Cylchgronau Cymru

Borrow's "Wild Wales." SUPPRESSED CHAPTERS.* Edited by Prof. II. Wright. [In the following pages Borrow deals at length with the question of Henry's divorce from Catharine. He denounces the Emperor Charles, he denounces the Pope, he denounces Cardinal Wolsey. There can be no doubt that Borrow's heart was in these attacks, and it is equally sure that his attacks lose in force owing to their length. We have therefore seen fit to omit some of these wearisome tirades and come to Borrow's summing up of Henry's character. — En.l THE general idea entertained with respect to Henry is that lie was a licentious, brutal monster, who married a dozen wives, all of whose heads he cut off, in fact, that lie was the original of Bluebeard. The truth is that he was originally a noble creature, but became at last, through" the treachery, deceit and in- gratitude of those lie had something to do with, portentious and terrible. Had he been an idle, vicious boy and a licentious youth, he could never have attained the wonderful Latinity and vast stores of scholastic learning which he displayed in his book against Luther. Had he been in after life what is generally called a vicious man, he would never have given himself anv trouble about wives, but would have lived in filthy con- cubinage, even as the second Charles subse- quently did. Here let a plain question be put. How many women in England would have said 44 Nav to criminal solicitations from Henry the Eighth, had they been made? He had six wives, it is true, but how many mistresses had he? Ave, but he was in the habit of cutting off the head of one wife in order to marry another. He cut off the heads of two. One of them, the one perhaps whom of all lie best loved, was a vile, dirtv adulteress, even by her own acknowledg- ment the other, poor Anna of Blickling, he was made to believe was an adulteress, through the falsehood and perjury of the Papists, par- ticularly of the grey-haired idolater Norfolk, who abhorred her, because she had embraced the principles of the Gospel. But then his conduct to Catharine. Well. his conduct towards Catharine as a bov, it was exemplary. As a vouth, it is true, he committed incest with her, but in after life he got rid of her. Was he wrong in doing so? Nay, nay. When he repudiated Catharine he did his dutv. He had committed incest with her, but on that account was he to go on committing incest with her? What says the liturgy? When the wicked man turneth away Published by kind permission of Mr Clement Shorter and Mr T. J. Wise. HENRY VIII. (Continued). from his wickedness, he shall save his soul alive." Aye, but he ought not to have married again, at any rate, not Anna of Blickling. No, no, there is the rub, Anna of Blickling was a Protestant. But what was he to do? That sturdy giant must either live in marriage or concubinage. He pre- ferred marriage. Well, is not marriage, though Charles the Second cared nothing about it, a laudable institution? The ignorant Papists call it a sacrament. Yes, but Go to, go to 0, see how God blessed that second marriage. The greatest woman, you may call her the greatest man, the world ever saw, sprang from Henry's union with Anna of Blickling, the woman, the man, to whom England owes everything, who amongst others sunk the Spanish Armada. Compare the produce of that marriage with the produce of the first-two livid, unwholesome boys, who perish almost as soon as born, and bloody Mary, who whipped Protestant children to death and lost Calais. Let us heart nothing more about his lust; his lust was his lawful desire, and he did not die of [the] Spanish disease like Wolsey. And now for his cruelty. Well, cruel he was in his latter days, after the milk of human kindness, which once warmed his bosom, had been turned into something like adder's fane2 by the treachery which he had ex- perienced from Ferdinand, from Maximilian, from Clement and the Cardinal. But certain parties will say surely that certain actions of his were hardly cruel but merely just. The Papists will say that it was a horrible and cruel act of Henry to cut off the head of Sir Thomas Moore, but the pseudo-High Church party of the present dav will scarcely say so. Thomas Moore was executed for denying Henry's supremacy, and the aforesaid pseudo-High Church party can never blame a king for executing a man who denies his supremacy, for didn't their blessed saint and martyr Charles the First cause an Irishman, who was scarcely his subject, for though of Irish parentage he was born in Spain, to be executed in London, because in Spain1 he had once bitten his thumb (a sign of contempt) at the mention of Charles' name2. And though Bible-reading people may say that Henry was a horrid tyrant for burning Bilney, Papists scarcely will, for Henry burnt Bilney for denying transubstantiation. Surely, he couldn't be wrong in doing that? What say you, Papist? But did he cut off Surrey's head? Aye, aye! and quite right, too Wrho that knows anything of the history of Henry's time can doubt that Surrey corresponded with Pole, and that he was at the head of a conspiracy for placing that pre- tender on the throne? Surrey upon the whole was a contemptible creature, one of those who 1 MS. hero.— ED. 2 Roading doubtful, Illegible.—ED. 1 MS. once in Spain.—ED. 2 MS. Charles— Ed.