The Englishman [Henry VIII.] must necessarily divorce, for he wishes to have a legitimate son, and he has lost all hope of one being born to him by the Lady Catharine [of Aragon]. He will therefore marry his favourite [Anne Boleyn] the daughter of the Earl of Vuilcer (sic) [Wiltshire—note the Venetian’s phonetic spelling!] as soon as possible. He will have trouble, for the faction that is for the Queen will rise.
It is quite clear that Venetian diplomatists did not indulge themselves in sentiment, and the information they presented to the Senate was as brutally frank and coldly precise as a medical diagnosis. They sought for facts and did not philosophise about them. Here is Falier’s opinion of Cardinal Wolsey:—
The King and the kingdom were in his hands, and he disposed of everything as the King himself might have done, or the Pope. All the princes were obliged to bow down to him. He received one hundred and fifty thousand ducats yearly over and above the gifts which he had from the English and the foreign princes. He counted much on France, with which kingdom he kept up extremely affectionate relations. His court was magnificent, more magnificent than the King’s. He spent all his income, he was very proud, and he wished to be adored like a god rather than respected as a prince.
In connection with the great Cardinal, I shall translate a passage of the letter in which Falier had informed the Senate of his disgrace. The fragment has some value also, from the light it throws on the comparative values of coins at that time. It must be remembered that the value of the gold ducat never changed to the last, while that of all other European coins varied greatly.
The King of England has had the Cardinal put in prison, has deprived him of the government, and has confiscated all his property. His fortune is valued at forty thousand pounds English, equal to twenty thousand of our grossi [the silver mark], or two hundred thousand [silver] ducats; in these forty thousand pounds must be included thirty thousand pounds English in cash, that is, fifteen thousand of ours or one hundred and fifty thousand [silver] ducats. His real estate has also been confiscated, consisting of his Archbishopric, which brought him a very large sum.
At the risk of wearying my readers I give a short extract from the report of another ambassador to England, Jacopo Soranzo, which was read before the Senate on the ninth of August 1554 (Queen Mary then reigning). The Venetian expresses his surprise at the way in which trials by jury were conducted in England.
Crimes are tried before twelve judges who may not leave the court, nor eat, nor drink, until they all agree, without one exception, on the sentence to be passed.... When sentence has been passed, the judges execute it immediately, but without ever resorting to the mutilation of a member or exile. If the accused is innocent, he is acquitted; if he is guilty, he is condemned to death.
I need not lay stress on the defective form of such trials; your Lordships see for yourselves how reprehensible such a mode of procedure is, for it often happens that eleven persons who wish to acquit the accused decide to condemn him to death in order to be of the opinion of the twelfth, who is determined to bear starvation till this verdict is given.
Before closing this chapter it is worth while to note that if the Venetian ambassadors abroad succeeded in knowing almost everything that was happening, the