we often accept statements writtenhundreds of years after the event, simply because we know no better;in modern history we frequently have half a dozen witnesses givinginconsistent accounts of what they have seen with their own eyes. Dogmatism is merely the result of ignorance; and no honest historianwill pretend to have mastered all the facts, accurately weighed allthe evidence, or pronounced a final judgment. 

The present volume does not profess to do more than roughly sketchHenry VIII. 's more prominent characteristics, outline the chieffeatures of his policy, and suggest some reasons for the measure ofsuccess he attained. Episodes such as the divorce of Catherine ofAragon, the dissolution of the monasteries, and the determination ofthe relations between Church and State, would severally demand foradequate treatment works of much greater bulk than the present. On thedivorce valuable light has recently been thrown by Dr. Stephan Ehsesin his _Römische Dokumente_. [11] The dissolution of the monasterieshas been exhaustively treated from one point of view by Dr. Gasquet;[12]but an adequate and impartial history of what is called the Reformationstill remains to be written. Here it is possible to deal with (p. X)these questions only in the briefest outline, and in so far as theywere affected by Henry's personal action. For my facts I have reliedentirely on contemporary records, and my deductions from these factsare my own. I have depended as little as possible even on contemporaryhistorians, [13] and scarcely at all on later writers. [14] I have, however, made frequent use of Dr. Gairdner's articles in the _Dictionaryof National Biography_, particularly of that on Henry VIII. , the bestsummary extant of his career; and I owe not a little to BishopStubbs's two lectures on Henry VIII. , which contain some fruitfulsuggestions as to his character. [15] A. F. POLLARD. PUTNEY, _11th January, 1905_. 

 [Footnote 11: Paderborn, 1893; _cf. Engl. Hist. Rev. _, xix. , 632-45. ]

 [Footnote 12: _Henry VIII. And the English Monasteries_, 2 vols. , 1888. ]

 [Footnote 13: Of these the most important are Polydore Vergil (Basel, 1534), Hall's _Chronicle_ (1548) and Fabyan's _Chronicle_ (edited by Ellis, 1811). Holinshed and Stow are not quite contemporary, but they occasionally add to earlier writers on apparently good authority. ]

 [Footnote 14: I have in this edition added references to those which seem most important; for a collected bibliography see Dr. Gairdner in _Cambridge Modern History_, ii. , 789-94. I have also for the purpose of this edition added references to the original sources--a task of some labour when nearly every fact is taken from a different document. The text has been revised, some errors removed, and notes added on special points, especially those on which fresh light has recently been thrown. ]

 [Footnote 15: In _Lectures on Mediæval and Modern History_, 1887. ]

CONTENTS. (p. Xi)

CHAPTER I. Page The Early Tudors 1

CHAPTER II. 

 Prince Henry and His Environment 15

CHAPTER III. 

 The Apprenticeship of Henry VIII. 43

CHAPTER IV. 

 The Three Rivals 78

CHAPTER V. 

 King and Cardinal 108

CHAPTER VI. 

 From Calais to Rome 136

CHAPTER VII. 

 The Origin of the Divorce 173

CHAPTER VIII. 

 The Pope's Dilemma 195

CHAPTER IX. (p. Xii)

 The Cardinal's Fall 228

CHAPTER X. 

 The King and His Parliament 249

CHAPTER XI. 

 "Down with the Church" 278

CHAPTER XII. 

 "The Prevailing of the Gates of Hell" 302

CHAPTER XIII. 

 The Crisis 331

CHAPTER XIV. 

 Rex et Imperator 362

CHAPTER XV. 

 The Final Struggle 397

CHAPTER XVI. 

 Conclusion 427

Index 441

CHAPTER I. (p. 001)

THE EARLY TUDORS. 

In the whole range of English history there is no monarch whosecharacter has been more variously depicted by contemporaries or morestrenuously debated by posterity than the "majestic lord who broke thebonds of Rome". To one historian an inhuman embodiment of cruelty andvice, to another a superhuman incarnation of courage, wisdom andstrength of will, Henry VIII. Has, by an almost universal consent, been placed above or below the grade of humanity. So unique was hispersonality, so singular his achievements, that he appears in thelight of a special dispensation sent like another Attila to be thescourge of mankind, or like a second Hercules to cleanse, or at leastto demolish, Augean stables. The dictates of his will seemed asinexorable as the decrees of fate, and the history of his reign isstrewn with records of the ruin of those who failed to placate hiswrath. Of the six queens he married, two he divorced, and two hebeheaded. Four English cardinals[16] lived in his reign; one perishedby the executioner's axe, one escaped it by absence, and a third (p. 002)by a timely but natural death. Of a similar number of dukes[17] halfwere condemned by attainder; and the same method of speedy despatchaccounted for six or seven earls and viscounts and for scores oflesser degree. He began his reign by executing the ministers of hisfather, [18] he continued it by sending his own to the scaffold. TheTower of London was both palace and prison, and statesmen passedswiftly from one to the other; in silent obscurity alone laysalvation. Religion and politics, rank and profession made littledifference; priest and layman, cardinal-archbishop and "hammer of themonks, " men whom Henry had raised from the mire, and peers, over whoseheads they were placed, were joined in a common fate. Wolsey and More, Cromwell and Norfolk, trod the same dizzy path to the same fatal end;and the English people looked on powerless or unmoved. They sent theirburgesses and knights of the shire to Westminster without let orhindrance, and Parliament met with a regularity that grew with therigour of Henry's rule; but it seemed to assemble only to register theroyal edicts and clothe with a legal cloak the naked violence ofHenry's acts. It remembered its privileges only to lay them at Henry'sfeet, it cancelled his debts, endowed his proclamations with the forceof laws, and authorised him to repeal acts of attainder and dispose ofhis crown at will. Secure of its support Henry turned and rent thespiritual unity of Western Christendom, and settled at a blow thatperennial struggle between Church and State, in which kings and (p. 003)emperors had bitten the dust. With every epithet of contumely andscorn he trampled under foot the jurisdiction of him who was believedto hold the keys of heaven and hell. Borrowing in practice the oldmaxim of Roman law, _cujus regio, ejus religio_, [19] he placed himselfin the seat of authority in religion and presumed to define the faithof which Leo had styled him defender. Others have made themselvesdespots by their mastery of many legions, through the agency of asecret police, or by means of an organised bureaucracy. Yet Henry'sstanding army consisted of a few gentlemen pensioners and yeomen ofthe guard; he had neither secret police nor organised bureaucracy. Even then Englishmen boasted that they were not slaves like theFrench, [20] and foreigners pointed a finger of scorn at their turbulence. Had they not permanently or temporarily deprived of power nearly halftheir kings who had reigned since William the Conqueror? Yet HenryVIII. Not only left them their arms, but repeatedly urged them to keepthose arms ready for use. [21] He eschewed that air of mystery withwhich tyrants have usually sought to impose on the mind of the people. All his life he moved familiarly and almost unguarded in the midst ofhis subjects, and he died in his bed, full of years, with the spell ofhis power unbroken and the terror of his name unimpaired. 

 [Footnote 16: Bainbridge, Wolsey, Fisher, Pole. Bainbridge was a cardinal after Julius II's own heart, and he received the red hat for military services rendered to that warlike Pope (_Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 104). ]

 [Footnote 17: There were two Dukes of Norfolk, the second of whom was attainted, as was the Duke of Buckingham; the fourth Duke was Henry's brother-in-law, Suffolk. ]

 [Footnote 18: Empson and Dudley. ]

 [Footnote 19: "Sua cuique civitati religio est, nostra nobis. " Cicero, _Pro Flacco_, 28; _cf. _ E. Bourre, _Des Inequalités de condition resultant de la religion en droit Romain_, Paris, 1895. ]

 [Footnote 20: _Cf. _ Bishop Scory to Edward VI. In Strype, _Eccl. Mem. _, II. , ii. , 482; Fortescue, ed. Plummer, pp. 137-142. ]

 [Footnote 21: _E. G. _, _L. And P. _, i. , 679. ]

What manner of man was this, and wherein lay the secret of his (p. 004)strength? Is recourse necessary to a theory of supernatural agency, oris there another and adequate solution? Was Henry's individual will ofsuch miraculous force that he could ride roughshod in insolent prideover public opinion at home and abroad? Or did his personal ends, dictated perhaps by selfish motives and ignoble passions, so farcoincide with the interests and prejudices of the politicallyeffective portion of his people, that they were willing to condone aviolence and tyranny, the brunt of which fell after all on the few?Such is the riddle which propounds itself to every student of Tudorhistory. It cannot be answered by pæans in honour of Henry's intensityof will and force of character, nor by invectives against his vicesand lamentations over the woes of his victims. The miraculousinterpretation of history is as obsolete as the catastrophic theory ofgeology, and the explanation of Henry's career must be sought not somuch in the study of his character as in the study of his environment, of the conditions which made things possible to him that were notpossible before or since and are not likely to be so again. 

 * * * * *

It is a singular circumstance that the king who raised the personalpower of English monarchy to a height to which it had never beforeattained, should have come of humble race and belonged to an upstartdynasty. For three centuries and a half before the battle of Bosworthone family had occupied the English throne. Even the usurpers, Henryof Bolingbroke and Richard of York, were directly descended in unbrokenmale line from Henry II. , and from 1154 to 1485 all the sovereigns ofEngland were Plantagenets. But who were the Tudors? They were a (p. 005)Welsh family of modest means and doubtful antecedents. [22] Theyclaimed, it is true, descent from Cadwallader, and their pedigree wasas long and quite as veracious as most Welsh genealogies; but HenryVII. 's great-grandfather was steward or butler to the Bishop ofBangor. His son, Owen Tudor, came as a young man to seek his fortuneat the Court of Henry V. , and obtained a clerkship of the wardrobe toHenry's Queen, Catherine of France. So skilfully did he use or abusethis position of trust, that he won the heart of his mistress; andwithin a few years of Henry's death his widowed Queen and her clerk ofthe wardrobe were secretly, and possibly without legal sanction, living together as man and wife. The discovery of their relationsresulted in Catherine's retirement to Bermondsey Abbey, and Owen's toNewgate prison. The Queen died in the following year, but Owensurvived many romantic adventures. Twice he escaped from prison, twicehe was recaptured. Once he took sanctuary in the precincts ofWestminster Abbey, and various attempts to entrap him were made byenticing him to revels in a neighbouring tavern. Finally, on theoutbreak of the Wars of the Roses, he espoused the Lancastrian cause, and was beheaded by order of Edward IV. After the battle of Mortimer'sCross. Two sons, Edmund and Jasper, were born of this singular matchbetween Queen and clerk of her wardrobe. Both enjoyed the favour oftheir royal half-brother, Henry VI. Edmund, the elder, was firstknighted and then created Earl of Richmond. In the Parliament of 1453, he was formally declared legitimate; he was enriched by the grant ofbroad estates and enrolled among the members of Henry's council. (p. 006)But the climax of his fortunes was reached when, in 1455, he marriedthe Lady Margaret Beaufort. Owen Tudor had taken the first step whichled to his family's greatness; Edmund took the second. The blood-royalof France flowed in his veins, the blood-royal of England was to flowin his children's; and the union between Edmund Tudor and MargaretBeaufort gave Henry VII. Such claim as he had by descent to theEnglish throne. 

 [Footnote 22: _Archæologia Cambrensis_, 1st ser. , iv. , 267; 3rd ser. , xv. , 278, 379. ]

The Beauforts were descended from Edward III. , but a bar sinistermarred their royal pedigree. John of Gaunt had three sons by CatherineSwynford before she became his wife. That marriage would, by canonlaw, have made legitimate the children, but the barons had, on afamous occasion, refused to assimilate in this respect the laws ofEngland to the canons of the Church; and it required a special Act ofParliament to confer on the Beauforts the status of legitimacy. WhenHenry IV. Confirmed this Act, he introduced a clause specificallybarring their contingent claim to the English throne. This limitationcould not legally abate the force of a statute; but it sufficed tocast a doubt upon the Beaufort title, and has been considered asufficient explanation of Henry VII. 's reluctance to base his claimupon hereditary right. However that may be, the Beauforts played nolittle part in the English history of the fifteenth century; theirinfluence was potent for peace or war in the councils of their royalhalf-brother, Henry IV. , and of the later sovereigns of the House ofLancaster. One was Cardinal-Bishop of Winchester, another was Duke ofExeter, and a third was Earl of Somerset. Two of the sons of the Earlbecame Dukes of Somerset; the younger fell at St. Albans, the (p. 007)earliest victim of the Wars of the Roses, which proved so fatal tohis House; and the male line of the Beauforts failed in the thirdgeneration. The sole heir to their claims was the daughter of thefirst Duke of Somerset, Margaret, now widow of Edmund Tudor; for, after a year of wedded life, Edmund had died in November, 1456. Twomonths later his widow gave birth to a boy, the future Henry VII. ;and, incredible as the fact may seem, the youthful mother was notquite fourteen years old. When fifteen more years had passed, themurder of Henry VI. And his son left Margaret Beaufort and Henry Tudorin undisputed possession of the Lancastrian title. A barren honour itseemed. Edward IV. Was firmly seated on the English throne. His rightto it, by every test, was immeasurably superior to the Tudor claim, and Henry showed no inclination and possessed not the means to disputeit. The usurpation by Richard III. , and the crimes which polluted hisreign, put a different aspect on the situation, and set men seekingfor an alternative to the blood-stained tyrant. The battle of Bosworthfollowed, and the last of the Plantagenets gave way to the first ofthe Tudors. 

For the first time, since the Norman Conquest, a king of decisivelyBritish blood sat on the English throne. His lineage was, indeed, English in only a minor degree; but England might seem to have lost atthe battle of Hastings her right to native kings; and Norman weresucceeded by Angevin, Angevin by Welsh, Welsh by Scots, and Scots byHanoverian sovereigns. The Tudors were probably more at home on theEnglish throne than most of England's kings; and their humble andBritish origin may have contributed to their unique capacity for (p. 008)understanding the needs, and expressing the mind, of the Englishnation. It was well for them that they established their throne in thehearts of their people, for no dynasty grasped the sceptre with lessof hereditary right. Judged by that criterion, there were manyclaimants whose titles must have been preferred to Henry's. There werethe daughters of Edward IV. And the children of George, Duke ofClarence; and their existence may account for Henry's neglect to presshis hereditary claim. But there was a still better reason. Supposingthe Lancastrian case to be valid and the Beauforts to be the trueLancastrian heirs, even so the rightful occupant of the throne was notHenry VII. , but his mother, Margaret Beaufort. England had neverrecognised a Salic law at home; on occasion she had disputed itsvalidity abroad. But Henry VII. Was not disposed to let his motherrule; she could not unite the Yorkist and Lancastrian claims bymarriage, and, in addition to other disabilities, she had a secondhusband in Lord Stanley, who might demand the crown matrimonial. SoHenry VII. 's hereditary title was judiciously veiled in vagueobscurity. Parliament wisely admitted the accomplished fact andrecognised that the crown was vested in him, without rashly venturingupon the why or the wherefore. He had in truth been raised to thethrone because men were weary of Richard. He was chosen to vindicateno theory of hereditary or other abstract right, but to govern with afirm hand, to establish peace within his gates and give prosperity tohis people. That was the true Tudor title, and, as a rule, theyremembered the fact; they were _de facto_ kings, and they left the _dejure_ arguments to the Stuarts. 

Peace, however, could not be obtained at once, nor the embers of (p. 009)thirty years' strife stamped out in a moment. For fifteen yearsopen revolt and whispered sedition troubled the rest of the realm andthreatened the stability of Henry's throne. Ireland remained a hot-bedof Yorkist sympathies, and Ireland was zealously aided by Edward IV. 'ssister, Margaret of Burgundy; she pursued, like a vendetta, the familyquarrel with Henry VII. , and earned the title of Henry's Juno byharassing him as vindictively as the Queen of Heaven vexed the piousÆneas. Other rulers, with no Yorkist bias, were slow to recognise the_parvenu_ king and quick to profit by his difficulties. Pretenders totheir rivals' thrones were useful pawns on the royal chess-board; andthough the princes of Europe had no reason to desire a Yorkistrestoration, they thought that a little judicious backing of Yorkistclaimants would be amply repaid by the restriction of Henry's energiesto domestic affairs. Seven months after the battle of Bosworth therewas a rising in the West under the Staffords, and in the North underLovell; and Henry himself was nearly captured while celebrating atYork the feast of St. George. A year later a youth of obscure origin, Lambert Simnel, [23] claimed to be first the Duke of York and then theEarl of Warwick. The former was son, and the latter was nephew, ofEdward IV. Lambert was crowned king at Dublin amid the acclamations ofthe Irish people. Not a voice was raised in Henry's favour; Kildare, the practical ruler of Ireland, earls and archbishops, bishops andbarons, and great officers of State, from Lord Chancellor downwards, swore fealty to the reputed son of an Oxford tradesman. Ireland wasonly the volcano which gave vent to the subterranean flood; (p. 010)treason in England and intrigue abroad were working in secret concertwith open rebellion across St. George's Channel. The Queen Dowager wassecluded in Bermondsey Abbey and deprived of her jointure lands. Johnde la Pole, who, as eldest son of Edward IV. 's sister, had been namedhis successor by Richard III. , fled to Burgundy; thence his auntMargaret sent Martin Schwartz and two thousand mercenaries to co-operatewith the Irish invasion. But, at East Stoke, De la Pole and Lovell, Martin Schwartz and his merry men were slain; and the most serious ofthe revolts against Henry ended in the consignment of Simnel to theroyal scullery and of his tutor to the Tower. 

 [Footnote 23: See the present writer in _D. N. B. _, lii. , 261. ]

Lambert, however, was barely initiated in his new duties when the sonof a boatman of Tournay started on a similar errand with a lesscongenial end. An unwilling puppet at first, Perkin Warbeck was on atrading visit to Ireland, when the Irish, who saw a Yorkist prince inevery likely face, insisted that Perkin was Earl of Warwick. This hedenied on oath before the Mayor of Cork. Nothing deterred, theysuggested that he was Richard III. 's bastard; but the bastard was safein Henry's keeping, and the imaginative Irish finally took refuge inthe theory that Perkin was Duke of York. Lambert's old friends ralliedround Perkin; the re-animated Duke was promptly summoned to the Courtof France and treated with princely honours. When Charles VIII. Hadused him to beat down Henry's terms, Perkin found a home withMargaret, aunt to all the pretenders. As usual, there were traitors inhigh places in England. Sir William Stanley, whose brother had marriedHenry's mother, and to whom Henry himself owed his victory at (p. 011)Bosworth, was implicated. His sudden arrest disconcerted the plot, and when Perkin's fleet appeared off the coast of Kent, the rusticsmade short work of the few who were rash enough to land. Perkin sailedaway to the Yorkist refuge in Ireland, but Kildare was no longerdeputy. Waterford, to which he laid siege, was relieved, and thepretender sought in Scotland a third basis of operations. An abortiveraid on the Borders and a high-born Scottish wife[24] were all that heobtained of James IV. , and in 1497, after a second attempt in Ireland, he landed in Cornwall. The Cornishmen had just risen against Henry'sextortions, marched on London and been defeated at Blackheath; butHenry's lenience encouraged a fresh revolt, and three thousand menflocked to Perkin's standard. They failed to take Exeter; Perkin wasseized at Beaulieu and sent up to London to be paraded through thestreets amid the jeers and taunts of the people. Two years later afoolish attempt at escape and a fresh personation of the Earl ofWarwick by one Ralf Wulford[25] led to the execution of all three, Perkin, Wulford, and the real Earl of Warwick, who had been a prisonerand probably the innocent centre of so many plots since the accessionof Henry VII. Warwick's death may have been due to the instigation ofFerdinand and Isabella of Spain, who were negotiating for the marriageof Catherine of Aragon with Prince Arthur. They were naturally anxiousfor the security of the throne their daughter was to share with (p. 012)Henry's son; and now their ambassador wrote triumphantly that thereremained in England not a doubtful drop of royal blood. [26] There wereno more pretenders, and for the rest of Henry's reign England enjoyedsuch peace as it had not known for nearly a century. The end whichHenry had sought by fair means and foul was attained, and there was nopractical alternative to his children in the succession to the Englishthrone. 

 [Footnote 24: Perkin was the first of Lady Catherine Gordon's four husbands; her second was James Strangways, gentleman-usher to Henry VIII. , her third Sir Matthew Cradock (d. 1531), and her fourth Christopher Ashton, also gentleman-usher; she died in 1537 and was buried in Fyfield Church (_L. And P. _, ii. , 3512). ]

 [Footnote 25: See the present writer in _Dict. Nat. Biog. _, lxiii. , 172. ]

 [Footnote 26: _Sp. Cal. _, i. , No. 249; see below, p. 179. ]

But all his statecraft, his patience and labour would have been writin water without children to succeed him and carry on the work whichhe had begun; and at times it seemed probable that this necessarycondition would remain unfulfilled. For the Tudors were singularlyluckless in the matter of children. They were scarcely a sterile race, but their offspring had an unfortunate habit of dying in childhood. Itwas the desire for a male heir that involved Henry VIII. In his breachwith Rome, and led Mary into a marriage which raised a revolt; thelast of the Tudors perceived that heirs might be purchased at toogreat a cost, and solved the difficulty by admitting its insolubility. Henry VIII. Had six wives, but only three children who survivedinfancy; of these, Edward VI. Withered away at the age of fifteen, andMary died childless at forty-two. By his two[27] mistresses he seemsto have had only one son, who died at the age of eleven, and as far aswe know, he had not a single grandchild, legitimate or other. Hissisters were hardly more fortunate. Margaret's eldest son by James IV. Died a year after his birth; her eldest daughter died at birth; hersecond son lived only nine months; her second daughter died at (p. 013)birth; her third son lived to be James V. , but her fourth found anearly grave. Mary, the other sister of Henry VIII. , lost her only sonin his teens. The appalling death-rate among Tudor infants cannot beattributed solely to medical ignorance, for Yorkist babies clung tolife with a tenacity which was quite as inconvenient as the readinesswith which Tudor infants relinquished it; and Richard III. , Henry VII. And Henry VIII. All found it necessary to accelerate, by artificialmeans, the exit from the world of the superfluous children of otherpretenders. This drastic process smoothed their path, but could notcompletely solve the problem; and the characteristic Tudor infirmitywas already apparent in the reign of Henry VII. He had three sons; twopredeceased him, one at the age of fifteen years, the other at fifteenmonths. Of his four daughters, two died in infancy, and the youngestcost the mother her life. [28] The fruit of that union between the RedRose and the White, upon which so much store had been set, [29] seemeddoomed to fail. 

 [Footnote 27: There is no definite evidence that he had more. ]

 [Footnote 28: _Ven. Cal. _, i. , 833. ]

 [Footnote 29: _Cf. _ Skelton, _Works_, ed. Dyce. Vol. I. , pp. Ix-xi. ]

The hopes built upon it had largely contributed to the success ofHenry's raid upon the English throne, and before he started on hisquest he had solemnly promised to marry Elizabeth, eldest daughter ofEdward IV. , and heiress of the House of York. But he was resolute toavoid all appearance of ruling in her right; his title had beenrecognised by Parliament, and he had been five months _de facto_ kingbefore he wedded his Yorkist wife (18th January, 1486). Eight monthsand two days later, the Queen gave birth, in the priory of St. Swithin's, at Winchester, to her first-born son. Four days later, on Sunday, (p. 014)24th September, the child was christened in the minster of the oldWest Saxon capital, and given in baptism the name of Arthur, the oldBritish king. It was neither Yorkist nor Lancastrian, it evoked nobitter memories of civil strife, and it recalled the fact that theTudors claimed a pedigree and boasted a title to British sovereignty, beside the antiquity of which Yorkist pretentions were a mushroomgrowth. Duke of Cornwall from his birth, Prince Arthur was, when threeyears old, created Prince of Wales. Already negotiations had beenbegun for his marriage with Catherine, the daughter of Ferdinand ofAragon and Isabella of Castile. Both were cautious sovereigns, andmany a rebellion had to be put down and many a pretender put away, before they would consent to entrust their daughter to the care of anEnglish king. It was not till 2nd October, 1501, that Catherine landedat Plymouth. At her formal reception into England, and at hermarriage, six weeks later, in St. Paul's, she was led by the hand ofher little brother-in-law, Prince Henry, then ten years old. [30]Against the advice of his council, Henry VII. Sent the youthful brideand bridegroom to live as man and wife at Ludlow Castle, and there, five and a half months later, their married life came to a sudden end. Prince Arthur died on 2nd April, 1502, and was buried in princelystate in Worcester Cathedral. 

 [Footnote 30: _L. And P. _, _Henry VII. _, i. , 413-415; _L. And P. _, _Henry VIII. _, iv. , 5791. ]

CHAPTER II. (p. 015)

PRINCE HENRY AND HIS ENVIRONMENT. 

The Prince, who now succeeded to the position of heir-apparent, wasnearly five years younger than his brother. The third child and secondson of his parents, he was born on 28th June, 1491, at Greenwich, apalace henceforth intimately associated with the history of Tudorsovereigns. The manor of Greenwich had belonged to the alien priory ofLewisham, and, on the dissolution of those houses, had passed into thehands of Henry IV. Then it was granted to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, who began to enclose the palace grounds; on his death it reverted tothe Crown; and Edward IV. , many of whose tastes and characteristicswere inherited by his grandson, Henry VIII. , took great delight inbeautifying and extending the palace. He gave it to his Queen, Elizabeth, and in her possession it remained until her sympathy withYorkist plots was punished by the forfeiture of her lands. Henry VII. Then bestowed it on his wife, the dowager's daughter, and thus itbecame the birthplace of her younger children. Here was the scene ofmany a joust and tournament, of many a masque and revel; here theyoung Henry, as soon as he came to the throne, was wedded to Catherineof Aragon; here Henry's sister was married to the Duke of Suffolk; andhere were born all future Tudor sovereigns, Edward VI. , Mary, (p. 016)and Elizabeth. At Greenwich, then, through the forfeit of hisgrandmother, Henry was born; he was baptised in the Church of theObservant Friars, an Order, the object first of his special favour, [31]and then of an equally marked dislike; the ceremony was performed byRichard Fox, [32] then Bishop of Exeter, and afterwards one of thechild's chief advisers. His nurse was named Ann Luke, and yearsafterwards, when Henry was King, he allowed her the annual pension oftwenty pounds, equivalent to about three hundred in modern currency. The details of his early life are few and far between. Lord Herbert, who wrote his _Life and Reign_ a century later, records that the youngPrince was destined by his father for the see of Canterbury, [33] andprovided with an education more suited to a clerical than to a laycareer. The motive ascribed to Henry VII. Is typical of his character;it was more economical to provide for younger sons out of ecclesiastical, than royal, revenues. But the story is probably a mere inference fromthe excellence of the boy's education, and from his father's thrift. If the idea of an ecclesiastical career for young Henry was everentertained, it was soon abandoned for secular preferment. On 5thApril, 1492, before the child was ten months old, he was appointed tothe ancient and important posts of Warden of the Cinque Ports andConstable of Dover Castle. [34] A little later he received the stillmore honourable office of Earl Marshal; the duties were performed bydeputy, but a goodly portion of the fees was doubtless (p. 017)appropriated for the expenses of the boy's establishment, or found itsway into the royal coffers. Further promotion awaited him at themature age of three. On 12th September, 1494, he became Lord-Lieutenantof Ireland;[35] six weeks later he was created Duke of York, anddubbed, with the usual quaint and formal ceremonies, [36] a Knight ofthe Bath. In December, he was made Warden of the Scottish Marches, andhe was invested with the Garter in the following May. [37]

 [Footnote 31: _L. And P. _, i. , 4871. ]

 [Footnote 32: Fox's own statement, _L. And P. _, iv. , 5791. ]

 [Footnote 33: Herbert gives Paolo Sarpi as his authority. ]

 [Footnote 34: G. E. C [okayne], _Complete Peerage_, _s. V. _ Cornwall. ]

 [Footnote 35: _L. And P. _, _Henry VII. _, Rolls Ser. , ii. , 374. ]

 [Footnote 36: _Ib. _, i. , 388-404; _Paston Letters_, iii. , 384-85. ]

 [Footnote 37: _L. And P. _, _Henry VII. _, ii. , 57. ]

The accumulation of these great offices of State, any one of whichmight have taxed the powers of a tried administrator, in the feeblehands of a child appears at first sight a trifle irrational; but therewas always method in Henry's madness. In bestowing these administrativeposts upon his children he was really concentrating them in his ownperson and bringing them directly under his own supervision. It wasthe policy whereby the early Roman Emperors imposed upon RepublicanRome the substance, without the form, of despotism. It limited thepowers of mischief which Henry's nobles might otherwise have enjoyed, and provided incomes for his children without increasing taxation ordiminishing the privy purse. The work of administration could be doneat least as effectively, much more economically, and with far lessdanger to internal peace by deputies of lower rank than the dukes andearls and barons who had been wont to abuse these high positions forthe furtherance of private ends, and often for the levying of (p. 018)private war. Nowhere were the advantages of Henry's policy moreconspicuous than in his arrangements for the government of Ireland. Ever since Richard, Duke of York, and George, Duke of Clarence, hadruled as Irish viceroys, Ireland had been a Yorkist stronghold. ThereSimnel had been crowned king, and there peers and peasants had foughtfor Perkin Warbeck. Something must be done to heal the running sore. Possibly Henry thought that some of Ireland's loyalty might bediverted from Yorkist channels by the selection of a Tudor prince asits viceroy; but he put his trust in more solid measures. As deputy tohis infant son he nominated one who, though but a knight, was perhapsthe ablest man among his privy council. It was in this capacity thatSir Edward Poynings[38] crossed to Ireland about the close of 1494, and called the Parliament of Drogheda. Judged by the durability of itslegislation, it was one of the most memorable of parliaments; and fornearly three hundred years Poynings' laws remained the foundation uponwhich rested the constitutional relations between the sister kingdoms. Even more lasting was the precedent set by Prince Henry's creation asDuke of York; from that day to this, from Henry VIII. To the presentPrince of Wales, the second son of the sovereign or of the heir-apparenthas almost invariably been invested with that dukedom. [39] The originalselection of the title was due to substantial reasons. Henry's namewas distinctively Lancastrian, his title was no less distinctivelyYorkist; it was adopted as a concession to Yorkist prejudice. (p. 019)It was a practical reminder of the fact which the Tudor laureate, Skelton, celebrated in song: "The rose both red and white, in one rosenow doth grow". It was also a tacit assertion of the death of the lastDuke of York in the Tower and of the imposture of Perkin Warbeck, nowpretending to the title. 

 [Footnote 38: See the present writer in _D. N. B. _, xlvi. , 271. ]

 [Footnote 39: An exception was made in the case of the late Duke of Edinburgh. It was designed if Henry VIII. Had a second son, to make him Duke of York (_L. And P. _, vii. , 1364). ]

But thoughts of the coercion of Ireland and conciliation of Yorkistswere as yet far from the mind of the child, round whose person thesemeasures were made to centre. Precocious he must have been, if thephenomenal development of brow and the curiously mature expressionattributed to him in his portrait[40] are any indication of hisintellectual powers at the age at which he is represented. Without thechildish lips and nose, the face might well be that of a man of fifty;and with the addition of a beard, the portrait would be an unmistakablelikeness of Henry himself in his later years. When the Prince was nomore than a child, says Erasmus, he was set to study. [41] He had, weare told, a vivid and active mind, above measure able to executewhatever tasks he undertook; and he never attempted anything in whichhe did not succeed. [42] The Tudors had no modern dread of educationalover-pressure when applied to their children, and the young Henry wasprobably as forward a pupil as his son, Edward VI. , his daughter, Elizabeth, or his grand-niece, Lady Jane Grey. But, fortunately forHenry, a physical exuberance corrected his mental precocity; and, (p. 020)as he grew older, any excessive devotion to the Muses was checked byan unwearied pursuit of bodily culture. He was the first of Englishsovereigns to be educated under the new influence of the Renaissance. Scholars, divines and poets thronged the Court of Henry VII. MargaretBeaufort, who ruled in Henry's household, was a signal benefactor tothe cause of English learning. Lady Margaret professors commemorateher name in both our ancient universities, and in their bidding prayersshe is to this day remembered. Two colleges at Cambridge revere her astheir foundress; Caxton, the greatest of English printers, owed muchto her munificence, and she herself translated into English books fromboth Latin and French. Henry VII. , though less accomplished that thelater Tudors, evinced an intelligent interest in art and letters, andprovided for his children efficient instructors; while his Queen, Elizabeth of York, is described by Erasmus as possessing the soundestjudgment and as being remarkable for her prudence as well as for herpiety. Bernard André, [43] historian and poet, who had been tutor toPrince Arthur, probably took no small part in the education of hisyounger brother; to him he dedicated, after Arthur's death, two of theannual summaries of events which he was in the habit of compiling. Giles D'Ewes, [44] apparently a Frenchman and the author of a notableFrench grammar, taught that language to Prince Henry, as many (p. 021)years later he did to his daughter, Queen Mary; probably either D'Ewesor André trained his handwriting, which is a curious compromisebetween the clear and bold Italian style, soon to be adopted bywell-instructed Englishmen, and the old English hieroglyphics in whichmore humbly educated individuals, including Shakespeare, concealed themeaning of their words. But the most famous of Henry's teachers wasthe poet Skelton, the greatest name in English verse from Lydgate downto Surrey. Skelton was poet laureate to Henry VII. Court, and refersin his poems to his wearing of the white and green of Tudorliveries. [45] He celebrated in verse Arthur's creation as Prince ofWales and Henry's as Duke of York;[46] and before the younger princewas nine years old, this "incomparable light and ornament of BritishLetters, " as Erasmus styles him, was directing Henry's studies. Skelton himself writes. --

 The honor of England I learned to spell, I gave him drink of the sugred well Of Helicon's waters crystalline, Acquainting him with the Muses nine. 

 [Footnote 40: This is an anonymous portrait of Henry at the age of eighteen months or two years belonging to Sir Edmund and Lady Verney. ]

 [Footnote 41: Erasmus, _Epist. _, p. 1182; _L. And P. _, iv. , 5412. ]

 [Footnote 42: This testimonial was written in 1528 before Henry VIII. Had given the most striking demonstrations of its truth. ]

 [Footnote 43: See _D. N. B. _, i. , 398. Erasmus, however, described André as being "of mean abilities" (_L. And P. _, iv. , 626). ]

 [Footnote 44: _D. N. B. _, xiv. , 449; _cf. _ _L. And P. _, i. , 513. On Henry VIII's accession D'Ewes was appointed keeper of the King's library at Richmond with a salary of £10 per year. ]

 [Footnote 45: Skelton, _Works_, ed. Dyce, vol. I. , p. Xiii. ; the white and green still survive as the colours of Jesus College, Oxford, founded by Queen Elizabeth. ]

 [Footnote 46: _Ib. _, p. Xxi. ; a copy of the latter, which Dyce could not find, is in _Brit. Mus. Addit. MS. 26787_. ]

The coarseness of Skelton's satires and his open disregard of theclerical vows of chastity may justify some doubt of the value of thepoet's influence on Henry's character; but he so far observed theconventional duties of his post as to dedicate to his royal pupil, in1501, a moral treatise in Latin of no particular worth. [47] Moredeserving of Henry's study were two books inscribed to him a (p. 022)little later by young Boerio, son of the King's Genoese physician anda pupil of Erasmus, who, according to his own account, suffered untoldafflictions from the father's temper. One was a translation ofIsocrates' _De Regno_, the other of Lucian's tract against believingcalumnies. [48] The latter was, to judge from the tale of Henry'svictims, a precept which he scarcely laid to heart in youth. In otherrespects he was apt enough to learn. He showed "remarkable docilityfor mathematics, " became proficient in Latin, spoke French with ease, understood Italian, and, later on, possibly from Catherine of Aragon, acquired a knowledge of Spanish. In 1499 Erasmus himself, the greatestof the humanists, visited his friend, Lord Mountjoy, near Greenwich, and made young Henry's acquaintance. "I was staying, " he writes, [49]"at Lord Mountjoy's country house when Thomas More came to see me, andtook me out with him for a walk as far as the next village, where allthe King's children, except Prince Arthur, who was then the eldestson, were being educated. When we came into the hall, the attendantsnot only of the palace, but also of Mountjoy's household, were allassembled. In the midst stood Prince Henry, now nine years old, andhaving already something of royalty in his demeanour in which therewas a certain dignity combined with singular courtesy. On his rightwas Margaret, about eleven years of age, afterwards married to James, King of Scots; and on his left played Mary, a child of four. Edmundwas an infant in arms. More, with his companion Arnold, after (p. 023)paying his respects to the boy Henry, the same that is now King ofEngland, presented him with some writing. For my part, not havingexpected anything of the sort, I had nothing to offer, but promisedthat, on another occasion, I would in some way declare my duty towardshim. Meantime, I was angry with More for not having warned me, especiallyas the boy sent me a little note, while we were at dinner, to challengesomething from my pen. I went home, and in the Muses' spite, from whomI had been so long divorced, finished the poem within three days. " Thepoem, [50] in which Britain speaks her own praise and that of herprinces, Henry VII. And his children, was dedicated to the Duke ofYork and accompanied by a letter in which Erasmus commended Henry'sdevotion to learning. Seven years later Erasmus again wrote to Henry, now Prince of Wales, condoling with him upon the death of hisbrother-in-law, Philip of Burgundy, King of Castile. Henry replied incordial manner, inviting the great scholar to continue the correspondence. The style of his letter so impressed Erasmus that he suspected, as hesays, [51] "some help from others in the ideas and expressions. In aconversation I afterwards had with William, Lord Mountjoy, he tried byvarious arguments to dispel that suspicion, and when he found he couldnot do so he gave up the point and let it pass until he wassufficiently instructed in the case. On another occasion, when we weretalking alone together, he brought out a number of the Prince'sletters, some to other people and some to himself, and among them onewhich answered to mine: in these letters were manifest signs of (p. 024)comment, addition, suppression, correction and alteration--You mightrecognise the first drafting of a letter, and you might make out thesecond and third, and sometimes even the fourth correction; butwhatever was revised or added was in the same handwriting. I had thenno further grounds for hesitation, and, overcome by the facts, I laidaside all suspicion. " Neither, he adds, would his correspondent doubtHenry VIII's authorship of the book against Luther if he knew thatking's "happy genius". That famous book is sufficient proof thattheological studies held no small place in Henry's education. Theywere cast in the traditional mould, for the Lancastrians were veryorthodox, and the early Tudors followed in their steps. MargaretBeaufort left her husband to devote herself to good works and asemi-monastic life; Henry VII. Converted a heretic at the stake andleft him to burn;[52] and the theological conservatism, which HenryVIII. Imbibed in youth, clung to him to the end of his days. 

 [Footnote 47: _Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 26787. _]

 [Footnote 48: _Brit. Mus. Add. MS. 19553. _]

 [Footnote 49: F. M. Nichols, _Epistles of Erasmus_, i. , 201. ]

 [Footnote 50: Printed in 1500 at the end of Erasmus's _Adagia_. ]

 [Footnote 51: F. M. Nichols, pp. 423-24; _L. And P. _, iv. , 5412. ]

 [Footnote 52: _Cotton MS. _, Vitellius, A. , xvi. , f. 172. ]

Nor were the arts neglected, and in his early years Henry acquired apassionate and lifelong devotion to music. Even as Duke of York he hada band of minstrels apart from those of the King and Prince Arthur;[53]and when he was king his minstrels formed an indispensable part of hisretinue, whether he went on progress through his kingdom, or crossedthe seas on errands of peace or war. [54] He became an expert performeron the lute, the organ and the harpsichord, and all the cares of Statecould not divert him from practising on those instruments both day (p. 025)and night. He sent all over England in search of singing men and boysfor the chapel royal, and sometimes appropriated choristers fromWolsey's chapel, which he thought better provided than his own. [55]From Venice he enticed to England the organist of St. Mark's, DionysiusMemo, and on occasion Henry and his Court listened four hours at astretch to Memo's organ recitals. [56] Not only did he take delight inthe practice of music by himself and others; he also studied itstheory and wrote with the skill of an expert. Vocal and instrumentalpieces of his own composition, preserved among the manuscripts at theBritish Museum, [57] rank among the best productions of the time; andone of his anthems, "O Lorde, the Maker of all thyng, " is of thehighest order of merit, and still remains a favourite in Englishcathedrals. 

 [Footnote 53: _Hist. MSS. Comm. _, 5th Rep. , App. , p. 549. ]

 [Footnote 54: _L. And P. _, i. , 4314. ]

 [Footnote 55: _L. And P. _, ii. , 410, 4024. ]

 [Footnote 56: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 780; _L. And P. _, ii. , 2401, 3455. ]

 [Footnote 57: _E. G. _, _Add. MS. 31922_. ]

In April, 1502, at the age of ten, Henry became the heir-apparent tothe English throne. He succeeded at once to the dukedom of Cornwall, but again a precedent was set which was followed but yesterday; andten months were allowed to elapse before he was, on 18th February, 1503, created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, the dukedom of Yorkbecoming void until a king or an heir apparent should again have asecond son. [58] The first sign of his increased importance was hisimplication in the maze of matrimonial intrigues which formed so largea part of sixteenth-century diplomacy. The last thing kings (p. 026)considered was the domestic felicity of their children; their marriageswere pieces in the diplomatic game and sometimes the means by whichStates were built up. While Duke of York, Henry had been proposed as ahusband for Eleanor, [59] daughter of the Archduke Philip; and hissister Mary as the bride of Philip's son Charles, who, as the heir ofthe houses of Castile and of Aragon, of Burgundy and of Austria, wasfrom the cradle destined to wield the imperial sceptre of Cæsar. Nofurther steps were taken at the time, and Prince Arthur's deathbrought other projects to the front. 

 [Footnote 58: The next prince to hold the title was Charles, afterwards Charles I. , who was created Duke of York on 6th Jan. , 1605. ]

 [Footnote 59: Afterwards Queen of Portugal and then of France. _L. And P. _, _Henry VII. _, i. , 285, 425. ]

Immediately on receiving the news, and two days before they datedtheir letter of condolence to Henry VII. , Ferdinand and Isabellacommissioned the Duke of Estrada to negotiate a marriage between thewidowed Catherine and her youthful brother-in-law. [60] No doubt wasentertained but that the Pope would grant the necessary dispensation, for the spiritual head of Christendom was apt to look tenderly on thepetitions of the powerful princes of this world. A more seriousdifficulty was the question of the widow's dower. Part only had beenpaid, and Ferdinand not merely refused to hand over the rest, butdemanded the return of his previous instalments. Henry, on the otherhand, considered himself entitled to the whole, refused to refund apenny, and gave a cold reception to the proposed marriage betweenCatherine and his sole surviving son. He was, however, by no meansblind to the advantages of the Spanish matrimonial and politicalalliance, and still less to the attractions of Catherine's dower; (p. 027)he declined to send back the Princess, when Isabella, shocked at HenryVII. 's proposal to marry his daughter-in-law himself, demanded herreturn; and eventually, when Ferdinand reduced his terms, he sufferedthe marriage treaty to be signed. On 25th June, 1503, Prince Henry andCatherine were solemnly betrothed in the Bishop of Salisbury's house, in Fleet Street. 

 [Footnote 60: _Sp. Cal. _, i. , 267. ]

The papal dispensation arrived in time to solace Isabella on herdeath-bed in November, 1504; but that event once more involved indoubt the prospects of the marriage. The crown of Castile passed fromIsabella to her daughter Juaña; the government of the kingdom wasclaimed by Ferdinand and by Juaña's husband, Philip of Burgundy. Ontheir way from the Netherlands to claim their inheritance, Philip andJuaña were driven on English shores. Henry VII. Treated them with allpossible courtesy, and made Philip a Knight of the Garter, whilePhilip repaid the compliment by investing Prince Henry with the Orderof the Golden Fleece. [61] But advantage was taken of Philip's plightto extort from him the surrender of the Earl of Suffolk, styled theWhite Rose, and a commercial treaty with the Netherlands, which theFlemings named the Malus Intercursus. Three months after his arrivalin Castile, Philip died, and Henry began to fish in the troubledwaters for a share in his dominions. Two marriage schemes occurred tohim; he might win the hand of Philip's sister Margaret, now Regent ofthe Netherlands, and with her hand the control of those provinces; orhe might marry Juaña and claim in her right to administer Castile. Onthe acquisition of Castile he set his mind. If he could not gain (p. 028)it by marriage with Juaña, he thought he could do so by marryingher son and heir, the infant Charles, to his daughter Mary. Whichevermeans he took to further his design, it would naturally irritateFerdinand and make him less anxious for the completion of the marriagebetween Catherine and Prince Henry. Henry VII. Was equally averse fromthe consummation of the match. Now that he was scheming with Charles'sother grandfather, the Emperor Maximilian, to wrest the government ofCastile from Ferdinand's grasp, the alliance of the King of Aragon hadlost its attraction, and it was possible that the Prince of Walesmight find elsewhere a more desirable bride. Henry's marriage withCatherine was to have been accomplished when he completed the age offourteen; but on the eve of his fifteenth birthday he made a solemnprotestation that the contract was null and void, and that he wouldnot carry out his engagements. [62] This protest left him free toconsider other proposals, and enhanced his value as a negotiableasset. More than once negotiations were started for marrying him toMarguerite de Valois, sister of the Duke of Angoulême, afterwardsfamous as Francis I. ;[63] and in the last months of his father'sreign, the Prince of Wales was giving audience to ambassadors fromMaximilian, who came to suggest matrimonial alliances between theprince and a daughter of Duke Albert of Bavaria, and between HenryVII. And the Lady Margaret of Savoy, Regent of the Netherlands. [64]Meanwhile, Ferdinand, threatened on all sides, first came to terms (p. 029)with France; he married a French princess, Germaine de Foix, abandonedhis claim to Navarre, and bought the security of Naples by givingLouis XII. A free hand in the north of Italy. He then divertedMaximilian from his designs on Castile by humouring his hostility toVenice. By that bait he succeeded in drawing off his enemies, and theleague of Cambrai united them all, Ferdinand and Louis, Emperor andPope, in an iniquitous attack on the Italian Republic. Henry VII. , fortunately for his reputation, was left out of the compact. He wasstill cherishing his design on Castile, and in December, 1508, thetreaty of marriage between Mary and Charles was formally signed. Itwas the last of his worldly triumphs; the days of his life werenumbered, and in the early months of 1509 he was engaged in making apeace with his conscience. 

 [Footnote 61: _L. And P. _, _Henry VII. _, ii. , 158; _Ven. Cal. _, i. , 867. ]

 [Footnote 62: _Sp. Cal. _, i. , 458; _L. And P. _, iv. , 5791. ]

 [Footnote 63: _L. And P. _, _Henry VII. _, i. , 241-47; ii. 342-43. ]

 [Footnote 64: _Sp. Cal. _, Suppl. , p. 23. ]

 * * * * *

The twenty-four years during which Henry VII. Had guided the destiniesof England were a momentous epoch in the development of Westerncivilisation. It was the dawn of modern history, of the history ofEurope in the form in which we know it to-day. The old order was in astate of liquidation. The mediæval ideal, described by Dante, of auniversal monarchy with two aspects, spiritual and temporal, and twoheads, emperor and pope, was passing away. Its place was taken by themodern but narrower ideal of separate polities, each pursuing its owncourse, independent of, and often in conflict with, other societies. Unity gave way to diversity of tongues, of churches, of states; andthe cosmopolitan became nationalist, patriot, separatist. Imperialmonarchy shrank to a shadow; and kings divided the emperor's power (p. 030)at the same time that they consolidated their own. They extended theirauthority on both sides, at the expense of their superior, theemperor, and at the expense of their subordinate feudal lords. Thestruggle between the disruptive forces of feudalism and the centralpower of monarchy ended at last in monarchical triumph; and internalunity prepared the way for external expansion. France under Louis XI. Was first in the field. She had surmounted her civil troubles half acentury earlier than England. She then expelled her foreign foes, crushed the remnants of feudal independence, and began to expand atthe cost of weaker States. Parts of Burgundy, Provence, and Brittanybecame merged in France; the exuberant strength of the new-formednation burst the barriers of the Alps and overflowed into the plainsof Italy. The time of universal monarchy was past, but the dread of itremained; and from Charles VIII. 's invasion of Italy in 1494 toFrancis I. 's defeat at Pavia in 1525, French dreams of world-widesovereignty were the nightmare of other kings. Those dreams might, asEurope feared, have been realised, had not other States followedFrance in the path of internal consolidation. Ferdinand of Aragonmarried Isabella of Castile, drove out the Moors, and founded themodern Spanish kingdom. Maximilian married Mary, the daughter ofCharles the Bold, and joined the Netherlands to Austria. United Francefound herself face to face with other united States, and the politicalsystem of modern Europe was roughly sketched out. The boundaries ofthe various kingdoms were fluctuating. There still remained minorprincipalities and powers, chiefly in Italy and Germany, which offeredan easy prey to their ambitious neighbours; for both nations had (p. 031)sacrificed internal unity to the shadow of universal dominion, Germanyin temporal, and Italy in spiritual, things. Mutual jealousy of eachother's growth at the expense of these States gave rise to the theoryof the balance of power; mutual adjustment of each other's disputesproduced international law; and the necessity of watching each other'sdesigns begat modern diplomacy. [65]

 [Footnote 65: _Cf. _ A. O. Meyer, _Die Englische Diplomatie_, Breslau, 1901. ]

Parallel with these developments in the relations between one Stateand another marched a no less momentous revolution in the domesticposition of their sovereigns. National expansion abroad was marked bya corresponding growth in royal authority at home. The process was notnew in England; every step in the path of the tribal chief of Saxonpirates to the throne of a united England denoted an advance in thenature of kingly power. Each extension of his sway intensified hisauthority, and his power grew in degree as it increased in area. Sowith fifteenth-century sovereigns. Local liberties and feudal rightswhich had checked a Duke of Brittany or a King of Aragon werepowerless to restrain the King of France or of Spain. The sphere ofroyal authority encroached upon all others; all functions and allpowers tended to concentrate in royal hands. The king was the emblemof national unity, the centre of national aspirations, and the objectof national reverence. The Renaissance gave fresh impetus to themovement. Men turned not only to the theology, literature, and art ofthe early Christian era; they began to study anew its politicalorganisation and its system of law and jurisprudence. The code ofJustinian was as much a revelation as the original Greek of the (p. 032)New Testament. Roman imperial law seemed as superior to the barbaritiesof common law as classical was to mediæval Latin; and Roman lawsupplanted indigenous systems in France and in Germany, in Spain andin Scotland. Both the Roman imperial law and the Roman imperialconstitution were useful models for kings of the New Monarchy; theRoman Empire was a despotism; _quod principi placuit legis habetvigorem_ ran the fundamental principle of Roman Empire. [66] Nor wasthis all; Roman emperors were habitually deified, and men in thesixteenth century seemed to pay to their kings while alive the Divinehonours which Romans paid to their emperors when dead. "Le nouveauMessie, " says Michelet, "est le roi. "[67]

 [Footnote 66: The conclusion of the maxim _utpote cum lege regia quae de imperio ejus lata est, populus ei et in eum omne suum imperium et potestatem conferat_ (Ulpian, _Digest_, I. , iv. , 1), was conveniently forgotten by apologists for absolutism, though the Tudors respected it in practice. ]

 [Footnote 67: _Hist. De France_, ed. 1879, ix. , 301. ]

Nowhere was the king more emphatically the saviour of society than inEngland. The sixty years of Lancastrian rule were in the seventeenthcentury represented as the golden age of parliamentary government, asort of time before the fall to which popular orators appealed whenthey wished to paint in vivid colours the evils of Stuart tyranny. Butto keen observers of the time the pre-eminent characteristic ofLancastrian rule appeared to be its "lack of governance" or, in modernphrase, administrative anarchy. [68] There was no subordination in theState. The weakness of the Lancastrian title left the king at themercy of Parliament, and the limitations of Parliament were never (p. 033)more apparent than when its powers stood highest. Even in the realm oflegislation, the statute book has seldom been so barren. Its principalacts were to narrow the county electorate to an oligarchy, to restrictthe choice of constituencies to resident knights and burgesses, and toimpair its own influence as a focus of public opinion. It was notcontent with legislative authority; it interfered with an executivewhich it could hamper but could not control. It was possessed by theinveterate fallacy that freedom and strong government are thingsincompatible; that the executive is the natural enemy of the Legislature;that if one is strong, the other must be weak; and of the twoalternatives it vastly preferred a weak executive. So, to limit theking's power, it sought to make him "live of his own, " when "his own"was absolutely inadequate to meet the barest necessities of government. Parliament was in fact irresponsible; the connecting link between itand the executive had yet to be found. Hence the Lancastrian "lack ofgovernance"; it ended in a generation of civil war, and the memory ofthat anarchy explains much in Tudor history. 

 [Footnote 68: Fortescue, _Governance of England_, ed. Plummer, 1885. ]

The problems of Henry VIII. 's reign can indeed only be solved byrealising the misrule of the preceding century, the failure ofparliamentary government, and the strength of the popular demand for afirm and masterful hand. It is a modern myth that Englishmen havealways been consumed with enthusiasm for parliamentary government andwith a thirst for a parliamentary vote. The interpretation of history, like that of the Scriptures, varies from age to age; and presentpolitical theories colour our views of the past. The politicaldevelopment of the nineteenth century created a parliamentary legend;and civil and religious liberty became the inseparable stage (p. 034)properties of the Englishman. Whenever he appeared on the boards, hewas made to declaim about the rights of the subject and the privilegesof Parliament. It was assumed that the desire for a voice in themanagement of his own affairs had at all times and all seasons beenthe mainspring of his actions; and so the story of Henry's rule wasmade into a political mystery. In reality, love of freedom has notalways been, nor will it always remain, the predominant note in theEnglish mind. At times the English people have pursued it throughbattle and murder with grim determination, but other times have seenother ideals. On occasion the demand has been for strong governmentirrespective of its methods, and good government has been preferred toself-government. Wars of expansion and wars of defence have oftencooled the love of liberty and impaired the faith in parliaments; andgenerally English ideals have been strictly subordinated to a passionfor material prosperity. 

Never was this more apparent than under the Tudors. The parliamentaryexperiment of the Lancastrians was premature and had failed. Parliamentary institutions were discredited and people wereindifferent to parliamentary rights and privileges: "A plague on bothyour Houses, " was the popular feeling, "give us peace, above all peaceat home to pursue new avenues of wealth, new phases of commercialdevelopment, peace to study new problems of literature, religion, andart"; and both Houses passed out of the range of popular imagination, and almost out of the sphere of independent political action. Parliament played during the sixteenth century a modester part than ithad played since its creation. Towards the close of the period (p. 035)Shakespeare wrote his play of _King John_, and in that play there isnot the faintest allusion to Magna Carta. [69] Such an omission wouldbe inconceivable now or at any time since the death of Elizabeth; forthe Great Charter is enshrined in popular imagination as the palladiumof the British constitution. It was the fetish to which Parliamentappealed against the Stuarts. But no such appeal would have touched aTudor audience. It needed and desired no weapon against a sovereignwho embodied national desires, and ruled in accord with the nationalwill. References to the charter are as rare in parliamentary debatesas they are in the pages of Shakespeare. The best hated instruments ofStuart tyranny were popular institutions under the Tudors; and theStar Chamber itself found its main difficulty in the number of suitorswhich flocked to a court where the king was judge, the law's delaysminimised, counsel's fees moderate, and justice rarely denied merelybecause it might happen to be illegal. England in the sixteenthcentury put its trust in its princes far more than it did in itsparliaments; it invested them with attributes almost Divine. By Tudormajesty the poet was inspired with thoughts of the divinity that dothhedge a king. "Love for the King, " wrote a Venetian of Henry VIII. Inthe early years of his reign, "is universal with all who see him, forhis Highness does not seem a person of this world, but one (p. 036)descended from heaven. "[70] _Le nouveau Messie est le Roi. _

 [Footnote 69: Magna Carta may almost be said to have been "discovered" by the parliamentary opponents of the Stuarts; and in discovering it, they misinterpreted several of its clauses such as the _judicium parium_. Allusion was, however, made to Magna Carta in the proceedings against Wolsey for _Præmunire_ (Fox, vi. , 43). ]

 [Footnote 70: _Ven Cal. _, ii. , 336. ]

Such were the tendencies which Henry VII. And Henry VIII. Crystallisedinto practical weapons of absolute government. Few kings have attaineda greater measure of permanent success than the first of the Tudors;it was he who laid the unseen foundations upon which Henry VIII. Erected the imposing edifice of his personal authority. An orphan frombirth and an exile from childhood, he stood near enough to the throneto invite Yorkist proscription, but too far off to unite in his favourLancastrian support. He owed his elevation to the mistakes of hisenemies and to the cool, calculating craft which enabled him to usethose mistakes without making mistakes of his own. He ran the greatrisk of his life in his invasion of England, but henceforth he leftnothing to chance. He was never betrayed by passion or enthusiasm intorash adventures, and he loved the substance, rather than the pomp andcircumstance of power. Untrammelled by scruples, unimpeded by principles, he pursued with constant fidelity the task of his life, to secure thethrone for himself and his children, to pacify his country, and torepair the waste of the civil wars. Folly easily glides into war, butto establish a permanent peace required all Henry's patience, clearsight and far sight, caution and tenacity. A full exchequer, not emptyglory, was his first requisite, and he found in his foreign wars amine of money. Treason at home was turned to like profit, and theforfeited estates of rebellious lords accumulated in the hands of theroyal family and filled the national coffers. Attainder, thecharacteristic instrument of Tudor policy, was employed to (p. 037)complete the ruin of the old English peerage which the Wars of theRoses began: and by 1509 there was only one duke and one marquis leftin the whole of England. [71] Attainder not only removed the particulartraitor, but disqualified his family for place and power; and the processof eliminating feudalism from the region of government, started byEdward I. , was finished by Henry VII. Feudal society has been describedas a pyramid; the upper slopes were now washed away leaving animpassable precipice, with the Tudor monarch alone in his glory at itssummit. Royalty had become a caste apart. Marriages between royalchildren and English peers had hitherto been no uncommon thing; sinceHenry VII. 's accession there have been but four, two of them in ourown day. Only one took place in the sixteenth century, and the Duke ofSuffolk was by some thought worthy of death for his presumption inmarrying the sister of Henry VIII. The peerage was weakened not onlyby diminishing numbers, but by the systematic depression of those whoremained. Henry VII. , like Ferdinand of Aragon, [72] preferred togovern by means of lawyers and churchmen; they could be rewarded byjudgeships and bishoprics, and required no grants from the royalestates. Their occupancy of office kept out territorial magnates whoabused it for private ends. Of the sixteen regents nominated by HenryVIII. In his will, not one could boast a peerage of twelve years'standing;[73] and all the great Tudor ministers, Wolsey and (p. 038)Cromwell, Cecil and Walsingham, were men of comparatively humble birth. With similar objects Henry VII. Passed laws limiting the number ofretainers and forbidding the practice of maintenance. The courts ofStar Chamber and Requests were developed to keep in order his powerfulsubjects and give poor men protection against them. Their civil lawprocedure, influenced by Roman imperial maxims, served to enhance theroyal power and dignity, and helped to build up the Tudor autocracy. 

 [Footnote 71: The Duke was Buckingham, and the Marquis was Dorset. ]

 [Footnote 72: See a description of Ferdinand's court by John Stile, the English envoy, in _L. And P. _, i. , 490. ]

 [Footnote 73: See the present writer's _England under Protector Somerset_, p. 38. ]

 * * * * *

To the office of king thus developed and magnified, the young Princewho stood upon the steps of the throne brought personal qualities ofthe highest order, and advantages to which his father was completely astranger. His title was secure, his treasury overflowed, and heenjoyed the undivided affections of his people. There was no alternativeclaimant. The White Rose, indeed, had languished in the Tower sincehis surrender by Philip, and the Duke of Buckingham had some yearsbefore been mentioned as a possible successor to the throne;[74] buttheir claims only served to remind men that nothing but Henry's lifestood between them and anarchy, for his young brother Edmund, Duke ofSomerset, had preceded Arthur to an early grave. Upon the singlethread of Henry's life hung the peace of the realm; no other couldhave secured the throne without a second civil war. It was smallwonder if England regarded Henry with a somewhat extravagant loyalty. Never had king ascended the throne more richly endowed with mental andphysical gifts. He was ten weeks short of his eighteenth year. (p. 039)From both his parents he inherited grace of mind and of person. Hisfather in later years was broken in health and soured in spirit, butin the early days of his reign he had charmed the citizens of Yorkwith his winning smile. His mother is described by the Venetianambassador as a woman of great beauty and ability. She transmitted toHenry many of the popular characteristics of her father, Edward IV. , though little of the military genius of that consummate commander whofought thirteen pitched battles and lost not one. Unless eye-witnessessadly belied themselves, Henry VIII. Must have been the desire of alleyes. "His Majesty, " wrote one a year or two later, [75] "is thehandsomest potentate I ever set eyes on; above the usual height, withan extremely fine calf to his leg; his complexion fair and bright, with auburn hair combed straight and short in the French fashion, anda round face so very beautiful that it would become a pretty woman, his throat being rather long and thick. .. . He speaks French, English, Latin, and a little Italian; plays well on the lute and harpsichord, sings from the book at sight, draws the bow with greater strength thanany man in England, and jousts marvellously. " Another foreign residentin 1519[76] described him as "extremely handsome. Nature could nothave done more for him. He is much handsomer than any other sovereignin Christendom; a great deal handsomer than the King of France; veryfair and his whole frame admirably proportioned. On hearing thatFrancis I. Wore a beard, he allowed his own to grow, and as it is (p. 040)reddish, he has now got a beard that looks like gold. He is veryaccomplished, a good musician, composes well, is a capital horseman, afine jouster, speaks French, Latin, and Spanish. .. . He is very fond ofhunting, and never takes his diversion without tiring eight or tenhorses which he causes to be stationed beforehand along the line ofcountry he means to take, and when one is tired he mounts another, andbefore he gets home they are all exhausted. He is extremely fond oftennis, at which game it is the prettiest thing in the world to seehim play, his fair skin glowing through a shirt of the finesttexture. "

 [Footnote 74: _L. And P. , Henry VII. _, i. , 180, 233, 319. ]

 [Footnote 75:_L. And P. _, ii. , 395. ]

 [Footnote 76: Giustinian, _Despatches_, ii. , 312; _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1287; _L. And P. _, iii. , 402. ]

The change from the cold suspicious Henry VII. To such a king as thiswas inevitably greeted with a burst of rapturous enthusiasm. "I haveno fear, " wrote Mountjoy to Erasmus, [77] "but when you heard that ourPrince, now Henry the Eighth, whom we may well call our Octavius, hadsucceeded to his father's throne, all your melancholy left you atonce. For what may you not promise yourself from a Prince, with whoseextraordinary and almost Divine character you are well acquainted. .. . But when you know what a hero he now shows himself, how wisely hebehaves, what a lover he is of justice and goodness, what affection hebears to the learned, I will venture to swear that you will need nowings to make you fly to behold this new and auspicious star. If youcould see how all the world here is rejoicing in the possession of sogreat a Prince, how his life is all their desire, you could notcontain your tears for joy. The heavens laugh, the earth exults, allthings are full of milk, of honey, of nectar! Avarice is expelled thecountry. Liberality scatters wealth with a bounteous hand. Our (p. 041)King does not desire gold or gems or precious metals, but virtue, glory, immortality. " The picture is overdrawn for modern taste, butmaking due allowance for Mountjoy's turgid efforts to emulate hismaster's eloquence, enough remains to indicate the impression made byHenry on a peer of liberal education. His unrivalled skill in nationalsports and martial exercises appealed at least as powerfully to themass of his people. In archery, in wrestling, in joust and in tourney, as well as in the tennis court or on the hunting field, Henry was amatch for the best in his kingdom. None could draw a bow, tame asteed, or shiver a lance more deftly than he, and his single-handedtournaments on horse and foot with his brother-in-law, the Duke ofSuffolk, are likened by one who watched them to the combats ofAchilles and Hector. These are no mere trifles below the dignity ofhistory; they help to explain the extraordinary hold Henry obtainedover popular imagination. Suppose there ascended the throne to-day ayoung prince, the hero of the athletic world, the finest oar, the bestbat, the crack marksman of his day, it is easy to imagine theenthusiastic support he would receive from thousands of his people whocare much for sport, and nothing at all for politics. Suppose alsothat that prince were endowed with the iron will, the instinctiveinsight into the hearts of his people, the profound aptitude forgovernment that Henry VIII. Displayed, he would be a rash man whowould guarantee even now the integrity of parliamentary power or thecontinuance of cabinet rule. In those days, with thirty years of civilwar and fifteen more of conspiracy fresh in men's minds, with noalternative to anarchy save Henry VIII. , with a peerage fallen (p. 042)from its high estate, and a Parliament almost lost to respect, royalautocracy was not a thing to dread or distrust. "If a lion knew hisstrength, " said Sir Thomas More of his master to Cromwell, "it werehard for any man to rule him. " Henry VIII. Had the strength of a lion;it remains to be seen how soon he learnt it, and what use he made ofthat strength when he discovered the secret. 

 [Footnote 77: F. M. Nichols, _Epistles of Erasmus_, i. , 457. ]

CHAPTER III. (p. 043)

THE APPRENTICESHIP OF HENRY VIII. 

Quietly and peacefully, without a threat from abroad or a murmur athome, the crown, which his father had won amid the storm and stress ofthe field of battle, devolved upon Henry VIII. With an eager profusionof zeal Ferdinand of Aragon placed at Henry's disposal his army, hisfleet, his personal services. [78] There was no call for this sacrifice. For generations there had been no such tranquil demise of the crown. Not a ripple disturbed the surface of affairs as the old King lay sickin April, 1509, in Richmond Palace at Sheen. By his bedside stood hisonly surviving son; and to him the dying monarch addressed his lastwords of advice. He desired him to complete his marriage with Catherine, he exhorted him to defend the Church, and to make war on the infidel;he commended to him his faithful councillors, and is believed to haveurged upon him the execution of De la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, the WhiteRose of England. On the 22nd he was dead. A fortnight later the funeralprocession wended its way from Sheen to St. Paul's, where the illustriousJohn Fisher, cardinal and martyr, preached the _éloge_. Thence it (p. 044)passed down the Strand, between hedges and willows clad in the freshgreen of spring, to

 That acre sown indeed With the richest, royallest seed That the earth did e'er drink in. 

There, in the vault beneath the chapel in Westminster Abbey, whichbears his name and testifies to his magnificence in building, HenryVII. Was laid to rest beside his Queen; dwelling, says Bacon, "morerichly dead in the monument of his tomb than he did alive in Richmondor any of his palaces". For years before and after, Torrigiano, therival of Buonarotti, wrought at its "matchless altar, " not a stone ofwhich survived the Puritan fury of the civil war. 

 [Footnote 78: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 4. ]

On the day of his father's death, or the next, the new King removedfrom Richmond Palace to the Tower, whence, on 23rd April, was datedthe first official act of his reign. He confirmed in ampler form thegeneral pardon granted a few days before by Henry VII. ; but the amplerform was no bar to the exemption of fourscore offenders from the actof grace. [79] Foremost among them were the three brothers De la Pole, Sir Richard Empson and Edmund Dudley. The exclusion of Empson andDudley from the pardon was more popular than the pardon itself. Ifanything could have enhanced Henry's favour with his subjects, it wasthe condign punishment of the tools of his father's extortion. Theirdeath was none the less welcome for being unjust. They were not merelyrefused pardon and brought to the block; a more costly concession wasmade when their bonds for the payment of loans were cancelled. [80]Their victims, so runs the official record, had been "without (p. 045)any ground or matter of truth, by the undue means of certain of thecouncil of our said late father, thereunto driven contrary to law, reason and good conscience, to the manifest charge and peril of thesoul of our said late father". 

 [Footnote 79: _L. And P. _, i. , 2, 12. ]

 [Footnote 80: _Cf. L. And P. _, i. , 1004. ]

If filial piety demanded the delivery of his father's soul from peril, it counselled no less the fulfilment of his dying requests, and thearrangements for Catherine's marriage were hurried on with an almostindecent haste. The instant he heard rumours of Henry VII. 's death, Ferdinand sent warning to his envoy in England that Louis of Franceand others would seek by all possible means to break off the match. [81]To further it, he would withdraw his objections to the union of Charlesand Mary; and a few days later he wrote again to remove any scruplesHenry might entertain about marrying his deceased brother's wife;while to Catherine herself he declared with brutal frankness that shewould get no other husband than Henry. [82] All his paternal anxietymight have been spared. Long before Ferdinand's persuasions couldreach Henry's ears, he had made up his mind to consummate the marriage. He would not, he wrote to Margaret of Savoy, [83] disobey his father'scommands, reinforced as they were by the dispensation of the Pope andby the friendship between the two families contracted by his sisterMary's betrothal to Catherine's nephew Charles. There were otherreasons besides those he alleged. A council trained by Henry VII. Wasloth to lose the gold of Catherine's dower; it was of the utmostimportance to strengthen at once the royal line; and a full-bloodedyouth of Henry's temperament was not likely to repel a comely (p. 046)wife ready to his hand, when the dictates of his father's policy nolonger stood between them. So on 11th June, barely a month after HenryVII. 's obsequies, the marriage, big with destinies, of Henry VIII. AndCatherine of Aragon was privately solemnised by Archbishop Warham "inthe Queen's closet" at Greenwich. [84] On the same day the commissionof claims was appointed for the King's and Queen's coronation. A weekthen sufficed for its business, and on Sunday, 24th June, the Abbeywas the scene of a second State function within three months. Itssplendour and display were emblematic of the coming reign. Warhamplaced the crown on the King's head; the people cried, "Yea, yea!" ina loud voice when asked if they would have Henry as King; Sir RobertDymock performed the office of champion; and a banquet, jousts andtourneys concluded the ceremonies. 

 [Footnote 81: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 3. ]

 [Footnote 82: _Ibid. _, ii. , 8, 15. ]

 [Footnote 83: _L. And P. _, i. , 224. ]

 [Footnote 84: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5774. ]

 * * * * *

Though he had wedded a wife and been crowned a king, Henry was as yetlittle more than a boy. A powerful mind ripens slowly in a vigorousframe, and Henry's childish precocity had given way before a youthfuldevotion to physical sports. He was no prodigy of early development. His intellect, will and character were of a gradual, healthier growth;they were not matured for many years after he came to the throne. Hewas still in his eighteenth year; and like most young Englishmen ofmeans and muscle, his interests centred rather in the field than inthe study. Youth sat on the prow and pleasure at the helm. "Continualfeasting" was the phrase in which Catherine described their early marriedlife. In the winter evenings there were masks and comedies, romps (p. 047)and revels, in which Henry himself, Bessie Blount and other youngladies of his Court played parts. [85] In the spring and summer therewere archery and tennis. Music, we are told, was practised day andnight. Two months after his accession Henry wrote to Ferdinand that hediverted himself with jousts, birding, hunting, and other innocent andhonest pastimes, in visiting various parts of his kingdom, but that hedid not therefore neglect affairs of State. [86] Possibly he was asassiduous in his duties as modern university athletes in their studies;the neglect was merely comparative. But Ferdinand's ambassador remarkedon Henry's aversion to business, and his councillors complained thathe cared only for the pleasures of his age. Two days a week, said theSpaniard, were devoted to single combats on foot, initiated in imitationof the heroes of romance, Amadis and Lancelot;[87] and if Henry'sother innocent and honest pastimes were equally exacting, his view ofthe requirements of State may well have been modest. From the earliestdays of his reign the general outline of policy was framed in accordwith his sentiments, and he was probably consulted on most questionsof importance. But it was not always so; in August, 1509, Louis XII. Acknowledged a letter purporting to come from the English King with arequest for friendship and peace. "Who wrote this letter?" burst outHenry. "I ask peace of the King of France, who dare not look me in theface, still less make war on me!"[88] His pride at the age of eighteenwas not less than his ignorance of what passed in his name. He had (p. 048)yet to learn the secret that painful and laborious mastery of detailis essential to him who aspires not merely to reign but to rule; andmatters of detail in administration and diplomacy were still left inhis ministers' hands. 

 [Footnote 85: _L. And P. _, vol. Ii. , p. 1461. ]

 [Footnote 86: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 19. ]

 [Footnote 87: _Ibid. _, ii. , 44, 45. ]

 [Footnote 88: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 11. ]

With the exception of Empson and Dudley, Henry made little or no changein the council his father bequeathed him. Official precedence appertainedto his Chancellor, Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury. Like most ofHenry VII. 's prelates, he received his preferment in the Church as areward for services to the State. Much of the diplomatic work of theprevious reign had passed through his hands; he helped to arrange themarriage of Arthur and Catherine, and was employed in the vain attemptto obtain Margaret of Savoy as a bride for Henry VII. As Archbishop hecrowned and married Henry VIII. , and as Chancellor he deliveredorations at the opening of the young King's first three Parliaments. [89]They are said to have given general satisfaction, but apart from them, Warham, for some unknown reason, took little part in politicalbusiness. So far as Henry can be said at this time to have had a PrimeMinister, that title belongs to Fox, his Lord Privy Seal and Bishop ofWinchester. Fox had been even more active than Warham in politics, andmore closely linked with the personal fortunes of the two Tudor kings. He had shared the exile of Henry of Richmond; the treaty of Étaples, the Intercursus Magnus, the marriage of Henry's elder daughter toJames IV. , and the betrothal of his younger to Charles, were largelythe work of his hands. Malicious gossip described him as willing toconsent to his own father's death to serve the turn of his king, (p. 049)and a better founded belief ascribed to his wit the invention of"Morton's fork". [90] He was Chancellor of Cambridge in 1500, as Warhamwas of Oxford, but won more enduring fame by founding the college ofCorpus Christi in the university over which the Archbishop presided. He had baptised Henry VIII. And advocated his marriage to Catherine;and to him the King extended the largest share in his confidence. Badoer, the Venetian ambassador, called him "alter rex, "[91] andCarroz, the Spaniard, said Henry trusted him most; but Henry was notblind to the failings of his most intimate councillors, and he warnedCarroz that the Bishop of Winchester was, as his name implied, a foxindeed. [92] A third prelate, Ruthal of Durham, divided with Fox thechief business of State; and these clerical advisers were supposed tobe eager to guide Henry's footsteps in the paths of peace, andcounteract the more adventurous tendencies of their lay colleagues. 

 [Footnote 89: _L. And P. _, i. , 811, 2082; ii. , 114. ]

 [Footnote 90: _D. N. B. _, xx. , 152. ]

 [Footnote 91: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 63. ]

 [Footnote 92: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 44. ]

At the head of the latter stood Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, soon tobe rewarded for his victory at Flodden by his restoration to thedukedom of Norfolk. He and his son, the third duke, were Lord HighTreasurers throughout Henry's reign; but jealousy of their past, Tudordistrust of their rank, or personal limitations, impaired theauthority that would otherwise have attached to their officialposition; and Henry never trusted them as he did ministers whom hehimself had raised from the dust. Surrey had served under Edward IV. And Richard III. ; he had fought against Henry at Bosworth, beenattainted and sent to the Tower. Reflecting that it was better to (p. 050)be a Tudor official at Court than a baronial magnate in prison, hesubmitted to the King and was set up as a beacon to draw his peersfrom their feudal ways. The rest of the council were men of littledistinction. Shrewsbury, the Lord High Steward, was a pale reflex ofSurrey, and illustrious in nought but descent. Charles Somerset, LordHerbert, who was Chamberlain and afterwards Earl of Worcester, was aBeaufort bastard, [93] and may have derived some little influence fromhis harmless kinship with Henry VIII. Lovell, the Treasurer, Poyningsthe Controller of the Household, and Harry Marney, Chancellor of theDuchy of Lancaster, were tried and trusty officials. Bishop Fisher wasgreat as a Churchman, a scholar, a patron of learning, but not as aman of affairs; while Buckingham, the only duke in England, and hisbrother, the Earl of Wiltshire, were rigidly excluded by dynasticjealousy from all share in political authority. 

 [Footnote 93: He is a link in the hereditary chain which began with Beauforts, Dukes of Somerset and ended in Somersets, Dukes of Beaufort. ]

The most persistent of Henry's advisers was none of his council. Hewas Ferdinand the Catholic, King of Aragon; and to his inspiration hasbeen ascribed[94] the course of foreign policy during the first fiveyears of his son-in-law's reign. He worked through his daughter; theonly thing she valued in life, wrote Catherine a month after hermarriage, was her father's confidence. When Membrilla was recalledbecause he failed to satisfy Catherine's somewhat exacting temper, shewas herself formally commissioned to act in his place as (p. 051)Ferdinand's ambassador at Henry's Court; Henry was begged to give herimplicit credence and communicate with Spain through her mediation!"These kingdoms of _your_ highness, " she wrote to her father, "are ingreat tranquillity. "[95] Well might Ferdinand congratulate himself onthe result of her marriage, and the addition of fresh, to his alreadyextensive, domains. He needed them all to ensure the success of hisfar-reaching schemes. His eldest grandson, Charles, was heir not onlyto Castile and Aragon, Naples and the Indies, which were to come tohim from his mother, Ferdinand's imbecile daughter, Juaña, but toBurgundy and Austria, the lands of his father, Philip, and of Philip'sfather, the Emperor Maximilian. This did not satisfy Ferdinand'sgrasping ambition; he sought to carve out for his second grandson, named after himself, a kingdom in Northern Italy. [96] On the Duchy ofMilan, the republics of Venice, Genoa and Florence, his greedy eyeswere fixed. Once conquered, they would bar the path of France toNaples; compensated by these possessions, the younger Ferdinand mightresign his share in the Austrian inheritance to Charles; while Charleshimself was to marry the only daughter of the King of Hungary, addthat to his other dominions, and revive the empire of Charlemagne. (p. 052)Partly with these objects in view, partly to draw off the scent fromhis own track, Ferdinand had, in 1508, raised the hue and cry afterVenice. Pope and Emperor, France and Spain, joined in the chase, butof all the parties to the league of Cambrai, Louis XII. Was in a positionto profit the most. His victory over Venice at Agnadello (14th May, 1509), secured him Milan and Venetian territory as far as the Mincio;it also dimmed the prospects of Ferdinand's Italian scheme and threatenedhis hold on Naples; but the Spanish King was restrained from openopposition to France by the fact that Louis was still mediatingbetween him and Maximilian on their claims to the administration ofCastile, the realm of their daughter and daughter-in-law, Juaña. 

 [Footnote 94: By Bergenroth in his prefaces to the _Calendar of Spanish State Papers_. He greatly exaggerates Ferdinand's influence. ]

 [Footnote 95: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 12, 21; _L. And P. _, i. , 368. ]

 [Footnote 96: _Ibid. _, ii. , 153, 159. The following pedigree may be useful for reference:--

 Charles = Margaret the Bold of York, "aunt to all the Pretenders" | | Mary = Emperor Ferdinand = Isabella Maximilian of Aragon | of Castile | (_d. _ 1519) | | +---------------------+ | | | Archduke = Juaña Catherine Philip | of (_d. _ 1506) | Aragon | +----------------------+ | | Charles V. , Emperor Ferdinand, Emperor 1519-1556 1556-1564]

 * * * * *

Such was the situation with which Henry VIII. And his council wererequired to deal. The young King entered the arena of Europe, a childof generous impulse in a throng of hoary intriguers--Ferdinand, Maximilian, Louis XII. , Julius II. --each of whom was nearly threetimes his age. He was shocked to see them leagued to spoil a pettyrepublic, a republic, too, which had been for ages the bulwark ofChristendom against the Turk and from time immemorial the ally ofEngland. Venice had played no small part in the revival of letterswhich appealed so strongly to Henry's intellectual sympathies. Scholarsand physicians from Venice, or from equally threatened Italianrepublics, frequented his Court and Cabinet. Venetian merchantsdeveloped the commerce of London; Venetian galleys called twice a yearat Southampton on their way to and from Flanders, and their trade (p. 053)was a source of profit to both nations. Inevitably Henry's sympathieswent out to the sore-pressed republic. They were none the less strongbecause the chief of the spoilers was France, for Henry and his peoplewere imbued with an inborn antipathy to everything French. [97] Beforehe came to the throne he was reported to be France's enemy; andspeculations were rife as to the chances of his invading it andimitating the exploits of his ancestor Henry V. It needed nopersuasion from Ferdinand to induce him to intervene in favour ofVenice. Within a few weeks of his accession he refused to publish thepapal bull which cast the halo of crusaders over the bandits ofCambrai. The day after his coronation he deplored to Badoer Louis'victory at Agnadello, and a week later he wrote to the sovereigns ofEurope urging the injustice of their Venetian crusade. In September hesent Bainbridge, Cardinal-Archbishop of York, to reside at the PapalCourt, and watch over the interests of Venice as well as of England. "Italy, " wrote Badoer, "was entirely rescued from the barbarians bythe movements of the English King; and, but for that, Ferdinand wouldhave done nothing. "[98] Henry vainly endeavoured to persuadeMaximilian, the Venetian's lifelong foe, to accept arbitration; but hesucceeded in inducing the Doge to make his peace with the Pope, andJulius to remove his ecclesiastical censures. To Ferdinand he declaredthat Venice must be preserved as a wall against the Turk, and hehinted that Ferdinand's own dominions in Italy would, if Venice weredestroyed, "be unable to resist the ambitious designs of certain (p. 054)Christian princes". [99] The danger was as patent to Julius andFerdinand as it was to Henry; and as soon as Ferdinand had inducedLouis to give a favourable verdict in his suit with the Emperor, theCatholic King was ready to join Henry and the Pope in a league ofdefence. 

 [Footnote 97: _Ven. Cal. _, i. , 941, 942, 945; ii. , 1. ]

 [Footnote 98: _L. And P. _, i. , 922, 932, 3333; _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 5, 7, 9, 19-22, 28, 33, 39, 40, 45, 51. ]

 [Footnote 99: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 23. ]

But, in spite of Venetian, Spanish and papal instigations to "recoverhis noble inheritance in France, " in spite of his own indignation atthe treatment of Venice, and the orders issued in the first year ofhis reign to his subjects to furnish themselves with weapons of war, for which the long peace had left them unprepared, [100] Henry, or thepeace party in his council, was unwilling to resort to the arbitramentof arms. He renewed his father's treaties not only with other powers, but, much to the disgust of Ferdinand, Venice and the Pope, with Louishimself. His first martial exploit, apart from 1, 500 archers whom hewas bound by treaty to send to aid the Netherlands against the Duke ofGuelders, [101] was an expedition for the destruction of the enemies ofthe faith. [102] Such an expedition, he once said, he owed to God forhis peaceful accession; at another time he declared[103] that hecherished, like an heirloom, the ardour against the infidel which heinherited from his father. He repressed that ardour, it must be added, with as much success as Henry VII. ; and apart from this one youthfulindiscretion, he did not suffer his ancestral zeal to escape intoaction. His generous illusions soon vanished before the sordidrealities of European statecraft; and the defence of Christendom (p. 055)became with him, as with others, a hollow pretence, a diplomaticfiction, the infinite varieties of which age could not wither norcustom stale. Did a monarch wish for peace? Peace at once wasimperative to enable Christian princes to combine against the Turk. Did he desire war? War became a disagreeable necessity to restrain theambition of Christian princes who, "worse than the infidel, " disturbedthe peace of Christendom and opened a door for the enemies of theChurch. Nor did the success of Henry's first crusade encourage him topersist in similar efforts. It sailed from Plymouth in May, 1511, tojoin in Ferdinand's attack on the Moors, but it had scarcely landedwhen bickerings broke out between the Christian allies, and Ferdinandinformed the English commanders that he had made peace with theInfidel, to gird his loins for war with the Most Christian King. 

 [Footnote 100: _L. And P. _, i. , 679. ]

 [Footnote 101: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 16; _L. And P. _, i. , 1740. ]

 [Footnote 102: _L. And P. _, i. , 1531. ]

 [Footnote 103: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4688; _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 178. ]

In the midst of their preparation against infidels, so runs thepreamble to the treaty in which Henry and Ferdinand signified theiradhesion to the Holy League, they heard that Louis was besieging thePope in Bologna. [104] The thought of violent hands being laid on theVicar of Christ stirred Henry to a depth of indignation which noinjuries practised against a temporal power could rouse. His ingenuousdeference to the Papacy was in singular contrast to the contempt withwhich it was treated by more experienced sovereigns, and they tradedon the weight which Henry always attached to the words of the Pope. Hehad read Maximilian grave lectures on his conduct in countenancing theschismatic _conciliabulum_ assembled by Louis at Pisa. [105] He wroteto Bainbridge at the Papal Court that he was ready to sacrifice goods, life and kingdom for the Pope and the Church;[106] and to the (p. 056)Emperor that at the beginning of his reign he thought of nothing elsethan an expedition against the Infidel. But now he was called by thePope and the danger of the Church in another direction; and heproceeded to denounce the impiety and schism of the French and theiratrocious deeds in Italy. He joined Ferdinand in requiring Louis todesist from his impious work. Louis turned a deaf ear to theirdemands; and in November, 1511, they bound themselves to defend theChurch against all aggression and make war upon the aggressor. 

 [Footnote 104: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 59. ]

 [Footnote 105: _L. And P. _, i. , 1828. ]

 [Footnote 106: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 177. ]

 * * * * *

This reversal of the pacific policy which had marked the first two anda half years of Henry's reign was not exclusively due to the King'szeal for the Church. The clerical party of peace in his council wasnow divided by the appearance of an ecclesiastic who was far moreremarkable than any of his colleagues, and to whose turbulence andenergy the boldness of English policy must, henceforth, for many yearsbe mainly ascribed. Thomas Wolsey had been appointed Henry's almonerat the beginning of his reign, but he exercised no apparent influencein public affairs. It was not till 1511 that he joined the council, though during the interval he must have been gradually building up hisascendancy over the King's mind. To Wolsey, restlessly ambitious forhimself, for Henry, and England, was attributed the responsibility forthe sudden adoption of a spirited foreign policy; and it was in thepreparations for the war of 1512 that his marvellous industry andgrasp of detail first found full scope. 

The main attack of the English and Spanish monarchs was to be on (p. 057)Guienne, [107] and in May, 1512, Henry went down to Southampton tospeed the departing fleet. [108] It sailed from Cowes under Dorset'scommand on 3rd June, and a week later the army disembarked on thecoast of Guipuscoa. [109] There it remained throughout the torridsummer, awaiting the Spanish King's forces to co-operate in theinvasion of France. But Ferdinand was otherwise occupied. Navarre wasnot mentioned in the treaty with Henry, but Navarre was what Ferdinandhad in his mind. It was then an independent kingdom, surrounded onthree sides by Spanish territory, and an easy prey which would serveto unite all Spain beyond the Pyrenees under Ferdinand's rule. Underpretence of restoring Guienne to the English crown, Dorset's army hadbeen enticed to Passages, and there it was used as a screen againstthe French, behind which Ferdinand calmly proceeded to conquerNavarre. It was, he said, impossible to march into France with Navarreunsubdued in his rear. Navarre was at peace, but it might join theFrench, and he invited Dorset to help in securing the prey. Dorsetrefused to exceed his commission, but the presence of his army atPassages was admitted by the Spaniards to be "quite providential, "[110]as it prevented the French from assisting Navarre. English indignationwas loud and deep; men and officers vowed that, but for Henry'sdispleasure, they would have called to account the perfidious King. Condemned to inactivity, the troops almost mutinied; they found itimpossible to live on their wages of sixpence a day (equivalent now toat least six shillings), drank Spanish wine as if it were English (p. 058)beer, and died of dysentery like flies in the autumn. Disciplinerelaxed; drill was neglected. Still Ferdinand tarried, and in October, seeing no hope of an attempt on Guienne that year, the army tookmatters into its own hands and embarked for England. [111]

 [Footnote 107: _L. And P. _, i. , 1980; _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 59; _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 122. ]

 [Footnote 108: _Ibid. _, ii. , 159. ]

 [Footnote 109: _L. And P. _, i. , 3243. ]

 [Footnote 110: _Ibid. _, i. , 3352. ]

 [Footnote 111: _L. And P. _, i. , 3298, 3355; _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 198, 205. The financial accounts for the expedition are in _L. And P. _, i. , 3762. ]

Henry's first military enterprise had ended in disgrace and disaster. The repute of English soldiers, dimmed by long peace, was now furthertarnished. Henry's own envoys complained of the army's insubordination, its impatience of the toils, and inexperience of the feats, of war;and its ignominious return exposed him to the taunts of both friendsand foes. He had been on the point of ordering it home, when it cameof its own accord; but the blow to his authority was not, on thataccount, less severe. His irritation was not likely to be soothed whenhe realised the extent to which he had been duped by his father-in-law. Ferdinand was loud in complaints and excuses. [112] September andOctober were, he said, the proper months for a campaign in Guienne, and he was marching to join the English army at the moment of itsdesertion. In reality, it had served his purpose to perfection. Itspresence had diverted French levies from Italy, and enabled him, unmolested, to conquer Navarre. With that he was content. Why shouldhe wish to see Henry in Guienne? He was too shrewd to involve his ownforces in that hopeless adventure, and the departure of the Englishfurnished him with an excuse for entering into secret negotiationswith Louis. His methods were eloquent of sixteenth-century (p. 059)diplomacy. He was, he ordered Carroz to tell Henry many monthslater, [113] when concealment was no longer possible or necessary, sending a holy friar to his daughter in England; the friar's healthdid not permit of his going by sea; so he went through France, and wastaken prisoner. Hearing of his fame for piety, the French Queen desiredhis ghostly advice, and took the opportunity of the interview topersuade the friar to return to Spain with proposals of peace. Ferdinand was suddenly convinced that death was at hand; his confessorexhorted him to forgive and make peace with his enemies. This work ofpiety he could not in conscience neglect. So he agreed to a twelvemonth'struce, which secured Navarre. In spite of his conscience he wouldnever have consented, had he not felt that the truce was really inHenry's interests. But what weighed with him most was, he said, thereformation of the Church. That should be Henry's first and noblestwork; he could render no greater service to God. No reformation waspossible without peace, and so long as the Church was unreformed, warsamong princes would never cease. 

 [Footnote 112: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 68, 70, 72; _cf. _ _L. And P. _, i. , 3350, 3356. ]

 [Footnote 113: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 89, 118; _L. And P. _, i. , 3839. ]

Such reasoning, he thought, would appeal to the pious and unsophisticatedHenry. To other sovereigns he used arguments more suited to theirexperience of his diplomacy. He told Maximilian[114] that his maindesire was to serve the Emperor's interests, to put a curb on theItalians, and to frustrate their design of driving himself, Louis andMaximilian across the Alps. But the most monumental falsehood hereserved for the Pope; his ambassador at the Papal Court was to (p. 060)assure Julius that he had failed in his efforts to concert with Henrya joint invasion of France, that Henry was not in earnest over the warand that he had actually made a truce[115] with France. This hadenabled Louis to pour fresh troops into Italy, and compelled him, Ferdinand, to consult his own interests and make peace! Two days laterhe was complaining to Louis that Henry refused to join in thetruce. [116] To punish Henry for his refusal he was willing to aidLouis against him, but he would prefer to settle the differencesbetween the French and the English kings by a still more treacherousexpedient. Julius was to be induced to give a written promise that, ifthe points at issue were submitted to his arbitration, he wouldpronounce no verdict till it had been secretly sanctioned by Ferdinandand Louis. This promise obtained, Louis was publicly to appeal to thePope; Henry's devotion to the Church would prevent his refusing theSupreme Pontiff's mediation; if he did, ecclesiastical censures couldbe invoked against him. [117] Such was the plot Ferdinand was hatchingfor the benefit of his daughter's husband. The Catholic King had everdeceit in his heart and the name of God on his lips. He was accused bya rival of having cheated him twice; the charge was repeated toFerdinand. "He lies, " he broke out, "I cheated him three times. " Hewas faithful to one principle only, self-aggrandisement by fair meansor foul. His favourite scheme was a kingdom in Northern Italy; but inthe way of its realisation his own overreaching ambition placed aninsuperable bar. Italy had been excluded from his truce with France toleave him free to pursue that design;[118] but in July, 1512, the (p. 061)Italians already suspected his motives, and a papal legate declaredthat they no more wished to see Milan Spanish than French. [119] In thefollowing November, Spanish troops in the pay and alliance of Venicedrove the French out of Brescia. By the terms of the Holy League, itshould have been restored to its owner, the Venetian Republic. Ferdinand kept it himself; it was to form the nucleus of his NorthItalian dominion. Venice at once took alarm and made a compact withFrance which kept the Spaniards at bay until after Ferdinand'sdeath. [120] The friendship between Venice and France severed thatbetween France and the Emperor; and, in 1513, the war went on with arearrangement of partners, Henry and Maximilian on one side, [121]against France and Venice on the other, with Ferdinand secretly tryingto trick them all. 

 [Footnote 114: _Ibid. _, ii. , 96, 101. ]

 [Footnote 115: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 106. ]

 [Footnote 116: _Ibid. _, ii. , 107. ]

 [Footnote 117: _Ibid. _, ii. , 104. ]

 [Footnote 118: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 70. ]

 [Footnote 119: _L. And P. _, i. , 3325. ]

 [Footnote 120: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 208, 234, 254, 283, 298. Bergenroth, in his zeal for Ferdinand, represents the Pope and not Ferdinand as being responsible for driving Venice into the arms of France. ]

 [Footnote 121: _L. And P. _, i. , 3649, 3859-61. The league between Henry and Maximilian was concluded 5th April, 1513; Carroz ratified it on Ferdinand's behalf on 25th April, though Ferdinand had already signed a truce with France. A good instance of Ferdinand's duplicity may be found in _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 104, 207; in the former he is asking for the hand of Renée for his grandson Ferdinand, in the latter he tells the Pope that the report that he had made this request was pure invention. ]

 * * * * *

For many months Henry knew not, or refused to credit, his father-in-law'sperfidy. To outward appearance, the Spanish King was as eager as everfor the war in Guienne. He was urging Henry to levy 6, 000 Germans (p. 062)to serve for that purpose in conjunction with Spanish forces; and, inApril, Carroz, in ignorance of his master's real intentions, signed onhis behalf a treaty for the joint invasion of France. [122] This forcedthe Catholic King to reveal his hand. He refused his ratification;[123]now he declared the conquest of Guienne to be a task of such magnitudethat preparations must be complete before April, a date already past;and he recommended Henry to come into the truce with Louis, theexistence of which he had now to confess. Henry had not yet fathomedthe depths; he even appealed to Ferdinand's feelings and patheticallybesought him, as a good father, not to forsake him entirely. [124] Butin vain; his father-in-law deserted him at his sorest hour of need. Tomake peace was out of the question. England's honour had suffered astain that must at all costs be removed. No king with an atom ofspirit would let the dawn of his reign be clouded by such an admissionof failure. Wolsey was there to stiffen his temper in case of need;with him it was almost a matter of life and death to retrieve thedisaster. His credit was pledged in the war. In their moments of angerunder the Spanish sun, the English commanders had loudly imputed toWolsey the origin of the war and the cause of all the mischief. [125]Surrey, for whose banishment from Court the new favourite hadexpressed to Fox a wish, and other "great men" at home, repeated thecharge. [126] Had Wolsey failed to bring honour with peace, his namewould not have been numbered among the greatest of England'sstatesmen. 

 [Footnote 122: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 101. ]

 [Footnote 123: _Ib. _, ii. , 118, 122. ]

 [Footnote 124: _Ib. _, ii. , 125. ]

 [Footnote 125: _L. And P. _, i. , 3356, 3451. ]

 [Footnote 126: _Ib. _, i. , 3443. ]

Henry's temper required no spur. Tudors never flinched in the face (p. 063)of danger, and nothing could have made Henry so resolved to go on asFerdinand's desertion and advice to desist. He was prepared to avengehis army in person. There were to be no expeditions to distant shores;there was to be war in the Channel, where Englishmen were at home onthe sea; and Calais was to be the base of an invasion of France oversoil worn by the tramp of English troops. In March, 1513, Henry, towhom the navy was a weapon, a plaything, a passion, watched his fleetsail down the Thames; its further progress was told him in lettersfrom its gallant admiral, Sir Edmund Howard, who had been strictlycharged to inform the King of the minutest details in the behaviour ofevery one of the ships. [127] Never had such a display of naval forceleft the English shores; twenty-four ships ranging downwards from the1, 600 tons of the _Henry Imperial_, bore nearly 5, 000 marines and3, 000 mariners. [128] The French dared not venture out, while Howardswept the Channel, and sought them in their ports. Brest wasblockaded. A squadron of Mediterranean galleys coming to its reliefanchored in the shallow water off Conquêt. Howard determined to cutthem out; he grappled and boarded their admiral's galley. Thegrappling was cut away, his boat swept out in the tide, and Howard, left unsupported, was thrust overboard by the Frenchmen's pikes. [129]His death was regarded as a national disaster, but he had retrievedEngland's reputation for foolhardy valour. 

 [Footnote 127: _L. And P. _, i. , 3809, 3820. ]

 [Footnote 128: _Ib. _, i. , 3977. ]

 [Footnote 129: _Ib. _, i. , 4005; see also _The War of 1512-13_ (Navy Records Society) where the documents are printed in full. ]

Meanwhile, Henry's army was gathering at Calais. [130] On 30th (p. 064)June, at 7 P. M. , the King himself landed. Before his departure, theunfortunate Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, was brought to theblock for an alleged correspondence with his brother in Louis'service, but really because rumours were rife of Louis' intention toproclaim the White Rose as King of England. [131] On 21st July, Henryleft Calais to join his army, which had already advanced into Frenchterritory. Heavy rains impeded its march and added to its discomfort. Henry, we are told, did not put off his clothes, but rode round thecamp at three in the morning, cheering his men with the remark, "Well, comrades, now that we have suffered in the beginning, fortune promisesus better things, God willing". [132] Near Ardres some Germanmercenaries, of whom there were 8, 000 with Henry's forces, pillagedthe church; Henry promptly had three of them hanged. On 1st August thearmy sat down before Thérouanne; on the 10th, the Emperor arrived toserve as a private at a hundred crowns a day under the Englishbanners. Three days later a large French force arrived at Guinegate toraise the siege; a panic seized it, and the bloodless rout thatfollowed was named the Battle of Spurs. Louis d'Orléans, Duc deLongueville, the famous Chevalier Bayard, and others of the noblestblood in France, were among the captives. [133] Ten days after thisdefeat Thérouanne surrendered; and on the 24th Henry made his (p. 065)triumphal entry into the first town captured by English arms sincethe days of Jeanne Darc. On the 26th he removed to Guinegate, where heremained a week, "according, " says a curious document, "to the laws ofarms, for in case any man would bid battle for the besieging andgetting of any city or town, then the winner (has) to give battle, andto abide the same certain days". [134] No challenge was forthcoming, and on 15th September Henry besieged Tournay, then said to be therichest city north of Paris. During the progress of the siege the LadyMargaret of Savoy, the Regent of the Netherlands, joined her father, the Emperor, and Henry, at Lille. They discussed plans for renewingthe war next year and for the marriage of Charles and Mary. To pleasethe Lady Margaret and to exhibit his skill Henry played the gitteron, the lute and the cornet, and danced and jousted before her. [135] He"excelled every one as much in agility in breaking spears as innobleness of stature". Within a week Tournay fell; on 13th OctoberHenry commenced his return, and on the 21st he re-embarked at Calais. 

 [Footnote 130: _L. And P. _, i. , 3885, 3915. There are three detailed diaries of the campaign in _L. And P. _, two anonymous (Nos. 4253, and 4306), and the other (No. 4284) by John Taylor, afterwards Master of the Rolls, for whom see the present writer in _D. N. B_. , lv. , 429; the original of his diary is in _Cotton MS. _, Cleopatra, C. , v. 64. ]

 [Footnote 131: _Ib. _, i. , 4324, 4328-29. ]

 [Footnote 132: Taylor's _Diary_. ]

 [Footnote 133: Besides the English accounts referred to, see _L. And P. _, i. , 4401. ]

 [Footnote 134: _L. And P. _, i. , 4431. ]

 [Footnote 135: _Ven. Cal_. , ii. , 328. ]

Thérouanne, the Battle of Spurs, and Tournay were not the only, or themost striking, successes in this year of war. In July, Catherine, whomHenry had left as Regent in England, wrote that she was "horribly busywith making standards, banners, and badges"[136] for the army in theNorth; for war with France had brought, as usual, the Scots upon theEnglish backs. James IV. , though Henry's brother-in-law, preferred tobe the cat's paw of the King of France; and in August the Scotsforces poured over the Border under the command of James himself. (p. 066)England was prepared; and on 9th September, "at Flodden hills, " sangSkelton, "our bows and bills slew all the flower of their honour". James IV. Was left a mutilated corpse upon the field of battle. [137]"He has paid, " wrote Henry, "a heavier penalty for his perfidy than wewould have wished. " There was some justice in the charge. James wasbound by treaty not to go to war with England; he had not even waitedfor the Pope's answer to his request for absolution from his oath; andhis challenge to Henry, when he was in France and could not meet it, was not a knightly deed. Henry wrote to Leo for permission to bury theexcommunicated Scottish King with royal honours in St. Paul's. [138]The permission was granted, but the interment did not take place. InItaly, Louis fared no better; at Novara, on 6th June, the Swissinfantry broke in pieces the grand army of France, drove the fragmentsacross the Alps, and restored the Duchy of Milan to the native houseof Sforza. 

 [Footnote 136: _L. And P. _, i. , 4398; Ellis, _Original Letters_, 1st ser. , i. , 83. ]

 [Footnote 137: _L. And P. _, i. , 4439, 4441, 4461; _cf. _ popular ballads in Weber's _Flodden Field_, and _La Rotta de Scocese_ (Bannatyne Club). ]

 [Footnote 138: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 909; _Sp. Cal. _, i. , 137; _L. And P. _, i. , 4502, 4582. ]

 * * * * *

The results of the campaign of 1513 were a striking vindication of therefusal of Henry VIII. And Wolsey to rest under the stigma of theirSpanish expedition of 1512. English prestige was not only restored, but raised higher than it had stood since the death of Henry V. , whose"name, " said Pasqualigo, a Venetian in London, "Henry VIII. Would nowrenew". He styled him "our great King". [139] Peter Martyr, a residentat Ferdinand's Court, declared that the Spanish King was "afraid (p. 067)of the over-growing power of England". [140] Another Venetian in Londonreported that "were Henry ambitious of dominion like others, he wouldsoon give law to the world". But, he added, "he is good and has a goodcouncil. His quarrel was a just one, he marched to free the Church, toobtain his own, and to liberate Italy from the French. "[141] The pompand parade of Henry's wars have, indeed, somewhat obscured thefundamentally pacific character of his reign. The correspondence ofthe time bears constant witness to the peaceful tendencies of Henryand his council. "I content myself, " he once said to Giustinian, "withmy own, I only wish to command my own subjects; but, on the otherhand, I do not choose that any one shall have it in his power tocommand me. "[142] On another occasion he said: "We want all potentatesto content themselves with their own territories; we are content withthis island of ours"; and Giustinian, after four years' residence atHenry's Court, gave it as his deliberate opinion to his Government, that Henry did not covet his neighbours' goods, was satisfied with hisown dominions, and "extremely desirous of peace". [143] Ferdinand said, in 1513, that his pensions from France and a free hand in Scotlandwere all that Henry really desired;[144] and Carroz, his ambassador, reported that Henry's councillors did not like to be at war with anyone. [145] Peace, they told Badoer, suited England better thanwar. [146]

 [Footnote 139: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 340. ]

 [Footnote 140: _L. And P. _, i. , 4864. ]

 [Footnote 141: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 362. ]

 [Footnote 142: _L. And P. _, ii. , 1991. ]

 [Footnote 143: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1287; Giustinian, _Desp. _, App. , ii. , 309. ]

 [Footnote 144: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 142. ]

 [Footnote 145: _Ib. _, ii. , 201. ]

 [Footnote 146: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 298; _cf. L. And P. _, i. , 3081. ]

But Henry's actions proclaimed louder than the words of himself (p. 068)or of others that he believed peace to be the first of English interests. He waged no wars on the continent except against France; and though hereigned thirty-eight years, his hostilities with France were compressedinto as many months. The campaigns of 1512-13, Surrey's and Suffolk'sinroads of 1522 and 1523, and Henry's invasion of 1544, represent thesum of his military operations outside Great Britain and Ireland. Heacquired Tournay in 1513 and Boulogne in 1544, but the one wasrestored in five years for an indemnity, and the other was to be givenback in eight for a similar consideration. These facts are in curiouscontrast with the high-sounding schemes of recovering the crown ofFrance, which others were always suggesting to Henry, and which he, for merely conventional reasons, was in the habit of enunciatingbefore going to war; and in view of the tenacity which Henry exhibitedin other respects, and the readiness with which he relinquished hisregal pretensions to France, it is difficult to believe that they wereany real expression of settled policy. They were, indeed, impossibleof achievement, and Henry saw the fact clearly enough. [147] Modernphenomena such as huge armies sweeping over Europe, and capitals fromBerlin to Moscow, Paris to Madrid, falling before them, were quitebeyond military science of the sixteenth century. Armies fought, as arule, only in the five summer months; it was difficult enough tovictual them for even that time; and lack of commissariat or transportcrippled all the invasions of Scotland. Hertford sacked Edinburgh, (p. 069)but he went by sea. No other capital except Rome saw an invading army. Neither Henry nor Maximilian, Ferdinand nor Charles, ever penetratedmore than a few miles into France, and French armies got no furtherinto Spain, the Netherlands, or Germany. Machiavelli points out thatthe chief safeguard of France against the Spaniards was that the lattercould not victual their army sufficiently to pass the Pyrenees. [148]If in Italy it was different, it was because Italy herself invited theinvaders, and was mainly under foreign dominion. Henry knew that withthe means at his disposal he could never conquer France; his claims tothe crown were transparent conventions, and he was always ready forpeace in return for the _status quo_ and a money indemnity, with atown or so for security. 

 [Footnote 147: In 1520 he described his title "King of France" as a title given him by others which was "good for nothing" (_Ven. Cal. _, iii. , 45). Its value consisted in the pensions he received as a sort of commutation. ]

 [Footnote 148: Machiavelli, _Opera_, iv. , 139. ]

The fact that he had only achieved a small part of the conquest heprofessed to set out to accomplish was, therefore, no bar tonegotiations for peace. There were many reasons for ending the war;the rapid diminution of his father's treasures; the accession to thepapal throne of the pacific Leo in place of the warlike Julius; theabsolution of Louis as a reward for renouncing the council of Pisa;the interruption of the trade with Venice; the attention required byScotland now that her king was Henry's infant nephew; and lastly, hisbetrayal first by Ferdinand and now by the Emperor. In October, 1513, at Lille, a treaty had been drawn up binding Henry, Maximilian andFerdinand to a combined invasion of France before the followingJune. [149] On 6th December, Ferdinand wrote to Henry to say he (p. 070)had signed the treaty. He pointed out the sacrifices he was makingin so doing; he was induced to make them by considering that the warwas to be waged in the interests of the Holy Church, of Maximilian, Henry, and Catherine, and by his wish and hope to live and die infriendship with the Emperor and the King of England. He thought, however, that to make sure of the assistance of God, the allies oughtto bind themselves, if He gave them the victory, to undertake ageneral war on the infidel. [150] Ferdinand seems to have imagined thathe could dupe the Almighty as easily as he hoped to cheat his allies, by a pledge which he never meant to fulfil. A fortnight after thisdespatch he ordered Carroz not to ratify the treaty he himself hadalready signed. [151] The reason was not far to seek. He was deludinghimself with the hope, which Louis shrewdly encouraged, that theFrench King would, after his recent reverses, fall in with theSpaniard's Italian plans. [152] Louis might even, he thought, of hisown accord cede Milan and Genoa, which would annihilate the FrenchKing's influence in Italy, and greatly facilitate the attack onVenice. 

 [Footnote 149: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 138, 143; _L. And P. _, i. , 4511, 4560. ]

 [Footnote 150: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 132. ]

 [Footnote 151: _Ibid. _, ii. , 159. ]

 [Footnote 152: _Ibid. _, ii. , 158, 163. ]

That design had occupied him throughout the summer, before Louis hadbecome so amenable; then he was urging Maximilian that the Pope mustbe kept on their side and persuaded "not to forgive the great sinscommitted by the King of France"; for if he removed his ecclesiasticalcensures, Ferdinand and Maximilian "would be deprived of a plausibleexcuse for confiscating the territories they intended to conquer". [153]Providence was, as usual, to be bribed into assisting in the (p. 071)robbery of Venice by a promise to make war on the Turk. But now thatLouis was prepared to give his daughter Renée in marriage to youngFerdinand and to endow the couple with Milan and Genoa and his claimson Naples, his sins might be forgiven. The two monarchs would not bejustified in making war upon France in face of these offers. Veniceremained a difficulty, for Louis was not likely to help to despoil hisfaithful ally; but Ferdinand had a suggestion. They could all makepeace publicly guaranteeing the Republic's possessions, but Maximilianand he could make a "mental reservation" enabling them to partitionVenice, when France could no longer prevent it. [154]

 [Footnote 153: _Ibid. _, ii. , 131. ]

 [Footnote 154: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 153. ]

So on 13th March, 1514, Ferdinand renewed his truce with France, andMaximilian joined it soon after. [155] The old excuses about thereformation of the Church, his death-bed desire to make peace with hisenemies, could scarcely be used again; so Ferdinand instructed hisagent to say, if Henry asked for an explanation, that there was asecret conspiracy in Italy. [156] If he had said no more, it would havebeen literally true, for the conspiracy was his own; but he went on torelate that the conspiracy was being hatched by the Italians to drivehim and the Emperor out of the peninsula. The two were alike in theirtreachery; both secretly entered the truce with France and broke theirpromise to Henry. Another engagement of longer standing was ruptured. Since 1508, Henry's sister Mary had been betrothed to Maximilian'sgrandson Charles. The marriage was to take place when Charles was (p. 072)fourteen; the pledge had been renewed at Lille, and the nuptials fixednot later than 15th May, 1514. [157] Charles wrote to Mary signinghimself _votre mari_, while Mary was styled Princess of Castile, carried about a bad portrait of Charles, [158] and diplomaticallysighed for his presence ten times a day. But winter wore on and turnedto spring; no sign was forthcoming of Maximilian's intention to keephis grandson's engagement, and Charles was reported as having saidthat he wanted a wife and not a mother. [159] All Henry's inquirieswere met by excuses; the Ides of May came and went, but they broughtno wedding between Mary and Charles. 

 [Footnote 155: _Ibid. _, ii. , 164; _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 389, 391, 401, 405. ]

 [Footnote 156: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 167. ]

 [Footnote 157: _L. And P. _, i. , 4560. ]

 [Footnote 158: _Ibid. _, i. , 5203. ]

 [Footnote 159: _Ven. Cal_. , ii. , 295. Charles was fourteen, Mary eighteen years of age. ]

Henry was learning by bitter experience. Not only was he left to facesingle-handed the might of Louis; but Ferdinand and Maximilian hadsecretly bound themselves to make war on him, if he carried out thetreaty to which they had all three publicly agreed. The man whom hesaid he loved as a natural father, and the titular sovereign ofChristendom, had combined to cheat the boy-king who had come to thethrone with youthful enthusiasms and natural, generous instincts. "Nordo I see, " said Henry to Giustinian, "any faith in the world save inme, and therefore God Almighty, who knows this, prospers my affairs. "[160]This absorbing belief in himself and his righteousness led to strangeaberrations in later years, but in 1514 it had some justification. "Jevous assure, " wrote Margaret of Savoy to her father, the Emperor, (p. 073)"qu'en lui n'a nulle faintise. " "At any rate, " said Pasqualigo, "KingHenry has done himself great honour, and kept faith single-handed. "[161]A more striking testimony was forthcoming a year or two later. WhenCharles succeeded Ferdinand, the Bishop of Badajos drew up forCardinal Ximenes a report on the state of the Prince's affairs. In ithe says: "The King of England has been truer to his engagementstowards the House of Austria than any other prince. The marriage ofthe Prince with the Princess Mary, it must be confessed, did not takeplace, but it may be questioned whether it was the fault of the Kingof England or of the Prince and his advisers. However that may be, with the exception of the marriage, the King of England has generallyfulfilled his obligations towards the Prince, and has behaved as atrusty friend. An alliance with the English can be trusted most ofall. "[162]

 [Footnote 160: _L. And P. _, ii. , 3163. ]

 [Footnote 161: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 406. ]

 [Footnote 162: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 246. ]

But the meekest and saintliest monarch could scarce pass unscathedthrough the baptism of fraud practised on Henry; and Henry was at notime saintly or meek. Ferdinand, he complained, induced him to enterupon the war, and urged the Pope to use his influence with him forthat purpose; he had been at great expense, had assisted Maximilian, taken Tournay, and reduced France to extremities; and now, when hisenemy was at his feet, Ferdinand talked of truce: he would never trustany one again. [163] "Had the King of Spain, " wrote a Venetian attaché, "kept his promise to the King of England, the latter would never havemade peace with France; and the promises of the Emperor were equallyfalse, for he had received many thousands of pounds from King (p. 074)Henry, on condition that he was to be in person at Calais in the monthof May, with a considerable force in the King's pay; but the Emperorpocketed the money and never came. His failure was the cause of allthat took place, for, as King Henry was deceived in every direction, he thought fit to take this other course. "[164] He discovered that he, too, could play at the game of making peace behind the backs of hisnominal friends; and when once he had made up his mind, he played thegame with vastly more effect than Maximilian or Ferdinand. It was hewho had been really formidable to Louis, and Louis was thereforeprepared to pay him a higher price than to either of the others. InFebruary Henry had got wind of his allies' practices with France. Inthe same month a nuncio started from Rome to mediate peace betweenHenry and Louis;[165] but, before his arrival, informal advances hadprobably been made through the Duc de Longueville, a prisoner inEngland since the Battle of Spurs. [166] In January Louis' wife, Anneof Brittany, had died. Louis was fifty-two years old, worn out anddecrepit; but at least half a dozen brides were proposed for his hand. In March it was rumoured in Rome that he would choose Henry's sisterMary, the rejected of Charles. [167] But Henry waited till May hadpassed, and Maximilian had proclaimed to the world his breach ofpromise. Negotiations for the alliance and marriage with Louis thenproceeded apace. Treaties for both were signed in August. Tournayremained in Henry's hands, Louis increased the pensions paid byFrance to England since the Treaty of Étaples, and both kings (p. 075)bound themselves to render mutual aid against their commonfoes. [168]

 [Footnote 163: _L. And P. _, i. , 4864. ]

 [Footnote 164: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 505. ]

 [Footnote 165: _Ibid. _, ii. , 372. ]

 [Footnote 166: _Ibid. _, ii. , 505; _L. And P. _, i. , 5173, 5278. ]

 [Footnote 167: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 383. ]

 [Footnote 168: _L. And P. _, i. , 5305; _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 482, 483. ]

Maximilian and Ferdinand were left out in the cold. Louis not onlybroke off his negotiations with them, but prepared to regain Milan anddiscussed with Henry the revival of his father's schemes for theconquest of Castile. Henry was to claim part of that kingdom in rightof his wife, the late Queen's daughter; later on a still more shadowytitle by descent was suggested. As early as 5th October, the VenetianGovernment wrote to its ambassador in France, "commending extremelythe most sage proceeding of Louis in exhorting the King of England toattack Castile". [169] Towards the end of the year it declared thatLouis had wished to attack Spain, and sought to arrange details in aninterview with Henry; but the English King would not consent, delayedthe interview, and refused the six thousand infantry required for thepurpose. [170] But Henry had certainly urged Louis to reconquerNavarre, [171] and from the tenor of Louis' reply to Henry, late inNovember, it would be inferred that the proposed conquest of Castilealso emanated from the English King or his ministers. Louis professednot to know the laws of succession in Spain, but he was willing tojoin the attack, apart from the merits of the case on which it wasbased. Whether the suggestion originated in France or in England, whether Henry eventually refused it or not, its serious discussionshows how far Henry had travelled in his resentment at the doubledealing of Ferdinand. Carroz complained that he was treated by (p. 076)the English "like a bull at whom every one throws darts, "[172] andthat Henry himself behaved in a most offensive manner wheneverFerdinand's name was mentioned. "If, " he added, "Ferdinand did not puta bridle on this young colt, " it would afterwards become impossible tocontrol him. The young colt was, indeed, already meditating a project, to attain which he, in later years, took the bit in his teeth andbroke loose from control. He was not only betrayed into casting inCatherine's teeth her father's ill faith, but threatening her withdivorce. [173]

 [Footnote 169: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 495. ]

 [Footnote 170: _Ibid. _, ii. , 532, 542. ]

 [Footnote 171: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 192; _L. And P. _, i. , 5637. ]

 [Footnote 172: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 201. A Venetian reports that the English were so enraged that they would have killed Carroz had it not been for Henry (_Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 248), and Carroz was actually placed in confinement. ]

 [Footnote 173: _L. And P. _, i. , 5718; _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 464. ]

Henry had struck back with a vengeance. His blow shivered to fragmentsthe airy castles which Maximilian and Ferdinand were busy constructing. Their plans for reviving the empire of Charlemagne, creating a newkingdom in Italy, inducing Louis to cede Milan and Genoa and assist inthe conquest of Venice, disappeared like empty dreams. The youngerFerdinand found no provision in Italy; he was compelled to retain hisAustrian inheritance, and thus to impair the power of the futureCharles V. ; while the children's grandparents were left sadlyreflecting on means of defence against the Kings of England andFrance. The blot on the triumph was Henry's desertion of Sforza, [174]who, having gratefully acknowledged that to Henry he owed hisrestoration of Milan, [175] was now left to the uncovenanted merciesof Louis. But neither the credit nor discredit is due mainly to (p. 077)Henry. He had learnt much, but his powers were not yet developedenough to make him a match for the craft and guile of his rivals. Theconsciousness of the fact made him rely more and more upon Wolsey, whocould easily beat both Maximilian and Ferdinand at their own game. Hewas not more deceitful than they, but in grasp of detail, in boldnessand assiduity, he was vastly superior. While Ferdinand hawked, andMaximilian hunted the chamois, Wolsey worked often for twelve hourstogether at the cares of the State. Possibly, too, his clericalprofession and the cardinalate which he was soon to hold gave him anadvantage which they did not possess; for, whenever he wanted to obtaincredence for a more than usually monstrous perversion of truth, heswore "as became a cardinal and on the honour of the cardinalate". [176]His services were richly rewarded; besides livings, prebends, deaneries and the Chancellorship of Cambridge University, he receivedthe Bishoprics of Lincoln and of Tournay, the Archbishopric of York, and finally, in 1515, Cardinalate. This dignity he had already, in Mayof the previous year, sent Polydore Vergil to claim from the Pope;Vergil's mission was unknown to Henry, to whom the grant of theCardinal's hat was to be represented as Leo's own idea. [177]

 [Footnote 174: _L. And P. _, i. , 5319. ]

 [Footnote 175: _Ibid. _, i. , 4499, 4921. ]

 [Footnote 176: _Cf. _ _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 695; _L. And P. _, ii. , 1380. Giustinian complains that Wolsey "never said what he meant but the reverse of what he intended to do" (_Ibid. _, ii. , 3081). This perhaps is no great crime in a diplomatist. ]

 [Footnote 177: _L. And P. _, i. , 5110, 5121. Henry's request that Leo should make Wolsey a Cardinal was not made till 12th Aug. , 1514 (_L. And P. _, i. , 5318), at least six months after Wolsey had instructed Pace to negotiate for that honour. ]

CHAPTER IV. (p. 078)

THE THREE RIVALS. 

The edifice which Wolsey had so laboriously built up was, however, based on no surer foundation than the feeble life of a sickly monarchalready tottering to his grave. In the midst of his preparations forthe conquest of Milan and his negotiations for an attack upon Spain, Louis XII. Died on 1st January, 1515; and the stone which Wolsey hadbarely rolled up the hill came down with a rush. The bourgeois Louiswas succeeded by the brilliant, ambitious and warlike Francis I. , amonarch who concealed under the mask of chivalry and the culture ofarts and letters a libertinism beside which the peccadilloes of Henryor Charles seem virtue itself; whose person was tall and whosefeatures were described as handsome; but of whom an observer wrotewith unwonted candour that he "looked like the Devil". [178] The firstresult of the change was an episode of genuine romance. The old King'swidow, "la reine blanche, " was one of the most fascinating women ofthe Tudor epoch. "I think, " said a Fleming, "never man saw a morebeautiful creature, nor one having so much grace and sweetness. "[179]"He had never seen so beautiful a lady, " repeated Maximilian'sambassador, "her deportment is exquisite, both in conversation (p. 079)and in dancing, and she is very lovely. "[180] "She is very beautiful, "echoed the staid old Venetian, Pasqualigo, "and has not her match inEngland; she is tall, fair, of a light complexion with a colour, andmost affable and graceful"; he was warranted, he said, in describingher as "a nymph from heaven". [181] A more critical observer offeminine beauty thought her eyes and eyebrows too light, [182] but, asan Italian, he may have been biassed in favour of brunettes, and evenhe wound up by calling Mary "a Paradise". She was eighteen at thetime; her marriage with a dotard like Louis had shocked publicopinion;[183] and if, as was hinted, the gaieties in which hisyouthful bride involved him, hastened the French King's end, there wassome poetic justice in the retribution. She had, as she reminded Henryherself, only consented to marry the "very aged and sickly" monarch oncondition that, if she survived him, she should be allowed to chooseher second husband herself. And she went on to declare, that"remembering the great virtue" in him, she had, as Henry himself wasaware, "always been of good mind to my Lord of Suffolk". [184]

 [Footnote 178: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 582. ]

 [Footnote 179: _L. And P. _, i. , 4953. ]

 [Footnote 180: _L. And P. _, i. , 5203. ]

 [Footnote 181: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 499, 500. ]

 [Footnote 182: _Ibid. _, ii. , 511. ]

 [Footnote 183: _L. And P. _, i. , 5470. ]

 [Footnote 184: _Ibid. _, ii. , 227. ]

She was probably fascinated less by Suffolk's virtue than by his boldand handsome bearing. A bluff Englishman after the King's own heart, he shared, as none else did, in Henry's love of the joust and tourney, in his skill with the lance and the sword; he was the Hector ofcombat, on foot and on horse, to Henry's Achilles. His father, plainWilliam Brandon, was Henry of Richmond's standard-bearer on Bosworthfield; and as such he had been singled out and killed in personal (p. 080)encounter by Richard III. His death gave his son a claim on thegratitude of Henry VII. And Henry VIII. ; and similarity of tastessecured him rapid promotion at the young King's Court. Created ViscountLisle, he served in 1513 as marshal of Henry's army throughout hiscampaign in France. With the King there were said to be "two obstinatemen who governed everything";[185] one was Wolsey, the other was Brandon. In July he was offering his hand to Margaret of Savoy, who wasinformed that Brandon was "a second king, " and that it would be wellto write him "a kind letter, for it is he who does and undoes". [186]At Lille, in October, he continued his assault on Margaret as a relieffrom the siege of Tournay; Henry favoured his suit, and when Margaretcalled Brandon a _larron_ for stealing a ring from her finger, theKing was called in to help Brandon out with his French. Possibly itwas to smooth the course of his wooing that Brandon, early in 1514, received an extraordinary advancement in rank. There was as yet onlyone duke in England, but now Brandon was made Duke of Suffolk, at thesame time that the dukedom of Norfolk was restored to Surrey for hisvictory at Flodden. Even a dukedom could barely make the son of asimple esquire a match for an emperor's daughter, and the suit did notprosper. Political reasons may have interfered. Suffolk, too, isaccused by the Venetian ambassador of having already had threewives. [187] This seems to be an exaggeration, but the intricacy (p. 081)of the Duke's marital relationships, and the facility with which herenounced them might well have served as a precedent to his master inlater years. 

 [Footnote 185: _L. And P. _, i. , 4386. ]

 [Footnote 186: _Ibid. _, i. , 4405. ]

 [Footnote 187: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 464. He had made contracts with three different ladies, but had not actually married them all. See below, p. 199 and _D. N. B. _, _s. V. _ "Brandon". ]

In January, 1515, the Duke was sent to Paris to condole with Francison Louis' death, to congratulate him on his own accession, and renewthe league with England. Before he set out, Henry made him promisethat he would not marry Mary until their return. But Suffolk was notthe man to resist the tears of a beautiful woman in trouble, and hefound Mary in sore distress. No sooner was Louis dead than hislascivious successor became, as Mary said, "importunate with her indivers matters not to her honour, " in suits "the which, " wrote Suffolk, "I and the Queen had rather be out of the world than abide". [188]Every evening Francis forced his attentions upon the beautifulwidow. [189] Nor was this the only trouble which threatened the lovers. There were reports that the French would not let Mary go, but marryher somewhere to serve their own political purposes. [190] Henry, too, might want to betroth her again to Charles; Maximilian was urging thiscourse, and telling Margaret that Mary must be recovered for Charles, even at the point of the sword. [191] Early in January, Wolsey hadwritten to her, warning her not to make any fresh promise of marriage. Two friars from England, sent apparently by Suffolk's secret enemies, told Mary the same tale, that if she returned to England she wouldnever be suffered to marry the Duke, but made to take Charles for herhusband, "than which, " she declared, "I would rather be torn in (p. 082)pieces". [192] Suffolk tried in vain to soothe her fears. She refusedto listen, and brought him to his knees with the announcement thatunless he would wed her there and then, she would continue to believethat he had come only to entice her back to England and force her intomarriage with Charles. What was the poor Duke to do, between hispromise to Henry and the pleading of Mary? He did what every other manwith a heart in his breast and warm blood in his veins would havedone, he cast prudence to the winds and secretly married the woman heloved. 

 [Footnote 188: _L. And P. _, ii. , 134, 138, 163. ]

 [Footnote 189: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 574. ]

 [Footnote 190: _L. And P. _, ii. , 70, 85, 114. ]

 [Footnote 191: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 594; _L. And P. _, ii. , 124. ]

 [Footnote 192: _L. And P. _, ii. , 80, Suffolk to Henry VIII. This letter is placed under January in the _Calendar_, but it was obviously written about 6th March, 1514-15. ]

The news could not be long concealed, but unfortunately we have onlyWolsey's account of how it was received by Henry. He took it, wrotethe cardinal to Suffolk, "grievously and displeasantly, " not only onaccount of the Duke's presumption, but of the breach of his promise toHenry. [193] "You are, " he added, "in the greatest danger man was everin;" the council were calling for his ruin. To appease Henry andenable the King to satisfy his council, Suffolk must induce Francis tointervene in his favour, to pay Henry two hundred thousand crowns asMary's dowry, and to restore the plate and jewels she had received;the Duke himself was to return the fortune with which Henry had endowedhis sister and pay twenty-four thousand pounds in yearly instalmentsfor the expenses of her marriage. Francis proved unexpectedly willing;perhaps his better nature was touched by the lovers' distress. He alsosaw that Mary's marriage with Suffolk prevented her being used as (p. 083)a link to bind Charles to Henry; and he may have thought that aservice to Suffolk would secure him a powerful friend at the EnglishCourt, a calculation that was partly justified by the suspicion underwhich Suffolk henceforth laboured, of being too partial to Francis. Yet it was with heavy hearts that the couple left Paris in April andwended their way towards Calais. Henry had given no sign; from Calais, Mary wrote to him saying she would go to a nunnery rather than marryagainst her desire. [194] Suffolk threw himself on the King's mercy;all the council, he said, except Wolsey, were determined to put him todeath. [195] Secretly, against his promise, and without Henry'sconsent, he had married the King's sister, an act the temerity ofwhich no one has since ventured to rival. He saw the executioner's axegleam before his eyes, and he trembled. 

 [Footnote 193: _L. And P. _, ii. , 224. ]

 [Footnote 194: _L. And P. _, ii. , 228. ]

 [Footnote 195: _Ibid. _, ii. , 367. ]

At Calais, Mary said she would stay until she heard from the King. [196]His message has not been preserved, but fears were never more strangelybelied than when the pair crossed their Rubicon. So far from any attemptbeing made to separate them, their marriage was publicly solemnisedbefore Henry and all his Court on 13th May, at Greenwich. [197] Inspite of all that happened, wrote the Venetian ambassador, Henryretained his friendship for Suffolk;[198] and a few months later heasserted, with some exaggeration, that the Duke's authority wasscarcely less than the King's. [199] He and Mary were indeed (p. 084)required to return all the endowment, whether in money, plate, jewelsor furniture, that she received on her marriage. But both she and theDuke had agreed to these terms before their offence. [200] They werenot unreasonable. Henry's money had been laid out for politicalpurposes which could no longer be served; and Mary did not expect thesplendour, as Duchess of Suffolk, which she had enjoyed as Queen ofFrance. The only stipulation that looks like a punishment was the bondto repay the cost of her journey to France; though not only was thismodified later on, but the Duke received numerous grants of land tohelp to defray the charge. They were indeed required to live in thecountry; but the Duke still came up to joust as of old with Henry ongreat occasions, and Mary remained his favourite sister, to whoseissue, in preference to that of Margaret, he left the crown by will. The vindictive suspicions which afterwards grew to rank luxuriance inHenry's mind were scarcely budding as yet; his favour to Suffolk andaffection for Mary were proof against the intrigues in his Court. Thecontrast was marked between the event and the terrors which Wolsey hadpainted; and it is hard to believe that the Cardinal played anentirely disinterested part in the matter. [201] It was obviously hiscue to exaggerate the King's anger, and to represent to the Duke thatits mitigation was due to the Cardinal's influence; and it is morethan possible that Wolsey found in Suffolk's indiscretion the means ofremoving a dangerous rival. The "two obstinate men" who had ruled (p. 085)in Henry's camp were not likely to remain long united; Wolsey couldhardly approve of any "second king" but himself, especially a "secondking" who had acquired a family bond with the first. The Venetianambassador plainly hints that it was through Wolsey that Suffolk lostfavour. [202] In the occasional notices of him during the next fewyears it is Wolsey, and not Henry, whom Suffolk is trying to appease;and we even find the Cardinal secretly warning the King against somedesigns of the Duke that probably existed only in his ownimagination. [203]

 [Footnote 196: _Ibid. _, ii. , 367, 226. The letters relating to this episode in _L. And P. _ are often undated and sometimes misplaced; _e. G. _, this last is placed under March, although from Nos. 295, 296, 319, 327, 331, we find that Mary did not leave Paris till 16th April. ]

 [Footnote 197: _L. And P. _, ii. , 468. ]

 [Footnote 198: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 618. ]

 [Footnote 199: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 638. ]

 [Footnote 200: _L. And P. _, ii. , 436. ]

 [Footnote 201: Brewer's view is that Wolsey saved Suffolk from ruin on this occasion. ]

 [Footnote 202: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 919. ]

 [Footnote 203: _L. And P. _, ii. , 4057, 4308; iii. , 1. ]

 * * * * *

This episode threw into the shade the main purpose of Suffolk'sembassy to France. It was to renew the treaty concluded the yearbefore, and apparently also the discussions for war upon Spain. Francis was ready enough to confirm the treaty, particularly as itleft him free to pursue his designs on Milan. With a similar object hemade terms with the Archduke Charles, who this year assumed thegovernment of the Netherlands, but was completely under the control ofChièvres, a Frenchman by birth and sympathy, who signed his letters toFrancis "your humble servant and vassal". [204] Charles bound himselfto marry Louis XII. 's daughter Renée, and to give his grandfatherFerdinand no aid unless he restored Navarre to Jean d'Albret. Thussafeguarded from attack on his rear, Francis set out for Milan. TheSwiss had locked all the passes they thought practicable; but theFrench generals, guided by chamois hunters and overcoming almostinsuperable obstacles, transported their artillery over the Alps (p. 086)near Embrun; and on 13th September, at Marignano, the great "Battle ofthe Giants" laid the whole of Northern Italy at the French King'sfeet. At Bologna he met Leo X. , whose lifelong endeavour was to befound on both sides at once, or at least on the side of the biggerbattalions; the Pope recognised Francis's claim to Milan, whileFrancis undertook to support the Medici in Florence, and tocountenance Leo's project for securing the Duchy of Urbino to hisnephew Lorenzo. 

 [Footnote 204: _Sp. Cal_. , ii. , 246. ]

Henry watched with ill-concealed jealousy his rival's victoriousprogress; his envy was personal, as well as political. "Francis, "wrote the Bishop of Worcester in describing the interview between theFrench King and the Pope at Bologna, "is tall in stature, broad-shouldered, oval and handsome in face, very slender in the legsand much inclined to corpulence. "[205] His appearance was the subjectof critical inquiry by Henry himself. On May Day, 1515, Pasqualigo[206]was summoned to Greenwich by the King, whom he found dressed in green, "shoes and all, " and mounted on a bay Frieslander sent him by theMarquis of Mantua; his guard were also dressed in green and armed withbows and arrows for the usual May Day sports. They breakfasted ingreen bowers some distance from the palace. "His Majesty, " continuesPasqualigo, "came into our arbor, and addressing me in French, said:'Talk with me awhile. The King of France, is he as tall as I am?' Itold him there was but little difference. He continued, 'Is he asstout?' I said he was not; and he then inquired, 'What sort of legshas he?' I replied 'Spare'. Whereupon he opened the front of his (p. 087)doublet, and placing his hand on his thigh, said: 'Look here; andI also have a good calf to my leg'. He then told me he was very fondof this King of France, and that on more than three occasions he wasvery near him with his army, but that he would never allow himself tobe seen, and always retreated, which His Majesty attributed todeference for King Louis, who did not choose an engagement to takeplace. " After dinner, by way of showing his prowess, Henry "armedhimself _cap-à-pie_ and ran thirty courses, capsizing his opponent, horse and all". Two months later, he said to Giustinian: "I am awarethat King Louis, although my brother-in-law, was a bad man. I know notwhat this youth may be; he is, however, a Frenchman, nor can I say howfar you should trust him;"[207] and Giustinian says he at onceperceived the great rivalry for glory between the two young kings. 

 [Footnote 205: _L. And P. _, ii. , 1281. ]

 [Footnote 206: _Ibid. _, ii. , 411; Giustinian, _Desp. _, i. , 90; _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 624. ]

 [Footnote 207: _Ven. Cal_. , ii. , 652]

Henry now complained that Francis had concealed his Italian enterprisefrom him, that he was ill-treating English subjects, and interferingwith matters in Scotland. The last was his real and chief ground forresentment. Francis had no great belief that Henry would keep thepeace, and resist the temptation to attack him, if a suitableopportunity were to arise. So he had sent the Duke of Albany toprovide Henry with an absorbing disturbance in Scotland. Since thedeath of James IV. At Flodden, English influence had, in Margaret'shands, been largely increased. Henry took upon himself to demand avoice in Scotland's internal affairs. He claimed the title of"Protector of Scotland"; and wrote to the Pope asking him to (p. 088)appoint no Scottish bishops without his consent, and to reduce theArchbishopric of St. Andrews to its ancient dependence on York. [208]Many urged him to complete the conquest of Scotland, but thisapparently he refused on the ground that his own sister was really itsruler and his own infant nephew its king. Margaret, however, as anEnglishwoman, was hated in Scotland, and she destroyed much of herinfluence by marrying the Earl of Angus. So the Scots clamoured forAlbany, who had long been resident at the French Court and was heir tothe Scottish throne, should James IV. 's issue fail. His appearance wasthe utter discomfiture of the party of England; Margaret was besiegedin Stirling and ultimately forced to give up her children to Albany'skeeping, and seek safety in flight to her brother's dominions. [209]

 [Footnote 208: _L. And P. _, i. , 4483, 4502; ii. , 654. ]

 [Footnote 209: It was said by the Scots Estates that she had forfeited her claim to their custody by her marriage with Angus (_ibid. _, ii. , 1011). ]

Technically, Francis had not broken his treaty with England, but hehad scarcely acted the part of a friend; and if Henry could retaliatewithout breaking the peace, he would eagerly seize any opportunitythat offered. The alliance with Ferdinand and Maximilian was renewed, and a new Holy League formed under Leo's auspices. But Leo soonafterwards made his peace at Bologna with France. Charles was underFrench influence, and Henry's council and people were not prepared forwar. So he refused, says Giustinian, Ferdinand's invitations to joinin an invasion of France. He did so from no love of Francis, and itwas probably Wolsey's ingenuity which suggested the not very scrupulousmeans of gratifying Henry's wish for revenge. Maximilian was (p. 089)still pursuing his endless quarrel with Venice; and the seizure ofMilan by the French and Venetian allies was a severe blow toMaximilian himself, to the Swiss, and to their protégé, Sforza. Wolseynow sought to animate them all for an attempt to recover the duchy, and Sforza promised him 10, 000 ducats a year from the date of hisrestoration. There was nothing but the spirit of his treaty withFrance to prevent Henry spending his money as he thought fit; and itwas determined to hire 20, 000 Swiss mercenaries to serve under theEmperor in order to conquer Milan and revenge Marignano. [210] Thenegotiation was one of great delicacy; not only was secrecy absolutelyessential, but the money must be carefully kept out of Maximilian'sreach. "Whenever, " wrote Pace, "the King's money passed where theEmperor was, he would always get some portion of it by force or falsepromises of restitution. "[211] The accusation was justified byMaximilian's order to Margaret, his daughter, to seize Henry'streasure as soon as he heard it was on the way to the Swiss. [212] "TheEmperor, " said Julius II. , "is light and inconstant, always beggingfor other men's money, which he wastes in hunting the chamois. "[213]

 [Footnote 210: _L. And P. _, ii. , 1065. ]

 [Footnote 211: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1817. ]

 [Footnote 212: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1231. ]

 [Footnote 213: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1877. ]

The envoy selected for this difficult mission was Richard Pace, scholar and author, and friend of Erasmus and More. He had been inBainbridge's service at Rome, was then transferred to that of Wolseyand Henry, and as the King's secretary, was afterwards thought to betreading too close on the Cardinal's heels. He set out in October, andarrived in Zurich just in time to prevent the Swiss from coming (p. 090)to terms with Francis. Before winter had ended the plans for invasionwere settled. Maximilian came down with the snows from the mountainsin March; on the 23rd he crossed the Adda;[214] on the 25th he waswithin nine miles of Milan, and almost in sight of the army of France. On the 26th he turned and fled without striking a blow. Back he wentover the Adda, over the Oglio, up into Tyrol, leaving the French andVenetians in secure possession of Northern Italy. A year later theyhad recovered for Venice the last of the places of which it had beenrobbed by the League of Cambrai. 

 [Footnote 214: _L. And P. _, ii. , 1697, 1699, 1721, 1729, 1736, 1754, 1831, 2011, 2034, 2114. ]

Maximilian retreated, said Pace, voluntarily and shamefully, and wasnow so degraded that it signified little whether he was a friend or anenemy. [215] The cause of his ignominious flight still remains amystery; countless excuses were made by Maximilian and his friends. Hehad heard that France and England had come to terms; 6, 000 of theSwiss infantry deserted to the French on the eve of the battle. Ladislaus of Hungary had died, leaving him guardian of his son, and hemust go to arrange matters there. He had no money to pay his troops. The last has an appearance of verisimilitude. Money was at the bottomof all his difficulties, and drove him to the most ignominious shifts. He had served as a private in Henry's army for 100 crowns a day. Hiscouncillors robbed him; on one occasion he had not money to pay forhis dinner;[216] on another he sent down to Pace, who was ill in bed, and extorted a loan by force. He had apparently seized 30, 000 (p. 091)crowns of Henry's pay for the Swiss;[217] the Fuggers, Welzers andFrescobaldi, were also accused of failing to keep their engagements, and only the first month's pay had been received by the Swiss whenthey reached Milan. On the Emperor's retreat the wretched Pace wasseized by the Swiss and kept in prison as security for the remainder. [218]His task had been rendered all the more difficult by the folly ofWingfield, ambassador at Maximilian's Court, who, said Pace, "took theEmperor for a god and believed that all his deeds and thoughtsproceeded _ex Spiritu Sancto_". [219] There was no love lost betweenthem; the lively Pace nicknamed his colleague "Summer shall be green, "in illusion perhaps to Wingfield's unending platitudes, or to hislimitless belief in the Emperor's integrity and wisdom. [220] Wingfieldopened Pace's letters and discovered the gibe, which he parried byavowing that he had never known the time when summer was notgreen. [221] On another occasion he forged Pace's signature, with aview of obtaining funds for Maximilian;[222] and he had the hardihoodto protest against Pace's appointment as Henry's secretary. At lasthis conduct brought down a stinging rebuke from Henry;[223] but theKing's long-suffering was not yet exhausted, and Wingfield continuedas ambassador to the Emperors Court. 

 [Footnote 215: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1877. ]

 [Footnote 216: _Ibid. _, ii. , 2152, 1892, 1896, 2034, 2035. ]

 [Footnote 217: _L. And P. _, ii. , 1231, 1792, 1854. ]

 [Footnote 218: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1877. ]

 [Footnote 219: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1817. ]

 [Footnote 220: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1566, 1567. ]

 [Footnote 221: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1775. ]

 [Footnote 222: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1813. ]

 [Footnote 223: _Ibid. _, ii. , 2177. ]

 * * * * *

The failure of the Milan expedition taught Wolsey and Henry a bitterbut salutary lesson. It was their first attempt to intervene in asphere of action so distant from English shores and so remote (p. 092)from English interests as the affairs of Italian States. Complaints inEngland were loud against the waste of money; the sagacious Tunstallwrote that he did not see why Henry should bind himself to maintainother men's causes. [224] All the grandees, wrote Giustinian, wereopposed to Wolsey's policy, and its adoption was followed by whatGiustinian called a change of ministry in England. [225] Warhamrelinquished the burdens of the Chancellorship which he had longunwillingly borne; Fox sought to atone for twenty-eight years' neglectof his diocese by spending in it the rest of his days. [226] Wolseysucceeded Warham as Chancellor, and Ruthal, who "sang treble toWolsey's bass, "[227] became Lord Privy Seal in place of Fox. Suffolkwas out of favour, and the neglect of his and Fox's advice was, according to the Venetian, resented by the people, who murmuredagainst the taxes which Wolsey's intervention in foreign affairsinvolved. 

 [Footnote 224: _L. And P. _, ii. , 2270. ]

 [Footnote 225: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1814, 2487, 2500. ]

 [Footnote 226: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 750, 798, 801; _L. And P. _, ii. , 2183. ]

 [Footnote 227: _L. And P. _, ii. , 2205. ]

But Wolsey still hoped that bribes would keep Maximilian faithful toEngland and induce him to counteract the French influences with whichhis grandson Charles was surrounded. Ferdinand had died in January, 1516, [228] having, said the English envoy at his Court, wilfullyshortened his life by hunting and hawking in all weathers, and followingthe advice of his falconers rather than that of his physicians. Charles thus succeeded to Castile, Aragon and Naples;[229] but (p. 093)Naples was seriously threatened by the failure of Maximilian'sexpedition and the omnipotence of Francis in Italy. "The Pope isFrench, " wrote an English diplomatist, "and everything from Rome toCalais. "[230] To save Naples, Charles, in July, 1516, entered into thehumiliating Treaty of Noyon with France. [231] He bound himself tomarry Francis's infant daughter, Charlotte, to do justice to Jeand'Albret in the matter of Navarre, and to surrender Naples, Navarre, and Artois, if he failed to keep his engagement. Such a treaty was notlikely to stand; but, for the time, it was a great feather inFrancis's cap, and a further step towards the isolation of England. Itwas the work of Charles's Gallicised ministry, and Maximilianprofessed the utmost disgust at their doings. He was eager to comedown to the Netherlands with a view to breaking the Treaty of Noyonand removing his grandson's advisers, but of course he must have moneyfrom England to pay his expenses. The money accordingly came from theapparently bottomless English purse;[232] and in January, 1517, theEmperor marched down to the Netherlands, breathing, in his despatchesto Henry, threatenings and slaughter against Charles's misleaders. Hisdescent on Flanders eclipsed his march on Milan. "Mon fils, " he saidto Charles, "vous allez tromper les Français, et moi, je vais tromperles Anglais. "[233] So far from breaking the Treaty of Noyon, he (p. 094)joined it himself, and at Brussels solemnly swore to observe itsprovisions. He probably thought he had touched the bottom of Henry'spurse, and that it was time to dip into Francis's. Seventy-fivethousand crowns was his price for betraying Henry. [234]

 [Footnote 228: On 23rd Jan. (_L. And P. _, ii. , 1541, 1610). Brewer in his introduction to vol. Ii. Of the _L. And P. _ says "in February". ]

 [Footnote 229: His mother Juaña was rightfully Queen, but she was regarded as mad; she thought her husband, the Archduke Philip, might come to life again, and carried him about in a coffin with her wherever she went (_Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 564). ]

 [Footnote 230: _L. And P. _, ii. , 2930. ]

 [Footnote 231: _L. And P. _, ii. , 2303, 2327, 2387; _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 769, 773. ]

 [Footnote 232: _L. And P. _, ii. , 2406, 2573, 2626, 2702. ]

 [Footnote 233: _Ibid. _, ii. , 2930. ]

 [Footnote 234: _L. And P. _, ii. , 2891. ]

In conveying the news to Wolsey, Tunstall begged him to urge Henry "torefrain from his first passions" and "to draw his foot out of theaffair as gently as if he perceived it not, giving good words for goodwords which they yet give us, thinking our heads to be so gross thatwe perceive not their abuses". [235] Their persistent advances toCharles had, he thought, done them more harm than good; let the Kingshut his purse in time, and he would soon have Charles and the Emperoragain at his feet. [236] Tunstall was ably seconded by Dr. WilliamKnight, who thought it would be foolish for England to attempt to undothe Treaty of Noyon; it contained within itself the seeds of its owndissolution. Charles would not wait to marry Francis's daughter, andthen the breach would come. [237] Henry and Wolsey had the good senseto act on this sound advice. Maximilian, Francis and Charles formed atCambrai a fresh league for the partition of Italy, [238] but they weresoon at enmity and too much involved with their own affairs to thinkof the conquest of others. Disaffection was rife in Spain, where aparty wished Ferdinand, Charles's brother, to be King. [239] If Charleswas to retain his Spanish kingdoms, he must visit them at once. Hecould not go unless England provided the means. His request for (p. 095)a loan was graciously accorded and his ambassadors were treated withmagnificent courtesy. [240] "One day, " says Chieregati, [241] the papalenvoy in England, "the King sent for these ambassadors, and kept themto dine with him privately in his chamber with the Queen, a veryunusual proceeding. After dinner he took to singing and playing onevery musical instrument, and exhibited a part of his very excellentendowments. At length he commenced dancing, " and, continues anothernarrator, "doing marvellous things, both in dancing and jumping, proving himself, as he is in truth, indefatigable. " On another daythere was "a most stately joust. " Henry was magnificently attired in"cloth of silver with a raised pile, and wrought throughout withemblematic letters". When he had made the usual display in the lists, the Duke of Suffolk entered from the other end, with well-nigh equalarray and pomp. He was accompanied by fourteen other jousters. "TheKing wanted to joust with all of them; but this was forbidden by thecouncil, which, moreover, decided that each jouster was to run sixcourses and no more, so that the entertainment might be ended on thatday. .. . The competitor assigned to the King was the Duke of Suffolk;and they bore themselves so bravely that the spectators fanciedthemselves witnessing a joust between Hector and Achilles. " "Theytilted, " says Sagudino, "eight courses, both shivering their lances atevery time, to the great applause of the spectators. " Chieregaticontinues: "On arriving in the lists the King presented himself beforethe Queen and the ladies, making a thousand jumps in the air, and (p. 096)after tiring one horse, he entered the tent and mounted another. .. Doing this constantly, and reappearing in the lists until the end ofthe jousts". Dinner was then served, amid a scene of unparalleledsplendour, and Chieregati avers that the "guests remained at table forseven hours by the clock". The display of costume on the King's partwas equally varied and gorgeous. On one occasion he wore "stiffbrocade in the Hungarian fashion, " on another, he "was dressed inwhite damask in the Turkish fashion, the above-mentioned robe allembroidered with roses, made of rubies and diamonds"; on a third, he"wore royal robes down to the ground, of gold brocade lined withermine"; while "all the rest of the Court glittered with jewels andgold and silver, the pomp being unprecedented". 

 [Footnote 235: _Ibid. _, ii. , 2923, 2940. ]

 [Footnote 236: _Ibid. _, ii. , 2910. ]

 [Footnote 237: _Ibid. _, ii. , 2930. ]

 [Footnote 238: _Ibid. _, ii. , 2632, 3008; _Monumenta Habsburgica_, ii. , 37. ]

 [Footnote 239: _L. And P. _, ii. , 3076, 3077, 3081. ]

 [Footnote 240: _L. And P. _, ii. , 3402, 3439-41. ]

 [Footnote 241: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 918; _L. And P. _, ii. , 3455, 3462. ]

All this riot of wealth would no doubt impress the impecuniousCharles. In September he landed in Spain, so destitute that he wasglad to accept the offer of a hobby from the English ambassador. [242]At the first meeting of his Cortes, they demanded that he should marryat once, and not wait for Francis's daughter; the bride his subjectsdesired was the daughter of the King of Portugal. [243] They were nomore willing to part with Navarre; and Charles was forced to make toFrancis the feeble excuse that he was not aware, when he was in theNetherlands, of his true title to Navarre, but had learnt it since hisarrival in Spain; he also declined the personal interview to whichFrancis invited him. [244] A rupture between Francis and Charles wasonly a question of time; and, to prepare for it, both were anxious (p. 097)for England's alliance. Throughout the autumn of 1517 and spring of1518, France and England were feeling their way towards friendship. Albany had left Scotland, so that source of irritation was gone. Henryhad now a daughter, Mary, and Francis a son. "I will unite them, " saidWolsey;[245] and in October, 1518, not only was a treaty of marriageand alliance signed between England and France, but a general peacefor Europe. Leo X. Sent Campeggio with blessings of peace from theVicar of Christ, though he was kept chafing at Calais for threemonths, till he could bring with him Leo's appointment of Wolsey aslegate and the deposition of Wolsey's enemy, Hadrian, from theBishopric of Bath and Wells. [246] The ceremonies exceeded in splendoureven those of the year before. They included, says Giustinian, a "mostsumptuous supper" at Wolsey's house, "the like of which, I fancy, wasnever given by Cleopatra or Caligula; the whole banqueting hall beingso decorated with huge vases of gold and silver, that I fancied myselfin the tower of Chosroes, [247] when that monarch caused Divine honoursto be paid him. After supper. .. Twelve male and twelve female dancersmade their appearance in the richest and most sumptuous array possible, being all dressed alike. .. . They were disguised in one suit of finegreen satin, all over covered with cloth of gold, undertied togetherwith laces of gold, and had masking hoods on their heads; the ladieshad tires made of braids of damask gold, with long hairs of whitegold. All these maskers danced at one time, and after they had dancedthey put off their visors, and then they were all known. .. . The (p. 098)two leaders were the King and the Queen Dowager of France, and all theothers were lords and ladies. "[248] These festivities were followed bythe formal ratification of peace. [249] Approval of it was general, andthe old councillors who had been alienated by Wolsey's Milan expedition, hastened to applaud. "It was the best deed, " wrote Fox to Wolsey, "that ever was done for England, and, next to the King, the praise ofit is due to you. "[250] Once more the wheel had come round, and thestone of Sisyphus was lodged more secure than before some way up theside of the hill. 

 [Footnote 242: _L. And P. _, ii. , 3705. ]

 [Footnote 243: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4022. ]

 [Footnote 244: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4164, 4188. ]

 [Footnote 245: _L. And P. _, ii. , 4047. ]

 [Footnote 246: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4348. ]

 [Footnote 247: Chosroes I. (Nushirvan) of Persia. ]

 [Footnote 248: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1085, 1088; _cf. _ Shakespeare, _Henry VIII_. ]

 [Footnote 249: _L. And P. _, ii. , 4468, 4483, 4564, 4669. ]

 [Footnote 250: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4540. ]

 * * * * *

This general peace, which closed the wars begun ten years before bythe League of Cambrai, was not entirely due to a universal desire tobeat swords into ploughshares or to even turn them against the Turk. That was the everlasting pretence, but eighteen months before, Maximilian had suffered a stroke of apoplexy; men, said Giustinian, commenting on the fact, did not usually survive such strokes a year, and rivals were preparing to enter the lists for the Empire. Maximilian himself, faithful to the end to his guiding principle, found a last inspiration in the idea of disposing of his successionfor ready money. He was writing to Charles that it was useless toexpect the Empire unless he would spend at least as much as theFrench. [251] "It would be lamentable, " he said, "if we should now loseall through some pitiful omission or penurious neglect;" and Franciswas "going about covertly and laying many baits, "[252] to attain (p. 099)the imperial crown. To Henry himself Maximilian had more than onceoffered the prize, and Pace had declared that the offer was onlyanother design for extracting Henry's gold "for the electors wouldnever allow the crown to go out of their nation". [253] The Emperor hadfirst proposed it while serving under Henry's banners in France. [254]He renewed the suggestion in 1516, inviting Henry to meet him atCoire. The brothers in arms were thence to cross the Alps to Milan, where the Emperor would invest the English King with the duchy; hewould then take him on to Rome, resign the Empire himself, and haveHenry crowned. Not that Maximilian desired to forsake all earthlyauthority; he sought to combine a spiritual with a temporal glory; hewas to lay down the imperial crown and place on his brows the papaltiara. [255] Nothing was too fantastic for the Emperor Maximilian; theman who could not wrest a few towns from Venice was always deludinghimself with the hope of leading victorious hosts to the seat of theTurkish Empire and the Holy City of Christendom; the sovereign whosemain incentive in life was gold, informed his daughter that heintended to get himself canonised, and that after his death she wouldhave to adore him. He died at Welz on 12th January, 1519, neither Popenor saint, with Jerusalem still in the hands of the Turk, and thesuccession to the Empire still undecided. 

 [Footnote 251: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4172. ]

 [Footnote 252: _L. And P. _, ii. , 4159. ]

 [Footnote 253: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1923. ]

 [Footnote 254: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1398, 1878, 1902, 2218, 2911, 4257. ]

 [Footnote 255: _Cf. _ W. Boehm, _Hat Kaiser Maximilian I. Im Jahre 1511 Papst werden wollen?_ 1873. ]

The contest now broke out in earnest, and the electors prepared (p. 100)to garner their harvest of gold. The price of a vote was a hundredfoldmore than the most corrupt parliamentary elector could conceive in hiswildest dreams of avarice. There were only seven electors and the prizewas the greatest on earth. Francis I. Said he was ready to spend3, 000, 000 crowns, and Charles could not afford to lag far behind. [256]The Margrave of Brandenburg, "the father of all greediness, " as theAustrians called him, was particularly influential because his brother, the Archbishop of Mainz, was also an elector and he required anespecially exorbitant bribe. He was ambitious as well as covetous, andthe rivals endeavoured to satisfy his ambitions with matrimonialprizes. He was promised Ferdinand's widow, Germaine de Foix; Francissought to parry this blow by offering to the Margrave's son the FrenchPrincess Renée; Charles bid higher by offering his sister Catherine. [257]Francis relied much on his personal graces, the military renown he hadwon by the conquest of Northern Italy, and the assistance of Leo. Withthe Pope he concluded a fresh treaty that year for the conquest ofFerrara, the extension of the papal States, and the settlement ofNaples on Francis's second son, on condition that it was meanwhile tobe administered by papal legates, [258] and that its king was toabstain from all interference in spiritual matters. Charles, on theother hand, owed his advantages to his position and not to his person. Cold, reserved and formal, he possessed none of the physical orintellectual graces of Francis I. And Henry VIII. He excelled in (p. 101)no sport, was unpleasant in features and repellent in manners. Nogleam of magnanimity or chivalry lightened his character, no deeds inwar or statecraft yet sounded his fame. He was none the less heir ofthe Austrian House, which for generations had worn the imperial crown;as such, too, he was a German prince, and the Germanic constitutionforbade any other the sovereignty of the Holy Roman Empire. Againstthis was the fact that his enormous dominions, including Naples andSpain, would preclude his continued residence in Germany and mightthreaten the liberties of the German people. 

 [Footnote 256: For details of the sums promised to the various German princes see _L. And P. _, iii. , 36, etc. ; it has been said that there was really little or no bribery at this election. ]

 [Footnote 257: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1165, 1187; _L. And P. _, ii. , 4159; iii. , 130. ]

 [Footnote 258: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 267. ]

But was there no third candidate? Leo at heart regarded the electionof either as an absolute evil. [259] He had always dreaded Maximilian'sclaims to the temporal power of the Church, though Maximilian held nota foot of Italian soil. How much more would he dread those claims inthe hands of Francis or Charles! One threatened the papal States fromMilan, and the other from Naples. Of the two, he feared Francis theless;[260] for the union of Naples with the Empire had been such aterror to the Popes, that before granting the investiture of thatkingdom, they bound its king by oath not to compete for the Empire. [261]But a third candidate would offer an escape from between the upper andthe nether mill-stone; and Leo suggested at one time Charles's brotherFerdinand, [262] at another a German elector. Precisely the samerecommendations had been secretly made by Henry VIII. In public hefollowed the course he commended to Leo; he advocated the claims (p. 102)of both Charles and Francis, when asked so to do, but sent trustyenvoys with his testimonials to explain that no credence was to begiven them. [263] He told the French King that he favoured the electionof Francis, and the Spanish King the election of Charles, but like Leohe desired in truth the election of neither. Why should he not comeforward himself? His dominions were not so extensive that, whencombined with the imperial dignity, they would threaten to dominateEurope; and his election might seem to provide a useful check in thebalance of power. In March he had already told Francis that his claimswere favoured by some of the electors, though he professed a wish topromote the French King's pretensions. In May, Pace was sent toGermany with secret instructions to endeavour to balance the partiesand force the electors into a deadlock, from which the only escapewould be the election of a third candidate, either Henry himself orsome German prince. It is difficult to believe that Henry reallythought his election possible or was seriously pushing his claim. Hehad repeatedly declined Maximilian's offers; he had been as oftenwarned by trusty advisers that no non-German prince stood a chance ofelection; he had expressed his content with his own islands, which, Tunstall told him with truth, were an Empire worth more than thebarren imperial crown. [264] Pace went far too late to secure a partyfor Henry, and, what was even more fatal, he went without thepersuasive of money. Norfolk told Giustinian, after Pace's departure, that the election would fall on a German prince, and such, said theVenetian, was the universal belief and desire in England. [265] (p. 103)After the election, Leo expressed his "regret that Henry gave noattention to a project which would have made him a near, instead of adistant, neighbour of the papal States". Under the circumstances, itseems more probable that the first alternative in Pace's instructionsno more represented a settled design in Henry's mind than hisoften-professed intention of conquering France, and that the realpurport of his mission was to promote the election of the Duke ofSaxony or another German prince. [266]

 [Footnote 259: _L. And P. _, iii. , 149. ]

 [Footnote 260: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1227. ]

 [Footnote 261: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1246. ]

 [Footnote 262: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1163. ]

 [Footnote 263: _L. And P. _, iii. , 137. ]

 [Footnote 264: _Ibid. _, ii. , 2911. ]

 [Footnote 265: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1220. ]

 [Footnote 266: _L. And P. _, ii. , 241. ]

Whether that was its object or not the mission was foredoomed tofailure. The conclusion was never really in doubt. Electors mighttrouble the waters in order to fish with more success. They mightpretend to Francis that if he was free with his money he might beelected, and to Charles that unless he was free with his money hewould not, but no sufficient reason had been shown why they shouldviolate national prejudices, the laws of the Empire, and prescriptivehereditary right, in order to place Henry or Francis instead of aGerman upon the imperial throne. Neither people nor princes norbarons, wrote Leo's envoys, would permit the election of the MostChristian King;[267] and even if the electors wished to elect him, itwas not in their power to do so. The whole of the nation, said Pace, was in arms and furious for Charles; and had Henry been elected, theywould in their indignation have killed Pace and all his servants. [268]The voice of the German people spoke in no uncertain tones; they wouldhave Charles and no other to be their ruler. Leo himself saw the (p. 104)futility of resistance, and making a virtue of necessity, he sentCharles an absolution from his oath as King of Naples. As soon as itarrived, the electors unanimously declared Charles their Emperor on28th June. [269]

 [Footnote 267: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1227. ]

 [Footnote 268: _L. And P. _, iii. , 326. ]

 [Footnote 269: _L. And P. _, iii. , 339. ]

Thus was completed the shuffling of the cards for the struggle whichlasted till Henry's death. Francis had now succeeded to Louis, Charlesto both his grandfathers, and Henry at twenty-eight was the _doyen_ ofthe princes of Europe. He was two years older than Francis and eightyears older than Charles. Europe had passed under the rule of youthfultriumvirs whose rivalry troubled its peace and guided its destiniesfor nearly thirty years. The youngest of all was the greatest inpower. His dominions, it is true, were disjointed, and funds wereoften to seek, but these defects have been overrated. It was neitherof these which proved his greatest embarrassment. It was a cloud inGermany, as yet no bigger than a man's hand, but soon to darken theface of Europe. Ferdinand and Maximilian had at times been dangerous;Charles wielded the power of both. He ruled over Castile and Aragon, the Netherlands and Naples, Burgundy and Austria; he could command thefinest military forces in Europe; the infantry of Spain, the scienceof Italy, the lance-knights of Germany, for which Ferdinand sighed, were at his disposal; and the wealth of the Indies was poured out athis feet. He bestrode the narrow world like a Colossus, and the onlyhope of lesser men lay in the maintenance of Francis's power. Werethat to fail, Charles would become arbiter of Christendom, Italy aSpanish kingdom, and the Pope little more than the Emperor's (p. 105)chaplain. "Great masters, " said Tunstall, with reference to a papalbrief urged by Charles in excuse for his action in 1517, "could getgreat clerks to say what they liked. "[270] The mastery of Charles in1517 was but the shadow of what it became ten years later; and ifunder its dominance "the great clerk" were called upon to decidebetween "the great master" and Henry, it was obvious already that allHenry's services to the Papacy would count for nothing. 

 [Footnote 270: _L. And P. _, ii. , 3054. ]

 * * * * *

For the present, those services were to be remembered. They were not, indeed, inconsiderable. It would be absurd to maintain that, since hisaccession, Henry had been actuated by respect for the Papacy more thanby another motive; but it is indisputable that that motive had enteredmore largely into his conduct than into that of any other monarch. James IV. And Louis had been excommunicated, Maximilian had obstinatelycountenanced a schismatic council and wished to arrogate to himselfthe Pope's temporal power. Ferdinand's zeal for his house had eatenhim up and left little room for less selfish impulses; his anxiety forwar with the Moor or the Turk was but a cloak; and the value of hisfrequent demands for a Reformation may be gauged by his opinion thatnever was there more need for the Inquisition, and by his anger withLeo for refusing the Inquisitors the preferments he asked. [271] Fromhypocrisy like Ferdinand's Henry was, in his early years, singularlyfree, and the devotion to the Holy See, which he inherited, was of amore than conventional type. "He is very religious, " wrote (p. 106)Giustinian, "and hears three masses daily when he hunts, and sometimesfive on other days. He hears the office every day in the Queen's chamber, that is to say, vesper and compline. "[272] The best theologians anddoctors in his kingdom were regularly required to preach at his Court, when their fee for each sermon was equivalent to ten or twelve pounds. He was generous in his almsgiving, and his usual offering on Sundaysand saints' days was six shillings and eightpence or, in moderncurrency, nearly four pounds; often it was double that amount, andthere were special offerings besides, such as the twenty shillings hesent every year to the shrine of St. Thomas at Canterbury. In January, 1511, the gentlemen of the King's chapel were paid what would now beseventy-five pounds for praying for the Queen's safe delivery, andsimilar sums were no doubt paid on other occasions. [273] In 1513, Catherine thought Henry's success was all due to his zeal forreligion, [274] and a year or two later Erasmus wrote that Henry'sCourt was an example to all Christendom for learning and piety. [275]

 [Footnote 271: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 80, 89, 167, 175. ]

 [Footnote 272: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1287; Giustinian, _Desp. _, ii. , App. , 309; _L. And P. _, iii. , 402. ]

 [Footnote 273: These details are from the King's "Book of Payments" calendared at the end of _L. And P. _, vol. Ii. ]

 [Footnote 274: _L. And P. _, i. , 4417. ]

 [Footnote 275: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4115. ]

Piety went hand in hand with a filial respect for the head of theChurch. Not once in the ten years is there to be found any expressionfrom Henry of contempt for the Pope, whether he was Julius II. Or LeoX. There had been no occasion on which Pope and King had been broughtinto conflict, and almost throughout they had acted in perfect harmony. It was the siege of Julius by Louis that drew Henry from his peacefulpolicy to intervene as the champion of the Papal See, and it was (p. 107)as the executor of papal censures that he made war on France. [276] Ifhe had ulterior views on that kingdom, he could plead the justificationof a brief, drawn up if not published, by Julius II. , investing himwith the French crown. [277] A papal envoy came to urge peace in 1514, and a Pope claimed first to have suggested the marriage between Maryand Louis. [278] The Milan expedition of 1516 was made under cover of anew Holy League concluded in the spring of the previous year, and thepeace of 1518 was made with the full approval and blessings of Leo. Henry's devotion had been often acknowledged in words, and twice bytangible tokens of gratitude, in the gift of the golden rose in 1510and of the sword and cap in 1513. [279] But did not his services meritsome more signal mark of favour? If Ferdinand was "Catholic, " andLouis "Most Christian, " might not some title be found for a genuinefriend? And, as early as 1515, Henry was pressing the Pope for "sometitle as protector of the Holy See". [280] Various names were suggested, "King Apostolic, " "King Orthodox, " and others; and in January, 1516, we find the first mention of "Fidei Defensor". [281] But the prize wasto be won by services more appropriate to the title than even tenyears' maintenance of the Pope's temporal interests. His championshipof the Holy See had been the most unselfish part of Henry's policysince he came to the throne; and his whole conduct had been anexample, which others were slow to follow, and which Henry himself wassoon to neglect. 

 [Footnote 276: _L. And P. _, i. , 3876, 4283. ]

 [Footnote 277: _Arch. R. Soc. Rom. _, xix. , 3, 4. ]

 [Footnote 278: _L. And P. _, i. , 5543. ]

 [Footnote 279: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 53-54, 361; _L. And P. _, i. , 976, 4621. ]

 [Footnote 280: _Ibid. _, ii. , 887, 967. ]

 [Footnote 281: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1456, 1928; iii. , 1369. ]

CHAPTER V. (p. 108)

KING AND CARDINAL. 

"Nothing, " wrote Giustinian of Wolsey in 1519, "pleases him more thanto be called the arbiter of Christendom. "[282] Continental statesmenwere inclined to ridicule and resent the Cardinal's claim. But thetitle hardly exaggerates the part which the English minister wasenabled to play during the next few years by the rivalry of Charlesand Francis, and by the apparently even balance of their powers. Theposition which England held in the councils of Europe in 1519 was amarvellous advance upon that which it had occupied in 1509. The firstten years of Henry's reign had been a period of fluctuating, butcontinual, progress. The campaign of 1513 had vindicated England'smilitary prowess, and had made it possible for Wolsey, at the peace ofthe following year, to place his country on a level with France andSpain and the Empire. Francis's conquest of Milan, and the haste withwhich Maximilian, Leo and Charles sought to make terms with thevictor, caused a temporary isolation of England and a consequentdecline in her influence. But the arrangements made between Charlesand Francis contained, in themselves, as acute English diplomatistssaw, the seeds of future disruption; and, in 1518, Wolsey was able (p. 109)so to play off these mutual jealousies as to reassert England'sposition. He imposed a general peace, or rather a truce, which raisedEngland even higher than the treaties of 1514 had done, and made herappear as the conservator of the peace of Europe. England had almostusurped the place of the Pope as mediator between rival Christianprinces. [283]

 [Footnote 282: _L. And P. _, iii. , 125; Giustinian, _Desp. _, ii. , 256. ]

 [Footnote 283: _L. And P. _, iii. , 125. Men were shocked when the Pope was styled "comes" instead of "princeps confederationis" of 1518. "The chief author of these proceedings, " says Giustinian, "is Wolsey, whose sole aim is to procure incense for his king and himself" (_Desp. _ ii. , 256). ]

These brilliant results were achieved with the aid of very moderatemilitary forces and an only respectable navy. They were due partly tothe lavish expenditure of Henry's treasures, partly to the extravagantfaith of other princes in the extent of England's wealth, but mainlyto the genius for diplomacy displayed by the great English Cardinal. Wolsey had now reached the zenith of his power; and the growth of hissense of his own importance is graphically described by the Venetianambassador. When Giustinian first arrived in England, Wolsey used tosay, "His Majesty will do so and so". Subsequently, by degrees, forgetting himself, he commenced saying, "We shall do so and so". In1519 he had reached such a pitch that he used to say, "I shall do soand so". [284] Fox had been called by Badoer "a second King, " butWolsey was now "the King himself". [285] "We have to deal, " said Fox, "with the Cardinal, who is not Cardinal, but King; and no one in therealm dares attempt aught in opposition to his interests. "[286] Onanother occasion Giustinian remarks: "This Cardinal is King, nor doesHis Majesty depart in the least from the opinion and counsel of (p. 110)his lordship". [287] Sir Thomas More, in describing the negotiationsfor the peace of 1518, reports that only after Wolsey had concluded apoint did he tell the council, "so that even the King hardly knows inwhat state matters are". [288] A month or two later there was a curiousdispute between the Earl of Worcester and West, Bishop of Ely, whowere sent to convey the Treaty of London to Francis. Worcester, as alayman, was a partisan of the King, West of the Cardinal. Worcesterinsisted that their detailed letters should be addressed to Henry, andonly general ones to Wolsey. West refused; the important letters, hethought, should go to the Cardinal, the formal ones to the King; and, eventually, identical despatches were sent to both. [289] Innegotiations with England, Giustinian told his Government, "if it werenecessary to neglect either King or Cardinal, it would be better topass over the King; he would therefore make the proposal to both, butto the Cardinal first, _lest he should resent the precedence concededto the King_". [290] The popular charge against Wolsey, repeated byShakespeare, of having written _Ego et rex meus_, though true infact, [291] is false in intention, because no Latin scholar could putthe words in any other order; but the Cardinal's mental attitude isfaithfully represented in the meaning which the familiar phrase wassupposed to convey. 

 [Footnote 284: _Ven. _ Cal. , ii. 1287. ]

 [Footnote 285: _L. And P. _, ii. , 1380. ]

 [Footnote 286: _Ibid. _, ii. , 3558. ]

 [Footnote 287: _Cf. Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 671, 875, 894. ]

 [Footnote 288: _L. And P. _, ii. , 4438. ]

 [Footnote 289: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4664. On other occasions Wolsey took it upon himself to open letters addressed to the King (_Ibid. _, iii. , 2126). ]

 [Footnote 290: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1215. ]

 [Footnote 291: It will be found in _Ven. Cal. _, iii. , p. 43; Shakespeare, _Henry VIII. _, Act III. , Sc. Ii. ]

His arrogance does not rest merely on the testimony of personal (p. 111)enemies like the historian, Polydore Vergil, and the poet Skelton, orof chroniclers like Hall, who wrote when vilification of Wolseypleased both king and people, but on the despatches of diplomatistswith whom he had to deal, and on the reports of observers who narrowlywatched his demeanour. "He is, " wrote one, "the proudest prelate thatever breathed. "[292] During the festivities of the Emperor's visit toEngland, in 1520, Wolsey alone sat down to dinner with the royalparty, while peers, like the Dukes of Suffolk and Buckingham, performed menial offices for the Cardinal, as well as for Emperor, King and Queen. [293] When he celebrated mass at the Field of Cloth ofGold, bishops invested him with his robes and put sandals on his feet, and "some of the chief noblemen in England" brought water to wash hishands. [294] A year later, at his meeting with Charles at Bruges, hetreated the Emperor as an equal. He did not dismount from his mule, but merely doffed his cap, and embraced as a brother the temporal headof Christendom. [295] When, after a dispute with the Venetian ambassador, he wished to be friendly, he allowed Giustinian, with royal condescension, and as a special mark of favour, to kiss his hand. [296] He nevergranted audience either to English peers or foreign ambassadors untilthe third or fourth time of asking. [297] In 1515 it was the custom ofambassadors to dine with Wolsey before presentation at Court, but fouryears later they were never served until the viands had been removedfrom the Cardinal's table. [298] A Venetian, describing Wolsey's (p. 112)embassy to France in 1527, relates that his "attendants served cap inhand, and, when bringing the dishes, knelt before him in the act ofpresenting them. Those who waited on the Most Christian King, kepttheir caps on their heads, dispensing with such exaggeratedceremonies. "[299]

 [Footnote 292: _Ven. Cal. _, iii. , 56. ]

 [Footnote 293: _Ibid. _, iii. , 50. ]

 [Footnote 294: _Ibid. _, vol. Iii. , p. 29. ]

 [Footnote 295: _Ibid. _, iii. , 298. ]

 [Footnote 296: _L. And P. _, ii. , 3733. ]

 [Footnote 297: Giustinian, _Desp. _, App. Ii. , 309. ]

 [Footnote 298: Giustinian, _Desp. _, App. Ii. , 309. ]

 [Footnote 299: _Ven. Cal. _, iii. , p. 84. ]

Pretenders to royal honours seldom acquire the grace of genuineroyalty, and the Cardinal pursued with vindictive ferocity those whooffended his sensitive dignity. In 1515, Polydore Vergil said, inwriting to his friend, Cardinal Hadrian, that Wolsey was so tyrannicaltowards all men that his influence could not last, and that allEngland abused him. [300] The letter was copied by Wolsey's secretary, Vergil was sent to the Tower, [301] and only released after many monthsat the repeated intercession of Leo X. His correspondent, CardinalHadrian, was visited with Wolsey's undying hatred. A pretext for hisruin was found in his alleged complicity in a plot to poison the Pope;the charge was trivial, and Leo forgave him. [302] Not so Wolsey, whoprocured Hadrian's deprivation of the Bishopric of Bath and Wells, appropriated the see for himself, and in 1518 kept Campeggio, thePope's legate, chafing at Calais until he could bring with him thepapal confirmation of these measures. [303] Venice had the temerity tointercede with Leo on Hadrian's behalf; Wolsey thereupon overwhelmedGiustinian with "rabid and insolent language"; ordered him not to (p. 113)put anything in his despatches without his consent; and revoked theprivileges of Venetian merchants in England. [304] In these outburstsof fury, he paid little respect to the sacrosanct character ofambassadors. He heard that the papal nuncio, Chieregati, was sendingto France unfavourable reports of his conduct. The nuncio "was sentfor by Wolsey, who took him into a private chamber, laid rude handsupon him, fiercely demanding what he had written to the King ofFrance, and what intercourse he had held with Giustinian and his son, adding that he should not quit the spot until he had confessedeverything, and, if fair means were not sufficient, he should be putupon the rack". [305] Nine years later, Wolsey nearly precipitated warbetween England and the Emperor by a similar outburst againstCharles's ambassador, De Praet. He intercepted De Praet'scorrespondence, and confined him to his house. It was a flagrantbreach of international law. Tampering with diplomatic correspondencewas usually considered a sufficient cause for war; on this occasionwar did not suit Charles's purpose, but it was no fault of Wolsey'sthat his fury at an alleged personal slight did not provokehostilities with the most powerful prince in Christendom. [306]

 [Footnote 300: _L. And P. _, ii. , 215. ]

 [Footnote 301: _Ibid. _, ii. , 491, 865, 1229. ]

 [Footnote 302: _Ibid. _, ii. , 3581, 3584; _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 902, 951. ]

 [Footnote 303: _L. And P. _, ii. , 4348. ]

 [Footnote 304: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 951, 953, 978; _L. And P. _, ii. , 3584. ]

 [Footnote 305: _L. And P. _, ii. , 2643. ]

 [Footnote 306: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , pp. 50, 76, 78, 92. ]

Englishmen fared no better than others at Wolsey's hands. He used thecoercive power of the State to revenge his private wrongs as well asto secure the peace of the realm. In July, 1517, Sir Robert Sheffield, [307]who had been Speaker in two Parliaments, was sent to the Tower forcomplaining of Wolsey, and to point the moral of Fox's assertion, (p. 114)that none durst do ought in opposition to the Cardinal's interests. [308]Again, the idea reflected by Shakespeare, that Wolsey was jealous ofPace, has been described as absurd; but it is difficult to draw anyother inference from the relations between them after 1521. WhileWolsey was absent at Calais, he accused Pace, without ground, ofmisrepresenting his letters to Henry, and of obtaining Henry's favouron behalf of a canon of York;[309] he complained that foreign powerswere trusting to another influence than his over the King; and, whenhe returned, he took care that Pace should henceforth be employed, notas secretary to Henry, but on almost continuous missions to Italy. In1525, when the Venetian ambassador was to thank Henry for making atreaty with Venice, which Pace had concluded, he was instructed not topraise him so highly, if the Cardinal were present, as if the orationwere made to Henry alone;[310] and, four years later, Wolsey found anoccasion for sending Pace to the Tower--treatment which eventuallycaused Pace's mind to become unhinged. [311]

 [Footnote 307: _L. And P. _, ii. , 3487. ]

 [Footnote 308: _L. And P. _, ii. , 3558. ]

 [Footnote 309: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1713. ]

 [Footnote 310: _Ven. Cal. _, iii. , 975. ]

 [Footnote 311: Brewer (Henry VIII. , ii. , 388; _L. And P. _, vol. Iv. , Introd. , p. Dxxxv. _n. _) is very indignant at this allegation, and when recording Chapuys' statement in 1529 that Pace had been imprisoned for two years in the Tower and elsewhere by Wolsey, declares that "Pace was never committed to the Tower, nor kept in prison by Wolsey" but was "placed under the charge of the Bishop of Bangor, " and that Chapuys' statement is "an instance how popular rumour exaggerates facts, or how Spanish ambassadors were likely to misrepresent them". It is rather an instance of the lengths to which Brewer's zeal for Wolsey carried him. He had not seen the despatch from Mendoza recording Pace's committal to the Tower on 25th Oct. , 1527, "for speaking to the King in opposition to Wolsey and the divorce" (_Sp. Cal. _, 1527-29, p. 440). It is true that Pace was in the charge of the Bishop of Bangor, but he was not transferred thither until 1528 (Ellis, _Orig. Letters_, 3rd ser. , ii. , 151); he was released immediately upon Wolsey's fall. Erasmus, thereupon, congratulating him on the fact, remarked that he was consoled by Pace's experience for his own persecution and that God rescued the innocent and cast down the proud (_ibid. _, iv. , 6283). The _D. N. B. _ (xliii. , 24), has been misled by Brewer. Wolsey had long had a grudge against Pace, and in 1514 was anxious to make "a fearful example" of him (_L. And P. _, i. , 5465); and his treatment of Pace was one of the charges brought against him in 1529 (_ibid. _, iv. , p. 2552). ]

Wolsey's pride in himself, and his jealousy of others, were not (p. 115)more conspicuous than his thirst after riches. His fees as Chancellorwere reckoned by Giustinian at five thousand ducats a year. He madethrice that sum by New Year's presents, "which he receives like theKing". [312] His demand for the Bishopric of Bath and Wells, coupledwith the fact that it was he who petitioned for Hadrian's deprivation, amazed even the Court at Rome, and, "to avoid murmurs, "[313] compliancewas deferred for a time. But these scruples were allowed no more thanecclesiastical law to stand in the way of Wolsey's preferment. One ofthe small reforms decreed by the Lateran Council was that no bishopricsshould be held _in commendam_; the ink was scarcely dry when Wolseyasked _in commendam_ for the see of the recently conquered Tournay. [314]Tournay was restored to France in 1518, but the Cardinal took carethat he should not be the loser. A _sine qua non_ of the peace wasthat Francis should pay him an annual pension of twelve thousandlivres as compensation for the loss of a bishopric of which he hadnever obtained possession. [315] He drew other pensions for politicalservices, from both Francis and Charles; and, from the Duke of Milan, he obtained the promise of ten thousand ducats a year before Pace (p. 116)set out to recover the duchy. [316] It is scarcely a matter for wonderthat foreign diplomatists, and Englishmen, too, should have accusedWolsey of spending the King's money for his own profit, and havethought that the surest way of winning his favour was by means of abribe. [317] When England, in 1521, sided with Charles against Francis, the Emperor bound himself to make good to Wolsey all the sums he wouldlose by a breach with France; and from that year onwards Charlespaid--or owed--Wolsey eighteen thousand livres a year. [318] It wasnine times the pensions considered sufficient for the Dukes of Norfolkand Suffolk; and even so it does not include the revenue Wolseyderived from two Spanish bishoprics. These were not bribes in thesense that they affected Wolsey's policy; they were well enough knownto the King; to spoil the Egyptians was considered fair game, andHenry was generous enough not to keep all the perquisites of peace orwar for himself. 

 [Footnote 312: Giustinian, _Desp. _, App. Ii. , 309. ]

 [Footnote 313: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1045. ]

 [Footnote 314: _L. And P. _, i. , 5457. ]

 [Footnote 315: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4354. ]

 [Footnote 316: _L. And P. _, ii. , 1053, 1066. ]

 [Footnote 317: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1931; _cf. _ Shakespeare, _Henry VIII. _, Act. I. , Sc. I. :--

 Thus the Cardinal Does buy and sell his honour as he pleases And for his own advantage. ]

 [Footnote 318: _L. And P. _, iii. , 709, 2307 (where it is given as nine thousand "crowns of the sun"); _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 273, 600. In 1527 Charles instructed his ambassador to offer Wolsey in addition to his pension of nine thousand ducats with arrears a further pension of six thousand ducats and a marquisate in Milan worth another twelve or fifteen thousand ducats a year (_L. And P. _, iv. , 3464). ]

Two years after the agreement with Charles, Ruthal, Bishop of Durham, died, and Wolsey exchanged Bath and Wells for the richer see formerlyheld by his political ally and friend. But Winchester was richer (p. 117)even than Durham; so when Fox followed Ruthal to the grave, in 1528, Wolsey exchanged the northern for the southern see, and begged thatDurham might go to his natural son, a youth of eighteen. [319] Allthese were held _in commendam_ with the Archbishopric of York, butthey did not satisfy Wolsey; and, in 1521, he obtained the grant ofSt. Albans, the greatest abbey in England. His palaces outshone insplendour those of Henry himself, and few monarchs have been able todisplay such wealth of plate as loaded the Cardinal's table. Wolsey issupposed to have conceived vast schemes of ecclesiastical reform, which time and opportunity failed him to effect. [320] If he had everseriously set about the work, the first thing to be reformed wouldhave been his own ecclesiastical practice. He personified in himselfmost of the clerical abuses of his age. Not merely an "unpreachingprelate, " he rarely said mass; his _commendams_ and absenteeism werealike violations of canon law. Three of the bishoprics he held henever visited at all; York, which he had obtained fifteen yearsbefore, he did not visit till the year of his death, and then throughno wish of his own. He was equally negligent of the vow of chastity;he cohabited with the daughter of "one Lark, " a relative of the Larkwho is mentioned in the correspondence of the time as "omnipotent"with the Cardinal, and as resident in his household. [321] By her (p. 118)he left two children, a son, [322] for whom he obtained a deanery, fourarchdeaconries, five prebends, and a chancellorship, and sought theBishopric of Durham, and a daughter who became a nun. The accusationbrought against him by the Duke of Buckingham and others, of procuringobjects for Henry's sensual appetite, is a scandal, to which nocredence would have been attached but for Wolsey's own moral laxity, and the fact that the governor of Charles V. Performed a similaroffice. [323]

 [Footnote 319: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4824. ]

 [Footnote 320: There is no doubt about his eagerness for the power which would have enabled him to carry out a reformation. As legate he demanded from the Pope authority to visit and reform the secular clergy as well as the monasteries; this was refused on the ground that it would have superseded the proper functions of the episcopate (_L. And P. _, ii. , 4399; iii. , 149). ]

 [Footnote 321: _L. And P. _, ii. , 629, 2637, 4068. Lark became prebendary of St. Stephen's (_Ibid. _, iv. , _Introd. _, p. Xlvi. ). ]

 [Footnote 322: Called Thomas Wynter, see the present writer's _Life of Cranmer_, p. 324 _n. _ Some writers have affected to doubt Wolsey's parentage of Wynter, but this son is often referred to in the correspondence of the time, _e. G. _, _L. And P. _, iv. , p. 1407, Nos. 4824, 5581, 6026, 6075. Art. 27. ]

 [Footnote 323: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1284; iv. , p. 2558; ii. , 2930. ]

Repellent as was Wolsey's character in many respects, he was yet thegreatest, as he was the last, of the ecclesiastical statesmen who havegoverned England. As a diplomatist, pure and simple, he has never beensurpassed, and as an administrator he has had few equals. "He is, "says Giustinian, "very handsome, learned, extremely eloquent, of vastability and indefatigable. He alone transacts the same business asthat which occupies all the magistracies, offices, and councils ofVenice, both civil and criminal; and all State affairs are managed byhim, let their nature be what it may. He is thoughtful, and has thereputation of being extremely just; he favours the people exceedingly, and especially the poor, hearing their suits and seeking to despatchthem instantly. He also makes the lawyers plead gratis for all poorsuitors. He is in very great repute, seven times more so than if (p. 119)he were Pope. "[324] His sympathy with the poor was no idle sentiment, and his commission of 1517, and decree against enclosures in thefollowing year, were the only steps taken in Henry's reign to mitigatethat curse of the agricultural population. 

 [Footnote 324: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1287; Giustinian, _D sp. _, App. Ii. , 309; _L. And P. _, iii. , 402. ]

The Evil May Day riots of 1517 alone disturbed the peace of Wolsey'sinternal administration; and they were due merely to anti-foreignprejudice, and to the idea that strangers within the gates monopolisedthe commerce of England and diverted its profits to their own advantage. "Never, " wrote Wolsey to a bishop at Rome in 1518, "was the kingdom ingreater harmony and repose than now; such is the effect of myadministration of justice and equity. "[325] To Henry his strain wasless arrogant. "And for your realm, " he says, "our Lord be thanked, itwas never in such peace nor tranquillity; for all this summer I havehad neither of riot, felony, nor forcible entry, but that your laws bein every place indifferently ministered without leaning of any manner. Albeit, there hath lately been a fray betwixt Pygot, your Serjeant, and Sir Andrew Windsor's servants for the seisin of a ward, wheretothey both pretend titles; in the which one man was slain. I trust thenext term to learn them the law of the Star Chamber that they shallware how from henceforth they shall redress their matter with theirhands. They be both learned in the temporal law, and I doubt not goodexample shall ensue to see them learn the new law of the Star Chamber, which, God willing, they shall have indifferently administered (p. 120)to them, according to their deserts. "[326]

 [Footnote 325: _Ibid. _, ii. , 3973. ]

 [Footnote 326: _L. And P. _, ii. , App. No. 38; for the Star Chamber see Scofield, _Star Chamber_, 1902, and Leadam, _Select Cases_ (Selden Soc. , 1904). ]

Wolsey's "new law of the Star Chamber, " his stern enforcement of thestatutes against livery and maintenance, and his spasmodic attempt toredress the evils of enclosures, [327] probably contributed as much ashis arrogance and ostentation to the ill-favour in which he stood withthe nobility and landed gentry. From the beginning there were frequentrumours of plots to depose him, and his enemies abroad often talked ofthe universal hatred which he inspired in England. The classes whichbenefited by his justice complained bitterly of the impositionsrequired to support his spirited foreign policy. Clerics who regardedhim as a bulwark on the one hand against heresy, and, on the other, against the extreme view which Henry held from the first of hisauthority over the Church, were alienated by the despotism Wolseywielded by means of his legatine powers. Even the mild and aged Warhamfelt his lash, and was threatened with _Præmunire_ for having woundedWolsey's legatine authority by calling a council at Lambeth. [328]Peers, spiritual no less than temporal, regarded him as "the greattyrant". Parliament he feared and distrusted; he had urged the speedydissolution of that of 1515; only one sat during the fourteen years ofhis supremacy, and with that the Cardinal quarrelled. He possessed nohold over the nation, but only over the King, in whom alone he put histrust. 

 [Footnote 327: _L. And P. _, App. No. 53; _cf. _ Leadam, _Domesday of Enclosures_ (Royal Hist. Soc. ). ]

 [Footnote 328: _Ibid. _, iii. , 77, 98; _cf. _ ii. , 3973; iii. 1142. ]

For the time he seemed secure enough. No one could touch a hair (p. 121)of his head so long as he was shielded by Henry's power, and Henryseemed to have given over his royal authority to Wolsey's hands with ablind and undoubting confidence. "The King, " said one, in 1515, "is ayoungling, cares for nothing but girls and hunting, and wastes hisfather's patrimony. "[329] "He gambled, " reported Giustinian in 1519, "with the French hostages, occasionally, it was said, to the amount ofsix or eight thousand ducats a day. "[330] In the following summerHenry rose daily at four or five in the morning and hunted till nineor ten at night; "he spares, " said Pace, "no pains to convert thesport of hunting into a martyrdom". [331] "He devotes himself, " wroteChieregati, "to accomplishments and amusements day and night, isintent on nothing else, and leaves business to Wolsey, who ruleseverything. "[332] Wolsey, it was remarked by Leo X. , made Henry gohither and thither, just as he liked, [333] and the King signed Statepapers without knowing their contents. "Writing, " admitted Henry, "isto me somewhat tedious and painful. "[334] When Wolsey thought itessential that autograph letters in Henry's hand should be sent toother crowned heads, he composed the letters and sent them to Henry tocopy out. [335] Could the most constitutional monarch have been moredutiful? But constitutional monarchy was not then invented, and it isnot surprising that Giustinian, in 1519, found it impossible to (p. 122)say much for Henry as a statesman. _Agere cum rege_, he said, _estnihil agere_;[336] anything told to the King was either useless or wascommunicated to Wolsey. Bishop West was sure that Henry would not takethe pains to look at his and Worcester's despatches; and there was awidespread impression abroad and at home that the English King was anegligible quantity in the domestic and foreign affairs of his ownkingdom. 

 [Footnote 329: _L. And P. _, ii. , 1105; _cf. Ibid. _, ii. , 215. ]

 [Footnote 330: Giustinian, _Desp. _, App. Ii. , 309. ]

 [Footnote 331: _L. And P. _, iii. , 950; _cf. _ iii. , 1160, where Fitzwilliam describes Henry as a "master" in deer-hunting. ]

 [Footnote 332: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 788. ]

 [Footnote 333: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 281. ]

 [Footnote 334: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1. ]

 [Footnote 335: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1453, 3377. ]

 [Footnote 336: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1110. ]

For ten years Henry had reigned while first his council, and thenWolsey, governed. Before another decade had passed, Henry was King andGovernment in one; and nobody in the kingdom counted for much but theKing. He stepped at once into Wolsey's place, became his own primeminister, and ruled with a vigour which was assuredly not less thanthe Cardinal's. Such transformations are not the work of a moment, andHenry's would have been impossible, had he in previous years been socompletely the slave of Vanity Fair, as most people thought. Inreality, there are indications that beneath the superficial gaiety ofhis life, Henry was beginning to use his own judgment, form his ownconclusions, and take an interest in serious matters. He was onlytwenty-eight in 1519, and his character was following a normal courseof development. 

From the earliest years of his reign Henry had at least two seriouspreoccupations, the New Learning and his navy. We learn from Erasmusthat Henry's Court was an example to Christendom for learning andpiety;[337] that the King sought to promote learning among the clergy;and on one occasion defended "mental and _ex tempore_ prayer" againstthose who apparently thought laymen should, in their private (p. 123)devotions, confine themselves to formularies prescribed by theclergy. [338] In 1519 there were more men of learning at the EnglishCourt than at any university;[339] it was more like a museum, says thegreat humanist, than a Court;[340] and in the same year the Kingendeavoured to stop the outcry against Greek, raised by the reactionary"Trojans" at Oxford. "You would say, " continues Erasmus, "that Henrywas a universal genius. He has never neglected his studies; andwhenever he has leisure from his political occupations, he reads, ordisputes--of which he is very fond--with remarkable courtesy andunruffled temper. He is more of a companion than a king. For theselittle trials of wit, he prepares himself by reading schoolmen, Thomas, Scotus or Gabriel. "[341] His theological studies wereencouraged by Wolsey, possibly to divert the King's mind from anunwelcome interference in politics, and it was at the Cardinal'sinstigation that Henry set to work on his famous book againstLuther. [342] He seems to have begun it, or some similar treatise, which may afterwards have been adapted to Luther's particular case, before the end of the year in which the German reformer published hisoriginal theses. In September, 1517, Erasmus heard that Henry hadreturned to his studies, [343] and, in the following June, Pace writesto Wolsey that, with respect to the commendations given by theCardinal to the King's book, though Henry does not think it worthysuch great praise as it has had from him and from all other "greatlearned" men, yet he says he is very glad to have "noted in your (p. 124)grace's letters that his reasons be called inevitable, consideringthat your grace was sometime his adversary herein and of contraryopinion". [344] It is obvious that this "book, " whatever it may havebeen, was the fruit of Henry's own mind, and that he adopted a line ofargument not entirely relished by Wolsey. But, if it was the bookagainst Luther, it was laid aside and rewritten before it was given tothe world in its final form. Nothing more is heard of it for threeyears. In April, 1521, Pace explains to Wolsey the delay in sendinghim on some news-letters from Germany "which his grace had not readtill this day after his dinner; and thus he commanded me to write untoyour grace, declaring he was otherwise occupied; _i. E. , in scribendocontra Lutherum, _ as I do conjecture". [345] Nine days later Pace foundthe King reading a new book of Luther's, "which he dispraised"; and hetook the opportunity to show Henry Leo's bull against the Reformer. "His grace showed himself well contented with the coming of the same;howbeit, as touching the publication thereof, he said he would have itwell examined and diligently looked to afore it were published. "[346]Even in the height of his fervour against heresy, Henry was in no moodto abate one jot or one tittle of his royal authority inecclesiastical matters. 

 [Footnote 337: _L. And P. _, ii. , 4115. ]

 [Footnote 338: _L. And P. _, iii. , 226. ]

 [Footnote 339: _Ibid. _, iii. , 251. ]

 [Footnote 340: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4340. ]

 [Footnote 341: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5412; for the freedom with which Cranmer in later days debated with Henry see the present writer's _Cranmer_, p. 169. ]

 [Footnote 342: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1659, 1772. ]

 [Footnote 343: _Ibid. _, ii. , 3673. ]

 [Footnote 344: _L. And P. _, ii. , 4257. ]

 [Footnote 345: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1220. ]

 [Footnote 346: _Ibid. _, 1233. ]

His book was finished before 21st May, 1521, when the King wrote toLeo, saying that "ever since he knew Luther's heresy in Germany, hehad made it his study how to extirpate it. He had called the learnedof his kingdom to consider these errors and denounce them, and (p. 125)exhort others to do the same. He had urged the Emperor and Electors, since this pestilent fellow would not return to God, to extirpate himand his heretical books. He thought it right still further to testifyhis zeal for the faith by his writings, that all might see he wasready to defend the Church, not only with his arms, but with theresources of his mind. He dedicated therefore, to the Pope, the firstofferings of his intellect and his little erudition. "[347] The letterhad been preceded, on 12th May, by a holocaust of Luther's books inSt. Paul's Churchyard. Wolsey sat in state on a scaffold at St. Paul'sCross, with the papal nuncio and the Archbishop of Canterbury at hisfeet on the right, and the imperial ambassador and Tunstall, Bishop ofLondon, at his feet on the left; and while the books were beingdevoured by the flames, Fisher preached a sermon denouncing the errorscontained therein. [348] But it was July before the fair copy ofHenry's book was ready for presentation to Leo; possibly the intervalwas employed by learned men in polishing Henry's style, but thesubstance of the work was undoubtedly of Henry's authorship. Such isthe direct testimony of Erasmus, and there is no evidence to indicatethe collaboration of others. [349] Pace was then the most intimate ofHenry's counsellors, and Pace, by his own confession, was not in thesecret. Nor is the book so remarkable as to preclude the possibilityof Henry's authorship. Its arguments are respectable and give evidenceof an intelligent and fairly extensive acquaintance with the writingsof the fathers and schoolmen; but they reveal no profound depth oftheological learning nor genius for abstract speculation. It does (p. 126)not rank so high in the realm of theology, as do some of Henry'scompositions in that of music. In August it was sent to Leo, withverses composed by Wolsey and copied out in the royal hand. [350] InSeptember the English ambassador at Rome presented Leo his copy, boundin cloth of gold. The Pope read five leaves without interruption, andremarked that "he would not have thought such a book should have comefrom the King's grace, who hath been occupied, necessarily, in otherfeats, seeing that other men which hath occupied themselves in studyall their lives cannot bring forth the like". [351] On 2nd October itwas formally presented in a consistory of cardinals; and, on the 11th, Leo promulgated his bull conferring on Henry his coveted title, "FideiDefensor". 

 [Footnote 347: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1297. ]

 [Footnote 348: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1273. ]

 [Footnote 349: F. M. Nichols, _Epistles of Erasmus_, p. 424; _L. And P. _, iv. , 5412. ]

 [Footnote 350: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1450. ]

 [Footnote 351: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1574, 1654, 1655, 1659. ]

Proud as he was of his scholastic achievement and its reward at thehands of the Pope, Henry was doing more for the future of England byhis attention to naval affairs than by his pursuit of high-soundingtitles. His intuitive perception of England's coming needs in thisrespect is, perhaps, the most striking illustration of his politicalforesight. He has been described as the father of the British navy;and, had he not laid the foundations of England's naval power, hisdaughter's victory over Spain and entrance on the path that led toempire would have been impossible. Under Henry, the navy was firstorganised as a permanent force; he founded the royal dockyards atWoolwich and Deptford, and the corporation of Trinity House;[352] heencouraged the planting of timber for shipbuilding, enacted laws (p. 127)facilitating inland navigation, dotted the coast with fortifications, and settled the constitution of the naval service upon a plan fromwhich it has ever since steadily developed. He owed his inspiration tonone of his councillors, least of all to Wolsey, who had not thefaintest glimmering of the importance of securing England's navalsupremacy, and who, during the war of 1522-23, preferred futileinvasions on land to Henry's "secret designs" for destroying the navyof France. [353] The King's interest in ships and shipbuilding wasstrong, even amid the alluring diversions of the first years of hisreign. He watched his fleet sail for Guienne in 1512, and for Francein 1513; he knew the speed, the tonnage and the armament of every shipin his navy; he supervised the minutest details of their construction. In 1520 his ambassador at Paris tells him that Francis is building aship, "and reasoneth in this mystery of shipman's craft as one whichhad understanding in the same. But, sir, he approacheth not yourhighness in that science. "[354] A French envoy records how, in 1515, the whole English Court went down to see the launch of the _PrincessMary_. Henry himself "acted as pilot and wore a sailor's coat andtrousers, made of cloth of gold, and a gold chain with the inscription, 'Dieu _est_ mon droit, ' to which was suspended a whistle, which heblew nearly as loud as a trumpet". [355] The launch of a ship was thenalmost a religious ceremony, and the place of the modern bottle ofchampagne was taken by a mass, which was said by the Bishop of Durham. In 1518 Giustinian tells how Henry went to Southampton to see theVenetian galleys, and caused some new guns to be "fired again and (p. 128)again, marking their range, as he is very curious about matters ofthis kind". [356]

 [Footnote 352: _Ibid. _, i. , 3807. In 1513 an English consul was appointed at Scio (_ibid. _, i. , 3854). ]

 [Footnote 353: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1440; _cf. Ibid. _, 2421. ]

 [Footnote 354: _Ibid. _, iii. , 748. ]

 [Footnote 355: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1113. ]

 [Footnote 356: _L. And P. _, ii. , 4232. ]

It was not long before Henry developed an active participation inserious matters other than theological disputes and naval affairs. Itis not possible to trace its growth with any clearness because norecord remains of the verbal communications which were sufficient toindicate his will during the constant attendance of Wolsey upon him. But, as soon as monarch and minister were for some cause or anotherapart, evidence of Henry's activity in political matters becomes moreavailable. Thus, in 1515, we find Wolsey sending the King, at his ownrequest, the Act of Apparel, just passed by Parliament, for Henry's"examination and correction". [357] He also desires Henry's determinationabout the visit of the Queen of Scotland, that he may make thenecessary arrangements. In 1518 Henry made a prolonged stay atAbingdon, partly from fear of the plague, and partly, as he told Pace, because at Abingdon people were not continually coming to tell him ofdeaths, as they did daily in London. During this absence from London, Henry insisted upon the attendance of sufficient councillors to enablehim to transact business; he established a relay of posts every sevenhours between himself and Wolsey; and we hear of his reading "everyword of all the letters" sent by his minister. [358] Every week Wolseydespatched an account of such State business as he had transacted; andon one occasion, "considering the importance of Wolsey's letters, "Henry paid a secret and flying visit to London. [359] In 1519 therewas a sort of revolution at Court, obscure enough now, but then a (p. 129)subject of some comment at home and abroad. Half a dozen of Henry'scourtiers were removed from his person and sent into honourable exile, receiving posts at Calais, at Guisnes, and elsewhere. [360] Giustinianthought that Henry had been gambling too much and wished to turn overa new leaf. There were also rumours that these courtiers governedHenry after their own appetite, to the King's dishonour; and Henry, annoyed at the report and jealous as ever of royal prestige, promptlycashiered them, and filled their places with grave and reverendseniors. 

 [Footnote 357: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1223. ]

 [Footnote 358: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4060, 4061, 4089. ]

 [Footnote 359: _L. And P. _, ii. , 4276. ]

 [Footnote 360: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1220, 1230; _L. And P. _, iii. , 246, 247, 249, 250. Francis I. Thought they were dismissed as being too favourable to him, and as a rule the younger courtiers favoured France and the older Spain. ]

Two years later Wolsey was abroad at the conference of Calais, andagain Henry's hand in State affairs becomes apparent. Pace, defendinghimself from the Cardinal's complaints, tells him that he had doneeverything "by the King's express commandment, who readeth all yourletters with great diligence". One of the letters which angered Wolseywas the King's, for Pace "had devised it very different"; but the Kingwould not approve of it; "and commanded me to bring your said lettersinto his privy chamber with pen and ink, and there he would declareunto me what I should write. And when his grace had your said letters, he read the same three times, and marked such places as it pleased himto make answer unto, and commanded me to write and rehearse as likedhim, and not further to meddle with that answer; so that I hereinnothing did but obeyed the King's commandment, and especially at (p. 130)such time _as he would upon good grounds be obeyed, whosoever spake tothe contrary_. "[361] Wolsey might say in his pride "I shall do so andso, " and foreign envoys might think that the Cardinal made the King"go hither and thither, just as he liked"; but Wolsey knew perfectlywell that when he thought fit, Henry "would be obeyed, whosoever spaketo the contrary". He might delegate much of his authority, but menwere under no misapprehension that he could and would revoke itwhenever he chose. For the time being, King and Cardinal workedtogether in general harmony, but it was a partnership in which Henrycould always have the last word, though Wolsey did most of the work. As early as 1518 he had nominated Standish to the bishopric of St. Asaph, disregarding Wolsey's candidate and the opposition of theclerical party at Court, who detested Standish for his advocacy ofHenry's authority in ecclesiastical matters, and dreaded his promotionas an evil omen for the independence of the Church. [362]

 [Footnote 361: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1713. ]

 [Footnote 362: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4074, 4083, 4089. ]

Even in the details of administration, the King was becomingincreasingly vigilant. In 1519 he drew up a "remembrance of suchthings" as he required the Cardinal to "put in effectualexecution". [363] They were twenty-one in number and ranged over everyvariety of subject. The household was to be arranged; "views to bemade and books kept"; the ordnance seen to; treasurers were to makemonthly reports of their receipts and payments, and send counterpartsto the King; the surveyor of lands was to make a yearly declaration;and Wolsey himself and the judges were to make quarterly reports (p. 131)to Henry in person. There were five points "which the King will debatewith his council, " the administration of justice, reform of theexchequer, Ireland, employment of idle people, and maintenance of thefrontiers. The general plan of Wolsey's negotiations at Calais in 1521was determined by King and Cardinal in consultation, and everyimportant detail in them and in the subsequent preparations for warwas submitted to Henry. Not infrequently they differed. Wolsey wantedSir William Sandys to command the English contingent; Henry declaredit would be inconsistent with his dignity to send a force out of therealm under the command of any one of lower rank than an earl. Wolseyreplied that Sandys would be cheaper than an earl, [364] but thecommand was entrusted to the Earl of Surrey. Henry thought it unsafe, considering the imminence of a breach with France, for English wineships to resort to Bordeaux; Wolsey thought otherwise, and theydisputed the point for a month. Honours were divided; the question wassettled for the time by twenty ships sailing while the dispute was inprogress. [365] Apparently they returned in safety, but the seizure ofEnglish ships at Bordeaux in the following March justified Henry'scaution. [366] The King was already an adept in statecraft, and therewas at least an element of truth in the praise which Wolsey bestowedon his pupil. "No man, " he wrote, "can more groundly consider thepolitic governance of your said realm, nor more assuredly look to thepreservation thereof, than ye yourself. " And again, "surely, if all_your_ whole council had been assembled together, they could not (p. 132)have more deeply perceived or spoken therein". [367]

 [Footnote 363: _Ibid. _, iii. , 576. ]

 [Footnote 364: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1454, 1473, 1474. ]

 [Footnote 365: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1629, 1630. ]

 [Footnote 366: _Ibid. _, iii. , 2224. ]

 [Footnote 367: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1544, 1762. ]

The Cardinal "could not express the joy and comfort with which henoted the King's prudence"; but he can scarcely have viewed Henry'sgrowing interference without some secret misgivings. For he wasdeveloping not only Wolsey's skill and lack of scruple in politics, but also a choleric and impatient temper akin to the Cardinal's own. In 1514 Carroz had complained of Henry's offensive behaviour, and hadurged that it would become impossible to control him, if the "youngcolt" were not bridled. In the following year Henry treated a Frenchenvoy with scant civility, and flatly contradicted him twice as hedescribed the battle of Marignano. Giustinian also records how Henrywent "pale with anger" at unpleasant news. [368] A few years later hissuccessor describes Henry's "very great rage" when detailing Francis'sinjuries; Charles made the same complaints against the French King, "but not so angrily, in accordance with his gentler nature". [369] Onanother occasion Henry turned his back upon a diplomatist and walkedaway in the middle of his speech, an incident, we are told, on whichmuch comment was made in Rome. [370]

 [Footnote 368: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1113, 1653. ]

 [Footnote 369: _Ven. Cal. _, iii. , 493. ]

 [Footnote 370: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 314. ]

But these outbursts were rare and they grew rarer; in 1527 Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador, remarks that it was "quite the reverse of theKing's ordinary manner" to be more violent than Wolsey;[371] andthroughout the period of strained relations with the Emperor, Chapuysconstantly refers to the unfailing courtesy and graciousness with (p. 133)which Henry received him. He never forgot himself so far as to layrude hands on an ambassador, as Wolsey did; and no provocation betrayedhim in his later years, passionate though he was, into a neglect ofthe outward amenities of diplomatic and official intercourse. Outburstsof anger, of course, there were; but they were often like the explosionsof counsel in law courts, and were "to a great extent diplomaticallycontrolled". [372] Nor can we deny the consideration with which Henryhabitually treated his councillors, the wide discretion he allowedthem in the exercise of their duties, and the toleration he extendedto contrary opinions. He was never impatient of advice even when itconflicted with his own views. His long arguments with Wolsey, and thefreedom with which the Cardinal justified his recommendations, evenafter Henry had made up his mind to an opposite course, are asufficient proof of the fact. In 1517, angered by Maximilian'sperfidy, Henry wrote him some very "displeasant" letters. Tunstallthought they would do harm, kept them back, and received no censurefor his conduct. In 1522-23 Wolsey advised first the siege of Boulogneand then its abandonment. "The King, " wrote More, "is by no meansdispleased that you have changed your opinion, as his highnessesteemeth nothing in counsel more perilous than one to persevere inthe maintenance of his advice because he hath once given it. Hetherefore commendeth and most affectuously thanketh your faithfuldiligence and high wisdom in advertising him of the reasons which havemoved you to change your opinion. "[373] No king knew better than Henryhow to get good work from his ministers, and his warning against (p. 134)persevering in advice, merely because it has once been given, is apolitical maxim for all time. 

 [Footnote 371: _Ibid. _, iii. , 109. ]

 [Footnote 372: _L. And P. _, xiii. , p. Xli. ]

 [Footnote 373: _Ibid. _, iii. , 2421, 3346. ]

A lesson might also be learnt from a story of Henry and Colet told byErasmus on Colet's own authority. [374] In 1513 war fever raged inEngland. Colet's bishop summoned him "into the King's Court forasserting, when England was preparing for war against France, that anunjust peace was preferable to the most just war; but the King threatenedhis persecutor with vengeance. After Easter, when the expedition wasready against France, Colet preached on Whitsunday before the King andthe Court, exhorting men rather to follow the example of Christ theirprince than that of Cæsar and Alexander. The King was afraid that thissermon would have an ill effect upon the soldiers and sent for theDean. Colet happened to be dining at the Franciscan monastery nearGreenwich. When the King heard of it, he entered the garden of themonastery, and on Colet's appearance dismissed his attendants; thendiscussed the matter with him, desiring him to explain himself, lesthis audience should suppose that no war was justifiable. After theconversation was over he dismissed him before them all, drinking toColet's health and saying 'Let every man have his own doctor, this ismine'. " The picture is pleasing evidence of Henry's superiority tosome vulgar passions. Another instance of freedom from popular prejudice, which he shared with his father, was his encouragement of foreignscholars, diplomatists and merchants; not a few of the ablest of Tudoragents were of alien birth. He was therefore intensely annoyed at therabid fury against them that broke out in the riots of Evil May Day;yet he pardoned all the ringleaders but one. Tolerance and (p. 135)clemency were no small part of his character in early manhood;[375]and together with his other mental and physical graces, his love oflearning and of the society of learned men, his magnificence anddisplay, his supremacy in all the sports that were then considered thepeculiar adornment of royalty, they contributed scarcely less thanWolsey's genius for diplomacy and administration to England's renown. "In short, " wrote Chieregati to Isabella d'Este in 1517, "the wealthand civilisation of the world are here; and those who call the Englishbarbarians appear to me to render themselves such. I here perceivevery elegant manners, extreme decorum, and very great politeness. Andamongst other things there is this most invincible King, whoseaccomplishments and qualities are so many and excellent that Iconsider him to surpass all who ever wore a crown; and blessed andhappy may this country call itself in having as its lord so worthy andeminent a sovereign; whose sway is more bland and gentle than thegreatest liberty under any other. "[376]

 [Footnote 374: _L. And P. _, iii. , 303. ]

 [Footnote 375: For the extraordinary freedom of speech which Henry permitted, see _L. And P. _, xii. , ii. , 952, where Sir George Throckmorton relates how he accused Henry to his face of immoral relations with Mary Boleyn and her mother. ]

 [Footnote 376: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 918. ]

CHAPTER VI. (p. 136)

FROM CALAIS TO ROME. 

The wonderful success that had attended Wolsey's policy during hisseven years' tenure of power, and the influential position to which hehad raised England in the councils of Christendom, might well havedisturbed the mental balance of a more modest and diffident man thanthe Cardinal; and it is scarcely surprising that he fancied himself, and sought to become, arbiter of the destinies of Europe. The conditionof continental politics made his ambition seem less than extravagant. Power was almost monopolised by two young princes whose rivalry waskeen, whose resources were not altogether unevenly matched, and whosedisputes were so many and serious that war could only be averted by apacific determination on both sides which neither possessed. Francishad claims on Naples, and his dependant, D'Albret, on Navarre. Charleshad suzerain rights over Milan and a title to Burgundy, of which hisgreat-grandfather Charles the Bold had been despoiled by Louis XI. Yetthe Emperor had not the slightest intention of compromising hispossession of Naples or Navarre, and Francis was quite as resolute tosurrender neither Burgundy nor Milan. They both became eager competitorsfor the friendship of England, which, if its resources were inadequateto support the position of arbiter, was at least a most useful (p. 137)makeweight. England's choice of policy was, however, strictly limited. She could not make war upon Charles. It was not merely that Charleshad a staunch ally in his aunt Catherine of Aragon, who is said tohave "made such representations and shown such reasons against" thealliance with Francis "as one would not have supposed she would havedared to do, or even to imagine". [377] It was not merely that in thismatter Catherine was backed by the whole council except Wolsey, and bythe real inclinations of the King. It was that the English people werefirmly imperialist in sympathy. The reason was obvious. Charlescontrolled the wool-market of the Netherlands, and among Englishexports wool was all-important. War with Charles meant the ruin ofEngland's export trade, the starvation or impoverishment of thousandsof Englishmen; and when war was declared against Charles eight yearslater, it more nearly cost Henry his throne than all the fulminationsof the Pope or religious discontents, and after three months it wasbrought to a summary end. England remained at peace with Spain so longas Spain controlled its market for wool; when that market passed intothe hands of the revolted Netherlands, the same motive dictated analliance with the Dutch against Philip II. War with Charles in 1520was out of the question; and for the next two years Wolsey and Henrywere endeavouring to make Francis and the Emperor bid against eachother, in order that England might obtain the maximum of concessionfrom Charles when it should declare in his favour, as all along (p. 138)was intended. 

 [Footnote 377: _L. And P. _, iii. , 728. Wolsey's opposition is attributed by the imperial ambassador to Francis I. 's promise to make him Pope, "which we might have done much better". ]

By the Treaty of London Henry was bound to assist the aggrievedagainst the aggressor. But that treaty had been concluded betweenEngland and France in the first instance; Henry's only daughter wasbetrothed to the Dauphin; and Francis was anxious to cement hisalliance with Henry by a personal interview. [378] It was Henry'spolicy to play the friend for the time; and, as a proof of his desirefor the meeting with Francis, he announced, in August, 1519, hisresolve to wear his beard until the meeting took place. [379] Hereckoned without his wife. On 8th November Louise of Savoy, thequeen-mother of France, taxed Boleyn, the English ambassador, with areport that Henry had put off his beard. "I said, " writes Boleyn, "that, as I suppose, it hath been by the Queen's desire; for I told mylady that I have hereafore time known when the King's grace hath wornlong his beard, that the Queen hath daily made him great instance, anddesired him to put it off for her sake. "[380] Henry's inconstancy inthe matter of his beard not only caused diplomatic inconvenience, but, it may be parenthetically remarked, adds to the difficulty of datinghis portraits. Francis, however, considered the Queen's interference asufficient excuse, or was not inclined to stick at such trifles; andon 10th January, 1520, he nominated Wolsey his proctor to makearrangements for the interview. [381] As Wolsey was also agent forHenry, the French King saw no further cause for delay. 

 [Footnote 378: The interview had been agreed upon as early as October, 1518, when it was proposed that it should take place before the end of July, 1519 (_L. And P. _, ii. , 4483). ]

 [Footnote 379: _Ibid. _, iii. , 416. ]

 [Footnote 380: _Ibid. _, iii. , 514. ]

 [Footnote 381: _Ibid. _, iii. , 592. ]

The delay came from England; the meeting with Francis would be a (p. 139)one-sided pronouncement without some corresponding favour to Charles. Some time before Henry had sent Charles a pressing invitation to visitEngland on his way from Spain to Germany; and the Emperor, suspiciousof the meeting between Henry and Francis, was only too anxious to comeand forestall it. The experienced Margaret of Savoy admitted thatHenry's friendship was essential to Charles;[382] but Spaniards werenot to be hurried, and it would be May before the Emperor's convoy wasready. So Henry endeavoured to postpone his engagement with Francis. The French King replied that by the end of May his Queen would be inthe eighth month of her pregnancy, and that if the meeting werefurther prorogued she must perforce be absent. [383] Henry was nothingif not gallant, at least on the surface. Francis's argument clinchedthe matter. The interview, ungraced by the presence of France's Queen, would, said Henry, be robbed of most of its charm;[384] and he gaveCharles to understand that, unless he reached England by the middle ofMay, his visit would have to be cancelled. This intimation produced anunwonted despatch in the Emperor's movements; but fate was againsthim, and contrary winds rendered his arrival in time a matter of doubttill the last possible moment. Henry must cross to Calais on the 31stof May, whether Charles came or not; and it was the 26th before theEmperor's ships appeared off the cliffs of Dover. Wolsey put out in asmall boat to meet him, and conducted Charles to the castle where helodged. During the night Henry arrived. Early next day, which was (p. 140)Whitsunday, the two sovereigns proceeded to Canterbury, where theQueen and Court had come on the way to France to spend their Pentecost. Five days the Emperor remained with his aunt, whom he now saw for thefirst time; but the days were devoted to business rather than toelaborate ceremonial and show, for which there had been little time toprepare. [385]

 [Footnote 382: _L. And P. _, iii. , 672; _cf. _ iii. , 742. ]

 [Footnote 383: _Ibid. _, iii. , 681, 725. ]

 [Footnote 384: _Ibid. _, iii. , 697. ]

On the last day of May Charles took ship at Sandwich for Flanders. Henry embarked at Dover for France. The painting at Hampton Courtdepicting the scene has, like almost every other picture of Henry'sreign, been ascribed to Holbein; but six years were to pass before thegreat artist visited England. The King himself is represented as beingon board the four-masted _Henry Grace à Dieu_, commonly called the_Great Harry_, the finest ship afloat; though the vessel originallyfitted out for his passage was the _Katherine Pleasaunce_. [386] Ateleven o'clock he landed at Calais. On Monday, the 4th of June, Henryand all his Court proceeded to Guisnes. There a temporary palace ofart had been erected, the splendour of which is inadequately set forthin pages upon pages of contemporary descriptions. One Italian likenedit to the palaces described in Boiardo's _Orlando Innamorato_ andAriosto's _Orlando Furioso_; another declared that it could not havebeen better designed by Leonardo da Vinci himself. [387] Everythingwas in harmony with this architectural pomp. Wolsey was (p. 141)accompanied, it was said in Paris, by two hundred gentlemen clad incrimson velvet, and had a body-guard of two hundred archers. He washimself clothed in crimson satin from head to foot, his mule wascovered with crimson velvet, and her trappings were all of gold. Henry, "the most goodliest prince that ever reigned over the realm ofEngland, " appeared even to Frenchmen as a very handsome prince, "honnête, hault et droit, "[388] in manner gentle and gracious, ratherfat, and--in spite of his Queen--with a red beard, large enough andvery becoming. Another eye-witness adds the curious remark that, whileFrancis was the taller of the two, Henry had the handsomer and more_feminine_ face![389] On the 7th of June the two Kings startedsimultaneously from Guisnes and Ardres for their personal meeting inthe valley mid-way between the two towns, already known as the ValDoré. The obscure but familiar phrase, Field of Cloth of Gold, [390] isa mistranslation of the French Camp du Drap d'Or. As they came insight a temporary suspicion of French designs seized the English, butit was overcome. Henry and Francis rode forward alone, embraced eachother first on horseback and then again on foot, and made show ofbeing the closest friends in Christendom. On Sunday the 10th Henrydined with the French Queen, and Francis with Catherine of Aragon. Thefollowing week was devoted to tourneys, which the two Kings opened byholding the field against all comers. The official accounts arenaturally silent on the royal wrestling match, recorded in French (p. 142)memoirs and histories. [391] On the 17th Francis, as a final effort towin Henry's alliance, paid a surprise visit to him at breakfast withonly four attendants. The jousts were concluded with a solemn masssaid by Wolsey in a chapel built on the field. The Cardinal of Bourbonpresented the Gospel to Francis to kiss; he refused, offering it toHenry who was too polite to accept the honour. The same respect foreach other's dignity was observed with the _Pax_, and the two Queensbehaved with a similarly courteous punctilio. After a friendly disputeas to who should kiss the _Pax_ first, they kissed each otherinstead. [392] On the 24th Henry and Francis met to interchange gifts, to make their final professions of friendship, and to bid each otheradieu. Francis set out for Abbeville, and Henry returned to Calais. 

 [Footnote 385: _Ven. Cal. _, iii. , 50; _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 274. ]

 [Footnote 386: _L. And P. _, iii. , 558, an account-book headed "expense of making the _Kateryn Pleasaunce_ for transporting the King to Calais 22 May, 10 Henry VIII. ". ]

 [Footnote 387: _Ven. Cal. _, iii. , 81, 88; _cf. L. And P. _, iii. , 303-14; Hall, _Chronicle_, p. 604, etc. ]

 [Footnote 388: _L. And P. _, iii. , 306. ]

 [Footnote 389: _Ven. Cal. _, iii. , 80. ]

 [Footnote 390: Erroneously called "Field of _the_ Cloth of Gold"; cloth of gold is a material like velvet, and one does not talk about "a coat of _the_ velvet". ]

 [Footnote 391: See Michelet, x. , 137-38. ]

 [Footnote 392: _Ibid. _, p. 312. ]

The Field of Cloth of Gold was the last and most gorgeous display ofthe departing spirit of chivalry; it was also perhaps the mostportentous deception on record. "These sovereigns, " wrote a Venetian, "are not at peace. They adapt themselves to circumstances, but theyhate each other very cordially. "[393] Beneath the profusion of friendlypretences lay rooted suspicions and even deliberate hostile intentions. Before Henry left England the rumour of ships fitting out in Frenchports had stopped preparations for the interview; and they were notresumed till a promise under the broad seal of France was given thatno French ship should sail before Henry's return. [394] On the eve ofthe meeting Henry is said to have discovered that three or four thousandFrench troops were concealed in the neighbouring country;[395] (p. 143)he insisted on their removal, and Francis's unguarded visit to Henrywas probably designed to disarm the English distrust. [396] No soonerwas Henry's back turned than the French began the fortification ofArdres, [397] while Henry on his part went to Calais to negotiate aless showy but genuine friendship with Charles. No such magnificenceadorned their meeting as had been displayed at the Field of Cloth ofGold, but its solid results were far more lasting. On 10th July Henryrode to Gravelines where the Emperor was waiting. On the 11th theyreturned together to Calais, where during a three days' visit thenegotiations begun at Canterbury were completed. The ostensiblepurport of the treaty signed on the 14th was to bind Henry to proceedno further in the marriage between the Princess Mary and the Dauphin, and Charles no further in that between himself and Francis's daughter, Charlotte. [398] But more topics were discussed than appeared on thesurface; and among them was a proposal to marry Mary to the Emperorhimself. [399] The design proves that Henry and Wolsey had already madeup their minds to side with Charles, whenever his disputes withFrancis should develop into open hostilities. 

 [Footnote 393: _Ven. Cal. _, iii. , 119. ]

 [Footnote 394: _L. And P. _, iii. , 836, 842, 843. ]

 [Footnote 395: _Ven. Cal. _, iii. , 80. ]

 [Footnote 396: _Ibid. _, iii. , 90. ]

 [Footnote 397: _Ibid. _, iii. , 121. ]

 [Footnote 398: _L. And P. _, iii. , 914. ]

 [Footnote 399: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1149, 1150. ]

That consummation could not be far off. Charles had scarcely turnedhis back upon Spain when murmurs of disaffection were heard throughthe length and breadth of the land; and while he was discussing withHenry at Calais the prospects of a war with France, his commons inSpain broke out into open revolt. [400] The rising had attained (p. 144)such dimensions by February, 1521, that Henry thought Charles waslikely to lose his Spanish dominions. The temptation was too great forFrance to resist; and in the early spring of 1521 French forcesoverran Navarre, and restored to his kingdom the exile D'Albret. Francis had many plausible excuses, and sought to prove that he wasnot really the aggressor. There had been confused fighting between theimperialist Nassau and Francis's allies, the Duke of Guelders andRobert de la Marck, which the imperialists may have begun. But Francisrevealed his true motive, when he told Fitzwilliam that he had manygrievances against Charles and could not afford to neglect thisopportunity for taking his revenge. [401]

 [Footnote 400: _Ibid. _, iii. , 883, 891, 964, 976, 988, 994. ]

 [Footnote 401: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1303, 1310, 1315. ]

 * * * * *

War between Emperor and King soon spread from Navarre to the bordersof Flanders and to the plains of Northern Italy. Both sovereignsclaimed the assistance of England in virtue of the Treaty of London. But Henry would not be prepared for war till the following year atleast; and he proposed that Wolsey should go to Calais to mediatebetween the two parties and decide which had been the aggressor. Charles, either because he was unprepared or was sure of Wolsey'ssupport, readily agreed; but Francis was more reluctant, and only theknowledge that, if he refused, Henry would at once side with Charles, induced him to consent to the conference. So on 2nd August, 1521, theCardinal again crossed the Channel. [402] His first interview was withthe imperial envoys. [403] They announced that Charles had given themno power to treat for a truce. Wolsey refused to proceed without thisauthority; and he obtained the consent of the French chancellor, (p. 145)Du Prat, to his proposal to visit the Emperor at Bruges, and securethe requisite powers. He was absent more than a fortnight, and notlong after his return fell ill. This served to pass time in September, and the extravagant demands of both parties still further prolongedthe proceedings. Wolsey was constrained to tell them the story of acourtier who asked his King for the grant of a forest; when hisrelatives denounced his presumption, he replied that he only wanted inreality eight or nine trees. [404] The French and imperial chancellorsnot merely demanded their respective forests, but made the reductionof each single tree a matter of lengthy dispute; and as soon as afresh success in the varying fortune of war was reported, theyreturned to their early pretensions. Wolsey was playing his game withconsummate skill; delay was his only desire; his illness had beendiplomatic; his objects were to postpone for a few months the breachand to secure the pensions from France due at the end of October. [405]

 [Footnote 402: See his various and ample commissions, _ibid. _, iii. , 1443. ]

 [Footnote 403: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1462. ]

 [Footnote 404: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1622. ]

 [Footnote 405: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1507. "The Cardinal apologised for not having met them so long on account of his illness, but said he could not otherwise have gained so much time without causing suspicion to the French" (Gattinara to Charles V. , 24th September, 1521, _ibid. _, iii. , 1605). ]

The conference at Calais was in fact a monument of perfidy worthy ofFerdinand the Catholic. The plan was Wolsey's, but Henry had expressedfull approval. As early as July the King was full of his secret designfor destroying the navy of France, though he did not propose to proceedwith the enterprise till Wolsey had completed the arrangements withCharles. [406] The subterfuge about Charles refusing his powers (p. 146)and the Cardinal's journey to Bruges had been arranged between Henry, Wolsey and Charles before Wolsey left England. The object of thatvisit, so far from being to facilitate an agreement, was to concludean offensive and defensive alliance against one of the two partiesbetween whom Wolsey was pretending to mediate. "Henry agrees, " wroteCharles's ambassador on 6th July, "with Wolsey's plan that he shouldbe sent to Calais under colour of hearing the grievances of bothparties: and when he cannot arrange them, he should withdraw to theEmperor to treat of the matters aforesaid". [407] The treaty wasconcluded at Bruges on 25th August[408] before he returned to Calais;the Emperor promised Wolsey the Papacy;[409] the details of a jointinvasion were settled. Charles was to marry Mary; and the Pope was todispense the two from the disability of their kinship, and fromengagements with others which both had contracted. The Cardinal mightbe profuse in his protestations of friendship for France, of devotionto peace, and of his determination to do justice to the parties beforehim. But all his painted words could not long conceal the fact thatbehind the mask of the judge were hidden the features of a conspirator. It was an unpleasant time for Fitzwilliam, the English ambassador atthe French Court. The King's sister, Marguerite de Valois, taxedFitzwilliam with Wolsey's proceedings, hinting that deceit was beingpractised on Francis. The ambassador grew hot, vowed Henry was (p. 147)not a dissembler, and that he would prove it on any gentleman whodared to maintain that he was. [410] But he knew nothing of Wolsey'sintrigues; nor was the Cardinal, to whom Fitzwilliam denounced theinsinuation, likely to blush, though he knew that the charge was true. 

 [Footnote 406: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1440. ]

 [Footnote 407: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1395, 1433; _cf. _ iii. , 1574, where Henry VIII. 's envoy tells Leo X. That the real object of the conference was to gain time for English preparations. ]

 [Footnote 408: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1508; _Cotton MS_. , Galba, B, vii. , 102; see also an account of the conference in _L. And P. _, iii. , 1816, 1817. ]

 [Footnote 409: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1868, 1876. ]

 [Footnote 410: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1581. ]

Wolsey returned from Calais at the end of November, having failed toestablish the truce to which the negotiations had latterly been inappearance directed. But the French half-yearly pensions were paid, and England had the winter in which to prepare for war. No attempt hadbeen made to examine impartially the mutual charges of aggressionurged by the litigants, though a determination of that point couldalone justify England's intervention. The dispute was complicatedenough. If, as Charles contended, the Treaty of London guaranteed the_status quo_, Francis, by invading Navarre, was undoubtedly theoffender. But the French King pleaded the Treaty of Noyon, by whichCharles had bound himself to do justice to the exiled King of Navarre, to marry the French King's daughter, and to pay tribute for Naples. That treaty was not abrogated by the one concluded in London, yetCharles had fulfilled none of his promises. Moreover, the Emperorhimself had, long before the invasion of Navarre, been planning a warwith France, and negotiating with Leo to expel the French from Milan, and to destroy the predominant French faction in Genoa. [411] His (p. 148)ministers were making little secret of Charles's warlike intentions, when the Spanish revolt placed irresistible temptation in Francis'sway, and provoked that attack on Navarre, which enabled Charles toplead, with some colour, that he was not the aggressor. This was theground alleged by Henry for siding with Charles, but it was not hisreal reason for going to war. Nearly a year before Navarre wasinvaded, he had discussed the rupture of Mary's engagement with theDauphin and the transference of her hand to the Emperor. 

 [Footnote 411: In July, 1521, Gattinara drew out seven reasons for peace and ten for war; the former he playfully termed the seven deadly sins, and the latter the ten commandments (_L. And P. _, iii. , 1446; _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 337). ]

The real motives of England's policy do not appear on the surface. "The aim of the King of England, " said Clement VII. In 1524, [412] "isas incomprehensible as the causes by which he is moved are futile. Hemay, perhaps, wish to revenge himself for the slights he has receivedfrom the King of France and from the Scots, or to punish the King ofFrance for his disparaging language; or, seduced by the flattery ofthe Emperor, he may have nothing else in view than to help theEmperor; or he may, perhaps, really wish to preserve peace in Italy, and therefore declares himself an enemy of any one who disturbs it. Itis even not impossible that the King of England expects to be rewardedby the Emperor after the victory, and hopes, perhaps, to get Normandy. "Clement three years before, when Cardinal de Medici, had admitted thathe knew little of English politics;[413] and his ignorance may explainhis inability to give a more satisfactory reason for Henry's conductthan these tentative and far-fetched suggestions. But after thepublication of Henry's State papers, it is not easy to arrive at anymore definite conclusion. The only motive Wolsey alleges, besides (p. 149)the _ex post facto_ excuses of Francis's conduct, is the recovery ofHenry's rights to the crown of France; and if this were the realobject, it reduces both King and Cardinal to the level of politicalcharlatans. To conquer France was a madcap scheme, when Henry himselfwas admitting the impossibility of raising 30, 000 foot or 10, 000horse, without hired contingents from Charles's domains;[414] when, according to Giustinian, it would have been hard to levy 100men-at-arms or 1000 light cavalry in the whole island;[415] when theonly respectable military force was the archers, already an obsoletearm. Invading hosts could never be victualled for more than threemonths, or stand a winter campaign; English troops were ploughmen byprofession and soldiers only by chance; Henry VII. 's treasure wasexhausted, and efforts to raise money for fitful and futile inroadsnearly produced a revolt. Henry VIII. Himself was writing that toprovide for these inroads would prevent him keeping an army inIreland; and Wolsey was declaring that for the same reason Englishinterests in Scotland must take care of themselves, that borderwarfare must be confined to the strictest defensive, and that a"cheap" deputy must be found for Ireland, who would rule it, likeKildare, without English aid. [416] It is usual to lay the folly of thepretence to the crown of France at Henry's door. But it is a curiousfact that when Wolsey was gone, and Henry was his own prime minister, this spirited foreign policy took a very subordinate place, and Henryturned his attention to the cultivation of his own garden instead ofseeking to annex his neighbour's. It is possible that he was (p. 150)better employed in wasting his people's blood and treasure in thefutile devastation of France, than in placing his heel on the Churchand sending Fisher and More to the scaffold; but his attempts toreduce Ireland to order, and to unite England and Scotland, violentthough his methods may have been, were at least more sane than thequest for the crown of France, or even for the possession ofNormandy. [417]

 [Footnote 412: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 626. ]

 [Footnote 413: _L. And P. _, iii. , 853. ]

 [Footnote 414: _L. And P. _, iii. , 2333, iv. ]

 [Footnote 415: _Desp. _, App. Ii. , 309. ]

 [Footnote 416: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1252, 1646, 1675. ]

 [Footnote 417: The policy of abstention was often urged at the council-table and opposed by Wolsey, who, according to More, used to repeat the fable of the men who hid in caves to keep out of the rain which was to make all whom it wetted fools, hoping thereby to have the rule over the fools (_L. And P. _, vii. , 1114; More, _English Works_, p. 1434). It had cost England, says More, many a fair penny. ]

Yet if these were not Wolsey's aims, what were his motives? Theessential thing for England was the maintenance of a fairly evenbalance between Francis and Charles; and if Wolsey thought that wouldbest be secured by throwing the whole of England's weight into theEmperor's scale, he must have strangely misread the politicalsituation. He could not foresee, it may be said, the French debacle. If so, it was from no lack of omens. Even supposing he was ignorant, or unable to estimate the effects, of the moral corruption of Francis, the peculations of his mother Louise of Savoy, the hatred of the war, universal among the French lower classes, there were definite warningsfrom more careful observers. [418] As early as 1517 there were bittercomplaints in France of the _gabelle_ and other taxes, and a Cordelierdenounced the French King as worse than Nero. [419] In 1519 an (p. 151)anonymous Frenchman wrote that Francis had destroyed his own people, emptied his kingdom of money, and that the Emperor or some other wouldsoon have a cheap bargain of the kingdom, for he was more unsteady onhis throne than people thought. [420] Even the treason of Bourbon, which contributed so much to the French King's fall, was rumouredthree years before it occurred, and in 1520 he was known to be"playing the malcontent". [421] At the Field of Cloth of Gold Henry issaid to have told Francis that, had he a subject like Bourbon, hewould not long leave his head on his shoulders. [422] All these detailswere reported to the English Government and placed among Englisharchives; and, indeed, at the English Court the general anticipation, justified by the event, was that Charles would carry the day. 

 [Footnote 418: "To hear how rich and poor lament the war would grieve any man's heart" (Fitzwilliam to Wolsey, 18th Jan. , 1521-22, _L. And P. _, iii. , 1971). ]

 [Footnote 419: _L. And P. _, ii. , 3702-3. ]

 [Footnote 420: _Ibid. _, iii. , 378. ]

 [Footnote 421: _Ibid. _, iii. , 404; _cf. _ iii. , 2446 _ad fin. _]

 [Footnote 422: Michelet, x. , 131. ]

No possible advantage could accrue to England from such a destructionof the balance of power; her position as mediator was only tenable solong as neither Francis nor Charles had the complete mastery. War onthe Emperor was, no doubt, out of the question, but that was no reasonfor war on France. Prudence counselled England to make herself strong, to develop her resources, and to hold her strength in reserve, whilethe two rivals weakened each other by war. She would then be in a farbetter position to make her voice heard in the settlement, and wouldprobably have been able to extract from it all the benefits she couldwith reason or justice demand. So obvious was the advantage of thispolicy that for some time acute French statesmen refused to creditWolsey with any other. They said, reported an English envoy to (p. 152)the Cardinal, "that your grace would make your profit with them andthe Emperor both, and proceed between them so that they might continuein war, and that the one destroy the other, and the King's highnessmay remain and be their arbiter and superior". [423] If it is urgedthat Henry was bent on the war, and that Wolsey must satisfy the Kingor forfeit his power, even the latter would have been the betteralternative. His fall would have been less complete and morehonourable than it actually was. Wolsey's failure to follow thiscourse suggests that, by involving Henry in dazzling schemes of aforeign conquest, he was seeking to divert his attention from urgentmatters at home; that he had seen a vision of impending ruin; and thathis actions were the frantic efforts of a man to turn a steed, overwhich he has imperfect control, from the gulf he sees yawning ahead. The only other explanation is that Wolsey sacrificed England'sinterests in the hope of securing from Charles the gift of the papaltiara. [424]

 [Footnote 423: _L. And P. _, iii, 2026. ]

 [Footnote 424: For another view see Busch, _Cardinal Wolsey und die Englisch-Kaiserliche Allianz_, 1522-25. Bonn, 1886. ]

 * * * * *

However that may be, it was not for Clement VII. To deride England'sconduct. The keen-sighted Pace had remarked in 1521 that, in the eventof Charles's victory, the Pope would have to look to his affairs intime. [425] The Emperor's triumph was, indeed, as fatal to the Papacyas it was to Wolsey. Yet Clement VII. , on whom the full force of theblow was to fall, had, as Cardinal de Medici, been one of the chiefpromoters of the war. In August, 1521, the Venetian, Contarini, (p. 153)reports Charles as saying that Leo rejected both the peace and the trucespeciously urged by Wolsey, and adds, on his own account, that hebelieves it the truth. [426] In 1522 Francis asserted that Cardinal deMedici "was the cause of all this war";[427] and in 1527 Clement VII. Sought to curry favour with Charles by declaring that as Cardinal deMedici he had in 1521 caused Leo X. To side against France. [428] In1525 Charles declared that he had been mainly induced to enter on thewar by the persuasions of Leo, [429] over whom his cousin, theCardinal, then wielded supreme influence. So complete was his swayover Leo, that, on Leo's death, a cardinal in the conclave remarkedthat they wanted a new Pope, not one who had already been Pope foryears; and the gibe turned the scale against the future Clement VII. Medici both, Leo and the Cardinal regarded the Papacy mainly as ameans for family aggrandisement. In 1518 Leo had fulminated againstFrancis Maria della Rovere, Duke of Urbino, as "the son of iniquityand child of perdition, "[430] because he desired to bestow the duchyon his nephew Lorenzo. In the family interest he was withholdingModena and Reggio from Alfonso d'Este, and casting envious eyes onFerrara. In March, 1521, the French marched to seize some Milaneseexiles, who were harboured at Reggio. [431] Leo took the opportunity toform an alliance with Charles for the expulsion of Francis from Italy. It was signed at Worms on the 8th of May, the day on which Luther wasoutlawed;[432] and a war broke out in Italy, the effects of which (p. 154)were little foreseen by its principal authors. A veritable Nemesisattended this policy conceived in perfidy and greed. The battle ofPavia made Charles more nearly dictator of Europe than any ruler hassince been, except Napoleon Bonaparte. It led to the sack of Rome andthe imprisonment of Clement VII. By Charles's troops. The dependenceof the Pope on the Emperor made it impossible for Clement to grantHenry's petition for divorce, and his failure to obtain the divorceprecipitated Wolsey's fall. 

 [Footnote 425: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1370. ]

 [Footnote 426: _Ven. Cal. _, iii. , 312. ]

 [Footnote 427: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1947. ]

 [Footnote 428: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , pp. 510-11. ]

 [Footnote 429: _Ibid. _, ii. , p. 717. ]

 [Footnote 430: _L. And P. _, ii. , 3617. ]

 [Footnote 431: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1209, 1400. ]

 [Footnote 432: Creighton, _Papacy_, ed. 1901, vi. , 184 n. The edict was not issued till 25th May, but there was an intimate connection between the two events. It was in the same month that Luther's books were solemnly burnt in England, the ally of Pope and Emperor, and the extirpation of heresy was the first motive alleged for the alliance. ]

Leo, meanwhile, had gone to his account on the night of 1st-2ndDecember, 1521, singing "Nunc dimittis" for the expulsion of theFrench from Milan;[433] and amid the clangour of war the cardinals metto choose his successor. Their spirit belied their holy profession. "All here, " wrote Manuel, Charles's representative, "is founded onavarice and lies;"[434] and again "there cannot be so much hatred andso many devils in hell as among these cardinals". "The Papacy is ingreat decay" echoed the English envoy Clerk, "the cardinals brawl andscold; their malicious, unfaithful and uncharitable demeanour againsteach other increases every day. "[435] Feeling between the French andimperial factions ran high, and the only question was whether anadherent of Francis or Charles would secure election. Francis hadpromised Wolsey fourteen French votes; but after the conference ofCalais he would have been forgiving indeed had he wielded his influenceon behalf of the English candidate. Wolsey built more upon the (p. 155)promise of Charles at Bruges;[436] but, if he really hoped for Charles'sassistance, his sagacity was greatly to seek. The Emperor at no timemade any effort on Wolsey's behalf; he did him the justice to thinkthat, were Wolsey elected, he would be devoted more to English than toimperial interests; and he preferred a Pope who would be undividedlyimperialist at heart. Pace was sent to join Clerk at Rome in urgingWolsey's suit, and they did their best; but English influence at theCourt of Rome was infinitesimal. In spite of Campeggio's flatteringassurance that Wolsey's name appeared in every scrutiny, and thatsometimes he had eight or nine votes, and Clerk's statement that hehad nine at one time, twelve at another, and nineteen at a third, [437]Wolsey's name only appears in one of the eleven scrutinies, and thenhe received but seven out of eighty-one votes. [438] The election waslong and keenly contested. The conclave commenced on the 28th ofDecember, and it was not till the 9th of January, 1522, that thecardinals, conscious of each other's defects, agreed to elect anabsentee, about whom they knew little. Their choice fell on Adrian, Cardinal of Tortosa; and it is significant of the extent of Charles'sinfluence, that the new Pope had been his tutor, and was proposed as acandidate by the imperial ambassador on the day that the conclaveopened. [439]

 [Footnote 433: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 365; _L. And P. _, ii. , 1795. ]

 [Footnote 434: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 370. ]

 [Footnote 435: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1960. ]

 [Footnote 436: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1884. ]

 [Footnote 437: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1952, 1960. ]

 [Footnote 438: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 375. It is not quite clear how these votes were recorded, for there were not eighty-one cardinals. ]

 [Footnote 439: _Ibid. _, ii. , 371. ]

Neither the expulsion of the French from Milan, nor the election ofCharles's tutor as Pope, opened Wolsey's eyes to the danger of (p. 156)further increasing the Emperor's power. [440] He seems rather to havethrown himself into the not very chivalrous design of completing theruin of the weaker side, and picking up what he could from the spoils. During the winter of 1521-22 he was busily preparing for war, whileendeavouring to delay the actual breach till his plans were complete. Francis, convinced of England's hostile intentions, let Albany looseupon Scotland and refused to pay the pensions to Henry and Wolsey. They made these grievances the excuse for a war on which they had longbeen determined. In March Henry announced that he had taken uponhimself the protection of the Netherlands during Charles's impendingvisit to Spain. Francis asserted that this was a plain declaration ofwar, and seized the English wine-ships at Bordeaux. But he wasdetermined not to take the formal offensive, and, in May, Clarencieuxherald proceeded to France to bid him defiance. [441] In the followingmonth Charles passed through England on his way to the south, andfresh treaties were signed for the invasion of France, for themarriage of Mary and for the extirpation of heresy. At Windsor[442]Wolsey constituted his legatine court to bind the contracting partiesby oaths enforced by ecclesiastical censures. He arrogated to himselfa function usually reserved for the Pope, and undertook to arbitratebetween Charles and Henry if disputes arose about the observance (p. 157)of their engagements. But he obviously found difficulty in raisingeither money or men; and one of the suggestions at Windsor was that a"dissembled peace" or a two years' truce should be made with France, to give England time for more preparations for war. 

 [Footnote 440: Francis "begged Henry to consider what would happen now that a Pope had been elected entirely at Charles's devotion" (_L. And P. _, iii. , 1994); but Adrian's attitude was at first independent (_Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 494, 504, 533). In July, 1522, however, he joined the league against Francis (_ibid. _, ii. , 574). ]

 [Footnote 441: _L. And P. _, iii. , 2140, 2224, 2290. ]

 [Footnote 442: _Ibid. _, iii. , 2322, 2333; _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 430, 435, 561. ]

Nothing came of this last nefarious suggestion. In July Surrey capturedand burnt Morlaix;[443] but, as he wrote from on board the _MaryRose_, Fitzwilliam's ships were without flesh or fish, and Surreyhimself had only beer for twelve days. Want of victuals preventedfurther naval successes, and, in September, Surrey was sent intoArtois, where the same lack of organisation was equally fatal. It didnot, however, prevent him from burning farms and towns wherever hewent; and his conduct evoked from the French commander a just rebukeof his "foul warfare". [444] Henry himself was responsible; for Wolseywrote on his behalf urging the destruction of Dourlens and theadjacent towns. [445] If Henry really sought to make these territorieshis own, it was an odd method of winning the affections and developingthe wealth of the subjects he hoped to acquire. Nothing was reallyaccomplished except devastation in France. Even this useless warfareexhausted English energies, and left the Borders defenceless againstone of the largest armies ever collected in Scotland. Wolsey and Henrywere only saved, from what might have been a most serious invasion, byDacre's dexterity and Albany's cowardice. Dacre, the warden of themarches, signed a truce without waiting for instructions, and beforeit expired the Scots army disbanded. Henry and Wolsey might reprimandDacre for acting on his own responsibility, but they knew well (p. 158)enough that Dacre had done them magnificent service. [446]

 [Footnote 443: _L. And P. _, iii. , 2362. ]

 [Footnote 444: _Ibid. _, iii. , 2541. ]

 [Footnote 445: _Ibid. _, iii. , 2551. ]

 [Footnote 446: _L. And P. _, iii. , 2537. ]

The results of the war from the English point of view had as yet beencontemptible, but great things were hoped for the following year. Bourbon, Constable of France, and the most powerful peer in the kingdom, intent on the betrayal of Francis, was negotiating with Henry andCharles the price of his treason. [447] The commons in France, worn tomisery by the taxes of Francis and the ravages of his enemies, wereeager for anything that might promise some alleviation of their lot. They would even, it appears, welcome a change of dynasty; everywhere, Henry was told, they cried "Vive le roi d'Angleterre!"[448] Never, said Wolsey, would there be a better opportunity for recovering theKing's right to the French crown; and Henry exclaimed that he trustedto treat Francis as his father did Richard III. "I pray God, " wroteSir Thomas More to Wolsey, "if it be good for his grace and for thisrealm, that then it may prove so, and else in the stead thereof, Ipray God send his grace an honourable and profitable peace. "[449] Hecould scarcely go further in hinting his preference for peace to thefantastic design which now occupied the minds of his masters. Probablyhis opinion of the war was not far from that of old Bishop Fox, whodeclared: "I have determined, and, betwixt God and me, utterlyrenounced the meddling with worldly matters, specially concerning waror anything to it appertaining (whereof, for the many intolerableenormities that I have seen ensue by the said war in time past, I (p. 159)have no little remorse in my conscience), thinking that if I didcontinual penance for it all the days of my life, though I should livetwenty years longer than I may do, I could not yet make sufficientrecompense therefor. And now, my good lord, to be called to fortificationsof towns and places of war, or to any matter concerning the war, beingof the age of seventy years and above, and looking daily to die, thewhich if I did, being in any such meddling of the war, I think Ishould die in despair. "[450] Protests like this and hints like More'swere little likely to move the militant Cardinal, who hoped to see thefinal ruin of France in 1523. Bourbon was to raise the standard ofrevolt, Charles was to invade from Spain and Suffolk from Calais. InItaly French influence seemed irretrievably ruined. The Genoeserevolution, planned before the war, was effected; and the persuasionsof Pace and the threats of Charles at last detached Venice and Ferrarafrom the alliance of France. [451]

 [Footnote 447: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 584; _L. And P. _, iii. , 2450, 2567, 2770, 2772, 2879, 3154. Bourbon had substantial grievances against Francis I. And his mother. ]

 [Footnote 448: _Ibid. _, iii. , 2770. ]

 [Footnote 449: _Ibid. _, iii. , 2555. ]

 [Footnote 450: Ellis, _Orig. Letters_, 2nd series, ii. , 4; _L. And P. _, iii. , 2207. ]

 [Footnote 451: _L. And P. _, iii. , 3207, 3271, 3291; _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 576, 594. ]

The usual delays postponed Suffolk's invasion till late in the year. They were increased by the emptiness of Henry's treasury. His father'shoard had melted away, and it was absolutely necessary to obtainlavish supplies from Parliament. But Parliament proved ominouslyintractable. Thomas Cromwell, now rising to notice, in a temperatespeech urged the folly of indulging in impracticable schemes offoreign conquest, while Scotland remained a thorn in England'sside. [452] It was three months from the meeting of Parliament beforethe subsidies were granted, and nearly the end of August before (p. 160)Suffolk crossed to Calais with an army, "the largest which has passedout of this realm for a hundred years". [453] Henry and Suffolk wantedit to besiege Boulogne, which might have been some tangible result inEnglish hands. [454] But the King was persuaded by Wolsey and hisimperial allies to forgo this scheme, and to order Suffolk to marchinto the heart of France. Suffolk was not a great general, but heconducted the invasion with no little skill, and desired to conduct itwith unwonted humanity. He wished to win the French by abstaining frompillage and proclaiming liberty, but Henry thought only the hope ofplunder would keep the army together. [455] Waiting for the imperialcontingent under De Buren, Suffolk did not leave Calais till 19thSeptember. He advanced by Bray, Roye and Montdidier, capturing all thetowns that offered resistance. Early in November, he reached the Oiseat a point less than forty miles from the French capital. [456] ButBourbon's treason had been discovered; instead of joining Suffolk witha large force, he was a fugitive from his country. Charles contentedhimself with taking Fuentarabia, [457] and made no effort at invasion. The imperial contingent with Suffolk's army went home; winter set inwith unexampled severity, and Vendôme advanced. [458] The English werecompelled to retire; their retreat was effected without loss, and bythe middle of December the army was back at Calais. Suffolk isrepresented as being in disgrace for this retreat, and Wolsey assaving him from the effects of his failure. [459] But even Wolsey (p. 161)can hardly have thought that an army of twenty-five thousand men couldmaintain itself in the heart of France, throughout the winter, withoutsupport and with unguarded communications. The Duke's had been themost successful invasion of France since the days of Henry V. From amilitary point of view. That its results were negative is due to thepolicy by which it was directed. 

 [Footnote 452: Merriman, _Cromwell's Letters_, i. , 30-44; _L. And P. _, iii. , 2958, 3024; Hall, _Chronicle_, pp. 656, 657. ]

 [Footnote 453: _L. And P. _, iii. , 3281. ]

 [Footnote 454: _Ibid. _, iii. , 2360, 3319. ]

 [Footnote 455: _Ibid. _, iii. , 3346. ]

 [Footnote 456: _Ibid. _, iii. , 3452, 3485, 3505, 3516. ]

 [Footnote 457: _Ibid. _, iii. , 2798, 2869. ]

 [Footnote 458: _Ibid. _, iii. , 3559, 3580, 3601. ]

 [Footnote 459: Brewer's Introd. To _L. And P. _, vol. Iv. , p. Ii. , etc. ]

Meanwhile there was another papal election. Adrian, one of the mosthonest and unpopular of Popes, died on 14th September, 1523, and byorder of the cardinals there was inscribed on his tomb: _Hic jacetAdrianus Sextus cui nihil in vita infelicius contigit quam quodimperaret. _ With equal malice and keener wit the Romans erected to hisphysician, Macerata, a statue with the title _Liberatori Patriæ_. [460]Wolsey was again a candidate. He told Henry he would rather continuein his service than be ten Popes. [461] That did not prevent himinstructing Pace and Clerk to further his claims. They were torepresent to the cardinals Wolsey's "great experience in the causes ofChristendom, his favour with the Emperor, the King, and other princes, his anxiety for Christendom, his liberality, the great promotions tobe vacated by his election, his frank, pleasant and courteousinclinations, his freedom from all ties of family or party, and thehopes of a great expedition against the infidel". [462] Charles was, asusual, profuse in his promise of aid. He actually wrote a letter inWolsey's favour; but he took the precaution to detain the bearer (p. 162)in Spain till the election was over. [463] He had already instructedhis minister at Rome to procure the election of Cardinal de Medici. That ambassador mocked at Wolsey's hopes; "as if God, " he wrote, "would perform a miracle every day". [464] The Holy Spirit, by whichthe cardinals always professed to be moved, was not likely to inspirethe election of another absentee after their experience of Adrian. Wolsey had not the remotest chance, and his name does not occur in asingle scrutiny. After the longest conclave on record, the imperialinfluence prevailed; on 18th November De Medici was proclaimed Pope, and he chose as his title Clement VII. [465]

 [Footnote 460: _Ibid. _, iii. , 3464. ]

 [Footnote 461: _Ibid. _, iii. , 3372. ]

 [Footnote 462: _Ibid. _, 3389. ]

 [Footnote 463: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 615. ]

 [Footnote 464: _Ibid. _, ii. , 604, 606. ]

 [Footnote 465: _L. And P. _, iii. , 3547, 3592; _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 610. He thought of retaining his name Julius, but was told that Popes who followed that practice always had short pontificates. ]

Suffolk's invasion was the last of England's active participation inthe war. Exhausted by her efforts, discontented with the Emperor'sfailure to render assistance in the joint enterprise, or perceiving atlast that she had little to gain, and much to lose, from the overgrownpower of Charles, England, in 1524, abstained from action, and evenbegan to make overtures to Francis. Wolsey repaid Charles's inactivityof the previous year by standing idly by, while the imperial forceswith Bourbon's contingent invaded Provence and laid siege toMarseilles. But Francis still held command of the sea; the spirit ofhis people rose with the danger; Marseilles made a stubborn andsuccessful defence; and, by October, the invading army was in headlongretreat towards Italy. [466] Had Francis been content with defendinghis kingdom, all might have been well; but ambition lured him on (p. 163)to destruction. He thought he had passed the worst of the trouble, andthat the prize of Milan might yet be his. So, before the imperialistswere well out of France, he crossed the Alps and sat down to besiegePavia. It was brilliantly defended by Antonio de Leyva. In NovemberFrancis's ruin was thought to be certain; astrologers predicted hisdeath or imprisonment. [467] Slowly and surely Pescara, the mostconsummate general of his age, was pressing north with imperial troopsto succour Pavia. Francis would not raise the siege. On 24th February, 1525, he was attacked in front by Pescara and in the rear by De Leyva. "The victory is complete, " wrote the Abbot of Najera to Charles fromthe field of battle, "the King of France is made prisoner. .. . Thewhole French army is annihilated. .. . To-day is feast of the ApostleSt. Mathias, on which, five and twenty years ago, your Majesty is saidto have been born. Five and twenty thousand times thanks and praise toGod for His mercy! Your Majesty is, from this day, in a position toprescribe laws to Christians and Turks, according to yourpleasure. "[468]

 [Footnote 466: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 686; _L. And P. _, iv. , 751, 753, 773, 774, 776. ]

 [Footnote 467: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 692-94, 711. ]

 [Footnote 468: _Ibid. _, ii. , 722; _cf. _ Hall's _Chron. _, p. 693, which professes to give the "very words" of Francis I. 's much misquoted letter to his mother (_L. And P. _, iv. , 1120-24). ]

Such was the result of Wolsey's policy since 1521, Francis a prisoner, Charles a dictator, and Henry vainly hoping that he might be allowedsome share in the victor's spoils. But what claim had he? By the mostextraordinary misfortune or fatuity, England had not merely helpedCharles to a threatening supremacy, but had retired from the (p. 164)struggle just in time to deprive herself of all claim to benefit byher mistaken policy. She had looked on while Bourbon invaded France, fearing to aid lest Charles would reap all the fruits of success. Shehad sent no force across the channel to threaten Francis's rear. Not asingle French soldier had been diverted from attacking Charles inItaly through England's interference. One hundred thousand crowns hadbeen promised the imperial troops, but the money was not paid; andsecret negotiations had been going on with France. In spite of all, Charles had won, and he was naturally not disposed to divide thespoils. England's policy since 1521 had been disastrous to herself, toWolsey, to the Papacy, and even to Christendom. For the falling out ofChristian princes seemed to the Turk to afford an excellent opportunityfor the faithful to come by his own. After an heroic defence by theknights of St. John, Rhodes, the bulwark of Christendom, hadsurrendered to Selim. Belgrade, the strongest citadel in EasternEurope, followed. In August, 1526, the King and the flower ofHungarian nobility perished at the battle of Mohacz; and theinternecine strife of Christians seemed doomed to be sated only bytheir common subjugation to the Turk. 

 * * * * *

Henry and Wolsey began to pay the price of their policy at home aswell as abroad. War was no less costly for being ineffective, and itnecessitated demands on the purses of Englishmen, to which they hadlong been unused. In the autumn of 1522 Wolsey was compelled to haverecourse to a loan from both spiritualty and temporalty. [469] It seemsto have met with a response which, compared with later receptions, (p. 165)may be described as almost cheerful. But the loan did not go far, andbefore another six months had elapsed it was found necessary to summonParliament to make further provision. [470] The Speaker was Sir ThomasMore, who did all he could to secure a favourable reception ofWolsey's demands. An unwonted spirit of independence animated themembers; the debates were long and stormy; and the Cardinal feltcalled upon to go down to the House of Commons, and hector it in suchfashion that even More was compelled to plead its privileges. Eventually, some money was reluctantly granted; but it too was soonswallowed up, and in 1525 Wolsey devised fresh expedients. He wasafraid to summon Parliament again, so he proposed what he called anAmicable Grant. It was necessary, he said, for Henry to invade Francein person; if he went, he must go as a prince; and he could not go asa prince without lavish supplies. So he required what was practicallya graduated income-tax. The Londoners resisted till they were toldthat resistance might cost them their heads. In Suffolk and elsewhereopen insurrection broke out. It was then proposed to withdraw thefixed ratio, and allow each individual to pay what he chose as abenevolence. A common councillor of London promptly retorted thatbenevolences were illegal by statute of Richard III. Wolsey caredlittle for the constitution, and was astonished that any one shouldquote the laws of a wicked usurper; but the common councillor was asound constitutionalist, if Wolsey was not. "An it please your grace, "he replied, "although King Richard did evil, yet in his time were (p. 166)many good acts made, not by him only, but by the consent of the bodyof the whole realm, which is Parliament. "[471] There was no answer;the demand was withdrawn. Never had Henry suffered such a rebuff, andhe never suffered the like again. Nor was this all; the whole ofLondon, Wolsey is reported to have said, were traitors to Henry. [472]Informations of "treasonable words"--that ominous phrase--becamefrequent. [473] Here, indeed, was a contrast to the exuberant loyaltyof the early years of Henry's reign. The change may not have beenentirely due to Wolsey, but he had been minister, with a power whichfew have equalled, during the whole period in which it was effected, and Henry may well have begun to think that it was time for hisremoval. 

 [Footnote 469: _L. And P. _, iii. , 2483. ]

 [Footnote 470: _L. And P. _, iii. , 2956, 2958, 3249. ]

 [Footnote 471: Hall, _Chronicle_, ed. 1809, p. 698. ]

 [Footnote 472: _L. And P. _, iii. , 3076. ]

 [Footnote 473: _Ibid. _, iii. , 3082. ]

Whether Wolsey was now anxious to repair his blunder by siding withFrancis against Charles, or to snatch some profit from the Emperor'svictory by completing the ruin of France, the refusal of Englishmen tofind more money for the war left him no option but peace. In April, 1525, Tunstall and Sir Richard Wingfield were sent to Spain withproposals for the exclusion of Francis and his children from theFrench throne and the dismemberment of his kingdom. [474] It isdoubtful if Wolsey himself desired the fulfilment of so preposterousand iniquitous a scheme. It is certain that Charles was in no mood toabet it. He had no wish to extract profit for England out of theabasement of Francis, to see Henry King of France, or lord of anyFrench provinces. He had no intention of even performing his part (p. 167)of the Treaty of Windsor. He had pledged himself to marry the PrincessMary, and the splendour of that match may have contributed to Henry'sdesire for an alliance with Charles. But another matrimonial projectoffered the Emperor more substantial advantages. Ever since 1517 hisSpanish subjects had been pressing him to marry the daughter ofEmmanuel, King of Portugal. The Portuguese royal family had claims tothe throne of Castile which would be quieted by Charles's marriagewith a Portuguese princess. Her dowry of a million crowns was, also, an argument not to be lightly disregarded in Charles's financialembarrassments; and in March, 1526, the Emperor's wedding withIsabella of Portugal was solemnised. 

 [Footnote 474: _Ibid. _, iv. , 1212, 1249, 1255, 1264, 1296; _Stowe MS. _, 147, ff. 67, 86 (Brit. Mus. ). ]

Wolsey, on his part, was secretly negotiating with Louise of Savoyduring her son's imprisonment in Spain. In August, 1525, a treaty ofamity was signed, by which England gave up all its claims to Frenchterritory in return for the promise of large sums of money to Henryand his minister. [475] The impracticability of enforcing Henry'spretensions to the French crown or to French provinces, which had beenurged as excuses for squandering English blood and treasure, wasadmitted, even when the French King was in prison and his kingdomdefenceless. But what good could the treaty do Henry or Francis?Charles had complete control over his captive, and could dictate hisown terms. Neither the English nor the French King was in a positionto continue the war; and the English alliance with France could abateno iota of the concessions which Charles extorted from Francis (p. 168)in January, 1526, by the Treaty of Madrid. [476] Francis surrenderedBurgundy; gave up his claims to Milan, Genoa and Naples; abandoned hisallies, the King of Navarre, the Duke of Guelders and Robert de laMarck; engaged to marry Charles's sister Eleanor, the widowed Queen ofPortugal; and handed over his two sons to the Emperor as hostages forthe fulfilment of the treaty. But he had no intention of keeping hispromises. No sooner was he free than he protested that the treaty hadbeen extracted by force, and that his oath to keep it was not binding. The Estates of France readily refused their assent, and the Pope was, as usual, willing, for political reasons, to absolve Francis from hisoath. For the time being, consideration for the safety of his sons andthe hope of obtaining their release prevented him from openly breakingwith Charles, or listening to the proposals for a marriage with thePrincess Mary, held out as a bait by Wolsey. [477] The Cardinal'sobject was merely to injure the Emperor as much as he could withoutinvolving England in war; and by negotiations for Mary's marriage, first with Francis, and then with his second son, the Duke of Orléans, he was endeavouring to draw England and France into a closer alliance. For similar reasons he was extending his patronage to the Holy League, formed by Clement VII. Between the princes of Italy to liberate thatdistressful country from the grip of the Spanish forces. 

 [Footnote 475: _L. And P. _, iv. , 1525, 1531, 1600, 1633. ]

 [Footnote 476: _L. And P. _, iv. , 1891. ]

 [Footnote 477: _Ibid. _, iv. , 2039, 2148, 2320, 2325. ]

The policy of Clement, of Venice, and of other Italian States had beencharacterised by as much blindness as that of England. Almost withoutexception they had united, in 1523, to expel the French from Italy. The result was to destroy the balance of power south of the Alps, (p. 169)and to deliver themselves over to a bondage more galling than thatfrom which they sought to escape. Clement himself had been elected Popeby imperial influence, and the Duke of Sessa, Charles's representativein Rome, described him as entirely the Emperor's creature. [478] Hewas, wrote Sessa, "very reserved, irresolute, and decides few thingshimself. He loves money and prefers persons who know where to find itto any other kind of men. He likes to give himself the appearance ofbeing independent, but the result shows that he is generally governedby others. "[479] Clement, however, after his election, tried to assumean attitude more becoming the head of Christendom than slavish dependenceon Charles. His love for the Emperor, he told Charles, had notdiminished, but his hatred for others had disappeared;[480] andthroughout 1524 he was seeking to promote concord between Christianprinces. His methods were unfortunate; the failure of the imperialinvasion of Provence and Francis's passage of the Alps, convinced thePope that Charles's star was waning, and that of France was in theascendant. "The Pope, " wrote Sessa to Charles V. , "is at the disposalof the conqueror. "[481] So, on 19th January, 1525, a Holy Leaguebetween Clement and Francis was publicly proclaimed at Rome, andjoined by most of the Italian States. [482] It was almost the eve ofPavia. 

 [Footnote 478: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 610. ]

 [Footnote 479: _Ibid. _, ii. , 619. ]

 [Footnote 480: _Ibid. _, ii. , 707. ]

 [Footnote 481: _Ibid. _, ii. , 699, 30th Nov. , 1524. ]

 [Footnote 482: _Ibid. _, ii. , 702-11. ]

Charles received the news of that victory with astonishing humility. But he was not likely to forget that at the critical moment he hadbeen deserted by most of his Italian allies; and it was with fear andtrembling that the Venetian ambassador besought him to use his (p. 170)victory with moderation. [483] Their conduct could hardly lead themto expect much from the Emperor's clemency. Distrust of his intentionsinduced the Holy League to carry on desultory war with the imperialtroops; but mutual jealousies, the absence of effective aid fromEngland or France, and vacillation caused by the feeling that afterall it might be safer to accept the best terms they could obtain, prevented the war from being waged with any effect. In September, 1526, Hugo de Moncada, the imperial commander, concerted withClement's bitter foes, the Colonnas, a means of overawing the Pope. Atruce was concluded, wrote Moncada, "that the Pope, having laid downhis arms, may be taken unawares". [484] On the 19th he marched on Rome. Clement, taken unawares, fled to the castle of St. Angelo; his palacewas sacked, St. Peter's rifled, and the host profaned. "Never, " saysCasale, "was so much cruelty and sacrilege. "[485]

 [Footnote 483: _Ven. Cal. _, iii, 413. ]

 [Footnote 484: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 898. ]

 [Footnote 485: _L. And P. _, iv. , 2510. ]

It was soon thrown into the shade by an outrage at which the wholeworld stood aghast. Charles's object was merely to render the Pope hisobedient slave; neither God nor man, said Moncada, could resist withimpunity the Emperor's victorious arms. [486] But he had little controlover his own irresistible forces. With no enemy to check them, with nopay to content them, the imperial troops were ravaging, pillaging, sacking cities and churches throughout Northern Italy without let orhindrance. At length a sudden frenzy seized them to march upon (p. 171)Rome. Moncada had shown them the way, and on 6th May, 1527, theHoly City was taken by storm. Bourbon was killed at the first assault;and the richest city in Christendom was given over to a motley, leaderless horde of German, Spanish and Italian soldiery. The Popeagain fled to the castle of St. Angelo; and for weeks Rome endured anorgy of sacrilege, blasphemy, robbery, murder and lust, the horrors ofwhich no brush could depict nor tongue recite. "All the churches andthe monasteries, " says a cardinal who was present, "both of friars andnuns, were sacked. Many friars were beheaded, even priests at thealtar; many old nuns beaten with sticks; many young ones violated, robbed and made prisoners; all the vestments, chalices, silver, weretaken from the churches. .. . Cardinals, bishops, friars, priests, oldnuns, infants, pages and servants--the very poorest--were tormentedwith unheard-of cruelties--the son in the presence of his father, thebabe in the sight of its mother. All the registers and documents ofthe Camera Apostolica were sacked, torn in pieces, and partlyburnt. "[487] "Having entered, " writes an imperialist to Charles, "ourmen sacked the whole Borgo and killed almost every one they found. .. All the monasteries were rifled, and the ladies who had taken refugein them carried off. Every person was compelled by torture to pay aransom. .. . The ornaments of all the churches were pillaged and therelics and other things thrown into the sinks and cesspools. Even theholy places were sacked. The Church of St. Peter and the papal palace, from the basement to the top, were turned into stables for horses. .. . Every one considers that it has taken place by the just judgment (p. 172)of God, because the Court of Rome was so ill-ruled. .. . We areexpecting to hear from your Majesty how the city is to be governed andwhether the Holy See is to be retained or not. Some are of opinion itshould not continue in Rome, _lest the French King should make apatriarch in his kingdom, and deny obedience to the said See, and theKing of England find all other Christian princes do the same_. "[488]

 [Footnote 486: Buonaparte's _Narrative_, ed. Buchon, p. 190, ed. Milanesi, p. 279; _cf. _ Gregorovius, _Gesch. Der Stadt Rom. _, viii. , 568 _n. _, and Alberini's _Diary_, ed. Drano 1901 (extracts are printed in Creighton, _Papacy_, ed. 1901, vi. , 419-37). ]

 [Footnote 487: Cardinal Como in _Il Sacco di Roma_, ed. C. Milanesi, 1867, p. 471. ]

 [Footnote 488: _Il Sacco di Roma_, ed. Milanesi, pp. 499, 517. ]

So low was brought the proud city of the Seven Hills, the holy place, watered with the blood of the martyrs and hallowed by the steps of thesaints, the goal of the earthly pilgrim, the seat of the throne of theVicar of God. No Jew saw the abomination of desolation standing whereit ought not with keener anguish than the devout sons of the Churchheard of the desecration of Rome. If a Roman Catholic and animperialist could term it the just judgment of God, heretics andschismatics, preparing to burst the bonds of Rome and "deny obedienceto the said See, " saw in it the fulfilment of the woes pronounced bySt. John the Divine on the Rome of Nero, and by Daniel the Prophet onBelshazzar's Babylon. Babylon the great was fallen, and become thehabitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit; her ruler wasweighed in the balances and found wanting; his kingdom was divided andgiven to kings and peoples who came, like the Medes and the Persians, from the hardier realms of the North. 

CHAPTER VII. (p. 173)

THE ORIGIN OF THE DIVORCE. [489]

 [Footnote 489: It is impossible to avoid the term "divorce, " although neither from Henry VIII. 's nor from the Pope's point of view was there any such thing (see the present writer's _Cranmer_, p. 24 _n. _). ]

Matrimonial discords have, from the days of Helen of Troy, been thefruitful source of public calamities; and one of the most decisiveevents in English history, the breach with the Church of Rome, foundits occasion in the divorce of Catherine of Aragon. Its origin hasbeen traced to various circumstances. On one hand, it is attributed toHenry's passion for Anne Boleyn, on the other, to doubts of thevalidity of Henry's marriage, raised by the Bishop of Tarbes in 1527, while negotiating a matrimonial alliance between the Princess Mary andFrancis I. These are the two most popular theories, and both aredemonstrably false. [490] Doubts of the legality of Henry's marriagehad existed long before the Bishop of Tarbes paid his visit toEngland, and even before Anne Boleyn was born. They were urged, notonly on the eve of the completion of the marriage, but when it wasfirst suggested. In 1503, when Henry VII. Applied to Julius II. For adispensation to enable his second son to marry his brother's (p. 174)widow, the Pope replied that "the dispensation was a great matter; nordid he well know, _prima facie_, if it were competent for the Pope todispense in such a case". [491] He granted the dispensation, but thedoubts were not entirely removed. Catherine's confessor instilled theminto her mind, and was recalled by Ferdinand on that account. TheSpanish King himself felt it necessary to dispel certain "scruples ofconscience" Henry might entertain as to the "sin" of marrying hisbrother's widow. [492] Warham and Fox debated the matter, and Warhamapparently opposed the marriage. [493] A general council had pronouncedagainst the Pope's dispensing power;[494] and, though the Popes had, in effect, established their superiority over general councils, thosewho still maintained the contrary view can hardly have failed to doubtthe legality of Henry's marriage. 

 [Footnote 490: See, besides the original authorities cited in this chapter, Busch, _Der Ursprung der Ehescheidung König Heinrichs VIII. _ (Hist. Taschenbuch, Leipzig, VI. , viii. , 271-327). ]

 [Footnote 491: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5773; Pocock, _Records of the Reformation_, i. , 1. ]

 [Footnote 492: _Sp. Cal. _, vol. Ii. , Pref. , p. Xiv. , No. 8. ]

 [Footnote 493: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5774 [6]. ]

 [Footnote 494: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5376. ]

So good a papalist as the young King, however, would hardly allowtheoretical doubts of the general powers of the Pope to outweigh thepractical advantages of a marriage in his own particular case; and itis safe to assume that his confidence in its validity would haveremained unshaken, but for extraneous circumstances of a definite andurgent nature. On the 31st of January, 1510, seven months after hismarriage with Catherine, she gave birth to her first child; it was adaughter, and was still-born. [495] On the 27th of May following (p. 175)she told her father that the event was considered in England to be ofevil omen, but that Henry took it cheerfully, and she thanked God forhaving given her such a husband. "The King, " wrote Catherine'sconfessor, "adores her, and her highness him. " Less than eight monthslater, on the 1st of January, 1511, she was delivered of her first-bornson. [496] A tourney was held to celebrate the joyous event, and theheralds received a handsome largess at the christening. The child wasnamed Henry, styled Prince of Wales, and given a serjeant-at-arms onthe 14th, and a clerk of the signet on the 19th of February. Threedays later he was dead; he was buried at the cost of some ten thousandpounds in Westminster Abbey. The rejoicings were turned to grief, which, aggravated by successive disappointments, bore with cumulativeforce on the mind of the King and his people. In September, 1513, theVenetian ambassador announced the birth of another son, [497] who waseither still-born, or died immediately afterwards. In June, 1514, there is again a reference to the christening of the "King's newson, "[498] but he, too, was no sooner christened than dead. 

 [Footnote 495: _D. N. B. _, ix. , 292, gives this date. Catherine herself, writing on 27th May, 1510, says that "some _days_ before she had been delivered of a still-born daughter" (_Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 43). On 1st November, 1509, Henry informed Ferdinand that Catherine was pregnant, and the child had quickened (_ibid. _, ii. , 23). ]

 [Footnote 496: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 95-96; _L. And P. _, vol. I. , 1491, 1495, 1513, Pref. , p. Lxxiii. ; ii. , 4692. ]

 [Footnote 497: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 329. ]

 [Footnote 498: _L. And P. _, i. , 5192. ]

Domestic griefs were now embittered by political resentments. Ferdinandvalued his daughter mainly as a political emissary; he had formallyaccredited her as his ambassador at Henry's Court, and she naturallyused her influence to maintain the political union between her fatherand her husband. The arrangement had serious drawbacks; when relationsbetween sovereigns grew strained, their ambassadors could be (p. 176)recalled, but Catherine had to stay. In 1514 Henry was boiling overwith indignation at his double betrayal by the Catholic king; and itis not surprising that he vented some of his rage on the wife who wasFerdinand's representative. He reproached her, writes Peter Martyrfrom Ferdinand's Court, with her father's ill-faith, and taunted herwith his own conquests. To this brutality Martyr attributes thepremature birth of Catherine's fourth son towards the end of 1514. [499]Henry, in fact, was preparing to cast off, not merely the Spanishalliance, but his Spanish wife. He was negotiating for a joint attackon Castile with Louis XII. And threatening the divorce of Catherine. [500]"It is said, " writes a Venetian from Rome in August, 1514, "that theKing of England means to repudiate his present wife, the daughter ofthe King of Spain and his brother's widow, because he is unable tohave children by her, and intends to marry a daughter of the FrenchDuke of Bourbon. .. . He intends to annul his own marriage, and willobtain what he wants from the Pope as France did from Pope JuliusII. "[501]

 [Footnote 499: _L. And P. _, i. , 5718. ]

 [Footnote 500: See above p. 76. ]

 [Footnote 501: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 479. The Pope was really Alexander VI. ]

But the death of Louis XII. (January, 1515) and the consequentloosening of the Anglo-French alliance made Henry and Ferdinand againpolitical allies; while, as the year wore on, Catherine was known tobe once more pregnant, and Henry's hopes of issue revived. This timethey were not disappointed; the Princess Mary was born on the 18th ofFebruary, 1516. [502] Ferdinand had died on the 23rd of January, butthe news was kept from Catherine, lest it might add to the risks (p. 177)of her confinement. [503] The young princess seemed likely to live, andHenry was delighted. When Giustinian, amid his congratulations, saidhe would have been better pleased had it been a son, the King replied:"We are both young; if it was a daughter this time, by the grace ofGod the sons will follow". [504] All thoughts of a divorce passed awayfor the time, but the desired sons did not arrive. In August, 1517, Catherine was reported to be again expecting issue, but nothing moreis heard of the matter, and it is probable that about this time theQueen had various miscarriages. In July, 1518, Henry wrote to Wolseyfrom Woodstock that Catherine was once more pregnant, and that hecould not move the Court to London, as it was one of the Queen's"dangerous times". [505] His precautions were unavailing, and, on the10th of November, his child arrived still-born. Giustinian notes thegreat vexation with which the people heard the news, and expresses theopinion that, had it occurred a month or two earlier, the PrincessMary would not have been betrothed to the French dauphin, "as the onefear of England was lest it should pass into subjection to Francethrough that marriage". [506]

 [Footnote 502: _L. And P. _, ii. , 1505, 1573. ]

 [Footnote 503: _L. And P. _, ii. , 1563, 1610. ]

 [Footnote 504: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 691. ]

 [Footnote 505: _Cotton MS. _, Vespasian, F, iii. , fol. 34, _b_; _cf. L. And P. _, ii. , 4074, 4288. ]

 [Footnote 506: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1103. ]

The child was the last born of Catherine. For some years Henry went onhoping against every probability that he might still have male issueby his Queen; and in 1519 he undertook to lead a crusade against theTurk in person if he should have an heir. [507] But physicians summonedfrom Spain were no more successful than their English colleagues. (p. 178)By 1525 the last ray of hope had flickered out. Catherine was thenforty years old; and Henry at the age of thirty-four, in the fullvigour of youthful manhood, seemed doomed by the irony of fate and byhis union with Catherine to leave a disputed inheritance. Never didEngland's interests more imperatively demand a secure and peacefulsuccession. Never before had there been such mortality among thechildren of an English king; never before had an English king marriedhis brother's widow. So striking a coincidence could be only explainedby the relation of cause and effect. Men who saw the judgment of Godin the sack of Rome, might surely discern in the fatality thatattended the children of Henry VIII. A fulfilment of the doom ofchildlessness pronounced in the Book of the Law against him who shouldmarry his brother's wife. "God, " wrote the French ambassador in 1528, "has long ago Himself passed sentence on it;"[508] and there is noreason to doubt Henry's assertion, that he had come to regard thedeath of his children as a Divine judgment, and that he was impelledto question his marriage by the dictates of conscience. The "scruplesof conscience, " which Henry VII. Had urged as an excuse for delayingthe marriage, were merely a cloak for political reasons; but scruplesof conscience are dangerous playthings, and the pretence of Henry VII. Became, through the death of his children, a terrible reality to HenryVIII. 

 [Footnote 507: _L. And P. _, iii. , 432. ]

 [Footnote 508: Du Bellay to Montmorenci, 1st Nov. , 1528, _L. And P. _, iv. , 4899. ]

Queen Catherine, too, had scruples of conscience about the marriage, though of a different sort. When she first heard of Henry's intentionto seek a divorce, she is reported to have said that "she had (p. 179)not offended, but it was a judgment of God, for that her former marriagewas made in blood"; the price of it had been the head of the innocentEarl of Warwick, demanded by Ferdinand of Aragon. [509] Nor was shealone in this feeling. "He had heard, " witnessed Buckingham's chancellorin 1521, "the Duke grudge that the Earl of Warwick was put to death, and say that God would punish it, by not suffering the King's issue toprosper, as appeared by the death of his sons; and that his daughtersprosper not, and that he had no issue male. "[510]

 [Footnote 509: _Sp. Cal. _, i. , 249; _L. And P. Of Richard III. And Henry VII. _, vol. I. , pp. Xxxiii. , 113; Hall, _Chron_. , p. 491; Bacon, _Henry VII. _, ed. 1870, p. 376; _Transactions of the Royal Hist. Soc. _, N. S. , xviii. , 187. ]

 [Footnote 510: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1284. ]

Conscience, however, often moves men in directions indicated by otherthan conscientious motives, and, of the other motives which influencedHenry's mind, some were respectable and some the reverse. The mostlegitimate was his desire to provide for the succession to the throne. It was obvious to him and his council that, if he died with nochildren but Mary, England ran the risk of being plunged into ananarchy worse than that of the civil wars. "By English law, " wroteFalier, the Venetian ambassador, in 1531, "females are excluded fromthe throne;"[511] that was not true, but it was undoubtedly awidespread impression, based upon the past history of England. NoQueen-Regnant had asserted a right to the English throne but one, andthat one precedent provided the most effective argument for avoiding arepetition of the experiment. Matilda was never crowned, though shehad the same claim to the throne as Mary, and her attempt to (p. 180)enforce her title involved England in nineteen years of anarchy andcivil war. Stephen stood to Matilda in precisely the same relation asJames V. Of Scotland stood to the Princess Mary; and in 1532, as soonas he came of age, James was urged to style himself "Prince of England"and Duke of York, in manifest derogation of Mary's title. [512] At thattime Charles V. Was discussing alternative plans for deposing HenryVIII. One was to set up James V. , the other to marry Mary to somegreat English noble and proclaim them King and Queen;[513] Mary byherself was thought to have no chance of success. John of Gaunt hadmaintained in Parliament that the succession descended only throughmales;[514] the Lancastrian case was that Henry IV. , the son of EdwardIII. 's fourth son, had a better title to the throne than Philippa, thedaughter of the third; an Act limiting the succession to the male linewas passed in 1406;[515] and Henry VII. Himself only reigned through atacit denial of the right of women to sit on the English throne. 

 [Footnote 511: _Ven. Cal. _, iv. , 300. ]

 [Footnote 512: _L. And P. _, v. , 609, 817. ]

 [Footnote 513: _Ibid. _, vi. , 446. ]

 [Footnote 514: _Chronicon Angliae_, Rolls Ser. , p. 92, _s. A. _, 1376; _D. N. B. _, xxix. , 421. This became the orthodox Lancastrian theory (_cf. _ Fortescue, _Governance of England_, ed. Plummer, pp. 352-55). ]

 [Footnote 515: Stubbs, _Const. Hist. _, iii. , 58. This Act was, however, repealed before the end of the same year. ]

The objection to female sovereigns was grounded not so much on maledisbelief in their personal qualifications, as upon the inevitableconsequence of matrimonial and dynastic problems. [516] If the PrincessMary succeeded, was she to marry? If not, her death would leave (p. 181)the kingdom no better provided with heirs than before; and in her weakstate of health, her death seemed no distant prospect. If, on theother hand, she married, her husband must be either a subject or aforeign prince. To marry a subject would at once create discords likethose from which the Wars of the Roses had sprung; to marry a foreignprince was to threaten Englishmen, then more jealous than ever offoreign influence, with the fear of alien domination. They had beforetheir eyes numerous instances in which matrimonial alliances hadinvolved the union of states so heterogeneous as Spain and theNetherlands; and they had no mind to see England absorbed in somecontinental empire. In the matrimonial schemes arranged for theprincess, it was generally stipulated that she should, in default ofmale heirs, succeed to the throne of England; her succession wasobviously a matter of doubt, and it is quite certain that her marriagein France or in Spain would have proved a bar in the way of hersuccession to the English throne, or at least have given rise toconflicting claims. 

 [Footnote 516: Professor Maitland has spoken of the "Byzantinism" of Henry's reign, and possibly the objection to female sovereigns was strengthened by the prevalent respect for Roman imperial and Byzantine custom (_cf. _ Hodgkin, _Charles the Great_, p. 180). ]

These rival pretensions began to be heard as soon as it became evidentthat Henry VIII. Would have no male heirs by Catherine of Aragon. In1519, a year after the birth of the Queen's last child, Giustinianreported to the Venetian signiory on the various nobles who had hopesof the crown. The Duke of Norfolk had expectations in right of hiswife, a daughter of Edward IV. , and the Duke of Suffolk in right ofhis Duchess, the sister of Henry VIII. But the Duke of Buckingham wasthe most formidable: "It was thought that, were the King to diewithout male heirs, that Duke might easily obtain the crown". [517] (p. 182)His claims had been canvassed in 1503, when the issue of Henry VII. Seemed likely to fail, [518] and now that the issue of Henry VIII. Wasin even worse plight, Buckingham's claims to the crown became again amatter of comment. His hopes of the crown cost him his head; he hadalways been discontented with Tudor rule, especially under Wolsey; heallowed himself to be encouraged with hopes of succeeding the King, and possibly spoke of asserting his claim in case of Henry's death. This was to touch Henry on his tenderest spot, and, in 1521, the Dukewas tried by his peers, found guilty of high treason, and sent to theblock. [519] In this, as in all the great trials of Henry's reign, andindeed in most state trials of all ages, considerations of justicewere subordinated to the real or supposed dictates of politicalexpediency. Buckingham was executed, not because he was a criminal, but because he was, or might become, dangerous; his crime was nottreason, but descent from Edward III. Henry VIII. , like Henry VII. , showed his grasp of the truth that nothing makes a government sosecure as the absence of all alternatives. 

 [Footnote 517: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1287. Buckingham's end was undoubtedly hastened by Wolsey's jealousy; before the end of 1518 the Cardinal had been instilling into Henry's ear suspicions of Buckingham (_L. And P. _, iii. , 1; _cf. Ibid. _, ii. , 3973, 4057). Brewer regards the hostility of Wolsey to Buckingham as one of Polydore Vergil's "calumnies" (_ibid. _, vol. Iii. , Introd. , p. Lxvi. ). ]

 [Footnote 518: _L. And P. Of Richard III. And Henry VII. _, i. , 233. ]

 [Footnote 519: See detailed accounts in _L. And P. _, iii. , 1284, 1356. Shakespeare's account in "Henry VIII. " is remarkably accurate, except in matters of date. ]

Buckingham's execution is one of the symptoms that, as early as 1521, the failure of his issue had made Henry nervous and susceptible aboutthe succession. Even in 1519, when Charles V. 's minister, (p. 183)Chièvres, was proposing to marry his niece to the Earl of Devonshire, a grandson of Edward IV. , Henry was suspicious, and Wolsey inquiredwhether Chièvres was "looking to any chance of the Earl's successionto the throne of England. "[520] If further proof were needed thatHenry's anxiety about the succession was not, as has been represented, a mere afterthought intended to justify his divorce from Catherine, itmight be found in the extraordinary measures taken with regard to hisone and only illegitimate son. The boy was born in 1519. His motherwas Elizabeth Blount, sister of Erasmus's friend, Lord Mountjoy; andshe is noticed as taking part in the Court revels during the earlyyears of Henry's reign. [521] Outwardly, at any rate, Henry's Court waslong a model of decorum; there was no parade of vice as in the days ofCharles II. , and the existence of this royal bastard was so effectuallyconcealed that no reference to him occurs in the correspondence of thetime until 1525, when it was thought expedient to give him a positionof public importance. The necessity of providing some male successorto Henry was considered so urgent that, two years before the divorceis said to have occurred to him, he and his council were meditating ascheme for entailing the succession on the King's illegitimate son. In1525 the child was created Duke of Richmond and Somerset. These titleswere significant; Earl of Richmond had been Henry VII. 's title beforehe came to the throne; Duke of Somerset had been that of his grandfatherand of his youngest son. Shortly afterwards the boy was made Lord (p. 184)High Admiral of England, Lord Warden of the Marches, and LordLieutenant of Ireland, [522] the two latter being offices which HenryVIII. Himself had held in his early youth. In January, 1527, theSpanish ambassador reported that there was a scheme on foot to makethe Duke King of Ireland;[523] it was obviously a design to preparethe way for his succession to the kingdom of England. The Englishenvoys in Spain were directed to tell the Emperor that Henry proposedto demand some noble princess of near blood to the Emperor as a wifefor the Duke of Richmond. The Duke, they were to say, "is near of theKing's blood and of excellent qualities, and is already furnished tokeep the state of a great prince, and yet may be easily, by the King'smeans, exalted to higher things". [524] The lady suggested was Charles'sniece, a daughter of the Queen of Portugal; she was already promisedto the Dauphin of France, but the envoys remarked that, if that matchwere broken off, she might find "another dauphin" in the Duke ofRichmond. Another plan for settling the succession was that the Dukeshould, by papal dispensation, marry his half-sister Mary! CardinalCampeggio saw no moral objection to this. "At first I myself, " hewrites on his arrival in England in October, 1528, "had thought ofthis as a means of establishing the succession, but I do not believethat this design would suffice to satisfy the King's desires. "[525]The Pope was equally willing to facilitate the scheme, on (p. 185)condition that Henry abandoned his divorce from Catherine. [526] PossiblyHenry saw more objections than Pope or Cardinal to a marriage betweenbrother and sister. At all events Mary was soon betrothed to theFrench prince, and the Emperor recorded his impression that the Frenchmarriage was designed to remove the Princess from the Duke ofRichmond's path to the throne. [527]

 [Footnote 520: _L. And P. _, iii. , 386. ]

 [Footnote 521: _Ibid. _, ii. , p. 1461. ]

 [Footnote 522: See G. E. C[okayne]'s and Doyle's _Peerages_, _s. V. _ "Richmond". ]

 [Footnote 523: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 109; _L. And P. _, iv. , 2988, 3028, 3140. ]

 [Footnote 524: _L. And P. _, iv. , 3051. In _ibid. _, iv. , 3135, Richmond is styled "The Prince". ]

 [Footnote 525: Laemmer, _Monumenta Vaticana_, p. 29; _L. And P. _, iv. , 4881. It was claimed that the Pope's dispensing power was unlimited, extending even to marriages between brothers and sisters (_ibid. _, v. , 468). Campeggio told Du Bellay in 1528 that the Pope's power was "infinite" (_ibid. _, iv. , 4942). ]

 [Footnote 526: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5072. ]

 [Footnote 527: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 482. ]

The conception of this violent expedient is mainly of interest asillustrating the supreme importance attached to the question ofproviding for a male successor to Henry. He wanted an heir to thethrone, and he wanted a fresh wife for that reason. A mistress wouldnot satisfy him, because his children by a mistress would hardlysucceed without dispute to the throne, not because he laboured underany moral scruples on the point. He had already had two mistresses, Elizabeth Blount, the mother of the Duke of Richmond, and Anne'ssister, Mary Boleyn. Possibly, even probably, there were other lapsesfrom conjugal fidelity, for, in 1533, the Duke of Norfolk told Chapuysthat Henry was always inclined to amours;[528] but none are capable ofdefinite proof, and if Henry had other illegitimate children besidesthe Duke of Richmond it is difficult to understand why their existenceshould have been so effectually concealed when such publicity wasgiven their brother. The King is said to have had ten mistresses in1528, but the statement is based on a misrepresentation of the onlydocument adduced in its support. [529] It is a list of New Year's (p. 186)presents, [530] which runs "To thirty-three noble ladies" such and suchgifts, then "to ten mistresses" other gifts; it is doubtful if theword then bore its modern sinister signification; in this particularinstance it merely means "gentlewomen, " and differentiates them fromthe noble ladies. Henry's morals, indeed, compare not unfavourablywith those of other sovereigns. His standard was neither higher norlower than that of Charles V. , who was at this time negotiating amarriage between his natural daughter and the Pope's nephew; it wasnot lower than those of James II. , of William III. , or of the firsttwo Georges; it was infinitely higher than the standard of Francis I. , of Charles II. , or even of Henry of Navarre and Louis XIV. 

 [Footnote 528: _L. And P. _, vi. , 241. ]

 [Footnote 529: E. L. Taunton, _Wolsey_, 1902, p. 173, where the words are erroneously given as "To the King's ten mistresses"; "the King's" is an interpolation. ]

 [Footnote 530: _L. And P. _, iv. , 3748. ]

The gross immorality so freely imputed to Henry seems to have aslittle foundation as the theory that his sole object in seeking thedivorce from Catherine and separation from Rome was the gratificationof his passion for Anne Boleyn. If that had been the case, there wouldbe no adequate explanation of the persistence with which he pursuedthe divorce. He was "studying the matter so diligently, " Campeggiosays, "that I believe in this case he knows more than a greattheologian and jurist"; he was so convinced of the justice of hiscause "that an angel descending from heaven would be unable topersuade him otherwise". [531] He sent embassy after embassy to Rome;he risked the enmity of Catholic Europe; he defied the authority ofthe vicar of Christ; and lavished vast sums to obtain verdicts in hisfavour from most of the universities in Christendom. It is not (p. 187)credible that all this energy was expended merely to satisfy a sensualpassion, which could be satisfied without a murmur from Pope or Emperor, if he was content with Anne Boleyn as a mistress, and is believed tohave been already satisfied in 1529, four years before the divorce wasobtained. [532] So, too, the actual sentence of divorce in 1533 wasprecipitated not by Henry's passion for Anne, but by the desire thather child should be legitimate. She was pregnant before Henry wasmarried to her or divorced from Catherine. But, though the representationof Henry's passion for Anne Boleyn as the sole _fons et origo_ of thedivorce is far from convincing, that passion introduced variouscomplications into the question; it was not merely an additionalincentive to Henry's desires; it also brought Wolsey and Henry intoconflict; and the unpopularity of the divorce was increased by thefeeling that Henry was losing caste by seeking to marry a lady of therank and character of Anne Boleyn. 

 [Footnote 531: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4858. ]

 [Footnote 532: No conclusive evidence on this point is possible; the French ambassador, Clement VII. And others believed that Henry VIII. And Anne Boleyn had been cohabiting since 1529. On the other hand, if such was the case, it is singular that no child should have been born before 1533; for after that date Anne seems to have had a miscarriage nearly every year. Ortiz, indeed, reports from Rome that she had a miscarriage in 1531 (_L. And P. _, v. , 594), but the evidence is not good. ]

 * * * * *

The Boleyns were wealthy merchants of London, of which one of them hadbeen Lord-Mayor, but Anne's mother was of noble blood, being daughterand co-heir of the Earl of Ormonde, [533] and it is a curious fact thatall of Henry's wives could trace their descent from Edward I. [534]Anne's age is uncertain, but she is generally believed to have (p. 188)been born in 1507. [535] Attempts have been made to date her influenceover the King by the royal favours bestowed on her father, Sir Thomas, afterwards Viscount Rochford and Earl of Wiltshire, but, as thesefavours flowed in a fairly regular stream from the beginning of thereign, as Sir Thomas's services were at least a colourable excuse forthem, and as his other daughter Mary was Henry's mistress before hefell in love with Anne, these grants are not a very substantial groundupon which to build. Of Anne herself little is known except that, about 1519, she was sent as maid of honour to the French Queen, Claude; five years before, her sister Mary had accompanied Mary Tudorin a similar capacity on her marriage with Louis XII. [536] In 1522, when war with France was on the eve of breaking out, Anne was recalledto the English Court, [537] where she took part in revels andlove-intrigues. Sir Thomas Wyatt, the poet, although a married man, sued for her favours;[538] Henry, Lord Percy made her more honestproposals, but was compelled to desist by the King himself, who (p. 189)had arranged for her marriage with Piers Butler, son of the Earlof Ormond, as a means to end the feud between the Butler and theBoleyn families. 

 [Footnote 533: See Friedmann's _Anne Boleyn_, 2 vols. , 1884, and articles on the Boleyn family in _D. N. B. _, vol. V. ]

 [Footnote 534: See George Fisher, _Key to the History of England_, Table xvii. ; _Gentleman's Magazine_, May, 1829. ]

 [Footnote 535: Henry would then be fifteen, yet a fable was invented and often repeated that Henry VIII. Was Anne Boleyn's father. Nicholas Sanders, whose _De Origine ac Progressu Schismatis Anglicani_ became the basis of Roman Catholic histories of the English Reformation, gave currency to the story; and some modern writers prefer Sanders' veracity to Foxe's. ]

 [Footnote 536: The error that it was Anne who accompanied Mary Tudor in 1514 was exposed by Brewer more than forty years ago, but it still lingers and was repeated with innumerable others in the Catalogue of the New Gallery Portrait Exhibition of 1902. ]

 [Footnote 537: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1994. ]

 [Footnote 538: In Harpsfield's _Pretended Divorce_ there is a very improbable story that Wyatt told Henry VIII. His relations with Anne were far from innocent and warned the King against marrying a woman of Anne's character. ]

None of these projects advanced any farther, possibly because theyconflicted with the relations developing between Anne and the Kinghimself. As Wyatt complained in a sonnet, [539]

 There is written her fair neck round about _Noli me tangere_; for Cæsar's I am And wild for to hold, though I seem tame. 

But, for any definite documentary evidence to the contrary, it mightbe urged that Henry's passion for Anne was subsequent to thecommencement of his proceedings for a divorce from Catherine. Thoseproceedings began at least as early as March, 1527, while the firstallusion to the connection between the King and Anne Boleyn occurs inthe instructions to Dr. William Knight, sent in the following autumnto procure a dispensation for her marriage with Henry. [540] The King'sfamous love-letters, the earliest of which are conjecturally assignedto July, 1527, [541] are without date and with but slight internalindications of the time at which they were written; they may be earlierthan 1527, they may be as late as the following winter. It is unlikelythat Henry would have sought for the Pope's dispensation to marry (p. 190)Anne until he was assured of her consent, of which in some of theletters he appears to be doubtful; on the other hand, it is difficultto see how a lady of the Court could refuse an offer of marriage madeby her sovereign. Her reluctance was to fill a less honourableposition, into which Henry was not so wicked as to think of forcingher. "I trust, " he writes in one of his letters, "your absence is notwilful on your part; for if so, I can but lament my ill-fortune, andby degrees abate my great folly. "[542] His love for Anne Boleyn wascertainly his "great folly, " the one overmastering passion of hislife. There is, however, nothing very extraordinary in the lettersthemselves; in one he says he has for more than a year been "woundedwith the dart of love, " and is uncertain whether Anne returns hisaffection. In others he bewails her briefest absence as though it werean eternity; desires her father to hasten his return to Court; is tornwith anxiety lest Anne should take the plague, comforts her with theassurance that few women have had it, and sends her a hart killed byhis own hand, making the inevitable play on the word. Later on, healludes to the progress of the divorce case; excuses the shortness ofa letter on the ground that he has spent four hours over the book hewas writing in his own defence[543] and has a pain in his head. Theseries ends with an announcement that he has been fitting up apartmentsfor her, and with congratulations to himself and to her that the"well-wishing" Legate, Campeggio, who has been sent from Rome to (p. 191)try the case, has told him he was not so "imperial" in his sympathiesas had been alleged. 

 [Footnote 539: Wyatt, _Works_, ed. G. F. Nott, 1816, p. 143. ]

 [Footnote 540: _L. And P. _, iv. , 3422. ]

 [Footnote 541: _Ibid. _, iv. , 3218-20, 3325-26, 3990, 4383, 4403, 4410, 4477, 4537, 4539, 4597, 4648, 4742, 4894. They have also been printed by Hearne at the end of his edition of _Robert of Avesbury_, in the _Pamphleteer_, vol. Xxi. , and in the _Harleian Miscellany_, vol. Iii. The originals in Henry's hand are in the Vatican Library; one of them was reproduced in facsimile for the illustrated edition of this book. ]

 [Footnote 542: _L. And P. _, iv. , 3326. ]

 [Footnote 543: In 1531 he was said to have written "many books" on the divorce question (_ibid. _, v. , 251). ]

The secret of her fascination over Henry was a puzzle to observers. "Madame Anne, " wrote a Venetian, "is not one of the handsomest womenin the world. She is of middling stature, swarthy complexion, longneck, wide mouth, bosom not much raised, and in fact has nothing butthe King's great appetite, and her eyes, which are black andbeautiful". [544] She had probably learnt in France the art of usingher beautiful eyes to the best advantage; her hair, which was long andblack, she wore loose, and on her way to her coronation Cranmerdescribes her as "sitting _in_ her hair". [545] Possibly this was oneof the French customs, which somewhat scandalised the staider ladiesof the English Court. She is said to have had a slight defect on oneof her nails, which she endeavoured to conceal behind her otherfingers. [546] Of her mental accomplishments there is not much evidence;she naturally, after some years' residence at the Court of France, spoke French, though she wrote it in an orthography that was quite herown. Her devotion to the Gospel is the one great virtue with whichFoxe and other Elizabethans strove to invest the mother of the GoodQueen Bess. But it had no nobler foundation than the facts that Anne'sposition drove her into hostility to the Roman jurisdiction, and thather family shared the envy of church goods, common to the nobility andthe gentry of the time. [547] Her place in English history is due (p. 192)solely to the circumstance that she appealed to the less refined partof Henry's nature; she was pre-eminent neither in beauty nor inintellect, and her virtue was not of a character to command or deservethe respect of her own or subsequent ages. 

 [Footnote 544: _Ven. Cal. _, iv. , 365. ]

 [Footnote 545: Cranmer, _Works_ (Parker Soc. ), ii. , 245; _cf. Ven. Cal. _, iv. , 351, 418. ]

 [Footnote 546: _L. And P. _, iv. , Introd. , p. Ccxxxvii. ]

 [Footnote 547: There is not much historical truth in Gray's phrase about "the Gospel light which dawned from Bullen's eyes"; but Brewer goes too far in minimising the "Lutheran" proclivities of the Boleyns. In 1531 Chapuys described Anne and her father as being "more Lutheran than Luther himself" (_L. And P. _, v. , 148), in 1532 as "true apostles of the new sect" (_ibid. _, v. , 850), and in 1533 as "perfect Lutherans" (_ibid. _, vi. , 142). ]

It is otherwise with her rival, Queen Catherine, the third of theprincipal characters involved in the divorce. If Henry's motives werenot so entirely bad as they have often been represented, neither theynor Anne Boleyn's can stand a moment's comparison with the unsulliedpurity of Catherine's life or the lofty courage with which she defendedthe cause she believed to be right. There is no more pathetic figurein English history, nor one condemned to a crueller fate. No breath ofscandal touched her fair name, or impugned her devotion to Henry. Ifshe had the misfortune to be identified with a particular policy, thealliance with the House of Burgundy, the fault was not hers; she hadbeen married to Henry in consideration of the advantages which thatalliance was supposed to confer; and, if she used her influence tofurther Spanish interest, it was a natural feeling as near akin tovirtue as to vice, and Carroz at least complained, in 1514, that shehad completely identified herself with her husband and her husband'ssubjects. [548] If her miscarriages and the death of her children (p. 193)were a grief to Henry, the pain and the sorrow were hers in fargreater measure; if they had made her old and deformed, as Francisbrutally described her in 1519, [549] the fact must have been far morebitter to her than it was unpleasant to Henry. There may have beensome hardship to Henry in the circumstance that, for politicalmotives, he had been induced by his council to marry a wife who wassix years his senior; but to Catherine herself a divorce was theheight of injustice. The question was in fact one of justice against areal or supposed political necessity, and in such cases justicecommonly goes to the wall. In politics, men seek to colour withjustice actions based upon considerations of expediency. They firstconvince themselves, and then they endeavour with less success topersuade mankind. 

 [Footnote 548: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 201. ]

 [Footnote 549: _Ven. Cal. _, ii. , 1230. ]

So Henry VIII. Convinced himself that the dispensation granted byJulius II. Was null and void, that he had never been married toCatherine, and that to continue to live with his brother's wife wassin. "The King, " he instructed his ambassador to tell Charles V. In1533, "taketh himself to be in the right, not because so many say it, but because he, being learned, knoweth the matter to be right. .. . Thejustice of our cause is so rooted in our breast that nothing canremove it, and even the canons say that a man should rather endure allthe censures of the Church than offend his conscience. "[550] No manwas less tolerant of heresy than Henry, but no man set greater (p. 194)store on his own private judgment. To that extent he was a Protestant;"though, " he instructed Paget in 1534 to tell the Lutheran princes, "the law of every man's conscience be but a private court, yet it isthe highest and supreme court for judgment or justice". God and hisconscience, he told Chapuys in 1533, were on very good terms. [551] Onanother occasion he wrote to Charles _Ubi Spiritus Domini, ibilibertas_, [552] with the obvious implication that he possessed thespirit of the Lord, and therefore he might do as he liked. To him, asto St. Paul, all things were lawful; and Henry's appeals to the Pope, to learned divines, to universities at home and abroad, were not forhis own satisfaction, but were merely concessions to the profane herd, unskilled in royal learning and unblessed with a kingly conscience. Against that conviction, so firmly rooted in the royal breast, appealsto pity were vain, and attempts to shake it were perilous. It was hisconscience that made Henry so dangerous. Men are tolerant ofdifferences about things indifferent, but conscience makes bigots ofus all; theological hatreds are proverbially bitter, and religiouswars are cruel. Conscience made Sir Thomas More persecute, and gloryin the persecution of heretics, [553] and conscience earned Mary herepithet "Bloody". They were moved by conscientious belief in theCatholic faith, Henry by conscientious belief in himself; andconscientious scruples are none the less exigent for being reached bycrooked paths. 

 [Footnote 550: _L. And P. _, vi. , 775. _Hoc volo, sic jubeo; stet pro ratione voluntas. _ Luther quoted this line _à propos_ of Henry; see his preface to Robert Barnes' _Bekenntniss des Glaubens_, Wittemberg, 1540. ]

 [Footnote 551: _L. And P. _, vi. , 351; vii. , 148. ]

 [Footnote 552: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6111. ]

 [Footnote 553: It has been denied that More either persecuted or gloried in the persecution of heretics; but he admits himself that he recommended corporal punishment in two cases and "it is clear that he underestimated his activity" (_D. N. B. _, xxxviii. , 436, and instances and authorities there cited). ]

CHAPTER VIII. (p. 195)

THE POPE'S DILEMMA. 

In February, 1527, in pursuance of the alliance with France, whichWolsey, recognising too late the fatal effects of the union withCharles, was seeking to make the basis of English policy, a Frenchembassy arrived in England to conclude a marriage between Francis I. And the Princess Mary. At its head was Gabriel de Grammont, Bishop ofTarbes; and in the course of his negotiations he is alleged to havefirst suggested those doubts of the validity of Henry's marriage, which ended in the divorce. The allegation was made by Wolsey threemonths later, and from that time down to our own day it has done dutywith Henry's apologists as a sufficient vindication of his conduct. Itis now denounced as an impudent fiction, mainly on the ground that nohint of these doubts occurs in the extant records of the negotiations. But unfortunately we have only one or two letters relating to thisdiplomatic mission. [554] There exists, indeed, a detailed (p. 196)narrative, drawn up some time afterwards by Claude Dodieu, the Frenchsecretary; but the silence, on so confidential a matter, of a thirdparty who was not present when the doubts were presumably suggested, proves little or nothing. Du Bellay, in 1528, reported to the FrenchGovernment Henry's public assertion that Tarbes had mentioned thesedoubts;[555] the statement was not repudiated; Tarbes himself believedin the validity of Henry's case and was frequently employed in effortsto win from the Pope an assent to Henry's divorce. It is rather astrong assumption to suppose in the entire absence of positiveevidence that Henry and Wolsey were deliberately lying. There isnothing impossible in the supposition that some such doubts wereexpressed; indeed, Francis I. Had every reason to encourage doubts ofHenry's marriage as a means of creating a breach between him andCharles V. In return for Mary's hand, Henry was endeavouring to obtainvarious advantages from Francis in the way of pensions, tribute andterritory. Tarbes represented that the French King was so good a matchfor the English princess, that there was little need for furtherconcession; to which Henry replied that Francis was no doubt anexcellent match for his daughter, but was he free to marry? Hisprecontract with Charles V. 's sister, Eleanor, was a complicationwhich seriously diminished the value of Francis's offer; and the papaldispensation, which he hoped to obtain, might not be forthcoming (p. 197)or valid. [556] As a counter to this stroke, Tarbes may well havehinted that the Princess Mary was not such a prize as Henry made out. Was the dispensation for Henry's own marriage beyond cavil? Was Mary'slegitimacy beyond question? Was her succession to the English throne, a prospect Henry dangled before the Frenchman's eyes, so secure? Thesequestions were not very new, even at the time of Tarbes's mission. Thedivorce had been talked about in 1514, and now, in 1527, the positionof importance given to the Duke of Richmond was a matter of publiccomment, and inevitably suggested doubts of Mary's succession. Thereis no documentary evidence that this argument was ever employed, beyond the fact that, within three months of Tarbes's mission, bothHenry and Wolsey asserted that the Bishop had suggested doubts of thevalidity of Henry's marriage. [557] Henry, however, does not say thatTarbes _first_ suggested the doubts, nor does Wolsey. The Cardinaldeclares that the Bishop objected to the marriage with the PrincessMary on the ground of these doubts; and some time later, when Henryexplained his position to the Lord-Mayor and aldermen of London, hesaid, according to Du Bellay, that the scruple of conscience, which hehad _long_ entertained, had terribly increased upon him since Tarbeshad spoken of it. [558]

 [Footnote 554: Dr. Gairdner (_Engl. Hist. Rev. _, xi. , 675) speaks of the "full diplomatic correspondence which we possess"; the documents are these: (1) an undated letter (_L. And P. _, iv. , App. 105) announcing the ambassador's arrival in England; (2) a letter of 21st March (iv. , 2974); (3) a brief note of no importance to Dr. Brienne, dated 2nd April (_ibid. _, 3012); (4) the formal commission of Francis I. , dated 13th April (_ibid. _, 3059); (5) the treaty of 30th April (3080); and (6) three brief notes from Turenne to Montmorenci, dated 6th, 7th and 24th April. From Tarbes himself there are absolutely no letters relating to his negotiations, and it would almost seem as though they had been deliberately destroyed. Our knowledge depends solely upon Dodieu's narrative. ]

 [Footnote 555: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4942. ]

 [Footnote 556: "There will be great difficulty, " wrote Clerk, "_circa istud benedictum divortium_. " Brewer interpreted this as the earliest reference to Henry's divorce; it was really, as Dr. Ehses shows, in reference to the dissolution of the precontract between Francis I. And Charles V. 's sister Eleanor (_Engl. Hist. Rev. _, xi. , 676). ]

 [Footnote 557: _L. And P. _, iv. , 3231. ]

 [Footnote 558: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4231, 4942. Henry's own account of the matter was as follows: "For some years past he had noticed in reading the Bible the severe penalty inflicted by God on those who married the relicts of their brothers"; he at length "began to be troubled in his conscience, and to regard the sudden deaths of his male children as a Divine judgment. The more he studied the matter, the more clearly it appeared to him that he had broken a Divine law. He then called to counsel men learned in pontifical law, to ascertain their opinion of the dispensation. Some pronounced it invalid. So far he had proceeded as secretly as possible that he might do nothing rashly" (_L. And P. _, iv. , 5156; _cf. _ iv. , 3641). Shakespeare, following Cavendish (p. 221), makes Henry reveal his doubts first to his confessor, Bishop Longland of Lincoln: "First I began in private with you, my Lord of Lincoln" ("Henry VIII. , " Act II. , sc. Iv. ); and there is contemporary authority for this belief. In 1532 Longland was said to have suggested a divorce to Henry ten years previously (_L. And P. _, v. , 1114), and Chapuys termed him "the principal promoter of these practices" (_ibid. _, v. , 1046); and in 1536 the northern rebels thought that he was the beginning of all the trouble (_ibid. _, xi. , 705); the same assertion is made in the anonymous "Life and Death of Cranmer" (_Narr. Of the Reformation_, Camden Soc. , p. 219). Other persons to whom the doubtful honour was ascribed are Wolsey and Stafileo, Dean of the Rota at Rome (_L. And P. _, iv. , 3400; _Sp. Cal. _, iv. , 159). ]

However that may be, before the Bishop's negotiations were (p. 198)completed the first steps had been taken towards the divorce, or, asWolsey and Henry pretended, towards satisfying the King's scruples asto the validity of his marriage. Early in April, 1527, Dr. RichardWolman was sent down to Winchester to examine old Bishop Fox on thesubject. [559] The greatest secrecy was observed and none of theBishop's councillors were allowed to be present. Other evidence wasdoubtless collected from various sources, and, on 17th May, a weekafter Tarbes's departure, Wolsey summoned Henry to appear before himto explain his conduct in living with his brother's widow. [560] Wolmanwas appointed promoter of the suit; Henry put in a justification, (p. 199)and, on 31st May, Wolman replied. With that the proceedings terminated. In instituting them Henry was following a precedent set by hisbrother-in-law, the Duke of Suffolk. [561] In very early days thatnobleman had contracted to marry Sir Anthony Browne's daughter, butfor some reason the match was broken off, and he sought the hand ofone Margaret Mortimer, to whom he was related in the second and thirddegrees of consanguinity; he obtained a dispensation, completed themarriage, and cohabited with Margaret Mortimer. But, like Henry VIII. , his conscience or other considerations moved him to regard hismarriage as sin, and the dispensation as invalid. He caused adeclaration to that effect to be made by "the official of theArchdeacon of London, to whom the cognisance of such causes of oldbelongs, " married Ann Browne, and, after her death, Henry's sisterMary. A marriage, the validity of which depended, like Henry's, upon apapal dispensation, and which, like Henry's, had been consummated, wasdeclared null and void on exactly the same grounds as those upon whichHenry himself sought a divorce, namely, the invalidity of the previousdispensation. On 12th May, 1528, Clement VII. Issued a bull confirmingSuffolk's divorce and pronouncing ecclesiastical censures on all whocalled in question the Duke's subsequent marriages. That is preciselythe course Henry wished to be followed. Wolsey was to declare themarriage invalid on the ground of the insufficiency of the papaldispensation; Henry might then marry whom he pleased; the Pope was toconfirm the sentence, and censure all who should dispute the secondmarriage or the legitimacy of its possible issue. 

 [Footnote 559: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5291. This examination took place on 5th and 6th April. ]

 [Footnote 560: _Ibid. _, iv. , 3140. ]

 [Footnote 561: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5859; _cf. _ iv. , 737. ]

Another precedent was also forced on Henry's mind. On 11th March, (p. 200)1527, two months before Wolsey opened his court, a divorce was grantedat Rome to Henry's sister Margaret, Queen of Scotland. [562] Herpretexts were infinitely more flimsy than Henry's own. She alleged aprecontract on the part of her husband, Angus, which was never proved. She professed to believe that James IV. Had survived Flodden threeyears, and was alive when she married Angus. Angus had beenunfaithful, but that was no ground for divorce by canon law; and sheherself was living in shameless adultery with Henry Stewart, who hadalso procured a divorce to be free to marry his Queen. No objectionwas found at Rome to either of these divorces; but neither Angus norMargaret Mortimer had an Emperor for a nephew; no imperial armieswould march on Rome to vindicate the validity of their marriages, andClement could issue his bulls without any fear that their justicewould be challenged by the arms of powerful princes. Not so withHenry; while the secret proceedings before Wolsey were in progress, the world was shocked by the sack of Rome, and Clement was a prisonerin the hands of the Emperor's troops. There was no hope that a Pope insuch a plight would confirm a sentence to the detriment of hismaster's aunt. "If the Pope, " wrote Wolsey to Henry on receipt of thenews, "be slain or taken, it will hinder the King's affairs not alittle, which have hitherto been going on so well. "[563] A littlelater he declared that, if Catherine repudiated his authority, itwould be necessary to have the assent of the Pope or of the cardinalsto the divorce. To obtain the former the Pope must be liberated; tosecure the latter the cardinals must be assembled in France. [564] (p. 201)

 [Footnote 562: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4130. ]

 [Footnote 563: _Ibid. _, iv. , 3147. ]

 [Footnote 564: _L. And P. _, iv. , 3311. ]

To effect the Pope's liberation, or rather to call an assembly ofcardinals in France during Clement's captivity, was the real object ofthe mission to France, on which Wolsey started in July. Such a body, acting under Wolsey's presidency and in the territories of the FrenchKing, was as likely to favour an attack upon the Emperor's aunt as thePope in the hands of Charles's armies was certain to oppose it. Wolseywent in unparalleled splendour, not as Henry's ambassador but as hislieutenant; and projects for his own advancement were, as usual, partof the programme. Louise of Savoy, the queen-mother of France, suggested to him that all Christian princes should repudiate thePope's authority so long as he remained in captivity, and the Cardinalreplied that, had the overture not been made by her, it would havebeen started by himself and by Henry. [565] It was rumoured in Spainthat Wolsey "had gone into France to separate the Church of Englandand of France from the Roman, not merely during the captivity of thePope and to effect his liberation, but for a perpetual division, "[566]and that Francis was offering Wolsey the patriarchate of the twoschismatic churches. To win over the Cardinal to the interest ofSpain, it was even suggested that Charles should depose Clement andoffer the Papacy to Wolsey. [567] The project of a schism was not foundfeasible; the cardinals at Rome were too numerous, and Wolsey onlysucceeded in gaining four, three French and one Italian, to join himin signing a protest repudiating Clement's authority so long as (p. 202)he remained in the Emperor's power. It was necessary to fall backafter all on the Pope for assent to Henry's divorce, and the news thatCharles had already got wind of the proceedings against Catherine madeit advisable that no time should be lost. The Emperor, indeed, hadlong been aware of Henry's intentions; every care had been taken toprevent communication between Catherine and her nephew, and a plot hadbeen laid to kidnap a messenger she was sending in August to conveyher appeal for protection. All was in vain, for the very day afterWolsey's court had opened in May, Mendoza wrote to Charles that Wolsey"as the finishing stroke to all his iniquities, had been scheming tobring about the Queen's divorce"; and on the 29th of July, some daysbefore Wolsey had any suspicion that a hint was abroad, Charlesinformed Mendoza that he had despatched Cardinal Quignon to Rome, toact on the Queen's behalf and to persuade Clement to revoke Wolsey'slegatine powers. [568]

 [Footnote 565: _Ibid. _, iv. , 3247, 3263. ]

 [Footnote 566: _Ibid. _, iv. , 3291. ]

 [Footnote 567: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 273. ]

 [Footnote 568: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 193, 276, 300; _L. And P. _, iv. , 3312. ]

In ignorance of all this, Wolsey urged Henry to send Ghinucci, theBishop of Worcester, and others to Rome with certain demands, amongwhich was a request for Clement's assent to the abortive proposal fora council in France. [569] But now a divergence became apparent betweenthe policy of Wolsey and that of his king. Both were working for adivorce, but Wolsey wanted Henry to marry as his second wife Renée, the daughter of Louis XII. , and thus bind more closely the two kings, upon whose union the Cardinal's personal and political schemes werenow exclusively based. Henry, however, had determined that his (p. 203)second wife was to be Anne Boleyn, and of this determination Wolseywas as yet uninformed. The Cardinal had good reason to dread thatlady's ascendancy over Henry's mind; for she was the hope and the toolof the anti-clerical party, which had hitherto been kept in check byWolsey's supremacy. The Duke of Norfolk was her uncle, and he washostile to Wolsey for both private and public reasons; her father, Viscount Rochford, her cousins, Sir William Fitzwilliam and SirFrancis Brian, and many more distant connections, were anxious at thefirst opportunity to lead an attack on the Church and Cardinal. Beforethe divorce case began Wolsey's position had grown precarious; taxesat home and failure abroad had turned the loyalty of the people tosullen discontent, and Wolsey was mainly responsible. "Disaffection tothe King, " wrote Mendoza in March, 1527, "and hatred of the Legate arevisible everywhere. .. . The King would soon be obliged to change hiscouncillors, were only a leader to present himself and head themalcontents;" and in May he reported a general rumour to the effectthat Henry intended to relieve the Legate of his share in theadministration. [570] The Cardinal had incurred the dislike of nearlyevery section of the community; the King was his sole support and theKing was beginning to waver. In May there were high words betweenWolsey and Norfolk in Henry's presence;[571] in July King and Cardinalwere quarrelling over ecclesiastical patronage at Calais, [572] and, long before the failure of the divorce suit, there were other (p. 204)indications that Henry and his minister had ceased to work together inharmony. 

 [Footnote 569: _Ibid. _, iv. , 3400. ]

 [Footnote 570: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 109, 190, 192, 193; _cf. _ iv. , 3951, Du Bellay to Montmorenci, "those who desire to catch him tripping are very glad the people cry out 'Murder'". ]

 [Footnote 571: _L. And P. _, iv. , 1411. ]

 [Footnote 572: _Ibid. _, iv. , 3304. ]

It is, indeed, quite a mistake to represent Wolsey's failure to obtaina sentence in Henry's favour as the sole or main cause of his fall. Had he succeeded, he might have deferred for a time his otherwiseunavoidable ruin, but it was his last and only chance. He was drivento playing a desperate game, in which the dice were loaded againsthim. If his plan failed, he told Clement over and over again, it wouldmean for him irretrievable ruin, and in his fall he would drag downthe Church. If it succeeded, he would be hardly more secure, forsuccess meant the predominance of Anne Boleyn and of heranti-ecclesiastical kin. Under the circumstances, it is possible toattach too much weight to the opinion of the French and Spanishambassadors, and of Charles V. Himself, that Wolsey suggested thedivorce as the means of breaking for ever the alliance between Englandand the House of Burgundy, and substituting for it a union withFrance. [573] The divorce fitted in so well with Wolsey's Frenchpolicy, that the suspicion was natural; but the same observers alsorecorded the impression that Wolsey was secretly opposing the divorcefrom fear of the ascendancy of Anne Boleyn. [574] That suspicion hadbeen brought to Henry's mind as early as June, 1527. It was probablydue to the facts that Wolsey was not blinded by passion, as Henry was, to the difficulties in the way, and that it was he who persuaded Henryto have recourse to the Pope in the first instance, [575] when theKing desired to follow Suffolk's precedent, obtain a sentence (p. 205)in England, marry again, and trust to the Pope to confirm hisproceedings. 

 [Footnote 573: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4112, 4865, 5512. ]

 [Footnote 574: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 432, 790; _Ven. Cal. _, 1529, 212. ]

 [Footnote 575: "He showed me, " writes Campeggio, "that in order to maintain and increase here the authority of the Holy See and the Pope he had done his utmost to persuade the King to apply for a legate. .. Although many of these prelates declared it was possible to do without one" (iv. , 4857; _cf. _ iv. , 5072, 5177). ]

It is not, however, impossible to trace Wolsey's real designs behindthese conflicting reports. He knew that Henry was determined to have adivorce and that this was one of those occasions upon which "he wouldbe obeyed, whosoever spoke to the contrary". As minister he musttherefore either resign--a difficult thing in the sixteenthcentury--or carry out the King's policy. For his own part he had noobjection to the divorce in itself; he was no more touched by thepathos of Catherine's fate than was her nephew Charles V. , he wishedto see the succession strengthened, he thought that he might restorehis tottering influence by obtaining gratification for the King, andhe was straining every nerve to weaken Charles V. , either because theEmperor's power was really too great, or out of revenge for hisbetrayal over the papal election. But he was strenuously hostile toHenry's marriage with Anne Boleyn for two excellent reasons: firstlyshe and her kin belonged to the anti-ecclesiastical party which Wolseyhad dreaded since 1515, and secondly he desired Henry to marry theFrench Princess Renée in order to strengthen his anti-imperial policy. Further, he was anxious that the divorce problem should be solved bymeans of the Papacy, because its solution by merely national actionwould create a breach between England and Rome, would ruin Wolsey'schances of election as Pope, would threaten his ecclesiasticalsupremacy in England, which was merely a legatine authority (p. 206)dependent on the Pope, [576] and would throw Clement into the arms ofCharles V. , whereas Wolsey desired him to be an effective member ofthe anti-imperial alliance. Thus Wolsey was prepared to go part of theway with Henry VIII. , but he clearly saw the point at which theirpaths would diverge; and his efforts on Henry's behalf were hamperedby his endeavours to keep the King on the track which he had markedout. 

 [Footnote 576: Wolsey "certainly proves himself very zealous for the preservation of the authority of the See Apostolic in this kingdom _because all his grandeur is connected with it_" (Campeggio to Sanga, 28th Oct. , 1528, _L. And P. _, iv. , 4881). ]

Henry's suspicions, and his knowledge that Wolsey would be hostile tohis marriage with Anne Boleyn, induced him to act for the timeindependently of the Cardinal; and, while Wolsey was in France hintingat a marriage between Henry and Renée, the King himself was secretlyendeavouring to remove the obstacles to his union with Anne Boleyn. Instead of adopting Wolsey's suggestion that Ghinucci should be sentto Rome as an Italian versed in the ways of the Papal Curia, hedespatched his secretary, Dr. William Knight, with two extraordinarycommissions, the second of which he thought would not be revealed "forany craft the Cardinal or any other can find". [577] The first was toobtain from the Pope a dispensation to marry a second wife, withoutbeing divorced from Catherine, the issue from both marriages to belegitimate. This "licence to commit bigamy" has naturally been thesubject of much righteous indignation. But marriage-laws were lax (p. 207)in those days, when Popes could play fast and loose with them forpolitical purposes; and, besides the "great reasons and precedents, especially in the Old Testament, " to which Henry referred, [578] hemight have produced a precedent more pertinent, more recent, andbetter calculated to appeal to Clement VII. In 1521 Charles V. 'sSpanish council drew up a memorial on the subject of his marriage, inwhich they pointed out that his ancestor, Henry IV. Of Castile, had, in 1437, married Dona Blanca, by whom he had no children; and that thePope thereupon granted him a dispensation to marry a second wife oncondition that, if within a fixed time he had no issue by her, heshould return to his first. [579] A licence for bigamy, modelled afterthis precedent, would have suited Henry admirably, but apparently hewas unaware of this useful example, and was induced to countermandKnight's commission before it had been communicated to Clement. Thedemand would not, however, have shocked the Pope so much as his moderndefenders, for on 18th September, 1530, Casale writes to Henry: "A fewdays since the Pope secretly proposed to me that your Majesty might beallowed two wives. I told him I could not undertake to make any suchproposition, because I did not know whether it would satisfy yourMajesty's conscience. I made this answer because I know that theImperialists have this in view, and are urging it; but why, I knownot. "[580] Ghinucci and Benet were equally cautious, and thought thePope's suggestion was only a ruse; whether a ruse or not, it is (p. 208)a curious illustration of the moral influence Popes were then likelyto exert on their flock. 

 [Footnote 577: Henry VIII. To Knight in Corpus Christi College, Oxford, MS. , 318, f. 3, printed in the _Academy_, xv. , 239, and _Engl. Hist. Rev. _, xi. , 685. ]

 [Footnote 578: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4977. ]

 [Footnote 579: _Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 379. ]

 [Footnote 580: _L. And P. _, iv. , 6627, 6705, App. 261. ]

The second commission, with which Knight was entrusted, was hardlyless strange than the first. By his illicit relations with MaryBoleyn, Henry had already contracted affinity in the first degree withher sister Anne, in fact precisely the same affinity (except that itwas illicit) as that which Catherine was alleged to have contractedwith him before their marriage. The inconsistency of Henry's conduct, in seeking to remove by the same method from his second marriage thedisability which was held to invalidate his first, helps us to definethe precise position which Henry took up and the nature of hispeculiar conscience. Obviously he did not at this stage deny thePope's dispensing power; for he was invoking its aid to enable him tomarry Anne Boleyn. He asserted, and he denied, no principle whatever, though it must be remembered that his own dispensation was an almost, if not quite, unprecedented stretch of papal power. To dispense withthe "divine" law against marrying the brother's wife, and to dispensewith the merely canonical obstacle to his marriage with Anne arisingout of his relations with Mary Boleyn, were very different matters;and in this light the breach between England and Rome might berepresented as caused by a novel extension of papal claims. Henry, however, was a casuist concerned exclusively with his own case. Hemaintained merely that the particular dispensation, granted for hismarriage with Catherine, was null and void. As a concession to others, he condescended to give a number of reasons, none of them affectingany principle, but only the legal technicalities of the case--thecauses for which the dispensation was granted, such as his own (p. 209)desire, and the political necessity for the marriage were fictitious;he had himself protested against the marriage, and so forth. Forhimself, his own conviction was ample sanction; he knew he was livingin sin with Catherine because his children had all died but one, andthat was a manifest token of the wrath of Providence. The capacity forconvincing himself of his own righteousness is the most effectiveweapon in the egotist's armoury, and Henry's egotism touched thesublime. His conscience was clear, whatever other people might thinkof the maze of apparent inconsistencies in which he was involved. In1528 he was in some fear of death from the plague; fear of death isfatal to the peace of a guilty conscience, and it might well have madeHenry pause in his pursuit after the divorce and Anne Boleyn. ButHenry never wavered; he went on in serene assurance, writing his loveletters to Anne, as a conscientiously unmarried man might do, makinghis will, [581] "confessing every day and receiving his Maker at everyfeast, "[582] paying great attention to the morals of monasteries, andto charges of malversation against Wolsey, and severely lecturing hissister Margaret on the sinfulness of her life. [583] He hopes she willturn "to God's word, the vively doctrine of Jesu Christ, the onlyground of salvation--1 COR. 3, etc. "; he reminds her of "the divineordinance of inseparable matrimony first instituted in Paradise, " andurges her to avoid "the inevitable damnation threatened against (p. 210)advoutrers". Henry's conscience was convenient and skilful. Hebelieved in the "ordinance of inseparable matrimony, " so, when hewished to divorce a wife, his conscience warned him that he had neverreally been married to her. Hence his nullity suits with Catherine ofAragon, with Anne Boleyn and with Anne of Cleves. Moreover, if he hadnever been married to Catherine, his relations with Mary Boleyn andElizabeth Blount were obviously not adultery, and he was free todenounce that sin in Margaret with a clear conscience. 

 [Footnote 581: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4404. ]

 [Footnote 582: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4542. ]

 [Footnote 583: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4131. Wolsey writes the letter, but he is only giving Henry's "message". The letter is undated, but it refers to the "shameless sentence sent from Rome, " _i. E. _, sentence of divorce which is dated 11th March, 1527. ]

 * * * * *

Dr. Knight had comparatively little difficulty in obtaining thedispensation for Henry's marriage with Anne Boleyn; but it was only tobe effective after sentence had been given decreeing the nullity ofhis marriage with Catherine of Aragon; and, as Wolsey saw, that wasthe real crux of the question. [584] Knight had scarcely turned hissteps homeward, when he was met by a courier with fresh instructionsfrom Wolsey to obtain a further concession from Clement; the Pope wasto empower the Cardinal himself, or some other safe person, to examinethe original dispensation, and, if it were found invalid, to annulHenry's marriage with Catherine. So Knight returned to the PapalCourt; and then began that struggle between English and Spanish (p. 211)influence at Rome which ended in the victory of Charles V. And therepudiation by England of the Roman jurisdiction. Never did twoparties enter upon a contest with a clearer perception of the issuesinvolved, or carry it on with their eyes more open to the magnitude ofthe results. Wolsey himself, Gardiner, Foxe, Casale, and every Englishenvoy employed in the case, warned and threatened Clement that, if herefused Henry's demands, he would involve Wolsey and the Papal causein England in a common ruin. "He alleged, " says Campeggio of Wolsey, "that if the King's desire were not complied with. .. There wouldfollow the speedy and total ruin of the kingdom, of his Lordship andof the Church's influence in this kingdom. "[585] "I cannot reflectupon it, " wrote Wolsey himself, "and close my eyes, for I see ruin, infamy and subversion of the whole dignity and estimation of the SeeApostolic if this course is persisted in. You see in what dangeroustimes we are. If the Pope will consider the gravity of this cause, andhow much the safety of the nation depends upon it, he will see thatthe course he now pursues will drive the King to adopt remedies whichare injurious to the Pope, and are frequently instilled into theKing's mind. "[586] On one occasion Clement confessed that, though thePope was supposed to carry the papal laws locked up in his breast, Providence had not vouchsafed him the key wherewith to unlock them;and Gardiner roughly asked in retort whether in that case the papallaws should not be committed to the flames. [587] He told how theLutherans were instigating Henry to do away with the temporal (p. 212)possessions of the Church. [588] But Clement could only bewail hismisfortune, and protest that, if heresies and schisms arose, it wasnot his fault. He could not afford to offend the all-powerful Emperor;the sack of Rome and Charles's intimation conveyed in plain and setterms that it was the judgment of God[589] had cowed Clement for therest of his life, and made him resolve never again to incur theEmperor's enmity. 

 [Footnote 584: For these intricate negotiations see Stephan Ehses, _Römische Dokumente zur Geschichte der Ehescheidung Heinrichs VIII. Von England_, 1893; these documents had all, I think, been previously printed by Laemmer or Theiner, but only from imperfect copies often incorrectly deciphered. Ehses has printed the originals with the utmost care, and thrown much new light on the subject. The story of the divorce is retold in this new light by Dr. Gairdner in the _English Historical Review_, vols. Xi. And xii. ; the documents in _L. And P. _ must be corrected from these sources. ]

 [Footnote 585: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4881. ]

 [Footnote 586: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4897. ]

 [Footnote 587: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4167; _cf. _ iv. , 5156, and Ehses, _Römische Dokumente_, No. 20, where Cardinal Pucci gives a somewhat different account of the interviews. ]

 [Footnote 588: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5038, 5417, 5476. ]

 [Footnote 589: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 309. ]

From the point of view of justice, the Pope had an excellent case;even the Lutherans, who denied his dispensing power, denounced thedivorce. _Quod non fieri debuit_, was their just and common-sensepoint, _factum valet_. But the Pope's case had been hopelesslyweakened by the evil practice of his predecessors and of himself. Alexander VI. Had divorced Louis XII. From his Queen for no otherreasons than that Louis XII. Wanted to unite Brittany with France bymarrying its duchess, and that Alexander, the Borgia Pope, requiredLouis' assistance in promoting the interests of the iniquitous Borgiafamily. [590] The injustice to Catherine was no greater than that toLouis' Queen. Henry's sister Margaret, and both the husbands of hisother sister, Mary, had procured divorces from Popes, and why notHenry himself? Clement was ready enough to grant Margaret'sdivorce;[591] he was willing to give a dispensation for a marriagebetween the Princess Mary and her half-brother, the Duke of (p. 213)Richmond; the more insuperable the obstacle, the more its removalenhanced his power. It was all very well to dispense with canons anddivine laws, but to annul papal dispensations--was that not to cheapenhis own wares? Why, wrote Henry to Clement, could he not dispense withhuman laws, if he was able to dispense with divine at pleasure?[592]Obviously because divine authority could take care of itself, but papalprerogatives needed a careful shepherd. Even this principle, such asit was, was not consistently followed, for he had annulled a dispensationin Suffolk's case. Clement's real anxiety was to avoid responsibility. More than once he urged Henry to settle the matter himself, [593] asSuffolk had done, obtain a sentence from the courts in England, andmarry his second wife. The case could then only come before him as asuit against the validity of the second marriage, and the accomplishedfact was always a powerful argument. Moreover, all this would taketime, and delay was as dear to Clement as irresponsibility. But Henrywas determined to have such a sentence as would preclude all doubts ofthe legitimacy of his children by the second marriage, and was asanxious to shift the responsibility to Clement's shoulders as the Popewas to avoid it. Clement next urged Catherine to go into a nunnery, for that would only entail injustice on herself, and would involve theChurch and its head in no temporal perils. [594] When Catherine (p. 214)refused, he wished her in the grave, and lamented that he seemeddoomed through her to lose the spiritualties of his Church, as he hadlost its temporalties through her nephew, Charles V. [595]

 [Footnote 590: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5152, where Henry's ambassadors quote this precedent to the Pope. _Cf. Ibid. _, v. , 45, for other precedents. ]

 [Footnote 591: The sentence was actually pronounced by the Cardinal of Ancona, and the date was 11th March, 1527, just before Henry commenced proceedings against Catherine. Henry called it a "shameless sentence"; but it may nevertheless have suggested to his mind the possibility of obtaining one like it. ]

 [Footnote 592: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5966. ]

 [Footnote 593: _Ibid. _, iv. , 3802, 6290. ]

 [Footnote 594: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5072. "It would greatly please the Pope, " writes his secretary Sanga, "if the Queen could be induced to enter some religion, because, although this course would be portentous and unusual, he could more readily entertain the idea, _as it would involve the injury of only one person_. "]

 [Footnote 595: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5518. ]

It was thus with the utmost reluctance that he granted the commissionbrought by Knight. It was a draft, drawn up by Wolsey, apparentlydeclaring the law on the matter and empowering Wolsey, if the factswere found to be such as were alleged, to pronounce the nullity ofCatherine's marriage. [596] Wolsey desired that it should be granted inthe form in which he had drawn it up. But the Pope's advisers declaredthat such a commission would disgrace Henry, Wolsey and Clementhimself. The draft was therefore amended so as to be unobjectionable, or, in other words, useless for practical purposes; and, with thiscommission, Knight returned to England, rejoicing in the confidence ofcomplete success. But, as soon as Wolsey had seen it, he pronouncedthe commission "as good as none at all". [597] The discovery did notimprove his or Henry's opinion of the Pope's good faith; but, dissemblingtheir resentment, they despatched, in February, 1528, Stephen Gardinerand Edward Foxe to obtain fresh and more effective powers. Eventually, on 8th June a commission was issued to Wolsey and Campeggio to try thecase and pronounce sentence;[598] even if one was unwilling, the othermight act by himself; and all appeals from their jurisdiction (p. 215)were forbidden. This was not a decretal commission; it did not bindthe Pope or prevent him from revoking the case. Such a commission was, however, granted on condition that it should be shown to no one butthe King and Wolsey, and that it should not be used in the procedure. The Pope also gave a written promise, in spite of a protest lodged onCatherine's behalf by the Spanish ambassador, Muxetula, [599] that hewould not revoke, or do anything to invalidate, the commission, butwould confirm the cardinals' decision. [600] If, Clement had said inthe previous December, Lautrec, the French commander in Italy, camenearer Rome, he might excuse himself to the Emperor as having actedunder pressure. [601] He would send the commission as soon as Lautrecarrived. Lautrec had now arrived; he had marched down through Italy;he had captured Melfi; the Spanish commander, Moncada, had beenkilled; Naples was thought to be on the eve of surrender. [602] TheSpanish dominion in Italy was waning, the Emperor's thunderbolts wereless terrifying, and the justice of the cause of his aunt lessapparent. 

 [Footnote 596: It was called a "decretal commission, " and it was a legislative as well as an administrative act; the Pope being an absolute monarch, his decrees were the laws of the Church; the difficulties of Clement VII. And indeed the whole divorce question could never have arisen had the Church been a constitutional monarchy. ]

 [Footnote 597: _L. And P. _, iv. , 3913. ]

 [Footnote 598: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4345. ]

 [Footnote 599: _Engl. Hist. Rev. _, xii. , 110-14. ]

 [Footnote 600: Ehses, _Römische Dok. _, No. 23; _Engl. Hist. Rev. _, xii. , 8. ]

 [Footnote 601: _L. And P. _, iv. , 3682, 3750. ]

 [Footnote 602: _Ibid. _, iv. , 3934, 3949, 4224. ]

 * * * * *

On 25th July Campeggio embarked at Corneto, [603] and proceeded by slowstages through France towards England. Henry congratulated himselfthat his hopes were on the eve of fulfilment. But, unfortunately forhim, the basis, on which they were built, was as unstable as water. The decision of his case still depended upon Clement, and Clementwavered with every fluctuation in the success or the failure of (p. 216)the Spanish arms in Italy. Campeggio had scarcely set out, whenDoria, the famous Genoese admiral, deserted Francis for Charles;[604]on the 17th of August Lautrec died before Naples;[605] and, on 10thSeptember, an English agent sent Wolsey news of a French disaster, which he thought more serious than the battle of Pavia or the sack ofRome. [606] On the following day Sanga, the Pope's secretary, wrote toCampeggio that, "as the Emperor is victorious, the Pope must not givehim any pretext for a fresh rupture, lest the Church should be utterlyannihilated. .. . Proceed on your journey to England, and there do yourutmost to restore mutual affection between the King and Queen. You arenot to pronounce any opinion without a new and express commissionhence. "[607] Sanga repeated the injunction a few days later. "Everyday, " he wrote, "stronger reasons are discovered;" to satisfy Henry"involves the certain ruin of the Apostolic See and the Church, owingto recent events. .. . If so great an injury be done to the Emperor. .. The Church cannot escape utter ruin, as it is entirely in the power ofthe Emperor's servants. You will not, therefore, be surprised at myrepeating that you are not to proceed to sentence, under any pretext, without express commission; but to protract the matter as long aspossible. "[608] Clement himself wrote to Charles that nothing would bedone to Catherine's detriment, that Campeggio had gone merely to urgeHenry to do his duty, and that the whole case would eventually bereferred to Rome. [609] Such were the secret instructions with whichCampeggio arrived in England in October. [610] He readily promised (p. 217)not to proceed to sentence, but protested against the interpretationwhich he put upon the Pope's command, namely, that he was not to beginthe trial. The English, he said, "would think that I had come tohoodwink them, and might resent it. You know how much that wouldinvolve. "[611] He did not seem to realise that the refusal to passsentence was equally hoodwinking the English, and that the trial wouldonly defer the moment of their penetrating the deception; a trial wasof no use without sentence. 

 [Footnote 603: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4605. ]

 [Footnote 604: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4626. ]

 [Footnote 605: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4663. ]

 [Footnote 606: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4713. ]

 [Footnote 607: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4721. ]

 [Footnote 608: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4736-37. ]

 [Footnote 609: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 779. ]

 [Footnote 610: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4857. ]

 [Footnote 611: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4736. ]

In accordance with his instructions, Campeggio first sought to dissuadeHenry from persisting in his suit for the divorce. Finding the Kingimmovable, he endeavoured to induce Catherine to go into a nunnery, asthe divorced wife of Louis XII. Had done, "who still lived in thegreatest honour and reputation with God and all that kingdom". [612] Herepresented to her that she had nothing to lose by such a step; shecould never regain Henry's affections or obtain restitution of herconjugal rights. Her consent might have deferred the separation of theEnglish Church from Rome; it would certainly have relieved the SupremePontiff from a humiliating and intolerable position. But theseconsiderations of expediency weighed nothing with Catherine. She wasas immovable as Henry, and deaf to all Campeggio's solicitations. Herconscience was, perhaps, of a rigid, Spanish type, but it was as clearas Henry's and a great deal more comprehensible. She was convincedthat her marriage was valid; to admit a doubt of it would imply thatshe had been living in sin and imperil her immortal soul. Henry (p. 218)did not in the least mind admitting that he had lived for twenty yearswith a woman who was not his wife; the sin, to his mind, was continuingto live with her after he had become convinced that she was really nothis wife. Catherine appears, however, to have been willing to take themonastic vows, if Henry would do the same. Henry was equally willing, if Clement would immediately dispense with the vows in his case, butnot in Catherine's. [613] But there were objections to this course, anddoubts of Clement's power to authorise Henry's re-marriage, even ifCatherine did go into a nunnery. 

 [Footnote 612: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4858. ]

 [Footnote 613: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4977. ]

Meanwhile, Campeggio found help from an unexpected quarter in hisefforts to waste the time. Quite unknown to Henry, Wolsey, or Clement, there existed in Spain a brief of Julius II. Fuller than the originalbull of dispensation which he had granted for the marriage of Henryand Catherine, and supplying any defects that might be found in it. Indeed, so conveniently did the brief meet the criticisms urgedagainst the bull, that Henry and Wolsey at once pronounced it anobvious forgery, concocted after the doubts about the bull had beenraised. No copy of the brief could be found in the English archives, nor could any trace be discovered of its having been registered atRome; while Ghinucci and Lee, who examined the original in Spain, professed to see in it such flagrant inaccuracies as to deprive it ofall claim to be genuine. [614] Still, if it were genuine, it shatteredthe whole of Henry's case. That had been built up, not on the (p. 219)denial of the Pope's power to dispense, but on the technical defectsof a particular dispensation. Now it appeared that the validity of themarriage did not depend upon this dispensation at all. Nor did itdepend upon the brief, for Catherine was prepared to deny on oath thatthe marriage with Arthur had been anything more than a form;[615] inthat case the affinity with Henry had not been contracted, and therewas no need of either dispensation or brief. This assertion seems tohave shaken Henry; certainly he began to shift his position, and, early in 1529, he was wishing for some noted divine, friar or other, who would maintain that the Pope could not dispense at all. [616] Thiswas his first doubt as to the plenitude of papal power; his marriagewith Catherine must be invalid, because his conscience told him so; ifit was not invalid through defects in the dispensation, it must beinvalid because the Pope could not dispense. Wolsey met the objectionwith a legal point, perfectly good in itself, but trivial. There weretwo canonical disabilities which the dispensation must meet forHenry's marriage to be valid; first, the consummation of Catherine'smarriage with Arthur; secondly, the marriage, even though it was notconsummated, was yet celebrated _in facie ecclesiæ_, and generallyreputed complete. There was thus an _impedimentum publicæ honestatis_to the marriage of Henry and Catherine, and this impediment was notmentioned in, and therefore not removed by, the dispensation. [617]

 [Footnote 614: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5376-77, 5470-71, 5486-87. For the arguments as to its validity see Busch, _England under the Tudors_, Eng. Trs. , i. , 376-8; Friedmann, _Anne Boleyn_, ii. , 329; and Lord Acton in the _Quarterly Rev. _, cxliii. , 1-51. ]

 [Footnote 615: She made this statement to Campeggio in the confessional (_L. And P. _, iv. , 4875). ]

 [Footnote 616: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5377, 5438; _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 276, 327. ]

 [Footnote 617: _L. And P. _, iv. , 3217. See this point discussed in Taunton's _Cardinal Wolsey_, chap. X. ]

But all this legal argument might be invalidated by the brief. (p. 220)It was useless to proceed with the trial until the promoters of thesuit knew what the brief contained. According to Mendoza, Catherine's"whole right" depended upon the brief, a statement indicating ageneral suspicion that the bull was really insufficient. [618] So thewinter of 1528-29 and the following spring were spent in efforts toget hold of the original brief, or to induce Clement to declare it aforgery. The Queen was made to write to Charles that it was absolutelyessential to her case that the brief should be produced before thelegatine Court in England. [619] The Emperor was not likely to becaught by so transparent an artifice. Moreover, the emissary, sentwith Catherine's letter, wrote, as soon as he got to France, warningCharles that his aunt's letter was written under compulsion andexpressed the reverse of her real desires. [620] In the spring of 1529several English envoys, ending with Gardiner, were sent to Rome toobtain a papal declaration of the falsity of the brief. Clement, however, naturally refused to declare the brief a forgery, withouthearing the arguments on the other side, [621] and more importantdevelopments soon supervened. Gardiner wrote from Rome, early in May, that there was imminent danger of the Pope revoking the case, and (p. 221)the news determined Henry and Wolsey to relinquish their suit aboutthe brief, and push on the proceedings of the legatine Court, so as toget some decision before the case was called to Rome. Once the legateshad pronounced in favour of the divorce, Clement was informed, theEnglish cared little what further fortunes befel it elsewhere. 

 [Footnote 618: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 882. ]

 [Footnote 619: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4841. ]

 [Footnote 620: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5154, 5177, 5211 (ii. ); _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 877, 882. ]

 [Footnote 621: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5474. Yet there is a letter from Clement to Campeggio (_Cotton MS. _, Vitellius, B, xii. , 164; _L. And P. _, iv. , 5181) authorising him "to reject whatever evidence is tendered in behalf of this brief as an evident forgery". Clement was no believer in the maxim _qui facit per alium facit per se_; he did not mind what his legates did, so long as he was free to repudiate their action when convenient. ]

So, on the 31st of May, 1529, in the great hall of the Black Friars, in London, the famous Court was formally opened, and the King andQueen were cited to appear before it on the 18th of June. [622] Henrywas then represented by two proxies, but Catherine came in person toprotest against the competence of the tribunal. [623] Three days laterboth the King and the Queen attended in person to hear the Court'sdecision on this point. Catherine threw herself on her knees beforeHenry; she begged him to consider her honour, her daughter's and his. Twice Henry raised her up; he protested that he desired nothing somuch as that their marriage should be found valid, in spite of the"perpetual scruple" he had felt about it, and declared that only hislove for her had kept him silent so long; her request for the removalof the cause to Rome was unreasonable, considering the Emperor's powerthere. Again protesting against the jurisdiction of the Court andappealing to Rome, Catherine withdrew. Touched by her appeal, Henryburst out in her praise. "She is, my Lords, " he said, "as true, asobedient, and as conformable a wife, as I could, in my phantasy, wishor desire. She hath all the virtuous qualities that ought to be in awoman of her dignity, or in any other of baser estate. "[624] (p. 222)But these qualities had nothing to do with the pitiless forms of law. The legate, overruled her protest, refused her appeal, and summonedher back. She took no notice, and was declared contumacious. 

 [Footnote 622: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5611, 5612. ]

 [Footnote 623: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5685, 5694, 5695, 5702. ]

 [Footnote 624: _L. And P. _, iv. , Introd. , p. Cccclxxv. ]

The proceedings then went on without her; Fisher Bishop of Rochester, made a courageous defence of the validity of the marriage, to whichHenry drew up a bitter reply in the form of a speech addressed to thelegates. [625] The speed with which the procedure was hurried on waslittle to Campeggio's taste. He had not prejudged the case; he wasstill in doubt as to which way the sentence would go; and he entered adignified protest against the orders he received from Rome to givesentence, if it came to that point, against Henry. [626] He wouldpronounce what judgment seemed to him just, but he shrank from theordeal, and he did his best to follow out Clement's injunctions toprocrastinate. [627] In this he succeeded completely. It seemed thatjudgment could no longer be deferred; it was to be delivered on the23rd of July. [628] On that day the King himself, and the chief men ofhis Court, were present; his proctor demanded sentence. Campeggiostood up, and instead of giving sentence, adjourned the Court tillOctober. [629] "By the mass!" burst out Suffolk, giving the table (p. 223)a great blow with his hand, "now I see that the old-said saw is true, that there was never a legate nor cardinal that did good in England. "The Court never met again; and except during the transient reaction, under Mary, it was the last legatine Court ever held in England. Theymight assure the Pope, Wolsey had written to the English envoys atRome a month before, that if he granted the revocation he would losethe devotion of the King and of England to the See Apostolic, andutterly destroy Wolsey for ever. [630]

 [Footnote 625: _Ibid. _, iv. , Introd. , p. Cccclxxix. ]

 [Footnote 626: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5732, 5734. ]

 [Footnote 627: _Ibid. _, iv. , 3604. ]

 [Footnote 628: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5789. ]

 [Footnote 629: It was alleged that this adjournment was only the usual practice of the curia; but it is worth noting that in 1530 Charles V. Asserted that it was usual to carry on matters so important as the divorce during vacation (_ibid. _, iv. , 6452), and that Clement had repeatedly ordered Campeggio to prolong the suit as much as possible and above all to pronounce no sentence. ]

 [Footnote 630: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5703, 5715, 5780. ]

Long before the vacation was ended, news reached Henry that the casehad been called to Rome; the revocation was, indeed, decreed a weekbefore Campeggio adjourned his court. Charles's star, once more in theascendant, had cast its baleful influence over Henry's fortunes. Theclose alliance between England and France had led to a jointdeclaration of war on the Emperor in January, 1528, into which theEnglish ambassadors in Spain had been inveigled by their Frenchcolleagues, against Henry's wishes. [631] It was received with a stormof opposition in England, and Wolsey had some difficulty in justifyinghimself to the King. "You may be sure, " wrote Du Bellay, "that he isplaying a terrible game, for I believe he is the only Englishman whowishes a war with Flanders. "[632] If that was his wish, he was doomedto disappointment. Popular hatred of the war was too strong; a projectwas mooted by the clothiers in Kent for seizing the Cardinal andturning him adrift in a boat, with holes bored in it. [633] The (p. 224)clothiers in Wiltshire were reported to be rising; in Norfolkemployers dismissed their workmen. [634] War with Flanders meant ruinto the most prosperous industry in both countries, and the attempt todivert the Flanders trade to Calais had failed. [635] So Henry andCharles were soon discussing peace; no hostilities took place; anagreement, that trade should go on as usual with Flanders, [636] wasfollowed by a truce in June, [637] and the truce by the Peace ofCambrai in the following year. That peace affords the measure ofEngland's decline since 1521. Wolsey was carefully excluded from allshare in the negotiations. England was, indeed, admitted as aparticipator, but only after Louise and Margaret of Savoy hadpractically settled the terms, and after Du Bellay had told Francisthat, if England were not admitted, it would mean Wolsey's immediateruin. [638]

 [Footnote 631: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4564; _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 729. ]

 [Footnote 632: _L. And P. _, iv. , 3930. ]

 [Footnote 633: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4310. ]

 [Footnote 634: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4012, 4040, 4043, 4044, 4239. ]

 [Footnote 635: _Ibid. _, iv. , 3262. ]

 [Footnote 636: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4147. ]

 [Footnote 637: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4376. ]

 [Footnote 638: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5679, 5701, 5702, 5713. ]

By the Treaty of Cambrai Francis abandoned Italy to Charles. Hisaffairs beyond the Alps had been going from bad to worse since thedeath of Lautrec; and the suggested guard of French and Englishsoldiers which was to relieve the Pope from fear of Charles was neverformed. [639] That failure was not the only circumstance which madeClement imperialist. Venice, the ally of England and France, seizedRavenna and Cervia, two papal towns. [640] "The conduct of theVenetians, " wrote John Casale from Rome, "moves the Pope more thananything else, and he would use the assistance of any one, except (p. 225)the Devil, to avenge their injury. "[641] "The King and the Cardinal, "repeated Sanga to Campeggio, "must not expect him to execute hisintentions, until they have used their utmost efforts to compel theVenetians to restore the Pope's territories. "[642] Henry did his best, but he was not sincerely helped by Francis; his efforts proved vain, and Clement thought he could get more effective assistance fromCharles. "Every one is persuaded, " said one of the Emperor's agents inItaly on 10th January, 1529, "that the Pope is now sincerely attachedto his Imperial Majesty. "[643] "I suspect, " wrote Du Bellay fromLondon, in the same month, "that the Pope has commanded Campeggio tomeddle no further, seeing things are taking quite a different turnfrom what he had been assured, and that the Emperor's affairs inNaples are in such a state that Clement dare not displease him. "[644]The Pope had already informed Charles that his aunt's petition for therevocation of the suit would be granted. [645] The Italian League waspractically dissolved. "I have quite made up my mind, " said Clement tothe Archbishop of Capua on 7th June, "to become an Imperialist, and tolive and die as such. .. I am only waiting for the return of mynuncio. "[646]

 [Footnote 639: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5179. ]

 [Footnote 640: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4680-84. ]

 [Footnote 641: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4900. ]

 [Footnote 642: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5447. ]

 [Footnote 643: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 875. ]

 [Footnote 644: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5209. ]

 [Footnote 645: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 890. ]

 [Footnote 646: _Ibid. _, iv. , 72. ]

That nuncio had gone to Barcelona to negotiate an alliance between thePope and the Emperor; and the success of his mission completedClement's conversion. The revocation was only delayed, thoughtCharles's representative at Rome, to secure better terms for thePope. [647] On 21st June, the French commander, St. Pol, was utterlydefeated at Landriano; "not a vestige of the army is left, " (p. 226)reported Casale. [648] A few days later the Treaty of Barcelona betweenClement and Charles was signed. [649] Clement's nephew was to marry theEmperor's natural daughter; the Medici tyranny was to be re-establishedin Florence; Ravenna, Cervia and other towns were to be restored tothe Pope; His Holiness was to crown Charles with the imperial crown, and to absolve from ecclesiastical censures all those who were presentat, or consented to, the sack of Rome. It was, in effect, a familycompact; and part of it was the quashing of the legates' proceedingsagainst the Emperor's aunt, with whom the Pope was now to be allied byfamily ties. "We found out secretly, " write the English envoys atRome, on the 16th of July, "that the Pope signed the revocationyesterday morning, as it would have been dishonourable to have signedit after the publication of the new treaty with the Emperor, whichwill be published here on Sunday. "[650] Clement knew that his motiveswould not bear scrutiny, and he tried to avoid public odium by acharacteristic subterfuge. Catherine could hope for no justice inEngland, Henry could expect no justice at Rome. Political expediencywould dictate a verdict in Henry's favour in England; politicalexpediency would dictate a verdict for Catherine at Rome. Henry'sambassadors were instructed to appeal from Clement to the "true Vicarof Christ, " but where was the true Vicar of Christ to be found on (p. 227)earth?[651] There was no higher tribunal. It was intolerable thatEnglish suits should be decided by the chances and changes of Frenchor Habsburg influence in Italy, by the hopes and the fears of anItalian prince for the safety of his temporal power. The natural andinevitable result was the separation of England from Rome. 

 [Footnote 647: _Ibid. _, iv. , 154. ]

 [Footnote 648: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5705, 5767; _cf. Sp. Cal. _, iv. , 150. ]

 [Footnote 649: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5779; _Sp. Cal. _, iv. , 117, 161. ]

 [Footnote 650: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5780; _Sp. Cal. _, iv. , 156. Another detail was the excommunication of Zapolya, the rival of the Habsburgs in Hungary--a step which Henry VIII. Denounced as "letting the Turk into Hungary" (_L. And P. _, v. , 274). ]

 [Footnote 651: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5650, 5715. ]

CHAPTER IX. (p. 228)

THE CARDINAL'S FALL. [652]

 [Footnote 652: See, besides the documents cited, Busch, _Der Sturz des Cardinals Wolsey_ (Hist. Taschenbuch, VI. , ix. , 39-114). ]

The loss of their spiritual jurisdiction in England was part of theprice paid by the Popes for their temporal possessions in Italy. Thepapal domains were either too great or too small. If the Pope was torely on his temporal power, it should have been extensive enough toprotect him from the dictation and resentment of secular princes; andfrom this point of view there was no little justification for the aimsof Julius II. Had he succeeded in driving the barbarians across theAlps or into the sea, he and his successors might in safety havejudged the world, and the breach with Henry might never have takenplace. If the Pope was to rely on his spiritual weapons, there was noneed of temporal states at all. In their existing extent and position, they were simply the heel of Achilles, the vulnerable spot, throughwhich secular foes might wound the Vicar of Christ. France threatenedhim from the north and Spain from the south; he was ever between theupper and the nether mill-stone. Italy was the cockpit of Europe inthe sixteenth century, and the eyes of the Popes were perpetually benton the worldly fray, seeking to save or extend their dominions. Through the Pope's temporal power, France and Spain exerted their (p. 229)pressure. He could only defend himself by playing off one against theother, and in this game his spiritual powers were his only effectivepieces. More and more the spiritual authority, with which he wasentrusted, was made to serve political ends. Temporal princes werebranded as "sons of iniquity and children of perdition, " not becausetheir beliefs or their morals were worse than other men's, but becausethey stood in the way of the family ambitions of various popes. Theirfrequent use and abuse brought ecclesiastical censures into publiccontempt, and princes soon ceased to be frightened with false fires. James IV. , when excommunicated, said he would appeal to Prester John, and that he would side with any council against the Pope, even if itcontained only three bishops. [653] The Vicar of Christ was lost in thepetty Italian prince. _Corruptio optimi pessima_. The lower draggedthe higher nature down. If the Papal Court was distinguished from thecourts of other Italian sovereigns, it was not by exceptional purity. "In this Court as in others, " wrote Silvester de Giglis from Rome, "nothing can be effected without gifts. "[654] The election of Leo X. Was said to be free from bribery; a cardinal himself was amazed, anddescribed the event as _Phoenix et rara avis_. [655] If poison was nota frequent weapon at Rome, popes and cardinals at least believed it tobe. Alexander VI. Was said to have been poisoned; one cardinal wasaccused of poisoning his fellow-cardinal, Bainbridge; and others werecharged with an attempt on the life of Leo X. [656] In 1517, Pace (p. 230)described the state of affairs at Rome as _plane monstra, omnidedecore et infamia plena; omnis fides, omnis honestas, una cumreligione, a mundo abvolasse videntur_. [657] Ten years later, theEmperor himself declared that the sack of Rome was the just judgmentof God, and one of his ambassadors said that the Pope ought to bedeprived of his temporal states, as they had been at the bottom of allthe dissensions. [658] Clement himself claimed to have been theoriginator of that war which brought upon him so terrible and so justa punishment. 

 [Footnote 653: _L. And P. _, i. , 3838, 3876. ]

 [Footnote 654: _Ibid. _, ii. , 3781; _cf. _, i. , 4283, "all here have regard only to their own honour and profit". ]

 [Footnote 655: _Ibid. _, ii. , 2362. ]

 [Footnote 656: _L. And P. _, ii. , 3277, 3352. ]

 [Footnote 657: _Ibid. _, ii. , 3523. ]

 [Footnote 658: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 209, 210, 309; _cf. _, _L. And P. _, iv. , 3051, 3352. Clement had given away Sicily and Naples to one of Charles's vassals "which dealing may make me not take him as Pope, no, not for all the excommunications that he can make; for I stand under appellation to the next general council". Every one--Charles V. , Henry VIII. , Cranmer--played an appeal to the next general council against the Pope's excommunication. ]

Another result of the merging of the Pope in the Italian prince wasthe practical exclusion of the English and other Northern nations fromthe supreme council of Christendom. There was no apparent reason whyan Englishman should not be the head of the Christian Church just aswell as an Italian; but there was some incongruity in the idea of anEnglishman ruling over Italian States, and no Englishman had attainedthe Papacy for nearly four centuries. The double failure of Wolseymade it clear that the door of the Papacy was sealed to Englishmen, whatever their claims might be. The roll of cardinals tells a similartale; the Roman curia graciously conceded that there should generallybe one English cardinal in the sacred college, but one in a body (p. 231)of forty or fifty was thought as much as England could fairly demand. It is not so very surprising that England repudiated the authority ofa tribunal in which its influence was measured on such a contemptiblescale. The other nations of Europe thought much the same, and it isonly necessary to add up the number of cardinals belonging to eachnationality to arrive at a fairly accurate indication of the peopleswho rejected papal pretensions. The nations most inadequately representedin the college of cardinals broke away from Rome; those which remainedfaithful were the nations which controlled in the present, or mighthope to control in the future, the supreme ecclesiastical power. Spainand France had little temptation to abolish an authority which theythemselves wielded in turn; for if the Pope was a Spaniard to-day, hemight well be a Frenchman to-morrow. There was no absurdity inFrenchmen or Spaniards ruling over the papal States; for France andSpain already held under their sway more Italian territory thanItalian natives themselves. It was the subjection of the Pope toFrench and Spanish domination that prejudiced his claims in Englisheyes. His authority was tolerable so long as the old ideal of theunity of Christendom under a single monarch retained its force, oreven so long as the Pope was Italian pure and simple. But when Italywas either Spanish or French, and the Pope the chaplain of one or theother monarch, the growing spirit of nationality could bear it nolonger; it responded at once to Henry's appeals against the claims ofa foreign jurisdiction. 

It was a mere accident that the breach with Rome grew out of Spanishcontrol of the Pope. The separation was nearly effected more than (p. 232)a century earlier, as a result of the Pope's Babylonish captivity inFrance; and the wonder is, not that the breach took place when it did, but that it was deferred for so long. At the beginning of the fifteenthcentury all the elements were present but one for the ecclesiasticalrevolution which was reserved for Henry VIII. To effect. The Papacyhad been discredited in English eyes by subservience to France, justas it had in 1529 by subservience to Charles. Lollardy was morepowerful in England in the reign of Henry IV. Than heresy was in themiddle of that of Henry VIII. There was as strong a demand for thesecularisation of Church property on the part of the lay peers andgentry; and Wycliffe himself had anticipated the cardinal point of thelater movement by appealing to the State to reform the Church. Butgreat revolutions depend on a number of causes working together, andoften fail for the lack of one. The element lacking in the reign ofHenry IV. Was the King himself. The Lancastrians were orthodox fromconviction and from the necessities of their position; they needed thesupport of the Church to bolster up a weak title to the crown. Thecivil wars followed; and Henry VII. Was too much absorbed in securinghis throne to pursue any quarrels with Rome. But when his son began torule as well as to reign, it was inevitable that not merely questionsof Church property and of the relations with the Papacy should come upfor revision, but also those issues between Church and State which hadremained in abeyance during the fifteenth century. The divorce was thespark which ignited the flame, but the combustible materials had beenlong existent. If the divorce had been all, there would have been noReformation in England. After the death of Anne Boleyn, Henry (p. 233)might have done some trifling penance at his subjects' expense, madethe Pope a present, or waged war on one of Clement's orthodox foes, and that would have been the end. Much had happened since the days ofHildebrand, and Popes were no longer able to exact heroic repentance. The divorce, in fact, was the occasion, and not the cause, of theReformation. 

 * * * * *

That movement, so far as Henry VIII. Was concerned, was not in essencedoctrinal; neither was it primarily a schism between the English andRoman communions. It was rather an episode in the eternal disputebetween Church and State. Throughout the quarrel, Henry and Elizabethmaintained that they were merely reasserting their ancient royalprerogative over the Church, which the Pope of Rome had usurped. English revolutions have always been based on specious conservativepleas, and the only method of inducing Englishmen to change has beenby persuasions that the change is not a change at all, or is a changeto an older and better order. The Parliaments of the seventeenthcentury regarded the Stuart pretensions, as Henry and Elizabeth didthose of the Pope, in the light of usurpations upon their ownimprescriptible rights; and more recently, movements to make theChurch Catholic have been based on the ground that it has never beenanything else. The Tudor contention that the State was always supremeover the Church has been transformed into a theory that the Church wasalways at least semi-independent of Rome. But it is not so clear thatthe Church has always been anti-papal, as that the English laity havealways been anti-clerical. 

The English people were certainly very anti-sacerdotal from the (p. 234)the very beginning of Henry VIII. 's reign. In 1512 James IV. Complainedto Henry that Englishmen seized Scots merchants, ill-treated them, andabused them as "the Pope's men". [659] At the end of the same yearParliament deprived of their benefit of clergy all clerks under therank of sub-deacon who committed murder or felony. [660] This measureat once provoked a cry of "the Church in danger". The Abbot ofWinchcombe preached that the act was contrary to the law of God and tothe liberties of the Church, and that the lords, who consentedthereto, had incurred a liability to spiritual censures. Standish, warden of the Mendicant Friars of London, defended the action ofParliament, while the temporal peers requested the bishops to make theAbbot of Winchcombe recant. [661] They refused, and, at the Convocationof 1515, Standish was summoned before it to explain his conduct. Heappealed to the King; the judges pronounced that all who had takenpart in the proceedings against Standish had incurred the penalties of_præmunire_. They also declared that the King could hold a Parliamentwithout the spiritual lords, who only sat in virtue of theirtemporalties. This opinion seems to have nothing to do with (p. 235)the dispute, but it is remarkable that, in one list of the peersattending the Parliament of 1515, there is not a single abbot. [662]

 [Footnote 659: _L. And P. _, i. , 3320. In 1516 one Humphrey Bonner preached a sermon ridiculing the Holy See (_ibid. _, ii. , 2692). ]

 [Footnote 660: In this, as in many other reforms, the English Parliament only anticipated the action of the Church; for on 12th February, 1516, Leo X. Issued a bull prohibiting any one from being admitted, for the next five years, into minor orders unless he were simultaneously promoted to be sub-deacon; as many persons, to avoid appearing before the civil courts and to enjoy immunity, received the tonsure and minor orders without proceeding to the superior (_L. And P. _, ii. , 1532). ]

 [Footnote 661: _L. And P. _, ii. , 1313. Brewer impugns the authority of Keilway's report of this incident on the ground that he lived in Elizabeth's reign; that is true, but according to the _D. N. B. _ he was born in 1497, which makes him a strictly contemporary authority. ]

 [Footnote 662: _L. And P. _, ii. , 1131. ]

With regard to the Abbot of Winchcombe and Friar Standish, theprelates claimed the same liberty of speech for Convocation as wasenjoyed by Parliament; so that they could, without offence, havemaintained certain acts of Parliament to be against the laws of theChurch. [663] Wolsey interceded on their behalf, and begged that thematter might be left to the Pope's decision, while Henry contentedhimself with a declaration that he would maintain intact his royaljurisdiction. This was not all that passed during that session ofParliament and Convocation. At the end of his summary of theproceedings, Dr. John Taylor, who was both clerk of Parliament andprolocutor of Convocation, remarks: "In this Parliament andConvocation the most dangerous quarrels broke out between the clergyand the secular power, respecting the Church's liberties";[664] andthere exists a remarkable petition presented to this Parliamentagainst clerical exactions; it complained that the clergy refusedburial until after the gift of the deceased's best jewel, best garmentor the like, and demanded that every curate should administer thesacrament when required to do so. [665] It was no wonder that Wolseyadvised "the more speedy dissolution" of this Parliament, [666] andthat, except in 1523, when financial straits compelled him, he did notcall another while he remained in power. His fall was the sign (p. 236)for the revival of Parliament, and it immediately took up the workwhere it was left in 1515. 

 [Footnote 663: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1314. ]

 [Footnote 664: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1312. ]

 [Footnote 665: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1315; _cf. _ another petition to the same effect from the inhabitants of London (_ibid. _, i. , 5725 (i. )). ]

 [Footnote 666: _Ibid. _, ii. , 1223. ]

These significant proceedings did not stand alone. In 1515 the Bishopof London's chancellor was indicted for the murder of a citizen whohad been found dead in the Bishop's prison. [667] The Bishop intercededwith Wolsey to prevent the trial; any London jury would, he said, convict any clerk, "be he innocent as Abel; they be so maliciously set_in favorem hæreticæ pravitatis_". [668] The heresy was no matter ofbelief, but hatred of clerical immunities. The _Epistolæ ObscurorumVirorum_, wrote More to Erasmus in 1516, was "popular everywhere";[669]and no more bitter a satire had yet been penned on the clergy. In thismatter Henry and his lay subjects were at one. Standish, whom Taylordescribes as the promoter and instigator of all these evils, was afavourite preacher at Henry's Court. The King, said Pace, had "oftenpraised his doctrine". [670] But what was it? It was no advocacy ofHenry's loved "new learning, " for Standish denounced the GreekTestament of Erasmus, and is held up to ridicule by the great Dutchhumanist;[671] Standish, too, was afterwards a stout defender of thePope's dispensing power, and followed Fisher in his protest againstthe divorce before the legatine Court. The doctrine, which pleased theKing so much, was Standish's denial of clerical immunity from Statecontrol, and his assertion of royal prerogatives over the Church. (p. 237)In 1518 the Bishopric of St. Asaph's fell vacant. Wolsey, who was thenat the height of his power, recommended Bolton, [672] prior of St. Bartholomew's, a learned man; but Henry was resolved to reward hisfavourite divine, and Standish obtained the see. Pace, a good churchman, expressed himself to Wolsey as "mortified" at the result, but said itwas inevitable, as besides the King's good graces, Standish enjoyed"the favour of all the courtiers for the singular assistance he hasrendered towards subverting the Church of England". [673]

 [Footnote 667: See Dr. Gairdner, _History of English Church in Sixteenth Century_, ch. Iii. , where the story of Richard Hunne is critically examined in detail. Its importance consists, however, not in the question whether Hunne was or was not murdered by the Bishop's chancellor Horsey, but in the popular hostility to the clergy revealed by the incident. ]

 [Footnote 668: _L. And P. _, ii. , 2. ]

 [Footnote 669: _Ibid. _, ii. , 2492. ]

 [Footnote 670: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4074. ]

 [Footnote 671: _Ibid. _, iii. , 929. ]

 [Footnote 672: _L. And P. _, ii. , 4082. ]

 [Footnote 673: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4074. ]

Eleven more years were to roll before the Church was subverted. Theywere years of Wolsey's supremacy; he alone stood between the Churchand its subjection. It was owing, wrote Campeggio, in 1528, to Wolsey'svigilance and solicitude that the Holy See retained its rank anddignity. [674] His ruin would drag down the Church, and the fact wasknown to Anne Boleyn and her faction, to Campeggio and Clement VII. , as well as to Henry VIII. [675] "These Lords intend, " wrote Du Bellay, on the eve of Wolsey's fall, "after he is dead or ruined, to impeachthe State of the Church, and take all its goods; which it is hardlyneedful for me to write in cipher, for they proclaim it openly. Iexpect they will do fine miracles. "[676] A few days later he says, "Iexpect the priests will never have the great seal again; and that inthis Parliament they will have terrible alarms. I think Dr. Stephen(Gardiner) will have a good deal to do with the management of affairs, _especially if he will abandon his order_. "[677] At Easter, 1529, Lutheran books were circulating in Henry's Court, advocating the (p. 238)confiscation of ecclesiastical property and the restoration of hisChurch to its primitive simplicity. Campeggio warned the King against themand maintained that it had been determined by councils and theologiansthat the Church justly held her temporalties. Henry retorted thataccording to the Lutherans "those decisions were arrived at byecclesiastics and now it was necessary for the laity to interpose". [678]In his last interview with Henry, Campeggio "alluded to this Parliament, which is about to be holden, and I earnestly pressed upon him theliberty of the Church. He certainly seemed to me very well disposed toexert his power to the utmost. "[679] "Down with the Church" was goingto be the Parliament cry. Whether Henry would really "exert his power"to maintain her liberties remained to be seen, but there never was aflimsier theory than that the divorce of Catherine was the sole causeof the break with Rome. The centrifugal forces were quite independentof the divorce; its historical importance lies in the fact that italienated from Rome the only power in England which might have keptthem in check. So long as Wolsey and the clerical statesmen, with whomhe surrounded the King, remained supreme, the Church was comparativelysafe. But Wolsey depended entirely on Henry's support; when that waswithdrawn, Church and Cardinal fell together. 

 [Footnote 674: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4898. ]

 [Footnote 675: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5210, 5255, 5581, 5582. ]

 [Footnote 676: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6011. ]

 [Footnote 677: _Ibid. _, 6019. ]

 [Footnote 678: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5416. ]

 [Footnote 679: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5995. Henry VIII. No doubt also had his eye on Gustavus in Sweden where the Vesteräs Recess of 1527 had provided that all episcopal, capitular and monastic property which was not absolutely required should be handed over to the King, and conferred upon him an ecclesiastical jurisdiction as extensive as that afterwards conferred upon Henry VIII. (_Cambridge Modern Hist. _, ii. , 626). ]

Wolsey's ruin was, however, due to more causes than his failure (p. 239)to get a divorce for the King. It was at bottom the result of thenatural development of Henry's character. Egotism was from the firsthis most prominent trait; it was inevitably fostered by theextravagant adulation paid to Tudor sovereigns, and was furtherencouraged by his realisation, first of his own mental powers, andthen of the extent to which he could force his will upon others. Hecould never brook a rival in whatever sphere he wished to excel. Inthe days of his youth he was absorbed in physical sports, in gorgeouspageantry and ceremonial; he was content with such exhibitions asprancing before the ladies between every course in a tourney, oracting as pilot on board ship, blowing a whistle as loud as a trumpet, and arrayed in trousers of cloth of gold. Gradually, as time wore on, the athletic mania wore off, and pursuits, such as architecture, tookthe place of physical sports. A generation later, a writer describesHenry as "the only Phoenix of his time for fine and curious masonry". [680]From his own original designs York House was transformed intoWhitehall Palace, Nonsuch Palace was built, and extensive alterationswere made at Greenwich and Hampton Court. 

 [Footnote 680: Harrison, _Description of England_, in Holinshed, ed. 1577, bk. Ii. , chap. Ix. ]

But architecture was only a trifle; Henry's uncontrollable activityalso broke out in political spheres, and the eruption was fatal toWolsey's predominance. The King was still in the full vigour ofmanhood; he had not reached his fortieth year, and his physical graceswere the marvel of those who saw him for the first time. Falier, thenew Venetian ambassador, who arrived in England in 1529, is as (p. 240)rapturous over the King's personal attractions as Giustinian orPasqualigo had been. "In this Eighth Henry, " he writes, "God hascombined such corporeal and intellectual beauty as not merely tosurprise but astound all men. .. . His face is angelic (nine yearsbefore a Frenchman had called it "feminine"), rather than handsome;his head imperial and bold; and he wears a beard, contrary to theEnglish custom. Who would not be amazed, when contemplating suchsingular beauty of person, coupled with such bold address, adaptingitself with the greatest ease to every manly exercise?"[681] ButHenry's physique was no longer proof against every ailment; frequentmention is made about this time of headaches[682] which incapacitatedhim from business, and it was not long before there appeared on hisleg the fistula which racked him with pain till the end of his life, and eventually caused his death. 

 [Footnote 681: _Ven. Cal. _, iv. , 184, 185, 293. ]

 [Footnote 682: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4546. Henry had had small-pox in February, 1514 (_ibid. _, i. , 4831), without any serious consequences, but apart from that he had had no great illness. ]

The divorce and the insuperable obstacles, which he discovered inattaining the end he thought easy at first, did more to harden Henry'stemper than any bodily ills. He became a really serious man, anddeveloped that extraordinary power of self-control which stood him ingood stead in his later years. Naturally a man of violent passions, hecould never have steered clear of the dangers that beset him withoutunusual capacity for curbing his temper, concealing his intentions, and keeping his own counsel. Ministers might flatter themselves thatthey could read his mind and calculate his actions, but it is quitecertain that henceforth no minister read so clearly his master's (p. 241)mind as the master did his minister's. "Three may keep counsel, " saidthe King in 1530, [683] "if two be away; and if I thought that my capknew my counsel, I would cast it into the fire and burn it. " "Never, "comments a modern writer, [684] "had the King spoken a truer word, ordescribed himself more accurately. Few would have thought that, underso careless and splendid an exterior--the very ideal of bluff, open-hearted good-humour and frankness--there lay a watchful andsecret eye, that marked what was going on, without appearing to markit; kept its own counsel until it was time to strike, and then struck, as suddenly and remorselessly as a beast of prey. It was strange towitness so much subtlety, combined with so much strength. "

 [Footnote 683: Cavendish, _Life of Wolsey_, p. 397. ]

 [Footnote 684: Brewer, Introd. To _L. And P. _, iv. , p. Dcxxi. ]

In spite of his remorseless blows and arbitrary temper, Henry was tooshrewd and too great a man to despise the counsel of others, or thinkany worse of an adviser because his advice differed from his own. Heloved to meet argument with argument, even when he might command. Tothe end of his days he valued a councillor who would honestly maintainthe opposite of what the King desired. These councillors to whom hegave his confidence were never minions or servile flatterers. Henryhad his Court favourites with whom he hunted and shot and diced; withwhom he played--always for money--tennis, primero and bowls, and themore mysterious games of Pope July, Imperial and Shovelboard;[685] andto whom he threw many an acre of choice monastic land. But they neverinfluenced his policy. No man was ever advanced to political (p. 242)power in Henry's reign, merely because he pandered to the King'svanity or to his vices. No one was a better judge of conduct in thecase of others, or a sterner champion of moral probity, when it didnot conflict with his own desires or conscience. In 1528 Anne Boleynand her friends were anxious to make a relative abbess of Wilton. [686]But she had been notoriously unchaste. "Wherefore, " wrote Henry toAnne herself, "I would not, for all the gold in the world, cloak yourconscience nor mine to make her ruler of a house which is of soungodly demeanour; nor I trust you would not that neither for brothernor sister I should so distain mine honour or conscience. " Heobjected, on similar grounds, to the prioress whom Wolsey wished tonominate; the Cardinal neglected Henry's wishes, and thereby calleddown upon himself a rebuke remarkable for dignity and delicacy. "Thegreat affection and love I bear you, " wrote the King, "causeth me, using the doctrine of my Master, saying _Quem diligo, castigo_, thusplainly, as ensueth, to break to you my mind. .. . Methink it is not theright train of a trusty loving friend and servant, when the matter isput by the master's consent into his arbitre and judgment (speciallyin a matter wherein his master hath both royalty and interest), toelect and choose a person which was by him defended (forbidden). Andyet another thing, which much displeaseth me more, --that is, to cloakyour offence made by ignorance of my pleasure, saying that youexpressly knew not my determinate mind in that behalf. " Then, aftershowing how empty were Wolsey's excuses, he continues: "Ah! my Lord, it is a double offence, both to do ill and colour it too; but with (p. 243)men that have wit it cannot be accepted so. Wherefore, good my Lord, use no more that way with me, for there is no man living that morehateth it. " He then proceeds to warn the Cardinal against sinisterreports with regard to his methods of raising money for his college atOxford. "They say the college is a cloak for all mischief. I perceiveby your letter that you have received money of the exempts for havingtheir old visitors. If your legacy (legatine authority) is a cloak_apud homines_, it is not _apud Deum_. I doubt not, therefore, youwill desist. " Wolsey had used his legatine authority to extort moneyfrom monasteries as the price of their immunity from his visitatorialpowers. The monasteries, too, had strenuously opposed the lateAmicable Loan to the King; by Wolsey's means they had been releasedfrom that obligation; and Henry strongly suspected that they hadpurchased their exemption from relieving his necessities by lavishcontributions to the Cardinal's colleges. "I pray you, my Lord, " heconcludes, "think not that it is upon any displeasure that I writethis unto you. For surely it is for my discharge afore God, being inthe room that I am in; and secondly for the great zeal I bear untoyou. " Henry possessed in the highest degree not a few of the best ofkingly attributes. His words are not the words of a hypocrite withoutconscience, devoid of the fear of God and man. For all the strange andviolent things that he did, he obtained the sanction of hisconscience, but his imperious egotism made conscience his humbleslave, and blinded to his own sins a judgment so keen to detect andchastise the failings of others. 

 [Footnote 685: See various entries in Privy Purse Expenses, _L. And P. _, v. , 747-62. ]

 [Footnote 686: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4477, 4488, 4507, 4509. ]

These incidents, of more than a year before the Cardinal's fall, (p. 244)illustrate the change in the respective positions of monarch andminister. There was no doubt now which was the master; there was noking but one. Henry was already taking, as Du Bellay said, "themanagement of everything". [687] Wolsey himself knew that he had lostthe King's confidence. He began to talk of retirement. He told DuBellay, in or before August, 1528, that when he had established a firmamity between France and England, extinguished the hatred between thetwo nations, reformed the laws and customs of England, and settled thesuccession, he would retire and serve God to the end of his days. [688]The Frenchman thought this was merely to represent as voluntary a lossof power which he saw would soon be inevitable; but the conversationis a striking illustration of the difference between Henry and Wolsey, and helps to explain why Wolsey accomplished so little that lasted, while Henry accomplished so much. The Cardinal seems to have beenentirely devoid of that keen perception of the distinction betweenwhat was, and what was not, practicable, which was Henry's savingcharacteristic. In the evening of his days, after sixteen years ofalmost unlimited power, he was speaking of plans, which might havetaxed the energies of a life-time, as preliminaries to a speedywithdrawal from the cares of State. He had enjoyed an unequalledopportunity of effecting these reforms, but what were the results ofhis administration? The real greatness and splendour of Henry's reignare said to have departed with Wolsey's fall. [689] The gilt and thetinsel were indeed stripped off, but the permanent results of (p. 245)Henry's reign were due to its later course. Had he died when Wolseyfell, what would have been his place in history? A brilliant figure, no doubt, who might have been thought capable of much, had he notfailed to achieve anything. He had made wars from which Englandderived no visible profit; not an acre of territory had been acquired;the wealth, amassed by Henry VII. , had been squandered, and HenryVIII. , in 1529, was reduced to searching for gold mines inEngland. [690] The loss of his subjects' blood and treasure had beenfollowed by the loss of their affections. The exuberant loyalty of1509 had been turned into the wintry discontent of 1527. England hadbeen raised to a high place in the councils of Europe by 1521, but herfall was quite as rapid, and in 1525 she counted for less than she haddone in 1513. At home the results were equally barren; the Englishhold on Ireland was said, in 1528, to be weaker than it had been sincethe conquest;[691] and the English statute-book between 1509 and 1529may be searched in vain for an act of importance, while thestatute-book between 1529 and 1547 contains a list of acts which havenever been equalled for their supreme importance in the subsequenthistory of England. 

 [Footnote 687: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5983; _cf. _ iv. , 3992, where Henry has an interview (March, 1528) with a Scots ambassador and tells no one about it. ]

 [Footnote 688: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4649. ]

 [Footnote 689: Brewer, _Ibid. _, iv. , Introd. , p. Dcxxii. ]

 [Footnote 690: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5209. One Hochstetter was imported from Germany in connection with "the gold mines that the King was seeking for" (Du Bellay to Montmorenci, 25th January, 1529). ]

 [Footnote 691: _Ibid. _, iv. , 4933. ]

Wolsey's policy was, indeed, a brilliant fiasco; with a pre-eminentgenius for diplomacy, he thought he could make England, by diplomacyalone, arbiter of Europe. Its position in 1521 was artificial; it hadnot the means to support a grandeur which was only built on the wealthleft by Henry VII. And on Wolsey's skill. England owed her advance (p. 246)in repute to the fact that Wolsey made her the paymaster of Europe. "The reputation of England for wealth, " said an English diplomatist in1522, "is a great cause of the esteem in which it is held. "[692] But, by 1523, that wealth had failed; Parliament refused to levy moretaxes, and Wolsey's pretensions collapsed like a pack of cards. Heplayed no part in the peace of Cambrai, which settled for the time theconditions of Europe. When rumours of the clandestine negotiationsbetween France and Spain reached England, Wolsey staked his head tothe King that they were pure invention. [693] He could not believe thatpeace was possible, unless it were made by him. But the rumours weretrue, and Henry exacted the penalty. The positive results of theCardinal's policy were nil; the chief negative result was that he hadstaved off for many years the ruin of the Church, but he only did itby plunging England in the maëlstrom of foreign intrigue and of futilewars. 

 [Footnote 692: _L. And P. _, iii. , 1978. ]

 [Footnote 693: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5231. ]

The end was not long delayed. "I see clearly, " writes Du Bellay on 4thOctober, 1529, "that by this Parliament Wolsey will completely losehis influence; I see no chance to the contrary. "[694] Henry anticipatedthe temper of Parliament. A bill of indictment was preferred againsthim in the Court of King's Bench, and on the 22nd of October heacknowledged his liability to the penalties of _præmunire_. [695] TheGreat Seal was taken from him by the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk. InNovember the House of Lords passed a bill of attainder against him, but the Commons were persuaded by Cromwell, acting with Henry's (p. 247)connivance, to throw it out. "The King, " wrote Chapuys, "is thought tobear the Cardinal no ill-will;" and Campeggio thought that he would"not go to extremes, but act considerately in this matter, as he isaccustomed to do in all his actions. "[696] Wolsey was allowed toretain the Archbishopric of York, a sum in money and goods equivalentto at least £70, 000, and a pension of 1, 000 marks from the See ofWinchester. [697] In the following spring he set out to spend his lastdays in his northern see; six months he devoted to his archiepiscopalduties, confirming thousands of children, arranging disputes amongneighbours, and winning such hold on the hearts of the people as hehad never known in the days of his pride. Crowds in London had flockedto gloat over the sight of the broken man; now crowds in Yorkshirecame to implore his blessing. 

 [Footnote 694: _Ibid. _, iv. , 5983. ]

 [Footnote 695: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6017. ]

 [Footnote 696: _L. And P. _, iv. , 6199, 6050; _cf. _ iv. , 6295, where Henry orders Dacre to treat Wolsey as became his rank; _Ven. Cal. _, 1529, p. 237. ]

 [Footnote 697: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6220. ]

He prepared for his installation at York on 7th November, 1530; on the4th he was arrested for treason. His Italian physician, Agostini, hadbetrayed him; he was accused of having asked Francis I. To intercedewith Henry on his behalf, which was true;[698] and he seems also tohave sought the mediation of Charles V. But Agostini further declaredthat Wolsey had written to Clement, urging him to excommunicate Henryand raise an insurrection, by which the Cardinal might recover hispower. [699] By Pontefract, Doncaster, Nottingham, with feeble (p. 248)steps and slow, the once-proud prelate, broken in spirit and shatteredin health, returned to meet his doom. His gaol was to be the cell inthe Tower, which had served for the Duke of Buckingham. [700] But akindlier fate than a traitor's death was in store. "I am come, " hesaid to the monks of Leicester Abbey, "I am come to leave my bonesamong you. " He died there at eight o'clock on St. Andrew's morning, and there, on the following day, he was simply and quietly buried. "If, " he exclaimed in his last hour, "I had served God as diligentlyas I have done the King, He would not have given me over in my greyhairs. " That cry, wrung from Wolsey, echoed throughout the Tudortimes. [701] Men paid _le nouveau Messie_ a devotion they owed to theold; they rendered unto Cæsar the things that were God's. They reapedtheir reward in riches and pomp and power, but they won no peace ofmind. The favour of princes is fickle, and "the wrath of the King isdeath". So thought Wolsey and Warham and Norfolk. "Is that all?" saidMore, with prophetic soul, to Norfolk; "then in good faith betweenyour grace and me is but this, that I shall die to-day and you shalldie to-morrow. "[702]

 [Footnote 698: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6018, 6199, 6273, 6738. ]

 [Footnote 699: De Vaux writes on 8th November, 1530, to Montmorenci, that the King had told him "where and how" Wolsey had intrigued against him, but he does not repeat the information (_ibid. _, iv. , 6720), though Bryan's remark (_ibid. _, iv. , 6733) that "De Vaux has done well in disclosing the misdemeanour of the Cardinal" suggests that De Vaux knew more than he says. ]

 [Footnote 700: So Chapuys reports (iv. , 6738); that Wolsey had used Agostini to sound Chapuys is obvious from the latter's remark, "were the physician to say all that passed between us, he could not do anything to impugn me". ]

 [Footnote 701: _Cf. _ Buckingham's remark in _L. And P. _, iii. , 1356: "An he had not offended no more unto God than he had done to the Crown, he should die as true a man as ever was in the world". ]

 [Footnote 702: _D. N. B. _, xxxviii. , 437. ]

CHAPTER X. (p. 249)

THE KING AND HIS PARLIAMENT. 

In the closing days of July, 1529, a courier came posting from Romewith despatches announcing the alliance of Clement and Charles, andthe revocation to the Papal Court of the suit between Henry VIII. Andthe Emperor's aunt. Henry replied with no idle threats or emptyreproaches, but his retort was none the less effective. On the 9th ofAugust[703] writs were issued from Chancery summoning that Parliamentwhich met on the 3rd of November and did not separate till the lastlink in the chain which bound England to Rome was sundered, and thecountry was fairly launched on that sixty years' struggle which thedefeat of the Spanish Armada concluded. [704] The step might well seema desperate hazard. The last Parliament had broken up in (p. 250)discontent; it had been followed by open revolt in various shires;while from others there had since then come demands for the repaymentof the loan, which Henry was in no position to grant. Francis andCharles, on whose mutual enmity England's safety largely depended, hadmade their peace at Cambrai; and the Emperor was free to fomentdisaffection in Ireland and to instigate Scotland to war. His chancellorwas boasting that the imperialists could, if they would, drive Henryfrom his kingdom within three months, [705] and he based his hopes onrevolt among Henry's own subjects. The divorce had been from thebeginning, and remained to the end, a stumbling-block to the people. Catherine received ovations wherever she went, while the utmostefforts of the King could scarcely protect Anne Boleyn from popularinsult. The people were moved, not only by a creditable feeling thatHenry's first wife was an injured woman, but by the fear lest a breachwith Charles should destroy their trade in wool, on which, said theimperial ambassador, half the realm depended for sustenance. [706]

 [Footnote 703: Rymer, _Foedera_, xiv. , 302. ]

 [Footnote 704: It has been alleged that the immediate object of this Parliament was to relieve the King from the necessity of repaying the loan (_D. N. B. _, xxvi. , 83); and much scorn has been poured on the notion that it had any important purpose (_L. And P. _, iv. , Introd. , p. Dcxlvii. ). Brewer even denies its hostility to the Church on the ground that it was composed largely of lawyers, and "lawyers are not in general enemies to things established; they are not inimical to the clergy". Yet the law element was certainly stronger in the Parliaments of Charles I. Than in that of 1529; were they not hostile to "things established" and "inimical to the clergy"? Contemporaries had a different opinion of the purpose of the Parliament of 1529. "It is intended, " wrote Du Bellay on the 23rd of August, three months before Parliament met, "to hold a Parliament here this winter and act by their own absolute power, in default of justice being administered by the Pope in this divorce" (_ibid. _, iv. , 5862; _cf. _ iv. , 6011, 6019, 6307); "nothing else, " wrote a Florentine in December, 1530, "is thought of in that island every day except of arranging affairs in such a way that they do no longer be in want of the Pope, neither for filling vacancies in the Church, nor for any other purpose" (_ibid. _, iv. , 6774). ]

 [Footnote 705: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4909, 4911; _cf. _ 5177, 5501. ]

 [Footnote 706: _Ibid. _, vi. , 1528. ]

To summon a Parliament at such a conjuncture seemed to be courtingcertain ruin. In reality, it was the first and most striking instanceof the audacity and insight which were to enable Henry to guide thewhirlwind and direct the storm of the last eighteen years of his (p. 251)reign. Clement had put in his hands the weapon with which he securedhis divorce and broke the bonds of Rome. "If, " wrote Wolsey a day ortwo before the news of the revocation arrived, "the King be cited toappear at Rome in person or by proxy, and his prerogative be interferedwith, none of his subjects will tolerate it. If he appears in Italy, it will be at the head of a formidable army. "[707] A sympathiser withCatherine expressed his resentment at his King being summoned to pleadas a party in his own realm before the legatine Court;[708] and it haseven been suggested that those proceedings were designed to irritatepopular feeling against the Roman jurisdiction. Far more offensive wasit to national prejudice, that England's king should be cited toappear before a court in a distant land, dominated by the arms of aforeign prince. Nothing did more to alienate men's minds from thePapacy. Henry would never have been able to obtain his divorce on itsmerits as they appeared to his people. But now the divorce becameclosely interwoven with another and a wider question, the papaljurisdiction in England; and on that question Henry carried with himthe good wishes of the vast bulk of the laity. There were few Englishmenwho would not resent the petition presented to the Pope in 1529 byCharles V. And Ferdinand that the English Parliament should be forbiddento discuss the question of divorce. [709] By summoning Parliament, Henry opened the floodgates of anti-papal and anti-sacerdotal feelingswhich Wolsey had long kept shut; and the unpopular divorce became (p. 252)merely a cross-current in the main stream which flowed in Henry's favour. 

 [Footnote 707: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5797. ]

 [Footnote 708: Cavendish, p. 210; _L. And P. _, iv. , Introd. , p. Dv. ]

 [Footnote 709: _Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 979. ]

It was thus with some confidence that Henry appealed from the Pope tohis people. He could do so all the more surely, if, as is alleged, there was no freedom of election, and if the House of Commons waspacked with royal nominees. [710] But these assertions may be dismissedas gross exaggerations. The election of county members was marked byunmistakable signs of genuine popular liberty. There was often a riot, and sometimes a secret canvass among freeholders to promote or defeata particular candidate. [711] In 1547 the council ventured to recommenda minister to the freeholders of Kent. The electors objected; thecouncil reprimanded the sheriff for representing its recommendation asa command; it protested that it never dreamt of depriving the shire ofits "liberty of election, " but "would take it thankfully" if theelectors would give their voices to the ministerial candidate. Theelectors were not to be soothed by soft words, and that Governmentcandidate had to find another seat. [712] In the boroughs there wasevery variety of franchise. In some it was almost democratic; inothers elections were in the hands of one or two voters. In the cityof London the election for the Parliament of 1529 was held on (p. 253)5th October, _immensa communitate tunc presente_, in the Guildhall;there is no hint of royal interference, the election being conductedin the customary way, namely, two candidates were nominated by themayor and aldermen, and two by the citizens. [713] The general tendencyhad for more than a century, however, been towards close corporationsin whose hands the parliamentary franchise was generally vested, andconsequently towards restricting the basis of popular representation. The narrower that basis became, the greater the facilities it affordedfor external influence. In many boroughs elections were largelydetermined by recommendations from neighbouring magnates, territorialor official. [714] At Gatton the lords of the manor nominated themembers for Parliament, and the formal election was merely a matter ofdrawing up an indenture between Sir Roger Copley and the sheriff, [715]and the Bishop of Winchester was wont to select representatives formore than one borough within the bounds of his diocese. [716] The Dukeof Norfolk claimed to be able to return ten members in Sussex andSurrey alone. [717]

 [Footnote 710: "The choice of the electors, " says Brewer (_L. And P. _, iv. , Introd. , p. Dcxlv. ), "was still determined by the King or his powerful ministers with as much certainty and assurance as that of the sheriffs. "]

 [Footnote 711: _L. And P. _, i. , 792, vii. , 1178, where mention is made of "secret labour" among the freeholders of Warwickshire for the bye-election on Sir E. Ferrers' death in 1534; and x. , 1063, where there is described a hotly contested election between the candidate of the gentry of Shropshire and the candidate of the townsfolk of Shrewsbury. ]

 [Footnote 712: _Acts of the Privy Council_, 1547-50, pp. 516, 518, 519; _England under Protector Somerset_, pp. 71, 72. ]

 [Footnote 713: _Narratives of the Reformation_, Camden Soc. , pp. 295, 296. ]

 [Footnote 714: _Cf. _ Duchess of Norfolk's letter to John Paston, 8th June, 1455 (_Paston Letters_, ed. 1900, i. , 337), and in 1586 Sir Henry Bagnal asked the Earl of Rutland if he had a seat to spare in Parliament as Bagnal was anxious "for his learning's sake to be made a Parliament man" (_D. N. B. _, Suppl. , i. , 96). ]

 [Footnote 715: _L. And P. _, xiv. , 645; _cf. _ Hallam, 1884, iii. , 44-45. ]

 [Footnote 716: Foxe, ed. Townsend, vi. , 54. There are some illustrations and general remarks on Henry's relations with Parliament in Porritt's _Unreformed House of Commons_, 2 vols. , 1903. ]

 [Footnote 717: At Reigate, says the Duke, "I doubt whether any burgesses be there or not" (_L. And P. _, x. , 816); and apparently there were none at Gatton. ]

But these nominations were not royal, and there is no reason (p. 254)to suppose that the nominees were any more likely to be subservient tothe Crown than freely elected members unless the local magnate happenedto be a royal minister. Their views depended on those of their patrons, who might be opposed to the Court; and, in 1539, Cromwell's agentswere considering the advisability of setting up Crown candidatesagainst those of Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester. [718] The curiousletter to Cromwell in 1529, [719] upon which is based the theory thatthe House of Commons consisted of royal nominees, is singularlyinconclusive. Cromwell sought Henry's permission to serve inParliament for two reasons; firstly, he was still a servant of theobnoxious and fallen Cardinal; secondly, he was seeking to transferhimself to Henry's service, and thought he might be useful to the Kingin the House of Commons. If Henry accepted his offer, Cromwell was tobe nominated for Oxford; if he were not elected there, he was to beput up for one of the boroughs in the diocese of Winchester, thenvacant through Wolsey's resignation. Even with the King's assent, hiselection at Oxford was not regarded as certain; and, as a matter offact, Cromwell sat neither for Oxford, nor for any constituency (p. 255)in the diocese of Winchester, but for the borough of Taunton. [720]Crown influence could only make itself effectively felt in the limitednumber of royal boroughs; and the attempts to increase that influenceby the creation of constituencies susceptible to royal influence wereall subsequent in date to 1529. The returns of members of Parliamentare not extant from 1477 to 1529, but a comparison of the respectivenumber of constituencies in those two years reveals only six in 1529which had not sent members to a previous Parliament; and almost if notall of these six owed their representation to their increasingpopulation and importance, and not to any desire to pack the House ofCommons. Indeed, as a method of enforcing the royal will uponParliament, the creation of half a dozen boroughs was both futile andunnecessary. So small a number of votes was useless, except in thecase of a close division of well-drilled parties, of which there is notrace in the Parliaments of Henry VIII. [721] The House of Commonsacted as a whole, and not in two sections. "The sense of the House"was more apparent in its decisions then than it is to-day. Actualdivisions were rare; either a proposal commended itself to the House, or it did not; and in both cases the question was usually determinedwithout a vote. 

 [Footnote 718: This seems to have been the object of Southampton's tour through the constituencies of Surrey and Hampshire in March, 1539; with one of Gardiner's pocket-boroughs he did not meddle, because the lord chamberlain was the Bishop's steward there (_L. And P. _, xiv. , i. , 520). There were some royal nominees in the House of Commons. In 1523 the members for Cumberland were nominated by the Crown (_ibid. _, iii. , 2931); at Calais the lord-deputy and council elected one of the two burgesses and the mayor and burgesses the other (_ibid. _, x. , 736). Calais and the Scottish Borders were of course exceptionally under Crown influence, but this curious practice may have been observed in some other cities and boroughs; in 1534, for instance, the King was to nominate to one of the two vacancies at Worcester (_ibid. _, vii. , 56). ]

 [Footnote 719: _Ibid. _, iv. , App. 238. ]

 [Footnote 720: _Official Return of Members of Parliament_, i. , 370. ]

 [Footnote 721: Occasionally there were divisions, _e. G. _, in 1523 when the court party voted a subsidy of 2_s. _ in the pound; but this was only half the sum demanded by Wolsey (Hall, pp. 656, 657, Ellis, _Orig. Letters_, I. , i. , 220, 221). ]

The creation of boroughs was also unnecessary. Parliaments packedthemselves quite well enough to suit Henry's purpose, without (p. 256)any interference on his part. The limiting of the county franchise toforty-shilling (_i. E. _, thirty pounds in modern currency) freeholders, and the dying away of democratic feeling in the towns, leftparliamentary representation mainly in the hands of the landed gentryand of the prosperous commercial classes; and from them the Tudorsderived their most effective support. There was discontent inabundance during Tudor times, but it was social and economic, and notas a rule political. It was directed against the enclosers of commonlands; against the agricultural capitalists, who bought up farms, evicted the tenants, and converted their holdings to pasture; againstthe large traders in towns who monopolised commerce at the expense oftheir poorer competitors. It was concerned, not with the one tyrant onthe throne, but with the thousand petty tyrants of the villages andtowns, against whom the poorer commons looked to their King forprotection. Of this discontent Parliament could not be the focus, formembers of Parliament were themselves the offenders. "It is hard, "wrote a contemporary radical, "to have these ills redressed byParliament, because it pricketh them chiefly which be chosen to beburgesses. .. . Would to God they would leave their old accustomedchoosing of burgesses! For whom do they choose but such as be rich orbear some office in the country, many times such as be boasters andbraggers? Such have they ever hitherto chosen; be he never so very afool, drunkard, extortioner, adulterer, never so covetous and crafty aperson, yet, if he be rich, bear any office, if he be a jolly crackerand bragger in the country, he must be a burgess of Parliament. Alas, how can any such study, or give any godly counsel for the (p. 257)commonwealth?"[722] This passage gives no support to the theory thatmembers of Parliament were nothing but royal nominees. If theconstituencies themselves were bent on electing "such as bare officein the country, " there was no call for the King's intervention; andthe rich merchants and others, of whom complaint is made, were almostas much to the royal taste as were the officials themselves. 

 [Footnote 722: Brinkelow, _Complaynt of Roderik Mors_ (Early English Text Society), pp. 12, 13; for other evidence of the attitude of Parliament towards social grievances, see John Hales's letter to Somerset in _Lansdowne MS. _, 238; Crowley's _Works_ (Early English Text Society), _passim_; Latimer, _Sermons_, p. 247. ]

For the time being, in fact, the interests of the King and of the laymiddle classes coincided, both in secular and ecclesiastical affairs. Commercial classes are generally averse from war, at least from warwaged within their own borders, from which they can extract no profit. They had every inducement to support Henry's Government against theonly alternative, anarchy. In ecclesiastical politics they, as well asthe King, had their grievances against the Church. Both thought theclergy too rich, and that ecclesiastical revenues could be put tobetter uses in secular hands. Community of interests produced harmonyof action; and a century and a half was to pass before Parliamentagain met so often, or sat so long, as it did during the latter halfof Henry's reign. From 1509 to 1515 there had been on an average aparliamentary session once a year, [723] and in February, 1512, Warham, as Lord Chancellor, had in opening the session discoursed on the (p. 258)necessity of frequent Parliaments. [724] Then there supervened theecclesiastical despotism of Wolsey, who tried, like Charles I. , torule without Parliament, and with the same fatal result to himself;but, from Wolsey's fall till Henry's death, there was seldom a yearwithout a parliamentary session. Tyrants have often gone about tobreak Parliaments, and in the end Parliaments have generally brokenthem. Henry was not of the number; he never went about to breakParliament. He found it far too useful, and he used it. He would havebeen as reluctant to break Parliament as Ulysses the bow which healone could bend. 

 [Footnote 723: The first Parliament of the reign met in January, 1510, the second in February, 1512. It had a second session, November-December of the same year (_L. And P. _, i. , 3502). A third Parliament met for its first session on 23rd January, 1514, for its second on 5th February, 1515, and for its third on 12th November, 1515 (_ibid. _, i. , 5616, 5725, ii. , 1130). It was this last of which Wolsey urged "the more speedy dissolution"; then for fourteen years there was only one Parliament, that of 1523. These dates illustrate the antagonism between Wolsey and Parliament and show how natural it was that Wolsey should fall in 1529, and that his fall should coincide with the revival of Parliament. ]

No monarch, in fact, was ever a more zealous champion of parliamentaryprivileges, a more scrupulous observer of parliamentary forms, or amore original pioneer of sound constitutional doctrine. In 1543 hefirst enunciated the constitutional principle that sovereignty isvested in the "King in Parliament". "We, " he declared to the Commons, "at no time stand so highly in our estate royal as in the time ofParliament, wherein we as head and you as members are conjoined andknit together in one body politic, so as whatsoever offence or injuryduring that time is offered to the meanest member of the House, is tobe judged as done against our person and the whole Court ofParliament. "[725] He was careful to observe himself the deference toparliamentary privilege which he exacted from others. It is no (p. 259)strange aberration from the general tenor of his rule that in 1512by Strode's case[726] the freedom of speech of members of Parliamentwas established, and their freedom from arrest by Ferrers' case in1543. In 1515 Convocation had enviously petitioned for the sameliberty of speech as was enjoyed in Parliament, where members mighteven attack the law of the land and not be called in questiontherefor. [727] "I am, " writes Bishop Gardiner, in 1547, apologisingfor the length of a letter, "like one of the Commons' house, that, when I am in my tale, think I should have liberty to make anend;"[728] and again he refers to a speech he made during Henry'sreign "in the Parliament house, _where was free speech withoutdanger_". [729] Wolsey had raised a storm in 1523 by trying to browbeatthe House of Commons. Henry never erred in that respect. In 1532 amember moved that Henry should take back Catherine to wife. [730]Nothing could have touched the King on a tenderer spot. Charles I. , for a less offence, would have gone to the House to arrest the (p. 260)offender. All Henry did was to argue the point of his marriage withthe Speaker and a deputation from the Commons; no proceedings whateverwere taken against the member himself. In 1529 John Petit, one of themembers for London, opposed the bill releasing Henry from hisobligation to repay the loan; the only result apparently was toincrease Petit's repute in the eyes of the King, who "would ask inParliament time if Petit were on his side". [731] There is, in fact, nothing to show that Henry VIII. Intimidated his Commons at any time, or that he packed the Parliament of 1529. Systematic interference inelections was a later expedient devised by Thomas Cromwell. It wasapparently tried during the bye-elections of 1534, and at the generalelections of 1536[732] and 1539. Cromwell then endeavoured to securea majority in favour of himself and his own particular policy (p. 261)against the reactionary party in the council. His schemes had createda division among the laity, and rendered necessary recourse topolitical methods of which there was no need, so long as the laityremained united against the Church. Nor is it without significancethat its adoption was shortly followed by Cromwell's fall. Henry didnot approve of ministers who sought to make a party for themselves. The packing of Parliaments has in fact been generally the death-bedexpedient of a moribund Government. The Stuarts had their "Undertakers, "and the only Parliament of Tudor times which consisted mainly ofGovernment nominees was that gathered by Northumberland on the eve ofhis fall in March, 1553; and that that body was exceptionallyconstituted is obvious from Renard's inquiry in August, 1553, as towhether Charles V. Would advise his cousin, Queen Mary, to summon ageneral Parliament or merely an assembly of "notables" after themanner introduced by Northumberland. 

 [Footnote 724: _L. And P. _, i. , 2082. ]

 [Footnote 725: Holinshed, _Chronicles_, iii. , 956. ]

 [Footnote 726: Hallam, _Const. Hist. _, ii. , 4. ]

 [Footnote 727: _L. And P. _, ii. , 1314. In some respects the House of Commons appears to have exercised unconstitutional powers, _e. G. _, in 1529 one Thomas Bradshaw, a cleric, was indicted for having conspired to poison members of Sir James Worsley's household, and on 27th February, 1531, Henry VIII. Orders Lady Worsley not to trouble Bradshaw any more, "as the House of Commons has decided that he is not culpable" (_ibid. _, iv. , 6293; v. , 117; _cf. _ the case of John Wolf and his wife, _ibid. _, vi. , 742; vii. , _passim_). The claim to criminal jurisdiction which the House of Commons asserted in Floyd's case (1621) seems in fact to have been admitted by Henry VIII. ; compare the frequent use of acts of attainder. ]

 [Footnote 728: Foxe, ed. Townsend, vi. , 33. ]

 [Footnote 729: _Ibid. _, vi. , 43. ]

 [Footnote 730: In the House of Lords in 1531 the Bishops of St. Asaph and of Bath with a similar immunity attacked the defence of Henry's divorce policy made by the Bishops of Lincoln and London (_L. And P. _, v. , 171). ]

 [Footnote 731: _Narratives of the Reformation_ (Camden Soc. ), p. 25. ]

 [Footnote 732: Hence the complaints of the northern rebels late in that year (_L. And P. _, xi. , 1143, 1182 [15], 1244, 1246); these are so to speak the election petitions of the defeated party; the chief complaint is that non-residents were chosen who knew little about the needs of their constituents, and they made the advanced demand that all King's servants or pensioners be excluded. 

 The most striking instance of interference in elections is Cromwell's letter to the citizens of Canterbury, written on 18th May, 1536, and first printed in Merriman's _Cromwell_, 1902, ii. , 13; he there requires the electors to annul an election they had made in defiance of previous letters, and return as members Robert Derknall (a member of the royal household, _L. And P. _, xv. , pp. 563-5) and John Brydges, M. P. For Canterbury in 1529-36, instead of the two who had been unanimously chosen by eighty electors on 11th May (_L. And P. _, x. , 852). The Mayor thereupon assembled ninety-seven citizens who "freely with one voice and without any contradiction elected the aforesaid" (_ibid. _, x. , 929). These very letters show that electors did exercise a vote, and the fact that from 1534 to 1539 we find traces of pressure being put upon them, affords some presumption that before the rise of Cromwell, when we find no such traces no such pressure was exerted. The most striking exception must not be taken as the rule. See p. 317 _n. _]

But, while Parliament was neither packed nor terrorised to any greatextent, the harmony which prevailed between it and the King hasnaturally led to the charge of servility. Insomuch as it was servileat all, Parliament faithfully represented its constituents; but themere coincidence between the wishes of Henry and those of Parliamentis no proof of servility. [733] That accusation can only be (p. 262)substantiated by showing that Parliament did, not what it wanted, butwhat it did not want, out of deference to Henry. And that has neverbeen proved. It has never been shown that the nation resented thestatutes giving Henry's proclamations the force of laws, enabling himto settle the succession by will, or any of the other acts usuallyadduced to prove the subservience of Parliament. When Henry was dead, Protector Somerset secured the repeal of most of these laws, but helost his head for his pains. There is, indeed, no escape from theconclusion that the English people then approved of a dictatorship, and that Parliament was acting deliberately and voluntarily when itmade Henry dictator. It made him dictator because it felt that hewould do what it wanted, and better with, than without, extraordinarypowers. The fact that Parliament rejected some of Henry's measures isstrong presumption that it could have rejected more, had it been sominded. No projects were more dear to Henry's heart than the statutesof Wills and of Uses, yet both were rejected twice at least in theParliament of 1529-36. [734]

 [Footnote 733: "Parliament, " says Brewer, "faithfully reflected the King's wishes. " It is equally true to say that the King reflected the wishes of Parliament; and the accusation of servility is based on the assumption that Parliament must either be in chronic opposition to the Crown or servile. One of Brewer's reasons for Henry's power is that he "required no grants of money"! (_L. And P. _, iv. , Introd. , p. Dcxlv. ). ]

 [Footnote 734: "Henry, " writes Chapuys in 1532, "has been trying to obtain from Parliament the grant of a third of the feudal property of deceased lords, but as yet has got nothing" (_L. And P. _, v. , 805). Various other instances are mentioned in the following pages, and they could doubtless be multiplied if the Journals of the House of Commons were extant for this period. ]

The general harmony between King and Parliament was based on afundamental similarity of interests; the harmony in detail was workedout, not by the forcible exertion of Henry's will, but by his carefuland skilful manipulation of both Houses. No one was ever a greateradept in the management of the House of Commons, which is easy (p. 263)to humour but hard to drive. Parliaments are jealous bodies, butthey are generally pleased with attentions; and Henry VIII. Was veryassiduous in the attentions he paid to his lay Lords and Commons. From1529 he suffered no intermediary to come between Parliament andhimself. Cromwell was more and more employed by the King, [735] butonly in subordinate matters, and when important questions were atissue Henry managed the business himself. He constantly visited bothHouses and remained within their precincts for hours at a time, [736]watching every move in the game and taking note of every symptom ofparliamentary feeling. He sent no royal commands to his faithfulCommons; in this respect he was less arbitrary than his daughter, Queen Elizabeth. He submitted points for their consideration, arguedwith them, and frankly gave his reasons. It was always done, of course, with a magnificent air of royal condescension, but with such grace (p. 264)as to carry the conviction that he was really pleased to condescendand to take counsel with his subjects, and that he did so because hetrusted his Parliament, and expected his Parliament to place an equalconfidence in him. Henry VIII. Acted more as the leader of both Housesthan as a King; and, like modern parliamentary leaders, he demandedthe bulk of their time for measures which he himself proposed. 

 [Footnote 735: Cromwell used to report to the King on the feeling of Parliament; thus in 1534 (_L. And P. _, vii. , 51) he tells Henry how far members were willing to go in the creation of fresh treasons, "they be contented that deed and writing shall be treason, " but words were to be only misprision; they refused to include an heir's rebellion or disobedience in the bill, "as rebellion is already treason and disobedience is no cause of forfeiture of inheritance, " and they thought "that the King of Scots should in no wise be named" (there is in the Record Office a draft of the Treasons Bill of 1534 materially differing from the Act as passed. Therefore either the bill did not originate with the Government and was modified under Government pressure, or it did originate with the Government and was modified under parliamentary pressure). This is how Henry's legislation was evolved; there is no foundation for the assertion that Parliament merely registered the King's edicts. ]

 [Footnote 736: _E. G. _, _L. And P. _, v. , 120. At other times Parliament visited him. "On Thursday last, " writes one on 8th March, 1534, "the whole Parliament were with the King at York Place for three hours" (_ibid. _, vii. , 304). ]

The fact that the legislation of Henry's reign was initiated almostentirely by Government is not, however, a conclusive proof of theservility of Parliament. For, though it may have been the theory thatParliament existed to pass laws of its own conception, such has neverbeen the practice, except when there has been chronic oppositionbetween the executive and the legislature. Parliament has generallybeen the instrument of Government, a condition essential to strong andsuccessful administration; and it is still summoned mainly to discusssuch measures as the executive thinks fit to lay before it. Certainlythe proportion of Government bills to other measures passed in Henry'sreign was less than it is to-day. A private member's bill then stoodmore chance of becoming law, and a Government bill ran greater risksof being rejected. That, of course, is not the whole truth. One of thereasons why Henry's House of Commons felt at liberty to reject billsproposed by the King, was that such rejection did not involve the fallof a Government which on other grounds the House wished to support. Itdid not even entail a dissolution. Not that general elections possessedany terrors for sixteenth-century Parliaments. A seat in the House ofCommons was not considered a very great prize. The classes, from (p. 265)which its members were drawn, were much more bent on the pursuit oftheir own private fortunes than on participation in public affairs. Their membership was not seldom a burden, [737] and the long sessionsof the Reformation Parliament constituted an especial grievance. Onemember complained that those sessions cost him equivalent to aboutfive hundred pounds over and above the wages paid him by hisconstituents. [738] Leave to go home was often requested, and theimperial ambassador records that Henry, with characteristic craft, granted such licences to hostile members, but refused them to his ownsupporters. [739] That was a legitimate parliamentary stratagem. It wasnot Henry's fault if members preferred their private concerns to theinterests of Catherine of Aragon or to the liberties of the CatholicChurch. 

 [Footnote 737: Some at least of the royal nominations to Parliament were due to the fact that nothing less than a royal command could produce a representative at all. ]

 [Footnote 738: _L. And P. _, vii. , 302. ]

 [Footnote 739: _Ibid. _, v. , 120. ]

Henry's greatest advantage lay, however, in a circumstance whichconstitutes the chief real difference between the Parliaments of thesixteenth century and those of to-day. His members of Parliament wererepresentatives rather than delegates. They were elected as fit andproper persons to decide upon such questions as should be submitted tothem in the Parliament House, and not merely as fit and proper personsto register decisions already reached by their constituents. Althoughthey were in the habit of rendering to their constituents an accountof their proceedings at the close of each session, [740] and althoughthe fact that they depended upon their constituencies for their wagesprevented their acting in opposition to their constituents' (p. 266)wishes, they received no precise instructions. They went to Parliamentunfettered by definite pledges. They were thus more susceptible, notonly to pressure, but also to argument; and it is possible that inthose days votes were sometimes affected by speeches. The action ofmembers was determined, not by previous engagements or party discipline, but by their view of the merits and necessities of the case beforethem. Into that view extraneous circumstances, such as fear of theKing, might to a certain extent intrude; but such evidence as isavailable points decisively to the conclusion that co-operationbetween the King and Parliament was secured, partly by Parliamentdoing what Henry wanted, and partly by Henry doing what Parliamentwanted. Parliament did not always do as the King desired, nor did theKing's actions always commend themselves to Parliament. Most of themeasures of the Reformation Parliament were matters of give and take. It was due to Henry's skill, and to the circumstances of the time thatthe King's taking was always to his own profit, and his giving at theexpense of the clergy. He secured the support of the Commons for hisown particular ends by promising the redress of their grievancesagainst the bishops and priests. It is said that he instituted thefamous petitions urged against the clergy in 1532, and it is hintedthat the abuses, of which those petitions complained, had no realexistence. No doubt Henry encouraged the Commons' complaints; he hadevery reason to do so, but he did not invent the abuses. If theCommons did not feel the grievances, the King's promise to redressthem would be no inducement to Parliament to comply with the royaldemands. The hostility of the laity to the clergy, arising out (p. 267)of these grievances, was in fact the lever with which Henry overthrewthe papal authority, and the basis upon which he built his ownsupremacy over the Church. 

 [Footnote 740: _Cf. Ibid. _, iv. , App. 1. ]

This anti-ecclesiastical bias on the part of the laity was thedominant factor in the Reformation under Henry VIII. But the word inits modern sense is scarcely applicable to the ecclesiastical policyof that King. Its common acceptation implies a purification ofdoctrine, but it is doubtful whether any idea of interfering withdogma ever crossed the minds of the monarchs, who, for more than ageneration, had been proclaiming the need for a reformation. Theirproposal was to reform the practice of the clergy; and the method theyfavoured most was the abolition of clerical privileges and theappropriation of ecclesiastical property. The Reformation in England, so far as it was carried by Henry VIII. , was, indeed, neither more norless than a violent self-assertion of the laity against the immunitieswhich the Church had herself enjoyed, and the restraints which sheimposed upon others. It was not primarily a breach between the Churchof England and the Roman communion, a repudiation on the part ofEnglish ecclesiastics of a harassing papal yoke; for it is fairlyobvious that under Henry VIII. The Church took no measures againstRome that were not forced on it by the State. It was not till thereigns of Edward VI. And Elizabeth that the Church accorded a consent, based on conviction, to a settlement originally extorted by force. TheReformation was rather a final assertion by the State of its authorityover the Church in England. The breach with the Roman Church, therepudiation of papal influence in English ecclesiastical affairs, wasnot a spontaneous clerical movement; it was the effect of the (p. 268)subjection of the Church to the national temporal power. The Church inEngland had hitherto been a semi-independent part of the politicalcommunity. It was semi-national, semi-universal; it owed one sort offealty to the universal Pope, and another to the national King. Therising spirit of nationality could brook no divided allegiance; andthe universal gave way to the national idea. There was to be no_imperium in imperio_, but "one body politic, "[741] with one SupremeHead. Henry VIII. Is reported by Chapuys as saying that he was King, Emperor and Pope, all in one, so far as England was concerned. [742]The Church was to be nationalised; it was to compromise its universalcharacter, and to become the Church _of_ England, rather than a branchof the Church universal _in_ England. 

 [Footnote 741: The phrase occurs in Cromwell's draft bill for the submission of Convocation (_L. And P. _, v. , 721). ]

 [Footnote 742: _Ibid. _, v. , 361. This was in reference to Henry's refusal to allow a visitation of the Cistercian monasteries, of which Chapuys thought they stood in great need (31st July, 1531). ]

The revolution was inevitably effected through the action of the Staterather than that of the Church. The Church, which, like religionitself, is in essence universal and not national, regarded withabhorrence the prospect of being narrowed and debased to servepolitical ends. The Church in England had moreover no means and noweapons wherewith to effect an internal reformation independent of thePapacy; as well might the Court of King's Bench endeavour to reformitself without the authority of King and Parliament. The wholejurisdiction of the Church was derived in theory from the Pope; whenWolsey wished to reform the monasteries he had to seek authority fromLeo X. ; the Archbishop of Canterbury held a court at Lambeth and (p. 269)exercised juridical powers, but he did so as _legatus natus_ ofthe Apostolic See, and not as archbishop, and this authority could atany time be superseded by that of a legate _a latere_, as Warham's wasby Wolsey's. It was not his own but the delegated jurisdiction ofanother. [743] Bishops and archbishops were only the channels of ajurisdiction flowing from a papal fountain. Henry charged Warham in1532 with _præmunire_ because he had consecrated the Bishop of St. Asaph before the Bishop's temporalties had been restored. [744] TheArchbishop in reply stated that he merely acted as commissary of thePope, "the act was the Pope's act, " and he had no discretion of hisown. He was bound to consecrate as soon as the Bishop had beendeclared such in consistory at Rome. Chapters might elect, theArchbishop might consecrate, and the King might restore thetemporalties; but none of these things gave a bishop jurisdiction. There were in fact two and only two sources of power and jurisdiction, the temporal sovereign and the Pope; reformation must be effected bythe one or the other. Wolsey had ideas of a national ecclesiasticalreformation, but he could have gone no farther than the Pope, who gavehim his authority, permitted. Had the Church in England transgressedthat limit, it would have become dead in schism, and Wolsey'sjurisdiction would have _ipso facto_ ceased. Hence the fundamental (p. 270)impossibility of Wolsey's scheme; hence the ultimate resort to theonly alternative, a reformation by the temporal sovereign, whichWycliffe had advocated and which the Anglicans of the sixteenthcentury justified by deriving the royal supremacy from the authorityconceded by the early Fathers to the Roman Emperor--an authority priorto the Pope's. 

 [Footnote 743: _Cf. _ Maitland, _Roman Canon Law_; Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law_, i. , 90 (Bracton regards the Pope as the Englishman's "Ordinary"); and Leadam, _Select Cases from the Star Chamber_, Introd. , pp. Lxxxvi. -viii. ]

 [Footnote 744: _L. And P. _, v. , 1247. A curious point about this document, unnoticed by the editor, is that the Bishop of St. Asaph had been consecrated as far back as 1518, and that he was the Standish who had played so conspicuous a part in the early Church and State disputes of Henry's reign. This is an echo of the "Investiture" controversy (Luchaire, _Manuel_, pp. 509, 510). ]

Hence, too, the agency employed was Parliament and notConvocation. [745] The representatives of the clergy met of course asfrequently as those of the laity, but their activity was purelydefensive. They suggested no changes themselves, and endeavouredwithout much success to resist the innovations forced upon them byKing and by Parliament. They had every reason to fear both Henry andthe Commons. They were conscious that the Church had lost its holdupon the nation. Its impotence was due in part to its own corruption, in part to the fact that thriving commercial and industrial classes, like those which elected Tudor Parliaments, are as a rule impatient ofreligious or at least sacerdotal dictation. God and Mammon, in spiteof all efforts at compromise, do not really agree. In 1529, before themeeting of Parliament, Campeggio had appealed to Henry to prevent theruin of the Church; he felt that without State protection the Churchcould hardly stand. In 1531 Warham, the successor of Becket andLangton, excused his compliance with Henry's demands by pleading (p. 271)_Ira principis mors est_. [746] In the draft of a speech he drew upjust before his death, [747] the Archbishop referred to the case of St. Thomas, hinted that Henry VIII. Was going the way of Henry II. , andcompared his policy with the constitutions of Clarendon. The comparisonwas extraordinarily apt; Henry VIII. Was doing what Henry II. Hadfailed to do, and the fate that attended the Angevin king might havebefallen the Tudor had Warham been Becket and the Church of thesixteenth been the same as the Church of the twelfth century. But theywere not, and Warham appealed in vain to the liberties of the Churchgranted by Magna Carta, and to the "ill end" of "several kings whoviolated them". Laymen, he complained, now "advanced" their own lawsrather than those of the Church. The people, admitted so staunch achurchman as Pole, were beginning to hate the priests. [748] "Therewere, " wrote Norfolk, "infinite clamours of the temporalty here inParliament against the misuse of the spiritual jurisdiction. .. . Thisrealm did never grudge the tenth part against the abuses of the Churchat no Parliament in my days, as they do now. "[749]

 [Footnote 745: "It was not from Parliament, " says Brewer (_L. And P. _, iv. , Introd. , p. Dcxlvii. ), "but from Convocation that the King had to anticipate any show of independence or opposition. " True, to some extent; but the fact does not prove, as Brewer alleges, that Convocation was more independent than Parliament, but that Henry was doing what Parliament liked and Convocation disliked. ]

 [Footnote 746: "The Queen replied that they were all fine councillors, for when she asked advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury, he replied that he would not meddle in these affairs, saying frequently, _Ira principis mors est_" (Chapuys to Charles V. , 6th June, 1531). Warham was one of the counsel assigned to the Queen for the divorce question. ]

 [Footnote 747: _L. And P. _, v. , 1247. Warham also made a formal protest against the legislation of 1529-32 (_ibid. _, v. , 818). The likeness between Henry VIII. And Henry II. Extended beyond their policy to their personal characteristics, and the great Angevin was much in the Tudor's mind at this period. Chapuys also called Henry VIII. 's attention to the fate of Henry II. (_ibid. _, vii. , 94). ]

 [Footnote 748: _L. And P. _, v. , App. 10. ]

 [Footnote 749: _Ibid. _, v. , 831; _cf. _ v. , 898, 989, App. 28. ]

These infinite clamours and grudging were not the result of the (p. 272)conscientious rejection of any Catholic or papal doctrine. Englishmenare singularly free from the bondage of abstract ideas, and they begantheir Reformation not with the enunciation of some new truth, but withan attack on clerical fees. Reform was stimulated by a practicalgrievance, closely connected with money, and not by a sense of wrongdone to the conscience. No dogma plays such a part in the EnglishReformation as Justification by Faith did in Germany, or Predestinationin Switzerland. Parliament in 1530 had not been appreciably affectedby Tyndale's translation of the Bible or by any of Luther's works. Tyndale was still an exile in the Netherlands, pleading in vain forthe same toleration in England as Charles V. Permitted across the sea. Frith was in the Tower--a man, wrote the lieutenant, Walsingham, whomit would be a great pity to lose, if only he could be reconciled[750]--andBilney was martyred in 1531. A parliamentary inquiry was threatened inthe latter case, not because Parliament sympathised with Bilney'sdoctrine, but because it was said that the clergy had procured hisburning before obtaining the State's consent. [751] Parliament was aszealous as Convocation against heresy, but wanted the punishment ofheretics left in secular hands. 

 [Footnote 750: _L. And P. _, v. , 1458. ]

 [Footnote 751: _Ibid. _, v. , 522; vii. , 171. ]

In this, as in other respects, the King and his Parliament were in thefullest agreement. Henry had already given proof of his anti-clericalbias by substituting laymen for churchmen in those great offices ofState which churchmen had usually held. From time immemorial the LordChancellor had been a Bishop, [752] but in 1529 Wolsey was succeededby More, and, later on, More by Audley. Similarly, the privy seal (p. 273)had been held in Henry's reign by three bishops successively, Fox, Ruthal and Tunstall: now it was entrusted to the hands of AnneBoleyn's father, the Earl of Wiltshire. Gardiner remained secretaryfor the time, but Du Bellay thought his power would have increased hadhe abandoned his clerical vows, [753] and he, too, was soon supersededby Cromwell. Even the clerkship of Parliament was now given up to alayman. During the first half of Henry's reign clerical influence hadbeen supreme in Henry's councils; during the second it was almostentirely excluded. Like his Parliament, he was now impugning thejurisdiction of the clergy in the matter of heresy; they were doctors, he said, of the soul, and had nothing to do with the body. [754] He waseven inclining to the very modern theory that marriage is a civilcontract, and that matrimonial suits should therefore be removed fromclerical cognisance. [755] As early as 1529 he ordered Wolsey torelease the Prior of Reading, who had been imprisoned for Lutheranism, "unless the matter is very heinous". [756] In 1530 he was praisingLatimer's sermons;[757] and in the same year the Bishop of Norwichcomplained of a general report in his diocese that Henry favouredheretical books. [758] "They say that, wherever they go, they hear thatthe King's pleasure is that the New Testament in English shall (p. 274)go forth. " There seems little reason to doubt Hall's statement thatHenry now commanded the bishops, who, however, did nothing, to preparean English translation of the Bible to counteract the errors ofTyndale's version. [759] He wrote to the German princes extolling theirefforts towards the reformation of the Church;[760] and many adviserswere urging him to begin a similar movement in England. Anne Boleynand her father were, said Chapuys, more Lutheran than Luther himself;they were the true apostles of the new sect in England. [761]

 [Footnote 752: Thomas Beaufort, afterwards Duke of Exeter, who was Chancellor in 1410-12, and Richard, Earl of Salisbury, who was Chancellor in 1454-5, are exceptions. ]

 [Footnote 753: _L. And P. _, iv. , 6019. ]

 [Footnote 754: _Ibid. _, v. , 1013. ]

 [Footnote 755: _Ibid. _, v. , 805; vii. , 232. Chapuys had told him that "all the Parliament could not make the Princess Mary a bastard, for the cognisance of cases concerning legitimacy belonged to ecclesiastical judges"; to which Henry replied that "he did not care for all the canons which might be alleged, as he preferred his laws according to which he should have illegitimacy judged by lay judges who could also take cognisance of matrimonial causes". ]

 [Footnote 756: _L. And P. _, iv. , 5925. ]

 [Footnote 757: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6325. ]

 [Footnote 758: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6385. ]

 [Footnote 759: The net result at the time was a royal proclamation promising an authorised version of the Scriptures in English "if the people would come to a better mind" (_L. And P. _, iv. , 6487). ]

 [Footnote 760: _L. And P. _, v. , App. 7. ]

 [Footnote 761: _Ibid. _, v. , 148, 850. ]

But, however Lutheran Anne Boleyn may have been, Henry was still trueto the orthodox faith. If he dallied with German princes, and held outhopes to his heretic subjects, it was not because he believed in thedoctrines of either, but because both might be made to serve his ownends. He rescued Crome from the flames, not because he doubted orfavoured Crome's heresy, but because Crome appealed from the Church tothe King, and denied the papal supremacy; that, said Henry, is notheresy, but truth. [762] When he sent to Oxford for the articles onwhich Wycliffe had been condemned, [763] it was not to study the greatReformer's doctrine of the mass, but to discover Wycliffe's reasonsfor calling upon the State to purify a corrupt Church, and to digesthis arguments against the temporal wealth of the clergy. When helauded the reforms effected by the German princes he was thinking oftheir secularisation of ecclesiastical revenues. The spoliation (p. 275)of the Church was consistent with the most fervent devotion to itstenets. In 1531 Henry warned the Pope that the Emperor would probablyallow the laity "to appropriate the possessions of the Church, whichis a matter which does not touch the foundations of the faith; andwhat an example this will afford to others, it is easy to see". [764]Henry managed to improve upon Charles's example in this respect. "Hemeant, " he told Chapuys in 1533, "to repair the errors of Henry II. And John, who, being in difficulties, had made England and Irelandtributary to the Pope; he was determined also to reunite to the Crownthe goods which churchmen held of it, which his predecessors could notalienate to his prejudice; and he was bound to do this by the oath hehad taken at his coronation. "[765] Probably it was about this time, ora little later, that he drew up his suggestions for altering thecoronation oath, and making the royal obligations binding only so faras the royal conscience thought fit. The German princes had a furtherclaim to his consideration beyond the example they set him in dealingwith the temporalties of the Church. They might be very useful if hisdifference with Charles over Catherine of Aragon came to an openbreach; and the English envoys, who congratulated them on their zealfor reform, also endeavoured to persuade them that Henry's friendshipmight be no little safeguard against a despotic Emperor. 

 [Footnote 762: _Ibid. _, v. , 129, 148. ]

 [Footnote 763: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6546. ]

 [Footnote 764: _L. And P. _, v. , 326. ]

 [Footnote 765: _Ibid. _, vi. , 235. ]

All these phenomena, the Reformation in Germany, heresy at home, andthe anti-sacerdotal prejudices of his subjects, were regarded by Henrymerely as circumstances which might be made subservient to his ownparticular purpose; and the skill with which he used them is a (p. 276)monument of farsighted statecraft. [766] He did not act on the impulseof rash caprice. His passions were strong, but his self-control wasstronger; and the breach with Rome was effected with a cold andcalculated cunning, which the most adept disciple of Machiavelli couldnot have excelled. He did not create the factors he used; hostility tothe Church had a real objective existence. Henry was a great man; butthe burdens his people felt were not the product of Henry's hypnoticsuggestion. He could only divert those grievances to his own use. Hehad no personal dislike to probate dues or annates; he did not paythem, but the threat of their abolition might compel the Pope to granthis divorce. Heresy in itself was abominable, but if heretics wouldmaintain the royal against the papal supremacy, might not their sinsbe forgiven? The strength of Henry's position lay in the fact that hestood between two evenly balanced parties. It is obvious that byfavouring the anti-clericals he could destroy the power of the Church. It is not so certain, but it is probable that, by supporting theChurch, he could have staved off its ruin so long as he lived. Parliament might have been urgent, but there was no necessity to callit together. The Reformation Parliament, which sat for seven years, would probably have been dissolved after a few weeks had Clementgranted the divorce. It met session after session, to pass one measureafter another, each of which was designed to put fresh pressure on thePope. It began with the outworks of the papal fortress; as soon (p. 277)as one was dismantled, Henry cried "Halt, " to see if the citadelwould surrender. When it refused, the attack recommenced. First one, then another of the Church's privileges and the Pope's prerogativesdisappeared, till there remained not one stone upon another of theimposing edifice of ecclesiastical liberty and papal authority inEngland. 

 [Footnote 766: _Cf. _ A. Zimmermann, "Zur kirchlichen Politik Heinrichs VIII. , nach den Trennung vom Rom, " in _Römische Quartalschrift_, xiii. , 263-283. ]

CHAPTER XI. (p. 278)

"DOWN WITH THE CHURCH. "

The Reformation Parliament met for its first session on the 3rd ofNovember, 1529, at the Black Friars' Hall in London. [767] No carefulobserver was in any doubt as to what its temper would be with regardto the Church. It was opened by the King in person, and the new LordChancellor, Sir Thomas More, delivered an address in which hedenounced his predecessor, Wolsey, in scathing terms. [768] Parliamenthad been summoned, he said, to reform such things as had been used orpermitted in England by inadvertence. On the following day both Housesadjourned to Westminster on account of the plague, and the Commonschose, as their Speaker, Sir Thomas Audley, the future Lord Chancellor. One of their first duties was to consider a bill of attainder againstWolsey, [769] and the fate of that measure seems to be destructive ofone or the other of two favourite theories respecting Henry VIII. 'sParliaments. The bill was opposed in the Commons by Cromwell andthrown out; either it was not a mere expression of the royal will, orParliament was something more than the tool of the Court. For it ishardly credible that Henry first caused the bill to be introduced, and then ordered its rejection. The next business was Henry's (p. 279)request for release from the obligation to repay the loan which Wolseyhad raised; that, too, the Commons refused, except on conditions. [770]But no such opposition greeted the measures for reforming theclergy. [771] Bills were passed in the Commons putting a limit on thefees exacted by bishops for probate, and for the performance of otherduties then regarded as spiritual functions. The clergy wereprohibited from holding pluralities, except in certain cases, but theact was drawn with astonishing moderation; it did not apply tobenefices acquired before 1530, unless they exceeded the number offour. Penalties against non-residents were enacted, and an attempt wasmade to check the addiction of spiritual persons to commercialpursuits. 

 [Footnote 767: _L. And P. _, iv. , 6043-44. ]

 [Footnote 768: Hall, _Chronicle_, p. 764. ]

 [Footnote 769: _L. And P. _, iv. , 6075. ]

 [Footnote 770: That it passed at all is often considered proof of parliamentary servility; it is rather an illustration of the typical Tudor policy of burdening the wealthy few in order to spare the general public. If repayment of the loan were exacted, fresh taxation would be necessary, which would fall on many more than had lent the King money. It was very irregular, but the burden was thus placed on the shoulders of those individuals who benefited most by Henry's ecclesiastical and general policy and were rapidly accumulating wealth. Taxation on the whole was remarkably light during Tudor times; the tenths, fifteenths and subsidies had become fixed sums which did not increase with the national wealth, and indeed brought in less and less to the royal exchequer (see _L. And P. _, vii. , 344, "considerations why subsidies in diverse shires were not so good in Henry's seventh year as in his fifth"; _cf. _ vii. , 1490, and xix. , ii. , 689, where Paget says that benevolences did not "grieve the common people"). ]

 [Footnote 771: _L. And P. _, iv. , 6083. ]

These reforms seem reasonable enough, but the idea of placing a boundto the spiritual exaction of probate seemed sacrilege to BishopFisher. "My lords, " he cried, "you see daily what bills come hitherfrom the Common House, and all is to the destruction of the (p. 280)Church. For God's sake, see what a realm the kingdom of Bohemia was;and when the Church went down, then fell the glory of the kingdom. Nowwith the Commons is nothing but 'Down with the Church!' And all this, meseemeth, is for lack of faith only. "[772] The Commons thought alimitation of fees an insufficient ground for a charge of heresy, andcomplained of Fisher to the King through the mouth of their Speaker. The Bishop explained away the offensive phrase, but the spiritualpeers succeeded in rejecting the Commons' bills. The way out of thedeadlock was suggested by the King; he proposed a conference betweeneight members of either House. The Lords' delegates were halfspiritual, half temporal, peers. [773] Henry knew well enough that theCommons would vote solidly for the measures, and that the temporalpeers would support them. They did so; the bills were passed; and, on17th December, Parliament was prorogued. We may call it a trick orskilful parliamentary strategy; the same trick, played by the _TiersÉtat_ in 1789, ensured the success of the French Revolution, and itwas equally effective in England in 1529. 

 [Footnote 772: Hall, _Chronicle_, p. 766. ]

 [Footnote 773: _Cf. _ Stubbs, _Lectures_, 1887, p. 317. ]

These mutterings of the storm fell on deaf ears at Rome. Clement wasdeaf, not because he had not ears to hear, but because the clash ofimperial arms drowned more distant sounds. "If any one, " wrote theBishop of Auxerre in 1531, "was ever in prison or in the power of hisenemies, the Pope is now. "[774] He was as anxious as ever to escaperesponsibility. "He has told me, " writes the Bishop of Tarbes toFrancis I. On the 27th of March, 1530, "more than three times in (p. 281)secret that he would be glad if the marriage (with Anne Boleyn) wasalready made, either by a dispensation of the English legate orotherwise, provided it was not by his authority, or in diminution ofhis power as to dispensation and limitation of Divine law. "[775] Laterin the year he made his suggestion that Henry should have two wiveswithout prejudice to the legitimacy of the children of either. Henry, however, would listen to neither suggestion. [776] He would besatisfied with nothing less than the sanction of the highest authorityrecognised in England. When it became imperative that his marriagewith Anne should be legally sanctioned, and evident that no suchsanction would be forthcoming from Rome, he arranged that the highestecclesiastical authority recognised by law in England should be thatof the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

 [Footnote 774: _L. And P. _, v. , 562. ]

 [Footnote 775: _L. And P. _, iv. , 6290. ]

 [Footnote 776: See above p. 207. ]

Meanwhile, the exigencies of the struggle drove Clement intoassertions of papal prerogative which would at any time have provokedan outburst of national anger. On 7th March, 1530, he promulgated abull to be affixed to the church doors at Bruges, Tournay and Dunkirk, inhibiting Henry, under pain of the greater excommunication, fromproceeding to that second marriage, which he was telling the Bishop ofTarbes he wished Henry would complete. [777] A fortnight later heissued a second bull forbidding all ecclesiastical judges, doctors, advocates and others to speak or write against the validity of Henry'smarriage with Catherine. [778] If he had merely desired to prohibitdiscussion of a matter under judicial consideration, he should haveimposed silence also on the advocates of the marriage, and not (p. 282)left Fisher free to write books against the King and secretly sendthem to Spain to be printed. [779] On the 23rd of December following itwas decreed in Consistory at Rome that briefs should be grantedprohibiting the Archbishop of Canterbury from taking cognisance of thesuit, and forbidding Henry to cohabit with any other woman thanCatherine, and "all women in general to contract marriage with theKing of England". [780] On the 5th of January, 1531, the Pope inhibitedlaity as well as clergy, universities, parliaments and courts of lawfrom coming to any decision in the case. [781]

 [Footnote 777: _L. And P. _, iv. , 6256. ]

 [Footnote 778: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6279. ]

 [Footnote 779: _L. And P. _, iv. , 6199, 6596, 6738; v. , 460. ]

 [Footnote 780: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6772. ]

 [Footnote 781: _Ibid. _, v. , 27. ]

To these fulminations the ancient laws of England provided Henry withsufficient means of reply. "Let not the Pope suppose, " wrote Henry toClement, "that either the King or his nobles will allow the fixed lawsof his kingdom to be set aside. "[782] A proclamation, based on theStatutes of Provisors, was issued on 12th September, 1530, forbiddingthe purchasing from the Court of Rome or the publishing of any thingprejudicial to the realm, or to the King's intended purposes;[783] andNorfolk was sent to remind the papal nuncio of the penalties attachingto the importation of bulls into England without the King's consent. But the most notorious expedient of Henry's was the appeal to theuniversities of Europe, first suggested by Cranmer. [784] Throughout1530 English agents were busy abroad obtaining decisions from (p. 283)the universities on the question of the Pope's power to dispense withthe law against marrying a deceased brother's wife. Their success wasconsiderable. Paris and Orléans, Bourges and Toulouse, Bologna andFerrara, Pavia and Padua, all decided against the Pope. [785] Similarverdicts, given by Oxford and Cambridge, may be as naturally ascribedto intimidation by Henry, as may the decisions of Spanish universitiesin the Pope's favour to pressure from Charles; but the theory that allthe French and Italian universities were bribed is not very credible. The cajolery, the threats and the bribes were not all on one side; andin Italy at least the imperial agents would seem to have enjoyedgreater facilities than Henry's. In some individual cases there was, no doubt, resort to improper inducements; but, if the majority in themost famous seats of learning in Europe could be induced by filthylucre to vote against their conscience, it implies a greater need fordrastic reformation than the believers in the theory of corruption areusually disposed to admit. Their decisions were, however, given ongeneral grounds; the question of the consummation of Catherine'smarriage with Arthur seems to have been carefully excluded. How farthat consideration would have affected the votes of the universitiescan only be assumed; but it does not appear to have materiallyinfluenced the view taken by Catherine's advocates. They allowed thatCatherine's oath would not be considered sufficient evidence in acourt of law; they admitted the necessity of proving that urgentreasons existed for the grant of the dispensation, and the only (p. 284)urgent reason they put forward was an entirely imaginary imminence ofwar between Henry VII. And Ferdinand in 1503. Cardinal Du Bellay, in1534, asserted that no one would be so bold as to maintain in Consistorythat the dispensation ever was valid;[786] and the papalists weredriven to the extreme contention, which was certainly not thenadmitted by Catholic Europe, that, whether the marriage with Arthurwas merely a form or not, whether it was or was not against Divinelaw, the Pope could, of his absolute power, dispense. [787]

 [Footnote 782: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6759. ]

 [Footnote 783: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6615; v. , 45. ]

 [Footnote 784: See the present writer's _Cranmer_, pp. 39-41. Cranmer's suggestion was made early in August, 1529, and on the 23rd Du Bellay writes that Wolsey and the King "appeared to desire very much that I should go over to France to get the opinions of the learned men there about the divorce" (_L. And P. _, iv. , 5862). In October Stokesley was sent to France and Croke to Italy (_ibid. _, p. 2684); Cranmer did not start till 1530. ]

 [Footnote 785: _L. And P. _, iv. , 6332, 6448, 6491, 6632, 6636. ]

 [Footnote 786: _L. And P. _, vii. , App. 12. ]

 [Footnote 787: _Ibid. _, v. , 468. ]

Pending the result of Henry's appeal to the universities, little wasdone in the matter in England. The lords spiritual and temporal signedin June, 1530, a letter to the Pope urging him to comply with theirKing's request for a divorce. [788] Parliament did not meet until 16thJanuary, 1531, and even then Chapuys reports that it was employed onnothing more important than cross-bows and hand-guns, the act againstwhich was not, however, passed till 1534. The previous session hadshown that, although the Commons might demur to fiscal exactions, theywere willing enough to join Henry in any attack on the Church, and thequestion was how to bring the clergy to a similar state ofacquiescence. It was naturally a more difficult task, but Henry'singenuity provided a sufficient inducement. His use of the statutes of_præmunire_ was very characteristic. It was conservative, it waslegal, and it was unjust. Those statutes were no innovation designedto meet his particular case; they had been for centuries the law ofthe land; and there was no denying the fact that the clergy had brokenthe law by recognising Wolsey as legate. Henry, of course, had (p. 285)licensed Wolsey to act as legate, and to punish the clergy for anoffence, at which he had connived, was scarcely consistent withjustice; but no King ever showed so clearly how the soundestconstitutional maxims could be used to defeat the pleas of equity; itwas frequently laid down during his reign that no licence from theKing could be pleaded against penalties imposed by statute, and not afew parliamentary privileges were first asserted by Henry VIII. [789]So the clergy were cunningly caught in the meshes of the law. Chapuysdeclares that no one could understand the mysteries of _præmunire_;"its interpretation lies solely in the King's head, who amplifies itand declares it at his pleasure, making it apply to any case hepleases". He at least saw how _præmunire_ could be made to serve hispurposes. [790]

 [Footnote 788: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6513. ]

 [Footnote 789: _Cf. L. And P. _, iv. , 6199. Chapuys writes on 6th February, 1530, "I am told the King did not wish the Cardinal's case to be tried by Parliament, as, if it had been decided against him, the King could not have pardoned him". ]

 [Footnote 790: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6488, 6699. ]

These, at the moment, were two. He wanted to extract from the clergy arecognition of his supremacy over the Church, and he wanted money. Hewas always in need of supplies, but especially now, in case war shouldarise from the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce; and Henry made ita matter of principle that the Church should pay for wars due to thePope. [791] The penalty for _præmunire_ was forfeiture of goods andimprisonment, and the King probably thought he was unduly lenient ingranting a pardon for a hundred thousand pounds, when he might (p. 286)have taken the whole of the clergy's goods and put them in gaol aswell. The clergy objected strongly; in the old days of the Church'sinfluence they would all have preferred to go to prison, and aunanimous refusal of the King's demands would even now have baulkedhis purpose. But the spirit was gone out of them. Chapuys instigatedthe papal nuncio to go down to Convocation and stiffen the backs ofthe clergy. [792] They were horrified at his appearance, and besoughthim to depart in haste, fearing lest this fresh constitutional breachshould be visited on their heads. Warham frightened them with theterrors of royal displeasure; and the clerics had to content theirconscience with an Irish bull and a subterfuge. "Silence givesconsent, " said the Archbishop when putting the question; "Then are weall silent, " cried the clergy. To their recognition of Henry asSupreme Head of the Church, they added the salvo "so far as the law ofChrist allows". It was an empty phrase, thought Chapuys, for no onewould venture to dispute with the King the point where his supremacyended and that of Christ began;[793] there was in fact "a new Papacymade here". [794] The clergy repented of the concession as soon as itwas granted; they were "more conscious every day, " wrote Chapuys, (p. 287)"of the great error they committed in acknowledging the King assovereign of the Church"; and they made a vain, and not very creditable, effort to get rejected by spiritual votes in the House of Lords themeasures to which they had given their assent in Convocation. [795] TheChurch had surrendered with scarcely a show of fight; henceforth Henrymight feel sure that, whatever opposition he might encounter in otherquarters, the Church in England would offer no real resistance. 

 [Footnote 791: _Cf. Ibid. _, vi. , 1381 [3], "that if the Pope attempts war, the King shall have a moiety of the temporal lands of the Church for his defence". ]

 [Footnote 792: _L. And P. _, v. , 62. Dr. Stubbs (_Lectures_, 1887, p. 318) represents the nuncio as being pressed into the King's service, and the clergy as resisting him as the Commons had done Wolsey in 1523. But this independence is imaginary; "it was agreed, " writes Chapuys, "between the nuncio and me that he should go to the said ecclesiastics in their congregation and recommend them to support the immunity of the Church. .. . They were all utterly astonished and scandalised, and without allowing him to open his mouth they begged him to leave them in peace, for they had not the King's leave to speak with him. "]

 [Footnote 793: _L. And P. _, v. , 105. ]

 [Footnote 794: _Ibid. _, v. , 112. ]

 [Footnote 795: _L. And P. _, v. , 124. ]

In Parliament, notwithstanding Chapuys' remark on the triviality ofits business, more than a score of acts were passed, some limitingsuch abuses as the right of sanctuary, some dealing in the familiarway with social evils like the increase of beggars and vagabonds. Theact depriving sanctuary-men, who committed felony, of any furtherprotection from their sanctuary was recommended to Parliament by theKing in person. So was a curious act making poisoning treason. [796]There had recently been an attempt to poison Fisher, which the Kingbrought before the House of Lords. However familiar poisoning might beat Rome, it was a novel method in England, and was considered soheinous a crime that the ordinary penalties for murder were thought tobe insufficient. Then the King's pardon to the clergy was embodied ina parliamentary bill. The Commons perceived that they were notincluded, took alarm, and refused to pass the bill. Henry at firstassumed a superior tone; he pointed out that the Commons could notprevent his pardoning the clergy; he could do it as well under theGreat Seal as by statute. The Commons, however, were not satisfied. "There was great murmuring among them, " says Chapuys, "in the (p. 288)House of Commons, where it was publicly said in the presence ofsome of the Privy Council that the King had burdened and oppressed hiskingdom with more imposts and exactions than any three or four of hispredecessors, and that he ought to consider that the strength of theKing lay in the affections of his people. And many instances werealleged of the inconveniences which had happened to princes throughthe ill-treatment of their subjects. "[797] Henry was too shrewd toattempt to punish this very plain speaking. He knew that his faithfulCommons were his one support, and he yielded at once. "On learningthis, " continues Chapuys, "the King granted the exemption which waspublished in Parliament on Wednesday last without any reservation. "The two acts for the pardon of the spiritualty and temporalty werepassed concurrently. But, whereas the clergy had paid for their pardonwith a heavy fine and the loss of their independence, the laity paidnothing at all. The last business of the session was the reading ofthe sentences in Henry's favour obtained from the universities. [798]Parliament was then prorogued, and its members were enjoined to relateto their constituents that which they had seen and heard. 

 [Footnote 796: _Ibid. _, v. , 120. ]

 [Footnote 797: _L. And P. _, v. , 171. This and other incidents (see p. 289) form a singular comment on Brewer's assertion (_ibid. _, iv. , Introd. , p. Dcxlvii. ) that "there is scarcely an instance on record, in this or any succeeding Parliament throughout the reign, of a parliamentary patriot protesting against a single act of the Crown, however unjust and tyrannical it might be". ]

 [Footnote 798: _L. And P. _, v. , 171. ]

Primed by communion with their neighbours, members of Parliamentassembled once more on 15th January, 1532, for more important (p. 289)business than they had yet transacted. Every effort was made to securea full attendance of Peers and Commons; almost all the lords would bepresent, thought Chapuys, except Tunstall, who had not been summoned;Fisher came without a summons, and apparently no effort was made toexclude him. [799] The readiness of the Commons to pass measuresagainst the Church, and their reluctance to consent to taxation, wereeven more marked than before. Their critical spirit was shown by theirrepeated rejection of the Statutes of Wills and Uses designed by Henryto protect from evasion his feudal rights, such as reliefs and primerseisins. [800] This demand, writes Chapuys, [801] "has been the occasionof strange words against the King and the Council, and in spite of allthe efforts of the King's friends, it was rejected". [802] In thematter of supplies they were equally outspoken; they would only grantone-tenth and one-fifteenth, a trifling sum which Henry refused toaccept. [803] It was during this debate on the question of suppliesthat two members moved that the King be asked to take back Catherineas his wife. [804] They would then, they urged, need no fresh armamentsand their words are reported to have been well received by the House. The Commons were not more enthusiastic about the bill restraining thepayment of annates to the Court at Rome. [805] They did not pay (p. 290)them; their grievance was against bishops in England, and they sawno particular reason for relieving those prelates of their financialburdens. Cromwell wrote to Gardiner that he did not know how theannates bill would succeed;[806] and the King had apparently to useall his persuasion to get the bill through the Lords and the Commons. Only temporal lords voted for it in the Upper House, and, in theLower, recourse was had to the rare expedient of a division. [807] Inboth Houses the votes were taken in the King's presence. But it isalmost certain that his influence was brought to bear, not so much infavour of the principle of the bill, as of the extremely ingeniousclause which left the execution of the Act in Henry's discretion, andprovided him with a powerful means of putting pressure on the Pope. That was Henry's statement of the matter. He told Chapuys, before thebill was passed, that the attack on annates was being made without hisconsent;[808] and after it had been passed he instructed hisrepresentatives at Rome to say that he had taken care to stop themouth of Parliament and to have the question of annates referred tohis decision. [809] "The King, " writes the French envoy in England atthe end of March, "has been very cunning, for he has caused the noblesand people to remit all to his will, so that the Pope may know that, if he does nothing for him, the King has the means of punishinghim. "[810] The execution of the clauses providing for the (p. 291)confirmation and consecration of bishops without recourse to Rome wasalso left at Henry's option. 

 [Footnote 799: _L. And P. _, v. , 737. ]

 [Footnote 800: Henry had ordered Cromwell to have a bill with this object ready for the 1531 session (_L. And P. _, v. , 394), and another for the "augmentation of treasons"; apparently neither then proved acceptable to Parliament. ]

 [Footnote 801: _L. And P. _, v. , 805. ]

 [Footnote 802: _Ibid. _, v. , 989. ]

 [Footnote 803: _Ibid. _, v. , 1046. ]

 [Footnote 804: _Ibid. _, v. , 989. This was in May during the second part of the session, after the other business had been finished; redress of grievances constitutionally preceded supply. ]

 [Footnote 805: Annates were attacked first, partly because they were the weakest as well as the most sensitive part in the papal armour; there was no law in the _Corpus Juris Canonici_ requiring the payment of annates (Maitland in _Engl. Hist. Rev. _, xvi. , 43). ]

 [Footnote 806: _L. And P. _, v. , 723. ]

 [Footnote 807: _Ibid. _, v. , 898. ]

 [Footnote 808: _Ibid. _, v. , 832. ]

 [Footnote 809: _Ibid. _, v. , 886. ]

 [Footnote 810: _L. And P. _, v. , 150. This letter is misplaced in _L. And P. _; it should be under 23rd March, 1532, instead of 1531. The French envoy, Giles de la Pommeraye, did not arrive in England till late in 1531, and his letter obviously refers to the proceedings in Parliament in March, 1532; _cf. _ v. , 879. ]

But no pressure was needed to induce the Commons to attack abuses, theweight of which they felt themselves. Early in the session they werediscussing the famous petition against the clergy, and, on 28thFebruary, Norfolk referred to the "infinite clamours" in Parliamentagainst the Church. [811] The fact that four corrected drafts of thispetition are extant in the Record Office, is taken as conclusive proofthat it really emanated from the Court. [812] But the drafts do notappear to be in the known hand of any of the Government clerks. Thecorrections in Cromwell's hand doubtless represent the wishes of theKing; but, even were the whole in Cromwell's hand, it would be no barto the hypothesis that Cromwell reduced to writing, for the King'sconsideration, complaints which he heard from independent members inhis place in Parliament. The fact that nine-tenths of our modernlegislation is drawn up by Government draughtsmen, cannot be acceptedas proof that that legislation represents no popular feeling. On theface of them, these petitions bear little evidence of Court dictation;the grievances are not such as were felt by Henry, whose own demandsof the clergy were laid directly before Convocation, without any (p. 292)pretence that they really came from the Commons. Some are similarto those presented to the Parliament of 1515; others are directedagainst abuses which recent statutes had sought, but failed, toremedy. Such were the citation of laymen out of their dioceses, theexcessive fees taken in spiritual courts, the delay and trouble inobtaining probates. Others complained that the clergy in Convocationmade laws inconsistent with the laws of the realm; that the ordinariesdelayed instituting parsons to their benefices; that benefices weregiven to minors; that the number of holy-days, especially inharvest-time, was excessive; and that spiritual men occupied temporaloffices. The chief grievance seems to have been that the ordinariescited poor men before the spiritual courts without any accuser beingproduced, and then condemned them to abjure or be burnt. Henry, reported Chapuys, was "in a most gracious manner" promising to supportthe Commons against the Church "and to mitigate the rigours of theinquisition which they have here, and which is said to be more severethan in Spain". [813]

 [Footnote 811: _Ibid. _, v. , 831. ]

 [Footnote 812: _Ibid. _, v. , 1017-23. If the Court was responsible for all the documents complaining of the clergy drawn up at this time, it must have been very active. See others in _L. And P. _, v. , 49, App. 28, vi. , 122. ]

 [Footnote 813: _L. And P. _, v. , 989. ]

After debating these points in Parliament, the Commons agreed that"all the griefs, which the temporal men should be grieved with, shouldbe put in writing and delivered to the King"; hence the drafts in theRecord Office. The deputation, with the Speaker at its head, presentedthe complaints to Henry on 18th March. Its reception is quiteunintelligible on the theory that the grievances existed only in theKing's imagination. Henry was willing, he said, to consider theCommons' petition. But, if they expected him to comply with theirwishes, they must make some concession to his; and he recommended (p. 293)them to forgo their opposition to the bills of Uses and Wills, towhich the Lords had already agreed. After Easter he sent the Commons'petition to Convocation; the clergy appealed to the King forprotection. Henry had thus manoeuvred himself into the position ofmediator, in which he hoped, but in vain, to extract profit forhimself from both sides. [814] From Convocation he demanded submissionto three important claims; the clergy were to consent to a reform ofecclesiastical law, to abdicate their right of independent legislation, and to recognise the necessity of the King's approval for existingcanons. These demands were granted. As usual, Henry was able to getwhat he wanted from the clergy; but from the Commons he could get nomore than they were willing to give. They again rejected the bills ofUses and Wills, and would only concede the most paltry supplies. Butthey passed with alacrity the bills embodying the submission of theclergy. These were the Church's concessions to Henry, but it must bendthe knee to the Commons as well, and other measures were passedreforming some of the points in their petition. Ordinaries wereprohibited from citing men out of their proper dioceses, and benefitof clergy was denied to clerks under the order of sub-deacon whocommitted murder, felony, or petty treason; the latter was a slightextension of a statute passed in 1512. The bishops, however, led byGardiner and aided by More, [815] secured in the House of Lords (p. 294)the rejection of the concessions made by the Church to the King, though they passed those made to the Commons. Parliament, which hadsat for the unusual space of four months, was prorogued on the 14th ofMay; two days later, More resigned the chancellorship and Gardinerretired in disfavour to Winchester. 

 [Footnote 814: Stubbs, _Lectures_, 1887, pp. 320-24; Hall, pp. 784, 785; see also _Lords' Journals_, 1532. ]

 [Footnote 815: _L. And P. _, v. , 1013. More had, as Henry knew, been all along opposed to the divorce, but as More gratefully acknowledged, the King only employed those whose consciences approved of the divorce on business connected with it (vii. , 289). ]

 * * * * *

Meanwhile the divorce case at Rome made little progress. In thehighest court in Christendom the facilities afforded for the law'sdelays were naturally more extended than before inferior tribunals;and two years had been spent in discussing whether Henry's"excusator, " sent merely to maintain that the King of England couldnot be cited to plead before the Papal Court, should be heard or not. Clement was in suspense between two political forces. In December, 1532, Charles was again to interview the Pope, and imperialists inItaly predicted that his presence would be as decisive in Catherine'sfavour as it had been three years before. But Henry and Francis had, in October, exhibited to the world the closeness of their friendshipby a personal interview at Boulogne. [816] No pomp or ceremony, likethat of the Field of Cloth of Gold, dazzled men's eyes; but the unionbetween the two Kings was never more real. Neither Queen was present;Henry would not take Catherine, and he objected so strongly to Spanishdress that he could not endure the sight of Francis's SpanishQueen. [817] Anne Boleyn, recently created Marquis (so she was styled, to indicate the possession of the peerage in her own right) of (p. 295)Pembroke, [818] took Catherine's place; and plans for the promotion ofthe divorce formed the staple of the royal discussions. Respect forthe power of the two Kings robbed the subsequent interview betweenEmperor and Pope of much of its effect; and before Charles and Clementparted, the Pope had secretly agreed to accord a similar favour toFrancis; he was to meet him at Nice in the following summer. Longbefore then the divorce had been brought to a crisis. By the end ofJanuary Henry knew that Anne Boleyn was pregnant. Her issue must atany cost be made legitimate. That could only be done by Henry'sdivorce from Catherine, and by his marriage with Anne Boleyn. [819]There was little hope of obtaining these favours from Rome. Thereforeit must be done by means of the Archbishop of Canterbury; and toremove all chance of disputing his sentence, the Court of theArchbishop of Canterbury must, before his decision was given, berecognised as the supreme tribunal for English ecclesiastical cases. 

 [Footnote 816: See P. A. Hamy, _Entrevue de François I. Avec Henri VIII. , à Boulogne en 1532_. Paris, 1898. ]

 [Footnote 817: _L. And P. _, v. , 1187. ]

 [Footnote 818: _L. And P. _, v. , 1274. ]

 [Footnote 819: In 1529 Du Bellay had written _si le ventre croist, tout sera gasté_ (_L. And P. _, iv. , 5679). ]

These circumstances, of which not a hint was suffered to transpire inpublic, dictated Henry's policy during the early months of 1533. Neverwas his skill more clearly displayed; he was, wrote Chapuys inDecember, 1532, practising more than ever with his Parliament, [820]though he received the Spanish ambassador "as courteously asever". [821] The difficulties with which he was surrounded might havetried the nerve of any man, but they only seemed to render Henry'scourse more daring and steady. The date of his marriage with AnneBoleyn is even now a matter of conjecture. [822] Cranmer repudiated (p. 296)the report that he performed the ceremony. [823] He declares he did notknow of it until a fortnight after the event, and says it took placeabout St. Paul's Day (25th January). A more important question was theindividuality of the archbishop who was to pronounce the nullity ofHenry's marriage with Catherine of Aragon. He must obviously be one onwhom the King could rely. Fortunately for Henry, Archbishop Warham haddied in August, 1532. His successor was to be Thomas Cranmer, who hadfirst suggested to Henry the plan of seeking the opinions of theuniversities on the divorce, and was now on an embassy at theEmperor's Court. No time was to be lost. Henry usually gathered a richharvest during the vacancy of great bishoprics, but now Canterbury wasto be filled up without any delay, and the King even lent Cranmer1, 000 marks to meet his expenses. [824] But would the Pope be soaccommodating as to expedite the bulls, suspecting, as he must havedone, the object for which they were wanted?

 [Footnote 820: _L. And P. _, v. , 1633. ]

 [Footnote 821: _Ibid. _, v. , 1579. ]

 [Footnote 822: Cranmer, _Works_, ii. , 246. The antedating of the marriage to 14th November, 1532, by Hall and Holinshed was doubtless due to a desire to shield Anne's character; Stow gives the correct date. ]

 [Footnote 823: See the present writer's _Cranmer_, p. 60 _n. _]

 [Footnote 824: _L. And P. _, vi. , 131. ]

For this contingency also Henry had provided; and he was actuallyusing the Pope as a means for securing the divorce. An appearance offriendship with Clement was the weapon he now employed with thegreatest effect. The Pope was discussing with the French ambassadors aproposal to remit the divorce case to some neutral spot, such asCambrai, and delaying that definite sentence in Catherine's favourwhich imperialists had hoped that his interview with Charles would (p. 297)precipitate;[825] the papal nuncio was being feasted in England, and was having suspiciously amicable conferences with members ofHenry's council. Henry himself was writing to Clement in the mostcordial terms; he had instructed his ambassadors in 1531 to "use allgentleness towards him, "[826] and Clement was saying that Henry was ofa better nature and more wise than Francis I. [827] Henry was nowwilling to suspend his consent to the general council, where the Popefeared that a scheme would be mooted for restoring the papal States tothe Emperor;[828] and he told the papal nuncio in England that, thoughhe had studied the question of the Pope's authority and retracted hisdefence of the Holy See, [829] yet possibly Clement might give himoccasion to probe the matter further still, and to reconfirm what hehad originally written. [830] Was he not, moreover, withholding hisassent from the Act of Annates, which would deprive the Pope of largerevenues? Backed by this gentle hint, Henry's request not merely forCranmer's bulls, but for their expedition without the payment of theusual 10, 000 marks, reached Rome. The cardinals were loth to forgotheir perquisites for the bulls, but the annates of all England weremore precious still, and, on 22nd February, Consistory decided to dowhat Henry desired. 

 [Footnote 825: _L. And P. _, vi. , 26. The interview took place at Bologna in December, 1532. ]

 [Footnote 826: _Ibid. _, v. , 326. ]

 [Footnote 827: _Ibid. _, v. , 555. ]

 [Footnote 828: _Ibid. _, vi. , 89, 212. ]

 [Footnote 829: _E. G. _, _ibid. _, v. , 820, where Henry tells Tunstall that to follow the Pope is to forsake Christ, that it was no schism to separate from Rome, and that "God willing, we shall never separate from the universal body of Christian men, " and admits that he was misled in his youth to make war upon Louis XII. By those who sought only their own pomp, wealth and glory. ]

 [Footnote 830: _Ibid. _, vi. , 296. ]

The same deceptive appearance of concord between King and Pope (p. 298)was employed to lull both Parliament and Convocation. The delaysin the divorce suit disheartened Catherine's adherents. The Pope, wrote Chapuys, would lose his authority little by little, unless thecase were decided at once;[831] every one, he said, cried out "aumurdre" on Clement for his procrastination on the divorce, and for thespeed with which he granted Cranmer's bulls. [832] There was a generalimpression that "he would betray the Emperor, " and "many think thatthere is a secret agreement between Henry and the Pope". [833] Thatidea was sedulously fostered by Henry. Twice he took the Pope's nunciodown in state to Parliament to advertise the excellent terms uponwhich he stood with the Holy See. [834] In the face of such evidence, what motive was there for prelates and others to reject the demandswhich Henry was pressing upon them? The Convocations of Canterbury andYork repeated the submission of 1532, and approved, by overwhelmingmajorities, of two propositions: firstly, that, as a matter of law, the Pope was not competent to dispense with the obstacle to a marriagebetween a man and his deceased brother's wife, when the previousmarriage had been consummated; and secondly, that, as a matter offact, the marriage between Catherine and Prince Arthur had been soconsummated. [835] In Parliament, the Act forbidding Appeals toRome, [836] and providing for the confirmation and consecration of (p. 299)bishops without recourse to the Papal Court, was discussed. It was, like the rest of Henry's measures, based on a specious conservativeplea. General councils had, the King said, decreed that suits shouldbe determined in the place in which they originated;[837] so there wasno need for appeals to go out of England. Such opposition as itencountered was based on no religious principle. Commercial interestswere the most powerful impulse of the age, and the Commons were afraidthat the Act of Appeals might be followed by a papal interdict. Theydid not mind the interdict as depriving them of religious consolations, but they dreaded lest it might ruin their trade with the Netherlands. [838]Henry, however, persuaded them that the wool trade was as necessary toFlemings as it was to Englishmen, and that an interdict would prove nomore than an empty threat. He was careful to make no other demandsupon the Commons. No subsidies were required; no extension of royalprerogative was sought; and eventually the Act of Appeals was passedwith a facility that seems to have created general surprise. [839]

 [Footnote 831: _L. And P. _, vi. , 142. ]

 [Footnote 832: _Ibid. _, vi. , 296. ]

 [Footnote 833: _Ibid. _, vi. , 89. ]

 [Footnote 834: _Ibid. _, vi. , 142, 160. The nuncio sat on Henry's right and the French ambassador on his left, this trinity illustrating the league existing between Pope, Henry and Francis. ]

 [Footnote 835: _Ibid. _, vi. , 276, 311, 317, 491. ]

 [Footnote 836: The germ of this Act may be found in a despatch from Henry dated 7th October, 1530; that the system of appeals had been subject to gross abuse is obvious from the fact that the Council of Trent prohibited it (_Cambridge Modern Hist. _, ii. , 671). ]

 [Footnote 837: _L. And P. _, vi. , 1489. ]

 [Footnote 838: _Ibid. _, vi. , 296. ]

 [Footnote 839: _Ibid. _, XII. , ii. , 952. ]

Henry's path was now clear. Cranmer was archbishop and _legatus natus_with a title which none could dispute. By Act of Parliament his courtwas the final resort for all ecclesiastical cases. No appeals from hisdecision could be lawfully made. So, on 11th April, before he was yetconsecrated, he besought the King's gracious permission to determinehis "great cause of matrimony, because much bruit exists among thecommon people on the subject". [840] No doubt there did; but that (p. 300)was not the cause for the haste. Henry was pleased to accede to thisrequest of the "principal minister of our spiritual jurisdiction";and, on the 10th of May, the Archbishop opened his Court at Dunstable. Catherine, of course, could recognise no authority in Cranmer to try acause that was before the papal curia. She was declared contumacious, and, on the 23rd, the Archbishop gave his sentence. Following the lineof Convocation, he pronounced that the Pope had no power to licensemarriages such as Henry's, and that the King and Catherine had neverbeen husband and wife. [841] Five days later, after a secret investigation, he declared that Henry and Anne Boleyn were lawfully married, and onWhitsunday, the 1st of June, he crowned Anne as Queen in WestminsterAbbey. [842] Three months later, on Sunday, the 7th of September, between three and four in the afternoon, Queen Anne gave birth to adaughter at Greenwich. [843] The child was christened on the followingWednesday by Stokesley, Bishop of London, and Cranmer stood godfather. Chapuys scarcely considered the matter worth mention. The King's_amie_ had given birth to a bastard, a detail of little importance toany one, and least of all to a monarch like Charles V. [844] (p. 301)Yet the "bastard" was Queen Elizabeth, and the child, thus usheredinto a contemptuous world, lived to humble the pride of Spain, and tobear to a final triumph the banner which Henry had raised. 

 [Footnote 840: Cranmer, _Works_, ii. , 237. ]

 [Footnote 841: _Ibid. _, ii. , 241, 244; _L. And P. _, vi. , 332, 469, 470, 525. This sentence did not bastardise the Princess Mary according to Chapuys, for "even if the marriage were null, the Princess was legitimate owing to the lawful ignorance of her parents. The Archbishop of Canterbury had foreseen this and had not dared to be so shameless as to declare her a bastard" (_ibid. _, vii. , 94). ]

 [Footnote 842: See _Tudor Tracts_ edited by the present writer, 1903, pp. 10-28, and _L. And P. _, vi. , 561, 563, 584, 601. ]

 [Footnote 843: _L. And P. _, vi. , 1089, 1111. ]

 [Footnote 844: _L. And P. _, vi. , 1112. ]

CHAPTER XII. (p. 302)

"THE PREVAILING OF THE GATES OF HELL. "

That victorious issue of the Tudor struggle with the power, againstwhich Popes proclaimed that the gates of hell should not prevail, wasdistant enough in 1533. Then the Tudor monarch seemed rushing headlongto irretrievable ruin. Sure of himself and his people, and feeling nolonger the need of Clement's favour, Henry threw off the mask offriendship, and, on the 9th of July, confirmed, by letters patent, theAct of Annates. [845] Cranmer's proceedings at Dunstable, Henry'smarriage, and Anne's coronation, constituted a still more flagrantdefiance of Catholic Europe. The Pope's authority was challenged withevery parade of contempt. He could do no less than gather round himthe relics of his dignity and prepare to launch against Henry thefinal ban of the Church. [846] So, on the 11th of July, the sentence ofthe greater excommunication was drawn up. Clement did not yet, (p. 303)nor did he ever, venture to assert his claims to temporal supremacy inChristendom, by depriving the English King of his kingdom; he thoughtit prudent to rely on his own undisputed prerogative. His spiritualpowers seemed ample; and he applied to himself the words addressed tothe Prophet Jeremiah, "Behold, I have set thee above nations andkingdoms that thou mayest root up and destroy, build and plant, a lordover all kings of the whole earth and over all peoples bearingrule". [847] In virtue of this prerogative Henry was cut off from theChurch while he lived, removed from the pale of Christian society, anddeprived of the solace of the rites of religion; when he died, he mustlie without burial, and in hell suffer torment for ever. [848]

 [Footnote 845: _L. And P. _, vi. , 793. ]

 [Footnote 846: _Ibid. _, vi. , 807, App. 3; vii. , 185. The declaration of it was at the same time suspended until September, and the delicate question of entrusting the _executoriales_ to princes who repudiated the honour caused further delays. The bull of excommunication was eventually dated 30th August, 1535 (ix. , 207); and a bull depriving Henry of his kingdom was sanctioned, printed and prepared for publication (x. , Introd. , p. Xv. , Nos. 82, 107), but first Francis and then Charles put difficulties in the way. In December, 1538, Paul III. , now that he, Charles and Francis were united in the bond of friendship, published with additions the bull of August, 1535 (XIII. , ii. , 1087, Introd. , p. Xli. ). Even then no bull of deprivation was published. Apparently that was an honour reserved for Henry's daughter. ]

 [Footnote 847: Jeremiah i. 10. The Vulgate text adopted in Papal bulls differs materially from that in the English Authorised Version. ]

 [Footnote 848: See the text in Burnet, ed. Pocock, iv. , 318-31. ]

What would be the effect of this terrific anathema? The omens lookedill for the English King. If he had flouted the Holy See, he had alsooffended the temporal head of Christendom. The Emperor's aunt had beendivorced, his cousin's legitimacy had been impugned, and thedespatches of his envoy, Chapuys, were filled with indignantlamentations over the treatment meted out to Catherine and to herdaughter. Both proud and stubborn women, they resolutely refused toadmit in any way the validity of Henry's acts and recent legislation. Catherine would rather starve as Queen, than be sumptuously clothedand fed as Princess Dowager. Henry would give her anything she asked, if she would acknowledge that she was not the Queen, nor her daughterthe Princess; but her bold resistance to his commands and wishes (p. 304)brought out all the worst features of his character. [849] His angerwas not the worst the Queen and her daughter had to fear; he stillpreserved a feeling of respect for Catherine and of affection forMary. "The King himself, " writes Chapuys, "is not ill-natured; it isthis Anne who has put him in this perverse and wicked temper, andalienates him from his former humanity. "[850] The new Queen's jealousmalignity passed all bounds. She caused her aunt to be made governessto Mary, and urged her to box her charge's ears; and she used everyeffort to force the Princess to serve as a maid upon her littlehalf-sister, Elizabeth. [851]

 [Footnote 849: _L. And P. _, vi. , 805, 1186. ]

 [Footnote 850: _Ibid. _, vi. , 351; vii. , 171, 871; _cf. _ v. , 216, where Chapuys says Anne hated the Princess Mary more than she did Queen Catherine because she saw that Henry had some affection for Mary, and praised her in Anne's presence. At the worst Henry's manners were generally polite; on one occasion, writes Chapuys, "when the King was going to mount his horse, the Princess went on to a terrace at the top of the house to see him. The King, either being told of it or by chance, turned round, and seeing her on her knees with her hands joined, bowed to her and put his hand to his hat. Then all those present who had not dared to raise their heads to look at her [surely they may not have seen her] rejoiced at what the King had done, and saluted her reverently with signs of good-will and compassion" (_ibid. _, vii. , 83). ]

 [Footnote 851: _Ibid. _, vii. , 171. ]

This humiliation was deeply resented by the people, who, says Chapuys, though forbidden, on pain of their lives, to call Catherine Queen, shouted it at the top of their voices. [852] "You cannot imagine, " hewrites a few weeks later to Charles, "the great desire of all thispeople that your Majesty should send men. Every day I have beenapplied to about it by Englishmen of rank, wit and learning, (p. 305)who give me to understand that the last King Richard was never so muchhated by his people as this King. "[853] The Emperor, he went on, had abetter chance of success than Henry VII. , and Ortiz at Rome wascherishing the belief that England would rise against the King for hiscontumacy and schismatic disobedience. [854] Fisher was urgent thatCharles should prepare an invasion of England; the young Marquis ofExeter, a possible claimant to the throne, was giving the sameadvice. [855] Abergavenny, Darcy and other peers brooded in sullendiscontent. They were all listening to the hysterical ravings ofElizabeth Barton, [856] the Nun of Kent, who prophesied that Henry hadnot a year to live. Charles's emissaries were busy in Ireland, whereKildare was about to revolt. James V. Of Scotland was hinting at hisclaims to the English crown, should Henry be deprived by thePope;[857] and Chapuys was divided in mind whether it would be betterto make James the executor of the papal sentence, or marry Mary tosome great English noble, and raise an internal rebellion. [858] AtCatherine's suggestion he recommended to the Emperor Reginald Pole, agrandson of George, Duke of Clarence, as a suitor for Mary's hand; andhe urged, on his own account, Pole's claims to the Englishthrone. [859] Catherine's scruples, not about deposing her husband, orpassing over the claims of Henry's sisters, but on the score of EdwardIV. 's grandson, the Marquis of Exeter, might, thought Chapuys, (p. 306)be removed by appealing to the notorious sentence of Bishop Stillington, who, on the demand of Richard III. , had pronounced Edward IV. 'smarriage void and his children illegitimate. [860] Those who had beenthe King's firm supporters when the divorce first came up were some ofthem wavering, and others turning back. [861] Archbishop Lee, BishopsTunstall and Gardiner, and Bennet, [862] were now all in secret or openopposition, and even Longland was expressing to Chapuys regrets thathe had ever been Henry's confessor;[863] like other half-heartedrevolutionists, they would never have started at all, had they knownhow far they would have to go, and now they were setting their sailsfor an adverse breeze. It was the King, and the King alone, who keptEngland on the course which he had mapped out. Pope and Emperor weredefied; Europe was shocked; Francis himself disapproved of the breachwith the Church; Ireland was in revolt; Scotland, as ever, washostile; legislation had been thrust down the throats of arecalcitrant Church, and, we are asked to believe, of a no lessunwilling House of Commons, while the people at large were seethingwith indignation at the insults heaped upon the injured Queen and herdaughter. By all the laws of nature, of morals, and of politics, itwould seem, Henry was doomed to the fate of the monarch in the Book ofDaniel the Prophet, [864] who did according to his will and exalted andmagnified himself above every god; who divided the land for gain, andhad power over the treasures of gold and silver; who was troubled bytidings from the east and from the north; who went forth with (p. 307)great fury to destroy and utterly make away many, and yet came tohis end, and none helped him. 

 [Footnote 852: _Ibid. _, vi. , 918. ]

 [Footnote 853: _L. And P. _, vi. , 508; vii. , 121. ]

 [Footnote 854: _Ibid. _, v. , 1324. ]

 [Footnote 855: _Ibid. _, v. , 416. ]

 [Footnote 856: See _Transactions of the Royal Hist. Soc. _, N. S. , xviii. ; _L. And P. _, vi. , 1419, 1445, 1464, 1467, 1468. ]

 [Footnote 857: _L. And P. _, v. , 609, 807; vi. , 815, 821. ]

 [Footnote 858: _Ibid. _, vi. , 446, 541; vii. , 114. ]

 [Footnote 859: _Ibid. _, vi. , 1164. ]

 [Footnote 860: _L. And P. _, vii. , 1368. ]

 [Footnote 861: Even Norfolk, and Suffolk and his wife wanted to dissuade Henry in 1531 from persisting in the divorce (_ibid. _, v. , 287). ]

 [Footnote 862: _Ibid. _, v. , 696. ]

 [Footnote 863: _Ibid. _, vii. , 14. ]

 [Footnote 864: Daniel xi. , 36-45. ]

All these circumstances, real and alleged, would be quite convincingas reasons for Henry's failure; but they are singularly inconclusiveas explanations of his success, of the facts that his people did notrise and depose him, that no Spanish Armada disgorged its host onEnglish shores, and that, for all the papal thunderbolts, Henry diedquietly in his bed fourteen years later, and was buried with a pompand respect to which Popes themselves were little accustomed. He mayhave stood alone in his confidence of success, and in his penetrationthrough these appearances into the real truth of the situation behind. That, from a purely political or non-moral point of view, is his chieftitle to greatness. He knew from the beginning what he could do; hehad counted the cost and calculated the risks; and, writes Russell inAugust, 1533, "I never saw the King merrier than he is now". [865] Asearly as March, 1531, he told Chapuys that if the Pope issued 10, 000excommunications he would not care a straw for them. [866] When thepapal nuncio first hinted at excommunication and a papal appeal to thesecular arm, Henry declared that he cared nothing for either. [867] Hewould open the eyes of princes, he said, and show them how small wasreally the power of the Pope;[868] and "when the Pope had done what heliked on his side, Henry would do what he liked here". [869] Thatthreat, at least, he fulfilled with a vengeance. He did not fear theSpaniards; they might come, he said (as they did in 1588), but (p. 308)perhaps they might not return. [870] England, he told his subjects, was not conquerable, so long as she remained united;[871] and thepatriotic outburst with which Shakespeare closes "King John" is but anecho and an expansion of the words of Henry VIII. 

 This England never did, nor never shall, Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror, But when it first did help to wound itself. .. . Come the three corners of the world in arms, And we shall shock them. Nought shall make us rue, If England to itself do rest but true. 

 [Footnote 865: _L. And P. _, vi. , 948. ]

 [Footnote 866: _Ibid. _, v. , 148. ]

 [Footnote 867: _Ibid. _, v. , 738. ]

 [Footnote 868: _Ibid. _, v. , 1292. ]

 [Footnote 869: _Ibid. _, v. , 287. ]

 [Footnote 870: _L. And P. _, vi. , 1479. ]

 [Footnote 871: _Ibid. _, vi. , 324. ]

The great fear of Englishmen was lest Charles should ruin them byprohibiting the trade with Flanders. "Their only comfort, " wroteChapuys, "is that the King persuades the people that it is not in yourMajesty's power to do so. "[872] Henry had put the matter to apractical test, in the autumn of 1533, by closing the Staple atCalais. [873] It is possible that the dispute between him and themerchants, alleged as the cause for this step, was real; but the Kingcould have provided his subjects with no more forcible object-lesson. Distress was felt at once in Flanders; complaints grew so clamorousthat the Regent sent an embassy post-haste to Henry to remonstrate, and to represent the closing of the Staple as an infraction ofcommercial treaties. Henry coldly replied that he had broken notreaties at all; it was merely a private dispute between his merchantsand himself, in which foreign powers had no ground for intervention. The envoys had to return, convinced against their will. The Staple atCalais was soon reopened, but the English King was able to (p. 309)demonstrate to his people that the Flemings "could not do withoutEngland's trade, considering the outcry they made when the Staple ofCalais was closed for only three months". 

 [Footnote 872: _Ibid. _, vi. , 1460. ]

 [Footnote 873: _Ibid. _, vi. , 1510, 1523, 1571. ]

Henry, indeed, might almost be credited with second-sight into theEmperor's mind. On 31st May, 1533, Charles's council discussed thesituation. [874] After considering Henry's enormities, the councillorsproceeded to deliberate on the possible remedies. There were three:justice, force and a combination of both. The objections to relying onmethods of justice, that is, on the papal sentence, were, firstly, that Henry would not obey, and secondly, that the Pope was not to betrusted. The objections to the employment of force were, that warwould imperil the whole of Europe, and especially the Emperor'sdominions, and that Henry had neither used violence towards Catherinenor given Charles any excuse for breaking the Treaty of Cambrai. Eventually, it was decided to leave the matter to Clement. He was tobe urged to give sentence against Henry, but on no account to layEngland under an interdict, as that "would disturb her intercoursewith Spain and Flanders. If, therefore, an interdict be resorted to, it should be limited to one diocese, or to the place where Henrydwells. "[875] Such an interdict might put a premium on assassination, but otherwise neither Henry nor his people were likely to care muchabout it. The Pope should, however, be exhorted to depose the EnglishKing; that might pave the way for Mary's accession and for thepredominance in England of the Emperor's influence; but the executionof the sentence must not be entrusted to Charles. [876] It would (p. 310)be excellent if James V. Or the Irish would undertake to beard thelion in his den, but the Emperor did not see his way clear toaccepting the risk himself. 

 [Footnote 874: _L. And P. _, vi. , 568. ]

 [Footnote 875: _Ibid. _, vi. , 570. ]

 [Footnote 876: In January, 1534, Charles's ambassador at Rome repudiated the Pope's statement that the Emperor had ever offered to assist in the execution of the Pope's sentence (_L. And P. _, vii. , 96). ]

Charles was, indeed, afraid, not merely of Henry, but of Francis, whowas meditating fresh Italian schemes; and various expedients weresuggested to divert his attention in other directions. He might beassisted in an attack upon Calais. "Calais, " was Charles's cautiouscomment, "is better as it is, for the security of Flanders. "[877] ThePope hinted that the grant of Milan would win over Francis. Itprobably would; but Charles would have abandoned half a dozen auntsrather than see Milan in French possession. His real concern in thematter was not the injustice to Catherine, but the destruction of theprospect of Mary's succession. That was a tangible political interest, and Charles was much less anxious to have Henry censured than to haveMary's legitimate claim to the throne established. [878] He was a greatpolitician, absolutely impervious to personal wrong when its remedyconflicted with political interests. "Though the Emperor, " he said, "is bound to the Queen, this is a private matter, and publicconsiderations must be taken into account. " And public considerations, as he admitted a year later, "compelled him to conciliate (p. 311)Henry". [879] So he refused Chapuys' request to be recalled lest hispresence in England should lead people to believe that Charles hadcondoned Henry's marriage with Anne Boleyn, [880] and dissuadedCatherine from leaving England. [881] The least hint to Francis of anyhostile intent towards Henry would, thought Charles, be at oncerevealed to the English King, and the two would join in making war onhimself. War he was determined to avoid, for, apart from the ruin ofFlanders, which it would involve, Henry and Francis had long beenintriguing with the Lutherans in Germany. A breach might easilyprecipitate civil strife in the Empire; and, indeed, in June, 1534, Würtemberg was wrested from the Habsburgs by Philip of Hesse with theconnivance of France. Francis, too, was always believed to have aworking agreement with the Turk; Barbarossa was giving no little causefor alarm in the Mediterranean; while Henry on his part had establishedclose relations with Lübeck and Hamburg, and was fomenting dissensionsin Denmark, the crown of which he was offered but cautiously (p. 312)declined. [882]

 [Footnote 877: _Ibid. _, vi. , 774. The sense of this passage is spoilt in _L. And P. _ by the comma being placed after "better" instead of after "is". ]

 [Footnote 878: Control over England was the great objective of Habsburg policy. In 1513 Margaret of Savoy was pressing Henry to have the succession settled on his sister Mary, then betrothed to Charles himself (_ibid. _, i. , 4833). ]

 [Footnote 879: _L. And P. _, vii. , 229. All that Charles thought practicable was to "embarrass Henry in his own kingdom, and to execute what the Emperor wrote to the Irish chiefs" (_cf. _ vii. , 342, 353). ]

 [Footnote 880: _Ibid. _, vi. , 351. Charles's conduct is a striking vindication of Wolsey's foresight in 1528, when he told Campeggio that the Emperor would not wage war over the divorce of Catherine, and said there would be a thousand ways of keeping on good terms with him (Ehses, _Römische Dokumente_, p. 69; _L. And P. _, iv. , 4881). Dr. Gairdner thinks Wolsey was insincere in this remark (_English Hist. Rev. _, xii. , 242), but he seems to have gauged Charles V. 's character and embarrassments accurately. ]

 [Footnote 881: _L. And P. _, vi. , 863. Her departure would have prejudiced Mary's claim to the throne, but Charles's advice was particularly callous in view of the reports which Chapuys was sending Charles of her treatment. ]

 [Footnote 882: _L. And P. _, vii. , 737, 871, 957-58, and vol. Viii. , _passim_; _cf. _ C. F. Wurm, _Die politischen Beziehungen Heinrichs VIII. Zu Mercus Meyer und Jürgen Wullenwever_, Hamburg, 1852. ]

This incurable jealousy between Francis and Charles made the FrenchKing loth to weaken his friendship with Henry. The English King wascareful to impress upon the French ambassador that he could, in thelast resort, make his peace with Charles by taking back Catherine andby restoring Mary to her place in the line of succession. [883] Francishad too poignant a recollection of the results of the union betweenHenry and Charles from 1521 to 1525 ever to risk its renewal. The ageof the crusades and chivalry was gone; commercial and national rivalrieswere as potent in the sixteenth century as they are to-day. Then, asin subsequent times, mutual suspicions made impossible an effectiveconcert of Europe against the Turk. The fall of Rhodes and the deathof one of Charles's brothers-in-law at Mohacz and the expulsion ofanother from the throne of Denmark had never been avenged, and, in1534, the Emperor was compelled to evacuate Coron. [884] If Europecould not combine against the common enemy of the Faith, was it likelyto combine against one who, in spite of all his enormities, was stillan orthodox Christian? And, without a combination of princes toexecute them, papal censures, excommunications, interdicts, and allthe spiritual paraphernalia, served only to probe the hollowness ofpapal pretensions, and to demonstrate the deafness of Europe to thecalls of religious enthusiasm. In Spain, at least, it might have beenthought that every sword would leap from its scabbard at a summons (p. 313)from Charles on behalf of the Spanish Queen. "Henry, " wrote Chapuys, "has always fortified himself by the consent of Parliament. "[885] Itwould be well, he thought, if Charles would follow suit, and inducethe Cortes of Aragon and Castile, "or at least the grandees, " to offertheir persons and goods in Catherine's cause. Such an offer, ifpublished in England, "will be of inestimable service". But here comesthe proof of Charles's pitiful impotence; in order to obtain thispublic offer, the Emperor was "to give them privately an exemptionfrom such offer and promise of persons and goods". It was to be onemore pretence like the others, and unfortunately for the Pope and forthe Emperor, Henry had an inconvenient habit of piercing disguises. 

 [Footnote 883: _L. And P. _, vi. , 1572. ]

 [Footnote 884: _Ibid. _, vii. , 670. ]

 [Footnote 885: _L. And P. _, vi. , 720. ]

The strength of Henry's position at home was due to a similar lack ofunity among his domestic enemies. If the English people had wished todepose him, they could have effected their object without muchdifficulty. In estimating the chances of a possible invasion, it waspointed out how entirely dependent Henry was upon his people: he hadonly one castle in London, and only a hundred yeomen of the guard todefend him. [886] He would, in fact, have been powerless against aunited people or even against a partial revolt, if well organised andreally popular. There was chronic discontent throughout the Tudorperiod, but it was sectional. The remnants of the old nobility alwayshated Tudor methods of government, and the poorer commons were sullenat their ill-treatment by the lords of the land; but there was noconcerted basis of action between the two. The dominant class (p. 314)was commercial, and it had no grievance against Henry, while it fearedalike the lords and the lower orders. In the spoliation of the Churchtemporal lords and commercial men, both of whom could profit thereby, were agreed; and nowhere was there much sympathy with the Church as aninstitution apart from its doctrine. Chapuys himself admits that theact, depriving the clergy of their profits from leases, was passed "toplease the people";[887] and another conservative declared that, ifthe Church were deprived of all its temporal goods, many would be gladand few would bemoan. [888] Sympathy with Catherine and hatred of Annewere general, but people thought, like Charles, that these wereprivate griefs, and that public considerations must be taken intoaccount. Englishmen are at all times reluctant to turn out oneGovernment until they see at least the possibility of another to takeits place, and the only alternative to Henry VIII. Was anarchy. Theopposition could not agree on a policy, and they could not agree on aleader. There were various grandchildren of Edward IV. And ofClarence, who might put forward distant claims to the throne; andthere were other candidates in whose multitude lay Henry's safety. Itwas quite certain that the pushing of any one of these claimants wouldthrow the rest on Henry's side. James V. , whom at one time Chapuysfavoured, knew that a Scots invasion would unite the whole of Englandagainst him; and Charles was probably wise in rebuking hisambassador's zeal, and in thinking that any attempt on his own partwould be more disastrous to himself than to Henry. [889] For all (p. 315)this, the English King was, as Chapuys remarks, keeping a verywatchful eye on the countenance of his people, [890] seeing how far hecould go and where he must stop, and neglecting no precaution for thepeace and security of himself and his kingdom. Acts were passed tostrengthen the navy, improvements in arms and armament were beingcontinually tested, and the fortifications at Calais, on the ScotsBorders and elsewhere were strengthened. Wales was reduced to law andorder, and, through the intermediation of Francis, a satisfactorypeace was made with Scotland. [891]

 [Footnote 886: _Ibid. _, vi. , App. 7. ]

 [Footnote 887: _L. And P. _, vii. , 114. ]

 [Footnote 888: _Ibid. _, vii. , 24. ]

 [Footnote 889: Chapuys is quite plaintive when he hints at the advantages which might follow if only "your Majesty were ever so little angry" with Henry VIII. (_L. And P. _, vii. , 114). A few days later he "apologises for his previous letters advocating severity" (_ibid. _, vii. , 171). ]

 [Footnote 890: _Ibid. _, vi. , 351. ]

 [Footnote 891: _Ibid. _, vi. , 729, 1161. One of Henry's baits to James V. Was a suggestion that he would get Parliament to entail the succession on James if his issue by Anne Boleyn failed (_ibid. _, vii. , 114). ]

 * * * * *

Convinced of his security from attack at home and abroad, Henryproceeded to accomplish what remained for the subjugation of theChurch in England and the final breach with Rome. Clement had nosooner excommunicated Henry than he began to repent; he was much morealarmed than the English King at the probable effects of his sentence. Henry at once recalled his ambassadors from Rome, and drew up anappeal to a General Council. [892] The Pope feared he would loseEngland for ever. Even the Imperialists proved but Job's comforters, and told him that, after all, it was only "an unprofitable (p. 316)island, "[893] the loss of which was not to be compared with therenewed devotion of Spain and the Emperor's other dominions; possiblythey assured him that there would never again be a sack of Rome. Clement delayed for a time the publication of the sentence againstHenry, and in November he went to his interview with Francis I. AtMarseilles. [894] While he was there, Bonner intimated to him Henry'sappeal to a General Council. Clement angrily rejected the appeal asfrivolous, and Francis regarded this defiance of the Pope as anaffront to himself in the person of his guest, and as the ruin of hisattempts to reconcile the two parties. "Ye have clearly marred all, "he said to Gardiner; "as fast as I study to win the Pope, you study tolose him, "[895] and he declared that, had he known of the intimationbeforehand, it should never have been made. Henry, however, had nodesire that the Pope should be won. [896] He was, he told the Frenchambassador, determined to separate from Rome; "he will not, inconsequence of this, be less Christian, but more so, for in everythingand in every place he desires to cause Jesus Christ to be recognised, who alone is the patron of Christians; and he will cause the Word tobe preached, and not the canons and decrees of the Pope. "[897]

 [Footnote 892: _Ibid. _, vi. , 721, 979, 980, 998. ]

 [Footnote 893: _L. And P. _, vi. , 997. ]

 [Footnote 894: He is said, while there, to have privately admitted to Francis that the dispensation of Julius II. Was invalid (_ibid. _, vii. , 1348, App. 8). ]

 [Footnote 895: _Ibid. _, vi. , 1425, 1426, 1427. ]

 [Footnote 896: On his side he was angry with Francis for telling the Pope that Henry would side against the Lutherans; he was afraid it might spoil his practices with them (_ibid. _, vi. , 614, 707); the Lübeckers had already suggested to Henry VIII. That he should seize the disputed throne of Denmark (_ibid. _, vi. , 428; _cf. _ the present writer in _Cambridge Modern History_, ii. , 229). ]

 [Footnote 897: _L. And P. _, vi. , 1435, 1479. ]

Parliament was to meet to effect this purpose in January, 1534, (p. 317)and during the previous autumn there are the first indications, traceable to Cromwell's hand, of an attempt to pack it. He drew up amemorandum of such seats as were vacant from death or from othercauses; most of the new members appear to have been freely elected, but four vacancies were filled by "the King's pleasure. "[898] Moreextensive and less doubtful was the royal interference in the electionof abbots. Many abbeys fell vacant in 1533, and in every casecommissioners were sent down to secure the election of the King'snominee; in many others, abbots were induced to resign, and fresh (p. 318)ones put in their place. [899] It is not clear that the main object wasto pack the clerical representation in the House of Lords, becauseonly a few of these abbots had seats there, the abbots gave much lesstrouble than the bishops in Parliament, and Convocation, where theylargely outnumbered the bishops, was much more amenable than the Houseof Peers, where the bishops' votes preponderated. It is more probablethat the end in view was already the dissolution of the monasteries bymeans of surrender. Cromwell, who was now said to "rule everything, "[900]was boasting that he would make his King the richest monarch inChristendom, and his methods may be guessed from his praise of theSultan as a model to other princes for the authority he wielded overhis subjects. [901] Henry, however, was fortunate in 1533, even in thematter of episcopal representation. He had, since the fall of Wolsey, had occasion to fill up the Sees of York, Winchester, London, Durhamand Canterbury; and in this year five more became vacant: Bangor, Ely, Coventry and Lichfield by death, and Salisbury and Worcester throughthe deprivation by Act of Parliament of their foreign and absenteepastors, Campeggio and Ghinucci. [902] Of the other bishops, Clerk ofBath and Wells, and Longland of Lincoln, had been active in thedivorce, which, indeed, Longland, the King's confessor, was said tohave originally suggested about the year 1523; the Bishops of Norwichand of Chichester were both over ninety years of age. [903] (p. 319)Llandaff was Catherine's confessor, a Spaniard who could not speak aword of English. On the whole bench there was no one but Fisher ofRochester who had the will or the courage to make any effective standon behalf of the Church's liberty. 

 [Footnote 898: _L. And P. _, vi. , 1382; vii. , 56. A whole essay might be written on this latter brief document; it is not, what it purports to be, a list of knights of the shires who had died since the beginning of Parliament, for the names are those of living men. Against most of the constituencies two or three names are placed; Dr. Gairdner suggests that these are the possible candidates suggested by Cromwell and to be nominated by the King. But why is "the King's pleasure" placed opposite only three vacancies, if the whole twenty-eight were to be filled on his nomination? The names are probably those of influential magnates in the neighbourhood who would naturally have the chief voice in the election; and thus they would correspond with the vacancies, _e. G. _, Hastings, opposite which is placed "Not for the Warden of the Cinque Ports, " and Southwark, for which there is a similar note for the Duke of Suffolk. It is obvious that the King could not fill up all the vacancies by nomination; for opposite Worcester town, where _both_ members, Dee and Brenning, had died, is noted, "the King to name _one_". It is curious to find "the King's pleasure" after Winchester city, as that was one of the constituencies for which Gardiner as bishop afterwards said he was wont to nominate burgesses (Foxe, ed. Townsend, vi. , 54). It must also be remembered that these were bye-elections and possibly a novelty. In 1536 the rebels demand that "if a knight or burgess died during Parliament his room should continue void to the end of the same" (_L. And P. _, xi. , 1182 [17]). In the seventeenth century supplementary members were chosen for the Long Parliament to fill possible vacancies; there were no bye-elections. ]

 [Footnote 899: _L. And P. _, vi. , 716, 816, 847, 1007, 1056, 1057, 1109 (where by the Bishopric of "Chester" is meant Coventry and Lichfield, and not Chichester, as suggested by the editor; the See of Coventry and Lichfield was often called Chester before the creation of the latter see), 1239, 1304, 1376, 1408, 1513; vii. , 108, 257, 297, 344, 376. ]

 [Footnote 900: _Ibid. _, vi. , 1445. ]

 [Footnote 901: _Ibid. _, vii. , 1554. ]

 [Footnote 902: _Ibid. _, vii. , 48, 54, 634. ]

 [Footnote 903: _L. And P. _, vii. , 171. ]

Before Parliament met Francis sent Du Bellay, Bishop of Paris, toLondon to make one last effort to keep the peace between England andRome. Du Bellay could get no concessions of any value from Henry. Allthe King would promise was that, if Clement would before Easterdeclare his marriage with Catherine null and that with Anne valid, hewould not complete the extirpation of the papal authority. [904] Littleenough of that remained, and Henry himself had probably no expectationand no wish that his terms should be accepted. Long before Du Bellayhad reached Rome, Parliament was discussing measures designed toeffect the final severance. Opposition was of the feeblest characteralike in Convocation and in both Houses of Parliament. Chapuys himselfgloomily prophesied that there would be no difficulty in getting theprincipal measures, abolishing the Pope's authority and arranging forthe election of bishops, through the House of Lords. [905] The secondAct of Appeals embodied the concessions made by Convocation in 1532and rejected that year in the House of Lords. Convocation was neitherto meet nor to legislate without the King's assent; Henry mightappoint a royal commission to reform the canon law;[906] appeals wereto be permitted to Chancery from the Archbishop's Court;[907] (p. 320)abbeys and other religious houses, which had been exempt fromepiscopal authority, were placed immediately under the jurisdiction ofChancery. A fresh Act of Annates defined more precisely the new methodof electing bishops, and provided that, if the Chapter did not electthe royal nominee within twelve days, the King might appoint him byletters patent. A third act forbade the payment of Peter-pence andother impositions to the Court of Rome, and handed over the businessof dispensations and licences to the Archbishop of Canterbury; at thesame time it declared that neither King nor realm meant to vary fromthe articles of the Catholic Faith of Christendom. 

 [Footnote 904: _Ibid. _, vii. , App. 13. ]

 [Footnote 905: _Ibid. _, vii. , 171; _cf. _ XII. , ii. , 952. ]

 [Footnote 906: This commission was not appointed till 1551: see the present writer's _Cranmer_, pp. 280-4. ]

 [Footnote 907: 25 Henry VIII. , c. 19. The first suggestion appears to have been "to give the Archbishop of Canterbury the seal of Chancery, and pass bulls, dispensations and other provisions under it" (_L. And P. _, vii. , 14; _cf. _ vii. , 57); his title was changed from _Apostolicæ Sedis legatus_ to _Metropolitanus_ (_ibid. _, vii. , 1555). ]

Another act provided that charges of heresy must be supported by twolay witnesses, and that indictments for that offence could only be madeby lay authorities. This, like the rest of Henry's anti-ecclesiasticallegislation, was based on popular clamour. On the 5th of March thewhole House of Commons, with the Speaker at their head, had waited onthe King at York Place and expatiated for three hours on theoppressiveness of clerical jurisdiction. At length it was agreed thateight temporal peers, eight representatives of the Lower House andsixteen bishops "should discuss the matter and the King be umpire"[908]--arepetition of the plan of 1529 and a very exact reflection of Henry'smethods and of the Church-and-State situation during the ReformationParliament. 

 [Footnote 908: _L. And P. _, vii. , 304, 393, 399; the provision about two witnesses was in 1547 extended to treason. ]

The final act of the session, which ended on 30th March, was a (p. 321)constitutional innovation of the utmost importance. From the earliestages the succession to the crown had in theory been determined, firstby election, and then by hereditary right. In practice it had oftenbeen decided by the barbarous arbitrament of war. For right is vague, it may be disputed, and there was endless variety of opinion as to theproper claimant to the throne if Henry should die. So vague right wasto be replaced by definite law, which could not be disputed, butwhich, unlike right, could easily be changed. The succession was nolonger to be regulated by an unalterable principle, but by the popular(or royal) will expressed in Acts of Parliament. [909] The first of along series of Acts of Succession was now passed to vest the successionto the crown in the heirs of the King by Anne Boleyn; clauses wereadded declaring that persons who impugned that marriage by writing, printing, or other deed were guilty of treason, and those who impugnedit by words, of misprision. The Government proposal that both classesof offenders should be held guilty of treason was modified by theHouse of Commons. [910]

 [Footnote 909: The succession to the crown was one of the last matters affected by the process of substituting written law for unwritten right which began with the laws of Ethelbert of Kent. There had of course been _ex post facto_ acts recognising that the crown was vested in the successful competitor. ]

 [Footnote 910: _L. And P. _, vii. , 51. ]

On 23rd March, a week before the prorogation of Parliament, and sevenyears after the divorce case had first begun, Clement gave sentence atRome pronouncing valid the marriage between Catherine and Henry. [911]The decision produced not a ripple on the surface of English affairs;Henry, writes Chapuys, took no account of it and was making as (p. 322)good cheer as ever. [912] There was no reason why he should not. While the imperialist mob at Rome after its kind paraded the streetsin crowds, shouting "Imperio et Espagne, " and firing _feux-de-joie_over the news, the imperialist agent was writing to Charles that thejudgment would not be of much profit, except for the Emperor's honourand the Queen's justification, and was congratulating his master thathe was not bound to execute the sentence. [913] Flemings were tearingdown the papal censures from the doors of their churches, [914] andCharles was as convinced as ever of the necessity of Henry'sfriendship. He proposed to the Pope that some one should be sent fromRome to join Chapuys in "trying to move the King from his error"; andClement could only reply that "he thought the embassy would have noeffect on the King, but that nothing would be lost by it, and it wouldbe a good compliment!"[915] Henry, however was less likely to beinfluenced by compliments, good or bad, than by the circumstance thatneither Pope nor Emperor was in a position to employ any ruderpersuasive. There was none so poor as to reverence a Pope, and, whenClement died six months later, the Roman populace broke into thechamber where he lay and stabbed his corpse; they were with difficultyprevented from dragging it in degradation through the streets. [916]Such was the respect paid to the Supreme Pontiff in the Holy City, anddeference to his sentence was not to be expected in more distantparts. 

 [Footnote 911: _Ibid. _, vii. , 362. ]

 [Footnote 912: _L. And P. _, vii. , 469. ]

 [Footnote 913: _Ibid. _, vii. , 368. ]

 [Footnote 914: _Ibid. _, vii. , 184. ]

 [Footnote 915: _Ibid. _, vii. , 804. ]

 [Footnote 916: _Ibid. _, vii. , 1262. ]

Henry's political education was now complete; the events of the lastfive years had proved to him the truth of the assertion, with (p. 323)which he had started, that the Pope might do what he liked at Rome, but that he also could do what he liked in England, so long as heavoided the active hostility of the majority of his lay subjects. TheChurch had, by its actions, shown him that it was powerless; the Popehad proved the impotence of his spiritual weapons; and the Emperor hadadmitted that he was both unable and unwilling to interfere. Henry hadrealised the extent of his power, and the opening of his eyes had anevil effect upon his character. Nothing makes men or Governments socareless or so arbitrary as the knowledge that there will be noeffective opposition to their desires. Henry, at least, never grewcareless; his watchful eye was always wide open. His ear was alwaysstrained to catch the faintest rumbling of a coming storm, and hissubtle intellect was ever on the alert to take advantage of every turnin the diplomatic game. He was always efficient, and he took good carethat his ministers should be so as well. But he grew very arbitrary;the knowledge that he could do so much became with him an irresistiblereason for doing it. Despotic power is twice cursed; it debases theruler and degrades the subject; and Henry's progress to despotism maybe connected with the rise of Thomas Cromwell, who looked to the GreatTurk as a model for Christian princes. [917] Cromwell became secretaryin May, 1534; in that month Henry's security was enhanced by the (p. 324)definitive peace with Scotland, [918] and he set to work to enforcehis authority with the weapons which Parliament had placed in hishands. Elizabeth Barton, and her accomplices, two Friars Observants, two monks, and one secular priest, all attainted of treason by Act ofParliament, were sent to the block. [919] Commissioners were sentround, as Parliament had ordained, to enforce the oath of successionthroughout the land. [920] A general refusal would have stopped Henry'scareer, but the general consent left Henry free to deal as he likedwith the exceptions. Fisher and More were sent to the Tower. They werewilling to swear to the succession, regarding that as a matter withinthe competence of Parliament, but they refused to take the oathrequired by the commissioners;[921] it contained, they alleged, arepudiation of the Pope not justified by the terms of the statute. Twocartloads of friars followed them to the Tower in June, and the Orderof Observants, in whose church at Greenwich Henry had been baptisedand married, and of whom in his earlier years he had written in termsof warm admiration, was suppressed altogether. [922]

 [Footnote 917: "The Lord Cromwell, " says Bishop Gardiner, "had once put in the King our late sovereign lord's head, to take upon him to have his will and pleasure regarded for a law; for that, he said, was to be a very King, " and he quoted the _quod principi placuit_ of Roman civil law. Gardiner replied to the King that "to make the laws his will was more sure and quiet" and "agreeable with the nature of your people". Henry preferred Gardiner's advice (Foxe, ed. Townsend, vi. , 46). ]

 [Footnote 918: _L. And P. _, vii. , 483, 647. ]

 [Footnote 919: _Ibid. _, vii. , 522. ]

 [Footnote 920: _Ibid. _, vii. , 665. ]

 [Footnote 921: _Ibid. _, vii. , 499. ]

 [Footnote 922: _Ibid. _, vii. , 841, 856. The order had been particularly active in opposition to the divorce (_ibid. _, iv. , 6156; v. , 266. )]

In November Parliament[923] reinforced the Act of Succession by layingdown the precise terms of the oath, and providing that a certificateof refusal signed by two commissioners was as effective as theindictment of twelve jurors. Other acts empowered the King to repealby royal proclamation certain statutes regulating imports and exports. The first-fruits and tenths, of which the Pope had been already (p. 325)deprived, were now conferred on the King as a fitting ecclesiasticalendowment for the Supreme Head of the Church. That title, granted himfour years before by both Convocations, was confirmed by Act ofParliament; its object was to enable the King as Supreme Head toeffect the "increase of virtue in Christ's Religion within this Realmof England, and to repress and extirp all Errors, Heresies and otherEnormities, and Abuses heretofore used in the same". The Defender ofthe Faith was to be armed with more than a delegate power; he was tobe supreme in himself, the champion not of the Faith of any one else, but of his own; and the qualifying clause, "as far as the law ofChrist allows, " was omitted. His orthodoxy must be above suspicion, orat least beyond the reach of open cavil in England. So new treasonswere enacted, and any one who called the King a heretic, schismatic, tyrant, infidel, or usurper, was rendered liable to the heaviestpenalty which the law could inflict. As an earnest of the royal andparliamentary desire for an increase of virtue in religion, an act wasconcurrently passed providing for the creation of a number ofsuffragan bishops. [924]

 [Footnote 923: _Ibid. _, vii. , 1377. ]

 [Footnote 924: These were not actually created till 1540; the way in which Henry VIII. Sought statutory authority for every conceivable thing is very extraordinary. There seems no reason why he could not have created these bishoprics without parliamentary authority. ]

Henry was now Pope in England with powers no Pope had possessed. [925]The Reformation is variously regarded as the liberation of the (p. 326)English Church from the Roman yoke it had long impatiently borne, as its subjection to an Erastian yoke which it was henceforth, withmore or less patience, long to bear, or as a comparatively unimportantassertion of a supremacy which Kings of England had always enjoyed. The Church is the same Church, we are told, before and after thechange; if anything, it was Protestant before the Reformation, andCatholic after. It is, of course, the same Church. A man may bedescribed as the same man before and after death, and the business ofa coroner's jury is to establish the identity; but it does not ignorethe vital difference. Even Saul and Paul were the same man. And theidentity of the Church before and after the legislation of Henry VIII. Covers a considerable number of not unimportant changes. It does not, however, seem strictly accurate to say that Henry either liberated orenslaved the Church. Rather, he substituted one form of despotism foranother, a sole for a dual control; the change, complained a reformer, was merely a _translatio imperii_. [926] The democratic movement withinthe Church had died away, like the democratic movements in nationaland municipal politics, before the end of the fifteenth century. Itwas never merry with the Church, [927] complained a Catholic in 1533, since the time when bishops were wont to be chosen by the Holy Ghostand by their Chapters. 

 [Footnote 925: With limitations, of course. Henry's was only a _potestas jurisdictionis_ not a _potestas ordinis_ (see Makower, _Const. Hist. Of the Church of England_, and the present writer's _Cranmer_, pp. 83, 84, 95, 232, 233). Cranmer acknowledged in the King also a _potestatem ordinis_, just as Cromwell would have made him the sole legislator in temporal affairs; Henry's unrivalled capacity for judging what he could and could not do saved him from adopting either suggestion. ]

 [Footnote 926: _L. And P. _, XIV. , ii. , p. 141. ]

 [Footnote 927: _Ibid. _, vi. , 797 [2]; a Venetian declared that Huguenotism was "due to the abolition of the election of the clergy" (Armstrong, _Wars of Religion_, p. 11). ]

Since then the Church had been governed by a partnership between Kingand Pope, without much regard for the votes of the shareholders. Itwas not Henry who first deprived them of influence; neither did (p. 327)he restore it. What he did was to eject his foreign partner, appropriate his share of the profits, and put his part of the businessinto the hands of a manager. First-fruits and tenths were described asan intolerable burden; but they were not abolished; they were merelytransferred from the Pope to the King. Bishops became royal nominees, pure and simple, instead of the joint nominees of King and Pope. Thesupreme appellate jurisdiction in ecclesiastical causes was taken awayfrom Rome, but it was not granted the English Church to which in truthit had never belonged. [928] Chancery, and not the Archbishop's Court, was made the final resort for ecclesiastical appeals. The authority, divided erstwhile between two, was concentrated in the hands of one;and that one was thus placed in a far different position from thatwhich either had held before. 

 [Footnote 928: For one year, indeed, Cranmer remained _legatus natus_, and by a strange anomaly exercised a jurisdiction the source of which had been cut off. Stokesley objected to Cranmer's use of that style in order to escape a visitation of his see, and Gardiner thought it an infringement of the royal prerogative. It was abolished in the following year. ]

The change was analogous to that in Republican Rome from two consulsto one dictator. In both cases the dictatorship was due to exceptionalcircumstances. There had long been a demand for reform in the Churchin England as well as elsewhere, but the Church was powerless toreform itself. The dual control was in effect, as dual controls oftenare, a practical anarchy. The condition of the Church before theReformation may be compared with that of France before the Revolution. In purely spiritual matters the Pope was supreme: the conciliarmovement of the fifteenth century had failed. The Pope had (p. 328)gathered all powers to himself, in much the same way as the Frenchmonarch in the eighteenth century had done; and the result was thesame, a formal despotism and a real anarchy. Pope and Monarch werecrushed by the weight of their own authority; they could not reform, even when they wanted to. From 1500 to 1530 almost every scheme, peaceful or bellicose, started in Europe was based on the plea thatits ultimate aim was the reform of the Church; and so it would havecontinued, _vox et præterea nihil_, had not the Church been galvanisedinto action by the loss of half its inheritance. 

In England the change from a dual to a sole control at once made thatcontrol effective, and reform became possible. But it was a reformimposed on the Church from without and by means of the exceptionalpowers bestowed on the Supreme Head. Hence the burden of modernclerical criticism of the Reformation. Objection is raised not so muchto the things that were done, as to the means by which they werebrought to pass, to the fact that the Church was forcibly reformed bythe State, and not freed from the trammels of Rome, and then left towork out its own salvation. But such a solution occurred to few atthat time; the best and the worst of Henry's opponents opposed him onthe ground that he was divorcing the Church in England from the Churchuniversal. Their objection was to what was done more than to the wayin which it was done; and Sir Thomas More would have fought theReformation quite as strenuously had it been effected by theConvocations of Canterbury and York. On the other side there wasequally little thought of a Reformation by clerical hands. Henry (p. 329)and Cromwell carried on and developed the tradition of the EmperorFrederick II. And Peter de Vinea, [929] of Philippe le Bel andPierre Dubois, of Lewis the Bavarian and Marsiglio of Padua[930] whomaintained the supremacy of the temporal over the spiritual power andasserted that the clergy wielded no jurisdiction and only bore thekeys of heaven in the capacity of turnkeys. [931] It was a question ofthe national State against the universal Church. The idea of aNational Church was a later development, the result and not the causeof the Reformation. 

 [Footnote 929: The comparison has been drawn by Huillard-Bréholles in his _Vie et Correspondence de Pierre de la Vigne_, Paris, 1865. ]

 [Footnote 930: Marsiglio's _Defensor Pacis_ was a favourite book with Cromwell who lent a printer £20 to bring out an English edition of it in 1535 (see the present writer in _D. N. B. , s. V. _ Marshall, William). Marshall distributed twenty-four copies among the monks of Charterhouse to show them how the Christian commonwealth had been "unjustly molested, vexed and troubled by the spiritual and ecclesiastical tyrant". See also Maitland, _English Law and the Renaissance_, pp. 14, 60, 61. ]

 [Footnote 931: _Defensor Pacis_, ii. , 6. ]

Henry's dictatorship was also temporary in character. His supremacyover the Church was royal, and not parliamentary. It was he, and notParliament, who had been invested with a semi-ecclesiastical nature. In one capacity he was head of the State, in another, head of theChurch. Parliament and Convocation were co-ordinate one with another, and subordinate both to the King. The Tudors, and especially Elizabeth, vehemently denied to their Parliaments any share in their ecclesiasticalpowers. Their supremacy over the Church was their own, and, as areally effective control, it died with them. As the authority of theCrown declined, its secular powers were seized by Parliament; (p. 330)its ecclesiastical powers fell into abeyance between Parliament andConvocation. Neither has been able to vindicate an exclusive claim tothe inheritance; and the result of this dual claim to control has beena state of helplessness, similar in some respects to that from whichthe Church was rescued by the violent methods of Henry VIII. [932]

 [Footnote 932: A much neglected but very important constitutional question is whether the King _quâ_ Supreme Head of the Church was limited by the same statute and common law restrictions as he was _quâ_ temporal sovereign. Gardiner raised the question in a most interesting letter to Protector Somerset in 1547 (Foxe, vi. , 42). It had been provided, as Lord Chancellor Audley told Gardiner, that no spiritual law and no exercise of the royal supremacy should abate the common law or Acts of Parliament; but within the ecclesiastical sphere there were no limits on the King's authority. The Popes had not been fettered, _habent omnia jura in suo scrinio_; and their jurisdiction in England had been transferred whole and entire to the King. Henry was in fact an absolute monarch in the Church, a constitutional monarch in the State; he could reform the Church by injunction when he could not reform the State by proclamation. There was naturally a tendency to confuse the two capacities not merely in the King's mind but in his opponents'; and some of the objections to the Stuarts' dispensing practice, which was exercised chiefly in the ecclesiastical sphere, seem due to this confusion. Parliament in fact, as soon as the Tudors were gone, began to apply common law and statute law limitations to the Crown's ecclesiastical prerogative. ]

CHAPTER XIII. (p. 331)

THE CRISIS. 

Henry's title as Supreme Head of the Church was incorporated in theroyal style by letters patent of 15th January, 1535, [933] and thatyear was mainly employed in compelling its recognition by all sortsand conditions of men. In April, Houghton, the Prior of the Charterhouse, a monk of Sion, and the Vicar of Isleworth, were the first victimsoffered to the Supreme Head. But the machinery supplied by Parliamentwas barely sufficient to bring the penalties of the statute to bear onthe two most illustrious of Henry's opponents, Fisher and More. Bothhad been attainted of misprision of treason by Acts of Parliament inthe previous autumn; but those penalties extended no further than tolifelong imprisonment and forfeiture of goods. Their lives could onlybe exacted by proving that they had maliciously attempted to depriveHenry of his title of Supreme Head;[934] their opportunities in theTower for compassing that end were limited; and it is possible (p. 332)that they would not have been further molested, but for thethoughtlessness of Clement's successor, Paul III. Impotent to effectanything against the King, the Pope did his best to sting Henry tofury by creating Fisher a cardinal on 20th May. He afterwardsexplained that he meant no harm, but the harm was done, and itinvolved Fisher's friend and ally, Sir Thomas More. Henry declaredthat he would send the new cardinal's head to Rome for the hat; and heimmediately despatched commissioners to the Tower to inform Fisher andMore that, unless they acknowledged the royal supremacy, they would beput to death as traitors. [935] Fisher apparently denied the King'ssupremacy, More refused to answer; he was, however, entrapped during aconversation with the Solicitor-General, Rich, into an admission thatEnglishmen could not be bound to acknowledge a supremacy over theChurch in which other countries did not concur. In neither case was itclear that they came within the clutches of the law. Fisher, indeed, had really been guilty of treason. More than once he had urged Chapuysto press upon Charles the invasion of England, a fact unknown, perhaps, to the English Government. [936] The evidence it had (p. 333)collected was, however, considered sufficient by the juries whichtried the prisoners; Fisher went to the scaffold on 22nd June, andMore on 6th July. Condemned justly or not by the law, both soughttheir death in a quarrel which is as old as the hills and will lasttill the crack of doom. Where shall we place the limits of conscience, and where those of the national will? Is conscience a luxury whichonly a king may enjoy in peace? Fisher and More refused to accommodatetheirs to Acts of Parliament, but neither believed conscience to bethe supreme tribunal. [937] More admitted that in temporal matters hisconscience was bound by the laws of England; in spiritual matters theconscience of all was bound by the will of Christendom; and on thatground both Fisher and he rejected the plea of conscience when urgedby heretics condemned to the flames. The dispute, indeed, passes thewit of man to decide. If conscience must reign supreme, all governmentis a _pis aller_, and in anarchy the true millennium must be found. Ifconscience is deposed, man sinks to the level of the lower creation. Human society can only be based on compromise, and compromise itselfis a matter of conscience. Fisher and More protested by their deathagainst a principle which they had practised in life; both they andthe heretics whom they persecuted proclaimed, as Antigone had donethousands of years before, [938] that they could not obey laws (p. 334)which they could not believe God had made. 

 [Footnote 933: _L. And P. _, viii. , 52; Rymer, xiv. , 549. ]

 [Footnote 934: The general idea that Fisher and More were executed for refusing to take an oath prescribed in the Act of Supremacy is technically inaccurate. No oath is there prescribed, and not till 1536 was it made high treason to refuse to take the oath of supremacy; even then the oath was to be administered only to civil and ecclesiastical officers. The Act under which they were executed was 26 Henry VIII. , c. 13, and the common mistake arises from a confusion between the oath to the succession and the oath of supremacy. ]

 [Footnote 935: _L. And P. _, viii. , 876. ]

 [Footnote 936: _L. And P. _, iv. , 6199; vi. , 1164, 1249. He told Chapuys that if Charles invaded England he would be doing "a work as agreeable to God as going against the Turk, " and suggested that the Emperor should make use of Reginald Pole "to whom, according to many, the kingdom would belong" (Chapuys to Charles, 27th September, 1533). Again, says Chapuys, "the holy Bishop of Rochester would like you to take active measures immediately, as I wrote in my last; which advice he has sent to me again lately to repeat" (10th October, 1533). Canon Whitney, in criticising Froude (_Engl. Hist. Rev. _, xii. , 353), asserts that "nothing Chapuys says justifies the charge against Fisher!"]

 [Footnote 937: This statement has been denounced as "astounding" in a Roman Catholic periodical; yet if More believed individual conscience (_i. E. _, private judgment) to be superior to the voice of the Church, how did he differ from a Protestant? The statement in the text is merely a paraphrase of More's own, where he says that men are "not bound on pain of God's displeasure to change their conscience for any particular law made anywhere _except by a general council or a general faith growing by the working of God universally through all Christian nations_" (More's _English Works_, p. 1434; _L. And P. _, vii. , 432). ]

 [Footnote 938: [Greek: Ou gar ti moi Zeus ên ho kêruxas tade oud hê xunoikos tôn katô theôn Dikê. ] Sophocles, _Antigone_, 450. ]

It was the personal eminence of the victims rather than the merits oftheir case that made Europe thrill with horror at the news of theirdeath; for thousands of others were sacrificing their lives in asimilar cause in most of the countries of Christendom. For the firstand last time in English history a cardinal's head had rolled from anEnglish scaffold; and Paul III. Made an effort to bring into play theartillery of his temporal powers. As supreme lord over all the princesof the earth, he arrogated to himself the right to deprive Henry VIII. Of his kingdom; and he sent couriers to the various courts to seektheir co-operation in executing his judgment. But the weapons ofInnocent III. Were rusty with age. Francis denounced the Pope's claimas a most impudent attack on monarchical dignity; and Charles wasengaged in the conquest of Tunis. Thus Henry was able to take a hightone in reply to the remonstrances addressed to him, and to proceedundisturbed with the work of enforcing his royal supremacy. The autumnwas occupied mainly by a visitation of the monasteries and of theuniversities of Oxford and Cambridge; the schoolmen, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus and others were deposed from the seat of authority theyhad held for so many centuries, and efforts were made to substitutestudies like that of the civil law, more in harmony with the King'sdoctrine and with his views of royal authority. 

The more boldly Henry defied the Fates, the more he was favoured byFortune. "Besides his trust in his subjects, " wrote Chapuys in (p. 335)1534, "he has great hope in the Queen's death;"[939] and the year1536 was but eight days old when the unhappy Catherine was releasedfrom her trials, resolutely refusing to the last to acknowledge in anyway the invalidity of her marriage with Henry. She had derived somecomfort from the papal sentence in her favour, but that was notcalculated to soften the harshness with which she was treated. Herpious soul, too, was troubled with the thought that she had been theoccasion, innocent though she was, of the heresies that had arisen inEngland, and of the enormities which had been practised against theChurch. Her last days were cheered by a visit from Chapuys, [940] whowent down to Kimbolton on New Year's Day and stayed until the 5th ofJanuary, when the Queen seemed well on the road to recovery. Threedays later she passed away, and on the 29th she was buried with thestate of a princess dowager in the church of the Benedictine abbey atPeterborough. Her physician told Chapuys that he suspected poison, butthe symptoms are now declared, on high medical authority, to have beenthose of cancer of the heart. [941] The suspicion was the naturalresult of the circumstance that her death relieved the King of apressing anxiety. "God be praised!" he exclaimed, "we are free fromall suspicion of war;"[942] and on the following day he proclaimed hisjoy by appearing at a ball, clad in yellow from head to foot. [943] Everyinch a King, Henry VIII. Never attained to the stature of a gentleman, but even Bishop Gardiner wrote that by Queen Catherine's death (p. 336)"God had given sentence" in the divorce suit between her and the King. [944]

 [Footnote 939: _L. And P. _, vii. , 83. ]

 [Footnote 940: _Ibid. _, x. , 28, 59, 60, 141. ]

 [Footnote 941: Dr. Norman Moore in _Athenæum_, 1885, i. , 152, 215, 281. ]

 [Footnote 942: _L. And P. _, x. , 51. ]

 [Footnote 943: _Ibid. _ Hall only tells his readers that Anne Boleyn wore yellow for the mourning (_Chronicle_, p. 818). ]

 [Footnote 944: _L. And P. _, x. , 256. ]

A week later, the Reformation Parliament met for its seventh and lastsession. It sat from 4th February to 14th April, and in those tenweeks succeeded in passing no fewer than sixty-two Acts. Some werelocal and some were private, but the residue contained not a few ofpublic importance. The fact that the King obtained at last his Statuteof Uses[945] may indicate that Henry's skill and success had soimpressed Parliament, that it was more willing to acquiesce in hisdemands than it had been in its earlier sessions. But, if the draftsin the Record Office are to be taken as indicating the proposals ofGovernment, and the Acts themselves are those proposals as modified inone or other House, Parliament must have been able to enforce views ofits own to a certain extent; for those drafts differ materially fromthe Acts as finally passed. [946] Not a few of the bills were welcome, if unusual, concessions to the clergy. They were relieved from payingtenths in the year they paid their first-fruits. The payment oftithes, possibly rendered doubtful in the wreck of canon law, wasenjoined by Act of Parliament. An attempt was made to deal with thepoor, and another, if not to check enclosures, at least to extractsome profit for the King from the process. It was made high treason tocounterfeit the King's sign-manual, privy signet, or privy seal; andHenry was empowered by Parliament, as he had before been by (p. 337)Convocation, to appoint a commission to reform the canon law. But thechief acts of the session were for the dissolution of the lessermonasteries and for the erection of a Court of Augmentations in orderto deal with the revenues which were thus to accrue to the King. 

 [Footnote 945: This Act has generally been considered a failure, but recent research does not confirm this view (see Joshua Williams, _Principles of the Law of Real Property_, 18th ed. , 1896). ]

 [Footnote 946: _L. And P. _, x. , 246. ]

The way for this great revolution had been carefully prepared duringthe previous autumn and winter. In virtue of his new and effectivesupremacy, Henry had ordered a general visitation of the monasteriesthroughout the greater part of the kingdom; and the reports of thesevisitors were made the basis of parliamentary action. On the face ofthem they represent a condition of human depravity which has rarelybeen equalled;[947] and the extent to which those reports are worthyof credit will always remain a point of contention. The visitorsthemselves were men of doubtful character; indeed, respectable mencould hardly have been persuaded to do the work. Their methods werecertainly harsh; the object of their mission was to get up a case forthe Crown, and they probably used every means in their power to inducethe monks and the nuns to incriminate themselves. Perhaps, too, anentirely false impression may be created by the fact that in mostcases only the guilty are mentioned; the innocent are often passedover in silence, and the proportion between the two is not recorded. Some of the terms employed in the reports are also open to dispute; itis possible that in many instances the stigma of unchastity (p. 338)attached to a nun merely meant that she had been unchaste beforeentering religion, [948] and it is known that nunneries were consideredthe proper resort for ladies who had not been careful enough of theirhonour. 

 [Footnote 947: See the documents in _L. And P. _, vols. Ix. , x. The most elaborate criticism of the Dissolution is contained in Gasquet's _Henry VIII. And the Monasteries_, 2 vols. , 4th ed. 1893; some additional details and an excellent monastic map will be found in Gairdner's _Church History_, 1902. ]

 [Footnote 948: "Religion" of course in the middle ages and sixteenth century was a term almost exclusively applied to the monastic system, and the most ludicrous mistakes are often made from ignorance of this fact; "religiosi" are sharply distinguished from "clerici". ]

On the other hand, the lax state of monastic morality does not dependonly upon the visitors' reports; apart from satires like those ofSkelton, from ballads and from other mirrors of popular opinion orprejudice, the correspondence of Henry VIII. 's reign is, from itscommencement, full of references, by bishops and other unimpeachablewitnesses, to the necessity of drastic reform. In 1516, for instance, Bishop West of Ely visited that house, and found such disorder that hedeclared its continuance would have been impossible but for hisvisitation. [949] In 1518 the Italian Bishop of Worcester writes fromRome that he had often been struck by the necessity of reforming themonasteries. [950] In 1521 Henry VIII. , then at the height of his zealfor the Church, thanks the Bishop of Salisbury for dissolving thenunnery of Bromehall because of the "enormities" practised there. [951]Wolsey felt that the time for reform had passed, and began the processof suppression, with a view to increasing the number of cathedrals anddevoting other proceeds to educational endowments. Friar Peto, afterwards a cardinal, who had fled abroad to escape Henry's anger forhis bold denunciation of the divorce, and who had no possible (p. 339)motive for cloaking his conscientious opinion, admitted that therewere grave abuses, and approved of the dissolution of monasteries, iftheir endowments were used for proper ends. [952] There is no need tomultiply instances, because a commission of cardinals, appointed byPaul III. Himself, reported in 1537 that scandals were frequent inreligious houses. [953] The reports of the visitors, too, can hardly beentirely false, though they may not be entirely true. The charges theymake are not vague, but very precise. They specify names of theoffenders, and the nature of their offences; and an air of verisimilitude, if nothing more, is imparted to the condemnations they pronounceagainst the many, by the commendations they bestow on the few. [954]

 [Footnote 949: _L. And P. _, ii. , 1733. ]

 [Footnote 950: _Ibid. _, ii. , 4399. ]

 [Footnote 951: _Ibid. _, iii. , 1863; see also iii. , 77, 533, 567, 569, 600, 693, 1690; iv. 4900. ]

 [Footnote 952: _D. N. B. _, xlv. , 89. Chapuys had stated in 1532 that the Cistercian monasteries were greatly in need of dissolution (_L. And P. _, iii. , 361). ]

 [Footnote 953: _Cambridge Modern History_, ii. , 643. ]

 [Footnote 954: Nor, of course, were the symptoms peculiar to England; it is absurd to attribute the dissolution of the monasteries solely to Henry VIII. And Cromwell, because monasteries were dissolved in many countries of Europe, Catholic as well as Protestant. So, too, the charges are not naturally incredible, because the kind of vice alleged against the monks has unfortunately been far from unknown wherever and whenever numbers of men, young or middle-aged, have lived together in enforced celibacy. ]

Probably the staunchest champion of monasticism would acknowledge thatin the reign of Henry VIII. There was at least a plausible case formending monastic morals. But that was not then the desire of theGovernment of Henry VIII. ; and the case for mending their morals wastacitly assumed to be the same as a case for ending the monasteries. It would be unjust to Henry to deny that he had always shown himselfcareful of the appearance, at least, of morality in the Church; butit requires a robust faith in the King's disinterestedness to (p. 340)believe that dissolution was not the real object of the visitation, and that it was merely forced upon him by the reports of the visitors. The moral question afforded a good excuse, but the monasteries fell, not so much because their morals were lax, as because their positionwas weak. Moral laxity contributed no doubt to the general result, butthere were other causes at work. The monasteries themselves had longbeen conscious that their possession of wealth was not, in the eyes ofthe middle-class laity, justified by the use to which it was put; and, for some generations at least, they had been seeking to make friendswith Mammon by giving up part of their revenues, in the form ofpensions and corrodies to courtiers, in the hope of being allowed toretain the remainder. [955] It had also become the custom to entrustthe stewardship of their possessions to secular hands; and, possiblyas a result, the monasteries were soon so deeply in debt to theneighbouring gentry that their lay creditors saw no hope of recoveringtheir claims except by extensive foreclosures. [956] There had certainlybeen a good deal of private spoliation before the King gave the practicea national character. The very privileges of the monasteries were nowturned to their ruin. Their immunity from episcopal jurisdictiondeprived them of episcopal aid; their exemption from all authority, save that of the Pope, left them without support when the papaljurisdiction was abolished. Monastic orders knew no distinction (p. 341)of nationality. The national character claimed for the mediæval Churchin England could scarcely cover the monasteries, and no place wasfound for them in the Church when it was given a really national garb. 

 [Footnote 955: See Fortescue, _Governance of England_, ed. Plummer, cap. Xviii. , and notes, pp. 337-40. ]

 [Footnote 956: _E. G. _, Christ Church, London, which surrendered to Henry in 1532, was deeply in debt to him (_L. And P. _, v. , 823). ]

Their dissolution is probably to be connected with Cromwell's boastthat he would make his king the richest prince in Christendom. Thatwas not its effect, because Henry was compelled to distribute the greaterpart of the spoils among his nobles and gentry. One rash reformersuggested that monastic lands should be devoted to educationalpurposes;[957] had that plan been followed, education in England wouldhave been more magnificently endowed than in any other country of theworld, and England might have become a democracy in the seventeenthcentury. From this point of view Henry spoilt one of the greatestopportunities in English history; from another, he saved England froma most serious danger. Had the Crown retained the wealth of themonasteries, the Stuarts might have made themselves independent ofParliament. But this service to liberty was not voluntary on Henry'spart. The dissolution of the monasteries was in effect, and probablyin intention, a gigantic bribe to the laity to induce them toacquiesce in the revolution effected by Henry VIII. When he was gone, his successors might desire, or fail to prevent, a reaction; somethingmore permanent than Henry's iron hand was required to support the (p. 342)fabric he had raised. That support was sought in the wealth of theChurch. The prospect had, from the very opening of the ReformationParliament, been dangled before the eyes of the new nobles, themembers of Parliament, the justices of the peace, the rich merchantswho thirsted for lands wherewith to make themselves gentlemen. Chapuysagain and again mentions a scheme for distributing the lands of theChurch among the laity as a project for the ensuing session; but theirtime was not yet; not until their work was done were the labourers toreap their reward. [958] The dissolution of the monasteries harmonisedwell with the secular principles of these predominant classes. Themonastic ideal of going out of the world to seek something, whichcannot be valued in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, is abhorrentto a busy, industrial age; and every principle is hated most at thetime when it most is needed. 

 [Footnote 957: _The Complaynt of Roderick Mors_ (Early Eng. Text Soc. ), pp. 47-52. The author, Henry Brinkelow (see _D. N. B. _, vi. , 346), also suggested that both Houses of Parliament should sit together as one assembly "for it is not rytches or autoryte that bringeth wisdome" (_Complaynt_, p. 8). Some of the political literature of the later part of Henry's reign is curiously modern in its ideas. ]

 * * * * *

Intimately associated as they were in their lives, Catherine of Aragonand Anne Boleyn were not long divided by death; and, piteous as is thestory of the last years of Catherine, it pales before the hideoustragedy of the ruin of Anne Boleyn. "If I have a son, as I hope shortly, I know what will become of her, " wrote Anne of the Princess Mary. [959]On 29th January, 1536, the day of her rival's funeral, Anne Boleyn wasprematurely delivered of a dead child, and the result was fatal toAnne herself. This was not her first miscarriage, [960] and Henry's (p. 343)old conscience began to work again. In Catherine's case the path ofhis conscience was that of a slow and laborious pioneer; now it movedeasily on its royal road to divorce. On 29th January, Chapuys, ignorantof Anne's miscarriage, was retailing to his master a court rumour thatHenry intended to marry again. The King was reported to have said thathe had been seduced by witchcraft when he married his second queen, and that the marriage was null for this reason, and because God wouldnot permit them to have male issue. [961] There was no peace for herwho supplanted her mistress. Within six months of her marriage Henry'sroving fancy had given her cause for jealousy, and, when she complained, he is said to have brutally told her she must put up with it as herbetters had done before. [962] These disagreements, however, weredescribed by Chapuys as mere lovers' quarrels, and they were generallyfollowed by reconciliations, after which Anne's influence seemed (p. 344)as secure as ever. But by January, 1536, the imperial ambassador andothers were counting on a fresh divorce. The rumour grew as springadvanced, when suddenly, on 2nd May, Anne was arrested and sent to theTower. She was accused of incest with her brother, Lord Rochford, andof less criminal intercourse with Sir Francis Weston, Henry Norris, William Brereton, and Mark Smeaton. All were condemned by juries todeath for high treason on 12th May. Three days later Anne herself wasput on her trial by a panel of twenty-six peers, over which her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, presided. [963] They returned a unanimous verdictof guilty, and, on the 19th, the Queen's head was struck off with thesword of an executioner brought for the purpose from St. Omer. [964]

 [Footnote 958: "The King, " says Chapuys in September, 1534, "will distribute among the gentlemen of the kingdom the greater part of the ecclesiastical revenues to gain their good-will" (_L. And P. _, vii. , 1141). ]

 [Footnote 959: _Ibid. _, x. , 307. ]

 [Footnote 960: Anne was pregnant in Feb. , 1534, when Henry told Chapuys he thought he should have a son soon (_L. And P. _, vii. , 232; _cf. _, vii. , 958). ]

 [Footnote 961: _Ibid. _, x. , 199. ]

 [Footnote 962: _Ibid. _, vi. , 1054, 1069. As early as April, 1531, Chapuys reports that Anne "was becoming more arrogant every day, using words and authority towards the King of which he has several times complained to the Duke of Norfolk, saying that she was not like the Queen [Catherine] who never in her life used ill words to him" (_ibid. _, v. , 216). In Sept. , 1534, Henry was reported to be in love with another lady (_ibid. _, vii. , 1193, 1257). Probably this was Jane Seymour, as the lady's kindness to the Princess Mary--a marked characteristic of Queen Jane--is noted by Chapuys. This intrigue, we are told, was furthered by many lords with the object of separating the King from Anne Boleyn, who was disliked by the lords on account of her pride and that of her kinsmen and brothers (_ibid. _, vii. , 1279). Henry's behaviour to the Princess was becoming quite benevolent, and Chapuys begins to speak of his "amiable and cordial nature" (_ibid. _, vii. , 1297). ]

 [Footnote 963: In 1533 Anne had accused her uncle of having too much intercourse with Chapuys and of maintaining the Princess Mary's title to the throne (_L. And P. _, vi. , 1125). ]

 [Footnote 964: _Ibid. _, x. , 902, 910, 919. The Regent Mary of the Netherlands writes: "That the vengeance might be executed by the Emperor's subjects, he sent for the executioner of St. Omer, as there were none in England good enough" (_ibid. _, x. , 965). It is perhaps well to be reminded that even at this date there were more practised executioners in the Netherlands than in England. ]

Two days before Anne's death her marriage with Henry had been declaredinvalid by a court of ecclesiastical lawyers with Cranmer at its head. The grounds of the sentence are not stated, but there may have beentwo--the alleged precontract with the Earl of Northumberland, whichthe Earl denied on oath and on the sacrament, and the previousaffinity between Anne and Henry arising from the King's relations withMary Boleyn. The latter seems the more probable. Henry had obtained ofClement VII. A dispensation from this disability; but the Pope'spower to dispense had since been repudiated, while the canonical (p. 345)objection remained and was given statutory authority in this veryyear. [965] The effects of this piece of wanton injustice were amongthe troubles which Henry bequeathed to Queen Elizabeth; the soleadvantage to Henry was that his infidelities to Anne ceased to bebreaches of the seventh commandment. The justice of her sentence todeath is also open to doubt. Anne herself went to the block boldlyproclaiming her innocence. [966] Death she regarded as a relief from anintolerable situation, and she "laughed heartily, " writes the Lieutenantof the Tower as she put her hands round her "little neck, " and thoughthow easy the executioner's task would be. [967] She complained when theday of her release from this world was deferred, and regretted that somany innocent persons should suffer through her. Of her accomplices, none confessed but Smeaton, though Henry is said, before Anne'sarrest, to have offered Norris a pardon if he would admit his crime. On the other hand, her conduct must have made the charges plausible. Even in those days, when justice to individuals was regarded as dustif weighed in the balance against the real or supposed interests ofthe State, it is not credible that the juries should have found heraccomplices guilty, that twenty-six peers, including her uncle, (p. 346)should have condemned Anne herself, without some colourable justification. If the charges were merely invented to ruin the Queen, one culpritbesides herself would have been enough. To assume that Henry sent fourneedless victims to the block is to accuse him of a lust forsuperfluous butchery, of which even he, in his most bloodthirstymoments, was not capable. [968]

 [Footnote 965: This Act indirectly made Elizabeth a bastard and Henry's marriage with Anne invalid, (_cf. _ Chapuys to Granvelle _L. And P. _, x. , 909). The Antinomian theory of marital relations, which Chapuys ascribes to Anne, was an Anabaptist doctrine of the time. Chapuys calls Anne a Messalina, but he of course was not an impartial witness. ]

 [Footnote 966: According to some accounts, but a Spaniard who writes as an eye-witness says she cried "mercy to God and the King for the offence she had done" (_L. And P. _, x. , 911). ]

 [Footnote 967: _Ibid. _, x. , 910. ]

 [Footnote 968: The execution of Anne was welcomed by the Imperialists and Catholics, and it is possible that it was hastened on by rumours of disquiet in the North. A few days later the nobles and gentry who were in London were ordered to return home to put the country in a state of defence (_L. And P. _, x. , 1016). ]

On the day that his second queen was beheaded, Henry obtained fromCranmer a special licence to marry a third. [969] He was betrothed onthe morrow and privately married "in the Queen's closet at York Place"on the 30th of May. The lady of his choice was Jane, daughter of SirJohn Seymour of Wolf Hall in Wiltshire. [970] She was descended on hermother's side from Edward III. , and Cranmer had to dispense with acanonical bar to the marriage arising from her consanguinity to theKing in the third and fourth degrees. She had been lady-in-waiting tothe two previous queens, and her brother, Sir Edward Seymour, thefuture Protector, had for years been steadily rising in Henry'sfavour. In October, 1535, the King had paid a visit to Wolf Hall, andfrom that time his attentions to Jane became marked. She seems to havereceived them with real reluctance; she refused a purse of gold andreturned the King's letters unopened. [971] She even obtained a (p. 347)promise from Henry that he would not speak with her except in thepresence of others, and the King ejected Cromwell from his rooms inthe Palace in order to bestow them on Sir Edward Seymour, and thus toprovide a place where he and Jane could converse without scandal. Allthis modesty has, of course, been attributed to prudential andambitious motives, which were as wise as they were successful. ButJane seems to have had no enemies, except Alexander Aless, whodenounced her to Luther as an enemy to the Gospel, probably becauseshe extinguished the shining light of Anne Boleyn. [972] Cardinal Poledescribed her as "full of goodness, "[973] and she certainly did herbest to reconcile Henry with his daughter the Princess Mary, whosetreatment began to improve from the fall of Anne Boleyn. "She is, "writes Chapuys, "of middle stature, and no great beauty; so fair thatone would call her rather pale than otherwise. "[974] But all agreed inpraising her intelligence. She had neither Catherine's force ofcharacter nor the temper of Anne Boleyn; she was a woman of gentlespirit, striving always to mitigate the rigour of others; her briefmarried life was probably happier than that of any other of Henry'sQueens; and her importance is mainly due to the fact that she bore toHenry his only legitimate son. 

 [Footnote 969: _Ibid. _ x. , 915, 926, 993, 1000. There is a persistent fable that they were married on the day or the day after Anne's execution; Dr. Gairdner says it is repeated "in all histories". ]

 [Footnote 970: See _Wilts Archæol. Mag. _, vols xv. , xvi. , documents printed from the _Longleat MSS. _]

 [Footnote 971: _L. And P. _, x. , 245. ]

 [Footnote 972: Luther, _Briefe_, v. , 22; _L. And P. _, xi. , 475. ]

 [Footnote 973: Strype, _Eccl. Memorials_, I. , ii. , 304. ]

 [Footnote 974: _L. And P. _, x. , 901. ]

The disgrace of Anne Boleyn necessitated the summons of a freshParliament to put the succession to the crown on yet another basis. The Long Parliament had been dissolved on 14th April; another wascalled to meet on the 8th of June. The eighteen acts passed during itssix weeks' session illustrate the parallel development of the (p. 348)Reformation and of the royal autocracy. The Act of Succession madeAnne's daughter, Elizabeth, a bastard, without declaring Catherine'sdaughter, Mary, legitimate, and settled the crown on Henry'sprospective issue by Jane. A unique clause empowered the King todispose of the crown at will, should he have no issue by his presentQueen. [975] Probably he intended it, in that case, for the Duke ofRichmond; but the Duke's days were numbered, and four days after thedissolution of Parliament he breathed his last. The royal prerogativewas extended by a statute enabling a king, when he reached the age oftwenty-four, to repeal by proclamation any act passed during hisminority; and the royal caste was further exalted by a statute makingit high treason for any one to marry a king's daughter, legitimate ornot, his sister, his niece, or his aunt on the father's side, withoutroyal licence. The reform of clerical abuses was advanced by an act toprevent non-residence, and by another to obviate the delay ininstituting to benefices practised by bishops with a view to (p. 349)keeping the tithes of the vacant benefice in their own hands. Thebreach with Rome was widened still further by a statute, declaring allwho extolled the Pope's authority to be guilty of _præmunire_, imposing an oath of renunciation on all lay and clerical officers, andmaking the refusal of that oath high treason. Thus the hopes of areaction built on the fall of those "apostles of the new sect, " AnneBoleyn and her relatives, were promptly and roughly destroyed. 

 [Footnote 975: Parliament prefered to risk the results of Henry's nomination to the risk of civil war, which would inevitably have broken out had Henry died in 1536. Hobbes, it may be noted, made this power of nomination an indispensable attribute of the sovereign, and if the sovereign be interpreted as the "King in Parliament" the theory is sound constitutionalism and was put in practice in 1701 as well as in 1536. But the limitations on Henry's power of bequeathing the crown have generally been forgotten; he never had power to leave the crown away from Edward VI. , that is, away from the only heir whose legitimacy was undisputed. The later acts went further, and entailed the succession upon Mary and Elizabeth unless Henry wished otherwise--which he did not. The preference of the Suffolk to the Stuart line may have been due to (1) the common law forbidding aliens to inherit English land (_cf. L. And P. _, vii. , 337); (2) the national dislike of the Scots; (3) a desire to intimate to the Scots that if they would not unite the two realms by the marriage of Edward and Mary, they should not obtain the English crown by inheritance. ]

Henry's position had been immensely strengthened alike by the death ofCatherine of Aragon and by the fall of Anne Boleyn; and on bothoccasions he had expressed his appreciation of the fact in the mostindecent and heartless manner. He was now free to marry whom he liked, and no objection based on canon or on any other law could be raised tothe legitimacy of his future issue; whether the Pope could dispense ornot, it made no difference to Edward VI. 's claim to the throne. Thefall of Anne Boleyn, in spite of some few rumours that she might havebeen condemned on insufficient evidence, was generally popular; forher arrogance and that of her family made them hated, and they wereregarded as the cause of the King's persecution of Catherine, of Mary, and of those who maintained their cause. Abroad the effect was stillmore striking. The moment Henry heard of Catherine's death, he added apostscript to Cromwell's despatch to the English ambassadors inFrance, bidding them to take a higher tone with Francis, for all causeof difference had been removed between him and Charles V. [976] TheEmperor secretly believed that his aunt had been poisoned, [977] butthat private grief was not to affect his public policy; and Charles, Francis, and even the Pope, became more or less eager competitors (p. 350)for Henry's favour. The bull of deprivation, which had been drawn upand signed, became a dead letter, and every one was anxious to disavowhis share in its promotion. Charles obtained the suspension of itspublication, made a merit of that service to Henry, and tried torepresent that it was Francis who, with his eyes on the English crown, had extorted the bull from the Pope. [978] Paul III. Himself used wordsto the English envoy at Rome, which might be interpreted as an apologyfor having made Fisher a cardinal and having denounced his and More'sexecution. [979]

 [Footnote 976: _L. And P. _, x. , 54. ]

 [Footnote 977: _Ibid. _, x. , 230. ]

 [Footnote 978: _L. And P. _, x. , 887. ]

 [Footnote 979: _Ibid. _, x. , 977. ]

Henry had been driven by fear of Charles in the previous year to makefurther advances than he relished towards union with the Germanprinces; but the Lutherans could not be persuaded to adopt Henry'sviews of the mass and of his marriage with Catherine; and now he wasglad to substitute an understanding with the Emperor for intrigueswith the Emperor's subjects. [980] Cromwell and the council were, indeed, a little too eager to welcome Chapuys' professions of friendshipand to entertain his demands for help against Francis. Henry allowedthem to go on for a time; but Cromwell was never in Wolsey's position, and the King was not inclined to repeat his own and the Cardinal'serrors of 1521. He had suffered enough from the prostration of Franceand the predominance of Charles; and he was anxious now that neithershould be supreme. So, when the imperial ambassador came expectingHenry's assent, he, Cromwell and the rest of the council were (p. 351)amazed to hear the King break out into an uncompromising defenceof the French King's conduct in invading Savoy and Piedmont. [981] Thatinvasion was the third stroke of good fortune which befel Henry in1536. As Henry and Ferdinand had, in 1512, diverted their arms fromthe Moors in order to make war on the Most Christian King, so, in1536, the Most Christian King and the sovereign, who was at once KingCatholic and the temporal head of Christendom, instead of turningtheir arms against the monarch who had outraged and defied the Church, turned them against one another. Francis had never lost sight ofMilan; he had now recovered from the effects of Pavia; and in thespring of 1536 he overran Savoy and Piedmont. In April the Emperoronce more visited Rome, and on the 17th he delivered a famous orationin the papal Consistory. [982] In that speech he denounced neitherLuther nor Henry VIII. ; he reserved his invectives for Francis I. Unconsciously he demonstrated once and for all that unity of faith wasimpotent against diversity of national interests, and that, whateverdeference princes might profess to the counsels of the Vicar ofChrist, the counsels they would follow would be those of secularimpulse. 

 [Footnote 980: _Cf. _ Stern, _Heinrich VIII. Und der Schmalkaldische Bund_, and P. Singer, _Beziehung des Schmalkald. Bundes zu England_. Greifswald, 1901. ]

 [Footnote 981: _L. And P. _, x. , 699. ]

 [Footnote 982: _Ibid. _, x. , 678, 684, 968. ]

 * * * * *

Henry was thus left to deal with the great domestic crisis of hisreign without intervention from abroad. The dissolution of themonasteries inevitably inflicted considerable hardship on a numerousbody of men. It had been arranged that the inmates of the dissolvedreligious houses should either be pensioned or transferred to othermonasteries; but, although the pensions were adequate and (p. 352)sometimes even generous in scale, [983] and although the commissionersthemselves showed a desire to prevent unnecessary trouble by obtaininglicences for many houses to continue for a time, [984] the monks foundsome difficulty in obtaining their pensions, and Chapuys draws amoving picture of their sufferings as they wandered about the country, seeking employment in a market that was already overstocked withlabour, and endeavouring to earn a livelihood by means to which theyhad never been accustomed. [985] They met with no little sympathy fromthe commons, who were oppressed with a like scarcity of work, and whohad looked to the monasteries for such relief as charity could afford. Nowhere were these feelings so strong as in the north of England, andthere the commissioners for dissolving the monasteries were often metwith open resistance. Religious discontent was one of the motives forrevolt, but probably the rebels were drawn mainly[986] from evictedtenants, deprived of their holdings by enclosures or by the conversionof land from tillage to pasture, men who had nothing to lose andeverything to gain by a general turmoil. In these men the wanderingmonks found ready listeners to their complaints, and there were (p. 353)others, besides the monks, who eagerly turned to account the prevailingdissatisfaction. The northern lords, Darcy and Hussey, had for yearsbeen representing to Chapuys the certainty of success if the Emperorinvaded England, and promising to do their part when he came. Darcyhad, at Christmas 1534, sent the imperial ambassador a sword as anintimation that the time had come for an appeal to its arbitrament;and he was seeking Henry's licence to return to his house in Yorkshirein order to raise "the crucifix" as the standard of revolt. [987] TheKing, however, was doubtful of Darcy's loyalty, and kept him in Londontill early in 1536. It would have been well had he kept him longer. 

 [Footnote 983: _E. G. _, the Prioress of Tarent received £100 a year, the Abbot of Evesham, £240 (Gasquet, ii. , 230, 310); these sums must be multiplied by ten to bring them to their present value. Most of these lavish pensions were doubtless given as bribes or rewards for the surrender of monasteries. ]

 [Footnote 984: _L. And P. _, xi. , 385, 519. ]

 [Footnote 985: _Ibid. _, xi. , 42. ]

 [Footnote 986: The exact proportion is of course difficult to determine; Mr. E. F. Gay in an admirable paper (_Trans. Royal Hist. Soc. _, N. S. , xviii. , 208, 209) thinks that I have exaggerated the part played by the propertyless class in the rebellion. They were undoubtedly present in large numbers; but my remark is intended to guard against the theory that the grievances were entirely religious, not to exclude those grievances; and the northern lords were of course notable examples of the discontent of the propertied class. ]

 [Footnote 987: _L. And P. _, vii. , 1206; viii. , 48. ]

Towards the end of the summer rumours[988] were spread among thecommons of the North that heavy taxes would be levied on every burial, wedding and christening, that all cattle would be marked and pay afine to the King, and that all unmarked beasts would be forfeit;churches within five miles of each other were to be taken down assuperfluous, jewels and church plate confiscated; taxes were to bepaid for eating white bread, goose, or capon; there was to be a rigidinquisition into every man's property; and a score of other absurditiesgained currency, obviously invented by malicious and lying tongues. The outbreak began at Caistor, in Lincolnshire, on the 3rd of October, with resistance, not to the commissioners for dissolving themonasteries, but to those appointed to collect the subsidy granted byParliament. The rebels entered Lincoln on the 6th; they could, theysaid, pay no more money; they demanded the repeal of religiouschanges, the restoration of the monasteries, the banishment of (p. 354)heretics like Cranmer and Latimer, and the removal of low-bornadvisers such as Cromwell and Rich from the council. [989] Themustering of an army under Suffolk and the denial by heralds andothers that the King had any such intentions as were imputed to him, induced the commons to go home; the reserves which Henry wascollecting at Ampthill were disbanded; and the commotion was over inless than a fortnight. 

 [Footnote 988: _Ibid. _, xi. , 768, 826[2]. ]

 [Footnote 989: _L. And P. _, xi. , 786, 1182, 1244, 1246. ]

The Lincolnshire rebels, however, had not dispersed when news arrivedof a much more serious rising which affected nearly the whole ofYorkshire. It was here that Darcy and his friends were most powerful;but, though there is little doubt that they were the movers, theostensible leader was Robert Aske, a lawyer. Even here the rebellionwas little more than a magnified riot, which a few regiments ofsoldiers could soon have suppressed. The rebels professed completeloyalty to Henry's person; they suggested no rival candidate for thethrone; they merely demanded a change of policy, which they could notenforce without a change of government. They had no means of effectingthat change without deposing Henry, which they never proposed to do, and which, had they done it, could only have resulted in anarchy. Therebellion was formidable mainly because Henry had no standing army; hehad to rely almost entirely on the goodwill or at least acquiescenceof his people. Outside Yorkshire the gentry were willing enough;possibly they had their eyes on monastic rewards; and they sent toCambridge double[990] or treble the forces Henry demanded, which (p. 355)they could hardly have done had their tenants shown any great sympathywith the rebellion. But transport in those days was more difficulteven than now; and before the musters could reach the Trent, Darcy, after a show of reluctance, yielded Pomfret Castle to the rebels andswore to maintain their cause. Henry was forced, much against hiswill, to temporise. To pardon or parley with rebels he thought woulddistain his honour. [991] If Norfolk was driven to offer a pardon, hemust on no account involve the King in his promise. 

 [Footnote 990: Surrey to Norfolk, 15th Oct. , xi. , 727, 738. ]

 [Footnote 991: _L. And P. _, xi. , 864. ]

Norfolk apparently had no option. An armistice was accordinglyarranged on the 27th of October, and a deputation came up to lay therebels' grievances before the King. It was received graciously, andHenry's reply was a masterly piece of statecraft. [992] He drew it up"with his own hand, and made no creature privy thereto until it wasfinished". Their complaints about the Faith were, he said, "so generalthat hard they be to be answered, " but he intended always to live andto die in the faith of Christ. They must specify what they meant bythe liberties of the Church, whether they were lawful or unlawfulliberties; but he had done nothing inconsistent with the laws of Godand man. With regard to the Commonwealth, what King had kept hissubjects so long in wealth and peace, ministering indifferent justice, and defending them from outward enemies? There were more low-borncouncillors when he came to the throne than now; then there were "buttwo worth calling noble. [993] Others, as the Lords Marny and Darcy, were scant well-born gentlemen, and yet of no great lands till (p. 356)they were promoted by us. The rest were lawyers and priests. .. . Howcame you to think that there were more noble men in our Privy Councilthen than now?" It did not become them to dictate to their sovereignwhom he should call to his Council; yet, if they could prove, as theyalleged, that certain of the Council were subverters of God's law andthe laws of the realm, he would proceed against them. Then, afterdenouncing their rebellion and referring to their request for pardon, he says: "To show our pity, we are content, if we find you penitent, to grant you all letters of pardon on your delivering to us ten suchringleaders of this rebellion as we shall assign to you. Now note thebenignity of your Prince, and how easily bloodshed may be eschewed. Thus I, as your head, pray for you, my members, that God may enlightenyou for your benefit. "

 [Footnote 992: _Ibid. _, xi. , 957. ]

 [Footnote 993: The records of the Privy Council for the greater part of Henry's reign have disappeared, and only a rough list of his privy Councillors can be gathered from the _Letters and Papers_. Surrey, of course, was one of the two nobles, and probably Shrewsbury was the other, though Oxford, whose peerage was older than theirs, seems also to have been a member of the Privy Council (_L. And P. _, i. , 51). The complaint of the rebels applied to the whole Tudor period; at Henry's death no member of his Privy Council held a peerage twelve years old. ]

A conference was held at Doncaster in December, [994] and towards theend of the year Aske came at Henry's invitation to discuss thecomplaints with him. [995] No one could be more gracious than the King, when he chose; no one could mask his resentment more completely, whenhe had an object to gain. It was important to win over Aske, andconvince him that Henry had the interests of the rebels at heart. Soon Aske were lavished all the royal arts. They were amply (p. 357)rewarded. In January, 1537, the rebel leader went down to Yorkshirefully convinced of the King's goodwill, and anxious only that thecommons should observe his conditions. [996] But there were wilderspirits at work over which he had little control. They declared thatthey were betrayed. Plots were formed to seize Hull and Scarborough;both were discovered. [997] Aske, Constable, and other leaders of theoriginal Pilgrimage of Grace exerted themselves to stay this outbreakof their more violent followers; and between moderates and extremiststhe whole movement quickly collapsed. The second revolt gave Henry anexcuse for recalling his pardon, and for exacting revenge from all whohad been implicated in either movement. Darcy deserved little pity;the earliest in his treason, he continued the game to the end; butAske was an honest man, and his execution, condemned though he was bya jury, was a violent act of injustice. [998] Norfolk was sent to theNorth on a Bloody Assize, [999] and if neither he nor the King was aJeffreys, the rebellion was stamped out with a good deal of superfluouscruelty. Henry was resolved to do the work once and for all, and hebased his system on terror. His measures for the future government ofthe North, now threatened by James V. , were, however, wise on thewhole. He would put no more nobles in places of trust; the office ofWarden of the Marches he took into his own hands, appointing threedeputies of somewhat humble rank for the east, middle and westmarches. [1000] A strong Council of the North was appointed to (p. 358)sit at York, under the presidency of Tunstall, Bishop of Durham, andwith powers almost as extensive as those of the Privy Council atLondon; and henceforth Henry had little trouble from disaffection inEngland. [1001]

 [Footnote 994: _L. And P. _, xi. , 1244-46. ]

 [Footnote 995: _Ibid. _, xi. , 1306. ]

 [Footnote 996: _L. And P. _, XII. , i. , 20, 23, 43, 44, 46. ]

 [Footnote 997: _Ibid. _, XII. , i. , 46, 64, 102, 104, 141, 142. ]

 [Footnote 998: Henry, says Dr. Gairdner, examined "the evidence sent up to him in the spirit of a detective policeman" (XII. , i. , p. Xxix. ). ]

 [Footnote 999: _L. And P. _, XII. , i. , 227, 228, 401, 402, 416, 457, 458, 468, 478, 498. ]

 [Footnote 1000: _L. And P. _, XII. , i. , 594, 595, 636, 667. Norfolk thought Henry's plan was to govern the North by the aid of thieves and murderers. ]

 [Footnote 1001: Much of the correspondence of this Council found its way to Hamilton Palace in Scotland, and thence to Germany; it was purchased for the British Museum in 1889 and now comprises _Addit. MSS. _, 32091, 32647-48, 32654 and 32657 (printed as _Hamilton Papers_, 2 vols. , 1890-92). ]

With one aftermath of the Pilgrimage of Grace he had yet to deal. Theopportunity had been too good for Paul III. To neglect; and early in1537 he had sent a legate _a latere_ to Flanders to do what he couldto abet the rebellion. [1002] His choice fell on Reginald Pole, the sonof the Countess of Salisbury and grandson of George, Duke of Clarence. Pole had been one of Henry's great favourites; the King had paid forhis education, given him, while yet a layman, rich church preferments, and contributed the equivalent of about twelve hundred pounds a yearto enable him to complete his studies in Italy. [1003] In 1530 Pole wasemployed to obtain opinions at Paris favourable to Henry's divorce, [1004]and was offered the Archbishopric of York. He refused fromconscientious scruples, [1005] sought in vain to turn the King from hisevil ways, and, in 1532, left England; they parted friends, and Henrycontinued Pole's pensions. While Pole was regarding with increasingdisgust the King's actions, Henry still hoped that Pole was on his (p. 359)side, and, in 1536, in answer to Henry's request for his views, Polesent his famous treatise _De Unitate Ecclesiæ_. His heart was betterthan his head; he thought Henry had been treated too gently, and thatthe fulmination of a bull of excommunication earlier in his coursewould have stopped his headlong career. To repair the Pope's omissions, Pole now proceeded to administer the necessary castigation; "flattery, "he said, "had been the cause of all the evil". Even his friend, Cardinal Contarini, thought the book too bitter, and among his familyin England it produced consternation. [1006] Some of them were hand inglove with Chapuys, who had suggested Pole to Charles as a candidatefor the throne; and his book might well have broken the thin ice onwhich they stood. Henry, however, suppressed his anger and invitedPole to England; he, perhaps wisely, refused, but immediatelyafterwards he accepted the Pope's call to Rome, where he was madecardinal, [1007] and sent to Flanders as legate to foment the northernrebellion. 

 [Footnote 1002: _L. And P. _, XII. , i. , 367, 368, 779. ]

 [Footnote 1003: _Ibid. _, ii. , 3943 (reference misprinted in _D. N. B. _, xlvi. , 35, as 3493); iii. , 1544. ]

 [Footnote 1004: _Ibid. _, iv. , 6003, 6252, 6383, 6394, 6505. ]

 [Footnote 1005: _Ibid. _, v. , 737. ]

 [Footnote 1006: _L. And P. _, x. , 420, 426; xi. , 72, 93, 156. ]

 [Footnote 1007: On 22nd December, 1536 (_Ibid. _, xi. , 1353). ]

He came too late to do anything except exhibit his own and the papalimpotence. The rebellion was crushed before his commission was signed. As Pole journeyed through France, Henry sent to demand his extraditionas a traitor. [1008] With that request Francis could hardly comply, buthe ordered the legate to quit his dominions. Pole sought refuge inFlanders, but was stopped on the frontier. Charles could no more thanFrancis afford to offend the English King, and the cardinal-legate wasinformed that he might visit the Bishop of Liège, but only if he (p. 360)went in disguise. [1009] Never, wrote Pole to the Regent, had a papallegate been so treated before. Truly Henry had fulfilled his boastthat he would show the princes of Europe how small was the power of aPope. He had obliterated every vestige of papal authority in Englandand defied the Pope to do his worst; and now, when the Pope attemptedto do it, his legate was chased out of the dominions of the faithfulsons of the Church at the demand of the excommunicate King. Henry hadcome triumphant out of perils which every one else believed woulddestroy him. He had carried England through the greatest revolution inher history. He had crushed the only revolt which that revolutionevoked at home; and abroad the greatest princes of Europe had shownthat they valued as nothing the goodwill of the Pope against that ofHenry VIII. 

 [Footnote 1008: _Ibid. _ XII. , i. , 760, 939, 987, 988, 996. ]

 [Footnote 1009: _L. And P. _, XII. , i. , 997, 1061, 1135, 1167, 1174. ]

The culminating point in his good fortune was reached in the followingautumn. On the 12th of October, 1537, Queen Jane gave birth to a son. Henry had determined that, had he a son by Anne Boleyn, the childshould be named Henry after himself, or Edward after his grandfather, Edward IV. Queen Jane's son was born on the eve of the feast of St. Edward, and that fact decided the choice of his name. Twelve dayslater the mother, who had never been crowned, passed away. [1010] She, alone of Henry's wives, was buried with royal pomp in St. George'sChapel at Windsor; and to her alone the King paid the compliment (p. 361)of mourning. His grief was sincere, and for the unusual space of morethan two years he remained without a wife. But Queen Jane's death wasnot to be compared in importance with the birth of Edward VI. Thelegitimate male heir, the object of so many desires and the cause ofso many tragedies, had come at last to fill to the brim the cup ofHenry's triumph. The greatest storm and stress of his reign waspassed. There were crises to come, which might have been deemedserious in a less troubled reign, and they still needed all Henry'swary cunning to meet; Francis and Charles were even now preparing toend a struggle from which only Henry drew profit; and Paul was hopingto join them in war upon England. Yet Henry had weathered the worst ofthe gale, and he now felt free to devote his energies to the extensionabroad of the authority which he had established so firmly at home. 

 [Footnote 1010: The fable that the Cæsarean operation was performed on her, invented or propagated by Nicholas Sanders, rests upon the further error repeated by most historians that Queen Jane died on the 14th of October, instead of the 24th (see Nichols, _Literary Remains of Edward VI. _, pp. Xxiv. , xxv. ). ]

CHAPTER XIV. (p. 362)

REX ET IMPERATOR. 

Notwithstanding the absence of "Empire" and "Emperor" from the varioustitles which Henry VIII. Possessed or assumed, he has more than oneclaim to be reputed the father of modern imperialism. It is not till ayear after his death that we have any documentary evidence of anintention on the part of the English Government to unite England andScotland into one Empire, and to proclaim their sovereign the Emperorof Great Britain. [1011] But a marriage between Edward VI. And Mary, Queen of Scots, by which it was sought to effect that union, had beenthe main object of Henry's efforts during the closing years of hisreign, and the imperial idea was a dominant note in Henry's mind. Noking was more fond of protesting that he wore an imperial crown andruled an imperial realm. When, in 1536, Convocation declared Englandto be "an imperial See of itself, " it only clothed in decent andformal language Henry's own boast that he was not merely King, butPope and Emperor, in his own domains. The rest of Western Europe wasunder the temporal sway of Cæsar, as it was under the spiritual swayof the Pope; but neither to one nor to the other did Henry owe anyallegiance. [1012]

 [Footnote 1011: Odet de Selve, _Corresp. Pol. _, p. 268. ]

 [Footnote 1012: This was part of the revived influence of the Roman Civil Law in England which Professor Maitland has sketched in his _English Law and the Renaissance_, 1901. But the influence of these ideas extended into every sphere, and not least of all into the ecclesiastical. Englishmen, said Chapuys, were fond of tracing the King's imperial authority back to a grant from the Emperor Constantine--giving it thus an antiquity as great and an origin as authoritative as that claimed for the Pope by the false _Donation of Constantine_ (_L. And P. _, v. , 45; vii. , 232). This is the meaning of Henry's assertion that the Pope's authority in England was "usurped, " not that it was usurped at the expense of the English national Church, but at the expense of his prerogative. So, too, we find instructive complaints from a different sort of reformers that the reformation as effected by Henry VIII. Was merely a _translatio imperii_ (_ibid. _, XIV. , ii. , 141). Henry VIII. 's encouragement of the civil law was the natural counterpart of the prohibition of its study by Pope Honorius in 1219 and Innocent IV. In 1254 (Pollock and Maitland, i. , 102, 103). ]

For the word "imperial" itself he had shown a marked (p. 363)predilection from his earliest days. _Henry Imperial_ was the name ofthe ship in which his admiral hoisted his flag in 1513, and "Imperial"was the name given to one of his favourite games. But, as his reignwore on, the word was translated into action, and received a moredefinite meaning. To mark his claim to supreme dignity, he assumed thestyle of "His Majesty" instead of that of "His Grace, " which he hadhitherto shared with mere dukes and archbishops; and possibly "HisMajesty" banished "His Grace" from Henry's mind no less than it didfrom his title. The story of his life is one of consistent, and moreor less orderly, evolution. For many years he had been kept inleading-strings by Wolsey's and other clerical influences. The firststep in his self-assertion was to emancipate himself from thiscontrol, and to vindicate his authority within the precincts of hisCourt. His next was to establish his personal supremacy over Churchand State in England; this was the work of the Reformation Parliamentbetween 1529 and 1536. The final stage in the evolution was to (p. 364)make his rule more effective in the outlying parts of England, onthe borders of Scotland, in Wales and its Marches, and then to extendit over the rest of the British Isles. 

The initial steps in the process of expanding the sphere of royalauthority had already been taken. The condition of Wales exercised themind of King and Parliament, even in the throes of the struggle withRome. [1013] The "manifold robberies, murders, thefts, trespasses, riots, routs, embraceries, maintenances, oppressions, ruptures of thepeace, and many other malefacts, which be there daily practised, perpetrated, committed and done, " obviously demanded prompt and swiftredress, unless the redundant eloquence of parliamentary statutesprotested too much; and, in 1534, several acts were passed restraininglocal jurisdictions, and extending the authority of the President andCouncil of the Marches. [1014] Chapuys declared that the effect ofthese acts was to rob the Welsh of their freedom, and he thought thatthe probable discontent might be turned to account by stirring aninsurrection in favour of Catherine of Aragon and of the Catholicfaith. [1015] If, however, there was discontent, it did not make (p. 365)itself effectively felt, and, in 1536, Henry proceeded to complete theunion of England and Wales. First, he adapted to Wales the institutionof justices of the peace, which had proved the most efficientinstrument for the maintenance of his authority in England. A moreimportant statute followed. Recalling the facts that "the rights, usages, laws and customs" in Wales "be far discrepant from the lawsand customs of this realm, " that its people "do daily use a speechnothing like, nor consonant to, the natural mother-tongue used withinthis realm, " and that "some rude and ignorant people have madedistinction and diversity between the King's subjects of this realm"and those of Wales, "His Highness, of a singular zeal, love andfavour" which he bore to the Welsh, minded to reduce them "to theperfect order, notice and knowledge of his laws of this realm, andutterly to extirp, all and singular, the sinister usages and customsdiffering from the same". The Principality was divided into shires, and the shires into hundreds; justice in every court, from the highestto the lowest, was to be administered in English, and in no othertongue; and no one who spoke Welsh was to "have or enjoy any manner ofOffice or Fees" whatsoever. On the other hand, a royal commission wasappointed to inquire into Welsh laws, and such as the King thoughtnecessary might still be observed; while the Welsh shires and boroughswere to send members to the English Parliament. This statute was, toall effects and purposes, the first Act of Union in English history. Six years later a further act reorganised and developed thejurisdiction of the Council of Wales and the Marches. Its functionswere to be similar to those of the Privy Council in London, of (p. 366)which the Council of Wales, like that of the already establishedCouncil of the North, was an offshoot. Its object was to maintainpeace with a firm hand in a specially disorderly district; and thepowers, with which it was furnished, often conflicted with the commonlaw of England, [1016] and rendered the Council's jurisdiction, likethat of other Tudor courts, a grievance to Stuart Parliaments. 

 [Footnote 1013: Cromwell has a note in 1533, "for the establishing of a Council in the Marches of Wales" (_L. And P. _, vi. , 386), and there had been numerous complaints in Parliament about their condition (_ibid. _, vii. , 781). Henry was a great Unionist, though Separatist as regards his wives and the Pope. ]

 [Footnote 1014: See an admirable study by Miss C. A. J. Skeel, _The Council in the Marches of Wales_, 1904. Cromwell's great constitutional idea was government by council rather than by Parliament; in 1534 he had a scheme for including in the King's Ordinary Council (not of course the Privy Council) "the most assured and substantial gentlemen in every shire" (_L. And P. _, vii. , 420; _cf. _ his draft bill for a new court of conservators of the commonwealth and the more rigid execution of statutes, vii. , 1611). ]

 [Footnote 1015: _L. And P. _, vii. , 1554. ]

 [Footnote 1016: _Cf. _ Maitland, _English Law and the Renaissance_, p. 70; Lee to Cromwell: "if we should do nothing but as the common law will, these things so far out of order will never be redressed" (_D. N. B. _, xxxii. , 375; the letter is dated 18th July, 1538, by the _D. N. B. _ and Maitland, but there is no letter of that date from Roland Lee in _L. And P. _; probably the sentence occurs in Lee's letter of 18th July, 1534, or that of 18th July, 1535 (_L. And P. _, vii. , 988, viii. , 1058), though the phrase is not given in _L. And P. _). ]

But Ireland demanded even more than Wales the application of Henry'sdoctrines of union and empire; for if Wales was thought by Chapuys tobe receptive soil for the seeds of rebellion, sedition across St. George's Channel was ripe unto the harvest. Irish affairs, among otherdomestic problems, had been sacrificed to Wolsey's passion for playinga part in Europe, and on the eve of his fall English rule in Irelandwas reported to be weaker than it had been since the Conquest. Theoutbreak of war with Charles V. , in 1528, was followed by the firstappearance of Spanish emissaries at the courts of Irish chiefs, andfrom Spanish intrigue in Ireland Tudor monarchs were never again to befree. In the autumn of 1534 the whole of Ireland outside the paleblazed up in revolt. Sir William Skeffington succeeded in crushing therebellion; but Skeffington died in the following year, and hissuccessor, Lord Leonard Grey, failed to overcome the difficultiescaused by Irish disaffection and by jealousies in his council. Hissister was wife of Fitzgerald, the Earl of Kildare, and the (p. 367)revolt of the Geraldines brought Grey himself under suspicion. He wasaccused by his council of treason; he returned to England in 1540, declaring the country at peace. But, before he had audience withHenry, a fresh insurrection broke out, and Grey was sent to the Tower;thence, having pleaded guilty to charges of treason, he trod the usualpath to the block. 

Henry now adopted fresh methods; he determined to treat Ireland inmuch the same way as Wales. A commission, appointed in 1537, had madea thorough survey of the land, and supplied him with the outlines ofhis policy. As in Wales, the English system of land tenure, of justiceand the English language were to supersede indigenous growths; theKing's supremacy in temporal and ecclesiastical affairs was to beenforced, and the whole of the land was to be gradually won by ajudicious admixture of force and conciliation. [1017] The new deputy, Sir Anthony St. Leger, was an able man, who had presided over thecommission of 1537. He landed at Dublin in 1541, and his work wasthoroughly done. Henry, no longer so lavish with his money as inWolsey's days, did not stint for this purpose. [1018] The IrishParliament passed an act that Henry should be henceforth styled King, instead of Lord, of Ireland; and many of the chiefs were induced torelinquish their tribal independence in return for glitteringcoronets. By 1542 Ireland had not merely peace within her own borders, but was able to send two thousand kernes to assist the English on theborders of Scotland; and English rule in Ireland was more widely andmore firmly established than it had ever been before. 

 [Footnote 1017: See R. Dunlop in _Owens College Studies_, 1901, and the _Calendar of Carew MSS. _ and _Calendar of Irish State Papers_, vol. I. ]

 [Footnote 1018: _L. And P. _, xvi. , 43, 77. ]

Besides Ireland and Wales, there were other spheres in which Henry (p. 368)sought to consolidate and extend the Tudor methods of government. Theerection, in 1542, of the Courts of Wards and Liveries, of First-fruitsand Tenths, and the development of the jurisdiction of the StarChamber and of the Court of Requests, [1019] were all designed tofurther two objects dear to Henry's heart, the efficiency of hisadministration and the exaltation of his prerogative. It wasthoroughly in keeping with his policy that the parliamentary systemexpanded concurrently with the sphere of the King's activity. Berwickhad first been represented in the Parliament of 1529, [1020] and astep, which would have led to momentous consequences, had the idea, onwhich it was based, been carried out, was taken in 1536, when twomembers were summoned from Calais. There was now only one districtunder English rule which was not represented in Parliament, and thatwas the county of Durham, known as _the_ bishopric, which stillremained detached from the national system. It was left for OliverCromwell to complete England's parliamentary representation bysummoning members to sit for that palatine county. [1021] This was notthe only respect in which the Commonwealth followed in the footstepsof Henry VIII. , for the Parliament of 1542, in which members fromWales and from Calais are first recorded as sitting, [1022] passed an"Act for the Navy, " which provided that goods could only be (p. 369)imported in English ships. It was, however, in his dealings withScotland that Henry's schemes for the expansion of England became mostmarked; but, before he could develop his plans in that direction, hehad to ward off a recrudescence of the danger from a coalition ofCatholic Europe. 

 [Footnote 1019: _L. And P. _, xvi. , 28; _cf. _ Leadam, _Court of Requests_, Selden Soc. , Introd. ]

 [Footnote 1020: _Official Return of Members of Parliament_, i. , 369. ]

 [Footnote 1021: See G. T. Lapsley, _The County Palatine of Durham_, in _Harvard Historical Series_. ]

 [Footnote 1022: There are no records in the _Official Return_ for 1536 and 1539, but Calais had been granted Parliamentary representation by an Act of the previous Parliament (27 Hen. VIII. , Private Acts, No. 9; _cf. L. And P. _, x. , 1086). ]

 * * * * *

In spite of Henry's efforts to fan the flames of strife[1023] betweenthe Emperor and the King of France, the war, which had preventedeither monarch from countenancing the mission of Cardinal Pole or fromprofiting by the Pilgrimage of Grace, was gradually dying down in theautumn of 1537; and, in order to check the growing and dangerousintimacy between the two rivals, Henry was secretly hinting to boththat the death of his Queen had left him free to contract a marriagewhich might bind him for ever to one or the other. [1024] To Francis hesent a request for the hand of Mary of Guise, who had already beenpromised to James V. Of Scotland. He refused to believe that the Scotsnegotiations had proceeded so far that they could not be set aside forso great a king as himself, and he succeeded in convincing the lady'srelatives that the position of a Queen of England provided greaterattractions than any James could hold out. [1025] Francis, however, took matters into his own hands, and compelled the Guises to fulfiltheir compact with the Scottish King. Nothing daunted, Henry asked fora list of other French ladies eligible for the matrimonial prize. (p. 370)He even suggested that the handsomest of them might be sent, in thetrain of Margaret of Navarre, to Calais, where he could inspect themin person. [1026] "I trust to no one, " he told Castillon, the Frenchambassador, "but myself. The thing touches me too near. I wish to seethem and know them some time before deciding. "[1027] This idea of"trotting out the young ladies like hackneys"[1028] was not muchrelished at the French Court; and Castillon, to shame Henry out of theindelicacy of his proposal, made an ironical suggestion for testingthe ladies' charms, the grossness of which brought the only recordedblush to Henry's cheeks. [1029] No more was said of the beauty-show;and Henry declared that he did not intend to marry in France or inSpain at all, unless his marriage brought him a closer alliance withFrancis or Charles than the rivals had formed with each other. 

 [Footnote 1023: Vols. Xii. And xiii. Of the _L. And P. _ are full of these attempts. ]

 [Footnote 1024: For the negotiations with France from 1537 onwards see Kaulek, _Corresp. De MM. Castillon et Marillac_, Paris, 1885. ]

 [Footnote 1025: _L. And P. _, XIII. , i. , 165, 273. ]

 [Footnote 1026: Is this another trace of "Byzantinism"? It was a regular custom at the Byzantine and other Oriental Courts to have a "concourse of beauty" for the Emperor's benefit when he wished to choose a wife (_Histoire Générale_, i. , 381 n. , v. , 728); and the story of Theophilus and Theodora is familiar (Finlay, ii. , 146-47). ]

 [Footnote 1027: _L. And P. _, XIII. , ii. , 77; Kaulek, p. 80. ]

 [Footnote 1028: _Ibid. _, XII. , ii. , 1125; XIII. , ii. , p. Xxxi. ]

 [Footnote 1029: _Ibid. _, XIII. , ii. , 77. ]

While these negotiations for obtaining the hand of a French princesswere in progress, Henry set on foot a similar quest in the Netherlands. Before the end of 1537 he had instructed Hutton, his agent, to reporton the ladies of the Regent Mary's Court;[1030] and Hutton repliedthat Christina of Milan was said to be "a goodly personage and ofexcellent beauty". She was daughter of the deposed King of Denmark andof his wife, Isabella, sister of Charles V. ; at the age of thirteenshe had been married to the Duke of Milan, but she was now a (p. 371)virgin widow of sixteen, "very tall and competent of beauty, of favourexcellent and very gentle in countenance". [1031] On 10th March, 1538, Holbein arrived at Brussels for the purpose of painting the lady'sportrait, which he finished in a three hours' sitting. [1032]Christina's fascinations do not seem to have made much impression onHenry; indeed, his taste in feminine beauty cannot be commended. Thereis no good authority for the alleged reply of the young duchessherself, that, if she had two heads, she would willingly place one ofthem at His Majesty's disposal. [1033] Henry had, as yet, beheaded onlyone of his wives, and even if the precedent had been more firmlyestablished, Christina was too wary and too polite to refer to it insuch uncourtly terms. She knew that the disposal of her hand did notrest with herself, and though the Emperor sent powers for theconclusion of the match, neither he nor Henry had any desire to see itconcluded. The cementing of his friendship with Francis freed Charlesfrom the need of Henry's goodwill, and impelled the English King toseek elsewhere for means to counter-balance the hostile alliance. 

 [Footnote 1030: _Ibid. _, XII. , ii. , 1172. ]

 [Footnote 1031: _L. And P. _, XII. , ii. , Pref. P. Xxviii. , No. 1187. ]

 [Footnote 1032: _Ibid. _, XIII. , i. , 380, 507. The magnificent portrait of Christina belonging to the Duke of Norfolk, and now on loan at the National Gallery, must have been painted by Holbein afterwards. ]

 [Footnote 1033: It may have crystallised from some such rumour as is reported in _L. And P. _, XIV. , ii. , 141. "Marry, " says George Constantyne, "she sayeth that the King's Majesty was in so little space rid of the Queens that she dare not trust his Council, though she durst trust his Majesty; for her council suspecteth that her great-aunt was poisoned, that the second was innocently put to death, and the third lost for lack of keeping in her childbed. " Constantyne added that he was not sure whether this was Christina's answer or Anne of Cleves'. ]

The Emperor and the French King had not been deluded by English (p. 372)intrigues, nor prevented from coming together by Henry's desire tokeep them apart. Charles, Francis, and Paul III. Met at Nice in June, 1538, and there the Pope negotiated a ten years' truce. Henceforththey were to consider their interests identical, and their ambassadorsin England compared notes in order to defeat more effectively Henry'sskilful diplomacy. [1034] The moment seemed ripe for the execution ofthe long-cherished project for a descent upon England. Its King hadjust added to his long list of offences against the Church by despoilingthe shrine of St. Thomas at Canterbury and burning the bones of thesaint. The saint was even said to have been put on his trial inmockery, declared contumacious, and condemned as a traitor. [1035] Ifthe canonised bones of martyrs could be treated thus, who would, forthe future, pay respect to the Church or tribute at its shrines? AtRome a party, of which Pole was the most zealous, proclaimed that thereal Turk was Henry, and that all Christian princes should unite tosweep him from the face of God's earth, which his presence had toolong defiled. Considering the effect of Christian leagues against theOttoman, the English Turk was probably not dismayed. But Paul III. AndPole were determined to do their worst. The Pope resolved to publishthe bull of deprivation, which had been drawn up in August, 1535, though its execution had hitherto been suspended owing to papal (p. 373)hopes of Henry's amendment and to the request of various princes. Nowthe bull was to be published in France, in Flanders, in Scotland andin Ireland. Beton was made a cardinal and sent home to exhort James V. To invade his uncle's kingdom, [1036] while Pole again set out on histravels to promote the conquest of his native land. [1037]

 [Footnote 1034: _L. And P. _, XIII. , ii. , 232, 277, 914, 915. ]

 [Footnote 1035: The burning of the bones is stated as a fact in the Papal Bull of December, 1538 (_L. And P. _, XIII. , ii. , 1087; see Pref. , p. Xvi. , n. ); but the documents printed in Wilkins's _Concilia_, iii. , 835, giving an account of an alleged trial of the body of St. Thomas are forgeries (_L. And P. _, XIII. , ii. , pp. Xli. , xlii. , 49). A precedent might have been found in Pope Stephen VI. 's treatment of his predecessor, Formosus (_Hist. Générale_, i. , 536). ]

 [Footnote 1036: _L. And P. _, XIII. , ii. , 1108-9, 1114-16, 1130, 1135-36. ]

 [Footnote 1037: _Ibid. _, XIII. , ii. , 950, 1110. ]

It was on Pole's unfortunate relatives that the effects of the threatenedbull were to fall. Besides the Cardinal's treason, there was anothermotive for proscribing his family. He and his brothers were grandchildrenof George, Duke of Clarence; years before, Chapuys had urged CharlesV. To put forward Pole as a candidate for the throne; and Henry was asconvinced as his father had been that the real way to render hisGovernment secure was to put away all the possible alternatives. Nowthat he was threatened with deprivation by papal sentence, the needbecame more urgent than ever. But, while the proscription of the Poleswas undoubtedly dictated by political reasons, their conduct enabledHenry to effect it by legal means. There was no doubt of theCardinal's treason; his brother, Sir Geoffrey, had often taken counselwith Charles's ambassador, and discussed plans for the invasion ofEngland;[1038] and even their mother, the aged Countess of Salisbury, although she had denounced the Cardinal as a traitor and had lamentedthe fact that she had given him birth, had brought herself within thetoils by receiving papal bulls and corresponding with traitors. [1039]The least guilty of the family appears to have been the Countess'seldest son, Lord Montague;[1040] but he, too, was involved in (p. 374)the common ruin. Plots were hatched for kidnapping the Cardinal andbringing him home to stand his trial for treason. Sir Geoffrey wasarrested in August, 1538, was induced, or forced, to turn King'sevidence, and as a reward was granted his miserable, conscience-strucklife. [1041] The Countess was spared for a while, but Montague mountedthe scaffold in December. 

 [Footnote 1038: _Ibid. _, vii. , 1368; viii. , 750. ]

 [Footnote 1039: _Ibid. _, XIII. , ii. , 835, 838, 855. ]

 [Footnote 1040: He had, however, been sending information to Chapuys as early as 1534 (_L. And P. _, vii. , 957), when Charles V. Was urged to make use of him and of Reginald Pole (_ibid. _, vii. , 1040; _cf. Ibid. _, XIII. , ii. , 702, 830, 954). ]

 [Footnote 1041: _Ibid. _, XIII. , pt. Ii. , _passim_. He attempted to commit suicide (_ibid. _, 703). ]

With Montague perished his cousin, the Marquis of Exeter, whosedescent from Edward IV. Was as fatal to him as their descent fromClarence was to the Poles. The Marquis was the White Rose, the nextheir to the throne if the line of the Tudors failed. His father, theEarl of Devonshire, had been attainted in the reign of Henry VII. ; butHenry VIII. Had reversed the attainder, had treated the young Earlwith kindness, had made him Knight of the Garter and Marquis ofExeter, and had sought in various ways to win his support. But hisdynastic position and dislike of Henry's policy drove the Marquis intothe ranks of the discontented. He had been put in the Tower, in 1531, on suspicion of treason; after his release he listened to thehysterics of Elizabeth Barton, intrigued with Chapuys, and correspondedwith Reginald Pole;[1042] and in Cornwall, in 1538, men conspired tomake him King. [1043] Less evidence than this would have (p. 375)convinced a jury of peers in Tudor times of the expediency of Exeter'sdeath; and, on the 9th of December, his head paid the price of hisroyal descent. 

 [Footnote 1042: _Ibid. _, v. , 416; vi. , 1419, 1464. ]

 [Footnote 1043: _Ibid. _, XIII. , ii. , 802, 961. ]

These executions do not seem to have produced the faintest symptoms ofdisgust in the popular mind. The threat of invasion evoked a nationalenthusiasm for defence. In August, 1538, Henry went down to inspectthe fortifications he had been for years erecting at Dover; masonryfrom the demolished monasteries was employed in dotting the coast withcastles, such as Calshot and Hurst, which were built with materialsfrom the neighbouring abbey of Beaulieu. Commissioners were sent torepair the defences at Calais and Guisnes, on the Scottish Borders, along the coasts from Berwick to the mouth of the Thames, and from theThames to Lizard Point. [1044] Beacons were repaired, ordnance wassupplied wherever it was needed, lists of ships and of mariners weredrawn up in every port, and musters were taken throughout the kingdom. Everywhere the people pressed forward to help; in the Isle of Wightthey were lining the shores with palisades, and taking everyprecaution to render a landing of the enemy a perilous enterprise. [1045]In Essex they anticipated the coming of the commissioners by diggingdykes and throwing up ramparts; at Harwich the Lord Chancellor saw"women and children working with shovels at the trenches and bulwarks". Whatever we may think of the roughness and rigour of Henry's rule, hismethods were not resented by the mass of his people. He had not losthis hold on the nation; whenever he appealed to his subjects in a timeof national danger, he met with an eager response; and, had the (p. 376)schemers abroad, who idly dreamt of his expulsion from the throne, succeeded in composing their mutual quarrels and launching their boltagainst England, there is no reason to suppose that its fate wouldhave differed from that of the Spanish Armada. 

 [Footnote 1044: _L. And P. _, XIV. , i. , 478, 533, 630, 671, 762, 899. ]

 [Footnote 1045: _Ibid. _, XIV. , i. , 540, 564, 573, 615, 655, 682, 711, 712. ]

In spite of the fears of invasion which prevailed in the spring of1539, Pole's second mission had no more success than the first;[1046]and the hostile fleet, for the sight of which the Warden of the CinquePorts was straining his eyes from Dover Castle, never came from themouths of the Scheldt and the Rhine; or rather, the supposed Armadaproved to be a harmless convoy of traders. [1047] The Pope himself, onsecond thoughts, withheld his promised bull. He distrusted itsreception at the hands of his secular allies, and dreaded the contemptand ridicule which would follow an open failure. [1048] Moreover, atthe height of his fervour against Henry, he could not refrain fromattempts to extend his temporal power, and his seizure of Urbinoalienated Francis and afforded Henry some prospect of creating ananti-papal party in Italy. [1049] Francis would gladly join in aprohibition of English commerce, if Charles would only begin; butwithout Charles he could do nothing, and, even when his amity with theEmperor was closest, he was compelled, at Henry's demand, to punishthe French priests who inveighed against English enormities. [1050] ToCharles, however, English trade was worth more than to Francis, (p. 377)and the Emperor's subjects would tolerate no interruption of theirlucrative intercourse with England. With the consummate skill which healmost invariably displayed in political matters, Henry had, in 1539, when the danger seemed greatest, provided the Flemings with anadditional motive for peace. He issued a proclamation that, for sevenyears, their goods should pay no more duty than those of the Englishthemselves;[1051] and the thrifty Dutch were little inclined to stop, by a war, the fresh stream of gold. The Emperor, too, had more urgentmatters in hand. Henry might be more of a Turk than the Sultanhimself, and the Pope might regard the sack of St. Thomas's shrinewith more horror than the Turkish defeat of a Christian fleet; butHenry was not harrying the Emperor's coasts, nor threatening todeprive the Emperor's brother of his Hungarian kingdom; and Turkishvictories on land and on sea gave the imperial family much moreconcern than all Henry's onslaughts on the saints and their relics. And, besides the Ottoman peril, Charles had reason to fear thepolitical effects of the union between England and the Protestantprinces of Germany, for which the religious development in England waspaving the way, and which an attack on Henry would at once havecemented. 

 [Footnote 1046: _L. And P. _, XIV. , i. , Introd. , pp. Xi. -xiii. ]

 [Footnote 1047: _Ibid. _, XIV. , i. , 714, 728, 741, 767. ]

 [Footnote 1048: _Cf. Ibid. _, XIV. , i. , 1011, 1013; ii. , 99. ]

 [Footnote 1049: _Ibid. _, XIV. , i. , 27, 37, 92, 98, 104, 114, 144, 188, 235, 884; ii. , 357. ]

 [Footnote 1050: _L. And P. _, XIV. , i. , 37, 92, 371. ]

 [Footnote 1051: _L. And P. _, XIV. , i. , 373. ]

 * * * * *

The powers conferred upon Henry as Supreme Head of the Church were notlong suffered to remain in abeyance. Whatever the theory may havebeen, in practice Henry's supremacy over the Church was very differentfrom that which Kings of England had hitherto wielded; and from themoment he entered upon his new ecclesiastical kingdom, he set (p. 378)himself not merely to reform practical abuses, such as the excessivewealth of the clergy, but to define the standard of orthodox faith, and to force his subjects to embrace the royal theology. The Catholicfaith was to hold good only so far as the Supreme Head willed; the"King's doctrine" became the rule to which "_our_ Church of England, "as Henry styled it, was henceforth to conform; and "unity and concordin opinion" were to be established by royal decree. 

The first royal definition of the faith was embodied in ten articlessubmitted to Convocation in 1536. The King was, he said, constrainedby diversity of opinions "to put his own pen to the book and conceivecertain articles. .. Thinking that no person, having authority fromhim, would presume to say a word against their meaning, or be remissin setting them forth". [1052] His people, he maintained, whether peeror prelate, had no right to resist his temporal or spiritual commands, whatever they might be. Episcopal authority had indeed sunk low. WhenConvocation was opened, in 1536, a layman, Dr. William Petre, appeared, and demanded the place of honour above all bishops andarchbishops in their assembly. Pre-eminence belonged, he said, to theKing as Supreme Head of the Church; the King had appointed Cromwellhis Vicar-general; and Cromwell had named him, Petre, hisproctor. [1053] The claim was allowed, and the submissive clergy foundlittle fault with the royal articles of faith, though they mentionedonly three sacraments, baptism, penance and the sacrament of thealtar, denounced the abuse of images, warned men against excessive (p. 379)devotion to the saints, and against believing that "ceremonies havepower to remit sin, " or that masses can deliver souls from purgatory. Finally, Convocation transferred from the Pope to the Christianprinces the right to summon a General Council. [1054]

 [Footnote 1052: _L. And P. _, xi. , 1110; _cf. Ibid. _, 59, 123, 377, 954. ]

 [Footnote 1053: Wilkins, _Concilia_, iii. , 803. ]

 [Footnote 1054: Fuller, _Church History_, ed. 1845, iii. , 145-59; Burnet, _Reformation_, ed. Pocock, iv. , 272-90; Strype, _Cranmer_, i. , 58-62. ]

With the _Institution of a Christian Man_, issued in the followingyear, and commonly called _The Bishops' Book_, Henry had little to do. The bishops debated the doctrinal questions from February to July, 1537, but the King wrote, in August, that he had had no time toexamine their conclusions. [1055] He trusted, however, to their wisdom, and agreed that the book should be published and read to the people onSundays and holy-days for three years to come. In the same year hepermitted a change, which inevitably gave fresh impulse to thereforming movement in England and destroyed every prospect of that"union and concord in opinions, " on which he set so much store. MilesCoverdale was licensed to print an edition of his Bible in England, with a dedication to Queen Jane Seymour; and, in 1538, a secondEnglish version was prepared by John Rogers, under Cranmer'sauthority, and published as Matthew's Bible. [1056] This was the Bible"of the largest volume" which Cromwell, as Henry's Vicegerent, orderedto be set up in all churches. Every incumbent was to encourage hisparishioners to read it; he was to recite the Paternoster, the Creedand the Ten Commandments in English, that his flock might learn (p. 380)them by degrees; he was to require some acquaintance with therudiments of the faith, as a necessary condition from all before theycould receive the Sacrament of the Altar; he was to preach at leastonce a quarter; and to institute a register of births, marriages anddeaths. [1057]

 [Footnote 1055: _L. And P. _, XII. , ii. , 618; Cranmer, _Works_, ii. , 469; _cf. _ Jenkyns, _Cranmer_, ii. , 21; and Cranmer, _Works_, ii. , 83, 359, 360. ]

 [Footnote 1056: See the present writer's _Cranmer_, pp. 110-13; Dixon, _Church History_, ii. , 77-79. ]

 [Footnote 1057: See these _injunctions_ in Burnet, iv. , 341-46; Wilkins, _Concilia, _ iii. , 815. ]

Meanwhile, a vigorous assault was made on the strongholds ofsuperstition; pilgrimages were suppressed, and many wonder-workingimages were pulled down and destroyed. The famous Rood of Boxley, afigure whose contortions had once imposed on the people, was taken tothe market-place at Maidstone, [1058] and the ingenious mechanism, whereby the eyes and lips miraculously opened and shut, was exhibitedto the vulgar gaze. [1059] Probably these little devices had alreadysunk in popular esteem, for the Blood of St. Januarius could not betreated at Naples to-day in the same cavalier fashion as the Blood ofHailes was in England in 1538, [1060] without a riot. But the exposurewas a useful method of exciting popular indignation against the monks, and it filled reformers with a holy joy. "Dagon, " wrote one toBullinger, "is everywhere falling in England. Bel of Babylon has beenbroken to pieces. "[1061] The destruction of the images was a preliminaryskirmish in the final campaign against the monks. The Act of 1536 (p. 381)had only granted to the King religious houses which possessed anendowment of less than two hundred pounds a year; the dissolution ofthe greater monasteries was now gradually effected by a process ofmore or less voluntary surrender. In some cases the monks may havebeen willing enough to go; they were loaded with debt, and harassed byrules imposed by Cromwell, which would have been difficult to keep inthe palmiest days of monastic enthusiasm; and they may well havethought that freedom from monastic restraint, coupled with a pension, was a welcome relief, especially when resistance involved the anger ofthe prince and liability to the penalties of elastic treasons and of a_præmunire_ which no one could understand. So, one after another, thegreat abbeys yielded to the persuasions and threats of the royalcommissioners. The dissolution of the Mendicant Orders and of theKnights of St. John dispersed the last remnants of the papal army asan organised force in England, though warfare of a kind continued formany years. 

 [Footnote 1058: _L. And P. _, XIII. , i. , 231, 348. ]

 [Footnote 1059: Father Bridgett in his _Blunders and Forgeries_ repudiates the idea that these "innocent toys" had been put to any superstitious uses. ]

 [Footnote 1060: _L. And P. _, XIII. , i. , 347, 564, 580; ii. , 186, 409, 488, 709, 710, 856. ]

 [Footnote 1061: John Hoker of Maidstone to Bullinger in Burnet (ed. Pocock, vi. , 194, 195). ]

These proceedings created as much satisfaction among the Lutherans ofGermany as they did disgust at Rome, and an alliance between Henry andthe Protestant princes seemed to be dictated by a community of religious, as well as of political, interests. The friendship between Francis andCharles threatened both English and German liberties, and it behovedthe two countries to combine against their common foe. Henry's manifestoagainst the authority of the Pope to summon a General Council had beenreceived with rapture in Germany; at least three German editions wereprinted, and the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse urged onhim the adoption of a common policy. [1062] English envoys were (p. 382)sent to Germany with this purpose in the spring of 1538, and Germandivines journeyed to England to lay the foundation of a theologicalunion. [1063] They remained five months, but failed to effect anagreement. [1064] To the three points on which they desired furtherreform in England, the Communion in both kinds, the abolition ofprivate masses and of the enforced celibacy of the clergy, Henryhimself wrote a long reply, [1065] maintaining in each case theCatholic faith. But the conference showed that Henry was for the timeanxious to be conciliatory in religious matters, while from a politicalpoint of view the need for an alliance grew more urgent than ever. AllHenry's efforts to break the amity between Francis and Charles hadfailed; his proposals of marriage to imperial and French princesseshad come to nothing; and, in the spring of 1539, it was rumoured thatthe Emperor would further demonstrate the indissolubility of hisintimacy with the French King by passing through France from Spain toGermany, instead of going, as he had always hitherto done, by sea, orthrough Italy and Austria. Cromwell seized the opportunity andpersuaded Henry to strengthen his union with the Protestant princes byseeking a wife from a German house. 

 [Footnote 1062: Gairdner, _Church History_, p. 195; _L. And P. _, XII. , i. , 1310; ii. 1088-89. ]

 [Footnote 1063: _L. And P. _, XIII. , i. , 352, 353, 367, 645, 648-50, 1102, 1166, 1295, 1305, 1437. ]

 [Footnote 1064: _Ibid. _, XIII. , ii. , 741; Cranmer, _Works_, ii. , 397; Burnet, i. , 408; Strype, _Eccl. Mem. _, i. , App. Nos. 94-102. ]

 [Footnote 1065: Burnet, iv. , 373. ]

This policy once adopted, the task of selecting a bride was easy. Asearly as 1530[1066] the old Duke of Cleves had suggested some (p. 383)marriage alliance between his own and the royal family of England. Hewas closely allied to the Elector of Saxony, who had married Sibylla, the Duke of Cleves' daughter; and the young Duke, who was soon tosucceed his father, had also claims to the Duchy of Guelders. Guelderswas a thorn in the side of the Emperor; it stood to the Netherlands inmuch the same relation as Scotland stood to England, and when therewas war between Charles and Francis Guelders had always been one ofthe most useful pawns in the French King's hands. Hence an alliancebetween the German princes, the King of Denmark, who had joined theirpolitical and religious union, Guelders and England would haveseriously threatened the Emperor's hold on his Dutch dominions. [1067]This was the step which Henry was induced to take, when he realisedthat Charles's friendship with France remained unbroken, and that theEmperor had made up his mind to visit Paris. Hints of a marriagebetween Henry and Anne of Cleves[1068] were thrown out early in 1539;the only difficulty, which subsequently proved very convenient, wasthat the lady had been promised to the son of the Duke of (p. 384)Lorraine. The objection was waived on the ground that Anne herself hadnot given her consent; in view of the advantages of the match and ofthe Duke's financial straits, Henry agreed to forgo a dowry; and, onthe 6th of October, the treaty of marriage was signed. [1069]

 [Footnote 1066: _L. And P. _, iv. , 6364. ]

 [Footnote 1067: See the present writer in _Cambridge Modern History_, ii. , 236, 237. The Duke of Cleves was not a Lutheran or a Protestant, as is generally assumed. He had established a curious Erasmian compromise between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, which bears some resemblance to the ecclesiastical policy pursued by Henry VIII. , and by the Elector Joachim II. Of Brandenburg; and the marriage of Anne with Henry did not imply so great a change in ecclesiastical policy as has usually been supposed. The objections to it were really more political than religious; the Schmalkaldic League was a feeble reed to lean upon, although its feebleness was not exposed until 1546-47. ]

 [Footnote 1068: _L. And P. _, XIV. , i. , 103; _cf. _ Bouterwek, _Anna von Cleve_; Merriman, _Cromwell_, chap. Xiii. ; and articles on the members of the Cleves family in the _Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie_. ]

 [Footnote 1069: _L. And P. _, XIV. , ii. , 285, 286. ]

Anne of Cleves had already been described to Henry by his ambassador, Dr. Wotton, and Holbein had been sent to paint her portrait (now inthe Louvre), which Wotton pronounced "a very lively image". [1070] Shehad an oval face, long nose, chestnut eyes, a light complexion, andvery pale lips. She was thirty-four years old, and in France wasreported to be ugly; but Cromwell told the King that "every onepraised her beauty, both of face and body, and one said she excelledthe Duchess of Milan as the golden sun did the silver moon". [1071]Wotton's account of her accomplishments was pitched in a minor key. Her gentleness was universally commended, but she spent her timechiefly in needlework. She knew no language but her own; she couldneither sing nor play upon any instrument, accomplishments which werethen considered by Germans to be unbecoming in a lady. [1072] On the12th of December, 1539, she arrived at Calais; but boisterous weatherand bad tides delayed her there till the 27th. She landed at Deal (p. 385)and rode to Canterbury. On the 30th she proceeded to Sittingbourne, and thence, on the 31st, to Rochester, where the King met her indisguise. [1073] If he was disappointed with her appearance, heconcealed the fact from the public eye. Nothing marred her publicreception at Greenwich on the 3rd, or was suffered to hinder thewedding, which was solemnised three days later. [1074] Henry "lovinglyembraced and kissed" his bride in public, and allowed no hint to reachthe ears of any one but his most intimate counsellors of the fact thathe had been led willingly or unwillingly into the most humiliatingsituation of his reign. 

 [Footnote 1070: _Ibid. _, XIV. , ii. , 33. Holbein did not paint a flattering portrait any more than Wotton told a flattering tale; if Henry was deceived in the matter it was by Cromwell's unfortunate assurances. As a matter of fact Anne was at least as good looking as Jane Seymour, and Henry's taste in the matter of feminine beauty was not of a very high order. Bishop Stubbs even suggests that their appearance was "if not a justification, at least a colourable reason for understanding the readiness with which he put them away" (_Lectures_, 1887, p. 284). ]

 [Footnote 1071: _L. And P. _, XIV. , i. , 552. ]

 [Footnote 1072: _Ibid. _, XIV. , ii. , 33. ]

 [Footnote 1073: _L. And P. _, XIV. , ii. , 664, 674, 677, 726, 732, 753, 754, 769. ]

 [Footnote 1074: Hall, _Chronicle_, p. 836. ]

Such was, in reality, the result of his failure to act on theprinciple laid down by himself to the French ambassador two yearsbefore. He had then declared that the choice of a wife was toodelicate a matter to be left to a deputy, and that he must see andknow a lady some time before he made up his mind to marry her. Anne ofCleves had been selected by Cromwell, and the lady, whose beauty was, according to Cromwell, in every one's mouth, seemed to Henry no betterthan "a Flanders mare". [1075] The day after the interview at Rochesterhe told Cromwell that Anne was "nothing so well as she was spoken of, "and that, "if he had known before as much as he knew then, she shouldnot have come within his realm". He demanded of his Vicegerent whatremedy he had to suggest, and Cromwell had none. Next day Cranmer, Norfolk, Suffolk, Southampton and Tunstall were called in with (p. 386)no better result. "Is there none other remedy, " repeated Henry, "butthat I must needs, against my will, put my neck in the yoke?"[1076]Apparently there was none. The Emperor was being fêted in Paris; torepudiate the marriage would throw the Duke of Cleves into the arms ofthe allied sovereigns, alienate the German princes, and leave Henrywithout a friend among the powers of Christendom. So he made up hismind to put his neck in the yoke and to marry "the Flanders mare". 

 [Footnote 1075: Burnet, i. , 434. The phrase appears to have no extant contemporary authority, but Burnet is not, as a rule, imaginative, and many records have been destroyed since he wrote. ]

 [Footnote 1076: Cromwell to Henry VIII. , in Merriman, ii. , 268-72. ]

 * * * * *

Henry, however, was never patient of matrimonial or other yokes, andit was quite certain that, as soon as he could do so without seriousrisk, he would repudiate his unattractive wife, and probably otherthings besides. For Anne's defects were only the last straw added tothe burden which Henry bore. He had not only been forced bycircumstances into marriage with a wife who was repugnant to him, butinto a religious and secular policy which he and the mass of hissubjects disliked. The alliance with the Protestant princes might be auseful weapon if things came to the worst, and if there were a jointattack on England by Francis and Charles; but, on its merits, it wasnot to be compared to a good understanding with the Emperor; and Henrywould have no hesitation in throwing over the German princes when oncehe saw his way to a renewal of friendship with Charles. He wouldwelcome, even more, a relief from the necessity of paying attention toGerman divines. He had never wavered in his adhesion to the cardinalpoints of the Catholic faith. He had no enmity to Catholicism, providedit did not stand in his way. The spiritual jurisdiction of Rome (p. 387)had been abolished in England because it imposed limits on Henry's ownauthority. Some of the powers of the English clergy had been destroyed, partly for a similar reason, and partly as a concession to the laity. But the purely spiritual claims of the Church remained unimpaired; theclergy were still a caste, separate from other men, and divinelyendowed with the power of performing a daily miracle in the conversionof the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Evenwhen the Protestant alliance seemed most indispensable, Henryendeavoured to convince Lutherans of the truth of the Catholicdoctrine of the mass, and could not refrain from persecuting hereticswith a zeal that shook the confidence of his reforming allies. Hishonour, he thought, was involved in his success in proving that he, with his royal supremacy, could defend the faith more effectively thanthe Pope, with all his pretended powers; and he took a personalinterest in the conversion and burning of heretics. Several instancesare recorded of his arguing a whole day with Sacramentaries, [1077]exercises which exhibited to advantage at once the royal authority andthe royal learning in spiritual matters. His beliefs were not due tocaprice or to ignorance; probably no bishop in his realm was moredeeply read in heterodox theology. [1078] He was constantly on the (p. 388)look-out for books by Luther and other heresiarchs, and he kept quitea respectable theological library at hand for private use. Thetenacity with which he clung to orthodox creeds and Catholic forms wasnot only strengthened by study but rooted in the depths of hischaracter. To devout but fundamentally irreligious men, like HenryVIII. And Louis XIV. , rites and ceremonies are a great consolation;and Henry seldom neglected to creep to the Cross on Good Friday, toserve the priest at mass, to receive holy bread and holy water everySunday, and daily to use "all other laudable ceremonies". [1079]

 [Footnote 1077: _E. G. _, _L. And P. _, v. , 285; XIII. , ii. , 849, Introd. , p. Xxviii. Sir John Wallop admired the "charitable dexterity" with which Henry treated them (_ibid. _, xv. , 429). ]

 [Footnote 1078: When a book was presented to him which he had not the patience to read he handed it over to one of his lords-in-waiting to read; he then took it back and gave it to be examined to some one of an entirely different way of thinking, and made the two discuss its merits, and upon that discussion formed his own opinion (Cranmer to Wolfgang Capito, _Works_, ii. , 341; the King, says Cranmer, "is a most acute and vigilant observer"). Henry was also, according to modern standards, extraordinarily patient of theological discourses; when Cranmer obtained for Latimer an appointment to preach at Court, he advised him not to preach more than an hour or an hour and a half lest the King and Queen should grow weary! (_L. And P. _, vii. , 29). ]

 [Footnote 1079: _L. And P. _, XIV. , i. , 967, an interesting letter which also records how the King rowed up and down the Thames in his barge for an hour after evensong on Holy Thursday "with his drums and fifes playing". ]

With such feelings at heart, a union with Protestants could never forHenry be more than a _mariage de convenance_; and in this, as in otherthings, he carried with him the bulk of popular sympathy. In 1539 itwas said that no man in London durst speak against Catholic usages, and, in Lent of that year, a man was hanged, apparently at theinstance of the Recorder of London, for eating flesh on a Friday. [1080]The attack on the Church had been limited to its privileges and to itsproperty; its doctrine had scarcely been touched. The upper classesamong the laity had been gorged with monastic spoils; they weredisposed to rest and be thankful. The middle classes had been (p. 389)satisfied to some extent by the restriction of clerical fees, and bythe prohibition of the clergy from competing with laymen in profitabletrades, such as brewing, tanning, and speculating in land and houses. There was also the general reaction which always follows a period ofchange. How far that reaction had gone, Henry first learnt from theParliament which met on the 28th of April, 1539. 

 [Footnote 1080: _Ibid. _, i. , 967. This had been made a capital offence as early as the days of Charlemagne (Gibbon, ed. 1890, iii. , 450 n. ). ]

The elections were characterised by more court interference than istraceable at any other period during the reign, though even on thisoccasion the evidence is fragmentary and affects comparatively fewconstituencies. [1081] It was, moreover, Cromwell and not the King whosought to pack the House of Commons in favour of his own particularpolicy; and the attempt produced discontent in various constituenciesand a riot in one at least. [1082] The Earl of Southampton was (p. 390)required to use his influence on behalf of Cromwell's nominees atFarnham, although that borough was within the Bishop of Winchester'spreserves. [1083] So, too, Cromwell's henchman, Wriothesley, wasreturned for the county of Southampton in spite of Gardiner'sopposition. Never, till the days of the Stuarts, was there a morestriking instance of the futility of these tactics; for the House ofCommons, which Cromwell took so much pains to secure, passed, withouta dissentient, the Bill of Attainder against him; and before it wasdissolved, the bishop, against whose influence Cromwell had especiallyexerted himself, had taken Cromwell's place in the royal favour. Therewas, indeed, no possibility of stemming the tide which was flowingagainst the Vicegerent and in favour of the King; and Cromwell wasforced to swim with the stream in the vain hope of saving himself fromdisaster. 

 [Footnote 1081: In 1536 Henry had sent round a circular to the sheriffs; but its main object was to show that another Parliament was indispensable, to persuade the people that "their charge and time, which will be very little and short, would be well spent, " and to secure "that persons are elected who will serve, and for their worship and qualities be most meet for this purpose" (_L. And P. _, x. , 815). The sheriffs in fact were simply to see that the burden was placed on those able and willing to bear it. The best illustration of the methods adopted and of the amount of liberty of election exercised by the constituents may be found in Southampton's letter to Cromwell (_ibid. _, XIV. , i. , 520). At Guildford he told the burgesses they must return two members, which would be a great charge to the town, "but that if they followed my advice it would cost little or nothing, for I would provide able men to supply the room". They said that one Daniel Modge wanted one of the seats, but Southampton might arrange for the other. About the Sussex election he was doubtful, but various friends had promised to do their parts. Farnham, he said, returned burgesses (though it does not appear in the _Official Return_), but that was the bishop's town, "and my Lord Chamberlain is his steward there; so I forbear to meddle". ]

 [Footnote 1082: _L. And P. _, XIV. , i. , 662, 800, 808. By a singular fatality the returns for this Parliament have been lost, so there is no means of ascertaining how many of these nominees were actually elected. ]

 [Footnote 1083: _Ibid. _, XIV. , i. , 573, and "although he fears my lord of Winchester has already moved men after his own desires". He also spoke with Lord St. John about knights of the shire for Hampshire, and St. John "promised to do his best". Finally he enclosed a "schedule of the best men of the country picked out _by them_, that Cromwell may pick whom he would have chosen". ]

The principal measure passed in this Parliament was the Act of SixArticles, and it was designed to secure that unity and concord inopinions which had not been effected by the King's injunctions. TheAct affirmed the doctrine of Transubstantiation, declared that theadministration of the Sacrament in both kinds was not necessary, thatpriests might not marry, that vows of chastity were perpetual, thatprivate masses were meet and necessary, and auricular confession (p. 391)was expedient and necessary. Burning was the penalty for once denyingthe first article, and a felon's death for twice denying any of theothers. This was practically the first Act of Uniformity, the earliestdefinition by Parliament of the faith of the Church. It showed thatthe mass of the laity were still orthodox to the core, that they couldpersecute as ruthlessly as the Church itself, and that their onlydesire was to do the persecution themselves. The bill was carriedthrough Parliament by means of a coalition of King and laity[1084]against Cromwell and a minority of reforming bishops, who are saidonly to have relinquished their opposition at Henry's personalintervention;[1085] and the royal wishes were communicated, when theKing was not present in person, through Norfolk and not through theroyal Vicegerent. 

 [Footnote 1084: "We of the temporality, " writes a peer, "have been all of one mind" (_L. And P. _, XIV. , i. , 1040; Burnet, vi. , 233; _Narratives of the Reformation_, p. 248). ]

 [Footnote 1085: See the present writer's _Cranmer_, p. 129 n. Cranmer afterwards asserted (_Works_, ii. , 168) that the Act would never have passed unless the King had come personally into the Parliament house, but that is highly improbable. ]

It was clear that Cromwell was trembling to his fall. The enmity shownin Parliament to his doctrinal tendencies was not the result of royaldictation; for even this Parliament, which gave royal proclamationsthe force of law, could be independent when it chose. The draft of theAct of Proclamations, as originally submitted to the House of Commons, provoked a hot debate, was thrown out, and another was substitutedmore in accord with the sense of the House. [1086] Parliament couldhave rejected the second as easily as it did the first, had it (p. 392)wished. Willingly and wittingly it placed this weapon in the royalhands, [1087] and the chief motive for its action was that overwhelmingdesire for "union and concord in opinion" which lay at the root of theSix Articles. Only one class of offences against royal proclamationscould be punished with death, and those were offences "against anyproclamation to be made by the King's Highness, his heirs or successors, for or concerning any kind of heresies against Christian doctrine". The King might define the faith by proclamations, and the standard oforthodoxy thus set up was to be enforced by the heaviest legalpenalties. England, thought Parliament, could only be kept unitedagainst her foreign foes by a rigid uniformity of opinion; and thatuniformity could only be enforced by the royal authority based on laysupport, for the Church was now deeply divided in doctrine againstitself. 

 [Footnote 1086: Husee (_L. And P. _, XIV. , i. , 1158) says the House had been fifteen days over this bill; _cf. Lords' Journals_, 1539. ]

 [Footnote 1087: Parliament is sometimes represented as having almost committed constitutional suicide by this Act; but _cf. _ Dicey, _Law and Custom of the Constitution_, p. 357, "Powers, however extraordinary, which are conferred or sanctioned by statute, are never really unlimited, for they are confined by the words of the Act itself, and what is more by the interpretation put upon the statute by the judges". There was a world of difference between this and the prerogative independent of Parliament claimed by the Stuarts. Parliament was the foundation, not the rival, of Henry's authority. ]

Such was the temper of England at the end of 1539. Cromwell and hispolicy, the union with the German princes and the marriage with Anneof Cleves were merely makeshifts. They stood on no surer foundationthan the passing political need of some counterpoise to the allianceof Francis and Charles. So long as that need remained, the marriagewould hold good, and Henry would strive to dissemble; but not a momentlonger. The revolution came with startling rapidity; in April, (p. 393)1540, Marillac, the French ambassador, reported that Cromwell wastottering. [1088] The reason was not far to seek. No sooner had theEmperor passed out of France, than he began to excuse himself fromfulfilling his engagements to Francis. He was resolute never to yieldMilan, for which Francis never ceased to yearn. Charles would havefound Francis a useful ally for the conquest of England, but his ownpossessions were now threatened in more than one quarter, and especiallyby the English and German alliance. Henry skilfully widened the breachbetween the two friends, and, while professing the utmost regard forFrancis, gave Charles to understand that he vastly preferred theEmperor's alliance to that of the Protestant princes. Before April hehad convinced himself that Charles was more bent on reducing Germanyand the Netherlands to order than on any attempt against England, andthat the abandonment of the Lutheran princes would not lead to theircombination with the Emperor and Francis. Accordingly he returned avery cold answer when the Duke of Cleves's ambassadors came, in May, to demand his assistance in securing for the Duke the Duchy ofGuelders. [1089]

 [Footnote 1088: _L. And P. _, xv. , 486. ]

 [Footnote 1089: _Ibid. _, xv. , 735. ]

Cromwell's fall was not, however, effected without some violentoscillations, strikingly like the quick changes which preceded theruin of Robespierre during the Reign of Terror in France. The Vicegerenthad filled the Court and the Government with his own nominees; atleast half a dozen bishops, with Cranmer at their head, inclined tohis theological and political views; Lord Chancellor Audley and theEarl of Southamton were of the same persuasion; and a small but (p. 394)zealous band of reformers did their best, by ballads and sermons, toprove that the people were thirsting for further religious change. TheCouncil, said Marillac, was divided, each party seeking to destroy theother. Henry let the factions fight till he thought the time was comefor him to intervene. In February, 1540, there was a theological encounterbetween Gardiner and Barnes, the principal agent in Henry's dealingswith the Lutherans, and Barnes was forced to recant;[1090] in AprilGardiner and one or two conservatives, who had long been excluded fromthe Council, were believed to have been readmitted;[1091] and it wasreported that Tunstall would succeed Cromwell as the King'sVicegerent. [1092] But a few days later two of Cromwell's satellites, Wriothesley and Sadleir, were made Secretaries of State; Cromwellhimself was created Earl of Essex; and, in May, the Bishop ofChichester and two other opponents of reform were sent to theTower. [1093] At last Henry struck. On the 10th of June Cromwell wasarrested; he had, wrote the Council, "not only been counterworking theKing's aims for the settlement of religion, but had said that, if theKing and the realm varied from his opinions, he would withstand them, and that he hoped in another year or two to bring things to that framethat the King could not resist it". [1094] His cries for mercy evokedno response in that hardened age. [1095] Parliament condemned himunheard, and, on the 28th of July, he was beheaded. 

 [Footnote 1090: _L. And P. _, xv. , 306, 312, 334. ]

 [Footnote 1091: _Ibid. _, xv. , 486, 804. ]

 [Footnote 1092: _Ibid. _, XIV. , ii. , 141. ]

 [Footnote 1093: _Ibid. _, xv. , 737. ]

 [Footnote 1094: Burnet, iv. , 415-23; _L. And P. _, xv. , 765-67. ]

 [Footnote 1095: Merriman, _Cromwell_, ii. , 268, 273. ]

Henry had in reality come to the conclusion that it was safe to (p. 395)dispense with Anne of Cleves and her relatives; and with his willthere was easily found a way. His case, as stated by himself, was, asusual, a most ingenious mixture of fact and fiction, reason andsophistry. His "intention" had been defective, and therefore hisadministration of the sacrament of marriage had been invalid. He wasnot a free agent because fear of being left defenceless againstFrancis and Charles had driven him under the yoke. His marriage hadonly been a conditional form. Anne had never received a release fromher contract with the son of the Duke of Lorraine; Henry had only gonethrough the ceremony on the assumption that that release would beforthcoming; and actuated by this conscientious scruple, he hadrefrained from consummating the match. To give verisimilitude to thislast statement, he added the further detail that he found his bridepersonally repugnant. He therefore sought from "our" Church adeclaration of nullity. Anne was prudently ready to submit to itsdecision; and, through Convocation, Henry's Church, which in his viewexisted mainly to transact his ecclesiastical business, declared, onthe 7th of July, that the marriage was null and void. [1096] Annereceived a handsome endowment of four thousand pounds a year in lands, was given two country residences, and lived on amicable terms withHenry[1097] and his successors till 1558, when she died and was buriedin Westminster Abbey. 

 [Footnote 1096: For the canonical reasons on which this decision was based, see the present writer's _Cranmer_, pp. 140, 141. ]

 [Footnote 1097: "She is, " writes Marillac in August, "as joyous as ever, and wears new dresses every day" (xv. , 976; _cf. _ Wriothesley _Chronicle_, i. , 120). ]

Henry's neck was freed from the matrimonial yoke and the German (p. 396)entanglement. The news was promptly sent to Charles, who remarked thatHenry would always find him his loving brother and most cordialfriend. [1098] At Antwerp it was said that the King had alienated theGermans, but gained the Emperor and France in their stead. [1099]Luther declared that "Junker Harry meant to be God and to do aspleased himself";[1100] and Melancthon, previously so ready to findexcuses, now denounced the English King as a Nero, and expressed awish that God would put it into the mind of some bold man toassassinate him. [1101] Francis sighed when he heard the news, foreseeing a future alliance against him, [1102] but the Emperor'ssecretary believed that God was bringing good out of all thesethings. [1103]

 [Footnote 1098: _L. And P. _, xv. , 863. ]

 [Footnote 1099: _Ibid. _, xv. , 932. ]

 [Footnote 1100: _Ibid. _, xvi. , 106. ]

 [Footnote 1101: _Ibid. _, xvi. , Introd. , p. Ii. N. ]

 [Footnote 1102: _Ibid. _, xv. , 870. ]

 [Footnote 1103: _Ibid. _, xv. , 951. ]

CHAPTER XV. (p. 397)

THE FINAL STRUGGLE. 

The first of the "good things" brought out of the divorce of Anne ofCleves was a fifth wife for the much-married monarch. Parliament, which had petitioned Henry to solve the doubts troubling his subjectsas to the validity (that is to say, political advantages) of his unionwith Anne, now besought him, "for the good of his people, " to enteronce more the holy state of matrimony, in the hope of more numerousissue. The lady had been already selected by the predominant party, and used as an instrument in procuring the divorce of her predecessorand the fall of Cromwell; for, if her morals were something lax, Catherine Howard's orthodoxy was beyond dispute. She was niece ofCromwell's great enemy, the Duke of Norfolk; and it was at the houseof Bishop Gardiner that she was first given the opportunity ofsubduing the King to her charms. [1104] She was to play the part in theCatholic reaction that Anne Boleyn had done in the Protestantrevolution. Both religious parties were unfortunate in the choice oftheir lady protagonists. Catherine Howard's father, in spite of hisrank, was very penurious, and his daughter's education had beenneglected, while her character had been left at the mercy of any (p. 398)chance tempter. She had already formed compromising relations withthree successive suitors. Her music master, Mannock, boasted that shehad promised to be his mistress; a kinsman, named Dereham, called herhis wife; and she was reported to be engaged to her cousin, Culpepper. [1105] Marillac thought her beauty was commonplace;[1106]but that, to judge by her portraits, seems a disparaging verdict. Hereyes were hazel, her hair was auburn, and Nature had been at least askind to her as to any of Henry's wives. Even Marillac admitted thatshe had a very winning countenance. Her age is uncertain, but she hadalmost certainly seen more than the twenty-one years politely put downto her account. Her marriage, like that of Anne Boleyn, was private. Marillac thought she was already wedded to Henry by the 21st of July, and the Venetian ambassador at the Court of Charles V. Said that theceremony took place two days after the sentence of Convocation (7thJuly). [1107] That may be the date of the betrothal, but the marriageitself was privately celebrated at Oatlands on the 28th of July, [1108]and Catherine was publicly recognised as Queen at Hampton Court (p. 399)on the 8th of August, and prayed for as such in the churches on thefollowing Sunday. 

 [Footnote 1104: _Original Letters_, Parker Society, i. , 202. _cf. L. And P. _, xv. , 613 [12]. Winchester, says Marillac, "was one of the principal authors of this last marriage, which led to the ruin of Cromwell" (_ibid. _, xvi. , 269). ]

 [Footnote 1105: _L. And P. _, xvi. , 1334. ]

 [Footnote 1106: So says the _D. N. B. _, ix. , 308; but in _L. And P. _, xv. , 901, Marillac describes her as "a lady of great beauty, " and in xvi. , 1366, he speaks of her "beauty and sweetness". ]

 [Footnote 1107: _Venetian Cal. _, v. , 222. ]

 [Footnote 1108: This is the date given by Dr. Gairdner in _D. N. B. _, ix. , 304, and is probably correct, though Dr. Gairdner himself gives 8th August in his _Church History_, 1902, p. 218. Wriothesley (_Chron. _, i. , 121) also says 8th August, but Hall (_Chron. _, p. 840) is nearer the truth when he says: "The eight day of August was the Lady Katharine Howard. .. _shewed openly as Queen_ at Hampton court". The original authority for the 28th July is the 3rd Rep. Of the Deputy Keeper of Records, App. Ii. , 264, _viz. _, the official record of her trial. ]

The King was thoroughly satisfied with his new marriage from everypoint of view. The reversal of the policy of the last few years, whichhe had always disliked and for which he avoided responsibility as wellas he could, relieved him at once from the necessity of playing a partand from the pressing anxiety of foreign dangers. These troubles hadpreyed upon his mind and impaired his health; but now, for a time, hisspirits revived and his health returned. He began to rise everymorning, even in the winter, between five and six, and rode for fouror five hours. He was enamoured of his bride; her views and those ofher uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, and of her patron, Bishop Gardiner, were in much closer accord with his own than Anne Boleyn's orCromwell's had been. Until almost the close of his reign Norfolk wasthe chief instrument of his secular policy, while Gardiner representedhis ecclesiastical views;[1109] but neither succeeded to the placewhich Wolsey had held and Cromwell had tried to secure. Henceforth theKing had no Prime Minister; there was no second Vicegerent, and thepraise or the blame for his policy can be given to no one but Henry. 

 [Footnote 1109: It was popularly thought that Henry called Gardiner "his own bishop" (_L. And P. _, XIV. , i. , 662). ]

That policy was, in foreign affairs, a close adherence to the Emperor, partly because it was almost universally held to be the safest coursefor England to pursue, and partly because it gave Henry a free handfor the development of his imperialist designs on Scotland. In domesticaffairs the predominant note was the extreme rigour with which theKing's secular autocracy, his supremacy over the Church, and the (p. 400)Church's orthodox doctrine were imposed on his subjects. Although theAct of Six Articles had been passed in 1539, Cromwell appears to haveprevented the issue of commissions for its execution. This culpablenegligence did not please Parliament, and, just before his fall, another Act was passed for the more effective enforcement of the SixArticles. One relaxation was found necessary; it was impossible toinflict the death penalty on "incontinent"[1110] priests, becausethere were so many. But that was the only indulgence granted. Two daysafter Cromwell's death, a vivid illustration was given of the spiritwhich was henceforth to dominate the Government. Six men were executedat the same time; three were priests, condemned to be hanged astraitors for denying the royal supremacy; three were heretics, condemned to be burnt for impugning the Catholic faith. [1111]

 [Footnote 1110: 32 Henry VIII. , c. 10. Married priests of course would come under this opprobrious title. ]

 [Footnote 1111: Wriothesley, _Chron. _, i. , 120, 121. ]

And yet there was no peace. Henry, who had succeeded in so much, had, with the full concurrence of the majority of his people, entered upona task in which he was foredoomed to failure. Not all the whips withsix strings, not all the fires at Smithfield, could compel that unityand concord in opinion which Henry so much desired, but which he hadunwittingly done so much to destroy. He might denounce the diversitiesof belief to which his opening of the Bible in English churches hadgiven rise; but men, who had caught a glimpse of hidden verities, could not all be forced to deny the things which they had seen. Themost lasting result of Henry's repressive tyranny was the stimulus itgave to reform in the reign of his son, even as the persecutions (p. 401)of Mary finally ruined in England the cause of the Roman Church. Henry's bishops themselves could scarcely be brought to agreement. Latimer and Shaxton lost their sees; but the submission of the restdid not extend to complete recantation, and the endeavour to stretchall his subjects on the Procrustean bed of Six Articles was one ofHenry's least successful enterprises. [1112] It was easier to sacrificea portion of his monastic spoils to found new bishoprics. This hadbeen a project of Wolsey's, interrupted by the Cardinal's fall. Parliament subsequently authorised Henry to erect twenty-six sees; heactually established six, the Bishoprics of Peterborough, Oxford, Chester, Gloucester, Bristol and Westminster. Funds were also providedfor the endowment, in both universities, of Regius professorships ofDivinity, Hebrew, Greek, Civil Law and Medicine; and the royalinterest in the advancement of science was further evinced by thegrant of a charter to the College of Surgeons, similar to thataccorded early in the reign to the Physicians. [1113]

 [Footnote 1112: Henry soon recognised this himself, and a year after the Act was passed he ordered that "no further persecution should take place for religion, and that those in prison should be set at liberty on finding security for their appearance when called for" (_L. And P. _, xvi. , 271). Cranmer himself wrote that "within a year or a little more" Henry "was fain to temper his said laws, and moderate them in divers points; so that the Statute of Six Articles continued in force little above the space of one year" (_Works_, ii. , 168). The idea that from 1539 to 1547 there was a continuous and rigorous persecution is a legend derived from Foxe; there were outbursts of rigour in 1540, 1543, and 1546, but except for these the Six Articles remained almost a dead letter (see _L. And P. _, XVIII. , i. , Introd. , p. Xlix. ; pt. Ii. , Introd. , p. Xxxiv. ; _Original Letters_, Parker Society, ii. , 614, 627; Dixon, _Church Hist. _, vol. Ii. , chaps, x. , xi. ). ]

 [Footnote 1113: In 1518 (_L. And P. _, ii. , 4450). ]

Disloyalty, meanwhile, was no more extinct than diversity in (p. 402)religious opinion. Early in 1541 there was a conspiracy under Sir JohnNeville, in Lincolnshire, and about the same time there were signsthat the Council itself could not be immediately steadied after theviolent disturbances of the previous year. Pate, the ambassador at theEmperor's Court, absconded to Rome in fear of arrest, and his uncle, Longland, Bishop of Lincoln, was for a time in confinement; Sir JohnWallop, Sir Thomas Wyatt, diplomatist and poet, and his secretary, thewitty and cautious Sir John Mason, were sent to the Tower; bothCromwell's henchmen, Wriothesley and Sadleir, seem to have incurredsuspicion. [1114] Wyatt, Wallop and Mason were soon released, whileWriothesley and Sadleir regained favour by abjuring their formeropinions; but it was evident that the realisation of arbitrary powerwas gradually destroying Henry's better nature. His suspicion wasaroused on the slightest pretext, and his temper was getting worse. Ill-health contributed not a little to this frame of mind. The ulceron his leg caused him such agony that he sometimes went almost blackin the face and speechless from pain. [1115] He was beginning to lookgrey and old, and was growing daily more corpulent and unwieldy. Hehad, he said, on hearing of Neville's rebellion, an evil people torule; he would, he vowed, make them so poor that it would be out oftheir power to rebel; and, before he set out for the North toextinguish the discontent and to arrange a meeting with James V. , hecleared the Tower by sending all its prisoners, including the aged (p. 403)Countess of Salisbury, to the block. 

 [Footnote 1114: _L. And P. _, xvi. , 449, 461, 466, 467, 469, 470, 474, 482, 488, 506, 523, 534, 611, 640, 641; _cf. _ the present writer in _D. N. B. _, on Mason and Wriothesley. ]

 [Footnote 1115: _Ibid. _, XIV. , ii. , 142; xvi. , 121, 311, 558, 589, 590; _D. N. B. _, xxvi. , 89. ]

A greater trial than the failure of James to accept his invitation toYork awaited Henry on his return from the North. Rumours of CatherineHoward's past indiscretions had at length reached the ears of thePrivy Council. On All Saints' Day, 1541, Henry directed his confessor, the Bishop of Lincoln, to give thanks to God with him for the goodlife he was leading and hoped to lead with his present Queen, [1116]"after sundry troubles of mind which had happened to him bymarriages". [1117] At last he thought he had reached the haven ofdomestic peace, whence no roving fancy should tempt him to stray. Twenty-four hours later Cranmer put in his hand proofs of the Queen'smisconduct. Henry refused to believe in this rude awakening from hisdreams; he ordered a strict investigation into the charges. Itsresults left no room for doubt. Dereham confessed his intercourse;Mannock admitted that he had taken liberties; and, presently, theQueen herself acknowledged her guilt. The King was overwhelmed withshame and vexation; he shed bitter tears, a thing, said the Council, "strange in his courage". He "has wonderfully felt the case of theQueen, " wrote Chapuys;[1118] "he took such grief, " added Marillac, "that of late it was thought he had gone mad". [1119] He seems to havepromised his wife a pardon, and she might have escaped with nothingworse than a divorce, had not proofs come to light of her misconductwith Culpepper after her marriage with Henry, and even during theirrecent progress in the North. This offence was high treason, and (p. 404)could not be covered by the King's pardon for Catherine's pre-nuptialimmorality. Henry, however, was not at ease until Parliament, inJanuary, 1542, considerately relieved him of all responsibility. Thefaithful Lords and Commons begged him not to take the matter tooheavily, but to permit them freely to proceed with an Act of Attainder, and to give his assent thereto by commission under the great sealwithout any words or ceremony, which might cause him pain. Thusoriginated the practice of giving the royal assent to Acts ofParliament by commission. [1120] Another innovation was introduced intothe Act of Attainder, whereby it was declared treason for any woman tomarry the King if her previous life had been unchaste; "few, if any, ladies now at Court, " commented the cynical Chapuys, "would henceforthaspire to such an honour". [1121] The bill received the royal assent onthe 11th of February, Catherine having declined Henry's permission togo down to Parliament and defend herself in person. On the 10th shewas removed to the Tower, being dressed in black velvet and treatedwith "as much honour as when she was reigning". [1122] Three days latershe was beheaded on the same spot where the sword had severed the fairneck of Anne Boleyn. 

 [Footnote 1116: _L. And P. _, xvi. , 1334. ]

 [Footnote 1117: Herbert, _Life and Reign_, ed. 1672, p. 534. ]

 [Footnote 1118: _Ibid. _, xvi. , 1403. ]

 [Footnote 1119: _Ibid. _, xvi. , 1426. ]

 [Footnote 1120: _Lords' Journals_, pp. 171, 176. ]

 [Footnote 1121: _L. And P. _, xvii. , 124. ]

 [Footnote 1122: _Ibid. _]

Thus ended one of the "good things" which had come out of therepudiation of Anne of Cleves. Other advantages were more permanent. The breach between Francis and Charles grew ever wider. In 1541 theFrench King's ambassadors to the Turk were seized and executed by (p. 405)the order of the imperial governor of Milan. [1123] The outrage broughtFrancis's irritation to a head. He was still pursuing the shadow of adeparted glory and the vain hope of dominion beyond the Alps. He hadsecured none of the benefits he anticipated from the imperialalliance; his interviews with Charles and professions of friendshipwere lost on that heartless schemer, and he realised the force ofHenry's gibe at his expectations from Charles. "I have myself, " saidHenry, "held interviews for three weeks together with the Emperor. "Both sovereigns began to compete for England's favour. The French, said Chapuys, "now almost offer the English _carte blanche_ for analliance";[1124] and he told Charles that England must, at any price, be secured in the imperial interest. In June, 1542, Francis declaredwar on the Emperor, and, by the end of July, four French armies wereinvading or threatening Charles's dominions. Henry, in spite of alltemptations, was not to be the tool of either; he had designs of hisown; and the breach between Francis and Charles gave him a uniqueopportunity for completing his imperialist projects, by extending hissway over the one portion of the British Isles which yet remainedindependent. 

 [Footnote 1123: _L. And P. _, xvi. , 984, 991, 1042. ]

 [Footnote 1124: _Ibid. _, xvii. , 124. ]

 * * * * *

As in the case of similar enterprises, Henry could easily findcolourable pretexts for his attack on Scots independence. [1125] Betonhad been made cardinal with the express objects of publishing inScotland the Pope's Bull against Henry, and of instigating James (p. 406)V. To undertake its execution; and the Cardinal held a high place inthe Scots King's confidence. James had intrigued against England withboth Charles V. And Francis I. , and hopes had been instilled into hismind that he had only to cross the Border to be welcomed, at least inthe North, as a deliverer from Henry's oppression. Refugees from thePilgrimage of Grace found shelter in Scotland, and the ceaselessBorder warfare might, at any time, have provided either King with acase for war, if war he desired. The desire varied, of course, withthe prospects of success. James V. Would, without doubt, have invadedEngland if Francis and Charles had begun an attack, and if a generalcrusade had been proclaimed against Henry. So, too, war between thetwo European rivals afforded Henry some chance of success, and placedin his way an irresistible temptation to settle his account withScotland. He revived the obsolete claim to suzerainty, and pretendedthat the Scots were rebels. [1126] Had not James V. , moreover, refusedto meet him at York to discuss the questions at issue between them?Henry might well have maintained that he sought no extension ofterritory, but was actuated solely by the desire to remove the (p. 407)perpetual menace to England involved in the presence of a foe onhis northern Borders, in close alliance with his inveterate enemyacross the Channel. He seems, indeed, to have been willing to concludepeace, if the Scots would repudiate their ancient connection withFrance; but this they considered the sheet-anchor of their safety, andthey declined to destroy it. They gave Henry greater offence bydefeating an English raid at Halidon Rig, and the desire to avenge atrifling reverse became a point of honour in the English mind and apowerful factor in English policy. 

 [Footnote 1125: For relations with Scotland see the _Hamilton Papers_, 2 vols. , 1890-92; Thorp's _Scottish Calendar_, vol. I. , 1858, and the much more satisfactory _Calendar_ edited by Bain, 1898. A few errors in the _Hamilton Papers_ are pointed out in _L. And P. _, vols. Xvi. -xix. ]

 [Footnote 1126: This had been asserted by Henry as early as 1524; Scotland was only to be included in the peace negotiations of that year as "a fief of the King of England"; it was to be recognised that _supremum ejus dominium_ belonged to Henry, as did the guardianship of James and government of the kingdom during his minority (_Sp. Cal. _, ii. , 680). For the assertion of supremacy in 1543 see the present writer's _England under Somerset_, p. 173; _L. And P. _, xvii. , 1033. In 1527 Mendoza declared that all wise people in England preferred a project for marrying the Princess Mary to James V. To her betrothal to Francis I. Or the Dauphin (_Sp. Cal. _, iii. , 156) and that the Scots match was the one really intended by Henry (_ibid. _, p. 192; _cf. L. And P. _, v. , 1078, 1286). ]

The negotiations lasted throughout the summer of 1542. In OctoberNorfolk crossed the Borders. The transport broke down; the commissariatwas most imperfect; and Sir George Lawson of Cumberland was unable tosupply the army with sufficient beer. [1127] Norfolk had to turn backat Kelso, having accomplished nothing beyond devastation. [1128] Jamesnow sought his revenge. He replied to Norfolk's invasion on the Eastby throwing the Scots across the Borders on the West. The Warden waswarned by his spies, but he had only a few hundreds to meet thethousands of Scots. But, if Norfolk's invasion was an empty parade, the Scots attempt was a fearful rout. Under their incompetent leader, Oliver Sinclair, they got entangled in Solway Moss; enormous numberswere slain or taken prisoners, and among them were some of the greatestmen in Scotland. James died broken-hearted at the news, leaving hiskingdom to the week-old infant, Mary, Queen of Scots. [1129] The triumphof Flodden Field was repeated; a second Scots King had fallen; (p. 408)and, for a second time in Henry's reign, Scotland was a prey to thewoes of a royal minority. 

 [Footnote 1127: _L. And P. _, xvii. , 731, 754, 771. ]

 [Footnote 1128: _Ibid. _, xvii. , 996-98, 1000-1, 1037. ]

 [Footnote 1129: See _Hamilton Papers_, vol. I. , pp. Lxxxiii. -vi. ; and the present writer in _D. N. B. , s. V. _ "Wharton, Thomas, " who commanded the English. ]

Within a few days of the Scots disaster, Lord Lisle (afterwards Dukeof Northumberland) expressed a wish that the infant Queen were inHenry's hands and betrothed to Prince Edward, and a fear that theFrench would seek to remove her beyond the seas. [1130] To realise thehope and to prevent the fear were the main objects of Henry's foreignpolicy for the rest of his reign. Could he but have secured themarriage of Mary to Edward, he would have carried both England andScotland many a weary stage along the path to Union and to Empire. But, unfortunately, he was not content with this brilliant prospectfor his son. He grasped himself at the Scottish crown; he must be notmerely a suzerain shadow, but a real sovereign. The Scottish peers, who had been taken at Solway Moss, were sworn to Henry VIII. , "to setforth his Majesty's title that he had to the realm of Scotland". [1131]Early in 1543 an official declaration was issued, "containing the justcauses and considerations of this present war with the Scots, whereinalso appeareth the true and right title that the King's most royalMajesty hath to the sovereignty of Scotland"; while Parliamentaffirmed that "the late pretensed King of Scots was but an usurper ofthe crown and realm of Scotland, " and that Henry had "now at thispresent (by the infinite goodness of God), a time apt and propice forthe recovery of his said right and title to the said crown and realmof Scotland". [1132] The promulgation of these high-sounding pretensionswas fatal to the cause which Henry had at heart. Henry VII. Had (p. 409)pursued the earlier and wiser part of the Scottish policy of EdwardI. , namely, union by marriage; Henry VIII. Resorted to his laterpolicy and strove to change a vague suzerainty into a defined andgalling sovereignty. Seeing no means of resisting the victoriousEnglish arms, the Scots in March, 1543, agreed to the marriage betweenHenry's son and their infant Queen. But to admit Henry's extravagantclaims to Scottish sovereignty was quite a different matter. The meremention of them was sufficient to excite distrust and patrioticresentment. The French Catholic party led by Cardinal Beton wasstrengthened, and, when Francis declared that he would never deserthis ancient ally, and gave an earnest of his intentions by sendingships and money and men to their aid, the Scots repudiated theircompact with England, and entered into negotiations for marrying theirQueen to a prince in France. [1133]

 [Footnote 1130: _L. And P. _, xvii. , 1221, 1233. ]

 [Footnote 1131: Wriothesley, _Chron. _, i. , 140. ]

 [Footnote 1132: 35 Hen. VIII. , c. 27. ]

 [Footnote 1133: _L. And P. _, vol. Xviii. , _passim_. ]

Such a danger to England must at all costs be averted. Marriagesbetween Scots kings and French princesses had never boded good toEngland; but the marriage of the Queen of Scotland to a French prince, and possibly to one who might succeed to the French throne, transcendedall the other perils with which England could be threatened. The unionof the Scots and French crowns would have destroyed the possibility ofa British Empire. Henry had sadly mismanaged the business throughvaulting ambition, but there was little fault to be found with hisefforts to prevent the union of France and Scotland; and that was thereal objective of his last war with France. His aim was not meremilitary glory or the conquest of France, as it had been in his (p. 410)earlier years under the guidance of Wolsey; it was to weaken ordestroy a support which enabled Scotland to resist the union withEngland, and portended a union between Scotland and France. TheEmperor's efforts to draw England into his war with France thus metwith a comparatively ready response. In May, 1543, a secret treatybetween Henry and Charles was ratified; on the 22nd of June a jointintimation of war was notified to the French ambassador; and adetachment of English troops, under Sir John Wallop and Sir ThomasSeymour, was sent to aid the imperialists in their campaign in thenorth of France. 

Before hostilities actually broke out, Henry wedded his sixth and lastwife. Catherine Parr was almost as much married as Henry himself. Thirty-one years of age in 1543, she had already been twice made awidow; her first husband was one Edward Borough, her second, LordLatimer. Latimer had died at the end of 1542, and Catherine's hand wasimmediately sought by Sir Thomas Seymour, Henry's younger brother-in-law. Seymour was handsome and won her heart, but he was to be her fourth, and not her third, husband; her will "was overruled by a higherpower, " and, on the 12th of July, she was married to Henry at HamptonCourt. [1134] Catherine was small in stature, and appears to have madelittle impression by her beauty; but her character was beyondreproach, and she exercised a wholesome influence on Henry during hisclosing years. Her task can have been no light one, but her tactovercame all difficulties. She nursed the King with great devotion, and succeeded to some extent in mitigating the violence of his (p. 411)temper. She intervened to save victims from the penalties of theAct of Six Articles; reconciled Elizabeth with her father; and wasregarded with affection by both Henry's daughters. Suspicions of herorthodoxy and a theological dispute she once had with the King aresaid to have given rise to a reactionary plot against her. [1135] "Agood hearing it is, " Henry is reported as saying, "when women becomesuch clerks; and a thing much to my comfort to come in mine old daysto be taught by my wife!" Catherine explained that her remarks wereonly intended to "minister talk, " and that it would be unbecoming inher to assert opinions contrary to those of her lord. "Is it so, sweetheart?" said Henry; "then are we perfect friends;" and when LordChancellor Wriothesley came to arrest her, he was, we are told, abusedby the King as a knave, a beast and a fool. 

 [Footnote 1134: _D. N. B. _, ix. , 309. ]

 [Footnote 1135: Foxe, ed. Townsend, v. , 553-61. ]

 * * * * *

The winter of 1543-44 and the following spring were spent in preparationsfor war on two fronts. [1136] The punishment of the Scots for repudiatingtheir engagements to England was entrusted to the skilful hands ofHenry's brother-in-law, the Earl of Hertford; while the King himselfwas to renew the martial exploits of his youth by crossing the Channeland leading an army in person against the French King. The Emperor wasto invade France from the north-east; the two monarchs were then toeffect a junction and march on Paris. There is, however, no instancein the first half of the sixteenth century of two sovereigns (p. 412)heartily combining to secure any one object whatever. Charles andHenry both wanted to extract concessions from Francis, but theconcessions were very different, and neither monarch cared much forthose which the other demanded. Henry's ultimate end related toScotland, Charles's to Milan and the Lutherans. The Emperor sought tomake Francis relinquish his claim to Milan and his support of theGerman princes; Henry was bent on compelling him to abandon the causeof Scottish independence. If Charles could secure his own terms, hewould, without the least hesitation, leave Henry to get what he couldby himself; and Henry was equally ready to do Charles a similar turn. His suspicions of the Emperor determined his course; he was resolvedto obtain some tangible result; and, before he would advance anyfarther, he sat down to besiege Boulogne. Its capture had been one ofthe objects of Suffolk's invasion of 1523, when Wolsey and his imperialistallies had induced Henry to forgo the design. The result of that follywas not forgotten. Suffolk, his ablest general, now well stricken inyears, was there to recall it; and, under Suffolk's directions, thesiege of Boulogne was vigorously pressed. It fell on the 14th ofSeptember. Charles, meanwhile, was convinced that Boulogne was allHenry wanted, and that the English would never advance to support him. So, five days after the fall of Boulogne, he made his peace withFrancis. [1137] Henry, of course, was loud in his indignation; theEmperor had made no effort to include him in the settlement, andrepeated embassies were sent in the autumn to keep Charles to the (p. 413)terms of his treaty with England, and to persuade him to renew the warin the following spring. 

 [Footnote 1136: See for the Scottish war the _Hamilton Papers_, and for the war in France _Spanish Cal. _, vol. Vii. , and _L. And P. _, vol. Xix. , pt. Ii. (to December, 1544). ]

 [Footnote 1137: For Charles's motives see the present writer in _Cambridge Modern History_, ii. , 245, 246. ]

His labours were all in vain, and Henry, for the first time in hislife was left to face an actual French invasion of England. The horizonseemed clouded at every point. Hertford, indeed, had carried out hisinstructions in Scotland with signal success. Leith had been burnt andEdinburgh sacked. But, as soon as he left for Boulogne, things wentwrong in the North, and, in February, 1545, Evers suffered defeat fromthe Scots at Ancrum Moor. Now, when Henry was left without an ally, when the Scots were victorious in the North, when France was ready tolaunch an Armada against the southern coasts of England, now, surely, was the time for a national uprising to depose the bloodthirstytyrant, the enemy of the Church, the persecutor of his people. Strangely enough his people did, and even desired, nothing of thesort. Popular discontent existed only in the imagination of hisenemies; Henry retained to the last his hold over the mind of hispeople. Never had they been called to pay such a series of loans, subsidies and benevolences; never did they pay them so cheerfully. TheKing set a royal example by coining his plate and mortgaging hisestates at the call of national defence; and, in the summer, he wentdown in person to Portsmouth to meet the threatened invasion. TheFrench attack had begun on Boulogne, where Norfolk's carelessness hadput into their hands some initial advantages. But, before dawn, on the6th of February, Hertford sallied out of Boulogne with four thousandfoot and seven hundred horse. The French commander, Maréchal du Biez, and his fourteen thousand men were surprised, and they left their (p. 414)stores, their ammunition and their artillery in the hands of theirEnglish foes. [1138]

 [Footnote 1138: Herbert, ed. 1672, p. 589; Hall, p. 862. ]

Boulogne was safe for the time, but a French fleet entered the Solent, and effected a landing at Bembridge. Skirmishing took place in thewooded, undulating country between the shore and the slopes ofBembridge Down; the English retreated and broke the bridge over theYar. This checked the French advance, though a force which was stoppedby that puny stream could not have been very determined. A day or twolater the French sent round a party to fill their water-casks at thebrook which trickles down Shanklin Chine; it was attacked and cut topieces. [1139] They then proposed forcing their way into PortsmouthHarbour, but the mill-race of the tide at its mouth, and the mysteriesof the sandbanks of Spithead deterred them; and, as a westerly breezesprang up, they dropped down before it along the Sussex coast. TheEnglish had suffered a disaster by the sinking of the _Mary Rose_ withall hands on board, an accident repeated on the same spot twocenturies later, in the loss of the _Royal George_. But the Admiral, Lisle, followed the French, and a slight action was fought offShoreham; the fleets anchored for the night almost within gunshot, but, when dawn broke, the last French ship was hull-down on thehorizon. Disease had done more than the English arms, and the Frenchtroops landed at the mouth of the Seine were the pitiful wreck of anarmy. [1140]

 [Footnote 1139: Du Bellay, _Memoirs_, pp. 785-9. ]

 [Footnote 1140: _State Papers_, ed. 1830-51, i. , 794, 816. ]

France could hope for little profit from a continuance of the war, (p. 415)and England had everything to gain by its conclusion. The terms ofpeace were finally settled in June, 1546. [1141] Boulogne was to remaineight years in English hands, and France was then to pay heavily forits restitution. Scotland was not included in the peace. In September, 1545, Hertford had revenged the English defeat at Ancrum Moor by adesolating raid on the Borders;[1142] early in 1546 Cardinal Beton, the soul of the French party, was assassinated, not without Henry'sconnivance; and St. Andrews was seized by a body of Scots Protestantsin alliance with England. Throughout the autumn preparation was beingmade for a fresh attempt to enforce the marriage between Edward andMary;[1143] but the further prosecution of that enterprise wasreserved for other hands than those of Henry VIII. He left therelations between England and Scotland in no better state than hefound them. His aggressive imperialism paid little heed to thesusceptibilities of a stubborn, if weaker, foe; and he did not, likeCromwell, possess the military force to crush out resistance. He wouldnot conciliate and he could not coerce. 

 [Footnote 1141: _State Papers_, ed. 1830-51, i. , 877, 879; Odet de Selve, pp. 31, 34. ]

 [Footnote 1142: _State Papers_, v. , 448-52; _Harleian MS. _, 284; _Original Letters_, i. , 37. ]

 [Footnote 1143: Odet de Selve, _Corresp. Politique_, 1886, pp. 50-120, _passim_. ]

 * * * * *

Meanwhile, amid the distractions of his Scottish intrigues, of hiscampaign in France, and of his defence of England, the King was engagedin his last hopeless endeavour to secure unity and concord in religiousopinion. The ferocious Act of Six Articles had never been more thanfitfully executed; and Henry refrained from using to the full the powerswith which he had been entrusted by Parliament. The fall of (p. 416)Catherine Howard may have impaired the influence of her uncle, theDuke of Norfolk, who had always expressed his zeal for the burning ofheretics; and the reforming party was rapidly growing in the nation atlarge, and even within the guarded precincts of the King's PrivyCouncil. Cranmer retained his curious hold over Henry's mind; Hertfordwas steadily rising in favour; Queen Catherine Parr, so far as shedared, supported the New Learning; the majority of the Council wereprepared to accept the authorised form of religion, whatever it mighthappen to be, and, besides the Howards, Gardiner was the only convincedand determined champion of the Catholic faith. Even at the moment ofCromwell's fall, there was no intention of undoing anything that hadalready been done; Henry only determined that things should not go sofast, especially in the way of doctrinal change, as the Vicegerentwished, for he knew that unity was not to be sought or found in thatdirection. But, between the extremes of Lutheranism and the _statusquo_ in the Church, there was a good deal to be done, in the way ofreform, which was still consistent with the maintenance of the Catholicfaith. In May, 1541, a fresh proclamation was issued for the use ofthe Bible. [1144] He had, said the King, intended his subjects to readthe Bible humbly and reverently for their instruction, not readingaloud in time of Holy Mass or other divine service, nor, being laymen, arguing thereon; but, at the same time, he ordered all curates andparishioners who had failed to obey his former injunctions to providean English Bible for their Church without delay. Two months lateranother proclamation followed, regulating the number of saints' (p. 417)days; it was characteristic of the age that various saints' days wereabolished, not so much for the purpose of checking superstition, asbecause they interfered with the harvest and other secular business. [1145]Other proclamations came forth in the same year for the destruction ofshrines and the removal of relics. In 1543 a general revision ofservice-books was ordered, with a view to eradicating "false legends"and references to saints not mentioned in the Bible, or in the"authentical doctors". [1146] The Sarum Use was adopted as the standardfor the clergy of the province of Canterbury, and things were steadilytending towards that ideal uniformity of service as well as ofdoctrine, which was ultimately embodied in various Acts of Uniformity. Homilies, "made by certain prelates, " were submitted to Convocation, but the publication of them, and of the rationale of rites andceremonies, was deferred to the reign of Edward VI. [1147] The greatestof all these compositions, the Litany, was, however, sanctioned in1545. [1148]

 [Footnote 1144: _L. And P. _, xvi. , 819; Burnet, iv. , 509. ]

 [Footnote 1145: _L. And P. _, xvi. , 978, 1022, 1027. ]

 [Footnote 1146: _Ibid. _, xvi. , 1262; xvii. , 176. ]

 [Footnote 1147: See the present writer's _Cranmer_, pp. 166-72. ]

 [Footnote 1148: _Ibid. _, pp. 172-75. ]

The King had more to do with the _Necessary Doctrine_, commonly calledthe "King's Book" to distinguish it from the Bishops' Book of 1537, for which Henry had declined all responsibility. Henry, indeed, hadurged on its revision, he had fully discussed with Cranmer theamendments he thought the book needed, and he had brought the bishopsto an agreement, which they had vainly sought for three years bythemselves. It was the King who now "set forth a true and perfectdoctrine for all his people". [1149] So it was fondly styled by (p. 418)his Council. A modern high-churchman[1150] asserts that the King'sBook taught higher doctrine than the book which the bishops haddrafted six years before, but that "it was far more liberal and bettercomposed". Whether its excellences amounted to "a true and perfectdoctrine" or not, it failed of its purpose. The efforts of the old andthe new parties were perpetually driving the Church from the _ViaMedia_, which Henry marked out. On the one hand, we have an actlimiting the use of the Bible to gentlemen and their families, andplots to catch Cranmer in the meshes of the Six Articles. [1151] On theother, there were schemes on the part of some of the Council to entrapGardiner, and we have Cranmer's assertion[1152] that, in the lastmonths of his reign, the King commanded him to pen a form for thealteration of the Mass into a Communion, a design obviously to beconnected with the fact that, in his irritation at Charles's desertionin 1544, and fear that his neutrality might become active hostility, Henry had once more entered into communication with the Lutheranprinces of Germany. [1153]

 [Footnote 1149: _L. And P. _, XVIII. , i. , 534. ]

 [Footnote 1150: Canon Dixon. ]

 [Footnote 1151: See the present writer's _Cranmer_, pp. 144-60. ]

 [Footnote 1152: Foxe, on the authority of Cranmer's secretary, Morice, in _Acts and Monuments_, v. , 563, 564; it receives some corroboration from Hooper's letter to Bullinger in _Original Letters_, i. , 41. ]

 [Footnote 1153: See Hasenclever, _Die Politik der Schmalkaldener vor Ausbruch des Schmalkaldischen Krieges_, 1901. ]

The only ecclesiastical change that went on without shadow of turningwas the seizure of Church property by the King; and it is a matter ofcurious speculation as to where he would have stayed his hand had helived much longer. The debasement of the coinage had proceeded apaceduring his later years to supply the King's necessities, and, (p. 419)for the same purpose, Parliament, in 1545, granted him all chantries, hospitals and free chapels. That session ended with Henry's lastappearance before his faithful Lords and Commons, and the speech hethen delivered may be regarded as his last political will andtestament. [1154] He spoke, he said, instead of the Lord Chancellor, "because he is not so able to open and set forth my mind and meaning, and the secrets of my heart, in so plain and ample manner, as I myselfam and can do". He thanked his subjects for their commendation, protested that he was "both bare and barren" of the virtues a princeought to have, but rendered to God "most humble thanks" for "suchsmall qualities as He hath indued me withal. .. . Now, since I find suchkindness in your part towards me, I cannot choose but love and favouryou; affirming that no prince in the world more favoureth his subjectsthan I do you, nor no subjects or Commons more love and obey theirSovereign Lord, than I perceive you do; for whose defence my treasureshall not be hidden, nor my person shall not be unadventured. Yet, although I wish you, and you wish me, to be in this perfect love andconcord, this friendly amity cannot continue, except both you, myLords Temporal and my Lords Spiritual, and you, my loving subjects, study and take pains to amend one thing, which surely is amiss and farout of order; to the which I most heartily require you. Which is, thatCharity and Concord is not amongst you, but Discord and Dissensionbeareth rule in every place. Saint Paul saith to the Corinthians, thethirteenth chapter, _Charity is gentle, Charity is not envious, __Charity is not proud_, and so forth. Behold then, what love and (p. 420)charity is amongst you, when one calleth another heretic andanabaptist, and he calleth him again papist, hypocrite and Pharisee?Be these tokens of Charity amongst you? Are these signs of fraternallove amongst you? No, no, I assure you that this lack of charity amongyourselves will be the hindrance and assuaging of the perfect lovebetwixt us, except this wound be salved and clearly made whole. .. . Ihear daily that you of the Clergy preach one against another, withoutcharity or discretion; some be too stiff in their old _Mumpsimus_, others be too busy and curious in their new _Sumpsimus_. Thus all menalmost be in variety and discord, and few or none preach truly andsincerely the Word of God. .. . Yet the Temporalty be not clear andunspotted of malice and envy. For you rail on Bishops, speakslanderously of Priests, and rebuke and taunt preachers, both contraryto good order and Christian fraternity. If you know surely that aBishop or Preacher erreth, or teacheth perverse doctrine, come anddeclare it to some of our Council, or to us, to whom is committed byGod the high authority to reform such causes and behaviours. And benot judges of yourselves of your fantastical opinions and vainexpositions. .. . I am very sorry to know and to hear how unreverentlythat most precious jewel, the Word of God, is disputed, rhymed, sung, and jangled in every Ale-house and Tavern. .. . And yet I am even asmuch sorry that the readers of the same follow it in doing so faintlyand so coldly. For of this I am sure, that charity was never so faintamongst you, and virtuous and godly living was never less used, norGod Himself among Christians was never less reverenced, honoured, (p. 421)or served. Therefore, as I said before, be in charity one with anotherlike brother and brother; love, dread, and serve God; to which I, asyour Supreme Head and Sovereign Lord, exhort and require you; and thenI doubt not but that love and league, that I spake of in thebeginning, shall never be dissolved or broke betwixt us. "

 [Footnote 1154: Hall, _Chron. _, pp. 864-66; Foxe, ed. Townsend, v. , 534-36; Herbert, ed. 1672, pp. 598-601. ]

 * * * * *

The bond betwixt Henry and his subjects, which had lasted thirty-eightyears, and had survived such strain as has rarely been put on theloyalty of any people, was now to be broken by death. The King wasable to make his usual progress in August and September, 1546; fromWestminster he went to Hampton Court, thence to Oatlands, Woking andGuildford, and from Guildford to Chobham and Windsor, where he spentthe month of October. Early in November he came up to London, stayingfirst at Whitehall and then at Ely Place. From Ely Place he returned, on the 3rd of January, 1547, to Whitehall, which he was never to leavealive. [1155] He is said to have become so unwieldy that he couldneither walk nor stand, and mechanical contrivances were used atWindsor and his other palaces for moving the royal person from room toroom. His days were numbered and finished, and every one thought ofthe morrow. A child of nine would reign, but who should rule? Hertfordor Norfolk? The party of reform or that of reaction? Henry hadapparently decided that neither should dominate the other, anddesigned a balance of parties in the council he named for hischild-successor. [1156]

 [Footnote 1155: This itinerary is worked out from the _Acts of the Privy Council_, ed. Dasent, vol. I. ]

 [Footnote 1156: This is the usual view, but it is a somewhat doubtful inference. Henry's one object was the maintenance of order and his own power; he would never have set himself against the nation as a whole, and there are indications that at the end of his reign he was preparing to accept the necessity of further changes. The fall of the Howards was due to the fear that they would cause trouble in the coming minority of Edward VI. Few details are known of the party struggle in the Council in the autumn of 1546, and they come from Selve's _Correspondance_ and the new volume (1904) of the _Spanish Calendar_ (1545-47). These should be compared with Foxe, vol. V. ]

Suddenly the balance upset. On the 12th of December, 1546, (p. 422)Norfolk and his son, the Earl of Surrey, were arrested for treason andsent to the Tower. Endowed with great poetic gifts, Surrey had evengreater defects of character. Nine years before he had been known as"the most foolish proud boy in England". [1157] Twice he had beencommitted to prison by the Council for roaming the streets of the cityat night and breaking the citizens' windows, [1158] offences venial inthe exuberance of youth, but highly unbecoming in a man who was nearlythirty, who aspired to high place in the councils of the realm, andwho despised most of his colleagues as upstarts. His enmity wasspecially directed against the Prince's uncles, the Seymours. Hertfordhad twice been called in to retrieve Surrey's military blunders. Surrey made improper advances to Hertford's wife, but repudiated withscorn his father's suggestion for a marriage alliance between the twofamilies. [1159] His sister testified that he had advised her to becomethe King's mistress, with a view to advancing the Howard interests. Who, he asked, should be Protector, in case the King died, but hisfather? He quartered the royal arms with his own, in spite of the (p. 423)heralds' prohibition. This at once roused Henry's suspicions; heknew that, years before, Norfolk had been suggested as a possibleclaimant to the throne, and that a marriage had been proposed betweenSurrey and the Princess Mary. 

 [Footnote 1157: _L. And P. _, XIV. , ii. , 141. ]

 [Footnote 1158: _Acts of the Privy Council_, i. , 104; Bapst, _Deux Gentilshommes poètes à la cour d'Henri VIII. _, p. 269. ]

 [Footnote 1159: See the present writer in _D. N. B. , s. V. _ "Seymour, Edward"; _cf. _ Herbert, pp. 625-33. G. F. Nott in his life of Surrey prefixed to his edition of the poet's works takes too favourable a view of his conduct. ]

The original charge against Surrey was prompted by personal and localjealousy, not on the part of the Seymours, but on that of a member ofSurrey's own party. It came from Sir Richard Southwell, a Catholic anda man of weight and leading in Norfolk, like the Howards themselves;he even appears to have been brought up with Surrey, and for manyyears had been intimate with the Howard family. When Surrey was calledbefore the Council to answer Southwell's charges, he wished to fighthis accuser, but both were committed to custody. The case wasinvestigated by the King himself, with the help of another Catholic, Lord Chancellor Wriothesley. The Duke of Norfolk confessed totechnical treason in concealing his son's offences, and was sent tothe Tower. On the 13th of January, 1547, Surrey was found guilty by aspecial commission sitting at the Guildhall;[1160] a week later he wasbeheaded. [1161] On the 18th Parliament met to deal with the Duke; bythe 24th a bill of attainder had passed all its stages and awaitedonly the King's assent. On Thursday, the 27th, that assent was givenby royal commission. [1162] Orders are said to have been issued for theDuke's execution the following morning. 

 [Footnote 1160: See an account of his trial in _Stowe MS. _, 396. ]

 [Footnote 1161: Wriothesley, _Chron. _ i. , 177, says 19th January; other authorities give the 21st. ]

 [Footnote 1162: _Lords' Journals_, p. 289. ]

That night Norfolk lay doomed in his cell in the Tower, and Henry (p. 424)VIII. In his palace at Westminster. The Angel of Death hovered overthe twain, doubting which to take. Eighteen years before, the King hadsaid that, were his will opposed, there was never so noble a head inhis kingdom but he would make it fly. [1163] Now his own hour was come, and he was loth to hear of death. His physicians dared not breathe theword, for to prophesy the King's decease was treason by Act ofParliament. As that long Thursday evening wore on, Sir Anthony Denny, chief gentleman of the chamber, "boldly coming to the King, told himwhat case he was in, to man's judgment not like to live; and thereforeexhorted him to prepare himself to death". [1164] Sensible of hisweakness, Henry "disposed himself more quietly to hearken to the wordsof his exhortation, and to consider his life past; which although hemuch abused, 'yet, ' said he, 'is the mercy of Christ able to pardon meall my sins, though they were greater than they be'". Denny then askedif he should send for "any learned man to confer withal and to openhis mind unto". The King replied that if he had any one, it should beCranmer; but first he would "take a little sleep; and then, as I feelmyself, I will advise upon the matter". And while he slept, Hertfordand Paget paced the gallery outside, contriving to grasp the reins ofpower as they fell from their master's hands. [1165] When the King wokehe felt his feebleness growing upon him, and told Denny to send forCranmer. The Archbishop came about midnight: Henry was speechless, andalmost unconscious. He stretched out his hand to Cranmer, and (p. 425)held him fast, while the Archbishop exhorted him to give some tokenthat he put his trust in Christ. The King wrung Cranmer's hand withhis fast-ebbing strength, and so passed away about two in the morning, on Friday, the 28th of January, 1547. He was exactly fifty-five yearsand seven months old, and his reign had lasted for thirty-seven yearsand three-quarters. 

 [Footnote 1163: _L. And P. _, iv. , 4942. ]

 [Footnote 1164: Foxe, ed. Townsend, v. , 692; Fuller, _Church History_, 1656, pp. 252-55. ]

 [Footnote 1165: _Cotton MS_. , Titus, F. Iii. ; Strype, _Eccl. Mem_. , II. , ii. , 430. ]

"And for my body, " wrote Henry in his will, [1166] "which when the soulis departed, shall then remain but as a _cadaver_, and so return tothe vile matter it was made of, were it not for the crown and dignitywhich God hath called us unto, and that We would not be counted aninfringer of honest worldly policies and customs, when they be notcontrary to God's laws, We would be content to have it buried in anyplace accustomed to Christian folks, were it never so vile, for it isbut ashes, and to ashes it shall return. Nevertheless, because Wewould be loth, in the reputation of the people, to do injury to theDignity, which We are unworthily called unto, We are content to willand order that Our body be buried and interred in the choir of Ourcollege of Windsor. " On the 8th of February, in every parish church inthe realm, there was sung a solemn dirge by night, with all the bellsringing, and on the morrow a Requiem mass for the soul of theKing. [1167] Six days later his body "was solemnly with great honourconveyed in a chariot towards Windsor, " and the funeral processionstretched four miles along the roads. That night the body lay at (p. 426)Sion under a hearse, nine storeys high. On the 15th it was taken toWindsor, where it was met by the Dean and choristers of the ChapelRoyal, and by the members of Eton College. There in the castle itrested under a hearse of thirteen storeys; and on the morrow it wasburied, after mass, in the choir of St. George's Chapel. 

 [Footnote 1166: The original is in the Record Office; a copy of it was made for each executor, and it has been often printed; see _England under Protector Somerset_, p. 5 n. ]

 [Footnote 1167: Wriothesley, _Chron. _, i. , 181. ]

Midway between the stalls and the Altar the tomb of Queen Jane Seymourwas opened to receive the bones of her lord. Hard by stood thatmausoleum "more costly than any royal or papal monument in theworld, "[1168] which Henry VII. Had commenced as a last resting-placefor himself and his successors, but had abandoned for his chapel inWestminster Abbey. His son bestowed the building on Wolsey, whoprepared for his own remains a splendid cenotaph of black and whitemarble. On the Cardinal's fall Henry VIII. Designed both tomb andchapel for himself _post multos et felices annos_. [1169] But King andCardinal reaped little honour by these strivings after posthumousglory. The dying commands of the monarch, whose will had beenomnipotent during his life, remained unfulfilled; the memorial chapelwas left incomplete; and the monument of marble was taken down, despoiled of its ornaments and sold in the Great Rebellion. At length, in a happier age, after more than three centuries of neglect, themagnificent building was finished, but not in Henry's honour; it wasadorned and dedicated to the memory of a prince in whose veins thereflowed not a drop of Henry's blood. 

 [Footnote 1168: _L. And P. _, iv. , Introd. , p. Dcxviii. ]

 [Footnote 1169: _Ibid. ; cf. _ Pote, _Hist. Of Windsor Castle_, 1749. ]

CHAPTER XVI. (p. 427)

CONCLUSION. 

So died and so was buried the most remarkable man who ever sat on theEnglish throne. His reign, like his character, seems to be dividedinto two inconsistent halves. In 1519 his rule is pronounced moresuave and gentle than the greatest liberty anywhere else; twenty yearslater terror is said to reign supreme. It is tempting to sum up hislife in one sweeping generalisation, and to say that it exhibits acontinuous development of Henry's intellect and deterioration of hischaracter. Yet it is difficult to read the King's speech in Parliamentat the close of 1545, without crediting him with some sort of ethicalideas and aims; his life was at least as free from vice during thelast, as during the first, seven years of his reign; in seriousness ofpurpose and steadfastness of aim it was immeasurably superior; and atno time did Henry's moral standard vary greatly from that of many whomthe world is content to regard as its heroes. His besetting sin wasegotism, a sin which princes can hardly, and Tudors could nowise, avoid. Of egotism Henry had his full share from the beginning; atfirst it moved in a limited, personal sphere, but gradually itextended its scope till it comprised the whole realm of nationalreligion and policy. The obstacles which he encountered in (p. 428)prosecuting his suit for a divorce from Catherine of Aragon were thefirst check he experienced in the gratification of a personal whim, and the effort to remove those impediments drew him on to theworld-wide stage of the conflict with Rome. He was ever proceedingfrom the particular to the general, from an attack on a specialdispensation to an attack on the dispensing power of the Pope, andthence to an assault on the whole edifice of papal claims. He startedwith no desire to separate England from Rome, or to reform theAnglican Church; those aims he adopted, little by little, assubsidiary to the attainment of his one great personal purpose. Hearrived at his principles by a process of deduction from his ownparticular case. 

As Henry went on, his "quick and penetrable eyes, " as More describedthem, were more and more opened to the extent of what he could do; andhe realised, as he said, how small was the power of the Pope. Papalauthority had always depended on moral influence and not on materialresources. That moral influence had long been impaired; the sack ofRome in 1527 afforded further demonstration of its impotence; and, when Clement condoned that outrage, and formed a close alliance withthe chief offender, the Papacy suffered a blow from which it neverrecovered. Temporal princes might continue to recognise the Pope'sauthority, but it was only because they chose, and not because theywere compelled so to do; they supported him, not as the divinelycommissioned Vicar of Christ, but as a useful instrument in theprosecution of their own and their people's desires. It is called atheological age, but it was also irreligious, and its principal (p. 429)feature was secularisation. National interests had already become thedominant factor in European politics; they were no longer to be madesubservient to the behests of the universal Church. The change wastacitly or explicitly recognised everywhere; and _cujus regio, ejusreligio_ was the principle upon which German ecclesiastical politicswere based at the Peace of Augsburg. It was assumed that each princecould do what he liked in his own country; they might combine to makewar on an excommunicate king, but only if war suited their secularpolicy; and the rivalry between Francis and Charles was so keen, thateach set greater store upon Henry's help than upon his destruction. 

Thus the breach with Rome was made a possible, though not an easy, task; and Henry was left to settle the matter at home with little tofear from abroad, except threats which he knew to be empty. Englandwas the key of the situation, and in England must be sought the chiefcauses of Henry's success. If we are to believe that Henry's policywas at variance with the national will, his reign must remain apolitical mystery, and we can offer no explanation of the facts thatHenry was permitted to do his work at all, and that it has stood solong the test of time. He had, no doubt, exceptional facilities forgetting his way. His dictatorship was the child of the Wars of theRoses, and his people, conscious of the fact that Henry was their onlybulwark against the recurrence of civil strife, and bound up as theywere in commercial and industrial pursuits, were willing to bear witha much more arbitrary government than they would have been in lessperilous times. The alternatives may have been evil, but the choicewas freely made. No government, whatever its form, whatever its (p. 430)resources, can permanently resist the national will; every nationhas, roughly speaking, the government it deserves and desires, and apopular vote would never in Henry's reign have decreed his deposition. The popular mind may be ill-informed, distorted by passion andprejudice, and formed on selfish motives. Temporarily, too, thepopular will may be neutralised by skilful management on the part ofthe government, by dividing its enemies and counterworking theirplans; and of all those arts Henry was a past master. But suchexpedients cannot prevail in the end; in 1553 the Duke ofNorthumberland had a subtle intellect and all the machinery of Tudorgovernment at his disposal; Queen Mary had not a man, nor a shilling. Yet Mary, by popular favour, prevailed without shedding a drop ofblood. Henry himself was often compelled to yield to his people. Abject self-abasement on their part and stupendous power of will onHenry's, together provide no adequate solution for the history of hisreign. 

With all his self-will, Henry was never blind to the distinctionbetween what he could and what he could not do. Strictly speaking, hewas a constitutional king; he neither attempted to break upParliament, nor to evade the law. He combined in his royal person theparts of despot and demagogue, and both he clothed in Tudor grace andmajesty. He led his people in the way they wanted to go, he temptedthem with the baits they coveted most, he humoured their prejudicesagainst the clergy and against the pretensions of Rome, and he usedevery concession to extract some fresh material for building up hisown authority. He owed his strength to the skill with which he (p. 431)appealed to the weaknesses of a people, whose prevailing characteristicswere a passion for material prosperity and an absolute indifference tohuman suffering. "We, " wrote one of Henry's Secretaries of State, "we, which talk much of Christ and His Holy Word, have, I fear me, used amuch contrary way; for we leave fishing of men, and fish again in thetempestuous seas of this world for gain and wicked Mammon. "[1170] Afew noble examples, Catholic and Protestant, redeemed, by their blood, the age from complete condemnation, but, in the mass of his subjects, the finer feelings seem to have been lost in the pursuit of wealth. There is no sign that the hideous tortures inflicted on men condemnedfor treason, or the equally horrible sufferings of heretics burnt atthe stake, excited the least qualm of compassion in the breast of themultitude; the Act of Six Articles seems to have been rather a popularmeasure, and the multiplication of treasons evoked no nationalprotest. 

 [Footnote 1170: Sir William Petre in Tytler's _Edward VI. And Mary_, i. , 427. ]

Henry, indeed, was the typical embodiment of an age that was at oncecallous and full of national vigour, and his failings were as much asource of strength as his virtues. His defiance of the conscience ofEurope did him no harm in England, where the splendid isolation of_Athanasius contra mundum_ is always a popular attitude; and even hisbitterest foes could scarce forbear to admire the dauntless front hepresented to every peril. National pride was the highest motive towhich he appealed. For the rest, he based his power on his people'smaterial interests, and not on their moral instincts. He took no suchhold of the ethical nature of men as did Oliver Cromwell, but he (p. 432)was liked none the less for that; for the nation regarded Cromwell, the man of God, with much less favour than Charles II. , the man ofsin; and statesmen who try to rule on exclusively moral principles areseldom successful and seldom beloved. Henry's successor, ProtectorSomerset, made a fine effort to introduce some elements of humanityinto the spirit of government; but he perished on the scaffold, whilehis colleagues denounced his gentleness and love of liberty, anddeclared that his repeal of Henry's savage treason-laws was the worstdeed done in their generation. [1171]

 [Footnote 1171: Sir John Mason, quoted in Froude, iv. , 306 n. ]

The King avoided the error of the Protector; he was neither behind norbefore the average man of the time; he appealed to the mob, and themob applauded. _Salus populi_, he said in effect, _suprema lex_, andthe people agreed; for that is a principle which suits demagogues noless than despots, though they rarely possess Henry's skill in workingit out. Henry, it is true, modified the maxim slightly by substitutingprince for people, and by practising, before it was preached, LouisXIV. 's doctrine that _L'État, c'est moi_. But the assumption that thewelfare of the people was bound up with that of their King was no idlepretence; it was based on solid facts, the force of which the peoplethemselves admitted. They endorsed the tyrant's plea of necessity. Thepressure of foreign rivalries, and the fear of domestic disruption, convinced Englishmen of the need for despotic rule, and no considerationwhatever was allowed to interfere with the stability of government;individual rights and even the laws themselves must be overridden, ifthey conflicted with the interests of the State. Torture was illegalin England, and men were proud of the fact, yet, in cases of (p. 433)treason, when the national security was thought to be involved, torturewas freely used, and it was used by the very men who boasted ofEngland's immunity. They were conscious of no inconsistency; thecommon law was very well as a general rule, but the highest law of allwas the welfare of the State. 

This was the real tyranny of Tudor times; men were dominated by theidea that the State was the be-all and end-all of human existence. Inits early days the State is a child; it has no will and no ideas ofits own, and its first utterances are merely imitation and repetition. But by Henry VIII. 's reign the State in England had grown to lustymanhood; it dismissed its governess, the Church, and laid claim tothat omnipotence and absolute sovereignty which Hobbes regretfullyexpounded in his _Leviathan_. [1172] The idea supplied an excuse todespots and an inspiration to noble minds. "Surely, " wrote a genuinepatriot in 1548, [1173] "every honest man ought to refuse no pains, notravail, no study, he ought to care for no reports, no slanders, nodispleasure, no envy, no malice, so that he might profit the commonwealthof his country, for whom next after God he is created. " The service ofthe State tended, indeed, to encroach on the service of God, and toobliterate altogether respect for individual liberty. Wolsey on hisdeath-bed was visited by qualms of conscience, but, as a rule, victimsto the principle afford, by their dying words, the most striking (p. 434)illustrations of the omnipotence of the idea. Condemned traitors areconcerned on the scaffold, not to assert their innocence, but toproclaim their readiness to die as an example of obedience to the law. However unfair the judicial methods of Tudor times may seem to us, thesufferers always thank the King for granting them free trial. Theirguilt or innocence is a matter of little moment; the one thing needfulis that no doubt should be thrown on the inviolability of the will ofthe State; and the audience commend them. They are not expected toconfess or to express contrition, but merely to submit to the decreesof the nation; if they do that, they are said to make a charitable andgodly end, and they deserve the respect and sympathy of men; if not, they die uncharitably, and are held up to reprobation. [1174] To an agelike that there was nothing strange in the union of State and (p. 435)Church and the supremacy of the King over both; men professed Christianityin various forms, but to all men alike the State was their realreligion, and the King was their great High Priest. The sixteenthcentury, and especially the reign of Henry VIII. , supplies the mostvivid illustration of the working, both for good and for evil, of thetheory that the individual should be subordinate in goods, in life andin conscience to the supreme dictates of the national will. Thistheory was put into practice by Henry VIII. Long before it was madethe basis of any political philosophy, just as he practisedErastianism before Erastus gave it a name. 

 [Footnote 1172: The _Leviathan_ is the best philosophical commentary on the Tudor system; Hobbes was Tudor and not Stuart in all his ideas, and his assertion of the Tudor _de facto_ theory of monarchy as against the Stuart _de jure_ theory brought him into disfavour with Cavaliers. ]

 [Footnote 1173: John Hales in _Lansdowne MS. _, 238; _England under Protector Somerset_, p. 216. ]

 [Footnote 1174: _L. And P. _, x. , 920; "all which died charitably, " writes Husee of Anne Boleyn and her fellow-victims; Rochford "made a very catholic address to the people saying he had not come there to preach but to serve as a mirror and example, acknowledging his sins against God and the King" (_ibid. _, x. , 911; _cf. _ xvii. , 124). Cromwell and Somerset had more cause to complain of their fate than other statesmen of the time, yet Cromwell on the scaffold says: "I am by the law condemned to die, and thank my Lord God that hath appointed me this death for mine offence. .. . I have offended my prince, for the which I ask him heartily forgiveness" (Foxe, v. , 402). And Somerset says: "I am condemned by a law whereunto I am subject, as we all; and therefore to show obedience I am content to die" (Ellis, _Orig. Letters_, II. , ii. , 215; _England under Somerset_, p. 308). Compare Buckingham in Shakespeare, "_Henry VIII. _, " Act II. , Sc. I. :--

 "I bear the law no malice for my death . .. My vows and prayers Yet are the King's; and till my soul forsake Shall cry for blessings on him. "]

The devotion paid to the State in Tudor times inevitably made expediency, and not justice or morality, the supreme test of public acts. Thedictates of expediency were, indeed, clothed in legal forms, but lawsare primarily intended to secure neither justice nor morality, but theinterests of the State; and the highest penalty known to the law isinflicted for high treason, a legal and political crime which does notnecessarily involve any breach whatever of the code of morals. Traitors are not executed because they are immoral, but because theyare dangerous. Never did a more innocent head fall on the scaffoldthan that of Lady Jane Grey; never was an execution more fullyjustified by the law. The contrast was almost as flagrant in many aState trial in the reign of Henry VIII. ; no king was so careful oflaw, [1175] but he was not so careful of justice. Therein lay hissafety, for the law takes no cognisance of injustice, unless theinjustice is also a breach of the law, and Henry rarely, if ever, (p. 436)broke the law. Not only did he keep the law, but he contrived that thenation should always proclaim the legality of his conduct. Acts ofattainder, his favourite weapon, are erroneously supposed to have beenthe method to which he resorted for removing opponents whose convictionhe could not obtain by a legal trial. But acts of attainder were, as arule, supplements to, not substitutes for, trials by jury;[1176] manywere passed against the dead, whose goods had already been forfeitedto the King as the result of judicial verdicts. Moreover, convictionswere always easier to obtain from juries than acts of attainder fromParliament. It was simplicity itself to pack a jury of twelve, andeven a jury of peers; but it was a much more serious matter to packboth Houses of Parliament. What then was the meaning and use of actsof attainder? They were acts of indemnity for the King. People mightcavil at the verdict of juries; for they were only the decisions of ahandful of men; but who should impugn the voice of the whole bodypolitic expressed in its most solemn, complete and legal form? Thereis no way, said Francis to Henry in 1532, so safe as by Parliament, [1177]and one of Henry's invariable methods was to make the whole (p. 437)nation, so far as he could, his accomplice. For pardons and acts ofgrace the King was ready to assume the responsibility; but the nationitself must answer for rigorous deeds. And acts of attainder wereneither more nor less than deliberate pronouncements, on the part ofthe people, that it was expedient that one man should die rather thanthat the whole nation should perish or run any risk of danger. 

 [Footnote 1175: "I never knew, " writes Bishop Gardiner a few months after Henry's death, "man committed to prison for disagreeing to any doctrine unless the same doctrine were established by a law of the realm before" (Foxe, ed. Townsend, vi. , 141). ]

 [Footnote 1176: The Countess of Salisbury and Cromwell are the two great exceptions. ]

 [Footnote 1177: _L. And P. _, vi. , 954. It may be reading too much into Francis I. 's words, but it is tempting to connect them with Machiavelli's opinion that the French _parlement_ was devised to relieve the Crown of the hostility aroused by curbing the power of the nobles (_Il Principe_ c. 19). A closer parallel to the policy of Henry VIII. May be found in that which Tacitus attributes to Tiberius with regard to the Senate; "he must devolve on the Senate the odious duty of trial and condemnation and reserve only the credit of clemency for himself" (Furneaux, _Tacitus_, Introd. ). ]

History, in a democratic age, tends to become a series of popularapologies, and is inclined to assume that the people can do no wrong;some one must be the scapegoat for the people's sins, and the nationalsins of Henry's reign are all laid on Henry's shoulders. But thenation in the sixteenth century deliberately condoned injustice, wheninjustice made for its peace. It has done so before and after, and maypossibly do so again. It is easy in England to-day to denounce thecruel sacrifices imposed on individuals in the time of Henry VIII. Bytheir subordination in everything to the interests of the State; but, whenever and wherever like dangers have threatened, recourse has beenhad to similar methods, to government by proclamation, to martial law, and to verdicts based on political expediency. 

The contrast between morals and politics, which comes out in Henry'sreign as a terrible contradiction, is inherent in all forms of humansociety. Politics, the action of men in the mass, are akin to theoperation of natural forces; and, as such, they are neither moral norimmoral; they are simply non-moral. Political movements are often asresistless as the tides of the ocean; they carry to fortune, and theybear to ruin, the just and the unjust with heedless impartiality. Catoand Brutus striving against the torrent of Roman imperialism, (p. 438)Fisher and More seeking to stem the secularisation of the Church, arelike those who would save men's lives from the avalanche by preachingto the mountain on the text of the sixth commandment. The efforts ofgood men to avert a sure but cruel fate are the truest theme of theTragic Muse; and it is possible to represent Henry's reign as one longnightmare of "truth for ever on the scaffold, wrong for ever on thethrone"; for Henry VIII. Embodied an inevitable movement of politics, while Fisher and More stood only for individual conscience. 

That is the secret of Henry's success. He directed the storm of arevolution which was doomed to come, which was certain to break thosewho refused to bend, and which may be explained by natural causes, butcannot be judged by moral considerations. The storm cleared the airand dissipated many a pestilent vapour, but it left a trail of wreckand ruin over the land. The nation purchased political salvation atthe price of moral debasement; the individual was sacrificed on thealtar of the State; and popular subservience proved the impossibilityof saving a people from itself. Constitutional guarantees areworthless without the national will to maintain them; men lightlyabandon what they lightly hold; and, in Henry's reign, the Englishspirit of independence burned low in its socket, and love of freedomgrew cold. The indifference of his subjects to political issuestempted Henry along the path to tyranny, and despotic power developedin him features, the repulsiveness of which cannot be concealed by themost exquisite art, appealing to the most deep-rooted prejudice. Heturned to his own profit the needs and the faults of his people, aswell as their national spirit. He sought the greatness of England, (p. 439)and he spared no toil in the quest; but his labours were spent for noethical purpose. His aims were selfish; his realm must be strong, because he must be great. He had the strength of a lion, and like alion he used it. 

Yet it is probable that Henry's personal influence and personal actionaverted greater evils than those they provoked. Without him, the stormof the Reformation would still have burst over England; without him, it might have been far more terrible. Every drop of blood shed underHenry VIII. Might have been a river under a feebler king. Instead of astray execution here and there, conducted always with a scrupulousregard for legal forms, wars of religion might have desolated the landand swept away thousands of lives. London saw many a hideous sight inHenry's reign, but it had no cause to envy the Catholic capitals whichwitnessed the sack of Rome and the massacre of St. Bartholomew; forall Henry's iniquities, multiplied manifold, would not equal thevolume of murder and sacrilege wrought at Rome in May, 1527, or atParis in August, 1572. [1178] From such orgies of violence and crime, England was saved by the strong right arm and the iron will of herTudor king. "He is, " said Wolsey after his fall, [1179] "a prince ofroyal courage, and he hath a princely heart; and rather than he (p. 440)will miss or want part of his appetite he will hazard the loss ofone-half of his kingdom. " But Henry discerned more clearly than Wolseythe nature of the ground on which he stood; by accident, or by design, his appetite conformed to potent and permanent forces; and, wherein itdid not, he was, in spite of Wolsey's remark, content to forgo itsgratification. It was not he, but the Reformation, which put thekingdoms of Europe to the hazard. The Sphinx propounded her riddle toall nations alike, and all were required to answer. Should they cleaveto the old, or should they embrace the new? Some pressed forward, others held back, and some, to their own confusion, replied in dubioustones. Surrounded by faint hearts and fearful minds, Henry VIII. Neither faltered nor failed. He ruled in a ruthless age with aruthless hand, he dealt with a violent crisis by methods of blood andiron, and his measures were crowned with whatever sanction worldlysuccess can give. He is Machiavelli's _Prince_ in action. He took hisstand on efficiency rather than principle, and symbolised theprevailing of the gates of Hell. The spiritual welfare of Englandentered into his thoughts, if at all, as a minor consideration; but, for her peace and material comfort it was well that she had as herKing, in her hour of need, a man, and a man who counted the cost, whofaced the risk, and who did with his might whatsoever his hand foundto do. 

 [Footnote 1178: In three months of "peace" in 1568 over ten thousand persons are said to have been slain in France (_Cambr. Mod. Hist. _, ii. , 347). At least a hundred thousand were butchered in the Peasants' War in Germany in 1525-6, and thirty thousand Anabaptists are said to have suffered in Holland and Friesland alone between 1523 and 1546. Henry VIII. 's policy was _parcere subjectis et debellare superbos_, to protect the many humble and destroy the mighty few. ]

 [Footnote 1179: _L. And P. _, iv. , Introd. , p. Dcxvi. ]

INDEX. (p. 441)

A. 

Abbeville, 142. Abergavenny, Baron. _See_ Neville, George. Abingdon, 128. Acts of Succession. _See_ Succession. Adrian VI. , Pope, 155, 156 _n_, 161, 162. Agnadello, battle of, 52, 53. Agostini, Augustine, 247, 248 _n_. Albany, Duke of. _See_ Stewart, John. Albret, Jean d', 85, 93, 136, 144. Aless, Alexander, 347. Alexander VI. , Pope, 212, 229. Amicable Loan, 165, 243. Ampthill, 354. Ancona, Peter, Cardinal of, 212. Ancrum Moor, battle of, 413, 415. André, Bernard, 20 and _note_, 21. Angus, Earl of. _See_ Douglas, Archibald. Annates, 290 and _note_, 297, 302, 320. _See also_ First-fruits. Anne Boleyn. _See_ Boleyn. ---- of Brittany, wife of Louis XII. , 74, 212, 217. ---- of Cleves, suggested marriage of, 383, 384; arrival in England and marriage, 385, 386; repudiation of, 210, 392, 395, 397, 404. ---- of Hungary, 51. Antigone, 333. Antwerp, 396. Apparel, Act of, 128. Appeals, Acts of, 298, 299, 319. Aquinas, St. Thomas, 123, 334. Aragon, 26, 28, 31, 51, 93, 104, 313. ------ Catherine of. _See_ Catherine. ------ Ferdinand of. _See_ Ferdinand. Arc, Jeanne d', 65. Ardres, 64, 141, 143. Armada, Spanish, 249, 307, 376. Army, Henry VIII. 's, 3, 109, 313, 315, 354; wages of, 57, 58; commissariat difficulties, 68, 69; invasions of France, 64, 80, 160, 161. Arthur, King, 14. ------ Prince of Wales, 11, 14, 38, 48, 283, 284. Artois, 93, 157. Ashton, Christopher, 11. Aske, Robert, 354, 356, 357. Athequa, George, Bishop of Llandaff, 319. Attainder, use and meaning of, 36, 37, 390, 404, 423, 436. Audley, Edmund, Bishop of Salisbury, 338. ------ Sir Thomas, Speaker and Lord Audley of Walden, 273, 278, 330 _n_, 393. Augmentations, Court of. _See_ Court. Augsburg, Peace of, 429. Austria, 26, 30, 51, 104, 382. Auxerre, Bishop of. _See_ Dinteville, François de. 

B. 

Bacon, Francis, Lord Verulam, 44. Badajos, Bishop of, 73. Badoer, Piero, 49, 53, 67, 78, 109. Bagnal, Sir Henry, 253 _n_. Bainbridge, Christopher, Cardinal and Archbishop of York, 1 _n_, 53, 55, 89, 229. Bangor, Bishopric of, 318. ------ Bishop of. _See_ Skeffington, Thomas. Barbarossa, 311. Barcelona, Treaty of, 225, 226. Barnes, Robert, 193, 394. Barton, Elizabeth, 305, 324, 374. Bath and Wells, Bishops of. _See_ Clerk, John; Hadrian de Castello; Stillington, Robert. Bavaria, Albert of, 28. Bayard, Chevalier, 54. Beaton, David, Cardinal, 373, 405, 409, 415. Beaufort, Edmund, second Duke of Somerset, 6. -------- Henry, Bishop of Winchester, 6. -------- John, Earl of Somerset, 6. -------- John, first Duke of Somerset, 6. -------- Lady Margaret, 6, 8, 10, 20, 24. -------- Thomas, Duke of Exeter, 6, 272 _n_. Beauforts, the, 6, 8. Beaulieu, 11, 375. Becket, Thomas à, Archbishop of Canterbury, 106, 270, 271, 372, 377. Bedford, Earl of. _See_ Russell, John. Belgrade, surrender of, 164. Bembridge, 414. Bennet, Dr. William, 207. Berlin, 68. Bermondsey Abbey, 5, 10. Berwick, 368, 375. Biez, Maréchal Oudart du, 413. Bilney, Thomas, 272. _Bishops' Book_, or _Institution of a Christian Man_, 379, 417. Blackheath, Cornishmen defeated at, 11. Bloody Assize, 357. Blount, Elizabeth, 47, 183, 185, 210. ------ William, fourth Baron Mountjoy, 22-24, 183. Boerio, Dr. Baptista, 22. Boleyn, Anne, Henry's passion for, 173, 186-192, 209; her "Lutheranism, " 203-205, 237, 274, 347, 349, 397, 399; canonical obstacles to her marriage with Henry VIII. , 206, 208; her unpopularity, 250, 314; accompanies Henry to France, 294, 295; her marriage, 281, 300, 319, 398; coronation, 300; unkindness to Princess Mary, 304 and _note_; her issue, 300, 315 _n_, 321, 342, 343, 348, 360; nullity of her marriage, 210, 344, 345; her trial and death, 233, 344-346, 404, 434 _n_. ------ George, Viscount Rochford, 344, 434 _n_. ------ Mary, 185, 188, 208, 344. ------ Thomas, Earl of Wiltshire, 138, 188, 203, 273. Bologna, 55, 86, 88, 283, 297 _n_. Bolton, William, prior of St. Bartholomew, 237. Bonner, Edmund, Bishop of London, 316. ------ Humphrey, 234 _n_. Bordeaux, 131, 156. Borough, Edward, Lord, 410. Bosworth, battle of, 3, 7, 9, 11, 49, 79. Boulogne, 68, 294; besieged, 133, 160, 412-415. Bourbon, Charles, Duc de, 151, 158 and _note_, 159, 160, 162, 163, 171, 176. Bourges, 283. Boxley, Rood of, 380. Bradshaw, Thomas, 259 _n_. Brandenburg, Margrave of, 100. Brandon, Charles, Duke of Suffolk, his family, 79; promotion and suggested marriage, 80; his previous wives, 80, 81, 199, 205; embassy to France, 81, 85, 86; marriage to Mary Tudor, 3, 15, 37, 82, 83; Henry's displeasure, 82, 83; his favour with Henry, 84; tilts with the King, 41, 95; army under, 159, 160, 162, 354, 412; claim to the throne, 181; objects to legatine courts, 223; other references, 2 _n_, 111, 116, 246, 385. ------- William, 79. Bray, 160. Brereton, William, 344. Brescia, 61. Brest, blockade of, 63. Brewer, John Sherren, 84 _n_, 189 _n_, 192 _n_, 197 _n_, 234 _n_, 249 _n_, 252 _n_, 261 _n_, 270 _n_. Brian, Sir Francis, 203. Brinkelow, Henry, 256, 257 _n_. Bristol, 401. Brittany, 30, 31. Browne, Ann, 199. Bruges, 111, 145, 146, 155, 281. Brussels, 94. Brydges, John, 260 _n_. Buckingham, Duke of. _See_ Stafford, Edward. Bullinger, Henry, 380. Buonarotti, Michael Angelo, 44. Burgundy, 26, 27, 30, 51, 104, 136, 168. _See also_ Netherlands. Butler, Piers, Earl of Ormond, 189. ------ Thomas, Earl of Ormond, 187. Byzantinism, 180 _n_, 370 _n_. 

C. 

Cadwallader, 5. 

Caistor, 353. 

Calais, 63-65, 74, 83, 93, 97, 112, 114, 129, 131, 139, 140, 142-146, 154, 159, 160, 203, 224, 254 _n_, 308-310, 315, 370, 375, 384; parliamentary representation of, 368. Calshot Castle, 375. Cambrai, 94, 296. ------ League of (1508), 29, 52, 53, 90, 98. ------ Peace of (1529), 224, 246, 250, 309. Cambridge, 20, 49, 77, 283, 334, 354. Campeggio, Lorenzo, Cardinal, 97, 112, 155, 184, 185 _n_, 186, 190, 204, 206 _n_, 211, 215-218, 219 _n_, 220 _n_, 222, 223, 225, 237, 238, 247, 270, 311 _n_, 318. Canon Law, 6, 117, 200, 336, 337, 349. Canterbury, 106, 140, 143, 260 _n_, 372. ---------- Archbishopric of, 16, 296, 298, 318, 329, 417. ---------- Archbishops of. _See_ Becket, Thomas à; Cranmer, Thomas; Langton, Stephen; Pole, Reginald; Warham, William. Capua, Archbishop of, 225. Carroz, Luis, 49, 59, 61 _n_, 62, 67, 70, 76 and _note_, 132, 192. Casale, Giovanni, 170, 207, 211, 224, 226. Castello, Hadrian de. _See_ Hadrian. Castile, 26-29, 51, 52, 72, 75, 92, 104, 167, 176, 313. ------- Isabella of. _See_ Isabella. ------- _See also_ Philip of Burgundy and Juaña. Castillon, Louis de Perreau, Sieur de, 370. Catherine of Aragon, marriage to Prince Arthur, 11, 14, 48, 283; proposals for second marriage of, 26, 27; betrothed to Henry VIII. , 27; possibly taught Henry Spanish, 22; marriage deferred, 28; marriage to Henry VIII. , 45, 46; coronation, 46; commissioned as Ferdinand's ambassador, 51; regent in England, 65; ally of Charles V. , 137; attends Field of Cloth of Gold, 141, 142; legality of her marriage questioned, 173, 174, 281; premature death of her children, 174-177; divorce threatened, 76, 176; ceases to bear children, 178-181; her conscience, 178; purity and courage of, 192, 193; divorce unjust to her, 193, 212; proceedings against her, 202; correspondence with Charles, 220; protests in person against the Legates' Court, 221; her popularity, 250, 314; championed by Charles, 226, 294; alleged nullity of her marriage, 296, 319; sentence by Cranmer, 300; her treatment by Henry VIII. And Anne Boleyn, 303, 304, 309, 310, 311 _n_; dissuaded by Charles V. From leaving England, 311; Pope pronounces her marriage valid, 321; her death, 335, 336, 342; other references to, 51 _n_, 70, 106, 200, 208, 210, 216, 251, 259, 265, 275, 282, 289, 304 _n_, 305, 312, 313, 327, 347-350, 364, 428. --------- of France, Queen of Henry V. , 5. --------- sister of Charles V. , Queen of Portugal, 100. --------- Howard, character before her marriage, 397; her marriage, 398, 399; misconduct, 403; death, 404; her fall impairs Duke of Norfolk's influence, 416. --------- Parr, her previous marriages, 410; marriage to Henry, 410; her tact, 411; favour towards New Learning, 416. Caxton, William, 20. Cecil, William, Lord Burghley, 38. Cervia, 224, 226. Chancery, _See_ Courts. Chapuys, Eustace, 114 _n_, 132, 185, 192 _n_, 194, 197 _n_, 247, 248 _n_, 262, 268, 271 _n_, 273 _n_, 274, 275, 284 _sqq. _, 285 _n_, 295, 298, 300, 303, 304 and _note_, 305-308, 311, 313-315 and _note_, 319, 321, 332, 335, 339 _n_, 342 _n_, 343, 345 _n_, 350, 352, 359, 362 _n_, 364, 366, 373, 374, 403, 405. Charlemagne, 52, 76. Charles I. Of England, 25 _n_, 258, 259. ------- II. , 186, 432. ------- V. , Emperor, suggested marriage to Mary Tudor, 26, 28, 45, 48, 65, 72-81, 83; heir to both grandfathers, 51 and _note_; assumes government of the Netherlands, 85; succeeds Ferdinand, 73, 92, 93; enters into Treaty of Noyon, 93; difficulties in Spain, 96; election as Emperor, 100-105; treated by Wolsey as an equal, 111; pensions to Wolsey, 115, 116; his foreign possessions, 136; reasons for peace with England, 137; invitation to visit England, 139; second meeting with Henry, 143; war with France, 144, 148; Wolsey's mediation between Francis and Charles, 145-147; proposed marriage to Mary of England, 143, 146, 156; Wolsey sides with Charles, 148-152; battle of Pavia, 154; influence on papal elections, 154, 155; promises to aid Wolsey's candidature for the Papacy, 161, 162; joins England against France, 159; his supremacy in Europe, 163, 164; marriage with Isabella of Portugal, 167; plans for deposing Henry, 180; his morals, 186; champions his aunt's cause, 202, 225, 294; peace with Henry, 224; Treaty of Barcelona, 226; appeal to a general council, 230 _n_; appealed to by Wolsey, 247; alliance with Clement, 249, 295, 297; alliance with Francis, 250, 371, 381, 382, 392; objects to carry out the papal sentence, 309, 310; rivalry with Francis, 108, 312, 429; anxious for Henry's friendship, 322, 359; engaged in conquering Tunis, 334; meeting with Francis and Paul III. , 372; breach with Francis, 404, 405; intrigues with James V. Of Scotland, 406; secret treaty with Henry, 410; peace with Francis, 412; other references to, 76, 78, 88, 98, 108, 118, 132, 158, 193-196, 197 _n_, 201, 204, 206, 207, 212, 216, 223, 251, 261, 275, 283, 295, 301, 302 _n_, 304, 308, 311 _n_, 314, 332, 349, 361, 366, 370, 373, 376, 377, 383, 386, 393, 396, 398. ------- VIII. Of France, 10, 30. ------- the Bold, 30, 51 _n_, 136. Charlotte, daughter of Francis I. , 93, 143. Chester, Bishopric of, 318, 401. Chichester, Bishop of. _See_ Sampson, Richard. ---------- Bishopric of, 319. Chieregati, 95, 96, 113, 121, 135. Chièvres, William de Croy, Lord of, 85, 183. Chobham, 421. Christina of Milan, 370, 371 and _note_, 384. Cinque Ports, 16. Civil Law, 38, 334, 362 _n_. Clarence, Duke of. _See_ George. Clarendon, Constitutions of, 271. Claude, Queen of France, 188. Clement VII. , Pope, his policy as Cardinal de Medici, 148, 152-154, 230; proclaimed Pope, 162 _n_; forms the Holy League, 168; his imperial interests, 169; confirmed Suffolk's divorce, 199; his captivity, 201; gives Wolsey legatine powers, 202; warned by Wolsey that his fall means ruin to the Church in England, 204-206, 211, 212, 237; suggests two wives for Henry, 207; anxious to avoid responsibility, 213; urges Catherine to enter a nunnery, 213 and _note_, 214; commission to Campeggio and Wolsey to try the divorce, 214, 215, 221; his indecision, 216, 224-227, 280, 294; instructs Campeggio to procrastinate, 216, 222; refuses to declare the brief a forgery, 220; his motives for siding against Henry VIII. , 224, 225; his treaty with the Emperor, 225, 226; revokes his commission to Campeggio and Wolsey, 226, 227; bull of 1530, 281, 282; interviews Charles, 295; apparent friendship with Henry VIII. , 296, 297; delays in the divorce suit, 298; prepares the final ban of the Church against Henry VIII. , 302, 303, 316; pronounces Catherine's marriage valid, 321; his dispensation for the marriage of Anne Boleyn, 208-210, 344; his death, 322; other references to, 187 _n_, 210, 218, 230 _n_, 247, 276, 309, 319, 428. Clerk, John, Bishop of Bath and Wells, 154, 155, 161, 197 _n_, 318, 338. Cleves, Anne of. _See_ Anne. ------ Duke John of, father of Anne of Cleves, 382, 383. ------ Duke William of, brother of Anne, 383, 386, 393. Coinage, debasement of, 418. Coire, 99. Colet, John, Dean of St. Paul's, 134. Commons, House of. _See also_ Parliament. ------- ----- More pleads its privileges, 165, 259; throws out attainder against Wolsey, 246; packing of, 252 _sqq. _; free speech in, 259, 288, 289; powers of, 259 _n_; feared by the Church, 270, 280; Audley chosen Speaker, 278; refuses to remit Henry's loan, 279; attacks abuses, 291; passes Act of Appeals, 299; waits on Henry, 320; passes attainder against Cromwell, 390; opposition to Cromwell, 391. Conquêt, 63. Constable, Sir Robert, 357. Constantine, the Emperor, 363 _n_. Contarini, Cardinal, 153, 318, 359. Copley, Sir Roger, 253. Cork, 10. Corneto, 215. Cornwall, Dukes of. _See_ Arthur, Prince, and Henry VIII. Coron, 312. Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 49, 206 _n_. Council, Ordinary, 364 _n_. ------- government by, 364 _n_. ------- Privy, 288, 289, 356, 365, 403, 416. ------- of the North, 358, 366. ------- of Wales, 364 _n_, 365, 366. ------- of Trent, 299. Court of Augmentations, 337. ----- Chancery, 319, 320, 327. ----- Requests, 38, 368. ----- Star Chamber, 35, 38, 119, 120, 368. ----- Wards and Liveries, 368. Courtenay, Henry, Marquis of Exeter, 183, 305, 374, 375. --------- Sir William, 374. Coventry and Lichfield, Bishopric of, 318. Coverdale, Miles, 379. Cowes, 57. Cradock, Sir Matthew, 11. Cranmer, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, suggests an appeal to the Universities, 282; appointed Archbishop, 296; expedition of his bulls, 296-298; his court made final, 299; declares Catherine's marriage void and Anne's valid, 300, 302; crowns Anne as queen, 300; declares Anne's marriage invalid, 344; licenses Henry to marry a third wife, 346; informs Henry of Catherine Howard's misconduct, 403; his hold on Henry, 416; discusses the _King's Book_ with Henry, 417; is attacked, 418; sent for in Henry's illness, 424, 425; other references to, 191, 197 _n_, 230 _n_, 282 and _note_, 325 _n_, 327 and _note_, 354, 379, 385, 391 _n_, 393, 401 _n_. Croke, Richard, 282 _n_. Crome, Edward, 274. Cromwell, Oliver, 368, 432. -------- Thomas, Earl of Essex, humble birth, 38, 42; rising to notice, 159; opposes Wolsey's attainder in the Commons, 246, 278; his agents, 254; his interference in elections, 260 and _note_, 261, 317; reports on Parliament to the King, 263 _n_; becomes secretary, 273, 323; prepares bills for Parliament, 289 _n_, 291; said to "rule everything, " 318; anxious to make Henry despotic, 323 and _note_, 329; anxious to make Henry rich, 341; never in Wolsey's position, 350; anxious for government by council, 364; appointed vicar-general, 378; vicegerent, 379; induces Henry to marry Anne of Cleves, 384, 385; packs Parliament in favour of his own policy, 392; his fall, 397, 416; created Earl of Essex; his death, 2, 394; other references to, 290, 325 _n_, 339 _n_, 349, 354, 366 _n_, 381, 399, 400, 434 _n_, 436 _n_. Crowley, Robert, 257 _n. _Crown, succession to the. _See_ Succession. Culpepper, Thomas, 398, 403. 

D. 

Dacre, Thomas, Lord Dacre of the North, 156, 157, 247 _n_. Dante, 29. Darcy, Thomas, Baron Darcy, 305, 353-355, 357. Deal, 385. Denmark, 312. Denny, Sir Anthony, 424. Deptford, 126. Derby, Earl of. _See_ Stanley, Thomas. Dereham, Francis, 398, 403. Derknall, Robert, 260 _n_. D'Ewes, Giles, 20 and _note_, 21. Dinteville, François de, Bishop of Auxerre, 280. Dispensation, papal power of, 173, 174, 176, 193, 207-209, 212, 213, 218, 219, 284, 344; transferred to Cranmer, 320, 346. Divorce, the law of, 173 _n_, 208, 218, 219, 344, 345, 395. ------- of Catherine of Aragon, first suggestion of, 76, 173, 176, 197 and _note_; origin of, 173; causes of, 179, 183, 186; motives for, 177-179, 189; Wolsey's attitude towards, 204, 205; commission to try, 214 _sqq. _, 214 _n_; its influence on the Reformation, 232, 238, 428; disliked by the people, 250, 251; decision of the Universities, 283, 284, 296, 358; its injustice to Catherine, 192, 193; sentence of divorce, 187. ------- of Anne Boleyn, 344. ------- of Anne of Cleves, 395. ------- other instances of, 199, 200, 209 _n_, 212. Dodieu, Claude, 196. Doncaster, 356. Doria, 216. Dorset, Marquis of. _See_ Grey, Sir Thomas. Douglas, Archibald, sixth Earl of Angus, 88, 200. Dourlens, 157. Dover, 139, 140, 375. ----- Castle, 16, 375. Drogheda, Parliament of, 18. Du Bellay, John, Bishop of Bayonne, 185 _n_, 196, 197, 203 _n_, 223-225, 237, 244, 246, 273, 282 _n_, 284, 295 _n_, 319. Dublin, 9, 367. Dubois, Pierre, 329. Dudley, Edmund, 2 _n_, 44, 48. ------ John, Viscount Lisle, afterwards Duke of Northumberland, 261, 408, 414, 430. Dunkirk, 281. Dunstable, 300, 302. Du Prat, Cardinal Antoine, 145. Durham, Bishopric of, 318. ------ Bishops of. _See_ Ruthal, Thomas; Tunstall, Cuthbert. Dymock, Sir Robert, 46. 

E. 

Edinburgh, 69, 413. --------- Duke of, 18 _n_. Education under Henry VII. , 19, 20. Edward I. , 37, 187. ------ III. , 180, 182, 346. ------ IV. , beheads Owen Tudor, 5; his right to the throne, 7; his descendants and their claims, 8, 9, 181, 183, 305, 314; his daughter Elizabeth marries Henry VII. , 13; his tastes, 15, 39; his marriage pronounced void, 306. ------ VI. , birth at Greenwich, 16, 360, 361; forward as a pupil, 19, 267; proposed marriage of, 348, 362, 408, 409, 415; his claim to the throne, 349; his early death, 12; homilies printed in his reign, 417. ------ Earl of Warwick, 9, 11, 179. Eleanor, daughter of Philip of Burgundy, Queen of Portugal, 26, 168, 196, 197 _n_. Elizabeth, Queen, born at Greenwich, 16, 300, 301; forward as a pupil, 19; foundress of Jesus College, Oxford, 21 _n_; contended for the supremacy of the State, 233; arbitrary with Parliament, 263, 329; pronounced illegitimate, 343 and _note_, 348 and note; claim to the throne, 348 _n_; other references to, 35, 191, 267, 304, 411. --------- of York, married to Henry VII. , 13; described by Erasmus, 20. Ely, Bishop of. _See_ West, Nicholas. --- Bishopric of, 318. Embrun, 86. Emmanuel, King of Portugal, 167. Emperors. _See_ Maximilian I. And Charles V. Empire, Holy Roman, 32, 101, 108. Empson, Sir Richard, 2 _n_, 44, 48. Enclosure movement, 119, 120, 256, 352. Erasmus, Desiderius, his description of Elizabeth of York, 20 and _note_; of Henry VIII. , 22, 23, 40, 106, 122, 123, 125; other references to, 19 and _note_, 89, 115 _n_, 134, 183, 236. Essex, Earl of. _See_ Cromwell, Thomas. Este, Alfonso d', 153. ---- Isabella d', 135. Estrada, Duke of, 26. Étaples, Treaty of, 48, 75. Eton College, 426. Evers, William, Lord, 413. Exeter, Marquis of. _See_ Courtenay, Henry. ------ Bishops of. _See_ Fox, Richard; Coverdale, Miles. 

F. 

Falier, Ludovico, 179. Farnham, 370. Ferdinand of Aragon, his negotiations for Catherine's marriage, 11, 14, 26, 45, 47; claims Castile, 27; his methods of government, 37; advises Henry VIII. , 43, 50; his schemes for the aggrandisement of his family, 50-52, 60; attacks the Moors, 55; makes peace with them and attacks France, 56; conquers Navarre, 57, 58; betrays Henry, 59-62; his duplicity, 61, 70, 72, 73; his death, 92; other references to, 28-30, 51 _n_, 52-54, 67, 75-77, 85, 88, 100, 105, 107, 145, 174-176, 179, 284, 351. --------- Archduke and Emperor, 51 and _note_, 52-54, 61 _n_, 71, 76, 94, 101. Ferrara, 100, 153, 159, 283. Ferrers, Sir Edward, 252 _n_. Ferrers' case, 258, 259. _Fidei Defensor_, 107, 126, 325. Field of Cloth of Gold, 141-143, 151, 294. First-fruits and Tenths, 324, 327, 336, 368. Fisher, John, Cardinal Bishop of Rochester, preaches Henry VII. 's funeral sermon, 43, 44; denounces Luther's books, 125; defends the validity of Catherine's marriage, 222, 236, 282; his treasonable practices, 282, 305; sent to the Tower, 324; attainted, 331-333; created Cardinal, 332; death, 333; other references to, 1 _n_, 50, 150, 279, 280, 287, 289, 319, 331 _n_, 350, 438. Fitzgerald, Gerald, eighth Earl of Kildare, 9, 11, 149, 305, 366, 367. Fitzroy, Henry, Duke of Richmond and Somerset, 183-185, 197, 213, 348. Fitzwilliam, Sir William, Earl of Southampton, 144, 146, 147, 157, 203, 254 _n_, 385, 389 _n_, 390, 393. Flanders, 52, 93, 140, 144, 223, 224, 308-311, 358, 359, 373. _See also_ Burgundy and Netherlands. Flodden Field, 49, 66, 80, 87, 200, 408. Florence, 51, 86, 226. Floyd's case, 259 _n_. Foix, Germaine de, 29, 100. ---- Odet de. _See_ Lautrec. Fox, Richard, Bishop of Exeter, afterwards Bishop of Winchester, baptises Henry VIII. , 16; his fortunes linked with the Tudors, 48; chancellor of Cambridge, 49; founder of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, 49; an intimate counsellor of Henry VIII. , 49; retires to his diocese, 92; debates the legality of Henry's marriage, 174, 198; death, 117; other references to, 62, 98, 109, 114, 158, 159, 273. Foxe, Edward, Bishop of Hereford, 211, 214. ---- John, martyrologist, 191. France, unity of, 30, 31; Roman law in, 32; English antipathy to, 53; invasion of, 57, 60, 62-66; friendship with Venice, 61; truce with Venice, 60; war against, 64, 65; campaigns in, 68, 69; Suffolk's embassy to, 85; Wolsey's embassy to, 112, 144-146; treaty with England, 138; Henry's visit to, 140-143; war with Spain, 144; English pretence to the crown of, 149, 150, 158; suggested assembly of cardinals in, 201; alliance with England, 223; threatens Italy from the North, 51, 228, 229; other references to, 29, 108, 181, 204, 220, 370, 373, 393. ------ Catherine of. _See_ Catherine. ------ Kings of. _See_ Charles VIII. , Francis I. , Louis XI. , Louis XII. Francis, Duke of Angoulême, afterwards Francis I. Of France, description of, 39, 78; relations with Mary Tudor, 78-83; designs on Milan, 85, 86; omnipotence in Italy, 93; joins second League of Cambrai, 94; is deceived by Charles V. , 96; his efforts to be elected Emperor, 98-104; rivalry with Charles V. , 108, 312, 429; his pensions to Wolsey, 115, 116; his claim to Naples, 136; Wolsey's opposition to, 137 and _note_; is anxious for a personal interview with Henry VIII. , 138, 139; meets Henry VIII. At the Field of Cloth of Gold, 141-143; his war with Charles V. , 144-148; his immorality, 150, 186; his influence on the papal election, 154, 155; is convinced of English hostility, 156; English make war on, 157, 158; his defeat at Pavia, 30, 163, 164; signs Treaty of Madrid, 168; suggested marriage to Princess Mary, 195-197 _n_; his defeat at Landriano, 226; is appealed to by Wolsey, 247; his alliance with Charles V. , 250; his meeting with Henry at Boulogne (1532), 294; disapproves of Henry's breach with the Church, 306; meditates fresh Italian schemes, 310, 351; his meeting with Clement at Marseilles (1533), 316; orders Pole to leave France, 359; his friendship with Charles V. , 371, 381, 382, 392; his meeting with Charles V. And Paul III. (1538), 372; his breach with Charles V. , 404, 405; intrigues with James V. , 406, 409; his peace with Henry (1546), 412; his advice about Parliament, 436; other references to, 81, 88, 94, 97, 127, 129 _n_, 137, 151, 162, 163 _n_, 169, 173, 193, 216, 225, 280, 297, 302 _n_, 311, 315, 334, 349, 361, 369, 370, 376, 377, 383, 386, 393, 396. ------ Dauphin of France, 138, 143, 148. Frederick II. , Emperor, 329. Frith, John, 272. Fuentarabia, 160. 

G. 

Gardiner, Stephen, Bishop of Winchester, goes to Rome to obtain a commission to try the divorce case in England, 214, 220; would be more powerful if he abandoned his order, 237, 273; his pocket-boroughs, 254 and _note_, 317, 390; secretary, 273; led the bishops in the House of Lords to reject the concessions made to the King by the Church, 293; retires to Winchester, 294; his opposition to the divorce, 306; on parliamentary liberties, 259; on the limits of Henry's power, 323 _n_, 330; encounters Barnes in a theological discussion, 394; patron of Catherine Howard, 397, 399; champion of the Catholic faith, 416, 418; other references to, 211, 259, 290, 316, 327 _n_, 336, 435 _n_. Gattinara, Mercurio, 147. Gatton, 253 and _note_. Gaunt, John of, 6, 180. Genoa, 51, 70, 71, 76, 147, 168. George, Duke of Clarence, 8, 18, 305, 314, 358, 373. Germany, 30-32, 69, 101, 104, 124, 139, 272, 311, 381, 382, 393, 418. Ghinucci, Girolamo, Bishop of Worcester, 202, 206, 207, 218, 318, 338. Giglis, Silvester de, Bishop of Worcester, 86, 229. Giustinian, Sebastian, Venetian ambassador, 67, 72, 77 _n_, 87, 88, 92, 97, 98, 102, 106, 108, 109 and _note_, 110-115, 118, 121, 127, 129, 132, 177, 181, 240. Gloucester, 40. Gordon, Lady Catherine, 11 and _note_. Grammont, Gabriel de, Bishop of Tarbes, 173, 195-197, 280, 281. Gravelines, 143. Greenwich, 15, 16, 22, 46, 83, 86, 134, 239, 300, 324, 385. Grey, Lady Jane, 19, 435. ---- Lord Leonard, 366, 367. ---- Thomas, second Marquis of Dorset, 37 _n_, 57. Guelders, 54, 144, 168, 383, 393. Guienne, 57, 58, 61, 62. Guildford, 389, 421. Guinegate, 64, 65. Guipuscoa, 57. Guisnes, 129, 140, 141, 375. Gustavus Vasa, King of Sweden, 238. 

H. 

Hadrian de Castello, Cardinal Bishop of Bath and Wells, 97, 112, 115. Hailes, Blood of, 380. Hales, John, 433 _n_. Halidon Rig, 407. Hamburg, 311. Hampton Court, 140, 239, 398, 410, 421. Harwich, 375. Henry II. , 4, 271 and _note_, 275. ----- IV. , 4, 6, 15, 180, 232. ----- IV. Of Castile, 207. ----- V. , 53, 66. ----- VI. , 5, 7. ----- VII. , his descent, 5-8; his birth, 7; His claim to the throne recognised by Parliament, 8, 13; Yorkist rivals to, 9; his sons and daughters, 13; marriage, 13; bestows Greenwich on his wife, 15; sends Arthur and Catherine to Ludlow Castle, 14; centralising policy, 17; Irish policy, 18; Renaissance under, 20; praised by Erasmus, 23; his theological conservatism, 24; proposes marriages for his children, 26; discusses Catherine's dower, 26; suggests marrying her himself, 27; entertains Philip of Burgundy, 27; designs on Castile, 28, 29; his suggested marriage with Margaret of Savoy, 28, 48; his methods of government, 36-38; last advice to his son, 43; death, 43; funeral and tomb, 44; his treasure, 149, 245, 246; other references to, 79, 80, 173, 178, 180, 182, 183, 232, 284, 374, 409, 426. ----- VIII. , his descent and parentage, 5; birth, 15; baptised and said to have been destined for a clerical career, 16; offices and titles, 16, 17; his tutors, 20-22; his handwriting, 21; studies languages, 22; is visited by Erasmus, 22, 23; corresponds with Erasmus, 23; studies theology, 24; is devoted to music, 24; his minstrels, 24; his choristers and compositions, 25, 47; becomes heir-apparent and Duke of Cornwall, 25; created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, 25; suggested matrimonial alliances, 26; is betrothed to Catherine of Aragon, 27; protests against the marriage, 28; methods of government, 36; decay of the peerage under, 37; the ministers of, 38, 48-50; peaceful accession, 43; executes Dudley and Empson, 44; marriage to Catherine, 45, 46; coronation, 46, 48; intervenes in favour of Venice, 53; renews his father's treaties, 54; his first crusade, 55; joins Ferdinand against France, 56; unsuccessfully attacks Guienne, 57, 58; his league with Maximilian, 61 and _note_; his desertion by Ferdinand, 61-63; his success in France, 64-66; the pacific character of his reign, 67, 68; makes the Treaty of Lille, 69; his honesty, 72, 73; discovers duplicity of his allies, 73, 74; makes peace with France, 74, 75; his promotion of Charles Brandon, 80; anger at Brandon's marriage to Mary Tudor exaggerated, 82-84; rivalry with Francis I. , 86, 87; claims title of "Protector of Scotland, " 87, 88; is suggested as Emperor, 99, 102-104; allows Wolsey much power, 109 _sqq. _; his services to the Papacy, 107; his book against Luther, 123-126; receives title of _Fidei Defensor_, 126; his political activity, 128-131; his meeting with Charles, 139, 140; his meeting with Francis at the Field of Cloth of Gold, 141-143; his second meeting with Charles, 143; his rights to the crown of France, 149, 158; his recourse to war loans, 164, 165; doubts the legality of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, 173, 174, 195-199, 219; the premature death of his children, 174-177, 182; his passion for Anne Boleyn, 189-192; his conscience, 193, 194, 209, 218; his first steps towards divorce, 198-201; his justification for expecting divorce, 199, 200; licence to commit bigamy, 206; ceases to work in harmony with Wolsey, 203, 204; his canonical affinity to Anne Boleyn, 206-208, 344; is urged by Clement to settle the divorce for himself, 213; attends the Legates' Court in person, 221; praises Catherine, 221, 222; finds the impossibility of obtaining a favourable verdict at Rome, 226; breaks with Rome, 228, 231, 428, 429; appeals to a General Council, 230; contends for the supremacy of the State, 233; his support necessary to the Church, 238; makes peace with Charles, 224; reproves Wolsey, 242, 243; the difference between the results of his policy and Wolsey's, 244, 245; the difficulty of his position, 250; his divorce interwoven with the question of papal jurisdiction in England, 251; he summons Parliament, 251 _sqq. _; his harmony with Parliament, 256, 261 _sqq. _; his observance of the constitution and parliamentary privileges, 258, 430, 435, 436; his interest in Parliament, 263; encourages the Commons to bring complaints to him, 266; his recognition as "Supreme Head, " 268, 286, 325, 328, 330 _n_, 331; is compared to Henry II. , 271 and _note_; his anti-clerical bias, 272, 273, 285; his position between two parties, 276; decisions of the Universities, 283, 284, 288; his influence with Parliament, 284, 285, 287 _sqq. _; meets Francis at Boulogne, 294; his marriage with Anne Boleyn, 295, 296, 300; Cranmer pronounces the divorce, 296, 300, 302; sentence of greater excommunication drawn up against him, 303; his treatment of Catherine, 303, 304; his position abroad, 305 _sqq. _; closes the Staple at Calais, 308; his position at home, 313; his episcopal appointments, 318; his marriage to Catherine pronounced valid by Clement, 321; becomes more despotic, 322, 323; sends Fisher and More to the Tower, and the Friars Observants to the block, 324; position as Supreme Head of the Church, 325-330; executes Fisher and More, 331-334; rejoices at Catherine's death, 335; obtains the Statute of Uses, 336; orders a general visitation of the monasteries, 337-339; dissolves the monasteries and divides monastic spoils with the laity, 341; dislikes, divorces, and beheads Anne Boleyn, 343-346; marries Jane Seymour, 346, 347; power to bequeath the crown given him by Parliament (_see_ Acts of Succession), 348; his position strengthened by the death of Catherine and of Anne Boleyn, 349, 350; refuses to side against Francis I. , 350, 351; deals with the Pilgrimage of Grace, 355; his answer to the rebels, 356; conference with Aske, 357; establishes Council of the North, 358; his relations with Cardinal Pole, 358, 359; his good fortune culminates in the birth of Edward VI. , 360, 361; development of his intellect, 363, 364; completes the Union of England and Wales, 365, 366; establishes peace in Ireland, 367; thinks of marrying a French princess, 369, 370; and then of Christina of Milan, 370, 371; desecrates the shrine of St. Thomas, 372; is excommunicated by the Pope, 373; removes possible claimants to the throne, 374, 375; and takes other measures for defence, 375-377; issues the Ten Articles, 378, and _The Bishops' Book_, 379; permits the Bible in English and destroys images, 379, 380; and dissolves the greater monasteries, 381; issues a manifesto against the Pope's authority to summon a General Council, and enters into negotiations with the German princes, 381, 382; marries Anne of Cleves, 382-386; but remains a Catholic at heart, 387-389; and presses the Six Articles, 390; repudiates the German alliance, 393; ruins Cromwell, 394; and divorces Anne, 395; marries Catherine Howard, 398, 399; renews his alliance with Charles V. And represses heresy, 400; erects new bishoprics and endows new professorships, 401; executes the Countess of Salisbury and Catherine Howard, 403, 404; makes war on Scotland, renewing his feudal claims to that kingdom, 406 _sqq. _; joins Charles V. Against France, 409, 410; marries Catherine Parr, 410; invades France and captures Boulogne, 412; is deserted by Charles, and left to face alone the French invasion, 413; on its failure makes peace with France, 415; issues various religious proclamations and _The King's Book_, 416, 417; debases the coinage and appropriates the lands of chantries, 418, 419; his last speech to Parliament, 419, 420; his illness, 424; and death, 425; will and burial, 426. ----- ---- descriptions of, as a child, 19; on his accession, 39; by Mountjoy, 40; by Sir Thomas More, 48, 428; by Falier in 1529, 240; in 1541, 402. ----- ---- his popularity, 35, 38; his accomplishments, 22, 25, 39, 40, 239; his athletic prowess, 39-41, 95, 239; his display of wealth, 96; his love of pleasure in the beginning of his reign, 46-48; his morality, 185-187; his love of gambling, 241; his hasty temper, 132, 133; his hardening of character, 240, 323, 402; his affection for Mary, 304; his egotism, 427; his imperial ideas, 362-364; his piety, 105, 106, 274; his illnesses, 240 and _note_, 402, 424. ----- ---- gradual evolution of his character, 427, 428; causes of his dictatorship, 429; a constitutional king, 430; the typical embodiment of his age, 431; careful of law, but careless of justice, 435; use of Acts of Attainder, 436; imitates Tiberius, 436 _n_; illustrates the contrast between morals and politics, 437, 438; character of his aims, 439; comparison of the good and evil that he did, 439, 440. "Henry VIII. " by Shakespeare, 110, 116 _n_, 197 _n_, 434 _n_. Henry of Navarre, 186. Herbert, Lord, of Cherbury, 16. Hereford, Bishops of. _See_ Foxe, Edward, and Bonner, Edmund. Hertford, Earl of. _See_ Seymour, Edward. Hildebrand, 233. Hobbes, Thomas, 433. Holbein, Hans, 140, 371, 384 and _note_. Holy League (of 1511), 55, 64, 88, 107. ---- ----- (of 1526), 168-170, 225. ---- Roman Empire. _See_ Empire. Horsey, Dr. William, Chancellor of London, 236 and _note_. Houghton, John, 331. Howard, Admiral Sir Edmund, 63. ------ Catherine. _See_ Catherine. ------ Henry, Earl of Surrey, poet, 21, 422, 423. ------ Thomas I. , Earl of Surrey, afterwards second Duke of Norfolk, one of the four dukes in Henry VIII. 's reign, 2 _n_; Lord High Treasurer, 49; wins Flodden and is made Duke of Norfolk, 68, 80; his opinions on the imperial election, 102; his pensions, 116. ------ Thomas II. , Earl of Surrey, afterwards third Duke of Norfolk, was one of the four dukes in Henry VIII. 's reign, 2 _n_; his military campaigns, 157, 413, 422; his relationship to Anne Boleyn, 203, 343 _n_; takes the seal from Wolsey, 246; his pocket-boroughs, 253; speaks of the "infinite clamours" against the Church, 271, 291; sent to the papal nuncio, 282; talks to Sir Thomas More of the fickleness of princes, 248; presides at Anne Boleyn's trial, 344; is sent to the North, 355, 357, 358 _n_, 407; mouthpiece of the King in Parliament, 391; his relationship to Catherine Howard, 397, 399, 416; possibility of ruling during Edward VI. 's minority, 421; is attainted, 423, 424. Hull, 357. Hungary, 51, 226 _n_. Hunne, Richard, 236 _n_. Hurst Castle, 375. Hussey, Sir John, Baron Hussey, 353. Hutton, John, 370. 

I. 

Imperialism, Henry VIII. 's, 362, 363. Indies, the, 51, 104. Innocent III. , 334. Inquisition, the, 292. _Institution of a Christian Man_. See _Bishops' Book_. _Intercursus Magnus_, 48. Ireland, Yorkist influence in, 9; rebellions in, 10, 11, 305, 306, 366, 367; Henry VIII. Made Lord-Lieutenant of, 17; Henry VII. 's policy in, 18; English hold over, 245, 250; tributary to the Pope, 275; English rule firmly established in, 367; other references to, 131, 150, 373. Irish Parliament. _See_ Parliament. Isabella of Castile, 11, 14, 26, 27, 30, 51 _n_, 370. Isabella of Portugal, 96, 167. Italy, 29-31, 51, 53, 56, 58, 60, 66, 67, 69-71, 76, 90, 93, 94, 100, 104, 105, 114, 144, 148, 154, 159, 164, 168, 170, 215, 216, 224, 225, 227, 228, 251, 294, 358, 376, 382. 

J. 

James II. , 186. ----- IV. Of Scotland, 11, 12, 22, 48, 65, 66, 87, 88, 105, 200, 229, 234. ----- V. Of Scotland, 13, 180, 305, 314, 315 _n_, 357, 369, 373, 402-403, 406. Jane Seymour, Henry's attentions to, 343 _n_, 346-348; her marriage to Henry, 346; birth of her son, 360; her death and burial, 360, 361; other references to, 379, 384 _n_, 426. Jesus College, Oxford, 21 _n_. John, King, 275. Juaña, Queen of Castile, 27, 28, 51 and _note_, 52, 93 _n_. Julius II. , his warlike tendencies, 1 _n_, 52, 53, 228; grants the dispensation for Henry VIII. To marry his brother's widow, 26, 45, 173, 193, 316 _n_; joins the League of Cambrai, 29; renews his treaties with Henry VIII. , 54; is besieged by Louis at Bologna, 55, 56, 106, 107; Ferdinand's relations with, 59, 60; supposed existence of a brief of, 218; is succeeded by the peaceful Leo, 69; other reference to, 176. 

K. 

Keilway, Robert, 234 _n_. Kelso, 407. Kent, 11, 252. Kildare, Earl of. _See_ Fitzgerald, Gerald. Kimbolton, 335. "King John, " Shakespeare's, 35, 308. _King's Book, The_, 417, 418. Knight, Dr. William, 94, 189, 206 and _note_, 207, 208, 210, 214. 

L. 

Ladislaus of Hungary, 90. Lambeth, 120. Lancastrian claim to the throne, 7, 8, 32, 180 _n_. ----------- rule, 32, 33. Landriano, battle of, 226. Langton, Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, 270. Lark, Peter, prebendary of St. Stephen's, 117, 118 _n_. Latimer, Hugh, Bishop of Worcester, 273, 354, 401. Lautrec, Odet de Foix, Sieur de, 215, 216, 224. Lawson, Sir George, 407. Lee, Edward, Archbishop of York, sent to Spain to examine the forged brief, 218; opposition to the divorce, 306; letter to Cromwell, 366 _n_. Leicester, 248. Leith, 413. Leo X. , his election as Pope, 229; styles Henry defender of the faith, 3, 126; gives Henry permission to bury James IV. Who was excommunicate, 66; becomes Pope, 69; makes Wolsey a cardinal, 77 and _note_; interview with Francis, 86; forms a Holy League, 88, 107; sends Campeggio to England, 97; desires neither Francis nor Charles as Emperor, 101, 102, 104; refuses preferment to Spanish inquisitors, 105; intercedes for Polydore Vergil, 112; issues bull against Luther, 124; receives Henry's book, 126; negotiates with Charles, 147; is anxious for family aggrandisement, 153; death, 154; supposed attempt to poison, 230; efforts at reform, 234 _n_, 268; other references to, 70, 100, 108, 121, 146, 234 _n_. _Leviathan, The_, by Hobbes, 433. Lewis the Bavarian, 329. Lewisham, 15. Leyva, Antonio de, 163. Lichfield, Bishopric of, 318. Lille, 65, 69, 80. Lincoln, 353. ------- Earl of. _See_ Pole, John de la. ------- Bishops of. _See_ Longland, John; Wolsey, Thomas. Lisle, Viscount. _See_ Dudley, John. Llandaff, Bishop of. _See_ Athequa, George. Lollardy, 232. London, 11, 52, 128, 129, 147, 165, 166, 177, 187, 221, 225, 236, 247, 253, 260, 298, 313, 318, 319, 353, 358, 366, 388, 421, 439. ------ Bishops of. _See_ Bonner, Edmund; Stokesley, John; and Tunstall, Cuthbert. ------ Treaty of (1518), 110, 138, 144, 147. Longland, John, Bishop of Lincoln, confessor to Henry VIII. , 198 _n_, 306, 403; defends the divorce in the House of Lords, 259 _n_, 318; for a time is in confinement, 402. Longueville, Duc de, 64, 74. Lords, House of. _See also_ Parliament. ----- ----- passes attainder against Wolsey, 246; freedom of speech in, 259 _n_; clerical representation in, 287, 318; is anxious to abolish the Pope's authority, 319; Henry's last address to, 419-421; passes bills of Wills and Uses, 293. Louis XI. , 30, 136. ----- XII. , joins in League of Cambrai, 29; anxious to prevent Catherine's marriage to Henry, 45; at peace with Henry, 47; besieges the Pope in Bologna, 55, 106, 107; his impiety denounced, 56; his secret negotiations with Ferdinand, 59, 60; rumours of his intention to proclaim the White Rose King of England, 64; agrees to Ferdinand's Italian plans, 70, 71; makes peace with Henry, 74; marries Mary Tudor, 74; anxious to attack Spain, 75; his death, 78, 79; other references to, 52, 53, 62, 81, 87, 176, 212, 297 _n_. ----- XIV. , 432. Louise of Savoy, 138, 150, 167, 201, 224. Lovell, Francis, first Viscount Lovell, 9, 10, 50. Lübeck, 311. Ludlow Castle, 14. Luke, Ann, 16. Luther, Martin, Henry's book against, 24, 123, 124, 126; his books burned in St. Paul's Churchyard, 125; his books, 272, 388; Pope's bull against, 124; other references to, 193 _n_, 351. Lydgate, John, 21. 

M. 

Macerata, Dr. , 161. Machiavelli, Nicholas, 69, 276, 436 _n_, 440. Madrid, 68. ------ Treaty of, 168. Magna Carta, 35 and _note_, 271. Maidstone, 380. Mainz, Archbishop of, 100. Manners, Edward, third Earl of Rutland, 253 _n_. Mannock, Henry, 398, 403. Mantua, Marquis of, 86. Manuel, Don Juan, 154. Marck, Robert de la, 144, 168. Margaret of Burgundy, 9, 10, 51 _n_. -------- of Navarre, 370. -------- of Savoy, 27, 28, 45, 48, 65, 73, 80, 81, 89, 139, 224. -------- Tudor, Queen of Scotland, her children, 12, 13; visited as a child by Erasmus, 22; increases English influence in Scotland, 87, 88; divorce granted to, 200, 212; is lectured on her sinfulness by Henry, 209, 210; Mary's issue preferred to her's, 84, 348. Marguerite de Valois, 28, 146. Marignano, battle of, 86, 89, 132. Marillac, Charles de, 393-395, 397, 398, 403. Marny, Harry, Lord Marny, 50, 355. Marseilles, 162, 316. Marsiglio of Padua, 329 and _note_. Martyr, Peter, of Angera, 66, 176. Mary of Burgundy, daughter of Charles the Bold, 30, 51 _n_. ---- of Guise, 369. ---- Queen of England, her birth, 176; her claim to the throne, 179, 180, 309, 310, 312, 344, 348 _n_; proposed marriages for, 97, 138, 143, 146, 148, 156, 167, 168, 173, 177, 185, 195-197, 213, 305, 422; her legitimacy, 273, 300 _n_, 348; Henry's affection for, 304 and _note_; treatment of, 304, 347, 349; accession, 430; conscience of, 194; persecutions of, 401; childlessness 12; other references to, 261, 342. ---- Queen of Scots, 348, 362, 407-409, 415. ---- Regent of the Netherlands (sister of Charles V. ), 344 _n_, 370. ---- Tudor, daughter of Henry VII. , is visited as a child by Erasmus, 22; proposed marriages for, 26, 28, 29, 45, 65, 71-74; marriage to Louis XII. , 74, 107, 188; her appearance, 78; her marriage to Suffolk, 78-85, 83 _n_; her children to succeed to the crown by Henry's will, before those of her elder sister Margaret, 84, 348; other reference to, 212. Mason, Sir John, 402, 432 _n_. Matilda, Empress, 179, 180. Matthew's Bible, 379. Maximilian I. , Emperor, his designs on Castile, 28, 29; marries Mary of Burgundy, 30; the lands of, 51; his alliance with Henry, 61 and _note_; serves as a private soldier, 64, 65; signs the Treaty of Lille, 69; his intended attack on Venice, 70, 71; renews his truce with France, 70, 71; makes a secret treaty with Ferdinand, 72; his perfidy, 74; joins the Holy League, 88; his Milan expedition, 89-91, 93; shifts for money, 89-91; joins second League of Cambrai, 94; failing health, 98; death, 99; other references to, 51 _n_, 52, 53, 55, 56, 59, 69, 72, 73, 75, 77, 81, 101, 105, 108, 133. May Day Riots, 119, 135. Medici, Cardinal de. _See_ Clement VII. ------ Lorenzo de, 86. Melancthon, Philip, 396. Melfi, 215. Membrilla, 50. Memo, Dionysius, 25. Mendoza, Inigo de, Bishop of Burgos, imperial ambassador, 114 _n_, 132, 202, 203, 220. Michelet, Jules, 32, 36, 142 _n_. Milan, 51, 52, 61, 66, 70, 71, 75, 76, 78, 85, 86, 89-91, 93, 99, 101, 107, 108, 115, 116 _n_, 136, 147, 154, 155, 163, 168, 310, 351, 393, 404, 412. Military science in the sixteenth century, 68, 69. Modena, 153. Mohacz, battle of, 164, 312. Monarchy, mediæval and modern, 29-32. Monasteries, condition of, 338-340; visitation of, 337 _sqq. _; dissolution of, 339, 341, 342. Moncada, Hugo de, 170, 171, 215. Montdidier, 160. Montmorenci, Anne de, grand master of France, 203 _n_, 247 _n_. More, Sir Thomas, Lord Chancellor, 2, 273; visits Henry with Erasmus, 22, 23, 42; a friend of Richard Pace, 89; opposes the divorce, 293 _n_; resigns chancellorship, 294; anxious for peace, 158, 159; as Speaker, defends the liberty of the House of Commons, 165; his persecution of heretics, 194 and _note_; denounces Wolsey, 278; is sent to the Tower, 324; attainted, 331; refuses to acknowledge the royal supremacy, 332; death, 333; other references to, 110, 133, 150 and _note_, 236, 248, 293, 328, 331 _n_, 350, 428, 438. Morlaix, 157. Mortimer, Margaret, 199, 200. Mortimer's Cross, 5. Morton's fork, 49. Mountjoy, Lord. _See_ Blount, William. Muxetula, J. A. , Spanish ambassador, 215. 

N. 

Najera, Abbot of, 163. Naples, 29, 51, 52, 71, 93, 100, 101, 104, 136, 147, 168, 215, 216, 225, 230 _n_, 380. Napoleon Bonaparte, 154. Nassau, Henry, Count of, 144. Navarre, 29, 57-59, 75, 85, 93, 96, 136, 144, 147, 148, 168. Navy, the, 57, 63, 109, 122, 126, 127, 157, 315, 369, 375. ---- the French, 145, 413. _Necessary Doctrine, The. _ See _King's Book_. Nero, Henry VIII. Compared to, 172. Netherlands, the, commercial treaty with, 27; Margaret of Savoy regent of, 27, 28, 65; joined to Austria, 30; aided by Henry, 54; armies in, 69; Charles assumes government of, 85; Maximilian joins Charles in, 93; wool-market of, 137, 299; protection of, 156; union with Spain, 181; executioners in, 344 _n_; other references to, 96, 104, 272, 370, 383, 393. _See also_ Burgundy and Flanders. Neville, George, third Baron Abergavenny, 305. ------- Sir John, 402. ------- John, Baron Latimer, 410. Newgate Prison, 5. Nice, 295, 372. Nix, Richard, Bishop of Norwich, 273, 319. Nonsuch Palace, 239. Norfolk, Dukes of. _See_ Howard. Normandy, 148, 150. Norris, Henry, 343, 345. Northumberland, Duke of. _See_ Dudley, John. -------------- Earl of. _See_ Percy, Henry. Norwich, Bishop of. _See_ Nix, Richard. Nottingham, 248. Novara, French defeat at, 66. Noyon, Treaty of, 93, 94, 147. 

O. 

Oatlands, 398, 421. Orléans, Louis d'. _See_ Longueville, Duc de. ------- Charles, Duc d', son of Francis I. , 168. ------- 283. Ortiz, Dr. Pedro, Imperial ambassador, 305. Oxford, 9, 49, 123, 243, 254, 255, 274, 283, 334, 401. ------ Earl of. _See_ Vere. 

P. 

Pace, Richard, Dean of St. Paul's, his mission to Maximilian, 90, 91, 99; mission to the Electors, 102, 103; his treatment by Wolsey, 114 and _note_, 116, 129, 130, 155, 161; other references to, 77 _n_, 89, 121, 123, 124, 128, 152, 159, 230, 236, 237. Padua, 283, 329. Paget, William, first Baron Paget of Beaudesert, 194, 424. Papacy, the, its triumph over general councils, 174, 328; its corruption in sixteenth century, 154, 229; becomes increasingly Italian, 153, 226, 229, 230; Englishmen excluded from, 230; confusion of temporal and spiritual interests, 153, 228-231; its subservience to Charles V. , 153, 169, 216, 224, 225. Papal Curia, 230, 294, 300. ----- powers of dispensation. _See_ Dispensation. Paris, 65, 68, 83 and _note_, 127, 141, 283, 358, 386, 411, 439. Parlement, the French, 436 _n_. Parliament, discredited by failure of Lancastrian experiment, 32-34; distrusted by Wolsey, 120, 235, 258; revived by Henry VIII. As an instrument of government, 236, 257, 264; Henry's treatment of, 258, 260, 262, 263 and _note_, 264-266; how far packed (in 1529, 1534, 1536, 1539), 252 _sqq. _, 252 _n_, 260 and _note_, 261, 389, 390; elections and royal nominations to, 252, 261, 368, 389, 390; extensive powers of, 259 _n_; freedom of speech in, 235, 259, 260, 288; Strode and Ferrers' cases, 259; resists Wolsey's demands (1523), 165; independence under Henry VIII. , 259 and _note_, 262, 264; refuses to grant taxes, 260; rejects Statutes of Wills and Uses, 262, 289, 293; rejects bill against Wolsey, 246, 278; rejects first draft of Proclamations Act, 391; refuses taxes, 246, 260, 289; criticises Henry's divorce, 259, 260, 289; modifies Government measures, 263 _n_; but supports Henry against the Church and the Papacy, 266, 267; complains of clerical exactions and jurisdiction, 235; and passes measures against them, 279, 289, 293; passes the Act of Annates, 289, 290; Act of Appeals, 298, 299, 319; Act of Supremacy, 325; Acts of Succession (_see_ Succession); other references to, 2, 8, 13, 35, 159, 166, 234, 238, 250, 257, 270, 272, 273, 284, 286, 313, 315 _n_, 329, 336, 337, 341, 348 and _note_, 392, 400, 401, 419-421, 427, 430. _See also_ Lords, House of, and Commons, House of. ---------- of Drogheda, 18. ---------- Irish, 367. Parr, Catherine. _See_ Catherine. Pasqualigo, 66, 73, 79, 86, 240. Passages, 57. Paston, John, 253 _n_. Paul III. Publishes bull against Henry, 302; creates Fisher a cardinal, 332, 350; finds himself powerless to deprive Henry of his kingdom, 334; sends Pole to Flanders, 358, 372; other references to, 339, 361. Pavia, 154, 163, 169, 216, 283, 351. Peerage, decay of the, 37. Percy, Henry, Lord Percy, afterwards Earl of Northumberland, 188, 344. Pescara, Marquis de, 163. Peter's pence, 320. Peterborough, 335, 401. Petit, John, M. P. For London, 260. Peto, Cardinal William, 338. Petre, Dr. William, 378, 431 _n_. Philip of Burgundy, King of Castile, 23, 26, 27, 38, 51 and _note_, 93 _n_, 137. ------ of Hesse, 311. ------ IV. , 329. Philippa, granddaughter of Edward III. , 180. Physicians, College of, 401. Piedmont, 351. Pilgrimage of Grace, 357, 358, 369, 406. Pisa, 55, 69. Plantagenets, the, 4. Plymouth, 14, 55. Pole, Edmund de la, Earl of Suffolk, the White Rose, 27, 38, 43, 44, 64. ---- Margaret, Countess of Salisbury, 358, 373, 403, 436 _n_. ---- Sir Geoffrey, 373, 374. ---- Sir Henry, Baron Montague, 374. ---- John de la, Earl of Lincoln, 10, 44. ---- Reginald, Cardinal, 1, 305, 332 _n_, 358-360, 369, 372-374, 376. ---- Richard de la, 44. Pommeraye, Giles de la, 291 _n_. Pontefract, 248, 355. Popes. _See_ Adrian VI. ; Alexander VI. ; Clement VII. ; Julius II. ; Leo X. ; Paul III. Portsmouth, 413, 414. Portugal, King of. _See_ Emmanuel. -------- Queens of. _See_ Catherine, Eleanor, Isabella. Poynings, Sir Edward, 18, 50. Poynings' Law, 18. _Præmunire_, 35 _n_, 120, 234, 246, 284, 285, 349, 381. Praet, Louis de Flandre, Sieur de, 113. Prester John, 229. Privy Council. _See_ Council. Proclamations, Act of, 391. Protestantism, 194, 232, 272, 326, 380-382, 387, 416. Provence, 30, 162. Provisors, Statute of, 282. 

Q. 

Quignon, Cardinal, 202. 

R. 

Ravenna, 224, 226. Reading, Prior of, 273. Reformation, the, partly due to the divorce, 232, 233; partly due to the anti-ecclesiastical bias of the laity, 267 _sqq. _, 272; different aspects of, 325-329; not due to Henry VIII. , 439, 440; other references to, 275, 348. Reggio, 153. Reigate, 253 _n_. Renaissance, the, under Henry VII. , 20, 31. Renard, Simon, 261. Renée, daughter of Louis XII. , 61 _n_, 71, 85, 100, 202, 205, 206. Rhodes, 164, 312. Rich, Sir Richard, first Baron Rich, 332, 354. Richard III. , 4, 7, 10, 49, 80, 158, 165, 305, 306. ------- Duke of York, 9, 18, 19. Richmond, 20 _n_, 43, 44. -------- Duke of. _See_ Fitzroy, Henry. -------- Earl of. _See_ Henry VII. And Tudor, Edmund. Rochester, 385. --------- Bishop of. _See_ Fisher, John. Rogers, John, 379. Roman Empire, Holy. _See_ Empire. ----- law, 3, 32, 38, 323 _n_, 362. Rome, 1, 12, 17, 69, 74, 89, 93, 99, 115, 119, 126, 132, 162, 186, 191, 197 _n_, 200, 202, 205, 206, 208, 211, 238, 249, 251, 267, 269, 276, 282, 287, 290, 291, 294, 295, 297, 305, 315, 316, 319, 320-323, 349, 350, 351, 359, 364, 372, 381, 387, 402, 428-430, 439. Rose, Red and White, union of, 13. ---- the White. _See_ Pole, Edmund de la, and Courtenay, Henry. Roses, Wars of the, 5, 6, 181, 429. Rovere, Francis Maria della, Duke of Urbino, 153. Royal marriages, 37. Roye, 160. Russell, John, first Earl of Bedford, 307. Ruthal, Thomas, Bishop of Durham, one of Henry's ministers, 49, 127; appointed privy seal, 92, 273; death, 116, 117. Rutland, Earl of. _See_ Manners, Edward. 

S. 

Sack of Rome, 171, 172, 178, 200, 212, 216, 226, 230, 316, 428, 439. Sadleir, Sir Ralph, 394, 402. Sagudino, 95. St. Albans, 6, 117. --- Andrews, 88, 248, 415. --- Angelo, 170, 171. --- Asaph, Bishop of. _See_ Standish, Henry. --- Bartholomew Massacre, 439. --- Januarius, 380. --- John, 172. --- ---- Knights of, 164, 381. --- Leger, Sir Anthony, 367. --- Mathias, 163. --- Omer, 344 and _note_. --- Paul, 194, 296, 326. --- Paul's Cathedral, 14, 43, 66, 125. --- Peter's, 170, 171. --- Pol, Francis de Bourbon, Count of, 225. Salisbury, Bishopric of, 318. --------- Bishops of. _See_ Audley, Edmund; Shaxton, Nicholas. --------- Countess of. _See_ Pole, Margaret. Sampson, Richard, Bishop of Chichester, 394. Sandwich, 140. Sandys, Sir William, 131. Sanga, Gio. Batt. , 206, 213 _n_, 216, 225. Sarpi, Paolo, 16 _n_. _Sarum Use, The_, 417. Savoy, Louise of. _See_ Louise. ----- Margaret of. _See_ Margaret. Saxony, Duke of, 103, 383. Scarborough, 357. Schwartz, Martin, 10. Scotland, Henry VIII. 's claim to suzerainty over, 406 _n_, 408, 409; war with, 11, 405-408; Roman law in, 32; infant king of, 69; English influence in, 88; Albany leaves, 97; English interests in, 149, 150; Albany again in, 156; peace with, 315, 324; other references to, 159, 250, 369, 375, 383, 399. Scottish borders, 11, 17, 66, 157, 315, 362, 364, 375. Scotus, Duns, 123, 334. Selim, Sultan, 164. Sessa, Duke of, 169. Seymour, Edward, Earl of Hertford, afterwards Duke of Somerset, Scottish expeditions, 69, 411, 413, 415; rises in Henry's favour, 346, 416, 422; commands in France, 413; speech at his execution, 434 _n_. ------- Queen Jane. _See_ Jane. ------- Sir John of Wolf Hall, 346. ------- Sir Thomas, 410. Sforza, Francesco Maria, 66, 76, 89. Shakespeare, William, 21, 35, 110, 114, 116 _n_, 197 _n_, 308, 434 _n_. Shanklin Chine, 414. Shaxton, Nicholas, Bishop of Salisbury, 401. Sheen, 43. Sheffield, Sir Robert, 113. Ships:-- _Great Harry_ or _Henry Grace à Dieu_, 140. _Henry Imperial_, 63, 363. _Katherine Pleasaunce_, 140. _Mary Rose_, 157, 414. _Princess Mary_, 127. _Royal George_, 414. Shoreham, 414. Shrewsbury, 252 _n_. ---------- Earl of. _See_ Talbot, George. Sibylla of Cleves, 383. Sicily, 230 _n_. Simnel, Lambert, 9, 10, 18. Sinclair, Oliver, 407. Sittingbourne, 385. Six Articles, The, 390, 392, 400, 401, 411, 415, 418, 431. Skeffington, Thomas, Bishop of Bangor, 114 _n_. ----------- Sir William, 366. Skelton, John, 19, 21 and _note_, 66, 338. Smeaton, Mark, 344, 345. Smithfield, 400. Solway Moss, 407, 408. Somerset, Charles, Lord Herbert, afterwards Earl of Worcester, 50, 110, 122. -------- Duke of. _See_ Seymour, Edward. Southampton, 52, 57, 127, 390. ----------- Earls of. _See_ Fitzwilliam, Sir William; Wriothesley, Sir Thomas. Southwell, Sir Richard, 423. Spain, 31, 32, 57, 69, 73, 75, 78, 94, 95, 101, 104, 108, 137, 139, 143, 156, 159, 162, 166, 167, 178, 181, 201, 218, 223, 228, 292, 301, 309, 312, 316, 370, 382. Spanish alliance, 26, 143, 410. Spithead, 414. Spurs, battle of, 64, 65, 74. Stafford, Edward, third Duke of Buckingham, 9, 37 _n_, 38, 50, 111, 118, 179, 181, 182, 248, 434 _n_. -------- Henry, Earl of Wiltshire, 50. Stafileo, Dean of the Rota, 197 _n_. Standish, Henry, Bishop of St. Asaph, 130, 234-236, 259 _n_, 269. Stanley, Thomas, first Earl of Derby, 8. ------- Sir William, 10. Star Chamber. _See_ Court. Stephen, King, 180. Stewart, Henry, first Lord Methven, 200. ------- John, Duke of Albany, 87, 88, 97, 156, 157. Stile, John, 37 _n_. Stillington, Robert, Bishop of Bath and Wells, 306. Stirling, 88. Stoke-on-Trent, 10. Stokesley, John, Bishop of London, 259 _n_, 282 _n_, 300, 327 _n_. Strode's case, 259. Stuarts, the, 8, 32, 35 and _note_, 233, 261, 341, 366. Succession to the Crown, 179-184, 348 _n_; denied to women, 179, 180. ---------- Acts of, 321, 324, 348. Suffolk, Countess of. _See_ Pole, Margaret. ------- Duke of. _See_ Brandon, Charles. ------- Earl of. _See_ Pole, Edmund de la. Supreme Head, Henry VIII. As, 268, 286, 325, 328, 330 _n_, 331, 377, 378, 421. Surgeons, College of, 401. Surrey, Earl of. _See_ Howard, Henry. Switzerland, 272. Swynford, Catherine, 6. 

T. 

Talbot, George, fourth Earl of Shrewsbury, 50, 355 _n_. Tarbes, Bishop of. _See_ Grammont, Gabriel de. Taunton, 255. Taylor, Dr. John, 64 _n_, 235, 236. Ten Articles, The, 378. Thames, 63. Thérouanne, 64, 65. Thomas, St. _See_ Aquinas. Torregiano, Pietro, 44. Torture, use of, 432. Toulouse, 283. Tournay, 10, 65, 68, 73, 74, 77, 80, 115, 181. Tower of London, 2, 10, 19, 38, 44, 50, 112, 114 and _note_, 272, 324, 332, 345, 367, 374, 394, 402-404, 422-424. Trinity House, 126. Tudors, the, pedigree of, 5, 7, 8, 14; infant mortality of, 12, 174-177, 342, 343; education of, 19; orthodoxy of, 24; courage of, 63; liveries of, 21; adulation paid to, 32, 35, 36, 239, 248; autocracy, characteristics of, 38, 233, 433, 435; government of, 30, 34, 36, 134, 270, 279 _n_, 329, 366, 368, 430, 434; discontent under, 256, 313. Tudor, Edmund, Earl of Richmond, 5, 6. ----- ------ Duke of Somerset, son of Henry VII. , 22, 38. ----- Jasper, 5. ----- Owen, 5, 6. Tunstall, Cuthbert, Bishop of London and Durham, his opinions on foreign policy, 92, 94; present at the burning of Luther's books, 125; wide discretion allowed him by Henry, 133; sent to Spain, 166; is Lord Privy Seal, 273; is not summoned to Parliament (1532), 289; in opposition to the divorce, 306; president of the Council of the North, 358; other references to, 102, 289, 297 _n_, 386, 394. Tyndale, William, 272, 274. 

U. 

Uniformity, Act of, 391, 417. Urbino, the Pope's seizure of, 376. ------ Duke of. _See_ Rovere. 

V. 

Vaux, John Joachim, 247 _n_. Vendôme, Duc de, 160. Venice, 25, 29, 51-54, 61, 69-71, 76, 89, 90, 99, 112, 114, 118, 159, 168, 224. Vere, John de, thirteenth Earl of Oxford, 355 _n_. Vergil, Polydore, 77, 111, 112, 182. Vinci, Leonardo da, 140. Vinea, Peter de, 329. 

W. 

Wales, 315, 364 and _note_. ----- Prince of. _See_ Arthur, Prince; _also_ Henry VIII. ----- Statute of, 365-367. Wallop, Sir John, 402, 410. Walsingham, Sir Edmund, Lieutenant of the Tower, 272. ---------- Sir Francis, 38. Warbeck, Perkin, 10, 11, 18, 19. Warham, William, Archbishop of Canterbury, marries Henry VIII. To Catherine of Aragon, and crowns them, 46, 48; is diplomatist, Lord Chancellor and Archbishop, 48, 92, 258; is Chancellor of Oxford University, 49; is present at the burning of Luther's books, 125; debates the legality of Henry's marriage, 174; his views on papal authority, 269; compares Henry VIII. With Henry II. , 271; but admits that _Ira principis mors est_, 270; death, 296; other references to, 120, 248, 286. Warwick, Earl of. _See_ Edward. Waterford, 11. Welz, 99. West, Nicholas, Bishop of Ely, 110, 122, 338. Westminster, 2, 278, 421, 424. ----------- Abbey, 5, 44, 46, 175, 300, 395, 426. ----------- Bishopric of, 401. Weston, Sir Francis, 344. Whitehall Palace, 239, 421. Wight, Isle of, 375. William the Conqueror, 3. ------- III. , 186. Wills and Uses, Statute of, 262, 289, 293, 336. Wilton, 242. Wiltshire, Earls of. _See_ Boleyn, Thomas; Stafford, Henry. Winchcombe, Abbot of, 234, 235. Winchester, 14, 198, 247, 254, 255, 294, 318. ---------- Bishops of. _See_ Beaufort, Henry; Fox, Richard; Gardiner, Stephen. Windsor, 156, 157, 167, 361, 421, 425, 426. ------- Sir Andrew, 119. Wingfield, Sir Richard, 166. --------- Sir Robert, 91. Woking, 421. Wolf, John, 259 _n_. Wolman, Dr. Richard, 198, 199. Wolsey, Thomas, Cardinal Archbishop of York, his birth, 38; becomes Henry's almoner and member of council, 56; his industry and many preferments, 177 and _note_; is made cardinal, 77 and _note_; is made legate, 97; his domestic policy, peacefulness of, 119; his distrust of parliaments, 120, 235, 258; his partnership with the King, 121, 122, 129-132; his neglect of the navy, 127; his demands for money, 164, 165; his results contrasted with Henry's, 244; his foreign policy, 56, 62, 77, 78, 89, 98, 108-110, 137 and _note_, 144-147, 160, 166, 167; opposition to his foreign policy, 92; results of his foreign policy, 163, 164, 224, 245, 246; his alliances with Charles V. , 148-152, 156, 157; his alliances with Francis I. , 141, 142, 195; conducts the conference at Calais, 144-147; is a candidate for the Papacy, 146, 154, 155, 230; his projects for ecclesiastical reform, 268, 269, 338; suppresses monasteries, 338; his educational endowments, 243, 338; his wealth, 97, 115, 209; his pensions, 115, 116; his arrogance, 109 _sqq. _; his jealousy of others, 82, 83, 112-114, 182 and _note_; his mistress and children, 117, 118; his impatient temper, 132, 133; his genius for diplomacy, 135, 136; his character by Giustinian, 118; his unpopularity, 203; his first steps towards the divorce, 198, 200; visits France in connection with the divorce, 201, 202; his commission with Campeggio to try, and the trial of, the divorce, 214, 221-223; his fall precipitated by his failure to obtain the divorce, 154, 204, 223, 239; his fall involves the ruin of the Church, 211, 237, 238; his real attitude towards the divorce, 205, 206; his attainder passed in the House of Lords, but rejected in the House of Commons, 246, 247; devotes his last days to his archiepiscopal duties, 247; accused of treason and arrested, 247; his remarks on the fickleness of royal favour; and his death, 248; other references to, 66, 81, 94, 119, 123, 138, 141, 142, 177, 235, 242, 248 _n_, 251, 272, 273, 278, 350, 399, 401, 410, 426, 439. Woodstock, 177. Woodville, Elizabeth, 15. Woolwich, 126. Worcester, 254 _n_. --------- Bishopric of, 318. --------- Bishops of. _See_ Ghinucci, Girolamo; Giglis, Sylvester de; Latimer, Hugh; Pace, Richard. --------- Cathedral, 14. --------- Earl of. _See_ Somerset, Charles. Worsley, Sir James, 259 _n_. Wotton, Dr. Nicholas, 384. Wriothesley, Sir Thomas, afterwards Earl of Southampton, 390, 394, 402, 411, 423. Wulford, Ralf, 11. Würtemberg, 311. Wyatt, Sir Thomas, 188 and _note_, 189, 402. Wycliffe, John, 232, 270, 274. Wynter, Thomas, 118. 

X. 

Ximenes, Cardinal, 73. 

Y. 

York, 9, 39, 114, 247, 358, 403, 406. ---- Archbishopric of, 88, 117, 298, 318, 329. York, Archbishops of. _See_ Bainbridge, Christopher; Lee, Edward; Wolsey, Thomas. ---- Dukes of. _See_ Richard; Henry VIII. ; Charles I. Of England. ---- House, 239. Yorkist claimants, 9-11, 13. ------- plots, 9-11, 15. 

Z. 

Zapolya, John, 226 _n_. Zurich, 89. 

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, ABERDEEN