Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:30:16.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pardon of the Clergy Reconsidered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

G. W. Bernard
G. W. Bernard
Affiliation:
Department of History, The University, Southampton SO9 5NH
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his reinterpretation of ‘Henry vm and the praemunire manoeuvres of 1530-31’ Dr J. A. Guy asserts that the principal aim of the king in his dealings with the Church in these years was to secure a large sum of money. The purpose of the prosecution of churchmen for offences against the statute of praemunire was ‘to reinforce the demand for a clerical subsidy’. ‘Some serious praemunire offence had to be constructed in order to encourage the clergy to settle quickly for a general pardon’ for which they would pay a hefty fine. ‘The king had already decided by mid-1530 to seek a repeat performance of the clerical subsidy of 1523, and … he acted to outfoot those who had identified themselves as stalwarts in Wolsey's day [i.e. those who had opposed the subsidy in 1523] by accusing them of praemunire.’ Dr Guy cannot ignore Henry was desire for an annulment of his marriage with Catherine of Aragon altogether. The king's true objectives were ‘supply and the divorce’. But the latter was subsidiary. ‘Henry VIII wished to raise a clerical subsidy as substantial as that achieved by Wolsey in 1523. Second, he aimed to subdue the opponents of the divorce in convocation’.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , April 1986 , pp. 258 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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 EHR xcvii (1982), 481-503.

2 Ibid. 484.

3 Ibid. 490.

4 Ibid. 485.

5 Ibid. 490.

6 Ibid. 502.

7 Ibid. 493.

8 Ibid. 498.

9 Ibid. 502.

10 Ibid. 501.

11 I hope that this summary does justice to Dr Guy's somewhat obscurely written arguments. At one point (p. 485) he does ask whether the divorce might not have been ‘the only cause’ of the praemunire manoeuvres. To this question he gives at once ‘a firm negative’: ‘the demands of the divorce campaign cannot have been paramount’. Yet a few lines later he admits that ‘the divorce issue has to be taken very seriously’ before going on largely to ignore it.

12 Gayangos, P. de, Bergenroth, G. A. et al. (eds.), Calendar of Slate Papers, Spanish, London 1862.Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Cal. SP, Spanish) iv (ii), 615 (p. 39). Brewer, J.S., Gairdner, J. and Brodie, R. H. (eds.), Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, 21 vols. in 36, London 1862-1932Google Scholar (hereafter cited as LP), v. 62 (23 Jan. 1531).

13 Hughes, P. (ed.), Saint John Fisher: the earliest English life, London 1935, 109–11Google Scholar . For authorship and dating see pp. 1-13. The only vaguely confirmatory evidence is Chapuys' incidental anticipation of the raising of large sums of money by the selling of Church lands in December 1529, Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 232 (p. 367) (13 Dec. 1529).

14 Hughes, Fisher, 111.

15 Guy, ‘Praemunire manoeuvres’, 485-6.

16 Ibid. 485. Why, if he was so anxious to secure money, did Henry wait until early 1531? Chapuys wrote as early as November 1529 that Wolsey had given the king both the means and the opportunity of raising much money by composition from those who were involved - by solicitation, money lent or advice given - in obtaining for him his legatine bull. Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 211 (pp. 325-6) (8 Nov. 1529).

17 , Guy, ‘Praemunire manoeuvres’, 485Google Scholar , citing Starkey, D. R., ‘The king's privy chamber 1485-1547’; unpublished University of Cambridge Ph.D. diss., 1973, 393–410Google Scholar.

18 , Starkey, ‘The king's privy chamber’, 401.Google Scholar

19 Ibid. 388-9.

20 Ibid. 384.

21 Ibid. 401.

22 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 232 (pp. 370-1) (13 Dec. 1529); cf. iv (i), 211 (p. 325) (8 Nov. 1529).

23 Ibid, iv (i), 492 (pp. 799-800) (13 Nov. 1530).

24 Pratt, J. (ed.), The Acts and Monuments ofJohn Foxe, 8 vols., London 1870, iv. 657Google Scholar ,666; cf. Campeggio's report of his discussion with Henry: LP iv (iii), 5416 (3 Apr. 1529).

25 Ullmann, W., ‘“This realm of England is an empire”’, this Journal XXX (1979), 175–203Google Scholar , esp. p. 183.

26 P. J. Gwyn, ‘The Hunne and Standish affairs’, chapter in his forthcoming study of Cardinal Wolsey (I am most grateful to Mr Gwyn for showing me a copy); cf. Guy, ‘Praemunire manoeuvres’, 497 n. 2; Ullmann, art. cit., 187. Henry vin's Assertio Septem Sacramentorum does not modify the claims made above. It is true that he dedicated his book to the pope and that he wrote that all men of faith accepted the supremacy of the pope. But his attitude to the pope was in no sense extreme or other than conventional. Moreover, the heart of the book was a defence of the sacraments and a rejection of any schism with Rome on doctrinal grounds. That makes it a poor analogy with the jurisdictional concerns of 1509, 1515 and the divorce. Of course, the book did become an embarrassment. But Sir Thomas More's comments during his interrogation were so obviously useful debating points that they should be treated with caution. The Lyfe of Sir Thomas Moore, knighte, by William Roper, ed. E. V. Hitchcock (Early English Text Society cxcvii, 1935), 67-8.

27 LP iv (ii), 3913.

28 LP iv (ii), 4120. Strype, J., Ecclesiastical Memorials, 3 vols., London 1721Google Scholar , i (ii), no. 23; iv (ii), 4166. Much of the evidence cited in this article has been used by others, notably Scarisbrick, J. J., Henry VIII, London 1968Google Scholar , and Lehmberg, S. E., The Reformation Parliament 1529-1536, Cambridge 1970Google Scholar , but as the conclusions I have draw n from it are somewhat different I have not cited their discussion on every occasion. Another important treatment of these years, which I saw only after completing this article, is Moreau, J. P., ‘Les Catholiques anglais et leurs idees politiques au moment du schisme (1529-1553)’, These de doctorat d'état, Université de Paris-Sorbonne, 2 vols., 1980Google Scholar.

29 LP iv (ii), 4881.

30 LP iv (ii), 4977.

31 Public Record Office (hereafter PRO), PRO 31/18/2/1, fo. 411V (Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 160 (p. 236) (21 Sept. 1529)).

32 Ibid.; cf. Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 168 (p. 257) (27 Sept. 1529); Guy, J. A., The Public Career of Sir Thomas More, Brighton 1980, 206Google Scholar (Lord Darcy's memorandum). I am grateful to Professor C. S. R. Russell for reminding m e of this last reference.

33 Hall, E., Chronicle, London 1809 edn, 759.Google Scholar

24 Ibid. 760.

35 Thus, Wolsey's fall made it clear that ‘the crown, not the legate, held effective supremacy over the English church’: Kelly, M. J., ‘Canterbury jurisdiction and influence during the episcopate of William Warham 1503-1532’, unpublished University of Cambridge Ph.D. diss., 1965, 206Google Scholar ; ‘The manner in which he [Wolsey] was handled was of the gravest significance for the papacy which he theoretically represented’; ‘the panoply of legatine authority was at best a worthless protection’: Loades, D. M., ‘Relations between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries’, in Haase, W. (ed.), Rome and the Anglicans, Berlin 1982, 7Google Scholar.

36 , Hall, Chronicle, 773–4.Google Scholar

37 Is there anything in the various rumours that Wolsey was asking the pope to make some provision in his favour and that of the English clergy, or that he was preventing an assembly of clerics from meeting to discuss the divorce? Brown, R. et al. (eds.), Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, London 1864Google Scholar - (hereafter cited as Cal. SP, Venetian) iv, 632-3 (pp. 263-4), 637 (p. 267), 638 (p. 268), 652 (p. 275).

38 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 160 (pp. 224-5) ( 21 Sept. 1529).

39 Statutes of the Realm iii. 293 (21 Henry viii, c. 13 (ix)).

40 PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fo. 482 (Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 224 (pp. 351-2) (6 Dec. 1529).

41 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 232 (p. 367) (13 Dec. 1529).

42 Ibid, iv (i), 241 (p. 386 and cf. p. 392) (31 Dec. 1529); iv (i), 252 (pp. 436-7) (20 Jan. 1530); LP, iv (iii), 6256.

43 PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fo. 619 (Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 373 (p. 629) (11 July)); cf. also LP, iv (iii), 6307 (4 Apr. 1530)).

44 The text of the letter is in Herbert, E. of Cherbury, The Life and Reigne of Henry VIII, London 1649, 303–6Google Scholar ; LP, iv (iii), 6638.

45 Hughes, P. L. and Larkin, J. F., Tudor Royal Proclamations, 3 vols., London 1964-1969, i. 197.Google Scholar

46 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 433 (p. 726) (20 Sept. 1530).

47 Ibid, iv (i), 445 (p. 735) (1 Oct. 1530).

48 Hinds, A. B. (ed.), Calendar of State Papers, Milan (hereafter cited as Cal. SP, Milan), London 1912, 831 (pp. 526–7)Google Scholar (20 Oct. 1530); Cal. SP, Venetian iv, 629 (p. 259) (20 Sept. 1530); 629 (p. 262) (29 Oct. 1530); 634 (p. 264) (22 Nov. 1530). Cf. Scarisbrick, J. J., ‘The conservative episcopate in England, 1529-1535’, unpublished University of Cambridge Ph.D. diss., 1955, 102–7Google Scholar.

49 LP iv (iii), 6667.

50 LP iv (iii), 6705. Professor J.J. Scarisbrick and Dr G. N. Nicholson have argued that this and related letters mark a turning point in the evolution of royal strategy, but from what has been shown above it appears that these ideas were not new: Scarisbrick, J. J., Henry VIII, London 1968, 260–1Google Scholar ; Nicholson, G. N., ‘The nature and function of historical argument in the Henrician reformation’, unpublished University of Cambridge Ph.D. diss., 1977, 68–9Google Scholar.

51 PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fos. 645-6 (Col. SP, Spanish iv (i), 433 (p. 722) (20 Sept. 1530)); Cal. SP, Venetian iv, 621 (p. 259).

52 PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fos. 651r-v (Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 445 (p. 734) (1 Oct. 3) )

53 PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fo. 661v (Cal. SP, Spanishiv (i), 481 (p. 790) (31 Oct. 1530)).

54 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 460 (p. 759) (15 Oct. 1530).

55 Hall, Chronicle, 773; PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fos. 6631-v (Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 492 (P- 797)).

56 LP iv (iii), 6759 (6 Dec. 1530). He told Benet and Carne that he would not use a plan that acknowledged the pope's jurisdiction: he doubted not that they would rather be taken for good Englishmen than Englishmen papisticate, LP iv (iii), 6760 (6 Dec. 1530)).

57 PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fo. 680v (Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 54 7 (p. 853) (21 Dec. 1530)).

58 Ibid.; Cal SP, Spanish iv (i), 555 (p. 863) (29 Dec. 1530).

59 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 598 (pp. 22-7) (LP v, 45) (13 Jan. 1531).

60 Dr Guy notes this in a footnote but does not grasp its significance: ‘Praemunire manoeuvres’, 498 n. 2.

61 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 635 (pp. 62-3) (LP v, 105) (14 Feb. 1531).

62 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 641 (pp. 70-1, 75) (LP v, 112) (21 Feb. 1531). Cf. other examples of Henry's anti-papalism: Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 664 (p. 96) (LP v, 148) (22 Mar. 1531); Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 739 (p. 170) (LP v, 287) (6 June 1531); Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 775 (p. 225) (LP v, 361) (31 July 1531); LP v, 978 (6); State Papers of Henry VIII, 11 vols., London 1830-52, vii. 349-50 (LP v, 831): cf. J. P. Cooper, ‘The supplication against the ordinaries reconsidered’, EHR Ixxii (1957), 618 n. 7, 619 n. 5, for dating to 1531.

63 A document oftheyear 1531 on the subject of the pope's authority, in Pocock, N. (ed.), Records of the Reformation, 2 vols., Oxford 1870, ii. 100–3.Google Scholar

64 Ibid.ii. 410–11. For discussion see Haas, S. W., ‘Henry van's Glasse of Truthe’, History lxiv (1979), 353–62Google Scholar . The statement in the text that the king was in the twenty-third year of his reign proves that the tract was published between April 1531 and April 1532, but it may have been prepared and written earlier and possibly can be linked to Chapuys' report of talk of having some book in favour of the king written and printed, Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 509 (p. 818) (27 Nov. 1530) and mention of tracts written in favour of the king, ibid, iv (i), 539 (p. 847) (17 Dec. 1530).

65 LP iv (iii), 5862.

66 PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fos. 411, 420V, 424 (Col. SP, Spanish iv (i), 160, 168, 182 (pp. 235, 257, 274) (21 Sept. 1529, 27 Sept. 1529, 8 Oct. 1529)).

67 PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fo. 483. the translation in the calenda r reads: ‘it was much to be feared that one of these days the king will take steps that will perhaps induce his people and Commons (on plea of various contradictory opinions) to consent to the divorce’ (Col. SP, Spanish iv (i), 224 (pp. 352-3) (6 Dec. 1529)); PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fo. 493V (Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 228 (p. 361) (9 Dec. 1529)); Cat. SP, Spanish iv (i), 232 (pp. 370-1) (13 Dec. 1529).

68 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 241 (p. 387) (31 Dec. 1529); PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fo. 542V (Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 252 (p. 433) (20 Jan. 1530)).

69 LP iv (iii), 6307; Cal. SP, Venetian iv, 576-7 (pp. 241-2).

70 LP iv (iii), 6356; Cal. SP, Venetian iv, 57 6 (p. 241); Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 290 (P. 512)

71 LP iv (iii), 6469, 6687; Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 425 (pp. 711-13), 429 (p. 719).

72 LP iv (iii), 6699, 6738; Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 460 (pp. 758-9). 509 (p. 817); Cal. SP, Milan 831 (p. 527), 843 (p. 534).

73 PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fo. 620 (Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 396 (p. 671) (2 Aug. 1530)).

74 PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fo. 646 (Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 433 (pp. 722-3) (20 Sept. 1530)).

75 PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fo. 655V (Col. SP, Spanish iv (i), 460 (pp. 758-9) (15 Oct. 1530)).

76 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 509 (p. 818) (27 Nov. 1530).

77 Cal. SP, Venetian iv, 642 (16 Dec. 1530).

78 PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fos. 679r (Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 547 (p. 853) (21 Dec. 1530)).

79 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 555 (p. 863) (29 Dec. 1530).

80 Ibid, iv (ii), 584 (p. 3) (LP v, 24) (1 Jan. 1531).

81 LP v, 27 (5 Jan. 1531).

82 Cal. SP, Milan 843 (p. 534).

83 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 590 (p. 16) (LP v, 40) (10 Jan. 1531). Cf. Cal. SP, Spanish, 598 (p. 28) (LPv, 45) (13 Jan. 1531).

84 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 615 (p. 40) (LP v, 62) (23 Jan. 1531).

85 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 619, 635 (pp. 44, 62-3) (LP v, 70, 105) (31 Jan. 1531, 14 Feb. 1531). Cf. Cal. SP, Venetian iv, 656 (p. 276) (19 Feb. 1531).

86 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 646 (p. 78) (LP v, 120) (1 Mar. 1531).

87 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 681, 765 (pp. 112-13, 212 ) (LP v, 176, 340) (5 Apr. 1531, 7 July 1531).

88 Haigh, C., ‘Anticlericalism and the English Reformation’, History lxviii (1983), 394.Google Scholar

89 , Pocock, Records of the Reformation ii. 418–19Google Scholar ; microfilm of the copy in the British Library, sig. F2r-v; microfilm of the copy in the Bodleian Library Oxford, sig. F1V-F2; cf. n. 64 above for comment on dating.

90 PRO, SP2/N, fos. 155-60V (bald summary in LP vi, 311 (4)).

91 Mitchell, W. T. (ed.), Epistolae Academical 1508-1596 (Oxford Historical Society, NS xxvi (1980 for 1977-8), nos. 197a, 197b (pp. 274–8)Google Scholar (LP iv (iii), appendix 254). (I owe this reference to Dr J. R. L. Highfield.)

92 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 411 (p. 690) (20 Aug. 1530).

93 PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fo. 679V (Cat. SP, Spanish iv (i), 547 (pp. 852-3) (21 Dec. 1530)).

94 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 598 (p. 27) (LP v, 45) (13 Jan. 1531).

95 LPv, 287 (p. 137) (6 June 1531).

96 Cooper, ‘The supplication against the ordinaries’, 635 n. 5.

97 Cf. the discussion of the reluctance of Queen Mary to introduce a bill for the coronation of Philip into parliament, in Loach, J., ‘Opposition to the crown in parliament 1553-1558’, unpublished University of Oxford D.Phil, diss., 1974, 186–90Google Scholar , 204, 241, 319-20.

98 Chapuys noted that whoever treated or negotiated with Wolsey as papal legate would be subjected to the same penalty as , Wolsey, Cat. SP, Spanish iv (i), 211 (pp. 325–6)Google Scholar (8 Nov. 1529). Some individuals sought pardons or advice on the matter (Scarisbrick, ‘The conservative episcopate’, 111-13; LP iv (ii), 6058, 6418 (21), 6600 (17)). Cf. comment: ‘The praemunire which brought about Wolsey's effective demise was a dangerous and discomforting precedent to the clerical order. the universally acknowledged legatine suzerainty had suddenly, and arbitrarily, become an offence against the royal prerogative. Henceforth, to incur the king's displeasure was, for the clergy, to risk the penalties of praemunire’: Kelly, ‘Episcopate of W. Warham’, 210.

99 For details of those prosecuted, see Guy, ‘Praemunire manoeuvres’, 482-7.

100 Ibid. 482-3.

101 Col. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 615 (p. 38) (LP v, 62) (23 Jan. 1531).

102 , Hall, Chronicle, 775, 783–4.Google Scholar

103 , Guy, ‘Praemunire manoeuvres’, 492–4Google Scholar , from , Hall, Chronicle, 774–5Google Scholar.

104 PRO, SP 1/56, fos. 86r-v (LP iv, 6047 (3) is a very brief listing).

105 Scarisbrick, J. J., ‘the pardon of the clergy, 1531’, Cambridge Historical Journal xii (1956), 32Google Scholar , transcribing British Library, Cotton MS Cleopatra F ii, fo. 240, summarised by , Guy, ‘Praemunire manoeuvres’, 494Google Scholar ; cf. Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 636 (LP v, 105) (14 Feb. 1531).

106 Statutes of the Realm iii, 334-8 (22 Henry viii c. 15).

107 , Guy, ‘Praemunire manoeuvres’, 486.Google Scholar

108 Ibid. 500; , Hall, Chronicle, 774–5.Google Scholar

109 Dr Guy sees Henry's policy as ‘remarkably consistent’ (art. cit. 502), but also states that ‘Henry VIII's policy on praemunire as worked out in 1531 was far from being as unequivocal as has previously been claimed’ (Ibid. 488), and sees a volte-face, a break with tradition, ‘a dramatic diversion from the former objectives of the praemunire manoeuvres’ in February 1531 (Ibid. 495). It is the first of these comments that seems correct. Dr Guy makes too much of the fact that Henry did not threaten the entire Canterbury province with collective prosecution for praemunire, ‘a technical impossibility’ for which ‘there is not a shred of evidence’. The attorney-general did not give a moment's thought, Dr Guy assures us, to the mechanics of such an action. Yet Dr Guy goes on to say that pressure by the Crown was ‘liberally applied’, that the clergy perhaps expected a wider threat of praemunire; and that ‘a sufficient threat of praemunire’ already existed because any Canterbury cleric was vulnerable to similar charges unless the Church secured a pardon. In effect the whole Church was at bay (Ibid. 489).

110 Ibid. 491.

111 Ibid.

112 PRO, SP 1/56, fos. 84-87V (LP iv (iii), 6047 (3), a brief listing). Cf. Lehmberg, S. E., The Reformation Parliament 1529-1536, Cambridge 1970, 112–13Google Scholar n. 3. Dr Kelly thought this document corresponded to the requirements of the government, but gave no reason (Kelly, ‘Episcopate of W. Warham’, 217 n. 3). It is mischievous of Dr Guy to use this MS so boldly as a statement of royal policy. ‘In return for this repeat of Wolsey's. taxation,’ writes Dr Guy, ‘Henry offered to “graunte to all and singuler the prelates…his generall and gracious pardon”’; but what precedes the quotation in the document is that it was the clergy's best trust and hope that Henry would grant…(, Guy, ‘Praemunire manoeuvres’, 488)Google Scholar . He is wrong to say that this draft petition mentions equal instalments of £20,000: it refers only to unspecified payments ‘at certen termes’ (Ibid. 457; PRO, SP 1/56, fo. 87).

113 Guy, art. cit. 491.

114 Ibid. 491-2, based on Cat. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 619 (p. 44) (31 Jan. 1531), 635 (pp. 61–3) (14 Feb. 1531); Cal. SP, Milan 850; and art. cit. 494-5, citing BL, Cotton MS Cleopatra F ii, fo. 240.

115 As noted by , Scarisbrick, ‘The conservative episcopate’, 150 n. 1.Google Scholar

116 PRO, PRO 31/18/2/1, fo. 627V (Cal. SP, Spanish iv (i), 396 (p. 673) (2 Aug. 1530).

117 Cal. SP, Venetian iv, 656 (p. 276) (19 Feb. 1531). In October Scarpinello reported that they would not neglect their steps to diminish the power of the clergy here (Cal. SP, Milan 831 (p. 527) (20 Oct. 1530)). Should some significance be attached, in dating the argument over the supremacy to before the assembly of Convocation, to Scarpinello's report in December that one of the reasons for Wolsey's downfall was that he had allegedly demonstrated to the pope how he ought to and might retain summum ius in ecclesiastical matters in England? It does at least suggest that matters concerning the supremacy were being discussed in December 1530, Cal. SP, Venetian iv, 642 (p. 270) (16 Dec. 1530).

118 , Guy, ‘Praemunire manoeuvres’, 496Google Scholar . This collection has been dated to the autumn of 1530 by Nicholson, ‘The Henrician reformation’, 76, 92.

119 Guy, art. cit. 495. My italics.

120 PRO, SP 6/2, fos. 94-6 (LP v, 1022); Haas, S. W., ‘Martin Luther’s “Divine Right” kingship and the royal supremacy: two tracts from the 1531 parliament and convocation of the clergy’, this Journal xxxi (1980), 318.Google Scholar

121 PRO, SP 6/2, fos. 95, 96.

122 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 598 (pp. 22-8) (LP v, 45) (13 Jan. 1531).

123 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 598 (p. 27) (LP v, 45) (13 Jan. 1531).

124 Cal. SP, Spanish iv (ii), 615 (p. 39) (LP v, 62) (23 Jan. 1531).

125 Dr Guy makes no use of records of Convocation. There is no mention of the royal supremacy before the introduction of the king's clauses into Convocation on 7 February: but as these records are summarised notes, this is not conclusive. There is a tantalising account of the first day of Convocation, 12 January, when Warham had ‘longam et secretam communicationem de causis que hinc erant agendae’ with bishops and abbots. Between 28 and 31 January he had ‘communicacionem’ with bishops and proctors: Christ Church Oxford, Wake MS 306, pp. 31-2; Lambeth Palace, MS 751, pp. 55-6. I owe the latter reference to Mr G. Redworth.

126 LP v, 287.