^{page 127 note 1} See p. 156.

^{page 127 note 2} See p. 137. It is impossible to say whether this MS is earlier or later than MS 18, but the probability is that it is earlier, and influenced George's decision to expand his original ‘defence’ into a full-scale history.

^{page 128 note 1} Foxe, J., (ed. 1853), IV, ii, 599Google Scholar. Holinshed, Raphael, Chronicles (London, 1589) II, 871Google Scholar. For a more recent assessment of Wolsey's ambitions in this direction see Pollard, A. F., Wolsey, 174–76Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 2} Anglia Historia, Book xxvii; ed. Hay, Denys, Camden Society, 3rd series lxxiv, 1950, 324–7Google Scholar. An edition of 1555, published at Basle, carried the story down to 1537.

^{page 128 note 3} See p. 159.

^{page 128 note 4} See p. 141 and note.

^{page 129 note 1} These almost illegible marks do not seem to have any ascertainable meaning.

^{page 129 note 2} Word rubbed and illegible, or otherwise obliterated, but not actually missing.

^{page 129 note 3} St Simon Zelotes.

^{page 129 note 4} As n. 2 above.

^{page 129 note 5} Idem.

^{page 129 note 6} Idem.

^{page 129 note 7} Cf. Holinshed, , Chronicles (ed. 1586), 51Google Scholar; ‘Lucius, perceiving not onelie some of the Romane lieutenants as Trebellius and Pertinax, with others to have submitted themselves to that profession (Christianity).…’

^{page 129 note 8} These names are variously spelt. Holinshed has Eluane and Redwin; Parker, , De Antiquitate (ed. 1605), 5Google Scholar, has Eluanus et Meduinus.

^{page 129 note 9} Pope, , c. 175–89.Google Scholar

^{page 130 note 1} Fugatus and Damianus. Holinshed, 52.

^{page 130 note 2} See Lambard, William Αχαιονομί (London, 1568)Google Scholar, f. 131; Leges Edwardi Confessons, 17; ‘De regis officio, & de iure appendiciis coronae regni Erytanniae.’ The letter is dated ‘Anno 169 a passione Christi’, and continues:

‘Petistis a nobis leges Romanas & Caesaris vobis transmitti, quibus in regno Brytanniae uti voluistis. Leges Romanas & Caesaris semper reprobare possumus, legem dei nequaquam. Suscepistis enim nuper miseratione divina in Regno Brytanniae legem & fidem Christi, habetis penes vos in regno utramque paginam, ex illis die gratia per consilium regni vestri sume legem, & per illam dei patientia vestrum reges Brytanniae regnum. Vicarius vero dei estis in regno iuxta prophetam regem. Domini est terra & plenitudo eius orbis terrarum, & universi qui inhabitant in eo, & rursum iuxta prophetam regem, dilexisti iustitiam, et odisti iniquitatem propterea unxit te deus tuus oleo letitiae, prae consortibus tuis, et rursum iuxta prophetam regem, Deus iudicium tuum etc. Non enim iuditium neque iustitiam Caesaris. Filii enim regis gentes christianae et populi regni sunt, qui sunt sub vestra protectione, et pace, et regno degant, et consistant iuxta evangelium, quemadmodum gallina congregat pullos sub alis etc. Gentes vero regni Brytanniae et populi vestri sunt, et quos divisos debetis in unum adconcordiam, et pacem, et ad sidem, et ad legem Christi, et ad sanctam ecclesiam congregare, revocare, fovere, manutenere, protegere, regere, et ab iniuriosis, et malitiosis, et ab inimicis sempere defendere. Vae regno cuius rex puer est, et cuius principes mane comedunt. Non voco regem propter parvam, et nimiam aetatem, sed propter stultitiam et iniquitatem, et insanitatem iuxta prophetam regem. Viri sanguinum et dolosi non dimidicabunt dies suos etc. per comestione intelligimus guiam, per gulam luxuriam, per luxuriam omnia turpia, et male iuxta Salamonem regem. In malevolam animam non introibit sapientia, nec habitabit in corpore subdito peccatis. Rex dicitur a regendo, non a regno: Rex eris dum bene regis, quod nisi feceris, nomen regis non in te constabit, et nomen regis perdes, quod absit. Det vobis omnipotens deus regnum Brytanniae sic regere, ut possitis cum eo regnare inb aeternum cuius vicarius estis in regno predicto, qui cum pa tre et filio etc.’

As far as can be seen from its imperfect state, the author's paraphrase here follows the original carefully, and it is reasonable to deduce that the author was familiar with Lambard's work. See also Liebermann, F., Über die Leges Edwardi Confessoris, (Halle, 1896), 63, 132.Google Scholar

^{page 131 note 1} This word, written at the top of the page in a different hand, seems to relate to the numeration of the pages, but no other page is so marked.

^{page 131 note 2} Psalm lv. ‘Bloody men and subtle shall not live out half their days.’

^{page 132 note 1} 593. Blank in MS.

^{page 132 note 2} Matthew, 16, xviii–xix.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 3} John, 21, xv–xvii.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 1} There was, strictly speaking, only one Datary in the curia at Rome, who represented the Pope in matters relating to grants and dispensations; the term is being used loosely here, to mean a subordinate official.

^{page 133 note 2} A pension or allowance of board and lodging in a monastery granted to servants and dependants of the monastery, or to laity, generally in return for a payment of money or grant of land. It was frequently used as a form of superannuation insurance.

^{page 133 note 3} This common suspicion was one of the chief reasons for the outcry over the case of Richard Hun. Foxe, , (ed. 1570) II, 930–7.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 1} Wolsey was first appointed to a chaplaincy by Henry VII in about 1507. He remained a royal chaplain under Henry VIII, and became Almoner on the latter's accession in 1509. Pollard, , Wolsey, 12–14.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 2} In early English law, if a piece of personal property, or other inanimate object were found to have caused the death of a person, it became forfeit to the crown to be applied to pious uses. Purvis, J. S., Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Terms (Edinburgh, 1962), 65.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 3} Consecrated 26 March 1514.

^{page 134 note 4} Archbishop of York, 15 September 1514.

^{page 134 note 5} Cardinal, 10 September 1515; Lord Chancellor, 24 December 1515.

^{page 134 note 6} 17 May 1518.

^{page 135 note 1} He received the temporalities on 30 April 1523.

^{page 135 note 2} 6 April 1529.

^{page 135 note 3} November 1521.

^{page 135 note 4} If Wolsey had held all his major preferments simultaneously, they would have brought him in £10,575 6s 4¾d by the Valor Ecclesiasticus. The average ordinary income of the Crown in the ten years before the establishment of Augmentations was about £100,000. Dietz, F. C., English Government Finance, 1485–1558, 138Google Scholar. The statement is true, however, in so far as the extraordinary expenditure of the Crown persistently exceeded the total of ordinary and extraordinary income. To this extent, any thrifty householder could be described as wealthier than the king.

^{page 135 note 5} ‘Originally known as York House, Whitehall had been for centuries the London seat of the Northern Primate.’ Dunlop, Ian, Palaces and Progresses of Elizabeth 1, 60Google Scholar. York House was taken over by the King, along with the other temporalities of the Archbishopric on Wolsey's fall in 1529, but unlike the rest, it was not returned, being conveyed by Wolsey to the king on 7 February 1530.

^{page 135 note 6} The following description of Wolsey's state is similar to that given by Cavendish (Singer, 42–3) but is fuller, differs in some particulars, and is clearly not derived from it.

^{page 136 note 1} In fact, Wolsey's policy was consistently anti-French down to 1525, and this statement, which seems to be intended generally, is only accurate for the period after the signing of the treaty of ‘The More’ on 30 August 1525.

^{page 136 note 2} He accepted a gift of 100,000 crowns from Louise of Savoy in connection with the treaty of 1525 (Cal Span, III, i, 307Google Scholar) and a pension which was among the assets surrendered to the Crown in 1529 (L and P, IV, iii, 6017Google Scholar).

^{page 137 note 1} For a discussion of previous doubts in this respect, see Mattingley, Garrett, Catherine of Aragon, 48–9, 58Google Scholar. As far as I can discover, the subject had never been broached in the University of Cambridge before Henry's general resort to the Universities in 1530.

^{page 137 note 2} Blank in MS. Both Polydore Vergil and Holinshed ascribe this role to Margaret, Duchess of Alencon; but, as S. R. Gardiner pointed out (English Historical Review, XI, 1896, 681Google Scholar) Margaret was already married to Henry of Navarre. Since this author makes Wolsey's whole approach much more secretive than does Polydore Vergil, it is possible that his account is not derived from that source, and he may be referring to Renée, daughter of Louis XII. Renée, who married Hercule d'Este in 1528, was named by both Guicciardini and du Bellay in this connection.

^{page 137 note 3} John Longland, Bishop from 1521 to 1547. Blank in MS.

^{page 137 note 4} John Stokesley, Bishop of London, 1530–9.

^{page 137 note 5} John Capon, or Salcot, Bishop of Bangor 1534–9 and Salisbury, 1539–57.

^{page 137 note 6} William Knight, Archdeacon of Chester, 1522–41, and of Huntingdon, 1523–41. King's secretary, 1526–9.

^{page 137 note 7} John Bell, Bishop of Worcester, 1539–43.

^{page 137 note 8} Perhaps Thomas Bennett, Ll.D, who was Wolsey's chaplain and auditor.

^{page 137 note 9} Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, 1531–51, 1553–5; King's secretary, 1529–34; Lord Chancellor, 1553–5.

^{page 137 note 10} Edward Foxe, Bishop of Hereford, 1535–8.

^{page 138 note 1} Cf. Polydore Vergil, Book xxvii, 327.

^{page 138 note 2} The following speech is clearly, from the distinctiveness of its style, intended to reproduce the Cardinal's manner.

^{page 139 note 1} Princess Mary, born in 1516.

^{page 139 note 2} Margaret, widow of James IV of Scotland, and mother of James V. She had married as her second husband, Archibald, 6th Earl of Angus.

^{page 139 note 3} This note, which stands fully in the margin in the MS, is in a different, but apparently contemporary hand. The statute referred to is 25 Edward III, St. 2. The statute is accurately quoted, but does not apply to Wolsey's supposed argument, as it refers only to the King's own children. The inheritance of ordinary property by an alien was contrary to the common law, but it was unclear whether or not this applied to the crown. See Levine, M., The Early Elizabethan Succession Question, 1558–1568 (Stanford, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 4} 1 John, 1, viii.

^{page 139 note 5} Adultery.

^{page 140 note 1} Sic, presumably for yt, ‘that’.

^{page 140 note 2} Clement VII remained a virtual prisoner in the Castle of S. Angelo, following the sack of Rome by mutinous Imperial troops in May 1527. He escaped early in December 1527, and wrote to Henry on 14 and 16 of that month, expressing his gratitude in general terms for the King's good offices, and his willingness to oblige him. L and P, IV, ii, 3658, 3666.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 1} Sic, a form of burrow, meaning a dark, secret place.

^{page 141 note 2} It is not clear whether this refers to Knight's mission of 1527, or to that of Gardiner and Foxe in 1528.

^{page 141 note 3} Sir Edward Carne. Carne had proceeded D.C.L. in 1524, but he did not in fact become resident Ambassador at Rome until 1530.

^{page 141 note 4} This seems to be an error, for the Pope was already aware of Anne Boleyn, and her potential role, when the matter was first broached to him. L and P, IV, i, 1872.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 5} At the battle of Pavia; 25 February 1525.

^{page 142 note 1} Decretal Commission, 8 June 1528. Campeggio was also ‘protector’ of England at the Curia. At this moment French arms were prevailing in Italy.

^{page 142 note 2} At the time of the dissolution the combined population of these two houses was a little over 100. Victoria County History, Kent, II, 113, 130.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 3} Sic, it seems that this mark signifies a lacuna.

^{page 142 note 4} This presumably refers to Gardiner's mission of 1529, when he was accompanied, not by Carne but by Peter Vannes and Gregory Casales. The document referred to purported to be a copy of the brief, sent by Pope Julius to Isabella in December 1503, which the English Ambassadors insisted was a forgery.

^{page 142 note 5} As far as I can discover, no letter to this effect has survived. A letter of Sanga to Campeggio on 29 May 1529 mentions the ‘vehemence’ of Gardiner and his colleagues, but not in such specifically critical terms. L and P, IV, iii, 5604.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 1} L and P, IV, iii, 5440Google Scholar; a Spanish relation of the proceedings, April 1529.

^{page 143 note 2} Sanga to Campeggio: L and P, IV, iii, 5447.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 3} Sic, a further apparent lacuna.

^{page 143 note 4} Elizabeth. Blank in MS.

^{page 143 note 5} Thomas Howard (2nd Duke). Blank in MS.

^{page 143 note 6} The author is in confusion here. Viscount Rochford was not a title of the Dukes of Norfolk; it was held by Anne Boleyn's father, Thomas, and by her brother, George.

^{page 143 note 7} Blank in MS. According to P. Friedmann (Anne Boleyn, 41Google Scholar), ‘by the wish of her father she was entrusted to the care of the new Queen, Claude of France.’ By another account she was for a time under the supervision of Margaret, Duchess of Alencon. This reference is probably to the latter.

^{page 144 note 1} Cf. Ehses, Stefan, Römische Dokumente zur Geschichte der Ehescheidung Heinrichs VIII (Paderborn, 1893), 54.Google Scholar

^{page 144 note 2} The case was revoked to Rome at the end of July 1529.

^{page 144 note 3} This policy is reflected in Wolsey's Commissions of May 1517 and 1518, and in the decree for the destruction of enclosures of 12 July 1518. A further proclamation to the same effect was issued on 14 July 1526. For the effectiveness of this policy see Pollard, , Wolsey, 5Google Scholar, et seq.

^{page 145 note 1} Cf. Hall, Edward, The Union of the two noble and illustre famelies.… (edited Whibley, C., London 1904), II, 89Google Scholar ‘… and the marchantes were desired by the Cardinall to kepe ther martes at Calais, to which in nowise thei would assent.’ The only contemporary evidence which seems to support this is a proclamation by the Mayor of Calais on 13 July 1527. L and P, IV, ii, 3262.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 2} Articles against Wolsey, , L and P, IV, iii, 6075Google Scholar, in which most of the following points are included.

^{page 145 note 3} Both these mints had ceased production by the reign of Elizabeth. See Brooke, G. C., English Coins (London, 1950), 174–90.Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 1} This appears to be derived from Mathew Paris (Chronica Major, ed. Luard, , IV, 440–79Google Scholar) via Holinshed (II, 236–7), but is not identical with either.

^{page 146 note 2} Cf. Corpus luris Canonici (ed A. Friedberg, Graz, 1959), II, 373Google Scholar; Decretales Gregorii IX, Titulus XXIV, cap. x Liber II, xxiii.

^{page 146 note 3} Edn 1529, 8. The words given are almost an exact quotation.

^{page 146 note 4} This promise is not kept. The passage concerned is probably missing.

^{page 147 note 1} Statute, 35 Edward I (not 30). Statutes, I, 150.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 2} Sic, presumably a mistake for ‘him’.

^{page 147 note 3} 25 Edward III, st. 4. Statutes, I, 316.Google Scholar

^{page 147 note 4} ‘… our Lord the King and his heirs shall have and enjoy for the same time the collations to the (benefices) which be of his advowry, such as his progenitors had before that free election was granted’.

^{page 148 note 1} Goodwill or favour. OED.

^{page 148 note 2} 25 Edward III, st. 5, cap. xxii. Statutes, I, 323.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 3} 27 Edward III, st. 1, cap. i. Statutes, I, 329.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 4} 38 Edward III, st. 2, caps, i, ii. Statutes, I, 386.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 5} The action of obtaining or procuring by request or entreaty. OED.

^{page 149 note 1} 3 Richard II, cap. iii. Statutes, II, 15.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 2} Sic, for Richard II.

^{page 149 note 3} 12 Richard II, cap. xv. Statutes, H, 60.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 4} Sic, for 13 Richard II.

^{page 149 note 5} 13 Richard II, st. 1, cap. i. Statutes, II, 61.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 6} 13 Richard II, st. 2, cap. ii. Statutes, II, 71.Google Scholar

^{page 149 note 7} 13 Richard II, st. 2, cap. iii. Statutes, II, 71.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} 16 Richard II, cap.v. Statutes, II, 84–5.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 2} 2 Henry IV, cap. iii, Statutes, II, 121.Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 3} 2 Henry IV, cap. iv. Statutes, II, 121Google Scholar; 7 Henry IV, cap. vi. Ibid., 152.

^{page 151 note 1} Apparently 9 Henry IV, cap. viii. Statutes, II, 161.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 2} 22 October, 1529. L and P, IV, iii, 6017.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 1} 12 February 1530. L and P, IV, iii, 6213.Google Scholar

^{page 152 note 2} The temporalities of the Archbishopric were restored on 14 February 1530 (L and P, IV, iii, 6214Google Scholar). On 17 February, Wolsey surrendered the Bishopric of Winchester and the Abbey of St Albans to the King in return for £6374 3s 7½ and a pension of 1000 marks (L and P, IV, iii, 6220Google Scholar). However, L and P, IV, iii, 6748Google Scholar lists several collations made by Wolsey as Bishop of Winchester between 20 January and 26 November 1530, and he was still officially in possession of the see when he died on 29 November. It would appear that, although Wolsey had surrendered the temporalities, he was unable to surrender the spiritualities, and therefore had to confirm all appointments, or grants made by the king out of the revenues of the Bishopric.

^{page 152 note 3} He was at Southwell (technically within the diocese) from Easter to September 1530. In September he went to Scrooby, and after Michaelmas to Cawood, 12 miles from York, where he was arrested on 4th November. Allowing for the author's bias, this account of his behaviour agrees well with Cavendish's.

^{page 153 note 1} See p. 152. Perhaps this refers to his confirmation of grants made by the king.

^{page 153 note 2} The remainder of f.38v and the whole of f.39r are blank.

^{page 153 note 3} Blank in MS.

^{page 153 note 4} 26 Henry VIII, cap. i. Statutes, III, 492.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 5} 26 Henry VIII, cap. iii. Statutes, III, 493.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 6} Ibid., para. 5.

^{page 154 note 1} The text of the 1536 Injunctions is printed by Frere, W. H. and Kennedy, W. M. in Visitation Articles and Injunctions, Aleuta Club, xv, 1910, II, 2–11.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 2} 28 Henry VIII, cap. xiii, paras. 11, 17. Statutes, III, 669.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 1} Leviticus 20, x–xxi.

^{page 155 note 2} 28 Henry VIII, cap. xiii. Statutes, III, 669.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 3} Professors. 28 Henry VIII, cap. xiii. Statutes, III, 669.Google Scholar

^{page 155 note 4} Frere and Kennedy, II, 4, 10. The actual requirement was for beneficed men to preach twice every quarter against the usurped authority of the Bishop of Rome. There is another lacuna at this point, about 9½ lines being blank.

^{page 156 note 1} Sic, presumably for fill.

^{page 156 note 2} Sic, probably a variant form of ‘loon’, meaning a worthless rogue.

^{page 156 note 3} Romans, I, xxvi–xxvii.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 4} 25 Henry VIII, cap. vi. Statutes, III, 480.Google Scholar

^{page 156 note 5} The Act of 25 Henry VIII was made perpetual by 32 Henry VIII, cap. iii. Nevertheless it was considered necessary to repeat it by 2 & 3 Edward VI, cap. xxix. It was repealed by 1 Mary st. 1, cap. i, the general Act of Repeal, and revived by 5 Elizabeth, cap. xvii.

^{page 157 note 1} It was a common practice for individual monks to receive ‘wages’ out of the revenues of their houses, either in cash or kind (Knowles, D., The Religious Orders in England, III, 83nGoogle Scholar.). I have not been able to discover any substantiation of this particular criticism.

^{page 157 note 2} The Maid of Kent was Elizabeth Barton, who in the autumn of 1533 began to prophesy destruction to the King if he should put away Catherine and take another wife. The political implications of her utterances (which probably originated in epilepsy) caused an Act of Attainder to be passed against her on 21 February 1534, and she was executed at Tyburn with four clerical ‘accomplices’ on 20 April 1534. Who ‘Lymster’ was is not apparent. If ‘the maid of Leominster’ is meant, there is no other record of such a person.

^{page 158 note 1} Cf. Vergil, Polydore, Anglica Historia, Eook xxvii, 279–81Google Scholar. Stow (ed. 1631, 511) gives a full and circumstantial account, expanding Vergil, but neither mention the abuse of the confessional.

^{page 158 note 2} This word appears to be inserted in a different hand into a blank in the original MS. The meaning is obscure.

^{page 159 note 1} There is a page or pages missing at this point.

^{page 159 note 2} Cowls—monastic habits.

^{page 159 note 3} Foxe, Contrast (ed. 1570), II, 1350Google Scholar; ‘God of his just judgement dyd set up the foresayd Lorde Cromwell to destroye their sinfull houses.’

^{page 159 note 4} Thomas Audley, Baron Audley of Walden (1488–1544); Sir Richard Rich (1496?–1567), knighted 1533, Baron Rich of Leighs 1548.

^{page 159 note 5} 27 Henry VIII, cap. xxviii. Statutes, III, 575Google Scholar. In fact the sum was £200.

^{page 160 note 1} 27 Henry VIII, cap. xxvii. Ibid., 569. For the personnel of the Court, see Richardson, W. C., History of the Court of Augmentations (Baton Rouge, 1961).Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 2} True extract, copy, or note of an original writing, especially fines and amercements. OED.

^{page 160 note 3} 27 Henry VIII, cap. xxviii. Statutes, III, 575.Google Scholar

^{page 160 note 4} 27 Henry VIII, cap. xxvii, pura 4.

^{page 161 note 1} This is added in a later and unidentified hand and stands fully in the margin of the MS.

^{page 161 note 2} Mule.

^{page 161 note 3} Purse or wallet.

^{page 161 note 4} Clasp, buckle or brooch.