Darcy took no part in the war with Scotland in 1513. He was not on the glorious field of Flodden, where the future Duke of Norfolk, then Lord Admiral, won such fame that for long years he was beloved through all the north. Darcy had gone with the King to France, where at the siege of Terouanne some accident caused the rupture from which he suffered for the rest of his life. He returned to the strenuous work of governing the Borders, of which more will be said hereafter. During the period of Cardinal Wolsey’s power, Darcy was on good terms with him; but in July 1529 he drew up an indictment of the falling favourite. This, in the form of articles, was signed by the Peers in Parliament, on 1 Dec. of the same year. Exactly how much discredit attaches to him for thus acting against a man for whom he had long professed friendship, must be decided by others. The case against Darcy is made rather worse by the fact that he was at first ready to forward the divorce of Katherine of Arragon. He signed the Memorial of the Lords to Clement VII, and even appeared as a witness at the Queen’s trial, although he had no evidence of any importance to give. On the other hand, he must have disapproved of Wolsey’s policy for some time, and the tie between the two men never seems to have been very close. Like others he was slow to realise the lengths to which Henry was prepared to go in order to get what he wanted. He did not foresee that Wolsey’s policy might lead to a policy of still more daring innovation. But when the situation was plain to him he fully declared himself. In January 1532 Norfolk made an appeal to a private meeting of persons of importance to defend the Royal Prerogative against foreign interference, with the suggestion that matrimonial causes, i.e. the divorce of Katherine, ought to be considered a matter of temporal jurisdiction. Darcy answered. In his speech he maintained that such causes were undoubtedly spiritual, and therefore the Pope was the supreme judge in them. He further insinuated that the King’s Council were trying to escape the responsibility of deciding on a course of action by dragging others into the matter[71]. He also addressed the Lords on the fitness of parliament to deal with matters touching the Faith, but the date and purport of this declaration are uncertain[72]. The result of his boldness was that he was informed that his presence was not required at the succeeding sessions[73] of the parliament.