Henry VIII Part 35

1672, p. 534.]

[Footnote 1118: _Ibid._, xvi., 1403.]

[Footnote 1119: _Ibid._, xvi., 1426.]

[Footnote 1120: _Lords' Journals_, pp. 171, 176.]

[Footnote 1121: _L. and P._, xvii., 124.]

[Footnote 1122: _Ibid._]

Thus ended one of the "good things" which had come out of the repudiation of Anne of Cleves. Other advantages were more permanent.

The breach between Francis and Charles grew ever wider. In 1541 the French King's amba.s.sadors to the Turk were seized and executed by (p. 405) the order of the imperial governor of Milan.[1123] The outrage brought Francis's irritation to a head. He was still pursuing the shadow of a departed glory and the vain hope of dominion beyond the Alps. He had secured none of the benefits he antic.i.p.ated from the imperial alliance; his interviews with Charles and professions of friendship were lost on that heartless schemer, and he realised the force of Henry's gibe at his expectations from Charles. "I have myself," said Henry, "held interviews for three weeks together with the Emperor."

Both sovereigns began to compete for England's favour. The French, said Chapuys, "now almost offer the English _carte blanche_ for an alliance";[1124] and he told Charles that England must, at any price, be secured in the imperial interest. In June, 1542, Francis declared war on the Emperor, and, by the end of July, four French armies were invading or threatening Charles's dominions. Henry, in spite of all temptations, was not to be the tool of either; he had designs of his own; and the breach between Francis and Charles gave him a unique opportunity for completing his imperialist projects, by extending his sway over the one portion of the British Isles which yet remained independent.

[Footnote 1123: _L. and P._, xvi., 984, 991, 1042.]

[Footnote 1124: _Ibid._, xvii., 124.]

As in the case of similar enterprises, Henry could easily find colourable pretexts for his attack on Scots independence.[1125] Beton had been made cardinal with the express objects of publishing in Scotland the Pope's Bull against Henry, and of instigating James (p. 406) V. to undertake its execution; and the Cardinal held a high place in the Scots King's confidence. James had intrigued against England with both Charles V. and Francis I., and hopes had been instilled into his mind that he had only to cross the Border to be welcomed, at least in the North, as a deliverer from Henry's oppression. Refugees from the Pilgrimage of Grace found shelter in Scotland, and the ceaseless Border warfare might, at any time, have provided either King with a case for war, if war he desired. The desire varied, of course, with the prospects of success. James V. would, without doubt, have invaded England if Francis and Charles had begun an attack, and if a general crusade had been proclaimed against Henry. So, too, war between the two European rivals afforded Henry some chance of success, and placed in his way an irresistible temptation to settle his account with Scotland. He revived the obsolete claim to suzerainty, and pretended that the Scots were rebels.[1126] Had not James V., moreover, refused to meet him at York to discuss the questions at issue between them?

Henry might well have maintained that he sought no extension of territory, but was actuated solely by the desire to remove the (p. 407) perpetual menace to England involved in the presence of a foe on his northern Borders, in close alliance with his inveterate enemy across the Channel. He seems, indeed, to have been willing to conclude peace, if the Scots would repudiate their ancient connection with France; but this they considered the sheet-anchor of their safety, and they declined to destroy it. They gave Henry greater offence by defeating an English raid at Halidon Rig, and the desire to avenge a trifling reverse became a point of honour in the English mind and a powerful factor in English policy.

[Footnote 1125: For relations with Scotland see the _Hamilton Papers_, 2 vols., 1890-92; Thorp's _Scottish Calendar_, vol. i., 1858, and the much more satisfactory _Calendar_ edited by Bain, 1898.

A few errors in the _Hamilton Papers_ are pointed out in _L. and P._, vols. xvi.-xix.]

[Footnote 1126: This had been a.s.serted by Henry as early as 1524; Scotland was only to be included in the peace negotiations of that year as "a fief of the King of England"; it was to be recognised that _supremum ejus dominium_ belonged to Henry, as did the guardianship of James and government of the kingdom during his minority (_Sp. Cal._, ii., 680).

For the a.s.sertion of supremacy in 1543 see the present writer's _England under Somerset_, p. 173; _L. and P._, xvii., 1033. In 1527 Mendoza declared that all wise people in England preferred a project for marrying the Princess Mary to James V. to her betrothal to Francis I. or the Dauphin (_Sp. Cal._, iii., 156) and that the Scots match was the one really intended by Henry (_ibid._, p. 192; _cf. L.

and P._, v., 1078, 1286).]

The negotiations lasted throughout the summer of 1542. In October Norfolk crossed the Borders. The transport broke down; the commissariat was most imperfect; and Sir George Lawson of c.u.mberland was unable to supply the army with sufficient beer.[1127] Norfolk had to turn back at Kelso, having accomplished nothing beyond devastation.[1128] James now sought his revenge. He replied to Norfolk's invasion on the East by throwing the Scots across the Borders on the West. The Warden was warned by his spies, but he had only a few hundreds to meet the thousands of Scots. But, if Norfolk's invasion was an empty parade, the Scots attempt was a fearful rout. Under their incompetent leader, Oliver Sinclair, they got entangled in Solway Moss; enormous numbers were slain or taken prisoners, and among them were some of the greatest men in Scotland. James died broken-hearted at the news, leaving his kingdom to the week-old infant, Mary, Queen of Scots.[1129] The triumph of Flodden Field was repeated; a second Scots King had fallen; (p. 408) and, for a second time in Henry's reign, Scotland was a prey to the woes of a royal minority.

[Footnote 1127: _L. and P._, xvii., 731, 754, 771.]

[Footnote 1128: _Ibid._, xvii., 996-98, 1000-1, 1037.]

[Footnote 1129: See _Hamilton Papers_, vol. i., pp.

lx.x.xiii.-vi.; and the present writer in _D.N.B., s.v._ "Wharton, Thomas," who commanded the English.]

Within a few days of the Scots disaster, Lord Lisle (afterwards Duke of Northumberland) expressed a wish that the infant Queen were in Henry's hands and betrothed to Prince Edward, and a fear that the French would seek to remove her beyond the seas.[1130] To realise the hope and to prevent the fear were the main objects of Henry's foreign policy for the rest of his reign. Could he but have secured the marriage of Mary to Edward, he would have carried both England and Scotland many a weary stage along the path to Union and to Empire.

But, unfortunately, he was not content with this brilliant prospect for his son. He grasped himself at the Scottish crown; he must be not merely a suzerain shadow, but a real sovereign. The Scottish peers, who had been taken at Solway Moss, were sworn to Henry VIII., "to set forth his Majesty's t.i.tle that he had to the realm of Scotland".[1131]

Early in 1543 an official declaration was issued, "containing the just causes and considerations of this present war with the Scots, wherein also appeareth the true and right t.i.tle that the King's most royal Majesty hath to the sovereignty of Scotland"; while Parliament affirmed that "the late pretensed King of Scots was but an usurper of the crown and realm of Scotland," and that Henry had "now at this present (by the infinite goodness of G.o.d), a time apt and propice for the recovery of his said right and t.i.tle to the said crown and realm of Scotland".[1132] The promulgation of these high-sounding pretensions was fatal to the cause which Henry had at heart. Henry VII. had (p. 409) pursued the earlier and wiser part of the Scottish policy of Edward I., namely, union by marriage; Henry VIII. resorted to his later policy and strove to change a vague suzerainty into a defined and galling sovereignty. Seeing no means of resisting the victorious English arms, the Scots in March, 1543, agreed to the marriage between Henry's son and their infant Queen. But to admit Henry's extravagant claims to Scottish sovereignty was quite a different matter. The mere mention of them was sufficient to excite distrust and patriotic resentment. The French Catholic party led by Cardinal Beton was strengthened, and, when Francis declared that he would never desert his ancient ally, and gave an earnest of his intentions by sending ships and money and men to their aid, the Scots repudiated their compact with England, and entered into negotiations for marrying their Queen to a prince in France.[1133]

[Footnote 1130: _L. and P._, xvii., 1221, 1233.]

[Footnote 1131: Wriothesley, _Chron._, i., 140.]

[Footnote 1132: 35 Hen. VIII., c. 27.]

[Footnote 1133: _L. and P._, vol. xviii., _pa.s.sim_.]

Such a danger to England must at all costs be averted. Marriages between Scots kings and French princesses had never boded good to England; but the marriage of the Queen of Scotland to a French prince, and possibly to one who might succeed to the French throne, transcended all the other perils with which England could be threatened. The union of the Scots and French crowns would have destroyed the possibility of a British Empire. Henry had sadly mismanaged the business through vaulting ambition, but there was little fault to be found with his efforts to prevent the union of France and Scotland; and that was the real objective of his last war with France. His aim was not mere military glory or the conquest of France, as it had been in his (p. 410) earlier years under the guidance of Wolsey; it was to weaken or destroy a support which enabled Scotland to resist the union with England, and portended a union between Scotland and France. The Emperor's efforts to draw England into his war with France thus met with a comparatively ready response. In May, 1543, a secret treaty between Henry and Charles was ratified; on the 22nd of June a joint intimation of war was notified to the French amba.s.sador; and a detachment of English troops, under Sir John Wallop and Sir Thomas Seymour, was sent to aid the imperialists in their campaign in the north of France.

Before hostilities actually broke out, Henry wedded his sixth and last wife. Catherine Parr was almost as much married as Henry himself.

Thirty-one years of age in 1543, she had already been twice made a widow; her first husband was one Edward Borough, her second, Lord Latimer. Latimer had died at the end of 1542, and Catherine's hand was immediately sought by Sir Thomas Seymour, Henry's younger brother-in-law.

Seymour was handsome and won her heart, but he was to be her fourth, and not her third, husband; her will "was overruled by a higher power," and, on the 12th of July, she was married to Henry at Hampton Court.[1134] Catherine was small in stature, and appears to have made little impression by her beauty; but her character was beyond reproach, and she exercised a wholesome influence on Henry during his closing years. Her task can have been no light one, but her tact overcame all difficulties. She nursed the King with great devotion, and succeeded to some extent in mitigating the violence of his (p. 411) temper. She intervened to save victims from the penalties of the Act of Six Articles; reconciled Elizabeth with her father; and was regarded with affection by both Henry's daughters. Suspicions of her orthodoxy and a theological dispute she once had with the King are said to have given rise to a reactionary plot against her.[1135] "A good hearing it is," Henry is reported as saying, "when women become such clerks; and a thing much to my comfort to come in mine old days to be taught by my wife!" Catherine explained that her remarks were only intended to "minister talk," and that it would be unbecoming in her to a.s.sert opinions contrary to those of her lord. "Is it so, sweetheart?" said Henry; "then are we perfect friends;" and when Lord Chancellor Wriothesley came to arrest her, he was, we are told, abused by the King as a knave, a beast and a fool.

[Footnote 1134: _D.N.B._, ix., 309.]

[Footnote 1135: Foxe, ed. Townsend, v., 553-61.]

The winter of 1543-44 and the following spring were spent in preparations for war on two fronts.[1136] The punishment of the Scots for repudiating their engagements to England was entrusted to the skilful hands of Henry's brother-in-law, the Earl of Hertford; while the King himself was to renew the martial exploits of his youth by crossing the Channel and leading an army in person against the French King. The Emperor was to invade France from the north-east; the two monarchs were then to effect a junction and march on Paris. There is, however, no instance in the first half of the sixteenth century of two sovereigns (p. 412) heartily combining to secure any one object whatever. Charles and Henry both wanted to extract concessions from Francis, but the concessions were very different, and neither monarch cared much for those which the other demanded. Henry's ultimate end related to Scotland, Charles's to Milan and the Lutherans. The Emperor sought to make Francis relinquish his claim to Milan and his support of the German princes; Henry was bent on compelling him to abandon the cause of Scottish independence. If Charles could secure his own terms, he would, without the least hesitation, leave Henry to get what he could by himself; and Henry was equally ready to do Charles a similar turn.

His suspicions of the Emperor determined his course; he was resolved to obtain some tangible result; and, before he would advance any farther, he sat down to besiege Boulogne. Its capture had been one of the objects of Suffolk's invasion of 1523, when Wolsey and his imperialist allies had induced Henry to forgo the design. The result of that folly was not forgotten. Suffolk, his ablest general, now well stricken in years, was there to recall it; and, under Suffolk's directions, the siege of Boulogne was vigorously pressed. It fell on the 14th of September. Charles, meanwhile, was convinced that Boulogne was all Henry wanted, and that the English would never advance to support him.

So, five days after the fall of Boulogne, he made his peace with Francis.[1137] Henry, of course, was loud in his indignation; the Emperor had made no effort to include him in the settlement, and repeated emba.s.sies were sent in the autumn to keep Charles to the (p. 413) terms of his treaty with England, and to persuade him to renew the war in the following spring.

[Footnote 1136: See for the Scottish war the _Hamilton Papers_, and for the war in France _Spanish Cal._, vol. vii., and _L. and P._, vol.

xix., pt. ii. (to December, 1544).]

[Footnote 1137: For Charles's motives see the present writer in _Cambridge Modern History_, ii., 245, 246.]

His labours were all in vain, and Henry, for the first time in his life was left to face an actual French invasion of England. The horizon seemed clouded at every point. Hertford, indeed, had carried out his instructions in Scotland with signal success. Leith had been burnt and Edinburgh sacked. But, as soon as he left for Boulogne, things went wrong in the North, and, in February, 1545, Evers suffered defeat from the Scots at Ancrum Moor. Now, when Henry was left without an ally, when the Scots were victorious in the North, when France was ready to launch an Armada against the southern coasts of England, now, surely, was the time for a national uprising to depose the bloodthirsty tyrant, the enemy of the Church, the persecutor of his people.

Strangely enough his people did, and even desired, nothing of the sort. Popular discontent existed only in the imagination of his enemies; Henry retained to the last his hold over the mind of his people. Never had they been called to pay such a series of loans, subsidies and benevolences; never did they pay them so cheerfully. The King set a royal example by coining his plate and mortgaging his estates at the call of national defence; and, in the summer, he went down in person to Portsmouth to meet the threatened invasion. The French attack had begun on Boulogne, where Norfolk's carelessness had put into their hands some initial advantages. But, before dawn, on the 6th of February, Hertford sallied out of Boulogne with four thousand foot and seven hundred horse. The French commander, Marechal du Biez, and his fourteen thousand men were surprised, and they left their (p. 414) stores, their ammunition and their artillery in the hands of their English foes.[1138]

[Footnote 1138: Herbert, ed. 1672, p. 589; Hall, p.

862.]

Boulogne was safe for the time, but a French fleet entered the Solent, and effected a landing at Bembridge. Skirmishing took place in the wooded, undulating country between the sh.o.r.e and the slopes of Bembridge Down; the English retreated and broke the bridge over the Yar. This checked the French advance, though a force which was stopped by that puny stream could not have been very determined. A day or two later the French sent round a party to fill their water-casks at the brook which trickles down Shanklin Chine; it was attacked and cut to pieces.[1139] They then proposed forcing their way into Portsmouth Harbour, but the mill-race of the tide at its mouth, and the mysteries of the sandbanks of Spithead deterred them; and, as a westerly breeze sprang up, they dropped down before it along the Suss.e.x coast. The English had suffered a disaster by the sinking of the _Mary Rose_ with all hands on board, an accident repeated on the same spot two centuries later, in the loss of the _Royal George_. But the Admiral, Lisle, followed the French, and a slight action was fought off Sh.o.r.eham; the fleets anch.o.r.ed for the night almost within gunshot, but, when dawn broke, the last French ship was hull-down on the horizon. Disease had done more than the English arms, and the French troops landed at the mouth of the Seine were the pitiful wreck of an army.[1140]

[Footnote 1139: Du Bellay, _Memoirs_, pp. 785-9.]

[Footnote 1140: _State Papers_, ed. 1830-51, i., 794, 816.]

France could hope for little profit from a continuance of the war, (p. 415) and England had everything to gain by its conclusion. The terms of peace were finally settled in June, 1546.[1141] Boulogne was to remain eight years in English hands, and France was then to pay heavily for its rest.i.tution. Scotland was not included in the peace. In September, 1545, Hertford had revenged the English defeat at Ancrum Moor by a desolating raid on the Borders;[1142] early in 1546 Cardinal Beton, the soul of the French party, was a.s.sa.s.sinated, not without Henry's connivance; and St. Andrews was seized by a body of Scots Protestants in alliance with England. Throughout the autumn preparation was being made for a fresh attempt to enforce the marriage between Edward and Mary;[1143] but the further prosecution of that enterprise was reserved for other hands than those of Henry VIII. He left the relations between England and Scotland in no better state than he found them. His aggressive imperialism paid little heed to the susceptibilities of a stubborn, if weaker, foe; and he did not, like Cromwell, possess the military force to crush out resistance. He would not conciliate and he could not coerce.

[Footnote 1141: _State Papers_, ed. 1830-51, i., 877, 879; Odet de Selve, pp. 31, 34.]

[Footnote 1142: _State Papers_, v., 448-52; _Harleian MS._, 284; _Original Letters_, i., 37.]

[Footnote 1143: Odet de Selve, _Corresp.

Politique_, 1886, pp. 50-120, _pa.s.sim_.]

Meanwhile, amid the distractions of his Scottish intrigues, of his campaign in France, and of his defence of England, the King was engaged in his last hopeless endeavour to secure unity and concord in religious opinion. The ferocious Act of Six Articles had never been more than fitfully executed; and Henry refrained from using to the full the powers with which he had been entrusted by Parliament. The fall of (p. 416) Catherine Howard may have impaired the influence of her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, who had always expressed his zeal for the burning of heretics; and the reforming party was rapidly growing in the nation at large, and even within the guarded precincts of the King's Privy Council. Cranmer retained his curious hold over Henry's mind; Hertford was steadily rising in favour; Queen Catherine Parr, so far as she dared, supported the New Learning; the majority of the Council were prepared to accept the authorised form of religion, whatever it might happen to be, and, besides the Howards, Gardiner was the only convinced and determined champion of the Catholic faith. Even at the moment of Cromwell's fall, there was no intention of undoing anything that had already been done; Henry only determined that things should not go so fast, especially in the way of doctrinal change, as the Vicegerent wished, for he knew that unity was not to be sought or found in that direction. But, between the extremes of Lutheranism and the _status quo_ in the Church, there was a good deal to be done, in the way of reform, which was still consistent with the maintenance of the Catholic faith. In May, 1541, a fresh proclamation was issued for the use of the Bible.[1144] He had, said the King, intended his subjects to read the Bible humbly and reverently for their instruction, not reading aloud in time of Holy Ma.s.s or other divine service, nor, being laymen, arguing thereon; but, at the same time, he ordered all curates and parishioners who had failed to obey his former injunctions to provide an English Bible for their Church without delay. Two months later another proclamation followed, regulating the number of saints' (p. 417) days; it was characteristic of the age that various saints' days were abolished, not so much for the purpose of checking superst.i.tion, as because they interfered with the harvest and other secular business.[1145]

Other proclamations came forth in the same year for the destruction of shrines and the removal of relics. In 1543 a general revision of service-books was ordered, with a view to eradicating "false legends"

and references to saints not mentioned in the Bible, or in the "authentical doctors".[1146] The Sarum Use was adopted as the standard for the clergy of the province of Canterbury, and things were steadily tending towards that ideal uniformity of service as well as of doctrine, which was ultimately embodied in various Acts of Uniformity.