[520] Cal. xii. (i) 249, 296, 313.
[521] Cal. xii. (i) 429; xii. (ii) 552.
[522] Letters, 216–217.
[523] Letters, 218.
[524] Cal. xiii. (ii) 232 (p. 91).
[525] Cal. xiii. (ii) 695, 770, 771.
[526] Cal. xiii. (ii) 804, 805, 954–960.
[527] Cal. xiii. (ii) 802, 979 (7). It is said that Cromwell, in the course of these prosecutions, contrived to deprive the victims of all chance of escape by inquiring of the judges whether, if a man were condemned to death for treason in Parliament without a hearing, the attainder could ever be disputed. He finally succeeded in obtaining the reluctant but correct reply that ‘an attainder in Parliament, whether or not the party had been heard in his own defence, could never be reversed in a court of law.’ Cf. Hallam, vol. i. pp. 29–30. Coke, Fourth Institute, p. 38, adds, ‘The party against whom this was intended was never called in question, but the first man after the said resolution, that was so attainted, and never called to answer, was the said Earl of Essex (Thomas Cromwell): whereupon that erroneous and vulgar opinion amongst our historians grew, that he died by the same law which he himself had made.’
[528] Cal. xiii. (ii) 753.
[529] Cal. xiii. (ii) 986, 1163.