Chapter 36

[127]Altered from:—‘iij.’[128]The last eighteen words are altered from:—‘iij yeres xxli.’[129]Added and crossed out:—‘by the discression of myn executors.’[130]Altered from:—‘xiijsiiijd.’[131]Altered from:—‘xxli.’[132]Altered from:—‘vjsviijd.’[133]Altered from:—‘xli.’[134]Altered from:—‘vli.’[135]Crossed out:—‘Item I gyue and bequethe to my paroche churche for my tithes forgotten xxs.’[136]The last eleven bequests are added in Cromwell’s hand.[137]Altered from:—‘John Croke one of the vj clerkesof the king his Chauncerye.’[138]The last four words are altered from:—‘my Seruaunt Iohn Smyth and John.’[139]Crossed out:—‘and to my litill Doughters Anne and Grace.’[140]Added and crossed out:—‘ouerand aboue thayr legacyes beforsayd.’[141]Every page, except the last two, is also signed by Cromwell.[142]Cal. iv. 6017.[143]Cavendish, pp. 160–166.[144]Cal. iv. 6036.[145]Cal. iv. 6110.[146]Cavendish, pp. 175 ff.; Shakespeare, Henry VIII., iii. 2; Froude, vol. ii. pp. 112 ff.[147]Cavendish, pp. 169, 170.[148]Cavendish, p. 179.[149]Parliamentary Papers, vol. lxii. pt. i. p. 370.[150]Cal. iv. App. 238.[151]Cavendish, pp. 179 ff.[152]Cal. iv. 6098, 6203, 6249. Cf. also Dixon, vol. i. pp. 48–49n.Stubbs’ Lectures, p. 315, and the Life of Cromwell in the Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xiii. p. 197.[153]Cal. iv. 6017.[154]Busch, pp. 288, 289.[155]Cal. iii. 3694, and iv. 6216, 6792.[156]Cf. Introduction to vol. iv of the Calendar, pp. 549, 550.[157]State Papers, vol. i. p. 351.[158]Cal. iv. 6115.[159]Cal. iv. 6181.[160]Cal. iv. 6098, 6181, 6204, 6249.[161]Letters,13.[162]Cal. iv. 6203.[163]Cal. iv. 6196.[164]Introduction to vol. iv of the Calendar, pp. 584, 585.[165]Cavendish, p. 198.[166]Letters,18.[167]Letters,9–20.[168]Foxe, vol. ii. pp. 419 ff.[169]See Appendix I at the end of chapter i, p.17.[170]Cf. Ashley, Economic History, vol. ii. pp. 259–304.[171]On this and the succeeding pages, cf. Creighton’s Papacy, vol. vi. pp. 296–362, and Mignet, vol. ii. pp. 340–358.[172]Cal. iv. 6521, 6691.[173]For the date of the birth of Anne Boleyn see Friedmann, chap. i, and NoteAin the Appendix; Round, The Early Life of Anne Boleyn; and Gairdner in the English Historical Review, vol. viii. p. 58, and vol. x. p. 104.[174]Cal. iv. 1431 (8), 6083, 6163.[175]Cal. iv. 4477, 4383, 4410, 3325, 3326, 3218–3221.[176]Cf. the Life of Norfolk in the Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xxviii. p. 65.[177]Cal. iv. 5422.[178]Cf. the Life of Gardiner in the Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xx. p. 419.[179]Cf. Pauli, Thomas Cromwell, p. 301.[180]Cal. iv. 4613, 4884, 5034, 6429, 6744.[181]Il Principe, chap. xviii, p. 304.[182]Ibid., chap. xvii, p. 291.[183]Cal. iv. 6346.[184]Letters,1.[185]Pole, Apologia ad Carolum Quintum, chap. xxix.[186]This account was drawn up by Pole in 1538. Canon Dixon (History of the Church of England, vol. i. p. 41) questions the truth of the story on the ground that The Prince was not published until 1532, several years after the reported conversation took place. The book, however, was written in 1513, as Canon Dixon admits, and there is every probability, especially in view of his early experiences in Italy, that Cromwell possessed a manuscript copy. Pole, moreover, expressly states that Cromwell offered to lend him the work, provided he would promise to read it.[187]Cal. xiv. (ii) 399.[188]The chronicler, John Stow, in his Survey of London, p. 180, gives the following anecdote, which proves that Cromwell was no less arbitrary as a man than as a minister:—‘On the south side and at the west end of this church (the Austin Friars) many fayre houses are builded, namely in Throgmorton streete, one very large and spacious, builded in the place of olde and small Tenementes by ThomasCromwell. . . .This house being finished, and hauing some reasonable plot of ground left for a Garden, he caused the pales of the Gardens adioyning to the north parte thereof on a sodaine to be taken downe, 22 foot to bee measured forth right into the north of euery man’s ground, a line there to bee drawen, a trench to bee cast, a foundation laid, and a highe bricke wall to bee builded. My father had a Garden there, and an house standing close to his south pale, this house they lowsed from the ground & bare vpon Rowlers into my Father’s Garden 22 foot, ere my Father heard thereof: no warning was given him, nor any other answere when hee spake to the surueyers of that worke but that their Mayster Sir Thomas commaunded them so to doe, no man durst go to argue the matter, but each man lost his land, and my Father payde his whole rent, which was vis. viiid. the yeare, for that halfe which was left. Thus much of mine owne knowledge haue I thought good to note, that the suddaine rising of some men, causeth them to forget themselves.’[189]Pole, Apologia ad Carolum Quintum, chap. xxix, and Lingard, vol. vi. p. 233. There is every reason to believe in the veracity of this report. Pole was in London at the time, and knew Cromwell intimately. He reiterates the truth of his tale in the following words:—‘Hoc possum affirmare nihil in illa oratione positum alicujus momenti quod non vel ab eodem nuncio (Cromwell himself) eo narrante intellexi, vel ab illis qui ejus consilii fuerunt participes.’ This interview was doubtless the one which Chapuys describes as due to the quarrel with Sir John Wallop. According to both accounts it ended by Cromwell’s becoming a Privy Councillor.[190]As Cal. iv. 6183.[191]Cal. iv. 6111, 6154–6155.[192]Holinshed’s Chronicle, p. 766.[193]There were to be in all five concessions, the first of which was the really important and crucial one—‘Ecclesiae et cleri Anglicani, cujus protector et supremum caput is solus est.’ Wilkins, vol. iii. p. 725.[194]Cal. v. 62, 70.[195]Cal. v. 105.[196]Cal. v. 7, 9; vi. 416.[197]Wilkins, vol. iii. p. 725.[198]Friedmann, vol. i. p. 142.[199]Cal. v. 105.[200]Cal. v. 171.[201]Hall, p. 784.[202]See Appendix at the end of this chapter, p.104.[203]Wilkins, vol. iii. pp. 748, 750.[204]Hall, p. 788; Cal. v. 989.[205]Cal. v. 1018.[206]Cf. Dixon, vol. i. pp. 74–111.[207]Cal. v. 1023.[208]Cal. v. 1202.[209]Cal. v. 941.[210]Demaus, p. 257.[211]Demaus, p. 274.[212]Cal. v. 65. Doubtless Vaughan referred to the steps taken by Bishop Stokesley and others to punish those who favoured the new religion. It was at this time that Tyndale’s brother John had been arrested in London for selling New Testaments received from abroad.[213]Cal. v. 153.[214]Cal. v. 201.[215]British Museum, Titus B. vol. i. p. 67.[216]Letters,21.[217]Cal. v. 246, 303.[218]Cal. v. 533, 574, 618.[219]Demaus, p. 307.[220]Cal. v. 701, 1548, 1600, 1728; Letters,36,39.[221]British Museum, Titus B. vol. i. p. 422.[222]Cal. vi. 180, 461.[223]Cal. vi. 461, 469, 496, 525, 526, 527.[224]24 Hen. VIII., c. 12.[225]25 Hen. VIII., c. 19.[226]25 Hen. VIII., c. 22. Mendez Silva, pp. 14 and 15, asserts that Cromwell was responsible for the passage of this statute. The King’s minister appeared in Convocation and Parliament, and made a speech in which he said that his master desired that Mary be excluded from the succession and Elizabeth received in her place, and that he was sure that they all loved His Majesty so much that they would not refuse to do his will. Clergy, Lords, and Commons, ‘al peligro de la conciencia. . .se reduxeron facilmente.’[227]26 Hen. VIII., c. 1.[228]25 Hen. VIII., c. 20.[229]Cal. viii. 121.[230]Cal. ix. 517.[231]British Museum, Cleop. E. vi 254; and Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 216.[232]Cal. viii. 565, 895.[233]Cal. viii. 609, 661.[234]Cal. ix. 74.[235]Cal. xi. 300 (2).[236]Cal. viii. 196.[237]Letters,107.[238]Cal. vi. 835.[239]Letters,52; Cal. vi. 967, 1445.[240]British Museum, Harl. MSS. 6,148 f, 40 a.[241]Cal. vii. 54 (31), 522.[242]Letters,68.[243]Cf. Lewis, chap. xxxii.[244]Cal. vii. 287.[245]Cal. vii. 296.[246]Cal. vii. 499, and Letters,71.[247]Strype, Cranmer, vol. i. p. 39; vol. ii. p. 693.[248]Cal. viii. 666.[249]Cal. viii. 742, 876. Cf. also Lewis, chaps. xxxiv, xxxv, and xxxvi.[250]Cal. vii. 575.[251]Lewis, chap. xxxvii; Roper, 55.[252]‘Obraua Cromuel, estas, y otras atrocidades libremente, dando á entender ser conueniencia del Principe, para la estabilidad de su Corona, sujecion, y terror en los vassallos.’ Mendez Silva, p. 13.[253]Letters, 197.[254]Henry de Bracton’s De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae.[255]Cal. xiii. (i) 120.[256]Letters,107.[257]The following passage from a letter which Gardiner wrote to the Protector Somerset in the reign of Edward VI. gives a slightly different account of the origin of the Act about Proclamations:—‘Whether the King may command against the Common Law or an Act of Parliament there is never a Judge, or other man in the realm, ought to know more by experience of that the Lawyers have said, than I. . .being of the Council, when many Proclamations were devised against the Carriers out of Corn; when it came to punishing the Offenders the Judges would answer, it might not be by the Laws, because the Act of Parliament gave liberty, Wheat being under a price: wherupon at the last followed the Act of Proclamations, in the passing whereof were many large words.’It will be noticed that this account of the origin of the Act is in many ways similar to that contained in Cromwell’s letter: the chief difference being that according to the latter the measure was adopted to prevent the export ofcoin, while Gardiner informs us that the statute was devised to prevent the export ofcorn. It is possible that the Bishop of Winchester, writing so many years later, had forgotten the exact circumstances, and was really referring to the same incident as that described by Cromwell. Burnet has printed Gardiner’s letter in full (Collection of Records and Original Papers, &c., part ii, book i, no. 14), but he does not seem to have made use of the information it contains; for in another part of his work (part i, book iii, p. 423) he asserts that the Act about Proclamations was the result of the great exceptions made to the legality of the King’s proceedings in the articles about religion and other injunctions published by his authority, which were complained of as contrary to law. Hallam (vol. i. p. 35n.) apparently agrees with Burnet in this last statement, and ignores the evidence supplied by the letter of the Bishop of Winchester. It is probable that both writers have gone astray in this matter. The opposition aroused by the King’s ecclesiastical proclamations may have hastened the passage of the Act, but they can scarcely be regarded as its origin in the face of the testimony of Cromwell and Gardiner. Burnet and Hallam were perhaps led to ascribe the source of the statute to religious matters, by the fact that the Act was passed almost simultaneously with the Six Articles, and by the special provision which it contained concerning heretics.[258]Canon Dixon (History of the Church of England, vol. ii. p. 129) sees in the Act about Proclamations ‘a timid attempt to draw the prerogative within the limits of regular legislation,’ and seeks to show that its true intent was to curtail, while legalizing, a power which the Crown had exercised hitherto illegally and without any restraint. It is doubtless true that the King had issued proclamations before, and had enforced obedience to them, without the sanction of law; and it is equally certain that the intent of this Act (like that of so many others which Cromwell devised) was to legalize a privilege of which the Crown had already made use. But it is more difficult to agree with the reasoning by which Canon Dixon attempts to show that the true purpose of this process of legalization was to restrict and not to confirm the power of the King. It is pretty certain that the practical value of these limitations was in reality far less than at first appeared; for, as Hallam and Burnet justly remark, the immediate effect of them was to confer great power on the judges, upon whom the duty of interpreting the statute devolved; and the judges—mere puppets in the hands of Henry and Cromwell—were sure to render every verdict in favour of the Crown. The exceptions in the Act about Proclamations may well be compared to theQuantum per Christi legem licet, which had been tacked on to the recognition of the King’s Supremacy. Both were concessions granted merely as a sop to the popular feeling: both were so guarded that they could easily be rendered nugatory. Finally, the fact that Cromwell himself was so active in assisting the passage of this statute should be a conclusive proof that its real aim was not to legalize and limit, but to legalize and confirm the power of the Crown. The straightforward verdicts of Hume and Hallam on the true significance of the Act are certainly correct: ‘The prerogative could not soar to the heights it aimed at, till thus imped by the perfidious hand of Parliament.’ The fact that the statute was repealed in the first year of Edward VI. simply proves that it was so unpopular that it was impossible to renew it, when the strong hand of Henry VIII. had been removed. Cf. Hume, vol. iii. pp. 255, 256; Hallam, vol. i. p. 35; and Blackstone, vol. i. p. 269. There is a curious passage in Beowulf (ll. 67–73), in which the King rules as he wills, saving his subjects’ lives and heritages, that is in striking congruence with this Act.[259]Stubbs, Const. Hist., vol. i. p. 439.[260]‘William Copingar, Thomas Johnson, Sherifes. These Sherifes being on the morrow after Michaelmas day by the Maior and Aldermen presented before the Barons of the Exchequer, only William Copingar was admitted and sworne, but Thomas Johnson they woulde not admitte till they knew farther of the Kings pleasure. The x of October a commandment was brought from the King to the Lord Maior that he should cause an election to bee made for a new Sheriffe, at which day, came into the Guild Hall Mayster Edmond Dudley the Kings President, and there shewed the King’s letters, that his commons shoulde name for the Kings pleasure, William Fitz William, to bee Sheriffe for the peace ensuing, which with much difficulty at length was granted, which William Fitz William kept his feast the Sixteenth day of October.’ Stow’s Chronicle, p. 879.[261]Cal. x. 852.[262]The letter of Cromwell to the Mayor and Burgesses of Canterbury (Letters, 148) is now in the British Museum; it was put into my hands by the kindness of Mr. Brodie of the Public Record Office. It was overlooked at the time of the compilation of the tenth volume of the Calendar, and escaped the search of Froude and Friedmann, both of whom discuss the details of this election at some length. Its discovery throws much fresh light on the history of one of the most famous cases of arbitrary interference in the choice of members to Parliament that has come down to us from Tudor times. The reply of the Mayor (Cal. x. 929) is comparatively well known. Froude has printed it in full (vol. iii. p. 347), but has misread the name of one of the burgesses, which is ‘Darkenall’ or ‘Derknall,’ not ‘Sacknell.’[263]Cal. vi. 1510.

[127]Altered from:—‘iij.’

[128]The last eighteen words are altered from:—‘iij yeres xxli.’

[129]Added and crossed out:—‘by the discression of myn executors.’

[130]Altered from:—‘xiijsiiijd.’

[131]Altered from:—‘xxli.’

[132]Altered from:—‘vjsviijd.’

[133]Altered from:—‘xli.’

[134]Altered from:—‘vli.’

[135]Crossed out:—‘Item I gyue and bequethe to my paroche churche for my tithes forgotten xxs.’

[136]The last eleven bequests are added in Cromwell’s hand.

[137]Altered from:—‘John Croke one of the vj clerkesof the king his Chauncerye.’

[138]The last four words are altered from:—‘my Seruaunt Iohn Smyth and John.’

[139]Crossed out:—‘and to my litill Doughters Anne and Grace.’

[140]Added and crossed out:—‘ouerand aboue thayr legacyes beforsayd.’

[141]Every page, except the last two, is also signed by Cromwell.

[142]Cal. iv. 6017.

[143]Cavendish, pp. 160–166.

[144]Cal. iv. 6036.

[145]Cal. iv. 6110.

[146]Cavendish, pp. 175 ff.; Shakespeare, Henry VIII., iii. 2; Froude, vol. ii. pp. 112 ff.

[147]Cavendish, pp. 169, 170.

[148]Cavendish, p. 179.

[149]Parliamentary Papers, vol. lxii. pt. i. p. 370.

[150]Cal. iv. App. 238.

[151]Cavendish, pp. 179 ff.

[152]Cal. iv. 6098, 6203, 6249. Cf. also Dixon, vol. i. pp. 48–49n.Stubbs’ Lectures, p. 315, and the Life of Cromwell in the Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xiii. p. 197.

[153]Cal. iv. 6017.

[154]Busch, pp. 288, 289.

[155]Cal. iii. 3694, and iv. 6216, 6792.

[156]Cf. Introduction to vol. iv of the Calendar, pp. 549, 550.

[157]State Papers, vol. i. p. 351.

[158]Cal. iv. 6115.

[159]Cal. iv. 6181.

[160]Cal. iv. 6098, 6181, 6204, 6249.

[161]Letters,13.

[162]Cal. iv. 6203.

[163]Cal. iv. 6196.

[164]Introduction to vol. iv of the Calendar, pp. 584, 585.

[165]Cavendish, p. 198.

[166]Letters,18.

[167]Letters,9–20.

[168]Foxe, vol. ii. pp. 419 ff.

[169]See Appendix I at the end of chapter i, p.17.

[170]Cf. Ashley, Economic History, vol. ii. pp. 259–304.

[171]On this and the succeeding pages, cf. Creighton’s Papacy, vol. vi. pp. 296–362, and Mignet, vol. ii. pp. 340–358.

[172]Cal. iv. 6521, 6691.

[173]For the date of the birth of Anne Boleyn see Friedmann, chap. i, and NoteAin the Appendix; Round, The Early Life of Anne Boleyn; and Gairdner in the English Historical Review, vol. viii. p. 58, and vol. x. p. 104.

[174]Cal. iv. 1431 (8), 6083, 6163.

[175]Cal. iv. 4477, 4383, 4410, 3325, 3326, 3218–3221.

[176]Cf. the Life of Norfolk in the Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xxviii. p. 65.

[177]Cal. iv. 5422.

[178]Cf. the Life of Gardiner in the Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xx. p. 419.

[179]Cf. Pauli, Thomas Cromwell, p. 301.

[180]Cal. iv. 4613, 4884, 5034, 6429, 6744.

[181]Il Principe, chap. xviii, p. 304.

[182]Ibid., chap. xvii, p. 291.

[183]Cal. iv. 6346.

[184]Letters,1.

[185]Pole, Apologia ad Carolum Quintum, chap. xxix.

[186]This account was drawn up by Pole in 1538. Canon Dixon (History of the Church of England, vol. i. p. 41) questions the truth of the story on the ground that The Prince was not published until 1532, several years after the reported conversation took place. The book, however, was written in 1513, as Canon Dixon admits, and there is every probability, especially in view of his early experiences in Italy, that Cromwell possessed a manuscript copy. Pole, moreover, expressly states that Cromwell offered to lend him the work, provided he would promise to read it.

[187]Cal. xiv. (ii) 399.

[188]The chronicler, John Stow, in his Survey of London, p. 180, gives the following anecdote, which proves that Cromwell was no less arbitrary as a man than as a minister:—‘On the south side and at the west end of this church (the Austin Friars) many fayre houses are builded, namely in Throgmorton streete, one very large and spacious, builded in the place of olde and small Tenementes by ThomasCromwell. . . .This house being finished, and hauing some reasonable plot of ground left for a Garden, he caused the pales of the Gardens adioyning to the north parte thereof on a sodaine to be taken downe, 22 foot to bee measured forth right into the north of euery man’s ground, a line there to bee drawen, a trench to bee cast, a foundation laid, and a highe bricke wall to bee builded. My father had a Garden there, and an house standing close to his south pale, this house they lowsed from the ground & bare vpon Rowlers into my Father’s Garden 22 foot, ere my Father heard thereof: no warning was given him, nor any other answere when hee spake to the surueyers of that worke but that their Mayster Sir Thomas commaunded them so to doe, no man durst go to argue the matter, but each man lost his land, and my Father payde his whole rent, which was vis. viiid. the yeare, for that halfe which was left. Thus much of mine owne knowledge haue I thought good to note, that the suddaine rising of some men, causeth them to forget themselves.’

[188]The chronicler, John Stow, in his Survey of London, p. 180, gives the following anecdote, which proves that Cromwell was no less arbitrary as a man than as a minister:—

‘On the south side and at the west end of this church (the Austin Friars) many fayre houses are builded, namely in Throgmorton streete, one very large and spacious, builded in the place of olde and small Tenementes by ThomasCromwell. . . .This house being finished, and hauing some reasonable plot of ground left for a Garden, he caused the pales of the Gardens adioyning to the north parte thereof on a sodaine to be taken downe, 22 foot to bee measured forth right into the north of euery man’s ground, a line there to bee drawen, a trench to bee cast, a foundation laid, and a highe bricke wall to bee builded. My father had a Garden there, and an house standing close to his south pale, this house they lowsed from the ground & bare vpon Rowlers into my Father’s Garden 22 foot, ere my Father heard thereof: no warning was given him, nor any other answere when hee spake to the surueyers of that worke but that their Mayster Sir Thomas commaunded them so to doe, no man durst go to argue the matter, but each man lost his land, and my Father payde his whole rent, which was vis. viiid. the yeare, for that halfe which was left. Thus much of mine owne knowledge haue I thought good to note, that the suddaine rising of some men, causeth them to forget themselves.’

[189]Pole, Apologia ad Carolum Quintum, chap. xxix, and Lingard, vol. vi. p. 233. There is every reason to believe in the veracity of this report. Pole was in London at the time, and knew Cromwell intimately. He reiterates the truth of his tale in the following words:—‘Hoc possum affirmare nihil in illa oratione positum alicujus momenti quod non vel ab eodem nuncio (Cromwell himself) eo narrante intellexi, vel ab illis qui ejus consilii fuerunt participes.’ This interview was doubtless the one which Chapuys describes as due to the quarrel with Sir John Wallop. According to both accounts it ended by Cromwell’s becoming a Privy Councillor.

[190]As Cal. iv. 6183.

[191]Cal. iv. 6111, 6154–6155.

[192]Holinshed’s Chronicle, p. 766.

[193]There were to be in all five concessions, the first of which was the really important and crucial one—‘Ecclesiae et cleri Anglicani, cujus protector et supremum caput is solus est.’ Wilkins, vol. iii. p. 725.

[194]Cal. v. 62, 70.

[195]Cal. v. 105.

[196]Cal. v. 7, 9; vi. 416.

[197]Wilkins, vol. iii. p. 725.

[198]Friedmann, vol. i. p. 142.

[199]Cal. v. 105.

[200]Cal. v. 171.

[201]Hall, p. 784.

[202]See Appendix at the end of this chapter, p.104.

[203]Wilkins, vol. iii. pp. 748, 750.

[204]Hall, p. 788; Cal. v. 989.

[205]Cal. v. 1018.

[206]Cf. Dixon, vol. i. pp. 74–111.

[207]Cal. v. 1023.

[208]Cal. v. 1202.

[209]Cal. v. 941.

[210]Demaus, p. 257.

[211]Demaus, p. 274.

[212]Cal. v. 65. Doubtless Vaughan referred to the steps taken by Bishop Stokesley and others to punish those who favoured the new religion. It was at this time that Tyndale’s brother John had been arrested in London for selling New Testaments received from abroad.

[213]Cal. v. 153.

[214]Cal. v. 201.

[215]British Museum, Titus B. vol. i. p. 67.

[216]Letters,21.

[217]Cal. v. 246, 303.

[218]Cal. v. 533, 574, 618.

[219]Demaus, p. 307.

[220]Cal. v. 701, 1548, 1600, 1728; Letters,36,39.

[221]British Museum, Titus B. vol. i. p. 422.

[222]Cal. vi. 180, 461.

[223]Cal. vi. 461, 469, 496, 525, 526, 527.

[224]24 Hen. VIII., c. 12.

[225]25 Hen. VIII., c. 19.

[226]25 Hen. VIII., c. 22. Mendez Silva, pp. 14 and 15, asserts that Cromwell was responsible for the passage of this statute. The King’s minister appeared in Convocation and Parliament, and made a speech in which he said that his master desired that Mary be excluded from the succession and Elizabeth received in her place, and that he was sure that they all loved His Majesty so much that they would not refuse to do his will. Clergy, Lords, and Commons, ‘al peligro de la conciencia. . .se reduxeron facilmente.’

[227]26 Hen. VIII., c. 1.

[228]25 Hen. VIII., c. 20.

[229]Cal. viii. 121.

[230]Cal. ix. 517.

[231]British Museum, Cleop. E. vi 254; and Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 216.

[232]Cal. viii. 565, 895.

[233]Cal. viii. 609, 661.

[234]Cal. ix. 74.

[235]Cal. xi. 300 (2).

[236]Cal. viii. 196.

[237]Letters,107.

[238]Cal. vi. 835.

[239]Letters,52; Cal. vi. 967, 1445.

[240]British Museum, Harl. MSS. 6,148 f, 40 a.

[241]Cal. vii. 54 (31), 522.

[242]Letters,68.

[243]Cf. Lewis, chap. xxxii.

[244]Cal. vii. 287.

[245]Cal. vii. 296.

[246]Cal. vii. 499, and Letters,71.

[247]Strype, Cranmer, vol. i. p. 39; vol. ii. p. 693.

[248]Cal. viii. 666.

[249]Cal. viii. 742, 876. Cf. also Lewis, chaps. xxxiv, xxxv, and xxxvi.

[250]Cal. vii. 575.

[251]Lewis, chap. xxxvii; Roper, 55.

[252]‘Obraua Cromuel, estas, y otras atrocidades libremente, dando á entender ser conueniencia del Principe, para la estabilidad de su Corona, sujecion, y terror en los vassallos.’ Mendez Silva, p. 13.

[253]Letters, 197.

[254]Henry de Bracton’s De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae.

[255]Cal. xiii. (i) 120.

[256]Letters,107.

[257]The following passage from a letter which Gardiner wrote to the Protector Somerset in the reign of Edward VI. gives a slightly different account of the origin of the Act about Proclamations:—‘Whether the King may command against the Common Law or an Act of Parliament there is never a Judge, or other man in the realm, ought to know more by experience of that the Lawyers have said, than I. . .being of the Council, when many Proclamations were devised against the Carriers out of Corn; when it came to punishing the Offenders the Judges would answer, it might not be by the Laws, because the Act of Parliament gave liberty, Wheat being under a price: wherupon at the last followed the Act of Proclamations, in the passing whereof were many large words.’It will be noticed that this account of the origin of the Act is in many ways similar to that contained in Cromwell’s letter: the chief difference being that according to the latter the measure was adopted to prevent the export ofcoin, while Gardiner informs us that the statute was devised to prevent the export ofcorn. It is possible that the Bishop of Winchester, writing so many years later, had forgotten the exact circumstances, and was really referring to the same incident as that described by Cromwell. Burnet has printed Gardiner’s letter in full (Collection of Records and Original Papers, &c., part ii, book i, no. 14), but he does not seem to have made use of the information it contains; for in another part of his work (part i, book iii, p. 423) he asserts that the Act about Proclamations was the result of the great exceptions made to the legality of the King’s proceedings in the articles about religion and other injunctions published by his authority, which were complained of as contrary to law. Hallam (vol. i. p. 35n.) apparently agrees with Burnet in this last statement, and ignores the evidence supplied by the letter of the Bishop of Winchester. It is probable that both writers have gone astray in this matter. The opposition aroused by the King’s ecclesiastical proclamations may have hastened the passage of the Act, but they can scarcely be regarded as its origin in the face of the testimony of Cromwell and Gardiner. Burnet and Hallam were perhaps led to ascribe the source of the statute to religious matters, by the fact that the Act was passed almost simultaneously with the Six Articles, and by the special provision which it contained concerning heretics.

[257]The following passage from a letter which Gardiner wrote to the Protector Somerset in the reign of Edward VI. gives a slightly different account of the origin of the Act about Proclamations:—

‘Whether the King may command against the Common Law or an Act of Parliament there is never a Judge, or other man in the realm, ought to know more by experience of that the Lawyers have said, than I. . .being of the Council, when many Proclamations were devised against the Carriers out of Corn; when it came to punishing the Offenders the Judges would answer, it might not be by the Laws, because the Act of Parliament gave liberty, Wheat being under a price: wherupon at the last followed the Act of Proclamations, in the passing whereof were many large words.’

It will be noticed that this account of the origin of the Act is in many ways similar to that contained in Cromwell’s letter: the chief difference being that according to the latter the measure was adopted to prevent the export ofcoin, while Gardiner informs us that the statute was devised to prevent the export ofcorn. It is possible that the Bishop of Winchester, writing so many years later, had forgotten the exact circumstances, and was really referring to the same incident as that described by Cromwell. Burnet has printed Gardiner’s letter in full (Collection of Records and Original Papers, &c., part ii, book i, no. 14), but he does not seem to have made use of the information it contains; for in another part of his work (part i, book iii, p. 423) he asserts that the Act about Proclamations was the result of the great exceptions made to the legality of the King’s proceedings in the articles about religion and other injunctions published by his authority, which were complained of as contrary to law. Hallam (vol. i. p. 35n.) apparently agrees with Burnet in this last statement, and ignores the evidence supplied by the letter of the Bishop of Winchester. It is probable that both writers have gone astray in this matter. The opposition aroused by the King’s ecclesiastical proclamations may have hastened the passage of the Act, but they can scarcely be regarded as its origin in the face of the testimony of Cromwell and Gardiner. Burnet and Hallam were perhaps led to ascribe the source of the statute to religious matters, by the fact that the Act was passed almost simultaneously with the Six Articles, and by the special provision which it contained concerning heretics.

[258]Canon Dixon (History of the Church of England, vol. ii. p. 129) sees in the Act about Proclamations ‘a timid attempt to draw the prerogative within the limits of regular legislation,’ and seeks to show that its true intent was to curtail, while legalizing, a power which the Crown had exercised hitherto illegally and without any restraint. It is doubtless true that the King had issued proclamations before, and had enforced obedience to them, without the sanction of law; and it is equally certain that the intent of this Act (like that of so many others which Cromwell devised) was to legalize a privilege of which the Crown had already made use. But it is more difficult to agree with the reasoning by which Canon Dixon attempts to show that the true purpose of this process of legalization was to restrict and not to confirm the power of the King. It is pretty certain that the practical value of these limitations was in reality far less than at first appeared; for, as Hallam and Burnet justly remark, the immediate effect of them was to confer great power on the judges, upon whom the duty of interpreting the statute devolved; and the judges—mere puppets in the hands of Henry and Cromwell—were sure to render every verdict in favour of the Crown. The exceptions in the Act about Proclamations may well be compared to theQuantum per Christi legem licet, which had been tacked on to the recognition of the King’s Supremacy. Both were concessions granted merely as a sop to the popular feeling: both were so guarded that they could easily be rendered nugatory. Finally, the fact that Cromwell himself was so active in assisting the passage of this statute should be a conclusive proof that its real aim was not to legalize and limit, but to legalize and confirm the power of the Crown. The straightforward verdicts of Hume and Hallam on the true significance of the Act are certainly correct: ‘The prerogative could not soar to the heights it aimed at, till thus imped by the perfidious hand of Parliament.’ The fact that the statute was repealed in the first year of Edward VI. simply proves that it was so unpopular that it was impossible to renew it, when the strong hand of Henry VIII. had been removed. Cf. Hume, vol. iii. pp. 255, 256; Hallam, vol. i. p. 35; and Blackstone, vol. i. p. 269. There is a curious passage in Beowulf (ll. 67–73), in which the King rules as he wills, saving his subjects’ lives and heritages, that is in striking congruence with this Act.

[259]Stubbs, Const. Hist., vol. i. p. 439.

[260]‘William Copingar, Thomas Johnson, Sherifes. These Sherifes being on the morrow after Michaelmas day by the Maior and Aldermen presented before the Barons of the Exchequer, only William Copingar was admitted and sworne, but Thomas Johnson they woulde not admitte till they knew farther of the Kings pleasure. The x of October a commandment was brought from the King to the Lord Maior that he should cause an election to bee made for a new Sheriffe, at which day, came into the Guild Hall Mayster Edmond Dudley the Kings President, and there shewed the King’s letters, that his commons shoulde name for the Kings pleasure, William Fitz William, to bee Sheriffe for the peace ensuing, which with much difficulty at length was granted, which William Fitz William kept his feast the Sixteenth day of October.’ Stow’s Chronicle, p. 879.

[261]Cal. x. 852.

[262]The letter of Cromwell to the Mayor and Burgesses of Canterbury (Letters, 148) is now in the British Museum; it was put into my hands by the kindness of Mr. Brodie of the Public Record Office. It was overlooked at the time of the compilation of the tenth volume of the Calendar, and escaped the search of Froude and Friedmann, both of whom discuss the details of this election at some length. Its discovery throws much fresh light on the history of one of the most famous cases of arbitrary interference in the choice of members to Parliament that has come down to us from Tudor times. The reply of the Mayor (Cal. x. 929) is comparatively well known. Froude has printed it in full (vol. iii. p. 347), but has misread the name of one of the burgesses, which is ‘Darkenall’ or ‘Derknall,’ not ‘Sacknell.’

[263]Cal. vi. 1510.

Back to Index Next