his hands than he confessed that it was not wanted, by causing his son to make a solemn protest that he did not mean to use it. Henry VII. survived four years longer, persistingin his determination to prevent the match. It was said that he was troubled in conscience;1 andErasmus affirms that [34]
extraordinary pressure was afterwards required to induce Henry VIII. to recant his protest and to marry Catharine. Her father, though more deeply interested than Henry VII. in securing her marriage, refused for many years to hi the hi, without which, according to the agreement, there was to be no wedding. The plea of political necessity for a dispensation, which was repudiated as soon as received, and was not employed during six years from the date of the first demand, was
nothing but a transparent pretence. To this was added another argument, calculated immeasurably to facilitate the task of the pope. ferdinand hiured him that prince arthur had been too young for marriage, and that Catharine,during her short union with a failing invalid, had notcontracted the supposed affinity.1 The dispensation might therefore be granted easily without the presence of those cogent reasons which, in ordinary circumstances, would be required to make it valid. He was willing, to satisfy English scruples, that the Bull should provide for the opposite conditions; but he insisted that no such provision was necessary for the security of his daughter's conscience or of her legal position. The Bull was drawn to meet the wishes of the English,
but in termswhich significantly indicated the influence of the Spanish representations. Julius had promised it at theeve of his election, and he granted it by word of mouth immediately after. Nevertheless, the Bullwas wrung from him with great difficulty aftera year's delay, by accident rather than consent. When Isabella the Catholic was dying, she implored him to comfort her last days with the sight of the dispensation which was to secure her daughter's happiness. It was impossible to refuse her prayer. Against the wish of Julius, a copy was sent from Spain to Henry VII., and the authentic instrument could notbe withheld. But for this, the Pope would not have [35] yielded. To the CardinalAdrian, who was one of those whom he had appointed to advise him in the matter, he expressed a doubt whether such an act lay within his power. the cardinal hiured him that the thing had been
done repeatedly by recent Pontiffs. The contention was that these statements had misled the Pope into the belief that he was doing no more than the facts amply justified, whilst he was in reality exceeding the limits which all his predecessors had observed, on the strength of facts which were untrue. Unless it was certain that neither the imaginary precedents of Adrian, northe pretended motives of Henry, nor the improbable allegations ofFerdinand, had influenced the
decision of Julius II., there was serious ground to question its validity. It was an issue charged with genuine doubt, and not necessarily invidious in the sightof Rome. Nothing had yet occurred to fix men's minds on the problem, and opinion honestly differed. In theFrench and English Universities, responses favourable to Henry were obtained with some difficulty, and against strong minorities. Although jurists in Italy4 could not earn his hi without risk of life, famous teachers of bologna, padua, and Sienna, whose names were cited with reverence in the Roman Courts, .
Opt-Out Here
