Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 2.djvu/341

] Council, and both, for some cause or other, in disgrace. Southampton had revenged himself on Somerset without acquiring the confidence of Warwick; it is even said that he had begun an attempt to undermine him, and he soon after died—according to some, of sheer chagrin, according to others, from poison, self-administered. Arundel and Sir Richard Southwell, belonging to Warwick's party, were also fined—Arundel £12,000, and Southwell £500.

Warwick had humbled Somerset, but he could not prevent the country being humbled with him; and his party had blamed the Protector for proposing to surrender Boulogne, but they were now compelled, by the exhausted and disordered state of the nation, to accept from France even more disgraceful terms. During the winter the French had cut off all communication betwixt Boulogne and Calais, and the Earl of Huntingdon found himself unable to re-open it; though he led against the enemy all his bands of mercenaries and 3,000 English veterans. His treasury and his storehouses were exhausted, and the French calculated confidently on taking the place at spring. Unable to send the necessary succours, a fresh proposal was made to the emperor to occupy it, and this not tempting him, it was proposed by the Council to cede it to him in full sovereignty, on condition that it should never be surrendered to France. Charles declined, and as a last resource a Florentine merchant, Antonio Guidotti, was employed to make the French aware that England was not averse to a peace. The French embraced the offer, but under such circumstances they were not likely to be very modest in their terms of accommodation.

The conferences betwixt the ambassadors was opened on the 21st of January, and the English proposed that, as an equivalent for the surrender of Boulogne, Mary of Scotland should be contracted to Edward. To this the French replied, bluntly, that that was impossible, as Henry had already agreed to marry her to the dauphin. The next proposition was that the arrears of money due from the Crown of France should be paid up, and the payment of the fixed pension continued. To this the ambassadors of Henry replied, in a very different tone to that which English monarchs had been accustomed to hear from those of France, that their king would never condescend to pay tribute to any foreign Crown; that Henry VIII. had been enabled by the necessities of France to extort a pension from Francis; and that they would now avail themselves of the present difficulties of England to compel Edward to renounce it. The English envoys appeared, on this bold declaration, highly indignant, and as if they would break off the conference; but every day they receded more and more from their pretensions, and they ended by subscribing, on the 24th of March, to all the demands of their opponents.

These conditions were that there should be peace and union betwixt the two countries, not merely for the lives of the present monarchs, but to the end of time. That Boulogne should be surrendered to the King of France with all its stores and ordnance; and that, in return for the money expended on the fortifications, they should pay to Edward 200,000 crowns on the delivery of the place, and 200,000 more in five months. But the English were previously to surrender Douglas and Lauder to the Queen of Scots, or if they were already in the hands of the Scotch, should raze the fortresses of Aymouth and Roxburgh to the ground; Scotland was to be comprehended in the treaty if the queen desired it, and Edward bound himself not to make war on Scotland unless some fresh provocation were given.

So disgraceful was this treaty—such a surrender of the nation's dignity, that the people regarded it as an eternal opprobrium to the country; and from that hour the boastful claims of England on the French Crown were no more heard of, except in the ridiculous retention of the title of King of France by our sovereigns.

Freed from the embarrassments of foreign politics, the Council now proceeded with the work of Church reform; and during this and part of the next year was busily engaged checking on the one hand the opposition of the Romanist clergy, and on the other the latitudinarian tendencies of the Protestants. Bonner and Gardiner were the most considerable of the uncomplying prelates, and they were first brought under notice. Bonner had been called before the Council in August of 1540, for not complying with the requisitions of the Court in matters of religion; and in April of this year he was deprived of his see of London, and remanded to the Marshalsea, where he remained till the king's death. Ridley was appointed to the bishopric of London. The bishopric of Westminster was dissolved by Royal authority, and Ridley accepted its lands and revenues instead of those of the see of London, which wore immediately divided betwixt three of the courtiers, Rich, lord chancellor; Wentworth, lord chamberlain; and Sir Thomas Darcey, vice-chamberlain.

Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, equally immovable in his resistance to the new ritual and opinions, was also deprived of his see, and was sent back to the Tower, where he was confined in a meaner cell, every person, except one of the warders, being refused access to him, and was prohibited the use of pen, ink, and paper. The chief reason for this severity was alleged to be that he had in his defence before the Council called his judges heretics and sacramentaries. Poynet, Bishop of Rochester, succeeded him in his see of Winchester, with the same clipping process as that which had taken place in the revenues of the see of London. The new prelate was required to surrender into the hands of the Council all the lands and revenues of that opulent bishopric, and received instead, rectories and lands to the value of 2,000 marks annually. A great portion of this property was divided again amongst the courtiers, the friends of Warwick. Sir Thomas Wroth received a pension of £100 a year; and Gates, Hobey, Seymour, Dudley, Nevil, and Fitzwilliam, valuable grants of lands and manors. These changes, however, were not completed till March of 1551.

Heath, Bishop of Worcester, and Day, Bishop of Chichester, were also committed to the Tower for refusing compliance with the new regulations. They had both refused to exchange the ancient altar for a communion-table, a substitution now introduced, and which afforded the Crown and courtiers a fresh harvest of spoil in jewels, plate, and decorations. It was in vain that the Council attempted to move them by argument; they were, therefore, committed to prison; and, in October of 1551, were deprived of their sees, and retained in the Tower till the next reign.

From the bishops, the reforming Council proceeded to higher game. The Princess Mary, the king's eldest