Note 137 — THE PROLOGUE. (continued 2)

The reader may consult Burnet’s Hist. of the Reformation, Vol. iii. p. 46-48. The bishop affirms positively that the king did not appear personally, but by proxy; and that the queen withdrew after reading a protest against the competency of her judges. “And from this it is clear (says the bishop), that the speeches that the historians have made for them are all plain falsities.” It is easy to contradict the confident affirmation of the historian upon the authority of a document published by himself in his Records, i. 78. It is a letter from the king to his agents, where he says: "At which time both we and the queen appeared in person, and they minding to proceed further in the cause, the queen would no longer make her abode to hear what the judges would fully descern, but incontinently departed out of the court; wherefore she was thrice preconnisate, and called eftsoons to return and appear; which she refusing to do, was denounced by the judges contumax, and a citation decerned for her appearance on Friday." Which is corroborated also by Fox’s Acts, p. 958. Indeed the testimony for the personal appearance of the king before the cardinals is surprisingly powerful; even though we do not go beyond Cavendish, and the other ordinary historians. But in addition to these, Dr. Wordsworth has produced the authority of William Thomas, Clerk of the Council in the reign of King Edward VI, a well informed writer; who, in a professed Apology for Henry VIII, extant in MS. in the Lambeth and some other libraries, speaking of this affair affirms, “that the Cardinal (Campeggio) caused the king as a private party in person to appear before him, and the Lady Katharine both.” P. 31.