2

the wife of his brother dying without issue.' These laws are perfectly in unison, the latter being only an exception to the first; or if they are contradictory, it is not the law in Leviticus that must prevail, but that in Deuteronomium, which repeals it. As for the words of St. John the Baptist, "it is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife," brought forward by the ambassadors, it is plain that the Baptist was speaking of a brother then living, the tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, to whom a daughter had been born; whereas Arthur, the king's brother, not only was not living, but had left no children of the marriage. In a question so free from doubt, no judges should be appointed, least of all in England, where everything would be at the king's mercy; and above all, those should not be sent as judges who, having received great favours from the king, were therefore in a greater measure than others bound to serve him.

3

When this report was made known to Dr. Stephen," he went back to the Pope, and said that there were theologians in Rome of another opinion, and added that the king, even if the marriage were not forbidden by the divine law, would make it plain that the dispensation granted by Pope Julius was by no means canonical or lawful; he was exceedingly surprised that the question was not referred to judges for its solution at the request of a king who had done such services to the

1 Levit. xviii. 16; Deuter. xxv. 5. brother being yet alive; 2 St. Mark vi. 18.

3 St. Luke iii. I.

4 Tyndale (Practice of Prelates, p. 328, ed. Parker Society) argues in the same way: "I see no remedy but that a man must understand the text thus-that Moses forbiddeth a man to take his brother's wife as long as his brother liveth, . . . and therefore John rebuked Herod for taking his brother's wife from him, his

.. but if his brother die childless, then he ought to have her, and that she is bound to offer herself to the other brother, by the law of Moses; and that it is lawful now, though no commandment."

5 Dr. Stephen Gardiner. He is called Dr. Stephen or Steven as often, if not more frequently, than Dr. Gardiner.

2

Church, seeing that the like petition from private persons would not be refused: he expected a more favourable answer from His Holiness.' The Pontiff said, "What I can do lawfully for the king, that I will do. This, however, is not a question of human law, but of a Christian marriage; and as that is a sacrament instituted by Christ, it is not in my power to change the law you are asking for the dissolution of a marriage, when man cannot sever that which God has united; a marriage, too, entered into with the sanction of my predecessor, confirmed by a cohabitation of twenty years and the birth of children. Besides, does not the matter touch the honour both of Catherine the queen and of Charles the emperor? Who will answer for it, that such a divorce may not be the occasion of a great war? It is my duty to take care that no troubles that I can hinder shall rise to disturb the Church of God." So spoke the Pope, but he referred the question again to other Cardinals and theologians. Among these,

1 Gardiner (ut supra, p. 110) confesses that he threatened the Pope. "I said the king's highness would take very strangely, and would think his manifold benefits ill employed, if in the manner and form of obtaining justice there shall no more respect be had of his person and weight of his cause than promiscue plebis; ne obtain more here after so great charges, costs, and delay of time, than his majesty might have obtained at home. Not doubting but his majesty understanding hereof would use domestico remedio apud suos,"

2 The Pope never spoke in any other sense throughout the progress of this suit. Gardiner and Gregory Casali threatened the Pontiff "that the king would do it without him." This was on April 1, 1528, before the Legates were appointed. The answer of the Pope was (Pocock, Records, i. 127), according to Gardiner,

"He would it were done;" but that did not mean that he would approve of it, but that such an act on the part of Henry would bring the cause to a decision sooner; for the Pope adds, "In a matter in qua vertitur jus tertii he could do nothing without the counsel of them, and wished that it were in his power to give the king's highness somewhat depending only of his own particular hurt or damage, without touching any man's rights, with such like words, nothing sounding to the furtherance." Again, after the trial in London, Dr. Bennet, in a letter from Rome, Oct. 27, 1530, reporting the Pope's answer to his demands, says, "He said that he would do nothing in this matter, but that the law will, neither for your highness, neither for the French king, neither for the emperor; and other answer we could not get of him."

though some said it would be better to try the question in Rome, where justice was done to all, than to have it tried in England, where everything would be at the king's mercy, yet there were others who, fashioning ecclesiastical affairs for political ends, and complaining loudly of the heresies that had lately grown up in Germany, and of the excessive lukewarmness of other princes in the defence of the faith, were of opinion that Henry, a most zealous defender of the faith, should be more gently dealt with, especially as it was said, that the queen was willing to enter a monastery. It certainly seemed very hard, to them, that judges should not be appointed at the request of so great a king; it was possible that the king, during the progress of the suit, if at present somewhat perverse, might be brought by degrees to a better mind. Why stand in the way of a trial? It is in the power of the Pope to have the cause at any time brought before himself.

The latter opinion prevailed with the Pope, partly because he favoured Henry very much, and partly because he had no suspicion whatever that all that which had been said to him about the consent of Catherine; and of her desire to become a nun, was false. Accordingly Lorenzo Campeggio and Thomas Wolsey, Cardinals, priests, and bishops, were appointed judges in the

cause.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE QUEEN PETITIONS THE POPE-CARDINAL CAMPEGGIO ARRIVES IN ENGLAND HYPOCRISY OF HENRY-FIRMNESS OF THE QUEEN-ANNE BOLEYN AT COURT—INSOLENCE OF THE KING'S AMBASSADORS.

THOUGH nothing had been said to the queen about the embassy sent to Rome,' yet the moment she suspected that something of the kind was done, she wrote to the Pope begging him to send no Legates to try the question of the divorce in England, for that would be nothing else but to make the king a judge in his own cause. She wrote also to the emperor, and told him of Wolsey's intrigue and of the king's purpose, earnestly beseeching him not to abandon his aunt, who must endure these wrongs because of the hatred borne to the

emperor.

The imperial ambassador complained to the Pope that the king of England had sent his agents secretly from England to Rome, and had kept the fact from the knowledge of the queen, who was chiefly concerned in the matter, and that judges had been appointed before the Pope had heard what the queen had to say in her own defence. "What scandals will arise," he said, "when the emperor defends his aunt against the wrongdoings of the king! What was to be looked for from

1 The king was afraid of the queen's interference from the first, and there is a letter of his to the Cardinal, Sept. 1527 (Burnet, vi.

22, ed. Pocock), in which he says, "Lest the queen should prevent us by the emperor's means in our great matter."

England in its present state, where the most wicked men, because they encouraged the king in his evil courses, were raised to all places of honour, but where the good and faithful people, who, purely through the fear of God, defended the cause of the queen, were thrust out of every place of honour which they held?”

Then the Pope, seeing that the information given him by the king was false, sent four messengers in all haste, by different roads, with directions to Campeggio to travel as slowly as he could,' and on his arrival in England, to make every effort to reconcile the king and the queen, and if he should fail, then to persuade the latter to become a religious. But if in that also he should fail, he was at least not to pronounce the sentence of divorce without a fresh and clear command of the Pope. "This," said the Pope, "you must regard as the final and most serious injunction."

2

He wrote other letters also from Viterbo, in which he clearly showed that if the matter concerned only himself, he would have shrunk from no danger for the sake of the king, but now the king's wishes could not be satisfied without injustice and public scandal.

3

Campeggio arrived in London October 7, 1528, and

1 This is the explanation of the words of Campeggio-"Quanto alla negociatione mia ch' io vada adagio. Io l'ho fatto, et quanto mi sarà lecito lo faro por la cagione che ella scrive " -in his letter from Paris to Salviati, secretary of the Pope. According to Theiner, the letter is dated 16th Nov. 1528, doubtless a mistake for September, seeing that Cardinal Campeggio was in London during that month.

2 In the letter of John Casali, Dec. 17 (Burnet, iv. 67, ed. Pocock; and Le Grand, iii. 117), in which the writer gives an account of an audience of the Pope, the fact is thus stated: "Ego, inquit [Pontifex], illi

[Campegio] imposui ut divortium regi dissuaderet, persuaderet reginæ." See also the account of the interview between the Legates and the queen, given by Du Bellay, in Le Grand, iii. 195.

3 He was lodged the first night in the house of the duke of Suffolk, in the borough, and the next day was to make his public entry into London. But as he was suffering from gout, he avoided the fatigues of that ceremony, and was carried in a boat towards evening to the palace of the bishop of Bath and Wells, where he remained. The next morning, Friday, he was visited by the Cardinal of York, and on the 22d was received