Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T06:25:42.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proctorial Representation in the House of Lords during the Reign of Edward VI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Vernon F. Snow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This is the third in a series of studies dealing with the history of the proxy system in the House of Lords. The first, after tracing the origin of proxies to the Roman law of agency, dealt with the emergence and spread of representation by proctors in the ecclesiastical and political assemblies of medieval England. The second study demonstrated how the proxy system was perfected in the upper house during the reign of Henry VIII and how the Crown benefited from that system. The ensuing article concerns proctorial representation during the crucial years of the Edwardian Reformation. Because of the brief period under consideration — only six years — it seemed best to cast the study in an analytical rather than a chronological framework. The first section deals with the general characteristics of proctorial representation in mid-Tudor times; the second and third sections cover the spiritual and temporal lords, respectively; and the fourth section treats the relationship between the proxy system and conciliar government.

I

Knowledge of the proxy system in the mid-sixteenth-century House of Lords remains somewhat fragmentary and limited in scope. A satisfactory treatment of the subject does not exist. Constitutional and legal historians have paid little attention to proxies and less to the procedure governing their use in the upper house. As one might expect, Bishop Stubbs dealt with proxies in medieval Parliaments and correctly associated them with parliamentary privileges, but at the same time he concluded that “its history has not yet been minutely traced.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , May 1969 , pp. 1 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1969

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., “The Origin and Diffusion of Proctorial Representation in Medieval England,” American Journal of Legal History, VII (1963), 319–39CrossRefGoogle 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 somewhat different view see Helen Miller, “Attendance in the House of Lords during the Reign of Henry VIII,” ibid., X (1967), 325-51.

3. Stubbs, William, The Constitutional History of England (Oxford, 1903), III, 506Google Scholar.

4. Pike, Luke Owen, A Constitutional History of the House of Lords (London, 1894), pp. 243–46Google Scholar.

5. Tanner, J. R., Tudor Constitutional Documents (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 518, 541, 545Google Scholar.

6. Pollard, A. F., The Evolution of Parliament (London, 1925), pp. 273–74Google Scholar.

7. SirMay, Thomas Erskine, The Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George III, ed. Holland, F. (London, 1912), III, 14–15Google Scholar.

8. Firth, C. H., The House of Lords during the Civil War (London, 1910)Google Scholar; Dunham, William Huse, The Fane Fragment of the 1461 Lords' Journal (New Haven, 1935)Google Scholar; Pickthorn, K. W. M., Early Tudor Government (Cambridge, 1934)Google Scholar; Keir, D. L., The Constitutional History of Modern Britain (London, 1948)Google Scholar. For a treatment of absenteeism and attendance see Roskell, J. S., “The Problem of Attendance of the Lords in Medieval Parliaments,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXIX (1956), 179–95Google Scholar. Unfortunately Roskell has little to say about the political implications of proxies. For a brief survey of proxy voting see Powell, J. Enoch, “Proxy Voting in the House of Lords,” Parliamentary Affairs, IX (1956), 203–12Google Scholar.

9. For a discussion of the laws and customs of Parliament and comments on the Modus Tenendi Parliamentum, see SirCoke, Edward, The Fourth Part of the Institutes (London, 1809), pp. 12–13Google Scholar. For the best critical treatment see McIlwain, C. H., The High Court of Parliament (New Haven, 1910), pp. 173–75, 233–36Google Scholar.

10. Vowell, John (alias Hooker, John), The order and usage of the keeping of a parliament in England (London, 1575)Google Scholar. It is not clear whether Vowell simply published an English version from a contemporary manuscript or whether he translated it from a Latin manuscript. In 1587 he incorporated the tract in his edition of Holinshead's Chronicles. For a brief discussion of this subject see Read, Conyers, Bibliography of British History (Oxford, 1959), p. 27Google Scholar. Vowell's version is also reprinted in SirScott, Walter (ed.), The Somers Tracts (London, 1809–1815), I, 174–83Google Scholar.

11. Hodnett, Dorothy K. and White, Winifred P., “The Manuscripts of the Modus Tenendi Parliamentum” E.H.R., XXXIX (1919), 209–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clarke, M. V., Medieval Representation and Consent (London, 1936), pp. 348–69Google Scholar.

12. Pollard, A. F., “The Authenticity of the Lords' Journals in the Sixteenth Century,” Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., third series, VIII (1914), 36Google Scholar

13. SirSmith, Thomas, De Republica Anglorum, ed. Alston, Leonard (Cambridge, 1906), p. 50Google Scholar.

14. Ibid., p. 51.

15. See SirDugdale, William, A Perfect Copy of all the Summons of the Nobility to the Great Councils and Parliaments of this Realm from the XLIX of King Henry the IIId until these present Times (London, 1685), pp. 1–27Google Scholar; Elsynge, Henry, The Manner of Holding Parliaments, ed. Tyrwhitt, Thomas (London, 1768), pp. 1–55Google Scholar; Pollard, , Evolution of Parliament, pp. 272–74Google Scholar.

16. Pike, , Constitutional History, p. 243Google Scholar; Roskell, , “The Problem of Attendance,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXIX, 202–06Google Scholar.

17. Lodge, Edmund, Illustrations of British History (London, 1838), I, 204Google Scholar.

18. Journals of the House of Lords, I, 1–475Google Scholar. There were some minor variations in the form between 1509-58. In 1551 the Clerk of the Parliaments used the following form: “Hodie introducte sunt Litere Procuratorie Thomas West, Militis, Domini Lawarr, in quibus Procuratores suos constituit Johannem Parker, Militem, Dominum Morley, et Thomam Wharton, Militem, Dominum Wharton.” Ibid., I, 394. The form for the prelates was worded slightly differently.

19. For further discussion of the proxy system see Powell, , “Proxy Voting,” Parliamentary Affairs, IX, 20Google Scholar; Snow, Vernon, “The Arundel Case, 1626,” The Historian, XXVI (1964), 323–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; House of Lords Record Office, Vernon Snow, “Some Notes on Sources Dealing with Proctorial Representation in the House of Lords” (unpublished memorandum).

20. Lords Journals, I, 355Google Scholar.

21. House of Lords Record Office, MS, Journal, Vol. I, Main Papers, fols. 126-27. A comparison of the manuscript version with the printed version of the Lords Journals (I, 355)Google Scholar exonerates the editor; he simply followed the manuscript version and thus perpetuated an error. For a treatment of similar mistakes and errors, see Pollard, , “The Authenticity of the Lords' Journals,” Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., third series, VIII, 17–39Google Scholar.

22. Lords Journals, I, 316–54Google Scholar.

23. Ibid., I, 355-90.

24. Ibid., I, 391-429.

25. Ibid., I, 430-45.

26. The absentee figures are based on the proxy registrations in the Lords Journals; the figures for the temporal lords summoned come from Dugdale, , Summons of the Nobility, pp. 509–13Google Scholar; the figures of the spiritual lords summoned are based on the lists of the clerk of the Parliaments used for keeping daily attendance.

27. These figures were compiled from the proxy registrations recorded by the clerk of the Parliaments in the Lords Journals.

28. A list of these men can be found in Knowles, Dom David, The Religious Orders of England (Cambridge, 1959), III, 492–96Google Scholar. The biographical information on these prelates was garnered from ibid.; D.N.B.; Smith, Lacey Baldwin, Tudor Prelates and Politics (Princeton, 1953)Google Scholar.

29. Roskell, , “The Problem of Attendance,” Bull. Inst. Hist. Res., XXIX, esp. 172–75Google Scholar.

30. See Snow, , “Proctorial Representation during the Reign of Henry VIII,” Historical Journal, IX, 7–10Google Scholar; Miller, “Attendance,” ibid., X, 336-38.

31. Smith, , Tudor Prelates, p. 283Google Scholar.

32. The joint proxies of the prelates generally, but not invariably, included the phrase “conjunction et divisim”; however, this phrase does not appear after the names of the temporal procurators. While the purpose of the joint proxy was to insure the legal presence of the absentee against the possibility that one procurator might be absent from a daily session, it is not clear as to how the system operated in the mid-sixteenth century. If the procurators were allowed to cast a vote for the absentee, how did they cast it, collectively or individually? The practice in the seventeenth century, according to Sir Edward Coke, was for the joint procurators to agree in advance and cast a single vote; in fact, they could not vote unless they agreed. It is not clear as to whether this practice prevailed in the reign of Edward VI.

It will be noted that in a few cases the name of a clerical absentee listed in Table II appears in Table III as a proctor for the same session. I have not to date been able to determine why this is true in particular cases. Possibly an absentee named a proctor without realizing that the proctor himself would be an absentee. In the seventeenth century it was possible for a lord to receive a proxy, absent himself and assign his own voting power to an attendant lord, and then return to the upper house later in the session. In both cases the name would appear as both absentee and procurator. Fortunately there were not many instances of this political behavior in the sixteenth century. It did become a problem during the reign of James I and was, therefore, regulated by a standing order passed in February 1626.

33. Throughout this section, and particularly in this table, I have accepted the nomenclature and classifications of Smith, , Tudor Prelates, pp. 305–07Google Scholar.

34. Ridley, Jasper, Thomas Cranmer (Oxford, 1962), p. 322Google Scholar.

35. Muller, J. A., Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (New York, 1926), pp. 140–88Google Scholar. Also see Acts of the Privy Council 1547-50, pp. 131, 135, 157 (hereafter cited as A.P.C.).

36. Muller, J. A., Letters of Stephen Gardiner (Cambridge, 1933), p. 410Google Scholar.

37. Ibid., p. 424.

38. Ibid., p. 427.

39. Muller, , Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction, p. 185Google Scholar.

40. Gairdner, James, The English Church in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1902), p. 248Google Scholar.

41. A.P.C. 1547-50, p. 385.

42. Gairdner, , English Church, p. 295Google Scholar.

43. Smith, , Tudor Prelates, p. 168Google Scholar.

44. Constant, G., The Reformation in England (New York, 1942), II, 244Google Scholar.

45. For the best discussion of this ecclesiastic, see Shirley, T. F., Thomas Thirlby, Tudor Bishop (London, 1964), esp. pp. 96–141Google Scholar.

46. While Gairdner briefly discusses this merger, he does not relate it to Thirlby's power in the House of Lords, as I believe it should be. See Gairdner, , English Church, p. 278Google Scholar.

47. Yet, as Gairdner noted, many prelates, including three of the above (Barlow, Holbeach, and Ridley), took up residence in London. See ibid., p. 247.

48. The biographical facts pertaining to the six procurators in this section come from Smith, Tudor Prelates; D.N.B.; Strype, John, Ecclesiastical Memorials (Oxford, 1820–1840), esp. IIGoogle Scholar; Strype, John, Memorials of the Most Reverend Father in God, Thomas Cranmer (Oxford, 1840)Google Scholar.

49. Muller, , Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction, p. 148Google Scholar.

50. Smith, , Tudor Prelates, pp. 28, 34, 37, 122, 228Google Scholar.

51. Hudson, Winthrop S., John Ponet (1516?-1556) Advocate of Limited Monarchy (Chicago, 1947)Google Scholar.

52. This table, as in the case of Tables II and III, is based upon the proxy registrations printed in the Lords Journals.

53. The biographical facts on the temporal lords covered in this section come from Cokayne, G. E., Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom (London, 1910–1940)Google Scholar; D.N.B.; Pollard, A. F., England under Protector Somerset (London, 1900)Google Scholar; Lodge, Illustrations.

54. Rich was the only privy councillor who absented himself from a session of Parliament during Edward's reign. See Jordan, W. K., The Chronicle and Political Papers of King Edward VI (Ithaca, 1966), p. 101Google Scholar. For Scroop see Cokayne, , Complete Peerage, X, 547Google Scholar.

55. In the early seventeenth century Robert Bowyer commented on the purpose of appointing two or more proctors: “The reason seemeth to be that the clergy will not by the absence of their proctor (which might often happen if they should name but one) have their voices lost, nor willingly want any of their strength to dash what they like not, or to advance their desire.” For this quotation I am indebted to Elizabeth R. Foster. See Inner Temple Library, Bowyer's transcript of Lords Journals, Petyt MS, 537/6. See above n. 32.

56. Some of these procurators absented themselves from earlier or later sessions. Note the cases of Willoughby, Wharton, and Morley on Table VI.

57. For the details of this case see Tytler, Patrick F., England under the Reigns of Edward and Mary (London, 1839), I, 127Google Scholar.

58. In early Jan. 1551/2, two weeks before the opening of the fourth session of Edward's first Parliament, the Duke of Northumberland ordered Sir William Cecil to send a letter to Lord Conyers, who had served as a joint proctor in the previous session, “for him to repair unto the parliament.” Ibid., I, 103. Conyers did not personally attend the fourth session, one should note, but he did name the Earl of Shrewsbury and Lord Windsor as his proctors.

59. See Snow, , “Proctorial Representation during the Reign of Henry VIII,” Historical Journal, IX, 24Google Scholar

60. Cokayne, , Complete Peerage, XII, 757–59Google Scholar.

61. For the facts in this section see Chapman, Hester, The Last Tudor King (London, 1958), pp. 227, 273Google Scholar; Burnet, Gilbert, History of the Reformation of the Church of England, ed. Pocock, Nicholas (Oxford, 1865), II, 260, 303, 311, 358Google Scholar; A.P.C. 1547-50, p. 70; ibid. 1550-52, pp. xxvi-xxviii; Strype, , Ecclesiastical Memorials, II, 19, 159–61Google Scholar; Pollard, , Protector Somerset, pp. 21, 36, 74, 277Google Scholar.

62. Supra, p. 5.

63. Strype, , Ecclesiastical Memorials, II, 252Google Scholar.

64. A.P.C. 1547-50, p. 425. Actually Parliament did not meet as scheduled but was prorogued.

65. Ibid., p. 428.

66. It also had the tendency to produce political alliances, factions, and opposition blocs in the upper house. For a discussion of this problem and the reform of the system, see Snow, , “The Arundel Case, 1626,” The Historian, XXVI, 323–47Google Scholar. According to George Woodbridge, who is making an analysis of proxies during the reign of Queen Anne, proctorial representation contributed greatly to the growth of parties.

67. Supra, p. 20.

68. For a full discussion of the Privy Council's influence in both houses, see Constant, , The Reformation, pp. 40–43Google Scholar.

69. One political device demands special consideration. In Jan. 1552/3 the Duke of Northumberland proceeded to “pack” the House of Lords with the eldest sons and heirs of several temporal lords. After requesting an opinion of the Lord Chamberlain, he summoned to Parliament the following heirs: his own heir, the Earl of Warwick; the Earl of Shrewsbury's son, Lord Talbot; and the Earl of Bedford's son, Lord Russell. There were a few precedents for this procedure, for Henry VII had summoned one eldest son while Henry VIII had summoned two. Never before had three been summoned for such obvious reasons.

70. The Duke of Norfolk, after being tried, found guilty, attainted, and sentenced to death for complicity in his son's treason, was saved from execution by the death of Henry VIII in late Jan. 1547. He remained a prisoner in the Tower throughout the reign of Edward VI and was not released until after the accession of Mary in 1553. Similarly, Henry Courtenay, the attainted son of the Marquess of Exeter, was confined to the Tower throughout Edward's reign; in 1553, shortly after his release by Mary, his attainder was reversed and he was created the Earl of Devonshire. Neither of these attainted men was summoned to the House of Lords from 1547-53.

71. For a discussion of these differences see Pollard, , Protector Somerset, pp. 68, 99Google Scholar; Constant, , The Reformation, pp. 88–91Google Scholar; Burnet, , The Reformation, II, 101, 168, 248, 321, 325Google Scholar; Smith, , Tudor Prelates, pp. 144, 149Google Scholar.

72. Lords Journals, I, 308Google Scholar.

73. Ibid., I, 331.

74. Ibid., I, 343.

75. Hughes, Philip, The Reformation in England (London, 1953), II, 113Google Scholar.

76. In Mar. 1552/3 the Duke of Northumberland clashed with several prelates over the reform of canon law. After Archbishop Cranmer presented his legislative proposal, he was opposed by the Duke, who lashed out “You bishops! Look to it at your peril that you touch not the doings of your peers; Take heed that the like happen not again — or you and your preachers shall suffer for it together.” Chapman, , The Last Tudor King, p. 270Google Scholar. Northumberland, who regarded this proposal as a challenge to his leadership, won the skirmish and the measure never won approval in Parliament. See Constant, , The Reformation, II, 268Google Scholar.

77. Contra, ibid., II, 88n. In Constant's discussion of the differences of opinion over the prayer book, he included the procurators of the absentees in his calculations. There is no evidence in the Lords Journals that the procurators used their proxies in a vote.

78. Supra, p. 4.