[428]Cal. xiii. (ii) 457 (3).[429]Burnet, vol. i. p. 431.[430]31 Hen. VIII., c. 9.[431]Cal. xi. 786 (3).[432]Cromwell.[433]Cranmer.[434]Richard Riche.[435]The Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Legh, and Dr. Layton.[436]The Bishop of Lichfield.[437]Cal. xi. 786 (3).[438]Cal. ix. 314, 321, 322.[439]Cal. ix. 694.[440]Cal. x. 364.[441]Cal. xi. 705, 780 (2); xii. (i) 70; xiii. (ii) 307.[442]Letters,105.[443]Cal. xii. (i) 138, 786, 900. Cf. also A. L. Smith in Social England, vol. iii. pp. 21 ff.[444]Cal. xii. (i) 70 (13).[445]Cal. xii. (i) 163.[446]Cal. xi. 585.[447]Cal. xi. 504, 544.[448]Cal. xi. 533–534, 536–539, 552–553, 567–568.[449]Cal. xi. 547.[450]Cal. xi. 569.[451]Cal. xi. 567.[452]Cal. xi. 579–580.[453]The son of Morgan Williams and Katherine Cromwell. Cf. chap. iii, pp. 54–55.[454]Cal. xi. 576.[455]Cal. xi. 601–602.[456]Letters, 165, 167, 169.[457]Cal. xi. 714.[458]Cal. xi. 674, 694, 706, 715, 717.[459]State Papers, vol. i. p. 463.[460]Cal. xi. 611.[461]Cal. xi. 563, 622.[462]Cal. xii. (i) 163, 259, 1080.[463]Cal. xi. 611.[464]Cal. xi. 627.[465]Cal. xii. (i) 900, 944.[466]Cal. xii. (i) 853, 1087.[467]Cal. xi. 826.[468]Cal. xi. 626, 671, 758.[469]Cal. xi. 793, 800.[470]Cal. xi. 864.[471]Cal. xi. 887, 902.[472]Cal. xi. 901.[473]Cal. xi. 909.[474]Cal. xi. 995.[475]Cal. xi. 1061.[476]Cal. xi. 957, 995, 1115, 1206.[477]Cal. xi. 1224, 1225.[478]Cal. xi. 1236.[479]Cal. xi. 1276.[480]Letters, 174.[481]Cal. xii. (i) 44.[482]Cal. xii. (i) 67.[483]Thomas, The Pilgrim, p. 53.[484]Cal. xii. (i) 201, 370.[485]Cal. xii. (i) 104.[486]Cal. xii. (i) 369.[487]Cal. xii. (i) 234, 369 (p. 166).[488]Cal. xii. (i) 86, 98.[489]Cal. xii. (i) 498.[490]Cal. xii. (i) 976.[491]On this and the succeeding pages, cf. G. T. Lapsley, ‘The Problem of the North,’ in the American Historical Review for April, 1900, pp. 440–466.[492]Cal. xii. (i) 595.[493]Cal. xii. (ii) 914.[494]Cal. xii. (i) 318, 319, 321, 594, 651.[495]Cal. xii. (i) 594, 636.[496]Cal. xii. (i) 319.[497]Cal. xii. (i) 651, 667, 916, 919.[498]Cal. xii. (i) 1118.[499]Cal. xii. (ii) 254, 914.[500]Cf. Gneist, pp. 513–514.[501]Phillips, Pole, p. 3.Cf.also the genealogy at the beginning of the book.[502]Cal. i. 4190.[503]Cal. iii. 1544.[504]Cal. iv. 6252.[505]Poli Epistolae, i. 251–262.[506]Cal. v. 737.[507]Cal. viii. 217–219.[508]Cal. x. 974–975.[509]Cal. xi. 156.[510]Cal. xi. 229.[511]Cal. xi. 93.[512]Cal. xi. 1353; xii. (i) 779.[513]Cal. xiv. (i) 186.[514]Cal. xii. (i) 779.[515]Cal. xii. (i) 625, 939.[516]Cal. xii. (i) 1219; Letters, 187.[517]Life of Pole, Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xlvi. p. 38.[518]Cal. xii. (i) 34, 249.[519]There is reason to think that Throgmorton had promised to be a spy on Pole’s movements for the King. Cf. Letters, 218.[520]Cal. xii. (i) 249, 296, 313.[521]Cal. xii. (i) 429; xii. (ii) 552.[522]Letters, 216–217.[523]Letters, 218.[524]Cal. xiii. (ii) 232 (p. 91).[525]Cal. xiii. (ii) 695, 770, 771.[526]Cal. xiii. (ii) 804, 805, 954–960.[527]Cal. xiii. (ii) 802, 979 (7). It is said that Cromwell, in the course of these prosecutions, contrived to deprive the victims of all chance of escape by inquiring of the judges whether, if a man were condemned to death for treason in Parliament without a hearing, the attainder could ever be disputed. He finally succeeded in obtaining the reluctant but correct reply that ‘an attainder in Parliament, whether or not the party had been heard in his own defence, could never be reversed in a court of law.’ Cf. Hallam, vol. i. pp. 29–30. Coke, Fourth Institute, p. 38, adds, ‘The party against whom this was intended was never called in question, but the first man after the said resolution, that was so attainted, and never called to answer, was the said Earl of Essex (Thomas Cromwell): whereupon that erroneous and vulgar opinion amongst our historians grew, that he died by the same law which he himself had made.’[528]Cal. xiii. (ii) 753.[529]Cal. xiii. (ii) 986, 1163.[530]Wriothesley’s Chronicle, vol. i. p. 92.[531]Cal. xiv. (i) 867, c. 15.[532]Cal. xvi. 868.[533]Cal. xiv. (i) 279–280.[534]Letters, 301.[535]Cal. xiv. (i) 603.[536]Cal. xiv. (ii) 212.[537]Cal. xiv. (i) 560.[538]Cf. Robertson, vol. ii. p. 135.[539]Ranke, Popes, vol. i. p. 77.[540]Cal. vi. 64, 92.[541]Cal. v. 1545.[542]Cal. vi. 110.[543]Cal. vi. 465.[544]Cal. vi. 508. Cromwell often begged to be excused from a promised interview on the plea of illness. Cf. Cal. vii. 959. Though it is certain that he suffered at times from violent attacks of ague, it is doubtful if it was always his ill-health which prevented him from fulfilling his engagements to the Imperial ambassador.[545]Cal. vi. 918; viii. 263, 327, 355, 948; ix. 594.[546]Cal. vi. 614, 641.[547]Ranke, Popes, vol. i. p. 77.[548]Cal. vi. 1426, 1427.[549]Mr. Friedmann (Anne Boleyn, vol. i. pp. 225, 250 ff.) believes that this break with France was due to the influence of Cromwell, who had urged the King to strike out an independent policy as regards the Pope. M. Bapst (Deux Gentilshommes, pp. 97, 113), on the other hand, thinks that the King’s minister originally favoured the French alliance, and adhered to it until 1535. Neither writer produces any very conclusive evidence in support of his theory: but Mr. Friedmann’s view is certainly, on the face of it, the more plausible. It may be too much to say that it was by Cromwell’s advice that Francis was insulted at Marseilles, but it is certain that the King’s minister evinced a decided preference for an Imperial alliance long before the year 1535. Cf. Froude, The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon, p. 308.[550]Cal. vi. 918.[551]Cal. vi. 934.[552]Cal. vi. 1039–1040.[553]Letters,64.[554]Cal. vii. 21.[555]Cal. vi. 1510.[556]B.M. Nero B. iii, 105.[557]Schäfer, p. 512.[558]Rymer, vol. xiv. p. 539.[559]Waitz, vol. i. p. 83.[560]One of the provisions of the proposed agreement was: ‘Ducere uxorem fratris mortui sine liberis est jure divino et naturali prohibitum. Contra prohibitiones divinas invalida ac prorsus nulla est Romani pontificis vel cujuscumque alterius dispensatio.’ Entwurf eines Vertrags zwischen König Heinrich und Lübeck; Sommer, 1534. Transcribed from the original in the Archives at Weimar; Waitz, vol. ii. pp. 319–325.[561]Ranke, vol. iii. pp. 406–425.[562]Cal. vii. 970.[563]Cal. viii. 72, 327.[564]Cal. viii. 556, 1178.[565]Cal. vii. 1095.[566]Cal. vii. 1257.[567]Cal. vii. 1060, and Baumgarten, vol. iii. pp. 145–146.[568]Cal. vii. 1437.[569]Cal. vii. 1483, 1554.[570]Cal. vii. 1554.[571]Cal. vii. 1483.[572]Cal. vii. 1507.[573]Cal. viii. 174, 557.[574]Cal. ix. 148, 205, 594, 595.[575]Cal. ix. 443.[576]Letters,126,128, 135.[577]Letters,113.[578]Cal. ix. 390, 1016.[579]Cal. x. 771. Cf. also Corpus Reformatorum, vol. ii. pp. 1028 ff.; iii. pp. 46–50.[580]Cal. x. 59.[581]Cal. ix. 776, and Friedmann, vol. ii. pp. 169–173.[582]Cal. x. 141. Cf. also Friedmann, vol. ii. p. 176.[583]Cf. Dr. Norman Moore, on the Death of Katherine of Aragon, in the Athenaeum for Jan. 31 and Feb. 28, 1885.[584]Robertson, vol. ii. pp. 40–41.[585]Letters, 136.[586]Letters,126.[587]Cal. x. 141.[588]Cal. x. 351.[589]Cal. viii. 948, 1018.[590]Cal. x. 699. Mr. Friedmann points out that this quarrel of Henry and Cromwell about the Spanish alliance was intimately connected with the fate of Anne Boleyn. The Emperor, too cautious to express any indignation at the news of his aunt’s death, was still planning for the safety and, if possible, the succession of his cousin the Princess Mary. On hearing from Chapuys of the possibility of a renewal of cordial relations with England, he wrote back on March 28, 1536, a most diplomatic reply, in which he pointed out that it would be certainly for the interest of the Princess that Anne Boleyn should continue to be Henry’s wife; for should the King marry again, he might have male issue, which would succeed to the prejudice of Mary: there was, on the other hand, little probability that Anne would bear Henry another child, and the Emperor knew well that in the eyes of the nation his cousin’s right was far superior to that of Elizabeth. So, by a very extraordinary turn of affairs, the interests of Charles and of Anne had at least temporarily become identical. Cromwell probably had not perceived that this was the true state of affairs when he had his conversation with Chapuys; but the failure of his attempts to bring about a Spanish alliance must have opened his eyes to the fact that he had been working in the interests of one whose ruin had been certainly resolved on by this time. ‘He took to his bed out of pure sorrow’ for a few days as we are told; and when he returned to the Court, it was to labour with all his might for the ruin of Anne, which he saw was necessary to save his own credit with the King. Friedmann, Anne Boleyn, chapter xvi; Cal. x. 575, 700; also W. H. Dixon, History of Two Queens, vol. iv. pp. 262, 263.[591]Letters, 170.[592]Cal. xii. (i) 1310.[593]Cal. xii. (ii) 1201.[594]Cal. xii. (ii) 1053, 1285.
[428]Cal. xiii. (ii) 457 (3).
[428]Cal. xiii. (ii) 457 (3).
[429]Burnet, vol. i. p. 431.
[429]Burnet, vol. i. p. 431.
[430]31 Hen. VIII., c. 9.
[430]31 Hen. VIII., c. 9.
[431]Cal. xi. 786 (3).
[431]Cal. xi. 786 (3).
[432]Cromwell.
[432]Cromwell.
[433]Cranmer.
[433]Cranmer.
[434]Richard Riche.
[434]Richard Riche.
[435]The Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Legh, and Dr. Layton.
[435]The Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Legh, and Dr. Layton.
[436]The Bishop of Lichfield.
[436]The Bishop of Lichfield.
[437]Cal. xi. 786 (3).
[437]Cal. xi. 786 (3).
[438]Cal. ix. 314, 321, 322.
[438]Cal. ix. 314, 321, 322.
[439]Cal. ix. 694.
[439]Cal. ix. 694.
[440]Cal. x. 364.
[440]Cal. x. 364.
[441]Cal. xi. 705, 780 (2); xii. (i) 70; xiii. (ii) 307.
[441]Cal. xi. 705, 780 (2); xii. (i) 70; xiii. (ii) 307.
[442]Letters,105.
[442]Letters,105.
[443]Cal. xii. (i) 138, 786, 900. Cf. also A. L. Smith in Social England, vol. iii. pp. 21 ff.
[443]Cal. xii. (i) 138, 786, 900. Cf. also A. L. Smith in Social England, vol. iii. pp. 21 ff.
[444]Cal. xii. (i) 70 (13).
[444]Cal. xii. (i) 70 (13).
[445]Cal. xii. (i) 163.
[445]Cal. xii. (i) 163.
[446]Cal. xi. 585.
[446]Cal. xi. 585.
[447]Cal. xi. 504, 544.
[447]Cal. xi. 504, 544.
[448]Cal. xi. 533–534, 536–539, 552–553, 567–568.
[448]Cal. xi. 533–534, 536–539, 552–553, 567–568.
[449]Cal. xi. 547.
[449]Cal. xi. 547.
[450]Cal. xi. 569.
[450]Cal. xi. 569.
[451]Cal. xi. 567.
[451]Cal. xi. 567.
[452]Cal. xi. 579–580.
[452]Cal. xi. 579–580.
[453]The son of Morgan Williams and Katherine Cromwell. Cf. chap. iii, pp. 54–55.
[453]The son of Morgan Williams and Katherine Cromwell. Cf. chap. iii, pp. 54–55.
[454]Cal. xi. 576.
[454]Cal. xi. 576.
[455]Cal. xi. 601–602.
[455]Cal. xi. 601–602.
[456]Letters, 165, 167, 169.
[456]Letters, 165, 167, 169.
[457]Cal. xi. 714.
[457]Cal. xi. 714.
[458]Cal. xi. 674, 694, 706, 715, 717.
[458]Cal. xi. 674, 694, 706, 715, 717.
[459]State Papers, vol. i. p. 463.
[459]State Papers, vol. i. p. 463.
[460]Cal. xi. 611.
[460]Cal. xi. 611.
[461]Cal. xi. 563, 622.
[461]Cal. xi. 563, 622.
[462]Cal. xii. (i) 163, 259, 1080.
[462]Cal. xii. (i) 163, 259, 1080.
[463]Cal. xi. 611.
[463]Cal. xi. 611.
[464]Cal. xi. 627.
[464]Cal. xi. 627.
[465]Cal. xii. (i) 900, 944.
[465]Cal. xii. (i) 900, 944.
[466]Cal. xii. (i) 853, 1087.
[466]Cal. xii. (i) 853, 1087.
[467]Cal. xi. 826.
[467]Cal. xi. 826.
[468]Cal. xi. 626, 671, 758.
[468]Cal. xi. 626, 671, 758.
[469]Cal. xi. 793, 800.
[469]Cal. xi. 793, 800.
[470]Cal. xi. 864.
[470]Cal. xi. 864.
[471]Cal. xi. 887, 902.
[471]Cal. xi. 887, 902.
[472]Cal. xi. 901.
[472]Cal. xi. 901.
[473]Cal. xi. 909.
[473]Cal. xi. 909.
[474]Cal. xi. 995.
[474]Cal. xi. 995.
[475]Cal. xi. 1061.
[475]Cal. xi. 1061.
[476]Cal. xi. 957, 995, 1115, 1206.
[476]Cal. xi. 957, 995, 1115, 1206.
[477]Cal. xi. 1224, 1225.
[477]Cal. xi. 1224, 1225.
[478]Cal. xi. 1236.
[478]Cal. xi. 1236.
[479]Cal. xi. 1276.
[479]Cal. xi. 1276.
[480]Letters, 174.
[480]Letters, 174.
[481]Cal. xii. (i) 44.
[481]Cal. xii. (i) 44.
[482]Cal. xii. (i) 67.
[482]Cal. xii. (i) 67.
[483]Thomas, The Pilgrim, p. 53.
[483]Thomas, The Pilgrim, p. 53.
[484]Cal. xii. (i) 201, 370.
[484]Cal. xii. (i) 201, 370.
[485]Cal. xii. (i) 104.
[485]Cal. xii. (i) 104.
[486]Cal. xii. (i) 369.
[486]Cal. xii. (i) 369.
[487]Cal. xii. (i) 234, 369 (p. 166).
[487]Cal. xii. (i) 234, 369 (p. 166).
[488]Cal. xii. (i) 86, 98.
[488]Cal. xii. (i) 86, 98.
[489]Cal. xii. (i) 498.
[489]Cal. xii. (i) 498.
[490]Cal. xii. (i) 976.
[490]Cal. xii. (i) 976.
[491]On this and the succeeding pages, cf. G. T. Lapsley, ‘The Problem of the North,’ in the American Historical Review for April, 1900, pp. 440–466.
[491]On this and the succeeding pages, cf. G. T. Lapsley, ‘The Problem of the North,’ in the American Historical Review for April, 1900, pp. 440–466.
[492]Cal. xii. (i) 595.
[492]Cal. xii. (i) 595.
[493]Cal. xii. (ii) 914.
[493]Cal. xii. (ii) 914.
[494]Cal. xii. (i) 318, 319, 321, 594, 651.
[494]Cal. xii. (i) 318, 319, 321, 594, 651.
[495]Cal. xii. (i) 594, 636.
[495]Cal. xii. (i) 594, 636.
[496]Cal. xii. (i) 319.
[496]Cal. xii. (i) 319.
[497]Cal. xii. (i) 651, 667, 916, 919.
[497]Cal. xii. (i) 651, 667, 916, 919.
[498]Cal. xii. (i) 1118.
[498]Cal. xii. (i) 1118.
[499]Cal. xii. (ii) 254, 914.
[499]Cal. xii. (ii) 254, 914.
[500]Cf. Gneist, pp. 513–514.
[500]Cf. Gneist, pp. 513–514.
[501]Phillips, Pole, p. 3.Cf.also the genealogy at the beginning of the book.
[501]Phillips, Pole, p. 3.Cf.also the genealogy at the beginning of the book.
[502]Cal. i. 4190.
[502]Cal. i. 4190.
[503]Cal. iii. 1544.
[503]Cal. iii. 1544.
[504]Cal. iv. 6252.
[504]Cal. iv. 6252.
[505]Poli Epistolae, i. 251–262.
[505]Poli Epistolae, i. 251–262.
[506]Cal. v. 737.
[506]Cal. v. 737.
[507]Cal. viii. 217–219.
[507]Cal. viii. 217–219.
[508]Cal. x. 974–975.
[508]Cal. x. 974–975.
[509]Cal. xi. 156.
[509]Cal. xi. 156.
[510]Cal. xi. 229.
[510]Cal. xi. 229.
[511]Cal. xi. 93.
[511]Cal. xi. 93.
[512]Cal. xi. 1353; xii. (i) 779.
[512]Cal. xi. 1353; xii. (i) 779.
[513]Cal. xiv. (i) 186.
[513]Cal. xiv. (i) 186.
[514]Cal. xii. (i) 779.
[514]Cal. xii. (i) 779.
[515]Cal. xii. (i) 625, 939.
[515]Cal. xii. (i) 625, 939.
[516]Cal. xii. (i) 1219; Letters, 187.
[516]Cal. xii. (i) 1219; Letters, 187.
[517]Life of Pole, Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xlvi. p. 38.
[517]Life of Pole, Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xlvi. p. 38.
[518]Cal. xii. (i) 34, 249.
[518]Cal. xii. (i) 34, 249.
[519]There is reason to think that Throgmorton had promised to be a spy on Pole’s movements for the King. Cf. Letters, 218.
[519]There is reason to think that Throgmorton had promised to be a spy on Pole’s movements for the King. Cf. Letters, 218.
[520]Cal. xii. (i) 249, 296, 313.
[520]Cal. xii. (i) 249, 296, 313.
[521]Cal. xii. (i) 429; xii. (ii) 552.
[521]Cal. xii. (i) 429; xii. (ii) 552.
[522]Letters, 216–217.
[522]Letters, 216–217.
[523]Letters, 218.
[523]Letters, 218.
[524]Cal. xiii. (ii) 232 (p. 91).
[524]Cal. xiii. (ii) 232 (p. 91).
[525]Cal. xiii. (ii) 695, 770, 771.
[525]Cal. xiii. (ii) 695, 770, 771.
[526]Cal. xiii. (ii) 804, 805, 954–960.
[526]Cal. xiii. (ii) 804, 805, 954–960.
[527]Cal. xiii. (ii) 802, 979 (7). It is said that Cromwell, in the course of these prosecutions, contrived to deprive the victims of all chance of escape by inquiring of the judges whether, if a man were condemned to death for treason in Parliament without a hearing, the attainder could ever be disputed. He finally succeeded in obtaining the reluctant but correct reply that ‘an attainder in Parliament, whether or not the party had been heard in his own defence, could never be reversed in a court of law.’ Cf. Hallam, vol. i. pp. 29–30. Coke, Fourth Institute, p. 38, adds, ‘The party against whom this was intended was never called in question, but the first man after the said resolution, that was so attainted, and never called to answer, was the said Earl of Essex (Thomas Cromwell): whereupon that erroneous and vulgar opinion amongst our historians grew, that he died by the same law which he himself had made.’
[527]Cal. xiii. (ii) 802, 979 (7). It is said that Cromwell, in the course of these prosecutions, contrived to deprive the victims of all chance of escape by inquiring of the judges whether, if a man were condemned to death for treason in Parliament without a hearing, the attainder could ever be disputed. He finally succeeded in obtaining the reluctant but correct reply that ‘an attainder in Parliament, whether or not the party had been heard in his own defence, could never be reversed in a court of law.’ Cf. Hallam, vol. i. pp. 29–30. Coke, Fourth Institute, p. 38, adds, ‘The party against whom this was intended was never called in question, but the first man after the said resolution, that was so attainted, and never called to answer, was the said Earl of Essex (Thomas Cromwell): whereupon that erroneous and vulgar opinion amongst our historians grew, that he died by the same law which he himself had made.’
[528]Cal. xiii. (ii) 753.
[528]Cal. xiii. (ii) 753.
[529]Cal. xiii. (ii) 986, 1163.
[529]Cal. xiii. (ii) 986, 1163.
[530]Wriothesley’s Chronicle, vol. i. p. 92.
[530]Wriothesley’s Chronicle, vol. i. p. 92.
[531]Cal. xiv. (i) 867, c. 15.
[531]Cal. xiv. (i) 867, c. 15.
[532]Cal. xvi. 868.
[532]Cal. xvi. 868.
[533]Cal. xiv. (i) 279–280.
[533]Cal. xiv. (i) 279–280.
[534]Letters, 301.
[534]Letters, 301.
[535]Cal. xiv. (i) 603.
[535]Cal. xiv. (i) 603.
[536]Cal. xiv. (ii) 212.
[536]Cal. xiv. (ii) 212.
[537]Cal. xiv. (i) 560.
[537]Cal. xiv. (i) 560.
[538]Cf. Robertson, vol. ii. p. 135.
[538]Cf. Robertson, vol. ii. p. 135.
[539]Ranke, Popes, vol. i. p. 77.
[539]Ranke, Popes, vol. i. p. 77.
[540]Cal. vi. 64, 92.
[540]Cal. vi. 64, 92.
[541]Cal. v. 1545.
[541]Cal. v. 1545.
[542]Cal. vi. 110.
[542]Cal. vi. 110.
[543]Cal. vi. 465.
[543]Cal. vi. 465.
[544]Cal. vi. 508. Cromwell often begged to be excused from a promised interview on the plea of illness. Cf. Cal. vii. 959. Though it is certain that he suffered at times from violent attacks of ague, it is doubtful if it was always his ill-health which prevented him from fulfilling his engagements to the Imperial ambassador.
[544]Cal. vi. 508. Cromwell often begged to be excused from a promised interview on the plea of illness. Cf. Cal. vii. 959. Though it is certain that he suffered at times from violent attacks of ague, it is doubtful if it was always his ill-health which prevented him from fulfilling his engagements to the Imperial ambassador.
[545]Cal. vi. 918; viii. 263, 327, 355, 948; ix. 594.
[545]Cal. vi. 918; viii. 263, 327, 355, 948; ix. 594.
[546]Cal. vi. 614, 641.
[546]Cal. vi. 614, 641.
[547]Ranke, Popes, vol. i. p. 77.
[547]Ranke, Popes, vol. i. p. 77.
[548]Cal. vi. 1426, 1427.
[548]Cal. vi. 1426, 1427.
[549]Mr. Friedmann (Anne Boleyn, vol. i. pp. 225, 250 ff.) believes that this break with France was due to the influence of Cromwell, who had urged the King to strike out an independent policy as regards the Pope. M. Bapst (Deux Gentilshommes, pp. 97, 113), on the other hand, thinks that the King’s minister originally favoured the French alliance, and adhered to it until 1535. Neither writer produces any very conclusive evidence in support of his theory: but Mr. Friedmann’s view is certainly, on the face of it, the more plausible. It may be too much to say that it was by Cromwell’s advice that Francis was insulted at Marseilles, but it is certain that the King’s minister evinced a decided preference for an Imperial alliance long before the year 1535. Cf. Froude, The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon, p. 308.
[549]Mr. Friedmann (Anne Boleyn, vol. i. pp. 225, 250 ff.) believes that this break with France was due to the influence of Cromwell, who had urged the King to strike out an independent policy as regards the Pope. M. Bapst (Deux Gentilshommes, pp. 97, 113), on the other hand, thinks that the King’s minister originally favoured the French alliance, and adhered to it until 1535. Neither writer produces any very conclusive evidence in support of his theory: but Mr. Friedmann’s view is certainly, on the face of it, the more plausible. It may be too much to say that it was by Cromwell’s advice that Francis was insulted at Marseilles, but it is certain that the King’s minister evinced a decided preference for an Imperial alliance long before the year 1535. Cf. Froude, The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon, p. 308.
[550]Cal. vi. 918.
[550]Cal. vi. 918.
[551]Cal. vi. 934.
[551]Cal. vi. 934.
[552]Cal. vi. 1039–1040.
[552]Cal. vi. 1039–1040.
[553]Letters,64.
[553]Letters,64.
[554]Cal. vii. 21.
[554]Cal. vii. 21.
[555]Cal. vi. 1510.
[555]Cal. vi. 1510.
[556]B.M. Nero B. iii, 105.
[556]B.M. Nero B. iii, 105.
[557]Schäfer, p. 512.
[557]Schäfer, p. 512.
[558]Rymer, vol. xiv. p. 539.
[558]Rymer, vol. xiv. p. 539.
[559]Waitz, vol. i. p. 83.
[559]Waitz, vol. i. p. 83.
[560]One of the provisions of the proposed agreement was: ‘Ducere uxorem fratris mortui sine liberis est jure divino et naturali prohibitum. Contra prohibitiones divinas invalida ac prorsus nulla est Romani pontificis vel cujuscumque alterius dispensatio.’ Entwurf eines Vertrags zwischen König Heinrich und Lübeck; Sommer, 1534. Transcribed from the original in the Archives at Weimar; Waitz, vol. ii. pp. 319–325.
[560]One of the provisions of the proposed agreement was: ‘Ducere uxorem fratris mortui sine liberis est jure divino et naturali prohibitum. Contra prohibitiones divinas invalida ac prorsus nulla est Romani pontificis vel cujuscumque alterius dispensatio.’ Entwurf eines Vertrags zwischen König Heinrich und Lübeck; Sommer, 1534. Transcribed from the original in the Archives at Weimar; Waitz, vol. ii. pp. 319–325.
[561]Ranke, vol. iii. pp. 406–425.
[561]Ranke, vol. iii. pp. 406–425.
[562]Cal. vii. 970.
[562]Cal. vii. 970.
[563]Cal. viii. 72, 327.
[563]Cal. viii. 72, 327.
[564]Cal. viii. 556, 1178.
[564]Cal. viii. 556, 1178.
[565]Cal. vii. 1095.
[565]Cal. vii. 1095.
[566]Cal. vii. 1257.
[566]Cal. vii. 1257.
[567]Cal. vii. 1060, and Baumgarten, vol. iii. pp. 145–146.
[567]Cal. vii. 1060, and Baumgarten, vol. iii. pp. 145–146.
[568]Cal. vii. 1437.
[568]Cal. vii. 1437.
[569]Cal. vii. 1483, 1554.
[569]Cal. vii. 1483, 1554.
[570]Cal. vii. 1554.
[570]Cal. vii. 1554.
[571]Cal. vii. 1483.
[571]Cal. vii. 1483.
[572]Cal. vii. 1507.
[572]Cal. vii. 1507.
[573]Cal. viii. 174, 557.
[573]Cal. viii. 174, 557.
[574]Cal. ix. 148, 205, 594, 595.
[574]Cal. ix. 148, 205, 594, 595.
[575]Cal. ix. 443.
[575]Cal. ix. 443.
[576]Letters,126,128, 135.
[576]Letters,126,128, 135.
[577]Letters,113.
[577]Letters,113.
[578]Cal. ix. 390, 1016.
[578]Cal. ix. 390, 1016.
[579]Cal. x. 771. Cf. also Corpus Reformatorum, vol. ii. pp. 1028 ff.; iii. pp. 46–50.
[579]Cal. x. 771. Cf. also Corpus Reformatorum, vol. ii. pp. 1028 ff.; iii. pp. 46–50.
[580]Cal. x. 59.
[580]Cal. x. 59.
[581]Cal. ix. 776, and Friedmann, vol. ii. pp. 169–173.
[581]Cal. ix. 776, and Friedmann, vol. ii. pp. 169–173.
[582]Cal. x. 141. Cf. also Friedmann, vol. ii. p. 176.
[582]Cal. x. 141. Cf. also Friedmann, vol. ii. p. 176.
[583]Cf. Dr. Norman Moore, on the Death of Katherine of Aragon, in the Athenaeum for Jan. 31 and Feb. 28, 1885.
[583]Cf. Dr. Norman Moore, on the Death of Katherine of Aragon, in the Athenaeum for Jan. 31 and Feb. 28, 1885.
[584]Robertson, vol. ii. pp. 40–41.
[584]Robertson, vol. ii. pp. 40–41.
[585]Letters, 136.
[585]Letters, 136.
[586]Letters,126.
[586]Letters,126.
[587]Cal. x. 141.
[587]Cal. x. 141.
[588]Cal. x. 351.
[588]Cal. x. 351.
[589]Cal. viii. 948, 1018.
[589]Cal. viii. 948, 1018.
[590]Cal. x. 699. Mr. Friedmann points out that this quarrel of Henry and Cromwell about the Spanish alliance was intimately connected with the fate of Anne Boleyn. The Emperor, too cautious to express any indignation at the news of his aunt’s death, was still planning for the safety and, if possible, the succession of his cousin the Princess Mary. On hearing from Chapuys of the possibility of a renewal of cordial relations with England, he wrote back on March 28, 1536, a most diplomatic reply, in which he pointed out that it would be certainly for the interest of the Princess that Anne Boleyn should continue to be Henry’s wife; for should the King marry again, he might have male issue, which would succeed to the prejudice of Mary: there was, on the other hand, little probability that Anne would bear Henry another child, and the Emperor knew well that in the eyes of the nation his cousin’s right was far superior to that of Elizabeth. So, by a very extraordinary turn of affairs, the interests of Charles and of Anne had at least temporarily become identical. Cromwell probably had not perceived that this was the true state of affairs when he had his conversation with Chapuys; but the failure of his attempts to bring about a Spanish alliance must have opened his eyes to the fact that he had been working in the interests of one whose ruin had been certainly resolved on by this time. ‘He took to his bed out of pure sorrow’ for a few days as we are told; and when he returned to the Court, it was to labour with all his might for the ruin of Anne, which he saw was necessary to save his own credit with the King. Friedmann, Anne Boleyn, chapter xvi; Cal. x. 575, 700; also W. H. Dixon, History of Two Queens, vol. iv. pp. 262, 263.
[590]Cal. x. 699. Mr. Friedmann points out that this quarrel of Henry and Cromwell about the Spanish alliance was intimately connected with the fate of Anne Boleyn. The Emperor, too cautious to express any indignation at the news of his aunt’s death, was still planning for the safety and, if possible, the succession of his cousin the Princess Mary. On hearing from Chapuys of the possibility of a renewal of cordial relations with England, he wrote back on March 28, 1536, a most diplomatic reply, in which he pointed out that it would be certainly for the interest of the Princess that Anne Boleyn should continue to be Henry’s wife; for should the King marry again, he might have male issue, which would succeed to the prejudice of Mary: there was, on the other hand, little probability that Anne would bear Henry another child, and the Emperor knew well that in the eyes of the nation his cousin’s right was far superior to that of Elizabeth. So, by a very extraordinary turn of affairs, the interests of Charles and of Anne had at least temporarily become identical. Cromwell probably had not perceived that this was the true state of affairs when he had his conversation with Chapuys; but the failure of his attempts to bring about a Spanish alliance must have opened his eyes to the fact that he had been working in the interests of one whose ruin had been certainly resolved on by this time. ‘He took to his bed out of pure sorrow’ for a few days as we are told; and when he returned to the Court, it was to labour with all his might for the ruin of Anne, which he saw was necessary to save his own credit with the King. Friedmann, Anne Boleyn, chapter xvi; Cal. x. 575, 700; also W. H. Dixon, History of Two Queens, vol. iv. pp. 262, 263.
[591]Letters, 170.
[591]Letters, 170.
[592]Cal. xii. (i) 1310.
[592]Cal. xii. (i) 1310.
[593]Cal. xii. (ii) 1201.
[593]Cal. xii. (ii) 1201.
[594]Cal. xii. (ii) 1053, 1285.
[594]Cal. xii. (ii) 1053, 1285.