es_, p. 27, et
seq.

[246] _Suppression of the Monasteries_, p. 27, et seq.

[247] John Fisher to the Lords in Parliament: Ellis third series, Vol.
II. p. 289.

[248] _Lords' Journals_, p. 72.

[249] 25 Hen. VIII. cap. 12.

[250] In a tract written by a Dr. Moryson in defence of the government,
three years later, I find evidence that a distinction was made among the
prisoners, and that Dr. Bocking was executed with peculiar cruelty.
"Solus in crucem actus est Bockingus," are Moryson's words, though I
feel uncertain of the nature of the punishment which he meant to
designate. "Crucifixion" was unknown to the English law: and an event so
peculiar as the "crucifixion" of a monk would hardly have escaped the
notice of the contemporary chroniclers. In a careful diary kept by a
London merchant during these years, which is in MS. in the Library of
Balliol College, Oxford, the whole party are said to have been
hanged.--See, however, _Morysini Apomaxis_, printed by Berthelet, 1537.

[251] Hall, p. 814.

[252] Lord Herbert says he was pardoned; I do not find, however, on what
authority: but he was certainly not imprisoned, nor was the sentence of
forfeiture enforced against him.

[253] This is the substance of the provisions, which are, of course,
much abridged.

[254] _Lords' Journals_, Vol. I. p. 82. An act was also passed in this
session "against the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome." We trace it
in its progress through the House of Lords. (_Lords' Journals_,
Parliament of 1533-34.) It received the royal assent (ibid.), and is
subsequently alluded to in the 10th of the 28th of Henry VIII., as well
as in a Royal Proclamation dated June, 1534; and yet it is not on the
Roll, nor do I anywhere find traces of it. It is not to be confounded
with the act against payment of Peter's Pence, for in the _Lords'
Journals_ the two acts are separately mentioned. It received the royal
assent on the 30th of March, while that against Peter's Pence was
suspended till the 7th of April. It contained, also, an indirect
assertion that the king was Head of the English Church, according to the
title which had been given him by Convocation. (King's Proclamation:
Foxe, Vol. V. p. 69.) For some cause or other, the act at the last
moment must have been withdrawn.

[255] See Burnet, Vol. I. pp. 220, 221: Vol. III. p. 135; and Lord
Herbert. Du Bellay's brother, the author of the memoirs, says that the
king, at the bishop's entreaty, promise