urgent reason they put forward was an entirely imaginary imminence of
war between Henry VII. and Ferdinand in 1503. Cardinal Du Bellay, in
1534, asserted that no one would be so bold as to maintain in Consistory
that the dispensation ever was valid;[786] and the papalists were
driven to the extreme contention, which was certainly not then
admitted by Catholic Europe, that, whether the marriage with Arthur
was merely a form or not, whether it was or was not against Divine
law, the Pope could, of his absolute power, dispense.[787]

[Footnote 782: _Ibid._, iv., 6759.]

[Footnote 783: _Ibid._, iv., 6615; v., 45.]

[Footnote 784: See the present writer's _Cranmer_,
pp. 39-41. Cranmer's suggestion was made early in
August, 1529, and on the 23rd Du Bellay writes that
Wolsey and the King "appeared to desire very much
that I should go over to France to get the opinions
of the learned men there about the divorce" (_L.
and P._, iv., 5862). In October Stokesley was sent
to France and Croke to Italy (_ibid._, p. 2684);
Cranmer did not start till 1530.]

[Footnote 785: _L. and P._, iv., 6332, 6448, 6491,
6632, 6636.]

[Footnote 786: _L. and P._, vii., App. 12.]

[Footnote 787: _Ibid._, v., 468.]

Pending the result of Henry's appeal to the universities, little was
done in the matter in England. The lords spiritual and temporal signed
in June, 1530, a letter to the Pope urging him to comply with their
King's request for a divorce.[788] Parliament did not meet until 16th
January, 1531, and even then Chapuys reports that it was employed on
nothing more important than cross-bows and hand-guns, the act against
which was not, however, passed till 1534. The previous session had
shown that, although the Commons might demur to fiscal exactions, they
were willing enough to join Henry in any attack on the Church, and the
question was how to bring the clergy to a similar state of
acquiescence. It was naturally a more difficult task, but Henry's
ingenuity provided a sufficient inducement. His use of the statutes of
_praemunire_ was very characteristic. It was conservative, it was
legal, and it was unjust. Those statutes were no innovation designed
to meet his