THE DIVORCE OF CATHERINE OF ARAGON.* THOSE who take up

this book expecting to find in it an elaborate defence of Mr. Froude's position, or even much that is new respecting the eventful years during which the divorce ran its wearisome course, will be disappointed. Mr. Fronde finds in his History, as he says, little to retract, though much need of addition, after thirty-five years ; but practically all that is added is accessible to historical students, consisting of the Letters and Papers of the time which, under the care of various editors, have been calendared during the interval. The authority most frequently quoted is Chapuys, the Spanish Ambassador in London, whose correspondence with Charles V. supplies a continuous contemporaneous account whose importance it is difficult to overestimate. Still, it is always dangerous to adhere to one class of authorities through- out ; even Von Ranke's Lives of the Popes leaned too heavily on the reports of Ambassadors. Mr. Fronde has a large circle of readers who are not likely to refer to the Letters and Papers ; and hence he ought to have properly settled the amount of weight to which the testimony of Chapuys and others is entitled. We require far more careful treat- ment of the matter, at all events, than we have on p. 112, as may be easily seen by comparing this passage with pp. 137 and 428. The whole question of the divorce is one of evidence to be gathered from the remaining documents ; hence the point of greatest importance may be expressed by asking the question,—How has Mr. Fronde dealt with his authorities ? And first it must at once be said that the letters are not quoted verbatim from the Calendar. Words are altered and sentences omitted, and yet the extracts are enclosed in inverted commas. On the whole, subject to excep- tions such as we will come to directly, this makes but little matter ; but still, it must not be forgotten that these quota- tions are very often merely abstracts of abstracts. Examples of this method will be found on pp. 66, 77, 84, 93, and 183.

But to turn at once to some of the errors which we think a comparison of Mr. Fronde's work with the authorities will dis- close. There is always a tendency to exaggerate when a writer is building up a case to support conduct of a suspicions or cruel kind ; hence, quite innocently we think, Mr. Fronde takes (on p. 82) far too much notice of the Spanish Chancellor's remark to the English Agent, that the Emperor could, with the assistance of Henry's own subjects, expel him in three months. It was much more probably mere boasting, and no one knew better than Henry how little likely Charles was to move. This, at all events, is very slender foundation for the statement : "It was one thing for a free people to hold indepen- dent opinions on the arrangements of their own Royal family. It was another to be threatened with civil war at the instigation of a foreign Sovereign." The picturesque detail of a public meeting at which Wolsey quoted the language is not accurate ; there was no public meeting at all. Da Belay, the authority quoted, says that Wolsey mentioned the threat in the presence of one hundred gentlemen, "yet they all remained so obstinate to the spur that they answered not a word, except one who said," cte. On pp. 84 and 85, we have an account of a conversa- tion which John Casalis had with the Pope in December, 1528, after the address had been sent from Norfolk and other courtiers complaining of the delay in the divorce case. The conversation is very interesting, and gives, especially in the original, a significant picture of Clement's shifty and unhappy state of mind. But it really took place on two days, and though Mr. Fronde says, what is perfectly true, that the Pope declined to dismiss the matter of the Bull further, this was merely a momentary impulse, and he and Casalis talked further about the divorce on the second and other days. A certain exaggeration, which though slight is not without danger, will be found in the following statement on p. 91:—" Campeggio wrote to Sanga on April 3rd (1529) that certain advances had

* The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon. By J. A. Fronde. Being a Supple- mentary Volume to the Author's "History of England." London: Longmms, Green, and 0o. EEL

been made by the Lutherans to Henry, in which they promised to relinquish all heresies on articles of faith, and to believe

according to divine law if he and the King of France would re- duce the Ecclesiastical State to the condition of the Primitive Church, taking from it all its temporalities." This is much too circumstantial. All that happened was the publication of

a book (which Campeggio had not seen) teaching the views referred to, which were much discussed at the time, and which Carapeggio talked over with Henry. The letter in the Calendar gives a somewhat different view of Henry's attitude, and Mr. Fronde ought to have quoted the concluding portion. A slight omission on p. 95 makes some little difference.

The Duke of Suffolk was sent to Paris in the beginning of- June, 1529, to arrive at a definite understanding as to the French alliance. Incidentally Francis confided to Suffolk his doubts as to Wolsey, suggesting that he was betraying Henry. It ought to have been stated, however, that Suffolk says, "I then proceeded to inquire of him, promising that what he said should never be revealed, what say you of the Cardinal of England in this matter ?" indi- cating that he had been instructed by Henry so to do before- hand.

On June 16th, 1529, Henry and his wife were cited to appear before the Court of the Legates at Blackfriars. "Catherine was unprepared. She had been assured by the Emperor that her cause should not be tried in England. She called on Campeggio to explain." (p. 100.) This hardly does justice to Catherine's forlorn position. Campeggio himself, writing to Salviati, says :—

" The Queen in passing crossed the water, and came to visit me, even to my bedside, owing to my gout, which is accompanied by a slight feverishness, she being very anxious and perplexed about her affairs. The cause of her coming was to tell me that her advo- cates, who ought to have come from Flanders, had not come, because, it seemed, the Emperor had given them to understand that be did not wish them to do so, as the place is not safe. Con- sequently, the Queen found herself without any one to plead for her ; for although she had certain other English counsellors assigned her by the King, it was easy to believe that they would in everything have greater regard to the King's pleasure than to her necessity."

Campeggio, in spite of being, as he said, "hurried on always faster than a trot," obeyed Clement's parting instructions,

and paused at the last, when nothing remained but to give judgment; and his final pronouncing in favour of the marriage introduced a new phase, the avocation of the cause to Rome.

Wolsey wrote to the English Agents at Rome on July 27th, 1529, asking the Pope to qualify the language in the instru- ment calling up the cause to the Rota, "for if the King be cited to appear in person or by proxy, and his prerogative be interfered with, none of his subjects will tolerate it; or if he appears in Italy, it will be at the head of a for- midable army. A citation of the King to Rome on [" or "

in original] threat of excommunication is no more toler- able than the whole loss of the King's dignity." Here (p. 108) a curious sentence has been omitted after the word "army." "If, however," runs the original, "the avoca- tion is merely intended to close my hands without preventing the King from taking any other remedy, it may be allowed

to pass." Campeggio crossed to Paris. His baggage was broken open at Dover, an insult which occasions a curious letter from Henry. With Campeggio vanished all hope of a speedy settlement ; all hope of a settle- ment as Henry wished it ; and as he would accept none other, he decided to begin that series of Acts of Parliament by which so mighty a revolution, completed by the Royal supremacy, was accomplished. He decided also to marry Anne as soon as might be, and she naturally was jubilant. The fol- lowing graphic postscript to one of C hapnys' letters (January 1, 1531), which Mr. Fronde might more intelligibly have quoted in fall, shows her high spirits at the time :-

I have just heard from a well-informed man that this marriage will undoubtedly be accomplished in this Parliament, and that they expect easily to pacify your Majesty. I cannot tell upon what they rest this expectation, as I have always told them dis- tinctly the opposite, and shall do still before the game is concluded. The lady feels assured of it. She is braver than a lion. She said to one of the Queen's ladies that she wished all the Spaniards in the world were in the sea; and on the other replying that, for the honour of the Queen, she should not say so, she said that she did not care anything for the Queen, and would rather see her hanged than acknowledge her as her mistress."

In the struggle which followed, the Pope was in a most pitiable position. It is probably true that the Brief of January, 1531, was not obtained from him till it was extorted from him, though Musetula's language has hardly the definite- ness which Mr. Fronde gives it (p. 159). The fact, of course, was that the Pope cared very little indeed about the divorce.

His notions of morality cannot have been very advanced, when he seemed ready to grant a dispensation for the marriage of the Princess Mary and the King's natural son, the Duke of Richmond. He felt, probably, with many theologians of the time, that a much simpler solution existed, and that the matter was only important because of its political side.

Clement was fond also of Henry, and hated all the trouble of the divorce ; but with the Spaniards in Italy he was not his own master, and forced into a great deal of doable- dealing which Mr. Froude has very skilfully narrated.

Catherine's position became hopeless after the case was advocated, and Henry's resolute attitude became clear. But if Rome was not an impartial tribunal, that proposed for Cam- bray certainly was not either ; in fact, unless the Judges could have found some place too far for Henry's money or Charles's threats to reach them, there would have always been the same deadlock. At this time, as can well be believed, Catherine's presence at the Court became distasteful to Henry, and she

was sent to Moor Park. "The Nuncio," says Mr. Froude (p. 174), "remonstrated. He advised the King 'to recall her

to the Court and shut a hundred thousand tongues.' The King replied, 'nearly in tears,' that he had sent her away because she used such high words and was always threatening him with the Emperor." The letter which is the authority for this account, reads :—

" Yesterday, when the Nuncio was at Court, the King spoke to him in the same manner, and gave him particulars of the Queen's treatment. The Nuncio denied having written anything except what was notorious ; he believed what the King said, but, if he would recall the Queen to Court, it would not prejudice his case, and would shut the mouths of 100,000 persons. At this the King seemed confused, anti nearly in tears, and said he had sent her away so as not to injure his cause, and because she used such high words and was always speaking of the Emperor in a half- threatening way."

A slight difference will be noted here, if the two extracts are carefully compared.

If Cranmer's Bulls had been detained a little longer, the divorce might have bad a very different aspect.. Anne was with child, and it is not rash to assume that Henry's disap- pointment at the birth of Elizabeth might have made him act very differently to her mother. In any case, without speculating in this way, Chapuys saw reason enough for delay from Catherine's point of view. In writing about it on March 31st, 1533, he added :—" There is not a lord in the Court of either side who does not say publicly his Holiness will betray the Emperor. The Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk speak of it with more assurance, saying they know it well and could give good evidence of it." This is quoted here to note an omission. Mr. Froude (p. 211) stops where we have done, but the original adds, "though I believe their words proceed rather from hatred than from truth." Now, either the letter, as far as it regards the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, ought not to have been quoted at all (there is certainly very little need for it), or the qualification in the original ought to have been added.

In the matter of Fisher, the lapse of time has strengthened Mr. Froude's position that he was a traitor ; even Mr. Bridgett has had to admit that much. But whether he was put to death for being one is quite a different matter. It may, how- ever, be said, and with a certain amount of probability, that Henry was engaged in a great struggle, and that those who opposed him knew their risk, and that, further, he had many sources of information which we have not. The last is certainly likely enough to be true, and it is no answer to say that such information was not produced at the trial. If a charge so obviously iniquitous could secure the candemnation of More, it seems to us to imply an explanation which has application throughout the period. The jury saw that authorities desired the death of a man, and trusted that they had sufficient reasons.

Mr. Froude is at his best in narrative. He can tell the story, and has, like Green, shown how really interesting State Papers are. But his theories as to the causes of things fluctuate. The leaning of the King upon the middle classes he sees, but he only sees it partially, as the state-

ments he is so constantly making about the danger of the Kingdom from sedition abundantly show. The lesson

of the Letters and Papers is the strength of the Government, not its weakness; and how, if so large a proportion of the upper classes was disaffected, does he think that the monasteries were overthrown ? The Pilgrimage of Grace showed that the real danger, and the only one, came from the lowest class of all; the poor felt for a time Henry's measures the most severely. They, at all events, formed the only class in which the enthusiasm of a Crusade was possible.

The evidences for the history of the English Reformation are rapidly becoming complete. In so far as the reign of Henry VIII. is concerned, they have disclosed the small im- portance which the religious side of the change possessed in the eyes of the commercial and landed classes. Farmers, traders, and small landowners cared very little what change was made in the service-book, and to them the Pope was a mere name ; but they cared a great deal about the exactions of the ecclesiastical Courts, and they, and it is not improbable the secular clergy (whom Mr. Fronde is rather too fond of coupling with the regulars), hoped a great deal from the dissolution of the monasteries. Bat all matters connected with the Reformation will long, probably always, remain matters of dispute ; people who have the same evidence before them will take entirely different views of its signifi- cance. The case, for example, of the appointment of the Abbess of Wilton in the present volume looks very differently when treated of by Mr. Friedmann, and this is a fairly simple matter.

The grave defects in Mr. Froude's great History have perhaps obscured its reputation too much. As the author can con- fidently say in this supplementary volume, it is still read, though the critics did not treat it with favour. To some extent Mr. Fronde takes a pessimistic view of the real success which this implies. And certain it is that no one can do any work on the period covered by the History without reckon- ing with its author. Probably Mr. Froude's account of Henry VIII. will never be accepted, but he has led the van in the one school which has disclosed not a few errors in the works of the other. Henry was neither a mere brute nor a hero. Bishop Stubbs is much more likely to be right in the theory that. he went on trying what he could do till he found he could do almost anything. But it must never be forgotten that, as Mr. Fronde points out, this can only have been pos- sible on the supposition of very considerable sympathy with his projects on the part of his subjects.