Wolsey, and the adoption of a measure which in effect settled the question of the king's divorce and the onward progress of the Reformation, was made still further memorable by the coming together of the long, or reforming parliament. There had been no session of parliament for some years previous, and but one for fourteen years. Wolsey had a wholesome fear of parliaments, and chose to carry on the government with as little interference from them as possible. There was a parliament in 1515, which sat forty days, from November 12th to December 22d; and another was not called until April 15th, 1523, which was prorogued on the 21st of May, to July 31st, and was dissolved August 15th.

But the great cardinal, and the absolute and allpowerful minister, having now fallen into disgrace, the king assembled a parliament, November 3d, 1529, which he found so compliant, and so efficient in carrying on his schemes for humbling the clergy, frightening the pope, and finally overturning popery itself, that he kept it alive for about six years!

*

Three bills, of great interest and importance touching the Reformation, were originated by the commons; and, notwithstanding the earnest opposition of the clergy within and without parliament,

* Burnet says: "There had been great industry used in carrying elections for the parliament, and they were so successful that the king was resolved to continue it for some time."

Vol. 1. pt.

1. bk. 11. p. 169. Hall says: "The most parte of the commons were the kynges servantes." - Chronicle, p. 767.

were triumphantly passed, the king "setting them forward," as Burnet says. The first of these bills. struck at the exorbitant charges of the spiritual courts for the probate of wills, "at the which," says Hall, “the archbishop of Cauntorburie in especiall, and all other bishoppes in generall both frowned and grunted, for that touched their proffite." This bill sets forth, "that divers ordinaries [ecclesiastical judges] take for the probation of testaments and other things thereunto belonging, sometimes forty shillings and sometimes sixty shillings, and sometimes more, against right and justice; where, in the time of Edward III., men were wont to pay for such causes but two shillings sixpence, or five shillings at the most.” It was therefore enacted, that "for the probate of wills etc., the charge should only be what it was in the days of Edward III.” Another bill regulated, and

* Forty, or even sixty shillings does not strike a modern reader as a very exorbitant probate charge; but when it is remembered that the value of gold and silver was nearly or quite six times greater in the days of Henry VIII. than it now is, and that the clergy had advanced their charges from twelve to sixteen times what they were in the days of Edward III., it will be seen at once that these charges were not only grievous to the common people, but were a strong illustration of the avaricious disposition of those who had the regulation of these matters.

Hall gives a spirited account of the debates of parliament on these bills. He says: "Sir Henry Guilford, knight of the garter, and comptroller of the king's house, declared in the open parliament, on his fidelity, that he and other, being executors to Sir William Compton, knight, paid for the probate of his will to the cardinal and the archbishop of Canterbury, a thousand marks sterling," (about $3220.) — Chronicle, pp. 765-68. 4to ed. Lond. 1809.

reduced essentially, the heavy fees of the clergy, which had long been the instruments of extortion, and had occasioned great complaints; though the people were afraid of incurring the fate of Hunne if they openly resisted these iniquitous claims of the spirituality.* A third bill struck at other crying abominations of the times the plurality of benefices, and non-residence, and also the secularization of the clergy, in pursuing for profit various trades and employments; for the clergy had become extensively secularized in their character and work, as we have seen by previous quotations from petitions to parliament.†

These bills were adapted to bring down the power and influence of the clergy, and to alarmi the pope; and were strenuously resisted by the clergy to the very last. Bishop Fisher, in the upper house, declared that these bills had "no other intent or purpose but to bring the clergy in contempt with the laity, that they may seize their patrimony"; and he warned the lords, "Beware of yourselves and your country; beware of your holy mother, the Catholic church; the people are subject to novelties, and Lutherism spreads itself among us. Remember Germany and Bohemia, what miseries are befallen them already; and let our neighbors' houses, that are now on fire, teach us to beware of our own disasters.

Wherefore,

* Statutes of the Realm, 21 Hen. VIII. chaps. 5 and 6.

↑ Statutes of the Realm, 21 Henry VIII. chaps. 5, 6, 13; Burnet, vol. 1. pt. 1. bk. 11. p. 165; Fox, 11. 207; ante, p. 30.

my lords, I will tell you plainly what I think: that, except ye resist manfully by your authorities this violent heap of mischiefs offered by the commons, you shall see all obedience first drawn from the clergy, and secondly from yourselves; and if you search into the true causes of all these mischiefs which reign amongst them, you shall find that they all arise through want of faith."* Resistance, however, was in vain. The bills passed.

The year 1530 was devoted to negotiations and efforts of various kinds, having reference to the divorce; particularly were Henry's agents busy in all directions, collecting the opinions of learned men, canonists and divines, on the lawfulness of the king's marriage, and the power of the pope to dispense with the law of God.

"If we sum up the result of Cranmer's measure as a whole, it may be said, that opinions had been given by about half of Europe, directly or indirectly, unfavorable to the papal claims."† Nineteen universities gave an opinion against the lawfulness of a marriage between a brother and a brother's widow. It is a noticeable fact, however, that the English universities gave their opinion in favor of the king with great reluctance. Oxford had the matter under discussion nearly two months

* Parliamentary History, vol. III. pp. 57, 58. Lond. 1762, second edition.

† Froude, 1. 267.

‡ Burnet's Hist. Ref., vol. 1. pt. 1. bk. 11. pp. 171-85; pt. 11, Records, bk. II. Nos. 34 and 35.

from February 12th, to April 8th, 1530. And it was necessary that the corporation should be quickened by several "messages" from the king, before the needful opinion could be obtained. At Cambridge, when the question was first submitted to the congregation, there was a tie vote; and it would seem that the majority vote could not finally be obtained without some management on the part of the king's agents; for Fox and Gardiner, who were then at Cambridge to expedite the business, wrote to the king, that, "at the last, by labor of friends, to cause some to depart the house, that were against it, [that is, who were opposed to the king's wishes,] it was obtained." *

And, though the unbiased opinion of the great majority of learned men of that period, canonists and divines, Lutheran and Romish, doubtless was against such marriages as Henry's, yet the influences brought to bear on their minds were so many and powerful, that it is difficult to say how much weight should be given to their published opinion. The Lutherans, we may reasonably believe, were honest; for though they held the pope as "the abomination of desolation," yet they cannot be suspected of any special friendliness towards the royal champion of Romanism against Lutheranism, who was even at that very time denouncing and persecuting the friends of Luther, and had just issued a special proclamation against the books and

* Hist. Ref., vol. 1. pt. II. bk. 11. No. 32; pt. 1. p. 173.