‘Presentant quod Gualterus Cromwell est communis braciator de here et fregit assisam’ and ‘quod Gualterus Cromwell et ... sunt communes tipellarii seruisie et fregerunt assisam ideo ipsi in misericordia vi d.’ (Court Rolls, 17 Nov., 10 Hen. VII.; 17 Oct., 15 Hen. VII.; 28 Oct., 17 Hen. VII.) ‘Item presentant quod Gualterus Smyth alias Crumwell nimis excessive suponunt communam pasturam domini ... cum aviis suis ad commune nocumentum ideo ipse in misericordia vi d.
Smyth de Puttenhith succidunt spinas in communa pastura domini apud Puttenhith. Ideo ipsi in misericordia iiii d.’ (Court Rolls, 28 Oct., 17 Hen. VII.) 1. ‘Ad hanc curiam venit Ricardus Williams et sursum redidit in manus domini duas integras virgatas terrae in Hamptone ... quarum una vocata Purycroft ... et alia virgata vocata Williams ad opus Thomae Smyth heredum et assignatorum’ (Court Rolls, 26 Feb., 19 Hen. VII.) 2. ‘Ricardus Williams fecit insultum Thomae [Smyth] et eundem Thomam verberavit contra pacem domini Regis’ ... ‘Ad hanc curiam venit Thomas Smyth et sursum redidit in manus domini duas integras virgatas terrae in Rokhamptone ... quarum una virgata vocata Purycroft et alia virgata vocata Williams ad opus Davidii Doby heredum et assignatorum’ (Court Rolls, 20 May, 19 Hen. VII.) ‘On the south side and at the west end of this church (the Austin Friars) many fayre houses are builded, namely in Throgmorton streete, one very large and spacious, builded in the place of olde and small Tenementes by Thomas Cromwell.... This house being finished, and hauing some reasonable plot of ground left for a Garden, he caused the pales of the Gardens adioyning to the north parte thereof on a sodaine to be taken downe, 22 foot to bee measured forth right into the north of euery man’s ground, a line there to bee drawen, a trench to bee cast, a foundation laid, and a highe bricke wall to bee builded. My father had a Garden there, and an house standing close to his south pale, this house they lowsed from the ground & bare vpon Rowlers into my Father’s Garden 22 foot, ere my Father heard thereof: no warning was given him, nor any other answere when hee spake to the surueyers of that worke but that their Mayster Sir Thomas commaunded them so to doe, no man durst go to argue the matter, but each man lost his land, and my Father payde his whole rent, which was vis. viiid. the yeare, for that halfe which was left. Thus much of mine owne knowledge haue I thought good to note, that the suddaine rising of some men, causeth them to forget themselves.’ ‘Whether the King may command against the Common Law or an Act of Parliament there is never a Judge, or other man in the realm, ought to know more by experience of that the Lawyers have said, than I ... being of the Council, when many Proclamations were devised against the Carriers out of Corn; when it came to punishing the Offenders the Judges would answer, it might not be by the Laws, because the Act of Parliament gave liberty, Wheat being under a price: wherupon at the last followed the Act of Proclamations, in the passing whereof were many large words.’ It will be noticed that this account of the origin of the Act is in many ways similar to that contained in Cromwell’s letter: the chief difference being that according to the latter the measure was adopted to prevent the export of coin, while Gardiner informs us that the statute was devised to prevent the export of corn. It is possible that the Bishop of Winchester, writing so many years later, had forgotten the exact circumstances, and was really referring to the same incident as that described by Cromwell. Burnet has printed Gardiner’s letter in full (Collection of Records and Original Papers, &c., part ii, book i, no. 14), but he does not seem to have made use of the information it contains; for in another part of his work (part i, book iii, p. 423) he asserts that the Act about Proclamations was the result of the great exceptions made to the legality of the King’s proceedings in the articles about religion and other injunctions published by his authority, which were complained of as contrary to law. Hallam (vol. i. p. 35 n.) apparently agrees with Burnet in this last statement, and ignores the evidence supplied by the letter of the Bishop of Winchester. It is probable that both writers have gone astray in this matter. The opposition aroused by the King’s ecclesiastical proclamations may have hastened the passage of the Act, but they can scarcely be regarded as its origin in the face of the testimony of Cromwell and Gardiner. Burnet and Hallam were perhaps led to ascribe the source of the statute to religious matters, by the fact that the Act was passed almost simultaneously with the Six Articles, and by the special provision which it contained concerning heretics. ‘Obedientia unitatem parit, Unitas animi quietem et constantiam; Constans vero animi quies thesaurus inestimabilis. Respexit humilitatem Qui in Filio nobis reliquit Perfectum humilitatis exemplar. Factus est obediens Patri. Et ipsa etiam natura parentibus Et patrie obediendum docuit.’ This ring he intended to bestow on the Princess Mary, but apparently the King got wind of the plan and put a stop to it, taking the ring away from his minister, on the plea that he desired to have the honour of presenting it to his daughter himself. The episode should have been sufficient to show that even if Cromwell had any idea of marrying the Princess, the King’s opposition to the plan would prove insurmountable. The inscription on the ring, moreover, surely indicates that the gift was intended rather as a reminder to the Princess of her duty towards her father, than as a preliminary to a matrimonial proposal. Cal. xi. 148. ‘Lutheranum fuisse Burnetus pro certo habet, nec dissentiunt Saxonicorum Legatorum de eo relationes. Ex iisdem tamen et historiarum documentis constat, hominem fuisse non saltem solida doctrina minime imbutum sed eius ingenii ut Regis favorem omnibus rebus anteponeret. Ultima sane Burcardi ex Anglia relatione de 11 Jan. scripta ... diserte dicitur, ilium de religione ita disseruisse ut se cum Evangelicis in Germania consentire non negaret, necessarium tamen sibi esse diceret ut Regis voluntati sese conformaret, etiam cum vitae suae periculo, id quod eventus paulo post comprobavit. Non est itaque, ut hunc pro martyre Evangelicae religionis habeamus, et ipse in loco supplicii mori se professus est in religione Catholica. Hoc, etsi ex D. Burneti sententia de Romana minime intellexerit, indicat tamen animum infirmum et aequivocationes sectantem.’ Seckendorff, s. lxxviii, p. 261; liber iii, sect. 21. Transcriber’s Notes Hyphenation and punctuation have been corrected and standardised. Cromwell’s letters, however, have been fully retained according to the original text; no changes in spelling have been applied here. Numbered ranges have been expanded in full, i.e. 1595-6 is now 1595-1596. Dittoes in the Table of Contents have been eliminated by insertion of appropriate text. Internal references have been adapted to match the numbering scheme used in this electronic version. The following passages have been changed:
|