Page:Church and State under the Tudors.djvu/78

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

54

CHURCH AND STATE UNDER THE TUDORS

was certainly what we should now consider low; and, low as it was, they failed to live up to it. But it is no more than just to remember, that the standard of the sixteenth century was not that of the nineteenth,^[1] and that Henry VIII., though very far from irreproachable, shows favourably in this respect when compared with Francis I., or even with Charles V.

Wolsey's dying speech in regard to Henry has been quoted and eulogised as a striking testimony to the great defect in his character, till even its combined force and accuracy and the pathos of the circumstances which surrounded its utterance, fail to save its iteration from becoming wearisome; but it seems scarcely to have been observed that it is almost equally remarkable as a testimony to the character of the age as to that of the King. 'Rather than want any part of his pleasure he will endanger the half of his kingdom.' What king but a sixteenth-century king would have thus acted? But, again, what minister but a sixteenth-century minister would have submitted to a master so acting, and continued to be his responsible agent and adviser? But no scruple or difficulty on this point ever seems to have

↑ There seems to be an inclination even in some of the best writers of the present age to question this. (See Brewer, Henry VIII.) I may have occasion to discuss the subject more fully when I come to the story of the general condition of the clergy. At present I will only refer to a single case, which is, however, so remarkable that the mere possibility of its occurrence marks a condition of public opinion almost unconceivable to ourselves. It is that of Nicholas Udall. This person—of whose excellence as a scholar there is, I believe, no question—was head master of Eton from 1534-43. At the latter date there occurred an inquiry into a robbery at Eton, to which he was accused of being privy. In the course of the investigation a charge was brought against him of nameless immorality in relation to his own scholars. He was not only convicted of this but he confessed it; yet a few years afterwards, about 1554, this same man was made head master of Westminster, having in the interval made much interest to be re-appointed to Eton! See Maxwell Lyte's History of Eton College, p. 113, and references there given.

[1] There seems to be an inclination even in some of the best writers of the present age to question this. (See Brewer, Henry VIII.) I may have occasion to discuss the subject more fully when I come to the story of the general condition of the clergy. At present I will only refer to a single case, which is, however, so remarkable that the mere possibility of its occurrence marks a condition of public opinion almost unconceivable to ourselves. It is that of Nicholas Udall. This person—of whose excellence as a scholar there is, I believe, no question—was head master of Eton from 1534-43. At the latter date there occurred an inquiry into a robbery at Eton, to which he was accused of being privy. In the course of the investigation a charge was brought against him of nameless immorality in relation to his own scholars. He was not only convicted of this but he confessed it; yet a few years afterwards, about 1554, this same man was made head master of Westminster, having in the interval made much interest to be re-appointed to Eton! See Maxwell Lyte's History of Eton College, p. 113, and references there given.

[1]