Introduction

Introduction.

The introductory notice to the present volume must necessarily be short. Most of the letters and papers abstracted are chiefly, as in the two former volumes, from Simancas, Vienna, and Brussels; a few only from the National Archives of Paris. Of the Simancas papers, from which Bergenroth's collection of transcripts is almost exclusively taken, no further account is required, the subject having been exhausted in the prefaces to the two preceding volumes. However, as the readers will occasionally find letters and papers abstracted without any reference on the margin to the volumes and pages of that collection, a few words will perhaps be required to explain this circumstance. As far as regards the arrangement and classing of the papers, and the formation of indexes to facilitate research, no great progress has been made at Simancas, and things are pretty much in the same state as they were when Bergenroth left that establishment in 1870. (fn. n1) The contemplated removal of the State Papers to a larger and more commodious building in the capital or its immediate neighbourhood (fn. n2) has not yet been carried into effect, and instead of acting as an incentive to the chief and to the clerks of those Archives to prosecute the task already commenced of sorting and classifying the papers of the various reigns, has naturally rather had the effect of stopping further classification for the present. Hence follows that since Bergenroth's departure from that ruinous castle, where the papers of Castille have been kept ever since the time of Philip II., and since the present editor's late visits to those Archives, fresh papers relating to the reign of the Emperor Charles, and closely connected with English history, have been daily turning up, and now require insertion in their proper places. Generally speaking these are of no great importance; they reveal no new facts concerning the wearisome divorce case, or other points of English history, and yet, closely connected as they are with the despatches of Imperial ambassadors both at Rome and in London, it has been considered fitting and opportune to include them here, that they may facilitate the labours of future historians of this reign.

It has already been stated elsewhere (fn. n3) that in consequence of the wanton spoliation of the Archives of Simancas by the French in 1810—which notwithstanding the repeated applications of the Spanish Government has never been acknowledged or compensated—many important documents relating to the reign of Charles and his successors of the house of Austria are now in the French capital. The correspondence, however, of the Imperial ambassadors in Rome, Venice, Genoa, Ferrara, and Mantua, as well as the letters of Pescara, Bourbon, Vasto, Leyva, the prince of Orange, and other generals, remains untouched, forming as it were the base of this and preceding calendars; and that portion, undoubtedly the most valuable, comprising the letters of Praët, Mendoza, Chapuys, and other ambassadors in England, was never kept at Simancas. On the 27th of July 1529 Charles sailed from Barcelona to Savona for the avowed purpose of being crowned at Bologna as Emperor and King of the Romans, meeting the Turks in Hungary, pacifying the dissensions of Germany, and most likely also inducing the Pope to pronounce sentence in the divorce suit. He remained in Germany and Flanders till the 13th of November 1532, then went again to visit Bologna, and hold an interview with Clement, after which he embarked at Genoa, and on the 21st of April 1533 landed at Rosas, in Catalonia. During this interval of nearly four years spent out of Spain it stands to reason that the despatches of the Imperial ambassadors in France and England should be addressed to Brussels, where they might still have been, had not the Austrian Government, shortly after the battle of Fleurus, in 1794, ordered their removal to Vienna. It is not so easy to account for the fact of such correspondence during the remainder of 1533, the whole of 1534, and part of 1535, when Charles was in Spain preparing for his African expedition, being likewise addressed to Brussels, unless the proximity of Flanders and the Netherlands both to England and France, and the circumstance of the ambassadors themselves being natives of those countries, and not writing Spanish, rendered the keeping of such letters and documents in the Belgian Archives more convenient. (fn. n4) However this may be, the whole of what may be properly called the French and English correspondence in this volume and in succeeding ones, is, owing to the above causes, preserved either at Vienna, where the present editor has examined it, or at Paris, whence copies have been procured.

Respecting the writers of the despatches some notice is perhaps required, inasmuch as in the short interval between the meeting of the Queen Dowager of France (Louise de Savoie) and Margaret of Austria, at Cambray for the purpose of putting an end to the Italian wars, and Charles' arrival at Cologne and return to Flanders several changes occurred among the diplomatists charged with the management of his affairs in foreign parts, principally in England and France as well as at Rome.

Mendoza.
On the 7th of May 1529, when the present volume begins, Don Iñigo de Mendoza was still Charles' ambassador in England; a prisoner "on parole," but under no great restraint, since he was allowed to write home, and cross over to Calais, where he remained until the 1st of June, and the arrival there of the intelligence that, according to agreement Henry's ambassadors at the Imperial Court, Dr. Edward Lee and the bishop of Worcester (Ghinucci), had crossed the Spanish frontier into France. (fn. n5) Don Iñigo was at Brusselson on the 17th of June. His despatch from that capital describing his last conference, when he took leave of both King and Cardinal, contains also a summary of his previous letters wherein the subject of a separate peace with England, such as the Emperor wished it to be, had been discussed. (fn. n6) During his stay in Flanders Don Iñigo was naturally consulted on the mercantile relations between England and the Low Countries, on the divorce question, which was then assuming large proportions, and on all other points connected with the treaty of Cambray, about to be concluded by the combined efforts of the "two Ladies." He was present in February 1530 at the Emperor's coronation in Bologna, and after that sent by him to Naples to arrange certain matters connected with the administration of that kingdom, and the sale of the property confiscated from the rebel barons, both which matters, placed as they were in the hands of cardinal Pompeo Colonna, who succeeded Philibert de Chalon, prince of Orange, in the vice-regal office, (fn. n7) were in a precarious state. After Don lñigo's departure Jean le Sauch, who had been formerly in England as ambassador from the Low Countries, (fn. n8) was the bearer of credentials for cardinal Wolsey, who procured him an audience from the King at Windsor. His object this time was to announce the approaching conferences at Cambray, designed with a view to a general peace, as well as the Emperor's resolution to visit Italy, and the appointment of Chapuys to succeed Don Iñigo in the embassy.

Chapuys.
Of this latter diplomatist, whose despatches will henceforward form the principal and most important part of this and succeeding volumes, very little is known except that he was a Swiss by birth, perhaps a native of Geneva, (fn. n9) over which city the dukes of Savoy had then certain claims. This last conjecture seems very probable, since previous to his appointment at Barcelona, which must have taken place at the end of May, he was sent by Charles to the duke of Savoy (Carlo III.), on the same mission perhaps which a few months after was entrusted to the president of Burgundy (Hughes Marmier), to the treasurer of Besançon (Françis Bonvalot), and to Gutierre Lopez de Padilla. (fn. n10)

(fn. n11)

Chapuys' instructions bear the date of Barcelona, the 25th of June 1529. But owing to his journey to Monaco, Turin, and Geneva, and to his subsequent stay at Bruxels, where he held more than one interview with Don Iñigo, he did not reach London till the end of August, and owing to Henry's temporary absence from London could not obtain an audience till the 18th of September.† The memorandum advising measures to prevent the conclusion of an offensive alliance between England and France, abstracted in vol. iii., part 2, of this Calendar, and wrongly ascribed to Chapuys, cannot possibly be his, (fn. n12) but Don Iñigo's, who was still detained in London; the allusions there made by the writer of the paper admitting of no other construction. (fn. n13)

His name is written in various ways, sometimes Chappuis, at others Chapuys; he himself signs "Eustache Chapuys," and in two or three instances "Chappuys." The Spaniards and Italians called him Capucho and Capoccio.

Respecting Jean de le Sauch, Guillaume de Montfort, and Pierre de Rosymboz, who from time to time came to England on extraordinary missions from the Lady Margaret of the Low Countries, or from the Emperor himself, enough has been said in the introduction and notes to the preceding volumes. I will, however, observe that the second named was a Burgundian, grand squire to the Emperor, and that his death at Mantua in 1530 is recorded by Vandenesse. (fn. n14) Rosymboz, (fn. n15) who no doubt is the same person alluded to by Carlo Capello, the Venetian ambassador in London, in his despatches to the Doge dated June the 11th and July 31st 1532, was a native of Flanders. He came twice to England: once in 1530, to help Chapuys in his attempt to obtain Henry's assistance against the Turk, and again in 1532, as will be seen hereafter, charged with a mission to king James of Scotland.

Bonvalot.
In France Louis de Praët, and Nicolas Perrenot, sieur de Granvelle, took alternately care of the Emperor's affairs, until some time after Francis' challenge, the latter was confined to the castle of Vincennes, in retaliation for the arrest of the French ambassadors in Spain. After the payment of the ransom and consequent liberation of the sons of France (Francis the Dauphin, and Henri Duke of Orleans), a brother-in-law of Granvelle, who by that time had risen greatly in the Emperor's favour, and been appointed to succeed Mercurino di Gattinara in some, if not in all, of his charges, (fn. n16) was appointed to the French embassy. His name was François de Bonvalot, canon and treasurer of the metropolitan church of Besançon, abbot of St. Vincent and of Luxeuil, in Burgundy, and lastly governor of that see during the minority of Claude de la Baume, whom he ultimately succeeded. His sister, Nicole, married Nicolas Perrenot, to which circumstance is no doubt to be attributed his own rapid rise in office, as well as his nomination to the embassy of France, at a time when Francis' interference in the deliberations of the Sorbonne, about to pronounce its opinion on the divorce case, his close alliance with this country, and his constant desire of having the provisions of the treaty of Cambray altered with regard to Milan, required all the watchfulness and foresight of the most consummate diplomatists.

It was at Rome, then the centre of European politics, that the above-named questions and others of equal importance were to be discussed. The treaty of Barcelona, ratified by Clement VII. in June 1529, contained among its secret clauses both a project of conquest and a matrimonial alliance. As a token of friendship and reconciliation the Emperor was to subdue Florence, re-establish in it the rule of the Medici, and give his own natural daughter, Margaret, in marriage to Alessandro duke of Penna, Clement's nephew. The Pope, on the other hand, was to shut his ears to the professions and offers of the French, keep them out of Italy, and above all decide the divorce question in a manner agreeable to Charles. How far Clement fulfilled his most solemn engagements on the occasion the following pages will shew. After a most desperate struggle Florence was obliged to submit, and leprived of the constitution which in form, at least, had been maintained by Cosmo de' Medici and his descendants, and placed under the absolute rule of Alessandro. Charles' pressing solicitations for the meeting of a General Council with a view to the settlement of religious disputes in Germany and the prevention of civil war were completely disregarded; assistance against the invading Turk was feebly granted, and ultimately under various pretences withdrawn by France and England. In short Clement's shifting policy respecting the divorce case, his commission to Campeggio and Wolsey, which he had in the first instance promised never to revoke; his subsequent advocation of the suit to Rome, and refusal to have it tried in England, must have encouraged Henry to a course of action most offensive to the Emperor, and to his aunt, queen Katharine. It seems as if Clement's conduct in this and other affairs, his frequent protestations of attachment, the constant renewal of promises which he never intended to fulfil, had no other object than to lull Charles into confidence, to embarrass his policy, and by reducing his power to increase his own.

Santa Croce. Mai.
That such was Clement's constant aim appears sufficiently clear from the despatches of cardinal Santa Croce, (fn. n17) who after the departure of Juan Perez for Naples in March 1528, remained in charge of the Imperial embassy. The sack of Rome and the Pope's imprisonment by Bourbon's ruthless mercenaries having become a pretext for Francis' and Henry's message of defiance and subsequent declaration of war at Burgos, all the attention of the Emperor was naturally turned towards Rome, and every effort made by him to conciliate the Pope, and gain him over to his side. It was about this time, in June 1528, that the Emperor, being at Monçon, on the frontier of Aragon, ready to hold the Cortes of that kingdom, resolved to send to Rome Miçer Miguel Mai, (fn. n18) a Catalonian lawyer of some repute, who seems to have been designated at first to act as Katharine's counsel in the divorce suit. (fn. n19) Though his instructions bear the date of the 1st of October, Mai did not embark at Barcelona till the end of that month. He reached Naples in November, and arrived in Rome at the end of 1528, at a time when Clement was so dangerously ill that he was not expected to live, and that most of the cardinals, and among them Santa Croce and others attached to the Emperor, were seriously thinking of repairing to Avignon and there proceeding to the election of a new Pope. The situation was delicate and fraught with danger. Apart from the clouds that darkened the political horizon on all sides, Mai had to contend against the vacillations of Clement who, unwilling to offend Henry or Francis, had made to the former promises which he never fulfilled, and baited the latter with the possession of Milan, after the death of Francesco Sforza, perhaps too with that of Genoa, where his personal friend, Andrea Doria, ruled as chief magistrate. Though the divorce suit was by him advoked to the Rota at Rome, every possible subterfuge was invented to cause delay in the proceedings and impede the course of justice. Though powerfully assisted in his exertions by Praët, who in July 1529 was sent as extraordinary ambassador to Rome, Mai could never prevail upon Clement to pronounce definitive sentence. That he was frequently thwarted in his plans by cardinal Santa Croce, by Muxetula and by others who, having frequent access to the Pope, and enjoying his confidence, were, as churchmen, prone to counteract rather than support the plans of a layman, seems evident from certain passages of his official and private correspondence, in which he complains of their impeding the course of justice by too ready acquiescence in Clement's specious arguments and dilatory expedients.

Neither Santa Croce nor Muxetula (fn. n20) was properly speaking a colleague of Mai's, and yet the influence of both over Clement seems to have been very great at one time. The former represented the Emperor from February 1529 till the arrival of Mai; the latter had been with the Pope, first at Orbieto and afterwards at Viterbo. Both had no doubt special missions from Charles, but as their respective instructions have not been found it is natural to conclude that they were secret and perhaps of a nature to jar with those given to Mai in October 1528. That both accidentally dissented from him on such points as the convocation of the General Council, strongly recommended by Charles as the only means of putting an end to German dissensions, appears certain from the tenour of their official correspondence. The Imperial ambassador strongly suspected Clement's sincerity not only as regards the Council, but likewise on the divorce case; his despatches shew how differently he thought on those matters from the long-robed politicians whom Charles employed from time to time about the Pope. (fn. n21)

As Emperor of Germany and king of Spain Charles felt the necessity of always having at Rome both churchmen and laymen to represent him, and when the divorce suit was advoked thither by Clement he had invariably one cardinal, sometimes two, to promote his interests in that capital. In this manner Santa Croce, of whom we hardly hear anything after Charles' coronation at Bologna, was succeeded by the bishop of Jaen, and afterwards by no less a personage than Charles' confessor, Fray Garcia de Loaysa Mendoza, bishop of Osma.

Loaysa.
Of this remarkable ecclesiastic very little is known, except that he was born at Talavera de la Reyna, in New Castille, the son of Pedro Loaysa and Doña Catalina de Mendoza. Having in early youth entered the convent of Dominican friars at Peñafiel, he became soon counsel (definidor) and afterwards general of his order (1518). His biographers (fn. n22) say that during the war of the Commons he was most instrumental in reducing to obedience Don Pedro Lasso, "regidor" of Toledo, a service which the Emperor rewarded by appointing him his confessor, and giving him a place in his Privy Council. He accompanied Charles to Bologna, but for reasons hitherto unexplained, when the former left for Germany, Loaysa was deprived of his post of confessor, and sent to Rome as extraordinary ambassador. Some court intrigue seems to have been the cause of this temporary separation, which the good bishop, soon after promoted by Clement to the cardinalate, (fn. n23) always resented as a disgrace, for in his despatches to the Emperor, and private letters to Covos, he makes frequent allusions to what he calls his "unjust banishment," and his loss of the Emperor's favour in consequence, he says, of acts wrongly imputed to him and of which he was entirely innocent. (fn. n24) What these acts may have been it is not easy to determine. According to Gucciardini (fn. n25) when the news of Francis' capture arrived at Toledo, the Emperor's usual residence while in Spain, a Council was held to deliberate on the best means of turning the same to advantage. "At which Council," says that historian, "Don Fadrique second duke of Alba, the High Chancellor Mercurino di Gattinara, and others insisted upon the most rigorous terms as the price of the King's freedom, whilst Loaysa recommended a more magnanimous course, and such generous terms as would bind the King in future by the ties of gratitude, and secure also a lasting peace." But there is reason to doubt this statement though reproduced by Sandoval without any further proofs. Fr. Garcia was not appointed to the Emperor's Privy Council till (fn. n26) 1526, more than one year after the battle of Pavia, when the Madrid Convention (fn. n27) had been signed, and the King himself released from captivity, besides which there is no evidence of such an opinion, if ever entertained by the Bishop, having brought on him the Emperor's displeasure as asserted by that historian. The thing must have occurred at Bologna, soon after Charles' coronation, which took place on the 24th of February 1530, for on the 22nd of the ensuing March, the Imperial Court left for Mantua, and on the 25th, according to Vandenesse, (fn. n28) Fr. Garcia, already created cardinal, departed for Rome, his post of confessor having been given to Dr. Quintana. On the 13th of May he wrote to the Emperor: "I arrived here (at Rome) five days ago on the 8th inst., sad and disappointed, considering that I am coming away from Your Majesty's presence, and that as long as I am detained here I shall be restless and unhappy. My only consolation is that one of these days Your Majesty will acknowledge that my attendance at Court was not altogether unserviceable, and therefore that this my exile will be ended, and I myself allowed, if not to follow you in your travels for certain temporal considerations, at least to go back to Spain and reside in my church of Osma. Your Majesty has had the best of me this time: I have been cast away from your presence; your word has been fulfilled, and your resolution carried into effect." Again on the 8th of June he wrote: "So repugnant to me is my residence at this place (Rome) that I should have been driven to despair had not Your Majesty's kind letter of the 22nd ult^o been a comfort to me, as well as a presage that some day or other you will bear this in mind, that to cast away and disgrace faithful servants, and to sentence them to exile for the fault of others is decidedly wrong."

Was this and were other similar paragraphs in the Cardinal's correspondence dictated by a sense of Christian humility, or were they the expression of offended pride? However this may be, his letters evince such a spirit of independence, and such unrestrained tone of admonition and occasional reproof that we cannot but respect the man who spoke such a language to his Imperial master. Most of Fray Garcia's original despatches to the Emperor between the 13th of May 1530, and the 8th of June 1532, were published at Berlin in 1848 with a German translation and preface by Dr. G. Heine, (fn. n29) who two years before had paid a long visit to Simancas for that purpose. But, as is often the case, that scholar could not see all the Cardinal wrote, more letters having been found since his departure from Simancas, and especially several addressed to Francisco de los Covos, Charles' confidential secretary and adviser.

Some remarks about the manner of conducting business at the court of Charles may perhaps be opportune, the better to understand the meaning of the Cardinal's letters to Covos. It was at this time the usual practice for ambassadors and agents abroad to address their despatches to the Emperor. The secretaries of the various departments, Soria, Garcia, Idiaquez, and Vazquez read them first, made a summary of their contents, which Covos afterwards submitted to the Emperor, and returned, not unfrequently, with the Emperor's autograph decrees on the margins. Now and then the better to explain the meaning of certain passages in their official despatches, sometimes written in cipher, or in order to justify their conduct in words that might sound irreverent to the Emperor's ears, or bring forward their own private affairs and represent their wants—a too frequent occurrence in those times—Charles' ambassadors addressed Covos in private, and Loaysa was not the last in confiding to the High Commander of Leon his most secret thoughts. Indeed, his letters to that secretary, then at the head of the foreign department, will perhaps explain many an obscure passage in his official correspondence, and lead us into the most secret grooves of Clement's policy.

Don Estevan Gabriel Merino, the 22nd in number among the bishops of Jaen, in Andalusia, was another of the prelates appointed by Charles to represent him at Rome. He was a native of San Esteban del Puerto in that kingdom (1462), the son of Alonso Merino and Doña Mayor Amorcuende. His antecedents were humble enough. After studying for some years at Salamanca he was attached to the household of an ecclesiastic in the service of cardinal Pompeo Colonna, who on his return to Rome took Merino with him, and procured him a lucrative employment in the Vice-Chancellor's office. Here his assiduity and his talent so far gained him the affection of the Cardinal that when in consequence of his quarrel with Leo X. Pompeo was obliged to fly from Rome and take refuge in France, he took Merino with him as one of his secretaries, and upon his return to that capital had him appointed to a canonry in Jaen together with the archdeaconry of Baeza in that cathedral. Merino, however, did not leave Rome on this occasion, but continued to enjoy Papal favour until Leo X. entrusted to him certain business of importance. This he discharged so well that in 1517 he was made archbishop of Bari, and Apostolic Nuncio in Spain, which office he is said to have filled so much to the satisfaction of Charles, that he was, besides all that this office involved, employed in matters of the greatest importance for Spain, and rewarded with the bishopric of Leon. When in May 1520 Charles left for Flanders, and his preceptor, cardinal Adrian, who, two years after was raised to the pontificate, was entrusted by him with the government of his Spanish kingdoms, Merino was appointed Lord Chief Justice (Justicia Mayor) of Toledo, in which capacity he rendered great services, gained a signal victory over the "Comuneros," and contributed greatly to put down that formidable rebellion. As a reward Merino was promoted in 1522 to the see of Jaen, as well as to the newly created "Patriarchate of the Indies." In 1529 he was sent again to Italy to announce Charles' intended journey, and prepare things for his coronation. He accompanied Clement to Bologna, was raised to the cardinalate in the same year and went back with him to Rome, where he staid until he was sent to Venice on a mission. Mai, the ambassador, complains occasionally of him and of Muxetula as of men who, having frequent access to the Pope, and being deceived by him, made frequently statements contrary to his own, and often undid the good that might otherwise have been worked. So versatile was Clement's temper, and such his taste for political intrigue that we cannot help thinking Mai's accusations to have been to a certain extent well founded.

Garay. Conjointly with Miçer Miguel Mai, two more Spanish churchmen, one in Paris, the other in Rome, had special charge of watching the divorce suit. Of the former, Garay, we only know that he resided many years in Paris, was a doctor in theology, and received from the Imperial ambassador, Bonvalot, the commission of watching the proceedings of the Faculty at the Sorbonne, when called upon to give its opinion in the divorce case. His letters, which like many other papers relating to this period, are preserved in the National Archives of France, being part of the spoil made at Simancas, are for the most part in Bergenroth's collection of transcripts. Ortiz. Of his colleague, Dr. Ortiz, we are able to give more particulars. He was a native of Valladolid, had gained high degrees at the university of Salamanca, where he obtained a professorship, and made himself conspicuous as a canonist. In October 1530, and when the divorce suit was being tried at the Rota, Dr. Ortiz (fn. n30) whose Christian name seems to have been Pedro, was on the recommendation of Don Iñigo de Mendoza and Nicolas Perrenot, (fn. n31) sent out from Spain to Rome to act as Katharine's proctor. His despatches give us the idea of a fiery zealot, well versed, it is true, in scholastic theology, but at the same time exceedingly vain and presumptuous. His credulity must have been beyond measure, for in one of his despatches, which will be abstracted in the second part of this volume, he does not hesitate to assert that "queen Katharine slew with her own hand king James IV. of Scotland at the battle of Flodden!"

Soria, Figueroa, Caracciolo, Lope de Soria, Gomez Suarez de Figueroa, and prothonotary Marino Caracciolo have each had their separate notices in the introduction to the preceding volumes. The former continued to report from Siena, whither he was sent before the siege and fall of Florence, to settle the various feuds by which that Republic was distracted, negotiate the recall of the "fuorusciti," or political emigrants, and above all maintain its citizens in the Emperor's devotion at a time when the still unsettled state of affairs in Germany, the threatened invasion of Hungary by the Turk, the attempt made by Francis to have the treaty of Cambray modified in some of its clauses, and his constant cravings after the duchy of Milan, rendered it imperative for Charles to remove all causes of discord, as well as every pretence for French intervention in the affairs of Italy. At Genoa Gomez Suarez de Figueroa had charge of watching the movements of Andrea Doria, whose fidelity was somewhat suspected, whilst Caracciolo's business at Milan, as chief justice and chancellor, consisted in maintaining the Emperor's feudal rights over the Duchy. The secret instructions given to him, conjointly with Antonio de Leyva, to treat with the marquis, afterwards duke, of Mantua, are a sufficient proof of the trust the Emperor placed in him. (fn. n32) Although St. Pol's defeat at Landriano in 1529, and the consequent breaking up of the Italian league, the advances made by Clement to the Imperial ambassadors at Rome, and the mission of the bishop of Vaison (fn. n33) to Barcelona were fair harbingers of the peace and alliance signed on the 5th of August 1529, it was nevertheless very important for the Emperor that the country he purposed to visit should be entirely pacified on his arrival, the services of the duke of Ferrara (Alfonso d'Este) and of the marquis of Mantua (Federigo Gonzaga) secured, and the future destinies of the duchy of Milan settled in a permanent way, so as to please Clement and particularly the Venetians, who dreaded above all things the retention of the Duchy by the Emperor, or his bestowing the investiture of it upon his brother Ferdinand. Caracciolo's negotiations were crowned with success; Francesco Sforza was again re-instated in his duchy on condition of paying a heavy fine; the duke of Ferrara, allured by the promise of help and favour in his long disputes with Clement about Reggio and Modena, remained strictly neutral, and joined at last the new Italian league proposed by Charles, whilst Federigo Gonzaga accepted willingly the command in chief of the Imperial troops, vacant by the death of the prince of Orange slain at Favignana, and contributed most effectively to the pacification of Italy.

Niño. After the peace signed at Cambray on the 5th of August 1529, Caracciolo was sent to Venice to treat with the Signory. He went thither with a Spanish nobleman named Don Rodrigo Niño, who, upon the Prothonotary's return to Milan, remained in charge of the Imperial embassy. Of this Niño, whose despatches are in remarkable accord with Sanuto's diary and the very interesting papers published by Rawdon Brown, we are unable to furnish particulars. We suppose him to have been the son of Hernando, and the great grandson of that chivalrous Don Pedro, count of Buelna, who in 1403 commanded the Spanish fleet against the Moorish pirates in the Mediterranean, and who two years later, during the war between France and England, joined the Constable Charles D'Albret, count of Dreux, in an expedition against the English coast. (fn. n34)

Papers about the divorce abound at Simancas; some are original, others copies from the Vatican. In 1565 Philip II. commissioned an Aragonese lawyer of the name of Juan Berzosa, or Verzosa, to go to Rome, and have transcripts made of all papers that might interest Spain in an ecclesiastical as well as political point of view, and especially of all those relating to Henry's divorce from his queen, Katharine. What can have been Philip's object in thus procuring copies from the Vatican on a question long forgotten we cannot guess, unless he had at the time some idea of disputing Elizabeth's accession to the throne on the ground of illegitimacy. That a few years before his own marriage to Mary in 1545, and during Somerset's protectorate, an attempt was made to establish and uphold the right of Katharine's daughter to the succession, seems very probable from the fact that attested copies were made by that King's order of the interrogatories addressed in 1531 to various persons of that Queen's household, with a view to prove her marriage with Henry to have been lawful and contracted under proper and legitimate dispensation. However this may be, the reader will find scattered through the present volume a number of papers against the divorce, such as the opinions of universities in Spain, as well as those of Spanish and Italian canonists consulted thereupon. Several are in Bergenroth's collection; a few have a date and have been calendared accordingly; most are without it, and have been placed at the end of the volume, in a supplement, as it was very uncertain whether they belonged to the end of 1530, or ought to be calendered within 1531. It would appear, however, that owing no doubt to the difficulty of procuring evidence after so many years, the papers and deeds were not forwarded to Rome as soon as Miçer Mai expected; for on the 2nd (fn. n35) of October 1530 he wrote to the High Commander: "The proceedings against the divorce suit are at a standstill; contrary to my expectations the papers and documents I have so often applied for have not yet arrived." On the 18th he thus addressed the Emperor: "A copy of the proceedings instituted in England by the two legates Wolsey and Campeggio) is absolutely necessary; without it nothing can be done here." Chapuys was accordingly ordered to procure the papers, but on the 13th of November answered, "an attested copy of such legal proceedings is out of the question and cannot be obtained in England." All through 1531 Mai insisted on the necessity of fresh testimony being forwarded to Rome from Spain as a proof that Katharine's marriage to prince Arthur had been contracted for the purpose of a closer alliance between the kings of Spain and England, and that motives of policy had likewise determined her union to Henry VIII. A most scrupulous search was then instituted throughout Spain and an application made to Ruiz de Puebla, whose father had been ambassador in England, as well as to Miguel Perez de Almaçan, Quintana, Conchillos, and others among Ferdinand's secretaries. At Burgos, Valladolid, Toledo, and other towns of Castille, as well as at Saragossa, in Aragon, orders (fn. n36) were received by the magistrates and "Corregidores" to examine witnesses; all persons, male or female, who once belonged to Katharine's household, and were found still alive were closely interrogated as to the circumstances attending her first marriage. Yet only a small portion of the papers thus procured reached Rome, and when they did they were, as will be seen, of no use.

As Berzosa's collection, now preserved at Simancas, may be of use hereafter, I subjoin a summary of its contents as regards the divorce. It begins with the following title:

Incipiunt Scripturæ et gesta ac tractata (sic) circa matrimonium Regis Henrici Angliæ et Reginæ Catherinæ Catholicorum Regum filiæ.

1. Censura Universitatis Bononiæ in qua matrimonium Henrici Regis Angliæ cum Catherina Catholicorum Regum filia invalidum declaratur anno MDXXX.

2. Responsio Pontificis super lite matrimonii inter Regem Angliæ et Reginam Catherinam.

3. Litera Regis Angliæ in qua conqueritur de Pontifice in causa matrimonii. Apud Hamptom Cour (sic) sexto die Decembris MDXXX. Countersigned: Petrus Vannes.

4. Signatura di sua Sanctita circa il matrimonio d'Inghilterra. Nec non tenor brevis in commissione causæ Thomæ Sanctæ Ceciliæ, et Laurentio Sancti Calisti et Sanctæ Mariæ in Transtiberim Presbiteris Cardinalibus in Regno Angliæ, nostris et Apostolicæ Sedis legatis. Datum in Urbe Veteri anno MDXXVIII. Countersigned: et, Episcopus Portuensis. — Lau[rentius], Episcopus Prenestinensis.—Jac. Simoneta.

5. Tenor commissionis causæ in Curia.

6. Burgensis primæ remisoriæ.

Commission and letters sent to the bishop of Burgos to have witnesses examined in Spain. The Bishop alluded to was Don Iñigo de Mendoza, Imperial ambassador in England between 1526 and 1529.

7. Compostellani tertiæ remissoriæ.

Similar commission and letters to the archbishop of Santiago, de Compostela Don Juan Tavera.

8. Palentini quartæ remissoriæ.

Addressed to the bishop of Palencia, Don Pedro Sar-miento, who died at Lucca on the 13th of October 1541.

9. In curia Imperatricis remissoriæ.

Letters addressed to the Empress Isabella for the examination of witnesses in Spain.

10. Responsio Reverendissimi Anconitani.

The answer by Accolti, cardinal of Ancona, to certain petitions of the English ambassadors.

11. Responsio Pontificis ad Regem Angliæ.

12. Summa defensionis eorum quæ adversus Angliæ Regem constituta fuere. Quod rectè et legitimè S[anctitas] .[estra] mandavit quod ob contumaciam Regis eoabsente in causa procederetur.

13. Quod legitima fuit Sanctitatis vestræ declaratio super attentatis facta.

14. Remissoriæ Casaraugustanæ ab Honorando Joanne Bernardi de Abançatis, mercatore Florentino, exhibitæ, de comensu atque ex parte Revdi Patris Domini Pauli Capisuciis, juris utriusque doctoris, canonicæ basilicæ Principis Apostolorum de Urbe, Sanctissimi domini nostri domini Clementis Papæ, septimi.

15. Quæ per viam Consilii afferri possi videbuntur in causa Matrimonie Angli.

16. Allegationes super dispensationes.

17. Allegationes super dispensationem matrimonii cumuxore fratris. A. Fratre Felice Pratensi, Ordinis Heremiticæ Sancti Augustini. (See No. 437, p. 729).

18. Consilium Oldradi.

19. Petitiones Oratorum Angliæ.

The above is a list of contents of one of the volumes in the Berzosa collection of transcripts from the Archives of the Vatican. It is remarkable that neither the bull of pope Julius II., nor the brief of dispensation, the original of which was exhibited at Burgos to the English ambassadors (Dr. Lee and Ghinucci, the bishop of Worcester), is among them. Nor is it at Simancas, as far as I am aware, though the conclusions in favour of its validity by the universities of Salamanca, Alcalá, Granada, as well as the private opinions of such doctors and canonists as Illescas, Alfonso de Virués, Pisa, Sepulveda (fn. n37) and many others are carefully preserved.

Perrenot. A few more words respecting those officials who during the time comprised in this Calendar enjoyed Charles' confidence, and were at the head of the administration will not be out of place here. After the death of Gattinara at Innsbruck, on the 4th of May 1530, Nicolas Perrenot, sieur de Granvelle, was made Keeper of the Seals. (fn. n38) It was through him, and through the Imperial Privy Council, composed of the archbishop of Toledo (Fonseca), of cardinals Loaysa, Merino, and Tavera, of the dukes of Alba and Bejar, of the counts of Nassau, Osorno, Cifuentes, of Don Juan Manuel, Don Gutierre de Padilla, &c., that the political business of Charles' widely spread Covos. dominions was conducted. Francisco de los Covos who from a clerk in the office of Lope de Conchillos, rose in 1517 to the important post of one of Charles' secretaries and who, after the disgrace and exile of Allemand, became secretary to the Emperor's Privy Council instituted in 1526, was also, as it were, his Minister of Foreign Affairs. (fn. n39) He was subsequently appointed High Commander of Leon, in the order of Santiago, "Adelantado," or frontier-captain of Cazorla in the archbishopric of Toledo, and duke of Sabiote. A native of Ubeda in the kingdom of Jaen, the son of Diego de los Covos and Doña Catalina de Molina, Covos enjoyed his master's utmost confidence till the day of his death, May 1547, when the Emperor is said to have written to his son Philip, "No greater loss could I and you sustain than that which is now caused by the death of faithful Covos." (fn. n40)

As usual this volume will have no index, and no "additions and corrections," both being reserved for the better convenience of the reader for the end of the second part. In place of the former a Table of Contents has been for the present substituted, the latter being meant to correct such errors as may have escaped the editor in abstracting the letters, as well as those mistakes which are only to be ascribed to the writers themselves—not always well informed—or to the copyists who in the various archives have undertaken the task of deciphering and transcribing the documents. In anticipation, however, of such a revise, reserved for the second part, I cannot but call attention to a few inaccuracies which might otherwise puzzle the reader. In the second note of page 1, allusion is made to a bishop of Vassone or Vassoniensis, who is frequently, I might add generally, designated by the name of Girolamo Selade (Seladeus or Seledeus). By referring, however, to the Gallia Christiana and other French authorities, I find that his true name was Jerome Sclède; that he was a Frenchman by birth, bishop of Vaison in the department of Vaucluse, and chamberlain to pope Clement. (fn. n41)

Though the protest of the Lutheran princes at No. 20, page 46, is clearly dated from Nuremberg, the 27th of May 1529, there must be error somewhere, for that document was drawn up one month before at Spires on the 19th of April, subscribed by the landgrave Philip and by the elector of Saxony on the 5th of May, and published on the 13th after their departure from that town. It is only by supposing the Simancas copy, which is in a contemporary handwriting; to have been addressed to Charles from Nüremberg that the difference in the dates and places can be reconciled. As to the instructions of Ferdinand, the king of Bohemia and Hungary to Diego Lasso de Castilla and Bonacursio di Trino (No. 21) bearing also the date of the 27th May, and placed immediately after in Bergenroth's volume, (fn. n42) it is evident that it can only apply to the year 1539, when the second diet of Nüremberg was held.

Again, at page 48, the names of the German princes who signed the above protest of Spires are incorrectly given in Mai's despatch to the Emperor dated the 27th (?) May, Count Hannalt can be no other than Wolfang, prince of Anhalt. That ambassador, who was not over particular in the spelling of foreign names, invariably calls the duke elector of Saxony duke of Jassa, mistaking him for Philip landgrave of Hesse, i.e., Hassa or Hassia, as the Spaniards of that age designated both Hesse Cassel, and Hesse Darmstadt. (fn. n43) The letter of Martin de Salinas, though himself Ferdinand's ambassador, (No. 48, p. 99,) contains inaccuracies of the same sort; he renders "Reichs regiment" by "dieta" instead of "Regimiento," or municipality, and erroneously refers the meeting to Innsbruck instead of Esslinghen. Errors of this kind are frequent in the despatches of that ambassador, who as well as Christoval de Castillejo, Fernando de Salamanca, Castro, and others of Ferdinand's secretaries were natives of Spain and not sufficiently acquainted with the German language. Nor was Chapuys in London quite exempt from faults of this kind, as we shall be able to shew in the "Additions and Corrections" to the second part, which will likewise contain a list of errata scarcely to be avoided in a work of this kind, bristling with foreign words and names in almost every European language.