¹ 31 Henry VIII, c. 8. The Statute of Proclamations was enacted in 1539. It provided that the King with the advice of his council ‘may set forthe at all tymes by auctoritie of this Acte his proclamations’, and these shall be obeyed, ‘as thoughe they were made by Acte of Parliament’. Section 11 barred proclamations from touching freehold or life and from conflicting with existing statutes, the common law or the customs of the realm. The Statute was repealed in 1547 (1 Edw. VI, c. 12).

² This interpretation appeared in Lawrence Stone, ‘The Political Programme of Thomas Cromwell’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXIV (05 1951), 1–18.Google Scholar It has recently been re-stated by Joel Hurstfield, ‘Was There a Tudor Despotism After All?’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, XVII (1968), 83–108.Google Scholar It was once commonly maintained that the Statute of Proclamations had indeed set up a royal despotism; however, this interpretation was possible only by ignoring section 11 which clearly limited the power of proclamations. For a discussion of interpretations of the Statute of Proclamations see Edward Adair, R., ‘The Statute of Proclamations’, English Historical Review, XXXII (06. 1917), 34–46;CrossRefGoogle ScholarElton, Geoffrey R., ‘Henry VIII's Act of Proclamations’, English Historical Review, LXXV (04 1960), 208–22;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHeinze, Rudolph W., ‘Tudor Royal Proclamations 1485–1553’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of History, University of Iowa, 1965).Google Scholar

³ Despite the interest in the Statute of Proclamations, the larger study of the role of proclamations in early Tudor government has been shamefully neglected. Robert Steele published a calendar of royal proclamations in 1910 which became the standard reference work for decades: Steele, Robert, A Bibliography of Royal Proclamations of the Tudor and Stuart Sovereigns… With an Historical Essay on their Origin and Use, vol. v, Bibliotheca Lindesiana (Oxford, 1910).Google Scholar Although this work contained only the titles of the proclamations and a brief summary of their contents, comments on proclamations by later historians were generally based on the information in Steele rather than the actual texts of the proclamations. In 1961 G. R. Elton wrote: ‘Proclamations remain a subject to be studied; we do not even yet possess a complete list, since R. R. Steele's well-known catalogue has gaps, nor has anyone yet attempted a systematic analysis of their content, enforcement, and general significance’: Elton, Geoffrey R., ‘State Planning in Early Tudor England’, Economic History Review, XIII (1961), 434.Google Scholar Since that time the texts of the early Tudor proclamations have been made available in print. Paul Hughes, L. and Larkin, James F. (eds.). Tudor Royal Proclamations, I: The Early Tudors (1485–1533) (New Haven, 1964).Google Scholar Reviews of this volume have continued to note the need for a detailed study of the use of royal proclamations: Dickens, A.G., ‘Tudor Royal Proclamations (1485–1553)’, English Historical Review, LXXXI (07 1965), 583;Google ScholarLevy, J., ‘Tudor Royal Proclamations, Volume I, The Early Tudors (1485–1553)’, American Historical Review, LXX (06 1965), 523.Google Scholar An initial effort to deal with the question has been made in my doctoral dissertation, ‘Tudor Royal Proclamations: 1485–1553’.

⁴ Local regulations on meat prices are often recorded in the records of the city of London. For examples of medieval regulation see Riley, Henry, (ed.), Liber Albus (London, 1862), pp. 92, 271–2;Google ScholarRiley, Henry (ed.), Liber Custumarum (London, 1860), pp. 602–3;Google ScholarSharpe, Reginald R. (ed.), Calendar of Letter-Books Preserved Among the Archives of the Corporation of the City of London at the Guildhall (London, 1899–1912),Google Scholar Letter Book G, p. 139, Letter Book H, pp. 61, 110.

⁵ Ashley underestimates the degree of central government involvement: ‘In curious contrast with its anxiety about the price of bread, the central Government left the regulation of the price of meat entirely to the local authorities’ Ashley, W.J., An Introduction to English Economic History and Theory (London, 1894), 1,Google Scholar pt. 1, 192. Schanz's contention that central price regulations were exceptional and ineffective is more accurate (Schanz, George, Englische Handelspolitik gegen Ende des Mittelalters, Leipzig, 1881, 1, 631).Google Scholar See also Pearce, Arthur, The History of the Butchers' Company (London, 1929), p. 61,Google Scholar who maintains that although price controls on meat were normally in the hands of civic authorities in London, ‘in other instances it was affected by proclamation immediately enjoined by the Sovereign’.

⁶ Riley, Liber Custumarum, p. 568.

⁷ Rotuli Parliamentorum, 1, 295Google Scholar; Putnam, Bertha H., The Enforcement of the Statute of Labourers (New York, 1908), p. 3.Google Scholar

⁸ 23 Edw. III, c. 6. Putnam considers this a significant innovation, for it ‘constitutes the first important attempt of the central authorities to apply to the country as a whole uniform legislation on wages and prices, matters that had been previously left to local controls’ Putnam, Statute of Labourers, p. 3.

⁹ 25 Edw. III, st. 1. The statute was passed, ‘not as a re-enactment of the ordinance, but as a supplement to it’. Putnam, op. cit. p. 2.

¹⁰ 37 Edw. III, c. 3 set specific prices on various types of poultry, ‘for the great dearth that is in many places of the realm of poultry’. It is a rare example of specific prices being fixed by statute in the Middle Ages. 13 Rich. Ill, st. 1, c. 8 provided that victuallers ‘shall have reasonable gains, according to the discretion and limitations of the said justices of the peace’.

¹¹ 24 Henry VIII, c. 3 refers to local officials who had ‘ lawfull auctoritie before the makeng of this presente acte, to sette price of flesshe’, and allows them to set a lower price than the price set by that statute. Jones points out that in the second half of the fourteenth century the mayor of London soon after beginning his term usually issued ‘a general proclamation for the government and well ordering of the city. Poultry was among the articles for which prices were invariably set by such proclamations.’ Jones, P.E., The Worshipful Company of Poulters of the City of London, 2nd ed. (London, 1965), p. 114.Google Scholar

¹² The central government's interest may have been stimulated by the rapid rise in the price of meat in the early Tudor period. According to Roger's figures the average price of oxen was 151. 11¾d. in the period 1491–1500. By 1511–20 it had risen to 235. 2d. and in the period 1521–30 the average price was 305. 10¼d.: Rogers, James E. Thorold, A History of Agriculture and Prices in England (Oxford, 1882), IV, 355.Google Scholar Fisher maintains: ‘In the early sixteenth century the prices that rose most rapidly seem to have been those of meat’: Fisher, F.J., ‘Influenza and Inflation in Tudor England’, Economic History Review, XVIII (08 1965), 124.Google Scholar

¹³ Corporation of London Record Office, Letter Book M, fo. 137d.

¹⁴ Ibid. Letter Book N, fos. 6sd–66.

¹⁵ Ibid. Journals of the Common Council, XI, fo. 323d.

¹⁶ Ibid. fo. 335.

¹⁷ Ibid. XII, fo. 121.

¹⁸ Ibid. Repertories of the Court of Aldermen, VIII, fo. 50d.

¹⁹ Ibid. Journals, XIII, fo. 140.

²⁰ Ibid.

²¹ 24 Henry VIII, c. 3.

²² Schanz developed a table based on the accounts of the bursar of the monastery of Durham from 1530–34 which lists both the price of livestock and the retail price of meat. On the basis of these figures he concluded that in Durham the profit of butchers was extremely small and in London, where cattle prices were higher, the butchers may have been forced to sell at a loss: Schanz, , Englische Handelspolitik, 1, 634.Google Scholar See also Leadam, I.S., Select Cases before the King's Council in Star Chamber (London, 1911), II, 1,Google Scholar liv who comes to a similar conclusion.

²³ C.L.R.O. Repertories, IX, fo. 17.

²⁴ Ibid. Journals, XIII, fo. 378.

²⁵ Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, 1, 139, pp. 208–9.Google Scholar

²⁶ C.L.R.O. Journals, XIII, fo. 376 d.

²⁷ On 21 July the Court of Aldermen ordered ‘that maiers shiriffs and other officers vpon the Kinges behalf shall sett suche reasonable prices of beefes muttons, veale porke and lambe that bochers maye have a competent lyvyng for sellyng of vytaill accordyng to the rate of the statuyt’. Ibid. Repertories, IX, fo. 18d. Three days later the Court ordered householders to ‘provide vyttaile for their howseholds’ since the butchers had answered they could not serve the city at the statutory prices. Ibid. fol. 19. Finally on 30 July the butchers were warned ‘that accordynge to the Kynges lettres directed to the maire aldermen and comen councell of this citie’ butchers who would not serve the city at statutory prices would be disenfranchised. Ibid. fo. 19d.

²⁸ Ibid. fos. 19d–20. There is some question whether this proclamation can be labelled a royal proclamation. Hughes and Larkin do not include it in their volume, and there is no specific statement in the text mentioning who is making the proclamation, as is common in royal proclamations. A marginal note in the Journals of the Common Council calls it a proclamation ‘according to and in effect of the aforesaid letters of the King’. Ibid. Journals, XIII, fo. 379d. A later reference to the proclamation calls it a proclamation made ‘on the behalff of our soveraigne lorde the Kyng and by the auctoritie of his higness comaundment’: Ibid. fo. 385d;. Clearly the authority behind the proclamation was the king's and the wording of the proclamation was probably taken almost verbatim from the king's letter since the pronouns all clearly refer to the king (e.g. ‘our high court of parliament’).

²⁹ P.R.O. SP/1/78, fo. 205.

³⁰ Ibid. fo. 205 d.

³¹ Ibid. fo. 206.

³² C.L.R.O. Repertories, IX, fo. 21d. This action was taken by the mayor and aldermen at the request of the king. On 24 August 1533 licence was granted to foreign butchers to sell freely for one month. Ibid. In September a mayor's proclamation allowed foreign butchers to sell until ‘the kyng our soueraigne lordes pleasure be otherwise knowen’. Ibid. Letter Book P, fo. 24. Meanwhile the London butchers continued to be called before the Court of Aldermen and asked whether they would comply with the statutory prices, but their answer was they could ‘not serve accordyngly’. Ibid., Repertories, IX, fo. 24d. This action may have been taken on the basis of information Cromwell received in August 1533 in a letter from Wil Roche, Richard Reynold and Thomas Wattes and in opposition to the better judgement of the mayor of London. The letter refers to an earlier letter sent by Cromwell to the mayor asking ‘how hit stod with the butchers of London’ and an answer by the town clerk, ‘gretly in favor of the butchers’. Roche, Reynolds and Wattes, however, maintained that the foreign butchers were selling at the statutory prices ‘of their own myndes and fre wyll’ and that ‘if the butchers of London were as well myndyd to the contynuans of the said good act as the butchers of the countre be this besynes had not nedyd’. P.R.O. SP/1/70, fo. 208. This letter is dated 5 August 1532 in the Letters and Papers, but internal evidence suggests the letter must have been written in August 1533. Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic of the Reign of Henry VIII (London, 1862–1910), V, no. 1216, p. 533.Google Scholar

³³ Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, 1, no. 142, pp. 212–13.Google Scholar

³⁴ Parliament had reassembled on 15 January. The proclamation was issued two weeks later, because those ‘resorting to his high court of parliament’ were complaining that the butchers were not observing the statutory prices. The proclamation seems to have been issued to deal with the situation during the period that parliament was engaged in enacting the new legislation, for the statute included its major provisions.

³⁵ 25 Henry VIII, c. I. The justification for the delegation of power read: ‘And for asmoche as beoffys muttons veales and porkes by many occasions fortune in some one yere or in some one tyme of the yere to be more scarce or more dere [then] at any other, by means whereof the grasiers and bochers in suche a dere tyme shall not be able to aforde the same at such prices and ratis as when they be in more plentie and better chepe.’ Another statute enacted in the same session utilized delegated legislation in a more sweeping manner by granting the king power to set both the wholesale and retail price of ‘chese, butter, capons, hennes, chekyns, and other victualles necessarie (of) mennes sustenance’ by proclamation. 25 Henry VIII, c. 2.

³⁶ Letters and Papers, VIII, no. 399, p. 168.Google Scholar

³⁷ C.L.R.O. Repertories, IX, fo. 46d; Journals, XIII, fo. 397.

³⁸ Ibid. Repertories, IX, fo. 48.

³⁹ Ibid. fo. 49.

⁴⁰ Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, 1, no. 144, pp. 214–15.Google Scholar

⁴¹ On 14 April 1534 the butchers of London were accused before the Court of Aldermen of not keeping the prices specified in the statute, ‘nor yet the prices enlarged by the Kynges proclamacion’: C.L.R.O. Repertories, IX, fo. 54A On 18 April a butcher was accused of speaking ‘sedicious woordes’ against the statute. Ibid. fo. 55. On 28 April another butcher was accused of refusing to sell flesh by weight. Ibid. fo. 56.

⁴² Ibid. fo. 69.

⁴³ Ibid. fo. 75d.

⁴⁴ Ibid. fo. 78 d.

⁴⁵ Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, 1, no. 148, pp. 218–19.Google Scholar The proclamation allowed London butchers to sell beef, pork, veal and mutton for ⅝. a pound because, the proclamations maintained, London butchers had higher costs than other butchers in England and in the winter ‘cattle are much more dearer than they be in the summertime’.

⁴⁶ P.R.O. SP/1/91, fol. 22.

⁴⁷ Sandys reiterated the complaint that butchers could not buy cattle ‘at any reasonable price acording to the statute’ from the graziers. He pointed out that the butchers intended to complain to the king in great numbers. ‘Wherapon consideryng the great rumor and clamor that myght have sprede’ Sandys advised them to draw up a bill of complaints and to have two or three of them present it to the king. He also promised them he would write to Cromwell. P.R.O. SP/1/91 fo. 68.

⁴⁸ Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, 1, no. 154, pp. 226–7.Google Scholar The text of the proclamation indicates a close relationship between Sandys' letter and the proclamation. The justification given was that at Easter the butchers could not buy from the graziers at reasonable prices. In addition the proclamation ordered the graziers to sell at a reasonable price or ‘answer to their uttermost perils’.

⁴⁹ Ibid. no. 159, pp. 233–4. This suspension seems to have been obtained by the London butchers without the knowledge or consent of the Court of Aldermen who, the day after the proclamation, admonished the butchers to obey the proclamation, ‘obteigned by theym without the assent of knowledge of this corte’. C.L.R.O. Repertories, IX, fo. 117. The justification for the proclamation was again that London butchers had higher costs than other butchers.

⁵⁰ Ibid. fo. 149.

⁵¹ Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, 1, no. 162, pp. 237–8.Google Scholar

⁵² 27 Henry VIII, c. 9.

⁵³ Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, 1, no. 164, pp. 240–1.Google Scholar The justification given in both the statute and the proclamation was ‘the great dearth of all manner of victuals which be now, and since the making of the said statutes hath fallen and happened within this our realm, as well by murrain of death of such cattle as by great waters and unseasonable weather, whereby the breed and increase of the same is much impaired and minished, in such wise that if the said former statutes were put in execution the butchers and sellers of such victuals were not able to live, nor that our commons should be well served thereof’.

⁵⁴ C.L.R.O. Repertories, X, fo. 35d. Poultry prices were set by the wardens of the poulters and submitted to the Court of Aldermen in 1537: Ibid. IX, fo. 258. In 1539 they were set by the mayor and aldermen and ratified by the King's council: Ibid., X, fo. 34.

⁵⁵ Ibid. is9d.

⁵⁶ Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, 1, no. 193, pp. 287–8.Google Scholar The proclamation still assumed that only a temporary suspension was necessary. The explanation in the proclamation was ‘considering the multitude, number, increase and multiplication of our people, and being in doubt of plenty of victuals of flesh for their sustenance and relief now against this holy time of Easter and now this summer season, considering also the great confluence of our nobles and subjects to our city of London for attendance of our parliament’.

⁵⁷ C.L.R.O. Repertories, X, fo. 173d.

⁵⁸ Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, 1, no. 196, pp. 291–3.Google Scholar During the period of suspension meat prices were established in London through consultation between the wardens of the butchers and the aldermen: C.L.R.O. Repertories, X, fo. 200.

⁵⁹ Ibid. fo. 325.

⁶⁰ Henry VIII, c. II. The full text of the butchers' petition is available in Leadam, Star Chamber, II, 221–5.

⁶¹ C.L.R.O. Repertories, XI, fo. 58d.

⁶² Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, 1, no. 231, pp. 331–3;Google Scholar no. 232, pp. 334–5. These are probably duplicate proclamations as Dr Elton has suggested: Elton, G.R., ‘Government by Edict’, The Historical Journal, VIII (1965), 268.Google Scholar There is, however, a difference between the two proclamations. Proclamation 231 is dated by Hughes and Larkin 21 May 1544 and contains an extensive section setting specific prices on various fowls, rabbits, eggs and butter, while proclamation 232 is dated 22 May 1544 and is limited to pricing beef, mutton, veal and pork.

⁶³ On 10 May 1544 the mayor and aldermen set the prices of beef, mutton, pork, veal, lamb and poultry, ‘and agreyd that a bile shall be made of theym and all others the premysses concernyng vytalles redy to be delyvered upon Moneday next in the after none unto the Kynges most honorable counsayll in the counsayll chamber’: C.L.R.O. Repertories, XI, fo. 66 d. The prices recommended by the mayor and aldermen were exactly the same as those in proclamation 231.

⁶⁴ Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, 1, no. 231, pp. 331–3;Google Scholar no. 232, pp. 334–5.

⁶⁵ Ibid. no. 231, p. 333; no. 232, p. 335.

⁶⁶ Heinze, ‘Tudor Royal Proclamations’, p. 166. Two other proclamations issued during the period when the Statute of Proclamations was in effect decreed the same type of enforcement. These proclamations also specifically cited the Statutes of Proclamations. Hughes, and Larkin, , Royal Proclamations, 1, no. 218, pp. 318–19;Google Scholar no. 242, pp. 343–5.

⁶⁷ Section iv of the Statute of Proclamations set up a special court made up of the king's councillors and closely resembling the Court of Star Chamber to deal with violators of proclamations: 31 Henry VIII, c. 8.

⁶⁸ There are no cases based on these proclamations either in the surviving records of the Statutory Court, P.R.O., Star Chamber Proceedings, Henry VIII, or on the Exchequer, King's Remembrancer, Memoranda Rolls, P.R.O., E/159. There is evidence in the records of the city of London that local officials continued to be closely involved in enforcement. On 17 June 1544 the Court of Aldermen called the wardens of the butchers and poulters before them ‘to declare why they do nott obey the kynges proclamation late made for the price of theyr vytiayyles’: C.L.R.O. Repertories, XI, fo. 78. The Companies were also involved in enforcement. On 19 June 1544 the wardens of the butchers were instructed by the Court of Aldermen to see that offenders against the king's proclamation ‘of theyr company’ were ‘duely punysshed’: Ibid. fo. 79. On 12 October 1546 the wardens of the poulters were commanded to bring in the names of those of their company who had offended against the proclamations and also to bring in the money forfeited ‘by dyvers of their company’ for selling rabbits above the established price: Ibid. fo. 289d.

⁶⁹ Elton, G.R., England under the Tudors (London, 1955), p. 170.Google Scholar