These articles, as Hall tells us, f. 183, were in number 34, I think I do not mistake him, but there being some ambiguity in his words, I shall here report them, "And all their accusations were written in a boke, and all their handes set to it, to the nombre of thirtie and foure, whiche boke, &c." It is not very clear whether the articles, or the nobles and prelates that signed them, were in number 34, but I incline to believe the former was intended, because I do not suppose that the king's council at that time consisted of so large a number of members. Sure I am, that the articles of impeachment exhibited afterwards in parliament were signed only by seventeen, see the parliamentary Hist. vol. II. p. 55. But now, on the other hand, the accusations might probably amount to that number; for, as it will appear by and by, there were above forty laid against him in the house.

These articles, though they differed in number from those which were afterwards preferred in parliament against his eminence, and I think varied from them in several other respects, yet doubtless were the basis of his impeachment in the House of Commons; for the parliament meeting the 3d of November following, to wit, A. D. 1529, a list of accusations containing no less than 44, were exhibited against the cardinal in the lower house, and what they were, may be seen in Dr. Fiddes, Lord Herbert, the Parliamentary Historian, and others. Hall, indeed, (fol. 189. b.) seems to say, that the articles laid against the cardinal in parliament, were the very same with those, which the lords of the council had presented to the king; his words are, "during this parliament was brought doune to the commons, the boke of articles which the lordes had put to the kyng agaynste the cardinall." But this cannot be; for first, this transaction in the council passed before the great seal was taken from the cardinal, according to Hall; and consequently before Michaelmas term, for the cardinal sat in the court of chancery the first day of that term, which was then Oct. 9. See Hall, fol. 184, and Cavendish, p. 106. But the articles of impeachment are dated no earlier than Dec. 1. 2dly, Sir Thomas More signs the articles of impeachment as lord chancellor, for he stands there before the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, and yet he could not be chancellor when the council preferred their book of articles to the king's highness, for Wolsey at that time filled the place himself, according to Hall, and actually sat as chancellor, the first day of Michaelmas term. Sir Thomas More had not the seal delivered

to him till Oct. 24. Hall, f. 186.* 3dly, Hall says ex pressly, that the nobles and prelates joined in signing the book of articles given to the king; but in the original of those brought against the cardinal in parliament, there does not appear the hand of any one prelate.

For these reasons then I must think, that the two schedules of articles were different, and that not only in number, but probably in some other respects. For, to go one step further, it appears to me, that Hall had never seen the charge that was given in to the House of Commons, but by some means or other had obtained a sight of that which was before de livered to the king. This annalist, when he comes to speak of the transactions of this parliament, not only declares the articles then brought against the cardinal to be the same with those which the lords of the council had put into the hands of the king, as was noted above, but moreover, he has inserted nine of them into his work. But now, two of these nine, to wit, his carrying the great seal abroad, and - sending so much treasure to Rome, do not appear in the articles of impeachment; which is a plain proof, 1st, that he had never seen the real articles of the impeachment; and 2dly, that the book presented by the council to the king, which he had seen, was somewhat different from them, varying not only in the number, but likewise in the matter of the accusations, as I before took the liberty to suggest. For since that book contained but 34 heads, as has been shewn, and yet included two charges that do not appear in the impeachment, which yet consisted of 44, it follows necessarily, that that list of allegations differed materially from the other, to wit, in the substance and nature of the charges, as well as the number of them.

The next thing I would observe, is, that Shakespeare in his life of Hen. VIII. Act. 3. Sc. 5. makes the earl of Surrey mention the book of articles delivered to the king, and to

* There is a mistake in Hall, by some means or other, about the time when' the scal was demanded of Wolsey; he says it was seventene daie of November; he is undoubtedly mistaken in the month, for in the next leaf he says, the seal was given to Sir Thomas More, on Sunday Oct. 24, and this is true, for in the year 1529 the 24th day of Oct. was on a Sunday. But I suspect a mistake too, as to the day of the month; for Cavendish says, the seal was demanded the 11th, and delivered the 12th. See Cavendish, p. 106, and considering that the seal was first offered to archbishop Warham, before it was tendered to Sir Thomas More, see Burnet, vol. I. p. 80, the time intervening between Oct. 12 and 24, is not too long for such a transaction. To which add, that though it is printed in Hall's book seventene at length, yet in the copy it was probably 17, and 11 and 17 are easily mistaken.

particularize seven of them, in his quarrel there with Wolsey. There is a great impropriety in the poet's giving this part to the earl of Surrey; but since I am not so immediately concerned with that, all I shall notice, is, that in the first place Shakespeare took the articles from Hall, as is plain to a demonstration; for though he has omitted two, as thinking them I suppose less material, he has nevertheless retained those two, of carrying abroad the broad seal, and sending so much riches to Rome, both which are peculiar to Hall, and do not appear in the impeachment; and in the next place, that by his means, together with Hall, it has come to pass, that these seven articles are the most publicly known.

But here there arises a question, how, and by whose means, the charge against Wolsey came under the consideration of the house of commons; The Parliamentary Historian, after printing the articles, with the subscriptions, 1. c. remarks," it appears by the names of the lords who signed these articles, that they were drawn up by a committee, appointed for that purpose. And being read and agreed to by the whole house, they were first presented to the king, and then a copy of them was sent down to the lower house, for their perusal and approbation." But this could not be the case, for amongst the subscribers appear the names of Sir William Fitz William, Sir Henry Guildeford, and of the two chief justices, Fitz-Herbert and Fitz James. These now were not peers, but only members of the privy council, from whence it is clear, that it was the privy council, and not the house of lords, that impeached the cardinal in the house of commons. And whereas this author speaks of the articles of the impeachment being "first presented to the king," he plainly confounds the articles communicated to the commons, with that former book of articles mentioned in Hall, which had indeed been presented to the king, as was noted above; it does not appear that the articles brought into the house had ever been. presented to his highness, but only were intended to be offered to him, in case the house should pass them.

But now let us consider the event of this affair, and the effect, which the cardinal's escape ought to have upon his character.

It happened that in this parliament, Thomas Cromwell, afterwards earl of Essex, who had been a servant of the cardinal's, and a very faithful one, obtained a seat. Bishop Godwyn says, the cardinal procured him a place in this parliament, on purpose to secure himself; but this does not

agree with Mr. Cavendish's account, p. 112. However, when this affair of his late master's came before the house, he defended him so handsomely, being not only naturally eloquent, but well instructed by the cardinal, to whom he had frequent recourse whilst the business was depending, that he brought him fairly off.

Now the cardinal's escaping the censure of the house of commons, in this manner, is thought by his advocate, Dr. Fiddes, to be a strong presumption of his innocence, and to amount to a full acquittal of his eminence from the guilt of the charge brought against him. He observes, the cardinal was then in disgrace with the king, consequently, that he had no support from the court; and that his patron Cromwell, having been lately his servant, and of no weight or authority in the house, into which he was but just now introduced, would be heard with great prejudice; whereupon he remarks, "the cardinal's acquittal, under such circumstances, and upon the defence made for him, by a person at that time so inconsiderable, and suspected as being partial to him, affords very reasonable grounds of presumption, that the articles in general against him, had no very good or solid foundation." Fiddes's collections, p. 186.

But with submission, the cardinal's escape does not by any means imply his absolute innocence; for some of the articles might be true, though the proofs offered to the house, by the managers for the privy council, might be invalid; others again might be true, but frivolous, and consequently the grounds were not sufficient for the house thereupon to pass any bill of attainder. I will not urge here the testimony of Hall, who writes, fol. 190, that these articles, read in the house of commons, were 66 signed by the cardinal's hand, and were confessed by him," because I take this to be a notorious falsehood of an author that did not love him. The cardinal had confessed himself in a præmunire, by his attorneys, in a court of law. This was true; and this, I suppose, might be the foundation of Hall's assertion. But does not this very fact shew, that some part of the charge was true? The first article of the charge was, that by exercising his legatine powers he had injured the rights of the bishops, and other spiritual persons. This the cardinal himself had acknowledged, and his goods had accordingly been seized into the hands of the king; and, in my opinion, this was the very thing that brought him off in the house. He had already suffered the law; he was in a præmunire, and the house, I conceive, could go no further. This I speak, upon the footing of his cardinal

dignity, which secured, as I judge it, both his life and his person; to what purpose then, should the house proceed any further, when the party had really suffered all, that in those times the house had it in their power to inflict? Thus, Sir, you see, that some of the articles might be true, and yet the cardinal might escape the censure of the house. It is true I have here given you but one instance, but there are several others, and one of a very singular nature I propose to send you in my next.

1755, July,

Yours, &c.

PAUL GEMSEge.

IV, The Charge against Cardinal Wolsey farther considered,

MR. URBAN,

IN the last paper I sent you, as preparatory to this, it was asserted, that in relation to the charge brought against cardinal Wolsey in parliament, the house of commons could do no otherwise than they did; because, though several of the articles alleged against him might be true, he had either suffered the law for them already, or they were not sufficiently proved; or, lastly, that though they were true, and perhaps well established by the managers on the part of the privy council, yet they might be too inconsiderable, or in their own nature improper, for the house to ground any censure of the cardinal upon them. This last I take to be the case of the 6th article, which is of so uncommon a stamp, so singular and extraordinary, that the discussion of it upon that sole account, can hardly fail of proving acceptable to many of your readers. The article runs thus: "And also whereas your grace is our sovereign lord and head, in whom standeth all the surety and wealth of this realm; the same lord cardinal knowing himself to have the foul and contagious disease of the great pox broken out upon him in divers places of his body, came daily to your grace, sounding in your ears, and blowing upon your most noble grace with his perilous and infective breath, to the marvellous

A præmunire ordinarily extended to the party's person; but a cardinal of the church of Rome, could not, I think, at this time, when the pope's authority was still subsisting in this kingdom, be imprisoned by the civil powers.