ued
with them, and frankly gave his reasons. It was always done, of course,
with a magnificent air of royal condescension, but with such grace (p. 264)
as to carry the conviction that he was really pleased to condescend
and to take counsel with his subjects, and that he did so because he
trusted his Parliament, and expected his Parliament to place an equal
confidence in him. Henry VIII. acted more as the leader of both Houses
than as a King; and, like modern parliamentary leaders, he demanded
the bulk of their time for measures which he himself proposed.

[Footnote 735: Cromwell used to report to the King
on the feeling of Parliament; thus in 1534 (_L. and
P._, vii., 51) he tells Henry how far members were
willing to go in the creation of fresh treasons,
"they be contented that deed and writing shall be
treason," but words were to be only misprision;
they refused to include an heir's rebellion or
disobedience in the bill, "as rebellion is already
treason and disobedience is no cause of forfeiture
of inheritance," and they thought "that the King of
Scots should in no wise be named" (there is in the
Record Office a draft of the Treasons Bill of 1534
materially differing from the Act as passed.
Therefore either the bill did not originate with
the Government and was modified under Government
pressure, or it did originate with the Government
and was modified under parliamentary pressure).
This is how Henry's legislation was evolved; there
is no foundation for the assertion that Parliament
merely registered the King's edicts.]

[Footnote 736: _E.g._, _L. and P._, v., 120. At other
times Parliament visited him. "On Thursday last,"
writes one on 8th March, 1534, "the whole
Parliament were with the King at York Place for
three hours" (_ibid._, vii., 304).]

The fact that the legislation of Henry's reign was initiated almost
entirely by Government is not, however, a conclusive proof of the
servility of Parliament. For, though it may have been the theory that
Pa