Page:History of England (Froude) Vol 3.djvu/345

This page has been validated.

1540.]

ANNE OF CLEVES: FALL OF CROMWELL.

325

perhaps, also, to the doubtful magnificence which she had enjoyed as Henry's bride.^[1]

Parliament made haste with the concluding stroke. Monday, July 12.On Monday the 12th the bill for the divorce was introduced: it was disposed of with the greatest haste which the forms of the Houses would allow; and the conclusion of the matter was announced to the Queen's own family and the foreign powers almost as soon as it was known to be contemplated. The Duke of Cleves, on the first audience of the Bishop of Bath, had shown himself 'heavy and hard to pacify and please.' When all was over, the Bishops of Winchester and Durham, with other noble lords, wrote to him themselves, persuading him to acquiesce in a misfortune which could no longer be remedied; his sister had al-

↑ See State Papers, vol. i. p. 637, and vol. viii. p. 403, &c.
Her relations with the King remained on so friendly a footing that people supposed she might be taken again into favour. On the 6th of August Marillac wrote:
'The King is ten miles off at Hampton Court, thinly attended, and has been lately at Richmond to visit the Queen that was. He is on the best possible terms with her, and they supped so pleasantly together that some thought she was to be restored to her place. Others say, however, that the King merely wanted to tell her what had been done, and required her signature to the deed of separation; and this is most likely the true account of the thing, for three of the privy council were brought in, who are not in general admitted to such terms of familiarity. It would argue too great inconstancy, it would reflect too much on the King's honour, to put her away on a plea of conscience and take her back so easily. If she might justly be his wife, why did he put her away so precipitately? If there were lawful impediments to the marriage, by what right could he take her back? Moreover, she was not treated with as much distinction as when Queen. She had then a seat at his side. On this occasion she sat at a little distance at a table joining the corner of the table where the King sat.'

[1] See State Papers, vol. i. p. 637, and vol. viii. p. 403, &c.
Her relations with the King remained on so friendly a footing that people supposed she might be taken again into favour. On the 6th of August Marillac wrote:
'The King is ten miles off at Hampton Court, thinly attended, and has been lately at Richmond to visit the Queen that was. He is on the best possible terms with her, and they supped so pleasantly together that some thought she was to be restored to her place. Others say, however, that the King merely wanted to tell her what had been done, and required her signature to the deed of separation; and this is most likely the true account of the thing, for three of the privy council were brought in, who are not in general admitted to such terms of familiarity. It would argue too great inconstancy, it would reflect too much on the King's honour, to put her away on a plea of conscience and take her back so easily. If she might justly be his wife, why did he put her away so precipitately? If there were lawful impediments to the marriage, by what right could he take her back? Moreover, she was not treated with as much distinction as when Queen. She had then a seat at his side. On this occasion she sat at a little distance at a table joining the corner of the table where the King sat.'

[1]