BOLEYN, wife of Henry VIII., king of England, was b. about the year 1507. Her father was sir Thomas B., afterwards viscount Rocliford and earl of Wiltshire; her mother, the daughter of the duke of Norfolk. In her seventh or eighth year, Anne 13. went to France with Mary. sister of IIenry VIII., and remained in Ertince after Mary— who had married Louis XII.—returned to England as a widow, under the protection of queen Claude. wife of Francis I., who was much pleased with her beauty and liveliness. It is not known exactly when she returned to England, hut it is certain that she was one of queen (7atharine's maids of honor in 1527, in which year the king seems to have con ceived and expressed a passion for her, to which she apparently refused to listen on other condition than that she should become his wife. Henry's religions scruples regarding the lawfulness of his marriage with Catharine, whether he hail entertained them before (as is alleged) or not, certainly became much more impatient than they had hitherto been—much too urgent. indeed. for the slow decision of the court of Rome. Ile. accordingly. without waiting for the award of his holiness, entered privately into matrimonial relationship with Anne 13.; in'Jan.; 1533, or, as some authorities have it, in the Nov. previous. In Sept., 153, the princess—afterwards qucen—Elizabeth wasborn. The new queen. naturally light and gay of heart, and educated at the French court, where these qualities. \rem likely to be developed to the utmost, conducted herself towards the Courtiers With an easy familiarity not customary in England for one in her position. Concerning the first two years of lier married life, we have little information, only it is known that she was favorable to the reformation, and promoted a translation of the Bible. In 1535, the affections of the king appear to have become alienated from her. According to some historians, the amorous monarch had already fixed upon a successor to Anne B.; others make out that his passion had nothing to do with her death, and assert that Ilcniy contracted his unseemly hasty marriage With Jane Seymour solely at the request of the peers and privy council. If this latter statement could lid thoroughly relied on, it would no doubt tell strongly against Anne 13., as there would then be no apparent motive for Henry seeking her condemnation if she were innocent. I3etween conflicting historians, one may well hesitate to decide on this point. In Feb., 1536, the queen gave birth to a son, still-born. The king now became more and morn estranged front her; and her freedom of manners had given but too good grounds for her enemies to speak evil of her. On the 1st of May, the annual tournament was held at Greenwich, in presence of the king and queen. The tilting had commenced, tho challengers being viscount Rockford, brother to the queen, and sir llenry Norris, ono of the gentlemen of the king's privy chamber. Suddenly the king rose—his outward manifesting inward disturbance—left the tourney, and with a small party rode up to London, leaving the queen at Greenwich. The popular account is, that the king's smideu departure was occasioned by the discovery of a handkerchief belonging to the queen in the possession of Norris; but the necessity for any such romantic and sudden cause of jealousy is obviated by the fact, that, in the previous week, a commission, com posed of members of the privy council, had been secretly engaged in examining into charges of adultery against Anne; and two of h i leer alleged accomplices in the crime, sir William Brereton, a gentleman of the king's household, and Mai k Smeton, a musician at court, had been already arrested. The queen remained at Greenwich that night. On the following morning, she was examined before the privy council, under the presidency of the duke of Norfolk, her uncle, but a bigoted Roman Catholic, and protested her innocence. In the afternoon, however, she was sent up the river to the Tower. Sir
Henry Norris, and sir Francis Weston, another courtier, along with Smeton, were also examined, and all et first declared their innocence of the charge imputed to them; but afterwards the musician confessed to the crime. Norris, too. it is said,. made a like con fession; but he indignantly repudiated it the next day, on the ground that lie had been entrapped into it unwittingly. In the Tower, the queen's every action and word were watched and reported on; but anything she said while ti prisoner seems quite as com patible with innocence as guilt, although her words unquestionably prove her to have exhibited a dangerous levity towards the courtiers; for which, howeyer, her French cdu cation may be held to account. Her letter to Henry, written on the 6th of Slay, speaks decidedly in her favor. On the 10th of May, the grand jury of Middlesex found a " true bill " on the indictment, which charged the queen with committing adultery with no less than five persons, including her own brother, lord Rochford, and of conspiring with them, jointly and severally, against 'the life of the king, the adultery being alleged to extend over a period of nearly three years. On the llth, the grand jury of Kent found a true bill likewise. On the 12th, the four commoners, 13rereton, Weston, Norris, and Smeton, were found guilty, the last confessing to the charge of adultery only, the other three pleading not guilty to both charges. On the 151h, the queen and her brother were triad before 27 peers, the president being the duke of Norfolk. They affirmed their innocence; but they were found guilty, and condemned, the queen to be burned or beheaded on the :rower green. On the 1711, Smeton was hanged. and the other four beheaded; general protestations of unworthiness by them at the hour of death being regarded by some historians as evidence of particular guilt. On the 19th, the queen was heheaded—having previously confessed to eranmer some engagement that rendered her marriage with the king illegal—with her last words praying a blessing on Henry. who, she said. had ever been to her a good and gentle lord, but making no confession of guilt.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to form anything like a just and satisfactory estimate of the character of Anne 13. ; historians, for the most part, having made her but a lay figure upon which to hang the drapery of religious partisanship, or to display the colors of individual sympathy. That, with the courtiers, she maintained not that dignity which becotnes it queen. but was unguarded in manner, and thoughtlessly free of speech, !hero can be no question; there is much room to doubt that she was guilty of the heinous offenses laid to her charge. A woman who resisted for years the criminal solicitations of the king, was not likely to seduce systematically grooThs of the chamber; nor is it at 1111 probable that one so diabolically bad as she must have been, if the charges alleged against her were true, could be so utterly devoid of that cunning necessary to the prac tice of successful wickedness. Again, it seems scarcely possible that such an extensive systemof conspiracy and crime could have been carried on for nearly three years with out being, noticed by the lynx eyes, and blown upon by the calumnious tongues. of her numerous' and powerful enemies, especially if there were truth in the statement in the indictment, that her accomplices were " very jealous of each other." On the other hand. it appears monstrous to suppose that 70 noblemen and commoners of England. before whom the case in its various stages came, against most of whom even slander had not a word to say, should have deliberately condemned a queen and five of her asso elates, and their own, without conclusive evidence. In the absence of the evidence which they had before them, however, it appears to us that the proper verdict for history to pronounce is the intermediate one of not proven.