¹ Lehmberg, Stanford E., ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, Historical Journal, XVIII (1975), 675–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, The later parliaments of Henry VIII 1536–1547 (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 268–71 and passim.

² Elton, G. R., Policy and police: the enforcement of the reformation in the age of Thomas Cromwell (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 263, 270, 275, 308, 390–1, 402, 419–22Google Scholar; idem, Reform and Reformation: England, 1509–1558 (Cambridge, Mass. 1977), pp. 181, 188, 279, 284, 292–4, 299.

³ Bellamy, J. G., The Tudor law of treason: an introduction (London, 1979), pp. 23–9, 34, 37, 41, 42, 44, 176, 210–14Google Scholar.

⁴ Bellamy, , The law of treason in England in the later middle ages (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 181–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Tudor law of treason, p. 176. According to Bellamy, all of the lands of a traitor condemned by the law of arms were subject to forfeiture: Law of treason in England in the later middle ages, pp. 192–5Google Scholar. For reasons which cannot be examined in detail here I disagree with this point. Neither the primary nor the secondary sources cited by Bellamy, support him on this point, and he himself appears to have reversed this view in his later work on the Tudor period: Tudor law of treason, P. 235Google Scholar.

⁵ Lehmberg, , ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, p. 681Google Scholar; idem, Later parliaments of Henry VIII, p. 270.

⁶ Roose's attainder is briefly mentioned in Bellamy, , Tudor law of treason, pp. 24–5Google Scholar, and in Williams, Penry, The Tudor regime (Oxford, 1979), pp. 225, 226Google Scholar, but neither fully appreciates the significance of his case. Strangely, Bellamy appears to have forgotten Roose's attainder when he later summarized the use of the attainder in Tudor England; he also incorrectly identifies the offender as Robert rather than Roose, Richard: Tudor law of treason, pp. 24–5, 176, 211–13Google Scholar. Equally mystifying is Lehmberg's omission of Roose's attainder from his study of Henrician, attainders, for he does briefly mention the act in his earlier study of the Reformation parliament: The Reformation parliament, 1529–1536 (Cambridge, 1970), p. 125Google Scholar.

⁷ 22 Hen. VIII, c. 9.

⁸ Lander, J. R., ‘Attainder and forfeiture, 1453–1509’, Historical Journal, IV (1961), 119–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹ Lehmberg, , ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, pp. 677–9Google Scholar.

¹⁰ The statutes of the realm (London, 1810–1828), III, 326Google Scholar (hereafter cited as S.R.); Calender of state papers, Spanish (London, 1862–1954), IV, pt. ii, 646Google Scholar (hereafter cited as C.S.P.Sp.); Letters and papers, foreign and domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII (London, 1862–1932), VGoogle Scholar, (hereafter cited as L.P.); Calender of state papers, Venetian (London, 1864–1947), IV, 668Google Scholar (hereafter cited as C.S.P.V.).

¹¹ Elton, , Policy and police, pp. 275 ff.Google Scholar; idem, Reform and reformation, p. 292.

¹² Bellamy, , Law of treason in England in the later middle ages, pp. 181–5, 198–203, 204–5Google Scholar.

¹³ I have followed both the text of the act and Chapuys in describing Roose as a cook, and I believe Richard Hall incorrect in his subsequent description of Roose as only a friend of the cook. The point is significant, for if Roose were the cook then his murder of Fisher would have been petty treason. This may have contributed to parliament's willingness to declare his offence high treason; the capital sentence, though different in form, with escheat of lands was identical to that for petty treason. S.R. III, 326; C.S.P. V. IV, 668; C.S.P.S. IV, pt. ii, 646; L.P. V, 120; Hall, Richard, The life and death of the renowned John Fisher, bishop of Rochester (London, 1655), pp. 72–3Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Bellamy, , Law of treason in England in the later middle ages, pp. 125, 133, 169–70, 186–7, 188–90Google Scholar; on the two of these occasions the attainder did not raise the crime above its true level of felony.

¹⁵ 3 Hen VII, c 27, Cooke, Edward, The third part of the institutes of the laws of England (London, 1797), pp 37–8Google Scholar, Bellamy, , Tudor law of treason, pp. 15, 16Google Scholar This conspiracy led to an act (3 Hen VII, c 14) declaring it a felony for any royal servant to conspire to murder the king, steward, treasurer, or comptroller of the household, Ibid I have employed the term conspiracy loosely in the sense of secretly plotting to commit a felony or treason For the strict legal definition and history of conspiracy one should consult Harding, Alan, ‘The origins of the crime of conspiracy’, T R H S, fifth series, XXXIII (1983), 89–108Google Scholar

¹⁶ S R II, 566 The act clearly attaints Hayes of ‘mesprision’, negating Lehmberg's claim that the act attainting Barton, Elizabeth enacted the first Tudor attainder for misprision ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, p 677Google Scholar

¹⁷ S R II, 639 The act ordered Grame hung and drawn as for petty treason, thus negating Lehmberg's claim that no act of attainder before Barton's, Elizabeth specifically authorized the death penalty ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, p 677Google Scholar

¹⁸ C S P V IV, 668, C S P S IV, pt II, 646, L P v, 120

¹⁹ S R III, 326 Poisoning was so greatly feared that it had supernatural associations the same Latin word, veneficwm, described poisoning and sorcery I owe this point to Michael MacDonald Declaring the crime high treason also denied Roose benefit of clergy, but this could have been accomplished without attainting him of high treason. In Queen Mary's reign parliament denied Benet Smith his plea of benefit of clergy without attainting him or denying him a common law trial: S.R. IV, pt. i, 292.

²⁰ Ibid. III, 326.

²¹ Ibid. At least one offender in addition to Roose suffered death by being boiled alive. Margaret Davies, a young servant, was boiled to death for poisoning her mistress on 17 March 1542: Holinshed, Raphel, Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, ed. Ellis, Henry (London, 1807–1808), II, 824Google Scholar. Like much of the other treason legislation of Henry VIII's reign, the public provision in Roose's attainder was repealed in the first year of Edward VI's reign: 1 Edw. VI, c. 12. In 1563 the House of Commons gave a first reading to a bill intended to restore Henry VIII's law against poisoning, but the bill was then allowed to sleep: Common's Journal, I, 69.

²² Bellamy, , Law of treason in England in the later middle ages, pp. 130–1Google Scholar; idem, Tudor law of treason, pp. 24–5.

²³ Some discussion of Henry's role in drafting legislation can be found in ibid. p. 44; Elton, , Reform and reformation, pp. 116, 181, 214, 294–5Google Scholar.

²⁴ For a discussion of the fundamental principles underlying the law of treason in England, see Bellamy, , Law of treason in England in the later middle ages, pp 206–15Google Scholar and passim.

²⁵ Lehmberg, , ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, p. 681Google Scholar and passim.

²⁶ A discussion of the power of prophecy, and hence a justification of the government's concern over Barton's words, can be found in Thomas, Keith, Religion and the decline of magic (New York, 1971). pp. 113–50Google Scholar, and Elton, , Policy and police, pp. 46–82Google Scholar.

²⁷ Ibid. pp. 274 5; Bellamy, , Tudor law of treason, pp. ²³, 28–9Google Scholar, Lehmberg, , ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, pp. 681–3Google Scholar.

²⁸ Ibid. pp. 681–98.

²⁹ Ibid. pp. 678, 680–1.

³⁰ Bellamy, , Crime and public order in England in the later middle ages(London, 1973), pp. 181–2, 203Google Scholar.

³¹ 25 Hen. VIII, c. 34.

³² S.R. III, 490.

³³ Lehmberg, , ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, p. 681Google Scholar.

³⁴ L.P. VI, 1381. In fact Wolfe and his wife could have been executed equally quickly following Common law outlawry; the delay came in ‘exacting’ the fugitive at five successive meetings of the county court: Harding, Alan, A social history of English law (Gloucester, Mass., 1973), p. 120Google Scholar It should be further noted that their execution was not in fact immediate. Alice Wolfe was confined in the Tower long enough to effect a brief escape Brief because she was unlucky enough to be recognized by a member of the City watch and returned to the Tower Though ambiguously worded there is also evidence to suggest that she was seized from sanctuary before her attainder was enacted. L P VII, 384, 418

³⁵ Bellamy, Law of treason in England the later middle ages, pp. 195–7, idem, Crime and public order, p III, Elton, Reform and reformation, pp 201–2, Thornley, I D, ‘The destruction of sanctuary’, in Tudor studies presented to A F Pollard, ed Watson, R W Seton (London, 1924), pp 161 ffGoogle Scholar

³⁶ S R III, 490–1.

³⁷ L P VII, 384 John Grayfield's letter to Lord Lisle was written prior to the execution, however, and he never actually confirmed the fate he described Hall and Hohnshed say only that the pair were hung at ‘the turning tree’ marking the spot on the river They were not particularly perspicacious though, for neither realized that the execution was authorized by parliamentary attainder and not a common law trial Hall, Edward, Hall's chronicle (London, 1809), p 815Google Scholar, Hohnshed, , Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland, III, 792Google Scholar

³⁸ 27 Hen. VIII, c. 59; Lehmberg, , ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, p. 680Google Scholar.

³⁹ Bellamy, , Tudor law of treason, p. 213Google Scholar; idem, Law of treason in England in the later middle ages, pp. 130–1.

⁴⁰ S.R. III, 629.

⁴¹ Ibid. 629–30.

⁴² Ibid.

⁴³ Bellamy, , Crime and public order, pp. 181–2, 203Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Idem, Tudor law of treason, pp. 35–8, 210–11.

⁴⁵ 33 Hen. VIII, c. 21.

⁴⁶ 28 Hen. VIII, c. 24.

⁴⁷ Lehmberg, , ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, pp. 691–2Google Scholar; Bellamy, , Tudor law of treason, pp. 36–7; S.R. III, 680Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Ibid.

⁴⁹ Smith, L. B., A Tudor tragedy (London, 1961), pp. 178–202Google Scholar; Lehmberg, , ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, pp. 694–7Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ S.R. III, 857–60.

⁵¹ Ibid. pp. 857–9. Most of those attainted of misprision of treason had already been convicted md attainted and common law; the remainder had been indicted but not yet tried: ibid. p. 858.

⁵² Ibid p 859 But informers were warned not to ‘openlye blowe it abrode nor privately whis it in other folkes eares’ until the crime was publicly revealed by the king or council ibid Bellam errs in extending the penalties imposed by this clause to ordinary subjects It is clearly limite to councillors Tudor law of treason, p 38

⁵³ Ibid pp 49 83, idem, Law of treason in England in the later middle ages, pp 222–3

⁵⁴ S R III, 859 Bellamy, , Tudor law of treason, p 38Google Scholar In Anne Boleyn's case her promiscuity h. been construed as endangering the king's health and life, but such a claim was not made Catherine Howard's case ibid

⁵⁵ S R III, 859

⁵⁶ Ibid

⁵⁷ Bellamy, , Tudor law of treason, p. 38Google Scholar. There were distant precedents for this provision. According to Roman law adultery with a member of the royal family was treason. In England, Britton, written at the turn of the fourteenth century, defined adultery with one's lord's wife as ‘little treason’: Bellamy, , Law of treason in England in the later middle ages, pp. 226Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ I have drawn my figures from Lehmberg, , ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, pp. 679–701Google Scholar, with the addition of Roose's attainder. Seven of the sixty-eight had been indicted, however. The discrepancy between the sixty-eight condemned and the thirty-four executed does not represent leniency. Most of those who escaped execution were in exile; a few, such as Lewes and Wolfe's accomplices, simply disappeared from the historical record and their fate remains unknown. Ibid. pp. 686, 687, 697.

⁵⁹ Elton, , Policy and police, p. 399Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Elton believes that Elizabeth Barton and her five accomplices were the only offenders to suffer execution as a result of parliamentary attainder while Cromwell was in power. He further includes five more in his total who were attainted during Cromwell's ministry but were executed after his fall. Finally, he says that he includes Cromwell as a victim of attainder as well. But this totals twelve; his table on p. 387 lists a mere ten, one of whom is considered acquitted because he died in prison: Policy and police, pp. 387, 388, 390 and note; idem, Reform and reformation, p. 181.

⁶¹ The act attainted Elizabeth Barton and her six accomplices of high treason: S.R. III, 473–4; Lehmberg, , ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, p. 682Google Scholar.

⁶² 26 Hen. VIII, c. 25 and 28 Hen. VIII, c. 18 (Kildare was attainted twice by the English parliament and once by the Irish parliament). Lehmberg, , ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, p. 685Google Scholar; Ellis, Stephen G., ‘Henry VIII, rebellion and the rule of law’, Historical Journal, XXIV (1981), 515–27Google Scholar.

⁶³ Elton, , Policy and police, p. 399Google Scholar. Nor does he include the attainders of Roose and Catherine Howard and her accomplices. Both of the acts fall outside the chronological limits of his study and neither can be held the responsibility of Thomas Cromwell. Both, however, reflect upon Henry's reign as a whole.

⁶⁴ Bellamy's omission of Roose's act from his summary of attainder on p. 211 leaves his count of such acts low by one. His error is far more severe on p. 176. Listing the years of parliamentary attainders without prior common law trials as 1533, 1539–40, 1542 and 1549 unfortunately omit 1531 (Roose), 1534 (Barton, Kildare and Wolfe), 1536 (Lord Howard, Kildare and Lewes), and 1547 (duke of Norfolk). I have no idea who he believes was attained in 1533. Tudor law of treason pp. 176, 211.

⁶⁵ Ibid. pp. 211–12.

⁶⁶ S.R. III, 326.

⁶⁷ Lehmberg, , ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, pp. 684–5 n, 690Google Scholar; idemLater parliaments of Henry VIII, pp. 30, 314 n. On the earl of Kildare's attainder see also Ellis, , ‘Henr VIII, rebellion and the rule of law’, pp. 515–27Google Scholar.