The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part C.: From Henry VII. to Mary
David Hume · en
The queen and her brother were tried by a jury of peers consisting of
the duke of Suffolk, the marquis of Exeter, the earl of Arundel, and
twenty-three more: their uncle, the duke of Norfolk, presided as high
steward. Upon what proof or pretence the crime of incest was imputed to
them, is unknown: the chief evidence, it is said, amounted to no
more than that Rocheford had been seen to lean on her bed before some
company. Part of the charge against her was that she had affirmed to her
minions, that the king never had her heart; and had said to each of them
apart, that she loved him better than any person whatsoever; “which was
to the slander of the issue begotten between the king and her.” By this
strained interpretation, her guilt was brought under the statute of the
twenty-fifth of this reign; in which it was declared criminal to
throw any slander upon the king, queen, or their issue. Such palpable
absurdities were at that time admitted; and they were regarded by the
peers of England as a sufficient reason for sacrificing an innocent
queen to the cruelty of their tyrant. Though unassisted by counsel, she
defended herself with presence of mind; and the spectators could not
forbear pronouncing her entirely innocent. Judgment, however, was given
by the court, both against the queen and Lord Rocheford; and her verdict
contained, that she should be burned or beheaded at the king’s pleasure.
When this dreadful sentence was pronounced, she was not terrified, but
lifting up her hands to heaven, said, “O Father! O Creator! thou who art
the way, the truth, and the life, thou knowest that I have not deserved
this fate;” and then turning to the judges, made the most pathetic
declarations of her innocence.
Henry, not satisfied with this cruel vengeance, was resolved entirely
to annul his marriage with Anne Boleyn, and to declare her issue
illegitimate: he recalled to his memory, that a little after her
appearance in the English court, some attachment had been acknowledged
between her and the earl of Northumberland, then Lord Piercy; and he
now questioned that nobleman with regard to these engagements.
Northumberland took an oath before the two archbishops, that no contract
or promise of marriage had ever passed between them: he received the
sacrament upon it, before the duke of Norfolk and others of the privy
council; and this solemn act he accompanied with the most solemn
protestations of veracity.[*] The queen, however, was shaken by menaces
of executing the sentence against her in its greatest rigor, and was
prevailed on to confess in court some lawful impediment to her marriage
with the king.[**] The afflicted primate, who sat as judge, thought
himself obliged by this confession to pronounce the marriage null and
invalid. Henry, in the transports of his fury, did not perceive that
his proceedings were totally inconsistent, and that if her marriage
were from the beginning invalid, she could not possibly be guilty of
adultery.