unnecessary to take into account the nine days' usurpa- the powers of a Queen regnant. tion of the unfortunate Lady Jane Grey);1 and some doubts were at one time started as to her constitutional powers. Some of the reformed preachers even went so far as to contend that the government of a woman was both prohibited by the word of God, and unrecognised by the laws of the land, which conferred no authority upon queens. On the other hand a silly book was written to exalt Mary's prerogative, on the pretence that as queen, she was not bound by the laws of former kings. Mary showed her contempt for this sophism by herself throwing the book into the fire. But to set all Settled by Act questions at rest an Act was passed to declare that 'the of Parliament. royal power and dignities vested in a queen the same as

in a king,' and that all statutes in which a king was named applied equally to a queen.2

pendence of the Commons.

Under Henry VIII. there is only one instance, in Reviving inde1532, when the Commons refused to pass a bill recommended by the crown. But under Edward VI. and Mary, they on several occasions rejected bills sent down from the Upper House, and we have seen how they insisted upon the insertion in the Act of Edward VI. creating new treasons, of the provision requiring proof of the offence by the testimony of two witnesses in open court.

These indications of reviving independence on the part of some of the Commons were met by the creation of rotten boroughs and by the direct interference of the crown in elections. Edward VI. created or restored twenty-two boroughs, of which at least half, including seven in Cornwall, were places of no kind of importance. Mary added fourteen to the number, and Elizabeth, in a similar manner, increased the representation in Parlia

1 After the capture of King Stephen at the battle of Lincoln, in February, 1141, the Empress Matilda was elected Domina Angliae' on the 8th of April following; but although she held courts and issued charters in royal form, she never succeeded in making good her claim to the crown

21 Mary, sess. 3, c. 1.

Met by the creation of

rotten boroughs and by influencing the elections.

ment by no less than sixty-two members. The interference of the crown in elections was exerted in the most open manner. In 1553, Edward VI. directed a circular letter to all the sheriffs, commanding them to apprize the freeholders, citizens and burgesses of their respective counties 'that our pleasure and commandment is, that they shall choose and appoint, as nigh as they possibly may, men of knowledge and experience within their counties, cities or boroughs;' and especially that whenever the Privy Council, or any of them, having instructions in the king's behalf, should recommend men of learning and wisdom, in such case their directions be regarded and followed.' Accordingly several persons-all of them belonging to the court, or in places of trust about the king—were recommended by letters to the sheriffs, and elected as knights for different shires.1 The writs for the Parliament summoned by Mary in 1554, to sanction the return of the country to obedience to the Apostolic See, were accompanied in like manner by royal circulars requiring the mayors, sheriffs, and other influential persons to admonish the electors to choose as their representatives such as, being eligible by order of the laws, were of a wise, grave, and Catholic sort;' and the earl of Sussex, one of the queen's councillors, wrote to the electors of Norfolk and to the burgesses of Yarmouth requesting them to reserve their votes for the persons whom he should name.3

1 Hallam, Const. Hist., i. 46, citing Strype, ii. 394. The drafts of the circular letters are preserved in Lansdowne MSS. 3, cited in Froade, v 464, n. In some instances the orders of the crown were sent direct to the candidate himself. The Council, in a letter to Sir P. Hoby, iaform him that his Majesty hath willed us to signify unto you this his pleasure to have you one of the Commons House, which thing we also require you to foresee, that either for the county where ye abide ye be chosen knight, or else other. wise to have some place in the house, like as all others of your degree be appointed. And herein, if either his Majesty or we knew where to recommend you, according to your own desires, we would not fail but provide the same.' Harl. MSS., 523, in Froude, v. 465.

2 Froude, vi. 260. These general directions were copied from a form which had been in use under Henry VII.

3 Burnet, ii. 228.

CHAPTER XI.

THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND.

THE separation of the Church of England from that of Rome, formally accomplished under Henry VIII., was a political and legal rather than a religious reformation. The doctrinal changes which followed under Edward VI. and Elizabeth, were an unintentional consequence, to which Henry and his Parliament more than once declared themselves utterly repugnant. But in reality the Reformation, in both its political and religious aspects, was the effect of causes which had been in operation for centuries, not only in England, but throughout Europe. 'No revolution,' says Hallam, 'has ever been more gradually prepared than that which separated almost one half of Europe from the communion of the Roman see; nor were Luther and Zwingle any more than occasional instruments of that change, which, had they never existed, would at no great distance of time have been effected under the names of some other reformers. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the learned doubtfully and with caution, the ignorant with zeal and eagerness, were tending to depart from the faith and rites which authority prescribed.'1

The Reformation under Henry VIII. political and legal rather than religious. Doctrinal changes under

Edward VI. and Elizabeth, an unintentional

consequence.

Both were the effect of causes long in operation.

Early and con

tinuous national character of the

In England, the Church, from its first institution, had always possessed a marked national character. The spiritual primacy of the Pope and his authority in mat- English Church.

1 Const. Hist. i. 57.

BB

Growth of Papal power from the Conquest till the reign of Henry III.

ters of faith were fully and reverentially admitted: but the exorbitant claims of jurisdiction and territorial power asserted by Hildebrand and his successors, together with the pecuniary exactions founded on those claims, were persistently, though with varying degrees of firmness, resisted by the English kings and people.

Prior to the Norman Conquest, Church and State in England were so intimately united that they were practically identical. William of Normandy, to further his designs on England, entered into an alliance with the Papacy, and when the Conquest—which it had been his object to present to the eyes of Europe somewhat in the light of a crusade-had been effected, the ecclesiastical power was to a great extent separated from the civil power and placed in much closer communion with and subordination to the Papal See. But anxious as he was to propitiate the See of Rome, William was careful not to surrender the ancient supremacy of the state over the national church. Still, the impetus given by the Conquest to the Papal power in England caused it to go on rising, until — notwithstanding the partial checks which it received under Henry I. and Henry II., on the questions of investitures and clerical immunity from civil jurisdiction-it reached its acme under John and Henry III. For one hundred and fifty years succeeding the Conquest the right of nominating the archbishops, bishops, and mitred abbots had been claimed and exercised by the king. This right had been specially confirmed by the Constitutions of Clarendon, which also provided that the revenues of vacant sees should belong to the crown. But John admitted all the Papal claims, surrendering even his kingdom to the Pope, and receiving it back as a fief of the Holy See. By the Great Charter the church recovered its liberties; the right of free election being specially conceded to the cathedral chapters and the

1 Supra, p. 69.

religious houses. Every election was, however, subject to the approval of the Pope, who also claimed a right of veto on institutions to the smaller church benefices,the small monasteries and parish churches which were in the hands of private patrons, lay or ecclesiastical. 'There was thus,' observes Mr. Froude, 'in the Pope's hands an authority of an indefinite kind, which it was presumed that his sacred office would forbid him to abuse; but which, however, if he so unfortunately pleased, he might abuse at his discretion. He had absolute power over every nomination to an English benefice; he might refuse his consent till such adequate reasons, material or spiritual, as he considered sufficient to induce him to acquiesce, had been submitted to his consideration. In the case of nominations to the religious houses the superiors of the various orders residing abroad had equal facilities for obstructiveness.'1 Under Henry III. the power thus vested in the Pope and foreign superiors of the monastic orders was greatly abused, and soon degenerated into a mere channel for draining money into the Roman exchequer.

crown.

Edward I. firmly withstood the exactions of the Pope, and re-asserted the independence of both church and To the letter of Boniface VIII. claiming to be feudal lord of Scotland and commanding Edward I. to withdraw his troops from that kingdom and submit his pretensions to the decision of the Papal See, the Parliament of England returned à very emphatic repudiation of the Pope's temporal jurisdiction. The kings of England,' they said, 'have never pleaded, or been bound to plead, respecting their rights in the kingdom of Scotland, or any other their temporal rights, before any judge, ecclesiastical or secular. It is, therefore, and by the grace of God shall always be, our common and unanimous resolve that with respect to the rights of his kingdom of Scot

1 Froude, Hist. Eng., ii. 3.