The statute 4 Henry VIII, c. 2 denied benefit of clergy for particular crimes to certain offenders, and also modified due process in handling pleas of sanctuary. The statute's possible renewal in the parliament of 1515 triggered a confrontation between the crown and leading churchmen. The passage of the act through the parliament of 1512 illuminates this important episode. The law that was enacted is shown to have differed substantively from the measure that had been proposed. Extensive amendments reveal in what ways the bill provoked controversy. Positions adopted in 1512 may well have rehearsed those assumed three years later.T he statute 4 Henry VIII, c. 2 provoked in 1515 the first crisis between crown and clergy of the reign. 1 At issue was whether this statute, enacted in 1512 and now due for renewal, contravened divine law and was therefore invalid. This raised questions concerning the independence of the English Church from the crown, the papacy and the canon and common laws. 2 Accounts of this episode depend upon a single source: a report written by the common lawyer John Caryll.
As a punishment for heresy, forfeiture of property had originated in Roman law, was decreed by canon law, and applied across late medieval Europe. English ecclesiastical and secular legislation of the early fifteenth century formally adopted confiscation in response to the threat of Lollardy. Prompted by Oldcastle’s rising, in 1414 an Act of Parliament ordered that heretics should henceforth suffer the penalty of felony forfeiture. This identification of heresy with criminality justified greater lay involvement in the suppression of religious dissent. Because heresy was designated as a type of felony, the Crown claimed offenders’ personal possessions and lords their real property; the Church had no right to heretics’ estates. Although the Act provided the common-law basis for forfeiture, the penalty was imposed in other circumstances that paralleled practice outside England. Notwithstanding the Richard Hunne affair, forfeiture for heresy generated little controversy during the break with Rome. Legislation in the 1530s, in fact, extended the use of forfeiture as a punishment for religious dissent. The Act of 1414 was repealed under Edward VI, revived under Mary I, and again repealed under Elizabeth I. Following this second repeal in 1559, forfeiture lapsed as a penalty for heresy. The association between heresy and crime was thus loosened.
Chapter 3 sets the enactment and enforcement of parliamentary legislation within the framework of the crown's responsibility to dispense justice and to uphold the law. It first discusses contextual factors that influenced the content and scope of royal law‐making. Next it identifies the problems law reform and discusses the remedies it designed in the light of theory and practice. Particular attention is paid to the judicial role of the royal council. Responses in parliament to reforms are interpreted through the principles of equity and due process. Then the crown's interest in enforcing the financial penalties laid down in statutory regulations is discussed. Particular notice is given to the role of informers. In conclusion, contemporary criticism of royal policy is considered.
Chapter 8 locates the institution in Henry VII's reign within a broader account of the evolution of parliament. It first discusses the emergence of a parliamentary trinity, and examines procedural developments in the drafting of proposals, in the amendment of bills and petitions, and in the royal assent. Next it considers parliament's relationship with other branches of government. Parliament's status as a high court is addressed. The appropriateness of the distinction between a legislature and a judicature is considered. Then some of the possible implications for the polity of these developments are discussed. The chapter examines the significance of this period for the idea of the parliamentary supremacy and for the break with Rome, land it touches on. The ambiguous implications of developments in the early Tudor period for theories of sovereignty.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.