The First Divorce of Henry VIII. as told in the State Papers ... Edited, with notes and introduction, by F. A. Gasquet

Introduction

BY FRANCIS AIDAN GASQUET, D.D., O.S.B. LONDON KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER, & CO. LT-D PATERNOSTER HOUSE, CHARING CROSS ROAD The rights of translation and of reproduction are reserved. V

INTRODUCTION.

A FEW words are required to explain the origin of the present volume. The labour of gathering the materials from the various published collections of State Papers and other contemporary documents, as well as the toil implied in putting them together into a connected narrative, occupied the last few years of Mrs. Hope's life. The literary works of this talented and conscientious writer, who died on February the 12th, 1887, are too well known to make a lengthy introduction necessary. It is un fortunate that she did not live to complete this her latest, and in many respects most important, contribution to popular historical literature. The delicate state of her health during a long period, and particularly failing eyesight during the later years of her life, compelled her gradually to restrict the range of her studies and to compose by dicta tion to an amanuensis, especially in the case of the present work. There is reason to suppose that she had contemplated a more extensive history of the

INTRODUCTION.

. VI ecclesiastical changes in England in the sixteenth century. Of this, had she ever lived to complete it, the episode detailed in the following pages would have formed only a small portion. With this intention the present study was prefaced by a somewhat elaborate " Introduction," which, how ever suitable for the history designed, is now altogether out of place. It has consequently been omitted altogether. The character of Mrs. Hope's previous works makes it certain that the MS. of the present volume had not received its final revision at her hands. Consequently, when requested by her son, Sir Theodore Hope, to undertake the editing of the work, my first care was thoroughly to revise it and to examine and verify every statement by reference to the authority quoted. Besides this, on reflection I have thought it well to add notes giving some indication of the nature and dates of the documents cited.

Speaking generally, therefore, the notes throughout the volume may be regarded as mine. This will explain why in one or two cases the note may appear to modify the text. In the very few instances in which I have had no doubt whatever that Mrs. Hope had been mistaken in her reading of a statement, or had made too wide an inference from a fact, I have not hesitated to make the necessary verbal change in the text, feeling sure that

INTRODUCTION.

. VII she would have done the same had she lived to pass the sheets of the book through the press herself. In other respects, except for necessary corrections, and other slight matters of a purely technical kind, this study appears as Mrs. Hope left it. The chief merit of the work is that it tells the plain, unvarnished story of Henry's Divorce from Katherine, disentangled from the various other events and courses of action, foreign and domestic, of the period, by which the marriage question is generally obscured. It relies entirely upon the original documents as published in the various calendars of State Papers and other contemporary authorities, and the reader may see at once upon what ground any given statement is made. It is true that, taken as a whole, this tale of intrigues and negotiations and delays reads more like the recital of a feverish dream than sober history.

The crisis, always imminent, seems never to advance, and to those unacquainted with Tudor methods, the story may well appear incredible. In reality, how ever, it states fairly, and without embellishment, the devious paths by which Henry VIII. attained his end at last, and divorced his first wife Katherine in order to marry Anne Boleyn. In saying that Mrs. Hope's study is a full and accurate account of this strange episode in our national history, a slight reservation must be made

INTRODUCTION.

. VIII in regard to Chapter XIX. Although leaving the text as she had written it, I feel that it would be impossible to allow the book to appear without some correction of her view as to the action of Convocation in the matter of the Royal Headship, and incidentally as to the part taken by Bishop Fisher in the discussions. The account given in the text certainly corresponds to the loose impression which generally prevails on the subject. The difficulty has come about from the natural tendency of people to view critical episodes in the light of the broad eventual result. Indeed, no task is more difficult for the historian than to enter into the thoughts and feelings of those who stood unwit tingly at the verge of a revolution which to them was not merely sudden and unexpected, but which must have been inconceivable.

It is no easy matter to estimate the force and weigh the intention of particular words or actions as events progress towards a crisis. There is in practice another difficulty in the way of arriving at the truth — a difficulty easily reme diable indeed, but commonly neglected — namely, a failure properly to probe and understand the terms of original documents. A good illustration of this failing is to be found in Chapter XIX. of this present work, where the author, quite excus ably, and following most writers on the subject,

INTRODUCTION.

. IX states that Henry agreed to accept the fine to be paid for their præmunire by Convocation " only on condition that in the preamble of the bill, clauses acknowledging him as sole Supreme Head of the Church and clergy of England, and giving him absolute spiritual jurisdiction and legislative power, should be inserted " (pp. 209, 210).1 This unquestionably represents the idea current on the matter, but even in the clauses originally proposed by the royal agents the grant of " legislative power " is not so much as mentioned, and the idea of any spiritual jurisdiction in the King is involved rather than expressed. It is necessary perhaps, in order to understand the situation, to enter somewhat at length into the question of the alterations which the King wished to have made in the preamble of the clerical composition, granted by Convocation for the præmunire.

Henry required the document to be revised in five places, and additions to be made to it. The first related to the insertion of the title of " Supreme Head ; " the second was an express ac knowledgment that the King had protected the clergy from the efforts of the "New Gospellers" to lay violent hands on their possessions, and so had enabled them to minister to God in peace " in the cure of the souls committed to His Majesty " (ittcuræ 1 There occur in the book a few other expressions depending on this view which have also been left unaltered.

INTRODUCTION.

. X animarunt ejus majestati commissæ et populo sibi commisso debite inservire possimus) ; the third con tained a statement that the King had confirmed and defended the privileges and liberties of the Church, " which do not detract from his royal power and the laws of the kingdom ; " the fourth is a declaration that the King had granted them a general pardon for all transgressions of the penal laws and statutes of the kingdom, with express mention of the præmu nire, in as ample a manner as he had granted to all his subjects ; and the fifth proposed that the whole body of the laity should be responsible for this fine of the clergy. It must be understood that these so-called clauses submitted by the King to Convocation have in them selves as entered in its acts no meaning whatever. Their force is only to be recognised in a comparison with the actual grant subsequently passed by the clergy.

From this it is clear that it was not merely the first proposed clause which was the subject of dispute between the Convocation and the royal agents ; although it is only in regard to the first, that relating to the title " Supreme Head," that a history of the changes it went through survives. It is quite evident that the other clauses had each a history too. The second clause, as drafted by the King's agents, contained an evident admission that the cure of souls was committed to his majesty, but

INTRODUCTION.

. XI as passed by Convocation this was distinctly guarded against. In its final form it read : that we may be able to serve in the cure of the souls " of the nation committed to his majesty " (popnli ejus majestati commissi). The third proposed insertion about the King's confirmation of the privileges and liberties not repugnant to the royal power was evidently rejected, and the fourth appears in a modified form, which, however, does not seem to a non-legal mind to touch the substance. Lastly, the fifth proposed insertion as to the liability of the laity was restricted to those persons only in whose hands the property of vacant bishoprics and benefices should happen to be. It is quite evident that every word of these inser tions as proposed and adopted had been weighed with the greatest care that could be given them by the most skilled jurists and theologians.

The very number of the sessions, apparently some two and thirty, that were required to discuss the proposals, is a sufficient evidence of the consideration given to them. The changes in the proposed insertions made by the clergy, moreover, throw considerable light on the sense in which the clause relating to the King's Supreme Headship, and the only one to which attention is generally directed, was accepted by the Convocation. A common impression seems to prevail that this insertion was intended as a formal acknowledgment of the King's ecclesiastical supre-

INTRODUCTION.

. XII macy, as stated in Mrs. Hope's pages. So far, however, from this being the case, the Acts of Convocation make it clear that the so-called clause has by itself no sense whatever. It reads, "of the English Church and clergy, whose Protector and Supreme Head he alone is." In fact, it was never intended for any other purpose but for insertion in the current text of the grant of Convocation, with the design, of course, to serve ulterior purposes. What these were is made perfectly clear by the second proposed parenthesis, which states (also obiter) that the care of souls was committed to his majesty, and implies that jurisdiction over them was granted to the clergy by the crown. So far, however, from accepting this view of the situation, the English clergy in Convocation expressly put it aside, re serving to themselves the care of souls, and simply stating in general terms that the people were com mitted to charge of his majesty — a perfectly innocuous proposition.

With the light thus thrown on the question by the action of Convocation, we are in a position to deal with the first clause, which has been so largely discussed, and seems to have engrossed attention. The desire of the King's advisers, of course, cannot be doubtful ; but the use of the word Protector, in concert with the title of "Supreme Head," gives to the insertion, even as proposed by Henry, a less

INTRODUCTION.

. XIII absolute sense than is commonly supposed. Of its danger in these times there can be no doubt, and it is hardly open to question, that Convocation recognised the danger. Still during Catholic ages, the Sovereign was acknowleged as the Protector — the advocatus — of the Church in his country, just as the Emperor was regarded in Christendom as the special defender of the Church of Rome. It was to Henry that the English bishops and clergy of that day must look in the last resort for protection against the introduction of heresy, and for maintenance in their temporali ties, even as their predecessors had looked to his predecessors.1 In the present case the Suprcmum Caput un doubtedly gave a dangerous gloss to the " Pro tectorate," whilst there is little question that the craft of Cromwell relied upon the insertion of this perfectly legal and well-recognised term to facilitate the acceptance of the "Supreme Head."

From the form in which the bishops allowed this parenthesis it is quite clear that they perfectly well saw the embarrassment prepared for them, and that they were as ready to admit the large and legitimate powers of the sovereign, in a kingdom where the clergy were so highly privileged, as they were re solved not to allow that the cure of souls, and so by inference spiritual jurisdiction, in any way per- 1 Cf. Wilkins, Concilia, iii. p. 252.

INTRODUCTION.

. XIV tained to him. In view, then, of the King's attempt to obtain indirectly from the English clergy a recognition of his spiritual headship, and of the care taken to avoid the admission, even when the demand was made with the royal hand upon their throats, the sense in which the clergy in Convocation accepted the Supremum Caput must be taken as expressly excluding the notion of any royal spiritual jurisdiction. That this was so is rendered certain from sub sequent history ; but in view of all that has been written upon the subject of the Supreme Head ship, it is now somewhat difficult to realise that the bishops and clergy took for granted that such a title had reference merely to temporal matters, and was not to be twisted in "derogation of the Roman Pontiff or the Apostolic See."1 Yet this undoubtedly was the case, and the very last act of Warham's life was to draft an elaborate exposition to be delivered in the House of Lords of the im possibility, from the very constitution of the Church of Christ, of the King having spiritual jurisdiction, and claiming that this of right pertained to the Pope of Rome.

The clearness of later definitions and the exi gencies of later polemics, to say nothing of the difficulty experienced in the past of obtaining access 1 Wilkins, Concilia, iii. p. 746 (Protest of Warham).

INTRODUCTION.

. XV to real sources of information, have, indeed, all conspired to obscure the motives and meanings of those who were the leading spirits in the Convoca tion of 1531- Still, practically, however carefully from a theological point of view Convocation may have guarded themselves and as fully as was pos sible in the days when royal power was so absolute, there can be no hesitation in allowing the force of the comment of the imperial ambassador Chapuys on what had been done, that such reservations would not hold good against Henry's wilfulness. As a diplomatist whose business it was to look keenly to the play of forces and to gauge the ultimate results likely to spring from any course of action, he saw perfectly well that if the situation — that is, the great question of the King's divorce — became aggravated, and Henry failed to obtain the accom plishment of his desires, it would quickly result in men having to make their choice between their heads and their conscience.

As regards the clause itself, each party, the King and the bishops, were playing a game of words. In Henry's royal hands was all the power, but he was not yet prepared to deal with the Church by methods of brute force. On the whole, theoretically, the bishops were successful in baffling him ; but the value of their victory entirely depended on the turn of events in regard to the divorce. If that could

INTRODUCTION.

. XVI have been settled to the King's satisfaction, it is probable that the supreme spiritual jurisdiction of the crown would have been heard of no more. But in the contrary event, as really happened, the time soon came when mere theological parrying, and verbal niceties to avoid compromising admissions, were useless. As regards the action of Bishop Fisher in the Convocation, the account given by Mrs. Hope is taken from the Roman edition of Sanders' Schism. It is an interpolation of the Roman editor, and it is in contradiction to contemporary records, which repre sent the Bishop as opposing the clause containing the title of " Supreme Head," and only at last yield ing a reluctant consent. Since the publication of the admirable work on the life of Blessed John Fisher by the Bollandist Father Van Ortroy, which seems to have attracted very little attention in England, there can be no doubt that the account given in Mrs. Hope's text cannot be relied upon at all.

The attitude of the Bishop of Rochester to the entire question of the Royal Headship was one of opposition, and he alone of all the bishops was found, when the final test came to be applied, to be willing to sacrifice his life for his conscience. With the exception of these two points, treated of here at some length, Mrs. Hope's work is a clear and straightforward account of the divorce of Henry

INTRODUCTION.

. XVII from his first wife — an episode in English history fraught with such great consequences to the Church and State. My belief is, that it gives the story, as found in the State papers, in a way that no other book has yet done, and it may be now left to tell its own tale. A CONTENTS CHAP. PAGE I. KATHERINE OF ARAGON I II. HENRY VIII 23 III. THE REVERSE OF THE MEDAL 2$ IV. THE TURNING OF FORTUNE'S WHEEL ... 40 V. OPENING OF THE PLOT 43 VI. EMBASSY TO FRANCE 52 VII. FIRST EMBASSY TO THE POPE 58 VIII. SECOND EMBASSY TO THE POPE .... 62 IX. DISAPPOINTED HOPES 79 X. IN ENGLAND ... . . . . S4 XI. THE LEGATE 90 XII. INTRIGUES AND STRATAGEMS 99 XIII. LAST DESPERATE EFFORT Il8 XIV. THE LEGATES' COURT 1 24 XV. WOLSEY'S LAST INTERVIEW I49 XVI. THE FALL OF WOLSEY 157 XVII. DELAY 1S3 XVIII. THE DECISION 201 XIX.

THE NEW DESPOTISM 209 XX. SEPARATION FROM KATHERINE .... 224 CONTENTS. XX PAGE CHAP. XXI. USURPATION OF SPIRITUAL JURISDICTION AND LEGISLATION 239 XXII. DECISIVE ACTION IN ROME 250 XXIII. POPULAR FEELING IN ENGLAND . . . . 26 1 XXIV. PREPARATIONS FOR THE CRISIS .... 280 XXV. THE CRISIS 294 XXVI. THE SCHISM 300 XXVII. THE EXCOMMUNICATION 319 XXVIII. THE APPEAL 333 XXIX. THE SCHISM 343 XXX. THE SENTENCE

Chapter I. Katherine Of Aragon

Katherine, the first wife of Henry VIII., was the fourth daughter of Ferdinand, King of Aragon, and Isabella, Queen of Castille. Her birth, which took place on the 16th of December 1483, happened at a critical period both in the history of the Church and in that of her native land. More than seven centuries previously, the Moors had conquered Spain and had either killed or enslaved the Christian population. A small band of Christians alone escaped to the mountains of Asturias, where, round an altar of Our Lady, they made a heroic stand. In course of time other fugitives joined them, and as their numbers increased, they sallied forth under the banner of the Cross, and, by supernatural deeds of valour, had graduallyreconquered foot by foot their native land. This A long crusade of seven centuries was, at the time of Katherine's birth, drawing to a close.

The kingdom of Granada alone remained in the hands of the Moors, and to its conquest Ferdinand and Isabella had vowed themselves. The King led their joint armies in person, while the Queen with her ladies and young children followed the host, sharing its hardships, ministering to its wants, and encouraging those around her by her spirit and piety. She was at Alcala-de-Henares, on her way from the army to spend Christmas at Toledo, when Katherine was born unexpectedly. Katherine's childhood was spent in the camp before Granada, and lessons of faith, courage, and fortitude were daily impressed upon her by the heroism she beheld around her. On the 2nd of January 1492, the city was taken and the Cross planted in triumph on the Alhambra. Henceforth Granada was Katherine's home. She had inherited from her mother warmth of affection, simple piety, and great strength of character.

She was trained in habits of obedience, humility, self-denial, and charity to all around her. Her mind was carefully cultivated. Like so many eminent women of the time, she could speak and write Latin fluently, she knew several modern languages, and was besides well versed in all the learning and accomplishments of the age. When Katherine was hardly more than four years of age, Henry VII. of England asked her in marriage for his eldest son Arthur, then only twenty months old. Her parents consented, but without then entering into any binding engage ment. Henry was proud of his beautiful boy, and showed him with delight to the Spanish ambassadors. First they saw him exquisitely dressed ; then he was stripped, that they might admire his well-made form and fair skin. Finally they were taken to gaze on him whilst he was asleep.

The Spanish envoys were so charmed with his beauty that they wrote to their sovereigns, saying that " whatever praise or flattery could be spoken or written, would in his case be only the truth."1 Henry was very anxious to secure by this marriage an alliance with Spain, which would tend greatly to strengthen his throne, and he pro posed that Katherine should be sent to England to be educated. The English were at that time looked on almost as barbarians by the more civilised 1 Bergenroth, Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers (England and Spain), preserved in the archives at Sintancas and e/setvhere, vol. i. p. II. (De Puebla to Ferdinand and Isabella, July 15, 1488.) De Puebla was a doctor of civil law, and was first sent into England, together with Juan de Sepulveda, to negotiate the marriage of Katherine and Arthur.

He returned in 1494 to England, as Spanish ambassador in ordinary. nations of Europe,1 and the Spanish ambassador, when this proposal was mooted, wrote, that though on the one hand the manners and customs in England made it very undesirable that the Princess should come there till she was grown up, yet, on the other, her only chance of happiness in her future life lay in her coming while she was so young that she could neither remember nor value the superior civilisation of Spanish society.2 But Isabella was too good a mother to entrust her daughter's education to any one not under her own eye. In the course of the negotiations Henry's wife and mother suggested that Katherine should always speak French with her sister-in-law Margaret of Austria, who was then in Spain, because English ladies did not understand Latin, much less Spanish.

The ambassador of Spain also advised that she should be accustomed to drink wine, because the water in England was not drinkable; and even were it so, the climate did not allow of its being drunk.3 1 Rawdon Brown, Calendar of Venetian State Papers, vol. ii. p. 400. (F. Chieregato, Apostolic Nuncio in England, to Isabella d'Este, Marchioness of Mantua, July 10, 15 17.) The writer, although implying that there are some who regard the English as barbarians, recounts the real splendour of the English court, and of the entertainments generally, and declares that those who so call this nation barbarous " render themselves such." - Bergenroth, ut sup., p. 178. (The ambassador, Don Pedro de Ayala, to Ferdinand, July 25, 149S.) 3 Ibid., p. 158. (De Puebla to Ferdinand, July 17, 1498.) On Whit Sunday, May 19, 1499, Katherine was formally betrothed to Prince Arthur by proxy at Bewdley, in the diocese of Hereford.1 But as the Prince was not yet fourteen, and as the ecclesi astical law did not consider as binding any vow taken before that age, they were betrothed a second time at Ludlow Castle, in Shropshire, on the 22nd of November 1501.2 All England was now in a ferment of preparation for Katherine's arrival, and for the magnificent ceremony and sumptuous feasting, with which the marriage was to be celebrated.

The King, the Queen, the King's mother, and the young Prince Arthur were occupied by thoughts of the approach ing event. Henry wished Katherine to come 1 Bergenroth, ut sup., p. 209. Prince Arthur was present in person, and Dr. De Puebla represented Katherine, with full power to act as proxy, and contract an indissoluble marriage. The marriage treaty, made three years previously, had provided that when Arthur had completed his twelfth year, the parents might, if they pleased, apply for a dispensation from the Pope on account of age. This dispensation was obtained, and Ferdinand communicated the fact that " the bull dispensing with the age of the Prince and Princess " had reached Spain to De Puebla in a letter dated July 24, 1498 (ibid., p. 16S). - Ibid., p. 340. (Ferdinand to De Puebla, July 25, 1500.)

Ferdi nand says that he has no "doubt that the marriage which was con tracted with the dispensation of the Pope par verba de prcesenti, is valid and binding." Still he agrees that the ceremony should be performed again when the two meet, not that the union would " be rendered more indissoluble thereby," but " in honour of the Sacra ment of marriage." Henry VII. did not, however, wait for the coming of the Princess to England; but on November 22, 1500, caused the betrothal by proxy to be repeated (cf. ibid., p. 257. Queen Isabella to Henry VII., April 8, 1501). over to England at once, notwithstanding the season. But delays in the conclusion of the marriage treaty, and other unexpected causes, made it impossible for her to embark at Corufia on the north coast of Spain, before the loth of August of the following year, A.D. 1501.

For nearly four weeks she was tossed about by storms on the Bay of Biscay, and was at last obliged to land at La rendo, near Bilbao. She re-embarked on Monday the 27th of September, but again encountered a violent storm. Her attendants were in great alarm for their safety, and the Princess herself was terrified by what seemed to her a warning from God to keep her from the land of strangers, where sorrow awaited her.1 Happily, however, the wind at length proved favourable and the dismal forebodings of the party vanished, as they sailed into Plymouth haven on Saturday, October 2, 1501. Daylight was waning when Katherine landed ; still she and her numerous suite of bishops, priests, lords, and ladies, with their retinue of servants, went at once in solemn procession to the church of St. Andrew to sing a Te Deum, in thanksgiving for their safe arrival.

For six weeks a sharp look out had been kept for her, at every headland and sea port on the English coast as far north as Bristol, 1 Polydore Vergil, Anglia: Hist., lib. xxvi. (ed. Basle, 1555), p. 612. on the chance of the vessel being driven out of its course.1 The news of her arrival quickly spread far and near. Bonfires blazed on every hill. Nobles and gentry hurried to offer their ser vices, and crowds of yeomen and peasants flocked to gaze on their future queen. So hearty was the burst of English welcome that one of Katherine's attendants wrote to Queen Isabella that " she could not have been received with greater rejoicings if she had been the Saviour of the world."2 The same glad greeting met her everywhere on the journey across England. But her progress was long and weary, and it was not till the 4th of November that Henry prepared to leave Richmond, and Prince Arthur from Windsor to join her.

Even after that the meeting was delayed for three days in consequence of the bad roads and the rainy weather. When at length, on the morning of the 7th of November 1501, Henry and the young prince approached Dogmersfield, where Katherine had just arrived, they were met by the principal nobles and prelates of her suite, who told them that the Spanish sovereigns had strictly forbidden them to allow the Princess to see or speak to either the English king or prince before the marriage was to 1 Bergenroth, ut sup., p. 255. A^ secretary of Henry VII. to Spain. - Ibid., p. 262. (Letter to Queen Isabella, October 4, 1501.) be solemnised. Henry, however, answered in an imperious tone that when the Princess had once entered England, their duty to their sovereigns was ended, and that henceforth she must obey the King of England.

Then, bidding the Prince follow at leisure, he put spurs to his horse and galloped on to Dogmersfield. On reaching the house where Katherine was staying, he demanded peremptorily to see her at once. Her dismayed attendants made various ex cuses, saying at last that she was resting after her journey. To this Henry replied, " Even if she be in bed, I will see and speak to her, for this is my will and the sole object of my coming." Further resistance being useless, Katherine got up from her couch and met Henry in the third, or outer, room of the suite she occupied. He could not but be charmed with her beauty, grace, and modest demeanour.1 They exchanged fitting compliments, and after a few minutes' conversation he left her and went to his own apartment. Half an hour later Prince Arthur arrived, and was taken by his father to be introduced to his future bride.

The stately stiffness of Spanish etiquette was now somewhat relaxed, and Katherine received them in the second room of her suite. Both the young people naturally 1 Bergenroth, ut sup., p. 264. (Henry VII. to Ferdinand, Nov. 28, 1501.) felt shy at this their first meeting, and being obliged to speak to each other through the bishops as in terpreters, they found in this an additional reason for awkwardness. But Katherine, having been carefully trained in court manners, made a pretty speech, while Arthur, boy like, only asked her some questions about dogs and birds. Henry then, at this first interview, made them repeat the form of betrothal which had been already gone through twice by proxy, and then he and the Prince went away. After supper, Katherine was allowed to receive them in her private room, where, to the accompaniment of her musicians, she performed some Spanish dances with her ladies, the Prince afterwards dancing in the English fashion with Lady Guildford.1 The next morning the King and the Prince returned respectively to Richmond and Windsor, and Katherine went by Chertsey to Kennington.