Law. Wolsey was prepared to reply that in that case, the dispensation was
invalid; since it specified only the impediment of "affinity" but not that
of "public honesty" created by a contract not consummated, and so failed to
cover the admitted circumstances. It appears from the complete context that
this plea was hit upon only as a rejoinder to this particular plea of
Katharine's. But see Taunton, _Thomas Wolsey_, chap, x., where a
different view is taken; the whole context, however, is not there cited.]
This was the line that Wolsey advised, and to which the King committed
himself. It should be clear that it finally precluded the other line of
arbitrary dissolution, since it rested on the inviolability of a marriage
once validly contracted. If the Pope could not set aside the bar to
re-marriage with a dead husband's brother, the King could hardly set aside
his own marriage, if it had been itself lawful. Stated conversely; if the
King could, so to speak cancel a living wife on the ground of public
expediency, the Pope had surely been entitled to cancel a dead husband on
the same ground.

[Sidenote: Conjunction of incentives]

When Wolsey had propounded the theory that the validity of the dispensation
was doubtful, it is easy enough to see how Henry might have persuaded
himself that his conscience must be set at ease. What if the death of all
his male children had been a Divine Judgment on an unlawful union? The wish
is father to the thought. From this point, it was a short step to a
conviction that, whatever any one might say, the union was unlawful. Thus
Henry could with comparative equanimity adopt the role of one who merely
felt that his doubts must be set at rest, while he would be only overjoyed
to be finally certified that they were groundless. It is not till this
professed hope is in danger of being realised that the mask is dropped and
the King's determination to have a divorce by hook or by crook is avowed.