194 //. FROM THE 1100' S TO THE 1800'S years later, at the end of Mary's reign, we read that the judges had nothing to do but " to look about them," and that for the few practitioners in Westminster Hall there was and nat lerned in the Comen Lawes, setting aside the saide Commen Lawes, determyne the waighty causes of this realme according either to the saide Lawe Civile or to their owne conscience; which Lawe Civile is to the subjectes of this realme unknowne, and they nat bounden ne inheritable to the same lawe, and which Jugementes and Decrees grownded apon conscience ar nat grounded ne made apon any rule certeine or lawe written. . . . And for a more amplyfyeng and inlarging of the jurisdiction of the saide Courte of Chauncery and derogacion of the saide Comen Lawes there is of late a Commission made contrary to the saide Commen Lawes unto certaine persones, the more part whereof be Civilians nat learned in the saide Lawes of this realme, autorising them to heare and determyne all matters and cawses ex- hibited into the saide Courte of Chauncery, by occasion whereof the matters there do daily more and more increase, insomuch as very fewe matters be now depending at the Comen Lawes. . . . And by reason thereof there hath of late growne such a discourage unto the studentes of the saide Commen Lawes, and the saide Commen Lawes have been of late so little estemed and had in experience, that fewe have or do regarde to take paynes of the profownde and sincere knolege of the same Lawe, by reason whereof there ar now very few, and it is to be doubted that within fewe yeares there shall nat be sufficient of lerned men within this realme to serve the king in that facultie. It therfore may please your honorable Lordships to make suche speady reforma- cion in the premisses as unto your Lordships shall seem moste mete and convenient." This petition led to the disgrace and punishment of the chancellor, the Earl of Southampton (Wriothesley), for having issued a commission without warrant and without consulting his fellow-executors of King Henry's will. With Somerset's motives for thrusting Southampton aside we are not concerned. (See Pollard, England under the Pro- tector Somerset, pp. 31-33.) That he had any desire to protect the common lawyers we must not assume; but the petition itself deserves attention. The commissioners to whom Southampton had delegated judicial powers were Robert Southwell (master of the rolls), John Tregonwell, John Oliver, and Anthony Bellasyse (masters of chancery). Tregonwell, Oliver and Bellasyse were all doctors of the civil law (Diet. If at. Biog.). In 1536 during the Pilgrimage of Grace one of the demands of the catholic insurgents was "that the common laws may have place as was used at the beginning of the reign and that no injunctions be granted unless the matter has been determined in chancery." This comes at the end of a long reactionary programme, which desires the restoration of the monasteries, of the papal supremacy and so forth: also the repeal of the statute "That no man shall not will his lands" [Statute of Uses]. The heretical bishops [Cranmer and his like] are to be burnt; Cromwell is " to have condign punishment." Also " a man is to be saved by his book," i. e. there is to be no infringement of the benefit of clergy. The heresies to be suppressed are those of " Luther, Wyclif, Husse, Malangton, Elicampadus [Oecolampadius], Bucerus, Confessa Germaniae (Augsburg Confession], Apolugia Malanctons, the works of Tyndall, of Barnys, of Marshall, Raskell [Rastell, the printer of law books], Seynt Germayne [author of Doctor and Student] and such other here- sies of Anibaptist." As I understand the protest against injunctions.
