The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 (260 page)
Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
[r]Lord Herbert. Burnet, vol. i. p. 29. in the collect. Le Grand, vol. iii. p. 28. Strype,
vol. i. p. 93. with App. No 23, 24, &c.
[s]Lord Herbert, p. 221. Burnet, p. 59.
[w]Rymer, vol. xiv. p. 270. Strype, vol. i. p. 110, 111. Append. No. 28.
[y]Herbert, p. 225. Burnet, vol. i. p. 69.
[z]Burnet, vol. i. p. 73. Hall. Stowe, p. 543.
[g]Collier, vol. ii. p. 45. Burnet, vol. i. p. 53.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
319
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/790
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 3
[k]Strype, vol. i. p. 114, 115. App. No 31, &c
[NOTE [F]]
The first article of the charge against the cardinal is his procuring the legantine power, which, however, as it was certainly done with the king’s consent and permission, could be nowise criminal. Many of the other articles also regard the mere exercise of that power. Some articles impute to him as crimes, particular actions, which were natural or unavoidable to any man, that was prime minister with so unlimited an authority; such as receiving first all letters from the king’s ministers abroad, receiving first all visits from foreign ministers, desiring that all applications should be made through him. He was also accused of naming himself with the king, as if he had been his fellow,
the king and I:
It is reported that sometimes he even put his own name before the king’s,
ego et rex meus.
But this mode of expression is justified by the Latin idiom. It is remarkable, that his whispering in the king’s ear, knowing himself to be affected with venereal distempers, is an article against him.
Many of the charges are general, and incapable of proof. Lord Herbert goes so far as to affirm, that no man ever fell from so high a station, who had so few real crimes objected to him. This opinion is perhaps a little too favourable to the cardinal. Yet the refutation of the articles by Cromwel, and their being rejected by a house of commons even in this arbitrary reign, is almost a demonstration of Wolsey’s innocence. Henry was, no doubt, entirely bent on his destruction, when, on his failure by a parliamentary impeachment, he attacked him upon the statute of provisors, which afforded him so little just hold on that minister. For that this indictment was subsequent to the attack in parliament, appears by Cavendish’s life of Wolsey, and Stowe, p. 551, and more certainly by the very articles of impeachment themselves.
Parliamentary History, vol. iii. p. 42. article 7. Coke’s Inst. pt. 4. fol. 89.
[p]These exactions were quite arbitrary, and had risen to a great height. A member
said in the house, that a thousand marks had been exacted from him on that account.
Hall, fol. 188, Strype, vol. i. p. 73
[r]Parliamentary History, vol. iii. p. 59. Burnet, vol. ii. p. 82.
[t]Fox, p. 1860, 2d edit. Burnet, vol. i. p. 79. Speed, p. 769. Heylin, p. 5.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
320
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/790
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 3
[NOTE [G]]
Even judging of this question by the Scripture, to which the appeal was every moment made, the arguments for the king’s cause appear but lame and imperfect. Marriage in the degree of affinity which had place between Henry and Catherine, is, indeed, prohibited in Leviticus; but it is natural to interpret that prohibition as a part of the Jewish ceremonial or municipal law: And though it is there said, in the conclusion, that the gentile nations, by violating those degrees of consanguinity, had incurred the divine displeasure, the extension of this maxim to every precise case before specified, is supposing the Scriptures to be composed with a minute accuracy and precision, to which, we know with certainty, the sacred penmen did not think proper to confine themselves. The descent of mankind from one common father, obliged them, in the first generation, to marry in the nearest degrees of consanguinity: Instances of a like nature occur among the patriarchs: And the marriage of a brother’s widow was, in certain cases, not only permitted, but even enjoined as a positive precept by the Mosaical law. It is in vain to say, that this precept was an exception to the rule; and an exception confined merely to the Jewish nation. The inference is still just, that such a marriage can contain no natural or moral turpitude; otherwise God, who is the author of all purity, would never, in any case, have enjoined it.
[x]Wood, hist. and an. Ox. lib. i. p. 225.
[z]Rymer, vol. xiv. 405. Burnet, vol. i. p. 95.
[a]Rymer, vol. xiv. p. 454, 472.
[e]Antiq. Brit. Eccles. p. 325. Burnet, vol. i. p. 106
[g]Hall’s chronicle. Hollingshed, p. 923. Baker, p. 208.
[h]Burnet, vol. i. Collect. No 41. Strype, vol. i. p. 144.
[i]Burnet, vol. i. p. 116. Hall. Parliamentary history.
[k]Burnet, vol. i. p. 123, 124.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
321
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/790
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 3
[o]Collier, vol. ii. p. 31, and Records, No 8.
[NOTE [H]]
Bishop Burnet has given us an account of the number of bulls requisite for Cranmer’s installation. By one bull, directed to the king, he is, upon the royal nomination, made archbishop of Canterbury. By a second, directed to himself, he is also made archbishop. By a third, he is absolved from all censures. A fourth is directed to the suffragans, requiring them to receive and acknowledge him as archbishop. A fifth to the dean and chapter, to the same purpose. A sixth to the clergy of Canterbury. A seventh to all the laity in his see. An eighth to all that held lands of it. By a ninth he was ordered to be consecrated, taking the oath that was in the pontifical. By a tenth the pall was sent him. By an eleventh; the archbishop of York, and the bishop of London, were required to put it on him. These were so many devices to draw sees to offices, which the popes had erected, and disposed of for money. It may be worth observing, that Cranmer, before he took the oath to the pope, made a protestation, that he did not intend thereby to restrain himself from any thing that he was bound to, either by his duty to God, the king, or the country; and that he renounced every thing in it that was contrary to any of these. This was the invention of some casuist, and not very compatible with that strict sincerity, and that scrupulous conscience, of which Cranmer made profession. Collier, vol. ii. in Coll. No 22.
Burnet, vol. i. p. 128, 129.
[s]Herbert, p. 326. Burnet, vol. i. p. 132.
[t]Le Grand, vol. iii. p. 566.
[u]Burnet, vol. ii. p. 133. Guicciardini.
[z]Le Neve’s Fasti Eccles. Angl.
[b]Collier, vol. ii. p. 69, 70.
[c]Collier’s Eccles. Hist. vol. ii.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
322
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/790
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 3
[NOTE [I]]
Here are the terms in which the king’s minister expressed himself to the pope. An non, inquam, sanctitas vestra plerosque habet quibuscum arcanum aliquid crediderit, putet id non minus celatum esse quam si uno tantum pectore contineretur; quod multo magis serenissimo Angliae Regi evenire debet, cui singuli in suo regno sunt subjecti, neque etiam velint, possunt Regi non esse fidelissimi. Vae namque illis, si vel parvo momento ab illius voluntate recederent. Le Grand, tom. iii. p. 113. The king once said publicly before the council, that if any one spoke of him or his actions, in terms which became them not, he would let them know, that he was master. Et qu’il n’y auroit si belle tete qu’il ne fit voler. Id. p. 218.
[i]Sacrilegium est et impietas velle placere Deo per opera et non per solam fidem.
Luther adversus regem.
Ita vides quam dives sit homo christianus sive baptizatus, qui etiam volens not potest perdere salutem suam quantiscunque peccatis. Nulla enim peccata possunt eum damnare nisi incredulitas.
Id. de captivitate Babylonica.
[k]Hall, fol. 186. Fox, vol. i. p. 138. Burnet, vol. i. p. 159.
[l]Articles of impeachment in Herbert. Burnet.
[m]Fox. Burnet, vol. i. p. 165.
[p]Collier, vol. ii. p. 86. Burnet, vol. i. p. 151.
[r]Stowe, p. 570. Blanquet’s Epitome of Chronicles.
[u]25 Hen. VIII. c. 12. Burnet, vol. i. p. 149. Hall, fol. 220.
[x]Fuller’s Church Hist. book 5. p. 203.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
323
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/790
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 3
[y]More’s Life of Sir Thomas More. Herbert, p. 393.
[e]Du Bellay, liv. 5. Herbert. Burnet, vol. iii. in Coll. No 50.
[h]It is pretended, see Hollingshed, p. 939, that ten thousand monks were turned out
on the dissolution of the lesser monasteries. If so, most of them must have been Mendicants: For the revenue could not have supported near that number. The Mendicants, no doubt, still continued their former profession.
[NOTE [J]]
This letter contains so much nature and even elegance, as to deserve to be transmitted to posterity, without any alteration in the expression. It is as follows.
“Sir, your grace’s displeasure and my imprisonment are things so strange unto me, as what to write, or what to excuse, I am altogether ignorant. Whereas you send unto me (willing me to confess a truth, and so obtain your favour) by such an one, whom you know to be mine ancient professed enemy, I no sooner received this message by him, than I rightly conceived your meaning; and, if, as you say, confessing a truth indeed may procure my safety, I shall with all willingness and duty perform your command.
“But let not your grace ever imagine, that your poor wife will ever be brought to acknowledge a fault, where not so much as a thought thereof preceded. And to speak a truth, never prince had wife more loyal in all duty, and in all true affection, than you have ever found in Anne Boleyn: With which name and place I could willingly have PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
324
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/790
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 3
contented myself, if God and your grace’s pleasure had been so pleased. Neither did I at any time so far forget myself in my exaltation or received queenship, but that I always looked for such an alteration as I now find; for the ground of my preferment being on no surer foundation than your grace’s fancy, the least alteration I knew was fit and sufficient to draw that fancy to some other object. You have chosen me from a low estate to be your queen and companion, far beyond my desert or desire. If then you found me worthy of such honour, good your grace let not any light fancy, or bad counsel of mine enemies, withdraw your princely favour from me; neither let that stain, that unworthy stain, of a disloyal heart towards your good grace, ever cast so foul a blot on your most dutiful wife, and the infant princess your daughter. Try me, good king, but let me have a lawful trial, and let not my sworn enemies sit as my accusers and judges; yea let me receive an open trial, for my truth shall fear no open shame; then shall you see either mine innocence cleared, your suspicion and conscience satisfied, the ignominy and slander of the world stopped, or my guilt openly declared. So that whatsoever God or you may determine of me, your grace may be freed from an open censure, and mine offence being so lawfully proved, your grace is at liberty, both before God and man, not only to execute worthy punishment on me as an unlawful wife, but to follow your affection, already settled on that party, for whose sake I am now as I am, whose name I could some good while since have pointed unto, your grace not being ignorant of my suspicion therein.