A HISTORY OF LONDON This story shows how holders of the new opinions looked to Cromwell for protection against Stokesley. There is little doubt that if the bishop had been able he would have continued his policy of persecution, and that the absence of cases of heresy during the next five years was due to causes beyond his control. Among these were the Acts concerning heresy passed early in 1534."* This legislation had been preceded by apetition in which the House of Commons accused the clergy of causing persons to abjure or burning them 'for pure malice,' and of taking tithes and offerings unjustly. ^^' About 1533 a partisan of Cromwell wrote a treatise on the disputed question of offerings, in which he accused the London clergy of condemning men for heresy without proof of their guilt. It cannot be said that this statement is warranted by the facts in any known case ; but there seems to be no doubt that from the days of Hun onwards there was a connexion between the ill-will which characterized the dispute about offerings and that due to the frequent recurrence of prosecutions for heresy. The settlement of that dispute in 1534—6 was distinctly unfavourable to the clergy."" The year 1534 is chiefly notable for the definite repudiation of papal authority. It was decided that the pope was no longer to be prayed for at Paul's Cross,"^ and sermons were preached there against his headship of the Church."^ In April all the London clergy and citizens were required to swear to be true to Queen Anne, and to regard the Lady Mary as a bastard ; among those sent to the Tower for refusing was Dr. Nicholas Wilson, rector of St. Thomas Apostle."' In May Cranmer began a provincial visitation, during which he obtained the signatures of the London clergy to the declara- tion made by Convocation that the pope had no greater jurisdiction bestowed on him by God in Holy Writ than any other foreign bishop. The master of Whittington College signed with a qualification which appears to mean that he threw the responsibility on Cranmer, but otherwise no objection seems to have been made."* Stokesley, however, protested against the archbishop's interference with his jurisdiction."^ Meanwhile the exempt religious houses were being visited by the king's commissioners ; no difficulty appears to have arisen in connexion with those in London,"* with the important exception of the Charterhouse, where the monks could hardly be induced even to take the oath of succession."' The Observant Friars at Greenwich, who were well known in the City,"' also resisted ; in August their order was suppressed,"' and some of the friars were sent to the London house of Grey Friars, where "^ L. and p. Hen. Fill, vii, 54 (33), 399 ; and cf. 60. "' Ibid. 399. "" For further particulars about the treatise and for details of the settlement, see p. 251. '" L. and P. Hen. Fill, vii, 48. '" Hall, Chron. 25 Hen. VIII ; cf. Strype, Mem. i (i), 231. For the continuance of preaching about the divorce, see L. and P. Hen. Fill, vii, 266, 369, 463, 464. '" Hall, loc. cit. ; Wriothesley, Chron. (Camd. See), i, 24 ; cf. L. and P. Hen. Fill, vii, 392, 522, 702 ; X, 308 ; xii (2), 952 ; Rec. Corp. Letter Bk. P. fol. 37-8 ; Repert. ix, fol. 57^. '" Lond. Epis. Reg. Stokesley, fol. 44-5 ; L. and P. Hen. Fill, vii, 589 (7), 1025. '" Lond. Epis. Reg. Stokesley, fol. 47 ; cf L.and P. Hen. Fill, vii, 1683. Cranmer cited Stokesley for admitting during the visitation an illiterate man as rector of St. George Botolph Lane ; but nothing further was done in the matter, and the archbishop must have been misinformed, since the new rector was a bachelor of divinity and appears to have been instituted in 1533 ; Epis. Reg. fol. 50 ; Hennessy, Novum Repert, '" See article on ' Religious Houses,' passim. '" L. and P. Hen. Fill, vii, 728 ; .Gasquet, Hen. Fill and the Engl. Monasteries, 59-62 ; Gairdner, Lollard-i and the Reformation, i, 421-4 ; Hendriks, The London Charterhouse, 1 19-26. '"' L. and P. Hen. Fill, v, 1525 ; Strype, Mem. i (ii), 193. '" Wriothesley, Chron. (Camd. Soc), i, 25. 262
