VIII. in a speech in council, “quod a Ricardo tertio cum avi nostri materni Edwardi quarti statum in controversiam vocasset ejusque heredes regno atque vita privasset illatum est."-WILKINS’S Concilia, vol. iii. p. 714.  Richard claimed the crown on the ground that a precontract rendered his brother’s marriage invalid, and Henry VII. tacitly allowed the same doubt to continue.  The language of the 22nd of the 25th of Hen.  VIII. is so clear as to require no additional elucidation; but another distinct evidence of the belief of the time upon the subject is in one of the papers laid before Pope Clement.

“Constat, in ipso regno quam plurima gravissima bella saepe exorta, confingentes ex justis et legitimis nuptiis quorundam Angliae regum procreatos illegitimos fore propter aliquod consangunitatis vel affinitatis confictum impedimentum et propterea inhabiles esse ad regni successionem.”—­Rolls House MS.; WILKINS’S Concilia, vol. iii. p. 707.

[109] 28 Hen.  VIII. c. 24.

[110] Appendix 2 to the Third Report of the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records, p. 241.

[111] Sadler Papers, vol. iii. p. 323.

[112] 28 Hen.  VIII. c. 24.

[113] Four Years at the Court of Henry the Eighth, vol. ii. pp. 315-16.

[114] Sir Charles Brandon, created Duke of Suffolk, and married to Mary Tudor, widow of Louis XII.

[115] 28 Hen.  VIII. c. 24.

[116] The treaty was in progress from Dec. 24, 1526, to March 2, 1527 [LORD HERBERT, pp. 80, 81], and during this time the difficulty was raised.  The earliest intimation which I find of an intended divorce was in June, 1527, at which time Wolsey was privately consulting the bishops.—­State Papers vol. i. p. 189.

[117] It was for some time delayed; and the papal agent was instructed to inform Ferdinand that a marriage which was at variance a jure et laudabilibus moribus could not be permitted nisi maturo consilio et necessitatis causa.—­Minute of a brief of Julius the Second, dated March 13, 1504, Rolls House MS.

[118] LORD HERBERT, p. 114.

[119] LORD HERBERT, p. 117, Kennett’s edition.  The act itself is printed in BURNET’S Collectanea, vol. iv. (Nares’ edition) pp. 5, 6.  It is dated June 27, 1505.  Dr. Lingard endeavours to explain away the renunciation as a form.  The language of Moryson, however, leaves no doubt either of its causes or its meaning.  “Non multo post sponsalia contrahuntur,” he says, “Henrico plus minus tredecim annos jam nato.  Sed rerum non recte inceptarum successus infelicior homines non prorsus oscitantes plerumque docet quid recte gestum quid perperam, quid factum superi volunt quid infectum.  Nimirum Henricus Septimus nulla aegritudinis prospecta causa repente in deteriorem valetudinem prolapsus est, nec unquam potuit affectum corpus pristinum statum recuperare.  Uxor in aliud ex alio malum regina omnium laudatissimia non multo post morbo periit.