Henry VIII Part 14

[Footnote 442: _Ibid._, iii., 2322, 2333; _Sp.

Cal._, ii., 430, 435, 561.]

Nothing came of this last nefarious suggestion. In July Surrey captured and burnt Morlaix;[443] but, as he wrote from on board the _Mary Rose_, Fitzwilliam's s.h.i.+ps were without flesh or fish, and Surrey himself had only beer for twelve days. Want of victuals prevented further naval successes, and, in September, Surrey was sent into Artois, where the same lack of organisation was equally fatal. It did not, however, prevent him from burning farms and towns wherever he went; and his conduct evoked from the French commander a just rebuke of his "foul warfare".[444] Henry himself was responsible; for Wolsey wrote on his behalf urging the destruction of Dourlens and the adjacent towns.[445] If Henry really sought to make these territories his own, it was an odd method of winning the affections and developing the wealth of the subjects he hoped to acquire. Nothing was really accomplished except devastation in France. Even this useless warfare exhausted English energies, and left the Borders defenceless against one of the largest armies ever collected in Scotland. Wolsey and Henry were only saved, from what might have been a most serious invasion, by Dacre's dexterity and Albany's cowardice. Dacre, the warden of the marches, signed a truce without waiting for instructions, and before it expired the Scots army disbanded. Henry and Wolsey might reprimand Dacre for acting on his own responsibility, but they knew well (p. 158) enough that Dacre had done them magnificent service.[446]

[Footnote 443: _L. and P._, iii., 2362.]

[Footnote 444: _Ibid._, iii., 2541.]

[Footnote 445: _Ibid._, iii., 2551.]

[Footnote 446: _L. and P._, iii., 2537.]

The results of the war from the English point of view had as yet been contemptible, but great things were hoped for the following year.

Bourbon, Constable of France, and the most powerful peer in the kingdom, intent on the betrayal of Francis, was negotiating with Henry and Charles the price of his treason.[447] The commons in France, worn to misery by the taxes of Francis and the ravages of his enemies, were eager for anything that might promise some alleviation of their lot.

They would even, it appears, welcome a change of dynasty; everywhere, Henry was told, they cried "Vive le roi d'Angleterre!"[448] Never, said Wolsey, would there be a better opportunity for recovering the King's right to the French crown; and Henry exclaimed that he trusted to treat Francis as his father did Richard III. "I pray G.o.d," wrote Sir Thomas More to Wolsey, "if it be good for his grace and for this realm, that then it may prove so, and else in the stead thereof, I pray G.o.d send his grace an honourable and profitable peace."[449] He could scarcely go further in hinting his preference for peace to the fantastic design which now occupied the minds of his masters. Probably his opinion of the war was not far from that of old Bishop Fox, who declared: "I have determined, and, betwixt G.o.d and me, utterly renounced the meddling with worldly matters, specially concerning war or anything to it appertaining (whereof, for the many intolerable enormities that I have seen ensue by the said war in time past, I (p. 159) have no little remorse in my conscience), thinking that if I did continual penance for it all the days of my life, though I should live twenty years longer than I may do, I could not yet make sufficient recompense therefor. And now, my good lord, to be called to fortifications of towns and places of war, or to any matter concerning the war, being of the age of seventy years and above, and looking daily to die, the which if I did, being in any such meddling of the war, I think I should die in despair."[450] Protests like this and hints like More's were little likely to move the militant Cardinal, who hoped to see the final ruin of France in 1523. Bourbon was to raise the standard of revolt, Charles was to invade from Spain and Suffolk from Calais. In Italy French influence seemed irretrievably ruined. The Genoese revolution, planned before the war, was effected; and the persuasions of Pace and the threats of Charles at last detached Venice and Ferrara from the alliance of France.[451]

[Footnote 447: _Sp. Cal._, ii., 584; _L. and P._, iii., 2450, 2567, 2770, 2772, 2879, 3154. Bourbon had substantial grievances against Francis I. and his mother.]

[Footnote 448: _Ibid._, iii., 2770.]

[Footnote 449: _Ibid._, iii., 2555.]

[Footnote 450: Ellis, _Orig. Letters_, 2nd series, ii., 4; _L. and P._, iii., 2207.]

[Footnote 451: _L. and P._, iii., 3207, 3271, 3291; _Sp. Cal._, ii., 576, 594.]

The usual delays postponed Suffolk's invasion till late in the year.

They were increased by the emptiness of Henry's treasury. His father's h.o.a.rd had melted away, and it was absolutely necessary to obtain lavish supplies from Parliament. But Parliament proved ominously intractable. Thomas Cromwell, now rising to notice, in a temperate speech urged the folly of indulging in impracticable schemes of foreign conquest, while Scotland remained a thorn in England's side.[452] It was three months from the meeting of Parliament before the subsidies were granted, and nearly the end of August before (p. 160) Suffolk crossed to Calais with an army, "the largest which has pa.s.sed out of this realm for a hundred years".[453] Henry and Suffolk wanted it to besiege Boulogne, which might have been some tangible result in English hands.[454] But the King was persuaded by Wolsey and his imperial allies to forgo this scheme, and to order Suffolk to march into the heart of France. Suffolk was not a great general, but he conducted the invasion with no little skill, and desired to conduct it with unwonted humanity. He wished to win the French by abstaining from pillage and proclaiming liberty, but Henry thought only the hope of plunder would keep the army together.[455] Waiting for the imperial contingent under De Buren, Suffolk did not leave Calais till 19th September. He advanced by Bray, Roye and Montdidier, capturing all the towns that offered resistance. Early in November, he reached the Oise at a point less than forty miles from the French capital.[456] But Bourbon's treason had been discovered; instead of joining Suffolk with a large force, he was a fugitive from his country. Charles contented himself with taking Fuentarabia,[457] and made no effort at invasion.

The imperial contingent with Suffolk's army went home; winter set in with unexampled severity, and Vendome advanced.[458] The English were compelled to retire; their retreat was effected without loss, and by the middle of December the army was back at Calais. Suffolk is represented as being in disgrace for this retreat, and Wolsey as saving him from the effects of his failure.[459] But even Wolsey (p. 161) can hardly have thought that an army of twenty-five thousand men could maintain itself in the heart of France, throughout the winter, without support and with unguarded communications. The Duke's had been the most successful invasion of France since the days of Henry V. from a military point of view. That its results were negative is due to the policy by which it was directed.

[Footnote 452: Merriman, _Cromwell's Letters_, i., 30-44; _L. and P._, iii., 2958, 3024; Hall, _Chronicle_, pp. 656, 657.]

[Footnote 453: _L. and P._, iii., 3281.]

[Footnote 454: _Ibid._, iii., 2360, 3319.]

[Footnote 455: _Ibid._, iii., 3346.]

[Footnote 456: _Ibid._, iii., 3452, 3485, 3505, 3516.]

[Footnote 457: _Ibid._, iii., 2798, 2869.]

[Footnote 458: _Ibid._, iii., 3559, 3580, 3601.]

[Footnote 459: Brewer's Introd. to _L. and P._, vol. iv., p. ii., etc.]

Meanwhile there was another papal election. Adrian, one of the most honest and unpopular of Popes, died on 14th September, 1523, and by order of the cardinals there was inscribed on his tomb: _Hic jacet Adria.n.u.s s.e.xtus cui nihil in vita infelicius contigit quam quod imperaret._ With equal malice and keener wit the Romans erected to his physician, Macerata, a statue with the t.i.tle _Liberatori Patriae_.[460]

Wolsey was again a candidate. He told Henry he would rather continue in his service than be ten Popes.[461] That did not prevent him instructing Pace and Clerk to further his claims. They were to represent to the cardinals Wolsey's "great experience in the causes of Christendom, his favour with the Emperor, the King, and other princes, his anxiety for Christendom, his liberality, the great promotions to be vacated by his election, his frank, pleasant and courteous inclinations, his freedom from all ties of family or party, and the hopes of a great expedition against the infidel".[462] Charles was, as usual, profuse in his promise of aid. He actually wrote a letter in Wolsey's favour; but he took the precaution to detain the bearer (p. 162) in Spain till the election was over.[463] He had already instructed his minister at Rome to procure the election of Cardinal de Medici.

That amba.s.sador mocked at Wolsey's hopes; "as if G.o.d," he wrote, "would perform a miracle every day".[464] The Holy Spirit, by which the cardinals always professed to be moved, was not likely to inspire the election of another absentee after their experience of Adrian.

Wolsey had not the remotest chance, and his name does not occur in a single scrutiny. After the longest conclave on record, the imperial influence prevailed; on 18th November De Medici was proclaimed Pope, and he chose as his t.i.tle Clement VII.[465]

[Footnote 460: _Ibid._, iii., 3464.]

[Footnote 461: _Ibid._, iii., 3372.]

[Footnote 462: _Ibid._, 3389.]

[Footnote 463: _Sp. Cal._, ii., 615.]

[Footnote 464: _Ibid._, ii., 604, 606.]

[Footnote 465: _L. and P._, iii., 3547, 3592; _Sp.

Cal._, ii., 610. He thought of retaining his name Julius, but was told that Popes who followed that practice always had short pontificates.]

Suffolk's invasion was the last of England's active partic.i.p.ation in the war. Exhausted by her efforts, discontented with the Emperor's failure to render a.s.sistance in the joint enterprise, or perceiving at last that she had little to gain, and much to lose, from the overgrown power of Charles, England, in 1524, abstained from action, and even began to make overtures to Francis. Wolsey repaid Charles's inactivity of the previous year by standing idly by, while the imperial forces with Bourbon's contingent invaded Provence and laid siege to Ma.r.s.eilles. But Francis still held command of the sea; the spirit of his people rose with the danger; Ma.r.s.eilles made a stubborn and successful defence; and, by October, the invading army was in headlong retreat towards Italy.[466] Had Francis been content with defending his kingdom, all might have been well; but ambition lured him on (p. 163) to destruction. He thought he had pa.s.sed the worst of the trouble, and that the prize of Milan might yet be his. So, before the imperialists were well out of France, he crossed the Alps and sat down to besiege Pavia. It was brilliantly defended by Antonio de Leyva. In November Francis's ruin was thought to be certain; astrologers predicted his death or imprisonment.[467] Slowly and surely Pescara, the most consummate general of his age, was pressing north with imperial troops to succour Pavia. Francis would not raise the siege. On 24th February, 1525, he was attacked in front by Pescara and in the rear by De Leyva.

"The victory is complete," wrote the Abbot of Najera to Charles from the field of battle, "the King of France is made prisoner.... The whole French army is annihilated.... To-day is feast of the Apostle St. Mathias, on which, five and twenty years ago, your Majesty is said to have been born. Five and twenty thousand times thanks and praise to G.o.d for His mercy! Your Majesty is, from this day, in a position to prescribe laws to Christians and Turks, according to your pleasure."[468]

[Footnote 466: _Sp. Cal._, ii., 686; _L. and P._, iv., 751, 753, 773, 774, 776.]

[Footnote 467: _Sp. Cal._, ii., 692-94, 711.]

[Footnote 468: _Ibid._, ii., 722; _cf._ Hall's _Chron._, p. 693, which professes to give the "very words" of Francis I.'s much misquoted letter to his mother (_L. and P._, iv., 1120-24).]

Such was the result of Wolsey's policy since 1521, Francis a prisoner, Charles a dictator, and Henry vainly hoping that he might be allowed some share in the victor's spoils. But what claim had he? By the most extraordinary misfortune or fatuity, England had not merely helped Charles to a threatening supremacy, but had retired from the (p. 164) struggle just in time to deprive herself of all claim to benefit by her mistaken policy. She had looked on while Bourbon invaded France, fearing to aid lest Charles would reap all the fruits of success. She had sent no force across the channel to threaten Francis's rear. Not a single French soldier had been diverted from attacking Charles in Italy through England's interference. One hundred thousand crowns had been promised the imperial troops, but the money was not paid; and secret negotiations had been going on with France. In spite of all, Charles had won, and he was naturally not disposed to divide the spoils. England's policy since 1521 had been disastrous to herself, to Wolsey, to the Papacy, and even to Christendom. For the falling out of Christian princes seemed to the Turk to afford an excellent opportunity for the faithful to come by his own. After an heroic defence by the knights of St. John, Rhodes, the bulwark of Christendom, had surrendered to Selim. Belgrade, the strongest citadel in Eastern Europe, followed. In August, 1526, the King and the flower of Hungarian n.o.bility perished at the battle of Mohacz; and the internecine strife of Christians seemed doomed to be sated only by their common subjugation to the Turk.

Henry and Wolsey began to pay the price of their policy at home as well as abroad. War was no less costly for being ineffective, and it necessitated demands on the purses of Englishmen, to which they had long been unused. In the autumn of 1522 Wolsey was compelled to have recourse to a loan from both spiritualty and temporalty.[469] It seems to have met with a response which, compared with later receptions, (p. 165) may be described as almost cheerful. But the loan did not go far, and before another six months had elapsed it was found necessary to summon Parliament to make further provision.[470] The Speaker was Sir Thomas More, who did all he could to secure a favourable reception of Wolsey's demands. An unwonted spirit of independence animated the members; the debates were long and stormy; and the Cardinal felt called upon to go down to the House of Commons, and hector it in such fas.h.i.+on that even More was compelled to plead its privileges.

Eventually, some money was reluctantly granted; but it too was soon swallowed up, and in 1525 Wolsey devised fresh expedients. He was afraid to summon Parliament again, so he proposed what he called an Amicable Grant. It was necessary, he said, for Henry to invade France in person; if he went, he must go as a prince; and he could not go as a prince without lavish supplies. So he required what was practically a graduated income-tax. The Londoners resisted till they were told that resistance might cost them their heads. In Suffolk and elsewhere open insurrection broke out. It was then proposed to withdraw the fixed ratio, and allow each individual to pay what he chose as a benevolence. A common councillor of London promptly retorted that benevolences were illegal by statute of Richard III. Wolsey cared little for the const.i.tution, and was astonished that any one should quote the laws of a wicked usurper; but the common councillor was a sound const.i.tutionalist, if Wolsey was not. "An it please your grace,"

he replied, "although King Richard did evil, yet in his time were (p. 166) many good acts made, not by him only, but by the consent of the body of the whole realm, which is Parliament."[471] There was no answer; the demand was withdrawn. Never had Henry suffered such a rebuff, and he never suffered the like again. Nor was this all; the whole of London, Wolsey is reported to have said, were traitors to Henry.[472]

Informations of "treasonable words"--that ominous phrase--became frequent.[473] Here, indeed, was a contrast to the exuberant loyalty of the early years of Henry's reign. The change may not have been entirely due to Wolsey, but he had been minister, with a power which few have equalled, during the whole period in which it was effected, and Henry may well have begun to think that it was time for his removal.

[Footnote 469: _L. and P._, iii., 2483.]

[Footnote 470: _L. and P._, iii., 2956, 2958, 3249.]

[Footnote 471: Hall, _Chronicle_, ed. 1809, p.

698.]

[Footnote 472: _L. and P._, iii., 3076.]

[Footnote 473: _Ibid._, iii., 3082.]

Whether Wolsey was now anxious to repair his blunder by siding with Francis against Charles, or to s.n.a.t.c.h some profit from the Emperor's victory by completing the ruin of France, the refusal of Englishmen to find more money for the war left him no option but peace. In April, 1525, Tunstall and Sir Richard Wingfield were sent to Spain with proposals for the exclusion of Francis and his children from the French throne and the dismemberment of his kingdom.[474] It is doubtful if Wolsey himself desired the fulfilment of so preposterous and iniquitous a scheme. It is certain that Charles was in no mood to abet it. He had no wish to extract profit for England out of the abas.e.m.e.nt of Francis, to see Henry King of France, or lord of any French provinces. He had no intention of even performing his part (p. 167) of the Treaty of Windsor. He had pledged himself to marry the Princess Mary, and the splendour of that match may have contributed to Henry's desire for an alliance with Charles. But another matrimonial project offered the Emperor more substantial advantages. Ever since 1517 his Spanish subjects had been pressing him to marry the daughter of Emmanuel, King of Portugal. The Portuguese royal family had claims to the throne of Castile which would be quieted by Charles's marriage with a Portuguese princess. Her dowry of a million crowns was, also, an argument not to be lightly disregarded in Charles's financial embarra.s.sments; and in March, 1526, the Emperor's wedding with Isabella of Portugal was solemnised.

[Footnote 474: _Ibid._, iv., 1212, 1249, 1255, 1264, 1296; _Stowe MS._, 147, ff. 67, 86 (Brit.

Mus.).]