Photo by N.W. Jackson.
Scanned by Douglas Dowell.
|
Photo by N.W. Jackson. Scanned by Douglas Dowell. |
Katherine of Aragon died on the 7th of January. This meant that, in the eyes of Roman Catholics, Henry was now a widower, and free to marry again. Henry wore yellow when he heard of her death; aside from the joyful connotations yellow has for us, the colour was Spanish royal mourning. Henry himself said "God be praised, we are now free from all threat of war!" while Anne gave a handsome gift to the messenger, and her father and brother said it was a pity that the Lady Mary did not keep company with her mother. Anne herself may well have realised that Katherine's death meant that her unborn child was the only thing that could guarantee her position. However, around 23-29 of January, Anne miscarried of a male. Warnicke argues that the foetus was deformed (of which more later).2 It has been said that "she has miscarried of her saviour."3 Again, this can be overstated; although Anne's miscarriage had an ominous echo of Katherine of Aragon's repeated pregnancies - and Henry was undoubtedly bitterly disappointed - the king did not ignore her for three months (as Chapuys claimed). The imperial ambassador's claim flatly contradicts his report that Henry and Anne's separation at Shrovetide was a significant one, obviously enough; and given that Henry had to be at Westminster to monitor the progress of the Reformation Parliament and that Anne was probably still convalescent, he would have had to go alone. Even where we do credit Chapuys' account (and certainly parts of it are plausible - Henry's comment "I see that God will not give me male children" when he first saw Anne after the miscarriage fits his character very well), the interpretation placed on events by the ambassador needs to be questioned. The remark "When you are up I will speak with you" sounds much more as though Henry is retreating from a scene he cannot really cope with - the combination of the loss of his hoped-for heir and Anne's own (possible) accusation that his attentions to others had brought on the miscarriage.4
Cromwell had an interview with Chapuys on the 29th, and said that Henry had told him that he had been seduced by witchcraft. On 10 February, Chapuys noticed that the King had fallen for Jane Seymour. This "amour" may have begun as far back as 1534, September 1535 or as late as January 1536, but it seems likely that the 1534 identification is a false one. Jane, at any rate, refused his advances.
Vitally, however, at some point in spring 1536 Anne seems to have broken with Cromwell. Chapuys confirmed this to his satisfaction on 1 April - and after mass the next day, virtually the whole court knew of it. John Skip, Anne's almoner, took as his text John 8:46 - "Which of you can convict me of sin?" The sermon, which treated Skip's congregation as "you" and "me" as the English clergy collectively. It proved to be a blistering rebuttal of generalised attacks on the English clergy as a whole; and it must have been with Anne's explicit approval and endorsement. It is inconceivable that he would have been so bold without the queen's backing. Skip accepted that individual criticisms may have been justified, but fiercely rejected the attack on the entire clerical estate. He made a quite explicit attack on the motivation: "nowadays, many men . . . rebuke the clergy . . . because they would have from the clergy their possessions." He even made coded reference to Jane Seymour when he mentioned that King Solomon "defamed himself sore by sensual and carnal appetites"! Anne's endorsement, and her split with Cromwell, was made crystal clear by Skip's use of the example of the story of the Persian ruler Ahasuerus, his wife Esther and his councillor Haman. Haman had attempted to persuade the king to destroy the Jews - but Esther, upon hearing this of him, persuaded him otherwise. Haman was then hanged. The warning to Cromwell could not have been more explicit.
What provoked such a fierce break? The initial casus belli seems to been over the monasteries. Many in court, government, parliament and the clergy agreed that reform was needed, and some redirection of Church assets 'to better uses' - and the queen was certainly among these. However, Anne (along with most other prominent reformers) had in mind education or other charitable causes - and Skip in his sermon emphasised "the great decay of the universities in this realm". The refounded college at Stoke by Nayland was a good example of what Anne wanted to achieve - and she had been given to understand that the impending dissolution of the smaller monasteries, as provided for by the Dissolution Bill which was awaiting royal assent, would indeed assist these causes. The Bill explicitly included bodies politic and corporate among the beneficiaries. Anne subsequently discovered, however, that the aim was total secularisation - resolving Henry's financial crisis rather than assisting education, universities or other charitable causes. The ferocity of Skip's attack may be partially explained by the fact that Anne had been deceived over the issue; and she rapidly took a lead in opposing secularisation. Evidence suggests that she had got to Latimer and Cranmer to emphasise that secularisation as planned by Cromwell would do nothing for the poor or good causes. With Anne as opponent, the clause in the Bill which allowed the king to reprieve any houses he wished became a real hostage to fortune - very substantial exemptions for education might well be made.
Furthermore, on 18 April, Henry had an almighty row with Cromwell concerning the possibility of an Imperial alliance. The demands which Henry wished to make included a climbdown over Anne Boleyn on the part of Charles V - something which Cromwell did not believe he would countenance. Cromwell would later say that he had decided to eliminate the Queen at this juncture - although he would also remind Chapuys that he had predicted Anne's downfall in February. According to Warnicke, Chapuys' presence at mass that morning was a deliberate slight to Anne on Henry's part. This seems implausible, however, simply because the situation compelled him to acknowledge Anne Boleyn, to the fury of the Lady Mary and her allies. If Henry had intended to snub Anne, he had chosen a remarkably ineffective way of doing so!
On 23 April, George Boleyn failed to receive the Order of the Garter, while Nicholas Carew - hostile to the Boleyns and one of the court conservatives - did receive the honour. This can be overinterpreted; Henry may at least partially have been influenced by his half-promise to François I that Carew was next in line. On the 24th, a commission was appointed to investigate various treasons in Middlesex and Kent - although Henry informed Pate (ambassador to the Holy See) that he was to continue to press for the validity of the marriage to Anne Boleyn on the 25th, and it seems that Henry never signed an order for the commission; these were issued as a matter of course instead. On the 27th, writs went out to summon Parliament - event though it had been dismissed on the 14th. On the 29th, Charles V instructed Chapuys to begin sounding out the possibilities of an alliance with England. On the same day, Jane Seymour was given a purse of gold sovereigns and a royal letter (she was now at Greenwich with Anne, while Henry moved to London itself). Jane had been poisoning the royal mind against Anne Boleyn for quite a while by now - twisting her reformist opinions into heresy, saying her marriage was invalid, which was probably her own genuine opinion (she showed her sympathy for Katherine of Aragon and the Lady Mary repeatedly) - and took the opportunity to refuse it, and give the King a hint. She kissed the letter, handed it back unopened and then proceeded to trumpet her honour and virtue to the skies.
Henry was hooked. On this very same day, meanwhile, Anne found one Mark Smeaton, a musician. He looked somewhat downcast, and Anne asked him why he was so sad. Smeaton replied that it did not matter. The queen replied, "You may not look to have me speak to you as I would to a noble man, because you be an inferior person." Smeaton replied, "No, no, Madam. A look sufficed me, and thus fare you well."
On the 30th, he was arrested and taken to Cromwell's house in Stepney, there to be questioned. Possibly under torture and certainly under psychological pressure, Smeaton confessed to "violating the Queen" three times. Henry "spent several hours closeted with Cromwell and the Council" that day.5 Anne went to Greenwich Park with her dogs. When she returned she heard that the Council was meeting, and she was alarmed. She took her daughter and went to look for Henry. Unfortunately, it had no effect, as Alexander Ales (a Scottish reformer) told Elizabeth I:
Alas, I shall never forget the sorrow I felt when I saw the sainted Queen, your most religious mother, carrying you, still a little baby, in her arms, and entreating the most serene King your father in Greenwich palace, from the open window of which he was looking into the courtyard when she brought you to him. The faces and gestures of the speakers plainly showed the King was angry, though he concealed his anger wonderfully well.6
It was announced at eleven o' clock that evening that the King would not be going to Calais, and no explanation was offered. As she would later say in the Tower, Anne had had an exchange with Sir Henry Norris, one of her most powerful supporters, either early that day or on the 29th, which would soon be all over the court. Anne asked Norris why he postponed his marriage to Madge Shelton. Norris said that he would tarry awhile, whereupon Anne said, "You look for dead men's shoes; for if aught should happen to the King, you would look to have me." Norris denied this in the strongest possible terms, but Anne persisted, saying that she could undo him if she would, after which a tremendous quarrel ensued. In the end, Anne tried to avoid the dangerous implications by dispatching Norris to her almoner to swear that she was a good woman.
Anne attended the May Day tournament at Greenwich with her husband the next day - the same day as he was presented with Smeaton's confession by Cromwell. He was bad-tempered, and left in the middle of the event, taking Norris with him, among others. Anne was left to preside over the tournament alone. She would never see Henry again. Afterwards, Henry tried to get Norris to confess to charges of adultery, but he remained steadfast in his denial. At dawn next day, he was escorted to the Tower.
 |
© Tower of London. Scanned by Douglas Dowell. |
Anne maintained her composure on her journey and denied all the charges. But when she was inside its walls, she broke down:
'Master Kingston, shall I go in to a dungeon?''No, Madam you shall go into your lodging that you lay in at your coronation.'
'It is too good for me. Jesu, have mercy on me!' and she kneeled down weeping a great pace, and in the same sorrow fell into a great laughing, and she hath done so many times since.7
She began to rack her brains, trying to decide what her enemies might use against her - and her ladies made sure to pass what they heard on to Sir William Kingston, Lieutenant of the Tower, who in turn made Cromwell aware of it. This, combined with (essentially) hearsay evidence passed on, formed the basis of the indictment against Anne and the others. The Norris encounter came out, as did the episode with Smeaton. Another tale came out - concerning one Sir Francis Weston. Anne asked him why he flirted with Margaret Shelton - who was affianced to Norris - and why he did not love his wife. Weston replied that he and Norris both loved another more than Margaret Shelton or their wives. Anne asked who it was, and Weston replied, "It is yourself." At this point Anne "defied" him. On May 3, Cranmer attempted to plead for Anne:
And I am in such a perplexity, that my mind is clearly amazed; for I never had better opinion in woman, than I had in her; which maketh me to think, that she should not be culpable. And again, I think your Highness would not have gone so far, except she had surely been culpable. Now I think that your Grace best knoweth, that next unto your Grace I was most bound unto her of all creatures living . . . And as I loved her not a little for the love which I judged her to bear toward God and his gospel; so, if she be proved culpable . . .8
This may sound like a distinctly weak plea for the queen from a man who, in reality, was promoted largely through his connection with her and her family, but that is to misunderstand Cranmer's position. He knew full well how dangerous the king's anger could be, and risked a great deal by associating himself with Anne - but still he stresses how "bound unto her" he was and "the love which I judged her to bear toward God and his gospel". Rather in the manner that the lack of a specific admission of guilt (as opposed to a general admission of sin) at one's execution implied that one was innocent of the offences, Cranmer's emphasis on the conditionality of Anne's conviction, his links with her and her perceived virtues implies his belief in her innocence. His letter certainly shows more bravery in defence of the queen than was shown by her father, sister or indeed anyone else - but it did no good. On the next day, William Brereton and Sir Francis Weston were also arrested.
On May 8, Sir Thomas Wyatt and one Richard Page were arrested. However, they were never tried. On May 10, the Grand Jury of Kent decided that there was prima facie evidence worth taking to court; the Grand Jury of Middlesex did likewise on May 11. It is worth noting that the foreman of the Middlesex jury was Giles Heron, Sir Thomas More's son-in-law. On May 12, Brereton, Norris, Smeaton and Weston were tried at Westminster Hall and found guilty. All pleaded not guilty with the exception of Smeaton, who pleaded guilty to the charge of adultery but denied the rest of the charge. On 15 May, Anne and her brother were tried in the King's Hall of the Tower of London (whether this meant the hall in the royal apartments or the hall in the White Tower is uncertain) - for security rather than privacy; the special stands surrounding the trial held around 2,000 witnesses. By all accounts, she was convincing, gave a plausible answer to all the charges and would hardly have been condemned by any impartial court. However, she was found guilty. Henry Percy was among those who tried her; it is recorded that, after finding her guilty, he collapsed and had to be helped out of the court. Rochford's defence was equally convincing - in this case, the only evidence was the testimony of his wife; Jane Parker may have been jealous of the closeness of Anne and George, while by the end of 1535 she had come to support the Lady Mary - but he was also condemned.
Was Anne Boleyn guilty of any of the charges? Many of her contemporaries believed she was (although it seems that the proceedings of May 1536 were implausible enough that Anne began, for the first time in her life, to gain some popular sympathy!), along with Henry VIII himself (at least initially; his later comments to Jane Seymour when she tried to plead with him for the monasteries suggest that he could consider a different interpretation of her fall). G.W. Bernard has argued for Anne's guilt of adultery with Norris and Smeaton at least, although he views her motive as unknowable. It could conceivably (!) be argued that Anne had committed adultery to gain a male heir. But if she decided to commit adultery to produce an heir, she would not have gone about it so flagrantly. The flirtations described were perfectly normal - part of the cult of courtly love which predominated in Europe and to be expected.
Eleven of the twenty specific charges are impossible as either Anne or the man concerned was elsewhere at the time; two more can be ruled out as Anne was almost certainly with Henry at the time, who was not in the place alleged. Soliciting Smeaton at Greenwich on 13 May 1535 can be ruled out, since it was linked to adultery there on 19 May when Anne was in reality at Richmond. The location is correct for October 1533 (soliciting and committing adultery with Norris), but Anne would have been in confinement waiting to be churched following the birth of Elizabeth. This eliminates sixteen out of the twenty specific allegations, and the only remaining charges are in November 1533 and Christmas 1535/6. In other words, the locations are only correct near the birth of Elizabeth and celebrations - times when everyone might be expected to remember where they had actually been. The attempt to inject plausibility where it would be noticed and the glaring errors elsewhere makes the indictment so suspect that it can be safely dismissed.
The charges are heavily concentrated at Whitehall and Greenwich. Other palaces only feature occasionally - and Anne was no fool. Would she have risked her crown and life to commit adultery in the most flagrant way possible? Would she have conspired to kill the King - when he was the only thing lying between her and imprisonment, execution or exile, with her child disinherited? In short, the evidence for Anne's innocence is overwhelming. (The allegations that she poisoned Katherine of Aragon and the Lady Mary can be safely discarded - Katherine meant that Henry could not marry again without taking her back - and she was likely enough to die without Anne stepping in to hurry things along.) There is absolutely no evidence that Anne gave Henry Fitzroy a slow-acting poison that led to his death soon after her execution. At the end of the day, the charges against Anne and the others were almost certainly a flimsy farrago, and those in the know were aware of the fact. Observers such as Lancelot de Carles (on whom Bernard relies heavily) might assume guilt; Eustace Chapuys, on the other hand, said that Norris, Brereton and Weston "were condemned upon presumption and certain indications, without valid proof or confession", while as for incest "no witnesses were produced against either him [Rochford] or her [Anne]".
Why, then, was Anne Boleyn arrested, convicted and ultimately executed? Aside from the argument that Anne was guilty of one or more of the charges, there are three basic theories - that Henry VIII himself set her up in order to marry Jane Seymour, secure the Imperial alliance and produce a male heir; that Anne's miscarriage on 23-29 January produced a deformed foetus, which caused Henry to believe her guilty of gross sexual conduct and to look for her alleged lovers among his courtiers, while making it possible to deny his paternity of the deformed foetus; or that Anne's fall was orchestrated by the court conservatives in short-term alliance with Thomas Cromwell.
Henry certainly had reasons to get rid of his wife. His lack of a male heir was conspicuous, and he would never admit to himself that the fault might be his - quite apart from the fact that a male heir was politically necessary to take over when he died and to vindicate his regime. He was attracted to Jane Seymour, whose "modesty" was shocked by his amorous advances; and he would have had to have been fairly credulous to be hoodwinked so easily by charges so obviously trumped up (although he might have deliberately convinced himself. However, he was more than capable of convincing himself of a particular version of events when necessary - and indeed, given his character, self-anaesthetising self-righteousness is an extremely plausible reaction to any twinges of doubt. In the absence of anyone to plead Anne's case, caught at the right moment, Henry could quite possibly have been "bounced" - and as seen below, there is considerable evidence to suggest a continuing commitment to the Boleyn marriage until the end of April 1536.
According to Retha M. Warnicke's book The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn (Cambridge, 1989), Henry may have had another motive. Anne was accused of incest, an activity associated with witchcraft. Henry asserted that he had been seduced "by sortileges and charms"; several days mentioned in the indictment were traditionally associated with eroticism and transvestism. Contemporaries believed that God visited deformed children on parents guilty of gross sexual misconduct - and of course, Henry would rather die than admit that he might be the guilty party. Anne's attempt to appeal to Henry through Elizabeth makes sense if the foetus was deformed; it would show that she had also had a child so perfectly formed that he had showed her to the French ambassador in the nude to confirm this. There is some circumstantial evidence to suggest that all five of the men accused were libertines. There are other, similar circumstantial arguments put forward to support this line.9 The chief drawback to the argument, though, is that there is simply no positive evidence for it at all. The 1534 miscarriage was successfully kept secret, admittedly, but the likelihood of a deformed foetus being concealed is surely small (particularly when, unlike in 1534, ambassadors were not out of touch with the court on summer progress), while Chapuys gave a detailed description of the foetus without mentioning any such thing. As with Anne's alleged 'sixth finger', any sign of such a thing would have been leapt upon by the imperial envoy. Furthermore, if the deformity of the foetus was the original reason for Henry turning against her, then why was it not presented as the final proof of her monstrosities and evidence of witchcraft? Given that Henry was to be presented as a cuckold, it would have lent considerable credibility to the case against the queen; as those who put the theory forward in the first place point out, deformed babies were seen as proof of sexual deviance on the part of a parent (usually the mother).
Both arguments require the king to have intended to dispose of Anne for several months before her actual fall; this in itself, though, is problematic. On 18 April 1536, as said before, he had committed himself emphatically to the Boleyn match. On 25 April, his letter to the English ambassador at Rome summarises the imperial proposals and refers to 'the likelihood and appearance that God will send us heirs male' and to Anne as 'our most dear and most entirely beloved wife, the queen'. On the same day, the gist of this letter was repeated in letters to Stephen Gardiner and Sir Thomas Wallop in France. There would be no point in sending all this out, only to be corrected in a matter of days; and as an attempt at deception, it seems entirely disproportionate (and after all, it involved a great deal of work on drafts and final versions, which the King hated).
The line taken by Eric W. Ives and - probably - most historians today is that Cromwell, in alliance with the "Aragonese" faction at court, set Anne up on charges of adultery and treason. Anne had hitherto seen Cromwell as "her man". Why would Cromwell want to do this? The argument goes that Anne was losing confidence in him due to differences over the monasteries as detailed above - especially as she felt she had been duped by him - his early support for an Imperial alliance, the care he took towards the Lady Mary and differences on patronage. The argument over secularisation of monastic land seems to have been the occasion for a decisive breach between the two. The argument between king and secretary on 18 April concerned the King's demands that the Emperor climb down over Anne Boleyn - something that Cromwell did not think he could accomplish; certainly, this was when, Cromwell said to Chapuys, he concluded that Anne would have to be removed. He believed that the alliance was necessary for reasons of state and there was a general agreement on this point; for Anne herself it provided an opportunity to dissociate herself somewhat from the French connection (which was an increasing liability), while the more conservative members of court could hope that an imperial alliance would encourage a reversal of the policies of recent years. But if Henry was planning to demand a public climbdown by Charles and an explicit acceptance of the Boleyn marriage (a realist in foreign policy, it is agreed that he was probably aiming only for an alliance without domestic conditions, but agreement on this was by no means certain - and could Cromwell afford the risk, given that he was unaware of the softening of Charle V's line?), then Cromwell felt he would be demanding the impossible. He would then fail in the one area where no servant of the king could afford to fail; giving Henry what he wanted. Furthermore, even if an Imperial alliance were patched up, that would still leave Cromwell with a now-hostile Anne - who might well derail most of his ambitions for secularisation of monastic property, and who was an extremely dangerous enemy to have.
In that case, why was Anne's marriage not simply annulled? Anne would then remain Lady Marquess of Pembroke, with her father and brother important in the Privy Chamber, other allies in court and council and Elizabeth born "in good faith", just as Mary had been. This faction would, if Cromwell were to engineer an annulment, be hostile to Master Secretary. The accused were, with the exceptions of Smeaton, and Weston, who was brought in only by Anne's Tower revelations, allies of the Boleyns.10 It is a classic hallmark of factionalism that there were a substantial number of victims - and by removing Anne's brother, Henry Norris (who enjoyed considerable royal favour) and Brereton (another Boleyn supporter) as well as the queen herself, Cromwell could do far more than simply ousting the Boleyns; he could destroy them. He would then have to deal with the conservatives, and after Anne's death he proceeded to convince Henry that they were behind Mary's obstinacy. Indeed, they had thought that with Cromwell, they would be able to secure her reinstatement on the grounds that Henry and Katherine had married "in good faith"; the case against them was far stronger than anything brought against Anne Boleyn! The pattern of events, then, best fits the argument that Cromwell performed a double manoeuvre - first removing Anne and disabling her allies, then moving against the partisans of the Lady Mary.
Whatever the reasons, Anne was condemned and due to die. On the 16th, Cranmer heard Anne's confession (in the religious sense); this was probably merely a spiritual exercise. On the 17th, her marriage to Henry was annulled, probably on grounds of affinity due to Henry's liaison with Mary Boleyn - this would explain why the reasons were kept secret: two affinity cases would look somewhat embarrassing. This is too soon after Anne's confession for it to have had a bearing upon the annulment; there was no reason why the court could not have sat on the Thursday had this been the case. On the 17th, Anne's alleged lovers were executed. Only Smeaton made any confession on the scaffold: "Masters, I pray you all pray for me, for I have deserved the death!" Anne's reaction was as follows:
Alas! Has he not then cleared me of the public shame he has brought me to? Alas, I fear his soul suffers for his false accusations! But for my brother and those others, I doubt not but they are now in in the presence of that Great King before whom I am to be tomorrow.
She prayed with her chaplain from two o' clock in the morning on the 18th, and soon after dawn Cranmer came to hear her last confession and to allow her access to the sacrament. It is interesting to note Cranmer's behaviour the next day; according to Alexander Ales, when he enquired why the Archbishop was so sad, he was told that 'she who has been the Queen of England on earth will today become a Queen in heaven', and broke down weeping. It seems Anne's confession harboured no terrible secrets!11 Anne then sent for Kingston, who witnessed that before and after receiving the wafer, she swore on the damnation of her immortal soul that she was innocent. Shortly before nine, Kingston heard that the French executioner from Calais was delayed until noon. Anne said she was sorry to hear this, "as I thought to be dead before this time, and past my pain". When Kingston assured her there should be no pain, she said, "I have heard say that the executioner was very good, and I have a little neck" - and put her hands around it, laughing. She was then told at noon that the execution would have to be delayed until nine the next morning. Although she was shaken by this - she had hoped to have been "past her pain" by now - she managed to endure her last hours, praying and in conversation with her ladies.12
On the 19th, around eight o' clock, the Lieutenant of the Tower came for Anne. She wore a black or dark-grey gown, with a red petticoat, an ermine mantle and a white coif, over which she wore a French or gable hood. She often looked behind her, perhaps fearing that she would not be ready when the executioner struck. Then she made her speech:
Masters, I here humbly submit me to the law as the law hath judged me, and as for mine offences, I here accuse no man. God knoweth them; I remit them unto Him, beseeching Him to have mercy on my soul. And I pray Jesu to save my sovereign and master the King, the most godly, noble, and gentle Prince that is, and long to reign over you.
Anne now knelt down with her priest to say her final prayers. She then rose, took off her headdress, gave the executioner her forgiveness when requested and his fee, and knelt before the block, taking her necklace off. She was then blindfolded, repeating "Jesu, receive my soul! O Lord God, have pity on my soul! To Christ I commend my soul!" So as to ensure she looked in the right direction, the executioner called to a member of the audience: "Bring me the sword." Anne turned her head, and the executioner struck; the "sword of Calais" had been hidden in the straw.13 No coffin had been provided; but an old arrow-chest was found - short enough for a decapitated woman. Anne was then quietly buried in the Chapel of St Peter ad Vincula; in 1876, what is believed to have been her remains would be unearthed and reburied, with a plaque, in front of the altar. This plaque remains her final monument.
Notes
1 Weir, p. 294
2 Warnicke, pp. 191-233. Weir does not agree, but she says that the reason for Anne's miscarriages may have been that she was rhesus negative. After the birth of the first child, "agglutinogen [is produced], which destroys rhesus-positive red cells, . . . [which is] usually . . . fatal", p. 304
3 Weir, p. 303
4 Ives, pp. 343-6
5 Weir, p. 314
6 Cit. Weir, p. 314
7 Cit. Ives, p. 374
8 Cit. MacCulloch, p. 157
9 Warnicke, pp. 191-233
10 Ives, pp. 343-408
11 MacCulloch, p. 159
12 Cit. Weir, p. 332
13 Fraser, pp. 256-257