^{page 69 note 1} Constant, G., La Réforme en Angleterre: Henri VIII (1930), pp. 179 fGoogle Scholar, Cf. Merriman, R. B., Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell (1902) (hereafter cited as Cromwell's Letters), i. 112Google Scholar; Pickthorn, K., Early Tudor Government: Henry VIII (1934), p. 203Google Scholar, and Mackie, J. B., The Early Tudors (1952), p. 417 (with reservations)Google Scholar; Hughes, P., The Reformation in England: The King's Proceedings (1950), p. 225Google Scholar.

^{page 69 note 2} Stone, L., ‘Thomas Cromwell's Political Programme’, Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., xxiv (1951), 1ff.Google Scholar; and cf. my reply, ibid. xxv (1952), 126 ff.

^{page 69 note 3} Baumer, F., Early Tudor Theory of Kingship (1940)Google Scholar; Zeeveld, W. G., Foundations of Tudor Policy (1948)Google Scholar.

^{page 69 note 4} Pollard, A. F., Henry VIII (1905), p. 323Google Scholar.

^{page 69 note 5} Parker, T. M., ‘Was Thomas Cromwell a Machiavellian?’, Journal of Eccl. Hist., i (1950), 63 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 70 note 1} Baumer, , op. cit., pp. 152, 169Google Scholar.

^{page 70 note 2} Op. cit., p. 63.

^{page 70 note 3} ‘King or Minister? The Man behind the Henrician Reformation’, History, Oct. 1954.

^{page 71 note 1} Pole, Reginald, ‘Apologia ad Carolum Quintum Caesarem’, Epistolarum etc. Pars Prima (ed. Quirini, , Brescia, , 1744), pp. 133 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 71 note 2} Cromwell's Letters, i. 376; ii. 128 f.

^{page 71 note 3} Ibid., i. 376: anticipating Fisher's argument that one line of thought agreed with the law of God and another did not, Cromwell supposed that ‘this had been no greate cause more to reiect the one than thother, for ye know by histories of the bible that god may by his reuelation dispense with his owne Law’. DrParker's, comment on this passage (op. cit., pp. 73Google Scholarf.) seems to me entirely tendentious. Cromwell here came as near to denying the place of the law divine in matters affected by the positive law of the realm as a man could who wished to avoid a charge of heresy.

^{page 71 note 4} P.R.O. State Papers Henry VIII, vol. 89, fo. 138; England in the Reign of King Henry the Eighth (ed. Herrtage, S. J. and Cowper, J. M. E.E.T.S., 1878; hereafter cited as Starkey s England), p. lxxiGoogle Scholar.

^{page 71 note 5} Zeeveld, , op. cit., p. 143Google Scholar.

^{page 72 note 1} Dyke, P. Van, Renascence Portraits (1906), App., pp. 377 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 72 note 2} Elton, G. R., The Tudor Revolution in Government (1953), pp. 73 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 72 note 3} Pole, , ‘Apologia’, pp. 118 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 72 note 4} Ibid., pp. 133 ff.

^{page 72 note 5} ‘…ut et Princeps sua desideria consequatur nee tamen defectio ulla vel schisma in religione appareat.’

^{page 73 note 1} Pole, , ‘Apologia’, pp. 123, 127Google Scholar.

^{page 72 note 2} Ibid., pp. 123 f.

^{page 72 note 3} Ibid., p. 132: ‘semel et iterum, numquam amplius’, which means twice. As Dyke, Van has pointed out (op. cit., p. 393Google Scholarn.), this conflicts with Pole's repeated mention of one conversation; it can only be reconciled on the likely supposition that the editor's comma ought to be shifted after ‘semel’.

^{page 73 note 4} Starkey's England, p. xv.

^{page 73 note 5} Pole, , ‘Apologia’, pp. 131 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 73 note 6} Ibid., p. 132.

^{page 74 note 1} Having found Pole out in so much question-begging and feeble argument, one might be tempted to doubt the whole story of the conversation. Pole certainly did not think Cromwell so satanic as early as Wolsey's last year of office, for he later corresponded with him and had proof of potential favour (Dyke, Van, op. cit., pp. 406Google Scholarff.). Moreover, the whole argument about the schools and life—academic and political employment—sounds suspiciously like the points which in 1535 Cromwell told Starkey to put to Pole in an effort to win his services for the king's cause (Starkey s England, pp. xxii–xxiii). But we may let the interview stand, so graphically described by Pole, who did not seem to realize what a poor figure he cut in his own account—priggish, narrow-minded, inexperienced, and humourless.

^{page 74 note 2} Letters of Stephen Gardiner (ed. Muller, J. A., 1933), p. 399Google Scholar.

^{page 74 note 3} Dyke, Van (op. cit., p. 144)Google Scholar rightly speaks of Cromwell's ‘habit of not taking himself too seriously’.

^{page 74 note 4} Parker, op. cit., p. 73Google Scholar.

^{page 75 note 1} Letters and Papers of Henry VIII (hereafter cited as L. & P.), vii. 1554.

^{page 75 note 2} Op. cit., pp. 400 ff.

^{page 75 note 3} ‘Machiavelli and Tudor England’, Political Science Quart., xlii (1927), 589 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 75 note 4} Zeeveld, , op. cit., pp. 184 ffGoogle Scholar.; Parker, , op. cit., pp. 67 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 75 note 5} The Cortegiano (trs. Hoby, Thomas, 1561Google Scholar; L. E. Opdycke, 1902) does not deal with ministerial duties, but only with the ceremonial, athletic, and artistic performances of the courtier.

^{page 76 note 1} Op. cit., pp. 74 f.

^{page 76 note 2} Cromwell's Letters, ii. 129.

^{page 76 note 3} Elton, , Tudor Rev., pp. 416 f., andGoogle Scholar‘Thomas Cromwell's Decline and Fall’, Cambridge Historical Journal, x (1951), pp. 150 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 76 note 4} Cromwell's Letters, ii. 112.

^{page 76 note 5} Alesius, A., Of the auctorite of the word of god agaynst the bisshop of London (?1540; cf. L. & P. xii. I. 790)Google Scholar. The occasion and date of the speech there reported are conjectural. Since the number of sacraments was the main topic of debate, 1536–7 is presumably right, though I had a passing thought of identifying this speech with that made in 1540 (next note). The difficulty is that Alesius speaks very definitely of the Parliament House as the stage of the disputation. The Parliament of 1536 cannot be meant because Cromwell did not attend the Upper House until the last day of that session (Lords' Journals, i. 101); the next Parliament met in 1539. Nor did Convocation meet in the interval. Perhaps one may guess at an informal meeting of the bishops, early in 1537, which happened to be held in the ‘Parliament House’; this is supported by Cromwell's reported thanks to the prelates for turning up and by the informality of his introducing Alesius, whom he happened to run across on his way to the discussion, into the meeting.

^{page 77 note 1} Lords' Journals, i. 128 f.

^{page 77 note 2} Cromwell's Letters, ii. 223 f.

^{page 77 note 3} Ibid., pp. 139 f., 142, 148 f., 226 ff.

^{page 77 note 4} Elton, , Tudor Rev., pp. 132 f., 139Google Scholar.

^{page 77 note 5} Cf. Dyke, Van, op. cit., pp. 163Google Scholar f. There are many references to this ‘indifference’ in his correspondence, and not all of them can be put down to an interested party's attempt to flatter him.

^{page 77 note 6} Cromwell's Letters, i. 377.

^{page 77 note 7} Ibid., ii. 273.

^{page 78 note 1} The whole notion of Cromwell's ‘terror’, spy-system, and extra-legal practices rests, so it seems to me, partly on ancient misunderstandings (first created by Henry VIII's desire to throw all the blame for his vengeful deeds on others) and partly on Merriman's astonishing readiness to blow up every stray suspicion into fact. The strength of his argument may be gauged from one quotation: ‘The punishments in these cases were very severe: there are almost no records of penalties inflicted on those against whom the depositions were brought, but there is reason to believe that comparatively slight misdemeanours were not seldom rewarded with death’ (op. cit., i. 118). Comment is superfluous on this cavalier treatment of one of the most difficult sixteenth-century problems: what happened when a man was denounced, and how far were laws effective?

^{page 78 note 2} Maitland, F. W., English Law and the Renaissance (1901)Google Scholar; Holds-worth, W. S., History of English Law, iv. 217 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 78 note 3} Starkey' England, pp. 192 ff.

^{page 79 note 1} Elton, , Tudor Rev., p. 136, n. 11Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 2} E.g. L. & P., iii. 2441, 2445, 2557, 2754, 3530.

^{page 79 note 3} Elton, , Tudor Rev., p. 87Google Scholar.

^{page 79 note 4} D.N.B.

^{page 79 note 5} L. & P., xiii. I. 120. Cf. Schulz, F., ‘Bracton on Kingship’, Eng. Hist. Rev., lx (1945), 136CrossRefGoogle Scholarff., for a citation of the relevant passages in Bracton.

^{page 79 note 6} Cromwell's Letters, i. 313.

^{page 80 note 1} E.g.Merriman, , op. cit., i. 27Google Scholar; Fisher, H. A. L., Political History of England 1485–1547, p. 247 (‘cynical view’)Google Scholar; Smith, H. Maynard, Henry VIII and the Reformation (1948), p. 49 (‘Cromwell no doubt continued to despise parliaments’)Google Scholar; Innes, A. D., Ten Tudor Statesmen (1906), p. 119Google Scholar; Parker, , op. cit., pp. 70Google Scholar f. (though he qualified his statement).

^{page 80 note 2} L. & P., iv, App. 238. For Cromwell's entry into the 1529 Parliament, cf. my Tudor Rev., pp. 77 ff., where the whole question is discussed at length.

^{page 80 note 3} Cavendish, G., Life of Cardinal Wolsey (Singer's ed., repr. in Morley's Universal Library, 1887), pp. 149Google Scholarf., 156, 159 f.

^{page 80 note 4} L. & P., v. 628.

^{page 81 note 1} E.g. L. & P., vi. 299 (ix. D, xi), 1381 (1); ix. 725 (ii).

^{page 81 note 2} All the following facts and figures are derived from Statutes of the Realm (1810–28), vols. iii and iv.

^{page 81 note 3} 1510, Feb. 1512, Nov. 1512, 1513, Feb. 1515, Nov. 1515, 1523, 1529, 1531.

^{page 82 note 1} Cf. Thornley, I. D., ‘The Treason Legislation of Henry VIII’, Trans. R. Hist. Soc., 3rd Ser., xi (1917), 87 ff., esp. p. IIICrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 82 note 2} L. & P., ix. 766.

^{page 82 note 3} Cf. Adair, E. R., ‘The Statute of Proclamations’, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxxii (1917), 34 ff., and my Tudor Rev., pp. 343 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 82 note 4} 31 Henry, VIII c. 8 (Stat. of the Realm, iii. 726)Google Scholar.

^{page 82 note 5} Cromwell's Letters, i. 409 f. This letter has been taken to prove that Cromwell wished to use proclamations in order to avoid statutes; it seems to me to prove just about the opposite.

^{page 83 note 1} Zeeveld, , ‘Thomas Starkey and the Cromwellian Polity’, Journ. of Mod. Hist., xv (1943), 177CrossRefGoogle Scholarff. (repr., with some cuts, in Foundations, pp. 128 ff.).

^{page 83 note 2} Starkey's England, p. lxxi.

^{page 83 note 3} Ibid., p. xliii: ‘you juge me more to be traynyd in phylosophye than in the trade of scripture’.

^{page 83 note 4} On the whole subject cf. Zeeveld's article, above, n. 1. It is interesting to remark that Henry VIII could say about the Exhortation only that it was insufficiently drawn from Scripture (ibid., p. 187). This throws much light on the king's indifference to ‘philosophy’ and preference for theology—which again indicates where we must look for the leadership in the political revolution.

^{page 84 note 1} Baumer, , ‘Thomas Starkey and Marsiglio of Padua’, Politica, ii (1936), 188Google Scholarff. Mr. Baumer displays much wonderment at Starkey's courage and revolutionary wisdom in putting forward constitutionalist notions ‘at a time when Tudor despotism was at its peak’. The truth is that no one at the time put forward absolutist theories: constitutionalism was the thing.

^{page 84 note 2} L. & P., vii. 422–3; xi. 1355.

^{page 84 note 3} Ibid., viii. 1156; ix. 523.

^{page 84 note 4} Defensor Pacis (ed. Previté-Orton, C. W., Cambridge, 1928), I. 17. 1Google Scholar.

^{page 84 note 5} ‘Apologia’, p. 121.

^{page 84 note 6} Lagarde, G. de, La Naissance de l'esprit laique au declin du moyen âge, ii. 155Google Scholar. On this point cf. also Previté-Orton's ed. of the Defensor Pacis, p. xiv.

^{page 85 note 1} Lewis, Ewart, Medieval Political Ideas (1954), p. 543Google Scholar.

^{page 85 note 2} Lagarde, , op. cit., ii. 167 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 85 note 3} Defensor Pacis, II. 8. 5.

^{page 85 note 4} Lewis, , op. cit., p. 256Google Scholar. Lagarde, (op. cit., ii. 265Google Scholar) argues that Marsiglio came nearer a theory of sovereignty than Mrs. Lewis will admit.

^{page 85 note 5} Janelle, P., L'Angleterre catholique à la veille du schism (1935), pp. 252 ff.Google Scholar; Hughes, , op. cit., i. 332Google Scholar. The omissions are listed in Previté-Orton's edition of the Defensor Pacis, p. xl.

^{page 86 note 1} The Defence of Peace (1535), fos. 27V, 28V, 35.

^{page 86 note 2} E.g. in the fourth conclusion (ibid., fo. 138): the only law-maker is ‘the prynce or his parlyament, or (where it is so vsed) hole vnyuersyte and congregacyon of Cytezens’—a paraphrase rather than a translation of the text. Also in I. 12. 5 (fo. 28) where ‘valentiorem partem’ is rendered as ‘ye bygger parte of them assembled in the parlyament’.

^{page 86 note 3} Cf. Elton, , ‘Evolution of a Reformation Statute’, Eng. Hist. Rev., lxiv (1949), esp. 196 fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

^{page 87 note 1} 24 Henry, VIII c. 12 (Stat. of the Realm iii. 427)Google Scholar.

^{page 87 note 2} Schulz, Cited, op. cit., p. 150, n, 8Google Scholar. The whole problem is well summarized in Lewis, , op. cit., pp. 430 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 87 note 3} Cf. Gairdner, J., Lollardy and the Reformation (1908), i. 283Google Scholar.

^{page 88 note 1} P.R.O., State Papers Henry VIII, vol. 50, fo. 203. For the date cf. my article ‘The Commons' Supplication against the Ordinaries’, Eng. Hist. Rev., lxvi (1951), 507 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 88 note 2} Op. cit., pp. 28 f.

^{page 88 note 3} Cf. my article in Eng. Hist. Rev., 1949, esp. pp. 184, 192. All the drafts, down to and including A and D, contained the claim, which was only abandoned after the conference on 5 Feb. 1533.

^{page 89 note 1} 25 Henry, VIII c. 21 (Stat. of the Realm, iii. 464)Google Scholar.

^{page 89 note 2} 25 Henry VIII c. 14 (ibid., 454).

^{page 89 note 3} P.R.O., State Papers Henry VIII, vol. 50, fo. 194.

^{page 90 note 1} Tanner, J. R., Tudor Constitutional Documents, p. 582Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 2} Cf. Chrimes, S. B., English Constitutional Ideas in the XV Century (1936), pp. 201 ff.Google Scholar; Jacob, E. F., ‘Sir John Fortescue and the Law of Nature’, Essays in the Conciliar Epoch (1943), pp. 106 ff. (esp. p. 119)Google Scholar.

^{page 90 note 3} Chrimes, , op. cit., pp. 209 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 90 note 4} Ibid., p. 286.

^{page 91 note 1} Quoted Holdsworth, , op. cit., iv. 186, n. 2Google Scholar.

^{page 91 note 2} Harpsfield, N., Life and Death of Sir Thomas Moore (ed. Hitchcock, E. V. and Chambers, R. W. E.E.T.S., 1932), p. 193Google Scholar.