^{page 87 note 1} Stephen, , Hist. of Criminal Law, ii. 250.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 1} Cf. their petition, Rolls of Parliament, ii. 239a.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 2} Fisher, H. A. L., Longman, 's Political History, v. 328.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 1} The earliest is made up of pieces of two pasted together, so at least six were prepared.

^{page 89 note 2} The order of the drafts may be more clearly explained by a diagram.

^{page 89 note 3} Statutes of the Realm, iii. 509Google Scholar, § iii. 1. 8, reads: ‘Everie inditement and presentment founden and made of any such treasons,’ The draft has ‘founden or made.’

^{page 90 note 1} Statutes of the Realm, iii. 508–9.Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 2} E.g. the alteration of a date overlooked by the chief corrector.

^{page 90 note 3} Mr. Brodie very kindly examined the drafts and confirmed my opinion on the points of arrangement and handwriting.

^{page 90 note 4} Fisher, H. A. L., Longman, 's Political History, v. 296.Google ScholarMerriman, R. B., Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell, i. 90–91.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 1} Merriman, , ut supra.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 2} Merriman, , op cit. p. 99.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 1} A1 adds ‘to the King's own person.’ This does not appear in A2 and A3.

^{page 92 note 2} Foster, , Discourse of High Treason, p. 219.Google Scholar

^{page 92 note 3} A2 and A3 replace ‘contemptuously’ by ‘without the King's licence.

^{page 92 note 4} Coke, 3 Inst., chap. 84, deals with the subject and gives references. See also Acts of 5 R. II. stat. 2, c. 1, and 13 R. II. stat. 1, c. 20.

^{page 93 note 1} Case of Doctor Story, 13 Eliz., Dyer's Reports, ff 298b and 300b. Case of Æneas Macdonald, 21 Geo. II., State Trials, xviii. 859.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 2} Coke, 3 Inst. p. 100.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 3} Coke's Reports, v. 12a, 12b, in Caudrey's case: ‘De jure regis ecclesiastico.’ Coke specially notes that ‘this was by the Common Law of England before any statute made.’ Cf. Brooke's abridgment: Treason 14, Praemunire 10.

^{page 93 note 4} Coke's Reports, v. 12b, case of the Archbishop of York under Edw. I: ibid., 15a, case under Edw. III; ibid., 16b, case of the Abbot of Waltham.

^{page 94 note 1} Cf. 1 Hawkins, P.C. chap. 19, Of Praemunire.

^{page 94 note 2} So decided Trin. 2 & 3; P. & M. Dyer's Reports, ff. 131b–132. Coke, 3 Inst. p. 11, says: ‘The offender shall be indicted and tried in this Realme where his land lyeth, and so it was adjudged in 2 Hen. IV.’ In this case, however (Pasch. 2 Hen. IV, Coram Rege, Rex, rot. 18 Salop), it was decided that treason committed out of England, where English law does not extend, cannot be inquired of and tried in England. Coke has transposed the facts. Treason committed out of the realm could, however, be tried in England by process of appeal in the Court of the Constable and Marshall, which administered Civil Law. Cf. 1 Hen. IV. c.14, Statutes, ii. 116.Google ScholarHarcourt, Vernon, His Grace the Steward and Trial of PeersGoogle Scholar, gives cases which illustrate the point, e.g., on p. 383.

^{page 94 note 3} L. & P. iv.Google Scholar Introd. p. dv, and No. 5797, cited by Pollard, A. F.. Henry VIII, p. 251.Google ScholarL. &. P. v. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 1} Pollard, A. F., Henry VIII, pp. 313–314.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 2} L. & P. iv. 6256, 6279.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 1} L. & P. iv. 6615.Google Scholar Cf. ibid., 6759.

^{page 96 note 2} Cf. Fisher, , Polit. Hist. v. 304.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 3} Attempts, which do not seem to have had much effect, had been made in January 1530–1 to impress Chapuys and the papal Nuncio with the heinous nature of the crime of importing bulls without the King's consent (L. & P. v, 45).Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 4} Cf. Fisher, , Polit. Hist. v. 305–6.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 1} L. & P. v. 394.Google ScholarCf. State Papers, i. 380Google Scholar, where it appears that the body referred to was the King's Counsel learned in the law. For the share of the judges and law officers in the drafting of legislation, see thesis in the University Library at South Kensington by J. J. McGinley, The Judiciary in Relation to Legislation under Henry VII and Henry VIII.

^{page 97 note 2} Cf. Pollard, A. F., Henry VIII, pp. 304–6Google Scholar, and references.

^{page 97 note 3} L.& P. iv. 6772Google Scholar, The date of this secret Consistory was December 23.

^{page 98 note 1} L. & P. v. 27.Google Scholar It is noteworthy that the fixing of this document on the church doors of Flemish towns is to be sufficient promulgation, as Henry had refused to receive a former citation.

^{page 98 note 2} This preamble is only found in A3, but a reference in A2 shows that it was at least planned when that draft was prepared. It is probably the preamble which misled Dr. Gairdner when he calendared A3 in the wrong place.

^{page 98 note 3} E.g., the case of John Imperial in 1380. Cf. Coke, 3 Inst. p. 8Google Scholar; 1 Hale, , P.C., pp. 83, 263.Google Scholar That of Mortimer in 1423 (1 Hale, , P.C., p. 268)Google Scholar appears to be the last.

^{page 99 note 1} Stephen, , Hist, of Criminal Law, ii. 252.Google ScholarHoldsworth, , Hist, of English Law, ii. 372.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 2} Parliament had decided cases before the Act of 1532—e.g., those of Segrave, the Despencers, Roger Mortimer, and Maltravers.

^{page 99 note 3} L. &. P. v. 171.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 4} Ibid., 1046.

^{page 99 note 5} Ibid., 989.

^{page 99 note 6} Ibid., 805, 989.

^{page 100 note 1} L.& P, v. 898.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 1} L. & P. v. 1545Google Scholar, where are also noted briefs of March 7, 1529–30, and January 5, 1530–1.

^{page 101 note 2} See Pollard, A. F., Henry VIII, p. 302Google Scholar note, on the various bulls of excommunication.

^{page 102 note 1} I have neglected the alleged attempts to render this Parliament subservient by packing it. Cf. Pollard, A. F., Henry VIII, p. 317Google Scholar, and thesis by W. S. Dann, in the University Library at South Keningston

^{page 103 note 1} L. & P. vii. 51.Google Scholar Remembrances in Cromwell's hand. ProfessorPollard, (Henry VIII, p. 263Google Scholar note) has taken this remembrance as referring to 26 Hen. VIII, c. 13, basing his theory on the fact that ‘there is in the Record Office a draft… differing considerably from the Act as passed.’ This is incorrect, as the examination of this draft (A3) has shown. All the conditions mentioned in L. & P. vii. 51Google Scholar are fulfilled by 25 Hen. VIII, c. 22; none of them by 26 Hen. VIII, c. 13. The mention of the King of Scots, and of the disobedience of an heir to the Act, show that the remembrance can only refer to some Act regulating the succession, such as 25 Hen, VIII, c. 22, or 28 Hen. VIII, c. 7, in which the latter provision appears.

^{page 103 note 2} L. & P. vii.Google Scholarpassim—e.g., 610Google Scholar, App. 23, 24, 26, 27, 29.

^{page 104 note 1} L. & P. vii. 229.Google ScholarCf. Pollard, , Henry VIII, pp. 310–1.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 1} 1 Hale, , P.C. p. 275.Google ScholarStephen, , Hist, of Criminal Law, ii. 256.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 2} In Essex's case, in 1600, the judges gave the opinion that ‘in every rebellion the law intendeth as a consequent the compassing the death and deprivation of the king,’ for the reason given above (State Trials, i. 1353Google Scholar; Foster, , Discourse, p. 195).Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 3} It was therefore for misprision of treason that Fisher and More were attainted by Acts of this Parliament, 26 Hen. VIII, cc. 22 & 23. Their refusal of the oath was due to the implied denial in the Act of the Papal Supremacy; hence, since they upheld this, they denied Henry's supremacy. They could not, however, be condemned to death as traitors until after the passing of 26 Hen. VIII, c. 13. Cf. Pollard, , Henry VIII, p. 331Google Scholar note. That they and the Carthusians suffered under this Act is clear from the records of the trials in the Baga de Secretis, Deputy Keeper's 3rd Report, App. ii. pp. 237, 239, 240. On p. 238 (M. 8) it is made plain that this clause in 26 Hen. VIII, c. 13, was intended to enforce the Act of Supremacy. Cf. the other trials.

^{page 106 note 1} L. & P. vi. 918Google Scholar. Cf. Camden Miscellany, xii. 8.Google Scholar 24 Hen. VIII, two women were cruelly punished for saying that Catharine, not Anne, was the true Queen of England.

^{page 106 note 2} L. & P. vi. 585.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 3} Foster, , Discourse, p. 219.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 1} 21 Rich. II. e. 3.

^{page 107 note 2} 1 Hen. IV, c. 10, Stats, of the Realm, ii. 114.Google Scholar The preamble says that on account of Richard II's Act of Treasons ‘there was no man who did know how he ought to behave himself, to do, speak, or say, for doubt of such pains.’ Therefore ‘in no time to come [shall] any treason be judged otherwise than it was ordained by statute in the time of… King Edward III.’

^{page 107 note 3} Case of Sperhauke, John, Coram Rege, 3Google Scholar Hen. IV, Pasch. Rex., rot. 12. Case of Friar Henry Forster, 3 Hen. IV, Trin. Rex., rot. 3. Case of William Balsshalf, appealed by John Bernard, ibid., rot. 4. Case of Nicholas Louth, chaplain, ibid., back of rot. 4. Case of Friar Walter Walton, ibid., back of rot. 5. In all these cases the prisoner was condemned and executed as a traitor. The first, fourth, and fifth are referred to in a note on p. 115 of vol. i. of the 1778 edition of Hale's Pleas of the Crown. The cases of Sperhauke and Walton are printed in the Engl. Hist. Review, 10 1917.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 4} They are collected in Croke's Reports for the reign of Charles I, pp. 117–126, in Pyne's case, and occur under Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry VII. See also Fleuley, , Town Chronicles, pp. 128129.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 1} Perhaps the first trace of this may be found in the story that in the reign of Edward IV, Chief Justice Markham left the Bench rather than agree to the judgment in Sir Thomas Burdett's case. Cf. 1 Hale, , P.C. p. 115.Google Scholar This case was not, however, as most of those who report it believed, one of treason by words only. In 1537, when the leaders of the Pilgrimage of Grace were examined, they were asked against what particular Acts of Parliament the people grudged. L. & P. xii. 900Google Scholar (19). Aske answered that, among others, ‘they grudged at the Act that words should be treason’ (Ibid., 901 (p. 404)).

^{page 108 note 2} L. & P. ii. 1314.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 3} Quoted by ProfessorPollard, , Henry VIII, p. 260.Google Scholar He discusses the subject fully, pp. 259–60 and 288–9.

^{page 108 note 4} L. & P. v. 171.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 5} Ibid.

^{page 108 note 6} Ibid., 989.

^{page 109 note 1} L. & P., v. 989.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 2} Maitland, , Constitutional History, p. 242.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 3} Quoted by ProfPollard, , p. 259.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 4} The Pilgrim (by W. Thomas, ed. J. A. Froude), p. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 5} This is one of the very few cases under Henry VIII in which an Act of Attainder was not preceded by a regular trial and condemnation. The only other two appear to be those of the Countess of Salisbury and Cromwell. There are no records of the trial of the Nun in the Baga de Secretis, Deputy Keeper's 3rd Report, App. ii. pp. 210 et seq. Cf. L. & P. vi. 1382, 1445; and Fisher, , Polit. Hist., v. 334.Google Scholar Coke, 3 Inst. p. 14Google Scholar, marginal note, says that she and her accomplices could not be attainted by the Common Law.

They were not, however, always treason at the first offence, and had usually to be prosecuted within a certain time.

^{page 110 note 1} Cf. the excuses for the abolition of the Court of Star Chamber in 1641, and of papal jurisdiction in the sixteenth century.

^{page 110 note 2} Cro, Car, p. 125.Google ScholarState Trials, iii. 359.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 1} With Tudor officials, treason by words was considered useful and necessary. Sir John Mason, who is typical of his class, wrote to Edward VI's council: ‘The worst act that ever was done in our time was the general abolishing of the Act of Words by the Duke of Somerset’ (Quoted, Pollard, , England under Protector Somerset, p. 58).Google Scholar Yet this very Repealing Act (1 Edw. VI, c. 12) reimposed the penalties of treason for a third offence by words; evidently even Somerset would not include it in his general repeal of Henry VIII's repressive legislation.

^{page 111 note 2} Some of the precedents cited in Pyne's case (Cro. Car., pp. 117–125)Google Scholar are cases of treason by writings: e.g., cases of William Ashton, 31 Hen. VI; William Belmyn, 9 Edw. IV; Thomas Bagnall, 9 Hen. VII. The wellknown case of Haxey in 1397 (cf. Maitland, , Const. Hut. p. 241)Google Scholar belongs to this category of treason.

^{page 111 note 3} In Williams's case in 1619 (State Trials, ii. 1088)Google Scholar, the judges decided scribere est agere. Cf. the cases of Peacham and Algernon Sidney. The writing of Cardinal Pole's book on the papal supremacy was a sufficient overt act. See Coke, , 3 Inst. p. 14Google Scholar, and Treatise on the Law and Proceedings in Case of High Treason, 1793, p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 1} Cf. Stanford, , Les Plees del CoronGoogle Scholar, bk. ii. chap. 38. Reeves, , Hist, of Eng. Law, ed. Finlason, i. 32.Google Scholar There are many references to sanctuary in Thorp, Ancient Laws and Institutes of England.

^{page 112 note 2} Originally, it seems only to have protected an offender for seven or nine days (Thorp, , op. cit., pp. 29 and 141)Google Scholar, on condition that he made amends for his crime to God and man (ibid., pp. 46, 142, 145). Reeves, , loc. cit.Google Scholar, has apparently not noticed the time limit.

^{page 112 note 3} Keilway, 's ReportsGoogle Scholar, f 189b, Case in 1429. Case in 1462, Y.B. 2 Edw. IV, Mich. ff. 22 23. Cases under Henry VII, Y.B. (Tottel), Hil., 1 Hen. VII, f, 6, 9 Hen. VII, f. 20. Cases in the early years of Henry VIII, Keilway, 's Reports, ff. 188–189.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 4} Y.B.Hil., 1 Hen. VII, f. 10b. From what follows it seems that the case was one of a fraudulent debtor, who, under the Acts of 50 Edw. III, c. 6, and 5 Rich. II, stat. 2, c. 3, had no right to sanctuary for his goods.

^{page 113 note 1} Brooke, , AbridgementGoogle Scholar, Sanctuary 2, and Treason 6, quotes a case (Y.B. 21 Edw. III, 17 b) of a man who was drawn and hanged for matricide, ‘et sic videtur que cest treason, et que pur treason il navera priviledge desglise’ These deductions are Brooke's own; there is nothing in the Year Book to warrant them. All that is there laid down is that a man may not fall back upon a plea of sanctuary after he has been non-suited in an appeal. The offence may perhaps have been petty treason. (For the later theory on this point see Coke, , 3 Inst. p. 20.)Google Scholar Brooke seems to have classed it as treason because it received the punishment which in his own day was inseparably associated with the offence; and the remark that there is no sanctuary for treason was probably influenced by contemporary practice, based on this Act of 26 Hen. VIII, c. 13. Bale's annotator (1778, 1 P.C. p. 81)Google Scholar calls this Thorpe's case. Thorpe was the name of the judge, not of the prisoner.

^{page 113 note 2} It was decided that sanctuary for treason cannot be claimed by prescription, nor deduced from a charter in general words, but must be expressly granted by the King. Also there must have been allowance of the privilege before justices in Eyre, within the time of legal memory (Y.B., 1 Hen. VII, ff. 22b–26b).Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 3} Rymer, , xii. p. 541.Google Scholar It is a confirmation of the bull of 1487.

^{page 113 note 4} Ibid., xiii. p. 104.; ProfessorPollard, , Documents illustrative of the Reign of Henry VII, iii. 184Google Scholar, says that this bull excepts traitors from the privilege of sanctuary. It seems to be merely a confirmation of the previous ones by the new pope.

^{page 113 note 5} For the guarding of fugitives while in sanctuary, see Ancient Indictments, Bundle 178, No. 10, and Bundle 186, No. 44, 3 Hen. IV. Mazzinghi, , Sanctuaries, p. 37Google Scholar, and Réville, ‘L'Abjuratio Regni,’ Révue Hist., 09 1892, pp. 25, 28Google Scholar, cite cases. See also ProfPollard, 's Documents Illustrative of the Reign of Henry VII, i. 176–7.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 1} Y.B., 1 Hen. VII, f. 25b. Keilway, , Reports, ff. 189b, 190.Google Scholar All that the pope could grant was the name ‘sanctuary.’ The privilege, since it operated against the King, could only originate in a royal grant.

^{page 114 note 2} The fact that the bulls did not alter the law is evident from the fact that in the controversies over sanctuary under Henry VIII they are never mentioned, and the abuses at which they aimed were complained of down to 1534 (Lords' Journals, i. 59b).Google Scholar Further, neither they nor the judgment in Stafford's case destroyed the privilege of sanctuary for treason. (Reeves, H.E.L., ed. Finlason, iii. 190 note, on Stafford's case.) That sanctuary could be claimed for treason on the eve of the passing of 26 Hen. VIII, c. 13, is evident from the final saving clause of 22 Hen. VIII, c. 14, which reserves to persons guilty of offences of a higher nature in law than those mentioned in the Act all rights of sanctuary which they had before the making of the Act. The offences mentioned are petty treason, murder, and felony, so ‘offences of higher nature in the law’ can only refer to high treason.

^{page 114 note 3} 4 Hen. VIII, c. 2.

^{page 114 note 4} Keilway, , Reports, ff. 180b–185b.Google Scholar It was revived by 22 Hen. VIII, c. 14.

^{page 114 note 5} Keilway, , ReportsGoogle Scholar, ff. 190b–192b. Wolsey and the Abbot of Westminster had drawn up an oath, to be taken by every one who fled into sanctuary, that he would not go out and commit any treason or felony sub spe redeundi. This had proved useless, since the only penalties for those who broke it were such as the ecclesiastical courts could inflict for perjury.

^{page 115 note 1} 21 Hen. VIII, c. 2.

^{page 115 note 2} 22 Hen. VIII, c. 14.

^{page 115 note 3} 23 Hen. VIII, c. 11.

^{page 115 note 4} No Bill was prepared, doubtless because the case could be fully met by reviving 22 Hen. VIII, c. 14—a course which, was taken by 28 Hen. VIII, c. 1.

^{page 115 note 5} L. & P. vii. 1388Google Scholar, is apparently a clerical attempt to arrive at a compromise.

^{page 115 note 6} This applies to all treasons, not only to those created by the Act. The standard of later law on the subject, however, was 35 Hen. VIII, c. 2; and Coke (3 Inst. p. 11)Google Scholar and Hale, (1 P.C. p. 169)Google Scholar appear to forget that it was anticipated by 26 Hen. VIII, c. 13. (Cf. State Trials, i. 440Google Scholar, Hargrave's note.) It was not repealed by 1 & 2 P. & M. c. 10, which reduces all treason trials to the course of Common Law, because treason committed out of the realm was not triable by Common Law. Cf. Dyer's Reports, f. 131b–132, and Story's case, 298b and 300b. Coke (3 Inst. p. 11)Google Scholar says that treason committed out of the realm can be tried in the realm, and cites a case, Coram Rege, 2 Hen. IV, Pasch. Rex rot. 18 (not 8, as he gives it). This case, however, proves exactly the opposite—i.e. that treason committed out of the realm cannot be tried in the realm, Cf, supra, p. 94, n 2.

^{page 116 note 1} This was still a difficult task, as Henry VIII found in the case of Brancetour, . L. & P. xv. Introd. pp. v–viii.Google Scholar For the international law on the subject, see Coke, , 3 Inst. p, 180.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 2} 32 Hen. VIII, c. 4.

^{page 116 note 3} 35 Hen. VIII, c. 2, as resolved in O'Rurke's case, 33 Eliz., Coke, 's Reports, pt. vii. f. 23.Google Scholar See State Trials, i. 439Google Scholar, trial of Lord Leonard Grey under 26 Hen. VIII, c. 13.

^{page 116 note 4} 28 Hen. VIII, c. 15.

^{page 116 note 5} 33 Hen. VIII, c. 20.

^{page 116 note 6} Coke, , 2 Inst. p. 335.Google Scholar 1 Hale, , P.C. p. 240.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 7} Some Considerations on the Law of Forfeiture for High Treason, by the Hon. C. Yorke, 1745, p. 48.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 8} Coke on Littleton, f. 392b. Stephen, , Commentaries, ed. 1914, i. 155.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 1} Cf. the projected attack on entails in 1539, L. & P. XIV. 1.Google Scholar 1030. Fisher, , Polit. Hist. v. 291Google Scholar, says the Reformation Parliament discussed the abolition of entails.

^{page 117 note 2} This was to apply to attainder by presentment, confession, verdict, or outlawry. 33 Hen. VIII, c. 20, applied these forfeitures to all attainders, so that there was henceforth no need for a forfeiture clause in an Act of Attainder.

^{page 117 note 3} Also included in 25 Hen. VIII, c. 22, for the treasons it created.

^{page 117 note 4} See 11 Hen. VII, cc. 63 and 64.

^{page 117 note 5} See the preamble of the Act, Statutes of the Realm, iii. 539.Google Scholar ‘Persons attainted’ would there refer to attainders of felony, attainders of treason having been already provided for by 26 Hen. VIII, c. 13.

^{page 117 note 6} A2 and A3.

^{page 117 note 7} 33 Hen. VIII, c. 20, declares the forfeiture of uses more plainly.

^{page 118 note 1} 1 Hale, , P.C., p. 252.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 2} The usual saving clause excepts only the traitor, his heirs, and those claiming to his or their use.

^{page 118 note 3} Continued by 28 Hen. VIII, c. 7, 33 Hen. VIII, c. 20, and 35 Hen VIII, c. 3.

^{page 118 note 4} L. & P. vi. 1381Google Scholar, among ‘acts necessary to be made in this Parliament,’ i.e. a projected session at the end of 1533.

^{page 118 note 5} 1 P.C. p. 252.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 1} 1 Hale, , P.C. p. 253.Google Scholar In the Bishop of Durham's case in 12 Eliz. Dyer, , Reports, f. 288b–289)Google Scholar, the judges admitted that under 26 Hen. VIII, while it was in force, attainder of treason forfeited the lands of a corporation sole to the Crown.

^{page 119 note 2} 1 Mary, sess. 2, c. 16.

^{page 119 note 3} L. & P. viii. 52.Google ScholarRymer, , xiv. 549.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 4} L. & P. viii. 566.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 1} L. & P. v. 394.Google ScholarState Papers, i. 380.Google Scholar He ordered it to be prepared and engrossed, so he evidently did not expect its rejection.

^{page 120 note 2} Fisher, , Polit. Hist. v. 334.Google ScholarL. & P. vi. 1445.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 3} Quoted by Fisher, , Polit. Hist. v. 338.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 4} State Trials, i. 389.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 1} L. & P. vi. 299, pp. 138, 139.Google Scholar One of them is on parchment, so it was not one of the drafts now existing, all of which are on paper. Perhaps it was the engrossed copy prepared for, and rejected in, the session of 1532.

^{page 121 note 2} Merriman, , Life and Letters, i. 116–118.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 3} L. & P. xv. 804.Google Scholar Quoted by Froude in his appendix to the Pilgrim. The account points to the growth of a definite public opinion against treason by words among the upper classes. Cf. Aske's examination, L. & P. xii. 901Google Scholar, quoted supra, for the opinion of the common people.

^{page 121 note 4} Pollard, , Henry VIII, pp. 278–9.Google Scholar It was really to their advantage to pass the Bill, as they would thus escape new and more general taxes.

^{page 122 note 1} Henry VIII, pp. 261–2.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 2} Polit. Hist. v. 346.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 3} The authority for this statement seems to be the Life of Bishop Fisher, commonly attributed to Thomas Bayly, and written about 1604.