plentiful matter for a man of wit and fancy, who knew where he could dexterously shew his art, and had boldness enough to do it without shame, or the reverence due, either to crowned heads, or to persons that were dead. Yet because he knew not how he could hold up his face to the world, after these discoveries were made, which he had reason to expect, this was concealed as long as he lived: and after he had died for his faith (that is, in rebellion, which I shall shew is the faith in his style) this work of his was published. The style is generally clean, and things are told in an easy and pleasant way; only he could not use his art so decently, as to restrain that malice which boiled in his breast, and often fermented out too palpably in his

pen.

The book served many ends well, and so was generally much cried up, by men who had been long accustomed to commend any thing that was useful to them, without troubling themselves with those impertinent questions, whether they were true or false; yet Rishton, and others since that time, took the pencil again in their hands, and finding there were many touches wanting, which would give much life to the whole piece, have so changed it that it was afterwards reprinted, not only with a large continuation, that was writ by a much more unskilful poet, but with so many and great additions, scattered through the whole work, whereby it seemed so changed in the vamping, that it looked

new.

If any will give themselves the trouble, to compare his fable with the History that I have written, and the certain undoubted authorities I bring in confirmation of what I assert, with the slender, and (for the most part) no authorities, he brings, they will soon be able to discern where the truth lies: but because all people have not the leisure or opportunities for laying things so critically together, I was advised, by those whose counsels directed me in this whole work, to sum up, in an Appendix, the most considerable falsehoods and mistakes of that book, with the evidences upon which I rejected them. Therefore I have drawn out the following extraction, which consists of errors of two sorts. The one is, of those in which there is indeed no malice, yet they shew the writer had no true information of our affairs, but commits many faults, which though they leave not such foul imputations on the author, yet tend very much to disparage and discredit his work. But the others are of a higher guilt, being designed forgeries, to serve partial ends; not only without any authority, but manifestly contrary to truth, and to such records as (in spite of all the care they took in Q. Mary's time, by destroying them, to condemn posterity to ignorance in these matters) are yet reserved, and serve to discover the falsehood of those calumnies in which they have traded so long. I shall pursue these errors in the

series in which they are delivered in Sanders's book, according to the impression at Colen 1628, which is that I have. I first set down his errors, and then a short confutation of them, referring the reader for fuller information to the foregoing History.

Page 2.1-1. Sanders says, "That when Prince Arthur and his Princess were bedded, King Henry the 7th ordered a grave matron to lie in the bed, that so they might not consummate their marriage."

This is the ground work of the whole fable, and should have been some way or other proved. But if we do not take so small a cir. cumstance upon his word, we treat him rudely; and who will write histories, if they be bound to say nothing but truth! But little thought our Author that there were three depositions upon record, point blank against this; for the Dutchess of Norfolk, the Viscount of Fitzwater and his lady, deposed they saw them bedded together, and the bed bless. ed after they two were put in it; besides that such an extravagant thing was never known done in any place.

Ibid.]-2. Sanders says, Prince Arthur was not then fifteen years of age, and was sick of a lingering disease."

The plot goes on but scurvily, when the next thing that is brought to confirm it is contradicted by records. Prince Arthur was born the 20th of September in the year 1486, and so was fifteen years old and two months passed at the 14th of November 1501, in which he was married to the Princess, and was then of a lively and good complexion, and did not begin to decay till the Shrovetide following, which was imputed to his excesses in the bed, as the witnesses deposed. Ibid.]-3. He says, Upon the motion for the marrying of his Brother Henry to the Princess, it was agreed to by all, that the thing was lawful."

"

It was perhaps agreed on at Rome, where money and other political arts sway their counsels; but it was not agreed to in England: for which we have no meaner author, than Warham, archbishop of Canterbury, who, when examined upon oath, deposed, that himself then thought the marriage was not honourable nor well-pleasing to God, and that he had thereupon opposed it much, and that the people murmured at it.

P. 3.]-4. He says, "There was not one man in any nation under heaven, or in the whole church, that spake against it.”

The common style of the Roman church, calling the See of Rome the catholic church, must be applied to this, to bring off our Author; otherwise I know not how to save his reputation. Therefore by all the nations under heaven must be understood only the divines at Rome, though when it came to be examined, they could scarce find any who would justify it: all the most famous universities, divines, and canonists, coudemned it, and Warham's testimony contradicts this plainly, besides the

marriage was said to be consummated, without any perhaps.

P.9.-15. He says, "The King having seen these second letters, both he and his council resolved to move no more in it."

The process was carried on, almost a year, before the breve was heard of: and the forgery of it soon appeared, so they went on notwithstanding it.

P. 10.]-16. He says, "The Bishop of Tarby being come from France, to conclude the match for the Lady Mary, was set on by the King and the Cardinal, to move the exception to the lawfulness of the marriage." There is no reason to believe this; for that Bishop, though afterwards made a cardinal, never published this: which both he ought to have done as a good catholic, and certainly would have done as a true cardinal, when he saw what followed upon it, and perceived that he was trepanned to be the first mover of a thing, which ended so fatally for the interests of Rome.

P. 11.]-17. He says, "The Bishop of Tarby, in a speech before the King in council, said, that not he alone, but almost all learned men, thought the King's marriage unlawful and null: so that he was freed from the bond of it, and that it was against the rules of the gospel; and that all foreign nations had ever spoken very freely of it, lamenting that the King was drawn into it in his youth."

It is not ordinary for ambassadors to make speeches in King's councils: but if this be true, it agrees ill with what this Author delivers in his third page, that there was not a man in the whole church, nor under heaven, that spoke against it; otherwise the Bishop of Tarby was both an impudent and a foolish man.

P. 13.-18. He says, "Upon the Pope's captivity, Wolsey was sent over to France with 300,000 crowns to procure the Pope's liberty."

Hall, Hollingshead, and Stow, say, he carried over 240,000 pounds sterling, which is more than thrice that sum

P. 13.]-19. He says, 'Two colleagues were sent in this embassy with the Cardinal." His greatness was above that, and none are mentioned in the Records.

Ibid.-20. He says, "Orders followed him to Calais, not to move any thing about the King's marriage with the French King's sister, the King having then resolved to marry Anne Boleyn."

This agrees ill with what he said page 9, that a year before the King was resolved whom to marry

Ibid.]-21. He says, "King Henry, that he might have freer access to Sir Thomas Boleyn's lady, sent him to France; where, after he had stayed two years, his lady was with child of Anne Boleyn by the King."

See this breve, No. XV. p. 22, and the ground for supposing it to be forged, p. 92, of Vol. 1

This story was already confuted, see pages 65, 66; and in it there are more than one or two lies.

1. Sir Thomas Boleyn went not ambassador to France till the seventh year of the King's reign and if two years after that Anne was born, which was the ninth of his reign, she must then have been but ten years old at this time.

2. Though he had sent him upon his first coming to the crown, this could not be true; for two years after, admit her to be born, that is anno 1511, then a year before this, which was anno 1526, she was fifteen years old; in which age, Sanders says, she was corrupted in her father's house, and sent over to France, where she stayed long. But all this is false for,

3. She was born two years before the King came to the crown, in the year 1507, and if her father was sent to France two years before, it was in the year 1505.

4. The King being then Prince, was but fourteen years old, for he was born the 28th of June, in the year 1491; in which age there is no reason to think he was so forward as to be corrupting other men's wives, for they will not allow his brother, when almost two years elder, to have known his own wife.

As for the other pieces of this story, that Sir Thomas Boleyn did sue his lady in the Spiritual Court; that upon the King's sending him word that she was with child by him, he passed it over; that the King had also known her sister, and that she had owned it to the Queen, that at the fifteenth year of Anne's age, she had prostituted herself both to her father's butler, and chaplain; that then she was sent to France, where she was at first for some time concealed, then brought to court, where she was so notoriously lewd, that she was called a Hackney; that she afterwards was kept by the French King; that when she came over into England, Sir Thomas Wiat was admitted to base privacies with her, and offered to the King and his council, that he himself should with his own eyes see it; and, in fine, that she was ugly, misshaped, and monstrous, are such a heap of impudent lies, that none but a fool, as well as a knave, would venture on such a recital. And for all this, he cites no other authority but Rastal's Life of Sir Thomas More, a book that was seen by none but himself; and he gives no other evidence that there was any such book but his own authority. Nor is it likely that Rastal ever writ More's Life, since he did not set it out with his works, which he published in one volume, anno 1556. It is true, More's son-in-law, Roper, writ his life, which is since printed, but there is no such story in it. The whole is such a piece of lying, as if he who forged it had resolved to outdo all who had ever gone before him: for can it be so much as imagined, that a King could pursue a design for seven years together, of marrying a woman of so scandalous a life,

these things himself, but would needs turn it cital of it: and bow came it that these letters over upon the cardinals and divines.

P. 24.-29. He says, "All the cardinals were of a mind that the marriage was good." Cardinal Sanctorura Quatuor, by the force of that mighty argument of 4000 crowns, changed his mind. All the other cardinals were forward in granting the King's desires, for which he wrote them a letter of thanks.

P. 26.]—50. He says, "The Pope granted the commission to the two Legates, not doubting but it was true, that had been told him of the Queen's readiness to go into a monastery."

The Pope knew she would not yield to any such thing; but when he granted that commission, he sent with Campegio a decretal bull, annulling the marriage: and sent afterwards a promise never to advocate the process, but to confirm what sentence the Legates should give; though soon after he broke his promise most signally. And since he had often dispensed with others for breaking their faith, he might think that it was hard to deny him the same privilege for himself.

Ibid.]-S1. He says, The Pope understanding that the Queen did not consent to the propositions that were made, and that he had been abused, sent after Campegio, when he was on his journey, that he should not proceed to a sentence without a new order."

The Pope sent Campana to England after Campegio, to assure the King he would do every thing for him that he could do out of the fulness of his power: and ordered the same person to charge Cardinal Campegio to burn the decretal bull, which he had sent by him; in all which the Pope, as appears by the original letters, was only governed by politic maxims, and considered nothing but the dangers himself was like to fall in; though Sanders would persuade us, he was ready to run

the hazard of all these.

P. 30.1-32. He says, "The King by his letters to the Pope, did, at the same time that he was moving scruples about his own marriage, transact about a dispensation for a marriage betwixt his own natural son the Duke of Richmond, and his daughter the Lady Mary."

:

Though the whole dispatches at that time, both to and from Rome, be most happily preserved, there is not the least mention of any such design and can any body think that if any such motion had been made, the Pope would not have taken great advantages from it, and that these letters would not have been afterwards published? But this Sanders thought was a pretty embellishment of his fable; and of a piece with this is his next.

P. 30.1-33. He says," The King did under his own hand confess, he had known Anne Boleyn's sister Mary, and desired the Pope would dispense with his marrying Anne notwithstanding that."

The falsehood of this appears from the re

were not published? Nor is there any mention of this in all the dispatches I have seen. And it is not possible that in so many con. ferences which the English ambassadors had with the Pope, these two things should never have been discoursed of. And can it be thought credible, that at the same time when the King pretended such scruples and troubles of conscience, he could be guilty of so much folly and impudence, as to put himself thus in the Pope's mercy, by two such demands? This was a forgery of Cardinal Pole's, which Sanders greedily catched to dress up the scene.

P. 34.]-34. From page 34 to 42, there is a trifling account given of the reasons brought against the marriage, which Sanders auswers manfully, and fights courageously against the man of straw he had set up. But if that be compared with what has been opened in the History, it will appear how lame and defective his account is.

P. 42.]-35. He says, Clark, bishop of Bath and Wells, Tonstal, bishop of London, and West, bishop of Ely, writ for the lawfulness of the King's marriage."

All the bishops except Fisher, had a year before this given it under their hands and seals, that the King's marriage was unlawful: and in all the memorials of that time, Fisher is the only bishop I find mentioned to have writ for it. Tonstal was also soon after translated to Duresme, which none that have considered that King's temper, will think could have been done, if he had interposed in so tender a point, against what the King so vehemently desired.

P. 42.]-36. He says, "That Abell, Powel, Fetherston, and Ridley, also writ for the marriage."

This is not likely of the second and third, for they being afterwards attainted of treason, no such books were objected to them; but the crime charged on them, was only that they said, the King's marriage with Queen Katherine was good.

P. 43.1-37. He says, "All things appeared clear in the trial before the Legates, in behalf of the marriage, so that they could give no sentence against such full evidence as was brought for it."

This is said without any regard to truth, for all the matter of fact that had been alleg. ed, was clearly proved for the contrary side. It was proved that Prince Arthur married the Queen: violent presumptions appeared of his consummating the marriage. It was also proved that the King was under age when the bull was obtained, and that the petitions given in his name, upon which the bull was granted, were false that the King had not desired it, but when he came of age he had protested against it: and that there was no hazard of a war between Spain and England, the preventing which was the chief reason set down in the bull that permitted it.