If, however, in Germany and Italy the balance of unjust interference lay on the imperial side, it was more than adequately compensated by the answering pressure which was brought to bear in England and in France on the opposite side.  Under the allied sovereigns, the royal authority was openly exercised to compel such expressions of sentiment as the courts of London and Paris desired; and the measures which were taken oblige us more than ever to regret the inventive efforts of Cranmer’s genius.  For, in fact, these manoeuvres, even if honestly executed, were all unrealities.  The question at issue was one of domestic English politics, and the metamorphosis of it into a question of ecclesiastical law was a mere delusion.  The discussion was transferred to a false ground, and however the king may have chosen to deceive himself, was not being tried upon its real merits.  A complicated difficulty vitally affecting the interests of a great nation, was laid for solution before a body of persons incompetent to understand or decide it, and the laity, with the alternative before them of civil war, and the returning miseries of the preceding century, could brook no judgment which did not answer to their wishes.

The French king, contemptuously indifferent to justice, submitted to be guided by his interest; feeling it necessary for his safety to fan the quarrel between Henry and the emperor, he resolved to encourage whatever measures would make the breach between them irreparable.  The reconciliation of Herod and Pontius Pilate[270] was the subject of his worst alarm; and a slight exercise of ecclesiastical tyranny was but a moderate price by which to ensure himself against so dangerous a possibility.

Accordingly, at the beginning of June, the University of Paris was instructed by royal letters to pronounce an opinion on the extent to which the pope might grant dispensations for marriage within the forbidden degrees.  The letters were presented by the grand master, and the latter in his address to the faculty, maintained at the outset an appearance of impartiality.  The doctors were required to decide according to their conscience, having the fear of God before their eyes; and no open effort was ventured to dictate the judgment which was to be delivered.

The majority of the doctors understood their duty and their position, and a speedy resolution was anticipated, when a certain Dr. Beda, an energetic Ultramontane, commenced an opposition.  He said that, on a question which touched the power of the pope, they were not at liberty to pronounce an opinion without the permission of his Holiness himself; and that the deliberation ought not to go forward till they had applied for that permission and had received it.  This view was supported by the Spanish and Italian party in the university.  The debate grew warm, and at length the meeting broke up in confusion without coming to a resolution.  Beda, when remonstrated with on the course which he was pursuing, did not hesitate