On 25th July Campeggio embarked at Corneto,[603] and proceeded by slow stages through France towards England. Henry congratulated himself that his hopes were on the eve of fulfilment. But, unfortunately for him, the basis, on which they were built, was as unstable as water.
The decision of his case still depended upon Clement, and Clement wavered with every fluctuation in the success or the failure of (p. 216) the Spanish arms in Italy. Campeggio had scarcely set out, when Doria, the famous Genoese admiral, deserted Francis for Charles;[604]
on the 17th of August Lautrec died before Naples;[605] and, on 10th September, an English agent sent Wolsey news of a French disaster, which he thought more serious than the battle of Pavia or the sack of Rome.[606] On the following day Sanga, the Pope"s secretary, wrote to Campeggio that, "as the Emperor is victorious, the Pope must not give him any pretext for a fresh rupture, lest the Church should be utterly annihilated.... Proceed on your journey to England, and there do your utmost to restore mutual affection between the King and Queen. You are not to p.r.o.nounce any opinion without a new and express commission hence."[607] Sanga repeated the injunction a few days later. "Every day," he wrote, "stronger reasons are discovered;" to satisfy Henry "involves the certain ruin of the Apostolic See and the Church, owing to recent events.... If so great an injury be done to the Emperor...
the Church cannot escape utter ruin, as it is entirely in the power of the Emperor"s servants. You will not, therefore, be surprised at my repeating that you are not to proceed to sentence, under any pretext, without express commission; but to protract the matter as long as possible."[608] Clement himself wrote to Charles that nothing would be done to Catherine"s detriment, that Campeggio had gone merely to urge Henry to do his duty, and that the whole case would eventually be referred to Rome.[609] Such were the secret instructions with which Campeggio arrived in England in October.[610] He readily promised (p. 217) not to proceed to sentence, but protested against the interpretation which he put upon the Pope"s command, namely, that he was not to begin the trial. The English, he said, "would think that I had come to hoodwink them, and might resent it. You know how much that would involve."[611] He did not seem to realise that the refusal to pa.s.s sentence was equally hoodwinking the English, and that the trial would only defer the moment of their penetrating the deception; a trial was of no use without sentence.
[Footnote 603: _Ibid._, iv., 4605.]
[Footnote 604: _L. and P._, iv., 4626.]
[Footnote 605: _Ibid._, iv., 4663.]
[Footnote 606: _Ibid._, iv., 4713.]
[Footnote 607: _Ibid._, iv., 4721.]
[Footnote 608: _Ibid._, iv., 4736-37.]
[Footnote 609: _Sp. Cal._, iii., 779.]
[Footnote 610: _L. and P._, iv., 4857.]
[Footnote 611: _Ibid._, iv., 4736.]
In accordance with his instructions, Campeggio first sought to dissuade Henry from persisting in his suit for the divorce. Finding the King immovable, he endeavoured to induce Catherine to go into a nunnery, as the divorced wife of Louis XII. had done, "who still lived in the greatest honour and reputation with G.o.d and all that kingdom".[612] He represented to her that she had nothing to lose by such a step; she could never regain Henry"s affections or obtain rest.i.tution of her conjugal rights. Her consent might have deferred the separation of the English Church from Rome; it would certainly have relieved the Supreme Pontiff from a humiliating and intolerable position. But these considerations of expediency weighed nothing with Catherine. She was as immovable as Henry, and deaf to all Campeggio"s solicitations. Her conscience was, perhaps, of a rigid, Spanish type, but it was as clear as Henry"s and a great deal more comprehensible. She was convinced that her marriage was valid; to admit a doubt of it would imply that she had been living in sin and imperil her immortal soul. Henry (p. 218) did not in the least mind admitting that he had lived for twenty years with a woman who was not his wife; the sin, to his mind, was continuing to live with her after he had become convinced that she was really not his wife. Catherine appears, however, to have been willing to take the monastic vows, if Henry would do the same. Henry was equally willing, if Clement would immediately dispense with the vows in his case, but not in Catherine"s.[613] But there were objections to this course, and doubts of Clement"s power to authorise Henry"s re-marriage, even if Catherine did go into a nunnery.
[Footnote 612: _Ibid._, iv., 4858.]
[Footnote 613: _L. and P._, iv., 4977.]
Meanwhile, Campeggio found help from an unexpected quarter in his efforts to waste the time. Quite unknown to Henry, Wolsey, or Clement, there existed in Spain a brief of Julius II. fuller than the original bull of dispensation which he had granted for the marriage of Henry and Catherine, and supplying any defects that might be found in it.
Indeed, so conveniently did the brief meet the criticisms urged against the bull, that Henry and Wolsey at once p.r.o.nounced it an obvious forgery, concocted after the doubts about the bull had been raised. No copy of the brief could be found in the English archives, nor could any trace be discovered of its having been registered at Rome; while Ghinucci and Lee, who examined the original in Spain, professed to see in it such flagrant inaccuracies as to deprive it of all claim to be genuine.[614] Still, if it were genuine, it shattered the whole of Henry"s case. That had been built up, not on the (p. 219) denial of the Pope"s power to dispense, but on the technical defects of a particular dispensation. Now it appeared that the validity of the marriage did not depend upon this dispensation at all. Nor did it depend upon the brief, for Catherine was prepared to deny on oath that the marriage with Arthur had been anything more than a form;[615] in that case the affinity with Henry had not been contracted, and there was no need of either dispensation or brief. This a.s.sertion seems to have shaken Henry; certainly he began to shift his position, and, early in 1529, he was wishing for some noted divine, friar or other, who would maintain that the Pope could not dispense at all.[616] This was his first doubt as to the plenitude of papal power; his marriage with Catherine must be invalid, because his conscience told him so; if it was not invalid through defects in the dispensation, it must be invalid because the Pope could not dispense. Wolsey met the objection with a legal point, perfectly good in itself, but trivial. There were two canonical disabilities which the dispensation must meet for Henry"s marriage to be valid; first, the consummation of Catherine"s marriage with Arthur; secondly, the marriage, even though it was not consummated, was yet celebrated _in facie ecclesiae_, and generally reputed complete. There was thus an _impedimentum publicae honestatis_ to the marriage of Henry and Catherine, and this impediment was not mentioned in, and therefore not removed by, the dispensation.[617]
[Footnote 614: _Ibid._, iv., 5376-77, 5470-71, 5486-87. For the arguments as to its validity see Busch, _England under the Tudors_, Eng. trs., i., 376-8; Friedmann, _Anne Boleyn_, ii., 329; and Lord Acton in the _Quarterly Rev._, cxliii., 1-51.]
[Footnote 615: She made this statement to Campeggio in the confessional (_L. and P._, iv., 4875).]
[Footnote 616: _Ibid._, iv., 5377, 5438; _Sp.
Cal._, iii., 276, 327.]
[Footnote 617: _L. and P._, iv., 3217. See this point discussed in Taunton"s _Cardinal Wolsey_, chap. x.]
But all this legal argument might be invalidated by the brief. (p. 220) It was useless to proceed with the trial until the promoters of the suit knew what the brief contained. According to Mendoza, Catherine"s "whole right" depended upon the brief, a statement indicating a general suspicion that the bull was really insufficient.[618] So the winter of 1528-29 and the following spring were spent in efforts to get hold of the original brief, or to induce Clement to declare it a forgery. The Queen was made to write to Charles that it was absolutely essential to her case that the brief should be produced before the legatine Court in England.[619] The Emperor was not likely to be caught by so transparent an artifice. Moreover, the emissary, sent with Catherine"s letter, wrote, as soon as he got to France, warning Charles that his aunt"s letter was written under compulsion and expressed the reverse of her real desires.[620] In the spring of 1529 several English envoys, ending with Gardiner, were sent to Rome to obtain a papal declaration of the falsity of the brief. Clement, however, naturally refused to declare the brief a forgery, without hearing the arguments on the other side,[621] and more important developments soon supervened. Gardiner wrote from Rome, early in May, that there was imminent danger of the Pope revoking the case, and (p. 221) the news determined Henry and Wolsey to relinquish their suit about the brief, and push on the proceedings of the legatine Court, so as to get some decision before the case was called to Rome. Once the legates had p.r.o.nounced in favour of the divorce, Clement was informed, the English cared little what further fortunes befel it elsewhere.
[Footnote 618: _Sp. Cal._, iii., 882.]
[Footnote 619: _L. and P._, iv., 4841.]
[Footnote 620: _Ibid._, iv., 5154, 5177, 5211 (ii.); _Sp. Cal._, iii., 877, 882.]
[Footnote 621: _L. and P._, iv., 5474. Yet there is a letter from Clement to Campeggio (_Cotton MS._, Vitellius, B, xii., 164; _L. and P._, iv., 5181) authorising him "to reject whatever evidence is tendered in behalf of this brief as an evident forgery". Clement was no believer in the maxim _qui facit per alium facit per se_; he did not mind what his legates did, so long as he was free to repudiate their action when convenient.]
So, on the 31st of May, 1529, in the great hall of the Black Friars, in London, the famous Court was formally opened, and the King and Queen were cited to appear before it on the 18th of June.[622] Henry was then represented by two proxies, but Catherine came in person to protest against the competence of the tribunal.[623] Three days later both the King and the Queen attended in person to hear the Court"s decision on this point. Catherine threw herself on her knees before Henry; she begged him to consider her honour, her daughter"s and his.
Twice Henry raised her up; he protested that he desired nothing so much as that their marriage should be found valid, in spite of the "perpetual scruple" he had felt about it, and declared that only his love for her had kept him silent so long; her request for the removal of the cause to Rome was unreasonable, considering the Emperor"s power there. Again protesting against the jurisdiction of the Court and appealing to Rome, Catherine withdrew. Touched by her appeal, Henry burst out in her praise. "She is, my Lords," he said, "as true, as obedient, and as conformable a wife, as I could, in my phantasy, wish or desire. She hath all the virtuous qualities that ought to be in a woman of her dignity, or in any other of baser estate."[624] (p. 222) But these qualities had nothing to do with the pitiless forms of law.
The legate, overruled her protest, refused her appeal, and summoned her back. She took no notice, and was declared contumacious.
[Footnote 622: _L. and P._, iv., 5611, 5612.]
[Footnote 623: _Ibid._, iv., 5685, 5694, 5695, 5702.]
[Footnote 624: _L. and P._, iv., Introd., p.
cccclxxv.]
The proceedings then went on without her; Fisher Bishop of Rochester, made a courageous defence of the validity of the marriage, to which Henry drew up a bitter reply in the form of a speech addressed to the legates.[625] The speed with which the procedure was hurried on was little to Campeggio"s taste. He had not prejudged the case; he was still in doubt as to which way the sentence would go; and he entered a dignified protest against the orders he received from Rome to give sentence, if it came to that point, against Henry.[626] He would p.r.o.nounce what judgment seemed to him just, but he shrank from the ordeal, and he did his best to follow out Clement"s injunctions to procrastinate.[627] In this he succeeded completely. It seemed that judgment could no longer be deferred; it was to be delivered on the 23rd of July.[628] On that day the King himself, and the chief men of his Court, were present; his proctor demanded sentence. Campeggio stood up, and instead of giving sentence, adjourned the Court till October.[629] "By the ma.s.s!" burst out Suffolk, giving the table (p. 223) a great blow with his hand, "now I see that the old-said saw is true, that there was never a legate nor cardinal that did good in England."
The Court never met again; and except during the transient reaction, under Mary, it was the last legatine Court ever held in England. They might a.s.sure the Pope, Wolsey had written to the English envoys at Rome a month before, that if he granted the revocation he would lose the devotion of the King and of England to the See Apostolic, and utterly destroy Wolsey for ever.[630]
[Footnote 625: _Ibid._, iv., Introd., p. cccclxxix.]
[Footnote 626: _Ibid._, iv., 5732, 5734.]
[Footnote 627: _Ibid._, iv., 3604.]
[Footnote 628: _Ibid._, iv., 5789.]
[Footnote 629: It was alleged that this adjournment was only the usual practice of the curia; but it is worth noting that in 1530 Charles V. a.s.serted that it was usual to carry on matters so important as the divorce during vacation (_ibid._, iv., 6452), and that Clement had repeatedly ordered Campeggio to prolong the suit as much as possible and above all to p.r.o.nounce no sentence.]
[Footnote 630: _L. and P._, iv., 5703, 5715, 5780.]
Long before the vacation was ended, news reached Henry that the case had been called to Rome; the revocation was, indeed, decreed a week before Campeggio adjourned his court. Charles"s star, once more in the ascendant, had cast its baleful influence over Henry"s fortunes. The close alliance between England and France had led to a joint declaration of war on the Emperor in January, 1528, into which the English amba.s.sadors in Spain had been inveigled by their French colleagues, against Henry"s wishes.[631] It was received with a storm of opposition in England, and Wolsey had some difficulty in justifying himself to the King. "You may be sure," wrote Du Bellay, "that he is playing a terrible game, for I believe he is the only Englishman who wishes a war with Flanders."[632] If that was his wish, he was doomed to disappointment. Popular hatred of the war was too strong; a project was mooted by the clothiers in Kent for seizing the Cardinal and turning him adrift in a boat, with holes bored in it.[633] The (p. 224) clothiers in Wiltshire were reported to be rising; in Norfolk employers dismissed their workmen.[634] War with Flanders meant ruin to the most prosperous industry in both countries, and the attempt to divert the Flanders trade to Calais had failed.[635] So Henry and Charles were soon discussing peace; no hostilities took place; an agreement, that trade should go on as usual with Flanders,[636] was followed by a truce in June,[637] and the truce by the Peace of Cambrai in the following year. That peace affords the measure of England"s decline since 1521. Wolsey was carefully excluded from all share in the negotiations. England was, indeed, admitted as a partic.i.p.ator, but only after Louise and Margaret of Savoy had practically settled the terms, and after Du Bellay had told Francis that, if England were not admitted, it would mean Wolsey"s immediate ruin.[638]
[Footnote 631: _Ibid._, iv., 4564; _Sp. Cal._, iii., 729.]
[Footnote 632: _L. and P._, iv., 3930.]
[Footnote 633: _L. and P._, iv., 4310.]
[Footnote 634: _Ibid._, iv., 4012, 4040, 4043, 4044, 4239.]
[Footnote 635: _Ibid._, iv., 3262.]
[Footnote 636: _Ibid._, iv., 4147.]
[Footnote 637: _Ibid._, iv., 4376.]
[Footnote 638: _Ibid._, iv., 5679, 5701, 5702, 5713.]
By the Treaty of Cambrai Francis abandoned Italy to Charles. His affairs beyond the Alps had been going from bad to worse since the death of Lautrec; and the suggested guard of French and English soldiers which was to relieve the Pope from fear of Charles was never formed.[639] That failure was not the only circ.u.mstance which made Clement imperialist. Venice, the ally of England and France, seized Ravenna and Cervia, two papal towns.[640] "The conduct of the Venetians," wrote John Casale from Rome, "moves the Pope more than anything else, and he would use the a.s.sistance of any one, except (p. 225) the Devil, to avenge their injury."[641] "The King and the Cardinal,"
repeated Sanga to Campeggio, "must not expect him to execute his intentions, until they have used their utmost efforts to compel the Venetians to restore the Pope"s territories."[642] Henry did his best, but he was not sincerely helped by Francis; his efforts proved vain, and Clement thought he could get more effective a.s.sistance from Charles. "Every one is persuaded," said one of the Emperor"s agents in Italy on 10th January, 1529, "that the Pope is now sincerely attached to his Imperial Majesty."[643] "I suspect," wrote Du Bellay from London, in the same month, "that the Pope has commanded Campeggio to meddle no further, seeing things are taking quite a different turn from what he had been a.s.sured, and that the Emperor"s affairs in Naples are in such a state that Clement dare not displease him."[644]
The Pope had already informed Charles that his aunt"s pet.i.tion for the revocation of the suit would be granted.[645] The Italian League was practically dissolved. "I have quite made up my mind," said Clement to the Archbishop of Capua on 7th June, "to become an Imperialist, and to live and die as such... I am only waiting for the return of my nuncio."[646]