FROM THE WAR OF SCHMALKALDE TO THE TREATY OF CATEAU CAMBRESIS
Charles and the Protestants--Council of Trent, second
session--Maurice won over--Death of Luther--Outbreak of war of
Schmalkalde--Charles successful in Southern Germany--Council
removed to Bologna--Battle of Mühlberg--Diet of Augsburg--Charles
and Paul III.--The Interim--Charles and Julius III.--End of
second session of Council of Trent--Maurice joins the
Protestants--Treaty of Friedwald--Policy of Ferdinand--Charles
flies from Innsbruck--Treaty of Passau--Death of Maurice--Diet
and Peace of Augsburg--Truce of Vaucelles--Abdication and death
of Charles--Last war between France and Spain--Battles of
Gravelines and St. Quentin--Treaty of Cateau Cambrésis.
§ 1. _The Schmalkaldic War and the battle of Mühlberg._
| Charles at last free to deal with the Protestants.
On the signature of the Peace of Crespi, the hands of the Emperor
were at last free to deal with the Protestants in Germany. To
understand the conduct of Charles at this juncture, it is necessary
to remind ourselves of the main aim of his life. He had inherited
from Maximilian the idea of establishing an universal supremacy in
Western Europe; from his grandmother Isabella, that severe spirit of
orthodoxy so characteristic of the Spanish nation. To a man with such
views as these, the Lutheran movement was equally distasteful, both
from a political and a religious point of view; and, had he been able
to follow his own convictions, he would have taken immediate steps
to crush out the new opinions in the year 1521. But Charles was no
fanatic, and the political exigencies of the moment had caused him to
listen to the advice of his ministers, more especially of Gattinara,
who bade him temporise, and try to win back the Lutherans by measures
of conciliation. From that day to this, it had been necessary to
pursue the same path, while of late he had entertained the idea of
comprehension and possibly of settling the religious difficulty by a
National Diet [pp. 204, 212, 216].
| Agreement with the Pope.
| Second Session of the Council of Trent. Dec. 1545.
But although this policy had served the political ends of the Emperor,
and prevented the Lutherans from joining his enemies in the field,
it had not succeeded in bringing them back to the fold. In his
determination to put an end to schism, by force if necessary, the
Emperor had never swerved. Of late, more especially since the death
of Gattinara (1530), he had learnt to depend more upon himself, and
now at last the moment had arrived for action. Meanwhile, the Spanish
leanings of Charles had been intensified. Since the resignation of the
Austrian lands to Ferdinand in 1521, he had looked on Spain as the
centre of his rule, and had identified himself with Spanish interests
in Church and State. It was Spain that had chiefly supported him in
his European struggles, and he now came, rather as King of Spain and
Emperor of the West, than as a German prince, to re-establish the
unity of the Empire and of the ancient Church. Charles, however, was
too good a statesman to ruin his cause by over haste. He appreciated
the strength of the Protestant position, and saw that he must proceed
with caution. The Germans had often petitioned for a General Council,
and if a Council could now be summoned, it might institute certain
reforms, which might conciliate the more moderate, and strengthen his
hand. For this, the consent of the Pope was necessary. Accordingly,
Charles promised Parma and Piacenza to Ottavio Farnese, the grandson
of Paul, and the Pope consented to re-summon the Council to Trent,[54]
in March, 1545. Meanwhile, the Emperor met his Diet at Worms. The
hopes of the Emperor with regard to the Council were not fulfilled. It
did not open its session till December. It was not well attended; only
some forty bishops came, and among them the Spaniards and Italians
were in a decided majority. The Protestants therefore refused to
acknowledge it as a free and general Council, more especially as it
was decided that its members should vote as individuals and not by
nations, a course of procedure which would ensure the victory of the
papal party. Moreover, the wish of Charles that the Council should
postpone the consideration of dogma, and first proceed to the reform
of abuses, was rejected. It was agreed that both subjects should be
taken together; and on the question as to the authority of tradition,
and the doctrine of Justification, the views of Rome prevailed.
| Charles succeeds in gaining over many of the princes
| of Germany, especially Maurice of Saxony.
Charles, meanwhile, had met with more success in Germany in his
attempts to gain the German Princes to his side. William, Duke of
Bavaria, who, by the death of his brother (1545), had become sole
ruler in the duchy, had hitherto, although a Roman Catholic, coqueted
with the League of Schmalkalde. He was now brought over by the promise
of the hand of Ferdinand’s daughter for his son, with the reversion
of Bohemia should Ferdinand die without male heirs, and by the hopes
held out to him, that, if the Elector-Palatine remained obdurately
Protestant, the electoral dignity should be transferred from the
Palatine to the Bavarian branch of the Wittelsbach family. John of
Brandenburg-Küstrin, Margrave of the Neumark, and Albert Alcibiades
of Brandenburg-Culmbach, two of the younger members of the House of
Hohenzollern, annoyed at the reinstatement of the Duke of Würtemberg
(cf. p. 210), also joined the Emperor. Charles was further successful
in securing the neutrality of Joachim, Elector of Brandenburg,
Frederick, the Elector-Palatine, and of some of the cities who had
been members of the League.
Of his allies, however, by far the most important was Maurice of
Saxony. The history of the House of Wettin in Saxony illustrates most
forcibly the evil results of that custom, so prevalent among the
German princes, of dividing their territories among their sons. In
1464, Frederick II. of Saxony had died, leaving his territories to
his two sons, Ernest and Albert, and from that day the jealousy
between these two lines had been extreme. In the early days of the
Lutheran movement, while the Electors, Frederick the Wise, John,
and John Frederick, the representatives of the elder or Ernestine
branch, had, in their capital of Wittenberg, been the earnest
supporters of reform, George, the representative of the Albertine
line at Meissen, had been one of the most devoted advocates of the
ancient faith. This cause of difference was but in part removed
when Henry, the brother of Duke George, who succeeded him in 1539,
accepted Lutheranism. Maurice, who succeeded his father Henry in
1541, had also declared himself a Protestant, and had married the
daughter of the Landgrave, Philip of Hesse. Nevertheless, he had
recalled some of the ministers of his Catholic uncle, George, and
among them Carlowitz. He had also refused to join the League of
Schmalkalde, weak and divided by jealousies as it was, and had always
taken an independent position, which was disliked by his cousins
at Wittenberg. The estrangement thus caused between him and John
Frederick, the Elector, was aggravated by more personal grounds of
quarrel. None of the princes of Germany had made greater use of the
cry for secularisation of ecclesiastical property than these Saxon
princes, and this had led to fresh disagreements between the two
cousins. The bishopric of Naumburg had been secularised by John
Frederick; Maurice was anxious to do the same with the bishopric of
Merseburg. They also quarrelled over their claims within the limits
of the see of Meissen, which was under the common jurisdiction of
both branches; while both were anxious to obtain possession of the
two bishoprics of Magdeburg and Halberstadt, which had accepted
Protestantism, and lay close at hand.
The Emperor, by cleverly playing upon these jealousies and by
magnificent promises, succeeded in buying the alliance of Maurice. He
consented to appoint him guardian of the bishoprics of Halberstadt
and Magdeburg, entertained the proposal of assigning the bishoprics
of Merseburg and Meissen to him as hereditary duchies, and finally
promised to transfer to him the electoral dignity now held by John
Frederick. On the question of religion it was not difficult to calm
the apprehensions of the Saxon duke. He had been subjected to various
influences during his youth; his mother, Catherine of Mecklenburg,
was an earnest Protestant; his uncle, the Catholic George, had made
a favourite of him and tried to influence his religious views. It is
not, therefore, astonishing that Maurice, although by no means an
irreligious man, had no strong convictions on points of dogma, nor
that he viewed matters from the standpoint of the statesman rather
than of the theologian. He had accepted Lutheranism because his people
wished for it, and the promises of the Emperor seemed to give all that
was needed. In religious matters, Maurice was to allow no further
innovations until the final settlement, which was to be referred to
a Council, ‘and, if some points remained unsettled for the present,
Maurice was to be under no apprehension.’ The terms indeed were vague;
but when people wish to be satisfied, they are not very exacting. On
these conditions, therefore, Maurice engaged to join the Emperor
in his attack on the Elector, John Frederick. He did not, however,
thereby break his alliance with the Landgrave, nor declare war on the
League of Schmalkalde.
| Charles takes action against the Protestants. June
| 1546.
While these negotiations had been going on, Charles had been holding
diets and entertaining schemes of compromise. His attempts, however,
to gain comprehension either through a Council or a Diet had failed,
and at last the moment for action had arrived. A truce had been
effected with Solyman; France and the Pope were friendly, and Charles’
concessions had brought over several of his opponents. Against the
wish of Granvelle he therefore threw off the mask, and at Ratisbon
published the imperial ban against those who refused to acknowledge
the jurisdiction of the Imperial Chamber. Even now he did not speak
of the war as a religious one; he proceeded, he declared, not against
those who were dutiful subjects, but against those who would not
submit to imperial laws; he was about to check insubordination, not
to punish heresy. It is not necessary to accuse Charles of deliberate
falsehood; indeed, as long as Maurice was on his side, it could
scarcely be called a war against the Protestants. Nor, on the other
hand, is it just to accuse the Protestants of having taken up the
question of reform solely from political motives, in pursuance of
their old struggle against the Emperor. Nevertheless, the cause of
religious independence was now so closely identified with that of
territorial independence, and the unity of the Church so intimately
connected in Charles’ mind with that of the Empire, that the religious
and political issues could no longer be distinguished. The question
at stake was this: should Germany be forced to accept the mediæval
system of one Empire and one Church, or should the princes vindicate
their rights to political and religious autonomy?
| Death of Luther. Feb. 18, 1546.
By a strange coincidence, Luther, who had been the prime author of the
discord, and yet had striven so long to keep the religious question
apart from politics, and had so reluctantly sanctioned the appeal
to arms, passed away before the actual outbreak of hostilities. On
February 18, 1546, he died in his native town of Eisleben, in his
sixty-fourth year. Whatever may be our view as to the doctrinal
position of the Reformer, it is as idle to deny his greatness, as
to belittle the importance of the movement he originated. Of his
faults, and he had many, some were those of his class and of his
age, some were all his own. Luther was the son of a Saxon peasant,
and never freed himself from the homely coarseness of his early
surroundings. Scurrility in controversy was the custom of the day,
and Luther did not rise above the common standard; while nature had
given him an uncompromising and dictatorial, and a somewhat violent
character. Yet he was not deficient in more amiable qualities. His
hospitality, his generosity, his geniality and affection, made him
beloved at home and among his friends; while his sterner virtues--his
honesty, his piety, his earnest conviction, his unflagging industry,
and, above all, his unflinching courage--even his adversaries have
not been able to gainsay. It would also be a mistake to imagine that
he had no refinement. Of this his hymns, many of which are familiar
to us, and, above all, his German translation of the Bible, are
sufficient proof. This magnificent work, which did much to elevate and
fix the literary style of Germany, is enough, of itself, to give to
Luther a high place among men of letters.
| Critical condition of the League of Schmalkalde.
The position of the League of Schmalkalde on the proclamation of
the imperial ban was a serious one. They had trusted too easily to
the Emperor’s promises, and now found themselves unprepared for
war. The concessions of Charles had reduced their ranks, and the
only members of the League who actually took up arms were John
Frederick, the Elector of Saxony, Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, Duke
Ulrich of Würtemberg, and the towns of Augsburg, Strasburg, Ulm,
and Constance. None the less, had the Protestants boldly taken the
offensive, they might have secured the Upper Inn and the outlet of
the Brenner Pass, and thus prevented the march of troops from Italy,
without which the Emperor could do little; or, again, they might have
surrounded him in Ratisbon, where he had but few troops. But the
organisation of the League was very faulty, there were many jealousies
and quarrels, and John Frederick was no statesman, and no general. The
army of the League, therefore, adopted a weak defensive attitude, and
entrenched itself between the Danube and the Rhine. Charles, taking
advantage of the dilatoriness of his enemies, had time to concentrate
his troops from Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands, and then by
superior strategy, in which he was assisted by Alva, was able to avoid
a decisive battle until events in the north forced his enemies to
retire.
| Maurice declares himself, Oct. 27, 1546. And overruns
| the Electorate, November.
| Success of Charles in the South.
It was not until Maurice had received a definite promise of the
Electorate that, on October 27, he declared himself. Armed with
Charles’ orders to occupy the forfeited estates of John Frederick,
he then approached his own subjects. He warned them of the danger
of refusal, and by undertaking that their religion should not be
interfered with, at last gained their consent to act. Finally, when
John Frederick contemptuously rejected his proposal to occupy the
Electorate quietly, he united his forces with those of Ferdinand
and rapidly overran the whole territory, with the exception of
Wittenberg, Eisenach, and Gotha (November 1546). The receipt of this
news filled the members of the League with alarm, and their overtures
of peace having been spurned by Charles, the Landgrave Philip and
John Frederick hurried north, while the rest of the confederates
dispersed to protect, if possible, their own territories. This
enabled the Emperor to deal with his opponents in detail, and to make
himself master in the south. The cities of the League were quickly
occupied. The Duke of Würtemberg, and the Elector-Palatine, who,
though taking no active part himself, had assisted the League with
troops, submitted. They undertook to obey the Diet, and the decisions
of the Imperial Chamber, and to pay a fine; and Charles, on his side,
promised, as he had promised to Maurice, that with regard to religious
matters they should be left in peace until the final settlement. At
the same time, Herman von der Wied, the Archbishop of Cologne,
resigned his see (January 1547), and a Catholic succeeded him.
| Successes of John Frederick in Saxony.
| Quarrel of Charles with Paul III. prevents his
| assisting Maurice.
| Council of Trent removed to Bologna. March 1549.
Elsewhere, however, matters were not going so well for Charles. John
Frederick, on his return, not only easily recovered his dominions,
but invaded the territories of Maurice, where he was well received;
Ferdinand, recalled by a Protestant insurrection in Bohemia, could
give no assistance; and Maurice in a few weeks lost all his lands
except Leipsic and Dresden, which were too strong to be suddenly
reduced. Nor could Charles respond at once to Maurice’s call for
help. His alliance with the Pope seemed likely to break up. The
interests of Paul III. as an Italian potentate demanded that neither
France nor Spain should become too powerful; as a Farnese, it was
his aim to increase the power of his family. The refusal, therefore,
of Charles to appoint Ottavio Farnese as Stadtholder of Milan on the
death of the Marquis de Guasto in March 1546, and the appointment of
Gonzaga, an old enemy of the Farnese and a strong supporter of the
imperial claims in Italy, had irritated the Pope, while the imperial
successes now alarmed him. Emperor and Pope differed, too, with regard
to the Council of Trent. Charles was most anxious that the Council
should proceed no further in the definition of dogma, lest thereby
the apprehensions of the moderate Protestants should be too soon
aroused; Paul, less careful of the position of Charles in Germany,
wished to maintain the infallibility of the Pope and of the Church,
and hesitated to touch the thorny question of internal reform; he also
feared lest the Emperor, victorious in the north, might come to Trent
and claim to preside. True, therefore, to the traditions of papal
policy, Paul began to waver. The time having expired for which he had
lent his troops (December 1546), he recalled them, and refused to send
any more. He declined to sanction the grant of ecclesiastical revenues
from Spain which Charles had demanded for the war; and since Trent
was surrounded by Austrian lands, in March he removed the Council to
Bologna. Nor did the Pope stop here. He even entered into intrigues
with Francis, who, disappointed in his hopes with regard to Milan by
the death of the Duke of Orleans (September 1545), was negotiating
again with the League of Schmalkalde, and stirring up revolts in
Genoa, Siena, and Naples.
| Charles marches North. April 1547.
| Battle of Mühlberg. April 24, 1547.
Fortunately for Charles, the dilatoriness and want of generalship of
John Frederick saved Maurice from ruin, until the death of Francis
I. (March 1547), relieved the Emperor from the fear of a French
attack; and he was able, although tortured with gout and pale as
a ghost, to march north, in April 1547. Even then the imperial
army only numbered some 16,000 men, mostly Italians, Spaniards,
and Hungarians; while the Elector had a much larger force at his
disposal. This deficiency in numbers was, however, fully compensated
for by the superiority of Charles’ veterans, and by the utter want
of generalship displayed by his opponent. Not only had the Elector
despatched a considerable detachment to aid the Bohemians against
Ferdinand, but he further weakened his forces by attempting to hold
open towns. When the success of Charles, who entered Saxony from
the south and rapidly reduced these positions, forced him at last
to concentrate on Mühlberg, a town to the east of the Elbe not far
from Dresden, he did not even then use all his troops to dispute
the passage of the river, where Charles might, perhaps, have been
successfully resisted. When the Emperor had crossed the river, the
Elector in vain attempted to retreat. He was forced to accept a
battle, in which his personal courage and that of his troops was of no
avail against the well-disciplined veterans of his foe. After a short
struggle, the Saxons gave way; the Elector, surrounded and wounded,
had no alternative but to surrender; and Charles and his foreign army
had won a decisive victory with the loss of some fifty men. It was
earnestly debated whether John Frederick should not answer with his
head for his rebellion. Such condign punishment, urged Pedro de Soto,
Charles’ confessor, would have an excellent effect. But Wittenberg was
strong, and too severe a treatment might raise further opposition;
accordingly, by the advice of Granvelle and of Alva, his life was
spared. Even so, the terms were hard enough. The city of Wittenberg
was to surrender at once; John Frederick was to resign the electoral
dignity and most of his territories, of which those in Bohemia were
to go to Ferdinand; he was to submit to the decision of the Imperial
Chamber, and remain a prisoner for the rest of his life. On these
conditions the city of Gotha and the district around it, with a
pension to be paid out of the other territories, were secured to his
heirs, and a provision was to be made for his own support.
The capture of John Frederick was shortly followed by the submission
of the Landgrave. Hitherto he had rejected the offers made by
Charles. Now that opposition seemed hopeless, he was persuaded by
Ferdinand and Maurice to accept the Emperor’s terms, severe though
they were. Most of the Hessian strongholds were to be delivered, and
their fortifications demolished; the Landgrave was to acknowledge the
imperial authority, and submit to the decrees of the Imperial Chamber;
he was to set the Duke of Brunswick free, to pay a fine, and to place
himself in the Emperor’s hands. Charles, it is said, once master of
the person of the Landgrave, took advantage of some looseness in the
agreement, and, contrary to the distinct undertaking of Ferdinand
and Maurice, refused to grant him his liberty, declaring that he had
only promised not to keep him in prison for ever.[55] It does not
appear that Charles actually broke his word, and the chief blame of
the mistake must apparently fall on Ferdinand and Maurice, who gave
promises to Philip without full authority. None the less, Maurice had
understood Charles otherwise. He considered that he had been duped,
and Germany believed it. Maurice never forgave the Emperor, and
Germany did not forget.
§ 2. _From the Diet of Augsburg to the Peace of Augsburg_.
| Diet of Augsburg. Sept. 1547 to June 1548.
When on September 1, 1547, Charles met his Diet at Augsburg, he seemed
at last about to realise his dream of re-establishing the unity of the
Church. All his opponents were either defeated or had come to terms,
and all had agreed to accept the decisions of a General Council. The
Diet unanimously declared itself to the same effect, and demanded that
the Council should be recalled to Trent. The Chamber of the Princes
further insisted that the decisions already published by the Council
should be reconsidered. The lay Electors held that Scripture should be
the only authority on matters of dogma, and wished for reform of the
Church in ‘Head, and members’; the deputies from the imperial cities
requested that the Council should be composed of learned men of all
orders. Some desired that the Council should be under the presidency
of the Emperor, and although this was not demanded by the whole Diet,
nothing was said of the necessity of papal approval.
| Renewed quarrel between Pope and Emperor.
| The Interim. May 19, 1548.
The Emperor, armed with this support, requested Paul to recall the
Council from Bologna to Trent. He expressly stated that he did not
approve of all that had been said against the papal authority, but
urged the Pope to take advantage of this unlooked-for submission on
the part of Germany. It cannot be denied that a serious question
of principle was involved in this request. Although the Emperor
did not definitely claim the right of presidency, yet the demand
that the Council should return to Trent, where still some of the
Spanish and Neapolitan bishops remained, practically assumed that
the Council at Bologna was no true Council. Compliance with the
demand of Charles would have emphasised the control of the temporal
over the spiritual power, and dealt a blow at the independence of
the Church, which claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit. And yet
if the Pope had really been in complete harmony with the Emperor on
other matters, one of the many compromises which were suggested could
probably have been carried out by the clever diplomacy of Mendoza,
the imperial ambassador at Rome. Unfortunately, the affairs of Italy
once more stood in the way of that reconciliation between Pope and
Emperor which was so desirable for the welfare of the Church. On
September 10 Pierluigi Farnese, to whom his father Paul had granted
Parma and Piacenza, fell a victim to a conspiracy. He had been the
centre of anti-imperialist intrigues during the winter and spring of
1546-1547; and Gonzaga, the imperial governor at Milan, who, with
the consent of the Emperor, had supported the conspiracy though
not the assassination, forthwith occupied Piacenza, ostensibly to
preserve the peace, but really in pursuit of ambitious views of
extending the imperial authority in north Italy. The angry Pope at
once entered into negotiations with Henry II. of France. He was even
heard to say that he would call hell itself to avenge him of his
enemy. At the same time the prelates at Bologna, influenced, it must
be allowed, by more worthy motives, replied to the Emperor’s demand
by summoning those ecclesiastics who had remained at Trent to join
them at Bologna, whereby they might show that Germany meant to obey
the Council. Charles might now have attempted to form a Council of
his own at Trent; but he was too good a Catholic to think of starting
a schism. Declaring therefore that he must take measures for the
protection of that Church which the Pope neglected, he determined
to settle matters in his own way. His confessor, Pedro de Soto,
suggested that he should forbid all Lutheran preaching, insist on the
restoration of secularised property, and of the Catholic ritual, and
then leave every one to think as he pleased. But this, said Ferdinand,
would require another war. The Emperor therefore fell back on the
suggestion of his brother, that he should try to find some ground of
union in Germany independently of the Pope. The Interim followed,
a document drawn up by theologians from both sides, and accepted
without debate by the Diet, May 19. It affirmed that ‘There is but one
Church, of which the Pope is chief Bishop; but the power lies in the
Church under the guardianship of the Holy Spirit, rather than in the
Pope.’ While insisting on the seven Sacraments in the Catholic sense,
it agreed to the doctrine of Justification by Faith in somewhat vague
terms, and declared that the questions of the celibacy of the clergy
and of the Communion in both kinds should be left undecided until the
calling of the future free Christian Council. It must not be supposed
that Charles intended this settlement to be permanent; he only looked
on it as a temporary measure which might entice the Protestants back
to obedience to the Church and to the Empire. Nevertheless, had the
whole Empire, Catholic and Protestant, accepted the Interim, a decided
step would have been taken towards the establishment of a national
Church under the control of the Emperor rather than of the Pope. Any
such result as this was, however, prevented by the refusal of the
Catholics to acknowledge the Interim as binding on them in their
dealings with their subjects, and the only question was, how far
Charles would be successful with the Protestants.
The attempts of Charles to re-establish his authority were not
confined to the ecclesiastical sphere. He had also approached the
Diet with schemes for strengthening the imperial power. He did not
succeed in obtaining all he wished. His desire to revive, and, if
possible, extend the organisation of the Suabian League (which had
died out of late), though approved of by the smaller Princes, was
resolutely opposed by many of the larger, even Maurice himself, and
had to be abandoned. Nevertheless Charles gained much. He was allowed
to nominate, for this term, the assessors to the Imperial Chamber, so
long as they were Catholics, and was granted ‘a Roman month,’ as a
fund for future contingencies. He also obtained his aim with respect
to the Netherlands, which were now definitely organised as one of the
Circles of the Empire, were put under imperial protection, and were to
contribute to imperial taxation. But while in this way Charles hoped
to gain for these hereditary possessions the support of the Empire,
yet they were to retain their own privileges; and though their ruler
was to have a seat in the Diet, they were to be free from its control,
and from the jurisdiction of the Imperial Chamber. In June, 1548, the
Diet was dismissed, and Charles proceeded to enforce the Interim on
the Protestants. In the south, where the events of the previous year
had made him master, he was able, partly by expelling the Lutheran
preachers, partly by revolutionising the town councils, partly by
means of his Spanish soldiery, to secure obedience. In the north, he
had more difficulty. But even there, except in the case of Magdeburg
and a few imperial towns, he eventually obtained a general assent to a
modified form of the Interim, drawn up by Melanchthon, and termed the
‘Leipsic Interim.’
| The death of Paul in Nov. 1549, and the election of
| Julius III., strengthen the position of Charles.
| Second Session of Diet of Augsburg. July 1550.
In November 1549, the position of the Emperor was much strengthened
by the death of Paul III. That Pope, in the vain hope of prevailing
on the Emperor to free Parma and Piacenza from their dependence on
Milan, had assumed for a moment a conciliatory attitude, and spoke of
confirming the Interim, and recalling the Council to Trent. Many at
Rome thought these concessions dangerous and opposed such a policy,
and on Charles’ refusal to comply with his demands with respect to
Parma and Piacenza, the Pope had declared them annexed to the papal
see and turned to France for aid. His death, therefore, was welcome
news to Charles, more especially as Cardinal Monte, who succeeded as
Julius III. in February 1550, contrary to all expectations, declared
for the imperialists. He promised to recall the Council to Trent,
to consider the question of internal reform, and to come to terms
with regard to the Interim. Fortified by this unwonted alliance
Charles found little difficulty in influencing the Diet (which was
re-summoned to Augsburg in July), to submit to the Council of Trent;
the Protestants even undertaking to appear there and plead their
cause.
| Charles’ dynastic ideas.
The success of his ecclesiastical policy now enabled Charles to
return to his darling idea of establishing the hereditary rule of the
Hapsburgs over the Empire of the West. But of this Empire the centre
was to be, not Germany, but Spain and Italy, and its representative
after his death, not his brother Ferdinand, but his son Philip. The
plan, long cherished, had been steadily pursued. In 1540, Philip had
been recognised as Duke of Milan. When Charles left Spain in 1543, he
had intrusted the government to his son, although then only sixteen
years old. In 1548, he had sent for Philip that he might become
known in Germany, and had, though with difficulty, obtained for him
an oath of allegiance from the Netherlands. Meanwhile, an intimate
correspondence between the two had completely imbued Philip with
his father’s ideas. The Emperor now hoped to complete his scheme by
securing for his son the succession to the Empire. He had originally
intended to bring the subject before the Diet; but it was necessary
first to overcome the not unnatural opposition of Ferdinand. After
much difficulty, a compromise was arrived at between the two brothers
(March 9). It was agreed that on the death of Charles, Ferdinand was
to be Emperor; he was, however, to make Philip imperial vicar, and
support his election as King of the Romans. Philip, on his part,
promised to do the same for Maximilian, the son of Ferdinand, when
he himself should ascend the imperial throne. Charles, though he had
not obtained all that he wanted--for the Empire was to be shared in
turn between the two branches of the family--had to all appearance
won over Ferdinand to his scheme of a future union of the Empire
with the Spanish monarchy of Philip. But, as a fact, he had excited
the jealousy of Ferdinand, who intrigued with the Electors to defeat
the plan which he had promised to further, and henceforth ceased to
support his brother as he had hitherto done. The family quarrel thus
aroused was shortly to cost Charles dear.
| Renewed quarrels with the Pope concerning the Council
| of Trent. Sept. 1551 to April 1552.
When, in November 1551, Charles went to Innsbruck that he might
watch over the Council which had reassembled at Trent in September,
he might well think that he had won; the unity of the Church seemed
about to be re-established, and the imperial power to be revived,
based on the support of the Spanish monarchy. The next few months
were, however, to see this hope dispelled. The failure of the Council
was to prove the impracticability of his ecclesiastical policy; the
European opposition, to ruin his scheme of political supremacy. From
the friendship of the Pope and the recalling of the Council to Trent,
Charles had anticipated great things. A statesman rather than a
theologian, he did not appreciate the difficulties which surrounded
the question of dogma, nor those which concerned the independence
of the Church as an organisation of divine institution. Although
severely orthodox himself, he did not see the necessity for further
definition of doctrine, and, above all, wished nothing to be done
that might irritate the Protestants, until the Council had approached
the question of reform. The abuses of the Church he knew had been the
primary cause of the Lutheran revolt, and a genuine reform of these
would, he believed, enable him successfully to overcome all further
opposition in Germany. He accordingly supported the demand of the
Protestants that they should be heard, and that the decisions of the
last session should be reconsidered, while he urged Julius to deal
forthwith with the question of reform. It was not to be expected that
this policy would find favour among the more orthodox, still less
with the Pope. When at last, in January 1552, the Protestants, having
extorted a promise of safe-conduct, appeared at the Council, it at
once became clear that an accommodation was impossible, either on the
question of dogma, or of the constitution of the Council, or even of
the form of procedure. The demands of the Reformers that Scripture
should be the only standard of truth, that laymen should have a vote,
and that the Pope should claim no right of presidency nor of veto,
‘since a Council was superior to a Pope,’ seemed to the orthodox both
godless and insolent; and Julius was determined to resist this serious
attack on the papal position. Nor were the demands of Charles and his
Spanish bishops any more palatable. The Emperor’s idea of reform was
based on the ecclesiastical organisation of Spain. There the crown
was served by a church, the discipline of which had been reformed
by Ximenes, and which could be used as a weapon for extending royal
authority, and even for checking papal pretensions. The request more
especially that bishops should be resident and that the Pope should
resign the right of collation to all benefices was stoutly resisted by
Julius; ‘rather than suffer that, we will suffer all misfortune,’ he
said. The Papal court subsisted on foreign benefices since the Italian
bishoprics were poor, and the independence of national churches would
destroy the Papal power. The Pope, moreover, was disturbed at the
refusal of Henry II. to acknowledge the Council or to allow French
bishops to attend it, and by that King’s preparations for renewing the
war in Italy. Evidently nothing was to be expected of the Council. It
had only served to illustrate the conflicting interests of the Pope
and Emperor, and the hopelessness of all reconciliation with the
Protestants. Under these circumstances it was soon abandoned by the
German bishops, and dragged on until the course of events in Germany
caused its second suspension (April 28, 1552).
| Failure of Charles’ political schemes.
While Charles’ ecclesiastical policy was thus breaking down, the whole
fabric of his political scheme, of which his ecclesiastical views were
but a part, was tumbling into ruins. Although Henry II. of France had
viewed with apprehension the growing pretensions of Charles, he had
not yet felt strong enough for active opposition. In the summer of
1551, however, hostilities broke out in Italy over the interminable
question of Parma and Piacenza, in which Henry II. supported the cause
of Ottavio Farnese. But Charles had no money to send to Gonzaga;
Julius III. was most anxious to keep matters quiet; and Henry, on the
point of invading Germany, consented to a truce (April 1552), by which
Ottavio was to be left in possession of Parma for two years.
| Interference of Henry II. in Italy and in Germany.
| 1551-1552.
| Discontent against Charles in Germany.
Henry II. rightly judged that the issue must be fought out in the
north. Here the indignation against the Spanish rule and policy of
Charles had been growing fast. The Interim had never been popular even
with the Catholic princes; it had been passed without the consent
of the Church, and the concessions to the Lutherans were considered
a dangerous compromise with heresy. The Protestants looked upon
many of its clauses as popish, and resented the tyrannical means by
which they had been enforced. Above all, Charles’ behaviour to the
Landgrave irritated all; not only did Charles keep him a prisoner,
he forced him to follow him in his progresses, and treated him with
open contempt. Indeed, Charles’ conduct had changed. The certainty of
success made him abandon all idea of conciliation, and, tortured by
gout and other ailments, he became more irritable, more dictatorial,
and more overbearing than he had ever been before.
| Maurice’s intrigues with the Protestants.
Already in February 1550, John of Custrin and Albert Alcibiades
of Culmbach had formed a defensive league to protect their common
interests, and had decided to approach the French King. Meanwhile, the
relations between the Emperor and Maurice were daily becoming more
strained. The victory of Mühlberg won, Charles was most unwilling to
make Maurice too strong, and accordingly had hesitated to fulfil his
promises. The right of protection over Magdeburg and Halberstadt was
not granted; the representatives of John Frederick were not forced to
acknowledge their new master; and the Emperor had been heard to say
that in John Frederick ‘he had a bear which he could let loose against
Maurice.’ On the other hand, the young Elector found that his position
among the Protestants and in his own dominions was daily becoming
more difficult. The unpopularity of the Emperor was transferred
to him; the treatment of the Landgrave was laid at his door; he
was looked upon as the arch-traitor who had ruined the Protestant
cause; and schemes were on foot of driving him from his ill-gotten
possessions by the aid of France. Maurice began to fear that his
new-won Electorate might be torn from him either by the Emperor, or
by the Protestant Princes. Apart from these personal motives, which
were strong, it cannot be denied that Maurice also thought of the
cause of Protestantism, which would be seriously endangered if Charles
should become completely master. The interests therefore of Maurice’s
co-religionists, as well as his own, urged him to offer his alliance
to the Princes on condition that they would guarantee him the peaceful
possession of his newly-won territories. Accordingly, since the spring
of 1550, he had been making advances. None the less, the Protestant
Princes not unnaturally suspected him, more especially as Charles
had intrusted him with the enforcement of the Interim on the city of
Magdeburg. It was not therefore till February 20, 1551, that Maurice
was able to allay the apprehensions of the Protestants. He then
convinced them that the expedition against the city was only intended
to lull the suspicions of Charles; he promised them that the religion
of the inhabitants should be in no way interfered with, and that he
would be true to the Protestant cause. By two treaties (February and
May, 1551), the Princes agreed to unite in common defence of the
Protestant religion and the liberties of Germany, and Maurice was
secured in his Electorate against all claims of the Ernestine branch.
| Magdeburg surrenders to Maurice. Nov. 1551.
The siege of Magdeburg was now continued. In November, 1551, the
city surrendered. The citizens promised to implore the pardon of the
Emperor, to pay a fine, and to conform to the Interim. At the same
time they received secret assurances from Maurice that they should
not be deprived of their privileges, nor disturbed in the exercise of
their religion. Further, they elected Maurice as their Burgrave, a
title generally held by the electoral house of Saxony, which gave him
considerable jurisdiction over the city and its dependencies.
| Treaty of Friedwald. Jan. 1552.
Meanwhile, the question had been debated whether the League should
remain a defensive one, and be confined to Germany, or whether
it should look for help from outside. Maurice held that if the
Protestants were to win they must gain the aid of France. In spite
of the opposition of John of Custrin, who refused to go so far, the
advice of Maurice was followed, and negotiations were commenced
in October, 1551, which led, in January, 1552, to the Treaty of
Friedwald. Henry II. had the effrontery to request that the religious
affairs of Germany should be placed under his protection; but
this the Protestants refused to grant to the persecutor of their
co-religionists at home, and no mention of the religious questions
was made in the treaty. Henry II. promised to assist in obtaining
the release of the Landgrave from prison, and in defending the
liberties of Germany. The price of the French King was high. He was
empowered to occupy, as Vicar of the Empire, Cambray, Metz, Toul, and
Verdun--with reservation, however, of the imperial sovereignty--and
the Princes promised at the next vacancy of the Empire to support his
candidature, or that of some one agreeable to him. The cession of the
three bishoprics of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, which dominated Lorraine,
has been often and severely blamed. But we should at least remember
that French was the common language of these districts, that the
sentiment of German nationality, never very strong, had been weakened
by the struggles of the Reformation, and that the French alliance was
necessary, if Charles was to be successfully resisted in his attempt
to subjugate Germany to a foreign Spanish rule. Maurice, however, did
not rest satisfied with the French alliance. Ferdinand had gained from
him a pledge that he would resist the plan of Charles with regard
to the succession to the Empire. The friendly terms which were thus
established Maurice turned to good account, and, by assuring Ferdinand
that no attack should be made on him, secured himself against active
hostility on the part of the Austrian prince.
| Maurice declares himself, and marches south, March
| 18. Henry II. invades Lorraine.
While Maurice had been raising this formidable coalition against the
Emperor, the relations between the two had been strictly amicable. Yet
it is a mistake to suppose that Charles remained in ignorance of what
was going forward. At this moment, however, Charles was ill, and in
one of his fits of irresolution and lassitude. Dazzled, moreover,
by the success of his policy since the battle of Mühlberg, he
thought too lightly of the conspiracy, and hoped to deal with his
opponents as he had done in 1546. He believed that he could either
win over Maurice by further concessions, or ruin him by freeing John
Frederick, and restoring to him his electoral dominions. The Emperor
did not understand how circumstances had changed since 1546; he did
not realise how unpopular his Spanish rule, his highhandedness, and
his succession scheme had become in Germany, even with his brother
Ferdinand; he omitted the French alliance in his calculations;
finally, he mistook the man with whom he had to deal. With all his
ambition Maurice really cared for the cause of Protestantism, and
was determined to protect his subjects in their religion. It was
improbable that he would ever have sacrificed that to any personal
gains. Charles also forgot that he had taught a lesson in diplomatic
tactics, which his pupil had learnt too well; a master of diplomacy
himself, he was fairly beaten by this young man of thirty. Maurice
to the last kept up appearances; he even pretended compliance with
the Emperor’s request that he would come to Innsbruck to discuss
the situation. Then suddenly gathering his army, which he had held
together since the siege of Magdeburg, he marched southward (March
18), and was joined by the young William of Hesse at Bischofsheim. At
the same moment Henry II. invaded Lorraine. The French King declared
he came to protect German liberty, and the Princes issued a manifesto
in which they denounced ‘the infamy and unreasonableness of the
imprisonment of the Landgrave,’ and ‘the foreign beastly (_viehische_)
hereditary servitude,’ religious and political, which Charles had
attempted to force on Germany. At Rothenburg, Maurice was joined
by Albert Alcibiades of Culmbach, and advanced to Augsburg, ‘the
watch-tower of the imperial power,’ which was hastily evacuated by the
imperial garrison.
| Policy of Ferdinand.
| Conference at Linz. April 18.
| Flight of Charles to Villach.
It was now that Ferdinand assumed that attitude which was the
outcome of his jealousy of Charles, and of his earlier negotiations
with Maurice, an attitude which he was to maintain until the final
abdication of his brother. Anxious to protect his own interests and
those of his House, Ferdinand proposed to intervene as mediator; to
come to terms with the Protestants, and, with a united Germany at
his back, defeat the succession scheme of Charles, and turn upon the
Turk. Accordingly he induced Maurice to hold a conference at Linz,
April 18, at which they agreed upon the general terms of the future
peace, and Maurice consented to a suspension of arms on May 26, when
negotiations should be resumed at Passau. Charles had authorised his
brother to negotiate, hoping thereby to gain time, but the results
of the conference were not entirely to his mind, and Maurice had
once more gained a diplomatic victory. The neutrality of Ferdinand
was practically secured; while Maurice had time to act before the
26th. Marching on the Ehrenberg, he secured the castle which commanded
the pass to Innsbruck, where the Emperor was; and Charles, too ill
with gout to ride, after a vain attempt to escape northwards to the
Netherlands, fled with difficulty in a litter across the Brenner to
Villach. Maurice was urged to end the matter by seizing the Emperor
himself. ‘I have no cage big enough to hold such a bird,’ he answered,
and preferred to treat.
| The Treaty of Passau. Aug. 2, 1552.
On the 1st of June, negotiations were again resumed at Passau
between Ferdinand and Maurice, where the Electors, many of the city
representatives, and most of the princes were present. It is sometimes
said that Charles, in despair, left the negotiations to Ferdinand, and
let things go as they would. Nothing is further from the truth. At
no time of his life are the tenacity and obstinacy of his character
better illustrated than at this moment, especially when we remember
how ill he was. Unwilling to abandon his darling scheme of restoring
unity to the Church, and supremacy to the imperial authority, he
fought each concession clause by clause; ever dreaming of revenge,
he laboured to gain time while he intrigued and tried to organise
an opposition on every side. But all in vain. Germany had suffered
too much from his rule to care to fight for it again. The political
tendencies of the time leant too strongly to autonomy in Church and
State; and the Treaty of Passau is mainly due to the growth of a
middle party, both Catholic and Protestant, who were weary of war,
disliked the political schemes of Charles, and saw the necessity of
compromise--a party which expressed the sentiments of Germany at
large. On one point, however, the Emperor stood firm. He refused to
acknowledge the authority of the conference at Passau as final; to
the decisions of a Diet alone would he bow, and the terms granted
at Passau must be provisional only. Maurice who, in despair at the
obstinacy of Charles, had again taken up arms and besieged the city
of Frankfort-on-the-Main (July 17), did not feel his position secure
enough to refuse compliance, and, on August 2, agreed to the terms
offered by the Emperor. The confederates were to lay down their
arms before the 12th of August, when the Landgrave was to be set at
liberty; a Diet was to be held in six months, when the matters in
dispute should be finally decided, and, if no decision were come
to, the present arrangement should continue. Meanwhile, all those
who adhered to the Confession of Augsburg were to be unmolested,
and Protestants were to be admitted as assessors to the Imperial
Chamber. Even at the last Charles thought of refusing his consent,
and of appealing to arms. Overborne, however, by the solicitations
of Ferdinand, who warned him that he would have to fight the great
majority of the Princes, Catholic as well as Protestant, he at last
ratified the treaty (August 15), and set the Elector, John Frederick,
as well as the Landgrave, free.
The Treaty of Passau represented, there cannot be a doubt, the general
wish of Germany, both Catholic and Protestant. It received the hearty
assent of all except a few devoted Catholics, and those who, like
John Frederick, hoped to regain what they had lost, or, like Albert
Alcibiades of Culmbach, looked to benefit by a continuation of the
war. Much as Charles disliked the peace, any attempt to join the
disaffected would have been madness. Yet with that doggedness which
seemed to grow upon him with years, he did not abandon hope. The
French had not been included in the treaty. A successful war waged
against them might yet regain him popularity, and place him in a
position to make one more struggle for all that he held dear.
| Ill success of Charles prevents his breaking the
| Treaty.
Fortunately for the cause of Protestantism and the interests of
Germany, Charles’ military enterprises failed. He secured, indeed, the
assistance of Albert of Culmbach, and in October, 1552, laid siege to
Metz. But the skill and energy of the Duke of Guise, who here won his
military name, baulked the efforts of Charles. The winter came on, and
sorely tried the Spanish and Italian troops; and, in December, 1552,
Charles abandoned the attempt, bitterly declaring that ‘Fortune, like
women, favoured a young King rather than an old Emperor.’ Nor were
his arms more successful in Italy. The republic of Siena, torn by
internal dissensions, had put itself under the Emperor’s protection,
and admitted a body of soldiers under Mendoza, the imperial ambassador
at Rome. But the severity of Mendoza’s rule soon caused the Sienese
to repent; they applied to France for aid, drove out the Spanish
troops, and transferred their allegiance to France; while Solyman,
again in alliance with the French, sent a fleet which threatened,
though unsuccessfully, the city of Naples. In 1553, the Emperor, who
had retired to the Netherlands, was somewhat more fortunate, and took
the town of Terouenne. But in Italy, all the attempts of the Viceroy
of Naples, and of Cosimo, Duke of Florence, to oust the French from
Siena were vain; Naples was again threatened by a Turkish fleet, and
the French conquered a part of Corsica. In Hungary, Isabella the widow
of Zapolya, and her son, leaning on Turkish support, finally secured
Transylvania; and Vienna itself might have been attacked once more if
Solyman had not been called off by a Persian war, and distracted by
the domestic troubles which led to the execution of his own favourite
son Mustapha.
| Death of Maurice at Sievershausen. July 9, 1553.
At this moment occurred the death of Maurice, an event which,
under more prosperous circumstances, might have offered Charles an
opportunity of final victory. In the midst of the foreign war, Charles
had not ceased to intrigue with the disaffected, more especially with
Albert of Culmbach. In return for the assistance that prince had
given him before Metz, he had confirmed those grants of money and
of land which Albert had extorted from the Bishops of Bamberg and
Wurzburg. These claims Albert now proceeded to enforce with arms, in
spite of the order of the Imperial Chamber; whereupon, in February
1553, Ferdinand and Maurice, who, with other Princes of the south of
Germany, formed the League of Heidelberg to enforce the Treaty of
Passau, marched against him and defeated him at Sievershausen, in the
Duchy of Luneburg (July 9). The victory, however, was dearly bought,
for Maurice died two days afterwards of his wounds. Thus, at the age
of thirty-two, a Prince passed away who had played the leading part
in the history of Germany since 1546. To this day his aims and his
character are matters of hot dispute. By some he is looked upon as
the apt pupil of Machiavelli, a man devoid of religious conviction,
or of any principle beyond that of calculating self-interest. Others
represent him as the greatest statesman of the day; as the man who
first guessed the designs of Charles, and whose treachery in 1546 was
really only the first and necessary move towards the final vindication
of the cause of Protestantism, forced upon him by the necessity
of gaining a strong position before he could hope to resist the
Emperor. As is so often the case with violent partisanship, the truth
lies midway between these two extreme views. Although Maurice had no
very strong convictions on the points at issue between the adherents
of the two hostile creeds, and was, no doubt, influenced by ambition,
yet it is unjust to accuse him of sacrificing the religion of his
subjects to personal ends. In any case, whatever we may think of his
motives, the ability of his statesmanship is beyond dispute. Once
deceived by Charles, he quickly learnt of him, and finally succeeded
in outmanœuvring that master of diplomacy. To Maurice, at least,
Protestantism owed its final recognition, and Germany her escape from
the Spanish tyranny of Charles. Nor did the electorate of Saxony
suffer under his hands. The country was well ruled, and education
advanced. Nay, had Maurice lived longer or been succeeded by men
of like calibre with himself, Saxony would probably not have seen
herself eclipsed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by her
neighbours, the Hohenzollern Electors of Brandenburg. Whether it be
true that, at the moment of his death, he dreamt of even greater
things, and that he, in conjunction with Ferdinand, was intriguing
with France to secure the imperial dignity for himself, we cannot
say. Maurice was too good a diplomatist to show his hand before the
decisive moment. But at least we may believe that Germany would not
have fared ill under him as Emperor.
Neither Albert nor Charles benefited from the death of Maurice. The
former was shortly driven from Germany to end his days as a pensioner
of the French King, while his dominions in Franconia fell to his
cousin, George Frederick of Anspach; and Charles, despairing
of resisting the united will of Germany, at last bowed to the
inevitable. He abandoned his scheme of succession, and ceased to
oppose a permanent settlement of the religious difficulties. To this
course he was the more inclined, because he now thought of marrying
Philip to Mary, the Catholic Queen of England, and thus uniting
England with the Spanish monarchy. With this change of policy, the
rivalry between him and his brother was at an end, and Ferdinand was
given a free hand in Germany.
The affairs of Saxony first demanded attention. John Frederick, in
spite of his remonstrances, was forced to rest content with some
territorial concessions; while the rest of the dominions, with the
electoral titles, went to Augustus, the brother of Maurice.
| Diet of Augsburg. Feb.-Sept. 1555.
Having settled this question satisfactorily, Ferdinand prevailed on
his brother to summon the Diet to Augsburg in February, 1555. Charles,
however, refused to take any part in the negotiations, and left
Ferdinand to preside and to settle matters as he would, with the
warning that he should do nothing against his conscience.
| Death of Julius III., March 1555, facilitates
| matters.
With a few exceptions all in Germany, both Catholic and Protestant,
earnestly desired a settlement of the religious question, and the
establishment of a peace which might protect them from such turbulent
spirits as Albert of Brandenburg. And yet the attempt to reconcile
the conflicting interests of the two religions--always a difficult
matter--was rendered doubly so by the complicated character of the
imperial constitution. No sooner, therefore, did discussion begin
than dissensions appeared, and these were fostered by the papal
party. Fortunately, the death of Julius III., in March, forced his
legate, Cardinal Morone, to retire from Augsburg. The next Pope,
Marcellus II., only lived twenty days; and although his successor,
Paul IV. (Caraffa), attempted to put every obstacle in the way, he was
only able to limit the concessions granted to the Protestants.
On two points, agreement was comparatively easy. It was declared
that hereafter all religious disputes should be settled by peaceful
means, and to this end, in all causes between a Catholic and a
Lutheran, the Imperial Chamber was to be composed of an equal number
of assessors from either party. The remaining questions presented
greater difficulties. The Lutherans had originally wished that every
individual should be allowed to conform to the Confession of Augsburg,
whether the subject of a Protestant state or no. But this was dreaded
by those Catholic Princes in whose dominions Lutheranism had made
great strides, and the Reformers were forced to rest content with the
stipulation, that every secular Prince or imperial city should be
allowed to decide which of the two religions should be adopted within
their jurisdiction, and that those who could not conform should be
allowed to depart with their goods. A compromise was also arrived
at with regard to the secularisation of ecclesiastical property
within the jurisdiction of secular Princes. All such property as had
been secularised before the Treaty of Passau, 1552, was to remain
so, but no further exercise of the right was to be allowed. The
Protestants, while conceding this point, demanded that ecclesiastical
Princes should, like the secular Princes, be allowed to establish
what religion they liked within their jurisdictions, and that any
ecclesiastical Prince or Bishop who adopted the Lutheran Confession
should retain his dignities and his revenues. This would, however,
have dealt a fatal blow at the whole fabric of the Empire, and was
stoutly resisted by the Catholics, and by Ferdinand himself. As the
Lutherans stood out, Ferdinand thought seriously of postponing the
consideration of this question, lest the rest of the treaty might
be lost. Finally, however, an unsatisfactory compromise was arrived
at. It was enacted, that if any ecclesiastic should hereafter abandon
the Catholic religion, he should relinquish his office, with the
revenues and patronage appertaining thereto. This clause the Lutherans
allowed to be inserted in the treaty, but only under protest that they
did not consider the reservation binding on them; and further obtained
the concession that those subjects of ecclesiastical Princes, who had
already embraced Lutheranism, should be unmolested, and that those who
might subsequently become Lutherans should be allowed to emigrate.
By the Peace of Augsburg, the attempt of Charles to re-establish the
unity of the Church on the basis of a revived Empire of the West,
received its final death-blow; and the principle of autonomy in
ecclesiastical matters was definitely recognised. Had Charles been
victorious over his foreign enemies, in all probability he would, for
a time at least, have gained his end. Had he been less ambitious, and
confined his attention to Germany, he might possibly have succeeded
in crushing out Lutheranism. But the very magnificence of his aims
prevented their realisation. Again and again, when he was about to
strike, some exigency of politics intervened to thwart him; and
eventually the principle of territorialism, when supported by the
foreigner, proved too strong. Yet it would not be fair to charge
the Protestants with having used a religious cry to further their
political ends. In Germany, as elsewhere in Europe, the religious
element perforce connected itself with politics. The Reformation
furnished a creed and a new enthusiasm to the political aspirations
already existing, and eventually gave the victory to those political
tendencies which were the strongest. Had Charles been a different
man, he might have adopted Protestantism and thereon founded a
united kingdom in Germany. But this his character and his Spanish
sympathies prevented, and, short of complete victory on his part,
there was no alternative but that of decentralisation. Henceforth,
Germany abandoned all hope of reconciling the two religions by
means of a general or even a national Council in Germany. The
Lutheran Church obtained a legal recognition, and the Protestant
states claimed to pursue their course without the intervention of
any external ecclesiastical authority. In this way the mediæval
conception of Church and State was completely revolutionised, and
the temporal authority gained an independence it had not enjoyed
before. Nevertheless, the settlement was by no means final, and
bore in it the seeds of future discord. The principle of individual
toleration was not conceded. If the Princes usually adopted the
religion of the majority of their subjects, the rights of the minority
were not respected. The ‘ecclesiastical reservation’ was certain
hereafter to lead to serious disputes. Above all, the Calvinists, who
were shortly to become the most active of the Reformers, were not
included in the peace. The religious quarrels which ensued between
them and the Lutherans embittered the political jealousies already
existing. The Catholics took advantage of this, and Germany had yet
to undergo the horrors of the Thirty Years’ War, before the religious
question should receive its final settlement.
| Truce of Vaucelles. Feb. 1556.
While Germany had been absorbed in these momentous issues, the war
with France had been continued on the borders of the Netherlands, and
in Italy, with varying results. In April 1555, Siena was regained for
the Imperialists by Cosimo, Duke of Florence. Elsewhere the events
were unimportant, and, in 1556, a truce concluded at Vaucelles, led to
a brief cessation of arms. By that date, however, Charles had ceased
to be King of Spain.
| Preparation of Charles for his abdication.
Disappointed at the frustration of all his schemes, a victim to gout,
asthma, and other ailments, he determined to abandon the heretical
Germany to Ferdinand, and to resign the government of his other
territories to his son. Charles fondly hoped that Philip, united to
the Queen of England, and in the full vigour of youth, might yet
establish a great Catholic monarchy with its centre in Spain, and
resist the dangerous advance of heresy; nay, might some day bring
the King of France to his knees, and establish Spanish supremacy
in Europe. Milan and Italy had been already ceded to Philip on his
marriage with Mary of England, but the division of authority had led
to difficulties, and to some quarrels between father and son. In
October 1555, therefore, one month after the peace of Augsburg, Queen
Mary of Hungary resigned her post as Regent of the Netherlands, and
the government of those territories, which had just been once more
separated from the Empire, was handed over to Philip.
| Jan. 1556. Philip acknowledged King of Spain. Sept.:
| Charles resigns the imperial throne.
Even then, Charles had apparently intended to retain the government
of Spain somewhat longer in his hands, but Italy and the
Netherlands could scarcely be defended without Spanish arms and
money; accordingly, in the following January (1556), Philip was
acknowledged King of Spain. Finally, in the September of that year,
Charles resigned the imperial crown, although, owing to certain
technicalities, Ferdinand was not elected for two years. By this act,
the ambitious idea, first entertained by Maximilian, of uniting under
one rule Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands with the German dominions
of the Hapsburgs, was abandoned, and a return was made to the more
reasonable policy of Ferdinand the Catholic. Henceforth until the
disappearance of the Spanish line in 1700, the House of Hapsburg was
divided into two branches, of which the Austrian ruled over the family
territories in South Germany, and secured the elective throne of
the Empire; while the Spanish ruled over Italy, Franche-Comté, the
Netherlands, and the conquests in the New World. It would probably
have been well for Spain if she had never had a German Emperor as
her King; while the Netherlands, all that now remained to her of
the patrimony of the Archduke Philip, was yet to prove a source of
weakness and humiliation.
| Charles at Yuste. Sept. 1556 to Sept. 1558.
| Death of Charles V. 21st Sept. 1558.
Charles, having resigned the burden of government to younger
shoulders, retired to the Jeronymite monastery of Yuste in the
province of Estremadura, in September, 1556. The traditional story
of his life there requires some correction. He did not dwell in the
monastery, but in a house prepared for him close by. Although he lived
a religious life, attended regularly the services of the Church, and
even submitted himself to the penance of flagellation, his daily lot
was not otherwise one of extreme hardship. In the matter of diet,
especially, he not only excused himself from fasting, ostensibly on
the score of health, but indulged, to his cost, his love for rich
and unwholesome dishes. He by no means shut himself off from all
worldly concerns, but kept up an active correspondence with his son,
and with his daughter Joanna, who acted as Regent of Castile during
Philip’s absence. He was most energetic in collecting the necessary
taxes for the campaigns of 1557 and 1558, and one of his last acts
was to urge the Regent to crush out the Lutheran heresy, which had
appeared in Spain. Retaining in his retreat the same dogged adherence
to the principles which had guided his life, Charles at last, in his
fifty-eighth year, succumbed to the ailments which had been growing
upon him of late (21st September 1558).
The Emperor has been so often before us, that it is needless to say
much more of him here. His character was late in developing, and it
was not until the Diet of Worms, 1521, that he began to show his
powers. From that moment, however, he bent himself to the bewildering
difficulties of his position with a consistency of purpose which
is all the more remarkable when we remember his constitutional
indolence and irresolution. It is the conflict between these three
qualities--his obstinacy, his lethargy, and his irresolution--which
explains the contradictions of his conduct. Self-possessed and
self-contained, yet with a fiery nature which at times betrayed
itself, few save his two chancellors, Gattinara and Granvelle, and his
confessor Pedro de Soto, were admitted to his counsels. If we except
his wife Isabella of Portugal, who died in 1539, his son and his
sisters, he made but few close attachments, and his heart was rarely
stirred by any sentiment. He never forgave an injury; he rarely did a
generous deed. He was a man to command fear and even admiration, but
not to inspire affection. A Netherlander at first, but never a German,
he soon became a thorough Spaniard, and looked upon Spain as the model
he would fain impose on Europe.
§ 3. _Last War between France and Spain._
| Paul IV. allies himself with France against Philip.
| July 1556.
The wish of Charles to secure a few years’ peace for his successor
was not fulfilled. It was thwarted by the Duke of Guise, the
representative of the war party in France, and by his brother the
Cardinal of Lorraine, but more especially by Paul IV. That fiery
prelate, who was now in his eightieth year, although a leader in the
Catholic reaction, had throughout his life been a strenuous opponent
of the Spaniard in Italy. A member of a Neapolitan family (the
Caraffa) which had always supported the Angevin party in that kingdom,
he had early incurred the displeasure of Charles, who had caused
his name to be struck off the Council of Government, and resisted
his nomination to the archiepiscopal see of Naples. Under these
circumstances it is not surprising that, as Pope, he should adopt
that anti-Spanish policy which had now become almost traditional with
the Papacy. He remembered the days of Italian freedom, and considered
the Spaniard the most dangerous of its enemies. ‘The French,’ he
said, ‘may easily be dislodged hereafter; but the Spaniards are like
dog-grass, sure to strike root wherever it is cast.’ Prompted by
these motives, he had, in December 1555, made a secret treaty with
France, with the object of driving the Spaniards from Italy, and now
he urged Henry II. to break his truce with Spain. The Guises threw
their influence on the side of war; and in July, 1556, in pursuance of
a fanciful scheme of reviving the French claim to Naples, a treaty was
made by which that kingdom was to be torn from Philip and conferred
on one of Henry’s sons, with the exception of some portion of the
northern frontier, which was to fall to the Pope as his share of the
spoil.
| Duke of Alva invades the Papal States. Sept. 1556.
| French invade Naples, but are recalled by defeat of
| St. Quentin. Jan.-Aug. 1557.
| Paul comes to terms with Alva.
Paul had not waited for this alliance to commence hostilities, or to
punish the Colonnesi, who supported the imperial cause. In answer
to this, the Duke of Alva, who had just been appointed Governor of
Naples, entered the Papal States (September), and, in the absence
of the French, occupied the chief places in the Campagna. Indeed,
had it not been for the scruples of the Duke, or rather of his royal
master, Rome itself might have been taken; but Philip’s orders were
that he should bring the Pope to terms rather than ruin him. Alva
accordingly listened to the insincere offers of the Pope, and delayed
further operations until the advance of the French army under the Duke
of Guise, at the beginning of the new year, forced him to retreat
southwards. Alva now played a waiting game, and, refusing to meet the
French in a pitched battle, gradually wore them out, as Gonzalvo had
done in 1503. The Duke of Guise, frustrated in his attempt to take the
town of Civitella (May 15), and wearied by these tactics, was forced
to evacuate the kingdom of Naples, and shortly afterwards was recalled
to France (August 15), by the news of the defeat of St. Quentin,
‘having done little for his King, still less for the Church, and
nothing for his honour.’ Paul, deserted by his allies, was forced to
accept the terms offered him, which, however, were so advantageous
that, as Alva bitterly remarked, ‘they seem to have been dictated by
the vanquished instead of the victor.’ The territories of the Church
were to be restored intact; the remaining French troops were to be
allowed a free passage to France; the affair of the Colonnesi was to
be submitted to the arbitration of Philip and the Pope. The Duke of
Alva was actually to ask pardon, and receive absolution from the Pope,
for having dared to take up arms against him.
| Sicily, Naples, Milan, finally secured by Spain.
This, the last war for the possession of Italy for many a long day,
is noticeable for the strange contradictions it presents. Not only
does the most bigoted of the Popes oppose the most bigoted of Kings;
he even calls to his assistance the Infidel and the Protestant
mercenaries of Germany; while his opponent, at the command of his
master Philip, wages war on the Pope with every expression of
reverence, and, when dictating peace, does so, as a suppliant, on his
knees. Yet, in spite of his haughty demeanour, Paul had failed. The
French henceforth ceased to struggle for Italy; Sicily, Naples,
and Milan remained in the hands of the Spanish Hapsburgs until the
extinction of their line in the year 1700.
| Campaign on the eastern frontier of France. Spanish
| victory of St. Quentin, Aug. 10.
| Calais taken by the Duke of Guise. Jan. 1-8, 1558.
| The French defeated at Gravelines. July 13, 1558.
In the war which had meanwhile broken out on the eastern frontier of
France, the exhaustion of that country was plainly visible. The feudal
levies responded but feebly; the provincial legions of infantry, which
had been organised by Francis I. in 1534, had never been successful;
and of the French peasantry, the Gascons alone appeared in any
numbers. France was thus forced to fall back on six thousand German
mercenaries. Emanuel Philibert, the dispossessed Duke of Savoy, a man
of twenty-nine years, who commanded the army of Philip, had a much
larger force drawn from the various countries under Spanish rule,
and was aided by a contingent of English, who with difficulty had
been prevailed upon to aid the husband of their queen. The financial
straits of the two combatants were much the same, but the energy of
Charles in his retreat at St. Yuste succeeded in wringing from the
Spaniards a considerable amount of money. On the approach of the
Duke of Savoy, Coligny threw himself into the city of St. Quentin
(August 2), a town of importance, as being the entrepot for trade
between France and the Low Countries. But the rash attempt of the
Marshal de Montmorenci, who was in supreme command, to relieve it
with a far inferior force, led to his total defeat (August 10). The
Marshal himself, many nobles, and thousands of the common soldiers,
were taken prisoners; as many more were slain. France, in a word, had
not suffered such a defeat since Pavia. ‘Is not my son in Paris?’
asked Charles, on receiving intelligence of the victory; and had
Charles himself been in command, Paris might have fallen. But Philip,
ever more fond of negotiation than of war, delayed till he should be
master of St. Quentin. The city, defended by the energy and ability of
Coligny, was not stormed till the 27th of August--and the delay saved
Paris. Quarrels subsequently broke out in the Spanish camp, which led
to the retreat of the English. The Germans complained of want of pay;
many transferred their services to the French; and, after taking a few
more places, the army of Philip went into winter quarters. In January,
the surprise of Calais by the Duke of Guise reversed, at least in the
opinion of the French, the disaster of St. Quentin. The English, in
overweening confidence, had of late neglected the defences of that
town, and in the winter were accustomed to withdraw a portion of the
troops, because the marshes were then believed to be impassable. The
Duke, informed of this, suddenly appeared before the walls, and
took by assault the two forts of Newman Bridge, and Risbank, which
defended Calais from the sea and from the shore respectively. Lord
Wentworth, despairing of holding the city now that his position was
commanded, capitulated on January 8. The recovery of this city, which
had been in the hands of the English since the days of Edward III.,
very naturally caused boundless exultation in France. The taking of
Thionville by the Duke of Guise followed in June; and in July, the
Marshal de Termes, in command of the Calais garrison, secured Dunkirk
and Mardyke. But the Marshal had imprudently ventured too far into the
enemies’ country, and had left Gravelines unmasked behind him. As he
attempted to retreat, he was caught between the garrison of Gravelines
and a Flemish force raised by the Count of Egmont, and was completely
routed, falling himself into the enemies’ hands (July 13).
This was the last action in the war. The renewal of hostilities had
not been of Philip’s seeking, and he was now doubly anxious for
peace. The difficulty of supplying money, always a serious matter, was
now so great that Philip confessed to his ministers that he was on
the brink of ruin. The death of his father, Charles, on the 21st of
September, demanded his presence in Spain; and England was not to be
trusted to continue the war, especially as Mary was very ill. Nor had
France much to hope for from a continuation of the struggle, now that
the Pope had made his peace with Philip. Her finances were exhausted,
her people weary of a struggle which brought them no benefit. Besides
all this, heresy had appeared both in France and in Spain. Henry II.
therefore listened to the advice of Montmorenci and of the Cardinal of
Lorraine. The first, as a captive and a rival of the victorious Duke
of Guise, had personal reasons for desiring peace; the latter urged
Henry to devote his attention to the extirpation of heresy.
| Treaty of Cateau Cambrésis. April 3, 1559.
Negotiations were commenced in October, but were delayed by the death
of Mary of England in November, and the refusal of Queen Elizabeth to
acknowledge the surrender of Calais. Philip, hoping perhaps thereby
to gain her hand, offered to stand by the English Queen and break off
the negotiations, but only on condition that she would support him
with all her power as long as the war should last. This did not suit
the cautious and parsimonious Queen, and she finally consented to
leave Calais for eight years in the hands of France. France was also
allowed, by the Emperor Ferdinand, to retain the three Lotharingian
Bishoprics, Metz, Toul, and Verdun, but had to surrender all her other
conquests to Philip and his allies, except Turin, Saluzzo, Pignerol,
and a few other places of importance in Piedmont. These she was to
hold until Henry’s claim to that principality through his grandmother,
Louise of Savoy, should be decided--a claim which he could hardly
believe to be serious. Thus Philip regained the towns which France had
taken in Luxembourg; Montferrat was restored to the Duke of Mantua;
Genoa regained Corsica. On his side, Philip surrendered the few places
he held in Picardy. The two Kings further bound themselves to do their
best to procure the meeting of a General Council, which was necessary
both for reformation of abuses, and for the restoration of union and
concord to the Church. The treaty was to be ratified by a double
marriage; Philip was to marry Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of Henry
II., then a girl of thirteen, who had at first been suggested as the
bride of his son Don Carlos; Margaret, the sister of the French king,
was to espouse Emanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy. In the tournament
which was held to celebrate the marriage of Philip with the French
princess, Henry II. received a wound from which he died, and was
succeeded by his son Francis II., a youth of sixteen, who in 1558 had
married Mary Queen of Scots.
The peace of Cateau Cambrésis, by which France ‘lost as many
provinces as she regained cities,’ was far more disadvantageous than
the military position, in spite of the defeats of St. Quentin and
Gravelines, justified. It is therefore not unnaturally looked upon as
a dishonourable one by most French writers. It reminds us once more of
the taunt of Machiavelli that the French are not masters of diplomacy,
and is perhaps not an unfitting close to that long struggle between
the Houses of Valois and of Hapsburg, which commenced with the foolish
expedition of Charles VIII., and in which France had continually been
the aggressor. Her only permanent gains were those of Calais, and the
three Lotharingian bishoprics; and these, balanced as they were by
the loss of Spanish Navarre, were won at the price of an exhausted
treasury and an impoverished people. She had no doubt taken a leading
part in resisting the dangerous supremacy of the Austro-Spanish
House, and in foiling the attempt of Charles to establish a universal
monarchy in Europe. Yet it may be questioned whether she could not
have done this more effectively if she had kept her hands off Italy,
and had strengthened and extended her frontiers by winning Rousillon
and Franche-Comté, and by pressing towards the Rhine. While playing
the rival to the House of Hapsburg, she had not only contributed to
the success of the Reformers in Germany, and to the advance of the
Turk in Hungary, but had allowed Protestantism to gain a firm hold at
home, and had fostered a military spirit among the smaller nobility,
which was to give to the religious struggle in France some of its
worst characteristics.
Throughout the long struggle nothing had been done to strengthen the
government of France, or to develop constitutional life. The monarchy
came out of the war bankrupt, and the government the prey of rival
factions--factions which, if they did not cause the religious wars,
most certainly prolonged them and France, torn by civil and religious
strife, had to wait till the reign of Henry IV. before she could take
that part in European affairs to which her central position, the
ability of her people, and her magnificent natural resources entitled
her.
Nor was Spain in much better plight. To outward appearances, indeed,
the power of Philip seemed overwhelming. He was King of the whole
Spanish Peninsula with the exception of Portugal;[56] King of Naples
and of Sicily, and Duke of Milan, a position which enabled him to
control the politics of the Peninsula;[57] Master of Franche-Comté
and of the Netherlands. In Africa, he held Tunis and Oran, with
places on the Barbary coast, and the islands of Cape de Verd, and
the Canaries; while in the Pacific Ocean, the Philippines were under
his sway. In America, Spain held a large part of the eastern coast,
except Brazil, which belonged to Portugal, all the islands in the
Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, and the kingdoms of Mexico
and Peru, which had been conquered during the reign of Charles. The
Spanish infantry was considered the most formidable in Europe, and
the treasures of the Indies were believed to be inexhaustible. Yet
Spain had suffered seriously from the long-protracted struggle. Her
resources were nearly as much crippled as those of France; her
government, if better organised, was fully as despotic, and all
religious liberty had been crushed out; and she was shortly to give
evidence of her weakness in the failure to put down the revolt of the
United Provinces, and in the defeat of the Armada by the puny ships of
England.
The peace of Cateau Cambrésis, therefore, closes one epoch and
begins another. New actors came upon the scene.[58] The struggle for
supremacy is stayed a while. Germany and Spain are for ever divided;
the Turkish Empire soon ceases to be aggressive, and begins to suffer
from internal decay. The remaining thirty-nine years we have to cover
is chiefly taken up with the Counter-Reformation and the struggles to
which that movement gave birth, with the religious wars in France, and
with the revolt of the Netherlands against the religious and political
tyranny of Spain.
FOOTNOTES:
[54] It had already been summoned in 1542, but had been
postponed.
[55] The question whether Charles had used the words, ‘nicht
einiges’ (any), or ‘nicht ewiges (perpetual) Gefängniss,’ appears
to be an afterthought. Cf. Armstrong, ii. 156.
[56] For the character of the Spanish rule in Italy, cf.
Armstrong, _Charles V._, II. p. 291 ff.
[57] As we shall have to speak but little hereafter of Italy, it
may be well to give concisely the names of the chief dependent or
independent states:
1. Piedmont, in the hands of Emanuel Philibert of Savoy.
2. Genoa and Venice, independent republics.
3. Parma and Piacenza, under the rule of Ottavio Farnese; of
these Parma had been restored to him by Paul III., and Piacenza
by Philip II. in 1556.
4. Mantua, in the hands of Frederick, first Duke of Mantua, who
also gained Montferrat from Charles V. in 1536, having married
the heiress of William VII. (Paleologus), Marquis of Montferrat.
5. Florence, under Duke Cosimo dei Medici, who had just secured
Siena, and assumed the title of Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1569.
6. The Duchy of Urbino, a papal fief, in the hands of Guidobaldo
della Rovere.
7. The duchies of Ferrara, Modena, and Reggio, in the hands of
Ercole II. of Este. On the extinction of the direct line in 1597,
Ferrara was seized by the Pope, Clement VIII. Modena and Reggio
went to Charles of Este, a collateral.
[58] Charles, and Mary Queen of England died in 1558, Paul IV.
and Henry II. in 1559.