[Footnote 509: _Sp. Cal._, i., 249; _L. and P. of Richard III. and Henry VII._, vol. i., pp. xxxiii., 113; Hall, _Chron_., p. 491; Bacon, _Henry VII._, ed. 1870, p. 376; _Transactions of the Royal Hist. Soc._, N.S., xviii., 187.] [Footnote 510: _L. and P._, iii., 1284.] Conscience, however, often moves men in directions indicated by other than conscientious motives, and, of the other motives which influenced Henry's mind, some were respectable and some the reverse. The most legitimate was his desire to provide for the succession to the throne. It was obvious to him and his council that, if he died with no children but Mary, England ran the risk of being plunged into an anarchy worse than that of the civil wars. "By English law," wrote Falier, the Venetian ambassador, in 1531, "females are excluded from the throne;"[511] that was not true, but it was undoubtedly a widespread impression, based upon the past history of England. No Queen-Regnant had asserted a right to the English throne but one, and that one precedent provided the most effective argument for avoiding a repetition of the experiment. Matilda was never crowned, though she had the same claim to the throne as Mary, and her attempt to (p. 180) enforce her title involved England in nineteen years of anarchy and civil war. Stephen stood to Matilda in precisely the same relation as James V. of Scotland stood to the Princess Mary; and in 1532, as soon as he came of age, James was urged to style himself "Prince of England" and Duke of York, in manifest derogation of Mary's title.[512] At that time Charles V. was discussing alternative plans for deposing Henry VIII. One was to set up James V., the other to marry Mary to some great English noble and proclaim them King and Queen;[513] Mary by herself was thought to have no chance of success. John of Gaunt had maintained in Parliament that the succession descended only through males;[514] the Lancastrian case was that Henry IV., the son of Edward III.'s fourth son, had a better title to the throne than Philippa, the daughter of the third; an Act limiting the succession to the male line was passed in 1406;[515] and Henry VII. himself only reigned through a tacit denial of the right of women to sit on the English throne. [Footnote 511: _Ven. Cal._, iv., 300.] [Footnote 512: _L. and P._, v., 609, 817.] [Footnote 513: _Ibid._, vi., 446.] [Footnote 514: _Chronicon Angliae_, Rolls Ser., p. 92, _s.a._, 1376; _D.N.B._, xxix., 421. This became the orthodox Lancastrian theory (_cf._ Fortescue, _Governance of England_, ed. Plummer, pp. 352-55).]