Page:Church and State under the Tudors.djvu/307



Chapuys, in one of his letters to Charles V., July 17, 1531, puts this question very shortly and forcibly, if somewhat coarsely, thus: 'The Queen has kept the articles sent from Rome &c. &hellip; On considering them, it seems to me that there has been omitted one deduction so necessary that without it conclusive proof cannot be obtained, because the point is to show that the Queen was not known by Prince Arthur, which is a general negative without restriction of time or place—a thing in law unprovable: and the presumption is against her, as she lay with the Prince several nights; and moreover they have brought testimony here that the Prince had several times boasted of having used her like a true and vigorous husband. For these reasons, even if all the Queen's allegations were proved as set forth in those articles, it would not amount to proof, except by the Queen's oath, which could not be admitted by law in opposition to the said proofs and presumptions.'

This is very strong evidence coming from whence it comes.

The following extracts from contemporary despatches will serve to illustrate four points maintained in the text—viz.:

(1) The close connection of the divorce with the separation from Rome;

(2) The complete coercion of the clergy, by means of the Præmunire;

(3) The unpopularity of the clergy; and

(4) The entire novelty of the Royal Supremacy.