Footnote 791: Cf. ibid., vi., 1381 [3], "that if the Pope attempts war, the King shall have a moiety of the temporal lands of the Church for his defence".[(back)]
Footnote 792: L. and P., v., 62. Dr. Stubbs (Lectures, 1887, p. 318) represents the nuncio as being pressed into the King's service, and the clergy as resisting him as the Commons had done Wolsey in 1523. But this independence is imaginary; "it was agreed," writes Chapuys, "between the nuncio and me that he should go to the said ecclesiastics in their congregation and recommend them to support the immunity of the Church.... They were all utterly astonished and scandalised, and without allowing him to open his mouth they begged him to leave them in peace, for they had not the King's leave to speak with him."[(back)]
Footnote 793: L. and P., v., 105.[(back)]
Footnote 794: Ibid., v., 112.[(back)]
Footnote 795: L. and P., v., 124.[(back)]
Footnote 796: Ibid., v., 120.[(back)]
Footnote 797: L. and P., v., 171. This and other incidents (see p. [289]) form a singular comment on Brewer's assertion (ibid., iv., Introd., p. dcxlvii.) that "there is scarcely an instance on record, in this or any succeeding Parliament throughout the reign, of a parliamentary patriot protesting against a single act of the Crown, however unjust and tyrannical it might be".[(back)]
Footnote 798: L. and P., v., 171.[(back)]
Footnote 799: L. and P., v., 737.[(back)]
Footnote 800: Henry had ordered Cromwell to have a bill with this object ready for the 1531 session (L. and P., v., 394), and another for the "augmentation of treasons"; apparently neither then proved acceptable to Parliament.[(back)]