Papal authority, he will
give sentence in his favour.]

It appeared certain, yet after all no certain conclusion is possible.
Francis I., though not choosing to quarrel with the see of Rome to do a
pleasure to Henry, was anxious to please his ally to the extent of his
convenience; at any rate, he would not have gratuitously deceived him;
and still less would he have been party to an act of deliberate
treachery. When Bonner was gone he had a last interview with the pope,
in which he urged upon him the necessity of complying with Henry's
demands; and the pope on this occasion said that he was satisfied that
the King of England was right; that his cause was good; and that he had
only to acknowledge the papal jurisdiction by some formal act, to find
sentence immediately pronounced in his favour. Except for his
precipitation, and his refusal to depute a proxy to plead for him, his
wishes would have been complied with long before. In the existing
posture of affairs, and after the measures which had been passed in
England with respect to the see of Rome, he himself, the pope said,
could not make advances without some kind of submission; but a single
act of acknowledgment was all which he required.[182]

[Sidenote: Was the pope honest? or treacherous? or merely weak.]

[Sidenote: Let us try to judge him charitably.]

Extraordinary as it must seem, the pope certainly bound himself by this
engagement: and who can tell with what intention? To believe him sincere
and to believe him false seems equally impossible. If he was persuaded
that Henry's cause _was_ good, why did he in the following year
pronounce finally for Catherine? why had he imperilled so needlessly the
interests of the papacy in England? why had his conduct from the
beginning pointed steadily to the conclusion at which he at last
arrived? and why throughout Europe were the ultramontane party, to a
man, on Catherine's side? On the other hand, what object at such a time
can be conceived for falsehood? Can we suppose that he designed to dupe
Henry into submission by a promise which he had predetermined to break?
It is hard to suppose even Clement capable of so elaborate an act of
perfidy; and it is, perhaps, idle to waste conjectures on the motives of
a weak, much-agitated man. He was, probably, but giving a fresh example
of his disposition to say at each moment whatever would be most
agreeable to his hearers. This was his unhappy habit, by which he earned
for hims