II. 1527. trouble he could at home. But on the other hand he BOOK: had some cause to hope well even in that particular. For the question of the unlawfulness of the match had been first debated in the cortes, or assembly of the states, at Madrid; and the Emperor had then shewed himself so favourable to it, that he broke the match (to which he had bound himself) with the Princess. Therefore the King had reason to think that this at least would mitigate his opposition. The Emperor had also used the Pope so hardly, that it could not be doubted that the Pope hated him. And it was believed that he would find the protection of the King of England most necessary to secure him either from the greatness of France or Spain, who were fighting for the best part of Italy, which must needs fall into one of their hands. Therefore the King did not doubt but the Pope would be compliant to his desires. And in this he was much confirmed by the hopes, or rather assurance, which the Cardinal gave him of the Pope's favour; who, either calculating what was to be expected from that court on the account of their own interest, or upon some promises made him, had undertaken to the King to bring that matter about to his heart's content. It is certain that the Cardinal had carried over with him out Lord Herof the King's treasure 240,000l. to be employed about the Pope's liberty. But whether he had made a bar-· gain for the divorce, or had fancied that nothing could be denied him at Rome, it does not appear. It is clear by many of his letters, that he had undertaken to the King, that the business should be done; and it is not like that a man of his wisdom would have adventured to do that without some good warrant. bert. ments But now that the suit was to be moved in the court The arguof Rome, they were to devise such arguments as were against the like to be well heard there. It would have been unac- bull. ceptable to have insisted on the nullity of the bull on II. BOOK this account, because the matter of it was unlawful, and fell not within the Pope's power: for popes, like other 1527. princes, do not love to hear the extent of their prerogative disputed or defined. And to condemn the bull of a former pope as unlawful, was a dangerous precedent at a time when the Pope's authority was rejected by so: many in Germany. Therefore the canonists, as well as divines, were consulted to find such nullities in the bull of dispensation, as, according to the canon law, and the proceedings of the Rota, might serve to invalidate it without any diminution of the papal power. Which being once done, the marriage that followed upon it must needs be annulled. When the canonists examined the bull, they found much matter to proceed upon. It is a maxim in law, That if the Pope be surprised in any thing, and bulls be procured upon false suggestions and untrue premises, they may be annulled afterwards. Upon which foundation most of all the processes against pope's bulls were grounded. Now they found by the preamble of this bull that it was said, The King had desired that he might be dispensed with to marry the Princess. This was false; for the King had made no such desire, being of an age that was below such considerations, but twelve years old. Then it appeared by the preamble that this bull was desired by the King to preserve the peace between the King of England, and Ferdinand and Isabella, (called Elizabetha in the bull,) the Kings of Spain. To which they excepted, That it was plain this was false, since the King, being then but twelve years old, could not be supposed to have such deep speculations, and so large a prospect, as to desire a match upon a politic account. Then it being also in the bull, that the Pope's dispensation was granted to keep peace between the crowns; if there was no hazard of any breach or war between them, this was a false suggestion, by which the Pope II. 1527. had been made believe, that this match was necessary BOOK for averting some great mischief; and it was known that there was no danger at all of that: and so this bull was obtained by a surprise. Besides, both King Henry of England, and Isabella of Spain, were dead before the King married his Queen; so the marriage could not be valid by virtue of a bull that was granted to maintain amity between princes that were dead before the marriage was consummated: and they also judged that the protestation, which the King made when he came of age, did retract any such pretended desire, that might have been preferred to the Pope in his name; and that, from that time forward, the bull could have no further operation, since the ground upon which it was granted, which was the King's desire, did then cease, any pretended desire before he was of age being clearly annulled and determined by that protestation after he was of age; so that a subsequent marriage, founded upon the bull, must needs be void. advice to 1527. These were the grounds upon which the canonists Wolsey's advised the process at Rome to be carried on. But first, the King, to amuse or overreach the Spaniard, the King sent August 1, word to his ambassador in Spain to silence the noise that was made about it in that court. Whether the King had then resolved on the person that should succeed the Queen, when he had obtained what he desired, or not, is much questioned. Some suggest, that from the beginning he was taken with the charms of Anne Boleyn, and that all this process was moved by the unseen spring of that secret affection. Others will have this amour to have been later in the King's thoughts. How early it came there, at this distance it is not easy to determine. But before I say more of it, she being so considerable a person in the following relation, I shall give some account of her. Sanders has assured the world, "That the King had a liking to her mother, II. BOOK "who was daughter to the Duke of Norfolk; and to the "end that he might enjoy her with the less disturbance, he sent her husband, Sir Thomas Boleyn, to be Sanders his ambassador in France: and that, after two years ab 1527. story about leyn exa mined. cites Ras Sir Thomas More, a book that was never seen by any body else. 66 Anne Bo-sence, his wife being with child, he came over, and ❝sued a divorce against her in the Archbishop of CanFor this he "terbury's court; but the King sent the Marquis of tal's Life of "Dorset to let him know, that she was with child by him, and that therefore the King desired he would pass the matter over, and be reconciled to his wife: to which he consented. And so Anne Boleyn, though "she went under the name of his daughter, yet was of "the King's begetting." As he describes her," she was "ill-shaped and ugly, had six fingers, a gag tooth, and "a tumour under her chin, with many other unseemly things in her person. At the fifteenth year of her age," he says, "both her father's butler and chaplain lay "with her afterwards she was sent to France, where "she was at first kept privately in the house of a per"son of quality; then she went to the French court, "where she led such a dissolute life, that she was called "the English Hackney. That the French King liked "her, and, from the freedoms he took with her, she was "called the King's Mule. But returning to England, "she was admitted to the court, where she quickly per"ceived how weary the King was of the Queen, and "what the Cardinal was designing; and having gained "the King's affection, she governed it so, that by all "innocent freedoms she drew him into her toils, and by the appearances of a severe virtue, with which she teem, I disguised herself, so increased his affection and esthat he resolved to put her in his Queen's place, "as soon as the divorce was granted." The same author adds, That the King had likewise enjoyed her sister, with a great deal more, to the disgrace of this lady and her family. I know it is not the work of an historian to refute the BOOK II. lies of others, but rather to deliver such a plain account as will be a more effectual confutation than any thing 1527. can be that is said by way of argument, which belongs to other writers. And at the end of this King's reign, I intend to set down a collection of the most notorious falsehoods of that writer, together with the evidences of their being so. But all this of Anne Boleyn is so palpable a lie, or rather a complicated heap of lies, and so much depends on it, that I presume it will not offend the reader to be detained a few minutes in the refutation of it. For if it were true, very much might be drawn from it, both to disparage King Henry, who pretended conscience to annul his marriage for the nearness of affinity, and yet would after that marry his own daughter. It leaves also a foul and lasting stain both on the memory of Anne Boleyn, and of her incomparable daughter Queen Elizabeth. It also derogates so much from the first reformers, who had some kind of dependance on Queen Anne Boleyn, that it seems to be of great importance, for directing the reader in the judgment he is to make of persons and things, to lay open the falsehood of this account. It were sufficient for blasting it, that there is no proof pretended to be brought for any part of it, but a book of one Rastal, a judge, that was never seen by any other person than that writer. The title of the book is, The Life of Sir Thomas More. There is great reason to think that Rastal never writ any such book; for it is most common for the lives of great authors to be prefixed to their works. Now this Rastal published all More's works in Queen Mary's reign, to which, if he had written his life, it is likely he would have prefixed it. No evidence therefore being given for his relation, either from records, letters, or the testimony of any person who was privy to the matter, the whole is to be looked |