Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-27T04:42:49.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proctorial Representation in the House of Lords During Edward VI's Reign: A Reassessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

M. A. R. Graves
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his recent examination of licensed absenteeism and proctorial representation in the Edwardian house of lords, Professor Vernon F. Snow sustained and elaborated the thesis which he first postulated in an earlier article on the upper house in Henry VIII's reign. He claimed that these procedures benefited both the Crown and the individual member. They permitted the latter to secure leave of absence in the case of bona fide personal difficulties — sickness, age, poverty — yet to retain, in the person of his proctor, a voice in the affairs of the house. At the same time they satisfied the Crown. They committed the licensee to decisions taken in his absence. They could be used to authorize the royal servant to remain at his post. And above all they enabled the Crown, through the privy council, to control the House of Lords. The procurators “possessed latent power in proportion to the number of proxies they held.” As the great majority of proxies were concentrated in the hands of councillors, the Crown was able to control proceedings in the upper house through a large, perhaps majority, bloc of committed spokesmen and voters. The arithmetical essense of Snow's thesis is that parliamentary power in the Lords, whether it be of the individual or of the Crown, increased in direct proportion to the number of proxies held. The council's possession of most of them constituted a power additional to the traditional devices for influencing the composition of the upper house and the distribution of power within it: the ennoblement or promotion of faithful lords temporal, the translation or deprivation of obstinate lords spiritual, detention or the denial of writs from prominent opponents of the Crown.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , May 1971 , pp. 17 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 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. Snow, Vernon F., “Proctorial Representation in the House of Lords during the Reign of Edward VI,” Journal of British Studies, VIII (1969), 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Snow, Vernon F., “Proctorial Representation and Conciliar Management during the Reign of Henry VIII,” Historical Journal, IX (1966), 1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a serious criticism of his thesis, see Miller, Helen, “Attendance in the House of Lords during the Reign of Henry VIII,” Historical Journal, X (1967), 325–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), 23–24Google Scholar.

4. Ibid., p.25.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid., p.27.

7. Ibid., tables I, II, V, pp. 8, 18.

8. Ibid., tables III, IV, VI, pp. 10, 12, 20.

9. Ibid., pp. 8-9, 18-19, 19n, 26.

10. Ibid., pp. 17, 23.

11. Ibid., p. 7, n. 26, table I, p. 8.

12. Ibid., p. 7, n. 26.

13. For example, in the fourth session of the first Edwardian parliament, lasting from Jan. 23 until Apr. 15, 1552, the bishop of Rochester and Lords Conyers, Wharton and Morley registered their proxies on March 3, 7, 9 and 10, and were absent from the Lords from Feb. 25, and March 5, 9 and 5 respectively. House of Lords Record Office, MS, Journal, Vol. II, Main Papers, fols. 229, 231-33, 235-36; Journals of the House of Lords, I, 405, 407–10Google Scholar. Both the original manuscript Lords Journals in the House of Lords Record Office (hereafter cited as MSS, Lords Journals) and the eighteenth century printed edition (hereafter cited as Lords Journals) have been used in the following examination of attendance. All references will cite the printed and manuscript Journals, in order to provide a means of checking the copy against the original.

14. For example, Lord Willoughby, who registered his proxy on Nov. 11, 1549, was absent for fifteen consecutive days, thereafter attending on all but two of the remaining 46 sittings. MSS, Lords Journals, II, fols. 135-96; Lords Journals, I, 357–88Google Scholar.

15. Infra, pp. 27-28.

16. Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), table I, p. 8Google Scholar.

17. Table B, which has been compiled from the Lords Journals, includes a number of peers and bishops who were recorded as present only once during a session, and who were probably entered in error by the clerk. In any case, their exclusion from the table would only reduce the number of unauthorized sessional absentees from 26 to 22 and transfer nine from the sessionally absent licensees to those who are designated as absent for only part of a session.

18. This total is incorrect because it omits Lord Wharton who did not name any proctors. In response to two requests by him for “instructions what I shall do” the protector advised him, on Oct. 20, 1547, that “we have … resolved for you to remain upon your charge this time of the parliament.” Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), table I, p. 8Google Scholar; PRO, Lord Wharton to protector and council, Oct. 5, 1547, State Papers, Edward VI, 15/1, fol. 31; Lord Wharton to protector and council, Oct. 12, 1547, ibid., fol. 33; protector to Lord Wharton, Oct. 20, 1547, ibid., fol. 38.

19. Incorrectly recorded as ten in Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969)Google Scholar, Table I, 8, but entered correctly as eleven in ibid., table V, p. 18.

20. For example, Lord Monteagle attended on 20 days (57% of the session) in 1547, the earl of Oxford on 26 days (36%) in 1548-49, Willoughby on 46 days (70%) in 1549-50, and Wharton on 26 days (43%) in 1552. The other incorrect entries are Cumberland, Worcester, Delawarr, Scrope and Zouche (1548-49), Darcy and Delawarr (1549-50), Westmorland, Conyers, Morley and Stafford (1552). MSS, Lords Journals, II, fols. 5-268; Lords Journals, I, 294–428Google Scholar. Though Professor Snow does not explicitly describe them as sessional absentees in Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), table V, p. 18Google Scholar, n. 52, the total of thirty-nine recorded there corresponds to the list of temporal lords' sessional absences in table A, supra p. 20 (the corrected version of his first table which charts the sessional absenteeism of the lords temporal).

21. Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), table II, pp. 8, 9Google Scholar. Their attendance record (given first as a total and then as a proportion of the daily sittings) is as follows: Chambers of Peterborough: 20 (57%), Bird of Chester: 10 (29%), and Kitchin of Llandaff: 5 (14%) in 1547; Chambers: 30 (41%), Holgate of York: 59 (81%), Voysey of Exeter: 6 (8%), Wakeman of Gloucester: 13 (21%) and Warton of St. Asaph: 13 (18%) in 1548-49; and Scory of Rochester: 13 (22%) in 1552. These figures have been calculated from the attendance register in the Lords Journals. MS, Lords Journals, II, fols. 5-299; Lords Journals, I, 294–445Google Scholar.

22. Supra, n. 18 and infra, table E.

23. Infra, table E. Rugge was only eligible for part of the 1549-50 session because he was compelled to resign before parliament was prorogued. D.N.B., XVII, 391; Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Edward VI, Vol. II, 385Google Scholar (hereafter cited as C.P.R.).

24. Infra, table E.

25. Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), table V, p. 18Google Scholar.

26. According to Snow, Richard Lord Rich was “the only privy councillor who absented himself from a session of Parliament during Edward's reign.” While Rich was the sole Edwardian councillor to figure as a licensed sessional absentee, however, Warwick and Huntingdon were also absent, without recorded licenses, for an entire session. Ibid., 19, n. 54; MSS, Lords Journals, II, fols. 5-42, 209-68; Lords Journals, I, 294-313, 394–428Google Scholar.

27. Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), 11-12, 17, 19Google Scholar, n. 54, 21-25, 27.

28. Ibid., p.24.

29. Infra, p. 24.

30. The earls of Arundel, Bedford, Shrewsbury and Southampton, and Lord Paget. MSS, Lords Journals, II, fol. 188; Lords Journals, I, 384Google Scholar.

31. The earls of Bedford, Shrewsbury, Southampton and Warwick. MSS, Lords Journals, II, 132, 134-35, 137, 172, 176Google Scholar; Lords Journals, I, 355, 356-58, 376, 378Google Scholar.

32. James, M. E., Change and Continuity in the Tudor North: The Rise of Thomas, First Lord Wharton [Borthwick Institute of Historical Research, Borthwick Papers, no. 27] (York, 1965), p. 39Google Scholar; MSS, Lords Journals, II, fol. 138; Lords Journals, I, 384Google Scholar.

33. MSS, Lords Journals, II, fol. 220; Lords Journals, I, 401Google Scholar.

34. Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), 27Google Scholar.

35. The bishops of Durham, Worcester and Westminster, Lords Morley, Windsor and Wharton, MSS, Lords Journals, II, fol. 188; Lords Journals, I, 384Google Scholar.

36. The earl of Shrewsbury and Lords Windsor and Wharton. MS, Lords Journals, II, fol. 220; Lords Journals, I, 401Google Scholar. Lord Conyers' proxy, naming Shrewsbury as a proctor, was not, however, registered in the Lords Journals until 7 March, nearly a month after the vote on the bill for the marriage of priests. MSS, Lords Journals, II, fol. 233; Lords Journals, I, 408Google Scholar.

37. For a similar view on the Henrician privy council, see Miller, , “Attendance,” Historical Journal, X, 350–51Google Scholar.

38. Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), 21, 26Google Scholar.

39. Ibid., pp. 23-27.

40. SirD'Ewes, Simonds, The Journals of all the Parliaments during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, both of the House of Lords and House of Commons (London, 1682), pp. 5–6Google Scholar.

41. Moreover, in his table of lay procurators, Snow has unaccountably altered the order of joint procurators on eight occasions. Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), table VI, p. 20Google Scholar; MSS, Lords Journals, II, fols. 51, 126, 132, 135, 164, 209, 212, 272; Lords Journals, I, 317, 355-57, 372, 394, 396, 430Google Scholar.

42. Ridley (9), Barlow (7), Goodrich (7), Bush (6), Holbeach (5), and Ponet (3). Professor Snow has incorrectly assigned two more to Holbeach and omitted one held by Bush in 1552. Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), tables III, IV, pp. 10, 12Google Scholar; MSS, Lords Journals, II, fols. 212, 246; Lords Journals, I, 396, 416Google Scholar. The corrected proxy totals above have been compiled from the Lords Journals.

43. Compiled from the Lords Journals. Cf. Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), table IV, p. 12Google Scholar.

44. Ibid., pp. 20-23.

45. Citing the Acts of the Privy Council, Snow writes that “On April 8, 1550 … [the Council] issued to the Earl of Huntingdon, who was on a military mission, a license to be absent from the forthcoming Parliament.” The relevant document reads as follows: “Letters to therle of Huntingdon that he may repayre hither at his liberty, leving some grave gentleman to supply his absens, touching the dispatche of souldiours.” Far from being a license to absent himself, it is a permit from the council to come to Court (and possibly to parliament). Ibid., p. 23; Acts of the Privy Council of England, New Series, Vol. II, 1547–1550, 425Google Scholar (hereafter cited as A.P.C.).

46. Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), 23–24Google Scholar.

47. For example, the earls of Cumberland and Westmorland in 1541, Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII, XVI, nos. 1464-65; Lord Wharton in 1547, PRO, protector to Lord Wharton, Oct. 20, 1547, State Papers, Edward VI, 15/1, fol. 38; and the earl of Arundel and the bishop of Ely in 1558, Calendar of State Papers Foreign, Mary, no. 854, p. 406.

48. The probable reasons for the absence of the peers and bishops listed in table E have been elicited from the following sources: Cokayne, G. E., Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom (London, 1910–1959)Google Scholar; A.P.C., 1547-50, 1550-52; C.P.R., Edward VI, I-V; Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1547-80; Jordan, W. K. (ed.), The Chronicle and Political Papers of Edward VI (London, 1966)Google Scholar; Historical Manuscripts Commission Report, Rutland MSS, IV (London, 1905), 191–203Google Scholar (hereafter cited as H.M.C.); H.M.C., Salisbury MSS, I (London, 1883), nos. 214, 317, 320, pp. 50-51, 75-76; Jordan, W. K., Edward VI: The Young King (London, 1968)Google Scholar; Grey, Arthur, Lord Grey of Wilton, A Commentary of the Services and Charges of William Lord Grey of Wilton, K.G., ed. Egerton, P. de M. G. [Camden Society, Old Series, XL] (London, 1847)Google Scholar; Anstruther, G., Vaux of Harrowden: A Recusant Family (Newport, Monmouthshire, 1953)Google Scholar.

49. Rugge's enforced resignation, however, may have been due to his catholic position: See Gasquet, F. A. and Bishop, E., Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer (3rd ed.; London, 1928), pp. 134-35, 138Google Scholar; MSS, Lords Journals, II, fols. 29, 33, 80, 103; Lords Journals, I, 306, 308, 331, 343Google Scholar; for his sympathy for Somerset, or the spoliation of his, see C.P.R., Edward VI, II, 385; D.N.B., XVII, 391.

50. Anstruther, Vaux of Harrowden, pp. 42-43, 62-63. Vaux's recorded presence on one day between 1534 and 1553 is without a doubt a clerical error which the clerk later amended when he wrote in ‘Sheifelde’ instead. Nov. 15, 1547, MSS, Lords Journals, II, fols. 12-13; Lords Journals, I, 297Google Scholar.

51. Cumberland's appearance in only one Marian parliamentary session can hardly be said to support Snow's explanation that he absented himself from Edwardian sessions because of a preference for Catholicism and antipathy to protestant innovation. Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), 19Google Scholar; Cokayne, , Complete Peerage, III, 567Google Scholar; Stone, L., The Crisis of the Aristocracy, 1558–1641 (Oxford, 1965), p. 451Google Scholar; D.N.B., IV, 519; MSS, Lords Journals, III, fols. 37-84; Lords Journals, I, 465–90Google Scholar.

52. Snow, , “Proctorial Representation,” J.B.S., VIII (1969), 24–25Google Scholar.

53. Miller, , “Attendance,” Historical Journal, X, 350–51Google Scholar.

54. Roskell, J. S., “The Problem of the Attendance of the Lords in Medieval Parliaments,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXIX (1956), 153–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55. PRO, SP 1/102, fol. 5v, Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, X, 254Google Scholar, cit. Miller, , “Attendance” Historical Journal, X, 335, n. 65Google Scholar.

56. Miller, , “Attendance,” Historical Journal, X, 335-36, 341–43Google Scholar.

57. Ibid., p. 336.

58. Oct. 20, 1547, A.P.C., 1547-50, app. 519.

59. H.M.C., 7th Report, Appendix, MSS of William More Molyneux Esq., of Loseley (London, 1879), 605Google Scholar.

60. Apr. 8, 1550, A.P.C., 1547-50, p. 425.

61. Apr. 13, 1550, ibid., p. 428.

62. Oct. 11, 1550, A.P.C., 1550-52, p. 138.

63. Oct. 23, 1551, ibid., p. 426.

64. PRO, John duke of Northumberland to Sir William Cecil, Jan. 8, 1552, S.P. 10/14, fol. 1; A.P.C., 1550-52, p. 456.

65. Jan. 5, 1553, A.P.C., 1552-54, p. 200.

66. MSS, Lords Journals, II, fol. 272; Lords Journals, I, 430Google Scholar.

67. Dickens, A. G., “Archbishop Holgate's Apology,” E.H.R., LVI (1941), 456Google Scholar.

68. Compiled from the attendance register in the Lords Journals.

69. A.P.C., 1547-50, pp. 48-59.

70. Calendar of State Papers Spanish, IX, 64, 91-92, 197Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Cal. S.P. Span.); MSS Lords Journals, II, fols. 5-42; Lords Journals, I, 294–313Google Scholar. There were actually thirty-eight sittings but the clerk failed to record the attendance on three days.

71. MSS, Lords Journals, II, fols. 82-83; Lords Journals, I, 332Google Scholar; A.P.C., 1547-50, pp. 236-40, 246-62; H.M.C., Salisbury MSS, I, no. 300. See also Cobbett, W. and Howell, T. B. (eds.), A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and other Crimes and Misdemeanors, I (London, 1809), 483–504Google Scholar; Jordan, , Edward VI: The Young King, pp. 372–80Google Scholar.

72. MSS, Lords Journals, II, fols. 80, 220; Lords Journals, I, 331, 401Google Scholar; Cal. S. P. Span., X, 9Google Scholar.

73. MSS, Lords Journals, II, fols. 33, 80, 103, 188; Lords Journals, I, 308, 331, 343, 384Google Scholar; Pratt, J. (ed.), The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe, VI (London, n.d.), 126Google Scholar; Gasquet, and Bishop, , Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer, pp. 125–37Google Scholar.

74. Compiled from the attendance register in the Lords Journals.

75. Oct. 14, 1549 A.P.C., 1547-50, p. 344; Cal. S.P. Span., X, 8Google Scholar; Wriothesley, C., A Chronicle of England during the Reigns of the Tudors, ed. Hamilton, W. D. [Camden Society, New Series, XX] (London, 1875–1877), II, 33–34Google Scholar; Ridley, J., Nicholas Ridley: a biography (London, 1957), p. 195Google Scholar.

76. Cokayne, , Complete Peerage, I, 250Google Scholar; Jordan, , Chronicle of Edward VI, 88-89, 94Google Scholar; Cal. S.P. Span., X, 536–37Google Scholar; Wriothesley, , Chronicle of England, II, 56, 62, 69Google Scholar.