Note 163 — THE PROLOGUE. (continued 3)

A writer before cited (Dr. Pegge), is of opinion that the House of Commons could not do otherwise than acquit him, notwithstanding the validity of several of the articles alleged against him, because he had either suffered the law for them already, or they were not sufficiently proved: indeed some of them were not proper grounds of censure.

‘Wolsey says of these articles himself, “whereof a great part be untrue: and those which be true are of such sort, that by the doing thereof no malice or untruth can be arrected unto me, neither to the prince’s person nor to the state.” The rejection of the bill may be justly ascribed to the relentment of the king, for Cromwell would not have dared to oppose it, nor the Commons to reject it, had they not received an intimation that such was the royal pleasure.’