CHAPTER I.

E-text prepared by Paul Dring, Frank van Drogen, and the Project Gutenberg

Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net)

A HISTORY OF ENGLAND PRINCIPALLY IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY

by

LEOPOLD VON RANKE

VOLUME I

PREFACE.

Once more I come before the public with a work on the history of a

nation which is not mine by birth.

It is the ambition of all nations which enjoy a literary culture to

possess a harmonious and vivid narrative of their own past history. And

it is of inestimable value to any people to obtain such a narrative,

which shall comprehend all epochs, be true to fact and, while resting on

thorough research, yet be attractive to the reader; for only by this aid

can the nation attain to a perfect self-consciousness, and feeling the

pulsation of its life throughout the story, become fully acquainted with

its own origin and growth and character. But we may doubt whether up to

this time works of such an import and compass have ever been produced,

and even whether they can be produced. For who could apply critical

research, such as the progress of study now renders necessary, to the

mass of materials already collected, without being lost in its immensity?

Who again could possess the vivid susceptibility requisite for doing

justice to the several epochs, for appreciating the actions, the modes of

thought, and the moral standard of each of them, and for understanding

their relations to universal history? We must be content in this

department, as well as in others, if we can but approximate to the ideal

we set up. The best-written histories will be accounted the best.

When then an author undertakes to make the past life of a foreign

nation the object of a comprehensive literary work, he will not think

of writing its history as a nation in detail: for a foreigner this

would be impossible: but, in accordance with the point of view he

would naturally take, he will direct his eyes to those epochs which

have had the most effectual influence on the development of mankind:

only so far as is necessary for the comprehension of these, will he

introduce anything that precedes or comes after them.

There is an especial charm in following, century after century, the

history of the English nation, in considering the antagonism of the

elements out of which it is composed, and its share in the fortunes

and enterprises of that great community of western nations to which it

belongs; but it will be readily granted that no other period can be

compared in general importance with the epoch of those religious and

political wars which fill the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

In the sixteenth century the part which England took in the work of

emancipating the world from the rule of the western hierarchy

decisively influenced not only its own constitution, but also the

success of the religious revolution throughout Europe. In England the

monarchy perfectly understood its position in relation to this great

change; while favouring the movement in its own interest, it

nevertheless contrived to maintain the old historical state of things

to a great extent; nowhere have more of the institutions of the Middle

Ages been retained than in England; nowhere did the spiritual power

link itself more closely with the temporal. Here less depends on the

conflict of doctrines, for which Germany is the classic ground: the

main interest lies in the political transformation, accomplished

amidst manifold variations of opinions, tendencies, and events, and

attended at last by a war for the very existence of the nation. For it

was against England that the sacerdotal reaction directed its main

attack. To withstand it, the country was forced to ally itself with

the kindred elements on the Continent: the successful resistance of

England was in turn of the greatest service to them. The maintenance

of Protestantism in Western Europe, on the Continent as well as in

Britain, was effected by the united powers of both. To bring out

clearly this alternate action, it would not be advisable to lay weight

on every temporary foreign relation, on every step of the home

administration, and to search out men's personal motives in them; a

shorter sketch may be best suited to show the chief characters, as

well as the main purport of the events in their full light.

But then, through the connexion of England with Scotland, and the

accession of a new dynasty, a state of things ensued under which the

continued maintenance of the position taken up in home and foreign

politics was rendered doubtful. The question arose whether the policy

of England would not differ from that of Great Britain and be

compelled to give way to it. The attempt to decide this question, and

the reciprocal influence of the newly allied countries, brought on

conflicts at home which, though they in the main arose out of foreign

relations, yet for a long while threw those relations into the

background.

If we were required to express in the most general terms the

distinction between English and French policy in the last two

centuries, we might say that it consisted in this, that the glory of

their arms abroad lay nearest to the heart of the French nation, and

the legal settlement of their home affairs to that of the English. How

often have the French, in appearance at least, allowed themselves to

be consoled for the defects of the home administration by a great

victory or an advantageous peace! And the English, from regard to

constitutional questions of apparently inferior importance, have not

seldom turned their eyes away from grievous perils which hung over

Europe.

The two great constitutional powers in England, the Crown and the

Parliament, dating back as they did to early times, had often

previously contended with each other, but had harmoniously combined in

the religious struggle, and had both gained strength thereby; but

towards the middle of the seventeenth century we see them first come

into collision over ecclesiastical regulations, and then engage in a

war for life and death respecting the constitution of the realm.

Elements originally separate unite in attacking the monarchy;

meanwhile the old system breaks up, and energetic efforts are made to

found a new one on its ruins. But none of them succeed; the

deeply-felt need of a life regulated by law and able to trust its own

future is not satisfied; after long storms men seek safety in a return

to the old and approved historic forms so characteristic of the

German, and especially of the English, race. But in this there is

clearly no solution of the original controversies, no reconciliation

of the conflicting elements: within narrower limits new discords break

out, which once more threaten a complete overthrow: until, thanks to

the indifference shown by England to continental events, the most

formidable dangers arise to threaten the equilibrium of Europe, and

even menace England itself. These European emergencies coinciding with

the troubles at home bring about a new change of the old forms in the

Revolution of 1688, the main result of which is, that the centre of

gravity of public authority in England shifts decisively to the

parliamentary side. It was during this same time that France had won

military and political superiority over all its neighbours on the

mainland, and in connexion with it had concentrated an almost absolute

power at home in the hands of the monarchy. England thus reorganised

now set itself to contest the political superiority of France in a

long and bloody war, which consequently became a struggle between two

rival forms of polity; and while the first of these bore sway over the

rest of Europe, the other attained to complete realisation in its

island-home, and called forth at a later time manifold imitations on

the Continent also, when the Continent was torn by civil strife.

Between these differing tendencies, these opposite poles, the life of

Europe has ever since vibrated from side to side.

When we contemplate the framework of the earth, those heights which

testify to the inherent energy of the original and active elements

attract our special notice; we admire the massive mountains which

overhang and dominate the lowlands covered with the settlements of

man. So also in the domain of history we are attracted by epochs at

which the elemental forces, whose joint action or tempered antagonism

has produced states and kingdoms, rise in sudden war against each

other, and amidst the surging sea of troubles upheave into the light

new formations, which give to subsequent ages their special character.

Such a historic region, dominating the world, is formed by that epoch

of English history, to which the studies have been devoted, whose

results I venture to publish in the present work: its importance is as

great where it directly touches on the universal interests of

humanity, as where, on its own special ground, it develops itself

apart in obedience to its inner impulses. To comprehend this period we

must approach it as closely as possible: it is everywhere instinct

with collective as well as individual life. We discern how great

antagonistic principles sprang almost unavoidably out of earlier

times, how they came into conflict, wherein the strength of each side

lay, what caused the alternations of success, and how the final

decisions were brought about: but at the same time we perceive how

much, for themselves, for the great interests they represented, and

for the enemies they subdued, depended on the character, the energy,

the conduct of individuals. Were the men equal to the emergency, or

were not circumstances stronger than they? From the conflict of the

universal with the special it is that the great catastrophes of

history arise, yet it sometimes happens that the efforts which seem to

perish with their authors exercise a more lasting influence on the

progress of events than does the power of the conqueror. In the

agonising struggles of men's minds appear ideas and designs which pass

beyond what is feasible in that land and at that time, perhaps even

beyond what is desirable: these find a place and a future in the

colonies, the settlement of which is closely connected with the

struggle at home. We are far from intending to involve ourselves in

juridical and constitutional controversies, or from regulating the

distribution of praise and blame by the opinions which have gained the

day at a later time, or prevail at the moment; still less shall we be

guided by our own sympathies: our only concern is to become acquainted

with the great motive powers and their results. And yet how can we

help recognising manifold coincidences with that conflict of opinions

and tendencies in which we are involved at the present day? But it is

no part of our plan to follow these out. Momentary resemblances often

mislead the politician who seeks a sure foothold in the past, as well

as the historian who seeks it in the present. The Muse of history has

the widest intellectual horizon and the full courage of her

convictions; but in forming them she is thoroughly conscientious, and

we might say jealously bent on her duty. To introduce the interests of

the present time into the work of the historian usually ends in

restricting its free accomplishment.

This epoch has been already often treated of, if not as a whole, yet

in detached parts, and that by the best English historical writers. A

native author has this great advantage over foreigners, that he thinks

in the language in which the persons of the drama spoke, and lets them

be seen through no strange medium, but simply in their natural form.

But when, too, this language is employed in rare perfection, as in a

work of our own time,--I refer not merely to rounded periods and

euphony of cadence, but to the spirit of the narrative so much in

harmony with our present culture, and the tone of our minds, and to

the style which by every happy word excites our vivid sympathy;--when

we have before us a description of the events in the native language

with all its attractive traits and broad colouring, a description too

based on an old familiar acquaintance with the country and its

condition: it would be folly to pretend to rival such a work in its

own peculiar sphere. But the results of original study may lead us to

form a different conception of the events. And it is surely good that,

in epochs of such great importance for the history of all nations, we

should possess foreign and independent representations to compare with

those of home growth; in the latter are expressed sympathies and

antipathies as inherited by tradition and affected by the antagonism

of literary differences of opinion. Moreover there will be a

difference between these foreign representations. Frenchmen, as in one

famous instance, will hold more to the constitutional point of view,

and look for instruction or example in political science. The German

will labour (after investigation into original documents) to

comprehend each event as a political and religious whole, and at the

same time to view it in its universal historical relations.

I can in this case, as in others, add something new to what is already

known, and this to a larger extent as the work goes on.[1]

In no nation has so much documentary matter been collected for its

later history as in England. The leading families which have taken

part in public business, and the different parties which wish to

assert their views in the historical representation of the past as

well as in the affairs of the present, have done much for this object;

latterly the government also has set its hand to the work. Yet the

existing publications are far from sufficient. How incredibly

deficient our knowledge still is of even the most important

parliamentary transactions! In the rich collections of the Record

Office and of the British Museum I have sought and found much that was

unknown, and which I needed for obtaining an insight into events. The

labour spent on it is richly compensated by the gain such labour

brings; over the originals so injured, and so hard to decipher, linger

the spirits of that long-past age. Especial attention is due to the

almost complete series of pamphlets of the time, which the Museum

possesses. As we read them, there are years in which we are present,

as it were, at the public discussion that went on, at least in the

capital, from month to month, from week to week, on the weightiest

questions of government and public life.

If any one has ever attempted to reconstruct for himself a portion of

the past from materials of this kind,--from original documents, and

party writings which, prompted by hate or personal friendship, are

intended for defence or attack, and yet are withal exceedingly

incomplete,--he will have felt the need of other contemporary notices,

going into detail but free from such party views. A rich harvest of

such independent reports has been supplied to me for this, as well as

for my other works, by the archives of the ancient Republic of Venice.

The 'Relations,' which the ambassadors of that Republic were wont to

draw up on their return home, invaluable though they are in reference

to persons and the state of affairs in general, are not, however,

sufficient to supply a detailed and consecutive account of events. But

the Venetian archives possess also a long series of continuous

Reports, which place us, as it were, in the very midst of the courts,

the capitals, and the daily course of public business. For the

sixteenth century they are only preserved in a very fragmentary state

as regards England; for the seventeenth they lie before us, with gaps

no doubt here and there, yet in much greater completeness. Even in the

first volume they have been useful to me for Mary Tudor's reign and

the end of Elizabeth's; in the later ones, not only for James I's

times, but also far more for Charles I's government and his quarrel

with the Parliament. Owing to the geographical distance of Venice from

England, and her neutral position in the world, her ambassadors were

able to devote an attention to English affairs which is free from all

interested motives, and sometimes to observe their general course in

close communication with the leading men. We could not compose a

history from the reports they give, but combined with the documentary

matter these reports form a very welcome supplement to our knowledge.

Ambassadors who have to manage matters of all kinds, great and small,

at the courts to which they are accredited, fill their letters with

accounts of affairs which often contain little instruction for

posterity, and they judge of a man according to the support which he

gives to their interests. This is the case with the French as well as

with other ambassadors in England. Nevertheless their correspondence

becomes gradually of the greatest value for my work. Their importance

grows with the importance of affairs. The two courts entered into the

most intimate relations: French politicians ceaselessly endeavoured to

gain influence over England, and sometimes with success. The

ambassadors' letters at such times refer to the weightiest matters of

state, and become invaluable; they rise to the rank of the most

important and instructive historical monuments. They have been

hitherto, in great part, unused.

In the Roman and Spanish reports also I found much which deserves to

be made known to the readers of history. The papers of Holland and the

Netherlands prove still more productive, as I show in detail at the

end of the narrative.

A historical work may aim either at putting forward a new view of what

is already known, or at communicating additional information as to the

facts. I have endeavoured to combine both these aims.

NOTES:

[1] _Note to the third edition._--In the course of my researches for

this work the representation of the seventeenth century has occupied a

larger space than I at first thought I should have been able to give

it; it forms the chief portion of the book in its present form. I have

therefore allowed myself the unwonted liberty of altering the title so

as to make this clear. Still the representation of the sixteenth

century, which is not now mentioned in the title, has not been

abridged on this account. The history of the Stuart dynasty and of

William III make up the central part of the edifice; what is given to

the earlier, as well as the later times may, if I may be allowed the

comparison, correspond to its two wings.

TRANSLATORS' PREFACE.

'The History of England, principally during the Seventeenth Century,'

which is here laid before the reader in an English form, is one of the

most important portions of that cycle of works on which Leopold von

Ranke has long been engaged. His History of the Popes, his History of

the Reformation in Germany, his French History, his work on the

Ottomans and the Spanish Monarchy, his Life of Wallenstein, his volume

on the Origin of the Thirty Years' War, and other smaller treatises,

all aim at delineating the international relations of the states of

Europe. His History of England may well be regarded as the concluding

portion of this series; for the relations of England, first with

France, and then with Holland, eventually determined the course of

European politics.

The book however is more than a history of this period, for Professor

Ranke, according to his custom, has prefixed to it a luminous and

interesting sketch of the earlier part of our history, presented, as

all summaries ought to be, in the form of studies of the most

important epochs. And at the end of the work are Appendices, which

supply not only happy examples of historical criticism in the

discussions on the chief contemporary writers of the period, but also

a mass of original documents, most of which have never before been

published. Above all, the critiques on Clarendon and Burnet, and the

correspondence of William III with Heinsius, will well repay careful

study; and the Appendices throw light on some of the more important

details connected with the history of the time, besides shewing the

student how a great master has found and used his materials.

The present translation was undertaken with the author's sanction, and

was intended in the first instance for the use of students in Oxford.

Its publication has been facilitated by a division of labour, the

eight volumes of the original having been entrusted each to a separate

hand. The translators are Messrs. C. W. Boase, Exeter College; W. W.

Jackson, Exeter College; H. B. George, New College; H. F. Pelham,

Exeter College; M. Creighton, Merton College; A. Watson, Brasenose

College; G. W. Kitchin, Christchurch; A. Plummer, Trinity College. The

task of oversight, of reducing inequalities of style, and of

supervising the Appendices and Index, has been performed by the

editors, C. W. Boase and G. W. Kitchin. Notwithstanding the

disadvantages incident to a translation, it is hoped that the work in

its present shape will be welcomed by a large number of English

readers, and will help to increase the deserved renown of the author

in the country to the history of which he has devoted such profound

and fruitful study.

CONTENTS.

BOOK I.

THE CHIEF CRISES IN THE EARLIER HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

PAGE

INTRODUCTION 3

CHAP. I. The Britons, Romans, and Anglo-Saxons 5

The Anglo-Saxons and Christianity 10

II. Transfer of the Anglo-Saxon crown to the Normans

and Plantagenets 22

The Conquest 28

III. The crown in conflict with Church and Nobles 39

Henry II and Becket 41

John Lackland and Magna Charta 47

IV. Foundation of the Parliamentary Constitution 58

V. Deposition of Richard II. The House of Lancaster 74

BOOK II.

ATTEMPTS TO CONSOLIDATE THE KINGDOM INDEPENDENTLY IN ITS TEMPORAL

AND SPIRITUAL RELATIONS.

INTRODUCTION 91

CHAP. I. Re-establishment of the supreme power 93

II. Changes in the condition of Europe 104

Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey in their earlier

years 109

III. Origin of the Divorce Question 120

IV. The Separation of the English Church 134

V. The opposing tendencies within the Schismatic State 151

VI. Religious Reform in the English Church 171

VII. Transfer of the Government to a Catholic Queen 186

VIII. The Catholic-Spanish Government 199

BOOK III.

QUEEN ELIZABETH. CLOSE CONNEXION OF ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH AFFAIRS.

INTRODUCTION 221

CHAP. I. Elizabeth's accession. Triumph of the

Reformation 222

II. Outlines of the Reformation in Scotland 238

III. Mary Stuart in Scotland. Relation of the two Queens

to each other 254

IV. Interdependence of the European dissensions in

Politics and Religion 280

V. The fate of Mary Stuart 300

VI. The Invincible Armada 316

VII. The later years of Queen Elizabeth 330

BOOK IV.

FOUNDATION OF THE KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN. FIRST DISTURBANCES

UNDER THE STUARTS.

INTRODUCTION 359

CHAP. I. James VI of Scotland: his accession to the

throne of England 361

Origin of fresh dissensions in the Church 361

Alliance with England 364

Renewal of the Episcopal Constitution in Scotland 368

Preparations for the Succession to the English

Throne 375

Accession to the Throne 381

II. First measures of the new reign 386

III. The Gunpowder Plot and its consequences 403

IV. Foreign policy of the next ten years 418

V. Parliaments of 1610 and 1614 436

VI. Survey of the literature of the epoch 450

BOOK V.

DISPUTES WITH PARLIAMENT DURING THE LATER YEARS OF THE REIGN OF

JAMES I AND THE EARLIER YEARS OF THE REIGN OF CHARLES I.

INTRODUCTION 467

CHAP. I. James I and his administration of domestic

government 469

II. Complications arising out of the affairs of the

Palatinate 484

III. Parliament of the year 1621 497

IV. Negotiations for the marriage of the Prince of

Wales with a Spanish Infanta 509

V. The Parliament of 1624. Alliance with France 522

VI. Beginning of the reign of Charles I, and his First

and Second Parliament 537

VII. The course of foreign policy from 1625 to 1627 554

VIII. Parliament of 1628. Petition of Right 566

IX. Assassination of Buckingham. Session of 1629 580

FIRST BOOK.

THE CHIEF CRISES IN THE EARLIER HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

As we turn over the pages of universal history, and follow the

shifting course of events, we perceive almost at the first glance one

comprehensive process of change going on, which, more than any other,

governs the external fortunes of the world. Through long periods of

time the historic life of the human race was active in Western Asia

and in the lands bordering on the Mediterranean which look towards the

East: there it laid the foundations of its higher culture. We may

rightly regard as the greatest event that meets us in the whole course

of authentic history, the fact that the seats of the predominant power

and culture have been transplanted to the Western lands and the shores

of the Atlantic Ocean. Not merely the abodes of the ancient civilised

nations, but even the capitals which were the medium of communication

between East and West, have fallen into barbarism; even the great

metropolis, from which first political, and then spiritual, dominion

extended itself in both directions over widespread territories, has

not maintained its rank. It was due to this tendency of things,

combined with a certain geographical cause, that neither could the

medieval Empire attain its full development, nor the Papacy continue

to subsist with unimpaired authority. From age to age the political

and intellectual life of the world transferred itself ever more and

more to the nations dwelling further West, especially since a new

hemisphere was opened up to their impulses of activity and extension.

So it was that the chief interests of the Pyrenean peninsula drew

towards its ocean coasts; that there grew up on either side of the

Channel which separates the Continent from Britain, the two great

capitals in which modern activity is chiefly concentrated; that

Northern Germany, together with the races which touch on the North Sea

and the Baltic, developed a life and a system of their own; it is in

these regions latterly that the universal spirit of the human race

chiefly works out its task, and displays its activity in moulding

states, creating ideas, and subjugating nature.

Yet this transmission, this transplanting, is not the work of a blind

destiny. While civilisation in the East succumbed and died out before

the advance of races incapable of culture, it was welcomed in the West

by races possessing the requisite capacity, which by their inborn

force gave it new forms and indestructible bases for its outward

existence. Nor have the nations and kingdoms arisen each from its

mother earth, as it were in obedience to some inward impulse of

inevitable necessity, but amid constant assimilation and rejection,

ever repeated wars to secure their future, and a ceaseless struggle

with opposing elements that threatened their ruin.

The object of universal history is to place before our eyes the

leading changes, and the conflicts of nations, together with their

causes and results. Our purpose is to depict the history of one of the

chief of the Western nations, the English, and that too in an age

which decisively modified both its inner constitution and its outward

position in the world, but it cannot be understood unless we first

pourtray, with a few quick touches, the historical events under the

influence of which it became civilised and great.

CHAPTER I.

THE BRITONS, ROMANS, AND ANGLO-SAXONS.

The history of Western Europe in general opens with the struggle

between Kelts, Romans, and Germans, which determined out of what

elements modern nations should be formed.

Just as it is supposed that Albion in early times was connected with

the Continent, and only separated from it by the raging sea-flood

which buried the intermediate lands in the abyss, so in ethnographic

relations it would seem as if the aboriginal Keltic tribes of the

island had been only separated by some accident from those which

occupied Gaul and the Netherlands. The Channel is no national

boundary. We find Belgians in Britain, Britons in Eastern Gaul, and

very many names of peoples common to both coasts; there were tribes

which, though separated by the sea, yet acknowledged the same prince.

Without being able to prove how far natives of the island took part in

the expeditions of conquest, which pouring forth from Gaul inundated

the countries on the Danube and Italy, Greece and Western Asia, we yet

can trace the affinity of names and tribes as far as these expeditions

extend. This island was the home of the religion that gave a certain

unity to the populations, which, though closely akin, nevertheless

contended with each other in ceaseless discord. It was that Druidic

discipline which combined a priestly constitution with civil

privileges, and with a very peculiar doctrine of a political and even

moral purport. We might be tempted to suppose that the atrocity of

human sacrifice was first introduced among them by the Punic race. For

they were from primeval times connected with the Carthaginians and

Phoenicians, who were the first to traverse the outer sea, and sought

in the island a metal which was very valuable for the wants of the

ancient world. Distant clans might retain in the mountains their

original wildness, but the southern coasts ranked in the earliest

times as rich and civilised. They stood within the circle of the

relations that had been created by the expeditions of the Keltic

tribes, by the mixture of peoples thence arising, by the war and

commerce of the earliest age.

In the great war between Rome and Carthage, which decided the destiny

of the ancient world, the Keltic tribes took part as allies of the

Punic race. If Carthage had conquered, they would have maintained in

most, if not all, the lands they had occupied, and especially in their

own homes, their old manners and customs, and their religion in its

existing form. It was not merely the supremacy of the one city or the

other, but the future of Western Europe that was at stake when

Hannibal attacked the Romans in Italy. Rome, which had already grown

strong in warring against the Gauls, won the victory over the

Carthaginians. Thenceforth one after another of the Keltic nations

succumbed to the superiority of the Roman arms, which at last invaded

Transalpine Gaul, and struck its military power to the ground.

From this point the reaction against the Keltic enterprises

necessarily extended itself also to Britain.

The great general who conquered Gaul did not feel sure of being able

to accomplish his task unless he also obtained influence over the

British tribes, from which those of the Continent constantly received

help and encouragement, unless he established among them the authority

of the Roman name.

It was an important moment in the world's history, well worthy of

remembrance, when Caesar first trod the soil of Albion. Already

repulsed from the steep chalk cliffs of the island, he found the flat

shore on which he hoped to disembark occupied by the enemy, some in

their war-chariots, others on horseback and on foot; his ships could

not reach the shore; the soldiers hesitated, encumbered with their

armour as they were, to throw themselves into a sea with which they

were not familiar, in presence of an enemy acquainted with the

ground, active, brave, and superior in numbers; the general's order

had no effect on them; when however an eagle-bearer, calling on the

gods of Rome, threw himself into the flood, the men would have thought

themselves traitors had they allowed the war-standard, to which an

almost divine worship was paid, to fall into the hands of the enemy;

fired by the danger that threatened their honour, and by the religion

of arms, from one ship after another they followed him to the fight;

in the hand-to-hand combat in the water which ensued they gained the

superiority, supported most skilfully by their general wherever it was

necessary; the moment they reached the land, the victory was won.[2]

We cannot reckon it a slight matter, that Caesar, though not at the

first, yet at the second and better prepared expedition, succeeded in

carrying away with him hostages from the chief tribes. For this very

form was the one customary in that century and among those tribes, by

which he bound them and their princes to himself.

It was the first step towards the Roman supremacy. But Gaul and West

Germany had first to be subdued, and the Empire securely concentrated

in one hand, before--a century later--the conquest of the island could

be really attempted.

Even then the Britons still fought without helmet or shield, as did

the Gauls of old before Rome. In Britain, just as on the Lombard

plains, the war-chariot was their best arm; their defective mode of

defence necessarily yielded to the organised tactics of the legion.

How easily did the Romans, pushing forward under cover of their

mantelets, clear away the rude entrenchments by which the Britons used

formerly to secure themselves against attack. The Druids on Mona

trusted in their gods, whose will they thought to ascertain from the

quivering fibres of human sacrifices; and for a moment the sight of

the crowd of fanatics collected around them checked the attack, but

only for a moment: as soon as they came to blows they were instantly

scattered, and their holy places perished with them. For this is the

greatest result of the Roman wars, that they destroyed the rites which

contradicted the idea of Humanity. Yet once more an injured

princess--Boadicea--united all the sympathies which the old

constitution and religion could awaken. Dio has depicted her,

doubtless according to the reports which reached Rome. A tall form,

with the national decoration of the golden necklace and the chequered

mantle, over which her rich yellow hair flowed down below her waist.

She called on her peoples to defend themselves at any risk, since what

could befall those to whom each root gave nourishment, each tree

supplied shelter: and on her gods, not to let the land pass into the

possession of that insatiable, unjust foe of foreign race. So truly

does she represent the innate characteristics of the British race,

when oppressed and engaged in a desperate defence. She is earnest,

rugged, and terrible; the men who gathered round her were reckoned by

hundreds of thousands. But the Britons had not yet learnt the art of

war. A single onslaught of the Romans sufficed to scatter their

disorderly masses with a fearful butchery. It was the last day of the

old British independence. Boadicea would not, any more than Cleopatra,

adorn a Roman triumph; she fell by her own hand.

Within a few dozen years the Roman eagles were masters of Britain as

far as the Highlands: the Keltic clan-life and the religion of the

Druids withdrew into the Caledonian mountains, and the large islands

off that coast; in the conquered territory the religion of the arms

that had won the victory, and the might of the Great Empire, were

supreme. The work which was begun by superiority in war was completed

by pre-eminence in civilisation. It seemed an advantage and an

improvement to the sons of the British princes, to adopt the Roman

language, and knowledge, and mode of life; they delighted in the

luxury of colonnades, baths, feasts, and city life. Men like Agricola

used these modes of Romanising Britain by preference. Just as the

Britons exchanged their rude shipbuilding and their leathern sails for

the discoveries of a more advanced art of navigation, so they learnt

to carry on their agriculture in Roman fashion; in later times

Britain was considered as the granary of the legions in Germany. Most

of the cities in the land betray by their very names their Roman

origin; London, though it existed earlier, owes its importance to this

connexion. It was the emporium destined as it were by nature for the

peaceful commerce that now arose between the Western provinces of the

Empire. Once in the third century an attempt was made to make the

island independent, but it failed the moment the marts on the opposite

coast fell into the hands of the Emperor who was universally

recognised. Britain seemed an integral part of the Roman Empire. It

was from York that Constantine marched forth to unite its Eastern and

Western halves once more under one government.

But soon after him an epoch began in which the third great

nationality, at first thought to be part of the Keltic race, then

driven back or taken into service by the Romans, but always

maintaining its peculiar original independence--the German, rose to

supremacy in the West. In the fifth century it had become everywhere

master in the militarily-organised Roman frontier districts:

encouraged by the embarrassments of the authorities it advanced into

the peaceful provinces.

It is of importance to remark what the fate of Britain was in these

struggles.

From the Romanised territory an Augustus, called Constantine, set up

by the revolted legions, invaded Gaul, not merely to check the inroads

of the barbarians, but at the same time to possess himself of the

Empire. He at one time held a great position, when the legions of Gaul

and Aquitaine also took his side, and Spain saluted him Emperor. But

the authority of Honorius the generally recognised Emperor could not

be so easily set aside: discontented followers of the new Augustus

again went over to the old one: before them and the barbarians

combined Constantine fell, and soon after paid for his attempt with

his life.

The result, then, was that Honorius restored his authority to a

certain extent everywhere on the Continent, but not in Britain. To the

towns which had taken up arms while Constantine was there he gave the

right of self-defence--he could do nothing for them. The Roman Empire

was not exactly overthrown in Britain--it ceased to be.[3]

At this time, when the connexion between Rome and Roman Britain was

broken off, the Germans possessed themselves of the latter country.

_The Anglo-Saxons and Christianity._

Germans had been long ago settled in this as in so many other

provinces of the Western and Eastern Empires. Antoninus had brought

over German tribes from the Danube, Probus others from the Rhineland.

In the legions we find German cohorts, and very many others joined

them as free allies. In the civil wars between the Emperors we hear of

one side relying on the Franks, the other on the Alemanni in their

service; Constantine the Great is called to be Caesar by help of the

chiefs of the Alemanni. But besides this, German seafarers, who

appeared under the name of Saxons, after they had learnt shipbuilding

and navigation from the Romans, settled on the opposite coasts of

Britain and Gaul, and gave their name to both. Not then for the first

time, nor at the invitation of the Britons, as the Saga declares,[4]

did the descendants of Wodan make their first trial of the sea in

light vessels. Alternating between piracy and alliance--now with a

usurper and now with the lawful Emperor, between independence and

subjection, German seafarers had long ago filled all seas and coasts

with the terror of their name. In the North too they are mentioned

together with Scots and Attacotti. When now the Roman rule over the

island and the surrounding seas came to an end, to whom could it pass?

To the peaceful Provincials, if they could indeed gird on the sword,

or to the old companions in arms of the Romans? There is no doubt

that the same general impulse which urged on the German peoples, in

the great revolution of affairs, into the Roman provinces, led the

enterprising inhabitants of the German and Northern coasts, Frisians,

Angles, and Jutes, as well as Saxons, into Britain. A fearful war

broke out, in which it may be true to say the ruined towns became the

sepulchres of their inhabitants, but no man found the quiet time

necessary for depicting its details. After it had filled a century and

a half with its horrors, and men again lifted up their eyes, they

found the island divided between two great nationalities, which had

separated themselves as opposing forces. The natives had as good as

abandoned the civilisation they had learnt from Rome, and leant on

their kinsfolk in North Gaul, and the Scots in Ireland and the

Highlands; they occupied the west of the island. The Germans were

settled in the east, in the greatest part of the south, and in the

north, in most of the old Roman settlements,--but they were far from

forming a united body. Not seven or eight merely, but a large number

of little tribal kingdoms, occupied or fought for the ground.

If we wish to point out in general the distinction between the

Anglo-Saxon and other German settlements, it lies in this, that they

rested neither on the Emperor's authorisation whether direct or

indirect, nor on any agreement with the natives of the land. In Gaul

Chlodwig assumed and carried on the authority of the Roman Empire;--in

Britain it went wholly to the ground. Hence it was that here the

German ideas could develop in their full purity, more so than in

Germany itself, over which the Frankish monarchy, which had also

adopted Roman tendencies, had gained influence.

Just as the natives who would not submit were driven out of the German

settlements, so within their boundaries the germs of Christianity,

which had already spread in the island, were as good as annihilated.

Among the victorious Germans the Northern heathenism existed in full

strength. In many names of places, at the water-springs, the

watersheds, in the designations of the days of the week, the names of

the gods of Germany and the North appear; the kings trace their

descent directly from them as their immediate ancestors; the Sagas and

poems about them symbolise those battles with the elements, the

storm, the sea, and the powers of nature, which are peculiarly

characteristic of the Northern mythology. With this, however, arose

the question, so important for the history of the world, whether the

great territory already won for the ideas of the universal culture and

religion of mankind should be again lost.

Towards the end of the 6th century the epoch began in which, as the

German invaders of Gaul had already done, so now those of Spain and

Italy, whether Arians or heathens, came over to the Catholic faith of

the Provincials. This took place under the mediation of the chief

Pontiff, who had raised the city, from which the Empire took its name,

to be the metropolis of the Faith. Lombards and Visigoths became as

good Catholics as the Franks already were. The relationship of the

royal families, which held all Germans in close connexion, and the

zeal of Rome, which could not possibly suffer the loss of a province

that it had once possessed, now combined to call forth a similar

movement among the Anglo-Saxons, yet one which worked itself out in a

very different way. Since among the natives a peculiar form of

church-life, not unconnected with the Druidic discipline, had arisen,

with which Rome would hold no communion, and which rejected all

demands of submission, the spiritual enmity of the missionary was

united to the national enmity of the conqueror. When a king still

heathen, while attacking the Britons, directed his weapons against the

monks of Bangor, who (collected on a height) were offering up prayers

against him, and massacred them to the number of twelve hundred, the

followers of the Roman Mission saw in this a punishment decreed by God

for apostasy, and the fulfilment of the prophecies of their

apostle.[5] On the other hand British Christian kings also made common

cause with the heathen Angles, and wasted with fire and sword the

provinces that had been converted by Rome. Had not in the vicissitudes

of internal war the native church organisation of the North won

influence over the Anglo-Saxons, heathenism would never have been

conquered; it would have always found support among the Britons.

When this however had once taken place, the whole Anglo-Saxon name

attached itself to the Roman ritual. Among the motives for this change

those which corresponded to the naive materialistic superstition of

the time may have been the most influential, yet there were other

motives also which touched the very essence of the matter. Men wished

to belong to the great Church Communion which then in still unbroken

freedom comprehended the most distant nations.[6] They preferred the

bishops whom the kings appointed (with the authorisation of the Roman

See), to those over whom the abbot of the great monastery on the

island of Iona exercised a kind of supremacy. Here there was no

question of any agreement between the German king and the bishops of

the land, as under the Merovingians in Gaul; they even avoided

restoring the bishops' sees which had flourished in the old Roman

times in Britain. The primitive and independent element manifests

itself in the decision of the princes and their great men. In

Northumberland, Christianity was introduced by a formal resolution of

the King and his Witan: a heathen high priest girt himself with the

sword, and even with his own hand threw down his idols. The

Anglo-Saxon tribes in fact passed over from the popular religion and

mythology of the North and of Germany, which would have kept them in

barbarism, to the communion of the universal religion, to which

belonged the civilisation of the world. Never did a race show itself

more susceptible of such an influence: it presents the most remarkable

example of how the old German ideas, which had now taken living root

in this soil, and the Roman ecclesiastical culture, which was

vigorously embraced, met and became intertwined. The first German who

made the universal learning, derived from antiquity, his own, was an

Anglo-Saxon, the Venerable Beda; the first German dialect in which men

wrote history and drew up laws, was likewise the Anglo-Saxon. Despite

all their reverence for the threshold of the Apostles they admitted

foreign priests no longer than was indispensable for the foundation of

the new church: in the gradual progress of the conversion they were no

longer needed, we soon find Anglo-Saxon names everywhere in the

church: the archbishops and leading bishops are as closely related to

the royal families, as the heathen high priests had been before.

It was exactly through the co-operation of both principles, originally

so foreign to one another, that the Anglo-Saxon nature took firm and

lasting form.

The Kelts had formerly lived under a clan system which, extending over

vast districts, yet displayed in each spot characteristic weaknesses

which the hostility of every neighbour rendered fatal. Then the Romans

had introduced a military administrative constitution, which displaced

this tribal system, while it also subjected Britain to the universal

Empire, of which it formed only an unimportant province. A

characteristic form of life was first built up in Britain by the

Anglo-Saxons on the ruins of the Roman rule. The union into which they

entered with the civilised world was the freely chosen one of the

religion of the human race; they had no other connexion to control

them. Their whole energies being concentrated on the island, they gave

it for the first time, though continually at war with each other, an

independent position.

Their constitution combines the ideas of the army and the tribe: it is

the constitution of armies of colonists bringing with them domestic

institutions which had been theirs from time immemorial. A society of

freemen of the same stock, who divided the soil among themselves in

such a manner that the number of the hides corresponded to that of the

families (for among no people was there a stronger conception of

separate ownership), they composed the armed array of the country, and

by their union maintained that peace at home which again secured each

man's life and property. At their head stands a royal family, of the

highest nobility, which traces its origin to the gods, and has by far

the largest possessions; from it, by birth and by election combined,

proceeds the King; who then, sceptre in hand, presides in the court

of justice, and in the field has the banner carried before him; he is

the Lord, to whom men owe fidelity; the Guardian, to whom the public

roads and navigable rivers belong, who disposes of the undivided land.

Yet he does not stand originally so high above other men that his

murder cannot be expiated by a wergeld, of which one share falls to

his family--not a larger one than for any other of its members,--and

the other to the collective community, since the prince belongs to the

former by birth, to the latter by his office. Between the simple

freeman and the prince appear the eorls, ealdormen, and thanes, in

some instances raised above the mass by noble birth or by larger

possessions, natural chiefs of districts and hundreds, in others

promoted by service in the King's court and in the field, sometimes

specially bound to him by personal allegiance: they are the Witan who

have elected him out of his family (in a few instances they depose

him); they concur in giving laws, they take part in making peace. Now

the bishops take place by their side. They appear with the ealdormen

in the judicial meetings of the counties: if the Gerefa neglects his

duty, it is for them to step in; yet they have also their own

spiritual jurisdiction. It is a spiritual and temporal organisation of

small extent, yet of a certain self-sufficing completeness. Many of

the present shires correspond to the old kingdoms, and bear their

names to this day. The bishops' sees often coincide with the seats of

royalty; for the kings wished each to have a bishop to himself in his

little territory, since they had to endow the bishopric. How many

regulations still in force date from these times!

The Anglo-Saxons always had an immediate and near relation to the

kingdom of the Franks.

It was with the daughter of a Frankish prince that the first impulse

towards conversion came into a Saxon royal house. By the Anglo-Saxons

again the conversion of inner Germany was carried out, in opposition

to the same Scoto-Irish element which they withstood in Britain. Carl

the Great thought it expedient to inform the Mercian King Offa of the

progress of Christianity among the Saxons in Germany: he looked on him

as his natural ally. Both kingdoms had moreover a common interest as

against the free British populations on their western marches, who

were allied with each other across the sea: decisive campaigns of Carl

the Great and King Egbert of Wessex coincide in point of time, and may

have supported each other.

Similarly, we may suppose that Egbert, who lived a number of years as

an exile at Carl's court, and could not have remained uninfluenced by

his mode of government and improved military tactics, was then also

incited and enabled, after his return, to subdue the little kingdoms

and unite them with Wessex: by the side of the 'Francia' of the

continent he created in the island a united 'Anglia.' But still there

subsisted a yet greater difference. Sprung from the stock of Cerdic,

Egbert belonged to the popular royalty which we find throughout at the

head of the invading Germans; he is, so far, more like the

Merovingians whom Carl's predecessors overthrew, than like Carl

himself; and he was almost entirely destitute of that strong

groundwork of military institutions on which the Carolingians

supported themselves. His rise depended much more on the fact that the

old families in Mercia, Northumbria, and Kent had disappeared, and the

succession in general had become doubtful; after Egbert had conquered

the claimants to the throne in a great and bloody battle, he was

recognised by the Witans of the several kingdoms as their common

prince, and his family as that which in fact it now was,--the leading

one of all. After the example of Pipin's family, whose alliance with

the Papacy was the most important historical event of the epoch and

founded Western Christendom, the descendants of Cerdic also got

themselves anointed by the popes--for the religious movement still had

the predominance over every other. The amalgamation of the tribes and

kingdoms found its expression in the Church, through the prestige and

rank of the Archbishop of Canterbury, almost earlier than it did in

the State; the unity of the Church broke down the antipathies of the

tribes, and prepared the way for that of the kingdoms. In the midst of

this work of construction, so incomplete as yet, but so full of hope,

of these birthpangs of a new life, the very existence of the country

was threatened by the rise of a new Great Power. For so may we well

designate the influence which the Scandinavian North exercised by land

over Eastern Europe, and at the same time over all the Western coasts

by sea.

Only a part of the German peoples had been influenced by the idea of

the Empire or the Church; the inborn heathenism of the rest, irritated

by the losses it had sustained and the dangers that continually

threatened it, roused itself for the most formidable onslaught that

the civilised world has ever had to withstand from the heroic and

barbarous children of Nature.

The mischief they wrought in Britain, from the middle of the ninth

century onwards, is indescribable.

The Scoto-Irish schools, then in their most flourishing state (they

trained John Scotus Erigena, of all the scholars of that time the man

who had the widest intellectual range), fell before the Danish, not

the Anglo-Saxon assaults; an element of intellectual activity which

might have been of the greatest importance was thus lost to the

Western world. But the Northmen persecuted the Romano-English forms as

bitterly as they did the Irish. In the places where those Anglo-Saxon

scholars had been trained, who then enlightened the West, the Northmen

planted the banner which announced utter destruction; with twofold

rapacity they threw themselves on the more remote abbeys which seemed

to derive protection from their inaccessibility, and to guarantee it

by their dignity; in searching for the treasures which they believed

had been placed in them for security, they destroyed the monuments and

means of instruction which were really there; in Medeshamstede, where

there was a rich library, the flames raged for fourteen days. The

half-formed union of the various districts into one kingdom seems to

have crippled rather than strengthened the power of local resistance:

the Danes became masters of Kent and of East-Anglia, of

Northumberland, and even of Mercia; at last Wessex too, after already

suffering many losses, was invaded; from both sides at the same

moment, from the inland and from the coast, the deluge of

robber-hordes poured over its whole extent.

Things had come to such a point that the Anglo-Saxon community seemed

inevitably devoted to the same ruin which had overtaken first the

Britons and then the Romans, they seemed doomed to make way for

another reconstruction. Britain would have become an outpost of the

restored heathenism, which could then have been with difficulty

repulsed from the Eastern and Western Frankish empires, afflicted as

they were by similar attacks, and governed by the discordant and weak

princes who then ruled them. At this moment of peril King Alfred

appeared. It was not merely for his own interests, nor merely for

those of England, but for those of the world, that he fought. He is

rightly called 'the Great;' a title fairly due only to those who have

maintained great universal interests, and not merely those of their

own country.

The distress of the moment, and the deliverance from it, have been

kept in imperishable remembrance by popular sagas and church legends.

It is well worth the trouble to trace out in the authenticated

traditions, brief as they are, the causes that decided the event. We

may state them as follows:--Since the attacks of the Vikings were

especially ruinous, from their occupation of the strong places whence

they could command and plunder the open country, one step in the work

of liberation was taken when Alfred, for the first time, wrested from

them a stronghold which they had seized, deep in the west. Then he,

too, occupied strong positions, and knew how to defend them. With the

bravest and most devoted of his nobles, and of the population that had

not yet submitted, he established a hill-fortress on a height rising

like an island out of the standing waters and marshlands in the still

only slightly cultivated land of Somersetshire; this not only served

him as an asylum, but also as a central point from which he too ranged

through the land far and wide, like the enemy, except that his object

was to guard it, and make it ring once more with the already forgotten

name of the King. Around his banners gathered, with reviving courage,

the population of the neighbouring districts also: the Saxons could

again appear in the open field; from their advancing shield-wall the

disorderly onsets of the Vikings recoiled, the victory was theirs.

Hereupon, moreover, as if the decision between the two religions

depended on the result of the war, the leader of the heathens came

over to Christianity, and took an Anglo-Saxon name. The Danes attached

themselves to the principles and the powers which they had come forth

to destroy.

King Alfred is a marvellous phenomenon: suffering from a disease which

sometimes broke out with violence, and which he never ceased to feel

for a single day of his life, he not merely withstood the extreme of

peril at that moment so big with ruin, but also founded a system of

resistance throughout the kingdom, in which his arms so worked

together by sea and land that each new band of Vikings betook

themselves again to their ships, and those that had already penetrated

into the country, gave way step by step. We remark with interest how,

under Alfred and his children, his son who succeeded him, and his

manlike daughter, the protecting fortresses advance from place to

place, and provide free space for the Anglo-Saxon community. The

culture already existing, the whole future of which had been saved by

Alfred, attained in him its fullest development. How many years had

passed since the hour when an illuminated initial letter gave him his

first taste for a book, before he could master even the elementary

branches of knowledge! then he devoted his whole efforts to instil new

life into the studies that had almost perished, and to give them a

national character. He not merely translated a number of the later

authors of antiquity, whose works had contributed most to the

transmission of scientific culture; in the episodes which he

interweaves in them he shows a desire for knowledge that reaches far

beyond them; but especially we find in them a reflective and

thoughtful mind, solid sense at peace with itself, a fresh way of

viewing the world, a lively power of observation. This King introduced

the German mind with its learning and reflection into the literature

of the world; he stands at the head of the prose-writers and

historians in a German tongue--the people's King of the most primeval

kind, who is also the teacher of his people. We know his laws, in

which extracts from the books of Moses are combined with restored

legal usages of German origin; in him the traditions of antiquity are

interpenetrated by the original tendencies of the German mind. We

completely weaken the impression made on us by this great figure, so

important in his first limited and arduous efforts, by comparing him

with the brilliant names of antiquity. Each man is what he is in his

own place.

Though the Anglo-Saxon monarchy wanted that element of authority which

the kings of other German tribes drew from the Roman government by

transmission or succession, yet it had strengthened itself, like the

others, by union with the Church. Alfred, too, was at Rome in his

boyhood: it stood him in good stead that he had been anointed, and, as

men said, adopted by a Roman pope. In the reconquest of the land,

Church ideas had played an important part. It was impossible to drive

out the invading foes, they could only be held in check; never would

they have submitted to the Anglo-Saxon commonwealth had they not at

the same time been converted to Christianity. Nothing, moreover,

contributed more to this than the effort, which was then the order of

the day in the Christian world, to base the organisation of the Church

on monasticism: from Italy this tendency spread to Germany, from South

France to North, from thence to England, where it produced its

greatest effect. Now the power of conversion is inherent only in

sharply-defined doctrines; and it was precisely this tendency that

penetrated the Northern natures: the sons of the Vikings became the

champions of monachism; to the fury with which the fathers had

destroyed the monasteries succeeded in the sons a zeal to restore

them. And in what good stead this stood the Anglo-Saxon kings! The

kingly power obtained, through the splendour which the union with

religion bestowed on its victorious arms, a reverential recognition by

the old native population as well as by the invaders.

Alfred's grandson had regained Northumbria by a somewhat doubtful

title, and had then maintained his right in a great battle, renowned

in song; his great-grandson, Edgar, in one of his charters thanks the

grace of God which had permitted him to extend his rule further than

his predecessors, over the islands and seas as far as Norway, and over

a great part of Ireland. We are not to look on it as a mere piece of

vanity, when he seeks after new titles for his power, when he calls

himself Basileus and Imperator; the former is the title of the

Eastern, the latter of the Western emperors; he will not yield the

precedence to either the one or the other, though the latter are so

closely related to him by blood. We cannot express the feeling of a

supreme power, independent of men, derived from the grace of God, the

King of kings, more strongly than it was expressed by Edgar under

Dunstan's influence; the ruling motives of life in Church and State

make it conceivable that a monkish hierarch, such as Dunstan, shared,

as it were, the King's power, and shaped the course of the authority

of the state.

It was still the ancestral Anglo-Saxon crown which glittered on

Edgar's head, but, if we may so say, its splendour had at the same

time received a monkish and hierarchic colouring.

NOTES:

[2] The words of some MSS. in Caesar's Commentaries, iv. 25,

'deserite, milites, si vultis, aquilam, atque hostibus prodite,' might

well be taken for the genuine words, originally noted down in his

Ephemerides (journal).

[3] Brettanian mentoi hoi Rômaioi anasôsasthai ouketi eschon, all'

ousa hupo tyrannois ap' autou emene. Procop. de bello Vand. I. No. 2.

p. 318 ed. Bonn. Compare Zosimus, vi. 4. on, we may assume, the better

authority of Olympiodorus.

[4] The simplest form of the Saga occurs in Gildas, with very few

historical ingredients. Nennius enlarges it with Anglo-Saxon

traditions. Beda has combined both with some notices from the real

history. Since the departure of the Romans was rightly fixed about

409, and Gildas said the Britons had rest for forty years, Beda

settled that the Saxons arrived in 449.

[5] Beda, Hist. Eccl. ii. 2. Some have wished to consider the remark,

that Augustine had been then long dead, as a later interpretation, 'ad

tollendam labem caedis Bangorensis;' this, however, is against the

spirit of that age.

[6] 'Omnem orbem, quocunque ecclesia Christi diffusa est per diversas

nationes et linguas uno temporis ordine.' Beda, Hist. Eccl. iii. 14.

CHAPTER II.

TRANSFER OF THE ANGLO-SAXON CROWN TO THE NORMANS AND PLANTAGENETS.

In the families of German national kings we not unfrequently find

among the women a hideous mixture of ambition, revenge, and

bloodthirstiness, which brings kings and kingdoms to ruin. In England

it appears, despite of Christianity and monastic discipline, in its

most atrocious form after the death of Edgar. His eldest son, for some

years his successor, was treacherously murdered by his stepmother (who

wished to advance her own son to the throne), at a visit which he paid

her as he returned from hunting. It was that Edward whose innocence

and leaning towards the Church have gained him the name of Martyr. The

son of the murderess did ascend the throne, but the guilt of blood

seemed to cleave to the crown; he met with the obedience of his

father's times no more. The Anglo-Saxon magnates seized the occasion

which this crime, or the subsequent vacillation of the government

between violence and weakness, offered them, to aim at an independent

position, and to indulge in a personal policy, each man for himself.

At this very moment the Danes renewed their invasions.

Little did Edgar and those around him understand their position, when

they attributed the peace they enjoyed to their own military power, in

the splendid and extensive display of which they took delight. In

reality it was the state of the world at large that brought this peace

about. First of all, it was due to the settlement of the Normans in

North Gaul, under the condition that they should be of one religion

and one realm, and should fulfil the natural duty of keeping off

fresh incursions: the current of Northern invasion thus lost its aim

and direction. But it was of still more decisive effect at the first

that the energetic family which arose in North Germany, and even

assumed the imperial authority, not content with warding off the

Danes, sought them out in their own country instead, and carried the

war against heathenism into the North. The Saxons beyond the sea were

indebted for the peace which they enjoyed chiefly to the great and

splendid deeds of arms of their kindred on the mainland. How much all

depended on this became very clear when Otto II, in the full glow of

great enterprises, met with an unlooked for and early death. Within

the empire two able women and their advisers succeeded in maintaining

peace; but in Denmark, as in other neighbouring countries, the hostile

elements got the upper hand. The Danish king's son, Sven Otto,

abandoned the religion which he regarded as a yoke laid on him by the

German conquerors; he could not destroy the order of things

established in Denmark, but he revived the old sea-king's life, and

threw himself with the old superiority of the Viking arms on the

English coasts.

Ethelred on this attack fell into the greatest distress, mainly

because he was not sure of his great nobles. How often did the

commanders of the fleet desert it at the moment of action, and the

leaders of the inland levies go over to the enemy! Ethelred sought for

safety by an alliance with the Duchy of Normandy, then daily rising to

greater power. Thus supported, he proceeded to unjustifiable outrages

against his domestic as well as his foreign foes. The great nobles

whom he suspected were mercilessly killed or exiled, and their

children blinded. The Danes who remained in the land he caused to be

murdered all on one day.

The consequences of this deed necessarily recoiled upon himself. When

Sven some years after again landed with redoubled enmity, which was to

a certain extent justified, he experienced no effectual resistance

whatever; Ethelred had to fly before him and quit the island. But now

that Sven too, who had been already saluted by many as King, died in

the first enjoyment of his victory, a question arose which extended

far beyond the personal relations and embarrassments of the moment.

The influence always exercised by the Witans of the Anglo-Saxon

kingdoms in determining the succession to the throne remained much the

same when they were all fused into a single kingdom; even among the

descendants of Alfred, the great men designated the sovereign. In the

disturbed state of things in which they now found themselves, the

lawful King having fled, and the other, who had put himself into

actual possession of the supreme authority, being dead, they framed

the largest conception of their right. They formally made conditions

with Ethelred for his return, and he consented to their demands

through his son.[7] Since he, however, did not fulfil his promise--for

how could he have altered his nature?--they held themselves released

from their engagement to maintain this family on the throne. Sven's

son, Canute, had taken his father's place among the Danes; he had been

long ago baptised, he was of a character which commanded confidence,

and possessed at the time overwhelming power. After Ethelred's death

the lay and spiritual chiefs of England decided to abandon the house

of Cerdic for ever, and to recognise Canute as their King. How many

jarls and thanes of Danish origin do we find around the kings under

all the last governments. Edgar was especially blamed for the very

reason that he took them under his protection. But they had been

subjected only by war; no hereditary sentiment of natural loyalty

attached them to the West Saxon royal house. The ecclesiastical

aristocracy was besides determined by religious considerations; to

them these disasters and crimes seemed sufficient proof of the truth

of those prophecies of coming woe which Dunstan was believed to have

uttered. They repaired to Canute at Southampton, and concluded a peace

with him, the conditions of which were that they would abandon the

descendants of Ethelred for ever, and recognise Canute as their King;

he, on the other hand, promised to fulfil the duties of a King truly,

in both spiritual and temporal relations.[8] Yet once more, Ethelred's

eldest son, Edmund Ironsides, who was himself half a Dane by birth,

roused himself to a vigorous resistance: London and a part of the

nobility took his side; he gained through force of arms a settlement

by which, though indeed he lost the best part of the land and the

capital itself, he maintained the crown; he died however, soon after,

and then the whole country recognised Canute as King. The last scion

of the royal house in the land was banished, and all the claims of the

family to the crown again declared void. The Anglo-Saxon magnates

undertook to make a money payment to the Danish host; in return they

received the pledge from the King's hand, and the oath by his soul

taken by his chiefs.[9] It was a treaty between the Anglo-Saxon and

the Danish chiefs, by which the former received the King of the latter

as also their own.

This extremely important event links the centuries together, and

determines the future fortunes of England. The kingly house, whose

right and pre-eminence was connected with the earliest settlements,

which had completed the union of the realm and delivered it from the

worst distress, was at a moment of moral deterioration and disaster

excluded by the spiritual and temporal chiefs, of Anglo-Saxon and

Danish origin. They had first tried to limit it, to bind it by its own

promise; when this led to nothing, they annihilated its right by a

formal resolution of the realm, and procured peace by raising to the

throne another sovereign who had no right by birth. Canute did not owe

the crown to conquest, though his greater power contributed to the

result, but to election, which now appeared as the superior right:

hitherto the Witan had always exercised it within the limits of the

royal family; this time they disregarded that family altogether.

Canute decreed or allowed some bloody acts of violence, in order to

strengthen the power that had fallen to his lot; but afterwards he

administered it with a noble spirit answering to his position. He

became the leading sovereign of the North: men reckoned five or six

kingdoms as subject to him. England was the chief of them all, even

for him; it was in possession of the culture and religion which he

wished should prevail in the rest: the missionaries of the North went

forth from Canterbury. England itself, however, gained a higher

position in the world by its union with a power which ruled as far as

Norway and North America, and carried on commerce with the East by the

Baltic. In Gothland the great emporium of the West, Arabic as well as

Anglo-Danish coins are found; the former were carried from the North

as far as England. Canute favoured the Anglo-Saxon mode of life; he

liked to be designated the 'successor of Edgar;' he confirmed his

legislation; and it was his intention, at least, to rule according to

the laws: as he even submitted himself to the military regulations of

the Huskarls, so he commanded right and law to be administered in

civil matters without respect to his own person.

But a union of such different kingdoms could only be a transitory

phenomenon. Canute himself thought of leaving England again

independent under one of his sons.

With this object he had married Ethelred's widow Emma. For, according

to Anglo-Saxon ideas, the Queen was not merely the King's wife, but

also sovereign of the land, in her own right. It was settled that the

children of this marriage should succeed him in England. Probably

Canute did not wish the inheritance of the crown in his house to

depend merely on the goodwill of the Witan.

After Canute's death we can observe a wavering between the principles

of election and birthright. The magnates again elected, but limited

their choice to the King's house. After the extinction of the

Danish-Norman family, they came back to the English-Norman one; they

called the son of Ethelred and Emma, Edward the Confessor, to the

throne of his fathers, though, it is true, without leaving him much

power. This lay rather in the hands of the Earls Godwin of Kent and

Leofric of Mercia; especially in the former, whose wife was related

to Canute, did the Anglo-Saxon spirit of independence energetically

manifest itself. He was once banished, but returned and recovered all

his offices. When however, Edward too died without issue, the dynastic

question once more came before the English magnates. It might have

seemed most consistent to recall the Aetheling Edgar a member of the

house of Cerdic from exile, and to carry on the previous form of

government under his name. But the thoughts of the English chiefs no

longer turned in that direction. Not very long before a king from the

ranks of the native nobility had ascended the throne of the

Carolingians in the West Frank empire; in the East Frank, or German

empire, men had seen first the mightiest duke, then one of the most

distinguished counts, attain the imperial dignity. Why should it not

be possible for something similar to happen in England also? The very

day on which Edward the Confessor died, Godwin's son, Harold, was

elected by the magnates of the kingdom, and crowned without delay[10]

(Jan. 5, 1066). The event now happened which was only implied in what

occurred at Canute's accession: the house of Cerdic was abandoned, and

the further step taken of raising another native family to its throne.

It was not this time a pressing necessity that brought it about; but

we cannot deny that, if carried through, it opened out an immeasurable

prospect.

For such would have been the case, if the attempt to found a Germanic

Anglo-Saxon kingdom under Harold, and maintain it free from any

preponderating foreign influence had been successful. By recalling

Edgar the influence of Normandy, against which the antipathies of the

nation had been awakened under the last government, would have been

renewed. But just as little were those claims to be recognised which

the Northern kings put forward for the re-establishment of their

supremacy. Even as regards the Papacy, the government began to adopt

an independent line of conduct.

The question now was, whether the Anglo-Saxon nation would be

unanimous and strong enough to maintain such a haughty position on all

sides.

The first attack came from the North; it was all the more dangerous,

from the fact that an ambitious brother of the new King supported it:

only by an extreme effort were these enemies repelled. But, at the

same moment, an attack was threatened from another enemy of infinitely

greater importance--Duke William of Normandy. It was not only this

sovereign, and his land, but a new phase of development in the history

of the world, with which England now entered into conflict.

_The Conquest._

Out of the antagonism of nationalities, of the Empire and the Church,

of the overlord and the great chiefs, in the midst of invasions of

foreign peoples and armies, the local resistance to them and their

occupations of territory, a new world had, as it were, been forming

itself in Southern Europe, and especially in Gaul. Still more

decidedly than in England had the invading Vikings in France attached

themselves to the national element, even in the second generation they

had given up their language; they discovered at the same time a form

which reconciled the membership in the kingdom, and the recognition of

the common faith, with provincial freedom. In France no native power

successfully opposed and checked the advancing Normans, such as that

which the Danes had encountered in England. On the contrary they

exercised the greatest influence over the foundation of a new dynasty.

A system developed itself over the whole realm, in which, both in the

provincial authorities and in the lower degrees of rank, the

possession of land and share in public office, feudalism and freedom,

interpenetrated each other, and made a common-weal which yet

harmonised with all the inclinations that lend charm and colouring to

individual life. The old migratory impulse and spirit of warlike

enterprise set before itself religious aims also, which lent it a

higher sanction; war for the Church, and conquest (which meant for

each man a personal occupation of land) were combined in one. Starting

from Normandy, where great warlike families were formed that found no

occupation at home (for these young populations are wont to multiply

quickest), North French love of war and habits of war transplanted

themselves to Spain and to Italy. How must it have elevated their

spirit of enterprise when in the latter country the Papacy, which had

just thrown off the supremacy of the emperor, and entered on a new

stage in the development of its power, made common cause with their

arms, and a practised Norman warrior, Robert Guiscard, appeared as

Duke of Apulia and Calabria 'by grace of God and of S. Peter and,

under his protection, of Sicily also in time to come'![11] The Pope

gave him lands in fief, which had hitherto belonged to the Greek

Empire, and which the Germans had been unable to conquer; he promised,

in return, to defend the prerogatives of S. Peter. Between the

hierarchy which was striving to perfect its supremacy, and the warlike

chivalry of the 11th century, an alliance was formed like that once

concluded with the leaders of the Frankish host. The ideas were

already stirring from which proceeded the Crusades, the foundation of

the Spanish kingdoms, and the creation of the Latin Empire at

Constantinople. In the princely fiefs of the French Crown, and above

all in Normandy, they seized on men's minds. Chivalrous life and

hierarchic institutions, dialectic and poetry, continual war at home

and ceaseless aspirations abroad, were here fused into a living whole.

In the Germanic countries also this close alliance of hierarchy and

chivalry now sought to win influence, but here it met with a strenuous

resistance. In England, Edward the Confessor had tried to prepare the

way for it: Godwin and his house opposed it. And when the former named

the Norman Robert Archbishop of Canterbury, and the latter drove him

out, the English quarrels became connected with those of Rome;

Stigand, the archbishop put in by Godwin, received his pallium from

Pope Benedict X, who had been elected in the old tumultuous manner

once more by the neighbouring Roman barons, but had to succumb to

Hildebrand's zeal for a regular election by the cardinals, on which

the emancipation of the Papacy depended. It seemed, then, intolerable

at Rome that there should be a primate of the English Church,

connected by his Church position with a phase of the supreme

priesthood now condemned and abolished: it is very intelligible that

this priesthood in its present form took up a hostile position towards

the England of that time. In this, moreover, it found an ally ready to

act in Duke William of Normandy, who wished to be regarded as the born

champion of the Anglo-Saxon dynasty, and as the natural successor to

its rights. Once already his father had collected a fleet to restore

the exiled Aethelings, and was only kept back from an invasion by

unfavourable weather. There had often since been rumours, that Edward

had destined Duke William to be his successor; men asserted that

Harold had previously recognised this right, and that in return

William's daughter, and a part of the land as an independent

possession, had been promised him.[12] In his own position William had

cleared the ground for himself with a strong hand. He had beaten his

feudal lord in the open field, and thus not only recovered a frontier

fortress lost during his minority, but also strengthened the

independence of the duchy. At the same time William had vanquished his

rebellious vassals in arms, banished them, deprived them of their

possessions, and got rid, with the Pope's consent, of an archbishop

who was allied with them. Death freed him from another mighty

opponent, the Duke of Brittany, who threatened him with a great

maritime expedition. It throws a certain light on his policy, to see

how he made himself master of the county of Maine in 1062. On the

ground that Count Heribert, whom he had supported in his quarrel with

Anjou, had become his vassal and made him his heir,[13] he overran

Maine, and put his adherents in possession of the fortresses which

commanded the land. However we may decide as to the details told us

about his relations to Edward and Harold, it seems undeniable that

William had received provisional promises from both--for Harold loved

to side with Edward. He was not the man to put up with their being

broken. The system, however, which through Harold's accession gained

the upper hand in England, was in itself hostile to the Norman one:

and that a king of England like the present might some day become

dangerous to the duke, amidst all the other hostilities which

threatened him, is clear. To these motives was now added the

approbation of the Roman See. The Pope's chief Council deliberated on

the enterprise, above all did the archdeacon of the Church,

Hildebrand, declare himself in its favour. He was reproached--then or

at a later time--with being the author of bloodshed; he declared that

his conscience acquitted him, since he knew well, that the higher

William mounted, the more useful he would be to the Church.[14]

Alexander II now sent the duke the banner of the Church. As a few

years before Robert Guiscard had become duke, so now a Norman duke was

to become king, in the service of the Church. The Normans were still

divided in their views as to the enterprise, but when this news

arrived, all opposition ceased, for in the service of S. Peter and the

Church men believed themselves secure of success; then lay and

spiritual vassals emulously armed ships and men; in the harbour of S.

Valery, which belonged to one of those who had been last gained over,

the Count of Ponthieu, the fleet and the troops gathered together.[15]

The Count of Flanders, the duke's father-in-law, secretly favoured the

enterprise; another of his nearest relations, Count Odo of Champagne,

brought up his troops in person; Count Eustace of Boulogne armed, to

avenge on Godwin's house an affront he had once suffered at Dover; a

number of leading Breton counts and lords attached themselves to

William in opposition to their duke, who cherished wholly different

projects. To the lords and knights of North France were joined many of

lower rank, whose names show that they came from Gascony, Burgundy,

the duchy of France, or the neighbouring districts belonging to the

German Empire. Of their own free will they ranged themselves round

William, to vindicate the right which he claimed to the English crown,

but each man naturally entertained brilliant hopes also for himself.

William is depicted as a man of vast bodily strength, which none could

surpass or weary out, with a strong hardy frame, a cool head, an

expression in his features which exactly intimated the violence with

which he followed up his enemies, destroyed their states, and burnt

their houses. Yet all was not passionate desire in him. He honoured

his mother, he was true to his wife. Never did he undertake a quarrel

without giving fair notice, and certainly never without having well

prepared for it beforehand. He knew how to keep up a warlike spirit in

his vassals: there were seen with him only splendid men and able

leaders; he kept strict discipline. So also he had seized the moment

for his enterprise, at which the political relations of Europe were

favourable to him. The two great realms, which might otherwise have

well interposed, the East Frank (or the Roman-German) as well as the

West Frank, were under kings not yet of age: the guardianship of the

latter lay with the Count of Flanders, who thought he did enough in

not standing openly by his son-in-law, of the former with great

bishops devoted heart and soul to the hierarchic system.[16] Harold,

on the other hand, had no friend or ally, in North or East, in South

or in West. To encounter the combined efforts of a great European

coalition he had only himself and his Anglo-Saxons to rely on. Harold

is depicted as coming forth perfect from the hands of nature, without

blemish from head to foot, personally brave before the enemy, gentle

among his own people, and endowed with natural eloquence. His enemy's

passion for, and knowledge of, war were not in him; the taste of the

Anglo-Saxons was directed more to peaceful enjoyments than to

ceaseless wars. At this moment too they were weakened by great losses

in the last bloody war; many of the most trustworthy and bravest had

fallen, others wavered in their fidelity; Harold had not been able to

put even the coasts in a state of defence; William landed without

resistance, to demand his crown from him. When reminded of his promise

Harold was believed to have answered in the very spirit of Anglo-Saxon

independence, that he had no right to make any such promise without

the consent of the Anglo-Saxon chiefs and people. And not to meet the

invading foe instantly at the sword's point would have seemed to him

disgraceful cowardice. And so William and Harold, the North French

knights and the national war-array of the Anglo-Saxons, encountered at

Hastings. Harold fell at the very beginning of the fight. The Normans,

according to their wont, knew how to separate their enemies by a

pretended flight, and then by a sudden return to surround and destroy

them in isolated bodies. It was the iron-clad, yet rapidly moving

cavalry, which decided the battle.[17]

William expected, now that his rival had fallen, to be recognised by

the Anglo-Saxons as their King. Instead of this the chiefs and the

capital raised Edgar the Aetheling, grandson of Edmund Ironsides, to

the throne: as though William would retire before a scion of the old

West-Saxon house, of which he professed to be the champion. He held

firmly to the transfer made to him by the last king without regard to

any third person, ratified as it was by the Roman See, and marched on

the capital.

Edgar was a boy, and the magnates were at variance as to who should

have the authority to exercise guardianship over him. When William

appeared before the city, and threatened the walls with his

siege-machines, it too lost courage. The embassy which it sent him was

amazed at the grandeur and splendour of his appearance, was convinced

as to the right which King Edward had transferred to him,[18] and

penetrated by the danger which a resistance, in itself hopeless, would

bring on the city. Aldermen and people abandoned Edgar, and recognised

William as King. There is an old story, that the county of Kent, on

capitulating, made good conditions for itself. To the nobles also, who

submitted by degrees, similar terms may have been accorded, but their

position was almost entirely altered. We need notice only this one

point. Their chief right, which they exercised to a perhaps

unauthorised extent, was that of electing the King; they had now

elected twice, but the first election was annulled by defeat in the

open field, the second by increasing superiority in arms; they had to

recognise the Conqueror, who claimed by inheritance, as their King,

whether they would or no. There is something almost symbolic of the

resulting state of things in the story of William's coronation, which

was now celebrated by the tomb of Edward the Confessor at Westminster.

For the first time the voices of the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans were

united to greet him as King, but the discordant outcry of the two

languages seemed a sign of conflict to the troops gathered outside,

and made the warlike fury, so hardly kept under control, boil up again

in them; they set the houses of London on fire. Whilst all hurried

from the church, the ceremony it is said was completed by shuddering

priests in the light of the flames: the new King himself, who at other

times did not know what fear was, trembled.[19]

By this coronation-acclaim, two constituent elements of the world,

which had been fundamentally at conflict with each other, became

indissolubly united.

That against which the Anglo-Saxons had set themselves to guard with

all their strength during the last period, the inroad of the

Norman-French element into their Church and their State, was now

accomplished in fullest measure. William's maxim was, that all who had

taken arms against him and his right had forfeited their property;

those who escaped, and the heirs of those who had fallen, were

deprived alike. In a short time we find William's leading comrades in

the war, as earls of Hereford, Buckingham, Shrewsbury, Cornwall; his

valiant brothers were endowed with hundreds of fiefs; and when the

insurrection which quickly broke out led to new outlawries and new

confiscations, all the counties were filled with French knights. From

Caen came over the blocks of freestone to build castles and towers, by

which they hoped to bridle the towns and the country. It is an

exaggeration to assume a complete transfer of property from the one

people to the other; among the tenants in chief about half the names

are still Anglo-Saxon. At first, those who from any even accidental

cause had not actually met William in arms were left in possession of

their lands, though without hereditary right: later, after they had

conducted themselves quietly for some time, this too was given back to

them. In the next century it excited surprise that so many great

properties should have remained in the hands of the Anglo-Saxons.[20]

It would have been altogether against William's plan, to treat the

Anglo-Saxons as having no rights. He wished to appear as the rightful

successor of the Anglo-Saxon kings: by their laws he would abide, only

adding the legal usages of the Normans to those of the Danes,

Mercians, and West Saxons; and it was not merely through his will, but

also by its higher form, and connexion with the ideas of the century,

that the Norman law gained the upper hand. But however much we may

deduct from the usual exaggerations, this fact remains, that the

change of ownership which took place, like the change in the

constitution and the general state of things, was of enormous extent:

the military and judicial power passed entirely into the hands of the

victors in the war. And in the Church alterations no less

thoroughgoing ensued. Under the authority of Papal legates, the great

office-holders of the English Church, who had been opposed to the

newly arisen hierarchic system, were mercilessly deprived of their

places. The King was afterwards personally on tolerably good terms

with Stigand, the Archbishop of Canterbury, but was not inclined on

his account to oppose the Church. The archbishopric, and with it the

primacy of England, passed to the man in whom the union of the Church

authority and orthodoxy of that which we may call the especially

hierarchic century was most vividly represented, the man who had been

the chief agent in establishing the dogma of Transubstantiation, the

great teacher of Bec, Lanfranc. In most of the bishoprics and abbeys

we find Normans of kindred tendency. It was precisely in the

enterprise against England that the hierarchy concluded its compact

with the hereditary feudal state, which was all the more lasting in

that they were both still in process of formation.

In this way was England attached by the strongest ties to the

Continent, and to the new system of life and ecclesiastico-political

constitution which had then gained the upper hand in Latin Europe.

Under the next three successors of the Conqueror, none of whom enjoyed

a completely legal recognition, it sometimes appeared as though

England would again tear herself away from Normandy: such variances

were not without influence on home affairs: in the general relations

of the country they wrought no change at all. On the contrary, these

were developed on a still larger scale, owing to the complicated

family connexions which so peculiarly characterise that epoch. From

the county of Anjou which, like the dominion of the Capets, had been

formed in the struggle against the invasion of the Normans, a

sovereign arose who had the right to rule the Norman conquests, the

son of the Conqueror's granddaughter, Henry Plantagenet. He had

become, though not without appeal to the sword, which his father

wielded powerfully on his behalf, master of Normandy, and had then

married Eleanor of Poitou, who brought him a great part of South

France: he then succeeded more by fair means than by force in

establishing his right to the throne of England. Henry was the first

to establish in France the power of the great vassals, by which the

crown was long in danger of being overthrown. The Kings of Castille

and Navarre submitted to his arbitration. And under a sovereign whose

grandfather had been King of Jerusalem, and one of the mightiest

rulers of that Western kingdom established in the East, the

tendencies, which had led so far, could not fail to extend themselves

to the utmost in all their spheres of action? The hierarchic and

chivalrous spirit of Continental Europe, which under the Normans had

seized on England, was much strengthened by the accession of the

Plantagenets. It thus came to pass that after the disastrous loss of

Jerusalem, the knights of Anjou and of Guienne, from Brittany (for

Henry had added this province also to his family possessions) and from

Normandy, gathered together in London, and took the Cross in company

with the English. England formed a part of the Plantagenet Empire--if

we may apply this word to so anomalous a state--and contributed to its

extension, even though no interest of its own was involved. But

towards such a result the relations which this alliance established

between England and Southern Europe had long tended. Not seldom was

the military power of the provinces over the sea employed for

enterprises that aimed at the direct advantage of England itself.

Whether and when the German element without this influence would have

become master of the British group of islands none could say. The

English dominion over Ireland in particular is derived from Henry II,

and his alliance at that time with the Papacy; he crossed thither

under the Pope's authorisation: at the Pope's word the native kings

did homage to him as their lord.[21] And the foreign-born Plantagenets

struck living root in England itself. As Henry II's mother was the

daughter of a princess descended from the West-Saxon house, he was

hailed by the natives as their lawfully-descended King; in accordance

with Edward the Confessor's prophecy, that from the severed bough

should spring up a new tree: they traced his descent without scruple

back to Wodan. This King, moreover, has impressed his mark deeply on

English life; to this day justice is administered in England under

forms established by him.

The will of destiny cannot be gainsaid. Just as Germany without its

connexion with Italy, so England without its connexion with France,

would never have been what it is. More than all, the great

commonwealth of the western nations, whose life pervades and

determines the history of each separate state, would never have come

into existence. But on this ground first, amidst continual warfare,

was gradually accomplished the formation of the nationalities.

NOTES:

[7] Se in omnibus eorum voluntati consensurum, consiliis acquieturum.

[8] Florentius Wigorniensis: 'Post cujus (Aethelredi) mortem episcopi

abbates duces et quique nobiliores Angliae, in unum congregati pari

consensu in dominum et regem Canutum sibi elegere--ille juravit, quod

et secundum deum et secundum seculum fidelis eis esse vellet dominus.'

The oath which Ethelred had taken was, however, only 'secundum deum.'

[9] Florentius, 593: 'Accepto pignore de manu sua nuda cum juramentis

a principibus Danorum, fratres et filios Eadmundi omnino despexerunt

eosque esse reges negaverunt.'

[10] In Ingulphus (Savile Script. 511) it is said expressly: per

Archiepiscopum Eboracae, Aedredum (Aldredum). But it is surprising

that the Bayeux Tapestry expressly names Stigand (Lancelot:

Description de Tapisserie de Bayeux, in Thierry, I). Yet Harold could

not possibly have meant, by passing over the Archbishop of Canterbury,

to declare him to be incompetent, since he had been appointed by his

party.

[11] Juramentum fidelitatis Roberti Guiscardi: 1059 in Baronius,

Annales Eccles. ix. 350.

[12] The simplest statement occurs in the Carmen de bello Hastingensi,

p. 352, according to which Edward promised the succession, and sent

ring and sword to the duke by Harold; but as early as in William of

Jumièges we have the tale of Harold's captivity in Ponthieu, and the

promise made him, and the chief outlines of what in Guilielmus

Pictaviensis, and Ordericus Vitalis, lies before us with further

embellishments, and to which the Bayeux Tapestry (itself, too, a kind

of historical memorial of the time) adds some further traits.

[13] Guilielmus Pictaviensis, Gesta Wilhelmi ducis, in Duchesne 189,

already relates this in reference to the English affair.

[14] Gregorii Registrum, vii. 23; Mansi, xx. 306.

[15] William of Jumièges, Hist. vii. 34. 'Ingentem exercitum ex

Normannis et Flandrensibus ac Francis ac Britonibus aggregavit.'

[16] Guilielmus Pictaviensis 197 assures us that help was promised

from Germany in the name of Henry IV.

[17] William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, III. § 245. 'Magis temeritate

et furore praecipitati quam scientia militari Wilhelmo congressi.'

[18] 'Contulit Eguardus quod rex donum sibi regni Monstrat et adfirmat

vosque probasse refert.' So Guido (Carmen de bello Hastingensi, 737)

makes Ansgard on his return speak to the citizens.

[19] Ordericus Vitalis 503. In Guido the ceremony is described with

the greatest calmness, as though it passed undisturbed; but the

conclusion of his work seems wanting.

[20] Dialogus de Scaccario, i. 10. 'Miror singularis excellentiae

principem, in subactam et sibi suspectam Anglorum gentem hac usum

misericordia, ut non solum colonos indempnes servaret, verum ipsis

regni majoribus feudos suos et amplas possessiones relinqueret.' In

Madox, History of the Exchequer, ii. 391. In Domesday Book the memory

of Edward the Confessor is always treated with the greatest respect.

Ellis, Introduction to Domesday Book, i. 303.

[21] 'Ut illius terrae populus te sicut dominum veneretur.' Breve of

Hadrian IV.

CHAPTER III.

THE CROWN IN CONFLICT WITH CHURCH AND NOBLES.

Highly as we may estimate the due appreciation and expression of those

objective ideas, which are bound up with the culture of the human

race, still the spiritual life of man is built up not so much on a

devout and docile receptivity of these ideas as on their free and

subjective recognition, which modifies while it accepts, and

necessarily passes through a phase of conflict and opposition.

In England the authority both of Church and State now came forward

with far more strength than before. The royal power was a continuation

of the sovereignty inherited from Anglo-Saxon times, but, leaning on

its continental resources, and supported by those who had taken part

in the Conquest, it developed itself much more durably. The clergy of

the land were far more closely and systematically bound to the Papacy;

thus it had become more learned and more active. The one sword helped

the other; just at this very time, the King and the Archbishop of

Canterbury were depicted as the two strong steers that drew the plough

of England.

But yet, below all this there existed a powerful element of

opposition. After the new order of things had existed more than eighty

years, among a portion of the Anglo-Saxon population the design was

started of putting a violent end to it, of destroying at one blow all

those foreigners who seemed its representatives, just as the Danes had

all been murdered on one day.

It was an evil thought, and all the more atrocious because manifold

ties had been already gradually formed between the two populations.

How could they ever become fused into one nation if the one was always

plotting the destruction of the other?

It was not merely by alliances of blood and family, but even still

more by great common political and ecclesiastical interests that the

English nationality, which contains both elements, was founded. And,

in truth, the leading impulse towards it was that the conquerors, no

less than the conquered, felt themselves oppressed by the yoke which

the two supreme authorities laid on them, and hence both combined to

oppose them. But centuries elapsed before this could be effected. The

first occasion for it was given when the two authorities quarrelled

with each other, and alternately called on the population to give its

voluntary aid.

For, as the authorities which represent the objective ideas are of

different origin, they have never in our Western Europe remained more

than a short time in complete harmony with each other. Each retains

its natural claim to be supreme, and not to endure the supremacy of

the other. The one has always more before its eyes the unity of the

whole, the other the needs and rights of the several kingdoms and

states. Amidst their antagonism European life has moulded itself and

made progress.

Close as their union was at the time of the Conquest of England, yet

even then their quarrel broke out. Though the Conqueror pledged

himself again to pay a tribute which the Anglo-Saxon kings had

formerly charged themselves with, and which had been long unpaid, yet

this was not sufficient for the Roman See: Gregory VII demanded to be

recognised as feudal lord of England. But this was not what William

understood, when he had allowed the papal banner to wave over the

fleet that brought him to England. It was not from the Pope's

authorisation that he derived his claim to the English crown, as if

this had been merely transferred to him by the Papal See, but from the

Anglo-Saxon kings, as whose heir and legal successor he wished to be

regarded. He answered the Pope that he could enter into no other

relation to him than that in which his predecessors in England had

stood to previous popes.

For the first time the popes had to give up altogether the attempt to

make kings their feudal dependents; they attempted, however, an

almost deeper encroachment into the very heart of the royal power,

when they then formed the plan of severing the spiritual body

corporate, which already possessed the most extensive temporal

privileges, from their feudal obligation to the sovereigns. The

English kings opposed them in this also with resolution and success.

Under the influence of the father of scholasticism, Anselm of

Canterbury, Primate of England, a satisfactory agreement was arranged

long before the Concordat was obtained in Germany. In general there

was little to fear, as long as the Archbishop of Canterbury had a good

understanding with the Crown; and this was the case in the first half

of the 12th century, if not on all points, yet, at least on all

leading questions. Far-reaching differences did not appear until the

higher ecclesiastics embraced the party of the Papacy, which happened

in England through Thomas Becket.

_Henry II and Becket._

It was precisely from him that this would have been least expected. He

had been the King's Chancellor, or if we may avail ourselves of a

somewhat remote equivalent expression, his most trusted cabinet

minister, and had as such, in both home and foreign affairs, rendered

the most valuable services. The introduction of scutage is attributed

to him, and he certainly had a large share in the acquisition of

Brittany. It was through the direct influence of the King that he was

elected archbishop.[22] But from that hour he seemed to have become

another man. As he had hitherto rivalled the courtiers in splendour,

pleasure, and pomp, so would he now by strictness of life equal the

sanctity of the saints; as hitherto to the King, so did he now attach

himself to the interests of the Church. It might, so we may suppose,

be some satisfaction to his self-esteem, that he could now confront

his stern and mighty sovereign as Archbishop 'also by the grace of

God,' for so he designates himself in his letter to the King; or he

might feel himself bound to recover the possessions of his Church,

which had been wrested from it by the Crown or the high nobility. But,

as spiritually-minded men are moved more by universal ideas than by

special interests, so for Becket the determining impulse without doubt

lay above all in the sympathy which he devoted to the hierarchic

movement in general.

Those were the times in which the attempt of the Emperor Frederic I to

call a council, and in it to decide on a contested papal election, had

created general excitement among the peoples and churches of Southern

Europe, which would only consent to be led by a pope independent of

the empire. Driven from Italy, Alexander III, the Pope rejected by the

Emperor, found a cordial reception in France; and here he now

collected on his side a papal council in opposition to the imperial

one, in which the cardinals, whose election the Emperor was trying to

annul, and the bishops of Spain and South Italy, and those of the

collective Gaulish dioceses (more than a hundred in number), and the

English bishops also, gathered around him, and laid the Pope elected

by the Emperor under the anathema. It was inevitable that the idea of

the Church, as independent of the temporal power, should here find its

strongest expression. Some canons were passed which prohibited the

usurpation of ecclesiastical property by the laity, and made it a

crime in the bishops to allow it.[23]

Thomas Becket was welcomed in this council with a seductive kindness;

but besides this, what is harder than to set oneself against the

common feeling of one's own order, when moderation already appears to

be apostasy? He returned to England filled with the ideas of

hierarchic independence; in preparing to carry it through, he

necessarily brought on the conflict which had hitherto been avoided.

The Plantagenet King, whose whole heart was in the work of securing

the obedience of the manifold provinces that had fallen to his lot;

who hastened ceaselessly from one to the other (when people thought

him far away in South France, he had already recrossed the sea to

England), ever occupied in extending his inherited power by

institutions of a legal and administrative nature, was not inclined to

give way to the Church in this attempt. He would neither make the

election of the higher clergy free, nor allow their excommunication to

be valid without State control; he not only maintained the right of

the lay courts to try ecclesiastics for heinous offences, which else

often remained unpunished; but, even in the sphere of spiritual

jurisdiction, he claimed to hear appeals in the last instance without

regard to the Pope. In all this the lay and spiritual nobility agreed

with him; in a Council at Clarendon they framed 'constitutions,' in

which they declared these rules to be the law of the realm, as it had

always been observed, and ought to be observed henceforth.[24]

Becket did not possess the inflexible obstinacy which distinguishes

most of the champions of the hierarchy. As the accordant voice of

Europe moved him to take up the hierarchic principles, so now the

accordant voice of his country's rulers made an impression on him: he

listened to the ecclesiastics who entreated him not to draw the King's

displeasure on them, and to the laymen, who prayed him not to bring on

them the necessity of executing it on the ecclesiastics: he virtually

accepted the Constitutions of Clarendon. But then again he could not

prevail on himself to observe them. Only when his vacillation

endangered him personally, so that he could expect nothing else to

follow but a condemnation by a new assembly of the royal court, did he

come to a decision. Then he took the hierarchic side resolutely; in

contradiction to the Constitutions, he appealed to the Pope. It is a

remarkable day in English history, that 14th October 1164, on which

Thomas Becket, after reading mass, appeared before the court without

his archiepiscopal dress, but cross in hand. He forbade the earl, who

wished to announce the judgment to him, to speak, since no layman had

power to sit in judgment on his spiritual father;[25] he again put

himself under the protection of God and the Roman Church, and then

passed from the court, no man venturing to lay hands on him, still

armed with his cross, to a church close by, from whence he escaped to

the Continent. By this he brought into England the war of the two

powers, which had already burst into flame in Italy and Germany. The

archbishop and primate rejected the supreme judicial authority of the

Curia Regis; only in the chief pontiff at Rome did he recognise his

rightful judge: by undertaking to bring into full view the complete

independence of the spiritual principle on this ground also, he broke

down that unity of authority, which had, been hitherto maintained in

the English realm, and entered into open war with his King.

Henry II was, like most of the sovereigns of that age, above all

things a warrior; you could see by his stride that he spent his days

on horseback; and he was an indefatigable hunter. But yet he found

time besides for study; he took pleasure in solving, in the company of

scholars, the difficulties of the theologico-philosophical problems

which then largely occupied men's minds; there is no doubt that he

also fully understood these politico-ecclesiastical questions. He was

by no means a good husband, rather the contrary, but, in other things,

he could control himself; he was moderate in eating and drinking.

Success did not make him overweening, but all the more prudent:[26]

ill-success found him resolute; yet it was remarked that he was more

severe in success, milder in adversity. If contradicted, he showed all

the excitability of the Southern French nature; he passed from

promises to threats, from flatteries to outbursts of wrath, until he

met with compliance. His administration at home witnesses to a noble

conception of his mission and to a practical understanding; from his

lion-like visage shone forth a pair of quiet eyes, but how suddenly

did they flame up with wild fire, if the passion was roused that

slumbered in the depths of his soul! It was the passion of unlimited

power; an ambition for which, as he once said, the world appeared to

be too small. He never forgave an opponent; he never reconciled

himself with an enemy or took him again into favour.

He would of himself have been much inclined to abandon Alexander III,

and attach himself to the Pope set up by the Emperor: his ambassadors

took part in a German diet at which the most extreme steps were

approved of. But Henry was not sufficiently master of his clergy nor,

above all, of his people for this; the solemn curse of Thomas Becket

wrought on men from far away. Was there really any foundation for what

men then said, that the King thought it better that his foe should be

in the country rather than out of it? An apparent reconciliation was

brought about, which, however, left the main questions undecided, each

side only consenting generally to a peace with the other. Becket did

not allow himself to be hindered by it, on his return to England, from

excommunicating leading ecclesiastics who had supported the King's

party. But at this Henry's deep-seated wrath awoke. Beset by the

exiles with cries for protection, he let the complaint escape him in

the presence of his knights, that among so many to whom he had shown

favour there was not one who had courage enough to avenge the insults

offered to him.[27] As opposed to the Church sympathies which through

the clergy wrought on all people, the temporal state was mainly kept

together by the reciprocal relations of the feudal lord and sovereign

to his vassals and knights, and of them to him: to spiritual reverence

was opposed personal devotion. But these feelings, too, as they have

their justification, so they have their moral limitations; they are as

capable of exaggeration and excess as all others. Enflamed by the

King's words which seemed to touch the honour of knighthood, four of

his knights hastened to Canterbury, and sought out the man, who dared

to bid the King defiance in his own kingdom; as Becket refused to

recall the excommunication, they murdered him horribly in the

cathedral. When required to obey the King, Becket was wont to reserve

the rights of the Church and the priesthood; for this reservation he

died.

Henry II by calling forth, intentionally or not, this brutal act of

violence in the ecclesiastical strife, drew on himself the catastrophe

of his life.

By Becket's murder the ideas of Church independence gained what was

yet wanting to them, a martyr: his death was more advantageous to them

than his life could ever have been. The belief that the victim wrought

miracles, which were ascribed to him in increasing measure, at first

slight, then more and more surprising ones, viz. cures of incurable

diseases,--who does not know the resistless nature of this illusion,

bound up as it is with the nearest needs of man in every form?--made

him the idol of England. Henry II had to live to see the man who had

refused him the old accustomed obedience, reverenced among his people

with almost divine honours as one of the greatest saints that had ever

lived. The great Hohenstaufen in the unsuccessful struggle with the

Papacy was at last brought to declare that all he had hitherto done

rested on an error; and in like manner, but one far more humiliating

and painful, Henry II had to do penance, and receive the discipline of

the scourge, at the tomb of the man who had been murdered by his loyal

subjects. On a hasty glance it seems as though his Constitutions were

established, but a more accurate inquiry shows that the articles which

displeased the Pope were left out. The hierarchic ideas gained the day

in England also.

It was precisely the Church quarrel that fed the discords which broke

out in the King's own house. His eldest son found a pretence for his

revolt, and essentially promoted it, by alleging that the murderers of

the glorious martyr were unpunished; he on his side promised the

clergy to make good all existing injuries, since what belonged to the

Church should not serve man's ostentation. The example of the elder

wrought on the younger sons too, who, to withstand their father,

recognised the supremacy of the King of France. Henry's last years

were filled with depression, and even with despair; when dying he was

believed to have bequeathed his curse to his children. In the

cloisters his death was ascribed to the intercession and merits of S.

Thomas.

For with the acceptance of the hierarchic ideas the prestige of their

martyr grew day by day. In the crusade of 1189 men saw him appear in

dreams, and declare that he was appointed to protect the fleet, to

calm the storms.

It was under these auspices that the chivalry of the Plantagenet realm

took part in the Third Crusade: King Richard (in whom the ideas of

Church and Chivalry attained their highest splendour) at their head

gave back to the already lost kingdom of Jerusalem, in despite of a

very powerful foe, a certain amount of stability: as he served the

hierarchic views with all his power, there was no question under him

as to any dispute between Church and State. But this power itself

could not be increased owing to his absence. Whilst he fought for the

Church far away, elements of resistance were stirring in his realm

which had been there long ago, and soon after his death came to the

most violent outbreak.

_John Lackland and Magna Charta._

Despite all the community of interests between the sovereigns of the

Conquest and their vassals, grounds of hostility between them had

never been altogether wanting. The Conqueror's sons had to make

concessions to the great lords, because their succession was not

secure; they needed a voluntary recognition, the price of which

consisted in a relaxation of the harsh laws with which the monarchy

had at first fettered every department of life. But when the great

nobles had managed, or decided, contests for the throne, Were they

likely to feel bound unconditionally to obey the man whom they had

raised? Besides Henry II in his ecclesiastical quarrel needed the

consent of his vassals; his court-Assemblies were no longer confined

to proclamations of ordinances from the one side only; consultations

were held, leading to decisions that concerned them all.

But what is now surprising is the fact, that even the associates in

the Conquest, and much more their descendants, claimed the rights

which the Anglo-Saxon magnates had once possessed. They, too, appealed

incessantly to the _Laga_, the laws of Edward the Confessor, by which

was meant the collection of old legal customs, the observation of

which had been promised from the first. Following the precedent of

their kings, the families that had risen through the Conquest regarded

themselves as the heirs of the fallen Anglo-Saxon chiefs, into whose

place they had stepped. The rights of the old Witan and of the vassals

of the new feudal state became fused together.

We must now lay greater weight than is commonly done on the incidents

that occurred during King Richard's absence. He had entrusted the

administration of the realm to a man of low origin, William, bishop of

Ely, who carried it on with great energy, and not without the pomp and

splendour, which grace authority, but arouse jealousy. Hence lay and

spiritual chiefs combined against him: with Earl John, the brother of

the absent King, at their head, they banished the hated bishop by the

strong hand, and of their own authority set another in his place. The

city of London, which had been already allowed the election of its own

magistrates by Henry II, had then formed a so-called _Communia_ after

the pattern of the Flemish and North French towns; bishops, earls, and

barons, swore to support the city in it.[28]

These first attempts at an opposition by the estates obtained fresh

weight when on Richard's death a contest again arose about the

succession. Earl John claimed it for himself, but Arthur, an elder

brother's son, seemed to have a better right, and had been moreover

recognised at once in the South French provinces. The English nobles

fortified their castles, and for some time assumed an almost

threatening position; they only acknowledged John on the assurance

that each and all should have their rights.[29] John's possession of

the crown was therefore derived not merely from right of inheritance,

but also from their election.

A strong territorial confederacy had thus gradually grown up,

confronting the royal power with a claim to independent rights; events

now happened that roused it into full life.

King John incurred the suspicion of having murdered Arthur, who had

fallen into his hands, to rid himself of his claims; he was accused of

it by the peers of France, and pronounced guilty; on which the

Plantagenet provinces which were fiefs of the French crown went over

to the King of France at the first attack. The English nobility would

at least not fight for a sovereign on whom such a heinous suspicion

lay: on another pretence it abandoned him.

But then broke out a new quarrel with the Church. The most powerful

pontiff that ever sat in the Roman See, Innocent III, thought good to

decide a disputed election at Canterbury by passing over both

candidates, including the King's, and caused the election of, or

rather himself named, one of his friends from the great school at

Paris, Stephen Langton. As King John did not acknowledge him, Innocent

laid England under an Interdict.

Alike careless and cruel, naturally hasty and untrustworthy, of

doubtful birthright, and now rejected by the Church, John must have

rather expected resistance than support from the great men of the

realm. He tried to assure himself of those he suspected by taking

hostages from their families; he confiscated the property of the

ecclesiastics who complied with the Pope's orders, and took it under

his own management; he employed every means which the still unlimited

extent of the supreme authority allowed, to obtain money and men;

powerfully and successfully he used the sword. But in the long run he

could not maintain himself by these means. When a revolt broke out in

Wales at the open instigation of the Pope, and the King's vassals were

summoned to put it down, even among them a general discontent was

perceptible; John had reason to dread that if he came near the enemy

with such an army he might be delivered into their hands or killed: he

did not venture to carry out the campaign. And meanwhile he saw

himself threatened from abroad also. King Philip Augustus of France

armed, to attack his old opponent at home (whom he had already driven

from in those provinces over which he himself was feudal sovereign),

and to carry out the Pope's excommunication against him. He boasted,

probably with good grounds, of having the English barons' letters and

seals, promising that they would join him. He would have restored all

the fugitives and exiles; the Church element would have raised itself

all the more strongly, in proportion to its previous depression; a

general revolt would have accompanied his attack, the English

government according to all appearance would have been lost.

King John knew this well: to avoid immediate ruin he seized on a means

of escape which was completely unexpected, but quite decisive--he gave

over his kingdom in vassalage to the Pope.

What William I had so expressly rejected was now accepted in a moment

of extreme pressure, from which such a step was the only means of

escape. The moment the Pope was recognised as feudal lord of England,

not only must his hostility cease, but he would be bound to take the

realm under his protection. He now forbade the King of France, whom he

had before urged on to its conquest, to carry out the invasion, which

was already prepared.

It appears as if the barons had originally agreed with the King's

proceeding, although they did not entirely approve its form. They

maintained that they had risen up for the Church's rights,[30] and saw

in the Pope a natural ally. They thought to gain their own purpose all

the more surely now that Stephen Langton received the see of

Canterbury, a man who, while he represented the Papal authority, at the

same time zealously made their interests his own. At the very moment

when the archbishop absolved the King from the excommunication, he made

him swear that he would restore the good laws, especially those of King

Edward, and would do all according to the legal decisions of his

courts. It may be regarded as the first time that a Norman-Plantagenet

king's administration was acted on by an obligatory engagement, when

King John, on the point of taking the field against some barons whom he

regarded as rebels, was hindered by the archbishop who reminded him

that he would thus be breaking his last oath, which bound him to take

judicial proceedings. The tradition that a forgotten charter of Henry I

was produced by the archbishop (who was certainly, as his writings

show, a scholar of research), and recognised as a legal document which

gave them a firm footing, may admit of some doubt; there is no doubt

that it was Stephen Langton who gathered around him the great nobles

and bound them by a mutual engagement, to defend, even at the risk of

life, the old liberties and rights which they derived from Anglo-Saxon

times.

It was, in fact, of considerable importance that the primate, on whose

co-operation with the King the Norman state originally rested, united

himself in this matter as closely as possible with the nobles; among

all alike, without regard to their origin, whether from France or from

England, had arisen the wish to limit the crown, as it had been

limited in the Anglo-Saxon period.

Here, however, they had to discover that the Pope was minded to

protect the King, his vassal, not only against attacks from abroad,

but also against movements at home. The engagements which the barons

had formed, when he released them from their oath of fidelity to the

King, he now declared to be invalid and void. The legate in England

reported unfavourably on their proceedings, and it was seen that he

was intimately allied with the King. The war was still raging on the

continent, and the King had been again defeated, at Bouvines, July 27,

1214; he had returned disheartened, but not without bodies of

mercenaries, both horse and foot, which excited anxiety in the allied

nobles. This feeling was strengthened by the fact that, after the

death of a chancellor connected with them by family, and on good terms

with them, he raised a foreigner, Peter des Roches, to that dignity,

and it was believed that this foreigner would lend a hand to any

attempt at restoring the previous state of things. Acts of violence of

the old sort, and the King's lusts, which brought dishonour into their

families, added to their indignation. In short, the barons, far from

breaking up their alliance, confirmed it with new oaths. While they

pressed the King to accept the demands which they laid before him,

they sent one of the chief of their number, Eustace de Vescy, to Rome,

to win the Pope to their cause, by reminding him of the gratitude due

to them for their services in the cause of the Church. As lord of

England, for they did not hesitate to designate him as such, he might

admonish King John, and, if necessary, force him to restore unimpaired

the old rights guaranteed them by the charters of earlier Kings.[31]

But not so did Innocent understand his right of supreme lordship in

England; he did not side with those who had helped to win the victory

for him over the King, but with the King himself, to whose sudden

decision he owed its fruits--the acknowledgment of his feudal

superiority. He blamed the archbishop for concealing the movements of

the barons from him, and for having, perhaps, even encouraged them,

though knowing their pernicious nature: with what view was he stirring

questions of which no mention had been made either under the King's

father or brother? He censured the barons for refusing the scutage,

which had been paid from old times, and for their threat of proceeding

sword in hand. He repeated his command to them to break up their

confederacy, under threat of excommunication.

As one step lower the primate and nobles, so in the highest sphere

Innocent and John were in alliance. The Papacy, then in possession of

supremacy over the world, made common cause with royalty. Would not

the nobles, some from reverence for the supreme Pontiff's authority,

others from a sense of religious obligation, yield to this alliance?

Such was not their intention.[32]

The King proffered the barons an arbitration, the umpire to be the

Pope, or else an absolute reference of the whole matter to him, who

then by his apostolic power could settle what was right and lawful.

They could not possibly accept either the one or the other, after the

known declarations of the Pope. As they persevered in their hostile

attitude, the King called on the archbishop to carry out the

instructions of a Papal brief, and pronounce the barons

excommunicated. Stephen Langton answered that he knew better what was

the true intention of the holy father. The Pope's name this time

remained quite powerless. Rather it was preached in London that the

highest spiritual power should not encroach on temporal affairs;

Peter, in the significant phrase of the time, could not be Constantine

as well.[33] Only among the lower citizens was there a party

favourable to the King, but they were put down at a blow by the great

barons and the rich citizens. The capital threw its whole weight on

the side of the barons. They rose in arms and formally renounced their

allegiance to the King; they proclaimed war against him under the name

of 'the army of God.' Thus confronted by the whole kingdom, in which

there appeared to be only one opinion, the King had no means of

resistance remaining, no choice left.

He came down--15th June, 1215--from Windsor to the meadow at

Runnymede, where the barons lay encamped, and signed the articles laid

before him, happy enough in getting some of them softened. The Great

Charter came into being, truly the 'Magna Charta,' which throws not

merely all earlier, but also the later charters into the shade.

It is a document which, more than any other, links together the

different epochs of English history. With a renewal of the earliest

maxims of German personal freedom it combines a settlement of the

rights of the feudal Estates: on this twofold basis has the proud

edifice of the English constitution been erected. Before all things

the lay nobles sought to secure themselves against the misuse of the

King's authority in his feudal capacity, and as bound up with the

supreme jurisdiction; but the rights of the Church and of the towns

were also guaranteed. It was especially by forced collections of

extraordinary aids that King John had harassed his Estates: since they

could no longer put up with this, and yet the crown could not dispense

with extraordinary resources, a solution was found by requiring that

such aids should not be levied except with the consent of the Great

Council, which consisted of the lords spiritual and temporal. They

tried to set limits to the arbitrary imprisonments that had been

hitherto the order of the day, by definite reference to the law of the

land and the verdict of sworn men. But these are just the weightiest

points on which personal freedom and security of property rest; and

how to combine them with a strong government forms the leading problem

for all national constitutions.

Two other points in this document deserve notice. In other countries

also at this epoch emperors and kings made very comprehensive

concessions to the several Estates: the distinctive point in the case

of England is, that they were not made to each Estate separately, but

to all at the same time. While elsewhere each Estate was caring for

itself, here a common interest of all grew up, which bound them

together for ever. Further, the Charter was introduced in conscious

opposition to the supreme spiritual power also; the principles which

lay at the very root of popular freedom breathed an anti-Romish

spirit.

Yet it was far from possible to regard them as being fully

established. There were also conditions contained in the Charter, by

which the legal and indispensable powers of the King's government were

impaired: the barons even formed a controlling power as against the

King. It could not be expected that King John, or any of his

successors, would let this pass quietly. And besides, was not the Pope

able to do away with the obligation of which he disapproved? We still

possess the first draft of the Charter, which presents considerable

variations from the document in its final form, among others the

following. According to the draft the King was to give an assurance

that he would never obtain from the Pope a revocation of the

arrangements agreed on; the archbishop, the bishops, and the Papal

plenipotentiary, Master Pandulph, were to guarantee this assurance. We

see to what quarter the anxieties of the nobles pointed, how they

wished above all to obtain security against the influences of the

Papal See. Yet this they were not able to obtain. There was no mention

in the document either of the bishops or of Master Pandulph; the King

promised in general, not to obtain such a revocation from any one;

they avoided naming the Pope.[34]

In reality it made no difference, whatever might be promised or done

in this respect. Innocent III was not the man to accept quietly what

had taken place against his declared will, or to yield to accomplished

facts. On the authority of the words 'I have set thee over the nations

and over the kingdoms,' which seemed to him a sufficient basis for his

Paramount Right, he gave sentence rejecting the whole contents of the

Charter; he suspended Stephen Langton, excommunicated the barons and

the citizens of London, as the true authors of this perverse act, and

forbade the King under pain of excommunication to observe the Charter

which he had put forth.

And even without this King John had already armed, to annul by force

of arms all that he had promised. A war broke out which took a turn

especially dangerous to the kingdom, because the barons called the

heir of France to the English throne and did him homage. So little

were the feelings of nationality yet developed, that the barons fought

out the war against their King, supported by the presence and military

Power of a foreign prince. For the interests of the English crown it

was perhaps an advantage that King John died in the midst of the

troubles, and his rights passed to his son Henry, a child to whom his

father's iniquity could not be imputed.[35] In his name a royalist

party was formed by the joint action of Pembroke, the Marshal of the

kingdom and the Papal Legate, which at last won such advantages in the

field, that the French prince was induced to surrender his claim,

which he himself hardly held to be a good one--the English were

designated as traitors by his retinue,--and give back to the barons

the homage they had pledged him. But he did so only on the condition

that not merely their possessions, but also the lawful customs and

liberties of the realm should be secured to them.[36] At a meeting

between Henry III and the French prince at Merton in Surrey, it was

agreed to give Magna Charta a form, in which it was deemed compatible

with the monarchy. In this shape the article on personal freedom

occurs; on the other hand everything is left out that could imply a

power of control to be exercised against the King; the need of a grant

before levying scutage is also no longer mentioned. The barons

abandoned for the time their chief claims.

It is, properly speaking, this charter which was renewed in the ninth

year of Henry III as Magna Charta, and was afterwards repeatedly

confirmed. As we see, it did not include the right of approving taxes

by a vote.

Whether men's union in a State in general depends on an original

contract, is a question for political theorists, and to them we leave

its solution. On the other hand, however, it might well be maintained

that the English constitution, as it gradually shaped itself, assumed

the character of a contract. So much is already involved in the first

promises which William the Conqueror made at his entry into London and

in his agreement with the partisans of Harold. The same is true of the

assurances given by his sons, especially the second one: they were the

price of a very definite equivalent. More than any that had gone

before however does Magna Charta bear this character. The barons put

forward their demands: King John negociates about them, and at last

sees himself forced to accept them. It is true that he soon takes

arms to free himself from the obligation he has undertaken. It comes

to a struggle, in which, however, neither side decidedly gains the

upper hand, and they agree to a compromise. It is true the barons did

not expressly stipulate for the new charter when they submitted to

John's son (for with John himself they could certainly have never been

reconciled), but yet it is undeniable that without it their submission

would never have taken place, nor would peace have been concluded.

As, however, is generally the case, the agreement had in it the germs

of a further quarrel. The one side did not forget what it had lost,

the other what it had aimed at and failed to attain. Magna Charta does

not contain a final settlement, by which the sovereign's claims to

obedience were reconciled with the security of the vassals; it is less

a contract that has attained to full validity, than the outline of a

contract, to fill up which would yet require the struggles of

centuries.

NOTES:

[22] He says himself later, 'terror publicae potestatis me intrusit,'

in Gervasius, 497.

[23] Canones Concilii Turonensis, Article III, 'ut laici ecclesiastica

non usurpent;' and Article I of those previously omitted in Mansi,

XXI. 1178 seq.

[24] Concilium Clarendoniae, 8 Cal. Febr. MCLXIV, Article VIII, de

appellationibus. 'Si archiepiscopus defuerit in justitia exhibenda, ad

dominum regem perveniendum est postremo; ita quod non debeat ultra

procedi absque assensu domini regis.' Wilkins, i. 435.

[25] Rogeri de Hoveden Annales ed. Savile, 283. 6. 'Prohibeo vobis ex

parte omnipotentis dei et sub anathemate, ne faciatis hodie de me

judicium, quia appellavi ad praesentiam domini papae.' None, however,

of the accounts we have can be looked on as quite accurate.

[26] 'Ambigua fata formidans.' Knyghton de eventibus Angliae, 2391.

[27] Gervasius 1414 'se ignobiles et ignavos homines nutrivisse,

quorum nec unus tot sibi illatas injurias voluerit vindicare.'

[28] 'Episcopi comites et barones regni--juraverunt quod ipsi eam

communiam et dignitatem civitatis Londinensis custodirent.'

[29] Hoveden, p. 450, 'quod redderet unicuique illorum ius suum, si

ipsi illi fidem servaverint et pacem.'

[30] 'Quod ipsi audacter pro libertate ecclesiae ad mandatum suum se

opposuerint,--honores quos ei (Papae) et romanae ecclesiae

exhibuistis, id per eos coactus fecistis.'--Mauclerc, literae ad

legem, in Rymer, Foedera, i.

[31] Mauclerc, literae de negotio Baronum, in Rymer, Foedera, i. 185:

'Magnates Angliae--instanter domino Papae supplicant, quod cum ipse

sit dominus Angliae vos--compellat, antiquas libertates suas--eis

illaesas conservare.'

[32] Literae Johannis regis, quibus quae sit baronum contumacia

narrat. Apud Odiham, 29 die Maii.

[33] In Matthew Paris: 'Quod non pertinet ad papam ordinatio rerum

laicarum.'

[34] Articuli magnae cartae libertatum, § 49. Magna carta regis

Johannis. In Blackstone, the Great Charter, 9, 23.

[35] Matthew Paris. 'Nobiles universi et castellani ei multo facilius

adhaeserunt, quia propria patris iniquitas filio non debuit imputari.'

[36] Forma pacis inter Henricum et Ludovicum, in Rymer, i. 221.

'Coadiutores sui habeant terras suas--et rectas consuetudines et

libertates regni Angliae.'

CHAPTER IV.

FOUNDATION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUTION.

There is a very accurate correspondence in this epoch also between the

general history of the Western world and events in England: these last

form but a part of the great victory of the hierarchy and its advance

in power, which marks the first half of the 13th century. By combining

with the vassals the Popes had overcome the monarchy, and had then in

turn overcome the vassals by combining with the monarchy and its

endangered rights. It must not be regarded as a mere title, an empty

word, if the Pope was acknowledged to be feudal Lord of England: his

legates, Gualo, Pandulph, Otho, and with them some native prelates,

devoted to him (above all that Peter des Roches, who, by his conduct

when Bishop of Winchester, through the mistrust awakened, incurred

almost the chief responsibility of the earlier troubles), spoke the

decisive word in the affairs of the kingdom and crushed their

opponents. It was reported that Innocent IV was heard to say, 'Is not

the King of England my vassal, my servant? At my nod he will imprison

and punish.'[37] Under this influence the best benefices in the

kingdom were given away without regard to the freedom of election or

the rights of patrons, and in fact mostly to foreigners. The Pope's

exchequer drew its richest revenues from England; there was no end to

the exactions of its subordinate agents, Master Martin, Master Marin,

Peter Rubeo, and all the rest of them. Even the King surrounded

himself with foreigners. To his own relations and to the relations of

his Provençal wife fell the most profitable places, and the advantages

arising from his paramount feudal rights; they too exercised much

influence on public affairs, and that in the interests of the Papal

power, with which they were allied. Riotous movements occasionally

took place against this system, but they were suppressed: men suffered

in silence as long as it was only the exercise of rights once

acknowledged. But now it happened that the Popes in their war with the

last of the Hohenstaufen, whom they had resolved to destroy, proposed

to employ the resources of England and in a very different manner than

before. They awoke Henry III's dynastic ambition by promoting the

elevation of his brother to be King of the Romans, and destining his

younger son Edmund for the crown of Naples and Sicily. King Henry

pledged himself in return to the heaviest money-payments. It began to

appear as if England were no longer a free kingdom, using its

resources for its own objects: the land and all its riches was at the

service of the Pope at Rome; the King was little more than a tool of

the hierarchy.

It was at this crisis that the Parliaments of England, if they did not

actually begin, yet first attained to a definite form and efficiency.

The opposition of the country to the ecclesiastico-temporal government

became most conspicuous in the year 1257, when Henry, happy beyond

measure in his son's being raised to royal rank by the Apostolic See,

presented his son to the Great Council of the nation, already wearing

the national costume of Naples, and named the sum, to the payment of

which he had pledged himself in return. The Estates at once refused

their consent to his accepting the crown, which they considered could

not be maintained owing to the untrustworthiness of the Italians, and

of the Romish See itself, and the distance of the country; the

money-pledge excited loud displeasure. Since they were required to

redeem it, they reasonably enough gave it to be understood that they

ought to have been consulted first. It was precisely the alliance of

the Pope and the King that they had long felt most bitterly; they said

truly, England would by such a joint action be as it were ground to

dust between two millstones. As, however, despite all remonstrances,

the demands were persevered with,--for the King had taken on himself

the debts incurred by Pope Alexander IV in the Neapolitan war, and the

Pope had already referred to England the bankers entrusted with the

payments,--a storm of opposition broke out, which led to what was

equivalent to an overthrow of the government. The King had to consent

to the appointment of a committee for reforming the realm, to be named

in equal proportions by himself and by the barons; from this, however,

was selected a council of fifteen members, in which the King's

opponents had a decisive majority. They put forth Statutes, at Oxford,

which virtually stripped the King of his power; he had to swear to

them with a lighted taper in his hand. The Pope without hesitation at

once condemned these ordinances; King Louis IX of France also, who was

called in as arbiter, decided against them: and some moderate men drew

back from them: but among the rest the zeal with which they held to

them was thus only inflamed to greater violence. They had the King in

their power, and felt themselves strong enough to impose their will on

him as law.

Without doubt they had the opinion of the country on their side. For

the first time since the Conquest the insular spirit of England, which

was now shared even by the conquerors themselves, manifested itself in

a natural opposition to all foreign influence. The King's

half-brothers with their numerous dependents were driven out without

mercy, their castles occupied, their places given to the foremost

Englishmen. The Papal legate Guido, one of the most distinguished

members of the Curia, who himself became Pope at a later time, was

forbidden to enter England. Most foreigners, it mattered not of what

station or nationality, were forced to quit the realm: it went hard

with those who could not speak English. The leader of the barons,

Simon de Montfort, was solemnly declared Protector of the kingdom and

people; he had in particular the lower clergy, the natural leaders of

the masses, on his side. When he was put under the ban of the Church

his followers retorted by assuming the badge of the cross, since his

cause appeared to them just and holy.[38]

At this very juncture it was that the attempt was made to form a

Parliamentary Assembly corresponding to the meaning of that word.

The Statutes or Provisions of Oxford contain the first attempt to

effect this, by enacting that thrice every year the newly formed royal

Council should meet together with twelve men elected by the Commonalty

of England, and consult on the affairs of the kingdom.[39] There is no

doubt that these twelve belonged to the nobles and were to represent

them: the decisive point lies in the fact that it was not a number of

nobles summoned by the King, but a committee of the Estates chosen by

themselves that was placed by the side of the Council. The Council and

the twelve persons elected formed for some years an association that

united the executive and legislative powers.

But this continued only as long as the King acquiesced in it. When he

had the courage to resist, it is true that in the first encounter

which ensued, he was himself taken prisoner: but his partisans were

not crushed by this; and soon after his wife, who had collected about

her a considerable body of mercenaries, in concert with the Pope and

the King of France, thought herself strong enough to invade England.

Simon felt that he needed a greater, in other words, a broader, basis

of support. And the design he then conceived has secured him an

imperishable memory. He summoned first of all representatives of the

knights of the shires, and directly afterwards representatives of the

towns and the Cinque Ports, to form a Parliament in conjunction with

the nobles of the realm. This was not an altogether new thing in the

European world; we know that in the Cortes of Aragon, as early as the

12th century, by the side of the high nobility and the ecclesiastics

there appeared also the Hidalgos and the deputies of the Commons; and

Simon de Montfort might well be aware of this, since his father had

been in so many ways connected with Aragon. In England itself under

King John men had come very near it without however carrying it

through: not till afterwards did the innovation appear a real

necessity. In opposition to the one-sided power exercised by the

foreigners, nothing was so much insisted on in daily talk and in the

popular ballads as the propriety of calling the natives of the land to

counsel, since to them its laws were best known. This justifiable wish

met with adequate satisfaction now that the Commons were summoned; the

public feeling against the foreigners, on which Simon de Montfort

necessarily relied, thus found expression. The assembly which he

called together doubtless sympathised with his party views. As he

invited only those nobles to it who remained true to him (they were

not more than twenty-three in number), so he appears to have summoned

those only of the towns which adhered to him unconditionally. But the

arrangement involved more than was contemplated from his point of

view.

Amid the storms he had called forth Simon de Montfort perished: the

King was freed, the royal authority re-established. A new Papal legate

entered London in the full splendour of his office, Cardinal Ottoboni;

Guido having meanwhile himself obtained the tiara, and using every

means to subdue the unbending spirits, from which danger even to the

Church was dreaded.[40] Yet the old state of things was not restored:

neither the rule of foreigners, nor the absolute dependence on the

Papal policy. The later government of Henry III has a different

character from the earlier: the legate himself confirmed Magna Charta

in the shape finally accepted. It is not merely at the great national

festivals that we find representatives of the towns present, whom the

King has summoned; it is beyond a doubt that one of the most important

statutes of the time was passed with their consent.[41] Yet

regulations for the summons of representatives from the towns were as

little fixed by law as those for voting the taxes. It would by no

means harmonise with the constitution of Romano-German states, that

organic institutions should come into full force in mere antagonism to

the highest authority. They must coincide with the interests of that

authority, as was the case in England under Henry's warlike son Edward

I.

Without doubt Edward, who once more revived in the East the reputation

of the Plantagenet Kings for personal valour, would have preferred to

fight there for the interests of Christendom, he even speaks of it in

his will; or else he would have wished to recover from the French

crown the lands which his father had inherited, and which had passed

into French possession; but neither the one nor the other was

possible; another object was assigned to his energy and his ambition,

one more befitting an English king: he undertook to unite the whole

island under his sceptre.

In Wales, the conquest of which had been so often attempted and so

often failed, there lived at this time Prince Llewellyn, whose

personal beauty, cunning, and high spirit fitted him to be a brilliant

representative of the old British nationality. The bards, reviving the

old prophecies, promised him the ancient crown of Brutus; but when he

ventured out of the mountains, he was overpowered and fell in a

hand-to-hand conflict. The English crown was not to fall to his lot,

but Edward transferred the title of Prince of Wales to his own son.

The great cross of the Welsh, the crown of Arthur, fell into his

hands: he no longer tolerated the bards: their age passed away with

the Crusades.

From Wales Edward turned his arms against Scotland. There Columban had

in former days anointed as king a Scottish prince, who was also of

Keltic descent; how the German element nevertheless got the upper hand

not merely in the greatest part of the country, but also in the ruling

family, is the great problem of early Scottish history: a thoroughly

Germanic monarchy had arisen, but one which after it had once given a

home to the Anglo-Saxons who fled before the Normans, thought its

honour concerned in repelling all English influences. A disputed

succession gave Edward I an opportunity of reviving the claims of his

predecessors to the overlordship of Scotland: he gave the Scotch a

king, whom the Scotch rejected simply because he was the English

King's nominee. The war, which sometimes seemed ended--there were

times at which Edward could regard himself as the Lord of all

Albion,--ever blazed out again; above all, the support the Scotch

received from the King of France brought about complications which

filled all Western Europe with trouble and war; but it was in the home

politics of England that their effect was destined to be greatest.

Compelled to make incessant efforts, which exhausted the resources of

the crown, Edward appealed to the voluntary assistance of his

subjects. He laid down to them the principle, that their common perils

should be met with their united strength, that what concerns all must

also be borne by all. In the war against Wales he had gathered

together the representatives of the counties and the towns, to hear

his demands and to act accordingly; chiefly to vote him subsidies.

After the victory he had called an assembly of nobles, knights, and

towns, to take counsel with them about the treatment of the captives

and the country. Similarly he drew together the representatives of the

towns in order to decide the affairs of Scotland. With especial

emphasis did he call for their united help against Philip the Fair of

France, who thought to destroy the English tongue from off the earth:

knights and towns were pledged to help in carrying out the resolutions

thus adopted by common consent.

In spite of all this appealing to free participation in public

matters, Edward I did not refrain from the arbitrary imposition of

taxes, and those the most oppressive: the eighth, even the fifth part

of men's income. For the campaign in Flanders he summoned the

under-tenants as well as the tenants in chief. We find instances of

arbitrary seizure of whatever was necessary for the war.

King Edward excused this by his maxim that the interests of the land

must be defended with the resources of the land,[42] but we can

conceive how, on the boundary line between two different systems,

acts of violence, which combined the arbitrariness of the one with the

principles of the other, caused a general agitation. In the year 1297

the spiritual lords under their archbishop, as well as the temporal

ones (who denied the obligation to serve beyond the sea) under the

Constable and Marshal, set themselves energetically to oppose the

King. The people, which had the most to suffer from the arbitrary

exactions, took their side with cordial approval. They set forth all

the grievances of the country, and insisted on their immediate and

final redress.

To avoid the pressure, the King had already quitted England, to carry

on his campaign in Flanders: the demand was laid before the

Councillors whom he had left behind as assessors to his son, who was

named Regent. They however were in great perplexity, partly from the

trouble of this agitation itself, but mainly from the revolt in

Scotland which had broken out in a formidable manner. William Walays,

like one of those Heyduck chiefs who rise in Turkey against the

established order of things, the right of which they do not recognise,

had come down from the hill country, at the head of the fugitives and

exiles, a robber-patriot, of gigantic bodily strength and innate

talent for war. His successes soon increased his band to the size of

an army; he beat the English in a pitched battle, and then swept over

the borders into the English territory. If the royal commissioners

would oppose a strong resistance to this inroad, they must needs

ratify a provisional concession of the demands brought forward. The

King, who had meanwhile reached Flanders, which the French had entered

from two sides, could not possibly yield to the Scottish

movement--whether he wished to carry on the war or make a truce:

nothing therefore remained to him but to confirm the concessions made

by his councillors.

It is not absolutely certain how far these had gone; one word of

discussion may be allowed on the matter.

The historians of the time have maintained that the right of voting

the taxes was granted to the Estates, and in fact conjointly to the

nobles whether spiritual or temporal, and the representatives of the

counties and towns: the copy of a statute is extant, in which this is

very expressly stated.[43] But since the statute does not exist in an

authentic shape, and is not to be found in the Rolls of the Realm, we

cannot safely base any conclusion on it. As to the date too at which

it may have been passed, our statements waver between the

twenty-eighth and the thirty-fourth year of Edward. On the other hand

we find in the collection of charters an undoubted charter of

confirmation given at Ghent and dated 5 November 1297, in which not

merely are the Great Charter of Henry III and the Forest Charter

confirmed, but also some new arrangements of much importance

guaranteed, and confirmed by ecclesiastico-judicial regulations.[44]

According to it the grants of taxes and contributions which had been

hitherto made to the King for his wars were not to be regarded as

binding for the future. He reserves only the old customary taxes: to

the higher clergy, the nobility, and the commons of the land the

assurance is given, that under no circumstances, however pressing,

should any tax or contribution or requisition--not even the export

duty on wool--be levied except by their common consent and for the

interests of all.[45] In the Latin text all sounds more open and less

reserved: but even the words of the authentic document include a very

essential limitation of the prerogative of the crown, which hitherto

had alone exercised the right of estimating what the state needed and

of fixing the payments by this standard. The King was averse at heart

to the limitation even in this form. When he came back from Flanders

after concluding a truce with France, and army and people were met

together at York, to carry out a great campaign against Scotland, he

was pressed to confirm on English soil the concessions which he had

granted on foreign ground.[46] He held it advisable that the campaign

should be first carried through; four of his confidential friends

swore in his stead (since an oath in person was thought unbecoming to

the King), that, the campaign ended, the confirmation should not be

wanting. The enterprise was most successful, it led to a great victory

over the Scots, and it was the leaders of the English aristocracy who

did the best service there; nevertheless, when they met together next

Lent (1299) in London, the King strove to avoid an absolute promise:

he wished to expressly reserve the undefined 'rights of the crown.'

But this delay aroused a general storm: and as he was quite convinced

that he could not, under this condition, reckon on further support in

the war which still continued, he at last submitted to what was

unavoidable, and allowed his clause to drop.[47]

I do not know whether I am mistaken in ascribing to these concessions

a different character from that of the earlier ones. It was not a

sovereign defeated and reduced to the deepest humiliation who made

them, nor did the barons obtain articles which aimed at securing their

own direct supremacy: the concessions were the result of the war,

which could not be carried on with the existing means. When Edward I

laid stress on the necessity of greater common efforts, the

counter-demand which was made on him, and to which he yielded, merely

implied that a common resolution should be previously come to. His

concessions included a return for service already done, and a

condition for future service. It did not abase the royal authority; it

brought into clear view the unity of interests between the crown and

the nation.

Another great crisis united them for the second time. As Edward led

the forces of England year by year across the Tweed, to compel the

Scots to acknowledge his overlordship by the edge of the sword, the

Pope who assumed himself to be the Suzerain of the kingdoms of the

world, Boniface VIII, met him with the assertion that Scotland

belonged to the Church of Rome, the King therefore was violating the

rights of that Church by his invasions. To confront the Pope, King

Edward thought it best, as did Philip the Fair of France about the

same time, to call in his Estates to his aid, since without them no

answer to the claim was possible. The Estates then in a long letter

not merely maintain the right of the English crown, but also reject

the Pope's claim to decide respecting it as arbiter, as incompatible

with the royal dignity: even if the King wished it, yet they would

never lend a hand to anything so unseemly and so unheard of.[48] The

King, without regard to the Pope, continued his campaigns against

Scotland with unabated energy.

It marks the character of Edward I that he nevertheless did not break

with the Papacy on this account; so too he still raised taxes that had

not been voted, and held Parliaments in the old form: when

representatives of the counties and towns were summoned it is not

always clear whether they were elected or named.[49] Edward I could

not free himself from the habits of arbitrary rule and the old ideas

connected with them. But with all this it is still undeniable that

under him the monarchy took a far more national position than before;

it no longer stood in a hostile attitude as against the community of

the land, but belonged to it.

And his successors soon saw themselves forced to complete still

further the foundations of a new state of things, which had been thus

laid.

Under Edward II the old ambition of the barons to take a preponderant

part in the government reappeared once more with the greatest

violence. The occasion was afforded by the weakness of this sovereign,

who allowed his favourite, the Gascon Gaveston, a disastrous influence

on affairs. Discontented with this, the King's nearest cousin, Thomas

of Lancaster, placed himself at the head of the great nobles, as

indeed he was believed to have sworn to his father in law (whose rich

possessions passed to him, and who feared a return of the foreign

influences), that he would adhere to the interest of the barons, which

was also that of the country. In the fourth year of his government

Edward was obliged to accept all the regulations made by a Committee

of the Nobles called the 'Ordainers.'

Without advice of the nobles he was forbidden either to begin a war,

or to fill up high offices of State, or even to leave the country: the

officers of the crown were to be responsible to them. Gaveston had to

pay for his short possession of influence by death without mercy.

It was long before the King found men who had the courage to defend

the lawful authority of the crown. At last the two Hugh Despencers

undertook it: under their leadership the barons were defeated, and

Thomas of Lancaster in his turn paid for his enterprises with his

life. For in England, if anywhere, the assumption of power led

inevitably to the scaffold.

It is hardly needful to say that the regulations of the Ordainers were

now revoked. But must not some means be also thought of, to prevent

similar acts of violence for the future? It was deemed necessary to

declare even the form, under cover of which they had been ratified,

invalid for all time. And so an enactment was now made, in which the

first definite idea of the Parliamentary Monarchy becomes visible. It

was declared that never for the future should any ordinance affecting

the King's power and proceeding from his subjects be valid, but only

that should be law which was discussed, agreed on, and enacted in

Parliament by the King with the consent of the prelates, the earls and

barons, and the commonalty of the realm.[50] For it was above all

things necessary to withdraw the legislative authority for ever from

the turbulent grandees. The monarchy opposed to them its alliance with

the commonalty of the realm, as it was expressed by the

representatives of the knights and the commons. Among the founders of

the English constitution these Hugh Despencers, through whom the

legislative power was first transferred to the united body of King

Lords and Commons, take a very important position.

This thought was however rather one left for the future to carry out,

than one which swayed or contented the English world at the time.

Edward II fell before a new attack of the revolted barons, with whom

even his wife was allied: he had to think it a piece of good fortune

that, on the ground of his own abdication, his son was acknowledged as

his successor. The latter however could only obtain real possession of

the royal power by overthrowing the faction to which his father had

succumbed. While he restored the memory of the two Despencers, who had

been condemned and executed by the barons, he also decided to carry on

a Parliamentary government; it is the first that existed in England.

For the general course of the development it is significant that the

rights of Parliament in relation to the voting of taxes, and now also

to legislation as a whole, were acknowledged before an appropriate

form was found for its consultations. In the first years of Edward III

its four constituent parts, prelates, barons, knights, and town

deputies, held their debates in four different assemblies; but

gradually the two first were fused into an Upper, the two last into a

Second House, without any definite law being laid down to that effect:

the nature of things led to the custom, the custom in course of time

became law.

That which had been already preparing under the first Edward came

under the third for the first time into complete operation, viz. the

participation of the Estates in the management of foreign affairs and

of war.

In the year 1333 the Parliament advised the King to break the peace

with Scotland, which the barons had concluded of their own authority

according to their own views, not to put up with any more outrages,

and not merely to take back the lost border-fortress of Berwick, but

to force the Scots to acknowledge the supremacy of England.

In the year 1337 and afterwards the Parliament more than once approved

the King's plan of asserting the claim he had through his mother on

the French throne by force of arms and through alliances with foreign

princes,[51] and promised to support him in it with their lives and

properties; it was all the more ready for this, as France had been

repeatedly threatening England with a new Conquest. In the year 1344

the Peers, each in his own name, called on the King to cross the sea

and not let himself be hindered by any one, not even by the Pope, from

appealing to the judgment of God by battle. The clergy imposed on

themselves a three-years' tenth, the counties a fifteenth, the towns

two tenths; the great nobles followed him in person with their squires

and horsemen, without even alluding to their old remonstrances. So

that splendid army made its appearance in France, in which the weapons

of the yeomen vied with those of the knights, and which, thanks

chiefly to the former, won the victory of Cressy. Whilst the King made

conquests over the French, his heroic Queen repelled the Scotch. In

these wars the now united nation, which put forth all its strength,

came for the first time to the feeling of its power, to a position of

its own in the world and to the consciousness of it. The King of

Scotland at that time, and the King of France some years later, became

prisoners in England.

A period followed in which England seemed to have obtained the

supremacy in Western Europe. The Scots purchased their King's freedom

by a truce which bound them to long and heavy payments, for which

hostages were given as a security. A peace was made with the French by

which Guienne, Gascony, Poitou, and such important towns as Rochelle

and Calais were surrendered to the English. The Prince of Wales, who

took up his residence at Bordeaux, mixed in the Spanish quarrels with

the view of uniting Biscay to his territories in South France. As the

result of these circumstances and of the well-calculated encouragement

of Edward III, we find that English commerce prospered immensely and,

in emulous alliance with that of Flanders, began to form another great

centre for the general commerce of the world. It was still chiefly in

the hands of foreigners, but the English made great profits by it.

Their riches gained them almost as much prestige in the world as their

bravery.[52] The more money-resources the towns possessed, and the

more they could and did support the King, the greater became their

influence on the affairs of the realm. No language could be more

humble than that of these 'poor and simple Commons,' when they address

themselves to 'their glorious and thrice gracious King and lord.'[53]

But for all that their representations are exceedingly comprehensive

and pressing; their grants are not to take effect, unless their

grievances are redressed; they never leave out of sight the interests

of their staple; they assail the exactions of the officials or the

clergy with great zeal. The regard paid to them gives the whole

government a popular character.

On an attempt of the King to exercise the legislative power in his

great council, they remonstrated; they had no objection to the

ordinances themselves, but insisted that valid statutes could only

proceed from the lawfully assembled Parliament.

Now too the relations to the Papal See came again into consideration.

Seated at Avignon under the influence of the French crown, the Popes

were natural opponents of Edward III's claims and enterprises; they

sometimes thought of directing the censures of the Church against him.

On the other hand, the complaints in England against the encroachments

and pecuniary demands of the Curia were louder than ever, without

however coming to a rupture on these points. But at last Urban V

renewed the old claim to the vassalage of England; he demanded the

feudal tribute first paid by King John, and threatened King and

kingdom, in case they were not willing to pay it, with judicial

proceedings.[54] We know the earlier kings had seen in the connexion

with Rome a last resource against the demands of the Estates: on the

King's side it required some resolution to renounce it. But the very

nature of the Parliamentary government, as Edward III had settled it,

involved a disregard of these considerations for the future. It was

before the Parliament itself that he laid the Papal demands for their

consent and counsel. The Estates consulted separately: first the

spiritual and lay lords framed their resolution, then the town

deputies assented to it. The answer they gave the Pope was that King

John's submission was destitute of all validity, since it was against

his coronation-oath, and was made without the consent of the Estates;

should the Pope try to enforce satisfaction of his demand by legal

process or in any other manner, they would all--dukes earls barons and

commons--oppose him with their united force.[55] The clergy only

assented to the declaration of invalidity; to threaten the holy father

with their resistance, they considered unbecoming. But the declaration

of the lay Estates was in itself sufficient for the purpose: the claim

was never afterwards raised again.

The Estates had often been obliged to contend against the King and the

Roman See at the same time; now the King was allied with them against

the Papacy. Now that the Parliamentary constitution was established in

its first stage, it is clear how much the union of the Crown and the

Estates in opposition to external influence had contributed to it. It

was destined however shortly to undergo yet other tests.

NOTES:

[37] Matthew Paris, Historia Major ann. 1253, p. 750.

[38] In Henr. Knyghton, 2445. According to Matthew Paris they swore,

not to let themselves be held back by anything--'quin regnum, in quo

sunt nati homines geniales et eorum progenitores, ab ingenerosis et

alienigenis emundarent.'

[39] 'Les XXIV ont ordene, ke treis parlemens seient par an,--a ces

treis parlemens vendrunt les cunseillers le rei eslus,--ke le commun

eslise 12 prodes hommes ke vendrunt as parlemens--pur treter de

besoigne le rei et del reaume.' On the explanation of this passage,

the 'Report on the dignity of a peer' 102 contains matter wellweighed

on all sides.

[40] Letter of Clement IV to Louis IX, in Rainaldus, 1265, p. 167.

'Quid putas--per talia machinamenta quaeri? Nisi ut de regno illo

regium nomen aboleatur omnino: nisi ut Christianus populus a devotione

matris ecclesiae et observantia fidei orthodoxae avertatur.'

[41] 'Convocatis discretioribus regni tam ex majoribus quam

minoribus.' Statute of Marleberge, 1267.

[42] 'Nostrae voluntatis fuit ut de bonis terrae ipsa terra

conservaretur.' In Knyghton, ii, 2501.

[43] Statutum de tallagio non concedendo, or Nova additio cartarum; in

Hemingburgh, articuli inserti in magna charta.

[44] 'Carta confirmationis regis Edwardi I,' in the collection of

charters prefixed to the collection of the Statutes in the 'Statutes

of the Realm,' p. 37.

[45] 'Avuns graunte--as Arceevesques etc. e as Countes--e a toute la

communauté de la terre que mes pur nule busoigne tieu manere des aydes

mises ne prises de nre Roiaume ne prendrums fors ke par commun assent

de tout le Roiaume e a commun profist de meismes le Roiaume, sauve les

auncienes aydes e prises due e acoustumees.' The Articulus insertus in

Magna Charta, according to the other statements, runs, 'nullum

Tallagium vel auxilium imponatur seu levetur sine voluntate atque

assensu communi Archiepiscoporum Episcoporum et aliorum liberorum

hominum in regno nostro.'

[46] Hemingburgh: eo quod confirmaverat eas in terra aliena.

[47] Matthew of Westminster, 433. 'Procrastinatis quampluribus diebus

demum videns rex quod non desisterent ab inceptis nec adquiescerent

sibi in necessitatibus suis, respondit se esse paratum concedere et

ratificare petita.'

[48] At Lincoln, 21 Feb. 1301. In Rymer, Rainaldus, Spondanus.

[49] Report 183; Hallam, Additional Notes 332.

[50] Revocatio novarum ordinationum, 1323, 29 May, Statutes of the

Realm I. 189, 'les choses, qui serount à establir--soient tretées

accordees et establies en parlaments par notre Sr. le Roi et par

lassent des Prelats Countes et Barouns et la communalté du roialme.'

[51] Speech of W. Shareshall 1351, Parliamentary History (1762) i.

295.

[52] We know the letter of the Duke of Guelders, in which he praised

equally 'lanae commoda,--divitias in comparatione ad alios reges

centuplas,' and the 'probitas militaris, arcuum asperitas,' in Twysden

ii. 2739.

[53] Report 324.

[54] 'Est en volunté de faire procès devers le roy et son roialme pur

le dit service et cens recoverir.'

[55] 'Qu'ils resisteront et contre esteront ove toute leur puissance.'

Edw Coke first published the document, Institutes iv. 13. In Urban V's

letter to Edward in Rainaldus 1365, 13, the demand is not so clearly

expressed, but mention is made in it of the Nuncio's overtures; it is

to these that the resolution of the Parliament referred.

CHAPTER V.

DEPOSITION OF RICHARD II. THE HOUSE OF LANCASTER.

England did not long maintain herself in the dominant position she then

occupied; the plan of extending her rule into Spain proved ruinous to

the Prince of Wales. Not merely was his protégé overpowered by the

French 'Free Companies,' which had gathered round his opponent: a

Castilian war-fleet succeeded in destroying the English one in sight of

the harbour of Rochelle. On this, their natural inclination towards the

King of France awoke in the nobles and towns of South France; without

great battles, merely by the revolt of vassals tired of his rule,

Edward III again lost all the territories conquered with such great

glory, except a few coast towns. Then a gloom settled down around the

aged conqueror. He saw his eldest son, who, though obliged to quit

France, in England enjoyed the fullest confidence and had every

prospect of a great future, sicken away and die. And he too

experienced, what befalls so many others, that misfortune abroad raised

him up opponents at home. In the increasing weakness of old age, which

gave rise to many well-grounded grievances, he could not maintain the

independence of the royal power, with the re-establishment of which he

had begun his reign. He was forced to receive into his Council men whom

he did not like. He was still able to effect thus much, that the

succession to the kingdom came to the son of the Prince of Wales,

Richard II. But would he, a boy of eleven, be able to take the helm of

the proud ship? Men saw factions arise that grouped themselves round

the King's uncles, who were not fully disposed to defend his authority.

The great question for English history now was, whether the

Parliamentary constitution, whilst it limited the King's prerogative,

would also give him security. For the Commons had been at last

admitted into the King's Council chiefly in order that they might

withstand the violence of the factions. The situation however was not

without its complications, for with the political movement one of yet

wider aim was connected.

When the kingdom was at the very height of its power there arose in a

college at Oxford the man who began that contest against the Papal

supremacy which has never since ceased. John Wiclif attached himself

first of all to the political movements of his time. One of his

earliest writings was directed against the feudal supremacy of the

Popes over England. He supported the Parliament's complaints of Romish

Provisions and exactions of money, with great learning and at great

length. Had his activity confined itself to these subjects, he would

be hardly more remembered than perhaps Marsilius of Padua. What gave

him quite a special significance was the fact that he brought into

clear view the contradiction between the ruling form of the Church and

the original documents of the Faith. From the claim of the Popes to be

Christ's representatives, he drew the conclusion that they ought also

to observe the Gospel which comes from the God-Man, follow His

example, and give up their worldly power.[56] The leading Church

dogma, that most closely connected with the hierarchic system, the

dogma of Transubstantiation, he attacked as being one which equally

contradicted Scripture and Reason. He urges his proofs with the

acuteness of a skilful Schoolman, but throughout he shows a deep inner

religious feeling. We may distinguish in him two separate tendencies.

His appeal to Scripture, his attempt to make it accessible to the

people, his treatment of dogmatic and religious questions which he

will allow to be decided only by Revelation,--all this makes him an

evangelic man, one of the chief forerunners of the German Reformation.

But, as he himself felt, his strength lay rather in destruction than

in construction. In asserting the doctrine that the title to office

depends for its validity on personal worth, that even the rule of

temporal lords rests on the favour in which they stand with God, and

in raising subjects to be the judges over their oppressive masters, he

entered on a path like that which the Taborites and the leaders of the

peasants in Germany afterwards took.[57]

And these were precisely the doctrines for which his scholars, who

traversed the land to make them known, found a well prepared soil in

the people of England. How could the rise of popular elements fail to

call forth a kindred effort also among the lower classes? The belief

arose that Nature intended all men to be equal. The country people

spoke of their primitive rights, traces of which were found in the

memorials of the Conqueror's times, and which had then been taken from

them. When now, instead of seeing these respected, they were subjected

to new impositions, and this with harshness and insolence, they rose

in open revolt. So overpowering was the attack which they directed

against the capital and the King's palace, that Richard II found

himself forced to grant them a charter which secured them personal

freedom. Had they contented themselves with this, they might have done

best for themselves and perhaps for the crown, but when they demanded

yet further and more extreme concessions, they roused against

themselves the whole power of the organised State, for which they were

as yet no match. The Mayor of London himself struck down with his

dagger the leader of the bands, Wat Tyler, because he seemed to

threaten the King; the Bishop of Norwich was not hindered by his

spiritual character from levelling his lance against the

insurgents;[58] after which he accompanied the leaders, who were taken

and condemned to death, to the scaffold, with words of comfort; in

other places the lay nobles did their best. When therefore in the next

Parliament the King brought forward the proposal to declare the serfs

free by a united resolution,--for the previous charter that had been

wrung from him was considered invalid,--both Lords and Commons

rejected it, as tending to disinherit them and prove pernicious to the

kingdom.

It is not to be supposed that a movement like this, which the lower

class of citizens in the towns had joined, just as in the German

peasant war, and which was mainly directed against the landed gentry,

could be stifled by one defeat: it continued to ferment

uninterruptedly in men's hearts.

Still less did the condemnation passed by Convocation on the

deviations from the teaching of the Church effect their suppression.

On the basis of Wiclif's doctrines grew up the sect of the Lollards,

which condemned the worship of images, pilgrimages, and other external

church ceremonies, designated the union of judicial authority with

spiritual office as unnatural--'hermaphroditism'--rejected

excommunication with abhorrence, and made secret and systematic war

against the whole Church establishment.

But further besides these feuds there was one within the State system

itself which now became most conspicuous.

In the midst of the general ferment how necessary had a strong and

resolute hand become! But Richard's government had shown itself

somewhat weak; by many it was suspected of having meant to turn the

disturbances to its own advantage. The commons, who mainly represented

the lower gentry and the upper citizens, abandoned him, and attached

themselves to the nobles, just as these revived their old jealousy

against the crown. For the almost inevitable result of success in

suppressing a popular agitation is to heighten the self-confidence of

an aristocracy. Impatient at being excluded from all share in the

government, and strengthened in his ambition by the military disasters

of the last years, the youngest of Richard's uncles, Thomas of

Gloucester, put himself at the head of the grandees, whose plans the

commons, instead of opposing, now on the contrary adopted as their

own. The great questions arose, which have so often since then

convulsed the European world, as to the relation of a Parliamentary

assembly to the Monarchy, and their respective rights.

The first demand of the English Parliament was that the ministers of

State should be named by it, or at least should be responsible to it.

Much as this demand itself implies, yet even more extensive views were

behind. The Peers told the King plainly that if he would not rule

according to the common law and with their advice, it was competent

for them to depose him, with consent of the people, and to raise

another of the royal house to the throne;[59] they threatened him

openly with the fate of Edward II.

Richard could do nothing but submit. Eleven lords were appointed to

restore order in the country; Richard had to swear to carry out all

they should ordain (November 1386). There remained but one way by

which to oppose this open violence: the King collected the chief

judges at Nottingham, and laid the question before them, whether the

Commission now forced upon him did not contravene the royal power and

his prerogative. The judges were far from so interpreting the

Constitution of England as to allow that the King is unconditionally

bound by the commands of Parliament. They affirmed under their hand

and seal that the appointment of that Commission against the King's

will contravened his legal prerogative; those by whom he had been

forced to accept it, and who had revived the recollection of the

statute against Edward II, they declared to be guilty of high treason.

But Parliament itself saw in this sentence not a judgment but an

intolerable outrage. At its next sitting it summoned the judges before

its tribunal, and in its turn declared them to be themselves guilty of

high treason. Chief Justice Tresilian died a shameful death at Tyburn.

The King lived to find yet harsher laws laid upon him: his uncle

Gloucester was more powerful than he was himself.

He was not however disposed to bear this yoke for ever. He first freed

himself from the war with France, which tied his hands; by his

marriage with Charles VI's young daughter he sought to win that king

over as an ally on his own side; at home too he gained himself

friends; when all was prepared, he struck a sudden blow (July 1397),

which no one would have expected from him. He removed his leading

opponents (above all his uncle Gloucester, and Arundel Archbishop of

Canterbury), banished them or threw them into prison: then he

succeeded in getting together a Parliament in which his partisans had

the upper hand. It moreover completely adopted the ideas of the judges

as to the Constitution; it revoked the statutes which had been forced

on the King,[60] and gave effect to the sentence of Nottingham. By

making the King a very considerable grant for his lifetime, it freed

him from the necessity of summoning it anew; he rose at once to a high

pitch of self-confidence: he was believed to have said that the laws

of England consisted in his word of mouth.

In England, just as in France at the same epoch, political opinions

and parties ebbed and flowed in ceaseless antagonism. Richard's

success was only momentary. He too, like so many of his ancestors, had

incurred a grievous suspicion; the crime laid to his charge was that

his uncle, who died in prison, had been murdered there by his command.

Besides his absolute rule was not free from arbitrary acts of many

kinds; among the great nobles each trembled for his own safety; the

clergy, never on good terms with Richard, were impatient at being

deprived of their Primate, who was to them 'the tower in the

protecting bulwark of the Church.' In the capital too men were against

a rule which seemed to put an end to popular influence; it needed only

the return of an exile, the young Henry of Lancaster (whom the King

would not allow to take possession of his inheritance by deputy, and

who in conformity with the feeling of the time broke his ban to do

himself right); all men then deserted the King; the nobles could now

think of carrying out the threat which they had once hurled against

him.

Richard was compelled to call a Parliament, and at the moment it met

to pronounce his own abdication. The Parliament was not contented with

accepting this; it wished to put an end to all doubt for the future,

and to establish its own right for ever.

A long list of articles was drawn up, from which it was concluded that

the King had broken his coronation oath and forfeited his crown; the

assembled Estates, when severally and conjointly consulted, held them

sufficient to justify them in proceeding to the King's deposition.

They named Proctors, two for the clergy, two for the high

nobility--one for the earls and dukes, the other for the barons and

bannerets, two for the knights and commons--one for the Northern, the

other for the Southern counties. They sat as a court of justice before

the vacant throne, with the Chief Justice in their midst: then the

first spiritual commissioner, the Bishop of S. Asaph, rose, and in the

place and name and under the authority of the Estates of the realm

announced the sentence of deposition against the late King, and

forbade all men to receive any further commands from him. Some

opposition was raised; it is said that the Bishop of Carlisle very

expressly denied the right of subjects to sit in judgment on their

hereditary sovereign;[61] but how could this have had any effect

against the Parliament's claim which had been formulated so long?

As the crown was now regarded as vacant, Henry of Lancaster arose,--in

the name of God, as he said, whilst he made the sign of the cross on

his forehead and breast,--to claim it for himself, in virtue of his

birth and the right which accrued to him through God and the help of

his friends. It was not properly speaking an election that now took

place: the spiritual and lay lords, as well as the other members of

the Parliament, were asked what their opinion of his claim was: the

answer of all was that the Duke should be their King. When, conducted

by the two archbishops, he ascended the vacant throne, he was greeted

with the joyous acclaim of those assembled. The Archbishop of

Canterbury made a speech full of unction, the drift of which was, that

henceforth it would not be a child, such as the late sovereign had

been, self-willed and void of understanding, but a Man that would rule

over them, in the full maturity of his understanding, and resolved to

do not so much his own will as the will of God.[62]

Thus did the spiritual and lay nobility, in and with the Parliament,

make good their claim to dispose of the crown. They went to work

against Richard II with less reserve than against Edward II. In the

latter case the Queen had taken part in the movement; they had set the

son in his father's stead. But this time they did not wait for the

actual consummation of the King's marriage; they raised a prince to

the throne who had openly opposed him in the field, and was not even

the next in succession. For there were still the descendants of an

elder brother left, who according to English usage had a prior right.

The Parliament held itself competent to settle on its own authority

even the succession to the crown. It enacted that it should belong to

the King's eldest son, and after him to his male issue, and on their

failure to his brothers and their issue. The proposal formally to

exclude succession in the female line did not pass; but for a long

while to come the actual practice had that effect.

Besides the motives involved in the extension of the Power of the

Estates in and for itself there was yet another reason for such a

proceeding. And this arose out of the growth, and increasing urgency,

of the religious divisions. The Lollards preached, and taught in

schools, according to their views: in the year 1396 in a petition to

Parliament they traced all the moral evils and defects of the world to

the fact that the clergy were endowed with worldly goods, and showed

the advantage which would arise from the application of these to the

service of the state and the prosecution of war.[63] They seem to have

flattered themselves that by this they would win over the lay lords,

but they were completely mistaken. For these remarked on the contrary

that their own property had no better legal foundation than that of

the clergy,[64] and only attached themselves to the rights of the

Church all the more zealously.

That which would have been impossible under Richard II's vacillating

government, the first Lancaster now undertook: in full agreement with

the Estates he a few days after his accession announced to Convocation

that he purposed to destroy heretics and heresies to the best of his

power.[65] In the next Parliament a statute was drawn up in which

relapsed heretics were condemned to the flames. And still more

remarkable than this mode of punishment, which was that of the

Church-law, is the regulation of the procedure in this statute. In

former times the sentence had been pronounced by the archbishop and

the collective clergy of the province, and the King's consent had to

be asked before it was executed. The decision was now committed to the

bishop and his commissary, and the sheriff was instructed to inflict

the punishment without further appeal, and to commit the guilty to the

fire on the high grounds in the country, that terror might strike all

the bystanders. It is clear how much the power of the bishops was thus

extended. Soon after, on the proposal of the lay lords, at whose head

the Prince of Wales is named, a further statute passed, in which to

spread the rumour that King Richard was yet alive, and to teach that

the prelates ought to be deprived of their worldly goods, are treated

as offences of equal magnitude and threatened with a similar

punishment; the object being alike in both,--to raise a tumult. And in

fact, when Henry V himself had ascended the throne, an outbreak did

occur, in which these causes co-operated. The Lollards were

strengthened in their resistance to the government of the house of

Lancaster by the rumour that their rightful King was yet alive. Henry

V was obliged to crush them in open battle, and then force them to

remain quiet by a new statute, which enacted the confiscation of their

goods as well.[66] His alliance and friendship with the Emperor

Sigismund was based on the fact, that he regarded the Hussites as only

the successors of the Lollards.

This orthodox tendency was now moreover combined with a strict

Parliamentary government. Under the Lancasters there is no complaint

as to illegal taxes; they allowed the moneys voted by the Parliament

to be paid over to treasurers named by itself and accountable to it;

that which earlier Kings had always rejected as an affront, the claim

of Parliament to exercise a sort of supervision over the King's

household, the Lancasters admitted; the royal officers were bound by

oath to observe the statutes and the common law; the prerogative,

hitherto exercised by the Kings, of softening the severity of the

statutes by proclamations contravening their purpose was expressly

abolished.

The Lancasters owed their rise to their alliance with the clergy and

the Parliament: a fact which determined the character and manner of

their government. The most manifold results might be expected, even

beyond the borders of England, from their having by this very alliance

won for themselves a great European position.

Nowhere was greater interest taken in Richard's fate than at the

French court. Louis Duke of Orleans, whose voice was generally

decisive there, once challenged the first Lancaster to a duel, and

when he refused it pressed him hard with war. That Owen Glendower

could once more maintain himself as Prince in Wales was entirely due

to his French auxiliaries. That we find Henry IV more secure of his

throne in his later years than in his earlier is a phenomenon the

explanation of which we seek in vain in English affairs alone: it

results from the fact that his powerful foe, Louis of Orleans, was

murdered in the year 1407 at the instigation of John Duke of Burgundy,

and that then the quarrel of the two parties, which divided France,

burst out with increased violence, and remained long undecided. From

the French there was no longer anything to fear: they emulously sought

the alliance of the highest power in England; there even arose

circumstances under which the Lancasters could think of renewing the

claims of Edward III, from whom they too were descended.

At the time that Henry V ascended the English throne, the Orleanists

had again gained the preponderance in France: they unfurled the

Oriflamme against the Duke of Burgundy, who was now in fact hard

pressed. Henry negociated with them both. But while the Orleanists

made difficulties about granting him the independent possession of the

old English provinces, Burgundy declared himself ready to acknowledge

him as King.[67] The common interests moreover of home politics allied

him with this house.

Henry could reckon on the sympathies of a part of the population of

France, when he led the power of England across the sea. A successful

battle in which he destroyed the flower of the French nobility gave

him an undoubted superiority. The vengeance which the Orleanists

wreaked even under these circumstances on the Duke of Burgundy, who

was now murdered in his turn, brought the Burgundian party over

completely to his side, together with the greater part of the nation.

Things went so far that Charles VI of France decided to marry his

daughter to the victorious Lancaster and to acknowledge him, as his

heir after his death, as his representative during his life.

It was a very extraordinary position which Henry V now occupied. The

two great kingdoms, each of which by itself has earlier or later

claimed to sway the world, were (without being fused into one) to

remain united for ever under him and his successors. Philip the Good

of Burgundy was bound to him by ties of blood and by hostility to a

common foe: as heir of France Henry sat in the Parliament by which

the murderers of the last duke, who were also the chief opponents of

the new state of things, were prosecuted. Another promising connexion

was opened to him by the marriage of the youngest of his brothers with

Jaqueline of Holland and Hainault, who possessed still more extensive

hereditary claims. Henry recommended the eldest to Queen Johanna of

Naples to be adopted as her son and heir. The King of Castile and the

heir of Portugal were descended from his father's sisters. The

pedigrees of Southern and Western Europe alike met in the house of

Lancaster, the head of which thus seemed to be the common head of all.

In England Henry did not neglect to guard the rights of the National

Church; but at the same time no one exerted himself more energetically

to close the schism: the solemn condemnation of Wiclif's doctrines by

the General Council of Constance served to vouch for his attitude in

religious matters: the English Church obtained in it a place among the

great National Churches.

Henry V found himself in the advantageous position of a potentate

raised to power by a usurpation for which he was not however

personally responsible. He could spare and reinstate Richard II's

memory, as much as in him lay, though he owed the crown to his

overthrow. That he furthered and advanced also in France the municipal

and parliamentary interests, which were his mainstay in England,

procured him the obedience which was there paid him, and a European

influence. In his moral character Henry ranks above most of the

Plantagenets. He had no favourites and let no unjust acts be imputed

to him. He was stern towards the great and careful for the common

people; at his first word men could tell what they had to expect from

him. The French were frightened at the keenness of his expression, but

they reverenced his high spirit, his bravery and truthfulness. 'He

transacts all his affairs himself; he considers them well before he

undertakes them; he never does anything fruitlessly. He is free from

excesses, and truthful: he never makes himself too familiar. On his

face are visible dignity and supreme power.'[68] He possessed in full

measure the bold impulses of his ancestors, their attention to the

general affairs of Western Christendom. In the war with the Lollards

he was once wounded; that he recovered from his wound was designated

as the work of divine Providence, which had destined him to be the

conqueror of the Holy Land. He informed himself about its state as it

was then constituted under the Mameluke rule: a Chronicle of Jerusalem

and a History of Godfrey of Bouillon were two of the books he loved

most to read. And without doubt such an undertaking would have been

the true means, if any such means were possible, of uniting more

closely, by common undertakings successes and interests, the realms

already bound together under one sceptre. The Ottomans had not yet

extended themselves in the East with their full force: something might

yet have been effected there; for the King of France and England, who

was yet young in years, a great future seemed to be at hand.

Sometimes it seems as though fortune were specially making a mock of

man's frailty. In this fulness of power and of expectations, Henry V

was attacked by a disease which men did not yet know how to cure and

to which he succumbed. His heir was a boy, nine months old.

Of the two surviving brothers of the deceased King, the younger ruled

England under the already established predominance of the Estates of

the Realm, while the elder governed France with an increased

participation on the part of the Estates: their efforts could only be

directed towards preserving these kingdoms for their nephew Henry VI.

We might almost wonder that this succeeded so well for a time: in the

long run it was impossible. The feeling of French nationality, which

had already met the victor himself with secret warnings, found its most

wonderful expression in the Maid who revived in the French their old

attachment to their native King and his divine right; the English, when

she fell into their hands, with ungenerous hate inflicted on her the

punishment of the Lollards: but the Valois King had already gained a

firm footing. It was Charles VII who understood how to appease the

enmity of Burgundy, and in unison with the great men of his kingdom to

give his power a peculiar organisation corresponding to its character,

so that he was able to oppose to the English troops better armed than

their own, and make the restoration of a firm peace even desirable for

them. But this reacted on England in two ways. The government, which

was inclined for peace, fell into as bitter a quarrel as any that had

hitherto taken place with the national bodies politic, which either did

not recognise this necessity, or attributed the disasters incurred to

bad management. The man most trusted by the King fell a victim to the

public hate. But, besides this, there arose--awakened by these events

and in a certain analogy with what happened in France--the recollection

of the rights which had been set aside by the accession of the house of

Lancaster. Their representative, Richard Duke of York, had hitherto

kept quiet; for he was fully convinced that a right cannot perish

merely because it lies dormant. Cautiously and step by step, while

letting others run the first risk, he at last came forward openly with

his claim to the crown. Great was the astonishment of Henry VI, who as

far as his memory reached had been regarded as King, to find his right

to the highest dignity doubted and denied. But such was now the case.

The nation was split into two parties, one of which held fast to the

monarchy established by the Parliament, while the other wished to recur

to the principle of legitimate succession then violated. Not that

political conviction was the leading motive for their quarrel. First of

all we find that the opponents of the government--though themselves of

Parliamentary views--rallied round the banners of the hitherto

forgotten right of birth. Every man fought, less for the prince whose

device he bore, the red or the white rose, than for his own share in

the enjoyment of political power. On both sides there arose chiefs of

almost independent power, who clad their partisans in their own

colours, at whose call those partisans were ready any moment to take

arms: they appointed the sheriffs in the counties and were lords of the

land. But when blood had once been shed, no reconciliation of the

parties was possible. Ha, cried the victor to the man who begged for

mercy, thy father slew mine, thou must die by my hand. In vain did men

turn to the judges: for the statutes contradicted each other, and they

could no longer decide where the right lay. From the Parliaments no

solution of these questions could be expected; each served the

victorious party, whose summons it obeyed, and condemned its opponent.

As the resources on each side were tolerably equal, even the battles

were not decisive: the result depended less upon real superiority than

on accidental desertions or accessions, and most largely on foreign

help. After the English had failed, during the antagonism of Valois and

Burgundy, in establishing their supremacy on the Continent, the

quarrel--quieted for a moment--which broke out again between Louis XI

and Charles the Bold in the most violent manner, reacted on them with

all the more vehemence. King Louis would not endure that a good

understanding should exist between Edward IV and Duke Charles, to whom

Edward had married his sister: he drew the man who had hitherto done

the most for the Yorkist interests, the Earl of Warwick, over to his

own side; and scarcely had the latter appeared in England when Edward

IV was forced to fly and Henry VI was reinstated. Louis had prepared

church-thanksgivings to God for having given the English a king of the

blood of France and a friend to that country. But meanwhile Edward was

helped by Charles the Bold, to whom he had fled, though not openly in

arms, yet with ships which he hired for him, with considerable sums of

money, and even with troops which he allowed to join him.[69] To these,

his Flemish and Easterling troops, it was chiefly attributed that

Edward gained the upper hand in the field and recovered his throne. But

what a state of things was this! The glorious crown of the

Plantagenets, who a little while before strove for the supremacy of the

world, was now--stained with blood and powerless as it was--tossed to

and fro between the rival parties.

NOTES:

[56] 'I take it as a holesome counsell, that the Pope leeve his

worldly lordship to worldly lords as Christ gafe him and move all his

clerks to do so.' Wickleffs Bileve, in Collier i. Rec. 47.

[57] 'Quod nullus est dominus civilis, nullus est episcopus, nullus

est praelatus, dum est in mortali peccato--quod domini temporales

possunt auferre bona temporalia ab ecclesia habitualiter delinquente

vel quod populares possunt ad eorum arbitrium dominos delinquentes

corrigere.'

[58] Walsingham: 'Antistes belliger velut aper frendens dentibus.'

[59] 'Si rex ex maligno consilio--se alienaverit a populo suo nec

voluent per jura regni et statuta et laudabiles ordinationes cum

salubri consilio dominorum et procorum regni gubernare et

regulari--extunc licitum est eis cum communi assensu et consensu

populi regem ipsum de regali solio abrogare et propinquiorem aliquem

de stirpe regia loco ejus sublimare.' In Knyghton ii. 2683.

[60] 'Comme chose fait traitoirousement et encontre sa regalie, sa

coronne et sa dignitée--le roy de lassent de touts les srs et

coes ad ordeine et establi que null tiel commission ne autre

sembleable jammes ne soit purchacez pursue ne faite en temps advenir.'

Statutes of the Realm II. 98.

[61] Hayward, Life of King Henry IV, gives a detailed copy of this

speech, which however can possess no more claim to authenticity than

the words that Shakespeare puts into the Bishop's mouth.

[62] Le record et procès de la renonciation du roi Richard avec la

deposition. Twysden, ii. 2743.

[63] Conclusiones Lollardorum porrectae pleno parliamento. Wilkins

iii. 222. From the document in 229 we see that these doctrines had

penetrated into Oxford.

[64] The temporal possessions with which the prelates are as rightly

endowed as it has been or might be best advised by the laws and

customs of our kingdom; and of which they are as surely possessed as

the lords temporal are of their inheritances.

[65] Convocatio 6 die Oct. 1389 ... modus procedendi contra

haereticos. Wilkins iii. 238, 254.

[66] He imputes to them, 'l'entent de adnuller la foie chretienne auxi

a destruer le roi mesme et tous maners estates dicell royaume et auxi

toute politie et les leies de la terre.'

[67] Treaty of 23rd May 1414. Certainly Duke John in September 1414

concluded the treaty of Arras which is based on the assumption of his

having no understanding with England; but he never ratified it.

[68] 'De diligence portoit le gonphanon de ses besoignes.'

Chastellain, Chronique du duc Philippe, ch. 98.

[69] Chastellain, Chronique des derniers ducs de Bourgogne, ch 191.

'Le duc cognossoit bien, que ceste mutacion en Angleterre étoit

pratiquée pour le desfaire et non pour autre fin.'

BOOK II.

ATTEMPTS TO CONSOLIDATE THE KINGDOM INDEPENDENTLY IN ITS TEMPORAL AND

SPIRITUAL RELATIONS.

We may regard it as the chief result of the Norman-Plantagenet rule,

that England became completely a member of the Romano-German family of

nations which formed the Western world. In however many ways the

invading nobility had mingled with the native houses, it yet held fast

to its ancient language; even now it is part of the ambition of the

great families to trace their pedigree from the Conquerors. Attempts

had been made, sometimes of a more political, sometimes of a more

doctrinal nature, to break loose from the hierarchy, which prevailed

throughout these nations; but they had only increased its strength;

the native clergy saw that its safety lay in the strictest adherence

to the maxims of the Universal Church. Similarly the character of the

Estates in England was akin to that of those in North France and

especially in the Netherlands; on this rests the sympathy which the

enterprises of Edward III and Henry V met with; for it was indeed the

feeling of these centuries, that the members of any one of the three

Estates felt themselves quite as closely bound to the members of the

same Estate in other lands as to their own countrymen of the other

Estates. There was but one Church, one Science, one Art in Europe: one

and the same mental horizon enclosed the different peoples: a romance

and a poetry varying in form yet of closely kindred nature was the

common possession of all. The common life of Europe flowed also in the

veins of England: an indestructible foundation for culture and

progressive civilisation was laid. But we saw to what point matters

had come notwithstanding, as regards the durability of its internal

system and its power. The Plantagenets had extended the rule of

England over Scotland and Ireland: in the latter it still subsisted,

but only within the narrow limits of the Border Pale; in the former it

was altogether overthrown. The best result that had been effected in

home politics, the attempt to unite the Powers of the country in

Parliament had, after a short and brilliant success, led to the

deepest disorder by disregarding the rights of birth. The degraded

crown above all had thus become the prize of battle for Pretenders

allied with France or Burgundy. But it could not possibly remain thus.

The time was come to give the English realm an independent position

and internal order corresponding at once to its insular situation and

to the degree of culture it had attained.

The first who attempted this with some success was Edward IV, of the

house of York, who in the war of the Roses had remained master of the

field.

But everywhere there began once more an era of autocratic princes.

CHAPTER I.

RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SUPREME POWER.

Edward IV was a most brilliant figure, the handsomest man of his time,

at least among the sovereigns, so that the impression he thus made was

actually a power in politics; we find him incessantly entangled in

love affairs: he was fond of music and enjoyment of all kinds, the

pleasures of the table, the uproar of riotous company: his debauched

habits are thought to have shortened his life, and many a disaster

sprung from his carelessness; but he had also Sardanapalus' nature in

him: with quickly awakening activity he always rose again out of his

disasters; in his battles he appeared the last, but he fought perhaps

the best; and he won them all. In the history of European Monarchy he

is not unworthy to be ranked by the side of Ferdinand the Catholic,

Charles the Bold, Louis XI, and some others who regained prestige for

their dignity by the energy of their personal character.

In itself we must rate it as important that he made good the

birthright of the house of York, independent as it was of the maxims

of Parliament, or rather contradictory to them, and maintained the

throne. He deemed himself the direct successor of Richard II; the

three kings who had since worn the crown by virtue of Parliamentary

enactments were regarded by him as usurpers. We have Fortescue's

contemporary treatise in praise of the laws of England, which (written

for a prince who never came to the throne) contains the idea of

Parliamentary right which the house of Lancaster upheld: but Edward IV

did not so apprehend it. He allowed the lawfulness of his accession to

be recognised by Parliament, because this was of use to him: but

otherwise he paid little regard to its established rights. We find

under him for five years no meeting of Parliament; then a Parliament

that had met was prorogued some four or five times without completing

any business, till it at last agreed to raise the customs duties,

included under the names of Tonnage and Poundage; a revenue which

being voted to the Kings for life (and this came gradually to be

regarded as a mere formality) gave their government a strong financial

basis. Other Parliaments repaid their summons with considerable

grants, with large and full subsidies: yet Edward IV was not content

even with these. Under him began the practice, by which the wealthy

were drawn into contributions for his service in proportion to their

property, of which the King knew how to obtain accurate information;

these contributions were called Benevolences because they were paid

under the form of personal freewill offerings, though none dared to

refuse them:[70] we may compare the imposts which in the Italian

republics the dominant parties were wont to inflict on their

opponents. Though holding Church views in other points, and at any

rate a persecutor of the Lollards, he did not however allow the clergy

to enter on their temporalities without heavy payments: he created

monopolies in the case of some especially profitable articles of

trade. In short, he neglected no means to render the administration of

the supreme power independent of the money-grants of Parliament. He

made room for the royal prerogative as understood by the old kings, as

well as for the right of birth.

But yet he had not established a secure position, since the party of

the enemy was still very powerful, and after his early death a quarrel

broke out in his own house which could not fail to destroy it.

To the characteristic traits of the Plantagenets, their world-wide

views, their chivalry abroad, their versatility at home, the ceaseless

war they waged with each other and with others for power, their

inextinguishable love of rule, belongs also the way in which those who

held power rid themselves of foes within their own family. As formerly

King John had murdered in prison Arthur the lawful heir to the throne,

so Richard II imprisoned and murdered his uncle Thomas of Gloucester,

who was dangerous to himself. Richard II, like Edward II, died by the

hand of a relative who had wrested the crown from him; of the details

of his death we have not even a legend left. Another Gloucester, who

had for many years guarded the crown for the infant Henry VI, was, at

the very moment when he might become dangerous to the new government,

found dead in his bed. So Henry VI perished in the Tower the day

before Edward IV made his entry into London. Edward IV preferred to

have his brother Clarence, though already under sentence of death,

privately killed. But the most atrocious murder of all was that of the

two infant sons of Edward IV himself; they were both murdered at once,

as was fully believed, at the behest of their uncle Richard III, who

had put himself in possession of the throne. I know not whether the

actual character of Richard answered to that type of inborn wickedness

which commits crime because it wills it as crime, such as following

the hints of the Chronicle[71] a great poet has drawn for us in

imperishable traits, and linked with his name: or whether it was not

rather the love of power, that animated the whole family, which in

Richard III grew step by step into a passion that made him forget all

laws human and divine: enough, he did such deeds that the world's

abhorrence weighs justly on him.

But it was owing to the internal discord of the ruling family that

throughout the course of its history a path was made for political and

national development, and so it was now: these crimes opened a way out

of the disorders of the time. For as Richard, while continuing to

persecute the house of Lancaster, struck still harder blows against

the chief members of that of York, he gave occasion to the principal

persons of both parties, who were equally threatened, and had the

same interest in opposing the usurper, to draw nearer to each other.

The widowed Queen Elizabeth, who was lingering out her life in a

sanctuary, was brought into secret connexion through the mediation of

distinguished friends with the mother of the man who now came forward

as head of the Lancasters, Henry Earl of Richmond, and it was

determined that Henry and Elizabeth's daughter, in whom the claims of

both lines were united, should marry each other, a prospect which

might well prepare the way for the immediate combination of the two

parties. Henry of Richmond at their head was then to confront the

usurper and chase him from the throne. The fugitives scattered about

in the sanctuaries and churches called him to be their captain.[72]

The question arises--it has been often answered in the

negative--whether Henry was rightfully a Lancaster, and whether he had

any well-grounded claims on the English crown. He loved to derive his

family from the hero of the Welsh, the fabulous Arthur. His

grandfather, Owen Tudor, a Welshman, was brought into connexion with

the royal house by his marriage with Henry V's widow, Catharine of

France: for unions of royal ladies with distinguished gentlemen were

then not rare. And Owen Tudor of course obtained by this a higher

position, but there could be no question of any claim to the crown.

This was derived simply from the fact that the son of this marriage,

Edmund Tudor Earl of Richmond, married a lady of the house of

Somerset, descended by her father from John of Gaunt, the ancestor of

the Lancasters, by his third marriage with Catharine Swynford. It has

been said that this marriage, in itself of an irregular nature, was

only recognised as legitimate by Richard II on the condition that the

issue from it should have no claim to the succession--and so it is in

fact stated in the often printed Patent. But the original of the

document still exists, and that in two forms, one of which is in the

Rolls of Parliament, the other on the Patent Rolls. In the first the

limitation is wanting, in the second it exists, but as an

interpolation by a later hand. It may be taken as admitted that

Richard II in legitimising the marriage did not make this condition,

and that it was first inserted by Henry IV (who took offence at the

legitimisation of his half-brothers) at the ratification. But the

legitimisation once effected could not possibly be limited in a

one-sided manner by a later sovereign. I think no objection can be

made to the legality of Henry VII's claim, which then passed over to

his successors.[73] The limitation belonged to those proceedings of

one-sided caprice by which Henry IV tried to secure for his direct

descendants the perpetual possession of the crown. It was not from

him, but from his father, the founder of the family, that the Earls of

Richmond derived their claim.

Now that the banner of a true Lancaster appeared again in the field,

and the discontented Yorkists, ill-treated by Richard, joined him, it

might certainly be hoped that the usurper would be overthrown, and

that a strong power would emerge from the union of both lines. Yet the

issue was even then very doubtful.

As in the earlier civil wars, so now too the help of a foreign power

was necessary. With French help the Earl of Richmond led about 2000

men, of which not more than perhaps 800 were English, to Wales;[74] in

his further advance he was joined by proportionately considerable

reinforcements; yet he did not number more than 5000 men under his

banners, badly clothed and still worse armed, when Richard with his

chivalry came upon him in overwhelming numbers. Henry would have been

lost, had he not found partisans in Richard's ranks. Even before the

engagement the desertion from Richard began: then in the middle of the

battle the chief division of his army passed over to Henry. Richard

found the death he sought: for he was resolved to be King or die: on

the battlefield itself Henry was proclaimed King.

There is no doubt that he owed to his union with the house of York,

whose right was then generally regarded as the best, not only his

victory, but the joyous recognition also which he experienced

afterwards: yet his whole nature revolted against basing his state on

this union: he cherished the ambition of ruling only through his own

right.

At the first meeting of Parliament, which he did not call till he was

fully in possession and crowned King, he was met by a very genuinely

English point of law. It arose from the fact that many members of the

Lower House had been attainted by the late government. How could they

make laws who were themselves beyond the pale of law? Who could

cleanse them from the stain that clove to them? This objection could

be raised against Henry himself. In this perplexity recourse was had

to the judges: and they decided that the possession of the crown

supplied all defects, and that the King was already King even without

the assent of Parliament.[75] In the general disorder things had gone

so far, that it was necessary to find some power outside the

continuity of legal forms, from which they might start afresh. The

actual possession of the throne formed this time the living centre

round which the legal state could again form itself. By exercising the

authority inherent in the possession of the crown, the King could

effect the revocation of the sentences that weighed on his partisans

and on a large portion of the Parliament. After the legal character of

that Assembly had been established, it proceeded to recognise Henry's

rights to the crown in the words used for the first of the Lancastrian

house.

In the papal bull which ratified Henry's succession, three grounds are

assigned for it: the right of war, the undoubted nearest right to the

succession, and the recognition by Parliament. On the first the King

himself laid great stress: he once designates the issue of the battle

as the decision of God between him and his foes. He thus avoided any

mention of the marriage with Edward IV's daughter, which he did not

complete till he was acknowledged on all sides. The papal bull

declared that the crown of England was to be hereditary in Henry's

descendants, even if they did not spring from the Yorkist marriage.

We can easily understand this: Henry would not tolerate by his side in

the person of his wife a joint ruler of equal, and even better, right

than his own; but we can understand also that this proceeding drew on

him new enmities. At the very outset the widowed Queen gave it to be

understood that her daughter was rather lowered than raised by the

marriage. The whole party of York moreover felt itself contemned and

insulted. To the ferment of displeasure and ambition into which it

fell must be attributed the fact that a pair of adventurers, who acted

the part of genuine descendants of the house of York, Lambert Simnel

and Perkin Warbeck, supported from abroad, found the greatest sympathy

and recognition in England. The first Henry VII had to meet in open

battle, the second he got into his hands only by a great European

combination.

But he did not wish to have always to encounter open disturbance. He

was entirely of the opinion which his chancellor gave, that enmities

of such a sort could not be extinguished by the sword of war, but only

by well-planned and stringent laws which would destroy the seed of

rebellion, and by institutions strong enough to administer those laws.

Above all he found it intolerable that the great men kept numerous

dependents attached to them under engagements which were publicly

paraded by distinctive badges. The lower courts of justice and the

juries did not do the service expected from them in dealing with the

transgressions of the law that came before them. Uncertainty as to the

supreme authority, and the power which the great party-leaders

exercised, filled the weaker, who had to sit in judgment on them, with

dread of their sure revenge. To put an end to this disorder Henry VII

established the Starchamber. With consent of the Parliament, from

which all hostile party-movements were excluded, he gave his Privy

Council, which was strengthened by the chief judges, a strong

organisation with this end in view. It was to punish all those

personal engagements, the exercise of unlawful influence in the choice

of sheriffs, all riotous assemblies, lastly to have power to deal with

the early symptoms of a tumult before it came to an outbreak, and that

under forms which were not usual in the English administration of

justice. This powerful instrument in the hands of government might be

much abused, but then seemed necessary to keep in check unreconciled

enemies and the spirit of faction that was ever surging up again. We

see the prevailing state of things from the fact, that the King's

councillors themselves, to be secured against acts of violence, passed

a special law, which characterised attacks on them as attacks on the

King himself. But then, like men who stood in the closest connexion

with the King and his State, they used their authority with

unapproachable severity. The internal tranquillity of England has been

thought to be mainly due to the erection of this court of justice.[76]

Since Henry laid so much stress on his being a Lancaster, it might

have been expected that he would revive the rights of the Parliament.

But in this respect he followed the example of the house of York. He

too imposed Benevolences, like Edward IV, and that to a yet greater

extent; he made an ordinance that what was voluntarily promised should

be exacted with as much strictness as if it were an ordinary tax.

Another source of financial gain, which has brought on him still worse

reproaches, was his commission against infractions of the law. It was

inevitable that in the fluctuation of authority and of the statutes

themselves innumerable illegalities should have taken place. And they

were still always going on. The King took it especially ill that men

omitted to pay the dues which belonged to the crown in right of its

feudal superiority. All these negligences and failures were now

visited and punished with the severity of the old Norman system, and

at the same time with the officiousness of party-men of the day, who

saw their own advantage in it. This proceeding pressed very many

heavily on private persons and communities, and ruined families, but

it filled the King's coffers. One of his maxims was that his laws

should not be broken under any circumstances, another that a sovereign

who would enjoy consideration must always have money: in this instance

both worked together.

If we look at the lists of his receipts we find that they consist, as

in other kingdoms, of the crown's revenue proper, which was

considerably increased by the escheated possessions of great families

which had become extinct, the customs duties settled on him for life,

the tenth from the clergy, and the feudal dues. It was estimated that

they produced nearly the same revenue as that of the French kings at

this time, but it was remarked that the King of England only spent

about two-thirds of his income. He did not need a Parliamentary grant,

especially as he kept out of dangerous foreign entanglements. In his

last thirteen years he never once called a Parliament.

This precisely corresponded to the idea of his government. After all

had become doubtful owing to the alternate fluctuations of parties he

had established his personal claim by the fortune of arms, and made it

the central point of his government. Was he to allow it to be again

endangered by the ceaseless ebb and flow of popular opinion? He

founded a supreme court independent of popular agitation, a finance

system independent of the grants of a popular assembly.

But he thus found himself under the disadvantage of having to apply

compulsion unceasingly: his government bore throughout the bitter and

hateful character of a party-government. With untiring jealousy he

watched the secret opponents who still looked out for some movement

from abroad, as a signal for fresh revolt: he kept diaries of their

doings and conduct: it was said he availed himself of the confessional

for this purpose: men whose names were from time to time solemnly

cursed at S. Paul's on account of past treasons, so that they counted

for open enemies, became useful to him as spies. If the decision lay

between services received and suspicious conduct, the latter easily

weighed down the balance, to the ruin of the victim. William Stanley,

who had played the most important part in the battle which decided the

fate of the crown, and was regarded as almost the first man in the

realm after the King, had at the appearance of Perkin Warbeck (who

gave himself out as Edward's younger son, Richard of York) let slip

the words, 'he would take his side, if he were the person he gave

himself out to be.' He had to atone for these words by his death,

since he had intimated a doubt as to the King's lawful right, which

might mislead others into sedition. Gradually the movements ceased:

the high nobility showed a loyal submission to the King: yet it did

not attach itself to him, it let him and his government alone. The

King's principle was, to execute the laws most strictly, yet he was

not cruel by nature; if men implored his mercy, he was ready to grant

it. The contracted position of a sovereign, who maintains his

authority with the utmost strictness, does not however exclude a

paternal care for the country. Henry clipped his people's wings, to

accustom them to obedience, and then was glad when they grew again. We

find even that he made out a sketch of how the land should be

cultivated so that every man might be able to live. The people did not

love him, but it did not exactly hate him either: this was quite

enough for Henry VII.

A slight man, somewhat tall, with thin light-coloured hair, whose

countenance bore the traces of the storms he had passed through; in

his appearance he gave the impression of being a high ecclesiastic

rather than a chivalrous King. He was in this almost the exact

opposite of Edward IV. He too certainly arranged public festivities

and spared no expense to make them splendid, since his dignity

demanded it, but his soul took no pleasure in them, he left them as

soon as ever he could; he lived only in business. In his council sat

men of mark, sagacious bishops, experienced generals, magistrates

learned in the law: he held it to be his duty and his interest to hear

their advice. And they were not without influence: one or two were

noted as able to restrain his self-seeking will. But the main affairs

he kept in his own hands. All that he undertook he conducted with

great foresight and as a rule he carried it through. Foreigners

regarded him as cunning and deceitful; to his own people his

successful prudence seemed to have something supernatural about it. If

he had personal passions, he knew how to keep them under; he seemed

always calm and sober, sparing of words and yet affable.

He directed almost his chief energies to this object, to keep off all

foreign influences from his well-ordered kingdom.

NOTES:

[70] Historiae Croylandensis Continuatio II. 'Concessae sunt decimae

ac quintodecimae multiplices in coetibus clericorum et laicorum,

habentibus in faciendis concessionibus hujusmodi interesse. Praeterea

haereditarii ac possessionati omnes de rebus immobilibus suarum

possessionum partem libere concedebant. Cumque nec omnia praedicta

sufficere visa sunt, inducta est nova et inaudita impositio oneris, ut

per benevolentiam quilibet daret id quod vellet, imo verius quod

nollet.'

[71] At least Sir Thomas More has not invented the nature and manner

of the murder; it is derived from a confession of the persons

concerned in it in Henry VII's time. 'Dightonus traditionis hujus

principale erat instrumentum' (Bacon 212). Tyrel too seems to have

known of it.

[72] 'Videntes, quod si novum conquestionis suae capitaneum invenire

non possent brevi de omnibus actum foret.' Hist. Croyl. 568.

[73] I take this from Nicolas, Observations on the state of historical

literature, 1830, p. 178. Hume's objection, that the mother's right

came before the son's, is done away with by the fact that men had in

general never yet seen reigning Queens.

[74] How the world regarded it then we ascertain from the words of the

Chroniques de Jean Molinet, ed. Buchon, iii. 151. 'Le Comte de

Richmond fut couronne et institué Henri VII, par le confort et

puissant subside du roi de France.'

[75] 'A quo tempore Rex coronam assumpserat, fontem sanguinis fuisse

expurgatum--ut regi opera parlamentaria non fuisset opus.' So Bacon,

Henricus VII. 29.

[76] Edw. Coke: 4 Inst. cap. ix. 'It is the most honourable court, our

Parliament excepted, that is in the Christian world.--In the judges of

the same are the grandees of the realm: and they judge upon confession

or deposition or witness.--This court doth keep all England in quiet.'

CHAPTER II.

CHANGES IN THE CONDITION OF EUROPE.

For the history of the world the decisive event of the epoch was the

rapid rise of the French monarchy, which after it had freed itself

from the English invasions, became master of all the hitherto separate

territories of the great vassals, and lastly even of Brittany, and

rapidly began to make its preponderance felt on all sides.

Considered in itself no one would have been more called on to oppose

this than the King of England, who even still bore the title of King

of France. In fact Henry did once revive his claim on the French

crown, on Normandy and Guyenne, and took part in a coalition, which

was to have forced Charles VIII to give up Brittany; he crossed to

Calais and threatened Boulogne. But he was not in earnest with these

comprehensive views in his military enterprise, any more than Edward

IV had once been in a similar one. Henry VII was contented when a

considerable money payment year by year was secured to him, as it had

been to Edward. The English called it a tribute, the French a pension.

It was acceptable to the King, and advantageous for his home affairs,

just at that moment--1492--to have a sum of money at his free

disposal.

And no one could have advised him to attach himself unconditionally to

the house of Burgundy. Duke Charles' widow was still alive, who found

it unendurable that the house of York, from which she sprang, should

be dethroned from its 'triumphant majesty, which shone over the seven

nations of the world'--for so she expressed herself. With her the

fugitive partisans of the house of York found refuge and protection:

by herself and her son-in-law Maximilian of Austria the pretenders

were fitted out who contested the crown with Henry VII. Henry could

not really wish Brittany to pass to his sworn foe, so that he might be

threatened from this quarter also at every moment. For how could he

delude himself with the hope that a transitory alliance would prevail

over a dynastic antipathy?

At this crisis Ferdinand the Catholic of Spain offered him an alliance

and connexion by marriage.

That which induced this sovereign to do so was above all Charles

VIII's invasion of Italy, and his conquest of Naples, to which the

crown of Aragon had just claims. His plan was to oppose to the mighty

consolidated power of France a family alliance with the

Austro-Burgundian House, with Portugal, above all with England: he

hoped that this would react on Italy, always wont to adhere to the

most powerful party. Ferdinand offered the King of England a marriage

between his youngest daughter Catharine and the Prince of Wales. In

the English Privy Council many objections were made to this; they did

not wish to draw the enmity of France on themselves and would have

rather seen the prince united to a princess of the house of Bourbon,

as was then proposed. It was on Henry VII's own responsibility that

the offer was accepted. In September 1496 an agreement was come to

about the conditions: on 15th August 1497 the ceremony of betrothal

took place in the palace at Woodstock.[77]

The motive which impelled Henry to his decision is sufficiently clear;

it was his relation to Scotland, on which the Spaniards already

exercised influence.

There the second pretender, Perkin Warbeck, had found a warm reception

from the young and chivalrous James IV: he there married a lady of one

of the chief houses: accompanied in person by this sovereign he made

an attempt to invade England, which only failed owing to the

unfavourable time of the year. The Spanish ambassador Pedro de Ayala

then out of regard to Henry secured Perkin's withdrawal from Scotland.

But in 1497 the danger revived in a yet greater degree. Warbeck landed

in Cornwall where all the inhabitants rallied round him, and a revolt

already once suppressed broke out again; at this moment James IV,

urged on by the nobles of the land, crossed the border with a splendid

army: the co-operation of the two movements might have placed the King

in a serious difficulty. Again it was the Spanish ambassador who made

James IV determine not to let himself be urged on further; but rather

to give him the commission, to adjust his differences with England.

Henry VII was set free to suppress the revolt in Cornwall; Perkin

Warbeck was taken in his flight.

As the object of the Spaniards was to sever Scotland from her old

alliance with France, and that too by means of a family alliance, it

was an essential point in their mediation that Henry VII, as he

betrothed his son Arthur to a Spanish Infanta, should similarly

betroth his daughter Margaret to James IV. The understanding with

Spain and that with Scotland went hand in hand.

And on another side too the alliance with Spain was very useful to the

King of England. Ferdinand had married his elder daughter Juana to

Maximilian's son the Archduke Philip: Philip could not possibly uphold

the Yorkist interests so zealously as his father or his grandmother.

It was an event of importance that at Whitsuntide 1500 a meeting took

place between the English and the Austro-Burgundian Court in the

neighbourhood of Calais. Henry applied himself to win over those whom

he knew to be his enemies: but at the same time he wished it to be

remarked that the Archduke showed him the honour which belongs to a

lawful King. If there were still Yorkist partisans in England, who

placed their hopes in the house of Burgundy, they would find that they

had nothing more to hope from that quarter.

So the Spanish alliance served the prudent and circumspect politician,

to secure him from any hostile action on the side of Scotland and the

Netherlands. When Catharine in 1501 came to England for her marriage,

she was received with additional joy because it was felt that her near

connexion with the Burgundian house promised good relations with the

Netherlands.[78]

But never was a more eventful marriage concluded.

We do not know whether the Prince of Wales had really consummated it

when he died before he was yet sixteen. But the two fathers were so

well satisfied with an alliance which increased the security of the

one and gained the other great consideration in the world, that they

could not bring themselves to give up the family connexion, by which

it was so much strengthened. The thought occurred to Ferdinand--a very

unusual one in the rest of the European world, though not indeed in

Spain--of marrying the Infanta to Henry, brother of the deceased

prince, who was now recognised as Prince of Wales. With his condolence

for the loss he united a proposal for the new marriage. In England

from the beginning men did not hide from themselves that as regarded

the future succession, which ought not to be contested from any side,

the matter had its delicate points. The solution which Henry found

shows clearly enough the natural tactics of the old politician. He

obtained from the Roman Court a dispensation for the new marriage,

which expressly included the case of the first marriage having been

consummated. But it almost appears as though he did not fully trust

this authorisation. High as the prestige of the supreme Pontiff still

stood in the world, there were yet cases in which canonists and

theologians doubted as to his dispensing power; men could not possibly

have forgotten that, when Richard III wished to marry his niece

Elizabeth, a number of doctors disapproved of such a marriage, even if

the Pope should sanction it. At any rate Henry VII instigated, or at

least did not oppose, his son's solemnly entering a protest, after the

marriage ceremony between him and Catharine was performed, against its

validity (on the ground of his being too young), the evening before he

entered his fifteenth year, in the presence of the Bishop of

Winchester, his father's chief Secretary of State. Hence all remained

undecided. Catharine lived on in England: her dowry did not need to be

given up; the general influence of the political union was saved; it

could however be dissolved at any moment, and there was therefore no

quarrel on this account with France, whence from time to time

proposals proceeded for a marriage in the opposite interest. The

prince kept himself quite free, to make use of the dispensation or

not.

For the King himself too, whose wife died in 1503, many negociations

were entered into on both sides. The French offered him a lady of the

house of Angoulême; he preferred Maximilian's daughter, Margaret of

Austria, not indeed for her personal qualities, however praiseworthy

they might be; he stipulated after his usual fashion for the surrender

of the fugitive Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, who was regarded

as the chief representative of the house of York, and (as once

previously in France) had at that time found a refuge in the

Netherlands. Philip, who after the death of his mother-in-law wished

to take possession of his wife's kingdoms in Spain, was on his voyage

from Flanders driven by a storm on the English coasts: he was Henry's

guest at Windsor, Richmond, and London. Here then the King's marriage

with Philip's sister was concerted, and with it the surrender of

Suffolk. Philip strove long against this: when he yielded, he at least

got a promise that Henry VII would spare the life of the earl, whom he

accused of treason. He kept his word: the prisoner was not executed

till after his death.

Margaret had no inclination to wed herself with the harsh and

self-seeking King, who was growing old: he himself, when Philip

shortly after his arrival in Castile was snatched away by an early

death, formed the idea of marrying his widow Juana, though she was no

longer in her right mind. He opened a negociation about it, which he

pursued with zeal and apparent earnestness. The Spaniards ascribe to

him the project of marrying himself to Ferdinand's elder daughter, and

his son to the younger, and making the latter marriage, which he was

purposely always putting off, the price of his own. One should hardly

ascribe such a folly to the prudent and wise sovereign at his years

and with his failing strength. That he made the proposals admits of

no doubt: but we must suppose that he wished purposely to oppose to

the pressure of the Spaniards for the marriage of his son with the

Infanta a demand which they could never grant. For how could they let

the King of England share in Juana's immense claims of inheritance?

Henry wished neither to break off nor to complete his son's marriage;

for the one course would have made Spain hostile, while the second

might have produced a quarrel with France. Between these two powers he

maintained an independent position, without however mixing in earnest

with their affairs, and only with the view of warding off their enmity

and linking their interests with his own. His political relations

were, as he said, to draw a brazen wall round England, within which he

had gradually become complete lord and master. The crown he had won on

the battlefield, and maintained as his own in the extremest dangers,

he bequeathed to his son as an undoubted possession. The son succeeded

the father without opposition, without a rival--a thing that had not

happened for centuries. He had only to ascend the throne, in order to

take the reins of government into his hand.

_Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey in their earlier years._

But that the political situation should continue as it was could not

be expected. What has not seldom in the history of great kingdoms and

states formed a decisive turning point now came to pass: to the father

who had founded and maintained his power with foresight and by painful

and continuous labour, succeeded a son full of life and energy, who

wished to enjoy its possession, and feeling firm ground under his feet

determined to live in a way more after his own mind. Henry VIII too

felt the need of being popular, like most princes on their accession:

he sacrificed the two chiefs of the fiscal commission, Empson and

Dudley, to the universal hate. In general his father's point of view

seemed to him too narrow-hearted, his proceedings too cautious.

The first great question which was laid before him concerned his

marriage: he decided for it without further delay. No doubt that in

this political reasons came chiefly into account. France had been ever

growing mightier, it had just then struck down the republic of Venice

by a great victory; men thought it would one day or another come into

collision with England, and held it prudent to unite themselves

beforehand with those who could then be useful as allies. At that time

this applied to the Spaniards above all others.[79] Yet, unless

everything deceives us, political considerations only coincided with

the prince's inclinations. The Infanta was in the full bloom of her

age; the prince, was even younger than herself and against his will

had been kept apart from any association with her, might well be

impressed by her: besides she had known how to conduct herself with

tact and dignity in her difficult position; with a blameless earnest

mien she combined gentleness and loveable qualities. The marriage was

carried out without delay; in the ceremonies of her husband's

coronation Catharine could actually take part as Queen. How fully did

these festivities again breathe the ancient character of chivalrous

splendour. Men saw the King's champion, with his own herald in front,

in full armour, ride into the hall on his war-steed which carried the

armorial bearings of England and France; he challenged to single

combat any one who would dare to say that Henry VIII was not the true

heir of this realm; then he asked the King for a draught of wine, who

had it given him in a golden cup: the cup was then his own.

Henry VIII had a double reason for confidence on his throne,--the

blood of the house of York also flowed in his veins. In European

affairs he was no longer content with keeping off foreign influences,

he wished to take part in them like his ancestors with the whole power

of England. After the dangers which had been overcome had passed out

of the memory of those living, the old delight in war awoke again.

When France now began to encounter resistance in her career of

victory, first through Pope Julius II, then through King Ferdinand,

Henry did not hesitate to make common cause with them. It marks his

disposition in these first years, that he took arms especially because

men ought not to allow the supreme Priest of Christendom to be

oppressed.[80] When King Louis and the Emperor Maximilian tried to

oppose a Council to the Pope, Henry VIII dissuaded the latter from it

with a zeal full of unction. He drew him over in fact to his side:

they undertook a combined campaign against France in which they won a

battle in the open field, and conquered a great city, Tournay. Aided

by the English army Ferdinand the Catholic then possessed himself of

Navarre, which was given up to him by the Pope as being taken when it

was in league with an enemy of the Church. Louis's other ally, the

Scottish King James IV, succumbed to the military strength of North

England at Flodden, and Henry might have raised a claim to Scotland,

like that of Ferdinand to Navarre: but he preferred, as his sister

Margaret became regent there, to strengthen the indirect influence of

England over Scotland. On the whole the advantages of his warlike

enterprises were for England small, but not unimportant for the

general relations of Europe. The predominance of France was broken: a

freer position restored to the Papacy. Henry VIII felt himself

fortunate in the full weight of the influence which England had won

over European affairs.

It was no contradiction of the fundamental ideas of English policy,

when Henry VIII again formed a connexion with Louis XII, who was now

no longer formidable. He even gave him his younger sister to wife, and

concluded a treaty with him, by which he secured himself a money

payment, as his predecessors had so often done before. Yet he did not

for this break at all with Ferdinand the Catholic, though he had

reason to complain of him: rather he concluded a new alliance with

him, only in a less close and binding manner. He would not have

endured that the successor of Louis XII (who died immediately after

his marriage), the youthful and warlike Francis I, after he had

possessed himself of Milan, should have also advanced to Naples. For a

moment, in consequence of these apprehensions, their relations became

less close: but when the alarm proved to be unfounded, the alliance

was renewed, and even Tournay restored for a compensation in money.

Many personal motives may have contributed to this, but on the whole

there was sense and system in such a policy. The reconquest of Milan

did not make the King of France so strong that he would become

dangerous, particularly as on the other side the monarchy which had

been prepared by the Spanish-Netherlands' connexions now came into

existence, and the grandson of Ferdinand and Maximilian united the

Spanish kingdoms with Naples and the lordship over the Netherlands.

To this position between the two powers it would have lent new weight

and great splendour if the German princes could have been induced to

transfer to the King of England the peaceful dignity of a Roman-German

Emperor. He bestirred himself about this for a moment, but did not

feel it much when it was refused him.

But now since the empire too was added to the possessions in Spain,

Italy, and the Netherlands, and hence redoubled jealousy awakened in

King Francis I, which held out an immediate prospect of war, the old

question came up again before King Henry, which side England was to

take between them, and that in a more pressing form than ever. A

special complication arose from the fact that yet another person with

separate points of view now took part in the politics of the age.

In another point Henry VIII departed from his father's tactics and

habits; he no longer sat so regularly with his Privy Council and

deliberated with them. He had been persuaded that he would best secure

himself against prejudicial results from the discords that reigned

among them, by taking affairs more into his own hand. A young

ecclesiastic, his Almoner Thomas Wolsey, had then gained the greatest

influence over him; he had been introduced alike into business and

into intimacy with the King by Fox, Bishop of Winchester, who wished

to oppose a more youthful ability to his rivals in the Privy Council.

In both relations Wolsey was completely successful. It stood him in

good stead that another favourite, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk,

who had married Henry's sister (Louis XII's widow), and was the King's

comrade in knightly exercises and the external show of court-life, for

a long time remained in intimate friendship with him. Wolsey was

conversant with the scholastic philosophy, with Saint Thomas Aquinas;

but that did not hinder him from cooperating also in the revival of

classical studies, which were just coming into notice at Oxford: he

had a feeling for the efforts of Art which was then attaining a higher

estimation, and an inborn talent for architecture, to which we owe

some wonderful works.[81] The King too loved building; the present of

a skilfully cut jewel could delight him; and he sought honour in

defending the scholastic dogmas against Luther's views; in all this

Wolsey seconded and supported him, he combined state-business with

conversation. He freed the King from the consultations of the Privy

Council, in which the intrinsic importance of the matter always weighs

more than one's own will; Henry VIII first felt himself to be really

King when business was managed by a favourite thoroughly dependent on

him, trusted by him, and in fact very capable. Wolsey showed the most

many-sided activity and an indefatigable power of work. He presided in

court though he was not strong in law; he mastered the department of

finance; the King named him Archbishop of York, the Pope

Cardinal-Legate, so that the whole control of ecclesiastical matters

fell into his hands; foreign affairs were peculiarly his own

department. We have a considerable number of his political writings

and instructions remaining, which give us an idea of the

characteristics of his mind. Very circumstantially and almost

wearisomely do they advance--not exactly in a straight line--weighing

manifold possibilities, multiplied reasons: they are scholastic in

form, in contents sometimes fantastic even to excess, intricate yet

acute, flattering to the person to whom they are addressed, but withal

filled with a surprising self-consciousness of power and talent.

Wolsey is celebrated by Erasmus for his affability, and to a great

scholar he may have been accessible, but to others he was not so. When

he went to walk in the park of Hampton Court, no one would have dared

to come within a long distance of him. When questions were asked him

he reserved to himself the option of answering or not. He had a way of

giving his opinion so that every man yielded to him; especially as the

possession of the King's favour, which he enjoyed, made it impossible

to oppose him. If the government was spoken of, he was wont to say,

'the King and I,' or 'we,' or at last 'I.' Just because he was of

humble origin, he wished to shine by splendid appearance, costly and

rare furniture, unwonted expenditure. Early one morning his

appointment as Cardinal arrived, that same morning at mass he

displayed the insignia of his new dignity. He required outward tokens

of reverence, and insisted on being served on bended knee. He had many

other passions, of which the chief was ecclesiastical ambition

pervaded by personal vanity.

It gave him high satisfaction that both the great powers emulously

courted the favour and friendship of his King, of which he seemed to

have the disposal.

In June 1520 took place within the English possessions on French soil

the meeting between Henry VIII and Francis I, which is well designated

as the Field of the Cloth of Gold. It was properly a great tournament,

proclaimed in both nations, to which the chief lords yet once more

gathered in all their splendour. With the festivities were mingled

negociations in which the Cardinal of York played the chief part.

Immediately before this in England, and just afterwards on the

continent, Henry VIII met Charles V also, with less show but greater

intimacy; the negociations here took the opposite direction.

In 1521, when war had already broken out between the two great powers,

the cardinal in his King's name undertook the part of mediator. There

in Calais he sat to a certain degree in judgment on the European

powers. The plenipotentiaries of both sovereigns laid their cases

before him: with apparent zeal and much bustle he tried at least to

conclude a truce: he complained once of the Emperor, that he

disregarded his good advice though weighty and to the point: on which

the latter did come a step nearer him. It was a magnificent position

if he understood and maintained it. The more powerful both princes

became, the more dangerous to the world their enmity should be, the

more need there was of a mediating authority between them. But the

purity of intention which is required to carry out such a task is

seldom given to men, and did not exist in Wolsey. His ambition

suggested plans to him which reached far beyond a peace arbitration.

When he promoted that first interview with Francis I against the will

of the great men and of the Queen of England, the Emperor's

ambassadors, who were thrown into consternation by it, remarked that

the French King must have promised him the Papacy, which however, they

add, is rather in the Imperial than in the royal gift. It does not

appear that the Emperor went quite so far at once, he only warned the

cardinal against the untrustworthy promises of the French, and sought

to bring him to the conviction--while making him the most advantageous

offers--that he could expect everything from him.[82] Clear details he

reserved till they met in person; and then he in fact drew him over

completely to his side. Under Wolsey's influence King Henry,

immediately on the outbreak of the war, gave out his intention of

making common cause with the Emperor. For he had not, he said, so

little understanding as not to see that the opportunity was thus

offered him of carrying out his predecessors' claims and his own, and

he wished to use it. Only he preferred not to commence war at once,

since he was not yet armed, and since a broader alliance should be

first formed. The cardinal hoped to be able to draw the Pope, the

Swiss, and the Duke of Savoy, as well as the Kings of Portugal,

Denmark, and Hungary, into it. What an impression then it must have

made on him, when Pope Leo X, without being pressed, at once allied

himself with the Emperor! Wolsey's attempt at mediation--no room for

doubt about it is left by the documents that lie before us--was only

meant as a means of gaining time. At Calais Wolsey had already given

the imperial ambassadors, in the presence of the Papal Nuncio, the

most definite assurances as to the resolution of his King to take part

in the war against France. Before he returned to England to call the

Parliament together, which was to vote the necessary ways and means,

he visited the Emperor at Bruges. At the last negociations, being at

times doubtful about his trustworthiness, Charles V held it doubly

necessary to bind him by every tie to himself. He then spoke to him of

the Papacy, and gave him his word that he would advance him to that

dignity.[83]

The opportunity for this came almost too soon. When Leo X died, just

at this moment, Wolsey's hopes rose in stormy impatience. When the

Emperor renewed his assurance to him, he demanded of him in plain

terms to advance his then victorious troops to Rome, and put down by

main force any resistance to the choice proposed. Before anything

could be done, before the ambassador whom Henry VIII despatched at

once to Italy reached it, the cardinals had already elected, and

elected moreover the Emperor's former tutor, Hadrian. But was not this

a proof of his irresistible authority? Hadrian's advanced age made it

clear that there would be an early vacancy: and to this Wolsey now

directed his hopes. He gave assurance that he would administer the

Papacy for the sole advantage of the King and the Emperor: he thought

then to overpower the French, and after completing this work he

already saw himself in spirit directing his weapons to the East, to

put an end to the Turkish rule. At his second visit to England the

Emperor renewed his promise at Windsor castle; he spoke of it in his

conferences with the King.[84] Altogether the closest alliance was

concluded. The Emperor promised to marry Henry's daughter Mary,

assuming that the Pope would grant him the necessary dispensation.

Their claims to French territories they would carry out by a combined

war. Should a difficulty occur between them, Cardinal Wolsey was fixed

on as umpire.

So did the alliance between the houses of Burgundy and Tudor come to

pass, the basis of which was to be the annihilation of the power of

the Valois, and into which the English minister threw his world-wide

ambition. From England also a declaration of war now reached Francis

I. Whilst the war in Italy and on the Spanish frontiers made the most

successful progress, the English, in 1522 under Howard Earl of Surrey,

in 1523 under Brandon Earl of Suffolk, both times in combination with

Imperial troops, invaded France on the side of the Netherlands,

invasions which, to say the least, very much hampered the French.

Movements also manifested themselves within France itself, which awoke

hopes in the King that he might make himself master of the French

crown as easily as his father had once done of the English. Leo X had

already been persuaded to absolve the subjects of Francis I from their

oaths to him. It was in connexion with this that the second man in

France, the Constable of Bourbon, slighted in his station, and

endangered in his possessions, resolved to help himself by revolting

from Francis I. He wished then to recognise no other King in France

but Henry VIII: at a solemn moment, after receiving the sacrament, he

communicated to the English ambassador, who was with him, his

resolution to set the French crown on King Henry's head: he reckoned

on a numerous party declaring for him. And in the autumn of 1523 it

looked as if this project would be accomplished. Suffolk and Egmont

pressed on to Montdidier without meeting with any resistance: it was

thought that the Netherland and English forces would soon occupy the

capital, and give a new form to the realm. Pope Hadrian was just dead

at Rome; would not the united efforts of the Emperor and the King of

England succeed, by their influence on the conclave, especially now

that they were victorious, in really raising Wolsey to the tiara?

This however did not happen. In Rome not Wolsey but Julius Medici was

elected Pope; the combined Netherland and English troops retreated

from Montdidier; Bourbon saw himself discovered and had to fly, no one

declared for him. This last is doubtless to be ascribed to the

vigilance and good conduct of King Francis, but in the retreat of the

troops and in the election of the Pope other causes were at work. In

the conclave Charles V certainly did not act with as much energy for

Wolsey as the latter expected: Wolsey never forgave him. But he too

has been accused of having basely abused the confidence of the two

sovereigns: he had kept up friendly connexions all along with Francis

I and his mother, and they likewise had given him pensions and

presents: he had purposely supported the Earl of Suffolk so ill that

he was forced to retreat.[85] Of all the complaints raised against

him, not so much before the world as among those who were behind the

scenes, this was exactly the most hateful and perhaps the most

effectual.

In 1524 the English took no active part in the war. Not till February

1525, when the German and Spanish troops had won the great victory of

Pavia and King Francis had fallen captive into the Emperor's hands,

did their ambitious projects and thoughts of war reawaken.

Henry VIII reminded the Emperor of his previous promises, and invited

him to make a joint attack on France itself from both sides: they

would join hands in Paris; Henry VIII should then be crowned King of

France, but resign to the Emperor not merely Burgundy but also

Provence and Languedoc, and cede to the Duke of Bourbon his old

possessions and Dauphiné. The motive he alleges is very extraordinary:

the Emperor would marry his daughter and heiress, and would at some

future time inherit England and France also and then be monarch of the

world.[86] Henry declares himself ready to press on with the utmost

zeal, provided he can do it with some security, and himself undertake

the conduct of the war in the Netherlands and the support of Bourbon.

The letter is from Wolsey, full of copious and pressing conclusions;

but should not the far-reaching nature of its contents have been a

proof even to him that it could never be taken in earnest?

Charles V could not possibly enter into the plan. He had lent it a

hearing as long as it lay far away, but when it came actually close to

view, it was very startling for him. The union of the crowns of France

and England on the head of Henry VIII would in itself have deranged

all European relations, above all it would have raised that

untrustworthy man, who was still all powerful in his Council, to a

most inconvenient height of power. The Spanish kingdoms too were

pressing for the settlement of their succession. He was in the full

maturity of manly youth: he could not wait for Mary of England who had

barely completed her tenth year: he resolved to break off this

connexion, and give his hand to a Portuguese princess, who was nearly

of his own age.

It could not be otherwise but that to the closest union, which was

broken at the moment when it might well have been able to attain its

object, the bitterest discord should succeed.

NOTES:

[77] Zurita Anales de Aragon v. 100. The Spanish ambassador who then

negociated the marriage was Doctor Ruyz Gonzales de Puerta. But the

idea was much older: in 1492 at the first alliance mention was made of

it (v. II); in the recently published Journal of an English Embassy to

Spain, there appears in March 1489, 'donne Katherine al notre princess

de Angleterre.' Memorial of Henry VII, 180.

[78] Zurita v. 221. 'La princesa fue recibida con tanta alegria

communemente de todos, que affirmavan aver de ser esta causa, no solo

de muy grande paz y presperidad de sodo a' quel reyno, pero de la

union del y de los estados de Flandes.'

[79] Zurita vi. 193. 'Por que el rey Luys cada dia se yva haziendo mas

poderoso y no teniendo el rey de Inglaterra confederation y adherencia

con los que avian de ser enemigos forçosos del rey de Francia, quedava

aquel reyno en grande peligro.'

[80] He accepts the doctrine: 'Christi vicarium nullum in terris

judicem habere nosque ei debere vel dyscholo auscultare.' Lettres de

Louys XII, iii. 307.

[81] As it is said in Cavendish, Cardinalis Eboracensis:--

'My byldynges somptious, the roffes with gold and byse

Craftely entaylled as conning could devise,

With images embossed most lively.'

[82] In an opinion given at Corunna it is said that he must be

persuaded, 'qu'il prende pour agreable et accepte ce que l'empereur

lui a offert, luy traynant d'une souppe en miel parmy la bouche, que

n'est le (que du) bien, que l'empereur luy veut (20 April 1520).'

Monumenta Habsburgica ii. 1. 177, 183.

[83] In a letter to his ambassador, the Bishop of Badajoz, the Emperor

mentions 'les propos, que luy (au cardinal) avons tenu a Bruges

touchants la papalité.' Monumenta Habsburgica ii. 1. 501.

[84] Wolsey mentions in his letter to the King 'the conference and

communications, which he (the Emperor) had with your grace in that

behalf.' In Burnet iii. Records p. 11.

[85] Du Bellay au Grandmaistre 17 October 1529, in Le Grand, Histoire

du divorce iii. 374: 'Que il avait toujours en tems de paix et de

guerre intelligence secrette a Madame, de la quelle la dicte guerre

durant, il avoit eu des grants presens, qui furent cause, que Suffolc

estant a Montdidier il ne le secourut d'argent comme il devoit dont

advint que il ne print Paris.'

[86] The Instructions to Tunstall and Wingfield (30 March 1525),

hitherto known only from the extract in Fiddes, are now printed in the

State Papers vi. 333. Compare my German History, Bk. IV. ch. 2, but

the statement there made needs revision in accordance with the

newly-found documents.

CHAPTER III.

ORIGIN OF THE DIVORCE QUESTION.

Perhaps it is not a matter of such very great weight whether the

Emperor did his best for Wolsey in the conclave, or Wolsey his best

for the Emperor in the campaign of 1523. That the result did not

correspond to the expectations on either side was quite enough to

bring about an estrangement. What could the Emperor do with an English

minister who was not in a condition to support warlike enterprises

properly? what could the English do with an ally who appropriated to

himself exclusively the advantages of the victory they had won? Henry

VIII, while trying to win the French crown, had only weakened it, and

thereby given the house of Burgundy a preponderance in European

affairs, by which all other powers, and himself as well, felt

themselves threatened.

After the battle of Pavia a feeling prevailed throughout the world

that the rule of Spain and Burgundy would be intolerable, if France

were no longer independent. The ministers of the Pope in Rome first

came to a consciousness of this: as the best means of restoring the

balance, they looked to the dissolution of the alliance between Henry

VIII and Charles V. The Pope's Datary, Giberti, made approaches to the

English Court, though still with timid caution, in order in the first

place only to propose a reconciliation between England and France.[87]

To his joy he remarked that Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey were more

inclined to this plan than he had expected. If not before yet

certainly since his alienation from the Emperor, the cardinal had

entered into secret negociations with the mother of the King of

France: the last proposals to the Emperor had been only an attempt to

turn the success of his arms to the advantage of England also: when he

rejected them, the cardinal entered into the French connexion with

increased zeal. Before the end of the summer of 1523 peace between

England and France was effected with the sympathising co-operation of

Rome.

In it the Regent Louise accepted the conditions laid down by the

cardinal: she did not neglect to secure him by a considerable pension.

From the beginning she had on her side also tried to excite his

world-wide ambition; for Francis I and Henry VIII, if once they became

friends, would do noble deeds to their own-undying renown and to the

glory of God, and the direction of their enterprises would fall to the

cardinal.[88]

Even after Henry VIII abandoned him, the Emperor still kept the upper

hand. He extorted the Peace of Madrid; the League of the Italian

princes with France, by which its execution was to have been hindered,

and to which England lent her moral support without actually joining

it, led Charles V to new victories, to the conquest of Rome, and hence

to a position in the world which now did really threaten the freedom

of all other nations. The necessary result was that France and England

drew still more closely together. Cardinal Wolsey appeared in France;

a close alliance was concluded and (not without considerable English

help) an army sent into the field, which in fact gained the upper hand

in Italy and restored to the Pope, who had escaped to Orvieto, some

feeling of independence. Soon the largest projects were formed on this

side also, in which the two Kings expected to have the Pope entirely

with them. The French declared their wish to conquer Naples and never

restore it to the Emperor, not even under the most favourable

conditions. Wolsey thought that the Pope might pronounce the

deposition of the Emperor in Naples and even in the Empire, for which

certain German electors could be won over; he boasted that he would

bring about such a revolution as had not been seen for a century.

It was at this crisis in the general situation, and when an attempt

was being made to direct politics towards the annihilation of the

Emperor, that the thought occurred of dissolving Henry VIII's marriage

with the Emperor's aunt, the Infanta Catharine.

It is very possible, as a contemporary tradition informs us, that

Wolsey was instigated to this by personal feelings. His arrogant and

wanton proceedings, offensive by their excesses, and withal showing

all the priestly love of power, were hateful to the inmost soul of the

pure and earnest Queen. She is said to have once reproached him with

them, and to have even repelled his unbecoming behaviour with a

threatening word, and he on his part to have sworn to overthrow

her.[89] But this personal motive first became permanently important

when joined with a more general one. The Queen was by no means so

entirely shut out from the events of the day as has been asserted; in

moments of difficulty we find her summoning the members of the Privy

Council before her to discuss the pending questions with them. When

Wolsey began a life and death struggle with the Emperor, the influence

of the Queen, whose most lively sympathies were with her nephew, stood

not a little in his way; it was his chief interest to remove her.

It was indeed the feeling of the time, that family unions and

political alliances must go hand in hand. At the very first proposal

for a reconciliation between England and France, Giberti had advised

the marriage of the English princess Mary, who had been rejected by

the Emperor, with a French prince, and there had been much negociation

about it. But owing to the extreme youth of the princess it was soon

felt that this would not lead to the desired end. If a definitive

rupture was to take place between England and the Burgundo-Spanish

power, Henry VIII's marriage with Catharine must be dissolved and room

thus made for a French princess. This marriage however was itself the

result of that former state of politics which had led to the first war

with France. Wolsey formed the plan of marrying his King, in

Catharine's stead, with the sister or even with the daughter of

Francis I who was now growing up:[90] then only would the alliance

between the two powers become indissoluble. When he was in France in

1527, he said to the Regent, the King's mother, that within a year she

would live to see two things, the most complete separation of his

sovereign from Spain, and his indissoluble union with France.[91]

But to these motives of foreign policy was now added an extremely

important reason of home policy: this lay in the precarious state of

the Succession.

When the King several years before was congratulated on the birth of

his daughter, with an intimation that the birth of a son might have

been still more acceptable, he replied quickly, they were both still

young, he and his wife, why should they not still have a son? But

gradually this hope had ceased, and as hitherto no Queen had ever

reigned in her own right in England, the opinion gained ground that at

the King's death the throne would fall vacant. It had a little before

created a party among the people for the Duke of Buckingham, when he

maintained that he was the nearest heir to the crown, and would not

let it be taken from him. He had been executed for this: Mary's right

to the succession met with no further opposition; but even so it was

still always a doubtful future that lay before the country. People

wished to marry Mary at one time to the Emperor, at another to the

King or a prince of France: so that her claim to the inheritance of

the crown should pass to the house of Burgundy or to that of Valois.

But how dangerous this was for the independence of the country! Henry

would surely not have lost himself in Wolsey's intrigues, had he had a

son and heir, to represent the independent interests of England.

In other times relations of this kind would have probably been

reckoned as in themselves sufficient reason for a divorce: but not so

in that age. The very essence of marriage lies in this, that it raises

the union, on which the family and the order of the world rests, above

the momentary variations of the will and the inclination; by the

sanction of the Church it becomes one of that series of religious

institutions which set limits on every side to individual caprice. No

one yet dared so far to deny the religious character of marriage, as

to have avowed mere political views in wishing for a separation,

either before the world, or even to himself. But now there was no want

of spiritual reasons which might be brought forward for it. The King's

own confessor revived the doubts in him which had once been raised

before his marriage with his brother's widow. And when the King was

then reminded that such a marriage had been expressly forbidden in the

books of Moses, and threatened with the punishment of childlessness,

how could it fail to make an impression on him, when this threat

seemed to be strictly fulfilled in his case? Two boys had been born to

him from this marriage, but both had died soon after their birth. Even

within the Catholic Church it had been always a moot point whether the

Pope could dispense with a law of Scripture. The divine punishment

inflicted on the King, as he thought, seemed to prove that the Pope's

dispensation (encroaching as it did on the region of the divine

power), on the strength of which the marriage had been concluded, had

not the validity ascribed to it. Scruples of this sort cannot be said

to be a mere pretence; they have something of the half belief, half

superstition, so peculiarly characteristic of the spirit of the age

and of that of the King. And none could yet foresee what results they

implicitly involved.

It still appeared possible that the Pope would revoke the dispensation

given by one of his predecessors, especially as some grounds of

invalidity could be found in the bull itself. Wolsey's idea was that

the Pope, in the pressing necessity he was under of ranging England

and France against the preponderance of the Emperor, could be brought

to consent to recall the dispensation, and this would make the

marriage null and void from the beginning. Always full of arrogant

assumption of an influence to which nothing could be impossible,

Wolsey assured the King that he would carry the matter through.[92]

When tidings of this proposal first reached Rome, those immediately

around the Pope took special notice of the political advantages that

might accrue from it. For hitherto there was a doubt whether Henry

VIII was really so decidedly in favour of France as was said: a

project like this, which would make him and the Emperor enemies for

ever, left no room for doubt about it. When the Pope saw himself

secure of this support in reserve, his word, in a matter which

concerned the highest personal and civil interests, acquired new

weight even with the Emperor.[93]

It is undeniable that the Pope at first expressed himself favourably.

It appeared to make an especial impression on him, that the want of a

male heir might cause a civil war in England, and that this must be

disadvantageous to the Church as well.[94] He only asked not to be

pressed as long as he was in danger of experiencing the worst

extremities from the overwhelming power of the Emperor. In the spring

of 1528, when the French army advanced victoriously into the

Neapolitan territory and drove back the Emperor's forces to the

capital, Wolsey's request for full powers to inquire into the affair

in England was taken into earnest consideration by the Pope. It was at

Orvieto, in the Pope's working room, which was also his

sleeping-chamber: a couple of cardinals, the Dean of the Roman Rota,

and the English plenipotentiaries sat round the Pope, to talk over the

case thoroughly. One of the cardinals declared himself against the

Commission demanded by Wolsey, since such a grant contravened the

usage of the last centuries in the Roman tribunals; the Pope answered,

that in a matter concerning a King who had done such service to the

Holy See, they might well deviate from the usual forms; he actually

delegated this Commission to Cardinal Campeggi, whom the English

esteemed as their friend, and to Wolsey.

By this nothing was yet effected: it even appears as though Clement

VII had given tranquillising promises to the Emperor; the Bishop of

Bayonne declared that the Pope's intention was thus to keep both sides

dependent on him--but it was at all events one step on the road once

taken, which aroused hope in England that it would lead to the desired

end.

But let us picture to ourselves the enormous difficulty of the case.

It lay above all in the inner significance of the question itself. In

his first interview with Henry VIII Campeggi remarks that the King was

completely convinced of the invalidity of the Papal dispensation,

which could not extend to Scripture precepts. No argument could move

him from this; he answered like a good theologian and jurist. Campeggi

says, an angel from heaven would not make him change his opinion. He

could not but see that Wolsey cherished the same view.

But was it possible for the Roman court to yield in this and to revoke

a dispensation, which involved the very substance of its spiritual

omnipotence? It would have thus only strengthened, and in reality

confessed, the antagonism against its authority which was based on

Holy Scripture. Campeggi could not yield a hair's breadth.

The only solution lay--and Campeggi was authorised to attempt it--in

inducing Queen Catharine to renounce her place and dignity. Soon after

his arrival he represented to her at length how much depended on it

for her and the world, and promised her that in return not only all

else should be secured to her that she could desire, but above all

that the succession of her daughter also should be guaranteed. The

wish, in which both Pope and King agreed, that she should enter a

convent, Campeggi at first did not mention to her; he thought she

would herself seek for some expedient. But she avoided this. Campeggi

had spoken to her in the name of the Pope: she only said she thought

to abide till death in obedience to the precepts of God and of the

Church: she would ask for counsellors from the King, would consult

with them, and then communicate to the Holy Father what her conscience

bade her. Her consent still remained possible. This gained, the legate

would have no need to mention further the validity or invalidity of

the dispensation. He was still hoping for it, when Wolsey came to him

one morning early (26 Oct. 1528) and told him the Queen had asked the

King for leave to make her confession to him (Campeggi), and had

obtained it. A couple of hours later the Queen appeared before him.

She told him of her earlier marriage, which was never really

consummated; that she had remained as unchanged by it as she had been

from her mother's womb; and this destroyed all grounds for the

divorce. Campeggi was however far from drawing such a conclusion; he

advised her in plain terms to make a vow and enter a convent,

repeating the motives stated before, to which he now added the example

of a Queen of France. But his words died away without effect. Queen

Catharine declared positively that she would never act thus; she was

called by God to her marriage, and resolved to live and die in it. A

judgment might be pronounced in this matter; if the marriage was

declared to be invalid, she would submit, she would then be as free as

the King; but without this she would hold fast to her marriage union.

She protested, in the strongest terms conceivable, that they might

kill her, they might tear her limb from limb, yet she would not change

her mind; had she two lives, she would lay them both down in such a

cause. It would be better, she said, for the Pope to try to divert the

King from his design; he would then be able to trust all the more in

the inclination of her kinsman the Emperor to help in bringing about a

peace.

In the presence of the counsellors given her at her wish, both legates

repeated two days later in a formal audience their admonition to the

Queen not to insist on a definite decision; but already Campeggi had

little hope left; he was astonished that the lady, usually so prudent,

should in the midst of peril so obstinately reject judicious

advice.[95]

The question between King and Queen was, we might say, also of a

dogmatic nature. Had the Pope the right to dispense with the laws of

Scripture or had he not? The Queen accepted it as it had been accepted

in recent times, especially as the presupposed conditions of a

marriage had not been fulfilled in her case. The King rejected it

under all circumstances, in agreement with scholars and the rising

public opinion.

But into this question various other general and personal reasons now

intruded themselves. If the question were answered in the negative

Wolsey held firmly to the view of forming an indissoluble union

between France and England, of securing the succession by the King's

marriage with a French princess, of restoring universal peace; to this

he added the project, as he once actually said in confidential

discourse, of reforming the English laws, doubtless in an

ecclesiastical and monarchic sense; if he had once accomplished all

this, he would retire, to serve God during the rest of his life.

But he had already (and a sense of it seems almost to be expressed in

these last words so unlike his usual mode of thought) ceased to be in

agreement with his King. Henry VIII wished for the divorce, the

establishment of his succession by male offspring, friendship with

France, and Peace: but he did not care for the French marriage. He was

some years younger than his wife, who inclined to the Spanish forms of

strict devotion, and regarded as wasted the hours which she spent at

her dressing table. Henry VIII was addicted to knightly exercises of

arms, he loved pleasant company, music, and art; we cannot call him a

gross voluptuary, but he was not faithful to his wife: he already had

a natural son; he was ever entangled in new connexions of this kind.

Many letters of his survive, in which a tincture of fancy and even of

tenderness is coupled with a thorough sensuousness; just in the

fashion of the romances of chivalry which were then being first

printed and were much read. At that time Anne Boleyn, a lady who had

lately returned from France, and appeared from time to time at Court,

saw him at her feet; she was not exactly of ravishing beauty, but full

of spirit and grace and with a certain reserve. While she resisted the

King, she held him all the faster.[96]

The reasons of home and foreign policy mentioned above, and even the

religious scruples, have their weight; but we cannot shut our eyes to

the fact that this new passion, nourished on the expectation of the

divorce which was not unconditionally refused by the spiritual power,

gave the strongest personal impulse to carry the affair through.

The position of parties in the State also influenced it. Wolsey who

had diminished the consequence of the great lords, and kept them down,

and offended them by his pride, was heartily hated by them. Adorned

though he was with the most brilliant honours of the Church, yet for

the great men of the realm he was nothing but an upstart: they had

never quite given up the hope of living to see his fall. But if he

brought the French marriage to pass, as he designed, he would have won

lasting support and have become stronger than ever. Besides the great

men took the Burgundian side, not that they wished to make the Emperor

lord of the world, but on the other hand they did not want a war with

him: merchants and farmers saw that a war with the Netherlands, where

they sold their wool, would be an injury to all. When Wolsey flattered

the Pope with the hope of an attack on the Netherlands, he was, the

Bishop of Bayonne assures us, the only man in the country who thought

of it. He felt keenly the universal antipathy which he had awakened,

and spoke of the efforts and devices he would have need of, to

maintain himself.

It was therefore just what the nobles wanted, that Wolsey fell out

with the King in a matter of such engrossing nature, and that they

found another means of access to him.

The Boleyns were not of noble origin, but had been for some time

connected with the leading families. Geoffrey the founder of the house

had raised himself by success in business and good conduct to the

dignity of Lord Mayor of London. His son William married the daughter

of the only Irish peer who had a seat and vote in the English

Parliament, Sir Thomas Ormond de Rochefort, Earl of Wiltshire. His

titles passed through his daughter to his grandsons, of whom one,

Thomas Boleyn, was created Viscount Rochefort, and married the

daughter of the Duke of Norfolk; his daughter was Anne Boleyn: she

took high rank and an especially distinguished position in English

society because her uncle, Thomas Duke of Norfolk, was Henry VIII's

chief lay minister (he held the place of High Treasurer) and was at

the same time the leading man of the nobility. He had the reputation

of being versed in business, cultivated, and shrewd; he was Wolsey's

natural opponent. That the King showed an inclination to his niece,

against the cardinal's views, was for him and his friends a great

point gained.[97] It was soon seen that Anne's influence had obtained

the recall of an opponent of Wolsey, who had insulted him and was

banished from the Court.[98] It was of the greatest importance for

home affairs, that the King was inclined to make Anne Boleyn his wife.

The English kings in general did not think marriages in their own rank

essential. Henry's own grandfather, Edward IV, had married a lady of

by no means distinguished origin. It was seen beforehand that, if this

happened, Wolsey could not maintain himself, and authority would again

fall into the hands of the chief families. Even the cardinal's old

friend, the Earl of Suffolk, now joined this combination: the whole

of the nobility sided with it.

But besides this the chief foreign affairs took a turn which made it

impossible to carry out Wolsey's political ideas. In the summer of

1528 the attacks of the allies on Naples were repulsed, and their

armies annihilated. In the spring of 1529 the Emperor got the upper

hand in Lombardy also. How utterly then did the oft-proposed plan, of

depriving him of the supreme dignity, sink into nothingness: he was

stronger than ever in Italy. The Pope was fortunate in not having

joined the allies more closely; the relations of the States of the

Church with Tuscany made a union with the Emperor necessary; he had a

horror of a new quarrel with him. And as the Emperor now took up the

interests of his mother's sister in the most earnest manner, and

protested against proceeding by a Commission granted for England, the

Pope could not possibly let the affair go on unchecked. When the

English ambassadors pressed him, he exclaimed to them (for apart from

this he would gladly have shown more favour to the King) that he felt

himself as it were between anvil and hammer. Divers proposals were

made, one more extraordinary than the other, if only the King would

give up his demand;[99] but this was no longer possible. The two

cardinals, Campeggi and Wolsey, had to begin judicial proceedings:

King and Queen appeared before the Court, Articles were put forward,

witnesses heard: the Correspondence shows that the King and Anne

Boleyn expected with much confidence a speedy and favourable

decision.[100] Wolsey too did not yet abandon this hope. It was

thought at the time that he did not do all he might have done for it,

that in fact he no longer favoured it, seeing as he did that it would

turn out to the advantage of his rivals.[101] But it was in truth his

fate, that the consequences of the design which originated with him

recoiled on his own head. If it succeeded, it must be disadvantageous

to him: if it failed, he was lost. The exhortations he addressed to

the French Court, to exert yet once more its whole influence with the

Papal Court for this matter, sound like a cry of distress in extreme

peril. He had only undertaken it to unite France and England; the

thing was reasonable and practicable, the Pope would not wish by

refusing it to offend both crowns at once; he would value it more

highly than if he himself were raised to the Papacy. But he had now to

find that King Francis, as well as Pope Clement, was seeking a

separate peace with the Emperor. Wolsey had given Henry the strongest

assurances on this point, that such a thing would never happen, France

would never separate herself from him. But yet this now happened, and

how could any influence from that quarter on the Roman Court be still

expected in favour of England, in a matter which was so highly

offensive to the Emperor! The legates received from Rome distinct

instructions to proceed slowly, and in no case to pronounce a

decision.[102] While King Henry and those around him were eagerly

expecting it, the cardinals (using the holidays of the Roman Rota as a

pretence) announced the suspension of their proceedings.

It appeared in an instant into what a violent ebullition of wrath,

which unsettled every thing, the King fell in consequence; it seemed

as if all his past way of governing had been a mistake. In

contradiction to many of the older traditions of English history he

had hitherto ruled chiefly through ecclesiastics to the disgust of the

lay lords: now he betook himself to the latter, to complain of the

proceedings of the two cardinals. These were still in the hall where

they had sat, when Suffolk and some other lords appeared, and bade

them bring the matter to an end without delay, even if it were by a

peremptory decree, that might be issued on the next day, on which the

holidays would not have begun. But the prorogation was in fact only

the form under which the cardinals fulfilled their orders from Rome;

they could not possibly recall it. Suffolk broke out into the

exclamation that cardinals and legates had never brought good to

England. The two spiritual lords looked at each other with amazement.

Had they any feeling that his words contained a declaration of war on

the part of the lay element in the State against ecclesiastical and

foreign influences in general? Wolsey, at any rate, could not shut his

eyes to the significance of such a war. He often said that what Henry

VIII took in hand he could not be brought to give up by any

representations; he had sometimes tried it, he had fallen at his feet,

but it had been always in vain.

Henry contained himself yet a while, as hopes had been given him that

the proceedings might be resumed. But when a Breve came, by which

Clement VII recalled his Commission and evoked the question of the

divorce to Rome, he saw clearly that the influence of the Emperor in

the Pope's Council had quite gained the upper hand over his own on

this point. He was resolved not to submit to it. Had he not, before

the mayor and aldermen of London, declared with a certain solemnity

his resolution to carry through the divorce for the good of the land?

his passion and his ambition had joined hands for this purpose before

the eyes of the country. To prevent the need of recoiling, he formed a

plan of incalculable importance, the plan of separating his nation and

his kingdom from the spiritual jurisdiction of the Roman See.

NOTES:

[87] 'Giberto al Vescovo di Bajusa. 3 Luglio. Ci sono avisi

d'Ingliterra de' 14 del passalo che mostrano gli animi di la e

massimamente Eboracense non dico inclinati ma accesi di desiderio di

concordia con Francia'.... Lettere di principi I. 168.

[88] 'Le dit Cardinal sera conducteur, moderateur et gouverneur de

toutes les entreprises.' The Regent's Instructions in Brinon,

Captivité de François I. 57.

[89] Riccardus Scellejus de prima causa divortii (Bibliotheca

Magliabecch. at Florence). 'Catharina ita stomachata est, ut de

Vulseji potentia minuenda cogitationem susciperet, quod ille cum

sensisset, qui ab astrologo suo accepisset, sibi a muliere exitium

imminere, de regina de gradu dejicienda consilium inivit.'

[90] Lodovico Falier, Relatione di 1531 'avendo trattato, di dargli a

sorella del Cristianissimo adesso maritata al re di Navarra, gli

promese di far tanto con S. Sta che disfacesse le nozze.'

[91] Du Bellay au Grandmaistre 21 October 1528; after Wolsey's own

narrative in Le Grand, Histoire du divorce de Henri VIII, iii. 186.

[92] He says so himself. Bellay's letter in Le Grand iii. 318.

[93] In Sanga to Gambara, 9 February 1528. L. d. p. ii. 85. 'La cosa

che V. S. sa, che non potrà seguire senza gran rottura, fa S. S.

facile a creder che posse essere ciò che dice (Lotrec).

[94] 'Considering the nature of men, being prone into novelties--the

realm of England would not only enter into their accustomed divisions,

but also would owe or do small devotion unto the church: wherefore his

Holiness was right well content and ready to adhibit all remedy that

in him was possible as in this time would serve.' Knight to the

Cardinal, 1 Jan. 1528, in Burnet i. Collect. p. 22.

[95] Incorrupta. Campeggi's letters to Sanga, 17, 26, 28 Oct. 1528.

Laemmer, Monumenta Vaticana, 18 Oct. p. 25 seq. He gives his motive

for communicating what the Queen said to him in confession as being

her own wish. The archives too have long kept their secret.

[96] According to Ricc. Scellejus, she prays the King, 'ne pergat suam

oppugnare castitatem, quae dos erat maxima, quam posset futuro offerre

marito, quaque violanda reginam etiam dominam proderet,--quoniam se

illi fidelitatis sacramento obligasset.'

[97] It seemed helpful to their working against the cardinal.

Particularities of the life of Queen Anne, in Singer's Cavendish ii.

187.

[98] Du Bellay in Le Grand iii. 296. 'Le duc de Norfolk et sa ande

commencent deja à parler gros (28 Jan. 1520).'

[99] In a letter of Sanga to Campeggi (Lettere di diversi autori

eccellenti p. 60), we read the following words: 'In quanto alla

dispensa di maritar il figliolo con la figliola del re, se con haver

in questa maniera stabilita la successione S. M. si rimanesse del

primo pensiero della dissolutions S. Bne inclineria assai Più.' This

looks as if a marriage between Henry VIII's natural son and Mary was

spoken of.--So I wrote previously. The thing is quite true. Campeggi

writes 28 Oct. to Sanga. 'Han pensato si maritar la (la figliola) con

dispensa di S. Sta al figlio natural del re, a che haveva pensato

anch'io per stabilimento della successione.' (Monumenta Vaticana p.

30.)

[100] Sanga to Campeggi 2 Sept. 1528 in the Lettere di diversi autori

eccellenti, Venetia 1556, p. 40. 'V. Sra. vedra l'esito che ha havuto

l'impresa del regno.--Bisogna che S. Bne vedendo l'imperatore

vittorioso non si precipiti a dare all'imperatore causa di nuova

rottura.... Sia almanco avvertita di non lasciarsi costringere a

pronuntiare senza nuova et expressa commissione di qua.'

[101] Falier says so very positively.

[102] Sanga 29 May. 'S. Bne ricorda che il procedere sia lento et in

modo alcuno non si venghi al giudicio.' Of the same date is Bellay's

letter in which those exhortations of Wolsey to the French Court are

contained.

CHAPTER IV.

THE SEPARATION OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH.

Already at Orvieto Stephen Gardiner had told the Pope that, if the

King did not obtain justice from him, he would do himself justice in

his own kingdom. Later it was plainly declared to the Pope that, if

they saw the Emperor had the ascendancy in his Council, the nobility

of England with the King at their head would feel themselves compelled

to cast off obedience to Rome. It seems as though the Roman Court

however had no real fear of this. For the King, so they said, would do

himself most damage by such a step.[103] The Papal Nuncio declared

himself positively convinced, that it was necessary to deal with the

English sharply and forcibly, if one would gain their respect.

But these tendencies were more deeply rooted among the English than

was remembered at Rome. They went back as far as the Articles of

Clarendon, the projects of King John, the antipapal agitation under

Edward III; the present question which involved an exceptionable and

personal motive, exposed to public disapprobation, nevertheless

touched on the deepest interests of the country. The wish to make the

succession safe was perfectly justifiable. According to Clement VII's

own declarations, the English were convinced that he was only hindered

by regard for the Emperor from coming to a decision which was

essential to them. His vacillation is very intelligible, very natural:

but it did not correspond to the idea of the dignity with which he was

clothed. There was to be an independent supreme Pontiff for this very

reason, that right might be done in the quarrels of princes, without

respect of persons, according to the state of the case. It clashed

with the idea of the Papacy that alterations of political relations

exercised such a decisive influence as they did in this matter. There

was indeed something degrading for the English in their being made to

feel the reaction of the Emperor's Italian victory, and his

preponderance, in their weightiest affairs.

Henry VIII had now made up his mind to throw off that ecclesiastical

subjection, which was politically so disadvantageous; the

circumstances were very favourable. It was the time at which some

German principalities, and the kingdoms of the North, had given

themselves a constitution which rested on the exclusion of the

hierarchic influences of Rome: the King could reckon on many allies in

his enterprise. Moreover he had no dangerous hostilities to fear, as

long as the jealousy lasted between the Emperor and King Francis.

Between them Henry VIII needed only to revert to his natural policy of

neutrality.

And the accomplishment of the affair was already prepared in the

country itself, through no one more than through Cardinal Wolsey.

The dignity of legate, which was granted him by Pope Leo, and then

prolonged for five, for ten years, and at last for life, gave him a

comprehensive spiritual authority. He obtained by it the right of

visiting and reforming all ecclesiastical persons and institutions,

even those which possessed a legal exemption of their own. Some orders

of monks, which contended against it, were reduced to obedience by new

bulls. But from the visitation of the monasteries Wolsey proceeded to

their suppression: he united old convents (such as that one which has

brought down to recent times the name of an Anglo-Saxon king's

daughter, Frideswitha, from the eighth century) with the splendid

colleges which he endowed so richly, for the advancement of learning

and the renown of his name, at Oxford and at Ipswich. His courts

included all branches of the ecclesiastical and mixed jurisdiction,

and the King had no scruple in arming him with all the powers of the

crown which were necessary for the government of the Church. What

aspirations then arose are shewn by the compact which Wolsey made with

King Francis I to counteract the influence which the Emperor might

exert over the captive Pope. When it was settled in this, that

whatever the cardinal and the English prelates should enact with the

King's consent should have the force of law, does not this imply at

least a temporary schism?

When Clement became free, he named Wolsey his Vicar-General for the

English Church: his position was again to be what it had been from the

beginning, the expression of the unity between the Pope and the Crown.

But now how if this were dissolved? The victorious Emperor exercised a

still greater influence over the Pope when free than he had ever done

over him when captive. Under these circumstances Wolsey submitted to

the supreme spiritual power, the King resolved to withstand it: it was

exactly on this point that open discord broke out between them. For a

time the cardinal seemed still to maintain his courage; but when on

St. Luke's day--the phrase ran that the evangelist had disevangelised

him--the great seal was taken from him, he lost all self-reliance.

Wolsey was not a Ximenes or a Richelieu. He had no other support than

the King's favour; without this he fell back into his nothingness. He

was heard to wail like a child: the King comforted him by a token of

favour, probably however less out of personal sympathy than because he

could not be yet quite dispensed with.[104] The High Treasurer,

Norfolk, who generally acted as first minister, received the seals,

and held them till some time afterwards Thomas More was named

Chancellor. While these administered affairs in London, Suffolk, as

President of the Privy Council, was to accompany the King in person.

The chief direction of the administration passed over to the two

leading lay lords.

Henry VIII's resolution to call the Parliament together was of almost

greater importance for the progress of events than the alteration in

the ministry.

During the fourteen years of his administration Wolsey had summoned

Parliament only once, and that was when, in order to carry on the war

in alliance with the Emperor against France, he needed an

extraordinary grant of money. But his opening discourses were received

with silence and dislike. Never, says a contemporary who was present,

was the need of money more pressingly represented to a Parliament and

never was there greater opposition; after a fortnight's consultation

the proposal only passed at a moment when the members of the King's

household and court formed the majority of those present.[105] The

Parliament and the country always murmured at Wolsey's oppressive and

lavish finance management;[106] a later attempt to raise taxes that

had not been voted doubled the outcry against him. His fall and the

convocation of a Parliament seemed a return to parliamentary

principles in general, which in themselves exactly agreed with the

view taken by the King in the present questions.

In the first years of Henry VIII the Parliament had wished to do away

with some of the most startling exemptions of the clergy from the

temporal jurisdiction, for instance in reference to the crimes of

felony and murder; the ecclesiastics had on the other hand extended

their jurisdiction yet further, even to cases that had reference

solely to questions of property. Hence the antagonism between the two

jurisdictions had revived at that time with bitter keenness. It is

noticeable that the temporal claims were upheld by a learned Minorite,

Henry Standish, who declared it to be quite lawful to limit the

ecclesiastical privileges for the sake of the public good; especially

in the case of a crime that did not properly come before any spiritual

court. Both sides then applied to the King: the ecclesiastics reminded

him that he ought to uphold the rights of Holy Church, the laymen that

he should maintain the powers of jurisdiction belonging to the crown.

The King's declaration was favourable to the laymen; he recommended

the clergy to acquiesce in some exceptions from their decretals. But

the contest was rather suspended than decided. Wolsey's government

followed, in which the spiritual courts extended their powers still

further, and in reality exercised an offensive control over all the

relations of private life. Even the ecclesiastics did not love his

authority: they acquiesced in it because it was ecclesiastical: the

laity endured it with the utmost impatience.

It was inevitable that at the first fresh assembly of a Parliament

these contests about jurisdiction should be mentioned. The Lower House

began its action with a detailed charge against the spiritual courts,

not merely against their abuses and the oppression that arose from

them, but against their very existence and their legislation; the

clergy made laws without the King's foreknowledge, without the

participation of any laymen, and yet the laity were bound by them. The

King was called on to reconcile his subjects of the spiritual and

temporal estate with each other by good laws, since he was their sole

head, the sovereign, lord and protector of both parties.

It was a slight phrase,[107] 'the sole head of his subjects spiritual

and temporal,' but one of the weightiest import. The very existence of

the clergy as an order had hitherto depended precisely on their claim

to a legislative power independent of the temporal supremacy as being

their original right: on its universal maintenance rested the Papacy

and its influence on the several countries. Were the clergy now to

leave it to the King, who however only represented the temporal power,

to adjust the differences between their legislation and that of the

state? Were they, like the laity, virtually to recognise him as their

Head?

It is clear that they would thus sever themselves from the great union

under one spiritual Head, from the constitution of the Latin Church.

Whoever it was that introduced the word 'Head,' no doubt had this in

view. The King and the laity took it up, they wished only to induce

the clergy themselves to come to a resolution in this sense.

The chief motive which was to serve this purpose is connected with the

lordship which the Popes possessed in England in the thirteenth

century, or rather with the reaction against it which went on

throughout the fourteenth. This is most distinctly expressed in the

statutes of 1393, which threatened with the severest penalties all

participation in any attempt, to the injury of the King's supremacy,

to obtain a church-benefice from Rome; and this too even where the

King had given his consent to it. Clergy and laity were thus allied

against the encroachments of the Roman Curia. Wolsey was now accused

of having transgressed this statute:[108] he had in virtue of his

legatine power given away benefices, and established a jurisdiction by

which that of the King was encroached on; he was found guilty of this

in regular form. He anticipated the full effect of this sentence by

submitting without any defence and surrendering all his property to

the King. It was then that York House in Westminster, with its gardens

and the land adjoining, the Whitehall of later times, passed into the

possession of the crown.[109] He still kept his archbishopric; we find

him soon after at Caywood, the palace belonging to it, and in fact

even busied once more with his buildings. At times the King again

thought of his old counsellor, and to many it quite seemed as though

he might yet recover power. In those days the general belief was, that

Anne Boleyn had exerted her whole influence against it. But most of

the other persons of distinction in court and state were also opposed

to Wolsey. Did he then really, as was imputed to him, try to gain a

party among the clergy, and move the Pope to pronounce excommunication

against the King?[110] A pretext at any rate was found for arresting

him as a traitor: but as he was being brought to the Tower, he died

on the way. He wished, so far as we know, to starve himself to death;

it was at that time supposed that in his wish to die he was aided by

help from others.

Neither for his mental nor for his moral qualities can Wolsey be

reckoned among men of the first rank; yet his position and the ability

which he showed in it, his ambition and his political plans, what he

did and what he suffered, his success and his fall, have won him an

imperishable name in English history. His attempt to link the royal

power with the Papacy by the closest ties rent them asunder for ever.

No sooner was he dead than the clergy became subject to the Crown--a

subjection which could forebode nothing less than this final rupture.

The whole clergy was so far involved in Wolsey's guilt that it had

supported his Legatine Powers, and so had shared in the violation of

the statutes. It shows the English spirit of keeping to the strict

letter of the law, that the King, though he had for years given his

consent and help in all this, now came forward to avenge the violation

of the law. To avert his displeasure the Convocation of Canterbury was

forced to vote him a very considerable sum of money, yet even this did

not satisfy him. Rather it seemed to him the fitting and decisive

moment for forcing the clergy, conformably with the Address of the

Commons, to accept the Anglican point of view. He demanded from

Convocation the express acknowledgment that they recognised him as

_the Protector and the Supreme Head of the Church and Clergy of

England_; he commanded the judges not to issue the Act of Pardon

unless this acknowledgment were at once incorporated with the bill for

the money payment. It is not hard to see what made him choose this

exact moment for so acting; it was the serious turn which the affair

of his Divorce had taken at Rome. He had once more made application to

the Curia to let it be decided in England; the Cardinals discussed the

point in their Consistory, Dec. 22, 1530, but resolved that the

question must come of right before the Assessors of the Rota, who

should afterwards report on it to the Sacred College.[111] What their

sentence would be was the less doubtful, since the Curia was now

linked closer than ever with the Emperor, who had just closed the Diet

of Augsburg in the way they wished, and was now about to carry out its

decrees. The traces of a new alliance with Rome, which was imputed to

Wolsey as an act of treason, must have contributed to the same result.

The King wished to break off this connexion by a Declaration, which

would serve him as a standing-ground later on, and show the Court of

Rome that he had nothing to fear from it. On Feb. 7, 1531, the King's

demand was laid before both Houses of Convocation. Who could avoid

seeing its decisive significance for the age? The clergy, which had

without much trouble agreed to the money-vote, nevertheless strove

long against a Declaration which altered their whole position. But a

hard necessity lay on them. In default of the Pardon, which, as the

judges repeatedly assured them, depended on this Declaration, they

would have found themselves out of the protection of the King and the

Law. They sent two bishops, to get the King's demand softened by a

personal appeal; Henry VIII refused to hear them. They proposed that

some members of both Houses should confer with the Privy Council and

the judges; the answer was that the King wished for no discussion, he

wanted a clear answer. Thus much however they ascertained, that the

King would be content with a mode of statement in which he was

unconditionally recognised as the protector and sovereign of the

Church and clergy of England, but as its supreme head only so far as

religion allows. This was comprehended in the formula _in so far as is

permitted by the law of Christ_, an expression which men might assent

to on opposite grounds. Some might accept it from seeing in it only

the limitation which is set to all power by the laws of God; others

from thinking that it excluded generally the influence of the secular

power on what were properly spiritual matters. When the clause was

laid before them, at the morning sitting of Feb. 11, it was received

with an ambiguous silence; but on closer consideration, it was so

evidently their only possible resource, that in the afternoon, first

the Upper House of Convocation, and then the Lower, gave their

consent. Then the King accepted the money-bill, and granted them in

return the Act of Pardon.[112]

The clergy had yet other causes for seeking the King's protection. The

writings of the Reformers, which attacked good works and vows, the

Mass and the Priesthood, and all the principles on which the

ecclesiastical system rested, found their way across the Channel, and

filled men's minds in England also with similar convictions. The only

safeguard against them lay in the King's power; his protection was no

empty word, the clergy was lost if it drew on itself Henry's aversion,

which was now directed against the Papal See.

The heavy weight of the King's hand and the impulse of

self-preservation were however not the only reasons why they yielded.

It is undeniable that the conception of the Universal Church,

according to which the National Church did but form part of a larger

whole, was nearly as much lost among the clergy as among the laity. In

the Parliament of 1532 Convocation had presented a petition in which

they desired to be released from the payments which had been hitherto

made to the supreme spiritual authority, especially the annates and

first-fruits. The National Church was the existing, immediate

authority--why should they allow taxes to be laid on them for a

distant Power, a Power moreover of which they had no need? As the

bishops complained that this injured their families and their

benefices, Parliament calculated the sums which Rome had drawn out of

the country on this ground since Henry VII's time, and which it would

soon draw at the impending vacancies; what losses the country had

already suffered in this way, and would yet suffer.[113]

The tendency of men's minds in this direction showed itself also in

the understanding come to on the chief question of all.

Parliament renewed its complaints of the abuses in the ecclesiastical

legislation, and learned men brought out clearly the want of any

divine authority to justify it; at last the bishops virtually

renounced their right of special legislation, and pledged themselves

for the future not to issue any kind of Ordinance or Constitution

without the King's knowledge and consent. A revision of the existing

canons by a mixed commission, under the presidentship of their common

head, the King, was to restore the unity of legislation.

The clause was then necessarily omitted by which the recognition of

the Crown's supremacy over the clergy had been hitherto limited. The

defenders of the secular power put forth the largest claims. They

said, the King has also the charge of his subjects' souls, the

Parliament is divinely empowered to make ordinances concerning them

also.[114]

So a consolidation of public authority grew up in England, unlike

anything which had yet been seen in the West. One of the great

statutes that followed begins with the preamble that England is a

realm to which the Almighty has given all fulness of power, under one

supreme head, the King, to whom the body politic has to pay natural

obedience, next after God; that this body consists of clergy and

laity; to the first belongs the decision in questions of the divine

law and things spiritual, while temporal affairs devolve on the laity;

that one jurisdiction aids the other for the due administration of

justice, no foreign intervention is needed. This is the Act by which,

for these very reasons, legal appeals to Rome were abolished. It was

now possible to carry out what in previous centuries had been

attempted in vain. All encroachments on the prerogative of the

'Imperial Crown' were to be abolished, the supreme jurisdiction of the

Roman Curia was to be valid no longer; appeals to Rome were not only

forbidden but subjected to penalties.

The several powers of the realm united to throw off the foreign

authority which had hitherto influenced them, and which limited the

national independence, as being itself a higher power.

As the oaths taken by the bishops were altered to suit these statutes,

the King set himself to modify his coronation oath also in the same

sense. He would not swear any longer to uphold the rights of the

Church in general, but only those guaranteed to the Church of England,

and not derogatory to his own dignity and jurisdiction; he did not

pledge himself to maintain the peace of the Church absolutely, but

only the concord between the clergy and his lay subjects according to

his conscience; not, unconditionally, to maintain the laws and customs

of the land, but only those that did not conflict with his crown and

imperial duties. He promised favour only for the cases in which favour

ought to find a place.[115]

How predominant is the strong feeling of aggrandisement, of personal

right, and of kingly independence!

Henry VIII too regarded himself as a successor of Constantine the

Great, who had given laws to the Church. True, said he, kings are sons

of the Church, but not the less are they supreme over Christian men.

Of the doctrines which came from Germany none found greater acceptance

with him than this--that every man must be obedient to the higher

powers. We possess Tyndale's book in which these principles are set

forth; by Anne Boleyn's means it came into Henry's hands. That Pope

Clement summoned him formally before his judgment-seat, he declared to

be an offence to the Kingly Majesty. Was a Prince, he exclaims, to

submit himself to a creature whom God had made subject to him; to

humble himself before a man who, in opposition to God and Right,

wished to oppress him? It would be a reversal of the ordinance of

God.[116]

Whilst we follow the questions which here come into discussion--on the

relations of Church and State, the rights of nations and

kings--questions of infinite importance for this as for all other

states, we almost lose sight of the affair of the Divorce, which had

been the original cause of quarrel, and which had meanwhile moved on

in the direction given it once for all. Pope Clement restrained

himself as much as possible, he still more than once made advances to

the King and offered him conciliatory terms; but the King had already

gone too far in his separation from Rome to be able to accept them. At

the beginning of 1533 he celebrated his marriage with Anne Boleyn

privately. He had once, when he was still waiting for the Pope's

decision, tried to influence it by favourable opinions of learned

theologians.[117] With this view he had applied to the most

distinguished universities in Italy and Germany, in France and in

England itself; and managed to obtain a large number of decisions, by

which the Pope's right of dispensation was denied; and this in spite

of the constant efforts in various ways of the Imperial agents; even

the two mother-universities, Bologna and Paris, had declared in his

favour. He protested that he had been thereby enabled in his

conscience to free himself from the yoke of an unlawful union,

bordering on incest, and to proceed to another marriage. But all the

more urgent was it that the legality of this marriage should be

recognised according to the forms at that time lawfully valid. He no

longer wished for a recognition from the Pope; he laid the question

before the two Convocations of the English Church-provinces. For the

general course of Church history we must admit it to be an event of

the highest significance, that they dared to pronounce the

dispensation of Pope Julius II invalid according to God's law. The

authority hitherto regarded as the expression of God's will on earth

was found guilty, by the representatives of the Church of one

particular country, of transgressing that will. It now followed that

the King's marriage, concluded on the strength of that dispensation,

was declared by the Archbishop's court at Canterbury null and void,

and invalid from the beginning. Catharine was henceforth to be

treated no longer as Queen but only as still Princess-dowager.

She was unable to realise the things that were happening around her.

That she was expected to renounce her rank as Queen awoke in her quite

as much astonishment as anger. 'For she had not come to England,' she

said, 'on mercantile business at a venture, but according to the will

of the two venerated kings now dead: she had married King Henry

according to the decision of the Holy Father at Rome: she was the

anointed and crowned Queen of England; were she to give up her title,

she would have been a concubine these twenty-four years, and her

daughter a bastard; she would be false to her conscience, to her own

soul, her confessor would not be able to absolve her.' She became more

and more absorbed in strict Catholic religious observances. She rose

soon after midnight, to be present at the mass; under her dress she

wore the habit of the third order of S. Francis; she confessed twice

and fasted twice a week; her reading consisted of the legends of the

saints. So she lived on for two years more, undisturbed by the

ecclesiastico-political statutes which passed in the English

Parliament. Till the very end she regarded herself as the true Queen

of England.

Immediately after the sentence on Catharine followed Anne's

coronation, which was performed with all the ancient ceremonial, all

the more carefully attended to because she was not born a princess. On

the Thursday before Whitsuntide she was escorted from Greenwich by the

Mayor and the Trades of London, in splendidly adorned barges, with

musical instruments playing, till she was greeted by the cannon of the

Tower. The Saturday after she went in procession through the City to

Westminster. The King had created eighteen knights of the Order of the

Bath. These in their new decorations, and a great part of the

nobility, which felt itself honoured in Anne's elevation, accompanied

her:[118] she sat on a splendid seat, supported by and slung between

horses: the canopy over her was borne by the barons of the Cinque

Ports; her hair was uncovered, she was charming as always, and (it

appears) not without a sense of high good fortune. On Sunday she was

escorted to Westminster Abbey by the Archbishop of Canterbury and six

bishops, the Abbot of Westminster and twelve other abbots in full

canonicals: she was in purple, her ladies in scarlet, for so old

custom required; the Duke of Suffolk bore the crown before her, which

was placed on her head by the hands of the archbishop. Nobles and

commons greeted her with emulous devotion, the ecclesiastics joined

in; they expected from her an heir to England.--Not a son, but a

daughter, Elizabeth, did she then bear beneath her heart.

Anne's coronation was at the same time the complete expression of the

revolt of the nation collectively from the Roman See: it is noteworthy

that Pope Clement VII, in his all-calculating and temporising policy,

even then reserved to himself the last word. As he had once yielded to

the Emperor, to conclude his peace with him, so now again--for he did

not wish to be entirely dependent on him--he had entered into close

relations with King Francis, who on his side saw in the continuance of

his union with England one of the conditions of his position in

Europe. The political weight of England reacted indirectly on the

Pope: he indeed annulled Archbishop Cranmer's decision, but he could

not yet bring himself to take a further step, often as he had promised

the Emperor and pledged himself in his agreements to do so.[119]

Charles V supplied his ambassador at Rome with yet another means to

advance (as he expressed himself) the decision of the proceedings with

the Pope and with the Holy See--for he made a distinction between

them. The Pope inquired of him what, after this had ensued, would then

be done to carry it out. The Emperor answered, his Holiness should do

what justice pledged him to do, what he could not omit if he would

fulfil his duty to God and the world, and maintain his own importance;

this must come first, the Church must use all its own means before it

called in the temporal arm: but if the matter came to that point, he

would not fail to do his part; to declare himself explicitly

beforehand might excite religious scruples.[120] And however much the

policy of the Pope might waver, there could be no doubt about the

decision of the Rota. On the 23 March 1534 one of the auditors,

Simonetta, bishop of Pesaro, made a statement on the subject in the

consistory of the cardinals: there were only three among them who

demanded a further delay: all the rest joined without any more

consideration in the decision that Henry's marriage with Catharine was

perfectly lawful, and their children legitimate and possessed of full

rights. The Imperialists held this to be a great victory, they made

the city ring with their cries of 'the Empire and Spain':[121] yet

even then the French did not give up the hope of bringing the Pope to

another mind. But meanwhile in England the last steps were already

taken.

King Henry reckons it as honourable to himself that he had not yielded

to the offer of the Roman Court, made to him indirectly, to decide in

his favour, but had set himself against its usurped jurisdiction,

without being influenced by the proposal,[122] not for himself alone

but in the interest of all kings. Yet once more had he laid the

question before learned ecclesiastics, whether the Pope of Rome had

any authority in England by divine right; as the University of Oxford

declares, their theologians had searched for this through the books of

Holy Scripture and its most approved interpreters; they had compared

the places, conferred with each other on them and come at last to the

conclusion, to answer the King's question unreservedly in the

negative. The Cambridge scholars and both Convocations declared

themselves in the same sense. On this the Parliament had no scruple in

abrogating piece by piece the hierarchic-Romish order of things; it

was nothing but a revocable right which they had hitherto borne with.

The Annates were transferred to the crown; never more was an English

bishop to receive his pallium from Rome. It was made penal to apply

for dispensing faculties; with their abolition the fees usually paid

for them also ceased. The oldest token of the devotion of the

Anglo-Saxon race to the Roman See, the Peter's penny, was definitely

abolished. Care was taken that for the appeal in the last resort,

hitherto made to the Roman courts, there should be a similar court at

home. On the other hand the King granted a greater freedom in the

election of bishops, at least in its outward forms. The existing laws

against heretics were confirmed, though those independent proceedings

of the bishops which had been usual in the times of the Lancasters

received some limitation. For the episcopal constitution and the old

doctrine were to be retained: the wish was to establish an

Anglo-Catholic Church under the supremacy of the crown. The King added

to his titles the designation of 'Supreme Head on earth of the Church

of England immediately under God.' The Parliament awarded him the

right of Visitation over the Church in reference to abuses and even to

errors, as well as the right of reforming them. For the exercise

moreover of the Papal authority, which so far passed over to him, he

had an example before him which he had only to follow. Wolsey for a

series of years, as Legate of the Pope and then as his Vicar General,

had administered the English Church by means of English courts: the

unity of the English common-weal had been represented in his twofold

power as legate and first minister; practically it was no violent

change when the King himself now appointed a Vicar General who,

empowered by him, exercised this authority without any reference to

the Pope. It was an assistant of Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell, who was at

the same time Keeper of the Great Seal, who regulated the management

of these affairs in a way not altogether new to him. From this point

of view Wolsey represents exactly the man of the transition, who

occupied the intermediate position in nationalising the English

Church.

Though Henry VIII did not always follow in his father's footsteps, he

was yet his genuine successor in the work he began. What the first

Tudor achieved in the temporal domain, viz. the exclusion of foreign

influence, that the second extended to spiritual affairs. The great

question now was, whether the conflicting elements, in themselves

independent but ceaselessly agitated by their connexion with the rest

of Europe, would continue loyal to the idea of the common-weal; then

even their opposition might become a new impulse and help to perfect

the power of the State and the Constitution.

NOTES:

[103] 'Quasi che quello, che minacciano, non fosse prima a danno

loro.' So it is said in a letter of Sanga, April 1529, Lettere di

diversi autori p. 69.

[104] 'Pour ce qu'il n'est encoires temps qu'il meure que premierement

l'on n'ayt entendu et veriffié plusieurs choses.' Chapuis to Charles

V, 25 Oct. 1529, in Bradford, Correspondence of the Emperor Charles V,

p. 291.

[105] A letter printed in Fiddes (Life of Wolsey, Records II. p. 115,

no 58), adds to the laconic parliamentary notices the desirable

explanation: 'the knights being of the King's council, the King's

servants and gentlemen ... were long time spoken with and made to see

(a misprint for "say") yea, it may fortune, contrary to their heart.'

[106] Giustiniani: Four Years, I. 162. 'They see that their treasure

is spent in vain, and consequently loud murmurs and discontent prevail

through the kingdom.'

[107] 'The only head sovereign lord and protector of both the said

parties, your subjects spiritual and temporal.' Petition of the

Commons 1529, in Froude, History of England i. 200.

[108] Indictment in Fiddes, Life of Wolsey p. 504.

[109] 'Pro domino rege, de recuperatione.' Ibid. Collections no. 103.

[110] Falier: 'cominciò a machinar contra la corona con S. Sta.'

[111] Pallavicino, Concilio di Trento III, XIV, V, from a Roman diary.

[112] Original accounts in Burnet iii. 52, 53.

[113] Proceedings in Burnet, History of the Reformation i. 117. Strype

had already remarked its difference from the original demands.

[114] Matters to be proposed in Convocation (in Strype, Ecclesiastical

Memorials i. 215.) 'That the King's Majesty hath as well the care of

the souls of his subjects as their bodies, and may by the law of God

by his Parliament make laws touching and concerning as well the one as

the other.'

[115] Facsimile in Ellis's Original Letters, Ser. ii. vol i. But this

alteration cannot have taken place at the beginning of his government.

This would presuppose all the results won by so much effort. The

handwriting too is not that of a boy, but of a grown man.

[116] Instruction for Rochefort, State Papers vii. 427.

[117] Jean Joachim au roi (de France) 15 Feb. 1510, afinche questa

opinion (della Faculta di Parigi) insieme con altre opinion delle

universita di Angliterra et d'altrove per Mr. Winschier [father of

Anne Boleyn] al papa si possino monstrar o presentar.

[118] 'The moste part of the nobles of the realm.' Cranmer's letter to

Hawkyns. Archaeologia xviii. 79.

[119] In the treaty of Bologna (1 Feb. 1533) is an article, 'pro

administranda justitia super divortio Anglicano et--amputando omnem

superfluam dilationem'

[120] Instruccion para el Conde de Cifuentes y Rodrigo Avalos. Papiers

d'état de Granvelle ii. 45

[121] In a later report to the Emperor it is said, that the rights of

the Queen and Princess were recognised, 'a l'instante poursuite de S.

Me. Imperiale.' Ibid. ii. 210.

[122] In Halliwell, Letters of the Kings of England i. 337.

CHAPTER V.

THE OPPOSING TENDENCIES WITHIN THE SCHISMATIC STATE.

Among the results of these transactions in England that which most

directly concerned the higher interests of the nation was the

abolition, by a formal decision of Parliament, on religious grounds,

of the hereditary title of the King's daughter by his Spanish Queen,

and the recognition of the succession of Queen Anne's issue to the

throne, even in the case of her having only the one daughter who had

been meanwhile born. This does not depend so much on the actual

measures taken as on the fact, that now, according to Wolsey's plan,

the government had broken with the political system which had

prevailed hitherto, and indeed in a sense that went far beyond his

views. Not merely was a French alliance avoided; the separation from

the Church of Rome was to become the basis of the whole dynastic

settlement of England.

At home men felt most the harshness and violence of basing a political

rule on Church ideas. The statute contains threats of the sharpest

punishments against all who should do or write or even say anything

against it: a commission was appointed, in which we find the Dukes of

Norfolk and Suffolk, which could require every one to take an oath of

conformity to it. It was to be carried out with the full weight of

English adherence to the law.

It was to this very statute that Bishop Fisher of Rochester and Sir

Thomas More fell victims. They did not refuse to acknowledge the order

of succession itself thus enacted, for this was within the competence

of Parliament, but they would not confirm with their oath the reason

laid down in the statute, that Henry's marriage with Catharine was

against Scripture and invalid from the beginning. More ranks among the

original minds of this great century: he is the first who learnt how

to write English prose; but in the great currents of the literary

movement he shrank back from the foremost place: after he had aided

them by writings in the style of Erasmus, he set himself as Lord

Chancellor of England to oppose their onward sweep with much rigour:

he would not have the Church community itself touched. Of the last

statute he said, it killed either the body if one opposed it, or the

soul if one obeyed: he preferred to save his soul. He met his death

with so lively a realisation of the future life, in which the troubles

of this life would cease, that he looked on his departure out of it

with all the irony which was in general characteristic of him. The

fact that the Pope at this moment had named Bishop Fisher cardinal of

the Roman Church seems to have still more hastened his execution. They

both died as martyrs to the ideas by which England had been hitherto

linked to the Church community of the West and to the authority of the

Papacy.

If we turn our eyes abroad, the succession statute above all must have

made a most disagreeable impression on the Emperor Charles V. He saw

in it a political loss, an injury to his house, and indeed to all

sovereign families, and a danger to the Church. With a view to

opposing it, he formed the plan of drawing the King of France into an

enterprise against England. He proposed to him the marriage of his

third son, the Duke of Angoulême, with the Princess Mary, who was

recognised as the only lawful heiress of England by the Apostolic See,

and whose claims would then accrue to this prince.[123] And they would

not be difficult, so he said, to establish, as a great part of the

English abhorred the King's proceedings, his second marriage, and his

divergence from the Church. At the same time the Emperor proposed the

closest dynastic union of the two houses by a double marriage of his

two children with a son and a daughter of Francis I. What in the whole

world would he not have attained, if he had won over France to

himself! His combination embraced as usual West and East, Church and

State, Italian German and Northern affairs.

Perhaps the success of such a scheme was not probable; but

independently of this, Henry VIII had good cause to prepare himself to

meet the superior power of the Emperor, with whom he had so decidedly

broken. As we have already hinted, he could have no want of allies in

this struggle. It was under these circumstances that he entered into

relations with the powerful demagogues who were then from their

central position at Lubeck labouring to transform the North, and to

sever it from all Netherlandish-Burgundian influence. But it was of

still more importance to him to form an alliance with the Protestant

princes and estates of Germany proper, who had gradually become a

power in opposition to Pope and Emperor. In the autumn of 1535 we find

English ambassadors in Germany, who attended the meeting of the League

at Schmalkald, and the most serious negociations were entered on. Both

sides were agreed not to recognise the Council which was then

announced by the Pope, for the very reason that the Pope announced it,

who had no right to do so. The German princes demanded an engagement

that if one of the two parties was attacked, the other should lend no

support to its enemy; for the King this was not enough; he wished, in

case he was attacked, to be able to reckon on support from Germany in

cavalry, infantry, and ships, in return for which he was ready to give

a very considerable contribution to the chest of the League. It was

even proposed that he should undertake the protection of the

League.[124]

All this however was based on a presupposition, which could not but

lead the English to further ecclesiastical changes. It was not a

schism affecting the constitution and administration of justice, but a

complete system of dissentient Church doctrines, with which Henry VIII

came in contact. The German Protestants made it a condition of their

alliance with England, that there should be full agreement between

them as to doctrine.

We may ask whether this was altogether possible.

If we compare the Church movements and events that had taken place

during the last years in Germany and in England, their great

difference is visible at a glance. In Germany the movement was

theological and popular, corresponding to the wants and needs of the

territorial state; in England it was juridico-canonical, not connected

with appeals to the people or with free preaching, but based on the

unity of the nation. Though the German Diet had for a moment inclined

to the Reform and had once even given it a legal sanction, it

afterwards by a majority set itself against it: to carry it through

became now the part of the minority, the Protesting party. In England

on the contrary all proceeded from the plan of the sovereign and the

resolutions of Parliament, in which the bishops themselves with few

exceptions took part. Perhaps a more deep-seated ground of difference

may be that the German bishops were more independent than the English,

and that an Emperor was then ruling who, being at the same time King

of Spain and Naples, troubled himself little about the unity of

Germany in particular; while in England a newly-formed strong

political power existed which made the national interests its own and

upheld them on all sides.

Despite all this the English Schism had nevertheless a deep inner

analogy with the German Reformation.

From the beginning the dispute as to jurisdiction was based on the

historical point of view, on which Luther too laid much stress.

Standish, who has been already mentioned, derived the right to limit

the ecclesiastical prerogatives, from this among other grounds, that

there were Christian churches in which they were altogether rejected,

for instance the rule as to the celibacy of the clergy was not

accepted by the Greeks. He inferred too, that, as no one disputed the

claim of the Greek Church to be Christian, the conception of the

universal Church must be different from that which Romanism asserts.

Both countries also found the groundwork of the true church-community

in Scripture. In the chief instance before them, that of the divorce,

the German theologians were not of the same mind as the English; but

both sides agreed in this, that there was a revealed will of God,

which the ecclesiastical power might not contravene: the conviction

took root that the Papacy did not represent the highest communion of

men with divine things, but that this rested on the divine record

alone. The use of Scripture had at last influenced various questions

in England also. For abolishing the Annates it was argued that such an

impost contradicts a maxim of the Apostle Paul; for doing away the

Papal jurisdiction, that no place of Scripture justifies it. This is

what was meant when the assertion that the Papacy is of divine right

was denied. This becomes quite clear when Henry VIII instead of the

previous prohibitions against distributing the Bible in the vernacular

gave his licence for it. As he once declared with great animation, the

advancement of God's word and of his own authority were one and the

same thing.[125] The engraved title-page of the translation which

appeared with his _privilegium_ puts into his mouth the expression

'Thy word is a light to my feet.' The order soon followed to place a

copy of the Book of books in every church: there every man might look

into the disputed places, and convince himself, by this highest of

codes, as to the rightfulness of the procedure that had been chosen.

But then it was impossible to stop at mere divergences of

jurisdiction. The German interpretation of Scripture gained ground in

every direction: a theological school grew up, though only here and

there, which adhered to it more or less openly.

It must needs have had the greatest effect, that the followers of this

view obtained a great number of bishoprics. The archbishopric of

Canterbury had already fallen to the lot of a man who had completed

his theological training in Germany: this very man, Thomas Cranmer,

had carried through the divorce; his was one of those natures which

must have the support of the supreme power to help them to follow out

their own views; as they then appear enterprising and courageous, so

do they become pliant and yielding when this favour fails them; they

do not shine through moral greatness, but they are well suited to

preserve, under difficult circumstances, what they have once embraced,

for better times. Hugh Latimer was cast in a sterner mould; he

actually dared, in the midst of the persecutions, to admonish the

King, whose chaplain he was, of the welfare of his soul and his duty

as King. However little this act effected for the moment, yet he may

have thus contributed to enlighten the King (who now and then showed

him personal goodwill) as to his title of 'Defender of the Faith.'

Latimer was a fervent and effective preacher: he was made bishop of

Worcester. Nicolas Shaxton, Bishop of Salisbury, Hilsey of Rochester,

Bisham of S. Asaph's and then S. David's, Goodrich of Ely, were all

disposed to Protestantism. Edward Fox who had been named Bishop of

Hereford, had at Schmalkald openly declared the Pope to be Antichrist,

and assured the Protestants in the strongest manner of his sovereign's

inclination to attach himself to their Confession. It was the grand

union of these biblical scholars among the bishops, which in the

Convocation of 1536 undertook to carry through the work of drawing

their church nearer that of Germany. Latimer opened the war by a

fervent sermon against image-worship, indulgences, purgatory, and

other doctrines or rites which were at variance with the Bible.

Cranmer proved that Holy Scripture contains all that is necessary for

man to know for the salvation of his soul, and that tradition is not

needed. The Bishop of Hereford communicated it, as an experience of

his journey, that the laity everywhere would now be instructed only

out of the Revelation. Thomas Cromwell, who took part in the sittings

as the King's representative, lent them much support, and once brought

with him a Scottish scholar who had just returned from Wittenberg, to

combat the received doctrine of the Sacrament.[126] On the other side

also stood men of weight and consideration, Lee archbishop of York who

had expressly opposed himself, together with his clergy, to the

adoption of the King's new title, Stokesley of London who broke a

lance for the seven sacraments, Gardiner of Winchester and Longland of

Lincoln who after contributing materially to the King's divorce

nevertheless rejected any alteration in doctrine, Tonstall of Durham,

Nix of Norwich.

It seems as though the King, who was still busied in the Parliament

itself with the confirmation of his church regulations, thought he

detected in this party too much predilection for the Papacy. He found

another motive in the necessity of having allies for the coming

Council; he decisively took the side of Reform. Ten articles were laid

before the Convocation in his name, the first five of which are taken

from the Augsburg Confession or from the commentaries on it; as to

these the Bishop of Hereford agreed with the theologians of

Wittenberg. In them the faithful were referred exclusively to the

contents of the Bible, and the three oldest creeds; only three

sacraments were still recognised, Baptism, Penance, and the Lord's

Supper. The real presence was maintained in them, in the words of

those commentaries, and entirely in Luther's original sense.[127] But

still this tendency was not yet so strong as to be able to make itself

exclusively felt. In the following articles, the veneration, even the

invocation, of saints, and no small part of the existing ceremonies,

were allowed--though in terms which with all their moderation cannot

disguise the rejection of them in principle. Despite these limitations

the document contains a clear adoption of the principles of religious

reform as they were carried out in Germany. It was subscribed by 18

bishops, 40 abbots and priors, 50 members of the lower house of

Convocation: the King, as the Head of the Church, promulgated it for

general observance. His vicegerent in Church affairs commanded all the

clergy entrusted with a cure of souls to explain the articles, and

also at certain times to lay before the people the rightfulness of the

abrogation of Papal authority. He required them to give warnings

against image-worship, belief in modern miracles, and pilgrimages.

Children were henceforth to learn the Lord's Prayer, the articles of

the Creed, and the Ten Commandments in English.[128] It was the

beginning of the Church service in the vernacular, which was rightly

regarded as the chief means of withdrawing the national Church from

Romish influence.

But Cromwell was also engaged in another enterprise, not less hostile

and injurious to the Papacy.

As many of the great men in State and Church thought, so thought also

the pious members of the monasteries and cloistered convents; they

opposed the Supremacy, not as they said from inclination to

disobedience, but because Holy Mother Church ordered otherwise than

King and Parliament ordained.[129] The apology merely served to

condemn them. In the rules they followed, in the Orders to which they

belonged, the intercommunion of Latin Christianity had its most living

expression; but it was exactly this which King and Parliament wished

to sever. Wolsey had already, as we know, and with the help of

Cromwell himself, taken in hand to suppress many of them: but in the

new order of things there was absolutely no more place for the

monastic system; it was necessarily sacrificed to the unity of the

country, and at the same time to the greed of the great men.

But it cannot be imagined that innovations which struck so deep could

be carried through without opposition. After all the efforts of the

old kings to establish Christianity in agreement with Rome, after the

victories of the Papacy when the kings quarrelled with it, and the

violent suppression of all dissent, it was inevitable that the belief

of the hierarchic ages, which is besides so peculiarly adapted to this

end, had in England as elsewhere sunk deep into men's minds, and in

great measure still swayed them. Was what had been always held for

heresy no longer to merit this name because it was avowed by the

ruling powers? In the northern counties neither the clergy nor the

people would hear of the King's supremacy; they continued to pray for

the Pope; Cromwell's injunctions were disregarded. It may be that

horrible abuses and vices were prevalent in the cloisters, but all did

not labour under such reproaches; many were objects of reverence in

their own districts, and centres of hospitality and charity. It would

have been wonderful if their violent destruction had not excited

popular discontent. And this temper was shared by those who enjoyed

the chief consideration in the provinces. Among the nobles there were

still men like Lord Darcy of Templehurst, who had borne arms against

the Moors in the service of Isabella and Ferdinand: how offensive to

them must innovations be which ran counter to all their reminiscences!

The lords in these provinces were believed to have pledged their word

to each other to suppress the heresies, as they called the Protestant

opinions, together with their authors and abettors. The country

people, who apprehended yet further encroachments, were easily stirred

up to commotion; collections of money were made from house to house,

and the strongest men of each parish provided with the necessary

weapons: in the autumn of 1536 open revolt broke out. A lawyer, Robert

Aske, placed himself at its head; he set before the people all the

damage that the suppression of the monasteries did to the country

around, by diverting their revenues and abstracting their treasures.

In a short time he had gained over the whole of the North. The city of

York joined him; Darcy admitted him into the strong castle of Pomfret:

in that broad county only one single castle still held out in its

obedience to the government: then the neighbouring districts also were

carried away by the movement: Aske saw an army of thirty thousand men

around him. He took the road to London to, as he said, drive base-born

men out of the King's council, and restore the Christian church in

England: he called his march a 'Pilgrimage of Grace.' But when he came

into contact with royal troops at Doncaster he paused; for it was not

a war, which would cost the country too dear, but only a great armed

remonstrance in favour of the old system that he contemplated. He

contented himself with presenting his demands--suppression of

heresies, restitution of the supreme charge of souls to the Pope,

restoration of the monasteries, and in particular the punishment of

Cromwell with his abettors, and the calling of a Parliament.[130]

When we consider that Ireland was in revolt, Cornwall in a state of

ferment, men's Catholic sympathies stirred up by foreign princes, it

is easy to understand how some voices in the King's Privy Council were

raised in favour of concession. Henry VIII, a true Tudor, was not the

man to give in on such a point. He upbraided the rebels in haughty

words with their ignorance and presumption, and repeated that all he

did and ordered was in conformity with God's law and for the interests

of the country; but it was mainly by promising to call a Parliament at

York that he really laid the gathering storm. But at the first breach

of the law that occurred he revoked this promise;[131] if he had

relaxed the maintenance of his prerogative for a moment, he exercised

it immediately after all the more relentlessly. He at last got all the

leaders of the revolt into his hands, and appeared to the world to be

conqueror. But we cannot for this reason hold that the movement did

not react upon him. His plan was not, and in fact could not be, to

incur the hostility of his people or endanger the crown for the sake

of dogmatic opinions. True, he held to his order that the Bible should

be promulgated in the English tongue, for his revolt from the

hierarchy, and demand of obedience from all estates, rested on God's

written word: nor did he allow himself to swerve from the legally

enacted suppression of the monasteries; but he abandoned further

innovations, and an altered tendency displayed itself in all his

proclamations. Even during the troubles he called on the bishops to

observe the usual church ceremonies: he put forth an edict against the

marriage of priests (although he had been inclined to allow it) from

regard to popular opinion. The importation of books printed abroad,

and any publication of a work in England itself without a previous

censorship, were again prohibited. Processions, genuflexions, and

other pious usages, in church and domestic life, were once more

recommended. The sharpest edicts went forth against any dissent from

the strict doctrine of the Sacrament and against any extreme

variations in doctrine. The King actually appeared in person to take

part in confuting the misbelievers. He would prove to the world that

he was no heretic.

It had also already become evident that no invasion by the Emperor was

at present impending. Soon after his overtures to the King of France,

Charles V perceived that he could not win him over to his side. In the

Spanish Council of State they took it into consideration that Henry

VIII, if anything was undertaken against him, would at all times have

the King of France on his side, and in his passionate temperament

might be easily instigated to take steps which they would rather

avoid.[132] After Catharine's death they made mutual advances, which

it is true did not bring about a good understanding, but yet excluded

actual hostilities. It would only disturb our view if we were here to

follow one by one the manifold fluctuations in the course of these

political relations and negociations. One motive in favour of peace

under all circumstances was supplied by the ever-growing commerce

between England and the Netherlands, on which the prosperity of both

countries depended, and the destruction of which would have been

injurious to the sovereigns themselves. When, some time after, the

prospect of an alliance with France against England was presented to

him by the interposition of the new Pope, Paul III, Charles declined

it. He remarked that the German Protestants, to whom his attention

must be mainly directed, would be strengthened by it.[133] At the most

an interruption of this system could only be expected in case civil

disturbances in England invited the Emperor to make a sudden attack.

Once it even appeared as if a Yorkist movement might be combined with

the religious agitation. A descendant of Edward IV, the Marquis of

Exeter, formed the plan of marrying the Princess Mary, and undertaking

the restoration of the old church system. He found much sympathy in

the country for this plan; the co-operation of the Emperor with him

might have been very dangerous.

Henry lost no time in fortifying the harbours and coasts against such

an attack.

But the chief means of preventing all dangers of this kind lay in

cutting from under them the ground on which they rested. Henry VIII

was not minded to yield a jot of the full power he had inherited: on

the contrary his supremacy in church matters was confirmed in 1539 by

a new act of Parliament: another finally ordained the suppression of

the greater abbeys also, whose revenues served to endow some new

bishoprics, but mainly passed into the possession of the Crown and the

Lords: the unity of the Church and the exclusive independence of the

country were still more firmly established. But the more Henry was

resolved to abide by his constitutional innovations, the more

necessary it seemed to him, in reference to doctrine, to avoid any

deviation that could be designated as heretical. And though he some

years before made advances to the Protestants because he needed their

support against the Emperor and the Pope, things were now on the

contrary in such a state that he could feel himself all the safer, the

less connexion he had with the Germans. Under quite different auspices

of home and foreign politics was the religious debate, that had led in

1536 to the Ten Articles, resumed three years later. The bishops who

held to the old belief were as steady as ever and, so far as we know,

bound together still more closely by a special agreement. They knew

how to get rid of the old suspicion of their having thought of

restoring the Papal supremacy and jurisdiction, by showing complete

devotion to the King. On the other hand the Protestants had suffered a

very sensible loss in Bishop Fox of Hereford, who had always possessed

much influence over the King, but had died lately. An understanding

between the two parties on questions which were dividing the whole

world was not to be thought of; they confronted each other as

irreconcilable antagonists. The debates were transferred on Norfolk's

proposal to Parliament and Convocation; at last it was thought best

that each of the two parties should bring in the outline of a bill

expressing its own views. This was done: but first both bills were

delivered to the King, on whose word, according to the prevailing

point of view, the decision mainly depended. We may as it were imagine

him with the two religious schemes in his hand. On the one side lay

progressive innovation, increasing ferment in the land, and alliance

with the Protestants: on the other, change confined to the advantages

already gained by the crown, the contentment of the great majority of

the people, who adhered to the old belief, peace and friendship with

the Emperor. The King himself too had a liking for the doctrines he

had acknowledged from his youth. The balance inclined in favour of the

bishops of the old belief: Henry gave their bill the preference. It

was the bloody bill of the Six Articles, mainly, so far as we know,

the work of Bishop Gardiner of Winchester.

The doctrine of transubstantiation and all the usages connected with

it, private masses and auricular confession, and the binding force of

vows, were sanctioned anew; the marriage of priests and the giving the

cup to the laity were prohibited; all under the severest penalties.

The whole of the high nobility to a man agreed to it: the Lower House

raised the resolutions of the clergy into law.

How completely did the German ambassadors, who had come over with the

expectation of seeing the victory in England of the theologians who

were friendly to them, find themselves deceived! They still however

cherished the hope that these resolutions would never be carried out.

Their ground for hope lay in the King's marriage with a German

Protestant princess, which was just then being arranged.

Some years before Anne Boleyn had fallen a victim to a dreadful fate.

How had the King extolled her shortly before his marriage as a mirror

of purity, modesty and maidenliness! hardly two years afterwards he

accused her of adultery under circumstances which, if they were true,

would make her one of the most depraved creatures under the sun. If

we go through the statements that led to her condemnation, it is

difficult to think them complete fictions: they have been upheld quite

recently. If on the other hand we read the letter, so full of high

feeling and inward truthfulness, in which Anne protests her innocence

to the King, we cannot believe in the possibility of the

transgressions for which she had to die. I can add nothing further to

what has been long known, except that the King, soon after her

coronation, in November 1533, already showed a certain discontent with

her.[134] Was it after all not right in the eyes of the jealous

autocrat that his former wife's lady in waiting now as Queen wore the

crown as well as himself? Anne Boleyn too might not be without blame

in her demeanour which was not troubled by any strict rule. Or did it

seem to the King a token of the divine displeasure against this

marriage also, that Anne Boleyn in her second confinement brought a

stillborn son into the world? It has been always said that the lively

interest she took in the progress of the outspoken Protestantism,

whose champions were almost all her personal friends, contributed most

to her fall. For the house from which she sprung she certainly in this

respect went too far. In the midst of religious and political parties,

pursued by suspicion and slander, and in herself too tormented by

jealousy, endangered rather than guarded by the possession of the

highest dignity, she fell into a state of excitement bordering on

madness.

On the day after her execution the King married one of her maids of

honour, the very same who had awakened her jealousy, Jane Seymour. She

indeed brought him the son for whom his soul longed, but she died in

her confinement.

In the rivalry of parties Cromwell after some time formed the plan of

strengthening his own side by the King's marriage with a German

princess; he chose for this purpose Anne of Cleves, a lady nearly

related to the Elector of Saxony, and whose brother as possessor of

Guelders was a powerful opponent of the Emperor. This was at the time

when the Emperor on his way to the Netherlands paid a visit to King

Francis, and an alliance of these sovereigns was again feared. But by

the time his new wife arrived all anxiety had already gone by, and

with it the motive for a Protestant alliance for the King had ceased.

Anne had not quite such disadvantages of nature as has been asserted:

she was accounted amiable:[135] but she could not enchain a man like

Henry; he had no scruple in dissolving the marriage already concluded;

Anne made no opposition: the King preferred to her a Catholic lady of

the house of Howard. But the consequent alteration was not limited to

the change of a wife. The hopes the Protestants had cherished now

completely dwindled away: it was the hardest blow they could receive.

Cromwell, the person who had been the main instrument in carrying out

the schism by law, and who had then placed himself at the head of the

reformers, was devoted to destruction by the now dominant party. He

was even more violently overthrown than Wolsey had been. In the middle

of business one day at a meeting of the Privy Council he was informed

that he was a prisoner; two of his colleagues there tore the orders

which he wore from his person, since he was no longer worthy of

them;[136] that which had been the ruin of so many under his rule, a

careless word, was now his own.

Now began the persecution of those who infringed the Six Articles, on

very slight grounds of fact, and with an absence of legal form in

proving the cases, that held a drawn sword over innocent and guilty

alike. Bishops like Latimer and Shaxton had to go to the Tower. But

how many others atoned for their faith with their life! Robert Barnes,

one of the founders of the higher studies at Cambridge, well known and

universally beloved in Germany, who avowed the doctrines imbibed there

without reserve, lost his life at the stake. For what the peasants

had once demanded now again came to pass;--the heretics perished by

fire according to the old statutes.

After some time a check was given to extreme acts of violence. Legal

forms were supplied for the bloody laws, which softened their

severity. To Archbishop Cranmer, who was likewise attacked, the King

himself stretched out a protecting hand. When he once more made common

cause with the Emperor against France, and undertook a war on the

Continent, he previously ordered the introduction of an English

Litany, which was to be sung in processions. The fact that the Bible

was read in the vernacular, and popular devotional exercises retained

in use, saved the Protestant ideas and efforts, despite all

persecution, from extinction.

It gives a disagreeably grotesque colouring to the government of Henry

VIII to see how his matrimonial affairs are mixed up with those of

politics and religion. Queen Catharine Howard, whose marriage with him

marked also the preponderance of the Catholic principle, was without

any doubt guilty of offences like those which were imputed to her

predecessor Anne: at her fall her relations, the leaders of the

anti-Protestant party, lost their position and influence at court. The

King then married Catharine Parr, who had good conduct and womanly

prudence enough to keep him in good temper and contentment. But she

openly cherished Protestant sympathies; and she was once seriously

attacked on their account. Henry however let her influence prevail, as

it did not clash with his own policy.

Now that once the sanctity of marriage had been violated, the place of

King's wife became as it were revocable; the antagonistic factions

sought to overthrow the Queen who was inconvenient to them; that which

has been at various times demanded of other members of the household,

that they should be in complete agreement with the ruling system, was

then required with respect to their wives, and indeed to the wife of

the sovereign himself; the importance of marriage was now shown only

by the violence with which it was dissolved.

This self-willed energetic sovereign however by no means so completely

followed merely his own judgment as has been assumed. We saw how after

Wolsey's fall he at first inclined to the protestant doctrines, and

then again persecuted them with extreme energy. He sacrificed, as

formerly Empson and Dudley, so Wolsey and now Cromwell to the public

opinion roused against them. He recognised with quick penetration

successive political necessities and followed their guidance. The most

characteristic thing is that he always seemed to belong body and soul

to these tendencies, however much they differed from each other: he

let them be established by laws contradictory to each other, and

insisted with relentless severity on the execution of those laws.

Under him, if ever, England appears as a commonwealth with a common

will, from which no deviation is allowed, but which moves forward

inclining now to the one side now to the other. It was no part of

Henry VIII's Tudor principles and inclinations to call the Parliament

together; but for his Church-enterprise it was indispensable. He gave

its tendencies their way and respected the opinion which it

represented: but at the same time he knew how to keep it at all times

under the sway of his influence. Never has any other sovereign seen

such devoted Parliaments gathered round him; they gave his

proclamations the force of law, and allowed him to settle the

succession according to his own views; they then gave effect to what

he determined.

In this way it was possible for Henry VIII to carry through a

political plan that has no parallel. He allowed the spiritual

tendencies of the century to gain influence, and then contrived to

confine them within the narrowest limits. He would be neither

Protestant nor Catholic, and yet again both; an unimaginable thing, if

it had only concerned these opinions: but he retained his hold on the

nation because his plan of separating the country from the Papal

hierarchic system, without taking a step further than was absolutely

necessary, suited the people's views.

In the earlier years it appeared as though he would alienate Ireland

by his religious innovations, since there Catholicism and national

feeling were at one. And there really were moments when the insurgent

chiefs in alliance with Pope and Emperor boasted that with French and

Scotch help they would attack the English on all sides and drive them

into the sea. But there too it proved of infinite service to him that

he defended dogma while he abandoned the old constitution. In Ireland

the monasteries and great abbeys were likewise suppressed; the

O'Briens, Desmonds, O'Donnels, and other families were as much

gratified as the English lords and gentlemen with the property almost

gratuitously offered them. Under these circumstances they recognised

Henry VIII as King of Ireland, almost as if they had a feeling of the

change of position as regards public law into which they thus came:

they received their baronies from him as fiefs and appeared in

Parliament.

Towards the end of his life Henry once more drew the sword against

France in alliance with the Emperor. What urged him to this however

was not the Emperor's interest in itself, but the support which the

party hostile to him in Scotland received from the French. Moreover he

did not trouble himself to bring about a decisive result between the

two great powers: he was content with the conquest of Boulogne. He had

reverted to his father's policy and resolved not to let himself be

drawn over by any of his neighbours to their own interests, but to use

their rivalry for his own profit and security.[137]

And he was able to do yet more than his father to increase England's

power of defence against the one or the other. We hear of fifty places

on the coast which he fortified, not without the help of foreign

master-workmen: the two great harbours of Dover and Calais he put into

good condition and filled them with serviceable ships. For a long time

past he had been building the first vessels of a large size (such as

the Harry and Mary Rose) which then did service in the wars.[138] It

may be that the property of the monasteries was partly squandered and

ought to have been better husbanded: a great part of their revenues

however was applied to this purpose, and conferred much benefit on the

country so far as its own peculiar interests were concerned.

The characteristic of his government consists in the mixture of

spiritual and temporal interests, the union of violence with fostering

care. The family enmities, which Henry VII had to contend with, are

combined with the religious under Henry VIII, for instance in the

Suffolk family: as William Stanley under the father, so Fisher and

More under the son, perished because they threw doubt on the grounds

for the established right, and still more because they challenged that

right itself. It raised a cry of horror when it was seen how under

Henry VIII Papists and Protestants were bound together and drawn to

the place of execution together, since they had both broken the laws.

Who would not have been sensible of this? Who would not have felt

himself distressed and threatened? Yet at the opening of the Session

of 1542, after the Chancellor had stated in detail the King's services

(who had taken his place on the throne), Lords and Commons rose and

bowed to the sovereign in token of their acknowledgment and gratitude.

In the Session of 1545 he himself once more took up the word. In

fatherly language he exhorted both the religious parties to peace; a

feeling pervaded the assembly that this address was the last they

would listen to from him; many were seen to burst into tears.

For his was the strong power that kept in check the fermenting

elements and set them a law that might not be broken. On their

antagonism, by favouring or restraining them, he established his

strong system of public order. In Henry VIII we remark no free

self-abandonment and no inward enthusiasm, no real sympathy with any

living man: men are to him only instruments which he uses and then

breaks to pieces; but he has an incomparable practical intelligence, a

vigorous energy devoted to the general interest; he combines

versatility of view with a will of unvarying firmness. We follow the

course of his government with a mingled sense of aversion and

admiration.

NOTES:

[123] Papiers d'état du Cl. de Granvelle ii. 147, 210.

[124] Documents in the Corpus Reformatorum ii. 1032, iii. 42.

[125] Henry VIII to the judges--in Halliwell i. 342 (25 June 1535).

[126] Burnet, History of the Reformation i. 213. Soames, History of

the Reformation ii. 157.

[127] Seckendorf, Historia Lutheranismi iii. 13, xxxix. p. 112: my

German History iv. 46.

[128] Injunctions given by the authority of the King. Burnet's

Collection p. 160.

[129] Prior of Charterhouse (Houghton), Speech, in Strype i. 313.

[130] Froude, History of England iii. 104.

[131] 'The people were unsatisfyed that the parliament was not held at

York; but our King alledged that since they had not restaured all the

religious houses [as they had promised] he was not bound strictly to

hold promise with them.' Herbert, Henry VIII, p. 428.

[132] Los impedimentos en que esta S. M. por la malignidad del dicho

rey de Francia que haze gran fundamento en la adherencia del dicho rey

de Inglaterra, y la obstinacion ceguedad y pertinacia en que esta.

(Report in the State Archives at Paris.)

[133] As it is said in the Emperor's letter of refusal to his

ambassador at Rome. 'Los desviados de Germania se juntarian mas

estrechamente con el rey de Inglaterra.' (Document in the Archives at

Paris.)

[134] In a letter of the Emperor, 2 November, is mentioned 'le

descontentement, que le roi d'Ingleterre prenoit de Anna de Bolans.'

Papiers d'état ii. 224.

[135] Marillac au roi, 8 Juillet 1540. 'Le peuple l'aymoit et estimoit

bien fort, comme la plus douce gracieuse humaine Reyne, qu'ils eurent

onque.'

[136] A description of the scene, which deserves to be known, is

contained in the letter of the French ambassador, Marillac, to the

Constable Montmorency, 23 June 1540.

[137] Froude iv. 104.

[138] Marillac assures us that there were not more than eight vessels

in England over 500 tons, that then the King built in 1540 fourteen

larger ones, among them 'le grand Henri,' over 1800 tons; he had

however 'peu de maistres que entendent a l'ouvrage. Les naufs

(navires) du roi sont fournies d'artillerie et de munition beaucoup

mieux que de bons pilots et de mariniers dont la plus part sont

estrangers.' (Letter of 1 Oct. 1540.)

CHAPTER VI.

RELIGIOUS REFORM IN THE ENGLISH CHURCH.

The question arises, whether it was possible permanently to hold to

Henry's stand-point, to his rejection of Papal influence and to his

maintenance of the Catholic doctrines as they then were. I venture to

say, it was impossible: the idea involves an historical contradiction.

For the doctrine too had been moulded into shape under the influence

of the supreme head of the hierarchy while ascending to his height of

power: they were both the product of the same times, events,

tendencies: they could not be severed from each other. Perhaps they

might have been both modified together, doctrine and constitution, if

a form had been found under which to do it, but to reject the latter

and maintain the former in its completed shape--this was

impracticable.

When it was seen that Henry could not live much longer, two parties

became visible in the country as well as at court, one of which,

however much it disguised it, was without doubt aiming at the

restoration of the Pope's supremacy, while the other was aiming at a

fuller development of the Protestant principle. Henry had settled the

succession so that first his son Edward, then his elder daughter (by

his Spanish wife), then the younger (by Anne Boleyn), were to succeed.

As the first, the sovereign who should succeed next, was a boy of

nine, it was of infinite importance to settle who during the time of

his minority should stand at the helm. The nearest claim was possessed

by the boy's uncle on the mother's side, Edward Seymour, Earl of

Hertford, who had begun to play a leading part in Henry's court and

army, was in close alliance with Queen Catharine Parr, and like her

cherished Protestant sympathies. But the Norfolks with their Catholic

sympathies who had previously so long exercised a leading influence on

the government, would not give way to him. Norfolk's son, the Earl of

Surrey, adopted the immoral plan of ensnaring the King, who though

dying was yet supposed to be still susceptible to woman's charms, by

means of his sister, in order to draw him back to the side of his

family and the strict Catholics: a plot which failed at once when his

sister refused to play such a part. The ambitious announcements into

which he allowed himself to be hurried away could only bring about the

opposite result: he himself was executed, his father thrown into

prison, and the man who could have done most in the Catholic

direction, Bishop Gardiner, was struck out of the list of those who,

after the King's death, were to form the Privy Council.[139]

Immediately afterwards, January 1547, Henry died. He had composed the

Privy Council of men of both tendencies in the hope, as it appears,

that in this way his system would be most surely upheld. But men were

too much accustomed to see the highest power represented in one

leading personage, for it to continue long in the hands of a Board of

Councillors. From the first sittings of the Privy Council Edward VI's

uncle, the Earl of Hertford, came forth as Duke of Somerset and

Protector of the realm. In him the reforming tendency won the upper

hand.

It appeared at once with full force at the Coronation, which was not

celebrated at all after the form traced out by Henry VIII, since even

this would have tied them far too much to the existing system;

Cranmer, in the discourse which he there addressed to the young King,

departed in the most decided manner from all the ideas hitherto

attached to a coronation. Whither had the times of the first Lancaster

departed, in which a special hierarchic sacredness was given to the

Anointing through its connexion with Thomas Becket? Becket's shrine

had been destroyed. The present Archbishop of Canterbury went back to

the earliest times of human history: he brought forward the example of

Josias, who likewise came to the government in tender years and

extirpated the worship of idols: so might Edward VI also completely

destroy image-worship, plant God's true service, and free the land

from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome; it was not the oil that made

him God's anointed, but the power given him from on high, in virtue of

which he was God's representative in his realm. His duty to the Church

was changed into his duty to religion: instead of upholding the

existing state of things, it at once pledges and empowers him to

reform the Church.[140]

The great question now was, how an alteration could be prepared in a

legal manner, and how far it would be possible to maintain in this the

constitution of the realm in its relation to the states of Europe. On

the ground of the supremacy and of a precedent of Henry VIII, they

began with a resolution to despatch commissions throughout the realm,

to revive the suppressed Protestant sympathies; the precedent was

found in the ordinances that had once proceeded from Thomas Cromwell,

just as if they had not in the least been annulled by what had

happened since, but simply set aside by party feeling and neglect.

They were to enquire whether, as therein ordered, the bishops had

preached against the Pope's usurpation, the parish priests had taught

men to regard not outward observances but fulfilment of duty as the

real 'good works,' and had laboured to diminish feast-days and

pilgrimages. Above all, images to which superstitious reverence was

paid were at last to be actually removed: the young were to be really

taught the chief points of the faith in English, a chapter of the

Bible should be read every Sunday, and Erasmus' Paraphrase employed to

explain it. In place of the sermon was to come one of the Homilies

which had been published under the authority of the Archbishop and

King. For this last ordinance also authority was found in an

injunction of Henry VIII. Archbishop Cranmer, whose work they are,

establishes in them the two principles, on which he had already

proceeded in 1536, one that Holy Scripture contains all that it is

necessary for men to know, the other that forgiveness of sins depends

only on the merits of the Redeemer and on faith in Him. On this

depends absolutely the possibility of rooting out of men's minds the

belief in the binding force of Tradition, and the hierarchic views as

to the merit of good works. The Archbishop's views were promoted by

eloquent and zealous preachers such as Matthew Parker, John Knox, Hugh

Latimer; more than all by the last, who had been released from the

Tower, weak in body but with unimpaired vigour of spirit. The fact of

his having maintained these doctrines in the time of persecution, his

earnest way and manner, and his venerable old age doubled the effect

of his discourses.

No direct alteration could be thought of so long as the Six Articles

still existed with their severe threats of punishment. In the

Parliament elected under the influence of the new government it needed

little persuasion to procure their repeal. The Protector assured the

members that he had been urgently entreated to effect this, since

every man felt himself endangered.[141]

One of those popular beliefs gained ground, which are often more

effective in great assemblies than elaborate proofs: the conviction

that doctrine and authority were too closely akin for the separation

from Rome to be maintained without deviation in doctrine; the breach

must be made wider if it was to continue, and the hierarchic doctrines

give way.

So it came about that by a unanimous resolution of Convocation, which

Parliament confirmed, the alteration was approved, which almost more

than any other characterises those Church formularies that deviate

from the Romish, the administration of the communion in both kinds.

Now it was exactly from this that the transformation of the whole

divine worship in England proceeded. The very next Easter (1548) a new

form for the communion office was published in English. This was

followed, according to a wish expressed by the young King, by a

Liturgy for home and church use, in which the revised Litany of Henry

VIII was also included. In this 'Common Prayerbook' they everywhere

kept to what was before in use, but everywhere also made changes. The

Reforming tendencies obtained the upper hand in reference to its

doctrinal contents; thus even one of the rubrics previously in favour

by which auricular confession was declared to be indispensable was now

omitted; it was left to every man's judgment to avail himself of it or

not. At times they again sought out what had been disused in later

ages: they recurred to Anglo-Saxon usages. The Common Prayer-book is a

genuine monument of the religious feeling of this age, of its learning

and subtlety, its forbearance and decision. In the Parliament of 1549

it was received with admiration: men even said it was drawn up under

the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The order went forth for its

adoption in all churches of the land, no other liturgy was to be used;

it has nourished and edified the national piety of the English

people.[142]

And just as it was now asserted that in all this they were only

carrying out the views of the deceased King, as he had set them forth

many years before and had at the last again proclaimed them, so now

Somerset undertook to carry through another of his intentions as well,

which was closely connected with his religious plans.

In 1542 Henry VIII had agreed with some of the most powerful nobles of

Scotland that in that country too the Church should be reformed, all

relations with France broken off, and the young Queen brought to

England in order if possible to marry his son Edward at some future

day. The scheme broke down owing to all kinds of opposition, but the

idea of uniting England and Scotland in one great Protestant kingdom

had thus made its appearance in the world and could never again be set

aside. The ambition to realise it filled the soul of Somerset. When,

before the end of the summer of 1547, he took up arms, he hoped to

bring about an acknowledgment of England's old supremacy over

Scotland, to prepare the way for the future union of both countries by

the marriage, and to annihilate the party there which opposed the

progress of Protestantism. A vision floated before him of fusing both

nations into one by a union of dynasty and of creed. It was mainly

from the religious point of view that his ward regarded the matter.

'They fight for the Pope,' wrote Edward to the Protector when he was

already in the field, 'we strike for the cause of God, without doubt

we shall win.[143]'

Somerset had already penetrated far into the land when he offered the

Scots to retreat and make peace on the one condition that Mary should

marry Edward VI. But the ruling party did not so much as allow his

offer to be known. A battle took place at Pinkie, in which Somerset

won a brilliant victory. Not a little did this victory contribute to

establish his consequence in the world: even in Scotland some

districts on the borders took the oath of fidelity to King Edward. But

in general the antipathies of the Scotch to the English were all the

more roused by it; they would hear nothing of a wooing, carried on

with arms in the hand: the young Queen was after some time (August

1548) carried off to France, to be there married to the Dauphin. The

Catholic interests once more maintained their ascendancy in Scotland

over those of the English and the Protestants.

And how could Somerset's plans and enterprises fail to meet with

resistance in England itself? All the elements were still in existence

that had once set themselves in opposition to King Henry with such

energy. When an attempt was made in earnest to carry out the

innovations at home, in the summer of 1549, the revolt burst into

flame once more.

In Cornwall a tumult arose at the removal of an image, and the King's

commissary was stabbed by a priest. The troubles extended to

Devonshire, where men forced the priests to celebrate the mass after

the old ritual, and then took the field with crosses and tapers, and

carrying the Host before them. When their numbers became so large as

to embolden them to put forth a manifesto, they demanded before

all--incredible as it may seem--the restoration of the Six Articles

and the Latin Mass, the customary reverence to the Sacrament and to

images. They did not go so far as to demand the restoration of the

authority of the Roman See, like the rebels under Henry VIII; but they

pressed for a fresh recognition of the General Councils, and of the

old church laws as a whole. At least half of the confiscated church

property was to be given back, two abbeys at least were to remain in

each county. But this movement owed its peculiar character to yet

another motive. The enclosures of the arable land for purposes of

pasture, of which the peasantry had been long complaining, did not

merely continue; the nobility, which took part in the secularisation

of the church-lands in an increasing degree, extended its grasp also

to the newly-gained estates. So it came to pass that a rising of the

peasants against the nobles was now united with tendencies towards

church restoration, as in previous times with ideas of quite a

different kind. East and West were in revolt at one and the same time

and for different reasons. On a hill near Norwich, the chief leader, a

tanner by trade, called Ket, took his seat under a great oak which he

called the Oak of Reformation; he had the mass read daily after the

old use: but he also planned a remodeling of the realm to suit the

views of the people. The wildest expectations were aroused. A prophecy

found belief according to which monarchy and nobility were to be

destroyed simultaneously, and a new government set up under four

Governors elected by the common people. And woe to him who wished to

reason with the peasants against their design. They were already

bending their bows against a preacher who attempted to do so, he was

only saved with difficulty. But they were still less capable this

time of withstanding the organised power of the State than they had

been under Henry VIII. In Devonshire they were beaten by Lord Russel,

the ancestor of the Dukes of Bedford; in Norfolk, where they had risen

in the greatest force, by John Dudley Earl of Warwick. Under his

banners we find German troops as well, who were untouched by the

national sympathies, and in the rebels combated only the enemies of

Protestantism. The government obtained a complete victory.

The insurrectionary movement was suppressed, but it once more produced

a violent reaction in home affairs, by which this time the head of the

government was himself struck down.[144] Among English statesmen there

is none who had a more vivid idea of the monarchical power than the

Protector Somerset. He started from the view that religious and

political authority were united in the hand of the anointed King in

virtue of his divine right. The prayer which he daily addressed to God

is still extant; it is full of the feeling that to himself, as the

representative and guardian of the King, not only his guidance but

also the direction of all affairs is entrusted. Such was also the view

of the young sovereign himself. In one of his letters he thanks the

Protector for taking this employment on him, and for trying to bring

his State to its lawful obedience, the country to acknowledge the true

religion, and the Scots to submission. Somerset did not think himself

bound by the opinion of the Privy Council, since with him, and with no

other, lay the responsibility for the administration of the State. He

held it to be within his competence to remove at pleasure those of its

members who showed themselves adverse to him. He too had that jealousy

of power, which always directs itself against those who stand nearest

to it. There is no doubt that his brother, Thomas Lord Seymour,

impelled by a restless ambition, hoped to overthrow the existing

government and put himself in possession of the highest place, and

committed manifold illegal acts; he--the Lord Admiral of the

realm--even entered into alliance with the pirates in the

Channel.[145] But despite this it was thought at the time very severe

when the Protector gave his word that the vengeance of the law should

be executed on his brother. His reason was that Lord Seymour would not

submit to sue in person for mercy to him the injured party and

possessor of power. Such were these men, these brothers. The one died

rather than pray for mercy: the other made the bestowal of it depend

on this prayer, this confession of his supreme authority.[146] The

Protector took all affairs, home and foreign, exclusively into his own

hand. Without asking any one, he filled up the ministerial and civil

posts: to the foreign ambassadors he gave audience alone. He erected

in his house a Court of Requests,[147] which encroached not a little

on the business of Chancery. The palace in the Strand, which still

bears his name, was to be a memorial of his power; not merely houses

and gardens, but also churches which occupied the ground, or from

which he wished to collect his building materials, were destroyed with

reckless arbitrary power. Great historical associations are

indissolubly linked with this house. For it was Somerset after all,

who through personal zeal opened a free path for the Protestant

tendency which had originated under Henry VIII but had been repressed,

and gave the English government a Protestant character. He connected

with this not merely the Union of Scotland and England, but a yet

further idea of great importance for England itself. He wished to free

the change of religion from the antipathy of the peasantry which was

at that time so prominent. In the above-mentioned dissensions he took

open part for the demands of the commons: he condemned the progress of

the enclosures and gave his opinion that the people could not be

blamed so heavily for their rebellion, as their choice lay only

between death by hunger and insurrection. It seemed as though he

wished in the next Parliament by means of his influence to carry

through a legal measure in favour of the commons.

But by this he necessarily awakened the ill will of the aristocracy.

He was charged with having instigated the troubles themselves by

proclamations which he issued in opposition to the Privy Council; and

with not merely having done nothing to suppress them but with having

on the contrary supported the ringleaders and taken them under his

protection.[148] No doubt this was the reason why the campaign against

the rebels in Norfolk was not entrusted to him, as he wished, but

(after some vacillation) to his rival, John Dudley, Earl of Warwick.

The victory gained by him, with the active sympathy of the nobility,

which was defending its own interests, was a defeat for Somerset. Even

those who did not believe that he had any personal share in the

movement, nevertheless reproached him with having allowed conditions

to be prescribed to himself and his government by the people; the

common man would be King. Financial difficulties arising from an

alteration in the coinage, and ill success in the war against France,

contributed to give his opponents the ascendancy in the Privy Council.

Somerset once entertained the idea of setting the masses in movement

on his own behalf: one day he collected numerous bands of people at

Hampton Court, under cover of summoning them to defend the King, by

whose side his enemies wished to set up a regency. But this pretext

had little foundation, it was only himself whom his rivals would no

longer see at the head of affairs: after a short fluctuation in the

relations between the main personages he was forced to submit. He

saved his life for that time: after an interval he was released from

prison and again entered the Privy Council: then he once more made an

attempt to recover the supreme power by help of the people, but thus

drew his fate on himself. The masses who regarded him as their

champion showed him loud and heartfelt sympathy at his execution.

On Somerset's first fall it was said that the Emperor Charles V had a

share in bringing it about, and this is very conceivable; for what

result could be more displeasing to this sovereign than that

Protestantism, which he was putting down in Germany, should have

gained at the same moment a strong position in England: it is certain

that the change of administration was greeted with joy by the court at

Brussels.[149]

But it brought the Emperor no advantage. At the moment the new

government assumed a hostile attitude towards France: but soon

afterwards the Earl of Warwick, who now took the lead of affairs as

Duke of Northumberland, found himself driven to the necessity of

making a peace with that power, by which Boulogne was given up and

Scotland abandoned to French influence. One article of the treaty

contains indirectly a renunciation of the proposed marriage between

the King of England and the Queen of Scotland. And this treaty was

greatly to the Emperor's disadvantage, since it now set the French

free to renew the hostility against him which had been broken off some

years before by an agreement all in his favour. They allied themselves

for this purpose with the German princes who found the Emperor's yoke

intolerable. These princes had even applied to the English government:

and Edward would personally have been much inclined to lend an ear to

their proposals. If the fear of being involved in war with the Emperor

on this account withheld him from open sympathy, yet it is certain

that his general political attitude essentially contributed to enable

them to take up arms and break the Emperor's ascendancy.

Among the determining causes of a movement which is part of the

history of the world must be specially reckoned the personal

disposition of this prince, young as he was even at the close of his

reign. Somerset had kept him rather close: the Duke of Northumberland

gave him greater freedom, allowed him to manage his own money, and was

pleased when he made presents and showed himself as King; he was

careful to see that immediate obedience was paid him.[150] Whilst

Edward had been hitherto almost exclusively busied with his studies,

he now turned to knightly exercises for which he also showed aptitude:

he sat well on horseback, drew his bow and broke his lance as well as

any other young man of his age. But with all this his learning was not

neglected.[151] Edward VI not merely possessed for his years

extraordinary and manifold attainments; the written remains which are

extant from his hand display a rare mental growth. What he has written

for instance on his connexion with the two Seymours, his uncles,

indicates a clear and almost a judicial conception of existing

relations, which is very uncommon. On his tutor's advice, to prevent

his passing thoughts from getting confused, he regularly noted them

down, and composed a diary which has the same characteristics and may

be regarded as a valuable historical monument. But studies and

religion coincide in him: he is Protestant to the core; his chief

ambition is by means of his rank and power to place himself at the

head of the Protestant world. The duke could not have ventured to

oppose the progress of the Reformation.

In the days of distress, after the defeat in the Schmalkaldic war,

England was regarded as the refuge of the gospel: men welcomed the

scholars who fled thither, whose co-operation in the conflict with

Catholicism, still so powerful, was very desirable. In Cranmer's

palace at Lambeth were assembled Italians, French, Poles, Swiss, South

Germans and North Germans; the Secretary of State, William Cecil, who

had been trained in the service of the Protector, but had kept his

place after his fall, obtained them the King's support. Martin Bucer

and Paulus Fagius received promotion at Cambridge, Peter Martyr at

Oxford: he there maintained the Calvinistic views on the communion in

a great disputation. There were Walloon and French churches in the old

centres of Catholic worship, Canterbury and Glastonbury; John a Lasco

preached in the church of the Augustines in London. With no less

vigour than these foreigners did natives, sometimes returned exiles,

maintain the views then prevailing on the Continent. Under these

influences it was impossible, in conformity with the view taken up in

1536, to abide by the dogmas, which had been put forth by the school

of Wittenberg, now completely overthrown. The difference comes out

very remarkably when we compare the Common Prayer-book of 1549 with

the revised edition of 1552. Originally men had held fast to the real

presence in England also: Cranmer in his catechism expressly declared

for it: in the formula of the first book, which was compiled out of

Ambrose and Gregory, this view was retained:[152] but men in England

had since convinced themselves that this doctrine had not prevailed so

exclusively in Christian antiquity as had been hitherto thought:

following the example of Ridley, the most learned of the Protestant

bishops, the majority had given up the real presence: in the new

Common Prayer-book a controversial passage was even inserted against

it. First on their own impulse, and then with the help of the Privy

Council, the zealous Protestant-minded bishops removed the high altars

from the churches and had wooden tables for the communion put in their

place: since with the word Altar was associated the idea of Sacrifice.

It was now inevitable that the question from which all had started in

England, as to the relation between State and Church, should be

decided completely in favour of the secular principle. It is very true

that Cranmer held fast to the objective view of the visible church. If

the ceremonies were altered with which the Romish church imparts the

spiritual consecration, yet in this respect only the mystical usages

introduced in recent centuries were abandoned, and the ritual restored

to the form used in more primitive times, especially in the African

church. But it was surely a violent change, when those who wished to

receive consecration were now previously asked, whether their inward

call agreed both with the will of the Redeemer and the law of the

land; they were required to assent to the principle that Scripture

contains all which it is necessary for man to know, and to pledge

themselves to guard against any doctrine not in conformity with

Scripture. It is generally believed, and the fact is of lasting

importance, that the Convocation of the clergy, a commission of the

spiritualty, the Primate-Archbishop and a number of bishops, took part

in the change; but yet the decisive decrees went forth from the

Parliament, to which the spiritual power had been irrevocably attached

since Henry VIII, and sometimes from the Privy Council alone. To

establish a normal form of doctrine, men set to work to compose a

Confession, which was completed at that time in forty-two Articles.

There had been a wish that Melanchthon should have come over in person

to aid in composing it; at any rate his labours had much influence in

deciding the shape it took. The Articles belong to the class of

Confessions, as they were then framed in Saxony by Melanchthon, in

Swabia by Brenz, to be laid before the coming Council. And it is just

in this that their value lies, that by them England attached herself

most closely to the Protestant community on the Continent. They are

the work of Cranmer, who was entrusted with their composition by the

King and Privy Council, and communicated his labours first to the

King's tutor, Cheke, and the Secretary of State, Cecil: in conjunction

with them he next laid them before the King; with the assistance of

some chaplains their final form was given them; then the Privy Council

ordered them to be subscribed. The influence of the government on the

nominations to the office of bishop was now still more open: the

bishops were to hold office as long as they conducted themselves

well,--in other words, as long as the ruling powers were content with

them: the church jurisdiction was no longer administered in the name

of the bishopric, but, like the temporal jurisdiction, in the King's

name and under the King's seal; when they proceeded to revise the

church laws, the primary maxim was, not to admit anything that

contravened the temporal laws.[153] The use of the power of the keys

was also derived by Cranmer from the permission of the sovereign.

Against this ever-increasing dependence some bishops of the old views

made a struggle; to avoid coming into direct conflict with the

supremacy, which they had acknowledged, they put forth the assertion

that it could not be exercised by a King under age; they connived at

the mass being read in side-chapels of their cathedrals, or refused to

allow the change of the altars into communion-tables, or kept alive

the controversy as to the doctrine of faith. The government on their

side persisted in enforcing uniformity. They brought all opponents

before a commission consisting of secular as well as ecclesiastical

dignities, which had no scruple in pronouncing the deprivation of the

bishops: a fate which befell Gardiner of Winchester, Bonner of London,

Day of Chichester, Heath of Worcester. In vain did they plead that the

court before which they were brought was not a canonical one; the

government appealed to the general rights of the temporal power as it

had once been exercised by the Roman Emperors. In the conflict of

church opinions the Protestant-minded prelates now had the upper hand.

Many who did not conform bought toleration from the government by

sacrifices of money and goods. Elsewhere the newly-appointed bishops

assented to concessions which did not always profit even the crown,

but sometimes, as at Lichfield, private persons.[154] Already the

further question was discussed whether there is in fact any essential

distinction between bishops and presbyters: a church of foreigners was

set up in London, to present a pattern of the pure apostolic

constitution as an example to the country. The government which had

acquired such a thorough mastery over the clergy developed an open

disinclination to the old forms of constitution in the church. Who

could have said, so long as things remained in the path thus once

entered upon, whither this would lead?

NOTES:

[139] Froude iv. 515 (extracts from the documents).

[140] Collier ii. 220 (Records lii).

[141] Proclamation of 8 July 1549 in Tytler, England under Edward VI

and Mary I, p. 180.

[142] The point of view under which it was drawn up appears in a

declaration inserted in the edition of 1549: 'the most weighty cause

of the abolishment of certain ceremonies was, that they were abused

partly by the superstitious blindness of the unlearned, and partly by

unsatiable avarice.--Where the old (ceremonies) may be well used there

they [their opponents] cannot reprove the old only for their age. They

ought rather to have reverence unto them for their antiquity, if they

will declare themselves to be more studious of unity and concord, than

of innovations and newfangleness which--is always to be eschewed.'

[143] 12 Sept. 1547 in Halliwell ii. 31. Cranmer appointed a prayer in

church for the marriage of Edward and Mary, 'to confound all those,

which labour to the lett and interruption of so godly a quiet and

amity.' In Somerset's prayer printed, since the first edition of this

book, in Froude v. 47, it is said: 'Look upon the small portion of the

earth, which professeth thy holy name; especially have an eye to thy

small isle of Britain;--that the Scotismen and we might thereafter

live in one love and amity, knit into one nation by the marriage of

the King's Majesty and the young Scotish Queen.'

[144] Godwin, Rerum Anglicarum Annales 315.

[145] Proofs in Froude v. 136.

[146] So Queen Elizabeth tells us. Ellis, Letters ii. ii. 257.

[147] Cecil however was not the first Master of Requests: Thomas More

already appears under this title; Nares, Life of Burghley i. 179.

[148] 'You have suffered the rebels to lie in camp and armour against

the King his nobles and gentlemen; you did comfort divers of the said

rebels.' Articles against the Lord Protector, in Strype, Memorials of

Cranmer ii. 342.

[149] Marillac 26 Oct. 1549. 'Ceux-ci (at the Emperor's court) font

une merveilleuse demonstration de joye de ce que le protecteur est

abattu.' In Turnbull, Calendar of State Papers 1861 p. 47 an

Instruction of the Council is mentioned, 'to acquaint the Emperor with

the proceeding taken against the Duke of Somerset.' We should like to

be better informed about this Instruction, in which too the Emperor

was asked for aid.

[150] Soranzo, Relatione d'Inghilterra 1554. 'Per posseder la sua

grazia ben amplamente, non solo faceva qualche spettacolo, per dargli

piacere, ma gli diede liberta di danari.' Florentine Collection viii.

37.

[151] As he advises a friend: 'Apply yourself to riding shooting or

tennis--not forgetting sometimes when you have leisure, your learning,

chiefly reading the Scripture.' Halliwell ii. 49.

[152] Wheatly in Soames, History of the Reformation iii. 604.

[153] In the commission of 32 members (bishops, divines, civilians,

lawyers) we find the names of Will. Cecil, Will Peters, Thomas Smith.

[154] Compare Heylin, History of the Reformation 50, 101.

CHAPTER VII.

TRANSFER OF THE GOVERNMENT TO A CATHOLIC QUEEN.

We can easily see how the power of the crown, founded by the first

Tudor, and developed by the second through the emancipation from the

Papacy, was further strengthened under the third. From Edward VI we

have essays, in which he speaks about the spiritual and temporal

government with the consciousness of a sovereign, whose actions depend

only on himself. In the Homilies, which obtained legal sanction, there

is found an express condemnation of resistance to the King, 'for Godes

sake, from whom Kings are, and for orders sake.'

Whilst men were now expecting that Edward VI would arrive at manhood,

and take the government completely into his own hands, and conduct it

in the sense he had hitherto foreshadowed--not merely carrying out the

Reformation thoroughly at home, but assuming the leadership of the

Protestant world, symptoms appeared in him of the malady to which his

half-brother Richmond had succumbed at an early age. But how then if

the same fate befell him? According to Henry VIII's arrangement Mary

was then to ascend the throne who, through her descent from Queen

Catharine and from an inborn disposition which had become all the more

confirmed by her opposition to her father and brother, represented the

Catholic and Spanish interest. Nothing else could be expected but that

she would employ the whole power of the State in support of her own

views, would, so far as it could possibly be done, bring back the

church to its earlier form, would depress the men who had hitherto

played a great part by the side of the King and subject them to the

opposite faction. But were they quietly to acquiesce in their fate?

The ambition of the Duke of Northumberland associated itself with the

great interests of religion, to prevent the threatening ruin. He

persuaded the young King that it lay in his power to alter his

father's settlement of the succession, as in itself not conformable to

law, neither Mary nor the younger sister Elizabeth being entitled to

the throne, as the two marriages from which they sprang had been

declared illegal, and a bastard could not be made capable of wearing

the English crown by any act of Parliament. Henry VIII had in his

settlement of the succession passed over the descendants of his elder

sister, married in Scotland, as foreigners, but acknowledged those of

the younger, Mary of Suffolk, as the next heirs after his own

children. Mary's elder daughter Frances had married Henry Grey of

Dorset, who had already obtained the title of Suffolk, and had three

daughters, the eldest of whom was Jane Grey. It was to her, whom the

Duke of Northumberland married to one of his sons, that he now

directed the King's attention, and induced him to prefer her to his

sisters. Yet it was not so much to herself in person as to her male

issue that Edward's attention was originally directed. Never yet had a

Queen ruled in England in her own right, and even now there was a wish

to avoid it. Edward arranged that, if he himself died without male

heirs, the male heirs of Lady Frances, and if she too left none, then

those of Lady Jane, should succeed. He hoped still to live till such

an heir should be eighteen years old, in which case he could enter on

the government immediately after himself. If his death occurred

earlier, Jane was to conduct the administration during the interval,

not as Queen but as Regent, and conjointly with a Council of

government still to be named by him.[155] This Council of executors

was to avoid all war, all other change, and especially not to alter

the established religion in any point: rather it was to devote itself

to completing the ecclesiastical legislation in conformity with that

religion, and to the abolition of the Papal claims.[156] We see that

Edward's view was, like that of many other sovereigns, to secure the

continuance of his political and religious system of government for

long years after his own death. The members of the Privy Council,

before whom these arrangements were laid in the King's handwriting,

promised on their oath and their honour to carry them out in every

article, and to defend them with all their power.[157]

And if the affair had been undertaken in this manner, who could say

that it might not have succeeded? Northumberland did not neglect to

form a strong family interest in favour of the new combination that he

designed. He married his own daughter to Lord Hastings, who was

descended from the house of York, and one of Jane's sisters with the

son of the powerful Earl of Pembroke. He could reckon on the support

of the King of France, to whom the succession of a niece of the

Emperor was odious, and on the consent of the Privy Council, which was

in great part dependent on him; how could the Protestant feeling have

failed to gain him a large party in the country, especially since

something might be said for the plan itself.

But Edward VI's malady developed quicker than was expected. At the

last moment he was further induced to award the succession not to the

male heirs of Lady Jane, but to herself and her male heirs.[158] He

died with the prayer that God would guard England from the Papacy.

Lady Jane Grey had hitherto devoted her days to study. For father and

mother were severe and found much in her to blame: on the other hand

quiet hours of inward satisfaction were given her by the instructions

of a teacher, always alike kindly disposed, who initiated her into

learning and an acquaintance with literature: bending over her Plato,

she did not miss the amusement of the chase which others were

enjoying in the Park. After her marriage too, which did not make her

exactly happy, she still lived thus with her thoughts withdrawn from

the world, when she was one day summoned to Sion-House where she found

a great and brilliant assembly. She still knew nothing of the King's

death. What were her feelings, when she was told that Edward VI was

dead; that to secure the kingdom from the Popish faith and the

government of his two sisters who were not legitimate, he had declared

her, Lady Jane, his heiress, and when the great dignitaries of the

realm bent their knees and reverenced her as their Queen! At times

they had already talked to her of her claim to the throne, but she had

never thought much of it. When it now thus became a reality, her whole

soul was overcome by it: she fell to the ground and burst into a flood

of tears. Whether she had a full right to the throne, she could not

judge: what she felt was her incapacity to rule. But whilst she

uttered this, a different feeling passed through her, as she has told

us herself: she prayed in the depths of her soul that, if the highest

office belonged to her legally, God might give her the grace to

administer it to his honour. The next day she betook herself by water

to the Tower, and received the homage offered her. The heralds

proclaimed her accession in the capital.

But here this proclamation was received in silence and even with

murmurs. The succession had been settled by Henry VIII on the basis of

an act of Parliament: nothing else was expected but that this would be

adhered to, and Mary succeed her brother: that Edward without any

legal authorisation of a similar kind had now put a distant relative

in his sister's place, seemed an open robbery of the lawful heir. It

made no impression, that at the proclamation men were reminded of the

Popery of the Princess Mary and her intention to restore the Papal

power. Religious discord had not yet become so strong in England as to

make men forget the fundamental principles of right on its account.

The man who brought the princess the first news of Edward's death

(which was still kept secret) remarks expressly in telling it, that he

did not love her religion but abhorred the attempt to set aside lawful

heirs. Mary prudently betook herself to Norfolk, where she had the

most determined friends, to a castle on the sea; so as to be able, if

her opponent should maintain the upper hand, to escape to the Emperor.

But every one declared for her, the Catholics who saw in her the born

champion of their religion and were strongest in those very districts,

and the Protestants to whom the princess made some, though not

binding, promises; she was proclaimed Queen in Norwich. If the Duke of

Northumberland wished to carry out his projects, it was necessary for

him to suppress this movement by force. He at once took the field for

this purpose, with a fine body of artillery and two thousand infantry,

and occupied a position in the neighbourhood of Cambridge.

It seemed as though the crown would once more be fought for in open

field just as it had been a century before, and that in fact, just as

then, the neighbouring powers would interfere. On Northumberland's

side French help was expected; on the other hand application was

already made to the Emperor to send armed troops over the sea to his

cousin.[159] It was not however this time to reach such a point: while

the combination attempted in favour of Jane Grey met with strong

popular resistance, it was shattered to pieces by internal discord. If

the new Queen had such a good right as they told her, she would share

it with none, not even with her husband; she would not appear as a

creature of the Dudleys and a tool of their ambition: she would only

name him a duke and would not allow him to be crowned with her as

King. We recognise in this her high idea of the kingly power and its

divine right; but we can also easily conceive that the discord which

broke out on this point in the family could not but act on the members

of the Privy Council, of whom only a section were in complete

understanding with Northumberland, while the rest had merely yielded

to the ascendancy of his power. While the duke was expecting armed

reinforcements from London, a complete revolution took place there:

under the management of the Privy Council Mary was proclaimed Queen,

and a summons sent to Northumberland to submit to her. The fleet which

was destined to prevent Mary's flight had already declared for her;

the troops which were called out in the counties to fight against her

crossed over to her side; in Northumberland's camp the same opinion

gained the upper hand: the duke felt himself incapable of withstanding

it: he allowed himself to be carried along by it like the rest. Men

saw the extraordinary spectacle of the man who had marched out to

destroy Mary now ordering her accession to be proclaimed in his

encampment, he accompanied the herald and himself cried out Mary's

name.[160] These English nobles have boundless ambition, they grasp

with bold hand at the highest prizes: but they have no inner power of

resistance, as against the course of events and public opinion they

have no will of their own. However the duke might behave, he could not

save either his freedom or his life. Soon afterwards Mary entered

London amid the joyous shouts of the people. She was still united as

closely as possible with her sister Elizabeth: they appeared together

hand in hand. Jane Grey remained as a prisoner in the Tower, which she

had entered as Queen. Never did the natural right of succession, as it

was established by the testator of the inheritance and the Parliament,

obtain a greater triumph.

After the succession was decided, the great questions of government

came into the foreground, above all the question what position Mary

should take up with regard to religious matters.

Among the Protestants the opinion prevailed that it could not yet be

known whether she would not let religion remain in the state in which

she found it. Towns where the Protestant feeling was strongest

joyfully attached themselves to her in this expectation.

Her cousin, the Emperor Charles, who justly regarded her accession as

a victory, and who from the first moment exercised the greatest

influence on her resolutions, advised her before all things to

moderate her Catholic zeal. She should reflect that many of the lords

by whom she was now supported, a part of the Privy Council, and the

people of London, were Protestants, and guard against estranging them.

She should at once call a Parliament to show that she meant to rule in

the accustomed manner, and take care that the Northern counties, as

well as Cornwall, where men still held the most firmly to Catholicism,

were represented in it.

This good advice was not without influence on the Queen. In a tumult

which arose two days after her arrival in the city, she had the Lord

Mayor summoned in order to tell him that she would force no man's

conscience, she hoped that the people would through good instruction

come back to the religion which she herself professed with full

conviction. When she repeated this soon after in a proclamation, she

added that these things must shortly be ordered by common consent. But

of what kind this order would be, there could be already no doubt

after these words: she desired a change, but intended to bring it

about in a legal manner.

In all the steps taken by her government her Catholic sympathies

predominated. She felt no scruple in using the spiritual rights, which

the constitution gave her, in favour of Catholicism. As 'Head of the

Church next under God,' Mary forbade all preaching and interpretation

of Scripture without special permission. But she entrusted the power

of giving this permission to the same Bishop Gardiner who had offered

the most persevering resistance to the Protestant tendencies of the

previous government. The antagonism between the bishops entered again

on an entirely new phase: the Catholics rose, the Protestants were

depressed to the uttermost. Tonstal, Heath, and Day were, like

Gardiner, restored to their sees on the ground of the protests lodged

against the proceedings taken with reference to them at their

deprivation, protests which were regarded as valid. Ridley had to give

up the see of London again to Bonner: the Bishops of Gloucester and

Exeter experienced the royal displeasure; not merely Latimer but also

Cranmer were imprisoned in the Tower. Everywhere the images were

replaced, in many churches the celebration of the mass was revived.

Those preachers who declared themselves against it had to follow their

bishops to prison. The Calvinistic model-congregation was dissolved.

The foreign scholars quitted the country; and their most zealous

followers also fled to the continent before the coming storm of

persecution.

At the beginning of October the Queen's coronation took place with the

old customary ceremonies, for which the Emperor's leading minister,

Granvella, Bishop of Arras, sent over a vase of consecrated oil, on

the mystical meaning of which great stress was again laid. The Queen

had some scruples about the coronation, as she wished previously to

get rid of her title, 'Head of the Church': but the Emperor saw danger

in delay; he thought the declaration she had in the deepest secrecy

made to the Roman See, that she meant to re-establish its authority,

removed any religious scruple. He fully approved of the coronation

preceding the Parliament, and recommended the Queen, in virtue of her

constitutional right, without any delay to name bishops and prelates,

who might be useful to her at its impending meeting.

But the supreme power once constituted, as formerly in the civil wars,

so also in the times of the Reformation movement, had always exercised

a decisive influence on the composition of the Parliamentary

assemblies; would not this then be the case when it had declared

itself again Catholic? No doubt the government, at the head of which

Gardiner appeared as Lord Chancellor, used all the means at its

disposal to guide the elections according to its views. It appears to

have been with the same motive that the Queen in a proclamation, which

generally breathed nothing but benevolence, remitted payment of the

subsidies last voted under her brother. Yet we can hardly attribute

the result wholly to this. Parliamentary elections are wont to receive

their impulse from the mistakes of the last administration and the

evils that have come to light: and much had undeniably been done under

Edward VI which could not but call forth discontent. The ferment at

home was increased by financial disorder: church property had suffered

enormous losses. But above all the supreme power had taken a sudden

start in breaking through its ancient bounds. And, last of all, the

Protestant tendencies had allied themselves with an undertaking which

ran directly counter to the customary law and to previous

Parliamentary enactments. And so it might come to pass that the same

feelings swayed the elections which had mainly brought about Mary's

accession.

But, after all, the result of these elections was not such as to make

a complete return to the Papal authority probable. The Emperor

Charles, who mainly guided the Queen's steps, warned her from

attempting it. She had prayed him to communicate to her the Pope's

declarations issued in favour of her hereditary right: he sent them to

her, but with the advice to make no use of them, since they might

involve her in difficulties without end. It seemed to him sufficient

if the Parliament simply repealed the enactments which had formerly

been passed respecting the invalidity of her mother's marriage with

her father. In the bill which was drawn up on this point in the Upper

House it was merely stated that the marriage, in itself valid and

approved by the wisest persons of the realm, had been made displeasing

to the King through evil influences and annulled by a sentence of

Archbishop Cranmer, on whom the greatest blame fell. To many men this

seemed already going too far, since together with the dispensation the

old church authority was again recognised: but as there was not a word

about the Pope in it, this was less apparent: the bill was passed

unanimously. The act might be regarded as a political one. On the

other hand religion was very directly affected by the proposal to

repeal the alterations in the church service which had been introduced

under Edward VI, and to abolish the Common Prayer-book. On this ensued

the hottest conflict. Once the proposal had to be laid aside: when it

was resumed, the debate on it lasted six days: a third of the members

were steadily against it. But in the majority the opinion again

prevailed that Henry VIII's church constitution--retention of the

Catholic doctrines and emancipation from the Papacy--was the most

suitable for England: a resolution was carried to the effect that only

such books as were in use under Henry VIII should be henceforth used

in the church. The new forms of divine service, which contained a

clearly marked body of doctrine, were abolished and the old ones

restored.

The position which the Parliament took up in relation to another

scarcely less important question coincided with this sense of national

independence.

It was a very widespread wish in England that the Queen should give

her hand to young Courtenay, son of that Marquis of Exeter who had

himself once thought of marrying Mary against her father's wishes. He

was a young man of suitable age, handsome figure, and mental activity;

Mary had not merely freed him from the prison in which her brother had

kept him, but also endowed him with the Earldom of Devon, one of his

father's possessions; in this act many saw a token of personal

inclination. Bishop Gardiner was decidedly in his favour, and we can

conceive how a great ecclesiastic, who had the power of the state in

his hands, wished to altogether exclude every foreign influence; he of

course knew that Courtenay would also conform in church matters.

Gardiner spoke once with the Queen about it and was very pressing: she

was absolutely against it. The old chronicle is entirely in error when

it repeats the then widespread rumour of Mary's inclination for

Courtenay. Mary told the Imperial ambassador that she was altogether

ignorant of what love was; she had never seen Courtenay but once in

her life, at the moment when she released him. She intended to marry,

since she was assured that the welfare of the realm required it, but

not an Englishman, not one who was a subject. As in other things, so

in this, she requested the Emperor to give her his advice.

Charles V would not have been absolutely against the plan of his

cousin giving her hand to an English lord, whom England might obey

more easily than a stranger: but, when she showed such an aversion to

it, he did not hesitate for a moment as to what advice to give her.

One of his brother's sons was taken into consideration, but rejected

by him on the ground that there was already much ill-will against

Spain stirring in the Netherlands, and a union of the German line with

England might some day make it difficult for his own son to maintain

those provinces: he therefore proposed him to the Queen. Don Philip,

not yet thirty but already a widower for the second time, was just

then negociating for a marriage with a Portuguese princess. These

negociations were broken off and counter ones opened with England.

Mary showed a joyful inclination to it at the first word: it was to

this that her secret thoughts had turned.

It looked as if the dynastic union of the Burgundian-Spanish house

with the English, which was also a political alliance and had been

violently broken off at the same time with that alliance, would now be

restored more closely than before, and this time for ever. Men took up

the idea that Philip's eldest son was to continue the Spanish line, as

Ferdinand and his sons the German, but that from the new marriage, if

it should be blest with offspring, an English line of the house of

Burgundy was to proceed: a prospect of the extension of the power of

England and of her influence on the continent, which it was expected

would set aside all opposition.

In England however every voice was against it, among nobles and

commons, people and Parliament, high and low. The imperial court fully

believed that it was Gardiner who brought the matter forward in

Parliament. The House resolved to send a deputation to the Queen with

the request that she would marry an Englishman. Mary, who had as high

an idea of her prerogative as any of her predecessors or successors,

felt herself almost insulted; she interrupted the speech as soon as

she understood its purport, and declared that Parliament was taking

too much on itself in wishing to give her advice in this matter: only

with God, from whom she derived her crown, would she take counsel

thereon.[161] When the Parliament, not satisfied with this, prepared a

fresh application to her, it was dissolved.

But if this happened among men who adhered to her views in other

points, what would those say who saw themselves, contrary to their

expectation, oppressed and endangered by the Queen's measures in

religious matters?

The agitation was so general that men caught at the hope of putting an

end to all that was begun by a sudden rising. We find a statement

which must not be lightly rejected, that the English nobility, which

had taken great part in the Reformation movement and put itself in

possession of much church property, came to an understanding at

Christmas 1553, and decided on a general rising on the next Palm

Sunday, 18th March:[162] thus doing as the French, German,

Netherlandish and Scotch nobility had done, who took the initiative in

this matter. In Cornwall Peter Carew was to have the lead, in the

Midland Counties the Duke of Suffolk, in Kent Thomas Wyatt. As the

Queen's Privy Council was even now not unanimous, they hoped to bring

about an overthrow of the government before it was yet firmly

established: and either to compel the Queen to dismiss her evil

counsellors and give up the Spanish marriage, or if she remained

obstinate to put her sister Elizabeth in her place, who would then

marry Courtenay. The French, who saw in the Queen's marriage with the

prince of Spain a danger for themselves, urged on the movement, and

had a secret understanding with the rebels; their plan was to support

it by an incursion from Scotland where they were then the masters, and

an attack on Calais.[163] But as often happens with such comprehensive

plans, the government detected them; the attempt to carry them out had

to be made before the preparations were complete; in most of the

places where an effort was made it was suppressed without much

trouble. Carew fled to France; Suffolk, who in vain tried to draw

Coventry over to his side, was captured. On the other hand Sir Thomas

Wyatt's rising in Kent was formidable. He collected a couple of

thousand men, defeated the royal troops, some of whom joined him, and

as he had the sympathies of a great part of the inhabitants of London

with him, he attempted forthwith an attack on the capital. But the new

order of things had too firm a legal foundation to be so easily

overthrown. The Queen betook herself to the Guildhall and addressed

the assembled people, decided as she was and confident in the goodness

of her cause; the general feeling was in favour of supporting her. All

armed for defence. For a couple of days, during which Wyatt lay before

the city, every one was under arms, mayor, aldermen and people; the

lawyers went to the courts with armour under their robes: priests were

seen celebrating mass with mail under their church vestments. The

Queen had some trustworthy troops, whose leader, the Earl of Pembroke,

told her he would never show his face to her again if he did not free

her from these rebels. When Wyatt at last appeared in Hyde Park with

exhausted and badly fed men, he was met and beaten by an overwhelming

body of Pembroke's troops; with a part of his followers he was driven

into the city, and there made prisoner without much bloodshed.

It has always been reckoned to the Queen's credit that amid the alarm

of these days she never quitted the unfortified palace. She had now an

opportunity to rid herself completely of Northumberland's faction.

Jane Grey, whose name at least had been mentioned, her father Suffolk,

her uncle Thomas Grey, were executed; Wyatt also and a great number of

the prisoners paid for their rebellion with their lives.[164]

NOTES:

[155] King Edward: My devise for the succession: in 'Chronicle of

Queen Anna, with illustrative documents and notes' by Nicholls, 89.

[156] King Edward's Minutes for his last will. In 'Chronicle of Queen

Anna, with illustrative documents and notes' by Nicholls, 101.

[157] Engagement of the council, the signatures all autograph. Ibid.

90.

[158] This was done by a correction. The original text was 'to the

Lady Jane's heires masle;' instead of 'Jane's,' the King now wrote 'to

the Lady Jane and her h. m. (Nares' Burghley i. 452. Nicholls, 87.)

[159] Lettre écrite à l'empereur par ses ambassadeurs en Angleterre 19

Juill. Luy (au roi de France) sera facile, d'envoyer 2 ou 3 m.

Français et quelques gens de chevaux. Plusieurs de ce royaume sont

d'opinion, si V. M. assistoit ma dite dame (Mary) de gens et de

secours contre le dit duc, la dite dame ne diminueroit en rien

l'affection du peuple.

[160] Proclama avec le dict herault Mm. Marie à haute voix. Lettre des

ambassadeurs a l'empereur. Papiers d'état de Granvelle iv. 58.

[161] To the reports of the French and Spanish ambassadors (compare

Ambassades de Mss. de Noailles en Angleterre ii. 269, Turner ii. 204,

Froude vi. 124) may be added that of the Venetian: 'ch'ella si

consiglierebbe con dio e non con altri.' I combine this with Noailles'

account; for these ambassadors were immediately informed by their

friends of the deputation and have noted down that part of the Queen's

speech which made most impression on the bystanders.

[162] Soranzo Relatione 79, a testimony worth consideration, as

Soranzo stood in a certain connexion with the rebels.

[163] So Simon Renard reports 24th Feb. 1553-4 to the Emperor after

Wyatt's confession. 'Le roy feroit emprinse de coustel d'Escosse et de

coustel de Guyenne (it should without doubt be Guisnes) et Calais': in

Tytler ii. 207. Wyatt's statements in the 'State Trials' refer to a

confession which is not given there, and from which the ambassador may

have taken his account.

[164] Renard à l'empereur, 8 Feb. The communications in Tytler, which

come from Brussels, and the Papiers d'état de Granvelle, which come

from Besançon, supplement each other, yet even when taken both

together they are still not quite complete.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE CATHOLIC-SPANISH GOVERNMENT.

The effort to overthrow Mary's throne had strengthened it: for the

second time she had rallied around it the preponderant majority of the

nation. And this was all the more surprising, since no one could doubt

any longer in what direction the Queen's exclusive religious views

would lead her. In her victory she saw a divine providence, by which

it was made doubly her duty to persevere, without looking back, in the

path she had once taken. In full understanding with her Gardiner

proceeded without further scruple, in the Parliament which met in

April 1554, to attempt to carry through the two points on which all

else depended, the abrogation of the Queen's spiritual title, which

implied restoration of the Pope's authority, and the revival of the

old laws against heretics. These views and proposals however met with

unexpected opposition, both in the nation, and no less in the Privy

Council and Parliament, especially in the Upper House. The lay lords

did not wish to make the bishops so powerful again as they had once

been, and rejected the restoration of the Pope's authority unless they

previously had security for their possession of the confiscated church

property. The first proposition could not, so far as can be seen, even

be properly brought forward:[165] the second, the revival of the

heresy laws, was accepted by the Commons over whom Gardiner exercised

great influence, but the Peers threw it out. It was especially Lords

Paget and Arundel who opposed Gardiner's proposals in the Privy

Council and the Lords and caused their rejection.

Only in one thing were the two parties united, in recognising the

marriage contract concluded with Spain: it was passed unanimously by

Parliament.

In July 1554 Don Philip reached England with a numerous fleet, divided

into three squadrons, with a brilliant suite on board. At Southampton

the leader of one of the two parties, the Earl of Arundel, received

him; Bishop Gardiner, the leader of the other, gave the blessing of

the church to the marriage in Winchester cathedral. The day before the

Emperor had resigned the crown of Naples to his son, to make him equal

with the Queen in rank. How grand it sounded, when the king-at-arms

proclaimed the united titles: Philip and Mary, King and Queen of

England, France, Naples, Jerusalem, Ireland! A title with an almost

Plantagenet sound, but which now however only denoted the closest

union between the Spanish monarchy and the Catholics of England.

Philip was solicitous to gain over the different parties and classes

of England: for he had been told that England was a popular monarchy.

He belied his Spanish gravity and showed himself, despite the

stiffness that was his natural characteristic, affable to every man:

he tried to make the impression, and successfully, that he desired the

prosperity of England. One of the chief resources of the time, that of

securing the most considerable persons by means of pensions, he made

use of to a great extent. Both parties were provided for by annual

payments and presents, Pembroke and Arundel as well as Derby and

Rochester. We are assured that this liberality exercised a very

advantageous influence on the disposition of the country.[166]

Gardiner looked on it as a slight, that he was passed over in the

list, for these pensions were considered at that time an honour, but

this did not prevent him from praising the marriage in his sermons as

ordained by heaven for the restoration of religion.

All now depended on whether the King's influence would be sufficient

to carry at the next meeting of Parliament in November, the proposals

which had been rejected in the last session.

But for this, according to the view not merely of the English lords,

but of the imperial ambassador and of the Emperor himself, a previous

condition was indispensable. The English nobles must be relieved from

all apprehension lest the confiscated ecclesiastical property should

ever again be wrested from them. Cardinal Pole had been already for

some time residing in the Netherlands: but he was told that his

arrival in England would be not merely fruitless but detrimental

unless he brought with him a sufficient dispensation with regard to

this. In Rome the concession was opposed on the ground that it would

be setting a bad precedent. But when it was pointed out that the

English confiscations did not touch any church lands, but only

monastic property, and still more that without this concession the

restoration of obedience to the church could not be attained, Pope

Julius III yielded to the request. Two less comprehensive forms were

rejected by the Emperor: at last one was granted which would satisfy

the English. The form of the absolution which the Pope was to bestow

after their submission was previously arranged: it was agreed to avoid

everything that could remind men of the old pretensions and awaken the

national antipathies.

Meanwhile the elections to Parliament were completed. The proclamation

issued gives the ruling points of view without reserve. An invitation

to elect Catholic members of merit was coupled with the assurance that

there was no intention of disturbing any kind of property. The means

lately used for preventing any hostile influence were not yet

sufficient: the advice was given from Brussels to go back to the older

and stricter forms.

The leading men of the Upper House were won over: there could be no

doubt about the tone of the Lower. At their first sitting a resolution

to release Cardinal Pole from the attainder that weighed on him, and

invite him to return to England, passed without opposition. Now the

Emperor had no longer any scruple in letting him go. He said as to

this very matter, that what is undertaken at the wrong time hinders

the result which might else have been expected; everything has its

time: the time for this appeared to him now come. From Philip we have

a letter to his sister Juana in which he extols himself with much

satisfaction for the share he had taken in recalling the cardinal and

restoring the Papal authority. 'I and the most illustrious Queen,' he

says in it, 'commanded the Parliament of the three Estates of the

realm to recall him; we especially used our efforts with the chief

among them to induce them to consent to the cardinal's return: at our

order prelates and knights escorted him to our Court, where he has

delivered to us the Breve of his Holiness.'--'We then through the

Chancellor of the realm informed the Estates of what seemed to us

becoming, above all how much it concerned themselves to come to a

conclusion that would give peace to their conscience.'[167]

The Parliament declared itself ready to return to the obedience of the

Roman See, and repeal all the statutes against it, provided that the

cardinal pronounced a general dispensation, that every man might keep

without scruple the ecclesiastical property which had fallen to his

share.[168] On this understanding Cardinal Pole was allowed to

exercise his legatine power, and the King and Queen were entreated to

intercede that the absolution might be bestowed.

With heartfelt joy Cardinal Pole pronounced it without delay, first at

a meeting of the Parliament in the palace, then with greater solemnity

at S. Paul's at a high mass attended by the Court with a brilliant

suite; among those present were the knights who wore the Burgundian

order of the Golden Fleece, and those who wore the English Order of

the Garter. The King stood by the Chancellor when from the outer

corridor of the church he announced the event and its motives to the

great crowds there assembled. It made an impression on the imperial

ambassadors that no outward sign of discontent was heard.

The agreement that now followed bears more of a juridical than of a

religious character. The jurisdiction was given back to the Pope which

he possessed before the twentieth year of Henry VIII (1529): the

statutes by which it was abolished were severally enumerated and

repealed: on the other hand the Pope's legate in his name consented

that the owners of church property should not be disturbed in their

possession, either now or at any future time, either by church

councils or by Papal decrees. Such property was henceforth to be quite

as exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the crown as any other;

whoever dared to call in question the validity of the title in any

spiritual court whatever, within or without the realm, was to be

punished as an enemy of the Queen. The cardinal legate strove long to

prevent the two enactments, as to the restoration of obedience and the

title to the ecclesiastical property, from being combined together in

one Act, since it might look as if the Pope's concession was the price

of this obedience to him; he once said, he would rather let all remain

as it was and go back to Rome than yield on this point. But the

English nobility adhered immoveably to its demand; it wished to

prevent all danger of the restoration of obedience becoming in any way

detrimental to its acquisitions, an object which was clearly best

secured by combining both enactments in a single statute, so that they

must stand or fall together; even the King's representations effected

no alteration in this; the cardinal had to comply.

On the other hand the King's influence, if we believe himself, had all

possible success in the other affair, which was at any rate not less

weighty. 'With the intervention of the Parliament,' he continues in

the above-mentioned letter, 'we have made a law, I and the most

illustrious Queen, for the punishment of heretics and all enemies of

holy church; we have revived the old ordinances of the realm, which

will serve this purpose very well.' It was more especially the

statute against the Lollards, by which Henry V had entered into the

closest alliance with the hierarchy, that was to be re-enacted by

Parliament. Gardiner had not been able to carry it through in the

previous session, though it was known that the Queen wished it. Under

the King's influence, who was accustomed to the execution of heretics

in Spain, the Lords after some deliberation let their objections drop

and accepted the bill.

If we put together these four great Acts, the abolition of the Common

Prayer-book, the Spanish marriage, the restoration of obedience to

Rome, and the revival of the heresy laws, we could hardly doubt the

intention of the members of the government, and of the Parliament, to

return completely to the ancient political and religious state of

things. With some members such an intention may have been the

predominant one: to assume it in all, or even in the majority, would

be an error.[169]

The agreement then legalised as to ecclesiastical property, and the

abolition of the monastic system, already formed such an anomaly in

the Roman Catholic church, that the ecclesiastical condition of

England would have always retained a very abnormal character. And the

obedience expressed was by no means complete. For it should have

included above all a recognition of that right of dispensation, about

which the original quarrel had broken out, and the revocation of the

order of succession which was based on its rejection. In fact

Gardiner's intention was to bring matters to this; being besides a

great enemy and even persecutor of Elizabeth, he wished to see her

illegitimacy pronounced in due form;[170] the resolutions passed

seemed necessarily to lead to it. Men however did not proceed this

time so logically in England. They did not wish to base the future

state of the realm on Papal decrees, but on the ordinances once

enacted by King and Parliament. They could not deceive themselves as

to the fact that Elizabeth, though she conformed outwardly, yet

remained true at heart to the Protestant faith; but not on that

account would the Parliament deny her right to the English throne. It

also by no means entertained exactly Spanish sentiments. The Emperor

expressed the wish that his son might be crowned: his ambassador's

advice however was against proposing it in Parliament; since, with the

high ideas entertained in England of the rights implied in the

coronation, this would never be allowed. In the event of the Queen's

dying before Philip, and leaving children, the guardianship was

reserved to him: but even for this object conditions had been

originally proposed which would have been much more advantageous to

him: these the Upper House threw out. So little was even then the

policy of the Queen and King at the same time the policy of the nation

and Parliament. In the Privy Council the old discords continued. The

government obtained a greater unity by the fact that Gardiner, who now

followed the Queen's lead in every respect, carried most of the

members with him by the authority which her favour gave him. As Paget

and Arundel, since they could effect nothing, refused to appear any

more, there always remained a secret support for the discontent that

was stirring. In the beginning of 1555 traces of a conspiracy in

favour of Courtenay were again detected: if the inquiry into it led to

no discovery, it was because--so it was thought--the commission

entrusted with it did not wish to make any.

At this moment the revived heresy-laws began to be put into execution.

Prosecutions were instituted for statements that under another order

of things would have been considered as fully authorised. Still more

than to single offences was attention directed to any variations in

doctrine. In these proceedings we can remark the points which were

then chiefly in question.

The first of the accused, one of the earliest and most influential of

the martyrs, John Rogers, was reminded of the article which speaks of

the faith in one holy catholic church; he replied that by it was meant

the universal church of all lands and times, not the Romish, which on

the contrary had deviated in many points from the main foundation of

all churches, Holy Scripture. Rowland Taylor, who gloried in a

marriage blest with children, which Gardiner would not acknowledge to

be a marriage at all, maintained that Christian antiquity had allowed

the marriage of priests. Gardiner accused him of ignorance. 'But,'

said Taylor, 'I have read the Holy Scripture, the Latin and the Greek

fathers;' a canon of the Nicene council, which was cited on the point,

he interpreted far more correctly than the bishop. John Hooper was

called in question because he held divorce to be permissible on the

ground given in Scripture, and because he found that the view of the

real presence had no foundation in Scripture.[171] Their offence was

the conception of church-communion as resting on the foundation of

Scripture and extending therefore far beyond Romanism: the most

telling defence could not save them here, for only the carrying out of

old laws was concerned, and these unconditionally condemned such

opinions. As the condemned were being taken back by night to their

prison, many householders came out of their doors with lights in their

hands, to greet them with their prayers and thank them for their

steadfastness: a deep and sorrowful sympathy, but one which scarcely

dared to utter itself, and thus renounced the attempt to effect

anything. Rogers suffered death in London, Hooper at his episcopal see

of Gloucester, Taylor (who on the way showed as much good wit as Sir

Thomas More had formerly done) in his parish, Saunders at Coventry,

Ferrar in the market-place at Caermarthen. Their punishment, in every

place where they had taught, was intended to confirm the doctrines

they had rejected. There have been more bloody persecutions elsewhere:

this was distinguished by the fact that many of the more eminent men

of the nation became its victims. Among them, besides those we have

named, were Ridley, who was looked on as the most learned scholar in

England, the eloquent Latimer, Bradford a man of deep piety, Philpot

who united learning and religion. How could Archbishop Cranmer, who

had contributed almost more than any one to carry through the

Reformation, who had pronounced the divorce of the Queen's mother,

possibly find mercy? He persuaded himself of it once; and, yielding as

he was, allowed himself to be tempted into a recantation, in despite

of which he was condemned to death. But then there awoke in him also

the whole consciousness of the truth of his belief. The hand with

which he had signed the recantation he held firm, and let it burn in

unutterable agony, as an expiation which he imposed on himself, before

the flame of the faggots closed over him. The executions extended

themselves over the whole country and even over the neighbouring

islands; the diaries show that they continued till 1558. Many could

have fled, but wished to testify to the firmness of their belief by

dying for it, and thus to strengthen in their faith the people from

whom they were taken away. Most of them showed a sublime contempt of

death, which inflamed others to imitate them. How many would have been

prepared to throw themselves with their friends into the flames! And

no one could say that here there was any question of tendencies to

revolt. The Protestants had on the whole kept themselves far from it:

they did not contest the Queen's right to the throne; they died as her

obedient subjects.

But now what an impression must these executions produce, combined

with what preceded and followed them.

Gardiner appears in all this imperious, proud, and with that confident

tone which the possessors of power assume, implying that they regard

themselves as being also mentally superior; Bonner Bishop of London

fanatical, without any power of discernment, and almost bloodthirsty.

His attention was once drawn to the ill effects of his rough acts of

violence; he replied that he must do God's work without fear of men.

Under the last government they had both had much to endure: they had

been deprived by their enemies and thrown into prison: now they

employed the temporal arm in their own favour; they felt no scruple in

sentencing their old opponents to death in accordance with the

severity of the laws which they had again brought into active

operation. Such was the issue of the contest between the bishops

under the changing systems of government.

As Queen Mary is designated 'The Bloody,' we are astonished when we

read the authentic descriptions, still extant, of her personal

appearance. She was a little, slim, delicate, sickly woman, with hair

already turning grey. She played on the lute, and had even given

instruction in music; she had a skilful hand; on personal acquaintance

she made the impression of goodness and mildness. But yet there was

something in her eyes that could even rouse fear; her voice, which

could be heard at a great distance, told of something unwomanly in

her. She was a good speaker in public; never did she show a trace of

timidity in danger. The troubles she had experienced from her youth,

her constant antagonism to the authority under which she lived, had

especially hardened in her the self-will which is recognisable in all

the Tudors. A peculiarity found elsewhere also in gifted women, that

they are weary of all which surrounds them at home, and give to what

is foreign a sympathy above its worth, had become to her a second

nature. She rejected with aversion the idea of marrying Courtenay, for

this reason among others that he was an Englishman. She, the Queen of

England, had no sympathy for the life, the interests, the struggles of

her people: she hated them from her childhood. All her sympathies were

for the nation from which her mother came, for its views and manners:

her husband was her ideal of a man: we are assured that she even

overlooked his infidelities to her because he did not enter into

permanent relations with any other woman. Besides this he was the only

man who could support her in the great project for which she thought

herself marked out by God, the restoration of Catholicism.[172] This

is the meaning of her pledging herself in her bedchamber before a

crucifix, when she had not yet seen him, to give her hand to him and

to no other. For with him and his fortunes were linked the hopes of a

restoration of Catholicism. Mary was absolutely determined to do all

she could to strengthen it in England. Gardiner assures us, and we may

believe him in this, that it was not he who prompted the revival of

the old laws against the Lollards; the chief impulse to it came on the

contrary from the Queen. And as those laws ordered the punishment of

heretics by fire, and Parliament had consented, and the orthodox

bishops offered their aid, it would have seemed to her a blameable

weakness, if out of feelings of compassion she had stood in the way of

the execution of those laws, to the suspension of which the bishops

ascribed the spread of heretical opinions. Many of the horrors which

accompanied their execution may have remained concealed from her;

still it cannot be doubted, that the persecutions would never have

begun without her. No excuse can free her memory from the dark shade

which rests on it. For that which is done in a sovereign's name, with

his will and consent, determines his character in history.

The conduct of the Queen and her government, without whose help

ecclesiastical authority would have been null and void, had a result

that extended far beyond her time: men began to inquire into the

claims of the temporal power. John Knox, who had now to fly from

England before a Queen, as he had previously from Scotland before a

Queen-regent, and whose word was of weight, poured forth his feelings

in a piercing call, which he himself named 'a blast of the trumpet,'

against the right of women to the government of a country, which ought

to be exercised only by men. And while Knox went no further than the

immediate case, others examined into the powers of all State

authority: above all, to prevent its taking part in religious

persecution, they brought forward the principles according to which

sovereignty issues originally from the people. Mary's government had

awakened in Protestantism, and that not merely in England, the

hostility of political theory.

But besides no man could hide from himself, that discontent, even

without theory, had grown in England in an alarming manner. The French

and Imperial ambassadors both gave their courts information of it,

the former with a kind of satisfaction, the latter with apprehension

and pain. He laments the bad effect which the religious persecution

produces, makes pressing objections to it and demands that the bloody

zeal of the bishops shall be moderated; but the matter was regularly

proceeding in a kind of legal way; we do not find that he effected

anything.

The Queen had hitherto flattered herself and her partisans with the

hope that she would give the country an heir to the throne. When this

expectation proved fallacious in the summer of 1555 it produced an

impression which, as the imperial ambassador says, no pen could

describe. The appearance had been caused by an unhealthy condition of

body, which was now looked on rather as a prognostic of her fast

approaching death. It is already clear, remarks the ambassador, that

least confidence can be placed in those who have been hitherto most

trusted: many a man still wears a mask: others even show their

ill-will quite openly. For so badly is the succession at present

arranged that my lady Elizabeth will without doubt ascend the throne

on Mary's death and will restore heresy.

While things were in this state, Philip II was led to resolve on going

to the Netherlands by the vicissitudes of the French war and his

father's state of health; he wished either to bring about peace, or to

push the war with energy.

He had hitherto exercised a moderating influence on the government.

Not to let all fall back into the previous party-strife, he thought it

best to give the eight leading members of the Privy Council a

pre-eminent place in the management of business. He could not avoid

admitting men of both parties even among these; but he had already

found a man whom he could set over the others and trust with the

supreme rule of affairs in complete confidence. This was Cardinal

Pole, who after Cranmer's death received the Archbishopric of

Canterbury, long ago bestowed on him at Rome, and was released from

the duty of again returning to the Roman court. He was descended from

the house of the Yorkist Suffolks, persecuted by the earlier Tudors

with great severity; but how completely did this family difference

recede before the world-wide interests of religion! He served with the

most entire devotion a queen of the house of Lancaster-Tudor who on

her side reposed in him unlimited reliance: she wished to have him

about her for hours every day. Reginald Pole was a man of European and

general ecclesiastical culture; he shared in a tendency existing

within Catholicism itself, which approached very nearly to

Protestantism on one dogmatic question: we also hear that he would

gladly have moderated the persecution;[173] but when it is said, that

the obstinacy of the Protestants hindered him in this, all that can be

implied is, that they held fast to a confession which was now

absolutely condemned by the hierarchic laws, while he was bound and

resolved to carry these laws into effect. His chief care was above all

not to be involved in English party-divisions: he therefore usually

worked with a couple of Italian assistants who shared his sentiments

and his plans. The union of the ecclesiastical and temporal authority

is seen once more in Pole, as it had been in Wolsey: he combined the

powers of a legate with the position of a first minister. His

distinguished birth, his high ecclesiastical rank, the confidence of

the King and Queen, enhanced by completely blameless personal

conduct,[174] procured him an authority in the country which seemed

almost that of the sovereign.

A singular government this, composed of an absent king, who however

had to be consulted in all weighty matters, a cardinal, and a dying

queen who lived exclusively in church ideas. Difficulties could not be

wanting: they arose first in church matters themselves.

We know how much the recognition of the alienation of the church

property, to which Julius III was brought to consent by the Emperor,

contributed to the restoration of church obedience; among the English

nobility it formed the main ground of its submission. But in May 1555

Pope Paul IV ascended the Papal throne, in whom dislike of the

Austro-Spanish house was almost a passion, and who wished to base his

ecclesiastical reputation on the recovery of the alienated church

property. His third Bull orders its restoration, including the

possessions of monastic foundations, and the revenues hitherto

received from them. The English ambassadors who had been sent to Rome

under wholly different conditions, to announce the restoration of

obedience, found this Pope there on their arrival. When they mentioned

the confirmation of the alienation of the monastic property, he

answered them in plain terms: for himself he would be ready to

consent, but it lay beyond his power; the property of the church was

sacred and inviolable, all that belonged to it must be restored to the

uttermost farthing. And so ecclesiastically minded was Queen Mary that

she in her heart agreed with the Pope. The monasteries in particular

she held to be an indispensable part of the church-system, and wished

for their restoration. Already the fugitive monks were seen returning:

a number of Benedictines who had remained in the country resumed the

dress of their Order; the Queen made no secret of her wish to restore

the monastery of Westminster in particular. Another side of church

life was affected by the fact that, owing to the suppression of the

great abbeys, a number of benefices, which were dependent on them, had

lost their incomes and had fallen into decay. That Henry VIII should

have appropriated to the crown the tenths and first-fruits, which

belonged to the church, seemed to Queen Mary unjustifiable; she felt

herself straitened in her conscience by retaining these revenues, and

was prepared to give them back, whatever might be the loss to the

crown. But she could not by herself repeal what had been done under

authority of Parliament: in November 1555 she attempted to gain over

that assembly to her view. A number of influential members were

summoned to the palace, where first Cardinal Pole explained to them

that the receipt of the first-fruits was connected with the State's

claim of supremacy over the church, but that, after obedience was

restored, it had no longer any real justification. He put forward some

further reasons, and then the Queen herself took up the word. She

laid the greatest stress on her personal wish. She asked the

Parliament, after having shown obedience to her in so many ways, to

prove to her that the peace of her soul lay near their hearts, and to

take this burden from her. But the conception of the crown and its

property had in England already ceased to be so merely personal. The

most universally intelligible motive in the whole church-movement was

the feeling, that the resources of the nation ought to be devoted to

national purposes, and every one felt that the diminution of the royal

revenues would have to be made up by Parliamentary grants. In addition

to this, it appeared to be only the first step to such an universal

restitution, as Pope Paul IV clearly contemplated and directed. Was

there not much more to be said for the recovery of the church revenues

from private hands than for their withdrawal from the crown which used

them for public purposes?--A member of the Lower House wished to

answer the Queen at once after her address: but, as he was not the

Speaker, he was not allowed to do so.

When the proposal came under discussion in the Lower House, it met

with lively opposition. A commission was then appointed, to which the

Upper House sent two earls, two barons, and two bishops, and to which

some lawyers were added; by these the proposed articles were revised

and then laid before them again. The decisive sitting was on the 3rd

December 1555. The doors were closed: no stranger was allowed to enter

nor any member to leave the House. After they had sat in hot debate

from early morning till three in the afternoon--just one of those

debates, of which we have to regret that no detailed account has

survived--the proposal was, it is true, accepted, but against such a

large minority as was hitherto unheard of in the English Parliament,

120 votes to 183. Queen and cardinal regarded it as a great victory,

for they had carried their view: but the tone of the country was still

against them. However strong the stress which the cardinal laid on the

statement that the concession of the crown was not to react in any way

on private men's ownership of church property, the apprehension was

nevertheless universal,[175] that with the Queen's zeal for the

monasteries, and a consistent carrying out of the Pope's principles,

things would yet come to this. But the interests which would be thus

injured were very widespread. It was calculated that there were 40,000

families which in one way or another owned part of the church

property: they would neither relinquish it nor allow their title to be

called in question. Powerful lords were heard to exclaim that they

would keep the abbey-lands as long as they had a sword by their side.

The popular disposition was reflected in the widespread rumour, which

gained credence, that Edward VI was still alive and would soon come

back.

From time to time seditious movements showed the insecurity of the

situation. At the beginning of 1556 traces were detected of a plan for

plundering the treasury in order to levy troops with the money.[176]

The Western counties were discontented because Courtenay was removed

from among them: he died subsequently in Italy. Sir Henry Dudley, the

Duke of Northumberland's cousin, rallied around him some zealous and

enterprising malcontents, who planned a complete revolution: he found

secret support in France, whither he fled.[177] In April 1557 a

grandson of the Duke of Buckingham, Thomas Stafford, also coming from

France, landed and made himself master of Scarborough castle. He had

only a handful of followers, but he ventured to proclaim himself

Protector of the realm, which he promised to secure against the

tyranny of foreigners, and 'the satanic designs of an unlawful Queen.'

He was crushed without difficulty. But in the general ferment which

this aroused, it was observed how universal was the wish for a

change.[178]

Meanwhile foreign affairs took a turn which threatened to involve

England in a dangerous complication. The peace between the great

powers had not been concluded: the truce they had made was broken off

at the instigation of the Pope; hostilities began again, and Philip II

returned to England for a couple of months to induce her to join in

the war against France. The diplomatic correspondence shows that the

imperial court from the beginning valued their near relation to

England chiefly as the basis of an alliance against France. We can

easily understand how this early object was now attained. Besides many

other previous wrongs, Stafford's enterprise, which was ascribed to

the intrigues of France, was a motive for declaring war against that

Power. And a French war still retained its old charm for the English:

their share in it surpassed all expectation. The English land forces

co-operated with decisive effect in the great victory of S. Quintin,

and similarly the appearance of the English fleet on the French coasts

ensured Philip's predominance on the ocean. But it is very doubtful

whether this was the part the English power should have played at this

moment. By his father's abdication and retirement into the cloister

Philip had become lord and master of the Spanish monarchy. Could it be

the mission of the English to help in consolidating it in his hands?

On the foundation then laid, and mainly through the peace which France

saw herself compelled to make, its greatness was built up. For the

Spanish monarchy the union with England, which rested on the able use

to which the existing troubles and the personal position of the Queen

were turned--and which, strictly speaking, was still a result of the

policy of Ferdinand the Catholic--was of indescribable advantage: to

the English it brought a loss which was severely felt. They had

neglected to put Calais in a proper state of defence; at the first

attack it fell into the hands of the French. The greatest value was

still laid in England on a possession across the sea, which seemed

indispensable for the command of the Channel; its extension was the

main object of Henry VIII's last war: that now it was on the contrary

utterly lost was felt to be a national disaster; the population of the

town, which consisted of English, was expelled together with the

garrison.

And as Pope Paul IV was now allied with the King of France, the result

was that he found himself at war with Philip II (whom he tried to

chase from Naples), and hence with England as well. His hatred to the

house of Austria, his aversion to the concessions made in England with

reference to church property, and to the religious position which

Cardinal Pole had hitherto taken up in the questions at issue within

the Catholic Church, determined the Pope to interfere in the home

affairs of England with a strong hand. For these Cardinal Pole was the

one indispensable man, on whose shoulders the burden of affairs

rested. But it was this very man whom Paul IV now deprived of his

legatine power, on which much of his consequence rested, and

transferred it to a Franciscan monk.

But what now was the consequent situation of affairs in England! The

Queen, who recognised no higher authority than that of the Papal See,

was obliged to have Paul IV's messages intercepted, lest they should

become known. While the ashes of the reputed heretics were still

smoking on their Calvaries, the man who represented the Catholic form

of religion, and was working effectively for its progress, was accused

of falling away from the orthodox faith, and summoned to Rome to

answer for it.

Meanwhile England did not feel herself strong enough, even with the

help that Philip offered, to attempt the reconquest of Calais. The

finances were completely disordered by the war; and the Parliament

showed little zeal in restoring the balance: just before this the

Queen had found herself obliged even to diminish the amount of a

subsidy already as good as voted. However unwilling she might be to

take the step after her previous experiences, she had to decide once

more in the autumn of 1558 on calling a Parliament. Circumstances wore

an appearance all the more dangerous, as the Scotch were allied with

the victorious French: the Queen represented to the Commons the need

of extraordinary means of defence. A number of the leading lords

appeared in the Lower House to give additional weight to the demand of

the Crown by their presence. The Commons, though not quite willingly,

were proceeding to deliberate on the subsidies demanded, when an event

happened which relieved them from the necessity of coming to any

resolution.

A tertian or quartan fever was then prevalent in the Netherlands and

in England, which was very fatal, especially to elderly persons of

enfeebled health.[179] The Queen, who had been for some time visited

by her usual attacks of illness, could not resist this disease, when

suffering besides, as she was, from deep affliction at the

disappointment of all her hopes, and from heart-rending anticipations

of the future: once more she heard mass in her chamber--she died

before it was ended, on the 17 November 1558. Cardinal Pole also was

suffering: completely crushed by this news he expired the following

night. It was calculated that thirteen bishops died a little before or

after the Queen. As if by some predetermined fate the combination of

English affairs which had been attempted during her government came at

once to an end.

NOTES:

[165] The Queen imputed the chief blame to Paget 'Quand l'on a parlé

de la peyne des heretiques, il a sollicité les Seigneurs pour non y

consentir ny donner lieu à peyne de mort' Renard à l'empereur, in

Tytler ii. 386.

[166] Les seigneurs quils ont pension du roy font tels et si bons

offices es contrées et provinces du roy ou ils ont charge que l'on ne

oye dire si non que le peuple est content de l'alliance; ce que

divertit les mauvais.' Renard à l'empereur, 13 Oct. Papiers d'état iv.

348.

[167] Carta del rey Don Felipe a la princesa de Portugal Donna Juana

su hermana, in Ribadeneyra, Historia del Scisma 381.

[168] Renard informs King Ferdinand that this resolution would be

adopted the 29 Nov (Papiers d'état iv. 344), 'Confiant que la dispense

soit generale, pour sans scrupule confirmer la possession des biens

ecclesiastiques es mains de ceux qui les tiennent.'

[169] 'La chambre haulte y faict difficulté pour ce, que l'autorité et

jurisdiction des évesques est autorizee et que la peine semble trop

griefve.' Renard à l'empereur, Papiers d'état iv. 347.

[170] Renard, ibid. 341. 'Le chancellier insistoit, que l'on declaira

Mme. Elizabeth bastarde en ce parlement' They feared 'l'evidente et

congnue contrariété qui seroit en tout le royaume.'

[171] Condemnatio Johannis Hooper, in Burnet Coll. iii. 246. Compare

Foxe, Martyrs vol. iii; Soames iv.

[172] According to a despatch of Micheli (25 Nov. 1555) she says to

the Parliament: 'che non ad altro fine dalla Maesta di dio era

predestinata e riservata alla successione del regno, se non per

servirsi di lei principalmente nella riduttione alla fede cattolica.'

[173] Erat tanta in plerisque animorum obstinatio ac pertinacia, ut

benignitati et clementiae nullum plane locum relinquerent.' Vita Poli,

in Quirini i. 42.

[174] Micheli, Relatione, 'Incontaminatissimo da ogni sorte di

passione et interessi humani, non prevalendo in lui ni l'autorità de

principi ni rispetto di sangue ni d'amicizia.'

[175] 'Assicurando e levando il sospetto, che per quello che

privatamente ciascuno possedeva, non sarebbe mai molestato ni

travagliato.' Micheli, despatch 25 Nov., from whose reports I draw my

notices of these proceedings in general.

[176] Micheli, despatch 1556, 7 April, notes 'la maggior parte dei

gentilhuomini del contado di Dansur (Devonshire) come conscii et

partecipi della congiura.' 5 Magg. 'Tutta la parte occidentale è in

sospetto.'

[177] The Constable to Noailles, Amb. v. 310. 'Le roy a advisé

d'entretenir doulcement Dudelay et secrettement toute fois, pour s'en

servir s'il en est de besoing luy donnant moyen d'entretenir aussi par

de là des intelligences, qu'il faut retenir.'

[178] Suriano, despatch 29 April 1557. 'Si è scoperto l'animo di

molti, che non si sono potuti contener di mostrarsi desiderosi di

veder alteration del stato presente.'

[179] Godwin 470 'Innumeri perierunt, sed aetate fere provectiores et

inter eos sacerdotum ingens numerus.'

BOOK III.

QUEEN ELIZABETH. CLOSE CONNEXION OF ENGLISH AND SCOTCH AFFAIRS.

To appreciate the motives which led Henry VIII to attach such

importance to a male heir, and to exclude his daughter by the Spanish

marriage from the succession, we need only cast our eyes on what

happened under her, when in spite of all she had become Queen. The

idea with which the Tudors had ascended the throne, and administered

the realm, that of founding a political power strong in itself and

alike independent of home factions and foreign influence, was

sacrificed by Mary to her preference for the nation from which her

mother came and from which she chose her husband. The military power

of England served to support the Spanish monarchy at a dangerous and

doubtful moment in the course of its formation. And while Mary's

father and brother had made it the object of their policy to deprive

the hierarchy of all influence over England, she on the contrary

reinstated it: she put the power and all the resources of the State at

its disposal. Though historically deeply rooted, the Catholic tendency

showed itself, through the reactionary rule which it brought about and

through its alliance with the policy of Spain, pernicious to the

country. We have seen what losses England suffered by it, not merely

in its foreign possessions, but--what was really irreparable--in men

of talent and learning, of feeling and greatness of soul; and into

what a state of weakness abroad and dissolution at home it thereby

fell. A new order of things must arise, if the national element, the

creation of which had been the labour of centuries, was not to be

crushed, and the mighty efforts of later ages were not to succumb to

religious and political reaction.

CHAPTER I.

ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION. TRIUMPH OF THE REFORMATION.

During Mary's government, which had been endurable only because men

foresaw its speedy end, all eyes were directed to her younger sister

Elizabeth. She was the daughter of Anne Boleyn, who bore her under her

heart when she was crowned as Queen. After many changes, Henry VIII,

in agreement with Parliament, had recognised her right of inheritance;

the people had risen against the enterprise of the Duke of

Northumberland for her as well as for Mary. And it had also been

maintained against Mary herself. Once, in Wyatt's conspiracy, letters

were found, which pointed at Elizabeth's having a share in it: she was

designated in them as the future Queen. The predominant

Spanish-Catholic party had her examined and would have much wished to

find her guilty, in order to rid themselves of her for ever. But

Elizabeth was not so imprudent as to lend her hand to a movement,

which if unsuccessful--a result not hard to foresee--must destroy her

own good title. And moreover she, with her innate pride, could not

possibly have carried out the wishes of the French by marrying

Courtenay, whom her sister had rejected. The letter, which she wrote

to Mary at this crisis, is full of unfeignedly loyal submission to her

Queen, before whom she only wishes to bend her knee, to pray her not

to let herself be prejudiced by false charges against her sister; and

yet at the same time it is highminded and great in the consciousness

of innocence. Mary, who was now no longer her friend, did not

vouchsafe her a hearing, but sent her to the Tower and subjected her

to a criminal examination. But however zealously they sought for

proofs against her, yet they found none: and they dared not touch her

life unless she were first publicly found guilty. She was clearly the

heiress to the throne appointed under the authorisation of Parliament:

the people would not give up the prospects of the future which were

linked with her. When she appeared in London at this moment of peril,

surrounded by numerous attendants, in an open litter, with an

expression in which hopeful buoyant youth mingled with the feeling of

innocence and distress, pale and proud, she swayed the masses that

crowded round her with no doubtful sympathy.[180] When she passed

through the streets after her liberation, she was received with an

enthusiasm which made the Queen jealous on her throne.

Yet Elizabeth was not merely the head of the popular opposition to her

sister's policy: from the first moment onwards she was in collision

with another female foe, whose pretensions would determine the

relations of her life. If Henry VIII formerly in settling the

succession passed over in silence the rights of his married sister in

Scotland, which had now come to her granddaughter Mary Stuart, the

memory of them was now all the more vividly revived by the Catholic

party in the country. For with the religious reverence which men

devoted to the Papacy it was not at all possible to reconcile the

recognition of Elizabeth, whose very existence was as it were at

variance with it. Nor was a political motive for preferring Mary

Stuart wanting. That for which Henry VIII and Somerset had striven so

zealously, the union of England and Scotland, would be thus attained

at once. They were not afraid that Scotland might thus become

predominant; Henry VII at the conclusion of the marriage, having his

attention drawn to this possible risk, replied with the maxim, that

the larger and more powerful part always draws the smaller after it.

The indispensable condition for the development of the English power

lay in the union of the whole island: this would have ensued in a

Catholic, not in a Protestant, sense. Was not this union of political

advantage and religious concord likely to influence the Privy Council

of England, which under Mary was again zealously Catholic, and also to

influence Queen Mary Tudor herself?

Great political questions however do not usually present themselves to

men in such perfect clearness, but are seen under the modifying

circumstances of the moment. It was at that time all important that

Mary Stuart had married the Dauphin: she would have united England not

merely with Scotland, but at the same time with France, thus bringing

it for ever under the influence of that country. How revolting must

such a prospect have been to all English feeling! England would have

become a transmarine province of France, it would in time have been

absorbed like Brittany. Above all, French policy would have completely

gained the upper hand in Europe. This apprehension induced the Spanish

statesmen--Elizabeth's eager enemies as long as they expected their

King to have issue of Mary Tudor--when this hope failed, to give the

princess sympathy and attention. Philip II, when her troubles revived

(for both Gardiner and Pole were her enemies), informed her through

secret messengers, that he was her good friend and would not abandon

her. Now that Mary was failing before all men's eyes, and every one

was looking forward to her death, it was his evident interest to

further Elizabeth's accession. In this sense spoke his ambassador

Feria, whom he sent at this moment to England, before the assembled

Privy Council;[181] even Mary was urged to declare herself to the same

effect. From an advice written for Elizabeth during the first moments

of her reign we see that all still looked very dangerous: she was

urged in it to possess herself of the Tower and there to receive the

allegiance of the high officers of State, to allow no departure from

the English ports, and so on. Men expected turbulent movements at

home, and were not without apprehension of an attempt at invasion

from France. The decision however followed without any commotion and

on the spot. Though most of its members were Catholic, the Privy

Council did not hesitate. A few hours after Mary's decease the Commons

were summoned to the Upper House, to receive a communication there: it

was, that Mary was dead, and that God had given them another Queen, My

lady Elizabeth. The Parliament dissolved; the new Queen was proclaimed

in Westminster and in London. Some days afterwards she made her entry

into the capital amidst the indescribable rejoicings of the people,

who greeted her accession as their deliverance and their salvation.

But if this, as we see, involved in its very essence a hostile

attitude towards France and Scotland, on the other hand the question

was at once laid before the Queen, and in the most personal way

imaginable, how far she would unite herself with Spain, the great

Power which was now on her side. Philip resolved, inasmuch as

propriety in some measure allowed it, to ask for her hand--not indeed

from personal inclination, of which there is no trace, but from policy

and perhaps from religion: he hoped by this means to keep England firm

to the Spanish alliance and to Catholicism.[182] And on the English

side also much might be said for it. An ally was needed against

France, even to obtain a tolerable peace: there was some danger that

Philip, if rejected by the Queen, might perhaps marry a French

princess; to be secure against the French claims the Queen seemed to

need the support of Spain. Her first answer was not in the negative.

She declared she must consult with Parliament as to the King's

proposal: but he might be assured that, if she ever married, she would

not give any one else the preference over him.

Well considered, these words announce at once her resolution not to

marry. Between Mary Tudor who thought to bring the crown to the heir

of Spain, and Mary Stuart similarly pledged to the heir of France,

nothing was left for her--since she would not wish the husband of her

choice to be of inferior rank--but to remain unmarried. From

listening to Philip's wooing she was kept back by her sister's

example, whose marriage had destroyed her popularity. And for

Elizabeth there would have been yet another danger in this alliance.

Was not her legitimacy dependent on the invalidity of her father's

marriage with his brother's widow? It would be a very similar case if

she were to marry her sister's husband. Besides she would have needed

the Pope's dispensation for such a union--as Philip had already

explained to her--while her birth and crown were the results of a

Papal dispensation being declared a nullity. She would thus have

fallen into a self-contradiction, to which she must have succumbed in

course of time. When told that Philip II had done her some service,

she acknowledged it: but when she meditated on it further, she found

that neither this sovereign nor any other influence whatever would

have protected her from her enemies, had not the people shown her an

unlimited devotion.[183] This devotion, on which her whole existence

depended, she would not forfeit. After a little delay she let Philip

know that she felt some scruples as to the Papal dispensation. She

gave weight to the point which had been under discussion, but added

that she was altogether disinclined to marry. We may doubt whether

this was her immoveably formed resolution, considering how often

afterwards she negociated about her marriage. It might seem to her

allowable, as an instrument of policy, to excite hopes which she did

not mean to fulfil: or her views may in fact have again wavered: but

these oscillations in her statements can mean nothing when set over

against a great necessity: her actual conduct shows that she had a

vivid insight into it and held firm to it with tenacious resolution.

She was Henry's daughter, but she knew how to keep herself as

independent as he had thought that only a son could possibly do. There

is a deep truth in her phrase, that she is wedded to her people:

regard to their interests kept her back from any other union.

But if she resolved to give up the relation of close union in which

England had hitherto stood with Spain, it was indispensable to make

peace with France. It was impossible to attain this if she insisted on

the restoration of Calais; she resolved to give it up, at first for a

term of years. Of almost the same date as her answer of refusal to

Philip's ambassador is her instruction empowering her ambassador to

let Calais go, as soon as he saw that the Spaniards would conclude

their peace with France without stipulating for its restoration. She

was able to venture this, for however deeply the nation felt the loss

of the place, the blame for it could not be imputed to her. Without

repeating what was then asserted, that her distinct aim was to turn

the hatred of the nation against the late government and its alliance

with Spain, we may still allow that this must have been the actual

result, as it really proved to be. It was indeed said that Philip II,

who not merely concluded peace with France but actually married a

daughter of Henry II, would make common cause with him against

England: but Elizabeth no more allowed herself to be misled by this

possibility, which also had much against it, than Henry VIII had been

under similar circumstances. Like him and like the founder of her

family, she took up an independent position between the two powers,

equally ready according to circumstances for war or peace with one or

the other.

Meanwhile she had already proceeded to measures which could never have

been reconciled with the Spanish alliance, and to ecclesiastical

changes which first gave her position its true character.

Her earliest intimation of again deviating from the Church was given

by restoring, like a devoted daughter, her father's monument, which

Mary had levelled with the ground. A second soon followed, which at

once touched on the chief doctrine in dispute. Before attending a

solemn high mass she required the officiating bishop to omit the

elevation of the host. As he refused, she left the church at the

moment the ceremony was being consummated. To check the religious

strife which began to fill the pulpits she forbade preaching, like her

predecessors; but she allowed the Sunday Lessons, the Litany, and the

Creed to be read in English. Elizabeth had hitherto conformed to the

restored Catholic ritual: it could not be quite said that she

belonged to either of the existing confessions. She always declared

that she had read no controversial writings. But she had occupied

herself with the documents of the early Church, with the Greek and

Latin Fathers, and was thoroughly convinced that the Romanism of the

later centuries had gone far astray from this pattern. She had made up

her mind, not as to every point of doctrine, but as to its general

direction: she believed too that she was upheld and guarded by God, to

carry out this change. 'How wonderful are God's ordinances,' she

exclaimed, when she heard that the crown had fallen to her.

What course however was now to be taken was a question which, owing to

the antagonism of the factions and the close connexion of all

ecclesiastical and political matters, required the most mature

consideration.

The Queen was advised simply to revert to Edward VI's regulations, and

to declare all things null and void that had been enacted under Mary,

mainly on the ground that they had been enacted in violation of legal

forms. A speech was laid before her, in which the validity of the last

elections was disputed, since qualified members had been excluded from

the sittings of both houses, although they were good Englishmen: the

later proclamations of summons were held to be null, because in them

the formula 'Supreme Head of the English Church' had been arbitrarily

omitted, without a previous resolution of Parliament, though on this

title so much depended for the commonwealth and people: but no one

could give up a right which concerned a third person or the public

interest; through these errors, which Mary had committed in her

blindness, all that had then been determined lost its force and

authority.[184] But the Queen and her counsellors did not wish to go

so far. They remarked that to declare a Parliament invalid for some

errors of form was a step of such consequence as to make the whole

government of the nation insecure. But even without this it was not

the Queen's purpose merely to revert to the forms which had been

adopted under her brother. She did not share all the opinions and

doctrines which had then obtained the upper hand: she held far more to

ceremonies and outward forms than Edward VI or his counsellors: she

wished to avoid a rude antagonism which would have called forth the

resistance of the Catholics.

In the Parliament that met immediately after the coronation (which was

still celebrated by a Catholic bishop), they began with the question

which had most occupied the late assembly, namely, should the Church

revenues that had been attached to the crown be restored to it. The

Queen's proposal, that they should be left to the crown, was quite the

view of the assembly and obtained their full consent.

The Parliamentary form of government however had also the greatest

influence on religious affairs. Having risen originally in opposition

to Rome, the Parliament, after the vicissitudes of the civil wars,

first recovered its full importance when it took the side of the crown

in its struggle with the Papacy. It did not so much concern itself

with Dogma for its own sake: it had thought it possible to unite the

retention of Catholicism with national independence. Under Mary every

man had become conscious that this would be impossible. It was just

then that the Parliament passed from its previous compliant mood into

opposition, which was not yet successful because it was only that of

the minority, but which prepared the way for the coming change of

tone. It attached itself joyfully to the new Queen, whose birth

necessarily made her adopt a policy which took away all apprehensions

of a union with the Romish See injurious to the country.

The complete antagonism between the Papal and the Parliamentary

powers, of which one had swayed past centuries and the other was to

sway the future, is shown by the conduct of the Pope, when Elizabeth

announced her accession to him. In his answer he reproached her with

it as presumption, reverted to the decision of his predecessors by

which she was declared illegitimate, required that the whole matter

should be referred to him, and even mentioned England's feudal

relation to the Papacy:[185] but Parliament, which had rejected this

claim centuries before, acknowledged Elizabeth as legitimately sprung

from the royal blood, and as Queen by the law of God and of the land;

they pledged themselves to defend her title and right with their lives

and property.

Owing to this the tendencies towards separation from Rome were already

sure to gain the superiority: the Catholic members of the Privy

Council, to whom Elizabeth owed her first recognition, could not

contend effectively against them. But besides this, Elizabeth had

joined with them a number of men of her own choice and her own views,

who like herself had not openly opposed the existing system, but

disapproved it; they were mainly her personal friends, who now took

the direction of affairs into their hands; the change which they

prepared looked moderate but was decided.

Elizabeth rejected the title of 'Supreme Head of the Church,' because

it not merely aroused the aversion of the Catholics, but also gave

offence to many zealous Protestants; it made however no essential

difference when she replaced it by the formula 'in all causes as well

ecclesiastical as civil, supreme.' Parliament declared that the right

of visiting and reforming the Church was attached to the crown and

could be exercised by it through ecclesiastical commissioners. The

clergy, high and low, were to swear to the ecclesiastical supremacy,

and abjure all foreign authority and jurisdiction. The punishment for

refusing the oath was defined: it was not to be punished with death as

under Henry VIII, but with the loss of office and property. All Mary's

acts in favour of an independent legislation and jurisdiction of the

spiritualty were repealed. The crown appropriated to itself, with

consent of Parliament, complete supremacy over the clergy of the land.

The Parliament allowed indeed that it did not belong to it to

determine concerning matters really ecclesiastical; but it held itself

authorised, much like the Great-Councils of Switzerland, to order a

conference of both parties, before which the most pressing questions

of the moment, on the power of national Churches, and the nature of

the Mass, should be laid.

The Catholic bishops disliked the whole proceeding, as may be

imagined, since these points had been so long settled; and they

disliked no less the interference of the temporal power, and lastly

the presidency of a royal minister, Nicolas Bacon. They had no mind to

commit themselves to an interchange of writings: their declarations by

word of mouth were more peremptory than convincing. In general they

were not well represented since the deaths of Pole and Gardiner. On

the other hand the Protestants, of whom many had become masters of the

controverted questions during the exile from which they had now

returned, put forward explicit statements which were completely to the

point. They laid stress chiefly on the distinction between the

universal, truly Catholic, Church and the Romish: they sought to reach

firm ground in Christian antiquity prior to the hierarchic centuries.

While they claimed a more comprehensive communion than that of

Romanism, as that in which true Catholicity exists, they sought at the

same time to establish a narrower, national, body which should have

the right of independent decision as to ritual. Nearly all depended on

the question, how far a country, which forms a separate community and

thus has a separate Church, has the right to alter established

ceremonies and usages; they deduced such an authority from this fact

among others, that the Church in the first centuries was ruled by

provincial councils. The project of calling a national council was

proposed in Germany but never carried out: in England men considered

the idea of a national decree, mainly in reference to ritual, as

superior to all others. But we know how much the conception of ritual

covered. The question whether Edward VI's Prayer-book should be

restored or not, was at the same time decisive as to what doctrinal

view should be henceforth followed.[186]

The Catholic bishops set themselves in vain against the progress of

these discussions. They withdrew from the conference: but the

Parliament did not let itself be misled by this: it adopted the

popular opinion, that they did not know what to answer. At the

division in the Upper House they held obstinately fast to their

opinion: they were left however, though only by a few votes, in the

minority.[187] The Act of Uniformity passed, by which the Prayer-book,

in the form which should be given it by a new revision, was to be

universally received from the following Midsummer. The bishops raised

an opposition yet once more, at a sitting of the Privy Council, on the

ground that the change was against the promises made by Mary to the

See of Rome in the name of the crown. Elizabeth answered, her sister

had in this exceeded her powers: she herself was free to revert to the

example of her earlier predecessors by whom the Papal power was looked

on as an usurpation. 'My crown,' she exclaimed, 'is subject only to

the King of Kings, and to no one else:' she made use of the words,

'But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.' The Protestant

bishops had perished at the stake, but the victory was theirs even in

their graves.

The committee of revision consisted of men, who had then saved

themselves by flight or by the obscurity of a secluded life. As under

Edward men came back to the original tendencies prevalent under Henry

VIII, so they now reverted to the settlement under Edward; yet they

allowed themselves some alterations, chiefly with the view of making

the book acceptable to the Catholics as well. Prayers in which the

hostility of decided Protestantism came forward with especial

sharpness, for instance that 'against the tyranny of the Bishop of

Rome,' were left out. The chief alteration was in the formula of the

Lord's Supper. Elizabeth and her divines were not inclined to let this

stand as it was read in the second edition of Edward's time, since the

mystical act there appeared almost as a mere commemorative

repast.[188] They reverted to a form composed from the monuments of

Latin antiquity, from Ambrose and Gregory, in which the real presence

was maintained; this which already existed in the first edition they

united with the view of the second. As formerly in the Augsburg

confession in Germany, so in England at the last recension of the

Common Prayer-book an attempt was made to keep as near as possible to

the traditional system. For the Queen this had also a political value:

when Philip II sent her a warning, she explained that she was only

kept back from joining in the mass by a few points: she too believed

in God's presence in the Sacrament.[189]

She was of a similar mind in reference to other matters also. If at

first, under pressure from zealous Protestants who saw in images an

occasion for superstition, she ordered their removal, we perceive that

in a short time she regretted it, especially as it made a bad

impression in Wales and the Northern counties; in her chapel men again

saw the cross and the lighted tapers, as before. The marriages entered

into by priests had given much offence, and not unjustly, as they were

often inferior unions, little honourable to them, and lowering the

dignity of their order. Elizabeth would have gladly forbidden them

altogether: she contented herself with setting limits to them by

ordering that a previous permission should be requisite, but she

always disliked them. She felt a natural pleasure in the splendour and

order of the existing church service. For the future also the

spiritualty were to be bound to appear--in the customary dress--in a

manner worthy of God's service, with bent knees and with ceremonious

devotion. When they proceeded to revise the confession drawn up by

Cranmer, which two years afterwards was raised to a law in the shape

of the 'Thirty-nine Articles,' they struck out the places that leant

to Zwingli's special view; on the other hand they added some new

propositions, which stated the right of the higher powers, and the

authority of each kingdom to determine religious usages for

itself.[190]

For in this consisted the essence of the alteration, that the Civil

Authority, as it was then composed, decided the church-questions that

arose, and raised its decision into law.

The Statute was, that no person should hold a public office, whether

spiritual or temporal, who did not conform to this law. Thirteen

bishops, four-and-twenty deans, eighty rectors of parishes, and most

of the heads of colleges resigned. It has been said that this number,

about two hundred, is not very considerable, since the English clergy

held 9000 benefices and offices; but it comprehended all those who

held the government of the church and represented the prevalent

opinion in it. The difficulty arose how to replace the bishops in

conformity with the principles of the English church constitution as

then retained: perhaps the difficulty was intentional. There were

however two conforming bishops who had received the laying on of hands

according to the Roman ritual, and two others according to the

Reformed: these consecrated the new Archbishop of Canterbury. It was

objected to this act that none of them was in actual possession of a

bishop's see: the Queen declared every defect, whether as to the

statutes of the realm or church-usages, since time and circumstances

demanded it, to be nullified or supplied. It was enough that,

generally speaking, the mystery of the episcopal succession went on

without interruption. What was less essential she supplied by the

prerogative of the crown, as her grandfather had done once before. The

archbishop consecrated was Dr. Parker, formerly chaplain to Anne

Boleyn: a thoroughly worthy man, the father of learned studies on

English antiquities, especially on the Anglo-Saxon times. By him the

laying on of hands and consecration was bestowed on the other bishops

who were now elected: they were called on to uphold at the same time

the idea of episcopacy in its primitive import, and the doctrines of

the Reformation.

In regard to the election of bishops also Elizabeth went back one step

from her brother's system; she gave up the right of appointment, and

restored her father's regulations, by which it is true a strong

influence was still reserved for the Civil Power. Under her supreme

authority she wished to see the spiritual principle recognised as

such, and to give it a representation corresponding to its high

destiny.

Thus it must needs be. The principle which comes forward for the first

time, however strong it may appear, has yet to secure its future: it

must struggle with the other elements of the world around it. It will

be pressed back, perhaps beaten down: but in the vicissitude of the

strife it will develop its inborn strength and establish itself for

ever.

An Anglican church,--nationally independent, without giving up its

connexion with the reformed churches of the continent, and reformed,

without however letting fall the ancient forms of episcopacy,--in

accordance with the ideal, as it was originally understood, was at

length, after a hard schooling of trials, struggles, and disasters,

really set on foot.

But now it is clear how closely such a thoroughgoing alteration

affected the political position. Reckoning on the antipathies, which

could not but hence arise against Elizabeth in the catholic world, and

above all on the consent of the Roman See, the French did not hesitate

to openly recognise the claims of the Dauphiness Mary Stuart to the

English throne. She was hailed as Queen, when she appeared in public:

the Dauphin's heralds bore the united arms of England, Ireland, and

Scotland.[191] And this claim became still more important after the

unexpected death of Henry II, when the Dauphin ascended the French

throne as Francis II. The Guises, uncles of Mary the new Queen, who

saw their own greatness in her success and were the very closest

adherents of the church, got into their hands all the powers of

government. The danger of their hostility lay above all in this, that

the French already exercised a predominant influence over Scotch

affairs, and hoped in a short time to become complete masters of that

country in the Queen's right. She moreover had already by a formal

document transferred to the French royal house an eventual right of

inheritance to her crown. But if matters came to this, the old war of

England and France would be transferred from the fields of Boulogne

and Calais to the Scotch border. An invasion of the English territory

from that side was the more dangerous, as the French would have

brought thither, according to their custom, German and Swiss troops as

well. England had neither fortresses, nor disciplined troops, nor even

generals of name, who could face such an invasion. It was truly said,

there was not a wall in England strong enough to stand a cannon

shot.[192] How then if a defeat was sustained in the open field? The

sympathies of the Catholics would have been aroused for France, and

general ruin would have ensued.

It was a fortunate thing for Elizabeth that the King of Spain, after

she had taken up a line of conduct so completely counter to his wishes

and ideas, did not make common cause with the French as they requested

him. But she could not promise herself any help from him. Granvella

told the English as emphatically as possible, that they must provide

for themselves. Another Spanish statesman expressed his doubt to them

whether they were able to do so: he really thought England would one

day become an apple of discord between Spain and France, as Milan then

was. It was almost a scoff, to compare the Island that had the power

of the sea with an Italian duchy. But from this very moment she was to

take a new upward flight. England was again to take her place as a

third Power between the two great Powers; the opportunity presented

itself to her to begin open war with one of them, without breaking

with the other or even being exactly allied with it.

At first it was France that threatened and challenged her.

And to oppose the French, at the point where they might be dangerous,

a ready means presented itself; England had but to form an alliance

with those who opposed the French interests in Scotland. As these

likewise were in opposition to their Queen, it was objected that one

sovereign ought not to combine with the subjects of another.

Elizabeth's leading statesman, William Cecil, who stood ever by her

side with his counsel in the difficulties of her earlier years, and

had guided her steps hitherto, made answer that 'the duty of

self-preservation required it in this case, since Scotland would else

be serviceable to France for war against England.'

Cecil took into his view alike the past and the future. It was France

alone, he said, that had prevented the English crown from realising

its suzerainty over Scotland: whereas the true interest of Scotland

herself lay in her being united with England as one kingdom. This

point of view was all the more important, since the religious interest

coincided with the political. The Scots, with whom they wished to

unite themselves, were Protestants of the most decided kind.

NOTES:

[180] 'Ayant visage pale fier haultain et superbe pour desguyser le

regret qu'elle a.' Renard to the Emperor 24 Feb. 1554, in Tytler ii.

311. He adds, 'si pendant l'occasion s'adonne, elle (la reine) ne la

punyt et Cortenay, elle ne sera jamais assurée.'

[181] 'Manifestò el contentamiento grande que tendria el rey de saber

que se declaba la sucesion en favor de ella (Isabel), cosa que S. M.

habia descado sempre.' In Gonzalez, Apuntamientos para la historia del

rey Don Felipe II. Memorias de la real academia de historia, Madrid,

vii. 253.

[182] One of the documents which Mackintosh (History of England iii.

25) missed, the commission for the proposal to Elizabeth, which gives

its contents, was soon after printed in Gonzalez, Documentos I. 405.

[183] Feria: 'Dando a entender, que el pueblo la ha puesto en el

estado que esta, y de esto no reconoce nada ni a V. M., ni a la

nobleza del reino.'

[184] An oration of John Hales to the Queen delivered by a certain

nobleman, in Foxe, Martyrs iii. 978. 'It most manifestly appeareth,

that all their doings from the beginning to the end were and be of

none effect force or autority.'

[185] P Sarpi, Concilio di Trento, lib. v. p. 420, confirmed by

Pallavicino lib. xiv.

[186] Horne's Papers for the reformed, in Collier ii. 416.

[187] Ribadeneyra: 'No fueron sino tres votos mas, los que

determinaron en las cortes, que se mudasse la religion catolica, que

los que pretendian que se conservasse.' Ribadeneyra says the Queen

gained Arundel's vote by allowing him to hope for her hand, and then

laughed at him; but Feria's despatches show that she mocked at his

pretensions even before her entry on the government.

[188] Soames iv. 675. Liturgiae Britannicae 417.

[189] From Feria's despatches, Apuntamientos 270.

[190] In Heylin there is a comparison of the original forty-two with

the later thirty-nine Articles; but he did not venture at last to do

what he proposed at first, give his opinion as to the reason and

nature of the variations.

[191] Leslaeus de rebus gestis Scotorum: Henricus Mariam Reginam

Angliae Scotiae et Hiberniae declarandam curavit,--Angliae et Scotiae

insignia in ipsius vasis aliisque utensilibus simul pingi fingique ac

adeo tapetibus pulvinis intexi jussit. (In Jebb i. 206.)

[192] From one of Cecil's first notes, 'if they offered battle with

Almains, there was great doubt, how England would be able to sustain

it.' In Nares ii. 27.

CHAPTER II.

OUTLINES OF THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND.

In its earliest period church reform was everywhere introduced or

promoted by the temporal governments; in Germany by the government of

the Empire, and by the Princes and towns which did not allow the

authorisation, once given them through the Empire, to be again

withdrawn; in the North by the new dynasties which took the place of

the Union-Princes; in Switzerland itself by the Great-Councils which

possessed the substance of the republican authority. After manifold

struggles and vicissitudes this tendency had at last yet once more

established itself in its full force under Queen Elizabeth in England.

But another tendency was also very powerful in the world. In South

Europe, France, the Netherlands, and a part of the German territory,

the state attached itself to the principles of the old Church. At this

very time in Italy and Spain this led to the complete destruction of

what was there analogous to the Reformation; it has had more influence

on the later circumstances of these countries than it had then. But

where the religious change had already obtained a more durable

footing, as in France and the Netherlands, politico-religious

variances of the most thoroughgoing nature arose almost of necessity:

the Protestantism of Western Europe was pervaded by anti-monarchical

ideas. We noticed how much everything was preparing for this under

Queen Mary in England also: that it did not so happen was owing to the

arrangements made by Elizabeth. But this tendency appeared in full

force in Scotland, and in fact more strongly there than anywhere else.

In Scotland the efforts made by all the monarchic powers of this

period in common were not so successful as in the rest of Europe. The

kings of the house of Stuart, who had themselves proceeded from the

ranks of the nobility, never succeeded in reducing the powerful lords

to real obedience. The clannish national feeling, closely bordering on

the old Keltic principle, procured the nobles at all times numerous

and devoted followers: they fought out their feuds among themselves,

and then combined anew in free confederacies. They held fast to the

view that their sovereigns were not lords of the land (for they

regarded their possessions as independent properties), not kings of

Scotland but kings of the Scots, above all, kings of the great

vassals, who had to pay them an obedience defined by laws. It gave the

kings not a little superiority that they had obtained a decisive

influence over the appointment to the high dignities in the Church,

but this proved advantageous neither to the Church nor at last to

themselves. Sometimes two vassals actually fought with each other for

a rich benefice. The French abuses came into vogue here also:

ecclesiastical benefices fell to the dependents of the court, to the

younger sons of leading houses, often to their bastards: they were

given or sold _in commendam_, and then served only for pleasure and

gain: the Scotch Church fell into an exceedingly scandalous and

corrupt state.

It was not so much disputed questions of doctrine as in Germany, nor

again the attempt to keep out Papal influence as in England, but

mainly aversion to the moral corruption of the spiritualty which gave

the first impulse to the efforts at reformation in Scotland. We find

Lollard societies among the Scots much later than in England: their

tendencies spread through wide circles owing to the anticlerical

spirit of the century, and received fresh support from the doctrinal

writings that came over from Germany. But the Scotch clergy was

resolved to defend itself with all its might. Sometimes it had to sit

in judgment on invectives against its disorderly and luxurious life,

sometimes on refusals to pay established dues: or Lutheran doctrines

had been preached: it persecuted all with equal severity as tending to

injure the stability of holy Church, and awarded the most extreme

penalties. To put suspected heretics to death by fire was the order of

the day; happy the man who escaped the unrelenting persecution by

flight, which was only possible amid great peril.

These two causes, an undeniably corrupt condition and relentless

punishment of those who blamed it as it well deserved, gave the Reform

movement in Scotland, which was repressed but not stifled, a peculiar

character of exasperation and thirst for vengeance.

Nor was it without a political bearing in Scotland as elsewhere. In

particular Henry VIII proposed to his nephew, King James V, to remodel

the Church after his example: and a part of the nobility, which was

already favourably disposed towards England, would have gladly seen

this done. But James preferred the French pattern to the English: he

was kept firm in his Catholic and French sympathies by his wife, Mary

of Guise, and by the energetic Archbishop Beaton. Hence he became

involved in the war with England in which he fell, and after this it

occasionally seemed, especially at the time of the invasions by the

Duke of Somerset, as if the English, and in connexion with them the

Protestant, sympathies would gain the ascendancy. But national

feelings were still stronger than the religious. Exactly because

England defended and recommended the religious change it failed to

make way in Scotland. Under the regency of the Queen dowager, with

some passing fluctuations, the clerical interests on the whole kept

the upper hand. In spite of a general sympathy the prospects of Reform

were slender. It could not reckon on any quarrel between the

government and the higher clergy: foreign affairs rather exercised a

hostile influence. It is remarkable how under these unfavourable

circumstances the foundation of the Scotch Church was laid.

Most of the Scots who had fled from the country were content to