ABSTRACT
The parliament of 1495 went further: it passed an act designed to draw a line under the past. This was the so-called de facto act (II Henry VII, C.I) which declared that no subject attending upon a king of England 'for the time being' in a war and doing him faithful service should suffer for it in his person or possessions, any future act of parliament to the contrary notwithstanding. This act was exaggerated by Bacon into a far-seeing major piece of statesmanship, outlining a theory of kingship in that it made a king de facto equivalent to one de jure. Rut the words de facto and de jure do not occur in the document, in strong contrast to many acts of the wars which were careful to refer to any defeated predecessor as king in deed though not of right. The distinction was devised as a part of the struggle, and its omission in this act is
significant because it marks Henry's intention to let it be forgotten. The act's main purpose was to assure the yet unpunished members of the Yorkist faction that the past was dead; it was, in A. F. Pollard's words, a 'measure of temporary expediency very limited in scope'. It also served to reassure Henry's own followers about a possible reversal of fortune. No one ever invoked it on occasions when, on the common interpretation, it could have been useful. Nor did it make opposition to Henry VII himself venial in any circumstances, for a short but important proviso at the end excepted all men who would 'hereafter decline from his or their said allegiance'. The act was a notable step in closing the chapter of the wars, but no more. The attempt to bind future parliaments serves as a useful reminder that in 1495 the doctrine of parliament's omnicompetence was yet far from fully realised. In the cause of right reason one parliament could commit all its successors.
