266
REIGN OF HENRY THE EIGHTH
[ch. 3.
could or might,'[1] July.In Germany Dr Barnes and Cranmer found the same experience. Luther himself had not forgotten his early passage at arms with the English Defender of the Faith, and was coldly hostile; the German theologians, although they expressed themselves with reserve and caution, saw no reason to court the anger of Charles by meddling in a quarrel in which they had no interest; they revenged the studied slight which had been passed by Henry on themselves, with a. pardonable indifference to the English ecclesiastical revolt.
If, however, in Germany and Italy the balance of unjust interference lay on the Imperial side, it was more than adequately compensated by the answering pressure which was brought to bear in England and in France on the opposite side. Under the allied sovereigns, the royal authority was openly exercised to compel such expressions of sentiment as the Courts of London and Paris desired; and the measures which were taken oblige us more than ever to regret the inventive efforts of Cranmer's genius. For, in fact, these manœuvres, even if honestly executed, were all unrealities. June 12.The question at issue was one of domestic English politics, and the metamorphosis of it into a question of ecclesiastical law was a mere delusion. The discussion was transferred to a false ground, and however the King may have chosen- ↑ Burnet's Collect., p. 50. Burnet labours to prove that on Henry's side there was no bribery, and that the Emperor was the only offender; an examination of many MS. letters from Croke and other agents in Italy leads me to believe that, although the Emperor only had recourse to intimidation, because he alone was able to practise it, the bribery was equally shared between both parties.
