CHAPTER X.
TERGIVERSATIONS OF KING JAMES V.—NEGOTIATIONS WITH HENRY VIII.—THEY FAIL.
(1540–January, 1542.)
The Romish party was not yet satisfied. ‘These cruel beasts,’ says Knox, ‘did intend nothing but murder in all quarters of the realm.’ James was surrounded with men who urged him on in that direction. Many of his courtiers, associates of his dissipation, instigated him to persecution because they were pensioners to priests for that purpose.[228] Oliver Sinclair was the foremost of these secret tools of the clergy. The cardinal’s influence was increased by circumstances which occurred at this time. Archbishop James Beatoun died in the autumn of 1539, after having attended as a witness at the baptism of the king’s eldest son. By his last will he left his archbishopric of St. Andrews to his nephew David, who, when confirmed by the king, was thenceforth both cardinal and primate of Scotland.
JAMES V. AND HIS BISHOPS.
Henry VIII. was induced by these changes to take fresh steps towards gaining over his nephew. He was acquainted with the cardinal, and knew his relations with France and the papacy. At the beginning of 1540 Sir R. Sadler was sent to Scotland.[229] The moment was well chosen. James V. was just then fully disposed to make peace with his uncle. The Lords Murray, Huntley, and Bothwell were in disgrace, and James wrote to Henry VIII. as his ‘dearest brother and uncle,’ and commended himself to him in his most hearty and affectionate manner. Henry sent him presents and the most gracious messages, inquiring earnestly after his health; and all this courtesy James received in the most amiable manner imaginable. Henry however meant to go to the main point, and Thomas Eure, one of his envoys, strove to discover what were the purposes of the King of Scotland respecting the bishop of Rome and the Reformation. One of the councillors, Ballenden, replied to him with great politeness, ‘The King of Scottes himself, with all his temporall counsaile, was gretely geven to the reformation of the mysdemeanors of busshops, religious personnes, and priests within the realme.’[230] James gave even then some proofs of this disposition. On the day of the Epiphany, January 6, 1540, there was a grand feast at the court, and a dramatic spectacle was given in the palace of Linlithgow. The king, the queen, and all the councillors spiritual and temporal were present; and the purport of the piece was to exhibit the presumption of the bishops, the iniquities of the courts spiritual, the evil ways of the priests, and in one word, the ‘noughtines’ of such religion as then existed. Perhaps the king was minded to let the bishops hear a sermon in that shape. It is very unlikely that anyone would have dared to give such a spectacle without his authority. However that may be, James was struck with it; and when the piece was finished, he had the archbishop in Glasgow, chancellor of the realm, called to him, as well as the other bishops, whose thoughts and fears during the representation may be imagined. ‘I exhort you,’ said the king to them, ‘to reform your fashions and manners of living. If you do not, I will send six of the proudest of you unto my uncle of England,[231] and after he has put them in order, I will do the same with the rest if they will not amend.’ The chancellor, in consternation, humbly answered, ‘One word of your grace’s mouth shall suffice them to be at commandment.’ James rejoined immediately and angrily, ‘I shall gladly bestow any words of my mouth that can amend them,’ The notion of applying to Henry VIII. to set his bishops right was original; and the prelates of Scotland, knowing that that preceptor did not spare the rod nor even the sword, trembled to the very marrow of their bones. Ballenden, in confirmation of these new intentions of James, said to Thomas Eure, ‘The king is fully minded to expel all spiritual men from having any authority by office under his grace, either in household or elsewhere.’ It appears that the author of the drama, author also in part of the change wrought in the prince, was Sir David Lyndsay, who had been the king’s guardian and companion during his minority. This bold man of letters composed many satires against the superstitions of the age, and above all against the ignorance and licentiousness of the clergy; but the king never allowed the cardinal to lift a finger to harm him.
The convictions of James were not very deep, and his own life was not such as to give him the right to criticise the lives of the bishops. So long as this liberal humor of the prince lasted, the cardinal seems to have abstained from demonstrations hostile to the reform of the Church. He was sure of getting him to change his mind, and he did not trouble himself about comedies to which he was bent on replying by tragedies. He was not long in showing his inflexibility, and the capricious humor of the king again bent under his immovable firmness. Other men have been named great, just, or well-bred. Beatoun deserved to be called persecutor. This surname, which history inflicts on him as a disgrace, he seems to have aspired to as a glory.
SIR JOHN BORTHWICK.