A word must be said about the composition of these parliaments. A Tudor House of Commons was not, of course, representative in the modern sense of the word, for it consisted exclusively of country gentlemen and wealthy merchants, who were in most cases appointed by a small close body rather than popularly elected. The influence of the crown, exercised through the sheriff or through some local magnate, was paramount at the nomination of members, and it does not seem to have been resented, so long as the chosen candidate was a well-known man in the district for which he was appointed. The electors were willing that the King should choose the man most pleasing to himself among perhaps a dozen equally eligible persons, but gentlemen and burgesses alike resented the “carpet-bagger,” the stranger sent down from the court, who knew nothing of the place and despised the provincials whom he nominally represented[7]. They also objected to members who held government posts, and, curiously enough, bye-elections were considered an abuse, as it was maintained that when a member died his seat ought to remain vacant until the next general election[8]. The parliament of 1529–36 violated even these elementary conditions of representation; Cromwell, who came into power during these seven years, gradually developed the art of managing the House of Commons to an extent which had never been known before, and the electors were powerless in his hands, because they could not understand what was happening[9]. It must also be noticed that the electors in 1529 had very little means of knowing what measures would be brought before the parliament. They knew of course that the King would want money, and they knew also that the question of the divorce would be dealt with, but even the best-informed can hardly have foreseen the act for the dissolution of the smaller monasteries. It must, therefore, be borne in mind that the acts of this parliament were not passed with the consent, or even with the knowledge, of the nation. Their true originator was believed to be Thomas Cromwell. Whether his rise had been slow or rapid, this remarkable man was now (1536) at the height of his power[10], and the greater number of this parliament’s acts were stages in the progress of his policy. By birth Cromwell came of the English lower middle class, but part of his early manhood was spent in Italy[11], and his character was an illustration of the proverb “An Englishman Italianate is a devil incarnate.” He belonged to the new school of political thought which had for its exponents Philip de Commines and Machiavelli, and for its heroes Louis XI and Caesar Borgia. Thomas Cromwell, clothier, solicitor and moneylender, seems genuinely to have believed that it was the duty of any man who by birth, luck or skill became a prince, to make himself absolute, and to guard against any breath of opposition at home as carefully as he did against any hint of attack from abroad. He was