History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Death of Elizabeth. Vol. III

by James Anthony Froude

ANNE OF CLEVES, AND THE FALL OF CROMWELL.

Increasing impatience of the country for the king’s marriage.

The king’s marriage could not be longer delayed. Almost three years had been wasted in fruitless negotiations, and the state of his health threatened, more and more clearly, that his life would not be prolonged to any advanced period. The death of the Duke of Richmond[511] was a fresh evidence of the absence of vital stamina in Henry’s male children; and the anxious and impatient people saw as yet but a single fragile life between the country and a disputed succession. The disloyal Romanists alone desired to throw obstacles between the king and a fresh connexion—alone calumniated his motives, and looked forward hopefully to the possible and probable confusion.

The recommendation of Anne of Cleaves.

Among the ladies who had been considered suitable to take the place of Queen Jane, the name had been mentioned, with no especial commendation, of Anne, daughter of the Duke of Cleves, and sister-in-law of the Elector of Saxony. She had been set aside in favour of the Duchess of Milan; but, all hopes in this quarter having been abruptly and ungraciously terminated, Cromwell once more turned his eyes towards a connexion which, more than any other, would make the Emperor repent of his discourtesy—and would further at the same time the great object which the condition of Europe now, more than ever, showed him to be necessary—a league of all nations of the Teutonic race in defence of the Reformation. A marriage between the king and a German Protestant princess would put a final end to Anglo-Imperial trifling; and, committing England to a definite policy abroad, it would neutralize at home the efforts of the framers of the Six Articles, and compel the king, whether he desired it or not, to return to a toleration of Lutheran opinions and Lutheran practices.

The opportunity favourable to a Protestant connexion.

Prorogation of parliament.

Supposed pre-contract between Anne of Cleves and a Count of Lorraine.

Her appearance and accomplishments.

Cromwell neglects a warning.

Her portrait taken by Holbein.

Barnes goes as commissioner into Germany.

The persecution in England ceases.

The opportunity of urging such an alliance on Henry was more than favourable. He had been deceived, insulted, and menaced by the Emperor; his articles of union had been converted by the bishops into articles of a vindictive persecution; and the Anglicans, in their indiscreet animosity, had betrayed their true tendencies, and had shown how little, in a life-and-death struggle with the Papacy, he could depend upon their lukewarm zeal for independence. Affecting only to persecute heterodoxy, they had extended their vengeance to every advocate for freedom, to every enemy of ecclesiastical exemptions and profitable superstitions; and the king, disappointed and exasperated, was in a humour, while snatching their victims from their grasp, to consent to a step which would undo their victory in parliament. The occasion was not allowed to cool. Parliament was prorogued on the 11th of May, with an intimation from the crown that the religious question was not to be regarded as finally settled.[512] The treaty with Cleves was so far advanced on the 17th of July that Lord Hertford[513] was able to congratulate Cromwell on the consent of Anne’s brother and mother.[514] The lady had been previously intended for a son of a Duke of Lorraine; and Henry, whom experience had made anxious, was alarmed at the name of a “pre-contract.” But Dr. Wotton, who was sent over to arrange the preliminaries, and was instructed to see the difficulty cleared, was informed and believed that the engagement had never advanced to a form which brought with it legal obligations, and that Anne was at liberty to marry wherever she pleased.[515] Of her personal attractions Wotton reported vaguely. He said that she had been well brought up; but ladies of rank in Germany were not usually taught accomplishments. She could speak no language except her own, nor could she play on any instrument. He supposed, however, that she would be able to learn English in no long time; and he comforted the king by assuring him that at least she had no taste for “the heavy-headed revels” of her countrymen.[516] Wotton could not be accused of having lent himself to a deception as to the lady’s recommendations. It would have been well for Cromwell if he too had been equally scrupulous. He had been warned beforehand of an unattractiveness, so great as to have overcome the spontaneous belief in the beauty of royal ladies;[517] but, intent upon the success of his policy, he disregarded information which his conduct proves him to have partially believed. Holbein was despatched to take the princess’s picture; and Holbein’s inimitable skill would not have failed so wholly in conveying a true impression of the original if he had not received an intimation that an agreeable portrait was expected of him; while, as soon as it was brought into England, Cromwell’s agents praised to the king “her features, beauty, and princely proportions,” and assured him that the resemblance was perfect.[518] The German commission was as expeditious as the Spanish had been dilatory. To allay any uneasiness which might remain with respect to the Six Articles, and to furnish a convincing evidence of the toleration which was practised, Dr. Barnes was sent over as one of the English representatives; and he carried with him the comforting assurance that the persecution had been terminated, and that the Gospel had free way. His assertions were afterwards confirmed by unsuspicious and independent evidence. “There is no persecution,” wrote a Protestant in London, a few months later, to Bullinger. “The Word is powerfully preached. Books of every kind may safely be exposed to sale.”[519] “Good pastors,” wrote another, “are freely preaching the truth, nor has any notice been taken of them on account of the articles.”[520] Even the Elector of Saxony, jealous and distrustful as he had ever been of Henry, was so far satisfied as to write to him that he understood “the sharpness of the decree of the Six Articles to be modified by the wisdom and moderation of his Highness, and the execution of it not put in use.”[521]

Cromwell’s dangerous game.

His attitude towards the peers,

All promised well; but it is not to be supposed that Cromwell was allowed without resistance to paralyse a measure which had been carried by an almost unanimous parliament. More than half the Privy Council, the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, the Bishops of Winchester, Durham, and Chichester, were openly and violently opposed to him. The House of Lords and the country gentlemen, baffled, as it seemed to them, by his treachery (for he had professed to go along with their statute while it was under discussion), maintained an attitude of sullen menace or open resistance. If the laws against the heretics might not be put in force, they would lend no help to execute the laws against the Romanists.[522] They despised Cromwell’s injunctions, though supported by orders from the crown. They would not acknowledge so much as the receipt of his letters. He was playing a critical and most dangerous game, in which he must triumph or be annihilated. The king warned him repeatedly to be cautious;[523] but the terms on which he had placed himself with the nobility had perhaps passed the point where caution could have been of use. He answered haughtiness by haughtiness: and he left his fate to the chances of fortune, careless what it might be, if only he could accomplish his work while life and power remained to him. One illustration of his relation with the temporal peers shall be given in this place, conveying, as it does, other allusions also, the drift of which is painfully intelligible. The following letter is written in Cromwell’s own hand. The address is lost, but the rank of the person or persons to whom it was sent is apparent from the contents:—

Who, to his Majesty’s marvel, persist in maintaining the Papistical sect.

“After my right hearty commendations, the King’s Highness, being informed that there be two priests in your town, called Sir William Winstanley, which is now in ward, the other called Sir William Richardson, otherwise Good Sir William, hath commanded me to signify to you that, upon the receipt hereof, you shall send both the said priests hither as prisoners in assured custody. His Grace cannot a little marvel to hear of the Papistical faction that is maintained in that town, and by you chiefly that are of his Grace’s council. Surely his Majesty thinketh that you have little respect either to him, or to his laws, or to the good order of that town, which so little regard him in a matter of so great weight, which, also, his Highness hath so much to heart; and willed me plainly to say to you all and every of you, that in case he shall perceive from henceforth any such abuses suffered or winked at as have been hitherto, in manner in contempt of his most royal estate, his Highness will put others in the best of your rooms that so offend him, by whom he will be better served. It is thought against all reason that the prayers of women, and their fond flickerings, should move any of you to do that thing that should in anywise displease your prince and sovereign lord, or offend his just laws. And, if you shall think any extremity in this writing, you must thank yourselves that have procured it; for neither of yourselves have you regarded these matters, nor answered to many of my letters, written for like purposes and upon like occasions: wherein, though I have not made any accusation, yet, being in the place for these things that I am, I have thought you did me therein too much injury, and such as I am assured his Highness, knowing it, would not have taken it in good part. But this matter needeth no aggravation, ne I have done anything in it more than hath been by his Majesty thought meet, percase not so much; and thus heartily fare you well.

“Your Lordship’s assured
“Thomas Cromwell.”[524]

A breach begins to open between the king and the minister.

Increasing expenses of the government.

Cromwell prepares for his fall.

His personal expenditure large, and the sources of his income exceptionable.

Between the minister and the king the points of difference were large and increasing. The conduct which had earned for Cromwell the hatred or the immense majority of the people, could not but at times have been regarded disapprovingly by a person who shared so deeply as Henry in the English conservative spirit; while Cromwell, again, was lavish in his expenditure; and the outlay upon the fleet and the Irish army, the cost of suppression of the insurrection, and of the defences of the coast, at once vast and unusual, were not the less irritating because they could not be denied to be necessary. A spirit of economy in the reaction from his youthful extravagance, was growing over Henry with his advancing years; he could not reconcile himself to a profusion to which, even with the addition of the Church lands, his resources were altogether unequal, without trespassing on his subjects’ purses; and the conservative faction in the council took advantage of his ill humour to whisper that the fault was in the carelessness, the waste, and the corruption of the privy seal. Cromwell knew it well.[525] Two years previously he had received full warning that they were on the watch to take advantage of any momentary displeasure against him in the king. They were not likely to have been conciliated subsequently by the deaths of the Marquis of Exeter and Lord Montague, for which he personally was held responsible; and he prepared for the fate which he foresaw, in making settlements on his servants, that they might not suffer by his attainder.[526] The noble lords possessed, undoubtedly, one serious advantage against him. His own expenses were as profuse as the expenses of the state under his management. His agents were spread over Europe. He bought his information anywhere, and at any cost; and secret-service money for such purposes he must have provided, like his successor in the same policy, Sir Francis Walsingham, from his own resources. As a self-raised statesman, he had inherited nothing. His position as a nobleman was to be maintained; and it was maintained so liberally, that two hundred poor were every day supplied with food at his gate. The salaries of his offices and the rents of such estates as the king had given to him were inadequate for such irregular necessities. In Cromwell, the questionable practice of most great men of his time—the practice of receiving pensions and presents for general support and patronage—was carried to an extent which even then, perhaps, appeared excessive. It is evident, from his whole correspondence, that he received as profusely as he spent. We trace in him no such ambitious splendour as he had seen in Wolsey. He was contented with the moderate maintenance of a nobleman’s establishment. But power was essential to him; and a power like that which Cromwell wielded required resources which he obtained only by exposing his reputation while alive, and his good name in history, to not unmerited blame.

An attempt to destroy Gardiner.

Gardiner escapes;

But, with the Bishop of Chichester, is dismissed from the Privy Council.

Cromwell’s position is not benefited, however.

Weighted as he was with faults, which his high purposes but partially excuse, he fought his battle bravely—alone—against the world. The German marriage did not pass without a struggle at the council board. Cromwell had long recognised his strongest and most dangerous enemy in the person of Stephen Gardiner. So much he dreaded the subtle bishop, that he had made an effort once to entangle him under the Supremacy Act;[527] but Gardiner had glided under the shadow of the act, and had escaped its grasp. Smooth, treacherous, and plausible, he had held his way along the outer edge of the permitted course, never committing himself, commanding the sympathy of English conservatism, the patron of those suspected of Romanism on one side, as Cromwell was the patron of heretics; but self-possessed and clear-headed, watching the times, knowing that the reaction must have its day at last, and only careful to avoid the precipitancy, in future, into which he had blundered after the Six Articles Bill. His rival’s counter-move had checked him, but he waited his opportunity; and when Barnes was sent as commissioner into Germany, Gardiner challenged openly before the council the appointment, for such a purpose, of a man who was “defamed of heresy.” He was supported, apparently, by the Bishop of Chichester, or the latter ventured to thwart the privy seal in some other manner. Cromwell for the moment was strong enough to bear his opponents down. They were both dismissed from the Privy Council.[528] But this arbitrary act was treated as a breach of the tacit compact by which the opposing parties endured each other’s presence. If the Bishop of Durham’s chaplain spoke the truth, an attempt was made, in which even Lord Southampton bore a share, to bring Tunstall forward in Gardiner’s place.[529] And though this scheme failed, through the caution of the principal persons interested, the grievances remained, embittered by a forced submission: a fresh debt had been contracted, bearing interest till it was paid.

Protestant imprudence.

Persecution of a Catholic preacher in London,

As great, or a greater, danger embarrassed Cromwell from the folly of his friends. So long as the tide was in their favour, the Protestants indulged in insolent excesses, which provoked, and almost justified the anger with which they were regarded. Hitherto they had held a monopoly of popular preaching. Tradition and authority had been with the Catholics: the rhetoric had been mainly with their adversaries. In the summer the interest of London was suddenly excited on the other side by a Catholic orator of extraordinary powers, a Dr. Watts, unknown before or after this particular crisis, but for the moment a principal figure on the stage. Watts attracted vast audiences; and the Protestants could not endure a rival, and were as little able as their opponents to content themselves with refuting him by argument. He was summoned, on a charge of false doctrine, before the Archbishop of Canterbury; and even moderate persons were scandalized when they saw Barnes sitting by the side of Cranmer as assessor in a cause of heresy.[530] It appeared, and perhaps it was designed, as an insult—as a deliberately calculated outrage. Ten thousand London citizens proposed to walk in procession to Lambeth, to require the restoration of their teacher; and, although the open demonstration was prevented by the City officers, an alderman took charge of their petition, and offered, unless the preacher’s offence was high treason, to put in bail for him in the name of the corporation.[531]

Sept 17. In whose behalf the corporation interfere in vain.

There were, perhaps, circumstances in the case beyond those which appear; but, instead of listening to the request of the City, the archbishop spirited away the preacher into Kent, and his friends learned, from the boasts of their adversaries, that he was imprisoned and ill used. He was attached, it seems, to the Victuallers’ Company. “There is no persecution,” wrote a Protestant fanatic, “except of the Victuallers; of which sect a certain impostor of the name of Watts, formerly of the order of wry-necked cattle, is now holding forth, oh, shame! in the stocks at Canterbury Bridewell, having been accustomed to mouth elsewhere against the Gospel.”[532]

Charles V. endeavours to prevent the German marriage.

While England was thus fermenting towards a second crisis, the German marriage was creating no less anxiety on the Continent. As it was Cromwell’s chief object to unite England with the Lutherans, so was Charles V. anxious above all things to keep them separate; and no sooner was he aware that the Duke of Cleves had consented to give his sister to Henry than he renewed his offer of the Duchess of Milan. The reply was a cold and peremptory refusal;[533] and the Emperor seeing that the English government would not be again trifled with, determined to repair into Flanders, in order to be at hand, should important movements take place in Germany.[534] To give menace and significance to his journey, he resolved, if possible, to pass through France on his way, and in a manner so unformal and confidential as, perhaps, might contribute towards substantiating his relations with Francis, or, at least, might give the world the impression of their entire cordiality.

He proposes a visit to Paris.

Reginald Pole submits a paper to the Pope on the condition of England.

France and Spain are at last united. Let them proclaim the king a public enemy.

Alarm felt in England.

The proposal of a visit from the Emperor, when made known at Paris, was met with a warm and instant assent; and many were the speculations to which an affair so unexpected gave occasion in Europe. But the minds of men were not long at a loss, and Henry’s intended marriage was soon accepted as an adequate explanation. The danger of a Protestant league compelled the Catholic powers to bury their rivalries; and a legate was despatched from Rome to be present at the meeting at Paris.[535] Reginald Pole, ever on the watch for an opportunity to strike a blow at his country, caught once more at the opening, and submitted a paper on the condition of England to the Pope, showing how the occasion might be improved. The Emperor was aware, Pole said, that England had been lost to the Holy See in a Spanish quarrel, and for the sake of a Spanish princess; and he knew himself to be bound in honour, however hitherto he had made pretexts for delay, to assist in its recovery. His Imperial oaths, the insults to his family, the ancient alliance between England and the house of Burgundy, with his own promises so often repeated, alike urged the same duty upon him; and now, at last, he was able to act without difficulty. The rivalry between France and Spain had alone encouraged Henry to defy the opinion of Europe. That rivalry was at an end. The two sovereigns had only to unite in a joint remonstrance against his conduct, with a threat that he should be declared a public enemy if he persisted in his course, and his submission would be instant. He would not dare to refuse. He could not trust his subjects: they had risen once of themselves, and he knew too well the broken promises, the treachery and cruelty with which he had restored order, to risk their fury, should they receive effective support from abroad. Without striking a single blow, the Catholic powers might achieve a glorious triumph, and heal the gaping wound in the body of Christ.[536] So wrote, and so thought the English traitor, with all human probabilities in his favour, and only the Eternal Powers on the other side. The same causes which filled Pole with hope struck terror into weak and agitated hearts in the country which he was seeking to betray; the wayfarers on the high-roads talked to each other in despair of the impending ruin of the kingdom, left naked without an ally to the attacks of the world.[537]

Charles enters France.

Spreading round him such panics and such expectations, the Emperor entered France almost simultaneously with the departure of Anne of Cleves from her mother’s side to the shores of England. Pity that, in the game of diplomacy, statesmen are not compelled to use their own persons for their counters! are not forbidden to cast on others the burden of their own failures!

He is received with splendid courtesy,

And brings in his train an English traitor named Brancetor.

Francis, in order to show Charles the highest courtesy, despatched the constable Montmorency, with the Dauphin and the Duke of Orleans, to Bayonne, and offered, if the Emperor distrusted him, that his sons should be detained as pledges for his good faith. Charles would not be outdone in generosity; when he gave his confidence he gave it without reserve; and, without accepting the security, he crossed the frontier, attended only by his personal train, and made his way to the capital, with the two princes at his side, through a succession of magnificent entertainments. On the 1st of January he entered Paris, where he was to remain for a week; and Henry, at once taking the initiative, made an opportunity to force him, if possible, to a declaration of his intentions. Attached to the Imperial household was a Welshman named Brancetor, uncle of “young Rice,” who had been executed for a conspiracy against Henry’s life in 1531. This man, having been originally obliged to leave England for debt, had contrived, while on the Continent, by assiduity of treason, to assume the more interesting character of a political refugee. He had attached himself to Pole and to Pole’s fortunes; he had exerted himself industriously in Spain in persuading English subjects to violate their allegiance; and in the parliament of the previous spring he had been rewarded by the distinction of a place in the list of attainted traitors.

Brancetor is taken by the French police, in compliance with a demand of Sir Thomas Wyatt.

Analogous occupations had brought him to Paris; and, in conformity with treaties, Henry instructed Sir Thomas Wyatt, who was then in England, to repair to the French court, and require his extradition. Wyatt imprudently affected to consider that the affair belonged rather to the police than to the government, and applied to the constable for Brancetor’s arrest. Montmorency was unaware of the man’s connexion with the Emperor. Wyatt informed him merely that an English subject who had robbed his master, and had afterwards conspired against the king, was in Paris, and requested his apprehension. He had been watched to his lodgings by a spy; and the provost-marshal was placed without difficulty at Wyatt’s disposal, and was directed to attend him.

Brancetor appeals to the Emperor.

The police surrounded the house where Brancetor was to be found. It was night. The English minister entered, and found his man writing at a table. “I told him,” Wyatt reported in his account of the story, “that, since he would not come to visit me, I was come to seek him. His colour changed as soon as he heard my voice; and with that came in the provost, and set hand on him. I reached to the letters that he was writing, but he caught them afore me, and flung them backwards into the fire. I overthrew him, and cracked them out; but the provost got them.” Brancetor upon this declared himself the Emperor’s servant. He made no attempt to escape, but charged the officer, “that his writings and himself should be delivered into the Emperor’s hands.” He took a number of papers from his pocket, which he placed in the provost’s charge; and the latter not daring to act further in such a matter without further instructions, left a guard in the room with Wyatt and the prisoner, and went to make a report to the chancellor. “In the mean time,” says Wyatt, “I used all the soberness I could with Brancetor, advising him to submit himself to your Majesty; but he made the Emperor his master, and seemed to regard nothing else. Once he told me he had heard me oft times say that kings have long hands; but God, quoth he, hath longer. I asked him what length he thought that would make when God’s and kings’ hands were joined together; but he assured himself of the Emperor.” Presently the provost returned, and said that Brancetor was to remain in his charge till the morning, when Wyatt would hear further. Nothing more could be done with the provost; and after breakfast Wyatt had an interview with Cardinal Granvelle and the chancellor. The treaties were plain; a clause stated in the clearest language that neither France, nor Spain, nor England should give shelter to each other’s traitors; but such a case as Brancetor’s had as clearly not been anticipated when they were drawn; and the matter was referred to the Emperor.

Charles grants an audience to Wyatt.

He will defend his followers, English or Spanish, treaty or no treaty.

Charles made no difficulty in granting an audience, which he seemed rather to court. He was extremely angry. The man had been in his service, he said, for years; and it was ill done to arrest a member of his household without paying him even the courtesy of a first application on the subject. The English government could scarcely be serious in expecting that he would sacrifice an old attendant in any such manner. Wyatt answered sturdily that Brancetor was his master’s subject. There was clear proof, he could vouch for it on his own knowledge, that the man committed treason in Spain; and he again insisted on the treaties. The Emperor cared nothing for treaties. Treaty or no treaty, a servant of his own should pass free; “and if he was in the Tower of London,” he said, “he would never consent so to charge his honour and conscience.” Brancetor had come to Paris under his protection; and the French government would never do him the dishonour of permitting the seizure of one of his personal train.

Wyatt complains of the treatment of English subjects by the Inquisition.

He was so displeased, and there was so much truth in what he said, that Wyatt durst not press him further; but opened ground again with a complaint which he had been instructed also to make, of the ill usage of Englishmen in Spain by the Inquisition. Charles again flashed up with imperious vehemence. “In a loud voice,” he replied, “that the authority of the Inquisition depended not upon him. It had been established in his realm and countries for good consideration, and such as he would not break—no, not for his grandame.”

It was unreasonable, Wyatt replied, to punish men merely for their want of allegiance to Rome. They were no heretics, sacramentaries, Anabaptists. They held the Catholic faith as truly as any man.

Charles refuses t o interfere.

“The king is of one opinion,” Charles replied, “and I am of another. If your merchants come with novelties, I can not let the Inquisition. This is a thing that toucheth our faith.”

“What,” Wyatt said, “the primacy of the Bishop of Rome!”

“Yea, marry,” the Emperor answered, “shall we now come to dispute of tibi dabo claves. I would not alter my Inquisition. No; if I thought they would be negligent in their office, I would put them out, and put others in their rooms.”

All this was uttered with extraordinary passion and violence. Charles had wholly lost his self-command. Wyatt went on to say that the Spanish preached slanders against England, and against the king especially, in their pulpits.

“As to that,” said the Emperor, “preachers will speak against myself whenever there is cause. That cannot be let. Kings be not kings of tongues; and if men give cause to be spoken of, they will be spoken of.”

The French court betrays confidence.

He promised at last, with rather more calmness, to inquire into the treatment of the merchants, if proper particulars were supplied to him.[538] If alarm was really felt in the English court at the Emperor’s presence in Paris, Wyatt’s report of this interview was not reassuring. Still less satisfactory was an intimation, which was not long in reaching England, that Francis, or one of his ministers, had betrayed to Charles a private article in the treaty of Calais, in 1532. Anticipating at this time a war with Spain, Henry had suggested, and Francis had acquiesced in a proposal, should Charles attack them, for a partition of the Flemish provinces. The opportunity of this visit was chosen by the French to give an evidence of unmistakeable goodwill in revealing an exasperating secret.

Keeping these transactions so ominous of evil before our minds, let us now return to the events which were simultaneously taking place in England.

December 11. Anne of Cleves arrives at Calais,

Where she remains weather-bound for a fortnight,

And learns to play at cards.

On the 11th of December the Lady Anne of Cleves was conducted, under a German escort, to Calais, where Lord Southampton and four hundred English noblemen and gentlemen were waiting to receive her, and conduct her to her future country. The “Lion” and the “Sweepstake” were in the harbour—the ships which two years before had fought the Flemings in the Downs. As she rode into the town the vessels’ yards were manned, the rigging was decorated with flags, and a salute of a hundred and fifty guns was fired in her honour. By her expectant subjects she was splendidly welcomed; but the weather was wild; fifteen days elapsed before she could cross with ease and expedition; and meanwhile she was left to the entertainment of the lords. Southampton, in despair at her absence of accomplishments, taught her, as a last resource, to play at cards. Meantime, he wrote to advertise the king of her arrival, and thinking, as he afterwards said, that he must make the best of a matter which it had become too late to remedy, he repeated the praises which had been uttered so loudly by others of the lady’s appearance. He trusted that, “after all the debating, the success would be to the consolation of his Majesty, and the weal of his subjects and realm.”[539]

Dec. 27. She lands in England.

Dec 29. Monday. She is received by Cranmer at Canterbury.

Wednesday Dec. 31. The king comes to meet her at Rochester.

At length, on Saturday, December the 27th, as the winter twilight was closing into night, the intended Queen of England set her foot upon the shore, under the walls of Deal Castle. The cannon freshly mounted, flashed their welcome through the darkness; the Duke and Duchess of Suffolk had waited in the fortress for her landing, and the same night conducted her to Dover. Here she rested during Sunday. The next morning she went on, in a storm, to Canterbury; and on Barham Down stood Cranmer, with five other bishops, in the wind and the rain, to welcome, as they fondly hoped, the enchantress who would break the spell of the Six Articles. She was entertained for the evening at Saint Augustine’s. Tuesday she was at Sittingbourne. On New-Year’s Eve she reached Rochester, to which the king was already hastening for the first sight of the lady, the fame of whose charms had been sounded in his ears so loudly. He came down in private, attended only by Sir Anthony Brown, the master of the horse. The interview, agitating under all circumstances, would be made additionally awkward from the fact that neither the king nor his bride could understand each other’s language. He had brought with him, therefore, “a little present,” a graceful gift of some value, to soften the embarrassment and conciliate at first sight the lovely being into whose presence he was to be introduced. The visit was meant for a surprise; the king’s appearance at her lodgings was the first intimation of his intention; and the master of the horse was sent in to announce his arrival and request permission for his Highness to present himself.

Sensations of the master of the horse on his first interview.

The king is “quite discouraged and amazed.”

He retreats hastily to Greenwich,

And laments the fate of princes.

Sir Anthony, aware of the nature of Henry’s expectations, entered the room where Anne was sitting. He described his sensations on the unlooked-for spectacle which awaited him in moderate language, when he said, “that he was never more dismayed in his life, lamenting in his heart to see the lady so unlike that she was reported.”[540] The graces of Anne of Cleves were moral only, not intellectual, and not personal. She was simple, quiet, modest, sensible, and conscientious; but her beauty existed only in the imagination of the painter. Her presence was ladylike; but her complexion was thick and dark: her features were coarse; her figure large, loose, and corpulent. The required permission was given. The king entered. His heart sank; his presence of mind forsook him; he was “suddenly quite discouraged and amazed” at the prospect which was opened before him. He forgot his present; he almost forgot his courtesy. He did not stay in the room “to speak twenty words.” He would not even stay in Rochester. “Very sad and pensive,” says Brown, he entered his barge and hurried back to Greenwich, anxious only to escape, while escape was possible, from the unwelcome neighbourhood. Unwilling to marry at all, he had yielded only to the pressure of a general desire. He had been deceived by untrue representations, and had permitted a foreign princess to be brought into the realm; and now, as fastidious in his tastes as he was often little scrupulous in his expression of them, he found himself on the edge of a connexion the very thought of which was revolting.[541] It was a cruel fortune which imposed on Henry VIII., in addition to his other burdens, the labour of finding heirs to strengthen the succession. He “lamented the fate of princes to be in matters of marriage of far worse sort than the condition of poor men.”

“Princes take,” he said, “as is brought them by others, and poor men be commonly at their own choice.”[542]

He complains of his disappointment to Cromwell.

Cromwell, who knew better than others knew the true nature of the king’s adventure, was waiting nervously at Greenwich for the result of the experiment. He presented himself on the king’s appearance, and asked him “how he liked the Lady Anne.” The abrupt answer confirmed his fears. “Nothing so well as she was spoken of,” the king said. “If I had known as much before as I know now, she should never have come into the realm.” “But what remedy?” he added, in despondency.[543] The German alliance was already shaking at its base: the court was agitated and alarmed; the king was miserable. Cromwell, to whom the blame was mainly due, endeavoured for a moment to shrink from his responsibility, and accused Southampton of having encouraged false hopes in his letters from Calais. Southampton answered fairly that the fault did not rest with him. He had been sent to bring the queen into England, and it was not his place to “dispraise her appearance.” “The matter being so far gone,” he had supposed his duty was to make the best of it.[544]

January 2. Friday.

Saturday, January 3. Arrival of the Lady Anne at the palace.

Henry endeavours to extricate himself,

Sunday. January 4.

And requires an explanation of the pre-contract

Among these recriminations passed the night of Friday, while Charles V. was just commencing his triumphal progress through France. The day following, the innocent occasion of the confusion came on to Greenwich. The marriage had been arranged for the Sunday after. The prospects were altogether dark, and closer inspection confirmed the worst apprehensions. The ladies of the court were no less shocked than their husbands. The unfortunate princess was not only unsightly, but she had “displeasant airs” about her; and Lady Brown imparted to Sir Anthony “how she saw in the queen such fashions, and manner of bringing up so gross, that she thought the king would never love her.” Henry met her on the stairs when her barge arrived. He conducted her to her apartments, and on the way Cromwell saw her with his own eyes. The sovereign and the minister then retired together, and the just displeasure became visible. “How say you, my lord?” the king said. “Is it not as I told you? Say what they will, she is nothing fair. The personage is well and seemly, but nothing else.” Cromwell attempted faintly to soothe him by suggesting that she had “a queenly manner.” The king agreed to that;[545] but the recommendation was insufficient to overcome the repugnance which he had conceived; and he could resolve on nothing. A frail fibre of hope offered itself in the story of the pre-contract with the Count of Lorraine. Henry caught at it to postpone the marriage for two days; and, on the Sunday morning he sent for the German suite who had attended the princess, and requested to see the papers connected with the Lorraine treaty. Astonished and unprepared, they requested time to consider. The following morning they had an interview with the council, when they stated that, never anticipating any such demand, they could not possibly comply with it on the instant; but the engagement had been nothing. The instrument which they had brought with them declared the princess free from all ties whatever. If the king really required the whole body of the documents, they would send to Cleves for them; but, in the meantime, they trusted he would not refuse to accept their solemn assurances.

Monday, January 5.

He exhibits his reluctance to the lady, but in vain.

He must put his neck into the yoke,

And marries Tuesday, January 6

Cromwell carried the answer to Henry; and it was miserably unwelcome. “I have been ill-handled,” he said. “If it were not that she is come so far into England, and for fear of making a ruffle in the world, and driving her brother into the Emperor and French king’s hands, now being together, I would never have her. But now it is too far gone; wherefore I am sorry.”[546] As a last pretext for hesitation, he sent to Anne herself to desire a protest from her that she was free from contracts; a proof of backwardness on the side of the king might, perhaps, provoke a corresponding unwillingness. But the impassive constitution of the lady would have been proof against a stronger hint. The protest was drawn and signed with instant readiness. “Is there no remedy,” Henry exclaimed, “but that I must needs, against my will, put my neck into this yoke?” There was none. It was inevitable. The conference at Paris lay before him like a thunder-cloud. The divorce of Catherine and the crimes of Anne Boleyn had already created sufficient scandal in Europe. At such a moment he durst not pass an affront upon the Germans, which might drive them also into a compromise with his other enemies. He gathered up his resolution. As the thing was to be done, it might be done at once; delay would not make the bitter dose less unpalatable; and the day remained fixed for the date of its first postponement—Tuesday, the 6th of January. As he was preparing for the sacrifice, he called Cromwell to him in the chamber of presence: “My lord,” he said openly, “if it were not to satisfy the world and my realm, I would not do that I must do this day for none earthly thing.”

His dislike increases to aversion, and his hope of children is frustrated.

The marriage was solemnized. A last chance remained to the Privy Seal and to the eager prelates who had trembled in the storm on Barham Down, that the affection which could not precede the ceremony might perhaps follow it. But the tide had turned against the Reformers; and their contrivances to stem the current were not of the sort which could be allowed to prosper. Dislike was confirmed into rooted aversion. The instinct with which the king recoiled from Anne settled into a defined resolution. He was personally kind to her. His provocations did not tempt him into discourtesy; but, although she shared his bed, necessity and inclination alike limited the companionship to a form; and Henry lamented to Cromwell, who had been the cause of the calamity, that “surely he would never have any more children for the comfort of the realm.”[547]

The results of the disappointment not immediately visible.

Theological controversy in London between Gardiner and the Protestants,

Who are protected by Cromwell.

The union of France and the Empire, which had obliged the accomplishment of this unlucky connexion, meanwhile prevented, so long as it continued, either an open fracas or an alteration in the policy of the kingdom. The relations of the king and queen were known only to a few of the council. Cromwell continued in power, and the Protestants remained in security. The excitement which had been created in London by the persecution of Dr. Watts was kept alive by a controversy[548] between the Bishop of Winchester and three of the Lutheran preachers: Dr. Barnes, for ever unwisely prominent; the Vicar of Stepney, who had shuffled over his recantation; and Garrett, the same who had been in danger of the stake at Oxford for selling Testaments, and had since been a chaplain of Latimer. It is difficult to exaggerate the audacity with which the orators of the moving party trespassed on the patience of the laity. The disputes, which had been slightly turned out of their channel by the Six Articles, were running now on justification,—a sufficient subject, however, to give scope for differences, and for the full enunciation of the Lutheran gospel. The magistrates in the country attempted to keep order and enforce the law; but, when they imprisoned a heretic, they found themselves rebuked and menaced by the Privy Seal. Their prison doors were opened, they were exposed to vexatious suits for loss or injury to the property of the discharged offenders, and their authority and persons were treated with disrespect and contumely.[549] The Reformers had outshot their healthy growth. They required to be toned down by renewed persecution into that good sense and severity of mind without which religion is but as idle and unprofitable a folly as worldly excitement.

Gardiner preaches a Popish sermon at Paul’s Cross.

Foolish insolence of Dr. Barnes.

Gardiner complains to the king.

In London, on the first Sunday in Lent, the Bishop of Winchester preached on the now prominent topic at Paul’s Cross: “A very Popish sermon,” says Traheron, one of the English correspondents of Bullinger, “and much to the discontent of the people.”[550] To the discontent it may have been of many, but not to the discontent of the ten thousand citizens who had designed the procession to Lambeth. The Sunday following, the same pulpit was occupied by Barnes, who, calling Gardiner a fighting-cock, and himself another, challenged the bishop to trim his spurs for a battle.[551] He taunted his adversary with concealed Romanism. Like the judges at Fouquier Tinville’s tribunal, whose test of loyalty to the republic was the question what the accused had done to be hanged on the restoration of the monarchy, Barnes said that, if he and the Bishop of Winchester were at Rome together, much money would not save his life, but for the bishop there was no fear—a little entreatance would purchase favour enough for him.[552] From these specimens we may conjecture the character of the sermon; and, from Traheron’s delight with it, we may gather equally the imprudent exultation of the Protestants.[553] Gardiner complained to the king. He had a fair cause, and was favourably listened to. Henry sent for Barnes, and examined him in a private audience. The questions of the day were opened. Merit, works, faith, free-will, grace of congruity, were each discussed,—once mystic words of power, able, like the writing on the seal of Solomon, to convulse the world, now mere innocent sounds, which the languid but still eager lips of a dying controversy breathe in vain.

Barnes, too vain of his supposed abilities to understand the disposition with which he was dealing, told the king, in an excess of unwisdom, that he would submit himself to him.

Interview between Barnes and Henry.

Barnes affects to recant.

Henry was more than angry: “Yield not to me,” he said; “I am a mortal man.” He rose as he spoke, and turning to the sacrament, which stood on a private altar in the room, and taking off his bonnet,—“Yonder is the Master of us all,” he said; “yield in truth to Him; otherwise submit yourself not to me.” Barnes was commanded, with Garrett and Jerome, to make a public acknowledgment of his errors; and to apologize especially for his insolent language to Gardiner. It has been already seen how Jerome could act in such a position. An admirer of these men, in relating their conduct on the present occasion, declared, as if it was something to their credit, “how gaily they handled the matter, both to satisfy the recantation and also, in the same sermon, to utter out the truth, that it might spread without let of the world.”

Like giddy night-moths, they were flitting round the fire which would soon devour them.

Confident in the German alliance, the king provokes a quarrel with the Emperor.

He instructs Wyatt to reproach Charles with ingratitude.

In April, parliament was to meet—the same parliament which had passed the Six Articles Bill with acclamation. It was to be seen in what temper they would bear the suspension of their favourite measure. The bearing of the parliament, was, however, for the moment, of comparative indifference. The king and his ministers were occupied with other matters too seriously to be able to attend it. A dispute had arisen between the Emperor and the Duke of Cleves, on the duchy of Gueldres, to which Charles threatened to assert his right by force; and, galling as Henry found his marriage, the alliance in which it had involved him, its only present recommendation, was too useful to be neglected. The treatment of English residents in Spain, the open patronage of Brancetor, and the haughty and even insolent language which had been used to Wyatt, could not be passed over in silence, whatever might be the consequences; and, with the support of Germany, he believed that he might now, perhaps, repay the Emperor for the alarms and anxieties of years. After staying a few days in Paris, Charles had gone on to Brussels. On the receipt of Wyatt’s despatch with the account of his first interview, the king instructed him to require in reply the immediate surrender of the English traitor; to insist that the proceedings of the Inquisition should be redressed and punished; and to signify, at the same time, that the English government desired to mediate between himself and the king’s brother-in-law. Nor was the imperiousness of the message to be softened in the manner of delivery. More than once Henry had implied that Charles was under obligations to England for the Empire. Wyatt was instructed to allude pointedly to these and other wounding memories, and particularly, and with marked emphasis, to make use of the word “ingratitude.” The object was, perhaps, to show that Henry was not afraid of him; perhaps to express a real indignation which there was no longer reason to conceal.

Indignation of the Emperor.

The directions were obeyed; and Wyatt’s English haughtiness was likely to have fulfilled them to the letter. The effect was magical. The Emperor started, changed colour, hesitated, and then burst in anger. “It is too much,” he said, “to use the term ingrate to me. The inferior may be ingrate to the greater. The term is scant sufferable between like.” Perhaps, he added, as Wyatt was speaking in a foreign language, he might have used a word which he imperfectly comprehended. Wyatt assured him placidly that there was no error: the word was in his instructions, and its meaning perfectly understood. “The king took it so.” “Kings’ opinions are not always the best,” Charles replied. “I cannot tell, sir,” the ambassador answered, “what ye mean by that; but if ye think to note the king my master of anything that should touch him, I assure you he is a prince to give reason to God and the world sufficient in his opinions.” Leaving the word as it stood, he required an answer to the material point.

He will not surrender Brancetor.

If English merchants dislike the Inquisition, they had better avoid Spain.

Henry makes overtures to Francis.

He accuses Charles of aiming at universal empire,

And suggests a coalition which may end in his capture and imprisonment.

If Henry was indifferent to a quarrel, the Emperor seemed to be equally willing; Wyatt gathered from his manner, either that he was careless of consequences, or that he desired to provoke the English to strike the first blow. He answered as before, that Brancetor had committed no crime that he knew of. If the King of England would be more explicit in his accusations, he would consider them. His dispute with the Duke of Cleves he intended to settle by himself, and would allow of no interference; and as to the merchants, he had rather they should never visit his countries at all, than visit them to carry thither their heresy.[554] Irritation is a passion which it is seldom politic to excite; and a message like that of Wyatt had been better undelivered, unless no doubt existed of being able to support it by force. A fixed idea in Cromwell’s mind, which we trace in all his correspondence, was the impossibility of a genuine coalition between Charles and Francis. Either misled by these impressions, or deceived by rumours, Henry seems to have been acting, not only in a reliance on the Germans, but in a belief that the Emperor’s visit to Paris had closed less agreeably than it had opened, that the Milan quarrel had revived, and that the hasty partnership already threatened a dissolution. Some expectations of the kind he had unquestionably formed, for, on the arrival of Wyatt’s letter with the Emperor’s answer, he despatched the Duke of Norfolk on a mission into France, which, if successful, would have produced a singular revulsion in Europe. Francis was to be asked frankly how the Italian question stood. If the Emperor was dealing in good faith with him, or if he was himself satisfied, nothing more need be desired; if, on the contrary, he felt himself “hobbled with a vain hope,” there was now an opportunity for him to take fortune prisoner, to place his highest wishes within his grasp, and revenge Pavia, and his own and his children’s captivity. The ingratitude story was to be repeated, with Charles’s overbearing indignation; redress for the open and iniquitous oppression of English subjects had been absolutely refused; and the Emperor’s manner could be interpreted only as bearing out what had long been suspected of him, that he “aspired to bring Christendom to a monarchy;” that “he thought himself superior to all kings,” and, “by little and little,” would work his way to universal empire. His insolence might be punished, and all dangers of such a kind for ever terminated, at the present juncture. A league was in process of formation, for mutual defence, between the King of England, the Duke of Cleves, the Elector of Saxony, the Landgrave, and other princes of the Empire. Let Francis join them, and “they would have the Emperor in such a pitfall, that percase it might be their chance to have him prisoner at their pleasure, his being so environed with them, and having no way to start.”[555]

Henry’s proposal is communicated to the Emperor.

The temptation was so well adjusted to the temperament of Francis that it seemed as if he felt an excuse necessary to explain his declining the combination. The French chancellor told Norfolk that his master was growing old, and that war had lost its charm for him. But, in fact, the proposal was, based upon a blunder for which Cromwell’s despair was probably responsible. Francis, at the moment, was under the influence of the Cardinal of Ferrara, who had come from Rome on a crusading expedition; and, so far from then desiring to quarrel with Charles, he simply communicated to him Henry’s suggestions; while the Queen of Navarre gave a warning to Norfolk that, if the Anglo-German league assumed an organized form, it would be followed by an alliance as close and as menacing between France and the Empire.[556]

The Germans back out also,

Cromwell had again failed; and another and a worse misadventure followed. The German princes, for whose sake the Privy Seal had incurred his present danger, had their own sense of prudence, and were reluctant to quarrel with the Emperor, so long as it was possible to escape. Experience had taught Charles the art of trifling with their credulity, and he flattered them with a hope that from them he would accept a mediation in behalf of the Duke of Cleves, which he had rejected so scornfully when offered by England.

And the foreign policy of Cromwell, as well as the domestic, fails equally.

The Bishop of Chichester is sent to the Tower,

And is almost followed by Tunstall.

Thus was Henry left alone, having been betrayed into an attitude which he was unable to support, and deserted by the allies for whom he had entangled himself in a marriage which he detested. Well might his confidence have been shaken in the minister whose fortune and whose sagacity had failed together. Driven forward by the necessity of success or destruction, Cromwell was, at the same time, precipitating the crisis in England. Gardiner, Tunstall, and Sampson the Bishop of Chichester, were his three chief antagonists. In April Sampson was sent to the Tower, on a charge of having relieved “certain traitorous persons” who had denied the king’s supremacy.[557] The two others, it is likely, would soon have followed: the Bishop of Chichester accused them of having been the cause of his own misconduct, to such extent as he admitted himself to have erred;[558] and although Tunstall equivocated, he at least would not have escaped imprisonment, had the Privy Seal remained in power, if imprisonment had been the limit of his sufferings.[559] To the eyes of the world, the destroyer of the monasteries, the “hammer of the monks,” remained absolute as ever. No cloud, as yet, was visible in the clear sky of his prosperity, when the moment came, he fell suddenly, as if struck by lightning, on the very height and pinnacle of his power. If events had been long working towards the catastrophe, it was none the less abrupt, surprising, unlooked for.

April 12. Parliament meets.

Cromwell opens the session with a speech on unity of opinion.

On the 12th of April, amidst failure abroad and increased discontent at home, parliament assembled. After the ordinary address from the chancellor, Cromwell rose to speak a few words on the state of the kingdom.

“The King’s Majesty,” he said, “knowing that concord is the only sure and true bond of security in the commonwealth, knowing that if the head and all the members of the body corporate agree in one, there will be wanting nothing to the perfect health of the state, has therefore sought, prized, and desired concord beyond all other things. With no little distress, therefore, he learns that there are certain persons who make it their business to create strife and controversy; that in the midst of the good seed tares also are growing up to choke the harvest. The rashness and carnal license of some, the inveterate corruption and obstinate superstition of others, have caused disputes which have done hurt to the souls of pious Christians. The names of Papist and heretic are bandied to and fro. The Holy Word of God, which his Highness, of his great clemency, has permitted to be read in the vulgar tongue, for the comfort and edification of his people this treasure of all sacred things—is abused, and made a servant of errour or idolatry; and such is the tumult of opinion, that his Highness ill knows how to bear it. His purpose is to shew no favour to extremes on either side. He professes the sincere faith of the Gospel, as becomes a Christian prince, declining neither to the right hand nor to the left, but setting before his eyes the pure Word of God as his only mark and guide. On this Word his princely mind is fixed; on this Word he depends for his sole support; and with all his might his Majesty will labour that errour shall be taken away, and true doctrines be taught to his people, modelled by the rule of the Gospel. Of forms, ceremonies, and traditions he will have the reasonable use distinguished from the foolish and idolatrous use. He will have all impiety, all superstition, abolished and put away. And, finally, he will have his subjects cease from their irreverent handling of God’s book. Those who have offended against the faith and the laws shall suffer the punishment by the laws appointed; and his first and last prayer is for the prevailing of Christ—the prevailing of the Word of Christ—the prevailing of the truth.”[560]

Cromwell is created Earl of Essex.

Permission granted to bequeath land by will.

Monks are released from the vow of poverty.

Reduction of the number of sanctuaries, and limitation of their privileges.

Act for the maintenance of the navy.

May 3. Bill for a subsidy of four fifteenths and four tenths.

A general intimation of intentions, which being so stated every one would approve, passed quietly, and the subject dropped. It is the peculiarity of discourses on theological subjects, that they are delivered and they are heard under an impression, both on the part of the speaker and of his audience, that each is in possession of the only reasonable and moderate truth; and so long as particulars are avoided, moderation is praised, and all men consent to praise it—excess is condemned, and all agree in the condemnation. Five days after, a public mark of the king’s approbation was bestowed on Cromwell, who was created Earl of Essex; and the ordinary legislation commenced quietly. The complaints against the statute of Uses were met by a measure which silently divided the leading root of the feudal system. Persons holding lands by military tenure were allowed to dispose of two-thirds in their wills, as they pleased. Lands held under any other conditions might be bequeathed absolutely, without condition or restriction.[561] To prevent disputes on titles, and to clear such confusion of claims as had been left remaining by the Uses Act, sixty years’ possession of property was declared sufficient to constitute a valid right; and no claim might be pressed which rested on pretensions of an older date.[562] The Privy Seal’s hand is legible in several acts abridging ecclesiastical privileges, and restoring monks, who had been dead in law, to some part of their rights as human beings. The suppression of the religious houses had covered England with vagrant priests, who, though pensioned, were tempted, by idleness and immunity from punishment, into crimes. If convicted of felony, and admitted “to their clergy,” such persons were in future to be burnt in the hand.[563] A bill in the preceding year had relieved them from their vows of poverty; they were permitted to buy, inherit, or otherwise occupy property. They were freed by dissolution from obedience to their superiors, and the reflection naturally followed, that the justice which had dispensed with two vows would dispense with the third, and that a permission to marry, in spite of the Six Articles, would soon necessarily follow. Further inroads were made also upon the sanctuaries. Institutions which had worn so deep a groove in the habits of men could not be at once put away; nor, while the letter of the law continued so sanguinary, was it tolerable to remove wholly the correctives which had checked its action, and provide no substitute. The last objection was not perhaps considered a serious one; but prejudice and instinct survived, as a safeguard of humanity. The protection of sanctuary was withdrawn for the more flagrant felonies, for murder, rape, robbery, arson, and sacrilege. Churches and church-yards continued to protect inferior offenders; and seven towns—Wells, Westminster, Manchester, Northampton, York, Derby, and Launceston—retained the same privileges, until, finding that their exemption only converted them into nests of crime, they petitioned of themselves for desecration. Some other regulations were also introduced into the system. Persons taking refuge in a church were allowed to remain not longer than forty days; at the end of which they were to abjure before the coroner and leave the country, or were to be consigned for life to one of the specified towns, where they were to be daily inspected by the governor, and if absent three days consecutively—no very barbarous condition—were to forfeit their security.[564] An act was passed for the better maintenance of the navy; and next, bringing inevitable ill-will with it to the unpopular minister, appeared the standard English grievance, a Money Bill. In the preceding session the Duke of Norfolk had laid before the Lords a statement of the extraordinary expenses which had been cast upon the Crown, and of the inadequacy of the revenue.[565] Twelve months’ notice had been given, that the Houses might consider at their leisure the demand which was likely to be made upon them. It appeared in a bill introduced on the 3d of May, requiring a subsidy of four fifteenths and four tenths, the payments to be spread over a period of four years.[566]

Expenses incurred in the defence of the realm.

The occasion of a demand of money was always carefully stated: the preamble set forth that the country had prospered, had lived in wealth, comfort, and peace under the king, for thirty-one years. His Highness, in the wisdom which God had given him, had brought his subjects out of blindness and ignorance to the knowledge of God and his holy Word. He had shaken off the usurpations of the Bishop of Rome, by whose subtle devices large sums had been annually drained out of the realm. But in doing this he had been forced to contend against insurrections at home and the peril of invasion from the powers of the Continent. He had built a navy and furnished it. He had raised fortresses, laid out harbours, established permanent garrisons in dangerous places, with arsenals for arms and all kinds of military stores. Ireland after an arduous struggle was at length reduced to obedience; but the conquest was maintained at a great and continuing cost. To meet this necessary outlay, no regular provision existed; and the king threw himself confidently upon his subjects, with an assurance that they would not refuse to bear their share in the burden.

Four priests and a woman are attainted for high treason.

The journals throw no light upon the debate, if debate there was. The required sum was voted; we know no more.[567] The sand in Cromwell’s hour-glass was almost run. Once more, and conspicuously, his spirit can be seen in a bill of attainder against four priests, three of whom, Abel, Fetherston, and Powell, had been attached to the household of Queen Catherine, and had lingered in the Tower, in resolute denial of the supremacy; the fourth, Robert Cook, of Doncaster, “had adhered to the late arrogant traitor Robert Aske.” In companionship with them was a woman, Margaret Tyrrell, who had refused to acknowledge Prince Edward to be heir to the crown. These five were declared by act of parliament guilty of high treason; their trial was dispensed with; they were sentenced to death, and the bill was passed without a dissentient voice.[568] This was on the 1st of June.[569] It was the same week in which the Tower seemed likely to be the destiny of Tunstall and Gardiner; the struggling parties had reached the crisis when one or the other must fall. Nine days more were allowed to pass; on the tenth the blow descended.

But I must again go back for a few steps, to make all movements clear.

June. Progress of the misfortune of the marriage.

May. Relations between the king and queen.

Conversation between Wriothesley and Cromwell.

From the day of the king’s marriage “he was in a manner weary of his life.”[570] The public policy of the connexion threatened to be a failure. It was useless abroad, it was eminently unpopular at home; while the purpose for which the country had burdened him with a wife was entirely hopeless.[571] To the queen herself he was kindly distant; but, like most men who have not been taught in early life to endure inconvenience, he brooded in secret over his misfortune, and chafed the wound by being unable to forget it. The documents relating to the pre-contract were not sent; his vexation converted a shadow into a reality. He grew superstitious about his repugnance, which he regarded as an instinct forbidding him to do an unlawful thing. “I have done as much to move the consent of my heart and mind as ever man did,” he said to Cromwell, “but without success.”[572] “I think before God,” he declared another time, “she has never been my lawful wife.”[573] The wretched relations continued without improvement till the 9th of May. On that day a royal circular was addressed to every member of the Privy Council, requiring them to attend the king’s presence, “for the treaty of such great and weighty matters as whereupon doth consist the surety of his Highness’s person, the preservation of his honour, and the tranquillity and quietness of themselves and all other his loving and faithful subjects.”[574] It may be conjectured that the king had at this time resolved to open his situation for discussion. No other matter can be ascertained to have existed at the time worthy of language so serious. Yet he must have changed his purpose. For three weeks longer the secret was preserved, and his course was still undecided. On the evening of the 6th or 7th of June Sir Thomas Wriothesley repaired to Cromwell’s house with the ordinary reports of public business. He found the minister alone in a gallery, leaning against a window. “Were there any news abroad?” Cromwell asked. Wriothesley said he knew of none. “There is something,” the minister said, “which troubles me. The king loves not the queen, nor ever has from the beginning; insomuch as I think assuredly she is yet as good a maid for him as she was when she came to England.” “Marry, sir,” Wriothesley answered, “I am right sorry that his Majesty should be so troubled. For God’s sake, devise how his Grace may be relieved by one way or the other.” “Yes,” Cromwell said, “but what and how?” Wriothesley said he could not tell on the moment; but standing the case as it did, he thought some way might be found. “Well, well,” answered the minister, “it is a great matter.” The conversation ended; and Wriothesley left him for the night.

“The next day following,” Wriothesley deposed, “having occasion eftsoons for business to repair unto him, I chanced to say, ‘Sir, I have thought somewhat of the matter you told me, and I find it a great matter. But, sir, it can be made better than it is. For God’s sake, devise for the relief of the king; for if he remain in this grief and trouble, we shall all one day smart for it. If his Grace be quiet we shall all have our parts with him.’ ‘It is true,’ quoth he; ‘but I tell you it is a great matter.’ ‘Marry,’ quoth I, ‘I grant; but let the remedy be searched for.’ ‘Well,’ quoth he; and thus brake off from me.”[575]

Wriothesley hints a divorce,

From which Cromwell shrinks,

Wriothesley’s remedy was of course a divorce. It could be nothing else. Yet, was it not a remedy worse than any possible disorder? Cromwell, indeed, knew himself responsible. He it was who, with open eyes, had led the king into his embarrassment. Yet, was a second divorce to give mortal affront to the Lutherans, as the first had done to the Catholics? Was another marriage scandal to taint a movement which had already furnished too much of such material to insolence? What a triumph to the Pope! What a triumph to the Emperor! How would his own elaborate policy crumble to ruins! It was a great matter indeed to Cromwell.

But which the English conservatives would be likely to favor.

But how would the whisper of the word sound in the ears of the English reactionaries? What would the clergy think of it in whose, only not unanimous, convictions the German alliance had been from the first a pollution? What would the parliament think of it, who had seen the fruit of their theological labours so cunningly snatched from them? What would the Anglican bishops think of it, who had found themselves insulted from the pulpit, from behind the shield of the hateful connexion—with one of their body already in the Tower, and the same danger hanging before them all? Or the laity generally—the wool-growers of the counties, the merchants of the cities, the taxpayers charged with the new subsidy, who, in the connexion with the house of Cleves, saw a fresh cause of quarrel with the Emperor and the ruin of the trade with Flanders; what, to all these, in the heat and rage of party, must have seemed the natural remedy for the king’s difficulty? Let Queen Catherine and her friends be avenged by a retribution in kind. Their opinions on the matter were shortly expressed.

Cromwell begins to totter.

Hasty expressions drop from him.

The king’s promise.

Meanwhile, the minister who, in the conduct of the mighty cause which he was guiding, had stooped to dabble in these muddy waters of intrigue, was reaping, within and without, the harvest of his errors. The consciousness of wrong brought with it the consciousness of weakness and moody alternations of temper. The triumph of his enemies stared him in the face, and rash words dropped from him, which were not allowed to fall upon the ground, declaring what he would do if the king were turned from the course of the Reformation. Carefully his antagonists at the council-board had watched him for years. They had noted down his public errors; spies had reported his most confidential language. Slowly, but surely, the pile of accusations had gathered in height and weight, till the time should come to make them public. Three years before, when the northern insurgents had demanded Cromwell’s punishment, the king had answered that the laws were open, and were equal to high and low. Let an accuser come forward openly, and prove that the Privy Seal had broken the laws, and he should be punished as surely and as truly as the meanest criminal. The case against him was clear at last; if brought forward in the midst of the king’s displeasure, the charges could not fail of attentive hearing, and the release from the detested matrimony might be identified with the punishment of the author of it.

Mixed causes for the hatred against Cromwell.

For struck down Cromwell should be, as his master Wolsey had been, to rise no more. Not only was he hated on public grounds, as the leader of a revolution, but, in his multiplied offices, he had usurped the functions of the ecclesiastical courts; he had mixed himself in the private concerns of families; he had interfered between wives and husbands, fathers and sons, brothers and sisters. In his enormous correspondence[576] he appears as the universal referee—the resource of all weak or injured persons. The mad Duchess of Norfolk chose him for her patron against the duke. Lady Burgh, Lady Parr, Lady Hungerford,[577] alike made him the champion of their domestic wrongs. Justly and unjustly, he had dragged down upon himself the animosity of peers, bishops, clergy, and gentlemen, and their day of revenge was come.

June 10.

He is arrested.

Treasonable words are sworn against him.

Exultation of the reactionaries in London.

On the 10th of June he attended as usual at the morning sitting of the House of Lords. The Privy Council sat in the afternoon, and, at three o’clock, the Duke of Norfolk rose suddenly at the table: “My Lord of Essex,” he said, “I arrest you of high treason.” There were witnesses in readiness, who came forward and swore to have heard him say “that, if the king and all his realm would turn and vary from his opinions, he would fight in the field in his own person, with his sword in his hand, against the king and all others; adding that, if he lived a year or two, he trusted to bring things to that frame that it should not lie in the king’s power to resist or let it.”[578] The words “were justified to his face.” It was enough. Letters were instantly written to the ambassadors at foreign courts, desiring them to make known the blow which had been struck and the causes which had led to it.[579] The twilight of the summer evening found Thomas Cromwell within the walls of that grim prison which had few outlets except the scaffold; and far off, perhaps, he heard the pealing of the church-bells and the songs of revelry in the streets, with which the citizens, short of sight, and bestowing on him the usual guerdon of transcendent merit, exulted in his fall. “The Lord Cromwell,” says Hall, “being in the council chamber, was suddenly apprehended and committed to the Tower of London; the which many lamented, but more rejoiced, and specially such as either had been religious men or favoured religious persons; for they banqueted and triumphed together that night, many wishing that that day had been seven years before, and some, fearing lest he should escape, although he were imprisoned, could not be merry; others, who knew nothing but truth by him, both lamented him and heartily prayed for him. But this is true, that, of certain of the clergy, he was detestably hated; and specially of such as had borne swing, and by his means were put from it; for indeed he was a man that, in all his doings, seemed not to favour any kind of Popery, nor could not abide the snuffing pride of some prelates.”[580]

A trial intended, but exchanged for an act of attainder.

The first intention was to bring him to trial,[581] but a parliamentary attainder was a swifter process, better suited to the temper of the victorious reactionists. Five Romanists but a few days previously had been thus sentenced under Cromwell’s direction. The retribution was only the more complete which rendered back to him the same measure which he had dealt to others. The bill was brought in a week after his arrest. His offences, when reduced into ordinary prose out of the passionate rhetoric with which they were there described, were generally these:—

He had set at liberty persons convicted or suspected of treason.

1. He was accused of having taken upon himself, without the king’s permission, to set at liberty divers persons convicted and attainted of misprision of high treason, and divers others being apprehended and in prison for suspicion of high treason. No circumstances and no names were mentioned; but the fact seemed to be ascertained.

He had issued commissions on his own authority.

2. He was said to have granted licences for money; to have issued commissions in his own name and by his own authority; and, to have interfered impertinently and unjustly with the rights and liberties of the king’s subjects.

He had encouraged heresy.

3. Being a detestable heretic and disposed to set and sow common sedition and variance amongst people, he had dispersed into all shires in the realm great numbers of false, erroneous books, disturbing the faith of the king’s subjects on the nature of the Eucharist and other articles of the Christian faith. He had openly maintained that the priesthood was a form—that every Christian might equally administer the Sacraments. Being vicegerent of the king in matters ecclesiastical, and appointed to correct heresy, he had granted licences to persons detected or openly defamed of heresy to teach and preach.

He had released heretics from prison.

4. He had addressed letters to the sheriffs in various shires, causing many false heretics to be set at liberty, some of whom had been actually indicted, and others who had been for good reason apprehended and were in prison.

He had rebuked their accusers and prosecutors.

5. On complaint being made to him of particular heretics and heresies, he had protected the same heretics from punishment; “he had terribly rebuked their accusers,” and some of them he had persecuted and imprisoned, “so that the king’s good subjects had been in fear to detect the said heretics and heresies.”

He had threatened to maintain them by force.

6. In fuller explanation of the expressions sworn against him on his arrest, he had made a confederation of heretics, it was said, through the country; and supposing himself to be fully able, by force and strength, to maintain and defend his said abominable treasons and heresies, on declaration made to him of certain preachers, Dr. Barnes and others, preaching against the king’s proclamation, “the same Thomas Cromwell affirming the same preaching to be good, did not let to declare and say, ‘If the king would turn from it, yet I would not turn; and if the king did turn, and all his people, I would fight in the field, with my sword in my hand, against him and all others; and if that I live a year or two, it shall not lie in the king’s power to let it if he would.’”

He had amassed a fortune by bribery,

7. By bribery and extortion he had obtained vast sums of money; and being thus enriched, he had held the nobles in disdain.

And had menaced the nobility.

8. Finally, being reminded of his position with respect to the lords, and of the consequences which he might bring upon himself, he had said, “If the Lords would handle him so, he would give them such a breakfast as never was made in England, and that the proudest of them should know.”[582]

Were the accusations true?

And if true, was his escape or acquittal possible?

The amount and character of the evidence on which these charges were brought we have no means of judging; but the majority of them carry probability on their front; and we need not doubt that the required testimony was both abundant and sound. The case, of course, had been submitted in all its details to the king before the first step had been taken; and he was called upon to fulfil the promise which he had made of permitting justice to have its way. How was the king to refuse? Many a Catholic had gone to the scaffold for words lighter than those which had been sworn against Cromwell, by Cromwell’s own order. Did he or did he not utter those words? If it be these to which he alluded in a letter which he wrote from the Tower to the king,[583] Sir George Throgmorton and Sir Richard Rich were the witnesses against him; and though he tried to shake their testimony, his denial was faint, indirect—not like the broad, absolute repudiation of a man who was consciously clear of offence.[584] Could he have cleared himself on this one point, it would have availed him little if he had suspended the action of the law by his own authority, if he had permitted books to circulate secretly which were forbidden by act of parliament, if he had allowed prisoners for high treason or heresy to escape from confinement. Although to later generations acts such as these appear as virtues, not as crimes, the king could not anticipate the larger wisdom of posterity. An English sovereign could know no guidance but the existing law, which had been manifestly and repeatedly broken. Even if he had himself desired to shield his minister, it is not easy to see that he could have prevented his being brought to trial, or, if tried, could have prevented his conviction, in the face of an exasperated parliament, a furious clergy, and a clamorous people. That he permitted the council to proceed by attainder, in preference to the ordinary forms, must be attributed to the share which he, too, experienced in the general anger.

Cranmer declares his confidence in Cromwell’s integrity.

Only one person had the courage or the wish to speak for Cromwell. Cranmer, the first to come forward on behalf of Anne Boleyn, ventured, first and alone, to throw a doubt on the treason of the Privy Seal. “I heard yesterday, in your Grace’s council,” he wrote to the king, “that the Earl of Essex is a traitor; yet who cannot be sorrowful and amazed that he should be a traitor against your Majesty—he whose surety was only by your Majesty—he who loved your Majesty, as I ever thought, no less than God—he who studied always to set forwards whatsoever was your Majesty’s will and pleasure—he that cared for no man’s displeasure to serve your Majesty—he that was such a servant, in my judgment, in wisdom, diligence, faithfulness, and experience as no prince in this realm ever had—he that was so vigilant to preserve your Majesty from all treasons, that few could be so secretly conceived but he detected the same in the beginning!—I loved him as my friend, for so I took him to be; but I chiefly loved him for the love which I thought I saw him bear ever towards your Grace, singularly above all others. But now, if he be a traitor, I am sorry that ever I loved or trusted him; and I am very glad that his treason is discovered in time; but yet, again, I am very sorrowful; for who shall your Grace trust hereafter, if you may not trust him? Alas! I lament your Grace’s chance herein. I wot not whom your Grace may trust.”[585]

But inasmuch as he had broken the law openly and repeatedly,

And inasmuch as the law in a free country is the only guide to the magistrate, his condemnation was inevitable.

The intercession was bravely ventured; but it was fruitless. The illegal acts of a minister who had been trusted with extraordinary powers were too patent for denial; and Cranmer himself was forced into a passive acquiescence, while the enemies of the Reformation worked their revenge. Heresy and truth, treason and patriotism! these are words which in a war of parties change their meaning with the alternations of success, till time and fate have pronounced the last interpretation, and human opinions and sympathies bend to the deciding judgment. But while the struggle is still in progress—while the partisans on either side exclaim that truth is with them, and error with their antagonists, and the minds of this man and of that man are so far the only arbiters—those, at such a time, are not the least to be commended who obey for their guide the law as it in fact exists. Men there are who need no such direction, who follow their own course—it may be to a glorious success, it may be to as glorious a death. To such proud natures the issue to themselves is of trifling moment. They live for their work or die for it, as their Almighty Father wills. But the law in a free country cannot keep pace with genius. It reflects the plain sentiments of the better order of average men; and if it so happen, as in a perplexed world of change it will happen and must, that a statesman, or a prophet, is beyond his age, and in collision with a law which his conscience forbids him to obey, he bravely breaks it, bravely defies it, and either wins the victory in his living person, or, more often, wins it in his death. In fairness, Cromwell should have been tried; but it would have added nothing to his chances of escape. He could not disprove the accusations. He could but have said that he had done right, not wrong,—a plea which would have been but a fresh crime. But, in the deafening storm of denunciation which burst out, the hastiest vengeance was held the greatest justice. Any charge, however wild, gained hearing: Chatillon, the French ambassador, informed his court that the Privy Seal had intended privately to marry the Lady Mary, as the Duke of Suffolk had married the king’s sister, and on Henry’s death proposed to seize the crown.[586] When a story so extravagant could gain credence, the circular of the council to the ambassadors rather furnishes matter of suspicion by its moderation.

The attainder passes.

The quarrel with the Emperor is at an end.

The attainder passed instantly, with acclamations. Francis wrote a letter of congratulation to the king on the discovery of the “treason.”[587] Charles V., whose keener eyes saw deeper into the nature of the catastrophe, when the news were communicated to him, “nothing moved outwardly in countenance or word,” said merely, “What, is he in the Tower of London, and by the king’s commandment?”[588] He sent no message, no expression of regret or of pleasure, no word of any kind; but from that moment no menacing demonstrations or violent words or actions ruffled his relations with England, till a new change had passed upon the stage. His own friends were now in power. He knew it, and acknowledged them.[589]

Triumph of the reactionaries.

The barrier which had stemmed the reactionary tide had now fallen. Omnipotent in parliament and convocation, the king inclining in their favour, carrying with them the sympathy of the wealth, the worldliness, and the harder intellect of the country, freed from the dreaded minister, freed from the necessity of conciliating the German Protestants, the Anglican leaders made haste to redeem their lost time, and develope their policy more wisely than before.

The Bishop of Bath is despatched to the Duke of Cleves.

July 1. Improvement of the machinery for the enforcement of the Six Articles.

July 6. Parliament discusses the marriage.

Their handiwork is to be traced in the various measures which occupied the remainder of the session. The first step was to despatch the Bishop of Bath to the Duke of Cleves, to gain his consent, if possible, to his sister’s separation from the king; Anne, herself, meanwhile, being recommended, for the benefit of her health, to retire for a few days to Richmond. The bill of attainder was disposed of on the 19th of June; on the 22d the bishops brought in a bill for the better payment of tithes, which in the few years last past certain persons had contemptuously presumed to withhold.[590] On the 1st of July a bill was read enacting that, whereas in the parliament of the year preceding “a godly act was made for the abolishment of diversity of opinion concerning the Christian religion,” the provisions of which, for various reasons, had not been enforced, for the better execution of the said act the number of commissioners appointed for that purpose should be further increased; and the bishops and the bishops’ chancellors should be assisted by the archdeacons and the officials of their courts.[591] This measure, like the attainder, was passed unanimously.[592] On the 5th a general pardon was introduced, from which heretics were exempted by a special proviso.[593] The new spirit was rapid in its manifestation. The day after (for it was not thought necessary to wait for a letter from Germany) the Cleves’ marriage was brought forward for discussion; and the care with which the pleadings were parodied which had justified the divorce of Catherine, resembled rather a deliberate intention to discredit the first scandal than a serious effort to defend the second; but we must not judge the conduct of a party blinded with passion by the appearance which such conduct seems to wear in a calmer retrospect.

Speech of the Lord Chancellor not to the purpose.

The chancellor, once more reminding the lords of the wars of the Roses, and the danger of a disputed succession, informed them that certain doubts had arisen affecting the legality of the king’s present marriage. The absence of a prospect of issue was the single palliative of the present proceedings. The chancellor injured the case, so far as it admitted of injury, by dwelling on the possibility of an issue of doubtful legitimacy. The questions raised, however, belonged, he said, to the canon law, and he proposed that they should be submitted to the clergy then sitting in convocation.

A delegacy of the two Houses waits upon the king.

The queen consents to accept the judgment of convocation.

When the chancellor had ceased, the peers desired to communicate with the other House. Six delegates were sent down to repeat the substance of what they had heard, and returned presently, followed by twenty members of the House of Commons, who signified a wish to speak with the king in person. The lords assented, and repaired in a body with the twenty members to Whitehall. The formality of state interviews may not be too closely scrutinized. They requested to be allowed to open to his Majesty a great and important matter, which his Majesty, they were well aware, had alone permitted them to discuss. His Majesty being confident that they would make no improper demands, they laid before him the proposition which they had heard from the woolsack, and added their own entreaties that he would be pleased to consent.[594] The king was gracious, but the canon law required also the consent of the queen; for which, therefore, the Duke of Suffolk, the Bishop of Winchester, and other noblemen were despatched to Richmond, and with which they soon returned.[595] Six years were spent over the affair with Queen Catherine: almost as many days sufficed to dispose of Anne of Cleves.

July 7. The convocation undertake the investigation.

Evidence is given in.

On the Wednesday morning the clergy assembled, and Gardiner, in “a luminous oration,”[596] invited them to the task which they were to undertake. Evidence was sent in by different members of the Privy Council whom the king had admitted to his confidence; by the ladies of the court who could speak for the condition of the queen; and, finally, by Henry himself, in a paper which he wrote with his own hand, accompanying it with a request that, after reviewing all the circumstances under which the marriage had been contracted, they would inform him if it was still binding; and adding at the same time an earnest adjuration, which it is not easy to believe to have been wholly a form, that, having God only before their eyes, they would point out to him the course which justly, honourably, and religiously he was at liberty to pursue.[597]

His personal declaration was as follows:[598]—

The king makes a declaration of his own conduct.

“I depose and declare that this hereafter written is merely the verity, intended upon no sinister affection, nor yet upon none hatred or displeasure, and herein I take God to witness. To the matter I say and affirm that, when the first communication was had with me for the marriage of the Lady Anne of Cleves, I was glad to hearken to it, trusting to have some assured friend by it, I much doubting at that time both the Emperor, and France, and the Bishop of Rome, and also because I heard so much both of her excellent beauty and virtuous behaviour. But when I saw her at Rochester, which was the first time that ever I saw her, it rejoiced my heart that I had kept me free from making any pact or bond before with her till I saw her myself; for I assure you that I liked her so ill and [found her to be] so far contrary to that she was praised, that I was woe that ever she came into England, and deliberated with myself that if it were possible to find means to break off, I would never enter yoke with her; of which misliking both the Great Master (Lord Russell), the Admiral that now is, and the Master of the Horse (Sir Anthony Brown) can and will bear record. Then after my repair to Greenwich, the next day after, I think, I doubt not but the Lord of Essex will and can declare what I then said to him in that case, not doubting but, since he is a person which knoweth himself condemned to die by act of parliament, he will not damn his soul, but truly declare the truth not only at that time spoken by me, but also continually until the day of the marriage, and also many times after; wherein my lack of consent I doubt not doth or shall well appear, and also lack enough of the will and power to consummate the same, wherein both he and my physicians can testify according to the truth.”

The clergy deliberate for three days, and on the fourth deliver their sentence.

Nearly two hundred clergy were assembled, and the ecclesiastical lawyers were called in to their assistance. The deliberation lasted Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.[599] On Saturday they had agreed upon their judgment, which was produced and read in the House of Lords.

Owing to the imperfectly cleared pre-contract,

The contract between the Lady Anne of Cleves and the Marquis of Lorraine was sufficient, they would not say to invalidate, but to perplex and complicate any second marriage into which she might have entered.

Conditions unfulfilled,

Before the ceremony the king had required the production of the papers relating to that engagement with so much earnestness, that the demand might be taken as a condition on which the marriage was completed. But the papers had not been produced, the uncertainties had not been cleared ... and thus there had not only been a breach of condition, but, if no condition had been made, the previous objection was further increased.

The enforced consent of the king,

Consent had been wanting on the part of the king. False representations had been held out to bring the lady into the realm and force her upon his Majesty’s acceptance.

The solemnization of the marriage was extorted from his Majesty against his will under urgent pressure and compulsion by external causes.

The absence of consummation,

And from other causes affecting the interests of the kingdom,

Consummation had not followed, nor ought to follow, and the convocation had been informed—as indeed it was matter of common notoriety—that if his Majesty could, without the breach of any divine law, be married to another person, great benefits might thereby accrue to the realm, the present welfare and safety whereof depended on the preservation of his royal person, to the honour of God, the accomplishment of His will, and the avoiding of sinister opinions and scandals.

Considering all these circumstances, therefore, and weighing what the Church might and could lawfully do in such cases, and had often before done,[600] the convocation, by the tenor of those their present letters, declared his Majesty not to be any longer bound by the matrimony in question, which matrimony was null and invalid; and both his Majesty and the Lady Anne were free to contract and consummate other marriages without objection or delay.

They declare the marriage dissolved.

The continuance of the marriage could not have been desired.

But the scandal was great and inevitable.

To this judgment two archbishops, seventeen bishops, and a hundred and thirty-nine clergy set their hands.[601] Their sentence was undoubtedly legal, according to a stricter interpretation of the canon law than had been usual in the ecclesiastical courts. The case was of a kind in which the queen, on her separate suit, could, with clear right, have obtained a divorce a vinculo had she desired; and the country had been accustomed to see separations infinitely more questionable obtained in the court of the Rota or at home, with easy and scandalous levity.[602] Nor could the most scrupulous person, looking at the marriage between Henry and Anne of Cleves on its own merits, pretend that any law, human or divine, would have been better fulfilled, or that any feeling entitled to respect would have been less outraged, by the longer maintenance of so unhappy a connexion. Yet it is much to be regretted that the clergy should have been compelled to meddle with it; under however plausible an aspect the divorce might be presented, it gave a colour to the interpretation which represented the separation from Catherine as arising out of caprice, and enabled the enemies of the Church of England to represent her synods as the instruments of the king’s licentiousness.[603]

The queen signifies her acquiescence.

She will remain in England with the rank of a princess; palaces, pensions, and establishments.

For good or for evil, however, the judgment was given. The Bishop of Winchester spoke a few words in explanation to the two houses of parliament when it was presented;[604] and the next day the Duke of Suffolk and Wriothesley waited on the queen, and communicated the fortune which was impending over her. Anne herself—who, after the slight agitation which the first mooting of the matter naturally produced, had acquiesced in everything which was proposed to her—received the intimation with placidity. She wrote at their request to the king, giving her consent in writing. She wrote also to her brother, declaring herself satisfied, and expressing her hope that he would be satisfied as well. So much facility increased the consideration which her treatment entitled her to claim. The Bishop of Bath had taken with him to the Duke of Cleves an offer, which ought to have been an insult, of a pecuniary compensation for his sister’s injury. It was withdrawn or qualified, before it was known to have been refused, to increase the settlement on the ex-queen. For many reasons the king desired that she should remain in England; but she had rank and precedence assigned to her as if she had been a princess of the blood. Estates were granted for her maintenance producing nearly three thousand a year. Palaces, dresses, jewels, costly establishments were added in lavish profusion, to be her dowry, as she was significantly told, should she desire to make a fresh experiment in matrimony. And she not only (it is likely) preferred a splendid independence to the poverty of a petty court in Germany, but perhaps, also, to the doubtful magnificence which she had enjoyed as Henry’s bride.[605]

Monday, July 12. The bill for the divorce is passed in parliament.

Displeasure of the Duke of Cleves,

And want of generosity on the part of the king,

Parliament made haste with the concluding stroke. On Monday the 12th the bill for the divorce was introduced: it was disposed of with the greatest haste which the forms of the Houses would allow; and the conclusion of the matter was announced to the queen’s own family and the foreign powers almost as soon as it was known to be contemplated. The Duke of Cleves, on the first audience of the Bishop of Bath, had shown himself “heavy and hard to pacify and please.” When all was over, the Bishops of Winchester and Durham, with other noble lords, wrote to him themselves, persuading him to acquiesce in a misfortune which could no longer be remedied; his sister had already declared her own satisfaction; and Henry, through his commissioners, informed him in detail of the proceedings in parliament and convocation, and trusted that the friendship between the courts would not be interrupted in consequence. It would have been well had he added nothing to a bare narrative of facts; but questionable actions are rarely improved in the manner of their execution. The king was irritated at the humiliation to which the conduct of the German powers had exposed him in the spring; and the Duke of Cleves had afterwards increased his displeasure by a secret intrigue with the court of Paris. Satisfied with his settlements upon Anne, he avowed an anxiety to be extricated from his offer of money to the duke, “who might percase, to his miscontentment, employ it by the advice of others, or at least without commodity to the giver.”[606] In fact, he said, as he had done nothing but what was right, “if the lady’s contentation would not content her friends, it should not be honourable for him, with detriment and waste of his treasure, to labour to satisfy those who without cause misliked his doings, which were just, and without injury to be passed over.”[607] Finally, he concluded: “In case the duke sheweth himself untractable and high-couraged, in such sort as devising interests and respects, he shall further set forth the matter, and increase it with words more largely than reason would he should, alledging, percase, that though the lady is contented, yet he is not contented, her mother is not contented, requiring why and wherefore, and such other behaviour as men in high stomach, forgetting reason, shew and utter, in that case you, the Bishop of Bath, declaring unto the duke how we sent you not thither to render an account of our just proceedings, but friendly to communicate them, you shall desire the duke to license you to depart.”[608]

Which does not contrast favourably with the conduct of the duke.

The duke will not admit that his sister has been honourably treated; but will not pres his quarrel to a rupture.

The high style of Henry contrasts unfavourably with the more dignified moderation of the answer. The duke wrote himself briefly to the king: he replied through his minister to the ambassador, that “he was sorry for the chance, and would well have wished it had been otherwise; yet, seeing it was thus, he would not depart from his amity for his Majesty for any such matter. He could have wished that his sister should return to Germany; but, if she was satisfied to remain, he had confidence that the king would act uprightly towards her, and he would not press it.” Of the offer of money he took little notice or none.[609] The bishop laboured to persuade him to pay respect to the judgment of the Church; this, however, the duke resolutely refused, altogether ignoring it as of no manner of moment; neither would he allow that the Lady Anne had been treated honourably, although the bishop much pressed for the admission. A cold acquiescence in an affront which he was too weak to resent, and a promise that his private injuries should not cause the dissolution of an alliance which had been useful to the interests of religion, was the most which could be extorted from the Duke of Cleves; and, in calmer moments, Henry could neither have desired nor looked for more. But no one at that crisis was calm in England. The passions roused in the strife of convictions which divided rank from rank, which divided families, which divided every earnest man against himself, extended over all subjects which touched the central question. The impulse of the moment assumed the character of right, and everything was wrong which refused to go along with it.

The divorce is communicated to Francis,

Sir Edward Karne made the communication to Francis, prefacing his story with the usual prelude of the succession, and the anxiety of the country that the king should have more children. “Even at that point” Francis started, expecting that something serious was to follow. When Sir Edward went on to say that “the examination of the king’s marriage was submitted to the clergy,” “What,” he said, “the matrimony made with the queen that now is?” Karne assented. “Then he fetched a great sigh, and spake no more” till the conclusion, when he answered, “he could nor would take any other opinion of his Highness but as his loving brother and friend should do;” for the particular matter, “his Highness’s conscience must be judge therein.”[610]

And to the Emperor.

The king had lost Germany and gained the Empire.

“The Emperor,” wrote the resident Pate, “when I declared my commission, gave me good air, with one gesture and countenance throughout, saving that suddenly, as I touched the pith of the matter, thereupon he steadfastly cast his eye upon me a pretty while, and then interrupting me, demanded what the causes were of the doubts concerning the marriage with the daughter of Cleves.” Pate was not commissioned to enter into details; and Charles, at the end, contented himself with sending his hearty recommendations, and expressing his confidence that, as the king was wise, so he was sure he would do nothing “which should not be to the discharge of his conscience and the tranquillity of his realm.”[611] In confidence, a few days later, he avowed a hope that all would now go well in England; the enormities of the past had been due to the pernicious influence of Cromwell; or were “beside the king’s pleasure or knowledge, being a prince,” the Emperor said, “no less godly brought up than endued and imbued with so many virtuous qualities as whom all blasts and storms could never alter nor move, but as vice might alter true virtue.”[612] On the whole, the impression left by the affair on the Continent was that Henry “had lost the hearts of the German princes, but had gained the Emperor instead.”[613] Both the loss and the gain were alike welcome to the English conservatives. The latter, happy in their victory, and now freed from all impediments, had only to follow up their advantage.

Bill for the moderation of the Six Articles in favour of incontinence.

Appointment of a standing committee of religion, with extraordinary powers.

On the 12th of July the persecuting bill was passed, and the Tithe Bill also, after having been recast by the Commons.[614] On the 16th the Six Articles Bill was moderated, in favour not of heresy, but of the more venial offence of incontinency. Married clergy and incontinent priests by the Six Articles Bill were, on the first offence, to forfeit their benefices; if they persisted they were to be treated as felons. The King’s Highness, graciously considering “that the punishment of death was very sore, and too much extreme,” was contented to relax the penalty into three gradations. For the first offence the punishment was to be forfeiture of all benefices but one; for the second, forfeiture of the one remaining; for the third, imprisonment for life.[615] A few days later the extension given to the prerogative, by the Act of Proclamations, was again shortened by communicating to the clergy a share of the powers which had been granted absolutely to the crown; and the parliament at the same time restored into the hands of the spiritualty the control of religious opinion. The Protestants had shifted their ground from purgatory and masses to free-will and justification; and had thus defied the bishops, and left the law behind them. The king’s proclamations had failed through general neglect. A committee of religion was now constituted, composed of the archbishops, bishops, and other learned doctors of divinity; and an act, which passed three readings in the House of Lords in a single day, conferred on this body a power to declare absolutely, under the king’s sanction, the judgment of the English Church on all questions of theology which might be raised, either at home or on the Continent, and to compel submission to their decrees, under such pains and penalties as they might think proper to impose, limited only by the common law and by the restrictions attached to the Act of Proclamations.[616]

Bill of attainder against various persons who had conspired to betray Calais,

To which are added the names of Barnes, Garret, and Jerome.

Declared guilty of heresy.

One important matter remained. This statute conferred no powers of life and death; and there were certain chosen champions of Protestantism who had resisted authority, had scoffed at recantation, and had insulted the Bishop of Winchester. Although a penal measure could not be extended to comprehend their doctrine by special definition, an omnipotent parliament might, by a stretch of authority, vindicate the bishop’s dignity, and make a conspicuous example of the offenders. A case of high treason was before the Houses. At the time when the invasion was impending, a party of conspirators, Sir Gregory Botolph, Clement Philpot, and three others, had contrived a project to betray Calais either to the French or the Spaniards. The plot had been betrayed by a confederate;[617] and the Anglo-Catholics did not intend to repeat the blunder of showing a leaning towards the Romanists, which had wrecked their fortunes in the preceding summer: they sentenced the offenders to death by an attainder; and after so satisfactory a display of loyalty, the friends of the bishops added three more names to the list in the following words:[618] “And whereas Robert Barnes, late of London, clerk, Thomas Garret, late of London, clerk, and William Jerome, late of Stepney, in the county of Middlesex, clerk, being detestable and abominable heretics, and amongst themselves agreed and confederated to set and sow common sedition and variance amongst the king’s true and loving subjects within this his realm, not fearing their most bounden duty to God nor yet their allegiance towards his Majesty, have openly preached, taught, set forth, and delivered in divers and sundry places of this realm, a great number of heresies, false, erroneous opinions, doctrines, and sayings; and thinking themselves to be men of learning, have taken upon them most seditiously and heretically to open and declare divers and many texts of Scripture, expounding and applying the same to many perverse and heretical senses, understandings, and purposes, to the intent to induce and lead his Majesty’s said subjects to diffidence and refusal of the true, sincere faith and belief which Christian men ought to have in Christian religion, the number whereof were too long here to be rehearsed.... Be it, therefore, enacted that the said persons Robert Barnes, Thomas Garret, and William Jerome, shall be convicted and attainted of heresy, and that they and every of them shall be deemed and adjudged abominable and detestable heretics, and shall have and suffer pains of death by burning or otherwise, as shall please the King’s Majesty.”

Dissolution of parliament.

This was the last measure of consequence in the session. Three days after it closed. On the 24th the king came down to Westminster in person, to thank the parliament for the subsidy. The Speaker of the House of Commons congratulated the country on their sovereign. The chancellor replied, in his Majesty’s name, that his only study was for the welfare of his subjects; his only ambition was to govern them by the rule of the Divine law, and the Divine love, to the salvation of their souls and bodies. The bills which had been passed were then presented for the royal assent; and the chancellor, after briefly exhorting the members of both houses to show the same diligence in securing the due execution of these measures as they had displayed in enacting them, declared the parliament dissolved.[619]

The close of the Cromwell drama.

His letters to the king from the Tower.

July 28. He goes to execution.

The curtain now rises on the closing act of the Cromwell tragedy. In the condemned cells in the Tower, the three Catholics for whose sentence he was himself answerable—the three Protestants whom his fall had left exposed to their enemies—were the companions of the broken minister; and there for six weeks he himself, the central figure, whose will had made many women childless, had sat waiting his own unpitied doom. Twice the king had sent to him “honourable persons, to receive such explanations as he could offer. He had been patiently and elaborately heard.”[620] Twice he had himself written,—once, by Henry’s desire, an account of the Anne of Cleves marriage,—once a letter, which his faithful friend Sir Ralph Sadler carried to Henry for him; and this last the king caused the bearer three times to read over, and “seemed to be moved therewith.”[621] Yet what had Cromwell to say? That he had done his best in the interest of the commonwealth? But his best was better than the laws of the commonwealth. He had endeavoured faithfully to serve the king; but he had endeavoured also to serve One higher than the king. He had thrown himself in the breach against king and people where they were wrong. He had used the authority with which he had been so largely trusted to thwart the parliament and suspend statutes of the realm. He might plead his services; but what would his services avail him! An offence in the king’s eyes was ever proportioned to the rank, the intellect, the character of the offender. The via media Anglicana, on which Henry had planted his foot, prescribed an even justice; and as Cromwell, in this name of the via media, had struck down without mercy the adherents of the Church of Rome, there was no alternative but to surrender him to the same equitable rule, or to declare to the world and to himself that he no longer held that middle place which he so vehemently claimed. To sustain the Six Articles and to pardon the vicegerent was impossible. If the consent to the attainder cost the king any pang, we do not know; only this we know, that a passionate appeal for mercy, such as was rarely heard in those days of haughty endurance, found no response; and on the 28th of July the most despotic minister who had ever governed England passed from the Tower to the scaffold.

A false account of his last words printed by authority.

A speech was printed by authority, and circulated through Europe, which it was thought desirable that he should have been supposed to have uttered before his death. It was accepted as authentic by Hall, and from Hall’s pages has been transferred into English history; and “the Lord Cromwell” is represented to have confessed that he had been seduced into heresy, that he repented, and died in the faith of the holy Catholic Church. Reginald Pole, who, like others, at first accepted the official report as genuine, warned a correspondent, on the authority of persons whose account might be relied upon, that the words which were really spoken were very different, and to Catholic minds were far less satisfactory.[622] The last effort of Cromwell’s enemies was to send him out of the world with a lie upon his lips, to call in his dying witness in favour of falsehoods which he gave up his life to overthrow. Clear he was not, as what living man was clear? of all taint of superstition; but a fairer version of his parting faith will be found in words which those who loved him, and who preserved no record of his address to the people, handed down as his last prayer to the Saviour:—

His prayer on the scaffold.

The end.

“O Lord Jesu, which art the only health of all men living, and the everlasting life of them which die in Thee, I, wretched sinner, do submit myself wholly to thy most blessed will; and, being sure that the thing cannot perish which is submitted to thy mercy, willingly now I leave this frail and wicked flesh, in sure hope that Thou wilt in better wise restore it to me again at the last day in the resurrection of the just. I beseech Thee, most merciful Lord Jesu Christ, that Thou wilt by thy grace make strong my soul against all temptation, and defend me with the buckler of thy mercy against all the assaults of the devil. I see and acknowledge that there is in myself no hope of salvation; but all my confidence, hope, and trust is in thy most merciful goodness. I have no merits nor good works which I may allege before Thee: of sin and evil works, alas! I see a great heap. But yet, through thy mercy, I trust to be in the number of them to whom Thou wilt not impute their sins, but wilt take and accept me for righteous and just, and to be the inheritor of everlasting life. Thou, merciful Lord, wast born for my sake; Thou didst suffer both hunger and thirst for my sake; all thy holy actions and works Thou wroughtest for my sake; Thou sufferedst both grievous pains and torments for my sake; finally, Thou gavest thy most precious body and blood to be shed on the cross for my sake. Now, most merciful Saviour, let all these things profit me that Thou hast freely done for me, which hast given Thyself also for me. Let thy blood cleanse and wash away the spots and foulness of my sins. Let thy righteousness hide and cover my unrighteousness. Let the merits of thy passion and bloodshedding be satisfaction for my sins. Give me, Lord, thy grace, that the faith in my salvation in thy blood waver not, but may ever be firm and constant; that the hope of thy mercy and life everlasting never decay in me; that love wax not cold in me; finally, that the weakness of my flesh be not overcome with fear of death. Grant me, merciful Saviour, that when death hath shut up the eyes of my body, yet the eyes of my soul may still behold and look upon Thee; and when death hath taken away the use of my tongue, yet my heart may cry and say unto Thee, Lord, into thy hands I commend my soul. Lord Jesu, receive my spirit. Amen.”[623]

His character.

With these words upon his lips perished a statesman whose character will for ever remain a problem.[624] For eight years his influence had been supreme with the king—supreme in parliament—supreme in convocation; the nation, in the ferment of revolution, was absolutely controlled by him; and he has left the print of his individual genius stamped indelibly, while the metal was at white heat, into the constitution of the country. Wave after wave has rolled over his work. Romanism flowed back over it under Mary. Puritanism, under another even grander Cromwell, overwhelmed it. But Romanism ebbed again, and Puritanism is dead, and the polity of the Church of England remains as it was left by its creator.

And not in the Church only, but in all departments of the public service, Cromwell was the sovereign guide. In the Foreign Office and the Home Office, in Star Chamber and at council table, in dockyard and law court, Cromwell’s intellect presided—Cromwell’s hand executed. His gigantic correspondence remains to witness for his varied energy. Whether it was an ambassador or a commissioner of sewers, a warden of a company or a tradesman who was injured by the guild, a bishop or a heretic, a justice of the peace, or a serf crying for emancipation, Cromwell was the universal authority to whom all officials looked for instruction, and all sufferers looked for redress. Hated by all those who had grown old in an earlier system—by the wealthy, whose interests were touched by his reforms—by the superstitious, whose prejudices he wounded—he was the defender of the weak, the defender of the poor, defender of the “fatherless and forsaken”; and for his work, the long maintenance of it has borne witness that it was good—that he did the thing which England’s true interests required to be done.

Of the manner in which that work was done it is less easy to speak. Fierce laws fiercely executed—an unflinching resolution which neither danger could daunt nor saintly virtue move to mercy—a long list of solemn tragedies—weigh upon his memory. He had taken upon himself a task beyond the ordinary strength of man. His difficulties could be overcome only by inflexible persistence in the course which he had marked out for himself and for the state; and he supported his weakness by a determination which imitated the unbending fixity of a law of nature. He pursued an object the excellence of which, as his mind saw it, transcended all other considerations—the freedom of England and the destruction of idolatry: and those who from any motive, noble or base, pious or impious, crossed his path, he crushed, and passed on over their bodies.

Whether the same end could have been attained by gentler methods is a question which many persons suppose they can easily answer in the affirmative. Some diffidence of judgment, however, ought to be taught by the recollection that the same end was purchased in every other country which had the happiness to attain to it at all, only by years of bloodshed, a single day or week of which caused larger human misery than the whole period of the administration of Cromwell. Be this as it will, his aim was noble. For his actions he paid with his life; and he followed his victims by the same road which they had trodden before him, to the high tribunal, where it may be that great natures who on earth have lived in mortal enmity may learn at last to understand each other.

July 30. Double execution of Protestants and Romanists.

Two days after, Barnes, Garret, and Jerome died bravely at the stake, their weakness and want of wisdom all atoned for, and serving their Great Master in their deaths better than they had served Him in their lives. With them perished, not as heretics, but as traitors, the three Romanizing priests. The united executions were designed as an evidence of the even hand of the council. The execution of traitors was not to imply an indulgence of heresy; the punishment of heretics should give no hope to those who were disloyal to their king and country. But scenes of such a kind were not repeated. The effect was to shock, not to edify.[625] The narrow theory could be carried out to both its cruel extremes only where a special purpose was working upon passions specially excited.

END OF VOL. III.

---

[FOOTNOTES:]

[1] He told Sir Gregory Cassalis that he had been compelled by external pressure to issue threats, “quæ tamen nunquam in animo habuit ad exitum perducere.”—Sir Gregory Cassalis to Henry VIII.: MS. Cotton. Vitellius, B 14, fol. 215.

[2] Richard Ebbes to Cromwell: MS. Cotton. Vespasian, B 7, fol. 87.

[3] “There be here both Englishmen and Irishmen many that doth daily invent slander to the realm of England, with as many naughty Popish practices as they can and may do, and specially Irishmen.”—Ibid.

[4] “L’Empéreur a deux fois qu’il avoit parlè audit Evesque luy avoit faict un discours long et plein de grande passion de la cruelle guerre qu’il entendoit faire contre le dit Roy d’Angleterre, au cas qu’il ne reprinst et restituast en ses honneurs la Reyne Catherine sa tante, et luy avoit declarè les moyens qu’il avoit executer vivement icelle guerre, et principalement au moyen de la bonne intelligence ce qu’il disoit avoir avec le Roy d’Ecosse.” Martin du Bellay: Memoirs, p. 110.

[5] Reginald Pole states that the issue was only prevented by the news of Queen Catherine’s death.—Pole to Prioli: Epistles, Vol. I. p. 442.

[6] Sleidan.

[7] Du Bellay’s Memoirs, p. 135.

[8] “The Turks do not compel others to adopt their belief. He who does not attack their religion may profess among them what religion he will; he is safe. But where this pestilent seed is sown, those who do not accept, and those who openly oppose, are in equal peril.”—Reginald Pole: De Unitate Ecclesiæ. For the arch-enemy of England even the name of heretic was too good. “They err,” says the same writer elsewhere, “who call the King of England heretic or schismatic. He has no claims to name so honourable. The heretic and schismatic acknowledge the power and providence of God. He takes God utterly away.”—Apology to Charles the Fifth.

[9] “Sire, je pense que vous avez entendu du supplication que le Roy fit, estant la present luy même allant en ordre apres les reliques me teste portant ung torche en son mayn avecques ses filz, ses evesques, et cardinaulz devant luy, et les ducs, contes, seigneurs, seneschals, esquieres, et aultres nobles gens apres luy; et la Reyne portée par deux hommes avecques la fille du Roy et ses propres. Apres touts les grosses dames et demoiselles suivants a pié. Quant tout ceci fit fayt on brûlait vi. a ung feu. Et le Roy pour sa part remercioit Dieu qu’il avoit donne cognoissance de si grand mal le priant de pardon qu’il avoit pardonne a ung ou deux le en passé; et qu’il na pas este plus diligente en faysant execution; et fit apres serment que dicy en avant il les brulerait tous tous tant qu’il en trouveroit.”—Andrew Baynton to Henry VIII.: MS. State Paper Office, temp. Henry VIII., second series, Vol. IV.

[10] “The Duke of Orleans is married to the niece of Clement the Seventh If I give him Milan, and he be dependent only on his father, he will be altogether French ... he will be detached wholly from the confederacy of the Empire.”—Speech of Charles the Fifth in the Consistory at Rome. State Papers, Vol. VII. p. 641.

[11] Charles certainly did give a promise, and the date of it is fixed for the middle of the winter of 1535-36 by the protest of the French court, when it was subsequently withdrawn. “Your Majesty,” Count de Vigny said, on the 18th of April, 1536, “promised a few months ago that you would give Milan to the Duke of Orleans, and not to his brother the Duke of Angoulesme”—Ibid.: State Papers, Vol. VII.

[12] “Bien estoit d’advis quant au faict d’Angleterre, afin qu’il eust plus de couleur de presser le Roy dudit pays a se condescendre a l’opinion universelle des Chrêtiens, que l’Empereur fist que notre Sainct Pere sommast de ce faire tous les princes et potentats Chrêtiens; et a luy assister, et donner main forte pour faire obeir le dit Roy à la sentence et determination de l’Eglise.”—Du Bellay: Memoirs, p. 136.

[13] Du Bellay: Memoirs. “Hic palam obloquuntur de morte illius ac verentur de Puellâ regiâ ne brevi sequatur.”—“I assure you men speak here tragice of these matters which is not to be touched by letters.”—Harval to Starkey, from Venice, Feb. 5, 1535-36: Ellis, second series, Vol. II.

[14] Pole to Prioli: Epist., Vol. I. p. 442.

[15] “There hath been means made unto us by the Bishop of Rome himself for a reconciliation.”—Henry VIII. to Pace: Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 476.

[16] Henry VIII. to Pace: Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 476. Lord Herbert, p. 196. Du Bellay’s Memoirs.

[17] Du Bellay.

[18] Henry VIII. to Pace: Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 476.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Pole to Prioli, March, 1536; Epist. Reg. Poli, Vol. I.

[21] Sir Gregory Cassalis to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. VII. p. 641.

[22] An interesting account of these speeches and of the proceedings in the consistory is printed in the State Papers, Vol. VII. p. 646. It was probably furnished by Sir Gregory Cassalis.

[23] Sir Gregory Cassalis to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. VII.

[24] “Omnes qui sollerti judicio ista pensitare solent, ita statuunt aliquid proditionis in Galliâ esse paratum non dissimile Ducis Borboniæ proditioni. Non enim aliud vident quod Caæsarem illuc trahere posset.”—Sir Gregory Cassalis to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. VII.

[25] See Cassalis’s Correspondence with Cromwell in May, 1536: State Papers, Vol VII.

[26] The clearest account which I have seen of the point in dispute between Charles V. and Francis I. is contained in a paper drawn by some English statesman apparently for Henry’s use.—Rolls House MSS. first series, No. 757.

[27] When the English army was in the Netherlands, in 1543, the Emperor especially admired the disposition of their entrenchments. Sir John Wallop, the commander-in-chief, told him he had learnt that art some years before in a campaign, of which the Emperor himself must remember something, in the south of France.

[28] Pole, in writing to Charles V., says that Henry’s cruelties to the Romanists had been attributed wholly to the “Leæna” at his side; and “when he had shed the blood of her whom he had fed with the blood of others,” every one expected that he would have recovered his senses.—Poli Apologia ad Carolum Quintum.

[29] “The news, which some days past were divulged of the queen’s case, made a great tragedy, which was celebrated by all men’s voices with admiration and great infamy to that woman to have betrayed that noble prince after such a manner, who had exalted her so high, and put himself to peril not without perturbation of all the world for her cause. But God showed Himself a rightful judge to discover such treason and iniquity. All is for the best. And I reckon this to the king’s great fortune, that God would give him grace to see and touch with his hand what great enemies and traitors he lived withal.”—Harvel to Starkey, from Venice, May 26: Ellis, second series, Vol. II. p. 77.

[30] Pole to Contarini: Epist., Vol. I. p. 457.

[31] “Dicerem in ipso me adeo bonum animum reperisse ut procul dubio vestra Majestas omnia de ipso sibi polliceri possit.”—Sir Gregory Cassalis to Henry VIII.: MS. Cotton. Vitellius, B 14, fol. 215.

[32] Neque ea cupiditate laborare ut suas fortunas in immensum augeat aut Pontificales fines propaget unde accidere posset ut ab hâc . . . . institutâ ratione recederet.—Ibid. The MS. has been injured by fire—words and paragraphs are in places wanting. In the present passage it is not clear whether Paul was speaking of the Papal authority generally, or of the Pontifical states in France and Italy.

[33] Causâ vero matrimonii et in consistoriis et publice et privatim apud Clementem VII. se omnia quæ [potuerit pro] vestrâ Majestate egisse; et Bononiæ Imperatori per [horas] quatuor accurate persuadere conatum fuisse.—Sir Gregory Cassalis to Henry VIII.: MS. Cotton. Vitellius, B 14, fol. 215.

[34] Ibid.

[35] State Papers, Vol. VII., June 5, 1536.

[36] Since Pole, when it suited his convenience, could represent the king’s early career in very different colours, it is well to quote some specimens of his more favourable testimony. Addressing Henry himself, he says: “Quid non promittebant præclaræ illæ virtutes quæ primis annis principatûs tui in te maxime elucebant. In quibus primum pietas quæ una omnium aliarum, et totius humanæ felicitatis quasi fundamentum est se proferebat. Cui adjunctæ erant quæ maxime in oculis hominum elucere solent justitia clementia liberalitas, prudentia denique tanta quanta in illâ tenerâ ætate esse potuit. Ut dixit Ezechiel de Rege Assyriorum, in paradiso Dei cedrus te pulcrior non inveniebatur.”—De Unitate Ecclesiæ, lib. 3.

Again, writing to Charles V., after speaking of the golden splendour of Henry’s early reign, his wealth, his moderation, the happiness of the people, and the circle of illustrious men who surrounded his throne, he goes on—

“Hi vero illam indolem sequebantur quam Regi Deus ipsi prius dederat cujus exemplar in Rege suo viderunt. Fuit enim indoles ejus aliquando prorsus regia. Summum in eo pietatis studium apparebat et religionis cultus; magnus amor justitiæ; non abhorrens tamen natura ut tum quidem videbatur a clementiâ.”

And the time at which the supposed change took place is also marked distinctly:—

“Satanas in carne adhuc manentem naturâ hominis jam videtur spoliasse . . . . suâ induisse . . . in quâ nihil præter formam videtur reliquisse quod sit hominis; . . . . ne vitia quidem . . . sed cum omni virtute et donis illis Dei cœlestibus quibus cum optimis Regum comparari poterat antequam in vicariatum Filii ejus se ingereret [præditus est] postquam illum honorem impie ambivit et arripuit, non solum virtutibus omnibus privatus est sed etiam,” etc.—Poli Apologia ad Carolum Quintum.

It was “necessary to the position” of Romanist writers to find the promise of evil in Henry’s early life, after his separation from the Papacy, and stories like those which we read in Sanders grew like mushrooms in the compost of hatred. But it is certain that so long as he was orthodox he was regarded as a model of a Catholic prince. Cardinal Contarini laments his fall, as a fall like Lucifer’s: “Quî fieri potuit per Deum immortalem,” he wrote to Pole, “ut animus ille tam mitis tam mansuetus ut ad bene merendum de hominum genere a naturâ factus esse videatur sit adeo immutatus.”—Epist. Reg. Poli, Vol. II. p. 31.

[37] Pole to Henry VIII.: Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 305.

[38] Pole to the English Council: Epist., Vol. I.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Said by Cranmer to have been an able paper: “He suadeth with such goodly eloquence; both of words and sentences, that he is like to persuade many.”—Cranmer’s Works, edit. Jenkyns Vol. I. p. 2.

[41] Phillips’ Life of Cardinal Pole.

[42] Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 281.

[43] “Quibus si rem persuadere velis multa preæter rem sunt dicenda multa insinuanda.”—Epist. Reg. Pol., Vol. I. p. 434. And again: “Illum librum scribo non tam Regis causâ quam gregis Christi qui est universus Regni populus, quem sic deludi vix ferendum est.”—Ibid. p. 437. I draw attention to these words, because in a subsequent defence of himself to the English Privy Council, Pole assured them that his book was a private letter privately sent to the king; that he had written as a confessor to a penitent, under the same obligations of secrecy: “Hoc genere dicendi Regem omnibus dedecorosum et probrosum reddo? Quibus tandem illustrissimi Domini? Hisne qui libellum nunquam viderunt? an his ad quos legendum dedi? Quod si hic solus sit Rex ipse, utinam ipse sibi probrosus videretur Ad eum certe solum misi; quocum ita egi ut nemo unquam a confessionibus illi secretior esse potuisset hoc tantum spectans quod confessores ut illi tantum sua peccata ostenderem.”—Apologia ad Ang. Parl.: Epist., Vol. I. p. 181. So considerable an inconsistency might tempt a hasty person to use hard words of Pole.

[44] Pole to Prioli: Epist., Vol. I. p. 441.

[45] Ibid. p. 442.

[46] Pole to Prioli: Epist., Vol. I. p. 445.

[47] Tunc statim misi cum ille e medio jam sustulisset illam quæ illi et regno totius hujus calamitatis causa existimabatur.—Apologia ad Carolum Quintum.

[48] A MS. copy of this book, apparently the original which was sent by Pole, is preserved among the Records in the Rolls House, scored and underlined in various places, perhaps by members of the Privy Council. A comparison of the MS. with the printed version, shows that the whole work was carefully rewritten for publication, and that various calumnies in detail, which have derived their weight from being addressed directly to the king, in what appeared to be a private communication by a credible accuser—which have, therefore, been related without hesitation by late writers as ascertained facts—are not in the first copy. So long as Pole was speaking only to the king, he prudently avoided statements which might be immediately contradicted, and confined himself to general invective. When he gave his book to the world he poured into it the indiscriminate slanders which were floating in popular rumour. See Appendix to the Fourth Volume.

[49] Partus Naturæ laborantis.

[50] Populus enim regem procreat.

[51] In the printed copy the king is here accused of having intrigued with Mary Boleyn before his marriage with Anne. See Appendix.

[52] Elsewhere in his letters Pole touches on this string. If England is to be recovered, he is never weary of saying, it must be recovered at once, while the generation survives which has been educated in the Catholic faith. The poison of heresy is instilled with so deadly skill into schools and churches, into every lesson which the English youth are taught, that in a few years the evil will be past cure. He was altogether right. The few years in fact were made to pass before Pole and his friends were able to interfere; and then it was too late; the prophecy was entirely verified. But, indeed, the most successful preachers of the Reformation were neither Cranmer nor Parker, Cromwell nor Burleigh, Henry nor Elizabeth, but Pole himself and the race of traitors who followed him.

[53] These paragraphs are a condensation of five pages of invective.

[54] Reginald Pole to the King, Venice, May 27. MS. penes me. Instructions to one whom he sent to King Henry by Reginald Pole.—Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 478.

[55] Starkey to Pole: Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 282.

[56] In his Apology to Charles the Fifth, Pole says that Henry in his answer to the book said that he was not displeased with him for what he had written, but that the subject was a grave one, and that he wished to see and speak with him. He, however, remembered the fable of the fox and the sick lion, and would not show himself less sagacious than a brute. Upon this, Lingard and other writers have built a charge of treachery against Henry, and urged it, as might be expected, with much eloquent force. It did not occur to them that if Henry had really said anything so incredible, and had intended treachery, the letters of Tunstall and Starkey would have been in keeping with the king’s; they would not have been allowed to betray the secret and show Pole their true opinions. Henry’s letter was sent on the 14th of June; the other letters bore the same date, and went by the same post. But, indeed, the king made no mystery of his displeasure. He may have written generally, as knowing only so much of the book as others had communicated to him. That he affected not to be displeased is as absurd in itself as it is contradicted by the terms of the refusal to return, which Pole himself sent in reply.—Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 295.

[57] Starkey to Pole: Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 282.

[58] Tunstall to Pole: Rolls House MS., Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 479.

[59] Starkey to Pole: Rolls House MS.

[60] Phillips’ Life of Cardinal Pole, Vol. I. p. 148. Reginald Pole to Edward VI.: Epist. Reg. Pol.

[61] Wordsworth’s Excursion, Book V.

[62] Sermons of Bishop Latimer, Parker Society’s edition, p. 33.

[63] In the State Paper Office and the Rolls House there are numerous “depositions” as to language used by the clergy, showing their general temper.

[64] Printed in Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 260. The complaints are not exaggerated. There is not one which could not be illustrated or strengthened from depositions among the Records.

[65] This, again, was intended for Latimer. The illustration was said to be his; but he denied it.

[66] Many of the clergy and even of the monks had already taken the permission of their own authority. Cranmer himself was said to be secretly married; and in some cases women, whom we find reported in this letter of Cromwell’s visitors as concubines of priests, were really and literally their wives, and had been formally married to them. I have discovered one singular instance of this kind.

Ap Rice, writing to Cromwell in the year 1535 or 6, says:

“As we were of late at Walden, the abbot, then being a man of good learning and right sincere judgment, as I examined him alone, shewed me secretly, upon stipulation of silence, but only unto you, as our judge, that he had contracted matrimony with a certain woman secretly, having present thereat but one trusty witness; because he, not being able, as he said, to contain, though he could not be suffered by the laws of man, saw he might do it lawfully by the laws of God; and for the avoiding of more inconvenience, which before he was provoked unto, he did thus, having confidence in you that this act should not be anything prejudicial unto him.”—MS. State Paper Office, temp. Henry VIII., second series, Vol. XXXV.

Cromwell acquiesced in the reasonableness of the abbot’s proceeding; he wrote to tell him “to use his remedy,” but to avoid, as far as possible, creating a scandal.—MS. ibid. Vol. XLVI.

The government, however, found generally a difficulty in knowing what to resolve in such cases. The king’s first declaration was a reasonable one, that all clergy who had taken wives should forfeit their orders, “and be had and reputed as lay persons to all purposes and intents.”—Royal Proclamation: Wilkins’s Concilia, Vol. III. p. 776.

[67] Luther, by far the greatest man of the sixteenth century, was as rigid a believer in the real presence as Aquinas or St. Bernard.

[68] We were constrained to put our own pen to the book, and to conceive certain articles which were by you, the bishops, and the whole of the clergy of this our realm agreed on as Catholic.—Henry VIII. to the Bishops and Clergy: Wilkins’s Concilia, Vol. III. p. 825.

[69] Whether marriage and ordination were sacraments was thus left an open question. The sacramental character of confirmation and extreme unction is implicitly denied.

[70] Formularies of Faith, temp. Henry VIII., Oxford edition, 1825. Articles devised by the King’s Majesty to stablish Christian quietness and unity, and to avoid contentious opinions.

[71] Cromwell’s patent as lord privy seal is dated the 2d of July, 1536. On the 9th he was created Baron Cromwell, and in the same month vicegerent in rebus ecclesiasticis.

[72] The judgment of the convocation concerning general councils, July 20, 28 Henry VIII: Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 88.

[73] Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 89.

[74] The Feast of St. Peter ad Vincula was on the 1st of August. These injunctions could hardly have been issued before August, 1536; nor could they have been later than September. The clergy were, therefore, allowed nearly a year to provide themselves.

[75] Lewis’s History of the English Bible.

[76] Lewis’s History of the English Bible.

[77] The printing was completed in October, 1535.

[78] There is an excellent copy of this edition in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

[79] Preface to Coverdale’s Bible.

[80] “The Lord Darcy declared unto me that the custom among the Lords before that time had been that matters touching spiritual authority should always be referred unto the convocation house, and not for the parliament house: and that before this last parliament it was accustomed among the Lords, the first matter they always communed of, after the mass of the Holy Ghost, was to affirm and allow the first chapter of Magna Charta touching the rights and liberties of the church; and it was not so now. Also the Lord Darcy did say that in any matter which toucheth the prerogative of the king’s crown, or any matter that touched the prejudice of the same, the custom of the Lords’ house was that they should have, upon their requests, a copy of the bill of the same, to the intent that they might have their council learned to scan the same; or if it were betwixt party and party, if the bill were not prejudicial to the commonwealth. And now they could have no such copy upon their suit, or at the least so readily as they were wont to have in parliament before.”—Examination of Robert Aske in the Tower: Rolls House MS., A 2, 29, p. 197.

[81] “The said Aske saith he well remembereth that the Lord Darcy told him that there were divers great men and lords which before the time of the insurrection had promised to do their best to suppress heresies and the authors and maintainers of them, and he saith they were in number fifteen persons.”—Rolls House Miscellaneous MSS., first series, 414.

[82] Richard Coren to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 558.

[83] “The abbeys were one of the beauties of the realm to all strangers passing through.”—Examination of Aske: Rolls House MS., A 2, 29.

[84] Examination of Aske; MS. ibid. I am glad to have discovered this most considerable evidence in favour of some at least of the superiors of the religious houses.

[85] “Strangers and buyers of corn were also greatly refreshed, horse and man, at the abbeys; and merchandize was well carried on through their help.”—Examination of Aske: Rolls House MS., A 2, 29.

[86] 27 Henry VIII. cap. 10.

[87] Among the unarranged MSS. in the State Paper Office is a long and most elaborate explanation of the evils which had been created by the system of uses. It is a paper which ought to find its place in the history of English landed tenure; and when the arrangement of these MSS. now in progress is completed, it will be accessible to any inquirer.

[88] “Masters, there is a statute made whereby all persons be restrained to make their will upon their lands; for now the eldest son must have all his father’s lands; and no person, to the payment of his debts, neither to the advancement of his daughters’ marriages, can do nothing with their lands, nor cannot give to his youngest son any lands.”—Speech of Mr. Sheriff Dymock, at Horncastle: Rolls House MS. A 2. 29.

“They want the Statute of Uses qualified, that a man be allowed to bequeath part of his lands by will. It will invade the old accustomed law in many things.”—Examination of Aske: MS. ibid. “Divers things should be reformed, and especially the Act of Uses. Younger brothers would none of that in no wise.”—Earl of Oxford to Cromwell: Miscellaneous MSS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. I.

[89] The depositions of prisoners taken after the rebellion are full of evidence on this point. George Gisborne says: “We were in mind and will to meet for certain causes, the which concerned the living of the poor people and commons, the which they say be sore oppressed by gentlemen, because their livings is taken away.”—Rolls House MS. miscellaneous, first series, 132.

Wm. Stapleton says: “Among the causes of the insurrection were pulling down of villages and farms, raising of rents, enclosures, intakes of the commons, worshipful men taking yeomen’s offices, that is, becoming dealers in farm produce.”—Rolls House MS.

I am tempted to add a petition sent from one of the discontented districts to the crown, which betrays great ignorance of political economy, although it exhibits also a clear understanding both of the petitioners’ sufferings and of the immediate causes of those sufferings.

“Please it your noble Grace to consider the great indigence and scarcity of all manner of victual necessary to your subjects within this realm of England, which doth grow daily more and more, by reason of the great and covetous misusages of the farms within this your realm; which misusages and the inconveniences thereof hath not only been begun and risen by divers gentlemen of the same your realm, but also by divers and many merchant adventurers, clothmakers, goldsmiths, butchers, tanners, and other artificers and unreasonable covetous persons, which doth encroach daily many farms more than they can occupy in tilth of corn; ten, twelve, fourteen, or sixteen farms in one man’s hands at once; when in time past there hath been in every farm of them a good house kept, and in some of them three, four, five, or six ploughs kept and daily occupied, to the great comfort and relief of your subjects of your realm, poor and rich. For when every man was contented with one farm, and occupied that well, there was plenty and reasonable price of everything that belonged to man’s sustenance by reason of tillage; forasmuch as every acre of land tilled and ploughed bore the straw and the chaff besides the corn, able and sufficient with the help of the shakke in the stubbe to succour and feed as many great beasts (as horses, oxen, and kine) as the land would keep; and further, by reason of the hinderflight of the crops and seeds tried out in cleansing, winnowing, and sifting the corn, there was brought up at every barn-door hens, capons, geese, ducks, swine, and other poultry, to the great comfort of your people. And now, by reason of so many farms engrossed in one man’s hands, which cannot till them, the ploughs be decayed, and the farmhouses and other dwelling-houses; so that when there was in a town twenty or thirty dwelling-houses they be now decayed, ploughs and all the people clean gone, and the churches down, and no more parishioners in many parishes, but a neatherd and a shepherd instead of three score or four score persons.”—Rolls House MS. miscellaneous, second series, 854.

[90] Abbot of York to Cromwell—Miscellaneous MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. LII.

[91] See a very remarkable letter of Sir William Parr to Cromwell, dated April 8, 1536, a few months only before the outbreak of the rebellion: Miscellaneous MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXI.

[92] It was said that the visitors’ servants had made apparel, doublets, yea, even saddle-cloths, of the churches’ vestments.—Examination of John Dakyn: Rolls House MS. miscellaneous, first series, 402.

[93] Rolls House MS.

[94] Ibid., Miscellaneous, first series, 402.

[95] Aske’s Deposition: Rolls House MS.

[96] Depositions on the Rebellion, passim, among the MSS. in the State Paper Office and the Rolls House.

[97] George Lumley, the eldest son of Lord Lumley, said in his evidence that there was not a spiritual man in the whole north of England who had not assisted the rebellion with arms or money.—Rolls House MS.

[98] The parish priest of Wyley, in Essex, had been absent for three weeks in the north, in the month of August, and on returning, about the 2d of September, said to one of his villagers, Thomas Rogers, “There shall be business shortly in the north, and I trust to help and strengthen my countrymen with ten thousand such as I am myself; and I shall be one of the worst of them all. The king shall not reign long.”—Confession of Thomas Rogers: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXX. p. 112.

[99] Deposition of Thomas Brian: Rolls House MS. A 2, 29.

[100] We find curious and humorous instances of monastic rage at this time. One monk was seen following a plough, and cursing his day that he should have to work for his bread. Another, a Welshman, “wished he had the king on Snowdon, that he might souse his head against the stones.”—Depositions on the Rebellion: Rolls House MS.

[101] Sir Robert Dighton and Sir Edward Dymmock said they heard many of the priests cry, “Kill the gentlemen.” The parson of Cowbridge said that the lords of the council were false harlots; and the worst was Cromwell. “The vicar of Haynton, having a great club in his hand, said that if he had Cromwell there he would beat out his guts.” “Robert Brownwhite, one of the parsons of Nether Teynton, was with bow and arrows, sword and buckler by his side, and sallet on his head; and when he was demanded how he did, he said, ‘None so well;’ and said it was the best world that ever he did see.” My story, so far, is taken from the Miscellaneous Depositions, Rolls MS. A 2, 28; from the Examination of William Moreland, MS. A 2, 29; and from the Confession of John Brown, Rolls House MS., first series, 892.

[102] Very opposite stories were told of the behaviour of the gentlemen. On one side it was said that they were the great movers of the insurrection; on the other, that they were forced into it in fear of their lives. There were many, doubtless, of both kinds; but it seems to me as if they had all been taken by surprise. Their conduct was that of men who wished well to the rising, but believed it had exploded inopportunely.

[103] The plough was to encourage the husbandmen; the chalice and host in remembrance of the spoiling of the Church; the five wounds to the couraging of the people to fight in Christ’s cause; the horn to signify the taking of Horncastle—Philip Trotter’s Examination; Rolls House MS. A 2, 29.

[104] Examination of Brian Staines: Rolls House MS. A 2, 29. In the margin of this document, pointing to the last paragraph, is an ominous finger ☞, drawn either by the king or Cromwell.

[105] Compare the Report of Lancaster Herald to Cromwell, MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XIX.: “My especial good lord, so far as I have gone, I have found the most corrupted and malicious spiritualty, inward and partly outward, that any prince of the world hath in his realm; and if the truth be perfectly known, it will be found that they were the greatest corrupters of the temporality, and have given the secret occasion of all this mischief.”

[106] Lord Hussey to the Mayor of Lincoln: Cotton. MS. Vespasian, F 13.

[107] Rolls House MS. first series, 416. Cutler’s Confessions MS. ibid. 407. Deposition of Robert Sotheby: Ibid. A 2, 29.

[108] Lord Shrewsbury to the King: MS. State Paper Office. Letter to the king and council, Vol. V. Hollinshed tells a foolish story, that Lord Shrewsbury sued out his pardon to the king for moving without orders. As he had done nothing for which to ask pardon, so it is certain, from his correspondence with the king, that he did not ask for any. Let me take this opportunity of saying that neither Hollinshed, nor Stow, nor even Hall, nor any one of the chroniclers, can be trusted in their account of this rebellion.

[109] MS. State Paper Office, first series.

[110] “My lord: Hugh Ascue, this bearer, hath shewed me that this day a servant of Sir William Hussey’s reported how that in manner, in every place by the way as his master and he came, he hath heard as well old people as young pray God to speed the rebellious persons in Lincolnshire, and wish themselves with them; saying, that if they came that way, that they shall lack nothing that they can help them unto. And the said Hugh asked what persons they were which so reported, and he said all; which is a thing as meseemeth greatly to be noted.”—Sir William Fitzwilliam to Lord Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. VI.

[111] Richard Cromwell to Lord Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. VII.

[112] “Nothing we lament so much as that they thus fly; for our trust was that we should have used them like as they have deserved; and I for my part am as sorry as if I had lost five hundred pounds. For my lord admiral (Sir John Russell), he is so earnest in the matter, that I dare say he would eat them with salt.”—Richard Cromwell to Lord Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office.

[113] Henry VIII. to the Rebels in Lincolnshire: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 463, &c.

[114] Confession of Thos. Mayne: Rolls House MS. first series, 432.

[115] Confession of Thos. Mayne: Rolls House MS. first series, 432.

[116] Henry VIII. to the Duke of Suffolk: Ibid. 480.

[117] Wriothesley to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 471. Examination of the Prisoners: Rolls House MS.

[118] Henry VIII. to the Duke of Suffolk: Rolls House MS. first series, 480.

[119] “The captain and the Earl of Cumberland came of two sisters.”—Lord Darcy to Somerset Herald: Rolls House MS.

[120] State Papers, Vol. I. p. 523.

[121] Manner of the taking of Robert Aske: Rolls House MS. A 2, 28.

[122] “There was a letter forged in my name to certain towns, which I utterly deny to be my deed or consent.”—Narrative of Robert Aske: Rolls House MS. A 2, 28. This is apparently the letter which is printed in the State Papers, Vol. I. p. 467. It was issued on the 7th or 8th of October (see Stapleton’s Confession: Rolls House MS. A 2, 28), the days on which, according to Aske’s own confession, he seems to have been in the West Riding.

[123] The oath varied a little in form. In Yorkshire the usual form was, “Ye shall swear to be true to God, the king, and the commonwealth.”—Aske’s Narrative: Rolls House MS. The tendency of the English to bind themselves with oaths, explains and partly justifies the various oaths required by the government.

[124] Deposition of William Stapleton: Rolls House MS.

[125] Henry VIII. to Lord Darcy, October 8th: Rolls House MS. first series, 282.

[126] Letters to and from Lord Darcy: Rolls House MS. first series, 282.

[127] Henry had written him a second letter on the 9th of October, in which, knowing nothing as yet of the rising in Yorkshire, he had expressed merely a continued confidence in Darcy’s discretion.

[128] Stapleton’s Confession: Rolls House MS. A 2, 28.

[129] Examination of Sir Thomas Percy: Rolls House MS. Demeanour of Sir Thomas and Sir Ingram Percy: MS. ibid. first series, 896.

[130] “The said Aske suffered no foot man to enter the city, for fear of spoils.”—Manner of the taking of Robert Aske: Rolls House MS. A 2, 28.

[131] Earl of Oxford to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. III.

[132] Henry VIII. to Lord Darcy, October 13: Rolls House MS.

[133] Lord Darcy to the King, October 17: Rolls House MS.

[134] Lord Shrewsbury to Lord Darcy: Rolls House MS. first series, 282. Darcy certainly received this letter, since a copy of it is in the collection made by himself.

[135] Manner of the taking of Robert Aske: Rolls House MS. A 2, 28.

[136] I believe that I am unnecessarily tender to Lord Darcy’s reputation. Aske, though he afterwards contradicted himself, stated in his examination that Lord Darcy could have defended the castle had he wished.—Rolls House MS., A 2, 29. It was sworn that when he was advised “to victual and store Pomfret,” he said, “there was no need; it would do as it was.” Ibid. And Sir Henry Saville stated that “when Darcy heard of the first rising, he said, ‘Ah! they are up in Lincolnshire. God speed them well. I would they had done this three years ago, for the world should have been the better for it.’”—Ibid.

[137] Aske’s Deposition: Rolls House MS. first series, 414.

[138] Examination of Sir Thomas Percy: Rolls House MS.

[139] Stapleton’s Confession: Ibid. A 2, 28.

[140] Examination of Christopher Aske: Rolls House MS. first series, 840

[141] Ibid.

[142] Henry VIII. to the Duke of Suffolk: Rolls House MS.

[143] Wriothesley to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 472.

[144] The Marquis of Exeter, who was joined in commission with the Duke of Norfolk, never passed Newark. He seems to have been recalled, and sent down into Devonshire, to raise the musters in his own county.

[145] State Papers, Vol. I. p. 493.

[146] State Papers, Vol. I. p. 519.

[147] State Papers, Vol. I. p. 495.

[148] This particular proclamation—the same, apparently, which was read by Christopher Aske at Skipton—I have been unable to find. That which is printed in the State Papers from the Rolls House Records, belongs to the following month. The contents of the first, however, may be gathered from a description of it by Robert Aske, and a comparison of the companion proclamation issued in Lincolnshire. It stated briefly that the insurrection was caused by forged stories; that the king had no thought of suppressing parish churches, or taxing food or cattle. The abbeys had been dissolved by act of parliament, in consequence of their notorious vice and profligacy. The people, therefore, were commanded to return to their homes, at their peril. The commotion in Lincolnshire was put down. The king was advancing in person to put them down also, if they continued disobedient.

[149] In explanation of his refusal, Aske said afterwards that it was for two causes: first, that if the herald should have declared to the people by proclamation that the commons in Lincolnshire were gone to their homes, they would have killed him; secondly, that there was no mention in the same proclamation neither of pardon nor of the demands which were the causes of their assembly.—Aske’s Narrative: Rolls House MS. A 2, 28.

[150] Lancaster Herald’s Report: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 485.

[151] Stapleton’s Confession: Rolls House MS. A 2, 28. Does this solitary and touching faithfulness, I am obliged to ask, appear as if Northumberland believed that four months before the king and Cromwell had slandered and murdered the woman whom he had once loved?

[152] “We were 30,000 men, as tall men, well horsed, and well appointed as any men could be.”—Statement of Sir Marmaduke Constable: MS. State Paper Office. All the best evidence gives this number.

[153] Not the place now known under this name—but a bridge over the Don three or four miles above Doncaster.

[154] So Aske states.—Examination: Rolls House MS., first series, 838. Lord Darcy went further. “If he had chosen,” he said, “he could have fought Lord Shrewsbury with his own men, and brought never a man of the northmen with him.” Somerset Herald, on the other hand, said, that the rumour of disaffection was a feint. “One thing I am sure of,” he told Lord Darcy, “there never were men more desirous to fight with men than ours to fight with you.”—Rolls House MS.

[155] “Sir Marmaduke Constable did say, if there had been a battle, the southern men would not have fought. He knew that every third man was theirs. Further, he said the king and his council determined nothing but they had knowledge before my lord of Norfolk gave them knowledge.”—Earl of Oxford to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office.

[156] “I saw neither gentlemen nor commons willing to depart, but to proceed in the quarrel; yea, and that to the death. If I should say otherwise, I lie.”—Aske’s Examination: Rolls House MS.

[157] Rutland and Huntingdon were in Shrewsbury’s camp by this time.

[158] “They wished,” said Sir Marmaduke Constable, “the king had sent some younger lords to fight with them than my lord of Norfolk and my lord of Shrewsbury. No lord in England would have stayed them but my lord of Norfolk.”—Earl of Oxford to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office.

[159] The chroniclers tell a story of a miraculous fall of rain, which raised the river the day before the battle was to have been fought, and which was believed by both sides to have been an interference of Providence. Cardinal Pole also mentions the same fact of the rain, and is bitter at the superstitions of his friends; and yet, in the multitude of depositions which exist, made by persons present, and containing the most minute particulars of what took place, there is no hint of anything of the kind. The waters had been high for several days, and the cause of the unbloody termination of the crisis was more creditable to the rebel leaders.

[160] Second Examination of Robert Aske: Rolls House MS. first series, 838. It is true that this is the story of Aske himself, and was told when, after fresh treason, he was on trial for his life. But his bearing at no time was that of a man who would stoop to a lie. Life comparatively was of small moment to him.

[161] Uncle of Marjory, afterwards wife of John Knox. Marjory’s mother, Elizabeth, to whom so many of Knox’s letters were addressed, was an Aske, but she was not apparently one of the Aughton family.

[162] Aske’s Narrative: Rolls House MS. A 2, 28.

[163] Instructions to Sir Thomas Hilton and his Companions: Rolls House MS. There are many groups of “articles” among the Records. Each focus of the insurrection had its separate form; and coming to light one by one, they have created much confusion. I have thought it well, therefore, to print in full, from Sir Thomas Hilton’s instructions, a list, the most explicit, as well as most authentic, which is extant.

“I. Touching our faith, to have the heresies of Luther, Wickliffe, Huss, Melanchthon, Œcolampadius, Bucer’s Confessio Germanica, Apologia Melancthonis, the works of Tyndal, of Barnes, of Marshal, Raskall, St. Germain, and such other heresies of Anabaptists, clearly within this realm to be annulled and destroyed.

“II. To have the supreme head, touching cura animarum, to be reserved unto the see of Rome, as before it was accustomed to be, and to have the consecration of the bishops from him, without any first-fruits or pensions to him to be paid out of this realm; or else a pension reasonable for the outward defence of our faith.

“III. We humbly beseech our most dread sovereign lord that the Lady Mary may be made legitimate, and the former statute therein annulled, for the danger if the title might incur to the crown of Scotland. This to be in parliament.

“IV. To have the abbeys suppressed to be restored—houses, lands, and goods.

“V. To have the tenths and first-fruits clearly discharged, unless the clergy will of themselves grant a rent-charge in penalty to the augmentation of the crown.

“VI. To have the friars observants restored unto their houses again.

“VII. To have the heretics, bishops and temporals, and their sect, to have condign punishment by fire, or such other; or else to try the quarrel with us and our partakers in battle.

“VIII. To have the Lord Cromwell, the lord chancellor, and Sir Richard Rich to have condign punishment as subverters of the good laws of this realm, and maintainers of the false sect of these heretics, and first inventors and bringers in of them.

“IX. That the lands in Westmoreland, Cumberland, Kendal, Furness, the abbey lands in Massamshire, Kirkbyshire, and Netherdale, may be by tenant right, and the lord to have at every change two years’ rent for gressam [the fine paid on renewal of a lease; the term is, I believe, still in use in Scotland], and no more, according to the grant now made by the lords to the commons there under their seal; and this to be done by act of parliament.

“X. The statute of handguns and cross-bows to be repealed, and the penalties thereof, unless it be on the king’s forest or park, for the killing of his Grace’s deer, red or fallow.

“XI. That Doctor Legh and Doctor Layton may have condign punishment for their extortions in the time of visitation, as bribes of nuns, religious houses, forty pounds, twenty pounds, and so to —— leases under one common seal, bribes by them taken, and other their abominable acts by them committed and done.

“XII. Restoration for the election of knights of shires and burgesses, and for the uses among the lords in the parliament house, after their antient custom.

“XIII. Statutes for enclosures and intakes to be put in execution, and that all intakes and enclosures since the fourth year of King Henry the Seventh be pulled down, except on mountains, forests, or parks.

“XIV. To be discharged of the fifteenth, and taxes now granted by act of parliament.

“XV. To have the parliament in a convenient place at Nottingham or York, and the same shortly summoned.

“XVI. The statute of the declaration of the crown by will, that the same be annulled and repealed.

“XVII. That it be enacted by act of parliament that all recognizances, statutes, penalties under forfeit, during the time of this commotion, may be pardoned and discharged, as well against the king as strangers.

“XVIII. That the privileges and rights of the Church be confirmed by act of parliament; and priests not to suffer by the sword unless they be degraded. A man to be saved by his book; sanctuary to save a man for all cases in extreme need; and the Church for forty days, and further, according to the laws as they were used in the beginning of this king’s days.

“XIX. The liberties of the Church to have their old customs, in the county palatine of Durham, Beverley, Ripon, St. Peter’s at York, and such other, by act of parliament.

“XX. To have the Statute of Uses repealed.

“XXI. That the statutes of treasons for words and such like, made since anno 21 of our sovereign lord that now is, be in like wise repealed.

“XXII. That the common laws may have place, as was used in the beginning of your Grace’s reign; and that all injunctions may be clearly decreed, and not to be granted unless the matter be heard and determined in Chancery.

“XXIII. That no man, upon subpœnas from Trent north, appear but at York, or by attorney, unless it be upon pain of allegiance, or for like matters concerning the king.

“XXIV. A remedy against escheators for finding of false offices, and extortionate feestaking, which be not holden of the king, and against the promoters thereof.”

A careful perusal of these articles will show that they are the work of many hands, and of many spirits. Representatives of each of the heterogeneous elements of the insurrection contributed their grievances; wise and foolish, just and unjust demands were strung together in the haste of the moment.

For the original of this remarkable document, see Instructions to Sir Thomas Hilton, Miscellaneous Depositions on the Rebellion: Rolls House MS.

[164] Aske’s Narrative: Rolls House MS.

[165] Lord Darcy to Somerset Herald: Rolls House MS.

[166] Richard Cromwell to Lord Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. VII.

[167] Devices for the Quieting of the North: Rolls House MS. first series, 606.

[168] State Papers, Vol. I. pp. 507, 508.

[169] Bundle of unassorted MSS. in the State Paper Office.

[170] Rolls House MS. second series, 278.

[171] State Papers, Vol. I. p. 476; and compare p. 500. The instructions varied according to circumstances. There were many forms of them, of which very few are printed in the State Papers. I extract from several, in order to give the general effect.

[172] The king’s words are too curious to be epitomized. The paper from which I here quote is written by his secretary, evidently from dictation, and in great haste. After speaking of the way in which the vow of chastity had been treated by the monks, he goes on:—

“For the point of wilful poverty they have gathered together such possessions, and have so exempted themselves from all laws and good order with the same, that no prince could live in that quiet, in that surety, in that ease, yea, in that liberty, that they lived. The prince must carke and care for the defence of his subjects against foreign enemies, against force and oppression; he must expend his treasures for their safeguard; he must adventure his own blood, abiding all storms in the field, and the lives of his nobles, to deliver his poor subjects from the bondage and thrall of their mortal enemies. The monks and canons meantime lie warm in their demesnes and cloysters. Whosoever wants, they shall be sure of meat and drink, warm clothing, money, and all other things of pleasure. They may not fight for their prince and country; but they have declared at this rebellion that they might fight against their prince and country. Is not this a great and wilful poverty, to be richer than a prince?—to have the same in such certainty as no prince hath that tendereth the weal of his subjects? Is not this a great obedience that may not obey their prince, and against God’s commandment, against their duties of allegiance, whereto they be sworn upon the Holy Evangelists, will labour to destroy their prince and country, and devise all ways to shed Christian blood? The poor husbandman and artificer must labour all weathers for his living and the sustentation of his family. The monk and canon is sure of a good house to cover him, good meat and drink to feed him, and all other things meeter for a prince than for him that would be wilfully poor. If the good subject will ponder and weigh these things, he will neither be grieved that the King’s Majesty have that for his defence and the maintenance of his estate, so that he shall not need to molest his subjects with taxes and impositions, which loiterers and idle fellows, under the cloke of holyness, have scraped together, nor that such dissimulers be punished after their demerits, if they will needs live like enemies to the commonwealth.”—Rolls House MS. first series, 297.

[173] Sir Brian Hastings to Lord Shrewsbury: Rolls House MS. first series, 268.

[174] Sir Brian Hastings to Lord Shrewsbury: Rolls House MS. first series, 268.

[175] He was a bad, violent man. In earlier years he had carried off a ward in Chancery, one Anne Grysanis, while still a child, and attempted to marry her by force to one of his retainers.—Ibid. second series, 434.

[176] Sir Brian Hastings to Lord Shrewsbury: Ibid. first series, 626.

[177] Shrewsbury to the King: MS. State Paper Office; Letters to the King and Council, Vol. V.

[178] MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXVI.

[179] Suffolk to the King: MS. State Paper Office; Letters to the King and Council, Vol. V.

[180] It is to be remembered that Darcy still professed that he had been forced into the insurrection by Aske. This is an excuse for Norfolk’s request, though it would have been no excuse for Darcy had he consented.

[181] Deposition of Percival Cresswell: Rolls House MS. A 2, 29.

[182] MS. State Paper Office, first series. Autograph letter of Lord Darcy to the Duke of Norfolk. It is unfortunately much injured.

[183] One of these is printed in the State Papers, Vol. I. p. 506. The editor of these Papers does not seem to have known that neither this nor any written answer was actually sent. Amidst the confusion of the MSS. of this reign, scattered between the State Paper Office, the Rolls House, and the British Museum, some smothered in dirt and mildew, others in so frail a state that they can be scarcely handled or deciphered, far greater errors would be pardonable. The thanks of all students of English history are due to Sir John Romilly for the exertions which he has made and is still making to preserve the remnants of these most curious documents.

[184] Henry VIII. to the Earl of Rutland: Rolls House MS. first series, 454

[185] Aske’s Narrative: Rolls House MS.

[186] Rolls House MS. first series, 1805; and see State Papers, Vol. I. p. 558.

[187] Deposition of John Selbury: Rolls House MS. A 2. 29.

[188] Sir Anthony Wingfield to the Duke of Norfolk: Rolls House MS. first series, 692.

[189] The Duke of Norfolk, Sir William Fitzwilliam, Sir John Russell, and Sir Anthony Brown.

[190] The Duke of Suffolk feared an even larger gathering: where heretofore they took one man, he warned Norfolk, they now take six or seven. State Paper Office MS. first series, Vol. III. Lord Darcy assured Somerset Herald that they had a reserve of eighty thousand men in Northumberland and Durham—which, however, the herald did not believe. Rolls House MS.

[191] The King to the Duke of Norfolk: Rolls House MS. first series, 278.

[192] MS. State Paper Office.

[193] The names of the thirty-four were,—Lords Darcy, Neville, Scrope, Conyers, Latimer, and Lumley; Sir Robert Constable, Sir John Danvers, Sir Robert Chaloner, Sir James Strangways, Sir Christopher Danby, Sir Thomas Hilton, Sir William Constable, Sir John Constable, Sir William Vaughan, Sir Ralph Ellerkar, Sir Christopher Heliyarde, Sir Robert Neville, Sir Oswald Wolstrop, Sir Edward Gower, Sir George Darcy, Sir William Fairfax, Sir Nicholas Fairfax, Sir William Mallore, Sir Ralph Bulmer, Sir Stephen Hamarton, Sir John Dauncy, Sir George Lawson, Sir Richard Tempest, Sir Thomas Evers, Sir Henry Garrowe, and Sir William Babthorpe.

[194] Examination of John Dakyn: Rolls House MS. first series, p. 402.

[195] They have been printed by Strype (Memorials, Vol. II. p. 266). Strype however, knew nothing of the circumstances which gave them birth.

[196] Henry VIII. to the Duke of Norfolk: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 511. The council, who had wrung these concessions from the king, wrote by the same courier, advising him to yield as little as possible—“not to strain too far, but for his Grace’s honour and for the better security of the commonwealth, to except from pardon, if by any means he might, a few evil persons, and especially Sir Robert Constable.”—Hardwicke State Papers, Vol. I. p. 27.

[197] “You may of your honour promise them not only to obtain their pardons, but also that they shall find us as good and gracious lord unto them as ever we were before this matter was attempted; which promise we shall perform and accomplish without exception.”—Henry VIII. to the Duke of Suffolk: Rolls House MS. first series, 476.

[198] Aske, in his Narrative, which is in the form of a letter to the king, speaks of “the articles now concluded at Doncaster, which were drawn, read, argued, and agreed among the lords and esquires” at Pomfret.—Rolls House MS.

[199] Aske’s Narrative: Rolls House MS. A 2, 28.

[200] Instructions to the Earl of Sussex: Ibid. first series, 299.

[201] Scheme for the Government of the North: Rolls House MS. first series, 900. In connexion with the scheme for the establishment of garrisons, a highly curious draft of an act was prepared, to be submitted to the intended parliament.

Presuming that, on the whole, the suppression of the monasteries would be sanctioned, the preamble stated (and the words which follow are underlined in the MS.) that—

“Nevertheless, the experience which we have had by those houses that are already suppressed sheweth plainly unto us that a great hurt and decay is thereby come, and hereafter shall come, to this realm, and great impoverishing of many the poor subjects thereof, for lack of hospitality and good householding that were wont in them to be kept, to the great relief of the poor people of all the counties adjoining the said monasteries, besides the maintaining of many smiths, husbandmen, and labourers that were kept in the said houses.

“It should therefore be enacted:

“1. That all persons taking the lands of suppressed houses must duly reside upon the said lands, and must keep hospitality; and that it be so ordered in the leases.

“2. That all houses, of whatsoever order, habit, or name, lying beyond the river of Trent northward, and not suppressed, should stand still and abide in their old strength and foundation.

“3. That discipline so sadly decayed should be restored among them; that all monks, being accounted dead persons by the law, should not mix themselves in worldly matters, but should be shut up within limited compass, having orchards and gardens to walk in and labour in—each monk having forty shillings for his stipend, each abbot and prior five marks—and in each house a governor, to be nominated by the king, to administer the revenue and keep hospitality.

“4. A thousand marks being the sum estimated as sufficient to maintain an abbey under such management, the surplus revenue was then to be made over to a court, to be called the Curia Centenariorum, for the defence of the realm, and the maintenance in peace as well as war of a standing army; the said men of war, being in wages in the time of peace, to remain in and about the towns, castles, and fortresses, within the realm at the appointment of the lord admiral, as he should think most for the surety of the realm.”

A number of provisions follow for the organization of the court, which was to sit at Coventry as a central position, for the auditing the accounts, the employment of the troops, &c. The paper is of great historic value, although, with a people so jealous of their liberties, it was easy to foresee the fate of the project. It is among the Cotton. MSS. Cleopatra, E 4, fol. 215.

[202] Hardwicke State Papers, Vol. I. p. 38.

[203] State Papers, Vol. I. p. 523.

[204] Confession of George Lascelles: Rolls House MS. first series, 774.

[205] And for another reason. They were forced to sue out their pardons individually, and received them only, as Aske and Lord Darcy had been obliged to do, by taking the oath of allegiance, and binding themselves to obey the obnoxious statutes so long as they were unrepealed.—Rolls House MS. first series, 471.

[206] Cromwell.

[207] Robert Aske to the King: MS. State Paper Office, Royal Letters.

[208] “Deum deprecantes ut dextram ense firmet caputque tuum hoc pileo vi Spiritûs Sancti per columbam figurati protegat.”—Paulus III. Regi Scotiæ: Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. II. p. 269.

[209] “Nec tam muneris qualitatem quam mysterium et vim spiritualem perpendes.”—Ibid.

[210] Although the Doncaster petitioners had spoken of “their antient enemies of Scotland,” an alliance, nevertheless, in the cause of religion, was not, after all, impossible. When James V. was returning from France to Edinburgh, in the spring of 1537, his ship lay off Scarborough for a night to take in provisions—

“Where certain of the commons of the country thereabout, to the number of twelve persons—Englishmen, your Highness’s servants” [I am quoting a letter of Sir Thomas Clifford to Henry VIII.]—“did come on board in the king’s ship, and, being on their knees before him, thanked God of his healthful and sound repair; showing how that they had long looked for him, and how they were oppressed, slain, and murdered; desiring him for God’s sake to come in, and all should be his.”—State Papers, Vol. V. p. 80.

[211] Among the records in connexion with the entreaties and warnings of the Privy Council are copies of letters to the same effect from his mother and his brother. They are written in a tone of stiff remonstrance; and being found among the government papers, must either have been drafts which the writers were required to transcribe, or copies furnished by themselves as evidence of their own loyalty. Lady Salisbury’s implication in the affair of the Nun of Kent may have naturally led the government to require from her some proof of allegiance.

[212] Reg. Polus, Paulo Tertio: Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. II. p. 46. The letter to which I refer was written in the succeeding summer, but the language is retrospective, and refers to the object with which the mission had been undertaken.

[213] “Perceiving by your last letters that there remaineth a little spark of that love and obedience towards his Majesty which your bounden duty doth require, and that by the same as well it appeareth your great suspicion is conveyed to one special point—that is, to the pretended supremacy of the Bishop of Rome—as that you shew yourself desirous either to satisfy his Majesty or to be satisfied in the same, offering yourself for that purpose to repair into Flanders, there to discourse and reason it with such as his Highness shall appoint to entreat that matter with you—for the hearty love and favour we bear to my lady your mother, my lord your brother, and others your friends here, which be right heartily sorry for your unkind proceedings in this behalf, and for that also we all desire your reconciliation to his Highness’s grace and favour, we have been all most humble suitors to his Majesty to grant your petition touching your said repair into Flanders, and have obtained our suit in the same, so as you will come thither of yourself, without commission of any other person.”—The Privy Council to Pole, Jan. 18, 1537: Rolls House MS.

[214] Ibid.

[215] “They shall swear and make sure faith and promise utterly to renounce and refuse all their forced oaths, and that from henceforth they shall use themselves as true and faithful subjects in all things; and that specially they shall allow, approve, support, and maintain to the uttermost of their power all and singular the acts, statutes, and laws which have been made and established in parliament since the beginning of the reign of our most dread Sovereign Lord.”—Rolls House MS. first series, 471.

[216] Confession of George Lumley: Rolls House MS. first series.

[217] MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XIX.

[218] Many of them are in the State Paper Office in the Cromwell Collection.

[219] John Hallam deposes: “Sir Francis Bigod did say, at Walton Abbey, that ‘the king’s office was to have no care of men’s souls, and did read to this examinate a book made by himself, as he said, wherein was shewed what authority did belong to the Pope, what to a bishop, what to the king; and said that the head of the Church of England must be a spiritual man, as the Archbishop of Canterbury or such; but in no wise the king, for he should with the sword defend all spiritual men in their right.’”—Rolls House MS., A 2, 29.

[220] Sir Francis Bigod’s Confession: Rolls House MS. first series, 416. Confession of George Lumley: Rolls House MS. The MSS. relating to the later commotions are very imperfect, and much injured.

[221] Lumley’s Confession.

[222] Examination of John Hallam: Rolls House MS. A 2, 29.

[223] “The King’s Highness hath declared by his own mouth unto Robert Aske, that he intendeth we shall have our parliament at York frankly and freely for the ordering and reformation of all causes for the commonwealth of this realm, and also his frank and free convocation for the good stay and ordering of the faith and other spiritual causes, which he supposes shall come down under his great seal by my Lord of Norfolk, who comes down shortly with a mean company after a quiet manner to the great quietness and comfort of all good men. Wherefore, good and loving neighbours, let us stay ourselves and by no means follow the wilfulness of such as are disposed to spoil and to undo themselves and you both, but to resist them in all that ye may, to the best of your power; and so will I do for my part, and so know I well that all good men will do; and if it had not been for my disease which hath taken me so sore that I may neither go nor ride, I would have come and have shewed you this myself for the good stay and quietness of you all, and for the commonwealth of all the country. The parliament and the convocation is appointed to be at York at Whitsuntide, and the coronation of the Queen’s Highness about the same time.

“Written in Spaldingmore this 16th day of January.

“Robert Constable, of Flamborough.”

—Letter of Sir R. Constable to the Commons of the North on Bigod’s Insurrection: Rolls House MS. first series, 276.

[224] For this matter see Rolls House MS. first series, 276, 416, 1144, and State Papers, Vol. I. p. 529.

[225] “Captain Aske was at London, and had great rewards to betray the commons; and since that he came home they have fortified Hull against the commons, ready to receive ships by the sea to destroy all the north parts.”—Demands of the Rebels who rose with Sir F. Bigod: Rolls House MS. first series, 895.

[226] “Robert Aske, in a letter which he sent to Bigod, shewed that he would do the best he could for the delivery of Hallam. And that he spoke not that feignedly, it should appear that the said Aske, after that Bigod was fled, came to the king’s commissioners then sitting at Hull about Hallam’s examination, and shewed them how that he had heard of a great commotion that should be in the bishoprick and other places, and therefore advised them not to be hasty in proceeding to the execution of the said Hallam.

“Also divers that had been with Bigod in his commotion came to the said Aske, whom he did not apprehend, but bade them not fear, for he would get their pardon.”—Deposition on the Conduct of Robert Aske, MS. much injured, Rolls House, first series, 416.

[227] Rolls House MS. A 2, 28.

[228] In the first surprise in October, the Privy Council had been obliged to levy men without looking nicely to their antecedents, and they had recruited largely from the usual depôts in times of difficulties, the sanctuaries. Manslayers, cutpurses, and other doubtful persons might have liberty for a time, and by good conduct might earn their pardon by taking service under the crown. On the present, as on many other occasions, they had proved excellent soldiers; and those who had been with Lord Shrewsbury had been rewarded for their steadiness. Under the circumstances he had perhaps been better able to depend upon them than on the more creditable portion of his force. After the pacification at Doncaster, Norfolk was ashamed of his followers; he proposed to disband them, and supply their place with penitent volunteers from Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. The king, who was already displeased with Norfolk for his other proceedings, approved no better of his present suggestion. “His Majesty,” wrote the Privy Council, “marvels that you should be more earnest in the dissuasion of the retainder of them that have been but murderers and thieves (if they so have been), than you were that his Grace should not retain those that have been rebels and traitors. These men have done good rather than hurt in this troublous time, though they did it not with a good mind and intent, but for their own lucre.... What the others did no man can tell better than you. If these men may be made good men with their advancement, his Highness may think his money well employed. If they will continue evil, all the world shall think them the more worthy punishment for that they have so little regarded the clemency of his Highness calling them from their evil doings to honest preferment.”—Hardwicke State Papers, p. 33.

[229] Duke of Norfolk to the Earls of Sussex: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 534.

[230] MS. State Paper Office, first series, Vol. IV.

[231] “I did not dare assemble the people of the country, for I knew not how they be established in their hearts, notwithstanding that their words can be no better.”—Norfolk to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office.

[232] Norfolk to Cromwell: MS. ibid.

[233] “This night I will send two or three hundred horse to them, and have commanded them to set fire in many places of the rebels’ dwellings, thinking thereby to make them to steal away, and every man to draw near to his own for the safeguard of his house and goods. I have also commanded them that if the traitors so sparkle they shall not spare shedding of blood; for execution whereof I will send such as I am sure will not spare to fulfil my commandment.”—Norfolk to Cromwell: MS. ibid.

[234] Henry VIII. to the Duke of Norfolk: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 537.

[235] Hall says, at Carlisle, but the official reports, as well as the king’s directions, imply that the executions were not limited to one place.

[236] MS. State Paper Office, first series, Vol. II.

[237] “Of the mind of the king towards me I had first knowledge at mine arriving in France; of the which, to shew you the full motive of my mind herein, I was more ashamed to hear, for the compassion I had to the king’s honour, than moved by any indignation that I, coming not only as ambassador, but as legate in the highest sort of embassage that is used among Christian princes, a prince of honour should desire another prince of like honour—‘Betray the ambassador, betray the legate, and give him into mine ambassador’s hands, to be brought unto me.’ This was the dishonourable request, as I understand, of the king, which to me I promise you was no great displeasure, but rather, if I should say truth, I took pleasure therein, and said forthwith to my company that I never felt myself to be in full possession to be a cardinal as when I heard those tidings, whereby it pleased God to send like fortune to me as it did to those heads of the Church whose persons the cardinals do represent. In this case lived the apostles.”—Pole to Cromwell: Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 326, &c.

[238] The value of Pole’s accusations against Henry depends so much upon his character that I must be pardoned for scrutinizing his conduct rather closely. In his letter to Cromwell, dated the 2d of May, he insists that his actions had been cruelly misunderstood. Besides making the usual protestations of love and devotion to the king with which all his letters to the English court are filled, he declares, in the most solemn way, that, so far from desiring to encourage the insurgents, he had prevented the Pope from taking the opportunity of putting out the censures which might have caused more troubles. “That he had sent at that time his servant purposely to offer his service to procure by all means the king’s honour, wealth, and greatness, animating, besides, those that were chief of his nearest kin to be constant in the king’s service.”—Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 321.

I shall lay by the side of these words a passage from his letter to the Pope, written from Cambray on the 18th of the same month.

Both the French and Flemish councils, he says, are urging him to return to Italy:—

“Eo magis quod causa ipsa quæ sola me retinere posset, et quæ huc sola traxit, ne spem quidem ullam ostendere videtur vel minimo periculo dignam, cur in his locis diutius maneam, populi tumultu qui causam ipsam fovebat ita sedato ut multi supplicio sint affecti, duces autem omnes in regis potestatem venerint.”

He goes on to say that the people had been in rebellion in defence of their religion. They had men of noble birth for their leaders; and nothing, it was thought, would more inspirit the whole party than to hear that one of their own nation was coming with authority to assist their cause; nothing which would strike deeper terror into their adversaries, or compel them to more equitable conditions.

For the present the tumult was composed, but only by fair words, and promises which had not been observed. A fresh opportunity would soon again offer. Men’s minds were always rather exasperated than conquered by such treatment. The people would never believe the king’s word again; and though for the moment held down by fear, would break out again with renewed fury. He thought, therefore, he had better remain in the neighbourhood, since the chief necessity of the party would be an efficient leader; and to know that they had a leader ready to come to them at any moment, yet beyond the king’s reach, would be the greatest encouragement which they could receive.—Reginald Pole to the Pope: Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. II. p. 46.

[239] Ibid.

[240] Bishop Hilsey to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXV.

[241] Rolls House MS. first series, 416; much injured.

[242] The Privy Council, writing to the Duke of Norfolk, said: “You may divulge the cause of their activity to the people of those parts, that they may the rather perceive their miserable fortune, that, being once so graciously pardoned, would eftsoons combine themselves for the attempting of new treasons ... not conceiving that anything is done for their former offences done before the pardon, which his Grace will in nowise remember or speak of; but for those treasons which they have committed again since in such detestable sort as no good subject would not wish their punishment for the same.”—Hardwicke State Papers, Vol. I. p. 43.

[243] Rolls House MS. A 2, 28.

[244] Besides his personal interference, Aske, and Constable also, had directed a notorious insurgent named Rudstone, “in any wise to deliver Hallam from Hull.”—Ibid.

[245] Sir Ralph Ellerkar called on Constable to join him in suppressing Bigod’s movement. Constable neither came nor sent men, contenting himself with writing letters.—Ibid.

[246] Part of Pole’s mission was to make peace between France and the Empire. The four sovereigns would, therefore, be the Pope, the King of Scotland, Francis, and Charles. I have gathered these accusations out of several groups among the Rolls House MSS., apparently heads of information, Privy Council minutes, and drafts of indictments. The particulars which I have mentioned being repeated frequently in these papers, and with much emphasis, I am inclined to think that they formed the whole of the case.

[247] The proofs of “an animus” were severely construed.

A few clauses from a rough draft of the indictments will show how small a prospect of escape there was for any one who had not resolutely gone over to the government.

Aske wrote to the commons of the north a letter, in which was written, “Bigod intendeth to destroy the effect of our petition and commonwealth; whereby,” Cromwell concluded, “it appeareth he continued in his false opinion and traitorous heart.” In another letter he had said to them, “Your reasonable petitions shall be ordered by parliament,” “showing that he thought that their petitions were reasonable, and in writing the same he committed treason.”

Again, both Constable and he had exhorted the commons to wait for the Duke of Norfolk and the parliament, telling them that the duke would come only with his household servants; “signifying plainly that, if their unreasonable requests were not complied with, they would take the matter in their own hands again.”

There are fifty “articles” against them, conceived in the same spirit, of more or less importance.

[248] Sir William Parr to Henry VIII.: MS. State Paper Office, Letters to the King and Council, Vol. V. Rolls House MS. first series, 76.

[249] Sir William Parr to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series Vol. XXXI.

[250] Baga de Secretis.

[251] Lord Hussey may have the benefit of his own denial. Cromwell promised to intercede for him if he would make a true confession. He replied thus:—

“I never knew of the beginning of the commotion in neither of the places, otherwise than is contained in the bill that I did deliver to Sir Thomas Wentworth, at Windsor. Nor I was never privy to their acts, nor never aided them in will, word, nor deed. But if I might have had 500 men I would have fought with them, or else I forsake my part of heaven; for I was never traitor, nor of none counsel of treason against his Grace; and that I will take my death upon, when it shall please God and his Highness.”

In a postscript he added:

“Now at Midsummer shall be three years, my Lord Darcy, I, and Sir Robert Constable, as we sate at the board, it happened that we spake of Sir Francis Bigod, (how) his priest, in his sermons, likened Our Lady to a pudding when the meat was out, with many words more; and then my Lord Darcy said that he was a naughty priest; let him go; for in good sooth I will be none heretic; and so said I, and likewise Sir Robert Constable; for we will die Christian men.”—MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XVIII.

[252] “And whereas your lordship doth write that, in case the consciences of such persons as did acquit Levening should be examined, the fear thereof might trouble others in like case, the King’s Majesty considering his treason to be most manifest, apparent, and confessed, and that all offenders in that case be principals, and none accessories, doth think it very necessary that the means used in that matter may be searched out, as a thing which may reveal many other matters worthy his Highness’s knowledge; and doth therefore desire you not only to signify their names, but also to travel all that you can to beat out the mystery.”—Privy Council to the Duke of Norfolk: Hardwicke State Papers, Vol. I. p. 46.

[253] The list is in the Rolls MS. first series, 284. Opposite the name of each juror there is a note in the margin, signifying his connexions among the prisoners.

[254] Compare Baga de Secretis, pouch X. bundle 2, and Rolls House MS., first series, 284.

[255] Word illegible in the MS.

[256] MS. in Cromwell’s own hand: Rolls House, A 2, 29, fol. 160 and 161.

[257] Rolls House MS. first series. 207.

[258] MS. ibid. 1401.

[259] Depositions relating to Lord Delaware: Rolls House MS.

[260] MS. State Paper Office, Domestic, Vol. XII.

[261] Ibid.

[262] MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1, 457.

[263] For instance, Sir Thomas Percy’s eldest son inherited the earldom of Northumberland; unfortunately, also his father’s politics and his father’s fate. He was that Earl of Northumberland who rose for Mary of Scotland against Elizabeth.

[264] Lady Bulmer seems from the depositions to have deserved as serious punishment as any woman for the crime of high treason can be said to have deserved. One desires to know whether in any class of people there was a sense of compunction for the actual measure inflicted by the law. The following is a meagre, but still welcome, fragment upon this subject:—

“Upon Whitsunday, at breakfast, certain company was in the chauntry at Thame, when was had speech and communication of the state of the north country, being that proditors against the King’s Highness should suffer to the number of ten; amongst which proditors the Lady Bulmer should suffer. There being Robert Jones, said it is a pity that she should suffer. Then to that answered John Strebilhill, saying it is no pity, if she be a traitor to her prince, but that she should have after her deserving. Then said Robert Jones, let us speak no more of this matter; for men may be blamed for speaking of the truth.”—Rolls House MS. first series, 1862.

[265] MS. State Paper Office: —— to Henry Saville.

[266] A second cause “is our most dear and most entirely beloved wife the queen, being now quick with child, for the which we give most humble thanks to Almighty God, albeit she is in every condition of that loving inclination and reverend conformity, that she can in all things well content, satisfy, and quiet herself with that thing which we shall think expedient and determine; yet, considering that, being a woman, upon some sudden and displeasant rumours and brutes that might be blown abroad in our absence, she might take impressions which might engender danger to that wherewith she is now pregnant, which God forbid, it hath been thought necessary that we should not extend our progress this year so far from her.”—Henry VIII. to the Duke of Norfolk: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 552.

[267] MS. Rolls House, A 2, 28.

[268] A curious drawing of Hull, which was made about this time, with the plans of the new fortifications erected by Henry, is in the Cotton Library. A gallows stands outside the gate, with a body hanging on it, which was probably meant for Constable’s.

[269] “Immediately tofore Sir Robert Constable should receive his rights, it was asked of him if that his confession put in writing was all that he did know. To which he made answer that it was all. Notwithstanding he knew, besides that, sundry naughty words and high cracks that my Lord Darcy had blown out, which he thought not best to shew so long as the said lord was on life, partly because they should rather do hurt than good, and partly because he had no proof of them.

“But what these words were he would not declare, but in generality. Howbeit, his open confession was right good.”—MS. State Paper Office, first series, Vol. I.

[270] A general amnesty was proclaimed immediately after. “The notable unkindness of the people,” Norfolk said, “had been able to have moved his Grace to have taken such punishment on the offenders as might have been terrible for all men to have thought on that should hereafter have only heard the names of sedition and rebellion.

“Yet the king’s most royal Majesty, of his most tender pity and great desire that he hath rather to preserve you from the stroke of justice imminent upon your deserts, than to put you to the extremity of the same, trusting and supposing that the punishment of a few offenders in respect of the multitude, which have suffered only for an example to others to avoid the like attemptations, will be sufficient for ever to make all you and your posterities to eschew semblable offences, of his inestimable goodness and pity is content by this general proclamation to give and grant to you all, every of you, his general and free pardon.”—Rolls House MS. A 2, 28; State Papers, Vol. I. p. 558.

[271] Like Cuthbert Tunstall, for instance, who, when upbraided for denying his belief in the Pope, said “he had never seen the time when he thought to lose one drop of blood therefore, for sure he was that none of those that heretofore had advantage by that authority would have lost one penny to save his life.”—Tunstall to Pole: Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 481.

[272] Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. II. p. 46.

[273] Ibid. p. 64.

[274] Trials of Lord Montague and the Marquis of Exeter: Baga de Secretis.

[275] Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. II. p. 73.

[276] Pole to Contarini, Epist. Vol. II. p. 64. I call the rumour wild because there is no kind of evidence for it, and because the English resident at Antwerp, John Hutton, who was one of the persons accused by Pole, was himself the person to inform the king of the story.—State Papers, Vol. VII. p. 703.

[277] See Appendix to Volume IV

[278] Michael Throgmorton to Cromwell: MS. penes me.

[279] Cromwell to Throgmorton: Rolls House MS.

[280] Robert Ward to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XLVI.

[281] Depositions relating to the Protestants in Yorkshire: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XVIII.

[282] The monkish poetry was pressed into the service. The following is from a MS. in Balliol College, Oxford. It is of the date, perhaps, of Henry VII.

“Listen, lordlings, both great and small,
I will tell you a wonder tale,
How Holy Church was brought in bale,
Cum magnâ injuriâ.

“The greatest clerke in this land,
Thomas of Canterbury I understand,
Slain he was with wicked hand,
Malorum potentiâ.

“The knights were sent from Henry the king:
That day they did a wicked thing;
Wicked men without lesing,
Per regis imperia.

“They sought the bishop all about,
Within his palace and without:
Of Jesu Christ they had no doubt,
Pro suâ maliciâ.

“They opened their mouths woundily wide,
They spake to him with much pride:
‘Traitor! here shalt thou abide,
Ferens mortis tædia.’

“Before the altar he kneelèd down,
And there they pared his crown,
And stirred his braines up and down,
Optans cœli gaudia.”

[283] Ward to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XLVI.; Miles Coverdale to Cromwell: Ibid. Vol. VII.

[284] William Umpton to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series Vol. XLV.

[285] MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XLVI.

[286] Crummock Water is a lake in Cumberland. The point of the song must have some play on the name of Cromwell, pronounced as of old, “Crummell.”

[287] Rolls House MS. first series, 683.

[288] MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XLVIII.

[289] Rolls House MS. A 2, 30.

[290] Ibid.

[291] Very few of these are now known to be in existence. Roy’s Satire is one of the best. It would be excellent if reduced to reasonable length. The fury which the mystery plays excited in the Catholic party is a sufficient proof of the effect which they produced. An interesting letter to Cromwell, from the author of some of them, is among the State Papers. I find no further mention of him:—

“The Lord make you the instrument of my help, Lord Cromwell, that I may have liberty to preach the truth. I dedicate and offer to your lordship a ‘Reverend receiving of the sacrament,’ as a lenten matter declared by six children, representing Christ, the word of God, Paul, Austin, a child, a man called Ignorancy, as a secret thing that shall have an end—once rehearsed afore your eyes. The priests in Suffolk will not receive me into their churches to preach; but have disdained me ever since I made a play against the Pope’s councillors, Error, collyclogger of conscience, and Incredulity. I have made a play called A Rude Commonalty. I am making of another, called The Woman on the Rock, in the fire of faith refining, and a purging in the true purgatory, never to be seen but of your lordship’s eye. Aid me, for Christ’s sake, that I may preach Christ.”—Thomas Wylley, fatherless and forsaken: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. L.

[292] Rolls House MS. A 2, 30.

[293] MS. State Paper Office.

[294] Rolls House MS. first series; MS. Cotton. Cleopatra, E 4.

[295] Answers to Questions on the Sacraments by the Bishops: Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 114.

[296] In one of the ablest and most liberal papers which was drawn up at this time, a paper so liberal indeed as to argue from the etymology of the word presbyter that “lay seniors, or antient men, might to some intents be called priests,” I find this passage upon the eucharist: “As concerning the grace of consecration of the body of our Lord in form of bread and wine, we beseech your Grace that it may be prohibited to all men to persuade any manner of person to think that these words of our Master Christ, when He ‘took bread and blest it and brake it, and gave it to his disciples, and said, Take, and eat ye, this is my body that shall be betrayed for you,’ ought to be understood figuratively. For since He that spake those words is of power to perform them literally, though no man’s reason may know how that may be, yet they must believe it. And surely they that believe that God was of power to make all the world of nought, may lightly believe he was of power to make of bread his very body.”—Theological MSS. Rolls House.

[297] Henry VIII. to the Bishops: Rolls House MS. A 15.

[298] The Iceland fleet is constantly mentioned in the Records. Before the discovery of Newfoundland, Iceland was the great resort of English fishermen. Those who would not venture so long a voyage, fished the coasts of Cork and Kerry. When Skeffington was besieging Dungarvon, in 1535, Devonshire fishing smacks, which were accidentally in the neighbourhood, blockaded the harbour for him. The south of Ireland at the same time was the regular resort of Spaniards with the same object. Sir Anthony St. Leger said that as many as two or three hundred sail might sometimes be seen at once in Valentia harbour.—State Papers, Vol. V. p. 443, &c.

[299] MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXIV.

[300] Ibid. Vol. I. On the other hand the French cut out a Flemish ship from Portsmouth, and another from Southampton.

[301] Rolls House MS. A 2, 30.

[302] The inventory of his losses which was sent in by the captain is noticeable, as showing the equipment of a Channel fishing vessel.—One last of herring, worth 4l. 13s. Three hagbushes, 15s. In money, 1l. 16s. 8d. Two long bows, 4s. Two bills and a sheaf of arrows, 3s. 8d. A pair of new boots of leather, 3s. 4d. Two barrels of double beer, 3s. 4d. Four mantles of frieze, 12s. A bonnet, 1s. 2d. In bread, candles, and other necessaries, 2s. The second time, one hogshead of double beer, 6s.—MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXVIII.

[303] Sir Thomas Cheyne writes to Cromwell: “I have received letters from Dover that the Frenchmen on the sea hath taken worth 2000l. of goods since the king being there, and a man-of-war of Dieppe and a pinnace took the king’s barge that carries the timber for his Highness’s work there, and robbed and spoiled the ship and men of money, victuals, clothes, ropes, and left them not so much as their compass. And another Frenchman took away a pink in Dover roads and carried her away. And on Tuesday last a great fleet of Flemings men-of-war met with my Lord Lisle’s ship, laden with wool to Flanders, and one of them took all the victuals and ordnance. Thus the king’s subjects be robbed and spoiled every day.”—MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. VI.

[304] Sir William Fitzwilliam to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office.

[305] Sir William Godolphin to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XIII.

[306] MS. State Paper Office, Letters to the King and Council, Vol I.

[307] MS. ibid.

[308] Cromwell’s Memoranda: MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1. Many of the plans are in the Cotton Library, executed, some of them, with great rudeness; some finished with the delicacy of monastic illuminations; some, but very few, are good working drawings. It is a mortifying proof of the backwardness of the English in engineering skill, that the king for his works at Dover sent for engineers to Spain.

[309] 32 Henry VIII. cap. 50.

[310] Details of the equipments of many of these fortresses lie scattered among the State Papers. The expenses were enormous, but were minutely recorded.

[311] On whatever side we turn in this reign, we find the old and the new in collision. While the harbours, piers, and the fortresses were rising at Dover, an ancient hermit tottered night after night from his cell to a chapel on the cliff, and the tapers on the altar, before which he knelt in his lonely orisons, made a familiar beacon far over the rolling waters. The men of the rising world cared little for the sentiment of the past. The anchorite was told sternly by the workmen that his light was a signal to the king’s enemies, and must burn no more; and when it was next seen, three of them waylaid the old man on his road home, threw him down, and beat him cruelly.—MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXIII.

[312] Lord Montague, on the 24th of March, 1537, said, “I dreamed that the king was dead. He is not dead, but he will die one day suddenly, his leg will kill him, and then we shall have jolly stirring.”—Trial of Lord Montague: Baga de Secretis. The king himself, in explaining to the Duke of Norfolk his reason for postponing his journey to Yorkshire in the past summer, said: “To be frank with you, which we desire you in any wise to keep to yourself, being an humour fallen into our legs, and our physicians therefore advising us in no wise to take so far a journey in the heat of the year, whereby the same might put us to further trouble and displeasure, it hath been thought more expedient that we should, upon that respect only, though the grounds before specified had not concurred with it, now change our determination.”—State Papers, Vol. I. p. 555.

[313] “I assure your lordship his Grace is very sorry that ye might not be here to make good cheer as we do. He useth himself more like a good fellow among us that be here, than like a king, and, thanked be God, I never saw him merrier in his life than he is now.”—Sir John Russell to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXVI.

[314] “Michael Throgmorton gave great charge to William Vaughan to enquire if there had been any communication upon the opinions of the physicians, whether the Queen’s Grace were with child with a man child or not.”—Hutton to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. VII. p. 703.

[315] State Papers, Vol. I. p. 570.

[316] Latimer to Cromwell: State Paper Office, Vol. I. p. 571.

[317] Hall is made to say she died on the 14th. The mistake was due probably to the printer. He is unlikely himself to have made so large an error.

[318] State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 1.

[319] Sir John Russell to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXVI.; State Papers, Vol. I. p. 573.

[320] Hall, p. 825.

[321] Leland wrote an ode on the occasion, which is not without some beauty:—

Spes erat ampla quidem numerosâ prole Joanna
Henricum ut faceret regem facunda parentem.
Sed Superis aliter visum est, cruciatus acerbus
Distorsit vacuum lethali tormine ventrem.
Frigora crediderim temere contracta fuisse
In causâ, superat vis morbi: jamque salute
Desperatâ omni, nymphis hæc rettulit almis.
Non mihi mors curæ est, perituram agnosco creavit
Omnipotens—Moriar—terram tibi debeo terra:
At pius Elysiis animus spatiabitur hortis.
Deprecor hoc unum. Maturos filius annos
Exigat, et tandem regno det jura paterno.
Dixit et æternâ claudebat lumina nube.
Nulla dies pressit graviori clade Britannum.

Genethliacon Edwardi Principis.

[322] Rolls House MS., A 2, 30. I trace the report to within a month of Jane Seymour’s death. Sanders therefore must be held acquitted of the charge of having invented it. The circumstances of the death itself are so clear as to leave no trace of uncertainty. How many of the interesting personal anecdotes of remarkable people, which have gained and which retain the public confidence, are better founded than this? Prudence, instructed by experience, enters a general caution against all anecdotes particularly striking.

[323] Rolls House MS. A 2, 30.

[324] Instructions for the Household of Edward Prince of Wales: Rolls House MS.

[325] State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 2.

[326] Pole to the Bishop of Liège: Epist. Vol. II. p. 41.

[327] Nott’s Wyatt, p. 312.

[328] Nott’s Wyatt, p. 319.

[329] Ibid.

[330] Ibid. p. 322.

[331] Mary’s submission dates from the fall of Anne Boleyn. It was offered by her on the instant, in three successive letters; two of which are printed in the State Papers, a third is in MS. in the State Paper Office.

[332] “And here Sir Thomas Wyatt shall deliver unto the Emperor the letter written unto him from the said Lady Mary, whereby it shall appear how she doth repent herself, and how she would that he should repent, and take of her the tenour. Whereof it shall like him to consider, it is not to be thought but it will acquit him therein, his Grace, nevertheless, being so good a lord and father to her as he is, and undoubtedly will be.”—Instructions to Sir Thomas Wyatt: Nott’s Wyatt, p. 314.

[333] Cromwell to Wyatt: Nott, p. 321.

[334] State Papers, Vol. VIII., p. 34.

[335] “My lord: this shall be to advertise you that the Imperials and Frenchmen have taken a truce for ten months, which, as we think, be great news, and of great weight and moment. Howbeit, my trust is, the King’s Highness knows what is the occasion of this sudden turn, or else it will trouble my brain to think of it.”—Sir William Fitzwilliam to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XI.

[336] Henry VIII. to Wyatt: Nott’s Wyatt.

[337] Cromwell to Wyatt, November 29, 1537: Nott’s Wyatt.

[338] Better known as Mary of Guise, mother of Mary Queen of Scots.

[339] Commission of Peter Mewtas to Madame de Longueville: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 10.

[340] Hutton to Sir Thomas Wriothesley: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 9.

[341] Henry VIII. to Sir Thomas Wyatt: Nott’s Wyatt.

[342] Same to the same: Ibid.

[343] State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 17.

[344] Hutton to Cromwell: Ibid.

[345] A story passes current with popular historians, that the Duchess of Milan, when Henry proposed for her, replied that she had but one head; if she had two, one should be at his Majesty’s service. The less active imagination of contemporaries was contented with reporting that she had said that the English ministers need not trouble themselves to make the marriage; “they would lose their labours, for she minded not to fix her heart that way.” Sir Thomas Wriothesley, who was then resident at Brussels, thought it worth his while to ask her whether these words had really been used by her.

“M. Ambassador,” she replied, “I thank God He hath given me a better stay of myself than to be of so light sort. I assure you, that neither those words that you have spoken, nor any like to them, have passed at any time from my mouth: and so I pray you report for me.”

Wriothesley took courage upon this answer, and asked what was her real inclination in the matter.

“At this she blushed exceedingly. ‘As for mine inclination,’ quoth she, ‘what should I say? You know I am at the Emperor’s commandment.’—‘Yea, madam,’ quoth Wriothesley; ‘but this matter is of such nature, that there must be a concurrence between his commandment and your consent, or else you may percase repent it when it shall be too late. Your answer is such as may serve both for your modesty and for my satisfaction; and yet, if it were a little plainer, I could be the better contented.’ With that she smiled, and again said, ‘You know I am the Emperor’s poor servant, and must follow his pleasure.’—‘Marry,’ quoth Wriothesley, ‘then I may hope to be among the Englishmen that shall be first acquainted with my new mistress, for the Emperor hath instantly desired it. Oh, madam!’ quoth he, ‘how happy shall you be if it be your chance to be matched with my master. If God send you that hap, you shall be matched with the most gentle gentleman that liveth; his nature so benign and pleasant, that I think till this day no man hath heard many angry words pass his lips. As God shall help me, if he were no king, I think, and you saw him, you would say, that for his virtue, gentleness, wisdom, experience, goodliness of person, and all other qualities meet to be in a prince, he were worthy before all others to be made a king.’... She smiled, and Wriothesley thought would have laughed out, had not her gravity forbidden it.... She said she knew his Majesty was a good and noble prince. Her honest countenance, he added, and the few words that she wisely spake, together with that which he knew by her chamberers and servants, made him to think there could be no doubt of her.”—State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 146.

[346] “Mr. Wyatt, now handle this matter in such earnest sort with the Emperor, as the king, who by your fair words hath conceived as certain to find assured friendship therein, be not deceived. The Frenchmen affirm so constantly and boldly that nothing spoken by the Emperor, either touching the principal contrahents or further alliance, hath any manner of good faith, but such fraud and deceit, that I assure you, on my faith, it would make any man to suspect his proceeding. Labour, Mr. Wyatt, to cause the Emperor, if it be possible, to write.”—Cromwell to Wyatt: Nott’s Wyatt, p. 333.

[347] Wyatt’s Oration to the Judges: Nott’s Wyatt.

[348] “I have received three houses since I wrote last to your lordship, the which I think would not a little have moved your lordship, if ye had known the order of them: some sticking fast in windows, naked, going to drabs, so that the pillar was fain to be sawed, to have him out; some being plucked from under drabs’ beds; some fighting, so that the knife hath stuck in the bones; with such other pretty business, of the which I have too much.”—Richard suffragan Bishop of Dover to Cromwell: Suppression of the Monasteries, p. 198.

[349] A finger of St. Andrew was pawned at Northampton for 40l.; “which we intend not,” wrote a dry visitor, “to redeem of the price, except we be commanded so to do.”—Ibid. p. 172.

[350] Printed in Fuller’s Church History, Vol. III. p. 394.

[351] Fuller’s Church History, Vol. III. p. 398.

[352] “According to your commission, we have viewed a certain supposed relic, called the blood of Hales, which was enclosed within a round beryll, garnished and bound on every side with silver, which we caused to be opened in the presence of a great multitude of people. And the said supposed relic we caused to be taken out of the said beryll, and have viewed the same, being within a little glass, and also tried the same according to our powers, by all means; and by force of the view and other trials, we judge the substance and matters of the said supposed relic to be an unctuous gum, coloured, which, being in the glass, appeared to be a glistening red, resembling partly the colour of blood. And after, we did take out part of the said substance out of the glass, and then it was apparent yellow colour, like amber or base gold, and doth cleave as gum or bird-lime. The matter and feigned relic, with the glass containing the same, we have enclosed in red wax, and consigned it, with our seals.”—Hugh Bishop of Worcester, with the other Commissioners, to Cromwell: Latimer’s Remains, p. 407.

The Abbot of Hales subsequently applied for permission to destroy the case in which the blood had been.

“It doth stand yet in the place where it was, so that I am afraid lest it should minister occasion to any weak person looking thereupon to abuse his conscience therewith; and therefore I beseech for license that I may put it down every stick and stone, so that no manner of token or remembrance of that forged relict shall remain.”—Abbot of Hales to Cromwell: MS. Tanner 105.

[353] Barlow to Cromwell: Suppression of the Monasteries, p. 183.

[354] Latimer to Cromwell: Remains, p. 395.

[355] Geoffrey Chambers to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series.

[356] Ibid.

[357] “Invisit aulam regis, regem ipsum novus hospes. Conglomerant ipsum risu aulico barones duces marchiones comites. Agit ille, minatur oculis, aversatur ore, distorquet nares; mittit deorsum caput, incurvat dorsum, annuit aut renuit. Rex ipse incertum gavisusne magis ob patefactam imposturam an magis doluerit ex animo tot seculis miseræ plebi fuisse impositum.”—Hooker to Bullinger: Original Letters on the Reformation.

[358] “He said that blessed man St. Thomas of Canterbury suffered death for the rights of the Church; for there was a great man—meaning thereby King Harry the Second—which, because St. Thomas of Canterbury would not grant him such things as he asked, contrary to the liberties of the Church, first banished him out of this realm; and at his return he was slain at his own church, for the right of Holy Church, as many holy fathers have suffered now of late: as that holy father the Bishop of Rochester: and he doubteth not but their souls be now in heaven.

“He saith and believeth that he ought to have a double obedience: first, to the King’s Highness, by the law of God; and the second to the Bishop of Rome, by his rule and profession.

“He confesseth that he used and practised to induce men in confession to hold and stick to the old fashion of belief, that was used in the realm of long time past.”—Rolls House MS.

[359] “The Bishop of Worcester and I will be to-morrow with your lordship, to know your pleasure concerning Friar Forest. For if we should proceed against him according to the order of the law, there must be articles devised beforehand which must be ministered unto him; and therefore it will be very well done that one draw them against our meeting.”—Cranmer to Cromwell: Cranmer’s Works, Vol. I. p. 239.

[360] Rolls House MS. A 1, 7, fol. 213.

[361] Ellis Price to Cromwell: MS. Cotton. Cleopatra, E 4.

[362] MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXIV.

[363] Latimer to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XLIX. Latimer’s Letters, p. 391.

[364] Stow’s Chronicle, p. 575.

[365] Hall, p. 875, followed by Foxe.

[366] MS. State Paper Office, unarranged bundle. The command was obeyed so completely, that only a single shrine now remains in England; and the preservation of this was not owing to the forbearance of the government. The shrine of Edward the Confessor, which stands in Westminster Abbey, was destroyed with the rest. But the stones were not taken away. The supposed remains of St. Edward were in some way preserved; and the shrine was reconstructed, and the dust replaced, by Abbot Feckenham, in the first year of Queen Mary.—Oration of Abbot Feckenham in the Parliament House: MS. Rawlinson, Bodleian Library.

[367] Cranmer to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. I.

[368] “The abuses of Canterbury” are placed by the side of those of Boxley in one of the official statements of the times.—Sir T. Wriothesley to Henry VIII., Nov. 20. 1538: State Papers, Vol. VIII.

[369] Madame de Montreuil, though a Frenchwoman and a good Catholic, had caught the infection of the prevailing unbelief in saints and saintly relics. “I showed her St. Thomas’s shrine,” writes an attendant, “and all such other things worthy of sight, of the which she was not little marvelled of the great riches thereof, saying it to be innumerable, and that if she had not seen it all the men in the world could never have made her to believe it. Thus overlooking and viewing more than an hour as well the shrine as St. Thomas’s head, being at both set cushions to kneel, the prior, opening St. Thomas’s head, said to her three times, this is St. Thomas’s head, and offered her to kiss it, but she neither kneeled nor would kiss it, but (stood), still viewing the riches thereof.”—Penison to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 583.

[370] These marks are still distinctly visible.

[371] Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 494. A story was current on the Continent, and so far believed as to be alluded to in the great bull of Paul the Third, that an apparitor was sent to Canterbury to serve a citation at Becket’s tomb, summoning “the late archbishop” to appear and answer to a charge of high treason. Thirty days were allowed him. When these were expired a proctor was charged with his defence. He was tried and condemned—his property, consisting of the offerings at the shrine, was declared forfeited—and he himself was sentenced to be exhumed and burnt. In the fact itself there is nothing absolutely improbable, for the form said to have been observed was one which was usual in the Church, when dead men, as sometimes happened, were prosecuted for heresy; and if I express my belief that the story is without foundation, I do so with diffidence, because negative evidence is generally of no value in the face of respectable positive assertion. All contemporary English authorities, however, are totally silent on a subject which it is hard to believe that they would not at least have mentioned. We hear generally of the destruction of the shrine, but no word of the citation and trial. A long and close correspondence between Cromwell and the Prior of Canterbury covers the period at which the process took place, if it took place at all, and not a letter contains anything which could be construed into an allusion to it.—Letters of the Prior of Canterbury to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series.

So suspicious a silence justifies a close scrutiny of the authorities on the other side. There exist two documents printed in Wilkins’s Concilia, Vol. III. p. 835, and taken from Pollini’s History of the English Reformation, which profess to be the actual citation and actual sentence issued on the occasion. If these are genuine, they decide the question; but, unfortunately for their authenticity, the dates of the documents are, respectively, April and May, 1538, and in both of them Henry is styled, among his official titles, Rex Hiberniæ. Now Henry did not assume the title of Rex Hiberniæ till two years later. Dominus Hiberniæ, or Lord of Ireland, is his invariable designation in every authentic document of the year to which these are said to belong. This itself is conclusively discrediting. If further evidence is required, it may be found in the word “Londini,” or London, as the date of both citation and sentence. Official papers were never dated from London, but from Westminster, St. James’s, Whitehall; or if in London, then from the particular place in London, as the Tower. Both mistakes would have been avoided by an Englishman, but are exceedingly natural in a foreign inventor.

[372] “We be daily instructed by our nobles and council to use short expelition in the determination of our marriage, for to get more increase of issue, to the assurance of our succession; and upon their oft admonition of age coming fast on, and (seeing) that the time flyeth and slippeth marvellously away, we be minded no longer to lose time as we have done, which is of all losses the most irrecuperable.”—Henry VIII. to Sir T. Wriothesley: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 116.

“Unless his Highness bore a notable affection to the Emperor, and had a special remembrance of their antient amity, his Majesty could never have endured to have been kept thus long in balance, his years, and the daily suits of his nobles and council well pondered.”—Wriothesley to Cromwell: ibid, p. 160.

[373] See the Wriothesley Correspondence: State Papers, Vol. VIII.

[374] Wriothesley to Henry VIII., November 20, 1538: Ibid.

[375] Bull of Paul III. against Henry VIII: printed in Burnet’s Collectanea.

[376] Wriothesley Correspondence: State Papers, Vol. VIII.

[377] Wriothesley to Cromwell: Ibid.

[378] Stephen Vaughan to Cromwell, Feb. 21, 1539: State Papers, Vol. VIII.

[379] “Of the evils which now menace Christendom those are held most grievous which are threatened by the Sultan. He is thought most powerful to hurt: he must first be met in arms. My words will bear little weight in this matter. I shall be thought to speak in my own quarrel against my personal enemy. But, as God shall judge my heart, I say that, if we look for victory in the East, we must assist first our fellow Christians, whom the adversary afflicts at home. This victory only will ensure the other.”—Apol. ad Car. Quint.

[380] He speaks of Cromwell as “a certain man,” a “devil’s ambassador,” “the devil in the human form”. He doubts whether he will defile his pages with his name. As great highwaymen, however, murderers, parricides, and others, are named in history for everlasting ignominy, as even the devils are named in Holy Scripture, so he will name Cromwell.—Apol. ad Car. Quint.

[381] Ibid.

[382] Instructions to Reginald Pole: Epist. Vol. II. p. 279, &c. Pole’s admiring biographer ventures to say that “he was declared a traitor for causes which do not seem to come within the article of treason.”—Philips’s Life of Reginald Pole, p. 277.

[383] News which was sent from Rome unto the Cardinal Bishop of Seville: Rolls House MS.

[384] “There is much secret communication among the king’s subjects, and many of them in the shires of Cornwall and Devonshire be in great fear and mistrust what the King’s Highness and his council should mean, to give in commandment to the parsons and vicars of every parish, that they should make a book wherein is to be specified the names of as many as be wedded and buried and christened. Their mistrust is, that some charges more than hath been in times past shall grow to them by this occasion of registering.”—Sir Piers Edgecombe to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 612.

[385] “George Lascelles shewed me that a priest, which late was one of the friars at Bristol, informed him that harness would yet be occupied, for he did know more than the king’s council. For at the last council whereat the Emperor, the French king, and the Bishop of Rome met, they made the King of Scots, by their counsel, Defensor fidei, and that the Emperor raised a great army, saying it was to invade the Great Turk, which the said Emperor meaned by our sovereign lord.”—John Babington to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. III.

[386] Renewed agitation among the people. I attach specimens from time to time of the “informations” of which the Record Office contains so many. They serve to keep the temper of the country before the mind. The king had lately fallen from his horse and broken one of his ribs. A farmer of Walden was accused of having wished that he had broken his neck, and “had said further that he had a bow and two sheaves of arrows, and he would shoot them all before the king’s laws should go forward.” An old woman at Aylesham, leaning over a shop-window, was heard muttering a chant, that “there would be no good world till it fell together by the ears, for with clubs and clouted shoon should the deed be done.” Sir Thomas Arundel wrote from Cornwall, that “a very aged man” had been brought before him with the reputation of a prophet, who had said that “the priests should rise against the king, and make a field; and the priests should rule the realm three days and three nights, and then the white falcon should come out of the north-west, and kill almost all the priests, and they that should escape should be fain to hide their crowns with the filth of beasts, because they would not be taken for priests.”—“A groom of Sir William Paget’s was dressing his master’s horse one night in the stable in the White Horse in Cambridge,” when the ostler came in and began “to enter into communication with him.” “The ostler said there is no Pope, but a Bishop of Rome. And the groom said he knew well there was a Pope, and the ostler, moreover, and whosoever held of his part, were strong heretics. Then the ostler answered that the King’s Grace held of his part; and the groom said that he was one heretic, and the king was another; and said, moreover, that this business had never been if the king had not married Anne Boleyn. And therewith they multiplied words, and waxed so hot, that the one called the other knave, and so fell together by the ears, and the groom broke the ostler’s head with a faggot stick.”—Miscellaneous Depositions: MSS. State Paper Office, and Rolls House.

[387] Her blood was thought even purer than Lord Exeter’s. A cloud of doubtful illegitimacy darkened all the children of Edward IV.

[388] “At my lord marquis being in Exeter at the time of the rebellion he took direction that all commissions for the second subsidy should stay the levy thereof for a time.”—Sir Piers Edgecombe to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. X.

[389] “‘The marquis was the man that should help and do them good’ (men said). See the experience, how all those do prevail that were towards the marquis. Neither assizes, nisi prius, nor bill of indictment put up against them could take effect; and, of the contrary part, how it prevailed for them.”—Sir Thomas Willoughby to Cromwell: MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1, 386.

[390] Depositions relating to Lord Delaware: Rolls House MS. first series, 426.

[391] Depositions taken before Sir Henry Capel: Ibid. 1286.

[392] “A man named Howett, one of Exeter’s dependents, was heard to say, if the lord marquis had been put to the Tower, at the commandment of the lord privy seal, he should have been fetched out again, though the lord privy seal had said nay to it, and the best in the realm besides; and he the said Howett and his company were fully agreed to have had him out before they had come away.”—Rolls House MS. first series, 1286.

[393] Deposition of Geoffrey Pole: Rolls House MS.

[394] Jane Seymour was dead, and the king was not remarried: I am unable to explain the introduction of the words, unless (as was perhaps the case) the application to the painter was in the summer of 1537, and he delayed his information till the following year.

[395] Sir William Godolphin to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XIII.

[396] Ibid.

[397] Wriothesley to Sir Thos. Wyatt: Ellis, second series, Vol. II.

[398] Godolphin’s Correspondence: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XIII.

[399] Instructions by the King’s Highness to John Becket, Gentleman of his Grace’s Chamber, and John Wroth, of the same: printed in the Archæologia.

[400] “Kendall and Quyntrell were as arrant traitors as any within the realm, leaning to and favouring the advancement of that traitor Henry, Marquis of Exeter, nor letting nor sparing to speak to a great number of the king’s subjects in those parts that the said Henry was heir-apparent, and should be king, and would be king, if the King’s Highness proceeded to marry the Lady Anne Boleyn, or else it should cost a thousand men’s lives. And for their mischievous intent to take effect, they retained divers and a great number of the king’s subjects in those parts, to be to the lord marquis in readiness within an hour’s warning.”—Sir Thomas Willoughby to Cromwell: MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1.

[401] Deposition of Alice Paytchet: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXIX.

[402] Examination of Lord Montague and the Marquis of Exeter: Rolls House MS. first series, 1262.

[403] “The Lord Darcy played the fool,” Montague said; “he went about to pluck the council. He should first have begun with the head. But I beshrew him for leaving off so soon.”—Baga de Secretis, pouch xi. bundle 2.

[404] “I am sorry the Lord Abergavenny is dead; for if he were alive, he were able to make ten thousand men.”—Sayings of Lord Montague: Ibid.

[405] “On Monday, the fourth of this month, the Marquis of Exeter and Lord Montague were committed to the Tower of London, being the King’s Majesty so grievously touched by them, that albeit that his Grace hath upon his special favour borne towards them passed over many accusations made against the same of late by their own domestics, thinking with his clemency to conquer their cankeredness, yet his Grace was constrained, for avoiding of such malice as was prepensed, both against his person royal and the surety of my Lord Prince, to use the remedy of committing them to ward. The accusations made against them be of great importance, and duly proved by substantial witnesses. And yet the King’s Majesty loveth them so well, and of his great goodness is so loath to proceed against them, that it is doubted what his Highness will do towards them.”—Wriothesley to Sir T. Wyatt: Ellis, second series, Vol. II.

[406] Southampton to Cromwell: Ellis, second series, Vol. II. p. 110.

[407] Southampton to Cromwell: Ellis, second series, Vol. II. p. 114.

[408] Robert Warren to Lord Fitzwaters: MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1, 143.

[409] Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 494, &c.

[410] Hall, followed by the chroniclers, says that the executions were on the 9th of January; but he was mistaken. In a MS. in the State Paper Office, dated the 16th of December, 1538, Exeter is described as having suffered on the 9th of the same month. My account of these trials is taken from the records in the Baga de Secretis: from the Act of Attainder, 31 Henry VIII. cap. 15, not printed in the Statute Book, but extant on the Roll; and from a number of scattered depositions, questions, and examinations in the Rolls House and in the State Paper Office.

[411] The degrading of Henry Courtenay, late Marquis of Exeter, the 3d day of December, and the same day convicted; and the 9th day of the said month beheaded at Tower Hill; and the 16th day of the same month degraded at Windsor: MS. State Paper Office. Unarranged bundle.

[412] Examination of Christopher Chator: Rolls House MS. first series.

[413] Gibbon professes himself especially scandalized at the persecution of Servetus by men who themselves had stood in so deep need of toleration. The scandal is scarcely reasonable, for neither Calvin nor any other Reformer of the sixteenth century desired a “liberty of conscience” in its modern sense. The Council of Geneva, the General Assembly at Edinburgh, the Smalcaldic League, the English Parliament, and the Spanish Inquisition held the same opinions on the wickedness of heresy; they differed only in the definition of the crime. The English and Scotch Protestants have been taunted with persecution. When nations can grow to maturity in a single generation, when the child can rise from his first grammar lesson a matured philosopher, individual men may clear themselves by a single effort from mistakes which are embedded in the heart of their age. Let us listen to the Landgrave of Hesse. He will teach us that Henry VIII. was no exceptional persecutor.

The Landgrave has heard that the errors of the Anabaptists are increasing in England. He depicts in warning colours the insurrection at Münster: “If they grow to any multitude,” he says, “their acts will surely declare their seditious minds and opinions. Surely this is true, the devil, which is an homicide, carrieth men that are entangled in false opinions to unlawful slaughters and the breach of society.... There are no rulers in Germany,” he continues, “whether they be Popish or professors of the doctrines of the Gospel, that do suffer these men, if they come into their hands. All men punish them grievously. We use a just moderation, which God requireth of all good rulers. Whereas any of the sect is apprehended, we call together divers learned men and good preachers, and command them, the errors being confuted by the Word of God, to teach them rightlier, to heal them that be sick, to deliver them that were bound; and by this way many that are astray are come home again. These are not punished with any corporal pains, but are driven openly to forsake their errours. If any do stubbornly defend the ungodly and wicked errours of that sect, yielding nothing to such as can and do teach them truly, these are kept a good space in prison, and sometimes sore punished there; yet in such sort are they handled, that death is long deferred for hope of amendment; and, as long as any hope is, favour is shewed to life. If there be no hope left, then the obstinate are put to death.” Warning Henry of the snares of the devil, who labours continually to discredit the truth by grafting upon it heresy, he concludes:—

“Wherefore, if that sect hath done any hurt there in your Grace’s realm, we doubt not but your princely wisdom will so temper the matter, that both dangers be avoided, errours be kept down, and yet a difference had between those that are good men, and mislike the abuses of the Bishop of Rome’s baggages, and those that be Anabaptists. In many parts of Germany where the Gospel is not preached, cruelty is exercised upon both sorts without discretion. The magistrates which obey the Bishop of Rome (whereas severity is to be used against the Anabaptists) slay good men utterly alien from their opinions. But your Majesty will put a difference great enough between these two sorts, and serve Christ’s glory on the one side, and save the innocent blood on the other.”—Landgrave of Hesse to Henry VIII., September 25, 1538: State Papers, Vol. VIII.

[414] “They have made a wondrous matter and report here of the shrines and of burning of the idol at Canterbury; and, besides that, the King’s Highness and council be become sacramentarians by reason of this embassy which the King of Saxony sent late into England.”—Theobald to Cromwell, from Padua. October 22, 1538: Ellis, third series, Vol. III.

[415] The history of Lambert’s trial is taken from Foxe, Vol. V.

[416] Cromwell to Wyatt: Nott’s Wyatt, p. 326.

[417] Cromwell to Wriothesley: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 155.

[418] Christopher Mount writes: “This day (March 5) the Earl William a Furstenburg was at dinner with the Duke of Saxe, which asked of him what news. He answered that there is labour made for truce between the Emperor and the Turk. Then said the duke, to what purpose should be all these preparations the Emperor maketh? The earl answered, that other men should care for. Then said the duke, the bruit is here—it should be against the King of England. Then said the earl, the King of England shall need to take heed to himself.”—State Papers, Vol. I. p. 606.

[419] The negotiations for the marriages.

[420] Wriothesley to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 165.

[421] i.e., he was to marry the Princess Mary.

[422] Wriothesley to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 167.

[423] “Within these fourteen days, it shall surely break out what they do purpose to do; as of three ways, one—Gueldres, Denmark, or England; notwithstanding, as I think, England is without danger, because they know well that the King’s Grace hath prepared to receive them if they come. There be in Holland 270 good ships prepared; but whither they shall go no man can tell. Preparations of all manner of artillery doth daily go through Antwerp.

“All the spiritualty here be set for to pay an innumerable sum of money. Notwithstanding, they will be very well content with giving the aforesaid money, if all things may be so brought to pass as they hope it shall, and as it is promised them—and that is, that the Pope’s quarrel may be avenged upon the King’s Grace of England.”—March 14, —— to Cromwell; MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XVI.

[424] William Ostrich to the worshipful Richard Ebbes, Merchant in London: MS. State Paper Office, first series, Vol. II.

[425] Sir Ralph Sadler to Cromwell, from Dover, March 16: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXVII.

[426] Hollinshed, Stow.

[427] Letters of Sir Thomas Cheyne to Cromwell, March and April, 1539: MS. State Paper Office, second series.

[428] Cromwell to the King: MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1, 271.

[429] Philips’s Life of Pole. Four letters of Cardinal Alexander Farnese to Paul III.: Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. II. p. 281, &c.

[430] One of these, for instance, writes to him: “Vale amplissime Pole quem si in meis auguriis aliquid veri est adhuc Regem Angliæ videbimus.” His answer may acquit him of vulgar selfishness: “I know not where you found your augury. If you can divine the future, divine only what I am to suffer for my country, or for the Church of God, which is in my country.

eis oἰῶnos ὔristos ὐmύnesthai perὶ patrὴs.

For me, the heavier the load of my affliction for God and the Church, the higher do I mount upon the ladder of felicity.”—Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. III. pp. 37-39.

[431] Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. II. p. 191, &c. The disappointment of the Roman ecclesiastics led them so far as to anticipate a complete apostacy on the part of Charles. The fears of Cardinal Contarini make the hopes so often expressed by Henry appear less unreasonable, that Charles might eventually imitate the English example. On the 8th of July, 1539, Contarini writes to Pole:—

“De rebus Germaniæ audio quod molestissime tuli, indictum videlicet esse conventum Norimburgensem ad Kal. Octobris pro rebus Ecclesiæ componendis, ubi sunt conventuri oratores Cæsaris et Regis Christianissimi; sex autem pro parte Lutheranorum et totidem pro partibus Catholicorum, de rebus Fidei disputaturi; et hoc fieri ex decreto superiorum mensium Conventûs Francford; in quo nulla mentio fit, nec de Pontifice, nec de aliquo qui pro sede Apostolicâ interveniret. Vides credo quo ista tendunt. Utinam ego decipiar; sed hoc prorsus judico; etsi præsentibus omnibus conatibus regis Angliæ maxime sit obstandum, tamen non hunc esse qui maxime sedi Apostolicæ possit nocere; ego illum timeo quem Cato ille in Republicâ Romanâ maxime timebat, qui sobrius accedit ad illam evertendam; vel potius illos timeo (nec enim unus est hoc tempore) et nisi istis privatis conventibus cito obviam eatur, ut non brevi major scissura in ecclesiâ cum majori detrimento autoritatis sedis Apostolicæ oriatur, quam multis sæculis fuerit visa, non possum non maxime timere. Scripsit ad me his de rebus primus nuncius ex Hispaniâ; et postea certiora de iisdem ex Reverendissimo et Illustrissimo Farnesio cum huc transiret cognovi cui sententiam meam de toto periculo exposui. Ego certe talem nunc video Ecclesiæ statum, ut si unquam dixi ullâ in causâ cum Isaiâ, mitte me, nunc potius si rogarer dicerem cum Mose, Dominus mitte quem missurus es.”—Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. II. p. 158.

[432] Account of the Muster of the Citizens of London in the thirty-first Year of the Reign of King Henry VIII., communicated (for the Archæologia), from the Records of the Corporation of London, by Thomas Lott, Esq.

[433] Royal Proclamation: Rolls House MS. A 1, 10.

[434] In “Lusty Juventus” the Devil is introduced, saying,—

“Oh, oh! full well I know the cause
That my estimation doth thus decay:
The old people would believe still in my laws,
But the younger sort lead them a contrary way.
They will not believe, they plainly say,
In old traditions made by men;
But they will live as the Scripture teacheth them.”

Hawkins’s Old Plays, Vol. I. p. 152.

[435] “The king intended his loving subjects to use the commodity of the reading of the Bible humbly, meekly, reverently, and obediently; and not that any of them should read the said Bible with high and loud voices in time of the celebration of the mass, and other divine services used in the Church; or that any of his lay subjects should take upon them any common disputation, argument, or exposition of the mysteries therein contained.”—Proclamation of the Use of the Bible: Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 138.

In a speech to the parliament Henry spoke also of the abuse of the Bible: “I am very sorry to know and hear how unreverendly that most precious jewel, the Word of God, is disputed, rhymed, sung, and jangled in every alehouse and tavern. I am even as much sorry that the readers of the same follow it in doing so faintly and coldly.”—Hall, p. 866.

[436] The Bishop of Norwich wrote to Cromwell, informing him that he had preached a sermon upon grace and free-will in his cathedral; “the next day,” he said, “one Robert Watson very arrogantly and in great fume came to my lodgings for to reason with me in that matter, affirming himself not a little to be offended with mine assertion of free will, saying he would set his foot by mine, affirming to the death that there was no such free will in man. Notwithstanding I had plainly declared it to be of no strength, but only when holpen by the grace of God; by which his ungodly enterprise, perceived and known of many, my estimation and credence concerning the sincere preaching of the truth was like to decay.” The bishop went on to say that he had set Watson a day to answer for “his temerarious opinions,” and was obliged to call in a number of the neighbouring county magistrates to enable him to hold his court, “on account of the great number which then assembled as Watson’s fautors.”—The Bishop of Norwich to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, first series, Vol. X.

[437] For instance, in Watson’s case he seems to have rebuked the bishop. Ibid.

[438] Very many complaints of parishioners on this matter remain among the State Papers. The difficulty is to determine the proportion of offenders (if they may be called such) to the body of the spiritualty. The following petition to Cromwell, as coming from the collective incumbents of a diocese, represents most curiously the perplexity of the clergy in the interval between the alteration of the law and the inhibition of their previous indulgences. The date is probably 1536. The petition was in connexion with the commission of inquiry into the general morality of the religious orders:—

“May it please your mastership, that when of late we, your poor orators the clergy of the diocese of Bangor, were visited by the king’s visitors and yours, in the which visitation many of us (to knowledge the truth to your mastership) be detected of incontinency, as it appeareth by the visitors’ books, and not unworthy, wherefore we humbly submit ourselves unto your mastership’s mercy, heartily desiring of you remission, or at least wise of merciful punishment and correction, and also to invent after your discreet wisdom some lawful and godly way for us your aforesaid orators, that we may maintain and uphold such poor hospitalities as we have done hitherto, most by provision of such women as we have customably kept in our houses. For in case we be compelled to put away such women, according to the injunctions lately given us by the foresaid visitors, then shall we be fain to give up hospitality, to the utter undoing of such servants and families as we daily keep, and to the great loss and harms of the king’s subjects, the poor people which were by us relieved to the uttermost of our powers, and we ourselves shall be driven to seek our living at alehouses and taverns, for mansions upon the benefices and vicarages we have none. And as for gentlemen and substantial honest men, for fear of inconvenience, knowing our frailty and accustomed liberty, they will in no wise board us in their houses.”—Petition of the Clergy of Bangor to the Right Hon. Thomas Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXVI.

[439] This story rests on the evidence of eye-witnesses.—Foxe, Vol. V. p. 251, &c.

[440] The late parliament had become a byword among the Catholics and reactionaries. Pole speaks of the “Conventus malignantium qui omnia illa decreta contra Ecclesiæ unitatem fecit.”—Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. II. p. 46.

[441] “For your Grace’s parliament I have appointed (for a crown borough) your Grace’s servant Mr. Morison, to be one of them. No doubt he shall be able to answer or take up such as should crack on far with literature of learning.”—Cromwell to Henry VIII.: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 603.

[442] Letter to Secretary Cromwell on the Election of the Knights of the Shire for the County of Huntingdon: Rolls House MS.

[443] Lady Blount to the King’s Secretary: Ibid.

[444] The Earl of Southampton to Cromwell: MS. Cotton. Cleopatra, E 4.

[445] The two persons whom Cromwell had previously named.

[446] Letters of the Mayor of Canterbury to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. V.

In the first edition this affair is referred to the election of 1539. We are left almost invariably to internal evidence to fix the dates of letters, and finding the second of those written by the Mayor of Canterbury, on this subject, addressed to Cromwell as Lord Privy Seal, I supposed that it must refer to the only election conducted by him after he was raised to that dignity. I have since ascertained that the first letter, the cover of which I did not see, is addressed to Sir Thomas Cromwell, chief secretary, &c. It bears the date of the 20th of May, and though the year is not given, the difference of the two styles fixes it to 1536. The election was conducted while Cromwell was a commoner. He was made a peer and Privy Seal immediately on the meeting of parliament on the 2d of July.

[447] Cromwell to Henry VIII.: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 693.

[448] “The King’s Highness desiring that such a unity might be established in all things touching the doctrine of Christ’s religion, as the same so being established might be to the honour of Almighty God, and consequently redound to the commonwealth of this his Highness’s most noble realm, hath therefore caused his most High Court of Parliament to be at this time summoned, and also a synod and convocation of all the archbishops, bishops, and other learned men of the clergy of this his realm to be in like manner assembled.”—31 Henry VIII. cap. 14.

[449] “Post missarum solemnia, decenter ac devote celebrata, divinoque auxilio humillimi implorato et invocato.”—Lords Journals, 31 Henry VIII.

[450] Lords Journals, 31 Henry VIII.

[451] A Device for extirpating Heresies among the People: Rolls House MS.

[452] “Nothing has yet been settled respecting the marriage of the clergy, although some persons have very freely preached before the king upon the subject.”—John Butler to Conrad Pellican, March 8, 1539: Original Letters on the Reformation, second series, p. 624.

[453] Lady Exeter was afterwards pardoned. Lady Salisbury’s offences, whatever they were, seem to have been known to the world, even before Lord Southampton’s visit of inspection to Warblington. The magistrates of Stockton in Sussex sent up an account of examinations taken on the 13th of September, 1538, in which a woman is charged with having said, “If so be that my Lady of Salisbury had been a young woman as she was an old woman, the King’s Grace and his council had burnt her.”—MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXIX. The act of attainder has not been printed (31 Henry VIII. cap. 15: Rolls House MS.); so much of it, therefore, as relates to these ladies is here inserted:—

“And where also Gertrude Courtenay, wife of the Lord Marquis of Exeter, hath traitorously, falsely, and maliciously confederated herself to and with the abominable traitor Nicholas Carew, knowing him to be a traitor and a common enemy to his Highness and the realm of England; and hath not only aided and abetted the said Nicholas Carew in his abominable treasons, but also hath herself committed and perpetrated divers and sundry detestable and abominable treasons to the fearful peril of his Highness’s royal person, and the loss and desolation of this realm of England, if God of his goodness had not in due time brought the same treason to knowledge:

“And where also Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, and Hugh Vaughan, late of Bekener, in the county of Monmouth, yeoman, by instigation of the devil, putting apart the dread of Almighty God, their duty of allegiance, and the excellent benefits received of his Highness, have not only traitorously confederated themselves with the false and abominable traitors Henry Pole, Lord Montague, and Reginald Pole, sons to the said countess, knowing them to be false traitors, but also have maliciously aided, abetted, maintained, and comforted them in their said false and abominable treason, to the most fearful peril of his Highness, the commonwealth of this realm, &c., the said marchioness and the said countess be declared attainted, and shall suffer the pains and penalties of high treason.” I find no account of Vaughan, or of the countess’s connexion with him. He was probably one of the persons employed to carry letters to and from the cardinal.

[454] “Immediate post Billæ lectionem Dominus Cromwell palam ostendit quandam tunicam ex albo serico confectam inventam inter linteamina Comitissæ Sarum, in cujus parte anteriore existebant sola arma Angliæ; in parte vero posteriore insignia illa quibus nuper rebelles in aquilonari parte Angliæ in commotione suâ utebantur.”—Lords Journals, 31 Henry VIII.

[455] In quoting the preambles of acts of parliament I do not attach to them any peculiar or exceptional authority. But they are contemporary statements of facts and intentions carefully drawn, containing an explanation of the conduct of parliament and of the principal events of the time. The explanation may be false, but it is at least possible that it may be true; and my own conclusion is, that, on the whole, the account to be gathered from this source is truer than any other at which we are likely to arrive; that the story of the Reformation as read by the light of the statute book is more intelligible and consistent than any other version of it, doing less violence to known principles of human nature, and bringing the conduct of the principal actors within the compass of reason and probability. I have to say, further, that the more carefully the enormous mass of contemporary evidence of another kind is studied, documents, private and public letters, proclamations, council records, state trials, and other authorities, the more they will be found to yield to these preambles a steady support.

[456] 31 Henry VIII. cap. 8.

[457] The limitation which ought to have been made was in the time for which these unusual powers should be continued; the bill, however, was repealed duly in connexion with the treason acts and the other irregular measures in this reign, as soon as the crisis had passed away, or when those who were at the head of the state could no longer be trusted with dangerous weapons.—See 1 Edward VI. cap. 7. The temporary character of most of Henry’s acts was felt, if it was not avowed. Sir Thomas Wyatt in an address to the Privy Council, admitted to having said of the Act of Supremacy, “that it was a goodly act, the King’s Majesty being so virtuous, so wise, so learned, and so good a prince; but if it should fall unto an evil prince it were a sore rod:” and he added, “I suppose I have not mis-said in that; for all powers, namely absolute, are sore rods when they fall into evil men’s hands.”—Oration to the Council: Nott’s Wyatt, p. 304.

[458] The same expressions had been used of the Lollards a hundred and fifty years before. The description applied absolutely to the Anabaptists; and Oliver Cromwell had the same disposition to contend against among the Independents. The least irregular of the Protestant sects were tainted more or less with anarchical opinions.

[459] A considerable part of this address is in Henry’s own handwriting See Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 434.

[460] See Fuller, Vol. III. p. 411.

[461] 31 Henry VIII. cap. 9

[462] In some instances, if not in all, this was actually the case.—See the Correspondence between Cromwell and the Prior of Christ Church at Canterbury: MS. State Paper Office, second series.

[463] Oxford, Peterborough, Bristol, Gloucester, Chester, and Westminster.

[464] Canterbury, Winchester, Ely, Norwich, Worcester, Rochester, Durham, and Carlisle.

[465] “Per Dominum cancellarium declaratum est quod cum non solum proceres spirituales verum etiam regia majestas ad unionem in precedentibus articulis conficiendam multipliciter studuerunt et laboraverunt ita ut nunc unio in eisdem confecta sit regia igitur voluntatis esse ut penale aliquod statutum efficeretur ad coercendum suos subditos, ne contra determinationem in eisdem articulis confectam contradicerent, aut dissentirent, verum ejus majestatem proceribus formam hujusmodi malefactorum hujusmodi committere. Itaque ex eorum communi consensu concordatum est quod Archiepiscopus Cant., Episcopus Elien., Episcopus Menevensis et Doctor Peter, unam formam cujusdam actus, concernentem Punitionem hujusmodi malefactorum dictarent et componerent similiterque quod Archiepisc. Ebor., Episc. Dunelm., Episc. Winton et Doctor Tregonwell alteram ejusmodi effectus dictitarent et componerent formam.”—Lords Journals, 31 Henry VIII.

[466] Foxe’s rhetoric might be suspected, but a letter of Melancthon to Henry VIII. is a more trustworthy evidence: “Oh, cursed bishops!” he exclaims; “oh, wicked Winchester!”—Melancthon to Henry VIII.: printed in Foxe, Vol. V.

[467] “The judge shall be bounden, if it be demanded of him, to deliver in writing to the party called before him, the copy of the matter objected, and the names and depositions of the witnesses ... and in such case, as the party called answereth and denyeth that that is objected, and that no proof can be brought against him but the deposition of one witness only, then and in that case, be that witness never of so great honesty and credit, the same party so called shall be without longer delay absolved and discharged by the judge’s sentence freely without further cost or molestation.”—The Six Articles Bill as drawn by the King: Wilkins’s Consilia, Vol. III. p. 848.

[468] Act for Abolishing Diversity of Opinions: 31 Henry VIII. cap. 14.

[469] Printed in Strype’s Cranmer, Vol. II. p. 743.

[470] Philip Melancthon to Henry VIII., Foxe, Vol. V.

[471] Foxe, Vol. V. p. 265.

[472] Hall’s Chronicle, p. 828. Hall is a good evidence on this point. He was then a middle-aged man, resident in London, with clear eyes and a shrewd, clear head, and was relating not what others told him, but what he actually saw.

[473] In Latimer’s case, against Henry’s will, or without his knowledge. Cromwell, either himself deceived or desiring to smooth the storm, told Latimer that the king advised his resignation; “which his Majesty afterwards denied, and pitied his condition.”—State Papers, Vol. I. p. 849.

[474] Hall.

[475] Notes of Erroneous Doctrines preached at Paul’s Cross by the Vicar of Stepney: MS. Rolls House.

[476] Henry Dowes to Cromwell: Ellis, third series, Vol. III. p. 258.

[477] Richard Cromwell to Lord Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. VII. p. 188.

[478] More’s Utopia, Burnet’s translation, p. 13.

[479] Respectable authorities, as most of my readers are doubtless aware, inform us that seventy-two thousand criminals were executed in England in the reign of Henry VIII. Historians who are accustomed to examine their materials critically, have usually learnt that no statements must be received with so much caution as those which relate to numbers. Grotius gives, in a parallel instance, the number of heretics executed under Charles V. in the Netherlands as a hundred thousand. The Prince of Orange gives them as fifty thousand. The authorities are admirable, though sufficiently inconsistent, while the judicious Mr. Prescott declares both estimates alike immeasurably beyond the truth. The entire number of victims destroyed by Alva in the same provinces by the stake, by the gallows, and by wholesale massacre, amount, when counted carefully in detail, to twenty thousand only. The persecutions under Charles, in a serious form, were confined to the closing years of his reign. Can we believe that wholesale butcheries were passed by comparatively unnoticed by any one at the time of their perpetration, more than doubling the atrocities which startled subsequently the whole world? Laxity of assertion in matters of number is so habitual as to have lost the character of falsehood. Men not remarkably inaccurate will speak of thousands, and, when cross-questioned, will rapidly reduce them to hundreds, while a single cipher inserted by a printer’s mistake becomes at once a tenfold exaggeration. Popular impressions on the character of the reign of Henry VIII. have, however, prevented inquiry into any statement which reflects discredit upon this; the enormity of an accusation has passed for an evidence of its truth. Notwithstanding that until the few last years of the king’s life no felon who could read was within the grasp of the law, notwithstanding that sanctuaries ceased finally to protect murderers six years only before his death, and that felons of a lighter cast might use their shelter to the last,—even those considerable facts have created no misgiving, and learned and ignorant historians alike have repeated the story of the 72,000 with equal confidence.

I must be permitted to mention the evidence, the single evidence, on which it rests.

The first English witness is Harrison, the author of the Description of Britain prefixed to Hollinshed’s Chronicle. Harrison, speaking of the manner in which thieves had multiplied in England from laxity of discipline, looks back with a sigh to the golden days of King Hal, and adds, “It appeareth by Cardan, who writeth it upon report of the Bishop of Lexovia, in the geniture of King Edward the Sixth, that his father, executing his laws very severely against great thieves, petty thieves, and rogues, did hang up three score and twelve thousand of them.”

I am unable to discover “the Bishop of Lexovia;” but, referring to the Commentaries of Jerome Cardan, p. 412, I find a calculation of the horoscope of Edward VI., containing, of course, the marvellous legend of his birth, and after it this passage:—

“Having spoken of the son, we will add also the scheme of his father, wherein we chiefly observe three points. He married six wives; he divorced two; he put two to death. Venus being in conjunction with Cauda, Lampas partook of the nature of Mars; Luna in occiduo cardine was among the dependencies of Mars; and Mars himself was in the ill-starred constellation Virgo and in the quadrant of Jupiter Infelix. Moreover, he quarrelled with the Pope, owing to the position of Venus and to influences emanating from her. He was affected also by a constellation with schismatic properties, and by certain eclipses, and hence and from other causes, arose a fact related to me by the Bishop of Lexovia, namely, that two years before his death as many as seventy thousand persons were found to have perished by the hand of the executioner in that one island during his reign.”

The words of some unknown foreign ecclesiastic discovered imbedded in the midst of this abominable nonsense, and transmitted through a brain capable of conceiving and throwing it into form, have been considered authority sufficient to cast a stigma over one of the most remarkable periods in English history, while the contemporary English Records, the actual reports of the judges on assize, which would have disposed effectually of Cardan and his bishop, have been left unstudied in their dust.

[480] As we saw recently in the complaints of the Marquis of Exeter. But in this general sketch I am giving the result of a body of correspondence too considerable to quote.

[481] In healthier times the Pope had interfered. A bull of Innocent VIII. permitted felons repeating their crimes, or fraudulent creditors, to be taken forcibly out of sanctuary.—Wilkins’s Concilia, Vol. III. p. 621.

[482] The Magistrates of Frome to Sir Henry Long: MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1, 102. Mr. Justice Fitzjames to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XI. p. 43.

[483] The letter which I quote is addressed to Cromwell as “My Lord Privy Seal,” and dated July 17. Cromwell was created privy seal on the 2d of July, 1536, and Earl of Essex on the 17th of April, 1540. There is no other guide to the date.

[484] The Magistrates of Chichester to my Lord Privy Seal: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. X.

[485] 23 Henry VIII. cap. 1.

[486] Humfrey Wingfield to my Lord Privy Seal: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. LI.

[487] Richard Layton to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XX.

[488] MS. State Paper Office, second series.

[489] Correspondence of the Warden and Council of the Welsh Marches with the Lord Privy Seal: MS. State Paper Office, second series.

[490] MS. Rolls House, first series, 494.

[491] At the execution, Latimer’s chaplain, Doctor Tailor, preached a sermon. Among the notes of the proceedings I find a certain Miles Denison called up for disrespectful language.

“The said Miles did say: The bishop sent one yesterday for to preach at the gallows, and there stood upon the vicar’s colt and made a foolish sermon of the new learning, looking over the gallows. I would the colt had winced and cast him down.”—“Also during the sermon he did say, I would he were gone, and I were at my dinner.”—MS. State Paper Office.

[492] Sir Thomas Willoughby to Cromwell: MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1, 386.

[493] The Sheriff of Hampshire to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, first series, Vol. IX.

[494] The traditions of severity connected with this reign are explained by these exceptional efforts of rigour. The years of licence were forgotten; the seasons recurring at long intervals, when the executions might be counted by hundreds, lived in recollection, and when three or four generations had passed, became the measure of the whole period.

[495] “These three abbots had joined in a conspiracy to restore the Pope.”—Traherne to Bullinger: Original Letters on the Reformation, second series, p. 316.

[496] “Yesterday I was with the Abbot of Colchester, who asked me how the Abbot of St. Osith did as touching his house; for the bruit was the king would have it. To the which I answered, that he did like an honest man, for he saith, I am the king’s subject, and I and my house and all is the king’s; wherefore, if it be the king’s pleasure, I, as a true subject, shall obey without grudge. To the which the abbot answered, the king shall never have my house but against my will and against my heart; for I know, by my learning, he cannot take it by right and law. Wherefore, in my conscience, I cannot be content; nor he shall never have it with my heart and will. To the which I said beware of such learning; for if ye hold such learning as ye learned in Oxenford when ye were young ye will be hanged; and ye are worthy. But I will advise you to confirm yourself as a good subject, or else you shall hinder your brethren and also yourself.”—Sir John St. Clair to the Lord Privy Seal: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXVIII. The abbot did not take the advice, but ventured more dangerous language.

“The Abbot of Colchester did say that the northern men were good men and mokell in the mouth, and ‘great crackers’ and nothing worth in their deeds.” “Further, the said abbot said, at the time of the insurrection, ‘I would to Christ that the rebels in the north had the Bishop of Canterbury, the lord chancellor, and the lord privy seal amongst them, and then I trust we should have a merry world again.’”—Deposition of Edmund ——: Rolls House MS. second series, No. 27.

But the abbot must have committed himself more deeply, or have refused to retract and make a submission; for I find words of similar purport sworn against other abbots, who suffered no punishment.

[497] Lords Journals, 28 Henry VIII.

[498] “The Abbot of Glastonbury appeareth neither then nor now to have known God nor his prince, nor any part of a good Christian man’s religion. They be all false, feigned, flattering hypocrite knaves, as undoubtedly there is none other of that sort.”—Layton to Cromwell: Ellis, third series, Vol. III. p. 247.

[499] Confession of the Abbot of Barlings: MS. Cotton. Cleopatra, E 4.

[500] “And for as much as experience teacheth that many of the heads of such houses, notwithstanding their oaths, taken upon the holy evangelists, to present to such the King’s Majesty’s commissioners as have been addressed unto them, true and perfect inventories of all things belonging to their monasteries, many things have been left out, embezzled, stolen, and purloined—many rich jewels, much rich plate, great store of precious ornaments, and sundry other things of great value and estimation, to the damage of the King’s Majesty, and the great peril and danger of their own souls, by reason of their wilful and detestable perjury; the said commissioners shall not only at every such house examine the head and convent substantially, of all such things so concealed or unlawfully alienated, but also shall give charge to all the ministers and servants of the same houses, and such of the neighbours dwelling near about them as they shall think meet, to detect and open all such things as they have known or heard to have been that way misused, to the intent the truth of all things may the better appear accordingly.”—Instructions to the Monastic Commissioners: MS. Tanner, 105, Bodleian Library.

[501] Pollard, Moyle, and Layton to Cromwell: Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 499.

[502] Pollard, Moyle, and Layton to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 619.

[503] Ibid. 621.

[504] Butler, Elliot, and Traherne to Conrad Pellican: Original Letters, second series, p. 624.

[505] Thomas Perry to Ralph Vane: Ellis, second series, Vol. II. p. 140.

[506] I should have distrusted the evidence, on such a point, of excited Protestants (see Original Letters on the Reformation, p. 626), who could invent and exaggerate as well as their opponents; but the promise of these indulgences was certainly made, and Charles V. prohibited the publication of the brief containing it in Spain or Flanders. “The Emperor,” wrote Cromwell to Henry, “hath not consented that the Pope’s mandament should be published neither in Spain, neither in any other his dominions, that Englishmen should be destroyed in body, in goods, wheresoever they could be found, as the Pope would they should be.”—State Papers, Vol. I. p. 608.

[507] MS. Cotton.

[508] Lord Russell to Cromwell: MS. Cotton. Cleopatra, E 4.

[509] Ibid.

[510] Pollard to Cromwell: Suppression of the Monasteries, p. 261.

[511] Henry Fitz Roy, Duke of Richmond, died July 22, 1536.

[512] “Animadvertens sua clementia quod maxime hoc convenerat parliamentum pro bono totius Regni publico et concordiâ Christianæ religionis stabiliendà non tam cito quam propter rei magnitudinem quæ non solum regnum ipsum Angliæ concernit verum etiam alia regna et universi Christianismi Ecclesias quantumvis diversarum sententiarum quæ in eam rem oculos et animum habebant intentos, sua Majestas putavit tam propriâ suâ regiâ diligentiâ et studio quam etiam episcoporum et cleri sui sedulitate rem maturius consultandam, tractandam et deliberandam.”—Speech of the Lord Chancellor at the Prorogation: Lords Journals, Vol. I. p. 137.

[513] Brother of Jane Seymour; afterwards Protector.

[514] “I am as glad of the good resolutions of the Duke of Cleves, his mother, and council, as ever I was of anything since the birth of the prince: for I think the King’s Highness should not in Christendom marry in no place meet for his Grace’s honour that should be less prejudicial to his Majesty’s succession.”—Hertford to Cromwell: Ellis, first series, Vol. II. p. 119.

[515] “I find the council willing enough to publish and manifest to the world that by any covenants made by the old Duke of Cleves and the Duke of Lorraine, my Lady Anne is not bounden; but ever hath been and yet is at her free liberty to marry wherever she will.”—Wotton to the King: Ellis, first series, Vol. II. p. 121.

[516] Ellis, first series, Vol. II. p. 121.

[517] “The Duke of Cleves hath a daughter, but I hear no great praise, either of her personage nor beauty.”—Hutton to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 5.

[518] Stow.

[519] Butler to Bullinger: Original Letters on the Reformation, p. 627.

[520] Partridge to Bullinger: Ibid. 614.

[521] The Elector of Saxony to Henry VIII.: Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 437.

[522] See a correspondence between Cranmer and a Justice of the Peace, Jenkins’s Cranmer, Vol. I.

[523] “I would to Christ I had obeyed your often most gracious grave councils and advertisements. Then it had not been with me as now it is.”—Cromwell to the King: Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 510.

[524] MS. Cotton. Cleopatra, E 4.

[525] He required, probably, no information that his enemies would spare no means, fair or foul, for his destruction. But their plots and proceedings had been related to him two years before by his friend Allen, the Irish Master of the Rolls, in a report of expressions which had been used by George Paulet, brother of the lord treasurer, and one of the English commissioners at Dublin. Cromwell, it seems, had considered that estates in Ireland forfeited for treason, or non-residence, would be disposed of better if granted freely to such families as had remained loyal, than if sold for the benefit of the crown. Speaking of this matter, “The king,” Paulet said, “beknaveth Cromwell twice a week, and would sometimes knock him about the pate. He draws every day towards his death, and escaped very hardly at the last insurrection. He is the greatest briber in England, and that is espied well enough. The king has six times as much revenues as ever any of his noble progenitors had, and all is consumed and gone to nought by means of my Lord Privy Seal, who ravens all that he can get. After all the king’s charges to recover this land, he is again the only means to cause him to give away his revenues; and it shall be beaten into the king’s head how his treasure has been needlessly wasted and consumed, and his profits and revenues given away by sinister means.” “Cromwell,” Paulet added, “has been so handled and taunted by the council in these matters, as he is weary of them; but I will so work my matter, as the king shall be informed of every penny that he hath spent here; and when that great expence is once in his head, it shall never be forgotten there is one good point. And then I will inform him how he hath given away to one man seven hundred marks by the year. And then will the king swear by God’s body, have I spent so much money and now have given away my land? There was never a king so deceived by man. I will hit him by means of my friends.”—State Papers, Vol. II. p. 551. It is not clear how much is to be believed of Paulet’s story so far as relates to the king’s treatment of Cromwell. The words were made a subject of an inquiry before Sir Anthony St. Leger; and Paulet meant, it seemed, that the “beknaving and knocking about the pate” took place in private before no witnesses; so that, if true, it could only have been known by the acknowledgments of the king or of Cromwell himself. But the character of the intrigues for Cromwell’s destruction is made very plain.

[526] Foxe’s History of Cromwell.

[527] A paper of ten interrogatories is in the Rolls House, written in Cromwell’s hand, addressed to a Mr. John More. More’s opinion was required on the supremacy, and among the questions asked him were these:—

What communication hath been between you and the Bishop of Winchester touching the primacy of the Bishop of Rome?

What answers the said Bishop made unto you upon such questions as ye did put to him?

Whether ye have heard the said Bishop at any time in any evil opinion contrary to the statutes of the realm, concerning the primacy of the Bishop of Rome or any other foreign potentate?—Rolls House MS. A 2, 30, fol. 67.

In another collection I found a paper of Mr. More’s answers; but it would seem (unless the MS. is imperfect) that he replied only to the questions which affected himself. The following passage, however, is curious: “The cause why I demanded the questions (on the primacy) of my Lord of Winchester was for that I heard it, as I am now well remembered, much spoken of in the parliament house, and taken among many there to be a doubt as ye, Mr. Secretary, well know. And for so much as I esteemed my lord’s wisdom and learning to be such, that I thought I would not be better answered, because I heard you, Mr. Secretary, say he was much affectionate to the Papacy.”—Rolls House MS. first series, 863.

[528] “The Bishop of Winchester was put out of the Privy Council, because my Lord Privy Seal took displeasure with him because he should say it was not meet that Dr. Barnes, being a man defamed of heresy, should be sent ambassador. Touching the Bishop of Chichester there was not heard any cause why he was put forth from the Privy Council.”—Depositions of Christopher Chator: Rolls House MS. first series.

[529] “Then said Craye to me, there was murmuring and saying by the progress of time that my Lord Privy Seal should be out of favour with his prince. Marry, said I, I heard of such a thing. I heard at Woodstock of one Sir Launcelot Thornton, a chaplain of the Bishop of Durham, who shewed me that the Earl of Hampton, Sir William Kingston, and Sir Anthony Brown were all joined together, and would have had my Lord of Durham to have had rule and chief saying under the King’s Highness. Then said Craye to me, It was evil doing of my lord your master that would not take it upon hand, for he might have amended many things that were amiss; for, if the Bishop of Winchester might have had the saying, he would have taken it upon hand. Well, said I, my lord my master is too good a lawyer, knowing by his book the inconstancy of princes, where there is a text that saith: Lubricus est primus locus apud Reges.”—MS. ibid.

[530] “There was an honest man in London called Dr. Watts, which preacheth much against heresy; and this Dr. Watts was called before my Lord of Canterbury, and Dr. Barnes should be either his judge or his accuser.”—Rolls House MS., first series.

[531] “There was an alderman in Gracechurch-street that came to my Lord of Canterbury, and one with him, and said to my Lord of Canterbury: Please your Grace that we are informed that your Grace hath our master Watts by hold. And if it be for treason we will not speak for him, but if it be for heresy or debt we will be bound for him in a thousand pound; for there was ten thousand of London coming to your lordship to be bound for him, but that we stayed them.”—MS. ibid.

[532] Butler to Bullinger: Original Letters on the Reformation, p. 627.

[533] “As to the matter concerning the Duchess of Milan, when his Highness had heard it, he paused a good while, and at the last said, smiling, ‘Have they remembered themselves now?’ To the which I said, ‘Sir, we that be your servants are much bound to God, they to woo you whom ye have wooed so long.’ He answered coldly: ‘They that would not when they might, percase shall not when they would.’”—Southampton to Cromwell, Sept. 17, 1539: State Papers, Vol. I.

[534] “There should be three causes why the Emperor should come into these parts—the one for the mutiny of certain cities which were dread in time to allure and stir all or the more part of the other cities to the like; the second, for the alliance which the King’s Majesty hath made with the house of Cleves, which he greatly stomacheth; the third, for the confederacy, as they here call it, between his Majesty and the Almayns. The fear which the Emperor hath of these three things hath driven him to covet much the French king’s amity.”—Stephen Vaughan to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 203.

[535] “There is great suspicion and jealousy to be taken to see these two great princes so familiar together, and to go conjointly in secret practices, in which the Bishop of Rome seemeth to be intelligent, who hath lately sent his nephew, Cardinal Farnese, to be present at the parlement of the said princes in France. The contrary part cannot brook the King’s Majesty and the Almains to be united together, which is no small fear and terror as well to Imperials as the Papisticals, and no marvel if they fury, fearing thereby some great ruin.”—Harvel to Cromwell from Venice, December 9.

[536] Epist. Reginaldi Poli, Vol. V. p. 150. In this paper Pole says that the Duke of Norfolk stated to the king, in a despatch from Doncaster, when a battle seemed imminent, “that his troops could not be trusted, their bodies were with the king, but their minds with the rebels.” His information was, perhaps, derived from his brother Geoffrey, who avowed an intention of deserting.

[537] “The said Helyard said to me that the Emperor was come into France, and should marry the king’s daughter; and the Duke of Orleans should marry the Duchess of Milan, and all this was by the Bishop of Rome’s means; and they were all confedered together, and as for the Scottish king, he was always the French king’s man, and we shall all be undone, for we have no help now but the Duke of Cleves, and they are so poor they cannot help us.”—Depositions of Christopher Chator: Rolls House MS. first series.

[538] Sir Thos. Wyatt to Henry VIII.: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 219 &c.

[539] Southampton’s expressions were unfortunately warm. Mentioning a conversation with the German ambassadors, in which he had spoken of his anxiety for the king’s marriage, “so as if God failed us in my Lord Prince, we might have another sprung of like descent and line to reign over us in peace,” he went on to speak to them of the other ladies whom the king might have had if he had desired; “but hearing,” he said, “great report of the notable virtues of my lady now with her excellent beauty, such as I well perceive to be no less than was reported, in very deed my mind gave me to lean that way.” These words, which might have passed as unmeaning compliment, had they been spoken merely to the lady’s countrymen, he repeated in his letters to the king, who of course construed them by his hopes.

[540] Deposition of Sir Anthony Brown: Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 252, &c.

[541] Those who insist that Henry was a licentious person, must explain how it was that, neither in the three years which had elapsed since the death of Jane Seymour, nor during the more trying period which followed, do we hear a word of mistresses, intrigues, or questionable or criminal connexions of any kind. The mistresses of princes are usually visible when they exist, the mistresses, for instance, of Francis I., of Charles V., of James of Scotland. There is a difficulty in this which should be admitted, if it cannot be explained.

[542] Deposition of Sir Anthony Denny: Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II.

[543] Cromwell to the King: Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 109.

[544] Deposition of the Earl of Southampton: Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II.

[545] Questions to be asked of the Lord Cromwell: MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1, 418.

[546] Compare Cromwell’s Letter to the King from the Tower, Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 109, with Questions to be asked of the Lord Cromwell: MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1, 418. Wyatt’s report of his interview and the Emperor’s language could not have arrived till the week after. But the fact of Charles’s arrival with Brancetor in his train, was already known and was sufficiently alarming.

[547] Cromwell to the King: Burnet’s Collectanea. The morning after his marriage, and on subsequent occasions, the king made certain depositions to his physicians and to members of the council, which I invite no one to study except under distinct historical obligations. The facts are of great importance. But discomfort made Henry unjust; and when violently irritated he was not careful of his expressions.—See Documents relating to the Marriage with Anne of Cleves: Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II.

[548] Hall.

[549] The discharge of heretics from prison by an undue interference formed one of the most violent accusations against Cromwell. He was, perhaps, held responsible for the general pardon in the summer of 1539. The following letter, however, shows something of his own immediate conduct, and of the confidence with which the Protestants looked to him.

“God save the king.

“Thanks immortal from the Father of Heaven unto your most prudent and honourable lordship, for your mercy, and pity, and great charity that your honourable lordship has had on your poor and true orator Henry King, that almost was in prison a whole year, rather of pure malice and false suspicion than of any just offence committed by your said orator, to be so long in prison without any mercy, pity, or succour of meat and drink, and all your said orator’s goods taken from him. Moreover, whereas your said orator did of late receive a letter from your most honourable lordship by the hands of the Bishop of Worcester, that your said orator should receive again such goods as was wrongfully taken from your said orator of Mr. George Blunt (the committing magistrate apparently); thereon your said orator went unto the said George Blunt with your most gentle letter, to ask such poor goods as the said George Blunt did detain from your poor orator; and so with great pain and much entreating your said orator, within the space of three weeks, got some part of his goods, but the other part he cannot get. Therefore, except now your most honourable lordship, for Jesus sake, do tender and consider with the eye of pity and mercy the long imprisonment, the extreme poverty of your said orator, your said orator is clean undone in this world. For where your said orator had money, and was full determined to send for his capacity, all is spent in prison, and more. Therefore, in fond humility your said orator meekly, with all obedience, puts himself wholly into the hands of your honourable lordship, desiring you to help your orator to some succour and living now in his extreme necessity and need; the which is not only put out of his house, but also all his goods almost spent in prison, so that now the weary life of your said orator stands only in your discretion. Therefore, exaudi preces servi tui, and Almighty God increase your most honourable lordship in virtue and favour as he did merciful Joseph to his high honour Amen. Your unfeigned and true orator ut supra. Beatus qui intelligit super egenum et pauperem. In die malâ liberabit eum Dominus.”—MS. State Paper Office, Vol. IX. first series.

[550] Traheron to Bullinger: Original Letters, p. 316; Hall, p. 837.

[551] Foxe, Vol. V. p. 431.

[552] Hall, p. 837.

[553] “The bishop was ably answered by Dr. Barnes on the following Lord’s-day, with the most gratifying and all but universal applause.”—Traheron to Bullinger: Original Letters, p. 317.

[554] Wyatt to Henry VIII.: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 240, &c.

[555] Henry VIII. to the Duke of Norfolk: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 245, &c. Henry held out a further inducement. “If the duke shall see the French king persevere in his good mind and affection towards the King’s Highness, he shall yet further of himself say that his opinion is, and in his mind he thinketh undoubtedly that in such a case as that a new strait amity might now be made between the French king and the king his master, his Majesty would be content to remit unto him the one half of his debt to his Highness, the sum whereof is very great; and also the one half of the pensions for term of the said French king’s life, so as it may please him to declare what honourable reciproque he could be content to offer again to his Majesty.”—State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 251.

[556] State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 318. The Queen of Navarre, who was constant to the English interests, communicated to the secretary of Sir John Wallop (the resident minister at Paris), an account of a conversation between herself and the Papal nuntio.

Ferrara had prayed her “to help and put her good hand and word that the French king might join the Emperor and his master for the wars against the Almayns and the King of England, which king was but a man lost and cast away.”

“Why, M. l’Ambassadeur,” the queen answered, “what mean you by that? how and after what sort do you take the King of England?”—“Marry,” quoth he, “for a heretic and a Lutheryan. Moreover, he doth make himself head of the Church.”—“Do you say so?” quoth she. “Now I would to God that your master, the Emperor, and we here, did live after so good and godly a sort as he and his doth.” The nuntio answered, “the king had pulled down the abbeys,” “trusting by the help of God it should be reformed or it were long.” She told him that were easier to say than to do. England had had time to prepare, and to transport an army across the Channel was a difficult affair. Ferrara said, “It could be landed in Scotland.”—“The King of Scotland,” she replied, “would not stir without permission from France;” and then (if her account was true) she poured out a panegyric upon the Reformation in England, and spoke out plainly on the necessity of the same thing in the Church of Rome. State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 289, &c.

[557] Hall, p. 839. The case broke down, and Sampson was afterwards restored to favour; but his escape was narrow. Sir Ralph Sadler, writing to Cromwell, said, “I declared to the King’s Majesty how the Bishop of Chichester was committed to ward to the Tower, and what answer he made to such things as were laid to his charge, which in effect was a plain denial of the chief points that touched him. His Majesty said little thereto, but that he liked him and the matter much the worse because he denied it, seeing his Majesty perceived by the examinations there were witnesses enough to condemn him in that point.”—State Papers, Vol. I. p. 627.

[558] The Bishop of Chichester to Cromwell: Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 381.

[559] Another instance of Tunstall’s underhand dealing had come to light. When he accepted the oath of supremacy, and agreed to the divorce of Queen Catherine, he entered a private protest in the Register Book of Durham, which was afterwards cut out by his chancellor. Christopher Chator, whose curious depositions I have more than once quoted, mentions this piece of evasion, and adds a further feature of some interest. Relating a conversation which he had held with a man called Craye, Chator says, “We had in communication the Bishop of Rochester and Sir Thomas More attainted of treason. Craye said to me he marvelled that they were put to death for such small trespasses; to whom I answered that their foolish conscience was so to die. Then I shewed him of one Burton, my Lord of Durham’s servant, that told me he came to London when the Bishop of Rochester and Thomas More were endangered, and the said More asked Burton, ‘Will not thy master come to us and be as we are?’ and he said he could not tell. Then said More, ‘If he do, no force, for if he live he may do more good than to die with us.’”—Rolls House MS. first series.

[560] Lords Journals, 32 Henry VIII.

[561] 32 Henry VIII. cap. 1.

[562] 32 Henry VIII. cap. 2.

[563] 32 Henry VIII. cap. 3. “Many goes oft begging,” “and it causeth much robbing.”—Deposition of Christopher Chator. Here is a special picture of one of these vagabonds. Gregory Cromwell, writing to his father from Lewes, says, “The day of making hereof came before us a fellow called John Dancy, being apparelled in a frieze coat, a pair of black hose, with fustian slops, having also a sword, a buckler, and a dagger; being a man of such port, fashion, and behaviour that we at first took him only for a vagabond, until such time as he, being examined, confessed himself to have been heretofore a priest, and sometime a monk of this monastery.”—MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. VII.

[564] 32 Henry VIII. cap. 12.

[565] Lords Journals, 31 Henry VIII.

[566] It was so difficult to calculate at the time the amount likely to be raised by this method of taxation, or the degree in which it would press, that it is impossible at present even to guess reasonably on either of these points. In 1545, two fifteenths and tenths which were granted by parliament are described as extending to “a right small sum of money,” and a five per cent. income tax was in consequence added.—37 Henry VIII. cap. 25. Aliens and clergy generally paid double, and on the present occasion the latter granted four shillings in the pound on their incomes, to be paid in two years, or a direct annual tax of ten per cent.—32 Henry VIII. cap. 13. But all estimates based on conjecture ought to be avoided.

[567] 32 Henry VIII. cap. 50.

[568] Ibid. cap. 57. Unprinted Rolls House MS.

[569] “Hodie lecta est Billa attincturæ Ricardi Fetherstone, etc.; et communi omnium Procerum assensu nemine discrepante expedita.”—Lords Journals, 32 Henry VIII.

[570] Stow.

[571] The Ladies Rutland, Rochford, and Edgecombe, all being together with the queen, “they wished her Grace with child, and she answered and said she knew well she was not with child. My Lady Edgecombe said, ‘How is it possible for your Grace to know that?’ ‘I know it well I am not,’ said she. Then said my Lady Edgecombe, ‘I think your Grace is a maid still.’ With that she laughed; ‘How can I be a maid,’ said she, ‘and sleep every night with the king? When he comes to bed he kisses me, and takes me by the hand, and bids me “Good night, sweetheart;” and in the morning kisses me, and bids me “Farewell, darling.” Is not this enough?’ Then said my Lady Rutland, ‘Madame, there must be more than this, or it will be long or we have a Duke of York, which all this realm most desireth.’ ‘Nay,’ said the queen, ‘I am contented I know no more.’”—Deposition on the Marriage of the Lady Anne of Cleves: Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 462.

[572] Strype’s Memorials, Vol. I. p. 556.

[573] Cromwell to the King: Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 109.

[574] The Letter sent to Cromwell is printed in State Papers, Vol. I. p. 628.

[575] Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 459.

[576] MSS. State Paper Office, second series, 52 volumes.

[577] Lady Elizabeth Burgh’s letter to him will show the character of interference which he was called upon to exercise: “My very good lord, most humbly I beseech your goodness to me your poor bounden bedewoman, considering the great trouble I am put unto by my Lord Burgh, who always hath lien in wait to put me to shame and trouble, which he shall never do, God willing, you being my good and gracious lord, as I have found you merciful to me ever hitherto; and so I most humbly beseech you of your good continuance, desiring now your good lordship to remember me, for I am comfortless, and as yet not out of the danger of death through the great travail that I had. For I am as yet as a prisoner comfortless, only trusting to your lordship’s goodness and to the King’s Grace’s most honourable council. For I hear say my Lord Burgh hath complained on me to your lordship and to all the noble council; and has enformed your lordship and them all that the child that I have borne and so dearly bought is none of his son’s my husband. As for me, my very good lord, I do protest afore God, and also shall receive him to my eternal damnation, if ever I designed for him with any creature living, but only with my husband; therefore now I most lamentably and humbly desire your lordship of your goodness to stay my Lord Burgh that he do not fulfil his diabolical mind to disinherit my husband’s child.

“And thus am I ordered by my Lord Burgh and my husband (who dare do nothing but as his father will have him do), so that I have nothing left to help me now in my great sickness, but am fain to lay all that I have to gage, so that I have nothing left to help myself withal, and might have perished ere this time for lack of succour, but through the goodness of the gentleman and his wife which I am in house withal. Therefore I most humbly desire your lordship to have pity on me, and that through your only goodness ye will cause my husband to use me like his wife, and no otherwise than I have deserved; and to send me money, and to pay such debts as I do owe by reason of my long being sick, and I shall pray for your lordship daily to increase in honour to your noble heart’s desire. Scribbled with the hand of your bounden bedewoman, Elizabeth Burgh.” MS. State Paper Office, first series, Vol. XIII.

I should have been glad to have added a more remarkable letter from Lady Hungerford, who was locked up by her husband in a country house for four years, and “would have died for lack of sustenance,” “had not,” she wrote, “the poor women of the country brought me, to my great window in the night, such poor meat and drink as they had, and gave me for the love of God.” But the letter contains other details not desirable to publish.—MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1, 397.

[578] State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 349.

[579] “His Majesty remembering how men wanting the knowledge of the truth would else speak diversely of it, considering the credit he hath had about his Highness, which might also cause the wisest sort to judge amiss thereof if that his ingratitude and treason should not be fully opened unto them.”—Ibid. The opening sentences of the letter (it was evidently a circular) also deserve notice: “These shall be to advertize you that when the King’s Majesty hath of long season travelled, and yet most godly travaileth to establish such an order in matters of religion as neither declining on the right hand or on the left hand, God’s glory might be advanced, the temerity of such as would either obscure or refuse the truth of his Word refrained, stayed, and in cases of obstinacy duly corrected and punished; so it is that the Lord Privy Seal, to whom the King’s Majesty hath been so special good and gracious a lord, hath, only out of his sensual appetite, wrought clean contrary to his Grace’s intent, secretly and indirectly advancing the one of the extremes, and leaving the mean, indifferent, true, and virtuous way which his Majesty so entirely desired, but also hath shewed himself so fervently bent to the maintenance of that his outrage, that he hath not spared most privily, most traitorously to devise how to continue the same, and in plain terms to say,” &c. Then follow the words in the text.—Ibid.

[580] Hall, p. 838.

[581] “He is committed to the Tower of London, there to remain till it shall please his Majesty to have him tried according to the order of his laws.” State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 350.

[582] Act of Attainder of Thomas Lord Cromwell, 32 Henry VIII. The act is not printed in the Statute Book, but it is in very good condition on the parliament roll. Burnet has placed it among his Collectanea.

[583] Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 500.

[584] “Most Gracious Lord, I never spoke with the chancellor of the augmentation and Throgmorton together at one time. But if I did, I am sure I never spake of any such matter, and your Grace knows what manner of man Throgmorton has ever been towards your Grace’s proceedings.”—Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 500.

[585] Cranmer to the King: a fragment printed by Lord Herbert.

[586] “The said Privy Seal’s intent was to have married my Lady Mary, and the French king and the Cardinal du Bellay had much debated the same matter, reckoning at length by the great favour your Majesty did bear to him he should be made some earl or duke, and therefore presumed your Majesty would give to him in marriage the said Lady Mary your daughter, as beforetime you had done the French queen unto my Lord of Suffolk. These things they gathered of such hints as they had heard of the Privy Seal, before knowing him to be fine witted, in so much as at all times when any marriage was treated of for my said Lady Mary, he did always his best to break the same.”—State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 379, and see p. 362.

[587] State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 362.

[588] Pate to the Duke of Norfolk: Ibid. p. 355.

[589] Richard Pate, a priest of high Anglican views, and now minister at the Imperial court, supplied the Emperor’s silence by his own enthusiasm. He wrote to Henry an ecstatic letter on the “fall of that wicked man who, by his false doctrines and like disciples, so disturbed his Grace’s subjects, that the age was in manner brought to desperation, perceiving a new tradition taught.” “What blindness,” he exclaimed, “what ingratitude is this of this traitor’s, far passing Lucifer’s, that, endeavouring to pluck the sword out of his sovereign’s hand, hath deserved to feel the power of the same. But lauded be our Lord God that hath delivered your Grace out of the bear’s claws, as not long before of a semblable danger of the lioness!”—Pate to Henry VIII.: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 364.

[590] 32 Henry VIII. cap. 7; Lords Journals, 32 Henry VIII. Session June 22.

[591] 32 Henry VIII. cap. 15; Lords Journals, 32 Henry VIII. July 1.

[592] Communi omnium procerum consensu nemine discrepante.

[593] “Excepted alway all and all manner of heresies and erroneous opinions touching or concerning, plainly, directly, and only the most holy and blessed sacrament of the altar; and these heresies and erroneous opinions hereafter ensuing: that infants ought not to be baptized, and if they be baptized, they ought to be rebaptized when they come to lawful age; that it is not lawful for a Christian man to bear office or rule in the commonwealth; that no man’s laws ought to be obeyed; that it is not lawful for a Christian man to take an oath before any judge; that Christ took no bodily substance of our blessed Lady; that sinners, after baptism, cannot be restored by repentance; that every manner of death, with the time and hour thereof, is so certainly prescribed, appointed, and determined to every man of God, that neither any prince by his sword can alter it, nor any man by his own wilfulness prevent or change it; that all things be common and nothing several.”—32 Henry VIII. cap. 49.

[594] Lords Journals, 32 Henry VIII. July 6.

[595] “Upon Tuesday, the sixth of this month, our nobles and commons made suit and request unto us to commit the examination of the justness of our matrimony to the clergy; upon which request made we sent incontinently our councillors the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Suffolk, the Bishop of Winchester, &c., advertising the queen what request was made, and in what sort, and thereupon to know what answer she would make unto the same. Whereunto, after divers conferences at good length, and the matter by her thoroughly perceived and considered, she answered plainly and frankly that she was contented that the discussion of the matter should be committed to the clergy as unto judges competent in that behalf.”—State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 404; and see Anne of Cleves to the King; Ibid. Vol. I. p. 637.

[596] Luculentâ Oratione: Strype’s Memorials, Vol. I. p. 553.

[597] “Inspectâ hujus negotii veritate ac solum Deum præ oculis habentes, quod verum, quod honestum, quod sanctum est, id nobis, de communi consilio scripto authentico renuncietis et de communi consensu licere diffiniatis. Nempe hoc unum a vobis nostro jure postulamus ut tanquam fida et proba ecclesiæ membra causæ huic ecclesiasticæ quæ maxima est in justitiâ et veritate adesse velitis.”—State Papers, Vol. I. p. 630.

[598] MS. Cotton. Otho, X. 240.

[599] State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 404.

[600] “Tum vero quid ecclesia in ejusmodi casibus et possit facere et sæpenumero ante hac fecerit perpendentes.”—Judgment of the Convocation: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 632.

[601] Ibid. p. 633.

[602] “Heretofore divers and many persons, after long continuance together in matrimony, and fruit of children having ensued of the same, have nevertheless, by an unjust law of the Bishop of Rome (which is upon pretence of a former contract made and not consummate by carnal copulation, for proof whereof two witnesses by that law were only required), been divorced and separate contrary to God’s law, and so the true matrimonies solemnized in the face of the Church and confirmed by fruit of children, have been clearly frustrate and dissolved. Further, also, by reason of other prohibitions than God’s law admitteth, for their lucre by that court invented, the dispensation whereof they always reserved to themselves, as in kindred or affinity between cousin germains, and so to the fourth and fifth degree, and all because they would get money by it, and keep a reputation to their usurped jurisdiction, not only much discord between lawful married persons hath, contrary to God’s ordinances, arisen, much debate and suit at the law, with the wrongful vexation and great danger of the innocent party hath been procured, and many just marriages brought in doubt and danger of undoing, and also many times undone: marriages have been brought into such uncertainty, that no marriage could be so surely knit and bounden but it should lie in either of the parties’ power and arbitre, casting away the fear of God, by means and compasses to prove a pre-contract, a kindred, an alliance, or a carnal knowledge, to defeat the same, and so, under the pretence of these allegations afore rehearsed, to live all the days of their lives in detestable adultery, to the utter destruction of their own souls and the provocation of the terrible wrath of God upon the places where such abominations were suffered and used.”—32 Henry VIII. cap. 38.

[603] The Protestant refugees became at once as passionate, as clamorous, and as careless in their statements as the Catholics.—See especially a letter of Richard Hilles to Bullinger (Original Letters, 196): to which Burnet has given a kind of sanction by a quotation. This letter contains about as trustworthy an account of the state of London as a letter of a French or Austrian exile in England or America would contain at present of the Courts of Paris or Vienna.

[604] Lords Journals, 32 Henry VIII.

[605] See State Papers, Vol. I. p. 637 and Vol. VIII. p. 403, &c.

[606] State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 407.

[607] Ibid., 408.

[608] Ibid., 410.

[609] The bishop, nevertheless, was not satisfied that it would be refused, if it could be had. He thought, evidently, that Henry would act prudently by being liberal in the matter. Speaking of the miscontentment which had been shown, he added: “For any overture that yet hath been opened you may do your pleasure. How be it, in case of their suit unto your Majesty, if the duke shall be content by his express consent to approve your proceeding, specially the said decree of your clergy, whereby all things may be here ended and brought to silence, and the lady there remaining still, this duke, without kindling any further fire, made your Majesty’s assured friend with a demonstration thereof to the world, and that with so small a sum of money to be given unto him (sub colore restitutionis pecuniæ pro oneribus et dote licet vere nulla interesset), or under some other good colour.... God forbid your Majesty should much stick thereat.”—Bishop of Bath to Henry VIII.: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 425.

[610] State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 392.

[611] Ibid. p. 386.

[612] State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 397.

[613] Pate to the Duke of Suffolk: Ibid. p. 412.

[614] No draft of the bill exists in its original form. As it passed it conferred on lay impropriators the same power of recovering tithes as was given to the clergy. The members of the lower house had been, many of them purchasers of abbey lands, and impropriated tithes formed a valuable item of the property. It is likely that the bishops overlooked, and that the commons remembered this important condition.—Lords Journals, 32 Henry VIII. Session of July 12.

[615] 32 Henry VIII. cap. 10.

[616] 32 Henry VIII. cap. 26.

[617] Philpot’s confession is preserved. He describes how Sir Gregory Botolph, returning to Calais from a journey to Rome, took him one night upon the walls, and after swearing him to secrecy, showed himself a worthy pupil of Reginald Pole.

“If England have not a scourge in time,” Botolph said, “they will be all infidels, and no doubt God to friend, there shall be a redress; and know ye for a truth what my enterprise is, with the aid of God and such ways as I shall devise. I shall get the town of Calais into the hands of the Pope and Cardinal Pole, who is as good a Catholic man as ever I reasoned with; and when I had declared everything of my mind unto them, no more but we three together in the Pope’s chamber, I had not a little cheer of the Pope and Cardinal Pole; and after this at all times I might enter the Pope’s chamber at my pleasure.”

Philpot asked him how he intended to proceed, Calais being so strong a place. “It shall be easy to be done,” Botolph said. “In the herring time they do use to watch in the lantern gate, whereat there be in the watch about a dozen persons, and against the time which shall be appointed in the night, you, with a dozen persons well appointed for the purpose, shall enter the watch and destroy them. That done, ye shall recoil back with your company and keep the stairs, and at the same time I with my company shall be ready to scale the walls over the gate. I will have five or six hundred men that shall enter with me on the first burst. We shall have aid both by sea and land, within short space.”—Confession of Clement Philpot: Rolls House MS. Viscount Lisle, the old commandant of Calais, an illegitimate son of Edward IV., was suspected of having been privy to the conspiracy, and was sent for to England. His innocence was satisfactorily proved, but he died in the Tower on the day when he would have been liberated.

[618] 32 Henry VIII. cap. 58: unprinted, Rolls House MS.

[619] Lords Journals, 32 Henry VIII. The clerk of the parliament has attached a note to the summary of the session declaring that throughout its progress the peers had voted unanimously. From which it has been concluded, among other things, that Cranmer voted for Cromwell’s execution. The archbishop was present in the house on the day on which the bill for the attainder was read the last time. There is no evidence, however, that he remained till the question was put; and as he dared to speak for him on his arrest, he is entitled to the benefit of any uncertainty which may exist. It is easy to understand how he, and the few other peers who were Cromwell’s friends, may have abstained from a useless opposition in the face of an overwhelming majority. We need not exaggerate their timidity or reproach them with an active consent, of which no hint is to be found in any contemporary letter, narrative, or document.

[620] Ellis, second series, Vol. II. p. 160.

[621] Ellis, second series, Vol. II. p. 160; this is apparently the letter printed by Burnet, Collectanea, p. 500.

[622] “Vereor ne frustra cum Reverendissimâ Dominatione vestrâ per litteras de Cromwelli resipiscentiâ sum gratulatus, nec enim quæ typis sunt excusa quæ ad me missa sunt, in quibus novissima ejus verba recitantur, talem animum mihi exprimunt qualem eorum narratio qui de ejus exitu et de extremis verbis mecum sunt locuti.”—Pole to Beccatelli: Epist. Vol. III.

[623] Prayer of the Lord Cromwell on the Scaffold: Foxe, Vol. V.

[624] His death seems to have been needlessly painful through the awkwardness of the executioner, “a ragged and butcherly miser, who very ungoodly performed the office.”—Hall.

[625] “Men know not what part to follow or to take.”—Foxe, Vol. V.