Another remarkable precedent is afforded by an indiscreet step of Wolsey. Wishing to impose a very heavy tax, he determined to go himself into the House of Commons, for the purpose of silencing, by his presence, all opposition. Many were disposed to resist his admission into the House; but when that point had been conceded, the Speaker, Sir Thomas More, opposed the opinion of the majority, that he should be admitted with a few followers only. The Speaker was of opinion that they should receive him with all his pomp, with his maces, his pillars, his pole-axes, his cross, his hat, and the great seal too.' The Cardinal being thus admitted, made a long and eloquent oration against the King of France, declared that the King could not do otherwise than join with the Emperor against him, and demanded of the Commons the sum of £800,000 as the estimated charge of the war. this request,' as we are told by the great-grandson and biographer of Sir Thomas More, the House was silent; and when the minister demanded some reasonable answer, every member held his peace. At last, the Speaker, falling on his knees, with much reverence, excused the silence of the House, abashed, as he said, at the sight of so noble a personage, who

6

session. Notwithstanding these statutes, Mr. Hume asserts, that Henry's successors, for more than a century, persevered in the like irregular practice, if a practice may deserve that epithet, in which the whole nation acquiesced, and which gave no offence. But when Charles I. attempted to continue in the same course, which had now received the sanction of so many generations, so much were the opinions of men altered, that a furious tempest was excited by it, and historians, partial or ignorant, still represent this measure as a most

C

6

'At

violent and unprecedented enormity in this unhappy prince.' And with reason. These duties were not granted to Charles, as they had been to his predecessors, and he attempted to revive the practice which was not permitted to Henry VIII. Whether Mr. Hume is right in supposing that Edward, Mary, Elizabeth, and James levied these duties, during the few months they were not in force, or whether he has not fallen into an error, in supposing they were levied before they were granted by Parliament, I will not presume to determine.

was able to amaze the wisest and most learned men in the realm; but with many probable arguments he endeavoured to show the Cardinal that his coming thither was neither expedient nor agreeable to the ancient liberties of that House;' and, in conclusion, told him, that except all the members could put their several thoughts into his head, he alone was unable, in so weighty a matter, to give his grace a sufficient answer. Whereupon the Cardinal, displeased with the Speaker, suddenly rose up in a rage and departed.' The result was, that a subsidy was granted, but much less than the Cardinal had asked.

In 1526, Wolsey sent commissioners by his own authority to levy a sixth part of the goods of the laity, and a tenth part of the goods of the clergy; but the commissioners were resisted, and Henry was obliged to disavow his minister, and annul the commission.

Yet in the same reign in which so much spirit was shown, a magistrate of London was sent to the wars in Scotland, where he was soon after killed, because he had refused to contribute to a benevolence.* What a confusion of law and custom ! how uncertain the bounds of right and prerogative!

The arbitrary nature of the government of Henry, on every subject but that of taxes, is well known. In all his violations of law and justice he was strenuously supported by his Parliament. When he wished to rid himself of his wives, Parliament assisted him; when he desired to put to death his ministers, Parliament condemned them without a trial; when at length he chose to make laws by his own will only, Parliament gave him authority to do so. It is no wonder, therefore, to find him holding high the privileges of Parliament. A curious instance of this occurs in the case of a Mr. Ferrers, a member of the

Henry's History of England.

6

House of Commons, who was arrested for debt. The House immediately released him, and imprisoned those who had arrested him. Henry upon this occasion made the following speech to the House on the question of privilege: He first commended their wisdom in maintaining the privileges of their House; which he would not have infringed in any point. He alleged that he, being at the head of the Parliament, and attending in his own person in the business thereof, ought in reason to have privilege for himself and all his servants in attendance on him. So that, if Ferrers had been no burgess, but only his servant, in respect of that he ought to have privilege as well as any other. For I understand,' says he, that you enjoy the same privilege, not only for yourselves, but even for your cooks and horsekeepers. My Lord Chancellor here present hath informed me, that when he was Speaker of the Lower House, the cook of the Temple was arrested in London, on an execution upon the statute of staple. And, because the said cook served the Speaker in that office, he was taken out of execution by the privilege of Parliament. Likewise, the judges have informed us, that we at no time stand so high in our estate royal as in the time of Parliament; when we, as head, and you as members, are conjoined and knit together into one body politic; so that whatsoever is done or offered during that time against the meanest member of the House is judged as done against our own person and whole court of Parliament. The prerogative of which court is so great, that, as our learned in the laws inform us, all acts and processes, coming out of any other inferior courts, must for that time cease and give place to the highest.'

Thus did Henry exalt the power of the Parliament, which had so vigorously supported him. But it does not appear that in so doing they had gone

beyond the wishes of their constituents. Henry seems upon the whole to have been a popular tyrant; and there is some truth in the remark of Mr. Hume, that the English of this age, like Eastern slaves, were inclined to admire those acts of violence and tyranny which were exercised over themselves and at their own expense.

CHAPTER IV.

THE REFORMATION.

He that would do right to religion cannot take a more effectual course than by reconciling it with the happiness of mankind.'Tillotson.

THE Reformation in England was by no means similar in its history to the great revolution of men's minds which took place in Switzerland, Scotland, and Germany. It was begun by the King, in consequence of his desire to put away his wife and marry another; and this quarrel was not only unconnected with the doctrine of Luther, but that doctrine was at the same time condemned, and its supporters capitally punished. Had the Pope been as complying as he had often been before, Henry VIII. would have been, if not one of the most pure and holy saints, one of the most faithful and zealous servants that the Church of Rome could boast of possessing. Even after the breach seemed irreparable, propositions were made from Rome, and were accepted by Henry; * but as his messenger did not arrive on the day fixed, the Emperor's party in the Consistory took advantage of the failure of punctuality to obtain a vote closing the door upon reconciliation for ever. The messenger of the King of England arrived only two days too late to reconcile his master with the Pope, and arrest the of religious light in this country.

progress

The breach with the Church of Rome would still not have led immediately to the Reformation, had not Cranmer, holding the high station of Archbishop

Burnet's Hist. of Ref., vol. i. p. 136.