27, et seq.

[695] John Fisher to the Lords in Parliament: ELLIS, third series, vol. ii.
p. 289.

[696] _Lords' Journals_, p. 72.

[697] 25 Hen. VIII. cap. 12.

[698] 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.

[699] HALL, p. 814.] The inferior confederates were committed to their
prisons with the exception only of Fisher, who, though sentenced, found
mercy thrust upon him, till by fresh provocation the miserable old man
forced himself upon his fate.[700

[700] 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.

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

[702] _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
1533-4.) It received the royal assent (ibid.), and is subsequently alluded
to in the both 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other, the act at the last moment must have been withdrawn.

[703] See BURNET