y first caused the bill to be introduced,
and then ordered its rejection. The next business was Henry's (p. 279)
request for release from the obligation to repay the loan which Wolsey
had raised; that, too, the Commons refused, except on conditions.[770]
But no such opposition greeted the measures for reforming the
clergy.[771] Bills were passed in the Commons putting a limit on the
fees exacted by bishops for probate, and for the performance of other
duties then regarded as spiritual functions. The clergy were
prohibited from holding pluralities, except in certain cases, but the
act was drawn with astonishing moderation; it did not apply to
benefices acquired before 1530, unless they exceeded the number of
four. Penalties against non-residents were enacted, and an attempt was
made to check the addiction of spiritual persons to commercial
pursuits.

[Footnote 767: _L. and P._, iv., 6043-44.]

[Footnote 768: Hall, _Chronicle_, p. 764.]

[Footnote 769: _L. and P._, iv., 6075.]

[Footnote 770: That it passed at all is often
considered proof of parliamentary servility; it is
rather an illustration of the typical Tudor policy
of burdening the wealthy few in order to spare the
general public. If repayment of the loan were
exacted, fresh taxation would be necessary, which
would fall on many more than had lent the King
money. It was very irregular, but the burden was
thus placed on the shoulders of those individuals
who benefited most by Henry's ecclesiastical and
general policy and were rapidly accumulating
wealth. Taxation on the whole was remarkably light
during Tudor times; the tenths, fifteenths and
subsidies had become fixed sums which did not
increase with the national wealth, and indeed
brought in less and less to the royal exchequer
(see _L. and P._, vii., 344, "considerations why
subsidies in diverse shires were not so good in
Henry's seventh year as in his fifth"; _cf._ vii.,
1490, and xix., ii., 689, where Paget says that
benevolences did not "grieve the commo