Page 130 of 131

14 (return)
[ NOTE N, p. 252., Collier, in his Ecclesiastical History, (vol. ii. p. 152,) has preserved an account which Cromwell gave of this conference, in a letter to Sir Thomas Wyat, the king’s ambassador in Germany. “The king’s majesty,” says Cromwell, “for the reverence of the holy sacrament of the altar, did sit openly in his hall, and there presided at the disputation, process, and judgment of a miserable heretic sacramentary, who was burned the twentieth of November. It was a wonder to see how princely, with how excellent gravity, and inestimable majesty, his highness exercised there the very office of supreme head of the church of England. How benignly his grace essayed to convert the miserable man; how strong and manifest reasons his highness alleged against him. I wish the princes and potentates of Christendom to have had a meet place to have seen it. Undoubtedly they should have much marvelled at his majesty’s most high wisdom and judgment, and reputed him no otherwise after the same, than in a manner the mirror and light of all other kings and princes in Christendom.” It was by such flatteries that Henry was engaged to make his sentiments the standard to all mankind; and was determined to enforce, by the severest penalties, his “strong” and “manifest” reasons for transubstantiation.]

15 (return)
[ NOTE O, p. 254. There is a story, that the duke of Norfolk, meeting, soon after this act was passed, one of his chaplains, who was suspected of favoring the reformation, said to him, “Now, sir, what think you of the law to hinder priests from having wives?” “Yes, my lord,” replies the chaplain, “you have done that; but I will answer for it you cannot hinder men’s wives from having priests.”]

16 (return)
[ NOTE P, p. 265. To show how much Henry sported with law and common sense, how servilely the parliament followed all his caprices, and how much both of them were lost to all sense of shame, an act was passed this session, declaring that a precontract should be no ground for annulling a marriage; as if that pretext had not been made use of both in the case of Anne Boleyn and Anne of Cleves. But the king’s intention in this law is said to be a design of restoring the princess Elizabeth to her right of legitimacy; and it was his character never to look farther than the present object, without regarding the inconsistency of his conduct. The parliament made it high treason to deny the dissolution of Henry’s marriage with Anne of Cleves. Herbert.]

17 (return)
[ NOTE Q, p. 274. It was enacted by this parliament, that there should be trial of treason in any county where the king should appoint by commission. The statutes of treason had been extremely multiplied in this reign; and such an expedient saved trouble and charges in trying that crime. The same parliament erected Ireland into a kingdom; and Henry henceforth annexed the title of king of Ireland to his other titles. This session the commons first began the practice of freeing any of their members who were arrested, by a writ issued by the speaker. Formerly it was usual for them to apply for a writ from chancery to that purpose. This precedent increased the authority of the commons, and had afterwards important consequences. Holingshed, p. 955, 956. Baker, p. 289.]

18 (return)
[ NOTE R, p. 281. The persecutions exercised during James’s reign are not to be ascribed to his bigotry, a vice of which he seems to have been as free as Francis I. or the emperor Charles, both of whom, as well as James, showed, in different periods of their lives, even an inclination to the new doctrines. The extremities to which all these princes were carried, proceeded entirely from the situation of affairs during that age, which rendered it impossible for them to act with greater temper or moderation, after they had embraced the resolution of supporting the ancient establishments. So violent was the propensity of the times towards innovation, that a bare toleration of the new preachers was equivalent to a formed design of changing the national religion.]

19 (return)
[ NOTE S, p. 331. Spotswood, p. 75. The same author (p. 92) tells us a story which confirms this character of the Popish clergy in Scotland. It became a great dispute in the university of St. Andrew’s, whether the pater should be said to God or the saints. The friars, who knew in general that the reformers neglected the saints, were determined to maintain their honor with great obstinacy; but they knew not upon what topics to found their doctrine. Some held that the pater was said to God formaliter, and to saints materialiter; others, to God principaliter, and to saints minus principaliter; others would have it ultimate and non ultimate: but the majority seemed to hold that the pater was said to God capiendo stricte, and to saints capiendo large. A simple fellow, who served the sub-prior, thinking there was some great matter in hand that made the doctors hold so many conferences together, asked him one day what the matter was: the sub-prior answering, “Tom,” (that was the fellow’s name,) “we cannot agree to whom the pater-noster should be said.” He suddenly replied, “To whom, sir, should it be said, but unto God?” Then said the sub-prior, “What shall we do with the saints?” He answered, “Give them aves and creeds enow, in the devil’s name; for that may suffice them.” The answer going abroad, many said, “that he had given a wiser decision than all the doctors had done, with all their distinctions.”]

20 (return)
[ NOTE T, p. 351. Another act, passed this session, takes notice, in the preamble, that the city of York, formerly well inhabited, was now much decayed; insomuch that many of the cures could not afford a competent maintenance to the incumbents. To remedy this inconvenience, the magistrates were empowered to unite as many parishes as they thought proper. An ecclesiastical historian (Collier, vol. ii. p. 230) thinks that this decay of York is chiefly to be ascribed to the dissolution of monasteries, by which the revenues fell into the hands of persons who lived at a distance.

A very grievous tax was imposed this session upon the whole stock and moneyed interest of the kingdom, and even upon its industry. It was a shilling in the pound yearly, during three years, on every person worth ten pounds or upwards; the double on aliens and denizens. These last, if above twelve years of age, and if worth less than twenty shillings, were to pay eightpence yearly. Every wether was to pay twopence yearly; every ewe, threepence. The woollen manufactures were to pay eightpence a pound on the value of all the cloth they made. These exorbitant taxes on money are a proof that few people lived on money lent at interest; for this tax amounts to half of the yearly income of all money-holders, during three years, estimating their interest at the rate allowed by law; and was too grievous to be borne, if many persons had been affected by it. It is remarkable, that no tax at all was laid upon land this session. The profits of merchandise were commonly so high, that it was supposed it could bear this imposition. The most absurd part of the laws seems to be the tax upon the woollen manufactures. See 2 and 3 Edward VI. cap. 36. The subsequent parliament repealed the tax on sheep and woollen cloth. 3 and 4 Edward VI. cap. 23. But they continued the other tax a year longer. Ibid.

The clergy taxed themselves at six shillings in the pound, to be paid in three years. This taxation was ratified in parliament, which had been the common practice since the reformation, implying that the clergy have no legislative power, even over themselves. See 2 and 3 Edward VI. cap. 35.]