Henry VIII Part 15

Wolsey, on his part, was secretly negotiating with Louise of Savoy during her son's imprisonment in Spain. In August, 1525, a treaty of amity was signed, by which England gave up all its claims to French territory in return for the promise of large sums of money to Henry and his minister.[475] The impracticability of enforcing Henry's pretensions to the French crown or to French provinces, which had been urged as excuses for squandering English blood and treasure, was admitted, even when the French King was in prison and his kingdom defenceless. But what good could the treaty do Henry or Francis?

Charles had complete control over his captive, and could dictate his own terms. Neither the English nor the French King was in a position to continue the war; and the English alliance with France could abate no iota of the concessions which Charles extorted from Francis (p. 168) in January, 1526, by the Treaty of Madrid.[476] Francis surrendered Burgundy; gave up his claims to Milan, Genoa and Naples; abandoned his allies, the King of Navarre, the Duke of Guelders and Robert de la Marck; engaged to marry Charles's sister Eleanor, the widowed Queen of Portugal; and handed over his two sons to the Emperor as hostages for the fulfilment of the treaty. But he had no intention of keeping his promises. No sooner was he free than he protested that the treaty had been extracted by force, and that his oath to keep it was not binding.

The Estates of France readily refused their a.s.sent, and the Pope was, as usual, willing, for political reasons, to absolve Francis from his oath. For the time being, consideration for the safety of his sons and the hope of obtaining their release prevented him from openly breaking with Charles, or listening to the proposals for a marriage with the Princess Mary, held out as a bait by Wolsey.[477] The Cardinal's object was merely to injure the Emperor as much as he could without involving England in war; and by negotiations for Mary's marriage, first with Francis, and then with his second son, the Duke of Orleans, he was endeavouring to draw England and France into a closer alliance.

For similar reasons he was extending his patronage to the Holy League, formed by Clement VII. between the princes of Italy to liberate that distressful country from the grip of the Spanish forces.

[Footnote 475: _L. and P._, iv., 1525, 1531, 1600, 1633.]

[Footnote 476: _L. and P._, iv., 1891.]

[Footnote 477: _Ibid._, iv., 2039, 2148, 2320, 2325.]

The policy of Clement, of Venice, and of other Italian States had been characterised by as much blindness as that of England. Almost without exception they had united, in 1523, to expel the French from Italy.

The result was to destroy the balance of power south of the Alps, (p. 169) and to deliver themselves over to a bondage more galling than that from which they sought to escape. Clement himself had been elected Pope by imperial influence, and the Duke of Sessa, Charles's representative in Rome, described him as entirely the Emperor's creature.[478] He was, wrote Sessa, "very reserved, irresolute, and decides few things himself. He loves money and prefers persons who know where to find it to any other kind of men. He likes to give himself the appearance of being independent, but the result shows that he is generally governed by others."[479] Clement, however, after his election, tried to a.s.sume an att.i.tude more becoming the head of Christendom than slavish dependence on Charles. His love for the Emperor, he told Charles, had not diminished, but his hatred for others had disappeared;[480] and throughout 1524 he was seeking to promote concord between Christian princes. His methods were unfortunate; the failure of the imperial invasion of Provence and Francis's pa.s.sage of the Alps, convinced the Pope that Charles's star was waning, and that of France was in the ascendant. "The Pope," wrote Sessa to Charles V., "is at the disposal of the conqueror."[481] So, on 19th January, 1525, a Holy League between Clement and Francis was publicly proclaimed at Rome, and joined by most of the Italian States.[482] It was almost the eve of Pavia.

[Footnote 478: _Sp. Cal._, ii., 610.]

[Footnote 479: _Ibid._, ii., 619.]

[Footnote 480: _Ibid._, ii., 707.]

[Footnote 481: _Ibid._, ii., 699, 30th Nov., 1524.]

[Footnote 482: _Ibid._, ii., 702-11.]

Charles received the news of that victory with astonis.h.i.+ng humility.

But he was not likely to forget that at the critical moment he had been deserted by most of his Italian allies; and it was with fear and trembling that the Venetian amba.s.sador besought him to use his (p. 170) victory with moderation.[483] Their conduct could hardly lead them to expect much from the Emperor's clemency. Distrust of his intentions induced the Holy League to carry on desultory war with the imperial troops; but mutual jealousies, the absence of effective aid from England or France, and vacillation caused by the feeling that after all it might be safer to accept the best terms they could obtain, prevented the war from being waged with any effect. In September, 1526, Hugo de Moncada, the imperial commander, concerted with Clement's bitter foes, the Colonnas, a means of overawing the Pope. A truce was concluded, wrote Moncada, "that the Pope, having laid down his arms, may be taken unawares".[484] On the 19th he marched on Rome.

Clement, taken unawares, fled to the castle of St. Angelo; his palace was sacked, St. Peter's rifled, and the host profaned. "Never," says Casale, "was so much cruelty and sacrilege."[485]

[Footnote 483: _Ven. Cal._, iii, 413.]

[Footnote 484: _Sp. Cal._, ii., 898.]

[Footnote 485: _L. and P._, iv., 2510.]

It was soon thrown into the shade by an outrage at which the whole world stood aghast. Charles's object was merely to render the Pope his obedient slave; neither G.o.d nor man, said Moncada, could resist with impunity the Emperor's victorious arms.[486] But he had little control over his own irresistible forces. With no enemy to check them, with no pay to content them, the imperial troops were ravaging, pillaging, sacking cities and churches throughout Northern Italy without let or hindrance. At length a sudden frenzy seized them to march upon (p. 171) Rome. Moncada had shown them the way, and on 6th May, 1527, the Holy City was taken by storm. Bourbon was killed at the first a.s.sault; and the richest city in Christendom was given over to a motley, leaderless horde of German, Spanish and Italian soldiery. The Pope again fled to the castle of St. Angelo; and for weeks Rome endured an orgy of sacrilege, blasphemy, robbery, murder and l.u.s.t, the horrors of which no brush could depict nor tongue recite. "All the churches and the monasteries," says a cardinal who was present, "both of friars and nuns, were sacked. Many friars were beheaded, even priests at the altar; many old nuns beaten with sticks; many young ones violated, robbed and made prisoners; all the vestments, chalices, silver, were taken from the churches.... Cardinals, bishops, friars, priests, old nuns, infants, pages and servants--the very poorest--were tormented with unheard-of cruelties--the son in the presence of his father, the babe in the sight of its mother. All the registers and doc.u.ments of the Camera Apostolica were sacked, torn in pieces, and partly burnt."[487] "Having entered," writes an imperialist to Charles, "our men sacked the whole Borgo and killed almost every one they found...

All the monasteries were rifled, and the ladies who had taken refuge in them carried off. Every person was compelled by torture to pay a ransom.... The ornaments of all the churches were pillaged and the relics and other things thrown into the sinks and cesspools. Even the holy places were sacked. The Church of St. Peter and the papal palace, from the bas.e.m.e.nt to the top, were turned into stables for horses....

Every one considers that it has taken place by the just judgment (p. 172) of G.o.d, because the Court of Rome was so ill-ruled.... We are expecting to hear from your Majesty how the city is to be governed and whether the Holy See is to be retained or not. Some are of opinion it should not continue in Rome, _lest the French King should make a patriarch in his kingdom, and deny obedience to the said See, and the King of England find all other Christian princes do the same_."[488]

[Footnote 486: Buonaparte's _Narrative_, ed.

Buchon, p. 190, ed. Milanesi, p. 279; _cf._ Gregorovius, _Gesch. der Stadt Rom._, viii., 568 _n._, and Alberini's _Diary_, ed. Drano 1901 (extracts are printed in Creighton, _Papacy_, ed.

1901, vi., 419-37).]

[Footnote 487: Cardinal Como in _Il Sacco di Roma_, ed. C. Milanesi, 1867, p. 471.]

[Footnote 488: _Il Sacco di Roma_, ed. Milanesi, pp. 499, 517.]

So low was brought the proud city of the Seven Hills, the holy place, watered with the blood of the martyrs and hallowed by the steps of the saints, the goal of the earthly pilgrim, the seat of the throne of the Vicar of G.o.d. No Jew saw the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not with keener anguish than the devout sons of the Church heard of the desecration of Rome. If a Roman Catholic and an imperialist could term it the just judgment of G.o.d, heretics and schismatics, preparing to burst the bonds of Rome and "deny obedience to the said See," saw in it the fulfilment of the woes p.r.o.nounced by St. John the Divine on the Rome of Nero, and by Daniel the Prophet on Belshazzar's Babylon. Babylon the great was fallen, and become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit; her ruler was weighed in the balances and found wanting; his kingdom was divided and given to kings and peoples who came, like the Medes and the Persians, from the hardier realms of the North.

CHAPTER VII. (p. 173)

THE ORIGIN OF THE DIVORCE.[489]

[Footnote 489: It is impossible to avoid the term "divorce," although neither from Henry VIII.'s nor from the Pope's point of view was there any such thing (see the present writer's _Cranmer_, p. 24 _n._).]

Matrimonial discords have, from the days of Helen of Troy, been the fruitful source of public calamities; and one of the most decisive events in English history, the breach with the Church of Rome, found its occasion in the divorce of Catherine of Aragon. Its origin has been traced to various circ.u.mstances. On one hand, it is attributed to Henry's pa.s.sion for Anne Boleyn, on the other, to doubts of the validity of Henry's marriage, raised by the Bishop of Tarbes in 1527, while negotiating a matrimonial alliance between the Princess Mary and Francis I. These are the two most popular theories, and both are demonstrably false.[490] Doubts of the legality of Henry's marriage had existed long before the Bishop of Tarbes paid his visit to England, and even before Anne Boleyn was born. They were urged, not only on the eve of the completion of the marriage, but when it was first suggested. In 1503, when Henry VII. applied to Julius II. for a dispensation to enable his second son to marry his brother's (p. 174) widow, the Pope replied that "the dispensation was a great matter; nor did he well know, _prima facie_, if it were competent for the Pope to dispense in such a case".[491] He granted the dispensation, but the doubts were not entirely removed. Catherine's confessor instilled them into her mind, and was recalled by Ferdinand on that account. The Spanish King himself felt it necessary to dispel certain "scruples of conscience" Henry might entertain as to the "sin" of marrying his brother's widow.[492] Warham and Fox debated the matter, and Warham apparently opposed the marriage.[493] A general council had p.r.o.nounced against the Pope's dispensing power;[494] and, though the Popes had, in effect, established their superiority over general councils, those who still maintained the contrary view can hardly have failed to doubt the legality of Henry's marriage.

[Footnote 490: See, besides the original authorities cited in this chapter, Busch, _Der Ursprung der Ehescheidung Konig Heinrichs VIII._ (Hist. Taschenbuch, Leipzig, VI., viii., 271-327).]

[Footnote 491: _L. and P._, iv., 5773; Poc.o.c.k, _Records of the Reformation_, i., 1.]

[Footnote 492: _Sp. Cal._, vol. ii., Pref., p.

xiv., No. 8.]

[Footnote 493: _L. and P._, iv., 5774 [6].]

[Footnote 494: _Ibid._, iv., 5376.]

So good a papalist as the young King, however, would hardly allow theoretical doubts of the general powers of the Pope to outweigh the practical advantages of a marriage in his own particular case; and it is safe to a.s.sume that his confidence in its validity would have remained unshaken, but for extraneous circ.u.mstances of a definite and urgent nature. On the 31st of January, 1510, seven months after his marriage with Catherine, she gave birth to her first child; it was a daughter, and was still-born.[495] On the 27th of May following (p. 175) she told her father that the event was considered in England to be of evil omen, but that Henry took it cheerfully, and she thanked G.o.d for having given her such a husband. "The King," wrote Catherine's confessor, "adores her, and her highness him." Less than eight months later, on the 1st of January, 1511, she was delivered of her first-born son.[496] A tourney was held to celebrate the joyous event, and the heralds received a handsome largess at the christening. The child was named Henry, styled Prince of Wales, and given a serjeant-at-arms on the 14th, and a clerk of the signet on the 19th of February. Three days later he was dead; he was buried at the cost of some ten thousand pounds in Westminster Abbey. The rejoicings were turned to grief, which, aggravated by successive disappointments, bore with c.u.mulative force on the mind of the King and his people. In September, 1513, the Venetian amba.s.sador announced the birth of another son,[497] who was either still-born, or died immediately afterwards. In June, 1514, there is again a reference to the christening of the "King's new son,"[498] but he, too, was no sooner christened than dead.

[Footnote 495: _D.N.B._, ix., 292, gives this date.

Catherine herself, writing on 27th May, 1510, says that "some _days_ before she had been delivered of a still-born daughter" (_Sp. Cal._, ii., 43). On 1st November, 1509, Henry informed Ferdinand that Catherine was pregnant, and the child had quickened (_ibid._, ii., 23).]

[Footnote 496: _Ven. Cal._, ii., 95-96; _L. and P._, vol. i., 1491, 1495, 1513, Pref., p. lxxiii.; ii., 4692.]

[Footnote 497: _Ven. Cal._, ii., 329.]

[Footnote 498: _L. and P._, i., 5192.]

Domestic griefs were now embittered by political resentments. Ferdinand valued his daughter mainly as a political emissary; he had formally accredited her as his amba.s.sador at Henry's Court, and she naturally used her influence to maintain the political union between her father and her husband. The arrangement had serious drawbacks; when relations between sovereigns grew strained, their amba.s.sadors could be (p. 176) recalled, but Catherine had to stay. In 1514 Henry was boiling over with indignation at his double betrayal by the Catholic king; and it is not surprising that he vented some of his rage on the wife who was Ferdinand's representative. He reproached her, writes Peter Martyr from Ferdinand's Court, with her father's ill-faith, and taunted her with his own conquests. To this brutality Martyr attributes the premature birth of Catherine's fourth son towards the end of 1514.[499]

Henry, in fact, was preparing to cast off, not merely the Spanish alliance, but his Spanish wife. He was negotiating for a joint attack on Castile with Louis XII. and threatening the divorce of Catherine.[500]

"It is said," writes a Venetian from Rome in August, 1514, "that the King of England means to repudiate his present wife, the daughter of the King of Spain and his brother's widow, because he is unable to have children by her, and intends to marry a daughter of the French Duke of Bourbon.... He intends to annul his own marriage, and will obtain what he wants from the Pope as France did from Pope Julius II."[501]

[Footnote 499: _L. and P._, i., 5718.]

[Footnote 500: See above p. 76.]

[Footnote 501: _Ven. Cal._, ii., 479. The Pope was really Alexander VI.]

But the death of Louis XII. (January, 1515) and the consequent loosening of the Anglo-French alliance made Henry and Ferdinand again political allies; while, as the year wore on, Catherine was known to be once more pregnant, and Henry's hopes of issue revived. This time they were not disappointed; the Princess Mary was born on the 18th of February, 1516.[502] Ferdinand had died on the 23rd of January, but the news was kept from Catherine, lest it might add to the risks (p. 177) of her confinement.[503] The young princess seemed likely to live, and Henry was delighted. When Giustinian, amid his congratulations, said he would have been better pleased had it been a son, the King replied: "We are both young; if it was a daughter this time, by the grace of G.o.d the sons will follow".[504] All thoughts of a divorce pa.s.sed away for the time, but the desired sons did not arrive. In August, 1517, Catherine was reported to be again expecting issue, but nothing more is heard of the matter, and it is probable that about this time the Queen had various miscarriages. In July, 1518, Henry wrote to Wolsey from Woodstock that Catherine was once more pregnant, and that he could not move the Court to London, as it was one of the Queen's "dangerous times".[505] His precautions were unavailing, and, on the 10th of November, his child arrived still-born. Giustinian notes the great vexation with which the people heard the news, and expresses the opinion that, had it occurred a month or two earlier, the Princess Mary would not have been betrothed to the French dauphin, "as the one fear of England was lest it should pa.s.s into subjection to France through that marriage".[506]

[Footnote 502: _L. and P._, ii., 1505, 1573.]

[Footnote 503: _L. and P._, ii., 1563, 1610.]

[Footnote 504: _Ven. Cal._, ii., 691.]