Bill of Attainder against Elizabeth Barton

The Bill of Attainder against Elizabeth Barton was designed to punish the prophetess and her associates through Parliament rather than through an extended common-law trial. Thomas Cromwell presented it as a way to contain a politically dangerous network, but its proposed penalties and the inclusion of Thomas More made it a test of how far Parliament and the crown could reach into matters bound up with religious authority and conscience.

Purpose and Parliamentary Strategy

The immediate difficulty, as Cromwell explained to More, was that common law had no straightforward way to deal with women who claimed supernatural powers. Rather than pursue a trial involving scores of defendants and hundreds of witnesses, he proposed an act of attainder: treason penalties for the principals, with life imprisonment, confiscation, and fines for their accessories. He said his greater interest was in uncovering the group’s plans than in exacting punishment, and expected the king to act with circumspection, perhaps even mercy.

The bill’s procedure reflected a larger conflict over jurisdiction. Cromwell argued that Parliament could legislate for England and that its decisions should not be displaced by an appeal to Rome. His case for parliamentary authority echoed the political argument he advanced elsewhere: the king governed through a legislative body acting for the realm, while churchmen could not claim an independent power to make laws or levy taxes. The attainder thus belonged to a broader effort to make contested religious and political claims actionable through domestic legislation.

More and Fisher Included

The proposed measure did not remain confined to Barton and her immediate circle. At Anne Boleyn’s urging, Thomas More was named alongside John Fisher. Anne wanted More frightened, but Henry VIII judged that Parliament would not accept his inclusion: Fisher faced substantial evidence and was disliked in the Commons, whereas More had already shown the king that he was clear of the Barton affair. The disagreement exposed the bill’s political limits even within the royal circle.

Cromwell nevertheless told More that the bill would include his name. He sought More’s public acceptance of Elizabeth’s rights and title, and tried to persuade him to endorse the king’s jurisdiction over the church. More would not praise the royal marriage or make a declaration of changed belief. He refused Cromwell’s invitation to dinner, suspecting that conversation would become an attempt to put words into his mouth. The effort to enlist him therefore sharpened the divide between outward political conformity and the convictions he would not publicly recant.

The Bill’s Passage and Barton’s Confinement

The bill of attainder against Barton and her allies was laid before the House of Lords on Saturday, 21 February. Fisher’s name appeared in it; More’s was added at Henry’s command. The measure’s reach was already contentious: More’s inclusion provoked parliamentary indignation and could delay the bill until spring.

While the bill was before Parliament, Cromwell visited Barton in the Tower. She had survived the winter and had been taken across the country to make public confessions. She asked whether she would be burned and spoke of visions of punishment awaiting the king. Cromwell told her that six people would go with her, adding that the number could have been sixty. His account places the proposed legislation amid the personal consequences of its proceedings: the state sought to limit the network’s influence, while Barton faced death and her followers faced penalties under the bill.

Legal and Political Significance

The measure condensed the book’s conflict between royal and parliamentary law, church jurisdiction, and claims grounded in religious authority. Cromwell treated parliamentary legislation as a means to identify and punish political opposition without allowing Rome or church courts to determine the matter. More’s response elsewhere makes the disputed boundary clear: he distinguished Parliament’s temporal jurisdiction from spiritual jurisdiction, which he held to lie outside the realm. The controversy was therefore not simply about whether Barton’s prophecies were true; it concerned which institution had power to define their legal and political meaning.

The bill also demonstrates the tension between a stated preference for limited penalties and the coercive reach of attainder. Cromwell described his aim as preventing a sprawling trial and investigating the group’s plans, yet the proposed sanctions included imprisonment, confiscation, and fines, and the bill named prominent opponents of the royal religious settlement. Its political purpose and its procedural efficiency could not be separated from the question of who would be made vulnerable by the new authority Parliament was asked to exercise.