Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:42:19.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Supremacy and the Episcopate: The Struggle for Control, 1534–1540

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Margaret Bowker
Margaret Bowker
Affiliation:
Girton College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The assumption by Henry VIII of an effective supremacy over the English church and the enforcement of the legislation which accompanied it has received considerable attention in recent years. Yet, though the main themes of the story are clear, the obstacles which the central government met in the dioceses of England, and the way in which policy emerged as a response to them, has not been examined so meticulously. The problems confronting the government in 1534 are obvious enough: the bishops, as well as many others, who had been brought up in the first three decades of the sixteenth century, and who had administered the affairs of church or state in the period before the divorce, were left in a state of suspense in 1534. What tangible effect would the royal supremacy have? If it was to bring in a new order, what would that order be? And what part should bishop, priest or layman take in promoting or hindering it? For the bishops who had obtained their sees by papal bull before 1534, the dilemmas posed in the years to come were great. For Fisher of Rochester, the way forward was to the scaffold. Others, like Warham of Canterbury, Sher-burne of Chichester, Nix of Norwich, West of Ely, Blythe of Lichfield and Coventry, died during the crucial period 1533–8, thereby making room for those who had not been bishops before the assumption of the supremacy. But, for a small group of bishops, there was no escaping the problems of comparison which these years brought. Between 1534 and 1538, the translation of the royal supremacy into a practical reality in the dioceses and parishes of England was attempted.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , June 1975 , pp. 227 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the main outline of the story see Dickens, A. G., The English Reformation (London, 1964), esp. pp. 102–196Google Scholar; Lehmberg, S. E., The Reformation Parliament 1529–1536 (Cambridge, 1970)Google Scholar; Scarisbrick, J. J., Henry VIII (London, 1968), p. 163 ffGoogle Scholar. For the enforcement see Elton, G. R., Policy and Police (Cambridge, 1972)Google Scholar; Knowles, D., The Religious Orders in England III. The Tudor Age (Cambridge, 1959), p. 195 ffGoogle Scholar. For a discussion of, and recent bibliography to, the Pilgrimage of Grace see my ‘Lincolnshire 1536: Heresy, Schism or Religious Discontent?’ in Baker, D. (ed.), Studies in Church History IX. Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest (Cambridge, 1972), p. 195 ffGoogle Scholar. For a more general discussion see Palliser, D. M., The Reformation in York 1534–1553 (Borthwick Paper, no. 40)Google Scholar, and Walker, R. B., ‘A History of the Reformation in the Archdeaconries of Lincoln and Stow 1534–94’ (Liverpool Ph.D. thesis, 1959)Google Scholar.

2 L[incoln] A[rchives] O[ffice]. D[ean and] C[hapter] Wills (1534–59).

3 Elton, op. cit., pp. 225–30.

4 For references to other corporations taking this oath see Elton, op. cit., p. 228, note 3. Its text is given in full for the dean and chapter of St Paul's in Wilkins, D., Concilia [Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae] (London, 1733–1737), III, 774Google Scholar. It is identical in substance to that for Lincoln, see L.A.O., D. C. Wills, fo. 9.

5 Elton, op. cit., p. 229.

6 For a reappraisal of the vicegerency see Lehmberg, S. E., ‘Supremacy and Vicegerency: A Re-examination’, English Historical Review, CCCXIX (04 1966), 225 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Ridley, J., Thomas Cranmer (Oxford, 1962), pp. 50–64Google Scholar. Obviously all dioceses could not be sworn in the summer of 1534. The bishop of Winchester proceeded alone: see Muller, J. A. (ed.), The Letters of Stephen Gardiner (Cambridge, 1933), p. 56Google Scholar.

8 Sic for ‘at once’.

9 Sic for counterpane meaning the counterpart of an indenture (O.E.D.).

10 L.A.O., D.C. Wills, fo. 10v.

11 Ibid. fo. 10.

12 Elton, op. cit., p. 231.

13 This is in notable contrast to the role of the laity as watchdogs over the bishops in 1536 (Elton, op. cit., p. 239).

14 Muller, op. cit., p. 56.

15 L[etters and] P[apers, Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII preserved in the Public Record Office, the British Museum and elsewhere] J., cataloguedBrewer, S. and Brodie, R. H. (1864–1872), VII, 690Google Scholar.

16 LP, IX, 25.

17 LP, VII, 876.

18 James, M. E., ‘Obedience and Dissent in Henrician England: the Lincolnshire Rebellion 1536’, Past and Present, XLVIII (1970), 32Google Scholar.

19 Churchill, I. J., Canterbury Administration, I (London, 1933), 288 ffGoogle Scholar.

20 Ridley, op. cit. p. 79 ff. Ridley has not, however, noticed the unusual nature of the visitation nor the difference in the protests made. For the texts of the protests, in so far as they survive in full, see Strype, J., Memorials of Thomas Cranmer (Oxford, 1840), Appendix xv, pp. 704–8 (the pro-test of the Bishop of London)Google Scholar; L.A.O., D.C. Wills, fo. 5, for the protest of the bishop of Lincoln. The effect of the inhibition is apparent in Longland's registers: L.A.O., Register 26, fos. 40V ff.; and Register 27, fos. 40v, 58v, 96V, 126v, 135v–6, I6Iv, 192v.

21 L.A.O., Bishop Fuller's Transcripts: account of John Frankish, fo. 17.

22 L.A.O., D.C. Wills, fos. 5, 6.

23 Cole, R. E. G. (ed.), Chapter Acts [of the Cathedral Church of St Mary of Lincoln 1520–1536] (L[incoln] R[ecord] S[ociety], 12, 1915), p. 178Google Scholar.

24 L.A.O., D.C. Wills, fo. 9.

25 Ibid. fos. 11–13v: L.A.O., D.C. Accounts, Bj/3/5 (unfoliated): LP, VII, 1044 (iii). VIII, 312.

26 L.A.O., Dvj 26. For inhibitions on Lincoln religious houses, see Lambeth MSS, Carte Antique et Miscellane, II, nos. 56, 63, 71.

27 L.A.O., Register 26, fo. 42; 27, fo. 60. Longland's protest was made six months before Stephen Gardiner's. The bishop of Winchester clearly caught Cranmer on the raw, see Cox, J. E. (ed.), Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer (Parker Society, Cambridge, 1846), p. 304Google Scholar.

28 Strype, loc. cit.

29 Ridley, op. cit. p. 81. Cranmer renounced the title of legate at Convocation in November; 1534, see Wilkins, op. cit. III, 769: this was five months after the protest of Longland and seven after that of the bishop of London.

30 L.A.O., D.C. Wills, fo. 10.

31 Ibid. fo. 5 (LP, VIII, 1044). For the phraseology compare The Statutes of the Realm (London, reprint 1963), 16 Richard II c. 5, p. 84. The distinction is made between king, crown, regality and realm: ‘le Roy, sa Corone & so regalie et tout son Roialme’.

32 Ridley, op. cit., p. 80 ff.

33 Kelly, M., ‘Canterbury Jurisdiction and Influence during the Episcopate of William Warham 1503–32’ (Cambridge Ph.D., 1963), p. 226 ffGoogle Scholar.

34 Scarisbrick, J. J., ‘The pardon of the Clergy’, ante, XII (1956) 22–39Google Scholar. See also Kelly, M., ‘The Submission of the Clergy’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society XV (5th series, 1965), 108–9Google Scholar.

35 Statutes of the Realm, 22 Henry VIII c. 15 (italics mine).

36 Elton, G. R., Reform and Renewal (Cambridge, 1973), PP. 129–35Google Scholar.

37 de Gayangos, Pascual (ed.), Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers relating to the Negotiations between England and Spain, V, 1, 1534–35 (London, 1886), 152Google Scholar.

38 Elton, , Policy and Police, p. 227Google Scholar.

39 Statutes of the Realm, 23 Henry VIII c. 20.

40 Ridley, , Cranmer, p. 54Google Scholar.

41 It was not actually until 1539 that letters patent were recognized by parliament as sufficient ground for the appointment of bishops, and the king was declared to have ‘power and authority’ over their translation and similar matters. Statutes of the Realm, 31 Henry VIII c. 9.

42 Lehmberg, , ‘Supremacy and Vicegerency: A Re-examination’, English Historical Review, CCCXIX, 227Google Scholar.

43 Ibid. p. 228 ff.

44 Elton, , Policy and Police, p. 248, note 2Google Scholar.

45 Kitching, C. J., ‘The Probate Jurisdiction of Thomas Cromwell as Vicegerent’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XLVI, 113. (1973), 102 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Sturge, C., Cuthbert Tunstal (london, 1938), p. 220Google Scholar.

47 L.A.O., Register 26. fos. 261–261v; Wilkins, op. cit. III, 797.

48 Lehmberg, art. cit. pp. 227–8.

49 Churchill, op. cit. I, 304.

50 L.A.O., Register 25, passim.

51 L.A.O., Register 26, fos. 286v ff.; see also Vj 12, fo. 23 for this formula for a vicar general. The word ‘fulcitus’ is sometimes replaced by ‘munitus’. This authority became statutorily based after the parliament of 1539, see Statutes of the Realm, 31 Henry VIII c. 14. The formula was in use before, however; see below p. 243.

52 See my ‘Some Archdeacons' Court Books and the Commons Supplication against the Ordinaries of 1532’ in Bullough, D. A. and Storey, R. L. (eds.), The Study of Medieval Records p. 282Google Scholar ff. For the proposals for the reform of ths church courts, see Elton, G. R., Reform and Renewal, pp. 129–35Google Scholar.

53 British Library, Cottonian MSS, Cleopatra F. ii. fo. 130 (listed LP, IX, 569).

54 L.A.O., Register 26, fos. 261v–262v; cf. Wilkins, op. cit. in, pp. 797–8; Chitty, H. and Maiden, H. E. (eds.), Registra Stephani Gardiner et Johannis Poynet, Episcoporum Wintoniensium (Canterbury and York Society, Oxford, 1930), p. 46Google Scholar ff. For Cranmer's licence, see British Library, Add.Mss. 48022, fo. 98.

55 L.A.O., D.C. Wills, fos. 1–lv (second numeration).

56 L.A.O., Bj 35 (unfoliated) sub ‘Custos Placitorum’ and ‘Procurationes’. The bishop was in fact due to visit the close in 1536; he had last visited in 1533, see Cole, (ed.), Chapter Acts (L.R.S. 12), p. 166Google Scholar.

57 L.A.O., D.C. Wills, fos. 33–47; see also the jurisdictional break suggested by the absence of probate records for the archdeaconry of Stow in L.A.O., Stow Wills 1530–52, fos. 21–62.

58 See especially Thame, Dorchester and De la Pre, Leicester, discussed by Perry, G. G. ‘Notes and Documents’, English Historical Review, III and IV (1888, 1889)Google Scholar; D. Knowles, op. cit. III, 66, 336.

59 There are a number of examples of the bishop fulfilling these duties in earlier years, see especially L.A.O., Register 26, fo. 152. The ambiguity of the licence leaves the exegesis to the bishop, see above, p. 236.

60 British Library, Cottonian MSS, Cleopatra E. IV, fo. 62 (LP X, 66).

61 L.A.O., Register 27, fo. 6IV.

62 L.A.O., Register 26, fo. 269V. The profession is given in its full form in English.

63 Lehmberg, art. cit. pp. 225–7, for a discussion of the time lag; see also L.A.O., Register 26, fos. 259v, 260.

64 Cf. Knowles, op. cit. III, 354. ‘London played no part at all in the campaign of inquisition and calumny in 1535–36’. Professor Knowles was unaware of London's training as royal visitor of the secular clergy.

65 Cole, op. cit. (L.R.S. 12), pp. xi, 158.

66 L.A.O., Vj II, fos. 25 ff.; LP XIII, pt. 1, 925. Moore, A. Percival, ‘Proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the Archdeaconry of Leicester 1516–1535’, Associated Architectural Societies Reports and Papers, XXVIII, pt. 1, 126Google Scholar.

67 For a discussion of the injunctions see Elton, , Policy and Police, p. 247 ffGoogle Scholar.

68 L.A.O., Vj II, fo. 32.

69 Ibid. fo. 37V.

70 Ibid. fos. 39, 41, 42V.

71 Ibid. fo. 25.

72 Ibid. fo. 25V. Brackets indicate conjectural readings as the manuscript is torn at one edge.

73 The entry for Grantham looks as though it is the churchwardens' written complaint rather than the usual summary by a scribe.

74 L.A.O., Vj II, passim.

75 Lehmberg, art. cit. pp. 232–3.

76 British Library, Cottonian MSS, Cleopatra F. ii fo. 130 (LP IX, 569).

77 Cole, op cit. (L.R.S. 12), p. 90, note 2. For a discussion of them see Scarisbrick, , Henry VIII, P. 334 ffGoogle Scholar.

78 LP XIII, i, 29.

79 British Library, Add.MS 48022, fo. 83. I am grateful to Miss J. Crossley for checking through this licence for me.

80 Fenlon, D., Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy: Cardinal Pole and the Counter Reformation (Cambridge, 1972), p. 149 ffGoogle Scholar.

81 See my ‘Lincolnshire 1536: Heresy, Schism or Religious Discontent’, Baker, D. (ed.), Studies in Church History, IX, 195 ffGoogle Scholar.

82 Kitching, art. cit. p. 105.

83 Ibid. p. 102 (italics mine), Estates is a term easily misinterpreted; ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction over the goods of deceased persons and never their lands, and I have chosen to use the term goods rather than estates to avoid all confusion.

84 For Cranmer's licence (cited by Kitching) see British Library, Add.MS 48022, fo. 98. For a discussion of the complex arrangements made between diocesans and the prerogative court see Churchill, op. cit. p. 380 ff.; Kelly, M., ‘Canterbury Jurisdiction and Influence during the Episcopate of William Warham 1503–32’ (Cambridge Ph.D., 1963), p. 58–94 ffGoogle Scholar.; Bowker, M., Secular Clergy in the Diocese of Lincoln 1495–1520 (Cambridge, 1968), p. 10 ffGoogle Scholar.

85 It is difficult to arrive at an accurate valuation of the wills proved but Robert Skinner's seems in this category, see P.R.O. Prob/II/26, p. 2.

86 For a clear discussion of the rights of women in law in the early middle ages see Pollock, F. and Maitland, F. W., The History of English Law (2nd ed., Cambridge, 1952), I, 485Google Scholar. For a more general discussion of this question see Stenton, D. M., The English Woman in History (London, 1957)Google Scholar.

87 LP, X, 128.

88 L.A.O., Register 26, fo. 275.

89 Chitty and Malden, op. cit. p. 79. Gardiner's licence of 2 March 1547 was renewed once more in June 1547 after a further inhibition (ibid. p. 84).

90 L.A.O., Vj II, passim; Vj 12, passim. Northampton Record Office, Court Book 3, passim.

91 LP, XII, i, 697.

92 LP, XVI, 449.

93 Elton, , Policy and Police, p. 255Google Scholar.

94 Unfortunately the first document in which the new title and power is stated ‘suprema authoritate [sic] regia sufficienter fulcitus’ is undated. It cannot, however, be later than 1 August 1538. See Chitty and Malden, op. cit. p. 71 (cf. p. 235 above). For a later example see p. 7.

95 Cox, op. cit. pp. 490, 494, 509. Cranmer's title is more obviously derived from 31 Henry VIII c. 14.

96 Haugaard, W. P., Elizabeth and the English Reformation (Cambridge, 1968), p. 130 ffGoogle Scholar.

97 I am indebted in the preparation of this paper to the helpful comments of the Editor and to some pertinent criticisms put forward by Professor Elton and Dr Christopher Haigh.