¹ I wish to express my indebtedness to Professor J. S. Roskell of the University of Man-chester, who gave me several helpful suggestions and references pertaining to proctorial practices in the late medieval period, and to Dr G. R. Elton of the University of Cambridge, whose advice and criticism steered me away from several pitfalls.

² See my article ‘The Origin and Diffusion of Proctorial Representation in Medieval England’, The American Journal of Legal History, VIII (1963), 319–39Google Scholar.

³ Roskell, J. S., ‘The Problem of Attendance of the Lords in Medieval Parliaments’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXIX (1956), 179–95.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid. p. 199.

⁵ Though Pollard, Pike, Roskell and other standard authorities have dealt with absenteeism and mentioned proxies in the upper house, none of them has considered the political implications of proctorial representation. No doubt the paucity of evidence before 1509, when the procurations became part of the permanent and subsequently published record of the upper house, and the abundance of evidence since that time, help explain the lack of knowledge about the subject.

⁶ Leach, Arthur Francis, Memorials of Beverley Minster (Durham, 1898), pp. 240, 286Google Scholar

⁷ Professor Roskell brought these cases to my attention. The original letters of proxy are in the Public Record Office, S.C. 10.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Professor Roskell found no evidence of plural representation and voting among the temporal lords. ‘Absolutely no evidence exists throwing light on the possibility of one temporal lord accumulating more than one proxy and exercising plural voting power’ (ibid.).

¹⁰ See Lords’ Journals, the early Tudor sessions.

¹¹ The material in this paragraph is drawn from several sources: Lords' Journals, 1, 1-75 ; Pike, Luke Owen, A Constitutional History of the House of Lords (London, 1894), pp. 108–11Google Scholar ; Pollard, A. F., The Evolution of Parliament (London, 1920), pp. 99–104Google Scholar , 273-4, 302; and , Roskell, op. cit. pp. 197–200Google Scholar.

¹³ See D.N.B. xix, 429.

¹³ By 1626, it is interesting to note, the proxies were registered in a separate proxy book in which the procurator's name, appearing at the head of the page, is followed by the names of his proxies. TTiis arrangement enabled the clerk to ascertain the number of votes each peer could cast in a division.

¹⁴ Lords' Journals, 1, 10–13.

¹⁵ This practice began fairly early, for in 1309 William of Ockham empowered three men to act on his behalf in parliament (see Weske, D. B., The Convocation of the Clergy, London, 1937. PP. 57–8).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Lords' Journals, l, 10–15.

¹⁷ Ibid. I, 355.

¹⁸ A precautionary word about sources and evidence is first essential. Since the ensuing facts and deductions are based mainly on the Lords' Journals and since they are incomplete for this period, the following picture of absenteeism is necessarily sketchy. Since the records of several sessions have not survived, and since these records certainly contained some proxy registrations and daily roll calls, it is impossible to render a complete account of those peers who absented themselves from the deliberations and those who received the procurations. The Lords' Journals for the sessions of 1512, 1514, 1523 and some of the seven sessions of the Reformation Parliament are missing. Whether they were lost or destroyed has not been deter-mined. Whether the printed journals, based on the ‘Petyt MSS.’ in Inner Temple Library represent a transcription of the original journal of the upper house or a transcription of a transcription is still an open question. Yet, despite the existence of gaps and doubts, the extant evidence seems to be of sufficient value to piece together the following account. For a complete discussion of this problem see Pollard, A. F., ‘The Authenticity of the Lords' Journals in the Sixteenth Century’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, VIII, 17–34Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Lords' Journals, vol. I.

²⁰ Professor Roskell has informed me in personal correspondence that this practice did not antedate Tudor times, except in the case of the abbot of St Mary of York who in 1442 appointed John Lord Scrope as one of his proctors.

²¹ In his study of Parliament Pollard implies that the dissolution of the monasteries was due to the abbots, who did not answer the summons or attend to their parliamentary responsibilities. See his Evolution of Parliament, p. 207.

²² This was also true of the secular clergy in medieval parliaments; see , Roskell, loc. cit. p. 199.Google Scholar

²³ This subject is discussed more fully in my article ‘The Origins and Diffusion of Proctorial Representation in Medieval England’, pp. 319-23.

²⁴ Cokayne, G. E., Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom (London, 1910–1940), xx, 1253.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid. XII, 304.

²⁶ Ibid, VIII, 275.

²⁷ Ibid, VIII, 64.

²⁸ Ibid, XI, 442.

²⁹ The facts regarding proxies in this section are based on the Lords' Journals. For bio-graphical information about the procurators I have relied mainly upon D.N.B.; Cokayne; Smith, Tudor Prelates; Knowles, David, The Monastic Order in England (Cambridge, 1949)Google Scholar ; Pollard's several works dealing with the reign of Henry VIII; and Elton, G. R., The Tudor Revolution in Government (Cambridge, 1959)Google Scholar.

³⁰ See , Smith, op. cit. p. IIIGoogle Scholar , and Smith, H. Maynard, Henry VIII and the Reformation (New York, 1962), pp. 97–125Google Scholar.

³¹ , Knowles, Religious Orders, p. 175Google Scholar . Knowles notes that twenty-two of the twenty-seven parliamentary abbots signed the letter.

³² , Smith, Tudor Prelates, pp. 12Google Scholar , 14, 27, 28, 134.

³³ During Cromwell's predominance the proxy registration contained a phrase indicating that the proxy had been approved by Cromwell and Henry VIII. See Lords' Journals, I, 58.

³⁴ Gasquet, F. A., Henry VIII and the English Monasteries (London, 1910), p. 348.Google Scholar

³⁵ For Lord Russell's role as procurator see below.

³⁶ D.N.B. xix, 615-17.

³⁷ Lords' Journals, II, 265.

³⁸ D.N.B. VIII, 13s ff.

³⁹ Throughout this section I have relied upon Lord Eustace Percy , The Privy Council Under the Tudors (London, 1907)Google Scholar ; Tanner, J. R., Tudor Constitutional Documents (Cambridge, 1940), pp. 213–48Google Scholar ; Elton, G. R., op. cit. pp. 91–5Google Scholar ; Dunham's, William H. ‘Wolsey's Rule of the Whole Council’, American Historical Review (1944), XLIX, 644–62Google Scholar ; Dunham, William H., ‘Henry VIII's Whole Council and its Parts’, Huntington Library Quarterly, VII (1943), 7–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; and Dunham, William H., ‘The Members of Henry VIII's Whole Council, 1509-1527’, E[nglish] H[tstorical] R[eview] (1944), LIX, pp. 187–210Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ For a full discussion of this matter see , Dunham, E.H.R. pp. 187–9.Google Scholar

⁴¹ , Knowles, Religious Orders, pp. 96–9.Google Scholar

⁴² , Knowles, Religious Orders, pp. 91-5, 101–3.Google Scholar

⁴³ Pollard, A. F., Wolsey (London, 1953), pp. 43–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ , Dunham, E.H.R. p. 208.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid. p. 9.

⁴⁶ , Pollard, Wolsey, p. 7.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. p. 9.

⁴⁸ See , Smith, Tudor Prelates, pp. 268 ff.Google Scholar , for a discussion of the influence of the council on the bishops.

⁴⁹ For the biographical data of the temporal lords treated in this section I have relied upon: D.N.B., Cokayne, Pollard's Wolsey and Henry VIII, and Elton.

⁶⁰ Bayne, C. G., Select Cases in the Council of Henry VII (London, The Selden Society, 1958), pp. 30Google Scholar , 40, 141. I am indebted to Professor G. R. Elton for this reference.

⁵¹ Ibid. pp. 13, 30.

⁵² In bis Reign of Henry VIII (London, 1884)Google Scholar , J. S. Brewer suggests that Wolsey may have formed a powerful faction in the upper house in 1523 by means of packing it with newly created peers (see 1, 477). Also see Gairdner, James, ‘The Fall of Cardinal Wolsey’, Trans-actions of the Royal Historical Society, new ser., XIII (1897), pp. 75–102Google Scholar.

⁵³ See the summary of Helen Miller's thesis ‘The Early Tudor Peerage, 1485-1547’, published in The Bulletin of Historical Research, xxiv, 88 ff.

⁵⁴ For a discussion of Norfolk's official positions and his role in the council see , Elton, op. cit. pp. 109–11Google Scholar , 337-9. 347. 358, 365-7.

⁵⁵ See D.N.B. XVIII, 391.

⁵⁶ , Smith, Tudor Prelates, pp. 27–8, 144.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ D.N.B. III, 930 ff.

⁵⁸ For a discussion of the patronage system and royal influence upon the secular ecclesiastics see , Smith, Tudor Prelates, pp. 141 ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁹ Most of the information in this paragraph comes from , Smith, Tudor Prelates, 108 ff.Google Scholar , and Muller, James Arthur, Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor Reaction (New York, 1926), esp. pp. 42–72Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ The biographical information in the ensuing section is drawn from D.N.B., Cokayne, Pollard's Henry VIII and Elton's Tudor Revolution.

⁶¹ It should be pointed out that although Cromwell held one proxy in 1536 he did not have much opportunity to use it, for he did not attend Parliament until the last day of the session.

⁶² , Elton, op. cit. pp. 317Google Scholar , 320-69, 421.

⁶³ In his De Republiea Anglorum, Sir Thomas Smith briefly described proxy registration and plural voting. ‘In the upper house’, he wrote, ‘they give their assent and dissent each man severally and by himself first for himself and then for so many as he hath proxy…In the nether house none of them that is elected either knight or burgess can give his voices to another nor his consent nor dissent by proxy.’ Smith, however, did not grasp the political significance of the proxy system; see Dunham, William H. and Pargellis, Stanley, Complaint and Reform in England 1436-1746 (Oxford, 1938), p. 227Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ , Dunham, E.H.R. pp. 34–6Google Scholar and Dunham, William H., ‘The Ellesmere Extracts from the Acta Consilii of King Henry VIII’, English Historical Review, LVIII (1943), 301–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁶ Little is known about voting procedures in the Tudor House of Lords. While direct evidence of a division is lacking, there is evidence of verbal votes and counts in Elizabethan times. In 1571, for example, Lord Burghley stopped a move to eliminate the Wednesday ‘fish day’ by casting his five proxy votes and his own with the ‘Contents’ (see Neale, John, Queen Elizabeth and Her Parliaments, 1559-1585, London, 1953, p. 225)Google Scholar . In May 1580 a move to reform the law of forgery was postponed to the following session when, according to the clerk of the House, ‘the number of the Contents on the one Side, and the number of the Not Contents on the other Side, found to be equal and alike with their proxies’ (see the Lords' Journals, II, 40).

⁶⁶ See my discussion of this subject in ‘Essex and the Aristocratic Opposition to the Early Stuarts’, Journal of Modem History, XXXII (09 1960), 224–33Google Scholar.