Footnote 565: Ibid., iv., 3247, 3263.(back)

Footnote 566: Ibid., iv., 3291.(back)

Footnote 567: Sp. Cal., iii., 273.(back)

Footnote 568: Sp. Cal., iii., 193, 276, 300; L. and P., iv., 3312.(back)

Footnote 569: Ibid., iv., 3400.(back)

Footnote 570: Sp. Cal., iii., 109, 190, 192, 193; cf. iv., 3951, Du Bellay to Montmorenci, "those who desire to catch him tripping are very glad the people cry out 'Murder'".(back)

Footnote 571: L. and P., iv., 1411.(back)

Footnote 572: Ibid., iv., 3304.(back)

Footnote 573: L. and P., iv., 4112, 4865, 5512.(back)

Footnote 574: Sp. Cal., iii., 432, 790; Ven. Cal., 1529, 212.(back)

Footnote 575: "He showed me," writes Campeggio, "that in order to maintain and increase here the authority of the Holy See and the Pope he had done his utmost to persuade the King to apply for a legate... although many of these prelates declared it was possible to do without one" (iv., 4857; cf. iv., 5072, 5177).(back)

Footnote 576: Wolsey "certainly proves himself very zealous for the preservation of the authority of the See Apostolic in this kingdom because all his grandeur is connected with it" (Campeggio to Sanga, 28th Oct., 1528, L. and P., iv., 4881).(back)

Footnote 577: Henry VIII. to Knight in Corpus Christi College, Oxford, MS., 318, f. 3, printed in the Academy, xv., 239, and Engl. Hist. Rev., xi., 685.(back)

Footnote 578: L. and P., iv., 4977.(back)

Footnote 579: Sp. Cal., ii., 379.(back)

Footnote 580: L. and P., iv., 6627, 6705, App. 261.(back)

Footnote 581: L. and P., iv., 4404.(back)

Footnote 582: Ibid., iv., 4542.(back)

Footnote 583: Ibid., iv., 4131. Wolsey writes the letter, but he is only giving Henry's "message". The letter is undated, but it refers to the "shameless sentence sent from Rome," i.e., sentence of divorce which is dated 11th March, 1527.(back)

Footnote 584: For these intricate negotiations see Stephan Ehses, Römische Dokumente zur Geschichte der Ehescheidung Heinrichs VIII. von England, 1893; these documents had all, I think, been previously printed by Laemmer or Theiner, but only from imperfect copies often incorrectly deciphered. Ehses has printed the originals with the utmost care, and thrown much new light on the subject. The story of the divorce is retold in this new light by Dr. Gairdner in the English Historical Review, vols. xi. and xii.; the documents in L. and P. must be corrected from these sources.(back)

Footnote 585: L. and P., iv., 4881.(back)

Footnote 586: Ibid., iv., 4897.(back)

Footnote 587: Ibid., iv., 4167; cf. iv., 5156, and Ehses, Römische Dokumente, No. 20, where Cardinal Pucci gives a somewhat different account of the interviews.(back)

Footnote 588: L. and P., iv., 5038, 5417, 5476.(back)

Footnote 589: Sp. Cal., iii., 309.(back)

Footnote 590: L. and P., iv., 5152, where Henry's ambassadors quote this precedent to the Pope. Cf. ibid., v., 45, for other precedents.(back)

Footnote 591: The sentence was actually pronounced by the Cardinal of Ancona, and the date was 11th March, 1527, just before Henry commenced proceedings against Catherine. Henry called it a "shameless sentence"; but it may nevertheless have suggested to his mind the possibility of obtaining one like it.(back)

Footnote 592: L. and P., iv., 5966.(back)

Footnote 593: Ibid., iv., 3802, 6290.(back)

Footnote 594: Ibid., iv., 5072. "It would greatly please the Pope," writes his secretary Sanga, "if the Queen could be induced to enter some religion, because, although this course would be portentous and unusual, he could more readily entertain the idea, as it would involve the injury of only one person."(back)

Footnote 595: L. and P., iv., 5518.(back)

Footnote 596: It was called a "decretal commission," and it was a legislative as well as an administrative act; the Pope being an absolute monarch, his decrees were the laws of the Church; the difficulties of Clement VII. and indeed the whole divorce question could never have arisen had the Church been a constitutional monarchy.(back)

Footnote 597: L. and P., iv., 3913.(back)

Footnote 598: Ibid., iv., 4345.(back)

Footnote 599: Engl. Hist. Rev., xii., 110-14.(back)

Footnote 600: Ehses, Römische Dok., No. 23; Engl. Hist. Rev., xii., 8.(back)

Footnote 601: L. and P., iv., 3682, 3750.(back)

Footnote 602: Ibid., iv., 3934, 3949, 4224.(back)

Footnote 603: Ibid., iv., 4605.(back)

Footnote 604: L. and P., iv., 4626.(back)

Footnote 605: Ibid., iv., 4663.(back)

Footnote 606: Ibid., iv., 4713.(back)

Footnote 607: Ibid., iv., 4721.(back)

Footnote 608: Ibid., iv., 4736-37.(back)

Footnote 609: Sp. Cal., iii., 779.(back)

Footnote 610: L. and P., iv., 4857.(back)

Footnote 611: Ibid., iv., 4736.(back)

Footnote 612: Ibid., iv., 4858.(back)

Footnote 613: L. and P., iv., 4977.(back)

Footnote 614: Ibid., iv., 5376-77, 5470-71, 5486-87. For the arguments as to its validity see Busch, England under the Tudors, Eng. trs., i., 376-8; Friedmann, Anne Boleyn, ii., 329; and Lord Acton in the Quarterly Rev., cxliii., 1-51.(back)

Footnote 615: She made this statement to Campeggio in the confessional (L. and P., iv., 4875).(back)

Footnote 616: Ibid., iv., 5377, 5438; Sp. Cal., iii., 276, 327.(back)

Footnote 617: L. and P., iv., 3217. See this point discussed in Taunton's Cardinal Wolsey, chap. x.(back)

Footnote 618: Sp. Cal., iii., 882.(back)

Footnote 619: L. and P., iv., 4841.(back)

Footnote 620: Ibid., iv., 5154, 5177, 5211 (ii.); Sp. Cal., iii., 877, 882.(back)

Footnote 621: L. and P., iv., 5474. Yet there is a letter from Clement to Campeggio (Cotton MS., Vitellius, B, xii., 164; L. and P., iv., 5181) authorising him "to reject whatever evidence is tendered in behalf of this brief as an evident forgery". Clement was no believer in the maxim qui facit per alium facit per se; he did not mind what his legates did, so long as he was free to repudiate their action when convenient.(back)

Footnote 622: L. and P., iv., 5611, 5612.(back)

Footnote 623: Ibid., iv., 5685, 5694, 5695, 5702.(back)

Footnote 624: L. and P., iv., Introd., p. cccclxxv.(back)

Footnote 625: Ibid., iv., Introd., p. cccclxxix.(back)

Footnote 626: Ibid., iv., 5732, 5734.(back)

Footnote 627: Ibid., iv., 3604.(back)

Footnote 628: Ibid., iv., 5789.(back)

Footnote 629: It was alleged that this adjournment was only the usual practice of the curia; but it is worth noting that in 1530 Charles V. asserted that it was usual to carry on matters so important as the divorce during vacation (ibid., iv., 6452), and that Clement had repeatedly ordered Campeggio to prolong the suit as much as possible and above all to pronounce no sentence.(back)

Footnote 630: L. and P., iv., 5703, 5715, 5780.(back)

Footnote 631: Ibid., iv., 4564; Sp. Cal., iii., 729.(back)

Footnote 632: L. and P., iv., 3930.(back)

Footnote 633: L. and P., iv., 4310.(back)

Footnote 634: Ibid., iv., 4012, 4040, 4043, 4044, 4239.(back)

Footnote 635: Ibid., iv., 3262.(back)

Footnote 636: Ibid., iv., 4147.(back)

Footnote 637: Ibid., iv., 4376.(back)

Footnote 638: Ibid., iv., 5679, 5701, 5702, 5713.(back)

Footnote 639: Ibid., iv., 5179.(back)

Footnote 640: Ibid., iv., 4680-84.(back)

Footnote 641: L. and P., iv., 4900.(back)

Footnote 642: Ibid., iv., 5447.(back)

Footnote 643: Sp. Cal., iii., 875.(back)

Footnote 644: L. and P., iv., 5209.(back)

Footnote 645: Sp. Cal., iii., 890.(back)

Footnote 646: Ibid., iv., 72.(back)

Footnote 647: Ibid., iv., 154.(back)

Footnote 648: L. and P., iv., 5705, 5767; cf. Sp. Cal., iv., 150.(back)

Footnote 649: L. and P., iv., 5779; Sp. Cal., iv., 117, 161.(back)

Footnote 650: L. and P., iv., 5780; Sp. Cal., iv., 156. Another detail was the excommunication of Zapolya, the rival of the Habsburgs in Hungary—a step which Henry VIII. denounced as "letting the Turk into Hungary" (L. and P., v., 274).(back)

Footnote 651: L. and P., iv., 5650, 5715.(back)

Footnote 652: See, besides the documents cited, Busch, Der Sturz des Cardinals Wolsey (Hist. Taschenbuch, VI., ix., 39-114).(back)

Footnote 653: L. and P., i., 3838, 3876.(back)

Footnote 654: Ibid., ii., 3781; cf., i., 4283, "all here have regard only to their own honour and profit".(back)

Footnote 655: Ibid., ii., 2362.(back)

Footnote 656: L. and P., ii., 3277, 3352.(back)

Footnote 657: Ibid., ii., 3523.(back)

Footnote 658: Sp. Cal., iii., 209, 210, 309; cf., L. and P., iv., 3051, 3352. Clement had given away Sicily and Naples to one of Charles's vassals "which dealing may make me not take him as Pope, no, not for all the excommunications that he can make; for I stand under appellation to the next general council". Every one—Charles V., Henry VIII., Cranmer—played an appeal to the next general council against the Pope's excommunication.(back)

Footnote 659: L. and P., i., 3320. In 1516 one Humphrey Bonner preached a sermon ridiculing the Holy See (ibid., ii., 2692).(back)

Footnote 660: In this, as in many other reforms, the English Parliament only anticipated the action of the Church; for on 12th February, 1516, Leo X. issued a bull prohibiting any one from being admitted, for the next five years, into minor orders unless he were simultaneously promoted to be sub-deacon; as many persons, to avoid appearing before the civil courts and to enjoy immunity, received the tonsure and minor orders without proceeding to the superior (L. and P., ii., 1532).(back)

Footnote 661: L. and P., ii., 1313. Brewer impugns the authority of Keilway's report of this incident on the ground that he lived in Elizabeth's reign; that is true, but according to the D.N.B. he was born in 1497, which makes him a strictly contemporary authority.(back)

Footnote 662: L. and P., ii., 1131.(back)

Footnote 663: Ibid., ii., 1314.(back)

Footnote 664: Ibid., ii., 1312.(back)

Footnote 665: Ibid., ii., 1315; cf. another petition to the same effect from the inhabitants of London (ibid., i., 5725 (i.)).(back)

Footnote 666: Ibid., ii., 1223.(back)

Footnote 667: See Dr. Gairdner, History of English Church in Sixteenth Century, ch. iii., where the story of Richard Hunne is critically examined in detail. Its importance consists, however, not in the question whether Hunne was or was not murdered by the Bishop's chancellor Horsey, but in the popular hostility to the clergy revealed by the incident.(back)

Footnote 668: L. and P., ii., 2.(back)

Footnote 669: Ibid., ii., 2492.(back)

Footnote 670: Ibid., ii., 4074.(back)

Footnote 671: Ibid., iii., 929.(back)

Footnote 672: L. and P., ii., 4082.(back)

Footnote 673: Ibid., ii., 4074.(back)

Footnote 674: Ibid., iv., 4898.(back)

Footnote 675: Ibid., iv., 5210, 5255, 5581, 5582.(back)

Footnote 676: Ibid., iv., 6011.(back)

Footnote 677: Ibid., 6019.(back)

Footnote 678: L. and P., iv., 5416.(back)

Footnote 679: Ibid., iv., 5995. Henry VIII. no doubt also had his eye on Gustavus in Sweden where the Vesteräs Recess of 1527 had provided that all episcopal, capitular and monastic property which was not absolutely required should be handed over to the King, and conferred upon him an ecclesiastical jurisdiction as extensive as that afterwards conferred upon Henry VIII. (Cambridge Modern Hist., ii., 626).(back)

Footnote 680: Harrison, Description of England, in Holinshed, ed. 1577, bk. ii., chap. ix.(back)

Footnote 681: Ven. Cal., iv., 184, 185, 293.(back)

Footnote 682: L. and P., iv., 4546. Henry had had small-pox in February, 1514 (ibid., i., 4831), without any serious consequences, but apart from that he had had no great illness.(back)

Footnote 683: Cavendish, Life of Wolsey, p. 397.(back)

Footnote 684: Brewer, Introd. to L. and P., iv., p. dcxxi.(back)

Footnote 685: See various entries in Privy Purse Expenses, L. and P., v., 747-62.(back)

Footnote 686: L. and P., iv., 4477, 4488, 4507, 4509.(back)

Footnote 687: L. and P., iv., 5983; cf. iv., 3992, where Henry has an interview (March, 1528) with a Scots ambassador and tells no one about it.(back)

Footnote 688: Ibid., iv., 4649.(back)

Footnote 689: Brewer, Ibid., iv., Introd., p. dcxxii.(back)

Footnote 690: L. and P., iv., 5209. One Hochstetter was imported from Germany in connection with "the gold mines that the King was seeking for" (Du Bellay to Montmorenci, 25th January, 1529).(back)

Footnote 691: Ibid., iv., 4933.(back)

Footnote 692: L. and P., iii., 1978.(back)

Footnote 693: Ibid., iv., 5231.(back)

Footnote 694: Ibid., iv., 5983.(back)

Footnote 695: Ibid., iv., 6017.(back)

Footnote 696: L. and P., iv., 6199, 6050; cf. iv., 6295, where Henry orders Dacre to treat Wolsey as became his rank; Ven. Cal., 1529, p. 237.(back)

Footnote 697: Ibid., iv., 6220.(back)

Footnote 698: Ibid., iv., 6018, 6199, 6273, 6738.(back)

Footnote 699: De Vaux writes on 8th November, 1530, to Montmorenci, that the King had told him "where and how" Wolsey had intrigued against him, but he does not repeat the information (ibid., iv., 6720), though Bryan's remark (ibid., iv., 6733) that "De Vaux has done well in disclosing the misdemeanour of the Cardinal" suggests that De Vaux knew more than he says.(back)

Footnote 700: So Chapuys reports (iv., 6738); that Wolsey had used Agostini to sound Chapuys is obvious from the latter's remark, "were the physician to say all that passed between us, he could not do anything to impugn me".(back)

Footnote 701: Cf. Buckingham's remark in L. and P., iii., 1356: "An he had not offended no more unto God than he had done to the Crown, he should die as true a man as ever was in the world".(back)

Footnote 702: D.N.B., xxxviii., 437.(back)

Footnote 703: Rymer, Fœdera, xiv., 302.(back)

Footnote 704: It has been alleged that the immediate object of this Parliament was to relieve the King from the necessity of repaying the loan (D.N.B., xxvi., 83); and much scorn has been poured on the notion that it had any important purpose (L. and P., iv., Introd., p. dcxlvii.). Brewer even denies its hostility to the Church on the ground that it was composed largely of lawyers, and "lawyers are not in general enemies to things established; they are not inimical to the clergy". Yet the law element was certainly stronger in the Parliaments of Charles I. than in that of 1529; were they not hostile to "things established" and "inimical to the clergy"? Contemporaries had a different opinion of the purpose of the Parliament of 1529. "It is intended," wrote Du Bellay on the 23rd of August, three months before Parliament met, "to hold a Parliament here this winter and act by their own absolute power, in default of justice being administered by the Pope in this divorce" (ibid., iv., 5862; cf. iv., 6011, 6019, 6307); "nothing else," wrote a Florentine in December, 1530, "is thought of in that island every day except of arranging affairs in such a way that they do no longer be in want of the Pope, neither for filling vacancies in the Church, nor for any other purpose" (ibid., iv., 6774).(back)

Footnote 705: L. and P., iv., 4909, 4911; cf. 5177, 5501.(back)

Footnote 706: Ibid., vi., 1528.(back)

Footnote 707: L. and P., iv., 5797.(back)

Footnote 708: Cavendish, p. 210; L. and P., iv., Introd., p. dv.(back)

Footnote 709: Sp. Cal., iii., 979.(back)

Footnote 710: "The choice of the electors," says Brewer (L. and P., iv., Introd., p. dcxlv.), "was still determined by the King or his powerful ministers with as much certainty and assurance as that of the sheriffs."(back)

Footnote 711: L. and P., i., 792, vii., 1178, where mention is made of "secret labour" among the freeholders of Warwickshire for the bye-election on Sir E. Ferrers' death in 1534; and x., 1063, where there is described a hotly contested election between the candidate of the gentry of Shropshire and the candidate of the townsfolk of Shrewsbury.(back)

Footnote 712: Acts of the Privy Council, 1547-50, pp. 516, 518, 519; England under Protector Somerset, pp. 71, 72.(back)

Footnote 713: Narratives of the Reformation, Camden Soc., pp. 295, 296.(back)

Footnote 714: Cf. Duchess of Norfolk's letter to John Paston, 8th June, 1455 (Paston Letters, ed. 1900, i., 337), and in 1586 Sir Henry Bagnal asked the Earl of Rutland if he had a seat to spare in Parliament as Bagnal was anxious "for his learning's sake to be made a Parliament man" (D.N.B., Suppl., i., 96).(back)

Footnote 715: L. and P., xiv., 645; cf. Hallam, 1884, iii., 44-45.(back)

Footnote 716: Foxe, ed. Townsend, vi., 54. There are some illustrations and general remarks on Henry's relations with Parliament in Porritt's Unreformed House of Commons, 2 vols., 1903.(back)

Footnote 717: At Reigate, says the Duke, "I doubt whether any burgesses be there or not" (L. and P., x., 816); and apparently there were none at Gatton.(back)

Footnote 718: This seems to have been the object of Southampton's tour through the constituencies of Surrey and Hampshire in March, 1539; with one of Gardiner's pocket-boroughs he did not meddle, because the lord chamberlain was the Bishop's steward there (L. and P., xiv., i., 520). There were some royal nominees in the House of Commons. In 1523 the members for Cumberland were nominated by the Crown (ibid., iii., 2931); at Calais the lord-deputy and council elected one of the two burgesses and the mayor and burgesses the other (ibid., x., 736). Calais and the Scottish Borders were of course exceptionally under Crown influence, but this curious practice may have been observed in some other cities and boroughs; in 1534, for instance, the King was to nominate to one of the two vacancies at Worcester (ibid., vii., 56).(back)

Footnote 719: Ibid., iv., App. 238.(back)

Footnote 720: Official Return of Members of Parliament, i., 370.(back)

Footnote 721: Occasionally there were divisions, e.g., in 1523 when the court party voted a subsidy of 2s. in the pound; but this was only half the sum demanded by Wolsey (Hall, pp. 656, 657, Ellis, Orig. Letters, I., i., 220, 221).(back)

Footnote 722: Brinkelow, Complaynt of Roderik Mors (Early English Text Society), pp. 12, 13; for other evidence of the attitude of Parliament towards social grievances, see John Hales's letter to Somerset in Lansdowne MS., 238; Crowley's Works (Early English Text Society), passim; Latimer, Sermons, p. 247.(back)

Footnote 723: The first Parliament of the reign met in January, 1510, the second in February, 1512. It had a second session, November-December of the same year (L. and P., i., 3502). A third Parliament met for its first session on 23rd January, 1514, for its second on 5th February, 1515, and for its third on 12th November, 1515 (ibid., i., 5616, 5725, ii., 1130). It was this last of which Wolsey urged "the more speedy dissolution"; then for fourteen years there was only one Parliament, that of 1523. These dates illustrate the antagonism between Wolsey and Parliament and show how natural it was that Wolsey should fall in 1529, and that his fall should coincide with the revival of Parliament.(back)

Footnote 724: L. and P., i., 2082.(back)

Footnote 725: Holinshed, Chronicles, iii., 956.(back)

Footnote 726: Hallam, Const. Hist., ii., 4.(back)

Footnote 727: L. and P., ii., 1314. In some respects the House of Commons appears to have exercised unconstitutional powers, e.g., in 1529 one Thomas Bradshaw, a cleric, was indicted for having conspired to poison members of Sir James Worsley's household, and on 27th February, 1531, Henry VIII. orders Lady Worsley not to trouble Bradshaw any more, "as the House of Commons has decided that he is not culpable" (ibid., iv., 6293; v., 117; cf. the case of John Wolf and his wife, ibid., vi., 742; vii., passim). The claim to criminal jurisdiction which the House of Commons asserted in Floyd's case (1621) seems in fact to have been admitted by Henry VIII.; compare the frequent use of acts of attainder.(back)

Footnote 728: Foxe, ed. Townsend, vi., 33.(back)

Footnote 729: Ibid., vi., 43.(back)

Footnote 730: In the House of Lords in 1531 the Bishops of St. Asaph and of Bath with a similar immunity attacked the defence of Henry's divorce policy made by the Bishops of Lincoln and London (L. and P., v., 171).(back)

Footnote 731: Narratives of the Reformation (Camden Soc.), p. 25.(back)

Footnote 732: Hence the complaints of the northern rebels late in that year (L. and P., xi., 1143, 1182 [15], 1244, 1246); these are so to speak the election petitions of the defeated party; the chief complaint is that non-residents were chosen who knew little about the needs of their constituents, and they made the advanced demand that all King's servants or pensioners be excluded.

The most striking instance of interference in elections is Cromwell's letter to the citizens of Canterbury, written on 18th May, 1536, and first printed in Merriman's Cromwell, 1902, ii., 13; he there requires the electors to annul an election they had made in defiance of previous letters, and return as members Robert Derknall (a member of the royal household, L. and P., xv., pp. 563-5) and John Brydges, M.P. for Canterbury in 1529-36, instead of the two who had been unanimously chosen by eighty electors on 11th May (L. and P., x., 852). The Mayor thereupon assembled ninety-seven citizens who "freely with one voice and without any contradiction elected the aforesaid" (ibid., x., 929). These very letters show that electors did exercise a vote, and the fact that from 1534 to 1539 we find traces of pressure being put upon them, affords some presumption that before the rise of Cromwell, when we find no such traces no such pressure was exerted. The most striking exception must not be taken as the rule. See p. 317 n.(back)

Footnote 733: "Parliament," says Brewer, "faithfully reflected the King's wishes." It is equally true to say that the King reflected the wishes of Parliament; and the accusation of servility is based on the assumption that Parliament must either be in chronic opposition to the Crown or servile. One of Brewer's reasons for Henry's power is that he "required no grants of money"! (L. and P., iv., Introd., p. dcxlv.).(back)

Footnote 734: "Henry," writes Chapuys in 1532, "has been trying to obtain from Parliament the grant of a third of the feudal property of deceased lords, but as yet has got nothing" (L. and P., v., 805). Various other instances are mentioned in the following pages, and they could doubtless be multiplied if the Journals of the House of Commons were extant for this period.(back)

Footnote 735: Cromwell used to report to the King on the feeling of Parliament; thus in 1534 (L. and P., vii., 51) he tells Henry how far members were willing to go in the creation of fresh treasons, "they be contented that deed and writing shall be treason," but words were to be only misprision; they refused to include an heir's rebellion or disobedience in the bill, "as rebellion is already treason and disobedience is no cause of forfeiture of inheritance," and they thought "that the King of Scots should in no wise be named" (there is in the Record Office a draft of the Treasons Bill of 1534 materially differing from the Act as passed. Therefore either the bill did not originate with the Government and was modified under Government pressure, or it did originate with the Government and was modified under parliamentary pressure). This is how Henry's legislation was evolved; there is no foundation for the assertion that Parliament merely registered the King's edicts.(back)

Footnote 736: E.g., L. and P., v., 120. At other times Parliament visited him. "On Thursday last," writes one on 8th March, 1534, "the whole Parliament were with the King at York Place for three hours" (ibid., vii., 304).(back)

Footnote 737: Some at least of the royal nominations to Parliament were due to the fact that nothing less than a royal command could produce a representative at all.(back)

Footnote 738: L. and P., vii., 302.(back)

Footnote 739: Ibid., v., 120.(back)

Footnote 740: Cf. ibid., iv., App. 1.(back)

Footnote 741: The phrase occurs in Cromwell's draft bill for the submission of Convocation (L. and P., v., 721).(back)

Footnote 742: Ibid., v., 361. This was in reference to Henry's refusal to allow a visitation of the Cistercian monasteries, of which Chapuys thought they stood in great need (31st July, 1531).(back)

Footnote 743: Cf. Maitland, Roman Canon Law; Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, i., 90 (Bracton regards the Pope as the Englishman's "Ordinary"); and Leadam, Select Cases from the Star Chamber, Introd., pp. lxxxvi.-viii.(back)

Footnote 744: L. and P., v., 1247. A curious point about this document, unnoticed by the editor, is that the Bishop of St. Asaph had been consecrated as far back as 1518, and that he was the Standish who had played so conspicuous a part in the early Church and State disputes of Henry's reign. This is an echo of the "Investiture" controversy (Luchaire, Manuel, pp. 509, 510).(back)

Footnote 745: "It was not from Parliament," says Brewer (L. and P., iv., Introd., p. dcxlvii.), "but from Convocation that the King had to anticipate any show of independence or opposition." True, to some extent; but the fact does not prove, as Brewer alleges, that Convocation was more independent than Parliament, but that Henry was doing what Parliament liked and Convocation disliked.(back)

Footnote 746: "The Queen replied that they were all fine councillors, for when she asked advice of the Archbishop of Canterbury, he replied that he would not meddle in these affairs, saying frequently, Ira principis mors est" (Chapuys to Charles V., 6th June, 1531). Warham was one of the counsel assigned to the Queen for the divorce question.(back)

Footnote 747: L. and P., v., 1247. Warham also made a formal protest against the legislation of 1529-32 (ibid., v., 818). The likeness between Henry VIII. and Henry II. extended beyond their policy to their personal characteristics, and the great Angevin was much in the Tudor's mind at this period. Chapuys also called Henry VIII.'s attention to the fate of Henry II. (ibid., vii., 94).(back)

Footnote 748: L. and P., v., App. 10.(back)

Footnote 749: Ibid., v., 831; cf. v., 898, 989, App. 28.(back)

Footnote 750: L. and P., v., 1458.(back)

Footnote 751: Ibid., v., 522; vii., 171.(back)

Footnote 752: Thomas Beaufort, afterwards Duke of Exeter, who was Chancellor in 1410-12, and Richard, Earl of Salisbury, who was Chancellor in 1454-5, are exceptions.(back)

Footnote 753: L. and P., iv., 6019.(back)

Footnote 754: Ibid., v., 1013.(back)

Footnote 755: Ibid., v., 805; vii., 232. Chapuys had told him that "all the Parliament could not make the Princess Mary a bastard, for the cognisance of cases concerning legitimacy belonged to ecclesiastical judges"; to which Henry replied that "he did not care for all the canons which might be alleged, as he preferred his laws according to which he should have illegitimacy judged by lay judges who could also take cognisance of matrimonial causes".(back)

Footnote 756: L. and P., iv., 5925.(back)

Footnote 757: Ibid., iv., 6325.(back)

Footnote 758: Ibid., iv., 6385.(back)

Footnote 759: The net result at the time was a royal proclamation promising an authorised version of the Scriptures in English "if the people would come to a better mind" (L. and P., iv., 6487).(back)

Footnote 760: L. and P., v., App. 7.(back)

Footnote 761: Ibid., v., 148, 850.(back)

Footnote 762: Ibid., v., 129, 148.(back)

Footnote 763: Ibid., iv., 6546.(back)

Footnote 764: L. and P., v., 326.(back)

Footnote 765: Ibid., vi., 235.(back)

Footnote 766: Cf. A. Zimmermann, "Zur kirchlichen Politik Heinrichs VIII., nach den Trennung vom Rom," in Römische Quartalschrift, xiii., 263-283.(back)

Footnote 767: L. and P., iv., 6043-44.(back)

Footnote 768: Hall, Chronicle, p. 764.(back)

Footnote 769: L. and P., iv., 6075.(back)

Footnote 770: That it passed at all is often considered proof of parliamentary servility; it is rather an illustration of the typical Tudor policy of burdening the wealthy few in order to spare the general public. If repayment of the loan were exacted, fresh taxation would be necessary, which would fall on many more than had lent the King money. It was very irregular, but the burden was thus placed on the shoulders of those individuals who benefited most by Henry's ecclesiastical and general policy and were rapidly accumulating wealth. Taxation on the whole was remarkably light during Tudor times; the tenths, fifteenths and subsidies had become fixed sums which did not increase with the national wealth, and indeed brought in less and less to the royal exchequer (see L. and P., vii., 344, "considerations why subsidies in diverse shires were not so good in Henry's seventh year as in his fifth"; cf. vii., 1490, and xix., ii., 689, where Paget says that benevolences did not "grieve the common people").(back)

Footnote 771: L. and P., iv., 6083.(back)

Footnote 772: Hall, Chronicle, p. 766.(back)

Footnote 773: Cf. Stubbs, Lectures, 1887, p. 317.(back)

Footnote 774: L. and P., v., 562.(back)

Footnote 775: L. and P., iv., 6290.(back)

Footnote 776: See above p. 207.(back)

Footnote 777: L. and P., iv., 6256.(back)

Footnote 778: Ibid., iv., 6279.(back)

Footnote 779: L. and P., iv., 6199, 6596, 6738; v., 460.(back)

Footnote 780: Ibid., iv., 6772.(back)

Footnote 781: Ibid., v., 27.(back)

Footnote 782: Ibid., iv., 6759.(back)

Footnote 783: Ibid., iv., 6615; v., 45.(back)

Footnote 784: See the present writer's Cranmer, pp. 39-41. Cranmer's suggestion was made early in August, 1529, and on the 23rd Du Bellay writes that Wolsey and the King "appeared to desire very much that I should go over to France to get the opinions of the learned men there about the divorce" (L. and P., iv., 5862). In October Stokesley was sent to France and Croke to Italy (ibid., p. 2684); Cranmer did not start till 1530.(back)

Footnote 785: L. and P., iv., 6332, 6448, 6491, 6632, 6636.(back)

Footnote 786: L. and P., vii., App. 12.(back)

Footnote 787: Ibid., v., 468.(back)

Footnote 788: Ibid., iv., 6513.(back)

Footnote 789: Cf. L. and P., iv., 6199. Chapuys writes on 6th February, 1530, "I am told the King did not wish the Cardinal's case to be tried by Parliament, as, if it had been decided against him, the King could not have pardoned him".(back)

Footnote 790: Ibid., iv., 6488, 6699.(back)

Footnote 791: Cf. ibid., vi., 1381 [3], "that if the Pope attempts war, the King shall have a moiety of the temporal lands of the Church for his defence".(back)

Footnote 792: L. and P., v., 62. Dr. Stubbs (Lectures, 1887, p. 318) represents the nuncio as being pressed into the King's service, and the clergy as resisting him as the Commons had done Wolsey in 1523. But this independence is imaginary; "it was agreed," writes Chapuys, "between the nuncio and me that he should go to the said ecclesiastics in their congregation and recommend them to support the immunity of the Church.... They were all utterly astonished and scandalised, and without allowing him to open his mouth they begged him to leave them in peace, for they had not the King's leave to speak with him."(back)

Footnote 793: L. and P., v., 105.(back)

Footnote 794: Ibid., v., 112.(back)

Footnote 795: L. and P., v., 124.(back)

Footnote 796: Ibid., v., 120.(back)

Footnote 797: L. and P., v., 171. This and other incidents (see p. 289) form a singular comment on Brewer's assertion (ibid., iv., Introd., p. dcxlvii.) that "there is scarcely an instance on record, in this or any succeeding Parliament throughout the reign, of a parliamentary patriot protesting against a single act of the Crown, however unjust and tyrannical it might be".(back)

Footnote 798: L. and P., v., 171.(back)

Footnote 799: L. and P., v., 737.(back)

Footnote 800: Henry had ordered Cromwell to have a bill with this object ready for the 1531 session (L. and P., v., 394), and another for the "augmentation of treasons"; apparently neither then proved acceptable to Parliament.(back)

Footnote 801: L. and P., v., 805.(back)

Footnote 802: Ibid., v., 989.(back)

Footnote 803: Ibid., v., 1046.(back)

Footnote 804: Ibid., v., 989. This was in May during the second part of the session, after the other business had been finished; redress of grievances constitutionally preceded supply.(back)

Footnote 805: Annates were attacked first, partly because they were the weakest as well as the most sensitive part in the papal armour; there was no law in the Corpus Juris Canonici requiring the payment of annates (Maitland in Engl. Hist. Rev., xvi., 43).(back)

Footnote 806: L. and P., v., 723.(back)

Footnote 807: Ibid., v., 898.(back)

Footnote 808: Ibid., v., 832.(back)

Footnote 809: Ibid., v., 886.(back)