We cannot say what is probable or what is improbable; except, indeed, that the guilt of every person is improbable antecedent to evidence; and in the present instance, since, either on the side of the Queen or of the King, there was and must have been most terrible guilt, these opposite presumptions neutralize each other.
April.To proceed with the story. Towards the middle of April, 1536, certain members of the privy council were engaged secretly in receiving evidence which implicated the Queen in adultery. Nothing is known of the quarter from which the information came which led to the inquiry.[1] Something, however, there was to call for inquiry, or something there was thought to be; and on the 24th of April the case was considered sufficiently complete to make necessary a public trial. On that day an order was issued for a special commission. The members of the tribunal were selected with a care proportioned to the solemnity of the occasion.[2] It was composed of the lord chancellor, the first noblemen of the realm, and of the judges. The investigation had, however, been conducted so far with profound secrecy; and the object for which it was to assemble was unknown even to Cranmer, himself a member of the privy council.[3] With the same mys-
- ↑ Later writers point to the ladies of the Court, but report could not agree upon any single person: and nothing is really known. But see Appendix.
- ↑ Baga De Secretis, pouch 8: Appendix II. to the Third Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records.
- ↑ Cranmer to the King: Burnet, vol. i. p. 322.
ce a este des longtemps son stile.—The Regent Mary to Ferdinand: MS. Brussels.
