The lord mayor's banquet, 28 Oct., 1529.
A few days after Wolsey's disgrace a banquet was held at the Guildhall on the occasion of the swearing in of Ralph Dodmer, the newly-elected mayor. It is the first lord mayor's banquet of which any particulars have come down to us, and they are interesting as recording the names of the chief guests. The mayor's court, the scene of the feast, was boarded and hung with cloth of Arras for the occasion. One table was set apart for peers of the realm, at the head of which sat the new lord chancellor and at the bottom the lords Berkeley and Powis. At either side of the table sat nine peers, among whom were the dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, the one being the treasurer and the other the marshal of England, Sir Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, the Earl of Oxford, high chamberlain, and the Earl of Shrewsbury, lord steward of England, Tunstal, Bishop of London, Sir Thomas Boleyn, Lord Rochford, whose daughter Anne was shortly to experience the peril of sharing Henry's throne, Lord Audley, and others. At two other[pg 381] tables, placed between the court of orphans and the mayor's court, were entertained a number of knights and other gentlemen, whose names are not recorded.[1148]
The fall of Wolsey, 1529-1530.
It was not long before further proceedings were taken against the king's late minister. On the 3rd November (1529), after the lapse of six years, parliament met in the city at the palace of Bridewell. The City was represented by Thomas Seymer, an alderman and ex-mayor, John Baker, the City's Recorder, John Petyte, grocer, and Paul Wythypol,[1149] the merchant-tailor whose election as alderman had recently created no little trouble. Among other members was Thomas Cromwell,[1150] a friend of Wolsey, and destined soon to take his place as the king's chief adviser. A bill for disabling the cardinal from being restored to his former dignities was carried by the Lords and sent down to the Commons (1 Dec.). There it is said to have met with the strenuous opposition of Cromwell. Of this, however, there is some doubt, as it is uncertain whether the bill provoked any discussion, parliament being shortly afterward prorogued (17 Dec.) and the unhappy cardinal left in suspense as to what fate was in store for him.[1151] At Christmas he fell ill, and the king's heart became so far softened towards his old favourite that early in the following year (Feb., 1530) he was restored to the archbishopric of[pg 382] York with all its possessions except York-place (Whitehall) in Westminster, which Henry could not bring himself to surrender. His colleges were seized; the college he had founded at Ipswich was sold; but his college at Oxford, known as Cardinal College, was afterwards re-established under the name of Christ Church. He himself was not allowed to rest long in peace. He was summoned to London on a charge of treason, for which there was little or no foundation, but the troubles of the last two years had rendered him so infirm that he died on the way.
CHAPTER XIV.
The House of Commons and the Clergy, 1529.
Although Wolsey was no more, his works followed him. He it was, and not Henry, who first conceived the idea of church reform, towards which some steps had been taken in Wolsey's lifetime. It was left for Henry to carry out the design of his great minister. When the king laid his hand on the monasteries, he only followed the example set by the cardinal in 1525, when some of the smaller religious houses in Kent, Sussex and Essex were suppressed for his great foundation of Oxford. To assist him in carrying out his design he turned to parliament. Relieved as they now were of the oppression of the great nobles, the Commons were ready to use their newly-acquired independence against the clergy, who exacted extravagant fees and misused the powers of the ecclesiastical courts. Acts were passed regulating the payment of mortuary fees and the fees for probate, whilst another Act restricted the holding of pluralities and the taking of ferms by church-men.[1152] The clergy threatened to appeal to Rome, but were warned that such action would be met with pains and penalties as opposed to the royal prerogative.[1153]