Chapter 37

[264]Cal. x. 351, 601, 1069, and footnote to page 232. Cf. also Froude, The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon, pp. 413–415.[265]Wilkins, vol. iii. p. 817.[266]Letters, 159, 266, 273.[267]Cal. vii. 1555.[268]‘High Dutch’ not ‘Low Dutch.’[269]Cal. x. 352, 698; xiv. (i) 186 (v).[270]Cal. xii. (ii), Appendix 35, and xii. (ii) 593.[271]Letters, 273.[272]Cal. xiii. (ii) 1085.[273]Cal. xiii. (ii) 1163; xiv. (i) 37, 371. Dixon, vol. ii. p. 77, and Eadie, vol. i. p. 360.[274]Rymer, vol. xiv. p. 659.[275]Wilkins, vol. iii. p. 760. It is not clear whether this petition was put forth in the name of Convocation or of Parliament. But the question is of minor importance: it is safe to say that neither body originated the Supplication, but that it was forced upon the Commons or the clergy by the King or his minister.[276]Cal. vi. 299 (ix, x), 1381. In one place occurs the significant item ‘To Remembre to make a byll for the parlyament touching the augmentacyon of the Annattes.’ British Museum, Titus B. i. 421.[277]23 Hen. VIII., c. 20.[278]Cal. v. 879.[279]Cal. vi. 793.[280]25 Hen. VIII., c. 20.[281]26 Hen. VIII., c. 3.[282]25 Hen. VIII., c. 21.[283]Cal. ix. 725 (1).[284]Cal. vii. 1554.[285]Cal. vii. 1304; ix. 144, 183; x. 1170; xii. (ii), 1151.[286]Schanz, vol. i. pp. 535–537.[287]Schanz, vol. i. p. 518.[288]27 Hen. VIII., c. 10. Cf. also on this and the following pages Digby, pp. 267–280, and Reeves, vol. iii. pp. 275–289.[289]1 Rich. III., c. 1; 4 Hen. VII., c. 17.[290]Cal. viii. 892.[291]Cal. viii. 892; ix. 725.[292]32 Hen. VIII., c. 1.[293]Schanz, vol. i. pp. 159, 160.[294]Cf. Schanz, vol. i. pp. 224–227.[295]Busch, vol. i. p. 149.[296]Schanz, vol. i. pp. 76–86, 107–108.[297]Schanz, vol. i. pp. 372–374.[298]Cal. xiv. (i) 399, 655.[299]Letters,74, 190, 213.[300]32 Hen. VIII., c. 14.[301]This proclamation, issued Feb. 26, 1539, decreed that for seven years ‘straungers shall paye like custome and subsidy as the kinges subiects.’ British Museum, Titus B. i. 572.[302]Cal. xiii. (ii) 57, 84, 91.[303]Letters, 273.[304]Dixon, vol. ii. p. 83.[305]Dixon, vol. ii. p. 83.[306]Letters, 159.[307]Letters,106,116,124,129, 186, 206.[308]Cooper, vol. i. pp. 374, 375. In the Calendar, ix. 615, these injunctions are apparently attributed to Cromwell. But Cooper expressly states that the King promulgated them, while Strype (Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol. i. (i) p. 322, and vol. i. (ii) pp. 218, 219) seems to think that they were drawn up by Legh and Ap Rice, though he admits that they were issued in the King’s name. It seems very improbable then that Cromwell wrote them, and I have not placed them among the letters.[309]Letters,104, and Wilson, Magdalen College, p. 80.[310]Letters, 325, 326. The name of the Master was George Cotes or Cootes, formerly of Magdalen. He was Proctor in 1529. Davis, Balliol College, pp. 82–86; Wood, Fasti Oxonienses, pt. i. p. 86.[311]Cal. ix. 350.[312]On the Commissions to Cromwell as Vicar-general and Vicegerent cf. Burnet, vol. i. pp. 292–293n., 342–343n.; Collier, vol. ii. p. 104; Gutch, vol. ii. p. 192; Herbert, p. 202; Dixon, vol. i. pp. 244–247; Child, Church and State, pp. 78, 79. It is probable that the last writer has confounded the two commissions: certainly there is little reason to think that the title of Vicar-general was grantedlaterthan that of Vicegerent.[313]See vol. ii. p. 283.[314]Cal. xi. 41.[315]An event which took place in July, 1536, may possibly have been the source of this rumour. It appears that Cromwell had a gold ring made, with the figures of the Queen, King, and Princess carved on it, and the following Latin inscription:—‘Obedientia unitatem parit,Unitas animi quietem et constantiam;Constans vero animi quies thesaurus inestimabilis.Respexit humilitatemQui in Filio nobis reliquitPerfectum humilitatis exemplar.Factus est obediens Patri.Et ipsa etiam natura parentibusEt patrie obediendum docuit.’This ring he intended to bestow on the Princess Mary, but apparently the King got wind of the plan and put a stop to it, taking the ring away from his minister, on the plea that he desired to have the honour of presenting it to his daughter himself. The episode should have been sufficient to show that even if Cromwell had any idea of marrying the Princess, the King’s opposition to the plan would prove insurmountable. The inscription on the ring, moreover, surely indicates that the gift was intended rather as a reminder to the Princess of her duty towards her father, than as a preliminary to a matrimonial proposal. Cal. xi. 148.[316]Letters, 150.[317]Cal. xi. 147.[318]Cal. vi. 913, 981, 1011, 1014.[319]Cal. xii. (ii) 423.[320]As Cal. viii. 571.[321]Cal. ix. 478, 862; xiv. (i) 5.[322]Cal. viii. 108.[323]Bagwell, vol. i. pp. 124–152.[324]Cal. vii. 1141.[325]Bagwell, vol. i. pp. 152–155.[326]State Papers, vol. ii. p. 167.[327]State Papers, vol. ii. p. 180.[328]Cal. vi. 1586.[329]Cal. vii. 957, 1141.[330]Cal. vii. 1057.[331]Cal. vii. 1095.[332]Cal. vii. 1141.[333]Cal. vii. 1193, 1257, 1366, 1389.[334]Cal. vii. 1418.[335]Bagwell, vol. i. p. 172.[336]Cal. vii. 1297; viii. 140.[337]Cal. vii. 1573, and Bagwell, vol. i. p. 173.[338]Cal. viii. 448.[339]Bagwell, vol. i. p. 180.[340]Cal. x. 15n.[341]Cal. x. 822.[342]Cal. x. 897, 937.[343]Letters, 179.[344]Bagwell, vol. i. pp. 196, 197.[345]Cal. xii. (i) 503.[346]Cal. xii. (ii) 382.[347]Letters, 198–205, 207, 208, 211, 212, 214, 215, 232.[348]State Papers, vol. ii. pp. 551, 552.[349]Cal. xiii. (ii) 999.[350]Letters, 297, 298.[351]Cal. xiv. (ii) 137.[352]Cal. xv. 441.[353]State Papers, vol. v. p. 178.[354]Bagwell, vol. i. p. 249.[355]Cal. v. 991.[356]Ruding, vol. i. p. 308; Cal. vii. 1225.[357]Cal. vi. 946; vii. 1026 (28).[358]26 Hen. VIII., c. 4, c. 6, c. 11, c. 12.[359]Cal. vii. 1554.[360]Cal. viii. 839.[361]Cal. viii. 133, 195, 240, 509, 915, 1058.[362]27 Hen. VIII., c. 26.[363]Cal. vi. 1196. Cf. also Hume Brown, vol. i. p. 381.[364]Cal. vii. 296.[365]Cal. ix. 178, 730; x. 75, 227, 482, 863, 944, and Pinkerton, vol. ii. pp. 327–328.[366]Cal. xii. (i) 398, 399.[367]Cal. xii. (i) 1286.[368]Cal. xii. (ii) 829.[369]Cal. xii. (ii) 1201.[370]Letters, 330.[371]Cf. Pinkerton, vol. ii. pp. 352–353.[372]Cal. xv. 136.[373]Cal. xv. 248. Cf. also Hume Brown, vol. i. pp. 388–389.[374]Cal. vi. 300 (21), 619, and Rymer, vol. xiv. p. 452.[375]Cf. Letters,86, 260.[376]Cal. x. 541.[377]Cal. xi. 183.[378]Cal. xiii. (i) 813, 934.[379]Letters, 260.[380]Letters, 263.[381]Cal. xiii. (i) 1219.[382]Cal. xiii. (i) 1446, 1464.[383]Cal. xiii. (ii) 97.[384]Letters, 312.[385]Letters, 314.[386]See Life of Arthur Lord Lisle in the Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xlv. p. 400.[387]Cal. viii. 75, 76.[388]Cal. ix. 139.[389]Cal. viii. 822, 1127. The King and Cromwell were both absent on a tour in the west and south of England from the end of July until the beginning of October, 1535. Chapuys states that the object of this trip was to win the affection of the people on the Borders of Wales, and to enjoy the excellent hunting which that region afforded. It is probable that Henry and Cromwell were also desirous personally to inform themselves concerning the religious houses in the south and west counties, before permitting their agents to complete the visitation. Cal. ix. 58.[390]Cal. ix. 138.[391]Cal. ix. 621, 622.[392]Herbert, p. 186.[393]See ante, chap. vii, p. 115.[394]Wright, p. 133. A tag of verse.[395]Cal. ix. 321, 322.[396]Wright, p. 73.[397]Letters, 163, 180. Cf. also Gasquet, English Monasteries, vol. i. pp. 413, 421. Cromwell also took good care that some of the suppressed houses also should fall to his portion. He ‘appropriated to his own share the rich Priory of Lewes in Sussex (including its cell of Melton-Mowbray in Leicestershire), the Priory of Michelham in the same county, that of Modenham in Kent, of St. Osythe in Essex, Alceter in Warwickshire, Yarmouth in Norfolk, and Laund in Leicestershire. Sir Richard Cromwell, his nephew, and great-grandfather of Oliver, received Ramsey Abbey, Hinchinbrooke Nunnery, Sawtry Abbey, St. Neot’s Priory, and a house of Austin canons in Huntingdonshire, with Neath Abbey in Glamorganshire, and St. Helen’s Nunnery in London.’ Blunt, vol. i. p. 377. See also note 4 at the bottom of the same page.[398]Cal. ix. 509, 632.[399]Cal. ix. 829.[400]Wright, p. 156.[401]27 Hen. VIII., c. 28.[402]27 Hen. VIII., c. 61.[403]Cal. x. 1191.[404]Wright, pp. 180–181.[405]Wright, pp. 267–269.[406]Cal. xi. 42.[407]Ellis, 3rd Series, vol. iii. pp. 33, 34.[408]Cal. xii. (i) 632, 668.[409]State Papers, vol. i. p. 540.[410]Wright, p. 153.[411]This was perhaps the man whom Cromwell years before had helped to obtain from the Pope the indulgence for the Boston Gild.[412]Ellis, 3rd Series, vol. iii. p. 168.[413]Introduction to vol. xiii. of the Calendar, pp. 8–14; Wordsworth’s Cromwell, pp. 346–347nn.[414]Wriothesley’s Chronicle, vol. i. pp. 76, 90. Cal. xiii. (i) 347; xiii. (ii) 186, 709–710.[415]31 Hen. VIII., c. 13.[416]Cal. xiv. (ii) 399.[417]Cal. xiv. (ii) 206.[418]Cal. xiv. (ii) 530, 531. Cf. also Gasquet, The Last Abbot of Glastonbury, chaps. vi and vii.[419]Cal. vii. 587 (18).[420]Cal. xiii. (i) 225.[421]Cal. xiii. (ii) 1021. Cf. also the Introduction to vol. xiii. of the Calendar, p. 23.[422]Wright, pp. 195, 197.[423]Cal. xiii. (i) 1335.[424]Cal. xiii. (ii) 758, 911.[425]Wright, p. 230.[426]Cal. xiii. (ii) 767.[427]Hallam, vol. i. p. 76.

[264]Cal. x. 351, 601, 1069, and footnote to page 232. Cf. also Froude, The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon, pp. 413–415.

[265]Wilkins, vol. iii. p. 817.

[266]Letters, 159, 266, 273.

[267]Cal. vii. 1555.

[268]‘High Dutch’ not ‘Low Dutch.’

[269]Cal. x. 352, 698; xiv. (i) 186 (v).

[270]Cal. xii. (ii), Appendix 35, and xii. (ii) 593.

[271]Letters, 273.

[272]Cal. xiii. (ii) 1085.

[273]Cal. xiii. (ii) 1163; xiv. (i) 37, 371. Dixon, vol. ii. p. 77, and Eadie, vol. i. p. 360.

[274]Rymer, vol. xiv. p. 659.

[275]Wilkins, vol. iii. p. 760. It is not clear whether this petition was put forth in the name of Convocation or of Parliament. But the question is of minor importance: it is safe to say that neither body originated the Supplication, but that it was forced upon the Commons or the clergy by the King or his minister.

[276]Cal. vi. 299 (ix, x), 1381. In one place occurs the significant item ‘To Remembre to make a byll for the parlyament touching the augmentacyon of the Annattes.’ British Museum, Titus B. i. 421.

[277]23 Hen. VIII., c. 20.

[278]Cal. v. 879.

[279]Cal. vi. 793.

[280]25 Hen. VIII., c. 20.

[281]26 Hen. VIII., c. 3.

[282]25 Hen. VIII., c. 21.

[283]Cal. ix. 725 (1).

[284]Cal. vii. 1554.

[285]Cal. vii. 1304; ix. 144, 183; x. 1170; xii. (ii), 1151.

[286]Schanz, vol. i. pp. 535–537.

[287]Schanz, vol. i. p. 518.

[288]27 Hen. VIII., c. 10. Cf. also on this and the following pages Digby, pp. 267–280, and Reeves, vol. iii. pp. 275–289.

[289]1 Rich. III., c. 1; 4 Hen. VII., c. 17.

[290]Cal. viii. 892.

[291]Cal. viii. 892; ix. 725.

[292]32 Hen. VIII., c. 1.

[293]Schanz, vol. i. pp. 159, 160.

[294]Cf. Schanz, vol. i. pp. 224–227.

[295]Busch, vol. i. p. 149.

[296]Schanz, vol. i. pp. 76–86, 107–108.

[297]Schanz, vol. i. pp. 372–374.

[298]Cal. xiv. (i) 399, 655.

[299]Letters,74, 190, 213.

[300]32 Hen. VIII., c. 14.

[301]This proclamation, issued Feb. 26, 1539, decreed that for seven years ‘straungers shall paye like custome and subsidy as the kinges subiects.’ British Museum, Titus B. i. 572.

[302]Cal. xiii. (ii) 57, 84, 91.

[303]Letters, 273.

[304]Dixon, vol. ii. p. 83.

[305]Dixon, vol. ii. p. 83.

[306]Letters, 159.

[307]Letters,106,116,124,129, 186, 206.

[308]Cooper, vol. i. pp. 374, 375. In the Calendar, ix. 615, these injunctions are apparently attributed to Cromwell. But Cooper expressly states that the King promulgated them, while Strype (Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol. i. (i) p. 322, and vol. i. (ii) pp. 218, 219) seems to think that they were drawn up by Legh and Ap Rice, though he admits that they were issued in the King’s name. It seems very improbable then that Cromwell wrote them, and I have not placed them among the letters.

[309]Letters,104, and Wilson, Magdalen College, p. 80.

[310]Letters, 325, 326. The name of the Master was George Cotes or Cootes, formerly of Magdalen. He was Proctor in 1529. Davis, Balliol College, pp. 82–86; Wood, Fasti Oxonienses, pt. i. p. 86.

[311]Cal. ix. 350.

[312]On the Commissions to Cromwell as Vicar-general and Vicegerent cf. Burnet, vol. i. pp. 292–293n., 342–343n.; Collier, vol. ii. p. 104; Gutch, vol. ii. p. 192; Herbert, p. 202; Dixon, vol. i. pp. 244–247; Child, Church and State, pp. 78, 79. It is probable that the last writer has confounded the two commissions: certainly there is little reason to think that the title of Vicar-general was grantedlaterthan that of Vicegerent.

[313]See vol. ii. p. 283.

[314]Cal. xi. 41.

[315]An event which took place in July, 1536, may possibly have been the source of this rumour. It appears that Cromwell had a gold ring made, with the figures of the Queen, King, and Princess carved on it, and the following Latin inscription:—‘Obedientia unitatem parit,Unitas animi quietem et constantiam;Constans vero animi quies thesaurus inestimabilis.Respexit humilitatemQui in Filio nobis reliquitPerfectum humilitatis exemplar.Factus est obediens Patri.Et ipsa etiam natura parentibusEt patrie obediendum docuit.’This ring he intended to bestow on the Princess Mary, but apparently the King got wind of the plan and put a stop to it, taking the ring away from his minister, on the plea that he desired to have the honour of presenting it to his daughter himself. The episode should have been sufficient to show that even if Cromwell had any idea of marrying the Princess, the King’s opposition to the plan would prove insurmountable. The inscription on the ring, moreover, surely indicates that the gift was intended rather as a reminder to the Princess of her duty towards her father, than as a preliminary to a matrimonial proposal. Cal. xi. 148.

‘Obedientia unitatem parit,Unitas animi quietem et constantiam;Constans vero animi quies thesaurus inestimabilis.Respexit humilitatemQui in Filio nobis reliquitPerfectum humilitatis exemplar.Factus est obediens Patri.Et ipsa etiam natura parentibusEt patrie obediendum docuit.’

‘Obedientia unitatem parit,

Unitas animi quietem et constantiam;

Constans vero animi quies thesaurus inestimabilis.

Respexit humilitatem

Qui in Filio nobis reliquit

Perfectum humilitatis exemplar.

Factus est obediens Patri.

Et ipsa etiam natura parentibus

Et patrie obediendum docuit.’

This ring he intended to bestow on the Princess Mary, but apparently the King got wind of the plan and put a stop to it, taking the ring away from his minister, on the plea that he desired to have the honour of presenting it to his daughter himself. The episode should have been sufficient to show that even if Cromwell had any idea of marrying the Princess, the King’s opposition to the plan would prove insurmountable. The inscription on the ring, moreover, surely indicates that the gift was intended rather as a reminder to the Princess of her duty towards her father, than as a preliminary to a matrimonial proposal. Cal. xi. 148.

[316]Letters, 150.

[317]Cal. xi. 147.

[318]Cal. vi. 913, 981, 1011, 1014.

[319]Cal. xii. (ii) 423.

[320]As Cal. viii. 571.

[321]Cal. ix. 478, 862; xiv. (i) 5.

[322]Cal. viii. 108.

[323]Bagwell, vol. i. pp. 124–152.

[324]Cal. vii. 1141.

[325]Bagwell, vol. i. pp. 152–155.

[326]State Papers, vol. ii. p. 167.

[327]State Papers, vol. ii. p. 180.

[328]Cal. vi. 1586.

[329]Cal. vii. 957, 1141.

[330]Cal. vii. 1057.

[331]Cal. vii. 1095.

[332]Cal. vii. 1141.

[333]Cal. vii. 1193, 1257, 1366, 1389.

[334]Cal. vii. 1418.

[335]Bagwell, vol. i. p. 172.

[336]Cal. vii. 1297; viii. 140.

[337]Cal. vii. 1573, and Bagwell, vol. i. p. 173.

[338]Cal. viii. 448.

[339]Bagwell, vol. i. p. 180.

[340]Cal. x. 15n.

[341]Cal. x. 822.

[342]Cal. x. 897, 937.

[343]Letters, 179.

[344]Bagwell, vol. i. pp. 196, 197.

[345]Cal. xii. (i) 503.

[346]Cal. xii. (ii) 382.

[347]Letters, 198–205, 207, 208, 211, 212, 214, 215, 232.

[348]State Papers, vol. ii. pp. 551, 552.

[349]Cal. xiii. (ii) 999.

[350]Letters, 297, 298.

[351]Cal. xiv. (ii) 137.

[352]Cal. xv. 441.

[353]State Papers, vol. v. p. 178.

[354]Bagwell, vol. i. p. 249.

[355]Cal. v. 991.

[356]Ruding, vol. i. p. 308; Cal. vii. 1225.

[357]Cal. vi. 946; vii. 1026 (28).

[358]26 Hen. VIII., c. 4, c. 6, c. 11, c. 12.

[359]Cal. vii. 1554.

[360]Cal. viii. 839.

[361]Cal. viii. 133, 195, 240, 509, 915, 1058.

[362]27 Hen. VIII., c. 26.

[363]Cal. vi. 1196. Cf. also Hume Brown, vol. i. p. 381.

[364]Cal. vii. 296.

[365]Cal. ix. 178, 730; x. 75, 227, 482, 863, 944, and Pinkerton, vol. ii. pp. 327–328.

[366]Cal. xii. (i) 398, 399.

[367]Cal. xii. (i) 1286.

[368]Cal. xii. (ii) 829.

[369]Cal. xii. (ii) 1201.

[370]Letters, 330.

[371]Cf. Pinkerton, vol. ii. pp. 352–353.

[372]Cal. xv. 136.

[373]Cal. xv. 248. Cf. also Hume Brown, vol. i. pp. 388–389.

[374]Cal. vi. 300 (21), 619, and Rymer, vol. xiv. p. 452.

[375]Cf. Letters,86, 260.

[376]Cal. x. 541.

[377]Cal. xi. 183.

[378]Cal. xiii. (i) 813, 934.

[379]Letters, 260.

[380]Letters, 263.

[381]Cal. xiii. (i) 1219.

[382]Cal. xiii. (i) 1446, 1464.

[383]Cal. xiii. (ii) 97.

[384]Letters, 312.

[385]Letters, 314.

[386]See Life of Arthur Lord Lisle in the Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xlv. p. 400.

[387]Cal. viii. 75, 76.

[388]Cal. ix. 139.

[389]Cal. viii. 822, 1127. The King and Cromwell were both absent on a tour in the west and south of England from the end of July until the beginning of October, 1535. Chapuys states that the object of this trip was to win the affection of the people on the Borders of Wales, and to enjoy the excellent hunting which that region afforded. It is probable that Henry and Cromwell were also desirous personally to inform themselves concerning the religious houses in the south and west counties, before permitting their agents to complete the visitation. Cal. ix. 58.

[390]Cal. ix. 138.

[391]Cal. ix. 621, 622.

[392]Herbert, p. 186.

[393]See ante, chap. vii, p. 115.

[394]Wright, p. 133. A tag of verse.

[395]Cal. ix. 321, 322.

[396]Wright, p. 73.

[397]Letters, 163, 180. Cf. also Gasquet, English Monasteries, vol. i. pp. 413, 421. Cromwell also took good care that some of the suppressed houses also should fall to his portion. He ‘appropriated to his own share the rich Priory of Lewes in Sussex (including its cell of Melton-Mowbray in Leicestershire), the Priory of Michelham in the same county, that of Modenham in Kent, of St. Osythe in Essex, Alceter in Warwickshire, Yarmouth in Norfolk, and Laund in Leicestershire. Sir Richard Cromwell, his nephew, and great-grandfather of Oliver, received Ramsey Abbey, Hinchinbrooke Nunnery, Sawtry Abbey, St. Neot’s Priory, and a house of Austin canons in Huntingdonshire, with Neath Abbey in Glamorganshire, and St. Helen’s Nunnery in London.’ Blunt, vol. i. p. 377. See also note 4 at the bottom of the same page.

[398]Cal. ix. 509, 632.

[399]Cal. ix. 829.

[400]Wright, p. 156.

[401]27 Hen. VIII., c. 28.

[402]27 Hen. VIII., c. 61.

[403]Cal. x. 1191.

[404]Wright, pp. 180–181.

[405]Wright, pp. 267–269.

[406]Cal. xi. 42.

[407]Ellis, 3rd Series, vol. iii. pp. 33, 34.

[408]Cal. xii. (i) 632, 668.

[409]State Papers, vol. i. p. 540.

[410]Wright, p. 153.

[411]This was perhaps the man whom Cromwell years before had helped to obtain from the Pope the indulgence for the Boston Gild.

[412]Ellis, 3rd Series, vol. iii. p. 168.

[413]Introduction to vol. xiii. of the Calendar, pp. 8–14; Wordsworth’s Cromwell, pp. 346–347nn.

[414]Wriothesley’s Chronicle, vol. i. pp. 76, 90. Cal. xiii. (i) 347; xiii. (ii) 186, 709–710.

[415]31 Hen. VIII., c. 13.

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

[417]Cal. xiv. (ii) 206.

[418]Cal. xiv. (ii) 530, 531. Cf. also Gasquet, The Last Abbot of Glastonbury, chaps. vi and vii.

[419]Cal. vii. 587 (18).

[420]Cal. xiii. (i) 225.

[421]Cal. xiii. (ii) 1021. Cf. also the Introduction to vol. xiii. of the Calendar, p. 23.

[422]Wright, pp. 195, 197.

[423]Cal. xiii. (i) 1335.

[424]Cal. xiii. (ii) 758, 911.

[425]Wright, p. 230.

[426]Cal. xiii. (ii) 767.

[427]Hallam, vol. i. p. 76.

Back to Index Next