Submission of the Clergy

• 1. Royal Demands And Clerical Resistance

  ›

  On the 10th of May 1532, Edward Foxe stood before the Convocation of Canterbury and presented three articles from King Henry VIII. These documents demanded that the Church of England renounce its authority to make church laws without royal licence. The articles also required all existing canons to be submitted to a committee appointed by the King for scrutiny. This committee would include eight members from Parliament and eight from the clergy. They had the power to declare any canon void if they found it offensive. William Warham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, immediately adjourned the session to St Catherine's chapel within Westminster Abbey infirmary. He led the prelates to St Dunstan's chapel for a private conference on how to respond. John Fisher, the Bishop of Rochester, was absent so a delegation traveled to Rochester to ask his opinion. Fisher likely argued firm resistance based on his previous views. The King made a speech attacking the clergy on the 11th of May while accompanied by his councillors in Parliament. Edward Hall recorded the King saying the clergy were but half subjects who took oaths to the Pope contrary to their oath to him.

• 2. The Compromise Of 1532

  ›

  Warham and the rest of the Convocation suggested a compromise after debate. Their proposal stated the Convocation would not make new canons without the King's consent. They offered to submit all previous canons directly to the King for assent or rejection instead of to a committee. The compromise limited the end of legislative power to 'during the King's natural life' only. The King abruptly decreed that Warham should end the session when the prelates met for the last time on the 15th of May. Warham informed them of this decision and prorogued the Convocation until the 4th of November. Some of the King's most prominent councillors arrived to demand agreement without amendment. These nobles included the Duke of Norfolk, the Marquess of Exeter, the Earl of Oxford, the Earl of Wiltshire and William Sandys. After an hour-long confrontation, the nobles left and the inferior clergy went to vote on the three articles. Eighteen voted no to renouncing legislative authority and nineteen against the canons committee article. Warham advised the inferior clergy to retire because he thought the councillors might return at any moment. The Duke of Norfolk and a few others did return but left after talking with Warham.

• 3. Parliamentary Ratification In 1534

  ›

  In 1534 Parliament confirmed the Submission of the Clergy through the Act for the Submission of the Clergy and Restraint of Appeals. This legislation carried the reference number 25 Hen. 8 c. 19. The historian Stanford Lehmberg argues that parliamentary legislation may have come from a proposal by the Commons rather than Thomas Cromwell. The procedure resulted in a conference between the King and Parliament where the Speaker addressed him directly. Parliament was asked again in 1536 to re-enact the Submission of the Clergy though the reasoning remains unknown. The 1534 act did not include an expiration date yet the request for re-enactment occurred anyway. On the 16th of May 1532 the Submission of the Clergy became officially signed by representatives of the clergy and bishops. Historian Michael Kelly noted the scarce attendance of the vote when writing about the event. He described the enactment as occurring within a rump Convocation due to low participation numbers. The process separated the Church from Rome alongside other Acts passed by Parliament during this period.

• 4. Archbishops And Political Pressure

  ›

  John Longland, the Bishop of Lincoln, spoke in favour of the articles with some reservation during Upper House voting. Dr Henry Standish, the Bishop of St Asaph, also supported the measures while speaking before the assembly. John Stokesley, the Bishop of London, joined them in backing the articles despite holding reservations. John Clerk, the Bishop of Bath and Wells stood strongly opposed to the proposed changes throughout the debate. A majority voted for the articles after these speeches concluded and the Convocation was prorogued. The King's councillors used intimidation tactics to force submission through direct confrontation with Warham. They demanded that the clergy agree to the three articles without any amendments or modifications. The presence of powerful nobles like Norfolk and Exeter created an atmosphere of threat for dissenting voices. Warham had to manage the tension between royal demands and clerical autonomy during these meetings. His role required balancing the need to preserve church interests against overwhelming political pressure from the Crown. The outcome demonstrated how royal authority could override ecclesiastical independence when backed by sufficient force.

• 5. Historiographical Debates On Legitimacy

  ›

  Modern historians question whether the vote represented true consensus among all English clergy members. Michael Kelly wrote about the scarce attendance of the vote when documenting the event in 1970. He characterized the enactment as happening within a rump Convocation due to low participation numbers. Stanford Lehmberg examined the possible origins of parliamentary legislation needed for this process in his book. He suggested the Commons may have initiated the proposal rather than Thomas Cromwell driving it forward. These scholars highlight the gap between official records and actual participation levels during critical moments. The historical record shows significant resistance from figures like John Clerk who opposed the measures strongly. Yet the final outcome proceeded despite objections from key bishops and lower clergy members. The debate continues over whether the submission reflected genuine agreement or coerced compliance under duress. Historians analyze how power dynamics shaped the final result beyond simple majority voting procedures.