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 anation which is not mine by birth. 

It is the ambition of all nations which enjoy a literary culture topossess a harmonious and vivid narrative of their own past history. Andit is of inestimable value to any people to obtain such a narrative, which shall comprehend all epochs, be true to fact and, while resting onthorough research, yet be attractive to the reader; for only by this aidcan the nation attain to a perfect self-consciousness, and feeling thepulsation of its life throughout the story, become fully acquainted withits own origin and growth and character. But we may doubt whether up tothis time works of such an import and compass have ever been produced, and even whether they can be produced. For who could apply criticalresearch, such as the progress of study now renders necessary, to themass of materials already collected, without being lost in its immensity?Who again could possess the vivid susceptibility requisite for doingjustice to the several epochs, for appreciating the actions, the modes ofthought, and the moral standard of each of them, and for understandingtheir relations to universal history? We must be content in thisdepartment, as well as in others, if we can but approximate to the idealwe set up. The best-written histories will be accounted the best. 

When then an author undertakes to make the past life of a foreignnation the object of a comprehensive literary work, he will not thinkof writing its history as a nation in detail: for a foreigner thiswould be impossible: but, in accordance with the point of view hewould naturally take, he will direct his eyes to those epochs whichhave had the most effectual influence on the development of mankind:only so far as is necessary for the comprehension of these, will heintroduce anything that precedes or comes after them. 

There is an especial charm in following, century after century, thehistory of the English nation, in considering the antagonism of theelements out of which it is composed, and its share in the fortunesand enterprises of that great community of western nations to which itbelongs; but it will be readily granted that no other period can becompared in general importance with the epoch of those religious andpolitical wars which fill the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. 

In the sixteenth century the part which England took in the work ofemancipating the world from the rule of the western hierarchydecisively influenced not only its own constitution, but also thesuccess of the religious revolution throughout Europe. In England themonarchy perfectly understood its position in relation to this greatchange; while favouring the movement in its own interest, itnevertheless contrived to maintain the old historical state of thingsto a great extent; nowhere have more of the institutions of the MiddleAges been retained than in England; nowhere did the spiritual powerlink itself more closely with the temporal. Here less depends on theconflict of doctrines, for which Germany is the classic ground: themain interest lies in the political transformation, accomplishedamidst manifold variations of opinions, tendencies, and events, andattended at last by a war for the very existence of the nation. For itwas against England that the sacerdotal reaction directed its mainattack. To withstand it, the country was forced to ally itself withthe kindred elements on the Continent: the successful resistance ofEngland was in turn of the greatest service to them. The maintenanceof Protestantism in Western Europe, on the Continent as well as inBritain, was effected by the united powers of both. To bring outclearly this alternate action, it would not be advisable to lay weighton every temporary foreign relation, on every step of the homeadministration, and to search out men's personal motives in them; ashorter sketch may be best suited to show the chief characters, aswell as the main purport of the events in their full light. 

But then, through the connexion of England with Scotland, and theaccession of a new dynasty, a state of things ensued under which thecontinued maintenance of the position taken up in home and foreignpolitics was rendered doubtful. The question arose whether the policyof England would not differ from that of Great Britain and becompelled to give way to it. The attempt to decide this question, andthe reciprocal influence of the newly allied countries, brought onconflicts at home which, though they in the main arose out of foreignrelations, yet for a long while threw those relations into thebackground. 

If we were required to express in the most general terms thedistinction between English and French policy in the last twocenturies, we might say that it consisted in this, that the glory oftheir arms abroad lay nearest to the heart of the French nation, andthe legal settlement of their home affairs to that of the English. Howoften have the French, in appearance at least, allowed themselves tobe consoled for the defects of the home administration by a greatvictory or an advantageous peace! And the English, from regard toconstitutional questions of apparently inferior importance, have notseldom turned their eyes away from grievous perils which hung overEurope. 

The two great constitutional powers in England, the Crown and theParliament, dating back as they did to early times, had oftenpreviously contended with each other, but had harmoniously combined inthe religious struggle, and had both gained strength thereby; buttowards the middle of the seventeenth century we see them first comeinto collision over ecclesiastical regulations, and then engage in awar 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 tofound a new one on its ruins. But none of them succeed; thedeeply-felt need of a life regulated by law and able to trust its ownfuture is not satisfied; after long storms men seek safety in a returnto the old and approved historic forms so characteristic of theGerman, and especially of the English, race. But in this there isclearly no solution of the original controversies, no reconciliationof the conflicting elements: within narrower limits new discords breakout, which once more threaten a complete overthrow: until, thanks tothe indifference shown by England to continental events, the mostformidable dangers arise to threaten the equilibrium of Europe, andeven menace England itself. These European emergencies coinciding withthe troubles at home bring about a new change of the old forms in theRevolution of 1688, the main result of which is, that the centre ofgravity of public authority in England shifts decisively to theparliamentary side. It was during this same time that France had wonmilitary and political superiority over all its neighbours on themainland, and in connexion with it had concentrated an almost absolutepower at home in the hands of the monarchy. England thus reorganisednow set itself to contest the political superiority of France in along and bloody war, which consequently became a struggle between tworival forms of polity; and while the first of these bore sway over therest of Europe, the other attained to complete realisation in itsisland-home, and called forth at a later time manifold imitations onthe Continent also, when the Continent was torn by civil strife. Between these differing tendencies, these opposite poles, the life ofEurope has ever since vibrated from side to side. 

When we contemplate the framework of the earth, those heights whichtestify to the inherent energy of the original and active elementsattract our special notice; we admire the massive mountains whichoverhang and dominate the lowlands covered with the settlements ofman. So also in the domain of history we are attracted by epochs atwhich the elemental forces, whose joint action or tempered antagonismhas produced states and kingdoms, rise in sudden war against eachother, and amidst the surging sea of troubles upheave into the lightnew formations, which give to subsequent ages their special character. Such a historic region, dominating the world, is formed by that epochof English history, to which the studies have been devoted, whoseresults I venture to publish in the present work: its importance is asgreat where it directly touches on the universal interests ofhumanity, as where, on its own special ground, it develops itselfapart in obedience to its inner impulses. To comprehend this period wemust approach it as closely as possible: it is everywhere instinctwith collective as well as individual life. We discern how greatantagonistic principles sprang almost unavoidably out of earliertimes, how they came into conflict, wherein the strength of each sidelay, what caused the alternations of success, and how the finaldecisions were brought about: but at the same time we perceive howmuch, for themselves, for the great interests they represented, andfor the enemies they subdued, depended on the character, the energy, the conduct of individuals. Were the men equal to the emergency, orwere not circumstances stronger than they? From the conflict of theuniversal with the special it is that the great catastrophes ofhistory arise, yet it sometimes happens that the efforts which seem toperish with their authors exercise a more lasting influence on theprogress of events than does the power of the conqueror. In theagonising struggles of men's minds appear ideas and designs which passbeyond what is feasible in that land and at that time, perhaps evenbeyond what is desirable: these find a place and a future in thecolonies, the settlement of which is closely connected with thestruggle at home. We are far from intending to involve ourselves injuridical and constitutional controversies, or from regulating thedistribution of praise and blame by the opinions which have gained theday at a later time, or prevail at the moment; still less shall we beguided by our own sympathies: our only concern is to become acquaintedwith the great motive powers and their results. And yet how can wehelp recognising manifold coincidences with that conflict of opinionsand tendencies in which we are involved at the present day? But it isno part of our plan to follow these out. Momentary resemblances oftenmislead the politician who seeks a sure foothold in the past, as wellas the historian who seeks it in the present. The Muse of history hasthe widest intellectual horizon and the full courage of herconvictions; but in forming them she is thoroughly conscientious, andwe might say jealously bent on her duty. To introduce the interests ofthe present time into the work of the historian usually ends inrestricting its free accomplishment. 

This epoch has been already often treated of, if not as a whole, yetin detached parts, and that by the best English historical writers. Anative author has this great advantage over foreigners, that he thinksin the language in which the persons of the drama spoke, and lets thembe seen through no strange medium, but simply in their natural form. But when, too, this language is employed in rare perfection, as in awork of our own time, --I refer not merely to rounded periods andeuphony of cadence, but to the spirit of the narrative so much inharmony with our present culture, and the tone of our minds, and tothe style which by every happy word excites our vivid sympathy;--whenwe have before us a description of the events in the native languagewith all its attractive traits and broad colouring, a description toobased on an old familiar acquaintance with the country and itscondition: it would be folly to pretend to rival such a work in itsown peculiar sphere. But the results of original study may lead us toform a different conception of the events. And it is surely good that, in epochs of such great importance for the history of all nations, weshould possess foreign and independent representations to compare withthose of home growth; in the latter are expressed sympathies andantipathies as inherited by tradition and affected by the antagonismof literary differences of opinion. Moreover there will be adifference between these foreign representations. Frenchmen, as in onefamous instance, will hold more to the constitutional point of view, and look for instruction or example in political science. The Germanwill labour (after investigation into original documents) tocomprehend each event as a political and religious whole, and at thesame time to view it in its universal historical relations. 

I can in this case, as in others, add something new to what is alreadyknown, and this to a larger extent as the work goes on. [1]

In no nation has so much documentary matter been collected for itslater history as in England. The leading families which have takenpart in public business, and the different parties which wish toassert their views in the historical representation of the past aswell 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 theexisting publications are far from sufficient. How incrediblydeficient our knowledge still is of even the most importantparliamentary transactions! In the rich collections of the RecordOffice and of the British Museum I have sought and found much that wasunknown, and which I needed for obtaining an insight into events. Thelabour spent on it is richly compensated by the gain such labourbrings; over the originals so injured, and so hard to decipher, lingerthe spirits of that long-past age. Especial attention is due to thealmost complete series of pamphlets of the time, which the Museumpossesses. 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 thecapital, from month to month, from week to week, on the weightiestquestions of government and public life. 

If any one has ever attempted to reconstruct for himself a portion ofthe past from materials of this kind, --from original documents, andparty writings which, prompted by hate or personal friendship, areintended for defence or attack, and yet are withal exceedinglyincomplete, --he will have felt the need of other contemporary notices, going into detail but free from such party views. A rich harvest ofsuch independent reports has been supplied to me for this, as well asfor my other works, by the archives of the ancient Republic of Venice. The 'Relations, ' which the ambassadors of that Republic were wont todraw up on their return home, invaluable though they are in referenceto persons and the state of affairs in general, are not, however, sufficient to supply a detailed and consecutive account of events. Butthe Venetian archives possess also a long series of continuousReports, which place us, as it were, in the very midst of the courts, the capitals, and the daily course of public business. For thesixteenth century they are only preserved in a very fragmentary stateas regards England; for the seventeenth they lie before us, with gapsno doubt here and there, yet in much greater completeness. Even in thefirst volume they have been useful to me for Mary Tudor's reign andthe end of Elizabeth's; in the later ones, not only for James I'stimes, but also far more for Charles I's government and his quarrelwith the Parliament. Owing to the geographical distance of Venice fromEngland, and her neutral position in the world, her ambassadors wereable to devote an attention to English affairs which is free from allinterested motives, and sometimes to observe their general course inclose communication with the leading men. We could not compose ahistory from the reports they give, but combined with the documentarymatter 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 withaccounts of affairs which often contain little instruction forposterity, and they judge of a man according to the support which hegives to their interests. This is the case with the French as well aswith other ambassadors in England. Nevertheless their correspondencebecomes gradually of the greatest value for my work. Their importancegrows with the importance of affairs. The two courts entered into themost intimate relations: French politicians ceaselessly endeavoured togain influence over England, and sometimes with success. Theambassadors' letters at such times refer to the weightiest matters ofstate, and become invaluable; they rise to the rank of the mostimportant and instructive historical monuments. They have beenhitherto, in great part, unused. 

In the Roman and Spanish reports also I found much which deserves tobe made known to the readers of history. The papers of Holland and theNetherlands prove still more productive, as I show in detail at theend of the narrative. 

A historical work may aim either at putting forward a new view of whatis already known, or at communicating additional information as to thefacts. I have endeavoured to combine both these aims. 

NOTES:

[1] _Note to the third edition. _--In the course of my researches forthis work the representation of the seventeenth century has occupied alarger space than I at first thought I should have been able to giveit; it forms the chief portion of the book in its present form. I havetherefore allowed myself the unwonted liberty of altering the title soas to make this clear. Still the representation of the sixteenthcentury, which is not now mentioned in the title, has not beenabridged on this account. The history of the Stuart dynasty and ofWilliam III make up the central part of the edifice; what is given tothe earlier, as well as the later times may, if I may be allowed thecomparison, 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 themost important portions of that cycle of works on which Leopold vonRanke has long been engaged. His History of the Popes, his History ofthe Reformation in Germany, his French History, his work on theOttomans and the Spanish Monarchy, his Life of Wallenstein, his volumeon the Origin of the Thirty Years' War, and other smaller treatises, all aim at delineating the international relations of the states ofEurope. His History of England may well be regarded as the concludingportion of this series; for the relations of England, first withFrance, and then with Holland, eventually determined the course ofEuropean politics. 

The book however is more than a history of this period, for ProfessorRanke, according to his custom, has prefixed to it a luminous andinteresting sketch of the earlier part of our history, presented, asall summaries ought to be, in the form of studies of the mostimportant epochs. And at the end of the work are Appendices, whichsupply not only happy examples of historical criticism in thediscussions on the chief contemporary writers of the period, but alsoa mass of original documents, most of which have never before beenpublished. Above all, the critiques on Clarendon and Burnet, and thecorrespondence of William III with Heinsius, will well repay carefulstudy; and the Appendices throw light on some of the more importantdetails connected with the history of the time, besides shewing thestudent how a great master has found and used his materials. 

The present translation was undertaken with the author's sanction, andwas intended in the first instance for the use of students in Oxford. Its publication has been facilitated by a division of labour, theeight volumes of the original having been entrusted each to a separatehand. 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, BrasenoseCollege; G. W. Kitchin, Christchurch; A. Plummer, Trinity College. Thetask of oversight, of reducing inequalities of style, and ofsupervising the Appendices and Index, has been performed by theeditors, C. W. Boase and G. W. Kitchin. Notwithstanding thedisadvantages incident to a translation, it is hoped that the work inits present shape will be welcomed by a large number of Englishreaders, and will help to increase the deserved renown of the authorin the country to the history of which he has devoted such profoundand 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 theshifting course of events, we perceive almost at the first glance onecomprehensive process of change going on, which, more than any other, governs the external fortunes of the world. Through long periods oftime the historic life of the human race was active in Western Asiaand in the lands bordering on the Mediterranean which look towards theEast: there it laid the foundations of its higher culture. We mayrightly regard as the greatest event that meets us in the whole courseof authentic history, the fact that the seats of the predominant powerand culture have been transplanted to the Western lands and the shoresof the Atlantic Ocean. Not merely the abodes of the ancient civilisednations, but even the capitals which were the medium of communicationbetween East and West, have fallen into barbarism; even the greatmetropolis, from which first political, and then spiritual, dominionextended itself in both directions over widespread territories, hasnot maintained its rank. It was due to this tendency of things, combined with a certain geographical cause, that neither could themedieval Empire attain its full development, nor the Papacy continueto subsist with unimpaired authority. From age to age the politicaland intellectual life of the world transferred itself ever more andmore to the nations dwelling further West, especially since a newhemisphere was opened up to their impulses of activity and extension. So it was that the chief interests of the Pyrenean peninsula drewtowards its ocean coasts; that there grew up on either side of theChannel which separates the Continent from Britain, the two greatcapitals in which modern activity is chiefly concentrated; thatNorthern Germany, together with the races which touch on the North Seaand the Baltic, developed a life and a system of their own; it is inthese regions latterly that the universal spirit of the human racechiefly works out its task, and displays its activity in mouldingstates, creating ideas, and subjugating nature. 

Yet this transmission, this transplanting, is not the work of a blinddestiny. While civilisation in the East succumbed and died out beforethe advance of races incapable of culture, it was welcomed in the Westby races possessing the requisite capacity, which by their inbornforce gave it new forms and indestructible bases for its outwardexistence. Nor have the nations and kingdoms arisen each from itsmother earth, as it were in obedience to some inward impulse ofinevitable necessity, but amid constant assimilation and rejection, ever repeated wars to secure their future, and a ceaseless strugglewith opposing elements that threatened their ruin. 

The object of universal history is to place before our eyes theleading changes, and the conflicts of nations, together with theircauses and results. Our purpose is to depict the history of one of thechief of the Western nations, the English, and that too in an agewhich decisively modified both its inner constitution and its outwardposition in the world, but it cannot be understood unless we firstpourtray, with a few quick touches, the historical events under theinfluence 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 strugglebetween Kelts, Romans, and Germans, which determined out of whatelements modern nations should be formed. 

Just as it is supposed that Albion in early times was connected withthe Continent, and only separated from it by the raging sea-floodwhich buried the intermediate lands in the abyss, so in ethnographicrelations it would seem as if the aboriginal Keltic tribes of theisland had been only separated by some accident from those whichoccupied Gaul and the Netherlands. The Channel is no nationalboundary. We find Belgians in Britain, Britons in Eastern Gaul, andvery many names of peoples common to both coasts; there were tribeswhich, though separated by the sea, yet acknowledged the same prince. Without being able to prove how far natives of the island took part inthe expeditions of conquest, which pouring forth from Gaul inundatedthe countries on the Danube and Italy, Greece and Western Asia, we yetcan trace the affinity of names and tribes as far as these expeditionsextend. This island was the home of the religion that gave a certainunity to the populations, which, though closely akin, neverthelesscontended with each other in ceaseless discord. It was that Druidicdiscipline which combined a priestly constitution with civilprivileges, and with a very peculiar doctrine of a political and evenmoral purport. We might be tempted to suppose that the atrocity ofhuman sacrifice was first introduced among them by the Punic race. Forthey were from primeval times connected with the Carthaginians andPhoenicians, who were the first to traverse the outer sea, and soughtin the island a metal which was very valuable for the wants of theancient world. Distant clans might retain in the mountains theiroriginal wildness, but the southern coasts ranked in the earliesttimes as rich and civilised. They stood within the circle of therelations that had been created by the expeditions of the Keltictribes, by the mixture of peoples thence arising, by the war andcommerce of the earliest age. 

In the great war between Rome and Carthage, which decided the destinyof the ancient world, the Keltic tribes took part as allies of thePunic race. If Carthage had conquered, they would have maintained inmost, if not all, the lands they had occupied, and especially in theirown homes, their old manners and customs, and their religion in itsexisting form. It was not merely the supremacy of the one city or theother, but the future of Western Europe that was at stake whenHannibal attacked the Romans in Italy. Rome, which had already grownstrong in warring against the Gauls, won the victory over theCarthaginians. Thenceforth one after another of the Keltic nationssuccumbed to the superiority of the Roman arms, which at last invadedTransalpine Gaul, and struck its military power to the ground. 

From this point the reaction against the Keltic enterprisesnecessarily extended itself also to Britain. 

The great general who conquered Gaul did not feel sure of being ableto accomplish his task unless he also obtained influence over theBritish tribes, from which those of the Continent constantly receivedhelp and encouragement, unless he established among them the authorityof the Roman name. 

It was an important moment in the world's history, well worthy ofremembrance, when Caesar first trod the soil of Albion. Alreadyrepulsed from the steep chalk cliffs of the island, he found the flatshore on which he hoped to disembark occupied by the enemy, some intheir war-chariots, others on horseback and on foot; his ships couldnot reach the shore; the soldiers hesitated, encumbered with theirarmour as they were, to throw themselves into a sea with which theywere not familiar, in presence of an enemy acquainted with theground, active, brave, and superior in numbers; the general's orderhad no effect on them; when however an eagle-bearer, calling on thegods of Rome, threw himself into the flood, the men would have thoughtthemselves traitors had they allowed the war-standard, to which analmost divine worship was paid, to fall into the hands of the enemy;fired by the danger that threatened their honour, and by the religionof 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 thesuperiority, supported most skilfully by their general wherever it wasnecessary; the moment they reached the land, the victory was won. [2]

We cannot reckon it a slight matter, that Caesar, though not at thefirst, yet at the second and better prepared expedition, succeeded incarrying away with him hostages from the chief tribes. For this veryform was the one customary in that century and among those tribes, bywhich he bound them and their princes to himself. 

It was the first step towards the Roman supremacy. But Gaul and WestGermany had first to be subdued, and the Empire securely concentratedin one hand, before--a century later--the conquest of the island couldbe really attempted. 

Even then the Britons still fought without helmet or shield, as didthe Gauls of old before Rome. In Britain, just as on the Lombardplains, the war-chariot was their best arm; their defective mode ofdefence necessarily yielded to the organised tactics of the legion. How easily did the Romans, pushing forward under cover of theirmantelets, clear away the rude entrenchments by which the Britons usedformerly to secure themselves against attack. The Druids on Monatrusted in their gods, whose will they thought to ascertain from thequivering fibres of human sacrifices; and for a moment the sight ofthe crowd of fanatics collected around them checked the attack, butonly for a moment: as soon as they came to blows they were instantlyscattered, and their holy places perished with them. For this is thegreatest result of the Roman wars, that they destroyed the rites whichcontradicted the idea of Humanity. Yet once more an injuredprincess--Boadicea--united all the sympathies which the oldconstitution 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 chequeredmantle, over which her rich yellow hair flowed down below her waist. She called on her peoples to defend themselves at any risk, since whatcould befall those to whom each root gave nourishment, each treesupplied shelter: and on her gods, not to let the land pass into thepossession of that insatiable, unjust foe of foreign race. So trulydoes 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 byhundreds of thousands. But the Britons had not yet learnt the art ofwar. A single onslaught of the Romans sufficed to scatter theirdisorderly masses with a fearful butchery. It was the last day of theold 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 asfar as the Highlands: the Keltic clan-life and the religion of theDruids withdrew into the Caledonian mountains, and the large islandsoff that coast; in the conquered territory the religion of the armsthat had won the victory, and the might of the Great Empire, weresupreme. The work which was begun by superiority in war was completedby pre-eminence in civilisation. It seemed an advantage and animprovement to the sons of the British princes, to adopt the Romanlanguage, and knowledge, and mode of life; they delighted in theluxury of colonnades, baths, feasts, and city life. Men like Agricolaused these modes of Romanising Britain by preference. Just as theBritons exchanged their rude shipbuilding and their leathern sails forthe discoveries of a more advanced art of navigation, so they learntto carry on their agriculture in Roman fashion; in later timesBritain was considered as the granary of the legions in Germany. Mostof the cities in the land betray by their very names their Romanorigin; London, though it existed earlier, owes its importance to thisconnexion. It was the emporium destined as it were by nature for thepeaceful commerce that now arose between the Western provinces of theEmpire. Once in the third century an attempt was made to make theisland independent, but it failed the moment the marts on the oppositecoast fell into the hands of the Emperor who was universallyrecognised. Britain seemed an integral part of the Roman Empire. Itwas from York that Constantine marched forth to unite its Eastern andWestern halves once more under one government. 

But soon after him an epoch began in which the third greatnationality, at first thought to be part of the Keltic race, thendriven back or taken into service by the Romans, but alwaysmaintaining its peculiar original independence--the German, rose tosupremacy in the West. In the fifth century it had become everywheremaster in the militarily-organised Roman frontier districts:encouraged by the embarrassments of the authorities it advanced intothe peaceful provinces. 

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

From the Romanised territory an Augustus, called Constantine, set upby the revolted legions, invaded Gaul, not merely to check the inroadsof the barbarians, but at the same time to possess himself of theEmpire. He at one time held a great position, when the legions of Gauland Aquitaine also took his side, and Spain saluted him Emperor. Butthe authority of Honorius the generally recognised Emperor could notbe so easily set aside: discontented followers of the new Augustusagain went over to the old one: before them and the barbarianscombined Constantine fell, and soon after paid for his attempt withhis life. 

The result, then, was that Honorius restored his authority to acertain extent everywhere on the Continent, but not in Britain. To thetowns which had taken up arms while Constantine was there he gave theright of self-defence--he could do nothing for them. The Roman Empirewas not exactly overthrown in Britain--it ceased to be. [3]

At this time, when the connexion between Rome and Roman Britain wasbroken 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 otherprovinces of the Western and Eastern Empires. Antoninus had broughtover German tribes from the Danube, Probus others from the Rhineland. In the legions we find German cohorts, and very many others joinedthem as free allies. In the civil wars between the Emperors we hear ofone side relying on the Franks, the other on the Alemanni in theirservice; Constantine the Great is called to be Caesar by help of thechiefs of the Alemanni. But besides this, German seafarers, whoappeared under the name of Saxons, after they had learnt shipbuildingand navigation from the Romans, settled on the opposite coasts ofBritain and Gaul, and gave their name to both. Not then for the firsttime, nor at the invitation of the Britons, as the Saga declares, [4]did the descendants of Wodan make their first trial of the sea inlight vessels. Alternating between piracy and alliance--now with ausurper and now with the lawful Emperor, between independence andsubjection, German seafarers had long ago filled all seas and coastswith the terror of their name. In the North too they are mentionedtogether with Scots and Attacotti. When now the Roman rule over theisland 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 doubtthat the same general impulse which urged on the German peoples, inthe great revolution of affairs, into the Roman provinces, led theenterprising inhabitants of the German and Northern coasts, Frisians, Angles, and Jutes, as well as Saxons, into Britain. A fearful warbroke out, in which it may be true to say the ruined towns became thesepulchres of their inhabitants, but no man found the quiet timenecessary for depicting its details. After it had filled a century anda half with its horrors, and men again lifted up their eyes, theyfound the island divided between two great nationalities, which hadseparated themselves as opposing forces. The natives had as good asabandoned the civilisation they had learnt from Rome, and leant ontheir kinsfolk in North Gaul, and the Scots in Ireland and theHighlands; they occupied the west of the island. The Germans weresettled in the east, in the greatest part of the south, and in thenorth, in most of the old Roman settlements, --but they were far fromforming a united body. Not seven or eight merely, but a large numberof little tribal kingdoms, occupied or fought for the ground. 

If we wish to point out in general the distinction between theAnglo-Saxon and other German settlements, it lies in this, that theyrested neither on the Emperor's authorisation whether direct orindirect, nor on any agreement with the natives of the land. In GaulChlodwig assumed and carried on the authority of the Roman Empire;--inBritain it went wholly to the ground. Hence it was that here theGerman ideas could develop in their full purity, more so than inGermany itself, over which the Frankish monarchy, which had alsoadopted Roman tendencies, had gained influence. 

Just as the natives who would not submit were driven out of the Germansettlements, 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 fullstrength. In many names of places, at the water-springs, thewatersheds, in the designations of the days of the week, the names ofthe gods of Germany and the North appear; the kings trace theirdescent directly from them as their immediate ancestors; the Sagas andpoems about them symbolise those battles with the elements, thestorm, the sea, and the powers of nature, which are peculiarlycharacteristic of the Northern mythology. With this, however, arosethe question, so important for the history of the world, whether thegreat territory already won for the ideas of the universal culture andreligion of mankind should be again lost. 

Towards the end of the 6th century the epoch began in which, as theGerman invaders of Gaul had already done, so now those of Spain andItaly, whether Arians or heathens, came over to the Catholic faith ofthe Provincials. This took place under the mediation of the chiefPontiff, who had raised the city, from which the Empire took its name, to be the metropolis of the Faith. Lombards and Visigoths became asgood Catholics as the Franks already were. The relationship of theroyal families, which held all Germans in close connexion, and thezeal of Rome, which could not possibly suffer the loss of a provincethat it had once possessed, now combined to call forth a similarmovement among the Anglo-Saxons, yet one which worked itself out in avery different way. Since among the natives a peculiar form ofchurch-life, not unconnected with the Druidic discipline, had arisen, with which Rome would hold no communion, and which rejected alldemands of submission, the spiritual enmity of the missionary wasunited to the national enmity of the conqueror. When a king stillheathen, while attacking the Britons, directed his weapons against themonks of Bangor, who (collected on a height) were offering up prayersagainst him, and massacred them to the number of twelve hundred, thefollowers of the Roman Mission saw in this a punishment decreed by Godfor apostasy, and the fulfilment of the prophecies of theirapostle. [5] On the other hand British Christian kings also made commoncause with the heathen Angles, and wasted with fire and sword theprovinces that had been converted by Rome. Had not in the vicissitudesof internal war the native church organisation of the North woninfluence over the Anglo-Saxons, heathenism would never have beenconquered; it would have always found support among the Britons. 

When this however had once taken place, the whole Anglo-Saxon nameattached itself to the Roman ritual. Among the motives for this changethose which corresponded to the naive materialistic superstition ofthe time may have been the most influential, yet there were othermotives also which touched the very essence of the matter. Men wishedto belong to the great Church Communion which then in still unbrokenfreedom comprehended the most distant nations. [6] They preferred thebishops whom the kings appointed (with the authorisation of the RomanSee), to those over whom the abbot of the great monastery on theisland of Iona exercised a kind of supremacy. Here there was noquestion of any agreement between the German king and the bishops ofthe land, as under the Merovingians in Gaul; they even avoidedrestoring the bishops' sees which had flourished in the old Romantimes in Britain. The primitive and independent element manifestsitself in the decision of the princes and their great men. InNorthumberland, Christianity was introduced by a formal resolution ofthe King and his Witan: a heathen high priest girt himself with thesword, and even with his own hand threw down his idols. TheAnglo-Saxon tribes in fact passed over from the popular religion andmythology of the North and of Germany, which would have kept them inbarbarism, to the communion of the universal religion, to whichbelonged the civilisation of the world. Never did a race show itselfmore susceptible of such an influence: it presents the most remarkableexample of how the old German ideas, which had now taken living rootin this soil, and the Roman ecclesiastical culture, which wasvigorously embraced, met and became intertwined. The first German whomade the universal learning, derived from antiquity, his own, was anAnglo-Saxon, the Venerable Beda; the first German dialect in which menwrote history and drew up laws, was likewise the Anglo-Saxon. Despiteall their reverence for the threshold of the Apostles they admittedforeign priests no longer than was indispensable for the foundation ofthe new church: in the gradual progress of the conversion they were nolonger needed, we soon find Anglo-Saxon names everywhere in thechurch: the archbishops and leading bishops are as closely related tothe royal families, as the heathen high priests had been before. 

It was exactly through the co-operation of both principles, originallyso foreign to one another, that the Anglo-Saxon nature took firm andlasting form. 

The Kelts had formerly lived under a clan system which, extending overvast districts, yet displayed in each spot characteristic weaknesseswhich the hostility of every neighbour rendered fatal. Then the Romanshad introduced a military administrative constitution, which displacedthis tribal system, while it also subjected Britain to the universalEmpire, of which it formed only an unimportant province. Acharacteristic form of life was first built up in Britain by theAnglo-Saxons on the ruins of the Roman rule. The union into which theyentered with the civilised world was the freely chosen one of thereligion of the human race; they had no other connexion to controlthem. Their whole energies being concentrated on the island, they gaveit for the first time, though continually at war with each other, anindependent position. 

Their constitution combines the ideas of the army and the tribe: it isthe constitution of armies of colonists bringing with them domesticinstitutions which had been theirs from time immemorial. A society offreemen of the same stock, who divided the soil among themselves insuch a manner that the number of the hides corresponded to that of thefamilies (for among no people was there a stronger conception ofseparate ownership), they composed the armed array of the country, andby their union maintained that peace at home which again secured eachman's life and property. At their head stands a royal family, of thehighest nobility, which traces its origin to the gods, and has by farthe largest possessions; from it, by birth and by election combined, proceeds the King; who then, sceptre in hand, presides in the courtof justice, and in the field has the banner carried before him; he isthe Lord, to whom men owe fidelity; the Guardian, to whom the publicroads and navigable rivers belong, who disposes of the undivided land. Yet he does not stand originally so high above other men that hismurder cannot be expiated by a wergeld, of which one share falls tohis family--not a larger one than for any other of its members, --andthe other to the collective community, since the prince belongs to theformer by birth, to the latter by his office. Between the simplefreeman and the prince appear the eorls, ealdormen, and thanes, insome instances raised above the mass by noble birth or by largerpossessions, natural chiefs of districts and hundreds, in otherspromoted by service in the King's court and in the field, sometimesspecially bound to him by personal allegiance: they are the Witan whohave elected him out of his family (in a few instances they deposehim); they concur in giving laws, they take part in making peace. Nowthe bishops take place by their side. They appear with the ealdormenin the judicial meetings of the counties: if the Gerefa neglects hisduty, it is for them to step in; yet they have also their ownspiritual jurisdiction. It is a spiritual and temporal organisation ofsmall extent, yet of a certain self-sufficing completeness. Many ofthe present shires correspond to the old kingdoms, and bear theirnames to this day. The bishops' sees often coincide with the seats ofroyalty; for the kings wished each to have a bishop to himself in hislittle territory, since they had to endow the bishopric. How manyregulations still in force date from these times!

The Anglo-Saxons always had an immediate and near relation to thekingdom of the Franks. 

It was with the daughter of a Frankish prince that the first impulsetowards conversion came into a Saxon royal house. By the Anglo-Saxonsagain the conversion of inner Germany was carried out, in oppositionto the same Scoto-Irish element which they withstood in Britain. Carlthe Great thought it expedient to inform the Mercian King Offa of theprogress of Christianity among the Saxons in Germany: he looked on himas his natural ally. Both kingdoms had moreover a common interest asagainst the free British populations on their western marches, whowere allied with each other across the sea: decisive campaigns of Carlthe Great and King Egbert of Wessex coincide in point of time, and mayhave supported each other. 

Similarly, we may suppose that Egbert, who lived a number of years asan exile at Carl's court, and could not have remained uninfluenced byhis mode of government and improved military tactics, was then alsoincited and enabled, after his return, to subdue the little kingdomsand unite them with Wessex: by the side of the 'Francia' of thecontinent he created in the island a united 'Anglia. ' But still theresubsisted a yet greater difference. Sprung from the stock of Cerdic, Egbert belonged to the popular royalty which we find throughout at thehead of the invading Germans; he is, so far, more like theMerovingians whom Carl's predecessors overthrew, than like Carlhimself; and he was almost entirely destitute of that stronggroundwork of military institutions on which the Carolingianssupported themselves. His rise depended much more on the fact that theold families in Mercia, Northumbria, and Kent had disappeared, and thesuccession in general had become doubtful; after Egbert had conqueredthe claimants to the throne in a great and bloody battle, he wasrecognised by the Witans of the several kingdoms as their commonprince, and his family as that which in fact it now was, --the leadingone of all. After the example of Pipin's family, whose alliance withthe Papacy was the most important historical event of the epoch andfounded Western Christendom, the descendants of Cerdic also gotthemselves anointed by the popes--for the religious movement still hadthe predominance over every other. The amalgamation of the tribes andkingdoms found its expression in the Church, through the prestige andrank of the Archbishop of Canterbury, almost earlier than it did inthe State; the unity of the Church broke down the antipathies of thetribes, and prepared the way for that of the kingdoms. In the midst ofthis work of construction, so incomplete as yet, but so full of hope, of these birthpangs of a new life, the very existence of the countrywas threatened by the rise of a new Great Power. For so may we welldesignate the influence which the Scandinavian North exercised by landover Eastern Europe, and at the same time over all the Western coastsby sea. 

Only a part of the German peoples had been influenced by the idea ofthe Empire or the Church; the inborn heathenism of the rest, irritatedby the losses it had sustained and the dangers that continuallythreatened it, roused itself for the most formidable onslaught thatthe civilised world has ever had to withstand from the heroic andbarbarous children of Nature. 

The mischief they wrought in Britain, from the middle of the ninthcentury onwards, is indescribable. 

The Scoto-Irish schools, then in their most flourishing state (theytrained John Scotus Erigena, of all the scholars of that time the manwho had the widest intellectual range), fell before the Danish, notthe Anglo-Saxon assaults; an element of intellectual activity whichmight have been of the greatest importance was thus lost to theWestern world. But the Northmen persecuted the Romano-English forms asbitterly as they did the Irish. In the places where those Anglo-Saxonscholars had been trained, who then enlightened the West, the Northmenplanted the banner which announced utter destruction; with twofoldrapacity they threw themselves on the more remote abbeys which seemedto derive protection from their inaccessibility, and to guarantee itby their dignity; in searching for the treasures which they believedhad been placed in them for security, they destroyed the monuments andmeans of instruction which were really there; in Medeshamstede, wherethere was a rich library, the flames raged for fourteen days. Thehalf-formed union of the various districts into one kingdom seems tohave crippled rather than strengthened the power of local resistance:the Danes became masters of Kent and of East-Anglia, ofNorthumberland, and even of Mercia; at last Wessex too, after alreadysuffering many losses, was invaded; from both sides at the samemoment, from the inland and from the coast, the deluge ofrobber-hordes poured over its whole extent. 

Things had come to such a point that the Anglo-Saxon community seemedinevitably devoted to the same ruin which had overtaken first theBritons and then the Romans, they seemed doomed to make way foranother reconstruction. Britain would have become an outpost of therestored heathenism, which could then have been with difficultyrepulsed from the Eastern and Western Frankish empires, afflicted asthey were by similar attacks, and governed by the discordant and weakprinces who then ruled them. At this moment of peril King Alfredappeared. It was not merely for his own interests, nor merely forthose of England, but for those of the world, that he fought. He isrightly called 'the Great;' a title fairly due only to those who havemaintained great universal interests, and not merely those of theirown country. 

The distress of the moment, and the deliverance from it, have beenkept in imperishable remembrance by popular sagas and church legends. It is well worth the trouble to trace out in the authenticatedtraditions, brief as they are, the causes that decided the event. Wemay state them as follows:--Since the attacks of the Vikings wereespecially ruinous, from their occupation of the strong places whencethey could command and plunder the open country, one step in the workof liberation was taken when Alfred, for the first time, wrested fromthem a stronghold which they had seized, deep in the west. Then he, too, occupied strong positions, and knew how to defend them. With thebravest and most devoted of his nobles, and of the population that hadnot yet submitted, he established a hill-fortress on a height risinglike an island out of the standing waters and marshlands in the stillonly slightly cultivated land of Somersetshire; this not only servedhim as an asylum, but also as a central point from which he too rangedthrough the land far and wide, like the enemy, except that his objectwas to guard it, and make it ring once more with the already forgottenname of the King. Around his banners gathered, with reviving courage, the population of the neighbouring districts also: the Saxons couldagain appear in the open field; from their advancing shield-wall thedisorderly onsets of the Vikings recoiled, the victory was theirs. Hereupon, moreover, as if the decision between the two religionsdepended on the result of the war, the leader of the heathens cameover to Christianity, and took an Anglo-Saxon name. The Danes attachedthemselves to the principles and the powers which they had come forthto destroy. 

King Alfred is a marvellous phenomenon: suffering from a disease whichsometimes broke out with violence, and which he never ceased to feelfor a single day of his life, he not merely withstood the extreme ofperil at that moment so big with ruin, but also founded a system ofresistance throughout the kingdom, in which his arms so workedtogether by sea and land that each new band of Vikings betookthemselves again to their ships, and those that had already penetratedinto the country, gave way step by step. We remark with interest how, under Alfred and his children, his son who succeeded him, and hismanlike daughter, the protecting fortresses advance from place toplace, and provide free space for the Anglo-Saxon community. Theculture already existing, the whole future of which had been saved byAlfred, attained in him its fullest development. How many years hadpassed since the hour when an illuminated initial letter gave him hisfirst taste for a book, before he could master even the elementarybranches of knowledge! then he devoted his whole efforts to instil newlife into the studies that had almost perished, and to give them anational character. He not merely translated a number of the laterauthors of antiquity, whose works had contributed most to thetransmission of scientific culture; in the episodes which heinterweaves in them he shows a desire for knowledge that reaches farbeyond them; but especially we find in them a reflective andthoughtful mind, solid sense at peace with itself, a fresh way ofviewing the world, a lively power of observation. This King introducedthe German mind with its learning and reflection into the literatureof the world; he stands at the head of the prose-writers andhistorians in a German tongue--the people's King of the most primevalkind, who is also the teacher of his people. We know his laws, inwhich extracts from the books of Moses are combined with restoredlegal usages of German origin; in him the traditions of antiquity areinterpenetrated by the original tendencies of the German mind. Wecompletely weaken the impression made on us by this great figure, soimportant in his first limited and arduous efforts, by comparing himwith the brilliant names of antiquity. Each man is what he is in hisown place. 

Though the Anglo-Saxon monarchy wanted that element of authority whichthe kings of other German tribes drew from the Roman government bytransmission or succession, yet it had strengthened itself, like theothers, by union with the Church. Alfred, too, was at Rome in hisboyhood: it stood him in good stead that he had been anointed, and, asmen said, adopted by a Roman pope. In the reconquest of the land, Church ideas had played an important part. It was impossible to driveout the invading foes, they could only be held in check; never wouldthey have submitted to the Anglo-Saxon commonwealth had they not atthe same time been converted to Christianity. Nothing, moreover, contributed more to this than the effort, which was then the order ofthe day in the Christian world, to base the organisation of the Churchon monasticism: from Italy this tendency spread to Germany, from SouthFrance to North, from thence to England, where it produced itsgreatest effect. Now the power of conversion is inherent only insharply-defined doctrines; and it was precisely this tendency thatpenetrated the Northern natures: the sons of the Vikings became thechampions of monachism; to the fury with which the fathers haddestroyed the monasteries succeeded in the sons a zeal to restorethem. And in what good stead this stood the Anglo-Saxon kings! Thekingly power obtained, through the splendour which the union withreligion bestowed on its victorious arms, a reverential recognition bythe old native population as well as by the invaders. 

Alfred's grandson had regained Northumbria by a somewhat doubtfultitle, and had then maintained his right in a great battle, renownedin song; his great-grandson, Edgar, in one of his charters thanks thegrace of God which had permitted him to extend his rule further thanhis predecessors, over the islands and seas as far as Norway, and overa great part of Ireland. We are not to look on it as a mere piece ofvanity, when he seeks after new titles for his power, when he callshimself Basileus and Imperator; the former is the title of theEastern, the latter of the Western emperors; he will not yield theprecedence to either the one or the other, though the latter are soclosely related to him by blood. We cannot express the feeling of asupreme power, independent of men, derived from the grace of God, theKing of kings, more strongly than it was expressed by Edgar underDunstan's influence; the ruling motives of life in Church and Statemake it conceivable that a monkish hierarch, such as Dunstan, shared, as it were, the King's power, and shaped the course of the authorityof the state. 

It was still the ancestral Anglo-Saxon crown which glittered onEdgar's head, but, if we may so say, its splendour had at the sametime 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, ' mightwell be taken for the genuine words, originally noted down in hisEphemerides (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 betterauthority of Olympiodorus. 

[4] The simplest form of the Saga occurs in Gildas, with very fewhistorical ingredients. Nennius enlarges it with Anglo-Saxontraditions. Beda has combined both with some notices from the realhistory. Since the departure of the Romans was rightly fixed about409, and Gildas said the Britons had rest for forty years, Bedasettled 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, 'adtollendam labem caedis Bangorensis;' this, however, is against thespirit of that age. 

[6] 'Omnem orbem, quocunque ecclesia Christi diffusa est per diversasnationes 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 findamong the women a hideous mixture of ambition, revenge, andbloodthirstiness, which brings kings and kingdoms to ruin. In Englandit appears, despite of Christianity and monastic discipline, in itsmost atrocious form after the death of Edgar. His eldest son, for someyears his successor, was treacherously murdered by his stepmother (whowished to advance her own son to the throne), at a visit which he paidher as he returned from hunting. It was that Edward whose innocenceand leaning towards the Church have gained him the name of Martyr. Theson of the murderess did ascend the throne, but the guilt of bloodseemed to cleave to the crown; he met with the obedience of hisfather's times no more. The Anglo-Saxon magnates seized the occasionwhich this crime, or the subsequent vacillation of the governmentbetween violence and weakness, offered them, to aim at an independentposition, 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, whenthey attributed the peace they enjoyed to their own military power, inthe splendid and extensive display of which they took delight. Inreality it was the state of the world at large that brought this peaceabout. First of all, it was due to the settlement of the Normans inNorth Gaul, under the condition that they should be of one religionand one realm, and should fulfil the natural duty of keeping offfresh incursions: the current of Northern invasion thus lost its aimand direction. But it was of still more decisive effect at the firstthat the energetic family which arose in North Germany, and evenassumed the imperial authority, not content with warding off theDanes, sought them out in their own country instead, and carried thewar against heathenism into the North. The Saxons beyond the sea wereindebted for the peace which they enjoyed chiefly to the great andsplendid deeds of arms of their kindred on the mainland. How much alldepended on this became very clear when Otto II, in the full glow ofgreat enterprises, met with an unlooked for and early death. Withinthe empire two able women and their advisers succeeded in maintainingpeace; but in Denmark, as in other neighbouring countries, the hostileelements got the upper hand. The Danish king's son, Sven Otto, abandoned the religion which he regarded as a yoke laid on him by theGerman conquerors; he could not destroy the order of thingsestablished in Denmark, but he revived the old sea-king's life, andthrew himself with the old superiority of the Viking arms on theEnglish coasts. 

Ethelred on this attack fell into the greatest distress, mainlybecause he was not sure of his great nobles. How often did thecommanders of the fleet desert it at the moment of action, and theleaders of the inland levies go over to the enemy! Ethelred sought forsafety by an alliance with the Duchy of Normandy, then daily rising togreater power. Thus supported, he proceeded to unjustifiable outragesagainst his domestic as well as his foreign foes. The great nobleswhom he suspected were mercilessly killed or exiled, and theirchildren blinded. The Danes who remained in the land he caused to bemurdered all on one day. 

The consequences of this deed necessarily recoiled upon himself. WhenSven some years after again landed with redoubled enmity, which was toa certain extent justified, he experienced no effectual resistancewhatever; Ethelred had to fly before him and quit the island. But nowthat Sven too, who had been already saluted by many as King, died inthe first enjoyment of his victory, a question arose which extendedfar beyond the personal relations and embarrassments of the moment. 

The influence always exercised by the Witans of the Anglo-Saxonkingdoms in determining the succession to the throne remained much thesame when they were all fused into a single kingdom; even among thedescendants of Alfred, the great men designated the sovereign. In thedisturbed state of things in which they now found themselves, thelawful King having fled, and the other, who had put himself intoactual possession of the supreme authority, being dead, they framedthe largest conception of their right. They formally made conditionswith Ethelred for his return, and he consented to their demandsthrough his son. [7] Since he, however, did not fulfil his promise--forhow could he have altered his nature?--they held themselves releasedfrom their engagement to maintain this family on the throne. Sven'sson, Canute, had taken his father's place among the Danes; he had beenlong ago baptised, he was of a character which commanded confidence, and possessed at the time overwhelming power. After Ethelred's deaththe lay and spiritual chiefs of England decided to abandon the houseof Cerdic for ever, and to recognise Canute as their King. How manyjarls and thanes of Danish origin do we find around the kings underall the last governments. Edgar was especially blamed for the veryreason that he took them under his protection. But they had beensubjected only by war; no hereditary sentiment of natural loyaltyattached them to the West Saxon royal house. The ecclesiasticalaristocracy was besides determined by religious considerations; tothem these disasters and crimes seemed sufficient proof of the truthof those prophecies of coming woe which Dunstan was believed to haveuttered. They repaired to Canute at Southampton, and concluded a peacewith him, the conditions of which were that they would abandon thedescendants 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'seldest son, Edmund Ironsides, who was himself half a Dane by birth, roused himself to a vigorous resistance: London and a part of thenobility took his side; he gained through force of arms a settlementby which, though indeed he lost the best part of the land and thecapital itself, he maintained the crown; he died however, soon after, and then the whole country recognised Canute as King. The last scionof the royal house in the land was banished, and all the claims of thefamily to the crown again declared void. The Anglo-Saxon magnatesundertook to make a money payment to the Danish host; in return theyreceived the pledge from the King's hand, and the oath by his soultaken by his chiefs. [9] It was a treaty between the Anglo-Saxon andthe Danish chiefs, by which the former received the King of the latteras also their own. 

This extremely important event links the centuries together, anddetermines the future fortunes of England. The kingly house, whoseright and pre-eminence was connected with the earliest settlements, which had completed the union of the realm and delivered it from theworst distress, was at a moment of moral deterioration and disasterexcluded by the spiritual and temporal chiefs, of Anglo-Saxon andDanish origin. They had first tried to limit it, to bind it by its ownpromise; when this led to nothing, they annihilated its right by aformal resolution of the realm, and procured peace by raising to thethrone another sovereign who had no right by birth. Canute did not owethe crown to conquest, though his greater power contributed to theresult, but to election, which now appeared as the superior right:hitherto the Witan had always exercised it within the limits of theroyal family; this time they disregarded that family altogether. 

Canute decreed or allowed some bloody acts of violence, in order tostrengthen the power that had fallen to his lot; but afterwards headministered it with a noble spirit answering to his position. Hebecame the leading sovereign of the North: men reckoned five or sixkingdoms as subject to him. England was the chief of them all, evenfor him; it was in possession of the culture and religion which hewished should prevail in the rest: the missionaries of the North wentforth from Canterbury. England itself, however, gained a higherposition in the world by its union with a power which ruled as far asNorway and North America, and carried on commerce with the East by theBaltic. In Gothland the great emporium of the West, Arabic as well asAnglo-Danish coins are found; the former were carried from the Northas far as England. Canute favoured the Anglo-Saxon mode of life; heliked to be designated the 'successor of Edgar;' he confirmed hislegislation; and it was his intention, at least, to rule according tothe laws: as he even submitted himself to the military regulations ofthe Huskarls, so he commanded right and law to be administered incivil matters without respect to his own person. 

But a union of such different kingdoms could only be a transitoryphenomenon. Canute himself thought of leaving England againindependent under one of his sons. 

With this object he had married Ethelred's widow Emma. For, accordingto Anglo-Saxon ideas, the Queen was not merely the King's wife, butalso sovereign of the land, in her own right. It was settled that thechildren of this marriage should succeed him in England. ProbablyCanute did not wish the inheritance of the crown in his house todepend merely on the goodwill of the Witan. 

After Canute's death we can observe a wavering between the principlesof election and birthright. The magnates again elected, but limitedtheir choice to the King's house. After the extinction of theDanish-Norman family, they came back to the English-Norman one; theycalled the son of Ethelred and Emma, Edward the Confessor, to thethrone of his fathers, though, it is true, without leaving him muchpower. This lay rather in the hands of the Earls Godwin of Kent andLeofric of Mercia; especially in the former, whose wife was relatedto Canute, did the Anglo-Saxon spirit of independence energeticallymanifest itself. He was once banished, but returned and recovered allhis offices. When however, Edward too died without issue, the dynasticquestion once more came before the English magnates. It might haveseemed most consistent to recall the Aetheling Edgar a member of thehouse of Cerdic from exile, and to carry on the previous form ofgovernment under his name. But the thoughts of the English chiefs nolonger turned in that direction. Not very long before a king from theranks of the native nobility had ascended the throne of theCarolingians in the West Frank empire; in the East Frank, or Germanempire, men had seen first the mightiest duke, then one of the mostdistinguished counts, attain the imperial dignity. Why should it notbe possible for something similar to happen in England also? The veryday on which Edward the Confessor died, Godwin's son, Harold, waselected by the magnates of the kingdom, and crowned without delay[10](Jan. 5, 1066). The event now happened which was only implied in whatoccurred at Canute's accession: the house of Cerdic was abandoned, andthe further step taken of raising another native family to its throne. 

It was not this time a pressing necessity that brought it about; butwe cannot deny that, if carried through, it opened out an immeasurableprospect. 

For such would have been the case, if the attempt to found a GermanicAnglo-Saxon kingdom under Harold, and maintain it free from anypreponderating foreign influence had been successful. By recallingEdgar the influence of Normandy, against which the antipathies of thenation had been awakened under the last government, would have beenrenewed. But just as little were those claims to be recognised whichthe Northern kings put forward for the re-establishment of theirsupremacy. Even as regards the Papacy, the government began to adoptan independent line of conduct. 

The question now was, whether the Anglo-Saxon nation would beunanimous and strong enough to maintain such a haughty position on allsides. 

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 thesame moment, an attack was threatened from another enemy of infinitelygreater importance--Duke William of Normandy. It was not only thissovereign, and his land, but a new phase of development in the historyof 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 offoreign peoples and armies, the local resistance to them and theiroccupations of territory, a new world had, as it were, been formingitself in Southern Europe, and especially in Gaul. Still moredecidedly than in England had the invading Vikings in France attachedthemselves to the national element, even in the second generation theyhad given up their language; they discovered at the same time a formwhich reconciled the membership in the kingdom, and the recognition ofthe common faith, with provincial freedom. In France no native powersuccessfully opposed and checked the advancing Normans, such as thatwhich the Danes had encountered in England. On the contrary theyexercised the greatest influence over the foundation of a new dynasty. A system developed itself over the whole realm, in which, both in theprovincial authorities and in the lower degrees of rank, thepossession of land and share in public office, feudalism and freedom, interpenetrated each other, and made a common-weal which yetharmonised with all the inclinations that lend charm and colouring toindividual life. The old migratory impulse and spirit of warlikeenterprise set before itself religious aims also, which lent it ahigher sanction; war for the Church, and conquest (which meant foreach man a personal occupation of land) were combined in one. Startingfrom Normandy, where great warlike families were formed that found nooccupation at home (for these young populations are wont to multiplyquickest), North French love of war and habits of war transplantedthemselves to Spain and to Italy. How must it have elevated theirspirit of enterprise when in the latter country the Papacy, which hadjust thrown off the supremacy of the emperor, and entered on a newstage in the development of its power, made common cause with theirarms, and a practised Norman warrior, Robert Guiscard, appeared asDuke 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 Popegave him lands in fief, which had hitherto belonged to the GreekEmpire, and which the Germans had been unable to conquer; he promised, in return, to defend the prerogatives of S. Peter. Between thehierarchy which was striving to perfect its supremacy, and the warlikechivalry of the 11th century, an alliance was formed like that onceconcluded with the leaders of the Frankish host. The ideas werealready stirring from which proceeded the Crusades, the foundation ofthe Spanish kingdoms, and the creation of the Latin Empire atConstantinople. In the princely fiefs of the French Crown, and aboveall in Normandy, they seized on men's minds. Chivalrous life andhierarchic institutions, dialectic and poetry, continual war at homeand ceaseless aspirations abroad, were here fused into a living whole. 

In the Germanic countries also this close alliance of hierarchy andchivalry now sought to win influence, but here it met with a strenuousresistance. In England, Edward the Confessor had tried to prepare theway for it: Godwin and his house opposed it. And when the former namedthe Norman Robert Archbishop of Canterbury, and the latter drove himout, the English quarrels became connected with those of Rome;Stigand, the archbishop put in by Godwin, received his pallium fromPope Benedict X, who had been elected in the old tumultuous manneronce more by the neighbouring Roman barons, but had to succumb toHildebrand's zeal for a regular election by the cardinals, on whichthe emancipation of the Papacy depended. It seemed, then, intolerableat Rome that there should be a primate of the English Church, connected by his Church position with a phase of the supremepriesthood now condemned and abolished: it is very intelligible thatthis priesthood in its present form took up a hostile position towardsthe England of that time. In this, moreover, it found an ally ready toact in Duke William of Normandy, who wished to be regarded as the bornchampion of the Anglo-Saxon dynasty, and as the natural successor toits rights. Once already his father had collected a fleet to restorethe exiled Aethelings, and was only kept back from an invasion byunfavourable weather. There had often since been rumours, that Edwardhad destined Duke William to be his successor; men asserted thatHarold had previously recognised this right, and that in returnWilliam's daughter, and a part of the land as an independentpossession, had been promised him. [12] In his own position William hadcleared the ground for himself with a strong hand. He had beaten hisfeudal lord in the open field, and thus not only recovered a frontierfortress lost during his minority, but also strengthened theindependence of the duchy. At the same time William had vanquished hisrebellious vassals in arms, banished them, deprived them of theirpossessions, and got rid, with the Pope's consent, of an archbishopwho was allied with them. Death freed him from another mightyopponent, the Duke of Brittany, who threatened him with a greatmaritime expedition. It throws a certain light on his policy, to seehow he made himself master of the county of Maine in 1062. On theground that Count Heribert, whom he had supported in his quarrel withAnjou, had become his vassal and made him his heir, [13] he overranMaine, and put his adherents in possession of the fortresses whichcommanded the land. However we may decide as to the details told usabout his relations to Edward and Harold, it seems undeniable thatWilliam had received provisional promises from both--for Harold lovedto side with Edward. He was not the man to put up with their beingbroken. The system, however, which through Harold's accession gainedthe upper hand in England, was in itself hostile to the Norman one:and that a king of England like the present might some day becomedangerous to the duke, amidst all the other hostilities whichthreatened him, is clear. To these motives was now added theapprobation of the Roman See. The Pope's chief Council deliberated onthe enterprise, above all did the archdeacon of the Church, Hildebrand, declare himself in its favour. He was reproached--then orat a later time--with being the author of bloodshed; he declared thathis conscience acquitted him, since he knew well, that the higherWilliam mounted, the more useful he would be to the Church. [14]Alexander II now sent the duke the banner of the Church. As a fewyears before Robert Guiscard had become duke, so now a Norman duke wasto become king, in the service of the Church. The Normans were stilldivided in their views as to the enterprise, but when this newsarrived, all opposition ceased, for in the service of S. Peter and theChurch men believed themselves secure of success; then lay andspiritual 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 theenterprise; another of his nearest relations, Count Odo of Champagne, brought up his troops in person; Count Eustace of Boulogne armed, toavenge on Godwin's house an affront he had once suffered at Dover; anumber of leading Breton counts and lords attached themselves toWilliam in opposition to their duke, who cherished wholly differentprojects. To the lords and knights of North France were joined many oflower rank, whose names show that they came from Gascony, Burgundy, the duchy of France, or the neighbouring districts belonging to theGerman Empire. Of their own free will they ranged themselves roundWilliam, 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 couldsurpass or weary out, with a strong hardy frame, a cool head, anexpression in his features which exactly intimated the violence withwhich he followed up his enemies, destroyed their states, and burnttheir houses. Yet all was not passionate desire in him. He honouredhis mother, he was true to his wife. Never did he undertake a quarrelwithout giving fair notice, and certainly never without having wellprepared for it beforehand. He knew how to keep up a warlike spirit inhis vassals: there were seen with him only splendid men and ableleaders; he kept strict discipline. So also he had seized the momentfor his enterprise, at which the political relations of Europe werefavourable to him. The two great realms, which might otherwise havewell interposed, the East Frank (or the Roman-German) as well as theWest Frank, were under kings not yet of age: the guardianship of thelatter lay with the Count of Flanders, who thought he did enough innot standing openly by his son-in-law, of the former with greatbishops devoted heart and soul to the hierarchic system. [16] Harold, on the other hand, had no friend or ally, in North or East, in Southor in West. To encounter the combined efforts of a great Europeancoalition he had only himself and his Anglo-Saxons to rely on. Haroldis depicted as coming forth perfect from the hands of nature, withoutblemish from head to foot, personally brave before the enemy, gentleamong his own people, and endowed with natural eloquence. His enemy'spassion for, and knowledge of, war were not in him; the taste of theAnglo-Saxons was directed more to peaceful enjoyments than toceaseless wars. At this moment too they were weakened by great lossesin the last bloody war; many of the most trustworthy and bravest hadfallen, others wavered in their fidelity; Harold had not been able toput even the coasts in a state of defence; William landed withoutresistance, to demand his crown from him. When reminded of his promiseHarold was believed to have answered in the very spirit of Anglo-Saxonindependence, that he had no right to make any such promise withoutthe consent of the Anglo-Saxon chiefs and people. And not to meet theinvading foe instantly at the sword's point would have seemed to himdisgraceful cowardice. And so William and Harold, the North Frenchknights and the national war-array of the Anglo-Saxons, encountered atHastings. Harold fell at the very beginning of the fight. The Normans, according to their wont, knew how to separate their enemies by apretended flight, and then by a sudden return to surround and destroythem in isolated bodies. It was the iron-clad, yet rapidly movingcavalry, which decided the battle. [17]

William expected, now that his rival had fallen, to be recognised bythe Anglo-Saxons as their King. Instead of this the chiefs and thecapital raised Edgar the Aetheling, grandson of Edmund Ironsides, tothe throne: as though William would retire before a scion of the oldWest-Saxon house, of which he professed to be the champion. He heldfirmly to the transfer made to him by the last king without regard toany third person, ratified as it was by the Roman See, and marched onthe capital. 

Edgar was a boy, and the magnates were at variance as to who shouldhave the authority to exercise guardianship over him. When Williamappeared before the city, and threatened the walls with hissiege-machines, it too lost courage. The embassy which it sent him wasamazed at the grandeur and splendour of his appearance, was convincedas to the right which King Edward had transferred to him, [18] andpenetrated by the danger which a resistance, in itself hopeless, wouldbring on the city. Aldermen and people abandoned Edgar, and recognisedWilliam as King. There is an old story, that the county of Kent, oncapitulating, made good conditions for itself. To the nobles also, whosubmitted by degrees, similar terms may have been accorded, but theirposition was almost entirely altered. We need notice only this onepoint. Their chief right, which they exercised to a perhapsunauthorised extent, was that of electing the King; they had nowelected twice, but the first election was annulled by defeat in theopen field, the second by increasing superiority in arms; they had torecognise the Conqueror, who claimed by inheritance, as their King, whether they would or no. There is something almost symbolic of theresulting state of things in the story of William's coronation, whichwas now celebrated by the tomb of Edward the Confessor at Westminster. For the first time the voices of the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans wereunited to greet him as King, but the discordant outcry of the twolanguages seemed a sign of conflict to the troops gathered outside, and made the warlike fury, so hardly kept under control, boil up againin them; they set the houses of London on fire. Whilst all hurriedfrom the church, the ceremony it is said was completed by shudderingpriests in the light of the flames: the new King himself, who at othertimes 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, becameindissolubly united. 

That against which the Anglo-Saxons had set themselves to guard withall their strength during the last period, the inroad of theNorman-French element into their Church and their State, was nowaccomplished in fullest measure. William's maxim was, that all who hadtaken arms against him and his right had forfeited their property;those who escaped, and the heirs of those who had fallen, weredeprived alike. In a short time we find William's leading comrades inthe war, as earls of Hereford, Buckingham, Shrewsbury, Cornwall; hisvaliant brothers were endowed with hundreds of fiefs; and when theinsurrection which quickly broke out led to new outlawries and newconfiscations, all the counties were filled with French knights. FromCaen came over the blocks of freestone to build castles and towers, bywhich they hoped to bridle the towns and the country. It is anexaggeration to assume a complete transfer of property from the onepeople to the other; among the tenants in chief about half the namesare still Anglo-Saxon. At first, those who from any even accidentalcause had not actually met William in arms were left in possession oftheir lands, though without hereditary right: later, after they hadconducted themselves quietly for some time, this too was given back tothem. In the next century it excited surprise that so many greatproperties should have remained in the hands of the Anglo-Saxons. [20]It would have been altogether against William's plan, to treat theAnglo-Saxons as having no rights. He wished to appear as the rightfulsuccessor of the Anglo-Saxon kings: by their laws he would abide, onlyadding the legal usages of the Normans to those of the Danes, Mercians, and West Saxons; and it was not merely through his will, butalso by its higher form, and connexion with the ideas of the century, that the Norman law gained the upper hand. But however much we maydeduct from the usual exaggerations, this fact remains, that thechange of ownership which took place, like the change in theconstitution and the general state of things, was of enormous extent:the military and judicial power passed entirely into the hands of thevictors in the war. And in the Church alterations no lessthoroughgoing ensued. Under the authority of Papal legates, the greatoffice-holders of the English Church, who had been opposed to thenewly arisen hierarchic system, were mercilessly deprived of theirplaces. The King was afterwards personally on tolerably good termswith Stigand, the Archbishop of Canterbury, but was not inclined onhis account to oppose the Church. The archbishopric, and with it theprimacy of England, passed to the man in whom the union of the Churchauthority and orthodoxy of that which we may call the especiallyhierarchic century was most vividly represented, the man who had beenthe chief agent in establishing the dogma of Transubstantiation, thegreat teacher of Bec, Lanfranc. In most of the bishoprics and abbeyswe find Normans of kindred tendency. It was precisely in theenterprise against England that the hierarchy concluded its compactwith the hereditary feudal state, which was all the more lasting inthat they were both still in process of formation. 

In this way was England attached by the strongest ties to theContinent, and to the new system of life and ecclesiastico-politicalconstitution which had then gained the upper hand in Latin Europe. Under the next three successors of the Conqueror, none of whom enjoyeda completely legal recognition, it sometimes appeared as thoughEngland would again tear herself away from Normandy: such varianceswere not without influence on home affairs: in the general relationsof the country they wrought no change at all. On the contrary, thesewere developed on a still larger scale, owing to the complicatedfamily connexions which so peculiarly characterise that epoch. Fromthe county of Anjou which, like the dominion of the Capets, had beenformed in the struggle against the invasion of the Normans, asovereign arose who had the right to rule the Norman conquests, theson of the Conqueror's granddaughter, Henry Plantagenet. He hadbecome, though not without appeal to the sword, which his fatherwielded powerfully on his behalf, master of Normandy, and had thenmarried Eleanor of Poitou, who brought him a great part of SouthFrance: he then succeeded more by fair means than by force inestablishing his right to the throne of England. Henry was the firstto establish in France the power of the great vassals, by which thecrown was long in danger of being overthrown. The Kings of Castilleand Navarre submitted to his arbitration. And under a sovereign whosegrandfather had been King of Jerusalem, and one of the mightiestrulers of that Western kingdom established in the East, thetendencies, which had led so far, could not fail to extend themselvesto the utmost in all their spheres of action? The hierarchic andchivalrous spirit of Continental Europe, which under the Normans hadseized on England, was much strengthened by the accession of thePlantagenets. It thus came to pass that after the disastrous loss ofJerusalem, the knights of Anjou and of Guienne, from Brittany (forHenry had added this province also to his family possessions) and fromNormandy, gathered together in London, and took the Cross in companywith the English. England formed a part of the Plantagenet Empire--ifwe may apply this word to so anomalous a state--and contributed to itsextension, even though no interest of its own was involved. Buttowards such a result the relations which this alliance establishedbetween England and Southern Europe had long tended. Not seldom wasthe military power of the provinces over the sea employed forenterprises that aimed at the direct advantage of England itself. Whether and when the German element without this influence would havebecome master of the British group of islands none could say. TheEnglish dominion over Ireland in particular is derived from Henry II, and his alliance at that time with the Papacy; he crossed thitherunder the Pope's authorisation: at the Pope's word the native kingsdid homage to him as their lord. [21] And the foreign-born Plantagenetsstruck living root in England itself. As Henry II's mother was thedaughter of a princess descended from the West-Saxon house, he washailed by the natives as their lawfully-descended King; in accordancewith Edward the Confessor's prophecy, that from the severed boughshould spring up a new tree: they traced his descent without scrupleback to Wodan. This King, moreover, has impressed his mark deeply onEnglish life; to this day justice is administered in England underforms established by him. 

The will of destiny cannot be gainsaid. Just as Germany without itsconnexion with Italy, so England without its connexion with France, would never have been what it is. More than all, the greatcommonwealth of the western nations, whose life pervades anddetermines the history of each separate state, would never have comeinto 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 episcopiabbates duces et quique nobiliores Angliae, in unum congregati pariconsensu in dominum et regem Canutum sibi elegere--ille juravit, quodet 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 juramentisa principibus Danorum, fratres et filios Eadmundi omnino despexerunteosque esse reges negaverunt. '

[10] In Ingulphus (Savile Script. 511) it is said expressly: perArchiepiscopum Eboracae, Aedredum (Aldredum). But it is surprisingthat the Bayeux Tapestry expressly names Stigand (Lancelot:Description de Tapisserie de Bayeux, in Thierry, I). Yet Harold couldnot possibly have meant, by passing over the Archbishop of Canterbury, to declare him to be incompetent, since he had been appointed by hisparty. 

[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 sentring and sword to the duke by Harold; but as early as in William ofJumièges we have the tale of Harold's captivity in Ponthieu, and thepromise made him, and the chief outlines of what in GuilielmusPictaviensis, and Ordericus Vitalis, lies before us with furtherembellishments, and to which the Bayeux Tapestry (itself, too, a kindof 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 exNormannis et Flandrensibus ac Francis ac Britonibus aggregavit. '

[16] Guilielmus Pictaviensis 197 assures us that help was promisedfrom Germany in the name of Henry IV. 

[17] William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, III. § 245. 'Magis temeritateet furore praecipitati quam scientia militari Wilhelmo congressi. '

[18] 'Contulit Eguardus quod rex donum sibi regni Monstrat et adfirmatvosque 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 withthe greatest calmness, as though it passed undisturbed; but theconclusion of his work seems wanting. 

[20] Dialogus de Scaccario, i. 10. 'Miror singularis excellentiaeprincipem, in subactam et sibi suspectam Anglorum gentem hac usummisericordia, ut non solum colonos indempnes servaret, verum ipsisregni majoribus feudos suos et amplas possessiones relinqueret. ' InMadox, History of the Exchequer, ii. 391. In Domesday Book the memoryof 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 ofHadrian IV. 

CHAPTER III. 

THE CROWN IN CONFLICT WITH CHURCH AND NOBLES. 

Highly as we may estimate the due appreciation and expression of thoseobjective ideas, which are bound up with the culture of the humanrace, still the spiritual life of man is built up not so much on adevout and docile receptivity of these ideas as on their free andsubjective recognition, which modifies while it accepts, andnecessarily passes through a phase of conflict and opposition. 

In England the authority both of Church and State now came forwardwith far more strength than before. The royal power was a continuationof the sovereignty inherited from Anglo-Saxon times, but, leaning onits continental resources, and supported by those who had taken partin the Conquest, it developed itself much more durably. The clergy ofthe land were far more closely and systematically bound to the Papacy;thus it had become more learned and more active. The one sword helpedthe other; just at this very time, the King and the Archbishop ofCanterbury were depicted as the two strong steers that drew the ploughof England. 

But yet, below all this there existed a powerful element ofopposition. After the new order of things had existed more than eightyyears, among a portion of the Anglo-Saxon population the design wasstarted of putting a violent end to it, of destroying at one blow allthose foreigners who seemed its representatives, just as the Danes hadall been murdered on one day. 

It was an evil thought, and all the more atrocious because manifoldties had been already gradually formed between the two populations. How could they ever become fused into one nation if the one was alwaysplotting the destruction of the other?

It was not merely by alliances of blood and family, but even stillmore by great common political and ecclesiastical interests that theEnglish nationality, which contains both elements, was founded. And, in truth, the leading impulse towards it was that the conquerors, noless than the conquered, felt themselves oppressed by the yoke whichthe two supreme authorities laid on them, and hence both combined tooppose them. But centuries elapsed before this could be effected. Thefirst occasion for it was given when the two authorities quarrelledwith each other, and alternately called on the population to give itsvoluntary aid. 

For, as the authorities which represent the objective ideas are ofdifferent origin, they have never in our Western Europe remained morethan a short time in complete harmony with each other. Each retainsits natural claim to be supreme, and not to endure the supremacy ofthe other. The one has always more before its eyes the unity of thewhole, the other the needs and rights of the several kingdoms andstates. Amidst their antagonism European life has moulded itself andmade progress. 

Close as their union was at the time of the Conquest of England, yeteven then their quarrel broke out. Though the Conqueror pledgedhimself again to pay a tribute which the Anglo-Saxon kings hadformerly charged themselves with, and which had been long unpaid, yetthis was not sufficient for the Roman See: Gregory VII demanded to berecognised as feudal lord of England. But this was not what Williamunderstood, when he had allowed the papal banner to wave over thefleet that brought him to England. It was not from the Pope'sauthorisation that he derived his claim to the English crown, as ifthis had been merely transferred to him by the Papal See, but from theAnglo-Saxon kings, as whose heir and legal successor he wished to beregarded. He answered the Pope that he could enter into no otherrelation to him than that in which his predecessors in England hadstood to previous popes. 

For the first time the popes had to give up altogether the attempt tomake kings their feudal dependents; they attempted, however, analmost deeper encroachment into the very heart of the royal power, when they then formed the plan of severing the spiritual bodycorporate, which already possessed the most extensive temporalprivileges, from their feudal obligation to the sovereigns. TheEnglish kings opposed them in this also with resolution and success. Under the influence of the father of scholasticism, Anselm ofCanterbury, Primate of England, a satisfactory agreement was arrangedlong before the Concordat was obtained in Germany. In general therewas little to fear, as long as the Archbishop of Canterbury had a goodunderstanding with the Crown; and this was the case in the first halfof the 12th century, if not on all points, yet, at least on allleading questions. Far-reaching differences did not appear until thehigher ecclesiastics embraced the party of the Papacy, which happenedin England through Thomas Becket. 

_Henry II and Becket. _

It was precisely from him that this would have been least expected. Hehad been the King's Chancellor, or if we may avail ourselves of asomewhat remote equivalent expression, his most trusted cabinetminister, and had as such, in both home and foreign affairs, renderedthe most valuable services. The introduction of scutage is attributedto him, and he certainly had a large share in the acquisition ofBrittany. It was through the direct influence of the King that he waselected archbishop. [22] But from that hour he seemed to have becomeanother man. As he had hitherto rivalled the courtiers in splendour, pleasure, and pomp, so would he now by strictness of life equal thesanctity of the saints; as hitherto to the King, so did he now attachhimself to the interests of the Church. It might, so we may suppose, be some satisfaction to his self-esteem, that he could now confronthis stern and mighty sovereign as Archbishop 'also by the grace ofGod, ' for so he designates himself in his letter to the King; or hemight 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 byspecial interests, so for Becket the determining impulse without doubtlay above all in the sympathy which he devoted to the hierarchicmovement in general. 

Those were the times in which the attempt of the Emperor Frederic I tocall a council, and in it to decide on a contested papal election, hadcreated general excitement among the peoples and churches of SouthernEurope, which would only consent to be led by a pope independent ofthe empire. Driven from Italy, Alexander III, the Pope rejected by theEmperor, found a cordial reception in France; and here he nowcollected on his side a papal council in opposition to the imperialone, in which the cardinals, whose election the Emperor was trying toannul, and the bishops of Spain and South Italy, and those of thecollective Gaulish dioceses (more than a hundred in number), and theEnglish bishops also, gathered around him, and laid the Pope electedby the Emperor under the anathema. It was inevitable that the idea ofthe Church, as independent of the temporal power, should here find itsstrongest expression. Some canons were passed which prohibited theusurpation of ecclesiastical property by the laity, and made it acrime 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 thecommon feeling of one's own order, when moderation already appears tobe apostasy? He returned to England filled with the ideas ofhierarchic independence; in preparing to carry it through, henecessarily brought on the conflict which had hitherto been avoided. 

The Plantagenet King, whose whole heart was in the work of securingthe obedience of the manifold provinces that had fallen to his lot;who hastened ceaselessly from one to the other (when people thoughthim far away in South France, he had already recrossed the sea toEngland), ever occupied in extending his inherited power byinstitutions of a legal and administrative nature, was not inclined togive way to the Church in this attempt. He would neither make theelection of the higher clergy free, nor allow their excommunication tobe valid without State control; he not only maintained the right ofthe lay courts to try ecclesiastics for heinous offences, which elseoften remained unpunished; but, even in the sphere of spiritualjurisdiction, he claimed to hear appeals in the last instance withoutregard to the Pope. In all this the lay and spiritual nobility agreedwith him; in a Council at Clarendon they framed 'constitutions, ' inwhich they declared these rules to be the law of the realm, as it hadalways been observed, and ought to be observed henceforth. [24]

Becket did not possess the inflexible obstinacy which distinguishesmost of the champions of the hierarchy. As the accordant voice ofEurope moved him to take up the hierarchic principles, so now theaccordant voice of his country's rulers made an impression on him: helistened to the ecclesiastics who entreated him not to draw the King'sdispleasure on them, and to the laymen, who prayed him not to bring onthem the necessity of executing it on the ecclesiastics: he virtuallyaccepted the Constitutions of Clarendon. But then again he could notprevail on himself to observe them. Only when his vacillationendangered him personally, so that he could expect nothing else tofollow but a condemnation by a new assembly of the royal court, did hecome to a decision. Then he took the hierarchic side resolutely; incontradiction to the Constitutions, he appealed to the Pope. It is aremarkable day in English history, that 14th October 1164, on whichThomas Becket, after reading mass, appeared before the court withouthis archiepiscopal dress, but cross in hand. He forbade the earl, whowished to announce the judgment to him, to speak, since no layman hadpower to sit in judgment on his spiritual father;[25] he again puthimself under the protection of God and the Roman Church, and thenpassed from the court, no man venturing to lay hands on him, stillarmed with his cross, to a church close by, from whence he escaped tothe Continent. By this he brought into England the war of the twopowers, which had already burst into flame in Italy and Germany. Thearchbishop and primate rejected the supreme judicial authority of theCuria Regis; only in the chief pontiff at Rome did he recognise hisrightful judge: by undertaking to bring into full view the completeindependence of the spiritual principle on this ground also, he brokedown that unity of authority, which had, been hitherto maintained inthe English realm, and entered into open war with his King. 

Henry II was, like most of the sovereigns of that age, above allthings a warrior; you could see by his stride that he spent his dayson horseback; and he was an indefatigable hunter. But yet he foundtime besides for study; he took pleasure in solving, in the company ofscholars, the difficulties of the theologico-philosophical problemswhich then largely occupied men's minds; there is no doubt that healso fully understood these politico-ecclesiastical questions. He wasby 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 moresevere in success, milder in adversity. If contradicted, he showed allthe excitability of the Southern French nature; he passed frompromises to threats, from flatteries to outbursts of wrath, until hemet with compliance. His administration at home witnesses to a nobleconception of his mission and to a practical understanding; from hislion-like visage shone forth a pair of quiet eyes, but how suddenlydid they flame up with wild fire, if the passion was roused thatslumbered in the depths of his soul! It was the passion of unlimitedpower; an ambition for which, as he once said, the world appeared tobe too small. He never forgave an opponent; he never reconciledhimself 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 ambassadorstook part in a German diet at which the most extreme steps wereapproved of. But Henry was not sufficiently master of his clergy nor, above all, of his people for this; the solemn curse of Thomas Becketwrought on men from far away. Was there really any foundation for whatmen then said, that the King thought it better that his foe should bein the country rather than out of it? An apparent reconciliation wasbrought about, which, however, left the main questions undecided, eachside only consenting generally to a peace with the other. Becket didnot allow himself to be hindered by it, on his return to England, fromexcommunicating leading ecclesiastics who had supported the King'sparty. But at this Henry's deep-seated wrath awoke. Beset by theexiles with cries for protection, he let the complaint escape him inthe presence of his knights, that among so many to whom he had shownfavour there was not one who had courage enough to avenge the insultsoffered to him. [27] As opposed to the Church sympathies which throughthe clergy wrought on all people, the temporal state was mainly kepttogether by the reciprocal relations of the feudal lord and sovereignto his vassals and knights, and of them to him: to spiritual reverencewas opposed personal devotion. But these feelings, too, as they havetheir justification, so they have their moral limitations; they are ascapable of exaggeration and excess as all others. Enflamed by theKing's words which seemed to touch the honour of knighthood, four ofhis knights hastened to Canterbury, and sought out the man, who daredto bid the King defiance in his own kingdom; as Becket refused torecall the excommunication, they murdered him horribly in thecathedral. When required to obey the King, Becket was wont to reservethe rights of the Church and the priesthood; for this reservation hedied. 

Henry II by calling forth, intentionally or not, this brutal act ofviolence in the ecclesiastical strife, drew on himself the catastropheof his life. 

By Becket's murder the ideas of Church independence gained what wasyet wanting to them, a martyr: his death was more advantageous to themthan his life could ever have been. The belief that the victim wroughtmiracles, which were ascribed to him in increasing measure, at firstslight, then more and more surprising ones, viz. Cures of incurablediseases, --who does not know the resistless nature of this illusion, bound up as it is with the nearest needs of man in every form?--madehim the idol of England. Henry II had to live to see the man who hadrefused him the old accustomed obedience, reverenced among his peoplewith almost divine honours as one of the greatest saints that had everlived. The great Hohenstaufen in the unsuccessful struggle with thePapacy was at last brought to declare that all he had hitherto donerested on an error; and in like manner, but one far more humiliatingand painful, Henry II had to do penance, and receive the discipline ofthe scourge, at the tomb of the man who had been murdered by his loyalsubjects. On a hasty glance it seems as though his Constitutions wereestablished, but a more accurate inquiry shows that the articles whichdispleased the Pope were left out. The hierarchic ideas gained the dayin England also. 

It was precisely the Church quarrel that fed the discords which brokeout in the King's own house. His eldest son found a pretence for hisrevolt, and essentially promoted it, by alleging that the murderers ofthe glorious martyr were unpunished; he on his side promised theclergy to make good all existing injuries, since what belonged to theChurch should not serve man's ostentation. The example of the elderwrought on the younger sons too, who, to withstand their father, recognised the supremacy of the King of France. Henry's last yearswere filled with depression, and even with despair; when dying he wasbelieved to have bequeathed his curse to his children. In thecloisters his death was ascribed to the intercession and merits of S. Thomas. 

For with the acceptance of the hierarchic ideas the prestige of theirmartyr grew day by day. In the crusade of 1189 men saw him appear indreams, and declare that he was appointed to protect the fleet, tocalm the storms. 

It was under these auspices that the chivalry of the Plantagenet realmtook part in the Third Crusade: King Richard (in whom the ideas ofChurch and Chivalry attained their highest splendour) at their headgave back to the already lost kingdom of Jerusalem, in despite of avery powerful foe, a certain amount of stability: as he served thehierarchic views with all his power, there was no question under himas to any dispute between Church and State. But this power itselfcould not be increased owing to his absence. Whilst he fought for theChurch far away, elements of resistance were stirring in his realmwhich had been there long ago, and soon after his death came to themost violent outbreak. 

_John Lackland and Magna Charta. _

Despite all the community of interests between the sovereigns of theConquest and their vassals, grounds of hostility between them hadnever been altogether wanting. The Conqueror's sons had to makeconcessions to the great lords, because their succession was notsecure; they needed a voluntary recognition, the price of whichconsisted in a relaxation of the harsh laws with which the monarchyhad at first fettered every department of life. But when the greatnobles had managed, or decided, contests for the throne, Were theylikely to feel bound unconditionally to obey the man whom they hadraised? Besides Henry II in his ecclesiastical quarrel needed theconsent of his vassals; his court-Assemblies were no longer confinedto proclamations of ordinances from the one side only; consultationswere held, leading to decisions that concerned them all. 

But what is now surprising is the fact, that even the associates inthe Conquest, and much more their descendants, claimed the rightswhich the Anglo-Saxon magnates had once possessed. They, too, appealedincessantly to the _Laga_, the laws of Edward the Confessor, by whichwas meant the collection of old legal customs, the observation ofwhich had been promised from the first. Following the precedent oftheir kings, the families that had risen through the Conquest regardedthemselves as the heirs of the fallen Anglo-Saxon chiefs, into whoseplace they had stepped. The rights of the old Witan and of the vassalsof the new feudal state became fused together. 

We must now lay greater weight than is commonly done on the incidentsthat occurred during King Richard's absence. He had entrusted theadministration of the realm to a man of low origin, William, bishop ofEly, who carried it on with great energy, and not without the pomp andsplendour, which grace authority, but arouse jealousy. Hence lay andspiritual chiefs combined against him: with Earl John, the brother ofthe absent King, at their head, they banished the hated bishop by thestrong hand, and of their own authority set another in his place. Thecity of London, which had been already allowed the election of its ownmagistrates by Henry II, had then formed a so-called _Communia_ afterthe pattern of the Flemish and North French towns; bishops, earls, andbarons, swore to support the city in it. [28]

These first attempts at an opposition by the estates obtained freshweight when on Richard's death a contest again arose about thesuccession. Earl John claimed it for himself, but Arthur, an elderbrother's son, seemed to have a better right, and had been moreoverrecognised at once in the South French provinces. The English noblesfortified their castles, and for some time assumed an almostthreatening position; they only acknowledged John on the assurancethat each and all should have their rights. [29] John's possession ofthe 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; eventsnow happened that roused it into full life. 

King John incurred the suspicion of having murdered Arthur, who hadfallen into his hands, to rid himself of his claims; he was accused ofit by the peers of France, and pronounced guilty; on which thePlantagenet provinces which were fiefs of the French crown went overto the King of France at the first attack. The English nobility wouldat least not fight for a sovereign on whom such a heinous suspicionlay: on another pretence it abandoned him. 

But then broke out a new quarrel with the Church. The most powerfulpontiff that ever sat in the Roman See, Innocent III, thought good todecide a disputed election at Canterbury by passing over bothcandidates, including the King's, and caused the election of, orrather himself named, one of his friends from the great school atParis, Stephen Langton. As King John did not acknowledge him, Innocentlaid England under an Interdict. 

Alike careless and cruel, naturally hasty and untrustworthy, ofdoubtful birthright, and now rejected by the Church, John must haverather expected resistance than support from the great men of therealm. He tried to assure himself of those he suspected by takinghostages from their families; he confiscated the property of theecclesiastics who complied with the Pope's orders, and took it underhis own management; he employed every means which the still unlimitedextent of the supreme authority allowed, to obtain money and men;powerfully and successfully he used the sword. But in the long run hecould not maintain himself by these means. When a revolt broke out inWales at the open instigation of the Pope, and the King's vassals weresummoned to put it down, even among them a general discontent wasperceptible; John had reason to dread that if he came near the enemywith such an army he might be delivered into their hands or killed: hedid not venture to carry out the campaign. And meanwhile he sawhimself threatened from abroad also. King Philip Augustus of Francearmed, to attack his old opponent at home (whom he had already drivenfrom 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 andseals, promising that they would join him. He would have restored allthe fugitives and exiles; the Church element would have raised itselfall the more strongly, in proportion to its previous depression; ageneral revolt would have accompanied his attack, the Englishgovernment according to all appearance would have been lost. 

King John knew this well: to avoid immediate ruin he seized on a meansof escape which was completely unexpected, but quite decisive--he gaveover his kingdom in vassalage to the Pope. 

What William I had so expressly rejected was now accepted in a momentof extreme pressure, from which such a step was the only means ofescape. The moment the Pope was recognised as feudal lord of England, not only must his hostility cease, but he would be bound to take therealm under his protection. He now forbade the King of France, whom hehad before urged on to its conquest, to carry out the invasion, whichwas already prepared. 

It appears as if the barons had originally agreed with the King'sproceeding, although they did not entirely approve its form. Theymaintained that they had risen up for the Church's rights, [30] and sawin the Pope a natural ally. They thought to gain their own purpose allthe more surely now that Stephen Langton received the see ofCanterbury, a man who, while he represented the Papal authority, at thesame time zealously made their interests his own. At the very momentwhen the archbishop absolved the King from the excommunication, he madehim swear that he would restore the good laws, especially those of KingEdward, and would do all according to the legal decisions of hiscourts. It may be regarded as the first time that a Norman-Plantagenetking's administration was acted on by an obligatory engagement, whenKing John, on the point of taking the field against some barons whom heregarded as rebels, was hindered by the archbishop who reminded himthat he would thus be breaking his last oath, which bound him to takejudicial proceedings. The tradition that a forgotten charter of Henry Iwas produced by the archbishop (who was certainly, as his writingsshow, a scholar of research), and recognised as a legal document whichgave them a firm footing, may admit of some doubt; there is no doubtthat it was Stephen Langton who gathered around him the great noblesand bound them by a mutual engagement, to defend, even at the risk oflife, the old liberties and rights which they derived from Anglo-Saxontimes. 

It was, in fact, of considerable importance that the primate, on whoseco-operation with the King the Norman state originally rested, unitedhimself in this matter as closely as possible with the nobles; amongall alike, without regard to their origin, whether from France or fromEngland, had arisen the wish to limit the crown, as it had beenlimited in the Anglo-Saxon period. 

Here, however, they had to discover that the Pope was minded toprotect the King, his vassal, not only against attacks from abroad, but also against movements at home. The engagements which the baronshad formed, when he released them from their oath of fidelity to theKing, he now declared to be invalid and void. The legate in Englandreported unfavourably on their proceedings, and it was seen that hewas intimately allied with the King. The war was still raging on thecontinent, and the King had been again defeated, at Bouvines, July 27, 1214; he had returned disheartened, but not without bodies ofmercenaries, both horse and foot, which excited anxiety in the alliednobles. This feeling was strengthened by the fact that, after thedeath of a chancellor connected with them by family, and on good termswith them, he raised a foreigner, Peter des Roches, to that dignity, and it was believed that this foreigner would lend a hand to anyattempt at restoring the previous state of things. Acts of violence ofthe old sort, and the King's lusts, which brought dishonour into theirfamilies, added to their indignation. In short, the barons, far frombreaking up their alliance, confirmed it with new oaths. While theypressed 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 dueto them for their services in the cause of the Church. As lord ofEngland, for they did not hesitate to designate him as such, he mightadmonish King John, and, if necessary, force him to restore unimpairedthe old rights guaranteed them by the charters of earlier Kings. [31]

But not so did Innocent understand his right of supreme lordship inEngland; he did not side with those who had helped to win the victoryfor him over the King, but with the King himself, to whose suddendecision he owed its fruits--the acknowledgment of his feudalsuperiority. He blamed the archbishop for concealing the movements ofthe barons from him, and for having, perhaps, even encouraged them, though knowing their pernicious nature: with what view was he stirringquestions of which no mention had been made either under the King'sfather or brother? He censured the barons for refusing the scutage, which had been paid from old times, and for their threat of proceedingsword in hand. He repeated his command to them to break up theirconfederacy, under threat of excommunication. 

As one step lower the primate and nobles, so in the highest sphereInnocent and John were in alliance. The Papacy, then in possession ofsupremacy over the world, made common cause with royalty. Would notthe 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 thePope, or else an absolute reference of the whole matter to him, whothen by his apostolic power could settle what was right and lawful. They could not possibly accept either the one or the other, after theknown declarations of the Pope. As they persevered in their hostileattitude, the King called on the archbishop to carry out theinstructions of a Papal brief, and pronounce the baronsexcommunicated. Stephen Langton answered that he knew better what wasthe true intention of the holy father. The Pope's name this timeremained quite powerless. Rather it was preached in London that thehighest spiritual power should not encroach on temporal affairs;Peter, in the significant phrase of the time, could not be Constantineas well. [33] Only among the lower citizens was there a partyfavourable to the King, but they were put down at a blow by the greatbarons and the rich citizens. The capital threw its whole weight onthe side of the barons. They rose in arms and formally renounced theirallegiance to the King; they proclaimed war against him under the nameof 'the army of God. ' Thus confronted by the whole kingdom, in whichthere appeared to be only one opinion, the King had no means ofresistance remaining, no choice left. 

He came down--15th June, 1215--from Windsor to the meadow atRunnymede, where the barons lay encamped, and signed the articles laidbefore him, happy enough in getting some of them softened. The GreatCharter came into being, truly the 'Magna Charta, ' which throws notmerely all earlier, but also the later charters into the shade. 

It is a document which, more than any other, links together thedifferent epochs of English history. With a renewal of the earliestmaxims of German personal freedom it combines a settlement of therights of the feudal Estates: on this twofold basis has the proudedifice of the English constitution been erected. Before all thingsthe lay nobles sought to secure themselves against the misuse of theKing's authority in his feudal capacity, and as bound up with thesupreme jurisdiction; but the rights of the Church and of the townswere also guaranteed. It was especially by forced collections ofextraordinary aids that King John had harassed his Estates: since theycould no longer put up with this, and yet the crown could not dispensewith extraordinary resources, a solution was found by requiring thatsuch aids should not be levied except with the consent of the GreatCouncil, which consisted of the lords spiritual and temporal. Theytried to set limits to the arbitrary imprisonments that had beenhitherto the order of the day, by definite reference to the law of theland and the verdict of sworn men. But these are just the weightiestpoints on which personal freedom and security of property rest; andhow to combine them with a strong government forms the leading problemfor all national constitutions. 

Two other points in this document deserve notice. In other countriesalso at this epoch emperors and kings made very comprehensiveconcessions to the several Estates: the distinctive point in the caseof England is, that they were not made to each Estate separately, butto all at the same time. While elsewhere each Estate was caring foritself, here a common interest of all grew up, which bound themtogether for ever. Further, the Charter was introduced in consciousopposition to the supreme spiritual power also; the principles whichlay at the very root of popular freedom breathed an anti-Romishspirit. 

Yet it was far from possible to regard them as being fullyestablished. There were also conditions contained in the Charter, bywhich the legal and indispensable powers of the King's government wereimpaired: the barons even formed a controlling power as against theKing. It could not be expected that King John, or any of hissuccessors, would let this pass quietly. And besides, was not the Popeable to do away with the obligation of which he disapproved? We stillpossess the first draft of the Charter, which presents considerablevariations from the document in its final form, among others thefollowing. According to the draft the King was to give an assurancethat he would never obtain from the Pope a revocation of thearrangements agreed on; the archbishop, the bishops, and the Papalplenipotentiary, Master Pandulph, were to guarantee this assurance. Wesee to what quarter the anxieties of the nobles pointed, how theywished above all to obtain security against the influences of thePapal See. Yet this they were not able to obtain. There was no mentionin the document either of the bishops or of Master Pandulph; the Kingpromised 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 donein this respect. Innocent III was not the man to accept quietly whathad taken place against his declared will, or to yield to accomplishedfacts. On the authority of the words 'I have set thee over the nationsand over the kingdoms, ' which seemed to him a sufficient basis for hisParamount Right, he gave sentence rejecting the whole contents of theCharter; he suspended Stephen Langton, excommunicated the barons andthe citizens of London, as the true authors of this perverse act, andforbade the King under pain of excommunication to observe the Charterwhich he had put forth. 

And even without this King John had already armed, to annul by forceof arms all that he had promised. A war broke out which took a turnespecially dangerous to the kingdom, because the barons called theheir of France to the English throne and did him homage. So littlewere the feelings of nationality yet developed, that the barons foughtout the war against their King, supported by the presence and militaryPower of a foreign prince. For the interests of the English crown itwas perhaps an advantage that King John died in the midst of thetroubles, and his rights passed to his son Henry, a child to whom hisfather's iniquity could not be imputed. [35] In his name a royalistparty was formed by the joint action of Pembroke, the Marshal of thekingdom and the Papal Legate, which at last won such advantages in thefield, that the French prince was induced to surrender his claim, which he himself hardly held to be a good one--the English weredesignated as traitors by his retinue, --and give back to the baronsthe homage they had pledged him. But he did so only on the conditionthat not merely their possessions, but also the lawful customs andliberties of the realm should be secured to them. [36] At a meetingbetween Henry III and the French prince at Merton in Surrey, it wasagreed to give Magna Charta a form, in which it was deemed compatiblewith the monarchy. In this shape the article on personal freedomoccurs; on the other hand everything is left out that could imply apower of control to be exercised against the King; the need of a grantbefore levying scutage is also no longer mentioned. The baronsabandoned for the time their chief claims. 

It is, properly speaking, this charter which was renewed in the ninthyear of Henry III as Magna Charta, and was afterwards repeatedlyconfirmed. As we see, it did not include the right of approving taxesby a vote. 

Whether men's union in a State in general depends on an originalcontract, is a question for political theorists, and to them we leaveits solution. On the other hand, however, it might well be maintainedthat the English constitution, as it gradually shaped itself, assumedthe character of a contract. So much is already involved in the firstpromises which William the Conqueror made at his entry into London andin his agreement with the partisans of Harold. The same is true of theassurances given by his sons, especially the second one: they were theprice of a very definite equivalent. More than any that had gonebefore however does Magna Charta bear this character. The barons putforward their demands: King John negociates about them, and at lastsees himself forced to accept them. It is true that he soon takesarms to free himself from the obligation he has undertaken. It comesto a struggle, in which, however, neither side decidedly gains theupper hand, and they agree to a compromise. It is true the barons didnot expressly stipulate for the new charter when they submitted toJohn's son (for with John himself they could certainly have never beenreconciled), but yet it is undeniable that without it their submissionwould never have taken place, nor would peace have been concluded. 

As, however, is generally the case, the agreement had in it the germsof 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 doesnot contain a final settlement, by which the sovereign's claims toobedience were reconciled with the security of the vassals; it is lessa contract that has attained to full validity, than the outline of acontract, to fill up which would yet require the struggles ofcenturies. 

NOTES:

[22] He says himself later, 'terror publicae potestatis me intrusit, 'in Gervasius, 497. 

[23] Canones Concilii Turonensis, Article III, 'ut laici ecclesiasticanon usurpent;' and Article I of those previously omitted in Mansi, XXI. 1178 seq. 

[24] Concilium Clarendoniae, 8 Cal. Febr. MCLXIV, Article VIII, deappellationibus. 'Si archiepiscopus defuerit in justitia exhibenda, addominum regem perveniendum est postremo; ita quod non debeat ultraprocedi absque assensu domini regis. ' Wilkins, i. 435. 

[25] Rogeri de Hoveden Annales ed. Savile, 283. 6. 'Prohibeo vobis exparte omnipotentis dei et sub anathemate, ne faciatis hodie de mejudicium, 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 eamcommuniam et dignitatem civitatis Londinensis custodirent. '

[29] Hoveden, p. 450, 'quod redderet unicuique illorum ius suum, siipsi illi fidem servaverint et pacem. '

[30] 'Quod ipsi audacter pro libertate ecclesiae ad mandatum suum seopposuerint, --honores quos ei (Papae) et romanae ecclesiaeexhibuistis, id per eos coactus fecistis. '--Mauclerc, literae adlegem, in Rymer, Foedera, i. 

[31] Mauclerc, literae de negotio Baronum, in Rymer, Foedera, i. 185:'Magnates Angliae--instanter domino Papae supplicant, quod cum ipsesit dominus Angliae vos--compellat, antiquas libertates suas--eisillaesas conservare. '

[32] Literae Johannis regis, quibus quae sit baronum contumacianarrat. Apud Odiham, 29 die Maii. 

[33] In Matthew Paris: 'Quod non pertinet ad papam ordinatio rerumlaicarum. '

[34] Articuli magnae cartae libertatum, § 49. Magna carta regisJohannis. In Blackstone, the Great Charter, 9, 23. 

[35] Matthew Paris. 'Nobiles universi et castellani ei multo faciliusadhaeserunt, 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 etlibertates regni Angliae. '

CHAPTER IV. 

FOUNDATION OF THE PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUTION. 

There is a very accurate correspondence in this epoch also between thegeneral history of the Western world and events in England: these lastform but a part of the great victory of the hierarchy and its advancein power, which marks the first half of the 13th century. By combiningwith the vassals the Popes had overcome the monarchy, and had then inturn overcome the vassals by combining with the monarchy and itsendangered rights. It must not be regarded as a mere title, an emptyword, if the Pope was acknowledged to be feudal Lord of England: hislegates, Gualo, Pandulph, Otho, and with them some native prelates, devoted to him (above all that Peter des Roches, who, by his conductwhen Bishop of Winchester, through the mistrust awakened, incurredalmost the chief responsibility of the earlier troubles), spoke thedecisive word in the affairs of the kingdom and crushed theiropponents. It was reported that Innocent IV was heard to say, 'Is notthe King of England my vassal, my servant? At my nod he will imprisonand punish. '[37] Under this influence the best benefices in thekingdom were given away without regard to the freedom of election orthe rights of patrons, and in fact mostly to foreigners. The Pope'sexchequer drew its richest revenues from England; there was no end tothe exactions of its subordinate agents, Master Martin, Master Marin, Peter Rubeo, and all the rest of them. Even the King surroundedhimself with foreigners. To his own relations and to the relations ofhis Provençal wife fell the most profitable places, and the advantagesarising from his paramount feudal rights; they too exercised muchinfluence on public affairs, and that in the interests of the Papalpower, with which they were allied. Riotous movements occasionallytook place against this system, but they were suppressed: men sufferedin silence as long as it was only the exercise of rights onceacknowledged. But now it happened that the Popes in their war with thelast of the Hohenstaufen, whom they had resolved to destroy, proposedto employ the resources of England and in a very different manner thanbefore. They awoke Henry III's dynastic ambition by promoting theelevation of his brother to be King of the Romans, and destining hisyounger son Edmund for the crown of Naples and Sicily. King Henrypledged himself in return to the heaviest money-payments. It began toappear as if England were no longer a free kingdom, using itsresources for its own objects: the land and all its riches was at theservice of the Pope at Rome; the King was little more than a tool ofthe hierarchy. 

It was at this crisis that the Parliaments of England, if they did notactually begin, yet first attained to a definite form and efficiency. 

The opposition of the country to the ecclesiastico-temporal governmentbecame most conspicuous in the year 1257, when Henry, happy beyondmeasure in his son's being raised to royal rank by the Apostolic See, presented his son to the Great Council of the nation, already wearingthe national costume of Naples, and named the sum, to the payment ofwhich he had pledged himself in return. The Estates at once refusedtheir consent to his accepting the crown, which they considered couldnot be maintained owing to the untrustworthiness of the Italians, andof the Romish See itself, and the distance of the country; themoney-pledge excited loud displeasure. Since they were required toredeem it, they reasonably enough gave it to be understood that theyought to have been consulted first. It was precisely the alliance ofthe Pope and the King that they had long felt most bitterly; they saidtruly, England would by such a joint action be as it were ground todust between two millstones. As, however, despite all remonstrances, the demands were persevered with, --for the King had taken on himselfthe debts incurred by Pope Alexander IV in the Neapolitan war, and thePope had already referred to England the bankers entrusted with thepayments, --a storm of opposition broke out, which led to what wasequivalent to an overthrow of the government. The King had to consentto the appointment of a committee for reforming the realm, to be namedin equal proportions by himself and by the barons; from this, however, was selected a council of fifteen members, in which the King'sopponents had a decisive majority. They put forth Statutes, at Oxford, which virtually stripped the King of his power; he had to swear tothem with a lighted taper in his hand. The Pope without hesitation atonce condemned these ordinances; King Louis IX of France also, who wascalled in as arbiter, decided against them: and some moderate men drewback from them: but among the rest the zeal with which they held tothem was thus only inflamed to greater violence. They had the King intheir power, and felt themselves strong enough to impose their will onhim as law. 

Without doubt they had the opinion of the country on their side. Forthe first time since the Conquest the insular spirit of England, whichwas now shared even by the conquerors themselves, manifested itself ina natural opposition to all foreign influence. The King'shalf-brothers with their numerous dependents were driven out withoutmercy, their castles occupied, their places given to the foremostEnglishmen. The Papal legate Guido, one of the most distinguishedmembers of the Curia, who himself became Pope at a later time, wasforbidden to enter England. Most foreigners, it mattered not of whatstation or nationality, were forced to quit the realm: it went hardwith those who could not speak English. The leader of the barons, Simon de Montfort, was solemnly declared Protector of the kingdom andpeople; he had in particular the lower clergy, the natural leaders ofthe masses, on his side. When he was put under the ban of the Churchhis followers retorted by assuming the badge of the cross, since hiscause appeared to them just and holy. [38]

At this very juncture it was that the attempt was made to form aParliamentary Assembly corresponding to the meaning of that word. 

The Statutes or Provisions of Oxford contain the first attempt toeffect this, by enacting that thrice every year the newly formed royalCouncil should meet together with twelve men elected by the Commonaltyof England, and consult on the affairs of the kingdom. [39] There is nodoubt that these twelve belonged to the nobles and were to representthem: the decisive point lies in the fact that it was not a number ofnobles summoned by the King, but a committee of the Estates chosen bythemselves that was placed by the side of the Council. The Council andthe twelve persons elected formed for some years an association thatunited the executive and legislative powers. 

But this continued only as long as the King acquiesced in it. When hehad the courage to resist, it is true that in the first encounterwhich ensued, he was himself taken prisoner: but his partisans werenot crushed by this; and soon after his wife, who had collected abouther a considerable body of mercenaries, in concert with the Pope andthe King of France, thought herself strong enough to invade England. Simon felt that he needed a greater, in other words, a broader, basisof support. And the design he then conceived has secured him animperishable memory. He summoned first of all representatives of theknights of the shires, and directly afterwards representatives of thetowns and the Cinque Ports, to form a Parliament in conjunction withthe nobles of the realm. This was not an altogether new thing in theEuropean world; we know that in the Cortes of Aragon, as early as the12th century, by the side of the high nobility and the ecclesiasticsthere appeared also the Hidalgos and the deputies of the Commons; andSimon de Montfort might well be aware of this, since his father hadbeen in so many ways connected with Aragon. In England itself underKing John men had come very near it without however carrying itthrough: not till afterwards did the innovation appear a realnecessity. In opposition to the one-sided power exercised by theforeigners, nothing was so much insisted on in daily talk and in thepopular ballads as the propriety of calling the natives of the land tocounsel, since to them its laws were best known. This justifiable wishmet with adequate satisfaction now that the Commons were summoned; thepublic feeling against the foreigners, on which Simon de Montfortnecessarily relied, thus found expression. The assembly which hecalled together doubtless sympathised with his party views. As heinvited only those nobles to it who remained true to him (they werenot more than twenty-three in number), so he appears to have summonedthose only of the towns which adhered to him unconditionally. But thearrangement involved more than was contemplated from his point ofview. 

Amid the storms he had called forth Simon de Montfort perished: theKing was freed, the royal authority re-established. A new Papal legateentered London in the full splendour of his office, Cardinal Ottoboni;Guido having meanwhile himself obtained the tiara, and using everymeans to subdue the unbending spirits, from which danger even to theChurch was dreaded. [40] Yet the old state of things was not restored:neither the rule of foreigners, nor the absolute dependence on thePapal policy. The later government of Henry III has a differentcharacter from the earlier: the legate himself confirmed Magna Chartain the shape finally accepted. It is not merely at the great nationalfestivals that we find representatives of the towns present, whom theKing has summoned; it is beyond a doubt that one of the most importantstatutes of the time was passed with their consent. [41] Yetregulations for the summons of representatives from the towns were aslittle fixed by law as those for voting the taxes. It would by nomeans harmonise with the constitution of Romano-German states, thatorganic institutions should come into full force in mere antagonism tothe highest authority. They must coincide with the interests of thatauthority, as was the case in England under Henry's warlike son EdwardI. 

Without doubt Edward, who once more revived in the East the reputationof the Plantagenet Kings for personal valour, would have preferred tofight there for the interests of Christendom, he even speaks of it inhis will; or else he would have wished to recover from the Frenchcrown the lands which his father had inherited, and which had passedinto French possession; but neither the one nor the other waspossible; another object was assigned to his energy and his ambition, one more befitting an English king: he undertook to unite the wholeisland under his sceptre. 

In Wales, the conquest of which had been so often attempted and sooften failed, there lived at this time Prince Llewellyn, whosepersonal beauty, cunning, and high spirit fitted him to be a brilliantrepresentative of the old British nationality. The bards, reviving theold prophecies, promised him the ancient crown of Brutus; but when heventured out of the mountains, he was overpowered and fell in ahand-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 hishands: he no longer tolerated the bards: their age passed away withthe Crusades. 

From Wales Edward turned his arms against Scotland. There Columban hadin former days anointed as king a Scottish prince, who was also ofKeltic descent; how the German element nevertheless got the upper handnot merely in the greatest part of the country, but also in the rulingfamily, is the great problem of early Scottish history: a thoroughlyGermanic monarchy had arisen, but one which after it had once given ahome to the Anglo-Saxons who fled before the Normans, thought itshonour concerned in repelling all English influences. A disputedsuccession gave Edward I an opportunity of reviving the claims of hispredecessors to the overlordship of Scotland: he gave the Scotch aking, whom the Scotch rejected simply because he was the EnglishKing's nominee. The war, which sometimes seemed ended--there weretimes at which Edward could regard himself as the Lord of allAlbion, --ever blazed out again; above all, the support the Scotchreceived from the King of France brought about complications whichfilled all Western Europe with trouble and war; but it was in the homepolitics of England that their effect was destined to be greatest. 

Compelled to make incessant efforts, which exhausted the resources ofthe crown, Edward appealed to the voluntary assistance of hissubjects. He laid down to them the principle, that their common perilsshould be met with their united strength, that what concerns all mustalso be borne by all. In the war against Wales he had gatheredtogether the representatives of the counties and the towns, to hearhis demands and to act accordingly; chiefly to vote him subsidies. After the victory he had called an assembly of nobles, knights, andtowns, to take counsel with them about the treatment of the captivesand the country. Similarly he drew together the representatives of thetowns in order to decide the affairs of Scotland. With especialemphasis did he call for their united help against Philip the Fair ofFrance, who thought to destroy the English tongue from off the earth:knights and towns were pledged to help in carrying out the resolutionsthus adopted by common consent. 

In spite of all this appealing to free participation in publicmatters, Edward I did not refrain from the arbitrary imposition oftaxes, and those the most oppressive: the eighth, even the fifth partof men's income. For the campaign in Flanders he summoned theunder-tenants as well as the tenants in chief. We find instances ofarbitrary seizure of whatever was necessary for the war. 

King Edward excused this by his maxim that the interests of the landmust be defended with the resources of the land, [42] but we canconceive how, on the boundary line between two different systems, acts of violence, which combined the arbitrariness of the one with theprinciples of the other, caused a general agitation. In the year 1297the spiritual lords under their archbishop, as well as the temporalones (who denied the obligation to serve beyond the sea) under theConstable and Marshal, set themselves energetically to oppose theKing. The people, which had the most to suffer from the arbitraryexactions, took their side with cordial approval. They set forth allthe grievances of the country, and insisted on their immediate andfinal redress. 

To avoid the pressure, the King had already quitted England, to carryon his campaign in Flanders: the demand was laid before theCouncillors whom he had left behind as assessors to his son, who wasnamed Regent. They however were in great perplexity, partly from thetrouble of this agitation itself, but mainly from the revolt inScotland which had broken out in a formidable manner. William Walays, like one of those Heyduck chiefs who rise in Turkey against theestablished order of things, the right of which they do not recognise, had come down from the hill country, at the head of the fugitives andexiles, a robber-patriot, of gigantic bodily strength and innatetalent for war. His successes soon increased his band to the size ofan army; he beat the English in a pitched battle, and then swept overthe borders into the English territory. If the royal commissionerswould oppose a strong resistance to this inroad, they must needsratify a provisional concession of the demands brought forward. TheKing, who had meanwhile reached Flanders, which the French had enteredfrom two sides, could not possibly yield to the Scottishmovement--whether he wished to carry on the war or make a truce:nothing therefore remained to him but to confirm the concessions madeby his councillors. 

It is not absolutely certain how far these had gone; one word ofdiscussion may be allowed on the matter. 

The historians of the time have maintained that the right of votingthe taxes was granted to the Estates, and in fact conjointly to thenobles whether spiritual or temporal, and the representatives of thecounties and towns: the copy of a statute is extant, in which this isvery expressly stated. [43] But since the statute does not exist in anauthentic shape, and is not to be found in the Rolls of the Realm, wecannot safely base any conclusion on it. As to the date too at whichit may have been passed, our statements waver between thetwenty-eighth and the thirty-fourth year of Edward. On the other handwe find in the collection of charters an undoubted charter ofconfirmation given at Ghent and dated 5 November 1297, in which notmerely are the Great Charter of Henry III and the Forest Charterconfirmed, but also some new arrangements of much importanceguaranteed, and confirmed by ecclesiastico-judicial regulations. [44]According to it the grants of taxes and contributions which had beenhitherto made to the King for his wars were not to be regarded asbinding for the future. He reserves only the old customary taxes: tothe higher clergy, the nobility, and the commons of the land theassurance is given, that under no circumstances, however pressing, should any tax or contribution or requisition--not even the exportduty on wool--be levied except by their common consent and for theinterests of all. [45] In the Latin text all sounds more open and lessreserved: but even the words of the authentic document include a veryessential limitation of the prerogative of the crown, which hithertohad alone exercised the right of estimating what the state needed andof fixing the payments by this standard. The King was averse at heartto the limitation even in this form. When he came back from Flandersafter concluding a truce with France, and army and people were mettogether at York, to carry out a great campaign against Scotland, hewas pressed to confirm on English soil the concessions which he hadgranted on foreign ground. [46] He held it advisable that the campaignshould be first carried through; four of his confidential friendsswore in his stead (since an oath in person was thought unbecoming tothe King), that, the campaign ended, the confirmation should not bewanting. The enterprise was most successful, it led to a great victoryover the Scots, and it was the leaders of the English aristocracy whodid the best service there; nevertheless, when they met together nextLent (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 convincedthat he could not, under this condition, reckon on further support inthe war which still continued, he at last submitted to what wasunavoidable, and allowed his clause to drop. [47]

I do not know whether I am mistaken in ascribing to these concessionsa different character from that of the earlier ones. It was not asovereign defeated and reduced to the deepest humiliation who madethem, nor did the barons obtain articles which aimed at securing theirown direct supremacy: the concessions were the result of the war, which could not be carried on with the existing means. When Edward Ilaid stress on the necessity of greater common efforts, thecounter-demand which was made on him, and to which he yielded, merelyimplied that a common resolution should be previously come to. Hisconcessions included a return for service already done, and acondition for future service. It did not abase the royal authority; itbrought into clear view the unity of interests between the crown andthe nation. 

Another great crisis united them for the second time. As Edward ledthe forces of England year by year across the Tweed, to compel theScots to acknowledge his overlordship by the edge of the sword, thePope who assumed himself to be the Suzerain of the kingdoms of theworld, Boniface VIII, met him with the assertion that Scotlandbelonged to the Church of Rome, the King therefore was violating therights of that Church by his invasions. To confront the Pope, KingEdward thought it best, as did Philip the Fair of France about thesame time, to call in his Estates to his aid, since without them noanswer to the claim was possible. The Estates then in a long letternot merely maintain the right of the English crown, but also rejectthe Pope's claim to decide respecting it as arbiter, as incompatiblewith the royal dignity: even if the King wished it, yet they wouldnever lend a hand to anything so unseemly and so unheard of. [48] TheKing, without regard to the Pope, continued his campaigns againstScotland with unabated energy. 

It marks the character of Edward I that he nevertheless did not breakwith the Papacy on this account; so too he still raised taxes that hadnot been voted, and held Parliaments in the old form: whenrepresentatives of the counties and towns were summoned it is notalways clear whether they were elected or named. [49] Edward I couldnot free himself from the habits of arbitrary rule and the old ideasconnected with them. But with all this it is still undeniable thatunder him the monarchy took a far more national position than before;it no longer stood in a hostile attitude as against the community ofthe land, but belonged to it. 

And his successors soon saw themselves forced to complete stillfurther the foundations of a new state of things, which had been thuslaid. 

Under Edward II the old ambition of the barons to take a preponderantpart in the government reappeared once more with the greatestviolence. The occasion was afforded by the weakness of this sovereign, who allowed his favourite, the Gascon Gaveston, a disastrous influenceon affairs. Discontented with this, the King's nearest cousin, Thomasof Lancaster, placed himself at the head of the great nobles, asindeed he was believed to have sworn to his father in law (whose richpossessions passed to him, and who feared a return of the foreigninfluences), that he would adhere to the interest of the barons, whichwas also that of the country. In the fourth year of his governmentEdward was obliged to accept all the regulations made by a Committeeof 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: theofficers of the crown were to be responsible to them. Gaveston had topay for his short possession of influence by death without mercy. 

It was long before the King found men who had the courage to defendthe lawful authority of the crown. At last the two Hugh Despencersundertook it: under their leadership the barons were defeated, andThomas of Lancaster in his turn paid for his enterprises with hislife. For in England, if anywhere, the assumption of power ledinevitably to the scaffold. 

It is hardly needful to say that the regulations of the Ordainers werenow revoked. But must not some means be also thought of, to preventsimilar acts of violence for the future? It was deemed necessary todeclare even the form, under cover of which they had been ratified, invalid for all time. And so an enactment was now made, in which thefirst definite idea of the Parliamentary Monarchy becomes visible. Itwas declared that never for the future should any ordinance affectingthe King's power and proceeding from his subjects be valid, but onlythat should be law which was discussed, agreed on, and enacted inParliament by the King with the consent of the prelates, the earls andbarons, and the commonalty of the realm. [50] For it was above allthings necessary to withdraw the legislative authority for ever fromthe turbulent grandees. The monarchy opposed to them its alliance withthe commonalty of the realm, as it was expressed by therepresentatives of the knights and the commons. Among the founders ofthe English constitution these Hugh Despencers, through whom thelegislative power was first transferred to the united body of KingLords 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 whomeven his wife was allied: he had to think it a piece of good fortunethat, on the ground of his own abdication, his son was acknowledged ashis successor. The latter however could only obtain real possession ofthe royal power by overthrowing the faction to which his father hadsuccumbed. While he restored the memory of the two Despencers, who hadbeen condemned and executed by the barons, he also decided to carry ona Parliamentary government; it is the first that existed in England. 

For the general course of the development it is significant that therights of Parliament in relation to the voting of taxes, and now alsoto legislation as a whole, were acknowledged before an appropriateform was found for its consultations. In the first years of Edward IIIits four constituent parts, prelates, barons, knights, and towndeputies, held their debates in four different assemblies; butgradually the two first were fused into an Upper, the two last into aSecond House, without any definite law being laid down to that effect:the nature of things led to the custom, the custom in course of timebecame law. 

That which had been already preparing under the first Edward cameunder the third for the first time into complete operation, viz. Theparticipation of the Estates in the management of foreign affairs andof war. 

In the year 1333 the Parliament advised the King to break the peacewith Scotland, which the barons had concluded of their own authorityaccording to their own views, not to put up with any more outrages, and not merely to take back the lost border-fortress of Berwick, butto force the Scots to acknowledge the supremacy of England. 

In the year 1337 and afterwards the Parliament more than once approvedthe King's plan of asserting the claim he had through his mother onthe French throne by force of arms and through alliances with foreignprinces, [51] and promised to support him in it with their lives andproperties; it was all the more ready for this, as France had beenrepeatedly threatening England with a new Conquest. In the year 1344the Peers, each in his own name, called on the King to cross the seaand not let himself be hindered by any one, not even by the Pope, fromappealing to the judgment of God by battle. The clergy imposed onthemselves a three-years' tenth, the counties a fifteenth, the townstwo tenths; the great nobles followed him in person with their squiresand horsemen, without even alluding to their old remonstrances. Sothat splendid army made its appearance in France, in which the weaponsof the yeomen vied with those of the knights, and which, thankschiefly to the former, won the victory of Cressy. Whilst the King madeconquests over the French, his heroic Queen repelled the Scotch. Inthese 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 ofits own in the world and to the consciousness of it. The King ofScotland at that time, and the King of France some years later, becameprisoners in England. 

A period followed in which England seemed to have obtained thesupremacy in Western Europe. The Scots purchased their King's freedomby a truce which bound them to long and heavy payments, for whichhostages were given as a security. A peace was made with the French bywhich Guienne, Gascony, Poitou, and such important towns as Rochelleand Calais were surrendered to the English. The Prince of Wales, whotook up his residence at Bordeaux, mixed in the Spanish quarrels withthe view of uniting Biscay to his territories in South France. As theresult of these circumstances and of the well-calculated encouragementof Edward III, we find that English commerce prospered immensely and, in emulous alliance with that of Flanders, began to form another greatcentre for the general commerce of the world. It was still chiefly inthe hands of foreigners, but the English made great profits by it. Their riches gained them almost as much prestige in the world as theirbravery. [52] The more money-resources the towns possessed, and themore they could and did support the King, the greater became theirinfluence on the affairs of the realm. No language could be morehumble than that of these 'poor and simple Commons, ' when they addressthemselves to 'their glorious and thrice gracious King and lord. '[53]But for all that their representations are exceedingly comprehensiveand pressing; their grants are not to take effect, unless theirgrievances are redressed; they never leave out of sight the interestsof their staple; they assail the exactions of the officials or theclergy with great zeal. The regard paid to them gives the wholegovernment a popular character. 

On an attempt of the King to exercise the legislative power in hisgreat council, they remonstrated; they had no objection to theordinances themselves, but insisted that valid statutes could onlyproceed 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 Popeswere natural opponents of Edward III's claims and enterprises; theysometimes thought of directing the censures of the Church against him. On the other hand, the complaints in England against the encroachmentsand pecuniary demands of the Curia were louder than ever, withouthowever coming to a rupture on these points. But at last Urban Vrenewed the old claim to the vassalage of England; he demanded thefeudal tribute first paid by King John, and threatened King andkingdom, in case they were not willing to pay it, with judicialproceedings. [54] We know the earlier kings had seen in the connexionwith Rome a last resource against the demands of the Estates: on theKing's side it required some resolution to renounce it. But the verynature of the Parliamentary government, as Edward III had settled it, involved a disregard of these considerations for the future. It wasbefore the Parliament itself that he laid the Papal demands for theirconsent and counsel. The Estates consulted separately: first thespiritual and lay lords framed their resolution, then the towndeputies assented to it. The answer they gave the Pope was that KingJohn's submission was destitute of all validity, since it was againsthis coronation-oath, and was made without the consent of the Estates;should the Pope try to enforce satisfaction of his demand by legalprocess or in any other manner, they would all--dukes earls barons andcommons--oppose him with their united force. [55] The clergy onlyassented to the declaration of invalidity; to threaten the holy fatherwith their resistance, they considered unbecoming. But the declarationof the lay Estates was in itself sufficient for the purpose: the claimwas never afterwards raised again. 

The Estates had often been obliged to contend against the King and theRoman See at the same time; now the King was allied with them againstthe Papacy. Now that the Parliamentary constitution was established inits first stage, it is clear how much the union of the Crown and theEstates in opposition to external influence had contributed to it. Itwas 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 quosunt nati homines geniales et eorum progenitores, ab ingenerosis etalienigenis emundarent. '

[39] 'Les XXIV ont ordene, ke treis parlemens seient par an, --a cestreis parlemens vendrunt les cunseillers le rei eslus, --ke le communeslise 12 prodes hommes ke vendrunt as parlemens--pur treter debesoigne le rei et del reaume. ' On the explanation of this passage, the 'Report on the dignity of a peer' 102 contains matter wellweighedon 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 illoregium nomen aboleatur omnino: nisi ut Christianus populus a devotionematris ecclesiae et observantia fidei orthodoxae avertatur. '

[41] 'Convocatis discretioribus regni tam ex majoribus quamminoribus. ' Statute of Marleberge, 1267. 

[42] 'Nostrae voluntatis fuit ut de bonis terrae ipsa terraconservaretur. ' In Knyghton, ii, 2501. 

[43] Statutum de tallagio non concedendo, or Nova additio cartarum; inHemingburgh, articuli inserti in magna charta. 

[44] 'Carta confirmationis regis Edwardi I, ' in the collection ofcharters prefixed to the collection of the Statutes in the 'Statutesof the Realm, ' p. 37. 

[45] 'Avuns graunte--as Arceevesques etc. E as Countes--e a toute lacommunauté de la terre que mes pur nule busoigne tieu manere des aydesmises ne prises de nre Roiaume ne prendrums fors ke par commun assentde tout le Roiaume e a commun profist de meismes le Roiaume, sauve lesauncienes aydes e prises due e acoustumees. ' The Articulus insertus inMagna Charta, according to the other statements, runs, 'nullumTallagium vel auxilium imponatur seu levetur sine voluntate atqueassensu communi Archiepiscoporum Episcoporum et aliorum liberorumhominum in regno nostro. '

[46] Hemingburgh: eo quod confirmaverat eas in terra aliena. 

[47] Matthew of Westminster, 433. 'Procrastinatis quampluribus diebusdemum videns rex quod non desisterent ab inceptis nec adquiescerentsibi in necessitatibus suis, respondit se esse paratum concedere etratificare 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 theRealm I. 189, 'les choses, qui serount à establir--soient tretéesaccordees et establies en parlaments par notre Sr. Le Roi et parlassent 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 praisedequally 'lanae commoda, --divitias in comparatione ad alios regescentuplas, ' and the 'probitas militaris, arcuum asperitas, ' in Twysdenii. 2739. 

[53] Report 324. 

[54] 'Est en volunté de faire procès devers le roy et son roialme purle 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'sletter to Edward in Rainaldus 1365, 13, the demand is not so clearlyexpressed, but mention is made in it of the Nuncio's overtures; it isto 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 thenoccupied; the plan of extending her rule into Spain proved ruinous tothe Prince of Wales. Not merely was his protégé overpowered by theFrench 'Free Companies, ' which had gathered round his opponent: aCastilian war-fleet succeeded in destroying the English one in sight ofthe harbour of Rochelle. On this, their natural inclination towards theKing of France awoke in the nobles and towns of South France; withoutgreat battles, merely by the revolt of vassals tired of his rule, Edward III again lost all the territories conquered with such greatglory, except a few coast towns. Then a gloom settled down around theaged conqueror. He saw his eldest son, who, though obliged to quitFrance, in England enjoyed the fullest confidence and had everyprospect of a great future, sicken away and die. And he tooexperienced, what befalls so many others, that misfortune abroad raisedhim up opponents at home. In the increasing weakness of old age, whichgave rise to many well-grounded grievances, he could not maintain theindependence of the royal power, with the re-establishment of which hehad begun his reign. He was forced to receive into his Council men whomhe did not like. He was still able to effect thus much, that thesuccession 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 ofthe proud ship? Men saw factions arise that grouped themselves roundthe King's uncles, who were not fully disposed to defend his authority. 

The great question for English history now was, whether theParliamentary constitution, whilst it limited the King's prerogative, would also give him security. For the Commons had been at lastadmitted into the King's Council chiefly in order that they mightwithstand the violence of the factions. The situation however was notwithout its complications, for with the political movement one of yetwider aim was connected. 

When the kingdom was at the very height of its power there arose in acollege at Oxford the man who began that contest against the Papalsupremacy which has never since ceased. John Wiclif attached himselffirst of all to the political movements of his time. One of hisearliest writings was directed against the feudal supremacy of thePopes over England. He supported the Parliament's complaints of RomishProvisions and exactions of money, with great learning and at greatlength. Had his activity confined itself to these subjects, he wouldbe hardly more remembered than perhaps Marsilius of Padua. What gavehim quite a special significance was the fact that he brought intoclear view the contradiction between the ruling form of the Church andthe original documents of the Faith. From the claim of the Popes to beChrist's representatives, he drew the conclusion that they ought alsoto observe the Gospel which comes from the God-Man, follow Hisexample, and give up their worldly power. [56] The leading Churchdogma, that most closely connected with the hierarchic system, thedogma of Transubstantiation, he attacked as being one which equallycontradicted Scripture and Reason. He urges his proofs with theacuteness of a skilful Schoolman, but throughout he shows a deep innerreligious feeling. We may distinguish in him two separate tendencies. His appeal to Scripture, his attempt to make it accessible to thepeople, his treatment of dogmatic and religious questions which hewill allow to be decided only by Revelation, --all this makes him anevangelic man, one of the chief forerunners of the German Reformation. But, as he himself felt, his strength lay rather in destruction thanin construction. In asserting the doctrine that the title to officedepends for its validity on personal worth, that even the rule oftemporal lords rests on the favour in which they stand with God, andin raising subjects to be the judges over their oppressive masters, heentered on a path like that which the Taborites and the leaders of thepeasants in Germany afterwards took. [57]

And these were precisely the doctrines for which his scholars, whotraversed the land to make them known, found a well prepared soil inthe people of England. How could the rise of popular elements fail tocall forth a kindred effort also among the lower classes? The beliefarose that Nature intended all men to be equal. The country peoplespoke of their primitive rights, traces of which were found in thememorials of the Conqueror's times, and which had then been taken fromthem. When now, instead of seeing these respected, they were subjectedto new impositions, and this with harshness and insolence, they rosein open revolt. So overpowering was the attack which they directedagainst the capital and the King's palace, that Richard II foundhimself forced to grant them a charter which secured them personalfreedom. Had they contented themselves with this, they might have donebest for themselves and perhaps for the crown, but when they demandedyet further and more extreme concessions, they roused againstthemselves the whole power of the organised State, for which they wereas yet no match. The Mayor of London himself struck down with hisdagger the leader of the bands, Wat Tyler, because he seemed tothreaten the King; the Bishop of Norwich was not hindered by hisspiritual character from levelling his lance against theinsurgents;[58] after which he accompanied the leaders, who were takenand condemned to death, to the scaffold, with words of comfort; inother places the lay nobles did their best. When therefore in the nextParliament the King brought forward the proposal to declare the serfsfree by a united resolution, --for the previous charter that had beenwrung from him was considered invalid, --both Lords and Commonsrejected it, as tending to disinherit them and prove pernicious to thekingdom. 

It is not to be supposed that a movement like this, which the lowerclass of citizens in the towns had joined, just as in the Germanpeasant war, and which was mainly directed against the landed gentry, could be stifled by one defeat: it continued to fermentuninterruptedly in men's hearts. 

Still less did the condemnation passed by Convocation on thedeviations 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 externalchurch ceremonies, designated the union of judicial authority withspiritual office as unnatural--'hermaphroditism'--rejectedexcommunication with abhorrence, and made secret and systematic waragainst the whole Church establishment. 

But further besides these feuds there was one within the State systemitself which now became most conspicuous. 

In the midst of the general ferment how necessary had a strong andresolute hand become! But Richard's government had shown itselfsomewhat weak; by many it was suspected of having meant to turn thedisturbances to its own advantage. The commons, who mainly representedthe lower gentry and the upper citizens, abandoned him, and attachedthemselves to the nobles, just as these revived their old jealousyagainst the crown. For the almost inevitable result of success insuppressing a popular agitation is to heighten the self-confidence ofan aristocracy. Impatient at being excluded from all share in thegovernment, and strengthened in his ambition by the military disastersof the last years, the youngest of Richard's uncles, Thomas ofGloucester, put himself at the head of the grandees, whose plans thecommons, instead of opposing, now on the contrary adopted as theirown. The great questions arose, which have so often since thenconvulsed the European world, as to the relation of a Parliamentaryassembly to the Monarchy, and their respective rights. 

The first demand of the English Parliament was that the ministers ofState should be named by it, or at least should be responsible to it. Much as this demand itself implies, yet even more extensive views werebehind. The Peers told the King plainly that if he would not ruleaccording to the common law and with their advice, it was competentfor them to depose him, with consent of the people, and to raiseanother of the royal house to the throne;[59] they threatened himopenly with the fate of Edward II. 

Richard could do nothing but submit. Eleven lords were appointed torestore order in the country; Richard had to swear to carry out allthey should ordain (November 1386). There remained but one way bywhich to oppose this open violence: the King collected the chiefjudges at Nottingham, and laid the question before them, whether theCommission now forced upon him did not contravene the royal power andhis prerogative. The judges were far from so interpreting theConstitution of England as to allow that the King is unconditionallybound by the commands of Parliament. They affirmed under their handand seal that the appointment of that Commission against the King'swill contravened his legal prerogative; those by whom he had beenforced to accept it, and who had revived the recollection of thestatute against Edward II, they declared to be guilty of high treason. But Parliament itself saw in this sentence not a judgment but anintolerable outrage. At its next sitting it summoned the judges beforeits tribunal, and in its turn declared them to be themselves guilty ofhigh treason. Chief Justice Tresilian died a shameful death at Tyburn. The King lived to find yet harsher laws laid upon him: his uncleGloucester was more powerful than he was himself. 

He was not however disposed to bear this yoke for ever. He first freedhimself from the war with France, which tied his hands; by hismarriage with Charles VI's young daughter he sought to win that kingover as an ally on his own side; at home too he gained himselffriends; when all was prepared, he struck a sudden blow (July 1397), which no one would have expected from him. He removed his leadingopponents (above all his uncle Gloucester, and Arundel Archbishop ofCanterbury), banished them or threw them into prison: then hesucceeded in getting together a Parliament in which his partisans hadthe upper hand. It moreover completely adopted the ideas of the judgesas to the Constitution; it revoked the statutes which had been forcedon the King, [60] and gave effect to the sentence of Nottingham. Bymaking the King a very considerable grant for his lifetime, it freedhim from the necessity of summoning it anew; he rose at once to a highpitch of self-confidence: he was believed to have said that the lawsof England consisted in his word of mouth. 

In England, just as in France at the same epoch, political opinionsand parties ebbed and flowed in ceaseless antagonism. Richard'ssuccess was only momentary. He too, like so many of his ancestors, hadincurred a grievous suspicion; the crime laid to his charge was thathis uncle, who died in prison, had been murdered there by his command. Besides his absolute rule was not free from arbitrary acts of manykinds; among the great nobles each trembled for his own safety; theclergy, never on good terms with Richard, were impatient at beingdeprived of their Primate, who was to them 'the tower in theprotecting bulwark of the Church. ' In the capital too men were againsta rule which seemed to put an end to popular influence; it needed onlythe return of an exile, the young Henry of Lancaster (whom the Kingwould not allow to take possession of his inheritance by deputy, andwho in conformity with the feeling of the time broke his ban to dohimself right); all men then deserted the King; the nobles could nowthink of carrying out the threat which they had once hurled againsthim. 

Richard was compelled to call a Parliament, and at the moment it metto pronounce his own abdication. The Parliament was not contented withaccepting 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 thatthe King had broken his coronation oath and forfeited his crown; theassembled Estates, when severally and conjointly consulted, held themsufficient to justify them in proceeding to the King's deposition. They named Proctors, two for the clergy, two for the highnobility--one for the earls and dukes, the other for the barons andbannerets, two for the knights and commons--one for the Northern, theother for the Southern counties. They sat as a court of justice beforethe vacant throne, with the Chief Justice in their midst: then thefirst spiritual commissioner, the Bishop of S. Asaph, rose, and in theplace and name and under the authority of the Estates of the realmannounced the sentence of deposition against the late King, andforbade all men to receive any further commands from him. Someopposition was raised; it is said that the Bishop of Carlisle veryexpressly denied the right of subjects to sit in judgment on theirhereditary sovereign;[61] but how could this have had any effectagainst the Parliament's claim which had been formulated so long?

As the crown was now regarded as vacant, Henry of Lancaster arose, --inthe name of God, as he said, whilst he made the sign of the cross onhis forehead and breast, --to claim it for himself, in virtue of hisbirth and the right which accrued to him through God and the help ofhis friends. It was not properly speaking an election that now tookplace: the spiritual and lay lords, as well as the other members ofthe Parliament, were asked what their opinion of his claim was: theanswer of all was that the Duke should be their King. When, conductedby the two archbishops, he ascended the vacant throne, he was greetedwith the joyous acclaim of those assembled. The Archbishop ofCanterbury made a speech full of unction, the drift of which was, thathenceforth it would not be a child, such as the late sovereign hadbeen, self-willed and void of understanding, but a Man that would ruleover them, in the full maturity of his understanding, and resolved todo 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 workagainst Richard II with less reserve than against Edward II. In thelatter case the Queen had taken part in the movement; they had set theson in his father's stead. But this time they did not wait for theactual consummation of the King's marriage; they raised a prince tothe throne who had openly opposed him in the field, and was not eventhe next in succession. For there were still the descendants of anelder brother left, who according to English usage had a prior right. The Parliament held itself competent to settle on its own authorityeven the succession to the crown. It enacted that it should belong tothe King's eldest son, and after him to his male issue, and on theirfailure to his brothers and their issue. The proposal formally toexclude succession in the female line did not pass; but for a longwhile to come the actual practice had that effect. 

Besides the motives involved in the extension of the Power of theEstates in and for itself there was yet another reason for such aproceeding. And this arose out of the growth, and increasing urgency, of the religious divisions. The Lollards preached, and taught inschools, according to their views: in the year 1396 in a petition toParliament they traced all the moral evils and defects of the world tothe fact that the clergy were endowed with worldly goods, and showedthe advantage which would arise from the application of these to theservice of the state and the prosecution of war. [63] They seem to haveflattered themselves that by this they would win over the lay lords, but they were completely mistaken. For these remarked on the contrarythat their own property had no better legal foundation than that ofthe clergy, [64] and only attached themselves to the rights of theChurch all the more zealously. 

That which would have been impossible under Richard II's vacillatinggovernment, the first Lancaster now undertook: in full agreement withthe Estates he a few days after his accession announced to Convocationthat he purposed to destroy heretics and heresies to the best of hispower. [65] In the next Parliament a statute was drawn up in whichrelapsed heretics were condemned to the flames. And still moreremarkable than this mode of punishment, which was that of theChurch-law, is the regulation of the procedure in this statute. Informer times the sentence had been pronounced by the archbishop andthe collective clergy of the province, and the King's consent had tobe asked before it was executed. The decision was now committed to thebishop and his commissary, and the sheriff was instructed to inflictthe punishment without further appeal, and to commit the guilty to thefire on the high grounds in the country, that terror might strike allthe bystanders. It is clear how much the power of the bishops was thusextended. Soon after, on the proposal of the lay lords, at whose headthe Prince of Wales is named, a further statute passed, in which tospread the rumour that King Richard was yet alive, and to teach thatthe prelates ought to be deprived of their worldly goods, are treatedas offences of equal magnitude and threatened with a similarpunishment; the object being alike in both, --to raise a tumult. And infact, when Henry V himself had ascended the throne, an outbreak didoccur, in which these causes co-operated. The Lollards werestrengthened in their resistance to the government of the house ofLancaster by the rumour that their rightful King was yet alive. HenryV was obliged to crush them in open battle, and then force them toremain quiet by a new statute, which enacted the confiscation of theirgoods as well. [66] His alliance and friendship with the EmperorSigismund was based on the fact, that he regarded the Hussites as onlythe successors of the Lollards. 

This orthodox tendency was now moreover combined with a strictParliamentary government. Under the Lancasters there is no complaintas to illegal taxes; they allowed the moneys voted by the Parliamentto be paid over to treasurers named by itself and accountable to it;that which earlier Kings had always rejected as an affront, the claimof Parliament to exercise a sort of supervision over the King'shousehold, the Lancasters admitted; the royal officers were bound byoath to observe the statutes and the common law; the prerogative, hitherto exercised by the Kings, of softening the severity of thestatutes by proclamations contravening their purpose was expresslyabolished. 

The Lancasters owed their rise to their alliance with the clergy andthe Parliament: a fact which determined the character and manner oftheir government. The most manifold results might be expected, evenbeyond the borders of England, from their having by this very alliancewon for themselves a great European position. 

Nowhere was greater interest taken in Richard's fate than at theFrench court. Louis Duke of Orleans, whose voice was generallydecisive there, once challenged the first Lancaster to a duel, andwhen he refused it pressed him hard with war. That Owen Glendowercould once more maintain himself as Prince in Wales was entirely dueto his French auxiliaries. That we find Henry IV more secure of histhrone in his later years than in his earlier is a phenomenon theexplanation of which we seek in vain in English affairs alone: itresults from the fact that his powerful foe, Louis of Orleans, wasmurdered 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. Fromthe French there was no longer anything to fear: they emulously soughtthe alliance of the highest power in England; there even arosecircumstances under which the Lancasters could think of renewing theclaims of Edward III, from whom they too were descended. 

At the time that Henry V ascended the English throne, the Orleanistshad again gained the preponderance in France: they unfurled theOriflamme against the Duke of Burgundy, who was now in fact hardpressed. Henry negociated with them both. But while the Orleanistsmade difficulties about granting him the independent possession of theold English provinces, Burgundy declared himself ready to acknowledgehim as King. [67] The common interests moreover of home politics alliedhim with this house. 

Henry could reckon on the sympathies of a part of the population ofFrance, when he led the power of England across the sea. A successfulbattle in which he destroyed the flower of the French nobility gavehim an undoubted superiority. The vengeance which the Orleanistswreaked even under these circumstances on the Duke of Burgundy, whowas now murdered in his turn, brought the Burgundian party overcompletely to his side, together with the greater part of the nation. Things went so far that Charles VI of France decided to marry hisdaughter to the victorious Lancaster and to acknowledge him, as hisheir after his death, as his representative during his life. 

It was a very extraordinary position which Henry V now occupied. Thetwo great kingdoms, each of which by itself has earlier or laterclaimed to sway the world, were (without being fused into one) toremain united for ever under him and his successors. Philip the Goodof Burgundy was bound to him by ties of blood and by hostility to acommon foe: as heir of France Henry sat in the Parliament by whichthe murderers of the last duke, who were also the chief opponents ofthe new state of things, were prosecuted. Another promising connexionwas opened to him by the marriage of the youngest of his brothers withJaqueline of Holland and Hainault, who possessed still more extensivehereditary claims. Henry recommended the eldest to Queen Johanna ofNaples to be adopted as her son and heir. The King of Castile and theheir of Portugal were descended from his father's sisters. Thepedigrees of Southern and Western Europe alike met in the house ofLancaster, 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 NationalChurch; but at the same time no one exerted himself more energeticallyto close the schism: the solemn condemnation of Wiclif's doctrines bythe General Council of Constance served to vouch for his attitude inreligious matters: the English Church obtained in it a place among thegreat National Churches. 

Henry V found himself in the advantageous position of a potentateraised to power by a usurpation for which he was not howeverpersonally responsible. He could spare and reinstate Richard II'smemory, as much as in him lay, though he owed the crown to hisoverthrow. That he furthered and advanced also in France the municipaland parliamentary interests, which were his mainstay in England, procured him the obedience which was there paid him, and a Europeaninfluence. In his moral character Henry ranks above most of thePlantagenets. He had no favourites and let no unjust acts be imputedto him. He was stern towards the great and careful for the commonpeople; at his first word men could tell what they had to expect fromhim. The French were frightened at the keenness of his expression, butthey reverenced his high spirit, his bravery and truthfulness. 'Hetransacts all his affairs himself; he considers them well before heundertakes them; he never does anything fruitlessly. He is free fromexcesses, and truthful: he never makes himself too familiar. On hisface are visible dignity and supreme power. '[68] He possessed in fullmeasure the bold impulses of his ancestors, their attention to thegeneral affairs of Western Christendom. In the war with the Lollardshe was once wounded; that he recovered from his wound was designatedas the work of divine Providence, which had destined him to be theconqueror of the Holy Land. He informed himself about its state as itwas then constituted under the Mameluke rule: a Chronicle of Jerusalemand a History of Godfrey of Bouillon were two of the books he lovedmost to read. And without doubt such an undertaking would have beenthe true means, if any such means were possible, of uniting moreclosely, by common undertakings successes and interests, the realmsalready bound together under one sceptre. The Ottomans had not yetextended themselves in the East with their full force: something mightyet have been effected there; for the King of France and England, whowas yet young in years, a great future seemed to be at hand. 

Sometimes it seems as though fortune were specially making a mock ofman's frailty. In this fulness of power and of expectations, Henry Vwas attacked by a disease which men did not yet know how to cure andto which he succumbed. His heir was a boy, nine months old. 

Of the two surviving brothers of the deceased King, the younger ruledEngland under the already established predominance of the Estates ofthe Realm, while the elder governed France with an increasedparticipation on the part of the Estates: their efforts could only bedirected towards preserving these kingdoms for their nephew Henry VI. We might almost wonder that this succeeded so well for a time: in thelong run it was impossible. The feeling of French nationality, whichhad already met the victor himself with secret warnings, found its mostwonderful expression in the Maid who revived in the French their oldattachment to their native King and his divine right; the English, whenshe fell into their hands, with ungenerous hate inflicted on her thepunishment of the Lollards: but the Valois King had already gained afirm footing. It was Charles VII who understood how to appease theenmity of Burgundy, and in unison with the great men of his kingdom togive his power a peculiar organisation corresponding to its character, so that he was able to oppose to the English troops better armed thantheir own, and make the restoration of a firm peace even desirable forthem. But this reacted on England in two ways. The government, whichwas inclined for peace, fell into as bitter a quarrel as any that hadhitherto taken place with the national bodies politic, which either didnot recognise this necessity, or attributed the disasters incurred tobad management. The man most trusted by the King fell a victim to thepublic hate. But, besides this, there arose--awakened by these eventsand in a certain analogy with what happened in France--the recollectionof the rights which had been set aside by the accession of the house ofLancaster. Their representative, Richard Duke of York, had hithertokept quiet; for he was fully convinced that a right cannot perishmerely because it lies dormant. Cautiously and step by step, whileletting others run the first risk, he at last came forward openly withhis claim to the crown. Great was the astonishment of Henry VI, who asfar as his memory reached had been regarded as King, to find his rightto 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 themonarchy established by the Parliament, while the other wished to recurto the principle of legitimate succession then violated. Not thatpolitical conviction was the leading motive for their quarrel. First ofall we find that the opponents of the government--though themselves ofParliamentary views--rallied round the banners of the hithertoforgotten right of birth. Every man fought, less for the prince whosedevice he bore, the red or the white rose, than for his own share inthe enjoyment of political power. On both sides there arose chiefs ofalmost independent power, who clad their partisans in their owncolours, at whose call those partisans were ready any moment to takearms: they appointed the sheriffs in the counties and were lords of theland. But when blood had once been shed, no reconciliation of theparties was possible. Ha, cried the victor to the man who begged formercy, thy father slew mine, thou must die by my hand. In vain did menturn to the judges: for the statutes contradicted each other, and theycould no longer decide where the right lay. From the Parliaments nosolution of these questions could be expected; each served thevictorious party, whose summons it obeyed, and condemned its opponent. As the resources on each side were tolerably equal, even the battleswere not decisive: the result depended less upon real superiority thanon accidental desertions or accessions, and most largely on foreignhelp. After the English had failed, during the antagonism of Valois andBurgundy, in establishing their supremacy on the Continent, thequarrel--quieted for a moment--which broke out again between Louis XIand Charles the Bold in the most violent manner, reacted on them withall the more vehemence. King Louis would not endure that a goodunderstanding should exist between Edward IV and Duke Charles, to whomEdward had married his sister: he drew the man who had hitherto donethe most for the Yorkist interests, the Earl of Warwick, over to hisown side; and scarcely had the latter appeared in England when EdwardIV was forced to fly and Henry VI was reinstated. Louis had preparedchurch-thanksgivings to God for having given the English a king of theblood of France and a friend to that country. But meanwhile Edward washelped by Charles the Bold, to whom he had fled, though not openly inarms, yet with ships which he hired for him, with considerable sums ofmoney, and even with troops which he allowed to join him. [69] To these, his Flemish and Easterling troops, it was chiefly attributed thatEdward gained the upper hand in the field and recovered his throne. Butwhat a state of things was this! The glorious crown of thePlantagenets, who a little while before strove for the supremacy of theworld, was now--stained with blood and powerless as it was--tossed toand fro between the rival parties. 

NOTES:

[56] 'I take it as a holesome counsell, that the Pope leeve hisworldly lordship to worldly lords as Christ gafe him and move all hisclerks to do so. ' Wickleffs Bileve, in Collier i. Rec. 47. 

[57] 'Quod nullus est dominus civilis, nullus est episcopus, nullusest praelatus, dum est in mortali peccato--quod domini temporalespossunt auferre bona temporalia ab ecclesia habitualiter delinquentevel quod populares possunt ad eorum arbitrium dominos delinquentescorrigere. '

[58] Walsingham: 'Antistes belliger velut aper frendens dentibus. '

[59] 'Si rex ex maligno consilio--se alienaverit a populo suo necvoluent per jura regni et statuta et laudabiles ordinationes cumsalubri consilio dominorum et procorum regni gubernare etregulari--extunc licitum est eis cum communi assensu et consensupopuli regem ipsum de regali solio abrogare et propinquiorem aliquemde stirpe regia loco ejus sublimare. ' In Knyghton ii. 2683. 

[60] 'Comme chose fait traitoirousement et encontre sa regalie, sacoronne et sa dignitée--le roy de lassent de touts les srs etcoes ad ordeine et establi que null tiel commission ne autresembleable 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 thisspeech, which however can possess no more claim to authenticity thanthe words that Shakespeare puts into the Bishop's mouth. 

[62] Le record et procès de la renonciation du roi Richard avec ladeposition. Twysden, ii. 2743. 

[63] Conclusiones Lollardorum porrectae pleno parliamento. Wilkinsiii. 222. From the document in 229 we see that these doctrines hadpenetrated into Oxford. 

[64] The temporal possessions with which the prelates are as rightlyendowed as it has been or might be best advised by the laws andcustoms of our kingdom; and of which they are as surely possessed asthe lords temporal are of their inheritances. 

[65] Convocatio 6 die Oct. 1389 . .. Modus procedendi contrahaereticos. Wilkins iii. 238, 254. 

[66] He imputes to them, 'l'entent de adnuller la foie chretienne auxia destruer le roi mesme et tous maners estates dicell royaume et auxitoute politie et les leies de la terre. '

[67] Treaty of 23rd May 1414. Certainly Duke John in September 1414concluded the treaty of Arras which is based on the assumption of hishaving 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 étoitpratiquée pour le desfaire et non pour autre fin. '

BOOK II. 

ATTEMPTS TO CONSOLIDATE THE KINGDOM INDEPENDENTLY IN ITS TEMPORAL ANDSPIRITUAL 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 ofnations which formed the Western world. In however many ways theinvading nobility had mingled with the native houses, it yet held fastto its ancient language; even now it is part of the ambition of thegreat families to trace their pedigree from the Conquerors. Attemptshad been made, sometimes of a more political, sometimes of a moredoctrinal nature, to break loose from the hierarchy, which prevailedthroughout these nations; but they had only increased its strength;the native clergy saw that its safety lay in the strictest adherenceto the maxims of the Universal Church. Similarly the character of theEstates in England was akin to that of those in North France andespecially in the Netherlands; on this rests the sympathy which theenterprises of Edward III and Henry V met with; for it was indeed thefeeling of these centuries, that the members of any one of the threeEstates felt themselves quite as closely bound to the members of thesame Estate in other lands as to their own countrymen of the otherEstates. There was but one Church, one Science, one Art in Europe: oneand the same mental horizon enclosed the different peoples: a romanceand a poetry varying in form yet of closely kindred nature was thecommon possession of all. The common life of Europe flowed also in theveins of England: an indestructible foundation for culture andprogressive civilisation was laid. But we saw to what point mattershad come notwithstanding, as regards the durability of its internalsystem and its power. The Plantagenets had extended the rule ofEngland over Scotland and Ireland: in the latter it still subsisted, but only within the narrow limits of the Border Pale; in the former itwas altogether overthrown. The best result that had been effected inhome politics, the attempt to unite the Powers of the country inParliament had, after a short and brilliant success, led to thedeepest disorder by disregarding the rights of birth. The degradedcrown above all had thus become the prize of battle for Pretendersallied with France or Burgundy. But it could not possibly remain thus. The time was come to give the English realm an independent positionand internal order corresponding at once to its insular situation andto the degree of culture it had attained. 

The first who attempted this with some success was Edward IV, of thehouse of York, who in the war of the Roses had remained master of thefield. 

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 wasactually a power in politics; we find him incessantly entangled inlove affairs: he was fond of music and enjoyment of all kinds, thepleasures of the table, the uproar of riotous company: his debauchedhabits are thought to have shortened his life, and many a disastersprung from his carelessness; but he had also Sardanapalus' nature inhim: with quickly awakening activity he always rose again out of hisdisasters; in his battles he appeared the last, but he fought perhapsthe best; and he won them all. In the history of European Monarchy heis not unworthy to be ranked by the side of Ferdinand the Catholic, Charles the Bold, Louis XI, and some others who regained prestige fortheir dignity by the energy of their personal character. 

In itself we must rate it as important that he made good thebirthright of the house of York, independent as it was of the maximsof Parliament, or rather contradictory to them, and maintained thethrone. He deemed himself the direct successor of Richard II; thethree kings who had since worn the crown by virtue of Parliamentaryenactments were regarded by him as usurpers. We have Fortescue'scontemporary treatise in praise of the laws of England, which (writtenfor a prince who never came to the throne) contains the idea ofParliamentary right which the house of Lancaster upheld: but Edward IVdid not so apprehend it. He allowed the lawfulness of his accession tobe recognised by Parliament, because this was of use to him: butotherwise he paid little regard to its established rights. We findunder him for five years no meeting of Parliament; then a Parliamentthat had met was prorogued some four or five times without completingany business, till it at last agreed to raise the customs duties, included under the names of Tonnage and Poundage; a revenue whichbeing voted to the Kings for life (and this came gradually to beregarded as a mere formality) gave their government a strong financialbasis. Other Parliaments repaid their summons with considerablegrants, with large and full subsidies: yet Edward IV was not contenteven with these. Under him began the practice, by which the wealthywere drawn into contributions for his service in proportion to theirproperty, of which the King knew how to obtain accurate information;these contributions were called Benevolences because they were paidunder the form of personal freewill offerings, though none dared torefuse them:[70] we may compare the imposts which in the Italianrepublics the dominant parties were wont to inflict on theiropponents. Though holding Church views in other points, and at anyrate a persecutor of the Lollards, he did not however allow the clergyto enter on their temporalities without heavy payments: he createdmonopolies in the case of some especially profitable articles oftrade. In short, he neglected no means to render the administration ofthe supreme power independent of the money-grants of Parliament. Hemade room for the royal prerogative as understood by the old kings, aswell as for the right of birth. 

But yet he had not established a secure position, since the party ofthe enemy was still very powerful, and after his early death a quarrelbroke out in his own house which could not fail to destroy it. 

To the characteristic traits of the Plantagenets, their world-wideviews, their chivalry abroad, their versatility at home, the ceaselesswar they waged with each other and with others for power, theirinextinguishable love of rule, belongs also the way in which those whoheld power rid themselves of foes within their own family. As formerlyKing 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 thehand of a relative who had wrested the crown from him; of the detailsof his death we have not even a legend left. Another Gloucester, whohad for many years guarded the crown for the infant Henry VI, was, atthe very moment when he might become dangerous to the new government, found dead in his bed. So Henry VI perished in the Tower the daybefore Edward IV made his entry into London. Edward IV preferred tohave his brother Clarence, though already under sentence of death, privately killed. But the most atrocious murder of all was that of thetwo infant sons of Edward IV himself; they were both murdered at once, as was fully believed, at the behest of their uncle Richard III, whohad put himself in possession of the throne. I know not whether theactual character of Richard answered to that type of inborn wickednesswhich commits crime because it wills it as crime, such as followingthe hints of the Chronicle[71] a great poet has drawn for us inimperishable traits, and linked with his name: or whether it was notrather the love of power, that animated the whole family, which inRichard III grew step by step into a passion that made him forget alllaws human and divine: enough, he did such deeds that the world'sabhorrence weighs justly on him. 

But it was owing to the internal discord of the ruling family thatthroughout the course of its history a path was made for political andnational development, and so it was now: these crimes opened a way outof the disorders of the time. For as Richard, while continuing topersecute the house of Lancaster, struck still harder blows againstthe chief members of that of York, he gave occasion to the principalpersons of both parties, who were equally threatened, and had thesame interest in opposing the usurper, to draw nearer to each other. 

The widowed Queen Elizabeth, who was lingering out her life in asanctuary, was brought into secret connexion through the mediation ofdistinguished friends with the mother of the man who now came forwardas head of the Lancasters, Henry Earl of Richmond, and it wasdetermined that Henry and Elizabeth's daughter, in whom the claims ofboth lines were united, should marry each other, a prospect whichmight well prepare the way for the immediate combination of the twoparties. Henry of Richmond at their head was then to confront theusurper and chase him from the throne. The fugitives scattered aboutin the sanctuaries and churches called him to be their captain. [72]

The question arises--it has been often answered in thenegative--whether Henry was rightfully a Lancaster, and whether he hadany well-grounded claims on the English crown. He loved to derive hisfamily from the hero of the Welsh, the fabulous Arthur. Hisgrandfather, Owen Tudor, a Welshman, was brought into connexion withthe royal house by his marriage with Henry V's widow, Catharine ofFrance: for unions of royal ladies with distinguished gentlemen werethen not rare. And Owen Tudor of course obtained by this a higherposition, 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 ofSomerset, descended by her father from John of Gaunt, the ancestor ofthe Lancasters, by his third marriage with Catharine Swynford. It hasbeen said that this marriage, in itself of an irregular nature, wasonly recognised as legitimate by Richard II on the condition that theissue from it should have no claim to the succession--and so it is infact stated in the often printed Patent. But the original of thedocument still exists, and that in two forms, one of which is in theRolls of Parliament, the other on the Patent Rolls. In the first thelimitation is wanting, in the second it exists, but as aninterpolation by a later hand. It may be taken as admitted thatRichard II in legitimising the marriage did not make this condition, and that it was first inserted by Henry IV (who took offence at thelegitimisation of his half-brothers) at the ratification. But thelegitimisation once effected could not possibly be limited in aone-sided manner by a later sovereign. I think no objection can bemade to the legality of Henry VII's claim, which then passed over tohis successors. [73] The limitation belonged to those proceedings ofone-sided caprice by which Henry IV tried to secure for his directdescendants the perpetual possession of the crown. It was not fromhim, but from his father, the founder of the family, that the Earls ofRichmond 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, itmight certainly be hoped that the usurper would be overthrown, andthat a strong power would emerge from the union of both lines. Yet theissue was even then very doubtful. 

As in the earlier civil wars, so now too the help of a foreign powerwas necessary. With French help the Earl of Richmond led about 2000men, of which not more than perhaps 800 were English, to Wales;[74] inhis further advance he was joined by proportionately considerablereinforcements; yet he did not number more than 5000 men under hisbanners, badly clothed and still worse armed, when Richard with hischivalry came upon him in overwhelming numbers. Henry would have beenlost, had he not found partisans in Richard's ranks. Even before theengagement the desertion from Richard began: then in the middle of thebattle the chief division of his army passed over to Henry. Richardfound the death he sought: for he was resolved to be King or die: onthe 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 hisvictory, but the joyous recognition also which he experiencedafterwards: yet his whole nature revolted against basing his state onthis union: he cherished the ambition of ruling only through his ownright. 

At the first meeting of Parliament, which he did not call till he wasfully in possession and crowned King, he was met by a very genuinelyEnglish point of law. It arose from the fact that many members of theLower House had been attainted by the late government. How could theymake laws who were themselves beyond the pale of law? Who couldcleanse them from the stain that clove to them? This objection couldbe raised against Henry himself. In this perplexity recourse was hadto the judges: and they decided that the possession of the crownsupplied all defects, and that the King was already King even withoutthe assent of Parliament. [75] In the general disorder things had goneso far, that it was necessary to find some power outside thecontinuity of legal forms, from which they might start afresh. Theactual possession of the throne formed this time the living centreround which the legal state could again form itself. By exercising theauthority inherent in the possession of the crown, the King couldeffect the revocation of the sentences that weighed on his partisansand on a large portion of the Parliament. After the legal character ofthat Assembly had been established, it proceeded to recognise Henry'srights to the crown in the words used for the first of the Lancastrianhouse. 

In the papal bull which ratified Henry's succession, three grounds areassigned for it: the right of war, the undoubted nearest right to thesuccession, and the recognition by Parliament. On the first the Kinghimself laid great stress: he once designates the issue of the battleas the decision of God between him and his foes. He thus avoided anymention of the marriage with Edward IV's daughter, which he did notcomplete till he was acknowledged on all sides. The papal bulldeclared that the crown of England was to be hereditary in Henry'sdescendants, even if they did not spring from the Yorkist marriage. 

We can easily understand this: Henry would not tolerate by his side inthe person of his wife a joint ruler of equal, and even better, rightthan his own; but we can understand also that this proceeding drew onhim new enmities. At the very outset the widowed Queen gave it to beunderstood that her daughter was rather lowered than raised by themarriage. The whole party of York moreover felt itself contemned andinsulted. To the ferment of displeasure and ambition into which itfell must be attributed the fact that a pair of adventurers, who actedthe part of genuine descendants of the house of York, Lambert Simneland Perkin Warbeck, supported from abroad, found the greatest sympathyand recognition in England. The first Henry VII had to meet in openbattle, the second he got into his hands only by a great Europeancombination. 

But he did not wish to have always to encounter open disturbance. Hewas entirely of the opinion which his chancellor gave, that enmitiesof such a sort could not be extinguished by the sword of war, but onlyby well-planned and stringent laws which would destroy the seed ofrebellion, and by institutions strong enough to administer those laws. Above all he found it intolerable that the great men kept numerousdependents attached to them under engagements which were publiclyparaded by distinctive badges. The lower courts of justice and thejuries did not do the service expected from them in dealing with thetransgressions of the law that came before them. Uncertainty as to thesupreme authority, and the power which the great party-leadersexercised, filled the weaker, who had to sit in judgment on them, withdread of their sure revenge. To put an end to this disorder Henry VIIestablished the Starchamber. With consent of the Parliament, fromwhich all hostile party-movements were excluded, he gave his PrivyCouncil, which was strengthened by the chief judges, a strongorganisation with this end in view. It was to punish all thosepersonal engagements, the exercise of unlawful influence in the choiceof sheriffs, all riotous assemblies, lastly to have power to deal withthe early symptoms of a tumult before it came to an outbreak, and thatunder forms which were not usual in the English administration ofjustice. This powerful instrument in the hands of government might bemuch abused, but then seemed necessary to keep in check unreconciledenemies and the spirit of faction that was ever surging up again. Wesee the prevailing state of things from the fact, that the King'scouncillors themselves, to be secured against acts of violence, passeda special law, which characterised attacks on them as attacks on theKing himself. But then, like men who stood in the closest connexionwith the King and his State, they used their authority withunapproachable severity. The internal tranquillity of England has beenthought 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 mighthave been expected that he would revive the rights of the Parliament. But in this respect he followed the example of the house of York. Hetoo imposed Benevolences, like Edward IV, and that to a yet greaterextent; he made an ordinance that what was voluntarily promised shouldbe exacted with as much strictness as if it were an ordinary tax. Another source of financial gain, which has brought on him still worsereproaches, was his commission against infractions of the law. It wasinevitable that in the fluctuation of authority and of the statutesthemselves innumerable illegalities should have taken place. And theywere still always going on. The King took it especially ill that menomitted to pay the dues which belonged to the crown in right of itsfeudal superiority. All these negligences and failures were nowvisited and punished with the severity of the old Norman system, andat the same time with the officiousness of party-men of the day, whosaw their own advantage in it. This proceeding pressed very manyheavily on private persons and communities, and ruined families, butit filled the King's coffers. One of his maxims was that his lawsshould not be broken under any circumstances, another that a sovereignwho would enjoy consideration must always have money: in this instanceboth worked together. 

If we look at the lists of his receipts we find that they consist, asin other kingdoms, of the crown's revenue proper, which wasconsiderably increased by the escheated possessions of great familieswhich had become extinct, the customs duties settled on him for life, the tenth from the clergy, and the feudal dues. It was estimated thatthey produced nearly the same revenue as that of the French kings atthis time, but it was remarked that the King of England only spentabout two-thirds of his income. He did not need a Parliamentary grant, especially as he kept out of dangerous foreign entanglements. In hislast thirteen years he never once called a Parliament. 

This precisely corresponded to the idea of his government. After allhad become doubtful owing to the alternate fluctuations of parties hehad established his personal claim by the fortune of arms, and made itthe central point of his government. Was he to allow it to be againendangered by the ceaseless ebb and flow of popular opinion? Hefounded a supreme court independent of popular agitation, a financesystem independent of the grants of a popular assembly. 

But he thus found himself under the disadvantage of having to applycompulsion unceasingly: his government bore throughout the bitter andhateful character of a party-government. With untiring jealousy hewatched the secret opponents who still looked out for some movementfrom abroad, as a signal for fresh revolt: he kept diaries of theirdoings and conduct: it was said he availed himself of the confessionalfor this purpose: men whose names were from time to time solemnlycursed at S. Paul's on account of past treasons, so that they countedfor open enemies, became useful to him as spies. If the decision laybetween services received and suspicious conduct, the latter easilyweighed down the balance, to the ruin of the victim. William Stanley, who had played the most important part in the battle which decided thefate of the crown, and was regarded as almost the first man in therealm after the King, had at the appearance of Perkin Warbeck (whogave himself out as Edward's younger son, Richard of York) let slipthe words, 'he would take his side, if he were the person he gavehimself 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, whichmight mislead others into sedition. Gradually the movements ceased:the high nobility showed a loyal submission to the King: yet it didnot attach itself to him, it let him and his government alone. TheKing's principle was, to execute the laws most strictly, yet he wasnot cruel by nature; if men implored his mercy, he was ready to grantit. The contracted position of a sovereign, who maintains hisauthority with the utmost strictness, does not however exclude apaternal care for the country. Henry clipped his people's wings, toaccustom them to obedience, and then was glad when they grew again. Wefind even that he made out a sketch of how the land should becultivated so that every man might be able to live. The people did notlove him, but it did not exactly hate him either: this was quiteenough for Henry VII. 

A slight man, somewhat tall, with thin light-coloured hair, whosecountenance bore the traces of the storms he had passed through; inhis appearance he gave the impression of being a high ecclesiasticrather than a chivalrous King. He was in this almost the exactopposite of Edward IV. He too certainly arranged public festivitiesand spared no expense to make them splendid, since his dignitydemanded it, but his soul took no pleasure in them, he left them assoon as ever he could; he lived only in business. In his council satmen of mark, sagacious bishops, experienced generals, magistrateslearned in the law: he held it to be his duty and his interest to heartheir advice. And they were not without influence: one or two werenoted as able to restrain his self-seeking will. But the main affairshe kept in his own hands. All that he undertook he conducted withgreat foresight and as a rule he carried it through. Foreignersregarded him as cunning and deceitful; to his own people hissuccessful prudence seemed to have something supernatural about it. Ifhe had personal passions, he knew how to keep them under; he seemedalways calm and sober, sparing of words and yet affable. 

He directed almost his chief energies to this object, to keep off allforeign influences from his well-ordered kingdom. 

NOTES:

[70] Historiae Croylandensis Continuatio II. 'Concessae sunt decimaeac quintodecimae multiplices in coetibus clericorum et laicorum, habentibus in faciendis concessionibus hujusmodi interesse. Praetereahaereditarii ac possessionati omnes de rebus immobilibus suarumpossessionum partem libere concedebant. Cumque nec omnia praedictasufficere visa sunt, inducta est nova et inaudita impositio oneris, utper benevolentiam quilibet daret id quod vellet, imo verius quodnollet. '

[71] At least Sir Thomas More has not invented the nature and mannerof the murder; it is derived from a confession of the personsconcerned in it in Henry VII's time. 'Dightonus traditionis hujusprincipale erat instrumentum' (Bacon 212). Tyrel too seems to haveknown of it. 

[72] 'Videntes, quod si novum conquestionis suae capitaneum invenirenon possent brevi de omnibus actum foret. ' Hist. Croyl. 568. 

[73] I take this from Nicolas, Observations on the state of historicalliterature, 1830, p. 178. Hume's objection, that the mother's rightcame before the son's, is done away with by the fact that men had ingeneral never yet seen reigning Queens. 

[74] How the world regarded it then we ascertain from the words of theChroniques de Jean Molinet, ed. Buchon, iii. 151. 'Le Comte deRichmond fut couronne et institué Henri VII, par le confort etpuissant subside du roi de France. '

[75] 'A quo tempore Rex coronam assumpserat, fontem sanguinis fuisseexpurgatum--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, ourParliament excepted, that is in the Christian world. --In the judges ofthe same are the grandees of the realm: and they judge upon confessionor 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 therapid rise of the French monarchy, which after it had freed itselffrom the English invasions, became master of all the hitherto separateterritories of the great vassals, and lastly even of Brittany, andrapidly began to make its preponderance felt on all sides. 

Considered in itself no one would have been more called on to opposethis than the King of England, who even still bore the title of Kingof France. In fact Henry did once revive his claim on the Frenchcrown, on Normandy and Guyenne, and took part in a coalition, whichwas to have forced Charles VIII to give up Brittany; he crossed toCalais and threatened Boulogne. But he was not in earnest with thesecomprehensive views in his military enterprise, any more than EdwardIV had once been in a similar one. Henry VII was contented when aconsiderable money payment year by year was secured to him, as it hadbeen 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 freedisposal. 

And no one could have advised him to attach himself unconditionally tothe house of Burgundy. Duke Charles' widow was still alive, who foundit unendurable that the house of York, from which she sprang, shouldbe dethroned from its 'triumphant majesty, which shone over the sevennations of the world'--for so she expressed herself. With her thefugitive partisans of the house of York found refuge and protection:by herself and her son-in-law Maximilian of Austria the pretenderswere fitted out who contested the crown with Henry VII. Henry couldnot really wish Brittany to pass to his sworn foe, so that he might bethreatened from this quarter also at every moment. For how could hedelude himself with the hope that a transitory alliance would prevailover a dynastic antipathy?

At this crisis Ferdinand the Catholic of Spain offered him an allianceand connexion by marriage. 

That which induced this sovereign to do so was above all CharlesVIII's invasion of Italy, and his conquest of Naples, to which thecrown of Aragon had just claims. His plan was to oppose to the mightyconsolidated power of France a family alliance with theAustro-Burgundian House, with Portugal, above all with England: hehoped that this would react on Italy, always wont to adhere to themost powerful party. Ferdinand offered the King of England a marriagebetween his youngest daughter Catharine and the Prince of Wales. Inthe English Privy Council many objections were made to this; they didnot wish to draw the enmity of France on themselves and would haverather seen the prince united to a princess of the house of Bourbon, as was then proposed. It was on Henry VII's own responsibility thatthe offer was accepted. In September 1496 an agreement was come toabout the conditions: on 15th August 1497 the ceremony of betrothaltook 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 alreadyexercised influence. 

There the second pretender, Perkin Warbeck, had found a warm receptionfrom the young and chivalrous James IV: he there married a lady of oneof the chief houses: accompanied in person by this sovereign he madean attempt to invade England, which only failed owing to theunfavourable time of the year. The Spanish ambassador Pedro de Ayalathen out of regard to Henry secured Perkin's withdrawal from Scotland. But in 1497 the danger revived in a yet greater degree. Warbeck landedin Cornwall where all the inhabitants rallied round him, and a revoltalready once suppressed broke out again; at this moment James IV, urged on by the nobles of the land, crossed the border with a splendidarmy: the co-operation of the two movements might have placed the Kingin a serious difficulty. Again it was the Spanish ambassador who madeJames IV determine not to let himself be urged on further; but ratherto give him the commission, to adjust his differences with England. Henry VII was set free to suppress the revolt in Cornwall; PerkinWarbeck was taken in his flight. 

As the object of the Spaniards was to sever Scotland from her oldalliance with France, and that too by means of a family alliance, itwas an essential point in their mediation that Henry VII, as hebetrothed his son Arthur to a Spanish Infanta, should similarlybetroth his daughter Margaret to James IV. The understanding withSpain and that with Scotland went hand in hand. 

And on another side too the alliance with Spain was very useful to theKing of England. Ferdinand had married his elder daughter Juana toMaximilian's son the Archduke Philip: Philip could not possibly upholdthe Yorkist interests so zealously as his father or his grandmother. It was an event of importance that at Whitsuntide 1500 a meeting tookplace between the English and the Austro-Burgundian Court in theneighbourhood of Calais. Henry applied himself to win over those whomhe knew to be his enemies: but at the same time he wished it to beremarked that the Archduke showed him the honour which belongs to alawful King. If there were still Yorkist partisans in England, whoplaced their hopes in the house of Burgundy, they would find that theyhad 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 theNetherlands. When Catharine in 1501 came to England for her marriage, she was received with additional joy because it was felt that her nearconnexion with the Burgundian house promised good relations with theNetherlands. [78]

But never was a more eventful marriage concluded. 

We do not know whether the Prince of Wales had really consummated itwhen he died before he was yet sixteen. But the two fathers were sowell satisfied with an alliance which increased the security of theone and gained the other great consideration in the world, that theycould not bring themselves to give up the family connexion, by whichit was so much strengthened. The thought occurred to Ferdinand--a veryunusual one in the rest of the European world, though not indeed inSpain--of marrying the Infanta to Henry, brother of the deceasedprince, who was now recognised as Prince of Wales. With his condolencefor the loss he united a proposal for the new marriage. In Englandfrom the beginning men did not hide from themselves that as regardedthe future succession, which ought not to be contested from any side, the matter had its delicate points. The solution which Henry foundshows clearly enough the natural tactics of the old politician. Heobtained from the Roman Court a dispensation for the new marriage, which expressly included the case of the first marriage having beenconsummated. But it almost appears as though he did not fully trustthis authorisation. High as the prestige of the supreme Pontiff stillstood in the world, there were yet cases in which canonists andtheologians doubted as to his dispensing power; men could not possiblyhave forgotten that, when Richard III wished to marry his nieceElizabeth, a number of doctors disapproved of such a marriage, even ifthe Pope should sanction it. At any rate Henry VII instigated, or atleast did not oppose, his son's solemnly entering a protest, after themarriage ceremony between him and Catharine was performed, against itsvalidity (on the ground of his being too young), the evening before heentered his fifteenth year, in the presence of the Bishop ofWinchester, his father's chief Secretary of State. Hence all remainedundecided. Catharine lived on in England: her dowry did not need to begiven up; the general influence of the political union was saved; itcould however be dissolved at any moment, and there was therefore noquarrel on this account with France, whence from time to timeproposals proceeded for a marriage in the opposite interest. Theprince kept himself quite free, to make use of the dispensation ornot. 

For the King himself too, whose wife died in 1503, many negociationswere entered into on both sides. The French offered him a lady of thehouse of Angoulême; he preferred Maximilian's daughter, Margaret ofAustria, not indeed for her personal qualities, however praiseworthythey might be; he stipulated after his usual fashion for the surrenderof the fugitive Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, who was regardedas the chief representative of the house of York, and (as oncepreviously in France) had at that time found a refuge in theNetherlands. Philip, who after the death of his mother-in-law wishedto take possession of his wife's kingdoms in Spain, was on his voyagefrom Flanders driven by a storm on the English coasts: he was Henry'sguest at Windsor, Richmond, and London. Here then the King's marriagewith Philip's sister was concerted, and with it the surrender ofSuffolk. Philip strove long against this: when he yielded, he at leastgot a promise that Henry VII would spare the life of the earl, whom heaccused of treason. He kept his word: the prisoner was not executedtill after his death. 

Margaret had no inclination to wed herself with the harsh andself-seeking King, who was growing old: he himself, when Philipshortly after his arrival in Castile was snatched away by an earlydeath, formed the idea of marrying his widow Juana, though she was nolonger in her right mind. He opened a negociation about it, which hepursued with zeal and apparent earnestness. The Spaniards ascribe tohim the project of marrying himself to Ferdinand's elder daughter, andhis son to the younger, and making the latter marriage, which he waspurposely always putting off, the price of his own. One should hardlyascribe such a folly to the prudent and wise sovereign at his yearsand with his failing strength. That he made the proposals admits ofno doubt: but we must suppose that he wished purposely to oppose tothe pressure of the Spaniards for the marriage of his son with theInfanta a demand which they could never grant. For how could they letthe 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 secondmight have produced a quarrel with France. Between these two powers hemaintained an independent position, without however mixing in earnestwith their affairs, and only with the view of warding off their enmityand linking their interests with his own. His political relationswere, as he said, to draw a brazen wall round England, within which hehad gradually become complete lord and master. The crown he had won onthe battlefield, and maintained as his own in the extremest dangers, he bequeathed to his son as an undoubted possession. The son succeededthe father without opposition, without a rival--a thing that had nothappened for centuries. He had only to ascend the throne, in order totake 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 notbe expected. What has not seldom in the history of great kingdoms andstates formed a decisive turning point now came to pass: to the fatherwho had founded and maintained his power with foresight and by painfuland continuous labour, succeeded a son full of life and energy, whowished to enjoy its possession, and feeling firm ground under his feetdetermined to live in a way more after his own mind. Henry VIII toofelt the need of being popular, like most princes on their accession:he sacrificed the two chiefs of the fiscal commission, Empson andDudley, to the universal hate. In general his father's point of viewseemed to him too narrow-hearted, his proceedings too cautious. 

The first great question which was laid before him concerned hismarriage: he decided for it without further delay. No doubt that inthis political reasons came chiefly into account. France had been evergrowing mightier, it had just then struck down the republic of Veniceby a great victory; men thought it would one day or another come intocollision with England, and held it prudent to unite themselvesbeforehand with those who could then be useful as allies. At that timethis applied to the Spaniards above all others. [79] Yet, unlesseverything deceives us, political considerations only coincided withthe prince's inclinations. The Infanta was in the full bloom of herage; the prince, was even younger than herself and against his willhad been kept apart from any association with her, might well beimpressed by her: besides she had known how to conduct herself withtact and dignity in her difficult position; with a blameless earnestmien she combined gentleness and loveable qualities. The marriage wascarried out without delay; in the ceremonies of her husband'scoronation Catharine could actually take part as Queen. How fully didthese festivities again breathe the ancient character of chivalroussplendour. 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 thearmorial bearings of England and France; he challenged to singlecombat any one who would dare to say that Henry VIII was not the trueheir of this realm; then he asked the King for a draught of wine, whohad it given him in a golden cup: the cup was then his own. 

Henry VIII had a double reason for confidence on his throne, --theblood of the house of York also flowed in his veins. In Europeanaffairs he was no longer content with keeping off foreign influences, he wished to take part in them like his ancestors with the whole powerof England. After the dangers which had been overcome had passed outof the memory of those living, the old delight in war awoke again. 

When France now began to encounter resistance in her career ofvictory, first through Pope Julius II, then through King Ferdinand, Henry did not hesitate to make common cause with them. It marks hisdisposition in these first years, that he took arms especially becausemen ought not to allow the supreme Priest of Christendom to beoppressed. [80] When King Louis and the Emperor Maximilian tried tooppose a Council to the Pope, Henry VIII dissuaded the latter from itwith 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 abattle in the open field, and conquered a great city, Tournay. Aidedby the English army Ferdinand the Catholic then possessed himself ofNavarre, which was given up to him by the Pope as being taken when itwas in league with an enemy of the Church. Louis's other ally, theScottish King James IV, succumbed to the military strength of NorthEngland at Flodden, and Henry might have raised a claim to Scotland, like that of Ferdinand to Navarre: but he preferred, as his sisterMargaret became regent there, to strengthen the indirect influence ofEngland over Scotland. On the whole the advantages of his warlikeenterprises were for England small, but not unimportant for thegeneral relations of Europe. The predominance of France was broken: afreer position restored to the Papacy. Henry VIII felt himselffortunate in the full weight of the influence which England had wonover 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 nowno longer formidable. He even gave him his younger sister to wife, andconcluded a treaty with him, by which he secured himself a moneypayment, as his predecessors had so often done before. Yet he did notfor this break at all with Ferdinand the Catholic, though he hadreason to complain of him: rather he concluded a new alliance withhim, only in a less close and binding manner. He would not haveendured that the successor of Louis XII (who died immediately afterhis marriage), the youthful and warlike Francis I, after he hadpossessed himself of Milan, should have also advanced to Naples. For amoment, in consequence of these apprehensions, their relations becameless close: but when the alarm proved to be unfounded, the alliancewas renewed, and even Tournay restored for a compensation in money. Many personal motives may have contributed to this, but on the wholethere was sense and system in such a policy. The reconquest of Milandid not make the King of France so strong that he would becomedangerous, particularly as on the other side the monarchy which hadbeen prepared by the Spanish-Netherlands' connexions now came intoexistence, and the grandson of Ferdinand and Maximilian united theSpanish kingdoms with Naples and the lordship over the Netherlands. 

To this position between the two powers it would have lent new weightand great splendour if the German princes could have been induced totransfer to the King of England the peaceful dignity of a Roman-GermanEmperor. He bestirred himself about this for a moment, but did notfeel 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 inKing Francis I, which held out an immediate prospect of war, the oldquestion came up again before King Henry, which side England was totake between them, and that in a more pressing form than ever. Aspecial complication arose from the fact that yet another person withseparate points of view now took part in the politics of the age. 

In another point Henry VIII departed from his father's tactics andhabits; he no longer sat so regularly with his Privy Council anddeliberated with them. He had been persuaded that he would best securehimself against prejudicial results from the discords that reignedamong them, by taking affairs more into his own hand. A youngecclesiastic, his Almoner Thomas Wolsey, had then gained the greatestinfluence over him; he had been introduced alike into business andinto intimacy with the King by Fox, Bishop of Winchester, who wishedto oppose a more youthful ability to his rivals in the Privy Council. In both relations Wolsey was completely successful. It stood him ingood stead that another favourite, Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, who had married Henry's sister (Louis XII's widow), and was the King'scomrade in knightly exercises and the external show of court-life, fora long time remained in intimate friendship with him. Wolsey wasconversant with the scholastic philosophy, with Saint Thomas Aquinas;but that did not hinder him from cooperating also in the revival ofclassical studies, which were just coming into notice at Oxford: hehad a feeling for the efforts of Art which was then attaining a higherestimation, and an inborn talent for architecture, to which we owesome wonderful works. [81] The King too loved building; the present ofa skilfully cut jewel could delight him; and he sought honour indefending the scholastic dogmas against Luther's views; in all thisWolsey seconded and supported him, he combined state-business withconversation. He freed the King from the consultations of the PrivyCouncil, in which the intrinsic importance of the matter always weighsmore than one's own will; Henry VIII first felt himself to be reallyKing when business was managed by a favourite thoroughly dependent onhim, trusted by him, and in fact very capable. Wolsey showed the mostmany-sided activity and an indefatigable power of work. He presided incourt though he was not strong in law; he mastered the department offinance; the King named him Archbishop of York, the PopeCardinal-Legate, so that the whole control of ecclesiastical mattersfell into his hands; foreign affairs were peculiarly his owndepartment. We have a considerable number of his political writingsand instructions remaining, which give us an idea of thecharacteristics of his mind. Very circumstantially and almostwearisomely do they advance--not exactly in a straight line--weighingmanifold possibilities, multiplied reasons: they are scholastic inform, in contents sometimes fantastic even to excess, intricate yetacute, flattering to the person to whom they are addressed, but withalfilled with a surprising self-consciousness of power and talent. Wolsey is celebrated by Erasmus for his affability, and to a greatscholar he may have been accessible, but to others he was not so. Whenhe went to walk in the park of Hampton Court, no one would have daredto come within a long distance of him. When questions were asked himhe reserved to himself the option of answering or not. He had a way ofgiving his opinion so that every man yielded to him; especially as thepossession of the King's favour, which he enjoyed, made it impossibleto 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 ofhumble origin, he wished to shine by splendid appearance, costly andrare furniture, unwonted expenditure. Early one morning hisappointment as Cardinal arrived, that same morning at mass hedisplayed the insignia of his new dignity. He required outward tokensof reverence, and insisted on being served on bended knee. He had manyother passions, of which the chief was ecclesiastical ambitionpervaded by personal vanity. 

It gave him high satisfaction that both the great powers emulouslycourted the favour and friendship of his King, of which he seemed tohave the disposal. 

In June 1520 took place within the English possessions on French soilthe meeting between Henry VIII and Francis I, which is well designatedas the Field of the Cloth of Gold. It was properly a great tournament, proclaimed in both nations, to which the chief lords yet once moregathered in all their splendour. With the festivities were minglednegociations in which the Cardinal of York played the chief part. 

Immediately before this in England, and just afterwards on thecontinent, Henry VIII met Charles V also, with less show but greaterintimacy; 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. Therein Calais he sat to a certain degree in judgment on the Europeanpowers. The plenipotentiaries of both sovereigns laid their casesbefore him: with apparent zeal and much bustle he tried at least toconclude a truce: he complained once of the Emperor, that hedisregarded his good advice though weighty and to the point: on whichthe latter did come a step nearer him. It was a magnificent positionif he understood and maintained it. The more powerful both princesbecame, the more dangerous to the world their enmity should be, themore need there was of a mediating authority between them. But thepurity of intention which is required to carry out such a task isseldom given to men, and did not exist in Wolsey. His ambitionsuggested plans to him which reached far beyond a peace arbitration. 

When he promoted that first interview with Francis I against the willof the great men and of the Queen of England, the Emperor'sambassadors, who were thrown into consternation by it, remarked thatthe French King must have promised him the Papacy, which however, theyadd, is rather in the Imperial than in the royal gift. It does notappear that the Emperor went quite so far at once, he only warned thecardinal against the untrustworthy promises of the French, and soughtto bring him to the conviction--while making him the most advantageousoffers--that he could expect everything from him. [82] Clear details hereserved till they met in person; and then he in fact drew him overcompletely to his side. Under Wolsey's influence King Henry, immediately on the outbreak of the war, gave out his intention ofmaking common cause with the Emperor. For he had not, he said, solittle understanding as not to see that the opportunity was thusoffered him of carrying out his predecessors' claims and his own, andhe 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 befirst formed. The cardinal hoped to be able to draw the Pope, theSwiss, and the Duke of Savoy, as well as the Kings of Portugal, Denmark, and Hungary, into it. What an impression then it must havemade on him, when Pope Leo X, without being pressed, at once alliedhimself with the Emperor! Wolsey's attempt at mediation--no room fordoubt about it is left by the documents that lie before us--was onlymeant as a means of gaining time. At Calais Wolsey had already giventhe imperial ambassadors, in the presence of the Papal Nuncio, themost definite assurances as to the resolution of his King to take partin the war against France. Before he returned to England to call theParliament together, which was to vote the necessary ways and means, he visited the Emperor at Bruges. At the last negociations, being attimes doubtful about his trustworthiness, Charles V held it doublynecessary to bind him by every tie to himself. He then spoke to him ofthe Papacy, and gave him his word that he would advance him to thatdignity. [83]

The opportunity for this came almost too soon. When Leo X died, justat this moment, Wolsey's hopes rose in stormy impatience. When theEmperor renewed his assurance to him, he demanded of him in plainterms to advance his then victorious troops to Rome, and put down bymain force any resistance to the choice proposed. Before anythingcould be done, before the ambassador whom Henry VIII despatched atonce to Italy reached it, the cardinals had already elected, andelected moreover the Emperor's former tutor, Hadrian. But was not thisa proof of his irresistible authority? Hadrian's advanced age made itclear that there would be an early vacancy: and to this Wolsey nowdirected his hopes. He gave assurance that he would administer thePapacy for the sole advantage of the King and the Emperor: he thoughtthen to overpower the French, and after completing this work healready saw himself in spirit directing his weapons to the East, toput an end to the Turkish rule. At his second visit to England theEmperor renewed his promise at Windsor castle; he spoke of it in hisconferences with the King. [84] Altogether the closest alliance wasconcluded. 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 combinedwar. Should a difficulty occur between them, Cardinal Wolsey was fixedon as umpire. 

So did the alliance between the houses of Burgundy and Tudor come topass, the basis of which was to be the annihilation of the power ofthe Valois, and into which the English minister threw his world-wideambition. From England also a declaration of war now reached FrancisI. Whilst the war in Italy and on the Spanish frontiers made the mostsuccessful progress, the English, in 1522 under Howard Earl of Surrey, in 1523 under Brandon Earl of Suffolk, both times in combination withImperial 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 awokehopes in the King that he might make himself master of the Frenchcrown as easily as his father had once done of the English. Leo X hadalready been persuaded to absolve the subjects of Francis I from theiroaths to him. It was in connexion with this that the second man inFrance, the Constable of Bourbon, slighted in his station, andendangered in his possessions, resolved to help himself by revoltingfrom Francis I. He wished then to recognise no other King in Francebut Henry VIII: at a solemn moment, after receiving the sacrament, hecommunicated to the English ambassador, who was with him, hisresolution to set the French crown on King Henry's head: he reckonedon a numerous party declaring for him. And in the autumn of 1523 itlooked as if this project would be accomplished. Suffolk and Egmontpressed on to Montdidier without meeting with any resistance: it wasthought that the Netherland and English forces would soon occupy thecapital, and give a new form to the realm. Pope Hadrian was just deadat Rome; would not the united efforts of the Emperor and the King ofEngland succeed, by their influence on the conclave, especially nowthat they were victorious, in really raising Wolsey to the tiara?

This however did not happen. In Rome not Wolsey but Julius Medici waselected Pope; the combined Netherland and English troops retreatedfrom Montdidier; Bourbon saw himself discovered and had to fly, no onedeclared for him. This last is doubtless to be ascribed to thevigilance and good conduct of King Francis, but in the retreat of thetroops and in the election of the Pope other causes were at work. Inthe conclave Charles V certainly did not act with as much energy forWolsey as the latter expected: Wolsey never forgave him. But he toohas been accused of having basely abused the confidence of the twosovereigns: he had kept up friendly connexions all along with FrancisI and his mother, and they likewise had given him pensions andpresents: he had purposely supported the Earl of Suffolk so ill thathe was forced to retreat. [85] Of all the complaints raised againsthim, not so much before the world as among those who were behind thescenes, this was exactly the most hateful and perhaps the mosteffectual. 

In 1524 the English took no active part in the war. Not till February1525, when the German and Spanish troops had won the great victory ofPavia 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 invitedhim to make a joint attack on France itself from both sides: theywould join hands in Paris; Henry VIII should then be crowned King ofFrance, but resign to the Emperor not merely Burgundy but alsoProvence and Languedoc, and cede to the Duke of Bourbon his oldpossessions and Dauphiné. The motive he alleges is very extraordinary:the Emperor would marry his daughter and heiress, and would at somefuture time inherit England and France also and then be monarch of theworld. [86] Henry declares himself ready to press on with the utmostzeal, provided he can do it with some security, and himself undertakethe 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 aproof even to him that it could never be taken in earnest?

Charles V could not possibly enter into the plan. He had lent it ahearing as long as it lay far away, but when it came actually close toview, it was very startling for him. The union of the crowns of Franceand England on the head of Henry VIII would in itself have derangedall European relations, above all it would have raised thatuntrustworthy man, who was still all powerful in his Council, to amost inconvenient height of power. The Spanish kingdoms too werepressing for the settlement of their succession. He was in the fullmaturity of manly youth: he could not wait for Mary of England who hadbarely completed her tenth year: he resolved to break off thisconnexion, and give his hand to a Portuguese princess, who was nearlyof his own age. 

It could not be otherwise but that to the closest union, which wasbroken at the moment when it might well have been able to attain itsobject, the bitterest discord should succeed. 

NOTES:

[77] Zurita Anales de Aragon v. 100. The Spanish ambassador who thennegociated the marriage was Doctor Ruyz Gonzales de Puerta. But theidea was much older: in 1492 at the first alliance mention was made ofit (v. II); in the recently published Journal of an English Embassy toSpain, there appears in March 1489, 'donne Katherine al notre princessde Angleterre. ' Memorial of Henry VII, 180. 

[78] Zurita v. 221. 'La princesa fue recibida con tanta alegriacommunemente de todos, que affirmavan aver de ser esta causa, no solode muy grande paz y presperidad de sodo a' quel reyno, pero de launion del y de los estados de Flandes. '

[79] Zurita vi. 193. 'Por que el rey Luys cada dia se yva haziendo maspoderoso y no teniendo el rey de Inglaterra confederation y adherenciacon los que avian de ser enemigos forçosos del rey de Francia, quedavaaquel reyno en grande peligro. '

[80] He accepts the doctrine: 'Christi vicarium nullum in terrisjudicem habere nosque ei debere vel dyscholo auscultare. ' Lettres deLouys 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 bepersuaded, 'qu'il prende pour agreable et accepte ce que l'empereurlui a offert, luy traynant d'une souppe en miel parmy la bouche, quen'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 Emperormentions 'les propos, que luy (au cardinal) avons tenu a Brugestouchants la papalité. ' Monumenta Habsburgica ii. 1. 501. 

[84] Wolsey mentions in his letter to the King 'the conference andcommunications, which he (the Emperor) had with your grace in thatbehalf. ' In Burnet iii. Records p. 11. 

[85] Du Bellay au Grandmaistre 17 October 1529, in Le Grand, Histoiredu divorce iii. 374: 'Que il avait toujours en tems de paix et deguerre intelligence secrette a Madame, de la quelle la dicte guerredurant, il avoit eu des grants presens, qui furent cause, que Suffolcestant a Montdidier il ne le secourut d'argent comme il devoit dontadvint 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 theState Papers vi. 333. Compare my German History, Bk. IV. Ch. 2, butthe statement there made needs revision in accordance with thenewly-found documents. 

CHAPTER III. 

ORIGIN OF THE DIVORCE QUESTION. 

Perhaps it is not a matter of such very great weight whether theEmperor did his best for Wolsey in the conclave, or Wolsey his bestfor the Emperor in the campaign of 1523. That the result did notcorrespond to the expectations on either side was quite enough tobring about an estrangement. What could the Emperor do with an Englishminister who was not in a condition to support warlike enterprisesproperly? what could the English do with an ally who appropriated tohimself exclusively the advantages of the victory they had won? HenryVIII, while trying to win the French crown, had only weakened it, andthereby given the house of Burgundy a preponderance in Europeanaffairs, by which all other powers, and himself as well, feltthemselves threatened. 

After the battle of Pavia a feeling prevailed throughout the worldthat the rule of Spain and Burgundy would be intolerable, if Francewere no longer independent. The ministers of the Pope in Rome firstcame to a consciousness of this: as the best means of restoring thebalance, they looked to the dissolution of the alliance between HenryVIII and Charles V. The Pope's Datary, Giberti, made approaches to theEnglish Court, though still with timid caution, in order in the firstplace only to propose a reconciliation between England and France. [87]

To his joy he remarked that Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey were moreinclined to this plan than he had expected. If not before yetcertainly since his alienation from the Emperor, the cardinal hadentered into secret negociations with the mother of the King ofFrance: the last proposals to the Emperor had been only an attempt toturn the success of his arms to the advantage of England also: when herejected them, the cardinal entered into the French connexion withincreased zeal. Before the end of the summer of 1523 peace betweenEngland and France was effected with the sympathising co-operation ofRome. 

In it the Regent Louise accepted the conditions laid down by thecardinal: she did not neglect to secure him by a considerable pension. From the beginning she had on her side also tried to excite hisworld-wide ambition; for Francis I and Henry VIII, if once they becamefriends, would do noble deeds to their own-undying renown and to theglory of God, and the direction of their enterprises would fall to thecardinal. [88]

Even after Henry VIII abandoned him, the Emperor still kept the upperhand. He extorted the Peace of Madrid; the League of the Italianprinces with France, by which its execution was to have been hindered, and to which England lent her moral support without actually joiningit, led Charles V to new victories, to the conquest of Rome, and henceto a position in the world which now did really threaten the freedomof all other nations. The necessary result was that France and Englanddrew still more closely together. Cardinal Wolsey appeared in France;a close alliance was concluded and (not without considerable Englishhelp) an army sent into the field, which in fact gained the upper handin Italy and restored to the Pope, who had escaped to Orvieto, somefeeling of independence. Soon the largest projects were formed on thisside also, in which the two Kings expected to have the Pope entirelywith them. The French declared their wish to conquer Naples and neverrestore it to the Emperor, not even under the most favourableconditions. Wolsey thought that the Pope might pronounce thedeposition of the Emperor in Naples and even in the Empire, for whichcertain German electors could be won over; he boasted that he wouldbring about such a revolution as had not been seen for a century. 

It was at this crisis in the general situation, and when an attemptwas being made to direct politics towards the annihilation of theEmperor, that the thought occurred of dissolving Henry VIII's marriagewith the Emperor's aunt, the Infanta Catharine. 

It is very possible, as a contemporary tradition informs us, thatWolsey was instigated to this by personal feelings. His arrogant andwanton proceedings, offensive by their excesses, and withal showingall the priestly love of power, were hateful to the inmost soul of thepure and earnest Queen. She is said to have once reproached him withthem, and to have even repelled his unbecoming behaviour with athreatening word, and he on his part to have sworn to overthrowher. [89] But this personal motive first became permanently importantwhen joined with a more general one. The Queen was by no means soentirely shut out from the events of the day as has been asserted; inmoments of difficulty we find her summoning the members of the PrivyCouncil before her to discuss the pending questions with them. WhenWolsey began a life and death struggle with the Emperor, the influenceof the Queen, whose most lively sympathies were with her nephew, stoodnot a little in his way; it was his chief interest to remove her. 

It was indeed the feeling of the time, that family unions andpolitical alliances must go hand in hand. At the very first proposalfor a reconciliation between England and France, Giberti had advisedthe marriage of the English princess Mary, who had been rejected bythe Emperor, with a French prince, and there had been much negociationabout it. But owing to the extreme youth of the princess it was soonfelt that this would not lead to the desired end. If a definitiverupture was to take place between England and the Burgundo-Spanishpower, Henry VIII's marriage with Catharine must be dissolved and roomthus made for a French princess. This marriage however was itself theresult of that former state of politics which had led to the first warwith France. Wolsey formed the plan of marrying his King, inCatharine's stead, with the sister or even with the daughter ofFrancis I who was now growing up:[90] then only would the alliancebetween the two powers become indissoluble. When he was in France in1527, he said to the Regent, the King's mother, that within a year shewould live to see two things, the most complete separation of hissovereign from Spain, and his indissoluble union with France. [91]

But to these motives of foreign policy was now added an extremelyimportant reason of home policy: this lay in the precarious state ofthe Succession. 

When the King several years before was congratulated on the birth ofhis daughter, with an intimation that the birth of a son might havebeen still more acceptable, he replied quickly, they were both stillyoung, he and his wife, why should they not still have a son? Butgradually this hope had ceased, and as hitherto no Queen had everreigned in her own right in England, the opinion gained ground that atthe King's death the throne would fall vacant. It had a little beforecreated a party among the people for the Duke of Buckingham, when hemaintained that he was the nearest heir to the crown, and would notlet it be taken from him. He had been executed for this: Mary's rightto the succession met with no further opposition; but even so it wasstill always a doubtful future that lay before the country. Peoplewished to marry Mary at one time to the Emperor, at another to theKing or a prince of France: so that her claim to the inheritance ofthe crown should pass to the house of Burgundy or to that of Valois. But how dangerous this was for the independence of the country! Henrywould surely not have lost himself in Wolsey's intrigues, had he had ason and heir, to represent the independent interests of England. 

In other times relations of this kind would have probably beenreckoned as in themselves sufficient reason for a divorce: but not soin that age. The very essence of marriage lies in this, that it raisesthe union, on which the family and the order of the world rests, abovethe momentary variations of the will and the inclination; by thesanction of the Church it becomes one of that series of religiousinstitutions which set limits on every side to individual caprice. Noone yet dared so far to deny the religious character of marriage, asto have avowed mere political views in wishing for a separation, either before the world, or even to himself. But now there was no wantof spiritual reasons which might be brought forward for it. The King'sown confessor revived the doubts in him which had once been raisedbefore his marriage with his brother's widow. And when the King wasthen reminded that such a marriage had been expressly forbidden in thebooks of Moses, and threatened with the punishment of childlessness, how could it fail to make an impression on him, when this threatseemed to be strictly fulfilled in his case? Two boys had been born tohim from this marriage, but both had died soon after their birth. Evenwithin the Catholic Church it had been always a moot point whether thePope could dispense with a law of Scripture. The divine punishmentinflicted on the King, as he thought, seemed to prove that the Pope'sdispensation (encroaching as it did on the region of the divinepower), on the strength of which the marriage had been concluded, hadnot the validity ascribed to it. Scruples of this sort cannot be saidto be a mere pretence; they have something of the half belief, halfsuperstition, so peculiarly characteristic of the spirit of the ageand of that of the King. And none could yet foresee what results theyimplicitly involved. 

It still appeared possible that the Pope would revoke the dispensationgiven by one of his predecessors, especially as some grounds ofinvalidity could be found in the bull itself. Wolsey's idea was thatthe Pope, in the pressing necessity he was under of ranging Englandand France against the preponderance of the Emperor, could be broughtto consent to recall the dispensation, and this would make themarriage null and void from the beginning. Always full of arrogantassumption 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 immediatelyaround the Pope took special notice of the political advantages thatmight accrue from it. For hitherto there was a doubt whether HenryVIII was really so decidedly in favour of France as was said: aproject like this, which would make him and the Emperor enemies forever, left no room for doubt about it. When the Pope saw himselfsecure of this support in reserve, his word, in a matter whichconcerned the highest personal and civil interests, acquired newweight 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 amale heir might cause a civil war in England, and that this must bedisadvantageous to the Church as well. [94] He only asked not to bepressed as long as he was in danger of experiencing the worstextremities from the overwhelming power of the Emperor. In the springof 1528, when the French army advanced victoriously into theNeapolitan territory and drove back the Emperor's forces to thecapital, Wolsey's request for full powers to inquire into the affairin England was taken into earnest consideration by the Pope. It was atOrvieto, in the Pope's working room, which was also hissleeping-chamber: a couple of cardinals, the Dean of the Roman Rota, and the English plenipotentiaries sat round the Pope, to talk over thecase thoroughly. One of the cardinals declared himself against theCommission demanded by Wolsey, since such a grant contravened theusage of the last centuries in the Roman tribunals; the Pope answered, that in a matter concerning a King who had done such service to theHoly See, they might well deviate from the usual forms; he actuallydelegated this Commission to Cardinal Campeggi, whom the Englishesteemed as their friend, and to Wolsey. 

By this nothing was yet effected: it even appears as though ClementVII had given tranquillising promises to the Emperor; the Bishop ofBayonne declared that the Pope's intention was thus to keep both sidesdependent on him--but it was at all events one step on the road oncetaken, which aroused hope in England that it would lead to the desiredend. 

But let us picture to ourselves the enormous difficulty of the case. It lay above all in the inner significance of the question itself. Inhis first interview with Henry VIII Campeggi remarks that the King wascompletely convinced of the invalidity of the Papal dispensation, which could not extend to Scripture precepts. No argument could movehim from this; he answered like a good theologian and jurist. Campeggisays, an angel from heaven would not make him change his opinion. Hecould not but see that Wolsey cherished the same view. 

But was it possible for the Roman court to yield in this and to revokea dispensation, which involved the very substance of its spiritualomnipotence? It would have thus only strengthened, and in realityconfessed, the antagonism against its authority which was based onHoly Scripture. Campeggi could not yield a hair's breadth. 

The only solution lay--and Campeggi was authorised to attempt it--ininducing Queen Catharine to renounce her place and dignity. Soon afterhis arrival he represented to her at length how much depended on itfor her and the world, and promised her that in return not only allelse should be secured to her that she could desire, but above allthat the succession of her daughter also should be guaranteed. Thewish, in which both Pope and King agreed, that she should enter aconvent, Campeggi at first did not mention to her; he thought shewould herself seek for some expedient. But she avoided this. Campeggihad spoken to her in the name of the Pope: she only said she thoughtto abide till death in obedience to the precepts of God and of theChurch: she would ask for counsellors from the King, would consultwith them, and then communicate to the Holy Father what her consciencebade her. Her consent still remained possible. This gained, the legatewould have no need to mention further the validity or invalidity ofthe dispensation. He was still hoping for it, when Wolsey came to himone morning early (26 Oct. 1528) and told him the Queen had asked theKing for leave to make her confession to him (Campeggi), and hadobtained it. A couple of hours later the Queen appeared before him. She told him of her earlier marriage, which was never reallyconsummated; that she had remained as unchanged by it as she had beenfrom her mother's womb; and this destroyed all grounds for thedivorce. Campeggi was however far from drawing such a conclusion; headvised her in plain terms to make a vow and enter a convent, repeating the motives stated before, to which he now added the exampleof a Queen of France. But his words died away without effect. QueenCatharine declared positively that she would never act thus; she wascalled by God to her marriage, and resolved to live and die in it. Ajudgment might be pronounced in this matter; if the marriage wasdeclared to be invalid, she would submit, she would then be as free asthe King; but without this she would hold fast to her marriage union. She protested, in the strongest terms conceivable, that they mightkill her, they might tear her limb from limb, yet she would not changeher mind; had she two lives, she would lay them both down in such acause. It would be better, she said, for the Pope to try to divert theKing from his design; he would then be able to trust all the more inthe inclination of her kinsman the Emperor to help in bringing about apeace. 

In the presence of the counsellors given her at her wish, both legatesrepeated two days later in a formal audience their admonition to theQueen not to insist on a definite decision; but already Campeggi hadlittle hope left; he was astonished that the lady, usually so prudent, should in the midst of peril so obstinately reject judiciousadvice. [95]

The question between King and Queen was, we might say, also of adogmatic nature. Had the Pope the right to dispense with the laws ofScripture or had he not? The Queen accepted it as it had been acceptedin recent times, especially as the presupposed conditions of amarriage had not been fulfilled in her case. The King rejected itunder all circumstances, in agreement with scholars and the risingpublic opinion. 

But into this question various other general and personal reasons nowintruded themselves. If the question were answered in the negativeWolsey held firmly to the view of forming an indissoluble unionbetween France and England, of securing the succession by the King'smarriage with a French princess, of restoring universal peace; to thishe added the project, as he once actually said in confidentialdiscourse, of reforming the English laws, doubtless in anecclesiastical and monarchic sense; if he had once accomplished allthis, 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 inthese last words so unlike his usual mode of thought) ceased to be inagreement with his King. Henry VIII wished for the divorce, theestablishment of his succession by male offspring, friendship withFrance, and Peace: but he did not care for the French marriage. He wassome years younger than his wife, who inclined to the Spanish forms ofstrict devotion, and regarded as wasted the hours which she spent ather dressing table. Henry VIII was addicted to knightly exercises ofarms, he loved pleasant company, music, and art; we cannot call him agross voluptuary, but he was not faithful to his wife: he already hada 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 oftenderness is coupled with a thorough sensuousness; just in thefashion of the romances of chivalry which were then being firstprinted and were much read. At that time Anne Boleyn, a lady who hadlately returned from France, and appeared from time to time at Court, saw him at her feet; she was not exactly of ravishing beauty, but fullof spirit and grace and with a certain reserve. While she resisted theKing, she held him all the faster. [96]

The reasons of home and foreign policy mentioned above, and even thereligious scruples, have their weight; but we cannot shut our eyes tothe fact that this new passion, nourished on the expectation of thedivorce 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 whohad diminished the consequence of the great lords, and kept them down, and offended them by his pride, was heartily hated by them. Adornedthough he was with the most brilliant honours of the Church, yet forthe great men of the realm he was nothing but an upstart: they hadnever quite given up the hope of living to see his fall. But if hebrought the French marriage to pass, as he designed, he would have wonlasting support and have become stronger than ever. Besides the greatmen took the Burgundian side, not that they wished to make the Emperorlord of the world, but on the other hand they did not want a war withhim: merchants and farmers saw that a war with the Netherlands, wherethey sold their wool, would be an injury to all. When Wolsey flatteredthe Pope with the hope of an attack on the Netherlands, he was, theBishop of Bayonne assures us, the only man in the country who thoughtof it. He felt keenly the universal antipathy which he had awakened, and spoke of the efforts and devices he would have need of, tomaintain himself. 

It was therefore just what the nobles wanted, that Wolsey fell outwith the King in a matter of such engrossing nature, and that theyfound another means of access to him. 

The Boleyns were not of noble origin, but had been for some timeconnected with the leading families. Geoffrey the founder of the househad raised himself by success in business and good conduct to thedignity of Lord Mayor of London. His son William married the daughterof the only Irish peer who had a seat and vote in the EnglishParliament, Sir Thomas Ormond de Rochefort, Earl of Wiltshire. Histitles passed through his daughter to his grandsons, of whom one, Thomas Boleyn, was created Viscount Rochefort, and married thedaughter of the Duke of Norfolk; his daughter was Anne Boleyn: shetook high rank and an especially distinguished position in Englishsociety because her uncle, Thomas Duke of Norfolk, was Henry VIII'schief lay minister (he held the place of High Treasurer) and was atthe same time the leading man of the nobility. He had the reputationof being versed in business, cultivated, and shrewd; he was Wolsey'snatural opponent. That the King showed an inclination to his niece, against the cardinal's views, was for him and his friends a greatpoint gained. [97] It was soon seen that Anne's influence had obtainedthe recall of an opponent of Wolsey, who had insulted him and wasbanished from the Court. [98] It was of the greatest importance forhome affairs, that the King was inclined to make Anne Boleyn his wife. The English kings in general did not think marriages in their own rankessential. Henry's own grandfather, Edward IV, had married a lady ofby no means distinguished origin. It was seen beforehand that, if thishappened, Wolsey could not maintain himself, and authority would againfall into the hands of the chief families. Even the cardinal's oldfriend, the Earl of Suffolk, now joined this combination: the wholeof the nobility sided with it. 

But besides this the chief foreign affairs took a turn which made itimpossible to carry out Wolsey's political ideas. In the summer of1528 the attacks of the allies on Naples were repulsed, and theirarmies annihilated. In the spring of 1529 the Emperor got the upperhand in Lombardy also. How utterly then did the oft-proposed plan, ofdepriving him of the supreme dignity, sink into nothingness: he wasstronger than ever in Italy. The Pope was fortunate in not havingjoined the allies more closely; the relations of the States of theChurch with Tuscany made a union with the Emperor necessary; he had ahorror of a new quarrel with him. And as the Emperor now took up theinterests of his mother's sister in the most earnest manner, andprotested against proceeding by a Commission granted for England, thePope could not possibly let the affair go on unchecked. When theEnglish ambassadors pressed him, he exclaimed to them (for apart fromthis he would gladly have shown more favour to the King) that he felthimself as it were between anvil and hammer. Divers proposals weremade, one more extraordinary than the other, if only the King wouldgive up his demand;[99] but this was no longer possible. The twocardinals, 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 AnneBoleyn expected with much confidence a speedy and favourabledecision. [100] Wolsey too did not yet abandon this hope. It wasthought 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 wouldturn out to the advantage of his rivals. [101] But it was in truth hisfate, that the consequences of the design which originated with himrecoiled on his own head. If it succeeded, it must be disadvantageousto him: if it failed, he was lost. The exhortations he addressed tothe French Court, to exert yet once more its whole influence with thePapal Court for this matter, sound like a cry of distress in extremeperil. He had only undertaken it to unite France and England; thething was reasonable and practicable, the Pope would not wish byrefusing it to offend both crowns at once; he would value it morehighly than if he himself were raised to the Papacy. But he had now tofind that King Francis, as well as Pope Clement, was seeking aseparate peace with the Emperor. Wolsey had given Henry the strongestassurances on this point, that such a thing would never happen, Francewould never separate herself from him. But yet this now happened, andhow could any influence from that quarter on the Roman Court be stillexpected in favour of England, in a matter which was so highlyoffensive to the Emperor! The legates received from Rome distinctinstructions to proceed slowly, and in no case to pronounce adecision. [102] While King Henry and those around him were eagerlyexpecting it, the cardinals (using the holidays of the Roman Rota as apretence) 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 seemedas if all his past way of governing had been a mistake. Incontradiction to many of the older traditions of English history hehad hitherto ruled chiefly through ecclesiastics to the disgust of thelay lords: now he betook himself to the latter, to complain of theproceedings of the two cardinals. These were still in the hall wherethey had sat, when Suffolk and some other lords appeared, and badethem bring the matter to an end without delay, even if it were by aperemptory decree, that might be issued on the next day, on which theholidays would not have begun. But the prorogation was in fact onlythe form under which the cardinals fulfilled their orders from Rome;they could not possibly recall it. Suffolk broke out into theexclamation that cardinals and legates had never brought good toEngland. The two spiritual lords looked at each other with amazement. Had they any feeling that his words contained a declaration of war onthe part of the lay element in the State against ecclesiastical andforeign influences in general? Wolsey, at any rate, could not shut hiseyes to the significance of such a war. He often said that what HenryVIII took in hand he could not be brought to give up by anyrepresentations; 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 thatthe proceedings might be resumed. But when a Breve came, by whichClement VII recalled his Commission and evoked the question of thedivorce to Rome, he saw clearly that the influence of the Emperor inthe Pope's Council had quite gained the upper hand over his own onthis point. He was resolved not to submit to it. Had he not, beforethe mayor and aldermen of London, declared with a certain solemnityhis resolution to carry through the divorce for the good of the land?his passion and his ambition had joined hands for this purpose beforethe eyes of the country. To prevent the need of recoiling, he formed aplan of incalculable importance, the plan of separating his nation andhis kingdom from the spiritual jurisdiction of the Roman See. 

NOTES:

[87] 'Giberto al Vescovo di Bajusa. 3 Luglio. Ci sono avisid'Ingliterra de' 14 del passalo che mostrano gli animi di la emassimamente Eboracense non dico inclinati ma accesi di desiderio diconcordia con Francia'. .. . Lettere di principi I. 168. 

[88] 'Le dit Cardinal sera conducteur, moderateur et gouverneur detoutes les entreprises. ' The Regent's Instructions in Brinon, Captivité de François I. 57. 

[89] Riccardus Scellejus de prima causa divortii (BibliothecaMagliabecch. At Florence). 'Catharina ita stomachata est, ut deVulseji potentia minuenda cogitationem susciperet, quod ille cumsensisset, qui ab astrologo suo accepisset, sibi a muliere exitiumimminere, de regina de gradu dejicienda consilium inivit. '

[90] Lodovico Falier, Relatione di 1531 'avendo trattato, di dargli asorella del Cristianissimo adesso maritata al re di Navarra, glipromese di far tanto con S. Sta che disfacesse le nozze. '

[91] Du Bellay au Grandmaistre 21 October 1528; after Wolsey's ownnarrative 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 cosache 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--therealm of England would not only enter into their accustomed divisions, but also would owe or do small devotion unto the church: wherefore hisHoliness was right well content and ready to adhibit all remedy thatin him was possible as in this time would serve. ' Knight to theCardinal, 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 motivefor communicating what the Queen said to him in confession as beingher own wish. The archives too have long kept their secret. 

[96] According to Ricc. Scellejus, she prays the King, 'ne pergat suamoppugnare castitatem, quae dos erat maxima, quam posset futuro offerremarito, quaque violanda reginam etiam dominam proderet, --quoniam seilli 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 andecommencent deja à parler gros (28 Jan. 1520). '

[99] In a letter of Sanga to Campeggi (Lettere di diversi autorieccellenti p. 60), we read the following words: 'In quanto alladispensa di maritar il figliolo con la figliola del re, se con haverin questa maniera stabilita la successione S. M. Si rimanesse delprimo pensiero della dissolutions S. Bne inclineria assai Più. ' Thislooks as if a marriage between Henry VIII's natural son and Mary wasspoken of. --So I wrote previously. The thing is quite true. Campeggiwrites 28 Oct. To Sanga. 'Han pensato si maritar la (la figliola) condispensa di S. Sta al figlio natural del re, a che haveva pensatoanch'io per stabilimento della successione. ' (Monumenta Vaticana p. 30. )

[100] Sanga to Campeggi 2 Sept. 1528 in the Lettere di diversi autorieccellenti, Venetia 1556, p. 40. 'V. Sra. Vedra l'esito che ha havutol'impresa del regno. --Bisogna che S. Bne vedendo l'imperatorevittorioso non si precipiti a dare all'imperatore causa di nuovarottura. .. . Sia almanco avvertita di non lasciarsi costringere apronuntiare 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 inmodo alcuno non si venghi al giudicio. ' Of the same date is Bellay'sletter in which those exhortations of Wolsey to the French Court arecontained. 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE SEPARATION OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 

Already at Orvieto Stephen Gardiner had told the Pope that, if theKing did not obtain justice from him, he would do himself justice inhis own kingdom. Later it was plainly declared to the Pope that, ifthey saw the Emperor had the ascendancy in his Council, the nobilityof England with the King at their head would feel themselves compelledto cast off obedience to Rome. It seems as though the Roman Courthowever had no real fear of this. For the King, so they said, would dohimself most damage by such a step. [103] The Papal Nuncio declaredhimself positively convinced, that it was necessary to deal with theEnglish sharply and forcibly, if one would gain their respect. 

But these tendencies were more deeply rooted among the English thanwas remembered at Rome. They went back as far as the Articles ofClarendon, the projects of King John, the antipapal agitation underEdward III; the present question which involved an exceptionable andpersonal motive, exposed to public disapprobation, neverthelesstouched on the deepest interests of the country. The wish to make thesuccession safe was perfectly justifiable. According to Clement VII'sown declarations, the English were convinced that he was only hinderedby regard for the Emperor from coming to a decision which wasessential to them. His vacillation is very intelligible, very natural:but it did not correspond to the idea of the dignity with which he wasclothed. There was to be an independent supreme Pontiff for this veryreason, that right might be done in the quarrels of princes, withoutrespect of persons, according to the state of the case. It clashedwith the idea of the Papacy that alterations of political relationsexercised such a decisive influence as they did in this matter. Therewas indeed something degrading for the English in their being made tofeel the reaction of the Emperor's Italian victory, and hispreponderance, in their weightiest affairs. 

Henry VIII had now made up his mind to throw off that ecclesiasticalsubjection, which was politically so disadvantageous; thecircumstances were very favourable. It was the time at which someGerman principalities, and the kingdoms of the North, had giventhemselves a constitution which rested on the exclusion of thehierarchic influences of Rome: the King could reckon on many allies inhis enterprise. Moreover he had no dangerous hostilities to fear, aslong as the jealousy lasted between the Emperor and King Francis. Between them Henry VIII needed only to revert to his natural policy ofneutrality. 

And the accomplishment of the affair was already prepared in thecountry itself, through no one more than through Cardinal Wolsey. 

The dignity of legate, which was granted him by Pope Leo, and thenprolonged for five, for ten years, and at last for life, gave him acomprehensive spiritual authority. He obtained by it the right ofvisiting and reforming all ecclesiastical persons and institutions, even those which possessed a legal exemption of their own. Some ordersof monks, which contended against it, were reduced to obedience by newbulls. But from the visitation of the monasteries Wolsey proceeded totheir suppression: he united old convents (such as that one which hasbrought down to recent times the name of an Anglo-Saxon king'sdaughter, Frideswitha, from the eighth century) with the splendidcolleges which he endowed so richly, for the advancement of learningand the renown of his name, at Oxford and at Ipswich. His courtsincluded all branches of the ecclesiastical and mixed jurisdiction, and the King had no scruple in arming him with all the powers of thecrown which were necessary for the government of the Church. Whataspirations then arose are shewn by the compact which Wolsey made withKing Francis I to counteract the influence which the Emperor mightexert over the captive Pope. When it was settled in this, thatwhatever the cardinal and the English prelates should enact with theKing's consent should have the force of law, does not this imply atleast a temporary schism?

When Clement became free, he named Wolsey his Vicar-General for theEnglish Church: his position was again to be what it had been from thebeginning, the expression of the unity between the Pope and the Crown. But now how if this were dissolved? The victorious Emperor exercised astill greater influence over the Pope when free than he had ever doneover him when captive. Under these circumstances Wolsey submitted tothe supreme spiritual power, the King resolved to withstand it: it wasexactly on this point that open discord broke out between them. For atime the cardinal seemed still to maintain his courage; but when onSt. Luke's day--the phrase ran that the evangelist had disevangelisedhim--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 thanthe King's favour; without this he fell back into his nothingness. Hewas heard to wail like a child: the King comforted him by a token offavour, probably however less out of personal sympathy than because hecould 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 namedChancellor. While these administered affairs in London, Suffolk, asPresident of the Privy Council, was to accompany the King in person. The chief direction of the administration passed over to the twoleading lay lords. 

Henry VIII's resolution to call the Parliament together was of almostgreater importance for the progress of events than the alteration inthe ministry. 

During the fourteen years of his administration Wolsey had summonedParliament only once, and that was when, in order to carry on the warin alliance with the Emperor against France, he needed anextraordinary grant of money. But his opening discourses were receivedwith silence and dislike. Never, says a contemporary who was present, was the need of money more pressingly represented to a Parliament andnever was there greater opposition; after a fortnight's consultationthe proposal only passed at a moment when the members of the King'shousehold and court formed the majority of those present. [105] TheParliament and the country always murmured at Wolsey's oppressive andlavish finance management;[106] a later attempt to raise taxes thathad not been voted doubled the outcry against him. His fall and theconvocation of a Parliament seemed a return to parliamentaryprinciples in general, which in themselves exactly agreed with theview taken by the King in the present questions. 

In the first years of Henry VIII the Parliament had wished to do awaywith some of the most startling exemptions of the clergy from thetemporal jurisdiction, for instance in reference to the crimes offelony and murder; the ecclesiastics had on the other hand extendedtheir jurisdiction yet further, even to cases that had referencesolely to questions of property. Hence the antagonism between the twojurisdictions had revived at that time with bitter keenness. It isnoticeable that the temporal claims were upheld by a learned Minorite, Henry Standish, who declared it to be quite lawful to limit theecclesiastical privileges for the sake of the public good; especiallyin the case of a crime that did not properly come before any spiritualcourt. Both sides then applied to the King: the ecclesiastics remindedhim that he ought to uphold the rights of Holy Church, the laymen thathe should maintain the powers of jurisdiction belonging to the crown. The King's declaration was favourable to the laymen; he recommendedthe clergy to acquiesce in some exceptions from their decretals. Butthe contest was rather suspended than decided. Wolsey's governmentfollowed, in which the spiritual courts extended their powers stillfurther, and in reality exercised an offensive control over all therelations of private life. Even the ecclesiastics did not love hisauthority: they acquiesced in it because it was ecclesiastical: thelaity endured it with the utmost impatience. 

It was inevitable that at the first fresh assembly of a Parliamentthese contests about jurisdiction should be mentioned. The Lower Housebegan its action with a detailed charge against the spiritual courts, not merely against their abuses and the oppression that arose fromthem, but against their very existence and their legislation; theclergy made laws without the King's foreknowledge, without theparticipation of any laymen, and yet the laity were bound by them. TheKing was called on to reconcile his subjects of the spiritual andtemporal estate with each other by good laws, since he was their solehead, the sovereign, lord and protector of both parties. 

It was a slight phrase, [107] 'the sole head of his subjects spiritualand temporal, ' but one of the weightiest import. The very existence ofthe clergy as an order had hitherto depended precisely on their claimto a legislative power independent of the temporal supremacy as beingtheir original right: on its universal maintenance rested the Papacyand its influence on the several countries. Were the clergy now toleave it to the King, who however only represented the temporal power, to adjust the differences between their legislation and that of thestate? Were they, like the laity, virtually to recognise him as theirHead?

It is clear that they would thus sever themselves from the great unionunder one spiritual Head, from the constitution of the Latin Church. Whoever it was that introduced the word 'Head, ' no doubt had this inview. The King and the laity took it up, they wished only to inducethe clergy themselves to come to a resolution in this sense. 

The chief motive which was to serve this purpose is connected with thelordship which the Popes possessed in England in the thirteenthcentury, or rather with the reaction against it which went onthroughout the fourteenth. This is most distinctly expressed in thestatutes of 1393, which threatened with the severest penalties allparticipation in any attempt, to the injury of the King's supremacy, to obtain a church-benefice from Rome; and this too even where theKing had given his consent to it. Clergy and laity were thus alliedagainst the encroachments of the Roman Curia. Wolsey was now accusedof having transgressed this statute:[108] he had in virtue of hislegatine power given away benefices, and established a jurisdiction bywhich that of the King was encroached on; he was found guilty of thisin regular form. He anticipated the full effect of this sentence bysubmitting without any defence and surrendering all his property tothe King. It was then that York House in Westminster, with its gardensand the land adjoining, the Whitehall of later times, passed into thepossession of the crown. [109] He still kept his archbishopric; we findhim soon after at Caywood, the palace belonging to it, and in facteven busied once more with his buildings. At times the King againthought of his old counsellor, and to many it quite seemed as thoughhe might yet recover power. In those days the general belief was, thatAnne Boleyn had exerted her whole influence against it. But most ofthe other persons of distinction in court and state were also opposedto Wolsey. Did he then really, as was imputed to him, try to gain aparty among the clergy, and move the Pope to pronounce excommunicationagainst the King?[110] A pretext at any rate was found for arrestinghim as a traitor: but as he was being brought to the Tower, he diedon 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 byhelp from others. 

Neither for his mental nor for his moral qualities can Wolsey bereckoned among men of the first rank; yet his position and the abilitywhich he showed in it, his ambition and his political plans, what hedid and what he suffered, his success and his fall, have won him animperishable name in English history. His attempt to link the royalpower 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--asubjection which could forebode nothing less than this final rupture. 

The whole clergy was so far involved in Wolsey's guilt that it hadsupported his Legatine Powers, and so had shared in the violation ofthe statutes. It shows the English spirit of keeping to the strictletter of the law, that the King, though he had for years given hisconsent and help in all this, now came forward to avenge the violationof the law. To avert his displeasure the Convocation of Canterbury wasforced to vote him a very considerable sum of money, yet even this didnot satisfy him. Rather it seemed to him the fitting and decisivemoment for forcing the clergy, conformably with the Address of theCommons, to accept the Anglican point of view. He demanded fromConvocation the express acknowledgment that they recognised him as_the Protector and the Supreme Head of the Church and Clergy ofEngland_; he commanded the judges not to issue the Act of Pardonunless this acknowledgment were at once incorporated with the bill forthe money payment. It is not hard to see what made him choose thisexact moment for so acting; it was the serious turn which the affairof his Divorce had taken at Rome. He had once more made application tothe Curia to let it be decided in England; the Cardinals discussed thepoint in their Consistory, Dec. 22, 1530, but resolved that thequestion must come of right before the Assessors of the Rota, whoshould afterwards report on it to the Sacred College. [111] What theirsentence would be was the less doubtful, since the Curia was nowlinked closer than ever with the Emperor, who had just closed the Dietof Augsburg in the way they wished, and was now about to carry out itsdecrees. The traces of a new alliance with Rome, which was imputed toWolsey as an act of treason, must have contributed to the same result. The King wished to break off this connexion by a Declaration, whichwould serve him as a standing-ground later on, and show the Court ofRome that he had nothing to fear from it. On Feb. 7, 1531, the King'sdemand was laid before both Houses of Convocation. Who could avoidseeing its decisive significance for the age? The clergy, which hadwithout much trouble agreed to the money-vote, nevertheless strovelong against a Declaration which altered their whole position. But ahard necessity lay on them. In default of the Pardon, which, as thejudges repeatedly assured them, depended on this Declaration, theywould have found themselves out of the protection of the King and theLaw. They sent two bishops, to get the King's demand softened by apersonal appeal; Henry VIII refused to hear them. They proposed thatsome members of both Houses should confer with the Privy Council andthe judges; the answer was that the King wished for no discussion, hewanted a clear answer. Thus much however they ascertained, that theKing would be content with a mode of statement in which he wasunconditionally recognised as the protector and sovereign of theChurch and clergy of England, but as its supreme head only so far asreligion allows. This was comprehended in the formula _in so far as ispermitted by the law of Christ_, an expression which men might assentto on opposite grounds. Some might accept it from seeing in it onlythe limitation which is set to all power by the laws of God; othersfrom thinking that it excluded generally the influence of the secularpower on what were properly spiritual matters. When the clause waslaid before them, at the morning sitting of Feb. 11, it was receivedwith an ambiguous silence; but on closer consideration, it was soevidently their only possible resource, that in the afternoon, firstthe Upper House of Convocation, and then the Lower, gave theirconsent. Then the King accepted the money-bill, and granted them inreturn the Act of Pardon. [112]

The clergy had yet other causes for seeking the King's protection. Thewritings of the Reformers, which attacked good works and vows, theMass and the Priesthood, and all the principles on which theecclesiastical system rested, found their way across the Channel, andfilled men's minds in England also with similar convictions. The onlysafeguard against them lay in the King's power; his protection was noempty 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 ofself-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 largerwhole, was nearly as much lost among the clergy as among the laity. Inthe Parliament of 1532 Convocation had presented a petition in whichthey desired to be released from the payments which had been hithertomade to the supreme spiritual authority, especially the annates andfirst-fruits. The National Church was the existing, immediateauthority--why should they allow taxes to be laid on them for adistant Power, a Power moreover of which they had no need? As thebishops complained that this injured their families and theirbenefices, Parliament calculated the sums which Rome had drawn out ofthe country on this ground since Henry VII's time, and which it wouldsoon draw at the impending vacancies; what losses the country hadalready suffered in this way, and would yet suffer. [113]

The tendency of men's minds in this direction showed itself also inthe understanding come to on the chief question of all. 

Parliament renewed its complaints of the abuses in the ecclesiasticallegislation, and learned men brought out clearly the want of anydivine authority to justify it; at last the bishops virtuallyrenounced their right of special legislation, and pledged themselvesfor the future not to issue any kind of Ordinance or Constitutionwithout the King's knowledge and consent. A revision of the existingcanons by a mixed commission, under the presidentship of their commonhead, the King, was to restore the unity of legislation. 

The clause was then necessarily omitted by which the recognition ofthe Crown's supremacy over the clergy had been hitherto limited. Thedefenders of the secular power put forth the largest claims. Theysaid, the King has also the charge of his subjects' souls, theParliament is divinely empowered to make ordinances concerning themalso. [114]

So a consolidation of public authority grew up in England, unlikeanything which had yet been seen in the West. One of the greatstatutes that followed begins with the preamble that England is arealm to which the Almighty has given all fulness of power, under onesupreme head, the King, to whom the body politic has to pay naturalobedience, next after God; that this body consists of clergy andlaity; to the first belongs the decision in questions of the divinelaw and things spiritual, while temporal affairs devolve on the laity;that one jurisdiction aids the other for the due administration ofjustice, no foreign intervention is needed. This is the Act by which, for these very reasons, legal appeals to Rome were abolished. It wasnow possible to carry out what in previous centuries had beenattempted in vain. All encroachments on the prerogative of the'Imperial Crown' were to be abolished, the supreme jurisdiction of theRoman Curia was to be valid no longer; appeals to Rome were not onlyforbidden but subjected to penalties. 

The several powers of the realm united to throw off the foreignauthority which had hitherto influenced them, and which limited thenational 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 samesense. He would not swear any longer to uphold the rights of theChurch in general, but only those guaranteed to the Church of England, and not derogatory to his own dignity and jurisdiction; he did notpledge himself to maintain the peace of the Church absolutely, butonly the concord between the clergy and his lay subjects according tohis conscience; not, unconditionally, to maintain the laws and customsof the land, but only those that did not conflict with his crown andimperial duties. He promised favour only for the cases in which favourought to find a place. [115]

How predominant is the strong feeling of aggrandisement, of personalright, and of kingly independence!

Henry VIII too regarded himself as a successor of Constantine theGreat, who had given laws to the Church. True, said he, kings are sonsof the Church, but not the less are they supreme over Christian men. Of the doctrines which came from Germany none found greater acceptancewith him than this--that every man must be obedient to the higherpowers. We possess Tyndale's book in which these principles are setforth; by Anne Boleyn's means it came into Henry's hands. That PopeClement summoned him formally before his judgment-seat, he declared tobe an offence to the Kingly Majesty. Was a Prince, he exclaims, tosubmit himself to a creature whom God had made subject to him; tohumble himself before a man who, in opposition to God and Right, wished to oppress him? It would be a reversal of the ordinance ofGod. [116]

Whilst we follow the questions which here come into discussion--on therelations of Church and State, the rights of nations andkings--questions of infinite importance for this as for all otherstates, we almost lose sight of the affair of the Divorce, which hadbeen the original cause of quarrel, and which had meanwhile moved onin the direction given it once for all. Pope Clement restrainedhimself as much as possible, he still more than once made advances tothe King and offered him conciliatory terms; but the King had alreadygone too far in his separation from Rome to be able to accept them. Atthe beginning of 1533 he celebrated his marriage with Anne Boleynprivately. He had once, when he was still waiting for the Pope'sdecision, tried to influence it by favourable opinions of learnedtheologians. [117] With this view he had applied to the mostdistinguished universities in Italy and Germany, in France and inEngland itself; and managed to obtain a large number of decisions, bywhich the Pope's right of dispensation was denied; and this in spiteof the constant efforts in various ways of the Imperial agents; eventhe two mother-universities, Bologna and Paris, had declared in hisfavour. He protested that he had been thereby enabled in hisconscience to free himself from the yoke of an unlawful union, bordering on incest, and to proceed to another marriage. But all themore urgent was it that the legality of this marriage should berecognised according to the forms at that time lawfully valid. He nolonger wished for a recognition from the Pope; he laid the questionbefore the two Convocations of the English Church-provinces. For thegeneral course of Church history we must admit it to be an event ofthe highest significance, that they dared to pronounce thedispensation of Pope Julius II invalid according to God's law. Theauthority hitherto regarded as the expression of God's will on earthwas found guilty, by the representatives of the Church of oneparticular country, of transgressing that will. It now followed thatthe 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 betreated 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 quiteas much astonishment as anger. 'For she had not come to England, ' shesaid, 'on mercantile business at a venture, but according to the willof the two venerated kings now dead: she had married King Henryaccording to the decision of the Holy Father at Rome: she was theanointed and crowned Queen of England; were she to give up her title, she would have been a concubine these twenty-four years, and herdaughter a bastard; she would be false to her conscience, to her ownsoul, her confessor would not be able to absolve her. ' She became moreand more absorbed in strict Catholic religious observances. She rosesoon after midnight, to be present at the mass; under her dress shewore the habit of the third order of S. Francis; she confessed twiceand fasted twice a week; her reading consisted of the legends of thesaints. So she lived on for two years more, undisturbed by theecclesiastico-political statutes which passed in the EnglishParliament. Till the very end she regarded herself as the true Queenof England. 

Immediately after the sentence on Catharine followed Anne'scoronation, which was performed with all the ancient ceremonial, allthe more carefully attended to because she was not born a princess. Onthe Thursday before Whitsuntide she was escorted from Greenwich by theMayor and the Trades of London, in splendidly adorned barges, withmusical instruments playing, till she was greeted by the cannon of theTower. The Saturday after she went in procession through the City toWestminster. The King had created eighteen knights of the Order of theBath. These in their new decorations, and a great part of thenobility, which felt itself honoured in Anne's elevation, accompaniedher:[118] she sat on a splendid seat, supported by and slung betweenhorses: the canopy over her was borne by the barons of the CinquePorts; her hair was uncovered, she was charming as always, and (itappears) not without a sense of high good fortune. On Sunday she wasescorted to Westminster Abbey by the Archbishop of Canterbury and sixbishops, the Abbot of Westminster and twelve other abbots in fullcanonicals: she was in purple, her ladies in scarlet, for so oldcustom required; the Duke of Suffolk bore the crown before her, whichwas placed on her head by the hands of the archbishop. Nobles andcommons greeted her with emulous devotion, the ecclesiastics joinedin; they expected from her an heir to England. --Not a son, but adaughter, Elizabeth, did she then bear beneath her heart. 

Anne's coronation was at the same time the complete expression of therevolt of the nation collectively from the Roman See: it is noteworthythat Pope Clement VII, in his all-calculating and temporising policy, even then reserved to himself the last word. As he had once yielded tothe Emperor, to conclude his peace with him, so now again--for he didnot wish to be entirely dependent on him--he had entered into closerelations with King Francis, who on his side saw in the continuance ofhis union with England one of the conditions of his position inEurope. The political weight of England reacted indirectly on thePope: he indeed annulled Archbishop Cranmer's decision, but he couldnot yet bring himself to take a further step, often as he had promisedthe Emperor and pledged himself in his agreements to do so. [119]Charles V supplied his ambassador at Rome with yet another means toadvance (as he expressed himself) the decision of the proceedings withthe Pope and with the Holy See--for he made a distinction betweenthem. The Pope inquired of him what, after this had ensued, would thenbe done to carry it out. The Emperor answered, his Holiness should dowhat justice pledged him to do, what he could not omit if he wouldfulfil 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 itcalled in the temporal arm: but if the matter came to that point, hewould not fail to do his part; to declare himself explicitlybeforehand might excite religious scruples. [120] And however much thepolicy of the Pope might waver, there could be no doubt about thedecision of the Rota. On the 23 March 1534 one of the auditors, Simonetta, bishop of Pesaro, made a statement on the subject in theconsistory of the cardinals: there were only three among them whodemanded a further delay: all the rest joined without any moreconsideration in the decision that Henry's marriage with Catharine wasperfectly lawful, and their children legitimate and possessed of fullrights. The Imperialists held this to be a great victory, they madethe city ring with their cries of 'the Empire and Spain':[121] yeteven then the French did not give up the hope of bringing the Pope toanother mind. But meanwhile in England the last steps were alreadytaken. 

King Henry reckons it as honourable to himself that he had not yieldedto the offer of the Roman Court, made to him indirectly, to decide inhis favour, but had set himself against its usurped jurisdiction, without being influenced by the proposal, [122] not for himself alonebut in the interest of all kings. Yet once more had he laid thequestion before learned ecclesiastics, whether the Pope of Rome hadany authority in England by divine right; as the University of Oxforddeclares, their theologians had searched for this through the books ofHoly Scripture and its most approved interpreters; they had comparedthe places, conferred with each other on them and come at last to theconclusion, to answer the King's question unreservedly in thenegative. The Cambridge scholars and both Convocations declaredthemselves in the same sense. On this the Parliament had no scruple inabrogating piece by piece the hierarchic-Romish order of things; itwas nothing but a revocable right which they had hitherto borne with. The Annates were transferred to the crown; never more was an Englishbishop to receive his pallium from Rome. It was made penal to applyfor dispensing faculties; with their abolition the fees usually paidfor them also ceased. The oldest token of the devotion of theAnglo-Saxon race to the Roman See, the Peter's penny, was definitelyabolished. Care was taken that for the appeal in the last resort, hitherto made to the Roman courts, there should be a similar court athome. On the other hand the King granted a greater freedom in theelection of bishops, at least in its outward forms. The existing lawsagainst heretics were confirmed, though those independent proceedingsof the bishops which had been usual in the times of the Lancastersreceived some limitation. For the episcopal constitution and the olddoctrine were to be retained: the wish was to establish anAnglo-Catholic Church under the supremacy of the crown. The King addedto his titles the designation of 'Supreme Head on earth of the Churchof England immediately under God. ' The Parliament awarded him theright of Visitation over the Church in reference to abuses and even toerrors, as well as the right of reforming them. For the exercisemoreover of the Papal authority, which so far passed over to him, hehad an example before him which he had only to follow. Wolsey for aseries of years, as Legate of the Pope and then as his Vicar General, had administered the English Church by means of English courts: theunity of the English common-weal had been represented in his twofoldpower as legate and first minister; practically it was no violentchange when the King himself now appointed a Vicar General who, empowered by him, exercised this authority without any reference tothe Pope. It was an assistant of Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell, who was atthe same time Keeper of the Great Seal, who regulated the managementof these affairs in a way not altogether new to him. From this pointof view Wolsey represents exactly the man of the transition, whooccupied the intermediate position in nationalising the EnglishChurch. 

Though Henry VIII did not always follow in his father's footsteps, hewas yet his genuine successor in the work he began. What the firstTudor achieved in the temporal domain, viz. The exclusion of foreigninfluence, that the second extended to spiritual affairs. The greatquestion now was, whether the conflicting elements, in themselvesindependent but ceaselessly agitated by their connexion with the restof Europe, would continue loyal to the idea of the common-weal; theneven their opposition might become a new impulse and help to perfectthe power of the State and the Constitution. 

NOTES:

[103] 'Quasi che quello, che minacciano, non fosse prima a dannoloro. ' So it is said in a letter of Sanga, April 1529, Lettere didiversi autori p. 69. 

[104] 'Pour ce qu'il n'est encoires temps qu'il meure que premierementl'on n'ayt entendu et veriffié plusieurs choses. ' Chapuis to CharlesV, 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 desirableexplanation: 'the knights being of the King's council, the King'sservants 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 treasureis spent in vain, and consequently loud murmurs and discontent prevailthrough the kingdom. '

[107] 'The only head sovereign lord and protector of both the saidparties, your subjects spiritual and temporal. ' Petition of theCommons 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. Strypehad already remarked its difference from the original demands. 

[114] Matters to be proposed in Convocation (in Strype, EcclesiasticalMemorials i. 215. ) 'That the King's Majesty hath as well the care ofthe souls of his subjects as their bodies, and may by the law of Godby his Parliament make laws touching and concerning as well the one asthe other. '

[115] Facsimile in Ellis's Original Letters, Ser. Ii. Vol i. But thisalteration cannot have taken place at the beginning of his government. This would presuppose all the results won by so much effort. Thehandwriting 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 questaopinion (della Faculta di Parigi) insieme con altre opinion delleuniversita di Angliterra et d'altrove per Mr. Winschier [father ofAnne Boleyn] al papa si possino monstrar o presentar. 

[118] 'The moste part of the nobles of the realm. ' Cranmer's letter toHawkyns. Archaeologia xviii. 79. 

[119] In the treaty of Bologna (1 Feb. 1533) is an article, 'proadministranda justitia super divortio Anglicano et--amputando omnemsuperfluam dilationem'

[120] Instruccion para el Conde de Cifuentes y Rodrigo Avalos. Papiersd'état de Granvelle ii. 45

[121] In a later report to the Emperor it is said, that the rights ofthe 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 mostdirectly concerned the higher interests of the nation was theabolition, 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 thethrone, even in the case of her having only the one daughter who hadbeen meanwhile born. This does not depend so much on the actualmeasures taken as on the fact, that now, according to Wolsey's plan, the government had broken with the political system which hadprevailed hitherto, and indeed in a sense that went far beyond hisviews. Not merely was a French alliance avoided; the separation fromthe Church of Rome was to become the basis of the whole dynasticsettlement of England. 

At home men felt most the harshness and violence of basing a politicalrule on Church ideas. The statute contains threats of the sharpestpunishments against all who should do or write or even say anythingagainst it: a commission was appointed, in which we find the Dukes ofNorfolk and Suffolk, which could require every one to take an oath ofconformity to it. It was to be carried out with the full weight ofEnglish adherence to the law. 

It was to this very statute that Bishop Fisher of Rochester and SirThomas More fell victims. They did not refuse to acknowledge the orderof succession itself thus enacted, for this was within the competenceof Parliament, but they would not confirm with their oath the reasonlaid down in the statute, that Henry's marriage with Catharine wasagainst Scripture and invalid from the beginning. More ranks among theoriginal minds of this great century: he is the first who learnt howto write English prose; but in the great currents of the literarymovement he shrank back from the foremost place: after he had aidedthem by writings in the style of Erasmus, he set himself as LordChancellor of England to oppose their onward sweep with much rigour:he would not have the Church community itself touched. Of the laststatute he said, it killed either the body if one opposed it, or thesoul if one obeyed: he preferred to save his soul. He met his deathwith so lively a realisation of the future life, in which the troublesof this life would cease, that he looked on his departure out of itwith all the irony which was in general characteristic of him. Thefact that the Pope at this moment had named Bishop Fisher cardinal ofthe Roman Church seems to have still more hastened his execution. Theyboth died as martyrs to the ideas by which England had been hithertolinked to the Church community of the West and to the authority of thePapacy. 

If we turn our eyes abroad, the succession statute above all must havemade a most disagreeable impression on the Emperor Charles V. He sawin it a political loss, an injury to his house, and indeed to allsovereign families, and a danger to the Church. With a view toopposing it, he formed the plan of drawing the King of France into anenterprise against England. He proposed to him the marriage of histhird son, the Duke of Angoulême, with the Princess Mary, who wasrecognised as the only lawful heiress of England by the Apostolic See, and whose claims would then accrue to this prince. [123] And they wouldnot be difficult, so he said, to establish, as a great part of theEnglish abhorred the King's proceedings, his second marriage, and hisdivergence from the Church. At the same time the Emperor proposed theclosest dynastic union of the two houses by a double marriage of histwo children with a son and a daughter of Francis I. What in the wholeworld would he not have attained, if he had won over France tohimself! His combination embraced as usual West and East, Church andState, Italian German and Northern affairs. 

Perhaps the success of such a scheme was not probable; butindependently of this, Henry VIII had good cause to prepare himself tomeet the superior power of the Emperor, with whom he had so decidedlybroken. As we have already hinted, he could have no want of allies inthis struggle. It was under these circumstances that he entered intorelations with the powerful demagogues who were then from theircentral position at Lubeck labouring to transform the North, and tosever it from all Netherlandish-Burgundian influence. But it was ofstill more importance to him to form an alliance with the Protestantprinces and estates of Germany proper, who had gradually become apower in opposition to Pope and Emperor. In the autumn of 1535 we findEnglish ambassadors in Germany, who attended the meeting of the Leagueat Schmalkald, and the most serious negociations were entered on. Bothsides were agreed not to recognise the Council which was thenannounced by the Pope, for the very reason that the Pope announced it, who had no right to do so. The German princes demanded an engagementthat if one of the two parties was attacked, the other should lend nosupport to its enemy; for the King this was not enough; he wished, incase he was attacked, to be able to reckon on support from Germany incavalry, infantry, and ships, in return for which he was ready to givea very considerable contribution to the chest of the League. It waseven proposed that he should undertake the protection of theLeague. [124]

All this however was based on a presupposition, which could not butlead the English to further ecclesiastical changes. It was not aschism affecting the constitution and administration of justice, but acomplete system of dissentient Church doctrines, with which Henry VIIIcame in contact. The German Protestants made it a condition of theiralliance with England, that there should be full agreement betweenthem as to doctrine. 

We may ask whether this was altogether possible. 

If we compare the Church movements and events that had taken placeduring the last years in Germany and in England, their greatdifference is visible at a glance. In Germany the movement wastheological and popular, corresponding to the wants and needs of theterritorial state; in England it was juridico-canonical, not connectedwith appeals to the people or with free preaching, but based on theunity of the nation. Though the German Diet had for a moment inclinedto the Reform and had once even given it a legal sanction, itafterwards by a majority set itself against it: to carry it throughbecame now the part of the minority, the Protesting party. In Englandon the contrary all proceeded from the plan of the sovereign and theresolutions of Parliament, in which the bishops themselves with fewexceptions took part. Perhaps a more deep-seated ground of differencemay be that the German bishops were more independent than the English, and that an Emperor was then ruling who, being at the same time Kingof Spain and Naples, troubled himself little about the unity ofGermany in particular; while in England a newly-formed strongpolitical power existed which made the national interests its own andupheld them on all sides. 

Despite all this the English Schism had nevertheless a deep inneranalogy with the German Reformation. 

From the beginning the dispute as to jurisdiction was based on thehistorical point of view, on which Luther too laid much stress. Standish, who has been already mentioned, derived the right to limitthe ecclesiastical prerogatives, from this among other grounds, thatthere were Christian churches in which they were altogether rejected, for instance the rule as to the celibacy of the clergy was notaccepted by the Greeks. He inferred too, that, as no one disputed theclaim of the Greek Church to be Christian, the conception of theuniversal Church must be different from that which Romanism asserts. Both countries also found the groundwork of the true church-communityin Scripture. In the chief instance before them, that of the divorce, the German theologians were not of the same mind as the English; butboth sides agreed in this, that there was a revealed will of God, which the ecclesiastical power might not contravene: the convictiontook root that the Papacy did not represent the highest communion ofmen with divine things, but that this rested on the divine recordalone. The use of Scripture had at last influenced various questionsin England also. For abolishing the Annates it was argued that such animpost contradicts a maxim of the Apostle Paul; for doing away thePapal jurisdiction, that no place of Scripture justifies it. This iswhat was meant when the assertion that the Papacy is of divine rightwas denied. This becomes quite clear when Henry VIII instead of theprevious prohibitions against distributing the Bible in the vernaculargave his licence for it. As he once declared with great animation, theadvancement of God's word and of his own authority were one and thesame thing. [125] The engraved title-page of the translation whichappeared with his _privilegium_ puts into his mouth the expression'Thy word is a light to my feet. ' The order soon followed to place acopy of the Book of books in every church: there every man might lookinto the disputed places, and convince himself, by this highest ofcodes, as to the rightfulness of the procedure that had been chosen. 

But then it was impossible to stop at mere divergences ofjurisdiction. The German interpretation of Scripture gained ground inevery direction: a theological school grew up, though only here andthere, which adhered to it more or less openly. 

It must needs have had the greatest effect, that the followers of thisview obtained a great number of bishoprics. The archbishopric ofCanterbury had already fallen to the lot of a man who had completedhis theological training in Germany: this very man, Thomas Cranmer, had carried through the divorce; his was one of those natures whichmust have the support of the supreme power to help them to follow outtheir own views; as they then appear enterprising and courageous, sodo they become pliant and yielding when this favour fails them; theydo not shine through moral greatness, but they are well suited topreserve, under difficult circumstances, what they have once embraced, for better times. Hugh Latimer was cast in a sterner mould; heactually dared, in the midst of the persecutions, to admonish theKing, whose chaplain he was, of the welfare of his soul and his dutyas King. However little this act effected for the moment, yet he mayhave thus contributed to enlighten the King (who now and then showedhim personal goodwill) as to his title of 'Defender of the Faith. 'Latimer was a fervent and effective preacher: he was made bishop ofWorcester. Nicolas Shaxton, Bishop of Salisbury, Hilsey of Rochester, Bisham of S. Asaph's and then S. David's, Goodrich of Ely, were alldisposed to Protestantism. Edward Fox who had been named Bishop ofHereford, had at Schmalkald openly declared the Pope to be Antichrist, and assured the Protestants in the strongest manner of his sovereign'sinclination to attach himself to their Confession. It was the grandunion of these biblical scholars among the bishops, which in theConvocation of 1536 undertook to carry through the work of drawingtheir church nearer that of Germany. Latimer opened the war by afervent sermon against image-worship, indulgences, purgatory, andother doctrines or rites which were at variance with the Bible. Cranmer proved that Holy Scripture contains all that is necessary forman to know for the salvation of his soul, and that tradition is notneeded. The Bishop of Hereford communicated it, as an experience ofhis journey, that the laity everywhere would now be instructed onlyout of the Revelation. Thomas Cromwell, who took part in the sittingsas the King's representative, lent them much support, and once broughtwith him a Scottish scholar who had just returned from Wittenberg, tocombat the received doctrine of the Sacrament. [126] On the other sidealso stood men of weight and consideration, Lee archbishop of York whohad expressly opposed himself, together with his clergy, to theadoption of the King's new title, Stokesley of London who broke alance for the seven sacraments, Gardiner of Winchester and Longland ofLincoln who after contributing materially to the King's divorcenevertheless rejected any alteration in doctrine, Tonstall of Durham, Nix of Norwich. 

It seems as though the King, who was still busied in the Parliamentitself with the confirmation of his church regulations, thought hedetected in this party too much predilection for the Papacy. He foundanother motive in the necessity of having allies for the comingCouncil; he decisively took the side of Reform. Ten articles were laidbefore the Convocation in his name, the first five of which are takenfrom the Augsburg Confession or from the commentaries on it; as tothese the Bishop of Hereford agreed with the theologians ofWittenberg. In them the faithful were referred exclusively to thecontents of the Bible, and the three oldest creeds; only threesacraments were still recognised, Baptism, Penance, and the Lord'sSupper. The real presence was maintained in them, in the words ofthose commentaries, and entirely in Luther's original sense. [127] Butstill this tendency was not yet so strong as to be able to make itselfexclusively felt. In the following articles, the veneration, even theinvocation, of saints, and no small part of the existing ceremonies, were allowed--though in terms which with all their moderation cannotdisguise the rejection of them in principle. Despite these limitationsthe document contains a clear adoption of the principles of religiousreform as they were carried out in Germany. It was subscribed by 18bishops, 40 abbots and priors, 50 members of the lower house ofConvocation: the King, as the Head of the Church, promulgated it forgeneral observance. His vicegerent in Church affairs commanded all theclergy entrusted with a cure of souls to explain the articles, andalso at certain times to lay before the people the rightfulness of theabrogation of Papal authority. He required them to give warningsagainst image-worship, belief in modern miracles, and pilgrimages. Children were henceforth to learn the Lord's Prayer, the articles ofthe Creed, and the Ten Commandments in English. [128] It was thebeginning of the Church service in the vernacular, which was rightlyregarded as the chief means of withdrawing the national Church fromRomish influence. 

But Cromwell was also engaged in another enterprise, not less hostileand injurious to the Papacy. 

As many of the great men in State and Church thought, so thought alsothe pious members of the monasteries and cloistered convents; theyopposed the Supremacy, not as they said from inclination todisobedience, but because Holy Mother Church ordered otherwise thanKing and Parliament ordained. [129] The apology merely served tocondemn them. In the rules they followed, in the Orders to which theybelonged, the intercommunion of Latin Christianity had its most livingexpression; but it was exactly this which King and Parliament wishedto sever. Wolsey had already, as we know, and with the help ofCromwell himself, taken in hand to suppress many of them: but in thenew order of things there was absolutely no more place for themonastic system; it was necessarily sacrificed to the unity of thecountry, and at the same time to the greed of the great men. 

But it cannot be imagined that innovations which struck so deep couldbe carried through without opposition. After all the efforts of theold kings to establish Christianity in agreement with Rome, after thevictories of the Papacy when the kings quarrelled with it, and theviolent suppression of all dissent, it was inevitable that the beliefof the hierarchic ages, which is besides so peculiarly adapted to thisend, had in England as elsewhere sunk deep into men's minds, and ingreat measure still swayed them. Was what had been always held forheresy no longer to merit this name because it was avowed by theruling powers? In the northern counties neither the clergy nor thepeople would hear of the King's supremacy; they continued to pray forthe Pope; Cromwell's injunctions were disregarded. It may be thathorrible abuses and vices were prevalent in the cloisters, but all didnot labour under such reproaches; many were objects of reverence intheir own districts, and centres of hospitality and charity. It wouldhave been wonderful if their violent destruction had not excitedpopular discontent. And this temper was shared by those who enjoyedthe chief consideration in the provinces. Among the nobles there werestill men like Lord Darcy of Templehurst, who had borne arms againstthe Moors in the service of Isabella and Ferdinand: how offensive tothem must innovations be which ran counter to all their reminiscences!The lords in these provinces were believed to have pledged their wordto each other to suppress the heresies, as they called the Protestantopinions, together with their authors and abettors. The countrypeople, who apprehended yet further encroachments, were easily stirredup to commotion; collections of money were made from house to house, and the strongest men of each parish provided with the necessaryweapons: in the autumn of 1536 open revolt broke out. A lawyer, RobertAske, placed himself at its head; he set before the people all thedamage that the suppression of the monasteries did to the countryaround, by diverting their revenues and abstracting their treasures. In a short time he had gained over the whole of the North. The city ofYork joined him; Darcy admitted him into the strong castle of Pomfret:in that broad county only one single castle still held out in itsobedience to the government: then the neighbouring districts also werecarried away by the movement: Aske saw an army of thirty thousand menaround him. He took the road to London to, as he said, drive base-bornmen out of the King's council, and restore the Christian church inEngland: he called his march a 'Pilgrimage of Grace. ' But when he cameinto contact with royal troops at Doncaster he paused; for it was nota war, which would cost the country too dear, but only a great armedremonstrance in favour of the old system that he contemplated. Hecontented himself with presenting his demands--suppression ofheresies, restitution of the supreme charge of souls to the Pope, restoration of the monasteries, and in particular the punishment ofCromwell with his abettors, and the calling of a Parliament. [130]

When we consider that Ireland was in revolt, Cornwall in a state offerment, men's Catholic sympathies stirred up by foreign princes, itis easy to understand how some voices in the King's Privy Council wereraised in favour of concession. Henry VIII, a true Tudor, was not theman to give in on such a point. He upbraided the rebels in haughtywords with their ignorance and presumption, and repeated that all hedid and ordered was in conformity with God's law and for the interestsof the country; but it was mainly by promising to call a Parliament atYork that he really laid the gathering storm. But at the first breachof the law that occurred he revoked this promise;[131] if he hadrelaxed the maintenance of his prerogative for a moment, he exercisedit immediately after all the more relentlessly. He at last got all theleaders of the revolt into his hands, and appeared to the world to beconqueror. But we cannot for this reason hold that the movement didnot react upon him. His plan was not, and in fact could not be, toincur the hostility of his people or endanger the crown for the sakeof dogmatic opinions. True, he held to his order that the Bible shouldbe promulgated in the English tongue, for his revolt from thehierarchy, and demand of obedience from all estates, rested on God'swritten word: nor did he allow himself to swerve from the legallyenacted suppression of the monasteries; but he abandoned furtherinnovations, and an altered tendency displayed itself in all hisproclamations. Even during the troubles he called on the bishops toobserve the usual church ceremonies: he put forth an edict against themarriage of priests (although he had been inclined to allow it) fromregard to popular opinion. The importation of books printed abroad, and any publication of a work in England itself without a previouscensorship, were again prohibited. Processions, genuflexions, andother pious usages, in church and domestic life, were once morerecommended. The sharpest edicts went forth against any dissent fromthe strict doctrine of the Sacrament and against any extremevariations in doctrine. The King actually appeared in person to takepart in confuting the misbelievers. He would prove to the world thathe was no heretic. 

It had also already become evident that no invasion by the Emperor wasat 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 theSpanish Council of State they took it into consideration that HenryVIII, if anything was undertaken against him, would at all times havethe King of France on his side, and in his passionate temperamentmight be easily instigated to take steps which they would ratheravoid. [132] After Catharine's death they made mutual advances, whichit is true did not bring about a good understanding, but yet excludedactual hostilities. It would only disturb our view if we were here tofollow one by one the manifold fluctuations in the course of thesepolitical relations and negociations. One motive in favour of peaceunder all circumstances was supplied by the ever-growing commercebetween England and the Netherlands, on which the prosperity of bothcountries depended, and the destruction of which would have beeninjurious to the sovereigns themselves. When, some time after, theprospect of an alliance with France against England was presented tohim by the interposition of the new Pope, Paul III, Charles declinedit. He remarked that the German Protestants, to whom his attentionmust be mainly directed, would be strengthened by it. [133] At the mostan interruption of this system could only be expected in case civildisturbances in England invited the Emperor to make a sudden attack. Once it even appeared as if a Yorkist movement might be combined withthe religious agitation. A descendant of Edward IV, the Marquis ofExeter, formed the plan of marrying the Princess Mary, and undertakingthe restoration of the old church system. He found much sympathy inthe country for this plan; the co-operation of the Emperor with himmight have been very dangerous. 

Henry lost no time in fortifying the harbours and coasts against suchan attack. 

But the chief means of preventing all dangers of this kind lay incutting from under them the ground on which they rested. Henry VIIIwas not minded to yield a jot of the full power he had inherited: onthe contrary his supremacy in church matters was confirmed in 1539 bya new act of Parliament: another finally ordained the suppression ofthe greater abbeys also, whose revenues served to endow some newbishoprics, but mainly passed into the possession of the Crown and theLords: the unity of the Church and the exclusive independence of thecountry were still more firmly established. But the more Henry wasresolved to abide by his constitutional innovations, the morenecessary it seemed to him, in reference to doctrine, to avoid anydeviation that could be designated as heretical. And though he someyears before made advances to the Protestants because he needed theirsupport against the Emperor and the Pope, things were now on thecontrary in such a state that he could feel himself all the safer, theless connexion he had with the Germans. Under quite different auspicesof home and foreign politics was the religious debate, that had led in1536 to the Ten Articles, resumed three years later. The bishops whoheld 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 knewhow to get rid of the old suspicion of their having thought ofrestoring the Papal supremacy and jurisdiction, by showing completedevotion to the King. On the other hand the Protestants had suffered avery sensible loss in Bishop Fox of Hereford, who had always possessedmuch influence over the King, but had died lately. An understandingbetween the two parties on questions which were dividing the wholeworld was not to be thought of; they confronted each other asirreconcilable antagonists. The debates were transferred on Norfolk'sproposal to Parliament and Convocation; at last it was thought bestthat each of the two parties should bring in the outline of a billexpressing its own views. This was done: but first both bills weredelivered to the King, on whose word, according to the prevailingpoint of view, the decision mainly depended. We may as it were imaginehim with the two religious schemes in his hand. On the one side layprogressive innovation, increasing ferment in the land, and alliancewith the Protestants: on the other, change confined to the advantagesalready gained by the crown, the contentment of the great majority ofthe people, who adhered to the old belief, peace and friendship withthe Emperor. The King himself too had a liking for the doctrines hehad acknowledged from his youth. The balance inclined in favour of thebishops of the old belief: Henry gave their bill the preference. Itwas 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 withit, private masses and auricular confession, and the binding force ofvows, were sanctioned anew; the marriage of priests and the giving thecup to the laity were prohibited; all under the severest penalties. The whole of the high nobility to a man agreed to it: the Lower Houseraised the resolutions of the clergy into law. 

How completely did the German ambassadors, who had come over with theexpectation of seeing the victory in England of the theologians whowere friendly to them, find themselves deceived! They still howevercherished the hope that these resolutions would never be carried out. Their ground for hope lay in the King's marriage with a GermanProtestant 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 mirrorof purity, modesty and maidenliness! hardly two years afterwards heaccused her of adultery under circumstances which, if they were true, would make her one of the most depraved creatures under the sun. Ifwe go through the statements that led to her condemnation, it isdifficult to think them complete fictions: they have been upheld quiterecently. If on the other hand we read the letter, so full of highfeeling and inward truthfulness, in which Anne protests her innocenceto the King, we cannot believe in the possibility of thetransgressions for which she had to die. I can add nothing further towhat has been long known, except that the King, soon after hercoronation, in November 1533, already showed a certain discontent withher. [134] Was it after all not right in the eyes of the jealousautocrat that his former wife's lady in waiting now as Queen wore thecrown as well as himself? Anne Boleyn too might not be without blamein her demeanour which was not troubled by any strict rule. Or did itseem to the King a token of the divine displeasure against thismarriage also, that Anne Boleyn in her second confinement brought astillborn son into the world? It has been always said that the livelyinterest she took in the progress of the outspoken Protestantism, whose champions were almost all her personal friends, contributed mostto her fall. For the house from which she sprung she certainly in thisrespect went too far. In the midst of religious and political parties, pursued by suspicion and slander, and in herself too tormented byjealousy, endangered rather than guarded by the possession of thehighest dignity, she fell into a state of excitement bordering onmadness. 

On the day after her execution the King married one of her maids ofhonour, the very same who had awakened her jealousy, Jane Seymour. Sheindeed brought him the son for whom his soul longed, but she died inher confinement. 

In the rivalry of parties Cromwell after some time formed the plan ofstrengthening his own side by the King's marriage with a Germanprincess; he chose for this purpose Anne of Cleves, a lady nearlyrelated to the Elector of Saxony, and whose brother as possessor ofGuelders was a powerful opponent of the Emperor. This was at the timewhen the Emperor on his way to the Netherlands paid a visit to KingFrancis, and an alliance of these sovereigns was again feared. But bythe time his new wife arrived all anxiety had already gone by, andwith 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 likeHenry; he had no scruple in dissolving the marriage already concluded;Anne made no opposition: the King preferred to her a Catholic lady ofthe house of Howard. But the consequent alteration was not limited tothe change of a wife. The hopes the Protestants had cherished nowcompletely dwindled away: it was the hardest blow they could receive. Cromwell, the person who had been the main instrument in carrying outthe schism by law, and who had then placed himself at the head of thereformers, was devoted to destruction by the now dominant party. Hewas even more violently overthrown than Wolsey had been. In the middleof business one day at a meeting of the Privy Council he was informedthat he was a prisoner; two of his colleagues there tore the orderswhich he wore from his person, since he was no longer worthy ofthem;[136] that which had been the ruin of so many under his rule, acareless word, was now his own. 

Now began the persecution of those who infringed the Six Articles, onvery slight grounds of fact, and with an absence of legal form inproving the cases, that held a drawn sword over innocent and guiltyalike. Bishops like Latimer and Shaxton had to go to the Tower. Buthow many others atoned for their faith with their life! Robert Barnes, one of the founders of the higher studies at Cambridge, well known anduniversally beloved in Germany, who avowed the doctrines imbibed therewithout reserve, lost his life at the stake. For what the peasantshad once demanded now again came to pass;--the heretics perished byfire according to the old statutes. 

After some time a check was given to extreme acts of violence. Legalforms were supplied for the bloody laws, which softened theirseverity. To Archbishop Cranmer, who was likewise attacked, the Kinghimself stretched out a protecting hand. When he once more made commoncause with the Emperor against France, and undertook a war on theContinent, he previously ordered the introduction of an EnglishLitany, which was to be sung in processions. The fact that the Biblewas read in the vernacular, and popular devotional exercises retainedin use, saved the Protestant ideas and efforts, despite allpersecution, from extinction. 

It gives a disagreeably grotesque colouring to the government of HenryVIII to see how his matrimonial affairs are mixed up with those ofpolitics and religion. Queen Catharine Howard, whose marriage with himmarked also the preponderance of the Catholic principle, was withoutany doubt guilty of offences like those which were imputed to herpredecessor Anne: at her fall her relations, the leaders of theanti-Protestant party, lost their position and influence at court. TheKing then married Catharine Parr, who had good conduct and womanlyprudence enough to keep him in good temper and contentment. But sheopenly cherished Protestant sympathies; and she was once seriouslyattacked on their account. Henry however let her influence prevail, asit did not clash with his own policy. 

Now that once the sanctity of marriage had been violated, the place ofKing's wife became as it were revocable; the antagonistic factionssought to overthrow the Queen who was inconvenient to them; that whichhas been at various times demanded of other members of the household, that they should be in complete agreement with the ruling system, wasthen required with respect to their wives, and indeed to the wife ofthe sovereign himself; the importance of marriage was now shown onlyby the violence with which it was dissolved. 

This self-willed energetic sovereign however by no means so completelyfollowed merely his own judgment as has been assumed. We saw how afterWolsey's fall he at first inclined to the protestant doctrines, andthen again persecuted them with extreme energy. He sacrificed, asformerly Empson and Dudley, so Wolsey and now Cromwell to the publicopinion roused against them. He recognised with quick penetrationsuccessive political necessities and followed their guidance. The mostcharacteristic thing is that he always seemed to belong body and soulto these tendencies, however much they differed from each other: helet them be established by laws contradictory to each other, andinsisted with relentless severity on the execution of those laws. 

Under him, if ever, England appears as a commonwealth with a commonwill, from which no deviation is allowed, but which moves forwardinclining now to the one side now to the other. It was no part ofHenry VIII's Tudor principles and inclinations to call the Parliamenttogether; but for his Church-enterprise it was indispensable. He gaveits tendencies their way and respected the opinion which itrepresented: but at the same time he knew how to keep it at all timesunder the sway of his influence. Never has any other sovereign seensuch devoted Parliaments gathered round him; they gave hisproclamations the force of law, and allowed him to settle thesuccession according to his own views; they then gave effect to whathe determined. 

In this way it was possible for Henry VIII to carry through apolitical plan that has no parallel. He allowed the spiritualtendencies of the century to gain influence, and then contrived toconfine them within the narrowest limits. He would be neitherProtestant nor Catholic, and yet again both; an unimaginable thing, ifit had only concerned these opinions: but he retained his hold on thenation because his plan of separating the country from the Papalhierarchic system, without taking a step further than was absolutelynecessary, suited the people's views. 

In the earlier years it appeared as though he would alienate Irelandby his religious innovations, since there Catholicism and nationalfeeling were at one. And there really were moments when the insurgentchiefs in alliance with Pope and Emperor boasted that with French andScotch help they would attack the English on all sides and drive theminto the sea. But there too it proved of infinite service to him thathe defended dogma while he abandoned the old constitution. In Irelandthe monasteries and great abbeys were likewise suppressed; theO'Briens, Desmonds, O'Donnels, and other families were as muchgratified as the English lords and gentlemen with the property almostgratuitously offered them. Under these circumstances they recognisedHenry VIII as King of Ireland, almost as if they had a feeling of thechange of position as regards public law into which they thus came:they received their baronies from him as fiefs and appeared inParliament. 

Towards the end of his life Henry once more drew the sword againstFrance in alliance with the Emperor. What urged him to this howeverwas not the Emperor's interest in itself, but the support which theparty hostile to him in Scotland received from the French. Moreover hedid not trouble himself to bring about a decisive result between thetwo great powers: he was content with the conquest of Boulogne. He hadreverted to his father's policy and resolved not to let himself bedrawn over by any of his neighbours to their own interests, but to usetheir rivalry for his own profit and security. [137]

And he was able to do yet more than his father to increase England'spower of defence against the one or the other. We hear of fifty placeson the coast which he fortified, not without the help of foreignmaster-workmen: the two great harbours of Dover and Calais he put intogood condition and filled them with serviceable ships. For a long timepast he had been building the first vessels of a large size (such asthe Harry and Mary Rose) which then did service in the wars. [138] Itmay be that the property of the monasteries was partly squandered andought to have been better husbanded: a great part of their revenueshowever was applied to this purpose, and conferred much benefit on thecountry so far as its own peculiar interests were concerned. 

The characteristic of his government consists in the mixture ofspiritual and temporal interests, the union of violence with fosteringcare. The family enmities, which Henry VII had to contend with, arecombined with the religious under Henry VIII, for instance in theSuffolk family: as William Stanley under the father, so Fisher andMore under the son, perished because they threw doubt on the groundsfor the established right, and still more because they challenged thatright itself. It raised a cry of horror when it was seen how underHenry VIII Papists and Protestants were bound together and drawn tothe place of execution together, since they had both broken the laws. Who would not have been sensible of this? Who would not have felthimself distressed and threatened? Yet at the opening of the Sessionof 1542, after the Chancellor had stated in detail the King's services(who had taken his place on the throne), Lords and Commons rose andbowed to the sovereign in token of their acknowledgment and gratitude. In the Session of 1545 he himself once more took up the word. Infatherly language he exhorted both the religious parties to peace; afeeling pervaded the assembly that this address was the last theywould listen to from him; many were seen to burst into tears. 

For his was the strong power that kept in check the fermentingelements and set them a law that might not be broken. On theirantagonism, by favouring or restraining them, he established hisstrong system of public order. In Henry VIII we remark no freeself-abandonment and no inward enthusiasm, no real sympathy with anyliving man: men are to him only instruments which he uses and thenbreaks to pieces; but he has an incomparable practical intelligence, avigorous energy devoted to the general interest; he combinesversatility of view with a will of unvarying firmness. We follow thecourse of his government with a mingled sense of aversion andadmiration. 

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 ofthe Reformation ii. 157. 

[127] Seckendorf, Historia Lutheranismi iii. 13, xxxix. P. 112: myGerman History iv. 46. 

[128] Injunctions given by the authority of the King. Burnet'sCollection 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 atYork; but our King alledged that since they had not restaured all thereligious houses [as they had promised] he was not bound strictly tohold promise with them. ' Herbert, Henry VIII, p. 428. 

[132] Los impedimentos en que esta S. M. Por la malignidad del dichorey de Francia que haze gran fundamento en la adherencia del dicho reyde 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 hisambassador at Rome. 'Los desviados de Germania se juntarian masestrechamente con el rey de Inglaterra. ' (Document in the Archives atParis. )

[134] In a letter of the Emperor, 2 November, is mentioned 'ledescontentement, 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 estimoitbien fort, comme la plus douce gracieuse humaine Reyne, qu'ils eurentonque. '

[136] A description of the scene, which deserves to be known, iscontained in the letter of the French ambassador, Marillac, to theConstable Montmorency, 23 June 1540. 

[137] Froude iv. 104. 

[138] Marillac assures us that there were not more than eight vesselsin England over 500 tons, that then the King built in 1540 fourteenlarger ones, among them 'le grand Henri, ' over 1800 tons; he hadhowever 'peu de maistres que entendent a l'ouvrage. Les naufs(navires) du roi sont fournies d'artillerie et de munition beaucoupmieux que de bons pilots et de mariniers dont la plus part sontestrangers. ' (Letter of 1 Oct. 1540. )

CHAPTER VI. 

RELIGIOUS REFORM IN THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 

The question arises, whether it was possible permanently to hold toHenry's stand-point, to his rejection of Papal influence and to hismaintenance of the Catholic doctrines as they then were. I venture tosay, it was impossible: the idea involves an historical contradiction. For the doctrine too had been moulded into shape under the influenceof the supreme head of the hierarchy while ascending to his height ofpower: they were both the product of the same times, events, tendencies: they could not be severed from each other. Perhaps theymight have been both modified together, doctrine and constitution, ifa form had been found under which to do it, but to reject the latterand maintain the former in its completed shape--this wasimpracticable. 

When it was seen that Henry could not live much longer, two partiesbecame visible in the country as well as at court, one of which, however much it disguised it, was without doubt aiming at therestoration of the Pope's supremacy, while the other was aiming at afuller development of the Protestant principle. Henry had settled thesuccession so that first his son Edward, then his elder daughter (byhis Spanish wife), then the younger (by Anne Boleyn), were to succeed. As the first, the sovereign who should succeed next, was a boy ofnine, it was of infinite importance to settle who during the time ofhis minority should stand at the helm. The nearest claim was possessedby the boy's uncle on the mother's side, Edward Seymour, Earl ofHertford, who had begun to play a leading part in Henry's court andarmy, was in close alliance with Queen Catharine Parr, and like hercherished Protestant sympathies. But the Norfolks with their Catholicsympathies who had previously so long exercised a leading influence onthe government, would not give way to him. Norfolk's son, the Earl ofSurrey, adopted the immoral plan of ensnaring the King, who thoughdying was yet supposed to be still susceptible to woman's charms, bymeans of his sister, in order to draw him back to the side of hisfamily and the strict Catholics: a plot which failed at once when hissister refused to play such a part. The ambitious announcements intowhich he allowed himself to be hurried away could only bring about theopposite result: he himself was executed, his father thrown intoprison, and the man who could have done most in the Catholicdirection, 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 thePrivy 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 weretoo much accustomed to see the highest power represented in oneleading personage, for it to continue long in the hands of a Board ofCouncillors. From the first sittings of the Privy Council Edward VI'suncle, the Earl of Hertford, came forth as Duke of Somerset andProtector of the realm. In him the reforming tendency won the upperhand. 

It appeared at once with full force at the Coronation, which was notcelebrated at all after the form traced out by Henry VIII, since eventhis 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 hithertoattached to a coronation. Whither had the times of the first Lancasterdeparted, in which a special hierarchic sacredness was given to theAnointing through its connexion with Thomas Becket? Becket's shrinehad been destroyed. The present Archbishop of Canterbury went back tothe earliest times of human history: he brought forward the example ofJosias, who likewise came to the government in tender years andextirpated the worship of idols: so might Edward VI also completelydestroy image-worship, plant God's true service, and free the landfrom the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome; it was not the oil that madehim God's anointed, but the power given him from on high, in virtue ofwhich he was God's representative in his realm. His duty to the Churchwas changed into his duty to religion: instead of upholding theexisting state of things, it at once pledges and empowers him toreform the Church. [140]

The great question now was, how an alteration could be prepared in alegal manner, and how far it would be possible to maintain in this theconstitution of the realm in its relation to the states of Europe. Onthe ground of the supremacy and of a precedent of Henry VIII, theybegan with a resolution to despatch commissions throughout the realm, to revive the suppressed Protestant sympathies; the precedent wasfound in the ordinances that had once proceeded from Thomas Cromwell, just as if they had not in the least been annulled by what hadhappened since, but simply set aside by party feeling and neglect. They were to enquire whether, as therein ordered, the bishops hadpreached against the Pope's usurpation, the parish priests had taughtmen to regard not outward observances but fulfilment of duty as thereal 'good works, ' and had laboured to diminish feast-days andpilgrimages. Above all, images to which superstitious reverence waspaid were at last to be actually removed: the young were to be reallytaught the chief points of the faith in English, a chapter of theBible should be read every Sunday, and Erasmus' Paraphrase employed toexplain it. In place of the sermon was to come one of the Homilieswhich had been published under the authority of the Archbishop andKing. For this last ordinance also authority was found in aninjunction of Henry VIII. Archbishop Cranmer, whose work they are, establishes in them the two principles, on which he had alreadyproceeded in 1536, one that Holy Scripture contains all that it isnecessary for men to know, the other that forgiveness of sins dependsonly on the merits of the Redeemer and on faith in Him. On thisdepends absolutely the possibility of rooting out of men's minds thebelief in the binding force of Tradition, and the hierarchic views asto the merit of good works. The Archbishop's views were promoted byeloquent and zealous preachers such as Matthew Parker, John Knox, HughLatimer; more than all by the last, who had been released from theTower, weak in body but with unimpaired vigour of spirit. The fact ofhis having maintained these doctrines in the time of persecution, hisearnest way and manner, and his venerable old age doubled the effectof his discourses. 

No direct alteration could be thought of so long as the Six Articlesstill existed with their severe threats of punishment. In theParliament elected under the influence of the new government it neededlittle persuasion to procure their repeal. The Protector assured themembers that he had been urgently entreated to effect this, sinceevery man felt himself endangered. [141]

One of those popular beliefs gained ground, which are often moreeffective in great assemblies than elaborate proofs: the convictionthat doctrine and authority were too closely akin for the separationfrom Rome to be maintained without deviation in doctrine; the breachmust be made wider if it was to continue, and the hierarchic doctrinesgive way. 

So it came about that by a unanimous resolution of Convocation, whichParliament confirmed, the alteration was approved, which almost morethan any other characterises those Church formularies that deviatefrom the Romish, the administration of the communion in both kinds. 

Now it was exactly from this that the transformation of the wholedivine worship in England proceeded. The very next Easter (1548) a newform for the communion office was published in English. This wasfollowed, according to a wish expressed by the young King, by aLiturgy for home and church use, in which the revised Litany of HenryVIII was also included. In this 'Common Prayerbook' they everywherekept to what was before in use, but everywhere also made changes. TheReforming tendencies obtained the upper hand in reference to itsdoctrinal contents; thus even one of the rubrics previously in favourby which auricular confession was declared to be indispensable was nowomitted; it was left to every man's judgment to avail himself of it ornot. At times they again sought out what had been disused in laterages: they recurred to Anglo-Saxon usages. The Common Prayer-book is agenuine monument of the religious feeling of this age, of its learningand subtlety, its forbearance and decision. In the Parliament of 1549it was received with admiration: men even said it was drawn up underthe inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The order went forth for itsadoption in all churches of the land, no other liturgy was to be used;it has nourished and edified the national piety of the Englishpeople. [142]

And just as it was now asserted that in all this they were onlycarrying out the views of the deceased King, as he had set them forthmany years before and had at the last again proclaimed them, so nowSomerset 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 ofScotland that in that country too the Church should be reformed, allrelations with France broken off, and the young Queen brought toEngland in order if possible to marry his son Edward at some futureday. The scheme broke down owing to all kinds of opposition, but theidea of uniting England and Scotland in one great Protestant kingdomhad thus made its appearance in the world and could never again be setaside. 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 tobring about an acknowledgment of England's old supremacy overScotland, to prepare the way for the future union of both countries bythe marriage, and to annihilate the party there which opposed theprogress of Protestantism. A vision floated before him of fusing bothnations into one by a union of dynasty and of creed. It was mainlyfrom the religious point of view that his ward regarded the matter. 'They fight for the Pope, ' wrote Edward to the Protector when he wasalready in the field, 'we strike for the cause of God, without doubtwe shall win. [143]'

Somerset had already penetrated far into the land when he offered theScots to retreat and make peace on the one condition that Mary shouldmarry Edward VI. But the ruling party did not so much as allow hisoffer to be known. A battle took place at Pinkie, in which Somersetwon a brilliant victory. Not a little did this victory contribute toestablish his consequence in the world: even in Scotland somedistricts on the borders took the oath of fidelity to King Edward. Butin general the antipathies of the Scotch to the English were all themore roused by it; they would hear nothing of a wooing, carried onwith arms in the hand: the young Queen was after some time (August1548) carried off to France, to be there married to the Dauphin. TheCatholic interests once more maintained their ascendancy in Scotlandover those of the English and the Protestants. 

And how could Somerset's plans and enterprises fail to meet withresistance in England itself? All the elements were still in existencethat had once set themselves in opposition to King Henry with suchenergy. When an attempt was made in earnest to carry out theinnovations at home, in the summer of 1549, the revolt burst intoflame once more. 

In Cornwall a tumult arose at the removal of an image, and the King'scommissary was stabbed by a priest. The troubles extended toDevonshire, where men forced the priests to celebrate the mass afterthe old ritual, and then took the field with crosses and tapers, andcarrying the Host before them. When their numbers became so large asto embolden them to put forth a manifesto, they demanded beforeall--incredible as it may seem--the restoration of the Six Articlesand the Latin Mass, the customary reverence to the Sacrament and toimages. They did not go so far as to demand the restoration of theauthority of the Roman See, like the rebels under Henry VIII; but theypressed for a fresh recognition of the General Councils, and of theold church laws as a whole. At least half of the confiscated churchproperty was to be given back, two abbeys at least were to remain ineach county. But this movement owed its peculiar character to yetanother motive. The enclosures of the arable land for purposes ofpasture, of which the peasantry had been long complaining, did notmerely continue; the nobility, which took part in the secularisationof the church-lands in an increasing degree, extended its grasp alsoto the newly-gained estates. So it came to pass that a rising of thepeasants against the nobles was now united with tendencies towardschurch restoration, as in previous times with ideas of quite adifferent kind. East and West were in revolt at one and the same timeand for different reasons. On a hill near Norwich, the chief leader, atanner by trade, called Ket, took his seat under a great oak which hecalled the Oak of Reformation; he had the mass read daily after theold use: but he also planned a remodeling of the realm to suit theviews of the people. The wildest expectations were aroused. A prophecyfound belief according to which monarchy and nobility were to bedestroyed simultaneously, and a new government set up under fourGovernors elected by the common people. And woe to him who wished toreason with the peasants against their design. They were alreadybending their bows against a preacher who attempted to do so, he wasonly saved with difficulty. But they were still less capable thistime of withstanding the organised power of the State than they hadbeen under Henry VIII. In Devonshire they were beaten by Lord Russel, the ancestor of the Dukes of Bedford; in Norfolk, where they had risenin the greatest force, by John Dudley Earl of Warwick. Under hisbanners we find German troops as well, who were untouched by thenational sympathies, and in the rebels combated only the enemies ofProtestantism. The government obtained a complete victory. 

The insurrectionary movement was suppressed, but it once more produceda violent reaction in home affairs, by which this time the head of thegovernment was himself struck down. [144] Among English statesmen thereis none who had a more vivid idea of the monarchical power than theProtector Somerset. He started from the view that religious andpolitical authority were united in the hand of the anointed King invirtue of his divine right. The prayer which he daily addressed to Godis still extant; it is full of the feeling that to himself, as therepresentative and guardian of the King, not only his guidance butalso the direction of all affairs is entrusted. Such was also the viewof the young sovereign himself. In one of his letters he thanks theProtector for taking this employment on him, and for trying to bringhis State to its lawful obedience, the country to acknowledge the truereligion, and the Scots to submission. Somerset did not think himselfbound by the opinion of the Privy Council, since with him, and with noother, lay the responsibility for the administration of the State. Heheld it to be within his competence to remove at pleasure those of itsmembers who showed themselves adverse to him. He too had that jealousyof power, which always directs itself against those who stand nearestto it. There is no doubt that his brother, Thomas Lord Seymour, impelled by a restless ambition, hoped to overthrow the existinggovernment and put himself in possession of the highest place, andcommitted manifold illegal acts; he--the Lord Admiral of therealm--even entered into alliance with the pirates in theChannel. [145] But despite this it was thought at the time very severewhen the Protector gave his word that the vengeance of the law shouldbe executed on his brother. His reason was that Lord Seymour would notsubmit to sue in person for mercy to him the injured party andpossessor of power. Such were these men, these brothers. The one diedrather than pray for mercy: the other made the bestowal of it dependon this prayer, this confession of his supreme authority. [146] TheProtector took all affairs, home and foreign, exclusively into his ownhand. Without asking any one, he filled up the ministerial and civilposts: to the foreign ambassadors he gave audience alone. He erectedin his house a Court of Requests, [147] which encroached not a littleon the business of Chancery. The palace in the Strand, which stillbears his name, was to be a memorial of his power; not merely housesand gardens, but also churches which occupied the ground, or fromwhich he wished to collect his building materials, were destroyed withreckless arbitrary power. Great historical associations areindissolubly linked with this house. For it was Somerset after all, who through personal zeal opened a free path for the Protestanttendency which had originated under Henry VIII but had been repressed, and gave the English government a Protestant character. He connectedwith this not merely the Union of Scotland and England, but a yetfurther idea of great importance for England itself. He wished to freethe change of religion from the antipathy of the peasantry which wasat that time so prominent. In the above-mentioned dissensions he tookopen part for the demands of the commons: he condemned the progress ofthe enclosures and gave his opinion that the people could not beblamed so heavily for their rebellion, as their choice lay onlybetween death by hunger and insurrection. It seemed as though hewished in the next Parliament by means of his influence to carrythrough 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 byproclamations which he issued in opposition to the Privy Council; andwith not merely having done nothing to suppress them but with havingon the contrary supported the ringleaders and taken them under hisprotection. [148] No doubt this was the reason why the campaign againstthe 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. Eventhose who did not believe that he had any personal share in themovement, nevertheless reproached him with having allowed conditionsto be prescribed to himself and his government by the people; thecommon man would be King. Financial difficulties arising from analteration 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 movementon his own behalf: one day he collected numerous bands of people atHampton Court, under cover of summoning them to defend the King, bywhose side his enemies wished to set up a regency. But this pretexthad little foundation, it was only himself whom his rivals would nolonger see at the head of affairs: after a short fluctuation in therelations between the main personages he was forced to submit. Hesaved his life for that time: after an interval he was released fromprison and again entered the Privy Council: then he once more made anattempt to recover the supreme power by help of the people, but thusdrew his fate on himself. The masses who regarded him as theirchampion showed him loud and heartfelt sympathy at his execution. 

On Somerset's first fall it was said that the Emperor Charles V had ashare in bringing it about, and this is very conceivable; for whatresult could be more displeasing to this sovereign than thatProtestantism, which he was putting down in Germany, should havegained at the same moment a strong position in England: it is certainthat the change of administration was greeted with joy by the court atBrussels. [149]

But it brought the Emperor no advantage. At the moment the newgovernment assumed a hostile attitude towards France: but soonafterwards the Earl of Warwick, who now took the lead of affairs asDuke of Northumberland, found himself driven to the necessity ofmaking a peace with that power, by which Boulogne was given up andScotland abandoned to French influence. One article of the treatycontains indirectly a renunciation of the proposed marriage betweenthe King of England and the Queen of Scotland. And this treaty wasgreatly to the Emperor's disadvantage, since it now set the Frenchfree to renew the hostility against him which had been broken off someyears before by an agreement all in his favour. They allied themselvesfor this purpose with the German princes who found the Emperor's yokeintolerable. These princes had even applied to the English government:and Edward would personally have been much inclined to lend an ear totheir proposals. If the fear of being involved in war with the Emperoron this account withheld him from open sympathy, yet it is certainthat his general political attitude essentially contributed to enablethem to take up arms and break the Emperor's ascendancy. 

Among the determining causes of a movement which is part of thehistory of the world must be specially reckoned the personaldisposition of this prince, young as he was even at the close of hisreign. Somerset had kept him rather close: the Duke of Northumberlandgave him greater freedom, allowed him to manage his own money, and waspleased when he made presents and showed himself as King; he wascareful to see that immediate obedience was paid him. [150] WhilstEdward 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 asany other young man of his age. But with all this his learning was notneglected. [151] Edward VI not merely possessed for his yearsextraordinary and manifold attainments; the written remains which areextant from his hand display a rare mental growth. What he has writtenfor instance on his connexion with the two Seymours, his uncles, indicates a clear and almost a judicial conception of existingrelations, which is very uncommon. On his tutor's advice, to preventhis passing thoughts from getting confused, he regularly noted themdown, and composed a diary which has the same characteristics and maybe regarded as a valuable historical monument. But studies andreligion coincide in him: he is Protestant to the core; his chiefambition is by means of his rank and power to place himself at thehead of the Protestant world. The duke could not have ventured tooppose 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 thescholars who fled thither, whose co-operation in the conflict withCatholicism, still so powerful, was very desirable. In Cranmer'spalace at Lambeth were assembled Italians, French, Poles, Swiss, SouthGermans and North Germans; the Secretary of State, William Cecil, whohad been trained in the service of the Protector, but had kept hisplace after his fall, obtained them the King's support. Martin Bucerand Paulus Fagius received promotion at Cambridge, Peter Martyr atOxford: he there maintained the Calvinistic views on the communion ina great disputation. There were Walloon and French churches in the oldcentres of Catholic worship, Canterbury and Glastonbury; John a Lascopreached in the church of the Augustines in London. With no lessvigour than these foreigners did natives, sometimes returned exiles, maintain the views then prevailing on the Continent. Under theseinfluences it was impossible, in conformity with the view taken up in1536, to abide by the dogmas, which had been put forth by the schoolof Wittenberg, now completely overthrown. The difference comes outvery remarkably when we compare the Common Prayer-book of 1549 withthe revised edition of 1552. Originally men had held fast to the realpresence in England also: Cranmer in his catechism expressly declaredfor it: in the formula of the first book, which was compiled out ofAmbrose and Gregory, this view was retained:[152] but men in Englandhad since convinced themselves that this doctrine had not prevailed soexclusively in Christian antiquity as had been hitherto thought:following the example of Ridley, the most learned of the Protestantbishops, the majority had given up the real presence: in the newCommon Prayer-book a controversial passage was even inserted againstit. First on their own impulse, and then with the help of the PrivyCouncil, the zealous Protestant-minded bishops removed the high altarsfrom the churches and had wooden tables for the communion put in theirplace: since with the word Altar was associated the idea of Sacrifice. 

It was now inevitable that the question from which all had started inEngland, as to the relation between State and Church, should bedecided completely in favour of the secular principle. It is very truethat Cranmer held fast to the objective view of the visible church. Ifthe ceremonies were altered with which the Romish church imparts thespiritual consecration, yet in this respect only the mystical usagesintroduced in recent centuries were abandoned, and the ritual restoredto the form used in more primitive times, especially in the Africanchurch. But it was surely a violent change, when those who wished toreceive consecration were now previously asked, whether their inwardcall agreed both with the will of the Redeemer and the law of theland; they were required to assent to the principle that Scripturecontains all which it is necessary for man to know, and to pledgethemselves to guard against any doctrine not in conformity withScripture. It is generally believed, and the fact is of lastingimportance, that the Convocation of the clergy, a commission of thespiritualty, the Primate-Archbishop and a number of bishops, took partin the change; but yet the decisive decrees went forth from theParliament, to which the spiritual power had been irrevocably attachedsince Henry VIII, and sometimes from the Privy Council alone. Toestablish a normal form of doctrine, men set to work to compose aConfession, which was completed at that time in forty-two Articles. There had been a wish that Melanchthon should have come over in personto aid in composing it; at any rate his labours had much influence indeciding the shape it took. The Articles belong to the class ofConfessions, as they were then framed in Saxony by Melanchthon, inSwabia by Brenz, to be laid before the coming Council. And it is justin this that their value lies, that by them England attached herselfmost closely to the Protestant community on the Continent. They arethe work of Cranmer, who was entrusted with their composition by theKing and Privy Council, and communicated his labours first to theKing's tutor, Cheke, and the Secretary of State, Cecil: in conjunctionwith them he next laid them before the King; with the assistance ofsome chaplains their final form was given them; then the Privy Councilordered them to be subscribed. The influence of the government on thenominations to the office of bishop was now still more open: thebishops were to hold office as long as they conducted themselveswell, --in other words, as long as the ruling powers were content withthem: the church jurisdiction was no longer administered in the nameof the bishopric, but, like the temporal jurisdiction, in the King'sname and under the King's seal; when they proceeded to revise thechurch laws, the primary maxim was, not to admit anything thatcontravened the temporal laws. [153] The use of the power of the keyswas also derived by Cranmer from the permission of the sovereign. Against this ever-increasing dependence some bishops of the old viewsmade a struggle; to avoid coming into direct conflict with thesupremacy, which they had acknowledged, they put forth the assertionthat it could not be exercised by a King under age; they connived atthe mass being read in side-chapels of their cathedrals, or refused toallow the change of the altars into communion-tables, or kept alivethe controversy as to the doctrine of faith. The government on theirside persisted in enforcing uniformity. They brought all opponentsbefore a commission consisting of secular as well as ecclesiasticaldignities, which had no scruple in pronouncing the deprivation of thebishops: a fate which befell Gardiner of Winchester, Bonner of London, Day of Chichester, Heath of Worcester. In vain did they plead that thecourt before which they were brought was not a canonical one; thegovernment appealed to the general rights of the temporal power as ithad once been exercised by the Roman Emperors. In the conflict ofchurch opinions the Protestant-minded prelates now had the upper hand. Many who did not conform bought toleration from the government bysacrifices of money and goods. Elsewhere the newly-appointed bishopsassented to concessions which did not always profit even the crown, but sometimes, as at Lichfield, private persons. [154] Already thefurther question was discussed whether there is in fact any essentialdistinction between bishops and presbyters: a church of foreigners wasset up in London, to present a pattern of the pure apostolicconstitution as an example to the country. The government which hadacquired such a thorough mastery over the clergy developed an opendisinclination to the old forms of constitution in the church. Whocould have said, so long as things remained in the path thus onceentered 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 VIand Mary I, p. 180. 

[142] The point of view under which it was drawn up appears in adeclaration inserted in the edition of 1549: 'the most weighty causeof the abolishment of certain ceremonies was, that they were abusedpartly by the superstitious blindness of the unlearned, and partly byunsatiable avarice. --Where the old (ceremonies) may be well used therethey [their opponents] cannot reprove the old only for their age. Theyought rather to have reverence unto them for their antiquity, if theywill declare themselves to be more studious of unity and concord, thanof innovations and newfangleness which--is always to be eschewed. '

[143] 12 Sept. 1547 in Halliwell ii. 31. Cranmer appointed a prayer inchurch for the marriage of Edward and Mary, 'to confound all those, which labour to the lett and interruption of so godly a quiet andamity. ' In Somerset's prayer printed, since the first edition of thisbook, in Froude v. 47, it is said: 'Look upon the small portion of theearth, which professeth thy holy name; especially have an eye to thysmall isle of Britain;--that the Scotismen and we might thereafterlive in one love and amity, knit into one nation by the marriage ofthe 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 Morealready appears under this title; Nares, Life of Burghley i. 179. 

[148] 'You have suffered the rebels to lie in camp and armour againstthe King his nobles and gentlemen; you did comfort divers of the saidrebels. ' Articles against the Lord Protector, in Strype, Memorials ofCranmer ii. 342. 

[149] Marillac 26 Oct. 1549. 'Ceux-ci (at the Emperor's court) fontune merveilleuse demonstration de joye de ce que le protecteur estabattu. ' In Turnbull, Calendar of State Papers 1861 p. 47 anInstruction of the Council is mentioned, 'to acquaint the Emperor withthe proceeding taken against the Duke of Somerset. ' We should like tobe better informed about this Instruction, in which too the Emperorwas asked for aid. 

[150] Soranzo, Relatione d'Inghilterra 1554. 'Per posseder la suagrazia ben amplamente, non solo faceva qualche spettacolo, per darglipiacere, ma gli diede liberta di danari. ' Florentine Collection viii. 37. 

[151] As he advises a friend: 'Apply yourself to riding shooting ortennis--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 firstTudor, and developed by the second through the emancipation from thePapacy, was further strengthened under the third. From Edward VI wehave essays, in which he speaks about the spiritual and temporalgovernment with the consciousness of a sovereign, whose actions dependonly on himself. In the Homilies, which obtained legal sanction, thereis found an express condemnation of resistance to the King, 'for Godessake, 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 itin the sense he had hitherto foreshadowed--not merely carrying out theReformation thoroughly at home, but assuming the leadership of theProtestant world, symptoms appeared in him of the malady to which hishalf-brother Richmond had succumbed at an early age. But how then ifthe same fate befell him? According to Henry VIII's arrangement Marywas then to ascend the throne who, through her descent from QueenCatharine and from an inborn disposition which had become all the moreconfirmed by her opposition to her father and brother, represented theCatholic and Spanish interest. Nothing else could be expected but thatshe would employ the whole power of the State in support of her ownviews, would, so far as it could possibly be done, bring back thechurch to its earlier form, would depress the men who had hithertoplayed a great part by the side of the King and subject them to theopposite faction. But were they quietly to acquiesce in their fate?

The ambition of the Duke of Northumberland associated itself with thegreat interests of religion, to prevent the threatening ruin. Hepersuaded the young King that it lay in his power to alter hisfather's settlement of the succession, as in itself not conformable tolaw, neither Mary nor the younger sister Elizabeth being entitled tothe throne, as the two marriages from which they sprang had beendeclared illegal, and a bastard could not be made capable of wearingthe English crown by any act of Parliament. Henry VIII had in hissettlement of the succession passed over the descendants of his eldersister, married in Scotland, as foreigners, but acknowledged those ofthe younger, Mary of Suffolk, as the next heirs after his ownchildren. Mary's elder daughter Frances had married Henry Grey ofDorset, who had already obtained the title of Suffolk, and had threedaughters, the eldest of whom was Jane Grey. It was to her, whom theDuke of Northumberland married to one of his sons, that he nowdirected the King's attention, and induced him to prefer her to hissisters. Yet it was not so much to herself in person as to her maleissue that Edward's attention was originally directed. Never yet had aQueen ruled in England in her own right, and even now there was a wishto avoid it. Edward arranged that, if he himself died without maleheirs, the male heirs of Lady Frances, and if she too left none, thenthose of Lady Jane, should succeed. He hoped still to live till suchan heir should be eighteen years old, in which case he could enter onthe government immediately after himself. If his death occurredearlier, Jane was to conduct the administration during the interval, not as Queen but as Regent, and conjointly with a Council ofgovernment still to be named by him. [155] This Council of executorswas to avoid all war, all other change, and especially not to alterthe established religion in any point: rather it was to devote itselfto completing the ecclesiastical legislation in conformity with thatreligion, and to the abolition of the Papal claims. [156] We see thatEdward's view was, like that of many other sovereigns, to secure thecontinuance of his political and religious system of government forlong 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 everyarticle, and to defend them with all their power. [157]

And if the affair had been undertaken in this manner, who could saythat it might not have succeeded? Northumberland did not neglect toform a strong family interest in favour of the new combination that hedesigned. He married his own daughter to Lord Hastings, who wasdescended from the house of York, and one of Jane's sisters with theson of the powerful Earl of Pembroke. He could reckon on the supportof the King of France, to whom the succession of a niece of theEmperor was odious, and on the consent of the Privy Council, which wasin great part dependent on him; how could the Protestant feeling havefailed to gain him a large party in the country, especially sincesomething might be said for the plan itself. 

But Edward VI's malady developed quicker than was expected. At thelast moment he was further induced to award the succession not to themale heirs of Lady Jane, but to herself and her male heirs. [158] Hedied with the prayer that God would guard England from the Papacy. 

Lady Jane Grey had hitherto devoted her days to study. For father andmother were severe and found much in her to blame: on the other handquiet hours of inward satisfaction were given her by the instructionsof a teacher, always alike kindly disposed, who initiated her intolearning and an acquaintance with literature: bending over her Plato, she did not miss the amusement of the chase which others wereenjoying in the Park. After her marriage too, which did not make herexactly happy, she still lived thus with her thoughts withdrawn fromthe world, when she was one day summoned to Sion-House where she founda great and brilliant assembly. She still knew nothing of the King'sdeath. What were her feelings, when she was told that Edward VI wasdead; that to secure the kingdom from the Popish faith and thegovernment of his two sisters who were not legitimate, he had declaredher, Lady Jane, his heiress, and when the great dignitaries of therealm bent their knees and reverenced her as their Queen! At timesthey had already talked to her of her claim to the throne, but she hadnever thought much of it. When it now thus became a reality, her wholesoul was overcome by it: she fell to the ground and burst into a floodof tears. Whether she had a full right to the throne, she could notjudge: what she felt was her incapacity to rule. But whilst sheuttered this, a different feeling passed through her, as she has toldus herself: she prayed in the depths of her soul that, if the highestoffice belonged to her legally, God might give her the grace toadminister it to his honour. The next day she betook herself by waterto the Tower, and received the homage offered her. The heraldsproclaimed her accession in the capital. 

But here this proclamation was received in silence and even withmurmurs. The succession had been settled by Henry VIII on the basis ofan act of Parliament: nothing else was expected but that this would beadhered to, and Mary succeed her brother: that Edward without anylegal authorisation of a similar kind had now put a distant relativein his sister's place, seemed an open robbery of the lawful heir. Itmade no impression, that at the proclamation men were reminded of thePopery of the Princess Mary and her intention to restore the Papalpower. Religious discord had not yet become so strong in England as tomake 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 hedid not love her religion but abhorred the attempt to set aside lawfulheirs. Mary prudently betook herself to Norfolk, where she had themost determined friends, to a castle on the sea; so as to be able, ifher opponent should maintain the upper hand, to escape to the Emperor. But every one declared for her, the Catholics who saw in her the bornchampion of their religion and were strongest in those very districts, and the Protestants to whom the princess made some, though notbinding, promises; she was proclaimed Queen in Norwich. If the Duke ofNorthumberland wished to carry out his projects, it was necessary forhim to suppress this movement by force. He at once took the field forthis 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 openfield just as it had been a century before, and that in fact, just asthen, the neighbouring powers would interfere. On Northumberland'sside French help was expected; on the other hand application wasalready made to the Emperor to send armed troops over the sea to hiscousin. [159] It was not however this time to reach such a point: whilethe combination attempted in favour of Jane Grey met with strongpopular resistance, it was shattered to pieces by internal discord. Ifthe new Queen had such a good right as they told her, she would shareit with none, not even with her husband; she would not appear as acreature of the Dudleys and a tool of their ambition: she would onlyname him a duke and would not allow him to be crowned with her asKing. We recognise in this her high idea of the kingly power and itsdivine right; but we can also easily conceive that the discord whichbroke out on this point in the family could not but act on the membersof the Privy Council, of whom only a section were in completeunderstanding with Northumberland, while the rest had merely yieldedto the ascendancy of his power. While the duke was expecting armedreinforcements 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 whichwas destined to prevent Mary's flight had already declared for her;the troops which were called out in the counties to fight against hercrossed over to her side; in Northumberland's camp the same opiniongained the upper hand: the duke felt himself incapable of withstandingit: he allowed himself to be carried along by it like the rest. Mensaw the extraordinary spectacle of the man who had marched out todestroy Mary now ordering her accession to be proclaimed in hisencampment, he accompanied the herald and himself cried out Mary'sname. [160] These English nobles have boundless ambition, they graspwith bold hand at the highest prizes: but they have no inner power ofresistance, as against the course of events and public opinion theyhave no will of their own. However the duke might behave, he could notsave either his freedom or his life. Soon afterwards Mary enteredLondon amid the joyous shouts of the people. She was still united asclosely as possible with her sister Elizabeth: they appeared togetherhand in hand. Jane Grey remained as a prisoner in the Tower, which shehad entered as Queen. Never did the natural right of succession, as itwas established by the testator of the inheritance and the Parliament, obtain a greater triumph. 

After the succession was decided, the great questions of governmentcame into the foreground, above all the question what position Maryshould take up with regard to religious matters. 

Among the Protestants the opinion prevailed that it could not yet beknown whether she would not let religion remain in the state in whichshe found it. Towns where the Protestant feeling was strongestjoyfully attached themselves to her in this expectation. 

Her cousin, the Emperor Charles, who justly regarded her accession asa victory, and who from the first moment exercised the greatestinfluence on her resolutions, advised her before all things tomoderate her Catholic zeal. She should reflect that many of the lordsby whom she was now supported, a part of the Privy Council, and thepeople of London, were Protestants, and guard against estranging them. She should at once call a Parliament to show that she meant to rule inthe accustomed manner, and take care that the Northern counties, aswell 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 tumultwhich arose two days after her arrival in the city, she had the LordMayor summoned in order to tell him that she would force no man'sconscience, she hoped that the people would through good instructioncome back to the religion which she herself professed with fullconviction. When she repeated this soon after in a proclamation, sheadded that these things must shortly be ordered by common consent. Butof what kind this order would be, there could be already no doubtafter these words: she desired a change, but intended to bring itabout in a legal manner. 

In all the steps taken by her government her Catholic sympathiespredominated. She felt no scruple in using the spiritual rights, whichthe constitution gave her, in favour of Catholicism. As 'Head of theChurch next under God, ' Mary forbade all preaching and interpretationof Scripture without special permission. But she entrusted the powerof giving this permission to the same Bishop Gardiner who had offeredthe most persevering resistance to the Protestant tendencies of theprevious government. The antagonism between the bishops entered againon an entirely new phase: the Catholics rose, the Protestants weredepressed to the uttermost. Tonstal, Heath, and Day were, likeGardiner, restored to their sees on the ground of the protests lodgedagainst the proceedings taken with reference to them at theirdeprivation, protests which were regarded as valid. Ridley had to giveup the see of London again to Bonner: the Bishops of Gloucester andExeter experienced the royal displeasure; not merely Latimer but alsoCranmer were imprisoned in the Tower. Everywhere the images werereplaced, in many churches the celebration of the mass was revived. Those preachers who declared themselves against it had to follow theirbishops to prison. The Calvinistic model-congregation was dissolved. The foreign scholars quitted the country; and their most zealousfollowers also fled to the continent before the coming storm ofpersecution. 

At the beginning of October the Queen's coronation took place with theold customary ceremonies, for which the Emperor's leading minister, Granvella, Bishop of Arras, sent over a vase of consecrated oil, onthe mystical meaning of which great stress was again laid. The Queenhad some scruples about the coronation, as she wished previously toget rid of her title, 'Head of the Church': but the Emperor saw dangerin delay; he thought the declaration she had in the deepest secrecymade to the Roman See, that she meant to re-establish its authority, removed any religious scruple. He fully approved of the coronationpreceding the Parliament, and recommended the Queen, in virtue of herconstitutional 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 exerciseda decisive influence on the composition of the Parliamentaryassemblies; would not this then be the case when it had declareditself again Catholic? No doubt the government, at the head of whichGardiner appeared as Lord Chancellor, used all the means at itsdisposal to guide the elections according to its views. It appears tohave been with the same motive that the Queen in a proclamation, whichgenerally breathed nothing but benevolence, remitted payment of thesubsidies last voted under her brother. Yet we can hardly attributethe result wholly to this. Parliamentary elections are wont to receivetheir impulse from the mistakes of the last administration and theevils that have come to light: and much had undeniably been done underEdward VI which could not but call forth discontent. The ferment athome was increased by financial disorder: church property had sufferedenormous losses. But above all the supreme power had taken a suddenstart in breaking through its ancient bounds. And, last of all, theProtestant tendencies had allied themselves with an undertaking whichran directly counter to the customary law and to previousParliamentary enactments. And so it might come to pass that the samefeelings swayed the elections which had mainly brought about Mary'saccession. 

But, after all, the result of these elections was not such as to makea complete return to the Papal authority probable. The EmperorCharles, who mainly guided the Queen's steps, warned her fromattempting it. She had prayed him to communicate to her the Pope'sdeclarations issued in favour of her hereditary right: he sent them toher, but with the advice to make no use of them, since they mightinvolve her in difficulties without end. It seemed to him sufficientif the Parliament simply repealed the enactments which had formerlybeen passed respecting the invalidity of her mother's marriage withher father. In the bill which was drawn up on this point in the UpperHouse it was merely stated that the marriage, in itself valid andapproved by the wisest persons of the realm, had been made displeasingto the King through evil influences and annulled by a sentence ofArchbishop Cranmer, on whom the greatest blame fell. To many men thisseemed already going too far, since together with the dispensation theold church authority was again recognised: but as there was not a wordabout the Pope in it, this was less apparent: the bill was passedunanimously. The act might be regarded as a political one. On theother hand religion was very directly affected by the proposal torepeal the alterations in the church service which had been introducedunder Edward VI, and to abolish the Common Prayer-book. On this ensuedthe hottest conflict. Once the proposal had to be laid aside: when itwas resumed, the debate on it lasted six days: a third of the memberswere steadily against it. But in the majority the opinion againprevailed that Henry VIII's church constitution--retention of theCatholic doctrines and emancipation from the Papacy--was the mostsuitable for England: a resolution was carried to the effect that onlysuch books as were in use under Henry VIII should be henceforth usedin the church. The new forms of divine service, which contained aclearly marked body of doctrine, were abolished and the old onesrestored. 

The position which the Parliament took up in relation to anotherscarcely less important question coincided with this sense of nationalindependence. 

It was a very widespread wish in England that the Queen should giveher hand to young Courtenay, son of that Marquis of Exeter who hadhimself once thought of marrying Mary against her father's wishes. Hewas a young man of suitable age, handsome figure, and mental activity;Mary had not merely freed him from the prison in which her brother hadkept him, but also endowed him with the Earldom of Devon, one of hisfather's possessions; in this act many saw a token of personalinclination. Bishop Gardiner was decidedly in his favour, and we canconceive how a great ecclesiastic, who had the power of the state inhis hands, wished to altogether exclude every foreign influence; he ofcourse knew that Courtenay would also conform in church matters. 

Gardiner spoke once with the Queen about it and was very pressing: shewas absolutely against it. The old chronicle is entirely in error whenit repeats the then widespread rumour of Mary's inclination forCourtenay. Mary told the Imperial ambassador that she was altogetherignorant of what love was; she had never seen Courtenay but once inher life, at the moment when she released him. She intended to marry, since she was assured that the welfare of the realm required it, butnot an Englishman, not one who was a subject. As in other things, soin this, she requested the Emperor to give her his advice. 

Charles V would not have been absolutely against the plan of hiscousin giving her hand to an English lord, whom England might obeymore easily than a stranger: but, when she showed such an aversion toit, 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 rejectedby him on the ground that there was already much ill-will againstSpain stirring in the Netherlands, and a union of the German line withEngland might some day make it difficult for his own son to maintainthose provinces: he therefore proposed him to the Queen. Don Philip, not yet thirty but already a widower for the second time, was justthen negociating for a marriage with a Portuguese princess. Thesenegociations were broken off and counter ones opened with England. Mary showed a joyful inclination to it at the first word: it was tothis that her secret thoughts had turned. 

It looked as if the dynastic union of the Burgundian-Spanish housewith the English, which was also a political alliance and had beenviolently broken off at the same time with that alliance, would now berestored more closely than before, and this time for ever. Men took upthe idea that Philip's eldest son was to continue the Spanish line, asFerdinand and his sons the German, but that from the new marriage, ifit should be blest with offspring, an English line of the house ofBurgundy was to proceed: a prospect of the extension of the power ofEngland and of her influence on the continent, which it was expectedwould set aside all opposition. 

In England however every voice was against it, among nobles andcommons, people and Parliament, high and low. The imperial court fullybelieved that it was Gardiner who brought the matter forward inParliament. The House resolved to send a deputation to the Queen withthe request that she would marry an Englishman. Mary, who had as highan idea of her prerogative as any of her predecessors or successors, felt herself almost insulted; she interrupted the speech as soon asshe understood its purport, and declared that Parliament was takingtoo much on itself in wishing to give her advice in this matter: onlywith God, from whom she derived her crown, would she take counselthereon. [161] When the Parliament, not satisfied with this, prepared afresh application to her, it was dissolved. 

But if this happened among men who adhered to her views in otherpoints, what would those say who saw themselves, contrary to theirexpectation, oppressed and endangered by the Queen's measures inreligious matters?

The agitation was so general that men caught at the hope of putting anend to all that was begun by a sudden rising. We find a statementwhich must not be lightly rejected, that the English nobility, whichhad taken great part in the Reformation movement and put itself inpossession of much church property, came to an understanding atChristmas 1553, and decided on a general rising on the next PalmSunday, 18th March:[162] thus doing as the French, German, Netherlandish and Scotch nobility had done, who took the initiative inthis matter. In Cornwall Peter Carew was to have the lead, in theMidland Counties the Duke of Suffolk, in Kent Thomas Wyatt. As theQueen's Privy Council was even now not unanimous, they hoped to bringabout an overthrow of the government before it was yet firmlyestablished: and either to compel the Queen to dismiss her evilcounsellors and give up the Spanish marriage, or if she remainedobstinate to put her sister Elizabeth in her place, who would thenmarry Courtenay. The French, who saw in the Queen's marriage with theprince of Spain a danger for themselves, urged on the movement, andhad a secret understanding with the rebels; their plan was to supportit by an incursion from Scotland where they were then the masters, andan attack on Calais. [163] But as often happens with such comprehensiveplans, the government detected them; the attempt to carry them out hadto be made before the preparations were complete; in most of theplaces where an effort was made it was suppressed without muchtrouble. Carew fled to France; Suffolk, who in vain tried to drawCoventry over to his side, was captured. On the other hand Sir ThomasWyatt's rising in Kent was formidable. He collected a couple ofthousand men, defeated the royal troops, some of whom joined him, andas he had the sympathies of a great part of the inhabitants of Londonwith him, he attempted forthwith an attack on the capital. But the neworder of things had too firm a legal foundation to be so easilyoverthrown. The Queen betook herself to the Guildhall and addressedthe assembled people, decided as she was and confident in the goodnessof her cause; the general feeling was in favour of supporting her. Allarmed for defence. For a couple of days, during which Wyatt lay beforethe city, every one was under arms, mayor, aldermen and people; thelawyers went to the courts with armour under their robes: priests wereseen celebrating mass with mail under their church vestments. TheQueen 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 freeher from these rebels. When Wyatt at last appeared in Hyde Park withexhausted and badly fed men, he was met and beaten by an overwhelmingbody of Pembroke's troops; with a part of his followers he was driveninto the city, and there made prisoner without much bloodshed. 

It has always been reckoned to the Queen's credit that amid the alarmof these days she never quitted the unfortified palace. She had now anopportunity 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 ofthe prisoners paid for their rebellion with their lives. [164]

NOTES:

[155] King Edward: My devise for the succession: in 'Chronicle ofQueen Anna, with illustrative documents and notes' by Nicholls, 89. 

[156] King Edward's Minutes for his last will. In 'Chronicle of QueenAnna, 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 theLady Jane's heires masle;' instead of 'Jane's, ' the King now wrote 'tothe Lady Jane and her h. M. (Nares' Burghley i. 452. Nicholls, 87. )

[159] Lettre écrite à l'empereur par ses ambassadeurs en Angleterre 19Juill. Luy (au roi de France) sera facile, d'envoyer 2 ou 3 m. Français et quelques gens de chevaux. Plusieurs de ce royaume sontd'opinion, si V. M. Assistoit ma dite dame (Mary) de gens et desecours contre le dit duc, la dite dame ne diminueroit en rienl'affection du peuple. 

[160] Proclama avec le dict herault Mm. Marie à haute voix. Lettre desambassadeurs a l'empereur. Papiers d'état de Granvelle iv. 58. 

[161] To the reports of the French and Spanish ambassadors (compareAmbassades de Mss. De Noailles en Angleterre ii. 269, Turner ii. 204, Froude vi. 124) may be added that of the Venetian: 'ch'ella siconsiglierebbe con dio e non con altri. ' I combine this with Noailles'account; for these ambassadors were immediately informed by theirfriends of the deputation and have noted down that part of the Queen'sspeech which made most impression on the bystanders. 

[162] Soranzo Relatione 79, a testimony worth consideration, asSoranzo stood in a certain connexion with the rebels. 

[163] So Simon Renard reports 24th Feb. 1553-4 to the Emperor afterWyatt's confession. 'Le roy feroit emprinse de coustel d'Escosse et decoustel de Guyenne (it should without doubt be Guisnes) et Calais': inTytler ii. 207. Wyatt's statements in the 'State Trials' refer to aconfession which is not given there, and from which the ambassador mayhave taken his account. 

[164] Renard à l'empereur, 8 Feb. The communications in Tytler, whichcome from Brussels, and the Papiers d'état de Granvelle, which comefrom Besançon, supplement each other, yet even when taken bothtogether they are still not quite complete. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE CATHOLIC-SPANISH GOVERNMENT. 

The effort to overthrow Mary's throne had strengthened it: for thesecond time she had rallied around it the preponderant majority of thenation. And this was all the more surprising, since no one could doubtany longer in what direction the Queen's exclusive religious viewswould lead her. In her victory she saw a divine providence, by whichit was made doubly her duty to persevere, without looking back, in thepath she had once taken. In full understanding with her Gardinerproceeded without further scruple, in the Parliament which met inApril 1554, to attempt to carry through the two points on which allelse depended, the abrogation of the Queen's spiritual title, whichimplied restoration of the Pope's authority, and the revival of theold laws against heretics. These views and proposals however met withunexpected opposition, both in the nation, and no less in the PrivyCouncil and Parliament, especially in the Upper House. The lay lordsdid not wish to make the bishops so powerful again as they had oncebeen, and rejected the restoration of the Pope's authority unless theypreviously had security for their possession of the confiscated churchproperty. The first proposition could not, so far as can be seen, evenbe properly brought forward:[165] the second, the revival of theheresy laws, was accepted by the Commons over whom Gardiner exercisedgreat influence, but the Peers threw it out. It was especially LordsPaget and Arundel who opposed Gardiner's proposals in the PrivyCouncil and the Lords and caused their rejection. 

Only in one thing were the two parties united, in recognising themarriage contract concluded with Spain: it was passed unanimously byParliament. 

In July 1554 Don Philip reached England with a numerous fleet, dividedinto three squadrons, with a brilliant suite on board. At Southamptonthe leader of one of the two parties, the Earl of Arundel, receivedhim; Bishop Gardiner, the leader of the other, gave the blessing ofthe church to the marriage in Winchester cathedral. The day before theEmperor had resigned the crown of Naples to his son, to make him equalwith the Queen in rank. How grand it sounded, when the king-at-armsproclaimed the united titles: Philip and Mary, King and Queen ofEngland, France, Naples, Jerusalem, Ireland! A title with an almostPlantagenet sound, but which now however only denoted the closestunion between the Spanish monarchy and the Catholics of England. Philip was solicitous to gain over the different parties and classesof England: for he had been told that England was a popular monarchy. He belied his Spanish gravity and showed himself, despite thestiffness that was his natural characteristic, affable to every man:he tried to make the impression, and successfully, that he desired theprosperity of England. One of the chief resources of the time, that ofsecuring the most considerable persons by means of pensions, he madeuse of to a great extent. Both parties were provided for by annualpayments and presents, Pembroke and Arundel as well as Derby andRochester. We are assured that this liberality exercised a veryadvantageous influence on the disposition of the country. [166]Gardiner looked on it as a slight, that he was passed over in thelist, for these pensions were considered at that time an honour, butthis did not prevent him from praising the marriage in his sermons asordained by heaven for the restoration of religion. 

All now depended on whether the King's influence would be sufficientto carry at the next meeting of Parliament in November, the proposalswhich 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 previouscondition was indispensable. The English nobles must be relieved fromall apprehension lest the confiscated ecclesiastical property shouldever again be wrested from them. Cardinal Pole had been already forsome time residing in the Netherlands: but he was told that hisarrival in England would be not merely fruitless but detrimentalunless he brought with him a sufficient dispensation with regard tothis. In Rome the concession was opposed on the ground that it wouldbe setting a bad precedent. But when it was pointed out that theEnglish confiscations did not touch any church lands, but onlymonastic property, and still more that without this concession therestoration of obedience to the church could not be attained, PopeJulius III yielded to the request. Two less comprehensive forms wererejected by the Emperor: at last one was granted which would satisfythe English. The form of the absolution which the Pope was to bestowafter their submission was previously arranged: it was agreed to avoideverything that could remind men of the old pretensions and awaken thenational antipathies. 

Meanwhile the elections to Parliament were completed. The proclamationissued gives the ruling points of view without reserve. An invitationto elect Catholic members of merit was coupled with the assurance thatthere was no intention of disturbing any kind of property. The meanslately used for preventing any hostile influence were not yetsufficient: the advice was given from Brussels to go back to the olderand stricter forms. 

The leading men of the Upper House were won over: there could be nodoubt about the tone of the Lower. At their first sitting a resolutionto release Cardinal Pole from the attainder that weighed on him, andinvite him to return to England, passed without opposition. Now theEmperor had no longer any scruple in letting him go. He said as tothis very matter, that what is undertaken at the wrong time hindersthe result which might else have been expected; everything has itstime: the time for this appeared to him now come. From Philip we havea letter to his sister Juana in which he extols himself with muchsatisfaction for the share he had taken in recalling the cardinal andrestoring the Papal authority. 'I and the most illustrious Queen, ' hesays in it, 'commanded the Parliament of the three Estates of therealm to recall him; we especially used our efforts with the chiefamong them to induce them to consent to the cardinal's return: at ourorder prelates and knights escorted him to our Court, where he hasdelivered to us the Breve of his Holiness. '--'We then through theChancellor of the realm informed the Estates of what seemed to usbecoming, above all how much it concerned themselves to come to aconclusion that would give peace to their conscience. '[167]

The Parliament declared itself ready to return to the obedience of theRoman See, and repeal all the statutes against it, provided that thecardinal pronounced a general dispensation, that every man might keepwithout scruple the ecclesiastical property which had fallen to hisshare. [168] On this understanding Cardinal Pole was allowed toexercise his legatine power, and the King and Queen were entreated tointercede that the absolution might be bestowed. 

With heartfelt joy Cardinal Pole pronounced it without delay, first ata meeting of the Parliament in the palace, then with greater solemnityat S. Paul's at a high mass attended by the Court with a brilliantsuite; among those present were the knights who wore the Burgundianorder of the Golden Fleece, and those who wore the English Order ofthe Garter. The King stood by the Chancellor when from the outercorridor of the church he announced the event and its motives to thegreat crowds there assembled. It made an impression on the imperialambassadors that no outward sign of discontent was heard. 

The agreement that now followed bears more of a juridical than of areligious character. The jurisdiction was given back to the Pope whichhe possessed before the twentieth year of Henry VIII (1529): thestatutes by which it was abolished were severally enumerated andrepealed: on the other hand the Pope's legate in his name consentedthat the owners of church property should not be disturbed in theirpossession, either now or at any future time, either by churchcouncils or by Papal decrees. Such property was henceforth to be quiteas exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the crown as any other;whoever dared to call in question the validity of the title in anyspiritual court whatever, within or without the realm, was to bepunished as an enemy of the Queen. The cardinal legate strove long toprevent the two enactments, as to the restoration of obedience and thetitle to the ecclesiastical property, from being combined together inone Act, since it might look as if the Pope's concession was the priceof this obedience to him; he once said, he would rather let all remainas it was and go back to Rome than yield on this point. But theEnglish nobility adhered immoveably to its demand; it wished toprevent all danger of the restoration of obedience becoming in any waydetrimental to its acquisitions, an object which was clearly bestsecured by combining both enactments in a single statute, so that theymust stand or fall together; even the King's representations effectedno alteration in this; the cardinal had to comply. 

On the other hand the King's influence, if we believe himself, had allpossible success in the other affair, which was at any rate not lessweighty. 'With the intervention of the Parliament, ' he continues inthe above-mentioned letter, 'we have made a law, I and the mostillustrious Queen, for the punishment of heretics and all enemies ofholy church; we have revived the old ordinances of the realm, whichwill serve this purpose very well. ' It was more especially thestatute against the Lollards, by which Henry V had entered into theclosest alliance with the hierarchy, that was to be re-enacted byParliament. Gardiner had not been able to carry it through in theprevious session, though it was known that the Queen wished it. Underthe King's influence, who was accustomed to the execution of hereticsin Spain, the Lords after some deliberation let their objections dropand accepted the bill. 

If we put together these four great Acts, the abolition of the CommonPrayer-book, the Spanish marriage, the restoration of obedience toRome, and the revival of the heresy laws, we could hardly doubt theintention of the members of the government, and of the Parliament, toreturn completely to the ancient political and religious state ofthings. With some members such an intention may have been thepredominant one: to assume it in all, or even in the majority, wouldbe an error. [169]

The agreement then legalised as to ecclesiastical property, and theabolition of the monastic system, already formed such an anomaly inthe Roman Catholic church, that the ecclesiastical condition ofEngland would have always retained a very abnormal character. And theobedience expressed was by no means complete. For it should haveincluded above all a recognition of that right of dispensation, aboutwhich the original quarrel had broken out, and the revocation of theorder of succession which was based on its rejection. In factGardiner's intention was to bring matters to this; being besides agreat enemy and even persecutor of Elizabeth, he wished to see herillegitimacy pronounced in due form;[170] the resolutions passedseemed necessarily to lead to it. Men however did not proceed thistime so logically in England. They did not wish to base the futurestate of the realm on Papal decrees, but on the ordinances onceenacted by King and Parliament. They could not deceive themselves asto the fact that Elizabeth, though she conformed outwardly, yetremained true at heart to the Protestant faith; but not on thataccount would the Parliament deny her right to the English throne. Italso by no means entertained exactly Spanish sentiments. The Emperorexpressed the wish that his son might be crowned: his ambassador'sadvice however was against proposing it in Parliament; since, with thehigh ideas entertained in England of the rights implied in thecoronation, this would never be allowed. In the event of the Queen'sdying before Philip, and leaving children, the guardianship wasreserved to him: but even for this object conditions had beenoriginally proposed which would have been much more advantageous tohim: these the Upper House threw out. So little was even then thepolicy of the Queen and King at the same time the policy of the nationand Parliament. In the Privy Council the old discords continued. Thegovernment obtained a greater unity by the fact that Gardiner, who nowfollowed the Queen's lead in every respect, carried most of themembers with him by the authority which her favour gave him. As Pagetand Arundel, since they could effect nothing, refused to appear anymore, there always remained a secret support for the discontent thatwas stirring. In the beginning of 1555 traces of a conspiracy infavour of Courtenay were again detected: if the inquiry into it led tono discovery, it was because--so it was thought--the commissionentrusted 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 orderof things would have been considered as fully authorised. Still morethan to single offences was attention directed to any variations indoctrine. In these proceedings we can remark the points which werethen chiefly in question. 

The first of the accused, one of the earliest and most influential ofthe martyrs, John Rogers, was reminded of the article which speaks ofthe faith in one holy catholic church; he replied that by it was meantthe universal church of all lands and times, not the Romish, which onthe contrary had deviated in many points from the main foundation ofall churches, Holy Scripture. Rowland Taylor, who gloried in amarriage blest with children, which Gardiner would not acknowledge tobe a marriage at all, maintained that Christian antiquity had allowedthe marriage of priests. Gardiner accused him of ignorance. 'But, 'said Taylor, 'I have read the Holy Scripture, the Latin and the Greekfathers;' a canon of the Nicene council, which was cited on the point, he interpreted far more correctly than the bishop. John Hooper wascalled in question because he held divorce to be permissible on theground given in Scripture, and because he found that the view of thereal presence had no foundation in Scripture. [171] Their offence wasthe conception of church-communion as resting on the foundation ofScripture and extending therefore far beyond Romanism: the mosttelling defence could not save them here, for only the carrying out ofold laws was concerned, and these unconditionally condemned suchopinions. As the condemned were being taken back by night to theirprison, many householders came out of their doors with lights in theirhands, to greet them with their prayers and thank them for theirsteadfastness: a deep and sorrowful sympathy, but one which scarcelydared to utter itself, and thus renounced the attempt to effectanything. Rogers suffered death in London, Hooper at his episcopal seeof Gloucester, Taylor (who on the way showed as much good wit as SirThomas More had formerly done) in his parish, Saunders at Coventry, Ferrar in the market-place at Caermarthen. Their punishment, in everyplace where they had taught, was intended to confirm the doctrinesthey had rejected. There have been more bloody persecutions elsewhere:this was distinguished by the fact that many of the more eminent menof the nation became its victims. Among them, besides those we havenamed, were Ridley, who was looked on as the most learned scholar inEngland, the eloquent Latimer, Bradford a man of deep piety, Philpotwho united learning and religion. How could Archbishop Cranmer, whohad contributed almost more than any one to carry through theReformation, who had pronounced the divorce of the Queen's mother, possibly find mercy? He persuaded himself of it once; and, yielding ashe was, allowed himself to be tempted into a recantation, in despiteof which he was condemned to death. But then there awoke in him alsothe whole consciousness of the truth of his belief. The hand withwhich he had signed the recantation he held firm, and let it burn inunutterable agony, as an expiation which he imposed on himself, beforethe flame of the faggots closed over him. The executions extendedthemselves over the whole country and even over the neighbouringislands; the diaries show that they continued till 1558. Many couldhave fled, but wished to testify to the firmness of their belief bydying for it, and thus to strengthen in their faith the people fromwhom they were taken away. Most of them showed a sublime contempt ofdeath, which inflamed others to imitate them. How many would have beenprepared to throw themselves with their friends into the flames! Andno one could say that here there was any question of tendencies torevolt. 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 herobedient subjects. 

But now what an impression must these executions produce, combinedwith what preceded and followed them. 

Gardiner appears in all this imperious, proud, and with that confidenttone which the possessors of power assume, implying that they regardthemselves as being also mentally superior; Bonner Bishop of Londonfanatical, without any power of discernment, and almost bloodthirsty. His attention was once drawn to the ill effects of his rough acts ofviolence; 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 hadbeen deprived by their enemies and thrown into prison: now theyemployed the temporal arm in their own favour; they felt no scruple insentencing their old opponents to death in accordance with theseverity of the laws which they had again brought into activeoperation. Such was the issue of the contest between the bishopsunder the changing systems of government. 

As Queen Mary is designated 'The Bloody, ' we are astonished when weread the authentic descriptions, still extant, of her personalappearance. She was a little, slim, delicate, sickly woman, with hairalready turning grey. She played on the lute, and had even giveninstruction in music; she had a skilful hand; on personal acquaintanceshe made the impression of goodness and mildness. But yet there wassomething in her eyes that could even rouse fear; her voice, whichcould be heard at a great distance, told of something unwomanly inher. She was a good speaker in public; never did she show a trace oftimidity in danger. The troubles she had experienced from her youth, her constant antagonism to the authority under which she lived, hadespecially hardened in her the self-will which is recognisable in allthe Tudors. A peculiarity found elsewhere also in gifted women, thatthey are weary of all which surrounds them at home, and give to whatis foreign a sympathy above its worth, had become to her a secondnature. She rejected with aversion the idea of marrying Courtenay, forthis reason among others that he was an Englishman. She, the Queen ofEngland, had no sympathy for the life, the interests, the struggles ofher people: she hated them from her childhood. All her sympathies werefor 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 evenoverlooked his infidelities to her because he did not enter intopermanent relations with any other woman. Besides this he was the onlyman who could support her in the great project for which she thoughtherself marked out by God, the restoration of Catholicism. [172] Thisis the meaning of her pledging herself in her bedchamber before acrucifix, when she had not yet seen him, to give her hand to him andto no other. For with him and his fortunes were linked the hopes of arestoration of Catholicism. Mary was absolutely determined to do allshe could to strengthen it in England. Gardiner assures us, and we maybelieve him in this, that it was not he who prompted the revival ofthe old laws against the Lollards; the chief impulse to it came on thecontrary from the Queen. And as those laws ordered the punishment ofheretics by fire, and Parliament had consented, and the orthodoxbishops offered their aid, it would have seemed to her a blameableweakness, if out of feelings of compassion she had stood in the way ofthe execution of those laws, to the suspension of which the bishopsascribed the spread of heretical opinions. Many of the horrors whichaccompanied their execution may have remained concealed from her;still it cannot be doubted, that the persecutions would never havebegun without her. No excuse can free her memory from the dark shadewhich rests on it. For that which is done in a sovereign's name, withhis will and consent, determines his character in history. 

The conduct of the Queen and her government, without whose helpecclesiastical authority would have been null and void, had a resultthat extended far beyond her time: men began to inquire into theclaims of the temporal power. John Knox, who had now to fly fromEngland before a Queen, as he had previously from Scotland before aQueen-regent, and whose word was of weight, poured forth his feelingsin a piercing call, which he himself named 'a blast of the trumpet, 'against the right of women to the government of a country, which oughtto be exercised only by men. And while Knox went no further than theimmediate case, others examined into the powers of all Stateauthority: above all, to prevent its taking part in religiouspersecution, they brought forward the principles according to whichsovereignty issues originally from the people. Mary's government hadawakened in Protestantism, and that not merely in England, thehostility of political theory. 

But besides no man could hide from himself, that discontent, evenwithout theory, had grown in England in an alarming manner. The Frenchand Imperial ambassadors both gave their courts information of it, the former with a kind of satisfaction, the latter with apprehensionand pain. He laments the bad effect which the religious persecutionproduces, makes pressing objections to it and demands that the bloodyzeal of the bishops shall be moderated; but the matter was regularlyproceeding in a kind of legal way; we do not find that he effectedanything. 

The Queen had hitherto flattered herself and her partisans with thehope that she would give the country an heir to the throne. When thisexpectation proved fallacious in the summer of 1555 it produced animpression which, as the imperial ambassador says, no pen coulddescribe. The appearance had been caused by an unhealthy condition ofbody, which was now looked on rather as a prognostic of her fastapproaching death. It is already clear, remarks the ambassador, thatleast confidence can be placed in those who have been hitherto mosttrusted: many a man still wears a mask: others even show theirill-will quite openly. For so badly is the succession at presentarranged that my lady Elizabeth will without doubt ascend the throneon Mary's death and will restore heresy. 

While things were in this state, Philip II was led to resolve on goingto the Netherlands by the vicissitudes of the French war and hisfather's state of health; he wished either to bring about peace, or topush 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 itbest to give the eight leading members of the Privy Council apre-eminent place in the management of business. He could not avoidadmitting men of both parties even among these; but he had alreadyfound a man whom he could set over the others and trust with thesupreme rule of affairs in complete confidence. This was CardinalPole, who after Cranmer's death received the Archbishopric ofCanterbury, long ago bestowed on him at Rome, and was released fromthe duty of again returning to the Roman court. He was descended fromthe house of the Yorkist Suffolks, persecuted by the earlier Tudorswith great severity; but how completely did this family differencerecede before the world-wide interests of religion! He served with themost entire devotion a queen of the house of Lancaster-Tudor who onher side reposed in him unlimited reliance: she wished to have himabout her for hours every day. Reginald Pole was a man of European andgeneral ecclesiastical culture; he shared in a tendency existingwithin Catholicism itself, which approached very nearly toProtestantism on one dogmatic question: we also hear that he wouldgladly have moderated the persecution;[173] but when it is said, thatthe obstinacy of the Protestants hindered him in this, all that can beimplied is, that they held fast to a confession which was nowabsolutely condemned by the hierarchic laws, while he was bound andresolved to carry these laws into effect. His chief care was above allnot to be involved in English party-divisions: he therefore usuallyworked with a couple of Italian assistants who shared his sentimentsand his plans. The union of the ecclesiastical and temporal authorityis seen once more in Pole, as it had been in Wolsey: he combined thepowers of a legate with the position of a first minister. Hisdistinguished birth, his high ecclesiastical rank, the confidence ofthe King and Queen, enhanced by completely blameless personalconduct, [174] procured him an authority in the country which seemedalmost that of the sovereign. 

A singular government this, composed of an absent king, who howeverhad to be consulted in all weighty matters, a cardinal, and a dyingqueen who lived exclusively in church ideas. Difficulties could not bewanting: they arose first in church matters themselves. 

We know how much the recognition of the alienation of the churchproperty, to which Julius III was brought to consent by the Emperor, contributed to the restoration of church obedience; among the Englishnobility it formed the main ground of its submission. But in May 1555Pope Paul IV ascended the Papal throne, in whom dislike of theAustro-Spanish house was almost a passion, and who wished to base hisecclesiastical reputation on the recovery of the alienated churchproperty. His third Bull orders its restoration, including thepossessions of monastic foundations, and the revenues hithertoreceived from them. The English ambassadors who had been sent to Romeunder wholly different conditions, to announce the restoration ofobedience, found this Pope there on their arrival. When they mentionedthe confirmation of the alienation of the monastic property, heanswered them in plain terms: for himself he would be ready toconsent, but it lay beyond his power; the property of the church wassacred and inviolable, all that belonged to it must be restored to theuttermost farthing. And so ecclesiastically minded was Queen Mary thatshe in her heart agreed with the Pope. The monasteries in particularshe held to be an indispensable part of the church-system, and wishedfor their restoration. Already the fugitive monks were seen returning:a number of Benedictines who had remained in the country resumed thedress of their Order; the Queen made no secret of her wish to restorethe monastery of Westminster in particular. Another side of churchlife was affected by the fact that, owing to the suppression of thegreat abbeys, a number of benefices, which were dependent on them, hadlost their incomes and had fallen into decay. That Henry VIII shouldhave appropriated to the crown the tenths and first-fruits, whichbelonged to the church, seemed to Queen Mary unjustifiable; she feltherself straitened in her conscience by retaining these revenues, andwas prepared to give them back, whatever might be the loss to thecrown. But she could not by herself repeal what had been done underauthority of Parliament: in November 1555 she attempted to gain overthat assembly to her view. A number of influential members weresummoned to the palace, where first Cardinal Pole explained to themthat the receipt of the first-fruits was connected with the State'sclaim of supremacy over the church, but that, after obedience wasrestored, it had no longer any real justification. He put forward somefurther reasons, and then the Queen herself took up the word. Shelaid the greatest stress on her personal wish. She asked theParliament, after having shown obedience to her in so many ways, toprove to her that the peace of her soul lay near their hearts, and totake this burden from her. But the conception of the crown and itsproperty had in England already ceased to be so merely personal. Themost universally intelligible motive in the whole church-movement wasthe feeling, that the resources of the nation ought to be devoted tonational purposes, and every one felt that the diminution of the royalrevenues would have to be made up by Parliamentary grants. In additionto this, it appeared to be only the first step to such an universalrestitution, as Pope Paul IV clearly contemplated and directed. Wasthere not much more to be said for the recovery of the church revenuesfrom private hands than for their withdrawal from the crown which usedthem for public purposes?--A member of the Lower House wished toanswer the Queen at once after her address: but, as he was not theSpeaker, he was not allowed to do so. 

When the proposal came under discussion in the Lower House, it metwith lively opposition. A commission was then appointed, to which theUpper House sent two earls, two barons, and two bishops, and to whichsome lawyers were added; by these the proposed articles were revisedand then laid before them again. The decisive sitting was on the 3rdDecember 1555. The doors were closed: no stranger was allowed to enternor any member to leave the House. After they had sat in hot debatefrom early morning till three in the afternoon--just one of thosedebates, of which we have to regret that no detailed account hassurvived--the proposal was, it is true, accepted, but against such alarge 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 stillagainst them. However strong the stress which the cardinal laid on thestatement that the concession of the crown was not to react in any wayon private men's ownership of church property, the apprehension wasnevertheless universal, [175] that with the Queen's zeal for themonasteries, and a consistent carrying out of the Pope's principles, things would yet come to this. But the interests which would be thusinjured were very widespread. It was calculated that there were 40, 000families which in one way or another owned part of the churchproperty: they would neither relinquish it nor allow their title to becalled in question. Powerful lords were heard to exclaim that theywould keep the abbey-lands as long as they had a sword by their side. The popular disposition was reflected in the widespread rumour, whichgained credence, that Edward VI was still alive and would soon comeback. 

From time to time seditious movements showed the insecurity of thesituation. At the beginning of 1556 traces were detected of a plan forplundering the treasury in order to levy troops with the money. [176]The Western counties were discontented because Courtenay was removedfrom among them: he died subsequently in Italy. Sir Henry Dudley, theDuke of Northumberland's cousin, rallied around him some zealous andenterprising malcontents, who planned a complete revolution: he foundsecret support in France, whither he fled. [177] In April 1557 agrandson of the Duke of Buckingham, Thomas Stafford, also coming fromFrance, landed and made himself master of Scarborough castle. He hadonly a handful of followers, but he ventured to proclaim himselfProtector of the realm, which he promised to secure against thetyranny of foreigners, and 'the satanic designs of an unlawful Queen. 'He was crushed without difficulty. But in the general ferment whichthis aroused, it was observed how universal was the wish for achange. [178]

Meanwhile foreign affairs took a turn which threatened to involveEngland in a dangerous complication. The peace between the greatpowers had not been concluded: the truce they had made was broken offat the instigation of the Pope; hostilities began again, and Philip IIreturned to England for a couple of months to induce her to join inthe war against France. The diplomatic correspondence shows that theimperial court from the beginning valued their near relation toEngland chiefly as the basis of an alliance against France. We caneasily understand how this early object was now attained. Besides manyother previous wrongs, Stafford's enterprise, which was ascribed tothe intrigues of France, was a motive for declaring war against thatPower. And a French war still retained its old charm for the English:their share in it surpassed all expectation. The English land forcesco-operated with decisive effect in the great victory of S. Quintin, and similarly the appearance of the English fleet on the French coastsensured Philip's predominance on the ocean. But it is very doubtfulwhether this was the part the English power should have played at thismoment. By his father's abdication and retirement into the cloisterPhilip had become lord and master of the Spanish monarchy. Could it bethe mission of the English to help in consolidating it in his hands?On the foundation then laid, and mainly through the peace which Francesaw herself compelled to make, its greatness was built up. For theSpanish monarchy the union with England, which rested on the able useto which the existing troubles and the personal position of the Queenwere turned--and which, strictly speaking, was still a result of thepolicy of Ferdinand the Catholic--was of indescribable advantage: tothe English it brought a loss which was severely felt. They hadneglected to put Calais in a proper state of defence; at the firstattack it fell into the hands of the French. The greatest value wasstill laid in England on a possession across the sea, which seemedindispensable for the command of the Channel; its extension was themain object of Henry VIII's last war: that now it was on the contraryutterly lost was felt to be a national disaster; the population of thetown, which consisted of English, was expelled together with thegarrison. 

And as Pope Paul IV was now allied with the King of France, the resultwas that he found himself at war with Philip II (whom he tried tochase from Naples), and hence with England as well. His hatred to thehouse of Austria, his aversion to the concessions made in England withreference to church property, and to the religious position whichCardinal Pole had hitherto taken up in the questions at issue withinthe Catholic Church, determined the Pope to interfere in the homeaffairs of England with a strong hand. For these Cardinal Pole was theone indispensable man, on whose shoulders the burden of affairsrested. But it was this very man whom Paul IV now deprived of hislegatine power, on which much of his consequence rested, andtransferred it to a Franciscan monk. 

But what now was the consequent situation of affairs in England! TheQueen, who recognised no higher authority than that of the Papal See, was obliged to have Paul IV's messages intercepted, lest they shouldbecome known. While the ashes of the reputed heretics were stillsmoking on their Calvaries, the man who represented the Catholic formof religion, and was working effectively for its progress, was accusedof falling away from the orthodox faith, and summoned to Rome toanswer for it. 

Meanwhile England did not feel herself strong enough, even with thehelp that Philip offered, to attempt the reconquest of Calais. Thefinances were completely disordered by the war; and the Parliamentshowed little zeal in restoring the balance: just before this theQueen had found herself obliged even to diminish the amount of asubsidy already as good as voted. However unwilling she might be totake the step after her previous experiences, she had to decide oncemore in the autumn of 1558 on calling a Parliament. Circumstances worean appearance all the more dangerous, as the Scotch were allied withthe victorious French: the Queen represented to the Commons the needof extraordinary means of defence. A number of the leading lordsappeared in the Lower House to give additional weight to the demand ofthe Crown by their presence. The Commons, though not quite willingly, were proceeding to deliberate on the subsidies demanded, when an eventhappened which relieved them from the necessity of coming to anyresolution. 

A tertian or quartan fever was then prevalent in the Netherlands andin England, which was very fatal, especially to elderly persons ofenfeebled health. [179] The Queen, who had been for some time visitedby her usual attacks of illness, could not resist this disease, whensuffering besides, as she was, from deep affliction at thedisappointment of all her hopes, and from heart-rending anticipationsof the future: once more she heard mass in her chamber--she diedbefore it was ended, on the 17 November 1558. Cardinal Pole also wassuffering: completely crushed by this news he expired the followingnight. It was calculated that thirteen bishops died a little before orafter the Queen. As if by some predetermined fate the combination ofEnglish affairs which had been attempted during her government came atonce to an end. 

NOTES:

[165] The Queen imputed the chief blame to Paget 'Quand l'on a parléde la peyne des heretiques, il a sollicité les Seigneurs pour non yconsentir ny donner lieu à peyne de mort' Renard à l'empereur, inTytler ii. 386. 

[166] Les seigneurs quils ont pension du roy font tels et si bonsoffices es contrées et provinces du roy ou ils ont charge que l'on neoye dire si non que le peuple est content de l'alliance; ce quedivertit 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 Juanasu hermana, in Ribadeneyra, Historia del Scisma 381. 

[168] Renard informs King Ferdinand that this resolution would beadopted the 29 Nov (Papiers d'état iv. 344), 'Confiant que la dispensesoit generale, pour sans scrupule confirmer la possession des biensecclesiastiques es mains de ceux qui les tiennent. '

[169] 'La chambre haulte y faict difficulté pour ce, que l'autorité etjurisdiction des évesques est autorizee et que la peine semble tropgriefve. ' Renard à l'empereur, Papiers d'état iv. 347. 

[170] Renard, ibid. 341. 'Le chancellier insistoit, que l'on declairaMme. Elizabeth bastarde en ce parlement' They feared 'l'evidente etcongnue contrariété qui seroit en tout le royaume. '

[171] Condemnatio Johannis Hooper, in Burnet Coll. Iii. 246. CompareFoxe, Martyrs vol. Iii; Soames iv. 

[172] According to a despatch of Micheli (25 Nov. 1555) she says tothe Parliament: 'che non ad altro fine dalla Maesta di dio erapredestinata e riservata alla successione del regno, se non perservirsi di lei principalmente nella riduttione alla fede cattolica. '

[173] Erat tanta in plerisque animorum obstinatio ac pertinacia, utbenignitati et clementiae nullum plane locum relinquerent. ' Vita Poli, in Quirini i. 42. 

[174] Micheli, Relatione, 'Incontaminatissimo da ogni sorte dipassione et interessi humani, non prevalendo in lui ni l'autorità deprincipi ni rispetto di sangue ni d'amicizia. '

[175] 'Assicurando e levando il sospetto, che per quello cheprivatamente ciascuno possedeva, non sarebbe mai molestato nitravagliato. ' Micheli, despatch 25 Nov. , from whose reports I draw mynotices of these proceedings in general. 

[176] Micheli, despatch 1556, 7 April, notes 'la maggior parte deigentilhuomini del contado di Dansur (Devonshire) come conscii etpartecipi della congiura. ' 5 Magg. 'Tutta la parte occidentale è insospetto. '

[177] The Constable to Noailles, Amb. V. 310. 'Le roy a adviséd'entretenir doulcement Dudelay et secrettement toute fois, pour s'enservir s'il en est de besoing luy donnant moyen d'entretenir aussi parde là des intelligences, qu'il faut retenir. '

[178] Suriano, despatch 29 April 1557. 'Si è scoperto l'animo dimolti, che non si sono potuti contener di mostrarsi desiderosi diveder alteration del stato presente. '

[179] Godwin 470 'Innumeri perierunt, sed aetate fere provectiores etinter 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 suchimportance to a male heir, and to exclude his daughter by the Spanishmarriage from the succession, we need only cast our eyes on whathappened under her, when in spite of all she had become Queen. Theidea with which the Tudors had ascended the throne, and administeredthe realm, that of founding a political power strong in itself andalike independent of home factions and foreign influence, wassacrificed by Mary to her preference for the nation from which hermother came and from which she chose her husband. The military powerof England served to support the Spanish monarchy at a dangerous anddoubtful moment in the course of its formation. And while Mary'sfather and brother had made it the object of their policy to deprivethe hierarchy of all influence over England, she on the contraryreinstated it: she put the power and all the resources of the State atits disposal. Though historically deeply rooted, the Catholic tendencyshowed itself, through the reactionary rule which it brought about andthrough its alliance with the policy of Spain, pernicious to thecountry. We have seen what losses England suffered by it, not merelyin its foreign possessions, but--what was really irreparable--in menof talent and learning, of feeling and greatness of soul; and intowhat a state of weakness abroad and dissolution at home it therebyfell. A new order of things must arise, if the national element, thecreation of which had been the labour of centuries, was not to becrushed, and the mighty efforts of later ages were not to succumb toreligious and political reaction. 

CHAPTER I. 

ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION. TRIUMPH OF THE REFORMATION. 

During Mary's government, which had been endurable only because menforesaw its speedy end, all eyes were directed to her younger sisterElizabeth. She was the daughter of Anne Boleyn, who bore her under herheart 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 ofNorthumberland for her as well as for Mary. And it had also beenmaintained against Mary herself. Once, in Wyatt's conspiracy, letterswere found, which pointed at Elizabeth's having a share in it: she wasdesignated in them as the future Queen. The predominantSpanish-Catholic party had her examined and would have much wished tofind her guilty, in order to rid themselves of her for ever. ButElizabeth was not so imprudent as to lend her hand to a movement, which if unsuccessful--a result not hard to foresee--must destroy herown good title. And moreover she, with her innate pride, could notpossibly have carried out the wishes of the French by marryingCourtenay, whom her sister had rejected. The letter, which she wroteto Mary at this crisis, is full of unfeignedly loyal submission to herQueen, before whom she only wishes to bend her knee, to pray her notto let herself be prejudiced by false charges against her sister; andyet at the same time it is highminded and great in the consciousnessof innocence. Mary, who was now no longer her friend, did notvouchsafe her a hearing, but sent her to the Tower and subjected herto a criminal examination. But however zealously they sought forproofs against her, yet they found none: and they dared not touch herlife unless she were first publicly found guilty. She was clearly theheiress to the throne appointed under the authorisation of Parliament:the people would not give up the prospects of the future which werelinked with her. When she appeared in London at this moment of peril, surrounded by numerous attendants, in an open litter, with anexpression in which hopeful buoyant youth mingled with the feeling ofinnocence and distress, pale and proud, she swayed the masses thatcrowded round her with no doubtful sympathy. [180] When she passedthrough the streets after her liberation, she was received with anenthusiasm which made the Queen jealous on her throne. 

Yet Elizabeth was not merely the head of the popular opposition to hersister's policy: from the first moment onwards she was in collisionwith another female foe, whose pretensions would determine therelations of her life. If Henry VIII formerly in settling thesuccession passed over in silence the rights of his married sister inScotland, which had now come to her granddaughter Mary Stuart, thememory of them was now all the more vividly revived by the Catholicparty in the country. For with the religious reverence which mendevoted to the Papacy it was not at all possible to reconcile therecognition of Elizabeth, whose very existence was as it were atvariance with it. Nor was a political motive for preferring MaryStuart wanting. That for which Henry VIII and Somerset had striven sozealously, the union of England and Scotland, would be thus attainedat once. They were not afraid that Scotland might thus becomepredominant; Henry VII at the conclusion of the marriage, having hisattention drawn to this possible risk, replied with the maxim, thatthe larger and more powerful part always draws the smaller after it. The indispensable condition for the development of the English powerlay in the union of the whole island: this would have ensued in aCatholic, not in a Protestant, sense. Was not this union of politicaladvantage and religious concord likely to influence the Privy Councilof England, which under Mary was again zealously Catholic, and also toinfluence Queen Mary Tudor herself?

Great political questions however do not usually present themselves tomen in such perfect clearness, but are seen under the modifyingcircumstances of the moment. It was at that time all important thatMary Stuart had married the Dauphin: she would have united England notmerely with Scotland, but at the same time with France, thus bringingit for ever under the influence of that country. How revolting mustsuch a prospect have been to all English feeling! England would havebecome a transmarine province of France, it would in time have beenabsorbed like Brittany. Above all, French policy would have completelygained the upper hand in Europe. This apprehension induced the Spanishstatesmen--Elizabeth's eager enemies as long as they expected theirKing to have issue of Mary Tudor--when this hope failed, to give theprincess sympathy and attention. Philip II, when her troubles revived(for both Gardiner and Pole were her enemies), informed her throughsecret messengers, that he was her good friend and would not abandonher. Now that Mary was failing before all men's eyes, and every onewas looking forward to her death, it was his evident interest tofurther Elizabeth's accession. In this sense spoke his ambassadorFeria, whom he sent at this moment to England, before the assembledPrivy Council;[181] even Mary was urged to declare herself to the sameeffect. From an advice written for Elizabeth during the first momentsof her reign we see that all still looked very dangerous: she wasurged in it to possess herself of the Tower and there to receive theallegiance of the high officers of State, to allow no departure fromthe English ports, and so on. Men expected turbulent movements athome, and were not without apprehension of an attempt at invasionfrom France. The decision however followed without any commotion andon the spot. Though most of its members were Catholic, the PrivyCouncil did not hesitate. A few hours after Mary's decease the Commonswere summoned to the Upper House, to receive a communication there: itwas, that Mary was dead, and that God had given them another Queen, Mylady Elizabeth. The Parliament dissolved; the new Queen was proclaimedin Westminster and in London. Some days afterwards she made her entryinto 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 hostileattitude towards France and Scotland, on the other hand the questionwas at once laid before the Queen, and in the most personal wayimaginable, how far she would unite herself with Spain, the greatPower which was now on her side. Philip resolved, inasmuch aspropriety in some measure allowed it, to ask for her hand--not indeedfrom personal inclination, of which there is no trace, but from policyand perhaps from religion: he hoped by this means to keep England firmto the Spanish alliance and to Catholicism. [182] And on the Englishside also much might be said for it. An ally was needed againstFrance, even to obtain a tolerable peace: there was some danger thatPhilip, if rejected by the Queen, might perhaps marry a Frenchprincess; to be secure against the French claims the Queen seemed toneed the support of Spain. Her first answer was not in the negative. She declared she must consult with Parliament as to the King'sproposal: but he might be assured that, if she ever married, she wouldnot give any one else the preference over him. 

Well considered, these words announce at once her resolution not tomarry. Between Mary Tudor who thought to bring the crown to the heirof Spain, and Mary Stuart similarly pledged to the heir of France, nothing was left for her--since she would not wish the husband of herchoice to be of inferior rank--but to remain unmarried. Fromlistening to Philip's wooing she was kept back by her sister'sexample, whose marriage had destroyed her popularity. And forElizabeth there would have been yet another danger in this alliance. Was not her legitimacy dependent on the invalidity of her father'smarriage with his brother's widow? It would be a very similar case ifshe were to marry her sister's husband. Besides she would have neededthe Pope's dispensation for such a union--as Philip had alreadyexplained to her--while her birth and crown were the results of aPapal dispensation being declared a nullity. She would thus havefallen into a self-contradiction, to which she must have succumbed incourse of time. When told that Philip II had done her some service, she acknowledged it: but when she meditated on it further, she foundthat neither this sovereign nor any other influence whatever wouldhave protected her from her enemies, had not the people shown her anunlimited devotion. [183] This devotion, on which her whole existencedepended, she would not forfeit. After a little delay she let Philipknow that she felt some scruples as to the Papal dispensation. Shegave weight to the point which had been under discussion, but addedthat she was altogether disinclined to marry. We may doubt whetherthis was her immoveably formed resolution, considering how oftenafterwards she negociated about her marriage. It might seem to herallowable, as an instrument of policy, to excite hopes which she didnot mean to fulfil: or her views may in fact have again wavered: butthese oscillations in her statements can mean nothing when set overagainst a great necessity: her actual conduct shows that she had avivid insight into it and held firm to it with tenacious resolution. She was Henry's daughter, but she knew how to keep herself asindependent as he had thought that only a son could possibly do. Thereis 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 whichEngland had hitherto stood with Spain, it was indispensable to makepeace with France. It was impossible to attain this if she insisted onthe restoration of Calais; she resolved to give it up, at first for aterm of years. Of almost the same date as her answer of refusal toPhilip's ambassador is her instruction empowering her ambassador tolet Calais go, as soon as he saw that the Spaniards would concludetheir peace with France without stipulating for its restoration. Shewas able to venture this, for however deeply the nation felt the lossof the place, the blame for it could not be imputed to her. Withoutrepeating what was then asserted, that her distinct aim was to turnthe hatred of the nation against the late government and its alliancewith Spain, we may still allow that this must have been the actualresult, as it really proved to be. It was indeed said that Philip II, who not merely concluded peace with France but actually married adaughter of Henry II, would make common cause with him againstEngland: but Elizabeth no more allowed herself to be misled by thispossibility, which also had much against it, than Henry VIII had beenunder similar circumstances. Like him and like the founder of herfamily, she took up an independent position between the two powers, equally ready according to circumstances for war or peace with one orthe other. 

Meanwhile she had already proceeded to measures which could never havebeen reconciled with the Spanish alliance, and to ecclesiasticalchanges which first gave her position its true character. 

Her earliest intimation of again deviating from the Church was givenby restoring, like a devoted daughter, her father's monument, whichMary had levelled with the ground. A second soon followed, which atonce touched on the chief doctrine in dispute. Before attending asolemn high mass she required the officiating bishop to omit theelevation of the host. As he refused, she left the church at themoment the ceremony was being consummated. To check the religiousstrife which began to fill the pulpits she forbade preaching, like herpredecessors; but she allowed the Sunday Lessons, the Litany, and theCreed to be read in English. Elizabeth had hitherto conformed to therestored Catholic ritual: it could not be quite said that shebelonged to either of the existing confessions. She always declaredthat she had read no controversial writings. But she had occupiedherself with the documents of the early Church, with the Greek andLatin Fathers, and was thoroughly convinced that the Romanism of thelater centuries had gone far astray from this pattern. She had made upher mind, not as to every point of doctrine, but as to its generaldirection: she believed too that she was upheld and guarded by God, tocarry out this change. 'How wonderful are God's ordinances, ' sheexclaimed, when she heard that the crown had fallen to her. 

What course however was now to be taken was a question which, owing tothe antagonism of the factions and the close connexion of allecclesiastical and political matters, required the most matureconsideration. 

The Queen was advised simply to revert to Edward VI's regulations, andto declare all things null and void that had been enacted under Mary, mainly on the ground that they had been enacted in violation of legalforms. A speech was laid before her, in which the validity of the lastelections was disputed, since qualified members had been excluded fromthe sittings of both houses, although they were good Englishmen: thelater proclamations of summons were held to be null, because in themthe formula 'Supreme Head of the English Church' had been arbitrarilyomitted, without a previous resolution of Parliament, though on thistitle so much depended for the commonwealth and people: but no onecould give up a right which concerned a third person or the publicinterest; through these errors, which Mary had committed in herblindness, all that had then been determined lost its force andauthority. [184] But the Queen and her counsellors did not wish to goso far. They remarked that to declare a Parliament invalid for someerrors of form was a step of such consequence as to make the wholegovernment of the nation insecure. But even without this it was notthe Queen's purpose merely to revert to the forms which had beenadopted under her brother. She did not share all the opinions anddoctrines which had then obtained the upper hand: she held far more toceremonies and outward forms than Edward VI or his counsellors: shewished to avoid a rude antagonism which would have called forth theresistance of the Catholics. 

In the Parliament that met immediately after the coronation (which wasstill celebrated by a Catholic bishop), they began with the questionwhich had most occupied the late assembly, namely, should the Churchrevenues that had been attached to the crown be restored to it. TheQueen's proposal, that they should be left to the crown, was quite theview of the assembly and obtained their full consent. 

The Parliamentary form of government however had also the greatestinfluence on religious affairs. Having risen originally in oppositionto Rome, the Parliament, after the vicissitudes of the civil wars, first recovered its full importance when it took the side of the crownin its struggle with the Papacy. It did not so much concern itselfwith Dogma for its own sake: it had thought it possible to unite theretention of Catholicism with national independence. Under Mary everyman had become conscious that this would be impossible. It was justthen that the Parliament passed from its previous compliant mood intoopposition, which was not yet successful because it was only that ofthe minority, but which prepared the way for the coming change oftone. It attached itself joyfully to the new Queen, whose birthnecessarily made her adopt a policy which took away all apprehensionsof a union with the Romish See injurious to the country. 

The complete antagonism between the Papal and the Parliamentarypowers, of which one had swayed past centuries and the other was tosway the future, is shown by the conduct of the Pope, when Elizabethannounced her accession to him. In his answer he reproached her withit as presumption, reverted to the decision of his predecessors bywhich she was declared illegitimate, required that the whole mattershould be referred to him, and even mentioned England's feudalrelation to the Papacy:[185] but Parliament, which had rejected thisclaim centuries before, acknowledged Elizabeth as legitimately sprungfrom 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 livesand property. 

Owing to this the tendencies towards separation from Rome were alreadysure to gain the superiority: the Catholic members of the PrivyCouncil, to whom Elizabeth owed her first recognition, could notcontend effectively against them. But besides this, Elizabeth hadjoined with them a number of men of her own choice and her own views, who like herself had not openly opposed the existing system, butdisapproved it; they were mainly her personal friends, who now tookthe direction of affairs into their hands; the change which theyprepared looked moderate but was decided. 

Elizabeth rejected the title of 'Supreme Head of the Church, ' becauseit not merely aroused the aversion of the Catholics, but also gaveoffence to many zealous Protestants; it made however no essentialdifference when she replaced it by the formula 'in all causes as wellecclesiastical as civil, supreme. ' Parliament declared that the rightof visiting and reforming the Church was attached to the crown andcould be exercised by it through ecclesiastical commissioners. Theclergy, high and low, were to swear to the ecclesiastical supremacy, and abjure all foreign authority and jurisdiction. The punishment forrefusing the oath was defined: it was not to be punished with death asunder Henry VIII, but with the loss of office and property. All Mary'sacts in favour of an independent legislation and jurisdiction of thespiritualty were repealed. The crown appropriated to itself, withconsent of Parliament, complete supremacy over the clergy of the land. 

The Parliament allowed indeed that it did not belong to it todetermine concerning matters really ecclesiastical; but it held itselfauthorised, much like the Great-Councils of Switzerland, to order aconference of both parties, before which the most pressing questionsof the moment, on the power of national Churches, and the nature ofthe Mass, should be laid. 

The Catholic bishops disliked the whole proceeding, as may beimagined, since these points had been so long settled; and theydisliked no less the interference of the temporal power, and lastlythe presidency of a royal minister, Nicolas Bacon. They had no mind tocommit themselves to an interchange of writings: their declarations byword of mouth were more peremptory than convincing. In general theywere not well represented since the deaths of Pole and Gardiner. Onthe other hand the Protestants, of whom many had become masters of thecontroverted questions during the exile from which they had nowreturned, put forward explicit statements which were completely to thepoint. They laid stress chiefly on the distinction between theuniversal, truly Catholic, Church and the Romish: they sought to reachfirm ground in Christian antiquity prior to the hierarchic centuries. While they claimed a more comprehensive communion than that ofRomanism, as that in which true Catholicity exists, they sought at thesame time to establish a narrower, national, body which should havethe right of independent decision as to ritual. Nearly all depended onthe question, how far a country, which forms a separate community andthus has a separate Church, has the right to alter establishedceremonies and usages; they deduced such an authority from this factamong others, that the Church in the first centuries was ruled byprovincial councils. The project of calling a national council wasproposed in Germany but never carried out: in England men consideredthe idea of a national decree, mainly in reference to ritual, assuperior to all others. But we know how much the conception of ritualcovered. The question whether Edward VI's Prayer-book should berestored or not, was at the same time decisive as to what doctrinalview should be henceforth followed. [186]

The Catholic bishops set themselves in vain against the progress ofthese discussions. They withdrew from the conference: but theParliament did not let itself be misled by this: it adopted thepopular opinion, that they did not know what to answer. At thedivision in the Upper House they held obstinately fast to theiropinion: they were left however, though only by a few votes, in theminority. [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 beuniversally received from the following Midsummer. The bishops raisedan opposition yet once more, at a sitting of the Privy Council, on theground that the change was against the promises made by Mary to theSee of Rome in the name of the crown. Elizabeth answered, her sisterhad in this exceeded her powers: she herself was free to revert to theexample of her earlier predecessors by whom the Papal power was lookedon as an usurpation. 'My crown, ' she exclaimed, 'is subject only tothe 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 Protestantbishops had perished at the stake, but the victory was theirs even intheir graves. 

The committee of revision consisted of men, who had then savedthemselves by flight or by the obscurity of a secluded life. As underEdward men came back to the original tendencies prevalent under HenryVIII, so they now reverted to the settlement under Edward; yet theyallowed themselves some alterations, chiefly with the view of makingthe book acceptable to the Catholics as well. Prayers in which thehostility of decided Protestantism came forward with especialsharpness, for instance that 'against the tyranny of the Bishop ofRome, ' were left out. The chief alteration was in the formula of theLord's Supper. Elizabeth and her divines were not inclined to let thisstand as it was read in the second edition of Edward's time, since themystical act there appeared almost as a mere commemorativerepast. [188] They reverted to a form composed from the monuments ofLatin antiquity, from Ambrose and Gregory, in which the real presencewas maintained; this which already existed in the first edition theyunited with the view of the second. As formerly in the Augsburgconfession in Germany, so in England at the last recension of theCommon Prayer-book an attempt was made to keep as near as possible tothe traditional system. For the Queen this had also a political value:when Philip II sent her a warning, she explained that she was onlykept back from joining in the mass by a few points: she too believedin God's presence in the Sacrament. [189]

She was of a similar mind in reference to other matters also. If atfirst, under pressure from zealous Protestants who saw in images anoccasion for superstition, she ordered their removal, we perceive thatin a short time she regretted it, especially as it made a badimpression in Wales and the Northern counties; in her chapel men againsaw the cross and the lighted tapers, as before. The marriages enteredinto by priests had given much offence, and not unjustly, as they wereoften inferior unions, little honourable to them, and lowering thedignity of their order. Elizabeth would have gladly forbidden themaltogether: she contented herself with setting limits to them byordering that a previous permission should be requisite, but shealways disliked them. She felt a natural pleasure in the splendour andorder of the existing church service. For the future also thespiritualty were to be bound to appear--in the customary dress--in amanner worthy of God's service, with bent knees and with ceremoniousdevotion. When they proceeded to revise the confession drawn up byCranmer, which two years afterwards was raised to a law in the shapeof the 'Thirty-nine Articles, ' they struck out the places that leantto Zwingli's special view; on the other hand they added some newpropositions, which stated the right of the higher powers, and theauthority of each kingdom to determine religious usages foritself. [190]

For in this consisted the essence of the alteration, that the CivilAuthority, as it was then composed, decided the church-questions thatarose, and raised its decision into law. 

The Statute was, that no person should hold a public office, whetherspiritual or temporal, who did not conform to this law. Thirteenbishops, four-and-twenty deans, eighty rectors of parishes, and mostof the heads of colleges resigned. It has been said that this number, about two hundred, is not very considerable, since the English clergyheld 9000 benefices and offices; but it comprehended all those whoheld the government of the church and represented the prevalentopinion in it. The difficulty arose how to replace the bishops inconformity with the principles of the English church constitution asthen retained: perhaps the difficulty was intentional. There werehowever two conforming bishops who had received the laying on of handsaccording to the Roman ritual, and two others according to theReformed: these consecrated the new Archbishop of Canterbury. It wasobjected to this act that none of them was in actual possession of abishop's see: the Queen declared every defect, whether as to thestatutes of the realm or church-usages, since time and circumstancesdemanded it, to be nullified or supplied. It was enough that, generally speaking, the mystery of the episcopal succession went onwithout interruption. What was less essential she supplied by theprerogative of the crown, as her grandfather had done once before. Thearchbishop consecrated was Dr. Parker, formerly chaplain to AnneBoleyn: a thoroughly worthy man, the father of learned studies onEnglish antiquities, especially on the Anglo-Saxon times. By him thelaying on of hands and consecration was bestowed on the other bishopswho were now elected: they were called on to uphold at the same timethe idea of episcopacy in its primitive import, and the doctrines ofthe Reformation. 

In regard to the election of bishops also Elizabeth went back one stepfrom her brother's system; she gave up the right of appointment, andrestored her father's regulations, by which it is true a stronginfluence was still reserved for the Civil Power. Under her supremeauthority she wished to see the spiritual principle recognised assuch, and to give it a representation corresponding to its highdestiny. 

Thus it must needs be. The principle which comes forward for the firsttime, however strong it may appear, has yet to secure its future: itmust struggle with the other elements of the world around it. It willbe pressed back, perhaps beaten down: but in the vicissitude of thestrife it will develop its inborn strength and establish itself forever. 

An Anglican church, --nationally independent, without giving up itsconnexion with the reformed churches of the continent, and reformed, without however letting fall the ancient forms of episcopacy, --inaccordance with the ideal, as it was originally understood, was atlength, after a hard schooling of trials, struggles, and disasters, really set on foot. 

But now it is clear how closely such a thoroughgoing alterationaffected the political position. Reckoning on the antipathies, whichcould not but hence arise against Elizabeth in the catholic world, andabove all on the consent of the Roman See, the French did not hesitateto openly recognise the claims of the Dauphiness Mary Stuart to theEnglish throne. She was hailed as Queen, when she appeared in public:the Dauphin's heralds bore the united arms of England, Ireland, andScotland. [191] And this claim became still more important after theunexpected death of Henry II, when the Dauphin ascended the Frenchthrone as Francis II. The Guises, uncles of Mary the new Queen, whosaw their own greatness in her success and were the very closestadherents of the church, got into their hands all the powers ofgovernment. The danger of their hostility lay above all in this, thatthe French already exercised a predominant influence over Scotchaffairs, and hoped in a short time to become complete masters of thatcountry in the Queen's right. She moreover had already by a formaldocument transferred to the French royal house an eventual right ofinheritance to her crown. But if matters came to this, the old war ofEngland and France would be transferred from the fields of Boulogneand Calais to the Scotch border. An invasion of the English territoryfrom that side was the more dangerous, as the French would havebrought thither, according to their custom, German and Swiss troops aswell. England had neither fortresses, nor disciplined troops, nor evengenerals of name, who could face such an invasion. It was truly said, there was not a wall in England strong enough to stand a cannonshot. [192] How then if a defeat was sustained in the open field? Thesympathies of the Catholics would have been aroused for France, andgeneral ruin would have ensued. 

It was a fortunate thing for Elizabeth that the King of Spain, aftershe had taken up a line of conduct so completely counter to his wishesand ideas, did not make common cause with the French as they requestedhim. But she could not promise herself any help from him. Granvellatold the English as emphatically as possible, that they must providefor themselves. Another Spanish statesman expressed his doubt to themwhether they were able to do so: he really thought England would oneday become an apple of discord between Spain and France, as Milan thenwas. It was almost a scoff, to compare the Island that had the powerof the sea with an Italian duchy. But from this very moment she was totake a new upward flight. England was again to take her place as athird Power between the two great Powers; the opportunity presenteditself to her to begin open war with one of them, without breakingwith 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 alliancewith those who opposed the French interests in Scotland. As theselikewise were in opposition to their Queen, it was objected that onesovereign ought not to combine with the subjects of another. Elizabeth's leading statesman, William Cecil, who stood ever by herside with his counsel in the difficulties of her earlier years, andhad guided her steps hitherto, made answer that 'the duty ofself-preservation required it in this case, since Scotland would elsebe serviceable to France for war against England. '

Cecil took into his view alike the past and the future. It was Francealone, he said, that had prevented the English crown from realisingits suzerainty over Scotland: whereas the true interest of Scotlandherself lay in her being united with England as one kingdom. Thispoint of view was all the more important, since the religious interestcoincided with the political. The Scots, with whom they wished tounite themselves, were Protestants of the most decided kind. 

NOTES:

[180] 'Ayant visage pale fier haultain et superbe pour desguyser leregret 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 lapunyt et Cortenay, elle ne sera jamais assurée. '

[181] 'Manifestò el contentamiento grande que tendria el rey de saberque se declaba la sucesion en favor de ella (Isabel), cosa que S. M. Habia descado sempre. ' In Gonzalez, Apuntamientos para la historia delrey 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 givesits contents, was soon after printed in Gonzalez, Documentos I. 405. 

[183] Feria: 'Dando a entender, que el pueblo la ha puesto en elestado que esta, y de esto no reconoce nada ni a V. M. , ni a lanobleza del reino. '

[184] An oration of John Hales to the Queen delivered by a certainnobleman, in Foxe, Martyrs iii. 978. 'It most manifestly appeareth, that all their doings from the beginning to the end were and be ofnone effect force or autority. '

[185] P Sarpi, Concilio di Trento, lib. V. P. 420, confirmed byPallavicino lib. Xiv. 

[186] Horne's Papers for the reformed, in Collier ii. 416. 

[187] Ribadeneyra: 'No fueron sino tres votos mas, los quedeterminaron en las cortes, que se mudasse la religion catolica, quelos que pretendian que se conservasse. ' Ribadeneyra says the Queengained Arundel's vote by allowing him to hope for her hand, and thenlaughed at him; but Feria's despatches show that she mocked at hispretensions 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 withthe later thirty-nine Articles; but he did not venture at last to dowhat he proposed at first, give his opinion as to the reason andnature of the variations. 

[191] Leslaeus de rebus gestis Scotorum: Henricus Mariam ReginamAngliae Scotiae et Hiberniae declarandam curavit, --Angliae et Scotiaeinsignia in ipsius vasis aliisque utensilibus simul pingi fingique acadeo tapetibus pulvinis intexi jussit. (In Jebb i. 206. )

[192] From one of Cecil's first notes, 'if they offered battle withAlmains, there was great doubt, how England would be able to sustainit. ' In Nares ii. 27. 

CHAPTER II. 

OUTLINES OF THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND. 

In its earliest period church reform was everywhere introduced orpromoted by the temporal governments; in Germany by the government ofthe Empire, and by the Princes and towns which did not allow theauthorisation, once given them through the Empire, to be againwithdrawn; in the North by the new dynasties which took the place ofthe Union-Princes; in Switzerland itself by the Great-Councils whichpossessed the substance of the republican authority. After manifoldstruggles and vicissitudes this tendency had at last yet once moreestablished itself in its full force under Queen Elizabeth in England. 

But another tendency was also very powerful in the world. In SouthEurope, France, the Netherlands, and a part of the German territory, the state attached itself to the principles of the old Church. At thisvery time in Italy and Spain this led to the complete destruction ofwhat was there analogous to the Reformation; it has had more influenceon the later circumstances of these countries than it had then. Butwhere the religious change had already obtained a more durablefooting, as in France and the Netherlands, politico-religiousvariances of the most thoroughgoing nature arose almost of necessity:the Protestantism of Western Europe was pervaded by anti-monarchicalideas. We noticed how much everything was preparing for this underQueen Mary in England also: that it did not so happen was owing to thearrangements made by Elizabeth. But this tendency appeared in fullforce in Scotland, and in fact more strongly there than anywhere else. 

In Scotland the efforts made by all the monarchic powers of thisperiod in common were not so successful as in the rest of Europe. Thekings of the house of Stuart, who had themselves proceeded from theranks of the nobility, never succeeded in reducing the powerful lordsto real obedience. The clannish national feeling, closely bordering onthe old Keltic principle, procured the nobles at all times numerousand devoted followers: they fought out their feuds among themselves, and then combined anew in free confederacies. They held fast to theview that their sovereigns were not lords of the land (for theyregarded their possessions as independent properties), not kings ofScotland but kings of the Scots, above all, kings of the greatvassals, who had to pay them an obedience defined by laws. It gave thekings not a little superiority that they had obtained a decisiveinfluence over the appointment to the high dignities in the Church, but this proved advantageous neither to the Church nor at last tothemselves. Sometimes two vassals actually fought with each other fora rich benefice. The French abuses came into vogue here also:ecclesiastical benefices fell to the dependents of the court, to theyounger sons of leading houses, often to their bastards: they weregiven or sold _in commendam_, and then served only for pleasure andgain: the Scotch Church fell into an exceedingly scandalous andcorrupt state. 

It was not so much disputed questions of doctrine as in Germany, noragain the attempt to keep out Papal influence as in England, butmainly aversion to the moral corruption of the spiritualty which gavethe first impulse to the efforts at reformation in Scotland. We findLollard societies among the Scots much later than in England: theirtendencies spread through wide circles owing to the anticlericalspirit of the century, and received fresh support from the doctrinalwritings that came over from Germany. But the Scotch clergy wasresolved to defend itself with all its might. Sometimes it had to sitin judgment on invectives against its disorderly and luxurious life, sometimes on refusals to pay established dues: or Lutheran doctrineshad been preached: it persecuted all with equal severity as tending toinjure the stability of holy Church, and awarded the most extremepenalties. To put suspected heretics to death by fire was the order ofthe day; happy the man who escaped the unrelenting persecution byflight, which was only possible amid great peril. 

These two causes, an undeniably corrupt condition and relentlesspunishment of those who blamed it as it well deserved, gave the Reformmovement in Scotland, which was repressed but not stifled, a peculiarcharacter of exasperation and thirst for vengeance. 

Nor was it without a political bearing in Scotland as elsewhere. Inparticular Henry VIII proposed to his nephew, King James V, to remodelthe Church after his example: and a part of the nobility, which wasalready favourably disposed towards England, would have gladly seenthis done. But James preferred the French pattern to the English: hewas kept firm in his Catholic and French sympathies by his wife, Maryof Guise, and by the energetic Archbishop Beaton. Hence he becameinvolved in the war with England in which he fell, and after this itoccasionally seemed, especially at the time of the invasions by theDuke of Somerset, as if the English, and in connexion with them theProtestant, sympathies would gain the ascendancy. But nationalfeelings were still stronger than the religious. Exactly becauseEngland defended and recommended the religious change it failed tomake way in Scotland. Under the regency of the Queen dowager, withsome passing fluctuations, the clerical interests on the whole keptthe upper hand. In spite of a general sympathy the prospects of Reformwere slender. It could not reckon on any quarrel between thegovernment and the higher clergy: foreign affairs rather exercised ahostile influence. It is remarkable how under these unfavourablecircumstances the foundation of the Scotch Church was laid. 

Most of the Scots who had fled from the country were content toprovide for their subsistence in a foreign land and improve their ownculture. But there was one among them who did not reconcile himselffor one moment to this fate. John Knox was the first who formed aProtestant congregation in the besieged fortress of S. Andrew's; whenthe French took the place in 1547 he was made prisoner and condemnedto serve in the galleys. But while his feet were in fetters, heuttered his conviction in the fiery preface to a work onJustification, that this doctrine would yet again be preached in hisfatherland. [193] After he was released, he took a zealous share in thelabours of the English Reformers under Edward VI, but was notaltogether content with the result; after the King's death he had tofly to the continent. He went to Geneva, where he became a studentonce more and tried to fill up the gaps in his studies, but above allhe imbibed, or confirmed his knowledge of, the views which prevailedin that Church. 'Like the first Reformers of French Switzerland, Knoxalso lived in the opinion that the Romish service was an idolatrywhich should be destroyed from off the earth. And he was fullyconvinced of the doctrine of the independence of the spiritualprinciple side by side with the State, and believed that the newspiritualty also was authorised to exclude men from the Church, viewsfor which Calvin was at that very time contending. Thus he was equallyarmed for the struggle against the Papacy and against the temporalpower allied with it, when a transient relaxation of ecclesiasticalcontrol in Scotland made it possible for him to return thither. In thewar between France and Spain the Regent took the side of France: shelighted bonfires to announce the capture of Calais; out of antipathyto Mary Tudor and her Spanish government she allowed the Englishfugitives to be received in Scotland. Knox himself ventured to returntowards the end of 1555: without delay he set his hand to form achurch-union, according to his ideas of religious independence, whichwas not to be again destroyed by any State power. 

Among the devout Protestants who gathered together in secret theleading question was, whether it was consistent with conscience to goto mass, as most then did. Knox was not merely against any one doingwrong that good might come of it, but he went on further to restorethe interrupted Protestant service of God. Sometimes in one andsometimes in another of the places of refuge which he found headministered the Communion to little congregations according to theReformed rite; this was done with greater solemnity at Easter 1556 inthe house of Lord Erskine of Dun, one of those Scottish noblemen whohad ever promoted literary studies and the religious movement as faras lay in his power. A number of people of consequence from the Mearns(Mearnshire) were present. But they were not content with partakingthe Communion; following the mind of their preacher they pledgedthemselves to avoid every other religious community, and to upholdwith all their power the preaching of the Gospel. [194] In this unionwe may see the origin of the Scotch Church properly so called. Knoxhad no doubt that it was perfectly lawful. From the power which thelords possessed in Scotland he concluded that this duty was incumbenton them. For they were not lords for themselves, but in order toprotect their subjects and dependents against every violence. From adistance he called on his friends--for he had once more to leaveScotland, since the government recurred to its earlier severity--notagain to prefer their own ease to the glory of God, but for veryconscience' sake to venture their lives for their oppressed brethren. At Erskine's house met together also Lord Lorn, afterwards Earl ofArgyle, and the Prior of S. Andrews, subsequently Earl of Murray; inDecember 1557 Erskine, Lorn, Murray, Glencairn (also a friend ofKnox), and Morton, united in a solemn engagement, to support God'sword and defend his congregation against every evil and tyrannicalpower even unto death. [195] When in spite of this another executiontook place which excited universal aversion, they proceeded to anexpress declaration, that they would not suffer any man to be punishedfor transgressing a clerical law based on human ordinances. 

What the influence of England had not been able to effect, was nowproduced by antipathy to France. The opinion prevailed that the Kingof France wished to add Scotland to his territories, and that theRegent gave him aid thereto. When she gathered the feudal array on theborders in 1557 (for the Scots had refused to contribute towardsenlisting mercenaries) to invade England according to an understandingwith the French, the barons held a consultation on the Tweed, inconsequence of which they refused their co-operation for this purpose. The matrimonial crown was indeed even afterwards granted to theDauphin, when he married Mary Stuart;[196] but thereuponmisunderstandings arose with all the more bitterness. Meetings wereeverywhere held in a spirit hostile to the government. 

It was this quarrel of the Regent with the great men of the countrythat gave an opportunity to the lords who were combined for thesupport of religion to advance with increasing resolution. Among theirproposals there is none weightier than that which they laid before herin March 1559, just when the Regent had gathered around her a numerousecclesiastical assembly. They demanded that the bishops should beelected for the future by the nobility and gentry of each diocese, theparish clergy by the parishioners, and only those were to be electedwho were of esteemed life and possessed the requisite capacity: divineservice was to be henceforth held in the language of the country. Theassembled clergy rejected both demands. They remarked that to setaside the influence of the crown on the elections involved adiminution of its authority which could not be defended, especiallyduring the minority of the sovereign. Only in the customary formswould they allow of any amendments. 

But this assembly was not content with rejecting the proposals: theyconfirmed the usages and services stigmatised by their opponents assuperstitious, and forbade the celebration of the sacraments in anyother form than that sanctioned by the Church. The royal court atStirling called a number of preachers to its bar for unauthorisedassumption of priestly functions. 

The preachers were ready to come: the lords in whose houses theysojourned were security for them. And already they had the popularsympathy as well as aristocratic protection. It was an old custom ofthe country that, in especially important judicial proceedings, theaccused appeared accompanied by his friends. Now therefore the friendsof the Reformation assembled in great numbers at Perth from theMearns, Dundee, and Angus, that, by jointly avowing the doctrines onaccount of which their spiritual leaders were called to account, theircondemnation might be rendered impossible. 

As to the Regent we are assured that she was not in general firmer inher leaning towards the hierarchy than other Princes of the time, andhad once even entertained the thought that the supreme ecclesiasticalpower belonged to her;[197] but, perhaps alarmed by the vehemence ofthe preachers, she had done nothing to obtain such a power. It nowappeared to her that it would be a good plan to check the flow of themasses to the place of trial by some friendly words which sheaddressed to Erskine of Dun. [198] The Protestants saw in them theassurance of an interposition in the direction of lenity, and stayedaway; but without regard to this and without delay the Justiciary atStirling, Henry Levingstoune, proceeded to business on the dayappointed, 20 May 1559. As the preachers did not appear, those who hadbecome security for them were condemned to a money-fine, while theythemselves were denounced as rebels, [199] as having withdrawnthemselves from the royal jurisdiction; an edict followed whichpronounced them exiled, and in the severest terms forbade any to givethem protection or favour. 

The news fell like a spark of fire among the inflammable masses ofProtestants assembled at Perth. The sentence promulgated was an openact of hostility against the lords, who felt themselves bound by theirword which they had given to the preachers and by their vow to eachother. They considered that the Regent's promise had given them aright against her; Lord Erskine, whom the others had warned, declaredthat he had been deceived by her. While the Regent had prevented acollision between the two parties at Stirling, she had occasioned inone of them, at Perth, the outbreak of a popular storm against thehierarchy of the land, their representatives, and the monuments oftheir religion. John Knox, who had come, as he said, to be where menwere striving against Satan, called on them in a fiery sermon todestroy the images which were the instruments of idolatry. The attemptof a priest, after the sermon, to proceed to high mass and open thetabernacle of the altar, was all that was needed to cause a tumulteven in the church itself, in which the images of the saints weredestroyed; and the outbreak spreading through the city directed itselfagainst the monasteries and laid them too in ruins. How entirelydifferent is Knox from Luther! The German reformer made all outwardchange depend on the gradual influence of doctrine, and did not wishto set himself in rebellious opposition to the public order underwhich he lived. The Scot called on men to destroy whatever contravenedhis religious ideas. The Lords of the Congregation, who became evermore numerous, declared themselves resolved to do all that Godcommands in Scripture, and destroy all that tended to dishonour hisname. With these objects, and with their co-operation and connivance, the stormy movement once raised surged everywhere further over thecountry. The monasteries were also destroyed in Stirling, Glasgow, andS. Andrews; the abbeys of Melrose, Dunfermline, and Cambuskennethfell: and the proud abbey of Scone, an incomparable monument of thehierarchic feeling of earlier ages, was, together with the bishop'spalace, levelled to the ground. It may be that the popular fury wentfar beyond the original intentions of the leaders, but without doubtit was also part of their purpose, to make an end above all of themonasteries and abbeys, from which nothing but resistance could beexpected. [200] It has been regarded even in our days as a measure ofprudence, dictated by the circumstances, that they destroyed thesemonuments, which by their imposing size and the splendour of theservice performed in them would have always produced an impressionadverse to the Reformation. On the other hand the cathedrals andparish churches were to be preserved, and after being cleansed fromimages were to be devoted to Protestant worship. Everywhere thechurch-unions, which were at once formed and organised on Protestantprinciples, gained the upper hand. The Mass ceased: the Prayer-book ofKing Edward VI took its place. 

So the reformed Scotch Church put itself in possession, in a moment, of the greatest part of the country. It was from the beginning aself-governed establishment: it found support in the union of somelords, whose power likewise rested on independent rights: but it firstgained free play when the French policy of the Regent alienated thenobility and the nation from her. On the one side now stood theprincess and the clergy, on the other the lords and the preachers. Astheir proposals were rejected and preparations made to defend thehierarchic system with the power of the State, the opposition alsosimilarly arose, claiming to have an original right: revolt broke out;the church system of the Romish hierarchy was overthrown and aProtestant one put in its place. In the history of Protestantism atlarge the year 1559 is among the most important. During the very daysin which the revised Common Prayer-book was restored in England (sodefinitely putting an end to the Catholic religion of the realm), themonuments of Roman Catholicism in Scotland were broken in pieces, andthe unrevised Common Prayer-book introduced into the churches. Butyet how great was the difference! In the one country all was doneunder the guidance of a Queen to whom the nation adhered, inconsequence of Parliamentary enactments, the ancient forms beingpreserved as far as possible: here the whole transaction was completedin opposition to the Regent, under the guidance of an aristocracyengaged in conflict with her, amidst very great tumult, while all thatwas ancient was set aside. 

At the beginning of July the Scotch lords had become masters of thecapital as well, and had reformed it according to their own views, with the most lively sympathy of the citizens. They were resolved touphold the change of religion now effected, cost what it would, andhoped to do so in a peaceful manner. When Perth again opened her gatesto the Regent after the first tumult, under the condition that sheshould punish no one, she promised at the same time to put off theadjustment of all questions in dispute to the next Parliament. Therethey intended to carry at once the recognition of the Reformation inits whole breadth, and the removal of the French. We perceive that itwas their plan in that case to obey the Regent as before, and to unitethe abbey-lands to the possessions of the crown. 'But if your Gracedoes not agree to this, ' so runs the letter of a confederate, 'theyare resolved to reject all union with you. '

It was soon shown that the last was the only alternative. The regentcollected so many French and Scotch troops that the lords did notventure to stop her return to Edinburgh. They came to an agreementinstead, in which she promised to prosecute no member of theCongregation, and especially no preacher, and not to allow the clergyon the ground of their jurisdiction to undertake any annoyingproceedings: in return for which the lords on their side pledgedthemselves not to disturb any of the clergy or destroy any more of thechurch buildings. It was a truce in which each party, sword in hand, reserved to itself the power of defending its partisans against theother. The two parties encountered in Edinburgh. The inhabitants hadcalled Knox to be their preacher, and when he thought it unsafe tostay in the city after the Congregation withdrew, another champion ofthe Reformation, Willok, filled his place with hardly less zeal andsuccess. But on the other side the bishop of Amiens appeared with somedoctors of the Sorbonne at the Regent's court. Here and there theProtestant service was again discarded; the Paris theologians defendedthe old dogma among the Scotch scholars, and made even now someimpression; the mass and the preaching contended with each other. Asto the Regent's views there can be no doubt. She drew the attention ofthe French court to the frequent intercourse between the nobles ofProtestant views in France and Scotland, and to the encouragement theScots had from the French; but she gave the assurance that she wouldsoon finish with the Scots if she received support. Some Frenchcompanies had just landed at Leith, they had brought with themmunitions of war and money: the Regent demanded four companies more, to make up twenty, and perhaps 100 hommes d'armes; if only four Frenchships were stationed at Leith to keep off foreign assistance, shepledged herself to put down the movement everywhere. [201]

Then the Scots also decided that they must employ their utmost meansof resistance. They had framed politico-religious theories, in virtueof which they believed in their right to do so. The substance of thewhole is that they acknowledged indeed an obligation on the consciencewhich required obedience to the sovereign, but at the same time theyheld that the obligation came to an end as soon as the sovereigncontravened the known will of God: an idolatrous sovereign, so saidthe preachers, could be deposed and punished:--should the supreme Headput off the reform which was required by God's law, the right and theduty of executing it falls on the subordinate authorities. 

But the lords claimed also an authority based on the laws of the land. When the French troops began to fortify Leith, they held themselvesjustified in raising remonstrances against it: they demanded that theRegent should desist from the design. As she replied with aproclamation which sounded very offensive to themselves, they had noscruple in taking up arms. Each noble collected his men round him andappeared at their head in the field. Relying on the fine army whichwas thus brought together, they repeated their demand, with theremark, that in receiving foreign troops into the harbour-town therewas involved a manifest attempt to enslave the land by force: if theRegent would not lend an ear to their remonstrances, they being thehereditary councillors of the crown, they would remember their oathwhich bound them to provide for the general welfare. The Regentexpressed her astonishment to the lords through a herald that thereshould be any other authority in the realm than that of her daughter, the Queen. She already felt herself strong enough to order them andtheir troops to disperse, on pain of the punishment appointed for hightreason. On this the great men met in the old council-house atEdinburgh, to consider the question whether it was obligatory to payobedience to a princess, who was but regent, and who disregarded theopinion of the hereditary councillors of the crown. The consultation, at which some preachers supported the views of the lords with similararguments, ended in the declaration that the Regent no longerpossessed an authority which she was using to the damage of the realm. In the name of the King and Queen they announced to her that thecommission she had received from them was at an end. 'And as yourGrace, ' so they continued, 'will not acknowledge us as yourcouncillors, we also will no longer acknowledge you as ourregent. '[202]

To this pass matters had now come. The combined interests, on the oneside of the crown and the clergy, on the other of the lords and theProtestants, came into open and avowed conflict. The Act of Suspensionis but the proclamation of war in a form which would enable them toavoid directly breaking with their duties towards their born prince. 

The lords' first enterprise was directed against the French troopswhich held Leith in their possession, and which were now first of allto be driven out of the country: but the hastily-constructedfortifications there proved stronger than was expected. And not merelywere their assaults on Leith repelled, but the Lords soon sawthemselves driven from their strongest positions, for instance fromStirling; their possessions were wasted far and wide; the war, whichwas transferred to Fife, took an unfortunate turn for them; to allappearance they were lost if they did not obtain help from abroad. 

But to whom could they apply for it if not to their neighbour, justnow rising in power, Elizabeth Queen of England?

They might have hesitated, as they had indeed repelled the influenceof Henry VIII and of Somerset, even when it was united with reformingtendencies. But how entirely different were matters now from what theyhad been then! With their own hands they had already given themselvesa Protestant church-system, which was national in a high degree, andsomewhat opposite to the English one. So long as it existed, theinfluence England would gain by giving them help could never becomethe supremacy, at which it is certain attempts had previously beenmade. 

We know too the objections which were made in England against a unionwith the Scots. To these were added the Queen's decided antipathies tothe new form of church government and to its leaders: she could notbear the mention of Knox's name. But all these considerationsdisappeared before the pressing danger and the political necessity. Inopposition to France, Protestant England and Protestant Scotland, however different the religious and even the political tendenciesprevailing in each of them, held out their hands to each other. 

Elizabeth had already at an earlier time privately given the Scotssome support: the moment at which she gave them decisive assistance isworth noticing. 

The Regent's French and Scotch troops were planning an attack on S. Andrews, and had made themselves masters of Dysarts; the lords, againretreating, marched along the coast, and the French were in pursuitwhen a fleet hove in sight in the distance. The French welcomed itwith salvos of cannon, for they had no doubt that it was their ownfleet, bringing them help from France, long expected, and now in factknown to be ready. But it soon appeared that they were Englishvessels, in advance of the larger fleet which had put to sea underVice-admiral Winter. Nothing remained for the French, when thusundeceived, but to give up their project and withdraw. But the wholestate of things was thus altered. Soon after this the Scots, to whoseassistance English troops had also come by land, were able to advanceagainst Leith and resume the suspended siege. 

Everything that is to come to pass in the world has its right time andhour. Incredible as it may seem, the champion of the strictestCatholicism, the King of Spain, was at this moment not merely for helpbeing given to the Scots, but pressing for it; his ministerscomplained not that the Queen interfered, but that she did not do somore quickly. For in the union of Scotland and France, which wasalready complete in a military sense, they saw a danger forthemselves. The enthusiastic Knox, who only lived and moved inreligious ideas, was, more than he foresaw, a link in the chain ofEuropean affairs. Without the impulse which he gave to the minds ofmen, that resistance to the Regent, by which a complete union withFrance was hindered, would have been impossible. 

A treaty was made in Berwick between Queen Elizabeth and the Scotchlords, by which they bound themselves to drive the French out ofScotland with their united strength. The lords promised to remainobedient to their Queen, but Elizabeth assented to the additionalwords, that this was not to be in such cases as might lead to theoverthrow of the old Scottish rights and liberties. This was a verycomprehensive clause, which placed the further attempts of the Scotchlords against the monarchical power under English protection. 

While the siege of Leith was being carried on by land and sea, commissioners from France appeared on the part of Queen Mary Stuartand her husband, as they had now assumed the place of the Regent (whohad died in the midst of these troubles), to attempt to bring about anagreement. The chief among them was Monluc, bishop of Valence, awell-meaning and moderate man even in religious matters, who, convinced of the impossibility of carrying on the war any further withsuccess, gave way step by step before the inflexible purpose of theEnglish plenipotentiary, William Cecil. He put his hand to the treatyof Edinburgh, in which the withdrawal of the French troops fromScotland and the destruction of the fortifications of Leith werestipulated for. This satisfied the chief demand of the lords, and atthe same time agreed with the wish of the neighbouring Power. The Kingand Queen of France and Scotland were no longer to bear the title andarms of England and Ireland. For Scotland a provisional government wasarranged on the basis of election by the Estates; it was settled thatfor the future also the Queen and King should decide on war and peaceonly by their advice. It is easy to see how much a limitation of theScotch crown was connected with the interests of the Power that wasinjured by its union with the crown of France. 

Religion was not expressly mentioned; Queen Elizabeth had purposelyavoided it. But when the Scotch Parliament, to which the adjustment ofthe matters in dispute was once more referred in the treaty ofEdinburgh, now met, nothing else could be expected than what in facthappened. The Protestant Confession was accepted almost withoutopposition, the bishops' jurisdiction declared to be abolishedaccording to the view of the confederate lords, the celebration of theMass not only forbidden, but, after the example of Geneva, prohibitedunder the severest penalties. 

How mightily had the self-governing church-society, founded threeyears and a half before in the castle at Dun, secured its foothold! Byits union with the claims of the aristocracy it had broken up theexisting government not merely of the Church but also of the State. Itwas of unspeakable importance for the subsequent fortunes of Englandthat this vigorous living element had been taken under the protectionof the Queen of that country and supported by her. 

But at the same time, if we may so say, it complicated her personalrelations inextricably. 

NOTES:

[193] Extract in M'Crie, Life of John Knox 36. 

[194] Knox, History of the Reformation, --a work which some laterinsertions have not deprived of its credit for trustworthiness, whichit otherwise deserves, --p. 92. 'That they refussit all society withidolatri and band them selfes to the uttermost of their powery tomanetein the trew preiching of the evangille, as God should offer untothame preichers and opportunity. '

[195] 'That we sall--apply our haill power substance and our verielyves, to mantein set forward and establish the most blissit word ofGod, and his congregatioun sall labour--to have faithful ministeris, puirlie and trewlie to minister Christis evangell and sacramentis tohis pepyll. '

[196] According to Leslaeus 205, in this the promise was speciallyemphatic, that everything should be done, 'Ne regina nostra Angliaesceptro excluderetur. ' This was during Mary Tudor's lifetime. 

[197] So King James said at the Conference of Hampton Court, StateTrials ii. 85; negociations must have taken place of which we knownothing. 

[198] Knox: 'That she wald tak sume better order:' and so inCalderwood. Buchanan xvi. 590: 'Se interea nihil adversus quemquamillius sectae molituram. ' Spottiswood i. 271: That the diet shoulddesert and nothing be done to the prejudice of the ministres. '

[199] Praefati Paulus Methven, Joannes Cristesoun, Willielmus Harlawet Joannes Willok denunciati sunt rebelles S. D. N. Regis et reginae. From the Justiciary records in M'Crie, Note GG. 360. 

[200] Kirkaldy of Grange, one of the leaders of the Protestants, toSir Henry Percy, Edinburgh, 1 July, in Tytler vi. 107. 'The manner oftheir proceeding in reformation is this. They pull down all manner offriaries and some abbeys, which willingly receive not the reformation:as to parish churches they cleanse them of images and other monumentsof idolatry and command that no masses be said in them. ' Even nowM'Crie says: 'I look upon the destruction of those monuments as apiece of good policy. ' Life of Knox 130. 

[201] I find this only in Lesley 215, who is in general the bestinformed as to the relations of the Regent with the French court. 

[202] 'As your grace will not acknowledge us, our soverane lords andladyis liegis for your subjectis and counssail, na mair will weacknowledge you for our regent. ' Declaration of 23 Oct. 1559. 

CHAPTER III. 

MARY STUART IN SCOTLAND. RELATION OF THE TWO QUEENS TO EACH OTHER. 

People were now fully satisfied that they had obtained somethinggreat, and had laid a firm foundation for secure relations throughoutall future time: but it became clear at once that this was not thecase. Francis II and his wife seemed to have forgotten that they hadpromised on their royal word, in the instructions to theirambassadors, to accept whatever they should arrange: they refused toratify the treaty of Edinburgh. For it was really concluded by theQueen of England with men in rebellion against them, by whom it waschiefly subscribed. They regarded it as an insult that the Scotsdeputed an embassy of great lords to England, whilst the request toconfirm all that was arranged in Scotland was laid before them, theirQueen and their King, by a gentleman of less distinguished birth. Theyfelt themselves highly injured by a Parliament being called evenbefore they had ratified the treaty, without any authorisation ontheir side. How were they to accept its resolutions? Francis II on thecontrary said, he would prove to the Scots that they had no power tomeet together in their own name, just as if they were a republic. [203]And as little was he inclined to give up the title and arms of Englandaccording to the treaty: he said he had hitherto borne them with goodright, and saw no reason to give satisfaction to others, before he hadreceived any himself. 

Those were the days in which the French government, guided by theQueen's uncles, including the Cardinal of Lorraine, had considerablyrepressed the Protestant movements which were stirring in France, hadbrought the insurgent princes into its power, and was occupied inestablishing a strict system of obedience in ecclesiastical andpolitical matters; with kindred aims it sought in Scotland also torevert to its earlier policy; all concessions made to the contrary itignored. I see here, says the English ambassador Throckmorton, moreintention of vengeance than inclination to peace. 

At this juncture occurred the unexpected event which gave Frenchaffairs another shape. King Francis II died at the beginning ofDecember 1559 without issue; and the Guises could not maintain theauthority they had hitherto possessed. The kingdom which, by theextent and unity of its power, was wont to exercise a dominantinfluence over all others, fell into religious and political troubleswhich engrossed and broke up its force. 

Elizabeth took some part also in these movements within France itself:it was her natural policy to support the opponents of the Guises, wholikewise stood so near her in their religious confession. With theirconsent she once occupied Havre, but allowed it without muchhesitation to fall again into the hands of the French government whichwas then guided by Catharine Medici, who for some time even madecommon cause with the leaders of the Huguenots. We cannot here followout these relations any further, for to understand them fully wouldrequire us to go into the details of the changeful dissensions inFrance: for English history these are only so far important as theymade it impossible for the French to act upon England. 

On the other hand the entire sequel of English history turns on therelation to Scotland: Scotch affairs already form a constituent partof the English, and demand our whole attention. 

At first sight it would not have seemed so impossible to bring aboutpeace and even friendship between the Queen of Scotland and the Queenof England: for the former was of course no longer bound to theinterests of the French crown. But this expectation also proveddeceitful. A primary condition would have been the acceptance of thetreaty of Edinburgh; Elizabeth demanded this expressly and as if itwere obligatory on Mary, who would as little consent to it after, asbefore, the death of her husband. She ceased to bear the arms ofEngland: all else she deferred till her arrival in Scotland. Immediately on this, at the first step, the mutual antipathy brokeout. [204] In consequence of the refusal to ratify the treaty, Elizabeth declined Mary's request to be allowed to return home throughEngland. Mary regarded this as an insult: it is worth while to hearher words. 'I was once, ' so she said, 'brought to France in spite ofall the opposition of her brother: I will return to Scotland withouther leave. She has combined with my rebellious subjects: but there arealso malcontents in England who would listen to a proposal from myside with delight: I am a Queen as well as she, and not altogetherfriendless, and perhaps I have as great a soul too. '

Few words, but they contain motives of jealousy rising out of thedepths of her inmost heart and announce a stormy future. But at firstMary could not give effect to them. 

Some Catholic lords did indeed request her to come to them in thenorthern counties, whence they would escort her to her capital with anarmed force. But who could advise her to begin her government with acivil war? She would then have herself driven the Protestant lordsover to the side of her foe. But she had connexions with them as well. Their leader, her half-brother James, Prior of S. Andrews, whom shenow created Earl of Murray, a man of spirit, energy, and comprehensiveviews, appeared before her in France; his experience and caution andeven the inner tie of blood-relationship always gave him a greatinfluence over her resolutions. He showed her how it was possible torule Scotland even under existing circumstances, so as to have atolerable understanding with Elizabeth, but reserving all else for thefuture. These counsels she followed. Not with Elizabeth's help, butyet without hindrance from her, she arrived at Holyrood in August1561. Murray succeeded in obtaining, though not without greatopposition, and almost by personally keeping off opponents, that sheshould be allowed to have mass celebrated before her. He took affairsinto his own hands; the Protestants had the ascendancy in the countryand in the royal council. 

Not that Queen Mary by this fully acquiesced in what had happened, orrecognised the state of affairs in Scotland. She even now confirmedneither the treaty of Edinburgh, nor the resolutions of Parliamentbased on it: but in the first place took possession of her throne, reserving her dynastic rights. 

A sight without a parallel, these two Queens in Albion, haughty andwondrous creatures of nature and circumstances!

They were both of high mental culture. From Mary we have French poems, of a truth of feeling and a simplicity of language, which were thenrare in literature. Her letters are fresh and eloquent effusions ofmomentary moods and wishes: they impress us even if we know that theyare not exactly true. She has pleasure in lively discussion, in whichshe willingly takes a playful, sometimes a familiar, tone; but alwaysshows herself equal to the subject. From Elizabeth also we have somelines in verse, not exactly of a poetic strain, not very harmonious inexpression, but full of high thoughts and resolves. Her letters areskilful but, owing to their allusions and antitheses, far fromperspicuous products of reflection, although succinct and rich inmatter. She was acquainted with the learned languages, had studied theancient classics and translated one or two, had read much of thechurch-fathers: in her expressions there sometimes appears an insightinto the inner connexion between history and ideas, which fills uswith astonishment. In conversation she tried above all things toproduce a sense of her gifts and accomplishments. She shone through acombination of grandeur and condescension which appeared like graceand sweetness, and sometimes awakened a personal homage, for which inthe depths of her soul she cherished a longing. She did but toy withsuch feelings, to Mary they were a reality. Mary possessed thatnatural power of womanly charm which awakens strong, even if notlasting, passion. Her personal life fluctuates between the wish tofind a husband who could advance her interests and those passionateebullitions by which she is also herself overpowered. This howeverdoes not hinder her from devoting all her attention to the business ofgovernment. Both Queens work with like zeal in their Privy Council:and they only deliberate with men of intimate trust; the resolutionswhich are adopted are always their own. Elizabeth yields more to thewisdom of tried councillors, though even these are not sure of herfavour for a moment, and have a hard place of it with her. Maryfluctuates between full devotion and passionate hate: she is almostalways swayed by an unlimited confidence in the man who meets herwishes. Elizabeth lets things come to her: Mary is ever restless andenterprising. [205] Elizabeth appeared once in the field, to animatethe courage of her troops in a great peril. Mary took a personal sharein the local Scottish feuds: she was seen riding at the head of asmall feudal army against the enemy, with pistols at her saddle-bow. 

But we here discontinue this representation of the antitheses ofcharacter between them, which first acquired historical import throughthe differences of position in which the two sovereigns foundthemselves. 

Elizabeth was mistress of her State, as well in its religious as itspolitical constitution. She had revived the obedience once paid to herfather; and remodelled the Church in the decidedly Protestant spiritwhich corresponded to her personal position; at first every mansubmitted to the new order of things, though many looked on its growthonly with aversion. Mary on the contrary had to accommodate herself toa form of Church, and even of State, government, which was founded inopposition to the right of her predecessors, and above all to her ownviews. If she ever thought of making her own religion predominant, orof oppressing that which was newly established, open resistance wasannounced to her in threatening terms by its leader John Knox. However much this reaction against her religious belief straitened heron the one side, yet on another side it opened out to her a widerprospect. She already had numerous personally devoted partisans inGreat Britain, both in Scotland where she could yet once more callthem together, and in England where she was secretly regarded by not afew as the lawful Queen; but, besides this, she had many in CatholicEurope, which had become reunited during these years (the times whenthe Council of Trent was drawing to a close) around the Papalauthority, and was preparing to bring back those who had fallen away. This great confederacy gave Mary a position which made her capable ofconfronting a neighbour in herself so much more powerful. 

Elizabeth once touched on the old claims of England to supremacy overScotland: the ambition of all the Scotch kings, to prove to theEnglish that they were independent of them, still lived in Mary: whenqueen was set over against queen, it took a more sharply-expressedshape; any whisper of subjection seemed to her an outrage. 

For the moment Mary had, as before mentioned, given up the title of'Queen of England': but all her thoughts were directed towards thepoint of getting her presumptive hereditary right to that kingdomrecognised, and of preparing for its realisation at a later time. 

But now there were two ways by which she might gain her end. She mighteither get her claim to the English throne recognised by an agreementwith its present possessor, which did not appear so unattainable, asElizabeth was unmarried, and such a settlement would have been legallyvalid in England; or she might enter into a dynastic alliance with aneighbouring great power, so as to be enabled to carry her claims intoeffect one day through its military strength. [206]

With this last view negociations were during several years carried onfor a marriage with Don Carlos the son of the Spanish King. For inthe same proportion that the union of Scotch and French interestsdissolved, did the opposite alliance between Spain and England becomelooser. The most varied reasons made Philip II wish to enter intodirect and close relations with Scotland. Immediately after the deathof Francis II, a negociation was set on foot with a view to thisalliance, on Mary's giving an audience to the Spanish ambassador, tothe vexation of Queen Catharine of France, who wished to see thisrichest of princes, and the one who seemed destined to the greatestpower, reserved for her own youngest daughter. After Mary returned toScotland similar rumours were renewed, and from time to time we meetwith a negociation for this object. When her minister Lethington wasin London in the spring of 1563, he agreed with the Spanish ambassadorthat this marriage was the only desirable one: it was longed for byall Scotch and English Catholics. Soon afterwards the ambassador senta young member of the embassy to Scotland, in the deepest secrecy, bya long circuit through Ireland; not without difficulty he obtained aninterview with Mary Stuart, in which he assured himself of herinclination for the marriage. In the autumn of 1563 Catharine Medicishowed herself well informed about this negociation and muchdisquieted by it. [207] It appeared to depend only on Philip's decisionwhether the marriage was concluded or not. [208] After some time theScotch Privy Council sent the bishop of Ross to Spain, to bring thematter about. The Queen herself corresponded on it with CardinalGranvella and the Duchess of Arschot. 

Don Carlos was too weak, too morbidly excited, to be married whenyoung. King Philip, who did not wish to feed his ambition, at lastgave the plan up, and recommended, instead of his son, his nephew theArchduke Charles of Austria. 

But the one was as disagreeable to the English court as the other. Elizabeth had announced eternal enmity to Queen Mary if she married aprince of the house of Austria. Besides, the Spanish influence inEngland troubled her: she now saw herself already under the necessityof demanding and enforcing the recall of the Spanish ambassador, because he drew the Catholic party round him and incited them tooppose the laws of England. What might have come of it, if a prince ofthis house should now obtain rule over a part of the island itself?

But while Mary through these secret negociations tried to obtain thesupport of a great Catholic house for her claims, she neglectednothing that could contribute at the same time to make a good andfriendly understanding with Queen Elizabeth possible, and to bring itabout. In the company of her half-brother Murray, who held the reinsof government with a firm hand, supported by his religious andpolitical friends, she undertook a campaign into the Northern counties(which inclined to Catholicism), to make them submit to the universallaw of the land. Only one priest was allowed at court, from whom sheheard mass; some of those who read the mass elsewhere wereoccasionally punished for it; clergymen who complained of the hardshipthey experienced were referred to Murray. This proceeding too was onlytemporary, it was intended to incline the Queen of England to herwishes. All quarrel was carefully avoided: on solemn festivals shedrank to the English ambassador, to the health of his mistress. Besides, there were negociations for a meeting of the two Queens inperson at York, where Mary hoped to be solemnly recognised aspresumptive heiress of England. [209] However much it otherwise liesbeyond the mental horizon of this epoch of firm and mutually opposedconvictions, Mary was then thought capable of willingly adopting theforms of the English Church; to this even the Cardinal of Lorraine hadassented. She herself unceasingly declared that she wished to honourElizabeth as a mother, as an elder sister. But the Queen of England, after all sorts of promises, preparations, and delays, declined theinterview. She would hear absolutely nothing of any recognition ofthe claim of inheritance. With naive plainness she inferred that sucha declaration would not lead 'to concord with her sister, the Queen ofScotland, ' since naturally a sovereign does not love his heir;--howindeed could that be possible, since every one is wont to make theheir the object of his aim and hopes;--she might increase Mary'simportance by the recognition, but at the same time she wouldundermine her own;--whether Mary had a right to the English throne, she did not know and did not even wish to know: for she was (and asshe said this, she pointed to the ring on her finger in proof) marriedto the people of England; if the Queen of Scotland had a right to theEnglish throne, that should be left to her unimpaired. 

And none could deny that such a declaration as Mary required had itshazardous side for Elizabeth. Henry VIII's settlement of thesuccession, on which Elizabeth's own accession rested, excluded theScotch line: in virtue of it the descendants of the younger sister, who were natives of England, possessed a greater right. And how if theQueen of Scots, when recognised as heir to England, afterwards gaveher hand to a Catholic prince hostile to Elizabeth? The dangersindicated above would then be doubled, the followers of the ancientChurch would have attached themselves to the royal couple, and formeda compact party in opposition to Elizabeth's arrangements, which wouldnever have attained stability. 

To meet this very objection, it was suggested that Mary might marry aProtestant, in fact Robert Dudley Earl of Leicester, who was lookedupon as the favourite of the Queen of England herself. Elizabeth couldhave been quite secure of him: she herself recommended him. Mary wasat the first moment unpleasantly affected by the idea that she wasexpected to take as a husband one who was a born subject of England;but she was by no means decidedly against it, always supposing that inthat case Elizabeth would recognise her right of inheritance in avalid form for herself and her issue by this marriage. Above all menMurray was in favour of this. He said, although his power must bediminished by the Queen's union with Leicester, yet he wished for it, in so far as it was bound up with the confirmation of the heirship;for that was the hope by which he had kept Mary firm to the existingsystem, and separated her from her old friends all these years past. Such was without doubt the case: it is this point of view that rendersMary's policy and conduct during the last years intelligible. If he, so Murray continued, could not make his promise good, Mary would thinkhe had deceived her: should she afterwards marry a Catholic prince, what would be their position?[210] Once more was the request broughtbefore Queen Elizabeth. But even under these circumstances she couldnot be induced to grant it. She said, if Mary trusted her and marriedLeicester, she should never repent it: but these words, whichcontained no definite engagement, had rather an opposite effect onMary. In the hope of the recognition of her heirship she had hithertoendured the absolute constraint of her position: she would even haveagreed to the choice of a husband by which she feared to be disparagedand controlled: for how could she have concealed from herself, that byit she would have fallen into a permanent dependence on the policy ofEngland? With all her compliances and advances she had neverthelessgained nothing. Her vexation relieved itself by a violent outburst oftears: but during this inward storm she decided at the same time todrop her union with Elizabeth, and thus leave herself free for anopposite policy. 

She had refused the Archduke because his possessions were too small tosecure her ends, too distant for him to be able to help her. Thenanother suitor presented himself for her hand, who would not indeedbring her any increase of power, but would strengthen her claims, which seemed to her very desirable. This was the young Henry LordDarnley, through his mother likewise a descendant of Henry VII'sdaughter who had married in Scotland, and through his father MatthewEarl of Lennox related to that family of the Stuarts which wasdescended from Alexander, a younger son of James Stuart the ancestorof the Scotch kings. In his descent there lay a double recommendationfor him. It was remarked also that he had in his favour in Scotlanditself the numerous and important Stuarts (Lord Athol too belonged tothem); but mainly that a scion of this marriage would not find inEngland any rival of similar claims, which might be easily the case ifyoung Darnley should marry into a family of the English nobility andbring it his rights. [211] Darnley was a youth remarkable for his finefigure, tall and well built; he made a great impression on the Queenat his very first appearance. In July 1565 the marriage was celebratedand Henry Darnley proclaimed King: the heralds named his name first, when they delivered the royal proclamations. 

He had hitherto, at least publicly, held to the Protestant faith: evennow he occasionally attended the preaching: but after a littlewavering he avowed himself a Catholic and drew over a number of lordswith him by his example. The Catholic interest thus obtained acomplete ascendancy at court. 

And now Mary did not delay a moment longer in making decisive advancesto the Catholic powers. She had in fact no need to fear that the Kingof Spain would be offended at her refusing his nephew, if she attachedherself to him in other matters. When she announced her marriage tohim, she not merely requested him to interest himself for her and herhusband's claims in England; she designated him as the man whom Godhad raised up above all others to defend the holy Catholic religion, and asked for his help to enable her to withstand the apostates in herkingdom: as long as she lived, she would join him against all andevery enemy. [212] This quite fell in with the ideas which Philiphimself cherished. From the park of Segovia in October 1565 hecommissioned Cardinal Pacheco to reassure the Pope with thedeclaration that he meant to support the Queen of Scots not less thanthe Pope himself. In this they must, he remarked, keep three points inview: first the subjugation of her rebellious subjects, which hethought not difficult, as Elizabeth would not support them; then therestoration of the Catholic Church in Scotland, than which nothingwould give him greater satisfaction; lastly, the most difficult ofall, the obtaining the recognition of her right to the English throne:in all this he would support the Queen with his counsel and withmoney: he could not however come forward himself, it could only bedone in the Pope's name. [213]

The ordinary accounts of the conferences at Bayonne have provederroneous, as the proposals which were certainly made there by theSpaniards were not accepted. But Philip II's resolutions seem not lesscomprehensive in this case; these were his hostility to QueenElizabeth, still concealed from the world but fully clear to his ownconsciousness, and his resolve to do everything in his power to placeMary, if not now, yet at a future time on the English throne. Thegreat movement he was designing was to begin from Scotland. Like theGuises at a later time, so now Mary and her partisans in England andScotland, if he supported her, were to be instruments in his hand. 

Mary had the good fortune to break up the seditious combination ofsome lords who opposed her marriage. Strengthened by this she preparedfor quite a different state of things. She received money from Spain:Pope Pius V had promised to support her as long as he had a singlechalice to dispose of. She expected disciplined Italian troops fromhim: artillery and other munitions of war were brought together forher in the Netherlands. Leaning on Rome and Spain the spirited Queenhoped to become capable of any great enterprise. [214]

It was clearly to be expected that she would unite a politicaltendency with the religious one. In the letter quoted above Philipreminds her how dangerous to monarchy were the doctrines of thepretended Gospellers:[215] opinions like those which Knox, regardlessof all else, put before her personally, as to the limitations of royalpower justified by religion, she as a matter of course would notendure. It is more surprising to find that she also called in questionthe rights which the nobility claimed as against the royal government, assigning a sort of theoretic ground for her view. The nobles basethem, so she said, on the services of their ancestors; but if thechildren have renounced their virtue, neglect honour, care only fortheir families, despise the King and his laws and commit treason, mustthe sovereign even then still let his power be limited by theirs? Howvast were the plans which this Queen entertained--to restoreCatholicism in Scotland, to resume the war against the nobility inwhich her ancestors had failed, to overthrow the Protestant opinions, and therewith to become one day Queen of England!

Among those around her was an Italian, David Riccio of Poncalieri inPiedmont, who had previously been secretary to the Archbishop ofTurin, and then in the same capacity accompanied his brother-in-law, the Conte di Moretta, who went to Scotland as ambassador of the Dukeof Savoy. He knew how to express himself well in Italian and French, and was besides skilful in music. [216] As he exactly supplied a voicewhich was wanting in the Queen's chapel, she asked the ambassador tolet him enter her service. Riccio was not a blooming handsome man;though still young, he gave the impression of advanced years: he hadsomething morose and repellent about him; but he showed himselfendlessly useful and zealous, and won greater influence from day today. He not merely conducted the foreign correspondence, on which allnow depended and for which he was indispensable, --it became his officeto lay everything before the Queen that needed her signature, andthrough this he attained the incalculable actual power of aconfidential cabinet-secretary; he saw the Queen, who took pleasurein his company, as often as he wished, and ate at her table. JamesMelvil, whom she had commissioned to warn her, if he saw hercommitting faults, did not neglect doing it in this case; herepresented to her the ill effects which favouring a foreigner drewafter it: but she thought she could not let her royal prerogative beso narrowly limited. [217] Riccio had promoted the marriage withDarnley: the latter seemed to depend on him;[218] it was even saidthat the secretary used at pleasure a signet bearing the King'sinitials. It was no wonder indeed if this influence created himenemies, especially as he took presents which streamed in on himabundantly: yet the real hostility came from quite another quarter. 

The English Council of State did not fail to notice the danger whichlay in a policy of estrangement on the part of Scotland. It wasproposed to put an end to its progress once for all by an invasion ofScotland: or at least the wish was expressed to arm for defence, e. G. To fortify Berwick, and above all to renew the understanding with theScotch lords; Murray, whom Mary had in vain tried to gain over byreminding him of the interest of their family and the views of theirfather, would most gladly have delivered Darnley at once into thehands of the English. By thus openly choosing his side he had beenforced, together with his chief friends, Chatellerault, Glencairn, Rothes, and some others, to leave Scotland: the Queen, refused withviolent words the demand of the English court that she should receivethem again; she called a Parliament instead for the beginning ofMarch, in which their banishment was to be confirmed and an attemptmade to restore Catholicism. This was not so difficult, as theresolutions of 1560 had never yet been ratified. There appeared atcourt the Catholic lords, Huntley, Athol, and Bothwell who was everready for fighting (he had returned from banishment); they came to anunderstanding with Riccio. But now it happened that the personalunion (on which all rested) between the King, the Queen, and thepowerful secretary changed to discord. Darnley, who wished not merelyto be called King but to be King, demanded that the matrimonial crownshould be conferred on him by the Parliament; this would have givenhim independent rights. The Queen on her side wished to keep thesupreme power undiminished in her hands: and Riccio may well haveconfirmed her in this, as his own importance depended thereon: Darnleyascribed the opposition he met with from his wife not so much to herown decision as to the low-born foreigner against whom he nowconceived a violent hatred. His father, Lennox, who cared little forthe restoration of Catholicism in itself, entirely agreed with him asto this. They held it allowable to put out of the way the intruder whodared to hinder their house from mounting to the highest honours, andwho by the confidential intimacy in which he stood with the Queen gaverise to all kinds of offensive rumours. With this object they--for theinstigation came from them--joined in a union with the Protestantnobles. These regarded Riccio as their most thoroughgoing opponent:they too wished him to be got rid of; but his death alone could notcontent them. A Parliament was to meet at once, from which theyexpected nothing but a complete condemnation of their former friends, and absolutely ruinous resolutions against themselves. They made theoverthrow of this system a condition of their taking a share ingetting rid of Riccio. The King consented that Murray should be againplaced at the head of the government, in return for which thematrimonial crown was promised him. 

On the 7th March the Queen went to the old council-house of Edinburghto make the necessary arrangements for the Parliament. The insignia ofthe realm, sword crown and sceptre, were borne before her by theCatholic lords, Huntley, Athol, and Crawford, the heads of thosehouses which had once already, in France, offered her their alliance. The King had refused to take part in the ceremony. She named the Lordsof Articles, who from of old exercised a decisive influence in theScotch Parliaments, and restored the bishops to their place amongthem. As the Queen declares, her object was to promote the restorationof the old religion and to have the rebels sentenced by the assembledEstates. In Holyrood, besides Huntley and Athol, Bothwell, Fleming, Levingstoun, and James Balfour had also found favour, all men who hadtaken an active part for the restoration of Catholicism or for there-establishment of the power of the crown: how much it must havesurprised men to find that the Queen granted Huntley and Bothwell, whohad been declared traitors, admittance into the Privy Council. If theParliament adopted resolutions in accordance with these preliminaries, it was to be expected that the work of political and religiousreaction would begin at once, with the active participation not onlyof the Pope from whom some money had already come, but also of otherCatholic powers with whom Riccio kept the Queen in communication. 

A serious danger assuredly for the lords and for Protestantism; therewas not a moment to lose if they wished to avert it; but the attemptto do so assumed, through the wild habits of the time and the country, that character of violence which has made it the romance of centuries. The event had such far-reaching results that we too must devote adiscussion to it. 

In the low, narrow, and gloomy rooms of Holyrood House there is alittle chamber to which the Queen retired when she would be alone: itwas connected by an inner staircase with the King's lodgings. HereMary was sitting at supper on Saturday the 9th March 1566, with hernatural sister the Countess of Argyle, her natural brother the Lairdof Creich, who commanded the guard at the palace, and some othermembers of her household, among whom was also Riccio; when the King, who had been expected somewhat earlier, appeared and seated himselffamiliarly by his wife. But at the same moment other unexpected guestsalso entered. These were Lord Ruthven, who had undertaken to executethe vengeance of King and country on Riccio, and his companions; underhis fur-fringed mantle were seen weapons and armour: the Queen askedin affright what brought him there at that unwonted hour. He did notleave her long in doubt. 'I see a man here, ' said Ruthven, 'who takesa place that does not become him; by a servant like this we inScotland will not let ourselves be ruled, '[219] and so prepared to layhands on him. 

Riccio took refuge near her; the Queen declared that she would punishan attack on him as high treason, but swords were bared before hereyes, Riccio was wounded by a thrust over her shoulder, and draggedaway: on the floor and on the steps he received more than fiftywounds: the King's own dagger was said to have been seen in the bodyof the murdered man. This may be doubted, as his jealousy was by nomeans so real; yet he said soon after that he was responsible for thehonour of his wife. In the turmoil he had only just stretched out hishand, to guard her person from any accident. For the nobles, whothough acting with the utmost violence yet did not wish to risk theirwhole future, it was enough that he was there: his presence wouldauthorise their act and give it impunity. When the murder was doneRuthven returned to the Queen and declared to her that the influenceshe had given Riccio had been unendurable to them, as had been alsohis counsels for the restoration of the old religion, his enmitiesagainst the great men of the land, his connexions with foreignprinces; he announced to her plainly the return of the banished lords, with whom the others would unite in an opposite policy. For they hadnot merely aimed at Riccio: at the same time the Lords Morton andLindsay, who had collected a number of trustworthy men, had advancedwith them and beset the approaches to the palace-yard. Their plan wasto get into their hands all their enemies who had gathered round theQueen. But while their attention was fastened on Riccio's murder, mostof the threatened persons succeeded in escaping. All the rest who didnot belong to the household, and were taken in the palace, wereremoved without distinction: the Queen was treated like aprisoner. [220] She still possessed a certain popularity, as beinghereditary sovereign: a movement arose in the city in her favour, butthis was counterbalanced by the antipathies of the Protestants, and adeclaration of the King sufficed to still it. The next day aproclamation appeared in his name which directed the members of theParliament, who had already arrived, to depart again. 

It was at any rate secured that a restoration of Catholicism or alegal prosecution of the banished lords was not to be thought of; theoriginal plan however was not completely carried out. As it appears, the temper of the country had not been so far prepared beforehand asto make it possible to deprive the Queen of her power. And thespirited princess did not let herself be so easily subdued. Above allshe succeeded in gaining over her husband again, to whom thepredominance of the lords was itself derogatory; he helped her toescape and accompanied her in her flight. When they were once safe ina strong place, her partisans gathered round her; she placed herselfat the head of a force, small though it was, and occupied the capital;the chief accomplices in the attack of Holyrood, Morton and Ruthven, fled from the country. She did not however revert to her old plans:she resumed her earlier connexions instead, her half-brother Murrayagain obtained influence, the old members of the Privy Council stoodby his side, after some time Morton was able to return. Foreignersfound that Scotland was as quiet as before. 

But this apparent quiet concealed a discord destined to produce stillgreater complications. The Queen had only learnt afterwards the sharewhich Darnley had taken in Riccio's murder: it was her husband who hadinstigated this insult to her royal honour: how could she ever againrepose confidence in him? And he no longer found support in the lordswhom he had deserted at the moment of the crisis. He was very far nowfrom obtaining the matrimonial crown or even any real influence: hesaw himself excluded from affairs more than ever, and despised. Whenhis son was baptised at Stirling, the father could not appear, thoughhe was in the palace: he was afraid of being insulted in public. Hiscondition filled him with shame: he often thought of leaving thekingdom, and made preparations for doing so. But he was not able tostate and prove his grievances: he had to acknowledge before theassembled Privy Council that he had no complaints worth mentioning. 

The Queen on her side had sometimes let drop her wish to be rid ofsuch a husband. She could not however think seriously of having hermarriage with him dissolved, as this could only be done by declaringit null and void, and by that step her son, of whom she had just beendelivered, and who was to inherit all her rights, would have been atthe same time declared illegitimate. She was told that means would befound to carry the matter through without prejudice to her son. Shewarned her friends not to undertake anything which, though meant tohelp her, might prepare yet more trouble. 

How men stood to each other is clear from the fact that on the oneside Darnley and his father linked themselves with the Catholicparty--they were said to have adopted a plan of seizing thegovernment, in the Queen's despite, in the name of her new-bornson[221]--while on the other side the rest of the barons pledgedthemselves not to recognise him but only the Queen. A league wasalready concluded between some of them, originating with Sir JamesBalfour (who had been marked out for death by the halter in Holyrood), to rid the world by force of a tyrant and enemy of the nobility, against whom men must secure their lives. 

Thus all was in preparation for a fresh catastrophe; a new personalrelation of the Queen brought it to pass. 

Among the nobles of Scotland James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, wasespecially distinguished for a fine figure, for youthful strength, intrepid manly courage, proved in a thousand adventures, and decidedcharacter. Though professedly a Protestant, he had attached himself tothe Regent without wavering, and assured the Queen of his assistancewhile she was still in France. Can we wonder if Mary, under thepressure of the party combinations around, needing before all thingsa friend personally devoted to her, sought for support in this triedand energetic man? As she in general prized nothing more highly thanbold and valiant deeds, she had often told him how much she admiredhim; but yet more than this, --we cannot doubt that she let herself bedrawn into a passionate connexion with him. Who does not know thesonnets and the love-intoxicated letters she is believed to haveaddressed to him? I would not say that every word of the latter isgenuine; through the several translations--from the French original(which is lost) into the Scotch idiom, from this into Latin, and thenback into French as we now have them--they may have suffered muchalteration: we have no right to lay stress on every expression, andinterpret it by the light of later events: but in the main they arewithout doubt genuine: they contain circumstances which no one elsecould then know and which have since been proved to be true; no humanbeing could have invented them. [222] It does not seem as if Mary'sfondness for Bothwell was returned by him in the same degree: in herletters and poems she is constantly combating a rival, to whom hisheart seems to give the preference. This was Bothwell's own wife whomhe had only shortly before married: she stayed with him for a time inthe neighbourhood of the court, but he took care that the Queen knewnothing of her being there. As he was before all things ambitious anddesirous of power, he only cared for the Queen's love and thepossession of her person so far as it would enable him to share herauthority and to obtain the supreme power in Scotland. But for thisanother thing was necessary; the King must be removed out of the way. As Darnley had once joined Riccio's political enemies in the Holyroodassassination, so Bothwell now united himself with Darnley's enemieswith a view to his murder, for which they were already quite prepared. Morton was asked to join the enterprise this time also: but hedemanded a declaration from the Queen that she was not against it:and this Bothwell could not obtain. 

But, it may be said, was not the Queen in collusion with him? Did shenot purposely bring back her husband, who had fallen sick at Glasgow, to Edinburgh, and did she not lodge him in a lonely house there notfar from the palace under the pretence that the purer air wouldcontribute to his recovery, but in fact to deliver him over all themore surely to destruction? Such has been always the general belief:even her partisans, the zealous Catholics, at that time inclined tobelieve that the Queen at least connived in the plot. [223] But therewas yet another view taken at the time, according to which the betterrelations that had begun between husband and wife were not due tohypocrisy but were genuine, and a complete reconciliation and reunionwas to have been expected: the returning inclination towards herhusband was contending in the Queen with her passion for Bothwell; andhe was driven on, by the apprehension that his prey and the prize ofhis ambition would escape him, to hasten the execution of hisscheme. [224] And psychologically the event might be best explained inthis way. But the statement has not sufficiently good evidence for itto be maintained historically. A poet might, I think, so apprehend it:for it is one of the advantages of poetic representation, that it cantake up even a slightly supported tradition, and following it caninfer the depths of the heart, those abysmal depths in which thestorms of passion rage, and those actions are begotten which laughlaws and morality to scorn, and yet are deeply rooted in the souls ofmen. The informations on which our historical representation must bebased do not reach so far: on a scrupulous examination they do notallow us to attain a definite conviction as to the degree ofcomplicity. Only there can be no doubt as to the fact that this timetoo ambition and the lust of power played a great part. If Bothwellonce said he would prevent Darnley from setting his foot on the necksof the Scotch, he thereby only expressed the feeling of the othernobles. Yet he executed his murderous plot without their joining in itand by means of his own servants. [225] In the house before mentionedhe caused a quantity of gunpowder to be laid under the chamber inwhich Darnley slept, in order to blow him into the air: alarmed at thenoise made by opening the door, the young sovereign sprang from hisbed; while trying to save himself, he was strangled together with thepage who was with him: the powder was then fired and the house laid inruins. [226]

So the dreadful deed was done: the news of it filled men at first withthat curiosity which always attaches to dark events that touch thehighest circles; they then busied themselves with the question as towho would ascend the Scottish throne and give the Queen hishand, --among the other suitors Leicester now thought the time come forhim, and for renewing good relations between England andScotland:--but meanwhile to every man's astonishment and horror arumour spread that the Queen would unite herself with the man to whomthe murder of her husband was ascribed. Men fell on their knees beforeher, to represent the dishonour she would thus draw on herself, andeven the danger into which she would bring her child. Letters fromEngland were shown her in which the ruin of all her prospects as tothe English throne was intimated, if she took this step: for it wouldstrengthen the suspicion, which had arisen on the spot, that she hadbeen an accomplice in her husband's murder. But she was already nolonger her own mistress. Bothwell now did altogether what he would. Heobtained from the lords, who feared him, a declaration that he wasguiltless of any share in the King's murder, and even their consent tohis marriage with the Queen. He said publicly he would marry theQueen, whoever might be against it, whether she would or not. And ifMary wished ever again to govern the country, and make the lords feelher vengeance, Bothwell might appear to her the only man who couldassist her in this. Half of her free will, half by force, she fellinto his power and thus into the necessity of giving him her hand. Anarchiepiscopal matrimonial court found in a near relationship betweenBothwell and his wife a pretext for dissolving his previousmarriage. [227] Bothwell was created Duke of Orkney: he began toexercise the royal power for his own objects; his friends, even theaccomplices in the murder, were promoted. [228]

But how could it be expected that the Lords would tolerate in the muchmore dangerous hands of Bothwell a power they would not have enduredin Darnley's? Against him they had the full support of the people;filled with moral aversion to the Queen for the guilt she hadincurred, or which was attributed to her, they expressed their loyaltyonly in hostility to her; a general uneasiness showed itself as to thesafety of her son who was likewise threatened by his father'smurderers. 

Under a banner on which were depicted the murdered King and his childthe latter praying for help, a great army marched against the castlewhere the newly-married pair dwelt. Bothwell merely regarded thehostile lords as his rivals, who envied him the great position towhich he had raised himself, and thought to rout them all with thefeudal array which gathered round him at the Queen's summons. But atthe decisive moment the feeling of the country infected his own peopleas well; instead of being able to fight he had to fly. He was forcedto live as a pirate in the Northern Seas; for he could no longerremain in the country. The Queen fell into the power of the Lords, whoplaced her in the strong castle which the Douglas had built in themiddle of Loch Leven, and detained her as a prisoner. 

In France it was not wholly forgotten that she had once been the Queenof that realm; a fiery champion of the Catholics boasted that, if theywould give him a couple of thousand arquebusiers, he would free herfrom custody in despite of the Scots; but Catharine Medici, whobesides was no friend of hers, rejected this absolutely, as they hadalready so many irons in the fire. [229] On the other hand Elizabethconcerned herself for the interests of her endangered neighbour with acertain emphasis. But the Scots were already discontented with theconduct of England, and complained loudly that since the treaty ofLeith nothing good had come to them from thence;[230] they wereresolved to pay their neighbour no more attention, but to manage theirown affairs for themselves. 

Their path was clearly marked out for them. They had murdered Riccio, conspired against Darnley, driven Bothwell away, and all for thespecial reason that they had tried to create a strong supreme powerover them: they could not possibly allow the Queen, irritated andinsulted as she was, to again obtain the exercise of her power. Marytherefore was forced to resign the Scotch crown in favour of her son, and to name her brother Murray regent during his minority. Immediatelyon this the ceremony of anointing and crowning the child was performedin an almost grotesque manner. [231] Two superintendents and a bishopset the crown on his head, which the Lords there present touched intoken of their consent; two of them, Morton and Hume, then swore inthe name of the new King, James VI, that he would uphold the religionnow prevailing in Scotland, and combat all its enemies. 

When after this Murray, who had exiled himself to France, and hadtaken no share in the last catastrophe (which he foresaw), returned, he was in a position once more to conduct the government according tohis old policy, only with greater independence. A Parliament wascalled which now for the first time confirmed the statutes made in1560 in favour of the Kirk, and also came to such an arrangement aboutthe confiscated church-property as made it possible for it to exist. 

So ruinous for Mary were the results of her attempt to break throughthe combination which formed the condition of her government inScotland, and to effect a restoration of the old ecclesiastical andpolitical forms. Before the power which she wished to overthrow herown had gone down. 

But she was not yet minded to submit to it. And mainly through apersonal relation which she had entered into with the young GeorgeDouglas, who conceived hopes of her hand, she succeeded in escapingout of her prison and over the lake, bold and venturous as she alwayswas. In the country there were many who thought themselves to stand sohigh above the bastard Earl of Murray, that they held it a disgrace toobey him: all these gathered round her; and as she then, the very dayafter her escape, revoked her abdication, they bound themselvestogether to replace her on the throne. In the league, at the head ofwhich stood the Hamiltons, we find eight bishops and twelveabbots, --for the re-establishment of the Catholic Church was part ofthe plan: a considerable army was brought into the field with thisobject. Murray and his party were however the stronger of the two, they represented the organised power of the State, and their soldierswere the best disciplined. The Queen, who, at Langsyde, from aneighbouring eminence, looked on at the battle between the two armies, had to witness her own men being scattered without having done theenemy any damage, --Murray is said to have lost only one man. Hehimself put a stop to the slaughter of the fugitives. Still even nowher affairs did not seem to those around her utterly lost, for all herfriends had not yet appeared in the field, and there were still strongplaces to which she could retreat. But she aimed not merely atdefence, but at overpowering her enemies. As what she had just seenleft her no hope of this in Scotland, she adopted the idea ofdemanding help from the Queen of England. For the latter had in thestrongest terms made known to the Scotch barons her displeasure at thetreatment of their Queen, which was not in harmony with the laws ofGod or man, and had threatened to punish them for the wound thusinflicted on the royal dignity. She had once sent Mary herself a jewelas a pledge of her friendship. Mary was warned by those around her notto put full trust in these assurances. But she was quite accustomed totake her resolutions under passionate emotion, and could not then bedissuaded from her views. Through forests and woods, over stock andstone, without a single woman attendant, without any other food thanthe Scotch oatcake, day and night she kept on her way to the coast, from which she betook herself in a small boat to Carlisle. Her soulwas thirsting to subdue the rebels: her firm trust was to draw QueenElizabeth into the war against them: she came, not to seek a refuge, but to gain troops and assistance. 

NOTES:

[203] Throckmorton to Chamberlain, 21 Nov. 1560, in Wright, Elizabethi. 52. 

[204] Throckmorton, in Tytler, History of Scotland vi. 194. In amemoir of Cecil, 'a note of indignities and wrongs done by the Queenof Scots to the Queen's Majesty, ' in Murdin 582, the greatest stressis justly laid on this refusal. 

[205] Castelnau, Mémoires iii. 13. 'Cette jeune princesse avoit unesprit grand et inquiète, comme celui du feu Cardinal de Lorraine sononcle, auxquels ont succedé la pluspart des choses contraires à leursdélibérations. '

[206] As it is once expressed in one of her letters: 'pourl'advanchement de mes affaires tant en ce pays (Scotland) qu'en celuylà, ou je pretends quelque droit (England). ' In Labanoff, Lettres etMémoires de Marie Stuart i. 247. 

[207] 'Que la conveniencia publica, en especial la de la religionaconsejaba que la reina su ama, se casase con el principe Don Carlos. 'From the ambassador's reports in Gonzalez 299. 

[208] 'Qu'il ne tiendra, qu'au dit Espagne qu'il (ce mariage) se nefasse. ' Additions à Castelnau. 

[209] Compare Conaeus, Vita Mariae, in Jebb i. 24. 

[210] Conversation with Randolph, in Tytler vi. 316. Murray says tohim: 'the Queen would dislike and suspect him, because he had deceivedher with promises which he could not realise: he was the counsellorand devizer of that line of policy, which for the last five years hadbeen pursued towards England; he it was that had induced her to deferto Elizabeth. '

[211] Spottiswood, History of the Church of Scotland ii. 25. 'If itshould fall him to marry with one of the great families of England, itwas to be feared that some impediment might be made to her in theright of succession. '

[212] Lislebourc (Edinburgh), 24 July 1565, in Labanoff vii. 430. 

[213] Compare Apuntamientos 312. The letter itself in Mignet ii. App. E. 

[214] Sacchinus, Historia societatis Jesu, pp. Iii, xiii, no. 166. 

[215] Fragment d'un Mémoire de Marie Stuart sur la noblesse. Labanoffvii. 297. 

[216] Mémoire adressé à Cosme I, from the Archivio Mediceo atFlorence, in Labanoff vii. 65. 

[217] James Melvil, Memoirs 59. 

[218] From a despatch of Randolph's in Mackintosh, History of Englandiii. 73. 'David is he that worketh all, chief secretary of the Queenof Scotland, only governor to her good man. ' Can the date be right?

[219] 'Volemo quel galante la e non volemo esser governati per unservitor. ' Letter to Cosimo I, in Tuscany, in Labanoff vii. 92. 

[220] Queen Mary to the Archbishop of Glasgow, 2 April 1566, in Keithand Labanoff. Of all the reports on this event the most important andtrustworthy. 

[221] 'That the king . .. Suld take the prince our son and crown himand being crownit as his father suld tak upon him the government. 'Mary to the Archbishop of Glasgow, in Labanoff i. 396. 

[222] Compare Robertson, Dissertation on King Henry's murder, Worksi. , History of Scotland 243. From a letter of Thuanus to Camden (1606)it is clear how much trouble it already cost him to arrive at adecided opinion. 

[223] 'Monsenor de Moreta . .. Anadio (to his narrative of the event)algunas particularidades, que en juicio del embajador probaban oinducian mucha sospecha que la reina avia sabido y aun permetido elsuceso. ' Apuntamientos 320. The affair has been very wrongly drawninto the sphere of religious controversy. 

[224] Account in the collection for the history of the times of theEmperor Maximilian II, which Simon Schardius embodied in the tomusrerum Germanicarum iv, not authentic, yet based on what was then heldin Scotland to be true. It runs: 'Rex cum illa se accedente itasuaviter sermones commutat, ut reconciliatae annulum daret, hoc pacto, ut illa se in lectum conjugalem intra duos dies admitteret. Erant inaula, qui hanc offensionem placari minime vellent, unde, priusquam rexvoti compos fieret, eum e medio tollere constituerunt. '

[225] Trial of James Earl Bothwell. State trials. 

[226] Report of the Nuncio, which agrees fairly with the statements inSchardius. 

[227] Mary's confessor told the Spanish ambassador in answer to hisquestions: 'Que el caso se habia consultado con los obispos catolicosy que unanimemente havian dicho que lo podia hacer (casarse) por quela muger de Bodwell era pariente sua en quarto grado. '

[228] Memorandum of Cecil. 'She committed all autority to him and hiscompagnons, who exercised such cruelty as none of the nobility thatwere counsel of the realm durst abide about the Queen. '

[229] Norris to Elizabeth 23 July 1567, in Wright i. 260. 

[230] Throckmorton to Cecil: 'upon other accidents [since Leith] theyhave observed such things in H. My's doings, as have tended to thedanger of such as she had dealt withall. ' Wright 251. 

[231] Calderwood ii. 384: 'Modo cha ha usato la regina di Scotia perliberarsi, ' from the Florentine archives, in Labanoff vii. 135. 

CHAPTER IV. 

INTERDEPENDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN DISSENSIONS IN POLITICS AND RELIGION. 

If we inquire into the reason why Philip II gave up his previousrelations with England and sided with the Queen of Scots, we shallfind it mainly in the fact that the victory of Protestant ideas inEngland exercised a counter-action which was insupportable for thegovernment he had established in the Netherlands. But that he gaveMary no help in her troubles, though information was once collected asto how it might be done, may also be traceable to the disturbancesthat had broken out in the Netherlands, the suppression of whichoccupied all his attention and resources. 

In 1568 the Duke of Alva was master of the Netherlands: he was alreadyable to send a considerable force to help the French government, whichhad once more broken an agreement forced upon it by the Huguenots; thestress of the religious war was transferred to France, and there toothe Catholic military force by degrees gained the upper hand. 

It was under these circumstances that Mary Stuart appeared in Englandwith a demand for help. If in the Netherlands the attempts of thenobles and the Protestant tendencies had been alike defeated, they hadon the other hand, by a similar union, achieved a decisive victory inScotland. Was Elizabeth to join Mary in combating them?

Elizabeth disliked the proceedings of the Scotch nobles towards theirlawful Queen; the adherents of the Scotch church-system were alreadytroublesome to her in England: but, however much she found to blame inthem, in the great contest of the world they were her allies. Mary onthe other hand held to that great system of life and thought withwhich the English Queen and her ministers had broken. WhateverElizabeth might have previously promised, she did not mean to be boundby it under circumstances so completely altered. [232] Had she chosento restore Mary, she would have opened the island to all theinfluences which she desired to exclude. Nor did she wish to let herretire to France, for while Mary had resided there previously, Englandhad not had a single quiet day: without doubt the Catholic zealprevailing there would have been at once excited in support of herclaims to the English throne. An attempt was again made to reconcilethe Scotch nobles with their Queen: but as this led to an enquiryrespecting her share in the guilt of the King's murder--those lettersof Mary to Bothwell now first came to the knowledge of the public--thedissension became rather greater and quite irreconcilable. 

One now begins to feel sympathy with the Queen of Scots, especially asher share in the crime imputed to her is not quite clear. Of her ownfree will she had come to England to seek for assistance on which shethought she could reckon: but high considerations of policy not merelyprevented its being given but also made it seem prudent to detain herin England. [233] Elizabeth and her ministers brought themselves toprefer the interests of the crown to what was in itself right and fit. Mary did not however on this account vanish from the stage of theworld: rather she obtained an exceedingly important position by herpresence in England, where one party acknowledged her immediate claimto the throne, the other at least her claim to the succession; andhence arose not merely inconveniences but very serious dangers for theEnglish government. Even in 1569, at a moment when the Catholicmilitary power had the superiority in France and the Netherlands, Mary's uncle, the Cardinal of Lorraine, proposed to the King of Spainan offensive alliance against Queen Elizabeth. [234] In the civil warsof France they had just won the victory in two great battles. Whocould say what the result would have been if in the still veryunprepared condition of England an invasion had been undertaken by thecombined Catholic powers?

But the life and the destiny of Europe depend on the fact that thegreat general antagonisms are perpetually crossed by the special onesof the several states. Philip did not wish for an alliance with theFrench; it seemed to him untrustworthy, too extensive and, even if itled to victory, dangerous. He declared with the greatest distinctness, that he thought of nothing but of putting down his rebels (includingat the time the Moriscoes), and the complete pacification of theNetherlands; he would not hear of a declaration of war againstEngland. The difficulty of this sovereign's position on all sides andhis natural temperament were the determining element in the history ofthe second half of the sixteenth century. His great object, there-establishment and extension of the Catholic religion, he neverleaves out of sight for a moment; but yet he pursues it only incombination with his own special interests. He is accustomed to weighall the chances, to proceed slowly, to pause when the situationbecomes critical, to avoid dangerous enterprises. Open war is not tohis taste, he loves secret influences. 

In November 1569 a rebellion broke out in England, not without theconnivance of the Spanish ambassador, but mainly under the impressionmade by the Catholic victories in France, as to which Mary Stuart alsohad let it be known that they rejoiced her inmost soul. It was mainlythe Northern counties that rose, as had before been the case in 1536and 1549. Where the revolt gained the upper hand, the CommonPrayer-book and sometimes the English translation of the Bible as wellwere burnt, and the mass re-established. Many nobles, above all in theNorth itself, still held Catholic opinions. At the head of the presentinsurrection stood the Percies of Northumberland, the Nevilles ofWestmoreland, the Cliffords of Cumberland; Richard Norton, who rosefor the Nevilles, venerable for his grey hair, and surrounded by atroop of sons in their prime, carried the Cross as a banner in frontof his men. The nobility did not exactly want to overthrow the Queen, but it wished to force her to alter her government, to dismiss herpresent ministers, and above all to recognise Mary Stuart's claim tothe succession--which would have given her an exceedingly numerousbody of supporters in England and thus have seriously hampered theQueen. But now the government possessed a still more decidedascendancy than even in 1549. It had come upon the traces of theenterprise in time to quell it at its first outbreak, and had at onceremoved the Queen of Scots out of reach of the movement. The commanderin the North, Thomas Ratcliffe, Earl of Sussex, one of the Queen'sheroes, who bore himself bravely and blamelessly in other spheres ofaction as well as in this, and has left behind him one of the purestof names, encountered the rebels with a considerable force, composedentirely of his own men; these the rebels were the less able towithstand, as they knew that still more troops were on the march. Asthe ballad of a northern minstrel says, the gold-horned bull of theNevilles, the silver crescent of the Percies, vanished from the field:the chiefs themselves fled over the Scotch border, their troopsdispersed, their declared partisans underwent the severestpunishments. Many who knew themselves guilty passed over to theQueen's party in order to escape. 

But at the very time of this victory the war against the Queen at homeand abroad first received its most vivid impulse through the supremehead of the Catholic faith. Pope Pius V, who saw in Elizabeth theprotectress of all the enemies of Catholicism, had issued the longprepared and hitherto withheld excommunication against her. In thename of Him who had raised him to the supreme throne of Right, hedeclared Elizabeth to have forfeited the realm of which she claimed tobe Queen: he not merely released her subjects from the oath they hadtaken to her: 'we likewise forbid, ' he added, 'her barons and peopleshenceforth to obey this woman's commands and laws, under pain ofexcommunication. '[235] It was a proclamation of war in the style ofInnocent III: rebellion was therein almost treated as a proof offaith. 

The way in which the Queen opened her Parliament in 1571 forms as itwere a conscious contrast to the Papal bull, and its declaration thatshe was deposed. She appeared in the robes of state, the goldencoronal on her head. At her right sat the dignitaries of the EnglishChurch, at her left the lay lords, on the woolsack in the centre themembers of the Privy Council, by the sides stood the knights andburgesses of the lower house. The keeper of the great seal remindedthe Houses of the late years of peace, in which--a thing withoutexample in England--no blood had been shed; but now peace seemedlikely to perish through the machinations of Rome. All were of oneaccord that they must confront this attempt with the full force of thelaw. It was declared high treason to designate the Queen as hereticalor schismatic, to deny her right to the throne, or to ascribe such aright to any one else. To proselytise to Catholicism, or to bring intoEngland sacred objects consecrated by the Pope, or absolutions fromhim, was forbidden and treated as an offence against the State. What adecidedly antipapal character did the Church, which retained most ofthe hierarchic usages, nevertheless assume! The oath of supremacybecame indispensable even for places at court and in the countrydistricts, in which it had not hitherto been required. Men deemed theQueen's ecclesiastical power the palladium of the realm. 

In this form the war of religion appeared in England. The Protestantexiles from the Netherlands and France sought and found a refuge herein large bodies; it has been calculated that they then composedone-twentieth of the inhabitants of London, and they were settled inmany other places. But the fiery passions, which on the Continent ledto the re-establishment of Catholicism, reacted on the old Englishfamilies of the Catholic faith as well, and produced, under theinfluence of Spanish or Italian agitators, ever new attempts atoverthrowing the government. 

It was just then, there cannot be any doubt of it, that Thomas duke ofNorfolk, who might be regarded as almost the chief noble of the realm, became concerned in such an attempt. Somewhat earlier the idea hadbeen entertained that his marriage with Mary Stuart might contributeto restore general quiet in both kingdoms: but Queen Elizabeth hadabandoned this plan, and he had pledged himself to her under his handand seal not to enter into any negociation about it without herprevious knowledge. Nevertheless he had allowed himself to be drawn byan Italian money-changer, Roberto Ridolfi, who had lived long inEngland, not merely into a new agreement with this object in view butinto treasonable designs. Norfolk possessed an immense following amongthe nobility of both religious parties: and, as he would not declarehimself a Catholic at once, he thought to have the Protestant lordsalso on his side, if he married Mary Stuart, whom many of themregarded as the lawful heiress of the realm. He applied for the Pope'sapproval of his proceedings, and promised to come forward withoutreserve if a Spanish force landed in England: he affirmed that hisviews were not directed to his own advancement, but only to thepurpose of uniting the island under one sovereign, and re-establishingthe old laws and the Catholic religion. These thoughts hardlyoriginated with the duke, they were suggested to him by Ridolfi, whohimself drew up the instructions with which Norfolk and Marydespatched him to the Pope and the King of Spain. [236] Ridolfi hadbeen sent to Mary with full powers from the Pope, and also wellprovided with money. When he now appeared again in Rome with hisinstructions, which really contained simply the acceptance of hisproposals, he was, as may be imagined, received with joy: the Pope, who expected the salvation of the world from these enterprises, recommended them to King Philip. In Spain also they met with a goodreception. We are astonished at the naiveté with which the Council ofState proceeded to deliberate on the proposal of a sudden stroke bywhich an Italian partisan undertook to seize the Queen and hercouncillors at one of her country-houses. The King at last left thedecision to the Duke of Alva. Alva would have been in favour of theplan itself, but he took into consideration that an unsuccessfulattempt would provoke a general attack from all sides on theNetherlands, which were only just subdued and still full of ferment. He thought the King should not declare himself until the conspiratorshad succeeded in getting the Queen into their hands, alive or dead. IfNorfolk made his rising contingent on the landing of a Spanish forcein England, Alva on the other hand required that he should alreadyhave got the Queen into his power before his own master made hisparticipation in the scheme known. [237]

But while letters and messages were being exchanged in this way (forRidolfi held it necessary to be in communication with his friends inEngland and Scotland), Elizabeth's watchful ministers had alreadydiscovered all. Even before Ridolfi reached Spain, Elizabeth gave theFrench ambassador an intimation of the commission with which the Queenof Scots had entrusted him. [238] The latter had not yet received anykind of answer from Spain when the Earl of Shrewsbury, in whosecustody she then was at Sheffield, reproached her with the schemes inwhich she was implicated, and announced to her a closer restriction ofher liberty as a punishment for them: further Elizabeth would not atthat time as yet proceed against her. In Spain and Italy they werestill expecting the Duke of Norfolk to take up arms, when he wasalready a prisoner. Elizabeth struggled long against giving him overto the arm of the law, but her friends held an execution absolutelynecessary for her personal security. On the scaffold in the TowerNorfolk said he was the first to die on that spot under QueenElizabeth and trusted he would be the last. All people said Amen. 

The scheme of this revolt proceeded more from Italy and Rome than fromSpain: King Philip had taken no active part in it, the Duke of Alvahad rather set himself against it: but we need only glance at theircorrespondence to perceive how completely nevertheless they wereimplicated in the matter. To carry on the war against Elizabeth not inhis own name but in the name, and for the restoration of the rights, of the Queen of Scotland, would have exactly suited the policy ofPhilip II: he thought such an opportunity would never present itselfagain; they must avail themselves of it and finish the affair asquickly as possible, that France might not take part in it. If Alvacounts up the difficulties which manifestly stood in the way of thescheme, yet he promises to execute the King's wishes with all themeans in his power, with person and property: 'God will still send theKing other favourable opportunities as a reward for his religiouszeal. '[239]

Queen Elizabeth expelled the Spanish ambassador, Gueran de Espes, whohad undeniably taken part in Ridolfi's schemes as well as in the lastrising, from England; as soon as he reached Brussels, the English andScotch fugitives gathered round him, and communicated to him many newschemes of invasion, to which his ear was more open than that of theDuke of Alva. An attack was to be tried, now on Scotland, now onIreland, now on England itself. 

We cannot suppose that in England they knew every word that wasuttered about these plans, or that everything they did believe therewas well grounded. But from year to year men's minds were more andmore filled with the idea that Philip II was the great enemy of theirreligion and of their country. In the sphere of classical literaturethe translation of Demosthenes in 1570 is noteworthy in this respect. What Demosthenes says against Philip of Macedon, in regard to theAthenians, the translator finds applicable to Philip II; he calls theEnglish to open war in the words of the ancient orator, 'for as it wasthen, so is it now, and ever will be. '

But for this Elizabeth on her side did not feel inclined or prepared. Many acts of hostility took place at sea in a piratical war, inpolitics they stood sharply opposed to each other: but they were notinclined on either side for an open contest, front to front. 

Above all the English held it necessary now to come to a goodunderstanding with the other of the two great neighbouring powers. Itstood them in good stead that a tendency to moderate measures gainedsway in France; the English ambassadors took a very vivid interest inthe project of a marriage between Henry of Navarre and Margaret ofValois. While the victory of Lepanto filled the hearts of thepartisans of Spain with fresh hopes, the jealousy it awakened in theFrench contributed largely to their withdrawal from Spain and thePope, and their readiness for an alliance with England. The two powerspromised each other mutual support against any attack, on whateverground it might at any time be undertaken. A later explanation of thetreaty expressly confirmed its including the case of religion. [240]

Thus secured on this side the Queen proceeded to carry out an ideawhich had immense consequences. It is not a mere suspicion, partiallyderived from the result, to suppose that she thought King Philip'scombining with her rebels gave her a right to combine with the King'srevolted subjects: she herself said so once to the French ambassador:while talking with him, she one day dropped her voice, and said thatas Philip kept her state disturbed, she did not hold herself anylonger bound to treat him with the regard she had hitherto shewn himin the quarrels of the Netherlands. 

It is not quite true that she supported with her own power the Gueux('Beggars'), who had fled to the sea from Alva's persecutions, in thedecisive attacks they now made on Brielle and Vliessingen (Brill andFlushing): but this was hardly needed, it was quite enough that herfeeling was known, she merely let things take their way, she did notprevent the attack of the rebels against Philip II (powerful at sea asthey were) being supported by the fugitive Walloons residing inEngland, and by Englishmen also. It was estimated that there were thenin Vliessingen 400 Walloons and 400 English: 1500 English lay beforethe town, to keep off the attacks of the Spaniards. French troops gaveaid in corresponding numbers. They were all recalled at a later time;but meanwhile the insurrection had gained a consistency which made itimpossible for the Spaniards to subdue the Netherlands. 

As formerly Elizabeth had joined the Scotch lords against the Regentand the Queen of Scotland, so now she helped the insurgents of theNetherlands against the King of Spain. In the first case she hadPhilip II himself on her side, in the second case France. 

By this policy she found the means of securing herself at home, fromthe Spanish attacks. It was more than ever necessary for Philip toconcentrate on the war in the Netherlands all the forces of which hecould dispose. The Queen did not yet take direct part in it, andPhilip had to avoid everything that could induce her to do so. It wasnot her object to bring about the independence of the Provinces: butshe insisted on the departure of the Spanish troops, the observance ofthe provincial constitutions, and above all assured liberty for theProtestant faith. In 1575 she offered the King her mediation, nothowever without including one special English matter, namely themitigation of the severe religious laws in reference to Englishmerchants in the Spanish countries: the King took the opinion of theGrand Inquisitor on it. As if he could ever have been in its favourhimself! The Pacification of Ghent in 1576 was quite in accordancewith the Queen's views, since it established the supremacy of theEstates, and freedom of religion for the chief Northern provinces. Tomaintain this, she had no hesitation in concluding an alliance withthe States, and in consequence despatching a body of English troops tothe Netherlands. She informed the King himself of this, and requestedhim to recall the Stadtholder Don John, his half-brother (who wastrying to break the peace), and to receive the Estates into hisfavour: she did not by this think to come to a breach with him. 

The idea of entrusting Don John of Austria, the victor of Lepanto, with the restoration of Catholicism in West Europe had been at thattime adopted in Rome. His was a fiery nature pervaded by Catholicprinciples, and seized with the most vivid ambition to be something inthe world and to effect something. The Irish wished him to be theirking; he was to free Mary Stuart from prison, vindicate her rightsalike in Scotland and in England, and at her side ascend the throne ofthe British kingdoms now united in Catholicism. Mary gladly acceded tothis, as she had already long wished for a marriage with the Spanishhouse. It was probably to give this combination a firmer basis thatshe proposed, in case her son did not prove to be a Catholic, totransfer her claims on the throne of England to the King of Spain, orto any of his relatives whom he should name in conjunction with thePope. [241] But whom could she mean by these last words but Don Johnhimself, who then stood in close connexion with the Guises, whom shealso recommended most pressingly to the King. But she had at the sametime directed her aim towards Scotland. There her enemies Murray andLennox had perished by assassination; under the following regents, Marand Morton, Mary had still nevertheless so many partisans, that theynever could have ventured, as they were requested to do from England, to allow Mary to come to Scotland and be put on her trial: their ownpower would have been endangered by it. Mary too believed herself tohave prepared everything there so well for an enterprise by Don Johnthat, as she says, an overthrow of the Scotch government wouldinfallibly have ensued if Philip II had only put his hand to the work. And how closely were his interests bound up with it! Without aconquest of the island-kingdom, as his brother represented to him, theNetherlands could never be subdued. But even now he shunned an openrupture. Besides this his brother's restlessness and thirst foraction, and his political intrigues which were already reacting onSpain, were disagreeable to him; he could not make up his mind to takea decisive step. 

He had again and again been vainly entreated to interest himself inthe population of Ireland, in which national and religious antagonismcontended against the supremacy of England. One of the confidentialagents secretly sent thither assured him that he was implored bynine-tenths of the inhabitants to take them under his protection andsave their souls, that is restore them the mass, which they could nolonger celebrate publicly: they appealed to their primevalrelationship with the Iberian people, to ancient prophecies whichlooked forward to this, and to the great political interests at stake. Philip was not disinclined to attempt the enterprise; but he requiredthe co-operation of France, without doubt to break the opposition ofthis power in the affairs of the Netherlands; a condition which couldnot be made acceptable to the French by any interposition of Rome. 

And so, if Pope Gregory XIII wished to undertake anything againstIreland, he had to do it himself. Men witnessed the singular spectacleof an expedition against Ireland being fitted out on the coasts of theStates of the Church. A papal general from Bologna came to theassistance of the powerful Irish chief, Fitzmaurice. They commandedthe Irish districts far and wide, and made inroads into the English:for a long time they were very troublesome, although not reallydangerous. 

King Philip was then busied in an undertaking which interested himstill more closely than even that of the Netherlands: he made good hishereditary claim to Portugal, without being obstructed in it either bythe opposition of a native claimant or by the counter-working of theEuropean powers. 

In the face of this success, by which the Spanish monarchy becamemaster of the whole Pyrenean peninsula and its many colonies in Eastand West, it was all the more necessary for the other two powers tohold together. Many causes of quarrel indeed arose between them. Howcould the shocking event of the night of St. Bartholomew fail toawaken all the antipathies of the English, and indeed of Protestantismin general! Elizabeth did not let herself be prevented by her treatyfrom supporting the French Protestants in the manner she liked, thatis without its being possible to prove it against her. Under CharlesIX she contributed to prevent them from succumbing, under Henry IIIshe helped them in recovering a certain political position: for thisvery object the Palsgrave Casimir led into France German troops paidwith English money. Catharine Medici often reproached her withobserving a policy like that of Louis XI. But the common interest ofthe two kingdoms was always more powerful than these differences;frequent and long negociations were carried on for even a closerunion. The marriage of Queen Elizabeth with Catharine's youngest sonwas once held to be as good as certain: he actually appearedpersonally in England. We refrain from following the course of thesenegociations. The interest they awaken constantly ends indisappointment, for they are always moving towards their objectwithout attaining it. But perhaps it will repay our trouble toconsider the reasons which came into consideration for and against theproposed connexion. 

The main reason for it was that England must hinder an alliancebetween Spain and France, especially one in favour of the Queen ofScots. And certainly nothing had stood the English policy in Scotlandin such stead as the good understanding with France. But much moreseemed attainable if France and England were united for ever. Theywould then be able to compel the King of Spain to conclude a peacewith the Netherlands which would secure them their liberties; and, ifhe did not observe it, they would have grounds for a common occupationof a part of the Provinces. If there should be any issue of themarriage, this would put an end to all attacks on Elizabeth's life, and greatly strengthen the attachment of her subjects. 

But against it was the fact that this marriage would bring the Queeninto disagreeable personal relations; and the country would be asunwilling to see a French king as it had once a Spanish one. And howwould it be, if a son sprung from the marriage, to inherit both theFrench and the English throne? was England to be ruled by a viceroy?What an opposition the world would raise to the union of these mightykingdoms, into what complications might it not lead! Scotland wouldagain attach itself to the French: the Netherlands and the Germanprinces would be alienated. 

The members of the Privy Council, after they had weighed all theseconsiderations, at last pronounced themselves on the whole against it. They recommended the continuance of the present system, --the supportof the Protestants, especially in France, a good understanding withthe King of Scotland, and the maintenance of religion and justice inEngland: thus they would be a match for every threat of the King ofSpain. [242]

But that sovereign had one ally against whom these precautions couldnot suffice, the Order of Jesuits and the seminaries of Englishpriests under its guidance. 

Young exiles from England, who were studying in the Universities ofthe Netherlands, to prevent the Catholic priesthood from perishingamong the English at home, had been already in Alva's time broughttogether in a college at Douay, which was then removed to Rheims asthe revolt spread in the Netherlands. Pope Gregory XIII was notcontent with supporting this institution by a monthly subsidy; he wasambitious of imitating Gregory the Great and exercising a directinfluence on England: he founded in Rome itself a seminary for thereconversion of that country. He made over for this purpose the oldEnglish hospital which was also connected with the memory of ThomasBecket. The first students however fell out with each other, and therewas seen in Rome the old antagonism of the 'Welsh' and the 'Saxons';in the end the latter gained the upper hand, it was mainly their doingthat the institution was given over to the Jesuits. Not long after itsactivity began. Each student on his reception was bound to devote hispowers to spreading the Catholic doctrines in England; by April 1580 acompany of thirteen priests was ready, after receiving the Pope'sblessing, to set out with this object. The chief among them wereRobert Parsons, who passed into England disguised as a soldier, andEdmund Campion as a merchant. The first went to Gloucester andHereford, the other to Oxford and Northampton: they and the friendswho followed them found everywhere a rich harvest. [243] It wasarranged so that they arrived in the evening at the appointed housesof their friends: there they heard confessions and gave advice to thefaithful. Early in the morning they preached, and then broke up again;it was customary to provide them an armed escort to guard them fromany mischance. 

Withal the forms of the church-service in England had been so arrangedthat it might remain practicable for the Catholics also to take partin it. How many had done so hitherto, perhaps with a rosary or aCatholic book of prayers in their hands! The chief effort of theseminarist priests, on their return to the country, was to put an endto this: they dissuaded intercourse with the Protestants even onindifferent matters. The Queen's statesmen were astonished to find howmuch the number of recusants increased all at once; from secretpresses proceeded writings of an aggressive, and exceedinglymalignant, character; in many places Elizabeth was again designated asillegitimate, a usurper, no longer as Queen. On this the repressivesystem, which had been already set in motion in consequence of PopePius V's bull, was made more stringent; this is what has brought onthe Queen's government the charge of cruelty. The Catholics too beganto compose their martyrologies. One of the first priests whoseexecution they describe, Cuthbert Mayne, was condemned by the jury forbringing the Bull with him into other people's houses together withsome _Agnus Dei_. [244] Young people were condemned for trying to maketheir way to the foreign seminaries. On the wish of the missionariesPope Gregory XIII explained the bull so far, that the excommunicationpronounced in it against all who should obey the Queen's commands wasmeant to be in suspense till it was possible to execute it against theQueen herself on whom it continued to weigh. [245] This limitationhowever rather increased the danger. The Catholics could remain quiettill rebellion was possible, then it became a duty. The law-courts nowsought above all to make the accused priests declare themselves as tothe validity of the bull and its obligation. Men held themselvesjustified in extreme severity against those who 'slip into the countryat the instigation of the great enemy, the Pope, and poison the heartsof the subjects with pernicious doctrines. '[246] On this groundCampion met his death; Parsons escaped. Assuredly there were not somany executed as the Catholic world wished to reckon, but yet probablymore than the statesmen of England admitted. They persisted that itwas not a persecution for religion: and in fact the controvertedquestions lay mainly in the region of the conflict between Papacy andMonarchy: those executed were not so much martyrs of Catholicism as ofthe idea of the Papal supremacy over monarchs. But how closelyconnected are these ideas with each other! The priests for their partbelieved that they were dying for God and the Church. But the effectwhich the English government had in view was, with all its severity, not produced. We are assured on Catholic authority that in 1585 therewere yet several hundred priests actively engaged. From their reportsit is clear that they were still always counting on a completevictory. They vigorously pressed for the attempt at an invasion, whichthey represented as almost sure of success; 'for two-thirds of theEnglish are still Catholic; the Queen has neither strong places nordisciplined troops: with 16, 000 men she might be overthrown. ' Thistime also the house of the Spanish ambassador, Bernardino Mendoza, formed the meeting-point for these tendencies; he kept up a constantcommunication with the emigrants who had been declared rebels, andwith the discontented at home, with Mary Stuart and her friends inScotland, with the zealous Catholics throughout the world, especiallywith the Guises, with whom Philip II himself now had an understanding. The increasing power of his sovereign gained him also anever-increasing consideration. 

It was in these days that the Western and Southern Netherlands wereagain subdued by King Philip. After the death of his brother, hisnephew Alexander Farnese of Parma had formed an army of unmixedCatholic composition, which had naturally from its inner unity gainedthe upper hand over the government of the States, which had called nowa German and now a French prince to its head, and was composed ofdifferent religions and nationalities. First the seaports, then thetowns of Flanders, and at last the wealthy Antwerp also, which by itsmental activity and commercial resources had materially nourished therevolt, fell into the hands of the Spaniards. The Prince of Orange wasassassinated by a fanatic. Alexander of Parma, who ascribed hisvictories to the Virgin Mary, pushed on his conquests gradually tillthey reached the Northern and Eastern Provinces. 

The reaction of these events, even while they were still in progress, was first felt in Scotland. There the young King James VI after manyvicissitudes had, while still under age, taken the reins of governmentinto his own hands: and a son of his great uncle, Esmé Stuart (whoexchanged the title Aubigny which he brought from France for the morefamous name of Lennox, and was a great friend of the Guises and theJesuits) obtained the chief credit with him. Lennox promotedCatholicism, which was not so difficult, as part of the nobility stilladhered to it, at least in secret; he too lived and moved incomprehensive plans for the re-establishment of the Church. Throughthe Guises he hoped to be placed in a position to invade England witha Catholic army of 15, 000 men; if the English Catholics then did theirduty, everything they wanted could be attained: for himself he wasresolved to liberate Mary or die in the attempt. Mary was also toreascend the Scotch throne: her son was to be co-regent with her, provided that he himself returned to the bosom of the Catholic Church. Mary Stuart with her indestructible energy was involved in thesedesigns also. She commended them warmly to the Pope and the King ofSpain: for it was precisely in Scotland that the universalre-establishment could best be begun. [247] She wished only to know onwhat resources in men and money her friends there might reckon. Wemust remember the situation and the peril of these schemes andpreparations, if we would understand to some degree the violentmeasures on which the Protestant lords in Scotland resolved. As in asimilar case of an earlier time in Germany, they closed the castle, inwhich King James was received, against his attendants: Lennox had toleave Scotland. But the young King was shrewd enough, and sufficientlywell advised, to rid himself of the lords almost in the same way thatthey had taken him. He succeeded, chiefly through the help of theFrench ambassador, a friend of the Guises. Hereupon too he seemed muchinclined to favour the undertaking with which Henry Guise occupiedhimself in 1583, a scheme for a revolution in the affairs of bothcountries. Guise hoped, with the support of the King of Spain, thePope, and the Duke of Bavaria, to be able to effect somethingdecisive. James VI let his uncle know his full agreement with theproposed schemes. But, in fact, it did not seem to matter muchwhether he agreed or not. It was reported to Queen Mary, that theCatholic party in Scotland reckoned on having the most powerful kingof Christendom on their side, with or against James' will; that PhilipII was building so many vessels that in a short time he would becomecompletely master of the Western ocean, and be able to invade whatevercountries he pleased. 

It is evident how dangerous for England these Scotch movements were inthemselves: Queen Elizabeth thought herself most vulnerable on theside of Scotland: moreover she already saw herself directlythreatened. A plan fell into her hands, in which the number of shipsand men necessary for an invasion of England, the harbours where theywere to land, the places they were to seize, even the men on whosehelp they could reckon, were enumerated. [248] She convinced herselfthat the plan came from Mendoza, who held out the prospect of hisKing's assistance for the purpose, as the attack was to be madesimultaneously from the Netherlands and from Spain. This time tooElizabeth dismissed the hostile ambassador; but how could she flatterherself with having thus exorcised the threatening elements? Now thatthe foe, with whom she had been for fifteen years at war--though notan open war yet one of which both sides were conscious--had becomevery much stronger, she was forced to take up a decisive positionagainst him, to save herself from being overpowered. 

In 1584 her chief minister, William Cecil, now Lord Burleigh, HighTreasurer of the kingdom, drew her attention to this necessity. Herepresented to her that she had nothing to fear from any one in theworld except from Spain--but from Spain everything. King Philip hadgained more victories from his cabinet, than his father in all hiscampaigns: he ruled a nation which was thoroughly of one mind inreligion, ambitious, brave, and resolute; he had a most devoted partyamong the discontented in England. The question for the Queen was, whether she hoped to tame the lion or whether she wished to bind him. She could not build on treaties, for the enemy would not keep them. And, if he was allowed to subdue the Netherlands completely, no one inthe world could avoid seeing to what object his power would bedirected. He advises the Queen not to let things go so far--for thosecountries were the counterscarp of England's fortress--but to proceedto open war, to withstand the Spaniards in the Netherlands and attackthem in the Indies. 'Better now, ' he exclaims, 'while the enemy hasonly one hand free, than later when he can strike with both. '[249]

In August 1585 Antwerp fell into the hands of the Spaniards; in thecapitulation the case is already taken into consideration, thatHolland and Zealand also might submit. The Northern Netherlands werethreatened from yet another side, as Zutphen and Nimuegen had justbeen taken by the Spaniards. In this extreme distress of her naturalally she delayed no longer. The sovereignty they offered her sherefused anew, but she engaged to give considerable assistance, inreturn for which, as a security for her advances, the fortressesVliessingen and Briel were given up into her possession. To prove howmuch she was in earnest in this, she entrusted the conduct of the warin the Netherlands to Dudley, Earl of Leicester, who was stillaccounted her favourite and was one of the chief confidants of herpolicy. In December 1585 Leicester reached Vliessingen; on the 1st ofJanuary 1586, Francis Drake appeared before St. Domingo and occupiedit. The war had broken out by land and by sea. 

NOTES:

[232] Randolph states that the promise was given before Darnley'sdeath. Strype, Annals iii. I. 234. 

[233] That this was thought of from the first is not to be supposed;the Queen had once previously declared herself against it. 'We fyndeher removing either into this our realm or into France not withoutgreat discommodities to us. ' Letter to Throckmorton, in Wright i. 253. 

[234] Gonzalez, Apuntamientos 338. From the 'short memoryall' of 1569in Hayne's State Papers 585 (though much in it is incorrect), we seethat men believed in the union of both crowns against England, with'the ernest desyre to have the Quene of Scotts possess this crown ofEngland. '

[235] 'Sentenza declaratoria contra Elizabetta, che si pretende reinad'Inghilterra. ' In Catena, Vita di Pio V, 309. The agreement of thebull (e. G. As to the 'huomini heretici et ignobili, ' who hadpenetrated into the royal privy council) with the manifesto of thelast rebellion, is worth observing. 

[236] The instructions which Mary and Norfolk gave their Italian agentfor the Roman See are preserved in the Vatican archives and printed inLabanoff iii. 221. From Leslie's expression (Negociations, in Andersoniii. 152) that the duke negociated with Ridolfi through a Mr. Backer, 'because he had the Italian tongue, ' and that then all the plans werecommunicated to _him_ ('the whole devises'), we might conclude thatNorfolk was in general very much in foreign hands. 

[237] Lo que se platico en consejo 7 Julio 1571. Some other weightydocuments are in Appendix V to Mignet's Histoire de Marie Stuart, vol. Ii. 

[238] Already on the 16th April the French ambassador, while speakingwith Elizabeth on the conclusion of the treaty agreed on, remarks, 'qu'elle a quelque nouvelle offence contre la dite reyne d'Ecosse, 'which could have been nothing else but the first news of the seizureof one of Ridolfi's servants at Dover on the 10th April, who thenunder torture had confessed all. 

[239] 'Vendran otras ocasiones en tiempo di V. M. Per pagarle dios elcelo, con que tam caldamente abraza este su negocio. ' Contestation delduque di Alba, in Gonzalez 450. 

[240] De la Mothe Fénélon au roi de France 22 Dec. 1571. Correspondence diplomatique de Bertrand de Salignac de la MotheFénélon iv. 317. 

[241] Sketch of a will, in Labanoff iv. 354. 'Je cedde mes droits, queje pretends et puis pretendre à la couronne d'Angleterre et autresseignuries et royaulmes en dependant au roy catholique ou autres dessiens qu'il lui plaira, avesque l'advis et consentement de S. S. '

[242] Conference at Westminster touching the Queen's marriage with theDuke of Anjou 1579. Egerton Papers 78. Sussex, who had previouslygiven a somewhat different opinion, was one of those who signed. 

[243] Sacchinus, Historia societatis Jesu iii. 1; vii. 1; viii. 96. 

[244] 'Perche contro alle leggi d'Inghilterra egli havesse portatoseco una bollo papale, alcuni grani benedetti et agnus dei. ' Martyriodi Cutberto Maino, in Pollini, Istoria eccl. Delle rivolutionid'Inghilterra p. 499. It is a pity that the eminent Hallam had not thefirst reports at hand. 

[245] Facultates concessae Rob. Personio et Edm. Campiano 14 April1580. 'Catholicos tum demum obliget, quando publica ejusdem bullaeexecutio fieri poterit. '

[246] Execution of Justice in England. Somers Tracts i. 

[247] Lettre a Don Bernardino de Mendoza 6-8 April 1582. 'La grandeaparence, qu'il ha de pourvenir (parvenir) maintenant au dictrestablissement de la religion en ceste isle, començant pour la Scotia(par l'Ecosse). ' In Mignet App. 522. 

[248] According to the Venetian accounts (Dispaccio di Spagna, Marzo1584) the King had sent an experienced soldier as a spy to England toinvestigate the possibility of a landing, 'havendo pensato diconcertarsi bene con il re di Scotia, perche ancora egli a un tempomedesimo si movesse da quella parte. '

[249] The Lord Treasurers advise in matters of Religion and State. Somers Tracts i. 164. 

CHAPTER V. 

THE FATE OF MARY STUART. 

How completely the circumstances of these times are misunderstood, when they are measured by the rules of an age of peace! Rather theywere filled with hostilities in which politics and religion weremingled; foreign war was at the same time a domestic one. Thereligious confessions were at the same time political programmes. 

The Queen took up arms not to make conquests, but to secure her veryexistence against a daily growing power that openly threatened her, before it had become completely an overmatch for her: she provoked anopen war: but she had not done enough when she now, as is necessary insuch cases, took into consideration the training of soldiers, securingthe harbours, fortifying strong places, improving the navy: the mostpressing anxiety arose from the general Catholic agitation in thecountry. 

Elizabeth's statesmen were well aware that the sharp prosecution ofthe seminarist priests was not enough to put an end to it. Withreference to the laity, the Lord Treasurer, however strict in otherrespects, recommends to his sovereign quite a different mode ofproceeding. We should never proceed to capital punishment of such men:we should rather mitigate the oath imposed on them: in particular weshould never force the nobles to a final decision between theirreligious inclinations and their political duties, never drive them todespair. But at the same time he gives a warning against awakening anyhope in them that their demands could ever be satisfied, for thiswould only make them more obstinate. And on no consideration shouldarms be put into their hands. 'We do not wish to kill them, we cannotcoerce them, but we dare not trust them. ' Nothing would be moredangerous than to assume a confidence which was not really felt. 

Even before this the Privy Council had recommended the Queen to employProtestants only in the government of her State, and to exclude allCatholics from a share in it. [250] The before-mentioned 'Advice' ofLord Burleigh is remarkable for extending the Protestant interest andadding a popular one to it. He thinks it intolerable that thecopyholders and tenants of the Catholic lords, even when they fulfiltheir obligations in all other respects, experience bad treatment fromthem on account of religion: it is impossible to let many thousandtrue subjects be dependent on such as have hostile intentions. Theplan Henry VIII had once entertained, of diminishing the authority ofthe Lords, is now brought by the High Treasurer at this crisis oncemore into vivid recollection. The Queen is to bind the Commons toherself, to win over their hearts. And Burleigh advises allowing thefollowers of dissenting Protestant Churches, especially the Puritans, to worship as they please: in preaching and catechising they are morezealous than the Episcopalians, very far more successful in convertingthe people, and indispensable for weakening the popish party. We seehow the necessity of the war acts on home affairs. The chief ministerfavoured the elements which were forcing their way out through theexisting forms of the state. 

In this general strain on men's minds their eyes once more turned tothe Queen of Scots in her captivity. What would there have been at allto fear at other times from a princess under strong custody and cutoff from all the world? But in the excitement of that age she couldeven so be still an object of apprehension. Her personal friends hadfrom the first not seen a great mischance in her enforced residence inEngland. For by blameless conduct she refuted the evil report whichhad followed her thither from Scotland; and her right as heiress ofthe crown came to the knowledge of the whole nation. [251] In the daysat which we have arrived we know with certainty that her presence inthe country formed a great lever for Catholic agitation. A reportfound in the papal archives has been published, by which it is clearhow much support men promised themselves from her for every resoluteundertaking. [252] This document says that since she has numberlesspartisans, and although in prison has uninterrupted communication withthem, she will always find means, when the time comes, of giving themnotice of the approaching opportunity: she is resolved to encounterevery hardship, nay even death itself, for the great cause. [253]

Occupied with measures of defence on all sides, the English governmenthad already long been considering how to meet this danger. This wasthe very reason why Elizabeth's marriage was so often spoken of withpopular approbation: if she had children, Mary's claims would losetheir importance. Gradually however every man had to confess tohimself that this was not to be expected, and on other grounds hardlyto be wished. Then men thought how to solve the difficulty in anotherway. 

The chief danger was this: if an attempt on Elizabeth's lifesucceeded, the supreme authority would devolve on Mary, who was on thespot, who cherished entirely opposite views, and would have at oncerealised them:--the thought occurred as early as 1579 of declaring byformal act of parliament that all persons by whom the reigning Queenshould be in any way endangered or injured should forfeit any claimthey might have to the crown;[254] terms which though general were inreality directed only against the Queen of Scots; at that time theproposal was not carried into effect. 

The negociations are not yet completely cleared up which were carriedon with Mary in 1582-3 for her restoration in Scotland. The Englishonce more repeated their old demand, that Mary should even now ratifythe treaty of Edinburgh, and annul all that had been done in violationof it by her first husband or by herself. She was further not merelyto renounce every design against the security and peace of England, but to pledge herself to oppose it: and in general, as long asElizabeth was alive, to put forward no claim to the English throne:whether she had such a right after Elizabeth's death the parliament ofEngland was to decide. [255] Here too the old view came into theforeground: Parliament was to be made the judge of hereditary right. The negociation failed owing to the Scotch intrigues of these years, in which the intention rather was to assert the claim of inheritancewith the strong hand. 

And from day to day new attempts on Elizabeth's life came to light. In1584 Francis Throckmorton, who took part in these very schemes, wasexecuted: in 1585 Parry also, who confessed having been in connexionwith Mary's plenipotentiary in France, and who had come over toassassinate Queen Elizabeth. Writings were spread abroad in whichthose about her were called on to imitate, against this femaleHolofernes, the example set in the book of Judith. 

Protestant England in the danger of its sovereign saw its own. In allchurches prayers were offered for her safety. The most remarkableproof of this temper is contained in an association of individuals fordefending the Queen, which was at that time subscribed to far and widethrough the country. It begins with a statement that, to promotecertain claims on the crown, the Queen's life was threatened in ahighly treasonable manner, and enters into a union in God's name, inwhich each man pledges himself to the others, to combat with word anddeed, and even to pursue with arms, all who should make any attempt onthe Queen's person; and not to rest till these wretches werecompletely destroyed. If the attempt was so far successful as to raisea claim to the crown, they pledged themselves never to recognise sucha claim: whoever broke this oath and separated himself from theassociation should be treated by the other members as a perjurer. [256]

The main object of this association was to cut off all prospect of thesuccession from any attempt in favour of the Queen of Scots: a greatpart of the nation pledged itself to reject a claim made good in thismanner as exceptionable in every respect. The Parliament of 1585, manyof whose members belonged to the association, not merely confirmed itformally: it now also expressly enacted, that persons in whose favoura rebellion should be attempted, and an attack on the Queenundertaken, should lose their right to the crown: if they themselvestook part in any such plots, they were to forfeit their life. TheQueen was empowered to appoint a commission of at least twenty-fourmembers to judge of this offence. 

These resolutions and unions were of a compass extending far beyondthe present occasion, however weighty. How important theecclesiastical contest had become in all questions concerning thesupreme temporal power! That the deposition of Queen Elizabeth, pronounced by the Pope, had no effect was due to the Protestanttendencies of the country, and to the fact that her hereditary claimhad been hitherto unassailed. But now it was a similar hereditaryclaim, made by Queen Mary, not, it is true, formally recognised, butalso not rejected, on which the partisans of this princess based theirchief hope. Mary herself, who always combined the most vivid dynasticfeelings with her religious inclinations, in her letters andstatements does not lay such stress on anything as on theunconditional validity of her claim to inherit the throne. When forinstance her son rejected the joint government which she proposed tohim, she remarked with striking acuteness that this involved aninfringement of the maxims of hereditary right; since he rejected herauthorisation to share in the government, and recognised as legitimatethe refusal of obedience she had experienced from her rebellioussubjects. Once she read in a pamphlet that people denied QueenElizabeth the power to name a successor who was not of the Protestantfaith: she wrote to her that the supreme power was of divine right, and raised high above all these considerations, and warned her againstopinions of that kind which were avowed by some near her, and whichmight lead to the elective principle and become dangerous to herself. This could not fail to have an exactly opposite effect on Elizabeth. She was again threatened through the strict dynastic right that shealso enjoyed: she needed some other additional support. Despite allinclination to the contrary, she decided to look for it in theParliament. She likewise aimed at making Mary submit the validity ofher claim to its previous decision. She could not but be thankful thather subjects pledged themselves not to recognise any right to thesuccession which was to be asserted by an attack on her life; sheratified the act by which Parliament gave these feelings a legal form. It is obvious how powerfully the rights of Parliament were thusadvanced as against the absolute claim of the hereditary monarchy. Inthe course of the development of events this was to be the case in astill higher degree. 

Mary rejected with horror the suspicion that she could take part in anattempt on Elizabeth's life: she wished to enrol herself in theAssociation for her security. [257] And who could have failed tobelieve at least that the threats against her own right and life, incase of a second attempt at assassination, would deter her partisansas well as herself from any thought of it! For they well understoodthe energy with which the Parliament knew how to vindicate its laws. 

But it is vain to try to bridle men's passions by showing them theirresults. If the attempt on the Queen's life succeeded, thisParliament of course would be annihilated as well as the Queenherself, and another order of things begin. 

In the seminary at Rheims the priests persuaded an English emigrant, called Savage, who had served in the army of the Prince of Parma, thathe could not better secure himself eternal happiness than by riddingthe world of the enemy of religion who was excommunicated by the holyfather. Another English emigrant, Thomas Babington, a young man ofeducation and ambition, in whom throbbed the pulse of chivalrousdevotion to Mary, was informed of this design by a priest of theseminary, and was fired with a kind of emulation which has somethinghighly fantastic about it. Thinking that so great an enterprise oughtnot to be confided to one man, he sought and found new confederatesfor it; when the murder was effected, and the Spanish troops landed, he was to be the man who with a hundred sturdy comrades would free hisCatholic Queen from prison and lead her to her throne. Mendoza at thattime (and indeed by Mary's recommendation, as she tells us) wasSpanish ambassador in France: he was in communication with Babingtonand strengthened him in his purpose. Of all the distinguished men ofthe age Mendoza is perhaps the one who took up most heartily the ideaof uniting the French and Spanish interests, and advocated it mostfervently. King Philip II was also informed of the design. He now, ashe had done fifteen years before, declared his intention, if itsucceeded, of making the invasion simultaneously from Spain andFlanders. The Queen's murder, the rising of the Catholics, and at thesame moment a twofold invasion with trained troops would havecertainly been enough to produce a complete revolution. The League wasstill victorious in France: Henry III would have been forced to joinit: the tendencies of the strictest Catholicism would have gained acomplete triumph. 

If we enquire whether Mary Stuart knew of these schemes, and had afull understanding with the conspirators, there can be no doubt at allof it. She was in correspondence with Babington, whom she designatesas her greatest friend. The letter is still extant in which shestrengthens him in his purpose of calling forth a rising of theCatholics in the different counties, and that an armed one, withreasons for it true and false, and tells him how he may liberateherself. She reckons on a fine army of horse and foot being able toassemble, and making itself master of some harbours in which toreceive the help expected not merely from Flanders and Spain, but alsofrom France. In the letter we even come upon one passage which betraysa knowledge of the plot against Elizabeth's life; there is not a wordagainst it, rather an approbation of it, though an indirect one. [258]

And we have yet another proof of her temper and views at this timelying before us. As the zeal of the Catholics for her claim to thesuccession might be weakened by the fact that her son in Scotland, onwhom it naturally devolved, after all the hopes cherished on hisbehalf, still remained Protestant, she reverted to an idea that hadonce before passed through her mind: she pledged herself to bringmatters in Scotland to such a point that her son should be seized anddelivered into the hands of the King of Spain: he was then to beinstructed in the Catholic faith and embrace it; if James had not doneso at the time of her death, her claim on England was to pass toPhilip II. Day and night, so she said, she bewailed her son's being sostiffnecked in his false faith: she saw that his succession in Englandwould be the ruin of the country. 

So it stands written in her letters: it is undeniable: but was thatreally her last and well-considered word? Was it her real wish thatElizabeth should be killed, her son disinherited notwithstanding herdynastic feelings, and that Philip II should become King of England?Were the Catholic-Spanish tendencies of Elizabeth's predecessor, QueenMary Tudor, so completely reproduced in her?

I think we can hardly maintain this with full historic certainty. MaryStuart was not altogether animated by hot religious zeal: if she hadbeen, how could she formerly have left the Protestant lords inpossession of power so long as she did, and even have once thought ofmarrying Leicester with his Protestant views? Her son affirmed that hepossessed letters from her, in which she approved of his religiousviews and confirmed him in them. It was not religious conviction andthe abhorrence of any other faith, as in Mary Tudor, but her dynasticright and her self-confidence as sovereign that were the active andpredominant motives in all the actions of Mary Stuart. And if thereare contradictions in her utterances, we cannot hold her capable, likeCatharine Medici, of taking up and secretly furthering two oppositeplans at the same time; her different tendencies appear consecutively, not simultaneously, in exact accordance with her impulses. For MaryStuart was never quiet an instant: even in her prison she shared inthe movement of the world; her brain never ceased working; she wasbrooding over her circumstances, her distress and her hope, how toescape the one and realise the other: sometimes indeed there came amoment of resignation, but only soon to pass away again. She throwsall her thoughts into her letters which, even if they are aiming atsome object close at hand, are at the same time ebullitions of themoment, passionate effusions, productions of the imagination ratherthan of the understanding. Who could think such a letter possible asthat in which she once sought to inform Elizabeth of the evil reportsabout her which the Countess of Shrewsbury made, and recounted a massof scandalous anecdotes she had heard from her. The communication wasmeant to ruin the countess: Mary did not remark that it must also drawdown the Queen's hatred on herself. No one would have dared even tolay the letter before the Queen. Mary's was a passionate nature, endowed with literary gifts: she let her pen run on without sayinganything she did not really think at the instant, but withoutremembering in the least what lay beyond her momentary mood. Who willhold women of this character strictly to what stands in their letters?These are often as inconsiderate and contradictory as their words. 

While Mary was writing the above-mentioned letters, she was completelytaken up with the proposals made to her. She guarded herself frominserting anything that could hinder their being carried into effect:by the eventual transfer of her son's claims to the foreign King, allopposition on the part of zealous Catholics would be done away. Herhopes and wishes hurried her away with them, so that she lost sight ofthe danger in which she thus placed herself. And was she not a Queen, raised above the law? Who would take it on himself to attack her?

Mary Stuart was then under the charge of a strict Puritan, Sir AmyasPaulet, of whom she complained that he treated her as a criminalprisoner and not as a queen. The government now allowed a certainrelaxation in the external circumstances of her custody, but not inthe strictness of the superintendence. There hardly exists anotherinstance of such a striking contrast between projects and facts. Marycomposes these letters full of far-ranging and dangerous schemes inthe deepest secrecy, as she thinks, and has them carefully re-writtenin cipher: she has no doubt that they reach her friends safely by asecret way: but arrangements are made so that every word she writes islaid before the man whose business it is to trace out conspiracies, Walsingham, the Secretary of State. He knows her ciphers, he even seesthe letters that come for her before she does: while she reads themwith haste and in hope of better fortune at hand, he is only waitingfor her answer to use it against her as a decisive proof of her guilt. 

Walsingham now found himself in possession of all the threads of theconspiracy; as soon as that letter to Babington was in his hands, hedelayed no longer to arrest the guilty persons: they confessed, werecondemned and executed. By further odious means--the prisoner beingremoved from her apartments on some pretence and the rooms thensearched--possession was obtained of other papers which witnessedagainst her. Then the question could be laid before the Privy Councilwhether she should now be brought to trial and sentenced in due form. 

Who had given the English Parliament any right to make laws whichshould be binding on a foreign queen, and in virtue of which, if shetransgressed them, she could be punished with death? In fact thesedoubts were raised at the time. [259] Against them it was alleged thatMary, who had been forced to abdicate by her subjects and deprived ofher dignity, could not be regarded any longer as a queen: while adeposed sovereign is bound by the laws of the land in which heresides. If she was still a queen, yet she was subject to the feudalsupremacy of England, and because of her claim to its crown alsosubject to its sovereignty--two arguments that contradict each other, one of a feudal, the other of a popular character and closelyconnected with the idea of popular sovereignty. Whether the one or theother convinced any person, we do not hear; it was moreover not amatter for argument any longer. 

For how could anything else be expected but that the judicialproceedings prepared several years before would now be put in force? Alaw had been passed calculated for this case, if it should occur. Thecase had occurred, and was proved by legal evidence. It was necessaryfor the satisfaction of the country and Parliament--and Walsinghamlaid particular stress on this--that the matter should be examinedwith full publicity. 

The commission provided for in the Act of Parliament was named: itconsisted of the chief statesmen and lawyers of the country. InFotheringhay, whither the prisoner had now been brought, the splendidancestral seat of the princes of the house of York, at which many ofthem were buried, they met together in the Hall on the 14th October. Mary let herself be induced to plead by the consideration that shewould be held guilty, if she did not make any defence: it beingunderstood that it was with the reserve that she did not by this giveup any of the rights of a free sovereign. Most of the charges againsther she gradually admitted to be true, but she denied having consentedto a personal attempt on Elizabeth's life. The court decided that thismade no essential difference. For the rebellion which Mary confessedto having favoured could not be conceived of apart from danger to theQueen of England's life as well as her government. [260] The courtpronounced that Mary was guilty of the acts for which the punishmentof death had been enacted in the Parliamentary statute. 

We cannot regard this as a regular criminal procedure, for judicialforms were but little observed; it was the decision of a commissionthat the case had occurred in which the statute passed by Parliamentfound its application. Parliament itself, then just summoned, had theproceedings of the Commission laid before it and approved theirsentence. 

But this did not bring the affair to an end. Queen Elizabeth deferredthe execution of the judgment. For in relation to such a matter sheoccupied quite a different position from that of Parliament. 

From more than one quarter she was reminded that, by carrying out thesentence, she would violate the divine right of kings; since thisimplied that subjects could not judge, or lay their hands on, sovereigns. How unnatural if a queen like herself should set her handto degrade the diadem. [261]

In the Privy Council some were of opinion that, as Mary could not beregarded as the author of the last plot, but only as privy to it, closer imprisonment would be a sufficient punishment for her. Elizabeth caught at this idea. The Parliament, she thought, might nowformally annul Mary's claim to the English throne, declare it to behigh treason to maintain it any longer, and high treason also toattempt to liberate her from prison: this would deter her partisansfrom an attempt then become hopeless, and also satisfy foreignnations. But it was urged in reply, that now to repudiate MaryStuart's claim for the first time would be equivalent to recognisingits original validity; and an English law would make no impressioneither on Mary or on her partisans. The remembrance of what hadhappened in Scotland revived again; of Darnley's murder, which menimputed to her without hesitation: she was compared to Johanna I ofNaples who had taken part in her husband's murder: it was said, Maryhas doubled her old guilt by attempts against the sacred person of theQueen; after she had been forgiven, she has relapsed into the samecrime, she deserves death on many grounds. [262]

Spenser, in the great poem which has made him immortal, has depictedthe conflict of accusations and excuses which this cause called forth. One of his allegorical figures, Zeal, accuses the fair and splendidlady, then on her trial, of the design of hurling the Queen from herthrone, and of inciting noble knights to join in this purpose. TheKingdom's Care, Authority, Religion, Justice, take part with him. Onthe other side Pity, Regard for her high descent and her family, even_Grief_ herself, raise their voices, and produce a contraryimpression. But Zeal once more renews his accusation: he bringsforward Adultery and Murder, Impiety and Sedition, against her. TheQueen sitting upon the throne in judgment recognises the guilt of theaccused, but shrinks from pronouncing the word: men see tears in hereyes; she covers her face with her purple robe. 

Spenser appears here, as he usually does, an enthusiastic admirer ofhis Queen. But neither should we see hypocrisy in Elizabeth'sscruples, which sprang much more from motives which touched her verynearly. She kept away from all company: she was heard to break hersolitary meditation by uttering old proverbs that applied to thepresent case. More than once she spoke with the deputation ofParliament which pressed for a decision. What she mainly representedto them was, how hard it was for her, after she had pardoned so manyrebellions, and passed over so much treason in silence, to let aprincess be punished, who was her nearest blood-relation: men wouldaccuse her, the Virgin Queen, of cruelty: she prayed them to supplyher with another means, another expedient: nothing under the sun wouldbe more welcome to her. The Parliament firmly insisted that there wasno other expedient; it argued in detailed representations that thedeliverance of the country depended on the execution of the sentence. The Queen's own security, the preservation of religion and of thestate, made it absolutely necessary. Mary's life was the hope of allthe discontented, whose plots were directed only to the object ofenabling her to ascend the throne of England, to destroy the followersof the true religion, and expel the nobility of the land--that is theProtestant nobility. And must not satisfaction be given to theAssociation which was pledged to pursue a new attempt against theQueen's life even to death? 'Not to punish the enemy would be cruel toyour faithful subjects: to spare her means ruin to us. '

Meanwhile they came upon the traces of a new attempt. In presence ofthe elder French ambassador, Aubespine, a partisan of the Guises, mention was made of the necessity of killing Elizabeth in order tosave Mary at the last moment. One of his officers spoke with a personwho was known in the palace, and who undertook to pile up a mass ofgunpowder under Elizabeth's chamber sufficient to blow it into theair; he was led to hope for rewards from Guise and his brotherMayenne, whose interests would have been greatly promoted by such adeed. [263] But this time too Elizabeth was made acquainted with thedesign before it came to maturity. She ascribed her new danger to thesilence, if not to the instigation, of the ambassador, the friend ofthe Guises: in its discovery she saw the hand of God. 'I nourish, ' sheexclaims, 'the viper that poisons me;--to save her they would havetaken my life: am I to offer myself as a prey to every villain?'[264]At a moment when she was especially struck with the danger whichthreatened her from the very existence of her rival, after aconversation with the Lord Admiral, she had the long-prepared orderfor the execution brought to her, and signed it with quick andresolute strokes of the pen. 

The observation of Parliament, that her safety and the peace of thecountry required her enemy's death, at last gained the upper hand withher as well. But this did not imply that her conflicting feelings werecompletely silenced. She was haunted in her dreams by the idea of theexecution. She had once more recourse to the thought that someserviceable hand might spare her the last authorisation, by secretlyexecuting the sentence of the judges--an act which seemed to bejustified even by the words of the Association; the demand was made indue form to the Keeper of the prisoner, Sir Amyas Paulet; he rejectedit--and how could anything else have been expected from theconscientious Puritan--with an expression of his astonishment andindignation. Elizabeth had commissioned Secretary Davison, when shesigned the order, to have it sealed with the Great Seal. Her ideaseems to have been that, when all the forms had been duly compliedwith, she might the more easily get a secret execution, or that atsome critical moment it might be at once performed; but she stillmeant to keep the matter in her own hand: for the custom was, beforethe last step, to once more ask her approval. But Davison, who markedher hesitation, did not think it advisable at this moment. ThroughHatton he acquainted Lord Burleigh with the matter, and Burleigh putthe question to the other members of the Privy Council: they took iton themselves to despatch the order, signed and sealed as it now was, without further delay to Fotheringhay. [265]

On the 8th of February 1587 it was executed on Mary in the very hallwhere the sittings of the court had been held. As compared withElizabeth's painful disquiet, who shrank from doing what she held tobe necessary, and when she at last did it wished it again undone andthought she could still recall it, the composure and quiet of soul, with which Mary submitted to the fate now finally decided, impressesus very deeply The misfortune of her life was her claim to the Englishcrown. This led her into a political labyrinth, and into thoseentanglements which were connected with her disastrous marriage, andthen, through its combination with the religious idea, into all theguilt which is imputed to her more or less justly. It cost Mary hercountry and her life. Even on the scaffold she reminded men of herhigh rank which was not subject to the laws: she thought the sentenceof heretics on her, a free queen, would be of service to the kingdomof God. She died in the royal and religious ideas in which she hadlived. 

It is undeniable that Elizabeth was taken by surprise at this news:she was heard sobbing as though a heavy misfortune had befallenherself. It may be that her grief was lightened by a secretsatisfaction: who would absolutely deny it? But Davison had to atonefor taking the power into his own hands by a long imprisonment: theindispensable Burleigh hardly obtained pardon. In the city on theother hand bells were rung and bonfires kindled. For the universalpopular conviction agreed with the judgment of the court, that Maryhad tried to deliver the kingdom into the hands of Spaniards. 

NOTES:

[250] Consultation at Greenwich 1579, In Murdin 340. 'Pluck downpresently the strengthe and government of all your papists and deliverall the strengthe and government of your realm into the hands of wiseassured and trusty protestants. '

[251] Bishop Leslie's negociations, in Anderson iii. 235. 

[252] 'De praesenti rerum statu in Anglia brevis annotatio, ' inTheiner, Annales ecclesiastici iii. 480 (at the year 1583). As mentionis made in this writing of the restoration of order in the States ofthe Church, 'per felicissima novi pontificis auspicia, ' we mustcertainly attribute it to the first years of Sixtus V. 

[253] 'Tam ad hos (haereticos) quam ad catholicos omnes ad nostraspartes trahendos supra modum valebit, licet in carcere, reginaeScotiae opera. Nam illa novit omnes secretos fautores suos et hactenushabuit viam praemonendi illos atque semper ut speramus habitura est, ut cum venerit tempus expeditionis, praesto sint. Sperat etiam--peramicos--et per corruptionem custodum personam suam ex custodialiberare. ' In Theiner, Annales ecclesiastici iii. 482. 

[254] The means to assure Her Majesty of peace. Egerton Papers 79. 

[255] 'Jus successionis judicio ordinum Angliae subjecturam. ' Camden, i. 360. Compare Strype, Annals iii. I. 131. 

[256] Association for the assecuration of the Queen, subscribed by themembers of Lincoln's Inn (Egerton Papers 208). We may assume that thiswas the general idea. 

[257] In a pamphlet of the time it is stated that she had subscribedand sworn to the Association. 

[258] Tytler (History of Scotland viii. App) maintains that thepassage was inserted by Mary's enemies, and brings forward somereasons for this view which are worth considering. But Mignet (ii. 348) has already remarked how many other improbable suppositions thisnecessitates. And what would have been the use of it, as the lettereven without this addition would have sufficed to condemn her. 

[259] 'Objections against bringing Maria Queen of Scots to trial, withanswers thereunto. ' In Strype, Annals iii. 2. 397. 

[260] Evidence against the Queen of Scots. Hardwicke Papers i. 245. 'Invasion and destruction of Her Majesty are so linked together, thatthey cannot be single. For if the invader should prevail, no doubtthey would not suffer Her Majesty to continue neither government norher life: and in case of rebellion the same reason holdeth. '

[261] The French ambassador began, according to Camden 480, with themaxim 'regum interesse ne princeps libera atque absoluta morteafficiatur. ' What Camden quotes from a letter of James makes a certainimpression; the words are still more characteristic in the original:'quho beingh supreme et immediate lieutenants of godd in heaven, cannot thairefoire be judget by thaire aequallis in earth, quatmonstruous thing is it that souveraigne princes thaimeselfis shouldebe the exemple giveris of thaire own sacred diademes prophaining. ' 27Jan. 1586-7. In Nicolas, Life of Davison 70. 

[262] Reasons gathered by certain appointed in Parliament. In Strypeiii. 1, 534. 

[263] According to the protocol of an interview with the ambassador(in Murdin, 579) there can be no doubt of the reality of the plot. Theambassador does not deny that he had been spoken to about it, he onlyexcuses himself for not having had the Queen informed of it, butasserts that he had rejected it with abhorrence. 

[264] To James I, Letters of Elizabeth and James 42. 

[265] Arraignment of Mr. Davison in the Star Chamber, State Trials1230. In Nicolas, Life of William Davison, are printed the statementsand memoranda of Davison as to his share in this matter. They are notwithout reserve; but, in what they contain, they bear the stamp oftruth. 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE INVINCIBLE ARMADA. 

At this moment the war with the Spaniards--the resistance which theEnglish auxiliaries offered to them in the Netherlands, as well as theattack now being made on their coasts--occupied men's minds all themore, as the success of both the one and the other was very doubtful, and a most dangerous counter-stroke was to be expected. The lion theywished to bind had only become exasperated. The naval war inparticular provoked the extreme of peril. 

Hostilities had been going on a long while, arising at first from theprivateering which filled the whole of the Western Ocean. The Englishtraders held it to be their right to avenge every injustice done themon their neighbours' coasts--for man has, they said, a natural desireof procuring himself satisfaction--and so turned themselves intofreebooters. Through the counter operations of the Spaniards thisprivate naval war became more and more extensive, and then alsogradually developed more glorious impulses, as we see in FrancisDrake, who at first only took part in the mere privateering of injuredtraders, and afterwards rose to the idea of a maritime rivalry betweenthe nations. It was an important moment in the history of the worldwhen Drake on the isthmus of Panama first caught sight of the Pacific, and prayed God for His grace that he might sail over this sea some dayin an English ship--a grace since granted not merely to himself butalso in the richest measure to his nation. Many companies were formedto resume the voyages of discovery already once begun and then againdiscontinued. And as the Spaniards based their exclusive right to thepossession of the other hemisphere on the Pope's decision, Protestantideas, which mocked at this supremacy of the Romish See over theworld, now contributed also to impel men to occupy lands in theseregions. This was always effected in the main by voluntary efforts ofwealthy mercantile houses, or enterprising members of the court andstate, to whom the Queen gave patents of authorisation. In this wayWalter Ralegh, in his political and religious opposition to theSpaniards, founded an English colony on the transatlantic continent, in Wingandacoa: the Queen was so much pleased at it that she gave thedistrict a name which was to preserve the remembrance of the qualityshe was perhaps proudest of: she called it Virginia. [266]

But at last she formally undertook the naval war; it was at the sametime a motive for the league with the Hollanders, who could doexcellent service in it: by attacking the West Indies she hoped todestroy the basis of the Spanish greatness. 

Francis Drake was commissioned to open the war. When, in October 1585, he reached the Islas de Bayona on the Gallician coast, he informed thegovernor, Don Pedro Bermudez, that he came in his Queen's name to putan end to the grievances which the English had had to suffer from theSpaniards. Don Pedro answered, he knew nothing of any such grievances:but, if Drake wished to begin war, he was ready to meet him. 

Francis Drake then directed his course at once to the West Indies. Hesurprised St. Domingo and Carthagena, occupied both one and the otherfor a short time, and levied heavy contributions on them. Then hebrought back to England the colonists from Virginia, who were not yetable to hold their own against the natives. The next year he inflictedstill more damage on the Spaniards. He made his way into the harbourof Cadiz, which was full of vessels that had either come from both theIndies or were proceeding thither: he sank or burnt them all. Hisprivateers covered the sea. 

Often already had the Spaniards planned an invasion of England. Themost pressing motive of all lay in these maritime enterprises. TheSpaniards remarked that the stability and power of their monarchy didnot rest so much on the strong places they possessed in all parts ofthe world as on the moveable instruments of dominion by which theconnexion with them was kept up; the interruption of thecommunication, caused by Francis Drake and his privateers, betweenjust the most important points on the Spanish and the Netherlandishcoasts, seemed to them unendurable: they desired to rid themselves ofit at any price. And to this was now added the general cry ofvengeance for the execution of the Queen of Scots, which was heardfrom the pulpit in the presence of the King himself. But this was notthe only result of that event. The life of Queen Mary and her claim tothe succession had always stood in the way of Spanish ambition: nowPhilip II could think of taking possession of the English thronehimself. He concluded a treaty with Pope Sixtus V, under which he wasto hold the crown of England as a fief of the Holy See, which wouldthus, and by the re-establishment of the Church's authority, have alsoattained to the revival of its old feudal supremacy over England. [267]

Once more the Spanish monarchy and the Papacy were closely united intheir spiritual and political claims. Sixtus V excommunicated theQueen afresh, declared her deposed, and not merely released hersubjects from their oath of allegiance, but called on every man to aidthe King of Spain and his general the Duke of Parma against her. 

Negociations for peace however were still being carried on in 1587between Spanish and English plenipotentiaries. It was mainly themerchants of London and Antwerp that urged it; and as the Spaniards atthat time had manifestly the best of the struggle, were masters of thelower Rhine and the Meuse, had invaded Friesland, had besieged and atlast taken Sluys in despite of all resistance, we can understand howthe English plenipotentiaries were moved to unexpected concessions. They would have consented to the restoration of the Spanish supremacyover the northern Netherlands, if Philip would have granted theinhabitants freedom of conscience. Alexander of Parma brought forwarda proposal, to make, it is true, their return to Catholicismobligatory, but with the assurance that no Inquisition should be setover them, nor any one punished for his deviation from the faith. Evenif the negociation was not meant to be completely in earnest, it isworth remarking on what rock it was wrecked. Philip II would neithergrant such an assurance, which in its essence involved freedom ofconscience, nor grant this itself completely in a better form. Hisstrength lay precisely in his maintaining the Catholic system withunrelenting energy: by this he secured the attachment of the priestsand the zealous laity. And how could he, at a moment when he was soclosely united with the Pope, and could reckon on the millions heapedup in the castle of St. Angelo for his enterprise, so completelydeviate from the strictness of exclusive belief. He thought he waswithin his right when he refused any religious concession, seeing thatevery other sovereign issued laws prescribing the religion of his ownterritories. [268]

If the war was to be continued, Alexander of Parma would have wishedthat all his efforts should be first directed against Vliessingen, where there was an English garrison; from the harbour there Englanditself could be attacked far more easily and safely. But it wasreplied in Spain that this enterprise was likewise very extensive andcostly, while it would bring about no decisive result. And yetAlexander himself too held an invasion of England to be absolutelynecessary; his reports largely contributed to strengthen the King inthis idea; Philip decided to proceed without further delay to theenterprise that was needful at the moment and opened world-wideprospects for the future. 

He took into consideration that the monarchy at this moment hadnothing to fear from the Ottomans who were fully occupied with aPersian war, and above all that France was prevented from interferingby the civil strife that had broken out. This has been designated asthe chief aim of Philip's alliance with the Guises, and it certainlymay have formed one reason for it. Left alone, with only herself torely on (so the Spaniards further judged), the Queen of England wouldno longer be an object of fear: she had no more than forty ships; oncein an engagement off the Azores, in the Portuguese war, the Englishhad been seen to give way for the first time: if it came to asea-fight, the vastly superior Spanish Armada would without doubtprove victorious. But for a war on land also she was not prepared, shehad no more than six thousand real soldiers in the country, with whomshe could neither meet nor resist the veteran troops of Spain in theopen field. They had only to march straight on London; seldom was agreat city, which had remained long free from attack, able to hold outagainst a sudden assault: the Queen would either be forced to make apeace honourable to Spain, or would by a long resistance give the Kingan opportunity of forming out of the Spanish nobility, which wouldotherwise degenerate in indolence at home, a young troop of bravewarriors. He would have the Catholics for him and with their help gainthe upper hand, he would make himself master of the strong places, above all of the harbours; all the nations of the world could not takethem from him again; he would become lord of the ocean, and thus lordand master of the continent. [269]

Philip II would have preferred to begin the work as early as theautumn of 1587. He hoped at that time that Scotland, where theCatholic lords and the people showed a lively sympathy with QueenMary's fate, would be thrown open to him by her son, who was supposedto wish to avenge her death. But to others this seemed not so certain;in especial the experienced Admiral Santa Cruz called the King'sattention to the perils the fleet might incur in those seas: theywould have to contend with contrary winds, and the disadvantage ofshort days and thick mists. Santa Cruz did not wish to endanger hisfame, the only thing he had earned during a long life, by an ill-timedor very venturous undertaking. He held an invasion of England to bemore difficult than most other enterprises, and demanded suchpreparations as would make the victory certain. While they were beingmade he died, after having lost his sovereign's favour. His successor, the duke of Medina Sidonia, whom the King chose because he haddistinguished himself at the last defence of Cadiz, did not make suchvery extensive demands; but the fleet, which was fitted out under himand by him, was nevertheless, though not in number of ships (about130), yet in tonnage, size, and number of men on board (about 22, 000)the most important that had ever been sent to sea by any Europeanpower. All the provinces of the Pyrenean peninsula had emulouslycontributed to it: the fleet was divided into a corresponding numberof squadrons; the first was the Portuguese, then followed thesquadrons of Castille, Andalusia, Biscay, Guipuzcoa, and then theItalian--for ships and men had come also in good number from Italy. The troops were divided like the squadrons; there was a 'Mass in timeof war' for each province. 

With not less zeal did men arm in the Netherlands; the drum beateverywhere in the Flemish and Walloon provinces, all roads werecovered with military trains. In the Netherlands too there were agreat number of Italians, Corsicans and inhabitants of the States ofthe Church and Neapolitans, in splendid accoutrements; there were thebrothers of the grand duke of Tuscany and of the duke of Savoy: KingPhilip had even allowed the son of a Moorish prince to take part inthe Catholic expedition. Infantry and cavalry also had come fromCatholic Germany. 

It was a joint enterprise of the Spanish monarchy and a great part ofthe Catholic world, headed by the Pope and the King, to overthrow theQueen who was regarded as the Head, and the State which was regardedas the main support, of Protestantism and the anti-Spanish policy. 

We do not find any detailed and at the same time authentic informationas to the plan of the invasion; a Spanish soldier and diplomatisthowever, much employed in the military and political affairs of thetime, and favoured with the confidence of the highest persons, J. Baptista de Tassis, gives us an outline, which we may accept as quitetrustworthy. We know that in Antwerp, Nieuport, and Dunkirk, with theadvice of Hanseatic and Genoese master-builders, transports had beengot ready for the whole force: from Nieuport (to which place also werebrought the vessels built at Antwerp) 14, 000 men were to be conveyedacross to England, and from Dunkirk 12, 000. But where were they toeffect a junction with each other and with the Spaniards? Tassisassures us that they had selected for this purpose the roadstead ofMargate on the coast of Kent, a safe and convenient harbour;[270]there immediately after the Spanish armada had arrived, or as nearlyas possible at the same time with it, the fleet of transports from theNetherlands also was to make the shore, and Alexander of Parma wasthen to assume the command in chief of the whole force and marchstraight on London. 

All that Philip II had ever thought or planned was thus concentratedas it were into one focus. The moment was come when he could subdueEngland, become master of the European world, and re-establish theCatholic faith in the form in which he professed it. When the fleet(on the 22nd July 1588) sailed out of Corunna, and the long-meditated, long-prepared, enterprise was now set in action, the King and thenation displayed deep religious emotion: in all the churches of theland prayers were offered up for forty days; in Madrid solemnprocessions were arranged to our Lady of Atocha, the patroness ofSpain: Philip II spent two hours each day in prayer. He was in thestate of silent excitement which an immense design and the expectationof a great turn in a man's fortune call forth. Scarcely any one daredto address a word to him. 

It was in these very days that people in England first really becameconscious of the danger that threatened them. A division of the fleetunder Henry Seymour was watching, with Dutch assistance, the twoharbours held by the prince of Parma: the other and larger division, just returned from Spain and on the point of being broken up, madeready at Plymouth, under the admiral, Howard of Effingham, to receivethe enemy. Meanwhile the land forces assembled, on Leicester'sadvice, [271] in the neighbourhood of London. The old feudalorganisation of the national force was once more called into fullactivity to face this danger. Men saw the gentry take the field at thehead of their tenants and copyholders, and rejoiced at their holdingtogether so well. It was without doubt an advantage, that thethreatened attack could no longer be connected with a right ofsuccession recognised in the country; it appeared in its truecharacter, as a great invasion by a foreign power for the subjugationof England. Even the Catholic lords came forward, among them ViscountMontague (who had once, alone in the Upper House, opposed theSupremacy, and had also since not reconciled himself to the religiousposition of the Queen), with his sons and grandsons, and even hisheir-presumptive who, though still a child, bestrode a war-horse; LordMontague said, he would defend his Queen with his life, whoever mightattack her, king or pope. No doubt that these armings left much to bedesired, but they were animated by national and religious enthusiasm. Some days later the Queen visited the camp at Tilbury: with slightescort she rode from battalion to battalion. A tyrant, she said, mightbe afraid of his subjects: she had always sought her chief strength intheir good will: with them she would live and die. She was everywherereceived with shouts of joy: psalms were sung, and prayers offered upin which the Queen joined. 

For, whatever may be men's belief, in great wars and dangers theynaturally turn their eyes to the Eternal Power which guides ourdestiny, and on which all equally feel themselves dependent. The twonations and their two chiefs alike called on God to decide in theirreligious and political conflict. The fortune of mankind hung in thebalance. 

On the 31st July, a Sunday, the Armada, covering a wide extent of sea, came in sight of the English coast off the heights of Plymouth. Onboard the fleet itself it was thought most expedient to attempt alanding on the spot, since there were no preparations made there fordefence and the English squadron was not fully manned. But this wasnot in the plan, and would, especially if it failed, have incurred aheavy responsibility. Medina Sidonia was only empowered and preparedto accept battle by sea if the English should offer it. His galleys, improved after the Venetian pattern, and especially his galleons(immense sailing ships which carried cannon on their different deckson all sides), were without doubt superior to the vessels of theEnglish. When the latter, some sixty sail strong, came out of theharbour, he hung out the great standard from the fore-mast of his shipas a signal for all to prepare for battle. But the English admiral didnot intend to let matters come to a regular naval fight. He wasperfectly aware of the superiority of the Spanish equipment and hadeven forbidden boarding the enemies' vessels. His plan was to gain theweather-gauge of the Armada, and inflict damage on them in theircourse, and throw them into disorder. The English followed the trackof the Armada in four squadrons, and left no advantage unimproved thatmight offer. They were thoroughly acquainted with this sea, andsteered their handy vessels with perfect certainty and mastery: theSpaniards remarked with dissatisfaction that they could at pleasureadvance, attack, and again break off the engagement. Medina Sidoniawas anxious above all things to keep his Armada together: after acouncil of war he let a great ship which lagged behind fall into thehands of the enemy, as her loss would be less damaging than thebreaking up of the line which would result from the attempt to saveher: he sent round his sargentes mayores to the captains to tell themnot to quit the line on pain of death. [272]

On the whole the Spaniards were not discontented with their voyage, when after a week of continuous skirmishing they, without havingsustained any very considerable losses, had traversed the Englishchannel, and on Saturday the 6th August passed Boulogne and arrivedoff Calais: it was the first point at which they had wished to touch. But now to cross to the neighbouring coast of England, as seems tohave been the original plan, became exceedingly difficult, because theEnglish fleet guarded it, and the Spanish galleons were less able inthe straits than elsewhere to compete with those swift vessels, It wasalso being strengthened every moment; the young nobility emulouslyhastened on board. But neither could the admiral proceed to Dunkirk, as the harbour was then far too narrow to receive his large ships, andhis pilots were afraid of being carried to the northward by thecurrents. He anchored in the roadstead east of Calais in the directionof Dunkirk. 

He had already previously informed the Duke of Parma that he was onthe way, and had then, immediately before his arrival at Calais, despatched a pilot to Dunkirk, to request that he would join him witha number of small vessels, that they might better encounter theEnglish, and bring with him cannon balls of a certain calibre, ofwhich he began to fall short. [273] It is clear that he still wished toundertake from thence, if supported according to his views, the greatattempt at a disembarkation which he was commissioned to effect. ButAlexander of Parma, whom the first message had found some days beforeat Bruges, had not yet arrived at Dunkirk when the second came: thepreparations for embarking were only then just begun for the firsttime; and they could scarcely venture actually to embark, as Englishand Dutch ships of war were still ever cruising before the harbour. 

Alexander Farnese's failure to effect a junction with Medina Sidoniahas been always traced to personal motives; it was even said inEngland, at a later time, that Queen Elizabeth had offered him thehand of Lady Arabella Stuart, which might open the way to the Englishthrone for himself. It is true that his enterprises in the Netherlandsappeared to lie closest to his heart; even Tassis, who was about hisperson, remarks that he carried on his preparations more out ofobedience than with any zeal of his own. But the chief cause why thetwo operations were not better combined lay in their very nature. Thegeographical relation of the Spanish monarchy to England would haverequired two separate invasions, the one from the Pyrenean peninsula, the other from the Netherlands. The wish to combine the forces of suchdistant countries in a single invasion made the enterprise, especiallywhen the means of communication of the period were so inadequate, overpoweringly helpless. Wind and weather had been little consideredin the scheme. In both those countries immense materials of war hadbeen collected with extreme effort; they had been brought within a fewmiles of sea of each other, but combine they could not. Now for thefirst time came to light the full superiority which the English gainedfrom their corsair-like and bold method of war, and their alliancewith the Dutch. It was seen that a sudden attack would suffice tobreak the whole combination in pieces: Queen Elizabeth was said tohave herself devised the plan and its arrangement. 

The Armada was still lying at anchor in line of battle, waiting fornews from Alexander Farnese, when in the night between Sunday andMonday (7th to 8th August) the English sent some fire-ships, abouteight in number, against it. They were his worst vessels which LordHoward gave up for this purpose, but their mere appearance produced adecisive result. Medina Sidonia could not refuse his ships permissionto slip their anchors, that each might avoid the threatening danger:only he commanded them to afterwards resume their previous order. Butthings wore a completely different appearance the following morning. The tide had carried the vessels towards the land, a direction theydid not want to take; now for the first time the attacks of theEnglish proved destructive to them: part of the ships had becomedisabled: it was completely impossible to obey the admiral's ordersthat they should return to their old position. Instead of this, unfavourable winds drove the Armada against its will along the coast;in a short time the English too gave up the pursuit of the enemy, whowithout being quite beaten was yet in flight, and abandoned him to hisfate. The wind drove the Spaniards on the shoals of Zealand: once theywere in such shallow water that they were afraid of running aground:some of their galleons in fact fell into the hands of the Dutch. Fortunately for them the wind veered round first to the W. S. W. , thento the S. S. W. , but they could not even then regain the Channel, norwould they have wished it; only by the longest circuit, round theOrkney Islands, could they return to Spain. 

A storm fraught with ruin had lowered over England: it was scatteredbefore it discharged its thunder. So completely true is the expressionon a Dutch commemorative medal, 'the breath of God has scattered them'(_flavit et dissipati sunt_). 

Philip II saw the Armada, which he had hoped would give the dominionof the world into his hand, return home again in fragments withouthaving, we do not say accomplished but even, attempted anything worththe trouble. He did not therefore renounce his design. He spoke of hiswish to fit out lighter vessels, and entrust the whole conduct of theexpedition to the Prince of Parma. The Cortes of Castille requestedhim not to put up with the disgrace incurred, but to chastise thiswoman: they offered him their whole property and all the children ofthe land for this purpose. But the very possibility of greatenterprises belongs only to one moment: in the next it is already goneby. 

First the Spanish forces were drawn into the complications existing inFrance. The great Catholic agitation, which had been long fermentingthere, at last gained the upper hand, and was quite ready to preparethe way for Philip II's supremacy. But Queen Elizabeth thought thatthe day on which France fell into his hands would be the eve of herown ruin. She too therefore devoted her best resources to France, touphold Philip II's opponent. When Henry IV, driven back to the vergeof the coast of Normandy, was all but lost, he was by her help put ina position to maintain his cause. At the sieges of the great towns, inwhich he was still often threatened with failure, the English troopsin several instances did excellent service. The Queen did not swervefrom her policy even when Henry IV saw himself compelled, and found itcompatible with his conscience, to go over to Catholicism. For he wasclearly thus all the better enabled to re-establish a France thatshould be politically independent, in opposition to Spain and at warwith it; and it was exactly on this opposition that the politicalfreedom and independence of England herself rested. Yet as his changeof religion had been disagreeable to the Queen, so was also the peacewhich he proceeded to make; she exerted her influence against itsconclusion. But as by it the Spaniards gave up the places theyoccupied on the French coasts, which in their possession had menacedEngland as well, she could not in reality be fundamentally opposed toit. 

These great conflicts on land were seconded by repeated attacks of theEnglish and Dutch naval power, by which it sometimes seemed as if theSpanish monarchy would be shaken to its foundations. Elizabeth made anattempt to restore Don Antonio to the throne from which Philip II haddriven him. But the minds of the Portuguese themselves were very farfrom being as yet sufficiently prepared for a revolt: the enterprisefailed, in an attack on the suburbs of Lisbon. The war interested theEnglish most deeply. Parliament agreed to larger and larger grants:from two-fifteenths and a single subsidy (about £30, 000), which wasits usual vote, it rose in 1593 to three subsidies and six-fifteenths;the towns gladly armed ships at their own expense, and sailors enoughwere found to man them: the national energy turned towards the sea. And they obtained some successes. In the harbour of Corunna theydestroyed the collected stores, which were probably to have servedfor renewing the expedition. Once they took the harbour of Cadiz andoccupied the city itself: more than once they alarmed and endangeredthe West Indies. But with all this nothing decisive was effected; theSpanish monarchy maintained an undoubted ascendancy in Europe, and theexclusive possession of the other hemisphere: it was the Great Powerof the age. But over against it England also now took up a strong andformidable position. 

Events in France exercised a strong counter-action on the Netherlands;under their influence the reconquest of the United Provinces becameimpossible for Spain. Elizabeth also contributed largely to thevictories by which Prince Maurice of Orange secured a strong frontier. But these could not prevent a powerful Catholic government arising onthe other side in the Belgian provinces: and though they were at firstkept apart from Spain, yet it did not escape the Queen that this wouldnot last for ever: she seems to have had a foreboding that thesecountries would become the battleground of a later age. However thismight be, the antagonism of principle between the Catholic Netherlands(which were still ruled by the Austro-Spanish House) and theProtestant Netherlands (in which the Republic maintained itself), andthe continued war between them, ensured the security of England, forthe sake of which the Queen had broken with Spain. Burleigh's objectswere in the main attained. 

NOTES:

[266] Oldys, Life of Sir W. Raleigh 38. 

[267] Spondanus, Continuatio Baronii ii. 847. The word 'dicitur, 'which Spondan uses, is omitted in Timpesti, Vita di Sisto V, ii. 51. 

[268] A letter of Philip's to the King of Denmark, in the VenetianDispacci of this year, which in general would be of great value for adetailed account of the event. 

[269] The reports are in Herrera, Historia del mundo iii. 60 seq. In1860 Mr. Motley (History of the United Netherlands ii. Ch. Xviii. )communicated extracts from the letters exchanged at that time betweenAlex. Farnese and Philip II, which reveal the wishes of eachsuccessive moment. 

[270] J. B. De Tassis Commentarii: 'eo consilio, ut cum adventassetclassis et constitisset in Morgat, qui est prope Dormiram [I readDouvram, as the copy from which the printed text is taken is verydefective] districtus maris quietus portumque efficit satis securum, trajiceret Parmensis cum navigiis. ' Papendrecht, Analecta Belgica II. Ii. 491. In Motley i. Ch. Viii we now see that Al. Farnese in his veryfirst plan pointed out the coast between Dover and Margate as the mostproper place for the landing. A junction of the whole transport fleetwith the Armada before Calais has something too adventurous in it tohave been contemplated from the beginning. 

[271] The Earl of Leicester to the Queen. Hardwicke State Papers i. 580. The dates given above are New Style. 

[272] Diario de los sucesos de armada Ilamada la invencible, in Salva, Collection de documentos ineditos xvi. 449: essentially the samereport as that used by Barrow, Life of Sir Francis Drake. 

[273] Diario 458: 'mandase salir 40 filipotes luego para juntarse conesta armada para poder con ellos trabarse con los enemigos, que acausa de ser nuestros baseles muy pesados en comparacion de laligereza de los enemigos no era posible en ninguna maniera venir a lasmanos con ellos. '

CHAPTER VII. 

THE LATER YEARS OF QUEEN ELIZABETH. 

Every great historic existence has a definite purport; the life ofQueen Elizabeth lies in the transactions already recorded, and theirresults in the change of policy which she brought about. 

The issue of the war between the hierarchy, which had once swayedevery act and thought of the West, and those who had fallen off fromit was not yet decided as long as England with its power vacillatedbetween the two systems. Then this Queen came forward, attachingherself to the new view as by a predetermined destiny; she carried itout in a form answering to the historical institutions of her kingdom, and with an energy by which she at the same time upheld that kingdom'spower. It was against her therefore that the hierarchy, when it couldrenew the contest, mainly directed its most energetic efforts: anauthor of the period makes those leagued with the Pope against theQueen say to each other, 'come let us kill her, and the inheritanceshall be ours. ' The chief among these was the mighty King who hadhimself once ruled England. She maintained a war with this league, inwhich it was at each moment a question of existence for her. She wasassailed with all the weapons of war and of treason; but she adoptedcorresponding means of defence against every assault: she not onlymaintained herself, but created in the neighbouring countries apowerful representation of the principle which she had taken up, without pressing the adoption of a form for it exactly like her own. Without her help the church-reformation in Scotland, and at that timein France, would have been probably suppressed, and in the Netherlandsit would have never taken actual shape. The Queen is the champion ofWest-European Protestantism and of all the political growth that wasattached to the new faith. She herself expresses her astonishment ather success in this: 'more at the fact, ' she says once, 'that I amstill alive, than that my enemies would not have me to live. ' ThatPhilip effected so little against her, she believes to be due aboveall to God's justice; for the King attacked her in an unkingly mannerwhile negociations were still going on: she sees in this a proof thatan ill beginning leads to a disgraceful end, despite all power andendeavour. 'What was to ruin me, has turned to my glory. '[274]

It is surely the greatest happiness that can be granted to any humanbeing, while defending his own interest, to be maintaining theinterests of all. Then his personal existence expands into a centralpart of the world's history. 

That personal and universal interest was likewise a thoroughly Englishone. Commerce grew amidst arms: the maintenance of internal peacefilled the country with wellbeing and riches; palaces were seen risingwhere before only huts had stood: as the philosophic Bacon remarks, England now won her natural position in the world. 

Elizabeth was one of those sovereigns who have beforehand formed anidea for themselves as to the duties of government. Four qualities, she says once, seemed to her necessary for it: justice andself-control, highmindedness and judgment; she might pride herself onthe two first: never in a case of equal rights had she favoured oneperson more than another: never had she believed a first report, butwaited for fuller knowledge: the two others she would not claim forherself, for they were men's virtues. But the world ascribed a highdegree of these very virtues to her. Men descried her subtle judgmentin the choice of her servants, and the directing them to the servicesfor which they were best fitted. Her high heart was seen in herdespising small advantages, and in her unshaken tranquillity indanger. While the storm was coming on from Spain, no cloud was seen onher brow: by her conduct she animated nobles and people, andinspirited her councillors. Men praised her for two things, forzealous participation in deliberation and for care in seeing thatwhat was decided on was carried into effect. [275]

But we may not look for an ideal female ruler in Queen Elizabeth. Noone can deny the severities which were practised under her governmenteven with her knowledge. The systematic hypocrisy imputed to her mayseem an invention of her enemies or of historians not thoroughlyinformed; she herself declares truthfulness a quality indispensablefor a prince; but in her administration, as well as in that of mostother rulers, reasonings appear which rather conceal the truth thanexpress it; in each of her words, and in every step she took, weperceive a calculation of what is for her advantage; she displaysstriking foresight and even a natural subtlety. Elizabeth was veryaccessible to flattery, and as easily attracted by an agreeableexterior as repelled by slight accidental defects; she could break outat a word that reminded her of the transitory nature of human affairsor of her own frailty: vanity accompanied her from youth to thoseadvancing years, which she did not wish to remark or to think wereremarked. She liked to ascribe successes to herself, disasters to herministers: they had to take on themselves the hatred felt againstdisagreeable or doubtful regulations, and if they did not do thisquite in unison with her mood, they had to fear her blame anddispleasure. She was not free from the fickleness of her family: buton the other hand she displayed also the amiable attention of a femaleruler: as when once during a speech she was making in a learnedlanguage to the learned men of Oxford, on seeing the Lord Treasurerstanding there with his lame foot, she suddenly broke off, ordered achair to be brought him, and then continued; indeed it was said she atthe same time wished to let it be remarked that no accident coulddiscompose her. As Harrington, who knew her from personalacquaintance, expresses himself: her mind might be sometimes comparedto a summer morning sky, beneficent and refreshing: then she won thehearts of all by her sweet and modest speech. But she was repellent inthe same degree in her excited state, when she paced to and fro in herchamber, anger in every look, rejection in every word: men hastenedout of her way. Among other correspondence we learn to know her fromthat with King James of Scotland, --one side of her politicalrelations, to which we shall return:--how does every sentence expressa mental and moral superiority as well as a political one! not asuperfluous word is there: all is pith and substance. From care forhim and intelligent advice she passes to harsh blame and most earnestwarning: she is kind and sharp, friendly and rough, but almost evermore repellent and unsparing than mild. Never had any sovereign ahigher idea of his dignity, of the independence belonging to him bythe laws of God and man, of the duty of obedience binding on allsubjects. She prides herself on no external consideration influencingher resolutions, threats or fear least of all; when once she longs forpeace, she insists on its not being from apprehension of the enemy, but only from abhorrence of bloodshed. The action of life does notdevelop merely the intellectual powers: between success and failure, in conflict and effort and victory, the character moulds itself andacquires its ruling tone. Her immense good fortune fills her withunceasing self-confidence, which is at the same time sustained bytrust in the unfailing protection of Providence. [276] That she, excommunicated by the Pope, maintains herself against the attacks ofhalf the world, gives her whole action and nature a redoubled impressof personal energy. She does not like to mention her father or hermother: of a successor she will not hear a word. The feeling ofabsolute possession is predominant in her appearance. It is noticeablehow on festivals she moves in procession through her palace: in frontare nobles and knights in the costume of their order, with baredheads; next the bearers of the insignia of royalty, the sceptre, thesword, and the great seal: then the Queen herself in a dress coveredwith pearls and precious stones; behind her ladies, brilliant intheir beauty and rich attire: to one or two, who are presented to her, she reaches out her hand to kiss as she goes by in token of favour, till she arrives at her chapel, where the assembled crowd hails herwith a 'God save the Queen, ' she returning them thanks with graciouswords. Elizabeth received the whole reverence, once more unbounded, which men paid to the supreme power. The meats of which she was to eatwere set on the table with bended knee, even when she was not present. It was on their knees that men were presented to her. [277]

Between a sovereign like this and her Parliament points of contentioncould not be wanting. The Commons claimed the privilege of absolutefreedom of speech, and repeatedly attacked the abuses which stillremained in the episcopal Church, and the injurious monopolies whichprofited certain favoured persons. The Queen had members of the LowerHouse imprisoned for speeches disagreeable to her: she warned them notto interfere in the affairs of the Church, and even not in those ofthe State, and declared it to be her prerogative to summon anddissolve Parliament at her pleasure, to accept or reject its measures. But with all this she still did not on the other hand conceal that, inreference to the most important affairs of State, she had to payregard to the tone of the two Houses: however much she might be loved, yet men's minds are easily moved and not thoroughly trustworthy. Inits forms Parliament studied to express the devotion which the Queenclaimed as Queen and Lady, while she tried to make amends for acts bywhich the assembly had been previously offended: for statements ofgrievances, as in the instance of the monopolies, she even thankedthem, as for a salutary reminder. A French ambassador remarks in 1596that the Parliament in ages gone by had great authority, but now itdid all the Queen wished. Another who arrived in 1597 is not merelyastonished at its imposing exterior, but also at the extent of itsrights. Here, says he, the great affairs are treated of, war andpeace, laws, the needs of the community and the mode of satisfyingthem. [278] The one statement is perhaps as true as the other. Thesolution of the contradiction depends on this, that Queen andParliament were united as to the general relations of the country andthe world. The Queen, as is self-evident, could not have ruled withoutthe Parliament: from the beginning of her government she supportedherself by it in the weightiest affairs; but a simple considerationteaches us how much on the other hand Parliament owed precisely tothat introduction into these great questions, which the Queen thoughtadvisable. They avoided, and were still able to avoid, any enquiryinto their respective rights and the boundaries of those rights. Andbesides Elizabeth guarded herself from troubling her Parliament toomuch by demands for money. She has been often blamed for her economywhich sometimes became inconvenient in public affairs: as in mostcases, nature and policy here also coincided. That she was sparing ofmoney, and once was actually in a condition to decline a grant offeredher, gave the administration an independence of any momentary moods ofParliament, which suited her whole nature, and without this might havebeen easily lost. 

William Cecil, Lord Burleigh, her treasurer, as economical as herself, was likewise her first minister. He had assisted her with strikingcounsel even before her accession, and since lived and moved in heradministration of the state. He was one of those ministers who findtheir calling in a boundless industry, --he needed little sleep, longbanquets were not to his taste:[279] never was he seen inactive evenfor half an hour; he kept notes of everything great and small;business accompanied him even to his chamber, and to his retirement atS. Theobald's. His anxious thoughts were visible in his face, as herode on his mule along the roads of the park; he only lost sight ofthem for a moment when he was sitting at table among his growingchildren: then his heavy eyebrows cleared up, light merriment evencame from his lips. Every other charm of life lay far from him: forpoetry and poets he had no taste, as Spenser was once made to feel:in literature he patronised only what was directly useful; herecommended no one except for his being serviceable. Magnanimous hewas not; he was content with being able to say to himself, that hedrew no advantage from any one's ill fortune. He was designated eventhen as the man who set the English state in motion: this he alwaysdenied, and sought his praise in the fact that he carried out theviews of the Queen, as she adopted them after hearing the plansproposed or even after respectful remonstrances. He had to bear many aslander: most of the reproaches made against him he brought himself toendure quietly: but if, he said, it could be proved against him thathe neglected the Queen's interest, the war against Spain, and thesupport of the Netherlands, then he was willing to become liable toeternal blame. He was especially effective also through a moralquality--he never lost heart. It was remarked that he worked with thegreatest alacrity when others were most doubtful. For he too had anabsolute confidence in the cause which he defended. When the enemies'fortune stood highest, he was heard to say with great tranquillity, 'they can do no more than God will allow. '[280]

By the side of this pilot of the state, Robert Dudley, who waspromoted to be Earl of Leicester, drew all eyes on himself as theleading man at court. Burleigh was looked on as Somerset's creation, Dudley was the youngest son of the Earl of Northumberland: for it wasof advantage to Elizabeth, especially at first, to unite around herimportant representatives of the two parties which had composed herbrother's government. One motive for her attachment to Leicester issaid to have been the fact that he was born on the same day, and atthe very same hour with herself: who at that time would not havebelieved in the ruling influence of the stars? But, besides this, theEarl dazzled by a fine person, attractive manners, and an almostirresistible charm of disposition. The confidential intimacy whichElizabeth allowed him caused scandalous rumours, probably withoutground; for if they had been true, Leicester, who had his father'sambition, would have played a very different part. Elizabeth heard ofthem; she once actually brought a foreign ambassador into herapartments, to convince him how utterly impossible it would be for herto see any one whatever without witnesses; she censured a foreignwriter for letting himself be deceived by a groundless rumour, but shewould not on this account dismiss the favourite from court. She likedto have him about her, and to receive his homage which had a tinge ofchivalry in it: his devotion satisfied a need of her heart. He couldnot however take any power to himself which would infringe on her ownsupreme authority; once, when such a case occurred, she reminded himthat he was not in exclusive possession of her favour: she couldbestow it on whom she would, and again recall it; at court, sheexclaimed, there should be no Master, but only a Mistress. [281]Neither did Leicester display great mental gifts: in the campaigns ofthe Netherlands he did not at all answer even the moderateexpectations that had been formed of him. If the Queen neverthelessput him at the head of her troops when the Spanish danger threatened, this was because he possessed her absolute personal confidence. 

With Leicester the Sidneys were most closely allied. Henry Sidney, hissister's husband, introduced civilisation and monarchic institutionsinto Wales, and was selected to extend them in Ireland. In his sonPhilip the English ideal of noble culture seemed to have realiseditself; he combined a very remarkable literary power peculiar tohimself, and talents suited for the society of men of the world (whichwell fitted him for the duties of an ambassador), with disinterestedkindness to others, and a chivalrous courage in war, which gained himuniversal admiration both at home and in presence of the enemy. 

Leicester's good word is also said to have opened an entrance to courtfor young Walter Ralegh and to have promoted his first successes. Ralegh combined in his own person the aspirations of the age in a mostvivid manner. He was ambitious, fond of show, with high aims, deeplyengaged in the factions of the court; but at the same time he had aspirit of noble enterprise, was ingenious and thoughtful. Ineverything new that was produced in the region of discoveries andinventions, of literature and art, he played the part of a fellowworker: he lived in the circle of universal knowledge, its problemsand its progress. In his appearance he had something that announced aman of superior mind and nature. 

Around Cecil were grouped the statesmen who had been promoted by him, and worked in sympathy with him: for instance Bacon the Keeper of theSeals, whom the Queen regarded as the oracle of the laws, and who alsoamused her by many a witty word; Mildmay, the Chancellor of theExchequer, who though adhering to the principles now adopted yetgladly favoured the claims of Parliament, and even the tendencies ofthe Puritans; Francis Walsingham, Secretary of State, who had oncesuffered exile for his Protestantism and now supported it after hisreturn with all the resources of the administration; it is said of himthat he heard in London what was whispered in the ear at Rome; he metthe crafty Jesuits with a network of secret counter-action whichextended over the world; there has never been a man who morevigilantly and unrelentingly hunted down religious and politicalconspiracies; to pay his agents, in choosing whom he was not tooparticular, he expended his own property. Cecil and Bacon had marriedtwo daughters of that Antony Cooke, who had once taken part in EdwardVI's education: the other sisters, wedded to Hobby and Killigrew, menwho were engaged in the most important embassies, extended theconnexion of these statesmen. Walsingham was allied by marriage withMildmay, and with Randolph the active ambassador in Scotland. 

Once the Queen brought a man among them, who owed his rise only to herbeing pleased with his person and conversation, which likewise broughther much ill repute:[282] she promoted her vice-chamberlainChristopher Hatton to be Lord Chancellor of England. The lawyers madeloud and bitter complaints of this disregard of their claims and theirorder. Hatton had however been long on good terms with the leadingstatesmen: in all the late questions of difficulty as to Mary Stuart'strial he had held firm to them. His nephew and heir soon after marrieda granddaughter of Burleigh. 

The Queen's own relations on the mother's side had always someinfluence with her. Francis Knolles who had married into this family, and was appointed by the Queen treasurer of her household, won himselfa good name with his contemporaries and with posterity by hisreligious zeal and openness of heart. A still more important figure inthis circle is Thomas Sackville, who is also named with honour amongthe founders of English literature; the part of the 'Mirror forMagistrates' which was due to him witnesses to an original conceptionof the dark sides of man's existence, and to a creative imagination. But the poet likewise did excellent service to his sovereign: he makeshis appearance when an important treaty is to be concluded, or thepeople are to be called on to defend the country, or even when anyagitation is feared in the troubles at home. He was selected to informthe Queen of Scots that the sentence of death had been pronounced onher. He is the Lord Buckhurst from whom the dukes of Dorset aredescended. 

The distinguished family to which Anne Boleyn belonged, and which hadsuch an important influence on her rise, that of the Howards, provedin its elder branch as little loyal to the daughter as it had oncebeen to the mother. On the other hand Elizabeth had experienced theattachment of the younger line, that of Effingham, and had sincerepaid it with manifold favours. From this branch came the Admiral, who commanded the sea-force in the decisive attacks on the SpanishArmada. We know that he was not himself a great seaman; but heunderstood enough of the matter to enable him to avail himself ofthose who understood more than he did. The Queen looked on him as theman marked out by Providence for the defence of herself and of thecountry. 

General Norris, who gained reputation for the English arms on thecontinent by the side of Henry IV, was also related to her though moredistantly: besides this, she wished to repay him for the goodtreatment she had formerly received in her distress from hisgrandfather. 

How predominantly the personal element once more manifests itself inthis administration! As the Queen's own interest is also that of all, those who belong to her family or have won her favour and done heressential service, are the chiefs of the State and the leaders in war. The royal patronage extended this influence over the Church and theuniversities. But we find it no less in all other branches. Sir ThomasGresham, the Queen's agent in money-matters, was the founder of theExchange of London, to which she at his request gave the name of theRoyal Exchange. 

In literature also we see the traces of her taste and her influence. Owing to the tone of good society the classics were studied by everyone. The higher education was directed to them, as indeed the Queenherself found in them refreshment and food for the mind: manyclassical authors were translated, and the forms of the old poetsrevived or imitated. The Italians and Spaniards, who had led the wayin similar attempts, further awoke the emulation of the English. InEdmund Spenser, in whom the spirit of the age shows itself mostvividly, we constantly meet with imitations of the Latin or Italianpoets, which here and there aspire to be paraphrastic translations, and may be inferior to his originals, even to the modern ones, indelicacy of drawing, since he purposely selected their most successfulpassages: yet how thoroughly different a spirit do his works breathein their total effect! What in the Italians is a play of fancy is inhim a deep moral earnestness. The English nation has an inestimablepossession in these works of a moral and religious grandeur, and asimple view of nature, which happily expressed in single stanzas stampthemselves on every man's memory. Spenser has assigned to allegory, asa style, a larger sphere than perhaps belongs to it, and one allegoryis always interweaving itself with another; the heroes whom he takesfrom the old romances become to him representatives of the differentvirtues, but he possesses such an original power of vividrepresentation that even in this form he gains the reader's interest. But, if we ask what is the main thing which he celebrates, we findthat it is precisely the course of the great war in which his nationis engaged against the Papacy and the Spaniards. The Faery Queen ishis sovereign, whose figure under the manifold symbols of thequalities which she possessed, or which were ascribed to her, isalways coming forward afresh in his verse. With wonderful powerElizabeth united around her all the aspiring minds and energies of thenation. 

Not a few of the productions of the time have so strong an infusion ofreverence for the Queen that we cannot help smiling: but it is truenevertheless that at her court the language formed itself, and allgreat aspirations found their central point. Elizabeth's statesmen, who had to deal with a Parliament that could not be led by mereauthority, studied the rules of eloquence in the models of antiquity, and made their doctrines their own. On their table Quintilian lay bythe side of the Statutes. 

The Queen, who loved the theatre and declared it a nationalinstitution by a proclamation, made it possible for Shakespeare todevelop himself; his roots lie deep in this epoch, he represents itsmanners and mode of life: but he spreads far out beyond it. We shallreturn to him in a more suitable place than this, in which we aretreating of the Queen's influence. 

It would contradict the nature of human affairs were we to expect thatthe general point of view, which swayed the State as a whole, couldhave induced every one who took part in its administration to move onto their common aim in one way. Of the great nobles of the court manyrather supported the Puritans, as indeed the father of the PuritanCartwright owed his position at Warwick to Leicester's protection;others inclined to favour the Catholics. The severity which thebishops thought themselves bound to exercise met with opposition amongthe leading statesmen: and to these again the soldiers were opposed. It was a society full of life, and highly gifted, but for that veryreason in continual ferment and internal conflict. 

We have still to grasp clearly the event in which these antagonismsand the Queen's temperament yet once more led to a great catastrophe. 

 * * * * *

The aged Burleigh, who had provoked the war with Spain, wished also toend it. From his past experience he concluded that he could notinflict any decisive blow on the Spanish monarchy, which stilldisplayed a vast power of resistance; in 1597 it could again offer ahigh price for peace. The Spaniards, who had taken Calais from theFrench by a sudden attack, offered the Queen the restoration of thisold English possession in exchange for the strong places in theNetherlands, entrusted to her in pledge. [283] For the Netherlands noother provision would have been thus made than was proposed in 1587:but England would have again won as strong a position on the Continentas it had before, and would have established its rule over theneighbouring seas: an open commerce would have been re-established, and Ireland freed from the hostile influence of the Spaniards: theQueen would have enjoyed peace in her advancing years. Burleigh saw asit were the conclusion of his life in this: he said that, if Godgranted him a good agreement with Spain, his soul would depart withjoy. 

But for this policy he could not possibly get the approval of theyoung, whose ambitious hopes were connected with the continuance ofthe war. They measured the power of the country by their own thirstfor action. If the Queen, so they said, would only not do everythingby halves and not follow her secretaries so much, she could, especially now she had the Dutch as allies, tear the Spanish monarchyin pieces. How could they fail, with some effort, in occupying theIsthmus of Panama? And then they would at one blow deprive themonarchy of all its resources. And above all, the man who then playedthe most brilliant part at court, Robert Devereux Earl of Essex, wasof this opinion. He was Leicester's stepson, introduced by him atcourt, and after his death his successor as it were in the Queen'sfavour. An attractive manly appearance, blooming youth, chivalrousmanners, won him all hearts from the very first. With the Queen heentered into that rare relation, in which favour on the one side andhomage on the other took the hues of mutual inclination, and evenpassion. 

What Essex's idea of it was he once revealed at a dramatic festivitywhich he arranged for the Queen in honour of her accession. There hemade a hermit, an officer of state, and a soldier come forward andaddress their exhortations to an esquire who was intended to representhimself. By the first the knight was desired to give up all feelingsof love, by the second to devote his powers to State affairs, by thethird to apply himself to war. The answer is: the knight cannot giveup his passion for his lady, since she animates all his thoughts withdivine fire, teaches him true policy, and at the same time qualifieshim to lead an army. Essex had taken part in some campaigns of HenryIV, and afterwards commanded the squadron which was in possession ofthe harbour of Cadiz for a moment, but without being able to hold it:he also failed in another enterprise which was planned to seize theplate-fleet; but this did not prevent him from evermore designingfresh and comprehensive plans. His view in this matter he also oncerepresented dramatically. [284] He brought forward a native Americanprince who utters the wish to be freed from the Castilians and theiroppressive rule: an oracle refers him to the Queen whose kingdom liesbetween the old and the new world, and who is naturally inclined tocome to the aid of all the oppressed. 

The negociations for peace were wrecked mainly through their inherentdifficulties: the Spaniards however had no hesitation in ascribing theill result to the influence of the Queen's favourite, who had been wonover by the King of France. [285] But the war could not after this bewaged on the grand scale contemplated, because Henry IV himself nowconcluded peace, which freed the hands of the Spaniards to act againstEngland, and even awoke once more their ideas of an invasion. 

Under the double influence of English oppression and the instigationof both Spain and Rome a revolt broke out in Ireland, in which theEnglish suffered a defeat on the Blackwater, which is designated asthe greatest mishap they had ever suffered in that island. Ulster, Connaught, and Leinster were in arms: their chief, Tyrone, who hadlearnt war in the English service, came forward as The O'Neil, and wasalready recognised by the Pope as sovereign of Ulster; the Irishreckoned on Spanish assistance, either in Ireland itself, or throughan attack on England. Priests and Jesuits fed the Irish with hopesthat this time they would free themselves, and destroy the very memoryof the English rule. 

The Queen decided, in order to keep her hold on the island, to sendover an unusually strong armament of horse and foot: and Essex, whohad always been the loudest in blaming the errors of previouscommanders, could not avoid at last himself undertaking its direction, though he did not do it with complete alacrity. 

Though Burleigh was dead, his son Robert Cecil nevertheless maintainedhimself in possession of the secretaryship of state and was at thehead of his father's old friends, joined as they were by others whowere not indeed his friends but were enemies of Essex. It wasunwillingly that Essex quitted the court and thus left the field opento them: especially as his personal relation to the Queen was nolonger what it had been of old. Aspiring by nature, supported by thegood opinion of the people (on which his grand appearance and his boldspirit of enterprise had made much impression), and by the devotionof brave officers who were ready to follow him in any undertaking byland or sea, he presumed to desire to be something for himself. Hewished to be no longer absolutely dependent on the nod of hismistress. The story goes that she once, in a violent passion at hisdisrespectful conduct, gave him a box on the ear, and that he laid hishand on his sword. Even in his letters expressions indicatingresistance break through his declarations of submission. His friendsindeed advised him to return to absolute obedience: then the Queenwould raise the man whom she honoured above all others. He rejectedthis advice because he held that the Queen was a woman, from whom onegets nothing but by superior authority. It almost appears as though hethought he might obtain such an authority by the Irish war. 

But he found this expedition far harder than he had expected. Previously he had always said that the great rebel, Tyrone, must betracked to Ulster, where were the roots of his power, and conqueredthere: then the rest of the country would return to obedience ofitself. How great was the astonishment when he now nevertheless beganwith a march into Munster and Leinster, in which he wasted hisresources without obtaining any great success! He maintained that thePrivy Council of Ireland had urged him on to this: its members deniedit. At last the campaign to the North was undertaken: but in thisregion the Irish were found to have the complete superiority: theQueen's newly-levied troops on the other hand were neither adapted, nor quite willing, to venture on a decisive action: the officerssigned a protest against it: and Essex saw himself obliged to enterinto negociations with Tyrone. 

The conditions which that chief demanded in return for his submissionare exceedingly comprehensive: complete freedom of the Catholic churchunder the Pope, and a transfer of the dignities of state to thenatives, so that only a viceroy, who should always belong to the highnobility, was to come from England: the chief Irish families were tobe restored to their old possessions, and freed from the mostoppressive laws, for instance that of wardship; and the Irish were tobe allowed free trade with England. [286] These stipulations wouldhave promised a free development to the Irish nation, and made theyoke of England exceedingly light. Essex accepted them, because theSpaniards were just now threatening an attack on England, and Tyronecould only be separated from them on these conditions; even thenTyrone begged that for the present they might be kept a profoundsecret, that he might not quarrel with the Spaniards too soon. 

But how could such comprehensive concessions be expected from theproud Queen? How could her counsellors, who always preferred directnegociation with Spain, have accepted them?

The idea occurred to the Earl of Essex to return to England with apart of his troops, and at their head enforce the acceptance of histreaty, after which he would throw himself with all his might into theSpanish war. And without doubt this would have been the only way tocarry out his plan, and become altogether master of the government. 

But it was represented to him that this looked exactly like an attemptat rebellion. Essex was induced to give it up, and make everything yetonce more depend on the influence which he was confident he couldexercise on the Queen by appearing in person. Even this however was agreat risk: he not merely had no leave to do so, but it had beenexpressly forbidden him just previously: he thought it however theonly way of obtaining his end. Without even having announced hisdeparture to the Queen, he suddenly appeared with slight attendance atNonsuch, her country house. [287] He dismounted before the door, anddid not even take time to change his dress: as he was, with the dustof the journey on his face and clothes, he hastened to the Queen: thathe did not find her in the reception-room did not check him; he rushedon into her chamber, where he entered without being announced, andkissed her hand: her hair was still flying about her face. At thefirst moment she received him graciously--in a couple of hours hemight see her again: when he returned to her at table, she began toreproach him. From minute to minute the Queen predominated in her overthe friend: by evening his arrest was announced to him. 

Already by his conduct in Ireland Essex had supplied food for theslander of his enemies: how much more must this have been the casethrough his self-willed return! As he was fond of tracing his descentfrom royal blood, he was accused of even aspiring to the throne, afterthe example of Bolingbroke: for this purpose he had leagued himselfwith Tyrone and the Irish grandees, whose loyalty he praisednotwithstanding their revolt. We can say with certainty that the viewsof the Earl of Essex never went so far. In the question as to theQueen's successor, which occupied every one, he had taken his side forthe rights of the King of Scotland: he imputed to his enemies thedesign of favouring on the other hand the claim of the Infant of Spain(which was at that time put forward in all seriousness in a book muchread) with the view of purchasing peace by his recognition. Heassigned, as the motive for his conduct, his inability to endure theatheists, papists, and Spanish partisans in the Queen's council: as aChristian he could not possibly look on while religion perished, andas an Englishman he would not stand aloof while his fatherland wasbeing ruined. [288] He had never wished to be anything else than asubject--but 'only of his Queen, not the underling of an unworthy andlow vassal. ' So far as men saw, he stood in connexion with both theparties opposed to the prevailing system. He was prayed for in thechurches of the Puritans: Cartwright was one of his friends; theScotch doctrine, that the Supreme Power, if it showed itself negligentin matters of religion, could be compelled by those immediately underit to take them in hand, is said to have been preached with referenceto him. As Earl Marshal of England, Essex indeed thought he possessedan independent right of interference. But the mitigation of theecclesiastical laws would also have benefited the Catholics; and itwas among them that he had perhaps the most decided allies. If wemight combine his views into a whole, they were directed towardsraising the natives of America against Spain, at the same time that bytoleration both in England and Ireland he united all patriots in thewar against that power, in which he discerned that the chief interestof the nation lay. 

Essex remained a long while in the custody of the Keeper of the Seal, who was favourably disposed towards him; then he was sentenced by theStar Chamber not to exercise any longer his high offices as member ofthe Privy Council, as Earl Marshal, and Master of the Ordnance, and tolive as a prisoner in his own house during the Queen's pleasure. Heseemed to reconcile himself to this fate, and behaved modestly for aconsiderable time: he was still flattering himself with the hope ofregaining his sovereign's favour, when a monopoly was withdrawn fromhim which formed the chief part of his income. This new victory of hisenemies was intolerable to him: he would not let himself be brought solow by them as to be forced to live like a poor knight, withoutinfluence and independence. The thought occurred to him that, if hecould but see the Queen once more, he might effect a change in his owndestiny and in that of England. The popularity he enjoyed in thecapital, the continued attachment of his old companions in arms, thefriendship of some considerable nobles, allowed him to entertain thehope that he could attain this in despite of those around her, couldmake himself master of the palace, and force her to summon aParliament--in which the change of government and the succession ofthe King of Scotland should be alike confirmed. Essex was no longerthe blooming man of times past, he was seen moving along with his neckbowed down, but he still had his mind fixed on wide-ranging andambitious thoughts: from his youth up elevated by good fortune andfavour, he held everything possible which he set his hand to do. Onthe 8th February 1601 an armed band assembled at his house undercertain lords; the Keeper of the Seal and his attendant, whom theQueen despatched in order to inform herself of the cause of theagitation, were detained. Essex dared to march through the capitalwith his armed men, in order to raise it on his behalf. He reckoned onthe desertion of the city militia to him, and the connivance of thecity magistrates; but instead of finding support he only excitedastonishment. No one stirred in his favour. He was scarcely able--forroyal troops were soon in arms against him--to make his way back tohis house: there was nothing left for him but to surrender atdiscretion. 

At his trial the principle, which had already had so much weight inthe proceedings against Mary Stuart, was expressly stated, that everyattempt at rebellion must be looked on as directed against the life ofthe reigning sovereign. [289] A crisis had occurred which obligedElizabeth to execute the man for whom among all men living shecherished the deepest and warmest feeling, just as formerly she hadbeen forced to condemn one of the grandees connected with her byblood, and then her sister Queen of equal rights with herself--all ofthem for traitorous attempts against her government and person. Shesaid she would gladly have saved Essex, but she was forced to let thelaws of England take their course. 

Essex is to be compared with his contemporary Biron in so far as theyboth rebelled against sovereigns with whom they had stood in theclosest relations. In both it was mainly injured self-esteem whichgoaded them on. As Biron had a portion of the lower French nobilityfor him, so Essex had the soldiers by profession and the officers ofthe army to a great extent on his side: they both appealed once moreto religious antipathies. But above all they thought of again makingroom for the old independence of the warlike nobles: they bothsuccumbed to the authority of the firmly-rooted power of the state. 

At that time there were fresh negociations going on for a peacebetween Spain and England; but they could as little now as beforeagree on the great subjects in dispute, the question of theNetherlands, and the interests of commerce, which at the same timeinvolved points of religion. And the Spaniards broke off negotiationsall the more readily, as exaggerated rumours of Essex's conspiracyresounded everywhere, making a revolt in England appear possible. Theythen instantly thought of a landing in an English harbour, and thisthe Catholics promised to support with considerable bodies of horseand foot. In Ireland, where the refusal of the concessions held out tothem by Essex revived the national enmities, the Spaniards reallyeffected a landing: under Don Juan d'Aguilar they occupied Kinsale:and hoped not merely to become masters of Ireland but to cross fromthence to their friends' assistance in England. 

Hence Queen Elizabeth, who perceived the connexion of thesehostilities, now reverted to the necessity of carrying on the waragain on a larger scale. Her view was chiefly directed to a newenterprise against Portugal: its separation from Castile she held tobe the greatest European success that was possible: but she hoped tobring about a change in Italy as well: there Venice was to attack thenearest Spanish territories. When she called the Venetians toaid--among other things she wished also to obtain a loan from thegovernment--she put them in mind how much her resistance to theSpanish monarchy had benefited the European commonwealth: hence it wasthat Spain had been prevented from carrying out her tyrannical viewsthroughout the world, in the Netherlands and in Germany, in France andItaly; the Republic, which loved freedom, would recognise this. Elizabeth thought to resume the war, if possible, at the head of allthat part of Europe which was opposed to Spain, and in league withHenry IV, with whom she negociated on this subject. In the beginningof 1603 a squadron was fitted out under Sir Richard Lawson to attackthe coasts of the Pyrenean peninsula. Men discussed the comparativeforces which the two kingdoms could bring into the field. 

But the Queen's days were already drawing to a close. 

In February 1603 the Venetian secretary Scaramelli had an audience ofher, and gives a report of it from which we see that she stillcompletely preserved her wonted demeanour. He found the whole court, the leading ecclesiastics and the temporal dignitaries, assembledaround her: they had been entertained with music. When he entered, theQueen rose in her usual rich attire, with a diadem of precious stones, almost encircled with pearls: rubies hung from her neck; and in hermien no one could detect any decay of her powers. 'It is time atlast, ' she said to the secretary, who wished to throw himself on hisknees before her, while she raised him with both hands, 'it is time atlast for the Republic to send its representative to a Queen by whom ithas been always honoured. ' The letter of the Republic was handed toher, and she gave it to the Secretary of State; after he had opened itand given it back to her again, she sat down to read it: it containeda complaint that Venetian ships had been seized by the Englishprivateers, who then made all seas unsafe. The English nation, shethen said, is not so small but that evil and thievish men may be foundin it: while she promised enquiry and justice, she neverthelessreverted to her main point that she had received nothing from therepublic during the forty-four years of her government but grievancesand demands, --even the loan had been refused;--Venice had hitherto, contrary to her custom, not sent any embassy to her; not, she thought, because she was a woman, but through fear of other powers. Scaramellianswered that no temporal or even spiritual sovereign had anyinfluence on the Republic in such matters; he ascribed the neglect tocircumstances which no one could control. The Queen broke off: I donot know, she added, whether I have expressed myself in good Italian:I learned the language as a child, and think I have not forgotten it. After that serious address she again seemed gracious, and gave thesecretary her hand to kiss, when she dismissed him. The next daycommissioners were appointed to enquire into his grievances. [290]

At that time the affairs of Ireland were once more occupying theQueen. The Spaniards had been compelled by Lord Mountjoy to leave theisland; he had beaten them together with the Irish in a decisiveaction: but, despite his victory, many further conflicts took place, and the rebellion was not suppressed; Tyrone still maintained himselfin the hills and woods of Ulster; and, as a return of the Spaniardswas feared, Mountjoy too was at last disposed to come to an agreementwith him. The Queen was in her inmost soul against this, for onlyfresh rebellions would be occasioned by it; she required an absolutesurrender at discretion: if she once allowed the rebels to have theirlives secured to them, she soon after retracted the concession. Sheeven spoke of wishing to go to Ireland, in person; the impressionproduced by her presence would put an end to all revolt. 

But at this moment a sudden alteration was remarked in her: she nolonger appeared at the festivities before Lent, which went off in aninsignificant style. At first her seclusion was explained by the deathof one of her ladies whom she loved, the Countess of Nottingham: butsoon it could not be concealed that the Queen herself was seized witha dangerous illness: sleep and appetite began to fail her: she showeda deep melancholy. 'No, ' she replied to one of the kinsmen of hermother's house, Robert Cary, who at that moment had come back to courtand addressed friendly words to her about her health, 'No Robin, wellI am not, my heart has been for some time oppressed and heavy;' shebroke off with painful groans and sighing, hitherto unwonted in her, now no longer suppressed. It was manifest that mental distressaccompanied the bodily decay. [291]

Who has not heard of the ring which Elizabeth is said to have oncegiven to the Earl of Essex with the promise that, if it were presentedto her, she would show him mercy, whatever might have occurred: hehad, so the tale runs, in his last distresses wished to send it herthrough the Countess of Nottingham: but she was prevented from givingit by her husband who was an enemy of Essex, and so he had to diewithout mercy: the Queen, to whom the Countess revealed this on herdeath bed, fell into despair over it. The ring is still shown, andindeed several rings are shown as the true one: as also the traditionitself is extant in two somewhat varying forms; attempts have beenmade to get rid of the improbabilities of the first by fresh fictionsin the second. [292] They are both so late, and rest so completely onhearsay, that they can no longer stand before historical criticism. 

Nevertheless we cannot deny, as the reports in fact testify in severalplaces, that the remembrance of Essex weighed on the Queen's soul. Itmust certainly have reminded her of him, that she was now brought backexactly to the course he had insisted on, namely a friendly agreementwith the invincible Irish chief. She had allowed less imperious, morecompliant, declarations to reach Ireland. But was the man a traitor, who had recommended a policy to which they had been forced to haverecourse after such repeated efforts? Had he deserved his fate at herhands?[293] It was remarked that the anniversary of the day on whichEssex two years before had suffered on the scaffold, Ash Wednesday, thrilled through her with heart-rending pain; the world seemed to herdesolate, since he was no longer there; she imputed his guilt to theambition, against which she had warned him, and which had misled himinto steps, from the consequences of which she could not protect him. But had she not herself uttered the decisive word? She burst intoself-accusing tears. Her distress may have been increased by findingthat her statesmen no longer showed her the old devotion, the earlierabsolute obedience. When they, as we know, had framed a formal theoryfor themselves, that they might act against an express command of theQueen, on the assumption of her general intention being directed tothe public good, could the sharp-sighted, suspicious, sovereign failto perceive it? Could she fail to remark the agitation as to hersuccessor, which occupied all men's minds, while the reins wereslipping from her hands? The people, on whose devotion she had fromthe first moment laid so much stress, and partly based her government, seemed after Essex' death to have become cold towards her. 

In every great life there comes a moment when the soul feels that itno longer lives in the present world, and draws back from it. 

Once more Elizabeth had the English Liturgy read in her room: thereshe sat afterwards day and night on the cushions with which it wascovered, in deep silence, her finger on her mouth: she rejected physicwith disdain. [294] Most said and believed she did not care to recoveror to live any longer, that she wished to die. When she was at lastgot to bed, and had a moment left of consciousness and interest in theworld, she had the members of her Privy Council summoned: she theneither said to them directly that she held the King of Scotland to beher lawful and deserving successor, or she designated him in a waythat left no doubt. [295]

Amidst the prayers of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was kneelingby her bed, she breathed her last. 

It is not merely the business of History to point out how far greatpersonages have attained the ideals which float before the mind ofman, or how far they have remained below them. It is almost moreimportant for it to ascertain how far the universal interests, in themidst of which eminent characters appear, have been advanced by them, whether their inborn force was a match for the opposing elements, whether it allowed itself to be conquered by them or not. There neverwas a sovereign who maintained a conflict of world-wide importanceamidst greater dangers and with greater success than Queen Elizabeth. Her grandfather had begun a political emancipation from the rulinginfluences of the continent, her father an ecclesiastical one:Elizabeth took up their task and accomplished it victoriously againstRome and against Spain, while her people had an ever-increasing partin public affairs, and thus entered into a new stage of development. Her memory is inseparably connected with the independence and power ofEngland. 

NOTES:

[274] Elizabeth to James VI, August 1588, in Rymer and Bruce 53. 

[275] Molino: 'Fu prudentissima nel governare diligente nelconsultare, perche voleva assistere a tutti li negotii, perspicasissima nel provedere le cose ed accuratissima perche ledeliberationi fatte fossero eseguite. '

[276] One of her expressions was: 'He that placed her in that seatwould preserve her in it. ' Contemporary notice in Ellis, Letters ii. Iii. 194. 

[277] Hentzner, Itinerarium 137. 

[278] De Maisse, in Prevost-Paradol, Mémoire sur Elizabeth et HenriIV. Séances et travaux de l'académie des sciences morales, tom. 34. 

[279] Ockland, in Strype iii. 2, 237: 'Somni perparcus, parce viniquecibique in mensa sumens, semper gravis atque modestus. '

[280] Letter to a friend, in Strype iii. 2, 379. Certain true generalnotes upon the actions of Lord Burleigh, in Strype iii. 2, 505. Aletter from Leicester is in existence, in which he tries to prove thatWilliam Cecil had obligations to his father and not merely to theProtector. 

[281] Naunton, Fragmenta regalia. 

[282] Sir H. Nicolas, Life and Times of Christopher Hatton, communicates (p. 30) fragments of the Queen's letters, which lead himto remark that the supposition of an immoral relation (which heelsewhere adopts) is refuted by them. The Queen inquires for instance, What is friendship? 'The union of two minds bound to each other byvirtue. He is no more a friend who desires more than the other canreasonably grant. '

[283] Herrera, Historia del mundo iii. 754. 

[284] Device made by the Earl of Essex: Devereux, Lives and Letters ofthe Devereux, Earls of Essex, ii. App. F. 

[285] Herrera complains at first of the 'ministros infideles' of theQueen: among them he names Essex. 

[286] In Winwood, Memorials i. 

[287] Rowland Whyte to Sir Robert Sidney, Michaelmass Day 1599 (theday after the Earl's arrival). Sidney Papers ii. 127. 

[288] 'I could not but see and feel what misery was near unto mycountry by the great power of such as are known indeed to be atheistspapists and pensioners of the mortal enemies of this kingdom. 'Confession to Ashton, in Devereux ii. 165. 

[289] 'As foreseeing that the rebel will never suffer the King to liveor reign, who might permit or take revenge of the treason andrebellion. ' In Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors ii. 199. 

[290] Dispaccio di Carlo Scaramelli 19 Feb. 1603 (Venetian Archives). 

[291] Memoirs of Robert Cary 116. 

[292] The first appears in Aubery's Mémoires pour servir à l'histoirede Hollande 1687, 214; with another apocryphal tale about finding thebones of Edward IV's children as early as Elizabeth's time. Auberyasserts that he heard the history of the ring from his father's mouth, who had heard it from Prince Maurice of Orange, to whom it had beencommunicated by the English ambassador Carleton. According to him theQueen then took to her bed, dressed as she was, sprang from it ahundred times during the night, and starved herself to death. Who doesnot, in reading this, feel himself in a sphere of wild romance? LadySpelman has tried to clear away the improbability involved in it, thatEssex should have applied to the wife of one of his enemies, by makingEssex give the ring to a boy passing by, who was to give it, not tothe Countess of Nottingham, but to her sister, and then mistook thetwo ladies. 

[293] Scaramelli, 27 March: 'per occasione del perdono finalmentefatto al conte di Tirone cadde in una consideratione, che il conte diEsses gia tanto suo intimo di cuore fosse morto innocente. '

[294] Letter of the French ambassador from London, 3rd April 1603. 'C'est la verité que delors, qu'elle se sentit atteinte du mal, elledit de vouloir mourir. ' Villeroy, Mémoires d'estat iii. 212. Cary:'The Queen grew worse and worse, because she would be so. ' CompareSloane MS. In Ellis iii. 194. 

[295] Scaramelli writes to his Signoria 7th April (New Style) what wassaid during those days: 'La regina nel fine della infirmita et dellavita dopo haver dormito alcune poche hore ritornata di sana menteconoscendosi moribonda il primo di Aprile corr. Fece chiamare isignori del regio consiglio--e commandava loro, --che la coronapervenisse al Più meritevole ch'ella ha trovato sempre nel suo secretoesser il Re di Scotia cosi per il dritto della successione, che peresserne Più degno che non è stata lei, poiche egli è nato re et ellaprivata--egli le portera un regno et ella non porta altro che sestessa donna. ' Without quite accepting this, we must not pass it over. Winwood too writes to Tremouille: 'le jour avant son trespas elledeclara pour son successeur le roy d'Escosse. ' Mémoires i. 461. 

BOOK IV. 

FOUNDATION OF THE KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN. FIRST DISTURBANCES UNDERTHE STUARTS. 

Under no dynasty in the world have great national changes been sodependent on the personal aims of princes as in England under theTudors. Just as all Henry VIII's subsequent proceedings weredetermined by the affair of the divorce, so also the policy of histhree children was due to the relations into which they were thrown bytheir birth. 

No one however could derive the course of English history at thisepoch from this cause alone. How could Henry VIII have even thought ofdetaching his kingdom from the Roman See, but for the ancient anddeep-seated national opposition to its encroachments? But the nationhad also for ages had manifold and deep sympathies with Rome; and MaryTudor allied herself with these. Together with subjective personalagencies, national influences of universal prevalence were at work. The different leanings of the sovereigns appear as exponents ofopposite tendencies already existing in the nation. The strugglebetween these was decided when, as in the reign of Elizabeth, the mostvigorous nature combined with the most powerful interests and the mostinfluential motives to gain the mastery, although others of adifferent character were still by no means suppressed. 

Now however the energetic race of the Tudors had disappeared from thethrone. By the right of natural inheritance another family ascendedit, which had its roots and associations in Scotland, the crown ofwhich country it united with that of England. If a long time elapsedbefore the English commonwealth was as closely attached to the newdynasty as it had been to the old, under which it had developed; soit is also clear that the point of view from which this dynastystarted could not be exactly the same as that which had hithertoprevailed. This could not be expected under a prince who had alreadyreigned for a quarter of a century and had long ago taken up, in hisnative country, a firm position with regard to the great conflicts ofthe age. This position we must first of all endeavour to represent. 

CHAPTER I. 

JAMES VI OF SCOTLAND: HIS ACCESSION TO THE THRONE OF ENGLAND. 

_Origin of fresh dissension in the Church. _

Our eyes again turn to the man to whom the last great religious andpolitical change in Scotland is mainly due--John Knox. 

We find him, propped on his staff and supported on the other side by ahelping arm, stepping homewards from the church where he had once moreperformed a religious service: the multitude of the faithful lined theroad, and greeted him with reverence. He could no longer walk alone, or raise his voice as before; it was only in a more confined spacethat he used still to gather a little congregation round him, to whomon appointed days and at fixed hours he proclaimed the teaching of theGospel with unabated fire. He lived to hear of the wildest outburstsof the struggle on the continent, and to pronounce his curse on theKing of France, who had taken part in the massacre of St. Bartholomew;but, in one respect, he was more fortunate than Luther, who in hislast days was threatened with mischief from hostile elements about himwhich he could not control; for around John Knox all was peace. Hethanked God for having granted him grace, that by his means the Gospelwas preached throughout Scotland in its simplicity and truth: he nowdesired nothing more than to depart out of this miserable life; andthus, without pain, in November 1572, after bearing the burden andheat of the day, he fell asleep. 

With him and his contemporaries the second generation of the reformerscame to an end. They had fought out the battle against the papacy, andhad established the foundations of a divergent system: now however athird generation arose, which had to encounter violent storms withinthe pale of the new confession itself. 

In Scotland the Regents Mar and Morton now thought it necessary, evenfor the sake of the constitution, in which the higher clergy formed animportant element, to restore episcopacy, which had been laid low inthe tumult of the times; and to fill the vacant offices withProtestant clergy, appointed however in the old way, by the electionof the chapters on the recommendation of the Government: it wasdesired at the same time to invest them with the power of ordinationand a certain jurisdiction. Knox was at least not hostile to thismeasure. The resolution to convene an assembly of the Church at Leithwas formed while he was still alive, and was ratified by Parliament inJanuary 1573. 

But in the Church, which had formed itself in perfect independence bymeans of free association, this project, which besides was spoiled bymany blunders in the execution, necessarily provoked strongopposition. Andrew Melville may be regarded as Knox's successor in theexercise of the authority of leader; a man of wide learning, who hadin his composition still more of the professor than of the preacher, and united convictions not less firm than those of Knox with an equalgift of eloquence. He however on principle excluded episcopacy in anyform from the constitution, as, in his opinion, the Scripturesrecognised only individual bishops: he especially disapproved of theconnexion between the bishops and the crown. The spiritual and thetemporal powers he considered to be distinct kinds of authority, ofwhich the one was as much of divine right as the other. But he did notregard the clergy or ministry of preaching as alone charged withspiritual authority: he thought that the lay elders formed the basisof this authority: that, once elected, they were permanent, hadthemselves a spiritual rank, watched over the purity of doctrine, tookthe lead in the call of the preachers, and, together with these, formed assemblies by whose conclusions every member of thecongregation was bound. A General Assembly erected on this basis hadthe legislative authority in the Church, with the right of visitationand of spiritual correction. It was incumbent on the King to protectthem; but he was amenable to their sentence. Such is the disciplinelaid down in the Second Book, which was approved in the year 1578, ina General Assembly, of which Melville was Moderator. [296]

With these opposite principles before his eyes, the young King grewup. He showed himself to be imbued with the reformed doctrine, but hewas decidedly averse to this form of church government, which createda power in the nation intended to counterbalance and withstand that ofthe monarch. The political views of his teachers, highly popular asthey were, awoke in him, as was natural, the inborn feelings of aking. He longed with all his soul for the restoration of episcopacy, which, according to his view, was of almost chief importance for bothCrown and Church. 

This was indeed a different strife from the battle between Catholicismand Protestantism, which filled the rest of the world: but they hadpoints of contact with one another, inasmuch as the reform of doctrinehad almost everywhere put an end to episcopal government. And thelarger conflict was constantly exercising fresh influence on the stateof the question in Scotland. 

When the Catholic party was on the point of becoming master of theyoung King, the Protestant lords, as has been mentioned above, gainedpossession of his person by the Raid of Ruthven. They were thechampions of Presbyterianism in the Church; but as they had beenoverthrown, and overthrown moreover in consequence of the supportwhich the King received from an ambassador friendly to the Guises, that form of government could not survive their fall. In theParliament of 1584, which obeyed the wishes of the ruling powers, enactments distinctly opposed to it were passed. By these theconstitution of the Three Estates united in Parliament was ratified. They forbade any one to attack the Estates either collectively orsingly, and therefore to attack the bishops. No meeting in whichresolutions should be taken about temporal or even about spiritualaffairs was to be held without the King's approval: no jurisdictionwas to be exercised which was not acknowledged by the King and theEstates. The judicial power of the King over all subjects and in allcauses, and therefore even in spiritual causes, was therein expresslyconfirmed. 

At that time however Jesuits and Seminarists effected an entrance intoScotland as well as into other countries, and produced a great effect:Father Gordon especially, who belonged to one of the mostdistinguished families in the country, that of the Earls of Huntly, was exceedingly active; and for two months the King allowed hispresence at court. Who could guarantee that the young prince would notbe entirely carried away by this current when his chief counsellor, with whom the final decision mainly rested, belonged to the party ofthe Guises?[297] A great reward was offered to him: he was to bemarried to an archduchess; and at some future day, after the victoryhad been won, he was to be raised to the throne of England andScotland. When we take into consideration that Melville, who sethimself to oppose this influence, had spent ten years at Geneva andamong the Huguenots, we see plainly how the struggles which distractedthe continent threatened to invade Scotland as well. 

_Alliance with England. _

In this danger Queen Elizabeth, who for her own sake did not ventureto allow matters to go so far, resolved to interfere more actively inthe affairs of Scotland than she had hitherto done. It is notperfectly clear what share her government had in the return of theexiled Protestant lords, whose attack had compelled King James toallow the conviction for high treason of his former minister andfavourite, who fled to France in consequence. But their return wascertainly welcome to her; and she advised the King not to alienatethe great men of his kingdom, that is to say the returned lords, fromhis own side. In the instructions to her ambassador it is expresslysaid that he should aim at withholding the King from any alliance withthe League in France, which was then growing powerful. She had justdetermined to make open war upon the King of Spain, who guided all theproceedings of the League; what could be more important for her thanto retain the King of one division of the island on her own side? Forthat object she need not require him to support the Presbyterians; hispoint of view was the same which she contended for in the Netherlandsand in France, and very closely akin to her own. 

She had besides a great reward to offer him. Distasteful as it was toher to speak of her successor, she then determined to give the Kingthe assurance that nothing should be done which was prejudicial to hisclaim, and she agreed to a secret acknowledgment of it. [298] Herambassador gave expression to these views in Scotland, and she herselfspoke in similar terms to the Scottish ambassador in England. 

The acceptance of these overtures by King James was the decisive eventof his life. He was not so blind as not to see that any promise on thepart of England, although not binding in regular form, afforded a kindof certainty entirely different from all the assurances of the League, however comprehensive. The Queen moreover pledged herself to a subsidythat was very acceptable to the poverty of the Scots, while herprotection served the King himself as a stay against his nobles, whomhe dared not alienate, but on whom he could not allow himself to bedependent. 

Thus in July 1586 an offensive and defensive alliance was concluded atBerwick between the King and Queen in order to protect the religionadopted in their dominions, which, in the language of the Prayer-book, they termed the 'Catholic, ' and to repel, not only every invasion, butevery attempt on the person of their majesties or their subjects, without regard to any ties of blood or relationship. The King promisedthe Queen to come to her assistance with all his forces in the eventof any attack on the Northern counties, and not to allow his subjectsto support any hostile movements which might take place in Ireland. Every word shows how absolutely and entirely in the events that wereat hand he identifies the interests of England with his own. [299]

It was of more especial advantage to the Queen that James entirelyrenounced the cause of his mother. He had exerted himself in herbehalf, but his intercession never went beyond the limits of friendlyrepresentation. Mary's secret resignation of her claims in favour ofPhilip II had certainly not been unknown to him; he complained on oneoccasion that she threatened him on his throne and was as littleattached to him as to the Queen of England. He loudly condemned herconspiracies against Elizabeth and gave utterance to the unfeelingremark that she might drain the cup which she had mixed for herself. At the trial of his mother he was content with obtaining an assurancefrom the English Parliament, which was of great importance to him, that his rights should not be impaired by her condemnation. The claimsto the English throne which brought Mary to destruction rather servedto strengthen her son, as it threw him altogether on the side of theEnglish system. [300]

On the approach of the Spanish armada James at once placed his powerand his person at the disposal of the Queen. He assured her that hewould behave not as a foreign prince, but as if he were her son and acitizen of her realm. With unusual decision he put himself at the headof the Protestant nobles, and pursued the Catholic lords who gave earto those Spanish overtures which he had resisted. 

He now sought for a wife in a Protestant family. With the concurrence, if not at the instigation, of the English ministers, he solicited thehand of a daughter of Frederick II, King of Denmark, whom Elizabethhad praised for adhering to the general interests of the Protestantworld. In this enterprise James was influenced by the considerationthat if any other state opposed his claims on England, Denmark withits naval power could afford him substantial assistance. A touch ofromance is imparted to his youth by the circumstance that he set outin person to fetch home his bride, who was detained in Norway bycontrary winds, and who had been promised to him by her mother afterher father's death. Their marriage was celebrated at Opslo (Nov. 23, 1589), but their homeward voyage was now attended with difficulty;James therefore took his wife over the snow-clad mountains and theSound, back to her mother to Kronborg and Copenhagen, and spent acouple of months there. He had many conversations with the divines ofthe country, during which the idea of an union of both Protestantconfessions was mooted. He also paid a visit to Tycho Brahe on theisland of Hveen, which gave him indescribable pleasure: he believedthat in his company he fathomed the marvels of the universe, andlauded the astronomer in spirited Latin verse as the friend of Urania, and as the master of the starry world. [301] And a general influencewas exercised in Europe both by his alliance with the house ofOldenburg, and the connexion which he formed through it with many ofthe most distinguished families in Germany. His consort was niece ofthe Elector of Saxony, sister-in-law of the Elector of Brandenburg, and granddaughter of the German Nestor, Ulric of Mecklenburg. Hersister had just married Henry Julius Duke of Brunswick; at whosemarriage, which was celebrated at Cronberg, a company of North Germanprinces met together, which seemed like one single family. But thedays of this assemblage were not occupied with banquets andfestivities alone. To the impression which was then made on James maybe traced the despatch of an embassy to the Temporal Electors of theEmpire, which he deputed soon after his return to invite them tomediate between England and Spain. If the King of Spain weredisinclined for peace, he thought that a powerful alliance should beformed against him for the maintenance of religion. 

For such an alliance as this, England and Scotland seemed to offer acentre. In an assemblage of the clergy, the King had oncecongratulated himself on living at a time when the light of the Gospelwas shining; and in the same spirit his Chancellor gave Lord Burleighto understand, that this British microcosm, severed from the rest ofthe world, but united internally by language, religion, and thefriendship of its princes, could best oppose the bloodthirstiness ofan anti-Christian League. [302]

_Renewal of the Episcopal Constitution in Scotland. _

In Scotland, as well as elsewhere, the waves of the all-prevailingstruggle kept raging. 

Embassies went backwards and forwards between Spain and the powerfullords, Huntly, Errol and Angus, who kept alive Catholicism in theHighlands; and a plan was formed to assemble a force of Scots andSpaniards in Scotland, which should first overthrow the forces of thatcountry, and thence advance into England. [303] King James at leastbelieved that he had gathered a definite statement to this effect froman examination of those who had been arrested. Philip the Second'sdesign of getting the crown of France into his own family would havebeen powerfully seconded by this undertaking, by which it was designedto treat Great Britain in the same way. In the beginning of 1593 wefind James at Aberdeen engaged on a campaign against the Highlands:the lesser nobles and the Protestants were on his side: the greatearls were driven back into the most remote districts as far asCaithness, and the larger part of their domains fell into the hands ofthe King. But they were not yet entirely conquered, and the nextParliament showed that they had the greater part of the nobility ontheir side. No one wished to be too severe on them;[304] even thelegal advisers of the crown recommended the King not to commence asuit against them, in which they might probably be acquitted. It isimpossible to describe the displeasure which affected Elizabeth onthis turn of affairs, which she ascribed to the pusillanimous andnegligent government of James. Did he not know, she asked, that thereligion of the rebels was only a cloak for treason? Would he trustmen who had so often betrayed him? He could never expect them to keeptheir plighted faith in the future, if their great offences in thepast were not even acknowledged: a lax government set all turbulentspirits in motion, and led to shipwreck. With this advice, and similarsuggestions from the clergy, came the news of fresh commotion. FrancisStuart, who had been made Earl of Bothwell by James, but who afterthis had given great trouble by frequently changing sides, had nowjoined the Catholic lords; and a plan had been concerted between themto deal with James as they had formerly dealt with his mother, to makehim prisoner, and to put the prince just born to him in his place. Atlast in September 1594 we find the King again in the field. The youngArgyle, whom he sent before him as his lieutenant, was met by theearls in open fight, but they did not venture to encounter the Kinghimself. He took Strathbogie, the splendid seat of the Earls ofHuntly; Slaines, the principal castle of the Earls of Errol; somestrongholds in Angus; Newton, a castle of the Gordons; and had most ofthem razed. Even in these districts he proceeded at last to erect aregular government in the name of the King. His superiority was sodecided that the earls left Scotland in the spring of 1595; FatherGordon also followed them reluctantly, after he had once more saidmass at Elgin. But even this was not such a defeat of the Catholicparty as might have been followed by their annihilation. The earlsfelt the hardships of exile with double force from the loss of theconsideration which they had enjoyed at home; and when they offeredtheir submission to the King, and satisfaction to the Scottish Church, James and his Privy Council were quite ready to accede to their offer:for they thought that disunion with his most powerful lieges lessenedthe reputation of the crown, and might be very dangerous at somefuture time if the throne of England became vacant; as these importantpersonages might then, like Coriolanus, side with the enemy. 

The only question now was, how the Presbyterian Church would regardthis. James had come to a general understanding with the Church, whenthey made common cause against the League. In the year 1592 anagreement was arrived at, by which the King gave a general recognitionto Presbyterianism, although he still left some grave questionsundecided; for instance, that of the rights of the Crown, and theGeneral Assemblies. But in proportion as he now gave intimation of aretrograde tendency in favour of the Catholic lords, he roused theprejudices of the Protestants against himself. They told him that thelords had been condemned to death according to the laws of God, and bythe sentence of Parliament, the Great Assize of the kingdom: that theKing had no right to show mercy in opposition to these. He had allowedtheir return into the country; the Church demanded the renewal oftheir exile: not till then would it be possible to deliberate upon thesatisfaction offered by them. All the pulpits suddenly resounded withinvectives against the King. The proud feeling of independentexistence was roused in all its force in the breasts of the churchmen. Andrew Melville explicitly declared, that there were two kingdoms inScotland, of which the Church formed one: in that kingdom thesovereign was in his turn a subject; those who had to govern thisspiritual realm possessed a sufficient authorisation from God for thedischarge of their functions. The Privy Council might be of opinionthat the King must be served alike by Jews and heathens, Protestantsand Catholics, and become powerful by their aid; but in wishing toretain both parties he would lose both. The King forced himself to asksupport for his projects from Robert Bruce, at that time the mostprominent of the preachers, who answered him, that he might make hischoice, but that he could not have both the Earl of Huntly and RobertBruce for his friends at the same time. [305]

By dealing gently with the Catholic lords the King had intended notonly to win them over to his side, but also in prospect of the Englishsuccession, which was constantly before his eyes, to give the EnglishCatholics a proof of the moderation of his intentions. Even inScotland he wished not to appear the sovereign of the Presbyterianparty alone. It was absolutely repugnant to him to adopt the ideas ofthe Church entirely as his own. But the leaders of the Church werebent on shutting him within a narrow circle in accordance with theirown ideas, from which there should be no escape. In his clemency toCatholic rebels they saw a leaning to that Catholicism which foughtagainst God and threatened themselves with destruction. The effortswhich had been necessary to overpower these adversaries, and theobligations under which they had laid the King himself during thestruggle, inspired them with resolution to bind him to their system byevery means in their power. 

But as the King also adhered to his own views, a conflict now brokeout between them which holds a very important place in the history ofthe State as well as of the Church of Scotland. 

The King ordered the Commissioners of the Church, who made demands sodistasteful to him, to leave the capital. The preachers then turned tothe people. From the pulpit Robert Bruce set before an already excitedcongregation the danger into which the ecclesiastical commonwealth hadfallen owing to the return of the Catholic lords and the indulgencevouchsafed to them; and invited those present to pledge themselves byholding up their hands to the defence of their religion on its presentfooting. They not only gave him their assent, but went so far as tomake a tumultuous rush for the council-house in which the King wassitting with some members of the Privy Council and the Lords ofSession. With difficulty was the tumult so far quieted as to allowJames to retire to Holyrood. [306] Here a demand was laid before him toremove his councillors, to allow the commissioners to resume theirfunctions, and to banish the lords again from the country. It wasintended that religious profession should supply a rule for theguidance of the State. 

But in political conflicts nothing is more dangerous than to overstepthe law by any act of violence. It was the violence attempted by theleaders of the Presbyterians against the King, their attack on therights of his crown, that procured him the means of resistance. Hebetook himself with his court to Linlithgow and there collected thenobles, who for the most part stood by him, the borderers, whoseleaders the Humes and Kerrs took up arms for him, and bodies ofHighlanders, a force to which the magistrates succumbed, not wishingtheir city to be destroyed; so that even the ministers thought itadvisable to leave. On New-Year's Day 1597 James made his entry with awarlike retinue into Edinburgh, where a convention of the Estates metand passed decisive resolutions in his favour. Both the provost andbaillies of the town were obliged to take a new oath of fealty bywhich they bound themselves to suffer no insults to the King and hiscouncillors from the pulpit: and it was resolved that the citizensshould henceforth submit the magistrates of their choice to the Kingfor his approval. The right of deposing the ministers was assigned tothe King, who was acknowledged sole judge of all offences, even ofthose committed in sermons and public worship. [307]

The King had now the Temporal Estates on his side; for however popularthe footing on which the Presbyterian Church might be constituted, noone wished to give it uncontrolled sway. King James was able to formplans for transforming its constitution in such a manner as to makeit consistent with the authority of the crown. 

A series of questions which he dedicated to the consideration of thepublic was well calculated to further his end. He asked whether theexternal regimen of the Church might not be controlled both by Kingand clergy, and the legislative power be vested in them in common. Might not the King, as a religious and pious magistrate, have thepower of summoning General Assemblies? Might he not annul unjustsentences of excommunication? Might he not interfere if the clergyneglected their duties, or if the bounds of the two jurisdictionsbecame doubtful. 

At the next assembly of the Church at Perth (Feb. 1597) the currentset in the opposite direction. 'Mine eyes, ' so says one of the mostzealous adherents of the Church, 'witnessed a new sight, preachersgoing into the King's palace sometimes by night, sometimes in themorning, --mine ears heard new sounds. ' The greatest pains had beentaken to secure the presence of a number of ministers from thenorthern provinces, who were still more anxious about the spread oftheir doctrines than about controversies touching the constitution ofthe Church; and who rather reproached the clergy of the southerncounties with having taken on themselves the government of the Church. But even among the latter the King, who spared neither threats norflatteries, won adherents. Moreover an opinion gained ground thatconcessions must be made to him, as far as conscience allowed, inorder not to alienate him entirely from the Church or drive him totake the opposite side. The answers to his questions containedadmissions. The right of taking the initiative in everything relatingto the external government of the Church was conceded to him, togetherwith a share in the nomination of ministers in the principal towns;properly speaking the patronage of the Church in these towns was madeover to him. The Church itself made a most important concession inrenouncing its right of using the pulpit to attack the crown. Henceforward no one was to venture to impugn the measures of the King, until an officer of the Church had made a remonstrance to him on thesubject. And the same ideas prevailed also in the subsequentassemblies at Dundee and Perth. The former of these conceded to theKing a share in all the business which the Church took in hand; itallowed him to stay the proceedings of the Presbyteries when they rancounter to the royal jurisdiction or to recognised rights. In Dundeethe excommunicated lords were admitted to a reconciliation andacknowledged as true vassals of the King, after making a declarationby which they acknowledged the Scottish to be the true Church;although the stricter party would not even then forgive them. But thepoint of chief importance was that the King succeeded in getting aCommission formed to co-operate with him in maintaining peace andobedience in the kingdom. Invested with full powers by the Church butdependent on the King, this Commission procured him a preponderatinginfluence in all ecclesiastical affairs. For the most part itconsisted of men of moderate views. 

There is a contemporary narrative of the decay of the Church inScotland which begins from this date. For here, it was thought, endedthe period during which the word revealed from Sinai and Zion to theapostles and prophets was the only rule of doctrine and Churchdiscipline without any mixture of Babylon or the City of the SevenHills, or of policy of man's devising; when the Church was 'Beautifulas the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, terrible as anarmy with banners. '

James, who regarded all this as due merely to the opposition ofenemies, went on his way without bestowing further consideration onthe depth, strength, and inward significance of this spirit which wasdestined once more to agitate the world. He again took up in seriousearnest the design of erecting a Protestant episcopacy which had beenentertained by Mar and Morton. Not only was this necessary for theconstitution but for the sake of the clergy also: as George Gladstaineexplained before a large assembly at Dundee, it was desirable thatthey should take part in the exercise of the legislative power. Asmall majority, but still a majority, in this assembly decided infavour of the proposal. The King assured them that he wished neitherfor a Papistical nor for an English prelacy; he wished only that thebest clergy should take cognizance of the affairs of the Church in thecouncil of the nation. In order to unite both interests he desiredthat the General Assembly should propose to the King six candidatesfor each vacancy and should have the right of giving instructions tothe King's nominee for his Parliamentary action, and of demanding anaccount from him of his execution of the same. The King esteemed it agreat triumph when in the Parliament of 1600 he was able actually tointroduce two bishops whom he had nominated with the concurrence of aCommission of the Synods. 

It appears a general result worth noticing that he had again broughtboth parties in the country into subjection to the crown, the onehowever by open battle, the other by compliance which had somewhat theair of inclination towards it. 

_Preparations for the Succession to the English Throne. _

That the former of these parties was properly speaking Protestant, andthe latter in its sentiment Catholic, created a certain feeling ofsurprise. Queen Elizabeth, who had been attacked and insulted by thePresbyterians sometimes even from the pulpit, could not find faultwith the crown for liberating itself from the ascendancy of the newChurch as it had done from that of the old: on the contrary she hadexpressly approved of this policy; but she warned the King not toallow himself to be so blinded by personal preference as again to putconfidence in any traitor, and not to separate himself from the flockwhich must fight for him if he wished to stand. In the case ofScotland, as well as in the case of her own dominions, she always keptbefore her eyes the contrast between the Catholic and the Protestantprinciple, in comparison with which all other differences appeared toher subordinate. 

In his own views less rigid and consistent, King James had on thecontrary even made advances to the Papacy. He at one time found itadvisable to enter into relations with Pope Clement VIII, whosebehaviour about the absolution of Henry IV showed that he did not atleast belong to the party of Spain and the zealots. A letter to thePope was forwarded from the Scottish cabinet addressing him as HolyFather, with the signature of the King as his obedient son. A Scot, byprofession a Catholic, afterwards made the statement that, at the timewhen Pope Clement was encamped before Ferrara, he had been sent to himin order to seek his friendship, and to promise him religious libertyfor the Catholics if King James should ascend the English throne. [308]

According to the account of King James himself Pope Clement invitedhim to return to the Catholic faith; to whom he made answer, that theprevailing controversies might be again submitted to a generalcouncil; and that to the decision of such a council he would submithimself unconditionally. Clement replied that he need not speak of acouncil, for at Rome no one would hear of it; that the King had betterremain as he was. These transactions are still enveloped in doubt andobscurity: the announcements of pretended agents cannot be dependedon. There were often men who did not fully share in the secret and whoin consequence far outran their commission. [309] But it cannot bedenied that there were attempts at an approximation. Among the Englishrefugees after Mary's death two parties had arisen, one of whichsupported the Spanish claims, while the other was quite ready toacknowledge King James supposing that some concessions were made. Every day men who were inclined to Catholicism were seen rising intofavour at the Scottish court. It was remarked that the Secretary ofState, the Lord Justice, and the tutors of the royal children, wereCatholics. Queen Anne of Scotland does not deny that many attemptswere made to bring her back to the old religion: though she assures usthat she did not hearken to them, it is notwithstanding undeniablethat she felt a strong impulse in that direction. She received relicswhich were sent her from Rome, probably from superstition rather thanfrom reverence for the saints, but at all events she received them. Her intimate friend, the Countess of Huntly, who often shared the samebed with the Queen, fostered these views in her. King James remainedunaffected by them. He attended sermons three times a week; he wasriveted to Protestantism by convictions which rest on learning: buthow did it come to pass that he allowed these deviations fromProtestantism about him? Was it from weakness and connivance, or wasit from policy?

With the English Catholics also he established a connexion. Offers andconditions with a view to his succession were put before him; andEnglish Catholics presented themselves at his court in order toproceed with the business or to maintain the connexion. 

All this threw Queen Elizabeth into a state of great excitement. Itwas insufferable to her that any one should even speak of her death, or, as she said, celebrate her funeral beforehand. But now when Jameswithout her knowledge formed relations with her subjects, she regardedhis conduct as an affront. Through her ambassador in Scotland she hadan English agent named Ashfield arrested, and gained possession of hispapers. Great irritation on both sides ensued, of which theabove-mentioned correspondence between the King and Queen givesevidence. In angry letters the latter complained of the disparagingexpressions which James had let fall in his Parliament. In respectfullanguage but with unusual emphasis the King complained that theaccusations of an adventurer charging him with a plot against the lifeof the Queen were not repressed in England with proper severity. Aperiod followed during which James expected nothing but further actsof hostility from Elizabeth's ministers. He pretended to know that theclaims to the throne advanced by his cousin the Lady Arabella, daughter of Charles Darnley, the younger brother of his father Henry, who had the advantage of not being a foreigner, supplied them with amotive for their proceedings. He even thought it possible that a bookpublished by Parsons under the name of Doleman, which maintained theclaims of Isabella daughter of King Philip, was inspired by theEnglish ministers themselves in order to throw his rights into thebackground. He ascribed to them the intention of coming to anagreement with the Spaniards to his disadvantage, only in order tomaintain their own power. 

So far the dislikes of King James and the Earl of Essex coincided. Although a formal understanding between them cannot be proved, theywere nevertheless allies up to the point of regarding the Queen'sministers as their enemies. 

Very significant were the instructions which James gave to an embassywhich he despatched to England after the downfall of the Earl. Hisambassadors were directed to ascertain whether the popular discontentwent so far as to contemplate the overthrow of the Queen and herministers, in which case they were to take care that the people'invoked no other saint, ' i. E. Sought protection and support from noone else but him. Above all he wished to be assured with regard to thecapital that it would acknowledge his right: he wished to form tieswith the leading men in the civic and learned corporations; thegreater and lesser nobles who inclined to him were to have earlyinformation what to do in certain contingencies, and to keepthemselves under arms. As he had always thought it possible that hemight require naval assistance from Denmark, so now he instigated asort of free confederation of the magnates and barons of Scotland:they were to prepare their military retainers in order to enforce hisrights. Not that he had formed any design against the Queen, but hebelieved that after her death he must give battle to her ministers inorder to gain the crown, and he appeared determined not to decline thecontest. 

In reality however this mode of action was foreign to his nature. Howoften he had said that a man must let fruit ripen before plucking it:and a foreign prince, to whose sayings he attached great value, hadadvised him to proceed by the safest path. This was the Grand DukeFerdinand of Tuscany, who then played a certain part in Europe, as hehad set on foot the alliance between Henry IV and the Pope inopposition to Spain: Mary de' Medici, Queen of France, was his niece. With the house of Stuart also he stood on the footing of a relation:his consort, like the mother of King James, was a scion of the houseof Lorraine, and a marriage at some future day between the King'seldest son and the daughter of the Grand Duke was already talked of. This relationship, and Ferdinand's reputation for great politicalfar-sightedness and prudence, caused his advice to exercise greatinfluence on James's decisions, as James himself tells us. So long asvictory wavered between Essex and his opponents, or, as he conceived, between the existing government and the people, James did not declarehimself: when the issue was decided he gave his policy a differentdirection and made advances to the ruling ministers, whom up to thistime he had regarded as his enemies. 

They were quite ready and willing to meet him. Robert Cecil assertedlater that he had by this means best provided for the safety andrepose of the Queen, for that by an alliance between the governmentand the heir to the crown the jealousy of the Queen was best appeased:yet still he observed the closest secrecy with regard to it. It isknown that he dismissed a secretary because he feared that he mightsee through the scheme and then betray it. He thought that he wasjustified in keeping the Queen in ignorance of a connexion that couldonly be distasteful to her at her advanced age, which had deepened thesuspicion natural to her disposition, although at the same time thisconnexion was indispensable for her repose. These ministers weretolerably independent in their general conduct of affairs. They hadembarked on other negotiations also without the knowledge of theQueen; they thought such conduct quite permissible, if it conduced tothe advantage of England. And was not Robert Cecil moreover bound toseize an opportunity of calming the prejudices of the King of Scotlandagainst himself and his house, which dated from his father'sparticipation in the fate of Queen Mary? This was the only way ofenabling him to prolong his authority beyond the death of hismistress, with which it would otherwise have expired. 

The letters are extant which were exchanged in these secrettransactions between Henry Howard, whom the Secretary of Stateemployed as his instrument, and a minister of King James. They are notso instructive as might have been expected; for the Asiatic style ofHoward, which serves him as a mask, throws a veil even over much whichwe should like to know. But they now and then open a view into themovements of parties, especially in reference to the opposition ofCecil and his friends to Raleigh and Cobham, which towards the closeof the Queen's reign filled the court with suppressed uneasiness. 

The intercourse which had been opened certainly had the effect of oncemore putting England and Scotland on a friendly footing. One of hismost trusty councillors, Ludovic Earl of Lennox, son of that EsméStuart who at one time had stood so high in the King's esteem, wassent by James on a mission to the Queen, in order to convince her ofhis continued attachment;[310] and this ambassador in fact foundfavour with her. James declared himself ready to send his Highlandersto the assistance of the Queen in Ireland, and to enter as a thirdparty into the alliance with France against Spain, if it were broughtabout. He did not hesitate to give her information of the advanceswhich had been made by the other side, even by the Roman court. Amongthese he mentioned a mission of James Lindsay for the purpose ofbringing him to promise toleration to the Catholics. It may be doubtedwhether it is altogether true, as he affirms, that he declined theproposal: but the Roman records attest that Lindsay in fact could getnothing from him but words. [311]

It is enough to remark that on the whole the views of James were againbrought into harmony with those of the Queen: but that does not meanthat he had also broken off all relations with the other side. Itwould have been extremely dangerous for him if Pope Clement hadpronounced against him the excommunication which was suspended overElizabeth, and he was very grateful to the Pope for not going so far. And if he would not agree to treat the Catholics with genuinetoleration, yet without doubt he let them hope that he would notpersecute those who remained quiet. [312] It was probably notdisagreeable to him if they looked for more. He was of opinion that heought to have two strings to his bow. 

He had now formed connexions with all the leading men in England ofwhatever belief. There was no family in which he had not won over onemember to the support of his cause. [313]

_Accession to the Throne. _

Thus on different sides everything had been carefully preparedbeforehand when the Queen died. Although it may be doubtful whethershe had in so many words declared that James should be her successor, yet it is historically certain that she had for a long time consentedto this arrangement. The people had not yet so entirely conquered allhesitation on the subject. 

At the moment of the Queen's decease the capital fell into a state ofgeneral commotion. Perhaps 40, 000 decided Catholics might be countedin London, who had considered the government of the Queen anunauthorised usurpation. Were they now to submit themselves to a Kingwho like her was a schismatic? Or were there grounds for entertainingthe hope held out to them that the new prince would grant them freedomin the exercise of their religion. People pretended to find Jesuits intheir ranks who were accused of stimulating the excitement of theirfeelings: and the government thought it necessary to arrest or keep aneye upon a number of men who were regarded as leaders of the Catholicparty. 

The trained bands of the town were called out to meet the danger, andthey consisted entirely of Protestants. But they also were agitated byuncertainty about the intentions of their new sovereign. What theCatholics wished and demanded, the free exercise of their religion, the Protestants just as strongly held to be inadmissible anddangerous. 

Meanwhile the Privy Council had met at Richmond, where they werejoined by the lords who were in town. Some points of great importancewere mooted--whether the Privy Council had still any authority, evenafter the death of the sovereign from whom their commissionproceeded--whether this authority was not entirely transferred to thelords as the hereditary councillors of the crown. The question wasprobably raised whether conditions should not be prescribed beforehandto the King of Scotland with regard to his government. But theprevailing ferment did not allow time for the discussion of thesequestions. On the same day (March 24) the heralds proclaimed Jamesking under the combined titles of King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland. 

It could not be perceived that the pomp of this proclamation producedany extraordinary impression. No mourning for the death of the Queenwas exhibited; still less joy at the accession of James: all otherinterests were absorbed by the anticipation of coming events. The toneof feeling first became decided some days afterwards, when adeclaration from the new King was published, wherein he promised themaintenance of religion on its present footing, and the exclusion ofevery other form of it. [314] On this the Protestants were quieted; theCatholics shewed themselves discouraged and exasperated. Yet the headsof the party who were held in custody were released on bail, andassured by the King's agents, that if even they were not permitted toworship in public, they should not have to fear either compulsion orpersecution. 

No movement was made against the acknowledgment of King James, although this was contrary to the old arrangements recognised byParliament. But no one was forthcoming who could have enforced rightsbased upon these. The aged Hertford came forward to sign theproclamation of the lords both for himself, and in the name of his sonwho represented the Suffolks. The Lady Arabella made a declarationthat she desired no other position than that which the present Kingmight allow her. The Privy Council besought King James, --according toits own expression 'falling at his feet with deep humility, '--to comeand breathe new life into the kingdom of England that had beenbereaved of its head. 

We must not stay to discuss incidental questions, e. G. How the firstnews reached James, and how he received it. He remained quiet until hehad obtained sure intelligence, and then without delay prepared totake possession of the throne, to which his mother's ambition and hisown had for so many years been directed. Once more he addressed thepeople of Edinburgh assembled in the great church after the sermon. Hewould not admit the statement which had occurred in the discourse, that Scotland would mourn for his departure; for he was going, as hesaid, only from one part of the island to the other: from Edinburgh itwas hardly further to London than to Inverness. He intended to returnoften; to remove pernicious abuses in both countries; to provide forpeace and prosperity; to unite the two countries to one another. Oneof them had wealth, the other had a superabundance of men: the onecountry could help the other. He added in conclusion that he hadexpected to need their weapons: that he now required only theirhearts. 

What filled his soul with pride and the consciousness of a highcalling, was the thought that he would now carry into effect what theRomans, and in later times the Anglo-Saxon and Plantagenet kings, andlast of all the Tudors, had sought to achieve by force of arms or bypolicy, but ever in vain--the union of the whole island under onerule, like that which native legendary lore ascribed to the mythicalArthur. When he came to Berwick, around which town the two nations hadengaged in so many bloody frays, he gave utterance, so it is said, tohis intention of being King not of the one or of the other country butof both united, and of assuming the name of King of GreatBritain. [315]

At York he met his predecessor's Secretary of State, Robert Cecil. Asno one knew the relations into which he had already entered withCecil, every one was astonished at the kind reception which heaccorded to him. That did not prevent him however from being just tothe other side as well. He greeted the youthful Essex as the son ofthe most renowned cavalier whom the realm of England had possessed; heappointed him to be the companion of the Prince of Wales, and made himcarry the bared sword before him at his entrance into some of thetowns. Southampton and Neville were received into favour; the Earl ofWestmoreland was placed in the Privy Council. He gave it to beunderstood that he would again raise to their former station the greatmen of the kingdom, who up to this time, as he said, had not beentreated according to their merits. 

In order to begin the work of union at once in the highest place, headded some Scottish members to the Privy Council, and placed Scotsside by side with the Secretary of State and Treasurer of England. TheKeeper of the Privy Seal was raised to the Lord Chancellorship, butobliged to resign the post of Master of the Rolls, which fell to theshare of a Scot, who however contented himself with drawing the incomewithout discharging the duties of the office. The main feature of thecondition of affairs which now grew up was the understanding betweenCecil and those Scots who were most influential with the King. Thesewere the leaders of the two parties, one of which hitherto had ratherinclined to Spain and the other to France, Lennox and Mar, andespecially the most active, perhaps the cleverest man of all, GeorgeHume. These were consulted on affairs of importance. The Scots hadthe advantage, to which custom almost gave them a right, of seeing theKing as often as they wished: but Cecil and his English friends, inconsequence of their knowledge and practice in business, had the chiefmanagement of affairs in their hands. 

The times were gloomy owing to the prevalence of an infectiousdisease; still extraordinary numbers of the English nobility throngedto London, in order to see the King, who took up his residence atGreenwich. It is computed that there were 10, 000 people at court. James felt infinitely happy amidst the homage which clergy and laityvied with one another in rendering him. 

NOTES:

[296] M'Crie, Life of Andrew Melville, ch. Iii. 

[297] In a memoir in the Barberini Library, 'De praesenti Scotiaestatu in iis quae ad religionem spectant brevissima narratio, ' it issaid, 'supra hominum opinionem auctus est Catholicorum numerus. '

[298] Abstract of Randolph's instructions, from his own pen (Strype, Annals iii. I. 442): 'Nothing shall be done prejudicial to the King'stitle, but the same to pass by private assurance from Her Majesty tothe King. '

[299] Tractatus foederis et arctioris amicitiae. Rymer vi. 4. Randolphsays, 'Three were the causes (of the alliance), viz. The noblemen, themoney, and the assurance. ' Strype iii. I. 568. 

[300] Courcelles, in Tytler vii. 333. 

[301] Slangen, Geschichte Christians iv. I. 117. Chyträus, Saxonia864, 870. Cp. Melvil, Memoires, 175. 

[302] Thirlstane to Burleigh, Aug. 13, 1590. In Tytler ix. 49. 

[303] Lord Burleigh's speech in the House of Lords, Strype, Annals iv. 192. According to the 'Narratio de rebus Scoticis, ' the Scottishmagnates were the first movers. 

[304] James to Elizabeth. 'The sayde rebellis hadd so travelled byindirect means with everie nobleman, as quhen I feld thaiermyndis--thay plainlie--refusid to yeild to any forfaiture. ' 19 Sept. 1593. In Bruce, Letters of Queen Elizabeth and King James VI ofScotland, 87. 

[305] Calderwood, v. 440. 'As to the wisdom of your counsell, which Icall devilish and pernicious, it is this: that yee must be served withall sorts of men to come to your purpose and grandour Jew and Gentile, Papist and Protestant. And becaus the ministers and protestants inScotland are over strong and controll the king they must be weakennedand brought low. '

[306] The tumult in Edinburgh, in Calderwood v. 511. 

[307] In James Melville's Diary (p. 383) an act is mentioned with thedate of January 1597, 'discharging the ministers stipends that waldnot subscryve a Band acknawlaging the king to be only judge in mattersof treassone or uther civill and criminall causses committed bepreatching, prayer or what way so ever--Thair was keipit a frequentconvention of esteates wharin war maid manie strange and seveireactes. '

[308] So Crichton informs the Venetian secretary, Scaramelli, July 10, 1603. 

[309] With regard to the offers brought by Ogilvy to Spain this hasbeen undeniably proved on the evidence of another Jesuit. Winwood i. 

[310] He expressed to her an 'humble desire that I would banish frommynde any evill opinion or doupt of your sincerity to me. ' (Dec. 2, 1601, in Bruce. )

[311] 'Breve relazione di quanto si è trattato tra S. Sta ed il red'Inghilterra. ' MS. Rom. From no other quarter moreover is any directproof adduced of a promise of toleration properly so called. 

[312] The abbot of Kinloss told the Venetian secretary, 'che il re sitrova obligatissimo col pontefice, chiamandolo veramente Clemente, perche per istanze che sono state più volte fatte a S. Bene daprincipi, non ha voluto mai dishonorarlo con divenire adescommunicatione di sua persona, e che perciò S. M. Desirera dicorresponderle, aggiungendo che i catolici mentre staranno quieti ethonestamente occulti non saranno cercati nè perseguitati. '(Scaramelli, 8 Maggio, 1603. )

[313] Scaramelli, from the lips of one of the King's agents, March 27. 

[314] Scaramelli (April 12) alludes to a declaration from the King, 'Per la conservatione della religione in che vive essa citta e regno. Questo aviso, ' he proceeds, 'ha reso sicuri gli heretici. ' InHalliwell, Letters of the Kings of England ii. 97, there is a letterfrom the King to the same effect addressed to his agent Hambleton, thecontents of which were probably divulged at the moment. 

[315] Scaramelli, April 17, 'Dicendosi che lasciando i nomi di uno el'altro regno habbia qualche intentione di chiamarsi re della GranBretagna per abbracciar con un solo nome ad imitatione di quel anticoe famoso re Arturo tutto quello che gira il spatio di 1700 migliaunito. '

CHAPTER II. 

FIRST MEASURES OF THE NEW REIGN. 

How often in former times, when England was in the midst of great andglorious undertakings, had the Scots, who feared lest they themselvesshould be subjected to the power of their neighbours, taken the sideof the enemy and obstructed the victory! Even the last wars might havetaken quite a different course had Scotland made common cause withSpain. It was this connexion between the two kingdoms which made unionwith Scotland a political necessity for England. Ralegh describes thisunion under the present circumstances as no less fortunate for Englandthan the blending of the Red and White Rose had been, as the mostadvantageous of all the means of growth which were open to her. 

The kingdom of Scotland, like that of England, had extended thesupremacy of the Teutonic over the Keltic races, for these twoelements formed the main constituents of both kingdoms. The German inconflict with the Keltic race had developed its character and energy. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1603. ]

The Orkney Islands, to which Scotland asserted its claim even againstthe kindred race of the Norwegians, and the Hebrides, which werereputed the home of warriors of extraordinary bravery, were now unitedin one kingdom with the Channel Islands, which still remained in thepossession of England from the days of the old connexion between theNormans of Normandy and that country. The Gael of Scotland, theGwythel of Erin--and the Irish still appear in most records assavages--the Cymry of Wales and their Cornish kinsmen, who still spoketheir old language, now appeared as subjects of the same sceptre. Theaccession of James to the throne exercised an immediate influence onIreland. Tyrone, the O'Neil, threw aside the agreement which theQueen's ministers had concluded with him against their will, thinkingthat he no longer required it, since the right heir had ascended thethrone. The people seemed willing to espouse the cause of the new Kingas that of the native head of their race, and a genealogy wasconcocted in which his descent was traced to the old Milesian kings. The whole circuit of the British Isles was united under the name ofStuart. As a hundred years before the last great province of Francehad been gradually united to the French crown, and even within humanmemory Portugal, like the other provinces of the Spanish peninsula, had been added to the crown of Spain, so now a united Britain wasformed side by side with these two great powers. James himself noticedthe resemblance, and a proud feeling of self-confidence filled hisbreast, when he reflected that the change had been made without thehelp of arms, as if by the force of the internal necessity of things. Just as formerly the claim to universal supremacy together with thespread of the Church had greatly increased the importance of thePapacy, so now the claim to hereditary right possessed by James seemedto him of immeasurable value, for by it he had won so great andcoveted a prize: it appeared to him the expression of the will of God. 

Surprise might be felt that France, which for several centuries hadexercised a ruling influence on Scotland, and which in this union ofthe two crowns might have seen a disadvantage if not a danger forherself, allowed it to take place without obstruction. This conductmay be explained principally by the violent opposition which existedbetween Henry IV and Spain even after the peace of Vervins, and by thehostile influence incessantly exercised by that power upon theinternal relations of his kingdom, in the pacification of which he wasstill engaged. It would have been dangerous for Henry himself torevive the hatred between England and Scotland, which could only haveredounded to the advantage of his foes. 

James I however did not intend, and could not be expected to occupyexactly the same position as his predecessor. If he had adopted herviews, yet this was a compliance exacted from him by a regard to thesuccession: he had felt that it was wrung from him. It isintelligible, and he did not attempt to disguise the fact, that hefelt the death of Elizabeth to be in some sense his emancipation. Heavoided appearing at her obsequies; every word showed that he did notlove to recall her memory. In London people thought to please him bygetting rid of the likenesses of the glorious Queen, and replacingthem by those of his mother. The first matter which was submitted tohim whilst still in Scotland, and which engaged him on the journey andimmediately after his arrival, was the question whether he shouldproceed with the war which Elizabeth had planned; whether in fact heshould continue her general policy. Henry IV sent without delay one ofhis most distinguished statesmen, who was moreover a Protestant, Maximilian de Bethune, Duke of Sully, as Ambassador Extraordinary; andSully did not neglect to explain to the King the plan of an alliancebetween the States of Europe under the lead of France, that should beable to cope with the Austro-Spanish power, a plan which Sully hadentertained all his life. James gave the ambassador, as he wished, aprivate audience in a retired chamber of his palace at Greenwich, asked many questions, and listened with attention, for he lovedfar-reaching schemes; but he was far from intending to embark on them. As he had reached the throne without arms, so he wished to maintainhimself there by peaceful means. [316] It was natural that the Queen, who had been excommunicated by the Pope, and had carried on a war forlife and death with the Spanish crown, should have intended to renewthe struggle with all her might: such designs suited her personalposition; but his own was different. Deeply penetrated by the idea oflegitimacy, he even hesitated whether he should support theNetherlanders, who after all, in his judgment, were only rebels. Tothe remark that it would be a loss for England herself if the takingof Ostend, then besieged by the Spaniards, were not prevented, hereplied by asking unconcernedly whether this place had not belongedin former times to the Spanish crown, and whether the English tradehad not flourished there for all that. In these first moments of hisreign however the difficulties of his government were already broughtinto view, together with the opposition between different tendencieslatent in it. If he was unwilling to continue the policy of hispredecessor, yet he could not absolutely renounce it: there werepledges which he could not break, interests which he could notneglect. In order to meet his objections the argument employed byElizabeth was adduced, that she supported the Provinces only becausethe agreements, in virtue of which they had submitted themselves tothe house of Burgundy, had been first broken by the other side. [317]The King's tone of mind was such that this argument may well have hadan effect upon him. At last he consented to bestow further assistance, although only indirectly. He conceded that one half of the sum whichHenry IV paid to the States General should be subtracted from thedemands which England had against France, and should be employed bythe Netherlanders in recruiting in the English dominions. By thisexpedient he intended to satisfy the terms of the old alliance betweenEngland and the Provinces, and yet not be prevented from coming to anagreement with Spain. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1604. ]

The ambassador of the Archduke and the Infanta, the Duke of Aremberg, was already in the country, but he was afflicted with gout andsomewhat averse to transact business in writing; and nothing more thangeneral assurances of friendship were exchanged. In October 1603 oneof the Spanish envoys, Don Juan de Tassis, Count of Mediana, made hisappearance. Astonishment was created when, on his entrance into thehall where the assembled Court awaited him, he advanced into themiddle of the room before he uncovered his head. He spoke Spanish; theKing answered in English: an interpreter was required between them, although they were both masters of French. But however imperfecttheir communications were, they yet came to an understanding. The Kingand the ambassador agreed in holding that all grounds for hostilitybetween Spain and England had disappeared with the death of QueenElizabeth. 

After a fresh and long delay--for the Spaniards would have preferredto transfer the conference to some town on the continent--negotiationswere first seriously undertaken in May 1604, and then after all inEngland. The affairs of the Netherlands formed the principal subjectof discussion. 

The King of Spain demanded that the King of England should abstainfrom assisting his rebellious subjects. The English explained thereason why the United Netherlanders were not considered rebels. TheSpaniards demanded that the fortresses at least, which the Provinceshad formerly surrendered to the Queen as a security for the repaymentof the loan made by her, should be restored to their lawful owner theKing, who would not fail to repay the money advanced. King Jamesanswered that he was tied by the pledges of the Queen, and that hemust maintain his word and honour. [318] The Spaniards on this startedthe proposal that the English on their part should break off theirtraffic with the United Provinces. The English replied that this wouldbe most injurious to themselves. In these transactions James wasmainly guided by the consideration that, if he decidedly threw off theProvinces, he would be giving them over into the hands of France, tothe most serious injury of England, and without advantage to Spain. Onthis account principally he thought that he was obliged to maintainhis previous relations with them. The English found a verycharacteristic reason for peace with Spain in the wish to restoretheir old commercial connexion with that country. The Spaniards wereready to make this concession, but only within the ancient limits, from which the trade with both the Indies was excluded. They arguedthat their government did not allow this even to all its own subjects;how then could foreigners be admitted to a share in it? Cecil on thisremarked that England by its insular position was adapted for tradingwith the whole world, and could not possibly allow these regions to beclosed against her; that she already had relations with countries onwhich no Spaniard had ever set foot, and that a wide field for furtherdiscoveries was still open. At no price would he allow his countrymento be again excluded from America or the East Indies, to whichcountries they had just begun to extend their voyages. [319]

The peace which was at length brought about is remarkable for itsindefiniteness. The English promised that they would not support therebellious subjects and enemies of the King of Spain; and it wasarranged that an unrestricted trade should again be opened with allcountries, with which it had been carried on before the war. At thefirst glance this looked as if any further alliance with Holland, aswell as the navigation to the Indies, was rendered impossible. TheVenetian envoy once spoke with King James on the subject, who answeredthat it would soon be shown that this opinion was erroneous. In fact, as soon as the first ships returned from the East Indies, preparationswere at once made for a second expedition. The States General were notinterfered with in the enlistment which they had been allowed tobegin; for it was maintained that they could not be included under theterm rebellious subjects. The only difference made was that similarleave to enlist in the English dominions was granted to the Spaniardsalso, who for that purpose resorted especially to Ireland. In this waythe peace exactly expressed the relations into which England wasthrown by the change of government. James, who for his own part wouldhave wished simply to renew the friendly relations which had formerlyexisted, found himself compelled to stipulate for exceptions owing tothe form which the interests of England had now assumed. The Spaniardsallowed them, because even on these terms the termination of the warwas of the greatest advantage to them, and they did not surrender thehope of changing the peace into a full alliance later on, althoughtheir proposals to that effect were in the first instance declined. 

And notwithstanding any ambiguity which might arise as to the scope ofthe treaty with regard to individual questions, the conclusion ofpeace was in itself of great importance: it implied a change of policywhich created the greatest stir. It affected the United Provinces andfilled them with anxiety, for in their judgment not only was theaction of Spain against them no longer fettered, but the Spanishambassador in England was sure in time by means of gold and intriguesto acquire an influence which must be fatal to them. 

The King thought that he had achieved a great success. His intentionwas to be as fully acknowledged by the Catholic powers as by theProtestant; to occupy a neutral position between those who werefavourable, and those who were opposed, to Spain, and to live in peacewith all, without however losing sight of the interests of England. Men could not be blind to the correspondence between this policy andthe general tendency of these times. From the epoch of the Absolutionof Henry IV and the overthrow of the League, the separation betweenreligious and political interests had begun. Men on either side nolonger regarded the ascendancy of Spain as a support or as a danger toreligion. The Spanish government itself under the guidance of the Dukeof Lerma acquired a peaceful character. Thus King James was made happyby seeing embassies from the Catholic states arrive in England. Notuntil he stood between the two parties did he feel himself to be intruth a king, and to surpass his predecessor. 

This sovereign assumed a similar attitude towards the Catholics ofEngland as well. He could not vouchsafe to them a real toleration; buta few months after his arrival in England he actually carried out whathe had already promised, an alleviation of those burdens which weighedmost heavily on them. The most grievous was the fine collected everymonth from those who refused to take part in the Protestant service. James declared to an assemblage of leading Catholics, that he wouldnot enforce this fine so long as they behaved quietly, and did notshow contempt towards himself and the State. The Catholics remindedhim that their absence from the service of the Church might beinterpreted as contempt. He assured them that he would not regard itin this light. The fines, which in late years had amounted to morethan £10, 000, decreased in the year 1603 to £300, and in 1604 to £200. The King, like his predecessor, would not tolerate Jesuits andSeminarists, but he was content with their banishment; it would havebeen contrary to his temper to have had them executed. He sought toavoid all the consequences that must have been provoked by thehostility of this element which was still so powerful in the world atlarge and among his own subjects. 

But even within the domain of Protestantism he was now encountered bya similar problem. 

The investigation of the influence which the Scots and English haveexercised on one another in the last few centuries would be a task ofessential importance for the history of intellectual life; for in thedevelopment of the prevailing spirit of the nation the Scots as wellas the English have had a large share. Even under Elizabeth theserelations had begun to exist. The growth of English Puritanismespecially, which had already given the Queen much trouble, must beregarded as but the dissemination of the forms and ideas that hadarisen in the Church of Scotland. But how much stronger must theaction of this cause have become now that a Scottish king had ascendedthe English throne! The union between two populations which so nearlyresembled one another in their original composition, and in thedirection taken by their religious development, could not be a merelyterritorial union: it must lead to the closest relation between thespirit of the two peoples. 

It was natural from the state of the case, that on the accession of aScottish king in England the English clergy who leaned to the Scottishsystem should embrace the hope of being emancipated to some extentfrom that strict subordination to their bishops which they enduredwith reluctance. On the first arrival of James, whilst he was still onhis way to London, they laid before him an address signed by eighthundred of the clergy, in which they besought him, in accordance withGod's word, to lighten the rigour of this jurisdiction and of theircondition in general, and in the first place to allow them to setbefore him the feasibility of the alteration. They had nourished thehope that the King might be prevailed on to reduce the Englishepiscopate to the level of the Scottish, in the shape in which he hadjust restored it. [320]

But the tendencies which the King brought with him out of Scotland ranin an altogether different direction. He had often been personallyaffronted by the Presbyterians: he hated their system; for in hisopinion equality in the Church necessarily led to equality in theState. His intention was rather by degrees to develop further on theEnglish model those beginnings of episcopacy which he had introducedinto Scotland. In December 1603 he convened, as the Puritans wished, an assembly of the Church at Hampton Court, to which he also invitedthe leading men among the opponents of uniformity. But he opened theconference at once with a thanksgiving to Almighty God 'for bringinghim into the promised land where religion was purely professed, wherehe sat among grave, learned, and reverend men, not, as before, elsewhere, a king without state, without honour, without order, wherebeardless boys would brave him to his face. ' He declared that thegovernment of the English Church had been approved by manifoldblessings from God himself; and he said that he had not called thisassembly in order to make innovations in the same, but in order tostrengthen it by the removal of some abuses. In the conference whichhe opened he held the office of moderator himself. Certainly thesuggestions of the Puritans were not altogether without result. Whenthey expressed the wish to see the Sunday more strictly observed, tohave a trustworthy and faithful translation of the Bible provided, andto have the Apocrypha excluded from the canonical scriptures, they metwith a favourable reception; but the King would neither allow theconfessions of faith to be tampered with, nor the ceremonies which hadbeen brought under discussion to undergo the least diminution. Hethought that they were older than the Papacy, that the decision ofdeeper questions of doctrine ought to be left to the discussion of theUniversities, and that the articles of the faith would only beencumbered by them. And every limitation of episcopal authority heentirely refused to discuss. The bishops themselves were amazed at thezeal with which the King espoused the cause of ecclesiasticaljurisdiction, and allowed their justification of it even on a point ofgreat importance for the constitution, the imposition of the oath _exofficio_. [321] They even exclaimed that God had bestowed on them aking, the like of whom had not been seen from the beginning of theworld. It had been the intention and custom of other princes to limitthe jurisdiction of the clergy, and to diminish their possessions. Howmuch had they suffered from this even under Elizabeth! On the contraryit was one of the first endeavours of James I to put an end for everto these attacks. For as in Scotland the abolition of bishoprics hadbeen attended with a diminution of the authority of the crown, he hadreason to be deeply convinced of the identity of episcopal andmonarchical interests. In the heat of the conference at Hampton Courthe laid down as his principle, 'No bishop no king. '

But in all this did King James fall in with the spirit of the Englishconstitution? Did he not rather at this point intrude into it thesharpness of his Scottish prejudices? The old statesmen of England hadacknowledged the services of the English Puritans in saving theProtestant confession in the struggle with Catholicism. The Puritansonly wished not to be oppressed. He confounded them altogether withtheir Scottish co-religionists with whom he had had to contend forthe sovereignty of the realm. 

In less than two months from the Hampton Court Conference the Book ofCommon Prayer was re-issued with some few alterations, with regard towhich the King expressly stated that they were the only alterationswhich were to be expected; for that the safety of states consisted inclinging fast to what had been ordained after good consideration. Thiswas soon followed by a new collection of ecclesiastical laws, in theshape which they had taken under the deliberations of Convocation. Inthem the royal supremacy was insisted on in the strongest terms, andthat over the whole kingdom, Scotland included. The same competencewith regard to the Church was therein assigned to the King which hadbelonged to the pious kings of Judah and to the earliest Christianemperors: their authority was declared to be second only to that ofHeaven. Henceforward no one was to be ordained without promising toobserve the Book of Common Prayer and to acknowledge thesupremacy. [322] And this statute had a retrospective application, evento those who were already in possession of an ecclesiastical benefice. The King and Archbishop Bancroft ordered that a short respite shouldbe given to those who were inclined to acquiesce; but that those whomade a decided resistance should without further ceremony be deprivedof their benefices. 

On this the whole body of Puritans necessarily became agitated. Anumber of clergymen sought out the King at Royston in December 1604. While they announced to him their decision rather to resign theirbenefices than to submit to these ordinances, they called hisattention to the danger to which the souls of the faithful would besubjected by this severity. In February a petition in favour of thoseministers who refused to subscribe was presented to the King by someof the gentry of Northamptonshire. He expressed himself about thiswith great vehemence at a sitting of the Privy Council. He said thathe had from his cradle suffered at the hands of these Puritans apersecution which would follow him to his grave. But in England thetribunals were quite ready to come to his assistance. In the StarChamber it was declared a proceeding of seditious tendency to assailthe King with joint petitions in a matter of religion. 

Towards the end of February 1605 the bishops cited the clergy ofPuritan views to appear at St. Paul's in London in order to take theoath. There were some members of this party who held it lawful toconform to the Anglican Church because it at least acknowledged thetrue doctrine. These had time for reflection given them; the rest whopersevered in an opposition of principle were deprived of theiroffices without delay. 

These proceedings for the first time recalled most vividly to men'sminds the memory of the late Queen. People said that, though shedisliked the Puritans, she had never consented to persecute them onreligious grounds, for that she well knew how much she owed to them inevery other respect. They saw a proof of the King's incapacity in hisdeparture from her example and pattern. They thought him to blame forremitting in favour of Catholic recusants the execution of the penallaws enrolled among the statutes of the realm. And the foreign policyof the King awakened no less disapproval. It was felt as an injury, that he had put an end by the peace to the hostilities against Spain, which had now become even popular. Even the severe edicts issuedagainst the piracy, which had found support in different quarters, produced in many places an unfavourable impression. The King wasobliged to compensate the admiral for the losses which he affirmedthat he had suffered in consequence. [323] And how much greater werethe apprehensions for the future which were connected with thispolicy! It was remarked that he sacrificed the interests of religionand of the country to those of the Catholics and the Catholic powers. 

But there was now an organ of political opposition in the country inwhich all these hostile feelings found their expression. Theresentment of injured interests, the resistance of the Puritans, andthe excitement of the capital, impressed themselves on the Parliament. 

All previous governments had exercised a systematic influence upon theelection of members of the Lower House, and had encroached on theirfreedom. When the first elections under King James were about to beheld he declared himself against the exercise of any such influence. He ordered that the elections should be conducted with freedom andimpartiality, without regard to the bidding of any one and without theinterference of strangers; and that the electors should be allowed toreturn the most deserving candidates in each county. He thought that, as he avoided unpopular measures, men would voluntarily meet hiswishes. It appeared to him sufficient, if, in issuing the writs, hecoupled with them the admonition to avoid all party spirit, andespecially to abstain from electing such as from blind superstition onthe one hand, or from fickleness or restlessness on the other, wishedto disturb the uniformity of religion. [324] But in politics personalgratitude is only a feeble motive. The elections followed the currentof opinion which had been set in motion by the Hampton CourtConference. In the very first Parliament of King James many Puritansobtained entrance into the House: the new line which this Parliamentstruck out influenced the whole subsequent period. 

The speech with which King James opened the session on the 19th ofMarch 1604, immediately before the conclusion of the first year of hisreign, has been often and often reproduced. It is full of the ideaswith which his mind was principally occupied, of the union of bothkingdoms in one great whole, and of the establishment of religiousuniformity. He thought that in neither of the two kingdoms ought thememory of their special privileges to be kept alive, for they werepure monarchies from the first: no privilege could separate them fromtheir head. He explicitly called the Puritans an ochlocratic sect. 

It is extraordinary that, while he sought to win men's affections, itwas his fortune to use expressions which were sure to provoke thestrongest religious and political antipathies. 

Parliament acknowledged his succession to be rightful and lawful, andgranted to him, as to his predecessors, tonnage and poundage, i. E. Theright of levying customs, for his life: it arranged according to hiswishes for the withdrawal of many sentences which had been pronouncedagainst his interest; but in other matters it offered him from thevery first persistent opposition. Contrary to what might have beenexpected, the first point concerned the validity of the elections. 

In Buckinghamshire the King's officers had annulled an election on theground of illegality, and had held a second. The Lower House foundthat this was improper, on the ground that the right of deciding inmatters concerning the election of representatives belonged fromancient times to the House of Commons alone. They declined to conferon this subject with the Privy Council, or with the Upper House. Ill-will and jealousy were excited against those of higher rank whohad wished to bring one of their own party into the House of Commons, and the tempers of the members seemed to be becoming no littleinflamed. At last, by the personal mediation of the King, [325] theLower House was induced to allow both of the elected candidates to beunseated, and a third to be elected in their place. Even this itagreed to reluctantly; but it was at least its own resolution, and notthe result of official influence: and the Speaker issued his writ fora new election. One of the foremost principles of parliamentary life, that the scrutiny of elections belonged to the Parliament alone, wasin this manner indubitably established afresh. 

Even his ideas on the union of the two kingdoms, which were nearest tohis heart, were shared by few members of the Lower House; and he wasobliged to raise the question by a new and urgent address. Acommission of both Houses was indeed nominated to deliberate togetherwith the Scots on the execution of the plan. The commission howeverwas so numerous, and so large a number was required to be actuallypresent for the transaction of business, that it was evidentbeforehand that no result would be achieved; especially as it wasconfidently to be expected that the Scots would appoint just asnumerous a commission on their side. [326] And the King was alreadyaware that the opposition against him was not confined to the LowerHouse, but in this matter at least was most widely diffused. Theproclamation was already drawn up by which he intended to declarehimself King of Great Britain. The judges were consulted by the UpperHouse, but their sentence favoured the view that this alteration couldnot take place without disadvantage to the State. 

The grant of a subsidy was most urgently needed by the King, whosepurse had been emptied by the expenses of taking possession and by hisprodigality; but the tone of feeling was so unfavourable that heforbore to apply for it, as he would not expose himself to a refusalwhich was certain beforehand. 

A petition in favour of some indulgence for the Puritans was drawn upin complete opposition to the King's views, although it seems not tohave been carried through or sent in. A rigorous bill against theJesuits and recusants on the other hand actually passed through theHouse. Lord Montague, who spoke against it, was brought before theHouse of Lords to answer for some expressions which he used on thatoccasion, and which savoured of Catholic principles. 

It is quite clear that the very first Parliament of King James setitself systematically in opposition to him. He desired union, clemency to the Catholics, and punishment of the Puritans; and herequired subsidies: on all these subjects an opposite view prevailedin Parliament. And the divergence was not confined to single points. The maintenance of that extended prerogative which had been onceestablished, had been endured under a sovereign who was a native ofthe country, had deserved well of her subjects, and was thoroughlyEnglish in her sentiments. But similar pretensions appearedinsufferable in a king of foreign birth, who pursued ideas that wereBritish rather than English, or rather who had combined for himself anumber of tendencies arising out of the position in which, grand as itwas, he stood alone among English sovereigns. We perceive that by thistime the notion had been definitely formed of reviving the rights ofParliament which had fallen into abeyance in the late reigns. [327]Even under the Tudors Parliament had exercised a very considerableinfluence, but had more or less submitted to the ruling powers. Underthe new government it thought of winning back the authority which ithad wrung from more than one Plantagenet, and had possessed under thehouse of Lancaster. Already members were heard to assert that thelegislative power lay in their hands; and that, if the King refused toapprove the laws for which they demanded his sanction, they wouldrefuse him the subsidies which he needed. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1605. ]

And this resolution was strengthened by the ill-feeling which thetreatment of the Puritan ministers excited. The Parliament had beenadjourned from August 1604 until February 1605: but the King fearedthat these clergymen, who had been assailed just at that time, mightapply to the Lower House in which so many Puritans had seats. [328] Hetherefore prorogued it afresh in the hope of getting rid of certainpersons who were especially hostile, or of bringing them over to hisown side. 

Instead of this, new grievances were constantly accumulating. In theabsence of regular subsidies the King helped himself to money by avoluntary loan, which gave great offence, and in this matter also ledpeople to contrast the late Queen's conduct with that of James. Shehad, so people said, conducted the war in Spain, afforded help to theNetherlands, and maintained garrisons on the Scottish border, threemeasures which had cost her millions; of all this there was no mentionunder the present King. On the contrary he had additional revenuesfrom Scotland; for what reason did he require extraordinarysubsidies?[329] Men complained of his movements to and fro in thecountry, and of the harshness with which the right of the court totransport and cheap entertainment on these occasions was enforced; ofhis hunting, by which the tillage was injured; most of all, of hisintended advancement of the Customs Duties, for this would damagetrade and certainly would benefit only the great men who wereinterested in the farming of the Customs. The King had once thought ofdissolving Parliament, but afterwards renounced the idea. As it was, when Parliament was summoned for November 1605, a stormy session laybefore it, owing to the attack made by the Parliamentary and Puritanparty upon the behaviour of the King in ecclesiastical and politicalquestions, as well as upon the financial disorder which was gainingground. 

An event intervened which gave an entirely different direction to thecourse of affairs. 

NOTES:

[316] Économies royales v. 23. 

[317] Molino, Giugno 9, 1604: 'Se ben è vero, ch'erano suddite del redi Spagna, è anco verissimo, che quei popoli si erano soggettati allacasa di Borgogna--con quelle conditioni e capitoli, che si sa: i qualise fossero stati osservati dalli ministri di Spagna, senza dubio queipopoli non se sariano ribellati. Da queste parole restarono liSpagnoli offesi. '

[318] Cecil to Winwood, June 13. 'That he is tied by former contractsof his predecessors, which he must observe. 

[319] From the reports of the French ambassador, in Siri, Memorierecondite i. 278. 

[320] Letter from the South (Winchester) to Berwick, in Calderwood vi. 235. 'I would the scotish presbytereis would be petitioners that ourbishops might be like theirs in autoritie though they keep theirlivings. The King is resolved to have a preaching ministry. '

[321] The High Commission was compared with the Inquisition: 'men areurged to subscribe more than law requireth and by the oath _exofficio_ forced to accuse themselves. ' The archbishop answered thatthis was a mistake: 'if the article touch the party for life, liberty, or scandall, he may refuse to answer. ' State Trials ii. 86. Theaccount in Wilkins iv. 374 is more unsatisfactory than the characterof the book would lead us to expect. 

[322] Art. 36: 'Neminem nisi praevia trium articulorum subscriptioneordinandum'. 

[323] Duodo relates (Dec. 6, 1603) that the King said to him: 'Chedubita, che li suoi capitani di mare siano alquanti interessati cheanzi, e mostro di dirlo in gran confidenza era stato necessitatoassegnar non so che provisione del suo proprio denaro all'Amiraglio;perche si doleva di non poterse sostentare per esserli mancato alcunutile di questa natura. '

[324] 'The choice to be made freely and indifferentlye without respectof any commaunde sute prayer or other meanes to the contrary. ' From amemorandum of the Lord Chancellor Egerton, Egerton Papers 385. Molino, May 12, 1604: 'Stimò il re che il concedere la liberta alle provinciedi poter far elettione degli huomini per mandar al parlamento conformeagli antichi privilegi del regno et il non haver voluto osservare limolti tratti delli precessori suoi che non avrebbero permesso che laelettione cadesse in altre persone che in suoi confidenti edipendenti, dovesse disponer gli animi di ogn'uno a sodisfarlo ecompiacerlo. '

[325] Molino: 'Havendo voluto troncar l'occasione di qualche maggiorscandalo; perche di gia li sangui si andavano riscaldando molto. '

[326] Molino (Dispaccio 19 Maggio) states this reason. 

[327] Molino: 'Parlando molto liberamente della liberta e dellaautorita del parlamento in vista pero sempre degli antichi privilegi, quali erano andati in desuetudine e se saranno reassonti--senza dubiosera un detrimento dell'autorita e potesta regia. ' (12 Maggio. )

[328] Molino: 'Dubitando che quando li capi di questa setta facesseroqualche moto al parlamento, dove ne sono tanti di questa professione, potesse nascer qualche inconveniente. '(20 Oct. 1604. )

[329] Molino: 'Queste cose vanno spargendo quelli che han poco voluntadi sodisfar alli desideri di S. M. Che per se ne sta molto dubiosa. '(3 Nov. 1605. )

CHAPTER III. 

THE GUNPOWDER PLOT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 

James I was welcomed, if one may say so, by a conspiracy on hisentrance into England. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1603. ]

Two men of rank, Markham and Brook, who had before held communicationswith him, and had cherished bright expectations, but found themselvespassed over in the composition of the new government, now imaginedthat they might rise to the highest offices if they could succeed indetaching the King from those who surrounded him, and in getting himinto their own hands, perhaps within the walls of the Tower or even inDover Castle. They conspired for this object with some Catholicpriests, who could not forgive the King for having deceived theirexpectations of a declaration of toleration at the commencement of hisreign. They intended to call out so great a number of Catholics readyfor action, that there could be no doubt of the successful issue of acoup-de-main. A priest was then to receive the Great Seal and aboveall things to issue an edict of toleration. We are reminded of thecombination under Essex, when even some Puritans offered theirassistance in an undertaking directed against the government. One oftheir leaders, Lord Grey de Wilton, a young man of high spirit andhope, was now induced to join the plot. But on this occasion theCatholics were the predominant element. The priests thought that thepretence of the necessity of supporting the King against the effect ofa Puritan rising would best contribute to set the zealous Catholics inmotion; and it is undeniable that other persons of high rank were alsoconnected with these intrigues. The principal opponents of Cecil andhis friends, whose hostile influence on Elizabeth had at an earlierperiod been feared by the minister, were Lord Cobham, the brother ofBrook, and Sir Walter Ralegh. Cobham, who like most others had lookedfor the overthrow of Cecil on the accession of the King, fell into anungovernable fit of disappointed ambition when Cecil was more stronglyconfirmed in his position; and his anger was directed against the Kinghimself, from whom he now had nothing to expect, and who had broughtwith him a family which made the hope of any further alteration appearimpossible. He had let fall the expression in public that the fox andhis cubs must be destroyed at one blow. Negotiations, aiming at therenewal of the Lady Arabella's claims, had been opened with theambassador of the Archduke, who then perhaps felt anxiety lest KingJames, under the influence of Cecil, should adhere to the policy ofhis predecessor. In order to effect a revolution, Cobham launched intoextravagant schemes which embraced all Europe. 

The affair might have been dangerous, if a man of the activity, weight, and intelligence of Walter Ralegh had taken part in it. Raleghdoes not deny that Cobham had spoken to him on the subject, but heaffirms that he had not heeded the idle words, and had even forgottenthem again:[330] and in fact nothing has been brought to light whichproves his complicity, or even his remote participation, in this plot. Still without doubt he was among the opponents of the government. Ifit is true, as people say, that he made an attempt by means of aletter to the King to procure the fall of Cecil, it is easilyconceivable that the latter and his friends availed themselves ofevery opportunity to involve him in the accusation. Ralegh defendedhimself with so much courage and vigour, that the listeners who hadcome wishing to see him condemned went away with a tenfold strongerdesire that he might be acquitted. He himself did not deny that hemight be condemned by the cruel laws of England: he reminded the Kinghowever of a passage in the old statutes, in which for that veryreason mercy and pity were recommended to him. The accused were allcondemned. Brook and the priests paid the penalty of death: Markham, Cobham, and Grey were reprieved when they were already standing on thescaffold--reprieved moreover by an autograph mandate of James, whichwas entirely due to an unexpected resolution of the King, who wishedto shine by showing mercy as well as by severity. The first of theselived henceforward in exile: the second continued to live in England, but weighed down by his disgrace: Grey and Walter Ralegh wereimprisoned in the Tower. We shall meet with Ralegh once more: he neverlost sight of the world, nor the world of him. 

This conspiracy which, although wrongly as we have seen, bears thename of Ralegh, was an attempt to put an end in some way or other tothe government, in the shape in which it had been erected by the unionof English statesmen with the Scottish King. Its movers wished toeffect this object by getting rid either of the statesmen, or even ofthe King himself. But on the contrary they only succeeded inestablishing the government so much the more firmly; and it then underthe joint influence of both its components entered on the course whichwe have described. But if it was so seriously endangered at itscommencement, its progress also could not be free from hostileattacks. The Puritans threw themselves into the ranks of theParliamentary Opposition. The Catholics were brought into a mostsingular position. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1604. ]

In public they found themselves far better off under James than theyhad been under Elizabeth. Far greater scope was allowed to the localinfluence of Catholic magnates in protecting their co-religionists. The penal laws, which as regards pecuniary payments were virtuallyabolished, were moreover no longer vigorously enforced in any otherrespect. Not only were the chapels of the Catholic ambassadors in thecapital numerously attended, but in some provinces, especially inWales, Catholic sermons were known to be delivered in the open air, and attended by thousands of hearers. [331] At times the opinionrevived that the King was inclined to go over to Catholicism. Herepudiated the supposition with some show of indignation. But, as westated, the Queen incontestably sympathised with the Papacy. She evenrefrained from attending the Anglican service, and formed relationswith the Nuncio in Paris, from whom she received communications andpresents. Though Pope Clement on a former occasion had issued breveswhich made the obedience of Catholics to a new government dependent onthe profession of Catholicism by the sovereign, yet these werevirtually recalled by a later issue. When the English ambassador inParis complained to the Nuncio there of the above-mentionedparticipation of Catholic priests in a conspiracy against the King, the Nuncio laid before him a letter of the Pope's nephew, CardinalAldobrandini, in which he declared it to be the Pope's pleasure thatthe Catholics in England should be obedient to their king, and shouldpray for him. [332] Thus it exactly fell in with the King's views to bea Protestant, as was absolutely necessary for his authority in Englandand Scotland, and yet at the same time not to have the Catholicsagainst him, and to be able to reckon the Pope of Rome among hisfriends. 

It is evident that this state of affairs, as it was inconsistent withthe laws of England, could not be permanently maintained. Even men ofmoderate views in other respects disapproved the middle course takenby the King: for they thought it necessary to concede nothing to theadherents of the Papacy, if they were to be saved from the necessityof conceding everything. The Catholics desired a public declaration oftoleration. But this could only have emanated from Parliament: theKing had not the courage, and his ministers had not the wish, to makea serious proposal to that effect. On the contrary, when theProtestant spirit of the capital displayed itself so unmistakably inconsequence of the severities with which the Puritans were threatened, the King and his Privy Council, while affirming that they were merelyexecuting the laws, announced their intention of introducing a likeseverity in the treatment of the Catholics. James I appeared to feelhimself insulted if any one threw a doubt on his wish to allow thelaws to operate in both directions. And as the Parliament which was sozealously Protestant was expected to reassemble in the autumn of 1605, the laws against the Catholics began to be applied withoutforbearance. A renewed persecution was first set on foot against thepriests, who it is true were not punished with death, at least in thevicinity of the Court, but were thrown into prison, where they notinfrequently succumbed to the rough treatment which they hadundergone. But even the laity daily suffered more and more from theviolence of the spies who forced their way into their houses. Theycomplained loudly and bitterly of the insecurity of their position, which had already gone so far that often no tenants could be found fortheir farms; and they considered that the least evil, for to-day theylost their possessions, to-morrow they would lose their freedom, andthe day after their life. [333] There had now for a long time been twoparties among them, one of which submitted to what was inevitable, while the other offered a violent resistance. With the fresh increaseof oppression, the latter party obtained the upper hand. They mockedat the hope, in which men indulged themselves, of a change of religionon the part of the King, who on the contrary was in their view anirreclaimable Protestant, and assumed an air of clemency to theCatholics, only to draw the rein tighter hereafter. A brief from thePope exhorted them to acquiesce: but even the Pope could not persuadethem to allow themselves to be sacrificed without further ceremony. Some of the most resolute once more applied to the Spanish court atthis time as they had done before. But in that quarter not only hadpeace been concluded, but the hope of effecting a close alliance withEngland had been conceived. A deaf ear was turned to all theirapplications. 

While they were thus hard pressed and desperate, the thought ofhelping themselves had, if not originated, at least ripened, in thebreast of one or two of the boldest of them. They conceived a planwhich in savage recklessness surpassed anything which was devised inthis epoch so full of conspiracies. 

Among the families which sheltered the mission-priests on theirarrival in England, and who were moved by them to throw off theirreserve in the profession of Catholicism, the Treshams and Catesbyswere especially prominent in Northamptonshire. They belonged to thewealthiest and most important families in that county; and the penallaws had borne upon them with especial severity. The Winters ofHuddington, who also were very zealous Catholics, were related tothem. It is easy to understand, how the young men who were growing upin this family, such as Thomas Winter and Robert Catesby, acknowledging no duty to the Protestant government, retorted theoppression which they experienced from it with bold resistance andschemes of violence. In these they were joined by two brothers of thesame way of thinking, John and Christopher Wright, stout andsoldier-like men, belonging to a family which came originally fromYork. They all participated in the attempt of the Earl of Essex, forabove all things they were eager for the overthrow of the existinggovernment: and Robert Catesby was set at liberty only on payment of aheavy fine, which he could hardly raise by the sale of one of the mostproductive of the family estates. They were among those who, whenQueen Elizabeth lay on her death-bed, proclaimed most loudly theirdesire for a thorough change, and were arrested in consequence. [334]They had expected toleration at least from the new government: as thiswas not granted them they set to work at once on new schemes ofinsurrection. Christopher Wright was one of those who had invitedPhilip III to support the Catholics. When the Constable of Castilecame to Flanders to negotiate the peace, Thomas Winter visited him inorder to lay their wish before him. Though they met with a refusalfrom him as well as from his master they found nevertheless a supportwhich was independent of the approval of individuals. In the archducalNetherlands a combination of a peculiar kind, favourable to theirviews, had been formed, in consequence of the permission to recruit inthe British dominions, which by the terms of the peace had beengranted to Spain as well as to the Netherlands. An English regiment, about fifteen hundred strong, had been raised, in which the chaplainswere all Jesuit fathers; and no officers were admitted but those whowere entirely devoted to them. An English Jesuit named Baldwin, and asoldier of the same opinions, Owen by name, were the leading spiritsamong them. There was here, so to speak, a school of soldiers side byside with a school of priests, in which every act of the Englishgovernment provoked slander, malediction, and schemes of opposition. Pope Clement was blamed for not threatening James with excommunicationas Elizabeth had formerly been threatened; and the necessity forviolent means of redress was canvassed without disguise. These viewswere repeated in congenial circles in Paris and reacted also upontheir friends in England. Robert Catesby had been most active in theenlistment of the regiment. Christopher Wright on his journey to Spainwas attended by one of the most resolute officers of this regiment, Guy Fawkes. The latter returned with Winter to England, and waspointed out by Owen as a man admirably qualified to conduct thehorrible undertaking which was being prepared for execution. It mustremain a question in whose head the thought of proceeding to it atthis moment originated: we only know that Catesby first communicatedit to another, and then with the aid of this comrade to the rest ofthe band. To this another member had been added, who was connected, ifonly in a remote degree, with one of the most distinguished familiesamong the English nobility. I refer to Thomas Percy, a kinsman of theEarl of Northumberland, who through his influence had once received aplace in the court establishment of King James of Scotland, and hadthen been the medium for forming a connexion between this prince andthe Catholics. He was enraged because the assurances which he thenthought that he might make to the Catholics in the name of the King, had not been fulfilled by the latter. In the spring of 1604, just atthe time when the peace between England and Spain was concluded, bywhich no stipulations were made for the Catholics, they met one day ina lonely house near S. Clement's Inn, and bound themselves by a sacredand solemn oath to inviolable secrecy. It had been their intentiononce more to submit to the assembled Parliament an urgent petition inthe name of the Catholics: but the resolutions of the House hadsufficed to convince them that nothing could be gained by this step. Quite the contrary: it was apparent that the next session would imposefar heavier conditions on them. An attack on the person of the King, or of his ministers, in the shape in which it had so often beenresolved upon, could not do much even if it were successful: for theParliament was always in reserve with its Protestant majority toestablish anti-Catholic statutes, and the judges to execute them. Catesby now disclosed a plan which comprehended all their opponents atonce. The King himself and his eldest son, the officers of state andof the court, the lords spiritual and temporal, the members of theHouse of Commons, one and all at the moment when they were collectedto reopen Parliament, were to be blown into the air with gunpowder inthe hall where they assembled--there where they issued the detestedlaws were they to be annihilated; vengeance was to be taken on them atthe same time that room was to be made for another order of things inChurch and State. 

This project was not altogether new. Already under Elizabeth there hadbeen a talk of doing again to her what Bothwell had done or attemptedto do to Henry Darnley: but men had perceived even at that time thatthis would not conduce to their purpose, and had hit upon a plan ofblowing the Queen and her Parliament into the air together. HenryGarnet, the superior of the Jesuits, had been consulted on thesubject; and he had declared the enterprise lawful, and had onlyadvised them to spare as many of the innocent as possible in itsexecution. [335] The scheme which had been started under Elizabeth wasresumed under King James, when men saw that his accession to thethrone did not produce the hoped-for change. On this occasion alsoscruples were felt on the ground that many a Catholic would perish atthe same time. To a question on the subject submitted to him withoutcloser description of the case Garnet answered in the spirit of amufti delivering his fettah, that if an end were indubitably a goodone, and could be accomplished in no other way, it was lawful todestroy even some of the innocent with the guilty. [336] Catesby had nocompassion even for the innocent: he regarded the lords generally asonly poltroons and atheists, whose place would be better filled byvigorous men. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1605. ]

Without delay, before the end of December 1604, the conspiratorsproceeded to make their preparations. Percy, who was still numberedamong the retainers of the court, hired a house which adjoined theHouses of Parliament. They were attempting to carry a mine through thefoundation walls of that building--a design that says more for theirzeal than for their intelligence, and one which could hardly have beeneffected--when a vault immediately under the House of Lords happenedto fall vacant, and, as they were able to hire it, offered them a farbetter opportunity for the execution of their scheme. They filled itwith a number of powder-barrels which are said to have contained theenormous quantity of 9, 000 pounds of powder, and they confidentlyexpected to bring about the great catastrophe with all its horrors onNovember 5, 1605, the day which after many changes had been appointedfor the opening of Parliament. Their intention was, as soon as theKing and the Prince of Wales had perished, to gain possession of theyounger prince or of the princess, and to place one or other on thethrone, with a regency under a protector during their minority. [337]All preparations had been made for bringing an effective force intothe field; and its principal leaders were to assemble at Dunchurch inWarwickshire under pretence of hunting. The English regiment inFlanders was to be brought over and was to serve as the nucleus of anew force. There is no doubt that Owen was thoroughly conversant withtheir plans. Many other trustworthy people were admitted into thesecret, and supported the project with their money. One of these wassent to Rome in order to convince the Pope of the necessity of theundertaking and to move him to resolutions in support of it. On AllSaints' Day Father Garnet interrupted his prayer with a hymn of praisefor the deliverance of the inheritance of the faithful from thegeneration of the ungodly. 

But warnings had already come to the government, especially fromParis, where the priests of the Jesuit party ventured to expressthemselves still more plainly than in London. The warning was conveyedwith the express intimation that 'somewhat is at present in hand amongthese desperate hypocrites. '[338] What an impression must now havebeen produced when one of the Catholic lords, who at an earlier periodhad followed this party, but had for some time withdrawn from it, LordMounteagle, communicated to the first minister a letter in which hewas admonished in mysterious language to hold aloof from the openingof Parliament. It may be that the King, as he himself relates, indeciphering the sense of a word hit upon the supposition that a fatesimilar to that of his father was being prepared for him; or it may bethat the ministers had, as they affirm, come upon the traces of thematter; but however this may have been, on the evening before theopening of Parliament the vaults were examined, when not only were thepowder-barrels found among wood and faggots, but also one of theconspirators, Guy Fawkes, who was busy with the last preparations forthe execution of the plot. With a smiling countenance he confessed hispurpose, which he seemed to regard as the fulfilment of a religiousduty. The pedantic monarch thought himself in the presence of afanatical Mutius Scaevola. 

The rest of the conspirators who were in London, alarmed by thediscovery, hastened to the appointed rendezvous at Dunchurch; but thenews which they brought with them caused general discouragement. Witha band of about one hundred men, they set off to make their escape toWales, the home of most of the Catholics, hoping to receive thepromised reinforcements and the support of the population on theirway. They once actually attempted to assure themselves of the latter;but on declaring that they were for God and the country, they receivedthe answer that they ought also to be for the King. No one joinedthem, and many of their comrades had already dispersed when they wereovertaken at Holbeach by the armed bands of Worcestershire under theSheriff. Percy and Catesby, as they stood back to back, were shot deadby two balls from the same musket; the two Wrights were killed, andThomas Winter taken prisoner. [339]

The authority of government triumphed over this most frantic attemptto break through it, as it had triumphed in every similar case sincethe time of Henry VII. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1606. ]

It was perhaps the most remarkable feature in this last, that it wasdirected especially against the Parliament. During the Wars of theRoses, it had only been necessary to drive the then reigning princeout of the field, or to chase him away, in order to create a newparliamentary rule. The attempts against Queen Elizabeth rested on thehope of producing a similar result by her death: but it was apparentin her last years that her death would be useless, and thecomparatively free elections after that event returned a Parliament ofthe same character as the preceding. Even under the new reign theProtestant party secured their ascendancy in the elections; and theonly possibility of an alteration for the future was to be found inthe annihilation of the Parliament, not so much of the institution--atleast this was not mooted--but of the men who composed it and gave itits character. The violent attempt on the Parliament is a proof of itspower. The Gunpowder Plot was directed against the King, not in hispersonal capacity as monarch, but as head of the legislativeauthority. It was felt that this power itself with all its componentparts must be destroyed without scruple or mercy, if an order ofthings in the State corresponding to the views of the hierarchicalparty was ever again to obtain a footing. 

The necessary and inevitable result of the conspiracy was thatParliament, which did not enter on the session until January 1606, still further increased the existing severity of its laws. The greatbody of Catholics had not in any way participated in the plot; butyet, as it had originated among them, and was intended for the redressof their common grievances, they were all affected by the reactionwhich it produced. The Catholic recusants were to be subjected to theformer penalties: they were sentenced to exclusion from the palace andfrom the capital; they were forbidden to hold any appointment in thepublic service either in the administration of justice, or asgovernment officials, or even as physicians; they were obliged to opentheir houses at any moment for examination; the solemnisation of theirmarriages and the baptism of their children were henceforth to belegal only if performed by Protestant clergymen. It is evident thatthe Papal See would have preferred to restrain the agitation of theCatholics at this juncture; but as the latter appealed to theprinciple which had been impressed on them by their missionaries, thatmen had no duties to a king who was a heretic, the Parliament thoughtit necessary to impose on them an oath which concerned the authorityof their Church as well as that of the State. Not only were they to becompelled to acknowledge the King as their legitimate prince, todefend him against every conspiracy and every attack, even when madeunder the pretext of religion, and to promise to reveal any such tohim; they must also renounce the doctrine that the authority of theChurch gave the Pope the right of deposing a king, and absolving hissubjects from their oath of allegiance; and they must condemn asimpious and heretical the doctrine that princes excommunicated by thePope could be dethroned or put to death by their subjects. [340]Attention was directed to the English regiment in the service of theArchduke; and it was thought dangerous that so many malcontents shouldbe assembled there, and should practise the use of arms, in orderperhaps to turn them some day against their country. It was enactedthat the Oath of Supremacy should be imposed on every one who tookservice abroad before his departure, with a pledge that he would notbe reconciled to the Papacy: even securities for the observance of theoath were to be exacted. 

In the spring of the year 1605 the whole state of England still showeda tendency to clemency and conciliation. In the early part of 1606 theopposite tendency had completely obtained the upper hand. 

But this state of affairs necessarily reacted on Catholic countriesand governments. In Spain, where it was easiest to rouse thesusceptibilities of Catholicism, the severe measures of the Parliamentof themselves created a feeling of bitterness: but besides this, Irishrefugees resorted thither who gave an agitating account of the way inwhich these measures were carried out in Ireland:[341] so that thenation felt itself affronted in the persons of its co-religionists. Both governments, that of Spain and that of the Netherlands, refusedto hand over to the English government men like Baldwin and Owen, whowere taxed with participating in the plot, or to banish others whomthe English government considered dangerous. The pious were remindedof the will of Queen Mary, in which she had transferred herhereditary right over England, France, Ireland and Scotland, to theHouse of Spain in case her son should not be converted to the Church. 

And how deeply must the Court of Rome have felt itself injured by theimposition of the Oath of Supremacy. A Pope of the Borghese family hadjust been elected, Paul V, who was as deeply convinced of the truth ofthe Papal principles, and as firmly resolved to enforce them, as anyof his predecessors; and who was surrounded by learned men andstatesmen who looked upon the maintenance of these principles as thesalvation of the world. Their religious pride was galled to the quickby the imposition of such an oath as that exacted in England, by whichprinciples at that time zealously taught in Catholic schools weredescribed not only as objectionable but as heretical. They thought itpossible that the temporal power might prevail on the EnglishCatholics to accept this oath, as in fact the archpriest Blackwell whohad been appointed by Clement VIII took it, and advised others to dothe same. But by this act the supremacy of the King would bepractically acknowledged, and the connexion of the English Catholicswith the Papacy dissolved. Moved by these considerations, Paul V, in abrief of September 1, 1606, declared that the oath contained much thatwas contrary to the faith, and could not be taken by any one withoutdamage to his salvation. He expressed his anticipation that theEnglish Catholics, whose constancy had been tested like gold in thefire of the persecutions, would show their firmness on this occasionalso, and that they would rather undergo all tortures, even deathitself, than insult the Divine Majesty. At first the archpriest andthe moderate Catholics, who did not consider that the political claimsreferred to in the oath were the true principles of the Papacy, declared that the brief was spurious; but after some time it wasconfirmed in all due form, and an address appeared from the pen of themost eminent apologist of the See of Rome, Cardinal Bellarmin, inwhich he reminded the archpriest that the general apostolicalauthority of the Pope could not be impugned even in a single iota ofthe subtleties of dogma: how much less then in this instance, wherethe question was simply whether men should look for the head of theChurch in the successor of Henry VIII, or in the successor of S. Peter. 

These statements however greatly irritated the King, both as a man oflearning and as a temporal potentate. He took pen in hand himself inorder to defend the oath, in the wording of which he had a largeshare. He expressed his astonishment that so distinguished a scholaras Bellarmin should confound the Oath of Supremacy with the Oath ofAllegiance, in which no word occurred affecting any article of faith, and which was only intended to distinguish the champions of an attemptlike the Gunpowder Plot from his quiet subjects of the Catholicreligion. He said that nothing more disastrous to these could havehappened than that the Pope should condemn the oath, and thereby theoriginal relation of obedience which bound them to their sovereign;for he was requiring them to repudiate this obedience and to abjureagain the oath which had already been taken by many, after the exampleof the archpriest. James I took much trouble to justify the form ofoath by the decrees of the old councils. [342]

Criminal attempts, even when they fail, have at times the mostextensive political consequences. James I had started with the idea oflinking his subjects of every persuasion to himself in the bonds of afree and uniform obedience, and of creating harmonious relationsbetween the rival powers of the world and his own realm of GreatBritain. Then intervened this murderous attempt; and the measures towhich he had recourse in order to secure his person and his countryagainst the repetition of criminal attacks like this last, rekindledthe national and religious animosities which he desired to lull, andfanned them into a bright flame. 

NOTES:

[330] Letter to the King. Works viii, 647; cf. I. 671. 

[331] Discursus status religionis, 1605: 'Ipsi magnates non verenturse profiteri catholicos et plerique alii ex nobilitate, praecipue inprincipatu Walliae et in provinciis septentrionalibus, --ubi numeruseorum non ita pridem crevit in immensum. 

[332] 'S. Sta vole e comanda, che li Catolici siano obedienti al red'Inghilterra, come a loro signore e re naturale. Vra Sria attendacon ogni diligenza e vigilanza a questi negotii d'Inghilterraprocurando che conforme alla volonta di N. Sra obedischino al suo ree non s'intrighino in congiure tumulti ed altre cose, per le qualipossino dispiacere a quella Ma. '

[333] The Venetian Ambassador in his reports mentions 'doglienze equerelle accompagnate di lacrime di sangue. ' The Roman reports are tothe same effect. De vero Statu Angliae. La vera relatione dello stato. Agosto 1605. The persecution of the Catholics had begun on July 26. 

[334] Camden in writing to Cotton names Bainham, Catesby, Tresham, andthe two Wrights. He calls them 'gentlemen hunger-starved forinnovation. ' Camdeni Epistolae 347. 

[335] Garnet says, in his conference with Hall, which was overheard, that he was accused of giving 'some advice in Queen Elizabeth's timeof the blowing up of the parliament house with gunpowder; I told themit was lawful' Jardine, Gunpowder Plot 202. 

[336] From his examination: Jardine 206. 

[337] Lingard ix. 52. From Greenway's memoranda. 

[338] From a letter of Parry to Sir T. Edmondes, Paris, October 10, 1605; in Birch's Negotiations 234. 

[339] Molino just at the time reports this, as the King also relatesit in his 'Conjuratio sulphurea. ' Cf. Barclay, Series patefactiparricidii 569. 

[340] 'Juro quod ex corde abhorreo detestor et abjuro tanquam impiamet haereticam hanc damnabilem doctrinam et propositionem quodprincipes per papam excommunicati vel deprivati possint per suossubditos vel alios quoscunque deponi aut occidi'. The form originallydrawn up had asserted that the Pope generally had no right toexcommunicate kings. But King James, in his fondness for weighingevery side of the question, did not wish to go so far as this. 

[341] June 1606. Winwood, Memorials ii. 224. Cornwallis to Salisbury:'Such an apprehension of despair here they have of late received tomake any conjunction or further amitie with us, by reason of theextreame lawes and bitter persecution, as they terme it, against thoseof their religion both in England and especially in Ireland. ' June 20, 229. 'They repair to the Jesuits, priests, fryars, and fugitives; thefirst three joyne with the last children of lost hope, who havinggiven a farewell to all laws of nature--dispose themselves to becomethe executioneris of the--inventions of the others. '

[342] Apologia pro juramento fidelitatis, opposita duobus brevibus . .. Et literis Bellarmini ad Blackwellum Archipresbyterum. Opera JacobiRegis, p. 237. Lond. 1619. 

CHAPTER IV. 

FOREIGN POLICY OF THE NEXT TEN YEARS. 

What had already taken place before James ascended the throne, occurred again under these circumstances. Although belonging to one ofthe two religious parties which divided the world between them, he hadsought to form relations with the other, when circumstances which werebeyond all calculation caused and almost compelled him to return tohis original position. 

The Republic of Venice enjoyed his full sympathies in the quarrel inwhich at this time it became involved with the Papacy. The laws whichit had made for limiting the influence of the clergy appeared to himin the highest degree just and wise. He thought that Europe would behappy if other princes as well would open their eyes, for they wouldnot then experience so many usurpations on the part of the See ofRome; and he showed himself ready to form an alliance with theRepublic. The Venetians always affirmed that the lively interest ofthe King of England in their cause had already, by provoking thejealousy of the French, strengthened their resolution to arrange thesedisputes in conjunction with Spain. [343] When the Republic, althoughcompelled to make some concessions, yet came out of this contestwithout losing its independence, it continued to believe that for thisresult also it was indebted to King James. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1609. ]

In the same way, there can be no serious doubt that the refusal of thealliance, which the Spaniards had more than once proposed to the Kingof England, impelled the former to turn their thoughts to a peacefuladjustment of their differences with the Netherlands. They had madesimilar overtures to France also, but these had been shipwrecked bythe firmness and mistrust of Henry IV. They were convinced howeverthat, without winning over at least one of these two powers, theywould never even by their strongest efforts again become masters ofthe Netherlands. In spite of some advantages which they had obtainedon the mainland, they were so hard pressed by the superiority of theDutch fleet, that they at last came forward with more acceptableproposals than they had before made. The English government advisedthe States-General to show compliance on all other points if theirindependence were acknowledged: not to stand out even if this wererecognised only for a while through a truce, for in that case theywould obtain better conditions on the other points: and that in regardto these England would protect them. [344] By their conduct to bothsides, by standing aloof from the one and by bestowing good advice onthe other, the English thus promoted the conclusion of the twelveyears truce, and thereby procured for the United Provinces anindependent position which they did not allow to be wrested from themagain. The Spaniards attributed the result not so much to theProvinces themselves as to the two Powers allied with them: theythought that the articles of the treaty had been drawn up by theformer, but devised and dictated by the latter. It was their seriousintention that this agreement should be only temporary; they reckonedupon the speedy death of the King of France, and upon future troublesin England, for an opportunity of resuming the war. [345] But whateverthe future might bring to pass, England, as well as France, derived anincalculable advantage at the time from the erection of an independentstate under their protection, which could not but ally itself withthem against the still dominant power of Spain. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1610. ]

On the whole the general understanding which King James maintainedwith Henry IV secured a support for his State, and imparted to himselfa political courage which was otherwise foreign to his nature. The twosovereigns also made common cause in the Cleves-Juliers question. TwoProtestant princes with the consent of the Estates had takenpossession of it on the strength of their hereditary title. When anArchduke laid hands on the principal fortress in the country, ageneral feeling of jealousy was roused: and even in England it wasthought that the point at issue here was not the possession of a smallprincipality, but the confirmation of the House of Austria and thePapacy in their already tottering dominion over these provinces of theLower Rhine, which might exercise such an important influence on theState of Europe. [346] When Henry IV joined the German Union and theDutch for the protection of the two princes and for the conquest ofJuliers, James also decided to bestow his aid. He took into his ownpay 4000 of the troops who were still in the service of the Republic, sent them a general, and despatched them to the contested dominions totake part in the struggle. 

It does not appear that any one in England was aware of the greatdesigns which Henry IV connected with this enterprise. When, on theeve of its execution, he was struck down in the centre of his capitalby the dagger of a fanatic, friends and foes alike were thrilled withthe feeling that the event affected them all, and would have animmeasurable influence on the world. In England also it was felt as adomestic calamity. Robert Cecil, now Earl of Salisbury, said inParliament that Henry IV had been as it were their advanced guardagainst conspiracies of which he had always given the firstinformation: that the first warning of the Gunpowder Plot must havecome from him; that he had as it were stood in the breach, and thatnow he had been the first victim. The crimes of Ravaillac and ofCatesby had sprung from the same source. 

The enterprise against Juliers was not hindered by this event. Theforces of the Union under the Prince of Anhalt, and the Dutch andEnglish troops under Maurice of Orange and Edward Cecil, with theaddition of a number of volunteers from such leading families inEngland as those of Winchester, Somerset, Rich, Herbert, had alreadymade considerable progress in the siege when, at last, at the ordersof the widowed Queen, the French also arrived, but in the worst plightand suffering severely from illness, so that they could not carry outthe intention, with which they came, of sequestrating the place in theinterests of France. When the fortress had been taken it was deliveredto the two princes, who now possessed the whole country. This was anevent of general historical importance, for by this means Brandenburgfirst planted its foot on the Rhine, and came into greater prominencein Europe on this side also. It took place, like the foundation of theRepublic of the Netherlands, with the concurrence of England andFrance, and in opposition to Austria and Spain, but at the same timeby the help of the Republic itself and of those members of the Estatesof the German empire who professed the same creed. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1611. ]

The times had gone by when the Spaniards had taken arms as if for theconquest of the world; but their pretensions remained the same. It wasstill their intention, in virtue of the privileges assigned them bythe Pope, to exclude all others from the colonisation of America andfrom commerce with the East Indies. They laid claim to Northern Africabecause it had been tributary to the crown of Aragon, to Athens andNeopatras because they had belonged to the Catalans, to Jerusalembecause it had belonged to the King of Naples, and even toConstantinople because it had passed by will to Ferdinand II of Aragonfrom the last of the Palaeologi. On the strength of the claims made bythe old dukes of Milan they deemed themselves to have a right to thetowns of the Venetian mainland, and to Liguria. Philip III was intheir eyes the true heir of the Maximilian branch of the German houseof Austria: according to their view the succession in Bohemia andHungary fell to him. The progress of the Catholic revival affordedthem an opportunity of exercising a profound influence on the Germanempire, while the same cause extended their influence over Poland;they obtained through their commercial relations even the friendshipof Protestant princes and towns in the North. Their intention was nowto associate the two antagonistic powers of the West with their policyby means of alliances with the reigning families. The firstconsiderable step in this direction was made after the death of HenryIV, when they succeeded in concerting with his widow a doublemarriage, between the young King of France and an Infanta of Spain, and between the future King of Spain and a French princess. It wasthought certain beforehand that they would get the conduct of Frenchpolicy into their hands during the minority of Louis XIII. But theywere already seeking to draw the house of Stuart also into thisalliance in spite of the difference of religion. In August 1611 theSpanish ambassador, whose overtures had hitherto been fruitless, cameforward to announce that an alliance between the Prince of Wales and aSpanish infanta would meet with no obstacle on the part of Spain, ifit should be desired on the part of England. It was thought that theQueen, who found a satisfaction of her ambition in this brilliantalliance, and the old Spanish and Catholic party, who were still verynumerous in the highest ranks and among the people, might employ theirwhole influence in its favour. 

But there was still at the head of affairs a man who was resolved tooppose this design, Robert Cecil, to whom it is generally owing thatthe tendencies of Elizabeth's policy lasted on so long into the timeof the Stuarts as they did. I do not know whether the two Cecils canbe reckoned among the great men of England: they would almost seem tohave lacked that independent attitude and that soaring and brilliantgenius which would be requisite for such an eminence; but withoutdoubt few have had so much influence on its history. Robert Cecilinherited the employments, the experiences, and the personalconnexions of his father William. He knew how to rid himself of allrivals that rose to the surface[347] by counteracting theirproceedings in secret or openly, justifiably or not: enmity andfriendship he reciprocated with equal warmth. He made no change in themethod of transacting business which was conducted by the whole PrivyCouncil; but his natural superiority and the importance that hegradually acquired always brought the decision into accordance withhis views. The King himself gave intimations that he did not look uponhis predominance as altogether proper. In one of his letters he jestsover the supremacy calmly exercised by his minister at the centre ofaffairs, while he, the King, so soon as his minister summoned him, must hasten in, and yet at last could do nothing but accept theresolutions which he put into his hands. A small deformed man, to whomJames, as was his wont, gave a jesting nickname on this account, heyet impressed men by the intelligence which flashed from hiscountenance and from every word he spoke; and even his outward bearinghad a certain dignity. His independence was increased by his enormouswealth, acquired mainly by investments in the Dutch funds, which atthat time returned an extraordinarily high interest. Surrounded bymany who accepted presents, he showed himself inaccessible to suchseductions and incorruptible. At this time he was the oracle ofEngland. [348]

Among the English youth the wish was constantly reviving that the warwith Spain, in which success was expected without any doubt, might berenewed with all vigour. Robert Cecil was as little in favour of thisas his father formerly had been. Peaceful relations with Spain wererendered especially necessary by the condition of Ireland, whereTyrone, not less dissatisfied with James than he had been withElizabeth, had again thrown off his allegiance, and had at last goneabroad to procure foreign aid for his discontented countrymen. But ifCecil could not break with Spain, yet he would not allow that powerto strengthen itself or to obtain influence over England herself. Inregard to the proposal of marriage that was made he had said that thegallant Prince of Wales could find blooming roses everywhere and didnot need to search for an olive. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1612. ]

The notion continued to prevail that James I, even if he did not takearms, ought to put himself at the head of the anti-Spanish party inEurope, now that Henry IV was no more. 

The King and his ministers thought that for maintaining in the firstplace the state of affairs established in Cleves and Juliers, analliance of the countries which had co-operated in producing it wasthe only appropriate means. In March 1612 we find the Englishambassador at the Hague, Sir Ralph Winwood, at Wesel, where adefensive alliance that had long been mooted between James I and theprinces of the Union, including those of the Palatinate, Brandenburg, Hesse, Wurtemberg, Baden, and Anhalt, was actually concluded. Bothcontracting parties promised one another mutual support against allwho should attack them on account of the Union or of the aid they hadgiven in settling and maintaining the tenure of Cleves and Juliers. The King was accordingly pledged to bring 4000 men into the field, andthe Princes 2000 as their contingent, or to pay a sum of money fixedby rule at the choice of the country which should be attacked. [349]The agreement was concluded for six years, the period for which it wasalso agreed that the Union should still continue. The idea wasstarted, I do not know whether by King James or rather by the leadingEnglish statesmen, of making this alliance the basis of a generalEuropean coalition against the encroachments of the Spaniards. [350]The German princes invited the Queen-Regent of France to join it, andto bring the Republic of the United Provinces into it. Mary de'Medici refused, on the ground that this was unnecessary, as theRepublic was sufficiently secured by the defensive alliance previouslyconcluded; but her ministers at that time still lent their assistancefor the object immediately in view. The Spaniards had conceived theintention of raising the Archduke Albert to the imperial throne afterthe death of the Emperor Rudolph. A portion of the Electors, amongothers the Elector of Saxony, which had been prejudiced by thesettlement of Juliers, was in his favour. He possessed the sympathiesof all zealous Catholics; but England and France saw in the union ofthe imperial power with the possession of the Spanish Netherlands adanger for themselves and for the republic founded under theirauspices. They plainly declared to the Spaniards that they would notpermit it, but would set themselves against it with their allies, thatis to say, of course, with the Republic and the Union. [351]

Little seems to have been heard in Germany of the protest of thepowers in regard to the imperial succession: but it was effectual. Theimperial throne was ascended not by Albert but by Matthias, who hadfar more sympathy with the efforts of the Protestants and approved ofthe Union. Indeed the Spaniards too, under the guidance of the pacificLerma, were not inclined to drive matters to extremities. 

In the youthful republic of the Netherlands an estrangement, involvingalso a difference of opinion on religious questions, arose at thattime between the Stadtholder and the magistrates of the aristocracy. The party of the Stadtholder clung to the strict Calvinisticdoctrines; the aristocratic party were in favour of milder and moreconciliatory views, which besides allotted to the temporal power nosmall influence over the clergy, as Arminius had maintained in hislectures at Leyden. After his death a German professor, ConradVorstius, had been invited to Holland, who added to the opinions ofhis predecessor others which deviated still more widely fromCalvinism, and inclined to Socinianism. The world has always feltastonished that King James took a side in this controversy, wrote abook against Vorstius, and did not rest till he had been ejected fromhis office. In fact learned rivalry was not the only motive whichinduced him to take pen in hand: we perceive that the adherents ofArminius, the supporters of Vorstius, were obnoxious to him onpolitical grounds also. The leaders of the burgher aristocracy showeda marked coldness to the interests of England after the conclusion ofthe truce, and a leaning to those of France. The King moreover was ofopinion that positive orthodoxy was necessary for maintaining theconflict with Catholicism, and for upholding a state founded onreligion: and he sent an invitation to the Prince of Orange to unitewith him in this cause. The strict Calvinism of the prince was at thesame time an act of homage to England. 

While religious and political affairs were in this state ofperplexity, which extended to the French Reformed Church as well, amarriage was settled between the Princess Elizabeth of England and theElector Palatine, Frederick V. 

This young prince, who at that time was still a ward, had the prospectof succeeding at an unusually early age to a position in which hecould exert an influence on the German empire. By the mother's side hewas grandson of the founder of Dutch independence, William of Orange;his uncles were the Stadtholder Maurice and the Duke of Bouillon, whomight be considered the head of the Reformed Communion in France, andwho had married another daughter of William. Frederick had spent someyears with the Duke at Sedan. The Duke of Bouillon, like Maurice, tookan active part in various ways in the European politics of that age:these two men stood at the head of that party on the continent whichmost zealously opposed the Papacy and the house of Austria. Bouillonhad first directed the attention of James to the young Frederick, andhad painted to him his good qualities and his great prospects, and, although not without reserve, had pronounced a match between him andthe Princess Elizabeth desirable, [352] as it would form a dynastictie between the Protestantism of England and that of the continent. The brother of the Duke of Wurtemberg, Louis Frederick, who thenresided in England on behalf of the Union, still more decidedlyadvocated the match. He told the King that he would have in the youngcount not so much a son-in-law, as a servant who depended on his nod;and that he would pledge all the German princes to his interest bythis means. [353] After the conclusion of the alliance at Wesel theCount of Hanau, who was likewise married to a daughter of William, visited London with two privy councillors of the Palatinate, in orderto bring the matter to an issue: they were to meet there with the Dukeof Bouillon, to whose advice they had been expressly referred. Anothersuit for the hand of the Princess was then before the English court. The Duke of Savoy had made proposals for a double marriage between histwo children and the English prince and princess. There appeared to bealmost a match between Catholic and Protestant princes to decide whichparty should bear off 'this pearl, ' the Princess of England. Withoutdoubt religious considerations mainly carried the day in favour of theGerman suitor. The Princess displayed great zeal in behalf ofProtestantism; and James said that he would not allow his daughter tobe restricted in the exercise of her religion, not even if she were tobe Queen of the world. [354] On the 16th of May the members of thePrivy Council signed the contract in which the marriage was agreedupon between 'My Lady Elizabeth, ' only daughter of the King, and theGrand-Master of the Household and Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, Frederick Count Palatine, and the necessary provisions were made as todower and settlements. This may be regarded as the last work of RobertCecil: he died a few days after. The pulpits had attacked the marriageof the princess with a Catholic, and had exhorted the people to prayfor her marriage with a Protestant. The common feeling of Protestantswas gratified when this result came to pass. 

The question of the future marriage of Henry Frederick Prince of Waleswas treated in a kindred spirit though not exactly in the same way. 

All eyes were already directed to this young prince and his futureprospects. He was serious and reserved; a man of few words, soundjudgment, and lofty ideas; and he gave signs of an ambitious desire torival his most famous predecessors on the throne. [355] He understoodthe calling of sovereign in a different sense from his father. On oneoccasion when his father set his younger brother before him as a modelof industry in the pursuit of science, he replied that he would make avery good archbishop of Canterbury. For one who was to wear the crownskill in arms and knowledge of seamanship seemed to him indispensable;he made it his most zealous study to acquire both the one and theother. His intention undoubtedly was to make every provision for thegreat war against the Spanish monarchy which was anticipated. Hewished to escort his sister to Germany in order to form a personalacquaintance with the princes of the Union, whom he regarded as hisnatural allies. These views could not have been thwarted if theproposal of the Duke of Savoy, which had been rejected in behalf ofthe Princess, had been accepted in behalf of the Prince. [356] Forevery day the Duke separated himself more and more from the policy ofSpain: he had even wished at one time to be admitted into the Union. He offered a large portion with the hand of his daughter, and wasready to agree to those restrictions in the exercise of her religionwhich it might be thought necessary to prescribe. Meanwhile, however, another project came up. The grandees of France wished to bring aprince of such high endowments and decided views into the closestrelations with the house of Bourbon, in order to oppose the action ofSpain on the French court by another influence. They made proposalsfor a marriage between the Prince of Wales and the second daughter ofHenry IV, the Lady Christine of France. They found the most cordialreception for this scheme among the English who favouredProtestantism, and understood the course of the world. It was thoughtthat the new League, for this was the designation given to theincreasing preponderance of Spanish and Catholic views in France, would by this means be thrown into confusion in its own camp; theFrench government would be brought back to its old attitude ofhostility towards Spain, and would only thus be completely sure of theStates General, which could never separate themselves both fromEngland and France at the same time. The Prince embraced the notionthat the Princess must immediately be brought to England to beinstructed in the Protestant faith, and perhaps to be converted to it. As she was still very young his notion was so far reasonable, althoughin other respects her age was a considerable obstacle. While hereferred the decision to his father, he yet made a remark which showshis own leanings, that this marriage would certainly be mostacceptable to all his brother Protestants. [357] What a prospect wouldhave dawned on these if a young and energetic king of England, confederate with Germany and Holland, and looked up to in France for adouble reason, both on account of the old and still unforgottenclaims, [358] and on account of his marriage, had taken the Huguenotsunder his protection or actually appealed to them in his own behalf!

The 5th of November 1612 was fixed as the day on which the questionwas to be decided by a commission expressly appointed for thispurpose. King James, who is represented as favourable to the connexionwith France, went from Theobald's to the meeting: the Prince had drawnout for himself the arguments by which he thought to refute theobjections of opponents. On the very same day he was taken ill, andwas obliged to ask for an adjournment; but from day to day and hour tohour his illness became more dangerous. He exhibited a composed and, when addressed on religious questions, a devout frame of mind, but hedid not wish to die. When some one said to him that God only couldheal him, he replied that perhaps the physicians also might dosomething. On the 17th of November, two hours after midnight, hedied--'the flower of his house, ' as men said, 'the palladium of thecountry, the terror of his foes. ' They even went so far as to put himat this early age on a level with Henry IV, who had been proved by alife full of struggles and vicissitudes. The comparison rested on thecircumstance that the young and highly-gifted prince was forced tosuccumb to an unexpected misfortune while preparing for greatundertakings which, like those of Henry IV, were to be directedagainst Spain. 

It is very probable that this prince, if he had lived to ascend theEnglish throne, would have attempted to give to affairs a turnsuitable to the vigorous designs which engrossed his thoughts. According to all appearance he would not have trodden in the footstepsof his father. He appeared quite capable of reviving the old plans ofconquest entertained by the house of Lancaster: he would have unitedoutspoken Protestant tendencies with the monarchical views of EdwardVI, or rather of Elizabeth. With the men who then held the chief powerin England he had no points of agreement, and they already fearedhim. [359] They were even accused of having caused his premature death. 

Yet the course which had been struck out with the co-operation of theyoung prince was not abandoned at his death. 

The Elector Palatine had already arrived in London. His demeanour andbehaviour quieted the doubts of one party and put to shame thepredictions of the other: he appeared manly, firm, bent on high aims, and dignified: he knew how to win over even the Queen who at first wasunfavourable to him. Letters exchanged at that time are full of thejoy with which the marriage was welcomed by the Protestants. But itwas just as decidedly unwelcome to the other party. An expressionwhich was then reported in Brussels shewed how lively the hatred was, and how widely and how far into the future political combinationsextended. It was said that this marriage was designed to wrest theImperial throne from the house of Austria; but it was added, withhaughty reliance on the strength of Catholic Europe, that this designshould never succeed. [360]

Another collision seemed at times to be immediately impending. In theyear 1613 the English government sent to ask the districts mostexposed to a Spanish invasion, how many troops they could severallyoppose to it, and had appointed the fire signals which were toannounce the coming danger. It is indeed not wonderful that under suchcircumstances it continued the policy which was calculated to promotea general European opposition to the Spaniards. 

When the French grandees though fit to contest the Spanish marriageswhich Mary de' Medici made up, they had King James on their side, whoregarded it as the natural right of princes of the blood to undertakethe charge of public affairs during a minority. At the meeting of theEstates in 1614, it was their intention to get the government intotheir hands, and then to bring it back again to the line of policy ofHenry IV. The English ambassador, Edmonds, showed that he concurredwith them. 

Soon afterwards the differences between the Duke of Savoy and theSpanish governor in Milan terminated in an open rupture. The Frenchgrandees, though they had not carried their point in theStates-General, yet showed themselves independent and strong enough tofollow their own wishes in interfering in this matter. While theQueen-Regent supported the Spaniards, they came to the assistance ofthe Duke. In this struggle King James also came forward on his side inconcert with the Republic of Venice, which was still able to throw aconsiderable weight into the scale on an Italian question. 

The cause of Savoy appeared the common cause of opposition to Spain. James deemed himself happy in being able to do something further forthat object by removing the misunderstanding which existed betweenProtestant Switzerland and the Duke. On his own side he carefullyupheld the old connexion between England and the Cantons. He gave outthat in this manner the territories of his allies would extend to thevery borders of Italy, for Protestant Switzerland formed theconnecting link between his friends in that country and the GermanUnion which, in turn, bordered on the Netherlands. 

With the same view, in order that his allies might not have theirhands tied elsewhere, he laboured to remove the dissensions betweenSaxony and Brandenburg, and between the States-General and Denmark. Atthe repeated request of certain German princes, he made it hisbusiness to put an end, by his intervention, to the war that hadbroken out between Sweden and Denmark. By the mediation of hisambassadors the agreement of Knäröd was arrived at, which regulatedthe relations between the Northern kingdoms for a considerable time. James saw his name at the head of an agreement which settled therights of sovereignty in the extreme North 'from Tittisfiord toWeranger, ' and had the satisfaction of finding that the ratificationof this agreement by his own hand was deemed necessary. [361] A generalunion of the Protestant kingdoms and states was contemplated in thisarrangement. 

In connexion with this, the commercial relations that had been longago concluded with Russia assumed a political character. During thequarrels about the succession to the throne, when Moscow was in dangerof falling under the dominion of Poland, which in this matter wassupported by Catholic Europe, the Russians sought the help of Germany, of the Netherlands, and especially of England. We learn that the houseof Romanoff offered to put itself in a position of inferiority to KingJames, who appeared as the supreme head of the Protestant world, if hewould free Russia from the invasion of the Poles. 

Already in the time of Elizabeth the opposition to the Spanishmonarchy had caused the English government to make advances to theTurks. 

Just at the period when the fiercest struggle was preparing, at thetime when Philip II was making preparations for annexing Portugal, theQueen determined to shut her eyes to the scruples which hitherto hadgenerally deterred Christian princes from entering into an alliancewith unbelievers. It is worth noticing that from the beginning EastIndian interests were the means of drawing these powers nearer to oneanother. Elizabeth directed the attention of the Turks to the seriousobstacles that would be thrown in their way, if the Portuguesecolonies in that quarter were conquered by the far more powerfulSpaniards. [362] The commercial relations between the two kingdomsthemselves presented another obvious consideration. England seized thefirst opportunity for throwing off the protection of the French flag, which had hitherto sheltered her, and in a short time was much ratherable to protect the Dutch who were still closely allied with her. TheTurks greatly desired to form a connexion with a naval powerindependent of the religious impulses which threatened to bring theneighbouring powers of the West into the field against them. They knewthat the English would never co-operate against them with Spaniardsand French. Political and commercial interests were thus intertwinedwith one another. A Levant company was founded, at the proposal ofwhich the ambassadors were nominated, both of whom enjoyed aconsiderable influence under James I. 

As in these transactions attention was principally directed to thecommerce in the products of the East Indies carried on through themedium of Turkish harbours, was it not to be expected that an attemptshould be made to open direct communication with that country? TheDutch had already anticipated the English in that quarter; butElizabeth was for a long time withheld by anxiety lest thenegotiations for peace with Spain, which were just about to be opened, should be interrupted by such an enterprise. Yet under her governmentthe company was formed for trading with the East Indies, to which, among other exceptional privileges, the right of acquiring territorywas granted. It was only bound to hold aloof from those provinceswhich were in the possession of Christian sovereigns. We have seen howcarefully in the peace which James I concluded with Spain everythingwas avoided which could have interrupted this commerce. Jamesconfirmed this company by a charter which was not limited to anyparticular time. And in the very first contracts which this companyconcluded with the great Mogul, Jehangir, they had the right bestowedon them of fortifying the principal factories which were made over tothem. The native powers regarded the English as their allies againstthe Spaniards and Portuguese. 

In the year 1612 Shirley, a former friend of Essex, who had beeninduced by the Earl himself to go to the East, and who had thereformed a close alliance with Shah Abbas, returned to England, where heappeared wearing a turban and accompanied by a Persian wife. Heentrusted the child of this marriage to the guardianship of the Queen, when he again set off for Persia, in order to open up the commerce ofEngland in the Persian Gulf. 

But it was a still more important matter that the attempts which hadbeen made under the Queen to set foot permanently on the otherhemisphere could now be brought to a successful issue under KingJames. It may perhaps be affirmed that, so long as the countries wereat open war, these attempts could not have been made, unless Spain hadfirst been completely conquered. England could not resume her olddesigns until a peace had been concluded, which, if it did notexpressly allow new settlements, yet did not expressly forbid them, but rather perhaps tacitly reserved the right of forming them. Underthe impulse which the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot gave, I will notsay to war, but certainly to continued opposition to Spain, the Kingbestowed on the companies formed for that purpose the charters onwhich the colonisation of North America was founded. The settlement ofVirginia was again undertaken, and, although in constant danger ofdestruction from the opposition of warlike natives and the dissensionsof its founders, yet at last by the union of strict law and personalenergy it was quickened into life, and kindled the jealousy of theSpaniards. They feared especially that it would throw obstacles in theway of the homeward and outward voyages of their fleets. [363] Theirhands, however, were tied by the peace: and we learn that when theymade overtures for the marriage of the Prince of Wales with a SpanishInfanta, they proposed at the same time that this colony should begiven up. But the Prince of Wales from the interest which he took inall maritime enterprises was just the man to exert himself most warmlyin its behalf. Under his auspices a new expedition was equipped, whichdid not sail till after his death, and then materially contributed tosecure the colony. Not without good reason have the colonistscommemorated his name. 

How immensely important at least for England have her relations withthe Spanish monarchy been shown to be! She had been formerly its ally, its attacks she had then withstood, and now resisted it at every turn. Only in rivalry with this power, and in opposition to it, was thegreat Island of the West brought into relations, for which it wassuited by its geographical position, with every part of the knownworld. 

NOTES:

[343] Contarini, Relatione 1610: 'Pareva che nelli moti passati colpapa havesse la republica aggradito Più l'offerte dei Inglesi che glioffizii et interpositioni di Franza e da quelle pia che da questiriconosciuto l'accommodamento: il che per tutta la Franza si è potutocomprendere. '

[344] The Lords of the Privy Council to Sir Richard Spencer and SirRalph Winwood. Aug. 1, 1608. In Winwood ii. 429. 

[345] This is affirmed by Bentivoglio, who as Nuncio at Brussels wasclosely acquainted with these transactions. Historia della guerra diFiandra iii. 490. 

[346] Winwood to Salisbury, October 7, 1609. Memorials iii. 78. 

[347] Molino: 'E huomo astuto sagace e persecutore acerrimo de' suoinemici . .. Ne a avuto multi et tutti egli a fatto precipitare. '

[348] Ibid. : 'L'autorità del quale è cosi assoluta, che con verità sipuo dire essere egli il re e governatore di quella monarchia'

[349] Alligantia inter regem et electores Germaniae, in Rymer vii. Ii. 178. 

[350] Francesco Contarini visited him in September 1610 in thecountry, and joined him in the chase, on which occasion James touchedon various topics in conversation: 'De' pensieri di Spagnoli con pocaloro laude . .. Non mostro far alcun conto del Duca di Sassonia suocognato ni della investitura data li dall'imperatore nel ducato diCleves. '

[351] Beaulieu to Trumbull, Paris, June 29, 1612: 'Both from thisstate (France) and the state of England it hath been plainly enoughintimated unto them (the Spaniards) that if they would go about tomake the Archduke Albert Emperor or king of the Romans, both thesestates with their allies would set the rest to hinder it. '

[352] Green, Princesses of England v. 180; De la Boderie ii. 248. 

[353] This is the report of A. Foscarini, Jan. 20, 1612. 

[354] Winwood to Trumbull, Memorials iii. 357. 

[355] Correro 1609, May 20: 'Non solo riesce esquisitamente in tuttigli esercitii del corpo, ma si dimostra nelle attioni sue moltogiudicioso e prudente. '--Ant. Foscarini 1612: 'Amplissimi erano i suoiconcetti; di natura grave severa ritenuta di pochissime parole. '

[356] W. Ralegh: On a marriage between Prince Henry and a daughter ofSavoy. Works viii. 237. 

[357] Given in French by Levassor, Histoire de Louis XIII, i. 2, 347. So far as I know, the original has not yet been brought to light, although its genuineness cannot be doubted, as Levassor was acquaintedwith Robert Carr's letter to the Prince, which was first printed byEllis ii. Iii. 229. 

[358] Foscarini, to whom we are indebted for information on many ofthese points: 'teneva mal animo contra Spagna e pretension inFrancia. '

[359] It was affirmed that Henry Howard (Earl of Northampton) had beenheard to say that 'the prince if ever he came to reign would prove atyrant. ' Bacon: Somerset's Business and Charge. Works vi. 100. 

[360] Trumbull to Winwood, March 2, 1613. 'These men are enraged, fearing that we do aim at the wresting of the empire out of theAustrians hand which they say shall never be effected so long as theconjoyned forces of all the Catholiques in Christendom shall be ableto maintain them in that right. ' Winwood, Mem. Iii. 439. 

[361] Dispaccio di Antonio Foscarini, 5 Luglio 1612: 'Si aplica il reassai il pensiero a metter in pace li due re di Suecia e Danimarca ethieri fu qui di ritorno uno de' gentilhuomini inviati per talfine:--poi si camineva immediatamente a stringere unione con tutti liprincipi di religione riformata. '

[362] A letter of Germigny in Charrière, Negociations de la Francedans le Levant iii. 885 n, mentions the representations of the firstagent. 'Cet Anglais avait remontré l'importance de l'agrandissement duroy d'Espagne mesmes où il s'impatroniroit de Portugal et des terresdespendantes du dit royaume voisines à ce Seigneur au Levant. '

[363] A. Foscarini 1612, 9 Ag. : 'Preme grandemente a Spagnoli vedersempre Più stabilirsi la colonia in Virginia non perche stimino quelpaese nel quale non è abondanza nè minera d'oro--ma perchefermandovisi Inglesi con li vascelli loro, correndo quel mareimpedirebbono la flotte. ' 1613 Marzo 8: 'Le navi destinate perVirginia al numero di tre sono passate a quella volta e se neallestiranno anco altre degli interessati in quella popolatione. '

CHAPTER V. 

PARLIAMENTS OF 1610 AND 1614. 

For the full occupation of this position in the world, and formaintaining and extending it, nothing was more necessary than internalharmony in Great Britain, not only between the two kingdoms, but alsoin each of them at home. While Robert Cecil procured full recognitionfor considerations of foreign policy, he conceived the further designof bringing about such an unity above all things in England itself, as, if successful, would have procured for the power of the King anauthority paramount to all the other elements of the constitution. 

The greatest standing evil from which the existing governmentsuffered, was the inequality between income and expenditure; and ifthe lavish profusion of the King was partly responsible for this, yetthere were also many other reasons for it. The late Queen had leftbehind no inconsiderable weight of debt, occasioned by the cost of theIrish war: to this were added the expenses of her obsequies, of thecoronation, and of the first arrangements under the new reign. Visitsof foreign princes, the reception and the despatch of great embassies, had caused still further extraordinary outlay; and the separatecourt-establishments of the King, the Queen, and the Prince, made aconstant deficit inevitable. Perpetual embarrassment was the result. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1610. ]

James I expresses himself with a sort of naive ingenuousness in aletter to the Lords of Council of the year 1607. In this letter heexhorts them not to present to him any 'sute wherof none of yourselvescan guess what the vallew may prove, ' but rather to help him to cutoff superfluous expenses, as far as was consistent with the honour ofthe kingdom, and to assist him to new lawful sources of revenue, without throwing an unjust burden upon the people. 'The only diseaseand consumption which I can ever apprehend as likeliest to endangerme, is this eating canker of want, which being removed I could thinkmyself as happy in all other respects as any other king or monarchthat ever was since the birth of Christ: in this disease I am thepatient, and yee have promised to be the physicians, and to use thebest care uppon me that your witte, faithfulnes and diligence canreach unto. '[364]

As Lord Treasurer, Robert Cecil had the task of taking in hand theconduct of this affair also. He had refused to make disbursementswhich he thought improper, but to which the King had notwithstandingallowed himself to be led away: he would not hear of increasing therevenue by such means as the sale of offices, a custom which seemed tobe at that time transplanting itself from France into England. Hesought to add to the revenue in the first place by further taxation ofthe largely increasing commerce of the country. And as tonnage andpoundage had been once for all granted to the King, he thought itappropriate and permissible to raise the custom-house duties as anadministrative measure. Soon after the new government had come intopower it had undertaken the rearrangement of the tariff to suit thecircumstances of the time. Cecil, who was confirmed in his purpose bya decision of the judges to the effect that his conduct was perfectlylegal, conferred with the principal members of the commercial class onthe amount and nature of the increase of duty. [365] The plan whichthey embraced in accordance with the views prevalent at the timecontemplated that the burden should principally fall upon foreigners. 

The advantages which were obtained by this means were notinconsiderable. The Custom-House receipts were gradually increasedunder King James by one-half; but yet this was a slow process andcould not meet the wants that likewise kept growing. The LordTreasurer decided to submit a comprehensive scheme to Parliament, inorder to effect a radical cure of the evil. The importance of thematter will be our excuse for examining it in detail. 

He explained to them that a considerable increase of income (which heput down at £82, 000) was required to cover the regular expenditure, but that a still greater sum was needed for casual expenses, for whichin the state, as in every household, certainly a quarter of the sumreached by the regular expenditure was required. He therefore proposedthat £600, 000 should be at once granted him for paying off the debt, and that in future years the royal income should be raised by£200, 000. 

This request was so comprehensive and so far beyond all precedent, that it could never have been made without a corresponding offer ofconcessions on a large scale. The Earl of Salisbury in his proposalformally invited the Parliament to adduce the grievances which it had, and promised in the King's name to redress all such so far as lay inhis power. It is affirmed that his clear-sighted and vigorous speechmade a favourable impression. Parliament in turn acceded to theproposal, and alleged its most important grievances. They affectedboth ecclesiastical and financial interests: among the latter classthat which concerned the Court of Wards is the most importanthistorically. 

Of the institutions by which the Normans and Plantagenets held theirfeudal state together, none perhaps was more effectual than the rightof guardianship over minors, whose property the kings managed fortheir own advantage. They stepped as it were into the rights offathers; even the marriage of wards depended on their pleasure. Fromthe time of Henry VIII a court for the exercise of this jurisdictionand for feudal tenures generally had existed, which institutedenquiries into the neglect of prescriptive custom, and punished it. One of the most important offices was that of President of the Court, which was very lucrative, and conferred personal influence in variousways. It had been long filled by Robert Cecil himself. 

The Lower House now proposed in the first place that this right andthe machinery created to enforce it, which gave birth to various actsof despotism, should be abolished. How often had the property of wardsbeen ruined by those to whom the rights of the state were transferred. The debts which were chargeable against them were never paid. [366] TheLower House desired that not only the royal prerogatives, but alsothat the kindred rights of the great men of the kingdom over theirvassals should cease, and especially that property held on feudaltenures should be made allodial. 

It is evident what great interests were involved in this scheme, whichwas thoroughly monarchical, and at the same time was opposed tofeudalism. Its execution would have put an end to the feudal tie whichnow had no more vitality, and appeared nothing more than a burden; butat the same time the crown would have been provided with a regular andsufficient income, and, what is more, would have been tolerablyindependent of the grants of Parliament, so soon as an orderlydomestic system was introduced. We can understand that in bringingthis matter to an issue a minister of monarchical views might see anappropriate conclusion to a life or rather two lives, his father's andhis own, dedicated to the service of the sovereign. And it appearedthat he might well hope to succeed, as a considerable alleviation wasoffered at the same time to the King's subjects as well. 

The King reminded them that the feudal prerogative formed one of thefairest jewels of his crown, that it was an heirloom from hisforefathers which he could not surrender; honour, conscience, andinterest, equally forbade it. The Lower House replied that it wouldnot dispute about honour and conscience, but as to interest, thatmight be arranged. They were ready by formal contract to indemnify thecrown for the loss which it would suffer. [367]

The crown demanded £100, 000 as a compensation for the loss it wouldsuffer; and besides this, the £200, 000 before mentioned which itrequired for restoring the balance between income and expenditure. Weneed not here reproduce the repulsive spectacle presented by theabatement of demands on the one side, and the increase of offers onthe other. At last the Lord Treasurer adhered to the demand for£200, 000 everything included. He declared that if this was refused theKing would never again make a similar offer. On this at last theParliament declared itself ready to grant the sum; but, even then, setup further conditions about which they could not come to an immediateagreement, so that their mutual claims were not yet definitivelyadjusted. 

On the contrary these negotiations had by degrees assumed a tone ofsome irritation. Parliament found that the Earl of Salisbury had actedunconstitutionally in proposing to raise the scale of duties withoutits consent, and would not be content with his reference to thedecision of the judges mentioned above, and to the conferences withthe merchants. He endeavoured at a private interview with some of theleading members to bring round the opinion to his side: but the Housewas angry with those who had been present at it, and their goodintentions were called in question. [368]

The speeches also, with which the King twice interrupted theproceedings, produced an undesirable effect. He was inclined to meetthe general wishes, without surrendering however any part of hisprerogatives. But at the same time he expressed himself about these inthe exaggerated manner peculiar to him, which was exactly calculatedto arouse contradiction. [369] Whilst he was comparing the royal powerto the divine, he found that the House on one pretext or anotherrefused even to open a letter which he had addressed to them about thespeech of some member which had displeased him: on the contrary he wasobliged to receive back into favour the very member who had affrontedhim. Parliament regarded liberty of speech as the Palladium of itsefficiency; foreigners were astonished at the recklessness with whichmembers expressed themselves about the government. 

As a rule the investigation of relative rights has an unfavourableresult for those who are in actual possession of authority. Theprerogative which the King exalted so highly presented itself to theParliament in an obnoxious aspect. In the debates on the contract thequestion was raised, how Sampson's hands could be bound, that is tosay, how the King's prerogative could be so far restricted as toprevent him from breaking or overstepping the agreement. 

During a dispute with the House of Lords the sentiment was uttered, that the members of the Lower House as representing the Commons rankedhigher than the Lords, each of whom represented only himself. [370] Itis easy to see how far this principle might lead. 

Even his darling project of combining England and Scotland into asingle kingdom could not be carried out by the King in the successivesessions of Parliament. One of the leading spirits of the age, FrancisBacon, was on his side in this matter as in others. When it wasobjected that it was no advantage to the English to take thepoverty-stricken Scots into partnership, as for example in commercialaffairs, he returned answer, that merchants might reckon in this way, but no one who rose to great views: united with Scotland, Englandwould become one of the greatest monarchies that the world had everseen; but who did not perceive that a complete fusion of both elementswas needed for this? Security against the recurrence of the olddivisions could not be obtained until this was effected. Owing to theinfluence of Bacon, who at that time had become Solicitor-General, thequestion of the naturalisation of all those born in Scotland afterJames had ascended the English throne, was decided with but slightopposition, in a sense favourable to the union of the two kingdoms, bythe Lord Chancellor and the Judges. The decision however was notaccepted by Parliament. And when the question was now raised how farthe assent of Parliament was necessary in a case like this, theadverse declaration of the Lord Chancellor was exactly calculated toprovoke a contest of principle in this matter also. [371] With theadvice of the Lord Chancellor and the Council James had declaredhimself King of Great Britain, and had expressed the wish that thenames of England and Scotland might be henceforth obliterated; but hisProclamation was not considered sufficient without the assent ofParliament; and in this case the judges took the side of theParliament. The dynastic ideas with which James had commenced hisreign could not but serve to resuscitate the claim of Parliament tothe possession of the legislative power. At other times the precedentsadduced by the Lord Chancellor in the debate on the 'post-nati' mighthave controlled their decision: at the present time they no longermade any impression. The opposition of political ideas came to thesurface in this matter as in others. The King held the stronglymonarchical view that the populations of both countries were unitedwith one another by the mere fact of their being both subject to him. To this the Parliament opposed the doctrine that the two crowns weredistinct sovereignties, and that the legislation of the two countriescould not be united. They wished to fetter the King to the old legalposition which they were far more anxious to contract than to expand. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1613. ]

The consequences must have been incalculable, if the Earl of Salisburyand the Lord Chancellor had succeeded in carrying out theirintentions. A common government of the two countries would have heldin all important questions a position independent of the twoParliaments, and the person of the sovereign would have been theruling centre of this government. If besides an adequate income hadbeen definitely assigned to the crown independent of the regularlyrecurring assent of Parliament, what would have become of the rightsof that body? Not only would Elizabeth's mode of government have beencontinued, but the monarchical element which could appeal to variousprecedents in its own favour would probably have obtained a completeascendancy. 

But for that very reason these efforts were met by a most decidedopposition. It is plain that these rival pretensions, and the motivefrom which they sprang, paved the way for controversies of the mostextensive kind. 

The scheme of the contract was as little successful as that of theunion of the two kingdoms. The parties were contented with merelyremoving the occasion for an immediate rupture; and after some shortprorogations Parliament was finally dissolved. 

The King, who felt himself aggrieved by its whole attitude as well asby many single expressions, was reluctant to call another. In order tomeet his extraordinary necessities recourse was had to various olddevices and to some new ones; for instance, the creation of a greatnumber of baronets in 1612, on payment of considerable sums: butnotwithstanding all this, in the year 1613 matters had gone so far, that neither the ambassadors to foreign courts, nor even the troopswhich were maintained could be paid. In the garrison of Brill a mutinyhad arisen on this account; the strongholds on the coast and thefortifications on the adjacent islands went to ruin. For this as wellas for other reasons the death of the Earl of Salisbury was amisfortune. The man on whom James I next bestowed his principalconfidence, Robert Carr, then Lord Rochester, later Earl of Somerset, was already condemned by the popular voice because he was a Scot, whomoreover had no other merit than a pleasing person, which procured himthe favour of the King. The authority enjoyed by the Howards hadalready provoked dissatisfaction. The Prince of Wales had been theirdecided adversary, and this enmity was kept up by all his friends. Robert Carr, however, thought it advisable to win over to his sidethis powerful family to which he had at first found himself inopposition. Whether from personal ambition or from a temper thatreally mocked at all law and morality he married Frances Howard, whoseunion with the Earl of Essex had to be dissolved for thisobject. [372] The old enemies of the Howards, the adherents of thehouse of Essex, many of whom had inherited this enmity, now became theopponents of the favourite and his government. When at last urgentfinancial necessities allowed no other alternative, and absolutelycompelled the issue of a summons for a new parliament, the contendingparties seized the opportunity of confronting one another. Thecreatures of the government neglected no means of controlling theelections by their influence; but they were everywhere encountered bythe other party, who were favoured by the increasing dissatisfactionof the people. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1614. ]

At the opening of Parliament in April 1614, and on two occasionsafterwards, the King addressed the Lower House. Among all thescholastic distinctions, complaints of the past, and assurances forthe future, in which after his usual fashion he indulges, we can stillperceive the fundamental idea, that if even the subsidies which herequired and asked were granted him, he would notwithstanding agree tono conditions on his side, and take upon himself no distinct pledges. He was resolved no longer to play the game of making concessions inorder to ask for something in return, as he had done some yearsbefore; he found that far beneath his dignity. Still less could heconsent that all the grievances that might have arisen should beheaped up and presented to him, for that would be injurious to thehonour of the government. Each one, he said, might lay before him thegrievances which he experienced in his own town or in his own county;he would then attend to their redress one by one. In the same way hewould deal with each House separately. If he is reproached withendeavouring to extend his prerogatives he denies the charge; but heaffirms that he cannot allow them to be abridged, but that, inexercising them, he would behave as well as the best prince Englandever had. [373] He has no conception of a relation based on mutualrights; he acknowledges only a relation of confidence and affection. In return for liberal concessions he promises liberal favour. 

This was a view of things resting upon a patriarchal conception ofkingly power, in favour of which analogies might no doubt have beenfound in the early state of the kingdoms of the West, but which wasnow becoming more and more obsolete. What had still been possibleunder Elizabeth, when the sovereign and her Parliament formed oneparty, was no longer so now; especially as a man who had attracteduniversal hatred stood at the head of affairs. Besides this a disputewas already going on which we cannot pass over in silence. 

It arose upon the same matter which had caused such graveembarrassment to the Earl of Salisbury, the unlimited exercise of theright of levying tonnage and poundage entirely at the discretion ofthe government. It was affirmed that the Custom-House receipts hadincreased more than twentyfold since the commencement of James'sreign, and that a great part of the increased returns was enjoyed byfavoured private individuals. The Lower House demanded first of all anexamination into the right of the government, and declared thatwithout it they would not proceed to vote any grant. [374]

In the Lower House itself on one occasion a lively debate arose on thesubject. The opinion was advanced on the part of the friends of thegovernment that, in this respect as in others, a difference existedbetween hereditary and elective monarchies, that in the first class, which included England, the prerogative was far more extensive than inthe latter. Henry Wotton, and Winwood, who had been long employed onforeign embassies, explained what a great advantage in regard to theircollective revenues other states derived from indirect taxes andcustoms. But by this statement they awakened redoubled opposition. They were told that the raising of these imposts in France had notbeen approved by the Estates and was in fact illegal; that the Kingof Spain had been forced to atone for the attempt to introduce theminto the Netherlands by the loss of the greater part of the provinces. Thomas Wentworth especially broke out into violent invectives againstthe neighbouring sovereigns, which even called forth remonstrancesfrom the embassies. He warned the King of England that in his casealso similar measures would lead to his complete ruin. [375] It was notonly urged that England ought not to take example by any foreigncountry, but the very distinction drawn between elective andhereditary monarchies suggested a question whether England after allwas so entirely a hereditary monarchy as was asserted. It was asked ifit might not rather be said that James I, who was one of a number ofclaimants who had all equally good rights, owed his accession to avoluntary preference on the part of the nation, which might beregarded as a sort of election. These were ideas of unlimited range, and flatly contradicted those which James had formed on the rights ofbirth and inheritance. He felt himself outraged by their expression inthe Lower House. 

In order to give the force of a general resolution to their assertion, that in England the prerogative did not include the fixing of theamount of taxes and customs without the consent of Parliament, theCommons had made proposals for a conference with the Upper House. Buthereupon the higher clergy declared themselves hostile, not only totheir opinion, but even to the bare project of a conference. Neil, Bishop of Lincoln, affirmed that the oath taken to the King in itselfforbade them to participate in such a conference; that the matteraffected not so much a branch of the royal prerogative as its veryroot; that the Lords moreover would have to listen to seditiousspeeches, the aim and intention of which could only be to bring abouta division between the King and his subjects. The Lord Chancellor hadasked the judges for their opinion; but they had declined to give any. The result was that the Upper House did not accede to the proposal ofa conference. 

The Commons were greatly irritated at the resistance which was offeredto their first step. They too in conferences which related to othermatters disdained to enter into the subjects brought before them. Theycomplained loudly of the insulting expressions of the bishop which hadbeen repeated to them. An exculpatory statement of the Upper House didnot content them; they demanded full satisfaction as in an affair ofhonour, and until this had been furnished them they declaredthemselves determined to make no progress with any other matter. 

The King however on his side now lost patience at this. He consideredthat an attack was made on the highest power when the general progressof business was hindered for the sake of a single question, and heappointed a day on which this affair of the subsidy must be disposedof. He said that, if it were not settled, he would dissolveParliament. 

One would not expect such a declaration to change the temper of theLower House. Speeches were heard still more violent than thosepreviously made. The Scots, to whose influence every untowardoccurrence was imputed, were threatened with a repetition of theSicilian Vespers. There were other members however who counselledmoderation; for it almost appeared as if the dissolution of thisParliament might be the dissolution of all parliaments. Commissionerswere once more sent to the King in order to give another turn to thenegotiations. The King declared that he knew full well how far hisrights extended, and that he could not allow his prerogatives to becalled in question. [376]

These passionate ebullitions of feeling against the Scots, althoughthey referred to matters of a more alarming, but happily of anentirely different nature, made the King anxious lest the destructionof his favourites, or even his own ruin, might be required to contenthis adversaries. On the 7th of June he dissolved Parliament. Hethought himself entitled to bring up for punishment the loudest andmost reckless speakers, as well as some other noted men from whomthese speakers had received their impulse, for instance Cornwallis, the former ambassador in Spain. He considered that they had intendedto upset the government: not only had they failed, but they themselvesmust atone for the attempt. [377]

The estrangement was not too great to allow the hope of areconciliation. It had been represented to the King that he ought notto be ready to regard financial concessions as a compliance unbecomingto the crown, for that in these matters he was at no disadvantage ascompared with any person or any foreign power; that on the contrarythe decision always proceeded from himself; that he was the head whocared for the welfare of the members. It was said that he need by nomeans fear that men would make use of his wants to lay fetters on him;that bonds laid by subjects on their sovereigns were merely cobwebswhich he might tear asunder at any moment. Even Walter Ralegh hadstated this. [378] But the King had no inclination, after theParliament had repelled his overtures with rude opposition, to exposehimself by summoning a new one to new attacks on his prerogatives ashe understood them. By the voluntary or forced contributions ofdifferent corporations, especially of the clergy and of the great menof the kingdom, he was placed in a condition to carry on hisgovernment in the ordinary way. Every measure which would havenecessitated a great outlay was avoided. 

It is plain however into what a disagreeable position he was thusbrought. His whole method of government was based upon the superiorityof England. He had at that time brought the system of the Church inScotland nearer to the English model. The bishops in that country hadeven received their consecration from the English. But he had noteffected this without violent acts of usurpation. He had been obligedto remove his most active opponents out of the country; but even intheir absence they kept up the excitement of men's feelings by theirwritings. The Presbyterians saw in everything which he succeeded indoing, the work of cunning on the one side and treachery on the other, and gave vent to the deepest displeasure at his deviation from theirsolemn Covenant with God. 

Relying on the right of England, but for the first time invitingimmigrants from Scotland, James undertook the systematic establishmentof colonies in Ireland. The additional strength however which by thismeans accrued to the Protestant and Teutonic element entirelyannihilated all leanings which had been shown in his favour at hisaccession to the crown, and aroused against him the strongest nationaland religious antipathies of the native population in that country. 

He then met with this opposition in Parliament which hampered all hismovements. It was foreign to his natural disposition to think ofeffecting a radical removal of the misunderstanding that had arisen. On the contrary he kept adding fresh fuel to it on account of thedeficiencies of his government, which began to impair his formerimportance. The immediate consequence was that in foreign affairs hewas no longer able to maintain the position which he had taken up asvigorously as might have been wished. His allies pressed himincessantly to bestow help on them: but if even he had wished it, thiswas no longer in his power. It was not that Parliament in withholdinghis supplies had disapproved of the object which they were intended toserve. On the contrary the Parliament lamented that this object wasnot pursued with sufficient earnestness; but it wished above all toextend its right of sanction over the whole domain of the publicrevenues. But the King was not inclined to treat with Parliament forthe supplies of money required; he feared to incur the necessity ofrepaying its grants by concessions which would abridge the ancientrights of his crown. The centre of gravity of public affairs must liesomewhere or other. The question was already raised in England whetherfor the future it was to be in the power of the King and hisministers, or in the authority of Parliament. 

NOTES:

[364] Letter to the Lords, anno 1607: in Strype, Annals iv. 560. 

[365] Antonio Correro, 25 Giugno 1608: 'Con l'autorità ch'egli tienecon li mercanti di questa piazza li ha indutti a sottoporsi ad unanova gravezza posta sopra le merci che vengono e vanno da questoregno. '

[366] Molino: 'La gabella dei pupilli porge materia grande a sudditidi dolorsene e d'esclamare sino al celo studiando ogn'uno di liberasida simili bene. --Se uno aveva due campi di questa ragione e centod'altra natura, i due hanno questa forza, di sottomettere i cento allamedesima gravezza. '

[367] Beaulieu to Trumbull. Winwood, Memorials iii. 123. 

[368] Carleton to Edmonds: Court and Times of James I, i. 12, 123. 

[369] Chamberlain to Winwood. Mem. Iii. 175. 'Yf the practise shouldfollow the positions, we should not leave to our successor thatfreedome we received from our forefathers. '

[370] Tommaso Contarini, 23 Giugno 1610: 'Che le loro persone, comerepresentanti le communita, siano di maggior qualita che li signorititolati quali representano le loro sole persone, il che diedegrandissimo fastidio al re. '

[371] Campbell, Lives of the Lord Chancellors ii. 225. 

[372] Lorking, writing to Puckering (The Court and Times of James theFirst i. 254), remarks as early as July 1613 on the first mention ofthe marriage, that its design was 'to reconcile him (Lord Rochester)and the house of Howard together, who are now far enough asunder. '

[373] The King's second speech. Parliamentary History v. 285. 

[374] A. Foscarini 1614, 20 Giugno. 'Il re ha sempre avuto seco (onhis side) la camera superiore e parte dell'inferiore: il rimanente hamostrato di voler contribuir ogni quantita di sussidio ma a conditioneche si vedesse prima qual fosse l'autorità del re, sull'imporgravezze. '

[375] Chamberlain to Carleton, May 28. Court and Times of James I, i. 312. 

[376] According to a report furnished by A. Foscarini: 'Elessero 40d'essi a quali diede Lunedi audienza S. M. --dissero che lasupplicavano per tanto lasciar per ultima da risolvere la materia didanari. ' Unfortunately we have only very scanty information about thisParliament. 

[377] Extract from a letter of Winwood to Carleton, June 16. Green, Calendar of State Papers, James I, vol. Ii. 237. 

[378] The Prerogative of Parliaments. Works viii. 154. 

CHAPTER VI. 

SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE OF THE EPOCH. 

The times in which great political struggles are actually going on arenot the most favourable for production in the fields of literature andart. These flourish best in the preceding or following ages, duringwhich the impulse attending those movements begins or continues to befelt. Just such an epoch was the period of thirty or forty yearsbetween the defeat of the Armada and the outbreak of the Parliamentarytroubles, a period comprising the later years of Queen Elizabeth andthe earlier years of King James I. This was the epoch in which theEnglish nation attained to a position of influence on the world atlarge, and in which at the same time those far-reaching differencesabout the most important questions of the inner life of the nationarose. The antagonism of ideas which stirred men's minds generallycould not but reproduce itself in literature. But we also see othergrand products of the age far transcending the limits of the presentstruggle. Our survey of the history will gain in completeness if wecast even but a transient glance, first at the former and then at thelatter class of these products. 

In Scotland the studies connected with classical antiquity wereprosecuted with as much zeal as anywhere else in Europe; not howeverin order to imitate its forms in the native idiom, which no one atthat time even in Germany thought of doing, but in order to use it inlearned theological controversies, and to maintain connexion withbrother Protestants of other tongues. S. Andrew's was at one time acentre for Protestant learning: Poles and Danes, Germans and Frenchvisited this university in order to study under Melville. Even Latinverse was written with a certain elegance. A fit monument of thesestudies and their direction is to be found in Buchanan's History ofScotland, a work without value for the earlier period, and full ofparty spirit in describing his own, as Buchanan is one of the mostviolent accusers of Mary Stuart, but pervaded by that warmth anddecision which carry the reader along with it: at that time it wasread all over the world. Buchanan and Melville were among thechampions of popular ideas on the constitution of states and therelations between sovereign and people. It cannot be affirmed thatclassical studies were without influence upon their views, but thedoctrine to which they adhered grew out of a different root. It restshistorically upon the doctrine of the superiority of the Church, andthe councils representing the Church, over the Papacy, as it was putforth in the fifteenth century at Paris. A Scottish student there, John Major, made this doctrine his own, and after his return to hisnative country, when he himself had obtained a professorship, heapplied it to temporal relations. The positions of the advocates ofthe councils affirmed that the Pope, it was true, received hisauthority from God, but that he might be again deprived of it in casesof urgent necessity by the Church, which virtually included the sum ofall authority in itself. In the same way John Major taught that anoriginal power transmitted from father to son pertained to kings, butthat the fundamental authority resided in the people; so that a kingmischievous to the commonwealth, who showed himself incorrigible, might be deposed again. His scholars, who took so large a part in thefirst disturbances in Scotland, and their scholars in turn, firmlymaintained this doctrine. They differed from their contemporaries theJesuits, who considered the monarchy to be an institution set up bythe national will, in ascribing to it a divine right, but they urgedthat a king existed for the sake of the people, and that as he wasbound by the laws agreed on by common consent, resistance to him wasnot only allowed, but under certain circumstances might even be aduty. We must also remark the opposite view, which was developed incontradiction to this, but yet rested on the same foundation. It wasadmitted that the king, if the people were considered as a whole, existed for their sake, and not the people for his; but the king, itwas said, was at the same time the head of the people; he possessedsuperiority over all individuals: there was no one who could say inany case that the contract between king and people had been broken: nosuch general contract existed at all; there could be no question atall of resistance, much less of deposition, for how could the membersrebel against the head? King James maintained that the legislativepower belonged to the king by divine and human right, that heexercised it with the participation of his subjects, and alwaysremained superior to the laws. His position rests on these views, inthe development of which he himself had certainly a great share; he, like his opponents, had his political and ecclesiastical adherents. Inthe Scottish literature of the time both tendencies are embodied inimportant historical works; the latter principally in Spottiswood'sChurch History, which represents the royalist views and is not withoutmerit in point of form, so that even at the present day it can be readwith pleasure; the former in contemporary notices of passing eventswhich were composed in the language and even in the dialect of thecountry, and which in many places are the foundation even ofBuchanan's history. They are the most direct expression of nationaland religious views, as they found vent in the assemblies of preachersand elders; in them we feel the life-breath of Presbyterianism. Calderwood and the younger Melville, who collected everything whichcame to hand, espoused the popular ideas; for information on facts andtheir causes they are invaluable, although in respect of form they donot rival Spottiswood, who, like them, employs the language of thecountry. 

It might perhaps be said that it was in Scotland that the two systemsarose which since that time, although in various shapes, have dividedBritain and Europe. In the historians just mentioned we might see thetypes of two schools, whose opposite conceptions of universal andespecially of English history, set forth by writers of brilliantability, have exercised the greatest influence upon prevailing ideas. 

In England these ideas certainly gained admission, but they did notmake way at that time. When Richard Hooker expresses the popular ideasas to the primitive free development of society, this is doneprincipally in order to point out the extensive authority of thelegislative power even over the clergy, and to defend theecclesiastical supremacy of the English crown, which had beenestablished by the enactments of that very power. The question wasmooted how far the sovereign was above the laws. Many wished to derivethese prerogatives from the laws; others rejected them. Among thosewho maintained them unconditionally Walter Ralegh appears, in whoseworks we find a peculiar deduction of them in the statement that thesovereign, according to Justinian's phrase, was the living law: hederives the royal authority from the Divine Will, which the will ofman could only acknowledge. He says in one place that the sovereignstands in the same relation to the law, as a living man to a deadbody. 

What a remarkable work would it have been, had Walter Ralegh himselfrecorded the history of his time. But the opposition between partieswas not so outspoken in England as in Scotland; it had not to justifyitself by general principles, to which men could give their adhesion;it contained too much personal ill-feeling and hatred for any one whowas involved in the strife to have been able to find satisfaction inexpressing himself on this head. The history of the world which WalterRalegh had leisure to write in his prison, is an endeavour to puttogether the materials of Universal History as they lay before himfrom ancient times, and so make them more intelligible. He touches onthe events of his age only in allusions, which excited attention atthe time, but remain obscure to posterity. 

In direct opposition to the Scots, especially to Buchanan, Camden, whowrote in Latin like the former, composed his Annals of the Reign ofQueen Elizabeth. His contemporary, De Thou, borrowed much fromBuchanan. Camden reproaches him with this, partly because in Scotlandmen preached atrocious principles with regard to the authority of thepeople and their right of keeping their kings in order. The elderCecil had invited him to write the history of the Queen, and hadcommunicated to him numerous documents for this purpose, which wereeither in his own possession or belonged to the national archives. Camden set cautiously to work, and went slowly on. He has himselfdepicted the trouble it cost him to decipher the historical contentsof these scattered and dusty papers. He has certainly not surmountedall the difficulties which stand in the way of composing acontemporary history. Here and there we find even in his pages aregard paid to the living, especially to King James himself, which wewould rather see away. But such passages are rare. Camden's Annalstake a high rank among histories of contemporary transactions. Theyare of such authenticity in regard to facts, and show so intimate anacquaintance with causes gathered from trustworthy information, thatwe can follow the author, even where we do not possess the documentsto which he refers. His judgments are moderate and at the same time inall important questions they are decided. 

When we read Camden's letters we become acquainted with a circle ofscholars engaged in the severest studies. In his Britannia, whichgives a more complete and instructive picture of the country than anyother work, they all took a lively interest. Their works are clumsyand old-fashioned, but they breathe a spirit of thoroughness andbreadth which does honour to the age. With what zeal wereecclesiastical antiquities studied in Cambridge, after Whitaker hadpointed the way! Men sought to weed out what was spurious, and in whatwas genuine to set aside the part due to the accidental forms of thetime, and to penetrate to the bottom of the sentiments, the belief, and activity of the writers. The constitution of the Church naturallyled them to devote special study to the old provincial councils. Forthe history of the country they referred to the monuments ofAnglo-Saxon times, and began even in treating of other subjects tobring the original sources to light. Everywhere men advanced beyondthe old limits which had been drawn by the tradition of chroniclersand the lack of historical investigation hitherto shown. 

Francis Bacon was attracted by the task of depicting at length amodern epoch, the history of the Tudors, with the various changeswhich it presented and the great results it had introduced, in whichhe saw the unity of a connected series of events. Yet he has onlytreated the history of the first of that line. He furnishes one of thefirst examples of exact investigation of details combined withreflective treatment of history, and has exercised a controllinginfluence on the manner and style of writing English history, especially by the introduction of considerations of law, which play agreat part in his work. The political points of view which are presentto the author are almost more those of the beginning of theseventeenth than those of the beginning of the sixteenth century. Butthese epochs are closely connected with each other. For what Henry VIIestablished is just what James I, who loved to connect himselfimmediately with the former monarch, wished to continue. Bacon was astaunch defender of the prerogative. 

The dispute which arose between Bacon as a lawyer and Edward Cokedeserves notice. 

Coke also has a place in literature. His reports are, even at thepresent day, known without his name simply as 'The Reports, ' and his'Institutes' is one of the most learned works which this age produced. It is rather a collection provided with notes, but is instructive andsuggestive from the variety of and the contrast of its contents. Coketraced the English laws to the remotest antiquity; he considered themas the common production of the wisest men of earlier ages, and at thesame time as the great inheritance of the English people, and its bestprotection against every kind of tyranny, spiritual or temporal. Eventhe old Norman French, in which they were to a great extent composed, he would not part with, for a peculiar meaning attached itself, in hisview, to every word. 

On the other hand Bacon as Attorney-General formed the plan ofcomprising the common law in a code, by which a limit should be set tothe caprice of the judges, and the private citizen be better assuredof his rights. He thought of revising the Statute-Book, and wished toerase everything useless, to remove difficulties, and to bring whatwas contradictory into harmony. 

Bacon's purpose coincided with the idea of a general system oflegislation entertained by the King: he would have preferred the Romanlaw to the statute law of England. Coke was a man devoted to theletter of the law, and was inclined to offer that resistance to thesovereign which was implied in a strict adherence to the law as itwas. In the conflict that arose the judges, influenced by his example, appealed to the laws as they were laid down, according to the verbalmeaning of which they thought themselves bound to decide. Baconmaintained that the Judges' oath was meant to include obedience to theKing also, to whom application must be made in every matter affectinghis prerogative. This is probably what Queen Elizabeth also thought, and it was the decided opinion of King James. He made the man whocherished similar views his Lord Chancellor, and dismissed Coke fromhis service. Bacon when in office was responsible for a catastrophewhich, as we shall see, not only ruined himself, but reacted upon themonarchy. The English, contemporaries and posterity alike, have takenthe side of Coke. Yet Bacon's industry in business is not thereforealtogether to be despised. He urged the King, who was disposed tojudge hastily, to take time and to weigh the reasons of both parties. He gave the judges who went on circuit through the country the mostpertinent advice. The directions which he drew up for the Court ofChancery have laid the foundations of the practice of that court, andare still an authority for it. His scheme of collecting and reformingthe English laws still, even at the present day, appears to statesmenlearned in the law to be an unavoidable necessity; and the opinion isspreading that steps must be taken in this matter in the directionalready pointed out by Bacon. 

Bacon was one of the last men who identified the welfare of Englandwith the development of the monarchical element in the constitution, or at all events with the preponderance of the authority of thesovereign within constitutional limits. The union of the threekingdoms under the ruling authority of the King appeared to him tocontain the foundation of the future greatness of Britain. With theassertion of the authority of the sovereign he connected the hope of areform of the laws of England, of the establishment of a comprehensivesystem of colonisation in Ireland, and of the assimilation of theecclesiastical and judicial constitution of Scotland to Englishcustoms. He loved the monarchy because he expected great things fromit. 

But it cannot be denied that he brought his ideas into a connexionwith his interests, which was fatal to the acceptance of the former. His is just a case in which we feel relieved when we turn from thedisputes of the day to the free domain of scientific activity, inwhich his true life was spent. He has indeed said himself that he wasbetter fitted to hold a book in his hands than to shine upon the stageof the world. In his studies he had only science itself and the wholeof the world before his eyes. 

The scholastic system founded on Aristotle, the inheritance ofcenturies of ecclesiastical supremacy, had been assailed some timebefore he took up the subject; and the inductive method which heopposed to that system was not anything quite new. But the idea ofBacon had the most comprehensive tendency: it tended to free thethoughts and enquiries of men of science from the assumptions of aspeculative theology which regulated their spiritual horizon. The mostrenowned adversaries of scholasticism he had to encounter in turn, because they covered things with a new web of words and theories whichhe could not accept. He thought to free men from the deceptive notionsby which their minds are prepossessed, from the fascination of wordswhich throw a veil over things, and of tradition consecrated by greatnames, and to open to them the sphere of the certain knowledge ofexperience. Nature is in his eyes God's book, which man must studydirectly for His glory and for the relief of man's estate; he thoughtthat men must start from sense and experience, in order that byintercourse with things they might discover the cause of phenomena. He would have preferred for his own part to have been the architect ofan universal science, an outline of which he had already composed; buthe possessed the self-restraint to hold back from this in the firstinstance, to work at details, and to make experiments, or, as he oncesays, to contribute the bricks and stones which might serve for thegreat work in the future. He only wanted more complete devotion andmore adequate knowledge for his task. His method is imperfect, hisresults are untrustworthy in points of detail; but his object isgrand. He designates the insight for which he labours by theHeraclitean name of dry light, that is, a light which is obscured byno partiality and no subordinate aim. He would place the man whopossesses it as it were upon the mountain top, at the foot of whicherrors chase one another like clouds. And in his eyes the satisfactionof the mind is not the only interest at stake, but such discoveries asrouse the activity of men and promote their welfare. Nature is at thesame time the great storehouse of God: the dominion over nature whichmen originally possessed must be restored to them. 

In these speculations the philosopher became aware that there was arisk lest men should imagine that by this means they could alsodiscover the nature of God. Bacon lays down a complete separation ofthese two provinces; for he thinks that men can only attain to secondcauses, not to the first cause, which is God; and that the human mindcan only cope with natural things; that divine things on the contraryconfuse it. He will not even investigate the nature of the human soul, for it does not owe its origin to the productive powers of nature, butto the breath of God. 

It had been from the beginning the tendency of those schools ofphilosophy erected on the basis of ancient systems, in which Latin andTeutonic elements were blended, to transfuse faith with scientificknowledge; but Bacon renounces this attempt from the beginning. Heputs forward with almost repulsive abruptness the paradoxes which theChristian must believe: he declares it an Icarian flight to wish topenetrate these secrets: but so much stronger is the impulse he seeksto give the human mind in the direction of enquiry into naturalobjects. [379]

Among these he ranks the state of human society, to which all his lifelong he devoted a careful and searching observation. His Essays arenot at all sceptical, like the French essays, from which he may haveborrowed this appellation: they are thoroughly dogmatic. They consistof remarks on the relations of life as they then presented themselves, especially upon the points of contact between private and public life, and of counsels drawn from the perception of the conflicting qualitiesof things. They are extremely instructive for the internal relationsof English society. They show wide observation and calm wisdom, and, like his philosophical works, are a treasure for the English nation, whose views of life have been built upon them. 

What better legacy can one generation leave to another than the sum ofits experiences which have an importance extending beyond the fleetingmoment, when they are couched in a form which makes them useful forall time? Herein consists the earthly immortality of the soul. 

But another possession of still richer contents and of incomparablevalue was secured to the English nation by the development of thedrama, which falls just within this epoch. 

In former times there had been theatrical representations in thepalaces of the kings and of great men, in the universities, and amongjudicial and civic societies. They formed part of the enjoyments ofthe Carnival or contributed to the brilliancy of other festivities;but they did not come into full existence until Elizabeth allowed themto the people by a general permission. In earlier times the scholarsof the higher schools or the members of learned fraternities, theartisans in the towns, and the members of the household of great menand princes, had themselves conducted the representation. Actors byprofession now arose, who received pay and performed the whole yearround. [380] A number of small theatres grew up which, as they chargedbut low entrance-fees, attracted the crowd, and while they influencedit, were influenced by it in turn. The government could not object tothe theatre, as the principal opposition which it had to fear, that ofthe Puritans, shut itself out from exercising any influence over thedrama, owing to the aversion of their party to it. The theatres viedwith one another: each sought to bring out something new, and then tokeep it to itself. The authors, among whom men of distinguished talentwere found, were not unfrequently players as well. All materials fromfable and from history, from the whole range of literature, which hadbeen widely extended by native productions and by appropriation fromforeign sources, were seized, and by constant elaboration adapted foran appreciative public. 

While the town theatres and their productions were thus struggling torise in mutual rivalry, the genius of William Shakspeare developeditself: at that time he was lost among the crowd of rivals, but hisfame has increased from age to age among posterity. 

It especially concerns us to notice that he brought on the stage anumber of events taken from English history itself. In the praisewhich has been lavishly bestowed on him, of having rendered them withhistorical truth, we cannot entirely agree. For who could affirm thathis King John and Henry VIII, his Gloucester and Winchester, or evenhis Maid of Orleans, resemble the originals whose names they bear? Theauthor forms his own conception of the great questions at issue. Whilehe follows the chronicle as closely as possible, and adopts itscharacteristic traits, he yet assigns to each of the personages a partcorresponding to the peculiar view he adopts: he gives life to theaction by introducing motives which the historian cannot find oraccept: characters which stand close together in tradition, as theyprobably did in fact, are set apart in his pages, each of them in aseparately developed homogeneous existence of its own: natural humanmotives, which elsewhere appear only in private life, break thecontinuity of the political action, and thus obtain a twofold dramaticinfluence. But if deviations from fact are found in individual points, yet the choice of events to be brought upon the stage shows a deepsense of what is historically great. These are almost alwayssituations and entanglements of the most important character: theinterference of the spiritual power in an intestine political quarrelin King John: the sudden fall of a firmly seated monarchy as soon asever it departs from the strict path of right in Richard III: theopposition which a usurping prince, Henry IV, meets with at the handsof the great vassals who have placed him on the throne, and whichbrings him by incessant anxiety and mental labour to a prematuregrave: the happy issue of a successful foreign enterprise, the courseof which we follow from the determination to prepare for it, to therisk of battle and to final victory; and then again in Henry V andHenry VI, the unhappy position into which a prince not formed bynature to be a ruler falls between violent contending parties, untilhe envies the homely swain who tends his flocks and lets the years runby in peace: lastly the path of horrible crime which a king's son notdestined for the throne has to tread in order to ascend it: all theseare great elements in the history of states, and are not onlyimportant for England, but are symbolic for all people and theirsovereigns. The poet touches on parliamentary or religions questionsextremely seldom; and it may be observed that in King John the greatmovements which led to Magna Charta are as good as left out of sight;on the contrary he lives and moves among the personal contrastsoffered by the feudal system, and its mutual rights and duties. Bolingbroke's feeling that though his cousin is King of England yet heis Duke of Lancaster reveals the conception of these rights in themiddle ages. The speech which Shakspeare puts into the mouth of theBishop of Carlisle is applicable to all times. The crown that securesthe highest independence appears to the poet the most desirable of allpossessions, but the honoured gold consumes him who wears it by therestless care which it brings with it. 

Shakspeare depicts the popular storms which are wont to accompany afree constitution in the plots of some of his Roman dramas: of thesePlutarch instead of Holinshed furnishes the basis. He is right intaking them from a foreign country: for events nearer to his audiencewould have roused an interest of a different kind, and yet would nothave had so universal a meaning. What could be more dramatic, forexample, and at the same time more widely applicable than the contrastbetween the two speeches, by the first of which Caesar's murder isjustified, while by the second the memory of his services is revived?The conception of freedom which the first brings to life is set inopposition to the thought of the virtues and services of the possessorof absolute power, and thrust by them into the background; but thesesame feelings are the deepest and most active in all ages and amongall nations. 

But the attested traditions of ancient and modern times do not satisfythe poet in his wish to lay bare the depths of human existence. Hetakes us into the cloudy regions of British and Northern antiquityonly known to fable, in which other contrasts between persons and inpublic affairs make their appearance. A king comes on the stage who inthe plenitude of enjoyment and power is brought by overhastyconfidence in his nearest kin to the extremest wretchedness into whichmen can fall. We see the heir to a throne who, dispossessed of hisrights by his own mother and his father's murderer, is directed bymysterious influences to take revenge. We have before us a greatnobleman, who by atrocious murders has gained possession of thethrone, and is slain in fighting for it: the poet brings us intoimmediate proximity with the crime, its execution, and its recoil: itseems like an inspiration of hell and of its deceitful prophecies: wewander on the confines of the visible world and of that other worldwhich lies on the other side, but extends over into this, where itforms the border-land between conscious sense and unconscious madness:the abysses of the human breast are opened to view, in which men arechained down and brought to destruction by powers of nature that dwellthere unknown to them: all questions about existence andnon-existence; about heaven, hell, and earth; about freedom andnecessity, are raised in these struggles for the crown. Even thetenderest feelings that rivet human souls to one another he loves todisplay upon a background of political life. Then we follow him fromthe cloudy North into sunny Italy. Shakspeare is one of theintellectual powers of nature; he takes away the veil by which theinward springs of action are hidden from the vulgar eye. The extensionof the range of human vision over the mysterious being of things whichhis works offer constitutes them a great historical fact. 

We do not here enter upon a discussion of Shakspeare's art andcharacteristics, of their merits and defects: they were no doubt of apiece with the needs, habits, and mode of thought of his audience; forin what case could there be a stronger reciprocal action between anauthor and his public, than in that of a young stage depending uponvoluntary support? The very absence of conventional rule made iteasier to put on the stage a drama by which all that is grandest andmightiest is brought before the eyes as if actually present in thatmedley of great and small things which is characteristic of humanlife. Genius is an independent gift of God: whether it is allowed toexpand or not depends on the receptivity and taste of itscontemporaries. 

It is certainly no unimportant circumstance that Shakspeare broughtout King Lear soon after the accession of James I, who, like hispredecessor, loved the theatre; and that Francis Bacon dedicated tothe King his work on the Advancement of Learning in the same year1605. 

Of these two great minds the first bodied forth in imperishable formsthe tradition, the poetry, and the view of the world that belonged tothe past: the second banished from the domain of science the analogieswhich they offered, and made a new path for the activity displayed bysucceeding centuries in the conquest of nature, and for a new view ofthe world. 

Many others laboured side by side with them. The investigation ofnature had already entered on the path indicated by Bacon, and waswelcomed with lively interest, especially among the upper classes. Together with Shakspeare the less distinguished poets of the timehave always been remembered. In many other departments works of solidvalue were written which laid a foundation for subsequent studies. Their characteristic feature is the union of the knowledge ofparticulars, which are grasped in their individuality, with ascientific effort directed towards the universal. 

These were the days of calm between the storms; halcyon days, as theyhave well been named, in which genius had sufficient freedom indetermining its own direction to devote itself with all its strengthto great creations. 

As the German spirit at the epoch of the Reformation, so the Englishspirit at the beginning of the seventeenth century, took its placeamong the rival nationalities which stood apart from one another onthe domain of Western Christendom, and on whose exertions the advanceof the human race depends. 

NOTES:

[379] In a letter to Casaubon he says 'vitam et res humanas et mediasearum turbas per contemplationes sanas et veras instructiores essevolo. ' (Works vi. 51). 

[380] Sam. Cox in Nicolas' Memoirs of Hatton, App. XXX. 

BOOK V. 

DISPUTES WITH PARLIAMENT DURING THE LATER YEARS OF THE REIGN OF JAMESI AND THE EARLIER YEARS OF THE REIGN OF CHARLES I. 

It has been my wish hitherto in my narrative to suppress myself as itwere, and only to let the events speak and the mighty forces be seenwhich, arising out of and strengthened by each other's action in thecourse of centuries, now stood up against one another, and becameinvolved in a stormy contest, which discharged itself in bloody andterrible outbursts, and at the same time was fraught with the decisionof questions most important for the European world. 

The British islands, which in ancient times had been the extremeborder-land, or even beyond the extreme border-land of civilisation, had now become one of its most important centres, and, owing to theunion just effected, had taken a grand position among the powers ofthe world. But it is nevertheless clear at first sight that theconstituent elements of the population were far from being completelyfused. In many places in the two great islands the old Celtic stockstill existed with its original character unaltered. The Germanicrace, which certainly had an indubitable preponderance and wassovereign over the other, was split into two different kingdoms, which, despite the union of the two crowns, still remained distinct. The hostility of the two races was increased by a difference ofreligion, which was closely connected with this hostility though itwas not merged in it. As a general rule the men of Celtic extractionremained true to the Roman Catholic faith, while the Germanic race waspenetrated by Protestant convictions. Yet there were Protestants amongthe former, and we know how numerous and how powerful the Catholicswere among the latter. Besides this, moreover, opposite tendencieswith regard to ecclesiastical forms struck root in the two kingdoms. It was now the principal aim of the family by whose hereditary claimthe two kingdoms and the islands had been united, not only to avertthe strife of hostile elements, but also to reconcile them with oneanother, and to unite them in a single commonwealth under itsauthority, which all acknowledged and which it was desired to extendby such an union. This was a scheme which opened a great prospect, butat the same time involved no inconsiderable danger. Each of the twokingdoms watched jealously over its separate independence. They wouldnot allow the dynasty to bring about a common government, which wouldthus have set itself up above them, and would have established a newkind of sovereignty over them. While the crown sought to enforceprerogatives which were contested, it had to encounter in bothkingdoms the claims advanced by the holders of power in the nation, whom in turn it endeavoured to repress. The quarrel was complicated bya conception of the relations of the crown to foreign powers answeringto its new position, and running counter to the national view. At thesame time very perceptible analogies to this state of things wereoffered by the religious wars, which began to convulse the continentmore violently than ever, and aroused corresponding feelings in theBritish isles. The dynasty which tried to appease the prevailingopposition of principles might find that, on the contrary, it ratherfomented the strife, and was itself drawn into it. This in fact tookplace. Springs of action of the most opposite nature and antagonismsgrowing out of nationality, religion, and politics, which could not beunderstood apart from one another, co-operated in giving rise toevents which do not form a single continuous course of action, butrather present a varied and changing result, due to elements whichwere grand and full of life, but still waited for their finalsettlement. It is clear how much this depended on the character anddiscernment of the king. 

CHAPTER I. 

JAMES I AND HIS ADMINISTRATION OF DOMESTIC GOVERNMENT. 

At one period of his youth James I had been accustomed to vary hisapplication to his lessons with bodily exercises. At that age he haddivided his days between learned studies and the chase of the smallergame in Stirling Park, accompanied in both pursuits by friends andcomrades of the same age; and he retained during all his life thehabits he had then formed. [381] He spent only a couple of months inthe year in London, or at Greenwich: he preferred Theobald's, andstill more distant country seats like Royston and Newmarket, where hecould give himself up to hunting. Even before sunrise he was inmotion, surrounded by a small number of companions practised in thechase and selected for that object, amongst whom he was himself one ofthe most skilful. He thought that he might vie with Henry IV even infield sports; but he was not hindered by his fondness for theseamusements from continuing his studies with unwearied application. Hewas impelled to these not, strictly speaking, by thirst for generalknowledge, although he was not deficient in this, but principally byinterest in the theological controversies which engaged the attentionof the world. He more than once went through the voluminous works ofBellarmin; and, in order to verify the citations, he had the oldeditions of the Fathers and of the Decrees of the Councils sent himfrom Cambridge. In this task a learned bishop stood at his side toassist him. He endeavoured with many a work of his own to thrusthimself forward in the conflict of opinions. He had the vanity ofwishing to be regarded as the most learned man in the two kingdoms, but he could only succeed in passing for a storehouse of all sorts ofknowledge; for a man who overestimates himself is commonly punished bydisregard even of his real merits. These may not meet with recognitionuntil later times. The writings of James I wore the pedantic dress ofthe age; but in the midst of scholastic argumentation we yet stumbleupon apt thoughts and allusions. The images which he frequentlyemploys have not that delicacy of literary feeling which avoids whatis ungraceful, but they are original and sometimes striking in theirsimplicity. Naturally thorough and acute, he labours not withoutsuccess to prove to his adversaries the untenableness of the groundson which they proceed, or the logical fallacy of their conclusions. Here and there we catch the elevated tone of a consciousness thatrests upon firm conviction. Even in conversation he sought to turnaway from particulars as soon as they came under discussion, and topass to general considerations, a province in which he felt most athome. In his incidental utterances which have been taken down, hedisplays sound sense and knowledge of mankind. It is especially worthnoticing how he considers virtue and religion to be immediatelyconnected with knowledge--the confusions in the world appear to himfor the most part to arise from mediocrity of knowledge[382]--and howhighly moreover he estimates a sense for truth. He finds the mostmaterial difference between virtue and vice in the greater inwardtruthfulness of the former. King James delivers many otherwell-weighed principles of calm wisdom: it is only extraordinary howlittle his own practice corresponded with them. [383] When in one ofhis earlier writings we mark the seriousness with which he speaks ofthe duty incumbent on a king of testing men of talent, of measuringtheir capacity, and of appointing his servants not according toinclination but according to merit, we should expect to find him inthis respect a careful and conscientious ruler. Instead of this wefind that he always has favourites, whose merits no one can discover;to whom he stands in the extraordinarily compound relation of father, teacher, and friend, and to whom he allows a share in the power whichhe possesses. He could never free himself from a ruinous prodigalitytowards those about him, in spite of resolutions of amendment. Howsoon were the costly objects flung away which Elizabeth had collectedand left behind at her death![384] How many possessions or sources ofrevenue accruing to the crown did he allow to pass into private hands!Any regulation of his household expenditure was as little to beexpected from him in England as in Scotland. Like the princes of thethirteenth century he considered that the royal power assigned himprivileges and advantages in which he had a full right to allow hisfavourites and servants to share. Not seldom the most scandalousabuses were connected with these: for instance, when the court was tobe provided with the common necessaries of life during its journeys, it was required that they should be delivered to it at low prices: theservants exacted more supplies than were wanted, and then sold thesurplus for their own profit. In grotesque contrast with thedisgraceful cupidity of his attendants is the exaggerated conceptionwhich James had formed for himself of the ideal importance of theroyal authority, which at that time some persons attempted withmetaphysical acuteness to lay down almost in the same terms as theattributes of the Deity. He had similar notions about his dignity andthe unconditional obligation of his subjects. Even in hisParliamentary speeches he did not refrain from expressing them. Hemade no secret of them in his life in the country, where he met withunbounded veneration from every one. It was remarked as a point ofcontrast between him and Elizabeth, that while she had always spokenof the love of her subjects, James on the contrary was always talkingof the obedience which they owed him on the ground of divine and humanright. And people recognised many other points of contrast betweenthem besides this. [385] When the Queen had formed a resolution, shehad never shrunk from the trouble of directing her attention to itsexecution even in the minutest details. King James did not possessthis ardour; for he could not descend from the world of studies andgeneral views in which he lived, to take a searching interest in thebusiness of the government or of justice. He had indeed been known tosay that it was annoying to him to hear the arguments on both sidesquietly discussed in a question of right submitted to him; for that inthat case he was unable to come to any conclusion. The Queen lovedgallant men and characters distinguished for boldness: the King waswithout any sense of military merit, and felt uncomfortable in thepresence of men of enterprising spirit. He thought that he could onlytrust those whom he had chained to himself by favours, presents, andbenefits. The Queen served as a pattern of everything which was properand becoming. James, who restricted himself to the intercourse of afew intimate friends, formed attachments which he thought were toserve as the rule of life. He himself was slovenly; in England, asformerly in Scotland, he neglected his appearance, and indulged ineccentricities which appeared repulsive to others, and were takenamiss from him. Even at that time there was a common feeling inEngland in favour of what is becoming in good society; and althoughthe feeling was for a long time less deeply engraved on men's minds, and less sensitive to every outrage than it became at a later period, men did not pardon the King for coming into collision with it. 

Hence this sovereign appeared in complete contradiction with himself. Careless, petty, and at the same time most unusually proud; a lover ofpomp and ceremony, yet fond of solitude and retirement; fiery and atthe same time lax; a man of genius and yet pedantic; eager to acquireand reckless in giving away; confidential and imperious; even inlittle matters of daily life not master of himself, he often did whathe would afterwards rather have left undone. With all his knowledgeand acuteness, the high flight of his thoughts was often allied to amoral weakness which among all circles did serious injury to thatreverence which had hitherto been reserved for those who held thehighest authority, and which was partly bestowed even on him. It couldnot seem likely that such a man should be able to exercise greatinfluence on the fortunes of Britain. 

He did however exercise such an influence. He gave the tone to thepolicy of the Stuart dynasty, and introduced the complication in whichthe destiny of his descendants was involved. 

In the first years of his reign in England, so long as Robert Cecilwas alive, King James exercised no deep influence. The Privy Councilpossessed to the full the authority which belonged to it by oldcustom. James used simply to confirm the resolutions which wereadopted in the bosom of the Council under the influence of theTreasurer: he appears in the reports of ambassadors as a phantom-king, and the minister as the real ruler of the country. [386] After thedeath of Cecil all this was changed. The King knew the party-divisionswhich prevailed in the Council: he let its members have their own way, and even connived at the relations they formed with foreign powers fortheir own interest; but he knew how to hold the balance between them, and in the midst of their divisions to carry out his own views. Inthose country seats, where no one seemed to take thought for anythingexcept the pleasures of the chase and learned pursuits, the businessof the state also was carried on in course of time withever-increasing ardour. [387] The secretaries about the King wereincessantly busy, while the secretaries' chambers in London wereidle. Great affairs were generally transacted between the King and thefavourite in the ascendant at the time, in conferences to which only afew others were admitted, and sometimes not even these. The Kinghimself decided; and the resolutions which were taken werecommunicated to the Privy Council, which gradually became accustomedto do nothing more than invest them with the customary forms. If it beasked what the object of the King's efforts was, the answer must bethat it was to set the exercise of the supreme power free from thecontrolling influence of the men of high rank to whom the King haddeferred on his first accession. This was generally the aim of thegreat rulers of that century. This had been the principal end of thepolicy of Philip II of Spain during his long political life: howeverthe Kings and Queens of France may have differed on other points, theywere all, both Henry III and Henry IV, Mary de' Medici while she wasregent, and Lewis XIII so soon as he succeeded to the exercise ofpower, at one in this endeavour. James, who was a new sovereign in oneof his kingdoms, and almost always absent from the other, had moredifficulties in his way than other monarchs. Wherever it was possiblehe proceeded with energy and rigour. People were astonished when theyreckoned up the number of considerable men who served him in highoffices, and were then deprived of them. He laboured incessantly tomake way for the impartial exercise of justice in the King's namethroughout Scotland, in spite of the privileges of the great Scottishnobles as its administrators. In his ecclesiastical arrangements inthat country, he was fond of insisting on his personal wishes: incases of emergency indeed he made known that all the treasures ofIndia were not of so much value in his eyes as the observance of hisordinances; and he threatened the opponents of the royal will with theKing's anger, to which he then gave unbridled indulgence. [388] As helooked upon the Church of England as the best bulwark against theinfluence of the Jesuits which he feared on the one side, and that ofthe Puritans which he hated on the other, it was naturally hisforemost endeavour to fortify his power, and to unite the two kingdomswith one another by the promotion and spread of the forms of thatChurch. The essential motive of his system of colonisation in Irelandwas the wish to establish the Church, by the aid of which he designedto subjugate or to suppress hostile elements. In England he impartedto it a character still more clerical and removed from Presbyterianismthan that which had previously distinguished it: he wished it to be asmuch withdrawn as possible from the action of civil legislation. Butin proportion as he supported himself on the Church he fell out withthe Parliament, in which aristocratic tendencies and sympathies withpopular rights and with Puritanism were blended with a feeling ofindependence that was hateful to him. He once said that five hundredkings were assembled there, and he thought that he was fulfilling aduty in resisting them. The most momentous questions affectingconstitutional rights in regard to the freedom of elections, freedomof speech, the limits of legislative power, and above all the right ofgranting taxes, were brought forward under King James. And on everyother side he saw himself involved in a struggle with hostileprivileges and proud independent powers, from whose ascendancy both inChurch and State he was careful to keep himself free, while at thesame time he did not proceed to extremities or come to an absoluterupture. He was naturally disposed, and was moreover led bycircumstances, to make it a leading rule of conduct, to adhereimmovably to principles which he had once espoused, and never to losesight of them; but, having done this, to appear vacillating andirresolute in matters of detail. His position abroad involved the sameapparent contradiction. Placed in the midst of great rival powers, andnever completely certain of the obedience of his subjects, he soughtto ensure the future for himself by crafty and hesitating conduct. Allthe world complained that they could not depend on him; each partythought that he was blinded by the other. Those however who knew himmore intimately assure us that we must not suppose that he did notapprehend the snares which were laid for him; that if only he werewilling to use his eyes, he was as clear-sighted as Argus; that therewas no prince in the world who had more insight into affairs or morecleverness in transacting them. They say that if he appeared to lackdecision, this arose from his fine perception of the difficultiesarising from the nature of things and their necessary consequences;that he was just as slow and circumspect in the execution as he waslively and expeditious in the discussion of measures; that he knew howto moderate his choleric temperament by an intentional reserve, [389]and that even his absence from the capital and his residence in thecountry were made to second this systematic hesitation; that, if adisputed point awaited decision, instead of attending a meeting withthe Privy Councillors who were with him, he would take advantage of afine day to fly his falcons, for he thought that something mighthappen in the meanwhile, or some news be brought in, and that thedelay of an hour had often ere now been found profitable. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1613. ]

It was then through no mere weakness on King James's part that heconceded power to a favourite. In a letter to Robert Carr he describeswhat he thought he had found in him, viz. A man who did not allowhimself to be diverted a hair's-breadth from his service, [390] whonever betrayed a secret, and who had nothing before his eyes but theadvantage and good name of his sovereign. The greater share that hesecured for such a man in the management of affairs the greater thepower which he believed that he himself exercised in them. Thefavourite who depended entirely on the will of the king and knew hissecrets, he supposed would be both feared and powerful as a firstminister, and would pave the way by his influence upon the state forthe carrying out of the views of the sovereign. He thought that hecould combine the government of the state and the advance ofmonarchical ideas, with the comfort of a domestic friendship with aninferior. 

James himself brought about the alliance, which we noticed, betweenRobert Carr, whom he raised to the earldom of Somerset, and the houseof Howard. By the union of the hereditary importance of an old familythat had almost always held the highest and most influential offices, with the favour of the King which carried with it the fullestauthority, a power was in fact consolidated which for a while governedEngland. Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, the Lord Treasurer ThomasHoward, Earl of Suffolk, and Robert Carr were considered the triumvirsof England. [391] In the midst of this combination appears Lady FrancesHoward, the daughter of the Earl of Suffolk, whose divorce from Essexand marriage with Somerset had sealed the political alliance betweenthe two families. She was young and beautiful, with an expression ofmodesty and gentleness, but at the same time stately and brilliant, afit creature to move in a society that revelled in the enjoyment oflife, in the culture of the century, and in the possession of highrank. But what an abyss of dark impulses and unbridled passionsometimes lies hid under such a shining exterior! The Lady Frances hadonce sought to draw Prince Henry into her net. Many said that she hademployed magic for this purpose; indeed they assumed that the earlydeath of the Prince had been brought on partly by this means. [392] Hermarriage with the king's favourite was, if this be true, only asecondary satisfaction of her ambition, but yet a satisfaction whichshe could not forego. Somerset had an intimate friend, whose adviceand services at a former period had been very useful to him, but whoopposed this marriage and fell out with him on account of it--his namewas Overbury. [393] Lady Frances swore to effect his death. We arerevolted at the licence which personal hate enjoyed of misusing thepower of the state, when we read that Overbury was first brought tothe Tower, and then had creatures who could be relied on set about himthere, with whose help the victim was removed out of the way by meansof poison. Lady Frances was not the only female poisoner among thehigher classes of society. This mode of assassination had spread inEngland as it had done in Italy and at times in France. In thesetransactions the most abandoned profligacy allied itself with thebrilliancy and the advantages of a high position, but they foreboded aspeedy ruin. The authority of Somerset awakened discontent and secretcounterplots. He was naturally turbulent, obstinate, and insolent, andhad the presumption to behave in his usual manner even to the Kingwhom he set right with an air of intellectual superiority whichrevived in the King's breast bitter recollection of the years of hischildhood. James put up with this conduct for a while; he then, against the will of the favourite, set his hand to raise to a levelwith him another young man, for whom he entertained a personal liking:at last the misunderstanding came to an open rupture. And at the sametime an accident brought to light the circumstances of Overbury'sdeath. [394] All Somerset's old enemies raised their heads again, andproceedings were instituted against him and his wife which terminatedin their condemnation. [395] The King pardoned them, to the extent ofallowing them to lead a life secluded from the world; they residedafterwards in the same house, but, as far as is known, in completeseparation without even seeing one another. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1615. ]

Shortly before this event Henry Howard had died. Thomas Howard, whosewife was accused of exercising a pernicious and corrupt influence uponaffairs, lost his office of High Treasurer. The place of Carr wasoccupied by the young man above referred to, whom Carr's adversarieshad combined to push forward, George Villiers, a native ofLeicestershire, where his family had lived upon their own ancestralproperty from the time of the Conquest. After the early death of hisfather, his mother, a Beaumont by birth, a lady still young and fullof ambition and knowledge of the world, had educated him not only inthe training of English schools but in French ways and manners, andhad then brought him to court. He differed from Carr in beingnaturally good-tempered, and of a courteous obliging disposition, which won the heart of every one. [396] Although no one doubted that hewould be spoilt by a higher position, yet people thought that he couldnever become malicious like Somerset. Lord Pembroke and ArchbishopAbbot both gave him a helping hand in his rise: the latter moved theQueen also, although she was not without scruples, to aid in it. Villiers was a man after the King's own heart, well-formed, capable ofintellectual cultivation, devoted: in consequence of the favour andconfidence of the King the youth, who after a time was created Duke ofBuckingham, acquired a ruling position in the English state. The oldAdmiral Effingham, Earl of Nottingham, resigned his office in order tomake room for him: some other high officials were appointed under hisinfluence and according to his views; in a short time the white wandsof the royal household and the under-secretaryships and subordinateoffices had been transferred to the hands of his adherents andfriends. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1617. ]

But foreign as well as domestic relations were affected by thischange. Somerset had stood in the most confidential relations with theSpanish ambassador: he was accused of having betrayed to him thesecrets of the state from his office. [397] His wife, if not himself, was thought to have drawn money from Spain. Probably the intelligenceof this behaviour, which came to the King's ears, contributed most tothe downfall of Somerset. This event did not in itself involve achange of policy. In the advice which was given to the young favouritefrom a well-informed source, it is presupposed that the goodunderstanding with Spain would continue: but it was now possible forthe adversaries of this power to bestir themselves again. Some of themost conspicuous men of the other party, such as Winwood, theSecretary of State, would even have been glad if open war with Spainhad immediately broken out. 

The mutual opposition between these powerful tendencies, and the menwho made them their own, brought the career of Walter Ralegh to aclose. 

Somerset was Ralegh's personal enemy, and had gained possession of hisbest estate. After his fall Ralegh was liberated from the Tower. Hestill lay under the weight of a sentence which had been pronouncedagainst him on the occasion of the plot which bears his name. He mighthave purchased its removal; but he was assured by the most influentialvoices that he had nothing more to fear from it; and he thought thathe could apply the money more profitably to the execution of the greatdesign which he had long ago formed, and which he had never for aninstant lost sight of during his captivity. A story was then afloatthat after the destruction of the kingdom of Peru the descendants ofthe Incas had founded another kingdom between the Amazon and theOrinoco, the Dorado of the Spaniards. It was Ralegh's ambition to opento his countrymen this region which would be easily accessible fromthe coasts, of which he had formerly taken possession in the name ofEngland. The old reputation of Ralegh's name procured him sufficientsupport for his expedition, not only from the merchants, but also fromwealthy private individuals; and the King gave him a patent whichempowered him to sail to the ports of America still in possession ofthe heathen, in order to open commercial intercourse with them, and tospread the Christian, especially the Reformed, faith among them. [398]In July 1617 Ralegh set sail from Plymouth harbour for this object, with seven ships of war and a number of small transports carryingabout 700 men. 

It was presupposed that in such an enterprise all hostilities againstthe Spaniards would be avoided. When the Spanish ambassador complainedof this expedition undertaken by a man who had already on one occasionbeen very troublesome to the Spanish colonies, the Privy Councilanswered that Ralegh was pledged by his instructions to do no damageto the Spaniards; and that 'if he violated them his head was there topay for it. '[399] The King himself repeated this answer to him. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1618. ]

Ralegh in fact guarded against any collision with the Spaniards on hisvoyage. He was said not to have taken a single Spanish vessel, and hedirected his course without stopping to Guiana, the goal which he hadset before himself. But the Spaniards had become powerful there, although not until after his former visit. From Caraccas they hadconquered the natives, who were engaged in internal wars, and hadfirmly established themselves at a short distance from the coast. What was likely to happen if they opposed the forces which Raleghlanded to search for the gold mines which he had formerly seen there?Ralegh remembered full well what a danger he ran if he engaged in astruggle and fought with them: he knew that he was thereby forfeitinghis life. But on the other side, was he to return without fulfillinghis purpose, and to burden himself with the reproach of not havingtold the truth? Worst of all, was he to fail in effecting the objectwhich he had entertained all his life long, and not to achieve thediscovery on which he staked the future glory of his name? It wasperhaps the greatest moment in a life that almost always lifts itselfabove the ordinary level, when the thirst for discovery gained thevictory over considerations of legality and the danger involved indiscarding them. And well might he have hoped that not only pardon butpraise would have been accorded him, if he had actually obtainedpossession of the gold mines, by whatever means. He commanded his menwhen they advanced inland to behave to the Spaniards as the Spaniardsbehaved to them. A collision was thus unavoidable. It took place at S. Thomas, which was destroyed, but the Spaniards nevertheless hadcompletely the superiority: Ralegh's only son was killed; and thecaptain who had the charge of the expedition was so disheartened thathe committed suicide. These disasters involved the utter failure ofthe expedition. His crews, who were naturally insubordinate, quarrelled among themselves, and on the voyage home the fleetdispersed. Ralegh came back to England without an ounce of gold, andwithout having effected any result whatever: he appeared in the lightof an adventurer who had wantonly desired to break the peace withSpain. And when the ambassador of this power asked for full and signalsatisfaction, in order to restore the good understanding whichRalegh's enterprise had at once interrupted, was it to be expectedthat the King should take under his protection the man who had notcomplied with the conditions prescribed to him, and whom for otherreasons he did not love? And moreover the pulse of free generositywhich befits a sovereign did not beat in the breast of King James. Heconsented that the old sentence of condemnation, for fifteen yearssuspended over Ralegh's head, should now be enforced against him. Ithad been pronounced against him for entering into a secret alliancewith Spain; an attack on Spain led to its execution. Ralegh and theKing exhibit a contrast between ambition that scorns danger on the oneside, and caution that supports itself by the forms of law on theother, such as even in England has hardly ever been so sharply drawn. The King could not possibly get any good by his conduct. The positionof England in the world depended upon the resistance that she offeredto the preponderance of Spain in both the Indies and in Europe. TheKing detached himself from one of the chief interests of the nationwhen he allowed a felon's death to be inflicted on the man of loftygenius, who had undertaken, by an ill-advised attempt it is true, togive effect in America to this feeling of world-wide opposition. Jamesthought that his welfare lay in maintaining the peace with Spain. Butwe know that at an earlier date he had entered on a course adverse toSpain, and that even now he had not entirely renounced it. Whatconfusion must eventually follow from this divided policy!

NOTES:

[381] Ant. Foscarini, Relatione 1618: 'Il re ritiene questa sorte divita nella quale fu habituato, e spende tutto il tempo che puo nellacaccia e ne studj. '

[382] 'Crums fallen from King James' Table, or his Table Talk. ' MS. Inthe British Museum. 

[383] Wilson, James I, 289: 'He had pure notions in conception, butcould bring few of them into action, though they tended to his ownpreservation. ' Wilson, Weldon, and the notices in Balfour, arecertainly all of them deeply tinged with party feeling. The elderDisraeli is quite right in rejecting them: but his own conception isvery unsatisfactory. Gardiner (1863) avoids unauthenticatedstatements; but the views of James' character which have grown up andestablished themselves owing to the commonplace repetition of suchstatements, control his representation of it. 

[384] Foscarini: 'A due sorti di persone dona particolarmente, agrandi et a quelli che gli assistono che sono quasi tutti Scocesi, enon vaca cosa alcuna della quale possino cavar utile, che non lademandino e nello stesso momento obtengono. '

[385] Harrington: Nugae Antiquae i. 

[386] Niccolo Molino, Relatione 1607: 'A abandonato e messo dietro lespalle tutti gli affari li quali lascia al suo consiglio ed a suoiministri, onde si puo dire con verità ch'egli sia principe di nome ePiù tosto d'apparenza che d'effetto. '

[387] A. Foscarini 1618: 'In campagna gli viene di giorno in giornodal consiglio che risiede per ordinario in Londra dato conto di quantopassa et inviatigli spacci e corrieri: tratta e risolve molte cose conil consiglio solo de suoi favoriti. --Risolve per ordinario in momentiet havendo seco segretarii per gli affari d'Inghilterra, per quelli diScotia e Ibernia comanda ciascuno di essi, quanto occorre e vuol chesi faccia in tutti i suoi regni. '

[388] Calderwood, vii. 311, 434, &c. 

[389] Girolamo Lando, Relatione 1622: '(S. M. è) inclinataall'ambiguita et alla dimora non gia per naturale complessioneimpastata di foco, colerico et molto ardente, ma perche vuol darsi acredere di cavare della protrattione del tempo ciò, chedesidera--conli scemi dell'ira tenendo pure quelli dellamansuetudine. '

[390] 'Unmoveable in one hair that might concern me against the wholeworld. ' James to Somerset, in Halliwell ii. 127; certainly one of themost important documents in this collection. 

[391] Narrative of Abbot in Rushworth i. 460. 

[392] A. Foscarini, 1615 Nov. 13. 'Si mantiene viva la voce e sospettodel principe defonto. ' Nov. 20, 'Avanthieri parti il re, che perquesto accidente e per le gravi dissensioni ed odii che regna in cortesi mostra molto addolorato. '

[393] The personal motive of the estrangement might have lain inOverbury's speech to Somerset, mentioned by Payton during the trial:'"I will leave you free to yourself to stand on your own legs. " Mylord of Somerset answered his legs were strong enough to bearhimself. ' (State Trials ii. 978. ) He wished to show that he coulddispense with Overbury. 

[394] According to Wilson, Ralph Winwood was informed by a confessionmade at Vliessingen. From a letter of Winwood extracted by Gardiner(History of England ii. 216) we only learn that Winwood received thefirst intimation: he reckons it as a proof of the justice of the Kingof England that he allowed the investigation to be made. 

[395] Somerset intimated that he possessed secrets the disclosure ofwhich would compromise the King: and there is nothing, howeverconjectural or infamous, which has not seemed to some among posterityto be probable on this ground. James I says, 'God knows it is only atrick of his idle brain, hoping thereby to shift his trial. I cannothear a private message from him without laying an aspersion uponmyself of being an accessory to his crime. ' (Halliwell ii. 138. )

[396] Girolamo Lando, Relatione 1622, praises him for 'apparenza dimodestia, benignita e cortesia, --bellezza, gratia, leggiadria delcorpo, a tutti gli esercitii mirabilmente disposto. '

[397] 'Che le lettere Più importanti del re sono passate in mano diSpagna. ' Ant. Foscarini, Nov. 13, 1615. There is a letter of James Iof October 20 which likewise supposes acts of treachery of this kind. What is true in this supposition we now learn from Digby's letter, inGardiner, App. Iii. 2. 

[398] 'To the south parts of America or elsewhere within Americapossessed and inhabited by heathen and savage people. ' So run thewords of the commission: it is therein said expressly 'Sir WalterRalegh being under the peril of the law. '

[399] Dispaccio Veneto Feb. 10, 1617: 'Che le cose erano concertateche S. M. Cattolica non avrebbe occasione di riceverne disgusto--cheera fermamente del re, che il Rale andasse al suo viaggio, nel qualese avesse contravenuto alle suoi instruttioni--haveva la testa con chepagherebbe la disubbidienza. '

CHAPTER II. 

COMPLICATIONS ARISING OUT OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE PALATINATE. 

During these years there had been persons at the helm of state in mostcountries, who either from natural disposition or from a calculationof present circumstances had cherished peaceful views. In spite of allthe activity of Spanish policy, Philip III and his minister Lermaclung to the principle that the rest needed to restore the strength ofthe exhausted monarchy must be granted to it. The Emperor Matthiasowed the crown he wore to his alliance with the Protestants: his firstminister Klesel, although a cardinal, was a lukewarm Catholic, and aman of conciliatory views in general. The Regent of France, Mary de'Medici, had surrendered the warlike designs of her husband when sheentered on the exercise of sovereign power. Christian IV of Denmarkheld similar views. He declined the proposals of the Poles, which wereaimed at a renewal of the war against Sweden: he preferred, with theapproval of his council of state, to proceed with the building oftowns and harbours in which he was engaged. 

Hence it was possible on the whole to carry out a policy such as thatmaintained by James I. It corresponded to the tone prevalent among theother powers. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1617. ]

From time to time it seemed probable that the opposing forces whichwere contending with one another in the depths of European life, wouldburst forth and shatter the peaceful state of affairs. For theadvancing revival of Catholicism roused the hostile feelings ofProtestants, while the union of the German and the independent feelingof the Italian princes resisted the extension of the alliances ofSpain. In the year 1615, on the Netherland frontier, and in the year1616 on the boundaries between Austria and Venice, warlike movementsbegan which threatened to prove the commencement of a generalstruggle: but these were disputes of an essentially local nature, andpeaceful dispositions still maintained the upper hand. 

But in the year 1617 and 1618 a question arose which no longer allowedthis state of things to continue. It concerned the imperial dignity ofGermany, but it exercised so powerful a secondary influence uponaffairs most thoroughly English that even in a history of England ashort discussion must be devoted to it. 

The increasing weakness of the Emperor Matthias rendered his speedyend probable; and all preparations were already being made in thehouse of Austria to secure the succession of the Archduke Ferdinand ofStyria to the imperial throne, as well as to his own hereditarykingdoms and provinces. No arrangement could in itself have been moresuitable in the nature of things. Ferdinand was the most vigorousscion of his house; and both the German Archdukes laid their ownwell-founded claims at his feet. A resignation on the part of PhilipIII of the claims which he inherited from his mother was thoughtindispensable: but even this created no difficulty. It was merelystipulated that Ferdinand should indemnify him for resigning them; andthis he was willing to do. It only remained that the crown of theGerman Empire should also be assured to him. The Archdukes were eagerfor an immediate negotiation on the subject, and were already certainof the support of the spiritual electors. 

It is clear however that the succession was not merely a change ofpersons. The place of the peaceable and moderate Matthias would befilled by one of the most devoted pupils of the Jesuits in the personof Ferdinand, who had made himself terrible to the Protestants by anunsparing restoration of Catholicism in his own country. Moreover thealliance between the German and Spanish line, which had been loosenedin the last few years, was to be consolidated into a union resting oncommon interests: so that it seemed likely that Austria would enjoy asupremacy like that which had been established in the time of CharlesV. The letters which passed between the members of that house, andwhich had accidentally been divulged, excited surprise by the note ofgeneral hostility which they struck, while the share of the Palatinateand of Brandenburg in the election was treated in them as a formalitywhich could be dispensed with in case of necessity. [400]

It is quite intelligible that the Protestants should be agitated bythis discovery, and should entertain the idea of opposing the electionof Ferdinand. Not that one of them thought of acquiring the throne forhimself; they did not resist the election of a Catholic emperor assuch, but they wished to guard against the resumption of thecombination between the Austro-Spanish power and the prerogatives ofthe imperial crown. At first their eyes fell upon Duke Maximilian ofBavaria, whom they would by this means have for ever detached fromthat power. The Elector Frederick controlled the jealousy which, asElector Palatine, he felt for a branch of the same house, and went toMunich in order to prevail on his cousin to consent to thisarrangement; for, according to the plea advanced on grounds ofimperial right, the imperial crown could not be allowed to becomehereditary in the house of Austria. He hoped that the ArchbishopFerdinand of Cologne, the brother of the Duke of Bavaria, wouldsupport him, and that his influence would win over the other spiritualelectors also. The Union and the League would then have combined tooppose the house of Austria. 

But meanwhile open resistance to the claims of this family had alreadybroken out in its own provinces. While the Emperor Matthias was stillalive, the Archduke Ferdinand, through the combination, as prescribedby Bohemian usage, of an election with the recognition of hishereditary claims, had been acknowledged future King of Bohemia, andhad been already crowned, on condition that he would not mix in publicaffairs before the death of his predecessor. But immediately after thecoronation people thought that they could discover his hand in everyact of the government. Cardinal Klesel, the man in whom the greatestconfidence was reposed, especially by the Protestant portion of theEstates, had been overthrown owing to the influence of the Spanishambassador. In opposition to the influence thus exercised, 'againstthe practices and snares of the Jesuits, ' as the phrase ran, thezealous Protestants who, when Ferdinand was accepted as King, had beenthrust into the background or had retired, now obtained the upper handin the country, and proceeded to open insurrection while the EmperorMatthias was still alive. This Prince was the first who was overturnedby the collision of the two parties, whose enmity was again reviving, and between whom he had thought of mediating. He was bitterlydisappointed by his failure. After his death the Bohemians thoughtthemselves justified in refusing any longer to acknowledge Ferdinandas their King, and in seeking on the contrary for a worthier successorto the throne, on the ground that in Ferdinand's election thetraditional forms had not been accurately observed, and that he wasundermining all religious and political freedom. Their eyes had evenfallen on Catholic princes; but as the motive which prompted theirresistance was certainly the religious one, their attention was stillmore drawn to the most eminent Protestant prince in their vicinity, Frederick Elector Palatine, who as head of the Union was himself theprincipal opponent of the election of Ferdinand as Emperor. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1618. ]

On the very first steps taken in this matter, the King of England wasaffected by these movements. We learn that, on the occasion of theovertures made by Frederick, Maximilian of Bavaria had been moved towrite to James I, and to express to him his satisfaction at the familyconnexion which had sprung up between them. The interest of thePalatinate and of England seemed one and the same, especially as theKing was still considered a member and protector of the Union. Thepresumption that the son-in-law of the King of England would findsupport from his power, contributed greatly to the importance whichthe Elector at this moment enjoyed. 

But at the same time it was evident in what an embarrassing positionJames I was now placed, and that not only on account of the dangerthreatening the continuance of peace, which he thought no price toohigh to secure: his hands were tied not merely by this generalconsideration, but by another special reason as well. He was at thatmoment seriously engaged in a treaty for the marriage of his son witha Spanish infanta, which was to carry out the long-talked-of alliancebetween his family and the Austro-Spanish line. 

The first overtures in regard to the present Prince of Wales had beenmade by the Duke of Lerma to the English envoy, Digby, to whom heopened a proposal for the marriage of Prince Charles with Mary, daughter of Philip III. The Spanish ambassador, Gondomar, had thentaken the management of the affair in hand. We should do him wrong bysupposing that he wished to deceive the King. Gondomar rather belongedto the party who looked for the welfare of the Spanish monarchy in themaintenance of peace, especially with England. The scheme of themarriage was part of the system of powerful alliances by which it wassought to prop the greatness of Spain. Even the uncertain rumour ofthis scheme, which was instantly propagated, sufficed to agitate theProtestant party in Europe and in England itself. The King declaredthat he moved only with leaden foot towards the proposal which hadbeen made to him; and that, if it were seen that the alliance wasdangerous to religion or to existing agreements, it should never takeeffect. But even the Secretary of State, Ralph Winwood, who repeatedthis declaration, disapproved of the scheme, as did also the wholeschool of Robert Cecil. They had wished to marry the Prince to thedaughter of a German line, perhaps to a Brandenburg princess; and theStates General offered their money and their services in order to winthe consent of any such princess, and to convey her to England. Manywould have preferred even a domestic alliance after the old fashion. Opposition was also offered on the part of the Church of England. Archbishop Abbot only delayed to urge it until the conditions of themarriage should come under discussion. But the King likewise had theapproval of influential voices on his side. It was considered possibleto conclude the marriage, and yet to preserve the other alliances ofthe country. People thought that England would in that case be onlythe more courted by both parties, and that the peace of the worldwould rest on the shoulders of the King. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1619. ]

But what a contradiction was involved in the ascendancy which theseideas obtained? The hereditary right to the crown of Bohemia, whichthe estates of that country would no longer acknowledge, belonged tothe house of Spain. It was intended that the Elector Palatine shouldstep into its place by election; and this prince was son-in-law to theKing. After James had married his daughter to the head of theProtestants in Germany, he conceived the thought of marrying his sonto the member of a family which had made the patronage and protectionof Catholicism its special calling. It seemed as if he was purposelyintroducing into his own family the disunion which rent Europe intwain. 

The negotiations in Germany after a time resulted in the victory ofthe house of Austria, which in spite of all opposition carried the dayin the election of the Emperor. The Elector Palatine acknowledgedFerdinand II without hesitation. But almost at the same moment hereceived the news that he had himself been elected king by the Estatesof Bohemia. It cannot be proved that he was privy to this beforehand:even the rumour that his wife urged him to accept the crown becauseshe was a king's daughter meets with no confirmation. They were not soblind as not to perceive the enormous danger in which the acceptanceof this offer would involve them. In reply to a question of theElector, his wife answered that she regarded the election as a divinedispensation, that if he determined to accept it, which she leftentirely to his consideration, she for her part was resolved toundergo everything that might follow from it. We must not regard ashypocrisy the prominence which the prince and the princess alike gaveto religious considerations. Such was the fashion of the timesgenerally, and especially of the party to which they belonged. 

The Elector Frederick however did not yet declare his decision. Thequestion of the acceptance of the crown of Bohemia was debated fromevery point of view by the very councillors who had just been presentat the election of the Emperor. Their decision was in favour of theprince inviting first of all the advice of his friends in the empire, of the States-General, but especially of the King of England, andmaking sure of their support. [401] The Bohemian envoys, who mosturgently requested an immediate answer, were put off with the replythat the Elector must first of all be certain of the consent of thefather of his consort. Count Christopher Dohna was sent to England topersuade King James to give it. He was commissioned to deliver to hima letter from the Princess-Electress in which she most urgentlyentreated her father to support her husband and to prove his paternallove to them both. 

King James came now face to face with the greatest question of hislife, which summed up and brought to light, so to speak, all the crosspurposes and conflicting political aims among which he had long moved. A word from him was now of the greater consequence, as theStates-General declared that they would act as he did. But what washis decision to be? He was not unmoved by the thought that theprospect of possessing a crown was opened to his son-in-law andgrandchildren. On the other hand he was greatly impressed by arepresentation which the King of Spain forwarded to him, that hisright to the crown of Bohemia was indisputable--as in fact the Spanishline had a contingent claim to the succession--and that he wouldcontend for it with all his strength: on which King James said that healso as a great sovereign had an interest in seeing that no one wasdeprived of his own. The theories of James I about the hereditaryrights of princes, the electoral rights of the Estates, and theinfluence of religious profession in these matters, presentedthemselves to his mind together with his wishes on the question of theaggrandisement of his dynasty. He remarked that it could not beallowed that subjects should presume to fall away from their sovereignon a question of religion; he even feared that this doctrine mightreact to his own prejudice on England. In these considerations thebalance evidently was in favour of a refusal. James would havedeserved well of the world if he had given utterance to that refusal, and had decisively dissuaded his son-in-law from accepting the crown. And from his oft-repeated assertions at a later period, to the effectthat the Elector had proceeded on his own responsibility, we mightthink that he had expressed himself in definite terms in favour of adifferent course. 

In reality however this is not the case. He condemned the revolt ofthe Bohemians against Matthias: in regard to Ferdinand it was hisopinion that they should prove from the old capitulations their rightto declare his election and coronation invalid, and to proceed to anew election, in which case he would himself support them. [402] Heexpressed himself in such a manner, that even members of the PrivyCouncil received the impression that he would approve of and evensupport the acceptance of the crown when once it had taken place. Christopher Dohna relates that in the negotiations at that time he oneday declared that his master, the Elector, was ready to refuse thecrown if the King required him to do so; and that James replied, 'I donot say that. '[403]

Monarchs are set in authority in order that they may pronouncedefinitive decisions according to the best of their own judgment. Itis sometimes their duty to take a decided line. James, who hithertohad always stood between different parties, could not nerve himself atthis eventful moment for a firm and straightforward resolve. In themonstrous dilemma in which the various questions at issue werebecoming involved he could not come to any decision. The kindest thingthat can be said of him is that at this moment his nature was notequal to the requirements of the situation. 

Count Dohna, following the example of James's councillors, concludedfrom his expressions that he was not only not opposed to theacceptance of the crown, but that he would allow himself to beenlisted in its favour, and would support it. And there is no doubtthat this view exercised a decisive influence upon the finalresolution of the Elector Frederick. He certainly was already stronglyinclined to accept the crown in opposition to his more clear-sightedand sagacious mother, but in agreement with his ardent wife: but hehad not yet uttered the final words when Dohna's report came in. [404]When he learned from this that the King was not decidedlyunfavourable, the Elector thought that he recognised a dispensation ofGod which he would not decline to carry out. In the presence of hiscouncillors at the castle of Heidelberg he declared to the Bohemianambassadors that he accepted the crown; and soon afterwards he set outfor Bohemia. In October 1619 (Oct. 25/Nov. 4) he was crowned atPrague. 

What unforeseen consequences however for himself and his friends, forGermany and for England, were destined to spring out of thisundertaking!

[Sidenote: A. D. 1620. ]

In London, where the popular party had already from the first fixedtheir eyes on the Princess, this step was welcomed with the mostjoyous approval. It was represented to the King that the mostbrilliant prospect was thus opened to his family; that on the nextvacancy his son-in-law, who already himself held two votes in theelectoral body, could not fail to be chosen Emperor; and that Englandwould by this means acquire the greatest influence on the continent. It was expected that these feelings for his family, and the successfulissue of events, would work together to detach him again from Spain. 

James on one occasion, on receiving the news of the confinement of hisdaughter, drank a bowl of wine 'to the health of the King and Queen ofBohemia. ' He went so far as this, and people thought it worth while torecord the event; but he could not be brought to acknowledge Frederickopenly. He was not satisfied with the proof of their right advanced bythe Bohemians: in conversation he advocated the right of Austria. 

Spain and the League, as was inevitable, joined forces with Austria. In the first instance the Palatinate itself was the object of theirjoint attack. How could men have helped thinking that King James wouldresolutely take the inheritance of his grandsons under his protection?The Union invited him to do so, reminding him of the obligationimposed on him by his connexion with them mentioned above: they saidit was no favour, but justice which they demanded of him. But Jamesreplied that he had pledged himself only to repel open andunjustifiable attacks, but that in the present case the Palatinate wasthe attacking party, and that Austria stood on the defensive. TheUnion presently saw itself compelled to conclude a treaty with theLeague, which left that power free to act against Bohemia. ThePalatinate however was not secured thereby against the Spaniards. [405]To effect this, it would have been deemed advisable to make an attackfrom Holland on the Spanish Netherlands; for if a single fortifiedplace had been occupied there, the Palatinate would have had nothingmore to fear from Spain. But to this measure also James refused hisconsent: he thought that this would be equivalent to beginning war, which he did not wish. 

The general sympathy of the nation was strong enough at last to causea large English regiment of 2500 men, under Horace Vere, to be sent onthe continent, in order that the Palatinate, on which the Spaniardsnow advanced, might not become utterly a prey to them. The Earls ofEssex and Oxford, who had contributed most to raise the regiment, themselves took part in the campaign. They were joined by many otheryoung men of leading families, who wished to learn the art of war. Butthey had received from the King positive commands to commit no act ofhostility. The troops of the Union, who showed themselves quite readyto fight the Spaniards, were withheld by the threat that in that casethe King would recall these troops instead of sending two moreregiments to join them, the hope of which he held out to them in theevent of their obedience. It was enough for the King that the Englishtroops occupied the most important places. Vere held Mannheim, HerbertHeidelberg, Burrows Frankenthal; while the greater part of the countryfell into the hands of the Spaniards. 

Europe had reason to be alarmed at the advantage which accrued to theSpanish monarchy from this affair. The Tyrol and Alsace were alreadypromised them to form links between Lombardy and the Netherlands: thepossession of the Lower Palatinate completed their chain ofcommunication. 

The action of Spain and England presented a marked contrast. Spain, while it forsook Lerma's policy, held together all its friends--Germany, Austria, the League, the Pope, the Archducal Netherlands--and combinedtheir forces for joint action on a large scale; while King James, inclinging to the policy of peace, let his allies fall asunder andcrippled their activity. 

But if James so acted in the case of the Palatinate which he wished tosave, what might be fully expected in the case of Bohemia, with regardto which he openly declared, after some hesitation, that he could takeno further part in its affairs? The new King found no hearty obedienceamong the Bohemians, partly because they found themselves deceived intheir expectation of being assisted with troops by the Union, and withmoney by England. But worse than all, the ill-disciplined soldierybeing without pay, broke out in mutiny: they were almost more ready tohelp themselves to their arrears by an attack upon the capital than todefend their sovereign or their country. On the other hand thesoldiers of Austria and of the League, well paid and well disciplined, were spurred on by zealous priests. On their first attack theyscattered the troops of Frederick to the four winds (November 1620). It would not have been impossible for Frederick to wage a defensivewar in Bohemia; but regard to the danger into which the Queen wouldhave been thrown in consequence prevented the attempt. That one daycost them both crown and country. 

It is impossible to describe the impression which the news of thisdefeat produced in London. The King was held blameable because not asingle soldier commissioned by him had been found beside his daughterto draw the sword in her defence. This was attributed either toculpable negligence of his own affairs, or to the influence of theSpanish ambassador. Not Gondomar himself, who was too shrewd to actthus, but certainly his friends and Catholics generally, let their joyat this event be known. The citizens responded with manifestationsthat were directed against the King himself. A placard was put up inwhich he was told that he would be made to feel the anger of thepeople, if in this affair he any longer followed a policy opposed toits views. 

James I could no longer put off the question what steps he was totake. The tidings reached him at Newmarket, where he was spending thecold and gloomy days in hunting. He broke off this amusement andhastened to Westminster, in order to attend council with hisministers. 

Towards the end of December a meeting was held, in which the secretaryNaunton depicted the whole position of the foreign policy of England, and drew from it the conclusion that the King must above all arm, asin that case he could carry on war, or at least negotiate withfirmness and some prospect of success. King James himself brought theaffair of Bohemia under discussion. He complained, and seemed to feelit as an injury to his paternal authority, that the Elector Frederickeven now continued to make the acknowledgment of his right to thecrown of Bohemia a condition of his accepting the mediation offered bythe King. Viscount Doncaster, who had just returned from a mission toGermany, fell on his knees before him, in order to remark to him thatFrederick deserved no blame for clinging to a right which he supposedto be valid: that his refusal was not addressed to James as a father, but as King of England. [406] James I distinctly stated afresh that hecould not and would not espouse the cause of his son-in-law inBohemia. But by this time not only was Frederick's new crown as goodas lost, but his whole existence was endangered; the greater part ofhis hereditary territory was in the enemy's hands. James declared withunusual decision that he would not allow the Palatinate, which wouldone day descend to his grandchildren, to be wrested from them; that hewas resolved to send to the Continent in the next year an armysufficient to reconquer it. It might be asked if this measure alsowould not inevitably lead to a breach with Spain. King James did notthink so. He thought that he could carry on a merely local quarrel, and yet at the same time avoid a war on the part of the one poweragainst the other. He did not intend to attack the King of Spain's owndominion, so long as that sovereign did not meddle with his. 

But however that might be, whether he was to begin war, though only ona limited scale, or whether he wished to prosecute negotiations withsuccess, in any case it was necessary for him to arm. But for thispurpose he required other means besides those of which he coulddispose at his own discretion. 

NOTES:

[400] Memorial of the Archduke Maximilian of Feb. 1, 1616, in Lunig, Europäische Staatsconsilia i. 918. It is clear from this that theanxiety of the members of the Union with regard to the Venetian warwas not so groundless as it might otherwise appear. The Archduke laysbefore the Emperor the question whether 'in the event of thecontinuance of the Venetian disturbances he would use the opportunityto bring a numerous force into the field, and maintain it until thelaudable work had been everywhere set in train, and had beenprosecuted with the wished-for result. '

[401] Reasons for hesitating advanced by the Privy Councillors of thePrince Elector, in Moser, who calls them prophetic, PatriotischesArchiv. Vii. 118. The Palatinate 'will not well be able to decideanything certain and final: she has therefore made everything dependon England and the States-General, and has asked them, as well otherher friends and potentates in the empire, for trusty counsel anddeclaration of what they will do in every case by her. '

[402] 'Non approbare che in vita del imperatore li populi sisollevassero, ma che bene consigliava dopo morte dassero in luce leloro ragioni del jus eligendi sopra nullita dell'elettione diFerdinando, con elegerne un altro, nel qual caso offeriva anchel'ajuto et il soccorso suo. '

[403] 'S. M. , se non assenti all accettare della corona, non disse neanche mai all ora di dissentire: che anzi alla venuta di lui in questacorte offerendole al nome dell'istesso suo signore, che quando ellahavesse voluto, l'averebbe anche lasciata, egli rispondesse: io nondico questo. ' Girolamo Lando, Feb. 5, 1621. 

[404] Dohna mentioned that 'the leading English councillors held that, if the Prince Elector would but soon accept the crown, the King on hispart would soon declare himself and give his approval, whichaccordingly threw almost the greatest weight into the scale. ' SecretReport in Moser vii. 51. 

[405] From the documents relating to these proceedings, it is provedthat Spinola had received instructions in June 1620 to gain possessionof the Palatinate; that assurances however were given to King Jameseven in August that nothing was really known of the object of hisexpedition. Senkenberg iii. 545 n. 

[406] Dispaccio Veneto, 8 Gennaio 1621. 

CHAPTER III. 

PARLIAMENT OF THE YEAR 1621. 

We already know the antipathy of James to the Parliament, which hadbecome a power to which, as soon as it was manifested in a newlyassembled House, the power of the King was obliged to bend. James hadalready often felt the ascendancy of Parliament. The schemes of unionwith Scotland, which filled his soul with ambition, had been shatteredby the resistance of that body. The exclusively Protestant dispositionwhich prevailed there had made it impossible for him to give a legalsanction to the favour which he entertained for the Catholics, andwhich his views of policy naturally disposed him to show. He had beenobliged to desist from the attempt to secure financial independence bysurrendering the feudal privileges of the crown. The Parliament raisedclaims which the King regarded as attacks on the prerogative of thecrown: even his advances to it had been met by a stubborn resistance. In the ordinary course of things he would never again have summonedParliament together. 

This complication in foreign affairs then arose. All parties, including even the King himself, were convinced that England must stepforth armed among the contending powers of the world: and that, not inthe fashion of the last expedition, so little in keeping with thesituation, when private support and tacit sympathy found the means, but on a large scale, as the position of the kingdom among the greatpowers demanded. But without Parliamentary grants this was impossible. The summoning of a new Parliament was therefore an incontestablenecessity. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1621. ]

But on the other hand there was not wanting reasons for hesitation, for it could not be disguised that concessions would be inevitable. King James saw that as plainly as any one, and declared himselfbeforehand ready to make them. In contradiction to his formerassertions he gave out that he would this time allow grievances to befreely alleged, and would give his best assistance in removing them. He said that he wished to meet Parliament half way, and that it shouldfind him an honourable man. From the investigation of abuses the lesswas feared because the late opposition was ascribed to a factiousresistance to Somerset's administration. But that favourite had sincefallen: and of the leaders of that opposition several had gone over tothe government, and some had died. [407] The declared purpose of armingfor the reconquest of the Palatinate was in accordance with thefeelings of the nation and of the Protestants: no doubt was felt thatit would win universal sympathy. 

This was in fact the case. The most favourable impression was producedwhen the King in his speech from the throne (January 30, 1621), whichwas principally taken up with this subject, declared his resolution todefend the hereditary claim of his grandchildren to the territories ofthe Palatine Electorate, and the free profession of Protestantism; tocompel peace if it were necessary sword in hand; for which objects heclaimed the assistance of the country. Parliament did not hesitate foran instant to express its concurrence with him in these designs. Twosubsidies were granted on the spot, and the resolution was carriedinto effect during the continuance of the debates, a step which wasaltogether unprecedented. The King thanked the Parliament for thisextraordinary readiness, which would, he said, increase his importanceboth at home and abroad. 

But this did not prevent Parliament on the other hand from bringingforward its claims with all possible energy. The power of grantingmoney was the sinew of all its powers. The necessity of askingassistance from Parliament in urgent embarrassments, which the Tudorshad avoided as far as possible, now appeared as pressing as ever. Wasit not to be expected that demands should call forth counter-demands?And the opposition in the previous Parliament rested on a far widerbasis than that of hostility to Somerset: at the present election alsothe candidates of the government were rejected in most of the countiesand towns. [408]

The commission appointed for the investigation of abuses did not dealonly with those which were acknowledged to be such. The principalquestion rather concerned the competence of the crown to confer suchprivileges as those out of which the abuses originated. Under the leadof Edward Coke, the great lawyer, Parliament adopted a principle whichsecured for it a firm standing ground. 

Coke, who moreover did not think it necessary to ask the King'sconsent for liberty of speech, because this was, he thought, anindependent right of Parliament, vindicated the position that no royalproclamation had validity if it contradicted an act of Parliament oran existing law. He took his stand on the times of the laterPlantagenet and of the Lancastrian kings: and he considered that theform which the relation between the government and Parliament thenassumed was the only legal form. But the government of James I hadgranted extraordinarily obnoxious privileges--for instance, the rightof setting up taverns with a restriction on the entertainment ofguests by private individuals, or by the old inns; and again the rightof arresting acknowledged vagrants. But the most obnoxious grants werethose of patents for the monopoly of some trade, which were annoyingto the whole mercantile class, and brought profit only to a fewfavoured individuals. Coke argued that the patents were either inthemselves illegal, or injurious in their enforcement, or bothtogether. While he proved to Parliament its forgotten or disregardedrights, Coke won the full confidence of both Houses alike: the Upperand the Lower House made common cause. Thus the system of governmentas it had been developed under the Tudors and continued under theStuarts was encountered face to face by another system, which restedupon other precedents and principles. 

And people were not content with merely declaring the patents invalid;they called those to account who had got possession of them, and eventhe high officials who had contributed to issue them. A generalcommotion ensued: every day fresh information came in and freshcomplaints were drawn up. [409]

The Lord Chancellor Bacon had been already brought into danger by thisaffair. He had assisted in introducing monopolies of differentmanufactures under the pretence that work would be found for the poorby means of them. It was well known that in matters of this sort hehad for the most part followed the suggestions of the Prime Minister. While Bacon was defending the ideal mission of the monarchy, he hadthe weakness to identify himself too closely with the accidental formwhich authority just at that particular moment took. In return hefound on the other hand that the attacks really aimed at thegovernment recoiled in the first instance upon him. In reality theywere directed principally against Buckingham. In order to save himfrom destruction, suggestions had been made to the King that he mightprefer to dissolve Parliament, as it seemed plain that he had far morereason to expect harm from the attacks than advantage from the grantsmade by that body. Buckingham saved himself only by coming forwardagainst the monopolies himself, in accordance with the advice of hisecclesiastical confidant, Dean Williams. Claims had been made againsttwo of his brothers also on account of the monopolies. Far from takingthem under his protection, he said on the contrary that his father hadstill a third son who was determined to root out abuses; and that notuntil the present proceedings had been taken had he recognised theadvantages of parliamentary government. Upon this, the leading menwith whom Williams had formed a connexion, desisted from attacking theFirst Minister. It even came about that a person of high rank, accused at the bar of the House of Lords, who had let fall anexpression, comparing Buckingham to old favourites of hateful memory, was obliged to retract it with considerable ceremony. But a victim wasrequired: one was found in the Lord Chancellor Bacon. 

Although condemned by law and morality, an evil practice stillprevailed of receiving presents of money in official transactions. Thesums were known and have been registered, by means of which Gondomarretained the services of a number of statesmen in the interest ofSpain. How many similar abuses in the control of the Treasury had beenbrought to light only a short time before! Even the great philosopher, who in his writings is so zealous against bribes, contracted duringhis administration the stain of receiving them. That he might stand onan equality with the great lords, he incurred inordinate expenses, which these bribes assisted him to meet. Edward Coke was wholly in theright when he exclaimed that a corrupt judge was 'the grievance ofgrievances. '[410] Two-and-twenty cases were proved in which thesupreme judge, the Lord Chancellor of England, had taken presents fromthe parties concerned. Lord Bacon made no attempt to justify hisconduct; he only affirmed--and this appears in fact to have been thecase--that in his decisions he never was influenced by the presentsthat had been made him. When he was called to account for them, heacquiesced himself in the justice of the proceeding, for he allowedthat a reform was necessary, and only deemed himself unfortunate inbeing the person with whom it began. The Lords pronounced sentenceupon him that he should never again fill an official position, nor becapable of sitting in Parliament, and that he should be banished fromthe precincts of the court. 

Apart from its importance as affecting individuals, this event isvery important in the history of the constitution, which now returnedto its former paths. That the Lower House again as in old times wasable to procure the fall of one of the highest officials, is anevidence of its growing power. That the First Minister and favouriteallowed his intimate friend to fall is a proof of the weakness of thehighest authority, which moreover ought itself to have attacked abusesof this kind. Bacon justly remarked that reform would soon reachhigher regions. 

But while Parliament, which the government had no inclination towithstand openly, thus obtained the ascendancy in domestic matters, itwas also already turning its eyes in the direction of foreign affairs. These were times in which a warm religious sympathy was awakened bythe advance which the counter-reformation was making in the hereditarydominions of Austria, as well as in France, and by the persecutionswhich befell the Protestants in both countries. The Spaniards wereagain engaging in war for the subjugation of the Netherlands. InParliament, on the other hand, it was thought necessary to combinewith the Republic, and to equip a fleet to assist the Huguenots, andeven to attack Spain, in order thus to make a diversion in favour ofthe Palatinate. At the very time of the opening of Parliament the banof the empire was pronounced against Frederick Elector Palatine amidthe sound of trumpets and drums in the Palace at Vienna. This wasregarded in the whole Protestant world as an injustice, for it wasthought that Ferdinand II had been injured by Frederick only as Kingof Bohemia, and not as Emperor: and on the same grounds the EnglishParliament was of opinion that the execution of the ban ought to behindered by force of arms; and it showed itself dissatisfied that theKing sought to meet the evil only by demonstrations and embassies. 

We can easily understand that the attitude of Parliament aroused theanxiety of the King. He caused the debates on the war to be put a stopto, remarking that they infringed his prerogative, for which greataffairs of this kind were exclusively reserved. And yet, soextraordinary was the complication of affairs that the declarationsmade in Parliament were not altogether displeasing to him. In June headjourned Parliament, without formally proroguing it. What was thereason of this? Because Parliament had brought in a new billcontaining the severest enactments against Jesuits and Catholicrecusants. The King refused to accept it, as by this means thepersecution of Protestants in Catholic countries would receive a newimpulse. But he was also unwilling to express his refusal in a finalshape, because he knew that the wish to hinder the adoption of harshmeasures against the Catholics would exercise an influence upon theSpaniards in their negotiations with him. [411] If he had proceeded toa prorogation, he would have been obliged to reject the laws; and hepreferred to keep the prospect of them still open, which he was ableto do by resorting to the form of an adjournment. He made it a meritin the eyes of the Spaniards that, far from increasing the severity ofthe penal laws, he did not even enforce them in their existing form, when moreover, if enforced, they would bring him in a large sum. Buthe was glad to see that people feared that he might do at some futuretime what at present he had refrained from doing. When he promised theParliament on his royal word, that he would call it together againwithout fail in the autumn, he was also influenced by theconsideration that he intended the Spaniards to look forward with fearto the resolution which might then be taken. He was greatly pleasedthat Parliament before dispersing drew up an energetic remonstranceagainst the persecutions of the Protestants all over the world, andespecially against the oppression of his children. Not that he wishedto give effect to it: on the contrary he adhered to the policy ofassisting his son-in-law only by means of diplomacy: but he desiredthat the Spaniards should fear a war with England, and he thought thatanxiety on this point would induce them and their friends to showthemselves conciliatory and respectful. 

Sir John Digby, who was commissioned with the negotiations at theSpanish court, was referred by that power to Brussels and Vienna; andin fact he received favourable answers, not only from the InfantaIsabella in the former, but even from the Emperor himself in thelatter city. The Emperor held out to him the hope that the matterwould be reconsidered at a future assembly of the Estates of theEmpire, which he intended to convene at Ratisbon. But meanwhilewarlike operations and the execution of the ban held their courseundisturbed. In Bohemia the counter-reformation was carried throughwith extreme severity. Four-and-twenty Protestant nobles and leaderswere executed, and their heads with hoary beards were seen exposed onthe Bridge at Prague. Silesia hastened to make its peace with theEmperor: the Princes of the Union laid down their arms, but they didnot yet make their peace by this means. Tilly took possession of theUpper Palatinate, and then turned with his victorious army to theLower Palatinate in order to complete the subjugation of thisprovince, notwithstanding all the protection of England. On the LowerRhine the forces of the Spaniards and of the States General confrontedeach other in arms. Under these circumstances the Princes, who wereinvited, refused to appear at an Assembly of the Empire, [412] for noneof them thought that he could leave his home without incurring evidentdanger. The Infanta Isabella too in Brussels declined to conclude thetruce which Sir John Digby proposed. 

While affairs were in this position, Parliament resumed itsinterrupted sittings in November 1621. Dean Williams, who afterBacon's fall had received the Great Seal, opened the session with arequest for the immediate grant of new subsidies, which he said wouldbe required even before Christmas. He promised that in the comingFebruary, when they resumed their sittings, the other affairs shouldbe brought under discussion. [413]

On this occasion as on a previous one, the King wished for nothingmore than a renewed and stronger demonstration. Even now he lived andmoved in a policy of compromise between opposite views. While hisson-in-law was being robbed of his country in the interest of Spain, he adhered to the wish of marrying his son to a Spanish Infanta: hethought that he would bring about the restoration of the Palatinatemost easily by the influence which this new alliance would confer. Buthe thought that his friendly advances should also be accompanied bythreats, and he wished to be placed by the grants of Parliament in aposition to arm more effectually than before. It would have been inaccordance with his views, if Parliament had repeated its formerdeclarations, according to which it was ready to put forth all itspower in his behalf, in order to place him in a position to compel byforce of arms what might be refused to his peaceful negotiations. 

It is worth noticing in all this that James not only met the wishes ofParliament because he required support, but that he also encouragedthe disposition which it showed in favour of Protestantism, in orderto avail himself of it: he thought that he would always be able tocontrol it. But how often has a policy been shipwrecked, which hasthought to avail itself of great interests and great passions for someend immediately in view!

How could it be expected that while religious parties on the continentwere meeting in a struggle for life and death, the English Parliamentwould approve of the wavering policy of James I, which aimed atcompromise and had hitherto been without results?[414] Quite thecontrary: starting with the view that England was the centre ofProtestantism and must avert the dangers which assailed it, Parliamentdeclared itself ready, it is true, to pay the King new subsidies, butnot until the following year, and on the presumption that he shouldhave accepted and ratified the bills for the welfare of the peoplewhich had passed the House. [415] They thought that the common dangerto religion arising from the alliance between the Pope and the King ofSpain had been brought upon England also by the indulgence hithertoshown to the recusants. Parliament invited the King to draw the swordwithout further circumlocution for the rescue of the foreignProtestants; in the first instance to break with the power whose armyhad carried on the war in the Palatinate, but above all to marry thePrince his successor to a lady of the Protestant faith. 

The King wished to avoid war because he was anxious lest he should beconstantly compelled by Parliament, owing to his repeated want ofsubsidies, to make fresh concessions, which would affect and diminishthe substance of his authority. The Parliament wished for war becauseit expected that such a proceeding would furnish it with greatopportunities for establishing its power. 

As soon as the rival powers encountered each other on this ground, allagreement between them was at an end. Parliament interfered still morevigorously than before with the affairs which the King reserved forhimself: it wished to induce him to adopt those very measures which hewas resolved to avoid. He was expected to break with that power withwhich it was his principal ambition to become most closely connected. He was expected to take the sword in order to defend the common causeof Protestantism. He was expected to put an end to the indulgencewhich he had hitherto shown to his Catholic subjects; to do what rancounter to all the expectations which he had raised at Rome andMadrid; and what perhaps, considering the strength of the Catholicelement in England, was not without danger to the maintenance of quietat home. Meanwhile the payment of the subsidies, which he required atonce in order to maintain his political position, was indefinitelydeferred. Although it was not actually stated, yet it was quite clearthat Parliament made the validity of its grants dependent on hiscompliance with its advice. And on what important matters was thatadvice offered! The King complained that his prerogative was openlyinfringed by it; that Parliament wished to decide on his allianceswith other sovereigns, and to dictate to him how to conduct the war;that it brought under debate questions of religion and state, and themarriage of his son: what portion of the sovereign power, he asked, was left to him? On the competence which Parliament claimed as itshereditary right, he remarked that it had to thank the favour of hisancestors and himself for this: that he would protect Parliament, butonly in proportion to the regard which it showed for the prerogativeof his crown. 

If we had to specify the moment in which the quarrel between theParliament and the Crown once more found its full expression, weshould choose this. [416] The Parliament, which had dissolution inimmediate prospect, employed its last moments in making a protest, inwhich it again affirmed that its liberties and privileges were abirthright and heirloom of the subjects of the English crown, that itcertainly was within its power to bring under debate public mattersaffecting the King, the State, the Church, and the defence of thecountry; and that full liberty of speech without any subsequentmolestation on that account must be secured to every member in theexercise of these rights. 

The King would not forego the satisfaction of punishing by arrest anumber of members who were peculiarly hateful to him; he declared theprotestation null and void, and struck it out of the clerks' book withhis own hand. In a detailed exposition of his view of thesetransactions, in which he gives the assurance that he will stillhenceforth continue to summon Parliament, he emphatically repudiatesthis protestation, which he affirms to be drawn up in such terms thatthe inalienable rights of the crown are called in question by it, rights in the possession of which the crown had found itself in thetimes of Queen Elizabeth of glorious memory. He affirms that as Kinghe cannot tolerate any such pretensions. 

Parliament demanded the policy of Queen Elizabeth; King James demandedher rights. The privileges accorded to the crown and the opposition toSpain had formerly gone together: the surrender of the latter underKing James served to supply Parliament on its part with a motive formaking an attack upon the former. 

The cause of Parliament was of great importance, even when it stoodalone: deeper impulses and fresh life and vigour were first impartedto it by its combination with foreign policy and with religion. 

NOTES:

[407] From a letter of Bacon to Buckingham. 

[408] Lando, Relatione: 'Se bene procurò S. M. Di ristringere ecaptivare fino l'autorità, che hanno li communi d'eleggere lideputati, benche in qualche citta e provincia gli è riuscito, nell'universale non ha potuto, rifiutati i privati del favorito e deiconsiglieri li lei. ' Lando describes the Parliament as 'republicaaltretanto mal pratica, quanto molto pretendente. '

[409] Chamberlain to Carleton, March 24: 'They find it more thanHercules' labour purgare hoc stabulum Augiae of monopolies, patentsand the like. ' (St. P. O. )

[410] Chamberlain to Carleton: 'All men approve E. Coke, who upondiscovery of those matters exclaimed that a corrupt judge is thegrievance of grievances. ' Chamberlain relates that an officer of theCourt of Chancery, when accused on account of various irregularities, exclaimed 'that he would not sink alone, but draw others after him. '

[411] Buckingham on one occasion very aptly characterises his policyand its danger: 'So long as you waver between the Spaniards and yoursubjects, to make your advantage of both, you are sure to do withneither. ' Hardwicke Papers i. 466. 

[412] 'The princes denied their appearance. ' (Digby, Recital of hisSpeech, Parl. Hist. V. 483. ) So that the notice by Struv, rejected bySenkenberg (Fortsetzung Häberlins xxv. § 80) is nevertheless correct. 

[413] A gap in Williams' speech at this part, occurring in theJournals and in both Parliamentary Histories, is to a certain extentfilled up by a letter of Chamberlain to Carleton of Nov. 24;'intimating that they should forbear needless and impertinentdiscourses, long and extravagant orations which the king would notindure. '

[414] Lando, Relatione: 'Non potendosi accordare con spiritidiscordanti dei proprii impressi di non lasciarsi levare un puntodell'autorita. '

[415] John Locke to Carleton, Nov. 29: 'They have put up a petition, that this may be a session and laws enacted, that the laws madeagainst recusants may be executed, so that the promise of the subsidyseemeth yet to be conditional. '

[416] Chamberlain to Carleton on December 22. The Parliament, onreceiving a message enjoining the speedy continuance of theirbusiness, answered the King two hours after it had been brought beforethem: 'but with all for fear of surprise gave order to the speaker andthe whole house to meet at four o'clock: where they conceived sat downand entered this proposition enclosed which is nothing pleasing aboveand for preventing where of there came a commission next morning toadjourn the Parliament. ' Cf. The Commons' protestation: Parl. Hist. V. 513. 

CHAPTER IV. 

NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCE OF WALES WITH A SPANISHINFANTA. 

It is a general consequence of the dynastic constitution of the statesof Europe that marriages between the reigning families are at the sametime political transactions, and as a rule not only affect publicinterests, but also stir up the rivalry of parties: this effecthowever has hardly ever come more prominently into notice than when itwas proposed to marry the heir to the throne of England with anInfanta of Spain. 

We have remarked that the scheme originated in Spain, had already beenonce rejected, and then had been mooted a second time by the leadingminister of Philip III, the Duke of Lerma. It formed part of Lerma'scharacteristic idea of fortifying the greatness of the Spanishmonarchy by a dynastic alliance with the two royal families which wereable to threaten it with the greatest danger, those of France andEngland. This design brought him into contact with a current of policyand personal feeling in England which was favourable to him: but atthe same time the great difficulty which the difference of religionpresented, came at once into prominence. Not that it would have beendifficult for King James to make the concessions requisite forobtaining the Papal dispensation; on the contrary he was personallyinclined to do so: but he feared unpleasant embarrassments with hisallies and with his subjects. Count Gondomar, the ambassador, assuredthe King that he should never be pressed to do anything which violatedhis conscience or his honour, or by which he might run a risk oflosing the love of his people. [417]

[Sidenote: A. D. 1622. ]

On this, negotiations which had already been opened for the marriageof the Prince with a French princess were broken off. Besides, theintermarriage with the house of Spain appeared to be far moredeserving of preference, as being likely to pacify the feelings ofEnglish Catholics, who were accustomed to side principally with Spain, and even to promote the calm of the world, as Spain was a moreprominent representative of the Catholic principle than France. It wasthought advisable to leave the conditions of the dispensation to bearranged in the sense indicated by negotiation between the Papal seeand the Spanish crown. 

But a new and serious hindrance now arose in consequence of theembarrassments caused by the affairs of the Palatinate, in which theinterests of the two dynasties came into immediate collision with oneanother. It is clear that King James could not marry his son to anInfanta of Spain while a Spanish army was taking possession of hisson-in-law's territory. He therefore made the restoration of thePalatinate a condition of the marriage. All his tortuous efforts weredirected to combine the latter object with the former, and at the sametime to avoid a disadvantageous reaction upon his domestic policy. 

While he invoked the Protestant sympathies of Parliament in order togive weight to his demands, he nevertheless checked them again as soonas he was in danger of being forced to make war, or even to resume themeasures against the Catholics, which might displease the Spanishcourt. Whilst he made the Spaniards aware that if he were refused theconsideration he required, he would throw himself entirely into thehands of his Parliament and proceed to extremities, he at the sametime employed every means of effecting a peaceful accommodation, bywhich he would then at once be saved the necessity of makingconcessions to Parliament. The most active negotiations were openedin Brussels with the Infanta Isabella, upon whom the issue seemed mostto depend. James I had sent thither Richard Weston, the man whomGondomar himself declared to be the most appropriate instrument forthis affair; and an agreement was concluded with the personalco-operation of the Infanta, which held out expectations of therestoration of the Elector. On the side of the Palatinate and Englandeverything was done to promote the conclusion of this agreement, andto ensure its execution. The expelled Elector was induced to recallMansfeld and Christian of Brunswick from the Upper Rhine, where theywere then moving vigorously forward, lest the treaty should beobstructed by their operations. [418] He himself removed to Sedan, inorder not to arouse the suspicions of the House of Austria by hisresidence in the Netherlands. In the summer of 1622 he had no othertroops in the Palatinate but the English garrisons; and King Jamesengaged that, if the treaty were concluded, he would take arms himselfagainst the allies of his son-in-law. But while expectation wasdirected to the conclusion of the contract by which the Elector shouldbe re-established in his country, the League advanced against thosestrongholds which the English held in his name. Neither Heidelberg norMannheim could hold out. The English troops were obliged to bend tonecessity and to march out, although with the honours of war. Only inFrankenthal did they still maintain themselves for a while. WhenWeston at Brussels complained of this conduct he was actually toldthat the League must have everything in their hands first, in order torestore everything hereafter. He was astounded at this subterfuge, andasked for his recall. 

In England the friends of Spain fell into a sort of despair at thecourse of events. For what could follow from it but open war betweenthe King of England and the Emperor? But on whose side would Spainthen be found? Would that power pledge itself to fight to the endagainst every one, even against the Emperor, in behalf of the treatywhen concluded? To prevent England from coming into closer alliancewith France, the government of Spain had planned the marriage andopened direct negotiations: would it now, when its cause appeared tobe advancing, withdraw in violation of its word of honour? Even thePrivy Council represented to the King that he was bringing dishonourand danger on his country. The Duke of Buckingham, who also hadhimself been in close agreement with Gondomar, and was considered tobe the man who held the threads of politics in his hand, regarded theincreasing discontent as dangerous to his own position. [419]

While affairs were in this situation and these impressions afloat, aplan for bringing this uncertainty to an end was embraced by the King, the Prince, and the Duke, in those private discussions in which thegeneral course of affairs was decided. It was determined that thePrince, accompanied by Buckingham, should visit Spain himself, inorder to bring about the marriage and arrange the conditions. None ofthe Privy Councillors, not even Williams, who on other occasions wasin their intimate confidence, knew anything about this plan. Itpleased the King's sense of the romantic, that as he himself hadformerly brought home his newly married wife from the icy North, sonow his son should in person win the hand of his bride in the distantSouth. But however much in earnest the King was in the matter, welearn that he still contemplated the possibility of failure. He oncesaid to the Duke of Soubise, that if the marriage came to pass, hewould take up the cause of the Huguenots in alliance with Spain: butthat if he did not succeed in his design they might still reckon uponhim, for that his son would contract a marriage with a Frenchprincess, which would procure him great influence at the Frenchcourt. [420]

[Sidenote: A. D. 1623. ]

On March 7, 1623, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Buckinghamarrived in Madrid, with an escort including Cottington and EndymionPorter, both of whom afterwards enjoyed great influence. Their arrivalwas not altogether welcome to the ambassador in residence there, Digby, now Lord Bristol, who would rather have retained this importantbusiness in his own hands: but the Spanish court and the nation itselffound a certain satisfaction for their pride in the personal suiturged by the heir-apparent of one of the most powerful kingdoms forthe hand of the younger Infanta. 

At first the Prince of Wales could only see the Infanta as she drovepast along a sort of Corso in the Prado. He was then presented to her, but the words which she was to use to him were written down for herbeforehand; for she was to receive him merely as a foreign princewithout any reference whatsoever to his suit. Some surprise wascreated when the principal lady of the court one day condescended tosay to the Prince that the Infanta in conversation gave signs of aninclination for him. In the country no doubt was felt that themarriage would come to pass, and the prospect was welcomed with joy. Often did a 'Viva' resound under the windows of the Prince. Lope deVega dedicated some happily expressed stanzas to him; and splendidshows were given in his honour. [421] All that was now wanting was anagreement as to the conditions. 

This depended however in large part on the resolutions which might bearrived at in England. Conditions affecting religion were laid beforeKing James, which he might certainly have hesitated to approve. It wasnot only that the Infanta was to be indulged in the free exercise ofher religion--for how else could the consent of the Spanish clergy ora dispensation from the Pope have been hoped for?--nor even that thechildren born from this marriage were to be educated under her eyesfor the first ten years of their life, for this seemed the naturalprivilege of a mother: but the presumption that the children mightbecome Catholics involved wide consequences. It was stipulated thatthe laws against Catholics should not apply to such children, norprejudice their succession. Still more displeasing however were someother articles of general import, which were carefully kept back fromthe knowledge of the public. They amounted to this:--that the lawsagainst the Catholics should no longer be carried into execution, andthat the Councillors of the sovereign should be pledged by an oath toabstain from enforcing them. [422] The King met with some opposition tothese articles in the Privy Council. But he said that the question wasnot whether they were advisable, but whether they were not necessaryat a time when part of the domain under dispute, and the Princehimself, were in the hands of the Spaniards. And moreover they did notamount to a complete concession to the wishes of the Catholics, forthey spoke only of tolerating their worship in private, not in public:the articles were in harmony with the old ideas of the King. Jamessolemnly swore to the first articles, on July 20, in the presence ofthe Spanish ambassador; and immediately after him the members of theCouncil took the same oath. The King alone then pledged himself tocarry out the second set of articles. 

An extensive alteration had already taken place in the treatment ofthe Catholics. Priests and recusants had been discharged from prisonand enjoyed full liberty. An injunction was issued to the preachersand to the Universities to abstain from all invectives against thePapacy. Men had to see individual preachers who transgressed theseorders thrown into prisons which had been just emptied. The familieswhich openly expressed their hitherto secret adherence to Catholicismwere already counted by hundreds. Then came these transactions. Whatwas learnt of the articles was enough to spread universal dismayamong the Protestants, but they expected yet worse things. Theythought they saw a pronounced Catholic tendency becoming ascendant inthe conduct of affairs. An universal danger seemed to be hanging overthe religion which they professed. Every one hastened to church topray against it; the churches had never been more crowded. The secondecclesiastic in the country, the Archbishop of York, put the King inmind that by his project of toleration he was encouraging doctrineswhich he had himself proved in his writings to be superstitious andidolatrous. At this time moreover religious profession and politicalfreedom were most closely connected: all these penal laws which theKing was removing had been passed in Parliament, and were the work ofthe legislative power as a whole. The Archbishop reminded the King inconclusion that when he annulled the statutes of parliament by royalproclamation, he created an impression that he thought himself atliberty to trample on the laws of the land. [423]

The wishes of the King did not lean so decidedly in that direction aspeople assumed. Buckingham and the Prince, who recommended him to takethe oath, remarked to him, among other observations, that his promisethat Parliament should repeal the penal laws against the Catholicswithin three years would be fulfilled, if he merely exerted himself tothe extent of his strength for that object, even if it should proveimpossible to attain it. [424] In general everything was merelypreliminary, and depended on further agreement. The Prince entreatedhis father to transmit to him the ratification of the articles, thathe might decline them or not according to circumstances. He evenwished that, in order to put an end to the dilatoriness of theSpaniards, his father should make an express declaration that anylonger delay would compel him again to enforce the penal laws againstthe Catholics. [425] All these announcements, which filled theCatholics with joy and hope, but the Protestants with dejection, mistrust, and anxiety, were however only political agencies, and wereintended to serve a definite end. The object was in the first instanceto put an end by this means to all delay in sending the Infanta toEngland. 

Although some religious scruples were still awake in the minds of theSpaniards yet they presented no further obstacle. The conditions forgranting a dispensation which had been prescribed by the Pope to theSpanish Court, had been accepted; the Spanish ambassadors had beensatisfied: the only question now was whether the Infanta should beconveyed to England at once with the Prince on his return, or in thefollowing spring. As formerly the Tudors so now the Stuarts appearedto be taking their position as a dynasty in Europe in connexion withthe Spanish monarchy. 

Only one difficulty remained, that connected with the Palatinate; butat the present moment it was more serious than ever. 

In his negotiations King James started with the supposition, that theSpanish court could control the Imperial, and bring it over to its ownpoint of view. The inclusion of the German line in this dynasticcombination was contemplated. A proposal was made that the eldest sonof the expelled Frederick should contract a marriage with a daughterof the Emperor, which would make the task of reconciliation andrestitution far easier. 

The Emperor however had to take other interests into consideration;not only those of the Duke of Bavaria, to whom he was so deeplypledged, but those of the whole Catholic party, which thought ofseizing this occasion to establish for ever its ascendancy in theEmpire. The Emperor, who was also instigated by Rome to this step, solemnly transferred the electoral dignity previously held by theElector Palatine to Maximilian of Bavaria in February 1623, with theintention of satisfying him, and at the same time of obtaining amajority of Catholic votes in the electoral body. It has indeed beenassumed, both then and at a later time, that Spain, only bent ondeceiving England, had agreed to all these proceedings. But in factthe Spanish ambassador had opposed them most strenuously at Ratisbonin the name of his king, as well as in that of the InfantaIsabella. [426] He prophesied with accurate foresight new andinextricable embarrassments as the consequence. The Papal Nunciocomplained that the resistance of the ambassador weakened theCatholics and emboldened the Protestants. But his remonstrance had noeffect on the Emperor. After his previous experiences Ferdinand II hadno more fear of his adversaries, least of all of King James, who wouldcertainly not in his old age make his first appearance as a warriorand try the doubtful fortune of war. He thought besides that he alwaysconsulted his security best when he had nothing before his eyes butthe advantage of the Catholic Church. 

The negotiation about these matters took place just at the time whenthe Prince of Wales was in Spain. There no one despaired of finding anarrangement with which the Prince could still be satisfied. It wasthought that, when the Palsgrave Frederick had been reconciled withthe Emperor, and admitted into his family, the electoral dignity mightbe enjoyed in turn by Bavaria and the Palatinate, or that a newelectorship might be founded for Bavaria. The Imperial ambassador, Count Khevenhiller, however rejected these proposals, for no otherreason than that King James was not the proper person to makearrangements for his grandson. He did not accept the supposition thatthe youth, whose education it was proposed to complete in Vienna, would join the Catholic faith, for he said that his mother would neverallow that. He set aside the expectation that the Imperial court mightsend to Spain a full authorisation to negotiate for the marriage. Hemoreover affirmed that, if the Imperial court wished to secure itsinfluence in Germany, it could not allow the opinion to gain groundthat it depended on Spain and was guided by her. 

And in Spain also, after the fall of Lerma, which was brought on bythis affair, the old aspirations after the supremacy of the world hadagain obtained the upper hand. 

It is true that at the moment a feeling prevailed in favour ofmaintaining peace on the very advantageous footing which had then beenobtained. Cardinal Zapata, Don Pedro of Toledo, and above all CountGondomar, who had at that time been made a member of the Council, declared before that body that Spain ought to have no higher politicalaim than to secure her union with England. These were men ofexperience in European affairs, who recollected the evils which hadsprung from the policy of Philip II. But there were others who wereagain seized with the old ambition, so interwoven with Catholicism, and who would not separate themselves from the interests of theEmperor at any price--men like the Marquis de Aytona, Don AugustinMexia. And Count Olivarez, under the influence of the Imperialambassador, now espoused the same opinion, a man who, as favourite ofthe King and chief minister, filled the same position in Spain thatBuckingham did in England. At the decisive meeting of the Council, hestated that the King of Spain would not venture to separate from theEmperor, even if he had been mortally affronted by him: if he couldstand in friendly relations with the Emperor and the King of Englandat the same time, well and good; but if not, he must break with theKing of England without any regard to the marriage: this step wasdemanded of him for the preservation of Christendom, of the Catholicreligion, and of his family. He added that a marriage between theyoung Count Palatine and a daughter of the Emperor was only to bethought of, if the former became a Catholic: that the completerestoration of the father was by no means advisable; and that he oughtto be dealt with as the Duke of Saxony had been dealt with by CharlesV. [427] Olivarez carried the Council with him in favour of thispolicy. The strictly Catholic point of view, which had been assertedby the German line of the house of Austria, was again adopted as therule of policy in Spain. 

This was a resolution that decided the destinies of Spain. That poweragain renounced the policy of compromise which it had observed for aquarter of a century. The young King Philip IV and his ambitiousfavourite revived the designs of Philip II, or, as the former onceexpressed it, of Charles V: to the restoration of Catholic ascendancyin Germany they sacrificed the friendship of King James, which was ofinestimable advantage to the monarchy, inasmuch as it kept the coastsof Spain free from all danger of attack from the English forces. [428]Olivarez was too violent, too young, and too ill-informed to have anyclear conception of the influence of these relations. 

But as in great transactions every step has consequences, it is clearthat the Spanish predilections of King James, and the policy foundedon them, were thus brought to an end. For maintaining these it wasnecessary not only that they should be advantageous to the Catholicsin England, but that they should be equally serviceable to theProtestant interests in Germany, which in the present instance werehis own: otherwise he would never have found rest again in his owncountry, or his own family, or perhaps even in his own breast. He hadasked for the reinstatement of his son-in-law in the electorship aswell as in the possession of his hereditary dominions, or at least forthe hearty assistance of Spain in effecting this object. [429] And thePrince of Wales shared these views. He once said to Count Olivarezthat, without the restoration of the Elector Palatine, the marriagewas impossible, and the friendship of England could not be expected. The Spaniards did not think fit to impart to him the resolution whichhad been taken in the Council of State; but still this implied a newdirection given to the course of affairs which could be followedalthough it was not talked of. The Spaniards contented themselves withdwelling on the necessity of sending the youthful Count Palatine toVienna for education: as to his father, who was under the ban, theyheld out indeed a prospect of the restoration of his dominions but notof his electoral dignity. The Prince declared that it was not to beimagined that his brother-in-law would be content with that and wouldagree to it. [430] And how was even as much as this to be obtained fromthe court of Vienna? It was now certain that in the affair of thePalatinate Spain would not interfere with decision. But besides this, the resolutions which had been taken in the Spanish Council of Statemust lead to much wider consequences. 

The miscarriage of the negotiations has been ascribed to themisunderstanding between Olivarez and Buckingham; and it is no wonderthat such a misunderstanding arose, for the latter was conceited andirritable, the former imperious and assuming. But these causes areonly of a secondary character; the root of the failure lies in thepolitical, or in the combination of the religious with the politicalrelations of the two countries. While in England Protestantism wasmoving in a direction opposed to the intentions of King James, andcould hardly be held down, it was met by the Catholic interest inSpain and Germany, which was fully conscious of its position. Nowthese were the powerful elements which divided the whole world: thestrife between them could not be adjusted by political considerations. 

It is hardly necessary to state further how Buckingham, who regardedthe somewhat unmeaning delays of the Spaniards as affronts, and whowould have had reason to fear for his authority in England in theevent of his prolonged absence, now urged the return of the Prince. Charles concurred with him: King James, who moreover was impatient, ashe said, to see the two men whom he most loved about him again, commanded it; and the Spanish court could not object. 

Yet no estrangement arose in consequence, nor was the proposal for themarriage withdrawn. The Infanta was treated as Princess of Wales; andPhilip IV in a letter once styled the Prince of Wales hisbrother-in-law. The Papal dispensation, for which they had long beenkept waiting, at last arrived; and the marriage ceremony might havebeen performed any day. The other negotiations also still keptadvancing. King James then once more demanded an express declarationwith regard to the affair of the Palatinate. He wished to know whatSpain thought of doing if the Emperor refused to accede to theagreement that was to be made between the two powers. The answer ofthe Spaniards was evasive: how could it have been otherwise? But theEnglish would not advance further without better security. The Princesent to request the ambassador not to use the full powers, which healready had in his hands, until he received fresh orders. [431] KingJames declared that the marriage could not be solemnised till theSpanish court consented to take upon itself obligations with regard tothe Palatinate. 

NOTES:

[417] Letter to Gondomar, as it appears, from Buckingham himself, Cabala 236. 'You promised that the King should be pressed to nothingthat should not be agreeable to his conscience, to his honour, and thelove of his people. '

[418] So writes Richard Weston to Buckingham: 'The prince elector hathconformed himself to what was demanded, that the count Mansfelt andDuke of Brunswik, the pretended obstacles of the treatie, are now withall their forces removed. ' Sept. 3, 1622. Cabala 201. How difficultthis was for him we see from a letter of Nethersole to Carlisle, Oct. 18, 1622. 'The slowness of resolution of this side may move H. Mai. [the King of Bohemia] to precipitate his before the time, which willbe then to lose the fruits of two long years patience. '

[419] Valaresso: 'Temendo di se stesso e di riuscir l'oggetto di tuttala colpa e forse della pena. '

[420] Valaresso: Disp. 19 Luglio 1623. 

[421] A true relation of the arrival and entertainment given to thePrince Charles: in Somers' Tracts ii. 625. 

[422] Arcana quatuor capitula ad religionem pertinentia: in Dumont v. Ii. 442. Their contents also appear in the Spanish reports. 

[423] 'That you now take unto yourself liberty to throw down the lawsof the land at your pleasure. ' Cabala 13. 

[424] The Duke and the Prince to the King, 6 June. Hardwicke Papers i. 419. 

[425] Instructions received from His Highness June 7, 1623: inClarendon State Papers I. Xviii. App. 

[426] Protestation of the Conde Oñate, in Khevenhiller, Ann. Ferd. Viii. 66. 

[427] From Khevenhiller's letter, Ann. Ferd. X. 95. 

[428] In a Letter of Pope Urban to Olivarez, this passage occurs:'Diceris in Britannico matrimonio differendo religionis dignitatemprivatis omnibus rationibus praetulisse. '

[429] 'We have expected the total restitution of the palatinate, andof the electorship. ' James to Bristol, in Halliwell ii. 228. 

[430] Prince Charles and the Duke to James, Aug. 30, 1623. HardwickePapers i. 449. 

[431] Prince Charles to the Earl of Bristol. Halliwell 229. 

CHAPTER V. 

THE PARLIAMENT OF 1624. ALLIANCE WITH FRANCE. 

After the Prince had taken leave of his Spanish escort, and had goneon board an English fleet at Santander, whither it had put in to fetchhim away, contrary winds, or, in the words of a contemporarynarrative, 'the brothers Boreas and Eurus, ' for a while delayed hisdeparture. We are assured that people in England never regarded theweathercocks and the direction of the smoke and of the clouds withmore painful anxiety than at that time. Even among the dependents ofthe royal house many almost gave up the Prince as lost; for who, theysaid, could trust the word of the Spaniards? The Protestant part ofthe population thought that he would at least be compelled to abjurehis religion. At last the wind subsided. On October 5, after anabsence of almost eight months, the Prince arrived in Portsmouth, andthe day after in London. The universal joy with which he was receivedwas indescribable: all business was at a standstill; the shops wereshut; nothing was seen but waggons driving backwards and forwards, laden with the wood intended for the bonfires which blazed at eveningin all the open squares, at all corners of the streets, even in theinner courts, but were most brilliant and costly at theGuildhall. [432] The joyful acclamations of the multitude mingled withthe sound of the bells; people congratulated each other that the heirto the throne had returned as he had gone, and that without theInfanta; for this marriage had never been popular; but above all, thathe returned rather confirmed than shaken in his religion. Theypraised God for his deliverance out of the land of Egypt. EvenBuckingham, who was not loved at other times, enjoyed a moment ofuniversal popularity. 

Nevertheless the effect which would have been most welcome to themajority, that of banishing all thoughts of an alliance with Catholicpowers, and of causing a wife to be sought for the Prince amongProtestants, was certainly not produced, for the King had long beenrevolving another plan. The combination with Spain, although it hadbest corresponded to his wishes and ideas, had nevertheless been onlyan experiment: when it miscarried, he was predisposed to return to thethought of an alliance with France. The Prince, on his way throughFrance, had already seized the opportunity of seeing the Princess, hispossible bride, while she was dancing, without being remarked by her;and the impression which she made upon him had been by no meansunfavourable. 

Instantly on his return from Spain Buckingham opened communicationswith Mary de' Medici, Queen of France, and that through means of aFranciscan monk, who could not be suspected, and who presented himselfto her while she was at dinner. Buckingham made secret overtures toher, intimating that he wished to resume the old negotiations for analliance between the royal families of England and France, for that hewas a Frenchman at heart. [433] As the Queen expressed herselffavourably inclined, Henry Rich, who then bore the title of LordKensington, and afterwards that of Lord Holland, was sent before theend of the year 1623 on a secret mission to France in order to set theaffair in motion. Rich was one of the most intimate friends ofBuckingham, and to a certain extent resembled him in character. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1624. ]

In this affair Buckingham had two circumstances in his favour. It wasthe main ambition of the Queen-mother to see her daughter on thethrone of the neighbouring kingdom. The preference accorded by theEnglish court to an Infanta of Spain over a daughter of France hadhad a painful effect upon her: she was the more gratified when thatcourt now resumed the negotiations which had been broken off. Nevertheless she did not embark on so delicate an affair, the failureof which was still possible, without the necessary reserve. The Frenchcourt could not but ask for religious concessions in favour of thePrincess, as Spain had for the Infanta: but on the very first approachto the subject it hinted that it would not urge the King to suchstrict pledges as had been demanded on the side of the Spaniards. [434]The second influence in Buckingham's favour was the political. Theadvance of the alliance, and of the power of the Spaniards, especiallytheir establishment in the Palatinate, aroused the jealousy of theFrench. The opinion, which Cardinal Richelieu so often emphaticallyexpressed, that France, everywhere enclosed by the power of theSpaniards, might some day be prostrated by it, was generally held. Theinterests of his country seemed to be deeply interested when England, from whose close connexion with Spain the greatest danger was to beapprehended, separated herself from that power, and showed adisposition to adopt a policy in harmony with that of France. HenryRich assures us that so universal an agreement had never been knownamong Frenchmen as was shown at that time in the wish to allythemselves with England. Already agents of Mansfeld and Brunswick wereseen at Court: an intended mission to Maximilian of Bavaria was givenup on the representation of the English ambassador. Envoys from theexpelled King of Bohemia also soon arrived, in order to gain theco-operation of the French in his restoration. The negotiations withEngland actually began: they were directed to an alliance and amarriage at the same time: in each case it was made a preliminarycondition that England should openly and completely break with Spain. 

But this condition could not be fulfilled in England quite easily andwithout opposition. 

And how indeed could it have been expected that the members of thePrivy Council, who had followed the King in the direction given to hispolicy in favour of Spain, if not without any reserve, yet with anardour which might be turned to their reproach, would now, as it were, turn round, and follow the example of the favourite in entering onanother path? A commission chosen from their body was appointed inorder to take into consideration the complaints made by Buckinghamabout the behaviour of the Spanish court. But the report whichBuckingham made was by no means so convincing as to win theirconcurrence. He rather depended on impressions, which had no doubt inhis own eyes a certain truth, than on facts which might have served asevidence for others as well. The commission declared itself almostunanimously against him. [435] Its sentence was, that Philip IV hadseriously intended to marry his sister to the Prince; and that in theaffair of the Palatinate he had behaved, if not as a friend, yet atany rate not as an enemy. The first part is undoubtedly correct; withregard to the second however, neither the members of the Privy Councilhad any suspicion, nor had Buckingham himself any real information, that the Spaniards had made the interests of Austria in the Palatinateso decidedly their own. The Council was moreover in an ill humour withthe favourite on account of the arbitrary authority which he arrogatedto himself. When Lord Bristol came to England in the beginning of theyear 1624, and then laid all the blame on Buckingham himself, a partywas formed against the latter, which sought to overthrow him, and waseven thought to have already secured a new favourite, with whom toreplace Buckingham, just as he had formerly stepped into the place ofSomerset. It was remarked that the friends and adherents of Somerset, who had always been on the side of Spain, came together and bestirredthemselves. It was clear, and was generally said, that if relationswith Spain were not broken off, the minister must fall. As peopleexpressed it, 'either the marriage must break or Buckingham. '

In this danger Buckingham resolved on a step of the greatestsignificance, in order to be able at once to attack the Spaniards, andto meet his rivals at home. He turned to those who had for many yearsdemanded war with Spain on principle, the popular and zealousProtestant party. The King assented to his request for the summoningof a new Parliament, of which he had in fact for other reasons alreadygiven notice. As was to be expected from the connexion of affairs, theresult of the elections corresponded with the views of the lastParliament. Men like Coke, who had been called to account for theirattitude at that time, were re-elected two or three times over. Theruling minister now regarded them even as his allies. 

What an indescribable advantage however for the supporters of theclaims of Parliament was this change! As the ill-success of the Germanpolicy of the King in the year 1621 had turned to their advantage, sonow they profited by the failure of his negotiations with Spain. Thepolitical leanings of James I in favour of Spain, which they hadoriginally opposed, had led to embarrassments in which the FirstMinister himself invoked their aid. 

But not only did party rivalries display themselves at this importantmoment, but a general opposition also arose on constitutional grounds. The Earl of Carlisle represented to the King that he had been visitedby members of Parliament, no mere popular leaders or speakers, butquiet men and good patriots, who feared God and honoured the King:that he had learned from them that the agitation observed in thecountry had principally arisen because the last grants of Parliamenthad not been met by any favours on the part of the King, but on thecontrary the expression of opinions displeasing to him on the part ofcertain members had been subsequently punished by their arrest. Carlisle reminded the King that nothing could be more hateful to hisenemies, or more strengthening and encouraging to his friends, thanthe removal of these disagreements; that no king had ever had bettersubjects if he would but trust them; that if he would but show themthat he relied on their counsel and support, he would win their heartsand command their fortunes; and that the people would then work withhim for the welfare and honour of the State. [436]

These views prevailed when Parliament was opened on the 19th ofFebruary, 1624. Hitherto it had been one of the principal grievancesof the King that Parliament wished to have a voice in affairs thatconcerned his state and his family. The new Parliament was opened witha detailed account from Buckingham of his negotiations with Spain, which affected both these interests, and with a request thatParliament would report on the great questions awaitingsettlement. [437]

The answer of both Houses was, that it was contrary to the honour ofthe King, to the welfare of his people, to the interest of hischildren, and even to the terms of his former alliances, to continuethe negotiations with Spain any longer: they prayed him to break offnegotiations on both subjects, with regard to the Palatinate, as wellas with regard to the marriage. It was hailed as a public blessingthat the conditions accepted for the sake of the latter would not nowbe fulfilled. 

At this moment Buckingham's wishes were on the side of this policy;for otherwise he could not have advanced a step in his dealings withFrance. But the King had not so fully made up his mind. He hadapproved the overtures made to France: but when he was now asked tobreak with Spain, the power which he most feared, and whose friendshipit was the first principle of his policy to cultivate, there wassomething in him which recoiled from the step. Buckingham acknowledgedfor the first time that he was not of the same mind with the King. Hesaid that he wished to tread only in one path, whereas the Kingthought that he could walk in two different paths at once; but thatthe King must choose between the Spaniards and his own subjects. Heasked him whether, supposing that sufficient subsidies of a definiteamount were at once granted him, and the support of his subjects withtheir lives and fortunes were promised him for the future, so far asit might be necessary--whether in that case he would resolve to breakoff the matrimonial alliance with Spain. He asked for astraightforward and definite answer, that he might be able to giveinformation on the subject beforehand to some members of Parliament. It is evident that this was no longer the attitude of a favourite, whohas only to express the opinions and wishes of his prince. Buckinghamcame forward as a statesman, who opposes his own insight to the aimsof his sovereign. He says that if he should concur with the King, heshould be a flatterer; that if he should fail to express his ownopinion, he should be a traitor. In this matter he could rely on thesupport of the Prince, who, without estranging himself from hisfather, still appeared to be less dependent on his will thanbefore. [438] The result was that James I again gave way. He named thesum which he should require for the defence of his kingdom, for thesupport of his neighbours, and for the discharge of his own debts. Parliament, although it did not grant the whole amount demanded, yetgranted a very considerable sum: it agreed to pay three full subsidiesand three fifteenths within a year, if the negotiations were brokenoff. At the beginning of April Buckingham was able to announce toParliament that the King, in consequence of the advice given to him, had finally broken off negotiations with Spain on both matters. 

Other and further concessions of the greatest extent were coupled withthis announcement. The King promised that, if a war should break out, he would not entertain any proposals for peace without the advice ofParliament. It was of still more importance, for the moment at least, that he declared himself willing to allow Parliament itself to disposeof the sums it had granted. He said that he wished to have nothing todo with them: that Parliament itself might nominate a treasurer. Theselikewise were admissions which Buckingham had demanded from theKing:[439] but it maybe supposed that he had a previous understandingon the subject with the leaders of the Parliament. He alsorepresented to the King that the removal of the old grievances was anabsolute necessity. The monopolies to which James had so long clung, and which he had so obstinately defended, he now in turn gave up;while the penal laws against the Catholics, to which he was averse, were revived. 

This was an intestine struggle between the different powers in thestate, as well as a question of policy. Parliament and the favouritemade common cause against the Privy Council, which was on the side ofSpain. 

Among his opponents in the Privy Council, Buckingham hated none somuch as the Lord Treasurer Cranfield, then Earl of Middlesex, forCranfield, although raised from a humble station by Buckinghamhimself, had the courage to resist him on the Spanish question. [440]By his strict and successful management of business, Cranfield had wonthe favour of the King, who believed that he had found in him a secondSully. It seems that Cranfield himself had intended to effect the ruinof Buckingham: but Buckingham was too strong for him. Certainaccusations, which were partly well founded, were made available inbringing him to trial by Parliamentary means, and in removing him fromhis office like Bacon; for he had incurred the enmity of many by hisstrictness and incorruptibility. The King professed to regard thiscase as even worse than the former, because Bacon had acknowledged hisguilt, while Cranfield denied all guilt. The doctrine of theresponsibility of ministers was by this means advanced still further, for it was now becoming more dangerous to fall out with Parliamentthan with the King. 

The authority of Parliament in general made important strides. It nowthrew paramount weight into those deliberations which concerned thegeneral affairs of the kingdom, war and peace, and the royal family. What became of the principle on which the King had hitherto taken hisstand, that the decision of these matters must be left exclusively tohis discretion? Parliament again assumed the attitude which threeyears before had led to its dissolution. 

It was not possible that James I could look on all this withoutdispleasure and uneasiness. Sometimes the thought occurred to him thatBuckingham had not been the right man to conduct the negotiations withSpain. The words escaped him that, if he had sent the Lord KeeperWilliams with his son instead of Buckingham, his honour would thenhave been saved, and his heart would now beat more lightly. He did notapprove of the decided turn which was being given to foreign politics. He was once heard to say that he was a poor old man, who in formertimes had known something about politics, but who now knew nothingmore about them. 

It seems indeed that he had fancied that he could still continue tohold the balance between parties: so at least those who knew Jamesunderstood him. He had no intention of allowing Buckingham's fall, asthe enemies of that nobleman wished, but he perhaps thought of findinga counterpoise for him: he did not wish to let him become lord andmaster of affairs. On the other hand Buckingham, by his connexion withthe leading men of the Lower House, had already won an independentposition, in which he was no longer at the mercy of the King. He mayperhaps be set down as the first English minister who, supported byParliament and by public opinion, induced or compelled the King toadopt a policy on which of his own accord he would not have resolved. In conjunction with his new friends Buckingham succeeded in breakingup the Spanish party, with which he now for the first time came intoconflict: his adherents congratulated him on his success. [441] Incourt and state a kind of reaction against the previous importance ofthis party set in. The offices which were vacated by the fall ofCranfield were conferred on men of the other party, the kind of menwho had formerly been displaced under the influence of Gondomar. Seamen were acquitted who had shown the same disregard for orders asWalter Ralegh had once done, and preparations were made to indemnifyRalegh's posterity for the loss of property which they had suffered. The Spanish ambassadors at court availed themselves of a moment of illhumour on the part of the King, to whom indeed they had again obtainedaccess, to call his attention to the loss of authority whichthreatened him on account of Buckingham's combination with the leadingmen in the Parliament. But in what they said they mingled so muchfalsehood with the truth that they could be easily refuted; andBuckingham successfully resisted this attack also. 

People still perceived in the King his old indecision. He consented, it is true, that Mansfeld, whom he had formerly helped the Spaniardsto expel from his strong position on the Upper Rhine, should now besupported by English as well as French money in a new campaign torecover the Palatinate. But nevertheless he wished at the same time toenjoin him as a condition to abstain from attacking any country whichrightfully belonged to the Archduchess Isabella, or to the crown ofSpain. [442] So far was he still from undertaking open war againstSpain, as his subjects hoped and expected. 

And though he acceded to the negotiations with France, yet in thistransaction the very circumstance which displeased the majority of hissubjects--namely that he was hereby making an alliance with a Catholicpower--was acceptable to him. For even then he would not haveconsented at any price to have interfered in the general religiousquarrel merely on religious grounds. He felt no hesitation inpromising the French, as he had the Spaniards, not only freedom ofreligion in behalf of the future queen, but even relief for hisCatholic subjects in regard to the penal laws imposed by Parliament. Yet he could have wished that they had contented themselves with hissimple promise. One of his envoys, Lord Nithisdale, was himself ofthis opinion. On the other side it was remarked that perhaps theCatholics, of whom he also was one, might be contented with a promisefrom their sovereign, on whom their whole welfare depended, but thatthe French government could not, as it must have a dispensation fromthe Pope, which could not be obtained without a written assurance. James I at first declared himself ready to give such a declaration ina letter to the king of France, and La Vieuville, who was minister atthe time, expressed himself content with that. But after his fall andRichelieu's accession to power this arrangement was rejected. It wasin vain that the King's ambassadors held out a prospect that theletter should be signed by the Prince and by the chief Secretary ofState; the French insisted that the King should ratify not only thetreaty, but also a special engagement which they themselves wished toframe and to lay before Urban VIII. The English plenipotentiaries atthe French court, Holland and Carlisle, were still refusing to agreeto this, when King James had already given way to the Frenchambassador in England. 

The agreement, in the form in which it was at last concluded, was insome points more advantageous for England than that with Spain hadbeen. While the latter stipulated that the laws which had been passed, or might hereafter be passed, in England against the Catholics werenot to be applied to the royal children, but that these on thecontrary were still to be secured in their right to the succession, anagreement which, as was mentioned, opened a prospect of an alterationin the religion of the reigning family; this supposition was avoidedin the contract with France. But it was agreed on the other hand thatthe future queen was to conduct the education of her children, notmerely till their tenth year, as had been stipulated with Spain, buttill their thirteenth. She herself and her household were also toenjoy a higher degree of ecclesiastical independence; thesuperintendence of a bishop was even allowed them. It was the ambitionof the Pope to demand not much less from the French than hispredecessor had demanded from the Spaniards as the price of bestowinga dispensation for the marriage of a Catholic princess with aProtestant prince; and it was the ambition of the French court tooffer him, or at least to appear to offer him, no less. In thespecial assurance above mentioned James gave a promise that hisCatholic subjects should look forward to the enjoyment of stillgreater freedom than that which would have been conferred on them bythe agreement with Spain. They were not to be molested for the sake ofreligion, either in their persons or in their possessions, supposingthat in other respects they conducted themselves as good and loyalsubjects. [443]

The English ambassadors took exception to single expressions: the Kinghimself passed lightly over them. He was mainly induced to do so bythe absence from the agreement with France of the most offensive andburdensome clauses which had been contained in the secret articles ofthe treaty with Spain. On December 12, 1624, the treaty was signed atCambridge by the King, and the special assurance both by the King andby the Prince. 

James I wished to see his son married. At the Christmas immediatelyfollowing he greeted him according to English fashion with thetenderest expressions: he said that he existed only for his sake; thathe had rather live with him in banishment than lead a desolate lifewithout him. He thought that the treaty of marriage which had justbeen concluded would establish his happiness for ever. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1625. ]

An alliance between France and England for the recovery of thePalatinate was now moreover in contemplation. From the first momentthe French had acknowledged that this would be to their own interest, and had promised to assist in that object to the extent of theirpower. Nevertheless they hesitated to conclude an express agreementfor this object; for what would the Pope say if they alliedthemselves with Protestants against Catholics? At last they submitteda declaration in writing, but this appeared to the English ambassadorsso unsatisfactory, that they preferred to return it to them. TheFrench said that this time they would perform more than they promised. Although exceptions of many kinds might be made to their performances, yet they were really seriously bent on doing as much as possible forthe recovery of the Palatinate. Just at that time Richelieu hadstepped into power, and he expressly directed the policy of France tothe destruction of the position which the Spaniards had occupied onthe Middle Rhine. In spite of the obstructive efforts of a party whichhad both ecclesiastical and political objects in view, he concludedthe arrangements for the marriage of the Princess to the Prince ofWales without any delay, even without waiting for the last word of thePope. 

By this means the connexion which the King had formed in earlier yearsseemed once more to be revived. The Duke of Savoy and the Republic ofVenice supported Mansfeld's preparations with subsidies of money. TheStates General took the most lively interest in the warlike movementsin Germany, on which the Elector of Brandenburg also set his hopes. The King of Denmark offered his help in the matter with a readinesswhich created astonishment. While the English ambassadors were busy inadjusting the disputes that were constantly springing up afreshbetween him and Sweden, he gathered the estates of Lower Saxony aroundhim, in order to check the swift advance of the Catholic League. [444]Of the members of the old alliance the princes of Upper Germany alonewere absent. It was hoped that the Union would be revived by theefforts of Lower Germany, and above all that its head, the ElectorPalatine, would be restored to his country. 

Induced by the failure of peaceful negotiations for the restorationof his son-in-law, James allowed greater progress to be made in thedirection of war than he had ever done before. He took an eagerinterest in the preliminaries and preparations for war, even for anaval war. But would he ever have proceeded to action? While preparingto attack the Emperor and the League did he intend to do anything morethan make a demonstration against Spain? In truth it may be doubted. He never allowed his English troops to attempt anything for the reliefof Breda, which at that time was still blockaded by theSpaniards. [445]

And in his alliance with France he certainly still held fast to hisoriginal principles. 

The marriage of his son to a Catholic princess, and the indulgencetowards the Catholics to which he thereby pledged himself, express themost characteristic tendencies of his policy. Notwithstanding all theconcessions which he made to Parliament, he still refused to grantmany of the demands which were addressed to him. The special agreementwhich he made with France corresponded to the conception which he hadformed of his prerogative. By means of it he imported into relationscontrolled by the law of nations his claim to give by virtue of hisroyal power a dispensation even from laws that had been passed byParliament. 

After, as well as before, this event his idea was to control and tocombine into harmony the conflicting elements within his kingdom byhis personal will; outside his kingdom, to guide or to regulate eventsby clever policy. This is the important feature in the position and inthe pacific attitude of this sovereign. But the blame which attachesto him is also connected with it. He made each and everything, howeverimportant it might be in itself, merely secondary to his politicalcalculation. His high-flying thoughts have something laboured and flatabout them; they are almost too closely connected with a conscious, and at the same time personal, end; they want that free sweep which isnecessary for enlisting the interest of contemporaries and ofposterity. And could the policy of James ever have prevailed? Was itnot in its own nature already a failure? A great crisis was hangingover England when King James died (March 1625). He had once morereceived the Lord's Supper after the Anglican use, with edifyingexpressions of contrition: a numerous assembly had been present, forhe wished every one to know that he died holding the same views whichhe had professed, and had contended for in his writings during hislifetime. 

NOTES:

[432] 'True mirth and gladness was in every face, and healths ranbravely round in every place. ' John Taylor, Prince Charles his Welcomefrom Spaine: in Somers ii. 552. 

[433] Mémoires de Richelieu. Ranke, Französische Geschichte v. 133(Werke xii. 162). 

[434] Kensington to Buckingham: 'Neither will they strain us to anyunreasonablenesse in conditions for our Catholics. ' Cabala 275. 

[435] Hacket, Life of Williams 169. 'Scarce any in all the Consultodid vote to my Lords satisfaction. '

[436] The Earl of Carlisle to His Majesty, Feb. 14, 1624. He signshimself 'Your Majesty's most humble, most obedient obliged creaturesubject and servant. '

[437] Valaresso already observes this, March 8, 1624: 'Nell'ultimoparlamento si chiamava felonia di parlare di quello, che hora sitransmette alla libera consultatione del presente. '

[438] A. Valaresso, Dec. 15, 1623: 'Col re usa qualche minor rispetto;agli altri da maggior sodisfattione del solito. Parla con Più libertadella Spagna. '

[439] Of all Buckingham's letters to the King, without doubt the mostremarkable. Hardwicke i. 466: 'Risolve constantly to run one way. '

[440] Valaresso, April 26. 'La persona merita male perche certo fud'affetto Spagnola. ' He accuses him of a 'Somma scarsezza di pagare. 'Chamberlain says of him at his appearance on the scene October 1621:'whom the King, in his piercing judgment, finds best able to do himservice. '

[441] Robert Philips to Buckingham, August 9, 1624. 'You have to yourperpetual glory already dissolved and broken the Spanish party. '

[442] 'Not to attempt any act of hostility upon any of the lawfuldominions or possessions of the king of spain or the Archiduchess. ' Hethen at any rate supposed certain cases in which this might takeplace. Hardwicke Papers i. 548. 

[443] Escrit particulier: 'qu'il permettra a tous ses subjectsCatholiques Romains de jouir de plus de liberté et franchise en ce quiregarde leur religion qu'ils n'eussent fait en vertu d'articlesquelconques accordés par le traité de mariage fait avec l'Espagne, nevoulant que ses subjects Catholiques puissent estre inquiétés en leurspersonnes et biens pour faire profession de la dite religion et vivreen Catholiques pourvu toutesfois qu'ils en usent modestement, etrendent l'obéissance que de bons et vrays subjects doivent à leur roy, qu'il par sa bonté ne les restreindra pas à aucun sentiment contraireà leur religion. ' Hardwicke Papers i. 546. The English ambassadorscomplain that the word 'liberté' had been inserted by the Frenchwithout first informing them. 

[444] Conway to Carlisle, Feb. 24, 1624-25: 'In contemplation of H. Majesty the king of Denmark hath come to the propositions--upon whichH. M. Upon good grounds hath made dispatche to the king of Denmarkagreeing to the kings of Denmarks propositions. ' Hardwicke Papers i. 560. 

[445] Valaresso: 'Non è possibile di rimoverlo di contravenire alletante promesse verso Spagnoli et alle sue prime dichiarationi. '

CHAPTER VI. 

BEGINNING OF THE REIGN OF CHARLES I, AND HIS FIRST AND SECONDPARLIAMENT. 

The prince who now ascended the throne was in the bloom of life: hehad just completed his twenty-fifth year. He had been weak anddelicate in childhood: among the defects from which he suffered wasthat of stammering, which he did not get over throughout life; but hehad grown up stronger in other ways than had been expected. He lookedwell on horseback: men saw him govern with safety horses that werehard to manage: he was expert in knightly exercises: he was a goodshot with the cross-bow, as well as with the gun, and even learned howto load a cannon. He was hardly less unweariedly devoted to the chasethan his father. He could not vie with him in intelligence andknowledge, nor with his deceased brother Henry in vivacious energy andin popularity of disposition; but he had learnt much from his father, at whose feet he loved to sit; and his brother's tastes for the artsand for the experimental sciences, especially the former, had passedto him. In moral qualities he was superior to both. He was one ofthose young men of whom it is said that they have no fault. His strictpropriety of demeanour bordered on maiden bashfulness: a serious andtemperate soul spoke from his calm eyes. He had a natural gift forapprehending even the most complicated questions, and he was a goodwriter. From his youth he shewed himself economical; not profuse, butat the same time not niggardly; in all matters precise. All the worldhad been wearied by the frequent proofs which his father had given ofhis untrustworthiness, and by the unfathomable mystery in which heenveloped his ever-wavering intentions: they expected from the sonmore openness, uprightness, and consistency. They asked if he wouldnot also be more decidedly Protestant. He showed, at least at first, that he had a more sensitive feeling with regard to his princelyhonour. [446] He had expected that his personal suit for the hand ofthe Infanta would remove all difficulties on the part of theSpaniards, even those of a political character, which obstructed themarriage. They had paid him every attention suitable to his rank, butin the business which was under discussion they had not given way ahair's breadth: it rather appeared as if they wished to availthemselves of his presence to impose harder conditions upon him. Hewas deeply affronted at this. When he found himself again among hiscountrymen on board an English ship, he expressed his astonishmentthat he had not been detained after he had been so ill-treated. [447]Quiet and taciturn by nature, he knew while in Spain how to disguisehis real feelings by appearing to feel differently: but we have seenhow on his return his whole attitude with regard to affairs ingeneral, both foreign and domestic, in matters which concerned hisfather and the Parliament alike, assumed an altered character whichcorresponded to the general feeling of the nation far more closelythan the policy previously pursued. 

In the last days of James doubts had still been felt whether he wouldever allow a marriage to take place between his son and a Frenchprincess, and large sums had been wagered on the issue. Charles I atonce put an end to all hesitation. He did not allow himself to beinduced to defer his marriage even by the death of his father, or by apestilential sickness which then prevailed, or by the lack of thedesirable preparations in the royal palaces. He wished to show theworld that he adhered to his policy of opposition to Spain. He evenallowed the privateering, which his father had formerly suppressedwith so much zeal, to begin again. The royal navy, for theimprovement of which Buckingham actively exerted himself, was put in acomplete state of efficiency, and the money granted by Parliament wasprincipally employed for this purpose. 

But to enable him to undertake war in earnest he required freshgrants. It was almost the first thought of the King after hisaccession to the throne to call a Parliament for this purpose, andthat the same Parliament which had last sat in the reign of hisfather. [448] He bent, although unwillingly, to the necessity, imposedby the constitution, of ordering new elections to be proceeded with, for he would rather have avoided all delay: but he entertained nodoubt that the Parliament, as it was composed after the elections, would give him its full support. After what had taken place heconsidered this almost a matter of course. 

On June 18/28, 1625, Charles I opened his first Parliament atWestminster. He reminded the members that his father had been inducedby the advice of the Parliament, whose wishes he had himselfrepresented to the King, to break off all further negotiations withSpain. He said that this was done in their interest: that on theirinstigation he had embarked on the affair as a young man joyfully andwith good courage: that this had been his first undertaking: what areproach would it be both for himself and for them if they now refusedhim the support which he necessarily required for bringing to asuccessful issue the quarrel which had already begun!

And certainly if war with Spain had been the only question, he mighthave reckoned upon abundant grants: but the matter was not quite sosimple. Parliament thought above all of its own designs, which it hadnot been possible to effect in the lifetime of James I, but whichCharles had advocated in the last session. If the new King inferredthe obligation of Parliament to furnish the money required for aforeign war from the share it had had in the counsels which had ledto that war, Parliament also considered that he was no less bound onhis part to fulfil the wishes that had been expressed in regard tointernal policy. In the very first debate which preceded the electionof the Speaker, this point of view was very distinctly put forward. The King was told that in the last session he had sought to remove alldifferences between Parliament and his father, and to induce thelatter to grant the petitions of Parliament: that if he had notsucceeded then, that result had been due only to his want of power;but now he had power as well as inclination: what he before had onlybeen able to will, he now was enabled to effect, and everythingdepended solely on him. [449] It had been especially the execution ofthe Acts of Parliament directed against the Catholics which theParliament demanded, and which the Prince in his ardour against Spainhad then thought advisable. His father had refused to grant this: itwas now expected that he should grant it himself. They expected thisfrom him as much as he expected from them a subsidy sufficient forcarrying on the war. It may be asked, however, whether it was possiblefor him to give ear to their wishes. The complication in his fortunesarose from his inability to comply. 

If Charles I, when Prince of Wales, had wished to identify his causeentirely with the aims of Parliament, he would have been obliged tomarry the daughter of a Protestant prince. But this was prevented bythe political danger which would then have arisen in the event of abreach with Spain. Neither James nor Charles I believed that theycould withstand this great monarchy without an alliance with France. Political and dynastic interests had led to the marriage which hadjust been concluded. But by this a relation with the Catholic worldhad again been contracted which rendered impossible a purelyProtestant system of government such as Queen Elizabeth desired toestablish. A dispensation from Rome had been required which expressedeven without any disguise the hope that the French princess wouldconvert the King and his realm to the old faith. [450] The marriagecould not have been concluded without entering into obligations whichwere in open contradiction to the Acts of Parliament. Thoseobligations were not yet fully known, but what was learnt of themcaused great agitation. Charles was reminded of a promise, which hewas said to have given at an earlier time, to agree to no conditionson his marriage which might be prejudicial to the Church existing inEngland. Men asked how that promise had been fulfilled; and why anysecret was made of the compact which had been concluded. Would not theQueen's chapel, they asked, now serve to unite the Catholics ofEngland; or would they be forbidden to hear mass there? In a forciblepetition Parliament asked for the execution of the laws issued againstPapists and recusants. [451]

Charles I was not in a position to be able to regard it. It was notthat he had any thought of curtailing the rights of the English Churchor of entering on any other course in great questions of generalpolicy than that which had been laid down in conjunction withParliament. His marriage also was a preparation for the conflict withSpain; but if it was not so decidedly opposed to the common feeling ofthe country as a Spanish marriage, yet it was far from being inaccordance with it. The pledges which had been given on that occasionprevented the King from adopting exclusively Protestant points ofview, and from identifying himself completely with his people. 

But there was another reason for the King's adherence to hisagreement. He was as little inclined as his father had been to allowthe Parliament to exercise any influence on ecclesiastical affairs. Much unpleasant surprise was created at that time by the writings ofDr. Montague, in which he treated the Roman Church with forbearance, and Puritanism with scorn and hatred. Parliament wished to instituteproceedings against the author. The King did not take him under hisprotection; but on the request of some dignitaries of the EnglishChurch he transferred the matter to his own tribunal. He regarded itmoreover as an undoubted element of his prerogative to dispense withthe statutes passed by Parliament, so that the concessions which wereexpressed in the marriage compact appeared to him quite justifiable. 

We see how closely this affected the most important question ofEnglish constitutional law. The universal competence of Parliament ishere opposed to the authority of the King, strengthened by hisecclesiastical functions. And we understand how Parliament, in spiteof the urgent need created by itself, hesitated to fulfil theexpectations of the King. 

It could not absolutely refuse to make any grant: it offered him twosubsidies, 'fruits of its love' as they were termed. But the King hadexpected a far stronger proof of devotion. What importance could beattached to such an insignificant sum in prospect of so tremendous anundertaking as a war against Spain? The grant itself implied a sort ofrefusal. 

But the Lower House also attempted to introduce a most extensiveinnovation in regard to finance. The customs formed one of the mainsources of the revenue of the crown, without which it could not besupported. They had been increased by the last government on theground of its right to tonnage and poundage, although, as we saw, notwithout opposition. [452] The constitutional question was whether thecustoms were properly to be regarded as a tax, and accordinglydependent on the grant of Parliament, or whether they were absolutelyappropriated to the crown by right derived from long prescription: forsince the time of Edward IV, tonnage and poundage had been granted toevery king for the whole period of his reign. The controversiesarising on the subject under James had brought to light the dailyincreasing importance conferred by the growth of commerce on thissource of revenue, which certainly assured to the crown, if not forextraordinary undertakings, yet for the conduct of the ordinarybusiness of the state, a certain independence of the grants ofParliament. The Lower House was now disinclined, both on principle andunder the painful excitement of the moment, to renew the grant onthese terms: it therefore conferred the right to tonnage and poundageon the King only for a year. But the import of this restriction wasplain enough. The popular leaders were not satisfied with granting theKing very inadequate support for the war, but they sought to make himdependent even in time of peace on the goodwill of the Lower House. The resolution was rejected by the Upper House, and it appeared to theKing himself as an affront. For why should he be refused what had beensecured to his predecessors during a century and a half? The grantingof supplies for life he regarded as a mere form, which after such longprescription was not even necessary. He thought himself entitled, evenwithout such a grant, to have the duties levied in his own name asbefore. 

These were differences of the most thoroughgoing character, which haddescended to Charles I with the crown itself from the earlier kingsand from his father. The change of government, and certain previousoccurrences caused these differences to come into greater prominencethan ever; but they received their peculiar character from somethingin his personal relations which had also been transmitted from thefather to the son. 

Or rather, we may say, James I would certainly have been inclined toget rid of Buckingham as he had formerly got rid of Somerset: underCharles I this favourite occupied a still stronger position than hehad held before. 

Between the two men personally there was a great contrast. In thefavourite there was nothing of the precision, calmness, and moralbehaviour of the King. Buckingham was dissolute, talkative, and vain. His appearance had made his fortune, and he endeavoured to add to itby a splendour of attire, which later times would have allowed onlyin women. Jewels were displayed in his ears, and precious stonesserved as buttons for his doublet. It was affirmed that on his journeyto France, which preceded the marriage of the King, he had taken withhim about thirty different suits, each more costly than the last. Itwas for him as much an affair of ambition as of sensual pleasure tomake an impression upon women, and to achieve what are calledconquests in the highest circles. He revelled in the enjoyment ofsuccesses in society. Moments of lassitude followed, when those whohad to speak with him on business found him extended upon his couch, without giving them a sign of interest or attention, especially whentheir proposals were not altogether to his mind. Immediatelyafterwards however he would pass from this state to one of the mosthighly-strained activity, for which he by no means wanted ability: hethen knew neither rest nor weariness. He was spurred on most of all bythe necessity of making head alternately against such powerful andactive rivals as the two ministers who at that time conducted theaffairs of France and Spain. He was bound to Charles I by a commoninterest in one or two of those employments which fill up daily life, for instance by fondness for art and art collections, but principallyby the companionship into which they had been thrown, first in thecabinet of James I, who weighed his conclusions by their assistance, and afterwards in their journey to Spain. The Spaniards, who wereaccustomed to treat persons of the highest rank with respect andreverence, were greatly scandalised to see how entirely Buckinghamindulged his own humours in the presence of the Prince. He allowedhimself to use playful nicknames, such as might have been oftenapplied in the hunting-seats of James or in letters to him, but whichat other times appeared very much out of place. He remained sittingwhen the Prince was standing: in his presence he had indeed theaudacity to consult his ease by stretching his legs on another chair. The Prince appeared to find this quite proper: Buckingham was for himnot so much a servant as an equal and intimate friend. It would havebeen impossible to say which of the two was the chief cause of thealienation which arose between them and the Spaniards. Rumour made thefavourite responsible for this estrangement: better informed peopletraced it to the Prince himself. The intimacy formed during theirprevious association had been made still closer by the policy whichthey pursued since their return from Spain. Many persons hopednotwithstanding that, in spite of appearances to the contrary, analteration would take place with the change of government. But on thefirst entry of Charles I into London, Buckingham was seen sitting byhim in his carriage in the usual intimate proximity. His share in themarriage of the King increased their friendship: they both equallyagreed even in the subsequent change of policy. Buckingham had alliedhimself most closely with the leaders of the Puritan opposition inParliament: by their support principally he had broken up the partyfavourable to Spain. But in return for these services he had now notthe least intention of doing justice to their claims. If it haddepended on him, still greater concessions would afterwards have beengranted in favour of the Catholics than in fact were made; forCatholic sympathies were very strongly represented in his family: hehimself had far less feeling in favour of Anglican orthodoxy than theKing. And when the rights of the prerogative were called in question, he again espoused them most zealously, seeing that his own powerrested on their validity. He looked at the Parliamentary constitutionfrom the point of view of a holder of power, who wishes to availhimself of it for the end before him without deeming himself bound byit, so soon as it becomes inconvenient to him. He cared only forsuccess in his immediate object: all means of obtaining it seemedfair. 

The continuance of the session in London was at that time renderedimpossible by the pestilential sickness already referred to, whichevery day increased in severity. Buckingham, who although pliant andadroit yet had no regard whatever for others, wished to keepParliament sitting until it had made satisfactory grants. While themembers, and even the Privy Council, wished for a prorogation, heurged with success that the sitting should only be transferred toOxford. Thither the two Houses very unwillingly went, for there alsosymptoms of the plague were already showing themselves; and eachmember would have preferred to be at home with his family. And whenBuckingham came before them at Oxford with his proposal for a furthergrant, the ill-humour of the assembly openly broke out. He wasreproached with the illegality of his conduct in asking for a grant ofsubsidies more than once in a session; the members said that if thiswas the object of their meeting they might well have been athome. [453] But they were not content with rejecting the proposal: theysaid that if they must remain together, they would, according toformer precedent, bring under debate the prevailing abuses and theirremoval. 

Buckingham had been warned that by now changing his demeanour he wouldrun the risk of forfeiting those sympathies of Parliament, which hehad won by his Protestant attitude. In the very first session atOxford an event took place which set religious passions in agitation. 

Before the departure of the Parliament from London Lord KeeperWilliams had promised in the King's name that the laws againstCatholic priests should be observed. Immediately after the Speaker hadtaken his seat at Oxford, a complaint was made that an order for thepardon of six priests had been since issued. Williams had had no sharein it; he had refused to seal it. It had been necessary to complete itin the presence of the King, who was induced at the urgent request ofBuckingham to give his assent in pursuance of the conditions of theagreement executed with France. This conduct however, the failure toexecute laws that had been ratified, especially after a renewedpromise to the contrary, appeared to the Parliament an attack upon itsrights and upon the constitution of the country. The ill-feeling wasdirected against Buckingham, whose exceptional position was now thegeneral object of public and private hatred. 

This was a time in which the power of a first minister in France, whocame forward as the representative of the monarchy, was winning itsway amid the strife of factions, and above all in opposition to theclaims of aristocratic independence. What Concini and Luynes hadbegun, Richelieu with a strong arm carried systematically into effect. Something similar seemed to be at hand in England also. It had beenthe fashion of James I to give effect to his will in the state bymeans of a minister, to whom he confided the most important affairs, and whom he wished to be dependent solely on the King himself; andCharles I, in this as in other matters, followed his father's example. Buckingham became more powerful under him than ever. At the meetingsof the Privy Council the King hardly allowed any one else to speak:without taking the votes of the members he accepted Buckingham'sopinion as conclusive. And yet it was apparent at the same time thatthis opinion did not deserve preference from any worth of its own. Thepublic administration, so far as it was influenced by him, and hisspecial department, the Admiralty, furnished much occasion for justcensure; and the general policy on which he embarked appearedquestionable and dangerous. He was coarsely compared to a mule whichtook its rider into a wrong road. Oxford suggested to men's minds therecollection of the opposition which the great nobles had once offeredto Henry III. People said that they might perhaps have been to blamein form, but not in substance. It was wished that Charles I might alsogovern the state by the help of his wise and dignified councillors, and not with the aid of a single young man. Parliament, the great menof the country, and those who filled the highest offices, were almostunanimous against Buckingham. The Lord Keeper Williams told the Kingopenly at a meeting of the Privy Council at Oxford, that nothing wouldquiet the apprehensions of his Parliament but an assurance 'that inactions of importance and in the disposition of what sums of money thepeople should bestow upon him, he would take the advice of a settledand constant council. '[454] The misconduct of the favourite in notapplying the money granted to the objects for which it was voted, wasexactly the ground of the complaint urged against him. Not only thereal importance of the points in dispute, but also the intention ofdriving Buckingham from his position, led Parliament to reject all hisproposals. 

The King's adherence to his resolution of supporting his ministergreatly affected the state of affairs in England, which even at thattime presupposed and required an agreement between the Crown and theParliament. 

Buckingham attributed the rejection of his proposals in Parliament topersonal enmity; and this he thought he could certainly overcome. Williams, who in the time of James I had been entirely in theconfidence of the King, was after a time dismissed, not withoutharshness, and was replaced by Thomas Coventry. The post of LordKeeper was again filled by a lawyer who troubled himself less aboutpolitical affairs. Parliament was not prorogued, as the rest of themembers of the Privy Council wished: the King agreed with Buckinghamthat it must be dissolved. The Duke hoped that new elections, heldunder his influence, would give better results. He did not doubt thatanother Parliament might be hurried away to make extensive grantsunder the pressure of the great interest opposed to Spain. But inorder to effect this object it appeared to him necessary to excludefrom the Lower House its most active members, who were his personalantagonists. He adopted the odious means of advancing them to officeswhich could not be held compatible with a seat in Parliament. In thisway Edward Coke, who revived and found arguments for theconstitutional claims of Parliament, was nominated sheriff ofBuckinghamshire, and Thomas Wentworth High Sheriff of Yorkshire. Francis Seymour, Robert Phillips, and some others, had a similarfate. [455] When the lists were submitted as usual the Kingunexpectedly announced these nominations. Some peers, whose viewsinspired no confidence, were not summoned to attend the sittings ofthe Upper House. 

Perhaps too much weight has been attributed to the circumstance--butyet it proves the discontent which was widely spreading--that at thecoronation of the King, which took place during these days, thetraditional question addressed from four sides of the tribune to thesurrounding multitude, asking whether they approved, was not answeredfrom one side at least with the joyful readiness usuallydisplayed. [456]

On February 6, 1626, the new Parliament was opened at Westminster. Itmade no great objection to the exclusion of some of the formermembers, as the means by which this had been effected could not beregarded as exactly illegal. Among the members assembled an ambitionwas rather felt to prove that their opinions and resolutions were notdependent on the influence of some few men. For all Buckingham'sefforts to prevent it, on this occasion also those opinions were inthe ascendant which he wished to oppose. In the place of the membersexcluded others arose, and at times they were the very men from whomhe feared nothing. A great impression was made when a personal friendof Buckingham, his vice-admiral in Devonshire, John Eliot, cameforward as his decided political opponent. He first brought underdiscussion the mismanagement of the money granted, which was laid tothe charge of the First Minister. With this was connected atransaction of great importance which affected the general relationbetween the Parliament and the Crown. 

In the year 1624 a council of war, consisting of seven members, hadbeen nominated to manage the money then granted. They were nowsummoned to account for it. Although this measure appeared aninnovation, yet the government could do nothing against it--it hadeven consented to it: but Parliament at the same time submitted to themembers the invidious question, whether their advice for theattainment of the ends in view had always been followed. King Jameshad said on a former occasion, that if Parliament granted himsubsidies, he had to account to it for their disposal as little as toa merchant from whom he received money; for he loved to lay as muchemphasis upon his prerogative as possible. How entirely opposed to theprerogative were the claims which Parliament now advanced! It is clearthat if the members of the council should make the communications theywere asked for, all freedom of action on the part of the minister andof the King himself would be called in question. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1626. ]

The members of the new council for war were thrown into greatembarrassment. They answered that they must first consult the lawyerson the subject, and the King conveyed to them his approval of thisdeclaration. He informed them that he had had the Act of Parliamentlaid before him: that they were bound to submit to questions onlyabout the application of the money, but about nothing else: he eventhreatened them with his displeasure if they should go beyond this. The president of the council for war, George Carew, called hisattention to the probability that the grant of the subsidies which hedemanded from Parliament might be hindered by such an answer: it wouldbe better, he said, that the Council should be sent to the Tower, --forit would come to this, --than that the good relations between the Kingand the Parliament should be impaired, and the payment of thesubsidies hindered. Charles I said that it was not merely a questionof money, and that gold might be bought too dear. He thanked them forthe regard which they had shown to him; but he added that Parliamentwas aiming not at them but at himself. [457]

The controversy about tonnage and poundage coincided with thisquarrel. The grant, as has been mentioned, had been obtained only fora short period. Parliament was incensed, that after this had expired, the King had the customs levied just as before. 'How, ' it was said, 'did the King wish to raise taxes that had never been voted? Was notthis altogether contrary to the form of government of the country?Whoever had counselled the King to this step, he was without doubt thesworn enemy of King and country. '

Parliament declared to the King that if he insisted on those subsidieswhich were absolutely necessary, it would support him as fully as evera prince had been supported by a Parliament, but in Parliamentaryfashion, or, as they expressed it, 'via parlamentaria. '[458] Theclaims of Parliament included both the right of granting money in itswidest extent, and the supervision of its application when granted. The King considered that a grant was not necessary in respect of everysource of revenue--for instance, not in respect to tonnage andpoundage, and was determined to keep the management entirely in hisown hands, and to submit to no kind of control over it. 

Many other questions, in which wide interests were involved, werebrought forward for discussion in Parliament, especially in regard toecclesiastical matters: the proceedings of the High Commission wereattacked again. But the question of the widest range of all was thedecided attempt to alter the government and to overthrow the greatminister, which gave perhaps the greatest employment to theassembly. [459] It was directed against the favourite personally, forhe had now incurred universal hatred, but at bottom there also lay thedefinite intention of confirming the doctrine of ministerialresponsibility by a new and signal example. 

How quickly was Buckingham overtaken by Nemesis; that is to say, inthis, as in so many other instances, how soon was he visited by theconsequences which in the nature of things attended his actions!First, owing to his influence the establishment of that council forwar had been granted which now gave occasion to the demand forParliamentary control: and next, he had allowed the fall of Bacon, andhad most deliberately overthrown Cranfield by the help of Parliament. These were just the transactions which endangered his own existence bythe consequences of the principles involved in both cases alike. 

The King was certainly moved by personal inclination to take the partof his minister; but he was also moved by anxiety about theapplication of these principles. He complained that without actuallyestablished facts forthcoming, on the strength of general rumour, people wished to attack the man on whom he bestowed his confidence:but Parliament, he said, was altogether overstepping its competence. It was wishing to inspect the books of the royal officers, to passjudgment upon the letters of his secretary of state, nay, even uponhis own: it permitted and sheltered seditious speeches within itsbosom. There never had been a king, he affirmed, who was more inclinedto remove real abuses, and to observe a truly Parliamentary course;but also there had never been one who was more jealous of his royalhonour. The more violently Buckingham was attacked, the more itappeared to the King a point of honour to take him under hisprotection against charges which he considered futile. 

The Lower House did not take up all the points in dispute which theKing proposed for discussion. It excused some things which hadoccurred to the prejudice of the royal dignity, but in the principalmatter it was immovable. It asserted, and adhered to its assertion, that it was the constant undoubted right of Parliament, exercised aswell under the most glorious of former reigns as under the last, tohold all persons accountable, however high their rank, who shouldabuse the power transferred to them by their sovereign and oppress thecommonwealth. They maintained that without this liberty no one wouldever venture to say a word against influential men, and that thecommon-weal would be forced to languish under their violence. 

The impeachment was drawn up in regular form by eight members, amongwhom we find the names of Selden, Glanvil, Pym, and Eliot. On the 8thof May it was carried by 225 votes to 116 to send up to the Lords aproposal for the arrest of Buckingham. 

In the Upper House, the members of which were by no means morefavourable to the Duke, and feared the nomination of a large number ofpeers, Lord Bristol independently brought an accusation againstBuckingham relating to the failure of the Spanish marriage. Theconduct of which he is accused may rather have shown ambition andfoolish assumption than any real criminality; and Buckingham's defenceis not without force. The Lower House, to whom it was communicated, nevertheless expressed their opinion that a formal prosecution musttake place. It seemed that Buckingham must surely but sink under thecombined weight of various complaints. 

But the King would not allow matters to go so far. Without paying anyregard to the wish of the Lords to the contrary, he proceeded todissolve this Parliament also (June 15, 1626). In the declarationwhich he issued on the subject, he said that he recognised Joab's handin these estrangements: but in spite of them he would fulfil his dutyas king of this great nation, and would himself redress theirgrievances and defend them with the sword against foreign enemies. 

The opposition between Parliament and the Crown did not develop byslow degrees. In its main principles at least it appears immediatelyafter the accession of Charles I as a historical necessity. 

NOTES:

[446] Lando, Relatione 1622: 'Tiene presenza veramente regia fronte, sopraciglio grave, negli occhi e nelli movimenti del corpo gratianotabile, indicante prudente temperanza--di pensieri maniere costumicommendabilissimi attrahenti la benevolenza et l'amore universale. '

[447] Thus Kensington states to the Queen-mother in France: 'He wasused ill, not in his entertainment, but in their frivolous delayes, and in the unreasonable conditions which they propounded and pressedupon the advantage they had of his princely person. ' Cabala 289. 

[448] Consultation at St. James's on the day after he ascended thethrone (March 28). 'That which was much insisted upon was aparliament, H. Majesty being so forward to have it sit that he didboth propound and dispute it to have no writs go forth to call a newone. ' Hacket, Life of Williams ii. 4. 

[449] Speech of Sir Thomas Edwards, St. P. O. (not mentioned in theParliamentary Histories). It is there said 'He did not only become acontinual advocate to his deceased father for the favourable grauntingof our petitions, but also did interpose his mediation for thepacefying and removing of all misunderstandings. God having now addedthe posse to the velle, the kingly power to the willing mind, enabledhim to execute what before he could but will. '

[450] Letter from the Pope to the Princess, Dec. 28, 1624: 'Cogitansad quorum triumphorum gloriam vadis, fruere interim expectatione tui. '

[451] 'Some spare not to say that all goes backward since thisconnivance in religion came in, both in all wealth valour honour andreputation. ' Letter of Chamberlain, June 25, 1625. 

[452] 'Tonnage, a duty upon all wines imported; poundage, a dutyimposed ad valorem on all other merchandises whatsoever. ' Blackstone, Commentaries i. 315. 

[453] 'Whosoever gave the counsel (of the meeting in Oxford) had theintention to set the king and his people at variance. ' Nethersole toCarleton, Aug. 9, 1625: a circumstantial and very instructive document(St. P. O. ). 

[454] Hacket ii. 20. 

[455] Arthur Ingram to Wentworth, Nov. 1625 (Strafford Papers, i. 29), names besides Guy Palmer, Edward Alford, and a seventh, who had nothad a seat in the last Parliament, Sir W. Fleetwood. 

[456] Ewis in Ellis, i. 3, 217. The Dutch ambassador present inEngland, Joachimi, to whose letter I referred, does not seem to havementioned it. 

[457] A memorial of what passed in speech from H. M. To the Earl ofTotness, March 8, 1625-26; St. P. O. The King says 'Let them doe whatthey list: you shall not go to the Tower. It is not you that they aimat, but it is me, upon whom they make inquisition. And for subsidiesthat will not hinder it; gold may be bought too dear. '

[458] Correro: 'Questo termino di via parlamentaria vuol dire libereconcessioni secondo la loro dispositione e di haver cognitione inqualche maniera delli impieghi. '

[459] 'Ils disent' (so it is said in Ruszdorf, Negotiations i. 596)'que tout alloit mal, que les deniers qu'ils ont contribué ont été malemployés: il falloit toujours et avant toutes choses redresser etregler le gouvernement de l'état. '

CHAPTER VII. 

THE COURSE OF FOREIGN POLICY FROM 1625 TO 1627. 

In reviewing so important a conflict as that which had broken out athome, it almost requires an effort of will to bestow deep interestupon foreign affairs in turn. But not only is this necessary from theconnexion between the two, but we should not be able to understand thehistory of England if we left out of consideration its relation tothose great events of European importance which absorbed even thelargest share of public attention. 

Charles I had undertaken to do what his father avoided to the end ofhis life, --to offer open opposition to the Spanish monarchy and itsaims. Like Queen Elizabeth he took this step in alliance with France, Holland, and the Protestants of Germany and the North, but yet not infull agreement with his own people. This was due mainly to thecircumstance that France had become far more Catholic under Mary de'Medici and Louis XIII than it had been under Henry IV. The offensivealliance between France and England now developed a character whichrather irritated than quieted the religious feelings which prevailedin England. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1625. ]

On the first shocks sustained by the close alliance which had existedbetween the Catholic powers, the Huguenots in France rose in order torecover their former rights which had been curtailed. But the Frenchgovernment was not at all inclined to give fresh life to thesepowerful and dangerous movements: on the contrary it invoked theassistance of England and Holland to put them down. For the greatstrength of the Huguenots lay in their naval resources, and withoutthe help of the maritime powers the French government would neverhave been able to overcome them. And so imperative seemed thenecessity of internal peace in France, [460] if she was to be inducedto take an active share in the war against Spain, that the English andDutch were actually persuaded to put their crews and vessels at thedisposal of the French government, which then used them with decisiveresults. The naval power of the Huguenots, which had formed so largean element of the fighting strength of the Protestants, was broken bythe assistance of England and Holland. Queen Elizabeth, in the midstof her war with Philip II, would certainly never have been brought tothis step, and even now it roused the bitterest dislike. It was foundthat the execution of the orders issued met with resistance even onboard the ships themselves. A light is thrown upon the ill-feeling athome, when a member of the Privy Council, Lord Pembroke, tells acaptain who resisted this mutinous spirit, that the news of theinsubordination of his crew was the best which he had heard for a longtime, and that it was welcome even to the King: that he must dealleniently with his men, and only see that he remained master of theship. [461] But what an impression must doubtless have been produced onthe population of England, which still stood in the closest relationto the French Reformed! Sermons were delivered from the pulpitsagainst these proceedings of the government. 

But if the active alliance of France against Spain and Austria wassecured by this immense sacrifice, what could have appeared morenatural than to employ the whole strength of that country for therestoration of the Count Palatine, which the French saw to beadvantageous to themselves, and for the support of GermanProtestantism? In pursuance of the stipulations which had been madethe King of Denmark was already in the field: his troops had alreadyfought hand to hand at Nienburg in the circle of Lower Saxony withthe forces of the League which were pressing forward into thatcountry. He was strong in cavalry but weak in infantry: the Germanenvoys who were present in England insisted that gallant Englishtroops should be sent to his assistance, and that the fleet which wasready for service should be ordered to the Weser; for that the supportwhich the fleet would give to the King would encourage him to advancewith good heart. And then, as they added with extravagant hopefulness, the King of Sweden, who had already offered his aid, would comeforward actively, if only he had some security; the Elector ofBrandenburg, who had just married his sister to the King of Sweden, would declare himself; the Prince of Transylvania, who was connectedwith the same family, would force his way into Bohemia: every onewould withstand the League and compel it to restore the lands occupiedby it to their former sovereigns, and to the religion hithertoprofessed in them. 

But Buckingham had as little sympathy with the German as with theFrench Protestants: his passionate ambition was to make the Spaniardsdirectly feel the weight of his hatred. For this purpose he had justconcluded an offensive and defensive alliance with the UnitedProvinces; even the great maritime interests of England werethemselves a reason for opposing Spain. At all events, in the autumnof 1625 he despatched the fleet, not to the Weser, which appeared tohim almost unworthy of this great expedition, but against the coastsof the Spanish peninsula. Orders were given to it to enter the mouthof the Guadalquivir, and to alarm Seville, or else to take the town ofCadiz, for which object it had on board a considerable number of landtroops; or, finally, to lie in wait for the Spanish fleet laden withsilver, and to bring home the cargo as a lawful prize. Buckinghamproceeded on the supposition that the foundation of the Spanish powerand its influence would be undermined by the interruption of theSpanish trade with America, and that in the next year the Spaniardswould be able to effect nothing. He did not perceive that this wouldhave no decisive influence on that undertaking on which in the firstinstance everything depended, that of the King of Denmark, asmeanwhile in Rome, Vienna, and Munich, native forces, independent ofSpain, had been collected. But while he preferred the more distant tothe more immediate end, it was his fate to achieve neither the one northe other. In December 1625 the fleet returned without having effectedanything at sea or on the Spanish coasts. On the contrary it hadsuffered the heaviest losses itself. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1626. ]

The discredit into which Buckingham fell with those whom he haddesired to win over, and whose wishes were fixed on the struggle withSpain, is exhibited in a very extraordinary enterprise which sprung upat this time, and which had for its object the formation of what wemay almost call a joint-stock war company. A wish was felt to form acompany for making war on Spain, upon the basis, it is true, of aroyal charter, but under the authority of Parliament, with theintention of sharing the booty and the conquests, as well as the costsamong the members. [462]

By the late enterprise moreover the means had been wasted which mighthave been used for supporting the German allies of England. Leftwithout sufficient subsidies in his quarrel with Parliament, the Kingwas unable to pay the arrears due both to the seamen who werereturning from Spain, and to his troops in Holland. He could notrepair his fleet; he could hardly defend his coasts: how could he bein a position to make any persevering effort for the conduct of thewar in Germany? The King of Sweden asked for only £15, 000 in order toset his forces in motion; but at that time this sum could not beraised. The King of Denmark was the more thrown on England, as theFrench also made their services depend on what the English would do:but Conway, the Secretary of State, declared himself unable to pay thestipulated sum. Could men feel astonished that the Danish war was notcarried on with the energy which the cause seemed to demand?Christian IV had not troops enough, and could not pay even those whichhe had. The cavalry, which constituted his main strength, had on oneoccasion refused to fight, because they had not received their pay. Hehimself threw the chief blame on the English for the defeat which henow sustained at Lutter; and which was the more decisive, as meanwhileMansfeld also, who wished to turn his steps to the hereditarydominions of Austria in order to combine with the Prince ofTransylvania, had been not only defeated, but almost annihilated. Thearmies which were to have defended the Protestant cause disappearedfrom off the field. The forces of the Emperor and of the League nowoccupied North Germany also on both sides of the Elbe. 

To Germany the alliance with England had at that time brought no good. It may be doubted whether the Elector Palatine would have accepted thecrown of Bohemia but for the support which he thought to find inEngland. This affair had a great part in bringing on the outbreak ofthe great religious conflict. But James I sought to retrieve themisfortune into which the Elector had fallen, not so much by employinghis own power, as by developing his relations with the Spaniards; andthus he had himself given them the opportunity of establishingthemselves in the Palatinate, and had caused the Catholic reaction totriumph in Upper Germany. Without the instigation of England, and thegreat combination of the powers in East and West hostile to the houseof Austria, the King of Denmark would not have determined to beginwar, nor would the circle of Lower Saxony have aided him. On thisoccasion as on others in England the interests of its own poweroutweighed consideration for the allies. The policy of the English hadformerly been ruled by their friendly relations with Spain: it was nowruled by their hostile intentions towards that country. All availableforces were employed for their purpose, and the movement in Germanywas left to its fate. 

Meanwhile another consequence of the breach with Spain came to light, which King James had always feared. In order not to be forced to fightboth great powers at once, Spain found it advisable to show acompliance hitherto unprecedented in the affairs of Italy, in whichFrance had interested herself. After this the irritation against theascendancy of the Spaniards evidently abated in France. 

For in alliances of great powers it is self-evident that theirpolitical points of view, if for a moment they coincide, mustnevertheless in a short time be again opposed to one another. Howshould one power really seek the permanent advantage of another?

At that time also, as on so many occasions, other relations arisingout of the position of the leading statesmen as members of parties, produced an effect on politics. Cardinal Richelieu met with oppositionfrom a zealously Catholic party, which gathered round the queenmother, and considered the influence of Spain to a certain degreenecessary. This party seized the first favourable opportunity ofsetting on foot a preliminary treaty of peace, to which Richelieu, however long he hesitated, and however much he disliked it, could nothelp acceding. 

Quite in keeping with this understanding between the Catholic powerswas the partial recoil of Protestantism in England from the advanceswhich it had made to the Catholic party. The French who surrounded theQueen were so numerous, that a strong feeling of opposition onreligious and national grounds was awakened in them by their contactwith the English character. They saw in the English nothing butheretics and apostates; the Catholics who had formerly been executedat Tyburn as rebels they honoured as martyrs. The Queen herself, uponwhom her priests laid all kinds of penance corresponding to herdignity, was once induced to take part in a procession to this placeof execution. It is conceivable how deeply wounded and irritated theEnglish must have felt at these odious demonstrations. To the King itseemed insufferable that the household of his consort should take up aposition of open hostility to the ecclesiastical laws of the land. Personally also he felt injured and affronted. We hear complaints fromhim that he was robbed of his sleep at night by these demonstrations. He quickly and properly resolved to rid himself once for all of theserefractory people, whatever might be the consequence. The Queen'scourt was then refusing to admit into it the English ladies whom hehad appointed to attend on her. The King seized the opportunity: heinvited his wife to dine with him, for they still had separatehouseholds; and after dinner he made her understand by degrees that hecould no longer put up with this exhibition of feeling on the part ofher retinue, but must send them all home again, priests and laymen, men and women alike. [463] This resolution was carried out in spite ofall the resistance offered by those whom it affected. Only some fewladies and two priests of moderate views were left with the Queen; allthe rest were shipped off to France. There they filled the court andthe country with their complaints. Those about the Queen-motherassumed an air as if the most sacred agreements had been infringed, and any measure of retaliation was thought justifiable. 

Marshal Bassompierre indeed set out once more for England in order tobring about a reconciliation. Though ill received at first, henevertheless won his way by his splendid appearance and by clever talkand moderation. In a preliminary agreement leave was given to theQueen to receive back a number of priests and some French ladies;[464]and Buckingham prepared to go to France to remove the obstacles stillremaining. But meanwhile the feeling of estrangement at the Frenchcourt had become still stronger. The agreement was not approved: andthe court would not hear of a visit from Buckingham, as it was thoughtthat he would be sure to use the opportunity afforded by his presenceto stir up the Huguenots. Richelieu thought that the dispute withEngland had been provoked by his enemies in order to break up thefriendly relations which he had established. But nevertheless he toodid not wish to see Buckingham in France, for he feared that theEnglish minister might side outright with his opponents. 

Personal considerations of many kinds co-operated in producing thisresult, but it was not due mainly to their influence. The religioussympathies and hatreds at work had incalculable effects. While theopposition between the two religions again awoke in all its strength, and a struggle for life and death was being fought out between them inGermany, an alliance could not well be maintained between two courtswhich professed opposite religious views. The current of the generaltendencies of affairs has a power by which the best consideredpolitical combinations are swept into the background. 

The paramount importance of religious movements not only prevented acombination between France and England, but also brought both Catholicpowers into closer agreement with one another, as soon as theirimmediate differences had been in some measure adjusted. FatherBerulle had promoted the marriage of a French princess with the Kingof England in the hope of converting him; but now that he becameconscious of his mistake, he lent his pen to a project for a commonattack to be made by the Catholic powers upon England. The domesticdissensions in that country, which again aroused Catholic sympathiesamong a part of the population, appeared to favour such a project. Anagreement on the subject was in treaty for some time. It was at lastconcluded and ratified in France in the form in which it was sent backfrom Spain. [465]

Although it is not clear that people in England had authenticinformation of these negotiations, yet the advances made by the twocourts to one another, which were visible to every one, could not butcause some anxiety in the third. The English were always anxiouslyconsidering what Philip IV might have in view for the next year; attimes even in Charles' reign they feared another attack from theBelgian coast. What would happen if France lent her aid in such anenterprise? It was known at all events that the priests exhorted herto do so. That France and Spain should make a joint attack on Englandappeared to be most for the interest of the Catholic world. [466]

Another ground for anxiety in England was from that resolution torevive the French naval power, which Richelieu had already taken inconsequence of his late experiences. He bought ships of war, or hadthem built, and took foreign sailors into his service. Charles Iperceived this with the greatest displeasure. He regarded it as athreat against England, for he thought that the French could have noother intention than that of robbing England of the supremacy that shehad exercised from time immemorial over the sea which bears her name. He declared that he was resolved to prevent matters from going so far. 

A great effect was produced by a very definite misunderstanding whichnow arose between England and France, and affected naval interests aswell as the question of religion. 

Of all the French Huguenots, who had been compelled by their lastdefeat to seek peace with the King, the citizens of Rochelle felt theblow most deeply. They had at that time been hemmed in on all sides, and were especially harassed by a fort erected in their neighbourhood. They had been assured that at the proper time they would be relievedof this annoyance. They had not an express and unequivocal promise;but the English ambassador, who had been invited to mediate, hadguaranteed to them, after conference with the French ministry, such aninterpretation of the expressions used as would secure the wished-forresult. [467] But just the contrary took place: they were constantlybeing more closely shut in, and more seriously threatened with theloss of that measure of independence which they had hitherto enjoyed. They turned to Charles I. They would rather have acknowledged him astheir sovereign than have submitted to such a loss, and he felt thefull weight of his obligation to them. But, if he desired to grantthem assistance, it could only be rendered by open war. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1627. ]

When the English resolved to undertake an expedition against theIsland of Rhé, the prevention of the fall of Rochelle was not theonly object in view. It was rather considered that nothing could bemore desirable and advantageous than the command of this island in theevent of a struggle with the two powers. For Biscay could be reachedin a voyage of one night from thence, and the communication betweenthe Netherlands and the harbours on the north-east coast of Spaincould at any time be interrupted by the possessors of the island, which might be used at the same time for keeping up constantcommunication with the Huguenots, and for giving the French poweremployment at home. [468] The Huguenots had already taken up armsagain, and Rochelle displayed the English banner on its walls. CharlesI intended to use Rhé as a station for his fleet, but to cede thegeneral sovereignty over it to Rochelle. A successful result heremight serve to infuse new life into the Protestant cause. 

In order to achieve so great an end the King thought it admissible tolevy a forced loan, and thus to collect those sums which Parliamenthad promised him by word of mouth, but had not yet formally granted. We shall have hereafter to consider the resistance which heencountered in this attempt, and the various arbitrary acts to whichhe resorted for its suppression; for they formed one of the turningpoints of his history. At first he actually succeeded so far, that afleet of more than a hundred sail was able to put to sea for theattack of Rhé and the support of Rochelle. It was considered inraising this loan that a war with France had greater claims uponpopular support than any other. In the present doubtful state ofaffairs a decided advantage gained in such a war might even now haveexercised great influence upon the internal state of the kingdom. 

At this juncture Buckingham assumed a position of extraordinaryimportance. After the repeated failures of the Protestants, hisundertaking aroused all their hopes. Directed against both theCatholic powers, it must, if successful, have directly benefited theFrench Protestants, and indirectly the German Protestants also by theeffect which it would inevitably have produced. But it was besides oneenterprise more undertaken by the sole power of the monarch: it wascarried out independently of any Parliamentary grants properly socalled. It represented the principle of a moderate monarchicalProtestantism, combined with toleration for the native Catholics, among whom Buckingham endeavoured to find support. His was a positionof which the occupant must either be a great man or perish. Buckingham, who had no equal in restless activity, and was by naturenot devoid of adroitness and ability, nevertheless had not thatpersevering and comprehensive energy which is required for theperformance of great actions. He had not gone through the school ofthose experiences in which minds ripen: and for the want of thistraining his native gifts were not sufficient to compensate. He was sofar fortunate as to gain possession of the Island of Rhé; but FortMartin, which had been erected there a short time before, and on whichthe possession of the island depended, defied his attacks, and he wasnot skilful enough to intercept the support which was thrown into thefort in the hour of its greatest danger. The defence of the Frenchcertainly showed greater perseverance than the attack of the English. Buckingham did not know how to awaken among his men that fierydevotion which shrinks from no obstacle, and which would have beennecessary here. And the measures which were arranged at home were notso effective as to bring him at the right moment the reinforcement heneeded. In November 1627 he returned to England without havingeffected his object. He left behind him the French Protestants, andRochelle especially, in the greatest distress. 

Charles I had no intention of proving false to the promises which hehad given them, any more than he wished to allow the King of Denmarkto sink under his difficulties. But what means did he possess ofbestowing help either on the former or on the latter?

After the battle of Lutter he had told the Danish ambassador, that hewould come to the assistance of his uncle, even if he should have topawn his crown. How heavily his position weighed on him at that time!While he had undertaken the responsibility of contending for thegreatest interests of the world, he was obliged to confess, and did sowith tears in his eyes, that at present he hardly had at his disposalthe means of defraying the necessary expenses of his daily life. 

The King of Denmark advised him to call Parliament together again, andmake the needful concessions, in order to obtain such subsidies aswould enable him to give vigorous support to his allies. Charles I inthe first instance took umbrage at this, because it was good advicefrom an uncle and an elder, as if some blame were thereby cast on him:by degrees he became convinced of the necessity of this measure. 

It was quite evident from the events of the last few years that theKing would not be able to maintain the position he had assumed, without active support from Parliament. 

NOTES:

[460] Z. Pesaro, April 25, 1625: 'Che la conservatione della pace inFrancia sara il fondamento del beneficio comune, che li rumori civiliin quella natione sariano il solo remedio che Spagnoli procurano alliloro mali. '

[461] 'That the King and all the rest were exceedingly glad of thatrelation which he made of the discontent and mutiny of his compagnie. '

[462] M. A. Correro: 'Trattano di formar una compagnia per la qualepossino con l'autorità del parlamente e privilegi reggi attaccare conuna flotte il re di Spagna per dividere l'interesse della spesa el'utile delli bottini e delli acquisti nelli compagni che ne averannoparte (27 Mayo 1626). '

[463] Letter to Joseph Mead: Court and Times of Charles I, i. 134. 

[464] According to Ruszdorf, who was well acquainted withBassompierre, the latter represented 'hoc facto regem obligatum nihilesse intermissurum, quod ad conservationem fortunae illius queatconducere. '

[465] Siri, Memorie recondite vi. 261. 

[466] Letter to Joseph Mead, March 16, 1626: 'It still holds that bothFrance and Spain make exceeding great preparations both for sea andland. --The priests of the Dunkirkers are said to preach that God haddelivered us into their hands. ' (Court and Times of Charles I, i. 205). 

[467] I refer for the fuller explanation of these transactions to myHistory of the Popes and my French History. My meaning is very fullyrecognised in an essay in the Revue Germanique, Nov. 1859. 

[468] Beaulieu to Pickering. 'It lieth in the way to intercept thesalt that cometh from Biscaje and serveth almost all France, and whatso ever cometh out of the river of Bourdeaux: besides it commandeththe haven of Rochelle. ' (Court and Times of Charles I, i. 257). 

CHAPTER VIII. 

PARLIAMENT OF 1628. PETITION OF RIGHT. 

In the heat of controversy about the supplies to be granted and theliberties to be confirmed by the King in return, it was once harshlysaid in the Lower House during this Parliament that it was better tobe brought low by foreign enemies than to be obliged to sufferoppression at home. The King answered by saying no less abruptly thatit was more honourable for the King to be straitened by the enemies ofhis country, than to be set at nought by his own subjects. 

So much more importance was attached by both sides to domestic than toforeign struggles. But after the last failure both parties had come tofeel how much the honour of the country and religion itself sufferedfrom their dissensions. Among the politicians of the time there was aschool of learned men, who had studied the old constitution of thecountry, and wished for nothing more than its restoration. They wereseriously bent on establishing an equilibrium between the royalprerogative and the rights of Parliament. Among them were found EdwardCoke, John Selden, and John Glanvil; but Robert Cotton may be regardedas the most distinguished of them all, a man who had studied mostdeeply, and who combined with his studies an insight into the presentthat was unclouded by passion. To Cotton we owe a report presented byhim to the Privy Council, in which he explains that the governmentshould proceed on the old royal road of collecting taxes by grant ofParliament, and indeed should adopt no other method; while at the sametime he expresses the conviction that Parliament would be satisfied, if its most pressing anxieties were dissipated. He says that hehimself would not advise the King to sacrifice the First Minister, forthat such a step had always had ruinous consequences: he thoughtmoreover that the old passionate hostility against the Duke need notbe feared, if he came forward himself as the man who had advised theKing to reassemble Parliament. [469] We learn that the King did notdetermine to summon it, until the most prominent men had given him anassurance that Buckingham should not be attacked. Moderation in theattitude of Parliament, and security for the First Minister formed asit were the condition under which the Parliament of 1628 wassummoned. [470]

[Sidenote: A. D. 1628. ]

On March 22, five days after the beginning of the session, thedeliberations of the Lower House were opened by the remark from theSpeaker, that they must indeed grant subsidies to the King; but thatat the same time they must maintain the undoubted rights of thecountry. Francis Seymour, who had now again been returned toParliament, at once expressed himself to the same effect. While heacknowledged that every one must make sacrifices for king and country, he shewed at the same time that it was a sacred duty to cling to theirancestral laws. He proceeded to say that these laws had beentransgressed, their liberties infringed, their own selves personallyill-treated, and their property, with which they might have supportedthe King, exhausted. He proposed therefore to secure the rights, laws, and liberties transmitted from their ancestors by means of a petitionto the King. [471]

Whatever be the tone of opposition which this language betrays, itfell far short of that adopted in the former Parliament. Men had cometo an opinion that certainly no money should be granted unlesssecurities could be obtained for their ancient liberties; but at thesame time that the King should not be induced to grasp directly atabsolute power, for that this would lead at once to a rebellion ofuncertain issue. [472] Men were resolved to avoid questions which couldrouse old passions. This time it was not insisted that the penal lawsagainst the Catholics should be made more severe: Parliament waivedits claim to alter the constitution of the Admiralty, and to appointtreasurers to manage the money granted to the King: it showeddeference for the King, and said nothing of the Duke. But a commissionwas appointed to take into consideration the rights which subjectsought to have over their persons and property. Already on April 3resolutions were proposed to the House, by which it was intended thatsome of the most obnoxious grievances which had lately arisen shouldbe made for ever impossible, such as the collection of taxes that hadnot been granted, and restraints imposed on personal liberty inconsequence of refusal to pay. [473]

Charles I also now took up this question. Through Coke his Secretaryof State, who was also a member of the House, he issued an invitationto them not to allow themselves to be deterred by any anxiety aboutliberty or property from making those grants, on which, as he said, the welfare of Christendom depended; 'upon assurance, ' Coke proceedsto add, 'that we shall enjoy our rights and liberties, with as muchfreedom and security in his time as in any age heretofore under thebest of our kings; and whether you shall think fit to secure ourselvesherein, by way of bill or otherwise, so as it be provided for with duerespect to his honour and the publick good whereof he doubteth notthat you will be careful, he promiseth and assureth you that he willgive way to it. '

This is indeed a very important message. The King approves of aninquiry into the violations of old English right and prescription, which had taken place in his reign. He consents that a bill to securetheir observance should be drawn up, and gives hopes beforehand of itsratification. Charles I, like James, had constantly been anxious toprevent grants from being made dependent on conditions; but somethingvery like this occurs when he backs his invitation to a speedy grantof subsidies by a promise to approve of the petition submitted to himfor certain objects. 

On this five subsidies were without delay unanimously granted to theKing, with the concurrence even of members like Pym, whosystematically opposed him. It was now only necessary that both sidesshould agree on the enactments for doing away with the abuses whichhad been pointed out. 

The principal grievance arose from the conduct of the King, who in hisembarrassments had imposed a forced loan at the rate fixed on theoccasion of the last subsidies, and had sent commissioners into thecounties in order to exact payment, just as if he had been armed withthe authority of Parliament for this object. Many had submitted: butnot a few others high and low had refused to pay, not from want ofmeans but on principle. The King had thought this behaviour a proof ofpersonal disaffection, and had had no hesitation in arresting thosewho refused: he had even taken steps to assert his right to do so as amatter of principle. Much notice was attracted at that time by asermon preached by one Sibthorp, in which plenary legislativeauthority was ascribed to the King, and unconditional obedience wasdemanded for all his orders if they did not contradict the divinecommands. Archbishop Abbot had steadfastly refused to allow theprinting of this sermon, which he regarded as an attack upon theconstitution: eighteen times in succession an intimate friend of theKing went to him to urge him to give leave. [474] As the Archbishoprefused to comply, he received orders to leave London, and was struckout of the High Commission: the sermon had been printed with thepermission of another bishop. So earnestly bent was the King at thattime on pressing his claim to override the necessity of aparliamentary grant in moments of emergency. 

He had now however retreated from this position. Abbot had obtainedpermission to resume his seat in the Upper House, and so had LordBristol. When, in consequence of the above-mentioned declaration inParliament, a project was now decided on for securing the legalposition of the subject, especially the rights of property andpersonal freedom, which had been infringed by the previousproceedings, the King expressed his agreement loudly, explicitly, andrepeatedly; in general terms he gave up his claim ever to proceedagain to a forced loan. No one was ever to be arrested again becausehe would not lend money; and in all other cases where arrest wasnecessary the customary forms were to be observed. 

At this point however another question arose touching the very essenceof the supreme power. The Lower House was not yet content that anabuse like that which had occurred should be merely removed: it wishedto destroy it at the root. It was not satisfied with the promise ofthe King that he would never in any case punish by arrest, unless hewas convinced in his conscience of its necessity. They wished to putan end to this discretionary power itself, of which his ministerscould avail themselves at pleasure. Parliament demanded thathenceforth no one should be arrested without assignment of the reasonand observance of the forms of law. 

This question led to a discussion of points of constitutional doctrinebefore the House of Lords, between the representatives of the LowerHouse and Sir Robert Heath, the Attorney General, in an argument whichdeserves our whole attention. 

The Lower House appealed to that article of Magna Charta, by which thearrest of free persons was forbidden except on the judgment of theirpeers, or according to the law of the land: and by the law of the landit understood the judicial process and its forms. Sir Robert Heathwould not admit this interpretation. He thought that the expression inno way forbade the King to restrict the liberty of individuals inextraordinary cases for reasons of state; and that this restrictioncould not be avoided, when it was desired to trace out some conspiracyor treason. If the cause were to be assigned he thought that it mustbe the real cause, which could be proved before a tribunal; but howoften cases arose of such a kind that arrest would have to be orderedunder some other pretext, until the ring-leader could be laid hold of!It was very true, he said, that such a power might be seriouslyabused, but it was the same with all the rights of the prerogative:even the right of making war and peace, and the right of pardon mightbe abused, and yet no man wished to take these from the crown: italways was, and must always be presumed, that the King would notbetray the confidence of God, who had placed him in his office. 

Not without good reason did Edward Coke call this the greatestquestion which had ever been argued in Westminster. It was proved tohim that he himself as judge had followed the interpretation which henow condemned. He answered that he was not pope, and made nopretensions to infallibility. He now firmly maintained that the Kinghad no such prerogative at all. 

We can see how opinion wavered from a speech of Sir Benjamin Rudyard, who maintains on the one hand that it is impossible to find lawsbeforehand for every case, but that a circle must be drawn withinwhich the royal authority shall prevail; while on the other hand helays emphasis also on the danger arising from the plea of mere reasonsof state, which he said would only too easily come into conflict withthe laws and with religion itself. The best arrangement according tohim would be, if Parliament were held so often that the irregularpower which could not be broken at once, might by degrees 'moulderaway. ' A copy of this speech with observations by Laud is extant inthe archives. Laud calls attention to the contradiction which lies infirst acknowledging the necessity of liberty of movement on the partof the government, and then notwithstanding considering it to be thedestination of Parliament by degrees to absorb its power, as it was atpresent exercised. [475]

And certainly it may have been the idea of the moderate members ofthe House of Commons, gradually to break up such a power as thatexercised by the minister and favourite, by coming to a betterunderstanding with the King, and at the same time by strictly limitinghis arbitrary authority. 

The impression however gained ground that even the indispensablefunctions of the supreme authority would be restricted by theenactments proposed. The right of arresting persons dangerous andtroublesome to the government was just then exercised in France to thewidest extent; Cardinal Richelieu could never have maintained himselfbut for his quick and energetic use of it. In all other states, aswell republican as monarchical, it was a weapon with which thegovernment thought that it could not dispense. Was it to be dropped inEngland alone? And that too at a moment when the opposition offactions was constantly becoming more active? In fact the impressionspread that Parliament, not content with full promises from the King, while it checked abuses, was impairing his authority. 

In the Upper House, where there was a strong party in favour of theKing's prerogative, these and similar considerations influenced votes. Men were agreed that abuses like those which had occurred must be forever put a stop to. Even the proposals introduced for securingindividual freedom were not properly speaking rejected: but it wasdesired to limit them by a clause to the effect that the sovereignpower with which the King was entrusted should remain in his handsundiminished for the protection of his people. The Lower House howeverwould not accept any such addition: for the provisions of the Petitionwould thus be rendered useless. They foresaw that what thoseprovisions forbade would pass as lawful in virtue of the plenitude ofthe sovereign power: yet the expression 'sovereign power' was unknownin the English Parliament: that body was familiar only with theprerogative of the King, which at the same time was embodied in thelaws. The Upper House on this declared that it did not think ofdeparting from the Oath by which each one of them was pledged tomaintain the prerogative of the King. Even in the Lower House themembers were reminded of this, and no one raised his voice againstit; for who would have been willing to confess that he waswithstanding the lawful prerogative of the King? The only question wasas to its extent. 

This question now presented itself to the King himself. Was he toaccept the proposal of the Commons, and to content himself with ageneral reservation of his prerogative? It is very instructive, andforms one of the most important steps in his career, that he thoughtit advisable to inform himself first of all what rights in this matterhe really possessed. 

On the 26th of May, just when the heat of the quarrel was mostintense, he summoned the two Chief Justices, Hyde and Richardson, toWhitehall, and submitted to them the question whether or not he hadthe right of ordering the arrest of his subjects without specifyingthe reason at the same time. On this the Judges were assembled bytheir two chiefs in the profoundest secrecy, to pronounce on thequestion. They decided that it certainly was the rule to specify thereasons; but that there might be cases in which the secrecy requiredmade it necessary for some time to withhold them. A further questionwas then followed by a decision of the same import, that the judges insuch a case were not bound to give up the prisoner even if a writ ofhabeas corpus were presented. Charles then proceeded to a thirdquestion, to which no doubt he attached the most importance. If heaccepted the petition of the Commons, did he surrender for ever theright of ordering imprisonment without assigning a cause? The judgesassembled again, and on the 31st of May, after deliberating together, they gave in their answer, signed with their names. Every law, theysaid, had its own interpretation; and so must this petition: and theanswer must always depend upon the circumstances of the case inquestion, which could not be determined until the case arose; but theKing certainly did not give up his right beforehand by granting thepetition. [476]

At a later time and in another epoch these questions were finallysettled in a different way. The Judges of this time decided them infavour of the power of the time. If we might apply a parallel, thoughcertainly one borrowed from a very different form of government, wemight say that the fettah of men learned in the law, the sentence ofthe mufti, was in favour of the King. In this, as in other respects, adifference is found to exist between the constitutions of the East andthose of the West: such a sentence in the West does not finally decidea case; but even here, nevertheless, it always carries great weight. Charles I felt that according to the existing state of the law, he didnot exceed his rights by maintaining the prerogative which he hadhitherto exercised. The last decision raised him even above theapprehension of losing it by acceding to a petition which was opposedto it. 

He could not however resolve on this step without furtherconsideration. 

To accede to the petition, and at the same time to reserve in his ownfavour the declaration made by the Judges, was an act of duplicity, which he wished to escape by giving an assurance couched in generalterms. 

On the 2nd of June he came down to the House in full assembly, and hadhis answer read. Its tenor was, that the laws should be observed andthe statutes put in force, and his subjects freed from oppression;that he the King was as anxious for their true rights and liberties asfor his own prerogative. 

But it is easily intelligible that these words satisfied no one. Theyappeared to one party as dark as the sentence of an oracle; to theother they appeared useless; for the King, they said, was alreadypledged to all this by his Coronation Oath: such long sittings and somuch labour would not have been required to effect such a result asthis. The answer however was not ascribed to the King, whosedeliberations remained shrouded in the closest secrecy, and who on thecontrary was thought to agree with the substance of the petition, butto the favourite, who was supposed to find such an agreement dangerousfor himself. [477] It was remarked that two days before making thisdeclaration the King had been at one of the country seats of theDuke, and had held confidential conversations with him. It was thoughtthat there, under the influence of the Duke, the declaration had beendrawn up, which contained nothing but words that might easily beexplained in another sense, and which did not even make any mention ofthe petition at all. It was fancied that Buckingham even wished tohinder the King from coming to a genuine understanding with hisParliament, which might be disadvantageous to his interests. [478] Hisopponents thought that he was at the root of all previous misfortunes;and what might they not still expect from him? He was credited withwishing to alter the constitution of England, to excite a war withScotland, and to betray Ireland to the Spaniards. In spite of all thatthe King might have originally expected, they determined to make adirect attack upon such a minister. Popular susceptibility knows nolimits in its anxieties or hopes, in its likings or hatreds. Eventhoughtful and serious men allowed themselves to entertain the opinionthat the prosperity of England at home and abroad was as good as lost:the former was lost if people were content with the answer given, thelatter if they refused to make the grants demanded, or even if theymade them but left the administration in those untrustworthy hands inwhich it was at the present time. On one occasion these feelings gaverise to an unparalleled scene in Parliament. Those bearded and sedatemen wept and cursed. They feared for their country, and each onefeared for himself, if they did not get rid of the man who possessedpower, while on the other hand it seemed to them impossible to do so. Some could not speak for tears: violent exclamations against the Dukeprevented the continuance of the debate. But not only were complaintsheard: the expression was also heard, that men had still hands andswords, and could get rid of the enemy of King and country by hisdeath. They proceeded at last to deliberate on a protestation whichwas resolved on after that debate, and they had gone so far as to namethe Duke, and to declare him a traitor, when the Speaker who hadquitted the House came in again, and brought a message from the King, by which the sitting was adjourned to the following day. 

No course seemed to be left for Charles I but to dissolve thisParliament immediately as he had dissolved its predecessor. But whatwould then have become of the grant of money, which was every day moreurgently needed? Like the Petition, it would have fallen to theground. 

Before the end of the same day, June 5, a meeting of the Privy Councilwas held, in which it was resolved to calm the agitation by acceptingthe Petition of Right. We do not learn if on that occasion thescruples of the King were discussed or not; but as his questions tothe judges already betrayed his inclination to such a course, so nowhe actually resolved to plunge into the contradiction which he hadwished to avoid, and accept the Petition while at the same time, inaccordance with the sentence of the Judges, he would reserve forhimself the future exercise of the right therein denied. 

On June 7 the King appeared in the Upper House, where the Commons alsowere assembled. The Lords were in their robes, and the King sat uponhis throne while the Petition of Right was read. It was directedagainst some temporary grievances, such as forced billeting and theapplication of martial law in time of peace, but principally againstthe exaction of forced loans, or taxes which had not been granted, andagainst the imprisonments which had been so much talked of. The King, as had been desired, uttered the formula of assent used by his Normanancestors. His words were greeted with clapping of hands andacclamations. The King added that he had meant just as much by hisfirst declaration; indeed he knew well that it was not the intentionof Parliament, nor even in its power, to limit his prerogative: forthat this would be strengthened by the liberties of the people, andconsisted in defending those liberties. [479]

The excitement of the House was taken up by the city. The bells wererung, and bonfires were kindled; and a rumour obtained credence thatthe Duke of Buckingham himself had fallen, and was expecting hisreward on the scaffold. Of what an illusion were men the victims! TheKing clung to Buckingham as firmly as ever: in granting the Petitionhe did not mean to surrender a jot of his lawful prerogative. We haveseen what he thought of his right to make arrests. In resigning hisclaim to levy taxes that had not been granted by Parliament he did notmean to be restricted in his claim to tonnage and poundage, for hethought that, unless these were collected, the administration of theState could not be carried on at all, and in the late controversieshis right to them had not come under discussion. Some of the higherofficials, the Recorder and the Solicitor General, confirmed the Kingin this view: and to many of his opponents in Parliament it waspointed out that they had previously entertained the same opinion. 

The Lower House on its part allowed the bill, by which the grant wasmade, to pass the last stage; but it could not be moved by advice orwarning to desist from the great Remonstrance, in the composition ofwhich the House had been interrupted. In this, mention was made of theArminian opinions which were now making way in England, and whichappeared to Parliament to involve a tendency in the direction ofRomanism: but it complained principally of the connivance, which inspite of all ordinances was still constantly extended to therecusants, so that Catholicism, especially in Ireland, had the fullestscope. And the State, it was said, was in just the same plight asreligion. The government was introducing foreign soldiers, especiallyGerman troopers, and was meditating the imposition of new taxes inorder to pay them. In the midst of peace a general was commanding inthe country. Trustworthy men were being dismissed from their offices;Parliament and its rights were contemned: was it intended to 'changethe frame both of religion and government?'[480] But the source of allevil was the Duke of Buckingham. The remonstrants begged the King toconsider whether it was advisable for himself and for his kingdom toallow him to continue in his high offices, and to keep him among hisconfidential advisers. [481]

As we gather, the Lower House attached weight to the circumstance thatit did not raise a complaint, nor even strictly speaking a protest, against the continuance of Buckingham's authority, but simplypreferred a request that the position of affairs should be taken intoconsideration. But the King was greatly offended even at this. Hereplied that he had hitherto always believed that the members of theLower House understood nothing about the affairs of State, and that hewas now greatly strengthened in his opinion by the purport of thisrepresentation. [482] Buckingham prayed the King to cause unsparinginvestigation into the charges raised against him to be made, for thatsuch a proceeding would bring his innocence to light. The King offeredhim his hand to kiss, and addressed to him some friendly expressions. But the Lower House was incensed afresh at the bad success of itsrepresentation, and proceeded to adopt an express remonstrance on thesubject of tonnage and poundage. In order to save himself from againreceiving such an address, the King declared Parliament to beprorogued on June 20. 

Although it was assumed just at that time that a genuine understandingbetween the Crown and the Parliament had been brought about in thissession, yet this assumption is certainly a mistake. At the beginningof the session suspicious controversies were intentionally avoided. Abasis was obtained upon which union between the two parties seamedpossible: the great Petition of Right was drawn up, on the whole inconcert with the government. When it was discussed however, a demandwas set up affecting rights which the King would not forego. Hesurrendered them in his eagerness to obtain the proceeds of the grantsmade to him, but not without secretly reserving his rights in his ownfavour. Then other old differences also came to light again in theirfull strength. An open disagreement broke out: in haste and withtempers irritated the two parties separated. 

NOTES:

[469] The Danger wherein the Kingdom now standeth and the Remedy, written by Sir Robert Cotton. Jan. 1627-8. 

[470] Aluise Contarini, Feb. 10, 1628: 'La deliberatione di convocareil parlamente è nata--dalle promesse, che hanno fatte molti grandi, che non si parlera del duca. '

[471] 'Those rights, laws, and liberties, which our wise ancestorshave left us. ' So run the words in the draught of the speech containedin a memorandum in the St. P. O. Under the title, 'Speeches of some inthe Lower House, March 22, 1628. ' In Rushworth and in bothParliamentary Histories two reports are given which differ from oneanother. 

[472] 'Assoluto dominio destruttivo dei parlamenti con azzardo disollevatione. '

[473] 'To draw the heads of our grievances into a petition, which wewill humbly, soberly, and speedily address unto His Majesty whereby wemay be secured. '

[474] Abbot's Narration, in Rushworth i. 459. 

[475] 'The end is, to make the other power, which he calls irregularmoulder away. ' (St. P. O. ) In Bruce's Calendar, 1628-9, p. 92, moreparticular reference is made to this document. 

[476] Memorandum of Nicholas Hyde, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, in Ellis's Letters, ii. Iii. 250. 

[477] Nethersole writes to the Queen of Bohemia as early as in April:'the duke can neither subdue this parliament, neither by fear norfavour, --is almost out of his senses to find that it gained creditwith His Majesty. ' (St. P. O. )

[478] Al. Contarini, 17 Giugno: 'Attribuendone la cagione al duca peri suoi interessi di voler il re padrone disgionto dai popoli unitosolo con lui, et per le pratiche di Spagnoli guidati in generale dacattolici et in particolare da Gesuiti che praticano quella cosa. '

[479] Parliamentary History viii. 202. 

[480] Parliamentary History viii. 227. 

[481] Ruszdorf ii. 547. 

[482] Al. Contarini: 'Che sempre suppose ne havessero poca cognitione, ma che adesso credeva, che non havessero niente affatto. '

CHAPTER IX. 

ASSASSINATION OF BUCKINGHAM. SESSION OF 1629. 

For some years nothing had surprised foreigners who came to England somuch as the wide severance between the government and the nation. Uponthe one side they saw the King, the favourite, and his adherents; uponthe other every one else. The King had lost much of the popularitywhich he had enjoyed when he ascended the throne; but a genuine hatredwas directed against the arbitrary government of the Duke. Although ithad been repressed out of regard to the King, it had again brokenloose: the less practical result it produced, the more it filled allhearts. 

Burdened with this hatred, and with the ground shaking under him, Buckingham was nevertheless revolving the largest enterprises in hisbrain. He repelled with scorn the charge of still keeping up anintercourse with Spain; that was contrary to his obligations to theProtestants. He himself, so he said, had concluded the alliancesbetween England and Denmark and the States-General; and he wished alsoto abide by them. Without doubt overtures had been made on the part ofSpain, and had been responded to on the part of England; but theirrelations had in fact been such as had led to no result. On thecontrary, negotiations with France, which certainly offered someprospect of success, had been opened through the mediation of theVenetian ambassadors resident at the two courts. The English wereready to waive all other points at issue if the other side wouldresolve to show some indulgence, especially if they would concludesome tolerable arrangement with Rochelle. The forces of both powerswould then undertake the war against the Spanish monarchy, andagainst the advance of the Emperor in Germany. The French army wouldturn its steps to Italy; the English fleet would go to the aid of theDanes: it was expected that these attacks would exert an enormousinfluence in all directions. [483] Buckingham was still engrossed withdesigns against Spain, in spite of secret but only pretended overturesto that power. He intended to attack the Spanish monarchy at thesource of its greatness, in the West Indies; and by a combination offorces on the Continent to wrest the Palatinate from it, and therebyto destroy the position which it had won on the Middle Rhine. Astrange ambition, although in keeping with the age and with hispersonal character, appears to have been connected with this design. It had entered into his head to marry his daughter to the ElectoralPrince Palatine, and perhaps to give his daughter the appearance of ahigher rank by getting himself declared independent prince of someWest Indian conquest--Jamaica had attracted his ambition[484]:--a hopenot altogether chimerical; for he was still all-powerful with Charles. Foreigners were astonished that he undertook the most extensivenegotiations before he had given his sovereign notice of them. Notunlike James I he cherished the hope that the threatening attitudewhich he took up, even if he did not strike a blow, would dispose theFrench to make concessions and would restore the former understandingbetween them. If this were not the case, he was determined toundertake the relief of Rochelle with all his energies. 

The condition of the English navy was such that he might reasonablypromise himself success. We have credible information according towhich Buckingham had made it half as large again as it had been in thetime of Elizabeth. He had increased it from 14, 000 tons burden to22, 000: he had put the dockyards and magazines at Chatham, Deptford, Woolwich, and Portsmouth into good repair; and a number of largevessels had been built under his orders. Already in May an Englishsquadron had made an attempt to relieve Rochelle: but the commanderson that occasion would not undertake the responsibility of exposingthe ships entrusted to them, to the great danger which threatened themif they made the attempt: they were apprehensive of being called toaccount. Buckingham was not fettered by considerations of this kind. He had had engines of extraordinary dimensions constructed, which itwas expected would rend with irresistible power the mole in front ofthe harbour, by which Rochelle was cut off. [485] And who shall saythat success would have been impossible?

Buckingham felt the hatred which men entertained towards him, butthought that he should still turn it into admiration. He wished toatone for the faults of his youth, and, as he said, to enter on newpaths traced on the lines of the ancient maxims and ancient policy ofEngland, in order to bring back better days. [486] He had to a certainextent made himself the centre of Protestant interests. Every oneexpected that he would proceed without delay to the relief ofRochelle, for which all preparations had been made. The destinies ofthe world seemed to hang upon his resolutions. And he had justreceived better tidings from that town: no one had ever seen himfuller of strength and energy. At this culminating point of his lifehe was smitten by a sudden and horrible death. As he stepped out ofthe dressing-room in his lodging at Portsmouth, and was crossing thehall, in order to mount his carriage and drive to the King, he wasmurdered by a stroke from a dagger. 

The murderer might easily have escaped, for the house was full of men, among them many Frenchmen, on whom the first suspicion fell. While allwere crying out for the villain who had murdered the Duke, themurderer said, 'No villain did it, but an honourable man. I am theman. ' Men saw before them a lean man with red hair, and darkmelancholy features. His name was Felton: he had served in the lastmaritime expeditions, and had formerly been passed over when there wasa vacancy for promotion. He could not endure to be placed below menwho had never borne arms, merely because they were in the Duke'sfavour. The strongest impression had been produced on him by theRemonstrance, [487] which censured similar transactions, and at thesame time represented the Duke as the enemy of religion and hiscountry. Felton was one of these men, who from the way in which theycombine religious and political opinions are capable of anything. Inthis respect he may be compared with the assassins of William ofOrange, Henry III, and Henry IV; except that he came forward in behalfof the opposite side, and in his case there is no mention of anyparticipation of a minister of religion. A paper was found on him inwhich he pronounced that man cowardly and base who was not ready tosacrifice his life for the cause of his God, his king, and hiscountry. In his lodging there was another, on which he had put downsome principles, which he seemed to have drawn from one or two books, and which make his intentions somewhat clearer. It is there said thata man has no relations which place him under greater obligations thanthose which he has with his country; that the welfare of the people isthe highest law, and that 'God himself has enacted this law, thatwhatsoever is for the profit or benefit of the commonwealth should beaccounted to be lawful. '[488] He was believed, and rightly, when heaffirmed that he had no accomplices: the slight put upon him, he said, had inspired him with the thought, the Remonstrance had strengthenedhim in it: 'On my soul, ' he repeated, 'nothing but the Remonstrance. He thought that he might remove the man out of the way who obstructedthe public welfare. And he looked with some feeling of sarcasm atthose who testified their horror of him when he was led by: 'In yourhearts, ' he cried out, 'you rejoice in my deed. ' There were some infact who really displayed such a feeling: the crews, who had oncealready wished to mutiny, disguised their sentiments least; over theirbeer and pipes they gave the assassin a cheer. Others lamented mostthat an Englishman should have been capable of assassination. Feltonhimself was afterwards convinced that his principles were false. Hewas told that a man had other still nearer and deeper obligations toGod, and to his own soul, than to his country; that no one should dothe smallest evil for the sake of the greatest good, [489] much lessthen a monstrous crime like his in behalf of a cause which to hisblinded eyes appeared good. He at last thanked his instructors fortheir lesson, and only asked in mercy to be allowed before hisexecution to do penance in sackcloth with ashes on his head, and acord round his neck, in presence of all the world. 

In public King Charles never lost his calmness of demeanour for amoment. He appeared to accept the event as a dispensation of Heaven;but afterwards he shut himself up for two whole days, and gave way tohis sorrow. 

The expedition against Rochelle now put to sea under the command ofthe Earl of Lindsay. But the captains did not properly obey theirchief: orders which had been planned and issued remained unexecuted:the fire-ships, which were intended to break through the defences ofthe enemy, were ill-managed. The intention was then formed of waitingfor a higher tide, in order to attempt another attack; but meanwhilethe very last resources of the town were exhausted, and it founditself obliged to capitulate. England's position in the world wasimmeasurably lowered when Rochelle was conquered by Richelieu. Whatfurther schemes of maritime supremacy had Buckingham latterlyconnected with the maintenance of this town! The ideas of Buckinghamvanished as completely as if they had never been: the ideas ofRichelieu became the foundation of a new order in the world. 

[Sidenote: A. D. 1629. ]

Krempe also fell, which had hitherto been deemed impregnable, the spotwhich, with Gluckstadt, was still the principal stay of Danishindependence, and to which Buckingham's attention had been constantlydirected. It is thought that about 8000 men would have sufficed torelieve it, but as they were not forthcoming, the fortress fell intothe hands of the enemy in November 1628. 

And Charles I, instead of placing himself in a position to repairthese losses of his allies, embarked on a new domestic quarrel withthe Parliament. 

As the customs had not been fixed by the advice of Parliament, andtonnage and poundage had not been regularly granted at all, someLondon merchants had refused to satisfy the Custom House. On this theLords of the Treasury laid their property under seizure. Of course thepersons affected declared this proceeding also illegal, and filled thecountry with their complaints. On this occasion it was not, as almostalways hitherto, the want of an immediate subsidy, but the necessityof removing this constitutional difficulty, which caused Parliament tobe assembled in January 1629. People might flatter themselves thatafter the death of Buckingham, who had been the object of theprincipal hostility of that body, an agreement would be more easilyeffected. 

The plan drawn up by the Privy Council was in the first instance of aconciliatory nature. The right of granting money in general was to beacknowledged, even in the case of tonnage and poundage: the levying ofthis tax up to the present time, however, was to be justified, on theground that other kings had collected it before it had been granted. If Parliament, after this general acknowledgement of its right, shouldstill persist in refusing the present King what former kings hadenjoyed, he would be exculpated: not the government, but Parliamentwould in that case have to bear the blame of the breach which wouldarise in consequence. [490]

This was the tenor of the King's speech at the opening of thediscussion on January 23, 1629. He asked for tonnage and poundage, less on the strength of his hereditary right to it, than on the pleaof custom and necessity. He would always consider it as a gift of hispeople; but after their scruples had been removed by this declaration, he expected that an end would be put to all difficulties by a grantsuch as had been made to his ancestors. It was offensive to him thatany one contested his title to a tax, without which his state couldnot be kept up. In the assembled Privy Council he declared that atemporary grant was derogatory to his honour. He said that he would nolonger live from hand to mouth: he had as little disposition to sufferfrom want, or to allow the privileges of his crown to be wrested fromhim, as he had had thought of infringing the liberties of hispeople. [491] Secretary Coke, a member of the House, brought in therequisite bill without delay, and proposed the first reading. 

The assembly, however, consisted of the very men who had thought thatthrough the Petition of Right they had set up a fundamental law forever, but had since then become conscious how little they had effectedby that means. 

An unpleasant impression had already been made on them by the printingof the Petition of Right without the expression of simple approval, but with the restrictive declarations which the King had at firstmade. [492] But besides this it was seen how little the King intendedto be bound to the literal meaning of his words, for arrests withoutdefinite assignment of the reason had again taken place. The StarChamber, which was already regarded as a court of doubtful legality, had imposed harsh and arbitrary penalties which awakened loud murmurs. The political opinions of one or two clergymen had caused generalagitation. A preacher named Roger Manwaring gave utterance to extremeRoyalist views. He defended forced loans, and contested theunconditional right of Parliament to grant taxes. From some passagesof Scripture he deduced the absolute power of the sovereign, so thatproperly speaking no contract at all could, in his opinion, be madebetween king and people. [493] Parliament had called him to account forthis, and had punished him by fine and suspension; but the Kingremitted the sentence. Another clergyman of kindred views, Montague, whom we have already mentioned, had been advanced by the King to thebishopric of Chichester, though, as deserves to be noticed, notwithout encountering opposition. For at the elections the old formswere still observed. Before the commissary of the Archbishop confirmedthe election, which had taken place at the King's commands, he invitedthose present, if they knew anything in the life and conduct of thebishop-elect which could hinder his confirmation, to declare it. Whathad never been done on any other occasion was done then. An objectionagainst Montague was presented in writing on the ground that doctrinesoccurred in his books which were irreconcilable with the existinginstitutions of England. The matter was brought before a court ofjustice, which, however, dismissed the objection as proceeding from aman who did not belong to the diocese of Chichester. The royalconfirmation had then followed. [494] But must it not have beenirritating to Parliament that the very men were promoted about whom ithad complained? Its complaints seemed rather to serve as arecommendation. 

Besides this a Jesuit institution had been discovered in the immediateneighbourhood of London, and had then not been prosecuted with all theseverity which Parliament thought requisite. People complained thatthe number of Papists was increasing every day; that in the counties, where before there had been none, they were now reckoned by thousands. Mainly at the instigation of Sir John Eliot, the Lower House issued adeclaration, that it desired to hold the Articles of the EnglishChurch in the sense in which they were understood by the writers, whose authority was recognised in that Church, and not in the sense ofthe Jesuits and Arminians, which was repudiated. 

The question of tonnage and poundage came before the House while itwas labouring under the irritation kindled by this discussion. Whatthe government desired, the establishment of this tax on a legalfooting, was also the wish of Parliament; but Parliament wished thematter to be settled in a way different from that intended by theKing. Parliament desired to make the right of granting taxes a genuinereality, and henceforward to fix the duties in detail. The firstreading of the bill brought forward by the government was rejected, onthe formal ground that tonnage and poundage were subsidies, forgranting which a resolution must be taken before a bill on the subjectcould be brought in. [495] Parliament espoused the cause of the Londonmerchants, who had certainly suffered in support of its claims, anddemanded that the proceedings of the Treasury should be reversed. Forthey maintained that the collection of tonnage and poundage was asmuch a breach of the fundamental principles of the realm, as theraising of any other tax that had not been granted would be. Or couldany one, they asked, grant what he did not possess? If tonnage andpoundage already belonged to the King, he did not need to have itgranted him. The arrangement proposed by the government was rejectedaltogether: and everything else which was inconsistent with theliteral meaning of the petition was also declared illegal. 

The King was incensed at the political, as well as at the religiousattitude of the Lower House. A treatise in his own handwriting isextant, in which he expresses himself on the latter subject. 'You taketo yourselfs, ' he says, 'the interpretation of articles of religion, the deciding of which in doctrinal points only appartaines to theclergy and convocation. '[496] He added that His Majesty--for he lovedto speak of himself in the third person--had a short time beforeannounced his intention of maintaining the integrity of the religionof the English Church, and its unity, and that after much reflection, in agreement with the Privy Council and with the bishops: that as theCommons had the same object in view, he was surprised that they werenot content with this announcement, and that they did not at allevents state wherein the King's declaration did not content them: forthat the King was the supreme governor of the English Church afterGod. 

At this very time an order was issued to the Treasury, and to thecollectors of customs at the ports that tonnage and poundage should behenceforth levied, just as it had been in the latter years of James I;and that every one who refused payment should be punished. 

In this way the King embarked afresh on a course of the mostunequivocal hostility towards his Parliament. But that body did notintend to give way. It would not be deterred from drawing up a freshremonstrance, in which it made use of the strongest expressions togive point to its claims. In this it was said, that whoever furtheredPopery or Arminianism, whoever collected or helped to collect tonnageand poundage before it was granted, or who even paid it, the same wasan enemy of the English realm and of English liberty. This was astrange combination of ecclesiastical and financial grievances andpretensions. But the course of the transactions had established anintimate relation between them. In regard to both the Commons againtook up as hostile an attitude towards the ministers of that day, asthey had formerly taken up towards the Duke of Buckingham. The LordTreasurer Weston was the special object of their hatred on bothaccounts. For it was said that he was a rebellious Papist--nay even aJesuit:--did not his nearest kinsmen belong to that order?--and thathe was now giving the King pernicious advice, hostile to the rights ofthe country and the dignity of Parliament. Proceeding on the principlethat the collection of tonnage and poundage was a breach of theconstitution, preparations were made for calling to account theofficers engaged in this process. Nor would men have been content tostop at the subordinates; they would have reached even the highest. 

In this session the moderation which had been for some time exhibitedin the former dropped out of sight: the contempt shown to the Petitionof Right had called forth a spirit of bitter, violent, and unboundedopposition. When the King, in order to prevent the formal passing ofthe Remonstrance, proceeded in the first instance to have the sessionadjourned, a scene of tumult and violence was witnessed, to which theannals of former Parliaments offered no parallel. 

The Speaker of the House, Sir John Finch, one of those men who hadpassed over from the side of the Commons to that of the King, announced to the assembled members after the opening of the sitting onthe 2nd of March, that the King adjourned the House till the 10th. Butthis was the very hour when Sir John Eliot, who had drawn up the newRemonstrance had with his friends intended to carry it throughParliament. The House declared it illegal for the Speaker to makehimself the mouthpiece of the royal will: and when he tried towithdraw, he was held on his chair by a couple of strong and resolutemembers. The Usher of the Black Rod, whose business it was to declarethe House adjourned, had already appeared in the ante-room; but thedoors of the hall were shut. In this tumult the Remonstrance had to beread and voted on. The Speaker refused to have anything to do with it, although it was declared 'to be his duty to put it to the vote. SirJohn Eliot and Denzil Holles must have delivered the sense of theRemonstrance orally, rather than read it properly through: but even inthis fashion the majority of the House made known their assent, and inthis way the immediate object was attained, as well as thecircumstances allowed. On a threat that the doors should be brokenthrough, they were now opened, and the members left the chamber. [497]

An extraordinary act of disobedience, considering that it was intendedto be the means of securing the legal forms of Parliament! It was thelast step in this stage of the proceedings. It involved an open breachbetween the two authorities. 

In later times the responsibility for this act has been thrown on theKing. Contemporaries of moderate views, and who favoured theParliament, were of opinion however that the responsibility rather laywith those fiery and crafty men who had possessed themselves of thecontrol of Parliament. For they thought that the King had seriouslystriven to compose the quarrel: that people might well have acceptedhis first declaration, and that the greater part of the members hadbeen inclined to do so; but that the seeming zeal of some few for theliberties of the country had, unfortunately for England, preventedthem from yielding. [498] It is difficult to suppose that the strengthand depth of the opposition would any longer have permitted anadjustment. It was now fully apparent at all events that the King andthe Lower House could no longer work together. 

In the Privy Council the opinion was once more expressed, thatParliament should be treated with indulgence. This was the wish of theLord Keeper Coventry: but the Treasurer recommended the strictenforcement of the prerogative, and the King sided with this view. Notonly was the dissolution of Parliament pronounced, but just as HenryVIII and Elizabeth had done, Charles I proceeded to punish the memberswho had offended against his dignity in their speeches. He first ofall decided not to call Parliament together again. He declared that hehad now abundantly proved that he loved to rule by the help ofParliament; that he had been compelled against his wish by the lastproceedings to desist from the attempt, and that he would not renew ituntil his people had learnt to know him better. He said that he shouldconsider it presumption if any time were prescribed to him forreassembling Parliament; that Parliament ought to be summoned, held, and dissolved, solely at the discretion of the King. 

The great advantage of Parliament in this conflict consisted in itsability to appeal to legal precedents of past centuries in its favour. What had once rendered the continuance of the ascendancy ofParliament impossible, the danger into which it had plunged the commoninterests of the kingdom, was now forgotten. The laws of those timeshad not been repealed, but had only been modified and curtailed in itsown favour by the sovereign power, which had grown strong since thattime. Every position, new or unusual at the moment, which Parliamentmaintained was, if not laid down in former ordinances, yet at allevents so logically inferred from them, that it appeared customary andin accordance with primitive law. If on the contrary Charles Imaintained the prerogative which his father had exercised, and whichQueen Elizabeth and the House of Tudor in general had possessed, hewas placed in the awkward position of appearing to act without thecountenance of the laws. He now resolved to govern, at least for atime, without the aid of Parliament. Many of his ancestors had doneexactly the same; but since their time attachment to parliamentarygovernment had become part of the national feeling. It now appearednot only to represent fully the liberties, but also especially themost popular religious tendencies of the country. 

Whether under these circumstances the King would have succeeded ingiving effect to his ideas, even if more peaceful times had ensued, was from the beginning extremely doubtful. [499]

NOTES:

[483] Al. Contarini, Aug. 14, 1628. 'Carleton mi soggionse checertamente la flotta si volgerebbe in ajuto del re di Danimarca, quando Più non fosse necessaria in Francia. '

[484] The first intimation of this design occurs in an anonymousletter to the King, which probably belongs to the year 1623: Cabala223. In the correspondence of the ambassadors the project is assumedas certain. 

[485] Ruszdorf: 'Magnos apparatus instituit, quibus sperat structuramet molem rumpere'

[486] From the letter of Dudley Viscount Dorchester, in Bruce'sCalendar. 

[487] 'The remonstrance in the last Parliament and that the duke wasthe cause of the public grievances, it came into his mind that itwould be a good service to God and the Commonwealth to take him away. 'Relation of the Duke of Buckingham's death. (St. P. O. )

[488] From the report of Duppa (St. P. O. ), which admirablysupplements that which is given in the State Trials iii. 370. 

[489] 'That the common good could no way be a pretense to a particularmischief. '

[490] Rushworth i. 654: 'To avow a breach upon just cause given, notsought by the King. '

[491] Fragmentary memoranda of a sitting of the Privy Council at thebeginning of February 1628-29. (St P. O. )

[492] Statement of the printer. Parliamentary History viii. 247. 

[493] His declaration before the Lords. Parliamentary History viii. 208. 

[494] We learn this from a letter of Nethersole to the queen ofBohemia, Jan. 28. (St. P. O. )

[495] Nethersole to the Queen of Bohemia: 'That what at the firstpropounding seemed a very reasonable motion--was at last upon thisreason that the bill is in truth and is intituled a bill of subsidy. '

[496] Holograph declaration of Charles I. (St. P. O. )

[497] Information in Star Chamber. Rushworth i. 675. 

[498] Autobiography of Sir Symond d'Ewes i. 405: 'Being only misled bysome Machiavellian politics who seemed zealous for the liberty of thecommon wealth. '

[499] Observation of Contarini, March 16, 1629. 'Quello che importa èil parlamento si è conservato nell'intero possesso dei suoi privilegi, senza cader un tantino: il re per queste due volte ha ceduto semprequalche cosa. '

END OF VOL. I. 

 * * * * *

Transcribers note:

The section header 'The Conquest' in Book I Chapter IIis missing from the original table of contents.