The King here enumerates the articles composing the inventory, or the general classes of the assets of the Cardinal, such as his plate, treasures, etc., which would naturally be the form of the legal inventory, if the same were prepared by a lawyer. The list totaling so much as to show the dangerous nature of the Cardinal's acquisitions the King concludes to confiscate his property, under the writ of praemunire, known to the law at that time.

Sec. 347. Commission for office.

"Wol. Stay,

Where's your commission, lords? words cannot carry
Authority so weighty."

A commission, in law, in the sense used by the Cardinal, is a written document, in the nature of letters-patent, granted by the King or Government, under the public seal, to persons appointed to an office, giving authority to perform the duties of the office."

The Cardinal will not take the mere words of the Lords, for their authority to thus confiscate his office and immure his person, but demands their commission, or authority from the king.

Sec. 348. Writ of Praemunire.

"Suff. Lord cardinal, the king's further pleasure is, Because all those things, you have done of late.

Taunting Cardinal Wolsey over the lost inventory of his riches, at the expense of the King, King Henry VIII said to him: "K. Hen. Good my lord, you are full of heavenly stuff, and bear the inventory, of your best graces in your mind." (Act III. Scene II.)

A citizen, speaking of the wrongs suffered at the hands of Caius Marcius, in Coriolanus, said: "1 Cit. .. the leanness that afflicts us, the object of our misery, is as an inventory to particularize their abundance." (Act I, Scene I.)

'King Henry VIII, Act III, Scene II.

Rutherforth, Inst., 105.

By your power legatine within this kingdom,
Fall into the compass of a praemunire,—
That therefore such a writ be sued against you;
To forfeit all your goods, lands, tenements,
Chattels and whatsoever, and to be

Out of the king's protection:-This is my charge.”1

A writ of praemunire was a writ addressed to a representative of the Pope to compel the restitution of property taken without the authority of the civil Government, and to punish the papal representative for his act in maintaining the Pope's authority, in defiance of the rights of the Civil Government. The writ owed its existence to certain statutes passed during the reign of Edward I and later reigns and was due to the growing tendency upon the part of the Government, to restrain, within proper limits, the grasping hand of the Roman church, in civil affairs. The writ provided for the enforcement of these statutes used the words praemunire facias, to command a citation of the guilty person, hence this name was applied not only to the writ, but to the offense of maintaining the Papal power, in defiance of the civil authorities.3

The Cardinal is charged with having, while acting for the Pope, defied the civil authority of the King, and hence of having fallen "into the compass of a praemunire," his goods and tenements are declared forfeited and he is without the protection of the king.

'King Henry VIII, Act III, Scene II.

'Coke, Litt. 129.

'Coke, Litt. 129; 7 Bacon's Abr., 690, 694.

As presented by the Poet, the proper form of judgment in a praemunire, at the suit of the king was against the defendant, "that he be out of the protection of the king; that his lands and tenements, goods and chattels, shall be forfeited to the king." Coke, Litt. 129b; 3 Coke, Inst., 125, 218; 7 Bacon's Abr., p. 693.

For history of the law upon the writ of praemunire, see III Reeve's Hist. Eng. Law, pp. 122, 123.

Sec. 349. Decree of divorce from Katherine."1 Gent.

The archbishop

Of Canterbury, accompanied with other
Learned and reverend fathers of his order,
Held a late court at Dunstable, six miles off
From Ampthill, where the princess lay; to which
She oft was cited by them, but appear'd not:
And, to be short, for not appearance, and
The king's late scruple by the main assent
Of all these learned mer she was divorc'd,
And the late marriage made of none effect."1

In this verse, the Poet shows that the decree of divorce from his marriage with Katherine, was by default, as she failed to enter her appearance, although "she oft was cited by them," and the king was thereby adjudged to have never contracted a lawful marriage with her.

The basis for this judgment was the king's scruple, or his conscience, which was the reason assigned why his marriage was void, since it was within the Levitical degree, and against the mandate of the statute. (32 Hen. VIII, c. 38.)

Katherine's appeal was disallowed by the "reverend fathers of his order," and by the Archbishop of Canterbury, since it was concluded by them that the marriage was within the Levitical degree and the temporal and not the spiritual courts had cognizance of the offense, if the marriage was illegal, which they decided it to be.

The prohibition by the Levitical law, was carried to uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews, because upon the death of father and mother, they come into the law as standing in loco parentis, and it was considered necessary to propagate the same reverence of blood as if the relatives were of nearer relationship.2

'King Henry VIII, Act IV, Scene I.

26 Bacon's Abr., p. 458, et seq.

This late Court at "Dunstable, six miles off," to which Queen Katherine was "oft cited," and which was presided over by the

Soc. 350. Simony.

"Grif..

He was a man

Of an unbounded stomach, ever ranking
Himself with princes: one, that by suggestion
Ty'd all the kingdom: simony was fair play;
His own opinion was his law: I'the presence
He would say untruths; and be ever double,
Both in his words and meaning."

271

Simony, at the common law, was the buying or selling of holy orders or of ecclesiastical benefices. In other words, it was an unlawful agreement to receive temporal rewards for something holy or spiritual.2

The offense of simony was regarded with such severity, at the common law, that a general pardon, was held not to extend to one guilty of this offense; but "neither the consideration of the greatness of the offense of simony, nor the provision made against it by the canon or common law, was sufficient to put a stop to this offense," as ob

"learned men," named by the Poet, as the action referred to was judicially reported, on the Queen's failure to appear, after service of the citations, treated her as in contempt; and decreed that he "pretended marriage always was and still is null and invalid; that it was contracted and consummated contrary to the will and law of God; that it is of no force or obligation and that it always wanted and still wants, the strength and sanction of law." (1 State Trials, 259, 260.) This decision, of course, was in subserviance to the will of the King, regardless of the legality of the marriage, but if the first premise had been well taken, then the conclusion was right, for a contract or other act, which is void, aside from the marriage contract, which on grounds of public policy will be upheld, after many years to legitimize chil dren born during the existence of the relation-is not helped by lapse of time, but the maxim is, “Quod ab initio non valet intractu temporis non convalescet,” or as this is usually translated, that which was void, in the beginning, cannot be made valid by lapse of time, so the decree, as the Poet gives it, and as it was, in fact, had the outward semblance to legality.

1King Henry VIII, Act IV, Scene I.

2 Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

9 Bacon's Abr., 23.

served by Matthew Bacon, in his Abridgment,' so it was at length prohibited, under severe penalties, by the statute 31 Elizabeth, c. 6, enacted during the life of the Poet.

Sec. 351. Purging one's self of guilt.

"K. Hen.

I know,

You cannot with such freedom purge yourself,
But that, till further trial, in those charges,
Which will require your answer, you must take
Your patience to you and be well contented
To make your house our tower."2

Purging one's self of crime, at common law, was the clearing of one's self of an offense charged, by denying the guilt on oath or affirmation.3

Canonical purgation was the denial of the offense, before at least twelve persons, who would state that they believed the accused, while vulgar purgation, consisted of superstitious trials by hot and cold water, by fire, by hot irons and such like barbarities that tried the temper and nerve of the accused one.*

The purgation referred to by the King, in this instance, was rather that of the canonical purgation, until which, he advises the Tower and patience.

Sec. 352. Verdict based on perjury.—

"K. Hen.

not ever

The justice and the truth o' the question carries
The due o' the verdict with it: At what ease

19 Bacon's Abr., 6.

For discussion of the common law offense of simony and history of the legislation in England, to prevent this offense, see V Reeve's History Eng. Law, p. 192.