r obtained from the universities.[798]
Parliament was then prorogued, and its members were enjoined to relate
to their constituents that which they had seen and heard.

[Footnote 796: _Ibid._, v., 120.]

[Footnote 797: _L. and P._, v., 171. This and other
incidents (see p. 289) form a singular comment on
Brewer's assertion (_ibid._, iv., Introd., p.
dcxlvii.) that "there is scarcely an instance on
record, in this or any succeeding Parliament
throughout the reign, of a parliamentary patriot
protesting against a single act of the Crown,
however unjust and tyrannical it might be".]

[Footnote 798: _L. and P._, v., 171.]

Primed by communion with their neighbours, members of Parliament
assembled once more on 15th January, 1532, for more important (p. 289)
business than they had yet transacted. Every effort was made to secure
a full attendance of Peers and Commons; almost all the lords would be
present, thought Chapuys, except Tunstall, who had not been summoned;
Fisher came without a summons, and apparently no effort was made to
exclude him.[799] The readiness of the Commons to pass measures
against the Church, and their reluctance to consent to taxation, were
even more marked than before. Their critical spirit was shown by their
repeated rejection of the Statutes of Wills and Uses designed by Henry
to protect from evasion his feudal rights, such as reliefs and primer
seisins.[800] This demand, writes Chapuys,[801] "has been the occasion
of strange words against the King and the Council, and in spite of all
the efforts of the King's friends, it was rejected".[802] In the
matter of supplies they were equally outspoken; they would only grant
one-tenth and one-fifteenth, a trifling sum which Henry refused to
accept.[803] It was during this debate on the question of supplies
that two members moved that the King be asked to take back Catherine
as his wife.[804] They would then, they urged, need no fresh armaments
and their words are reported to have been well received by the House.
The Commons were not more enthusiastic about the bill restraining the
payment of annates to the Court at Rome.[805] They did not pay (p. 290)
them; their grievance was against bishops in England, and they saw
no particular reason for relieving those pre