Chapter XXIX: Letter 22 (5)

[40] Cal. iii. 2624.

[41] Cal. iii. 2437.

[42] The original is in the Vienna Archives. This copy was made from the official Record Office transcript. Cf. Cal. ix. 862, and Thomas, The Pilgrim, p. 107.

[43] John Cromwell of Lambeth.

[44] _sic_, read ‘ou.’

[45] Sir William Compton. See Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xi. p. 453.

[46] Letters, 1.

[47] On this paragraph, cf. Creighton’s Wolsey, pp. 128-130.

[48] Roper, Life of More, pp. 34-35.

[49] Ibid., pp. 35-38.

[50] On the 29th of April Wolsey entered the House and proposed a subsidy ‘which he thought should not fall short of £800,000, to be raised by a tax of four shillings in the pound on all men’s goods and lands.’ The principal provisions of the Act to which the Commons were finally induced to give their consent were as follows: for two years ‘a rate of 5 per cent. was imposed on all lands and goods of the value of £20 and upwards; 2-1/2 per cent. on goods between £20 and £2; 1-2/3 per cent. on goods of 40s., or on yearly wages averaging 20s. In the third year 5 per cent. on all lands of £50 and upwards; and in the fourth and last year, 5 per cent. on personal property of £50 and upwards. These rates were doubled in cases of aliens. The Act was not to extend to Ireland, Wales, Calais, to the counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, or Westmoreland, to Chester, to the bishopric of Durham, or to Brighton in Sussex.’ (Cf. Introduction to vol. iii of the Calendar, pp. 243, 253, 270.) Brewer informs us that ‘it had been computed that the subsidy granted by the Commons would produce £800,000,’ though he confesses that we are ignorant of the data on which this estimate was based. Lingard does not discuss the amount of the subsidy, but lays stress on the fact that the Commons asserted their right to debate on the measure alone. (Hist. of England, vol. vi. pp. 91-92.)

[51] Cal. iii. 2958. There can be no reasonable doubt concerning the authorship of this speech. Neither Brewer nor Gairdner question it, and Pauli, in an article on Wolsey and the Parliament of 1523 (Historische Zeitschrift for 1889, p. 52), says, ‘Die Rede selbst kann schlechterdings keinen anderen Urheber haben, und ist späterhin bei der Confiscation der Papiere Cromwell’s in das Staatsarchiv gekommen.’

[52] _sic_, for ‘of.’

[53] _sic_, for ‘wrongous’ or ‘wrong.’

[54] _sic_, for ‘world.’

[55] _sic_, for ‘they.’

[56] _sic_, for ‘affliction.’

[57] _sic_, for ‘of’?

[58] _sic_, for ‘be conveyed.’

[59] _sic_, for ‘as.’

[60] _sic_, for ‘be,’ possibly meaning ‘very.’

[61] William de Croy, Lord Chievres.

[62] Cal. iv. 969; Doyle’s Baronage, vol. i. p. 689.

[63] Cal. iv. 294, 388, 979, 1385-1386, 1620, 2347-2348, 2379.

[64] Cal. iv. 989, 990.

[65] Cf. Preface to volume iv of the Calendar, pp. 368-369.

[66] Cal. iv. 1833-1834, 2365, 5117, 5145.

[67] Cal. iv. 3461, 4778, 5330; Letters, 6, 8.

[68] Cal. iv. 3360.

[69] Cal. iv. 3334, and Appendix II. at the end of chapter i, p. 19.

[70] Cal. iv. 3079, 3119, 4201, 5169, 5365, 5456.

[71] Cal. iv. 3198, 3475, 3535, 3676, 4117, 4275, 4570, 4573, 5399, 5411.

[72] Letters, 1.

[73] Cal. iv. 2538, 3053, 4107.

[74] Cal. iv. 1768.

[75] Cal. iv. 2387.

[76] Cal. iv. 5080, 5141.

[77] Cal. iv. 3388.

[78] Cf. Appendix at the end of this chapter, p. 58.

[79] Cal. iv. 4560, 4837, 4916.

[80] Cal. iv. 4561.

[81] Cal. iv. 4433, 5757, 6219.

[82] Cal. iv. 3197.

[83] Appendix at the end of this chapter. The will is also printed in Froude, Appendix to chapter vi. The statement in a footnote that the names Williams and Williamson are used interchangeably is scarcely credible.

[84] Cf. footnote 87 in the Appendix, p. 56. The will was originally misdated, owing to an obviously careless error by the clerk, which was corrected by him at the time. The other corrections, by Cromwell, are written in a different-coloured ink; and the handwriting according to the Calendar (cf. footnote to vol. iv. no. 5772) indicates that they were made at a later date.

[85] Cal. xi. 1016; xii. (ii) 646.

[86] Cf. the genealogy in the Antiquary, vol. ii. pp. 164 ff.

[87] Altered at the time from:--‘MCCCCC xx viij^{ti}’ by the clerk. All the other changes are in Cromwell’s hand, and were probably made at a later date. Cf. footnote in the Calendar, vol. iv. pt. iii. p. 2573.

[88] Altered from:--‘Foure hundreth pownd_es_.’

[89] Altered from:--‘cccc^{li}.’

[90] Altered from:--‘xx^{li}.’

[91] Altered from:--‘one.’

[92] Altered from:--‘twoo.’

[93] These last six words are altered from:--‘a Bolster the best.’

[94] Altered from:--‘two.’

[95] Altered from:--‘ij^o.’

[96] Altered from:--‘One Dozen.’

[97] Altered from:--‘A.’

[98] Altered from:--‘iij.’

[99] Altered from:--‘vj of.’

[100] These last two words are altered from:--‘and.’

[101] Altered from:--‘xxiiij^{ti}.’

[102] Crossed out:--‘It_e_m I gyue and bequethe to my Doughter Anne one hundreth Mark_es_ of lawfull money of Englond when she shall cu_m_ to her lawfull age or happen to be maryed And xl^{li} toward_es_ her Fynding vntill the tyme that she shalbe of lawfull age or be maryed. Which xl^{li} I will shalbe Delyuered to my Frend John Croke on of the Six clerk_es_ of the king his Ch_a_uncerie to thintent he may order the same and cause the same to be imployed in the best wise he can deuyse about the vertewous educacyon and bringing vp of my saide Doughter till she shall cu_m_ to her lawfull age or maryage. And if it happen my saide Doughter to Dye before she cu_m_ to her saide lawfull age or be maryed Then I will that the said c Mark_es_ and so moche of the said xl^{li} as then shalbe vnspent and vnimployed at the Day of the deth of my said Doughter Anne, I will it shall remayne to Gregory my Soon if he then be on lyue, And if he be Dede the same c Mark_es_ and also so moche of the saide xl^{li} as then shalbe vnspent to be departed amongst my Sustres children in man_er_ and fourme forsaid And if it happen my saide Sustres children then to be all Dede, Then I will the saide c Mark_es_ and so moche of the saide xl^{li} as then shalbe vnspent shalbe deuyded amongst my kynsfolk_es_ such as then shalbe on lyue.’

[103] Altered from:--‘xx^{li} I Saye Twentye pound_es_ st_er_ling’: and this is altered from:--‘xxx^{li} which she oweth me.’

[104] Crossed out:--‘and.’

[105] Crossed out:--‘s_er_u_au_nt w_i_t_h_ my lorde Marques Dorssett.’

[106] Altered from:--‘xl^{li}.’

[107] Altered from:--‘Fourth.’

[108] Altered from:--‘xx^{li}.’

[109] Altered from:--‘x^{li}.’

[110] Altered from:--‘shall remayne to Anne and Grace my doughters.’

[111] Altered from:--‘xl^{li}’: and this is altered from:--‘xx^{li}.’

[112] Altered from:--‘vj^{li} xiij^s iiij^d.’

[113] Altered from:--‘iij^{li} vj^s viij^d.’

[114] Altered from:--‘Cosyn.’

[115] Altered from:--‘c.’

[116] Altered from:--‘Best.’

[117] Altered from:--‘x^{li}.’

[118] Crossed out:--‘It_e_m I gyue and bequethe to Elizabeth Gregory sumtyme my Seru_au_nt xx^{li} vj payre of Shet_es_ A Fetherbed A payre of blankett_es_ A Couerlet ij^o table clothes, One Dozen Naptkynnes ij^o brasse pott_es_, ij^o pannes, ij^o Spytt_es_.’

[119] Crossed out:--‘It_e_m I gyue _and_ bequethe to John Croke one of the vj clerk_es_ of the Ch_a_uncerye x^{li} my Second gowne Doblet and Jaquet. It_e_m I gyue and bequethe to Roger More Seruaunt of the king his bakehouse vj^{li} xiij^s iiij^d iij yard_es_ Saten and to Maudelyn his wyf iij^{li} vj^s viij^d.’

[120] Crossed out:--‘It_e_m I gyue and bequethe to my litill Doughter Grace c Mark_es_ of lawfull ynglissh money when she shall cu_m_ to her lawfull age or maryage and also xl^{li} toward_es_ her exhibucyon and Fynding vntill suche tyme ‹as› she shalbe of lawfull age or be maryed Which xl^{li} I will shalbe delyuered to my brother in law John Willyamson to thintent he may order and cause the same to be imployed in and about_es_ the vertewous educacyon and brynging vp of my saide Doughter till she shall cu_m_ to her lawfull age or Maryage. And if it happen my saide Doughter to Dye before she cum to her lawfull age or maryage then I will that the saide c m_ar_k_es_ and so moche of the saide xl^{li} as then shalbe vnspent and vnimployed about_es_ the fynding of my saide Doughter at the Day of the Deth of my saide Doughter shall remayne and be Delyuered to Gregory my Soon if he then shall happen to be on lyue. And if he be Dede then the saide c Mark_es_ and the saide residue of the saide xl^{li} to be euenlye Departed amongst my poure kynnesfolk_es_, that is to say my Susters children forsaide.’

[121] The last seventeen words are altered from:--‘Sutton at Hone and Temple Dartford in the Countie of Kent And shall take the p_ro_ffyte of my Ferme of the p_ar_sonage of Sutton.’

[122] Crossed out:--‘cu_m_myng.’

[123] Crossed out:--‘in Dead_es_ of charytee ou_er_ and aboue the charges and reparac_i_ons gyue and Distrybute for my Soule quarterly xl^s amongst poure people vntill my Soon Gregorye shall cu_m_ to the age of xxv yeres if he so long do Lyue And then my saide Soon to haue my said Fermes During the yeres conteyned w_ith_in my leases.’

[124] Altered from:--‘xxv.’

[125] Crossed out:--‘and.’

[126] Crossed out:--‘my saide executours shall sell my said Fermes to the most proffyte and adu_au_ntage And the money thereof growing to bestowe in Dead_es_ of charytee vppon my poure kynnesfolk_es_ and other charytable Dead_es_ to pray.’

[127] Altered from:--‘iij.’

[128] The last eighteen words are altered from:--‘iij yeres xx^{li}.’

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

[130] Altered from:--‘xiij^s iiij^d.’

[131] Altered from:--‘xx^{li}.’

[132] Altered from:--‘vj^s viij^d.’

[133] Altered from:--‘x^{li}.’

[134] Altered from:--‘v^{li}.’

[135] Crossed out:--‘It_e_m I gyue and bequethe to my p_ar_oche churche for my tithes forgotten xx^s.’

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

[137] Altered from:--‘John Croke one of the vj clerk_es_ of the king his Ch_a_uncerye.’

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

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

[140] Added and crossed out:--‘ou_er_ and 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. 48-49 _n._ 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 Note A in 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 Thomas Cromwell.... 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 vi^{s}. viii^{d}. 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 of _coin_, while Gardiner informs us that the statute was devised to prevent the export of _corn_. 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. 35 _n._) 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 the _Quantum 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.

[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 p_ar_lyament touching the augmentacyon of the Annatt_es_.’ 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. 292-293 _n._, 342-343 _n._; 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 granted _later_ than 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 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. 15 _n._

[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. 346-347 _nn._

[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.

[428] Cal. xiii. (ii) 457 (3).

[429] Burnet, vol. i. p. 431.

[430] 31 Hen. VIII., c. 9.

[431] Cal. xi. 786 (3).

[432] Cromwell.

[433] Cranmer.

[434] Richard Riche.

[435] The Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Legh, and Dr. Layton.

[436] The Bishop of Lichfield.

[437] Cal. xi. 786 (3).

[438] Cal. ix. 314, 321, 322.

[439] Cal. ix. 694.

[440] Cal. x. 364.

[441] Cal. xi. 705, 780 (2); xii. (i) 70; xiii. (ii) 307.

[442] Letters, 105.

[443] Cal. xii. (i) 138, 786, 900. Cf. also A. L. Smith in Social England, vol. iii. pp. 21 ff.

[444] Cal. xii. (i) 70 (13).

[445] Cal. xii. (i) 163.

[446] Cal. xi. 585.

[447] Cal. xi. 504, 544.

[448] Cal. xi. 533-534, 536-539, 552-553, 567-568.

[449] Cal. xi. 547.

[450] Cal. xi. 569.

[451] Cal. xi. 567.

[452] Cal. xi. 579-580.

[453] The son of Morgan Williams and Katherine Cromwell. Cf. chap. iii, pp. 54-55.

[454] Cal. xi. 576.

[455] Cal. xi. 601-602.

[456] Letters, 165, 167, 169.

[457] Cal. xi. 714.

[458] Cal. xi. 674, 694, 706, 715, 717.

[459] State Papers, vol. i. p. 463.

[460] Cal. xi. 611.

[461] Cal. xi. 563, 622.

[462] Cal. xii. (i) 163, 259, 1080.

[463] Cal. xi. 611.

[464] Cal. xi. 627.

[465] Cal. xii. (i) 900, 944.

[466] Cal. xii. (i) 853, 1087.

[467] Cal. xi. 826.

[468] Cal. xi. 626, 671, 758.

[469] Cal. xi. 793, 800.

[470] Cal. xi. 864.

[471] Cal. xi. 887, 902.

[472] Cal. xi. 901.

[473] Cal. xi. 909.

[474] Cal. xi. 995.

[475] Cal. xi. 1061.

[476] Cal. xi. 957, 995, 1115, 1206.

[477] Cal. xi. 1224, 1225.

[478] Cal. xi. 1236.

[479] Cal. xi. 1276.

[480] Letters, 174.

[481] Cal. xii. (i) 44.

[482] Cal. xii. (i) 67.

[483] Thomas, The Pilgrim, p. 53.

[484] Cal. xii. (i) 201, 370.

[485] Cal. xii. (i) 104.

[486] Cal. xii. (i) 369.

[487] Cal. xii. (i) 234, 369 (p. 166).

[488] Cal. xii. (i) 86, 98.

[489] Cal. xii. (i) 498.

[490] Cal. xii. (i) 976.

[491] On this and the succeeding pages, cf. G. T. Lapsley, ‘The Problem of the North,’ in the American Historical Review for April, 1900, pp. 440-466.

[492] Cal. xii. (i) 595.

[493] Cal. xii. (ii) 914.

[494] Cal. xii. (i) 318, 319, 321, 594, 651.

[495] Cal. xii. (i) 594, 636.

[496] Cal. xii. (i) 319.

[497] Cal. xii. (i) 651, 667, 916, 919.

[498] Cal. xii. (i) 1118.

[499] Cal. xii. (ii) 254, 914.

[500] Cf. Gneist, pp. 513-514.

[501] Phillips, Pole, p. 3. _Cf._ also the genealogy at the beginning of the book.

[502] Cal. i. 4190.

[503] Cal. iii. 1544.

[504] Cal. iv. 6252.

[505] Poli Epistolae, i. 251-262.

[506] Cal. v. 737.

[507] Cal. viii. 217-219.

[508] Cal. x. 974-975.

[509] Cal. xi. 156.

[510] Cal. xi. 229.

[511] Cal. xi. 93.

[512] Cal. xi. 1353; xii. (i) 779.

[513] Cal. xiv. (i) 186.

[514] Cal. xii. (i) 779.

[515] Cal. xii. (i) 625, 939.

[516] Cal. xii. (i) 1219; Letters, 187.

[517] Life of Pole, Dictionary of National Biography, vol. xlvi. p. 38.

[518] Cal. xii. (i) 34, 249.

[519] There is reason to think that Throgmorton had promised to be a spy on Pole’s movements for the King. Cf. Letters, 218.

[520] Cal. xii. (i) 249, 296, 313.

[521] Cal. xii. (i) 429; xii. (ii) 552.

[522] Letters, 216-217.

[523] Letters, 218.

[524] Cal. xiii. (ii) 232 (p. 91).

[525] Cal. xiii. (ii) 695, 770, 771.

[526] Cal. xiii. (ii) 804, 805, 954-960.

[527] Cal. xiii. (ii) 802, 979 (7). It is said that Cromwell, in the course of these prosecutions, contrived to deprive the victims of all chance of escape by inquiring of the judges whether, if a man were condemned to death for treason in Parliament without a hearing, the attainder could ever be disputed. He finally succeeded in obtaining the reluctant but correct reply that ‘an attainder in Parliament, whether or not the party had been heard in his own defence, could never be reversed in a court of law.’ Cf. Hallam, vol. i. pp. 29-30. Coke, Fourth Institute, p. 38, adds, ‘The party against whom this was intended was never called in question, but the first man after the said resolution, that was so attainted, and never called to answer, was the said Earl of Essex (Thomas Cromwell): whereupon that erroneous and vulgar opinion amongst our historians grew, that he died by the same law which he himself had made.’

[528] Cal. xiii. (ii) 753.

[529] Cal. xiii. (ii) 986, 1163.

[530] Wriothesley’s Chronicle, vol. i. p. 92.

[531] Cal. xiv. (i) 867, c. 15.

[532] Cal. xvi. 868.

[533] Cal. xiv. (i) 279-280.

[534] Letters, 301.

[535] Cal. xiv. (i) 603.

[536] Cal. xiv. (ii) 212.

[537] Cal. xiv. (i) 560.

[538] Cf. Robertson, vol. ii. p. 135.

[539] Ranke, Popes, vol. i. p. 77.

[540] Cal. vi. 64, 92.

[541] Cal. v. 1545.

[542] Cal. vi. 110.

[543] Cal. vi. 465.

[544] Cal. vi. 508. Cromwell often begged to be excused from a promised interview on the plea of illness. Cf. Cal. vii. 959. Though it is certain that he suffered at times from violent attacks of ague, it is doubtful if it was always his ill-health which prevented him from fulfilling his engagements to the Imperial ambassador.

[545] Cal. vi. 918; viii. 263, 327, 355, 948; ix. 594.

[546] Cal. vi. 614, 641.

[547] Ranke, Popes, vol. i. p. 77.

[548] Cal. vi. 1426, 1427.

[549] Mr. Friedmann (Anne Boleyn, vol. i. pp. 225, 250 ff.) believes that this break with France was due to the influence of Cromwell, who had urged the King to strike out an independent policy as regards the Pope. M. Bapst (Deux Gentilshommes, pp. 97, 113), on the other hand, thinks that the King’s minister originally favoured the French alliance, and adhered to it until 1535. Neither writer produces any very conclusive evidence in support of his theory: but Mr. Friedmann’s view is certainly, on the face of it, the more plausible. It may be too much to say that it was by Cromwell’s advice that Francis was insulted at Marseilles, but it is certain that the King’s minister evinced a decided preference for an Imperial alliance long before the year 1535. Cf. Froude, The Divorce of Catherine of Aragon, p. 308.

[550] Cal. vi. 918.

[551] Cal. vi. 934.

[552] Cal. vi. 1039-1040.

[553] Letters, 64.

[554] Cal. vii. 21.

[555] Cal. vi. 1510.

[556] B.M. Nero B. iii, 105.

[557] Schäfer, p. 512.

[558] Rymer, vol. xiv. p. 539.

[559] Waitz, vol. i. p. 83.

[560] One of the provisions of the proposed agreement was: ‘Ducere uxorem fratris mortui sine liberis est jure divino et naturali prohibitum. Contra prohibitiones divinas invalida ac prorsus nulla est Romani pontificis vel cujuscumque alterius dispensatio.’ Entwurf eines Vertrags zwischen König Heinrich und Lübeck; Sommer, 1534. Transcribed from the original in the Archives at Weimar; Waitz, vol. ii. pp. 319-325.

[561] Ranke, vol. iii. pp. 406-425.

[562] Cal. vii. 970.

[563] Cal. viii. 72, 327.

[564] Cal. viii. 556, 1178.

[565] Cal. vii. 1095.

[566] Cal. vii. 1257.

[567] Cal. vii. 1060, and Baumgarten, vol. iii. pp. 145-146.

[568] Cal. vii. 1437.

[569] Cal. vii. 1483, 1554.

[570] Cal. vii. 1554.

[571] Cal. vii. 1483.

[572] Cal. vii. 1507.

[573] Cal. viii. 174, 557.

[574] Cal. ix. 148, 205, 594, 595.

[575] Cal. ix. 443.

[576] Letters, 126, 128, 135.

[577] Letters, 113.

[578] Cal. ix. 390, 1016.

[579] Cal. x. 771. Cf. also Corpus Reformatorum, vol. ii. pp. 1028 ff.; iii. pp. 46-50.

[580] Cal. x. 59.

[581] Cal. ix. 776, and Friedmann, vol. ii. pp. 169-173.

[582] Cal. x. 141. Cf. also Friedmann, vol. ii. p. 176.

[583] Cf. Dr. Norman Moore, on the Death of Katherine of Aragon, in the Athenaeum for Jan. 31 and Feb. 28, 1885.

[584] Robertson, vol. ii. pp. 40-41.

[585] Letters, 136.

[586] Letters, 126.

[587] Cal. x. 141.

[588] Cal. x. 351.

[589] Cal. viii. 948, 1018.

[590] Cal. x. 699. Mr. Friedmann points out that this quarrel of Henry and Cromwell about the Spanish alliance was intimately connected with the fate of Anne Boleyn. The Emperor, too cautious to express any indignation at the news of his aunt’s death, was still planning for the safety and, if possible, the succession of his cousin the Princess Mary. On hearing from Chapuys of the possibility of a renewal of cordial relations with England, he wrote back on March 28, 1536, a most diplomatic reply, in which he pointed out that it would be certainly for the interest of the Princess that Anne Boleyn should continue to be Henry’s wife; for should the King marry again, he might have male issue, which would succeed to the prejudice of Mary: there was, on the other hand, little probability that Anne would bear Henry another child, and the Emperor knew well that in the eyes of the nation his cousin’s right was far superior to that of Elizabeth. So, by a very extraordinary turn of affairs, the interests of Charles and of Anne had at least temporarily become identical. Cromwell probably had not perceived that this was the true state of affairs when he had his conversation with Chapuys; but the failure of his attempts to bring about a Spanish alliance must have opened his eyes to the fact that he had been working in the interests of one whose ruin had been certainly resolved on by this time. ‘He took to his bed out of pure sorrow’ for a few days as we are told; and when he returned to the Court, it was to labour with all his might for the ruin of Anne, which he saw was necessary to save his own credit with the King. Friedmann, Anne Boleyn, chapter xvi; Cal. x. 575, 700; also W. H. Dixon, History of Two Queens, vol. iv. pp. 262, 263.

[591] Letters, 170.

[592] Cal. xii. (i) 1310.

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

[594] Cal. xii. (ii) 1053, 1285.

[595] Letters, 243. Cf. also Preface to vol. xiii. pt. i. of the Calendar, pp. 37-38.

[596] Cal. xiii. (i) 1355, 1405, 1451, 1496; xiii. (ii) 77, 232, 277.

[597] Cal. xiii. (i) 995, 1147, 1355.

[598] Letters, 244.

[599] Cal. xiii. (i) 1486.

[600] Cal. xiii. (i) 367.

[601] Baumgarten, vol. iii. pp. 343 ff.

[602] Burnet, vol. i. pp. 316, 409, 435.

[603] Cal. xiii. (ii) 165, 298, 497.

[604] Cal. xiv. (i) 92, 147.

[605] Cal. xiv. (i) 62.

[606] Letters, 286.

[607] John Lambert, moreover, had been tried and burnt, for denying the Real Presence, in November, 1538. The doctrines of the Lutherans in this matter were probably almost identical with those of the King at this time, but the Germans certainly disapproved of the violence of Henry’s measures for enforcing them.

[608] Cal. xiv. (i) 103.

[609] Letters, 287.

[610] Throughout the negotiations for the Cleves marriages Cromwell made desperate efforts to assert the dignity of the King, which he could not help feeling was a little lowered by approaching vassals of the Emperor with matrimonial offers. Mont was especially directed to confer with Burckhard about the sister of the Duke of Cleves, ‘not as demaunding her, but as geving them a prick to stirr them to offre her, as the noblest and highest hono_ur_ that could come into that noble house of Cleves, if they could bring it to passe.’ Of course nothing could induce the mighty King of England to demean himself by asking any favours of the petty princes of Germany; it was their place, not his, to be the suitor.

[611] Cf. Ulmann, vol. i. pp. 579, 580; Ranke, vol. i. pp. 226-229.

[612] Life of Duke John of Cleves in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, vol. xiv. p. 214.

[613] Ranke, vol. iv. p. 128; Heidrich, 1, 2.

[614] Heidrich, 21.

[615] Heidrich, 4.

[616] Ranke, vol. iv. p. 129.

[617] Heidrich, 34, 35. Driven by political necessity, William in 1543 finally took the decisive step, and declared himself ready to introduce the new religion into his dominions, in the hope of gaining aid from his brother-in-law against the Emperor. But the offer came too late. The political situation had changed once more, and the overcautious Elector now definitely and unconditionally refused the aid which he had before made dependent on William’s acceptance of Lutheranism. The lands of the Duke were invaded by the Imperial forces, and William was forced, at the treaty of Venlo, Sept. 7, 1543, to renounce all claims to Gelderland and Zutphen, to return to the Church of Rome, and to permit no religious innovations in Juliers and Berg. Subsequently, however, encouraged by the milder attitude of the Emperor Ferdinand towards the Reformers, he devoted himself with partial success to an attempt to effect a sort of compromise between the two faiths in his own possessions, and to establish there a purified and enlightened Catholic Church, ‘Erasmian’ in its tendencies, and in many respects approaching very closely to the tenets of the Augsburg Confession. Cf. Heidrich, 91-94, and the Life of William of Cleves in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, vol. xliii. pp. 107-113.

[618] Letters, 287.

[619] Letters, 295.

[620] Cal. xiv. (i) 489.

[621] Heidrich, 32.

[622] Cal. xiv. (i) 433, 440.

[623] Letters, 291, 301.

[624] Letters, 297; and Cal. xiv. (i) 584.

[625] Cal. xiv. (i) 570.

[626] Letters, 288.

[627] Cal. xiv. (i) 398-400, 529, 564, 615, 652-655.

[628] Cal. xiv. (i) 669-670.

[629] Cal. xiv. (i) 908.

[630] Cal. xiv. (i) 804.

[631] Cal. xiv. (i) 520, 573.

[632] Cal. xiv. (i) 655.

[633] Burnet, vol. iv. p. 499.

[634] 31 Hen. VIII., c. 14.

[635] Cal. xiv. (i) 1137. The martyrologist Foxe tells an amusing and characteristic story of Cromwell’s saving Cranmer from punishment for a book which he had written against the Six Articles. There appears to have been a bear-baiting on the Thames before the King, which Mr. Ralph Morice, Cranmer’s secretary, was watching from a small boat: and the secretary, it seems, had the Archbishop’s book in his girdle for safekeeping. The bear broke loose from the dogs and upset the wherry in which Morice was; in the tumult which ensued he lost the precious book. It was subsequently picked up by the ‘bearward,’ who perceiving what it was, and being himself a violent papist, gave it to a priest of his religion, who told the bearward that whosoever wrote it would be hanged if the King should see it. The bearward endeavoured to give it to some influential Catholic at the Court, utterly refusing to listen to Morice’s entreaties that he should return it to Cranmer. At this juncture Cromwell appeared upon the scene, and so ‘shaked up the bearward for his over-much malapertness’ that the latter was glad to return the book to the secretary, and so escape without further punishment. Foxe, vol. ii. p. 428.

[636] Appendix I. at the end of this chapter.

[637] Cal. xiv. (i) 208, 440.

[638] Bezold, p. 686.

[639] Cf. Appendix I. at the end of this chapter.

[640] Cal. xiv. (i) 441, 442, 955-958.

[641] Cal. xiv. (i) 1273.

[642] Cal. xiv. (i) 1278.

[643] Cal. xiv. (ii) 59.

[644] Cal. xiv. (i) 920; Heidrich, pp. 17, 18.

[645] Cal. xiv. (i) 603.

[646] Cal. xiv. (ii) 218, 300, 545.

[647] Bezold, p. 686.

[648] Cal. xiv. (ii) 63, 127, 128.

[649] Cal. xiv. (ii) 33. Minute inquiries and sometimes indelicately full replies concerning the appearance and bearing of intended brides seem to have been authorized by all Tudor traditions. The report of Wotton is but meagre in details when compared to that of the ambassadors of Henry VII. concerning Joanna of Naples, whom the English King had once thought of marrying in 1505. Anne of Cleves was certainly considered beautiful in Germany. Sleidan, vol. ii. p. 150, refers to her as ‘eleganti forma virginem.’

[650] Now in the Louvre.

[651] Cal. xiv. (ii) 664. Cf. also the Chronicle of Calais, pp. 167-179. In the latter, Gregory Cromwell’s name is erroneously written ‘George Crombwell.’

[652] Cal. xiv. (ii) 634, 677.

[653] Cal. xv. 14.

[654] Cal. xiv. (ii) 753.

[655] Cal. xv. 14.

[656] Hall, pp. 832 ff.

[657] Letters, 349-350.

[658] Hall, p. 837. It appears that the fashion changed in England at the time of the arrival of Anne. In telling of her wedding, the Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London (p. 43) informs us that ‘thene beganne alle the gentyl women of Yngland to were Frenche whooddes with bellementtes of golde.’

[659] Cf. Appendix II. at the end of this chapter.

[660] Lenz, vol. i. pp. 409-410, 420-421.

[661] Cf. Appendix II. at the end of this chapter.

[662] The truth of Baumbach’s statements is confirmed by Seckendorff, who obtained his information from the report of Burckhard on this same interview. Speaking of Cromwell Seckendorff says:--

‘Lutheranum fuisse Burnetus pro certo habet, nec dissentiunt Saxonicorum Legatorum de eo relationes. Ex iisdem tamen et historiarum documentis constat, hominem fuisse non saltem solida doctrina minime imbutum sed eius ingenii ut Regis favorem omnibus rebus anteponeret. Ultima sane Burcardi ex Anglia relatione de 11 Jan. scripta ... diserte dicitur, ilium de religione ita disseruisse ut se cum Evangelicis in Germania consentire non negaret, necessarium tamen sibi esse diceret ut Regis voluntati sese conformaret, etiam cum vitae suae periculo, id quod eventus paulo post comprobavit. Non est itaque, ut hunc pro martyre Evangelicae religionis habeamus, et ipse in loco supplicii mori se professus est in religione Catholica. Hoc, etsi ex D. Burneti sententia de Romana minime intellexerit, indicat tamen animum infirmum et aequivocationes sectantem.’ Seckendorff, s. lxxviii, p. 261; liber iii, sect. 21.