ENGLAND UNDER THE TUDORS

BY ARTHUR D. INNES

SOMETIME SCHOLAR OF ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD

FOURTH EDITION

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

BY THE GENERAL EDITOR

In England, as in France and Germany, the main characteristic of the lasttwenty years, from the point of view of the student of history, has beenthat new material has been accumulating much faster than it can beassimilated or absorbed. The standard histories of the last generation needto be revised, or even to be put aside as obsolete, in the light of the newinformation that is coming in so rapidly and in such vast bulk. But thestudents and researchers of to-day have shown little enthusiasm as yet forthe task of re-writing history on a large scale. We see issuing from thepress hundreds of monographs, biographies, editions of old texts, selections from correspondence, or collections of statistics, mediaeval andmodern. But the writers who (like the late Bishop Stubbs or ProfessorSamuel Gardiner) undertake to tell over again the history of a long period, with the aid of all the newly discovered material, are few indeed. It iscomparatively easy to write a monograph on the life of an individual or ashort episode of history. But the modern student, knowing well the mass ofmaterial that he has to collate, and dreading lest he may make a slipthrough overlooking some obscure or newly discovered source, dislikes tostir beyond the boundary of the subject, or the short period, on which hehas made himself a specialist. 

Meanwhile the general reading public continues to ask for standardhistories, and discovers, only too often, that it can find nothing betweenschool manuals at one end of the scale and minute monographs at the other. The series of which this volume forms a part is intended to do somethingtowards meeting this demand. Historians will not sit down, as once theywere wont, to write twenty-volume works in the style of Hume or Lingard, embracing a dozen centuries of annals. It is not to be desired that theyshould--the writer who is most satisfactory in dealing with Anglo-Saxonantiquities is not likely to be the one who will best discuss theantecedents of the Reformation, or the constitutional history of the Stuartperiod. But something can be done by judicious co-operation: it is notnecessary that a genuine student should refuse to touch any subject thatembraces an epoch longer than a score of years, nor need history be writtenas if it were an encyclopaedia, and cut up into small fragments dealt withby different hands. 

It is hoped that the present series may strike the happy mean, by dividingup English History into periods that are neither too long to be dealt withby a single competent specialist, nor so short as to tempt the writer toindulge in that over-abundance of unimportant detail which repels thegeneral reader. They are intended to give something more than a mereoutline of our national annals, but they have little space for controversyor the discussion of sources, save in periods such as the dark age of the5th and 6th centuries after Christ, where the criticism of authorities isabsolutely necessary if we are to arrive at any sound conclusions as to thecourse of history. A number of maps are to be found at the end of eachvolume which, as it is hoped, will make it unnecessary for the reader to becontinually referring to large historical atlases--tomes which (as we mustconfess with regret) are not to be discovered in every private library. Genealogies and chronological tables of kings are added where necessary. 

C. OMAN

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

THE TUDOR PERIOD, 1485-1603 An era of Revolutions--The IntellectualMovement--The Reformation and Counter-Reformation--The New World--TheConstitution--Nobility, Clergy, and Gentry--International Relations. 

CHAPTER I

HENRY VII (i), 1485-1492-THE NEW DYNASTY 1485. Henry's Title to the Crown--Measures to strengthen the Title--1486. Marriage--The King and his Advisers--Henry's enemies--1487. Lambert Simnel--The State of Europe--France andBrittany--1488. Henry intervenes cautiously--England and Spain--1489. Preparations for war with France--Spanish treaty of Medina del Campo--TheAllies inert--1490. Object of Henry's Foreign Policy--1491. Apparent Defeat--1492. Henry's bellicose Attitude--Treaty of Etaples. 

CHAPTER II

HENRY VII (ii), 1492-1499-PERKIN WARBECK Ireland; 1485--1487-1492. The Earlof Kildare--1491. Perkin Warbeck's Appearance--Riddle of his imposture--1492-5. Perkin and Margaret of Burgundy--Diplomatic Intrigues--Ireland:Poynings, 1494-6--1495. Survey of the Situation--Perkin attempts Invasion--Success of Henry's Diplomacy--1496. Perkin and the King of Scots--AScottish Incursion--1497. The Cornish rising--Its suppression--Perkin'sfinal effort and failure--The Scottish Truce--The End of Perkin Warbeck:1497-9--1498. The situation. 

CHAPTER III

HENRY VII (iii), 1498-1509-THE DYNASTY ASSURED Scotland and England--Henry's Scottish Policy--France and Scotland--Relations in 1498--MarriageNegotiations; 1498-1503--Marriage of James IV. And Margaret, 1503--Spainand England; Marriage Negotiations, 1488-1499--France, 1499--Spain;Marriage Negotiations, 1499-1501--1501; the Spanish Marriage--1502. NewMarriage Schemes--1504. The Papal Dispensation--The Earl of Suffolk;1499-1505--1505. Henry's Position--Schemes for Re-marriage--1506: TheArchduke Philip in England--Philip's Death--1507-8. Matrimonial Projects--The League of Cambrai--Wolsey--1509. Death of Henry. 

CHAPTER IV

HENRY VII (iv), 1485-1509--ASPECTS OF THE REIGN 1485; Henry's Position--Studied Legality--Policy of Lenity--Repression of the Nobles--TheStar-Chamber--Henry's Use of Parliament--Financial Exactions--Sources ofRevenue--Henry's Economics--Trade Theories--Commercial Policy--TheNetherlands Trade--The Hansa--The Navigation Acts--Voyages of Discovery--The Rural Revolution--The Church--Henry and Rome--Learning and Letters--Appreciation. 

CHAPTER V

HENRY VIII (i), 1509-1527--EGO ET REX MEUS Europe in 1509--England'sPosition--The New King--Inauguration of the reign--Henry and the Powers--1512. Dorset's Expedition--Rise of Wolsey--1513. The French War--Scotland(1499-1513)--The Flodden Campaign--The Battle--Its Effect--Recovery ofEnglish Prestige--1514. Foreign Intrigues--The French Alliance and Marriage--1515. Francis I. --Marignano--1516-7. European changes--1518-9. Wolsey'sSuccess--1519. Charles V. --The Imperial Election--1520. Wolsey's Triumph--Rival Policies--Field of the Cloth of Gold--Wolsey's Aims--Charles V. AndFrancis I. --Scotland: 1513-1520--1520-1. Affairs Abroad--1521. Buckingham--Wolsey's Diplomacy--1522. A Papal Election--War with France--Scotland--1523. Progress of the War--Election of Clement VII. --1524. Wolsey'sdifficulties--Intrigues in Scotland--1525. Pavia--The Amicable Loan--ADiplomatic struggle--1526-7. Wolsey's success--A new Factor. 

CHAPTER VI

HENRY VIII (ii), 1509-1532--BIRTH OF THE REFORMATION _The Reformation inEngland_--Its true Character--Religious Decadence--The Scholar-Reformers--Ecclesiastical Demoralisation--Monastic Corruption--TheProofs--Corruption of Doctrine--Evidence from Colet and More--LaterEvidence--Dean Colet--His Sermon: 1512--Erasmus--The _Utopia_: 1516--Exaggerated attacks--Clerical Privileges--Tentative Reforms--TheEducational Movement--Wolsey and the Reformation--_The LutheranRevolt_: 1517--Luther's Defiance--The Diet of Worms; 1521--The GermanPeasants' Revolt; 1524--Its Effect in England--1525. The Empire and thePapacy--The Sack of Rome, 1527--Diet of Augsburg, 1530-The Swiss Reformers;1520-1530--English Heretics Abroad--Contrasted Aims. 

CHAPTER VII

HENRY VIII (iii), 1527-1529--THE FALL OF WOLSEY "The King's Affair"--Storyof the Marriage--Anne Boleyn--1527. The King Prepares--TheoreticalExcuses--The Need of an Heir--The Plea of Invalidity--Conjunction ofIncentives--The Orleans Betrothal--Conclusions--The first Plan--The secondPlan--Knight's Mission--Its Failure--The Pope and the Cardinal--1528. Gardiner's Mission--Wolsey's Critical Position--Campeggio and Wolsey--Henry's Attitude--1529. The Trial--The Storm Gathers--The Storm Breaks--Wolsey's fall--1530. Wolsey's Death--His Achievement--Appreciation ofWolsey. 

CHAPTER VIII

HENRY VIII (iv), 1529-1533--THE BREACH WITH ROME 1529. No Revolt Yet--Growth of Anti-clericalism--Thomas Cranmer--Appeal to the Universities--The New Parliament--Thomas Cromwell--Pope, Clergy, and King--DoubleCampaign Opens--1530. Answer of Universities--Preoccupation of theClergy--Menace of Praemunire--1531. "Only Supreme Head"--Proceedings inParliament--1532. Parliament--Supplication against the Ordinaries--Resistance of Clergy--"Submission of the Clergy"--Mortmain, Benefit ofClergy, and Annates--The Powers and the Divorce--The Turn of the Year--1533. The Crisis--Restraint of Appeals--Cranmer Archbishop--The DecisiveBreach. 

CHAPTER IX

HENRY VIII (v), 1533-1540--MALLEUS MONACHORUM 1533. Ecclesiastical Parties--Pope or King?--1534. Confirmatory Acts--The Pope's Last Word--The Nun ofKent--The Act of Succession--The Oath Refused--The "Bishop of Rome"--Parliament--Treasons Act--1529-1534: The New Policy--Thomas Cromwell--1535. More and Fisher--Cromwell Vicar--General--The German Lutherans--Overtures--Visitation of the Monasteries--1536. Suppression of Lesser Houses--TheEvidence--The Black Book--The Consequent Commission--The Policy--AnneBoleyn Threatened--Her Condemnation and Death--The Succession--Punishmentof Heresy--The Progressive Movement--The Ten Articles--The LincolnshireRising--The Pilgrimage of Grace--Aske Beguiled--1537. Suppression of theRising--Turned to Account--Scotland, 1533-6--1536-7. Naval Measures--1537. An Heir--1538. Diplomatic Moves--The Exeter Conspiracy--1539. CromwellStrikes--Menace of Invasion--The King and Lutheranism--The Six Articles--Final Suppression of Monasteries--Royal Proclamations Act--Anne of Cleves--1540. The Marriage--Fall of Cromwell. 

CHAPTER X

HENRY VIII (vi), 1540-1547--HENRY'S LAST YEARS 1540. Katharine Howard--TheKing his own Minister--England and the Powers--Scotland and England; 1541--Cardinal Beton--1542--Solway Moss--1543. Henry's Scottish Policy--Alliancewith Charles V. --French War--1544. Domestic Affairs--Intrigues in Scotland--Sack of Edinburgh--French War--Peace of Crepy--1545. Ancram Moor--AFrench Armada--1546. Peace concluded--1532-1549. _Europe_--Lutheransand the Papacy--Conference of Ratisbon-Council of Trent: first stages--Death of Luther-Charles and the League of Schmalkald--The Jesuit Order--Calvin--_England_: the Ecclesiastical Revolution--Progressives andReactionaries--1543. The King's Book-1546. Surrey--1547. Death of Henry. 

CHAPTER XI

HENRY VIII (vii), 1509-1547--ASPECTS OF HENRY'S REIGN _Ireland_:1509-1520--Surrey in Ireland, 1520--Irish Policy, 1520-1534--Fitzgerald'sRevolt--1535-1540: Lord Leonard Grey--1540: St. Leger--"King of Ireland"--_England_: Wolsey's work--The Army--The Navy--The New World--Absolutism--The Parliamentary Sanction--Depression of the Nobles--Parliament and the Purse--Finance--The Land--Learning and Letters--The_Utopia_--Surrey and Wyatt--_Appreciation of Henry VIII. _: Moralsand Character--Abilities and Achievement--Dominant Personality--Conclusions. 

CHAPTER XII

EDWARD VI (i), 1547-1549--THE PROTECTOR SOMERSET 1547. The New Government--Relations with France and Scotland--with Charles V. --Somerset's ScottishPolicy--Pinkie--The Advanced Reformers--Benevolent Legislation--Ecclesiastical Legislation--1548. Progress of the Reformation--Somerset'sIdeas--The French in Scotland--The Augsburg Interim--Parliament--1549. ANew Liturgy--The Treason of the Lord Admiral: 1547-9--1549--Troubles in theProvinces--The Western Rising--Ket's Insurrection--The Protector'sAttitude--The Council attacks him--His Fall--Ireland: St. Leger andBellingham. 

CHAPTER XIII

EDWARD VI (ii), 1549-1553--THE DUDLEY ASCENDANCY 1549. Foreign Relations--State of England--1550. Terms with France--Protestant zeal of Warwick--Treasons Act--Protestant Fanaticism-1551. The Council and Charles V. --HisDifficulties--Groups among the Reformers--Somerset--His final overthrow--1552. Execution of Somerset--Pacification of Passau--English Neutrality--The Reformation: its Limits hitherto--Revision of the Liturgy--Nonconformity--Parliament--1553. A New Parliament--Northumberland'sProgramme--Plot to change the Succession--Adhesion of King and Council--Death of Edward VI. --Willoughby and Chancellor. 

CHAPTER XIV

MARY (i), 1553-1555-THE SPANISH MARRIAGE The Marian Tragedies--1553. Proclamation of Queen Jane--The People support Mary--Collapse of the Plot--Mary's Leniency--Cause of the Popular Loyalty--Problems: Marriage and theReformation--Possible Claimants--Moderate Reaction--Proposed Spanish Match--Parliament: Repeal of Edward's Legislation--1554. Wyatt's Rebellion andthe Lady Elizabeth--Subsequent Severities--The Marriage Treaty-Pole, Renard, and Gardiner--Public Tension--Parliament; Reconciliation with Rome--Reaction consummated, 1555. 

CHAPTER XV

MARY (ii), 1555-1558-THE PERSECUTION Mary's early Policy--The Persecution--Who was Responsible?--Comparison with other Persecutions--SomeCharacteristic Features--1555. The First Martyrs--Trial of Cranmer--Ridleyand Latimer--Fate of Cranmer--His Record and Character--Policy of Philip--Paul IV. --Mary disappointed of an Heir--A New Parliament--Gardiner's Deathand Character--Mary's Difficulties--1556. The Dudley Conspiracy--ForeignComplications--1557. War with France--1558. Loss of Calais--NationalDepression--Mary's Death and Character. 

CHAPTER XVI

ELIZABETH (i), 1558-1561-A PASSAGE PERILOUS

1558. Accession--Mary Stewart's Claim--Strength of Elizabeth's Position--Sir William Cecil--Finance--Philip II. And Elizabeth's Marriage--TheReligious Question--A Protestant Policy--1559. Parliament: Act ofSupremacy--The Prayer-Book--France and Peace--State of Scotland--Arran andElizabeth--The Archduke Charles--Wynter in the Forth--1560. Difficulties ofFrance--Vacillations of Elizabeth--Siege of Leith--Treaty of Edinburgh--Elizabeth's Methods--The Dudley Imbroglio--The Huguenots--The Pope--1561. Return of Mary to Scotland. 

CHAPTER XVII

ELIZABETH (ii), 1561-1568-QUEENS AND SUITORS 1561. The Situation--Councilof Trent--France; State of Parties--1561-8. France: Catholics and Huguenots--The Netherlands: Philip's Policy--Prelude to War--1561. The Queens'suitors--1562. Mary in Scotland--1562-3. Elizabeth and the Huguenots--TheEnglish Succession-1564. Darnley and Others--1565. The Darnley Marriage--Mary and Murray--1566. The Murder of Rizzio--1567. Kirk o' Field--TheBothwell Marriage--Mary at Loch Leven--Murray Regent--1568. Langside, andthe Flight to England--1562-8. Protestantism of Elizabeth's Government--Religious Parties--1566-7. Parliament and the Queen's Marriage--The Queenand the Archduke. 

CHAPTER XVIII

ELIZABETH (iii), 1568-1572--THE CATHOLIC CHALLENGE 1568. Mary in England--ACommission of Enquiry--Proceedings at York--Attitude of Philip--TheCommission at Westminster--Comment on the Enquiry--Seizure of SpanishTreasure--1569. The Incident passed over--The Northern Rebellion--1570. Murder of Murray--The Bull of Deposition--The Anjou Match--1570-1. TheRidolfi Plot--1571. Parliament--Collapse of the Anjou Match--The RidolfiPlot Develops--1572. Parliament and Mary Stewart--Lepanto--The NetherlandsRevolt--The Alençon Match--St. Bartholomew. 

CHAPTER XIX

ELIZABETH (iv), 1572-1578--VARIUM ET MUTABILE Elizabeth's Diplomacy--TheQueen's Subjects--Development of Protestantism--1572. Katharine de Medici--The Aim of Elizabeth--England and the Massacre--Spain seeks Amity--1573. A Spanish Alliance--Scotland: End of the Marian Party--The Netherlands, France, and Spain--The Netherlands, England, and Spain--1574. AmicableRelations of England and Spain--1575. A Deadlock--1576. Attitude of theNation--The Queen evades War--Alençon and the Huguenots--The Netherlandsand Don John--Elizabeth's Attitude--1577. The Political Kaleidoscope--TheArchduke Matthias--1578. Mendoza--Orange and Alençon--Death of Don John--NOTE: The Portuguese Succession. 

CHAPTER XX

ELIZABETH (v), 1558-1578--IRISH AND ENGLISH 1549-58--1558. Shan O'Neill--The Antrim Scots--1560-1. Shan and the Government--1562. Shan in England--1563-5. Shan's supremacy in Ulster recognised--1566. Sir Henry SidneyDeputy--Overthrow of O'Neill--Catholicism in Irish Politics--1568. TheColonising of Munster--1569. Insurrection in Munster--Ireland and Philip--Experimental Presidencies--1573-4. Essex in Ulster--1576-8. Sidney's secondDeputyship. 

CHAPTER XXI

ELIZABETH (vi), 1578-1583--THE PAPAL ATTACK 1579. The Union of Utrecht--1578. The Matrimonial Juggle--Alençon's wooing--1579. Popular Hostility tothe Match--Loyalty to Elizabeth--Yea and Nay--The Papal Plan of Campaign--1580. Philip annexes Portugal--_Ireland_: 1579; the Desmond Rising--1580: Fire and Sword--Development of the Rebellion--Smerwick: and after--_Scotland_: 1579-1581--_England_: 1580--The Jesuit Mission--Walsingham at Work--1581. An Anti-papal Parliament--Alençon redivivus--Hisvisit to England--1582. Alençon in the Netherlands--1583. ExitAlençon--Scotland. 

CHAPTER XXII

ELIZABETH (vii), 1583-1587-THE END OF QUEEN MARY 1583. Throgmorton'sConspiracy--Catholics abroad sanguine--Division in their Counsels--The Plotdiscovered--1584. Assassination of Orange--The "Association"--1585. ItsRatification--France: The Holy League--Elizabeth's agreement with theStates--Drake's Cartagena Raid--Elizabeth's Intrigues-1586. Leicester inthe Netherlands--The Trapping of Mary--Babington's Plot--Trial of theQueen of Scots--Elizabeth and Mary--1587. Execution of Mary. 

CHAPTER XXIII

ELIZABETH (viii), 1558-1587-THE SEAMEN The New World--The English Marinebefore Elizabeth--The Royal Navy--Privateering--"Piracy"--Reprisal--TheExplorers--Spain in America--John Hawkins, 1562-6--San Juan d'Ulloa, 1567--Francis Drake--Darien Expedition, 1572--Oxenham, 1575--_Drake's GreatVoyage_: 1577--Drake in the Pacific, 1578--in the North Pacific, 1579--his Return, 1580--_Various Voyages_: 1576-1587--Raleigh--HumphreyGilbert--Virginia. 

CHAPTER XXIV

ELIZABETH (ix), 1587-1588-THE ARMADA 1587. Results of Mary's Death--Attitude of Philip--Attitude of Elizabeth--The situation--Drake's CadizExpedition--Negotiations with Parma--Elizabeth's Diplomacy--French Affairs--Preparations for the Armada--1588. Plans of Campaign--Forces of theAntagonists--The New Tactics--Defective Arrangements--The Land Forces--Mayto July--The Fleets off Plymouth--The Fight off Portland--The Fight off theIsle of Wight--Effect on the Fleets--The Armada at Calais--The Battle offGravelines--Flight and Ruin of the Armada. 

CHAPTER XXV

ELIZABETH (x), 1588-1598-BRITANNIA VICTRIX After the Armada--A newPhase--Death of Leicester--France, 1588-9--England aggressive--AlternativeNaval Policies--Don Antonio--Plan of the Lisbon Expedition--1589. TheExpedition; Corunna and Peniche--The Lisbon Failure--Policies and Persons--France, 1589-1593--1590. Death of Walsingham--The Year's Operations--1591. Grenville's Last Fight--France, 1590-3--Operations, 1592-4--Survey, 1589-94--Spain and the English Catholics--Scottish Intrigues--Ireland: 1583-1592--Tyrone, 1592-4--1595. Drake's Last Voyage--1596. The Cadiz Expedition--Ireland--The Second Armada--1597. The Island Voyage--1598. Condition ofSpain--Death of Philip--Death of Burghley: Appreciation. 

CHAPTER XXVI

ELIZABETH (xi), 1598-1603--THE QUEEN'S LAST YEARS A new Generation--1598. Ireland--The Earl of Essex--1599. Essex in Ireland--His Downfall--CatholicFactions--Philip III. --1600--Ireland--Succession Intrigues--The End ofEssex--Robert Cecil--1601. Ireland: Rebellion broken--1602. The Succession--Last Intrigues--1603. Death of Elizabeth. 

CHAPTER XXVII

ELIZABETH (xii), 1558-1603--LITERATURE Birth of a National Literature--_Prose_: before 1579--1579-1589--_Euphues_--Sidney--Hooker--_Verse_: before 1579--1579-1590--_Drama_: before Elizabeth--early Elizabethan--_The Younger Generation>_: pervadingCharacteristics Displayed in the Drama--and other Fields--Breadth ofview--Patriotism--Normal Types. 

CHAPTER XXVIII

ELIZABETH (xiii), 1558-1603--ASPECTS OF THE REIGN Features of the Reign--_Religion_: State and Church--The State and the Catholics--The Churchand the Puritans--Archbishop Whitgift--The Persecutions--_EconomicProgress_--Retrenchment--Wealth and Poverty--Trade Restrictions andDevelopment--_Travellers_--Maritime Expansion--_The Constitution--Elizabeth_: her People--her Ministers--Appreciation. 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A--TABLES

I. CONTEMPORARY RULERS--1475-1542II. CONTEMPORARY RULERS--1542-1603III. THE LENNOX STEWARTSIV. HOWARDS AND BOLEYNSV. HABSBURGSVI. VALOIS AND BOURBONSVII. GUISESDESCENDANTS OF EDWARD III. THE PORTUGUESE SUCCESSION

APPENDIX B

CLAIMS TO THE THRONE

APPENDIX C

THE QUEEN OF SCOTS

APPENDIX D

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MAPS

I. THE WORLD: AS KNOWN _circa_ 1485-1603. II. WESTERN EUROPE: _circa_ 1558III. ENGLAND AND IRELANDIV. SPANISH AMERICA: _circa 1580V. THE LOW COUNTRIES AND THE CHANNELTHE FLODDEN CAMPAIGN

INDEX

ENGLAND UNDER THE TUDORS

INTRODUCTION

THE TUDOR PERIOD, 1485-1603

[Sidenote: An era of Revolutions]

The historian of the future will, perhaps, affirm that the nineteenthcentury, with the last years of the eighteenth, has been a period morefraught with momentous events in the development of the nations than anyequal period since the Christian era commenced. Yet striking as are thedevelopments witnessed by the last four generations, the years when Englandwas ruled by Princes of the House of Tudor have a history hardly if at allless momentous. For though what we call the Tudor period, from 1485 to1603, is determined by a merely dynastic title affecting England alone, thereign of that dynasty happens to coincide in point of time with thegreatest territorial revolution on record, a religious revolutionunparalleled since the rise of Mohammed, and an intellectual activity tomatch which we must go back to the great days of Hellas, or forward to thenineteenth century: revolutions all of them not specifically English, butaffecting immediately every nation in Europe; while one of them extendeditself to every continent on the globe. Moreover, the accompanying socialrevolution, though comparatively superficial, was only a little less markedthan the others. Nor was there any country in Europe more influenced by thegeneral Revolution in any one of its aspects than England. 

_Nihil per saltum_ is no doubt as true of historical movements as ofphysical evolution. Before Columbus sighted Hispaniola, Portuguese sailorshad told tales of some vast island seen by them far in the west. Botticelli had passed out of Filippo Lippi's school, and Leonardo wasthirty, before Raphael was born; the printing press had reached England, and Greek had been re-discovered, in the last years of the previous"period"; the Byzantine Empire had fallen; the power of the old Baronage inEngland and France had been broken before Richard fell on Bosworthfield. There were Lollards at home and Hussites abroad before Luther cameinto the world. The changes did not begin in 1485, or in any particularyear. In Italy the intellectual movement had already long been active, andhad indeed produced its best work; outside of Italy, its appearances hadbeen quite sporadic. At that date, the Ocean movement was in its initialstages. There had been foreshadowings of the Reformation; and, to speakmetaphorically, the castles which had maintained the power of the nobility, overshadowing the gentry and the burghers, were already in ruins. But thefame of every one of the great English names which are landmarks in everyone of these great movements belongs essentially to the years after 1485. And every one of those movements had definitely and decisively set its markon the world before Elizabeth was laid in her grave. 

[Sidenote: The Intellectual Movement]

The intellectual movement to which we apply the name Renaissance in itsnarrower sense [Footnote: In the more inclusive sense the Renaissance ofcourse began in the time of Cimabue and Dante, but it was not till thelatter half of the fifteenth century that it became a pervading forceoutside of Italy. ] has many aspects. Whatever views we may happen to holdas to schools of painting and architecture, it is indisputable that arevolution was wrought by the work of Raphael and Leonardo, Michael Angeloand Titian, and the crowd of lesser great men who learned from them. Thelimitations imposed on Art by ecclesiastical conventions were deprived oftheir old rigour, and it was no longer sought to confine the painter toproducing altar pieces and glorified or magnified missal-margins. Theimmediate tangible and visible results were however hardly to be foundoutside of Italy and the Low Countries; and if English domesticarchitecture took on a new face, it was the outcome rather of the socialthan the artistic change: since men wanted comfortable houses instead offortresses to dwell in. The Renaissance in its creative artistic phasetouched England directly hardly at all. 

On its literary side, the movement was not creative but scholarly andcritical, though a great creative movement was its outcome. In the earlierperiod the name of Ariosto is an exception; but otherwise the greatest ofthe men of Letters are perhaps, in their several ways, Erasmus andMacchiavelli abroad and Thomas More in England. Scholars and students weredoing an admirable work of which the world was much in need; displacing theschoolmen, overturning mediaeval authorities and conventions, reviving theknowledge of the mighty Greek Literature which for centuries had beenburied in oblivion, introducing fresh standards of culture, spreadingeducation, creating an entirely new intellectual atmosphere. An enormousimpulse was given to the new influences by the very active encouragementwhich the princes of Europe, lay and ecclesiastical, extended to them, thenobility following in the wake of the princes. The best literary brains ofthe day however were largely absorbed by the religious movement. The greatimaginative writers, unless we except Rabelais, appear in the latter halfof the sixteenth century--Tasso and Camoens and Cervantes, [Footnote:_Don Quixote_ did not appear till 1605; but Cervantes was then nearlysixty. ] Spenser and Marlowe and Shakespeare, as well as Montaigne. But evenin the first half of the century, Copernicus enunciated the new theory thatthe Sun, not the Earth, is the centre of the astronomical system; andbefore the end of our period, the new methods had established themselves inthe field of science, to be first formulated early in the new century byone who had already mastered and applied them, Francis Bacon. Essentially, the modern Scientific Method was the product of the Tudor Age. 

[Sidenote: The Reformation and the Counter-Reformation]

For many centuries, Christendom had in effect been undivided. There hadindeed been a time when it was uncertain whether the Arian heresy might notprevail over orthodoxy, but that was a thousand years ago. The ByzantineChurch later had separated from the Roman on a subtle point of Theology;but in spite of various dissensions, and efforts on the part of kings andof Churches which may be called national to assert a degree ofindependence, all Western Europe had acknowledged the supremacy of thepapacy; and though reformers had arisen, the movements they initiated hadeither been absorbed by orthodoxy or crushed almost out of sight. The Tudorperiod witnessed that vast schism which divided Europe into the tworeligious camps, labelled--with the usual inaccuracy of party labels--Catholic and Protestant: the latter, as time went on, failing into infinitedivisions, still however remaining agreed in their resistance to the commonfoe. Roughly--very roughly--in place of the united Christendom of theMiddle Ages, the end of the period found the Northern, Scandinavian, andTeutonic races ranged on one side, the Southern Latin races on the other;and in both camps a very much more intelligent conception of religion, amuch more lively appreciation of its relation to morals. The intellectualrevolution had engendered a keen and independent spirit of inquiry, adisregard of traditional authority, an iconoclastic zeal, a passion forascertaining Truth, which, applied to religion, crashed against receivedsystems and dogmas with a tremendous shock rending Christendom in twain. But the Reformers were not all on one side; and those who held by the oldfaiths and acknowledged still the old mysteries included many of the mostessentially religious spirits of the time. If the Protestants won a newfreedom, the Catholics acquired a new fervour and on the whole a newspirituality. For both Catholic and Protestant, religion meant somethingwhich had been lacking to latter-day mediaevalism: something for which itwas worth while to fight and to die, and--a much harder matter than dying--to sever the bonds of friendship and kinship. That these things shouldhave needed to be done was an evil; that men should have become ready to dothem was altogether good. The Reformation brought not peace but a sword;Religion was but one of the motives which made men partisans of eitherside; yet that it became a motive at all meant that they had realised it asan essential necessity in their lives. 

[Sidenote: The New World]

It is hardly necessary to dwell at length on the magnitude of themaritime expansion; the Map [Footnote: See Map 1] is more eloquent thanwords. In 1485 the coasts that were known to Europeans were those ofEurope, the Levant, and North Africa. Only such rare adventurers asMarco Polo had penetrated Asia outside the ancient limits of the RomanEmpire. In 1603, the globe had been twice circumnavigated by Englishmen. Portuguese fleets dominated the Indian waters; there were Portuguesestations both on the West Coast of India and in the Bay of Bengal;Portuguese and Spaniards were established in the Spice Islands whencethere was an annual trade round the Cape with the Spanish Peninsula:the English East India Company was already incorporated, and its firstfleet, commanded by Captain Lancaster, had opened up the same watersfor English trade. Mexico and Peru and the West Indies were Spanishposses-*

** Two pages missing from original book here

[Sidenote: Nobility, clergy and gentry]

In the business of managing the Estates, the problem was further simplifiedto the Tudors because circumstances enabled them arbitrarily to replenishtheir treasuries largely from sources which did not wound thesusceptibilities of the Commons. Henry VII. Could victimise the nobles byfines or benevolences, and Henry VIII. Could rob the Church, withoutarousing the animosity of the classes which were untouched; while neitherthe nobility nor the clergy were strong enough for active resentment. Ineach case the King made his profit out of privileged classes which got nosympathy from the rest--who did not grudge the King money so long at leastas they were not asked to provide it themselves, and in fact felt that theprocess diminished the necessity for making demands on their own pockets. 

The disappearance of the old almost princely power of the greater barons, completed by the repressive policy of Henry VII. , with the redistributionof the vast monastic estates effected by his son, were the leading factorswhich changed the social and political centre of gravity. The old nobilitywere almost wiped out by the civil wars; generation after generation, theirrepresentatives had either fallen on the battlefield, or lost their headson the scaffold and their lands by attainder. The new nobility were thecreations of the Tudor Kings, lacking the prestige of renowned ancestry andthe means of converting retainers into small armies. With the exception ofthe Howards, scarce one of the prominent statesmen of the period belongedto any of the old powerful families. For more than forty years the chiefministers were ecclesiastics; after Wolsey's fall, the Cromwells, Seymours, Dudleys, and Pagets, the Cecils and Walsinghams, and Bacons, the Russels, Sidneys, Raleighs, and Careys, were of stocks that had hardly been heard ofin Plantagenet times, outside their own localities. It was the Tudor policyto foster and encourage this class of their subjects, who from the Tudortimes onward provided the country with most of her statesmen and hercaptains, and in the aggregate mainly swayed her fortunes. At the same timethe political influence of the Church was reduced to comparativeinsignificance by the treatment of the whole hierarchy almost as if it werea branch, and a rather subordinate branch, of the civil administration; bythe appropriation of its wealth to secular purposes, to the enrichment ofindividuals and of the royal treasury; and by the suppression of themonastic orders. The effect of this last measure, limiting the clericalranks to the successors of the secular clergy, was to restrict them muchmore generally to their pastoral functions; and at any rate after the deathof Gardiner and Pole, no ecclesiastic appears as indubitably first ministerof the Crown, and few as politicians of the front rank. England had noRichelieu, and no Mazarin. Lastly while the diminution in the importance ofthe ecclesiastical courts increased the influence of the lay lawyers, thegreat development in the prosperity of the mercantile classes, due in partat least to the deliberate policy of the Tudor monarchs, led in turn totheir wealthy burgesses acquiring a new weight in the national counselswhich, however, did not take full effect till a later day. 

[Sidenote: International relations]

Finally we have to observe that in this period the whole system ofinternational relations underwent a complete transformation. At itscommencement, there was no Spanish kingdom; there was no Dutch Republic;the unification even of France was not completed; England had a chronicallyhostile nation on her northern borders; the Moors still held Granada; theTurk had only very recently established himself in Europe, and his advanceconstituted a threat to all Christendom, which still very definitelyrecognised one ecclesiastical head in the Pope, and--very much lessdefinitely--one lay head in the Emperor. Elizabeth's death united Englandand Scotland at least for international purposes; France and Spain had eachbecome a homogeneous state; Holland was on the verge of entering the listsas a first-class power. The theoretical status of the Emperor in Europe hadvanished, but on the other hand, the co-ordination of the Empire itself asa Teutonic power had considerably advanced. The Turk was held in check, andthe Moor was crushed: but one half of Christendom was disposed to regardthe other half as little if at all superior to the Turk in point ofTheology. The nations of Western Europe had approximately settled into theboundaries with which we are familiar; the position of the great Powers hadbeen, at least comparatively speaking, formulated; and the idea had comeinto being which was to dominate international relations for centuries tocome--the political conception of the Balance of Power. 

CHAPTER I

HENRY VII (i), 1485-92--THE NEW DYNASTY

[Sidenote: 1485 Henry's title to the Crown]

On August 22nd, 1485, Henry Earl of Richmond overcame and slew King RichardIII. , and was hailed as King on the field of victory. But the destructionof Richard, an indubitable usurper and tyrant, was only the first step inestablishing a title to the throne as disputable as ever a monarch putforward. To establish that title, however, was the primary necessity notmerely for Henry himself, but in the general interest; which demanded asecure government after half a century of turmoil. 

Henry's hereditary title amounted to nothing more than this, that throughhis mother he was the recognised representative of the House of Lancasterin virtue of his Beaufort descent from John of Gaunt, [Footnote: See_Front_. And Appendix B. The prior hereditary claims of the royalHouses of Portugal and Castile and of the Earl of Westmorland wereignored. ] father of Henry IV. ; whereas the House of York was descended inthe female line from Lionel of Clarence, John of Gaunt's elder brother, andin unbroken male line from the younger brother Edmund of York. On thesimple ground of descent therefore, any and every member of the House ofYork had a prior title to Henry's; the most complete title lying inElizabeth, eldest daughter of Edward IV. ; while the young Earl of Warwick, son of George of Clarence, was the first male representative, and John dela Pole, Earl of Lincoln, son of Edward's sister, had been named by Richardas heir presumptive. 

But Henry could support his hereditary title, such as it was, by the actualfact that it was he and not a Yorkist who had challenged and overthrown theusurper Richard. 

[Sidenote 1: Measures to strengthen the title][Sidenote 2: 1486 Marriage]

Now the idea that the rivalry of the Houses of York and Lancaster should beterminated and their union be effected by the marriage of the tworecognised representatives had been mooted long before. But in Henry'sposition, it was imperative that he should assert his own personal right tothe throne, not admitting that he occupied it as his wife's consort. Hisstrongest line was to claim the Crown as his own of right and procure theendorsement of that claim from Parliament, [Footnote: The intricacies ofdescent, and the position of the crowd of hypothetical claimants, are setforth in detail in Appendix B, and the complete genealogical chart(_Front_. ). ] as Henry IV. Had done on the deposition of Richard II. Hecould then without prejudice to his own title effectively bar other rivalsby taking as his consort Elizabeth of York; since the Yorkists, as a group, would at any rate hesitate to assert priority of title to hers for eitherWarwick or De la Pole (who in fact never himself posed as a claimant forthe throne). In accordance with this plan of operations, the contemplatedmarriage with Elizabeth of York was in the first instance postponed as amatter for later consideration. Henry proceeded forthwith to London, entering the City _laetanter_, amidst public rejoicings; [Footnote:Gairdner, _Memorials of Henry VII_. , p. Xxvi, where a curiousmisapprehension is explained for which Bacon is mainly responsible. ] writsfor a new Parliament being issued a few days later. The coronation tookplace on October 30th; a week afterwards Parliament met, and an Act waspromptly passed, declaring--without giving any reasons, which might havebeen disputed--that the "inheritance of the Crowns of England and Francebe, rest, remain and abide, in the person of our now Sovereign Lord, KingHarry the Seventh, and in the heirs of his body". This was sufficientlydecisive; but the endorsement of Henry's title in the abstract wasconfirmed by further enactments which assumed that he had been King ofright, before the battle of Bosworth (thus repudiating title by conquest), since they attainted of treason those who had joined Richard in levying waragainst him. Thus Henry had affirmed his own inherent right to the throne;and had hedged that round with an unqualified parliamentary title. In themeantime he had also disqualified one possible figure-head for the Yorkistsby lodging the young Earl of Warwick in the Tower. It remained for him toconvert the other and principal rival into a prop of his own dignities bymarrying Elizabeth of York. Accordingly he was formally petitioned byParliament in December to take the princess to wife, to which petition hegraciously assented, and the union of the red and white roses wasaccomplished in January. Any son born of this marriage would in his ownperson unite the claims of the House of Lancaster with those of the seniorbranch of the House of York. 

[Sidenote: The King and his advisers]

It is difficult to think of the first Tudor monarch as a young man; for hispolicy and conduct bore at all times the signs of a cautious andexperienced statesmanship. Nevertheless, he was but eight and twenty whenhe wrested the kingdom from Richard. His life, however, had been passed inthe midst of perpetual plots and schemes, and in his day men developedearly--whereof an even more striking example was his son's contemporary, the great Emperor Charles V. Young as Henry was, there was no youthfulhot-headedness in his policy, which was moreover his own. But he selectedhis advisers with a skill inherited by his son; and the most notablemembers of the new King's Council were Reginald Bray; Morton, Bishop ofEly, who soon after became Archbishop of Canterbury and was later raised tothe Cardinalate; and Fox, afterwards Bishop of Durham and then ofWinchester, whose services were continued through the early years of thenext reign. Warham, afterwards Archbishop, was another of the greatecclesiastics whom he promoted, and before his death he had discovered theabilities of his son's great minister Thomas Wolsey. For two thirds of hisreign, however, Bray and Morton were the men on whom he placed chiefreliance. 

[Sidenote: Henry's enemies]

Difficult as it was after Henry's union with Elizabeth to name anypretender to the throne with even a plausible claim, Bosworth had beenin effect a victory for the Lancastrian party, and many of the Yorkistswere still prepared to seize any pretext for attempting to overthrowthe new dynasty. Not long after the marriage, Henry started on aprogress through his dominions; and while he was in the north, LordLovel and other adherents of the late king attempted a rising which washowever suppressed with little difficulty. A considerable body oftroops was sent against the rebels, while a pardon was proclaimed forall who forthwith surrendered. Many of the insurgents came in; thepromise to them was kept. Of the rest, one of the leaders was executed, Lovel escaping; but the affair, though abortive, illustrated thegeneral atmosphere of insecurity which was to be more seriouslydemonstrated by the insurrection in favour of Lambert Simnel in thefollowing year--some months after the Queen had given birth to a son, Prince Arthur. 

Outside Henry's own dominions, the Dowager Margaret of Burgundy, widowof Duke Charles the Bold and sister of Edward IV. , was implacablyhostile to Henry, and her court was the gathering place of dissatisfiedYorkist intriguers. Within his realms, Ireland, where the House of Yorkhad always been popular, offered a perpetual field in which to raisethe standard of rebellion, any excuse for getting up a fight beinggenerally welcomed. In that country the power of the King's government, such as it was, was practically confined to the limits of the Pale--andwithin those limits depended mainly on the attitude of the powerfulIrish noble, Fitzgerald, Earl of Kildare, who held the office of Deputy. 

[Sidenote: 1487 Lambert Simnel]

At the close of the fifteenth century accurate information did not travelrapidly, but vague rumours were readily spread abroad. Rumours were nowrife that one of the princes murdered by Richard III. Had really escapedand was still living; and on the other hand that the boy Warwick was deadin the Tower. Some one devised the idea of producing a fictitious Richardof York, or Warwick. A boy of humble birth named Lambert Simnel was taughtto play the part, carried over to Ireland, and produced after somehesitation as the Earl of Warwick. Presumably the leaders of the Yorkistsintended to use the supposititious earl only until the real one could begot into their hands; but Lincoln, who certainly knew the facts, espousedthe cause of the pretender, in complicity with Lovel and Margaret ofBurgundy. In Ireland, Simnel was cheerfully and with practical unanimityaccepted as the king, and a band of German mercenaries, under the commandof Martin Swart, was landed in that country to support him; though inLondon the genuine Warwick was paraded through the streets to show that hewas really there alive. Lincoln, who had first escaped to Flanders, joinedthe pretender; they landed in Lancashire in June. Within a fortnight, however, the opposing forces met at Stoke, and after a brief but fierceconflict the rebel army, mainly composed of Irish and of Germanmercenaries, was crushed, Lincoln and several leaders were slain, and theirpuppet was taken captive. Henry's action was the reverse of vindictive, forSimnel was merely relegated to a position, appropriate to his origin, inthe royal kitchen, and was subsequently promoted to be one of the King'sfalconers. Kildare, [Footnote: The narrative in the _Book of Howth_gives the impression that Kildare was at Stoke, and was made prisoner; butthis is probably a misinterpretation arising from a lack of dates. ] inspite of his undoubted complicity in the rebellion and the actualparticipation therein of his kinsmen, was even retained in the office ofDeputy. Twenty-eight of the rebels, however, were attainted in the newParliament which was summoned in November, the Queen's long-deferredcoronation taking place at the same time. 

The same Parliament is noteworthy as having given a definitely legal statusto the judicial authority of the Council by the establishment of the Courtthereafter known as the Star Chamber, of which we shall hear later. Besidesthis, however, it had the duty of voting supplies for embroilmentsthreatening on the Continent. 

The complexities of foreign affairs form so important a feature in thehistory of the next forty years that it is important to open the study ofthe period with a clear idea of the position of the Continental powers. 

[Sidenote: The state of Europe]

Lewis XI. , the craftiest of kings, had died in 1482, leaving a tolerablyorganised kingdom to his young son Charles VIII. , under the regency of Anneof Beaujeu. With the exception of the Dukedom of Brittany, which stillclaimed a degree of independence, and of Flanders and Artois which, thoughfiefs of France, were still ruled by the House of Burgundy, the wholecountry was under the royal dominion; which had also absorbed the Duchy ofBurgundy proper. The daughter of Charles the Bold, wife of Maximilian ofAustria, inherited as a diminished domain the Low Countries and the Countyof Burgundy or Franche Comté. 

East of the Rhine, the kingdoms, principalities, and dukedoms of Germanyowned the somewhat vague authority of the Habsburg Emperor Frederick, butthe idea of German Unity had not yet come into being. On the south-east theTurks who had captured Constantinople some thirty years before (1453) werea militant and aggressive danger to the Empire and to Christendom; whilethe stoutest opponent of their fleets was Venice. Switzerland was anindependent confederacy of republican States: Italy a collection ofseparate States--dukedoms such as Milan, kingdoms such as Naples, Republicssuch as Venice and Florence, with the Papal dominions in their midst. Inthe Spanish peninsula were the five kingdoms of Navarre, Portugal, theMoorish Granada, Aragon, and Castile. The last two, however, were alreadyunited, though not yet merged into one, by the marriage of their respectivesovereigns Ferdinand and Isabella. Sardinia and Sicily were attached toAragon. 

Finally we have to note that Maximilian, son of the Emperor, had marriedMary of Burgundy; but on Mary's death the Netherlanders recognised as theirDuke not Maximilian but his young son Philip--the father exercising only avery precarious authority as the boy's guardian; while the DowagerMargaret, the second wife of Charles the Bold, the lady whose hostility tothe House of Lancaster has been already noted, possessed some dower-towns, and considerable influence. In 1486 Maximilian was elected "King of theRomans, " in other words his father's presumed successor as Emperor. 

[Sidenote: France and Brittany]

For the time, then, the consolidation of France was more advanced than thatof any other Power; her desire was to complete the process by theabsorption of Brittany. Spain, i. E. , Castile and Aragon, had madeconsiderable progress in the same direction, but for her the conquest ofGranada was still the prime necessity. 

The absorption of Brittany, however, was opposed alike to the interests ofMaximilian, of the Spanish monarchs, and of England. To the former two, anyfurther acquisition of power by France was a possible menace. To the last, France was traditionally the enemy, and if Breton ports became Frenchports, the strength of France in the Channel would be almost doubled. Henrypersonally was under great obligations both to France and to Brittany, especially to France; but political exigencies evidently compelled him tofavour the maintenance of Breton independence. 

During 1487 France had been carrying on active hostilities in Brittany, butthe results had been small and a treaty had been signed. Lewis, Duke ofOrleans, and others of the French nobility who were hostile to the regencyof Anne of Beaujeu, were actively promoting the Breton cause within thedukedom; there was no longer an active French party there; and now thatHenry in England had suppressed the Simnel rising France became anxious tosecure English neutrality. But, if Henry could not keep clear of thecomplication altogether; if once the parties in the contest began appealingto him; he was liable to find himself forced to take part with one side orthe other. Hence the necessity for calling upon Parliament to vote moneyfor armaments. 

[Sidenote: 1488 Henry intervenes cautiously]

Thus in the opening months of 1488 we find Henry on the one hand fittingout ships, and on the other offering friendly mediation both to France andto Brittany: while his policy was not simplified by the unauthorisedinterposition of his queen's uncle Edward Woodville, who secretly sailedwith a band of adventurers to support the Bretons. Henry repudiatedWoodville's action, and extended the existing treaty of peace with Franceto January, 1490. In the same month (July, 1488) the Bretons suffered acomplete defeat, and the Duke was obliged to sign a treaty on ignominiousterms. Within a fortnight, however, the Duke was dead, and his daughterAnne, a girl of twelve, succeeded him. 

The result was the renewal of war; since Anne of Beaujeu and the BretonMarshal de Rieux both claimed the wardship of the young Duchess, for whosehand the widower Maximilian was already a prominent suitor. Now up to thispoint Henry had refused to adopt a hostile attitude towards France, and hadtreated overtures from Maximilian with frigidity. But in six months' timehe was concluding alliances both with Brittany and with Maximilian. 

[Sidenote: England and Spain]

The determining factor in this change of attitude, practically involving aFrench war, is probably to be found in Henry's relations with Spain. It wasof vital importance to him to get his dynasty recognised in an emphaticform by foreign Powers. In Spain under its very able rulers he saw the mostvaluable of allies, and during the first half of 1488 he had made it hisprimary concern to procure the betrothal of his own infant son Arthur totheir infant daughter Katharine. And virtually his hostility to France wasthe price they demanded. The preliminaries were settled in July, 1488; thetreaty was not definitively signed till March of the next year; and as theessential nature of the Spanish requirements became more apparent, Henryfound himself compelled to accept active antagonism to France as part ofthe bargain. With his subjects, a French war was always secure of a certainpopularity, though the provision of funds for it would entail a degree ofopposition. Moreover, though foreign wars might give extreme malcontentstheir opportunity, it is a commonplace of politics that they distractattention from domestic grievances. Thus it is easy to perceive how thebenefits of the Spanish alliance would very definitely turn the scale. Andwe shall still find that Henry had no intention of expending an ounce ofeither blood or treasure which might be saved consistently with theostensible fulfilment of the Spanish Compact. 

[Sidenote 1: 1489 Preparations for war with France][Sidenote 2: Spanish treaty of Medina del Campo]

So in December, 1488, Henry was sending friendly embassies to all thePowers, but while that to France was merely offering mediation, the envoyto Brittany was offering military assistance--on terms. In January a newParliament was asked for, and after considerable debate granted, £100, 000. In February the embassy to Maximilian concluded an alliance for mutualdefence; while that to Brittany pledged Henry to defend the young Duchess, but exacted in return the occupation by the English of sundry militarypositions in the duchy, and the right to forbid any marriage or allianceexcept with Maximilian or Spain. Then in March the Spanish treaty wascompleted: whereof the terms were very significant. The children were to bebetrothed. If Spain declared war on France, England was to support her. Spain might retire independently if she recovered the small districts ofRoussillon and Cerdagne, which had been surrendered (though only in pledge)to Lewis XI. ; England might similarly withdraw if she got back Guienne--avery much more visionary prospect. Otherwise, one was not to retire withoutthe other being equally satisfied. If England attacked France, Spain was tohelp; but occupied as she was with Granada the amount of aid likely to beforthcoming was problematical. In brief, Henry was prepared to pay for themarriage, and Spain could exact a high price. 

France then was occupied in the west with the contest in Brittany, and inthe north she was supporting the Flemings in their normal resistance toMaximilian. The English could use Calais as a base for operations on thisside, and also began to throw troops into Brittany. Incidentally there wasa rising in the north of England headed by Sir John Egremont, of which thepretext was resistance to the levying of taxes; this, however, did not takevery long to suppress, nor was any one of importance involved in it. Stillthe hostilities with France were carried on in a very half-hearted fashion;being confined to defensive operations in Brittany which were supposed tobe no violation of the peace recently prolonged to January, 1490. 

[Sidenote: The allies inert]

Henry was satisfied to make a show of fighting, and Spain made no haste tohelp him, England not being formally at war. As early as July, Maximilian, shiftiest and most impecunious of princes, concluded at Frankfort anindependent treaty with France; who agreed to give up the places sheoccupied in Brittany if Henry were compelled to withdraw his garrisons;while there were signs that she might cede Roussillon and thus depriveHenry of his claim to Spanish support. Within the duchy itself, the Marshalde Rieux and his ward were in a state of antagonism; since he wished her tomarry the Sieur D'Albret, a powerful Gascon noble who was not toosubmissive to the French monarchy; while the Duchess declared she wouldrather enter a convent. Anne at last announced her adhesion to the treatyof Frankfort; but as Henry had no intention of evacuating his forts, nothing particular resulted. The English King could not afford simply todrop the contest, and when the New Year came in, he demanded and obtainedfrom Parliament fresh supplies for carrying on the war. 

[Sidenote: 1490 Object of Henry's foreign policy]

The game Henry had to play in 1490 was a sufficiently difficult one: and heplayed it with consummate skill. He meant to hold his position in Brittanyuntil he received adequate indemnities; he had to satisfy his own subjectsthat he was not going to draw back before the power of France; and he hadto carry out the letter of his obligations to Spain under the treaty of theprevious March, On the other hand, he had in fact no ambitious militaryprojects, and while Spain abstained from sending active assistance inforce, she could not complain if he merely stood on the defensive. TheDuchess, finding herself no better off for accepting the Frankfort treaty, adopted the alternative policy of throwing herself on his protection. So hewelcomed a mediatorial embassy from the Pope and showed no unwillingness tonegotiate, but continued to strengthen his own position; while he couldexhibit a sound reason for abstaining from aggressive action and stillaccumulate war-funds. 

By Midsummer France had enlarged her demands since the treaty of Frankfort, requiring the withdrawal of the English from Brittany as a preliminary notto her own withdrawal but to arbitration on her claims. In September theshifty King of the Romans reverted to an alliance with Henry for mutualdefence; and the scheme of his marriage with the Duchess Anne was pressedon. Marshal de Rieux had by this time become reconciled to the Duchess, thrown over D'Albret, and come into agreement with Henry. At this time, moreover, Henry ratified publicly the Spanish treaty which had beenaccepted by Ferdinand and Isabella eighteen months before; but he alsosubmitted an alternative treaty [Footnote: Busch, _England under theTudors_. Pp. 59, 330; and Gairdner's note, p. 438. ] (which Spainrejected) modifying the portions which placed the contracting Powers on anunequal footing. By this step he forced the Spanish monarchs to resign anypretence of having treated him generously or having placed him under anobligation; and the step itself was significant of the increased confidencehe had acquired in the stability of his own position. In DecemberMaximilian was married by proxy to Anne--whom he had never seen--and notlong afterwards she assumed the style of Queen of the Romans. 

[Sidenote: Apparent defeat of Henry's policy]

Ostensibly, the object of Henry's diplomacy had failed. Spain had rejectedhis proposals: and the direct results of Anne's marriage were that theactivity of France was renewed; Spain, with the pretext of the Moorish warto plead, was less inclined than ever to render assistance; Maximilian as amatter of course proved a broken reed; D'Albret, his pretensions beingfinally shattered, surrendered Nantes to the French by arrangement. Englandwas apparently to bear the entire brunt of the war. Henry was justified inappealing to his subjects for every penny that could be raised, andresorted to "benevolences"--an insidious method of extortion which had beendeclared illegal in the previous reign, but under the existing abnormalconditions could hardly be resisted. A great demonstration of warlikeardour was made, on the strength of which Spain was urged to pledge herselfto throw herself into the war next year with more energy and on morereasonable terms than the existing treaty of Medina del Campo provided for. But in the meantime the French were reducing Brittany, and held the Duchessbesieged in Rennes. The French King, Charles VIII. , proposed that themarriage with a husband whom she had never seen should be annulled, and thedispute be terminated by his wedding her himself. Resistance seemedhopeless; Anne assented; the necessary dispensations were secured fromRome, and Anne of Brittany became Queen of France. 

[Sidenote: 1492 Henry's bellicose attitude]

Now the defence of Brittany had been the primary ground of England'squarrel with the French; with Henry himself, however, this object had beensecondary to the matrimonial alliance with Spain, from which the latter wasnow not likely to withdraw. Henry, moreover, had made use of the wholeaffair to acquire a full money-chest; and since it was of vital importancethat this should be done without turning his subjects against him, it hadbeen necessary to lend the war as popular a colour as possible. Hence itwas part of his policy to emphasise at home as his ultimate end therecovery of the English rights in the French Crown, so successfullyutilised by his predecessor Henry V. In the first quarter of the century. It would have been manifestly dangerous for him in establishing his dynastyto recede from a claim which both Yorkists and Lancastrians had maintained. Incidentally also, there was the matter of indemnities owing to him by Anneof Brittany for which Maximilian had been made responsible. 

[Sidenote 1: France makes peace][Sidenote 2: Treaty of Etaples (Dec. )]

Since then it was impracticable simply to retire, the alternative coursewas to demonstrate; and Henry spent the greater part of 1492 in making thegreatest possible display of preparation for war on a great scale--with aview to obtaining satisfying terms of peace. The one real piece of militarywork taken in hand was the siege and capture of Sluys in Flanders (inconjunction with Albert of Saxony, on behalf of Maximilian); from whichport much injury of a piratical order had been wrought upon Englishmerchants. Meantime negotiations had been carried on, but with noappearance of success. At last in October the King actually crossed theChannel to take command of the army of invasion; and sat down beforeBoulogne. Then on a sudden the air cleared. Charles in fact did not want aserious English war, out of which he could make nothing. But he haddeveloped a very keen ambition to enter Italy and win the Crown of Naples. Henry by himself, or even in conjunction with the much offended Maximilian, was hardly likely to penetrate very far into France, if the forces of thatkingdom were arrayed against him; but while he threatened, Charles couldnot move on Italy; moreover, his presence was an encouragement to those ofthe nobility whose allegiance was doubtful. So the French King resolved tobuy off the English King at his own price. Lewis XI. , threatened by EdwardIV. , had agreed to pay what Edward called a tribute, in return for which heheld his claim to the French throne in abeyance. Henry need have no qualmsabout following his Yorkist predecessor's example. Beyond that, Charles wasprepared to pay off the Brittany indemnities. Thus Henry secured Peace withHonour and a solid cash equivalent for his expenditure; besides being ableto silence the complaints of the warlike by emphasising the gravity ofembarking on a great campaign with winter coming on. He threw overMaximilian, but the faithlessness of the King of the Romans was so palpableand notorious that at the worst Henry was only paying him back in his owncoin. As to Spain, Henry knew that the monarchs had been endeavouring tonegotiate a separate peace, and they had never carried out their part ofthe contract. So far as he was breaking engagements with his allies, theirown conduct had given him ample warrant. The event had justified Henry'smanagement of a very difficult situation. The Peace of Etaples was ratifiedin December; and Henry emerged from the war with England's continentalprestige restored to a respectable position, a full treasury, and histhrone in England infinitely more secure than it had been three yearsbefore. He was never again driven to enter upon a foreign war; and now theappearance of Perkin Warbeck on the scene, though it kept England in astate of uneasiness for some years, was incomparably less dangerous than itwould have proved at an earlier stage. 

CHAPTER II

HENRY VII (ii), 1492-99--PERKIN WARBECK

[Sidenote: Ireland, 1485]

Before entering upon the career of Perkin Warbeck, we must give somewhatcloser attention to the affairs of the sister island, to which referencehas already been made in connexion with the Simnel revolt. Ireland hadnever been really brought under English dominion. Within the district knownas the English Pale, there was some sort of control, extending even lesseffectively over the province of Leinster, and beyond that practicallyceasing altogether, except in a few coast towns; the Norman barons who hadsettled there having so to speak turned Irish, and even in some caseshaving translated their names into Celtic forms. The most powerful of thenobles at this time were the Geraldines, at whose head were the Earls ofKildare and of Desmond, and the Butlers whose chief was the Earl ofOrmonde. But the primacy belonged to Kildare, who moreover had stood highin favour with the House of York. It had been the practice for the Englishkings to appoint a nominal absentee governor, whose functions weredischarged by a Deputy; and Kildare was Deputy under both Edward IV. AndRichard. 

[Sidenote: 1487-92 The Earl of Kildare]

Henry, on his accession, had seen that the one chance of keeping thecountry in any degree quiet lay in securing Kildare's allegiance andsupport; and proposals for his continuation in the office of Deputy hadbeen under discussion when Lambert Simnel was hailed as King and crowned, with the open support not only of Kildare but of nearly all the barons andbishops. It did not suit Henry's policy to attempt punishment under theseconditions; he preferred conciliation; and after Stoke, Kildare wasretained as Deputy, when he and Simuel's principal adherents had swornloyalty. In 1490 Henry had found it necessary to reprimand Kildare forsundry breaches of the law, commanding his presence in England within tenmonths. Kildare made no move, but at the end of the ten months wrote to saythat he could not possibly come over, as the state of the country made hispresence there imperative. The letter was written in the name of theCouncil, and signed by fifteen of its members. This was backed by anotherletter from Desmond and other nobles in the south-west, declaring that theyhad persuaded the Deputy that the peace of Ireland quite forbade hisdeparture. 

Probably it was much about this period--that is, some time in 1491--that anew claimant to Henry's throne (Perkin Warbeck) appeared in the south-westof Ireland, declaring himself to be that Richard Duke of York who wasreported to have been murdered in the Tower along with his brother EdwardV. Desmond espoused his cause, while Kildare and others coquetted with him. Agents from Desmond and the pretender visited the court of the young Kingof Scots James IV. , in March, 1492, and in the summer Charles VIII. , whoseterritories Henry was then ostentatiously preparing to invade, invited theyoung man over to France where he was received as the rightful King ofEngland. The conclusion of peace, however, at the end of the year, made itnecessary for the French King to withdraw his countenance from Henry'senemies; and the pretender retired to the congenial atmosphere of the courtof Margaret of Burgundy. In the meantime Kildare, whose complicity withDesmond it had become impossible entirely to ignore, had been deprived ofhis office, and a new Deputy appointed. 

[Sidenote 1: 1491 Perkin Warbeck's appearance][Sidenote 2: Riddle of his imposture]

The self-styled Richard of York is known to history as Perkin Warbeck. Theaccount of his early career subsequently given to the world in his ownconfession is generally accepted as genuine. The son of a Tournai boatman, he served during his boyhood under half a dozen different masters in threeor four Netherland cities and in Lisbon. At the age of seventeen he tookservice with one Prégent Meno, a Breton merchant, and incidentally appearedat Cork where he paraded in costly array. Such was the effect of hisappearance and bearing that the citizens of Cork declared he must be aPlantagenet. Taxed with being in reality either the Earl of Warwick or anillegitimate son of Richard III. , he swore he was nothing of the kind; buthis admirers declared that in that case he could only be Richard of York, who had somehow been saved from sharing his brother's fate in the Tower. Perkin found himself unable to resist such importunity, accepted thedignity thrust upon him, and set himself to learn his part. The partisansof the White Rose had shown in the case of Lambert Simnel their preferencefor even a palpable impostor bearing their badge, as compared with theobjectionable Tudor; and a genuine Duke of York would have the advantage ofa claim stronger even than that of his sister Elizabeth, Henry's queen. Perkin, however, must have acted up to his part with no little skill tohave maintained himself as a plausible impostor up to the time whenMargaret of Burgundy received him--even though he met no one in whoseinterest it was to pose him with inconvenient questions. So apt a pupilwould then have had little difficulty in assimilating the instructions ofMargaret; and, after a couple of years' training with her, in at leastsupporting his role with plausibility. That Perkin himself told this storyis not very conclusive, since the confession was produced undercircumstances quite compatible with the whole thing having been dictated tohim; yet difficult as it is to believe, it is less incredible than thealternative--that he was the real duke, who had been smuggled out of theTower eight years before he was produced, and kept in concealment allthrough the interval, even while the Yorkist leaders had been reduced tosetting up a supposititious Earl of Warwick for a figurehead. 

[Sidenote: 1492-95 Perkin and Margaret of Burgundy]

It certainly does not seem that on Perkin's appearance in Ireland he hadany active supporters outside that country, or that he caused anyperturbation in Henry's mind. Foreign princes, whether they regarded him asgenuine or as an impostor, would certainly not espouse his cause unlessthey were at enmity with Henry. Even Charles VIII. Made no haste to lendhim countenance until it seemed almost certain that there was to be a warwith England on a great scale; and he had no hesitation in dismissing thepretender when peace was concluded; while the Spanish sovereigns, thoughquite ready to intrigue against their Tudor ally, had no intention ofcommitting themselves to an open breach with him. The peace, however, whichdismissed Perkin from France, gave him a zealous adherent in the person ofMaximilian, who was now filled with a righteous animosity to Henry; and theyoung lord of the Netherlands, his son Philip, Duke of Burgundy, declaredthat he had no power to control the Dowager Margaret, dwelling on her ownestates. So Perkin made her court his head-quarters--a useful tool for theweaving of Yorkist intrigues. Henry might, if he would, have legitimatelyfounded a _casus belli_ on this attitude, but he preferred toinstitute a commercial war; from which, however, the English merchantssuffered little less than the Flemings. 

In 1493 the Emperor died, and was in effect succeeded by the King of theRomans, though his election to the Imperial throne did not take place forsome years. Maximilian, however, remained impecunious and inefficient;Charles VIII. Was giving his entire attention to his Italian projects; thewhole affair of Perkin Warbeck was carried on mainly below the surface onboth sides, by a process of mining and counter-mining. Henry was wellserved by Sir Robert Clifford and others, who wormed themselves into theconfidence of the Yorkist plotters, revealing what they learnt to the King. When the time was ripe (January, 1495), Henry's hand fell suddenly on theunsuspecting conspirators in England; whose chiefs, including Sir WilliamStanley, who was supposed to be one of the King's most trusted supporters, were sent to the block. It was this same Sir William Stanley who, strikingin at Bosworth on the side of Henry, had been mainly instrumental indeciding the fortunes of the day; and he had been rewarded with the officeof Chamberlain. 

[Sidenote: Diplomatic intrigues]

During the two years following the Treaty of Etaples Charles VIII. Hadearly made his peace also with Spain by the treaty of Barcelona and withMaximilian by that of Senlis. The desired provinces, Roussillon andCerdagne, were restored to Ferdinand and Isabella, who adopted a distantattitude to Henry. The French King, free to follow his own devices, enteredItaly towards the close of 1494, marched south without opposition, and wascrowned at Naples in February, 1495, the reigning family fleeing beforehim. So early and important an accession of strength to the French Crownhad hardly been anticipated, and the European sovereigns made haste to forma League against France. Spain was desirous of bringing England into theleague; but the wayward Maximilian was still determined to support PerkinWarbeck, apparently thinking that by substituting a Yorkist prince forHenry he would secure a more amenable ally. 

[Sidenote: 1492-95 Ireland]

Meanwhile, Ireland also had been undergoing judicious treatment. Kildare, removed from the Deputy-ship in 1492, came over to England to give anaccount of himself in the following year. Here he was detained until, inthe autumn of 1494, the King appointed a new three-year-old Governor in theperson of his second son Henry, whom he also created Duke of York, makingSir Edward Poynings Deputy. Poynings was an experienced and capablesoldier, who had been in command before Sluys in the recent campaign; andon his departure for Ireland Kildare went with him. Both the ex-Deputy andthe Earl of Ormonde promised to render loyal service; but it was no verylong time before Kildare was sent back to England under accusations oftreason. We may here anticipate matters by observing that this was the lastcase of misbehaviour on his part. He won his way once more into the royalfavour, and when Poynings left Ireland in 1496 Kildare yet again went backas Deputy, which office he retained for the remainder of Henry's reign, anda portion of his son's also. 

It is curious to observe in the turbulent Deputy traits of that audacioushumour which we are wont to regard as peculiarly Irish: a characteristicfully appreciated by the English King. When taken to task for burning theCathedral at Cashel, he is reported to have said that he would not havedone so, only the bishop was inside. His casual announcement on a previousoccasion that he could not obey the royal summons to England because thecountry could not get on without him was paralleled either in 1493 or 1495--it is uncertain which--by his defence against the Bishop of Meath'scharges. He said he must be represented by Counsel; the King replied thathe might have whom he would. "Give me your hand, " quoth the Earl. "Here itis, " said the King. "Well, " said Kildare, "I can see no better man thanyou, and by St. Bride I will choose none other. " Said the Bishop, "You seewhat manner of man he is. All Ireland cannot rule him. " "Then, " said theKing, "he must be the man to rule all Ireland. "

[Sidenote: Poynings in Ireland 1494-96]

The government of Poynings was not prolonged, but it was very much to thepoint. "Poynings' Law, " passed by the Parliament assembled at Drogheda inDecember, 1494, fixed Constitutional procedure for a very long time. IrishParliaments were to be summoned only with the approval of the King'sCouncil in England, and only after it had also approved the measures whichwere to be submitted to them by the Irish Deputy and Council. In effect, however, these legislative functions at this time were hardly more limitedthan those of English Parliaments, which were summoned at the King'spleasure, and only had what might be called "Government Bills" submitted tothem. The royal Council was practically in the position of a Cabinetholding office as representing not the parliamentary majority but theKing's personal views. The Parliament might discuss and accept or reject, but had not as yet acquired a practical initiative itself. At the same timethat this law was passed, a declaratory Act abolished the theory which hadgrown up at an early stage of the conflict between the White and Red Roses, of regarding Ireland as a country where a rebel in England was a free man:a notion which had greatly facilitated the intrigues of both Lambert Simneland Perkin Warbeck on Irish soil. Further, besides some enactments forchecking feudal customs which tended to disorder, it was ordained that theprincipal castles should always be under the command of Englishmen. Poynings also endeavoured, by bestowing pensions (on terms) on some of theprincipal chiefs outside the Pale--such as O'Neill in Ulster and O'Brien inthe west--to convert their position into one of semi-officialresponsibility to the official Government. A basis for the maintenance oflaw and order having thus been provided, the Irish difficulty was solvedfor the time when "the man to rule all Ireland, " benevolently disposed to aKing who had shown that he knew the right way to take him, was restored tothe office of Deputy. 

[Sidenote: 1495 Survey of the situation]

In the early spring, then, of 1495, this was the position of affairs. Perkin Warbeck lay at the court of Margaret of Burgundy; but his plans hadbeen upset by Clifford's information and the punishment of the ringleadersin England. Poynings was in Ireland, and the prospect of keeping thatcountry in reasonable order was unusually promising. Charles VIII. Had justmade himself master of Naples; and the Spanish sovereigns (who hadcompleted the destruction of the Moorish dominion in Granada some threeyears earlier) were now occupied in forming with the Pope, Venice, Milan, and Maximilian the Holy League against French aggression; into which theywere anxious to draw Henry, whose weight if thrown into the other scalewould be of considerable value to France. For the last two years, since thetreaty of Barcelona, they had evaded the recognition or reconstruction ofany compact with England; but under the changed conditions, while theywould not admit that the old engagements were binding, they offered toframe new treaties for Henry's inclusion in the League, at the same timeconfirming the project of the marriage between their daughter Katharine andthe Prince of Wales. Henry, however, was now in a much stronger position athome; and though he desired the Spanish alliance, he had no intention ofallowing that bait to seduce him into making himself a cat's-paw. Francewas offering a counter-inducement in the shape of a marriage with thedaughter of the Duke of Bourbon; Henry indicated that while Maximilian wasfostering the pretensions of the impostor Warbeck, it was not seriouspolitics to talk of being associated with him in the League. Spain mightmake promises on Maximilian's behalf, but could not ensure that he wouldkeep them. 

[Sidenote: 1495 Warbeck attempts invasion]

Time was working in Henry's favour. In July (1495) an expedition sailedfrom Flanders to place Perkin on the English throne. Maximilian's hopeswere high: he bragged to the Venetians that the "Duke of York" wouldimmediately unseat the Tudor, and when he was on the throne, England wouldbe at the beck of the League. The Emperor's impracticability wassufficiently shown by his having procured from Perkin his own recognitionas heir, if the pretender should die without issue. The expeditionattempted to land at Deal, but the men of Kent assembled in arms, and droveit off with ignominious ease. For once Henry was severe, and put to deathno fewer than 150 of Warbeck's followers, who had been taken prisoners. Warbeck himself did not even set foot on the realm he claimed, but made forIreland where he had first been so warmly welcomed. Here his old supporterDesmond took up his cause again, and Waterford was attacked by sea andland; but there was no general rising, and Poynings had no difficulty inraising the siege. Foiled both in England and Ireland, Perkin now betookhimself to Scotland to obtain the help of the young King, James IV. 

[Sidenote: Success of Henry's diplomacy]

The affair showed conclusively how small was the danger in England of aYorkist rising in favour of the pretender--a fact very fully recognised byFerdinand and Isabella, though Maximilian clung pertinaciously to hisprotégé. Moreover, the position of the League was somewhat precarious, since both Ludovico Sforza, Duke of Milan, and the Venetians, weresuspected with justice of readiness to make their own terms with France. Itwas more than ever necessary to bring Henry into the combination; andHenry, still diplomatically suave, was less than ever prepared to acceptconditions which would fetter him inconveniently. He would not commithimself to make war on France except at his own time; and Maximilian mustdefinitely and conclusively repudiate Warbeck. At last in July, 1496, thenew League was concluded. Henry's diplomacy achieved a distinct triumph. His alliance had been won, but only on his own terms; all he wished tosecure had been secured. The Spanish sovereigns were so far from feelingthat they could make a tool of him that they were in considerabletrepidation lest he should still throw them over if a tolerably legitimateexcuse offered, and were anxious to do all they could to conciliate himwithout betraying the full extent of their fears. Henry had already, inFebruary, terminated the commercial war with the Flemings by the treatywith Philip known as the _Intercursus Magnus_, which included aproviso against the admission into Philip's territories of rebels againstthe English King. 

[Sidenote: 1496 Warbeck and the King of Scots]

When Perkin Warbeck made his way to Scotland the young King of that countrywas already fully informed as to the nature of his claims. James, when aboy of sixteen, had taken part in the rebellion headed by Douglas Earl ofAngus, in which his father the late King had been overthrown at SauchieBurn and murdered after the battle. He was now twenty-four years of age, ofbrilliant parts, no mean scholar, an admirable athlete, and ambitious toraise the name of Scotland among the nations. His weakness lay mainly in aboyish impulsiveness, which often caused him to mar well-laid plans on thespur of the moment, and in an exaggerated fondness for chivalric ideas moreappropriate to a knight-errant than to a king or a leader of armies. Perkinappealed to him as early as 1492; and before the pretender's expeditionsailed, Tyrconnel, chief of the O'Donnells of the north-west of Ireland, presented himself in Scotland to renew the appeal. The antagonism ofScottish feeling to the ruling powers in England was chronic. There was atreaty of peace between England and Scotland, but the unfailing turbulenceof the borders kept each country constantly provided with a tolerableexcuse for accusing the other of having broken its engagements. James waswell within his rights in receiving the claimant; of the justice of whosetitle he evidently persuaded himself, since he bestowed a kinswoman of hisown upon him in marriage, Lady Katharine Gordon. In the summer of 1496 hewas making active preparations for an incursion into England on Warbeck'sbehalf; largely influenced no doubt by the promise that, should it provesuccessful, Berwick, which had been finally ceded to England fourteen yearsbefore, was to be once more surrendered to the Scots. The astute Henryturned all this to account, by impressing on the Spanish and Venetianagents the urgent necessity laid on him to abstain from military operationsagainst France while Scotland was so threatening. 

[Sidenote 1: A Scottish incursion (Sept. )][Sidenote 2: 1497]

James did in fact raid the North of England in September; but the incursionwas a raid and nothing more. Perkin, to the surprise and even contempt bothof Scots and English, protested against the sanguinary methods of borderwarfare, on behalf of the people whom he aspired to rule over. But thepeople themselves would have none of him. The expedition withdrew withouthaving produced even the semblance of a Yorkist rising. After that, Jamesno longer felt eager to plunge into a war on behalf of the pretender: butwas inclined to retain him as a political asset. When, in the followingyear (1497), Charles VIII. --with a precisely similar object in view--offered him a considerable sum if he would send his guest over to France, the Scots King declined. In July, however, Perkin sailed from Scotland, apparently with intent to try Ireland again, where Kildare was once moreDeputy. Henry had utilised the raid to obtain the recommendation of a largegrant and loans from the Great Council forthwith; Parliament, which wascalled for January (1497), ratifying the grant as a subsidy. The raising ofthe loans had, however, been proceeded with, without waiting. 

[Sidenote: The Cornish rising]

The defence of England against invading Scots was a matter of muchimportance to the northern counties, but lacked personal interest inCornwall. Year after year the King had been receiving subsidies to arm forimpending wars, borrowing, and levying benevolences. When a hostile Francewas the excuse, the population might murmur but was quite as willing to payas could reasonably be expected. But the Scots had never invaded Cornwall, and the Cornishmen felt that it was time to protest. They would march toLondon--peaceably, of course--to demand according to custom the removal ofthe King's evil counsellors; Morton and Bray, to wit, who probably usedtheir influence in reality to mitigate rather than intensify the royaldemands. The insurgent leaders were a blacksmith, Joseph, and a lawyer, Flamock--appropriate chiefs for working men trying honestly enough toformulate what they had been led to regard as a grievance of what we shouldnow call an unconstitutional character. With bills and bows, some thousandsof them started on their march; preserving their peaceable character, tillat Taunton the appearance of a commissioner for collecting the tax provedtoo much for their self-restraint, and the man was killed. A little laterthey were joined by Lord Audley, who became their leader. They expected themen of Kent, who of old had risen under Wat Tyler and again under JackCade, to take up the cause: but Kent did not recognise the similarity ofthe present conditions and gave them no welcome. 

[Sidenote: The suppression (June)]

Meantime, Henry had not been idle; but he saw that the insurgents were notrousing the country as they progressed, and therefore he judged that thefurther they were drawn away from their own country the better. Except fora slight skirmish at Guildford, the Cornishmen were not actively interferedwith till they encamped on Blackheath. Then, on June 17th, the royal forcesproceeded to envelop them. Some two thousand were slain on the field. Audley, the lawyer, and the blacksmith, were put to death as traitors; therest were pardoned, as having been not so much rebels as victims ofdemagogic arts. 

[Sidenote: Warbeck's final failure (Sept. )]

The policy of leniency was not entirely successful, for the Cornishmenimagined it merely meant that the King recognised the impossibility ofdealing sternly with every one who thought as they did. Warbeck, now inIreland, where he was not finding the sympathy for which he had hoped, received messages to the effect that if he came to Cornwall he would findplenty of supporters. He came promptly, with a scanty following enough; butonly a few thousand men joined him. He marched on Exeter, but that loyaltown stoutly refused to admit him, and his attempts to carry gates andwalls failed completely. Royal troops were on the march: the gentlemen ofDevon, headed by the Earl, were up for the King. Perkin marched to Taunton, and then fled by night to take sanctuary at Beaulieu in Hampshire, where hewas surrounded, and very soon submitted himself to the King's clemency. 

[Sidenote: The Scottish truce]

In the meantime the Scottish King, though his sentiments towards Perkin hadsensibly cooled, had no intention of leaving him in the lurch, and hadadvanced on Norham Castle very shortly after his protégé had sailed forIreland. The Earl of Surrey, however, who commanded in the north, was wellprepared, and very soon took the field with twenty thousand men. James wasobliged to withdraw, and though he challenged the Earl to single combatwith Berwick as the stake, Surrey replied that Berwick was not his propertybut his master's, and he must regretfully decline the proposed method ofarbitrament. He advanced over the border, making some captures and doingconsiderable damage; but after a week, commissariat difficulties made himretire in turn. In September Perkin's Cornish rising collapsed, and a sevenyears' treaty was entered upon between the two countries. 

[Sidenote: The end of Perkin Warbeck 1497-99]

Towards the pretender and his followers, the King behaved with his usualleniency. A few leaders only were put to death; other penalties werereserved. Warbeck was compelled publicly to read at Exeter and later inLondon a confession of the true story of his own origin and that of theconspiracy; and was then relegated to not very strict confinement undersurveillance. His supporters were allowed to purchase their pardon by heavyfines, which satisfactorily aided in the replenishment of the royaltreasury. 

The end of the pretender's story may be told in anticipation. It wasignominious and less creditable in its accompanying circumstances to Henry. In the summer of the next year, 1498, Perkin tried to escape, was promptlyrecaptured, set in the stocks, and required to read his confession publiclyboth in Westminster and London. He was then placed in strict confinement inthe Tower, where the luckless Warwick had been kept a prisoner for thirteenyears. The son of Clarence, still little more than a boy, was the onlyfigure-head left for Yorkist malcontents. Another attempt to impersonatehim by a youth named Ralph Wilford was nipped in the bud at the beginningof 1499; but Henry's nerve seems to have been seriously shaken by it, andprobably he now began to make up his mind to get rid of his kinsman. Thensome kind of conspiracy was concocted, in which both Warbeck and Warwickwere involved; on 23rd November, 1499, Perkin was hanged, and five dayslater Warwick was beheaded, dying as he had lived a victim to his name;suffering for no treason or wrong-doing of his own, but simply because hewas the nephew of Edward IV. 

[Sidenote: 1498 The situation]

When the year 1497 closed, the preliminaries of a Scottish peace had beenagreed upon; Perkin Warbeck was a prisoner: and the French King had alreadyfound his position in Italy untenable, and agreed to evacuate Naples andsurrender the crown. His death and the accession of the Duke of Orleans asLewis XII. In April of the next year further altered the face ofinternational politics, already changing with the final collapse of Warbeckand his disappearance as a pawn in the game. 

CHAPTER III

HENRY VII (iii), 1498-1509-THE DYNASTY ASSURED

[Sidenote: Scotland and England]

From time immemorial almost, it might be said that Scotland had been aperpetual menace to her southern neighbour. Since the days of Bruce shehad, it is true, been torn by ceaseless dissensions; a succession of longroyal minorities with intrigues over the regency, family feuds between thegreat barons, strong kings who found themselves warring on a turbulentnobility, weak ones who could exercise no control, had not given thecountry much chance of consolidation; but the one binding sentiment thatcould be relied on in a crisis was antagonism to England. To settle thequestion by conquest had been proved impossible. Scotland might beover-run, but she could not be held in subjection. If England's eyes werebent on France, she must still manage to keep a watch on the north: but solong as dissensions were raging, there was not much fear of anything moreserious than raiding expeditions. 

[Sidenote: Henry's Scottish policy]

To keep Scotland innocuous was a primary object with the Tudor King. At thetime when he grasped the sceptre of England, the King of Scots, James III. , was a feeble ruler surrounded by unpopular favourites, with a baronagepreparing to rise against him, and there was little danger to beapprehended. He was over-thrown and murdered in 1488. But James IV, whosucceeded to the throne was of a different type. He was only a boy, however, and Henry was not long in initiating a policy, more fullydeveloped by his descendants, of purchasing the support of leading nobles, notably at this time and for forty years to come, the Earls of Angus-withwhom there was a compact as early as 1491. James, however, soon provedhimself a popular and vigorous monarch, of a type which attracted theloyalty of his subjects, with a strong disposition to make his country aserious factor in the politics of the time, and by no means devoid ofpolitical sagacity despite his unfortunate impulsiveness and want ofbalance. To block Scotland out of the field by the simple process ofkeeping her thoroughly occupied with internal factions was not practicableunder these conditions, and the attitude of James in the affair of PerkinWarbeck showed that he must be taken into serious account. Henry'spolitical acuteness recognised in alliance with Scotland a more hopefulsolution of the national problem than in eternal strife. The idea of amatrimonial connexion had indeed once before, since the days of Edward I. , taken shape in the union of James I. To Jane Beaufort; but with littlepractical effect. This idea Henry revived in a form destined ultimately torevolutionise the relations of the two kingdoms. His own eldest daughterMargaret was but eighteen years younger than the King of Scots--quite nearenough for compatibility. From the time of the peace entered upon afterWarbeck's capture, Henry began to work with this marriage as one of hisobjects. His foresight and sagacity is marked by the fact that herecognised--and did not shrink from the possibility--that a Scottishmonarch might thus one day find himself heir to the throne of England. 

[Sidenote 1: France and England][Sidenote 2: 1498]

The peace-policy towards Scotland was facilitated by the development offriendly relations with France, especially after the accession of LewisXII. : for the traditional "auld alliance, " between France and Scotland, hadproved times out of mind too strong to be over-ridden by English treaties. If France wanted Scottish help, or Scotland wanted French help, there wasalways some excuse for rendering it; the plain truth being that no treatiescould restrain the forays and counter-forays of the border clans on bothsides of the Tweed, whether the Wardens of the Marches winked at them ornot; so that there was, in either country, a standing pretext for declaringthat the other had broken truce. An instance of these border difficultiesoccurred within a few months of the truce of December, 1497. A small partyof Scots crossed the border, and appeared in the neighbourhood of Norham. They were challenged, and replied--with insolence or with proper spirit, according to the point of view. Thereupon they were attacked by superiornumbers; some were slain; in the pursuit, damage was done on the north sideof the border. The Scots King felt that he had been outraged, and was onthe verge of breaking off all negotiations with his brother of England. Itrequired all the diplomatic skill of Fox (at this time Bishop of Durham), and the mediatorial efforts of the Spaniard Ayala to prevent a seriousbreach from resulting. 

[Sidenote: Marriage negotiations, 1498-1503]

The opportunity, however, was seized by Fox to emphasise his master'spacific intentions by bringing forward the proposal for the marriage ofJames with Margaret. Nevertheless, for the next twelve months, Henrydisplayed no eagerness in the matter. Margaret was only in her eighth year, so that in any case the marriage could not be completed for some time; butapart from that, there was already existing a project of marriage betweenJames and one of the Spanish princesses--which Spain had no real wish tocarry out, while James was disposed to push it. It would appear, therefore, that Henry meant to give effect to his own scheme, but did not intend Spainto feel free of the complication while it could be used as a means ofpressure. 

[Sidenote: Marriage of James IV, and Margaret 1503]

At last, however, in July, 1499, a fresh treaty of peace was concluded withScotland, but it was not till January, 1502, that the marriage treaty wasfinally ratified; the marriage to take place in September, 1503 (whenMargaret would be nearly thirteen), and the two Kings to render each othermutual aid in case either of them was attacked. James, however, declined tobind himself permanently to refuse renewal of the French alliance. Therewas much characteristic haggling over dower and jointure, matters in whichthe Tudors always drove the hardest bargain they could. The ceremony wasperformed by proxy, after the fashion of the times, the day after thetreaty was ratified; and the actual marriage took place at the time fixed, in the autumn of 1503--a momentous event, since it brought the Stuarts intothe direct line of succession, next to descendants of Henry in the maleline; and--inasmuch as one of Henry's sons had no children, and the otherno grandchildren--ultimately united on one head the Crowns of England andScotland, exactly one hundred years after the marriage. 

[Sidenote: Spain and England: marriage negotiations, 1488-99]

In the meantime the other and much older project for the union between thePrince of Wales and a daughter of Spain had been carried out. Originally, Henry's prime motive in this matter had been to secure a decisiverecognition of his dynasty by the sovereigns, whom he regarded as thegreatest political force in Europe. By this time, however, (1498), thestability of his throne and of the succession was no longer in peril; butSpain was still the Power whose alliance would give the best guaranteesagainst hostile combinations. Neither Spain nor England wished to beinvolved in war with France; but neither country could view heraggrandisement with complete equanimity. At the same time, while herambitions were chiefly directed to Italy both could afford for the mostpart to abstain from active hostilities. On the other hand, times hadchanged since Henry had been ready to go almost cap-in-hand to Ferdinandand Isabella for their support. The Spanish sovereigns were now quite asmuch afraid of his joining France as he was of any step that they couldtake. So the marriage treaty was ratified in 1497 on terms satisfactoryenough to Henry; and both in 1498 and 1499 proxy ceremonies took place. Inthe latter year, clauses left somewhat vague in the earlier treaties weregiven a clearer definition in a sense favourable to Henry. 

[Sidenote: 1499 Lewis XII]

The accession of Lewis XII. In 1497 affected French policy. Lewis requiredin the first place, to gain the friendship of the Pope Alexander VI. , inorder to obtain a divorce from his wife and a dispensation to marryCharles's widow, Anne of Brittany, so as to retain the duchy. In the secondplace, he claimed Milan as his own in right of his descent from ValentinaVisconti (not as an appanage of the French Crown). He was anxious then toconciliate both Spain and England, and ready to make concessions to both inorder to hold them neutral. His first steps, therefore, aimed at satisfyingthem, and at detaching the Archduke Philip from his father Maximilian; allof which objects were rapidly accomplished, England obtaining the renewalof the treaty of Etaples, with additional undertakings in the matter ofharbouring rebels. Lewis made separate treaties with Spain and with Philip;but the former remained none the less anxious on the score of a possiblefurther _rapprochement_ between France and England. 

[Sidenote: The Spanish marriage negotiation, 1499-1501]

So long as Perkin Warbeck had been able to pose as Richard of York, he wasnecessarily, to all who believed in him, the legitimate King of England. Setting him aside, it was still possible to argue for the Earl of Warwickas against his cousin Elizabeth, Henry's queen. But when Perkin and Warwickwere both put to death at the end of 1499, there was no arguable case forany one outside Henry's own domestic circle. Even if it were held thatHenry's title was invalid, and that a woman could not herself reign in herown right, Elizabeth's son had indisputably a title prior to any otherpossible claimant. It was stated, though the truth of the statement isdoubtful, that the Spanish sovereigns had never felt at ease as to thestability of the Tudor dynasty till November, 1499; but, at any rate, afterthat date they could not even for diplomatic purposes pretend to feel anyserious apprehensions. The year 1500 presents the somewhat curiousspectacle of Henry on one side and Ferdinand and Isabella on the other, each quite determined to carry through the marriage of Arthur andKatharine, but each also determined to make a favour of it. In thisdiplomatic contest, Henry proved the more skilful bargainer, though theSpaniards were adepts. He frightened them not a little by crossing theChannel and holding a conference with the Archduke Philip, which wassuspected of having for its object the negotiation of another marriage forthe Prince of Wales with Philip's sister (Maximilian's daughter) Margaret, who was already a widow. [Footnote: Margaret had been married to Don John, son of Ferdinand and Isabella; while Philip married their second daughterJoanna. Their eldest daughter married the Portuguese Infant. ] In fact, there was no such intention; but an agreement was actually made that PrinceHenry should many Philip's daughter, while the youngest Tudor princess, Mary, should be betrothed to Philip's infant son Charles, then a babe offour months, in after years the great Emperor Charles V. 

[Sidenote: Marriage of Prince Arthur and Katharine 1501]

So the marriage treaty was once more ratified. But it was not till thesummer of the next year (1501) that Katharine sailed from Spain; and inNovember the actual marriage took place with no little display. It isprobable, however, that Arthur and Katharine were still husband and wife inname only when, six months later, the Prince of Wales was stricken withmortal illness and died; leaving his brother Henry heir to the throne, anda fresh crop of matrimonial schemes to be matured. 

[Sidenote 1: 1502 New marriage schemes][Sidenote 2: 1504 Dispensation granted]

The truth was that Ferdinand of Aragon and Henry of England were men ofvery much the same type. Both were crafty diplomatists, cautious andlong-headed, not to be inveigled into rash schemes, keenly suspicious, masters of the art of committing themselves irrevocably to nothing; bothhad a keen appreciation of the value of money, and were experts at strikinga bargain; while each wanted the political support of the other. Each hadbeen working up to the matrimonial alliance which was now nullified byArthur's death. Ferdinand had already paid over half his daughter's dower;he now declared that the Princess and her dower ought to be returned toSpain. Henry argued on the other side that the balance of the dower shouldbe paid over. The Spaniards then proposed that the young widow should bebetrothed to the still younger prince, Henry; but at a comparatively earlystage in the negotiations over the new project, Henry's own queen died(February, 1503), and it was no long time before the English King began tocontemplate a new marriage for himself. He is even said [Footnote:Gairdner, _Henry VII. _ (_Twelve English Statesmen_), p. 190. Therumour was current, but it is doubtful whether it was more than a rumour;_cf. _ Busch, p. 378. ] to have thought of proposing that he should takehis own son's widow to wife. Logically, of course, as a mere question ofaffinity, the idea was not more inadmissible than that of Katharine'smarriage with Henry Prince of Wales; but it was infinitely more repellent, and Isabella was horrified at the suggestion. At any rate, nothing came ofit, and an agreement for the marriage of Katharine with the younger Henrywas ratified in the course of the year [Footnote: It was in the August ofthis same year (1503) that the other marriage, between James of Scotlandand Henry's elder daughter Margaret, was finally concluded. ]--subject, ofcourse, to a papal dispensation. This was obtained, during 1504, from thesuccessor of Alexander VI. , Pope Julius II. , and Isabella had thesatisfaction of seeing it before her death. Political exigencies had onlyrecently been accepted by Pope Alexander as justifying a dispensation forthe divorce of Lewis XII. From his wife, to enable him to marry Anne ofBrittany; but this dispensation of Pope Julius was destined to an immenseimportance in history--to be the hinge whereon swung open the gates of theEnglish Reformation. 

[Sidenote: 1499-1506 Affairs on the Continent]

The years from 1498 to 1503 had not been without importance in Franco-Spanish relations, more particularly with reference to the position of thetwo Powers in Italy. Lewis had made himself master of Milan in 1499; butthe kingdom of Naples presented a more difficult problem; since, afterdisposing of the reigning family, the French King would still find a rivalclaimant in Ferdinand of Spain. In 1500 these two monarchs agreed to apartition; but French and Spaniards quarrelled, war broke out, the Spanishcaptain Gonsalvo de Cordova expelled the French; and in 1508 Naples wasannexed to Aragon. A renewed attempt of France upon Naples in the followingyear proved a complete failure. 

In 1503 died the Borgia Pope, Alexander VI. --poisoned, as it was believed, by the cup he had intended for another. The personal wickedness ofAlexander and his relatives was the climax of papal iniquity, the_reductio ad absurdum_ of the claim of the Roman Pontiff to be therepresentative of Christ on earth. His immediate successor hardly survivedelection to the Holy See; and was followed by Julius II. , an energetic andmilitant Pope, who was bent on forming the Papal States into an effectivetemporal principality. 

In the next year Isabella of Castile died, and by her death the Europeansituation was again materially affected. While she lived she worked incomplete accord with her husband, Ferdinand of Aragon; her name stands highamong the ablest of European sovereigns. But with her death the Crowns ofCastile and Aragon were no longer united. Ferdinand was not King ofCastile; the sceptre descended to the dead Queen's daughter Joanna, [Footnote: The elder sister was already dead, as well as the one brother. ]and in effect to her husband, the Archduke Philip, Maximilian's son, andafter her to their son Charles. At the most, Ferdinand could hope only toexercise a dominant influence (converted after Philip's death in 1506 intopractical sovereignty as Regent), with a perpetual risk of Maximilianturning his flighty ambitions towards asserting himself as a rival. 

[Sidenote: The Earl of Suffolk 1499-1505]

Although both Warbeck and Warwick had been removed in 1499, Henry had notbeen altogether free from Yorkist troubles in the succeeding years. Edmundde la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, was brother of that Earl of Lincoln who hadfallen at the battle of Stoke, and son of a sister of Edward IV. The Earlhad not hitherto come forward as a claimant to the throne; but in 1499 hedeveloped a personal grievance against the King, and betook himself to theContinent, where a certain Sir Robert Curzon espoused his cause withMaximilian. At the time, nothing came of the matter; Henry was not afraidof Suffolk, whom he induced to return to England with a pardon. In 1501, however, the Earl again betook himself to the Continent and made a directappeal to Maximilian for assistance. But Henry was now on particularly goodterms with the Archduke Philip, and Maximilian was inclining to revert tofriendly relations with England. He was in his normal condition ofimpecuniosity, and Henry was prepared to provide a loan to help him in aTurkish war if his own rebellious subjects were handed over. The issue ofthese negotiations, towards the end of 1502, was a loan from Henry of fiftythousands crowns, and a promise from Maximilian to eject Suffolk and hissupporters. In the meantime several of Suffolk's accomplices were executedin England, including James Tyrrel who had abetted Richard III. In themurder of the Princes in the Tower; and [Footnote: See genealogical table(_Front_. ). ] William de la Pole and William Courtenay (son of the Earlof Devonshire) were imprisoned on suspicion of complicity. Suffolk, however, remained at Aix la Chapelle, Maximilian making him many promisesand providing inadequate supplies, while with equal lightness of heart--having got his loan--he left his pledges to Henry unfulfilled by anythingmore substantial than professions that he was doing his best to carry themout. In 1504 the migratory Earl had the misfortune to fall into the handsof the Duke of Gueldres, who detained him for use as circumstances mightdictate--to the annoyance of the Kings of France and Scotland, both of whomwished him to be handed over to the King of England. 

[Sidenote: 1505 Henry's position]

In 1505 then Henry's relations with all foreign Powers were satisfactory:that is, none of them were hostile and most of them were anxious for hisfriendship. In these later years, however, of Henry's reign he appearsconsistently in a more definitely unamiable light than before. The twocounsellors who, however thoroughly they endorsed his policy, had probablyexercised a moderating and refining influence--Cardinal Morton and ReginaldBray--were now both dead, and there is no doubt that Elizabeth of York, popular herself, had been a very judicious helpmeet to her husband. Moreover, though he was still by no means an old man, Henry was becomingworn out; yet he could never escape from dynastic anxieties, the youngerHenry being now his only son. Marriage schemes had always been prominentfeatures in his policy, and the marriage schemes for himself which heevolved one after the other in the closing years of his reign show him in asingularly unattractive light, at the same time that his financial methodswere growing increasingly mean, and his evasions of honourable obligationsincreasingly unscrupulous. 

Now the Duke of Gueldres was in conflict with the Archduke Philip--at thistime not only lord of the Burgundian domains, but also in right of his wifeKing of Castile and not on the best of terms with his father-in-law ofAragon. In 1505 Philip got possession in his turn of the person of Suffolk, by capturing the town where the Duke of Gueldres held him. Therefore duringthis year Henry became particularly anxious to make friends with Philip, and lent him money; having got which, Philip preferred placing his hostageagain in the hands of the Duke of Gueldres, who had submitted to him. 

[Sidenote: Schemes for his marriage]

Out of these conditions rose another futile suggestion of a marriage forHenry: who had already considered and dismissed the idea of marrying theyounger of the two living ex-Queens of Naples--both named Joanna--a nieceof Ferdinand of Aragon. The wife now proposed was Philip's sister, Margaret, who on her first widowhood had been spoken of as a possiblealternative to Katharine for Arthur of Wales. Since then, she had becomeMargaret of Savoy, the name by which she is generally known; but had beenwidowed a second time. This proposal probably came from Philip, but wasresolutely resisted by Margaret herself. 

[Sidenote: 1506 Philip in England]

In 1506 fortune favoured Henry. Philip sailed from the Netherlands inJanuary to take possession of the throne of Castile: but was driven on tothe English shores by stress of weather. The English King received himroyally, but while the utmost show of friendliness prevailed, Philip foundthat he had no alternative to acceptance of Henry's suggestions. Before theKing of Castile departed, he had not only entered on a treaty for mutualdefence against any aggressor, but had actually delivered over the personof the unhappy Suffolk [Footnote: So Busch. Gairdner is doubtful. ] to hissovereign, though under promise that he should not be put to death. Theprisoner, however, was committed to the Tower, and though Henry kept hisword, he is reported to have advised his son that the promise would not bebinding on him. At any rate Suffolk was executed, apparently withoutfurther trial, early in the next reign. His brother Richard, known as the"White Rose, " who had abetted him, remained abroad, and was ultimatelykilled in the service of Francis I. At the battle of Pavia in 1525, leavingno children. 

Philip had hardly departed from England when a new commercial treaty whichhe had authorised was signed with the Netherlands, terminating the war oftariffs which had again become active in recent years. This treaty, it isnot surprising to remark, was so favourable to England that incontradistinction to the older _Intercursus Magnus_ the Flemingsentitled it the _Intercursus Malus_. 

[Sidenote: Death of Philip]

The few remaining months of Philip's life were troubled. The position inCastile was difficult enough, and in his absence the Duke of Gueldres againrevolted, with some assistance from France. Henry interfered, as he wasbound to do by the recent treaty, not without some effect. But Philip'sdeath in September left his wife Joanna Queen of Castile, with her fatherFerdinand as Regent, and her young son Charles Lord of the Netherlands, with Margaret of Savoy at the head of the Council of Regency. Under thesenew conditions Henry agreed to modifications in the new commercial treaty, which indeed, as it stood, was almost impossible of fulfilment; probably inthe hope that his project of marriage with Margaret of Savoy might still becarried out, the dowry she would bring being very much more satisfactorythan that of Joanna of Naples. 

[Sidenote: 1507-8 Matrimonial projects]

In a very short time, however, Margaret had another rival, at least for thepurposes of diplomacy. This was Joanna of Castile, Philip's widow, whomHenry had seen in the spring of 1506. That her sanity was already very muchin question seems to have made very little difference. Throughout thegreater part of 1507 and 1508 the English King was making overtures toMargaret herself, and for Joanna to Ferdinand, blowing hot and cold in thematter of his son Henry and Katharine, and pushing on the betrothal of hisyounger daughter Mary with the boy Charles--a proposal brought forward, when the latter was but four months old, in 1500, but not at that timesedulously pressed. In part, at least, the explanation of all thisdiplomatic play lies in Henry's relations with Ferdinand. The King ofAragon, having lost his wife Isabella, wished to retain control of Castile;at the same time he was in difficulties about paying up the balance ofKatharine's dowry, without which Henry would not allow her marriage withhis son to go forward, while the luckless princess was kept scandalouslyshort of supplies. Henry certainly wished to put all the pressure possibleon Ferdinand to get the dowry; perhaps he seriously contemplated marriagewith Joanna as a means of himself depriving Ferdinand of control inCastile; the marriage of Charles to his daughter Mary would have a similaradvantage. On the other hand, if he married Margaret of Savoy he would getcontrol of the Netherlands, and still grasp at the control of Castilethrough Charles, while playing off the boy's two grandfathers, Maximilianand Ferdinand, against each other. Henry was in fact paying Ferdinand backin his own coin; but the picture is an unedifying one, of craft againstcraft, working by sordid methods for ends which had very little to do withpatriotism and no connexion with justice. 

[Sidenote: 1508 The League of Cambrai]

If, however, it was now Henry's primary object to isolate Ferdinand so thathe could impose his own terms on him, the object was not attained. Maximilian had just taken up a new idea--the dismemberment of Venice; anobject which appealed both to Lewis of France and to Pope Julius. Ferdinand could generally reckon that if he joined a league he would manageto get more than his share of the spoils for less than his share of thework. The League of Cambrai--a simple combination for robbery withoutexcuse--was formed at the end of 1508. Henry was left out, for which, indeed, he cared little, knowing that the process of spoliation wouldinevitably result in quarrels among the leaguers. But though he advancedthe arrangements for the marriage of Charles and Mary so far as to have aproxy ceremony performed, the marriage project with Joanna was withdrawn, and his overtures were also finally declined by Margaret of Savoy. 

[Sidenote: Wolsey]

In the last year of his life, however, his diplomatic successor--destinedto outshine him in his own field--came into employment as a negotiator. Itwas Thomas Wolsey who probably carried through the arrangement for theunion with Charles; Wolsey also who re-established friendly relations withScotland, which had been becoming seriously strained. In 1505 James hadmore definitely promised not to renew the French alliance; but hadconsidered himself absolved from this and other obligations, on the usualground of border raids, in which Wolsey himself admitted that the Englishhad been very much more guilty than the Scots. 

[Sidenote: 1509 Death of Henry VII. ]

But Henry's own days were numbered. As a boy and as a young man he hadlived a hard life; throughout the four-and-twenty years of his reign he hadnever been free from the strain of anxiety, never relaxed his labours, never allowed himself to cast his cares upon other shoulders. In 1508 hehad a serious illness, from which he never fully recovered; in the earlyspring of 1509 his health finally and fatally broke down. On April 21stthe founder of the Tudor dynasty and of the Tudor system left the throne, which he had won by the sword, to a son, whose right by inheritance wasbeyond dispute. 

CHAPTER IV

HENRY VII (iv), 1485-1509--ASPECTS OF THE REIGN

[Sidenote: 1485 Henry's position]

The task before Henry when he ascended the throne was a difficult one. Hehad to establish a new dynasty with a very questionable title, underconditions which could not have allowed any conceivable title to passwithout risk of being challenged. It was therefore necessary for him notmerely to buttress his hereditary claim by marrying the rival whose titlewas technically the strongest, and securing the pronouncement of Parliamentin his favour, together with such adventitious sanction as a Papal Bullafforded; but further to make his subjects contented with his rule. 

Two things were definitely in his favour. The old nobility who between thespirit of faction and the love of fighting had kept the country in a stateof turmoil for half a century were exhausted--not merely decimated butalmost wiped out; while the mass of the population was weary of war andready to welcome almost any one who could and would provide orderlygovernment. The country was craving to have done with anarchy. 

[Sidenote: Studied legality]

A firm hand and a resolute will were thus the primary necessities; buttired as the nation was, it was still ready to resent a flagrant tyranny. The Yorkist Kings had seen that absolutism was the condition of stability;Henry perceived that, applied as they had applied it, the stability wouldstill be wanting. He had to find a mean between the wantonly arbitraryabsolutism which had been attempted a century before by Richard II. Andrecently by Edward IV. And Richard III. On the one hand, and on the otherhand the premature application of constitutional ideas under the House ofLancaster. The actual method evolved was the concentration of all controlin the hands of the King, accompanied by an ostentatious deference to theforms of procedure which were liable to be put forward as popular rights, and a very keen attention to the limits of popular endurance. 

Thus Henry's first step was to summon Parliament and follow the Lancastrianprecedent of obtaining its ratification of his own title to the throne. Thenext step, necessitated by his position, was to cut the claws of theYorkists as a faction by striking at Richard's principal supporters. Thiscould only be done effectively by treating them as traitors--a proceedingwhich could not but savour of tyranny, since they had at any rate beensupporting the _de facto_ King: so again Henry took the only means ofminimising the arbitrary character of his action, by obtainingparliamentary sanction. Some ten years later, at the time of PerkinWarbeck's attempted landing at Deal, he procured the remarkable enactmentthat support of a _de facto_ King should not in the future beaccounted as treason to the successor who dethroned him--a measurecharacterised by Bacon, writing a hundred years later, as too magnanimousto be politic. In 1485 it would have been so; but at the actual time Henrywas himself the _de facto_ monarch; he had no wish to punish hispredecessor's supporters further; and he was really providing an inducementto his subjects to be loyal to the ruling dynasty. At the same time hecould pose as advocating abstract justice in preference to the prevailingpractice by which he had himself profited; strengthening his own hands infact, while in theory he was introducing into politics the recognition ofan ethical principle which--as it happened--no longer conflicted with hisown advantage. 

[Sidenote: Policy of lenity]

In fact Henry had an unusual perception of the political uses of ajudicious leniency: but the leniency was deliberate and considered. Hecould also strike hard, on occasion. The rebels who were taken in thefighting near Deal met with scant mercy; and a very few months earlier, theexecution of the apparently trusted and powerful William Stanley had been asharp reminder that the royal clemency could not be taken for granted. Three years later he carried severity altogether beyond the limits ofjustice in executing Warwick. But as a rule he was lenient to a degreewhich had even its dangers. Simnel was treated as of too small account tobe worth punishing. Warbeck from his capture till his attempt to escape wasmaintained in comfort and almost in freedom. Suffolk's earlier escapadeswere pardoned. Kildare was repeatedly forgiven, and really converted into aloyal subject. The Cornish insurgents of the Blackheath episode were dealtwith so tenderly that they took clemency for weakness. Warbeck's Cornishrising was turned conveniently to account for the replenishment of theroyal treasury by the infliction of fines, but no one who had supported itcould complain of harsh treatment; rather they must have felt in every casethat they had been let off very easily according to all precedents. 

Even when Lovel's and Simnel's risings were in actual progress, pardonswere offered to such of the rebels as would make haste to repent; and therewas no withdrawal of those pardons afterwards on more or less plausiblepretexts, in the manner of preceding Kings and of Henry's successor afterthe Pilgrimage of Grace. Broadly speaking it was the King's policy toemphasise the fact that he had no intention of attempting to play thetyrant, or to vary a rash generosity by capricious blood-thirstiness, likeRichard III. The sole victim of tyrannous treatment in this sensethroughout the reign was the unhappy Warwick. 

[Sidenote: Repression of the nobles]

But the attitude of strict conformity to law was entirely compatible withthat steady concentration of all real control in the King's hands, whichwas the leading object of Henry's policy. For this purpose the primarycondition was that none of his subjects should be sufficiently powerful tochallenge his authority and raise the standard of revolt, as the King-Makerand others had done in the past. The old nobility were practically wipedout. Insignificant husbands were chosen for the daughters of York. Theblood of the Plantagenets ran in the veins of the house of Buckingham; butit was only in the last generation that the De la Poles had mated with theroyal house, and their estates were much diminished; the Howards hadsuffered as supporters of Richard. Surrey indeed was deservedly restoredto grace; but no amount of personal loyalty or of royal favour exempted thenobles from the severe restriction of the old practice of maintainingretainers in such numbers as to form a working nucleus for a fightingforce; nor were they allowed to accumulate wealth dangerously. Henry waswell pleased that his subjects should gather sufficient riches to feel astrong interest in the maintenance of order, but not enough to use it tocreate disorder. 

Beyond this, however, he was careful to employ the nobles as ministers nomore than he could help. He laid the burdens of statesmanship as much aspossible on the clergy--on Morton and Fox and Warham. Fox, as Bishop ofDurham, played a part in the relations of England and Scotland at least asinfluential as that of Surrey. After Morton's death Warham becameChancellor. Yet each of these three bishops felt happier in the conduct ofhis ecclesiastical functions than as a minister of the Crown. All three didworthy and conscientious service, but would willingly have withdrawn fromaffairs of State. They were counsellors, not rulers; the one real ruler wasthe King himself. 

While the King restrained the power of the nobility as military factors inthe situation, he developed his own control of military force by therevival of the militia system, always theoretically in force, butpractically of late displaced by the baronial levies; and his hands werefurther strengthened by the possession of the only train of artillery inthe realm, the value of which was markedly exemplified in the suppressionof the Cornish insurgents. 

[Sidenote: The Star Chamber]

Another instrument in the King's hands, invaluable for the purpose ofholding barons and officials in check, was the institution which came to beknown as the Star Chamber. [Footnote: _Cf. _ Maitland in _SocialEngland_, vol. Ii. , p. 655, ed. 1902; Busch, p. 267. ] Beside thedevelopment of the House of Peers as the highest court of judicature in therealm, the development of the Great Council on similar lines had long beengoing on. The two bodies differed somewhat in this way--that the peers hadthe right of summons to the former, when the judges might be called in totheir assistance; whereas there were _ex officio_ members of theCouncil who were not peers, and considerable uncertainty prevailed as tothe right of peers as peers to attend the Council. The customary powers ofthe Council arose from the need of a court too powerful and independent tobe in danger of being intimidated or bribed by influence or wealth, able topenalise gross miscarriage of justice fraudulently procured, and to take inhand cases with which the ordinary courts would have had grave difficultyin dealing. In exercising this function the Council practically came toresolve itself into a judicial committee, meeting in a room known as theStar Chamber, and its authority was regularised by Act of Parliament in1487. Absorbing into its hands offences in the matter of "maintenance" and"livery, "--_i. E. _, broadly speaking, practices which the nobility hadindulged in for the magnification of their households, and the provision ofa military following--and being peculiarly subject to the royal influence, it was exceedingly useful to the King in keeping the baronage withinbounds. Following, on the other hand, a procedure analogous to that of theecclesiastical courts, unchecked by juries, and having authority to punishofficers of the law whom it found guilty of illegal or corrupt practices, its influence was gradually extended, so that the fear of it guided thejudgments of inferior courts. Under Henry VII. , however, its functions wereexercised at least mainly in the cause of justice--they were used, notabused--to the public satisfaction, as well as to the strengthening of theKing's own hands. The moderation with which Henry used the powers he wasaccumulating concealed the latent possibility of the misuse of those samepowers by a capricious or arbitrary monarch. 

[Sidenote: Henry's use of Parliament]

Not less conspicuous is Henry's application of the same principles in hisdealings with Parliament. He was careful, as we have seen, to secure forhis own claims the sanction of the National Assembly, and to give duerecognition to the authority of the estates of the realm. But he gave it noopportunity of acquiring powers of initiative, and he directed hisfinancial policy to placing himself in such a position that he could escapethat extension of its controlling powers, which naturally followed whenevera King found himself dependent on it for supplies. Throughout the firsthalf of his reign he summoned frequent Parliaments, obtaining considerablegrants on the pretext of foreign wars which were in themselves popular; buthe turned the wars themselves to account by evading extensive militaryoperations, and securing cash indemnities when peace was made. He evenresorted, when a serious emergency arose, to benevolences, which wereillegal; but he first secured the approval of the Council, which couldstill act to some degree as a substitute for Parliament when theLegislature was not in session, and he afterwards obtained the ratificationof Parliament itself. By this means he obtained more than sufficient forthe actual expenditure; in the meantime accumulating additional treasure byforfeitures from rebels and fines for transgression of the law. We havealready observed his method of consistently resorting to pecuniarypenalties as an apparently lenient form of punishment, which convenientlyreplenished his treasury. Thus, during the latter part of his reign, he wasable to do without Parliaments almost entirely; supplementing his revenuesthrough his agents Empson and Dudley, who made it their business todiscover pretexts for enforcing fines under colour of law, and often withthe flimsiest pretence of real justice. 

[Sidenote: Financial exactions]

It was in this field that Henry overstepped his normal policy of not onlyworking through the law but avoiding misuse of it. For the filling ofHenry's treasury, the law was abused. The exactions of Empson and Dudleywere made possible by the statute of 1495, empowering judges, uponinformation received, to initiate in their own courts trials of offenderswho were supposed to have escaped prosecution through the corruption orintimidation of juries. Empson and Dudley being appointed judges found itan easy task to provide informers, who laid before them charges on which acase could be made out for fining the accused. In theory, of course, theKing was not responsible, and the guilty judges paid the penalty with theirlives early in the following reign. But the King did in fact get his fullshare of the discredit attaching; and perhaps his methods in thisparticular have been emphasised out of proportion to other traits in hischaracter and policy by popular writers. There is some reason to doubt ifHenry was ever quite fully aware of the extent to which these extortionswere distortions of law; and there is no doubt at all that Empson andDudley did not conduct their operations with a single eye to their master'sbenefit, but contrived to intercept ample perquisites on their own account. The statute was soon repealed under Henry VIII. 

[Sidenote: Trade theories]

Modern economic theories depend for their validity on the postulates of thetransferability of capital and of labour. In proportion to the limitationof the industries possible to a community, their laws apply, or fail toapply, within that community. The development of a new industry may beimpossible, in the competition with established rivals, without artificialassistance--assistance given to that industry at the expense of thecommunity at large; the preservation of an existing industry may demandlike assistance. When the labour and capital employed can be transferredproductively to another industry, it is obviously better that the transfershould take place, and the failing industry lapse, than that the communityshould be charged with maintaining an industry which cannot support itself--whether or no the competitors driving it out of the market are enabled todo so only by like extraneous assistance. When the capital and the labourcannot be transferred, but the industry can be maintained by assistance, the question becomes one of weighing the cost of maintenance to thecommunity against the injury to the community from the collapse of theindustry. Thus in any state with its commerce in the making, when thetransferability of capital and labour is at best in dispute, the theory ofbuying in the cheapest market, wherever it is to be found, is not infavour. It is held better to raise the prices to the point at which thenative product pays its native producers. In mediaeval times the foreignerwas _prima facie_ a person who came not to bring trade but toappropriate it. Hence he was subjected to regulations, limitations andcharges for permission to carry on his operations. The next stage isreached when reciprocal free trade is recognised as an advantage and mutualconcessions are made, restrictions and duties becoming, so to speak, implements of war, often enough proving two-edged. 

[Sidenote: Henry's commercial policy]

Henry VII. Was not an economist far in advance of the theories of his age;but economic considerations, as they were then understood, carried muchmore weight, and generally played a much larger part in his policy than wascustomary with the king-craft of the times, or with state-craft outside thecommercial republic of Venice, the commercial association of German Freecities known as the Hansa or Hanseatic League, and the Netherlands. Accordingly we find him using every available means to obtain a footing infresh foreign markets for the main English products of his day--wool andwoollen goods; to secure for English merchants the rights and privilegeswhich would enable them to compete on equal terms with the foreigner, andto curtail those privileges of the foreigner in England. In the matter ofwool, the primacy of the English article was so thoroughly established thatlittle extraneous aid was required. But with manufactured woollen goods thecase was different, since the Flemings held the lead; and shipping alsodemanded artificial encouragement--first, because it was necessary toenterprise in the development of the export trade, at present largelycarried on in foreign bottoms; second, because the King was, at least tosome extent, alive to the strategic uses of a fleet which could berequisitioned for war purposes. 

[Sidenote: The Netherlands trade]

The great mart for English wool was the Netherlands, whose manufacturingbusiness required the raw product: the Netherlanders were more dependent onEngland than the English were on them. Hence this trade was used by Henrythroughout his reign as a political lever--a means to political ends ratherthan an end in itself. If his own subjects suffered from a customs war, Philip's suffered more. So long as Burgundy made trouble on behalf ofPerkin Warbeck the battle went on. In 1496 Philip gave up the contest, andthe _Intercursus Magnus_ followed. Soon after the beginning of the newcentury the fight was renewed, to be terminated by what the Flemings calledthe _Intercursus Malus_, an arrangement so one-sided and pressing sohard on them that its terms were practically impossible of fulfilment; andHenry assented to their modification before his death, partly with a viewto overcoming the reluctance of Margaret of Savoy to accept his matrimonialovertures. 

[Sidenote: The Hansa]

When Henry came to the throne, he found the export trade mainly in thehands of two foreign groups--the Hansa, who had acquired privileges inEngland which they did not reciprocate, and the Venetians, who held theirown without privileges by superior commercial acuteness--and of two Englishgroups, the Merchants of the Staple, who controlled the wool markets, andthe Merchant Adventurers, who were mainly interested in the manufacturedgoods. The King therefore followed a consistent policy of straining, in arestrictive sense, the interpretation of the concessions made to the Hansa, of emphasising grievances against them and of pressing for counter-privileges; and he successfully negotiated with Denmark in 1489 acommercial treaty, which interfered with the Hansa monopoly of theScandinavian trade, by placing English merchants on a competitive footingwith them. In a similar manner, he brought pressure to bear on theVenetians by opening direct relations with the Florentines at their port ofPisa. It is curious to note incidentally that the export dues on raw woolwere enormously heavier than those on the manufactured goods; thedifference being made in order to encourage the home sale of the wool andto stimulate the home manufacture by this means, as well as by encouragingthe foreign sale of the manufactured goods. It is also observable that whenan attempt was made by the London merchants to capture the worsted trade, Henry nipped it in the bud. It was no part of his policy to allowcorporations--any more than individuals--to become powerful enough todemand terms for their political support. 

[Sidenote: The Navigation Acts]

Recognising, as we saw, the commercial advantage to England of doing herown carrying trade and of multiplying ships and seamen, Henry--tentativelyat first, but with increasing confidence--adopted artificial methods ofencouraging this branch of industry, at the expense of free competition. Very early in the reign a Navigation Act required that goods shipped forEngland from certain foreign ports should be embarked on English vessels, during a specified period. Then the Act was renewed for a longer period, and finally without a time limit, and with more extended application. Agreat impetus was given to English shipping, with momentous results whichcan hardly have entered into Henry's calculations. He could not haveanticipated the vast extensions of empire which were to be the prize of thenations with ocean-going navies, with the ocean itself for the greatbattlefield; or even the extent to which commerce and naval preponderancewere destined to go hand in hand. The monopoly of the States with aMediterranean sea-board was coming to an end. 

[Sidenote: Voyages of discovery]

Yet it was in his reign that the vast change was initiated. In 1492Christopher Columbus made his great voyage: in 1497 Vasco da Gama sailedfor India, not westwards but southwards and eastwards round the Cape ofGood Hope. Ten years later, Albuquerque was founding a Portuguese Empire inthe Indian seas. Spain and Portugal, pioneers of the great movement, ledthe way, one in the new world of the West, the other in the fabled world ofthe East; where for many a year to come they were to divide a monopolyauthorised by the Papal Bull of Alexander VI. Before another centuryclosed, their dominion was to be challenged by England grown mighty and byHolland emancipated. As yet, however, men dreamed only formless if gorgeousdreams of what the unknown realms might bring forth. England played no verylarge part in these early voyages. Christopher Columbus, craving todiscover a westerly route to the Indies, and failing of Portuguese support, sent his brother Bartholomew to petition the English King for aid; butBartholomew was captured by pirates. Ultimately he reached England, butbefore he could achieve his purpose, Christopher had found other helpers;the prize fell to Ferdinand and Isabella. The first historic expeditionwhich sailed from English ports was captained not by an Englishman but byanother Italian, John Cabot, and his son Sebastian, in 1497. The Cabotswere Venetians who had for some time been established at Bristol. Theyaimed for a north-west passage, and found Labrador and Newfoundland, cold, inhospitable, producing no wealth: the explorers who sailed under Spanishauspices struck the wealthy and entrancing regions of the south. There waslittle enough material inducement beyond the simple spirit of enterprise toattract capital to expend itself in aid of the Bristol men who followed inthe wake of Cabot. Henry deserves full credit for the encouragement andactual pecuniary help which he rendered at first, and no blame for itsdiscontinuation. The daring of the adventurers was but ill repaid for thetime; yet a mighty harvest was to be reaped by England in the days to come. 

[Sidenote: The rural revolution]

If England, however, did not for more than half a century turn the newdiscoveries to material account, wealth and prosperity did increase greatlyin the towns, and the country recovered her lost position among thecommercial nations--partly from Henry's policy directed to that end, partlyfrom the comparatively settled conditions of life which graduallyprevailed. In the agricultural districts, however, this was hardly thecase, owing to the increasing tendency to substitute pasture forcultivation. The country had no difficulty in producing sufficient for itsown consumption; and the development of the woollen manufacture madesheep-farming in particular much more lucrative. But sheep-farming calledfor the employment of many fewer hands; proprietors dispossessed smalltenants to make large sheep-runs; migration from the rural districts to thenascent manufacturing centres was not a simple matter; and thus there wasno little distress, and a great multiplication of beggars and vagabonds. The monasteries, which in the past had been progressive farmers, haddegenerated into landlords easy-going indeed but without enterprise. Thewealth of the gentry increased, but unemployment increased also, and labourat the same time became cheaper. The evil was to a great extent realised;in the Isle of Wight, which was rapidly becoming depopulated, an attemptwas made to improve matters by limiting the size of farms; the heavy exportduties on raw wool were doubtless intended actually to restrict the outputas well as to divert it to English rather than foreign manufacturers; butsince this did not effectively check the growing demand at home, theproduction of wool remained so lucrative that it continued to be moreattractive than cultivation. Attempts were made to transfer labour fromagriculture to manufacture by interfering with, the restrictions imposed bythe trade-guilds (which always aimed at making themselves close bodies), the object of such legislation being quite as much to prevent idleness asto relieve distress. Nevertheless, the evil grew. Sir Thomas More in hisintroduction to the _Utopia_, written early in the next reign, gives avigorous sketch of the prevalent vagabondage just before the death ofCardinal Morton, adding to the causes above mentioned the number of lackeysemployed by the wealthy who when dismissed became a useless burden on thecommunity. He also charges the land-owners, expressly including many abbotsand others of the clergy, with causing depopulation and misery by forcingup rents. From him too as well as from other sources we learn of thefrequency of crimes of violence, attributed by him to the recklessemployment of the death penalty for minor offences, encouraging thefugitive criminal--already doomed if caught--to take life withouthesitation. 

[Sidenote: The Church]

To a certain extent, then, we have to note among the causes of change inrural districts the failure of the monasteries to discharge their oldfunction of agricultural leadership. In other respects, also, thesecommunities had fallen from the high standards of earlier days. Disciplinewas lax. Visitations instituted by Cardinal Morton revealed the presence ofgross immorality, not only among the very small houses, but in so great aninstitution as the Abbey of St. Albans, where the highest officials wereguilty of the gravest misbehaviour; and the correspondence seems to implythat the disapprobation was by no means in proportion to the offences, fromwhich it is fair to infer that no high standard was normally expected. Themost to be looked for was an absence of flagrant misconduct. The clergywere much more particular about ceremonial observances and ecclesiasticalprivileges than about the morals either of themselves or of their flocks. But as yet there was no sign of a coming Reformation. Lollardry, it istrue, had never been killed; its anti-clerical propaganda was by no meansinactive. But it worked beneath the surface, and could not be taken toindicate an approaching convulsion. The greatest Churchmen of the day, Morton, Warham and Fox, were absorbed--albeit reluctantly--in affairs ofState. Blameless, even austere in their own lives, patrons of learning, sincerely pious, they lacked the Reformer's passion, without which it wasvain to combat the _vis inertiae_; generated by long years of clericalsloth, and of the formalism by which the highest Mysteries were vulgarlydistorted into superstitions and Faith into ceremonial observances. 

[Sidenote: Henry and Rome]

The first Tudor himself was a pious man, as piety was reckoned: punctual inobservances, commended and complimented by Popes. His chapel in WestminsterAbbey is evidence of his zeal in one direction; he gave alms with abusiness-like regard to their post-mortem efficacy. Throughout his reignthe Popes made much talk of a new crusade, and Henry seems to have been theone European monarch who took the idea seriously. It is true that whenAlexander VI. Appealed in 1500 for funds to that end, the English Kingpreferred to be excused; but the polite irony of his refusal was more thanjustified by his confidence that if the Pope got the money it would not beexpended for the benefit of Christendom; moreover, he did actually handover four thousand pounds. In fact, he took the Church as he found it. There was but one almost infinitesimal curtailment of ecclesiasticalprivileges in his reign, necessitated by political considerations andaccepted by the Pope, whereby the right of Sanctuary was withdrawn in casesof treason. 

[Sidenote: Learning and letters]

Practically it is only in the beginnings of an educational revival that wefind promise of the dawn of a new order. It was in Henry's reign that thestudy of Greek, and with it the new criticism, began to establish itself. Grocyn and Linacre led the way. In the last decade of the century JohnColet was lecturing at Oxford, the apostle of the new learning on itsreligious side; calling his pupils to the study of the Scripturesthemselves, rather than of the schoolmen or doctors of the Church; treatingthem as organic treatises, not as collections of texts. There he won thefriendship of young Thomas More; thither on flying visits came Erasmustwice. Colet, made Dean of St. Paul's about 1505, continued to carry on hiseducational work as the founder of the famous St. Paul's School; winningrenown also as a great preacher and a fearless moralist; a man of richlearning, of a reverent enthusiasm, of a splendid sincerity, of a noblesimplicity; the prophet of much that was best, and of nothing that was notbest, in the coming Reformation. 

But during Henry's reign Colet's figure is almost the only one--apart fromsuch representatives of erudition and scholarship as Grocyn and Linacre--which stands forth holding out a promise of intellectual and moralprogress. In effect there was no literature; in this respect Scotland wasin advance of England with the verse of William Dunbar. More's_Utopia_ was still unwritten. When Henry died the Universities had notyet, or had only just, received within their portals the men who were tofight the theological battle of the Reformation. More than half a centurywas to pass before the splendid sunrise of the Shakespearian era. 

[Sidenote: Henry's character]

It has hardly, perhaps, been the custom to render full justice to thefounder of the Tudor dynasty. His reign is stamped with a character sordidand unattractive. There is no romance in it, no clashing of arms, novaliant deeds, no suggestion of the heroic. The King's enemies are, for themost part, contemptible persons; the King himself is a cold-blooded, long-headed ruler, merciful indeed, but from policy, not from generosity, and of a meanness in money matters very far from royal. Yet he was notwithout virtues. He was not unjust; he was a statesman more loyal to hispledges than most of his contemporaries or their successors. He gavesomething like order and rest to a distracted land, and raised her again toa position at least respectable among the nations, securing himself on amost unstable throne without resorting to the usual methods of the tyrant. Had he died when Morton died, the baser aspects of his reign would neverhave achieved so unlovely a prominence as they have done. 

The truth is, indeed, that judged by the first half of his reign aloneHenry might have been numbered among the princes with a title to beregarded almost with affection. It is only in the light of the later yearsthat even his financial policy really assumes a mean aspect, thoughoccasionally it came perilously near what may be called sharp practice--andthe excuse was great, seeing that a full treasury was an absolutelynecessary condition of establishing the new rule. The imprisonment ofWarwick was an act of palpable injustice, yet the risk of letting him gofree would have been enormous. In another ruler than Henry, the leniencywhich we attribute to astute policy would have been freely described assurprising magnanimity. He never betrayed a loyal servant. His genuineappreciation of the true spirit of chivalry was shown when he took Surrey[Footnote: Surrey, the son of "Jockey of Norfolk, " Richard's supporter, wasimprisoned in the Tower. At the time of Simnel's insurrection his gaoleroffered to let him escape, but he refused, saying that the King had senthim to confinement, and only from the King would he accept release. ] fromthe Tower to entrust him with high command in the North. The luckless LadyKatharine Gordon, the wife of Perkin Warbeck, was treated with remarkablecourtesy and liberality. There was even a genial humour in the King'sbehaviour to Kildare. His own marriage he doubtless looked upon as a purelypolitical affair; but while his wife lived his loyalty to his marriage vowis in strong contrast to the general licentiousness of the princes of hisday; and the picture of Henry and Elizabeth striving in turn to comforteach other on Prince Arthur's death, as recorded by a contemporary, [Footnote: Gairdner, _Chron. _, i. , p. 36; Leland's _Collectanea_, v. , p, 373. ] can hardly be fitted on to the conception of Henry as a manalmost without the more tender feelings of humanity. 

[Sidenote: Deterioration after 1499]

Yet all this is forgotten or discoloured by reason of the ugly picture ofthose later days when Morton and Prince Arthur and Elizabeth were gone. Itseems, indeed, as though a certain moral deterioration had set in from thetime when Henry made up his mind to do violence to his conscience by makingaway with Warwick in 1499. Morton, his wisest counsellor, of whom Moregives a most attractive portrait in the _Utopia_, died the next year;Arthur, whom he loved, in the spring of 1502; Elizabeth, always a refiningand softening influence, within a twelvemonth of Arthur. To these latteryears belong almost entirely the extortions of Empson and Dudley; the harshtreatment of Katharine of Aragon, a helpless hostage in his hands; therevolting proposal for a union with the crazy Joanna of Castile. This viewis further borne out when we observe that in these years also his politicalforesight degenerates into craftiness, personal animosities playing alarger part. The intellectual falling off is hardly less marked than themoral. For the personal repute of a King who was almost, if not quite, oneof the great, it is to be regretted that his last years have cast apermanent cloud over a reign which emphatically made for the good of thenation over which he ruled. 

CHAPTER V

HENRY VIII (i), 1509-27--EGO ET REX MEUS

[Sidenote: Europe in 1509]

Roughly speaking, the forty years preceding the accession of Henry VIII. Had witnessed the birth of modern Europe. The old feudal conception ofChristendom had passed away: the modern conception of organic States hadtaken its place. The English Kings had for some time ceased to hold sway inFrance, whether as claimants to the throne or as great feudatories. Franceherself had become a united and aggressive nation; the fusion of theSpanish monarchies was almost completed: the Emperor was no longer regardedas the titular secular head of Christendom, but was virtually the chief ofa loose Germanic confederation. The Turk, finally established in EasternEurope, was shortly to find himself regarded as a possible ally ofChristian Powers; Christendom still reckoned the Pope as its spiritualhead, but the cataclysm was already preparing; and the enterprise of daringseamen had but just rent the veils that had hidden from the nations ofEurope the boundless possibilities of a new world in the West and anancient world in the East, converting the pathless ocean into the greatHighway. 

[Sidenote: England's position in Europe]

Since the death of the conqueror Henry V. , England herself had been rentand torn by internal broils. For many a long year she had taken but littleshare in the affairs of Europe. But it had been the part of the first TudorKing to win for her breathing time; to secure a period for rest andinternal recuperation, which should fit her to hold her own in the counselsof Europe should her interests demand it. The civil broils were ended;trade had revived; wealth had been accumulating. Henry had not soughtmilitary glory, but he had played the game of diplomacy with acuteness andfinesse. When he ascended the throne, the princes of Europe had regardedEngland as a Power that might safely be neglected unless she could be usedas a cat's-paw; but before he died they had learned that they could nolonger negotiate with him except on equal terms. In a sense, perhaps, it istrue that England was still reckoned as no more than a third-rate[Footnote: _Cf. _ Brewer, _Reign of Henry VIII. _, i. , p. 3;Creighton, _Wolsey_, p. 11. The estimate, however, seems to be ratherthe outcome of an inclination to magnify Wolsey's achievement. ] power, since her military prestige had fallen and the chances of its restorationwere untested, while her interests would not naturally lead her into activeparticipation in European complications; but she had at least achievedsufficient importance for the Powers to desire her favour rather than herill-will, and for herself to be able to put a price on her support when itwas asked. 

[Sidenote: The new King]

So far, however, it was rather respect for the personal ability of HenryVII. Than a high estimate of the English nation that had secured theEnglish position; and when the astute old monarch was succeeded on thethrone by a frank, high-spirited lad of eighteen, the Princes of Europeflattered themselves that England would revert to the position of acat's-paw. From this point of view the first beginnings of the reign werepromising. Europe, however, was soon to be undeceived; to discover that theyoung King had an unfailing eye for a capable minister, a sincere devotionto his own interests, and an unparalleled power of reconciling the dictatesof desire and conscience. 

At home, circumstances combined to render Henry extraordinarily popular. Handsome, endowed with a magnificent physique, a first-rate performer inall manly exercises, gifted with many accomplishments, scholar enough to beproud of his scholarship, open of hand, frank and genial of manner, with aboyish delight in his endowments and a boyish enthusiasm for chivalricideals, all English hearts rejoiced in his accession. The scholars lookedforward to a Saturnian age; his martial ardour fired the hopes of thefighting men; the populace hailed with joy a King who began his rule bystriking down the agents of extortion to whom he owed the wealth inheritedfrom his economical sire. Henry in fact was blessed with the most valuableof all possessions for a ruler of men, a magnetic personality, which madehis servants ready to go through fire and water, to stifle conscience, toforgo their own convictions at his bidding. 

When he ascended the throne, however, none had the glimmering of asuspicion whither that imperious will was to direct the destinies of thenation: his earliest acts gave little indication of the later developmentsof his character and policy. 

[Sidenote: 1509 Marriage]

His first step was to complete the marriage with Katharine of Aragon, towhom he had been betrothed, under the papal dispensation, on the death ofhis elder brother, her husband. It is not without interest to note, in viewof a plea put forward against the "divorce" in later years, that the bridewas arrayed for the wedding as one who was not a widow but a maiden. Shortly afterwards Empson and Dudley, his father's unpopular agents, werebrought to the block after attainder on a not very credible charge oftreason, [Footnote: Brewer, i. , p. 44; _L. & P. _, i. , 1212. ] since themisdeeds of which they had been guilty could hardly be construed intocapital offences. 

Now, however, events on the Continent were to offer a field for Henry'sambitions, and incidentally to disillusion, at least in part, his youngenthusiasms. 

[Sidenote: The Powers: 1509-12]

The three great Powers--France, Spain, and the Empire--which had beenevolved out of the mediaeval European system, were united in the desire ofpreventing Italy from following their example and consolidating into anation. Venice, as the one Italian State strong enough to have some chanceof combining the rest under her leadership, was the object not only oftheir jealousy but also of the Pope's. A few months before the death ofHenry VII. , these four combined in the League of Cambrai, for thedismemberment of Venice. The allies, however, were not guided in theiractions by any altruistic motives--any excessive regard for the interestsof their associates. The French King, Lewis XII. , by prompt and skilfulaction, made himself master of the north of Italy before the rest wereready to move. This was by no means to the taste of Ferdinand or of PopeJulius; but as yet Maximilian had seen no reason to be displeased. Ferdinand would not risk a quarrel with Maximilian, which might have led tothat monarch's interference in Castile on behalf of the boy Charles--hisgrandson as well as Ferdinand's--the nominal King of that portion of whatFerdinand looked on as his own dominions. So the crafty old King bided histime, dropping a quiet hint to young Henry in England that a moment mightbe approaching favourable to an English attack on France, in revival of theancient claim to the crown, or at any rate to Guienne. 

Henry, as yet unskilled in the tortuous diplomacy of his father-in-law, waswell content to be guided by his advice. Ferdinand intrigued to uniteJulius and Maximilian against France, and to shift the burden of battle, when it should come, off his own shoulders on to Henry's. Meantime, theoutward professions to France remained of the most amicable character. 

[Sidenote: 1512 Dorset's expedition]

Then Lewis made a blunder which gave his enemies their opening. He called aGeneral Council at Pisa which was in effect an attack on the spiritualauthority of Rome. By the end of 1510, Julius was at open war with theFrench King; Ferdinand was in alliance with the Pope; in the course of thenext year, the Holy League was formed; a combined attack was concerted; andin June, 1512, an English expedition, under the command of Lord Dorset, landed in Spain, on the theory that it was to be assisted by Ferdinand inthe conquest of Guienne. 

The expedition was a melancholy failure. The English troops and theircommander were alike inexperienced in war; Ferdinand would not move againstGuienne, urging with some plausibility that the securing of Navarre was aneedful preliminary; the soldiers wanted beer and had to put up withSpanish wines; finally they insisted on returning to England, and Dorsethad to put the best face he could on a very awkward situation. Officiallyit was announced that the withdrawal was made with Ferdinand's approval. 

So far, the European anticipations of England's incapacity had been dulyfulfilled. A military fiasco had accompanied an innocence of diplomaticguile which looked promising to the Continental rulers. But the promise wasto be disappointed. 

[Sidenote: Rise of Wolsey]

Henry VII. Had avoided war and had been his own foreign minister; when hedied, he left to form his son's Council some capable subordinates like Foxthe Bishop of Winchester, but no one experienced in the responsibilities ofcontrol. Among the noble houses, the Howards were shortly to display atleast a fair share of military capacity. But it was to a minister of atbest middle-class origin, a rising ecclesiastic who had, however, hithertoheld no office of the first rank, that England was to owe a surprisinglyrapid promotion to European equality with the first-class Powers. 

With that skill in selecting; invaluable servants which distinguished hisentire career, Henry VIII. By the time he was one-and-twenty had alreadydiscovered in Thomas Wolsey the man on whose native genius and unlimitedpower of application he could place complete reliance. 

Wolsey had been employed on diplomatic missions by the old King; whosemethods he had gauged and whose policy he had assimilated, but only as abasis for far-reaching developments. He was brought into the Royal Councilby Fox, partly no doubt in the hope that he would counteract the influenceof Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, and others of the nobles who weremartially inclined and imbued with a time-honoured hostility to France. Itwas no long time before he outshone his patron, who, however, had rightlyjudged his tendencies. Wolsey was no friend to war, and had no hostility toFrance, for the plain reason that he preferred diplomatic to militarymethods, and was quite as well pleased to advance English interests byalliance with France as by alliances against her if he saw his way toprofit thereby. It is probable enough that he would have avoided the warwith France if he had had the power; since he had not, he devoted hisenergies to making the war itself as successful as possible. 

[Sidenote: 1513 The French war]

The arrangements for the Guienne expedition had not unnaturally beensingularly defective. Wolsey devoted himself with untiring zeal to theorganisation of a new expedition in the following spring. Nothing was leftto chance over which it was possible for one man's energy to exercisesupervision. The first outcome was a naval engagement off Brest on 25thApril, wherein the English admiral, Sir Edward Howard, restored at leastthe English reputation for valour, falling--overwhelmed by numbers--on thedeck of the French flag-ship which he had boarded almost single-handed. TheFrench fleet was much larger than that of the English, and the attack on itwhich he led was a desperate enterprise in which his ships were beaten off;but those who had jeered at the failure in Guienne were silenced, and Henrywas enabled to land his troops undisturbed at Calais at the end of June. Both the King and Wolsey were with the army, and proceeded to lay siege, on1st August, to Terouenne, which was partially re-victualled by the bolddash of a relief party of horsemen through the besieger's lines. Here thebesiegers were shortly joined by a contingent under Maximilian (whoprofessed himself a mere volunteer under the English King). The advancingFrench array was put to complete rout in the "battle of the Spurs"--theconsequence of a sudden panic--and on August 22nd Terouennesurrendered. Tournai followed suit a month later. 

In the meantime, events of moment had been taking place on the Scottishborder. 

[Sidenote: Scotland 1499-1513]

James IV. , as we have seen, had by no means been on continuously good termswith Henry VII. , and had lent a good deal more than merely moral support tothe pretensions of Perkin Warbeck. At the close of the adventurer's activecareer in the end of 1497, a treaty was made between England and Scotlandwhich was to remain in force till a year after the death of either monarch;and there were further treaties when James married Margaret Tudor in 1503. On the other hand, James had always maintained the traditional alliancewith France, and in 1507 had declined the papal invitation to enter theleague then formed to resist French aggression. Since the accession ofHenry VIII. , the relations between the two countries had been exceedinglystrained. There were personal quarrels about jewels retained in Englandwhich James claimed for his wife. Scottish sea-captains had been treated aspirates by the English authorities. Henry, having joined the league againstFrance, wished to patch up the quarrel with James; James, incited by theFrench, would not make friends with the active enemy of France; the FrenchQueen sent him a message bidding him strike a blow on English ground as herknight. West, [Footnote: Brewer, _Henry VIII. _, p. 29. _L & P_. , i. , 1926, 3128, 3129, 3811, 3838, 3882. ] the English ambassador, gives ahighly uncomplimentary account of James's bearing at this time, but hisevidence may be coloured. At any rate, there can have been little doubt inJames's mind that a successful war with France would leave Henry ready tomake himself extremely unpleasant to Scotland, even though he might notpatently set the treaty aside; and for himself there was a degree ofobligation to help France when she came to open hostilities with England;while Henry's instructions to West are hardly consistent with a characterfor stainless and unassailable honour. [Footnote: _Cf. _ Lang, _Hist. Scot. _, i. , p. 375; commenting on Brewer, _Henry VIII. _, pp. 28, 29 _q. V. _]

[Illustration: Map: Campaign of FLODDEN showing Surrey's March]

[Sidenote: 1513 James invades England (Aug. )]

At any rate, the conclusion of the matter was that when Henry sailed forCalais, James soon made up his mind, with the support of most of thenobility, to declare war, and sent Henry his defiance--as he had promisedWest to do before opening hostilities. On 22nd August he was in England atthe head of a great army; by the end of the month, Norham Castle, Ford, andother strongholds were in his hands. [Footnote: _Cf. _ Lang, _Hist. Scot. _, i. , p. 377. ] Thereafter, he entrenched himself on Flodden Ridge, and awaited the approach of the English army. 

Queen Katharine and the Earl of Surrey had been left in charge at home whenthe King with Wolsey and Fox also crossed the channel. To the Queen'senergy the successful results were in no small degree due, as well as tothe military skill and audacity of the Howards, and to James's recklessdisregard of strategical and tactical principles. 

Had the Scottish monarch held to his plans, his campaign could hardly havefailed to be successful. His army was large, and well victualled; hisposition on Flodden Edge was exceedingly strong; he had secured thefortresses which might otherwise have threatened him on flank or rear. Hisobject was to entice the English commander, Surrey, away from his base, andforce him to fight at a disadvantage, or to see his levies melt away, forlack of provisions. Surrey, advancing from Alnwick to Wooler, tried toinveigle him into descending from the Ridge to the open plain, but Jameswas not to be tempted. 

[Sidenote: Flodden (Sept. )]

Eastward of Flodden the Till flows north to join the Tweed. Surrey put theTill between himself and the Scottish army, and marched north, his movementmasked by hills on his left, with the intention of reaching Berwick, or ofthreatening the Scottish communications. Arrived at Barmoor Wood, theAdmiral, Thomas Howard, Surrey's son, proposed to march west, cross theTill, and move south again, threatening the rear of James's position. Theoperation, involving a very hard march, was carried out. The main armycrossed at Twizel Mill, the rearguard fording the stream as high up asSandyford; the junction being effected behind Branxton Marsh. The passageof the troops might easily have been prevented; but James, veryinefficiently served in scouting, knew nothing of what was going on. Whenthe approach of the English became known, he suddenly resolved to descendand give battle [Footnote: The traditions concerning the King and the oldEarl of Angus on this occasion have been very untenderly handled byMr. Andrew Lang, _Hist. Scot. _, 1. , p. 390. ] on the plain, instead ofremaining in his almost impregnable position. So on the afternoon ofSeptember 9th was fought the bloody and decisive battle of Flodden. Of thetwo armies, the Scottish was probably the larger; but the English captainshad their troops better in hand than the border lords on the Scottish left, or the highland chiefs on their right. After fierce fighting, the Scottishwings were broken, and the Scottish centre was completely enveloped. There, headed by the King, fought the pick of the Scottish chivalry. The standmade was magnificent, the slaughter appalling. The English victory thistime was one not of the bow--as so often before--but of the bill or axeagainst the spears in which the northern nation trusted. By hewing away thespear-heads, the English disabled their opponents; yet they fought on, tillman by man they fell around their monarch. The King himself, brave as anyman on the field, was slain; in the ring of his dead companions in armswere found the bodies of thirteen earls, three bishops, and many valiantlords. There were few families in Scotland which did not contribute to thathecatomb, whereof the memory is enshrined in the national song oflamentation, "The Flowers of the Forest". 

[Effects of Flodden]

For many a long year the military power of Scotland was broken on the blackday of Flodden. From that quarter Henry was to have no more serious fears. Great and decisive, however, as Surrey's [Footnote: Surrey was rewardedwith the Dukedom of Norfolk, held by his father. Accordingly, after this hebecomes "Norfolk, " and his son Thomas becomes "Surrey". In 1524 the sonsucceeded to the Dukedom, and is the "Norfolk" of the latter half of thereign, the "Surrey" of its last years being his son Henry. ] triumph was, the English also had paid a heavy price, and were unable to follow upvictory by invasion. But Scotland had not only lost the best and bravest ofher sons; the King's death left the Crown to a babe not eighteen monthsold, and the government of the country to the babe's mother, Margaret, thesister of Henry VIII. , and to a group of nobles, to whose personal feudsand rivalries, constantly fomented by English diplomacy, the interests ofthe Scottish nation were completely subordinated. 

[Sidenote: Recovery of English prestige]

The year 1513 had completely restored the reputation of the Englisharms. The sea-fight off Brest, the successes at Terouenne and Tournai, and, finally, the great victory of Flodden, proved beyond dispute thatEnglishmen only needed to be well led to show themselves as indomitable asever they had been in the past. The march of 8th and 9th Septemberimmediately before Flodden was a feat which not many commanders would havecared to attempt, and few troops could have carried out. And it had becomeevident that generalship was not, after all, a lost art. It was now timefor Europe to discover that England, habitually inferior to other nationsin the arts of diplomacy, possessed in Wolsey a diplomatist of the highestorder. The old King had indeed been as little susceptible to thebeguilement of fair promises, as shrewd in detecting his neighbours'designs, little less capable of concealing his own, little less tenaciousin pursuing them; but his designs themselves had not the amplitude ofWolsey's, who shewed all Henry's skill combined with a far greater audacityin execution, commensurate with the greater audacity and scope of hisconceptions. Wolsey was one of those statesmen, rare in England, who forhalf a generation aimed, with a large measure of success, at dominating thecombinations of the European Powers without involving the country in anytremendous war. 

[Sidenote: 1514 Foreign intrigues]

Before the winter of 1513 Henry VIII. Returned to England, with everyintention of following up his successes in the French war in the ensuingyear. The campaign, however, had not been at all to the liking ofFerdinand, who gained nothing by the English victories in the north-west. These tended to strengthen his grandson Charles in the Netherlands, whereMaximilian's influence over him was stronger; while Ferdinand was bentabove all things on maintaining his own control over the boy, and byconsequence over Castile. So Ferdinand set about making his own peaceprivily with France, and trying to draw off Maximilian so as to isolateHenry. In April, 1514, he accomplished his object, and a truce was declaredbetween Ferdinand, the Emperor, and France. 

In mid-winter Henry had been struck down by small-pox; he recovered to findthese intrigues in active progress, and was highly indignant. His martialprojects were, of course, thrown entirely out of gear. Ferdinand, however, had found his match. The English King, when the dictates of his personalinterests, translated into terms of conscience, did not obscure the issuesat stake, had an acute perception of political expediency, untrammelled bythe traditional sentiment which biased the judgment of advisers of the typeof Surrey (now raised to the Dukedom of Norfolk). It was Wolsey who swayedhis counsels, and Wolsey perceived in an alliance with France an effectivealternative to the collapsed alliance against her. 

[Sidenote: Policy of French alliance ]

No sooner had he detected the intrigues of Ferdinand than he set hiscounterplot on foot through the medium of the Duc de Longueville, who hadbeen taken prisoner at the battle of the Spurs and sent over toEngland. The death of the French Queen, Anne of Brittany, gave him aconvenient opening as early as January. 

Throughout this century, as in the reign of Henry VII. , royal betrothalsand royal marriages play an immense part in international negotiations:princesses are the shuttlecocks of statesmen. This particular form ofdiplomatic recreation now springs again into sudden prominence. 

[Sidenote 1: The French marriage][Sidenote 2: 1515 Francis I]

Henry's younger sister Mary was plighted to the young Charles of Castileand the Netherlands, who was to marry her in the ensuing summer; he beingnow fourteen, and she about seventeen. The boy's two grandfathers, now bothdisposed to leave England detached and isolated, began finding excuses fordeferring the match. Wolsey pressed them, while secretly negotiating forMary's marriage with Lewis of France. Thus when his plans were ripe, andnot before, he found himself able to declare that the breach was entirelythe fault of the other side, whose objects were frustrated by the newalliance, which had not entered into their reckoning. There was no furtherprospect of keeping France and England embroiled while they appropriatedthe spoils. Mary was married to the French King in October, and Henry wascertainly projecting, in conjunction with him, an aggressive movementagainst his former allies, on the plea that his wife Katharine shared withher sister the succession to Castile, when the tangible results of themarriage were nullified by the death on January 1st of Lewis, and thesuccession to the French throne of his cousin Francis I. , a prince who wassome years younger than Henry himself, and quite as much athirst formilitary glory. 

Again diplomacy intrigued about the person of Lewis's widow. CharlesBrandon, [Footnote: Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk in the last reign, and Yorkist intriguer, was executed, apparently without further trial, in1513. The Dukedom of Suffolk was bestowed on Brandon whom Mr. Froude'simagination has somehow developed into "the ablest soldier of the age, " buthe never did anything to justify a high estimate of his abilities. ] Duke ofSuffolk, an intimate personal friend of Henry's and a stout man-at-arms, who was also personally devoted to the Princess Mary, was selected byWolsey as a better negotiator than one of the anti-French party. Henry andFrancis were both keen hands at a bargain, and there was serious trouble asto Mary's dower and the financial arrangements connected with herreturn. Francis gained his purposes by alarming Mary and at the same timeencouraging Suffolk to marry her out of hand; which he did, secretly. Afterthat, there could be no more talk of Mary's dowry being repaid; and Henryhad to content himself with making heavy demands on Suffolk's purse. Theevent is of further significance, because Henry at present had nooffspring, and the young King of Scotland, son of his sister Margaret, washeir presumptive to the throne; whereas if his younger sister Mary shouldhave children, it was certain that there would be a party to support theirclaim in preference to that of the Scottish monarch. In fact, ultimately, Mary's grandchild Lady Jane Grey was actually put up as a claimant to thethrone. 

[Sidenote: Marignano (Sept. )]

The general effect however was, that Francis drew away from the Englishalliance, and associated himself more closely with Ferdinand; havingItalian conquests and more particularly Milan in view. In the summer he setout, crossed the Alps with unexpected success, and in September won thegreat victory of Marignano, routing the Swiss troops which had hithertobeen reputed invincible. Such triumphant progress however was more than theother monarchs or the Pope, Leo X. , had reckoned for, and there was a rapidand general reaction in favour of checking the French King's career. Theinflation of the power of France was satisfactory to no one else; butincidentally the effect was not disadvantageous to Wolsey, since it forcedPope Leo into an attitude of compliance with English demands in order tosecure English support, with the result that Wolsey was raised to theCardinalate, having recently been made Archbishop of York. "The Cardinal ofYork" is the title by which he is named in official references from thistime (Nov. , 1515). 

Here it may be noted that a daughter, afterwards Queen Mary, was born tothe King early in 1516. Before this time, two sons at least--according tosome authorities no fewer than four--had been born, but had died either atbirth or shortly after. 

[Sidenote: 1516-17 European changes]

During the winter, Wolsey--having no wish to plunge England into war--persuaded Maximilian (by means of a very able diplomatic agent, RichardPace) to take up arms against Francis in Italy. As a rule, Maximilian tooksides with any one whose gold he expected to divert into his own pocket;but Pace managed to keep the English subsidies, which were to pay the SwissMercenaries, out of the Emperor's hands; so the Emperor retired from thewar in the spring. Early in this year, too, Ferdinand died, leaving Charleslord of all Spain as well as of the Netherlands. This left the young Kingto the guidance of advisers whose interests were mainly Flemish, and whowere consequently anxious in the first place for the friendship ofFrance. Hence in August the treaty of Noyon was contracted between Francisand Charles; in which the Emperor shortly afterwards joined when he foundthat England would not provide him with funds unless he earnedthem. Wolsey's real strength lay in the fact that neither Maximilian norCharles could afford any serious expenditure without his financial support;Francis was waking up to the fact that as allies they were both brokenreeds, though in active combination with Wolsey against him they would bedangerous; and as the year 1517 passed, the inclination for France andEngland to revert to amicable relations revived; becoming more marked inthe following year when the birth of a dauphin suggested his betrothal tothe little Princess Mary. 

[Sidenote: 1518-19 Wolsey's success]

During these two years, the reality of Wolsey's control of the situationwas further demonstrated by his management of the Pope, who refused him theoffice of legate after having reluctantly made him Cardinal. Leo however, like other Princes, was in want of cash, and sent legates to the EuropeanCourts to raise funds under colour of a crusade: whereupon Henry declinedto admit Cardinal Campeggio to England, on the ground that to receive alegate _a latere_ was against the rule of the realm. Wolsey seized theopportunity to suggest that if he himself, being an English prelate, wereplaced on the same official footing as Campeggio, the objection might bewithdrawn; and Leo had to agree. 

In the result, an alliance was concluded with France under which theinfants were betrothed, Tournai was restored to France. France was to pay60, 000 crowns and promise not to interfere in Scottish affairs to thedetriment of England, and Wolsey was enabled to pose as the pacificator ofEurope; the other Powers with more or less reluctance all findingthemselves constrained to give their adherence to the new treaty ofUniversal Peace. 

Thus when the year 1519 opened, Wolsey's policy was triumphant. France wasbound to England; the young King of Spain wanted her friendship; Maximilianwas still looking to her for money; and the Pope was obliged to applaud herfor having usurped his official function as peacemaker. But in the dayswhen war and peace and the movements of armies turned habitually on thepersonal predilections, quarrels, and amours of monarchs, the politicalatmosphere was liable to violent disturbances without warning. In January, 1519, Maximilian died suddenly; and his death in fact involved a completerearrangement of ideas as to the positions of the Powers. 

[Sidenote 1: 1519 Charles V. ][Sidenote 2: The Imperial election]

Ten years before, when Henry came to the throne, he was the only young manamong the European sovereigns. The Emperor and the King of France were bothmore than middle-aged: so was the King of Aragon who was virtually King ofSpain and the Sicilies. Before six years were out there was a youthful Kingof France; not much later, all Spain was under the dominion of a boy. Thesethree Kings were now twenty-eight, twenty-four, and nineteen respectively, while the succession to the Empire lay with the Electoral Princes. Charleswas an obvious candidate, since the Habsburgs had actually retained theoffice among themselves for three generations; yet the Electors were in noway bound to maintain the tradition. In ability and in character, one oftheir number was fit for the purple--Frederick of Saxony; but Saxony wasonly one among a number of German States, and Frederick himself had no mindto undertake the office. Thereupon ensued the somewhat curious spectacle ofthe French King entering the lists, he being the one possible rival ofCharles. Of all the Continental Princes, these two alone were powerfulenough to sustain the burden of the Empire: yet either of them, achievingit, would have his power dangerously expanded, and would become a seriousmenace to the Pope. 

So Charles and Francis both intrigued and bribed the Electors; the Popetried to avoid helping either; Wolsey promised support to both; and theElectors themselves watched for opportunities of raising the price of theirsuffrages. And presently Henry himself conceived the idea of gettinghimself put forward as a third candidate, through whom a way of escapemight be found for those who regarded Francis and Charles as Scylla andCharybdis. The combination however of the Crown of England with theImperial diadem was no improvement in their eyes. Leo did not wish to findhimself in Wolsey's grip. The scheme must almost inevitably have beenfraught with disaster both to England and the Empire. Wolsey of necessitymade himself the instrument of his master's desires; but while he selectedas his agent Pace, the most astute of his subordinates, Pace's owncorrespondence is a good deal concerned with hints that an over-zealouspursuit of the policy would be a bartering of the substance for the shadowof power, and with explanations of the impracticability of an effectiveelectoral campaign. Pace, in fact, went very little beyond sounding theElectors and declaring the results to be extremely unpromising; a state ofthings to which we may infer that neither he nor Wolsey had anyobjection. In the end, the influence of England was employed in favour ofCharles, who was chosen Emperor in the middle of summer. The threesovereigns, Charles V. , Francis I. , and Henry VIII. , dominated Europe fornearly thirty years to come--an unusually long period for three princes toreign side by side. 

It was now Wolsey's difficult business to keep both Francis and Charles assuitors for the favour of England; and, having placated the latter in thecontest for the Empire, to turn his attention to the former. 

[1520 Wolsey's triumph]

Francis was at this time ready to meet Wolsey more than half way. He wasparticularly desirous of holding a formal interview and a personalinterchange of courtesies with the King of England; and to this end heactually appointed Henry's minister his own plenipotentiary, a positionwithout precedent or parallel for an English subject. Wolsey prepared tomake the meeting an occasion for such a display of magnificence as hasrarely been witnessed. At the same time he emphasised the independentposition of England by arranging for a separate preliminary interviewbetween Henry and the Emperor, and making it clear that herein it was notthe Emperor who was doing the King a favour, but the contrary. If Charleswished to meet Henry, he must come to England for the purpose. Meantimeboth monarchs sought to obtain the great minister's goodwill by promises ofsupport when the Papacy should become vacant--promises which Wolsey wouldnot permit to influence his plans; whether because he rated them at theirtrue value, or because he had no great anxiety to barter the position hehad already secured for one which, however magnificent, however dominant intheory, might convey actual power of a much less substantial kind. 

[Sidenote: Rival policies]

The French alliance, it must be observed, was never popular in England. Tradition was against it; the nobles of the old families were against it;the Queen was also naturally against it and very anxious for close andfriendly relations with Spain. A degree of antagonism was thus generatedbetween Katharine and the Cardinal, who held resolutely to his policy ofmaintaining the balance and never so committing himself to one party as topreclude a _rapprochement_ with the other. 

There was much intriguing on the part of Francis to bring on the meeting ofthe Kings before Charles could visit England. The state of the FrenchQueen's health on one side and of the English Queen's wardrobe on the otherfigured largely as conclusive reasons for haste or delay. Wolsey howevergained the day. The meeting was fixed to take place early in June betweenGuisnes and Ardres. In the last week of May (1520), Charles came toEngland, remaining three days; a week later, Henry sailed for Calais. 

[Sidenote: Field of the Cloth of Gold]

It might almost be said that the entire courts of England and France, nobles and knights and ladies, met on the famous "field of the Cloth ofGold". Jousts and feastings were the order of the day. Wolsey understoodhow to impress the popular imagination; and he had a magnificent scorn or acynical contempt for the enmities and jealousies aroused, of which hehimself, as responsible for all the arrangements, became the centre. It maybe doubted, however, whether any great goodwill between the two nations wasborn of all the display of amity; nor were there any very marked diplomaticresults. If it was Wolsey's particular object to evolve a triple league, hewas disappointed. The two Kings met and parted, Henry proceeding to a freshconference with his nephew of Spain, from which Francis, in his turn, wasexcluded. Neither Charles nor Francis knew in the end which of them stoodin the more favourable position with England; but the little Princess Mary, betrothed to the Dauphin, was half-pledged to Charles himself; whileCharles was still formally betrothed to the French Princess Charlotte, andwas inclining to substitute for both the well-dowered Infanta Isabella[Footnote: Otherwise called Elizabeth. The names are interchangeable. ] ofPortugal. Among all the surprising matrimonial complications of thishalf-century, one particular feature appears to be tolerably constant--thatwhen Charles was not actually married, he was rarely without at least onefiancée actual, and another prospective. 

At any rate, the total result in 1520 was that Henry was in separatealliance with Francis on one side and with Charles on the other; allianceswhich neither could afford to break, but on which neither could rely. 

[Sidenote: Wolsey's aims]

The main interest of Wolsey's career, from the national point of view, attaches to his conduct of foreign policy: and in the confusion ofalliances and counter-alliances it is not always easy to recognise theobjects of that policy or its fundamental consistency. The aim always inview was to prevent any Power or combination of Powers from dominatingEurope; to substitute diplomacy for the actual arbitrament of arms; tosecure for England recognition as the true arbiter without involving her inwar. The three first-class Powers of the earlier years were reduced to twoby the combination under one head, Charles V. , of Spain and the Empire, with France as the sole Continental rival. 

But behind Wolsey's own policy was the traditional one of hostility toFrance, popular in the country, supported by the nobility, and offeringattractions to an ambitious and martial-minded monarch who was not yetthirty years of age: whose Queen moreover was by birth and sympathy astrong partisan of Spain. Hence the Cardinal was liable to be forced out ofhis mediatorial position into one of hostility to France. 

[Sidenote: Charles and Francis]

On the other hand, Francis and Charles each desired to strengthen his ownposition at the expense of the other. Each therefore desired an alliancewith England close enough to secure her aid in an aggressive programme. Butwhile Charles required active assistance and subsidies, seeking to throw onEngland the real burden of accomplishing his designs, Francis wascomparatively satisfied with English neutrality. Again, while anaggressive alliance with Charles offered some uncertain prospects of theacquisition of French territory, circumstances were once more tending toenable Francis to utilise the ancient Scottish alliance as a means ofholding England in check. 

[Sidenote: Scotland 1513-20]

Since the decisive battle of Flodden, Scotland had not to any marked degreeinfluenced Wolsey's European diplomacy. The blow dealt to her had been tooserious: and the nobles, always turbulent, had never been more so thanduring the years which followed the great defeat. Queen Margaret, sister ofthe English King, a woman of only five and twenty when James was killed, made haste to marry the young Earl of Angus within a year of the event. TheDouglases had frequently headed the Anglicising factions of the Scottishnobility, whereas the country at large constantly favoured the traditionalalliance with France and hostility to the Southron. At present, theDouglases of whom Angus was the chief headed one faction: the Hamiltons, whose chief was Arran, headed the other. The marriage put an end to thearrangement under which Margaret had been Regent; there was intriguing andfighting to obtain possession of the person of the infant King; the Duke ofAlbany, [Footnote: Albany's father had been brother of James III. ; theirsister was Arran's mother. ] of the royal house, who had been bred inFrance, was sent for, in the hope that as Regent he would compose discords. In the summer of 1515 he arrived. In the meantime, Dacre, in charge of theEnglish border, had been fomenting quarrels [Footnote: _Lang_, _Hist. Of Scotland_, i. , 395. L. & P. , ii. , 779, 795. ] and suborningoutlaws to raid and devastate in the border counties, and plottingunsuccessfully to have James carried off into England to the tender care ofhis uncle. Albany, for his part, demanded the custody of the child, whichwas refused by Margaret; who however was forced to surrender with a show offriendliness. But she herself very shortly took refuge in England. 

In 1517 Albany withdrew to France with a view to resuscitating the Frenchalliance; the rivals Arran and Angus were again the two most powerful ofthe nobles; Margaret returned to Scotland, but quarrelled with her husband. In 1520 Albany was still in France which he probably found more cheerfulthan his own country. Angus got the better of Arran, who fled to France. There however Francis was still aiming at close alliance with England; andunder such a combination of favourable conditions the truce between Englandand Scotland, entered upon in 1514 and now about to terminate, was extendedfor a couple of years. But Margaret herself being now hostile to Angus, there was every prospect that, should Albany return to Scotland, Wolseywould have to reckon seriously with the anti-English party there as afactor in his diplomatic relations with France. 

[Sidenote: 1520-21 Affairs abroad]

The closing months of 1520 arid the opening months of 1521 witnessed eventsof importance at the time-and one at least which had very far-reachingconsequences. The Emperor's wide do-minions were disturbed by a localoutbreak in Germany, a revolt in Spain, and an attempt on the part of theclaimant to the throne of Navarre to recover that territory. The Diet ofthe Empire met at Worms, and Martin Luther was cited before it; with theresult that the Empire was practically divided into two camps, Charlesranging himself on the papal side. As Henry VIII. Was so far a loyal son ofthe Church, wielding an anti-Lutheran pen in theological controversy, whilethe French King's reverence for the papacy was under suspicion, the presenttendency of this event was favourable to the union of Charles and Henrywith the Pope against Francis. On the other hand there was very littlequestion that the troubles in the Emperor's dominions were fostered byFrancis, who was preparing for an Italian expedition. Had Charles andWolsey trusted each other, their alliance would certainly have been drawncloser; but Wolsey was not the man to take up Charles's cause withoutsecuring an adequate return, while Charles wished to involve England on thestrength of promises which he expected subsequently to find no necessityfor carrying out. Charles found his justification in the unexpected successof his arms in Navarre, in Spain, and in Germany. Good fortune relievedhim from the more pressing need of English aid, and thus the prospect of aclose and active alliance faded. 

[Sidenote: 1521 Buckingham]

In the late spring of 1521 there occurred in England a domestic episodewhich must have impressed both Charles and Francis with the power wieldedin England by Henry; the first notable instance among the numerousexecutions marking the reign for which treason was the pretext. [Footnote:Unless we except that of Edmund de la Pole, Earl of Suffolk, in 1513. ] TheDuke of Buckingham stood at the head of the nobility; accepted asrepresenting the House of Lancaster, next in order to the Tudors. [Footnote: The Staffords of Buckingham on one side descended, like Henry, from the Beauforts. They were also the representatives of Thomas ofWoodstock, the youngest son of Edward III. See _Front_, and p. 9, note. ] The Duke no doubt had a sufficiently strong dislike to Wolsey, andhad used very incautious language about him, and the Cardinal was popularlyheld responsible for his downfall, though there is no evidence that thiswas actually the case. Buckingham had consulted soothsayers, and wasreputed to have used compromising expressions about tyrants and thesuccession. At any rate, he suddenly found himself arrested for hightreason. The King had made preliminary inquiry on his own account--not inthe presence of Wolsey--and had made up his own mind that Buckingham was todie. The peers were summoned to try him on May 10th, under the presidencyof Norfolk. The depositions of the witnesses against the Duke were read;there was no cross-examination; he denied the charges, but was not allowedcounsel. The decision was of course a foregone conclusion. One by one thepeers pronounced him guilty; he was condemned to death, and executed. Noone was found to challenge the justice of the sentence, though on a reviewof the evidence it is almost incredible that any human being could havehonestly endorsed it. The world at large however knew nothing about theevidence, and merely accepted the judgment as final and indisputable. By asingle ruthless act, Henry had practically established his own right tojudge cases of treason on the hypothesis not that guilt had to bedemonstrated but that the accused must prove his own loyalty or suffer theextreme penalty. For the King to entertain an accusation was tantamount tocondemnation. Even to plead on behalf of such a one was dangerous: tomaintain his innocence would have been a short way to the block. 

[Sidenote: Wolsey's diplomacy]

By the execution of Buckingham, Henry vindicated his own authority inEngland while popular opinion laid the responsibility on the Cardinal'smachinations. In the meantime, an impetus was given to the anti-Frenchpolicy of Charles by the death of his Burgundian minister Chievres. As thesummer advanced, the prospect of keeping the peace between the rivalmonarchs grew fainter. The parties however agreed to hold a conference atCalais, at which Wolsey should act as mediator. But matters looked as ifEngland would be forced to take a side in a European war; and if she did sothe balance of advantage to her lay on the side of the Emperor. 

In August the conference met. Ostensibly with a view to obtaining fromCharles himself more concessions to France than his envoys would allow, theCardinal visited him at Bruges; where however he was really engaged incoming to comparatively satisfactory terms as to the conditions upon whichCharles should receive English assistance. These included the deferring ofactual participation in hostilities, and indemnification for the inevitableloss of the Tournai purchase-money, of which France had paid only a part. Wolsey returned to Calais with a secret treaty, and the conferencecontinued, the Cardinal still making every effort to avert war; but towardsthe end of November it became clear that his endeavours must be fruitless, and the conference was broken up. He was followed to England by the news ofImperial successes both in Italy and in Picardy--which went far to justifyCharles in his refusal to postpone hostilities for his own part. Henry, whose own predilections were in favour of war, was very well pleased withthe result, and rewarded his minister by presenting him to the vacant andlucrative office of Abbot of St. Albans. Such were the conveniences ofbeing served by an ecclesiastic. 

[Sidenote: 1522 A papal Election]

The year closed with an event of importance. Leo X. Died unexpectedly andthere was an election to the papacy. There is no doubt that Wolsey desiredthe papal crown; and both Francis and Charles in courting his favour hadheld out as a bait the influence they were prepared to promise on hisbehalf. But he had not allowed these offers to influence his actions. Charles now gave him fair words, but evidently intended his real support tobe given to some candidate whom he expected to be more pliant. The man hewould have chosen was the Cardinal de Medici, afterwards Clement VII. : butItalian party spirit among the Cardinals ran too high for this to provepracticable, and Adrian VI. Who had been tutor to Charles was the new Pope. Wolsey can hardly have been disappointed, and never gave undue weight tothe Emperor's promises: but the event was not calculated to increase hisconfidence or his goodwill. The present fact however of the alliancebetween the Emperor and England, with the corollary that England mustbefore long be at war with France, remained unaltered. 

[Sidenote 1: War with France][Sidenote 2: Scotland]

By the end of May the war could no longer be postponed, and was dulydeclared. It was still some months before Surrey took the field in Franceat the head of the English forces--conducting his campaign on the generalprinciples of Anglo-Scottish border warfare--ravaging, burning, and rousingthe hatred of the country population, but striking no blow. If Henryseriously contemplated the idea of reviving old claims to the French crown, he could have adopted no worse policy. Charles of course gave no practicalassistance, and the allies each blamed the other for the futility of theoperations. Albany on the other hand had been back in Scotland for somemonths; and in opposition to Angus--in conjunction therefore with Margaret--threatened an invasion as soon as the French expedition started. Theingenious Lord Dacre however by sheer bluff--there is no other word--succeeded in procuring an armistice when the English border was all butdefenceless. After this exhibition, Albany found it as well to retire toFrance; while Wolsey used the occurrence to urge upon Charles that Scotlandrequired too much attention to allow French expeditions to be practicable. 

[Sidenote: 1523 Progress of the war]

With 1523 events took a turn more favourable to Charles. The Duke ofBourbon, Constable of France, turned against the King, on the ground ofinsults more or less fancied, and of a genuine attempt to deprive him ofhis inheritance by legal process. The idea was revived in Henry's mind thatin alliance with some of the French nobility he might make himself King ofFrance as Henry V. Had done; so Wolsey had to develop an active policyagainst France. His hand being thus forced, the Cardinal devoted hisenergies to making the combination against the French King really serious, coercing Venice into the coalition. The military operations however werenot in train till the autumn; Suffolk, whose military skill was extremelylimited, commanded the English expedition, and marched into the interiorinstead of falling on Boulogne as Wolsey had advised; Bourbon did nothinguseful; Charles's troops gave their attention to Fontarabia instead of to acombined operation. From the English point of view the whole campaign was acomplete fiasco. Wolsey had been set to carry out a policy of which hedisapproved, with instruments of whose incompetence he was fully conscious;and the results were probably neither better nor worse than what he and thecooler onlookers like Sir Thomas More expected. The one thing that Wolseycould do, he had done: he had placed Surrey on the Northern border to dealwith the inevitable return to Scotland of Albany with threats of invasion. Surrey was successful: Albany having advanced into England was obliged tofall back, and the border country was subjected to the usual process ofraiding and harrying. 

[Sidenote: Election of Pope Clement VII. ]

Once again, the closing months of the year witnessed a papal election; andfor the second time Wolsey was disappointed. The reign of Adrian closed inSeptember. It had been brief, well intentioned, and honest: butineffective. The Pope's efforts at reform had been met by the solid _visinertiae_ of the ecclesiastical world. His successor, the Medici, Clement VII. , was destined to play a much more important part in history, and, buffeted by forces which he could not control, to become theinstrument whereby England was severed from Rome. In this election Charlesplayed the same part as before. He promised Wolsey his support, wroteletters to Rome which were delayed till too late, and actually expended hisinfluence on behalf of Medici. Again, though Wolsey's anxiety to achievethe papacy has probably been much exaggerated, he would have been more thanhuman if he had not inwardly resented the Emperor's behaviour. It is to benoted in connexion with this election that Wolsey actually proposed theemployment of armed coercion to secure a convenient choice--a rather grossmethod of condemning the theory that the Conclave reached its decision byDivine guidance. 

[Sidenote: 1524 Wolsey's difficulties]

The year had but six weeks more to run when Clement was finally elected. In1524 the belligerents were all desirous of ending the war, but none waswilling to make concessions to hasten that end. The allies had good reasonto suspect each other of trying to make separate terms with Francis; eachhoped to extract concessions from the French King as the price ofdefection. Wolsey in fact was neither able nor willing to carry on activehostilities. England had gone into the war with a light heart; but whenParliament was called upon in the summer of 1523 to vote the necessaryfunds, the light-heartedness was modified, and the funds were voted withextreme reluctance, under something very near akin to compulsion; and thecollecting of the taxes aroused angry complaint--the blame being as usuallaid on the Cardinal. He was well aware that any increase in the burdenwould be a dangerous matter to propose, and very dangerous indeed to tryand carry through; yet without more funds an active campaign wasimpossible. Therefore, as concerned the Continent, Wolsey on the one handsought to induce Charles to assent to a fresh conference where Englandshould mediate as to the claims and counter-claims of Charles and Francis;and on the other made private overtures to Francis. 

[Sidenote: Intrigues in Scotland]

In Scotland, the game of intrigue was actively carried on. Albany retiredpermanently to France soon after the failure of his invasion. While he wasin Scotland, Margaret had sided with him; now she began to fall in with theEnglish policy, and was eager for the "erection" of her son--that is forhis recognition as actual King though he was barely twelve years old. Throughout the summer, schemes were on foot for a peace conference--thereal object being the kidnapping of Beton, the Archbishop of St. Andrews, coadjutor of Albany, Chancellor of Scotland, and the most resolute opponentof the Anglicising party and policy. Wolsey is quite explicit on this pointin a letter to Dacre, though Surrey, who had just succeeded to the Dukedomof Norfolk by the death of the victor of Flodden, never grasped thispeculiar method of diplomacy. Beton declined to be trapped; still, the"erection" was carried through. [Footnote: _L. & P. _, vol. Iv. , parti. , 549. _Cf. _ Lang, _Hist. Scot_. , pp. 405, 406. Beton was tohave a safe-conduct, and the kidnapping was to be done by Angus, at thetime in England, quite as a private personal matter. Angus had come toEngland from France, whither he had been removed by Albany. ] By dint ofbribery, many of the anti-English party had now changed sides along withMargaret, with the curious result that Angus, who was bound to be inopposition to his wife, allied himself to Beton. Next year, however, theFrench or anti-English party in Scotland suffered a serious blow when theFrench King was vanquished and taken prisoner at the battle of Pavia. 

[Sidenote: 1525 Pavia]

Meantime, Wolsey had found Francis not too ready to accept his overtures, and had therefore set about making a show of pursuing a more activelyantagonistic policy in conjunction with Bourbon. The Cardinal however, whose object was to make Francis think it necessary to conciliate him--notto be forced into expeditions and armaments--intentionally made hisconditions to Bourbon such as the Constable would not agree to; whileobtaining the desired result of moving Francis to enter seriously onnegotiations. He even felt that matters were progressing favourably enoughto justify a "diplomatic episode"--the interception of the Imperialambassador's dispatches, his virtual imprisonment, and the lodging of aprotest against his conduct with the Emperor. But the battle of Paviawrecked Wolsey's schemes, as well as those of his adversaries in Scotland. For the disaster to Francis wakened anew in Henry's breast the belief thatthe French crown was still attainable: and the minister found himselfforced to seek means to provide war-funds, while he was alive to thepractical impossibility of persuading Parliament to grant them. 

For Wolsey to protest would have been vain. He did not in any way dominateHenry, who was ready enough to follow his advice or allow him to carry outhis own policy so long as it fell in with the royal views. But if the Kingchose to lay down a different policy, the Cardinal had to carry it out asbest he could--or else to retire in disfavour. And he could not afford toretire in disfavour, since, if the royal countenance were once withdrawn, the malignity of his many enemies would be given rein, and his utter ruinwould be inevitable. Therefore, while watching for any opportunity toconvert the King from his martial designs, he made a desperate effort tofill the exchequer. 

[Sidenote: The Amicable Loan]

Two years before, when Parliament had been called, it had been induced tovote the money asked for. But (according to Hall) the Speaker, Sir ThomasMore, had taken the opportunity to resist Wolsey's high-handed methods, toinsist on parliamentary privileges, and to refuse to debate the matter inthe Cardinal's presence, though he actually exerted his influence in favourof the grant. To repeat the demand now would be to risk rebellion; at thebest, to court an inevitable refusal. Therefore Wolsey reverted to ancientprecedents, and demanded an "Amicable Loan, " on the ground that the Kingwas going to lead his armies, and must therefore go fittingly equipped. Theloan was to amount to about one-sixth of a man's property. Very soonhowever it became clear that this was more than the country would endure. Wolsey revoked the demand and called for a "Benevolence". London repliedthat benevolences were illegal, by reason of the statute of Richard III. Wolsey protested against appealing to the laws of a tyrant; but theLondoners remarked that the fact of Richard having been a tyrant did notannul the excellence of good laws when he made them. In Norwich theaggrieved populace assembled in force, and presented their caseallegorically, but convincingly, to the Duke of Norfolk, who was sent todeal with them. The Cardinal's attempt to raise money was a failure. TheKing grasped the situation and remitted the demand, taking all the creditfor his clemency, while his minister had the odium for the proposal. Forthe first time, Wolsey had failed to carry his master's wishes through, forthe simple reason that the task set him was an impossible one. Thesoundness of his own antagonism to the French war was conclusivelydemonstrated, since without the funds war could not be waged: but the costof the demonstration was the increase of his unpopularity, and anappreciable diminution of Henry's favour. He did what he could to mollifythe King by presenting him with his palace of Hampton Court--a presentgraciously accepted. 

[Sidenote 1: A diplomatic struggle][Sidenote 2: 1526-27 Success of Wolsey]

Now, however, a _rapprochement_ with France was again possible. Charles and Wolsey returned to the attitude of mutually desiring nothing somuch as to prove their complete accord, their own anxiety to fulfil allobligations, provided only that the other would reasonably recognise hisown obligations in return. Each wanted to extract what he could fromFrancis without regard to his ally: each wanted an excuse for evading hiscontract with that ally--the Emperor because he now perceived the moreimmediate pecuniary profit of the Portuguese marriage. In the diplomaticcontest Wolsey had the advantage, that Charles, in spite of Pavia, couldnot bring the necessary pressure to bear on his captive, if the support ofEngland was felt to be withdrawn. He had something to lose by an openbreach: Wolsey had not--provided the responsibility for the breach couldplausibly be laid on Charles. Moreover, although the French King was theEmperor's prisoner, the French Government was much less bitterly opposed tothe English demand for money than to the Imperial demand for territory. Thus by the end of the year Wolsey achieved his end--a treaty with France, involving the payment of two million crowns to England, and includingScotland in its terms. Charles being isolated made his own peace with hisprisoner in the following February (1526); but Francis, before signing, declared that his promises were extorted and not binding, and after hisrelease repudiated their validity. The Cardinal in fact had extricatedEngland from a very awkward situation, recovered her position as arbiter, and once more made the rival European monarchs feel that they could neitherof them afford to have her definitely ranged as an enemy. As the yearadvanced, the tendency for the French alliance to draw closer, and for theImperial alliance to dissolve became more marked. Charles, in his desire todominate Italy, allowed a Spanish force to enter Rome and terrorise thePope--though he disavowed their actions. In 1527, while he was continuingthis policy, and preparing for the sack of Rome and the seizure of thePope's person in May, Wolsey was carrying through a new French alliance, bywhich Orleans (afterwards Henry II. ) was betrothed to the Princess Mary, and France not only bound herself to make heavy payments but alsosurrendered Boulogne and Ardres. It seemed as though the isolation ofCharles was about to be completed, his opponents becoming the champions ofthe papacy--while his own antagonism to the Pope had been emphasised at theDiet of Spires by the withdrawal of the anti-Lutheran decrees, and thetemporary recognition of each State's right to adopt or reject theReformer's doctrines in its own territories. 

[Sidenote: 1527 A new factor]

But in 1527 Henry had developed a single purpose; he had set his mind onone object to the achievement whereof every political consideration was tobe subordinated. The state-craft of the great minister was dominated by andsubjected to the king-craft of a master who never brooked opposition to hiswill; and Wolsey, failing to carry out that will, was hurled withoutremorse from his high estate. The Cardinal's fall, the breach with Rome, the defining of the shape which the Reformation was to take in England, were all the outcome of Henry's resolve to be released from the wife towhom he had been wedded for eighteen years. Hitherto we have made onlyincidental allusion to the Reformation; it is now time to examine thedevelopment of that movement, down to the moment when Henry took into hisown hands the conduct of it within his own realms. 

CHAPTER VI

HENRY VIII (ii), 1509-32--BIRTH OF THE REFORMATION

[Sidenote: The Reformation in England]

Down to a comparatively recent date, the popularly accepted accounts of theReformation in England treated it as a spontaneous outburst of the deepreligious spirit pervading the mass of the people; a passionate repudiationof the errors of Rome, born of the secret study of the Bible in defiance ofpersecution, and of repulsion from the iniquities of the monastic system. Then there arose a picturesque historian, who recognised in Henry VIII. AndThomas Cromwell the men who created the Reformation; and having onceimagined them as the captains of a great and righteous cause, succeeded ininterpreting all their actions on the basis of postulating their single-eyed devotion to reform as their ever-dominant motive. A view so difficultto reconcile with some other stereotyped impressions has invited criticism;and it is not unusual now to be told that the changes effected by theReformation were small, except in so far as the Church was robbed by thedestruction of the monasteries. 

[Sidenote: Its true character]

As a matter of fact the change which took place was very great and veryfar-reaching for the nation, though it is easy to exaggerate the deviationsfrom Roman doctrine imposed by it on the clergy of the Anglican Communion. But the movement was one in which many factors were at work. Moralists, theologians, and politicians, all had their share in it; some who wereprominent promoters of it in one phase were its no less active antagonistsin another; and not infrequently were guided by purely personal ambitionsand interests throughout. In its essence however the Reformation was arevolt against conventions which had lost the justification of theconditions that had brought them into being, and had become fetters uponintellectual and spiritual progress instead of aids to its advancement. Each group of reformers was ready enough to impose on the world a new setof conventions of its own manufacture, but no group succeeded in dominatingthe aggregate of groups; and thus in the long run toleration became theonly working policy, though its practice was by no means what the Reformershad set before themselves. After long years, religious liberty was theoutcome of their work; but few indeed were the martyrs whose blood wasconsciously shed in that great cause. The men who died rather than submittheir own convictions to the dictation of others were for the most partready, when opportunity offered, to sit in judgment on those who would notaccept their own dictation. 

[Sidenote: Religious decadence]

The prevailing conditions of the Church at the dawn of the Reformation wereexceedingly corrupt, with the corruption of worn out institutions; but theyappeared to be part of the necessary order of things. Hitherto, occasionalheretics had arisen, but (superficially at least) they had been suppressedwithout serious difficulty. The State, in England and elsewhere, hadentered upon conflicts with the priesthood; secular monarchs had evenchallenged the authority of the Pope; but such quarrels had ended incompromises formal or practical. Moral reforming movements like that ofSt. Francis had arisen within the Church herself; they had not beenantagonistic to her, and they had thriven and decayed without producingrevolutionary results. Clerical abuses had been for centuries the objectsof satire, but the satirists rarely had any inclination for the role ofrevolutionaries or martyrs. The recent revival of learning had developed ascepticism which was however habitually accompanied by a decent professionof orthodoxy. That there was prevalent unrest had long been obvious; thatthere was risk of disturbing developments was not unrecognised; but thatthese things were the prelude to a vast revolution had been realisedneither by Churchmen, Statesmen, nor literati. 

[Sidenote: The Scholar-Reformers]

It did not appear, then, that the revolt of Wiclif in England and of Hussin Europe was about to be renewed: though they had in fact prepared thesoil to receive the new seed. Lollardry had been driven beneath thesurface. Still, so far at least as it represented anti-clericalism ratherthan a theological system, its secret disciples were accorded aconsiderable measure of popular sympathy; though it numbered few professorsamong the cultivated classes, it had semi-adherents even among thewealthier burgesses of London; it was active enough to cause some alarm toConvocation, and to excite reactionary bishops. But it was not in thisquarter primarily that any notable movement seemed likely to arise. Thedemand for Reformation during the first quarter of the century wasformulated by scholars who were not heretics--Dean Colet of St. Paul's;Thomas More; the cosmopolitan Erasmus, who was but a bird of passage inthis country, yet one who was warmly and generously welcomed. 

To men of this school, a schism in the Church never presented itself as adesirable end. Luther had not yet burned Pope Leo's Bull when Colet died;Lutheranism changed More into a reactionary, as, centuries later, theFrench Revolution changed Edmund Burke; Erasmus would not range himselfbeside the stormy controversialists of Germany and Switzerland. To thescholars, the Roman system was not irreconcilable with truth; its defectswere accidents, excrescences, curable by the application of common-senseand moral seriousness. In the eyes of Luther and Zwingli, the corruption ofRome was vital, organic, incurable. Ecclesiastical Authority was thecorner-stone of the Roman system: Colet and More never attacked it; Lutherattacked it because it maintained opinions which he held to befundamentally false; but in England it is possible to doubt whether theattitude of More and Colet would ever have been officially discarded, hadit not been for the political and personal considerations which led Henryand Cromwell to trample ecclesiastical authority under foot. Nevertheless, by their attacks on ecclesiastical abuses, Colet and More helpedintelligent people to perceive that the abuses were intolerable, and toacquiesce even in the extreme remedy of schism rather than continue toendure the burden. 

[Sidenote: Ecclesiastical demoralisation]

It is not disputable that the existing corruption was so serious that somekind of Reformation was absolutely necessary. Where the head is corrupt, there cannot be much general health. If the spiritual head of Christendomwere unworthy of his office the ecclesiastical body was certain to suffer;nor could much spirituality be looked for therein, if it habituallyacquiesced in the election of Popes in whom spirituality was the lastquality recognisable. The climax was perhaps reached when a Borgia--Alexander VI. --was raised to the papal throne; a man who revelled in thepractice of every imaginable vice, and shrank from no conceivable crime. The mere fact that such an election was possible is sufficient proof of theutter absence of religious feeling in the ruling ranks of the clergy: norwas its presence compatible with the appointment either of his free livingand warlike successor Julius II. Or of Leo X. Who followed--a person of nolittle culture, a patron of art and of letters, whose morals were notexceptionally lax as compared with those of the average Italian noble, butin all essentials a pagan. With few exceptions, the princes of the Churchowed their position to their connexion, by birth or otherwise, with greatfamilies; not a few of them were territorial lords of considerabledominions, for whom it was a sheer necessity to be politicians first, whether they were scholars, ministers of the Gospel, or mere pleasure-seekers afterwards. Italians completely dominated the college of cardinals, looking upon the control of the Church as a national prerogative. Thecharacteristics of the ecclesiastical princes were shared in due degree bybishops and abbots. The fact that until recent years learning had beenpractically a clerical monopoly necessarily made the clergy the fittestinstruments for carrying on much State business, thereby withdrawing manyof the better men from the service of religion to the service of politics. In brief, the whole system tended to entangle the able members of theecclesiastical body in the temptations not so much of the Flesh and theDevil as of the World. 

[Sidenote: Monastic corruption]

Further, the monastic system had utterly fallen away from its pristineideals. It had served a great purpose. Born as it was when the world wasjust emerging from paganism, and the Roman civilisation was being engulfedin the flood of barbarian invasion, the men and women who withdrew from thedesperate turmoil without to the sheltering walls of the monastery or theconvent, invested with a sacrosanct character which was at least in partrespected, found therein the opportunity for prayer, meditation and studywhich was denied them elsewhere. They could maintain a standard of piety, and keep a rudimentary education from altogether dying out. For centuriesthey were the only source of alms and succour to which the afflicted andneedy could turn; and so long as the rules of the Orders were observed inthe spirit and in the letter, they were a genuine help towards a life ofself-devotion, of self-abnegation whereof the ultimate motive was notalways a subtle form of self-seeking. But as time passed, the monasteriesbecame the recipients of the bounty of pious benefactors. Theirinhabitants, in spite of ascetic regulations, found that life was none sohard--at least in comparison with that of serfdom or villeinage; luxurieswere not less available than to the laity. The privileges of the sacredoffice gave increasing opportunities for vicious indulgence when oncecorruption had entered a Religious house. Promotion became the prize ofintrigue instead of the recognition of piety; till it came to be no scandalwhen a political priest was rewarded for his services by presentation tothe rule of a wealthy abbey, with which he was connected only as the chiefrecipient of its revenues, as when Wolsey had St. Albans bestowed on him inreturn for his diplomatic labours. Apart from the diatribes of zealots andthe evidence of interested informers, apart also from the inclination togeneralise from well authenticated but extreme examples, it is evidentthat, in the absence of a positive religious enthusiasm, the system waspeculiarly liable to grave degeneration; and it was long since there hadbeen any active spiritual revival to counteract that tendency. 

[Sidenote: The proofs]

To these general considerations we have also to add the direct positiveevidence in connexion with Cardinal Morton's visitations of the Monasteriesin the reign of Henry VII. It was neither shown nor attempted to be shownthat the Religious houses _en bloc_ were hotbeds of vice. But it wasshown beyond question that even among the great Abbeys there were to befound appalling examples of corruption and profligacy, where the heads werethe worst offenders and the rank and file imitated their superiors; andthat small houses were not infrequently conducted in the most scandalousmanner--for the simple reason that, when once corruption had found anentry, there was no supervising external authority sufficiently interestedto intervene vigorously. 

_Mutatis mutandis_, what was true of the Monasteries was also true ofthe Mendicant Orders. The class of men who had no desire to dig, and noshame about begging, found the friar's robe a useful adjunct to the latteroccupation. Long after enthusiasm had ceased to draw any large numbers intothe ranks of the friars, they were increased and multiplied by crowds ofignorant and idle rogues, who were subjected to no adequate control. 

[Sidenote: Corruption of doctrine]

But the corruption of the clerical body fostered also the degeneration ofpopular religious conceptions. The actual teaching of the clergy was agrotesque distortion of the doctrines they professed to expound. Theintelligible doctrine of absolution following on repentance and confession, and accompanied by penance, had been transformed into that of absolutionpurchasable by cash. Reverence for the relics of saints and martyrs hadbeen degraded by their spurious multiplication. The belief that such relicswere endowed with miraculous properties had been utilised to convert theminto fetishes, and pampered by fraudulent conjuring tricks. The dueperformance of ceremonial observances was treated as of far more vitalimportance than the practice of the Christian virtues. The images of theSaints had virtually come to be regarded not as symbols, but as idolspossessed of various degrees of power, the assistance of one and the samesaint proving more or less efficacious according to the shrine favoured byhis suppliant. 

[Sidenote: Evidence from Colet and More (1512-18)]

These facts are not disputable. They were fully recognised by Reformers ofthe type of Colet and More, who would have had the Church reform herself byreverting to the primitive and orthodox expression of the doctrines ofwhich these deformities were a corrupt latter-day misrepresentation, and tothe ideals of life and conduct which had been overlaid by ceremonialobservances. The primitive doctrines they accepted without question; asregarded the ceremonial observances, they objected to them not inthemselves but only so far as they obscured in practice the much highervalue of moral ideals. In the view of such men the remedy for heresies layin the hands of the clergy: would they but bring their lives into someconformity with primitive ideals, surrendering the pursuit of place, profit, or pleasure to tread in the footsteps of the apostles, heresy wouldperish of inanition. 

[Sidenote: Later evidence]

When Colet was preaching at St. Paul's, when More was imagining the_Utopia_, when Erasmus was preparing his _Praise of Folly_ andhis edition of the Greek Testament, the name of Luther was still unknown. Their aim was the active propagation of reform; not to exercise thereon arestraining influence, which at that time would have seemed superfluous. The only reason they could have had for understating the existingcorruption would have been fear of the authorities, a fear from which bothColet and More always showed themselves conspicuously free. Colet's mostvigorous exhortations were addressed to prelates and persons in highplaces; More never throughout his career hesitated to oppose Chancellors, or even Tudor Kings, when a principle was involved. We are thereforeentitled to assume that they neither over-coloured nor deliberately toneddown the prevalent conditions. A decade later, when fanaticism had brokenloose, the anathemas hurled at the clergy by irresponsible pamphleteers, orzealots who were sheltered in the Lutheran States of Germany, were of amuch more sweeping character. Later, again, the reports of theCommissioners for the suppression of monasteries formed an appallingindictment. Later still, when the Protestant party won the upper hand aftera season of relentless and embittering persecution, the pictures theypainted of the past were lurid in the extreme. But the evidence of suchwitnesses could not be other than passionately biassed, just as theevidence of persecuted monks and nuns must have been biassed on the otherside: whereas the evidence of Colet, of More in his earlier days, and, withcertain reservations, of Erasmus, is that of honest and high-minded men ofgreat intellectual capacity, speaking without prejudice of conditions withwhich they were in direct contact. Their assertions, and the fairinferences from their assertions, are a safe basis from which we canascertain both the gravity and the limits of the corruption which existedin England. 

[Sidenote: Dean Colet]

John Colet was appointed to the Deanery of St. Paul's four or five yearsbefore the death of Henry VII. , being transferred thither from Oxford, where he had won high repute, not merely for character and learning, but asthe initiator of a new and rational method of Scriptural study in place ofthe old scholasticism. At St. Paul's the Dean proved himself a greatpreacher, exercising also in private life a powerful influence on all whocame in contact with him, alike from the splendour of his intellect and thelarge-hearted purity of his character. His outspoken sermons were by nomeans to the liking of his bishop; but some of the leading prelates, notably Warham of Canterbury and Fox of Winchester, were well disposed tothe new school of learning and exposition and to higher moral standards, asCardinal Morton had been. When the young King ascended the throne in 1509, his accession was hailed by all men of the new school as heralding thereign of intellectual liberty and enlightenment. 

[Sidenote: Colet's sermon, 1512]

Accordingly, when Convocation was summoned in 1512 to discuss thesuppression of heresy, in consequence of some stray reappearances ofLollardry, the prevalence of a wider spirit was shown by the selection ofColet to preach the opening sermon, and by the subsequent ignominiousfailure of the Bishop of London to have the Dean punished as a heretic. Itis to the sermon preached on this occasion that we must turn to see howColet viewed the situation. It was a direct indictment of the manner oflife of the clergy from Wolsey down; a summons to them to amend their ways, to set a higher example to their flock; an appeal to them to fix their eyeson apostolic ideals, and so to remove the real incitement which turnedmen's minds to heretical speculation. While the positive arguments of thepreacher are evidence not only of the purity of his own aims and hiscourage in supporting them, their reception shows that the substantialjustice of the indictment was recognised by the audience at whom it waspersonally directed, however little disposed they might be to actindividually on his appeal. On the other hand however, it is a strikingfact that the charges brought are almost exclusively of worldliness, laxity, indiscipline, unbecoming in pastors and in ministers of the Gospelof Christ--though these charges were pressed home relentlessly; not at allof that rampant immorality and vice of which the clergy were so freelyaccused in later years. From what Colet did _not_ say, we may fairlyinfer a reasonable average of respectability among them. 

[Sidenote: Erasmus]

If, in the _Encomium Moriae_ or _Praise of Folly_, which Erasmuswrote at about the same period (1511), the vices and follies of the Churchwere lashed with a mockery still more unsparing, we have to note, first, that the great scholar drew his picture less from England than from theContinent; next, that it had no injurious effect on his appointment to theprofessorship of Greek at Cambridge. The patronage extended to him by thePrimate, and by Fisher of Rochester, the most orthodox and saintly of theEnglish bishops, is a sufficient proof that the authorities were notbigoted enemies of all reform; a proof borne out by the enthusiasticwelcome extended to his edition of the Greek Testament in 1518, by Fox ofWinchester amongst others. 

[Sidenote: The _Utopia_, 1516]

From the _Utopia_ of Sir Thomas More we derive precisely the sameimpression. In 1516, when the work was published, Luther had not yet defiedthe Pope; the German Peasants' War had not yet broken out, nor the spreadof new ideas been associated with Anarchism under the name of Anabaptism. Persecution, which fifteen years later More advocated and practised as theunavoidable remedy for the spread of doctrines which he had come to regardas actively pernicious, was alien to his instincts; in his idealCommonwealth, men might expound whatever they honestly held, provided theydid not deny God and the Future Life. More's nature was tolerant andcharitable. But his own convictions were thoroughly orthodox; he had at onetime a strong disposition to enter the priesthood himself; he held thepriestly office in high reverence. Yet his restriction of the number ofpriests in _Utopia_ shows his vivid consciousness of the evil wroughtby their unrestricted multiplication in England; and in the description ofEnglish social conditions in the introductory portion of his work, herefers in emphatic terms to the large proportion of "sturdy vagabonds"among them. His whole tone in the section of his book devoted to religiousmatters implies that he is pointing a contrast between his ideal order ofthings and that familiar to his readers, wherein non-essentials are soemphasised that essentials are practically forgotten. Yet More, like Colet, makes no sweeping attack on the morality (in the narrower popular sense ofthe term) prevalent among the clerical body. 

[Sidenote: Exaggerated attacks]

The wholesale condemnation of later days has been largely due to theacceptance without qualification of denunciations poured forth in the heatof controversy, in days when men did not mince words and were not given tothe careful weighing of evidence. Typical of such works is the_Supplicacyon for the Beggers_ produced by one Simon Fish in 1527, which has been seriously treated as a sober indictment. The Clergy, fromBishops to "Somners" are a "rauinous cruell and insatiabill generacion"... "counterfeit holy and ydell beggers and vacabundes" ... "that corruptthe hole generation of mankind, " committing "rapes murdres and treasons". They are a "gredy sort of sturdy idell holy theues" habitually guilty ofevery conceivable form of vice and profligacy. The pamphlet teams witharithmetical absurdities. It is simply inconceivable that the growth withinthe realm of such an organisation as is here depicted would have beenpermitted; or that, if there, it would not have been sternly repressed byHenry VII. ; or that if it had survived the first Tudor, the second wouldhave suffered it to flourish unregarded for eighteen years of his reign. The exaggeration is so flagrant that we can hardly infer from it even asubstratum of truth. Such diatribes as this must be referred to, not asbeing valid evidences against the accused, but as proving the passion ofthe controversy, and the hesitation necessary before accepting conclusionstraceable to the wild and whirling words of such controversialists. 

[Sidenote 1: Clerical privileges][Sidenote 2: Tentative reforms]

In another respect however there was a serious demand for reform; namelythe legal and judicial privileges which the ecclesiastical body hadacquired in the course of centuries, and which had gradually become thesource of serious abuses. The administration of certain branches of theCivil Law had been absorbed by the Clerics, who were charged withconverting their functions into an elaborate machinery for extorting fees;and on the Criminal side, what was known as Benefit of Clergy, as well asthe rules of Sanctuary, had become not merely anomalous but an actualencouragement to crime. Any criminal or accused person who succeeded inreaching Sanctuary was safe from the secular arm; and any one who couldproduce evidence, even of the flimsiest character, that he was a clericcould claim to be tried by the ecclesiastical instead of the secularcourts. Originally these privileges had been of very great service in thewild days when judicial treatment was at least more readily obtainable fromthe Clergy, when trial by ordeal was common, and the merciless punishmentsof the ordinary law gave place to the milder but not ineffective penaltiesof Ecclesiastical discipline. Even the legal fictions by which evildoerswere allowed to claim Benefit of Clergy as Clerics had their justification. But when even murderers could escape with a moderate penance as Clerics, because they could read, the general public were hardly the better. Abeginning of reform in this direction had been made when Henry VII. Obtained a Bull diminishing the rights of Sanctuary in cases of treason;and again in 1511 when the rights both of Sanctuary and Benefit of Clergywere withdrawn from murderers. It was noteworthy however that there was aprotest against even this made by the Clergy in 1515; when one Dr. Standish, for justifying the measure, was attacked by the Bishops inConvocation. Warham and Fox both supported the old privileges. The temporallords on a commission appointed to enquire into the matter sided withStandish, and declared that the Bishops had incurred the penalties ofpraemunire. Wolsey tried to persuade the King to refer the question to thePope, but the King asserted the rights of the Crown in uncompromisingterms. The Bishops had to submit to a sharp rebuke, and Standish was made aDean not long after. The episode was a premonition of future events. 

[Sidenote: The Educational Movement]

It does not appear that the writings or the preaching of the scholars hadany marked effect on the conduct of the clergy, or aroused any generalreforming zeal. But in one direction, that of education, they exercised avery material influence on the intellectual attitude of the youngergeneration. Dean Colet is known to-day to many even of those who takelittle interest in his times, as the founder of St. Paul's School, where heendeavoured to make the teaching of the young a real training instead of adrill in pedagogic formulae. And as he set the example which was by degreesfollowed in other grammar schools, so the example he had already set atOxford was followed both there and at Cambridge by his disciples. To him, more than to any other man, was due the practical application of the newknowledge of Greek to the study of the New Testament, resulting primarilyin the treatment of the Pauline Epistles as organic structures; asconnected treatises, instead of collected texts according to the custom ofthe schoolmen; who, dragging phrases from their context, expanded, interpreted and harmonised them with other phrases for fresh expansion andinterpretation; neglecting the apostolic argument to illustrate their owntheses or those of the mediaeval doctors. Fox, of Winchester, when hefounded Corpus Christi College, Oxford, Fisher in the Lady Margaretfoundations at Cambridge, put into them men of the new school. Wolseyhimself had evidently been influenced by the new methods, for his activeconnexion with Oxford had not ceased when Colet was there; and when inlater years he founded Cardinal College, afterwards Christ Church, the menhe appointed to it were chosen from the disciples of the school of Coletand Erasmus. To this higher ideal of University education, perhaps thestrongest impulse was given by Erasmus himself, during the brief time about1512 when he was Professor of Greek at Cambridge, where he proved himselfthe most brilliant exponent of the principles which in part at least he hadimbibed from the Dean. Cranmer, his great rival Gardiner, and many othersamong the protagonists in the coming religious struggle, received theirtraining under the new conditions--conditions very markedly affected bythat edition of the New Testament, to which reference has already beenmade, issued by Erasmus from Basle in 1516 after he had left England: awork in which the Greek text appeared side by side with a new Latintranslation, in place of the orthodox "Vulgate" whereof the stereotypedphraseology had acquired, through centuries of authorised interpretation, ameaning often very far removed from that of the original. 

[Sidenote: Wolsey and the Reformation]

Thus what the Scholars accomplished was not Reform but the preparation ofmen's minds for Reform. What Wolsey the Statesman might have done, ifforeign affairs had not occupied the best of his energies, we can onlyguess. His point of view was that of a Politician, not that of a man ofreligion. Such reforms as he might have been prepared to introduce wouldnot have been the outcome of any lofty idealism, but only such as seemed tobe dictated by public decency. As a Statesman, he was alive to theadvantages of education, desired much of the wealth of the Church to beturned into that channel, and founded colleges, which he staffed with menof the new school and financed in part from the proceeds of suppressedreligious houses. He went so far as to procure a papal Bull for theabolition of all Houses numbering less than seven inmates. But it may bedoubted whether the real motive of the suppression was not rather theappropriation of funds for his favourite schemes than zeal for monasticmorality. As Cardinal and Legate and an aspirant to the Papacy, he couldnever have lent himself to a policy calculated to weaken the ecclesiasticalorganisation; he could never have associated himself with Colet's campaignagainst clerical worldliness, of which there was no more conspicuousexample in the kingdom than he. Having children himself by an illicitunion, he could hardly have taken high ground as a reformer of morals. Inbrief, he must have confined his treatment of the situation within thelimits of the work of a politician with educational leanings. What heactually did was to renew the monastic visitations set on foot by CardinalMorton, to suppress some few small houses as corrupt or superfluous, and toencourage the new school of teaching which no one of authority had hithertocondemned as heretical. As to actual heresy, he looked on it with the eyesnot of a theologian but of a politician; as a thing to be suppressed if itthreatened public order, but otherwise negligible. He sought also todiminish the abuses connected with the ecclesiastical courts by theestablishment of a Legatine Court of his own. But there is no sign that hewas ever alive to the volcanic forces at work; or recognised that sooner orlater the revolution which Luther initiated in Europe would have to bereckoned with in England also. Even at the time when the great Cardinalfell from power, there were but slight signs within the realm of the comingrevolt, mutterings of a growing storm. No prophet had arisen denouncing theevil of the times convincingly, no statesman propounding drastic remedies;only the scholars had been preaching amendment, and occasional zealots hadbeen bringing discredit on the cause of reformation by the violence oftheir incriminations. The far-reaching political effect of the religiousdifferences was long in being realised on the Continent; in England it wasstill longer in making itself felt. Yet the Lutheran revolt was destinedvitally to influence both the international relations and the internalorder of every State in Christendom. 

[Sidenote: The Lutheran Revolt, 1517]

In 1517 Pope Leo X. Was in want of money: and one of the recognised methodsof obtaining it was the sale of Indulgences--that is to say, remissions inthe duration of Purgatorial sufferings, ratified by His Holiness, andpurchasable for cash. The whole thing being simply a commercialtransaction, the Indulgences were offered at popular prices. There wasnothing new in the method. The Lay Princes had no objections to the sale intheir territories, since they could demand a share in the profits as thecondition of their permission. The system moreover had been held up toridicule before. But on this occasion, there were two novel features: one, the unprecedented scale on which the transaction was to be worked, theother the nature of the opposition it aroused. Doctor Martin Luther, anAugustinian monk and Professor at the University of Wittenberg in Saxonyhad been coming to the conclusion that the practices of the Church were notwhat they should be, and that much of her teaching was false. The affair ofthe Indulgences brought things to a head; and when Tetzel the PapalCommissioner was approaching Saxony, Luther drew up a counterblast in theform of a series of propositions which he nailed up publicly on the Churchdoors. Moreover he received unexpected support from the "Good Elector"Frederick, who forbade Tetzel to enter his dominions. 

[Sidenote: Luther's defiance, 1520]

Leo was occupied with political affairs, which seemed for the time to bemore important than the heretical vagaries of an obscure monk. Wolsey'sdiplomacy was working up to the point at which in 1518 he attached Franceto England in the alliance which culminated in the "Universal Peace, " theCardinal having supplanted the Pope as the moderator in the disputes of thegreat Powers. Then Maximilian died, and the Imperial Election absorbedpolitical attention, with the ensuing complications described in a previouschapter. Meantime however, Luther was waxing increasingly determined;instead of quailing at threats, he was fully resolved to maintain hisconvictions and fight the matter out. As to what he had done, he appealedto a General Council; what he was going to do he made clear by exhortingthe German Princes to stop their tributes to Rome. The advice had a naturalattraction for the German Princes though they might lack enthusiasm onquestions of theology. Leo issued a Bull condemning Luther. Luther answeredby publicly burning the Bull (December 10th, 1520). 

[Sidenote: The Diet of Worms, 1521]

The young Emperor, fresh from his coronation at Aachen, was about to holdthe Diet of the Empire at Worms. It was his policy to maintain friendlyrelations with Rome; and Luther was summoned to the Diet under asafe-conduct. The precedent of Huss showed how little such a safe-conductwas worth; but the great Reformer was undaunted. Frederick of Saxony, encouraged by Erasmus, was known to be on his side. He faced the Diet, reaffirmed his heresies, and emphasised his flat repudiation of PapalAuthority. He had fiery supporters and fiery opponents. His life was in thegravest danger, and his death would have been followed by a bloodycollision between the two parties. The disaster was averted by the ElectorFrederick who kidnapped him for his own sake and carried him off to asecure retreat in the Wartburg: where he remained for nearly a year, working at his translation of the Bible. The Diet however confirmed anedict condemning Luther and his doctrines. The English King moreover, whoaccounted himself no mean theologian, issued a refutation of the Lutheranheresies which won for him from Pope Leo the title of Defender of theFaith. 

At this time, and for some time to come, the Papacy regarded Francis I. With hostility, and looked upon his Italian ambitions as dangerous toitself. Hence there was a natural tendency to alliance between Rome and theEmperor. 1521 was the year of the ineffectual Conference of Calais, followed by the death of Leo X. , the election of the (Imperial) Pope Adrianin the next year, and the embroilment of England in the European wars. Charles was sufficiently occupied with these high political matters, andwas personally withdrawn from Germany, whose affairs were more or lesscontrolled by an Imperial Council in which Frederick of Saxony was theguiding spirit; popular sentiment was on Luther's side, and the Worms edictwas practically a dead letter. But the seclusion of the great Reformerthrew the movement largely into the hands of extremists such as Carlstadtand Münzer to whose anarchical theories he was opposed as vehemently as toRome. 

[Sidenote: 1524 The German peasant rising]

Now we shall presently see that in England itself there was strong groundfor discontent with the prevailing social order and the relations betweenthe peasantry and the landed classes: but in Germany matters were very muchworse. In England there had always been a tendency for the religiousreformers to associate their movements with demands for social reform; andso it was now to an exaggerated degree in Germany. Social revolution was nopart of the scheme of Luther and his lieutenant Melanchthon; but in defyingthe authority of Rome they had awakened the revolutionary spirit. Firedwith religious fanaticism, the demagogues acquired a new character, adevouring zeal, a reckless courage. At last in 1524 the peasants rosedemanding redress for their grievances. What they asked was indeed barejustice according to any intelligent modern view; yet the granting of theirdemands would have been completely subversive of the existing social order. The upper classes were united against them, Luther and his associatesdenounced them. The fiercest passions broke loose: there were ghastlymassacres and ghastly reprisals, ending in the slaughter of scores ofthousands of peasants, and the complete suppression of the rising. 

[Sidenote: Its effect in England]

The Lutherans proper had emphatically dissociated themselves from thezealots who stirred up the "peasants' war, " which did not alter the generalattitude of the Germans on the religious question. But in England, thesethings had a serious effect. The Lutheran heresies were condemned asheresies in this country before the outbreak, and a considerable number ofheretically inclined Englishmen took refuge in the German States, wherethey looked to find countenance. Being for the most part men of extremetendencies, those tendencies were quickened; whence it resulted that inimporting the new religious doctrines from Germany they combined them moreor less with the doctrines of social revolution. Thus the distinctionbetween the two movements was lost sight of, and the profession of the newdoctrines was regarded as not merely heretical but in itself anarchical--athing which must be suppressed in the interests of public order. Hence wefind the curious paradox of Thomas More, the one-time advocate of atoleration which was obviously in accord with his instincts, becoming incourse of time the advocate and agent of a rigorous intolerance and arelentless persecution. 

[Sidenote 1: 1525 The Empire and the papacy][Sidenote 2: 1527 The sack of Rome]

The Peasants' Revolt was crushed in the summer of 1525. Before this end wasaccomplished, the Good Elector passed away--a wise, kindly, tolerant manwho had exercised an immense moderating influence by simple benignity, shrewdness, and force of character. A little earlier, the ambitious schemesof Francis I. Had been shattered by the disaster of Pavia. In effect, thewhole European situation was changed completely since the death of Leo X. In 1521. His successor Adrian was a man of good intentions but limitedpurview; the great issues at stake were beyond his grasp, and his attemptsat disciplinary reforms were made nugatory by the stolid immobility of thehierarchy. After a brief reign he was succeeded by Clement VII. , a man ofconsiderable talent and inconsiderable ability: a man shifty and fearful, not fitted to cope with the stubborn wills of the reigning princes andtheir ministers, or with the moral and intellectual forces which werethreatening the supremacy of the historic Church. The collapse of theFrench in Italy gave Charles a power which filled Clement with alarm, sincehis friendliness was no longer of political moment to the Emperor, whilesentimental considerations would certainly not suffice to retain the activesupport of Wolsey and England. In 1526 the insecurity of his position wasemphasised by the attitude of the Imperial Diet held at Spires, whereCharles through his brother Ferdinand withdrew from the position ofanti-Lutheranism to adopt that of impartial toleration, and it was decreedin effect that each Prince might sanction what religion he would, withinhis own territories; thus cancelling the Decree of Worms. The capture andoccupation of Rome by troops mainly Spanish in the same year, despite theEmperor's repudiation, was another alarming symptom; which received aterrifying confirmation in 1527, when the Imperial troops, Spanish andGerman, headed by the "Lutheran" Frundsberg and the Constable of Bourbon, turned their arms upon the Holy City, stormed it, sacked it with a savagethoroughness unparalleled since the days of Alaric, and held the Popehimself a prisoner. 

[Sidenote: 1530 Diet of Augsburg]

Thus the Pope himself was now not merely dominated by the Emperor butactually in his hands. The successes of Charles however urged Francis--whohad been liberated in 1526--to renewed activity, and for a time it seemednot unlikely that he would recover his ascendency in Italy, a consummationas little to Clement's taste as the Imperial dominance. But the French Kingmisused his opportunities and his armies met with fresh disasters. In 1529, the Pope and the Emperor were reconciled, with the result that at anotherDiet of Spires the Worms edict was revived and the last Spires edictrevoked, in face of the protest of the Lutheran Princes which earned forthem the title of Protestants. That party however was sufficiently strongto prevent its opponents from enforcing the decree over the Empire. At theDiet of Augsburg next year (1530) the decree was confirmed: the Protestantsreplying by drawing up the Confession of Augsburg, formulating theirdoctrines, a document which became the definite expression of Protestantismin the least general sense of the term--while they bound themselves formutual support in the League of Schmalkald. The two parties seemed to be onthe verge of war; but the sentiment of nationality in face of thethreatening of a Turkish advance and of the non-German leanings of Charles--a sentiment most zealously preached by Luther who was a typical Germanpatriot as well as a religious reformer--deferred the rupture till afterLuther's death. 

[Sidenote: The Swiss Reformers, 1520-1530]

The active aggressive Reformation began in Germany with Luther's attack onIndulgences. In France it made no headway for many years; in Spain andItaly none at all; in England none, till the meeting of Parliament in 1529. But the movement in Switzerland was as marked as that in Germany, andhardly less important in the influence ultimately exercised by the Swissteachers, though of less direct political weight. Nor is it possible tofollow the course of the Reformation in England, unless the separateexistence of the Swiss School is duly appreciated. Switzerland was not aPolitical entity which could rank effectively as a make-weight ininternational rivalries; but its geographical conditions preserved it frominterference, and permitted it, so to speak, to work out its own salvation. The country was a federation of small democratic States or Cantons, with noPrinces and no nobility. It followed that when once the question ofecclesiastical reform was raised, the theories of Church Government whichwould find acceptance would be democratic in principle: and accordingly itwas from Switzerland that the vital opposition to Episcopal systems sprang. But the main fact to be observed at this stage is, that the Swiss Reformerswere not the outcome of the Lutheran movement; their movement wasspontaneous, independent, and parallel. Their leader Zwingli anticipatedrather than followed Luther. But an agitator who appealed to Germany and anagitator who appealed to Switzerland seemed to be of very different degreesof public importance. Hence comparatively speaking Zwingli was ignored bythe authorities. Half Switzerland might--and did--revolt from the Pope, without greatly exercising the Papal mind. But in the process Zurich becamehardly less important as a teaching centre and an asylum for hereticalrefugees than Wittenberg; and in many respects, the teaching of Zurichdeparted from the teaching of Rome more seriously than did the teaching ofLuther. The element of Mysticism, to which the German genius is generallyprone, had no attraction for the Swiss mind, while it was essential in theeyes of the Wittenberg school; so that Luther and the Zurich Reformersassailed each other with hardly less virulence than they both lavished onthe Papal party. It was a long time before the term "Protestant" wasextended so as to include the disciples of Zurich and Geneva. 

[Sidenote: English heretics abroad]

Alike to Switzerland and to the German States which may by anticipation becalled Protestant, there gathered during these first years an appreciablenumber of Englishmen, who were either already touched with Lollardry, orfound themselves in revolt against prevailing doctrines or practices, orwere discovering by the light of the New Learning discrepancies between theteaching of the Gospels and the current interpretation. In theseterritories they were for the time assured of such liberty as enabled themto issue pamphlets, dissertations, and commentaries, which found their wayinto England and not infrequently received effective advertisement by beingpublicly condemned and burnt, with the result that the few copies whichescaped acquired an adventitious interest and influence. Considering theviolence of the invective often conspicuous in them, and the extravaganceof the controversial methods usually adopted, the treatment they met withcan hardly be condemned as oppressive; whether it was politic is anotherquestion. The modern English view generally is that such repressive actstend to defeat their own ends. On the whole however it would seem that itwas the manner rather than the matter of these productions which caused theauthorities to treat them and their authors with such severity, though itwas done largely at the instigation of theological partisans. Thus Tindal'stranslation of the Bible was attacked as being _per se_ dangerous; butit was the accompanying commentary which ensured its suppression. 

[Sidenote: Contrasted aims]

The fundamental fact, however, which must be borne in mind in the earlystages of the Reformation in England is this: that whereas the cause towhich both Luther and Zwingli devoted themselves was primarily a revisionof dogmas and of the practices associated with them, the work which HenryVIII. And Thomas Cromwell were to take in hand was the revision of therelations between Church and State--of the position of the Clericalorganisation as a part of the body politic; not the introduction ofLutheran or Zwinglian doctrines. Such countenance as was given toLutheranism was given for purely political reasons. Luther's was aReligious Reformation with political consequences: Henry's was a PoliticalReconstruction entailing ultimately a reformed religion. 

CHAPTER VII

HENRY VIII (iii), 1527-29--THE FALL OF WOLSEY

[Sidenote: "The King's affair"]

The whole prolonged episode concerned with the "Divorce" of Queen Katharineis singularly unattractive; the character of almost every leading personassociated with it is damaged in the course of it--save that of the unhappyQueen. Unfortunately it is an episode which demands close attention andexamination, because its vicissitudes exercised a supreme influence on thecourse of the Reformation initiated by the King, besides bringing intopowerful relief the nature of that strange historical phenomenon, theConscience of Henry VIII. Moreover it has received from the pen of aparticularly brilliant writer a colouring which is so misleading and soplausible that the evidence as to facts requires to be presented withexceptional care. 

[Sidenote 1: Story of the marriage][Sidenote 2: Anne Boleyn]

It is not till 1527 that the project of a Divorce emerges definitely, so tospeak, into the open; but the evolution of the project had its origin at aconsiderably earlier date. We have to begin with a review of the conjugalrelations between the King and the Queen. Arthur, Prince of Wales hadcelebrated his marriage with Katharine, daughter of Ferdinand of Spain andaunt of the infant who was to become Charles V. A few months later he died. The young widow was thereafter betrothed to Henry; a dispensation beingobtained in 1504 from the Pope, Julius II, since marriage with a brother'swidow is forbidden by the laws of the Church. Henry VII. However, who neverliked to make any pledges without providing himself with some pretext bywhich they might be evaded, instructed his son to make a sort of protest atthe time. The second marriage was not carried out till Henry VIII. Was onthe throne: the bride being robed in the manner customary for maidens, notfor widows, on such occasions. She was older than her husband, and notparticularly attractive; but they lived together with apparent affection. It is uncertain how many children were actually born; but none lived longafter birth until Mary (1516), when the King showed himself conspicuouslyfond of his infant daughter. Henry does not in fact seem to have displayedthat extreme licentiousness which characterised most of the monarchs of thetime, though one illegitimate son was born to him, three years after Mary, by Mistress Elizabeth Blount--"mistress" being the courtesy title ofunmarried ladies. The Court however was undoubtedly licentious, and many ofhis favourite companions were notoriously profligate. In 1522 Anne Boleyn, then an attractive girl of sixteen, the daughter of Sir Thomas Boleyn, cameto Court. At what time Henry became seriously enamoured of her isuncertain; but from 1522 her father became the recipient of numerousfavours; and in 1525 was made a peer. It was a symptom of alienationbetween Henry and his wife that the six-year-old son of Elizabeth Blountwas at the same time created Duke of Richmond and Lord High Admiral, withmuch pomp. [Footnote: Brewer, ii. , 102. _L. & P. _ iv. , 639. ]

[Sidenote: 1527 The King prepares]

Apart from expressions in letters of 1526 which can only be reasonablyinterpreted as having reference to a contemplated divorce, letters ofWolsey's and the King's in the early months of 1527 prove incontestablythat Henry had at that time determined that he would marry Anne, and thatWolsey [Footnote: Brewer, ii. , 182, 184; _S. P. Henry VIII. _, i, 194. _L. & P. _, iv. , 1467. ] was elaborating a case, for presentation to thePope, against the validity of the dispensation under which the marriagewith Katharine had been contracted. 

What, then, was the King's attitude? In April 1527, he had made up his mindto break with Charles, Katharine's nephew, and concluded a treaty withFrance; but under this the French King's second son, the Duke of Orleans, was to marry the Princess Mary. It is difficult to believe that when thiswas done, the King was actually intending at a later stage to have Marydeclared illegitimate. He would hardly have proposed to alienate Charlesand Francis simultaneously. Possibly he anticipated no difficulty inlegitimating Mary while annulling her mother's marriage--as was ultimatelydone. It may be noted that it is absolutely impossible to maintain that_both_ Mary and Elizabeth were born in lawful wedlock; yet the countryaccepted both as legitimate without demur. But this French treaty darkensrather than illuminates the problem. 

The only fact definitely apparent in the papers of 1527 is that Henry haddetermined to make Anne his wife. There is no hint of the conscientiousscruples or the patriotic motives afterwards alleged, though that of coursedoes not preclude their having been present. Those two alleged motivesrequire to be examined merely as _a priori_ hypotheses. 

[Sidenote: Theoretical excuses]

There was one possible plea, then, for urging that a divorce was necessary:namely that political considerations made it imperative for the good of thenation that the King should take to himself a wife who might bear him amale heir to the throne. And there was one possible plea for demanding aformal enquiry into the validity of the dispensation: namely aconscientious doubt on the part of the King or Queen whether the union witha brother's widow was contrary to the Moral Law. No doubt existed as to thePope's power of abrogating a law, made by the Church for the public good, in a specific case; but it was not claimed that he could abrogate the Lawof God in like manner. If this was a case in which the Pope possessed thedispensing power, the dispensation held; if it was not, the marriage was nomarriage however innocently the parties entered upon it. One or other ofthese pleas must be made the pretext of any public action. 

[Sidenote: The need of an heir]

The plea that Henry must have a male heir is so absolutely conclusive inthe judgment of Henry's great apologist that he feels it necessary to offerexcuses for the womanly weakness which blinded Katharine to her obviousduty. It may also have appealed with considerable force to a statesman whoregarded all pledges and bonds as being in the last resort dissoluble ongrounds of national expediency. England had suffered enough from disputedsuccessions; and while it is not probable that a title so incontrovertibleas Mary's would have been directly challenged, it is evident thatdisastrous complications might have been involved by her union with anypossible husband, or by her death. It may have been that it was Henry's ownwish to act directly on this view, and to declare his marriage null, arbitrarily, on the ground of public expediency. But whatever were Wolsey'sviews on expediency, and on the desirability of nullifying the marriage, such a course would have been too flagrant a violation of the universallyaccepted belief in the sanctity of the marriage tie to meet with hissupport. Moreover the offspring of a new marriage contracted under suchconditions could hardly escape having his legitimacy challenged whenopportunity offered. The security of the succession could not therefore beobtained by this method. Yet the burden of discovering some way to enableHenry to marry again was laid upon the Cardinal's shoulders. 

[Sidenote: The plea of invalidity]

A pretext was forthcoming, whether devised by the Cardinal or another. Themarriage with Katharine might be held invalid on the ground that thedispensation under which it was contracted was invalid, as being _ultravires_. [Footnote: _Cf. _ however Wolsey's letter, Brewer, ii. , 180. Katharine argued that since she had remained a maiden, no actual affinityhad been contracted, therefore the re-marriage was not contrary to God'sLaw. Wolsey was prepared to reply that in that case, the dispensation wasinvalid; since it specified only the impediment of "affinity" but not thatof "public honesty" created by a contract not consummated, and so failed tocover the admitted circumstances. It appears from the complete context thatthis plea was hit upon only as a rejoinder to this particular plea ofKatharine's. But see Taunton, _Thomas Wolsey_, chap, x. , where adifferent view is taken; the whole context, however, is not there cited. ]This was the line that Wolsey advised, and to which the King committedhimself. It should be clear that it finally precluded the other line ofarbitrary dissolution, since it rested on the inviolability of a marriageonce validly contracted. If the Pope could not set aside the bar tore-marriage with a dead husband's brother, the King could hardly set asidehis own marriage, if it had been itself lawful. Stated conversely; if theKing could, so to speak cancel a living wife on the ground of publicexpediency, the Pope had surely been entitled to cancel a dead husband onthe same ground. 

[Sidenote: Conjunction of incentives]

When Wolsey had propounded the theory that the validity of the dispensationwas doubtful, it is easy enough to see how Henry might have persuadedhimself that his conscience must be set at ease. What if the death of allhis male children had been a Divine Judgment on an unlawful union? The wishis father to the thought. From this point, it was a short step to aconviction that, whatever any one might say, the union was unlawful. ThusHenry could with comparative equanimity adopt the role of one who merelyfelt that his doubts must be set at rest, while he would be only overjoyedto be finally certified that they were groundless. It is not till thisprofessed hope is in danger of being realised that the mask is dropped andthe King's determination to have a divorce by hook or by crook is avowed. 

On this view of the policy pursued, passion and patriotism may havecombined--in uncertain proportions--to make the King desire a new marriage;obedience and patriotism may have likewise combined to produce the samedesire in the Cardinal. But it is extremely difficult to doubt that theKing's conscientious scruples were an after-thought, since they had notovertly troubled him for eighteen years of married life; while theCardinal's position was painfully complicated by an intense aversion to theparticular marriage in contemplation. The Boleyns were closely associatedwith the group of courtiers who were most antagonistic to Wolsey; while onthe other hand, Katharine had for long regarded him as her husband's evilgenius. 

[Sidenote: The Orleans betrothal]

There is a single feature of the situation in the spring of 1527 whichmight be taken as pointing to a belief on the King's part that the validityof the marriage would be confirmed: namely the betrothal of his daughter toOrleans. This however would completely negative the activity of thatpatriotic motive by which Mr. Froude set so much store. Moreover, it isflatly contradicted by the letter to Anne [Footnote: _L. & P. _, iv. , 1467. ] in which Henry unmistakably declares his determination to marry her:and by Wolsey's [Footnote: _S. P. _, i. , 194. Brewer, ii. , 193 ff. ]letter to him, stating the case for the divorce. 

[Sidenote: Conclusion]

The only possible conclusion is that the one motive which really actuatedthe King was the desire to gratify an illicit passion. Other subsidiarymotives he may have called in to justify himself to himself, on which hedwelt till he really persuaded himself that they were genuine. For it washis unfailing practice to do or get done whatsoever served his personalinterest, and to parade some high moral cause as his unimpeachablemotive--or if this proved quite impossible, to condemn a minister as theresponsible person. Yet however difficult it is to reconcile such avowedmotives with the known facts, the avowal always has about it a tone ofconviction which can only have been the outcome of successfulself-deception. 

[Sidenote: The first plan (May)]

It was the Cardinal's task then to procure by some means a formal andauthoritative pronouncement that the Papal Dispensation was invalid. Thefirst scheme was that he should hold a Legatine Court before which the Kingshould be cited for living in an unlawful union with his brother's widow. Since the Legate was also the King's subject, the royal assent had to beformally given. This was duly arranged in May, the affair being conductedwith the utmost secrecy; but after the first beginnings [Footnote: _L. &P. _, iv. , 1426. ] these proceedings were dropped: presumably because, ifthey had been carried through, Katharine might have appealed to the Popeand Wolsey would have had no voice in the ultimate decision. [Footnote: ThePope in that case must either have decided the case himself, or have givenfull powers to a Legatine Court to act without appeal. In the latter event, Wolsey could not have been appointed, since Katharine's appeal would havebeen an appeal against his previous decision. ]

In the same month the world learnt with amazement that the troops ofBourbon and the Lutheran Frundsberg had stormed and sacked Rome; and thatthe Imperial troops held Clement himself a prisoner in the castle ofSt. Angelo. The Pope was thus completely in the Emperor's power: theEmperor was Katharine's nephew and would most certainly veto the divorce. Moreover, Katharine had now an inkling that steps to obtain a divorce werebeing projected; and, unknown to Henry, Mendoza the Spanish ambassador hadalready warned the Emperor. 

[Sidenote: The second plan (June)]

Thus the difficulties of Wolsey's task were increased; since the next movemust be to get a Papal Commission appointed which should be under Wolsey'scontrol. To that end, the ecclesiastical support of the English Bishops andthe political support of Francis were requisite. Wolsey played upon theguilelessness of Fisher of Rochester, till he persuaded the saintly bishopthat the confirmation of the marriage was the one thing desired--that theQueen's opposition was due to an unfortunate misconception, and entirelyopposed to her own interests. The same course was pursued with Warham ofCanterbury. [Footnote: Brewer, ii. , pp. 193 ff. ] The necessity for theenquiry was fathered upon the Bishop of Tarbes, a member of the Frenchembassy which had settled the betrothal of Orleans and Mary, who was said[Footnote: There is some reason to suppose that this story of the Bishop ofTarbes was merely concocted by Wolsey and Henry. It appears to have beenreferred to only in Wolsey's communications with Warham and Fisher. --Brewer, _Henry VIII. _, ii. , 216. But _cf. _ Pollard, _HenryVIII. , sub loc. _] to have questioned the validity of the dispensation, and by consequence the certainty of the princess's legitimacy. 

In July Wolsey proceeded to France, ostensibly for the settlement ofdetails in connexion with the recent treaty: actually, that Francis mightbe induced to bring pressure to bear on Charles for the release of thePope--in the somewhat desperate hope that Clement in his gratitude wouldthereupon grant Henry's wishes. Should the Pope's release be refused, Wolsey had the idea (soon to be abandoned) that the Cardinals might besummoned to meet in France, on the ground that the Pope was being forciblydeprived of the power of action. [Footnote: _S. P_. , i. , 230, 270. Brewer, ii. , 209, 219. ]

[Sidenote: Knight's mission (Autumn)]

The treaty of Amiens, cementing the union between Francis and Henry, wassigned late in August without reference to divorce. Now however Henry beganto conduct operations independently of Wolsey, sending his own secretaryKnight to Rome with private instructions, the object of which was to evadethe ultimate submission of the question to Wolsey's jurisdiction. Under theinfluence of the Boleyn clique, and knowing Wolsey's aversion to the Boleynmarriage, the King may have suspected that his minister would play himfalse if he lost all hope of averting that conclusion to the divorce. Or hemay merely have resolved that it was time to check any development of hisminister's authority. On Wolsey's return to England, instead of beingreceived in privacy according to precedent, he was summoned on his arrivalat Richmond Palace to meet his master in the presence of Anne Boleyn. 

[Sidenote: Its failure (Dec)]

Knight's mission was a failure. In December, Clement escaped in disguisefrom his Imperial guards: Knight found him at Orvieto. It was evident thatthe secret plan of getting the Pope's permission to marry again withoutupsetting the existing marriage [Footnote: Brewer, ii. , 224, 234-239. Boththe Conscience of the King and the need of an heir, are dwelt on in theinstructions. ] was out of the question. So the Secretary presented a formfor a dispensation, and for a Commission which was to give Wolsey power todecide summarily against the validity of the dispensation granted by PopeJulius, without appeal; and power to declare Mary legitimate at the sametime. The dispensation was to enable Henry to marry thereafter in despiteof difficulties which might be raised on certain specifiedgrounds--intelligible only if those difficulties applied in Anne Boleyn'scase: and implying the truth of allegations subsequently made as torelations between Henry and Anne's mother and sister. Knight was outwittedby a Cardinal, Lorenzo Pucci, who redrafted the documents so as to makethem useless for Henry's purpose. The deluded envoy returned to Englandunder the impression that he had achieved a diplomatic triumph. But theKing saw that he must leave the management of such delicate matters toWolsey. 

[Sidenote: The Pope and the Cardinal]

It is evident that the Pope's one desire was to evade all responsibility inthe matter; as it was Wolsey's, on the contrary part, to fix the ultimateresponsibility on him. Clement wanted the support of England and France;but, though now no longer actually the Emperor's prisoner, he wasdistinctly in greater danger from him than from the other Powers. Moreoverfor one Pope to be invited to nullify the proceedings of another was asomewhat dangerous precedent: as implying that a papal decision was notnecessarily unimpeachable. The Cardinal however required the Pope'sauthority. The divorce was not popular in England, where the generalinclination was towards the Imperial alliance. Besides, Katharine wasfirmly convinced that Wolsey was the moving spirit; so was the generalpublic. If the divorce were carried through by any method which seemed tobear out that theory--if it could be looked upon as a political job of theCardinal's--Henry too would come in for a share of the odium, and might betrusted to visit that misfortune on his minister. So Wolsey would havenothing to say to the suggestion that the King should act on his ownaccount without the Pope, and take his chance of an appeal. 

[Sidenote: 1528 Gardiner's mission]

Early in 1528, the negotiations were again on foot. This time they were inthe hands of Wolsey's own men--Steven Gardiner and Foxe, the King'salmoner. Their instructions were to obtain a commission with absoluteauthority, in which a legate--Campeggio for choice--should be associatedwith Wolsey; failing that, a legate without Wolsey but one on whom Wolseycould depend; finally, as least desirable, the commission was to consist ofWolsey and Warham. If the Pope continued recalcitrant, he was to be givento understand that the results for him might be very awkward. Gardiner infact did not hesitate to indulge in threats which were more thanhints. England's goodwill was at stake. If Clement had so little faith inhis own authority that he dared not exercise it in a manifestly righteouscause, Henry might repudiate papal authority altogether. Nevertheless, inspite of all Gardiner's skill and vigour--and he showed himself deficientin neither--the result was unsatisfactory. A commission was obtained forWolsey with Campeggio; but it was not absolute. The decision they mightarrive at could not take effect till referred to Rome for confirmation. 

[Sidenote: Wolsey's critical position]

Although the purpose of Gardiner and Foxe was not completely achieved, itcertainly appeared at this time that Wolsey had practically won over thePope; in other words, had made sure that the King should get his desireunder cover of law, and of the highest moral sanctions, without any breachwith the Church, defiance of Authority, or association with heresy. So far, the credit was the Cardinal's, who had dissuaded his master from followinga much more arbitrary course. Nevertheless indications were not wantingthat the Boleyn influence was at work in a manner very detrimental toWolsey; that Henry was fully alive to his minister's unpopularity; and thatif occasion served he might take the popular side. Thus when Wolseyappointed a suitable person to be Abbess of Wilton, instead of a veryunsuitable person who was connected with the Boleyns, the King reprimandedhim in his most elevated style--taking occasion at the same time to bescandalised at the subscriptions to Wolsey's educational schemes providedby monasteries which had pleaded poverty at the time of the "AmicableLoan". It was at least tolerably evident that "the King's matter" as thedivorce was generally called would have to be brought to a speedy andsuccessful issue if Wolsey was to retain the royal favour. 

Clement VII. However was a dexterous procrastinator. Campeggio got hisCommission in April. But he did not start from Rome till June: he did notreach French soil till the end of July: in September he got as far asParis. Meantime, the French troops in Italy were not doing so well, but thePope was strongly suspected of Imperial leanings. The French King formedthe opinion--which he transmitted to his brother of England--thatCampeggio's object was to induce Henry to change his determination. 

[Sidenote: Campeggio and Wolsey (Autumn)]

When at last Campeggio reached London, still suffering seriously from thegout which was the ostensible cause of his dilatory journeying, Wolsey wasexplicit. He warned the Legate that the business must be put throughpromptly. The need of a male heir was imperative; the King was convincedthat his wedlock with Katharine was contrary to the Divine law: if he werenot quickly released, the respect hitherto shown for the Church by theDefender of the Faith would certainly vanish; while Wolsey himself, whoseinfluence had hitherto kept his master loyal in the face of strongtemptation, would no longer be able to restrain him. From Campeggio'sletters, [Footnote: Brewer, ii. , 296. ] it is evident that the King hadmastered his own case thoroughly, and knew the legal aspects better thanany one else: also, that the intention was to declare Mary his heir unlessthere should be male issue of the new marriage. The Legate let slip that inview of the determined attitude of Henry and Wolsey, he would have to awaitfurther instructions from Rome; whereupon he was again threatened with thesecession of England from the Roman Obedience. Next, the two Cardinalstried to induce Katharine to accede to a divorce without a formal trial; onthe ground that thereby she would ensure that save on the single point ofthe re-marriage any demand she might put forward would be granted, and muchscandal would be averted. The Queen took some days to consider her reply:but was absolutely obdurate. She was Henry's wife; she could not and wouldnot profess that she was not. On every ground, she would fight to the last. 

Campeggio did his best to impress the Pope with the urgency of the case:but Clement was more than ever afraid of Charles, and persisted in thefirst place that proceedings were to be postponed and prolonged by everyeffort of ingenuity, and in the second that no verdict adverse to themarriage was to be pronounced without his ratification. 

[Sidenote: Henry's attitude]

Henry for his part, learning or knowing before that Ferdinand had receivedfrom Pope Julius a confirmation of the dispensation in ampler terms, urgedupon Katharine the necessity of obtaining this document in her owninterests--hoping that there would be a chance of repudiating it as aforgery. Also he instructed his agents at Rome to persuade the Pope to givehim a dispensation for re-marriage, without a divorce, if Katharine retiredinto a nunnery; [Footnote: _L. & P. _, iv. , 2157, 2161. Brewer, ii. , 312, 313, and note. Such a marriage was admissible according to some of theLutherans. ] or even for an openly bigamous union. Moreover about the sametime, Henry openly separated himself from his wife, and began to treat AnneBoleyn publicly as his partner-elect on the throne. 

[Sidenote 1: 1529][Sidenote 2: The trial]

The Pope's one object was to evade the responsibility of any pronouncement. The Imperialist cause in Italy was progressing: Charles was growingsteadily stronger. Clement dared not pronounce in Henry's favour; he wasonly less afraid of pronouncing against him. He told the agents that theKing should act on his own responsibility on the ground of dissatisfactionwith Campeggio's conduct; whereas the King was quite resolved to act, butalso quite resolved to force the responsibility for his action on Clement. There was a limit to the possibilities of procrastination, but it was nottill June 1529 that the Court opened proceedings, citing the King and Queento appear. Fisher of Rochester, appearing on behalf of the Queen, boldlydeclared that the marriage was valid and could not be dissolved. Standishsupported him, less vigorously. The Queen challenged the jurisdiction ofthe Court, and appealed from it to the Pope. She regarded Wolsey as thesource of her woes; Anne believed that the procrastination was due to hismachinations; the King was quite capable of crushing the Cardinal torelieve his own feelings. Popular sentiment was entirely on the Queen'sside, but held the Cardinal to blame rather than the King: though even inCourt Henry declared, in answer to Wolsey's appeal, that the minister hadnot suggested but had deterred him from the course adopted. Campeggioprorogued the Court in July. At about the same time, Clement, acting underImperial pressure, formally revoked the case to Rome. Before the revocationreached England, a desperate attempt was made to persuade Katharine toplace herself in the King's hands: it failed. A sharp public altercationbetween Wolsey and Suffolk showed how the current was setting. 

[Sidenote: The storm gathers]

During the following months, Wolsey's loss of the royal favour becameincreasingly evident, and the opposition to him on the part of the nobilitymore and more open. Steven Gardiner, who had proved his conspicuousability, was made the King's private secretary, and became the normalmedium of communication--the close personal intercourse hitherto prevalentwas at an end. Wolsey's European policy was thrown over by Henry, whoallowed Francis and Charles to come to terms without his claiming any voicein the negotiation. A treaty of amity was signed at Cambrai, whichterminated all prospect of Francis being induced to assist Henry inbringing pressure to bear either on the Emperor or the Pope, and releasedClement from serious alarms as to the results of his accepting the Imperialpolicy. England had deliberately vacated the position of arbiter, becauseHenry was too thoroughly engrossed with the divorce to care about anythingelse. Since both Francis and Charles were for the time satisfied torestrict their ambitions so as not to collide with each other, there was nofurther demand for the Cardinal's diplomatic genius. The best to whichWolsey could now look forward was that he might be permitted to turn hisvast talents to the reform of administration, ecclesiastical, legal, andeducational, which he had always postponed to what he regarded as the morevital demands of international politics. 

[Sidenote: The storm breaks (Oct. )]

It was not long before even these hopes were destroyed. At the beginning ofOctober, Campeggio departed from England. At Dover, his baggage wasransacked by the King's authority, in the hope of discovering documentswhich would enable Wolsey to deal with the divorce in his absence. Thedocuments were not forthcoming. Wolsey was of no more use to his master. The day after Campeggio reached Dover a writ was demanded by the King'sattorney against the Cardinal for breach of the statute of Praemunire inacting as Legate. 

[Sidenote 1: Wolsey's fall][Sidenote 2: 1530][Sidenote 3: Wolsey's death (Nov. )]

The fatal blow had been struck. From that hour, the Cardinal's doom wassealed. He ceased absolutely to be a political force and became merely anobject for the King, and for every enemy he had raised up against himself, to buffet. A week later, on October 16th, the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolkdemanded the seals from Wolsey as Chancellor; he was deprived of all hisbenefices and retired to his house at Esher, where he abode in poverty. This contented Henry for the time, and he sent gracious messages--butrestricted them to words. Even Thomas More, who succeeded him asChancellor, is said to have acted so far out of character as to speak ofhim publicly in insulting terms. Parliament had been summoned for November;a bill depriving him for ever of office was introduced in the Lords: in theCommons, it was boldly resisted by Thomas Cromwell who won thereby greatcredit for his loyalty; and it was dropped--not against the wishes of theKing, who was as yet disinclined to deprive himself of the chance ofresuscitating the great minister. In February Wolsey was restored to thesee of York, whither he departed to act in the novel capacity of a diocesandevoted solely to his duties--duties which he so discharged as to changebitter unpopularity into warm affection. The King kept a firm hold on hisforfeited properties, Gardiner was advanced to his see of Winchester: thecollege at Ipswich was dissolved. Wolsey was rash enough to attempt to opensecret communications with Francis I. , in the hope that his influence mightbe exercised to restore to favour the man who had done so much for him. ButNorfolk, in power, had to cultivate Francis; and Francis, finding him amuch simpler diplomatic antagonist, had no wish to reinstate theCardinal. The attempted correspondence became known, and in November, without warning, Wolsey was arrested for high treason. Sick and worn, hestarted on his last journey towards London; but was stricken with mortalillness, and could travel no further than Leicester Abbey where the endcame. 

[Sidenote: Wolsey's achievement]

So died the great Cardinal who for nearly twenty years had mainly swayedthe destinies of England. Henry VII. Had slowly recovered a place among thenations for a country brought low by long years of reckless civil strife. His son's minister again raised her to be the arbiter of Europe, holdingthe scales between the two mighty princes who virtually ruled Christendom:not by deeds of arms like Edward III. Or Henry V. , for no English soldierof real distinction arose in his time; but by a diplomatic genius almostwithout parallel among English statesmen. In this field, the superiority ofhis abilities to those of his contemporaries made his position with hismaster absolutely secure, so long as foreign relations were the primaryconsideration; for though the ends the minister himself had in view werealways the same, he was ready to exert his powers to the full, even at theexpense of those objects, in carrying out any policy on which Henry himselfmight determine; and as a general rule the King's wishes did not runcounter to his own. 

[Sidenote: Appraisement of Wolsey]

His absorbing aim was to magnify England and the King of England in theeyes of Europe: nor was personal ambition lacking, but it was subordinate. That he desired the popedom is clear, and that Henry desired it for him;but he was above the temptation of allowing that desire to dominate hisnational aims, and had he achieved it, he would have regarded the allianceof the Ecclesiastical Power with England as the real prize secured. Hispersonal weight in the Counsels of Europe would hardly have been increased;and he cared more for Power than for the appearance of it, though he had apossibly exaggerated perception of the practical value of magnificence insecuring both national and personal prestige. In part at least this was thecause of that habitual display which, while impressing, also roused theanger of the nobles, who regarded him as an upstart, and of the satiristsof ecclesiastical ostentation and luxury. Secure in the confidence of theKing, he never attempted to conciliate either popular sentiment or therivals whom he deposed. 

But at all times, if he magnified his own office, it was as the King'sright hand. If the King's will, even in opposition to his own, necessitatedunpopular measures, he carried those measures out, and took the odium forthem on his own head, preserving his master's popularity at the price ofhis own. He ruled the country on autocratic principles, and the increase ofhis power was the increase also of the King's. And the King rewarded himafter his kind. 

But for the all-absorbing interest of diplomacy, his vast abilities as anadministrator and organiser might have achieved great things. He would atleast have pruned ecclesiastical abuses; and would have forced upon theclergy as an ecclesiastic those reforms which they were always on the vergeof introducing when they found themselves anticipated by the drastic actionof the temporal Power. Reform was the inevitable corollary of Education, and the development of Education was of all schemes the nearest to Wolsey'sheart. Yet whether, if the Divorce question had never arisen, he would haveplayed an effective part in the Reformation is open to doubt, for at bottomthe Puritan movement in these islands, the Lutheran movement, and theCounter-reformation, were all the outcome or expression of Moral ideals, not of state-craft; and for Wolsey morals were subordinate to state-craft. It is probable that in any case the assertion in England by the State ofits supremacy over the Church would only have been deferred; but Wolseymight have deferred it. As it was, Henry willed otherwise. The greatstatesman, failing to carry out his master's demands, was hurled frompower. The battle of the Reformation was to be fought under other captains. 

NOTE. 

The term "Divorce" has been employed above, because, although a misnomer, it is universally applied. Properly a divorce is the cancellation of alegally contracted marriage. What Henry sought was a _declaration ofnullity_--that no valid marriage had ever taken place. 

CHAPTER VIII

HENRY VIII (iv) 1529-33--THE BREACH WITH ROME

[Sidenote: 1529 No revolt as yet]

It will have been observed that when Wolsey found that the divorce wasinevitable, his energies were concentrated on the single purpose ofsecuring it under papal authority. For this he had two reasons--one, thatwithout that authority the King's act would appear in all itsarbitrariness, causing grave scandal: the other that if that authority wererefused, he foresaw the cleavage between England and Rome which dideventually take place. Apart however from the divorce, there had not beenup to the time of Wolsey's fall any hint of an opinion in high places thatsuch a cleavage was _per se_ desirable or desired--although bothWolsey himself and Gardiner had given Clement fair warning that Henry waslikely to reconsider the papal claims altogether unless the Pope compliedwith his wishes. The revocation of the cause to Rome immediately broughtthe execution of this threat into the sphere of practical politics. 

In the second place there had been no tendency to encourage or allowdeviations from recognised orthodox doctrine. The new criticism had been sofar admitted as to produce a rigid section and a liberal section among theorthodox, such leading prelates as Wolsey himself, Warham, Fox, Fisher, andTunstal, all favouring the new learning in various degrees, and beingsupported therein by such learned laymen as Sir Thomas More. Theirtoleration however had not extended to anything censurable as heresy, andtheir attitude had been somewhat stiffened by the course of the Lutheranrevolt on the Continent. The increased licence within the Empire, followingthe edict of Spires in 1528, led to an increased activity in thesuppression of heretics and heretical publications in England, first underWolsey and then under his successor in the Chancellorship. 

[Sidenote: Growth of anti-clericalism]

In a third direction however, though not much had been done in the way ofmeasures, an _anti-clerical_ party had been growing up: a party whichsought to diminish clerical jurisdiction, clerical privileges, and clericalemoluments. Among the ecclesiastics themselves there were not a few whodesired to improve clerical administration from within, but withoutdiminution of ecclesiastical authority; the anti-clericals were laymen whowished the reforms to be forced on the Church from outside, reducingecclesiastical authority in the process. These two policies were in directopposition, seeing that antagonism to Wolsey--emphatically a reformer ofthe prior class--was the leading motive with the nobility who headed thesecond class; while the Commons in general desired primarily to be freedfrom the exactions by which the clergy benefited, and from which they didnot believe the clergy would of their own initiative cut themselvesoff. Wolsey had begun the internal amendment, by his visitation andsuppression of the smallest monasteries and the appropriation ofecclesiastical property to educational purposes, and by some substitutionof the superior organisation of the legatine court for that of theOrdinaries; but the latter step had been cancelled by his fall and by theominous appeal to the statute of Praemunire against legatinejurisdiction. On the other hand, the anti-clerical action had beenpractically confined so far to the modifications as to Benefit of Clergy;unless we include the publication of pamphlets and rhymes attacking theecclesiastical body in general, or Wolsey in particular as the incarnationof their shortcomings. 

Some years were still to elapse before any material changes from orthodoxtheological doctrine were to be entertained. But in 1529, the suspension ofthe Trial was forthwith followed by the adoption of a policy--as yet onlyprovisional--setting aside the Pope's authority; and the assembly ofParliament in November was marked by an immediate attack on ecclesiasticalabuses. 

[Sidenote: Thomas Cranmer]

In the last six months of this year the King discovered two instrumentsconsummately adapted for executing his will. It appears that the idea ofobtaining the opinions of the Doctors at the English Universities hadalready been mooted, and that one of those selected [Footnote: Strype, _Memorials of Cranmer_. Hook, _Life of Cranmer_. ] at Cambridgewas Thomas Cranmer, a learned and amiable divine with marked leaningstowards the New Learning; who in his early graduate days had fallen underthe influence of the teaching at Cambridge of Erasmus; in scholarshipsubtle and erudite, in affairs guileless and easily swayed; timorous bynature, but capable of outbreaks of audacity as timid persons often are: agentle and lovable man, but lacking in that robust self-confidence neededby one who would take a resolutely independent line; a man intended to be astudent and forced by an unkind fate to assume the role of a man of action. Such a character, brought under the direct influence of a powerful will anda magnetic personality, is readily led to see everything as it is desiredthat he should see it, and at the worst to differ from the master-mind onlywith submission. 

[Sidenote: Appeal to the universities]

When Campeggio suspended the sittings of the Commission the, King withdrewto Waltham Cross. Steven Gardiner and Foxe the King's almoner, who were inhis suite, met Cranmer who had left Cambridge on account of an outbreak ofthe sweating sickness. They had, as was natural, a conversation on "theKing's affair"; when Cranmer propounded the theory that if the Universitiesof Europe--that is, the qualified divines--gave it as their opinion thatthe union with Katharine had been contrary to the Divine Law, the Kingmight follow the dictates of his conscience and pronounce the marriage nullwithout recognising Papal jurisdiction. This was clearly quite a differentthing from producing the judgment of the Doctors merely as an expertopinion which must carry weight with the Judge at Rome. It was practicallyan assertion that the Pope's judgment was not of higher authority than theKing's; an answer to a question as to jurisdiction; a suggestion ofreplying to the Pope's revocation of the case by a counter-revocation. Foxereported the conversation to Henry, who caught at the new method of givinga constitutional colour to an arbitrary proceeding. Cranmer was summoned tocourt, attached to the Boleyn household, set down to write a thesis on thepoint of conscience, and sent off early in 1530 in the train of the Earl ofWiltshire (to which dignity Sir Thomas Boleyn--had been raised) on anembassy to the Emperor at Bologna. Moreover his plan for consulting theUniversities was actively taken in hand. 

[Sidenote: The new Parliament]

In the meantime, in November, Henry's most famous Parliament had openedsession. The last, called six years before under Wolsey's regime to obtainsupplies, had shown a qualified submissiveness. The new one, whether packedor not, displayed prompt signs of activity. Known to fame as the "SevenYears'" or "Reformation" Parliament, it consistently displayed threecharacteristics: it was anti-papal and anti-clerical; it endorsed the Royalwill; but it refused dictation where its pocket was concerned. Its firstsession lasted only a few weeks, but was marked by an attack on clericalabuses, and by the sudden prominence achieved by Thomas Cromwell. 

[Sidenote: Thomas Cromwell]

Concerning Cromwell's early years, much is reported and little is known. The common rumour declared that he was the son of a blacksmith--as itdeclared Wolsey to be the son of a butcher. He is said to have triedvarious trades, among others those of man-at-arms in the mercenary troop ofan Italian nobleman, wool-merchant and usurer at Antwerp, usurer and pettyattorney in England. On all these points the evidence is scanty andinconclusive. About 1520, he found his way into Wolsey's entourage, and wasa member of the 1523 parliament. Wolsey found him an apt man of business, and entrusted him with a good deal of the financial management of hiseducational schemes; in the course of which it is at least probable that heapplied the twin practices of bribery and blackmail, which not withoutreason were attributed at a later date to his servants. Yet, howeverunscrupulous he may have been in his dealings with others, to the masterwhose service he had followed he was always loyal. Wolsey made him hissecretary; and when the Cardinal fell, the secretary's position seemedexceedingly precarious. Whether from an admirable fidelity or throughamazingly astute hypocrisy, he boldly and openly took up the cudgels inparliament on behalf of the stricken minister, apparently challengingimminent ruin for himself. Action so courageous won him applause andgood-will instead of present hostility. More than that, it immediatelymarked him in the eyes of the King--an exceedingly shrewd judge of men--asan invaluable prospective servant for himself. A combination of audacityand fidelity with shrewdness, resourcefulness, and unscrupulosity, wasprecisely what he wanted and precisely what he had found. The Cardinal'ssecretary became the King's secretary, and forthwith identified himselfwith the policy of establishing the Royal autocracy in a stronger form thanit had ever before assumed in England. Whether or no Thomas Cromwell learnthis political principles as an adventurer in Italy, he became himself theliving embodiment of those doctrines of state-craft which were systematisedby Macchiavelli in his treatise "The Prince". 

[Sidenote: Pope, Clergy and King]

In the reconstruction of the relations between Church and State whichcovers more than nine-tenths of the Reformation under Henry VIII. Therewere three parties concerned; the Pope, the Sovereign, and the ClericalOrganisation in England. From time immemorial, Popes and Kings had strivenperiodically with each other in asserting antagonistic control over theecclesiastical body; and the ecclesiastical body had made common cause, nowwith the Pope and now with the King, in resisting encroachments by therival authority. If the clergy submitted to one or the other, it was alwayswith a reservation that submission to physical force could not impair theinherent rights of the successors of the Apostles. Similarly, if the Popegave way to the King or the King to the Pope, their respective successorsregarded the claims surrendered as rights not cancelled but in abeyance. The prevailing conditions at any given time were always looked upon as a_modus vivendi_ liable to readjustment when any of the three partiesfelt impelled to claim a larger freedom of action or a larger power ofcontrol. In the past however the Spiritual Powers had drawn effectivelyupon their armoury of excommunications and interdicts in the conflict; itwas now to be seen whether these ancient weapons had become obsolete. Ifthey could be defied with comparative impunity, there could be but one endto a struggle between the Spiritual and the Temporal forces. 

[Sidenote: Double campaign opens]

By the appeal to the Universities, Henry gave warning of a possibleanti-papal campaign: in which he could look for a considerable degree ofclerical support up to a certain point, more particularly because theclergy generally were ready to be released from the financial exactions ofthe Holy See, as well as from its practical exercise of patronage. Parliament opened an anti-clerical campaign, but its measures at first wereconfined to dealing with almost indefensible and obvious abuses. BishopFisher recognised the familiar thin end of the wedge, and charged theCommons with desiring "the goods, not the good" of the Church; but theopposition was slender. In the six weeks of the first session, there werepassed, the Probate and Mortuaries Acts, abolishing, reducing, orregulating fees, and the Pluralities Act, forbidding the clergy in generalto hold more than one benefice, and requiring Residence--a veryinconvenient arrangement for papal nominees. The general value of the Acthowever was impaired by a schedule of exemptions. Fisher's protest had itscounterpart in the protest of Convocation, not against the avowed objectsof this legislation but against Parliament as its source: the positionbeing that Convocation was itself preparing legislation with the same endsin view, and was the proper body to do so. 

[Sidenote: 1530 Answers of the Universities]

During 1530, Parliament remained inactive. The Earl of Wiltshire's embassyto Bologna, of which the object was to induce Charles to withdraw hisopposition to the divorce, naturally proved abortive. The consultation ofthe Universities however went on apace. The theory propounded for theiracceptance was that Katharine had been in actual fact the wife of Henry'sbrother; that this being so her marriage with Henry was contrary to the Lawof God; and that by consequence the second contract was actually not onlyvoidable but void, the dispensation being under those circumstances a deadletter. On the other side it was maintained that whatever validity theremight be in this argument, it fell to the ground if--as was asserted on theQueen's behalf--her first marriage had been ceremonial only. The answers ofthe Universities were inconclusive, some declaring the marriage valid, others declaring it void, and others, including Oxford and Cambridge, declaring that it was against the Law of God without pronouncing thedispensation of Julius _ipso facto_ invalid. Moreover, had theopinions given been decisive in themselves, the method by which they wereobtained would have destroyed their moral value. Francis, finding thatEngland's friendship was in the balance, dictated a favourable reply to theFrench Universities. Those in England knew they were not free agents. Clement professed to give those in Italy a free hand, but in that countryCharles was the dominant power. In Germany the Lutherans were hostile toHenry personally on account of his own anti-Lutheran pronouncements. Nowhere was a judgment on the simple merits of the case procurable. 

[Sidenote: Preoccupation of the Clergy]

In the meantime, the clergy in England had been mainly occupied with acampaign against heresy, and with the suppression of dangerous literature;[Footnote: According to Mr. Froude, Henry only assented with reluctance tothe suppression of Tindal's Testament on condition of the preparation of anauthorised version being agreed to. But even Hall, whom he cites, only saysthat both proposals were adopted after long debate. --Froude, i. , p. 298(Ed. 1862). ] but willingly or not found themselves committed to approvingthe preparation of an authorised translation of the Scriptures--the onemovement under Henry which tended definitely, in effect though not of setpurpose, to a revision of Doctrine. 

[Sidenote 1: Menace of Praemunire][Sidenote 2: 1531 "Only Supreme Head"][Sidenote 3: Proceedings in Parliament]

In December of 1530, however, the Church was to receive a rough reminderthat the Defender of the Faith was a stickler for the rigidity of thestatutes. He had already struck at Wolsey because, urged thereto byhimself, the Cardinal had obtained and exercised legatine powers contraryto the Statutes of Praemunire. Such was the King's reverence for the Lawthat after it had been transgressed with his sanction for ten years he feltit his duty to penalise the transgressor. After another twelve-month, hefelt it his further duty to penalise all who had submitted to the illegalauthority. The clergy were informed that they lay one and all under theroyal displeasure for breach of praemunire (of which they had in fact beentechnically guilty), and could only hope for pardon by purchasing it forsomething over £100, 000--practically equivalent to about a couple ofmillions now. Convocation, alive to the futility of resistance, apologisedfor its iniquity and admitted the justice of the punishment. Thereupon, inthe preamble to the bill by which they were to mulct themselves, the Kingrequired the insertion of a clause which designated him "Protector and OnlySupreme Head of the Church and Clergy in England". This roused generalresistance. Convocation proposed conferences, and sought some compromisewhich they could reconcile with their consciences. The King would have nocompromise, demanding instant submission. At last Warham hit upon theexpedient of one of those saving phrases which might mean everything ornothing, and yet could not be objected to on the face of it; inserting thewords "so far as the laws of Christ permit": the precise degree to whichthe said laws did permit being susceptible of unlimited argument, as theroyal claims or the clerical conscience might respectively demand. Even sohad Becket in the past shielded himself with the words "Saving the rightsof my Order". For the time being, this diplomatic evasion or pitifulsubterfuge, as the advocates and contemners of the clergy respectively callit, saved the situation. At the time, it must be remarked, Henry did notintend the title to be read as repudiating the Papal Supremacy, which hadnot hitherto been formally called question. On the face of it, it lookslike a touch of Cromwell's; in a thing designed to force the hand of theClergy in the future if the Papal Supremacy should be directly challenged. The clause was accepted (for the Province of Canterbury) on March 22nd; sixweeks later it was also accepted by the Convocation of York, with a protestfrom Tunstal, now bishop of Durham, who had been distinguished by hisdiplomatic services under Wolsey's régime. During the corresponding session(January-March 1531) no anti-clerical measures were introduced inParliament; which registered the Royal pardon and received the formalannouncement of the decision of the Universities. The "stern and loftymoral principles" [Footnote: Froude, i. , 307, 310 (Ed. 1862). Thehistorian's enthusiasm may seem to require some qualification. Theretrospective creation of crimes is a dangerous practice: and the penaltyapplied might even be considered savage. ] of the nation were howevervindicated, in consequence of the wholesale poisoning of the bishop ofRochester's household, attributed to an attempt to make away with Fisherhimself. By a special enactment, the essentially un-English practice ofpoisoning was retrospectively classified as high treason, and the criminalsentenced to death by boiling. 

[Sidenote: 1532 Parliament]

In the beginning of 1532 the campaign was renewed with vigour; whether fromthe laudable desire of reforming abuses, or with the object of terrorisingthe Church into complete subservience. Incidentally it is to be observedthat so far as the activity of the Commons was directed against the paymentof extortionate fees, the Church had a part only, not the whole, of theiropposition. They logically and manfully resisted a "Bill of Wards"legalising claims of the Lords in sundry cases of the marriage of wards. This has been jibed at [Footnote: Moore (Aubrey), _Hist. Of theReformation_, 103. ] as showing that they cared for cash and not forprinciple. As a matter of fact it appears to prove the first, but to haveno bearing on the second. It also proves that when they did care, theycould be obstinate, for the Bill was dropped: which illustrates the tactwith which the King could yield on a point unimportant to him personally. 

In especial however this session was signalised by three Acts, dealing withMortmain, Benefit of Clergy, and Annates: and by the "Supplication againstthe Ordinaries" which took partial effect in the "Submission of theClergy". 

[Sidenote: Supplication against the Ordinaries]

The Supplication [Footnote: Mr. Froude, i. , 211 (Ed. 1862), dates this1529, but without apparent reason. _Cf. _ Dixon, i. , 77, note. ] was ineffect a statement of grievances, directed against the powers ofConvocation in the way of ecclesiastical legislation, and the conduct ofthe ecclesiastical Courts and their fees. Under this second head it wassimply the expression of a popular outcry, which had already begun to takeeffect in the legislation of 1529; an outcry so far justified that theclergy themselves met it, in part, by declaring that they were givingindependent attention to the abuses complained of. As an indictment itsweakness lay in the inadequate support by specific instances of the generalcharges of miscarriage of justice. Under the first head it has theappearance of being inspired by Cromwell, of whose policy a main featurewas the concentration of all effective legislative power in the King. 

[Sidenote: Resistance of Clergy]

The Supplication was presented, and laid before Convocation for an answer. The answer was given on the lines that, as concerned the grievances ingeneral, so far as they were real they were in process of removal, and thatas concerned miscarriage of justice it was impossible to answer effectivelyunless the charges were made specific. As to ecclesiastical legislation itwas replied that this was a function of the Clergy, and that their canonswere in accord with Scripture and therefore not antagonistic to the CivilLaw; to which was added an appeal to the King as the Protector of theFaith. They were informed that this answer was "too slender"; so sent asecond in which appeal was made to Henry's own book against Luther, and anoffer was added that they would publish no ordinances without the royalassent excepting on matters of faith. In both answers Gardiner, now bishopof Winchester, is reputed to have been the guiding spirit--thereby showingthat Henry could not count upon his assistance in reducing his Order tosubservience. 

[Sidenote: "Submission of the Clergy"]

This attitude however was by no means sufficient for Henry and Cromwell. It is in fact clear that they had made up their minds to put an end to ananomalous condition of affairs. Hypothetically, the Church and the Statehad been making laws independently of each other side by side. The twosets of laws might involve incompatibles; the King's lieges might beharassed by the canons of the Church, and loyal churchmen might beembarrassed by the laws of the realm. The time had come when one ultimateauthority must be recognised. There was no manner of doubt which of the twothat ultimate authority was to be. Yet for the attainment of this end, theClergy must be required to surrender what they had always accounted a rightinviolable, sacred, vested in them by divine commission. The Clergy had tosurrender or take the risk of martyrdom: and they elected to surrender--ineffect to recognise that they were beaten _de facto_ if not _dejure_. They struggled hard for a compromise which would salve theircollective conscience. Finally (May) they agreed to enact no new canonswithout the Kind's authority, and to submit to a commission such of theexisting canons as were contravened. The wording of this "Submission of theClergy, " as it is called, does not leave it absolutely clear whether theentire canon law or only a portion was to be subjected to the revision ofthe commission--which was to consist of thirty-two members, half laymen andhalf clergy--but the balance of opinion is in favour of the partialtheory. The defeat was a crushing blow to the aged Warham who neverrecovered from it and died three months later; and it caused the immediateresignation of the Chancellorship by Sir Thomas More--a _rara avis_among statesmen of the day, with whom conscience actually had the lastword, not the King's will. 

[Sidenote 1: Mortmain and Benefit of Clergy][Sidenote 2: Annates Act]

The other Acts referred to above were passed before the Submission of theClergy was completed. The Mortmain and Benefit of Clergy Acts wererespectively in limitation of bequests to the Church and of privileges ofclerical criminals. They were merely normal steps in the reform ofabuses. The Annates Act however demands closer attention. Every bishop onappointment to his see paid the first year's income to Rome--whether on anoriginal appointment, or on translation from one see to another. Obviouslythis was a tremendous tax on the bishops and a source of large income toRome. There had been frequent complaints, and suggestions that the Popeshould reduce his claim. Very recently, Gardiner had been obliged to borrowheavily to meet the exaction on becoming bishop of Winchester. The Billprovided that five per cent. Only should be paid, by way of compensationfor expenses of papal Bulls, the ground taken up being that the papal claimwas contrary to the ruling of the General Council of Basle, and that thepayment, being an alienation of the property of the See, was contrary tothe bishops consecration oath. The Bill was passed, the bishops--accordingto letters of the foreign ambassadors in London--dissenting; a courseperfectly natural on their part as a protest, not in favour of the payment, but against the authority of the temporal power to intervene. Yet it isfrequently stated as a matter of common knowledge that the clergythemselves were the prime movers, and that the Bill was brought in on theirpetition. This belief would seem to rest exclusively on themisinterpretation of a document attributed by a later historian [Footnote:Strype, _Eccl. Memorials_ I. , ii. , 158. Froude, i. , 361 ff. (Ed. 1862). But _cf. _. Gairdner, _English Church_, p. 116. Thepresent writer fell into the usual error in a previous volume on_Cranmer_; and has to thank Mr. Tomlinson for correcting him. ] toConvocation, but almost certainly of parliamentary origin. 

The Act however was not put in immediate execution: but the English agentsin Italy were instructed to hold it _in terrorem_ over Clement's head. 

[Sidenote: The European Powers and the Divorce]

The subsequent methods of procedure were largely the outcome of thediplomatic situation on the Continent. In the first place, the idea ofcalling an Oecumenical Council had been much in the air. Each of the threegreat monarchs was desirous of calling one, on his own terms; so were theLutherans. But for each the terms must be such as should ensure practicalsubservience to his own dictation: while to the Pope the proposal, so longas it was hypothetical, was a thing he could produce as either a sop or athreat, as circumstances might commend. In the next place, for the timeCharles dominated the Pope; but while he was making terms with theLutherans, under pressure of the advance of the Turks on the east, wherebyhis loyalty to the papacy was made doubtful, he was also on the other hand, Katharine's unyielding champion. Thus any positive declaration on thedivorce from Clement was tolerably certain to finally alienate eitherCharles or Henry. Now the rivalry of Charles was the great obstacle toFrancis: whose object had come to be to utilise England so as to obtain forhimself the concessions he wanted from the Emperor; extorting them as theresult of joint pressure on the part of France and England or as the priceof a separation between France and England. The thing he most feared was acompromise between Henry and Charles. Thus his policy was, by associatinghimself with Henry, to detach the Pope also from Charles, by the menace ofa joint Anglo-French schism from the Roman obedience. Therefore in thesummer and autumn of 1532 Francis was ostentatiously friendly to Henry andthe cause of the Divorce. Conferences to which Henry was invited to bringAnne Boleyn as his Queen-elect were arranged, and took place at Calais andBoulogne. Henry thereafter made up his mind to a decisive step and on theirreturn to England in November or perhaps in the following January hemarried Anne privately. Francis however had successfully avoided committinghimself unequivocally to an uncompromising English alliance. 

[Sidenote: 1533 The crisis arrives]

In December, the Pope and the Emperor both being at Bologna, Clementprofessed to the English agents a more amenable spirit, suggesting that thedivorce should be held over for a General Council, or that Henry shouldagree to have the trial held outside his own realms; propositions, however, to neither of which the King could be lured to assent. But the year 1533had hardly opened when Charles was enabled to publish a Papal warning ofexcommunication against Henry unless he restored Katharine to her fullrights as his wife (Feb. ); while he detached France from England by thepromise of concessions restoring her position in Italy. 

Clement might now defer a pronouncement in favour of Katharine; there wasno practical room for hoping that he might still pronounce against her. Henry stood alone; if the Pope were finally driven to choose betweendefying the King or the Emperor there could be no doubt which of the two hewould rather have for an enemy. It only remained for Henry to put it beyondquestion that the declaration must be made, and that his own enmity wouldtake an energetic form. His reply to the Pope was decisive. Early in April, parliament passed the great Act in Restraint of Appeals, which wasvirtually the announcement of the repudiation of the Roman allegiance;before the end of May, the new Archbishop of Canterbury in his courtpronounced the marriage with Katharine void _ab initio_, and therecent marriage with her rival valid. 

[Sidenote: Restraint of Appeals]

In form, the Act in Restraint of Appeals was not a fresh piece oflegislation but a declaration of the existing law; a flat assertion thatany appeal to the jurisdiction of Rome from the English courts brought theappellant under the penalties of praemunire, the "spiritualty" of thecountry being competent to deal with spiritual cases, and the sovereignrecognising no jurisdiction superior to his own. It did not raise thequestion of authority in matters of doctrine; nor was it a formaldeclaration of schism from Rome. Its meaning however was clear. Theconstitutional theory of independence, put forward on many occasions as thewarrant for legislation, was henceforth to be acted upon in its most ampleinterpretation: though, as with the Annates Bill, the final confirmationwas suspended to leave Clement a last chance of surrender. Taken on itsmerits the Act laid down principles entirely acceptable to all parties whoclaim or claimed independence of Rome: yet it was quite obviously issuedwith the direct purpose of setting aside the Pope's authority in aparticular case already referred to him. 

[Sidenote 1: Cranmer Archbishop][Sidenote 2: The decisive breach]

It is in fact doubtful whether Henry could have procured a judgment fromWarham; but Warham was dead, and the successor appointed was ThomasCranmer, who already before he had been dragged into public life hadcommitted himself to the sufficiency of the judgment of the Englishcourts. Since taking part in Wiltshire's embassy in 1531 he had been forthe most part in Germany on diplomatic affairs, associating withProtestants and imbibing their views. The most pronounced and definite ofhis doctrines was that of the supremacy of the crown; and on hisinstallation as Archbishop in March, he had qualified [Footnote: Moore(Aubrey), _Hist. Of Reformation_, 109, finds a proof in this of"servility and dishonesty, " which terms appear to be in his viewequivalents of Erastianism. ] his oath of allegiance to Rome accordingly. Other ecclesiastics, from Becket to Gardiner, had been appointed tobishoprics under the impression that they were going to support the seculararm against the claims of their Order, and had falsifiedexpectation. Cranmer maintained as Archbishop the theories of clericalsubordination which he had adopted as a University Doctor. Convocation wascalled on to express an opinion on the marriage; and whether fromconviction or despair, it supported the King by a majority. The Archbishopobtained the royal licence to convene a court. Katharine, refusing toappear, was declared contumacious; and the Court pronounced her marriagevoid while confirming Anne's. The Pope rejoined by pronouncing the judgmentvoid. Henry retorted by confirming the Acts in Restraint of Annates andAppeals; and himself appealed against the Pope to a General Council. Until, in March of the next year, Clement himself definitely pronounced judgmentin favour of Katharine, there remained a shadow of a chance of areconciliation tantamount to the submission of the Holy See; but the chancewas not accepted. Practically the judgment of Cranmer's court marked thedefinite schism from Rome. 

CHAPTER IX

HENRY VIII (v), 1533-40--MALLEUS MONACHORUM

[Sidenote: 1533 Ecclesiastical Parties]

WE have noted that a proportion of the higher clergy were at least notunwilling to be freed from the domination and the financial exactions ofRome; this attitude being either the cause or the effect of the line theytook as to the divorce. When, however, it was borne in upon them that theprice of escaping the yoke of the Popedom was to be the subjection of theChurch, in form to the lay monarch, and in fact to the State, the bulk ofthem endeavoured to protest against the newly imposed subordination. Withthe "Submission of the Clergy" and the appointment of Cranmer as Warham'ssuccessor, it became entirely clear that to protest or resist would beworse than useless. Accordingly we shall now find this section of theclerical body, including such prelates as Gardiner of Winchester, Stokesleyof London, and Tunstal of Durham, devoting themselves to evading orrendering nugatory the directions of the Temporal power and its instrumentCranmer, under colour of obedience, while dissociating themselves from themore rigid of the Old Catholics such as Fisher of Rochester, More, theLondon Carthusians and others. On the other hand, the newer school, whowere much more antagonistic to the papacy, such as Cranmer, Latimer andBarlow, found more personal favour with the King and with Cromwell, thoughtheir leanings towards the doctrinal tenets of Continental reformers werechecked from time to time with sufficient rudeness. 

[Sidenote: Pope or King?]

A very peculiar situation however soon resulted from the Royal rejection ofthe Papal supremacy. To hold the opinion that the Pope was head of theChurch implied the recognition of a divided allegiance, casting a doubt onthe holder's loyalty to the Secular Sovereign, and easily translated intotreason; since the papal party were bound to maintain in theory thevalidity of the marriage with Katharine, and the rights of her daughterMary. Henry never lacked a plausible theory to justify his most tyrannousactions. Modern historians however who carry their support of Henry to theextreme point ignore the two facts, that to hold an opinion which if actedon would lead to treason is not in itself treason; and that it was quitelogical to maintain the supreme authority of the Pope in matters spiritual, without admitting his power to depose a recalcitrant monarch or todetermine the line of succession--which was in fact the position adopted bySir Thomas More. 

[Sidenote: 1534 Confirmatory Acts]

The Spring session of Parliament in 1534 was devoted mainly to the passingof Acts in confirmation and extension of what already been done. TheSubmission of the Clergy and the Restraint of Appeals were re-affirmed inone Act; but with the important difference that the whole of the Canon lawwas to be subjected to the Commission when appointed, [Footnote: Seep. 128, _ante_]. Till which time the clergy would be acting at theirperil in enforcing any rules which might subsequently be condemned asagainst the Royal Prerogative. This was accompanied by an Act inconfirmation of the Annates Act, coupled with the _congé d'élire_, assuring to the King the right of nomination to ecclesiastical appointmentsunder the form of permitting the Chapters to elect his nominee. A third, the "Peter Pence" Act, abolished the remaining contributions to the PapalTreasury. At the same time the "exempt" monasteries--those, that is, whichhad not been subject to the supervision of the bishops--were conveyed tothe King's control, still without episcopal intervention. A fourth Act, not_prima facie_ ecclesiastical in character, was the Act of Succession, declaring the offspring of Anne Boleyn (the princess Elizabeth had beenborn in the previous September) heirs to the throne. 

[Sidenote: The Pope's last word]

While these proceedings were in progress, the last attempt to subdue thePope by diplomacy was failing. At the end of March, Clement gave the longdeferred judgment on the divorce, pronouncing the marriage with Katharinevalid, and that with Anne Boleyn void. Clement survived but a short time. His successor Paul III. Had at one time been in Henry's favour; butreconciliation was now outside the range of practical politics, and the newPope soon found himself more definitely antagonistic to the English monarchthan his predecessor had been. 

[Sidenote: The Nun of Kent]

The prevailing superstitions of the day and their reality as factors evenin public life are curiously illustrated by the story of the "Nun of Kent"--a story concluded by her execution about this time. The "Nun" was a youngwoman named Elizabeth Barton of humble birth, who was subject to fits ortrances, presumably epileptic in character, in which trances she gave ventto utterances which were supposed to be inspired, being generally religiousin their bearing. Having acquired some notoriety and a reputation forsanctity, her prophesyings before long took the form of denunciation of thedivorce, at that time in its earlier stages. She was exploited by sundryfanatical persons honest or otherwise--in such cases it is seldom possibleto fathom the extent to which mania, intentional deception, conscious orunconscious suggestion, and mere credulity, are mingled. In those days, there were few people who would venture to attribute such phenomena topurely natural causes. Such a man as Thomas More, who was eminentlyrational as well as deeply religious, was not easily beguiled; but the morecredulous and equally honest bishop of Rochester was unable to regard theprophesyings as mere imposture, as was also the case with Warham; and beingthus countenanced, when the Nun's utterances reached the point ofdenouncing the wrath of Heaven upon those who consented to the Divorce, shebecame really dangerous. She and her associates were charged with treasonand executed, while Fisher was necessarily to some degreeimplicated. Before her death the Nun made a confession of elaborateimposture, but too much weight should not be attached to confessions madeunder such conditions. Given a certain degree of mental aberration, thecase is not without parallels pointing to an absence of conscious fraud. But whether in her case it was fraud or mania, the important fact remainsthat there were numbers of people who attributed her utterances neither tothe one nor the other but to inspiration; numbers more who were in doubt onthe point; and that those utterances were to some extent utilised in aseditious propaganda; for to declare as a message from on high that theKing and his advisers had brought upon themselves the curse of the Almightymust be recognised as effectively, even if not intentionally, preachingsedition. 

[Sidenote 1: The Act of Succession][Sidenote 2: The oath refused]

The proceedings against Elizabeth Barton had been accompanied byrevelations of more or less suspicious conduct on the part of the Countessof Salisbury and of Poles, [Footnote: The Countess of Salisbury'schildren. The de la Poles were now extinct. The Nevilles were theCountess's kinsfolk, her mother having been a daughter of the Kingmaker. See _Front_. ] Courtenays and Nevilles, while the Princess Marydeclined to regard herself as illegitimate. This was made the pretext foradopting a very irregular course in connexion with the Act ofSuccession. The Act not only established the order of Succession to thethrone, but in the preamble asserted the invalidity of Katharine'smarriage, it was accompanied by an authority to exact an oath of obedienceto the Statute, the form of the oath not being laid down. Commissionerswere appointed to exact the oath, which was drawn up in a form acceptingthe entire terms of the Act, not merely promising adhesion to itsprovisions. Presented to them in this form, both More and Fisher refused totake the oath. Both were prepared to swear to maintain the succession aslaid down; neither would avow a belief that the marriage with Katharine wasvoid _ab initio_. More laid down definitely the doctrine that it wasin the power of the State to determine the succession, and the duty of thecitizen to accept its decision; but that obviously does not involve anopinion that the reasons for its decision are sound. Cranmer would fainhave persuaded the King to accept the oath thus modified as sufficient--notrealising that the primary object of Henry and Cromwell was to drive theopponents of the divorce into a public recantation of their opinion. Moreand Fisher were resolute, and were sent to the Tower, though in form anindictment ought first to have been brought against them in the courts. Cromwell expressed and no doubt felt a very genuine regret at the failureof the plan; but it was ever Cromwell's method to strike at the mostinfluential opponents of his policy. If they would bend, well: if not, theymust break. The device of the oath would force the surrender or else thedestruction of the best members of the high Catholic party. Three of themost zealous and most irreproachable monastic establishments--the LondonCarthusians, the Richmond Observants, and the Brentford Brigittines--wereinveigled or cowed into temporary submission, but later reverted to theposition of More and Fisher, and suffered accordingly. The GreenwichObservants refused submission altogether, and were dissolved. 

[Sidenote: "The Bishop of Rome"]

Before the administration of the oath, the news of Clement's decision hadcome from Rome, with a Bull of Excommunication to follow. It was well forHenry that Francis could be relied on to keep Charles in check; for theforeign ambassadors, whether well-informed or mainly because the wish wasfather to the thought, were reporting serious disaffection in the country, which otherwise might have led to armed intervention by the Emperor. Theanswer to Rome however took the emphatic form of a declaration byConvocation and the Universities that "the Bishop of Rome has no moreauthority in England than any other foreign Bishop"; in addition to theActs of Parliament already recorded. 

[Sidenote 1: Parliament (Nov. )][Sidenote 2: Treasons Act]

Before the end of the year (1534) Parliament was again in session. Theargument submitted to the Pope before the passing of the Annates Act--thatit pressed with undue severity on the bishops--was shown in its truecharacter by a new Annates Act which appropriated to the King the funds ofwhich the Pope had been deprived. The relief of the bishops was ignored. Bythe "Act of the Supreme Head, " Parliament also professedly confirmed thedeclaration of Convocation in 1531; but omitted the saving [Footnote: Seep. 125] clause; and by a fresh Act of Succession, regularised the treatmentof More and Fisher, enforcing the oath in the form in which it had beensubmitted to them, retrospectively. Then came the Treasons Act, the copingstone of Resolute Government; bringing into the category of Treason notonly the specific overt actions to which it had been limited by the Act ofEdward III. , but also "verbal treason" and even the refusal to answerincriminating questions. It is easy to see what vast opportunities werethus given for fastening a practically irrefutable charge of treason on anyvictim selected, when the recognised principle was that the _onusprobandi_ lay with the accused. An irresistible instrument of tyrannywas created, justified of course by the usual argument that without suchpowers it was not possible to deal adequately with the abnormal dangers ofthe situation. It need only be remarked that where there is practically nocheck on the abuse of such powers save the scrupulosity of the persons inwhom they are vested, the risk of flagrant injustice becomes almostincalculable. Since the days of Edward III. , no monarch had occupied thethrone with less risk of serious treason than Henry VIII. Under all saveHenry V. There had been active rebellion, and under him there was at leastone serious plot. Yet the treason statute of Edward III. Had under thembeen held sufficient. The new Act was in truth but one step in thesystematic development of autocracy under constitutional forms to which thepolicy of Thomas Cromwell was devoted. 

[Sidenote 1: 1529-34 The New Policy][Sidenote 2: Cromwell]

When Wolsey fell in 1529 the Duke of Norfolk became ostensibly the King'smost powerful subject. But it is impossible to trace to him or to hisfollowing among the nobility the formulation of any sort of definitepolicy. Nevertheless, a quite definite policy had been initiated after ashort lapse of time. Starting with the checking of palpable ecclesiasticalabuses, it had gone on to assert with steadily increasing rigour thesubjection of the entire clerical organisation to the Supreme Head, and toembody the assertion of the theory in practical legislation, and dictationto Convocation. It had threatened the papacy, till the threats issuedvirtually in an ultimatum followed by repudiation of papal authority. Ithad placed papal and ecclesiastical perquisites under gradual restrictions, till by the last Annates Act it began transferring them openly to theCrown. In many instances, the initiative had been ostensibly taken byParliament; in others, the King had exercised direct pressure on theclergy, but had obtained from Parliament a ratification of theecclesiastical concessions. The whole trend of the policy, culminating inthe Treasons Act, was to concentrate effective control in the hands of thesovereign, by consent of Parliament. And now Cromwell emerges as the manwho was to give that policy tremendous effect, and by inference at least asits probable creator and organiser from the close of 1530. It is not till1535 however that he becomes openly and indisputably first minister;Wolsey's successor in Henry's confidence--and to Henry's gratitude. 

[Sidenote: 1535 More and Fisher]

Before the prorogation of Parliament in February (1535) the tworecalcitrants in the Tower, More and Fisher, were attainted High Treasonfor maintaining their refusal to take the prescribed oath under the Act ofSuccession. It was perhaps in the hope that the King might hesitate toproceed to extremities, in the face of a very marked expression ofsentiment, that the new Pope, Paul III. , proceeded to nominate Fisher aCardinal. It ought to have been obvious that the very contrary effect wouldhave been produced: the step was naturally looked upon as a challenge. Moreand Fisher were condemned to death and executed in the summer--martyrsassuredly to conscience. The whole of their offence consisted in the singlefact that they could not and would not recant their belief in the validityof Katharine's marriage. Had they sought to make converts to that opinion, or to make it a text for preaching sedition, there might have been somecolour of justice in their punishment. As it was, such danger as theremight be in their holding that view lay entirely in the advertisement of itby insistence on the oath. All Europe shuddered, and half England trembledat the demonstration of ruthless power, when those two were struck down--the aged bishop whose spotless character and saintly life had for many ayear given the lie to those who included all the higher clergy in auniversal condemnation; and the ex-chancellor, the friend of Erasmus, whosewide learning, kindly wit, intellectual eminence, and unswerving rectitudehad won for him a European reputation greater than that of any otherEnglishman of his time. The Carthusians, Brigittines, and Observants whohad been induced to give way on the question of the Oath reverted to theposition of More and Fisher. Their heads also were put to death, and thehouses broken up. 

The wrath of the Pope was expressed in a Bull of Deposition; which howeveron second thoughts he found it advisable to hold in suspense till threeyears later. 

[Sidenote: Cromwell made Vicar-General]

When More and Fisher opposed themselves obstinately to the King's will, there was no doubt that the King would see to it that they paid thepenalty. But we may suspect that it was not Henry's brain but Cromwell'swhich devised the policy of presenting them with the fatal dilemma. Beforethey were put to death, the minister's supremacy was already established byhis appointment as Vicar-General, with full power to exercise on the King'sbehalf all the rights vested in the Supreme Head of the Church: rightswhich--however it might be asserted that they were and had been at alltimes inherent in the sovereign--were now to be interpreted in a novel andcomprehensive spirit. But besides the development alike in extent andintensity of the attack on the clerical organisation, we now find foreignpolicy taking a new direction for which Cromwell was assuredly responsible. 

[Sidenote 1: The German Lutherans][Sidenote 2: Overtures]

Hitherto, since the fall of Wolsey, the Emperor had been in steadyantagonism to the English King: so had the Pope, except when he had hopesof the Imperial pressure on him being removed. France had on the wholegiven support to England, usually of a lukewarm character. But it does notappear that, until this time, Henry had learnt to look upon the GermanLutherans as an available political force: while his active hostility tothe Lutheran theology seemed to preclude anything in the nature of a_rapprochement_ with the Protestant princes. Yet the Lutherans, likeHenry, had repudiated papal authority. Recently the French King had takenup the idea of bringing about a compromise between the Pope on one side, and the Lutherans and English on the other, which would place Charles indangerous straits. The prospect however was unpromising at the best; areconciliation with Rome was really impossible. Cromwell, then, conceivedthe idea of a Protestant league, which would suggest to Francis theadvantage of following Henry's lead in throwing off the Roman allegiance, and ranging himself with the Lutherans and the English. Henry's owntheological predilections stood in the way, and the Lutherans regarded himwith suspicion: but Cromwell looked to political expediency as a potentsalve for healing controversial differences. Thus in the late summer of1535, the first advances were made in the direction of seeking a mutualunderstanding with the German Protestants--not without hints that Henry hadan open mind on the subject of the Augsburg Confession. The Germans howeverwere in no haste to accept Henry as a brand plucked from the burning;rather, they had a not unnatural suspicion that he merely wanted to makeuse of them. They propounded conditions, which Cromwell submitted toGardiner, at this time ambassador at Paris. Whatever Gardiner's views wereas to papal ascendancy, he was no Lutheran; and he pointed out that toaccept the terms would deprive England of her ecclesiasticalindependence. Thus the negotiations fell through--as might have beenexpected. Nevertheless, the desire for the Lutheran alliance remained atthe back of Cromwell's policy; not avowed but latent; and it was in anattempt to entangle Henry irrevocably in that policy that he committed, notfive years later, the blunder which cost him his head. 

[Sidenote: Visitation of the Monasteries]

In the same Autumn--1535--Cromwell as Vicar-General opened his greatcampaign against the monasteries; actuated, according to the historians onone side, by a determination to remove a cancer which was destroying themorality of the nation; according to the historians on the other side, bythe vast opportunities afforded for plunder. 

[Sidenote: 1536 Suppression of Lesser Houses]

Heretofore the visitation of "exempt" monasteries had lain with theSuperiors of their respective orders, except when special authority hadbeen granted by the Pope to a Morton or a Wolsey. In other cases it hadbeen deputed to the bishops, each in his own diocese. At the time of therecent Peter Pence Act (1534) the exempt houses had been formally subjectedto the King. Cromwell now took upon himself the right of visitation, notonly of the exempt monasteries, but of the others as well, suspending thejurisdiction of the bishops while his enquiries were going forward, andthus emphasising the doctrine that that jurisdiction was derived from theKing. Commissioners were appointed--Legh, Leyton, Bedyl, and Ap Rice--toinvestigate and report upon the conduct and the finances of the varioushouses. In a period of about three months (Oct. -Jan. ), they made theirinvestigations and prepared their report, keeping up an activecorrespondence with Cromwell in the meantime. On the strength of thisreport, a bill was laid before Parliament and passed in February (1536), suppressing all houses with less than £200 a year, 376 in number--of whichhowever 31 were reinstated later in the year as having been wellconducted. In part, their inmates were to be redistributed among thegreater houses; in part they were to be released from their vows; and inpart they were to receive some compensation. 

[Sidenote: The evidence discussed]

Now it is clear that in the time at their disposal, the commissioners couldnot possibly have sifted thoroughly the evidence brought before them. Inmany cases there was enough that was gross, palpable, obvious, to warrantcondemnation at sight. But the scandalous levity and domineering insolencewith which they carried out their task must have suggested to theill-conditioned members of every community that slander and false-witnessmight lead to favour and profit, and were not likely to be too carefullytested: while it is easy to see how the insulting interrogatories would beangrily resented, and answers be refused, or given in the most injudiciousmanner, by perfectly innocent persons; while demands for inventories ofvaluables were met by prevarication and concealment, when the object of thecommissioners was suspected of being spoliation. The letters of Leyton andLegh convey the impression that the fouler the scandals unearthed orretailed, the more enjoyment and humour they discovered in theiroccupation. There can be no doubt that the state of things they found wasin general bad; but by their own statement it was by no means universallyso; and it is also clear that they accepted adverse witness almost withoutexamination and wilfully minimised all that was favourable. 

[Sidenote: The Black Book]

Also, it is very doubtful whether the "black book" of monastic offences wasever laid before parliament. The preamble to the bill set forth, luridlyenough, the conclusions arrived at by the King and the vicar-general, andsummed up the grounds for them. But it seems by no means improbable thatparliament simply accepted the statement thus laid before it. The blackbook itself disappeared. The Protestant historians of Elizabeth's reignsaid that Bonner destroyed it; the Roman Catholics affirm that it was theother party who took care that the evidence on which they acted shouldnever be made known. The actual surviving evidence is to be found in thepartial summaries known as the Comperta and in the letters of thecommissioners to Cromwell. The examination of these can hardly fail toleave the reader with a conviction that the methods of the Commissionerswere atrociously iniquitous, but that a strictly judicial investigationwould still have revealed a state of things often appalling, not seldomvicious, and commonly reprehensible, without the elements which might havemade effective reform possible: while it is beyond a doubt that especiallyamong the younger monks and nuns, the desire to escape from the bonds ofmonastic rule was common. 

[Sidenote: The Consequent Commission]

In favour of the monasteries however, it is to be noted that these 376minor houses were suppressed not as having been individually condemned, buton the theory that the report pointed to the system of maintaining minorhouses as bad. Mixed commissions were now appointed to continue thevisitation, carry out the suppression, and recommend exemptions when it wasdesirable; and the reports of these commissions were of a far lessunfavourable character, though (as we have seen) only 31 houses wereactually reinstated. It is to be observed also, in a somewhat differentconnexion, that the further visitation was accompanied by the issuing ofInjunctions for the conduct of monastic establishments which may have beendesigned solely with a view to enforcing a pure and pious manner of living, but are undoubtedly open to the suspicion of having been deliberatelycalculated to make the monastic life insupportable and so to encourage thereligious houses to efface themselves by voluntary surrender--a coursewhich was not infrequently adopted. 

[Sidenote: The policy discussed]

There was sufficient precedent for laying the Church under heavycontributions to the exchequer. The idea of deliberately confiscatingChurch property had before now been seriously put forward. There had beenprevious suppressions of monastic establishments; but in these cases thefunds, ostensibly at least, had been diverted to other purposes recognisedas ecclesiastical, such as Wolsey's schools and colleges. Thedifferentiating feature of Cromwell's confiscation was that the funds werefor the most part withdrawn from any ecclesiastical purpose whatever. [Footnote: There was precedent for the proposal however in Parliamentarypetitions of Richard II. 's reign; but these had not taken effect inlegislation. ] The monastic lands passed to lay owners by grant or purchase;they enriched the King or his friends or those whom Cromwell thought fit toenrich or to gratify. The evidence that in the public interest it was timefor the religious houses to go is convincing; the method of proceedingagainst the smaller houses first was tactically shrewd, as evoking lessopposition at the outset; but even if it be conceded that the Church hadforfeited her property, it is impossible to find any excuse for theapplication of the spoils to other than public objects. The Church mightsimply be looked upon as a vast corporation, holding its wealth in trustfor the nation, and rightly deprived of that wealth when it failed tofulfil the trust. But on that view, the wealth was bound to be handed overto another body, to administer as a trust for the nation. The fact thatthis was not done makes possible only one conclusion as to the motive ofthe suppression. The Church was both the wealthiest and the least dangerousvictim available for bleeding, besides being open to the charge ofdeserving to be penalised. 

[Sidenote 1: Anne Boleyn threatened][Sidenote 2: Her condemnation and death]

In January 1536 the deeply-injured Katharine died; to be followed ere manymonths had passed by her supplanter. Ostensibly, Henry had married AnneBoleyn, because a male heir was needed to secure the succession; but shehad borne him only a daughter and a still-born son. Henry was disappointedin her. Moreover, his passion had for some time been cooling: nor was hercharacter--even on the most favourable reading--calculated to retainaffections that had begun to wane. She was frivolous and undignified; herarrogance and her assumption had left her few friends. She was jealous ofthe attentions paid by her husband to Jane Seymour, who had been one ofKatharine's ladies-in-waiting--attentions which she received with abecoming reserve. Suddenly it appeared that Anne had been guilty of grossmisconduct. Sundry gentlemen of the court, including her brother LordRochford were charged with sharing her guilt. One of them ultimately madeconfession--true or false. There were stories, flatly denied, that she hadbeen contracted to Northumberland: that she had actually been his wife whenshe married Henry. There were stories that the marriage was void, becauseof earlier relations between Henry and her mother and sister. Whether thequeen was guilty or not, the judges of course did what they were expectedto do; she was tried for treason and condemned. Cranmer was torn between anaffectionate conviction that she was really a good woman and an inabilityto believe that the King could be misled, much less do her a deliberate andconscious wrong. But some sort of admission which she made before him wasinterpreted by the Archbishop as involving the nullity of themarriage. Anne was executed: next day, the King married Jane Seymour; themarriage with Anne was officially declared to have been invalid; Elizabethbeing of course de-legitimatised, and so occupying precisely the sameposition as Mary. Thus Henry was left with three illegitimate children (thethird being the Duke of Richmond who died not long after), and nolegitimate heir--truly an ironical outcome of that divorce which hisapologists defend as having been demanded by the need of a successor withan indisputable title to the throne!

[Sidenote: The Succession]

Within three weeks of Anne Boleyn's execution (May 19th, 1536), a newparliament was sitting; for that which had commenced its sessions at theend of 1529 had been dissolved in the spring of this year. The firstbusiness was formally to ratify the late proceedings, and fix thesuccession on the offspring of the new queen; the second was formally toauthorise the King himself to lay down the order of successionthereafter. Incidentally we may note that the actual legitimate heirpresumptive [Footnote: See _Appendix B_, and _Front_. ] to thethrone was now the King of Scotland, the son of Henry's elder sisterMargaret. The claims of a child of Jane Seymour could alone on legitimistprinciples take precedence of his, if the judgments invalidating the twoprevious marriages held good. It is only by admitting the power ofparliament to fix or delegate its power of fixing the succession, thatJames's claim to be heir presumptive could be challenged. But there was nosort of doubt that it would be in actual fact challenged, simply becausethe English would not take a King from another land. There was not muchroom in England for advocates of the doctrine of Divine Right. NeitherHenry IV, and his successors, nor Henry VII. , nor Elizabeth, could havemaintained a plausible claim to the throne apart from their title by Act ofParliament. Of present importance however was the fact that both Katharineand Anne were dead before the marriage of Queen Jane; there could thereforebe absolutely no ground for challenging the legitimacy of any children ofhers, while any conceivable claims on behalf of either Mary or Elizabethwould necessarily yield precedence to the claim of Jane's son, should shebear one. Moreover, since there was now no Katharine to claim rights as aqueen, and her supplanter had died a traitor's death, Mary might withoutrisk be re-instated as a Princess on sufficient grounds. Thus a door wasopened for a renewal of amity with the Emperor. 

[Sidenote: Punishment of Heresy]

The aims and objects of the Reformation in England had been entirelypolitical and financial. There had been no official movement towards a newdoctrinal standpoint. On the contrary, the suppression of heresy had beennot less active after Cranmer's accession to the primacy than before. Theprosecutions however do not at any time appear to have originated with theclergy: and the Ordinaries habitually endeavoured to procure therecantation of heresy rather than the exaction of its penalties. But themost advanced of the clergy, even those who like Latimer were continuallyverging on doctrines which their stricter brethren regarded as heretical, showed as little mercy as any one to the upholders of Anabaptism; whosetheology was usually combined--or supposed to be so--with perverted viewson the political and social order. To this class belong most of the martyrsof the period; with the notable exception of John Frith. Frith was a youngman of great piety and learning, who would probably never have beenarrested but for his association with the distributors of forbiddenliterature. Being arrested, he maintained--in spite of earnest efforts topersuade him to recant--the Zwinglian doctrine of the Lord's Supper: butfurther he stood almost alone in declaring that to hold a correct opinionon this point of doctrine could not be essential to salvation. Frith wasthe first and almost the only martyr (July, 1533) to the theory oftoleration, to which neither Romanists nor Protestants, Anglicans norZwinglians, were yet ready to give ear. 

[Sidenote 1: Progressive Movement][Sidenote 2: The Ten Articles]

Although, however, there had been no revolt from orthodox doctrine thecourse of the Reformation abroad could not be without influence inEngland. There was a growing inclination to think and speak of minorquestions as being debatable; an increasing suspicion on one side that thespread of knowledge and of discussion tended to heresy and toirreverence--on the other, that they tended to edification. In theory theleading ecclesiastics agreed that an authorised translation of the Biblewould be good, but half of them were afraid that it would lead to novel anddangerous interpretations. The general attitude may be regarded as one ofuneasiness. Hence the commission appointed under Cranmer's auspices didlittle; and Cranmer himself, whose heart was really in the scheme, wasoverjoyed [Footnote: Dr. Gairdner (_Eng. Church_, p. 192) thinkshowever that it was Matthew's Bible, issued next year, to which Cranmer'sexpressions of satisfaction were applied. ] when Coverdale produced arendering to which an authoritative _imprimatur_ could be given. Thegeneral sense of unrest, aggravated perhaps by some alarm lest the AugsburgConfession should attract adherents--especially since the Lutherans hadbeen told that there might be room for its discussion--led to theenunciation of the first of the Anglican formulae of Faith, known as theTen Articles "for establishing Christian Quietness, " in July 1536:professedly prepared by the King's own hand. These Articles contained nodeviation from orthodox dogma; but their most notable feature lay in thedistinction drawn between institutions necessary and convenient, with theimplication that the latter were liable to modification. 

[Sidenote: The Lincolnshire rising]

The issuing of these Articles with the sanction alike of King, Parliament, and Convocation, was probably intended to counteract the alarm attendant onthe visitation and suppression of the monasteries. Those institutions, though not popular in cities, and viewed with jealousy by the secularclergy, provided in many country districts the only existing charitable oreducational organisations; and moreover, whatever their defects were in theeyes of the Economist, they were much more lenient landlords than theaverage lay landowner. It would have been strange indeed if some of thedispersed monks had not allowed their tongues to wag, to the stirring up ofalarm and discontent. In the autumn of this year, the effect of thesethings were seen in a rising in Lincolnshire. This was promptly suppressedwithout any undue tenderness either of speech or action; but it was verysoon followed by the much more significant and formidable insurrection inthe North, known as the Pilgrimage of Grace. 

[Sidenote: The Pilgrimage of Grace]

The insurgents were headed by a very remarkable man, a lawyer named RobertAske of a good North-country family. He had taken no part in incitingrebellion; but the position of leader was thrust upon him, and as it wouldseem not unwillingly accepted. His abilities were great: the rising wasorganised with much skill, and with wonderful system and discipline. YetAske's very virtues unfitted him for his office under the existingconditions. He was honest himself; he wished to avoid bloodshed: what hesought was the remedying of genuine grievances. As with the Lincolnshireinsurgents, this meant the restoration of the monasteries, the removal ofevil councillors, notably Cromwell, the removal of the advanced bishops, such as Cranmer and Latimer, the remission of a tax granted in 1534 which acommission was collecting, the repeal of a recent land-act ("Statute ofUses") which had increased the difficulty of providing younger sons withsufficient endowments, the restoration to the Church of revenues latelyattached by the Crown. All over the North, cities and strongholds fellinto the hands of Aske's followers without a blow. With thirty thousandwell equipped and fairly disciplined troops he advanced to the Don, wherehe was faced by Norfolk with a far smaller force. 

[Sidenote 1: Aske beguiled][Sidenote 2: 1537 Suppression of the rising]

It was then that Aske committed his fatal but noble error. Had he struckthen, he could in all probability have marched triumphantly to London andhave dictated his own terms. But he did not wish to strike. He sought aconference, and laid his proposals before Norfolk. Norfolk temporised, andreferred the proposals to London. The insurgents were allowed to believethat they would be pardoned, and their demands be essentially conceded. Thenobles and gentry among them were appealed to privately; Norfolk evensought to get Aske betrayed into his hands. Aske still would not give upthe hope of a peaceful solution. At last in December the King gave Norfolkpowers to concede a free pardon and a Parliament at York; but there is nodoubt that Norfolk's statements to the insurgents gave the totallydifferent impression that they could count upon the fulfilment of theirdemands. By the King's command the leaders went South to be personallyinterviewed, and returned in sanguine mood. But their army was breaking up, and it was very soon apparent that in fact the North was being rapidlygarrisoned for the King. The pardons were accompanied by a new oath ofallegiance which showed very clearly that the grievances were not going tobe remedied. Wild spirits broke out again in deeds of violence. By thistime, the royal armies were in a position to strike. It was declared thatthe conditions of the pardon had been violated; the insurgents had now noprospect of making head in the field. Hangings were freely resorted to;Aske and other leaders were seized and executed: an impressive series ofabbots and priors was among the victims. And so, early in 1537, ended theone formidable insurrection of Henry's reign. 

[Sidenote: The rising turned to account]

Not only had half the nobility and gentry of the North been seriouslyimplicated in the rising; the clergy had taken active part in fomentingit. Being followed up by a visitation from Cromwell's most energeticcommissioners, such guilt as there had been was presented in the strongestcolours and was made a new ground for Suppression, or the application ofthe drastic regulations which induced voluntary surrender; and at the sametime pains were taken to impress the Ten Articles on the public mind. Thesewere supplemented by the publication of the "Institution of a ChristianMan" otherwise known as the "Bishops' Book"; in which some points which hadbeen omitted or left vague in the Articles were laid down with a moredefined orthodoxy, though the prelates of every shade of opinion had theirshare in the work. On the other hand, the preparation of an authorisedversion of the Scriptures was going forward. In spite of Cromwell'sInjunction that the Bible should be set up in English and Latin in theChurches, Coverdale's work had not been adopted; and though this wasfollowed by "Matthew's Bible, " a combination of Tindal's and Coverdale's, in 1537, it was not till the issue of the revised version, known on accountof its size as the Great Bible, more than a year later, that the injunctionwas given general effect. 

[Sidenote: 1533-36 James V. ]

Abroad, the reluctant but anxious desire to maintain friendly relationswith England which attended the domination of Wolsey had practicallydisappeared since the Cardinal's fall. From 1529 to 1536, there had been noprospect of a reconciliation between Henry and Charles; Francis had only atintervals been disposed to make advances; the demeanour of the Lutheranprinces had been cold at the best. In Scotland, the young King, who onlyattained his majority in 1533, displayed that lack of confidence in thedisinterested generosity of England which seems to be always a cause ofpained surprise to the English politicians and historians. In fact it washis firm and extremely natural conviction that his uncle was responsiblefor keeping the whole border country in a perpetual state of unrest, fomenting the rivalries of the Scottish nobility, and generally promotingdisorder, in order to bring about the subordination of the Northern to theSouthern kingdom. The clerical body in Scotland, which had always been mostenergetic in maintaining resistance to England, was of course rendered moreAnglophobe than ever by Henry's ecclesiastical policy; and its influencewas strong, since it had done a good deal in the way of fighting James'sbattles with his nobles. Henry proposed a conference with his nephew, to beheld at York, in 1538; James had at first welcomed the proposal, butpresently evaded it in the belief that his uncle would kidnap him, as hehad before designed to kidnap Beton. Instead he went to France, to arrangea marriage with a daughter of Francis; and on his return was reported tohave given encouragement to the North-country rebels. 

[Sidenote: 1536-37 Naval measures]

Meantime, in the Channel, the estimation in which England was held had beenshown by the increasingly piratical proceedings of French, Spanish, andFlemish ships; since of late Henry's hands had been too full for him togive clue attention to naval affairs. Now however the opportunity was takento devote some of the monastic funds to coast defence. A series of fortswas raised, commanding the principal harbours on the south coast; and a fewships, secretly prepared, were suddenly sent out under competent captains, to teach the channel pirates a lesson in English seamanship; which was veryeffectively accomplished. 

[Sidenote 1: 1537 Birth of Prince Edward][Sidenote 2: Marriage projects]

The problem of the succession to the throne was at last settled by thebirth of a prince in October (1537). There was now an heir whose claims ifhe lived would be unassailable. But within a few weeks the queen died; andthere was still only the life of one baby to shield the country fromanarchy, in case Henry himself should die. With probably genuinereluctance, the King agreed that he would marry again if a suitable wifecould be found for him; and the whirligig of intriguing for his union withone or another foreign princess was set in motion; princesses related toCharles, or to Francis, or to one of the Lutheran chiefs. Two years elapsedbefore the choice was made which, led to Cromwell's downfall. And in themeantime Mary of Guise (or Lorraine) was withdrawn from the lists by hermarriage with James V. , whose Queen Madeleine had died a few months afterthe nuptials: while the Duchess of Milan, a youthful niece of the Emperor, was for some time utilised by Charles as a diplomatic asset. The risk of anAnglo-Imperial alliance was employed by him in negotiations with Francis;and when these negotiations were brought to a successful issue the proposedalliance was gradually allowed to drop. 

[Sidenote: 1538 Diplomatic moves]

During 1538 however, this marriage was being dangled before Henry, accompanied by the hope that it might cause a rupture between Charles andthe Pope, from whom a dispensation would be necessary--a question whichcould not now be raised without the kindling of explosivematerials. Further the English quarrel with Rome was being embittered by acampaign against spurious relics, miracle-working shrines, and the like, involving a particularly virulent attack on St. Thomas of Canterbury, thetype of defiant ecclesiasticism. Moreover, the arrival of a deputation ofLutheran divines in England was ominous of the closer association of thebodies which had revolted from Rome. Reginald Pole, a member of the housewhich stood high in the Yorkist line of succession [Footnote: See_Front_. ], who had been not long before raised to the Cardinalate, hadfor some time been carrying on from the Continent a violent propagandaagainst Henry. Pope Paul's Bull of Deposition was again being talked of, though there is some doubt as to whether it was actually published. 

[Sidenote 1: The Exeter Conspiracy][Sidenote 2: Cromwell strikes]

Under all these circumstances, it is scarcely surprising that a new andformidable conspiracy, essentially Yorkist, was brought to light. In factthe whole country was sown with spies, and there was not much difficulty inobtaining information of treasonable speeches, when hasty expressions ofdiscontent counted for treason. Now outside the offspring of Henry VII. , the Marquis of Exeter, Edward Courtenay, was a grandson of Edward IV. ; thePoles were grandsons of his brother, Clarence, whose daughter, their motherthe Countess of Salisbury, was living still. The theory that a tyrant mightbe deposed and another scion of the royal house substituted, had ampleprecedent; and it is in no way improbable that the Courtenays, who wereall-powerful in the West, might have been ready enough in conjunction withthe Poles to make a bid for the throne, if they could have found or createda favourable opportunity. The Cardinal had warning from Cromwell that thesafety of his kinsmen was jeopardised by his diatribes; while LordMontague, the head of the family, was on very close terms of friendshipwith Exeter. Exeter's own conduct on the occasion of the Pilgrimage ofGrace had been suspicious. Out of these materials there was no difficultyin constructing a damning case against as many members of these Plantagenethouses as might be considered advisable: since there was no need to provethat rebellion was actually organised. It was enough to have a record ofthe use of disloyal expressions, or even of the concealment of theknowledge that such expressions had been used. Finally it was notoriousthat there was no love lost between Cromwell and the suspectednobles. Cromwell, having collected sufficient evidence for his purpose, struck. Geoffrey Pole, a younger brother, learned that the blow was comingin time to turn informer. How far there was anything really deserving thename of a conspiracy the evidence produced did not show; but the existenceof treason under the Treasons Act was indisputable. The policy which hadstruck down Buckingham nearly a score of years before was repeated evenmore ruthlessly. The materials for formulating a Yorkist rising weredestroyed; there was no figure-head for one left when Exeter and Montaguehad been executed (Dec. ), even though the old Countess of Salisbury's doomwas deferred. And men realised afresh--if there was need that they shoulddo so--the irresistible machinery that Cromwell had prepared for thecertain annihilation of any one worth annihilating. 

[Sidenote: 1539 Menace of Invasion]

The warning was perhaps necessary; for in the beginning of 1539 theattitude of the foreign Powers was menacing. The Pope was planning a sortof crusade, with invasion and insurrection in Ireland as its basis. Themarriage of James of Scotland to Mary of Guise would make matters the moredangerous if France assumed a definitely hostile attitude; and the pretenceof negotiating the union between Henry and the Duchess of Milan had beenended by the reconciliation of Charles and Francis. A combination includingthe Emperor was threatening. Wriothesly the English ambassador in the LowCountries, did not believe on the whole that there would be a breach of thepeace, unless the Imperialists felt that their victory would be assured. Nevertheless, a great armament was assembled in the Dutch harbours. England, however, had awakened to the need of defence in the Channel;fleets were assembled and forts manned. The solidarity of the country hadbeen demonstrated by the easy suppression of the Courtenays and Poles. Ifan invasion was contemplated--which can hardly be doubted--the invadersthought better of the situation, and the armada dispersed without any overthostilities taking place. 

[Sidenote 1: The King and Lutheranism][Sidenote 2: The Six Articles]

The Lutheran conference of the previous year had been without directresults: but it had the effect of forcing to the front the settlement ofthe official position as to several points of doctrine. The advancedbishops were distinctly inclined to admit the Lutheran views: the otherpowerful body within the English Church was in strong opposition. Theologically, the King was in agreement with the latter section, althoughhe retained a particularly strong and persistent personal affection forCranmer--apparently the only persistent affection of his life. The resultwas the production of the Six Articles Act, pronouncing in favour ofTransubstantiation, clerical celibacy, auricular confession, communion inone kind only for the laity, prayers for the dead, and the permanence ofvows once taken. On the first head there was not as yet any real differenceof opinion. As to the second, Cranmer was actually a married man when hebecame archbishop, and many of the clergy, especially in country districts, had wives, in spite of the fact that the law did not recognise therelationship: so that an awkward situation was created. Considering theabolition of the monasteries, the Article concerning vows wasremarkable. But on all these doctrines the views of the reformers were notyet sufficiently crystallised to prevent their submission when the Jawdemanded it, though it justified a determined opposition to the passing ofthe law; in this Cranmer was particularly conspicuous, and two of thebishops, Latimer and Shaxton, lost their sees. That the Act should havebeen passed is not surprising; but the ferocity of the attendant penaltiesis best explained by the fact that, on an attempt being made to apply thestatute in a wholesale fashion, the accused were promptly pardoned and setat liberty. The object was not so much to punish as to silence the advancedsection. 

[Sidenote: Final Suppression of Monasteries]

At the same time two other Acts of grave import were passed. One was theAct for the suppression and forfeiture of those religious houses which hadnot been accounted for in the Act of 1536. The new Act was merely thelogical corollary of the old one. The distinction in morals between thelesser and greater monasteries was not marked: and to the old charges ofthe commissioners were added the new charges of complicity in the rebellionof the North and in Exeter's conspiracy, and of fomenting disloyaltygenerally. The measure was carried out with great harshness, and especialseverity was shown in the cases where abbots and monks attempted to concealthe monastic treasures. The aged and beloved abbot of Glastonbury was foundguilty of treason and put to death. The great estates became for the mostpart the prizes of the nobility. Some few of the houses were converted intoChapters. There was a scheme for constructing twenty-one new bishoprics outof the proceeds of the suppression, but the twenty-one dwindled to six. [Footnote: Chester, Peterborough, Oxford, Gloucester, Bristol andWestminster. ] A fraction of the money was expended on the Channeldefences. But broadly speaking the vast bulk of the spoils went to nonational or ecclesiastical purpose but to the enrichment of privateindividuals. Still the amount realised by the National Exchequer did nodoubt relieve the present necessity for taxation in other forms, whichwould have been a more fruitful source of murmuring and discontent thansympathy with the dispossessed monks. 

[Sidenote: Royal Proclamations Act]

The second measure was the Royal Proclamations Act, giving to RoyalProclamations made with the assent of the Privy Council the force oflaw. This was the coping stone of that edifice of absolutism built up byparliamentary enactments of which Cromwell was the Architect: an adaptationof the system initiated by Henry VII. And developed by Wolsey; springingnow from the assertion of the doctrine of the Supreme Head, continuing withthe novel practical interpretations of that doctrine in mattersecclesiastical, and buttressed by the Treasons Act, which effectuallytranslated discontent into Treason. Now the King was left in such aposition that his will became formally law unless his Privy Council opposedhim. 

[Sidenote: Anne of Cleves]

Cromwell had shattered the ecclesiastical power of resistance: he hadshattered also the dangerous elements among the nobility: he hadsystematically secured parliamentary confirmation for every step. But hewished to carry still further the anti-clericalism which was part of hispolicy. He desired the domination in England of the Lutheranising sectionof Churchmen, and the central idea of his foreign policy was theconstruction of a Protestant League. In these respects he went beyond hismaster, and in the attempt to carry his master with him, he made ship-wreckof himself. The question of another marriage for Henry was still unsettled;if more children were to be hoped for, it must be settled soon. Cromwellfixed upon Anne of Cleves as politically the wife to be desired. By weddingwith her, Henry would be drawn into closer relations with the ProtestantLeague of Schmalkald. He painted for the King a misleading picture of thelady's charms: the King consented to his plans; the negotiation flowedsmoothly. 

[Sidenote 1: 1540 The Marriage][Sidenote 2: Fall of Cromwell]

Early in the year (1540) the bride came to England; bringingdisillusionment. Matters had gone too far for the King to draw back, andthe marriage was carried out; but his wrath was kindled against itsprojector. The blow fell not less suddenly than with Wolsey. The Earl ofEssex--such was the title recently bestowed on Cromwell--was withoutwarning arrested and attainted of high treason. The instrument he himselfhad forged and ruthlessly wielded with such terrible effect was turned asruthlessly against him. He had over-ridden the law. He had countenanced andprotected anti-clerical law-breakers. He had spoken in arrogant terms ofhis own power. As it had availed Wolsey nothing that his breach ofpraemunire had been countenanced by the King, so it availed Cromwellnothing that the King had seemed to support him. If the King had done so, in each case, it was merely because he in his innocence had been misled byhis minister, so that in fact their crime was aggravated. For the mercilessminister, there was no mercy. That the process against Essex was byattainder and not by an ordinary trial is of little moment. His fate wouldhave been the same in any case; nor was he so scrupulous in such mattersthat he can claim sympathy on that head. No voice but Cranmer's--inlamentation rather than protest--was raised on his behalf. The mightyminister, the most dreaded of all men who have swayed the destinies ofEngland, found himself in a moment as utterly helpless as the feeblest ofhis victims had been. He was flung into the Tower; his stormy protests wereunheeded by the King; on July 28th, his head fell beneath the executioner'saxe. 

[Sidenote: Nemesis]

Cromwell had learned his ethics and his state-craft in that school whosedoctrines are formulated in "The Prince" of Macchiavelli. He had appliedthose principles with remorseless logic, untinged by the fear of God orman, to the single end of making his master actually the most completeautocrat that ever sat on the throne of England. His loyalty was asunfailing as it was unscrupulous; his work had been thorough andcomplete--the King was placed beyond further need of him. His reward wasthe doom of a traitor. Unpitying he lived, unpitied he died. Regardless ofjustice, he had swept down each obstacle in the way of his policy:regardless of justice he was in turn struck down. By his own standards hewas judged; his end was the end he had compassed for More andFisher. History has no more perfect example of Nemesis. 

CHAPTER X

HENRY VIII (vi), 1540-47--HENRY'S LAST YEARS

[Sidenote: 1540 Katherine Howard]

The complaisant and very plain lady who had been the cause of Cromwell'sdownfall had no objection (subject to compensation), to being discarded ontechnical grounds by her spouse. Before the minister was dead, the marriagehad been pronounced null: not without compensatory gifts. But her brotherthe Duke of Cleves was less easily pacified, and all prospect of analliance with the Protestant League was at an end. A new bride was promptlyfound for the King in the person of Katharine Howard, a kinswoman of theDuke of Norfolk--a marriage which marked the renewal of the ascendancy ofthe old nobility in alliance with the reactionary Church party. 

[Sidenote: The King his own Minister]

Thirty-one years had passed since Henry, in the first flush of a manhoodexceptionally rich in promise, but untried and inexperienced, had taken hisplace on the throne of England as the successor of the most astutesovereign in Europe. For nearly twenty years thereafter Wolsey had servedhim with such latitude of action that nearly every one except the Cardinalbelieved that he dominated the King. After a brief interval, for nearly tenyears more the same statement would have applied to Cromwell. While thosetwo great ministers held office, each of them towered immeasurably aboveall his fellow-subjects: though each knew that the brilliant boy hadhardened into a masterful King who could hurl him headlong with a nod. Butwhen Cromwell had fallen, none took his place; there is no statesman whostands out conspicuous. Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, brother of JaneSeymour, showed some military capacity; Paget proved himself an astutediplomatist; Cranmer and Gardiner led the rival Church parties, but neitherthe parties nor their leaders exercised any semblance of control over theSupreme Head. Abroad, Henry's battle with the Pope was won: at home hisautocracy was established alike as temporal and spiritual head of thenation. There was no one left who needed crushing. Cromwell had seen tothat before he was dispensed with. After that revolutionary decade, therewere no more marked changes. There were incidents in the now slowly movingcourse of the reformation; there was even an unimportant insurrection; butthe chief interest of Henry's closing years is once more to be found mainlyin foreign relations, and more especially in those with Scotland. 

[Sidenote: England and the European Powers]

On the continent, the two leading Powers, France and the Empire, were in achronic state of antagonism only occasionally veiled: while the Pope was inpermanent opposition to England. This situation was complicated by theSchmalkaldic League of Protestant German Princes. When Charles was disposedto religious toleration, the League were his very good subjects, the Popebecame antagonistic, and a Franco-papal alliance threatened. When Charlesleaned to intolerance, the Pope grew favourable to him, and Francis turneda friendly eye on the perturbed Protestant League. Charles, Francis, andthe League, would each of them have been pleased to make use of England, but none of them wished to be of service to her: and now Thomas Cromwell'sgreat desire of bringing about a cordial relation between England and theLeague had been frustrated instead of furthered by the affair of Anne ofCleves. The risk of this alliance had forced Charles into a conciliatoryattitude towards Francis; relieved from it, he could now revert to hisnormal attitude. At the end of 1540, the Emperor and the French King werealmost within measurable distance of hostilities, while the relationsbetween the latter and Henry were becoming seriously strained by hisneglect to pay the instalments of cash due under past treaties. For thetime being, however, there was no immediate likelihood of a breach of thepeace. 

[Sidenote: Cardinal Beton]

In Scotland, James Beton Archbishop of St. Andrews, the most consistentenemy of England, had died in 1539, and had been succeeded, both in hisoffice and his influence, by his nephew, the still more famous Cardinal, David Beton. The Cardinal was the last of the old school of militantecclesiastical statesmen; a foe to the English the more deadly because ofHenry's anti-clerical policy, as well as on account of traditional views, and of the specific grounds of distrust for which Henry himself had beenresponsible during twenty years past--including the proposal to let Anguskidnap James Beton [Footnote: _Cf. _ p. 81. ] under a safe-conduct. Hewas moreover a zealous persecutor of heretics; which greatly intensifiedthe bitterness with which all the historians of the reforming party treatednot only the man himself but the whole policy which he was supposed to haveinstigated. In Scotland, religious reformers were almost of necessityAnglophiles, since Henry did all he could to encourage their doctrines. 

North of the Tweed, English writers have relied so much on the statementsof John Knox and Buchanan that the persistent hostility not only of theKing and the clergy but also of the Scottish Commons to Henry's overturesis generally represented as mere frowardness. It was in fact due to adistrust sufficiently accounted for by the English King's undeniablecomplicity in the deliberate fostering of disorder, and more than justifiedby his re-assertion in public documents of the English claim to suzeraintywhich had been finally and decisively repudiated at Bannockburn--arepudiation confirmed by treaty [Footnote: It is true that this had notprevented Edward III. From re-asserting the claim. ] in 1328. 

[Sidenote: Scotland and England, 1541]

In 1541 the attempt was renewed to bring about a conference with the ScotsKing at York; again it failed, after James had seemed to commithimself. Henry was indignant, and recriminations passed on the subject andon that of border raids, which culminated in the following summer in theaffair of Haddon Rigg when an English party was very badly handled. It is acurious illustration of Henry's notions of honour that--although the twocountries were nominally at peace--Wharton, one of the English Wardens ofthe Marches, proposed to take advantage of James's 1542 roving propensitiesand arrange to have him captured and brought prisoner to England; a schemewhich Henry apparently approved, but fortunately for his own creditreferred to his Council, whose consciences were less adaptable. In October, the English indulged in a week's invasion of Scotland, and the ScottishKing would have responded in kind but that his nobles thought better of it. 

[Sidenote: Solway Moss (Nov. )]

The counter-invasion however was not long delayed. The popular accounts ofit are mainly derived from the narrative of John Knox; according to whomthe Scottish army, ill-led and disorderly, was utterly routed with immenseslaughter by three or four hundred English yeomen who succeeded ingathering together and smiting them after the analogy of Gideon. But thedispatches of Wharton [Footnote: _Hamilton Papers. _ Lang, Hist. Scot. , i. , 455. Froude, iv. , 190 (Ed. 1864), follows Knox picturesquely. ], the Warden of the Marches, show that, acting on some days' information, hehad ready a force of from 2, 000 to 3, 000 men, with whom, having watched hisopportunity, he fell upon the very badly organised Scottish levies andentangled them in the morass called Solway Moss. The completeness of thedisaster has not been over-rated; but it was an intelligible operation ofwar, not a miracle. James was prostrated by the blow. In three weeks time(December 14th, 1542) he was dead, and his week-old daughter Mary inheritedthe woful burden of the Scottish crown. 

[Sidenote: Intervening events]

In the meantime, there had been a futile insurrection in the North, headedby Sir John Neville, in the Spring of 1541; which led to the execution notonly of Neville himself, but of the old Countess of Salisbury--niece ofEdward IV. , mother of the Poles, and grandchild of the "King-maker". Notlong after this, the Norfolk interest suffered a severe shock at Henry'scourt from the discovery of flagrant and confessed misconduct on the partof the monarch's fifth spouse, Katharine Howard; she was attainted andbeheaded, in February, 1542, and succeeded by Katharine Parr; who wasfortunate enough to outlive her husband. 

[Sidenote: 1543 Henry's Scottish policy]

Solway Moss inspired Henry with a fresh determination to invade andchastise Scotland; but James's death suggested a simpler method. For themoment, Beton was in the hands of his enemies. Henry proposed that the babyMary should be betrothed to his own son Edward, that the government ofScotland should be vested in a Council which he could control, and thatsundry English garrisons should be planted in the country. The Scots lordscaptured at Solway Moss were quite ready to promise support to his plans asthe price of returning home: they were also ready to break faith with theEnglish King when they got there; and did so. As soon as the lords were outof Henry's reach, the Scots Estates demanded modifications in the proposedtreaty which would have made it nugatory from the English point of view. AScottish Prince might have been allowed to wed an English Princess; butScotland would not take her King from England. It was not long before theCardinal recovered his ascendancy, and, acting in conjunction with thequeen-mother, Mary of Guise, sought the aid and alliance of France. 

[Sidenote: Alliance with Charles]

The French King was already at war with Charles, and his relations withEngland were exceedingly strained; whilst he was openly declaring hisdetermination to support Scotland, and French ships were playing the piratein the Channel. The Emperor on the other hand had quieted the Protestantleague by his tolerant attitude at the Diet of Ratisbon (1541); but theDuke of Cleves, Henry's enemy, was defying him. Hence the whole conditionspointed to an anti-French _rapprochement_ between Charles and Henry;which took the form of a treaty of alliance early in 1543. If theterritories of either Power were invaded, the other was to renderassistance: and thereafter neither was to make peace unless his ally wassatisfied also. The French King attempted to detach England by offering tomeet the bulk of her separate requirements; and considering the prevailingstandard of bad faith, it is to Henry's credit that he refused theseovertures. 

[Sidenote: War with France]

In the early summer Francis invaded Flanders, and an English force, notnumerous but in good trim, entered Picardy. The Imperial troops howeverawaited the arrival of Charles himself from the South, and it was not tillAugust that he took the field, having gathered his army, largely composedof Spanish soldiery, at Spires. But his first objective proved to be notFrance but Cleves which he brought to rapid submission and treated withgreat severity. In October he began to concert operations with the English, and a scheme was prepared, to be given effect in the following summer: whenthe English were to invade France by way of Calais, and the Emperor by wayof the Upper Rhine, the two armies converging on Paris. 

[Sidenote: 1544 Domestic Affairs]

Though the French campaign was thus deferred, the early months of 1544 werenot uneventful. In the realm of domestic affairs, we observe that the Kingwas now resorting with vigour to the worst expedient of bad financiers, amonstrous debasement [Footnote: See _infra_ p. 180] of thecurrency. Also he had recently raised a considerable forced loan, pendingthe collection of subsidies already voted by Parliament but not yet due. Anact was now passed in effect converting the loan into a gift, by reason ofthe necessities of the war--a measure not practically different from thevoting of an additional subsidy. Parliament also had the satisfaction ofbeing invited to lay down the succession to the throne in accordance withHenry's wishes, although he had already been empowered to fix it withoutappeal--an apt illustration of his preference for following Constitutionalforms whenever there was no risk of his objects being interfered with. After Prince Edward and his heirs, Mary was to succeed, and after herElizabeth. Beyond Henry's own offspring, the claims of the Stewarts throughMargaret Tudor were postponed to those of the descendants of the youngersister Mary. 

[Sidenote: Intrigues in Scotland]

In Scotland, Beton was in power, carrying out a drastic policy of religiouspersecution; the nobility were in their normal condition of kaleidoscopicflux, taking sides for or against Henry, the Cardinal, and each other, asthe moment's interests might suggest. The Anglicising party made a pactwith England to repudiate the French alliance, hand over the baby Queen ifthey could, and accept Henry's control. Scotland was to be invaded. Certainzealous spirits proposed to assassinate the Cardinal if they could do sounder Henry's aegis, but the opportunity passed before he replied to theirovertures--to the effect that the scheme was eminently laudable, but thathe could not openly move in the matter. The assassination of a tyrant wasnot looked on as an act deserving of severe moral condemnation; manyzealots would have accounted it a virtuous deed, to risk their lives forsuch an end. But a King [Footnote: Froude, iv. , 319 (Ed. 1864), apparentlydefends Henry on the ground that he regarded Beton as a traitor; and saw"no reason to discourage the despatch of a public enemy". ] who encouragedeven while declining to hire assassins stands in a different category fromsuch persons. 

[Sidenote: Edinburgh Sacked]

In the beginning of May, Edinburgh was startled by the appearance in theForth of a great English fleet. The idea of an invasion in this form hadnever presented itself. There was no army to give battle. The Cardinal andhis friends fled. The English landed and sacked Leith. Edinburgh was in nocondition for defence; the resistance of the citizens, though stubborn, waseasily overwhelmed. The city was pillaged; the county for miles round waslaid waste; and then, satisfied with his work of simple destruction, Hertford, the English commander, withdrew. Scotland was leaderless andpowerless to strike: for months to come, the English Wardens of the Marcheswere free to carry out a series of devastating raids with practicalimmunity. Under these circumstances, Henry dismissed the idea of organisinga subordinate government: anarchy in Scotland suited him equally well, without involving responsibilities or taxing his resources. His seriousattention was given to the Continent. 

[Sidenote: The French War]

During May, separate overtures were made on behalf of France both toCharles and Henry with a view to severing their alliance; each howeverdeclined entirely to treat apart from the other. More-over, at the Diet ofSpires, Charles took a strong line in favour of the maintenance of theordinances of Ratisbon and generally of deferring all religious differencestill the war with France should be over. With the Pope supporting Franceand advocating alliance with the Turk as a less dangerous enemy toChristianity than the ecclesiastical rebel of England, Charles was notdisposed to show favour to the Catholic princes of the Empire. 

[Sidenote: Charles makes peace at Crepy (Sept. )]

The time was now at hand for the campaign to commence: and Henry proposed amodification of the original scheme. According to his view, it would bebetter for the two armies to concentrate in force on the frontiers while asingle detachment penetrated as far into France as might seem wise. Charleshowever insisted on his plan of two separate invasions. Henry could notrefuse, but pointed out that his own march on Paris was conditioned by thethorough reduction of the country as he advanced; notably of Boulogne andMontreuil which would otherwise perpetually threaten hiscommunications. The English proceeded to lay siege to these two places, andthe Emperor attacked St. Dizier. Until these strongholds were captured, thetwo armies were respectively unable to advance. With August, Francisrenewed his scheme of making separate overtures accompanied by suggestionsto each monarch that his ally was trying to make terms for himself. Eachagain refused to treat apart from the other. At last St. Dizier fell, andCharles advanced into France, passing by Chalons and a considerable Frencharmy which was enabled to act on his line of communications. Hence he verysoon found himself in grave difficulties. Thereupon he informed Henry thatunless the English marched straight upon Paris, regardless of Boulogne andMontreuil, (which he knew to be strategically impossible) he would have toaccept for himself the terms offered by Francis. Boulogne was taken(September 14th) three days after the message was received, but Montreuilheld out. Henry had honourably refused to make terms for himself; but onSeptember 19th Charles signed the peace of Crepy--amounting to a simpledesertion of his ally. 

Boulogne was lost to the French, and though they were now free toconcentrate their forces against the English, all attempts to re-capture itwere repulsed. Henry felt no disposition to abate his own terms or toresign Boulogne: Francis required him to do both. Charles politelyrepudiated any obligation to armed intervention, despite the efforts ofGardiner to persuade him--much to the bishop's disappointment, since theLutheran Princes, alarmed by the Emperor's conduct, were again makingovertures to England. 

[Sidenote: 1545 Ancram Moor]

In Scotland, the policy of destruction adopted by the English throughout1544 had driven the country to a temporary rally, and a severe reverse wasinflicted on the Southron, beguiled into an ambuscade, at Ancram Moor inFebruary 1545; whereby Francis was encouraged to maintain, and Charles toassume, hostility to Henry: who in turn unsuccessfully sought the Lutheranalliance--a failure due to the persistent distrust of the German Princes, who could never make up their minds whether the promises of the King or theEmperor were the less to be relied on. To the quarrel over the desertion ofEngland by Charles at the peace of Crepy, was added a quarrel over theseizure by the English of Flemish ships carrying what would now be calledcontraband of war, and the arrest in retaliation of English subjects inFlanders. 

[Sidenote: A French Invasion]

The isolation of England was complete: and Francis now looked to effect asuccessful invasion; to which end a great fleet was collected. But therewas now a respectable English navy, supplemented by ships from every porton the southern coast. The threat of invasion raised the whole country inarms. In the latter part of July, the French armada was off the Solent, anda landing was accomplished in the Isle of Wight; but though there werevarious demonstrations and a few skirmishes, there was no generalengagement. The French could not get into the Solent: the English would notcome out in force, so long as the lack of a sufficient breeze gave thefighting advantage to the enemy's oar-driven galleys. Finally, plague brokeout in the French fleet which retired about the middle of August. Itsdispersion allowed of the relief of Boulogne; which was becoming somewhatstraitened, being blockaded on the land side by a large army. 

[Sidenote: 1546 Terms of Peace]

Thus when the autumn set in, the offensive operations of the French hadresulted in complete failure though there had been no important engagement:and in the meantime, the temporary nature of the reverse at Ancram Moor hadbeen demonstrated by renewed ravages in Scotland directed by Hertford. Thealtered aspect of affairs made Francis ready to treat, and changed the toneof Charles from hostility to conciliation. Negotiations were set on foot;but in the course of them it became clear not only that Henry wasdetermined to keep Boulogne but that Charles had no intention of lettingMilan go. England's readiness to continue the struggle was demonstrated bythe strength of the forces she threw onto French soil in the followingMarch, and in May Francis proposed terms. Most of the cash claims were tobe paid up; part were to be referred to arbitration; and Boulogne was toremain for eight years in the hands of the English as security. Thefinancial pressure of the war had been terribly heavy, so that theexpedient of debasing the coinage had been repeated in order to supplementtaxation. Henry accepted the French terms; and almost simultaneously hishands were strengthened by the assassination of his most resolute opponentin Scotland, Cardinal Beton (May 29th, 1546). The Peace with France wasconcluded in June. 

[Sidenote: 1532-46 Events in Europe]

Before proceeding with the account of the ecclesiastical movement inEngland during these six years, and with the narrative of the concludingsix months of Henry's reign, we must turn aside to observe certain eventson the Continent which have not hitherto fallen under our notice, sincethey did not at the time exercise a direct effect on English policy, andwere not immediately influenced thereby. Yet since the treaty of Nurembergin 1532--the point down to which, in a previous chapter, we followed thecourse of the Reformation in Europe--a compromise which served as a_modus vivendi_ between the Protestant League and the Catholicsubjects of the Empire, important developments had been taking place, whichvery materially, if indirectly, affected the subsequent course of events inEngland as well as on the Continent. The period corresponds roughly withthe pontificate of Paul III. Which lasted from 1534 to 1549. 

[Sidenote: The Lutherans and the Papacy]

The idea that the ecclesiastical reconciliation of Christendom was stillpossible--apart from the banned and recalcitrant sovereign of England--wasone of which a considerable body of Churchmen by no means despaired. Therewere men like Contarini and Pole on the one side and Melanchthon on theother whose doctrinal attitude did not seem to be hopelesslyirreconcilable. But while the Lutherans demanded for themselves a latitudeof opinion beyond what the Pope would ever have been prepared to concede, the two sides laid down two contradictory propositions as the condition ofreconciliation, in respect of the validity of Papal authority. Each waswilling, even anxious, for a General Council; but neither would admit oneunless so constituted as to imply that its own view was postulated and_ipso facto_ the opposing view ruled out of court. The Emperor, thoughanti-Lutheran, was unwilling either to enforce his view at the sword'spoint, or to subordinate himself to the Pope. The French King was equallyready to win papal favour by persecuting his own protestant subjects, andto encourage the protestant subjects of the Emperor, according as onecourse or the other seemed more likely to embarrass Charles. Finally thePope, while set upon the suppression of the Lutheran heretics, wasdesperately afraid of the accession of strength to Charles which wouldresult from their complete disappearance as a political factor: and he wasalmost equally afraid that if a Council could not be carried through, Charles would call a national Synod of the Empire to settle the religiousquestion independently. 

[Sidenote 1: 1541 Conference of Ratisbon][Sidenote 2: 1542 Council of Trent]

Thus attempts to bring about a General Council failed repeatedly. Thenearest approach to reconciliation was achieved when a conference wasarranged at Ratisbon (1541) at which there were papal as well as Lutheranrepresentatives and it seemed as if common ground of agreement was incourse of emerging. But Luther himself held aloof; Paul III. Would notratify the concessions that Contarini and others were willing to make. TheConference ended in failure; and Charles--always embarrassed in hisdealings with the Protestants by his need of their support againstthreatening Turkish aggression--was obliged, a good deal against hisprivate inclinations, to reaffirm the Nuremberg toleration. The result wasa renewal of negotiations between Pope and Emperor for the calling of aGeneral Council; whereof the outcome was that in May 1542 the Pope summonedthe famous Council of Trent which did not conclude its sittings till twentyyears later. Although the Council was formally called for the end of theyear, it did not succeed in holding a working Session till 1546; after thespring of 1547 it was transferred to Bologna; nor did it get to work again(once more at Trent) till 1551. The fundamental point however is that, byits constitution, the Lutheran controversy was prejudged and the Lutheranparty effectively excluded. It was not a Council representing Christendom;it stood for the Church of Rome seeking internal reformation for itself andarrogating Catholicity to itself. Hence arose the custom of using the termsCatholic and Protestant as party labels for those within and without the"orthodox" pale, in spite of the objection more particularly of theAnglican body to its implied exclusion from the "Catholic" Church andinclusion in the same category with the Lutheran and Calvinisticbodies. The historian cannot admit that Rome has a right to monopolise thetitle of Catholic; but during the period when Europe was practicallydivided politically into two religious camps, it is difficult to avoidusing the current labels though their adoption is in some degreemisleading. 

[Sidenote: 1548 Death of Luther]

With the convocation of the Council of Trent, such hope as there had beenfor a reunion of Christendom was practically terminated. Its first workingsessions in 1546 were contemporaneous with the death of the man who had ledthe revolt against Rome. But if Martin Luther had been a great cleavingforce, in Germany itself his influence had been consistently exerted fornational unity. To him more than to any other man it was due that Germanyhad not as yet been plunged into a civil war. He was hardly gone, when theforces of discord broke loose. 

[Sidenote: 1546-49 Charles and the Protestant League]

Charles in fact found the Schmalkaldic League a thorn in his side, and hadfor some time been resolved on its extinction should a favourableopportunity occur. His war with Francis was terminated by the Peace[Footnote: P. 162, _ante. _] of Crêpy in September 1544; the pressurefrom Turkey was relaxed; there was no probability that either England orFrance would commit themselves to helping the League. In the summer of1546, the League was put to the ban of the Empire; in the following summerit was crushed at the battle of Mühlberg, largely owing to the supportgiven to the Emperor by the young Protestant Duke of Saxony, Maurice. Butwhile this triumph broke up the League, and led Charles to regard himselfas all-powerful, it frightened the Pope into an attitude of hostility; theProtestants were not annihilated; the course taken by Charles satisfiedneither party within the Empire; and we shall shortly find a new andformidable Nationalist and anti-Spanish movement evolved in Germany withsurprising suddenness and effectiveness. 

During these years two religious developments had been in progress--oneamong the Protestants, the other among the Catholics--both destined to playa very large part in future history. These were the rise of John Calvin onone side and on the other the institution of the Society of Jesusfamiliarly known as the Jesuits. 

[Sidenote: The Order Of Jesuits]

This Order was the creation of a Spaniard, Ignatius Loyola. Born in thesame year as Henry VIII. He was taking active part as a knight in the warsof 1521, when he was crippled by a cannon shot. He rose from his sick bed areligious enthusiast; with the conception forming in his brain of anassociation for the service of his Divine Master based on the principles ofmilitary obedience carried to the extreme logical point. He devoted manyyears to training himself, body and brain and soul, for the carrying out ofthe idea. In course of time he found kindred spirits; at Montmartre in 1534a little company of seven solemnly vowed themselves to the work. All ofthem men of birth and high breeding, with rich intellectual endowments andfull of an intense devotional fervour, they soon attracted disciples; andin 1543 the new Order was formally sanctioned by the Pope. Utter obediencewas their rule, thorough education of their members the primaryrequirement. Every Jesuit was a consummately cultivated man of the world aswell as a religious devotee, responding absolutely to the control of asuperior officer as a finished piece of machinery answers to the touch ofthe engineer; accounting death in the service a welcome martyrdom;shrinking from no act demanded for the fulfilment of orders which might notbe questioned. Within a few years of its institution, the Society haddeveloped into one of the most potent organisations, whether for good orfor evil, that the world has ever known. 

[Sidenote: Calvin]

While Loyola was preparing himself for his work, John Calvin was growing upin Picardy. Having adopted the tenets of the Swiss Reformers, thepersecution of the heretics--within French territory--by the Most ChristianKing compelled him to take refuge in Switzerland. There, when onlytwenty-seven years of age, he published the work known as the "Institutes, "setting forth that grim theology, the extreme logical outcome of theZwinglian position, which is associated with his name; a system far moreantagonistic to that of Rome than was Luther's. His head-quarters, save fora brief interval of banishment, were at Geneva, where he established about1542 an absolute authority, no less rigorous or intolerant of oppositionthan the papacy itself; constructing a theory of ecclesiastical governmentthat dominated the civil as the old Church had never dominated the State, and carried the stark severity of its controlling supervision into everydetail of private conduct: banishing the comparative tolerance and charitywhich had distinguished the Zurich school. 

[Sidenote: The ecclesiastical revolution in England]

In the meantime the course of the Reformation in England had been almoststationary. The whole movement in fact during Henry's reign took outwardlythe form not of a revision of Religion but of a revolution in the relationsof Church and State--a revolution already completed when Cromwell wasstruck down. Until his day, Englishmen--ecclesiastics and laymenalike--recognised the authority of the Holy See, though not always itsclaim to unqualified obedience. That authority was now finally and totallyrepudiated: none external to the kingdom was admitted; the Church wasaffirmed to be the Church of England, coterminous with the State; while anew interpretation was put upon the supremacy heretofore claimed from timeto time by the secular Sovereign. Not only was the right assumed by thecrown of diverting or even confiscating ecclesiastical revenues and ofcontrolling episcopal appointments--so that it was even held doubtfulwhether the demise of the ruler did not necessitate re-appointment--but thepower was appropriated, (though not in set terms), of ultimately decidingpoints of doctrine and promulgating the formulae of uniformity. This wasthe essential change which had taken place: resisted to the point ofmartyrdom by a few like More and Fisher; submitted to under protest by themajority of the clergy; actively promoted by only a very few of them, suchas Cranmer. In asserting the position of the Crown, however, the Defenderof the Faith admitted no innovations in doctrine and not many in ritual andobservances. Now and again, for political purposes, Henry dallied with theLutheran League; but in this direction he made no concession. 

[Sidenote: 1540-46 Progressives and Reactionaries]

No marked alteration then appears after the death of the Vicar-General. Nevertheless, the contest between the progressive and reactionary partieswas not inactive. In one direction alone, however, did the former achieve adistinct success. There was an increasing feeling in favour of the use ofthe vulgar tongue in place of Latin, not only in rendering the Scripturesbut also in the services of the Church. The advanced section had already sofar won the contest in respect of the Bible that the reactionaries couldonly fight for a fresh revision in which stereotyped terms with oldassociations might be re-instated in place of the new phrases which werecompatible with, even if they did not suggest, meanings subversive oftraditional ideas--a project which was quashed [Footnote: A revisingCommission had been appointed; but was suddenly cancelled, with anannouncement that the work was to be entrusted to the Universities; whichhowever was not done. The probable explanation is that Cranmer, seeing thebent of the Commission, influenced the King to withdraw the work from theirhands, and it was then allowed to drop. ] when its intention becamemanifest. Measures however were taken to restrict the miscellaneousdiscussion of doctrine, which had not unnaturally degenerated into frequentdisplays of gross irreverence and indecent brawling; while on the otherhand the use of a Litany in English instead of Latin was by Cranmer'sinfluence introduced in 1544. 

[Sidenote: 1543 The King's Book]

A year earlier the third formulary of faith--the two preceding had been theTen Articles and the Bishops' Book--was issued under the title of the"Erudition of a Christian Man, " popularly known as the "King's Book". Thiswas the outcome of a group of reports drawn up by bishops and divines, severally, in answer to a series of questions submitted to them. Thereports showed great diversities of opinion on disputed questions; but thebook which received the imprimatur of Convocation and of the King was inthe main a restatement of the doctrines of the Bishops' Book with a moreexplicit declaration on Transubstantiation and on Celibacy in accordancewith the Law as laid down in the Six Articles. Throughout the preliminarydiscussions, Cranmer had championed the most advanced views which hadhitherto been held compatible with orthodoxy; and, becoming shortlyafterwards the object of direct attack as the real disseminator of heresy, he openly avowed to the King that he retained the opinions he had heldbefore the passing of the Six Articles Act although he obeyed thestatute. Henry, to the general surprise, refused to withdraw his favourfrom the Archbishop, and caused much alarm to the opposing party by themanner in which he rebuked the Primate's traducers. The circumstancesdeserve special notice because they show that Cranmer was not the merecringing time-server that he is sometimes represented to have been; andalso as proving that the King himself was for once capable of feeling asincere and continuous affection. 

[Sidenote: Henry stationary]

The hopes of the reactionary party were in fact somewhat dashed by the"King's Book"; since, despite Cromwell's death, the Six Articles stillmarked the limit of their influence. A companion volume, known as the_Rationale_, dealing with rites and ceremonies on lines antagonisticto Cranmer, was refused the royal sanction. Henry never lapsed from hisprofessed attitude of rigid orthodoxy. But he showed an increasingdisposition to check random and malignant prosecutions for heresy and togive the accused something like fair trial; more especially after theculminating iniquity of Anne Ascue's martyrdom (in the last year of hisreign) for denying the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Thesystem of ecclesiastical spoliation was also in 1546 rounded off, by theformal transfer to the crown of chantries which had not been swept away inthe dissolution of the monasteries. 

[Sidenote: 1546 Attainder of Surrey]

The autumn of 1546 arrived. The King's health was known to be exceedinglyprecarious, and it was practically certain that there must be some form ofregency or protectorate until the boy prince of Wales should attain aresponsible age. The most prominent men were on the one side the Duke ofNorfolk and Gardiner, on the other the Earl of Hertford and Cranmer. TheKing's attitude was more favourable to the second of the two parties; theconduct of the Earl of Surrey, Norfolk's son, ensured them the domination. Surrey was entitled to bear on his shield the Arms of England, as adescendant of the Plantagenets; [Footnote: See _Front_. He tracedthrough his mother and the Staffords to Edward III, and also through theother line to Thomas, son of Edward I. ] but he assumed quarterings properonly to the heir-apparent. He used language which showed that he counted ona Norfolk regency and might have meant that it would be claimed by force. And he was proved to have urged his own sister, Lady Richmond, to becomethe King's mistress in order to acquire political influence over him. Itwas also found that the Duke, his father, long a partisan of France, hadheld secret conversations with the French Ambassador. These charges wereeasily construed into treason under the comprehensive interpretation ofthat term which Thomas Cromwell had introduced. Surrey was sent to theblock: his father escaped the same fate merely by the accident that deathclaimed Henry himself only a few hours after the Act of attainder waspassed. The inevitable result followed, that practically the whole power ofthe State was found to be vested in Hertford and his supporters. 

[Sidenote: 1547 Death of Henry]

On the 28th of January 1547, the masterful monarch was dead: to be followedto the grave two months later by one of his two great rivals, Francis. Ofthe three princes who for thirty years had dominated Europe, only one wasleft. A greater than any of them--he who, also thirty years ago, hadkindled the religious conflagration--Martin Luther, had passed away atwelvemonth before. 

CHAPTER XI

HENRY VIII (vii), 1509-47-ASPECTS OF HENRY'S REIGN

[Sidenote: Ireland, 1509-20]

Affairs in the sister island did not, after the final collapse of PerkinWarbeck directly affect the course of events in England: so that they lendthemselves more conveniently to summary treatment. Ireland in fact hardlythrust herself forcibly on English notice until Thomas Cromwell was inpower, and even then she only received incidental attention. 

[Sidenote: Surrey in Ireland, 1520]

It appears to be generally recognised that when Gerald Earl of Kildarefinally made up his mind to serve Henry VII. Loyally and was for the lasttime re-instated as Deputy, he proved himself a capable ruler and kept hiswilder countrymen in some sort of order. In 1513 he was succeeded in theDeputyship by his son Gerald, who bore a general resemblance to him, butlacked his exceptional audacity and resourcefulness. It was not long beforethe Earl of Ormonde--head of the Butlers, the traditional rivals of theFitzgeralds, and chief representative of the loyalist section--wascomplaining of disorder and misgovernment; and in course of time, Kildarewas deposed and Surrey [Footnote: The Surrey who became Duke of Norfolk in1524, and was under attainder when Henry died in 1547. ]--son of the victorof Flodden--was sent over to take matters in hand (1520). Kildare wassummoned to England, where after his father's fashion he made himselfpopular with the King whom he accompanied to the Field of the Cloth ofGold. Surrey was a capable soldier, and took the soldier's view of thesituation. There would be no settled government until the whole country wasbrought into subjection; it must be dealt with as Edward I. Had dealt withWales. The chiefs must be made to feel the strong hand by a series ofdecisive campaigns, the whole country must be systematically garrisoned, and the Englishry must be strengthened by planting settlements of Englishcolonists. Half-measures would be useless, and he could not carry out hisprogramme with a less force than six thousand men. 

[Sidenote: Irish policy, 1520-34]

Henry however had no inclination to set about the conquest of Ireland. Hisown theory, with which it may be assumed that Wolsey, now in the plenitudeof his power, was in accord, was more akin to his father's. Moreover, Wolsey and the Howards were usually in opposition to each other. Surrey wasinstructed to appeal to the reason of the contumacious chiefs; to point outthat obedience to the law is the primary condition of orderly government;to authorise indigenous customs in preference to imposed statutes where itshould seem advisable. In fact there were two alternatives; one, to governby the sword, involving a military occupation of the island; the other toendeavour to enlist the Irish nobles on the side of law and order and togovern through them. The first policy, Surrey's, was rejected; the secondwas attempted. But the Irish chiefs had no _a priori_ prejudice infavour of law and order, and something besides rhetoric was needed toconvince them that their individual interests would be advanced by such apolicy. Henry VII. Had prospered by reinstating the old Earl of Kildare;Henry VIII. Tried reinstating the young one. But precedents suggested theunfortunate conclusion that a little treason more or less would hurt noone, least of all a Geraldine. Things went on very much as before. Kildarewas summoned to London again, rated soundly by Wolsey, suffered a briefimprisonment, and was again restored. Desmond, his kinsman, intrigued withthe Emperor, who was in a state of hostility to Henry because of thedivorce proceedings; Kildare was accused of complicity, and going to Londona third time in 1534 was thrown into the Tower from which he did not againemerge. Henry had just burnt his boats in his quarrel with Rome and was byno means in a placable mood. 

[Sidenote: Fitzgerald's revolt, 1534]

Kildare had named his eldest son Lord Thomas Fitzgerald, a young man oftwenty-one, to act as Deputy in his absence; moreover he had so fortifiedhis castle of Maynooth and otherwise made military preparations, as to givecolour to the idea that he had rebellion in contemplation. Excited by areport that his father had been put to death, Lord Thomas--known as SilkenThomas from a badge worn by his men--burst into the Council at Dublin, threw down the sword of office, and renounced his allegiance; then raisedan insurrection at the head of his friends and followers. Dublin Castle wassoon besieged by a large miscellaneous force; the Archbishop, a leader ofthe loyalists, attempted to escape but was taken and foully murdered; bandsof marauders ravaged the Pale. The only effective counter-move was made byOrmonde who rejected Fitzgerald's overtures, and, in spite of Desmond'smenacing attitude on the South-west, raided the Kildare country, andbrought Silken Thomas back in hot haste to defend his own territories. 

[Sidenote: 1535 The revolt quelled]

Fitzgerald's rising began in June. Henry had appointed as Deputy SirWilliam Skeffington, an old soldier who had held that office before duringKildare's last suspension. But his departure from England with his troopswas delayed. Fitzgerald was back before Dublin in September, after a vainattempt to win over Ormonde who defied him boldly. Again the Kildare landswere raided, and Lord Thomas had to raise the siege; and now at the end ofOctober Skeffington succeeded in crossing the channel and securing Dublin, while the rebels carried fire and sword through the neighbouringdistricts. For the rest of the winter Skeffington did nothing but send outa futile expedition, a detachment of which was ambuscaded: while theloyalists fumed. In the spring however he shook off some of thisinactivity, whether due to sickness, advancing years, or generalincompetence, and besieged Maynooth which was reputed impregnable. Thefortress fell before long; owing to treachery as tradition relates, butmore probably to the improved siege artillery as the official despatchesaffirm. Most of the garrison were promptly hanged; a fatal blow was dealtto the insurrection. The "pardon of Maynooth" became a proverb. Skeffington, retaining the deputyship, was replaced in command of the armyby Lord Leonard Grey, Kildare's brother-in-law, son of Lord Dorset; to whomultimately Silken Thomas surrendered under a vague half-promise of lenienttreatment. Kildare himself had died in the Tower not long before; LordThomas and his principal kinsmen were executed after a little delay; theone surviving representative of the great house which had "ruled allIreland" was a child, preserved in hiding by loyal friends andretainers. The Geraldine power was at an end. 

[Sidenote: 1535-40 Lord Leonard Grey]

Grey himself was now appointed to the deputyship in place of Skeffington, Desmond in the south-west and O'Neill in Ulster carried on the resistance, but were no match for Grey, who followed up his military successes byattempting to carry out the principles of conciliation which Henry had laiddown--to the bitter indignation of those loyalists who favoured the methodsadvocated in the past by Surrey. To this and to Grey's insolent temper weredue violent altercations between him and the Council. A Commission was sentover to examine and set matters straight, but instead the commissionerstook sides with the Council or with the Deputy. Affairs were complicated bythe application to Ireland of the English theory of ecclesiasticalReformation as understood by Henry and Cromwell. The suppression of themonasteries was acquiesced in (though not till 1541); since their conditionwas undeniably bad, and the distribution of their property convenient forthe recipients; but the revolt from Rome was antagonistic to Irishfeeling. Disloyalty to England, the natural and normal condition ofthree-fourths of the island, received a new authority from the sanction ofloyalty to the Church. Grey persisted in his policy of domineering over theEnglish party--who would have preferred to do the domineeringthemselves--and of laying himself open to the charge of favouring andfostering rebels, especially of the Geraldine faction. Another rising ofO'Neill and Desmond in 1539 forced him to reassert his authority, but heagain allowed it to appear that he was influenced by his connexion with theGeraldines; and in 1540 he was recalled, attainted, andexecuted. Experience of Henry had taught the conclusion that to fight thecharge of treason was useless; but Grey gained nothing by throwing himselfon the royal clemency, though his admission of guilt is not under thecircumstances very conclusive. 

[Sidenote: 1540 St. Leger]

Whatever the extent of his actual guilt, his downfall was due not so muchto his professed policy as to the personal methods adopted which in the endhad excited almost universal distrust and hostility. The proof of this liesin the fact that St. Leger, his successor as Deputy, carried out the samenominal policy with very remarkable success, and, it would seem, withgeneral approval: mainly because he applied the principles impartiallyinstead of as a partisan. The agent of conciliation was judicious, clear-headed, and tactful, instead of being injudicious, hot-headed, andtactless. The new Deputy distributed titles and monastic lands with ashrewd perception of the value of the services to be purchased thereby;legal commissioners were appointed who were allowed a due latitude inapplying native customs and relaxing the rigour of English law; a number ofimportant chiefs were converted into supporters of the Government insteadof its more or less open enemies; the Pale settled down into the conditionof a reasonably well ordered State. In the last years of Henry there is acomplete disappearance of the wonted turmoil. At length he had found a mancapable of administering the policy he had enunciated in 1520. TheDeputyship of St. Leger gave promise of initiating a new era; but it showedalso how completely the working out of the Irish problem would depend onthe character and capacity of the men to whom the task should besuccessively entrusted. 

[Sidenote: Henry "King of Ireland"]

One significant change remains to be noted. Hitherto the King of Englandhad borne the title of Lord of Ireland, the theory being that Ireland washeld as a fief from the Pope. As marking a final repudiation of every kindof papal authority, Henry, after the suppression of the Geraldine rising, assumed the style of King of Ireland. The fact that the change was neededhas some bearing on the opposed papal and royal claims to Irishallegiance. Wales, it may be remarked, acquired citizenship when for thefirst time she sent representatives to Parliament in 1537. 

[Sidenote: Wolsey's work]

Throughout the first half of Henry's reign the figure of the great Cardinaldominates the political field. In two respects at least his work was theextension of what Henry VII. Initiated. By his efforts, the personal powerof the crown became irresistible; and as the old King raised England frombeing almost a negligible quantity on the Continent to become at the lowestan effective make-weight in European combinations, so Wolsey raised herstill further to a position of equality with the two great Powers whichovershadowed all the rest. This he did by the same method of evadingserious military operations whenever the evasion was possible, and by theexercise of a diplomatic genius almost unmatched among Englishstatesmen. After his fall, the King's domestic interests withdrew him froma like active participation in the quarrels of Charles and Francis, although in his last years he became involved in a French war. 

[Sidenote: The Army]

It is singular however to observe that Wolsey won for England all theprestige of a great military Power, after a period during which thatancient reputation of hers had been all but completely lost, without anysingle achievement memorable in the annals of war, and without producingany commander even of the second rank. With the sole exception of Surrey'svictory at Flodden, due rather to the disastrous blunder of James than tothe Earl's exceptional ability, no striking strategical or tactical featsare recorded, and few remarkable displays even of personal valour: nothingat all comparable to the brilliant if sometimes hazardous operations of thegreat Plantagenets. Nothing more is heard of that once triumphant arm, theArchery: the English bowmen had not, it would seem, lost their cunning, butthey could no longer overwhelm hostile battalions. Nor does this seem tohave been owing as yet to the displacement of the bow by firearms, thoughcannon both for defence and destruction of fortresses were improving--asexemplified at Maynooth. In the Scots wars, the border moss-troopers foughtafter their own fashion: but in the French wars the levies, no longerfighting in bodies following their own lord's flag, and feeling neither apersonal tie to their leaders nor any particular bond among themselves, repeatedly displayed mutinous tendencies--as befel in Ireland under LordLeonard Grey, and earlier with the entire army commanded by Dorset in 1512and again with Suffolk's soldiery in 1523. The transition period from theera of feudal companies to that of disciplined regiments was a long one, particularly in England. During the whole of that period, English armiesaccomplished no distinguished military achievement. 

[Sidenote: The Navy]

It was otherwise with English navies. All through the Tudor period, thenation was steadily realising its maritime capacities. Whether thestrategic meaning of "ruling the seas" was understood or not, the centurywitnessed the rise of the English naval power from comparativeinsignificance to an actual pre-eminence. The two Henries fostered theirfleets; when Elizabeth was reigning, the sea-faring impulse was past anyneed of artificial encouragement. But it is noteworthy that coast defenceand ship-building were almost the only public purposes to which anappreciable share of the King's ecclesiastical spoils was appropriated. TheKing's ships were few, but they were supplemented by an ever-increasingsupply of armed merchant-craft; and in the French war at the end of Henry'sreign is the premonition of the great struggle with Spain, in which onemost characteristic feature was the comparative reliance of England onsails and of her rivals on oars. As yet however, naval fighting was stillgoverned by military analogies. 

[Sidenote: The New World]

Though Henry was keenly interested in ship-building and naval construction, in the matter of ocean voyages and the acquisition of new realms Spain andPortugal still left all competitors far behind. Albuquerque had alreadyfounded a Portuguese Maritime empire in the Indian Ocean when HenryVIII. Ascended the throne, and Spain was established in the West Indies. In1513, Balboa sighted the Pacific from the Isthmus of Darien. In 1519 Cortesconquered Mexico; in 1520 Magelhaens passed through the straits [Footnote:It was still believed that Tierra del Fuego was a vast continent stretchingto the South. ] that bear his name, and his ships completed their voyageround the globe in the course of the next two years; in 1532 Pizarroconquered Peru; Brazil and the River Plate were already discovered andappropriated. All that England had done was represented by some Bristolexplorers in the far North, some tentative efforts in the direction ofAfrica; and some four voyages to Brazil, the first two under WilliamHawkins, father of the more famous Sir John. 

[Sidenote: Absolutism]

As Wolsey's policy was a development of that of Henry VII. In the directionof raising England's international prestige, so it was also in theconcentration of power in the hands of the sovereign: and the process wascarried still further though in a somewhat different way when Wolsey hadfallen. It is curious to note that Henry VII. For the first half of hisreign ruled by a skilful reliance on parliamentary sanctions, in the secondhalf almost dispensing with parliaments. This order was reversed by hisson. For the first twenty years, there were hardly any parliaments: from1529 there was no prolonged interval without one. The economies of the oldKing sufficed to support the extravagant expenditure of his successor withonly an occasional appeal to the purses of the Commons. It was only thenecessities of a war-budget that involved such an appeal, so that none tookplace between 1514 and 1523. Had Wolsey been permitted to maintain hispeace-policy unbroken, there would have been no rebuff from the House ofCommons in 1523, no trouble over the Amicable Loan two years later. Thecountry, habituated to an absence of parliaments, might have come to accepta monarchy absolute in form as well as in fact. 

[Sidenote: The Parliamentary sanction]

But when Wolsey fell, Henry was embarking on a policy in which he knew thathe must keep the nation on his side; the support of the body representingthe nation must be secured. Whether that support was granted spontaneously, or was encouraged by manipulation, or spurred by the menace of coercion, was comparatively unimportant. The powers which the King was resolved toexercise must ostensibly at least have the sanction of nationalapproval. The thing was managed with such thoroughness that long before theclose of the reign the royal absolutism was confirmed by the Act which gavethe force of law to the King's proclamations, and by the authorisation forhim to devise the crown by will; and with such skill that Henry's andCromwell's critics are obliged to fall back on the alleged subserviency ofthe parliaments to account for it, although these same subservientparliaments were quite capable of offering an obstinate resistance whenevertheir own pockets were threatened. Henry was one of those born rulers whoimpress their own views on masses of men by force of will. He made thecountry believe that it was with him. But behind the dominant force ofwill, he possessed the instinctive sense of its limits, besides beingendowed with that final remorseless selfishness which made him ready tomake scape-goats of the most loyal servants, to deny responsibility himselfand to fling the odium upon them, as soon as he found that those limits hadbeen transgressed. 

[Sidenote: Depression of the Nobles]

Alike, then, by his disuse and his use of parliaments, Henry strengthenedthe royal power, the initiative of all legislation remaining in hishands. To the same end he continued to depress the great nobles and tocreate a new nobility dependent on royal favour. All who threatened todisplay a dangerous ambition, from Buckingham on, were struck down; theHouse of Norfolk survived till the end of the reign, when the Duke wasattainted and his son was sent to the block. No ancient House wasrepresented in the Council of Regency nominated under Henry's will. The menwho served the King were those whom he had himself raised, and couldhimself cast down with a word. The edifice of his absolutism was complete, though it was modified by the conditions under which his son and his twodaughters succeeded to the throne. 

[Sidenote: Parliament and the purse]

The theory of absolutism from Richard II. To Wolsey had been that the Kingshould make it his aim to rule without parliaments; whereas we areconfronted with the apparent paradox that Henry was never more absolutethan when his parliaments were in almost continual session. The explanationlies in this, that he did not usually call them to ask them for money outof their own pockets; for the most part he invited them to approve of histaxing some one else, by confiscations or the conversion of loans receivedinto free gifts--a much more congenial task. The King had found othermethods of raising revenues than by appealing to the generosity of hisfaithful Commons--methods which in effect relieved them of demands whichthey would otherwise have been obliged to face. The vast sums wrung fromConvocation or from the Monasteries went to relieve the Commons fromtaxes. The parliament of 1523, summoned to grant subsidies, faced Wolseywith an independence which fully justified the minister in avoiding therisk of similar rebuffs: the Reformation parliament itself offered astubborn resistance to the Bill of Wards, which touched its own pocket. Independence and resistance vanished when the incentive was withdrawn, andthe diversion of the stream of ecclesiastical wealth into the abysses ofthe royal treasury was acquiesced in with a certain enthusiasm. The Kinggot the credit of the ends secured, his minister the odium for the methodsof obtaining them: and so year by year the crown became more potent. 

[Sidenote: The Land]

The economic troubles brought about mainly by the new agriculturalconditions in the reign of the first Tudor were exaggerated in that of thesecond, and were further intensified by the dissolution of theMonasteries. The evils at which More pointed in his _Utopia_, whenHenry VIII. Had been but seven years on the throne, showed no diminutionwhen another thirty years had passed. The new landowners who came intopossession of forfeited estates or of confiscated monastic lands continuedto substitute pasture for tillage, and to dispossess the agriculturalpopulation as well by the reduced demand for labour as by rack-renting andevictions. The country swarmed with sturdy beggars; and the riotousbehaviour encouraged when religious houses were dismantled or even"visited" must have tended greatly to increase the spirit of disorder, evidenced by the frequent popular brawling over the public reading of theBible. The usual remedies of punishing vagabondage, and of attempting toforce industry into unsuitable fields and to drive capital into lesslucrative investment in order to provide employment, failed--also asusual. The landowners did not emulate the monastic practice of dispensingcharity, so that distress went unrelieved. Charity often encouragesun-thrift; but its absence sometimes leads not to industry but to thieving;and in this reign, crimes of violence were notably abundant. The economicconditions were therefore in fact unfavourable to thrift. But apart fromeconomic conditions, the practice of that virtue is apt to be largelyinfluenced by social standards. An ultra-extravagant court, and thecalculated magnificence of such a minister as Wolsey, went far to induce areckless habit of expenditure in the upper classes; and the inordinatedisplay of the Field of the Cloth of Gold was merely an extreme instance ofthe prevalent passion for costly pageantries. 

[Sidenote: Finance]

The resulting distress was not compensated in other directions. During theearlier half of the reign, Commerce did no doubt continue to prosper; butthe King's financial methods were hardly more conducive to public industryand thrift than his personal example. Wolsey indeed was an able financeminister. In spite of the enormous expenditure on display, his mastery ofdetail prevented mere waste; and until the pressing necessities of awar-budget arose in 1523, enough money was found by tapping the sources towhich Henry VII. Had applied, supplemented by the ample hoards which thatmonarch had left behind. In 1523, the Cardinal's scheme of graduatedtaxation was sound and scientific in principle, so far as existing methodsof assessment permitted. But for the remaining years of his life, theprocess of raising money to meet the King's requirements was exceedinglydifficult and unpopular. After his death, the King discovered an additionaland productive source of revenue in the property of the Church; but eventhis did not suffice for his needs. 

[Sidenote: The Currency]

Henry therefore resorted to an expedient as disastrous as it wasdishonest--a wholesale debasement of the coinage, which was continued intothe following reign and was remedied only under Elizabeth. The firstexperiment was made as early as 1526; but it was the financialembarrassments of Henry's last years which brought about a debasement thatwas almost catastrophic. From 1543 to 1551 matters went from bad to worsetill the currency was in a state of chaos: and the silver coin issued inthe last year contained only one-seventh of the pure metal that went tothat of twenty-five years before. 

It followed that the purchasing power of the debased coinage sank--in otherwords, prices went up. On the other hand, the new coin remaining legaltender in England up to any amount, creditors who were paid in it lostheavily, the Royal debtor--and others--discharging their obligations bywhat was practically a payment of a few shillings in the pound. Also as amatter of course, the better coins, with each fresh debasement, passed outof the country or at any rate out of circulation, the base coins becomingthe medium of exchange. Thus the foundations of commercial stability weresapped, while foreign trading operations were thrown into desperate andruinous confusion. 

Nor did the evil end here. For the influx of silver and gold from theSpanish possessions in America, though its effects were felt only verygradually, tended to depreciate the exchange value of the metalsthemselves. This depreciation, added to the debasement, further increasedthe rise of prices. But while prices went up, money-wages did not rise inanything like the same proportion; labour being cheapened by the continuousdisplacement of the agricultural population, which was not attended by anequivalent increase of employment in the towns, and by the dissolution ofthe monasteries, which at the same time wiped out the sole existing systemof poor-relief. The natural Economic transition that began in the previousreign, while producing wealth, was also attended by distress: now, for avast proportion of the population, Henry's artifical expedients for fillinghis own coffers converted distress into grinding want, destitution, anddesperation. 

[Sidenote: Learning and Letters]

The earlier half of the reign promised well for Education; but the promisewas not duly fulfilled in the latter portion. The funds which Wolsey wouldhave devoted to that object were wanted for other purposes. TheUniversities discarded the study of the schoolmen, but their attention wasabsorbed rather by loud-voiced wrangling than by the pursuit of learning. Nevertheless, in great families at least, the education of the youngermembers was carried to a high pitch. The King, a man of accomplishmentswhich would have made him remarkable in any station, himself set theexample, and in this respect at least his children were not lacking; theliterary impulse was at work. 

[Sidenote 1: The _Utopia_][Sidenote 2: Prose and Verse][Sidenote 3: Surrey and Wyatt]

Yet the literary achievements of Henry's time can hardly be calledgreat. One work by an Englishman, More's _Utopia_, alone stands out asa classic on its own merits: and that was written in Latin, and remaineduntranslated till a later reign. In its characteristic undercurrent ofhumour, and its audacious idealism, it betrays the student of Plato;standing almost alone as a product of the dawning culture. Partly by directstatement, partly by implication, we may gather from it much information asto the state of England in Henry's early years, much as to the politicalphilosophy of the finer minds of the day. But that philosophy was choked byrevolution; More himself so far departed from its tenets of toleration asto become a religious persecutor. Most of the English writing of the reigntook the form of controversial or personal pamphlets in prose or verse;such as the extravagant _Supplicacyon for the Beggers_, a rabid tiradeagainst the clergy, or Skelton's rhyme _Why come ye nal to Court_, anattack chiefly on the Cardinal. The splendid raciness of Hugh Latimer'ssermons belongs to oratory rather than to letters. The exquisite prose ofCranmer found its perfection in the solemn music of the Prayer-book ofEdward VI. The translations of the Bible made no great advance onWiclif. In the realm of verse, John Skelton was a powerful satirist with aunique manipulation of doggerel which has permanently associated aparticular type of rhyme with his name; an original and versatile writerwas Skelton, but without that new critical sense of style which was tobecome so marked a feature of the great literary outburst underElizabeth. Herein, two minor poets alone, Surrey and Wyatt, appear asharbingers of the coming day. A hundred anonymous writers of Gloriana'stime produced verses as good as the best of either Wyatt or Surrey; butthese two at least discovered the way which, once found, becamecomparatively easy to tread. They introduced the sonnet, learnt fromPetrarch; Surrey (the same who was executed on the eve of Henry's death)wrote the first English blank verse. The moribund tradition of thesuccessors of Chaucer continued to find better exponents in Scotland thanin England, in the persons first of bishop Gawain Douglas--who perhapsshould rather be connected with the previous reign--and later of Sir DavidLyndsay. But doctrinal controversy does not provide the best atmosphere forartistic expression. The whole literature of the reign, while showingemphatic signs of reviving intellectual activity, is remarkable not for itsown excellence, for profundity of thought, intensity of passion, or masteryof form, but as exhibiting the first random and tentative workings of thenew spirit. 

[Sidenote: Estimate of Henry VII. ]

The most arresting figure of the period is that of Henry himself. NoEnglish King has been presented by historians in more contradictory coloursthan he. One has painted him as the Warrior of God who purged the land ofthe Unclean Thing: to another he is merely a libidinous tyrant. Onecontrasts his honesty and honour with the habitual falsehood of hiscontemporaries: to another he appears supreme in treachery. In fact, thereis an element of truth in both estimates, however exaggerated. 

[Sidenote: His Morals]

In the matter of personal morality, in the restricted sense, it does notappear--in spite of his list of wives--that he compares unfavourably withcontemporary princes. He had only one child certainly born out ofwedlock--which cannot be said even of Charles V. , [Footnote: It shouldperhaps be remarked that whenever Charles had a wife living he appears tohave been faithful to her. His divagations took place in the intervals. ]and contrasts with the unbridled profligacy of Francis, the frequent amoursof his Stewart brother-in-law and nephew. The stories of his relations withboth Anne and Mary Boleyn before the marriage, even if untrue (which is notprobable), would never have been told of a man whose life was clean; but itis what may be called the accident of his numerous marriages which hasgiven a misleading prominence to licentious tendencies not perhapsabnormally developed. With the exception of his passion for Anne Boleyn, there is no trace of his amours influencing his general conduct: and it isat least probable that after the death of Jane Seymour he would haveremained a widower, but for the desire to make the succession moresecure. Yet the story of his reign hinges upon the Divorce; and in thedivorce, however much other considerations may have influenced him, thecontrolling consideration was the determination to make Anne Boleyn hiswife since she would have him on no other terms. That fact, with thedisastrous termination of the marriage with her, the fiasco of Anne ofCleves, and the catastrophe of Katharine Howard, is responsible for thesomewhat mythical monster of popular imagination. The man who divorced twowives and beheaded two more is too suggestive of Bluebeard to be readilyregarded as after all to some extent the victim of circumstance. 

[Sidenote: His general character]

While Anne Boleyn was the object of his pursuit, Henry was dominated by hispassion for her: but that passion cooled quickly enough afterpossession. Jane Seymour was not his wife long enough to put him to thetest: but it would certainly seem that his affections were short-lived andeasily transferred. This was manifestly the case with men: at least itnever appeared to cause him a moment's compunction to hand over an intimateto the executioner. While a man was rendering him efficient service theKing was lavish of praises and rewards; when the need for him was past theservices were forgotten. His sentiments were always of the loftiest; ithabitually "consorted not with his honour or his conscience" to dootherwise than he did; but the correspondence between his honour andconscience on one side and his personal advantage on the other presents aunique phenomenon. His conscience permitted him to connive at schemes forkidnapping the King of Scots or assassinating his ministers, and his honourpermitted him to encourage his own servants in a course of action for whichhe had subsequently no hesitation in sending them to the block. He couldgive, prodigally; but what he gave had generally been taken from some oneelse. He could protest against the cruel burden of the annates, and thenabsorb them himself. And with all this, it is not difficult to suppose thathe constantly persuaded himself that he was an honest man beset withdishonest rogues, since he rarely broke the letter of an engagement excepton the pretext of bad faith made manifest in the other party. 

[Sidenote 1: His peculiar abilities][Sidenote 2: Intention and achievement]

Henry's ethical standards were thus in no way calculated to hamper hisactions, owing to his happy capacity for colouring his actions inconformity with them. When he set an end before himself, no influence couldmake him waver a hair's-breadth in his pursuit of it, and he spared neitherfriend nor foe in the attainment of it. As a statesman he did not lay downfar-seeing designs. But he had the art of maintaining popularity, and ashrewd eye for a good servant. Thus as a rule he gave Wolsey a free handand very vigorous support. But when he elected to order a change of policy, the Cardinal proved to have been right and the King wrong. His candidaturefor the Empire, and his dreams of the French and Scottish thrones show himcapable of indulging in entirely impracticable visions. The vitalachievement of his reign was the severance from Rome; and that wasmerely--as far as he was concerned--the accidental outcome of the Pope'sopposition to the Divorce. In the destruction of the ecclesiastical_imperium in imperio_, the subordination of the Church to the State, it is difficult to tell how far the policy was his own and how far it wasCromwell's; but the King never recognised as Cromwell did that the logicalcorollary of the whole ecclesiastical policy was a Protestant League. Thedefiance of Rome, and the subjection and spoliation of the Church, wereaccompanied by a measure in which Cranmer was the moving spirit, and towhich Henry gave full support--the open admission of the Scriptures in thevernacular--which made it no longer possible for the individual to disclaimresponsibility on the score that the priesthood alone held the key to themysteries of religion. This was in truth the keystone of the Reformation, since it entailed upon every man the _duty_ of private judgment eventhough the _right_ continued to be denied; yet this was not the effectwhich Henry contemplated. Hence, out of the four points in theecclesiastical revolution of the reign: the subordination of the Church tothe State was a constitutional change absolutely Henry's or Cromwell's own;the spoliation was the same, but reflects no credit on either; theseverance from Rome was an accident; and the creation of the duty, to beultimately recognised as the right, of private judgment wasunintentional. And on the kindred subject, the persecution of innovatorslabelled as heretics, Henry's policy represented nothing but thecommonplace attitude of Authority in his times. 

[Sidenote: A Dominant personality]

We cannot, in short, find in Henry a statesman remarkable for far-sightedperceptions or ennobling idealism: but he gauged the sentiment of hissubjects and the abilities of his servants acutely and was shrewd enough asa rule to identify himself with the schemes of those whom he trusted. Nevertheless he stands out, with all his faults, as a very tyrannical Kingyet a very kingly tyrant. If his personal ambitions and desires over-ruledother considerations, he never forgot the greatness of the country heruled, and his personal ambitions at least involved England'smagnification. For good or for evil, his actions were on a great scale. Heknew his own mind, and he never shrank from the risks involved in givinghis will effect. He defied successfully the Power which had brought themightiest monarchs to their knees. He had the kingly quality, shared by hisgreat daughter, of inspiring in his servants a devotion which made themready to sacrifice everything for his glorification. Two of the mostpowerful ministers known in English history recognised the domination ofhis personality whenever he chose to exercise it. 

[Sidenote: Summary]

Even when he was most feared he maintained his place in the popularaffection. His parliaments carried out his will, but his will and theirswere in conformity: while Wolsey ruled, he rarely consulted them, but afterWolsey's fall they were called upon to ratify all the King's measures, andwere in frequent session. He promoted a revolution, but while he lived hecontrolled it; through all the accompanying shocks and upheavals hismastery remained unshaken. The proof of the man's essential force, thegreatness we may not deny him, is made manifest by the chaos which followedhis death. He was gross; he was cruel; he was a robber; he subornedtraitors and was prepared to suborn assassins; but his selfishness, flagrant as it was, did not wholly absorb him; behind it there was a senseof the greatness of his office, a desire to make England great; andtherewith he had the indomitable resolution and the untiring energy forlack of which statesmen have failed who intellectually and morally standfar above him, while no monarch has left on the history of England a stampmore indelible than Henry VIII. 

CHAPTER XII

EDWARD VI (i), 1547-49--THE PROTECTOR SOMERSET

[Sidenote: 1547 Jan. -Feb. The New Government]

In accordance with the extraordinary powers granted to him, Henry VIII. Laid down in his will both the order of succession to the throne and themethod of government to be followed during his son's minority. Under thisinstrument he nominated sixteen "executors, " forming virtually a Council ofRegency, giving precedence to none. Superficially, the list representedboth the progressive and the reactionary parties. Cranmer was balanced byTunstal of Durham; Wriothesly the Lord Chancellor was a strongCatholic. But as a matter of fact, the influential men belonged for themost part to the advanced section. Edward Seymour, Lord Hertford, was theirleader: but Paget, Dudley (Lord Lisle), Russell, and Herbert, were all ofthe same way of thinking. None of the rest were of the same weight asthese; while Norfolk, the natural head of the conservative nobility was aprisoner in the Tower, and Gardiner, the ablest of the ecclesiastics, wasomitted from the list. 

Henry died in the early morning on January 28th; the fact was not madepublic till the 31st; and in the meantime, Hertford had carried theCouncil, which forthwith nominated him Lord Protector. The next step was adistribution of honours: Hertford was made Duke of Somerset; his brother, the Lord Admiral, (not an executor), Lord Seymour of Sudeley; Dudley becameEarl of Warwick, Wriothesly Earl of Southampton, and Parr, brother of thelate King's widow, Earl of Northampton. A couple of months later, thatlady--who had succeeded in surviving two husbands including Henry--herselfwedded Seymour of Sudeley, Southampton was the one man whose opposition on the Council was to befeared; and he gave himself into his enemies' hands by an act ofindiscretion. He issued a commission appointing four judges to act in theCourt of Chancery, under the Great Seal, on his own responsibility: and waspromptly declared to have forfeited his office which was bestowed uponRich. This was immediately followed by the granting of new powers to theProtector, enabling him to act virtually without consulting the Executors:while he was already guardian of the King's person. In effect, Somersetmeant himself, as representing Edward, to exercise all those powers whichhad been surrendered to the formidable Henry. In the meantime, the trend ofthe ecclesiastical policy to be anticipated was shown by the treatment ofthe bishops; who--with the approval of Cranmer--were required to receivetheir commissions anew from the new King as though they had been Civilservants. Cranmer, in the Coronation sermon, made pointed references toJosiah, which could only be regarded as precursors of a war against"images, " and the more advanced among the clergy began to expressthemselves with a freedom which would have been very promptly andunpleasantly dealt with by the late King. Ecclesiastical conventionsreceived a startling shock when it was made known that the Primate himselfwas openly eating meat in Lent. 

To carry the Reformation beyond the stage at which it had been left byHenry in a tolerably peaceful manner was a sufficient task in itself; butthe situation which the new Government found that it had to face, by thetime Somerset had secured his position, towards the end of March, wascomplicated by many additional problems--not least among these being thelack of funds. 

[Sidenote: Relations with France]

The recent peace with France had given the English Boulogne for eight yearsas security for the payment of a substantial annual sum. But while thismight be looked upon as a valuable diplomatic asset--a means to gracefulconcession in return for adequate benefits--it remained an incitement toFrench hostility; the more so when Francis I. Followed his greatcontemporary to the grave after less than two months, and was succeeded byHenry II. ; with whom the retention of Boulogne was a particularly sorepoint, as he had failed in an attempt to recapture it. If England foundherself in difficulties it was tolerably certain that France would try torecover Boulogne without waiting the eight years for its restitution. 

[Sidenote: with Scotland]

France was not unlikely to find her opportunity in Scotland. There thegroup who had murdered Cardinal Beton in the previous summer retained thecastle of St. Andrews in defiance of the weak government, at whose headwere the regent Arran and the queen-mother Mary of Guise, whose family wasnow the most influential in France. The one means by which an English partycould be maintained in Scotland was the giving active support to the"Castilians" as the St. Andrews faction was called; whereas Frenchinterference on behalf of the Government would immensely strengthen theanti-English party. 

[Sidenote: with Charles V. ]

The German situation was more complicated. The Emperor, supported byMaurice of Saxony, was at war with the Lutheran League. As yet the issue ofthat contest was doubtful; the League had at least a chance of success, buthad appealed to England for aid. Charles on the other hand, not wishing forwar with England, had declined the Pope's suggestion that he should enforcethe substitution of Mary for Edward on the English throne: the Pope wasannoyed, because the Schmalkaldic war was being fought on a political andnot a theological issue; and he was alienating Charles by withdrawing theCouncil of Trent from that city, which was within Imperial territory, toBologna where Italian influences would be predominant. If then Englandintervened on behalf of the League, she would reconcile the Pope and theEmperor, and possibly unite them with France against herself. If she stoodaside, she would lose the chance of creating a powerful Protestant League, while experience had shown that any gratitude Charles might feel wouldcount for less than nothing in determining his future policy. TheGovernment hesitated; and while they temporised, the Emperor by a suddenblow became master of the situation. At the end of April, crossing a riverby night, he fell upon the unexpectant army of the League at Mühlberg, crushed it, and secured its chiefs. The League of Schmalkald wasirrevocably shattered. No effective counterpoise to his power was apparentwithin the Empire. Now however the task before Charles was to organise thesupremacy which had at last become convincingly actual. This, and hisquarrel with the Pope over Trent and Bologna, was likely to keep his handsfull for some time. Thus the important thing for the Protector was moreemphatically than before to conciliate France and gain over a strong partyin Scotland to support the policy of friendly relations with England;whereof the chief corner stone was still the marriage of Edward who wasabout ten years old to the four-year-old Queen of Scots. 

[Sidenote: Somerset's Scottish policy]

But Somerset did not conciliate France, which had recently been furtherirritated by the construction of so-called harbour works at Boulogne whichwere evidently intended to be fortified, contrary to the treaty; while inScotland he was meditating a step which could only drive that country intothe arms of France. 

Somerset in fact was one of those visionaries who are the despair of moreclear-sighted persons who are in sympathy with their objects. He sufferedfrom a permanent incapacity for realising the immense difficulties in hisway, and the infinite tact necessary to the accomplishment of hisaims. Hence the methods he adopted were invariably calculated to bring intofull play every conceivable force that could act in opposition. Sincerelyanxious to alleviate the lot of the rural population, he went out of hisway to irritate the landlord class into more effective combination. Almostalone in a desire for the widest religious toleration, the moderation ofhis ecclesiastical laws was discounted by the licence of speech and actionallowed to the progressives. In like manner, his theory of Scottish policywas admirable, his practice absurd. The Union of England and Scotland washis ideal, as it was to be the ideal in later years of that most acute ofScottish politicians, Lethington. But he could not appreciate the absolutenecessity that the Union should be by consent; and even while endeavouringto procure it by consent, for which he appealed in noble language whereofthe sincerity is apparent, he adopted methods which aroused the hostilityeven of those Scots who were most favourably disposed to Union in theabstract. By making common cause with the Reformers, he might havecheck-mated France; yet he neglected his opportunity. His own solution ofthe problem was the marriage of Edward and Mary, which he might havebrought about by diplomatic persuasion, or by carrying the Reformers withhim. Yet he could see nothing for it but to dictate his terms at thesword's point, the one quite certain way of making sure that they would berejected, by setting even the Reformers against him. To make matters worse, it was in his mind to re-assert the English sovereignty; to which Henryhad indeed audaciously affirmed his claim, though only as a right held inreserve. This intention he had already conveyed not to the Scots but to theFrench who warned him that they would stand by their old allies: while themere suspicion of such an insult in Scotland was enough to rouse thefiercest hostility of the whole nation. 

[Sidenote: Pinkie (Sept. )]

The natural result was that while Somerset was contenting himself withborder raids, instead of espousing the cause of the Castilians, Prance wasacting. About the beginning of July a French fleet appeared off St. Andrews; at the end of the month the castle surrendered. English shipsmight have prevented this, but the Protector elected instead to prepare agreat invasion. In September he was over the border, in command of aconsiderable army, supported by a large fleet. The Scots of all partiesmustered in force and were lying between the advancing English andEdinburgh in a strong defensive position not far from the spot madememorable two hundred years later by the rout of Prestonpans. The Englishships were in the Forth hard by. The Scots in essence repeated the blunderof Flodden before and of Dunbar later. A successful attack by Somerset, whohad the smaller army, was almost impossible; they thought that he wasdelivered into their hand, and mistook a tactical movement for a retreat tothe ships. Abandoning their position and racing to cut him off, theirleading troops received and broke a charge of horse; but the mass of theEnglish, who were greatly superior in cavalry and artillery, and whoseadvance had been concealed by the formation of the ground, were already athand and fell upon them. The Scottish army was completely shattered; tenthousand dead or dying men were left on the field of Pinkie Cleugh. TheEnglish loss was small. 

[Sidenote: Effect of Pinkie]

Somerset however merely did very much what he had done before when hesacked Edinburgh in the last reign, ravaging and retiring. Pillage anddestruction were arguments which invariably stiffened Scottish defiance, and it was now absolutely certain that the Scots would not consent on anyterms to the English marriage. Dictation from England by force of arms wasthe one method of minimising the internal warring of factions in theNorthern Country. Had Somerset been prepared to follow up his campaign byan effective military occupation, his plans might have been dignified withthe name of a policy. In practice, they amounted almost to a negation ofpolicy. A month after the battle the only effective result for Scotland wasa renewed and intensified bitterness of hatred to England, and acorresponding inclination to amity with France. The practical reply to theinvasion was the proposal to France of a marriage between the Queen ofScots and the Dauphin. 

For the Protector himself however, the victory of Pinkie was a personaltriumph. He returned to England in a halo of military glory and popularity, to receive new compliments and honours, and to assume the rôle ofbeneficent dictator with self-complacent confidence when Parliament met forthe first time in the beginning of November. 

[Sidenote: The Progressive Reformers]

In the meantime the progressive Reformers, increasingly guided by Swissrather than Lutheran ideas, were already hurrying forward with theirschemes, acting upon Royal proclamations under the authority of theCouncil. Injunctions were issued for the destruction of "abused" imageswhich term was liberally interpreted so as to cover stained glass, paintings, and carvings which might conceivably be regarded as objects ofidolatry--that is to say, become in themselves objects of worship insteadof being recognised as mere symbols: a process which unless conducted withthe most studied moderation and caution was absolutely certain to give therein not only to passionate zealotry but to wanton irreverence. Cranmerobtained an order for the reading in churches of the "Book of Homilies, "for the most part in lieu of all other preaching. The _Paraphrase_ ofErasmus, done into English, was ordered to be set up in the churches. Acommission was issued for a Royal Visitation, superseding the authority ofthe bishops, though some months elapsed before this was fairly atwork. Paget, having the instincts of statesmanship, endeavoured to warnSomerset against keeping too many irons in the fire; but Paget was guidedsolely by political expediency, not by principle. The one man who didboldly take up his stand on principle was Gardiner. His remonstrances wereopen. He urged that the intentions of the dead King should be carried out;that no revolutionary changes should be introduced during Edward'sminority; that arbitrary proclamations by the Council had no sanction oflaw; that the personal powers bestowed upon Henry remained in abeyanceuntil the young King should be of age; that aggressive measures in Scotlandought to be similarly deferred. The introduction of the Homilies, heargued, to which authorisation had been refused in the last reign, was initself unjustifiable in the circumstances; the more so as--mainly by theiromissions--they were inconsistent with the doctrinal attitude affirmed byHenry's legislation. Gardiner's remonstrances, supported by Bonner, bishopof London, were of no effect. Matters came to a head when the two bishopsrefused to submit without qualification to the injunctions. Both wereimprisoned in the Fleet, while Somerset was in Scotland. 

[Sidenote: Nov. Repeal of more stringent laws; Social legislation]

In November, Parliament met, and began its career of benign legislation. Since Cromwell's day, the land had lain under the grip of ruthless laws. Of these the sternest were repealed as no longer necessary. The TreasonsAct disappeared; so did the old Acts against the Lollards; so did the Actof the Six Articles. A curious attempt was made to deal with the problem ofvagrancy, the outcome of prevalent economic conditions, which the penaltiesof flogging and hanging had failed to repress. The vagrant was to bebrought before the magistrates, branded, and handed over to some honestperson as a "slave" for two years. If he attempted to escape fromservitude, he was to be branded again and made a slave for life; if stillrefractory he could be sentenced as a felon. The intention of the Act wasmerciful, its effect probably more degrading than that of the supersededstatutes. At any rate, it failed entirely of its purpose and was repealedafter two years. 

[Sidenote: Ecclesiastical legislation]

In matters ecclesiastical, Parliament on its own account abolished the formof the _congé d'élire_, giving the appointments directly into theKing's hands. Also the chantries and other foundations which had beenconferred on Henry, but had not been suppressed by him, were now--despitethe strong opposition of Cranmer, Tunstal, and a few of the bishops--formally subjected to the Council and for the most part abolished. It is tobe noted however that of the Church property acquired by the crown in thisreign a comparatively respectable though still niggardly proportion wasre-appropriated to educational purposes. [Footnote: In most cases, only inthe way of restoring pre-existing endowments. ]

[Sidenote: 1548]

Convocation, sitting concurrently with Parliament, presented petitions forrepresentation of the clergy in parliament, for the administration of theCommunion in both kinds to the laity, for the suppression of irreverentlanguage about the Sacrament, and for sanctioning the marriage of theclergy. The first was ignored; the two next were embodied in Acts ofParliament; the last was deferred for a year. The session was rounded offin January by a general pardon, except for the graver offences; with theresult that the imprisoned bishops were for a time released. 

[Sidenote: Progress of Reformation]

Between this and the next session of Parliament, in November, the arbitrarymethod of proceeding by proclamations was in full force. The Reformers didnot as yet press advanced doctrinal views. There was a proclamation for theobservance of the Lenten Fast--expressly for the sake of thefisheries. Another enforced a new Communion Office, pending the completionof a new Prayer-book; but in this the service of the Mass remainedunaltered and in Latin: no doctrinal change was implied, though theCommunion in both kinds was ordered to be administered to the laity, inaccordance with the recent Act and the recommendation of Convocation. Moresignificant was a further proclamation for the destruction of "images, " inwhich the distinction between "abused" images and others, previously laiddown, was cancelled. In the meantime no unauthorised innovations were to bepermitted. Cranmer was still striving vainly after his ideal of aconference between leading continental and English reformers, who shouldcome to an agreement upon a common body of doctrine. It was _primafacie_ reasonable that while awaiting the new authoritative formularies, now avowedly in course of preparation by a commission on which the Catholicparty was not unrepresented, partisan preaching should be discouraged, andall but licensed preachers be confined to the Homilies; it was howeverunfortunate that the licences for preaching should have been systematicallygranted both by Somerset and Cranmer--to whom the power wasrestricted--only to keen and sometimes extravagant partisans of the "NewLearning"; a term at that time appropriated to the advocates ofProtestantism at large. It is not surprising that Gardiner so far placedhimself in opposition as to be called upon to express publicly his approvalof these proceedings, nor that he should have found himself unable to do soin terms satisfactory to the Council. Before the summer was over the Bishopof Winchester was relegated to the Tower. More unfortunate still was theencouragement to sacrilegious irreverence given by the personal conduct ofthe Protector, who pulled down one chapel and began to lay hands on anotherin order to build himself a new palace. 

[Sidenote: Somerset's ideas]

Nor were Somerset's activities confined to the campaign against "idolatry, "a term conveniently used to include any observances which, in the eyes ofthe Swiss school, savoured of superstition. With no sense of thelimitations of his own intelligence, no suspicion of the subtle skill inadjustment needed at all times to impose ideals on a materially mindedcommunity, unable to realise that though his object might be excellent themethods adopted in achieving it might be fruitful of unexpected evils, heconceived in his arrogant self-confidence that he had but to say the wordand difficulties would vanish. He resolved to appear as the Poor Man'sFriend, establishing a Court of Requests in his own house so that appealmight be made personally to him from the normal processes of the Law; also, he appointed a commission to investigate and deal with that evasion of theagricultural statutes which he imagined to be the actual cause of theprevailing distress. The end in view was admirable, the method high-handedand unconstitutional: the policy won him popularity for the time among thedepressed classes, but roused the enmity of nobility and gentry withoutachieving useful results. 

[Sidenote: The French in Scotland]

Meanwhile, affairs in Scotland were aggravating the tension with France, where the proposal to marry the Scots Queen to the French Dauphin wasapproved. English troops harried the borders, and in the course of thespring captured and garrisoned Haddington. French troops were landed inScotland, and the marriage proposal was formally ratified; in spite of abelated offer from the Protector to leave Scotland alone and postpone hisown marriage scheme till Edward and Mary were old enough to have views oftheir own, provided that Scotland would hold aloof from France. Frenchships, evading the English by sailing round the Orkneys, took Mary on boardon the west coast and carried her off in safety to France. A diplomatistwould have seized the chance of reviving an English party, when it wasfound that a violent animosity was growing up between the Scots and theFrench troops; but the opportunity was allowed to pass, and the animositieswere reconciled by some minor successes of Scots and French togetheragainst the English: while privateering operations--in other words, authorised piracy--were going on in and near the Channel, which amounted tosomething not far removed from a state of war between France and England. 

[Sidenote: The Augsburg Interim]

It was fortunate that affairs in Germany continued to preclude that unionof the Catholic Powers against England which the Pope desired; sinceneither Charles nor Paul would bend to the other. Charles, with no one tofear since Mühlberg had witnessed the destruction of the League ofSchmalkald, was preparing future disaster by his high-handed attitudewithin the Empire. Deeming his position absolutely secure, his tone to thePope was peremptory and dictatorial. The French King encouraged Paul to beequally peremptory. In May 1548, Charles, repudiating the authority of theCouncil, or section of the Council, sitting at Bologna, took the law in hisown hands and imposed the "Interim of Augsburg" on the Germans. It was oneof those compromises which satisfies no one; schismatical in the eyes ofthe Catholics, in the eyes of the Protestants an insignificantconcession. Many of the latter, including the moderate and conciliatoryBucer, withdrew to England rather than accept it. The Protector however wassecured against any present danger of a coalition between Henry II. AndCharles; while the incursion of foreign Protestants of extreme views, especially those of the Swiss school, had a marked influence on theecclesiastical movement in England. 

[Sidenote: Nov. Parliament]

At the end of November, Parliament again met--to reject a first, a second, and a third Enclosures Bill, based on the report of the AgriculturalCommission; for the labouring classes were unrepresented in theHouse. Making the rough places smooth proved not so simple a process as theProtector had imagined. The petition of the clergy for the legalisation oftheir marriages, deferred from the last session, was given effect, andfasting was again enjoined on economic grounds. The real business of thesession, however, was the discussion of the new Prayer-book and the firstAct of Uniformity. 

[Sidenote: 1549 A New Liturgy]

Hitherto, there had been no uniform Order of Service: a variety of "Uses"being sanctioned. The idea however was by no means new, and had in factlong been theoretically approved, though never pressed with sufficientfervour to pass the stage of theoretical approbation. Cranmer had expendedan infinity of learning and labour on the work now to be issued, and to himwe owe chiefly the solemn harmonies, the gracious tenderness, of itslanguage. To him too in chief, but partly also to the composite characterof the "Windsor Commission" under whose auspices [Footnote: _Cf. _Moore, 183. ] it was prepared, is due that conscious ambiguity ofphraseology which enables persons of opinions so diverse on points sonumerous to find in it a sufficiently satisfactory expression orrecognition of their own views. It was possible alike for Day and forRidley, even for Tunstal and for Hooper, to conform to it. Whether it wasactually submitted to Convocation is a moot question, [Footnote: Moore, 186, 187. ] as to which the evidence is inconclusive, but informally, if notformally, it is clear that it received the _imprimatur_ of generalclerical opinion. In the discussions, the Archbishop--generally regarded bythe Swiss school as sadly backward--won from that section unexpectedapproval; but his other utterances continued to be so difficult toreconcile with their attitude that it is at least doubtful whether he wentso far with them as they supposed. At any rate the book known as thePrayer-book of 1549 was accepted, and in January the Act of Uniformity waspassed, compelling the clergy throughout the kingdom to adopt it uniformlyunder severe pains and penalties for recalcitrance. The Act was to comeinto force at Whitsuntide. Eight of the bishops however opposed the Bill, including some who had been on the Commission. It may be inferred thatwhile they gave the book itself their sanction, they resisted itsimposition on the clergy by lay authority. 

[Sidenote 1: 1547-49 The treason of the Lord Admiral][Sidenote 2: 1549 Fall of the Lord Admiral]

One other matter was to occupy the attention of Parliament before the closeof the session, namely the treason of the Protector's brother, the Admiral, Lord Seymour of Sudeley. He was the King's uncle; he had taken to wife thelate King's widow on being refused the hand of the Princess Elizabeth; hewas violently jealous of his brother and angry at not having theguardianship of the King entrusted to him--an office which in his opinionought to be separated from that of Protector of the realm. After marryingKatharine Parr he did obtain from the Council the guardianship ofElizabeth, and from Lord Dorset that of his daughter Lady Jane Grey, who, under Henry's will, stood next in succession to the throne after his ownoffspring. As Admiral, he had refused to take command of the fleet whichaccompanied the march to Pinkie; and had entered into secret relations withthe pirates who infested the Channel. It had long been palpable that he wasintriguing for power, but no one was disposed to take part with him, andSomerset was lenient to him. His principal ally was one Sharington, masterof the mint at Bristol, who abused his office by debasing the coinage andpocketing or sharing his nefarious profits: Dorset and probably hisbrother-in-law Northampton (Parr) favoured him. Thus supported, he hadmoney enough in hand to maintain a considerable armed following shouldoccasion arise, and had established a private cannon foundry. When his wifedied, he renewed his pretensions to the hand of Elizabeth, and was notunnaturally suspected of having hastened Katharine's end with thatintention. Trusting to the soreness of Southampton (Wriothesly) at hisdeprivation of the Chancellorship, he tried to win him over, and alsoRutland. The attempt failed, and was reported to the Protector; whosummoned him to give an account of himself before the Council. Seymourrefused to attend, using defiant language; and on January 17th he wasarrested. Practically there is no doubt of his treason, and had he thenbeen fairly brought to trial, Somerset would have been free from reproach. But the question was debated in parliament whether the Admiral should be sotried, or attainted, and attainder was decided on after he had refused toanswer to the Council; as he was entitled to do. He was allowed to pleadbefore a committee of both Houses in his own defence, but did not takeadvantage of the permission: virtually he was denied the right of an opentrial, and was condemned without such defence as he had to make beingheard. Cranmer signed the death-sentence: Latimer defended it. The fact issignificant of the chaos into which English ideas of justice and fair playhad fallen. The Protector's brother was executed at the end of March. 

[Sidenote: Troubles in the Provinces]

From April to September, Somerset's troubles thickened. Formidableinsurrections took place both in the western and eastern counties, and thehostilities with France, not yet openly at war, were assuming an aggravatedform. The one piece of good fortune for England was that the antagonismbetween Charles and the French King in other fields still prevented anyrapprochement between them. 

[Sidenote: The Western Rising]

In the country districts there were two exciting causes of disturbance--one, the general agricultural distress due to the selfish policy of thelandowners, the extension of sheep-farming and consequent displacement oflabour, the enclosure of common lands and evictions from small holdings;the other, the innovations in religion and interference with immemorialpractices to which the people were attached with the persistentconservatism of rural folk. The two types of grievance were associated bythe recent abolition of the monasteries, and the transfer of their lands tothe most obnoxious class of landlord--a class in the nature of thecircumstances popularly identified with the enemies of the oldecclesiastical system, since it was they who conspicuously profited by thechange. The North and the West, then and for more than a century to come, were the strongholds of traditional faiths and traditional ideals, asYorkshire had shown by the Pilgrimage of Grace. Now the main trouble arosein the West. The introduction of the new Service Book at Whitsuntide wasmet with violent opposition; the men of Cornwall and Devon rose, anddemanded the redress of grievances. They would have the religious housesreinstated, and at least half their lands restored. They would have the oldservices, not the new one which was "like a Christmas play". They would nothave it in English which the Cornishmen "did not understand". Elsewherethere had already been disturbances, the peasants anticipating Somerset'sefforts to remedy the agricultural grievances by a commission to enforcewhat was actually the law, and assembling in mobs to level fences andenclosures; whereat the Council was wrath, but the Protector as Friend ofthe People was disposed to applaud them. A religious revolt however was anattack on the Protector's own policy, and must be put down. Foreignmercenaries were called in, to embitter the quarrel. The insurgentsbesieged Exeter, and had been for some months in arms before they were atlast crushed by the Government forces, in August, after desperate fighting. 

[Sidenote: Ket's insurrection]

In the meantime a separate rising came to a head in the Eastern counties, where however the religious question was not involved. In that part of thecountry, destined to be the head-quarters of puritanism, the new ideas hadmade early way with the population; and Ket, the leader of the rising, conducted it on the hypothesis that his followers were merely enforcinglegal rights because the agents of the Government neglected to do so. Agreat camp was formed at Mousehold Hill near Norwich; order was strictlymaintained; morning and evening the new services were read. There was somuch to be said in favour of the insurgents that they were offered a freepardon if they would disperse; but unfortunately Ket cavilled at the word"Pardon" on the ground that no offence had been committed, whereupon theherald called him a traitor. The indignant insurgents, ready enough todisperse before, thereupon changed their tone, assaulted and capturedNorwich, and carried off the guns and ammunition. Northampton was sent downin command of the Government forces, but the rebels attacked him with suchdetermination that he had to fly--the insurgents maintaining their policyof abstaining from robbery and violence generally. At last however, at theend of August, Warwick, who replaced Northampton, succeeded by the aid ofGerman and Italian mercenaries in inflicting a crushing defeat on them; Kethimself being taken and hanged soon after. 

[Sidenote: Somerset's attitude]

Another rising was also attempted in Yorkshire, but this was easily quelledby the local authorities. It is however of interest to note that thenobility regarded Somerset as the real cause of these troubles, on accountof the open sympathy he expressed for the grievances of the ruralpopulation, and his public admonitions to the landowners urging them toamend their ways. He was driving the country faster than it was prepared togo in the direction of religious innovations; he was attacking theprivileges which the new landowners had usurped; his Scottish policy hadbeen upset, in spite of Pinkie, by the young Queen's escape to France; hewas further alienating all but a few of the nobility by his increasingarrogance of demeanour and disregard of advice, as well as by an assumptionof powers which had no precedent; he was giving a handle to his enemies bythe profusion of his own household, his appropriations of clerical landsand even of the fabric of consecrated buildings to his own use; and finallyhis conduct of foreign affairs had been so incompetent that while theEmperor declined an English alliance, the position of Boulogne--whichremained quite inefficiently garrisoned--was becoming critical, and aFrench squadron, ostensibly in pursuit of English pirates, attacked theisland of Jersey. By the end of September war was declared with France. 

[Sidenote 1: The Council attacks the Protector][Sidenote 2: Fall of Somerset (Sept. )]

The lords of the Council, headed by Warwick, made up their minds that itwas time the protectorate should end, and that one vain-glorious noblemanshould not absorb so undue a share of power and profit. Somerset, discovering that there was a cabal on foot, attempted to stir up popularfeeling against the Council, and retired hurriedly to Windsor with theKing, accompanied by Cranmer and Paget; a journey which is said to havematerially shaken the health of Edward, who was in a very delicatecondition. But the people did not rise in Somerset's favour; the Councilhad so far taken no improper action, whereas the Protector had evidentlyincited to violence by the steps into which panic had led him; Herbert andRussell, returning from the West with the troops employed there to put downthe insurrection, declared in favour of the Council; who were of courseforced--very much to their own satisfaction--to stand on their right tocontrol the Government, and call the Protector to account, at the same timepromising him life and declaring that they had never sought his personalinjury. By mid-October, Somerset had fully realised that he was withouteffective support; he surrendered to the Council, and was sent to theTower. His deposition from the Protectorate was confirmed by Parliamentthree months later, and a substantial portion of his estates was forfeited, after which he was again set at liberty. But his control in politics was atan end. 

[Sidenote 1: Ireland, 1547-49][Sidenote 2: Bellingham Deputy]

Before proceeding to the second division of Edward's reign, it remains todeal with affairs in Ireland, where Sir Anthony St. Leger held sway, withgeneral approval, during the closing years of Henry's life. St. Legerembodied the policy of conciliation by the method of converting Irishchiefs into responsible supporters of the government in return for honoursgilded with spoils of the Church. The method worked well, but thecondoning--almost, it might be said, the rewarding--of treason, initiatedby Henry VII. , carried risks which are obvious. Whether it was that theextension to Ireland of the energetic iconoclasm of the English Reformationin 1547 excited new hostility; or that a repressive policy was anticipatedfrom the new Government; or that death withdrew the loyal influence of theold Earl of Ormonde, whose young heir was in England; or that the chiefswere tired of behaving peaceably after six years; or that all these causescombined: signs of disturbance and rumours of French intriguesarose. St. Leger was recalled, and replaced by Sir Edward Bellingham, astern and rigorous soldier, who ruled autocratically with a stronghand. Fortresses and garrisons were established up and down the countryoutside the Pale, among the tribes which had been in the habit of raidingor levying blackmail--very much after the fashion of various Highlandclansmen in Scotland; while O'Connor and O'More, two chiefs whose lands laybetween the English Pale and the Shannon, were attached for treason. Inshort, Bellingham asserted the authority of the English government, not, itwould seem, unjustly, but certainly with severity, and in a dictatorialfashion which thoroughly re-awakened the normal rebellious instincts of apopulation never really subjugated. While he was present, his power wasfeared and respected; but if St. Leger's policy had been taking realeffect, that effect was thoroughly cancelled. Bellingham died in 1549, andDesmond told Allen the Chancellor, that the Deputy's methods had reducedall Ireland to despair. [Footnote: A phrase expanded by Mr. Froude, v. , 421 (Ed. 1864)--perhaps legitimately--into "despair of being able tocontinue their old habits". ] In any case, no long time elapsed afterBellingham's death before the country was again in a ferment. The fall ofSomerset left the new Government, controlled by Warwick, with a normallydistracted Ireland on its hands as well as an abnormally distractedEngland. So long, however, as ferment did not mean active rebellion, theEnglish rulers were not greatly troubled. 

CHAPTER XIII

EDWARD VI (ii), 1549-53--THE DUDLEY ASCENDANCY

When Somerset fell, the state of affairs which his successors had to facewas singularly threatening, calling for the most skilful statesmanship bothat home and abroad. 

[Sidenote: 1549 (Winter) The Situation]

Externally, the chance of maintaining the hold on Boulogne wasdisappearing: but while it was maintained, the hostility of France wasassured. Scotland, defiant, allied with France and helped by French troops, might become actively embarrassing. Within two months of the Protector'sfall Pope Paul died. He was succeeded by Julius III. Who promptly madefriends with the Emperor; to whom there was now hardly any open resistancesave at Magdeburg which stubbornly refused to accept the Interim. With theProtestants apparently under his heel, and on good terms with the Papacy, he might assume a hostile attitude to England. The one hope for her lay inbuying from France the friendship of the party in that country which, evermindful of the Italian provinces, might make common cause against theEmperor if the immediate source of friction with England were removed. 

[Sidenote: State of the Country]

At home there were the rural discontents and the swelling ardours ofreligious partisanship to deal with, while the financial position wasgrowing worse from day to day. The natural fall in the value of silvereverywhere, owing to the quantities of the metal now beginning to pour intoSpain from America, depreciated the purchasing power of wages; and this wasmade infinitely worse in England by the persistent debasement of thecoinage. The rulers of the country rewarded their own very inconspicuousmerits with the forfeited spoils of the Church, instead of applying them tothe public needs. The Treasury was nearly empty, and was maintained even atits alarmingly low level only by borrowing from foreign bankers at usuriousinterest. For the time being, the country had lost its moral balance;landowners, merchants, and manufacturers were absorbed in rapidmoney-making at the expense of their traditional integrity. Religion hadfallen into a controversial wrangle between contradictory dogmas; the mostearnest of the Reformers have given us the blackest pictures of theprevailing irreligion and moral anarchy, rampant products of theologicalacrimony. It is true that the Moralists of all ages have usually beenengaged in expressing a vehement conviction that the decadence of their ownage exceeds that of any other known to history; and within the next decade, the denunciations of Latimer were to be lost in the paean of the martyrs. Had the corruption he depicts been vital, those sublime tragedies wouldnever have taken place. But for the time, chaos prevailed. It is true thatsome of the subjects of controversy were logically vital ultimately; but itis true also that, absorbed in them, the controversialists lost sight ofother matters more spiritually vital immediately. If the Christian istaught that his duty to God is comprised in the acceptance ornon-acceptance of dogmas and ceremonial observances, while his duty towardshis neighbour comprises the whole of his moral conduct; if then hisspiritual guides omit to preach the latter in their devotion to the formersubject; his morality is in danger of being entirely neglected. "This oughtthey to have done, but not to leave the other undone. "

[Sidenote: 1550 Terms with France]

In one respect, the new Government recognised the force of facts. It madeup its mind that France must be reconciled by the evacuation of Boulogne, if any colourable concession could be obtained in return. France howeverso obviously held the whip-hand that even Paget's diplomacy could do littleto qualify the completeness of the surrender. There was a brave display ofpreparation for a determined defence, but the negotiators on both sideswere fully aware of its emptiness. There was nothing that Henry II. Desiredmore than the termination of strife with his excellent neighbours, providedthat they would hand over Boulogne, cancel most of the money claim underthe treaty of 1546 for which they held it as security, and withdraw theirtroops from the forts they still retained in Scotland. The reconciliationmight then be sealed by the betrothal of Edward to a French princess, theyoung Queen of Scots being bespoken by the Dauphin--only nothingconsiderable in the way of a dowry could be expected. France however wouldpay within a few months what might pass as a ransom for Boulogne. Such werethe terms which Paget, the cleverest statesman in England, was obliged toadvise the Council to accept: though the suggested marriage project wasdropped. The treaty of peace was signed on March 24th (1550). 

[Sidenote: Warwick's Protestant zeal]

On the religious question, Warwick lost little time in showing that he wason the same side as Somerset. For a moment, the Protector's fall raisedvain hopes in the breasts of those who supported the Old Learning. Gardinerappealed from his prison: so did Bonner who not long before had not onlybeen incarcerated for the second time, but even, in October, deprived ofhis see. It was useless. Warwick saw that he must either pose as anenthusiastic reformer, or bring the reactionaries into power. In the formercase, he could lead; in the latter, he would have to throw himself on thesupport of the old nobility. Not only Gardiner but Norfolk also would haveto be released from the Tower, and he himself would inevitably drop to thesecond rank. Warwick, with a fine consistency, never permitted any othermotive to influence him when his own aggrandisement was involved in theissues. The first step of the parliament which re-assembled in November(1549) was to pass an Act for the removal of Images. Gardiner, and Bonner, remained in prison. Even an attempt of the whole body of Bishops to havesomething of their disciplinary jurisdiction restored, in the interests ofpublic morality, was quietly suppressed. Three more bishops of the Oldlearning were at intervals sent to prison and deprived--Heath, Day, andTunstal. Every vacancy was filled from the ranks of the advanced reformers. 

[Sidenote: A new treasons and felonies Act]

Norfolk, like the bishops, continued a prisoner. Somerset on the otherhand, no longer regarded as dangerous, was released in February, the majorpart of the fine imposed on him was remitted, and after a brief interval hewas even re-instated in the Privy Council, and his official reconciliationwith Warwick sealed by a family marriage. But while his anti-clericalpolicy was carried to much greater lengths, his social policy and hisrelaxation of the treason laws were entirely reversed. Parliament madefelony or treason out of assemblages presumed to intend disturbance of thepeace, to some extent legalised enclosures, made acts against PrivyCouncillors treasonable as if they were against the King, and included inthe ban assemblies for the purpose of altering the laws. 

[Sidenote: Activity of the extreme Reformers]

The peace with France still left opportunities for friction; but Warwick'sreforming enthusiasm drove him into the course--manifestly irritating tothe Emperor--of interfering with the private devotions of the PrincessMary, who was ordered to give up the Mass: to which she replied that shewas bound by the law as left by her father, and would not recognise ordersin contravention thereof, as long as her brother was a minor. Charleshimself was at this very time reverting to an intolerant policy in the LowCountries, and Protestants were hastening to England from Flanders. Therisk that the Emperor might adopt Mary's cause in arms was obvious, and itwas known that the Guise party at the French court would miss noopportunity of reviving the war with England in the hope of capturingCalais. In the meantime, the extreme reformers of the Swiss school weresteadily gaining weight, in comparison with that section which, likeCranmer, continued to favour less drastic changes. One of their chiefs, Hooper, being nominated to a bishopric, for a long time declined to acceptit on account of the vestments ordered to be worn at consecration--anattitude however for which he was condemned by all the cooler heads, including some of the most advanced. Hooper ultimately gave way--anarrow-minded but sincere man, who at the last won the crown ofmartyrdom. An unsuccessful effort was made to obtain Gardiner'srelease--the failure being the more pointed because Somerset interestedhimself on the bishop's part. Gardiner, with thorough consistency, declaredhimself ready to accept the Prayer-book since it did not preclude his viewof the Sacrament; but he would not profess opinions in contradiction of thedoctrines formally affirmed in the last reign. In the end, he was not onlykept in prison, but deprived of his see of Winchester. 

[Sidenote 1: 1551 The Council and the Emperor][Sidenote 2: Charles's difficulties]

In the early months of 1551 the friction with the Emperor on the subject ofthe Princess Mary's Mass was becoming alarming; Charles was refusing to letthe English Ambassador in his dominions use the English Communion Service;and the Council went so far as to propose making the Princess personallyand alone exempt from Conformity: fortunately, however, for them, affairsin Italy took a turn which gave fresh impulse to the anti-Imperialists inFrance. The Protestant city of Magdeburg was still holding out against theImperial troops which were under the command of Maurice of Saxony, and theFrench King was becoming inclined to give active support to theresistance. The Pope had devoted himself to Charles's interests, andassented to the return of the Council to Trent; and there were hints thatHenry might call a Gallican synod, instead of allowing the Frenchecclesiastics to attend, unless the Lutherans were also represented. TheEmperor could no longer imagine himself to be completely master of thesituation. In April, the Council felt that he was so far hampered that theycould venture to assume a bold front. They informed him that the Act ofUniformity was the Law; that it applied to all subjects, including thePrincess; and that they claimed the same freedom for their own ambassadorwhich they were willing to concede reciprocally to his. About the same timethe German Diet foiled a pet scheme of Charles, who wished his son Philip(afterwards Philip II. Of Spain) to be nominated as his successor to theImperial crown in place of his brother Ferdinand [Footnote: Charles hadceded the Austrian dominions of the house of Habsburg to Ferdinand in1522. ] who was already King of the Romans. The Germans however preferredthe Austrian to the Spanish succession, and rejected the proposal. In Junehe found that the English and French had come to terms, and had agreed to aFrench marriage for Edward, on exceedingly easy conditions for France. Hestill continued to threaten war unless England gave way on the disputedpoints; but the Council answered only by temporising, and he was soon in noposition to threaten. The unrest of the German Protestants and later in theyear the assembling of the Council at Trent demanded all his attention. Infact, though he did not suspect it, Maurice of Saxony was even now layinghis plans for snapping the bonds which the Emperor was seeking to rivetupon his German subjects. The incompetent hand-to-mouth conduct of foreignaffairs in England did not bring disaster on the country, mainly becauseCharles had not rightly taken the measure of his own strength and of theforces in the Empire adverse to his policy. 

[Sidenote: Groups among the Reformers]

The domestic history of England during 1551 is not marked by events ofmagnitude, but the general trend of affairs is not without significance. No serious attempt was made to deal with any of the existing causes ofdisorder and uneasiness. Warwick, a man whose entire career presents noevidence of his having possessed any religious convictions whatever, hadfixed upon the ultra-protestants as the party whose support would be mostvaluable to him. Honest enough themselves, these men, typified by BishopHooper, were ready to credit with a like honesty any one who talked theirparticular jargon with sufficient fervour, and to stigmatise as Laodiceansany one who did not go to every length along with them. Cranmer and morepositively his right-hand man Ridley--recently made bishop of London inBonner's room--were now leaning more towards them than when the Prayer-bookof 1549 was promulgated; and a considerable personal animus cannot but haveentered into their feeling towards Gardiner, whose present unimpeachableattitude of legality was discounted by his participation in the intriguesagainst Cranmer during the last reign. 

[Sidenote: Attitude of Somerset]

It is less really surprising than it seems at first sight to find inSomerset the one man who really interested himself on the side oftoleration towards individuals, in the cases both of Mary and ofGardiner. As a matter of fact, although when Protector he had beenparticularly zealous in the war against images, had carried desecration toabnormal lengths in his private appropriation of spoils, and had grosslytransgressed his constitutional powers for the repression of the bishop ofWinchester as the ablest of the opponents of his policy: yet he was notgenerally vindictive, was probably quite satisfied with the compromise ofthe first prayer-book which did not actually contravene the _King'sBook_, and--except when he was commanding troops in Scotland--liked atleast the posture of magnanimity. Entirely devoid of statesmanlikequalities, but afflicted with inordinate vanity, he had been an intolerablyincompetent ruler: yet his intentions were usually quite commendable; whilethe government which succeeded the Protectorate had failed in everyparticular to establish a claim to respect, nor could he be, like thezealots, hoodwinked into a belief in its honesty. Apart therefore frompersonal considerations he did not favour its extreme policy, and personalconsiderations suggested that he might once more oust his rival frompower. Lacking the capacity to organise an opposition, he still lenthimself to intrigues. He was a possible danger to the Government for onereason and only one--that popularity with the commonalty which had beengained by his well-meant but ill-directed efforts to espouse their causeagainst the oppression of the wealthier classes. 

[Sidenote 1: Fresh attack on Somerset][Sidenote 2: 1552 Execution of Somerset]

Warwick therefore, endowed with plentiful cunning and no scruples, decidedto be rid of him once for all, and put in the mouth of an accomplice astory, with enough truth in it to be plausible, which sufficed for hispurpose. In October Warwick, having procured his own elevation to theDukedom of Northumberland, that of Dorset to the Dukedom of Suffolk, andthat of Herbert to the Earldom of Pembroke, arrested Somerset at theCouncil. The Duke was accused of compassing the deaths of several Lords ofthe Council, and of preparations for an armed revolt and for appealing tothe populace. On the greater part of the specific charges, the evidence wasquite inadequate--but finding that Somerset might be held to have gone farenough to incur the death-sentence for felony under the law passed by theparliament of 1549-50, Northumberland (as Warwick must now be called) madea show of magnanimously withdrawing the accusations so far as he waspersonally affected. Somerset was duly condemned; but it was not till theend of January (1552) that he was actually executed, in spite of thesomewhat pathetic demonstrations in his favour of the populace, who refusedto the last to believe that the sentence would really be carried out, andlamented his doom with tears. 

[Sidenote: Pacification of Passau]

While Somerset's trial was still going on, agents arrived in England fromthe German Protestants, inviting assistance in the contemplated revoltagainst Charles--a movement carried out with sudden and triumphanteffectiveness by Maurice of Saxony in the following spring. HadNorthumberland given his adhesion, the formation of a Lutheran alliance atthis juncture might have very materially altered the subsequent course ofevents. The opportunity however was not taken. Indeed it is scarcelysurprising that the signs of the times should have been misread. Mauricehad helped Charles against the Schmalkaldic League before; yet everythingdepended on his discarding the apparently erratic politics of his pastcareer, and displaying in full measure the organising and military geniusof which he had given promise, though it still remained to be conclusivelyproved. He did in fact prove it a few months later, when he all butsucceeded in pouncing on the Emperor at Innsbruck. Charles was forced to ahasty flight, and, finding a practically united Germany in arms againsthim, was reduced to accept the pacification of Passau (July), conceding allthat the Lutherans demanded. Maurice's brilliant exploit not onlyterminated Charles's resistance to the Reformation in Germany; it alsoreleased England from all danger of his active hostility. 

[Sidenote: England stands aside]

In view however of the uncertainty still, at the end of 1551, attendant onthe motives, the aims, and the capacity of Duke Maurice, the decision ofthe professedly enthusiastic protestants in England to stand aside ishardly a ground for reproach. Disaster had so often been escaped duringrecent years, through some lucky turn of events abroad supervening on thepurely temporising policy of the Government, that they had good reason tohesitate about committing themselves to any irrevocable course; whilepersonal intrigues and the strife of religious parties gave the individualleaders sufficient occupation. Possibly also the influence of the Swissschool, antagonistic as ever to the peculiar tenets of Lutheranism, was notaltogether in favour of a too intimate association with Germanprotestantism. 

[Sidenote: The Reformation;]

We have remarked upon the increasing influence of this party in the Church;an influence which, as far as concerns the formularies of the Anglicanbody, was to reach its high-water mark in 1552 and 1553, in the revisedprayer-book authorised by Parliament immediately after Somerset's death, and the "Forty-two Articles" promulgated about a year later. 

[Sidenote: Its Limits under Henry and under Somerset]

In the reign of the late King, the Reformation which had taken place wasalmost entirely political and financial--in the constitution of thegovernment of the ecclesiastical body, and the allocation of itsendowments. The Sovereign had claimed and enforced his own supremacy, involving the repudiation of papal authority, the submission of the clergyto the Supreme Head, and the appropriation by the Crown of Monasticproperty. As a necessary corollary, the Crown had also taken upon itself tosanction formularies of belief and to regulate rites and ceremonies; but indoing so it had held by the accepted dogmas, suppressed little exceptobvious and admitted abuses, and affirmed no heresies. The Archbishop hadbeen in favour of further innovations, but these had not been allowed. All, however, that Cranmer had then advocated, was adopted by Somerset'sadministration--the extended destruction of images, the liturgy in thevulgar tongue, the marriage of the clergy, the Communion in both kinds; thelast being perhaps the most marked deviation from the establishedorder. But though the new liturgy might be reconciled with acceptance ofdoctrines hitherto accounted heretical, it did not enjoin them; it wasstill reconcilable also with the _King's Book_. It had aimed, in shortat the maximum of comprehension. The result was to include within the samepale the adherents of a very slightly modified Mass and the extremists ofthe Swiss school, for whom the Communion Service was purely and simplycommemorative. 

[Sidenote: The extremists dissatisfied]

Until the death of Henry, the English clergy from the Archbishop down hadalmost without exception held the hitherto authorised view of theEucharist. Since then however Cranmer had followed the lead of Ridley, under the influence of the foreign theologians, and had adopted personallya conception [Footnote: This conception is expressed in the phrase of theCatechism that "the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed takenand received by the faithful, " coupled with the direct repudiation ofTransubstantiation, _i. Q. _ the doctrine that the substance of thebread and wine is changed by the Act of Consecration. ] which rejectedalike in set terms the Transubstantiation of the Roman Mass, theConsubstantiation of the Lutherans, and, implicitly though not explicitly, the purely commemorative theory of Hooper and the Zwinglians. 

[Sidenote: 1552 The Liturgy revised]

Thus the extreme comprehensiveness of the first Prayer-book failed tosatisfy the school who could not away with the Mass, and those who regardedthe Swiss doctrine as heretical. Greater precision, closer definitions, were called for--by way not of changing doctrines but of removinguncertainties. To this end a revision of the volume had been taken in hand, and now received the sanction of Parliament: a revision favouring in themain the Swiss interpretations, the term "minister" taking the place of"priest, " "altar" giving way to "table, " and the doctrine oftransubstantiation being clearly eliminated. At the same time theinstruction that the Sacrament was to be received kneeling conveyed apresumption, though not the necessity, that the rite involved a Mystery, that it implied an act of adoration. This was most unsatisfactory to theultra-protestants, recently re-inforced by the vigorous presence in theNorth of England of John Knox the Scottish reformer; and before the volumewas issued from the press at the end of the year a determined attempt wasmade to have the obnoxious instruction removed by order. The Archbishophowever with resolute dignity protested against the arbitrary subversion ofwhat Parliament had sanctioned. He carried his point, and the instructionwas retained, though an explanatory note (known as the BlackRubric)[Footnote: _Cf_. Dixon, iii. , 475 ff. ] was appended, with whichKnox and his friends were forced, however reluctantly, to be satisfied. 

[Sidenote: Nonconformity]

This episode, with that of the consecration of Hooper as bishop ofGloucester, are illustrative of the original sense of the termNonconformity. Nonconformity, of which Hooper is often referred to as the"father, " did not seek separation from the ecclesiastical organisation, butexpressed dissatisfaction with particular observances, which it sought tohave modified in the Swiss sense: not as being in themselves intolerable, but as tending to encourage superstitious and papistical ideas. So Hooper, after an obstinate struggle, submitted to don the vestments ordered at hisconsecration; so also Knox, when he was finally worsted in the "kneeling"controversy, submitted to the order though with a very ill grace. TheNonconformists in short may be defined as Puritans who still remainedwithin the pale of the Church. The idea of forming sects outside herborders, of challenging the right to enforce uniformity where points indispute were not "essential" but "convenient, " was still opposed to allrecognised principles; the Nonconformists themselves being by no meansdisposed to surrender the position that if they became predominant theywould be entitled to enforce their own views no less rigidly. No onethought of protesting against the burning of one Joan Bocher, in 1550, foraffirming a peculiarly unintelligible heresy concerning the mode of theIncarnation. 

[Sidenote: Parliament]

The session at the beginning of 1552 was the last held by this, the first, Parliament of Edward VI. Besides authorising the revised Prayer-book, itpassed a second Act of Uniformity, of which the novel feature was thatpenalties were imposed on laymen for non-compliance. In other respects, itdid not show itself altogether subservient to Northumberland. A newTreasons Act further reviving some of Henry's provisions was introduced inthe Upper House, but rejected by the Commons; who did indeed restore"verbal treason, " but pointedly required that two witnesses at least shouldprove the guilt of the accused to his face-with evident reference to therecent trial of Somerset. 

Cranmer had been occupied not only with the Prayer-book, but also with thepreparation of Articles of Belief, and of a scheme which, as drawn up, wasgenerally known as the _Reformatio Legum_, elaborating a plan ofecclesiastical administration. The latter appears to have seen the lighteither in 1551 or 1552, but it was never authorised. The Forty-twoarticles, substantially the same as the Thirty-nine of the presentPrayer-book, certainly did not come before parliament and probably did notcome before Convocation, [Footnote: Dixon, iii. , 513 ff. Gairdner, _English Church_, 311. ] but were sanctioned by almost the last act ofthe King in Council in 1553. 

[Sidenote: 1553 A new Parliament]

The national finances continued in an increasingly chaotic condition, andNorthumberland's struggles to raise money during 1552 were attended withsuch inadequate results that he found it necessary to summon a newParliament in the spring of 1553. There were not wanting, from the lastreign, precedents for bringing royal pressure to bear on constituencies tosecure the selection of amenable representatives, and the principle was nowapplied with a reckless comprehensiveness. Nevertheless the Houses whenassembled were by no means prepared to carry out a programme which wouldsatisfy Northumberland. 

[Sidenote: Northumberland's programme]

In fact that man of many wiles lacked the art, necessary for one with hisambitions, of securing a devoted personal following. For some time past theprobability of the young King's early decease had been recognised, andNorthumberland's intrigues had been directed to excluding Mary from thesuccession, and securing a sovereign whom he would himself be able todominate. He had had his chance, when the Protector was overthrown in 1549, of taking the line of policy which would bring him into accord with theheir presumptive; he made his election, and thenceforward was committed tothe Reforming party and to political destruction if Mary should becomeQueen. He devoted his attention then primarily to gaining a predominantinfluence over the young King, with great success-the result, in no smallmeasure, of his posing as a puritan; for the boy had all the uncompromisingpartisanship natural to the morbid precocity which his ill-health and Tudorcleverness combined to develop. If Edward had lived, no doubt the Tudorpenetration would have unmasked Northumberland in due course; but this theDuke would hardly have anticipated in any case, and, as it was, he laid hisplans on the hypothesis that Edward would die without leaving an heir ofhis body. Now the succession was fixed by Henry's Will, ratified by Act ofParliament, first on Mary and then on Elizabeth, though both had beendeclared illegitimate. If they could be set aside, the first claim bydescent would lie with Mary Stewart, grandchild of Henry's sister Margaret;but the country would not take her at any price. The next claimant, confirmed also by Henry's Will, would be Lady Jane Grey, passing over hermother Frances Brandon, daughter of Henry's second sister Mary. FrancesBrandon had married Lord Dorset, created Duke of Suffolk at the same timethat Dudley became Duke of Northumberland. 

[Sidenote: Plot to change the succession]

The Duke's scheme then was to supplant the Tudor princesses, on the scoreof their illegitimacy once officially affirmed, by Lady Jane Grey; havingfirst secured a dominating influence over his unhappy puppet by marryingher to one of his sons, Guildford Dudley. It might plausibly be arguedthat, since the courts had definitely declared that neither Mary norElizabeth was born in lawful wedlock, no subsequent legitimation could givethem precedence over an indubitably legitimate descendant of Henry VII. AndElizabeth of York: while political expediency excluded the sole claimantwith a prior hereditary right. 

There remained, however, the inconvenient fact that the whole country fromthe Council down had deliberately and unhesitatingly pledged itself tomaintain the order of succession laid down in Henry's Will. Something morethan an abstract argument from legitimacy was needed to cancel a decisionarrived at and established after mature deliberation. Had Mary madeherself feared or detested--had Lady Jane been a popular favourite with anorganised following--there might have been some chance for a _coupd'état_. But the treatment of Mary coupled with her dignified andcourageous conduct had made her the object of popular sympathy; the onlypeople who feared her were those who had been prominent in attacking theOld Learning, and their following in the country was by no meansproportionate to their political and theological activity. Theirsupport--all that Northumberland could hope for--would be quiteinsufficient for carrying his plan through; while the Duke himself, veryunlike his late rival Somerset, was an object of such general aversion thatany scheme calculated to maintain him in power would have excited keenpopular antagonism. 

[Sidenote 1: Northumberland gains over Edward and the Council][Sidenote 2: Death of Edward]

The marriage of Lady Jane was accomplished early in May (1553); Pembroke, as well as Suffolk, was apparently secured by the marriage [Footnote: AfterNorthumberland's fiasco, this marriage was judiciously voided. ] of his sonto a sister, Katharine Grey. Besides these Northumberland could count onNorthampton. Further, he could be sure that France would go as far asdiplomacy permitted to prevent the accession of Mary, on account of herrelationship with the Emperor, to whom she had all her life looked forcounsel. As Edward's death drew nearer, the Duke prepared his final_coup_. If Henry by Will could lay down the course of succession, hisson was equally free to change it. It was not difficult to persuade thedying boy of the woes that would follow when a reactionary monarch was onthe throne--though there had hitherto been no sign that the reaction wouldgo beyond a reversion to the position of Henry's last years. UnderNorthumberland's influence, he devised the crown to the issue of theDuchess of Suffolk who was herself passed over in favour of her eldestdaughter. In June this "device" was submitted to the Council, with whomhowever it found little favour. But in view of the personal danger in whichthey stood, they gave assent subject to the approval of Parliament, arguingthat it was unprecedented for a King, to say nothing of one who was still aminor, to set aside an Act of Parliament by his own authority. The Judges, summoned to the Royal presence, unanimously declared that it would beunconstitutional--in effect treason--if they drew up letters patent in thesense desired without authority of parliament; and the more they examinedthe law, the more convinced they were of their position. But the King wasinsistent; and at last one by one, they reluctantly gave way, on conditionof receiving positive instructions under the Great Seal and an anticipatorypardon in case their obedience should prove--as they believed it--to be acrime. The Letters were drawn, and at last signed by a number of peers andrepresentative men, Cranmer finally yielding his adhesion after prolongedresistance, on the strength of the assertion that the judges had giventheir sanction. He was not informed how that sanction had beenobtained. Cecil, the Burghley of a later reign, would only sign "as awitness". The signatures were appended on June 21st. The affair was stillkept secret--though the existence of some conspiracy to supplant Mary wasbecoming generally suspected. The interval was spent in making preparationsto support the _coup d'état_ in arms. On July 4th the rumour that theKing was already dead was only partially dispelled by letting his face beseen at a window. On the 6th he actually died. On the 8th the fact began toleak out, and on the 10th Lady Jane was proclaimed Queen in London. 

[Sidenote: A memorable voyage]

One incident of note occurred during King Edward's last months--thedeparture of Chancellor and Willoughby's expedition in search of aNorth-East passage, an entirely novel direction. Chancellor reached theWhite Sea, and from thence was conveyed to Moscow, with the result thatrelations were opened between England and Russia. In other respects therewas some private activity in the voyages of this and the ensuing reign, butnothing else demanding special attention. 

CHAPTER XIV

MARY (i), 1553-55--THE SPANISH MARRIAGE

[Sidenote: The Marian Tragedies]

From first to last, Tragedy is the note of the reign of England's firstQueen regnant: the human interest is so intense that the political andreligious issues seem, great as they were, to sink into the background ofthe picture, mere accessories of the stage on which are presented theimmortal figures of Doom. First is the tragedy of the sweet-souled and mostinnocent child, Lady Jane Grey, sacrificed to the self-seeking ambition ofshameless intriguers. Then the tragedy of the Martyrs--of Rowland Taylor, of Ridley and Latimer, of Ferrar and Hooper, of many another of less note, who died for the Glory of God, giving joyful testimony to the faith thatwas in them; the tragedy of Cranmer, the gentle soul of wavering courage, the man born to pass peaceful days in cloistered shades, torn from them tobe the unwilling pilot of revolution, who at the tenth hour fell as Peterfell, yet at the last rose to the noblest height. Last, and greatest, thetragedy of the royal-hearted woman whose passionate human love was answeredonly with cold scorn; who won her throne by the loyalty of her people onlyto bring upon her name such hate as attaches to but two or three otherEnglish monarchs; who, for the wrongs done to her personally, showed almostunexampled clemency, yet, shrinking not to shed blood like water in whatshe deemed a sacred cause, is popularly branded for ever amongst thetyrants of the earth; who, sacrificing her own heart in that cause, died inthe awakening knowledge that by her own deeds it was irreparably ruined. Nomonarch has ever more utterly subordinated personal interests, personalaffections, all that makes life desirable, to a passionate sense of duty;none ever failed more utterly to work anything but unmixed woe. 

[Sidenote: 1553 (July) Proclamation of Queen Jane]

Northumberland's plans had been carefully laid. The military forces were atthe service of the Government. The whole Council--with varying degrees ofsincerity and reluctance--had endorsed his scheme; the persons of itsmembers were apparently at his mercy; he meant also to have Mary safelybestowed in the Tower before any opposition could be organised. The foreignambassadors, and their masters, hardly dreamed that there was anyalternative course to submission. Neither they nor Northumberland realisedthe intensity of the general feeling in Mary's favour, or its practicalforce; nor did they appreciate the capacity of Henry Tudor's daughters forrising to an emergency. On the day of Edward's death, Mary was on her wayto London, when she was met with the secret warning that all was over. Sheturned and rode hard for safer country, just escaping the party who hadbeen sent out to secure her. Jane Grey, the sixteen-year-old bride of a fewdays, was summoned to the throne by the Council; every person about herimplored her to claim what they called her right and fulfil her duty inaccepting the crown: what else could she do? Yet, child as she was, theyfound to their indignant astonishment that she would not move ahair's-breadth from the path her conscience approved. She knew enough torefuse point blank the notion that her young husband should be crownedKing. The men of affairs, of religion, of law, having unanimously affirmedthat the heritage of royalty was hers, she could not dispute it; but no onecould pretend that the heritage was his. Her refusal was of ill omen forNorthumberland's ascendancy, and the ill omens multiplied. 

[Sidenote 1: The people support Mary][Sidenote 2: Collapse of the Plot]

The refusal was given on the evening following the proclamation of LadyJane as Queen: even at the proclamation, a 'prentice was bold enough toremark aloud that the Lady Mary's title was the better. That same night, aletter arrived from Mary herself, claiming the allegiance of the Council intrue queenly style. They were not yet prepared to defy Northumberland, anda reply was penned the next day affirming Lady Jane's title. Two of theDuke's sons were already in pursuit of Mary, and a general impressionprevailed that they had captured her and were on their way to London. Theyhad indeed reached her, but their whole force promptly acclaimed her asqueen, and the Dudleys had to fly for their lives. The Eastern midlands andthe home counties were gathering in arms to her support. It was necessaryto take the field without delay, but of those members of the Council whowere fit to command there was none on whom Northumberland could rely, whenonce out of his reach. The Duke must go himself. On the eighth day afterEdward's death, the fourth after the proclamation of Lady Jane, he rodegloomily from London at the head of a force which he mistrusted, without aplaudit from the populace which, for all its Protestantism, listened withapathy two days later to the declamations of Ridley at St. Paul's Cross. Northumberland was hardly on his way before news came that the crews of thefleet had compelled their captains to declare for Mary. He had not advancedfar before his own followers in effect followed suit. In the meantime, theCouncil reinstated Paget; who had always been in ill odour with Dudley asbeing a friend of Somerset, and had been recently dismissed from office andrelegated to the Tower. On the 19th came news of further reinforcements forMary. On that day several members of the Council, who had hitherto beenpractically under guard in the Tower, escaped, and, headed by Pembroke, declared for Mary. One party returned in arms, to demand surrender; anothermarched to Paul's Cross and proclaimed Mary amid enthusiasticacclamations. That night they dispatched a message to Northumberland atCambridge ordering him to lay down his arms. Before it reached him, he hadthrown up the struggle. The messengers arrived to arrest a cringingtraitor. The stream of his repentant supporters was already hastening tosue for pardon. 

[Sidenote: The Queen's leniency]

Never did rebellion collapse more ignominiously; never were rebels treatedso leniently. The conspicuous but calculated clemency of the seventh Henrypales in comparison with the magnanimity of his grand-child. Those who hadbeen most active and prominent in word and deed were arrested; but after abrief interval the majority even of these were pardoned. Some, includingthe innocent figurehead of the rebellion, the nine days' queen, herhusband, and Ridley, were detained, in ward; but even Suffolk was allowedto go free; and it was only in deference to the remonstrances of everyadviser that the Queen ultimately consented to the execution of theArch-traitor Northumberland with two of his companions. 

[Sidenote: Meaning of the popular attitude]

Mary's triumph, swift and bloodless, in defiance of all prudentpresumptions, requires some explanation; which is not to be found in thetheory of a sweeping Catholic reaction. London and the eastern countieswere the strongholds of the new ideas, yet they went uncompromisingly inher favour. But it seems to prove that the country had definitely made upits mind some years before to accept a given solution of the problem of thesuccession, and to abide by it. Mary and Elizabeth might both beillegitimate technically, but each had been supposed legitimate at the timeof her birth, and it seemed only fair that both should be reinstated in theline of succession. But the decision had been left to Henry, and had goneprecisely in accord with popular sentiment. The English people had no mindto allow their settled conclusions to be set aside at the dictation of thebest-hated politician in the country. They would have none ofNorthumberland, and the attempt to coerce them simply collapsed. The factthat all their sympathies--apart from judgment--were with the hithertopersecuted princess, and were not extended to her helpless rival, is in noway remarkable; for Lady Jane had been brought up in retirement, and hercharms of mind and of character, though known to posterity, were quiteunknown to the world in her own day. She had lent herself, howeverinnocently, to an outrageous conspiracy; nor would any one have thought ofremonstrance if the Queen had followed the advice of her counsellorsinstead of the dictates of her own magnanimity, and sent the girl with herhusband and her father to the block along with Northumberland. 

[Sidenote: The Queen's marriage and the Reformation]

A woman more politic and less conscientious than Mary--a woman such as hersister Elizabeth--might now have seized a great opportunity for makingherself exceptionally popular. The Roman allegiance had been wiped out byHenry, with the entire approval even of Bonner and Gardiner; but of lateyears the extreme puritan party had gone much further in imposing theirtheories than the nation generally approved. They, at least, might nowhave been bridled without exciting serious opposition. Toleration withinreasonable limits was what the bulk of the people wanted. Too many of themhad really taken hold of the new ideas for a ready assent to be given to astrong reaction; too many still clung to the old ideas for the censorshipof the Knoxes and Hoopers to be acceptable. 

No one was more thoroughly alive to the impolicy of religious coercion thanthe Queen's life-long adviser, Charles V. --who had had his lesson inGermany--and his ambassador at Mary's court, Simon Renard. A policy ofjudicious toleration was the first condition of domestic peace, and wouldhave met with their entire approval. But there was another question ofpressing importance on which counsels were likely to be divided--thequestion of the Queen's marriage. Popular sentiment was flatly opposed toher union with any one who, being a foreigner, might subordinate England'sinterests to those of his own country, and drag her into the vortex ofcontinental broils. On these two points anxiety was concentrated when theQueen arrived in London. 

[Sidenote: Mary's rivals]

The situation was the more complicated because, however popular Mary mightbe for the moment, there were at least three possible nominees who might beput forward if she lost her popularity. There was her half-sisterElizabeth, who was a protestant. There was Mary Stewart, whom the Frenchwould make every effort to place on the throne. Noailles, the Frenchambassador, would exercise all his powers of intrigue to shake Mary, on thechance of his master having an opportunity of intervention; indeed, but forthe rapidity of the Queen's success, there is little doubt that Frenchtroops would have come to Northumberland's assistance--for the time; toturn affairs to their own account as soon as might be. And finally therewas still Lady Jane, with a title of a sort. 

[Sidenote: Moderate Reaction]

There was immediate alarm, when it was known that Mary intended her brotherto be buried with the old rites; and though she was with difficultydissuaded from carrying out that intention she nevertheless did celebrate arequiem Mass. It was however only natural that her first step was torelease and restore the old Duke of Norfolk, young Edward Courtenay, [Footnote: Courtenay, a boy of eleven at the time, had been sent to theTower when his father was executed in 1538. ] son of the Marquis of Exeter, and the imprisoned bishops, making Gardiner her Chancellor: though Londondid not welcome Bonner. Mary frankly professed her desire that religionshould return to the position at her father's death, but she was equallydefinite about exercising no compulsion without parliamentary sanction. Thereinstated bishops had been suspended in the most arbitrary manner; thosenow dispossessed had been appointed under the new theory that they heldoffice only during the royal pleasure. The prompt departure of the foreignpreachers and their English allies was facilitated and encouraged. Theimprisonment of Ridley was a legitimate reward for his activity on behalfof Lady Jane, in August, Latimer was arrested for seditious demeanour, butwas carefully allowed the opportunity of flight. Cranmer was not touchedtill the draft of a letter he wrote, courageously repudiating the libelthat he had restored the Mass, had been copied and widely disseminated. Then he was removed to the Tower, ostensibly for his support ofNorthumberland. He, like Latimer, was given ample opportunity to fly, butalso like Latimer stood to his colours. In all this there was no savour ofinjustice, though it filled the Protestants with apprehension: as also didthe removal of sundry bishops on the ground that they were married. Mary, like Gardiner, had always denied the validity of legislation during theminority; but to take action on that hypothesis without waiting forparliament was hardly consistent with her declarations. Great pressure wasalso brought to bear on Elizabeth, to induce her to recant herprotestantism; but while she declared herself open to argument, andactually presented herself at Mass though with patent reluctance, shesteadily refused to pronounce herself converted--which Renard at leastattributed to political not to say treasonable intentions. 

These events took place during August, and in the meantime Mary reopenedcommunications with the Pope, resulting in the appointment of Cardinal Poleas legate--though more than a twelvemonth elapsed before he reachedEngland. A matter of still greater importance was the Emperor's proposal, not at first openly put forward, that Mary should marry his son Philip. 

[Sidenote: Proposed Spanish Marriage]

Now, the sequence of events of which the Peace of Passau between Charlesand the Lutherans was a part had resulted in war between France and theEmpire. To Charles, the projected marriage might obviously be of immensevalue. The French on the other hand desired not Mary's marriage but herdeposition to make way for Mary Stewart. National sentiment in Englanddemanded her union with an Englishman, pointing to Courtenay, now restoredto the earldom of Devon; he and Reginald Pole being the representatives ofthe House of York. [Footnote: See Genealogical Table. _Front_. ] Pole, though a Cardinal, had never taken priest's orders, so was also eligible asa husband, but had no desire for the position, recommending Mary to remainunwedded. Mary herself was already inclining towards the Spanish marriage, though Paget was almost the only prominent Englishman who favoured it;Gardiner being in strong opposition, and pressing for Courtenay. Noaillesintrigued against it; but his object was to use Elizabeth as astalking-horse for Mary Stewart. Finally, before anything could be done, parliament must meet to give its sanction; and before parliament couldmeet, the seal must be set on Mary's authority by her coronation. It iscurious to note that Mary felt it necessary to obtain the Papal pardon forherself and Gardiner for the performance of the ceremony while the nationwas still excommunicate. The Coronation took place on October 1st, and fourdays later parliament assembled. 

[Sidenote: Oct. Parliament revokes Edward's legislation]

It began by abolishing once more all new treasons created since the ancientAct of Edward III. , and new felonies since the accession of Henry VIII. Itproceeded to declare Mary legitimate, though by so doing it did notinvalidate Elizabeth's title as heir presumptive, since that rested onHenry's will, which had ignored equally the illegitimacy of both hisdaughters. It repealed the whole of the ecclesiastical legislation of thelast reign, reverting to the position at Henry's death. As originallysubmitted, these two bills asserted the validity of the papal dispensation, and repealed Henry's ecclesiastical legislation as well as his son's: butin this form the Commons would not accept them. Some past attainders werealso reversed, and the Archbishop, as well as Lady Jane, her husband, andone of his brothers, were attainted, though not, it would seem, with anypresent intention of inflicting the full penalty. Early in December, parliament was dissolved. 

In the meantime the Queen definitely made up her mind that she would marryPhilip, and was extremely indignant when the Commons petitioned her to wed, but not to wed a foreigner. So far, parliament at any rate did not ratifythe Spanish connexion, though the Lords--including Gardiner--hadpractically lost all hope of resisting it, and were giving their attentionto introducing into the treaty stipulations for the safe-guarding ofEnglish interests. 

[Sidenote: 1554 Wyatt's rebellion]

Enough however had been done to raise the anti-Spanish sentiment to apainful pitch; the national nerves being already over-strung withexcitement and uncertainty as to the coming course of events, deliberatelyaggravated by the subtle manipulation of the French ambassador. Themarriage treaty was signed on January 12th: within a week, there was arising in Devon--the Courtenay country--a premature movement in the greatconspiracy known as Wyatt's rebellion. The leaders were all strongprotestants, and it is likely enough that fear of the reaction was withthem the primary motive; but their cry was anti-Spanish, not anti-Catholic, they appealed to the national not the religious sentiment. The rising inDevon forced the hand of the other conspirators, before they were reallyready to act. Suffolk, pardoned for his share in Northumberland's plot, illrequited the Queen's clemency by an attempt--futile though it was--to raisethe Midlands; but for a time it seemed that Sir Thomas Wyatt, who headedthe rebellion in Kent--a county prolific of popular movements against theGovernment--might actually succeed in dethroning Mary. 

[Sidenote: Elizabeth]

Ostensibly, the cry was against foreigners. There is very little doubt thatWyatt really intended to marry Elizabeth to Courtenay, and set her on thethrone. Whether Elizabeth herself, now twenty years of age, was in theplot, remains uncertain. There were suspicious circumstances, but noproofs, and Wyatt himself ultimately exonerated her. But the atmosphere wasthick with suspicions which later historians have crystallised into factsaccording to their sympathies. Mary is charged with having desired hersister's death, but on insufficient evidence; [Footnote: Stone, _MaryI. Queen of England_, p. 270. The historian asserts Elizabeth'scomplicity without proof, while criticising Froude for inventing a proof ofMary's culpability. ] double-dealing was not the Queen's way, and herbehaviour towards her sister points rather to a desire to believe in herinnocence coupled with something like a conviction of her actualguilt. Renard certainly did his best to blacken Elizabeth's character, evenwhile he urged her arrest--a measure to which both Gardiner and Paget wereopposed. 

[Sidenote: Progress of the rebellion]

The news of Wyatt's own rising arrived on January 26th, some days afterGardiner had frightened Courtenay into betraying at least the existence ofthe plot. Elizabeth had been summoned from Hatfield to London, but declaredherself too ill to travel. While it was believed that the only aim was tostop the Spanish marriage, feeling favoured Wyatt, and it seems as if evenGardiner and his supporters were in no haste to put down the rising. Wyattand his followers were at Rochester: Norfolk was sent down with guns and acompany of Londoners to deal with him, but the men deserted to Wyatt crying"we are all English, " and the Duke had to ride for safety. London was in apanic: the Council could only quarrel among themselves. Wyatt advancedtowards the Capital. Mary rose to the occasion, and herself addressed thepopulace, her speech going far to allay the panic. Wyatt found the bridgeat Southwark impassable, and after some hesitation marched up the river, crossing at Kingston. The loyalists however had plucked up heart. Theinsurgents' column, in the advance to London, was cut in two. Wyatt at thehead of the leading section made a desperate effort to reach Ludgate withever dwindling numbers; but when he arrived at the City gates, though hedid indeed in his own words "keep touch, " his small and exhausted followingwas in no condition for prolonged fighting. He was taken prisoner withoutdifficulty. Many of his followers were captured. The whole affair was overin less than a fortnight from the first rising. 

[Sidenote: Subsequent severities]

The leniency previously shown could not be repeated. It seemed dangerous toleave Lady Jane any longer as a possible centre for plots, and she wasexecuted with her husband and father. Wyatt was beheaded; about a hundredof the rebels were hanged. Elizabeth and Courtenay were both committed tothe Tower, but were liberated after some two months. At the worst thepunishment meted out may be compared favourably with the proceedings afterthe Pilgrimage of Grace. It was severe, but could not reasonably be calledcruel. 

[Sidenote: The Marriage Treaty]

Neither the expectation of leniency nor the experience of severity allayedthe antagonism to the Spanish marriage. The treaty however, which came upfor ratification in Mary's second parliament--summoned to meet in London atthe beginning of April--conceded every safeguard against Spanish dominationwhich could be secured by words; and in addition the succession to Burgundyfor the offspring of the union, in priority to Philip's son, born to him ofhis first wife. The terms could not have been more favourable, but theunpopular fact remained that the connexion would inevitably influenceMary's policy in Europe. It was not till July that it was considered thatPhilip could safely entrust his person in England, when the wedding wascompleted. 

[Sidenote: Pole, Renard, and Gardiner]

Up to this point at least, the Emperor's influence had been exercised infavour of toleration, and in restraint of any disturbance of the subsistingreligious conditions. On the other hand he had taken pains to impress uponMary that the union itself was a practical step towards reconciliation withRome, which he knew to be her ideal. But he was afraid of the protestantsbeing so much alarmed as to make opposition to the marriageirresistible. For this reason he raised constant obstacles to the arrivalin England of Cardinal Pole, believing that the legate's presence would bean irritant. Pole being also entrusted with the task of endeavouring toreconcile Charles with Henry II. , it had not been difficult to findimperative reasons for occupying him on the Continent. But when themarriage was safely accomplished, an effective counterpoise secured to thebetrothal of the young Queen of Scots to the Dauphin, and time allowed forthe English to become accustomed to the new state of affairs and to settledown, it was no longer so important to exercise a restraininginfluence. Mary was eager for the country to be once more received into thebosom of the Church: and Gardiner, who was bent on the restoration of theold worship, had now come fully to the conclusion that the maintenance ofit was conditioned by the restoration of the Roman obedience, althoughtwenty years before at the time of the schism he had been one of Henry'smost useful supporters. Still however it was necessary to ensure that thePope would consent to leave the holders of former Church lands inundisturbed possession, as they might otherwise be relied on to becomeardent protestants. It was not till these conditions were assured that thelegate was allowed, in November, to set sail for England. 

[Sidenote: Public tension]

Between the Wyatt rebellion which collapsed in February and the arrival ofPole in November, the great event was the royal marriage, but there wereseveral other occurrences not without significance. Sir NicholasThrogmorton, who had certainly been in communication with Wyatt, wasnevertheless unanimously acquitted by a jury, and the result was hailedwith acclamation by the populace though the jurymen were summoned beforethe Star-Chamber and fined. Renard, and, if Renard's accusations and thegeneral tongue of rumour are to be trusted, Gardiner also, did their bestto persuade Mary to strike at her sister; but Paget and the Councilgenerally were stoutly opposed to the idea, and Mary herself declared thatElizabeth should not be condemned without full legal proof, which was notforthcoming. After some two months she was released from the Tower but keptunder surveillance at Woodstock. A Romanising preacher at St. Paul's Grosswas fired at, and the culprit was not given up. On the other hand, not onlymarried Bishops but married clergy in general were deprived, though somewere restored on doing penance and parting with their wives. These are saidto have numbered about one-fifth of the beneficed clergy, a computationwhich does not seem excessive as Convocation had itself petitioned for thepermission of marriage. Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, were taken fromLondon to Oxford to hold a disputation on those doctrines as to which theirviews were held to be heretical. The ecclesiastical condemnation of theirargument was of course a foregone conclusion. The parliament, however, which ratified the marriage treaty, was chiefly remarkable for followingPaget in refusing assent to bills excluding Elizabeth from the successionand restoring the Six Articles Act and the old Act against Lollards. Pagetacquired considerable strength from the fact that William, Lord Howard ofEffingham, who was in command of the fleet, was known to be in agreementwith his views. The parliament was dissolved in May. It is noteworthy alsothat France was affording harbourage to many gentlemen of the West Countrywho had been more or less implicated in the January rising. 

[Sidenote: Nov. Reconciliation with Rome]

Mary's third parliament--in which the nation by its representatives was tobe formally reconciled to Rome--was called in November. Its first task wasto reverse the attainder against Pole which was of ancient date. TheCardinal had distinguished himself in Henry's time by the vehemence of hisopposition (from abroad) to the divorce and to the King's subsequentecclesiastical proceedings, and his brothers as well as his mother had allbeen found guilty of treason in connexion with real or manufacturedconspiracies. The reversal of the attainder was required to legalise hisposition. On the 25th he landed with official pomp at Westminster. On the29th, the Houses agreed--with but one dissentient in the Commons--to a"supplication" entreating for pardon and the restoration of the nation tocommunion with Rome. The next day was performed the ceremony of presentingthe supplication to the Legate and receiving his solemn Absolution. Twodays later, Gardiner from the pulpit confessed the sin of which he incommon with the nation in general had been guilty in the great schism, anddeclared himself a loyal and repentant son of the Church. Since loyalty andrepentance did not involve restitution of Church property, most of hiscountrymen were equally ready to declare themselves loyal andrepentant. Yet were there not a few who would by no means repent. 

[Sidenote 1: Reaction consummated][Sidenote 2: 1555]

The Reconciliation of the Authorities to Rome was complete. It remained tocompel her erring children to return to the fold. During the monthfollowing the submission, two fateful Acts were passed; one, almost withoutdiscussion, reviving the old acts, "_De heretico comburendo_" andothers, which had been restricted under Henry and abolished under Somerset;the other repealing all the anti-Roman legislation since the twentieth yearof Henry (1529), with a proviso, however, securing the alienated wealth ofthe Church to its present holders. On this there was more debate, and itwas not actually passed till January 3rd. The former authority of thebishops and of the canon law was restored. It is to be observed that in allthis legislation, the Commons were a good deal more amenable than theLords; and this was even more markedly the case with the purely politicalmeasures. An Act was passed to secure the regency to Philip if there shouldbe a child and Mary herself died, it being supposed at the time that theQueen was _enceinte_. But the suggestion that the succession should besecured to Philip was emphatically rejected, and the regency was by theLords made conditional on his residence in England. He bore the title ofKing of England, but his Coronation was refused. Parliament was dissolvedon January 16th. 

CHAPTER XV

MARY (ii), 1555-58--THE PERSECUTION

Here we reach the turning point of the reign; the point at which the greatpersecution began. If anything like justice is to be rendered to theleading actors in the ensuing tragedy, it is necessary to differentiatebetween these two divisions of Mary's rule. 

[Sidenote: Mary's policy, 1553-4]

We must remark that throughout these first eighteen months, Mary had provedherself to be the reverse of a vindictive woman. Her leniency in the caseof Northumberland's accomplices had been almost unparalleled. A secondrebellion when she had been barely six months on the throne was treatedwith no more than ordinary severity, though a very few of those implicatedwith Northumberland, who would otherwise have been spared, were executed inconsequence. The advocates of the old religion had come into power, buttheir power had certainly not been used more oppressively than that of theopposition party under Warwick or even under Somerset: and there was moreexcuse for the treatment of Cranmer and Ridley at least than there had beenfor that of Gardiner and Bonner. If Latimer and Hooper, Ferrar andCoverdale, were imprisoned, it was no more than Heath and Day and Tunstalhad suffered. The deprivation of the married clergy was certainly a harshmeasure, since the marriages had been made under the aegis of the law; butthat appears to be the one measure which had hitherto savoured ofbigotry--at least, which had gone beyond the bounds of even-handedretaliation. What, then, was the change which now took place? And how maywe account for it?

[Sidenote: 1555 The persecution]

The sanction of parliament had at last been obtained by the Acts justpassed for the enforcement of the old religion by the old methods. Therewas nothing novel about the procedure or the penalties; but practically areversion to the pre-latitudinarian line of demarcation between heresy andorthodoxy. All or very nearly all of the martyrs of the Marian persecutionwould have been sent to the stake under Henry for making the sameprofession of faith. The crucial question was acceptance ofTransubstantiation, for the denial of which several victims had perishedwithin the last twenty years, whose doom both Cranmer and Latimer had atthe time held to be justified. But in the interval, the conditions hadchanged. A large proportion of the most learned scholars had adopted thenew doctrine, and the legislature had sanctioned it. The methods which wereusually efficacious in stamping out sporadic heresy, methods which onlyinvolved an execution here and there, lost their efficacy when the heresyhad ceased to be sporadic. Hecatombs were required instead of occasionalvictims; and even the sacrifice of occasional victims had already begun torevolt the public conscience before Henry's career was closed. But this didnot alter the vital postulate. Falsehood was none the less falsehoodbecause it had been sanctioned for a time, none the less demanded drasticexcision. Gardiner, standing for the old order, saw nothing revolting inapplying again the principles which had been consistently applied before hebecame an old man. It is probable also that he expected immediate successto result from striking fearlessly and ruthlessly at the most prominentoffenders--the rule of action habitually adopted by Henry and Cromwell--arule generally maintained while Gardiner himself lived: that he neveranticipated the holocaust which followed. It is remarkable that in his owndiocese of Winchester there were no burnings. Mary had already sufficientlyproved her own freedom from vindictiveness; it cannot fairly be questionedthat she was moved entirely by a sense of duty however distorted. 

[Sidenote: Whose was the responsibility?]

From the Spaniards [Footnote: See Renard's correspondence, _passim_. But the numerous citations therefrom alike in the Anti-Catholic Froude andthe Catholic Stone (_Mary I. _) are sufficiently conclusive on thepoint. ] there was no incitement to persecution, but the contrary--not thatPhilip had any abstract objection, but both he and Renard were concernedentirely with the present pacification of the country and itsreconciliation to the Spanish marriage; both were aware that persecutionwould have the opposite effect. The demand for the suppression of heresydid not take its rise among the lay nobility, of whom the majority wereprepared to accept whatever formulae might be most convenient. The theory[Footnote: Moore, p. 221, asserts this view. ] that they rather than asection of the clergy were the moving cause has no foundation in theevidence, beyond the fact that the Council officially as a body urgedBonner and others forward. Paget and his associates certainly resisted theenactments at first. Still neither they nor the Commons can be freed fromresponsibility. The persecution was not however a move of one politicalparty against the other; no section was so committed to protestantism as tobe exposed to serious injury: no political motive can be evenformulated. Vindictiveness, or a moral conviction of the duty of stampingout heresy, alone can make the proceedings intelligible. Of the formerthere is no fair proof, while the latter is entirely consistent with theprevailing spirit among the zealots on both sides, and with the knowncharacter of the persons who must be regarded as the principalinstigators. Its source lay with Mary herself, a passionately devoteddaughter of the old Church, and with a few ecclesiastics. Since there is nodoubt that from the time of Pole's arrival, his influence predominated withher personally, he, more than Gardiner, must share with her the ultimateresponsibility. 

[Sidenote: Comparison with other persecutions]

Of old, an occasional example had sufficed to hold heresy in check; thechanged conditions were not now realised. The case had ceased to be one ofchecking; nothing short of up-rooting would now be of any avail. For Mary, with her intense conviction of the soul-destroying effect of heresy, nosufferings in the flesh would have seemed too severe to inflict if therebysouls might be saved. But a persecution such as she initiated wasabsolutely the most fatal of all courses for the end she had in view. Tensof thousands among her subjects had assimilated the new ideas, and wereprepared to die rather than surrender their hope of Heaven. These themartyrdom of a few hundreds could not terrify; and the heroic endurance ofthe martyrs changed popular indifference into passionate sympathy. Appliedon this scale, the theory of conversion by fire, hitherto generallyacquiesced in, brought about its own condemnation. Such a persecution, onthe simple issue of opinion, has never again been possible in England. Catholics or Covenanters might be doomed to death, but the excuse had to bepolitical. Religious opinions as such might be penalised by fines, imprisonment, the boot or the thumbscrew, the imposition of disabilities;still the ultimate penalty had to be associated at least with the idea oftreason. In Mary's time, heresy as such was the plain issue. The status ofall but some half dozen of the early clerical victims precludes any otherview: and the first movement against the heretics in January 1555 wascontemporaneous with an amnesty for the surviving prisoners of the Wyattrebellion. The immediate practical effect was that every martyrdom broughtfresh adherents to protestantism, and intensified protestant sentimentwhile extending the conviction that persecution was part and parcel of theRoman creed. That any of those responsible, from Mary down, took an unholyjoy in the sufferings of the victims, appears to be a libel wholly withoutfoundation; for the most part they honestly believed themselves to beapplying the only remedy left for the removal of a mortal disease from thebody politic; Bonner, perhaps the best abused of the whole group, constantly went out of his way to give the accused opportunities ofrecanting and receiving pardon. The fundamental fact which must not beforgotten in judging the authors of the persecution is, that the generalhorror of death as the penalty for a false opinion was not antecedent tobut consequent upon it. What they did was on an unprecedented scale inEngland because heresy existed on an unprecedented scale; and the resultwas that the general conscience was awakened to the falseness of theprinciple. The same ghastly error for which Christendom has forgiven MarcusAurelius was committed by Mary and endorsed by Pole, both of them by naturelittle less magnanimous and no whit less conscientious than the Romanemperor, though the moral horizon of both was infinitely more restricted. 

[Sidenote: Gardiner]

The Marian persecution lasted for nearly four years. During that time, thenumber of victims fell little if at all short of three hundred, of whomone-fourth perished in the first year. The striking feature of the year isthe distinction of the sufferers. One only of high position went to thestake after Gardiner's death--which took place only a few days after theburning of Ridley and Latimer, in November--that one, the highest of all, the whilom head (under the King) of the English Church. And he had thenalready been doomed. These facts point to the definite policy pursued bythe Chancellor--the application of the principles which had proved soeffective under Henry and Cromwell. Every prominent leader of theReformation party who had not elected to conform was either dead or doomedor in exile within a twelve-month of the revival of the Heresy acts. Afterhis time there was no process of selection; the victims were simply takenas they came. To find a sort of excuse in the conviction of an imperativeduty to crush out the poison of heresy at any cost is in some degreepossible. The attempt to explain the matter as in fact a crusade againstAnabaptism [Footnote: _Cf. _ Moore, P. 220. ] as a social and politicalcrime makes the thing not better but incomparably worse; while theendeavour to compare it with any other persecution in England is absurd. Henry before and Elizabeth afterwards could be ruthless; but while onereigned thirty-eight years and the other forty-five, yet in neither reignwas the aggregate of burnings or executions for religion so great as inthese four years of Mary's. 

[Sidenote: Some characteristics]

In London itself, in Essex, and in the dioceses of Norwich and Canterbury, many informations were laid. Some five-sixths of the deaths were sufferedwithin this restricted area, nearly half of these falling under thejurisdiction of Bonner; so that he was naturally looked upon as the movingspirit, and his conduct was imagined in the most lurid colours. As a matterof fact there is little sign that he initiated prosecutions--indeed hereceived a fairly strong hint from the Queen and Council that he was lessactive than he might have been; he certainly tried hard to persuade theaccused to recant and escape condemnation; in several cases where he hadhopes he deferred handing them over to the secular arm. But protestantswere very disproportionately numerous in his diocese; if the acceptedprinciple were sound at all, he of all men was most bound to strictnesswith the persistently recalcitrant, and that fact of itself sufficed toencourage heresy-hunters. Moreover in London, it must also be remarked, heresy was particularly defiant and audacious, and was not infrequentlyaccompanied by acts of gross public disorder which merited the sharpestpenalties quite apart from questions of orthodoxy. Acts of ruffianism weredone in the name of true religion, [Footnote: _E. G. _ the notoriouscases of William Branch or Flower, and John Tooley. ] and the doers thereofwere enrolled among the martyrs. Moreover among the genuine martyrs forconscience' sake--by far the majority of those who suffered--not a few werezealots who took up their parable against the judges when under examinationin a fashion calculated to enrage persons of a far less cholericdisposition than the bishop of London. In short if once the postulate begranted that to teach persistently doctrines regarded by authority as falseis deserving of the death penalty, the manner [Footnote: The popularimpression is derived mainly from accounts based on Foxe's _Book ofMartyrs_. Stripped of picturesque adjectives and reduced to a notsuperfluously accurate statement of facts resting on easily acceptedstories by a strongly biased reporter, his evidence against Bonner andGardiner is not very damnatory. ] in which Bonner and his colleaguesconducted their task is not to be greatly censured. In Ireland, and inseveral English dioceses, there were no actual martyrdoms. 

[Sidenote: The first Martyrs]

The new year, 1555 had barely begun before the revived heresy laws were setin operation. For Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, all now at Oxford, therewas to be some delay; for the chief prisoners elsewhere there was none. These were headed by Hooper and Ferrar, both bishops; Rogers, commonlyidentified with the "Matthew" of _Matthew's Bible_; Rowland Taylor ofHadley, a man generally beloved; Bradford, who had begun life as a rogue, but becoming converted, had lived to make restitution, so far as waspossible, for the wrong doings of his youth, a very genuine instance of astriking reformation. Most of them belonged to the school of Ridley ratherthan of Hooper; but on the question of Transubstantiation, all were equallyfirm--and all were now in the eye of the law undoubtedly heretics. Had theyrecanted, they would have suffered but lightly. They were urged to do so, but steadfastly refused. It must even be admitted that they challengedmartyrdom, for before they were brought to trial, the London group, including most of those above named, had issued an appeal which waspractically a solemn reproof to those whose opinions differed from theirown. Rogers was the first to suffer; after brief intervals all of thosenamed went to the stake. 

[Sidenote 1: Trial of Cranmer (Sept. )][Sidenote 2: Martyrdom of Ridley and Latimer (Oct. )]

Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, were all condemned as a result of thedisputation held at Oxford in 1554: but since this preceded thereconciliation with Rome, it was not accounted sufficient. On the oldCatholic theory, the Metropolitan of England could only be condemned by theauthority of the Pope himself--direct, or delegated _ad hoc_. Thefirst move was made against him in September, before a court whose businesswas not to adjudicate, but to lay its conclusions before the Pope himself. Cranmer declined to recognise the authority, answering the charges broughtagainst him not as a defendant on trial but as making a public professionof his views. Judgment however could not be passed till the results weresubmitted to the Pope. In the meantime, Ridley and Latimer were condemnedunder legatine authority, and were burnt at Oxford in November. Cranmer issaid to have witnessed the martyrdom from his prison. The aged Latimer'sexhortation to his companion at the stake rang like a trumpet note throughthe Protestant world. Ridley was the learned theologian and keencontroversialist who more than any other man had moulded the plastic mindof the Archbishop since he had been released from the thraldom of Henry'smoral and intellectual domination: who had led the campaign against"idolatry" but stood fast against the extravagances of the Nonconformists:who had without hesitation opposed Mary's accession. No one could havemurmured against his punishment for treason two years before; but he died amartyr, for denying Transubstantiation and the Papal authority. Latimer wasno theologian; but he was a pulpit orator of extraordinary power, anenthusiastic if erratic moralist, who had suffered for his own freelyexpressed opinions in the past and shown scant consideration for falseteachers--a quixotic but heroic figure. 

[Sidenote: Fate of the Archbishop 1555-56]

The condemnation by the court which tried the Archbishop carried with it nopenalty; that was reserved for the Pope to pronounce--by implication, inhanding him over to the secular arm, and explicitly by sentence ofdegradation, which was notified in December. Until this time Cranmerremained steadfast; but about the new year, he displayed signs of wavering, and was said to have been influenced by the arguments of a Spanish friar, Garcia. Possibly he attended Mass; certainly, about the end of January andbeginning of February (1556) he wrote three "submissions" recognising thepapal authority. These did not avail to save him from public degradation, in the course of which ceremony he produced a written appeal to a GeneralCouncil, which was ignored. Two more "submissions" followed, but in neitherdid he go beyond the admission that the papal authority was now valid, since the Sovereign had so enacted. Nevertheless, on February 24th the writcommitting him to the flames was issued. There is no reason to suppose thatthe idea of sparing him was ever entertained; but, wherever the blame lay, he was led to believe that a recantation might save him; and he did now atlast break down utterly, and recant in the most abject terms. Had this wona pardon, the blow would have been crushing; the Court in its blindnesssuffered him to retrieve the betrayal. His doom was unaltered. While thefagots were prepared, he was taken to St. Mary's Church to hear his ownfuneral sermon and make his last public confession; but that confession, tothe sore amazement and dismay of the authorities, proved to be the cry ofthe humble and self-abasing sinner repenting not his heresies but hisrecantations. And in accordance with his last utterance, when he came tothe fire he was seen to thrust forth his right hand into the flame, cryingaloud "this hand hath offended"; and so held it steadfastly till it wasconsumed. The chief prelate of the English Church was struck down at thebidding of a foreign Ecclesiastic; the recusant had been gratuitouslyglorified with the martyr's crown. It is likely enough that he won lesspersonal popular sympathy than his fellows; but the moral effect must havebeen tremendous. 

[Sidenote: Cranmer's record]

It is natural but hardly just that Cranmer should be judged on the basis ofthe impression created by his last month of life. That the protagonist in agreat Cause should recant in the face of death seems to argue an almostincredible degree of pusillanimity, and suggests that pusillanimity andsubservience are the key to his career. Nevertheless, but for that shorthour of abasement nobly and humbly retrieved, the general judgment wouldprobably be altogether different. And that breakdown does not appear tohave been characteristic. Twice in the reign of Henry he had bowed to theKing's judgment, acknowledging that Anne Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell must beguilty since Henry was convinced: but there was no man in the country whotook the part of either. To have defied the King would have been heroic, and there is a wide interval between failing of heroism and beingpusillanimous. He withdrew his resistance to Northumberland's plot; but heresisted on the ground that it was illegal and withdrew only when he wasassured that the Judges had unanimously affirmed its legality. He changedhis views on Transubstantiation; but to surrender an abstruse dogma is nota crime. He repeatedly maintained opinions in opposition to Henry as wellas to Mary at the risk of losing royal support and favour--which loss wouldcertainly have meant delivering himself into the hands of his enemies. Inpractice he conformed to the restrictions laid upon him, but it was only onpoints of expediency that he personally gave way, though he would fain haveallowed to others a larger latitude of opinion than he required forhimself. 

[Sidenote: His character]

Yet the virtues of Thomas Cranmer fail of recognition. The extreme Anglicanjoins with the Roman Catholic in condemning the ecclesiastical leader ofthe Schism; the puritan condemns the advocate of compromise; and theadvocate of compromise, at least within the clerical ranks, condemns theErastian cleric. In his day, and in Elizabeth's, the lay statesmen wereErastians to a man; that is forgiven to them; but the ecclesiastic whoadopts and preaches without reservation the theory that the Church--itsorganisation, its administration, even its doctrines--is ultimately subjectto the secular sovereign, essentially and not owing to the accidentalsanction of force--such a one is inevitably regarded as a traitor to hisorder; that he was guided by honest conviction seems incredible. Cranmerwas a man of peace, driven to do battle in the front rank; an academic, forced to take a leading part in exceedingly practical affairs; a student, compelled so far as he might to control a revolution. Yet to him, more thanany other single man, it is due that the Church of England allows a largerlatitude of opinion within her borders than any other, and that shepossesses a liturgy of unsurpassed beauty. A man so weak, so lacking inself-reliance, can hardly be called great; yet one who, despite hisweakness, has carved himself so noble and so lasting a monument can hardlybe denied the epithet. 

For the rest of the persecution it is sufficient to say that year by yearthe number of victims did not diminish; neither sex nor age broughtimmunity; but as they were of less standing, an attempt was made tointensify the effect by putting them to death in larger batches--whichincreased the horror. The laymen of station, it may be remarked, with oneaccord conformed, at least outwardly. 

[Sidenote: 1555 Philip's policy]

The Parliament which passed the Heresy Acts was dissolved before the end ofJanuary. Rogers was burnt some three weeks later. Symptoms of unrest werequickly apparent, and Philip felt it necessary to dissociate himselfpublicly from the persecution. On this point Renard was urgent, and he wasalso anxious about the succession. If the Queen's hopes of a child shouldbe disappointed, neither Mary Stewart nor Elizabeth would besatisfactory. The only thing to be done was to secure a convenient husbandfor the latter, and a project was on foot (not with her approval) formarrying her to the Prince of Savoy, which might incidentally make theEnglish more disposed to join in the war with France, which was inoccupation of Savoy. But by April the belligerents were thinking of holdinga conference to discuss terms of peace, with an English Commission tomediate. 

[Sidenote 1: Pope Paul IV. ][Sidenote 2: Mary has no child]

The death of Pope Julius, however, promptly followed by that of hisimmediate successor Marcellus, caused the election of the Cardinal Caraffawho became Paul IV. On both occasions, Reginald Pole had been perhaps thefavourite candidate: but the election of Paul was a victory for the French, the new Pope being an austere zealot with a violent anti-imperialprejudice. Having thus secured the papal alliance, Henry of France was byno means disposed to so easy a compromise as had been looked for. Theconference collapsed. If Philip really had hoped, as rumour said, to beenabled by the peace to introduce Spanish troops into England for his ownends, he was doomed to disappointment. So it was also with his hopes of anheir to secure him the English succession. Mary had been misled partly bythe symptoms of what proved to be a fatal disease and partly by hystericalhallucinations. It became certain that there was no prospect of her everhaving a child at all; which necessitated a complete reconsideration of theSpanish prince's policy. Possibly also the expectation that the Queen'slife could not be a long one led the nobles with protestant inclinations toacquiesce in the prolonged persecution rather than countenance a danger ofcivil war. Neither they nor Elizabeth could be implicated in any of theabortive conspiracies which cropped up periodically during the remainder ofthe reign. 

[Sidenote: Effect on Philip]

In August, Philip left the country, not to return again till more thaneighteen months had passed; and then only for a very brief sojourn. Already his father was meditating abdication in his favour, and Philip waspondering how he might secure at least a preponderating influence withElizabeth, whose ultimate accession he regarded as inevitable. Thus theSpanish counsels were now directed largely to securing favourable treatmentfor her--a complete reversal of Renard's earlier policy. It may be that theidea of marrying her himself after her sister's death was even now presentin Philip's mind. 

[Sidenote: Oct. A new parliament]

In October, about the time of the martyrdom of Ridley and Latimer atOxford, a fresh parliament was summoned, which was called upon to grant asubsidy. The diminution in the royal revenues from normal sources, whichhad been growing steadily more serious throughout the last twenty years, made the appeal necessary; the more so as the Queen had been honestlystruggling to pay off the debts bequeathed to her. The subsidy was grantedin part at least owing to the exertions of Gardiner, who in spite of mortalillness attended the opening of parliament. 

[Sidenote: Nov. Gardiner's death and character]

It was his last public act. A few days later he followed Ridley and Latimerto the grave; dying stoutly, in harness almost to the last. He was of theold school of ecclesiastical statesmen. Five and twenty years before, hehad been statesman first, churchman afterwards; but when he found that theecclesiastical organisation as well as the Pope was the objective ofHenry's attack, he took his stand by his Order, though stubbornly loyal tothe King. In Henry's later years, he tried a fall with Cranmer and wasworsted through the King's favour. All through the reign of Edward, hewatched with continual protest--mostly from prison--the toppling over ofthe fabric which Henry had established; himself, as he judged, the victimof unconstitutional oppression. Released and restored to power by Mary, herepented what he conceived to have been his initial error, the repudiationof Roman authority, and was not averse to exacting the full penalty fromthose who had dealt hardly with him; was zealous to restore the power ofthe Church and to stamp out heresy. But to the last, he stood for the Law, and for English freedom from foreign domination, and to the last he foughtfor his Queen. His wildest panegyrist would not call him a saint; butaccording to his lights he was rarely cruel or even unjust, though oftenharsh; the records of his life have been written almost entirely bybitterly hostile critics; [Footnote: This applies not only to theProtestant historians, but also to the correspondence of Renard (on accountof the Chancellor's anti-Spanish attitude), and of Noailles who detestedhim personally. ] and his name deserves more honour and less obloquy than isusually attached to it. 

[Sidenote: Mary's difficulties]

An embassy to Rome earlier in the year, which had been charged with theformal announcement of the reconciliation, had also intimated Mary'sintention of restoring to the Church such of the alienated property asstill remained in the hands of the Crown. The new Pope was with difficultyrestrained from demanding more. Parliament however, when a bill wasproposed for the restoration of "first-fruits and tenths" displayed so muchresentment at the suggestion that it was so modified as only to authorisethe Queen to dispose personally of the "tenths" actually remaining in herhands. Even this was not carried without vehement opposition. Animpoverished exchequer which required replenishment by a subsidy could notafford to surrender a solid portion of revenue to Rome. The hostility toany such tribute was no less active than it had been twenty-five years ago:and the Pope's attitude served only to intensify the feeling, and to stirup general animosity towards the Papacy. The Opposition was so outspokenthat some of the members were sent to the Tower. Parliament was dissolvedbefore Christmas. 

[Sidenote: 1556; The Dudley conspiracy; Foreign complications]

In January, Charles abdicated--his Burgundian possessions he had resignedto his son three months before--and Philip became King of Spain. Nextmonth, the peace of Vaucelles was signed between France and Spain; but witha consciousness that war was likely to be renewed at the first convenientopportunity. Philip's hands were full, and the French King did not ceasefrom intrigues in England, while French soil continued to be an asylum forEnglish conspirators. In March, Cranmer closed the tragedy of his life, andPole, who had long ago been nominated to the Archbishopric, was immediatelyinstalled. Before Easter, a plot on the old lines was discovered. Elizabethwas to be made Queen and married to Courtenay (now in Italy where he diedsoon after); France was to help. A number of the conspirators were takenand put to death after protracted examination; others escaped to France, including a Dudley, a connexion of the dead Northumberland, who gave hisname to the plot. Most of them were hotheaded young men, who did notappreciate, as did their shrewder elders, the danger of relying on Frenchassistance which would only be granted for ulterior ends. As the year wenton, the violent temper of Paul IV. Involved him in war with Philip; Francenaturally took up his cause; and it was more difficult than ever for Maryto escape being dragged into the imbroglio--a singularly painful positionfor so fervent a daughter of Rome; while the English refugees checkmatedtheir own party at home by their readiness to pay any price-even to thebetrayal of Calais-for French support. But for timely reinforcements, theEnglish foothold in France would probably have been captured by a _coupde main_ before the close of 1556. Meantime in England the severity ofthe persecutions was increased. 

[Sidenote 1: 1557, June: the War with France][Sidenote 2: 1558, Jan: The loss of Calais]

In the spring of 1557, France and Spain were again at open war, and Philippaid his last brief visit to his wife to obtain English co-operation. Anti-Spanish feeling was strong; but when one of the refugees, Sir ThomasStafford, [Footnote: A grandson of Buckingham] starting from France, landedin Yorkshire, captured Scarborough Castle, and attempted to raise arebellion, jealousy of French interference proved an effectivecounterpoise. The rebellion collapsed at once, and war with France wasdeclared in summer. The success of Philip's troops, which included aconsiderable English contingent, at St. Quentin in Picardy compelled theFrench to withdraw from Italy; and the Pope, thus deserted, was forced to areconciliation with Philip. His animosity however, now aroused againstEngland, was not easy to remove: and it was an additional source of griefto Mary and a great vexation to the Cardinal that Paul deprived him of hisLegatine authority. The contest between Philip and Henry of Francecontinued. It is curious that after the experience of the previous year theEnglish authorities still did not realise the precarious position ofCalais, and allowed the garrison to be weakened again--though the strain ofmaintaining its strength with the depleted exchequer would have been almostimpossible. The natural result followed. At the end of December, Guiseappeared before its walls: on January 6th 1558 it surrendered. Calais waslost for ever. A fortnight later, Guisnes, after a desperate resistance byits commandant, Lord Grey de Wilton, was forced to surrender also. 

[Sidenote: National depression]

Whatever else was won or lost in France, the maintenance of the Englishgrip on Calais had been a point of military honour for centuries--like theretention of its colours by a regiment. Nothing substantial was lost withits fall; but the wound to the national honour was deep and bitter. ForMary herself it was the bitterest portion in a cup that was filled withlittle else than bitterness. Talk of recapture was vain. A subsidy wasdemanded and granted, but only on the theory that the whole was requirednot for expeditions but to set the home defences in order against invasion. More could not be done without taxation, which the country could notsupport. In the attempt to fulfil what Mary and Pole deemed a pious andsupreme duty--the restoration to the Church of the property whereof it hadbeen sacrilegiously robbed--political considerations had been ignored andthe absolutely necessary expenditure on national objects had been divertedinto ecclesiastical channels, at a time when the national revenue wasalready desperately impoverished. The loss of Calais was reckoned as onemore item in the account against Rome. 

[Sidenote: Mary's death Nov. ]

The whole country was in fact in a condition of irritated despondency, sickof persecution, sick of disaster, disheartened by epidemics and badharvests; without the spirit or the material means to attempt a whole-hearted prosecution of the war, yet too sore to be willing to make peacetill Calais should be recovered. And so in despair and gloom dragged outthe last months of Mary Tudor's life. The last message she received fromher husband was to beg her to make no difficulties about the succession ofthe sister who, she knew, would seek to reverse her policy. It was not tillNovember that she passed away--to be followed in a few hours by her onetrused friend, Cardinal Pole: the most disastrous example on record of onewho with conscientious and destructive persistence aimed at an ideal whichher own methods made for ever impossible of attainment. 

[Sidenote: and character]

From the time of her childhood she was exposed to unceasing harshness; aprincess born, she was treated as a bastard; despite it all, her naturalgenerosity survived. Royally courageous, loyal and straightforward; to herpersonal enemies almost magnanimous; to the poor and afflicted pitiful;loving her country passionately: she was blind to the forces at work in theworld, obsessed with the idea of one supreme duty, and she set herself, asshe deemed, to do battle with Antichrist by the only methods she knew, though they were alien to her natural disposition, facing hatred andobloquy. She whose life was one long martyrdom, for conscience' sakeoffered up a whole holocaust of martyrs: she who thirsted for love diedclothed with a nation's hate. Where in all history is a tragedy morepiteous than that of Mary Tudor?

CHAPTER XVI

ELIZABETH (i), 1558-61--A PASSAGE PERILOUS

[Sidenote: 1558 Accession of Elizabeth]

On November 17th 1558, the sun had not yet risen when Mary passed away;within a few hours, Elizabeth had been proclaimed Queen. No dissentientvoice was raised in England. Heath, Mary's Chancellor and Archbishop ofYork, announced her accession to the Houses of Parliament; the proclamationwas drawn up by Sir William Cecil, the Council's Secretary under EdwardVI. From one quarter, and only one, could a colourable challenge come. Inthe legitimate course of succession by blood, the claim lay with MaryStewart, Queen of Scots and now Dauphiness of France. But the Will of HenryVIII. , authorised by Parliament, was paramount. That Will had givenpriority to the two children of his body who had both been declaredillegitimate--not born in wedlock--by the national courts. The Papalpronouncement in an opposite sense in Mary's case would have made nugatoryany attempt on the part of a Catholic to question her rights; but thatdifficulty did not apply in the case of Elizabeth. As a matter of practicalpolitics, the Scots Queen might waive her claim; as a matter of hightheory, no personal disclaimers could cancel the validity of her title; asa matter of English Constitutional theory, Elizabeth's legal title restedon the superior validity of a Parliamentary enactment as compared with thedivine right of inheritance. And in the minds of the entire English nation, there was unanimity as to the acceptable doctrine. But the rejecteddoctrine remained to fall back on if discontent should arise. 

[Sidenote: The claim of Mary Stewart]

The English people might settle the antagonistic claims of Mary andElizabeth to their own satisfaction: but the rivalry also of the verystrongest interest to the European Powers. Was actually queen of Scotland;prospectively she was also queen of France. If to these two crowns sheunited that of England, the hegemony of the empire thus formed wouldinevitably fall to France, and France would become the premier EuropeanPower. That position was now occupied by Spain, [Footnote: See _AppendixA_, ii. ] which, in the face of such a combination, would lose its navalascendancy, and be cut off from the Netherlands both by sea and land. ForPhilip therefore it was absolutely imperative to support Elizabeth at ailcosts. 

[Sidenote: Strength of Elizabeth's position]

Here then lay the strength of Elizabeth's position, which she and herchosen counsellors were quick to grasp. The only alternative to Elizabethwas the Queen of Scots; her accession would mean virtually the conversionof England into an appanage of France. Of Elizabeth's subjects none--whatever their creed might be, or whatever creed she might adopt--would beprepared to rebel at the price of subjection to France; the few hot-headswho had ventured on that line when Mary Tudor was at the height of herunpopularity had found themselves utterly without support. For the samereason, do what she would, Philip could not afford to act against her--morethan that, he had no choice but to interfere on her behalf if Henry ofFrance acted against her. He might advise--dictate--threaten--but he must, as against France, remain her champion, whether she submitted or no. Aslong as she kept her head, this young woman of five and twenty, with anempty treasury, with no army, a wasted navy, and with counsellors whosereputation for statesmanship was still to make, was nevertheless mistressof the situation. Mary Stewart's claim presented no immediate danger, though it might become dangerous enough in the future. 

There were two things then on which Elizabeth knew she could count; her ownability to keep her head, and the capacity for loyalty of the great bulk ofher subjects. If either of those failed her, she would have no one butherself to blame. The former had been shrewdly tested during her sister'sreign, when a single false step would have ruined her. The latter had bornethe strain even of the Marian persecution--nay, of the alarm engendered bythe Spanish marriage, which showed incidentally that fear of domination bya foreign power was the most deeply rooted of all popular sentiments; asentiment now altogether in Elizabeth's favour, unless she should threatena dangerous marriage. 

But the cool head and the clear brain, and unlimited self-reliance, werenecessary to realise how much might be dared in safety; to distinguish alsothe course least likely to arouse the one incalculable factor in domesticpolitics--religious fanaticism; which, if it once broke loose, might countfor more than patriotic or insular sentiment. And these were precisely thequalities in which the queen herself excelled, and which marked also theman whom from the first she distinguished with her father's perspicacity asher chief counsellor. 

[Sidenote: Cecil]

Throughout the last reign, Cecil had carefully effaced himself. In mattersof religion, though he had been previously associated with the Protestantleaders, he had never personally committed himself to any extreme line, andunder the reaction he conformed; as did Elizabeth herself, and practicallythe whole of the nobility. He had walked warily, keeping always on the safeside of the law, never seeking that pre-eminence which in revolutionarytimes is apt to become so dangerous. He was not the man to risk his neckfor a policy which he could hope to achieve by waiting, and he was quitewilling to subordinate religious convictions to political expediency. Onthe other hand, he never betrayed confidences; he was not to be bought; andhe was not to be frightened. Further, he was endowed with a penetratingperception of character, immense powers of organisation, and industry whichwas absolutely indefatigable. It was an immediate mark of the young queen'ssingular sagacity that even before her accession she had selected Cecil tolean upon, in preference to any of the great nobles, and even to Paget whohad for many years been recognised as the most astute statesman in England. 

[Sidenote: Finance]

Secure of her throne, Elizabeth was confronted by the great domesticproblem of effecting a religious settlement; the diplomatic problem ofterminating the French war; and what may be called the personal problem ofchoosing--or evading--a husband, since no one, except it may be the Queenherself, dreamed for a moment that she could long remain unwedded. Tothese problems must be added a fourth, less conspicuous but vital to thecontinuance of good government--the rehabilitation of the finances, of thenational credit. A strict and lynx-eyed economy, a resolute honesty ofadministration, and a prompt punctuality in meeting engagements, took theplace of the laxity, recklessness, and peculation which had prevailed ofrecent years. The presence of a new tone in the Government was immediatelyfelt in mercantile circles, and the negotiation of necessary loans became areasonable business transaction instead of an affair of usuriousbargaining, both in England and on the continent. Finally, before Elizabethhad been two years on the throne, measures were promulgated for calling inthe whole of the debased coinage which had been issued during the lastfifteen years, and putting in circulation a new and honest currency. Itseems to have been owing to a miscalculation, not to sharp practice, thatthe Government did in fact make a small profit out of this transaction. 

[Sidenote: Marriage proposals: Philip II. ]

Philip of Spain and his representatives in England had not realised thetrue strength of Elizabeth's position, and certainly had no suspicion thatshe and her advisers were entirely alive to it. On this point they hadabsolutely no misgivings. They took it for granted that the English queenmust place herself in their hands and meekly obey their behests, if only inorder to secure Spanish support against France. Philip began operations byproposing him self as her husband, expecting thereby to obtain for himselfa far greater degree of power than he had derived from his union with hersister, while inviting her to share the throne of the first Power inEurope. But Elizabeth and Cecil were alive to the completeness of the holdon Philip they already possessed; and Elizabeth, the daughter of AnneBoleyn, would have utterly stultified her own position by marrying her deadsister's husband, since it would be necessary to obtain a papaldispensation, acknowledge the Pope's authority, and recognise byimplication the validity of her father's marriage with Katharine ofAragon. To the ambassador's amazed indignation, the Queen with the supportof the Council, decisively rejected the honour. Paget, who had in the lastreign stood almost alone in commending the Spanish match, would haverepeated his counsel now; but he had been displaced, while Cecil and hismistress were entirely at one. 

The Queen's argument that the marriage, however attractive to herself ordesirable politically, was, from her point of view out of the question, wasunanswerable. The Spaniards had to cast about for some other candidate forher hand, whose success would still be likely to attach England to thechariot-wheels of Spain; besides seeking another bride for their own King. 

When Philip's hand was definitely declined, three months after Elizabeth'saccession, the most pressing danger arising out of the Marriage questionwas at an end. Thenceforward, dalliance with would-be suitors became simplyone of the tactical tricks of Elizabeth's diplomacy, employed by herperhaps not less to the torment of her own advisers than to theperturbation of foreign chancelleries; seeing that whether she knew her ownmind or not, up to the last she invariably took very good care that no oneelse should know it. 

[Sidenote: The Religious Question]

One of Philip's main objects was as a matter of course to secure England, through its queen, for Catholicism; and there is very little doubt that atthis time the majority of Englishmen--at any rate outside the dioceses ofLondon, Norwich and Canterbury--would have acquiesced much more readily inthe maintenance of the old forms of worship than in institutions modelledafter Geneva. Elizabeth however, with her trusted advisers, leaned neitherto the one nor to the other. They were guided by considerations not ofcreed but of politics. They had realised that the repudiation of theauthority of the Holy See, and the assertion of the supremacy of thesovereign in matters ecclesiastical, were essential. If they weredetermined not to submit to Papal claims, they were equally disinclined tosubmit to the claims of a Calvinistic Ministry, posing as the mouth-piecesof the Almighty, demanding secular obedience on the analogy of Samuel orElijah. As to creed, what the statesmen saw was that the utmost latitude ofdogmatic belief must be recognised; provided that it was consistent withthe supremacy of the secular sovereign, and with a moderately elasticuniformity of ritual. The personal predilections of Elizabeth might be infavour of what we call the Higher doctrines, or those of Cecil might leanto the Lower; but neither was willing to impose penalties or disabilitiesfor opinions or practices which did not tend either to the anarchism of theAnabaptists, or to the Sacerdotalism of Rome on the one hand or Geneva onthe other hand; both were even disposed to remain in officialunconsciousness of such individual transgressors as could conveniently beignored. 

[Sidenote: A Protestant policy]

While the Spanish ambassador, De Feria, like his master, had almost takenit for granted that if Philip offered to marry Elizabeth he would beaccepted, he was from the first greatly perturbed as to the attitude of thenew Government towards the religious question. That Cecil was going to bechief minister, and that he was, in the political sense, a Protestant, wereboth manifest facts. All the extreme Catholics, and some of the moderateones, were displaced from the Council; those who were left might prefer theMass to the Communion, but only as King Henry had done. The new memberswere definitely Protestants. Heath, Archbishop of York, Mary's Chancellor, though personally esteemed, gave place to Nicholas Bacon (as "LordKeeper"), whose wife and Cecil's were sisters, and measures were beingtaken to secure a Protestant House of Commons when Parliament shouldmeet. The number of lay peers was increased by four Protestants; among thetwenty-seven bishoprics, Archbishop Pole had omitted to fill up severalvacancies, while a sudden mortality was afflicting the episcopalbench. Around the queen, Protestant influences were immenselypredominant. It is quite unnecessary to turn to an injudicious letter fromPope Paul to find a motive for the anti-Roman attitude which from the veryoutset was so obvious to De Feria. [Footnote: _MSS. Simancas, apud_Froude, vii. , p. 27. De Feria to Philip. ] Whatever prevarications orambiguities Elizabeth might indulge in to him, it is quite clear that, whether she liked it or not, she felt that her position required ananti-Roman policy, if her independence was to be secured and the prestigeof England among the nations was to be restored. 

[Sidenote: 1559 Parliament: The Act of Supremacy]

The methods of the new Government however were to be strictly legal;changes must have parliamentary sanction. At the coronation, the authorisedforms obtained. But at the end of January, the Houses met; and during thefollowing four months the whole of the Marian legislation was wiped out, asMary had wiped out the legislation of the preceding reign. The firstmeasures brought forward were financial--as the first step Cecil had takenwas to dispatch an agent to the Netherland cities to negotiate a loan--aTonnage and Poundage bill, a Subsidy, and a First-fruits bill which markedthe revival of the claims of the Crown against ecclesiasticalrevenues. These bills were skilfully introduced, and well-received; for itwas expected that the money would be expended where it was needed, onnational defence. Next, the new Act of Supremacy was introduced, againstwhich the small phalanx of bishops fought with determination, supported bythe protest of Convocation. It was not in fact carried till April; and thenthe actual title of "Supreme Head, " which Mary and Philip had surrendered, was not revived, but a different formula was used, the Crown being declared"Supreme in all causes as well ecclesiastical as civil". The Act once morerepealed the lately revived heresy Acts, and forbade proceedings on theground of false opinions, except where these were opposed to the decisionsof the first four General Councils or the plain words ofScripture. Moreover, the refusal of the Oath was not to be treason, asunder Henry VIII. ; it merely precluded the recusant from office. All saveone of the Marian bishops did refuse it and were deprived; most of themdoubtless would have done so even in the face of the oldpenalties. Incidentally it authorised the appointment of a Commission todeal with ecclesiastical offences, which took shape five and twenty yearslater as the Court of High Commission. But taken altogether, the measurewas a long step in the direction of a much wider toleration than had everbeen practised before. 

[Sidenote: The Prayer-book, etc. ]

In the meantime, the Prayer-book had been undergoing a final revision; andhere Elizabeth's own wish would undoubtedly have been to revert to that of1549. The disciples however of the Swiss school were too strong, and thelast Prayer-book of Edward was the basis of the new one, though somesentences were so modified as to cause them dissatisfaction, and higherpractices in the matter of ornaments and ceremonial were enjoined. The Actof Uniformity, imposing the use of the Prayer-book on the clergy, resultedin resignations which according to the records did not exceed twohundred. To account for so small a number, we must suppose that theregulations were to a considerable extent evaded; if not, the clergy musthave been singularly obsequious. 

The only remaining Act of importance was that for the Recognition of theQueen, which declared her to be the lawful sovereign by blood, and repealedin general terms all Acts or judgments [Footnote: _Cf. _ Moore, p. 241. ] passed in a contrary sense, legitimating her without examining thegrounds on which her mother's marriage had been declared invalid--a methodof settling the question entirely sufficient on the theory of parliamentarysovereignty, but wholly inadequate on the theory of Divine Right. 

It was not till some months later that the depletion of the bench ofBishops by deaths or deprivations was remedied. Matthew Parker, a man ofmoderation and ability, was selected as Archbishop of Canterbury, theconsecration being performed by Barlow--who had resigned Bath and Wellsunder Mary--with Coverdale, Scory, and Hodgekins. The question whether theApostolic Succession was duly conveyed at the hands of these prelatesbelongs rather to ecclesiastical history--even to theologicalcontroversy--than to general history. It is sufficient here to observe thatit turns mainly on the doubt which has been thrown without realjustification on Barlow's own ordination as a Bishop. [Footnote: See theLives of Parker by Strype and Hook; and a brief summary in Moore, pp. 245-247. ] After the Archbishop's consecration, the vacant sees werefilled up, generally with moderate men, with a leaning towards Zurich oreven Lutheranism rather than the old Catholicism or Calvinism, but alwaysin accord with the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity. 

In point of time, however, the story of these last events has carried us ayear forward, and we have to return to the first six months of the newreign and the relations of Elizabeth to France. 

[Sidenote: France and Peace]

Before Mary's death, an armistice was in operation. England did not mean toconclude peace with France, unless Calais was restored, and Philip couldnot desert England lest an effort should be made to place Mary Stewart onthe throne--on which Henry could not venture while Spain supportedElizabeth. Unsuccessful diplomatic attempts were made to negotiateseparately with the allied Powers, and to induce Elizabeth formally torecognise the Queen of Scots as heir presumptive--which however she stoutlydeclined to do, being aware that the obvious effect of such a course wouldbe to invite her own immediate assassination, to secure Mary's immediateaccession. Moreover, Philip was not without a direct interest in England'srecovery of Calais, because of its position on the border of theNetherlands. In the event, however, the English felt that, since theSpanish marriage was rejected, the claims on Philip must not be pressed toohard; and in the final terms of the Peace of Cateau Cambresis, France wasallowed to retain Calais under promise to restore it after eight years, while she was formally to recognise Elizabeth as lawful queen of England, with the adhesion of Mary and her husband. 

Now however, parties and persons in Scotland become so inextricablyinterwoven with the English queen's policy and her relations with partiesand persons in France, that Scottish affairs demand close attention. 

[Sidenote: State of Scotland]

In December, 1542, James V. Of Scotland had died leaving a daughter just aweek old. When Elizabeth ascended the English throne, the Northern countryhad for sixteen years been governed or misgoverned by regents and Councilsof regency. From early childhood, the little queen had been brought up atthe French court, under the more particular tutelage of her uncles, theDuke of Guise and his brothers. In 1558, at the age of fifteen, she wasmarried to the Dauphin. Now (and for some time past) her mother, Mary ofGuise--not the least able member of a very able family--was Regent ofScotland, supported in that position against the Protestant factions by aFrench garrison. In the natural course of events, the Scottish Protestantparty looked to England for support, and favoured in the abstract the ideaof uniting the English and Scottish crowns, though in the concrete theywould not admit an English King. All Scottish sentiment, withoutdistinction of party, rebelled against any prospect of Scotland becoming anappanage of any foreign Power, and the idea of subordination to France wasonly less unpopular than that of subordination to England. Moreover, withtheir young queen married to the Heir Apparent of France, and with a Guisesupported by French troops as Regent in Scotland, this latter danger seemedthe less pressing. 

Now the extremes of religious partisanship were more general and moredeeply rooted in Scotland than in England; partly because the corruption ofthe clergy had been more flagrant; partly because in a country where deedsof violence were comparatively ordinary, they had been freely committedunder the cloak of religion. The French influence had been cast against theReformation. The Reformers had murdered Cardinal Beton; John Knox had beentaken from St. Andrews to the French galleys; and the Preachers were at warwith the Regency. The two men who were about to prove themselves along withKnox the ablest statesmen in Scotland--James Stewart, afterwards famous asthe Regent Murray, and young Maitland of Lethington--were on the side ofthe Preachers, and of what was the same thing, now that a Protestantgovernment was restored in England, the English alliance. Moreover it hasto be borne in mind that whereas in England the Reformation was imposed, whether willingly or unwillingly, on the Nation by the Government; inScotland it was a popular movement which a Government, itself half French, endeavoured to repress. Whatever the sincerity of the aristocratic leadersmight be, the Scottish Reformers felt themselves to be fighting for theirliberties against an alien domination. 

[Sidenote: 1559 Religious parties in Scotland]

In the spring of 1559 the quarrel between the party of the Preachers andthe Regency assumed a very threatening aspect. After the peace of CateauCambrésis, in March, the French King decided in favour of ananti-Protestant policy. In spite of the promise to recognise the title ofthe English queen, the Dauphin and his wife were allowed to assume the Armsof England, and it seemed that Mary of Guise in Scotland was about to wagea more active war than of late against the heretics; also that more Frenchtroops would be sent to help her. On the other hand, Knox, who on hisretirement from England had withdrawn to Geneva, to await an opportunitywhen his presence might be effective, now returned to Scotland in a veryunconciliatory spirit. For the party who desired union with England, it wasunfortunate that the great preacher while in exile had issued a tractentitled _The Monstrous Regiment of Women_, aimed against the twoMaries, but inferentially (though not of set purpose) condemning Elizabeth;who entirely refused to forgive him, while he on the other hand refused toeat his words. The fact undoubtedly increased the difficulty of harmoniousaccord between the English Government and the Scottish "Lords of theCongregation, " as the Protestant leaders entitled themselves collectively. 

[Sidenote: Arran as a suitor to Elizabeth]

The situation however produced a new candidate for the hand of Elizabeth inthe person of the Earl of Arran, son of the quondam Earl of Arran now Dukeof Chatelherault. The Duke was head of the house of Hamilton, and was infact at this time heir presumptive [Footnote: As descending from thedaughter of James II. , sister of James III, Albany was now dead. ] to thethrone of Scotland. If then a legitimate ground could be devised fordethroning Mary--as for instance, if she employed foreign (_i. E. _French) troops against her subjects lawfully maintaining theirconstitutional rights--the succession would fall to the Hamiltons; and ifArran and Elizabeth were married, the crowns of the two kingdoms would beunited. Thus this marriage became a primary object with the Lords of theCongregation; and the Earl was included in the list of those with whoseaspirations Elizabeth coquetted. 

In July, the French King was killed in a tournament. Francis and Marybecame king and queen of France and Scotland, and Mary's uncles the Guisesimmediately became decisively predominant with the French Government. 

[Sidenote: The Archduke Charles]

The Spanish ambassador was in the greatest anxiety. The one thing hismaster could not afford was to see the queen of France and Scotlandestablished as queen of England also. But it was only less necessary toavoid war with France on that issue. If the Arran marriage were in seriouscontemplation, Mary would have very strong justification for asserting herclaim to England as a counter-move. What Philip wanted was that Elizabethshould marry his cousin the Archduke Charles, a younger son of his unclethe Emperor Ferdinand who had succeeded Charles V. Then Philip wouldpractically have control of England; France would not venture to grasp atthe crown; and Elizabeth would of course have to leave the Scots tothemselves. Elizabeth saw her advantage. She prevaricated with the Scotsabout the Arran marriage, and with Philip about the Austrian marriage. Shedid her best to make the Lords of the Congregation fight their own battles, a task which they were equally bent on transferring to England. Andmeantime, Cecil never wavered in his determination of at least maintainingthe Scottish Protestants against active French intervention: while thewhole body of Elizabeth's more Conservative Counsellors favoured theAustrian marriage and non-intervention in Scotland. 

[Sidenote: Wynter sails for the Forth; 1560]

Elizabeth's own procedure was entirely characteristic. She had, it wouldseem, no sort of intention of marrying either Charles or Arran; but sheworked her hardest to persuade their respective partisans of thecontrary. Her officers were in secret communication with the Scots, andwere supplying them with money, while she was openly vowing that she wasrendering them no assistance whatever. Neither Scots nor Spaniards trustedher, but neither altogether disbelieved. Finally--having devoted theparliamentary grants and all available funds to the equipment of herfleet--when it was evident that a French expedition was on the point ofsailing for the Forth, she allowed Admiral Wynter to put to sea; withorders to act if opportunity offered, but to declare when he did so that hehad transgressed his instructions on his own responsibility. In January, 1560, Wynter appeared in the Forth, seduced the French into firing on himfrom the fort of Inch Keith, and blew the fort to pieces--in self-defence. Meantime, D'Elboeuf, brother of Guise, had sailed with a powerful flotilla, which was however almost annihilated by a storm. For a time then at leastthere was no danger of another French expedition to Scotland. Wynter'sfleet commanded the Firth of Forth, and the French soon found that, exceptfor an occasional raid, they would have to confine their efforts to makingtheir position at Leith impregnable. 

[Sidenote: Difficulties of France]

Wynter's protestations that he was not acting under orders can hardly havedeceived any one, though the Queen, Cecil, and Norfolk [Footnote: Grandsonof the old duke, and son of the Earl of Surrey executed by Henry VIII. ]--who had accepted the command on the Border, after refusing it--confirmedhis story. The Spaniards were intensely annoyed. Philip proposed that heshould himself send an army to Scotland, to put affairs straight; but thiswas equally little to the taste of the French and the English. Moreover, Philip had not yet grasped the fact that the one way to make Elizabethdefinitely defiant was, to threaten her. Hitherto she had repudiatedWynter's action, and refused to allow Norfolk to march in support of theCongregation, though she had secretly given them encouragement and hardcash; now she came to a definite agreement with them, and by the end ofMarch Norfolk was over the Border. The Queen had doubtless drawnencouragement from the latest turn of affairs in France. D'Elboeufsdisaster had greatly diminished the present danger of attack from thatquarter; while now the conspiracy of Amboise revealed such a dangerousdevelopment of party antagonisms in France as to make it unlikely that shewould be able to spare her energies for broils beyond her own borders. Theaim of the plot was to overthrow the Guises, and place the young king andqueen under the control of the Protestant Bourbon princes, Condé andAnthony King of Navarre. [Footnote: See _Appendix A_, vi. ] Theconspiracy itself collapsed, but it served as a very effectivedanger-signal. 

[Sidenote: Elizabeth's vacillations]

Elizabeth had no sooner allowed the advance into Scotland than she wasagain seized with her usual desire to avoid becoming involved in activehostilities; and she continued the exasperating practice--for her servants--of sending them contradictory and hampering instructions. The very menwho, like Norfolk, had been flatly opposed to the policy of interferencewere now convinced that, being once committed to it, there must be noturning back. Vacillation would presently drive the Congregation to such apitch of distrust that they would break with England in despair; whereasthe primary object of interference had been to make sure of a powerfulparty which would be inevitably committed to forwarding Elizabeth'sinterests. However, Philip again stiffened her by dictatorial messages, which failed to frighten because the essential fact remained true that hedared not facilitate the substitution of Mary for Elizabeth on the Englishthrone. The Queen refused to recall her troops, and explained elaboratelythat she was not taking part with rebels against their sovereign, but withloyal subjects who were resisting the abuse by the Guises of authorityfilched from Mary, who in her turn would approve as soon as she came toScotland and saw the true state of affairs. 

[Side note: The English at Leith]

And so the English army sat down before Leith and set about starving it andbombarding it; till the process appeared to be too slow, and Lord Grey deWilton, who was in command of the operations, was forced by urgent messagesagainst his own judgment to attempt an assault which was repulsed with verysevere loss. Elizabeth was shaken, but her Council remained resolute. Then, if she had really been afraid that Philip might actually mean what hethreatened, her fears were dispelled by a disaster to his fleet in a battlewith the Turks. She became aggressively inclined once more. The position ofLeith, despite the valour of its garrison, was becoming hopeless; and inJune the central figure of the French and Catholic party was removed by thedeath of the Regent Mary of Guise--an able woman, who had played her partwith unfailing courage, no little skill, and quite as much moderation ascould reasonably be expected, under extraordinarily difficult conditions. 

[Sidenote: the Treaty of Edinburgh July 6th]

Cecil had already been sent north to negotiate. The terms required were theentire withdrawal of French troops from Scotland, the recognition ofElizabeth's right to the throne of England, the recognition of her compactwith the Congregation as legitimate, and the confirmation of their demandsfor toleration. It was not till after the Regent's death that thearrangement known as the Treaty of Edinburgh was signed; by this instrumentthe French gave the promise that the demands of the Congregation should beconceded, but without formally admitting that Elizabeth was ever entitledto make a compact with Mary's subjects. The other two points were allowed, and the French departed for ever. Fortunately a dispatch from Elizabethrequiring more stringent terms (which would have been refused) arrived aday too late, after the treaty was signed. It was comparatively of littleconsequence that Mary declined to ratify the treaty. When the French hadgone, the Congregation were masters of the situation; and before the yearwas out, the French and Scottish crowns were separated by the death ofFrancis. The Guise domination in France was checked, and while Mary'saccession to the English throne remained desirable to the Catholic party inthat country, the hope of combining the three crowns under the hegemony ofFrance came to an end. 

[Sidenote: Elizabeth's methods]

The whole episode deserves to be dwelt on at length, because it veryforcibly illustrates the strength and the weakness of Elizabeth's methodsand the character of her entourage. She saw the sound policy; shemaintained her confidence in the men who also saw it. Yet she perpetuallywavered and hesitated till the eleventh hour to authorise the stepsnecessary to carrying it out. At the eleventh hour, she did authorise them;and that, repeatedly, because at the last moment an injudicious threatstirred her to defiance. For herself, she could have secured ingloriousease by simply accepting Philip's patronage, but she elected to play thedaring game, and won. Her methods were tortuous. She lied unblushingly, but she was an adept at avoiding acts which palpably would prove beyond adoubt that she was lying. The Spanish ambassador lived under a perpetualconviction that she was rushing on her own ruin--that she would drive hismaster to choose between the deplorable alternatives of fighting on herbehalf or allowing the Queen of France and Scotland to become Queen ofEngland also--that the Catholics would rise to dethrone her. But hercalculations were sound, and Norfolk himself commanded her armies andserved her loyally in a policy which, in his opinion, ought never to havebeen initiated. She never allowed herself to be bullied or cajoled; but sheperpetually kept alive the impression that a little more bullying or alittle more cajolery might turn the scale. And she drove the French out ofScotland. 

[Sidenote: The Dudley Imbroglio]

All the intriguing at this time about suitors for the hand of Elizabeth ismixed up with the scandals associated with the name of Lord Robert Dudley(afterwards made Earl of Leicester), a son of the traitor Duke ofNorthumberland. Lord Robert, although a married man, was allowed anintimacy with the Queen which not only points conclusively to an utterabsence of delicacy in the daughter of Henry VIII. And Anne Boleyn, butfilled the entire Court circle with the gravest apprehensions. It was thecurrent belief that if Dudley could get free of his wife, Elizabeth wouldmarry him, and that this desire was at the back of her vacillation. Theaffair was brought to an acute stage by the sudden death of Amy Robsart, Dudley's wife, in September; when already for some time past, hisinnumerable enemies had been hinting that he meant to make away withher. The facts are obscure; but the impression given by the evidence isthat she was murdered, though not with the direct connivance of herhusband. Still, the suspicion of his guilt was so strong that if the Queenhad married him she would have strained the loyalty of her most loyalsubjects probably to breaking point. Yet so keen was her delight in playingwith fire that it was many months before English statesmen began to feelthat the danger was past; while overtures were certainly made on Dudley'sbehalf to the Spanish Ambassador, De Quadra, to obtain Philip's sanctionand support, in return for a promise that the Old Religion should berestored. Sussex alone expressed a conviction that Elizabeth would find herown salvation in marrying for Love. Every one else was convinced that, whatever might be her infatuation for Dudley, marriage with him would spelltotal ruin for her: and there was a general belief that Norfolk and otherswould interfere in arms if necessary; while the secret marriage of LadyKatharine Grey (who stood next in succession under Henry's will) to LordHertford, son of the Protector Somerset, was suspected of being a move towhich even Cecil was privy, for placing her on the throne should the worstbefall. At last, when the limit of endurance was almost reached, Elizabethfinally declared that she was not going to marry the favourite. Judging herconduct by her whole career, it would seem that she never reallycontemplated the commission of so fatal a blunder, but could not resist thetemptation of tormenting her best friends, and torturing politicians ofevery kind with uncertainty--perhaps even of half believing herself thatshe actually would set all adverse opinion at defiance if she chose. 

[Sidenote: The Huguenots]

From one suitor at any rate Elizabeth felt herself freed by the death ofthe young French King in December. The main interest of France in theScottish Crown was thereby ended; more than that, the Huguenot Bourbons, who stood in France next in succession to the sons of Katharine de Medici, recovered for the time much of their power. The political arguments infavour of the Arran marriage lost enough of their force to enable theEnglish Queen to brave the wrath of the Congregation and finally declinethe Hamilton alliance. It is of interest to find Paget, once again calledin to her Counsels, declaring in favour of a Huguenot alliance, in despiteof Spain. 

[Sidenote: The Pope]

The position of the Huguenots in France, and the proposed resuscitation ofthe Council of Trent under the auspices of Pope Pius IV. , who had succeededPaul in 1559, had revived ideas of Protestant representation therein; andElizabeth, after her fashion, played with the hopes of the Catholic party, at home and abroad, that she might be drawn into participation. It was onlywhen it had become perfectly clear that the admission of the PapalSupremacy was a condition precedent, that these hopes were dashed, and theproposal that a papal Nuncio should be received in England, with which theQueen had been coquetting, was definitely declined; while Philip wasobliged to intimate to the Pope that he must not launch against therecalcitrant England ecclesiastical thunderbolts which would involve him inwar, whether against or on behalf of Elizabeth. 

[Sidenote: 1561 Mary sails for Scotland]

In the meantime however, both the Catholic party in Scotland and theCongregation were hoping to bring Mary back from France, and to control herpolicy when she should arrive. For the Protestants felt now that withoutforeign interference they could hold their own. Elizabeth had rejectedtheir scheme for bringing the union of the crowns in reach by the Arranmarriage: they were now bent on the alternative course of inducingElizabeth to acknowledge their own Queen as her heir presumptive. Maryherself was more than ready for the adventure. Elizabeth refused her apassage through England which might easily have been utilised, especiallyin the North, for the organisation of a Stewart party within the realm;while on the other hand it would obviously be an easy thing for an"accident" to happen while the Scots Queen was running the gauntlet of herships on the seas. But Mary was nothing if not daring. In August, accompanied by her Guise uncle, D'Elboeuf, she set sail from the "pleasantland of France, " and four days later, without disaster, the Queen of Scotslanded at Leith. 

CHAPTER XVII

ELIZABETH (ii), 1561-68--QUEENS AND SUITORS

[Sidenote: 1561 The Situation]

On August 19th, 1561, Mary Stewart returned to Scotland; in May 1568, sheleft her kingdom for ever. During those seven years, what she did, what shewas accused of doing, what she was expected to do, what she intended to do, formed the subject of the keenest interest and anxiety in England at thetime; and the problems and mysteries of those years, never unravelled tothis day, never with any certainty to be unravelled at all, continued toperplex English statesmen and to complicate the situation in England fornearly nineteen years more. We shall have to follow them therefore in muchgreater detail than would _a priori_ seem justifiable in a volumeostensibly dealing not with Scottish but with English History. 

During these same years it may be said that the great antagonisms wereformulated, which were to rend the two great Continental monarchies forforty years to come. Thus in order to follow the subsequent storyefficiently even from the purely English point of view, we must devote whatmay seem somewhat disproportionate attention to foreign affairs, which donot appear at first sight to have a very intimate connexion with events inEngland. For France these events may be summed up as the opening of the setstruggle between Catholics and Huguenots; for Spain, as the preliminariesto the revolt of the Netherlands: while for all Europe, the effectivesessions of the Council of Trent laid down finally the sharp dividing linebetween Protestant and Catholic--terms which have a well defined politicalmeaning, in neither case identical with their original or correcttheological import, in which latter sense half the Protestant worldcontinued to assert its claim to membership in the Catholic Church. 

[Sidenote: (1) The Council of Trent]

That Council reassembled under the auspices of Paul's successor, Pius IV. , in January 1562. While the Protestants could not recognise it as a CatholicCouncil, in the sense of representing the whole Catholic Church, it claimedthat character for itself, and those who maintained its authorityappropriated the name, which thus became a party title. In the course ofits sessions, it rejected doctrines, notably that of Justification byFaith, which had been strongly favoured even by such men as Pole andContarini, so narrowing the bounds of orthodoxy. But while cutting off allpossibility of reconciliation with the Protestants, it marked a strongtendency to reformation not of dogma but of practice; while an increasedintolerance of what was stigmatised as error, an intensification of thespirit which demanded the most merciless repression of heresy, wasaccompanied in other respects by an elevation of the standard ofecclesiastical morals, and a zeal for the Faith more pure and lessinfluenced by worldly considerations, if narrower, than in the past. Fromthis time, as the exemplar both of the new discipline, and of the newwarfare against heresy, the Order of Jesuits takes its place as thedominating force. The Council terminated in 1563; in 1566 the Pope died andwas succeeded by Pius V. , the nominee of the most rigid section of theChurch. 

[Sidenote: (2) France: Catholics, Huguenots, and _Politiques_]

In France, from the days of Francis I. , the tendency had been to persecutethe followers of the reformed doctrines, who were for the most partdisciples of Calvin rather than of Luther. On the other hand, the politicalattraction of alliance with the German Lutherans had served to keep themind of the court open, and throughout the sittings of the Council of Trentthere had been and continued to be threats that the Gallican Church mightfollow the Anglican in claiming independence of the Pope. In France howeverthe opposition lay between the Catholics and the Calvinists, who by 1561had acquired the general name of Huguenots: in England, the Reformation wascarried through under the auspices of a middle ecclesiastical party. InFrance the middle party was purely political, not aiming at a compromisetending to amalgamation, but rather at holding the two parties balanced. 

Before the death of Henry II. , the Guise brothers were recognised as theheads of the Catholic faction. The Duke, Francis, was the popular andsuccessful soldier who won back Calais from England: his brother, theCardinal of Lorraine, was one of the ablest of living ecclesiastics andstatesmen. There were four more brothers, all men of mark; and their sisterwas the mother of Mary Stewart. On the other hand, the family came fromLorraine only in the time of Francis I. , and though the first Duke of Guisemarried a daughter of the house of Bourbon, they were regarded withjealousy by a considerable body of the French nobility, who, partly inconsequence, threw their weight in favour of the Protestants. At the headof these now were Anthony of Bourbon, nominal King of Navarre in right ofhis wife, his brother Condé, and Admiral Coligny, with his brother theCardinal Chatillon. When Henry II. Died, the Guises--uncles of the newQueen (Mary Stewart)--assumed unmistakable supremacy; but when Francis alsodied, and was succeeded by his younger brother Charles IX. , theQueen-mother, Katharine de Medici, obtained for herself the regency, whichwould naturally have fallen to Navarre as next Prince of the Blood, and thecontrol passed not to the Huguenots but to the "_Politiques_". [Footnote: The name for the "Middle" Party, which was not however generallyadopted till a later date. ] It may be remarked that this century isnoteworthy for the number of women who made their mark in history aspoliticians; for Isabella of Castile was still living when it opened, andElizabeth of England when it closed; Katharine de Medici and Mary Stewartwere of ability not much inferior; while Mary of Guise, regent of Scotland, and Mary Tudor in England, were both striking figures; and the women ofCharles V. 's family were conspicuous as Governors of the Netherlands. 

[Sidenote: Religious war in France 1561-68]

The rule of the Politiques was, unlike that of the Guises, favourable totoleration--as a matter not of conscience but of policy. Katharine's wasthe controlling spirit, and her chief supporters in the policy were theChancellor L'Hôpital and the Constable Montmorency, a connexion ofColigny's but an orthodox Catholic. In January 1562 a large extension oftoleration was granted to the Huguenots, which roused the fanaticism of theother party and drew the Constable over to their ranks. Navarre was inducedto go over to the Catholics, leaving the Protestant leadership toCondé. Some of Guise's followers massacred a number of unarmed Huguenots atVassy; Paris, frantically anti-Huguenot, gave a triumphal reception toGuise, who held Katharine and the boy-king practically prisoners. TheHuguenots rose in arms; Navarre was killed, leaving a boy--afterwards HenryIV. --as his heir and the hope of the Huguenots; for his mother Jeanne ofNavarre had not followed her husband in his apostasy. A great battle, indecisive in result, was fought at Dreux, in which each of the commanders, Condé and Montmorency, fell into the hands of their antagonists; and then, in February 1563, Francis of Guise was assassinated by the fanatic Poltrot. About the same time died two of his brothers, D'Aumale and the Grand Prior. The result was the termination of the war by the Peace of Amboise, practically confirming the recent edict of toleration. Katharine stillrefused to adopt the policy, urged on her by Spain as well as by the Guisefaction, of suppressing the Huguenots by the sword. The Huguenots, however, believing that Katharine was merely actuated by motives of expediency, andwould seek to crush them if a favourable opportunity offered, organisedwith a view to enforcing their demands in arms, and again took the field in1567, thereby deciding the Regent in the policy which they had--up to thistime perhaps erroneously--attributed to her. For the time being, however, the war was closed in the spring of 1568, by a treaty confirming the termsof the previous Peace of Amboise. 

[Sidenote: The Netherlands and Spain]

The Netherlands or Low Countries was the general title of a group ofprovinces, corresponding in area roughly but not accurately to the modernStates of Holland and Belgium. These provinces, originally independentStates, but latterly associated in a loose federation, had owned allegianceto the Dukes of Burgundy, and so had passed in due course to Charles V. , who in turn transferred them to Philip shortly before his own abdication ofthe Spanish crown. The institutions within the provinces varied, as did thecharacter and race of their populations: but in general their industrialdevelopment was of a high standard, and their wealth was of greatimportance to the Spanish monarchy. At the hands of Charles, who wasbrought up as a Netherlander, they enjoyed considerable favour; but Philip, by instinct and training, was a Spaniard, who looked on them as a payingappanage of Spain, had no sympathy with them, and no regard for theirpolitical organisations, and did not set foot among them after 1559. Beforethat year, most of his time since his marriage with Mary had been spentthere; but in 1559 he departed, leaving as Governor his sister Margaret ofParma, and ignoring the nobility of the country. 

The Reformation doctrines had obtained a very extensive hold, moreparticularly in the Northern provinces; but had been suppressed withconsiderable rigour by Charles, who early established the Inquisition inthe country. By Philip the severities were increased, and the government ofMargaret of Parma was conducted on the like intolerant principles: herchief adviser being Philip's nominee, Cardinal Granvelle. The nativenobles--at whose head were Egmont, Horn, and William (the Silent), Princeof Orange [Footnote: William was a Netherlander in virtue of the lordshipof Breda. ] and Count of Nassau--as well as the burghers, were indignant atthe encroachment on the constitutional liberties of the provinces by theappointment of foreigners to offices of State, and by the presence ofSpanish troops; and the removal of both was demanded. The multiplication ofbishops and endowment of the new bishoprics constituted another grievance. The troops had to be withdrawn, and in 1564 Granvelle left the Netherlandsto join his master in Spain; but Philip's determination to bring the wholecountry into the system of Spanish despotism remained unchanged: andwhereas the whole population was in favour of general religious toleration, he insisted, in the face of remonstrance, on intensifying instead ofrelaxing the edicts against the Reformed doctrines. To avoid thepersecution, multitudes of Flemish weavers left the country, to be welcomedby Elizabeth in England, which was rapidly supplanting the commercialsupremacy of the Low Countries. 

[Sidenote: 1566 Resistance in the Netherlands]

In 1565 it was generally believed that Katharine de Medici was concertingmeasures, with the Duke of Alva on behalf of Spain, for the suppression ofheretics; and this brought matters in the Netherlands to a head. In 1566 aLeague, widespread though not openly supported by the greatest nobles, wasformed for the abolition of the Inquisition, an institution, introducedforty years before by Charles V. , which had worked as mercilessly as inSpain. The supporters of the league included Lewis of Nassau, brother ofWilliam of Orange; it was known as the Compromise, and its adherents werenick-named the _Gueux_, or beggars. The general ferment resulted inviolent anti-"idolatry" riots, accompanied by great destruction of Churchproperty. The disturbances were quieted down by the exertions of Egmont andWilliam of Orange; the Governor, Margaret of Parma, promising theconcessions they advised. Philip however was enraged, repudiated theconcessions, and in 1567 sent Alva with an army of Spanish and Italianveterans to restore order. Margaret, finding herself virtually superseded, retired. Alva's conception of order was the enforcement of the worst typeof combined military and ecclesiastical tyranny. Egmont (a Catholic), andHorn, though both had rendered the Government conspicuous assistance, werearrested; Orange escaped by retiring to his German dominions. NotProtestants only, but even Maximilian who now occupied the Imperial thronein succession to Ferdinand, remonstrated; yet Philip obstinately encouragedAlva to go on his way. William of Orange avowed himself a Protestant; andin the spring a mixed army of Netherlander, Huguenots, and Germans, tookthe field under Lewis of Nassau. The revolt of the Netherlands may bereckoned as dating from the first engagement, at Heiligerlee, in May1568. The Spaniards were worsted, and as an immediate consequence, Egmontand Horn were sent to the block. 

[Sidenote: Elizabeth, Mary, and their Suitors]

The arrival of Mary Stewart in Scotland brings her personality into moreintimate relation with that of Elizabeth than before. The problem offinding bridegrooms politically and personally acceptable to the two queensbecomes particularly prominent. Arran, flatly declined by Elizabeth, becomes for a time one of her cousin's actual suitors. The Archduke Charlesbecomes a possible candidate for either. Dudley, still looked upon asElizabeth's favoured lover, is offered by her to Mary as a husband. Now, too, we first meet with Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, [Footnote: SeeAppendix A, iii. ] whose mother, Lady Lennox, was daughter of Margaret Tudorby her second husband, the young man himself being a possible successor tothe English throne. Being an English as well as a Scottish subject, broughtup in England and therefore not, like Mary--whatever her claims bydescent--an alien, that technical ground for disputing her succession didnot apply to him. He too was mentioned as a possible suitor both forElizabeth's and for Mary's hand. Then there was Don Carlos, son of Philipof Spain by his first wife, to whom Mary had a political inclination; oragain there was for her a possibility of marrying her dead husband'sbrother, the boy-king Charles IX. Of France. Mary herself, it must beremembered, was still some months short of nineteen when she landed atLeith. And it was a matter of grave political importance to Elizabeth, whoshould be the man to share the Scottish throne. 

[Sidenote: 1562 Mary in Scotland]

Mary's reception was austere not to say brutal on the part of Knox and hisfriends; but the Earl of Murray (as Lord James Stewart soon after became)and Maitland, confident now in the security of Protestantism, were notdisposed to subordinate polities to zealotry. They were ready for a degreeof toleration. Their ultimate goal was the union of the crowns; and theywished Mary to repose her confidence on them. They would not press her toratify the Treaty of Edinburgh, at any rate unless she was formallyrecognised as heir presumptive of England. Mary, for her part, thoughholding by her own faith, was not slow to perceive that for the present atleast she must not challenge the Reformers. Her first business wasconciliation. 

The year 1562 was not far advanced when the first Huguenot war broke out inFrance. Condé was soon making overtures to Elizabeth, and her Protestantcounsellors, headed by Cecil, were zealous that she should lend his partyactive support, with the restoration of Calais to England as theprice. Philip of Spain, bent on suppressing the Netherlands heretics, wasstrongly on the side of the Guises, and threatened Elizabeth if she shouldventure to intervene. The house of the Spanish Ambassador in London was thecentre of much Catholic intriguing; and much of what was going on wasbetrayed to Cecil by a secretary. Elizabeth was angry enough, but could notafford an open rupture with Philip, who, now that Mary was no longer Queenof France, might find it in his interest to support her pretensions to theEnglish throne. On the other hand, the French Queen-mother could not nowview with complacency the succession of Mary with her Guise connexions, coupled with the possibility of her matrimonial alliance either with theSpanish Don Carlos or the Habsburg Archduke Charles. Elizabeth's own desirenow was to be in amity with Mary, and to have her married to some one whowould not be dangerous. For a long time she dallied with the idea ofmeeting Mary with a view to a settlement as to the ratification of theEdinburgh treaty and her recognition as heir presumptive; and Catholichopes ran high. But the successes of the Guise party in France forced herhand by alarming the Protestants. She had to decline the meeting with Mary, and at least to make a show of enforcing the laws against attendance atMass more energetically. She had, in fact, been letting herself believethat she could indulge her personal predilection for the more ceremonialworship of the old faith; but as usual when a crisis seemed, reallyimminent, her personal predilections were suppressed for the time. 

[Sidenote: 1562-63 Elizabeth and the Huguenots]

As the year went on, the intrigue with Condé reached a point at which theHuguenot leader actually handed over Havre to the English, and promised therestitution of Calais; and before the autumn was far advanced, the town wasgarrisoned, and a troop of English--ignoring instructions from home--wentto join Condé. The colour for Elizabeth's action was that the Guises hadusurped the government, and that they palpably and avowedly directed theirpolicy to the injury of England; also that she was entitled to takemeasures to ensure the restoration of Calais, promised by treaty. Thefighting went steadily against the Huguenots, and Elizabeth made themistake--in which the country supported her even with passion--of holdingCondé to his promise as to Calais, instead of applying herself to theestablishment of the Huguenots as a powerful Anglophil anti-Guiseparty. Throwing over the method which had so successfully cleared Scotlandof the French, she staked everything on the recovery of Calais, forced halfCondé's friends to look upon him as something very like a traitor, andalienated Huguenot sentiment completely. The battle of Dreux in December, followed early in the next year by the murder of Guise, led to the truce ofAmboise, in April, between the warring factions; England was left in thelurch. A desperate effort was made to retain the grip on Havre, but anoutbreak of the plague among the garrison ruined all chance of success. Itfell, and with it the last hope of recovering Calais (July 1563). It wasnot till the spring of 1564 that the French war was formally terminated bythe treaty of Troyes, when the English, after much vain haggling, foundthemselves obliged to accept the French terms. 

[Sidenote: The English Succession]

Near the end of 1562 the Queen had been stricken with smallpox and her lifeall but despaired of; so that the grave problem of the Succession assumed amomentary prominence. Henry's Will had never been set aside; but no onewould have viewed with favour the claims of the Greys. Mary of Scotland, the heir by inheritance, was an alien, and abhorrent to the Protestants. Darnley was the only remaining claimant of Tudor stock; [Footnote: Exceptthe Clifford or Stanley branch, junior to the Greys. See _Front. _]while the House of York had still representatives living, in two grandsonsof the old Countess of Salisbury executed by Henry--the Earl of Huntingdonand Arthur Pole, the latter of whom did actually become the centre of astill-born plot. What would have happened had the Queen died at thisjuncture it is impossible to guess: happily for England, she recovered. Butthe interest attaching to Mary's course was intensified. 

The Scots Queen had in the meantime ostensibly given her support to Murrayand Maitland, accompanying her half-brother on an expedition to crushHuntly, the head of the Catholic nobility. Murray and Maitland did theirbest during the early months of 1563 to force the recognition of theirQueen as Elizabeth's heir by the menace of her marriage with the Prince ofSpain; Elizabeth in turn did her own best to induce Mary to marry Dudley, whom she later on raised to the rank of Earl of Leicester. This unionhowever was one which neither Mary herself nor any of her counsellors wouldaccept; and when the year closed, Knox and the extreme Calvinists weregrimly assimilating the to them portentous probability that she would endby marrying either Don Carlos or the young King of France--either eventthreatening the restoration of the Old Church in Scotland. 

[Sidenote: 1564 Darnley and others]

The civil war in France ended, as we saw, in the triumph of thePolitiques. The corollary was the treaty of Troyes with England in thespring of 1564. The French court was now disposed to be friendly towardsElizabeth; the Guises had lost weight by the death of the Duke; Philip ofSpain saw nothing to gain by further embroilments; so the chances of Mary'smarriage either with his son or with Charles IX. Were small. The ScotsQueen began to give Darnley a leading place in her own mind, feeling that amarriage with him would give a double claim to the English succession, andone in favour of which the whole of the English Catholics would beunited. So far Elizabeth had only urged her to marry an English nobleman, with an implication that Leicester [Footnote: Dudley was not in fact raisedto the Earldom till the year was well advanced. ] was intended. Mary triedto extract approval for Darnley, but with the result only that Leicesterwas definitely and explicitly nominated. Yet even on behalf of herfavourite, the English Queen would not commit herself on the subject of thesuccession. On the other hand, with the exception of Maitland of Lethingtonwho was not actually opposed to the Darnley marriage on condition ofElizabeth's public approval, the Scottish Protestants were veryunfavourable to that solution. So the year passed in perpetual diplomaticfencing, Mary trying to draw Darnley to Scotland, while Elizabeth kept himat her own court, to which he with both his parents had been attached formany years past. It is not a little curious to find all this intriguingcrossed by a proposal from Katharine de Medici that King Charles shouldmarry not Mary but Elizabeth, who was eighteen years his senior: whileElizabeth herself was trying to revive the idea of her own marriage withthe Archduke Charles, whose brother Maximilian had just succeeded Ferdinandas Emperor. In February 1565, Elizabeth found it no longer possible toprevent Darnley's return to Scotland, and in April it was tentativelyannounced that he was to be Mary's husband. 

[Sidenote: 1565 The Darnley marriage]

It is not impossible [Footnote: The case for this view is effectively putin Lang, _Hist. Of Scotland_, ii. , pp. 136 ff. ; and _cf. _Creighton, _Queen Elizabeth_, p. 87. ] that privately Elizabeth hadexpected and desired that Mary should jeopardise her position precisely inthis manner, counting on the animosity to the marriage not only of Knox'sparty but of all the adherents of the rival house of Hamilton. If so shewas justified in the event. But publicly she expressed a strongdisapproval, which took colour from the risk that the marriage might serveto rally the English Catholics in support of the joint Stewart succession. At any rate, whether Mary merely miscalculated the political forces; or, weary of the shackles which preachers and politicians sought to impose onher, determined to take her own way at last at any cost; or allowed herselfto be swayed by an unaccountable fancy for the person of her young cousin, a spoilt, arrogant, and vicious boy; marry him she did, at the end of July:in defiance of the sentiment of all her Protestant subjects, half of whomwere really afraid of the attempted revival of Catholic domination, whilethe rest foresaw, at the best, the gravest political complications, and therevival of internecine clan and family feuds and intrigues. Mary howeverhad not taken the step until she was sure in the first place that there wasno prospect of her marriage with Don Carlos, and had in the second placereceived assurances of support from Philip [Footnote: _Cf. _ Hume, _Love Affairs of Mary Queen of Scots_, p. 262. Mary was aiming at aCatholic combination under Philip, with the active co-operation of Rome. Cecil and Elizabeth however had good reason from experience to count onSpain's immobility, and may very well have counted also on Darnley'simbecility. They knew him. ] if she married Darnley. For a girl of two andtwenty, working single handed, it was an exceedingly clever move--on thehypothesis that Philip was capable of taking open action, and Darnley ofacting with common decency and common intelligence. 

[Sidenote: Mary and Murray]

The Protestant lords however were not unanimous. Maitland and the Douglasesdid not join Murray and the Hamiltons who, even before the actual marriage, were practically in open rebellion. But Mary was now playing for her ownhand; if she had any trusted counsellor it was her deformed Italiansecretary, David Rizzio. She dropped diplomatic fencing. Elizabeth, who hadbeen privately sending money to Murray, remonstrated on his behalf; butMary asserted her right to deal with her own rebellious subjects. Now, asalways, she maintained that she had no intention of subverting theProtestant religion, though she desired the same freedom for Catholics asfor Calvinists. But she would not submit to dictation; and any promises shewas willing to make were conditional on the recognition first of herselfand her heirs and afterwards of Lady Lennox's heirs, as Elizabeth'ssuccessors. At the end of August she marched against Murray and theinsurgents; they however avoided battle. On October 6th Murray and hisprincipal adherents crossed the Border. A little later he was allowed topresent himself at the English court, where Elizabeth [Footnote: Froude, viii. , pp. 213 ff. (Ed. 1864): with which cf. Lang, _Hist. Scotland_, ii. , pp. 150 ff. , and authorities there cited. ] publicly rated him, anddeclared that she would never assist rebels against their lawfulsovereign. Murray, who had just written to Cecil that he would "never haveenterprised the action but that he had been moved thereto by the Queen" ofEngland, accepted Elizabeth's lecture without protest. 

[Sidenote: The murder of Rizzio, 1566]

The expulsion of Murray from Scotland did not hinder the coming tragedy;perhaps it had the contrary effect. The lords round Mary were bitterlyaggrieved by Rizzio's influence; Darnley long before he was six monthsmarried, chose to be jealous of the secretary, a sentiment carefullyfostered by the lords. The common hatred united them in a "band" for themurder of Rizzio, of which Sadler, the English envoy, was cognisant; Murrayprobably knew just so much as he chose to know. The plot was carried out inMarch. The conspirators broke into Mary's room at Holyrood, and butcheredRizzio almost before her eyes. 

[Sidenote: Kirk o' Field, 1567]

It may be doubted whether Mary ever forgave any one who was implicated orsupposed to be implicated in that outrage. For her husband, as the offencein him was foulest and the insult from him to her deepest, she assuredlyconceived and cherished a bitter loathing. But there was one man who hadalways been ready to champion her cause, the daring, reckless, ruffianlyJames Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, who nevertheless was no mereswash-buckler, but according to Scottish standards of the day, a man ofeducation [Footnote: Lang, _Hist. Scotland_, ii. , p. 168. ] and even, it would seem, of some culture. From this time, Bothwell was her one ally. She had the policy and the self-control to profess a desire forreconciliation even with Darnley: to receive Murray and even Lethingtoninto apparent favour. But Darnley's brief rapprochement with the lords wassoon over; his intolerable arrogance was made the worse by hiscontemptibility. Three months after Rizzio's murder, the envy of the VirginQueen of England was roused by the birth of a son to Mary. The history ofthe following months becomes a chaos of which there are a dozen conflictingversions. The one clear fact is that another "band" was formed to putDarnley out of the way. There were pretences at attempted reconciliationbetween Mary and Darnley, while the Queen's relations with Bothwell were sointimate as to produce rumours no less scandalous than those which hadprevailed about Elizabeth and Dudley. Darnley fell ill; a better appearancethan usual of reconciliation was patched up. The sick man was conveyed toKirk o' Field, a house near Edinburgh, where Mary joined him. Thence oneevening she went to Holyrood to attend a bridal masque. That night thehouse was blown up; Darnley's unscathed corpse was found in the garden. 

From the tangled mass [Footnote: The evidence has been discussed in manyvolumes. The most judicial examination with which the present writer isacquainted is that in Mr. Lang's _Mystery of Mary Stewart_, summarisedin his _History of Scotland_, ii. , pp. 168 ff. ] of letters, narratives, and confessions, it remains, and will for ever remain, impossible to ascertain more than a fragment of the real truth. As to manyof the documents, it is hard to say whether the theory of their genuinenessor of their forgery is the more incredible. For the confessions, every manhad a dozen good reasons for sheltering some of the guilty, implicatingsome of the innocent, and garbling the actual facts. That the thing wasdone by Bothwell is absolutely certain; it is hardly less doubtful thatboth Maitland and Morion helped to hatch the plot; there is no conclusiveproof that Mary was active in it. No single act can be brought home to herwhich was necessarily incompatible with innocence--or with guilt. It is theaccumulation of suspicious circumstances which makes the presumption leanheavily to guilt; but it remains no more than a presumption; no jury wouldhave been justified in convicting. Her accusers had a strong case; but theytried to strengthen it by inventing or suborning additional evidencepalpably false, with the result of discrediting the whole--and her friendsadopted the same tactics. That both Mary and Murray knew that _some_plot existed, and that neither of them stirred a finger to frustrate it, ishardly an open question. 

Guilty in the fullest sense or not guilty, Mary's detestation of Darnleywas notorious; and within three months of the murder she was the wife ofthe man whom the whole world accounted the murderer. Naturally, the wholeworld believed that she was Bothwell's accomplice in the act, and hismistress before it. There was a show at least of the marriage being broughtabout by force. A formal attempt at investigation into the murder hadcollapsed. Bothwell had his supporters; he kidnapped the Queen andMaitland--_not_ one of his supporters-with her. A scandalous divorcewas pronounced between him and his wife, and Mary wedded him. The onlycredible explanation is that she was over-mastered by a passion for thedaring ruffian who at least had always stood by her. The lords--accomplicesin the murder with the rest--were almost immediately in arms to "rescue"the Queen, who took the field by her husband's side. The opposing forcesmet at Carberry Hill; Bothwell, seeing the contest to be hopeless, fled;Mary surrendered. 

[Sidenote: Mary made prisoner]

The Queen was forthwith imprisoned in Lochleven Castle; and just at thistime the famous casket of letters from Mary to Bothwell was seized, in thecustody of a servant of Bothwell's. Of the documents subsequently producedas having formed part of that collection, the experts are totally unable toprove decisively whether any or all are genuine, or forged, or a mixture offorgeries and transcripts from genuine originals; though on the whole thelast hypothesis is the least incredible of the three. 

[Sidenote 1: Murray made regent][Sidenote 2: 1568 Mary's escape to England]

All this took place in June. Elizabeth was now suggesting that the babyprince James should be sent to her safe-keeping: there were similarhints--_mutatis mutandis_--from France. The Scots lords played offFrench and English against each other, and kept the child in their ownhands. There was a strong desire in some quarters that Mary should be putto death; she was actually compelled, at the end of July, to sign herabdication in favour of the infant James. Soon after Murray arrived fromFrance, whither he had gone shortly after the murder, and she assented tohis appointment as Regent--indeed begged him to undertake it, havingvirtually no other course open. Both he and Lethington probably desired toprotect her. Meantime however, Elizabeth was demanding her release, thesuccessful rebellion of subjects against their lawful prince being by nomeans to her liking. Murray, however, felt that such a course could onlyinvolve civil war, and if pressed would force him to have Mary executed onthe strength of the evidence, genuine or forged, of her complicity in themurder of Darnley. Yet it was universally believed that many of the lordsnow with Murray were no less guilty; over their heads too the sword washanging by a thread. Murray as Regent ruled with vigour; and hisenforcement of the anti-Catholic laws soon roused the hostility of thatsection. After many months of imprisonment, the Queen succeeded in escapingfrom Lochleven in May (1568); but the attempt to rally her followers wasdesperate. There was a fight at Langside on May 13th; Mary's party werecompletely routed; she herself fled south; and on May 16th she crossed theSolway; becoming, and remaining from thenceforth, Elizabeth's prisoner. 

Thus, in June 1568, there was in France an uneasy truce between Catholicsand Huguenots; in the Netherlands, the struggle between the Prince ofOrange and Alva was just commencing; in Britain, the Queen of Scots hadjust fallen into the power of her sister of England--disgraced in the eyesof the world by her marriage with Bothwell, and on almost all handscredited with the murder of Darnley; so that whatever might happen it wascertain that no foreign Power would have either the will or the means tointervene on her behalf. 

The affairs of Ireland will demand our attention; but, as they did not atthe time directly influence English policy, it will be more convenient totreat of them consecutively in a later chapter. The same may be said of thegreat sea-going movement, which was now active and was in a few years' timeto be revealed as a feature of the first importance in the development of"our island story". Here we will merely note that the consideration ofthese subjects is deferred. The progress however of the religioussettlement, always a present factor in the relations of England with otherPowers, requires to be treated _pari passu_ with the other events ofthe period; as also do the relations between the Queen and her Parliament. 

[Sidenote: England: Protestantism of the Government]

We have already observed that Elizabeth had personal predilections infavour of the ceremonial, if not the actual theological, position adoptedby her father. The weightiest of her counsellors however, headed by Ceciland Bacon, succeeded in a more definite protestantising of the bench ofbishops than the Queen herself would have desired. The formularies of theChurch, confirmed by the Act of Uniformity, were very much easier toreconcile with Calvinism than with what Calvinists called idolatry, and inparticular the abolition of the law of celibacy in itself had a very strongtendency to abolish the sense of differentiation between clergy and laityso essential to the old Catholic position. It may have been theconsciousness of this which made Elizabeth feel and express with muchfreedom her own objection to married clerics. But Cecil and his party werealive to the fact that the religious cleavage was everywhere becomingintensified as a political cleavage also; that politically, England wouldbe obliged to declare for one side or the other, or would be rent in twain;that danger to Elizabeth's throne--and this she fully recognised herself--was much more likely to arise from Catholic than from Protestantquarters. Being therefore determined that she should take the Protestantside--whether from genuine religious conviction or from motives ofpolitical expediency--they steadily encouraged moderate Protestants of thetype of Archbishop Parker, and others who were still more under theinfluence of the Swiss, or at least the Lutheran, reformers; a course inwhich they were greatly aided by the direct hostility to Elizabeth of theGuise party in France. In that country, the _Politiques_ foundthemselves driven into the Catholic camp; in England, the Queen, whosepersonal sentiments were not unlike those of Katharine de Medici, wasreluctantly compelled by the force of circumstances to yield to herProtestant advisers. 

[Sidenote: Religious parties]

Elizabeth's first Parliament was puritan in its tendencies, and only fellshort of that which had approved the second prayer-book of Edward. The bulkof the clergy still no doubt favoured the old religion, but it was thefollowers of the new lights who received promotion, and it was they whowere encouraged by the Act of Uniformity. In many parts of the country, however, and especially in the North, the magnates countenanced a hardlyveiled disregard of the new laws: and the Queen's apparent inclination tofind a way of recognising Mary as her successor, as well as her favour forcrosses and disfavour for married clergy, raised the hopes of theCatholics. The Huguenot war in 1562 compelled her to change her tone, andenabled Cecil to enforce the law against attendance at Mass with greatervigour. The first Parliament had been dissolved in 1559; the second, whichmet in the beginning of 1563, was not less strenuously Protestant andopposed to the Stewart succession. It was only the determined stand of theCatholic peers which prevented sharp legislation against the Catholics ingeneral; and even as it was, the application of the oath of Supremacy waswidened. Then Parliament was prorogued, and the affair of Havre caused theHuguenot alliance to cool. By the winter of 1564-5, the English Queen wasirritating the bishops and the clergy, the most capable of whom wereincreasingly identifying themselves with puritan views, by insistence notaltogether successful on obedience to the Act of Uniformity in the matterof vestments; although it was notorious that there was strong feelingagainst some of the regulations, which in not a few instances werehabitually ignored. The feeling was intensified by a lively suspicion thatshe really wished for the Darnley marriage which actually took place a fewmonths later, though she was professedly urging Leicester's suit, andbeyond all doubt encouraged Murray and the Scottish Protestants torebellion. 

[Sidenote: 1566-67 Parliament and the Queen's marriage]

It was not till the autumn of 1566 that Parliament reassembled; more thanever determined to get the Queen committed to a marriage which should endthe menace of the Stewart succession. This desire was in some cases thecause and in others the effect of a zealous protestantism. A Bill wasintroduced, at the instance of the Bishops acting on a vote of Convocation, to compel the clergy to subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, aslight modification of Edward's Forty-two Articles; but this was withdrawnafter passing the Commons. The Queen was enraged by the audacity of theCommons in discussing the question of her marriage and the succession, andshe attempted to suppress debate; but was met with a stubborn insistence, headed by Cecil, on the constitutional rights of the House. Elizabeth hadto give way; but while on the question of principle the Parliament wasvictorious, it did not press the victory and the Queen was enabled to evadethe immediate issue. The house voted supplies generously, after which shesucceeded in dissolving it with a sharp reprimand and without definitelycommitting herself on the subject either of her own marriage or of thesuccession. But this was hardly accomplished, when the murder of Darnley, for the time being at least, divided the party which had hitherto supportedMary's claim to the English throne. 

[Sidenote: The Queen and the Archduke]

For some months, the question of Elizabeth's marriage was allowed to fallinto abeyance; but the effect of the murder was in some degree counteractedby the imprisonment of Mary in Lochleven the appeal to chivalry of adeserted, helpless, and lovely woman, and the very unattractive characterof most of the men now at the head of the Scottish Government. The Stewartcause seemed to be in some danger of reviving, and once again the EnglishCouncil began to urge the marriage with the Archduke Charles. Elizabethpretended concurrence, but when she refused to promise that Charles shouldbe allowed the free exercise of his own religion in England, it was nolonger possible to doubt that she was merely playing with the idea; whilethere were certainly a great many of her subjects who entirely sympathisedwith the ostensible grounds on which the negotiation was broken off. Theprospect of a closer union with the House of Habsburg was dispelled, almostat the moment when the Scots Queen fell into Elizabeth's hands, and thestandard of revolt against the Spanish system was being raised in theNetherlands. 

CHAPTER XVIII

ELIZABETH (iii), 1568-72--THE CATHOLIC CHALLENGE

[Sidenote: 1568 May, Elizabeth and Mary]

Before crossing the Solway, Mary wrote to Elizabeth throwing herself onher hospitality. She followed hard on the heels of her missive, andawaited the reply at Carlisle, where the Catholic gentlemen of theNorth rallied to receive her. The situation indeed was a singularlyembarrassing one for the English Queen. Mary claimed in fact thatElizabeth should either restore her, or allow her to appeal to thosewho would do so--that is, to France. To take her part unconditionallyhad its obvious dangers; not less obvious were the dangers of accedingto the alternative demand. To detain her in England, on the other hand, would inevitably make her the centre of Catholic intrigue. The mostconvenient arrangement would be to restore her under conditions whichwould minimise her power of becoming dangerous; and, in the meantime, she was perhaps less to be feared under careful supervision in Englandthan anywhere else. So Elizabeth took the line of informing her that ifshe cleared herself of the charges of crimes such as made it impossibleto support her if she were guilty, she should be restored; which beinginterpreted meant that there was to be an investigation, and Elizabethwould act on the findings. Murray on the other hand was in effectadvised that the English Queen would not countenance him in levying warbut that he might read between the lines of her instructions; in viewof course of the fear that the party opposed to Murray might seek toprocure French intervention. 

[Sidenote: A Commission of enquiry]

Elizabeth was in fact in a position to dictate her own terms. Whateverright she might think fit to assume, whatever technical grounds shemight assert for that right, Mary was effectively in her power. TheScots Queen--transferred for greater safety to Bolton, away from thedangerous proximity of the Border--indignantly repudiated thejurisdiction, demanded to be set at liberty, asseverated her owninnocence. Elizabeth could not afford to set her at liberty; and withsome plausibility declared that the innocence must be proved, beforeher rule could be re-imposed on a nation which had rejected it. Elizabeth quite evidently intended that the investigation shouldneither clear nor condemn her. Mary's objections were perfectlycompatible with innocence. Submission might be taken as implying therecognition of English suzerainty; and if the investigation was to beearned just so far as suited her sister sovereign, if evidence was tobe admitted, tested, or sup-pressed, with a view not to ascertainingtruth but to securing a convenient judgment, innocence was no sort ofreason for welcoming enquiry. [Footnote: Mr Froude (viii. , Ed. 1866)informs us in one breath that Mary was impelled to protest by theconsciousness of guilt (p. 253), but admits in the next that Elizabethhad no intention of allowing either her guilt or her innocence to bedefinitely proved (pp. 262, 270, 277). ]

The plan of operations was that a Commission should be appointed, before whom the Scots lords should answer for their rebellion;obviously they would defend themselves on the ground of Mary's guilt ofwhich they professed to hold ample proof in the casket of letters, which if genuine were assuredly damning. On the other hand, Maitlandand others of the lords must have suspected at least that evidence oftheir own complicity in Darnley's murder would be forthcoming. TheEnglish Protestants were convinced beforehand of Mary's guilt; theywere too much interested in preventing her succession to the Englishthrone to form an unbiased judgment; whereas her condemnation wouldhave been a serious blow to the Catholic party, which includedprofessing Protestants like Norfolk. Altogether, what Elizabeth desiredwas a compromise between Mary and the Scots lords, by which both shouldassent to her restoration as queen with Murray as actual ruler, coupledwith the confirmation of the unratified Treaty of Edinburgh, and theestablishment of the Anglican form of worship as Elizabeth's price. Herreal difficulty perhaps was that she did not want Mary cleared to theworld by the definite withdrawal of the charge of murder; she wantedthe charge to be made and to be left indefinitely not-proven. 

[Sidenote: Oct. Proceedings at York]

The commission--Norfolk, Sussex, and Sadler, who had spent many yearsin Scotland as ambassador--was to sit at York in October. Thither camethe Scots lords. Murray was prepared to rely upon the general chargesof misgovernment, while privately submitting the evidence as to themurder to the Commissioners. Norfolk was staggered by the letters, andvery nearly threw up a scheme which the Catholic party had beenhatching for his own marriage with Mary. But Elizabeth's suddendiscovery that this scheme existed filled her with alarm, and for themoment she cancelled the Commission. 

[Sidenote: Doubts of Philip's attitude]

For the course of events on the Continent was making the outlook morecomplicated. The initial success of the Netherlanders had been verysoon followed by the crushing disaster of Jemmingen, and the countryseemed to be under Alva's heel. Catholicism in its most militant andmerciless form was predominant; what if Philip, irritated by thepractically open piracy of English ships in the Channel and elsewhere, should espouse the cause of Mary? De Silva, the ambassador whoserelations with the English court were highly satisfactory, was replacedby the less diplomatic and more aggressive Don Guerau de Espes. TheEnglish envoy in Spain was so unguarded in his own religiousprofessions as to give Philip fair ground for handing him his passports. If the English Catholics, irritated by the growth of Calvinism and theincreased vigilance of Protestantism in England, founded new hopes onthese signs of a changing attitude in Philip, their present loyaltymight very soon alter its colour with Mary Stewart in England. 

[Sidenote: Nov. The Commission at Westminster]

It seemed safer then that the enquiry should be held in London, with alarge increase in the number of the Commissioners. Of the Scots lords, Lethington was undoubtedly anxious that the murder charge should bewithdrawn. Nevertheless, at the sitting held at the end of November, Murray definitely put in the charge, producing copies or translationsof the Casket Letters. These the commissioners examined; later on, theywere shown the originals, which they judged to be genuine documents inthe Queen's hand. Whether they were competent to test forgeriesexecuted with tolerable skill is at least open to question. The rest ofthe evidence produced was not only that of interested persons, butcontained inconsistencies; neither Mary herself nor her agents wereever put in possession of copies of the incriminating documents; oneside only was heard. If it was Elizabeth's object to create in theminds of the English lords a strong presumption that Mary was guilty, that purpose was successfully effected. Under such conditions Marydeclined compromises. The Commission was broken up. The farce was over. Murray returned to Scotland: the Queen remained a prisoner in England, to be--with or without her own complicity--the centre of every papistplot till the final tragedy. 

[Sidenote: Comment on the enquiry]

So the mystery of Mary Stewart remains a mystery to this day. That shewas cognisant of the plot to murder Darnley is the more probable theory, in view of facts which no one denies; yet those facts remainintelligible if she was innocent. There are no admitted facts whichpreclude her guilt: none which prove it conclusively. The variousconfessions of interested witnesses, voluntary or extorted, areuntrustworthy. The genuineness of the Casket Letters is doubtful. Noopportunity was given for cross-examining the witnesses or examiningthe letters. The world believed that Mary was guilty, however it mayhave been disposed to condone the guilt. The world was probably right. But to pretend that there was a fair or complete investigation--thatMary's guilt was proved before the Commission--is absurd. That Maryfrom first to last protested against being brought to the bar of anEnglish tribunal--whose authority she could not acknowledge withoutimplying a recognition of that suzerainty which Edward I of England hadclaimed, and Robert I of Scotland had wiped out at Bannockburn--wasentirely compatible with the innocence of a high-spirited andcourageous princess: and would have been so, even if she could havecounted on the absolute impartiality of her judges. Knowing that shecould count on nothing of the kind, fully aware that Elizabeth herselfwould in fact be the judge, and suspecting with very good reason thatany verdict pronounced by her would be shaped strictly with a view toher own political convenience, it is almost inconceivable that Maryshould have acknowledged the jurisdiction merely because Innocence inthe abstract ought to invite enquiry. Had Mary been less beautiful, less unfortunate, less of a heroine of romance, it is likely enoughthat she would find few champions; but the pretence that she had a fairtrial would still be none the less untenable. 

[Sidenote: Dec. Seizure of Spanish Treasure]

In the meantime, an incident had occurred which shows what an immensechange had been taking place in England during the ten years ofElizabeth's reign; how completely the nation had recovered confidencein itself. Throughout these years, English ships had been multiplying, English sailors had been ignoring the Spanish and Portuguese monopoliesof ocean traffic, and English captains had been, with only the mostperfunctory official discouragement, and under colour of the flimsiestpretexts or of no pretext at all, indulging in what was virtuallypiracy. Now, the religious struggle, after a few months' smouldering, had again broken out in France. La Rochelle, the Huguenot head-quarters, was a nest of privateers, with whom the English adventurers consorted, and the water-way for Spanish ships to the Netherlands was infestedwith dangers. Alva was in want of money. Philip borrowed a great sumfrom the Genoese bankers. The vessels conveying the bullion were forcedto put into English ports, in fear of capture. Elizabeth was not readyto declare war in favour of the revolted provinces; but Cecil wasextremely anxious to render them all the help possible short ofdeclaring war. The treasure-ships had sailed into a trap. Don Guerauinvited Elizabeth to send them on under escort to the Netherlands; shereplied that as the money belonged not to Philip but to the Genoesebankers, who would not object, she intended to borrow it herself. DonGuerau was furious, and sent messages to Alva, who promptly seized allEnglish goods and persons in the Netherlands. With equal promptitude, all Spaniards and Spanish goods were seized in England. The balance ofloss was heavily in favour of the English. 

It seemed most probable that this astonishingly audacious proceedingmust result either in the fall of Cecil, to whom it was due, or in openwar with Spain, and the immediate committal of England to the formationof a Protestant League; which might force the English Catholics intheir turn directly to espouse the cause of Mary. The reception givenin this country shortly before to the Cardinal of Chatillon, Coligny'sbrother, was a symptom of Cecil's Protestant policy, and he at leastwas probably willing enough that any tendency of the English Catholicstowards revolt should be precipitated rather than delayed. 

[Sidenote: 1569 The incident passed over]

Even Cecil however was not anxious for open war, while Elizabeth alwaysshrank from that last extremity. On the other side, Philip had threevery good reasons for passing over the affront he had received. First, the Netherlands were giving him enough to do for the time. Secondly, Don Guerau was satisfied that the downfall of Cecil and the reversal ofhis policy were imminent. Thirdly, the French court would assuredlysubordinate religious questions to the political gain of uniting withEngland against him. A definite league between Condé and the Englishmight have averted that danger, by driving the French Catholics to makecommon cause with Spain; but any immediate prospect of such a solutionof the entanglement vanished when the Huguenots were defeated and Condéhimself killed at the battle of Jarnac in May. The result of that eventwas the immediate prohibition of the English adventurers from joiningthe Huguenot fleet of Rochelle and sailing under the Huguenot flag; asmany of them had been in the habit of doing. 

In May, then, the risk of a rupture between the French Government andEngland, and of the formation of a universal Protestant league, wasover for the time at least; and within a few months, in England, theNorthern Earls, by a premature rising, inflicted a severe blow on theirown party, and decided large numbers of the Catholics to take theirstand as in the first place patriots and loyalists. 

[Sidenote: The Northern Rebellion]

What we have called the Catholic party included many professingProtestants--_i. E. _ men who conformed with entire equanimity, yetwould have preferred to see the old worship restored; such as Norfolk. Extreme men saw in the union of the Duke with Mary a prospect ofimmediately placing the captive Queen on the English throne. Themoderate men wanted the marriage, accompanied by her recognition asheir presumptive. There were others outside the Catholic connexion whodreamed rather of Mary under the circumstances conforming to theAnglican faith. Norfolk dallied with all three. There was a moment whenElizabeth herself might have been persuaded to assent; but the Dukemissed his opportunity, and she, reverting to a conviction that themarriage would soon be followed by her own assassination, presentlyforbade it, and summoned Norfolk to answer for his loyalty. After briefhesitation he surrendered himself and was confined in the Tower: butthe Northern Earls, Northumberland and Westmorland, believing that theymust strike at once if at all, rose and marched to deliver Mary fromTutbury--whither she had been suddenly conveyed to safe keeping, in theexpectation of some such event. The rest of the Catholics however werenot ready for such a venture; being forced to make up their minds, theyresolved to stand loyal. The royal musters were quickly advancing tomeet the insurgents, who presently concluded that the cause washopeless, and fled. Northumberland was subsequently arrested anddetained by Murray in Scotland: Westmorland made his way to Spain. Sussex received and carried out orders to punish with a heavy handthose who had taken part in the rebellion; and so without any greatdifficulty the one serious revolt of the reign was stamped out. 

[Sidenote: 1570 Murder of Murray]

The year 1570 had hardly opened when Elizabeth lost one of her mostvaluable allies by the murder of the Regent Murray, assassinated byHamilton of Bothwellhaugh. Murray's figure in history is a sombre one, and the sombreness is thrown into the greater relief by the picturesquebrilliancy of his hapless sister. It was his fate to fight on thegloomy side; to stand at the head of a nobility conspicuously sordidand unprincipled, half of whom, when not occupied in plotting againstthe life of a hereditary foe or a political rival, were posing asrepresentatives of the "godly"--an attitude held to be entirelycompatible with a total disregard for the decalogue. Perhaps there isno prominent statesman of his times who came through the heavy ordealof public life with cleaner hands. There is no fair ground forassociating him directly and actively with any of the great crimes inone or another of which almost every one of the Scots lords had a share. When his sister married Darnley, he took up arms against her: he did soagain when she married Bothwell: and on both occasions he was probablyobeying an elastic conscience. While he was endeavouring to fix theodium of the Darnley murder on Mary, he must have been quite aware thatboth Lethington and Morton, his allies, were steeped in the guilt of it. But he could neither stand aside from the turmoil, nor pick and choosehis associates. The political support or countenance of Elizabethseemed absolutely necessary to the cause of the Reformation in Scotland. A man of a more generous spirit would more than once have felt that theprice was too high, that he was accepting a too ignominious position;he stooped to a course which if not exactly dishonourable wasperilously near it. But the part he was forced to play was the hardestand the most thankless imaginable; and he played it with a constanteffort to be tolerant, to be as just as circumstances permitted, to betrue to himself. He was the one man in Scotland who had strivenresolutely amid the kaleidoscopic chaos of factions to maintain somesort of order, some sort of liberty, some sort of standard of publicspirit. With his fall, anarchy became more rampant than ever. Elizabethlamented, not without reason, that she had lost her best friend; butwhile he lived she had not made his task the easier. 

[Sidenote: March The Bull of Deposition]

In March, the Pope took the step which paralysed Catholicism as an openpolitical force in England, by issuing a Bull against Elizabeth whichvirtually declared loyalty to the Queen and loyalty to the Faith to beincompatible; yet since the profession of loyalty was to be condoned, every Catholic was _ipso facto_ rendered suspect. The suspicion ofdisloyalty breeds the disease. Englishmen of the Roman Communion have aright to be proud that so many in those years of storm and stressneither relinquished their faith nor forgot their patriotism; yet whentheir fellow-subjects had been thus absolved of their allegiance, theProtestants can hardly be blamed for being over-ready to assume thatthey were in league with the Queen's enemies. The Pope could have donenothing calculated more thoroughly to translate the ordinary sentimentof loyalty into a passion of resentment against its opposite. 

[Sidenote: The Anjou Match]

The immediate situation however was fraught with sufficient peril. Maryfor the sake of liberty was by this time fairly ready to promiseanything, and trust to the chapter of accidents to find some plausibleground for repudiating her promises later. Elizabeth would have beenglad enough to get her out of the country if she could by any means berendered harmless. Once again, to the dismay of Cecil, a restoration, on terms, seemed probable, while the Queen herself showed a tendency totry at any cost to recover the support of the Catholics. In facthowever, she would make up her mind to no decided course. But affairsin France suggested to her a new scheme which could be played withindefinitely. In spite of Jarnac, and of another defeat later in theyear at Montcontour, Coligny and the Huguenots remained unvanquished in1570. In the autumn, there was a fresh pacification, and Coligny becameonce more a power at Court as well as in the country. The youngerbrother of the young French King, Henry Duke of Anjou, was now oldenough to marry. There had been talk of uniting him to Mary. But if hewere to marry Elizabeth, who was only some seventeen years his senior, Protestants and Catholics in both countries might make their peace, andall present a united front to Philip and to Papal aggression--for eventhe Cardinal of Lorraine had dallied with the notion of Nationalism inmatters ecclesiastical. Cecil and Walsingham, who had recently come tothe front and now represented England in Paris, were keenly in favourof the scheme. As for the Queen she probably intended to use itprecisely as she had used all the previous marriage schemes, simply asan instrument for manipulating foreign courts and her own ministers. 

[Sidenote: 1570-71 The Ridolfi plot initiated]

Under these conditions, a new plot was initiated for the liberation ofMary, her marriage to Norfolk, and the removal of Elizabeth; to be atlast actively if secretly aided by Alva and Philip, on whom thevehement remonstrances of the Pope were now taking effect--in view ofthe threatened alliance between England and France. The agent was oneRidolfi, who combined cleverness sufficient to deceive even Walsinghamfor a time with a garrulity and carelessness which proved ruinous inthe long run. It was fortunate for Elizabeth that of the two necessaryfigure-heads for any conspiracy, Mary and Norfolk, one was more thanhalf-believed even by her own party to be stained by the grossestcrimes, while the other was nerveless and vacillating. 

[Sidenote: 1571 April, Parliament]

At this juncture, need of funds made it impossible for Elizabeth tocontinue longer without calling a Parliament, which met early in April(1571). The bulk of the peers were still in sympathy with Catholicismand the ideas associated therewith; the lower House, always Protestant, was now more emphatically so than ever. The Puritan element, naturallyenough, had come to regard Catholicism as _prima facie_ evidenceof treason, and was bent on enforcing a more uncompromising conformity, with a greater severity, than heretofore. The Commons insisted ondiscussing religious matters, and ignored the Queen's attempts tosilence them. They gave, what the last parliament had refused, theirsanction to the Thirty-nine Articles. The effect of the Papalexcommunication was seen in an Act making it high Treason to questionthe Queen's title, or to call her a heretic, and disqualifying from thesuccession any one who laid claim to the crown; they sought even tomake the Act retrospective, which would have forthwith excluded Marypermanently. They submitted however to some modification of theoriginal harshness of their intentions; whereby it is probable that nota few Catholics, who would otherwise have been fatally alienated, didas matters turned out remain loyal. Finally, a substantial grant ofmoney was made. The Commons in short were thoroughly at one with Cecil, now known as Lord Burghley. They were intensely loyal, and showed theirloyalty none the less emphatically because they ignored the Queen'spredilections in the manner of doing it. 

[Sidenote: Collapse of Anjou marriage]

At the end of May, Parliament was dissolved. In the meantime, and for somemonths longer, the affair of the Anjou marriage was running the usualcourse. As mere postponement seemed to become impossible, the old pretendeddifficulties by which the Archduke Charles had been finally evaded wererehabilitated. Anjou must not have even his private Mass. The Queen'sMinisters understood the position, and their one object became theavoidance of a breach with France. By the exercise of much dexterity, Anjouwas drawn into taking the initiative in breaking off the match in a quitecomplimentary manner; and there was even discussion of the substitution forhim of his still younger brother Alençon. France, in fact, at this time wasswaying strongly towards antagonism to Spain, at any price which wouldsecure English support; the idea of partitioning the Netherlands being partof the programme. Cecil and Walsingham, believing with reason that anaccident might again turn the balance with the French government, andpainfully distrustful of Elizabeth's endless vacillations, were ontenterhooks till the amicable conclusion of the Anjou affair. 

[Sidenote: Developments of the Ridolfi plot]

They had also been on the alert over the Ridolfi plot. In the spring, Ridolfi was concocting with Alva designs for an invasion; in the summer hewas in Spain. In the meantime, the capture of an agent, and the liberal useof spies and of the rack, placed important clues in Burghley's hands. Atthis juncture the famous seaman Sir John Hawkins, in collusion withBurghley, placed himself at the service of Mary and Philip, in thecharacter of an ill-used and revengeful servant of Elizabeth. Yet it wasonly by another accidental capture, and more use of the rack, thatcomplicity was actually brought home to Norfolk, who was arrested inSeptember. Norfolk once arrested, traitors and spies soon did what else wasnecessary to reveal the whole plot, in which invasion and assassinationwere combined. It was no longer possible to account Spain and the SpanishKing as anything but mortal enemies to England and the English Queen. DonGuerau was ordered to leave the country; his parting move was a plot forBurghley's assassination, duly detected by spies, Norfolk was convicted fortreason, and condemned to a death which was deferred for some months. MaryStewart expected a like fate. Elizabeth however still rejected the extrememeasure. But the _Detectio_ of George Buchanan--in other words acomplete _ex parte_ statement of the case against Mary, including thecontents of the Casket Letters--was published. 

[Sidenote: 1572 Parliament and Mary (May)]

The effect was seen when a new Parliament met in May. The people of Englandbelieved with an absolute conviction in the truth of the whole indictmentagainst the Scots Queen. Nor was there any question that she had appealedboth to France and Spain to liberate her; so far at least she wasimplicated in the Ridolfi plot, even if the assassination proposals had notcome within her ken. She was believed to be a criminal, who had forfeitedall right to sympathy and consideration; she was palpably a standing menaceto the internal peace of the realm, a standing incitement to its enemiesabroad. The Commons therefore demanded her attainder; as for the technicalright, no sovereign at the time or in the past would have hesitated toignore or evade the point. The question was outside the range oftechnicalities. The plea that England had no right to detain her, or tojudge her, that she had a right to seek her own release by any availablemeans, was perfectly sound; the counter-plea that the safety of the Stateforbade her release, and her attempts to procure war against it justifiedher destruction, was equally unanswerable. But Elizabeth could not resolveto act upon either plea, ignoring the other. So Mary remained a prisoner, and the centre of intrigue. Even an alternative Bill, supposed to haveElizabeth's approval, which merely excluded Mary from the succession, neverreached the statute book. 

[Sidenote: Lepanto; April Revolt of the Netherlands]

A notable triumph had recently been achieved for Philip's arms, in thecrushing defeat of the Turks at Lepanto by the combined Venetian andSpanish fleets commanded by the Spanish King's half-brother, Don John ofAustria. To this perhaps may be attributed the less defiant tone ofcommunications with Spain. The narrow seas were swarming not only withEnglish privateering craft, but with Dutchmen commanded by the privateer Dela Marck on behalf of William of Orange, who were habitually succoured inEnglish harbours. But though these were now ordered to depart, and theEnglish mariners aboard them were commanded to leave them, there is nodoubt that their privy equipment was deliberately connived at, in theflattest possible contradiction to the public declarations. At the close ofMarch, De la Marck's fleet sailed from Dover to fall upon a Spanish convoy;a few days later, it appeared in the Meuse before Brille. The town promptlysurrendered. The whole of the Netherlands was seething under Alva's savagerule; trade, already in a fair way to be ruined by the cessation ofcommerce with England since the seizure of the treasure ships, was beingthrottled also by the system of taxation which Alva had recentlyinstituted. The capture of Brille fired the train. City after city raisedthe standard of revolt. The rebellion which Alva fancied he had utterlystamped out was suddenly in full blaze once more; and on the south, Mons, like Brille, was seized by a rapid dash of Lewis of Nassau, operating fromFrench territory. 

[Sidenote: The Alençon marriage]

In the meantime also the Alençon marriage project seemed to beadvancing, and in April a defensive treaty was struck between Englandand France, where it appeared that Coligny was paramount at court. BothEnglish and French volunteers were fighting in the Netherlands. Smallwonder that Burghley and Walsingham believed that a French marriagewould clinch matters, make France a virtually Huguenot Power, andsecure a combination which would bring the Pope and the King of Spainto their knees. The approaching marriage of the French King's sister, Margaret, to young Henry of Navarre--now standing next after the King'sbrothers in the line of succession--pointed emphatically in the samedirection. 

Walsingham however also knew that, to achieve the desired end, theHuguenots must at once have convincing proofs that they could depend on theEnglish alliance. The marriage, and concerted armed intervention in theNetherlands, were the conditions. But Alençon [Footnote: He was singularlyugly, and Elizabeth who had nicknames for many of her Court, used to callhim her "Frog" when he was wooing her, later. ] was an incrediblydistasteful husband; and however near Elizabeth might suffer herself to bebrought to the brink of war, she hung back when the time came. There wasvery good reason [Footnote: _State Papers: Spanish, _ ii. , 338. ] forbelieving that even now she was secretly negotiating with Alva, and in avery short time the English and French volunteer contingents in Flushing[Footnote: _S. P. , Foreign, _ x. , 491, 530. ] were on the verge ofhostilities. The power of the Huguenots was on the surface; fanaticsthemselves when their religion was not merely political, they were theobjects of savagely fanatical hatred. The queen-mother, who had alwaysstriven to preserve her own domination by holding the balance betweenGuises and Huguenots, saw Charles falling more and more under Coligny'sinfluence instead of her own. It may be that if she had felt sure ofElizabeth, she would have gone through with the proposed policy;distrusting the English Queen she resolved to end it. She made a desperateand successful attempt to recover her ascendancy over her weak-mindedson. She played upon his terrors, and prepared for one of the mostappalling tragedies in all history. 

[Sidenote: Aug. St. Bartholomew]

A plot for the assassination of Coligny failed, the Admiral being butslightly wounded. Paris was full of Huguenots, who had gathered for thecelebration of Navarre's marriage on August 18th; the attempt on Colignyled to threatening language against the Guises. Katharine stirred her soninto a sudden panic. The attack on the Admiral had taken place on August22nd; with the booming of a bell on the early morning of the 24th, St. Bartholomew's day, the most recklessly devastating mob in the world founditself let loose on its prey, headed and urged on by the Guises and otherCatholic chiefs. The Huguenots, utterly surprised, were slaughtered fromhouse to house; with the taste of blood the populace went mad; Paris was ashambles. How many thousands were massacred in that awful frenzy none cantell. The tale of the tragedy flew from end to end of France; all over thecountry, wherever the Catholics were in a majority, like scenes wereenacted. The total of the victims has been computed as high as a hundredthousand; a fourth of that number would certainly not be an exaggeratedestimate. In England, all the martyrs for religion in the century did notamount to a thousand, on both sides; in France, twenty thousand at leastwere slain in a few days' orgy of fanaticism. And the new Pope Gregory sang_Te Deum_ in solemn state; and the morose monarch of Spain laughedaloud in unwonted glee; but Charles of France, men said, was haunted to thehour of his death by red visions of that ghastly carnival of blood. 

CHAPTER XIX

ELIZABETH (iv), 1572-78--VARIUM ET MUTABILE

[Sidenote: The Queen's diplomacy]

The picture of Elizabeth and of her surroundings hitherto presented inthese pages has been one which rouses rather a reluctant admiration fora combination of good fortune and dexterity than a moral enthusiasm. Statesmen, in fact, had to pick their way with such extreme warinessthrough such a labyrinth of intrigues that little play was permitted totheir more generous instincts; and it is undeniable that Elizabethherself loved intricate methods, and made it quite unnecessarilydifficult for her ministers to pursue a straightforward course. This isthe aspect of the national life which is inevitably forced on ourattention--the diplomatic aspect in an age when diplomacy was playingan immense part in public affairs. For England, it might almost be saidthat diplomatic methods had been created by Henry VII. , maintained byWolsey, dropped again for thirty years, and then re-created byElizabeth. As Wolsey had played France and the Empire against eachother, to make England the arbiter of Europe, so Elizabeth playedFrance and Spain against each other, so that neither could afford to gobeyond empty threats against her in her own territory; while bothgovernments had recalcitrant Protestant subjects who were a good dealmore hampering and disquieting to them than were Elizabeth's Catholicsubjects to her. In Scotland, Elizabeth's policy, like her father's, was that of maintaining factions which kept the country divided. 

Now the persons with whom Elizabeth had to deal were for the most partperfectly unscrupulous. The Queen-mother in France, the Scots lords, Philip of Spain, and the Spanish ambassadors with the exception of DeSilva, were as ready to make and ignore promises and professions as wasElizabeth herself. If they found her fully a match for them at theirown game, we can hardly reproach her if we cannot applaud. But it isnotable that in England, the arch-dissembler is Elizabeth herself. Itis she who manages the undignified but eminently successful trickery ofthe marriage negotiations. It is she who evades committing herselfirrevocably to the Huguenots or to the Prince of Orange. It is she whopreserves Mary's restoration as a possibility, to be held _interrorem_ over Scotland after publishing her accusers' evidenceagainst her. 

[Sidenote: The Queen's subjects]

But the success of this supreme wiliness, a quality in which perhapsElizabeth's one rival was Lethington, was due to the presence in herministers and in her people of moral qualities which she did notherself display. First and foremost was their loyalty to her. Theyacted boldly on secret instructions, with entire certainty that theymust take the whole responsibility upon themselves; that to be pardonedfor success was the highest official recognition they could hope for;that flat repudiation and probable ruin would follow failure. Burghleyin particular repeatedly risked favour to save the Queen from herself, when her vacillation, calculated or not, was on the verge of beingcarried too far; nor was he alone in speaking his mind; yet in spite ofmerciless snubs his fidelity was unimpaired; none of her enemies everdreamed for an instant that he could be tampered with. Nor did it everappear that more than a very few even among the most discontented ofher subjects would lend themselves to open disloyalty. In England, there were almost none who would have anything to say to the politicalassassinations which repeatedly stained the annals of the nations ofthe Continent and of Scotland: a peculiarity remarked on in the Spanishcorrespondence. 

Again, the religious tone and temper of the country were in strikingcontrast to those prevailing where the Reformation assumed theCalvinistic model. In France and in Scotland, Protestants and Catholicswere ready to fly at each other's throats; in England that inclinationwas confined to extremists of either party. The bulk of the populationwas quite content with conformity to a compromise, and was tolerant ofa very considerable theoretical disagreement, and even of actualnonconformity, so long as it was not actively aggressive. It was nottill Jesuits on one side, and ultra-puritans on the other, developed anactive propaganda directed against the established order, that therewas any general desire to strike hard at either; nor did even thepuritan parliaments display any violent anti-Catholic animus tillroused by the insult to the nation of the Bull of Deposition. 

[Sidenote: Development of Protestantism]

While the characteristically English love of compromise and devotion toconventions kept the bulk of the population loyal to the establishedForms of religion, acquiescent but not enthusiastic, their normalconservatism also disposed them more favourably to teachers of the oldthan of the innovating school; but other forces were at work, whichencouraged the growth of what may be called the Old Testament spirit ofmilitant religiosity directed against Rome and all that savoured ofRome. Stories of the doings of the Inquisition, the enormitiesperpetrated by Alva in the Netherlands, the fate of English sailors whomight, not without justice, have been punished for piracy, but were infact made to suffer on the ground of heresy, the crowning horror of St. Bartholomew, appealed luridly to the popular imagination. The countrywas threatened with internal discord by the presence of a Catholicaspirant to the throne, which concentrated the forces ofdisorganisation on the Catholic side. Protestantism, thereby at onceextended and intensified, took its colour from the most active andenergetic of the religious teachers, and developed a vehement popularsympathy with the French Huguenots and the revolting Netherlanders; andhowever politicians might evade official entanglement, Englishsentiment--at any rate after St. Bartholomew--was always ready to takearms openly in the Protestant cause. 

[Sidenote: Katharine de Medici]

When Katharine and the Guises let the Paris mob loose on the Huguenots, they had doubtless no intention of perpetrating so vast a slaughter. They found that it was one thing to cry "Havoc" and quite another tocry "Halt". When the thing was done, they could not have disavowed itwholly, even if they would. Katharine however made desperate efforts tominimise her own responsibility, and to justify what she had done bycharges of treason against the murdered admiral and his associates. Shehad in fact meant to cripple the Huguenots by destroying their leaders, yet to provide a defence sufficiently plausible to prevent a breachwith England. Her object had been to recover her own ascendancy inFrance, not to replace Coligny by the Guises. What she succeeded indoing was to turn France into two hostile camps; since the massacreshad not sufficed to destroy the Huguenot power of offering an organiseddefence and defiance. On the other hand Alva was prompt, and Philip asprompt as his nature permitted, to realise that some capital might bemade out of the revulsion in England against the French Government. 

[Sidenote: The aim of Elizabeth]

Walsingham, the English Ambassador in Paris, was a sincere Puritan;Burghley's sympathies, personal as well as political, were stronglyProtestant. For some time past, both had desired on the mere grounds ofpolitical expediency to bid defiance to Spain and frankly avow thecause of the Prince of Orange. They believed that England was alreadystrong enough to face the might of Philip. The moral incentive was nowinfinitely stronger. That this would be the generous and the courageouscourse was manifest. Now, too, the English people would have adopted itwith a stern enthusiasm worth many ships and many battalions. Thecourse Elizabeth adopted was less heroic, more selfish, safer for theinterests of England. That sooner or later a duel with Spain was allbut inevitable she must have recognised; but she had seen the power andwealth of England growing year by year, the stability of the Governmentbecoming ever more assured; if an immediate collision could be averted, she calculated that the process would continue, whereas the strain ofrepressing and holding down the Netherlanders would tell adversely onthe power of Spain. The longer, therefore, that the struggle could bestaved off, the better. 

Fortune favoured her: for the resistance of the Netherlands was verymuch more stubborn than could have been anticipated. The Protestantfervour in her people, aroused by St. Bartholomew, was kept alive andintensified, as time went on, by other events, and was moreoverconcentrated upon animosity to Spain. When the great conflict tookplace, sixteen years later, its result was decisive. It cannot beaffirmed with confidence that it would have been so now. From theprudential point of view, Elizabeth was justified by the event. But itis at least possible that the victory would have been equally decisiveat the earlier date, and its moral value in that case would undoubtedlyhave been greater. 

[Sidenote: 1572 England and St. Bartholomew]

At the first moment when intelligence of the massacre at Paris wasbrought to England, the Queen as well as her ministers believed that itwas simply the prelude to a Romanist crusade. It was imagined that theplot had been concocted in collusion with Philip and Alva, the outcomeof the suspected Catholic League of 1565. Instant preparations weremade for war; the musters were called out, the fleet was manned, troopswere raised in readiness to embark for Flushing; and immediateovertures were made to Mar--the second Regent in Scotland since themurder of Murray--for handing Mary over to him to be executed. Thepopular indignation was expressed in bold and uncompromising terms byWalsingham in Paris, in answer to the attempts of the French Governmentto excuse itself. In England, it was long before the Queen would admitthe French Ambassador to audience; when she did so, her Council was inpresence; all were clad in mourning; Elizabeth spoke in terms of themost formal frigidity; on her withdrawal, Burghley, speaking for theCouncil, expressed their sentiments in very plain language. It isabundantly clear that the whole nation from the Queen down was grimlyand confidently prepared for war if war should come. 

[Sideline: Spain seeks amity]

But war was not to come. Katharine was not in collusion with Philip;she knew well enough that as things stood, in such an alliance Francewould begin in a subordinate position, and success would onlyaccentuate and render overwhelming the predominance of Spain. Her onedesire was to patch up a reconciliation with England. Alva had noillusions about a Catholic crusade; he only rejoiced that the danger ofan Anglo-French coalition was scotched; and only desired to make surethat Elizabeth, left to herself, should not make his task in theNetherlands more difficult. Therefore he strove strenuously, and withultimate success, to impress the same view of affairs on the slowlymoving mind of his master at Madrid, who was at first bitten with theidea of effecting a Catholic revolution in England and marrying Mary toAnjou. 

So when Mons, with Lewis of Nassau in it, was forced to capitulate, Alva, by way of contrast to the massacre at Paris, allowed theHuguenots to march out with the honours of war--ostentatiouslyreversing his usual merciless policy: and he pointedly adopted the mostconciliatory attitude towards England. 

[Sidenote: 1573]

Elizabeth for her part was ready enough to respond. A renewal of thecommercial relations in the Netherlands was eminently desirable. Thewar going on in that country was not to her own taste; politically andtheologically she thought the example of the Netherlanders dangerous--one of the real reasons which helped to make her hold back fromespousing their cause--and she offered to mediate between Alva andWilliam of Orange, expressing readiness for her own part to have asettlement of all the outstanding grievances between Spain and England. She even went so far as to revive the suggestion of a reallyrepresentative Council, for the purpose of arriving at a generalreligious settlement---a suggestion so entirely impracticable that itwas quite safe to make it. Also with regard to some of the grievances, it was tolerably certain that no solution could be offered in whichboth the parties would acquiesce. But the fundamental thing, both inher eyes and in Alva's, was to revive the old status of amity, officially if also superficially. 

[Sidenote: April: A Spanish alliance]

Finally, in spite of the remonstrances of the Pope and the protests ofthe English Catholic exiles of the Northern Rebellion, who had found anasylum in the Netherlands under the aegis of Spain, a provisionalalliance was effected, to last for two years, in April 1573. Spaindeserted the English revolutionary Catholics; Elizabeth recalled theEnglish volunteers from Flanders; and commerce was restored. There wasa brief lull in the piratical activity of English sailors; and theFrench were officially left alone to settle the domestic hostilitieswhich afforded them a quite sufficient occupation. 

[Sidenote: Scotland: End of the Marians]

By this time, too, the last serious struggle of the Marian party inScotland was entering on its final stage. There, after Murray's death, the Hamiltons, joined by Lethington and Kirkcaldy of Grange, refused toacknowledge the young King, or the authority of the Regency---an officein which Murray was succeeded first by the incompetent Lennox, andafterwards by Mar, Lennox being killed in the course of a fight. Finally Lethington and Grange were shut up in Edinburgh Castle, wherethey continued to bid defiance to the Government. When howeverovertures were made by England for the delivery of Mary to Mar forexecution, the negotiation broke down on the question of Responsibility. Mar would not carry out the extreme measure, unless supported byEnglish troops and by the presence of high English officials. Elizabethas usual insisted, in effect, that she must be able to repudiatecomplicity. As the fear of a combined Catholic attack melted away, theEnglish Queen lost her anxiety to be rid of her rival. Mar died; Mortonwas nominated to the regency. Then also died John Knox, the last of themen who had seen the Reformation through from its commencement; grim tothe end. 

[Sidenote: The Netherlands, France, and Spain]

When the new year, 1573, came in, Elizabeth, fearing that the Scotslords might, unless they received something besides vague promises, turn to France after all, at length acknowledged the Regent and theKing. A compromise was accepted by the Marian lords with the exceptionof Lethington and Grange in the Castle. But while these held out, theconflagration might be renewed at any time. Elizabeth then reluctantlyyielded to the pressure on her from every side. Money, troops, siege-guns, and Drury in command, were sent in April to the help of Morton. After a stubborn resistance, the siege artillery proved too much forthe garrison; their outworks were carried, their water-supply cut off, and they were forced to surrender in the last days of May. Lethingtonsurvived only a few days; rumour had it that he died by his own act. The craftiest brain in Scotland was stilled but a few months after hersincerest and fiercest tongue was silenced. With Maitland's death, allprospect of reconstructing an organised Queen's-party vanished. It wasnot many months after these events that Alva, in accordance with hisown wishes, was recalled. Conquest did not mean pacification. Haarlemafter a prolonged and desperate resistance, fell in July, and thegarrison was put to the sword; but there was no hint of yielding on thepart of the Hollanders. When the Spaniards advanced on Alkmaar, theywere threatened with the opening of the dykes. 

Hardly less significant of the determination of Orange and hisfollowing never to submit, at whatever cost, is the fact that they wereprepared in the last resort to receive Anjou as their Protector---Anjou, who was regarded as a ring-leader in the Paris massacre. The same factis convincing evidence of the overwhelming antagonism of French andSpanish political interests. Had the French been capable of arrangingtheir religious quarrels on the basis of a fairly inclusive compromise, like that in England, so that the moderates could have worked together, such a league as Walsingham had hoped for before St. Bartholomew wouldhave been entirely in the interest both of France and of England. Theadvantage of it to France was so obvious that, even after the massacre, it was possible for the perpetrators to contemplate friendly relationswith foreign Protestants, and for foreign Protestants to regard suchrelations as possible. Still it was only in the last resort that theAnjou scheme could have been embraced, and perhaps it was nowpropounded more by way of forcing Elizabeth's hand than for any otherpurpose. At any rate the project did not deter Anjou from accepting thecrown of Poland---only to drop it and hurry back to assume the sceptreof France as Henry III. When King Charles IX. Sank to the grave in 1574. 

[Sidenote: 1573-74 The Netherlands, Spain, and England]

Requescens, Alva's successor, adopted a comparatively conciliatorypolicy. The restoration of the constitutional Government of the Statesof the Netherlands was offered, on condition of acceptance ofCatholicism. In the eyes of Elizabeth, who regarded religiousobservances as falling entirely to the supreme government to settle, while she could not understand a conscientious objection to outwardconformity, the refusal of those terms by Orange seemed quiteunreasonable; even Burghley was detached from Walsingham and from thosewho, thinking with him, still counted the maintenance of Protestantism, and as a necessary corollary hostility to Spain, as the first objectwhich ought to be pursued. This attitude of England, coupled with theirreconcilable character of French religious animosities, which madethe prospects of effective French interference a mere will-o'-the-wisp, reduced Orange and his party to a condition verging on desperation. 

[Sidenote: 1574 Spain amicable]

Requescens, however, made no haste to crush the stubborn remnant. Itwas his policy rather to achieve a _modus vivendi_ in which thebulk of the Netherlands would concur, and to conciliate England. Alvabefore him had realised the true danger of the island-nation'shostility. As we shall presently see in more detail, the growth of theEnglish marine had rendered it extremely formidable. Not only hadEnglish rovers for years past been giving unspeakable trouble on theSpanish Main and the Ocean highways, but the English fleets alsopractically controlled the narrow seas: and could make it impossiblefor any ordinary convoys, whether of transports, or merchantmen, ortreasure-ships, to pass up-channel. In other words, England could blockthe lines of communication between Spain and the Netherlands. UntilSpain should bestir all her might, rise up, and annihilate the Englishshipping, Elizabeth must be kept neutral; whereas, if Orange werepressed too hard, she might be forced even against her will to supporthim vigorously, if only to prevent France from doing so single-handed, and perhaps thereby capturing the Netherlands for herself. 

[Sidenote: Reciprocal Concessions; 1575]

So the Spaniard was polite to Elizabeth, Elizabeth was polite to theSpaniard, and in France the factions fought furiously round Rochelle orrested in temporary truce. The politeness was carried to veryconsiderable lengths. Allen's seminary at Douay, where young EnglishCatholics had been trained to go forth as missionaries and seekmartyrdom in their native land, was ordered to remove itself. Therefugees who had found shelter at Louvain and elsewhere were requiredto depart across Philip's borders. Claims on either side for theseizure of merchandise or treasure were balanced against each other. Inthe spring of 1575, Elizabeth fell upon certain anabaptists withostentatious severity, by way of demonstrating how narrow after all wasthe division between Anglican and Catholic in their fundamental ideas. Yet there remained one serious difficulty to adjust; one point, orperhaps we should say two points, on which neither side could or wouldgive way. 

[Sidenote: A Deadlock]

On the soil of Spain the dominating force was the Inquisition. Withinhis own dominions, Philip was absolutely committed to the rigidenforcement of orthodoxy, as understood by the Holy Office. The HolyOffice claimed, and the claim was endorsed by Philip, that itsjurisdiction extended over vessels in Spanish waters, and it was in thehabit of haling English sailors from their ships into its dungeons, asheretics. In this Elizabeth declined to acquiesce; and Sir Henry Cobhamwas sent to Madrid to demand recognition of the English view, and topropose that resident Ambassadors should again be established, theEnglishman to be privileged--as the Spaniard should be in England--toenjoy the Services of his own Church. Further, inasmuch as fortune hadso far smiled upon Orange of late that Leyden had triumphantly resisteda determined siege, Elizabeth offered friendly mediation; emphasisingthe suggestion by a hint that unless Spain could see her way to apacification, Orange could now appeal with a prospect of success toFrance; and England could not afford to decline the preferablealternative of an appeal to herself. 

On Spanish soil, however, Catholic zealotry was too strong. Alva wouldfain have made diplomatic concessions, which could be revoked whenconvenient; Philip was dominated by the extremists, who werescandalised by the presence of a heretic envoy, who in his turn wasfurious at being called a heretic. The proffered mediation wasdeclined; Philip flatly refused to concede religious privileges to anAmbassador, suggesting only that the difficulty could be got over bysending a Catholic; as to the action of the Inquisition, he was pledgednot to interfere. 

[Sidenote: 1576 Attitude of the Nation]

With this message Cobham returned, to find that the revolted Stateswere on their part offering the sovereignty of the Provinces toElizabeth. Walsingham and his allies were supporting the proposal, andunder present conditions Burghley too inclined to it. Elizabeth, confident that Spain would not declare war, was ready to carry what wecan only call bluff to the extreme limit, though she scolded herCouncil with energy. The Spaniards took the opportunity to render theCouncil most effective support, by seizing the crew of another Englishship. Elizabeth sent warnings or threats to Requescens; and in February(1576), Parliament was summoned to vote supplies; which it did withouthesitation. If the action of Parliament was any sort of index topopular sentiment, the idea that there was any widespread or deep-rooted feeling in the country against a war of religion is certainlyfallacious; while there can be no question that the entire sea-goingpopulation--which had attracted into its ranks all that was mostadventurous, most daring, most energetic, and most capable in thecountry--was heart and soul hostile to Spain. How much of that feelingwas due to enthusiastic Protestantism, and how much to the fact thatmen hankered after the Spanish El Dorado may be matter of debate; butthat the feeling was there is patent. That the attitude of Parliamentwas not due to any subserviency is emphasised by the open attack inthis session on the granting of Monopolies to the Queen's favourites, which sent Wentworth who made it to the Star-Chamber--and found for himearly and popular pardon instead of severe punishment. 

[Sidenote: The Queen evades war]

Evidently, the force which did really operate against war was the Queenherself. From beginning to end of her reign, she never entered upon anywar at all, so long as any possible means could be found for evading itwithout surrendering some right or claim vital in her eyes either tothe nation's interests or her own. On such points she was neverprepared to yield: in the last resort she would fight, but at the sametime make the most of her reluctance, and relieve her feelings byroundly rating her ministers. Yet repeatedly she went as far as it waspossible to go without actually declaring war, relying securely on thecertainty that the irrevocable step would not be taken by the otherparty, and that she could find some plausible though perhapsundignified excuse for not taking it herself. 

So it was now. So long as France could be deterred from espousing thecause of Orange, she saw no necessity for her own intervention. If theInquisition maltreated some of her sailors, others might be relied onto effect reprisals and to collect compensation, on their ownresponsibility, without her actually applying the grievance as a_casus belli_: it could always be employed to that end, ifoccasion should arise. Requescens died suddenly, a few days before theprorogation of the English Parliament in March. Elizabeth dismissed theStates' envoys, refused all assistance, and threatened open hostilityif they appealed to France. The Spanish arms were prospering again, andas the summer advanced, Orange was reduced to such straits that heseriously contemplated a wholesale emigration to the New World, fromthe two States which remained stubborn, Holland and Zeeland. 

[Sidenote: 1575-76 The Huguenots and Alençon]

The involved state of French parties probably accounts for Elizabeth'saction. Since the death of Charles IX. , the middle party or_Politiques_ had been revived, and with this, for some time, bothHenry of Navarre and Alençon--now heir presumptive to the Frenchthrone--were associated. In the autumn of 1575 however Alençon betookhimself to the Huguenots at Dreux. Being thus openly supported by theheir presumptive, the Huguenot position was considerably strengthened. Once more the English Queen resolved to employ matrimonial negotiations, as a means for keeping others inactive and evading action herself. Theidea that she should marry Alençon was revived, and found favour atleast with the Politiques. The French King approved. In May 1576, apeace was patched up which promised to give neither party undueascendancy. The great danger of the winter months--that Alençon and theHuguenots would make common cause with the Netherlanders--had passed;and Elizabeth thought she could now afford to decline both the marriageand the entreaties of the revolted States. 

[Sidenote: 1576 The States and Don John]

But the impending collapse of the Hollanders was averted. Before asuccessor to Requescens arrived, the Spanish troops, whose pay washeavily in arrear, mutinied, took the law into their own hands, pillaged in the States which had submitted, and finally perpetrated thesack of Antwerp, known as "the Spanish Fury, " when some thousands ofthe inhabitants were wantonly slaughtered. The result was that theStates General, meeting at Ghent, were so alarmed and angered that allthe Provinces again united and by the Pacification of Ghent, resolvedunanimously to demand the total withdrawal of the Spanish troops beforethey would admit the new Governor, Don John of Austria, Philip'sillegitimate brother, the victor of Lepanto. Vehemently Catholic aswere the Southern Provinces, they were even ready to demand freedom ofworship for the Protestants, for the sake of political unity in theface of the Spaniard. 

[Sidenote: Attitude of Elizabeth]

Don John's military reputation stood exceedingly high; he was known toentertain very ambitious ideas; his brother was gloomily jealous of him. It was more than suspected that in his own mind Don John wished toinvade England, raise the Catholics, marry Mary, set her on the throne, and from that vantage ground secure the erection of the Netherlandsinto a separate kingdom for himself. It was Elizabeth's policy toretain the good-will of Philip, who would certainly hold Don John incheck, unless she provoked him beyond endurance. Therefore, while shewas ready to lend money but no troops to the States, it was oncondition that they would yield on the question of religion; so thatshe could impress upon Philip that while she must support them in thedemands which, after the recent outrages, were obviously reasonable, her influence was being exerted to make them in turn submit to what shedid and some of them did not consider reasonable terms. 

[Sidenote: The Political Kaleidoscope]

When the new year (1577) opened, Don John saw nothing for it but toaccede to the bulk of the States' demands, reserving the question offreedom of worship for Philip. The Catholic Provinces accepted thecompromise, and the others had to follow suit. The new Governor wasadmitted into the Netherlands. Elizabeth sent to Spain a new Ambassador, Sir John Smith, to demand again that the Inquisition should recognisethe rights of English sailors. Sir John asserted himself with energy;forced his way into the presence of the Grand Inquisitor, when the twostormed at each other with picturesque vigour; carried his point withthe King; and, so far as promises went, returned successful towards theend of the year. In the meantime, the Spanish troops were paid andwithdrawn from the Netherlands: but letters to Spain from Escobeda, DonJohn's Secretary, were intercepted, which showed that the Governormeant after all to reconquer the Provinces, though desiring to postponethat operation to his schemes in England. Also in the meantime, Alençonhad been won over to the Guises, and there was a danger of Francereviving an aggressively Catholic policy. Once more, circumstances wereforcing Elizabeth towards a Protestant alliance, to counteract theschemes not so much of Philip as of Don John. 

[Sidenote 1: The Archduke Matthias][Sidenote 2: 1577-78 Diverse Measures]

Yet fortune again enabled Elizabeth to put off the evil day. Thediscovery of Don John's intentions again set the whole of the Provincesagainst him, but they were divided on the question of leadership. TheCatholics of the south, disliking the sovereignty of Elizabeth or thedictatorship of Orange, turned to the Catholic Archduke Matthias, brother of the Emperor Rudolf. The Archduke favoured the proposal; andthough the English Queen began by promising help in men and money, before the year was out she had made up her mind that Matthias mustlook after his own affairs, and that she could afford to continue aninterested spectator. Nor did her views change materially when, inJanuary 1578, Don John--having reassembled a number of the recentlywithdrawn troops--moved suddenly against the forces of the SouthernStates and shattered them at Gemblours (January 29th). She did indeedsend Orange some money, and promised to increase the loan, but declinedto do more. Her public policy, however, had not prevented her fromprivately sanctioning, in November 1577, the departure of Francis Drakeon that famous voyage, wherein he circumnavigated the globe, andincidentally wrought much detriment to Spain. Of that voyage, whichreached its triumphant conclusion almost three years later, inSeptember 1580, we shall hear more in another chapter. 

[Sidenote: 1578 Mendoza]

Since the expulsion of Don Guerau de Espes there had been no regularSpanish Ambassador in England. Now, in accordance with the arrangementseffected by Sir John Smith, the complete restoration of friendly relationswas to be sealed by accrediting Don Bernardino de Mendoza to England. InMarch Mendoza arrived. The English Council was as usual much more inclinedto war than its mistress. But the Ambassador's instructions were entirelyconciliatory. As concerned the Netherlands, Philip could not give way onthe point of allowing religious freedom--for which Elizabeth cared nothing--but he would concede all the political demands, even to the withdrawal ofDon John in favour of a substitute less dangerous to England. 

[Sidenote: Orange and Alençon]

Elizabeth would have been satisfied; but the Protestant provinces were asresolute as Philip on the religious question. The plan of calling in theArchduke had collapsed at Gemblours; but the sovereignty of the Netherlandswas still a bait which would tempt Alençon from the Guise alliance; thoughno one could tell what he might ultimately do if he were received by theStates, even that desperate remedy was preferable to submission. Nevertheless, Elizabeth still tried, in despite of her ministers, to forceOrange's hand by the singular process of with-holding the bonds by whichher last loan to him had been effected. Walsingham, who was sent toovercome Orange's scruples was so disgusted that he thought of giving uphis position; naturally his negotiation was a failure. It was announcedthat Orange would wait no longer and that the arrangement with Alençonwould be carried through. Also at this time Don John met with a defeat atRymenant, mainly owing to the obstinate valour of a battalion of Englishvolunteers commanded by Sir John Norreys. For a moment the Queen wascarried away, but immediately reverted to her antagonistic attitude. Allshe could be induced to do was at last to issue the bonds. The old trick, which had so often served her purpose of suspending action, was to do dutyonce more. The matrimonial shadow was more alluring to Alençon than theNetherland bone. 

[Sidenote: Sept. Death of Don John]

The persistence of happy accidents--of unforeseen events which savedElizabeth from the disasters which her ministers anticipated, givingher tortuous policy an undeserved success and thereby in the eyes ofsome historians discrediting the more honourable and straightforwardcourses which Walsingham and Burghley habitually advocated--is one ofthe most remarkable features of Elizabeth's reign. Her good fortune didnot desert her now. Don John died suddenly, not without the usualsuspicions of foul play. The peculiar danger of his association withMary Stewart, disappeared with his death. No wild schemes were likelyto be conceived or encouraged by his successor Alexander of Parma, oneof the ablest statesmen and probably the ablest soldier of the day. Moreover about the same time, King Sebastian of Portugal was killed--aswas also the English adventurer Thomas Stukely who had been divertedfrom invading Ireland to take part in this affair--in an expeditionagainst Morocco. Dying without issue, Sebastian was succeeded by hisgreat-uncle Henry, a cardinal whose Orders precluded the possibility ofhis leaving an heir. Philip of Spain therefore was now, through hismother, claimant to the position of heir apparent. [Footnote Philipclaimed as the son of Isabella, sister of Henry and of John III. , Sebastian's grandfather. The prior right however really lay with thedaughters of their younger brother Edward, of whom the elder, Katharine, was married to John of Braganza and the younger, Mary, to Alexander ofParma. Parma's title was invalidated by Braganza's, and Braganza didnot push his own claim. Don Antonio of Crato who did come forward as apretender was himself the illegitimate son of another brother, Luis. Thus when, later on, Philip claimed the English throne as the linealdescendant of John of Gaunt, his title, such as it was, was inferior tothat of either Braganza or Parma. ] The prospect of this furtheraccession to his dominions, and increase of his power and resources, made it more than ever necessary for France to hold aloof from anyalliance with him, in which she must play an entirely subordinate part, and to court the friendship of England. The stars in their coursesseemed to fight for Elizabeth's policy. 

Down to this point the course of events in Ireland does not appear asmaterially influencing English policy; and it has seemed better, forthe sake of clearness to defer its history for consecutive treatment. To this we now turn in the chapter following; after which Irish affairswill be dealt with in the regular progress of the general narrative. 

CHAPTER XX

ELIZABETH (v), 1558-78-IRISH AND ENGLISH

[Sidenote: 1549-58]

The Deputyship of Bellingham in Ireland, which terminated just beforethe fall of Somerset, left the Irish chiefs in a state of angrydiscontent. As inaugurating a system of severe but consistentgovernment, Bellingham's rule might have been valuable; as mattersstood, no doubt he gave the Irish what is commonly called a lesson--from which nothing was learnt. If the Geraldines--Kildare and Desmond--of the South, the O'Neills and O'Donnells of the North, the Burkes andO'Briens in the West, had possessed the slightest capacity for workingin harmony, they might have raised such a revolt as the incapable anddistracted governments of Edward VI. And Mary could not have coped with. Ormonde however served as a permanent check on the Geraldines, whilethe young Kildare had neither the inclination nor the opportunity tohead rebellions: and the great septs were far too ready to turn on eachother for any effective combination. Leix and Offally, the territoriesof O'More and O'Connor [Footnote: See p. 201, _ante_. ] on the westof the Pale, were absorbed into it and partially colonised, becomingKing's County and Queen's County; and when Elizabeth ascended thethrone, the extent of the Pale corresponded roughly, though notaccurately, to the Province of Leinster. 

[Sidenote: 1558]

In matters ecclesiastical, religion officially swung with the pendulumin England. Church lands were distributed among the great men underEdward, and within the Pale the clergy generally conformed after afashion, reverting again under Mary. Outside the Pale no greatattention was paid to the orders of the Government. On Elizabeth'saccession, the Act of Uniformity was enforced and some bishops resigned. But the new Queen had plenty to occupy her in England, and in Irelandwas fain to take the least troublesome course, giving diplomatic sopsto the chiefs and spending as little money as possible: Sussex, who wasDeputy when Mary died, being continued in that office. 

[Sidenote: Shan O'Neill]

The policy was destined to prove difficult. The two great chiefs ofUlster, O'Donnell of Tyrconnel in the West, and O'Neil, created Earl ofTyrone, in the East, had been more or less successfully conciliated bythe policy of St. Leger. But Tyrone had a numerous progeny, and thelaws of legitimacy were at a discount. The English elected to recogniseas his heir a favourite son, Matthew, who certainly was not legitimate. But another legitimate son, Shan or Shane, a man of great if erraticabilities, declined to submit to this arrangement when he grew up. Matthew was killed in a brawl, leaving a young son to claim thesuccession. Thereupon Shan virtually deposed his father, and inaccordance with ancient practice was elected "The O'Neill, " head of theclan which claimed that their chiefs were the old-time Kings of Ulster:ignoring the choice of the English Government, and scorning the earldombestowed by them. Next, no doubt with a view to alliance, Shan marriedO'Donnell's sister; but when he found that the minor chiefs weredisposed to attach themselves rather to him than to O'Donnell, hedecided to adopt the policy of breaking his rival in Ulster, aspreferable to alliance with him; and his maltreatment of his wife verysoon resulted in hostilities. 

[Sidenote: The Scots of Antrim]

Now in Antrim there was a considerable colony of Scots from the Islands, whose chief was James M'Connell. Also, a sister of the Earl of Argyle, curiously referred to in the records as the Countess of Argyle, was thewife of O'Donnell. The Antrim Scots were supposed to be in alliancewith O'Donnell; whom however Shan's proceedings were now causing toseek English friendship, whereas the Scots were antagonistic toElizabeth, holding that their own Queen Mary had the better title tothe English throne. So Shan got rid of his O'Donnell wife, and marriedthe sister of James M'Connell by way of cementing a union with theScots; but then proceeded to write to Argyle, suggesting that he shouldget rid of the M'Connell wife in turn, and that the Countess should betransferred from O'Donnell to himself, on the assumption that thiswould give him an equal hold on the Antrim Scots. Whereby he merelyenraged the Scots and disgusted Argyle. However, a short timeafterwards, Shan raided Tyrconnel's country, and carried off the chiefand his wife; who seems to have been fascinated by her captor, andwillingly became his consort, irregular as the conditions were. M'Connell was somehow outwardly pacified despite the insult to hissister; but the bad blood engendered took effect in due time. 

[Sidenote: 1560-61 Shan and the Government]

Before the overthrow of Tyrconnel, O'Neill was already becoming aserious source of alarm to the English. It is the fact that aconsiderable number of farmers migrated from the Pale into Ulster, feeling greater security under the aegis of O'Neill than under Englishlaw; which did little to protect them, while the English soldiery, badly disciplined and badly maintained, were in effect a seriouselement of disorder. O'Neill, cited to appear in England, wrote aletter to Elizabeth in which he dwelt with some complacency on thistestimony to his own superior government, besides arguing veryconclusively in favour of his own claim to recognition as head of theO'Neills. But he evaded the journey to London, and made his raid onTyrconnel instead. 

That exploit made Shan more completely master of Ulster than ever. Theresult was that in the summer of 1561, Sussex marched into the NorthernProvince. Shan after some preliminary skirmishes surprised hisrearguard, and would have cut his whole force to pieces but for adesperate rally. When Elizabeth learned what had happened, she made upher mind that it would be best to concede O'Neill's demands, and inducehim to visit England, while Sussex was actually trying to drive abargain for his murder. The plot fell through, but Sussex received somesupplies and was allowed to make another less disastrous expeditionbefore Kildare was sent to negotiate with O'Neill on the Queen's behalf. The chief stipulated for complete amnesty, a safe-conduct, and thepayment of his expenses, as a condition of his paying the desired visit. 

[Sidenote: 1561-2 Shan in England]

When Shan arrived in London, he made his formal submission, but wasinformed that though he had his safe-conduct for return the date whenthat return would be permitted lay with the Queen. He must wait for hisrival, young Matthew, to have their claims tried. Meantime Shan, whoseems to have adopted Henry VIII. As his matrimonial model, suggestedthat he should be given an English wife, and that he would manage thegovernment of Ulster admirably in Elizabeth's interests, as soon as hewent back--with the Earldom. But as time went on he learned thatMatthew was being intentionally kept in Ireland. Then another ofO'Neill's kinsmen, Tirlogh, succeeded in murdering Matthew, while Shanin England was vowing that his great desire was to be instructed inEnglish ways by Dudley (not yet Earl of Leicester). Now he remarked onthe necessity for his return to keep his kinsmen in order. There was agood deal of ground for believing that he was in fact the only personwho could rule Ulster: and after four months (April 1562) he wasallowed to return, with promises on his part to be a model ruler and onthe Queen's part a concession of something not far short of sovereignty. 

Before the end of the year it was evident enough that Shan's promiseswere not intended to be kept. His murder had been plotted; Sussex hadcertainly endeavoured to entrap him treacherously; his detention inEngland had been technically justified by a distinctly dishonourabletrick. He did not mean to be tricked again, and if there was duplicityin his conduct the English had set the example. He entered intocorrespondence with the Queen's potential enemies on all hands, andproceeded to suppress every one in the North whose submission tohimself was doubtful. 

[Sidenote: 1563 Shan's supremacy recognised]

So in the spring, Sussex made another futile raid, after whichElizabeth thought it best once more to play at conciliation, and toadopt the scheme of formally constituting Ulster, Munster and Connaughtinto Provinces, with O'Neill as President in the north, Clanricarde(Burke) or O'Brien in the west, and Desmond or Kildare in the south. Shan was to be so completely supreme that he was even to be free tomake his own Catholic nominee Archbishop of Armagh. An indubitableattempt to poison O'Neill gave him a moral advantage, though theEnglish authorities indignantly repudiated the perpetrator. Shan wascontent to allow the affair to be hushed up, and established his ownrule throughout Ulster with a combination of barbarity and realadministrative ability which to students of Indian History recalls themethods and the ethics of Ranjit Singh or Abdurrhaman. Within the Pale, the exceedingly corrupt administration of recent years was overhauledby Sir Nicholas Arnold; who was no respecter of persons, but outsidethe Pale regarded the Irish--in his own words--as so many "bears andbandogs" who were best employed in ravaging and cutting each other'sthroats. And in the south, the Butlers and Geraldines carried out thatpolicy with devastatory results. It is to be noted however that Cecilfound Arnold's views very difficult to stomach. [Footnote: _StatePapers_, _Ireland_, i. , p. 252. ]

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that in spite of Shan'speculiar views as to marriage and murder, Ulster under his sway was onthe whole better off than any other part of Ireland. 

[Sidenote: 1565]

In 1565 Mary Stewart married Darnley, in pursuit, as we have seen, ofan aggressive policy towards England. In this year, O'Neill was hand inglove with Sir Thomas Stukely, a gentleman-adventurer of Devon, whomade the harbours of the west coast his base for piratical cruises insearch of treasure-ships. Englishmen at home were devising paperschemes for an ideal government in the sister island, but somethingvery different was required if Shan was not to become strong enough toendanger the very existence of English dominion there. There wasconsiderable risk that Argyle, in disgust at Elizabeth's double-dealing, would sink his differences with the Irish Chief, and give him theactive support of the Antrim Scots. Meantime, though Shan himself wascareful to render plausible explanations of his very obvious activity, Sir Henry Sidney, a man of very different calibre from Sussex, wasappointed to succeed that nobleman in the Deputyship. 

[Sidenote: 1566 Sir Henry Sidney Deputy]

Sidney had been in Ireland before and knew the conditions. He saidplain terms that he would not accept office, unless he could have thetroops and the money needed to compel the success of the militarymovements of which he foresaw the necessity if order was to be secured. He required in fact that the Government should possess actually thesanction of superior force. The experiment of constituting Munster aPresidency was to be tried, with Ormonde, Desmond, and the othersouthern lords as a Council. But before he arrived early in 1566, Argyle and O'Neill had already made their new pact, and a crisis seemedto be at hand. 

Sidney found the Pale in a state of anarchy, Munster half devastated bythe Ormonde and Desmond feud, and O'Neill supreme in the north. Summoned to meet Sidney in the Pale, Shan replied in effect that heknew too much about the traps previously laid for him to run any risks. Sidney employed Stukely to negotiate. Stukely reported that Shan wasdefiant. Sidney wrote urgently both to Leicester and to Cecil that hemush put O'Neill down and must have money to pay his troops and keepthem paid. The Council were willing enough, but Elizabeth kept thepurse-strings tight. Moreover she was pleased to rate Sidney forstoutly refusing to settle the Ormonde-Desmond dispute in favour of theformer; the Deputy declaring that the questions between them involvedcomplicated points of laws which could only be properly dealt with bylawyers. In April, she sent him half the money he demanded, anddispatched her kinsman, Knollys, to oversee Sidney. Knollys, who wasgiven to speaking his mind, promptly told her that Sidney was entirelyin the right and ought to have a free hand. An immediate aggressivecampaign against Shan was necessary, especially as the chief was now incorrespondence with Charles IX. Of France. This was at the time when ageneral suspicion was prevalent that a universal Catholic League forthe destruction of Protestantism was being formed; and Shan wrote as anenthusiastic Catholic. 

[Sidenote: 1567 End of O'Neill]

Under extreme pressure then, Elizabeth at last increased the supplies. Unluckily for O'Neill, Argyle's friendship was cooling under pressurefrom Murray, and the Antrim M'Connells, in spite of recent marriages, did not forget the old feud: while Desmond, encouraged by Sidney'sattitude, was deaf to his appeals. Sidney swept Ulster, establishing astrong garrison in a new and well-chosen fort which in course of timedeveloped into Londonderry, and restored Tyrconnel in the north-west. Sidney himself was seriously hampered by constant reproofs fromElizabeth; but O'Neill was now grievously harassed by the O'Donnells onone side, the M'Connells on another, and by the garrison at Derry. Renewed attempts to obtain aid from the Guises, in February (1567), failed; and though Derry had to be abandoned owing to an outbreak ofplague, the death of the commandant, and a fire which destroyed thebuildings, O'Neill's fate was already sealed. He marched to meet anincursion of the O'Donnells, but was completely overthrown, and had toflee for his life to seek the ambiguous hospitality of the M'Connellsof Antrim; who received him for the sake of subsisting relationships. But the situation was too volcanic. Insults passed over the wine-cup, knives were drawn, and O'Neill was slaughtered. So perished the mostformidable challenger of the English rule who had appeared in Ireland;for his one predecessor of equal ability, the old Kildare, had neverschemed for the creation of an independent Nation. 

The death of O'Neill was followed by a brief period of rest fromperpetual warfare: but the peace was not to last for long. 

[Sidenote: Irish Catholicism in politics]

From the days of Elizabeth until now the antagonism of the Irish toprotestantism has been one of the two great sources of disaffection. Asthe English power extended, efforts were made to carry out beyond thePale the principles of the Act of Uniformity, and the cause ofRebellion became more and more identified with the cause of Catholicism. Before the fall of Shan, Queen and Deputies had been disposed to shuttheir eyes to the open disregard of the Act all over the country. Now, recalcitrant chiefs began to make the preservation of religion theground of appeal for foreign assistance to cast off the yoke of England. Curiously, however, neither they nor the Catholic clergy grasped thepolitical situation. Irish nationality, _per se_, was profoundlyuninteresting to foreign potentates. In England, Scotland, and Ireland, the cause of Catholicism was the cause of Mary Stewart. Unless insupport of her, it was impracticable for either France or Spain to moveagainst Elizabeth. The murder of Darnley, three months before O'Neill'sfall, destroyed the Queen of Scots' chances, but only for a time. Shanhimself had been acute enough to seek Mary's friendship; but now thedisaffected prelates and chiefs will be found hoping vainly to placethemselves under the dominion of a foreign power, in preference even toa Catholicised English supremacy. Any such scheme would have destroyedthe relations between the English Catholics and their friends abroad. 

Of the second great disturbing factor, the Land, we have hitherto heardlittle; but now was about to commence the era of attempts at forciblyestablishing an English landed proprietary, displacing the nativeowners; on the hypothesis that they would be able to keep thepopulation in subjection. 

[Sidenote: 1568 The Colonisation of Munster]

The first schemes would probably have been beneficial had they beenpracticable, as they involved nothing in the shape of forfeiture. Butthey would have been costly, while offering no temptations toAdventurers. In 1568 a scheme was devised which tempted the Adventurers, made little demand on the exchequer--Elizabeth always argued thatIreland ought to pay for itself--but involved forfeitures on a largescale. 

Desmond, who had declined alliance with O'Neill, was summoned to answercharges of treason. He surrendered at once, and was sent to London. Then he tried to escape, and was only allowed to purchase freedom fromclose imprisonment or worse by surrendering all his lands to the Queento receive back so much as she chose to grant. A group of Devonshiregentlemen proposed that the titles of other landowners in Munstershould be investigated, and that all the lands held underunsatisfactory titles should be handed over to themselves. They wouldoccupy and rule at their own charges, and compel complete submission bythe strong hand; a process by which it is quite evident that theyintended practical extermination of the Irish. The business was startedon Desmond lands; but it was carried to a dangerous point when SirPeter Carew took possession of Butler property--seeing that the loyaltyof the Ormonde connexion was the one source of Irish support which hadnever been even suspected of failing. There were massacres andreprisals; but fortunately when the other Munster chiefs took theopportunity to petition Philip of Spain to come and take possession, the Butlers still stood firmly to their allegiance. 

[Sidenote: 1569 Insurrection in Munster]

An insurrection was headed in 1569 by Fitzmaurice (Desmond's brother);some of the English households were wiped out. The O'Neills in Ulsterand the Burkes in Connaught rose. Ormonde declared plainly that if thecolonising policy were carried on it would be impossible for him tosupport the government. Sidney ravaged Munster, and left Sir HumphreyGilbert in command behind him for a time: but the actual scheme wasdropped. There is no evading the fact that the English, who could waxhot enough over the cruelties of Spaniards in America or in Holland, did without compunction or any sense of inconsistency regard the Irishnot even as mere human savages but as wild beasts. And many of thesewere men who in any other circumstances were capable of displaying anadmirable chivalry and a heroic valour. Gilbert was a man full of nobleideals, learned, pious, cultivated, valiant, kindly; but if there was achance of killing an Irish man, woman, or child, he took it. 

[Sidenote: Ireland and Philip II. ]

In England, 1569 was the year of the Northern rebellion. France wasviewing the Scots Queen's pretensions with increasing lukewarmness, andPhilip was regarding her with corresponding favour. The Ridolfi plotwas developing in 1570 and 1571. In brief, at this period Philip'sdisposition towards Elizabeth was becoming definitely, though notavowedly, hostile instead of--as hitherto on the whole--friendly. Yethe would not accept the Irish invitation to intervene. But he receivedat Madrid, and treated with great favour, the very remarkableadventurer Thomas Stukely, already mentioned as a piratical ally ofShan O'Neill's. Stukely had been sent over to England to answer for hismiscellaneous misdeeds; but was--perhaps intentionally--allowed toescape to Spain; where he represented himself as an enthusiasticCatholic, and the most influential man in Ireland, and bragged hugelyof the coming conquest of that country, of which he was to become insome sort the Prince, with the assistance of Spain. The entertainmentof Stukely however summed up all that Philip was prepared to do forIreland. By September 1572 he was again seeking Elizabeth's amity. 

[Sidenote: Experimental Presidencies]

In the meantime, the experiment of constituting Connaught a Presidencyhad been tried and failed ignominiously. The curse of the EnglishGovernment--a soldiery whose pay was permanently and hugely in arrear, who were constantly on the verge of mutiny, and lived virtually bypillage--remained unabated; and Sidney, having tried vigorousgovernment first and then, lacking the means to maintain it properly, extirpation as an alternative, but still without success, clamoured tobe recalled, and at last got his wish. 

Desmond was still detained in England, but the Geraldines in Munsterhad not been crushed either by Sidney or by Gilbert. Despite thefailure in Connaught, the Presidency plan was tried in the southernprovince, Sir John Perrot being appointed thereto. Perrot blew upstrongholds, captured and hanged some hundreds of the population, butcould not lay hold of the chiefs or bring the country into subjection. In 1572, Fitzmaurice made his way to Ulster, gathered a force of Scots, and came down the Shannon. The President got his chance of a fight, andshattered the force: but Elizabeth was dissatisfied with the results ofan unwonted if still inadequate expenditure, and declared that thewhole experiment was too costly. A general amnesty and the withdrawalof Perrot ended it. 

[Sidenote: 1573 Essex (the elder) in Ulster]

Yet experiments continued to be the order of the day. The one expedientnot attempted was a government supported by obviously efficientphysical force, but aiming at the prosperity of the people, and notrunning violently counter to the customs and the prejudices ofcenturies. Another inefficient colony was started in Ulster, which onlyexcited popular animosity; Desmond was at last in 1573 allowed toreturn to Munster with many promises on his part, from which, likeO'Neill before him, he considered himself absolved by a breach of faithtowards him. Finally Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex, was allowed to trythe biggest and perhaps the most disastrous of the whole series ofexperiments; being virtually granted authority to invade Ulster with afree hand to make laws and generally to do what seemed to him goodthere--all at his own cost--save only for some provisions safe-guardingthe royal prerogative. He went with excellent intentions, romanticideals, a respectable force, and a sublime ignorance of facts. TheIrishmen, mindful of the Munster colonisation, tricked him with anapparently warm welcome at Carrickfergus, permitted him to congratulatehimself on roseate prospects, and then at one swoop cleared thedistrict of provisions. They professed to owe allegiance to the Queen, but repudiated the claims of a private adventurer. His own troops werevolunteers, with no mind for hardships and no prospects of plunder. Inthree months he found his dreams hopelessly dissipated, and himselfalmost deserted, with no remotest chance of carrying out the Utopianprojects with which he had started. 

[Sidenote: 1574]

The volunteer method having failed thus ignominiously, Essex was madeofficially Governor of Ulster, and supplied with troops; for theO'Neills were now threatening, and the Deputy, Fitzwilliam, wasinactive. Tirlogh O'Neill and his kinsman Sir Brian were very promptlybrought to submission. In the south Desmond, between threats andpromises, was persuaded to resume an air of loyalty. Essex however hadlearned to adopt the common view of the Irish in its extremest form. Bya ruse which anywhere else he would have counted a piece of theblackest treachery, he seized Sir Brian and his wife and cut up theirfollowing when they were actually his own guests; and followed up theperformance by a hideous and wanton massacre of women and children anddecrepit men at Rathlin off the Antrim Coast; of which things he wrotewith a perfect complacency, and for which he was highly applauded. Thereafter he returned to England. 

[Sidenote: 1576 Sidney's second Deputyship]

Once more, Sidney was persuaded to accept the Deputyship. It isprobable that his honest desire was to govern firmly and justly, although, when denied the means for steady rule he had fallen back onextirpation. At any rate the Irish themselves, genuinely or not, hailedhis return with apparent enthusiasm. The chiefs hoped that after somany experiments had collapsed, the pristine plan of making themresponsible for their own districts and leaving them alone might betried again. But no English statesman could divest himself of the ideathat no government was worth having unless it was conducted by Englishmethods. Sidney insisted on reconstituting the Presidencies ofConnaught and Munster, Malby taking charge of the former and Drury ofthe latter. Naturally enough, and with plenty of excuse, they set abouthangings on an extensive scale, and where they met with resistance gaveno quarter. English methods, as usual in Ireland, promptly degeneratedinto massacre and devastation. Sidney left the country again two yearsafter he had returned to it--and left it as ripe for rebellion as ithad ever been. 

And the omens abroad were dangerous. For the Jesuit Sanders was seekingto stir up a Catholic crusade, Stukely was in high favour at Madrid, and the ablest of the Geraldines, James Fitzmaurice, was in Spain. Moreover Philip's indisposition to interfere was on the verge of beingseriously disturbed by Drake's great expedition, which had sailed fromEngland in 1577. 

CHAPTER XXI

ELIZABETH (vi), 1578-83--THE PAPAL ATTACK

[Sidenote: Union of Utrecht 1579]

The presence of Alexander of Parma in the Netherlands soon resulted ina definite division between the seven northern and the ten southernStates. The latter, Catholic themselves, were not inclined to hold outfor religious liberty. The rest, being Protestant, and realising that, while William of Orange lived, two at least, Holland and Zealand, wouldhold out to the very death, resolved to stand together; combining, under the title of the United Provinces, in the Union of Utrecht at thebeginning of 1579. Their strength lay in their command of the estuariesof the Scheldt and the Meuse. 

[Sidenote: 1578 The Matrimonial juggle]

Elizabeth's great object now was to keep Alençon (otherwise known asAnjou, the title held by Henry III. Before he ascended the throne; alsovery commonly as "Monsieur") dancing in obedience to her manipulationof the wires. In this, as in all the previous matrimonial negotiations, not one of her ministers seems ever to have grasped her policy; thepolicy, that is, which modern historians attribute to her: a policy ofwhich the successful issue really depended on its never beingsuspected; which was possible only to one who was entire mistress ofall arts of dissimulation; which did in fact succeed completely everytime she applied it; a policy however of which no statesman could havedared to recommend the risk. This was, in brief, to make the wholeworld including her ministers believe that she really intended to marry, to keep that conviction alive over a protracted period of time, and yetto secure a loop-hole for escape at the last moment. She had played thefarce for years with the Archduke Charles; she had played it with Henryof Anjou; she had already played it with Alençon once; yet every timeshe started it afresh, potentates and ambassadors, her own ministers, and the wooer she selected, took the thing seriously, played into herhands, and were cajoled by her boundless histrionic ingenuity. Eithershe treated the world to a series of successful impositions, carriedthrough, unaided and unsuspected, with the supreme audacity and skillof a consummate _comedienne;_ or she was a contemptibly capriciouswoman whose inordinate vacillations invariably took the turn whichafter-events proved to have been the luckiest possible in thecircumstances. Of these two interpretations, the theory of a deliberatepolicy is the more acceptable, if only because it is inconceivable thatthe habitual indulgence of sheer wanton caprice should never once haveinvolved her in some irrevocable blunder, some position from which shecould not be extricated. Yet history affords no parallel to suchrepeatedly and universally successful dissimulation. 

[Sidenote: Alençon's wooing]

The comedy had fairly begun three months before Don John's death. Inresponse, as it would seem, to a private invitation, Alençon's envoyscame over at the end of July to propose the marriage. Monsieur wantedthe affair settled at once, as he must decide whether he was going tohelp Orange or Don John. After a little formal procrastination, Elizabeth had her answer ready. She was quite prepared to receive himas a suitor though somewhat hurt by his conduct before; still she couldnot promise to marry any man till they had met, and could really feelsure that they would be happily mated. He had better come over and seeher. 

Alençon did not want to come over and see her; but his alternative plan, of taking part with Don John, was opportunely spoilt by the Governor'sdeath, coupled with the new Spanish prospects opened up by the death ofthe Portuguese King. An alliance with Parma under these conditions wasnot at all the same thing for the French prince as an alliance with theambitious and somewhat Quixotic schemer who was now dead. Elizabeth, thus strengthened, added a new condition, that he must withdraw for thepresent from the Netherlands. He could hardly, under the circumstances, support Orange against her will, and he obeyed her behest. Then sheconsented to receive another representative on his behalf, but held toher declaration that she would settle nothing till she had met Monsieurhimself in person. 

[Sidenote: 1579 Popular hostility]

At the beginning of the year (1579) Alençon's emissary Simier arrived. In England however practically every one--except apparently the Queenherself--was opposed to the marriage. The traditional animosity toFrance was strong, and had been intensified by the Paris massacre. TheFrench Huguenots, for whom there was some sympathy, had no confidencein Alençon. The more unpopular the marriage showed itself, the more theQueen seemed to incline to it--since the more reasonably she could alsoinsist to him on the necessity of delay, that her people might first bereconciled to it. Yet however much the Council might dislike it, theynow felt bound to advise that Monsieur should be allowed to pay hisvisit. In August he arrived, and she could no longer urge the plea thatshe had not seen him. Mendoza, the Spanish ambassador, thought shewould marry him, that a civil war would follow, and the end would bethe return of England to Catholicism. On the whole Mendoza was not illpleased. 

[Sidenote: Loyalty to the Queen]

Now however capricious and apparently irrational the conduct of theQueen might be, however her ministers might resent it, condemn it, bewail it to each other, and remonstrate with her, they remained alwaysobstinately loyal. We may cynically attribute the fact to theirconsciousness that if they deserted her their doom under her rivalwould be sealed. Were that the true interpretation--were they reallyguided merely by a more or less enlightened self-interest--it is rathernatural to suppose that some of them would have played a double gameand secured friends in the other camp, like the Whig and Tory statesmenof the early eighteenth century; that they would have managed their ownaffairs so that they could change sides. None of them ever did anythingof the kind. Whatever the Queen did, they held to their own views, advocated them stubbornly, but obeyed their mistress, even when theythought her caprices were on the verge of bringing them all to ruin. And yet they never seem to have fully realised the extent to whichtheir own loyalty was shared by the people at large. Men may surrenderthemselves to such a sentiment, without venturing to count upon itsinfluence on others. But Elizabeth reckoned on it in ministers andpeople alike; and her calculation was invariably justified. 

[Sidenote: Yea and Nay]

So it was in this instance. What might have happened if she really hadmarried Alençon can only be guessed. Short of that, popular loyalty wasequal to the strain. A passionate pamphlet against the marriage wasissued by a lawyer named Stubbs. The Council, confident in the realstrength of the country, urged her to take the bold attitude, placeherself frankly at the head of European protestantism, and takemeasures at home to make a Catholic rising impossible. They could seeno alternative but the marriage. She stormed at them, burst into tears, vowed that she had expected them all to declare that the marriage wouldbe the fulfilment of all their hopes. They replied that since she wouldhave it so they would do their best to make the marriage acceptable. She had Stubbs and his publisher pilloried, and their right handsstruck off--on the strength of a most iniquitous misinterpretation of alaw of Queen Mary's. The victims waved their caps with the hand thatwas left and cried "God save the Queen". The marriage treaty was drawnup (November) but a couple of months were to pass before itsratification, to quiet the public mind. When the two months were overit was still unratified, and the whole negotiation was treated ashaving lapsed. Burghley at the end of January (1580) was falling backon the leadership of Protestantism as the only alternative to adopt, since France must be regarded as hopelessly alienated. 

[Sidenote: The Papal plan of Campaign]

In the meantime the Papal plan of campaign against England--a planwhich appears to have been matured early in 1579--was well under way. The Pope himself could not, and Philip of Spain would not, prepareArmadas to bring the recusant island back to the Roman submission. Butthere were other means to be tried than Armadas. Setting aside schemesfor assassination, there was trouble to be made for Elizabeth inIreland, trouble in Scotland, and trouble in England itself. Irelandwas ripe for rebellion; a Catholic faction might be reorganised inScotland; missionary zeal and martyrs' crowns might still revolutionisesentiment in England. The triple attack was resolved on--war in Ireland, diplomacy in Scotland, in England Seminarists from Rheims (whitherAllen's Douay college had migrated some years before) and Jesuits fromRome. 

In Ireland we have already seen the scheme taking shape, but scotchedfor the time by Stukely's diversion to Morocco and his death there, in1578. In the following summer however, an expedition landed in Kerry, with Sanders as Papal Nuncio, and half the island was soon in a blaze. There, for some little time, such of the wilder spirits of Englishyouth as were not occupied with ventures on the high seas were to findample employment: and though Philip would not make open war, Philip'ssubjects were not restrained from seeking to pay back the blows whichDrake had been dealing to Spain on the other side of the ocean--thereport whereof had already found its way to Europe. In Scotland, theautumn was not far advanced when young Esmé Stewart, Count D'Aubigny, of the House of Lennox, James's cousin, arrived in Scotland to win hisway into the boy-king's favour and plot the overthrow of Morton and ofthe Preachers. In the summer of 1580, Campian and Parsons began todeliver their message to the Catholics of England. 

[Sidenote: 1580 Philip annexes Portugal]

In this same summer, the Cardinal-King of Portugal, Sebastian'ssuccessor, died. Philip's opportunity for annexation had arrived, andhe seized it, expelling with little difficulty another claimant, DonAntonio, prior of Crato, the bastard son of the Cardinal's brotherLuis; who however for the next ten years hovers through Englishpolitics as a pretender to be supported or dropped at convenience; usedas a menace to Philip, much as the enemies of Henry VII. Had usedPerkin Warbeck. Then, in September, the great English seaman was backon English shores, in the ship that had sailed round the world--backwith the spoils of Spain on board. 

With this impression in our minds of the leading features of the year1580, we can turn first to the detailed record of events in Ireland. 

[Sidenote: Ireland: 1579 The Desmond rising]

The Expedition which landed in July at Dingle on the furthest south-west coast was small enough; but it brought with it Sanders theaccredited representative of the Pope, and Fitzmaurice, cousin ofDesmond. It appealed therefore at once to the Catholics at large andthe Geraldine connexion in particular. There was no strong or unitedEnglish force in the country; it was the custom of Elizabeth to provideher officers with the very minimum of equipment. Desmond at firsthesitated; but his brother seized an early opportunity to commit him bytreacherously murdering two English officers and their servants. HalfMunster was up in arms at once, and the new arrivals made haste tofortify Smerwick, in the neighbourhood of Dingle where they had landed. It was expected and declared that reinforcements from Spain would soonbe forth-coming. Malby, the President of Connaught, acted withpromptitude and energy, marching south with his own troops and some ofthe Burkes who were at feud with the Geraldines. Fortune favoured them;Fitzmaurice was slain almost at the outset, and the Papal standardcaptured and sent off to Dublin. Desmond with his immediate following, who had not taken part in the engagement, fell back on Ashketyn, nearLimerick; the rest of the insurgents retired on Smerwick. Drury however, advancing from Cork, was less fortunate, his troops being attacked bythe Irish and very severely handled, so that he was forced to retreat. He died soon after. 

The vigorous Malby assumed control of the Presidency, marched throughDesmond's country dealing miscellaneous slaughter and destruction, burnt the town at Ashketyn since the castle could not be carriedwithout cannon, and then went his way into Connaught. When Malby wasgone, Desmond sallied forth, marched quietly south to Youghal wherethere was an English colony, sacked it, put the English to the sword, and burnt the place. Thence, with increasing musters, he marched uponCork, which however he abstained from attacking. In January theinsurgents were encouraged by the arrival of some military stores fromabroad, with promises of further assistance in response to messagesfrom Desmond to the King of Spain. 

[Sidenote: 1580 Fire and Sword]

Meantime, neither Malby at Athlone nor Pelham in Dublin had sufficienttroops to take the field in force. Ormonde, dispatched from England totake the chief command, had neither money nor material allowed him totake the offensive. It was not till March that the Queen was induced tosend the urgently needed reinforcements, and Admiral Wynter with asquadron of ships arrived at the mouth of the Shannon. Ormonde fromKilkenny in the Butler country, and Pelham from Dublin, marched in twocolumns converging on Tralee, burning and slaughtering mercilesslyalong the route, sparing none. Then they turned on Carrickfoyle, impregnable without artillery, but easily breached by the heavy gunslanded from Wynter's ships. The garrison was put to the sword. Desmondat Ashketyn, having no mind for a like fate, withdrew from it, blowingup the castle behind him. But Elizabeth stopped the supplies; theEnglish were again forced to inaction, and parties of insurgents wentmarauding over Cork and Kerry, taking their turn of murdering. In Junethe purse-strings were loosened again; Pelham marched into Kerry, andonly just failed to surprise Desmond and his people, with Sanders, intheir beds. They escaped however, and Pelham went on to Dingle. Ormonde, making his way to the same point, added considerably to the tale ofburnings and slaughterings. This loyal earl in 1580 accounted for"forty-six captains and leaders, with eight notorious traitors andmale-factors, and four thousand other folk". [Footnote: _CarewPapers_. ]

[Sidenote: Development of the Rebellion]

The people in despair were beginning to turn against Sanders and theGeraldines, though persistently loyal to Desmond himself. But adiversion was created by a rising of the Catholics of the Pale. LordGrey de Wilton had just arrived in Dublin as Deputy. He marched againstthe rebels, but the greater part of his force was ambushed and cut topieces in the Wicklow mountains. And on the top of this disaster, thelong delayed foreign expedition landed at Dingle--Wynter havingwithdrawn--and Smerwick was re-occupied by a force mainly consisting ofeight hundred Italian and Spanish adventurers. The rebellion seemed tobe reviving everywhere. Ormonde, again marching into Kerry with fourthousand men, accomplished nothing. But the murderous work of thesummer had had effect, and the septs would not openly take the fieldwithout immediate cash inducements, which were lacking. 

[Sidenote: Smerwick: and after]

In October Grey made a fresh start and marched down from Dublin toKerry: in the first week of November, Wynter's fleet reappeared, havingbeen held back by stress of weather with the exception of one vesselwhich had been lying off Smerwick for three weeks. The siege now wasbrief enough. On the 9th, the garrison, after a vain attempt to obtainterms, surrendered at discretion. The officers were put to ransom; therest were slaughtered; even women were hanged. The dead numbered 600. Grey doubtless regarded the measure as a just return for the doings ofthe Inquisition, and the punishment of English sailors as pirates, forhis retort to the garrison's overtures had been that their presence inIreland was piracy. But the whole business illustrates the sheerruthlessness which characterised both sides, at least where there was atechnical excuse for denying belligerents' rights to the vanquished. 

It was no longer possible for the rebellion to make head; but for thenext two years a guerrilla warfare was kept up, in which English andIrish killed each other without compunction whenever anything in theshape of an excuse offered itself. Most of the English honestlybelieved that the only practicable policy was one of extermination, andthe Irish retaliated in kind. There is nothing so ugly as this historyin the annals of a people which, outside of Ireland, has shown a uniquecapacity for tempering conquest with justice. The very men whose bloodboiled, honestly enough, over cruelties to the Indians, adopted to theIrish the precise attitude of mind which so horrified them in theSpaniards. Elizabeth herself, Burghley, Walsingham, and Ormonde, wereopposed to the extermination policy; but the bloodshed went on, unsystematically instead of systematically. Sanders, wandering a huntedfugitive, died in a bog. It was not till 1583 that Desmond himself wassurprised and slain in his bed. In the meantime, there had been novariation in the story. But the exhaustion of ceaseless slaughters andceaseless famines had practically terminated the struggle. Sir JohnPerrot, who became Deputy in 1584, could adopt a conciliatory attitude, without fear that his leniency would be immediately abused--though itled to his recall and condemnation for treason [Footnote: This sentencehowever was not carried out. It is perhaps worth noting that Sir Johnwas reputed to be a natural son of Henry VIII. ] three years later. 

[Sidenote: Scotland, 1579-81]

The diplomatic campaign in Scotland need not detain us long. Morton asRegent governed that country with a strong hand, and at least held downits normal turbulence: but while his forcefulness was recognised, hewent his own way, quite regardless of the enemies he made. Despite hisreligious professions, he treated the preachers with scant courtesy, and was unpopular with all parties. D'Aubigny on his arrival promptlyfound his way into the young King's good graces, was made Duke ofLennox very shortly, and set himself to conciliate the Puritans byprofessing to have been converted from Popery by James's dialecticalskill. In England, there was no doubt that he was an agent in the papalprogramme, and Walsingham would have had him removed in the usuallawless fashion, failing other means. But Elizabeth, as always, wasconfident of the practical impossibility of making Scotland united forany purpose except resistance of an English invasion. She made itevident that armed intervention from her need not be looked for; and inDecember (1580) Lennox (D'Aubigny) struck at Morton by accusing him ofcomplicity in the murder of Darnley. The agent in this proceeding wasanother James Stewart, an adventurer, now Captain of the Guard, who wasshortly after advanced to the Earldom of Arran. Morton was imprisoned, brought to trial in the following June (1581) and executed. The stronghand being gone, the usual chaos supervened. For the time the Papalparty was uppermost, but Elizabeth's calculations were correct. Therisk of French intervention was brought nearer, but it wascounterbalanced partly by the bait of the Alençon marriage, which theQueen managed to keep dangling, partly by the fact that many of the menwho had overthrown Morton were anti-papal, and preferred playing fortheir own hand to encouraging a French ascendancy. By the "Raid ofRuthven" in 1582 James was removed from the influence of Lennox, whohad to leave the country; and in 1583 James Stewart Earl of Arran wascarrying out a policy which was to make the King himself, with Arran athis elbow, the force predominating alike over preachers and nobles. 

[Sidenote: England 1580]

We may now revert to England and Elizabeth in 1580. Throughout theearlier half of the year, it was as usual the Queen's first object tocommit herself to nothing, but to persuade Orange that she might yethelp him, and Alençon that she might yet marry him. But in July, Philipwas master of Portugal, and the Jesuit campaign was beginning inEngland. In September, Orange's patience was worn out, and the crown ofthe Netherlands was definitely offered to Alençon; within a few daysDrake and the Pelican were home, and Mendoza was demanding restitution;and again a few days later Spanish and Italian adventurers werefortifying themselves at Smerwick. 

[Sidenote: The Jesuit Mission]

The Papal Bull of Deposition ten years before had stiffened theattitude of Government towards the English Catholics, but had neitherbroken down the loyalty of the latter nor led to any seriouspersecution. On this head, the mission of 1580 was the turning point ofthe reign. The moving spirit was Allen, of Douay and Rheims; a man ofhigh ability and character who conceived that the recovery of hiscountry for the true Church was the highest of all objects for apatriot, and one to which all other considerations should give way. 

[Sidenote: Campian and Parsons]

It cannot be disputed that the aim of the Mission was to sow disloyaltyas well as to gain converts, though the allegation that incitement toassassinate the Queen was part of the programme is not quiteconclusively proved. Of the two chief missioners, Parsons and Campian, it is at least tolerably certain that the latter, an amiable enthusiast, was quite innocent of complicity in any such design. That certaintydoes not apply to Parsons. But the instructions were clearlytreasonable in character. The Catholics were told that in spite of theBull of Deposition they might profess loyalty to the Queen, but mustassist in her overthrow if called upon. That is to say that if treasonwere brewing against the _de facto_ Government, it was to be apoint of conscience and a condition of the Church's approval for allCatholics that they should assist that treason. There is nothing aboutthat instruction which can fairly be called hypocritical; but _ipsofacto_, it converted every Catholic, willy nilly, into a potentialtraitor, who if treason arose could only remain loyal under censure ofthe Church. Moreover it was the business of the missioners not only toimpress on those who were already Catholics this view of their duty;but also, by an active propaganda, to increase the number of suchpotential traitors; while it was quite certain that under suchconditions, converts would be actuated by a zeal which would renderthem doubly dangerous. 

For some months the emissaries travelled the country in variousdisguises, shifting their quarters secretly, but in favourabledistricts occasionally appearing quite openly, more or less winked atby the authorities. Their immunity made them the more sanguine, but italso alarmed the Protestants, and before the end of the year, there wasa change. 

[Sidenote: Walsingham]

Walsingham--a sincere Puritan, a man who never soiled his hands forprivate gain, who by his outspoken opposition to her political double-dealing provoked Elizabeth's anger more frequently than any other ofher many outspoken advisers, of whom more than any other statesman ofthe day it might be said that he loved righteousness and hatediniquity--had yet the fault of the Puritan character, a certainremorselessness in dealing with the servants of the Scarlet Woman. Hewould have connived at the murder of D'Aubigny; his organisation of"Secret Service" was as unscrupulous as Burghley's; and he more thanany one else approved and fostered the revival of the illegalapplication of torture as a means of extorting information fromrecalcitrant prisoners. In this iniquity, however, it is fair torecognise that the rack and the boot were not employed wantonly but, asit would seem, honestly: with the single intention of obtaining trueinformation for the unravelment of plots which endangered the publicweal, and only on persons who were known to possess that information. 

[Sidenote: 1581 An anti-papal Parliament]

Walsingham then, at the close of 1580, appears to have undertaken theconduct of the operations against the emissaries, several of whom werepromptly captured and put to the torture without result, though one ortwo made haste to change sides to save themselves. The rest showed thatmagnificent constancy which had characterised alike the Carthusiansunder Henry and the Protestants under Mary. In January (1581)parliament was called, and passed a very stringent act making ittreason to proselytise, or to join the Church of Rome; imposing a heavyfine as well as imprisonment for celebrating Mass, and a fine of £20per month for exemption from attendance at the Anglican ritual. Drasticas the measure was, and a complete departure from the comparativetoleration hitherto prevalent in practice if not altogether in theory, the basis of it was quite manifestly the conviction that as a result ofthe mission every Catholic must now be suspect of treason, and everyconvert to Catholicism something more than suspect. 

When the parliament had completed its business by voting supplies, itwas prorogued. Through the spring and the summer the pursuit of theEmissaries and the oppression of the Catholics under the new Act wenton. Campian himself was taken in July, and after some months'imprisonment, in the course of which he was racked, was executed fortreason at the end of the year: his martyrdom, with others, producingthe usual effect. 

[Sidenote: Alençon again]

In the meantime, the acceptance in January of the lordship of theNetherlands by Alençon forced Elizabeth to redouble her pretence ofdesiring the furtherance of the Alençon marriage--a pretence throughwhich Walsingham alone seems to have penetrated. The French King sentover a magnificent embassy in April, which was magnificently received. Then Elizabeth suggested that a League would serve every purpose. France replied that the League was what it wished for, but the marriagewas a condition. Everything was discussed and agreed upon--but theQueen succeeded in retaining her saving clause; the agreement wassubject to Alençon and herself being personally satisfied. She wasstill able to hold off, while she had brought France into such aposition that if war should be declared between England and Spain, France must join England. Walsingham was sent off to Paris, with thetask before him of evading the marriage, avoiding war while entanglingFrance in it, and all with a full conviction that his instructionswould vary from week to week. He believed, and he told her, that Francewould make the League without the marriage, if her sincerity were onlyguaranteed by something more substantial than promises; but that ifneither the League nor the marriage were completed, she would haveSpain, France, and Scotland--where Morton had just been executed--allturning their arms against her at once. But contrary to all reasonableexpectation Elizabeth succeeded in avoiding a breach with France and inkeeping Alençon still dangling: and however Mendoza--who had quitefailed to obtain any compensation for Drake's expedition--mightthreaten, Philip still refused to declare war openly. 

[Sidenote: His visit to England]

The story of the Alençon farce, if it were not unquestionable fact, would be almost incredible. Monsieur was some twenty years younger thanthe amorous Queen; in person he was offensive and contemptible; hischaracter corresponded to his person, and his intelligence to hischaracter. Elizabeth was eight and forty. Yet the man's amazing vanitymade him a perpetual dupe, while it must have taken all her own vanityto persuade the lady that she could play Omphale to his Hercules. Yetshe did it. In November she had him back in England. She kissed himbefore Walsingham and the French Ambassador, [Footnote: _State Papers, Spanish, _ iii. , p. 226. ] and gave him the ring off her finger, declaring that she was going to marry him. But as soon as it came tobusiness, she made one fresh demand after another. When concession wasadded to concession, she capped the list by requiring the restorationof Calais, an obvious absurdity. Burghley thought the whole thing wasended, and was for conciliating Spain by restoring Drake's booty. Walsingham would have handed those spoils over to Orange. The Queen didneither, but told Alençon that his presence in the Netherlands had nowbecome quite necessary to his own honour--which was true--and that witha little patience unreasonable people would be pacified, and she wouldstill marry him. 

[Sidenote: Alençon in the Netherlands]

Thus this most unlucky dupe was once more got out of the country, inFebruary (1582), a dupe still; and the United Provinces sworeallegiance to him under the new title of Duke of Brabant--giving him tounderstand, however, that they accepted him simply as a surety forEnglish support. When he was safely out of the country, Elizabethbecame more emphatic than ever in her declarations that she would marryhim. After all, however, she was reluctantly compelled to salve herlover's wounded feelings by cash subsidies, real and substantial thoughsecret. 

[Sidenote: Exit Alençon]

At the end of March an attempt was made to assassinate the strong manof Holland, William the Silent. He was in fact very dangerously wounded, and Elizabeth became alarmed lest a like danger were in store for her. Orange recovered, but Parma continued his course of gradual conquest, and Alençon bethought him of playing the traitor, seizing the principaltowns, and handing them over to Spain as a peace-offering. In thefollowing January he made the attempt; but the capture succeeded onlyhere and there, and at Antwerp, where he himself lay, the _coup_failed ignominiously and disastrously. The city got wind of what wasgoing to happen; the French troops were admitted, and, being in, foundthemselves in a trap and were cut to pieces. Alençon was deservedly andfinally ruined, and no one in France or England could pretend any morethat he was a possible husband. The year after he sank to a dishonouredgrave, leaving the Huguenot Henry of Navarre heir presumptive to thethrone of France. 

[Sidenote: Scotland]

Before Alençon's disaster, Elizabeth's policy in Scotland had beenjustified by results: the raid of Ruthven had placed the King in thehands of the Protestant nobles again, and Lennox was out of the countryfor good. It is probable that from Elizabeth's point of view, it wasnot worth while to attempt to obtain the friendship of an Anglophilparty, either by force or by bribery. Bribes would have told only justfor so long as they were accepted as an earnest of more to follow;while force would have had its invariable result of uniting Scotland indetermined resistance. The one thing which would have given reality tothe overtures perpetually passing between Scotland and the Guises wasan English attempt to grasp at domination. Elizabeth, with Mary aprisoner, had a permanent diplomatic asset in her hands, since shecould hint a threat of either executing her, or liberating her, orsurrendering her on terms as might seem most convenient at a givencrisis. Intrigues which like the marriage projects were never intendedto be consummated were more effective than either bribery or force--andcheaper. 

CHAPTER XXII

ELIZABETH (vii), 1583-87--THE END OF QUEEN MARY

[Sidenote: 1583 The Throgmorton Conspiracy]

The collapse of Alençon was the precursor of a comprehensive conspiracy. Before the Raid of Ruthven (August 1582), the Guise faction in France hadcontemplated a descent on Scotland in conjunction with Lennox's friendsthere, with a view of course to raising England in favour of Mary. Alençon's relations with Elizabeth had not made the French King or hismother, neither of whom loved the Guises, particularly favourable to thescheme. The Raid destroyed the prospects of the definitely Catholic partyin Scotland; on the other hand, the failure of Alençon affected, thoughonly slightly, the objections on the part of King Henry. But any enterpriseagainst England would have to take a somewhat different form. In May, Guisewas planning a fresh scheme of assassination and invasion; [Footnote:_State Papers, Spanish_, iii. , pp. 464, 479. ] while as against theGuise intrigues still going on in Scotland, Elizabeth at the suggestion ofthe French ambassador was again proposing diplomatically to release Mary[Footnote: _Ibid_. , p. 465. ]--on terms. 

[Sidenote: Sanguine Catholic forecast]

The English refugees and the Seminarists suffered from the same sanguineconviction that two-thirds of the country was thirsting to throw off thehated yoke of the existing Government, by which Jacobite agents wereeternally possessed in the first half of the eighteenth century; and with agood deal less reason. For whereas the House of Hanover had no enthusiasticadherents, while the House of Stuart had many, and the Whig politicianswere for the most part ready to transfer themselves to the other side ifthe other side should look like winning: at this time, the most energeticportion of the population, gentry and commons, including practically allwho had practised the art of war by land or sea, in the Low Countries, inIreland, on the Spanish Main and in Spanish waters, were fierilyProtestant, and the Ministers, nearly all irrevocably bound to the Queen, were singularly prompt and alert men of action. Enthusiasts there were onthe other side, but they were few. Yet in their prolific imaginations, theenthusiasts multiplied their own numbers pathetically, and believedpassionately in phantom hosts only waiting for the word to draw the sword, or at least the dagger, in the sacred cause. 

Neither the Spaniards nor the Guises appear ever to have allowed themselvesto accept unreservedly the Churchmen's estimate of the state of feeling inEngland; but the Spanish Ambassadors, one after another, and Mendozacertainly not the least, gave more credence to these impressions than theydeserved, placing far too high a value on the assurances of a very smallnumber of the nobility. It is probable also that the Jesuits greatlyexaggerated the exciting effect of the martyrdom of Campian and hisassociates; for these bore no sort of comparison with the burnings ofMary's reign, of which every man nearing forty years of age was old enoughto have a tolerably vivid personal recollection. At any rate the advices ofMendoza went far to confirm the declarations of Allen that a determinedCatholic rising might be relied on, in case of an invasion which shouldhave for its object the substitution of Mary for Elizabeth and therestoration of the old Religion. 

[Sidenote: Divided Counsels]

The counsels however of the plotters were divided. The priests would havekept the French out of the affair altogether. Philip was as reluctant asever to take an English war upon his shoulders until he had completed thesubjugation of the Netherlands. Mendoza, recognising that Guise was notFrance--for now as always, Spain could not afford to let France dominateEngland--was willing enough that Guise should head an expedition in whichFrenchmen should otherwise play no more than an equal part; on thehypothesis that, when the revolution was accomplished, circumstances wouldcompel the new regime to dependence on Spain. All the parties--Guise, Philip, Allen--were prepared to yield unofficial sanction to thesimplification of the problem by assassination. Even when the differentinterests in the scheme had been compromised, prompt action was obviouslyessential if the English Government, with its vast network of spies andsecret agents, was not to get wind of the plot. Promptitude however was theone thing of which Philip was constitutionally incapable, and Guise wasobliged to consent to wait till the following spring. 

[Sidenote: The plot discovered]

As a natural result, an active member of the conspiracy, FrancisThrogmorton, was suddenly pounced upon in his house in London. He succeededin conveying sundry important documents to Mendoza, but lists of theEnglish conspirators and other conclusively incriminating documents werefound. The rack did the rest. The unhappy man endured through the firstapplication: the second conquered him. He told the whole story--possiblymore than the truth, though that is hardly probable; but of course thepersons incriminated denied complicity, and there was in some cases noother evidence against them, while the confessions of a victim undertorture are--biased. 

The main facts at any rate were indisputable--the plan of a Guise invasion, under Spanish auspices, with the complicity of a number of EnglishCatholics, as well as of Mendoza. The presumption that Mary was cognisantof it was supported by Throgmorton's confession, but such presumptions andsuch evidence fall short of being absolutely conclusive. [Footnote:Mendoza's letters of this period (_State Papers, Spanish, _ iii. )implicate Mary _prima facie_: but do not _necessarily_ mean morethan that her life was endangered by the discoveries. ] Under suchconditions however, grave and well founded suspicion was enough to justifythe severest precautionary measures. Northumberland and Arundel [Footnote:Son of the late Duke of Norfolk. The title came through his mother. ] werethrown into prison; several of the seminarists, already in ward, wereexecuted; a number of arrests were made; known Catholics all over thecountry were placed under strict surveillance, and removed from anycommands they might hold. Mendoza was ordered in uncompromising terms toleave the country; fleets were manned, and musters levied. The delay hadproved fatal to the combined scheme. 

The collapse of two assassination plots, not forming part of theThrogmorton conspiracy, may be mentioned. One was that of an apparentlyhalf-crazy person named Somerville, who betrayed himself by bragging; theother, the more curious affair of Parry, who got himself introduced intothe Queen's presence several times, but "let I dare not wait upon I would"persistently, till he retired with nothing accomplished; to reappearpresently. 

[Sidenote: 1584 Death of Orange]

Elizabeth escaped; but death was soon to lay his hand on two personages ofconsequence. In May (1584) Alençon decayed out of a world in which accidentonly had allowed him for a time to occupy a very disproportionate share ofthe political stage. A month later, the most heroic figure of a time whenheroes were rare among politicians was struck down by the hand of afanatic. William of Orange, the head, hand, and heart of the great fightfor freedom being waged in the Netherlands, was assassinated by a zealot. More than ever it seemed that the Hollanders must submit to Philip, unlessthe power of France or the power of England were devoted whole-heartedly totheir cause. The death of Alençon made Henry of Navarre the actual heirpresumptive to the throne of France. The King and his mother hated andfeared Protestantism less than they hated and feared the Guises, andpublicly acknowledged Navarre as next in succession. 

As usual, Elizabeth's advisers would have had her play boldly forProtestantism; as usual, she herself was bent on evading the open collisionwith Spain. Her hope was to entangle France in the Netherlands war, andherself to strike in--if she must strike in at all--only when herintervention would enable her to make her own terms. The French King wouldnot be inveigled. If he could have relied on her support, or if the Guiseshad been somewhat less dangerous, he would have been ready to strike; buthis distrust of the English Queen was too justifiably complete. She was infact saved from the absolute necessity of yielding to the persuasions ofBurghley and Walsingham only by the dogged tenacity with which theHollanders held out. And while they held out, she still held off. 

[Sidenote: The "Association"]

In England however, one fact was more universally and vividly present inmen's minds than any other. In the eyes of every Protestant, the supremedanger still lay in the death or deposition of Elizabeth and the elevationof Mary Stewart to the throne. Recent events had brought home the enormousrisks of assassination; and an Association was formed for the defence ofthe Queen. A declaration was framed, the signatories whereof boundthemselves by a solemn vow not only to pursue to the death all personsconcerned in any plot against the Queen, but also any person in favour ofwhose succession to the throne any attempt should be made against her; tobar any such person absolutely from the succession; and to treat asperjured traitors any of the Association who failed to carry out thisoath. It was sufficiently obvious that the declaration was aimed directlyagainst Mary; but it may be said that the entire nation forthwith enrolleditself. And with the bulk of them, the enrolment was anything but an emptyform. 

[Sidenote: 1584-85 The Association ratified]

At the same time, it was difficult to see how the members of theAssociation could carry out their pledge without a breach of the law;stronger legal measures for the defence of the Queen and the frustration ofassassination as a means to secure the inheritance in any particularquarter were required. Parliament was summoned at the end of November. Ministers wished to have definite provision made for carrying on theGovernment in case of the Queen's murder; but she would go with them nofurther than to sanction the Association, with the entirely laudablemodification that the person for whose sake the deed was done should not beheld _ipso facto_ guilty of complicity. The differences of opinionwere so strong that the session closed without the passing of any Act. InJanuary however, an accomplice of that Parry already mentioned [Footnote:See p. 330] denounced him for intending to kill the Queen. Threatened withthe rack, Parry made a full confession, and was hanged, drawn, andquartered. At the renewed Session in February, it was enacted that aninvasion, rebellion, or attempt on the Queen's person, on behalf of any onewith a claim to the succession, should disqualify such person from thesuccession absolutely, if complicity in the attempt should be proved afterdue enquiry. A commission was appointed to put the Act in execution in theevent of assassination; and the Association was sanctioned subject to theseprovisions. Subsidies were then voted, and parliament prorogued, after anunusually gracious speech from the throne. 

[Sidenote: 1585: France: the Holy League]

Meantime the United Provinces, despairing of an English overlordship, wereagain making overtures to France for a Protectorate, or even annexation ifFrance should insist on that alternative. Relations between the King andMendoza, now Ambassador at Paris, were so strained that war seemed all butinevitable; Henry seems to have been held back only by the well-foundedfear that Elizabeth was intriguing to draw him into the war and frustratehim in carrying it on. But in that fear he declined the offer of theProvinces. In March the Guises produced a new development by the openannouncement of the formation of the Holy League, for the exclusion ofNavarre from the succession and the enforcement in France of the decrees ofthe Council of Trent. 

But for the unconquerable mutual distrust of Henry and Elizabeth, Henry, relying on English support, would have bidden defiance to the League; butthe memories of St. Bartholomew and Elizabeth's character as an intriguermade confidence on either side impossible. The great siege of Antwerpseemed to be on the verge of terminating in a catastrophe for the revoltingStates, which would enable Parma to co-operate actively with Guise; andHenry found himself threatened with excommunication. Before midsummer hecapitulated, and declared for the League. On the other hand, Navarre wasnot the man to yield, and while Elizabeth again had the chance of playing abold part and espousing his cause heartily, she judged rightly that he wasstrong enough unaided to keep the alliance of the League and the Court verythoroughly occupied for some time to come. As a factor in the Netherlandsquestion. France was for the present at least a negligible quantity. So sheleft Navarre to fight his own battles in France, while she should dole outto the Netherlanders just so much or so little support as might suffice forher own ends. 

While the French King was surrendering to the League, the Spanish King tooka step which was intended to frighten England, and had as usual theprecisely contrary result. He ordered the seizure of all English ships andcrews on his coasts. The order was carried out; and England instead ofbeing cowed was forthwith ablaze with defiance. The effect was promptlyapparent. 

[Sidenote: Agreement with the States]

The United Provinces were again offering themselves to England. In Augustan agreement was arrived at. The Queen was to hold Ostend and Sluys as wellas Flushing and Brille, as security. She was to send over five thousand menwith Leicester in command. Some Queen's troops and large numbers ofvolunteers were shipped off in a few days--too late however to saveAntwerp. Still weeks and even months passed before pay or commanders wereallowed to follow. But before the year was out, Sidney, Leicester, andothers had taken up their commands, the last named representing the Queenof England. 

[Sidenote: Drake's raid]

Already, however, an enterprise still more ominous to Spain was inhand--unofficial, like most other great enterprises of the reign. Lettersof reprisal for the seizure of the English ships had been promptly issued, and numbers of privateers were quickly in Spanish waters. Among others, Francis Drake fitted out a flotilla, the Queen being an interestedshareholder in his venture--though even under those conditions he put tosea before time, lest counter-orders should arrive. The adventurers sailedinto Vigo, demanded the release of all English prisoners in the province, which was promised, captured some prizes, and betook themselves to theocean, with a view to seizing the Spanish Plate Fleet, which was on its wayfrom America. They just missed the Fleet, but proceeded to San Domingo(Hayti) which they held to ransom, went on to treat Cartagena in likemanner, and then being attacked by Yellow Fever, came home with the spoils. Whatever fears of a Spanish war might be entertained by Elizabeth herself, the English seamen had no qualms as to their own immeasurable superiority, and desired nothing better than opportunities for demonstrating it. 

[Sidenote 1: Elizabeth's intrigues][Sidenote 2: 1586 Leicester in the Netherlands]

While Drake was thus congenially employed, Elizabeth was carrying on hersystem of inaction and double-dealing. She intrigued--behind the backs ofher ministers--with Parma, for the surrender to him of the towns she held, on terms which from her point of view were quite good enough for theProvinces, namely the restitution of their old Constitutional Governmentwithout religious liberty; although in their own view, religious libertywas primarily essential. Leicester complicated matters for her byaccepting, in flat contradiction to her orders, the formal Governorship ofthe United Provinces: finding in fact that if he was to stay in theNetherlands nothing short of that would prevail against the suspicions ofthe Queen's treachery. At home, Burghley himself threatened to resign ifshe would not take a straightforward course. Walsingham wrote to Leicester, with his usual bitterness, of the "peril to safety and honour" from herbehaviour. If she had indeed contemplated the surrender of the cities toParma, that plan was frustrated. Still she stormed at Burghley andWalsingham, flatly and with contumely refused to ratify Leicester'sarrangement, and continued to keep back the pay of the troops. Parma, though he too was starved in men and money by Philip, continued inch byinch to absorb the revolted territory. All that Leicester succeeded inaccomplishing by the month of September was the brilliant and entirelyfutile action of Zutphen where in one great hour Philip Sidney won deathand immortality (September 22nd). Thereafter, inaction and short suppliescontinued to be the rule, on both sides. In November, Leicester was back inEngland, where a fresh situation was developing. 

[Sidenote:1585-86 The trapping of Mary]

While the arrangements for armed intervention in the Netherlands were inprogress, Walsingham had been busy preparing for the last act in theTragedy of Mary Stewart. The Secretary was foremost among those who heldnot only that the captive Queen deserved death, but that her death was morenecessary to the welfare of England than any other event. Yet it was quitecertain that Elizabeth would not assent to her death, unless she thoughtshe could convince herself and the world that Mary had been activelyengaged in treasonous plots. Recently however at Tutbury under the chargeof Sir Amyas Paulet, she had been guarded so strictly that no surreptitiouscorrespondence had a chance of passing. Walsingham was confident that ifthe opportunity were given, a treasonous correspondence would be opened. Itbecame his object therefore to give her the opportunity in appearance, while securing that the channel through which communications passed shouldbe a treacherous one, and the whole of what was supposed to be secretshould be betrayed to him. To this end, the Queen was removed in December1585 to Chartley Manor, avowedly in response to her own demands for a lessrigorously unpleasant residence than Tutbury. The instrument of the plotwas a young man named Giffard, supposed to be in the inner counsels of theJesuits, actually in Walsingham's service. Through Giffard, communicationswere opened between Mary and a devoted adherent of hers in France namedMorgan: but every letter passing was deciphered and copied, and the copiesplaced in the Secretary's hands. 

[Sidenote: 1586 Babington's plot]

In the late spring, the great Babington conspiracy was set on foot; whereofthe main features were, that Elizabeth was to be assassinated by a group ofhalf a dozen young men who had places at court and occasional access to herperson. The two leading spirits were Anthony Babington and a Jesuit namedBallard. Of course a Catholic rising and a foreign invasion were part ofthe plan, and Mendoza at Paris was playing his own part. Much of the plotwas confided to Giffard, who reported to Walsingham. The Secretary and hisQueen were satisfied to let the plot develop while they gathered all thethreads in their own hands before striking. The correspondence, as copiedfor Walsingham at Chartley, conveyed not details but general intelligenceof what was on foot to Mary, and approval from Mary to the conspirators. InAugust, Walsingham's moment came: the conspirators were seized; undertorture or threat of torture they made complete confession. The ScottishQueen's rooms at Chartley were ransacked, and all her papers impounded. Again, as after the Throgmorton conspiracy, fleets were manned and musterscalled out. In September, the conspirators were tried and executed, and aCommission was appointed to try Mary herself in October. 

[Sidenote: Trial of Mary]

Mary, as before, denied the jurisdiction, professing readiness to answeronly before Parliament. She ignored an invitation from the Queen to obtainpardon by a confession of guilt. She assented under protest to appearbefore the Court, and there avowed that she had consistently appealed tothe Powers of Europe to aid her, as she was entitled to do, but flatlydenied complicity in the Babington plot. The evidence against her wasentirely that of letters--said to be copied from her correspondence, butquite possibly invented in whole or in part--and the confessions of theconspirators or of her secretaries, extorted under torture or the fear ofit. Those letters might even have been concocted to suit Walsingham withouthis actual privity, by the man who had the task of deciphering and copyingthem. Having heard her denial, the Court was transferred from Fotheringay, where it first sat, to Westminster: and at Westminster, after furtherexamination of the documents and of Mary's secretaries, it unanimouslypronounced her guilty. The sentence was left for Parliament and the Queento settle. The Parliament which had passed the recent Act for the Defenceof the Queen was dissolved, and a new one was summoned. On its meeting inNovember, it petitioned for Mary's execution, in accordance with the termsof the "Association" which Mary herself had offered to join. Thepublication of the sentence was received with public acclamation: butwhether the Queen would assent to it remained to be seen. 

What then were the guiding considerations, whether of Ethics or ofExpediency?

[Sidenote: The situation reviewed;]

For eighteen years, Mary had been in Elizabeth's power. Elizabeth had heldher captive for the sufficient reason--amongst others--that were sheoutside of England and free from restraint, there was nothing to preventher from actively agitating the Catholics of Europe to assert her claim tothe English throne. No monarch having in his grip a claimant with anundeniably strong title to his throne would have allowed that claimant toescape from his clutches. Few would have hesitated to concoct some more orless plausible pretext for the claimant's death. Half England consideredthat a sufficient pretext was provided by Kirk o' Field; but even assumingthat Mary's guilt in that matter was legally proved, which it assuredly wasnot, it is sufficiently obvious that the sovereign of England had nojurisdiction. Still any monarch situated like Elizabeth would havemaintained, and probably have acted upon, the right to put the captive todeath, if proved to be guilty of complicity in treason or subornationthereof. Throughout the eighteen years, Elizabeth had deliberatelyabstained from seeking to prove definitely that Mary was an accomplice inthe various plots on her behalf, while she was no less careful to leave theimputation of complicity clinging to her. But now, if the Chartleycorrespondence were genuine, the case was decided. The Court, which cannotbe said to have been packed, was satisfied. Again it does not appear thatany monarch, regarding the captive's death as _per se_ desirable, would have doubted the sufficiency of the ground for her execution. 

But hitherto the English Queen had not regarded her rival's death as _perse_ desirable. Conceivably there was an element of generosity in thatview. Certainly there was the fact that Mary was an anointed Queen, andElizabeth had a most profound respect for the sanctity of crownedheads. But apart from this, there was the purely political argument. Maryliving, and in her power, was an asset. She might always be set at libertyon terms. Elizabeth hated parting with a political asset even at a highprice, for good value. Hitherto she had reckoned the living Mary as worthmore than Mary's death would be: for Mary might simply be replaced as aclaimant by James, who was not, like his mother, in her power, and mightvery well think the crown of England worth a Mass. 

[Sidenote: its recent developments]

Now however, a considerable change had come over the situation. FailingMary the English Catholics were divided as to the succession. James couldprofess filial affection when it suited him; but for some time past he haddropped that attitude; he had just made a convenient compact with England;and his mother, making up her mind to his antagonism, had by willdisinherited him and bequeathed her rights to Philip of Spain, who had aclear claim to the blood Royal of England as descending through his motherIsabella of Portugal from John of Gaunt. [Footnote: See _Front. _Philip's cousins, however, the duchesses of Braganza and Parma, daughtersof Isabella's brother, had a better title--as they also had to the crown ofPortugal. See p. 303. The exiled Westmorland had a better title still. ] Theaccession of Philip would suit neither France, nor the Pope; the accessionof James would be at best an uncertain gain to the Catholics; and so Mary'sexecution would leave no one claimant for the discontented to rally to. Onthe other hand, if Mary were allowed to live, her restoration by Elizabethwould be almost incredible. Her value as an asset had fallen, the securitygiven by her death would be much more assured. Political expediency, therefore, entirely favoured her death, unless the execution would bringFrance or Scotland against Elizabeth in arms. France protested earnestly, but clearly intended nothing stronger than protests, and it very soonbecame equally clear that no serious trouble need be feared from James. 

[Sidenote: 1587 The sentences carried out]

Still through December and January Elizabeth continued to vacillate. Thesentiment as to the sanctity of an anointed Queen still influenced her; yetit is sufficiently clear that her real motive for hesitation was thedesire, not to spare Mary, but herself to escape the odium of sanctioningthe execution. At last however the warrant was signed, and received theChancellor's seal. Yet she made the Secretary Davison write to Paulet andurge him to put Mary to death without waiting for the warrant. Pauletflatly refused. She used such terms to Davison that he feared on his ownresponsibility to forward the warrant to the appointed authoritiesShrewsbury and Kent. He went to Burghley: Burghley summoned privately allmembers of the Council then in London. They agreed to share theresponsibility for acting without further reference to the Queen. OnFebruary 4th, the letters were issued. On the 7th, in the afternoon, Kentand Shrewsbury presented themselves at Fotheringay and told Mary that onthe following morning she must die. 

[Sidenote: Death of Mary]

It was characteristic of her that during the few hours of life left to her, she forgot neither loyal servant nor victorious foe. Her last written wordswere to bid her friends remember both. When the morrow came, she mountedthe low scaffold in the great hall with unfaltering step, far less movedoutwardly than the six attendants whom she had chosen for her last moments, a splendid tragic figure; every word, every gesture those of a womanfalsely charged and deeply wronged, majestic in her proud self-control. Wasit merely a superb, an unparalleled piece of acting? [Footnote: SeeAppendix C. Mr. Froude is dramatically at his best in telling the story;but his partisan bias is correspondingly emphasized. ] Was it the heroism ofa martyr? The voice of England had doomed her; she appealed to a higherTribunal than England. King or Queen never faced their end moretriumphantly. Mary Stewart, royal in the fleeting moments of herprosperity, royal throughout the long years of her adversity, was never sosupremely royal as in her last hour on earth. 

CHAPTER XXIII

ELIZABETH (viii), 1558-87--THE SEAMEN

As before we postponed the story of Ireland, in order to give a consecutivenarrative down to the point at which the interaction of Irish and Englishaffairs became marked and definite, so we have hitherto deferredconsideration of the most tremendous factor in the Elizabethan evolution, the development of the Island nation into the greatest Ocean Power in theworld. The charter of the Queen of the Seas was drawn by the Tudor seamen, and received its seal when the great Armada perished. It is time thereforeto see how it came about that England was able to challenge and to shatterthe Power which threatened to dominate the world. 

[Sidenote: The New World]

Throughout the Middle Ages, until what we conveniently term, from theEnglish point of view, the Tudor Period, the European peoples wereconfined to the European Continent and the adjacent islands. In Asiaand in Mediterranean Africa the Mohammedan races were a militantbarrier to expansion. The discoveries of Columbus and Vasco da Gamaopened new fields, whereof the inheritance was destined to the nationswho should achieve the dominion of the Ocean. Always important, thecapacity for maritime development now became the primary condition ofultimate greatness. The fact was at the first recognised by Spain andPortugal; and an immediate incentive was given to those two Powers, andsomething of a check to the rest, when Pope Alexander VI. , with anauthority as yet unchallenged, divided between them the newly foundcountries and the lands still to be discovered. Acquiescence in theaward was limited; with the ecclesiastical revolt from Rome itvanished; but Spaniards and Portuguese were already in full possessionof vast territories before their exclusive title to the whole wascalled in question. 

[Sidenote: The English Marine before Elizabeth]

Nevertheless, more than before, the eyes of statesmen were turned tothe sea and the eyes of merchants to the ocean. The nucleus of a RoyalNavy was formed by Henry VII. , and his son very greatly increased thenumber of the King's ships and built many tall vessels. The merchantsof Bristol and the western ports made daring voyages in hithertounexplored and half-explored waters, as we have seen; while the generalactivity of the mercantile marine was greatly increased. 

Prosperity, and as a necessary result, enterprise, suffered a checkunder the disastrous financial conditions prevalent in the reigns ofEdward and Mary; yet the closing months of Edward's reign had beenmarked by the departure of the expedition of Willoughby and Chancellorin search of a North-East Passage; while several voyages to the GuineaCoast--whither William Hawkins had sailed in Henry's day--wereundertaken by John Lock and Towerson, during the reign of Mary. We haveseen also how the young hot-heads of Protestantism had taken toprivateering in the Channel, in the name of Patriotism and trueReligion. That course was reprehensible enough; but it led at least tothe cultivation of the art of seamanship. On the other hand, that artsuffered from a curious draw-back. The partial cessation of thepractice of fasting which accompanied the development of Protestantismreacted on the fishing trade, which was the regular school of sailors;insomuch that not only Somerset but Cecil in Elizabeth's time, proposedordinances in favour of fasting, simply and solely to check thecollapse of that industry. 

[Sidenote: The Royal Navy]

The Royal Navy developed by Henry VIII. Was allowed perforce to decayunder his two immediate successors. According to the most authenticlists, [Footnote: Sir W. Laird Clowes, _The Royal Navy_, vol. I. , pp. 419 ff. Throughout this chapter, the figures for tonnage areadopted from this work. ] in 1548 there were 53 ships in the Fleet, witha total tonnage of about 11, 000. In 1558 there were but 26, with atonnage of little more than 7, 000. During the first half of Elizabeth'sreign, the numbers were not increased; in 1575 there were but 24vessels; but the tonnage had risen 50 per cent. , and was within 10 percent, of what Henry had bequeathed to Edward. When the Armada came, inthe twenty-ninth year of Elizabeth's reign, 34 ships of the Royal Navywere engaged, which had a slight superiority [Footnote: Clowes, _Royal Navy_, i. , p. 561. ] of armament over any equal number ofthe enemy's fleet. The aggregate tonnage is given [Footnote:_Ibid_. , p. 588. ] as 15 per cent. More than that of Henry's 53--anaverage per ship of very nearly double. It is clear therefore that thepolicy of strengthening the navy was not neglected; but it took theform of acquiring not more ships, but larger and better fightingcraft. [Footnote: Corbett, _Drake and the Tudor Navy_, i. , pp. 370ff. It is pointed out (p. 372) that medium sized ships were regarded asbetter weapons in general than those of the largest size. ] Themultiplication of smaller craft would have been a far less effectivemeans for achieving the desired end. The Royal Navy, a creation of thecentury, was not supposed to constitute the naval defences of thecountry. It occupied a position among the marine fighting forceanalogous to that of our white troops in India to-day; who form onlyone-third of the army there while reckoned and intended to be itsmainstay. 

[Sidenote: Privateering]

It is possible that in the simple legitimate processes of trade, themerchant captains would never have learnt the art of extracting everyounce of value out of their ships as fighting machines; certainly theywould not have developed the very marked supremacy in gunnery which wasso decisive a feature in the contest with Spain. The mere temptationsof successful barter would not have sufficed to attract the fiery andalert young gentlemen of Devon or elsewhere, and the daring marinerswho revelled in meeting and overcoming any apparent odds. But thecircumstances of the time presented to the men, who in other days wouldhave found no outlet for their energies but in land-service abroad, theopportunity of giving those energies a wider scope in the more exactingbut also more inspiring service by sea: where richer prizes were to bewon, with greater risk no doubt, but risk which called every faculty ofmanhood into vigorous play. 

[Sidenote: Piracy?]

It has become the common practice to apply the term "piracy" at largeto the doings of the Elizabethan seamen; but a single category whichembraces Captain Kidd and Francis Drake ceases to imply any veryspecific condemnation. The suggestion that their acts were on the samemoral plane is absurd. The "piracy" of the great Elizabethans wascompatible with a clean conscience. At the present day we rightlyaccount a man a murderer who slays another in his own private quarrel;but we do not give that name to one who two centuries ago killed hisman in a duel. We decline to recognise the validity of the reasoning bywhich men justified such acts to themselves; but before the fallacy inthat reasoning was understood, the degree of guilt involved in actingupon it was something very different from what it would be to-day. Inthe same way, a century ago honourable and honest men countenancedsmuggling; but we do not classify them with footpads. Yet a similarconfusion of thought is involved in this indiscriminate application ofthe term piracy, unless we emphasize the fact that in this connexion itmust be divested of its ordinary moral connotation. 

Plain sea-robbers there were, not a few, who had no compunction aboutseizing and looting any vessel of any nationality except--for politicreasons--their own. The records show clearly enough that there wereplenty of these, who found harbourage in the Scillies or on the IrishCoast, or even on the English Channel, or would lie in wait to cut outpeaceable traders of any nation almost at the mouth of the Thames. TheGovernment took little enough pains to repress them. They did notattack their own countrymen, and were a useful source for recruiting:but they were indisputably Pirates. 

[Sidenote: Volunteers]

Then there were the privateers who had a colour for their depredations;professedly volunteers on the side of recognised belligerents. As itwas considered legitimate for troops of English volunteers to fight forthe revolted Netherland States, while the Government refused toacknowledge that their doing so constituted an act of war againstSpain; so Englishmen were allowed to man ships and sail under the flagof the Huguenots of Rochelle, carrying a commission to wage war on"Papist" ships, French, or others regarded as in alliance with them. This was not piracy in the accepted sense, though it was not perhapsvery far removed from it in the majority of cases. The kind offanaticism which, two hundred years after Elizabeth's accession, elevated Frederick the Great into "the Protestant Hero" could easily, without conscious insincerity, make Religion an excuse for spoiling thePapists in Elizabeth's day; and the privateers who looted a Spanishvessel or one carrying Spanish treasure or merchandise believed as arule that they were thereby laying up treasure in Heaven as well as onEarth, Their Ethics were derived from the Old Testament; and theylooked upon the "Idolaters" very much as the Israelites were told bythe prophets to look upon the Philistines, or Amalek, or Ammon. 

[Sidenote: Reprisal]

Moreover it must be borne in mind that as concerned the raiding ofSpanish ships, the Government balanced the injury done against thegrievances of the British sailors and ships seized in Spanish ports bythe Inquisition. So long as the Spanish King refused to interfere withthe jurisdiction of the Holy Office, the English Queen in effectrefused to interfere with acts of reprisal. If these rovers could havebeen caught and hanged at the yard-arm, she could hardly haveprotested; but as breaches of international amity the practices werevery much on a par. In the technical sense, that they made war on theirown account on the ships of a theoretically friendly Power, the roversof this class were no doubt pirates; what we have to recognise is thatthe normal condition of affairs was one unknown to the law-books, astate of quasi-war; having no little resemblance to that prevalent forcenturies on the Anglo-Scottish border, where it was not to be expectedthat the Wardens of the Marches on the one side would carry out theirduties while the Wardens on the other side were neglecting theirs withthe connivance of the Government. And in this case, Philip's connivanceat the proceedings of the Inquisition was open and avowed; byconsequence, the English Government refused to treat the proceedings ofthe privateers as piracy; and again by consequence the privateersconsidered themselves to be acting in a perfectly legitimate, not tosay laudable, manner, in treating the enemy's commerce precisely asthey would have done under a state of declared war. 

No doubt the desire of plunder was usually a stronger incentive thaneither retaliation or religion. Privateering was not _per se_admirable or praiseworthy. But it was something entirely different fromwhat we understand by Piracy pure and simple. And manifestly itprovided a very excellent and efficient school for the sons of a nationwhich was about to challenge the Colossus of the South for the title tothe Empire of the Seas. 

[Sidenote: The Explorers]

But while privateering bred in numbers men who knew how to handle andfight their ships, something more was needed to produce a race of greatcaptains; something which was provided by the vast fields opened toexploration. Here was to be found the necessary training in calculateddaring, in conquering seemingly impossible obstacles, in defyingapparently insurmountable dangers, in rising to overwhelmingemergencies, in learning to a nicety what it was possible forseamanship to accomplish. 

[Endnote: Spain in America]

At the opening of Elizabeth's reign, Spain and Portugal werepractically and theoretically in possession of the inheritance of theexplorers and the Conquistadores. The latter Power held complete swayon the African Guinea Coast, and in the Indian Ocean, undisturbed byEuropean rivals; while the Pope had bestowed upon it so much of the NewWorld as lies East of the mouth of the Amazon--in effect, what liesbehind the coast-line of Brazil. All that lies west of the mouth of theAmazon he had bestowed upon Spain; and this gift the swords ofSpaniards had made good. In the West India Islands, their head-quarterswere the Island and port of San Domingo (Hayti). From Florida, north, to the mouth of the Amazon, south, all was Spanish territory. On theAtlantic coast: Mexico had Vera Cruz with its haven of San Juand'Ulloa; on Darien was Nombre de Dios; on the _Tierra Firma_ knownto the English as the Spanish Main lay Cartagena and several otherports of varying importance. On the Pacific coast, the most notablespots were Panama, the port whither came the treasure ships from Peruto transport their stores by land to Nombre de Dios; Lima, the greatcity of Peru, which had its port of Callao; and further south the townof Santiago and the harbour of Valparaiso. The straits of Magellan, theonly known entry for ships to the Pacific from the Atlantic, weredeemed virtually impassable, while Tierra del Fuego was supposed to bethe head of another Continent extending continuously to the south. Inall these regions, the Spaniard claimed an absolute monopoly, and theright of excluding foreign vessels and foreign trade from what heregarded as Spanish waters. 

It is chiefly with transactions on these seas and territories that weare concerned, in giving some account of the rovers, who first in theirprivate capacity challenged the power of Spain, and then led theEnglish fleets to their triumph over the "Invincible" Armada. 

[Sidenote: John Hawkins's early voyages, 1562-1566]

First on the roll stands the name of John Hawkins--greatest of the"sea-dogs" till his fame was surpassed by the mightiest of all, FrancisDrake. In Henry's day his father, old William Hawkins, had won highrepute, for himself as a sailor and for his countrymen as honourabledealers, by his voyages to the Guinea coast, where the Portuguese werein very evil odour, and to the Brazils. John Hawkins fell as far behindhis father in the latter respect as he surpassed him in the former: forhe was responsible for initiating the Slave-trade. His first notablevoyage was made in 1562, when he sailed to the Guinea coast, purchasedor kidnapped from the African chiefs some three hundred negroes, crossed the Ocean, and sold them to the Spaniards in Hayti (orHispaniola). In 1564 he sailed again with four ships; but on reachingAmerica he was told at Rio de La Hacha and Cartagena that the trafficwas forbidden. The Englishmen, however, held that these regulationswere invalid, as a contravention of ancient treaty rights of free tradewith the Spanish dominions. The Spaniards for their part were willingenough to find an excuse for transgressing their orders, which wasgiven by a slight display of force; and Hawkins came home again withlarge profits, after visiting Florida where there were Huguenotsettlers, and Newfoundland where fishing fleets of all nationscongregated. It is noteworthy that while the Queen herself and sundryof her courtiers had a large pecuniary interest in these ventures ofHawkins, Cecil conscientiously declined to have part or lot in them, now or later: lawlessness being to him a thing abominable. 

Philip was naturally indignant at the Englishman's method of overridinghis trade regulations, and Hawkins had to lie quiet for a time; but in1567 he sailed for the third time, taking with him his young cousinFrancis Drake. 

[Sidenote: San Juan d'Ulloa 1567]

For a while all went well. The Spaniards wanted to buy in spite of theregulations; though at Rio de La Hacha Hawkins had to emphasise theadvantages of trading with him by seizing the town in force. But whenhe started for home, contrary winds and storms compelled him to putback to the Mexican port of San Juan d'Ulloa (Vera Cruz) to refit histhree vessels. He was well received; but while he was in harbour, aSpanish fleet of thirteen sail arrived. The entry was narrow, andHawkins could have held them at bay; but his theory was that he wasbehaving in a perfectly regular and well-conducted manner. For threedays there was a peaceful interchange of courtesies; then withoutwarning the Spaniards attacked him. Two of his ships succeeded inescaping, despite the heavy odds against them, taking a number ofsurvivors from the third. But next day they parted company; Hawkins'sship was terribly overcrowded; a hundred of his men, by their owndesire, were landed--to fall into the hands of the Inquisition; andHawkins and Drake finally reached England separately with a remnant oftheir crews, and the loss of all that had been gained in the firststages of the venture. 

[Sidenote: Francis Drake]

Now the Spaniards manifestly had a very good case for arresting Hawkinson the ground of his overriding forcibly the regulations which theywere, in their own view at least, entitled to make: but they had chosento receive him hospitably and attempt his capture by flagrant treachery. When his men fell into their hands, they might have been tried asparticipators in his lawlessness; but the crime laid to their chargewas heresy. It is small wonder then that the feeling inspired by theaffair of San Juan d'Ulloa was: first, that the Inquisition, claimingitself to be above international law, was outside international law, atyranny which should be fought without regard to law: second, thatSpain had no more right to the wealth of the New World than any oneelse; third, that since in the New World she elected to rule not bylegal methods but by the high hand, it was legitimate to ignore law indealing with her. There and then Francis Drake, now twenty-seven yearsold, made up his mind that he would for his own hand wage war on Spainand the Inquisition in the New World. If to do so was piracy, Drakeresolved to become a pirate. But he assuredly did not conceive himselfto be a pirate; nor were his motives the same; and his methods wereutterly unstained by the blood-thirstiness and cruelty inseparablyassociated with the title. He was rather an Ocean knight-errant, smiting and spoiling, and incidentally enriching himself, but inknightly fashion and for a great cause: not a miscellaneous robber, buta scourge of the enemies of his country and his faith. 

[Sidenote: The Venture of 1572]

Drake laid his plans with care and deliberation, making two morevoyages in small vessels to the West Indies to acquire thoroughknowledge and information, before starting on the first of his greatexpeditions. Then in 1572, some months before the _rapprochement_with Spain which followed St. Bartholomew, he sailed for the SpanishMain; his whole force consisting of three small ships of a burdenranging from 25 to 70 tons [Footnote: _Royal Navy, _ i. , p. 621. ]with picked crews numbering in all 111 men. With this small company, arriving by night, he fell suddenly upon Nombre de Dios, a principalport of embarkation on the Isthmus of Darien. The surprise was notcomplete, and though the resistance of the Spaniards was overcome and alarge capture of silver ingots was effected, Drake himself was somewhatseverely wounded. One of the ships went home; the other two with thecommander remained, and took several prizes. But this did not satisfyhim, and he conceived the daring scheme of landing and crossing theIsthmus, to intercept the trains of treasure on their way overland fromPanama. In February he got, from a tree-top, his first sight of thePacific. He succeeded in ambushing a small train of mules laden withgold, and, on his way back, another large one laden with silver. Thenwhere he expected to meet his own ships he found a Spanish squadron;but undaunted by this ill-fortune, reached the shore undiscovered, improvised a raft, put to sea, found his own ships, and returned toPlymouth a rich man: having won golden opinions from the Cimmaroons--escaped slaves of the district--from the contrast between the Englishand the Spanish methods of treating them. 

[Sidenote: 1575 John Oxenham]

This was but the precursor of that most famous of his voyages whichmade his name more terrible to the Spaniards than that of John Hawkinshad ever been. More than four years, however, elapsed before thatexpedition started; and in the interval one of his lieutenants, JohnOxenham in 1575 undertook his own disastrous venture, [Footnote: Thedetails of his story are familiar to all readers of Westward Ho. ] whichwell illustrates the boldness of conception and audacity of executionthat characterise the Elizabethan seamen. His plan was a development ofDrake's Darien exploit. On reaching the Isthmus, he hid his ship andguns, crossed the mountains as Drake had done, built himself a pinnace, and first of all Englishmen sailed on the Pacific. He captured twotreasure-ships, which of course had never dreamed of meeting a hostilevessel; but allowed the crews to depart. Naturally a force was soon inpursuit. Oxenham, with a fourth of their numbers, attacked them: halfhis men were killed in the fight, and nearly all the rest includingOxenham himself were put to death. Drake had already started before thenews reached England. 

[Sidenote: Drake's great voyage, 1577]

In December 1577 Drake sailed from Plymouth with five ships; himself onboard the largest, the _Pelican_, of 100 tons. His purpose was toinvade the Pacific by the straits of Magellan. Therefore, aftertouching at the Cape Verde Islands, he made not for the Spanish Mainbut for Patagonia. Here at Port St. Julian occurred the famous episodeof the execution of Thomas Doughty, [Footnote: See the examination ofthe authorities and the evidence in Corbett, _Drake and the TudorNavy_, i. , ch. Viii. ] on charges which may be summed up as those oftreason and incitement to mutiny, wherewith was apparently mixed up aconviction on Drake's part that Doughty exercised witch-craft to bringon bad weather. It is not improbable at least that Doughty was reallyacting in the interests of that party in England which was opposed tothe whole policy of the raid, and believed that he would have at hisback Lord Burghley, from whom the objects of the expedition weresupposed, erroneously, to be a secret. The Straits were reached at theend of August; but were scarcely passed when a storm parted the ships. John Winter, Drake's second in command, after waiting some while, gavehis consorts up for lost and returned home. The Pelican, which Drakehad re-christened the Golden Hind, alone remained to carry on theadventurous voyage. The precise course taken by the ships in the stormsat this time is uncertain: but it seems clear that in some way or otherDrake obtained satisfactory evidence that Tierra del Fuego was only anisland, and that the Pacific could be reached by rounding Cape Horn. [Footnote: _State Papers, Spanish_, iii. , p. 341. See also Corbett, i. , pp. 269, 270. ]

[Sidenote: Drake in the Pacific, 1578]

In due time then, when there seemed to be no more prospect of beingrejoined by Winter, the Pelican proceeded on its expedition. InDecember, Drake astonished Valparaiso by sailing in and seizing a prizeand stores: no one had dreamed of an English ship in the Pacific. Thence he proceeded, exploring the coast, and creating general alarm, till he reached Callao, the port of Lima; where he secured a prize, with which he started in pursuit of a great treasure ship known as theCacafuego, which he learnt had sailed a few days before. A couple ofships were sent after him; so he cleared out his prize, left it adriftfor his pursuers to recover, and showed them a clean pair of heels. After a long pursuit, and the capture of more minor prizes--which helet go, after taking what he wanted, leaving intact the privateproperty of those on board--he overtook the Cacafuego, securing animmense treasure and some exceedingly useful charts. 

[Sidenote 1: Drake in the Northern Pacific 1579][Sidenote 2: The return, 1580]

Satisfied, after securing two more prizes, with the damage done toSpain, and the rich spoils collected, he turned his attention togeographical discoveries; for in passing Magellan's Strait he had hadtwo predecessors, but none in the northern regions which he had nowreached. Finding harbourage on the Californian coast, he repaired thePelican thoroughly, and then proceeded on a voyage of circumnavigation;the spring of 1579 being now well advanced. His first idea was to lookfor that imagined North East Passage, in the search for whichWilloughby had lost his life nearly five and twenty years before: andwith this object in view he sailed some hundreds of miles further Norththan any explorers in the Pacific had hitherto gone. Coming, however, to the conclusion that he was not equipped for such a venture as thispromised to be, he again returned to California to refit. There heestablished most friendly relations with the natives, who were anxiousto deify him: and thence he started again to find his way across thePacific to the Cape of Good Hope. After much intricate and dangerousnavigation among the Spice Islands-in the course of which Drake made atreaty with the Sultan of Ternate, and the Pelican was all but lost ona reef-she rounded the Cape in January, sailing into Plymouth Sound onSeptember 26th, 1580, a little less than three years from the day whenshe began her voyage. Drake was the first commander who conducted acircumnavigation from start to finish. His precursors had died on thevoyage, and left their ships to be brought home by subordinates. 

Luckily perhaps for Drake, he arrived just at the time when Philip'ssubjects were aiding the Irish rebellion; and the English Queen couldclaim that her great subject had been doing to Spain nothing so bad aswhat Philip was countenancing in Ireland. Burghley alone refused tohave part or lot in the profits of what he held to be a lawless exploit, but the rigid Walsingham applauded. Drake was knighted, and his namewas on every lip. More than that, the whole performance imbued Englishsailors with an un-conquerable conviction that they were more than amatch for all the maritime power of Spain, and with an ardent longingto put that conviction to the proof. Drake was the idol not only ofevery seaman who had sailed under him, but of the entire English People. 

Hawkins after 1567 and Drake after 1580 made no more great voyages fortheir own hand. Hawkins, a past master in all that concerned ships andshipping, was presently appointed Treasurer and practically controllerof the Royal Navy, and brought the Queen's ships to a high pitch ofperfection. Drake became, practically if not nominally, the first ofthe Queen's admirals. Both, with two more among the explorers of whomwe have still to speak, were to play leading parts in the fight withthe Armada. 

[Sidenote: Various Voyages, 1576-88]

Of these two, the more famous is Martin Frobisher, who in the earlysixties was one of the captains who made war on Philip's ships in theEnglish Channel. Between 1576 and 1578, he made three voyages in searchof the North West Passage-accompanied on two of them by the secondexplorer referred to, Edward Fenton-visiting Greenland and exploringFrobisher's Strait. [Footnote: Now known to be not a Strait but a Bay. ]The ships with which he made the first voyage were of no more than 25and 20 tons [Footnote: _Royal Navy, _ i. , p. 624. ] respectively. In1582 Fenton captained another expedition, which seems to have beenintended for Magellan but got no further than the Brazils, returningafter a successful engagement with some Spanish ships. Anothercircumnavigation was accomplished by Thomas Cavendish (1586-8), whowrought great damage to the Spanish settlements, burning as well aslooting, and brought home considerable spoils; but this expedition wasundertaken when England and Spain were technically at war. 

Just before Cavendish sailed, John Davis, second to no English explorersave Drake, commenced his series of Arctic voyages, learned much ofice-navigation, and on the third voyage in 1587 discovered Davis'Strait. These Arctic expeditions were of course quite unconnected withthe Spanish struggle; but while they exemplified the magnificent spiritof English sailors, they also materially advanced English seamanship. 

[Sidenote: Raleigh]

In these years preceding the Armada, there were those who, not contentwith adventure and exploration by sea, made the first tentative effortsfrom which in after days was to spring the vast colonial dominion ofBritain. There was hardly one of these enterprises which was notdirectly due to the initiative, the exertions, and the persistence ofWalter Raleigh. Others no doubt took their share, whether moved by hisarguments or in a miscellaneous spirit of adventure; but Raleigh's wasthe vision of a New England beyond the seas; a goal to dream of and tostrive for through weary years of failure and disappointment: an idealwhich appealed at once to an intellect among the keenest and animagination among the boldest of a time which abounded in keenintellects and bold imaginations. 

[Sidenote: Gilbert]

As early as 1578, when he was but six and twenty, Raleigh took part inone such abortive venture, along with his half-brother the enthusiastand dreamer Humphrey Gilbert: the same man whose paradoxical barbarityin Ireland [Footnote: See p. 311, _ante_. ] we have alreadynoticed: a barbarity very difficult at first sight to reconcile withthe high chivalrous spirit, the odd sentimentality, and the fundamentalpiety which, besides his absolutely fearless courage, characterised SirHumphrey in a degree only a little more marked than numbers of hiscontemporaries. A few years later, in 1583, Gilbert made his seconddisastrous attempt to establish a colony in "Norumbega, " the name givento a vague region in the Northern parts of North America. Five shipssailed. The attempt was a complete failure, and on the return voyageSir Humphrey went down with the little _Squirrel_, the smallest ofhis ships, which foundered with all hands. The last time a consort waswithin hail, he greeted her with the natural expression of his faithfuland courageous soul--"we are as near God by sea as by land". The storyis worth pausing over, for it is supremely characteristic. We may callthese men what we will; they persuaded themselves of the righteousnessof acts which shock an age in some respects more sensitive; but theywrought mightily for England, and a main source of their triumphs wastheir trust in the God whose cause they identified with their own, afaith which was a living, impelling, force. 

[Sidenote: Virginia]

Raleigh had not accompanied the expedition though he was one of thepromoters. In the following year he dispatched an expedition forexploration and settlement in Norumbega, which took possession of adistrict in what is now Carolina, naming it Virginia in honour of theVirgin Queen. Thither, again on an expedition of Raleigh's, went SirRichard Grenville with Ralph Lane and others a year later (1585). Laneremained with a company of a hundred men at Roanoake; Grenvilleaccomplished a characteristic feat of arms against a Spaniard on hisway home. But when after another year Raleigh sent succours to hiscolony, the company was found to have withdrawn, having been taken offby Drake's flotilla after he had accomplished his raid on Cartagena. [Footnote: see p. 334, _ante_. ] Grenvilie however, reappearing, left a small party. In 1587 Raleigh sent again; Grenville's party hadvanished, but a new colony was left. Twice again he sent, in 1590 andin 1602, but both times without success. The colonists, except somehalf dozen, had been massacred. The path to Empire is whitened by thebones of the Pioneers. In the reign of the Virgin Queen, the attempt tocolonise Virginia failed utterly; but the failure was the precursor ofultimate triumph. The United States owe their being to Sir WalterRaleigh. 

CHAPTER XXIV

ELIZABETH (ix), 1587-88--THE ARMADA

[Sidenote: 1587 Results of Mary's Death]

If Mary Stewart displayed the most royal side of her character in the hourof her doom, Elizabeth displayed the least royal side of hers in the weeksthat followed. She disavowed Davison's act, disgraced him, sent him to theTower; she would have had him tried for treason but that the judgesdeclared emphatically that the charge could not hold water. She was obligedto be content with the infliction of a heavy fine, and dismissal. She couldnot trample on the whole of her Council, who had deliberately assumed theresponsibility: but to France and to Scotland she clamoured that the deedwas none of her doing. There was an elvish humour in the Scots King's replythat he would hold her innocent when she had faced and disproved the charge--accentuated by her answer that as a sovereign she was not amenable totrial; for it was a quite precise reversal of the tone adopted eighteenyears before, when Mary was the accused party; and Elizabeth now foundherself reduced to the very plea which she had ignored when Mary urged itin her own behalf. The position was ignominious; yet Elizabeth had no onebut herself to thank. She might have avowed and justified the Act;disavowing it, the only logical course was to punish those on whom theguilt lay. She tried to evade the dilemma, by crushing the mostinsignificant one among them and scolding the rest, while protesting on herown part an innocence which was a palpable hypocrisy. 

The Scots however might rage; James might find gratification in anargumentative victory; but for more pronounced action he wanted more than asentimental inducement. Politically Elizabeth had won the game by themethod peculiar to herself and her father--of counting on their servants toshoulder the responsibility. While Mary lived there was always the chancethat the Catholics of England might be rallied to the standard of aCatholic princess whose legitimacy was indisputable. But they would notrally to that of her Protestant son, or consent to have England turned intoa province of the Spanish King. Even Catholic Europe could not view such aprospect with enthusiasm or even equanimity, however much theuncompromising devotees of the Holy See might desire it. In France it wasonly the extremists of the League who could countenance such a scheme. InEngland, the death-blow of the Scots Queen was the death-blow also to thechances of a Catholic revolt. Despite the fervid dreams of Allen andParsons, the entire Nation was ready to oppose an undivided front to anyforeign assailant. 

[Sidenote: Attitude of Philip]

The time, however, had at last arrived when Philip had definitely made uphis mind that the overthrow of Elizabeth must no longer be deferred. Thiswas an end which he had desired certainly for eighteen years past. Whenever he had an ambassador in England, that ambassador had been more orless deeply involved in every plot or attempted insurrection against thethrone. But Philip had never concentrated his efforts on that design. Hehad held on to the theory that the Netherlands must be first crushed. Whenonce they were brought into complete subjection, he would make England feelthe full extent of his power. And so year after year passed, the revoltedProvinces obstinately holding out in a struggle which year after year ithad seemed impossible for them to go on maintaining. More than onceadvisers had suggested that it would be better to reverse the order; tocrush England first, and then finish off the Netherlands at hisleisure. But this scheme always involved a danger: he had no alternative, if he succeeded, but to set Mary on the throne in place of her cousin;Mary, once established, even by his aid, might attach herself to Franceinstead of to Spain; and the balance of parties in France was so uncertain--depended so much on the action of the Politiques--that in such an eventhe might still find that he had a very dangerous Anglo-French combinationto reckon with in settling his accounts with the Provinces. 

[Sidenote: Attitude of Elizabeth]

On the other hand, whether Elizabeth's policy had been dictated by a mostconsummate, if by no means elevated, state-craft based upon an abnormallyastute calculation of risks and chances, or merely by a desperate desire tostave off an immediate contest, whatever shifts might be involved; whetherit was in fact peculiarly long-sighted, or opportunist to the last andlowest degree; it had been actually a complete success. She had given theProvinces just that minimum of assistance or apparent countenance which didenable them to keep their resistance alive. In France she had done justenough, for the Huguenots, to hamper the Guises and no more; and she hadkept up the eternal marriage juggle, the eternal menace of an alliance withthe French court, which would have doubled Philip's difficulties in theNetherlands, and might have trebled the dangers of a direct attack onEngland--thereby perpetually driving Spanish diplomacy to seek to detachher decisively from France by professions of a desire for amicable alliancewith her. She had replied to the Spanish efforts by perpetual declarationsof a corresponding order, and by constant negotiations, always at the lastmoment rendered futile by the introduction of some condition at the timeimpossible of acceptance. 

[Sidenote: The situation]

At last, however, the endless evasion had ceased to be possible. Leicester's campaign in the Netherlands, feeble as it was, and Drake'sexpedition to Cartagena, put an end to the theory that Spain and Englandwere at peace. It was known that in the ports of Spain and Portugal Philipwas making his slow preparations for a naval attack; his ablest admiral, Santa Cruz, had formulated a vast scheme--vaster indeed than Philip wasever prepared to adopt. The Guises were prepared to go any lengths toprevent the legitimate Protestant succession in France; and the French Kinghad publicly thrown in his lot with the Guises. Now also Mary Stewart wasnot only out of the way herself, but before her death had declared againstthe succession to her own claims of her son, and had acknowledged Philip, [Footnote: _State Papers, Spanish, _ iii. , p. 581; and _ante, _ p. 338. ] a legitimate descendant of John of Gaunt, as her heir. At last inPhilip's mind the suppression of Elizabeth acquired precedence over thesuppression of the Provinces. 

The near approach of a life-and-death struggle made no difference whateverin the English Queen's methods. Eighteen months before, she had struck onehard blow by sea, when she dispatched Drake on the Cartagena expedition, but otherwise had merely played at helping the Netherlanders, by sending anarmy and paralysing it for action. She did exactly the same thing now. 

[Sidenote: April: Drake's Cadiz expedition]

Drake, with a squadron not large either in numbers or in tonnage butexceedingly efficient, had orders to sail from Plymouth to "singe the Kingof Spain's beard, " as he phrased it. Drake knew his Queen, and got himselfout of port before the appointed day, on April 2nd. The expected counter-orders arrived in due time--when he was out of reach. Elizabeth possiblyknew her Drake and reckoned on his premature departure, while she hadsecured her loop-hole for shuffling out of the responsibility. He carriedout the singeing business most effectively. Making for Cadiz, where it wasknown that stores and ships were accumulated, he stood into the harbour, sunk one ship of war there, cleared out so much of the stores as he couldaccommodate, and fired the bulk of the shipping, cutting the cables. Drakethen captured the Sagres forts at Cape St. Vincent, intending to lie inwait for an expected squadron from the Mediterranean; but departed after ashort interval, being minded to sail into the port of Lisbon where theAdmiral Santa Cruz lay with the bulk of the Armada. This exploit, however, he was obliged to forgo, [Footnote: Corbett, _Drake and the TudorNavy_, ii. , pp. 97 ff. The account there given is followed here. Theauthor points out that Froude and others have been misled by the almostcertain misdating of a letter of Drake's which he attributes to 1589. ]contenting himself with a challenge to Santa Cruz to come out and fight, which he was in no condition to do. Returning to Cape St. Vincent, Drakethere remained long enough to stop the expected squadron, and throw thewhole of Philip's transport arrangements out of gear. Satisfied with thedestruction wrought, which served to cripple at least the mobility of theArmada for many months, he then sailed for the Azores, where he fell inwith a great Spanish _East_ Indiaman, the _San Felipe_, whereofthe spoils very satisfactorily filled the pockets of his crews; and soreturned home, having made it all but impossible that the invading fleetshould sail during 1587. 

[Sidenote: Negotiations with Parma]

Then, month after month, Elizabeth carried on the old practice in theNetherlands. She negotiated persistently with Parma, on the old basis, thatthe Provinces had a right to their old constitution but nothing more. Ofcourse she knew that the Provinces would never assent to that solution. Onthe favourable view of her policy, it must be held to have rested on afixed determination not to make the Netherlands her field of battle. ForSluys, one of the forts which she held, so to speak, in pawn from theStates, was taken after a stubborn siege and at immense cost both in moneyand men by Parma, simply because Maurice of Nassau was too uncertain as toher real intentions to make a serious effort for its relief. Confidence inher had sunk to the lowest point when, some months before, an Englishcaptain, Stanley, had handed over the town of Deventer, which was in hischarge, to the Spaniards, whose service he himself entered. The Provinces, Parma, Elizabeth's own Ministers, believed that she meant the negotiationsin earnest. Parma, who knew how tremendous a task the invasion of Englandmust be, would have liked to come to terms, but Philip would not give himthe authority; the terms approved by his lieutenant must be referred backto him. They were never finally formulated. All through 1587, through thefirst months of 1588, the thing dragged on; and then Elizabeth declaredthat the surrender of the Cautionary Towns, always hitherto treated as thenecessary first step, was only to be thought of as the last step--a quiteimpossible condition from the Spanish point of view. But by the time thenegotiations had thoroughly broken down, a whole year had been practicallywasted by Spain. Taking on the other hand the unfavourable view--whichappears to have been that of almost every statesman and soldier of the day--she engaged in a highly discreditable negotiation for a betrayal of theProvinces by the surrender of the Cautionary Towns, in the hope ofobtaining with Philip a peace which would have rendered him infinitely moredangerous than he actually was; being only saved from that disaster bysaner counsels and against her own will at the last moment. 

[Sidenote: The Queen's Diplomacy]

From beginning to end, the facts are consistent with either view of hercharacter. If the second view be true, history affords no parallel to theamazing good fortune which attended her; for her whole career was asuccession of apparently hopeless entanglements, each one leading toinevitable disaster; yet from every one a loop-hole of escape was found. If the first be true, history again affords no parallel to the invariablesuccess which attended a series of deceptions practised alike upon herservants, her friends, and her enemies. But whichever solution we accept--and there is no third alternative--her personal policy remains one of purepolitical opportunism, either very short sighted or singularly longsighted, without a particle of the idealism which, mixed though it might bewith other motives, was so emphatically characteristic of half herministers and more than half her subjects. Towards the cause of theReformation, as such, she was entirely cold; to her, its adherents in theNetherlands and in France were merely pieces on the politicalchess-board. It is an odd paradox that such a ruler should have won andmaintained among her own people a personal popularity amounting toenthusiasm, which was a very strong force in binding the nation together. 

[Sidenote: 1587-88 French affairs]

While Elizabeth was keeping up the diplomatic game above described, she wasvery materially aided by the state of affairs in France, where what isknown as the "War of the three Henries"--Henry III. , Henry of Navarre, andHenry of Guise--was in full progress. The King, professing to support theLeague, was in fact doing his best to play into the hands of his nominalopponent, Navarre, and to paralyse his nominal adherent, Guise, who hadPhilip of Spain behind him. Philip, aware of this ambiguous position--asalso was Elizabeth--found himself unable to trust to France for support, orabsolutely to repudiate her demands to share in the Armada expeditionviewed as a Catholic Crusade. The position became acute when Guise, ignoring the King's orders, entered Paris in force, receiving a generalovation while the King himself had to fly, on the "Day of the Barricades"(April-May, 1588). There was a nominal reconciliation in July; but it wasthen already too late for the Guises to hold the French ports at theservice of the Spaniard. 

Neither from Scotland nor in Ireland was any danger to be apprehended inthe coming struggle. We turn again to the story of the Armada itself. 

[Sidenote: 1587 Preparations for the Armada]

Great as was the damage wrought by Drake, it was energetically repaired, and Philip warned Parma to be ready for the arrival of the Armada inSeptember 1587. The plan of operations was for Santa Cruz to sail up theChannel, dominate the passage from the Low Countries, and so enable Parma, heavily reinforced by the soldiers on board the great fleet, to pour histroops into England. Philip's plans were quite unaffected by the talk ofpeace; but the English were justified in their confidence that the Armadawould not be ready to sail in time. When it was ready, Santa Cruzpronounced that the storms to be looked for so late in the year would makethe voyage itself dangerous, and would render it impossible to keep thenecessary control of the water-ways: which was what the English authoritieshad calculated on. 

[Sidenote: 1588 Plans of Campaign]

There was indeed a very considerable risk in deferring the mobilisation ofthe English fleet; for in January, Philip resolved to delay no longer, andif the Armada had sailed then there was no force ready to meet it. But thedeath of Santa Cruz at the critical moment destroyed the plan. In Februarythe English were in trim to take the seas; the opportunity was lost, andanother was not given. If the seamen had been allowed their own way, theLord Admiral Howard of Effingham, Drake, Hawkins, Frobisher and the othercaptains would have sailed for the Spanish coast; nor can it be doubtedthat they would then have done completely what Drake and his squadron haddone only in part a year before, and practically have annihilated theArmada in its own ports; but other counsels prevailed, to their greatchagrin. The idea that the Spanish fleet might evade the English, if thelatter left the Channel, and make the invasion a _fait accompli_without a sea-fight at all, was too alarming to the landsmen. Whether Parmawould ever have taken the enormous risk of throwing himself into a hostilecountry, with an unfought fleet hastening to cut him off from his base, isanother matter. It is noteworthy however that even the seamen do not seemto have realised the enormous risk involved in such an undertaking. Theyknew that a small squadron was quite sufficient to frustrate any invasionthat Parma without the Armada could contemplate. But when the Armada wasalready in helpless and headlong flight round Scotland, Drake [Footnote:Laughton, S. P. _Armada, _ ii. , pp. 99, 100: Drake to Walsingham. ]still regarded an attempted coup by Parma as a danger to be seriouslyguarded against. 

[Sidenote: The opposing forces]

We are in the habit of looking upon the destruction of the Armada as a featverging on the miraculous. Yet it is apparent that every one of the greatsailors anticipated a complete victory with entire confidence. They knewthat they understood the conditions of naval warfare, and that the enemydid not. Although, on paper, the Spaniard had all the best of it, he neverreally had a chance, for the plain reason that his fleet was utterlyoutclassed. The Armada put to sea with about 130 ships. Of these, 62 wereof over 300 tons burden. The whole English fleet is given as 197 shipsincluding the 34 of the Royal Navy. Of these, only 49 exceeded 200tons. The average [Footnote: Laughton, i. , p. Li. ] tonnage of the 62 wasquite double that of the 49; and the aggregate of the 130 was approximatelydouble that of the 197. The recorded lists and estimates also give theSpaniards double the number of men and guns. Many of the great Spaniardswere little more than transports; on the other hand, half the English shipswere too small for effective fighting. But there is little doubt that theEnglish fighting ships were much better armed relatively to their size;that the guns were better, and infinitely better handled. The ships were infact far superior as fighting machines, because the two fleets were built, armed, and manned, on two diametrically opposed theories of naval tactics:which may be summed up by saying that the Spaniards relied upon mass, andhand to hand fighting, the English on mobility and artillery; applyingunconsciously by sea the principles by which the great land-tacticians ofthe past, Edward III. And Henry V. , had shattered greatly superior hosts atCrecy and Agincourt. The finer comprehension of naval strategy on the partof the English admirals had been made of no account by the ignorance of thesupreme authority, which detained the fleet on the coast: but theirtactical developments were unhampered. For the first time on a large scalethe accustomed rules were about to be discarded. 

[Sidenote: The New Tactics]

Hitherto, naval battles had been assimilated to land battles; ships hadattacked, moving abreast in military formation; they had grappled andfought for possession of each other's decks; the work had been soldiers'work, and for that the Spaniards were equipped, carrying two soldiers forevery mariner. But this was to be mariners' work, and on the English shipsthe complement of soldiers was quite insignificant in comparison to that ofmariners and gunners. The English ships were handled by seamen, many of theSpanish by landsmen. The English ships answered the helm and could go"about, " with a rapidity which amazed the Spaniards. They were constructedto deliver broadsides, which the Spaniards could not do. Their guns couldbe discharged three times or more to the Spaniards once. The Spaniards, with a dim perception of the English point of superiority, tried to nullifyit by futile firing at the rigging, which was for the most part a purewaste of shot; the English pounded the Spanish hulls and their crowdeddecks; systematically refusing to come to close quarters, so that the enemynever had a chance of utilising his soldiery. With ships built and riggedfor speed and for manoeuvring, with men who had learnt how to handle themin many a storm, with captains whose seamanship was trusted by everysailor, the Englishmen repeatedly secured the weather-gauge, joining battleor refusing it as they liked; and the final result was never seriously indoubt. 

[Sidenote: Defective arrangements]

From the month of March then, the departure of the Spanish fleet wasdelayed only by its own unreadiness to sail, due in part to the obviousincompetence of the Duke of Medina Sidonia who had been appointed, verymuch against his own will, to the command; for he was absolutely devoid ofany naval or even military experience. The English ships were in admirableorder; [Footnote: Laughton, i. , p. 79: Howard to Burghley, Feb. 21. ] butthe great trouble with them was in the commissariat. The emergency wasquite without parallel, and the system, such as there was, was quiteinadequate to cope with it. To maintain, month after month, supplies for solarge an armament, was next to impossible; and to this much more than tothe "niggardliness" of the Queen, [Footnote: Laughton, i. , pp. Lvii ff. Froude's latitude of paraphrase makes his handling of the evidencepeculiarly inconclusive. ] must be attributed the vehement complaints ofdeficiencies. Sanitary conditions also were not at all generallyunderstood, and it was dangerous to keep crews constantly on board. On thewhole, the denunciations of the authorities were not different from thoseto which they always have been, and probably always will be, subjected. Individuals did their best to work a defective organisation with onlypartial success. And there was very much the same tale from the Spanish asfrom the English; the notable difference lay mainly in the greatsuperiority of the latter in the purely naval department of administration. 

[Sidenote: The Land forces]

As concerns the adequacy of the arrangements on land for resisting theinvader if he succeeded in reaching the shore, it is difficult to speak. It was almost a matter of course that Leicester was given the command, though he had no military talent; but he had at his elbow the onethoroughly experienced captain available, Sir John Norreys. A great campwas formed at Tilbury to cover London; the raw country musters were inreadiness every where to fly to arms when the signal beacons should flashtheir message over the land. How much resistance they could have offered toParma's veterans, none can tell. But it may safely be laid down, that whilethe English fleet was in being, the invaders' chances of ultimate successwere infinitesimal, but that if the fleet had been wiped out they wouldhave been, at least _prima facie_, exceedingly promising. AsLeicester, not Norreys, was in command of the army, so Howard of Effingham, not Drake, was in command of the fleet. But of Effingham we know that hewas not himself ignorant of naval matters, and that he had no notion ofignoring the judgment of the colleagues who were technically hissubordinates. With Drake as Vice-Admiral and Hawkins as Rear-Admiral, therewas no danger of inefficient command. The naval appointments were in everyway admirable; and even the noblemen and gentlemen who were captains of somany of the ships knew better than to overrule the practical command oftheir mariner-subordinates. On May 20th the Armada sailed from Lisbon, butwas scattered by a storm in the second week of June, reassembling atCorunna--when Medina Sidonia vainly urged that the expedition should begiven up. Some of the ships had proceeded within ken of the Scillies, causing considerable excitement; but these too put back to Corunna, whencethe whole armament made its final start on July 12th. 

At the end of May, the English fleet was collected at Plymouth, a squadronwith Seymour and the veteran Wynter being left on guard at the East end ofthe Channel. The admirals were again anxious to seek out the Spaniards andgive account of them in their own seas, but supplies were short, and Howardwas again definitely ordered to remain on the coast. It is however inferredby some authorities [Footnote: Corbetts ii. , pp. 179-181. ] that Drake andHoward did make a dash for the Spanish coast, about July 7th, while theArmada was at Corunna, in the hope of striking a swift and decisive blow;but that the favouring wind was lost, a South-Wester set in, and they hadto return to the Channel, being insufficiently provisioned to remain at adistance from home. 

Howard then, with Drake and Hawkins and the major part of the English fleetwas lying in Plymouth, getting stores aboard as fast as might be, whileSeymour and Sir William Wynter with their squadron were lying at the Eastend of the Channel, when on July 19th the news came that the Armada hadbeen sighted off the Lizard, coming up with a favouring wind. There wasnothing for it but to work out of Plymouth Sound in the teeth of thewind. When the Spaniards came in view on the 20th (Saturday) the move hadbeen accomplished. In the night, the English passed out to sea, across theSpanish front, and so in the morning found themselves to windward andattacked--as it would seem, for the first time in naval warfare, in"line-ahead" formation, pouring successive broadsides into the enemy's"weathermost" ship. This action lasted little more than two hours. Not manyof the Spaniards were actually engaged, but the working effect of the newtactics was tested, Admiral Recalde's ship was crippled, some others hadsuffered from a very severe fire very inadequately returned; incidentallytoo, one great galleon had been almost blown to pieces by an accident, andthe ship of Valdez was disabled through collision. The Duke of MedinaSidonia left her to her fate, and she surrendered to Drake early nextmorning, the two fleets in the meantime having proceeded up Channel. Drakeought to have led the pursuit during the night, and by not doing so causedsome confusion and delay-also, it would seem much indignation on the partespecially of Frobisher; [Footnote: Laughton, ii. , pp. 101 ff. ] but hisconduct is capable of legitimate if not complete justification. [Footnote:Corbett, ii. , pp. 231 ff. ]

[Sidenote: The fight off Portland, July 23]

In consequence however, the English were unable to form for attack--thoughthe half-blown-up ship, the _San Salvador_, fell into their hands--till late on the next day, when they were foiled by the falling of acalm. When the breeze got up again on Tuesday, the Spaniards were towindward, off Portland, and challenged an engagement. In manoeuvring torecover the weather-gauge, Frobisher, with some other vessels, was for atime cut off, and fought a very valiant fight, till a change in the windenabled them to extricate themselves, and there was more sharp fighting inwhich the Spaniards suffered most. Neither side however could claim avictory. But it was seen that much more would have been effected had theArmada been less systematically organised, and the English more so. Beforethe next general engagement, the defect had been remedied by thedistribution of the fleet into four divisions, under Howard, Drake, Hawkins, and Frobisher respectively. 

[Sidenote: The fight off the Isle of Wight, July 25]

It was supposed to be the intention of the Armada [Footnote: Corbett, ii. , 228. This was no doubt the recommendation of Recalde and others. But it wasin the teeth of Philip's instructions. In any case however, it was what theEnglish expected, and their action was based on that hypothesis. ] to securethe station at the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth; and it was to frustratethis object that the third battle was fought on Thursday. In the interval, Howard had only worried the enemy, being in need of fresh supplies ofammunition which were now arriving. On the Thursday, the fluctuating airsagain forced the English to manoeuvre for the weather gauge, in order toattack. The brunt of the resulting engagement was borne by Frobisher andHoward, who occupied the enemy and were very thoroughly occupiedthemselves; until the Armada, which had not in appearance been getting theworst of it, went about and sailed off up Channel in good order. Theexplanation would appear to be that the Spaniard found himself suddenlythreatened with a crushing flank attack [Footnote: Corbett, ii. , p. 254. The explanation is Mr. Corbett's conjecture. ] by the combined squadrons ofDrake and Hawkins, which would have driven him upon the banks known as the"Owers"; and to escape destruction, he had no alternative but to give upthe design on Portsmouth, if he had ever entertained it, and continue hisunimpeded course up Channel. To fight where he was had become impossible. Thus, although the comparative injury to his fleet was not very great, theaction was a very decisive victory for the English. The Spaniards had torevert to the desperate plan of a junction with Parma, instead of securinga station in the Channel. 

[Sidenote: Effects on the fleets]

Although strategically a great point was secured by this third engagement, the ostensible strength of the Spanish fleet remained virtually unaltered, and the English captains were evidently disappointed at having achieved nomore marked results. Of course, on the theory that the odds were, professionally speaking, all in favour of the Armada, they had doneexceedingly well; but they were fighting under the perfectly correctimpression that the odds were in their own favour, and yet they had done nosignal injury. In fact however they had accomplished a good deal more thanappears on the surface. Their losses were far short of 100 men all told;their ships were intact; the spirit of the fleet had been tested; and theyhad already learnt and remedied the defect in their organisation at thestart. On the other hand, the Armada had lost three ships, several more hadsuffered so severely as to be useless for further action, its ammunitionwas running short, some hundreds of men had been killed or wounded, and thewhole fleet had realised that in manoeuvring capacity it was completelyoutclassed, so that its _morale_ was failing. Already it felt itselffighting a losing battle. Whereas, when the Isle of Wight was left behind, the English were more confident than ever that they themselves werefighting to win. 

[Sidenote: The Armada at Calais]

The Duke then made his course for Dunkirk, sending urgent messages to Parmato come out and help him: which it was not possible for Parma to do. OnSaturday evening, without any further fighting, the Armada anchored inCalais Roads. The same evening, Howard was joined by Seymour's squadron, and for the first time his fleet was at its full strength. It now becamehis great object to force the decisive engagement before Medina Sidonia andParma at Dunkirk could effect a junction. To this end it was needful todislodge the Armada from its anchorage. Wind and tide both favouring, onSunday night eight fire-ships were sent drifting on to the Spanish fleet. A panic arose; the Spaniards cut their cables and made for the open, toescape the danger. They were to suffer later on for this loss of theiranchors. Now, when the morning broke, the great fleet which hadsuccessfully preserved its formation hitherto, was scattered along adangerous coast, with the entire English force lying to windward withinstriking distance. 

[Sidenote: The battle off Gravelines, July 29]

For the Duke, the first thing to do was to recover his formation; for theEnglish, to prevent his doing so. Howard should have led the attack, butturned aside to make sure of a crippled galleon. Drake, followed byHawkins, Frobisher, and Seymour, sailed down on the Spaniards, and the lastdecisive engagement began. Medina Sidonia was never able to bring more thanhalf his ships into action. He gained some time, by Howard's aberration, but in the course of the day the entire English fleet was engaging him. Theships and the captains, however, who were able to rejoin him, were the bestin the Armada, and they made a magnificent and desperate struggle. Rakedwith broadside after broadside they fought on, drifting into ever moredangerous proximity to the shoals, their hulls riddled, their deckscharnel-houses; resolved to sink rather than strike; while the Englishpoured in a ceaseless storm of shot at close range but always evaded theone danger, of being grappled and boarded, the sole condition under whichthe Spaniard could fight at an advantage. At last the English drew off;partly because their ammunition, like the Spaniards', was all butexhausted, except in Howard's squadron, the expenditure having been quiteunparalleled; partly because a fierce squall for a time provided them witha new enemy which it took all their energies to meet. That squall was thesalvation of the Spaniards; when it cleared, they were already in fullflight to the North East. 

[Sidenote: The Armada in flight]

The Armada was now to leeward of Dunkirk, and a junction with Parma hadbeen rendered impossible. On the following day indeed, it seemed that thewhole fleet was doomed to destruction on the shoals, when a change of windenabled them to make for the North Sea, the main part of the English fleetfollowing in pursuit, while Seymour's squadron, to his intense disgust, wasleft to guard the Channel. But for the English shortage of ammunition, which made it impossible to provoke another general engagement, half theArmada might very well have fallen a prey to the pursuers; for it was afleet that knew itself hopelessly beaten; its morale was gone, itsammunition was exhausted, its best crews were much more than decimated, many of its vessels were hopelessly crippled. As it was, the English werecontent to follow and watch while the Spaniards drove Northwards before astiff gale; giving up the chase on August 2nd, by which time it was evidentthat the enemy had no course open to them but to attempt the passage roundthe North of Scotland, and so to make for home by the Irish coast as bestthey might; though later, the wind changing to the North created a passingfear that they might return with it to Denmark, to refit. 

[Sidenote: The End of the Armada]

In the whole series of actions, the English lost only about a hundred menand one ship. Out of that great Armada which had sailed with the Papalblessing to lower the insolent pride of heretic England, not more than halfthe ships found their way back to Spain. Of the sixty or more that werelost, nine [Footnote: Clowes, _Royal Navy_, i. , p. 585. ] only aredefinitely accounted for in the actual fighting. Of the rest, nineteen arerecorded as wrecked on the Scottish or Irish coast: there must have beenmany more. Of their crews, those whom the winds and the waves spared, theIrish slew; and those who escaped the Irish, the English soldiery slew. Ofthe fate of the remainder, one-fourth of the entire fleet, nothing isknown. 

_Dominus flavit, et dissipati sunt. _ The Lord blew and they werescattered. Small wonder that the puritan spirit saw in that huge disasterthe direct intervention of the Almighty, smiting on behalf of HisPeople. Yet the winds and the seas had but given an awful completeness tothe already triumphant handiwork of the English Seamen. From first to last, through all the fighting, till the desperate _sauve qui peut_ of thebattered and shattered foe across the Northern seas began, no particulargood fortune in the matter of wind and weather had favoured England. Shehad won, against apparent odds, because her sons had found out on many aventurous voyage how the great game of war by sea ought to be played; andher enemy had not. She had won decisively. Philip might stiffen his prideand boast that he could yet send forth fleets mightier than the lostArmada. But on the day of the fight off Gravelines the doom of his powerwas sealed; and the Empire of the Ocean passed from Spain to England. 

CHAPTER XXV

ELIZABETH (x), 1588-98-BRITANNIA VICTRIX

[Sidenote: After the Armada]

The sceptre had passed. The world awoke suddenly to the truth of whichthe great debacle was only the unexpected testimony. The Spanish Peoplewere slow to realise the overwhelming fact--overwhelming, because forthe best part of a century at least they had accounted themselves thenation favoured by Heaven, chosen for the crushing of the heathen andthe heretic, assured of victory. So, for a few years, had the Englishthought of themselves; but with a difference; for their spirit was thatexpressed in the later Puritan adage, "Trust in God and keep yourpowder dry". The Spaniard had neglected to keep his powder dry. Thenation which observes both injunctions is tolerably certain to defeatthat which observes only one. 

The sceptre had passed; but Spain would not acquiesce without astruggle, and, in his slow fashion, Philip set himself to adapt to hisown navy the lesson taught by the fate of the Armada. England had wonthe lead, but she was not to hold it unchallenged, though she didmaintain it convincingly. For her alertness did not leave her, and toher had been transferred not the power only but also the enormousprestige which Spain had hitherto enjoyed, and which counts for much inevery struggle where it is recognised on both sides. 

But the re-organisation of the Spanish Navy was a matter of time. Forthe moment, the result of the collision was absolutely to reverse thehypothetical though not the actual position of the two countries. Spainwas reduced completely to the defensive. England no longer thought ofguarding herself, but only of smiting her foe--a theory of the mutualrelations on which, unofficially, the seamen had been acting for thelast decade. 

If during the closing ten years of his life Philip's strongest desirewas to recover the lost supremacy, his energies were still divided byhis extreme anxiety to prevent the Bourbon succession in France; whilethe conviction was proving day by day more irresistible that theProtestant Netherlands would be lost for ever to Spain. Yet the eternalseries of abortive plots for restoring the old religion and placingeither Philip or a tool of Philip on the English throne went on; not infact ending till the death of Elizabeth joined England and Scotlandunder a single crown. 

[Sidenote: A new phase]

Politically the dramatic climax of Elizabeth's reign is the dispersionof the Armada. The dragon has been fought and vanquished, and at thispoint, the curtain ought to ring down and leave the audience to imaginethe Red-cross knight and his ladye-love living happy for everafterwards. But in history no climax is more than an incident; at themost it is but the decisive entry on a new phase. The chain ofcausation, of the interdependence of events, is continuous. 

The moment of the Armada then may be regarded as the conclusion of aphase. The work of the great statesmen, whose names are most intimatelyassociated with that of Elizabeth, was accomplished. They had keptEngland united and at peace within her own borders through a longperiod of recurring crises. They had so fostered the national spiritand the national resources that she had finally proved herself a matchfor the mightiest Power in Europe. They had achieved for her thepremier position upon the Ocean. They had defeated every attempt toentice or to force her back to the Roman obedience. They had secured alarger latitude of religious tolerance than prevailed in any otherState of Europe. These things they had definitely won, though there wasstill need of keen brains, stout hearts, strong hands, and sturdyconsciences to hold them. They had been responsible for the plantingand watering. It was left mainly to others in the last years ofElizabeth to assure the beginnings of the increase. 

[Sidenote: 1588 The Death of Leicester]

Of the counsellors who had played a prominent part in Elizabeth's reign, Nicholas Bacon had died in 1579. The rest still lived, but none of themfor long. The next to disappear was Leicester, who survived thedispersion of the Armada by only a few weeks. So long as he had been anaspirant to the hand of his royal mistress, he existed chiefly totrouble the minds of statesmen--a piece of grit in the machinery; anapparently quite worthless person After he had settled down into theless ambiguous position of a mere personal favourite, with no chance ofsatisfying swelling ambitions, he became a definite partisan of theWalsingham school whose ideal lay in the advancement of protestantismand antagonism to Spain. When not warped by the vain imaginings of hisearlier years, he would seem to have been a person of respectableabilities, little decision of character, decently loyal; an ornamentalfigurehead whose position enabled him to serve his friends; shallow;neither dangerous, nor conspicuously incapable; not entirely deservingof the extreme contempt which is usually poured upon him; but at best apoor creature whose importance was wholly adventitious. 

[Sidenote: France, 1588-89]

Of infinitely more consequence in its influence on the politicalsituation was the death on December 23rd, by the hands of assassins ofthe Duke of Guise. The murder, planned by Henry III. , deprived theLeague of its head, and decisively forced the French King into the armsof his Protestant heir. Nine months later (August 1589), Henry III. Wasassassinated in turn, and Henry of Navarre laid claim to the crown, hisuncle Charles, Cardinal of Bourbon, being proclaimed King by theCatholics. Hence in Philip's eyes a closer union than ever betweenhimself and the League--now headed by Mayenne, brother of the murderedGuise--became imperative. A Huguenot king in France, a heretic queen inEngland, and heretic rebels in the Netherlands, threatened acombination which he was bound to try and paralyse. The attempt wentfar to thwart itself; for numbers of the French Catholics were ready togo a long way towards a compromise with Henry of Navarre when they feltthe alternative to be a Spanish domination; while that astute princehailed the opportunity which enabled him to claim the role of patriot, and to point to the Leaguers as the clients of the foreigner. On theother hand, Philip's energies during the remainder of his life werelargely absorbed in futile efforts to redress on French soil the lossof Spanish supremacy on the seas. 

[Sidenote: 1588 England aggressive]

Under the new conditions, the antagonism between the two schools ofEnglish statesmanship takes a slightly altered form. Walsingham amongthe ministers, Drake among the seamen, had always believed fervently inthe theory of breaking the power of Spain to pieces. Elizabeth and (inthe main) Burghley had clung to the theory of gradually making Englandso secure and so formidable that Spain and England alike shouldultimately recognise a condition of amicable equality as the best forboth. Spain would then become amenable to reason in mattersecclesiastical and commercial, the old intercourse would be restored inits fulness, and general prosperity would result. Against their wishes, matters had been by the inevitable trend of events forced to thearbitrament of battle. But even now, terrible as the disaster of theArmada had been, Spain was by no means shattered; in fact, though theEnglish nation was more than jubilant, the seamen themselves wereevidently disappointed that they had not in the encounter inflictedmore complete ruin upon their rivals. They had found the Spaniards lesseasy to dispose of than they had anticipated. 

[Sidenote: Alternative Naval policies]

The victory however had been won by the great captains of theaggressive party; it was followed almost immediately by the revolt ofHenry III. From the Guise domination; all the conditions were in favourof an offensive campaign. For the time being, a peace-party had ceasedto exist. The only question now was, how to strike. And at this stagewe see the two rival theories of naval policy in war time beginning tobe formulated, since naval policy on a large scale was only broughtinto being by the development of an oceanic field for it to work in. Ofthe one policy which has constantly prevailed with our great Englishadmirals, that of making the destruction of the enemy's fighting fleetthe primary object, with mere commerce-destroying secondary, Drake wasin practice the father; of the other, that of concentrating on histrade-routes and menacing his commerce, not unusually favoured byFrance in her wars with England, John Hawkins was the advocate. 

For the moment Drake, being undoubtedly the hero of the hour, appearedto triumph. His was the scheme of operations approved. But before itcould be put in practice, its essential features were distorted;through no fault of his the plan failed of its full effect; disfavourfollowed; and war on Spanish commerce again became the prevalent policy. Its attractions for adventurers are obvious; and its inferiority as amethod of transforming superiority into supremacy was not yetrecognised. 

[Sidenote: Don Antonio]

Drake's actual design, however, was not on this occasion a preciseexemplification of the theory just associated with his name, althoughits failure brought the supporters of the opposing school to the front. The Armada disaster had already given the English for the time completecommand of the sea, and his intention was to strike a crippling blow atthe Spanish power by establishing the Pretender Don Antonio on thethrone of Portugal and in control of the Azores. Ever since Philip hadgrasped the Portuguese crown in 1580, Elizabeth had playeddiplomatically with the notion of helping Don Antonio to challenge histitle by force of arms, and Walsingham would have found a grim joy inturning the play into earnest. But Antonio could count upon no supportworth mentioning from other quarters; Elizabeth's help had been inquality the same as and in quantity less than she had doled out toHuguenots and Netherlanders. The one real attempt in his favour, wherein there had hardly been a pretence of English participation, hadbeen crushed by Santa Cruz at the naval battle of Terceira in theAzores in 1583. But what had been impracticable before the Armada wasso no longer. With the command of the sea, Portugal might now be won;the loss in itself would be a grievous weakening to Spain; and inalliance with England. Portugal would be to her neighbour very muchwhat Scotland would have been to England had Mary been restored--andaccepted--by Spanish aid. 

[Sidenote: Plan of the Lisbon Expedition, 1588-89] Such was Drake'sidea, which was to be carried out after the method beloved by the Queen. It was not to be exactly a Government affair, but the enterprise of aCompany, in which her Majesty was to hold shares, providing some moneyand half a dozen ships from her fleet, and various guarantees. It wasto be a joint naval and military venture, with Drake and Norreysrespectively in command of the two arms, with a free hand in theconduct of operations. All through the winter of 1588 Drake and Norreyswere hard at work preparing this counter-Armada; but as spring came on, the Queen's passion for tying her servants' hands developed on thefamiliar lines. It was not till April that Drake succeeded indefinitely starting, and he went with a very fine armament; but withonly a month's commissariat, without the siege train promised, andfettered by instructions wholly inconsistent with his own plan ofcampaign. 

The Spaniards acquired what purported to be a statement of the termsagreed on between Elizabeth and Don Antonio, under which Portugal, withthe Azores, was to be reduced to a province of England. It does notappear however that this document was based upon facts; and theinstructions [Footnote: _Cf. _ Corbett, ii, ] issued to theexpedition are quite inconsistent with the whole idea. The attempt toestablish Antonio in Portugal was only to be made if the conditionswere favourable; if it succeeded, the English were then to retire; ifit were dropped, they were to make for the Azores. But in any case theywere to begin by attacking the shipping in Biscayan and other Northernharbours of Spain--an entirely superfluous proceeding, as Spain for thetime had no naval force which could give trouble. 

[Sidenote: 1589 May: Corunna and Peniche]

Consequently the expedition--which was accompanied by Elizabeth'slatest favourite, the young Earl of Essex, a runaway and from hisMistress--instead of making straight for Lisbon attacked Corunna. Thetroops were landed, the town stormed and sacked, and the shippingdestroyed, the Spaniards being driven into the citadel. Immediatedeparture being prevented by the wind, after nearly a week's operationsa fierce but unsuccessful attempt was made to storm the citadel also. This however was followed by a brilliant action, at the Bridge of ElBurgo, in which Norreys decisively defeated a relieving force ofgreatly superior numbers, prodigies of valour being performed duringthe battle. But the capture of the citadel was unimportant; and thewind improving, the expedition proceeded--with many prizes and muchspoil--to operate against Lisbon. On the way, for some not veryintelligible reason, Peniche, some fifty miles from Lisbon, was stormedby the soldiers--as it would seem, against Drake's will. The whole armywas here disembarked, to operate against Lisbon by land, while thefleet proceeded to the mouth of the Tagus. 

[Sidenote: Failure at Lisbon]

Drake at once captured Cascaes, which commanded the entry. But he coulddo nothing more till the army was ready to co-operate. Norreys arrivedpresently: but he had no siege train, and resolved that unless thePortuguese rose, as Don Antonio had promised, the attempt on Lisbonmust be abandoned. It is practically certain that had the attack beenmade, the resolute commandant and his slender garrison would have beeneasily overpowered, the mob favouring the assailants. But Norreys wasunaware of the facts; the partisans of Don Antonio did not rise; andthe English fell back to Cascaes to reimbark; having destroyed aconsiderable quantity of stores, and defied Spain on her own soil witha handful of men, but otherwise having failed to accomplish the purposeof the expedition. Drake however also captured a great convoy of store-ships. Contrary winds prevented the fleet from proceeding to the Azores, and nothing more was accomplished but the destruction of Vigo, while inthe subsequent storms a number of ships were damaged or lost. Thebusiness was a failure, though it had given convincing proof that evenin Spanish territory--much more on the seas--Spain was incapable oftaking the offensive. The expedition found its way home about the endof June; a few weeks before the assassination of the French King, whichtransformed the Prince of Navarre into Henry IV. , a legitimate monarchfighting for his throne against a threatened alien domination. 

The ships had suffered; the booty was small; the crews and the troopshad been wasted by sickness and sharp fighting. Consequently Drake andDrake's policy were generally discredited. It had in fact been quiteclearly demonstrated that Spain was on her knees, and that nothing butinadequate armament and deficient supplies had prevented the admiralfrom reducing her to a condition still more desperate. Butsuperficially, he had failed. 

[Sidenote: Policies and Persons]

Now the policy of the forward school, of which Drake was the leadingexample and Walter Raleigh was to be the exponent both with sword andpen, was twofold; to prostrate Spain and her naval power, and to plantEnglish colonies in direct competition with and open antagonism to thecolonies of Spain. But the men who had grasped the whole conceptionwere few. Walsingham, the one among the elder statesmen who was intouch with these ideas, had but a few months to live. The ordinary ideaof the ordinary Anti-Spaniard was to damage Spain as much as possible;but the means to that end which he recognised lay mainly, if notentirely, in the raiding of Spanish commerce and the interception oftreasure-fleets. This was avowedly the view of John Hawkins, whichnaturally appealed to the Adventurers of the day. 

On the other side was the school of Burghley himself, and of Elizabeth;who had never wished, and did not now wish, to see Spain prostrate, andhad never been without hopes of converting the rivalry into an alliance, though not averse to the bringing of severe pressure to bear for therecovery of commercial privileges and the suppression of politicalantagonism. Burghley had not by any means always approved ofElizabeth's methods; when it was only by those tortuous wiles thatpeace could be preserved he had joined with Walsingham and Leicester incounselling war; but if war could be with honour avoided, it had beenhis constant desire to avoid it; while he had consistently andhonourably opposed Drake, condemned his buccaneering methods, andrefused to profit by his daring ventures. Burghley's second son Robert, destined to be the old statesman's successor, already establishing hisposition, was the agent of his father's policy. The Queen's latestfavourite, the young Earl of Essex--a son-in-law of Walsingham, andstepson of Leicester--was no statesman in fact, though he fanciedhimself one. His ambition was unlimited; and while, as an anti-Spaniard, he was a leader of the party opposed to the Cecils, he was not lesshotly jealous of his rival within that party, Walter Raleigh (at anearlier period, and also afterwards, associated with the Cecils), whoselarge conceptions he could hardly appreciate. Finally the Queen herself, with the same political ideals as her old minister, had still neverbeen able to resist the temptation of the profits accruing from theunauthorised raiding policy--a policy which dealt no blows from whichit was impossible for Spain to recover, while it kept her in toobruised a condition to have any prospect of fighting again at anadvantage. 

It was Elizabeth who had ensured the failure of Drake's expedition, forwhich Drake himself was made responsible. Drake's policy was inconsequence driven off the field, which was held by that of Essex andHawkins--to which, as a policy, the Cecils were not vehemently opposed, while it satisfied the aroused bellicosity of the nation. Privateenterprise was left to struggle with schemes of colonisation; and Spainheld her trans-oceanic possessions. 

[Sidenote: France, 1589-93]

But Spain's activity was crippled, her recuperation checked; and thus, indirectly, as well as with some direct assistance from England, HenryIV was enabled more than to hold his own in France, until in 1593, byaccepting the Mass, he definitely won over to his side all but theextreme supporters of the League: from which time his ultimate triumphand that of at least limited toleration in France was secured: sinceAlexander of Parma, the one man whose military genius was more than amatch for that of Henry, died in 1592. 

[Sidenote: 1590 Death of Walsingham]

Here however we are anticipating. From the summer of 1589, Drake dropsinto the background. How matters might have gone if Walsingham or evenLeicester had lived and retained their influence, it is not easy tosay; both were staunch supporters of the admiral. But Leicester wasalready dead; and though the Queen had full confidence in the Secretary, she never liked him. Already he was practically in retirement; and inthe following April he too died. With him, a very genuine puritanismand a determined antagonism to Spain had always been first principles. No man had expressed himself more openly in Council or more bitterly inprivate correspondence in condemnation of the tricks and the falsehoodswhich constituted--with a success which cannot be denied--the stock intrade of the Queen's diplomacy. He repeatedly risked favour andposition by his outspokenness. His own policy and conduct had at alltimes been conducted in accordance with a standard of morals and ofhonour which was none the less strict though it does not always commandsympathy. To Mary Stewart he was a relentless enemy. He had nocompunctions in his system of espionage, and in his employment oftraitors and of the _agent provocateur. _ He, more than anyone else, was probably responsible for the extensive and extended application oftorture as a means to extract information. These, in his eyes, weremethods without which it was impossible to fight the enemy who must befought at any cost. He was ready, even eager, to join battle openlywith Spain in the cause of the Religion, which to him was a reality, while to Elizabeth, if not also to Burghley, it was only a politicalfactor which it annoyed her to be obliged to recognise. And of his highpersonal integrity, the final proof is that when he died, he left meansinsufficient to provide a decent funeral. If his mantle may be said tohave fallen on anyone, it was on Walter Raleigh; and Raleigh was not ofthe Council, while his favour with the Queen was at best an extremelyfluctuating quantity. 

[Sidenote: Operations in 1590]

It was not Drake then, but Hawkins and Frobisher who in 1590 commandedthe armaments sent out to Spanish waters; with the primary intention ofintercepting the annual convoy of treasure-ships. Disappointment wasagain in store, for the Spaniards had news of the expedition, thetreasure-fleet did not sail, and the admirals returned home withoutspoils. Not, however, without hurting the enemy; for Spanish financewas dependent on the arrival of the bullion, Philip was crippled forwant of it, and for the same reason Parma was almost paralysed. TheHuguenot cause was advanced in France by Henry's victory at Ivry. Inspite of his difficulties, however, Parma prevented the King fromcapturing Paris and so completing his triumph; but, with his resourcesso exhausted, even his genius was unable to accomplish more. 

In the same year the splendid qualities developed by English seamenwere illustrated by a valiant fight, in which twelve Spanish ships ofwar attacked a flotilla of ten English merchantmen, who fought sostubbornly that after six hours of conflict the Spaniards drew off, fairly defeated; the English having lost neither a ship nor a man. 

[Sidenote: 1591 The "Revenge"]

In the meantime, however, Philip was making strenuous efforts to adapthis navy to the conditions of maritime warfare introduced by theEnglish. In Havana, ships were being built of a greatly improvedconstruction for fighting and manoeuvring, and the Spanish yards werebusy. So when in 1591 a fleet sailed from England under Lord ThomasHoward [Footnote: Son of the Duke of Norfolk (executed in 1572) by hissecond wife; and half-brother of the Earl of Arundel, who died in theTower in 1589. ] and Richard Grenville, with much the same intent asthat of Hawkins and Frobisher in 1590, they found themselves no longerin possession of the same complete command of the seas. Their squadronwas a comparatively small one, including only six regular fightingships; and as they lay in the Azores, in waiting for the treasure-fleet, tidings reached them that an armada of fifty-three vessels was hard athand on its way to convoy that fleet. Howard put to sea at once, avoiding an action; but Grenville on the _Revenge_ [Footnote: The_Revenge_ was Drake's ship in the Armada conflict. ] of set purposeallowed himself to be entangled in the Spanish fleet; and thereuponensued that great fight, that glorious folly, which has been told inimmortal prose and sung in immortal verse; in which for fifteen hoursDrake's favourite vessel did battle, almost unaided, with fifty-threeSpaniards. Not more splendid, not less irrational, were the great deedsof the three hundred at Thermopylae, of the six hundred at Balaclava. False moves in the game of war, all of them, from the scientific pointof view; objectless, unreasoning, without possibility of material gainaccruing; but for all that, deeds which for their sheer daring willring for ever in the ears of men; of which the bare memory is aninspiration; whereof the fame in their own day roused the emulouscourage of every Spartan and of every Englishman, making them ready toface any odds, and chilling the blood of their foes. Vain deeds, whenwe count the cost and the tangible gain--but very far from vain when wetake into account the intangible moral effect. 

Yet it was but the supreme example of that heroic spirit, shown timesand again, at Zutphen, at the Bridge of El Burgo, in countless fightswith Spaniards and with the elements, which in Elizabeth's day raisedEngland to be the first among the nations. A deed therefore to be dweltupon, if we would understand aright the history of those times, inwhich the historian must perforce discourse most frequently and atgreatest length on doings of a less inspiring order. The craft of thestatesman, the skill of the general, are the prominent factors in themaking of history; but the character, the types, of the men of whomnations are constituted, are no less fundamental and vital. 

[Sidenote: France, 1590-93]

In the meantime, the death in France of Henry IV. 's nominal rival, hisuncle the titular Charles X. , had increased the difficulties of theLeague, which was reduced to putting forward as its candidate theInfanta Isabella, the daughter of Philip and his third wife Elizabethof Valois--whom also Philip destined as his nominee for the Englishthrone when he should overthrow the heretic Queen. This involved thesetting aside of the Salic law of succession, and an unmistakableSpanish ascendancy, which no conceivable marriage could makesatisfactory to any one but Philip. Thus Elizabeth still found herselfcompelled to give Henry material assistance, and the English contingentbefore Rouen, which the French King was seeking to capture in thelatter part of 1591, was commanded by Essex. Again however Parmaintervened, compelling the siege to be raised: though his death a yearlater left no commander of equal ability to oppose Henry. 

[Sidenote: Operations of 1592-94]

During the next three years, 1592-94, no attacks were made on a largescale. One was planned for the first year, to be commanded jointly byRaleigh and Frobisher. But Raleigh was recalled; the men who had joinedhis flag were indisposed to serve under Frobisher; the squadron divided, and ultimately accomplished little beyond the capture of a single richprize. Nevertheless, the process of raiding Spanish commerce byprivateering ships or squadrons was carried on, with much injury toSpanish trade, and collection of considerable spoils; the chief of theraiders being perhaps the Earl of Cumberland, who never failed toconduct at least one such expedition annually. But though Philip'sfinances continued thereby to be materially crippled, he was notprevented from carrying on the work of reorganising his navy; whiletowards the end of 1593 he had secured more than one station at Blavetand elsewhere on the coast of Brittany, where he hoped to establish anadvanced base from which he could constantly threaten the Channel andIreland. This scheme however was frustrated at the end of 1594 by asuccessful joint attack of Frobisher by sea and Norreys by land on aposition at Crozon which threatened to dominate Brest; and by theexpulsion of the Spaniards from other points in that neighbourhoodwhere they had sought to plant themselves. Frobisher however died froma wound he received in the fighting. The move was one that Raleigh hadadvocated zealously; and it proved thoroughly effective. 

Important as was this blow to Philip's naval aspirations, the politicalsituation was still more decisively affected during these three yearsby the death of Parma in December 1592, Henry's acceptance of the Massin July 1593, and his consequent recognition by the bulk of the FrenchCatholics early in 1594: although the extremists of the Leaguecontinued their opposition to him, and their support of the SpanishInfanta, a course which secured the maintenance of the alliance betweenHenry and Elizabeth. 

[Sidenote: 1589-94 A survey]

From 1589, when the English Queen had deliberately dislocated the plansof Drake's Lisbon expedition, changing it from a great political strokeinto an unsatisfactory raid, till the closing months of 1594 when onceagain a decisively damaging blow was dealt to Philip's naval schemes, the war had given ample occasion for stirring deeds of valour andbrilliant feats of arms, but the scheme of operations throughout hadbeen narrow and shortsighted. Though the honours still lay unmistakablywith England, Spain had in fact been gaining ground, slowly remedyingthose defects in her organisation which had been so glaringly exposedby the breakdown of the Armada: and when Frobisher fell at Crozon, shewas more formidable than at any time since Medina Sidonia had sailedfrom Corunna But besides the main open contest, Philip throughout theseyears had been dallying after his old fashion with the factions outsideof England which might be looked to as possible instruments for shakingthe throne of Elizabeth. 

These were to be found among the exiled English Catholics, in Scotland, and in Ireland. 

[Sidenote: Spain and the English Catholics]

With the Catholic exiles however, there was little to be done. Thoseindeed who were closely associated with the Jesuits founded their hopesof a Catholic restoration on Spanish dominion, with the InfantaIsabella as Queen of England; but the fact by itself sufficed to keepthe bulk of the party cold if not antagonistic. The price was too highto pay, for any but Parsons and his associates. English Catholicslooked by preference to the succession possibly of the CatholicStanleys of Derby [Footnote: See _Front_]--who unfortunately stoodaloof--or of either James of Scotland or his cousin Arabella(representing the half-English Lennox Stewarts), both Protestants ofwhose conversion hopes were maintained. Patriotism, Nationality, heldprecedence over Religion: even although in 1593 fresh and harshmeasures against Catholics as well as Puritans were adopted byParliament. Under these conditions, plots for the removal of Elizabethby methods which would make all the lukewarm elements in Englandactively hostile to Spain were not likely to receive encouragement fromPhilip. A variety of such plots were in fact concocted and dulyrevealed by informers or suspects under torture, and fathered on Philipor his ministers; but in every case the evidence connecting them withthe Spaniards is of the weakest. Naturally, Essex and the war-party inEngland made the most of these stories, in order to inflame publicopinion against Philip, and with no little success. Nevertheless, whatever element of truth they may have contained, they are too flimsyand unsubstantial to be seriously included in the indictments againstPhilip's character-which are indeed sufficiently grave withoutthem. [Footnote: See Hume's _Treason and Plot, _ cc. Iv. V. , wherethe evidence in a series of these plots is impartially set forth. Themost notable of the group is that of Lopez, who was executed in 1594. ]

[Sidenote: Scottish Intrigues]

Scottish intrigues with Philip were equally abortive. James, on thethrone, played an unceasing game of chicane and double-dealing, perpetually playing off parties and persons against each other withthat curious cunning which he designated "king-craft". The Catholicnobles alternated between hopes of capturing him, or of ejecting him, and fears of their own suppression. They tried to bargain with Philip, on the hypothesis of effecting James's conversion and placing him onthe English throne; on the hypothesis of a Catholic restoration inScotland; for one brief interval, on the hypothesis of giving Philip afree hand. But James had an ingenious trick of playing at friendshipwith his Catholic lords and introducing himself into thesenegotiations; whereas Philip had no idea of stirring a finger to helpJames to the English succession: and the Scottish Catholic lordsthemselves were by no means ready to relinquish the national aspirationto seat a Scots king on the throne of England. So that while theseintrigues caused some perturbation in the English court, and ledElizabeth to lecture her young kinsman and disciple with a fine show ofpained indignation, they never came within measurable distance ofdefinite action. 

[Sidenote: Ireland, 1583-92]

Ireland however offered a more promising field of operations. For adecade following the suppression of Desmond's rebellion, that countryhad lain in a state of exhaustion. English "under-takers" had beenplanted in the desolated and forfeited lands of Munster. In the North, Tyrconnel was loyal--that is, was not disposed to rebellion; TirloughLynagh, head of the O'Neills, was of a like mind; and Hugh O'Neill, thesuccessor to the Earldom of Tyrone, had been brought up in England, andwas a professed supporter of English rule: against which there was noone to make head. Even the coming of the Armada, while creating somenervousness, produced no disturbances, though the assistance given by achief here and there to ship-wrecked Spaniards brought them intotrouble. But this was the calm of exhaustion merely. The unvaryingimpression produced by the Irish letters of the time is that Englishmenregarded the native chiefs as a low type of savage, and the common folkas a noxious kind of vermin; and it is painfully clear that thestandard of civilisation was of that debased type which must prevailwhere the governing powers have habitually set the example ofdistorting the first four commandments of the decalogue and ignoringthe other six. The normal attitude of the bulk of the native Irish andAnglo-Irish was one of repressed hatred and veiled defiance towards theEnglish, ready to break out openly whenever an opportunity should seemto present itself. That attitude would probably have been universal hadnot some of the chiefs, like Ormonde, been convinced that even theEnglish system was preferable to the anarchy and strife of septs whichwould result from a temporarily successful rebellion: finding infriendly relations with the Government the best guarantee for thesecurity of their own position. 

Masterful and capable men however like the old Kildare and Shan O'Neillhad demanded more. To Kildare the Henries had granted that more; Shanhad come near to securing it in despite of Elizabeth. Now an abler manthan either, Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone, dissatisfied with histreatment at the hands of the English was making up his mind to renewthe contest. 

[Sidenote: Tyrone, 1592-94]

Tyrone did not raise the standard of revolt. But in 1592-3, Tyrone, hisbrother in law Hugh Roe O'Donnell, [Footnote: Hugh O'Donnell had beentrapped and held prisoner in Dublin as a hostage for Tyrconnell's goodbehaviour; but succeeded in making his escape. ] Tyrconnell's son, hisneighbours Maguire and O'Rourke, and the McWilliams or Burkes ofConnaught--dwellers in the parts furthest from the Pale--were in activedefiance of the Government. Tyrone was engaged in officially placatingor repressing or remonstrating with them, ostensibly doing his best toserve the Queen; ready to hand over hostages, to present himself inperson to the Deputy Fitzwilliam and demonstrate his loyalty, or totake the field against the rebels with the royal forces. The Deputy, and the President of Connaught, had information that he was in fact incollusion with the rebels, but none which could be brought home to him;and the royal forces--amounting only to between four and five thousandmen--were as usual inadequate to doing more than march into disturbeddistricts, accomplish some burnings and hangings, enjoy one or twosharp skirmishes, and march out again. But by 1594 Tyrone and hisfriends were in communication with Spain, and Philip was againcontemplating the expulsion of the English from Ireland as an effectiveline of operation in his war with Elizabeth. 

[Sidenote: 1595 Drake's last voyage]

By this time the Queen was waking up to the fact that the Spanish sea-power was not diminishing but recovering: the attack on the Brittanyports points to the revival of a more far-seeing naval policy; Drakewas returning to favour, and the younger Cecil was well-disposedtowards him. It was decided that he and old John Hawkins should revivethe past methods and conduct a grand attack on the Spanish Main andPanama. As usual however, fluctuating orders from the Queen delayed thestart till some months after the intended date; the Plate fleet reachedits destination in safety; the Spaniards got wind of the expedition;and when Drake and Hawkins at last put to sea they had instructionscalculated effectively to prevent their accomplishing anything like asurprise. Porto Rico, the first main objective, had due warning, and sowas able to offer a successful resistance to the attack, energeticallyas it was conducted. The death of Hawkins, who had grown too cautiousto work well with Drake, relieved the expedition of divided counsels;but Drake had not realised that in the years of his inaction theSpaniards had profited by the lessons he had taught them. Though hesacked and burnt La Hacha, Santa Marta, and Nombre de Dios, the spoilswere small; the enemy, prepared for his coming, had secured the passesthrough Darien to Panama, and it was found that there was nopossibility of forcing them. Then came the final disaster; Drakehimself was seized with dysentery, and on January 28th, 1598, the greatseaman died. He found in the Ocean his fitting grave: and theexpedition returned to England having failed to accomplish anythingnoteworthy, though it had to fight a not unsuccessful battle with aslightly superior fleet on the way home. 

Six months before Drake sailed on his last voyage, Raleigh had gone ona notable exploring expedition to the Orinoco; the forerunner of not afew voyages in search of the fabled Eldorado. Beyond some extension ofgeographical knowledge however, the venture was unfruitful. 

[Sidenote: 1596 The Cadiz expedition]

Although Drake's expedition had been spoilt, his theories were oncemore, in the main, in the ascendant; and in June 1598 a great attackingforce was again organised, with Cadiz for its principal objective. Aneffective blow at Philip's navy was made all the more necessary at themoment, because the Archduke Albert, now in command in the Netherlands, had just succeeded in capturing Calais from the French. Howard ofEffingham again commanded as admiral, with Essex as general in chief, acouncil which included Raleigh and Lord Thomas Howard, and a Dutchcontingent which was under the orders of the English chief. TheSpaniards had this time no suspicion of what was on foot. The harbourof Cadiz was full of shipping; which included however a number of shipsof war in fighting trim. Thus it was not without a fierce conflict thatthe English drove their way in. Two ships only were captured, andtransferred from the Spanish to the English navy, but numbers were sunkor burnt. The exploit was a brilliant one, owing its success largely toa change from the original plan of attack, for which that advocated byRaleigh was substituted. Cadiz itself was stormed, captured, and put toransom; but the victors displayed what was in those days a singular andnotable restraint and courtesy in their treatment of the vanquished. Inspite, however, of the protests of Essex, who wished to remain inoccupation of Cadiz, Lord Howard was content with the heavy spoilssecured and the immense destruction wrought, and the expeditionreturned home. 

[Sidenote: Ireland, 1595-96]

Tyrone in the meantime was playing his difficult game in Ireland withremarkable success. He consistently maintained his professions ofloyalty, though by now calling himself "The O'Neill, " like Shan, hefostered the belief that he was only waiting to declare himself anti-English; he continued to evade action against the more open rebels; hecontinued to correspond with Spain; and yet Sir John Norreys, now incommand of the army in Ireland, could not resist the belief that hemeant to be loyal and would be loyal and would make the other chiefs so, if his assistance were loyally accepted and his position franklyconfirmed by the English. Whether such anticipations would have provedtrue if he had been treated as Henry VII. Treated Kildare, it isimpossible to say. But the Deputy Fitzwilliam, and his successorRussell, regarded him as a traitor at heart, and persistently providedhim with palpable excuse for distrusting them [Footnote: Tyrone receiveda letter from Philip, which he showed the Deputy, as a proof of thetempting offers made to him and of his own loyalty, on condition thatit should neither be copied nor retained. But it was kept by theEnglish, and used by them to attack Philip, and others. ] in turn. Undersuch conditions, loyal or not at bottom, it was no part of the Earl'spolicy to break with Philip, or on the other hand to commit himself toodeeply till Philip should be also irrevocably committed to renderingreal solid assistance. 

So Norreys went on recommending conciliation, and Russell went onopposing that policy, while Elizabeth persistently abstained alike fromeffective conciliation and from the one practicable alternative policyof placing a really strong organised and orderly garrison in thecountry: maintaining instead only a few ill-paid ill-disciplined ill-behaved troops who might on occasion meet the raw Irish levies but werewholly unfitted to be the instruments of a firm government. And all thetime from every officer in Ireland arose the perpetual petition to berecalled from service in a country where neither a soldier nor anadministrator could possibly escape lowering any reputation he mighthave previously acquired. It was well for England that Drake's lastexpedition demanded the entire attention of the Spanish Fleet; and that, following thereon, the Cadiz expedition was even more destructive tothe prospects of the new Armada which Philip was still seeking toorganise, than Drake's former Cadiz expedition had proved itself to theGreat Armada in 1587. Tyrone was thereby baulked of Spanish help, without which he would not plunge into such a rebellion as mightthreaten seriously to embarrass Elizabeth and benefit Philip. 

[Sidenote: 1596 The second Armada]

So matters stood in the summer of 1596. One quality however Philippossessed with which Englishmen must sympathise; he never recognisedthat he was beaten. Crushing as the blow at Cadiz was, the northernports were left alone, and there the laborious building up of a greatfleet was in steady progress. Philip was stirred to deal acounterstroke, and late in October a huge new Armada of nearly ahundred vessels sailed from Vigo Bay, its destination unknown save toPhilip, its very existence unrealised in England, where no one believedthat a Spanish fleet would put to sea so late in the year. The Irishchiefs however had notice that an invading force was coming. But theold story was repeated. The preparations had been thrown out of gear bythe disaster of the summer; all the provisions were incomplete; theships were hopelessly ill-found; and the fleet had hardly started whena terrific storm fell on it and shattered it. Thirty or more of thevessels were lost at sea; when the rest of the battered armamentstruggled back to Ferrol, pestilence broke out, and the crews died anddeserted by hundreds if not by thousands. The stars in their coursesfought against Philip and ruined the second Armada--this time withoutthe help of hostile man. 

[Sidenote: 1597 The Island Voyage, etc. ]

This was followed again in the next summer by another Englishexpedition, known as the "Island Voyage, " with Essex, Lord ThomasHoward, and Raleigh in command; with a score of ships from the RoyalNavy, and a Dutch contingent as in the Cadiz expedition. [Footnote: Thesoldiers wanted an army to attack Calais. Raleigh's insistence howevercarried the day in favour of a naval blow. (Raleigh, _Opinion on theSpanish Alarum_. )] The affair however was mismanaged. From the start, there were adverse tempests. [Footnote: _S. P. Dom. _ iv. , p. 463. ]Corunna and Ferrol, which it was intended to attack, were found warnedand armed for defence; and the gales were unfavourable. The fleet madefor the Azores, and captured Fayal, Graciosa, and St. Michael's; butthe treasure-fleet by good fortune evaded the English and found safetyat Terceira. Raleigh and Essex quarrelled violently; and the fleetreturned home with little accomplished. It succeeded however inweathering a storm which once more had made havoc of still anotherSpanish Armada, which sought to seize the opportunity for making a raidon Cornwall with a view to seizing and holding some port, to be used asan advance post for operations in the Channel--a sufficiently wildscheme at the best, with Essex's fleet returning almost on the heels ofthe expedition. 

The failure decided Tyrone that Spain was a thoroughly broken reed; andhe succeeded in making terms with the English Government [Footnote: _S. P. Irish, _ vi. , pp. 477-479. ] that winter, if only with a view toorganising a more determined and independent rebellion in the nearfuture. 

[Sidenote: 1598 Spain]

It is abundantly evident in this the last year of Philip's life that hewas beaten at every point, however his obstinate fanaticism mightrefuse to admit it. His designs on the throne of France were foiled;the negotiations were already far advanced for the Peace of Vervinswhich was to set the French King free from the war. The prospect ofplacing Isabella [Footnote: Philip was now arranging to bestow Flandersupon her as an independent sovereignty. ] on the English throne was morevisionary than ever. The Spanish party among the English Catholics weregrowing more and more out of favour; pride in the prestige of Englisharms, scorn that England should be dominated by a nation which couldnot match her in open fight, strengthened the patriotic section. TheScots would not stir a finger except to make their own monarch king ofthe neighbouring country. The Pope himself had no desire to see Spainso aggrandised as to be able to dictate to Christendom. The prospect ofthe Netherlands being reduced to submission had all but vanished. Asfor the maritime rivalry, all the Spanish efforts had been in vain. Theships had been improved; the defence of the trade-routes had beenbetter organised. Several of the blows aimed by England had been moreor less abortive; but one at least had been staggering, and everyattempt at a counterstroke had ended in plain disaster. Moreover fromfirst to last the Spaniards, valiant as they often proved themselves, had fought as beaten men, the English as assured victors; both alikewith a perfect conviction that the latter were certain to win againstany but overwhelming odds. Such a fight as that of the _Revenge, _with the nationalities of the combatants reversed, was unimaginable. 

Yet even in 1598 Philip and some of his ecclesiastical counsellors wereunconvinced, and a brief alarm was created when a Spanish flotilladashed up the Channel and made its way to Calais, not yet restored toFrance. Completely unexpected as it was, however, English squadronswere on the seas almost at a day's notice. Half the flotilla was lostoutside Calais, and immediately afterwards the Spanish ports were in aferment at the report that Cumberland was hovering off their own coast--very sufficient evidence of the immense superiority of the English, both in organisation and _morale. _

[Sidenote: Death of Philip, Sept. ]

In September, Elizabeth's great enemy breathed his last. He was notexactly the monster of iniquity that he has been painted; not acriminal for the love of criminality. He was a Tiberius rather than aNero; a morbid influence, not a devouring pestilence. A perfectlysombre bigot; an example of what the Greeks would have called [Greek:hubris] of a very exceptional kind, who believed devoutly in himself asthe instrument chosen by the Saints for the overthrow of heretics;convinced that his aims and interests were favoured by Heaven, rankingbefore those of the Papacy itself; without a qualm as to therighteousness of all means he could adopt to further those aims. Savein one slight instance, we seek in vain to find in him any sign ofhuman affections--tenderness, sympathy, generosity. Infinitelylaborious, his idea of government was to elaborate an enormousmachinery, of which every portion should be under his personal control;eternally suspicious, he trusted no man, and kept the hands of hisservants tied and bound; immovably cautious, he always waited to striketill he thought he could do so with overwhelming force, and he alwayswaited till the time to strike had passed--till his opponent hadcrippled him by striking first. Forty years before, he was lord of theNew World, lord of the seas, lord of Spain, of half Italy, of theNetherlands, and seemed destined to be lord of England, almost ofEurope. Elizabeth and Cecil had seen where lay the weakness of hisposition; they had evaded, cajoled, finally had defied and triumphedover him. When he sank to the grave, the lordship of the sea had passed, the lordship of the Netherlands was passing, the lordship of the NewWorld was tottering. His overweening egotism had sucked the life-bloodof Spain. The Power which forty years before had threatened to dominatethe world was no better than a decrepit giant; the form still loomedgigantic, but the substance was gripped with the chill paralysiswherewith Philip had smitten it, since he had entered like a poisonousblight upon his inheritance. 

[Sidenote: Death of Burghley, Aug. ]

Philip was seventy-one when he died. Six weeks earlier Lord Burghley, seven years his senior, passed away, leaving Elizabeth with none besideher of her own generation. For forty years too, he had been the Queen'sfirst minister. However we read the enigma of Elizabeth's apparentfrivolity, vacillation, trickery and success, he had been throughoutthe one man with whose counsel she would not dispense, even when sheseemed to flout him. Essentially he was a master of compromise, ofbalance; a devotee of moderation, of the _via media. _ Hardly lessaverse to war than his mistress, he would yet have preferred war tosome of the ignominious shifts by which she evaded it; for he had acool level-headed confidence in England's essential vitality and powerof weathering the storm, if it should burst, even at times when outsideobservers imagined that that confidence was hurrying her to ruin. Whenobliged to lean to one side or the other in religious controversy, headopted the cause of "his brethren in Christ" as Elizabeth dubbed themwith a sneer, because that was more compatible with his _viamedia_ than the other: but he had none of Walsingham's puritanicenthusiasm. His ideal for England was a prosperous respectability:breaches of political propriety shocked him. He would take no share inthe profits of buccaneering exploits: but it was the same mentalquality which kept him from any zeal for Causes which might drag thecountry into incalculable ventures. When it seemed to him that avigorous support of European Protestantism was the only alternative tosubmission to Spain, he went with Walsingham, though Elizabeth foundher own alternative in spite of them both: but he did it reluctantly, and always at bottom with the hope that Spain and England might yetattain mutual amity. After the death of Nicholas Bacon in 1579 heinclined more to believe in that possibility, and in proportion as thewar-party was strengthened by the Armada his antagonism to it becamethe more marked. After his seventieth year his direct interference inpolitics had become less; but his astute son, Robert Cecil, representedhim. All through his career, he was a consistent opportunist, usingwithout scruple all currently admissible tools, never missing thechance of the half-loaf. The most industrious of men, a supremelyshrewd judge of character and motive, he was rarely--save in the caseof the Queen--misled by superficial appearances; though his own lack ofsentiment prevented him from fully appreciating the sentimental factorin politics. Always at all risks he was loyal to Queen and Country; andhabitually, even at some risk, to servants and colleagues. If he doesnot stand absolutely in the first rank of English statesmen, they areyet few who stand above him. 

CHAPTER XXVI

ELIZABETH (xi), 1598-1603-THE QUEEN'S LAST YEARS

[Sidenote: A new generation]

By Burghley's death, Elizabeth was left alone, reft of all her earliercounsellors. Nicholas Bacon had died as far back as 1579, Leicester in1588, Walsingham in 1590, her kinsmen Knollys and Hunsdon--less prominent, but of sober weight--more recently. Except Howard of Effingham (createdEarl of Nottingham after the Cadiz expedition), Burghley was the last; andtheir sombre antagonist of forty years had followed him in a few weeks. Sheherself was sixty-five years old. The leading men at home and abroad--HenryIV. , Philip III. , Robert Cecil, Raleigh, Essex, who was now only thirty--were of a younger generation. Lonely but stubborn and indomitable as evershe ruled still to the end. 

Those last five years were troubled enough. 

[Sidenote: 1598 Ireland]

We have seen that in Ireland Tyrone was resolved to place no moredependence on Spanish aid; but it was equally clear that the Government asconstituted was quite unable to quell him. Norreys was now dead, andOrmonde was in command of the Queen's army, such as it was. The Englishgarrison was quite incapable of vigorous aggression. In 1598 a few rawlevies were sent over, instead of the strong disciplined force withoutwhich nothing could be effected. In the middle of August a force wasdispatched against Tyrone, who was beleaguering the Blackwater fort not farfrom Armagh; and Tyrone inflicted on it a complete and disastrous defeat, [Footnote: S. P. _Irish_, pp. 236 ff. ] which caused nothing less thana panic among the Council at Dublin. The practical effect was that outsidethe Pale the chiefs were doing as they chose, and the English could hardlymove beyond their fortifications; even within the Pale ravaging was almostunchecked; and if it had been possible for Tyrone to march in force onDublin, the capital would probably have fallen. 

In the troubles of Ireland, Essex was to seek a ladder for his ambitions, and to find, as others before and after him have found, the road to ruin. 

[Sidenote: Essex]

The personal interest of these years belongs very much to the rivalries ofthree men; Robert Cecil, sly, cautious, and plausible; Raleigh, brilliantand bitter, intellectually a head and shoulders above the rest; Essex, notlacking in abilities distorted by inordinate vanity. Associated on equalterms, in war, with the experience of Howard and the genius of Raleigh, atthe Council-board with the astute and consummately trained Cecil, pettedand spoiled by the elderly Queen as she had spoiled no one since the daysof Leicester's youth, a public favourite by reason of his undoubted courageand his popular habits, Essex, young as he was, had long imagined himselfthe greatest man in the kingdom, chafing at every favour bestowed on arival, and treating men who knew themselves his superiors with intolerablearrogance. Now, when the state of Ireland, and the remedies, were thesubject of grave anxiety, he clamoured of the blank incompetence to thetask of every one who had undertaken it or could be suggested as fitted forit; with the result that he was invited to undertake it himself. Thereuponhe made unprecedented conditions. Some months elapsed before the conditionscould be arranged; it would certainly seem that his object was to get underhis own captaincy a force large enough to enable him to defy all control, though he was not without friends to warn him that his influence withElizabeth depended on the fascination of his presence--a fact of which hisill-wishers were equally aware, and by which they intended to profit to thefull. Not the least part of the danger to Essex lay in the fact that thepolitical air was thick with intrigues as to the succession when Elizabethshould die, and that his rivals might utilise his absence to secure thethrone for a candidate who under the circumstances would be certain toprove unfriendly to him. 

[Sidenote: 1599 Essex in Ireland]

But the hot-headed Earl had deprived himself of the power of choice thoughhe was almost equally unwilling to resign or to undertake the task to whichhe was committed. In April 1599 he appeared in Ireland as Lord Lieutenant, virtually with plenary powers alike in civil and military affairs, and awarrant to return in a year's time. Yet he chafed at such restrictions aswere imposed upon him, at the incompetence of the officers with whom he wasprovided, at the refusal to permit appointments objectionable to the Queen, at the inefficiency of his troops and the inadequacy of his supplies. Intheory, he was come to Ireland to strike straight at the heart of therebellion and crush Tyrone in his own fastnesses. He found that thecondition of the country absolutely precluded an immediate campaign in theNorth. He proceeded instead on a military progress through Leinster andMunster, capturing castles which surrendered with no more than a show ofresistance, scattering small garrisons, perpetually harassed by guerillacompanies who avoided pitched battles. He gave Southampton command of thecavalry in defiance of the Queen's orders, and then received from her soperemptory a message that he dared not maintain the appointment. The rebelscut up the forces of the President of Connaught, and another detachedcolumn in Wicklow: and on his way back to Dublin, Essex himself had muchado to beat off an attack on his main army at Arklow. 

In the meantime, he was writing letters of furious complaint that theCouncil in London--in especial Raleigh, who was now associated withCecil--were deliberately seeking to cripple him for their own ends--acharge which they declined to answer, as being merely a piece of excitedextravagance; and Elizabeth rated him, not more sharply than he deserved, for wasting the unusually large sums provided for Ireland on a procedure sovain. Further, she peremptorily ordered him to march against O'Neillwithout delay, warning him on no account to withdraw from the country. 

[Sidenote: Fall of Essex]

So at the end of August Essex set out. But when he found himself withinstriking distance of Tyrone's forces, the latter invited him to aparley. It was granted and held, and was followed by two more meetings;with the amazing result that a truce was concluded and both armieswithdrew. That some personal compact was made can hardly be doubted; whatit was remains unknown, and it was never carried out; but the presumptionis that there was some joint scheme for securing the succession of KingJames to the throne, with Tyrone supreme in Ireland and Essex in England. Tyrone himself gave the Spaniards an obviously improbable version of theplan (after it had collapsed), according to which he had induced Essex tocontemplate adhesion to the ultra-Spanish party, though he was the mostpronouncedly hostile to Spain and to Catholicism of all the Englishleaders. 

Whatever the plot, the ignominy of such a termination to the lavishpreparations and boastings preceding was palpable. Elizabeth was furious, and her expressions of resentment were scathing. Whereupon Essex took thevery worst step possible in his own interests. Relying on the Queen'scurious infatuation for his person, which had survived innumerable quarrelsand flagrant impertinences, he left his office, sped across the channel, rode post haste across England, flung himself, all mud-bespattered into thepresence of his mistress in her chamber, and prayed for pardon. For themoment, she was too utterly taken aback to be herself; he left her thinkinghe had won. But the outrage was too gross. That evening he found himselfunder arrest. His enemies' policy of "giving him rope enough" had been morecompletely successful than they could have hoped. He had set the nooseabout his neck with his own hand, though it was not yet tightened. 

[Sidenote: Catholic factions]

The whole of the Essex story is inextricably interwoven with the crowd ofintrigues in progress in connexion with the succession. In England by thistime the ultra-Spanish or Jesuit faction, which would have enthroned theInquisition with a Spanish nominee as sovereign, was all but non-existent. The division was into two main parties. One desired a sovereign under whomeither Catholicism should be restored under such tolerant conditions asprevailed under Henry IV. In France, or else Anglicanism might be retained, extending a like toleration to Catholics. There was of course afundamental divergence between these two positions; but very many of thenobility, whether professed Anglicans or professed Catholics, were preparedto accept either alternative. Of this party the intellectual chief wasCecil. The second party, that of which Essex was the head, relied primarilyupon the Puritan element, and advocated persistent hostility to Spain. 

Now the effective Spanish position had been materially changed since, shortly before his death, Philip II. Had erected the Netherlands into aseparate sovereignty under the Infanta Isabella and the Austrian ArchdukeAlbert to whom she was betrothed: he had thus made possible for England arevival of the old-time Burgundian alliance independent of Spain. TheArchduke knew that as a Spanish Princess Isabella would never be acceptedin England, but the union under one head of England and Burgundy was a verydifferent matter, which might provide a key to the religious problem verymuch akin to that which France had recently found. It was in this directionthat the eyes of the majority of the Cecil party were probably turned. ForEssex however--unless indeed he really contemplated the hare-brained schemeof striking for the throne himself--the course was clearly to bring inJames as his own puppet. It is no doubt easy to remark that that craftyprince would very soon have outwitted and tripped up the shallow andoverweening Earl: but the Earl himself was the last person to anticipatesuch a _denouement_. 

[Sidenote: Philip III]

But outside England there was the cunning King of Scots, on the one handintriguing with Essex, on the other appealing to the Pope, as a Catholic atheart who was only waiting for adequate support to drop the mask--biddingin fact for the countenance of both camps. There was Tyrone in Ireland, similarly posing to Spain as the champion of Catholicism, while intriguingwith Essex and James indubitably for something like sovereignty for himselfas the price of supporting the Scots King. And there was the young PhilipIII. Of Spain, idle and vain, who, with a bankrupt treasury and a rottenadministration had his head full of the most inflated ideas of his ownpower, and still fancied himself quite capable of conquering England at ablow; a delusion from which the fanatical religionists who trusted not inthe arm of flesh, were also suffering. To him therefore the idea of Jamesascending the English throne even as a Catholic was quite repugnant; as wasalso the succession of his sister, unless she restored the Netherlands tohim. Whereas the union with the Netherlands was precisely the one conditionwhich made her candidature possible in England. 

While Essex was still in Ireland this imagination of Philip's had bornecurious fruit. He ordered the preparation of another Armada: the greatestof all. The Spanish vapourings on the subject actually created some alarmin England; Raleigh and Lord Thomas Howard very promptly had efficientfleets on the narrow seas; the Lord Admiral (now Earl of Nottingham) wasappointed Lord General and there was a great mustering of troops andraising of companies by noblemen and gentlemen. But it is more thanprobable that, as far as the land forces were concerned, these measureswere intended quite as much to be a hint to Essex that he would find anyattempt at coercion an exceedingly dangerous game, as for protectionagainst any effort which Philip was capable of putting forth. In fact thisArmada ended in the feeblest of all these feeble fiascoes: for while it wasmaking ready, a Dutch fleet was raiding the Canaries and the trade routes;when it put to sea its energies were absorbed in a futile attempt to catchthese audacious enemies; and before it reached the Azores, a fourth part ofit had foundered and the balance had been practically crippled by foulweather. 

Such then was the position when in the autumn of 1599 Essex suddenly foundhimself a prisoner. Cecil however did not think it politic to go toextremities. The Earl was not haled before the Star-Chamber as was proposedin some quarters; it was not till the following June that he was broughtbefore a commission of the Privy Council for enquiry and censure; and sometwo months later he was released. But from October 1599 to August 1600 heremained in custody. 

[Sidenote: 1600 Ireland]

In the meantime, Tyrone was appealing to Spain and to the Archduke Albert. The latter, with ulterior objects, was negotiating for peace with Cecil--who was following a path of his own--and had no mind to complicate theintrigue by an Irish embroilment. Philip immediately gave orders thateverything was to be provided to conquer Ireland out of hand; but as themeans for carrying out those orders were entirely lacking, there were noresults. Moreover, Elizabeth had at last realised that the systematicreduction of Ireland was now an absolute necessity which could only beaccomplished by adequate forces under a competent commander. Montjoy, aconnexion of Essex, was sent over; his dealings with Tyrone met withincreasing success. Essex had at first counted on Montjoy acting in effectas his own deputy; but in this he was disappointed. Placed in a position ofresponsibility, the Deputy immediately rejected the overtures he made. Thearmy in Ireland was not to be the instrument of Essex's ambition. 

[Sidenote: Succession intrigues]

Where so many of the actors were simultaneously engaged in alternativeintrigues, some of them with entire insincerity, and solely for the purposeof keeping inconvenient persons or groups in play until they were harmless, it is not possible to be sure in most cases of the real policy intended. Cecil's party were in some sort of communication even with Parsons, whopersuaded himself that if only Philip would definitely commit himself to anominee, and would strike in before the Scots King could secure himself, the chiefs of that party would support him. It is not credible that thiswas really the case, but it is at least probable that the group weredeliberately seeking to produce that impression at the Spanish head-quarters. For them the essential thing was to wreck Essex on the one sideand out-wit the extreme Catholics on the other. Others might be deceived, but Cecil and Raleigh at least must have been fully alive to theworthlessness of any programme which assumed political intelligence on thepart of Philip, or effective activity in Spain. James was playing for thesupport of every section, by inducing each to believe that his overtures tothe other sections were mere blinds: and during this year he was workingfor the support of Henry IV. , as being at heart a tolerant Catholic. Whether Essex, who must have been aware of the intrigue, accepted thepolicy or regarded it as merely a useful diplomatic deception remainsuncertain; at any rate it did not alienate him. But the appearance of aFranco-Scottish rapprochement was an immediate incentive to and excuse forcounter negotiations with Philip and the Archduke on the part of theEnglish government. 

[Sidenote: The end of Essex 1600-1]

At the end of August, Essex was released, though still excluded fromfavour. The Cecil party had complete control of the situation, and to allappearance meant to come to terms with the Archduke: which would wreck theEarl's ambitions irretrievably. Now, when his one chance lay in playing therepentant and tearful adorer of a mistress cruel and fair if somewhatmature--a very familiar role for him--his cry was all for the restorationof lost pecuniary privileges; and his mistress would naturally have none ofa lover so self-centred. Despairing of the Queen's favour, he was rashenough to pose as a popular champion, declaiming against the intriguers whowere selling England to the Infanta, and drawing round him the younghot-heads and scape-graces of the nobility, in the insane belief that theirswords and the cheers of the London mob would enable him to effect theoverthrow of Cecil by a _coup de main_. When the time was ripe, earlyin February, Cecil struck. Essex was summoned to appear before the Council. He evaded the summons, and next day with his friends made a frantic attemptto raise the City for the removal of the Queen's false Counsellors. Thatevening he was a prisoner in the Tower. A few days later, he was brought totrial for treason before a Court of Peers, and was condemned andexecuted. Pardon was impossible, though Elizabeth's grief at signing hisdeath warrant was poignant and permanent. 

[Sidenote: Robert Cecil]

The triumph of Cecil was complete. The utter overthrow of Essex had beenhis first objective; now he was free to work his own underground policy. Publicly and ostensibly as before he remained the chief of the "moderate"party, seeking reconciliation with Spain and a _modus vivendi_ betweenCatholics and Anglicans; privately he took Essex's vacated place as thefriend of the Scots King. Thenceforth, from the Moderate camp, directingthe Moderate programme, he was in intimate correspondence [Footnote: Nowpublished in its entirety by the Camden Society. ] with James; working forthe ultimate destruction of his rivals and associates, when the Stewartshould become King of England, owing his crown to Cecil's dexterity. James, realising his position, promptly fell in with Cecil's plans, droppedcoquetting with Catholics abroad, and was quite content to wait for a deadwoman's shoes, and to give up irritating demands for an immediaterecognition, of which, with Cecil on his side, he felt ultimately assured. 

[Sidenote: Ireland 1600-1]

During 1600, Montjoy had already been doing good service in Ireland. The14, 000 troops at his disposal--though thrice as many as had been allowed toNorreys--were insufficient for dealing a rapid and crushing blow at theheart of the rebellion in Ulster. In Munster, however, the Deputy had avigorous lieutenant in Carew, and the chiefs were of a divided mind--largely because many of them held their positions precariously, in virtueof the English tenure which had been officially substituted for the Irishmethod of succession--so that the forces of resistance were to a greatextent broken up. But in Ulster, Montjoy accomplished a fine strategicstroke by making a feint of invading the province from the south, while hesent a large force of 4000 men by sea, under command of Docwra, to LochFoyle, where they established themselves at Londonderry. He was thus in aposition to strike at Tyrone or O'Donnell whenever those chiefs shouldattempt to move southward in force: as was exemplified next year, whenDonegal was seized, and the Blackwater fort was recaptured by a move fromthe South, because Tyrone could not withdraw his attention from Derry. 

[Sidenote: 1601 The Irish rebellion broken]

About the time of Essex's crash, there were again rumours of a Spanishinvasion. Carew could deal with the Irish rebels alone, but hardly with astrong invading force as well. When in September 1601 a real Spanish forcedid arrive at Kinsale, Montjoy had to concentrate in Munster. But thoughthis expedition showed the limits of Philip's capacities, it was as usualso ill found that many of the ships had been obliged to put back toCorunna, and others, failing to make Kinsale, put in at Baltimore. Montjoywas in strength near Cork, Carew at Limerick ready to intercept theapproach of the rebels from the North. In a very short time, Kinsale wasbeleagured, and when a portion of a Spanish reinforcement managed to reachthe coast in December, it found an English flotilla before it, and itstroops were isolated in a third station at Castlehaven. O'Donnell howeversucceeded in evading Carew, who then joined forces with Montjoy and thefleet before Kinsale. When Tyrone arrived, an attempt was made to relieveKinsale; but Montjoy was unusually well served by his intelligence, hisdispositions were skilful, and the rebels were totally routed beyondpossibility of present recovery. Aguilar, the Spanish commander, wasadmitted to terms; Baltimore and Castlehaven were surrendered. Thusabortively collapsed the last effort of Philip III. The Irish rebellion wasbroken. Many of the chiefs after vain and desperate resistance escaped toSpain; others surrendered to the Queen's mercy. O'Donnell was of theformer; he died soon after reaching Spain. But Tyrone the diplomaticsucceeded in making terms. It seemed that once more the English Governmentwas supreme. 

[Sidenote: 1602 The Succession]

Once again, as the death of the great Queen becomes imminent, we mustremind ourselves that to the last she refused to recognise any heir, andthat there were various claimants, [Footnote: Genealogical Tables;_Front. _ and _App. A_, iii. ] each one with a colourable claim. In point of priority by heredity King James of Scotland unquestionablystood first of the descendants of Henry VII. And Elizabeth of York; yet thefact that he was not only an alien but King of Scotland made him in himselfan unwelcome candidate. Next to him, since like him she descended fromMargaret Tudor, stood his cousin Arabella--a Stewart too, but of the LennoxStewarts, not the Royal House: an English subject; but with the drawbackthat she was a woman and unmarried. Third, but first under the will ofHenry VIII. Was Lord Beauchamp, son of Katharine Grey and the Earl ofHertford; about the validity of his parents' marriage however there was adoubt. The Stanleys of Derby, who through Margaret Clifford could claimdescent from the younger daughter of Henry VII. , would have nothing to dowith inheriting the crown; no more would the Earl of Huntingdon whodescended from Edward IV. 's brother, George of Clarence. But Philip ofSpain claimed the crown for himself as a descendant of John of Gaunt;though, the union of the crowns of England and Spain being admittedlyimpracticable, he was under promise to transfer his claim to a hithertounnamed nominee, presumably his sister. Virtually therefore Isabella rankedas a possible though not very enthusiastic candidate. 

[Sidenote: The last intrigues]

By this time, it was perfectly obvious that the Infanta could not be forcedupon England, though it was supposed that the Moderates would have favouredher candidature provided she brought Flanders with her: whereas thenegotiations controlled by Cecil were not tending to bring about any suchresult. As 1602 drew to a close, the ablest man in Spain, Olivares, wasemphasising the necessity for giving the English Catholics as a body a freehand to nominate an English candidate instead of an alien. It is probable, though it cannot be called certain, that there was a plot to unite theclaims of Arabella and Lord Beauchamp by marrying them, with an implicationthat both were prepared in due time to declare themselves Catholics. Meantime the Moderates were awaiting direction from Cecil; who ostensiblywas himself waiting on a hint from the Queen, but was privily keeping theway clear for James, while seeking to implicate Raleigh and others inlanguage and actions which might at any rate be interpreted as hostile tohim. In this secret intriguing, Cecil's great ally was Lord Henry Howard, abrother of the last Duke of Norfolk; and he had with him the Careys of theHunsdon family. Of the Moderates in general it can only be said that, whilethere was no candidate in whose favour they could combine with any warmth, James was rather more obnoxious to them than others. Yet they did notcombine against him, while if any of them sought to ingratiate themselveswith him Cecil was particularly careful to sow distrust of them in theScots King's mind, unless they happened to be partisans of his own or atany rate probable allies. When Arabella tried to escape from what waspractically the custody of her grandmother the Dowager Countess ofShrewsbury, the famous "Bess of Hardwick, " the attempt was nipped in thebud: and the Catholics were still without any declared candidate when thelonely old Queen was seized in March with her last mortal illness. 

[Sidenote: 1603 Death of the Queen]

As Elizabeth lay on her death-bed, her entourage consisted almostexclusively of Cecil and his friends, among whom is to be numbered the oldLord Admiral, though he was innocent of the intrigues going on. The shipsin the Thames, the troops in the North, were commanded by members of thesame group; almost before the breath was out of her body Robert Carey wasgalloping North to hail James I. King of England: and the world was toldthat Elizabeth's last conscious act was to ratify by a sign the successionof her old-time rival's son. In her seventieth year, in the early hours ofMarch 24th, 1603, ended the long and glorious reign of the Virgin Queen. 

CHAPTER XXVII

ELIZABETH (xii), 1558-1603--LITERATURE

The Elizabethan Literature demands from the general Historian somethingmore than the incidental references which may suffice in other periods. Inearlier days, he may draw upon Piers Plowman or Chaucer for evidence andillustrations of the prevalent social conditions; in the century followinghe may appeal to Milton and Bunyan to elucidate aspects of Puritanism. Butthe Elizabethan literature is in a degree quite unique, the expression ofthe whole spirit of the time, its many-sidedness, its vigour, its creativeforce; helping us to realise how it was that Elizabeth's Englishmen madeElizabeth's England. And this of course is beside the other fact that forthe historian of literature _per se_ there is no period quite sointeresting and instructive, none of such vital importance in the evolutionof English Letters. 

[Sidenote: Birth of a National Literature]

In the five centuries since the Norman Conquest, ending in 1566, Englandhad produced but one single poet of the front rank or anything approachingit, Geoffrey Chaucer. From the time when Edmund Spenser in 1579 delightedhis contemporaries by the publication of the _Shepherd's Calendar_, she has never been without writers whose claim to eminence among poets canbe at least plausibly maintained. Before very much the same date, Englishprose as a consciously artistic medium of utterance had hardly begun to berecognised; even Thomas More wrote his _Utopia_ in Latin, and it wasnot translated into English till many years after his death. Thepossibility of an English Prose Style--written prose as distinguished fromspoken oratory--had hardly presented itself except to the translators ofScripture and the Liturgy. Before the century closed, the world wasenriched by the compact and pregnant sentences of Francis Bacon's_Essays_ and the dignified simplicity of Hooker's _EcclesiasticalPolity_. As with the Poets, so also the chain of masters of EnglishProse is unbroken from that day forward. But most sudden and startling ofall the various developments was that of the Drama. It may be doubted ifany critical observer in 1579 would have ventured even to suspect that thecrowning glory of Elizabeth's reign was to be the work of playwrights; yetbefore she died the genius of Marlowe had blazed and been quenched, _Hamlet_ had appeared on the boards, Jonson's "learned sock" hadachieved fame; the men whose names we are wont to associate with the"Mermaid" had most of them already begun their career, even if they had notyet passed the stage of merely adapting, doctoring, and "writing up" formanagers the stock-plays in their repertory. The Drama, proving itself theform of literary expression most perfectly adapted to the spirit of theage, absorbed the available literary talent as it has never done since. 

Sudden as the outburst was however, it had been made possible by many yearsof wide and miscellaneous experiment, though little of any permanentintrinsic value had been actually achieved. 

[Sidenote: Prose: before 1579]

Except for Ascham's _Toxophilus_, very few passages [Footnote: Such asmay be lighted on for instance in "Sir John Mandeville, " Mallory, andHall's _Chronicle_. ] of English prose notable as prose--that is, consciously essaying what is connoted by the term _style_--had beenproduced before Elizabeth's accession, apart from the liturgical, rhetorical, or controversial work of the clergy or clerical disputants. The_Acts and Monuments_ of Foxe, popularly known as, the "Book ofMartyrs, " published in the first decade of the reign, showed thedevelopment of a power of vigorously dramatic narrative which should not beoverlooked. The enormous popularity however which that work achieved was atleast in part the outcome of the general sterility. Men had not yet learnedto write, but they were ready to read even voraciously. Culture was invogue. As things stood culture, in practice, meant and could mean littleelse than the study of Latin and Italian authors--Greek being stillreserved for the learned--of whose works translations, some of notablemerit, were very soon beginning to appear on the market. It was inevitablyto these two literatures--the Latin and the Italian--that men turned in thefirst instance to find the models and formulate the canons of literary art;with only occasional divagations in the direction of France or Spain, countries which were scarcely a generation in advance of England. We remarkthat the old idea that for prose which was intended to live the true mediumwas still the one international literary language, Latin, died exceedinglyhard; Bacon himself, great master though he was of his mother-tongue, maintaining it quite definitely. This pedantic attitude however was notinvolved in the idea of culture, and men welcomed with avidity an authorwho made his appeal to the non-academic public in vigorous English. Theconversion even of the academic mind was close at hand. 

[Sidenote: 1579-89]

The year 1579 is in the strictest sense an epoch in the history of EnglishLiterature; as witnessing the first appearance of a new and original forcein English verse, and the first deliberate and elaborate effort in thedirection of artistically constructed English Prose. In that year, JohnLyly published his _Euphues: the Anatomy of Wit_, and Edmund Spenserhis _Shepherd's Calendar_. 

[Sidenote: Euphues]

_Euphues_, and its companion volume _Euphues and His England_enjoyed a very remarkable if temporary vogue; running through numerouseditions in the course of the ensuing fifty years. After that, it dropped. It is not surprising that it dropped. The work is tedious, prolix, affected, abounding in pedantry and in intellectual foppery. But its wholemeaning and significance at the time when it was written are lost to us ifwe pay attention only to the ridicule which very soon fell upon it, to themockery in Shakespeare's burlesques of Euphuism, or to Scott's later parodyof it in the character of Sir Piercie Shafton. The everlasting antitheses, the perpetual playing with words, the alliterative trickery, theaccumulation of far-fetched similes, the endless and often mostinappropriate classical, mythological, and quasi-zoological allusions andparallels, are indeed sufficiently absurd and wearisome; and when"Euphuism" became a fashionable craze, its sillier disciples were a veryfit target for jesting and mirth, very much as in our own day the humoristsfound abundant and legitimate food for laughter in the vagaries of what wasknown as "aestheticism". In both cases, the extravagances were theseparable accidents, the superficial excrescences, of a real intellectualmovement with a quite healthy motive. _Euphues_ itself was a real andserious if somewhat misdirected effort at making a moralised culturefashionable, and at elevating; the English tongue into a medium of refinedand polished expression. If the Euphuists included Armados among them, theynumbered also their Birons and Rosalines. Though Lyly practised exuberancesof verbal jugglery, he was not their inventor; they were a vice of thetimes, largely borrowed from foreign models; and Shakespeare himself, inmoments of aberrant ingenuity, produced--not for laughter--samples whichLyly might have admired but could never have emulated. 

[Sidenote: Sidney's prose works]

Lyly's work was a novel experiment in prose, without previous parallel;critical judgments were no very long time in detecting and condemning hisextravagances. But the same intellectual motive was soon to find a morechastened and artistic expression in the work of one who was still but aliterary experimentalist when he meet his death at Zutphen. When Sir PhilipSidney, that "verray parfit gentil knight, " scholar, soldier, andstatesman, if the unanimous appraisement of the best of his contemporariesis worth anything, wrote his _Defence of Poesie_, he had not indeedbroken free from the trammels of academic theory; but it is a very oftenacute and always charming piece of critical work in scholarly and gracefullanguage. More affected and generally inferior in style, but also still onthe whole scholarly and graceful in its language, is his _Arcadia_, anexample of the indefinitely constructed amorphous Romances out of which incourse of long time the novel was to be evolved. The dwellers in thatArcady are as far removed from the nymphs and swains of Watteau's day asfrom a primitive Greek population; they behave as no human beings ever didor could behave; they belong in short to a particularly unconvincing kindof fairy-land, of which the vogue happily died out at an early stage. The_Arcadia_ is not intrinsically a great book, nor can it be read to-daywithout a considerable effort; yet it must always be notable as not merelyan experiment but a positive achievement in English prose style. Neither ofthese works was published till after 1590; but both must have been writtenbefore 1583. 

[Sidenote: Hooker 1594]

It was not till the last decade of the reign had begun that the first greatmonument of English Prose appeared; nor is it surprising that, when it didcome, it was an example of the Ecclesiastical or politico-ecclesiasticalorder. With the publication in 1594 of the first four books of RichardHooker's _Ecclesiastical Polity_, the full claims of English as agreat literary language were decisively established by his rhythmical, stately, and luminous periods. In their own field, Poets and Dramatists hadalready secured those claims; with the works of Marlowe, the earliest playsof Shakespeare, and the opening books of the _Faerie Queene_. 

[Sidenote: Verse; before 1579]

While the Eighth Henry was still ruling England, Surrey and Wyatt, heedfulof things Italian, had already discovered that verse-making was at any ratea delectable pastime for a gentleman of wit, especially if he had alove-affair on hand; a pastime certainly pleasing to himself and probablyagreeable to his mistress. They made metrical experiments, introducing boththe sonnet and blank verse. The example they set was followed by others, and _Tottel's Miscellany_, published towards the end of Mary's reign, shows that a considerable skill in this minor art had already beenacquired, and not only by the two principal contributors, though thewriters were still working within very narrow metrical limitations. In 1559appeared the _Mirrour for Magistrates_, for the most part dull anduninteresting but containing in the _Induction_ and the _Complaintof Buckingham_ two contributions by Thomas Sackville (afterwards LordBuckhurst) which are a good deal more than clever verse-making. But afterone other experiment--the part-authorship of the first English Tragedy inblank verse, _Gorboduc_--Sackville deserted the Muses, for publicaffairs; in his later years becoming a leading member of Elizabeth'sCouncil. The little verse that he left is of a quality to make us wish thathe had written more: for there is in him at least a hint of somepossibilities which were actualised in Spenser. But twenty years passedbefore the appearance of the _Shepherd's Calendar_, during which it isprobable enough that courtiers and lovers continued to practise, after theschool of Surrey and Wyatt; nothing however was published that hassurvived, save the work of the universal experimentalist and pioneer GeorgeGascoigne, who tried his hand at most forms of literary production, achieving distinction in none but a laudable respectability in all. 

[Sidenote: 1579-90 Spenser and others ]

The _Shepherd's Calendar/_ by itself would give Spenser nothing morethan a high position among minor poets; but with him verse reappeared assomething more than an elegant exercise for courtiers, scholars or lovers. Above all, the _Shepherd's Calendar_ gave unexpected proof of themetrical capacities and verbal felicities of the English language, thoughsetting it forth to the accompaniment of an excessive use of archaic formsand expressions. Even that excess had its value as a protest against thepedantic precision of the Latinists, who were already indulging in agrotesque attempt to displace natural English metres by Ovidian andHoratian prosody. Spenser himself made some futile efforts in thisdirection; so did Sidney--sundry more or less ingenious examples arescattered about the _Arcadia_; but Sidney realised his error in timeto write the _Astrophel and Stella_ sonnets (about 1581-2), whichthough still somewhat stiff and academic might well have been theprecursors of some noble poetry had the writer lived longer. As it is, hislife and death form the noblest poem he has bequeathed to us. 

Those sonnets also remained unpublished till some years later. The firstthree books of the _Faerie Queene_, which at once established Spenserfor all time as a true poet of the highest rank, did not appear till1590. In the interval, the English Drama was finding itself, and some ofthe dramatists were revealing that gift of song--in the restricted sense ofthe word--which was bestowed in such unparalleled measure on the laterElizabethans. To this decade belong songs by Lyly and Peele, Lodge andGreene, which have already caught the delicate daintiness and the exquisitelilt of Shakespeare's songs and a host of others found in the latersongbooks--qualities of which there is little more than a rare hint hereand there in the earlier Miscellanies, for all the bravery of such titlesas _A Paradise of Dainty Devises_ (1576): _A Gorgeous Gallery ofGallant Inventions_ (1578): or _A Handefull of PleasantDelites_(1584). 

[Sidenote: The Drama before Elizabeth]

The definite triumph of Christianity over Paganism killed the Drama of theold world, the Church deliberately setting its face against thetheatre. But primitive popular instincts, embodied in the continuedcelebration, as holiday sports, of what had originally been pagan rites, kept in existence crude and embryonic forms of dramatic representation atthe festival seasons; which after a time the ecclesiastics saw moreadvantage in adapting to their own ends than in suppressing. Hence arosethe miracle plays or Mysteries (probably _ministerium_, not [Greek:mystaerion]) of the middle ages--representations chiefly of episodes in theBiblical narrative. These in turn suggested the Moralities, dialogues withaction in which the characters were personifications of virtues or vicesrelieved, in consideration of the weakness of the flesh, by passages ofbroad buffoonery. Lastly in the late fifteenth and early sixteenthcenturies came the representation of what were called "Interludes, " for themost part short farces of a very primitive order--probably the offspring ofthe aforesaid passages of buffoonery. These did not constitute a literarydrama; but they kept the idea of dramatic representation in being, thoughno such thing as a theatre or building constructed for the purpose existedas yet. The performances were given either in Church, or, later, in anobleman's hall, or in the courtyard of an inn. The "masque" or pantomimicpageant, without dialogue, was also a familiar spectacle of the latertimes, and remained an occasional feature of the drama in its development. 

The revival of interest in the classics caused some attention to be paid tothe Roman drama; and hence Italy led the way--as in all things literary--inproducing imitations of the plays then known. These however hardly gotbeyond the stage of being mere imitations; though as models Terence andSeneca were superior to the compilers of miracle plays, something more wasrequired than copying their works before a Drama worthy of the name couldbe evolved. But from about the middle of the sixteenth century, thedramatic instinct in England was struggling to find for itself new andadequate expression. 

[Sidenote: Early Elizabethan Drama]

With the Educational revival, it would appear that schoolmastersoccasionally caused their pupils to act scenes, in Latin or perhaps attimes in a translated version, from Terence: and it is not surprising tofind that what is recognised as the first English Comedy was written by aschoolmaster for his boys to perform. _Ralph Roister Doister_ derivedfrom the Latin model, and is in doggerel couplets. It was the work ofNicholas Udall who was Master of Eton and afterwards of Westminster; butwhether it was produced in the earlier or later period is not certainlyknown. At any rate it preceded the accession of Queen Mary. _GammerGurton's Needle_, dated 1553, holds the second place in point of time;and _Gorboduc_ otherwise known as _Ferrex and Porrex_, the firstEnglish blank-verse tragedy, the work of Sackville and Norton, was acted in1561. From this time, we have notices of the production of a considerablenumber of plays of which it may be assumed that they were exceedinglycrude, being either very formless experiments derived from the interludesor else direct imitations or translations of Latin or Italian plays; towhich Gascoigne contributed his share. A nearer approach to the comingComedy is found in the plays of John Lyly preceding his _Euphues_. Bythis time dramatic performances had achieved such popularity that the CityFathers were scandalised--not indeed without reason--by their encroachmentson the more solid but less inviting attractions of Church Services; and bybanishing them from the City precincts caused the first regularlyconstructed theatres to be established outside the City bounds inShoreditch: a departure which no doubt tended to the more definiteorganisation of the Actor's profession. As the Eighties progressed, ahigher standard of dramatic production was attained by the group of"University" play wrights---Peele, Greene, Nash, and others; wild Bohemianspirits for the most part, careless of conventions whether moral orliterary, wayward, clever, audacious; culminating with Marlowe, whose firstextremely immature play _Tamburlaine_, was probably acted in 1587 whenhe was only three and twenty; his career terminating in a tavern brawl somesix years later. By that time (1593) it is certain that Shakespeare, bornin the same year as Marlowe, was writing for the managers; though none ofhis known work can with confidence be dated earlier than the year ofMarlowe's death. The great age of the Drama had begun. 

[Sidenote: The younger generation]

It will have become apparent from this survey that, although we talk withvery good reason of the Elizabethan Age of English Literature, the Queenhad been reigning for thirty years, the great political crisis of her rulehad been reached, the Armada had perished, before any single work had beenwritten, or at any rate published, which on its merits--judged by thecriteria of an established literature with established canons--would haveentitled its author to a position of any distinction on the roll of fame. Up to 1589, the most remarkable productions had been: in prose, Foxe's_Book of Martyrs_ and Lyly's _Euphues_; in verse, some lines ofSackville, and the _Shepherd's Calendar_. Even when we have added tothese Sidney's _Sonnets_ and his _Arcadia_--written but notpublished--the significant fact remains that he, as well as Spenser andLyly, was not born till the second half of the century had begun: and allthree were older than any of the group of dramatists who are named asShakespeare's precursors. Spenser was actually the eldest of all the menwhose writings shed lustre on the great Queen's reign: and Spenser himselfhad not attained to the full maturity of his genius--had not, at leastgiven its fruits to the world--at the hour of England's triumph. Had hedied in the year of Zutphen, "Colin Clout" would have ranked little if atall higher than "Astrophel. " Further: save for Sidney and Marlowe, who wereboth cut off prematurely, and Spenser himself who died at forty-six, thework of all the greater Elizabethan writers--Shakespeare, and Ben Jonson, Bacon, Hooker, Raleigh, Middleton, Drayton--lies as much in the time ofJames as in that of Elizabeth; while a whole group of those to whom thesame general title is applied--Beaumont and Fletcher, Webster, Ford, Massinger--belong in effect wholly to the later reign. 

Broadly speaking therefore it is worth noting that state-craft, soldiering, seamanship, affairs of a very practical character, absorbed the keen brainsand the abundant energies of the earlier generation; even for the men bornin the fifties, like Raleigh and Sidney, literature (except with Spenser)held a quite secondary place. But no sooner is the National triumph ensuredthan the younger generation displays in the literary field characteristicsessentially the same as those whereby their elders had raised England inwar and in politics to the first rank among the nations. 

For years to come, for the first time certainly in English History, literature in one form or another appropriates the best work of the bestbrains. There are men of ability in politics, but no giants: or if one ofthe giants, like Bacon, divides his attention between the two fields, thebest half of it goes to literature. Yet it is essentially the same spiritwhich works in the great men of Elizabeth's closing years as in the greatmen of her youth and of her maturity. 

[Sidenote: Pervading Characteristics]

The quality which conditions the whole English character through the periodis an exuberant, often even a riotous energy, a vast imaginativeness, whichbreeds in the first place an immense daring, saved from degenerating intomere recklessness by a coolness of head in emergencies which is singularlymarked. Whether we look at Elizabeth, Cecil, and Walsingham, or at Hawkinsand Drake and Frobisher, or broadly at the actions of the rank and file, these characteristics are apparent. They are no less patent in the poets. 

[Sidenote: displayed in the Drama and other fields]

Thus if we consider the tragedies of the period, their tremendous audacityis perhaps their most prominent feature. The stage reeks with blood andreverberates thunder, to an extent which could not fail to become merelygrotesque but for the immense pervading vitality. These men could and didventure upon extravagances and imbue them with a terrific quality, when inweaker hands they would have become ridiculous. For anything less than thevibrating energy of Marlowe, the final scene of his _Faustus_ wouldhave sunk to burlesque. A cold analysis of the plot of _Hamlet_ or_Macbeth_ would suggest mere melodrama. A Shakespeare or a Marlowe hadno hesitation in facing tasks which offered no mean between great successor great failure. Nor was the audacity in their choice of subjects moreremarkable than in their methods, their defiance of recognised canons. Justas the seamen had ignored the convention of centuries, creating a newsystem of naval tactics and a new type of navy, so the Tragedians brushedaside the academic convention, creating new dramatic canons and a new typeof drama. The innovation in the structure of comedy was no less daring, since it proceeded on parallel lines. And here again the same quality ofsuperabundant vitality is equally prominent. But it is to be noted thatwhile the Elizabethan vitality would have made the drama great in spite ofits audacity, the greatest productions are distinguished from the lessgreat precisely by that peculiar sanity which stamped the master-spirits ofthe time. As it is with the dramatists, so is it with the rest. The samefulness of life is apparent in the luxuriance of Spenser's imagination, andin the spontaneity of half a hundred anonymous song-writers, the sameaudacity in Raleigh, embarking on his History of the World, and in Bacon, assuming all knowledge to be his province, while affirming and formulatingthe principles of Inductive Reasoning in substitution for the Deductivemethods by which the Schools had lived for centuries. Wherever the criticturns his glance, he can find no sign of the Decadent. In every field oflife, in politics, in war, in religion, in letters, the Elizabethan wasvirile even in his vices. His offences against morals or against art wereessentially of the barbaric not the effete order; as the splendours of hisproductions were the natural beauties of plants nurtured in the open, notin the hothouse. 

[Sidenote: Breadth of view]

Other aspects of the national character could be readily inferred from theprevalent tone of this literature. Toleration as a political principle wasnot yet recognised: tolerance as a private attitude of mind was veryprevalent. The Jesuit and the extreme Puritan, the doctrinal propagandistswho would endure no deviation from their own standard, were thoroughlyunpopular, and managed to put themselves outside the field ofconsideration; the immense bulk of the nation was in sympathy with neitherthe one nor the other, and it is only to the extremists that the men ofletters show a direct antipathy. Catholics can make a presentable case forthe theory that Shakespeare himself was a "crypto-Catholic, " though thecase is not more than presentable. Rome is abhorrent to Spenser, yet it isapparent that many of his ethical conceptions are infinitely nearer akin tothose of mediaeval Catholicism than of the current Puritanism. Hooker, mostearnest of Christians, was also the most liberal-minded of men. Jonson washalf a Catholic. All were manifestly men of deep religious feeling, butnone can be associated with any religious party. When England was pitted asa Protestant Power against a Power aggressively determined on theeradication of Protestantism, it was inevitable that the prevailingsentiment should be increasingly Protestant; on the whole, it is surprisingthat there should have been so little bigotry in it. The public inclinationwas to be tolerant of all but the intolerant, and that attitude isreflected in all the literature of the time, except the specificallypartisan writings of controversialists. 

[Patriotism]

So also another note of the day was the general patriotism, national pride, or insularity; the sentiment which made the Catholics themselves, even whenthey were most under suspicion and had most cause to welcome an opportunityfor rebellion, ready and eager to fall into line and resist the invader whowas to liberate them. Again the poets gave voice to the national feeling, none more emphatically or more admirably than Shakespeare himself. Patriotic lines might of course be written for the sake of the gallery'sinevitable applause; but Shakespeare's panegyrics of England are absolutelyand unmistakably whole hearted, and it may be doubted if in all his playshe presented any single character with a more thorough and convincingsympathy and appreciation than his Henry V. , the incarnation of Englishaggressiveness. 

[The Normal Types] Finally, what manner of men and women they were whopeopled the England that Shakespeare knew, we can see from the men andwomen whom Shakespeare drew. The types manifest themselves; the normal andthe exceptional are readily distinguishable. The normal type is keen ofwit, impulsive; it is observable for instance that both men and womenhabitually--almost invariably--fall in love unreservedly at first sight;generous for the most part; in action prompt and more often than notover-hasty, but resourceful--the women more resourceful than the men. It isa commonplace of course to remark that his types are types for all time;but different types are more prevalent at one time than another, and theinference is that Shakespeare's prevalent types were the prevalent ones ofhis own day. Hamlet, Brutus, Cleopatra, belonged to eternal but not tonormal types; Hotspur and Mercutio, Rosalind and Cordelia--even if thelatter were glorified examples--were obviously normal. For in play afterplay, whether as leading or as minor characters, they recur again andagain; and more than that we find the same characteristics--presented nodoubt with less incisiveness and less brilliancy--reappearing in theDramatis Personae of the whole Elizabethan group. Such were the gentlemenof England who fought the Spaniard and overthrew him; such were theirsisters and their wives. 

CHAPTER XXVIII

ELIZABETH (xiii), 1558-1603--ASPECTS OF THE REIGN

[Sidenote: Features of the Reign]

The reign of Elizabeth may be said to have been distinguished primarily bythree leading features. The first is the development and establishment ofEngland as the greatest maritime power in the world, a process which hasbeen traced with some fulness. The second is that sudden and amazingoutburst of literary genius in the latter half, and mainly in the lastquarter, of the reign, for which there is no historical parallel except inAthens, unless once again we find it in England two centuries later:whereof the last few pages have treated. The third is the Ecclesiasticalsettlement, on which it has hitherto been possible only to touch. This, with certain other aspects of the reign, remain for discussion in thisconcluding chapter. 

[Sidenote: State and Church]

In this settlement, the primary fundamental fact, politically speaking--for theological problems do not fall within our range--is the recognitionby the State of the Church as an aspect of the body politic, and of herorganisation as a branch of the body politic, subject to the control of theSovereign and maintained by the sanction of the Sovereign's supremacy;precluding the interference of any external authority, and overriding anyclaims to independent authority on the part of the organisation itself;requiring from all members of the body politic conformity, under penalties, to the institutions thus regulated, and rejection of any authority runningcounter thereto. The secondary fact is that the State thus sanctioned suchinstitutions as, under a reasonable liberty of interpretation, might beaccepted without a severe strain of conscience by persons holding opinionsof considerable diversity; so that conformity should be possible to thegreat bulk of the nation, including many who might not in theory admit theright of the State to a voice in the matter at all. 

The politicians, that is, deliberately chose a _via media_. Theologically, the dividing line lay between those who desired the Mass andreunion with Rome, and those who rejected the Mass and derived their dogmasfrom Geneva. Under Mary, the Government had thrown itself on the side ofthe former; under Edward, mainly on that of the latter. Elizabeth'sGovernment would have neither. It would not admit the papal claim tooverride the secular authority, or the equally dictatorial claims of theGenevan ministry as exemplified by John Knox; the first necessity for itwas to assert secular supremacy, the second to make its definitions ofdogma sufficiently ambiguous to be reconcilable with the dogmatic scruplesof the majority of both parties; with the result however of shutting outboth determined Romanists and determined Calvinists, while the Church thusregulated contained two parties, one with conservative, the other withadvanced, ideals. 

The outward note of Conservative churchmen was insistence on ceremonialobservances, as that of the advanced men was dislike of them. But as thereign advanced, another feature acquires prominence--the protest of thePuritans against the Episcopalian system of Church Government, with thecorrespondingly increased emphasis laid on the vital necessity of thatsystem by the Conservatives. 

[Sidenote: The State and the Catholics]

The Queen's personal predilections were at all times on the Conservativeside; those of her principal advisers always leaned towards the Puritans--at the first Cecil, Bacon, and Elizabeth's own kinsmen, Knollys andHunsdon; then Walsingham, drawing Leicester with him. But in the earlyyears of her rule, when it was imperative to minimise all possible causesof discontent, the admission of the largest possible latitude in practicewas required, even if it was accompanied by legislation which gaveauthority for restrictive action. It followed however from the politicalconditions that direct hostility to the Queen was to be feared only fromthe Catholics--the whole body of those who would have liked to see the oldreligion restored in its entirety. This was emphasized by the Papal Bullexcommunicating Elizabeth in 1570--a political blunder on the part of thePope which greatly annoyed and embarrassed Philip at the time. The result, joined with the Northern Rising, the Ridolfi plot, and the indignationaroused by the day of St. Bartholomew, was to strengthen the hands of thePuritans and to give open Catholicism the character of a political offence;and to this an enormously increased force was added in 1581 by the Jesuitmission. During these years, parliaments were all unfailingly andincreasingly Puritan, and Puritanism was steadily making way all over thecountry, not without the favour of the leading divines. Elizabeth herselfviewed this tendency with extreme dislike, mercilessly snubbing bishops andothers who seemed to betray inclinations in this direction--Grindal inparticular, Parker's successor at Canterbury, suffered from herdispleasure; but she could not suppress it. She might--and did--say a gooddeal; but she could not in act go nearly as far as she would have wished, in opposition to subjects whose political loyalty was indisputable, as wellas extremely necessary to her security. 

[Sidenote: The Church and the Puritans]

So long as the advanced movement concerned itself chiefly with the"Vestiarian Controversy" and matters of ceremonial observance, it did notassume primary importance in the eyes of politicians. But by the middle ofthe reign the question of the form of Church Government had come to thefront, and the demand to substitute the Presbyterian system for theEpiscopalian was being put forward by Cartwright and his followers and hadeven produced a Presbyterian organisation within the Church. Moreover theschool commonly called Brownists, who developed into the sect ofIndependents, were propounding the theory that the Church consisted not ofthe whole nation but only of the Elect. Puritanism was thereforethreatening to become directly subversive of the established order. Thencame the mission of Parsons and Campian. The effect of this in regard toCatholics was twofold. It necessitated an increased severity in dealingwith any one who recognised papal authority: and made it more imperativethan ever to induce Catholics to be reconciled with the State Church, byemphasizing the Catholic side of her institutions, and consequently bychecking Puritan developments. On the other side, it was so obviouslyimpossible for the Puritans to withdraw their loyalty from Elizabeth thatto conciliate them was superfluous; they were adopting an attitudeantagonistic to the approved constitution of the Church; and there was asuggestion of rigid even-handed justice in waging war upon their propagandaat the same time as on that of Rome. Whitgift, succeeding Grindal atCanterbury in 1583, opened the campaign against Puritanism--not indeed withthe favour either of parliament or of the leading statesmen, whose personalsympathies were with the advanced party, but manifestly with encouragementfrom the Queen. 

[Sidenote: Archbishop Whitgift]

Whitgift's own attitude was that of the Disciplinarian rather than of thetheologian. The method of operation was by the issue of Fifteen Articles towhich all the clergy were required to subscribe: the sanction thereof beingthe authority of the Court of High Commission. Under the Act of Supremacyof 1559, the appointment of a Commission to enforce obedience to the law inmatters ecclesiastical had been authorised. This Court was fullyconstituted in December 1583, and proceeded by methods which Burghleyhimself held to be too inquisitorial. A good deal of indignation wasaroused, and the Puritans were in effect made more aggressive, theirattacks on the existing system culminating in 1589 in the distinctlyscurrilous "Martin Mar-prelate" tracts, which were so violent as toproduce a marked reaction. This on the one side, coupled with the partlygenuine and partly mythical plots of the ultra-Catholics on the other, brought about sharp legislation in 1593, resulting in an increasedpersecution of the Catholics after that time, and in the compulsorywithdrawal of the extreme nonconformists to the more sympathetic atmosphereof the Netherlands. At the same time the "High" theory of the Church'sauthority was formulated by Bancroft (afterwards Archbishop), and what maybe called the Constitutional theory of Church Government was propounded inthe _Ecclesiastical Polity_ of Hooker. All of this was the prologue tothe great controversy which was to acquire such prominence under theStuarts. 

[Sidenote: The Persecutions]

In writing of the persecutions under Elizabeth alike of Catholics and ofPuritans, it is not uncommon to imply that the political argument in theirdefence was a mere pretext with a theological motive. As a matter of facthowever, the distinction between Elizabeth's and Mary's persecutions is areal one. Broadly speaking, it is now the universally received view that noman ought to be penalised on the score of opinions conscientiously held, however erroneous they may be; but that if those opinions find expressionin anti-social acts, the acts must be punished. Punishment of opinions isrightly branded as persecution. Now although in effect not a few persons, Puritans or Catholics, were put to death by Elizabeth, and many moreimprisoned or fined--as they would have said themselves, for Conscience'sake--this was the distinction specifically recognised by her; which, without justifying her persecutions, differentiates them from those of herpredecessors. Henry and Mary frankly and avowedly burnt victims for holdingwrong opinions--for Heresy. Anabaptism no doubt was accounted a social aswell as a theological crime; but no one ever dreamed of regarding Ann Ascueor Frith as politically dangerous. Mary kindled the fires of Smithfield forthe salvation of souls, not for the safety of her throne. Whereas thefoundation of Elizabeth's persecutions was that _opinions_ as suchwere of no consequence: but that people who would not conform their_conduct_ to her regulations must either be potential traitorspolitically or anarchists socially. Her proceedings are brought into thecategory of persecutions, because she treated potential anarchism ortreason as implying overt anarchism or treason, though unless and until shediscovered such implication in a given opinion, any one was at liberty tohold it or not as he chose; its truth or falsity was a matter of entireindifference. To punish the implied intention of committing a wrong act issufficiently dangerous in principle; but it is to be distinguished frompunishment for holding an opinion because it is accounted a false one. 

Finally, while we must condemn her persecution both of Puritans and ofCatholics alike, it is only fair, in comparing her with her predecessor, toremember that, in the five and forty years of her reign, the whole numberof persons who suffered death as Catholics or as Anabaptists wasconsiderably less than the number of the Martyrs in four years of Mary'srule. 

[Sidenote: Economic progress]

By adopting Cecil's ecclesiastical policy of the _via media_, Elizabeth saved England from the internecine religious strife which almostthroughout her reign made the political action of France soinefficient. The constant wars of the Huguenots with the Leaguers or theirpredecessors had their counterpart for Philip also, whose struggle with theNetherlanders was to a great extent in the nature of a civil war. Fullyrealising how seriously both France and Spain were hampered by thesecomplications, she was able to conduct her diplomatic manoeuvres with anaudacity quite as remarkable as her duplicity, gauging to a nicety thecarrying capacity of the very thin ice over which she was constantlyskating. Thus while both those Powers were perpetually exhausting theirresources and draining their exchequers with costly wars, England, freefrom any similar strain, was rapidly growing in wealth; and while thenational expenditure was kept comparatively low, manufactures weremultiplied, and the commerce which was driven by the stress of war from thegreat trade-centres of the Netherlands was being absorbed by English ports. Moreover that forcible trading indulged in by John Hawkins in the earlierventures of the reign--giving place, as time went on to the process ofsystematic preying upon Spanish treasure--provided very substantialdividends for the Queen, as well as filling the pockets of her loyalsubjects. Thus again she was able to avoid making perpetual demands on herparliaments, and when demands were made the parliaments could usually meetthem in a generous and ungrudging spirit. 

[Sidenote: The currency; Retrenchment]

Nevertheless, no little financial skill and courage were required torestore the public credit which had fallen to such disastrous depths in thetwo preceding reigns; and this was done to a large extent by a policy ofdetermined financial honesty. The miserable system of debasing the coinagewas brought to an end; the current coins were called in and paid for at notmuch under their actual value in silver, and the new coins issued were oftheir face value. Debts contracted by Government were punctually paid, andas an immediate consequence the Government soon found itself able to borrowat reasonable instead of ruinous rates of interest. Private prosperity andpublic confidence advanced so swiftly that before Elizabeth had been adozen years on the throne substantial loans could be raised at home withoutapplying to foreign sources. Elizabeth never spent a penny of public moneywithout good reason; sometimes--as in Ireland habitually, and to somedegree at the time of the Armada though not so seriously as is commonlyreputed--her parsimony amounted to false economy; often it took on apettifogging character in her dealings with the Dutch, with the Huguenots, and with the Scots, though in the last case at least it must be admittedthat either party was equally ready to overreach the other if the chanceoffered. But for very many years a very close economy was absolutelyessential if debts were to be paid. That economy was facilitated by thelavish expenditure of prominent men on public objects; due partly to adesire for display, partly--at least in the case of the buccaneeringenterprises--to bold speculation in the hope of large profits, but partlyalso beyond question to a very live public spirit. Yet when every allowancehas been made for the assistance from such sources, it remains clear thatElizabeth's resources were husbanded with great skill, and her governmentcarried on with a surprisingly small expenditure; that expenditure being onthe whole very judiciously directed--so that, for instance, the royal navy, at least throughout the latter half of the reign, was maintained in a verycreditable state of efficiency; though the number of the ships was notlarge, and the organisation proved inadequate, when the crisis came, tomeet all the demands of the seamen. 

[Sidenote: Wealth and Poverty]

The general prosperity however was not due to any notable advance inofficial Economics. What it owed to the Government was the immenseimprovement in public credit brought about by the restored coinage, and thepunctual repayment of loans and settlement of debts, coupled withconfidence in a steady rule and freedom from costly wars. Trade did indeedgreatly benefit by the enlightened action of the State in encouraging thesettlement in England of craftsmen from the Netherlands, with theconsequent development of the industries they practised and taught. But thevital fact of the enormously increased wealth of the country must beattributed to the energy and initiative of the merchants and theadventurers in taking advantage of the new fields opened to them, of thedisplacement of trade by the wars on the Continent, and of the exposure offoreign, especially but not exclusively Spanish, shipping to depredation. 

How far this increased wealth benefited the labouring classes is a mootquestion. It would seem on the whole that the process of converting arableland into pasture which had been going on all through the century wasalready becoming less active even in the first years of the reign, and hadreached its limit some while before the Armada. As the displacement oflabour diminished, fixity and regularity of employment increased, while thelabour already displaced was gradually absorbed by the rapid growth ofmanufactures. This may perhaps in some degree explain the almostunaccountably sudden cessation of laments over agricultural depression. Still, the effective wage earned tended to drop: that is, although wagesrose when measured in terms of the currency, that rise did not keep pacewith the advance in prices, the influx of silver into Europe diminishingits purchasing power. Hence the old problem of dealing with poverty in itstwo forms--honest inability to work and dishonest avoidance of work--remained acute. There was always a humane desire that the deserving poorshould be assisted, and an equally strong sentiment in favour of punishingrogues and vagabonds--persons who declined to dig but were not ashamed tobeg; with perhaps an excessive inclination to assume that wherever therewas a doubt the delinquent should not have the benefit of it. The savageryhowever of the earlier Tudor laws against vagabonds was mitigated, andhonest efforts were made to find a substitute for the old relief of genuinepoverty by the Monasteries. This took in the first place the form ofenactments for the local collection of voluntary contributions torelief-funds; and culminated in the Acts of the last five years of thereign, substituting compulsory for voluntary contribution, and establishingthat Poor-law system which remained substantially unchanged until itsreformation in the nineteenth century. 

[Sidenote: Trade Restrictions and Development]

The idea that Governments do well not to interfere with the natural unaidedoperation of economic laws had not yet come into being; and attempts, mainly futile, to control wages and to force labour into particularchannels, continued. In one direction however the artificial encouragementof one industry may have had a beneficial effect. Navigation laws tended, _per se_, to check general commerce; but they gave a stimulus to theEnglish marine at a time when its rapid development was of the utmostnational importance; not directly increasing the interchange of commoditiesas a whole, but encouraging the English carrying-trade, and advancing thegrowth of the sea-power which made a more extended commerce possible; andthus indirectly counterbalancing the direct ill effects. It is possibleeven to find some defence for one aspect of Monopolies. The granting of amonopoly of trade in particular regions--Russia, Guinea, the Levant, theEast Indies--to Companies of merchants, had a definite justification. Individual private competitors could not conduct the trade on a largescale; large corporations, secured against rivals, could face the risks andthe heavy expenditure requisite to success, and could be granted a libertyof action, being left to their own responsibilities, which wasimpracticable for the private trader. Amongst these, very much the mostnotable is the great East India Company which was incorporated on the lastday of December 1600. Here, its birth only is to be chronicled; its historybelongs to the ensuing centuries. But the bestowal on individuals of themonopoly of trade in particular articles by the Royal privilege wasmanifestly bad in itself; it became so serious an abuse that a determinedparliamentary attack was made on the system in 1597; and even thenElizabeth found it necessary to promise enquiry. Nothing practical howeverwas done, and the parliament of 1601 returned to the charge with suchobvious justification that the Queen very promptly and graciously promisedto abolish the grievance, and thanked the Commons for directing herattention to the matter. 

[Sidenote: Tavellers]

We have already in a previous chapter followed in the wake of adventurousvoyagers and explorers prior to the Armada, and recorded the firstdisastrous experimental efforts towards colonisation; but, in dealingspecifically with the seamen, we passed by overland explorations such asthose of Jenkinson, who during the first decade of Elizabeth's reignjourneyed through Russia, and into Asia over the Caspian sea. Moremomentous still in its results was the Eastern expedition of Newbery andFitch; who starting in 1583 went through Syria to Ormuz, and were thenceconveyed to Goa, the Portuguese head-quarters on the West coast of India. Fitch remained longer than his chief, visiting Golconda, Agra (the seat ofthe Great Mogul Akbar), Bengal, Pegu, Malacca, and Ceylon, and bringinghome in 1591 stories of India and its wealth, which were in no small degreeresponsible for the formation, in 1599, of the Association which was nextyear incorporated as the East India Company. 

[Sidenote: Maritime expansion]

After the Armada, the sea-faring spirit was naturally even intensified. Toa great extent however it was absorbed in privateering--which combined withits attractions in the way of mere adventure the advantages of beingprofitable, patriotic, and pious. In connexion with the direct scheme ofcolonial settlements, we have only Raleigh's two unsuccessful reliefexpeditions to Virginia conducted by White and Mace, and the attempt, alsounsuccessful, to start a colony in what afterwards became New England, under Bartholomew Gosnold in 1602. More striking, but belonging to asomewhat different category, was Raleigh's own voyage to the Orinoco, insearch of Eldorado and the golden city of Manoa; disappointing in itsresults, but ably conducted and from the point of view of explorers, assuch, by no means unfruitful. Equally noteworthy are the two great voyagesof James Lancaster, who was the first English captain to reach the Indianseas by the Cape route (1592), and in 1601 sailed thither again in commandof the first fleet of the new Association of East India Merchants, andopened up for his countrymen the trade with the Spice Islands. But exceptfor this second voyage of Lancaster's, a very real and definite achievementin the history of commercial expansion, the voyages of the day, full ofbrilliant exploits in the annals of seamanship and of adventure, andcollectively marking an epoch in England's oceanic development, were notindividually notable for specific results. 

[Sidenote: The Constitution]

Constitutional theory does not appear to have differed in the reigns ofHenry VIII. And his great daughter. The monarch's will was supreme; but thepeople could give expression to its will through Parliament when insession. The practical rule, however, which prevented any collision betweenthe two forces, was that both monarchs kept a careful finger on the pulseof the nation. Like her father, Elizabeth never allowed herself to set astrong popular feeling at defiance. She desired that her people should beprosperous and free, though she objected to their interference in theconduct of political affairs; she desired that within the realm of Englandorder should be maintained and the law strictly administered. If practicesinconsistent with the liberty of the subject prevailed, they were appliedonly to persons who were assumed by herself, her ministers, and the bulk oftheir fellow-subjects, to have placed themselves outside the pale. Theministers who carried out her will avoided the arbitrary methods of Wolseyand Cromwell, whose master had preserved his own popularity by makingscape-goats of them when their unpopularity ran too high, squaring hisaccount with the People at their expense. Elizabeth never found itnecessary to square her account with the People, whose hearts vibrated insympathy with her essential loyalty to them. Few of them probably sharedher views on the sanctity of crowned heads as such, which amounted almostto a superstition; but the country was pervaded with a passionate loyaltyto the person of its Queen. On the other side, the record of herParliaments shows that freedom of speech was making way, though she wouldnot formally admit the principle: while the Parliaments cared much lessabout its formal admission than its practical prevalence. She snubbed thepersistent Puritans for their obstinate oratory on the ecclesiastical andmatrimonial questions, but they managed to have their say (which sheostensibly ignored), without suffering more than sharp reprimands andoccasional detention in ward; and that contented them. Like Henry, sherecognised that the one thing Parliaments would not endure was taxationwithout their own consent. On one occasion when she found she could dowithout a grant she had asked for and obtained, she remitted it; theharmony of mutual confidence ensured the readier co-operation. 

Parliament under Elizabeth gave not infrequent proof that it was tenaciousof what it held to be its privileges: as the Queen showed that she wastenacious of what she considered her prerogatives. But each, withoutabating their right, or prejudicing their theoretical claim, was willing tomake practical concession to the other in action. It was only in theclosing years of the reign that abstract Theories of the State began to beformulated--a process which became exceedingly active in the next century, when kings and parliaments began to take diametrically conflicting views ofpolitical exigencies. Under Elizabeth, all such discussions were purelyacademic; under the Stuarts, they became actively practical. For theStuarts, unlike Elizabeth, recklessly challenged popular oppositionprecisely on the points as to which popular opinion was most sensitive. Harmony gave way to discord, co-operation to antagonism; collision anddisaster followed--"red ruin and the breaking up of laws". 

[Sidenote: The Elizabethans]

The popular judgment which has glorified the reign of Elizabeth as perhapsthe most splendid period in the annals of England can be endorsed, withoutignoring the defects in the character of the Queen, her Ministers, herCourtiers, or her People. A new day had dawned upon the world; newpossibilities, vast and undefined, were presenting themselves; new thoughtswere possessing the minds of men; new blood was throbbing in their veins. The English race was awaking to a sense of its powers, grasping with asplendid audacity at the mighty heritage whose full import was yetunrealised. The Elizabethans were, as a nation, triumphing in the firstglow of exuberant and healthy youth: with the faults of youth as well asits virtues. Sheer delight in the exercise of physical energies, inperilous adventure for its own sake irrespective of ulterior ends, in thekeen encounter of wit, in the bold fabric-building of imagination, characterised the Elizabethan as they characterised the_Marathonomachoi_ two thousand years before; as the Athens of Salamiswas the mother of Aeschylus and Sophocles, so the England of the Armada wasthe mother of Marlowe and Shakespeare and Spenser. 

[Sidenote: Raleigh]

The typical Elizabethan, the man who presents in his own person the mostmarked characteristics that belong to his time, is Sir Walter Raleigh. Hiswas the large imagination which conceived a new and expanding Englandbeyond the seas; the broad grasp of ideas which made him a leading exponentof the theory of the Oceanic policy and the new naval methods; the readypracticality which made him, after Drake's day, perhaps the ablest ofElizabeth's captains; the versatility and culture, which place him securelyin the second flight of the writers of the time; the breadth ofintellectual outlook which caused his enemies to call him an atheist, coupled with an actual sincerity of belief; boundless energy, daring, ambition. His too were the fiery temper and the contemptuous arrogancewhich made him at one time the best-hated man in England outside a narrowcircle of devoted admirers; while for all his pride he could match Hattonhimself in preposterous adulation of the Queen. He could be as chivalrousas Sidney, and as merciless as an Inquisitor: he could be gorgeouslyextravagant, or the veriest Spartan, as circumstances demanded. He was inbrief the epitome of Elizabeth's England: a figure assuredly very far fromgodlike but no less assuredly heroic. 

It may be doubted if ever the _joie de vivre_ was so generallyprevalent in England as in those spacious days. Such a national mood is indanger of being followed by a lapse into an effeminate hedonism, from whichEngland as a whole was saved by the antagonistic development of theessentially masculine if crude puritanism, whose vital spirit had alreadybegun to take possession of a large proportion of the population without asyet evicting paganism. Under this at present secondary impulse, attributable very largely to the new familiarity with the Old Testamentengendered by the translation of the Bible, men quickly learnt to look uponthemselves as the chosen people of the Lord of Sabaoth who gave them thevictory over their enemies, and to whom with entire sincerity they gave theglory; while they found a satisfying warrant in the Scriptures for spoilingthe Egyptians and smiting the Amalekites, symbolising specifically theSpaniards and the Irish. The particular aspect of Puritanism which belongsto rigid Calvinism, in all its grim austerity, was confined so far to avery limited section: for the majority an extensive biblical vocabulary wasconsistent with a thorough appreciation of virile carnal enjoyments: thedourness of John Knox hardly infected the neighbouring country. For themost part, even the intolerance of the age was not that born of religiousfanaticism, but was the normal outcome of a full-blooded self-confidence. The Elizabethans are apt to startle us by a display of apparently callouscruelty at one moment, and an almost reckless generosity at the next. Theyslaughtered the garrison of Smerwick in cold blood, and treated thevanquished at Cadiz with a chivalrous consideration which amazed itsrecipients. They kidnapped the sons of Ham from Africa for lucre; with the"Indians" of South and Central America they were always on excellent terms, and the Californians proffered divine honours to Francis Drake. These areparadoxes precisely similar in kind to those which so often puzzle amiableand mature observers of the British schoolboy to-day. Broadly, they weregoverned by instincts and impulses rather than by reasoned ethical theory, instincts occasionally barbaric but for the most part frank and generous;and they were sturdily loyal to the somewhat primitive code of right andwrong which was the outcome. 

[Sidenote 1: The Queen's Ministers][Sidenote 2: The Queen]

These qualities, joined with an indomitable audacity and an eminentlypractical shrewdness, were characteristic of the men who were the hand andheart of England. Other qualities were needed for the brains which had todirect her policy; the patient common sense of Burghley, the keenpenetration of Walsingham, the solid shrewdness of Nicholas Bacon, _virpietate gravis_. The craftiness of the younger Cecil, the time-servingof Francis Bacon, mark a lower type of politician; not rare perhaps inElizabeth's time, but not generally characteristic among her servants. Todraw full value, however, from the capacities of those statesmen, a monarchof exceptional ability was needed. It was the peculiar note of Elizabeth'sdealings with her ministers that having once realised their essentialmerits, she never withdrew her confidence. She flouted, insulted andbrowbeat them when their advice ran counter to her caprices; but no mansuffered in the long run for standing up to her, however she might beirritated. Nor can we attribute this to such a loyalty of disposition onher part as marked her rival Mary alone among Stuarts: to whom suchbaseness as she displayed in her treatment of Davison would have beenimpossible. Elizabeth had no sort of compunction in making scape-goats ofsuch men as he. But she knew the men who could not be replaced, a facultyrare in princes; she would never have deserted a Strafford as did Mary'sgrandson. She drove Burghley and Walsingham almost to despair by hercaprices; but if she overrode their judgment, it was not to displace themfor other advisers more congenial to her mood, but to take affairs into herown hands, and manipulate them with a cool defiance of apparentprobabilities, a duplicity so audacious that it passed for a kind ofsincerity, which gave her successes the appearance of being due to analmost supernatural good luck. Histrionics were her stock-in-trade: she waseternally playing a part, and playing it with such zest that she habituallycheated her neighbours, and occasionally, for the time being, even herself, into forgetting that her role was merely assumed for ulterior purposes. When a crisis was reached where there was no further use for play-acting, she was again the shrewd practical ruler who had merely been masked as thecomedienne. Other queens have been great by the display of intellectualqualities commonly accounted masculine, or of virtues recognised as thespecial glories of their own sex; Elizabeth had the peculiar ingenuitydeliberately to employ feminine weakness, incomprehensibility, and caprice, as the most bafflingly effective weapons in her armoury. 

A noble woman she was not. The miracle of virtues and charms depicted bycourtiers and poets existed, if she did exist at all, entirely in theirexuberant imaginations. She could be indecently coarse and intolerablymean; she could lie with unblushing effrontery; her vanity was inordinate. But voracious as she was of flattery it never misled her; she couldappreciate in others the virtues she herself lacked; behind the screen ofcapriciousness, an intellect was ever at work as cool and calculating asher grandfather's, as hard and resolute as her father's. To understand herPeople was her first aim, to make them great was her ultimate ambition. Andshe achieved both. 

APPENDICES

A. TABLES. I. Contemporary Rulers, 1475-1542. Ii. Do. Do. , 1542-1603. Iii. Genealogy of Lennox Stewarts. Iv. Genealogy of Howards and Boleyns. V. House of Habsburg. Vi. Houses of Valois and Bourbon. Vii. House of Guise. B. Claims to the English Throne. C. The Queen of Scots. D. Bibliography. 

APPENDIX A

[Tables omitted]

APPENDIX B

CLAIMS TO THE THRONE

CLAIMANTS TO THE CROWN OF ENGLAND

ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL; FROM 1485 TO 1603

When Henry of Richmond was hailed king of England on Bosworth Field, theprinciples and the practice of succession to the English throne were in astate of chaos; as far as hereditary right is concerned, his claim couldhardly have been weaker. The titles both of his son and grandson wereindisputable. Those of Mary and of Elizabeth were both questionable. FromElizabeth's accession to her death, it was uncertain who would succeed her. Accordingly, in the reign of Henry VII. We find actual pretenders putforward, and potential ones suspected and punished. No attempt was evermade to challenge Henry VIII. Or Edward VI. : but there were sundryexecutions on the hypothesis of a treasonous intent to grasp at the crown, in the reign of the former. Lady Jane Grey was set up against Mary, andElizabeth herself was under suspicion in that reign. Against Elizabeth, Mary Stewart's title was constantly urged; after the death of the Queen ofScots, Philip of Spain set up a claim on his own account; and at differenttimes, the claims to the succession of a large variety of candidates werecanvassed. It has seemed advisable therefore to give a completegenealogical table, which appears at the beginning of this volume: and thefollowing summary, for convenient reference. 

HENRY VII

It was perfectly certain that whoever was rightful king or queen of Englandin 1485, Richard III. Was personally a usurper who had secured the throneby murdering the king and his brother, and setting aside his other niecesand nephew, the children of his elder brothers of the House of York. Theyhowever were not in a position to assert themselves. If therefore therepresentative of the rival House of Lancaster could succeed in deposingthe usurper, he would thereby create a claim for himself, beyond that ofheredity, as the man who had released the nation from the tyrant; as HenryIV. Had done. If he married the heiress of York, the two would unite thehereditary claims of the rival Houses, and the title of their offspringwould be technically indisputable. 

Through his mother, Henry Tudor was now the acknowledged representative ofthe House of Lancaster. On the assumption--for which there was noindisputable precedent--that a woman could succeed in person, his motherhad the prior title, but since she did not appear as a claimant thattechnical difficulty could be passed over. On the like assumption, thePrincess Elizabeth represented the House of York. Henry thus stood for theone House, the Princess Elizabeth for the other. Henry deposed and killedRichard. As soon as Elizabeth was his wife, and while both he and shelived, no one living could with much plausibility assert a priorclaim. Henry's own personal claim however would continue disputable (thoughnot his children's) in the event of his wife's demise; therefore, tostrengthen his position, he sought and obtained the ratification of his owntitle by parliament before marrying Elizabeth, so as to have a sort oflegal claim independent of her. 

Still, until the sons of this union should be old enough to maintain theirown rights in person, there remained the obvious possibility that theclaims of a male member of the House of York might be asserted: the malemembers living being Warwick, and, through their mother, his De la Polecousins. 

Now the hereditary claim of the House of Lancaster, descending from John ofGaunt, the fourth son of Edward III. , required _ab initio_ theassumption that descent must be in direct male line; for if successionthrough the female line were recognised, the House of York had the priorclaim, as descending through females from Lionel of Clarence third son ofEdward III. But when Henry VI. And his son were both dead, there was leftno representative of John of Gaunt in direct male line. The only malePlantagenet remaining was young Warwick, son of George of Clarence, of theHouse of York; Plantagenet in virtue of his descent, in unbroken male line, not from Lionel of Clarence but from Edmund of York, fifth son of EdwardIII. 

Thus, except on the hypothesis that the settlement of 1399 had excluded theentire House of York from the succession, no Lancastrian claim could holdwater, technically. Granting succession through females, Elizabeth was theheir; denying it, Warwick was the heir. 

Although accepted as the sole possible representative of John of Gaunt, andtherefore of the House of Lancaster, Henry Tudor's claim to that positionlay only in the female line, through his Beaufort blood. This title was themore ineffective because the Beauforts themselves were the illegitimateoffspring of John of Gaunt by Katharine Swynford, and had only beenlegitimated by Act of Parliament under Richard II. ; while even thatlegitimation had been rendered invalid, as concerned succession to thethrone, by the Act of Henry IV. Which in other respects confirmed it. 

Nevertheless although there were other indubitably legitimate descendantsof John of Gaunt living, no claim on behalf of any of them was put forwardtill a full century had elapsed. The royal House of Portugal sprang fromthe second and that of Castile from the third daughter of Lancaster; sothat after the death of Mary Stewart, Philip II. Of Spain, posing as theirrepresentative, claimed the inheritance, ignoring the superior title of hiscousin Katharine of Braganza. But in 1485, the title of any alien wouldhave been flatly repudiated by the whole country. There remained only inEngland, descending through his mother from John of Gaunt's eldestdaughter, a young Neville who had just succeeded to the Earldom ofWestmorland; whose line was extinguished in the person of the Earl who tookpart in the Northern rising of 1569. This branch however appears to havebeen completely ignored from first to last. 

The vital fact remained, that Henry was the representative, acknowledged onall hands, of the House of Lancaster. He claimed the throne on that ground, ratified the claim on the field of Bosworth, and confirmed it by aParliamentary title. The Plantagenet Princess, he married: their offspringcombined the titles of the two Houses. The Plantagenet Earl was shut up inthe Tower, and finally perished on the scaffold without offspring. 

The accession of Henry was bound politically, in spite of his marriage, tohave the effect of a Lancastrian victory. The extreme Yorkist partisans, who could always find asylum and encouragement with Margaret of Burgundy, were not likely to be satisfied with such a result; but they had nothingapproaching a case for anyone except the young Earl of Warwick, a prisonerin the Tower. Hence the first attempt was to put forward a fictitiousWarwick, Lambert Simnel. This scheme collapsed at the battle of Stoke. Thenit was that the Yorkists fell back on the resuscitation of Richard of York, murdered in the Tower with Edward V. If he was alive, his title could notbe seriously challenged. So he was brought to life in the person of PerkinWarbeck. When Warwick and Perkin were both dead, there was no one to fallback on but the De la Poles of Suffolk; since at this stage the two seniorYorkist branches--the Courtenays of Devon, and the Poles (a quite differentfamily from the De la Poles) could not be erected into dangerouscandidates. [See _Frontispiece. _] The claims of the Courtenays wouldderive from the younger daughter of Edward IV. : those of the Poles from theCountess of Salisbury, Warwick's sister: those of the De la Poles fromElizabeth, sister of Edward IV. 

HENRY VIII

Under Henry VIII. , there was no claim which could stand against the king'sown. But in the course of his reign, he found it convenient to put out ofthe way Buckingham, who was not only (like the Tudors) of Beaufort bloodbut also traced descent from Thomas, sixth son of Edward III. ; andtwenty-five years later his grandson Surrey: also the heads of the De laPoles, the Poles, and the Courtenays. 

EDWARD VI

Edward succeeded his father as a matter of course, being his oneindubitably legitimate son. But who was to follow Edward? Henry had twodaughters, born ostensibly in wedlock. But the marriages of both mothershad been pronounced void by the courts. _Prima facie_ therefore, thesuccession went first to the offspring of Henry's eldest sister Margaret;but these might be ruled out as aliens. Next it would go to the offspringof his younger sister Mary, the Brandons, of whom the senior was FrancesGrey; who however gave place (as Margaret of Richmond had done for HenryVII. ) to her daughter Lady Jane. It will thus be seen that Lady Jane hadtechnically a respectable title. It left out of count however that theLennox Stewarts, the offspring of Margaret Tudor by her second marriage, were English as well as Scottish subjects and therefore not barred asaliens. 

But, in spite of the ruling of the Courts, no one who believed in the Papalauthority could admit that Mary Tudor was illegitimate. Again both she andElizabeth were the children of unions entered on in _bona fides, _ andonly invalidated subsequently on technical grounds: grounds, in the onecase, inadequate in the eyes of the Roman Church, and in the other nevermade public. Hence; although it is perfectly clear that if Katharine wasHenry's lawful spouse, the marriage with Anne was bigamous and itsoffspring illegitimate, whereas, if Anne was Henry's lawful spouse then themarriage with Katharine was void from the beginning and its offspringillegitimate--that is, while both Mary and Elizabeth might be illegitimate, it was quite impossible that both should be legitimate--yet the advantagesof setting the whole problem on one side by acknowledging the right of eachto the succession, in order, were obvious. And this was done by the Will ofHenry VIII. To which Parliament by anticipation gave the validity of astatute. 

Mary then succeeded Edward, and Elizabeth succeeded Mary, in virtue oftheir recognition under Henry's will. 

ELIZABETH

On Elizabeth's accession then; the validity of Henry's Will being admitted, no other title could stand against that instrument, and the Brandon branchwould succeed in priority to the Stewarts. But evidently it could be arguedthat no instrument whatever could confer priority on an illegitimate heirover a legitimate one; or on a junior over a senior branch; and since nosecular authority had power to annul the marriage between Henry andKatharine, nothing after Mary Tudor's death could set aside the title ofMary Stewart. Mary might accede to an arrangement as a matter of policy, but she could not abrogate her right, or admit that she was barred as analien. On the other hand, the Greys might be pushed forward under the Willas heirs, in opposition to Mary; but they could not be seriously upheld asrivals to Elizabeth herself; and the same applied to the livingrepresentatives of the Poles, the Earl of Huntingdon and Arthur Pole. Therewere now no De la Poles, nor Courtenays. 

With Mary Stewart as the only possible figure-head for a revolt, Elizabethhad no disposition to strengthen her position by acknowledging her as heirpresumptive, since that would be an immediate incentive to her ownassassination by Mary's adherents, who would be anxious to secure theircandidate against the possible appearance of an heir apparent. It was saferto leave the question of her successor an open one, so that any overt actin favour of any particular candidate would be tolerably certain to recoilon that candidate's head. Therefore Elizabeth would acknowledge neitherMary nor another, though it can hardly be doubted that she did herself lookupon the royal Stewarts as the rightful claimants, throughout her reign. 

But when the Queen of Scots was dead, the Catholics were at once in want ofa Catholic candidate. James of Scotland was a Protestant: so was Arabella, representing the Lennox Stewarts; so were Katharine Grey and her husbandLord Hertford (the son of the old Protector Somerset); so was their son. Lord Beauchamp; Huntingdon, the Pole representative, was a Protestant too. The Countess of Derby, like Katharine Grey, was a grandchild of MaryBrandon; but the Stanleys, though Catholics, rejected all overtures. AsElizabeth's end approached, various schemes were no doubt propounded formarrying Arabella to a Catholic, even to Beauchamp on the understandingthat both were in due time to declare themselves Catholics. But theimmediate result of Mary Stewart's death was that Philip of Spain enteredthe field as the Catholic candidate, as tracing descent from John of Gauntthrough both his father and his mother. Later, his daughter Isabella wasput forward. 

From the legitimist point of view however the title of James of Scotlandwas indisputable. The stroke of deliberate policy by which Henry VII. Hadmated his eldest daughter to the Scots King James IV. Bore its fruit when, precisely a hundred years later, the crowns of England and Scotland wereunited by the accession of Margaret's great-grandson to the southernthrone. 

APPENDIX C

THE QUEEN OF SCOTS

The life of Mary Tudor has been in its place described as supremely tragic;that of Mary Stewart presents a tragedy not greater but more dramatic--whatever view we may take of her guilt or innocence with regard to Darnley, to Bothwell, to the conspirators who would fain have made her Queen ofEngland. Of the misdeeds laid to her charge, that of unchastity has nocolourable evidence except in the case of Bothwell, for whom it may beconsidered certain that she had an overwhelming passion; and even there theevidence is not more than colourable. That she was _cognisant_ of theintended murder of Darnley can be doubted only by a very warm partisan: butin weighing the criminality even of that, it must be remembered not onlythat Darnley himself had murdered her secretary before her eyes, and hadinsulted her past forgiveness, but that _political_ assassinationswere connived at by the morals of the times. Henry VIII. Had preferred tocommit his murders through the forms of law, but had encouraged theassassination of Cardinal Beton which John Knox applauded. In Italy, everyprominent man lived constantly on his guard against the cup and the dagger. Philip, Parma, Alva, Mendoza, encouraged the murder of Elizabeth, andincited or approved that of Orange. The royal House of France was directlyresponsible for the slaughter of St. Bartholomew. Henry III. Of Franceassassinated Henry of Guise; the Guises in turn assassinated Henry. Many ofthe Scottish nobility, including certainly Lethington and Morton, if notMurray, were beyond question as deep as Mary, if not deeper, in the murderof Darnley. And in England it may be said frankly that there was nosentiment against political murder, but only against murder withoutsanction of Law. Given a person whose life was regarded as possiblydangerous to the State, the public conscience was entirely satisfied if anycolourable pretext could be found on which the legal authorities couldprofess to find warrant for a death sentence, though the proof, on moderntheories of evidence, might be wholly inconclusive. In plain terms, ifMary had not followed up the murder by marrying the "first murderer, " thedeed would not have been regarded as particularly atrocious, or as placingher in any way outside the pale. But that marriage was fatal. Darnley waskilled because while he lived his intellectual and moral turpitude wereperfectly certain to wreck his wife's political schemes; but the newmarriage was equally destructive politically and drove home the belief thatpassion, not politics, was the real motive of the murder. Whether politicsor passion were the real motive, whether either would have sufficed withoutthe other, whether even together they would have sufficed without the thirdmotive of revenge for Rizzio, no human judgment can tell. But if understress of those three motives in combination, Mary connived at the murder, it proves indeed that her judgment failed her, but not that according tothe standards of the day she was unusually wicked. 

As to her conduct in England--whatever it was--in connexion with theRidolfi, Throgmorton, and Babington plots. In the first place, she owedElizabeth no gratitude. She was perfectly well aware that the Queen kepther alive because--unlike her ministers and her people--she thought Maryalive was on the whole more useful than dangerous. Mary always without anysort of concealment asserted throughout the eighteen years of her captivityher quite indisputable right to appeal to the European Powers fordeliverance. She always denied that she had any part in or knowledge ofschemes for Elizabeth's assassination. Those denials were never met by anyevidence [Footnote: Cf. Hume in _State Papers, Spanish, _ III. , iii. ]more conclusive than alleged copies of deciphered correspondence, or theconfessions of prisoners on the rack or under threat of it. But assumingthat her denials were false, that in one or other instance or in all threeshe was guilty, she did only what Valois and Habsburg and half the leadingstatesmen in Europe were doing, with the approbation of Rome, and withoutMary's excuse. For they had the opportunity of overthrowing Coligny, Orange, Henry of Guise, and Elizabeth herself in fair fight; Mary had not:her crime therefore at the worst was infinitely less than theirs. To acaged captive much may be forgiven which in those others could not beforgiven. 

And if in her prison she did assent to her own deliverance byassassination, and condescend (as no doubt she did) to use in some of herdealings with her captor some of that duplicity whereof that captor washerself a past mistress--if she used on her own behalf the weapons whichwere freely employed against her--she displayed at all times otherqualities which were splendidly royal. She never betrayed, never disowned, never forgot a faithful servant or a loyal friend. If she bewitched the menwho came in contact with her, she was the object of a no less passionatedevotion on the part of all her women; not that transient if vehementemotion which a fascinating fiend can arouse when she wills, but a devotionpersistent and enduring. And withal she dreed her weird with a loftycourage, faced it full front with a high defiance, which must bespeak forever the admiration at least of every generous spirit. 

All this we may say and yet do justice to the attitude towards her of thepeople of England. For to them, her life was a perpetual menace. The ideaof her succession was to half of them unendurable, yet if Elizabeth died itcould be averted only at the cost of a fierce civil war, aggravated almostcertainly by a foreign invasion. About her, plots were eternally brewingwhich if they came to a head must involve the whole nation in a bloodystrife. She engaged when she could in negotiations which could not dootherwise than imperil the peace of the realm. If no law or precedent couldbe found applicable to such a situation, there was clear moraljustification for removing such a public danger in the only possible way. Mary's release would only have aggravated it; her death was the onesolution. England had no hesitation in assuming the grim responsibilitywhich the Queen of England was fain to evade at her servants' expense. 

APPENDIX D

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The works enumerated in this bibliography are such as may usually be foundin the larger public libraries, or are available to members of the LondonLibrary. In most cases a few words of description are added, and the wholelist has been so classified that the reader--it is hoped--will be ablewithout much difficulty to pick out those volumes which will best help himwhether to a general view or in gathering detailed information on specificpoints. 

 * * * * *

To a student "taking up" the Tudor period, the best brief generalintroduction, as a preliminary survey of the whole subject is to be found--judging from the writer's early experiences--in two small volumes in the"Epoch" Series (Longmans), Seebohm's _Era of the ProtestantRevolution, _ and Creighton's _Age of Elizabeth. _

The continuous narrative, _in extenso, _ is presented consecutively in_The Tudor Period, _ vol. I. , by W. Busch (translated by A. M. Todd)for Henry VII. : Brewer's _Henry VIII. _ (2 vols. ) for Henry VIII. Tothe fall of Wolsey: Froude's _History of England_ (12 vols. ) from thefall of Wolsey to the Armada--cautious though the reader must be; withMajor Martin Hume's _Treason and Plot_ for Elizabeth's closing years. 

Proceeding to the detailed list; the first division gives authoritiescovering all sections of the Tudor Period. Then, under each reign, are theauthorities for that reign, selected as being on the whole the mostprominent or the most informing. These are divided into contemporary, _i. E. _ Tudor; Intermediate; and Modern, _i. E. _ publications(roughly) of the last half century. Further classification is introduced, where it seems likely to be of assistance. 

TUDOR PERIOD CONTEMPORARY

The _Carew Papers_ (Ireland). 

_Four Masters, Chronicle of The:_ Celtic Chronicles, collated andtranslated _circa_ 1632 by four Irish Priests. Hakluyt's_Voyages_. 

The _Hatfield Papers_ (Historical MSS. Commission). The period beforeElizabeth occupies only half of vol. I. ; the rest of which, with thefollowing volumes of the series, is devoted to that reign. Rymer's_Foedera_. Stow, _Annals_ and _Survey of London andWestminster_. 

INTERMEDIATE

Hallam's _Constitutional History of England_. A valuable study of theconstitutional aspects of the period; and especially of the attitude of theGovernment to the great religious sections of the community. 

Hook's _Lives of the Archbishops_; a work somewhat coloured by theauthor's ecclesiastical predilections. 

Lingard's _History of England_; a fair-minded account written avowedlyfrom a Roman Catholic point of view. Valuable data have however beenbrought to light since Lingard wrote. 

Von Ranke's _Englische Geschichte_, translated as "_History ofEngland principally in the seventeenth century_": not a detailed historyof this period, but marked by the Author's keen historical insight. 

------ _History of the Popes_, for those aspects of the periodsuggested by the title: see also Macaulay's _Essay_ on this work. 

Strype's _Ecclesiastical Memorials_, containing transcripts of manyimportant documents. The compiler however occasionally went astray; as in aremarkable instance noted at p. 129. 

MODERN

Ashley, W. J. , _Introduction to English Economic History_. Brown, P. Hume, _History of Scotland_. 

_Cambridge Modern History_: vol. Ii. , The Reformation. Useful forreference, and containing a very full bibliography of the subject. Cc. Xiii. -xvi. Deal more particularly with England. Also vol. Iii. , The Wars ofReligion. 

Chambers, _Cyclopaedia of English Literature_, containing usefulsurveys, criticisms, and extracts. [New edition. ]

Chambers, E. K. , _The Mediaeval Stage_, invaluable prolegomena to aHistory of the Elizabethan stage as yet unwritten. Clowes, Sir W. Laird, _The Royal Navy_; vol. I. 

Cunningham, W. , _Growth of English Industry and Commerce_: the bestEconomic Authority. _Dictionary of National Biography_. 

Green, J. R. , _Short History of the English People_, admirablyreproducing the atmosphere of the period. 

Lang, Andrew, _History of Scotland_, vols. I. And ii. : a strongcorrective to the ordinary English treatment of Scottish relations. 

Morley, Henry, _English Writers_; partly critical, partlyconsisting of numerous and ample extracts. 

Rait, J. S. , _Relations between England and Scotland, 500 to 1707_. Ashort study. 

Rogers, Thorold, _Six Centuries of Work and Wages_, and _History ofAgriculture and Prices_. 

_Social England_, edd. H. D. Traill and J. S. Mann. Contributions byleading authorities, dealing at length with aspects commonly neglected inPolitical Histories. 

Stubbs (Bishop), _Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and ModernHistory_; and _Lectures on European History_ (pub. 1904, deliveredtwenty-five years earlier); very useful to the student, from theirextremely lucid method. 

HENRY VII CONTEMPORARY

André, Bernard, _De Vita atque gestis Henrici Septimi_, and _AnnalesHenrici Septimi_ (to be found in Gairdner's _Memorials, infra_). André was the court historiographer, and was blind. Honest, butnot altogether trustworthy, or adequate. 

Fabyan, Robert, _New Chronicles of England and France_, (supplement), ed. Ellis: and _London Chronicle_: both, in their present form, probably summaries from the original record compiled by Fabyan as theevents took place; upon which original it would seem that both Hall andStow largely based their Chronicles of the reign. 

Hall, Edward, _Chronicle_: compiled chiefly from Polydore Vergil, andFabyan for this reign. For Henry VIII. , he is literally a contemporary. 

_Italian Relation, An_, (Author unknown: ed. Camden Society), by anItalian visitor to England. 

_Letters and Papers, Richard III. And Henry VII. _, ed. Gairdner. 

_Letters and Papers Henry VIII. _, (vols. I. And ii. ) ed. Brewer. 

_Letters, Despatches and State Papers_, from Simancas, ed. Bergenroth. Spanish relations. 

Lyndsay of Pitscottie, _Historie of Scotland_: picturesque but not tootrustworthy. 

Macchiavelli, N. , _The Prince_. An interesting contrast to thepolitical philosophy of the _Utopia_. 

_Memorials of Henry VII. _, ed. Gairdner: contemporary records. 

More, Sir T. , _Utopia_, first book (illustrating social and economicconditions). 

_Paston Letters_, ed. Gairdner; correspondence of the Pastonfamily. 

Polydore Vergil, _Historiae Anglicae Libri_. P. V. Was an Italian whocame to England in 1502. For the earlier years of Henry VII. He had accessto good sources of information; for the latter years he was a witness, butwith the inevitable limitations of a foreign observer. 

INTERMEDIATE

Bacon, Francis, _History of the Reign of King Henry VII. _ This hasbeen the basis of all the popular histories, for the reign. It is oftenreferred to as "contemporary". But Bacon was not born till fifty yearsafter Henry's death, and did not write the history till he was over fiftyhimself. His work contains much that is merely rhetorical amplification ofabove named contemporary authorities, with occasional imaginativevariations and misreadings: nor does he appear to have had additionalsources of information. 

Ware, _De Hibernia;_ a supplement to which contains annals of IrishHistory in the reign of Henry VII. ; written in the time of Charles I. 

MODERN

Busch, Wilhelm, _England under the Tudors, _ vol. I. , Henry VII. Translated by A. M. Todd. The one complete and thorough account of thereign, with an exhaustive examination of the authorities: and notes byJ. Gairdner. 

Gairdner, J. , _Henry VII. _ (Twelve English Statesmen series), anadmirable study but with less detail; written before Busch's work waspublished. 

Seebohm, F. , _The Oxford Reformers, _ Colet, Erasmus and More: anilluminating study. 

HENRY VIII

CONTEMPORARY: A. DOCUMENTARY

_Calendar of State Papers_

(1) _State Papers, Henry VIII. _ A series of eleven volumes editedbefore the commencement of the series next named. These are referred to inthis work as "S. P. "; and the next series mentioned, as "L. & P. "

(2) _Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the reign of HenryVIII. _ Vols. I. -iv. Ed. Brewer, vols. V. Ff. Ed. J. Gairdner andothers. Dr. Brewer carried his work down to the fall of Wolsey, arrangingall available documents so far as possible chronologically, but withoutother classification. His introductions have been edited as two solidvolumes (_v. Infra_) by Dr. Gairdner. The subsequent editors wererestricted as to the length of introduction permitted but the same systemof arrangement is followed. Throughout, all documents of any importance aretranscribed with fulness. 

(3) _State Papers, Venetian, _ (4) _State Papers, Ireland, _ (5)(State Papers, Spanish;_ all official collections throwing some light on(various aspects of the history. [2, 3, and 5 belong to the Rolls series. ]

_Hamilton Papers_ (Scotland) 2 vols. : full transcriptions of theHamilton collection of Papers. 

_Letters of Thomas Cromwell, _ ed. Merriman, a complete collection ofall the available letters of Cromwell, with a historical survey. 

B. CHRONICLES AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Buchanan, G. , _History of Scotland;_ the author was an excellentscholar but a violent partisan with a rudimentary idea of evidence. 

Cavendish, _Life of Cardinal Wolsey_. The author was a member ofWolsey's household, from 1526, and regarded him with affection andadmiration. 

Fabyan: see under Henry VII. 

Fish, Simon, _The Supplicacyon for the Beggers, _ a pamphletillustrating the most extravagant anti-clerical attitude, just beforeWolsey's fall. 

Foxe, J. , _Acts and Monuments, _ commonly known as the "_Book ofMartyrs_". The work of a strong but honest partisan and a good hater. _Narratives of the Reformation_ by the same author. 

Hall's Chronicle: see under Henry VII. 

Holinshed, Raphael, _Chronicle_: compiled in the reign ofElizabeth. It forms with Hall's Chronicle, the basis of the popularimpressions of English History down to Elizabeth, partly no doubt becauseShakespeare, drawing upon those works, has made those popular impressionspermanent. 

Knox, John, _History of the Reformation;_ less valuable perhaps as arecord of facts set forth with a strong bias than as a revelation of themental attitude of the great Reformer and his followers. 

Latimer, Hugh, _Sermons_. 

Lyndsay, Sir David, _Poetical Works, _ for Social and Ecclesiasticalconditions in Scotland. 

Lyndsay of Pitscottie, _Historie of Scotland_. See under Henry VII. 

More, Thomas, _Utopia_ (1516) expresses the ideas of an advancedpolitical thinker, and incidentally, directly or by implication, conveysmuch information as to prevalent social economic and intellectualconditions. 

Pole, Reginald (Cardinal), _Epistolae, _ illustrating the Cardinal'sown views. 

Roper, W. , _Life of Sir T. More, _ whose son-in-law the author was. 

Sanders, Nicholas, _History of the Anglican Schism_ presented from theextreme (contemporary) Catholic point of view. 

Skelton, J. , _Poems_. 

Macchiavelli, N. , _The Prince_. 

INTERMEDIATE

Burnet, Gilbert, _History of the Reformation;_ painstaking, liberal-minded and Orthodox, but requiring modification in the light oflater information. 

Prescott, _Conquest of Mexico and Peru_: the classical work on thesubject. 

Robertson, _Charles V_. 

Strype, _Memorials of Cranmer_. 

MODERN: A. GENERAL

Armstrong, E. , _Charles V_. , the best record of the Emperor's career. 

Brewer, J. S. , _The Reign of Henry VIII. _: Introductions to thevols. Of "L. & P. " to the fall of Wolsey: edited in 2 vols. By J. Gairdner. Incomparable as an examination and exposition of the Cardinal'scareer. 

Creighton (Bishop), _Wolsey_ (in the Twelve English Statesmen series), practically an exposition of Brewer for the general reader. 

Froude, J. A. , _History of England_ from the fall of Wolsey to thedefeat of the Armada. An English classic, but an unsafe guide. Mr. Froudestudied and made use of an immense mass of evidence not before available;but his transcriptions and summaries are not always distinguishable noralways accurate. He was unable to describe otherwise than picturesquely andimpressively, and his colouring of events is frequently imaginative; he wasoverpowered by an anti-clerical passion and an almost blind enthusiasm forHenry VIII. 

Oppenheim, M. , _History of the Administration of the Royal Navy, etc. _

Seebohm, F. , _Era of the Protestant Revolution_ ("Epoch" series), professedly for school use, but extremely useful to even advanced students. 

Pollard, A. F. , _Henry VIII. ;_ a sumptuous study. 

MODERN: B. REFORMATION

Dixon, R. W. , _History of the English Church_ (vols. I. And ii. ):actually, of the Reformation in England, down to Elizabeth. Further volumeshave however been added. The author holds a brief against theanti-clericals of every kind; his view may be summarised as Anglo-Catholic:the precise antithesis of Froude. He is full and careful in his documentaryevidence, but is so persistently ironical as occasionally to convey_prima facie_ an impression diametrically opposed to what wasintended. 

Gairdner, J. , _History of the English Church in the SixteenthCentury, _ concluding with the death of Mary. An admirably judicialsurvey, with a moderate predilection for the Conservative side. 

Gasquet, F. A. , _Henry VIII. And the English Monasteries, _ and _TheEve of the Reformation_. Very able and judicial statements of the casefor Home and the loyal Roman Catholics. 

Innes, A. D. , _Cranmer and the English Reformation_ (in "The World'sEpoch Makers"): a short study. 

Mason, A. J. , _Thomas Cranmer_ (in "Leaders of Religion"): a shortstudy. 

Moore, Aubrey, _History of the Reformation_. This volume consistsalmost entirely of notes, varying in fulness, for courses of lecturesdelivered by Canon Moore. The student will find them of much assistance inclassifying and correlating events, and touched with flashes ofinsight. The High Anglican position is taken for granted throughout. 

Pollard, A. F. , _Cranmer_ (in "Heroes of the Reformation" series);somewhat fuller than the above-mentioned studies. 

Seebohm, F. , _The Oxford Reformers_. (See under Henry VII. )

Taunton, E. , _Thomas Wolsey, Reformer and Legate_--from the Romanpoint of view. 

Westcott (Bishop), _History of the English Bible_. 

EDWARD VI

CONTEMPORARY: A. DOCUMENTARY

_Calendar of State Papers, Edward VI. , etc. , Domestic;_ vol. I. (Rolls. ) Little more than a catalogue. Somewhat amplified by the Addenda invol. Vi. 

_Calendar of State Papers, Edward VI. , Foreign, _ 1 vol. (Rolls. )Fairly full. 

_Calendar of Scottish State Papers, _ Ed. Bain. 

_Hamilton Papers_ (Scotland). 

B. CHRONICLES AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Buchanan, _History of Scotland_. 

Foxe, _Acts and Monuments_. 

Holinshed, _Chronicle_. 

Knox, _History of the Reformation_. 

Lyndsay of Pitscottie, _Historie of Scotland_. 

_Literary Remains of Edward VI. , _ Ed. Nichols. 

Pole, Reginald, _Epistolae_. 

Sanders, Nicholas, _History of the Anglican Schism_. 

Smith, Sir T. , _De Republica Anglorum_

INTERMEDIATE

As for Henry VIII. 

MODERN: A. GENERAL

Armstrong, E. , _Charles V. _

Dicey, A. V. , _The Privy Council_. 

Froude, J. A. , _History of England_. In this and the next reign, Mr. Froude is much less erratic. 

Oppenheim, M. , _The Royal Navy, etc. _

Pollard, A. F. , _England under Protector Somerset_. The best work onthe time; though the impression given of Somerset is somewhat morefavourable than the facts quite warrant, the rehabilitation was to a greatextent necessary and justified. Much information as to authorities is givenin the bibliography. 

Tytler, P. F. , _England in the Reigns of Edward VI. And Mary_. 

B. REFORMATION

Dixon, _History of the English Church, _ vols. Iii, iv. 

Gairdner, J. , _History of the English Church in the SixteenthCentury. _

Gasquet, F. A. , _Edward VI. And the Book of Common Prayer_. 

Innes, A. D. , _Cranmer and the English Reformation_. 

Mason, A. J. , _Thomas Cranmer_. 

Moore, Aubrey, _History of the Reformation_. 

Pollard, A, F. , _Cranmer_. 

MARY

CONTEMPORARY

_Calendar of State Papers, Mary, Foreign, _ 1 vol. 

Otherwise, the list of contemporary authorities is the same as for EdwardVI. , with some omissions. The _Domestic Calendar, Edward VI. , etc. _(vol. I. ) extends on to 1580: and the remaining vols. To the end ofElizabeth bear the same title. 

INTERMEDIATE

As for Henry VIII. 

MODERN

Stone, J. M. , _Mary I. Queen of England_ takes the place of _Englandunder Protector Somerset_ for Edward VI. The facts are fairly andhonestly stated; though the perspective differs considerably from that ofProtestant writers, the bias is not nearly so marked as in the samewriter's work on the _Renaissance_: and the portrait of Mary herselfis probably the truest we have. 

Otherwise, the list for Edward VI. Is practically repeated for Mary. 

ELIZABETH

CONTEMPORARY: A. DOCUMENTARY

_Calendar of State Papers, Edward VI. , etc. , Domestic_: (Rolls). Vol. I. 1547-80. A meagre catalogue. Vol. Ii. 1580-90, somewhat lessmeagre. Vols. Iii. -vi. 1590-1603, generally full transcriptions; but theIntroductions are of much less use to the student than in _Henry VIII. L. & P. , _ or the other "Rolls" series of Elizabeth. Vols. Vi. And vii. , addenda to vols. I. And ii. ; the description, as for vols. Iii-vi. 

_Calendar of State Papers, Foreign, Elizabeth_: (Rolls). 14 vols. , 1558-81. Very full and informing; the introductions being very usefulguides to the contents. 

_Calendar of State Papers, Irish_: (Rolls). Sufficiently full andsatisfactory. 

_Calendar of State Papers, Spanish_: (Rolls). 1558-1603. Selected andtranslated by Major Martin Hume, chiefly from the Simancas archives. Veryvaluable, and full for most of the period. 

_Slate Papers relating to the Spanish Armada_: 2 vols. : ed. ProfessorLaughton, whose Introduction is of great interest. _Sidle Papers:Scotland and Mary Queen of Scots_. _Hamilton Papers_. _HardwickePapers_. _Letters of Mary Queen of Scots_: ed. A. Strickland. _Statutes and Constitutional Documents_: ed G. W. Prothero. 

B. CHRONICLES AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Buchanan, _History of Scotland_. Camden, W. , _Britannia_, asurvey of the realm, and _Annals of Queen_ _Elizabeth_. Foxe, J. , _Book of Martyrs_. Holinshed, _Chronicle_. Knox, John, _Works_. Lesley, John (Bishop of Ross), _History of Scotland_. The Bishop was in constant diplomatic employment, on behalf of Mary. Lyndsay of Pitscottie, _Historie of Scotland_, ending 1563. _Marprelate_ Tracts. Sanders, N. , _History of the AnglicanSchism_. Raleigh, Sir W. , _Works;_ notably _The Discovery ofGuiana_, _The Fight at_ _the Azores_, and the _Relation ofthe Cadiz Action_. But the works contain _passim_ discussions whichthrow light on contemporary history. Spenser, E. , _Faerie Queen_, BookI. ; the Elizabethan spirit embodied in poetry. Not less necessary to asympathetic understanding of the times than the Canterbury Tales, orMilton's Poems, for other periods. 

INTERMEDIATE

Burnet, _History of the Reformation_. Macaulay, Lord, Essay on_Burleigh and his Times_, ostensibly a critique on the NaresBiography. Nares, E. , _Memoirs of Lord Burleigh_. Neal, D. , _Historyof the Puritans_. Strype, _Annals of the Reformation_; and _Livesof Parker_, _Grindal_, and _Whitgift_. Wright, T. , _QueenElisabeth and her Times_. 

MODERN

Beesley, E. S. , _Queen Elizabeth_ in the Twelve English Statesmenseries. Rather a biography than a history; _i. E. _ the Queen'spersonality holds almost exclusive possession of the stage. Brown, P. Hume, _Scotland in the Time of Queen Mary_; a study of socialconditions, not politics or persons, in Scotland; inferentially, useful tothe student of English social conditions. 

Corbett, J. , _Drake and the Tudor Navy_, 2 vols. , the most completestudy of the Naval development under Elizabeth. Indispensable for thissubject. Also _Drake_ in the English Men of Action series. 

Creighton (Bishop), _Queen Elizabeth_. 

Dixon, _History of the English Church_. 

Fleming, D. Hay, _Mary Queen of Scots; (to her captivity in England). 

Frere, W. H. , _History of the English Church_. 

Froude, _History of England_, vols. Vii. -xii. ; closing with theArmada. Mary Queen of Scots is the wicked heroine, Burghley the hero, thedramatic presentation of other characters depending largely on--and varyingwith--their relations to these two. These preconceptions must be borne inmind, in following a most fascinating narrative. Mr. Froude accumulated anunprecedented quantity of evidence, but does not always present it withaccuracy, or weigh its value. The _Elizabethan Seamen_ is also aninteresting and graphic study. 

Harrison, F. , _William the Silent_, in the "Foreign Statesmen" series. 

Hosack, J. , _Mary Queen of Scots and her Accusers_, a vigorouspresentation of the case on Mary's behalf. 

Hume, Martin: (1) _The Courtships of Queen Elizabeth_--a specialaspect of the reign which called for a specific treatment. (2) _The LoveAffairs of Mary Queen of Scots_ treated from the political, not thedramatic, point of view. (3) _The Great Lord Burghley_, a sympatheticstudy. (4) _The Year after the Armada_, to be read in conjunction withCorbett's _Drake_. (5) _Treason and Plot_, the best account ofthe Queen's closing years. (6) _Life of Sir Walter Ralegh_. (7)Introductions to the _State Papers, Spanish, Elizabeth_. 

Jusserand, J. J. , _The Elizabethan Novel_, a very interesting study, by a Frenchman, of this particular literary development; and _A LiteraryHistory of the English People_. 

Lang, Andrew, _The Mystery of Mary Stewart_, a most ingeniousexamination of a practically insoluble problem: performed in the truespirit of historical investigation. The conclusions, with a less exhaustivetreatment of the evidence, are presented in the _History ofScotland_--which is also a running criticism on English affairs as theyaffected, or were affected by, Scotland. 

Laughton, Introduction to the _State Papers relating to the Armada_. 

Lee, Sidney, _Life of Shakespeare_; and _Great Englishmen of theSixteenth Century_. 

Moore, Aubrey, _History of the Reformation_. 

Motley, J. R. , _Rise of the Dutch Republic_, the classical work on thesubject. 

Oppenheim, M. , _History of the Administration of the Royal Navy, etc. _

Procter, F. , and Frere, W. H. , _New History of the Book of CommonPrayer_. 

Rodd, Sir Rennell, _Raleigh_ in English Men of Action series. 

Seeley, Sir J. R. , _The Expansion of England_, lecture v. ; and, _TheGrowth of British Policy_ from Elizabeth to William III. (2 vols. ). 

Sichel, E. , _Catherine de Medici_, etc. ; an account of some leadingcharacters on the Continent. 

Skelton, J. , _Maitland of Lethington_, an able study of the "ScottishMacchiavelli". 

Tomlinson, J. R. , _The Prayer-Book, Articles, Homilies_--from astrongly "Protestant" point of view. 

[Illustration: Spanish America about 1580]