Note 104 — THE PROLOGUE.

Dr. Fiddes has justly observed, that Cavendish, in his account of these transactions, asserted some things not only without sufficient authority, but contrary to the evidence of documents which he has adduced. By these it appears, that if there was any delay in the supplies promised on the part of England it was purely accidental; and that the remissness of the emperor to furnish his quota was the principal cause of the extremity to which the Duke of Bourbon’s army was reduced. Cavendish is also wrong in his relation of the siege of Pavia and its consequences. The fact is, that the Duke of Bourbon did not command in the town, but marched at the head of the imperial army to relieve it; and the garrison did not sally out until the two armies were engaged. The demonstrations of joy with which the victory at Pavia was received in London is also an argument for the sincerity of Henry and the cardinal at this time. The story of the treaty between Henry and Francis, said to have been found in the tent of the latter after the victory, is also a mere fiction. In the spirit of a true son of the Apostolic Church, Cavendish deprecates every thing which might tend to bring the Pope into jeopardy; and he cannot help bearing hard even upon the cardinal, because he was thought indirectly the cause ‘of all this mischief.’ What is here said receives confirmation from some interesting letters of the cardinal in the Appendix to Galt’s Life of Wolsey, No. IV. V. VI. p. cxxxiv, &c. 4to edition, Lond. 1812.