Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:30:03.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Commons Supplication against the Ordinaries in the Light of some Archidiaconal Acta: The Alexander Prize Essay

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

Margaret Bowker
Margaret Bowker
Affiliation:
Girton College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the first three decades of the sixteenth century the ecclesiastical courts were harshly criticized.1 This criticism had had a long history, but it was sharply focused (at least in London) by the case of Richard Hunne.2 The unpopularity was used by Henry VIII, with great skill, to bring Convocation into subjection, and ultimately to force its acceptance of the royal supremacy. Convocation was intimidated in 1531 by a charge of praemunire for their exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction,3 and in 1532 by the Commons Supplication against the Ordinaries.s But why was this Supplication submitted? Apparently it was not a diplomatic move to reinforce Henry’s papal negotiations; nor can it be seen simply as a means devised by Cromwell to deprive the clergy of their legislative rights. As Dr Kelly has shown, most of the Supplication was not about these rights. The fact that they subsequently proved crucial should not lead us into confusing intention and result. The intention of the document is to attack the ecclesiastical courts quite as much as the legislative power of the Church. Clauses 2–7 deal directly with judicial problems. What exactly lies behind this intention? Why were the courts so unpopular and felt to be so threatening?

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 21 , December 1971 , pp. 61 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See especially Porter, H. C., ‘The Gloomy Dean and the Law: John Colet 1466–1519’, Essays in Modern Church History in Memory of Norman Sykes, ed. Bennett, G. V. and Walsh, J. D. (London, 1966), pp. 18seq.Google Scholar

2 See, for instance, Ogle, A., The tragedy of the Lollards’ Tower: the case of Richard Hunne with its aftermath in the Reformation Parliament 1529—32 (Oxford, 1949).Google Scholar

3 Scarisbrick, J. J., ‘The Pardon of the Clergy, 1531’, Cambridge Historical Journal, xii (1956), pp. 22—39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 [English Historical] Documents, v [1485–1558], ed. Williams, [C. H.] (London, 1967), pp. 727seq.Google Scholar For a discussion of the origin of the Supplication, see Elton, G. R., ‘The Commons Supplication of 1532, parliamentary manoeuvres in the reign of Henry VIII’, English Historical Review, lxvi (1951)CrossRefGoogle Scholar;. J. P. Cooper, ‘The Supplication Against the Ordinaries reconsidered’, Ibid., lxxii (1957).

5 Kelly, M., ‘The Submission of the Clergy’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (Fifth series), xv (1965), pp. 104–105.Google Scholar

6 Documents, v, ed. Williams, pp. 733–35.

7 An Episcopal Court Book 1514–1520, ed. Bowker, M. (Lincoln Record Society, vol. 61, 1967), pp. xxiseq.Google Scholar

8 Acta survive in some form for three out of the eight archdeaconries of the Lincoln diocese, and fragments exist for other archdeaconries. The three most important collections are, firstly, for the archdeaconry of Leicester: L[incoln] R[ecord] O[ffice] Viv. 2, 3, 4, 5. This material is arranged under visitations, and records of court process have been subsequently added.

Secondly for Buckinghamshire: Buckinghamshire] R[ecord] O[ffice] D/A/We/i, D/A/V/i, D/A/C/i. This material was misclassified and dismembered following the Probate Act of 1857. D/A/We/i, D/A/V/i were classified as probate and sent to Somerset House, while D/A/C/ 1 went to the Bodleian Library. D/A/V/i; D/A/We/i were given folio numbers by Marmaduke Claver, registrar for the archdeaconry of Buckingham from 1553. So confusing are his folio numberings that D/A/We/i has been renumbered by the archivist; D / A / V / 1 has two sets of numbers on each folio (guaranteed to confuse), the Claver numbers (hereafter described as old foliation) and the recently given folio numbers (hereafter described as new). These books, first recognized by me as acta on their return to Aylesbury, together with D/A/C/i, are in the course of being edited by Mrs Elizabeth Elvey. I am grateful to her, not only for much help in unscrambling the otherwise baffling problems of foliation which the material presents, but also for the use of her invaluable transcript of D / A / We / 1. All scholars of ecclesiastical courts will be in her debt when these records are published. It is hoped that they will appear under the auspices of the Buckinghamshire Record Society in the near future.

Thirdly, for Bedfordshire, fragments of acta survive in a probate register, Bedford Record Office, A.B.P./R.i. I am grateful to the archivist for her help in facilitating the xeroxing of these documents.

The present author does not claim to have discovered or used all the acta for the diocese. It will be a long time before they are re-classified sufficiently for this to be possible, nor has space allowed for comparisons outside the Lincoln diocese.

9 For the role of these officers see Bowker, M., The Secular Clergy in the Diocese of Lincoln, 1495–1520 (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 30seq.Google Scholar

10 B.R.O. D/A/V/i passim.

11 See for example, L.R.O. Viv. 5, fo. 3. The visitation in 1509 of the churches of St Leonard and St Nicholas prompted court process on 27 July, 4 August, 29 September; and on 21 July, 28 July, 2 November and 16 December respectively. There is no indication whether the archdeacon who appears to have held the visitation heard or delegated the correction proceedings.

12 Ibid., fos. 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, 17, 22, 23, 28, 29, 32V, 34V. The records of visitations do not always appear in chronological order.

13 Of the thirty days of June, four were Sundays, one was Corpus Christi day, and two were Ember days. If we may assume that courts were not held on these days, we are left with twenty-three potential court days. For the sessions, see L.R.O. Viv. 5, fos 1, 2v2, 8, 9, 13, 15, 302, 33V, 353.

14 Ibid., fos 3, 45, 112, 162, 18v, 19V6, 202, 24V5, 252, 25V3, 31V, 322.

15 B.R.O. D/A/V/i, fos 267, 269, 269V, (old foliation) fos. 2, 4, 4V (new foliation).

16 Ibid., fos 259–259V (old foliation), fos 10–10v (new foliation).

17 Ibid., fos 263—263V (old foliation), fos 14–14V (new foliation).

18 B.R.O. D/A/V/i, passim; the distance estimated is minimal, presupposing a very direct route; in reality the distance travelled was probably twice my estimate.

19 See especially B.R.O. D/A/We/i, fos 136V, 148V, 150, 154, 166v.

20 B.R.O. D/A/We/1. This book covers fitfully the period 1483–1520. There is little chance of counting a case twice as there are few adjournments.

21 Almost all marriage cases were concerned with allegations of pre-contract. There is, however, evidence of bigamy, and Thomas Godying was said to have sold one wife and taken another (B.R.O. D/A/We/i, fo. 123). Bigamy was apparently not uncommon; see especially, McClaren, C. A. ‘An Early Sixteenth Century Act Book of the Diocese of London’, Journal of the Society of Archivists, iii, Number 7 (1968), p. 340. Since the London act book records the activity of five vicars general, the type of case which is normally recorded would seem more closely to resemble that coming before the court of audience at Lincoln.Google Scholar

22 This can certainly be shown to be the case on a number of occasions, see especially B.R.O. D/A/We/i, fos 140, 140V, I6IV, 166, 192V. See also Woodcock, B. L., Medieval Ecclesiastical Courts in the Diocese of Canterbury (Oxford, 1952), p. 69.Google Scholar

23 B.R.O. D/A/V/i, fo. 266 (old foliation); fo. 1 (new foliation).

24 By the fiction of a breach of the peace which was used to serve similar ends in the royal courts, a case which technically might be considered to be within the scope of Common Pleas, because it was on a civil matter between two parties, could come before the King’s Bench if trespass was alleged. See Hastings, M., The Court of Common Pleas in Fifteenth Century England (Ithaca, 1947), p. 24.Google Scholar

25 Documents, v, ed. Williams, p. 734. They also complained that they were cited out of the shire and diocese. This cannot be tested from the Lincoln evidence: cases from the shire would usually go to the consistory court, records of which do not survive. Those from the diocese, to the Court of Arches or Legatine Court: the bishops of Lincoln were aware of the threat to their jurisdiction here and special agreements were reached; see Bowker Secular Clergy, pp. 8–11.

26 This selection is based on the first fifty wills in the books concerned for a given year; it was felt that since the fullest Bedfordshire evidence dated from 1500, it was desirable to select the first fifty from that year; there was an abundant choice for Buckinghamshire, so fifty wills of the later date were chosen. For Buckinghamshire the wills used were, B.R.O. D / A / We / 1, fos 22, 4–25, 27–30, 35, 37–48, 51–54, 56–57. 59. 60, 65. For Bedfordshire, A. B. P. / R. i, fos 102, 10v2, 11, 11 v, 12, I2v, 13, 14, 153, 16v3, 172, 17V2, 18, 18v, 192, 21, 23, 23V2, 242, 24V, 252, 25V, 262, 272, 29, 29V, 30, 312, 31V, 32 34. 352. 35v2 36. 36v. For Lincolnshire, Lincoln Wills 1271–1526, ed. C. W. Foster (Lincoln Record Society, 5, 1914), pp. 20—96, Lincoln Wills 1505–1530 {Ibid., 10, 1918), pp. 155–85.

27 The Stratford scale was in use in the Canterbury Diocese in the 1520’s, see Woodcock, op. cit., p. 73; it is laid out in Lyndwood, W., Provinciale sen Constitutiones Angliae (Oxford, 1679), p. 181; Lyndwood indicates ad verb. ‘Insinuationes’ that a scribe must be paid in excess of 6d. for heavy work (p. 181) and ad verb. ‘Accipere’ implies t h a t gradations of the scale, between is is., 3s., 5s. etc. were permissible. I am grateful to Professor Ullmann for his help on this matter.Google Scholar

28 Bowker, Secular Clergy, pp. 10–11.

29 B.R.O., D/A/C/i, fos 2, 2v, 3V, 5, 5v, 6v, 8v, 9v.

30 B.R.O., D/A/We/1, fos 60 seq.

31 Subsidy for the County of Buckingham Anno 1524. (Buckinghamshire Record Society, vol. 8, 1950), ed. Chibnall, A. C. and Woodman, A. V..Google Scholar

32 Bodleian Library, Certificates of Musters (Bucks), MS. Eng. Hist, e. 187. This roll is being edited by Professor A. C. Chibnall. I am most grateful to him for t he use of his transcript.

33 Examples of the fallibility of this method could be multiplied. To cite one: James Werner of Chesham was pardoned probate fee on grounds of his poverty (i.e., his goods totalled 30s. or less) [B.R.O., D/A/C/i, fo. 2v]. The Muster roll for Chesham reveals one Werner, Katherine, perhaps his widow, with goods and lands each worth £3 [Bodleian Library, MS. Eng. hist. e. 187, fo. 219]. Was she the widow? Had the estate increased in value?

34 L.R.O., Inventories, 2, Number 61.

35 Idem., Number 90.

36 Lyndwood, Provinciale, p. 181, ad verb, ‘rationabile’.

37 L.R.O., Inventories, 2, Number 37.

38 Idem., Number 39.

39 B.R.O., D/A/We/1, fo. 13V. Number 34.

40 Bedfordshire Record Office, A.B.P./R.i, fos 152–159.

41 L.R.O., Vj 6, fo. 65V.

42 Documents, v, ed. Williams, p. 734.

43 L.R.O., Viv. 5 passim (cf. Woodcock, op. cit., p. 61).

44 Ibid., fo. 94.

45 Ibid., fos 3, 35, 40, 45V.

46 B.R.O., D/A/V/i, fo. 267 (old foliation); fo. 1 (new foliation).

47 Brown, E. H. Phelps and Hopkins, S. V., ‘Seven Centuries of Building Wages’, Essays in Economic History, ii, ed. Carus-Wilson, E. M. (London, 1962), p. 177.Google Scholar

48 B.R.O., D/A/We/i, fo. 13V, Number 34.

49 Documents, v, ed. Williams, p. 733.

50 Ibid., p. 735.

51 B.R.O., D/A/We/1, fos 57V, 61v, 67.

52 Ibid., fos 79V, 81v, 120V, 128V, 129, 130V2, 131V2, 132, 132V, 1342, 137V, 139, 141, 143V, 144.

53 B.R.O., D/A/We/i, fo. 67.

54 Ibid., fos 58V, 62V, 65V, 69v.

55 Ibid., fo 66.

56 Ibid., fo. 80. In this marriage case one party had twenty miles to travel, the other eight. In office cases, five miles was usual. Lillingston had to go 16 miles. This was unusual: ten miles was normal only for a defendant from an isolated village which Broughton was not. One would have expected the case to have been heard a t Newport Pagnell.

57 L R O., Viv 5, fos 25V, 31, 32, 34V, 43V, 53V.

58 See for example, B.R.O. D/A/We/i, fo. 135V; D/A/V/i, fo. 272V (old foliation); fo. 7v (new foliation).

59 B.R.O., D/A/We/i, fo. 63V.

60 Documents Illustrative of English Church History, ed. Gee, H. and Hardy, W. J. (London, 1896), p. 163.Google Scholar

61 Ibid., p. 162.

62 Documents, v, ed. Williams, p. 733.

63 Morality cases for this date have been selected solely because their cases are the last we have before the Muster Roll of 1522, a n d there is, in consequence, a better chance of tracing the defendants before the court in 1520, than (say) 1492.

64 Bodleian Library, Muster Roll, MS. Eng. Hist., e. 187, fo. 40.

65 B.R.O., D/A/We/ 1, fo. 81.

66 Bodleian Library, Muster Roll, MS. Eng. Hist., e. 187, fo. 92.

67 B.R.O., D/A/We/i, fo. 71.

68 Bowker, Secular Clergy, p. 122–23; An Episcopal Court Book, ed. Bowker, pp. 67, 124.

69 Thomson, J. A. F., The Later Lollards 1414–1520 (Oxford, 1965), pp. 211–19,Google Scholar indicates that Lollardy had no secure foothold in t h e Universities. See also Dickens, A. G., Lollards and Protestants in the Diocese of York 1509–1559 (Oxford, 1959), P. 8.Google Scholar

70 Clebsch, W. A., England’s Earliest Protestants 1520–35 (Yale, 1964), pp. 5seq.Google ScholarDickens, A. G., The English Reformation (London, 1964), pp. 68–82.Google Scholar

71 Elton, G. R., ‘Sir Thomas More and the Opposition to Henry VIII’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xli (1968), pp. 22seq.Google Scholar

72 G. R. Elton, ‘Parliamentary Drafts, 1529–1540’, Ibid., xxv, (1952), p. 122.

73 See above, p. 61, n. 4.

74 See especially McConica, J. K., English Humanists and Reformation Politics (Oxford, 1965), pp. 72seq., and Dickens, English Reformation, p. 96.Google Scholar

75 Documents, ed. Gee and Hardy, p. 161.

76 Ibid., p. 155.

77 Ibid., pp. 156–59.

78 Ibid., p. 161.

79 Ibid., p. 162.

80 Ibid., p. 159.

81 Ibid., p.163.

82 Ibid., pp. 162–63.

83 Ibid., pp. 165–66.

84 Ibid., p. 169.

85 Cases of vexatious litigation were heard, see for example, B.R.O., D / A / V / i, fo. 261V (old foliation), fo. 12 (new foliation).

86 Documents, ed. Gee and Hardy, pp. 169–170.

87 An Episcopal Court Book, ed. Bowker, pp. xxi—xxii.

88 Kelly, art. cit., p. 110.

89 Ibid., p. 111.

90 Ibid., p. 112.

91 Cooper, J. P., ‘The Supplication Against the Ordinaries Reconsidered’, English Historical Review, lxxii (1957), P. 640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

92 Puritan Manifestoes, ed. Frere, W. H. and Douglas, C. E. (S.P.C.K., 1907). P. 32.Google Scholar

93 For a full account of t he church courts in this period see Marchant, R. A., The Church under the Law 1560—1640 (Cambridge, 1969).Google Scholar

94 For an extended version of this paper see Documentary Studies presented to Kathleen Major, ed. Bullough, U. and Storey, R. L. (Oxford, 1971).Google Scholar