agree with Mr. Cavendish's account, p. 112. However, when this affair of his late master's came before the house, he defended him so handsomely, being not only naturally eloquent, but well instructed by the cardinal, to whom he had frequent recourse whilst the business was depending, that he brought him fairly off.

Now the cardinal's escaping the censure of the house of commons, in this manner, is thought by his advocate, Dr. Fiddes, to be a strong presumption of his innocence, and to amount to a full acquittal of his eminence from the guilt of the charge brought against him. He observes, the cardinal was then in disgrace with the king, consequently, that he had no support from the court; and that his patron Cromwell, having been lately his servant, and of no weight or authority in the house, into which he was but just now introduced, would be heard with great prejudice; whereupon he remarks, "the cardinal's acquittal, under such circumstances, and upon the defence made for him, by a person at that time so inconsiderable, and suspected as being partial to him, affords very reasonable grounds of presumption, that the articles in general against him, had no very good or solid foundation." Fiddes's collections, p. 186.

But with submission, the cardinal's escape does not by any means imply his absolute innocence; for some of the articles might be true, though the proofs offered to the house, by the managers for the privy council, might be invalid; others again might be true, but frivolous, and consequently the grounds were not sufficient for the house thereupon to pass any bill of attainder. I will not urge here the testimony of Hall, who writes, fol. 190, that these articles, read in the house of commons, were "signed by the cardinal's hand, and were confessed by him," because I take this to be a notorious falsehood of an author that did not love him. The cardinal had confessed himself in a præmunire, by his attorneys, in a court of law. This was true; and this, I suppose, might be the foundation of Hall's assertion. But does not this very fact shew, that some part of the charge was true? The first article of the charge was, that by exercising his legatine powers he had injured the rights of the bishops, and other spiritual persons. This the cardinal himself had acknowledged, and his goods had accordingly been seized into the hands of the king; and, in my opinion, this was the very thing that brought him off in the house. He had already suffered the law; he was in a præmunire, and the house, I conceive, could go no further. This I speak, upon the footing of his cardinal

dignity, which secured, as I judge it, both his life and his person; to what purpose then, should the house proceed any further, when the party had really suffered all, that in those times the house had it in their power to inflict? Thus, Sir, you see, that some of the articles might be true, and yet the cardinal might escape the censure of the house. It is true I have here given you but one instance, but there are several others, and one of a very singular nature I propose to send you in my next.

1755, July.

Yours, &c.

PAUL GEMSEGE,

IV. The Charge against Cardinal Wolsey farther considered,

MR. URBAN,

IN the last paper I sent you, as preparatory to this, it was asserted, that in relation to the charge brought against cardinal Wolsey in parliament, the house of commons could do no otherwise than they did; because, though several of the articles alleged against him might be true, he had either suffered the law for them already, or they were not sufficiently proved; or, lastly, that though they were true, and perhaps well established by the managers on the part of the privy council, yet they might be too inconsiderable, or in their own nature improper, for the house to ground any censure of the cardinal upon them. This last I take to be the case of the 6th article, which is of so uncommon a stamp, so singular and extraordinary, that the discussion of it upon that sole account, can hardly fail of proving acceptable to many of your readers. The article runs thus: "And also whereas your grace is our sovereign lord and head, in whom standeth all the surety and wealth of this realm; the same lord cardinal knowing himself to have the foul and contagious disease of the great pox broken out upon him in divers places of his body, came daily to your grace, sounding in your ears, and blowing upon your most noble grace with his perilous and infective breath, to the marvellous

* A præmunire ordinarily extended to the party's person; but a cardinal of the church of Rome, could not, I think, at this time, when the pope's authority was still subsisting in this kingdom, be imprisoned by the civil powers,

danger of your highness, if God of his infinite goodness had not better provided for your highness; and when he was once healed of them, he made your grace to believe that his disease was an imposthume in his head, and no other thing."

This article, as appears from Hall, was one of the heads of accusation preferred before, by the council, to the king; and from Hall it was taken by Shakespeare, and inserted in his play of Henry VIII. Now although the fact were true, that the cardinal had contracted the venereal disease, as in the charge was set forth, yet the commons, I think, would pay no regard to it, because it was partly frivolous, and partly coram non judice. It was not for them to take cognizance of the crime by which this ecclesiastic had got the foul distemper; and as to his approaching so near the king's person, and so often, with the disease upon him, it might be indecent, imprudent, impudent, and shameless, but could not amount to a crime, since the house, might easily be satisfied, that the contagion of that odious distemper is not to be communicated by the breath. Dr. Fiddes therefore, in my opinion, acts but a weak part, where he blames bishop Burnet for saying, "that it was notorious the cardinal had the foul disease," upon the footing of his escaping the censure of parliament; for the article might be true, notwithstanding the cardinal's escape; and that it was true, I, for my part, make no manner of doubt, for I think there is as much proof of this fact, as the nature of the case, at this time, is capable of.

In the first place the lords of the council not only charge him with it in those articles they had delivered to the king, but also persist in their charge in these which they were now exhibiting against him in parliament. The cardinal pretended, indeed, it was an imposthume in his head; but we must suppose he would say something, when the distemper appeared in his face, as we shall see it did, and it would naturally be asked, both by the king and others, what the matter was with his eminence's face.

In the next place it is well known that the cardinal had no aversion to the ladies. It is observed, by a very great antiquary, that the cardinals were wont to ride upon mules, which was emblematical, for, according to "Upton de studio rei militaris," p. 143. "Isti magni abbates et abbatissæ debent in suis armis portare leopardos, mulos, burdones, vel

Fiddes's Life of Wolsey, p. 479, and the Collections, p. 191. + Mr. Anstis in Fiddes's Collect. p. 89, 91.

titiros, pro eo, quod ipsi habent et portant instrumenta episcoporum, ut mitram et crucem, ut muli, leopardi, ut tales bestia portant instrumenta generativa equorum et leonum, non tamen eis utuntur naturaliter, neque habent ipsu actum vel generationis exercitium." This, the learned antiquary abovementioned, says, has relation too to the mules upon which the ecclesiastics then rode. Accordingly, when, after the fall of Wolsey, Sir Thomas More, then lord chancellor, took occasion, in one of his speeches to the parlia ment, to compare the king to a shepherd, and the people to a flock of sheep, he resembles the cardinal to a weather, "So the great weather, which of late is fallen," says he;* an expression not accidentally dropt, but used purposely and with great propriety, as signifying to us the legal incapacity of the ecclesiastics of these times, through the profession of celibacy, to perform the office of rams. But all this notwithstanding, the cardinal, as was said, was a person of great intrigue. He had a natural son, who went by the name of Winter, See the article, No. 27, Dr. Fiddes, p. 109, 502, and his Collections, p. 182, besides whom, it is alleged in article 38, that he had two children by one Lark's daughter, whom he kept. Now these things shew me that when Shakespeare makes Queen Catharine say,

Of his own body he was ill,‡

Dr. Warburton, who explains the passage thus, "i. e. he abused his body by intemperance and luxury," did not apprehend the true meaning of it, for the queen no doubt meant to charge him with fornication, as is plain from the sense of that phrase in Hall, Edward V. f. 16. where he makes King Richard say of Jane Shore "She was nought of her body." With this crime the queen expressly charges the cardinal in Hall, f. 181, and Hail, as is well known, was the author whom our poet chiefly followed.

But 3dly, the cardinal had actually lost an eye, and that it was by this distemper, no one, I think can reasonably doubt after what has been said, and that in the terms of the article it is so clearly implied, that the contagion had openly shewn itself about his head. "He is here represented, (says Mr. Anstis speaking of a drawing of the house of lords, anno 1524, in Dr. Fiddes) in a full or rather in a three

*Parl. Hist. iii. p 41.

+ See also Skelton, p. 158 and 148 bis, where there seems to be an allusion to one of his mistresses; as likewise in Shakespeare iii. 5.

Shakespeare, Henry VIII. act iv, scene 2.

quarters face, which is the more observable, if the traditi onary report have any foundation, that the disease which was objected to him in the articles, had left such a blemish in one of his eyes, that to hide that defect he was constantly pictured in profile. If that should be true, either we are to suppose his station in this part of the house required such a method of the position of his face, or that he contracted the marks of this distemper after the time that this picture was taken." Certainly, if this matter was to be decided by the two representations which we have of the cardinal, one in this draught of the house of lords, A. D. 1524, and the other, which is much larger in Mr. Cavendish, it would go clearly in the cardinal's favour; for they being both profiles, (or perhaps one of them a three-quarters face) it has so fallen out, that one of them represents to us the right, and the other the left side of his face, and in both the eyes are very perfect. But one of these drawings was taken 1524, and the other nobody knows when, wherefore, as Mr. Anstis observes, he might have contracted the distemper after these pictures were made. Besides, the former of them is so small that one would not build too much upon it. But as he certainly had lost an eye, as I shall shew by and by, if it were before the larger of these drawings were made, it must have been his right eye; for his left is very conspicuous in that larger one in Mr. Cavendish. Now, that he really had lost one of his eyes, I prove, not only from the tradition mentioned by Mr. Anstis, but by the testimony of a contemporary writer, the poet Skelton, who wrote his poem, intitled, "Why go you not to court," in the cardinal's life-time, and expressly calls him Poliphemus; the words are these:

Sequitur Epitoma

De morbilloso Thoma,
Nec non obscœno

De Poliphemo, &c.

This Thomas here is the cardinal, who, he says, was become a monoc, by means of a distemper, which distemper he intimates, in the verses that follow, was a-kin to the leprosy, for he calls him Naman Syrum, and Mr. Becket has shewn in the Philosophical Transactions, that the great pox formerly often passed here in England under the name of the leprosy, the distemper with which Naaman was affected. But our poet calls it expressly the Neapolitan disease, and says the cardinal had been cut and slashed for it. But pray take Skelton's words from the edition of 1736.