If judged by his foreign relations Henry's statesmanship was
unsuccessful. His insincerity and perfidy often overreached
themselves, and he was often {278} deceived. Moreover, he was
inconstant, pursuing no worthy end whatever. England was by her
insular location and by the nearly equal division of power on the
Continent between France and the emperor, in a wonderfully safe and
advantageous place. But, so far was Henry from using this gift of
fortune, that he seems to have acted only on caprice.
[Sidenote: Domestic policy]
In domestic policy Henry achieved his greatest successes, in fact, very
remarkable ones indeed. Doubtless here also he was favored by fortune,
in that his own ends happened in the main to coincide with the deeper
current of his people's purpose, for he was supported by just that
wealthy and enterprising bourgeois class that was to call itself the
people and to make public opinion for the next three centuries. In
time this class would become sufficiently conscious of its own power to
make Parliament supreme and to demand a reckoning even from the crown,
but at first it needed the prestige of the royal name to conquer the
two privileged classes, the clergy and the nobility. The merchants and
the moneyed men only too willingly became the faithful followers of a
chief who lavishly tossed to them the wealth of the church and the
political privileges of the barons. And Henry had just one strong
quality that enabled him to take full advantage of this position; he
seemed to lead rather than to drive, and he never wantonly challenged
Parliament. The atrocity of his acts was only equaled by their
scrupulous legality.
On Henry's morals there should be less disagreement than on his mental
gifts. Holbein's faithful portraits do not belie him. The
broad-shouldered, heavy-jowled man, standing so firmly on his widely
parted feet, has a certain strength of will, or rather of boundless
egotism. Francis and Charles showed themselves persecuting, and were
capable of having a {279} defaulting minister or a rebel put to death;
but neither Charles nor Francis, nor any other king in modern times,
has to answer for the lives of so many nobles and ministers, cardinals
and queens, whose heads, as Thomas More put it, he kicked around like
footballs.
[Sidenote: Empson and Dudley executed, April 25, 1509]
The reign began, as it ended, with political murder. The miserly Henry
VII had made use of two tools, Empson and Dudley, who, by minute
inquisition into technical offences and by nice adjustment of fines to
the wealth of the offender, had made the law unpopular and the king
rich. Four days after his succession, Henry VIII issued a proclamation
asking all those who had sustained injury or loss of goods by these
commissioners, to make supplication to the king. The floodgates of
pent-up wrath were opened, and the two unhappy ministers swept away by
an act of attainder.
[Sidenote: War with France and Scotland]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account