The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part C.: From Henry VII. to Mary
David Hume · en
This session, the commons preferred to the king a long complaint against
the abuses and oppressions of the ecclesiastical courts; and they were
proceeding to enact laws for remedying them, when a difference arose,
which put an end to the session before the parliament had finished all
their business. It was become a custom for men to make such settlements,
or trust deeds, of their lands by will, that they defrauded not only the
king, but all other lords, of their wards, marriages, and reliefs; and
by the same artifice the king was deprived of his premier seizin, and
the profits of the livery, which were no inconsiderable branches of his
revenue. Henry made a bill be drawn to moderate, not remedy altogether,
this abuse; he was contented, that every man should have the liberty
of disposing in this manner of the half of his land; and he told the
parliament in plain terms, “if they would not take a reasonable thing
when it was offered, he would search out the extremity of the law; and
then would not offer them so much again.” The lords came willingly into
his terms; but the commons rejected the bill; a singular instance, where
Henry might see that his power and authority, though extensive, had yet
some boundaries. The commons, however, found reason to repent of their
victory. The king made good his threats: he called together the judges
and ablest lawyers, who argued the question in chancery; and it was
decided that a man could not by law bequeath any part of his lands in
prejudice of his heir.[*]
* Burnet, vol. i. p. 116. Hall. Parl. Hist.
The parliament being again assembled after a short prorogation, the king
caused the two oaths to be read to them, that which the bishops took
to the pope, and that to the king, on their installation; and as a
contradiction might be suspected between them, while the prelates seemed
to swear allegiance to two sovereigns;[*] the parliament showed their
intention of abolishing the oath to the pope, when their proceedings
were suddenly stopped by the breaking out of the plague at Westminster,
which occasioned a prorogation. It is remarkable, that one Temse
ventured this session to move, that the house should address the king,
to take back the queen, and stop the prosecution of his divorce. This
motion made the king send for Audley, the speaker, and explain to him
the scruples with which his conscience had long been burdened; scruples,
he said, which had proceeded from no wanton appetite, which had arisen
after the fervors of youth were past, and which were confirmed by the
concurring sentiments of all the learned societies in Europe. Except in
Spain and Portugal, he added, it was never heard of, that any man had
espoused two sisters; but he himself had the misfortune, he believed,
to be the first Christian man that had ever married his brother’s
widow.[**]
* Burnet, vol. i. p. 123, 124.
** Herbert. Hall, fol. 205.