CHAP III A. D. 1532-3 riage to the King ז For whether or not Anne Boleyn had withstood the King's advances for any time at first, it is certain that they were living together at the end of 1532 as man and wife, Queen Elizabeth being born on September 7, 1533. Finding that his companion was likely to become a mother, he doubtless hoped and expected that she would give him a son, and in his anxiety to make that son a legitimate heir to Her mar- his throne, the King pressed on the marriage in spite of the unremoved obstacles of a wife not yet divorced, and of the papal opposition. A letter of Archbishop Cranmer records that the marriage was celebrated "much about St. Paul's day last," i.e. January 25, 1533, and the same date is given by Stow. An earlier day, the festival of St. Erkenwald, November 14th, was named by some subsequent writers; and it is considered probable that reports were circulated of the marriage having taken place at that time, for the purpose of deceiving the Court of Rome, and concealing the fact of Anne's immorality. Cranmer was not present at the marriage, and did not know of it for a fortnight after it had taken place. It is supposed that the ceremony was performed by Dr. Rowland Lee, who was afterwards Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, and that only the The per- Earl and Countess of Wiltshire, Lord Rochford, and sent at the the Duke of Norfolk (Lady Wiltshire's brother) ceremony were present. Nothing remains to show us in what sons pre light so singular a marriage was regarded by the Parliament met on February 4, 1533, and passed it voted in the af menire by 20s of pros and c proxies, in the require by 12. The wond querie was, Whether the onlain off the marriage between Prince Arthur and the Princess Catherine was sufficiently proved. This was debated only by doctors of the civil law, of whom 47 were present, III CHAP and 3 sent proxies: of this number 41 decided in the affirmative. The aged Bishop of Rochester, and A.D. 1533 the Bishop of Llandaff, were in the minority on both occasions, and on the second question they were joined by the Bishop of Bath and Wells. pliancy of Cranmer Five weeks later, May 13th, a similar official search was made in the acts of the convocation of York, and the report stated that there also a decision of both questions was found to the same effect. In looking at the steps which were then taken by Culpable Archbishop Cranmer, it is impossible to exonerate him from collusion with the King. But the votes of convocation in both provinces gave such large majorities, that the Primate may, not very unfairly, have supposed that they justified him in giving effect to his own opinion, and in carrying out the King's wishes. In doing this he gave himself too much the appearance of obeying orders, instead of sitting in the seat of judgment: but Cranmer was not a man of exalted mind or manner; and it is most likely that his conscience and his subserviency (disgusting as the latter now seems) were really in agreement with each other. His first step was taken when he had been Archbishop a little more than a week, and looks extremely like the fulfilment of a contract with the King. On April 11th, he preApplies for sented a petition or memorial to Henry, setting forth the difficulties and dangers which beset the country for want of a son as heir-apparent to the Crown, and asking, in terms that cannot be characterized otherwise than as abject, for license to exercise his office in bringing the divorce suit to an end. The a license to act State Papers, i. 390. There are two, but varying copies of this letter (both sent to the King), and the second-more abject, even, in tone than the first-was the one chosen by Henry. com III King replied in a lofty tone, reiterating with some CHAP exaggeration the "most humble supplication" of the Archbishop, declaring that he recognised no superior A.D. 1533 on earth but God, and that he was not subject to the laws of any earthly creature, but condescending "not to refuse" the "humble request, offer, and towardness" to make an end "in our said great cause of matrimony, which hath so long depended undetermined, to our great and grievous unquietness, and burden of our conscience." The license is therefore granted, under the sign manual, for the The King's Archbishop to proceed in the examination and deter- gracious mination of the cause; the letter concluding with a pliance solemn exhortation to Cranmer, that he take care not to have regard to any earthly or worldly affection therein; "for assuredly the thing that we most covet in the world, is so to proceed in all our acts and doings, as may be the most acceptable to the pleasure of Almighty God our Creator," &c. &c. Such solemn asseverations were by no means necessary in the document, and cannot be taken as a mere technicality. They were inserted with deliberate and audacious mendacity, in the face of a fact which at once shows that the King had now no conscience in the matter,-the fact being, that he had gone through the ceremony of marriage with Anne Boleyn eleven weeks before he thus professed to seek a just and impartial decision as to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of his yet undissolved union with Catherine. of the case The Archbishop opened his court in the monastery Cranmer's at Dunstable, in the neighbourhood of Ampthill, the final trial Queen's present residence. A monition was served upon her, by Dr. Lee, to appear there on May 10th; State Papers, i. 392. III CHAP but "she utterly refused the same, saying that inasmuch as her cause was before the Pope she would A. D. 1533 have none other judge; and therefore would not take me for her judge." She persevered throughout in this refusal to recognise the court, so that "there came not so much as a servant of hers to Dunstable, save such as were brought in as witnesses;" and, in fact, she openly declared that Cranmer was a "shadow" and his court a "mockery," plainly considering that the Archbishop was simply carrying out pro forma the foregone intention of the King. Catherine's estimate of him the trial This "shadow" of a judge sat at Dunstable for seven days, or at least on some of the days from the 10th to the 17th of May, with Longland, Bishop of Lincoln, for his assessor; Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, Dr. Bell, Dr. Claybrook, Dr. Tregonnell, Dr. Hewis, Dr. Oliver, Dr. Britton, and Mr. Bedell, with divers other learned in the law, being counsellors for the King's part." Witnesses were examined Course of to show that the Queen had been lawfully cited to appear, and as she did not appear she was pronounced contumax on the very first day of the sitting, Saturday, May 10th; and on the following Monday the Archbishop "pronounced her vere et manifeste contumacem, so that she is (as the counsel informeth me) precluded from farther monition to appear." Thus, The judge Cranmer told the King, he was able to make more plaintiff expedition than he had expected; and on the 17th of the month he wrote again to say that he had fixed the following Friday, the earliest possible day, for declaring the final sentence of divorce. On the same day he wrote a most unworthy letter to Cromwell, State Papers, i. 394. to the 1 Cranmer to Archdeacon Hawkyns, Jenkyns' Cranmer, i. 27. "2 |