was a fact confessed by the Lady Anne. The Lady Anne might confess her own sins, but her confession of the sins of others was not a confession at all, and could have carried no validity unless supported by other evidence. Chapuys's assertion requires us to suppose that Henry, being informed of Anne's allegation, consented to the establishment of his own disgrace by making it the subject of a legal investigation; that he thus himself allowed a crime to be substantiated against him which covered him with infamy, and which no other attempt was ever made to prove. How did Chapuys know that this was the cause of the divorce of Anne? If it was communicated to Parliament, it must have become the common property of the realm, and have been no longer open to question. If it was not communicated, but was accepted by Parliament, itself on the authority of the Council, who were Chapuys's informants, and how did they know? Under Chapuys's hypothesis the conduct of King, Council, Parliament, and Convocation becomes gratuitous folly—folly to which there was no temptation and for which there was no necessity. The King had only to deny the truth of the story, and nothing further would have been made of it. The real evidence for the liaison with Mary Boleyn is the ineradicable conviction of a certain class of minds that the most probable interpretation of every act of Henry is that which most combines stupidity and wickedness. To argue such a matter is useless. Those who believe without reason cannot be convinced by reason.
divorcés: et puisque aussy le vouloient faire, le pretext eust esté plus honneste d'alleguer qu'elle avoit este mairée à aultre encores vivant. Mais Dieu a voulu descouvrir plus grande abomination, qui est plus que inexcusable actendu qu'il ne peut alleguer ignorance neque juris neque faeti. Dieu veuille que telle soit la fin de toutes ses folies!" Chapuys à Granvelle, July 8, 1536.-MS. Vienna.
