enjoined bishops to be present at their cathedrals on every great festival. He maintained also that no Decretals had power in England unless legally accepted and ratified. This bold and constitutional argument produced a great effect. Those who were appointed to try the cause were of opinion that the bishops should censure the abbot for his sermon. The bishops, however, refused to do this, and so the matter remained until the re-assembling of the Parliament 1 (1515).

§ 13. At that time the ill feeling between laity and clergy received a further development. Hunne's case was taken up by the Parliament, and on the other hand the Convocation of the clergy, sitting concurrently with the Parliament, summoned Dr. Standish before it, to give account of the opinions he had broached in arguing against the Abbot of Winchcomb. Standish pleaded privilege as an advocate employed by the king, and appealed to him. Henry, having taken advice with lay and spiritual authorities, appointed another meeting at Blackfriars to try the matter. He called to his assistance certain judges and members of Parliament. Standish defended himself with spirit, and Dr. Vesey, Dean of the Chapel Royal, supported him. They contended that no canons of the Church were binding in any country where they had not been formally received. Thus the canons enforcing clerical celibacy were not binding on the Eastern Churches which had never received them. The judges were of opinion that the Convocation in trying Dr. Standish had fallen under the penalties of the statute of Præmunire. In consequence of this decision, the members of Convocation appeared before the king at Baynard's Castle, to sue for pardon. They declared that they had not intended to do anything in derogation of the king's prerogative, but that the matter of the convention of clerks before the temporal judge was of such importance that they desired it might be determined by the pope. The king said, "We think Dr. Standish has sufficiently answered you on all points." Bishop Fox said, "Sir, I warrant you, Dr. Standish will not abide by his opinion at his peril." Standish replied, "What should one poor friar do against all the bishops and clergy of England?" Archbishop Warham said "that many holy clerks had suffered martyrdom for this cause. The chief justice (Fineux) said that many holy kings had upheld the temporal power over clerks, and added that the ecclesiastical courts had no power by their own laws to try a clerk for murder or felony." The archbishop replied "they had sufficient power." The chief justice rejoined that they could not try the fact, to which no answer was given. At the end of the discussion the king is reported to have 1 Collier's Ch. Hist., iv. 8. 9. From Keilway's Reports.

said, "We are by the sufferance of God King of England, and the kings of England in times past never had any superior but God ; know then that we will maintain the rights of the crown in this matter like our progenitors; and as to your decrees, we are satisfied that even you of the spiritualty act expressly against the words of several of them, as has been well shown you by some of our spiritual council. You interpret your decrees at your pleasure; but as for me, I will never consent to your desire, any more than my progenitors have done." The clergy in their Convocation afterwards published a reply to the severe strictures of the judges, and to the remarks of the king. Standish, they declare, had been censured by them, not for what he had said as counsel for the king, but for what he had said at other times. It was farthest from their thoughts to intend any prejudice to the royal prerogative. They had never actually asked Standish for his opinion whether clerks might be brought before lay tribunals, for he had no power to determine the matter.2 As to its being said by some in the Convocation house that this was wrong, this was no more than for Parliament men to speak against the Church and its laws, as well as against the king's laws, which they often do without punishment. They were bound to take cognisance of heresy, and Standish was summoned for heresy. He certainly was asked the question, " An exemptio clericorum sit de jure divino, an non?" But this was no determining of the matter, but merely speculative. They profess themselves loyal subjects to the king, and desire to be allowed to live in peace.3

§14. It can hardly be doubted that this controversy had a very important influence on the after history of the Church. The king now obtained a definite and distinct idea of his supremacy "in all causes, and over all persons ecclesiastical as well as civil in his dominions," and thus he was furnished with a ready weapon to use against the pope when afterwards they became embroiled. That ancient right of the crown of England to be imperial within its realms, which William I. asserted and used; which Henry II. had never relinquished in all his great struggle with the Church; which the first and third Edwards had claimed and caused to be respected

1 Calendar of State Papers, Henry VIII., ii. 1313. Collier's Ch. Hist., iv. 12-18. The substance of this important discussion is taken from the reports of Mr. Keilway, a lawyer of the days of Elizabeth, and consequently has not the stamp of contemporary history. But that it is in the main accurate is proved by the reply of Convocation, which Mr. Brewer considers unquestionably authentic.

2 Yet they acknowledge immediately after that they had asked him substantially the same question in somewhat a different form.

3 Calendar of State Papers, Henry VIII., ii. 1314.

-the right which so many Parliaments had enunciated and confirmed, which lies at the root of the statutes of Provisors, Præmunire, and many more,1 -was not a sudden discovery made by Henry when the pope would not grant him his divorce, but a principle which he had long before deliberately adopted. The Convocation reply, with its severe words as to the conduct of Parliament-men, illustrates the bitter feeling now prevalent between clergy and laity.

§ 15. It was this feeling which gave his great popularity to Dr. Standish. For the moment he was the hero of the day. The citizens of London endeavoured to enlist him to be their spokesman against the foreign artisans and tradesmen, the employment and encouragement of whom by the court was one of the great grievances of the day. Standish, however, was too wary to take up a position of antagonism to the king and cardinal. Dr. Beale, another observant friar, was not so prudent. He preached violently against the foreigners, and a riot ensued, which was quelled with much difficulty.2 The trial and condemnation of a great number of the rioters gave Cardinal Wolsey an opportunity of exercising that lenity to which he was naturally disposed. He informed the rioters of their pardon, and for the moment was a popular man.

§ 16. Among the causes which tended to exasperate the laity against the clergy, one of the chief was the action of the Church courts. These had been inordinately multiplied, and were in constant session, taking cognisance not only of matrimonial causes, probate of wills, etc., but of every moral offence, real or pretended, as to which information was made to them. A band of informers and spies gained their living by making these informations; and as the fees of the courts were very heavy, and their processes often anything but equitable, the grievance was very pressing.3 Archbishop Warham, anxious to reform these abuses, but lacking in the energy and resolution needed for the purpose, made an effort at the beginning of the reign with this object. He drew up certain rules for the amendment of the courts, and then referred the

1 "Sir Edward Coke's speech tended wholly to show, out of the history of England and the old state, how the kings of England, ever since Henry the Third's time, have maintained themselves to be supreme over all causes within their own dominions. And then reciting the laws that every one made in his time for maintaining their own supremacy and excluding the pope, he drew down this by a statute of every king from Henry III. to Edward VI."-D'Ewes' Journals of Parliament, p. 459. See Notes and Illustrations for History of the Royal Supremacy.

This was known afterwards as "Evil May-day," the riot having taken place on May 1, 1516. A full account is given in Hall's Chronicle, pp. 586-591.

3 See Dr. Hook, Lives of the Archbishops. New Series, î. 236.

matter to the Convocation. The ordinaries, however, who were to be found in both Houses,1 showed no disposition to take up the matter. In the Convocation that met June 22, 1515, the attendance was so small that the archbishop prorogued it at once till the following November, "lest matters so arduous and of so grave a nature should be passed by, to the great hurt and prejudice of the Church." It was not till 1518 that Warham was able to make any serious attempt at reform. He then summoned his suffragans to meet him at Lambeth, not, as it appears, as the ordinary meeting of Convocation, but as a special synod, to treat of divers abuses in the Church, and how they might be abated.

§ 17. Cardinal Wolsey, who had at this time received the authority of legate from the pope, was offended at this, and wrote an intemperate and overbearing letter to the archbishop, not only forbidding him to proceed, but also bidding him to "repair to him, as well to be learned of the considerations which moved you thus to do besides my knowledge, as also to have communication with you for divers things concerning your person, and declaration of the king's pleasure therein.”3 The archbishop, thus called to account by the usurping papal authority, at once yielded. The next Convocation (1519) was summoned in the name of the legate. But nothing was done in it to abate the crying scandals of the ecclesiastical courts. So far from this, Wolsey established, as legate, a new court, which was the cause of great confusion and abuse, and against which the archbishop was constrained to remonstrate in the strongest terms. The jealousy existing between the two authorities did in fact effectually bar any practical reforming measures. Warham, as Archbishop of Canterbury, summoned his synod to meet at St. Paul's (April 1523). Wolsey, as Archbishop of York, summoned the northern synod to meet at Westminster. Then, by virtue of his legatine authority, he called the Convocation assembled at St. Paul's to him at Westminster. They came, but in a very ill temper, which was further increased when they found that they were wanted not to treat of reform, but to agree to a very large subsidy. No less than one-half of the revenues of the spirituality, payable in five years, was demanded, and after much skilful practising on the part of the cardinal, pro

4

1 An ordinary is any one who exercises independent spiritual jurisdiction. He is not of necessity a bishop. There were numerous ordinaries not in episcopal orders who exercised jurisdiction in what were called Peculiars; that is, churches or places exempted from episcopal control. 3 Tb. 660.

2 Wilkins' Concil. iii. 657, 659.

4 Strype, Appendix to Memorials of Reformation, vol. i., Nos. xv. xvi. Polydore Virgil, Ang. Hist., p. 656 (ed. 1570).

Herbert's Henry VIII. (up. Kennett), ii. 55.

mised. But now a difficulty arose as to the legal power of this assembly to tax their brethren. The Canterbury Convocation had been called by the writ of Archbishop Warham. How could they legally sit and act as the Synod of the Legate at Westminster ? This difficulty was held to be fatal, and the synod was dissolved, but summoned again by the legatine authority to meet on June 8 (1523), "to take into consideration the question of the reformation, both of the laity and the churchmen." By this time there were other matters of pressing importance for the clergy to consider, besides the general bitter feeling which had been excited against them among the laity. These will be detailed in the following chapter.

1 Strype, Memorials of Reformation, i. 46 (fol. ed.)

NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.

and well, that the king, as a reward, gave him the deanery of Lincoln, "which was at that time one of the worthiest promotions that he gave under the degree of a bishopric (Cavendish). After the death of Henry VII., Wolsey obtained a seat in the council, and so recommended himself to the young king, that "the estimation and favour of him put all other ancient counsellors out of high favour

(A) THE EARLY LIFE OF WOLSEY. Lord Treasurer, thus made his acquaintance, and being much pleased with his THOMAS WOLSEY was born in 1471, at wit and readiness, recommended him to Ipswich. According to Cavendish he the king for employment in a foreign was an honest poor man's son." Poly-mission. He executed this so speedily dore Virgil, a contemporary, says that his father was a butcher. Sanders says of him "non humili tantum loco sed etiam vili natus." The lowness of his origin, whatever it was, was nothing but a credit to him. To follow Cavendish's account of him, "Being but a child, he was very apt to be learned; wherefore, by the means of his parents, or of his good friends and masters, he was conveyed to the University of Oxford, where he shortly prospered so in learning, as he told me by his own mouth, he was made Bachelor of Arts when he past not fifteen years of age, insomuch that for the rareness of his age he was called most com

monly through the university, the Boy Bachelor." He became fellow of Magdalen, and had under his care three sons of the Marquis Dorset. The Marquis having become acquainted with his son's tutor, presented him to the living of Lymington (1500). At the Marquis's

death he became known to Sir John Nauphant, the Treasurer of Calais, who made him his chaplain, and was also instrumental in procuring him the appointment of chaplain to King Henry VII. Fox, Bishop of Winchester and

His

that they were before in" (Cavendish). Presents and bribes flowed in fast. influence became paramount with the king.

Even the queen addressed herself to him to manage matters with the king for her. His further promotions have been described in the text.

(B) HISTORY OF THE PRIVILEGE CALLED "BENEFIT OF CLERGY."

(GIBSON'S Coder, Tit. xlix. p. 1164.)

In the Anglo-Saxon times there was no distinction between the ecclesiastical and civil laws. Both clerks and laymen were tried by the same courts, the secular judge and the bishop sitting together William the Conqueror separated the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The