LT4T Ji I REESE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. Class THE ELIZABETHAN RELIGIOUS SETTLEMENT LONDON: GEORGE BELL AND SONS PORTUGAL ST. LINCOLN'S INN, W.C. CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL & CO. NEW YORK: THE MACMILLAN CO. BOMBAY: A. H. WHEELER & CO. THE ELIZABETHAN RELIGIOUS SETTLEMENT A STUDY OF CONTEMPORARY DOCUMENTS BY HENRY NORBERT BIRT, O.S.B. PRIEST OF DOWNSIDE ABBEY LONDON GEORGE BELL AND SONS 1907 CHISWICK PRESS : CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO. TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. CONTENTS PAGE Preface vii CHAPTER I Elizabeth's Accession and the First Months of Her Reign i CHAPTER II Elizabeth's First Parliament 42 CHAPTER III The Westminster Conference, March — April, 1559 . 98 CHAPTER IV The Clergy and the Acts of Supremacy and Uni- formity: I. The Dismissal of the Religious and the Northern Visitation 120 CHAPTER V The Clergy and the Acts of Supremacy and Uni- formity: II. The Southern Visitation and the General Sequel . 166 CHAPTER VI The Old Episcopate and the New .... 207 CHAPTER VII The Universities 253 xv xvi CONTENTS CHAPTER VIII PAGE The Task of the Elizabethan Bishops: I. The Northern Province 297 CHAPTER IX The Task of the Elizabethan Bishops : II. The Southern Province 343 CHAPTER X The Task of the Elizabethan Bishops : III. The Southern Province — continued . . .402 CHAPTER XI The Rising of the North, 1569 475 CHAPTER XII Attitude of the Laity to the Religious Changes, and the Harrying of the Papists 502 Index 559 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS TO FACE PAGE Queen Elizabeth Frontispiece Lord Burghley, Lord Treasurer 42 Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Chancellor .... 98 Nicholas Heath, Lord Chancellor of England and Catholic Archbishop of York, deprived . . .207 Matthew Parker, 1st Archbishop of Canterbury conse- crated by the Edwardine Ordinal .... 343 Edmund Grindal, successively Bishop of London, Arch- bishop of York, and Archbishop of Canterbury . 435 Edmund Plowden, Catholic Lawyer . . . .502 TO F. B. PREFACE THE late Lord Acton held that " History differs from other sciences by confining the author to matter supplied by the sources. The author does not put in reflec- tions, combinations, explanations of his own not suggested or furnished by his materials"; further, he emphasised the need of " self-denial, which is the condition of scientific history," found fault with " copiousness and superabund- ance of style," and praised " the verification of quota- tions." 1 I have had these principles constantly before me in preparing the following pages; trying, moreover, always to remember another saying of the same eminent worker, that " in history the historian has to disappear and leave the facts and ideas objectively to produce their own effect." 2 But it has been no easy matter to glean where Mr. J. A. Froude has garnered. He has cast the glamour of his matchless and picturesque style over the spacious days of Queen Elizabeth; and the glowing colours of his canvas, boldly and broadly laid on, yet with the deft cunning of the true artist, cannot but pale the efforts of others to illustrate that period. But the imagery and the wealth of description with which that facile and graceful writer has clothed the bare bones of history, have also but too frequently carried him away, and by the mere force of rhetoric have betrayed him into a false setting of facts in his superb efforts to 1 Gasquet, Lord Acton and his Circle, p. 287. 2 Ibid., p. 164. vii viii PREFACE secure the unities of the picture he had in his mind. " The imagination is a dangerous faculty in an historian. It is apt to make rather than to interpret history." 1 This note of warning, originally uttered against Ernest Renan, is applicable with a special fitness to Mr. Froude. Neverthe- less, the method first, perhaps, freely employed by Froude, must be acknowledged as the only safe one — that of going to, and quoting, original sources. Sir Cuthbert Sharpe cites Lodge's words, on the title-page of his Memorials of the Rebellion of 1569, that " For genuine illustration of history, biography, and manners, we must chiefly rely on ancient original papers. To them we must turn for the correction of past errors, for a supply of future materials, for proofs of what hath already been delivered to us." This, indeed, Mr. Froude did copiously, after a fashion of his own, thereby giving a superficial cachet to the picturesque details with which he filled his volumes. But all serious students of Elizabethan history have discovered that Mr. Froude's pages are dangerous, because he wove a fancy pattern of his own on the warp of facts. In this connection it may be permitted to refer to a pregnant passage in a Quarterly re- view on the very work here suggesting these remarks. " We have mentioned incidentally," the writer says, " one cause of the errors into which Mr. Froude has been led — the reliance on the despatches of foreign ambassadors — to which must be added the too great reference to the des- patches of English spies and agents. To write an entirely fresh and independent history of such a period as this from such sources, neglecting the works of his predecessors, even though all but contemporary, as he does — for he scarcely ever refers to the standard authorities — is in itself a perilous undertaking. No doubt we gain a vast amount of hitherto 1 Edinburgh Review, April, 1888, p. 483; Renan's History of the People of Israel. PREFACE ix unused material; Mr. Froude deserves the thanks of all future historians for his extraordinary industry in search- ing the Simancas archives and our own for their long buried treasures; but we cannot congratulate him on his caution in using them, nor give him credit for having done more than supply materials for history. The remark of M. Gauthier on this point is just: ' Qui voudrait accepter sans controle les nouvelles envoyees d'Ecosse par les agents Anglais et leurs espions? Et qui ne sait que beau- coup de pieces sont ratur^es et interlignees de la main meme de Cecil?' 1 " No people are so frequently deceived as ambassadors, agents, and spies in such an age. Their pictures of what is going on around them are often graphic and interesting to the greatest degree, but they require to be checked on all points touching politics, religion, and even as to mere fact. They too often see what they wish to see, and report what they are expected to report. But this is not to deny that they can be made most useful to the historian, and they are often so in Mr. Froude's hands." 2 The obvious corrective of this very real danger pointed out by Mr. Froude's reviewer, is to control and check one account by another, if possible, from a hostile source ; and this method has been adopted as far as was practicable in the following pages. Another difficulty arises from the fact that a fixed idea has become embodied in the national mind, that Elizabeth's reign, as an indivisible whole, stands for all that is glorious in literature, in freedom, in adventure (regardless of the circumstance that the men who built up England's mari- time greatness were, after all, little better than pirates). A 1 " Avant Propos," p. vi, of M. Jules Gauthier's Histoire de Marie Stuart, Paris, 1869. 2 April, 1870, Review of Froude's Queen Elizabeth, pp. 541-2. x PREFACE Quarterly review on Macaulay neatly sums up the diffi- culties created by this spirit of national optimism, excellent though it be in itself. " Examination of evidence in a critical spirit is to most persons repulsive, and it is always difficult to undertake the support of reasoned truth against eloquent sentiment. We have, moreover, to contend in the present case, not only against the vulgi indiligentia veri — the dislike which the majority always feel to the investi- gation of truth — but against established admiration, which in many minds rises to something like religious sentiment." 1 The late Lord Acton, well aware of this, once wrote: " There are two things which cannot be attacked in front : ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qual- ities"; 2 and he rightly condemned " men who study not to find out truths, but to find out proofs of what they already believe to be truths." 3 Such a spirit is fatal to arriving at just conclusions; and I have had frequent cause to ac- knowledge the justice of Lord Acton's strictures, finding that, notwithstanding the Quarterly reviewer's censure of Froude's neglect of " all but contemporary " historians, they practically rule out of court most of the " standard authorities " previous to the nineteenth century, and that yet another of his sage remarks corroborates this apparently sweeping condemnation. " There is as great a difference between history now and in Gibbon's time," he wrote, " as between the astronomy before Copernicus and after him." 4 Truth, the daughter of Time, must, in the end, prevail ; but it is up-hill and well-nigh disheartening work to reach that plateau whence the whole landscape may be embraced 1 April, 1868, p. 288. 2 Lord Acton and his Circle ', p. 169. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid., p. 193. PREFACE xi in one view, setting the component parts of the picture in due correlation with one another. Hence, in a study of any one period of history or of a particular phase of a period, the facts " should be viewed as a whole and broadly, and . . . conclusions should be derived, not from isolated allusions, but from the general impression which the entire history conveys." 1 It is a want of appreciation of this sound principle which has led astray more than one modern student of this very period, and which has deter- mined me to let facts speak for themselves, and to confine myself to as little comment as might be — in fact, only suffi- cient to give coherence to the narrative. Controversy I have studiously avoided, preferring that the actors in the religious changes of the period should themselves inform us of what they did, what they thought, what they desired. Comment in such circumstances is not only needless, it is impertinent in both senses of the word. The facts and figures adduced throughout the following pages show what measure of reliance can be placed on such broad statements as that of Bishop Mandell Creighton, that " in England generally the [Elizabethan] religious settle- ment was welcomed by the people and corresponded to their wishes." As in the case of the clergy, so in that of the laity, while some without doubt heartily embraced the change of religion, the majority of them were not favour- / able to it, but acquiesced outwardly for the sake of peace,^*^ not fully understanding the details of the differences be- tween Protestantism and Catholicism. To that extent Bishop Creighton was correct in saying that " the English were not greatly interested in theological questions." But the number of earnest believers in, even supporters of, the , / Faith of their fathers, was, as the following pages amply 1 Edinburgh Review, April, 1888, p. 487; Renan ; s History of the People of Israel. xii PREFACE prove, much larger and more dogged than it has been cus- tomary hitherto to realise or admit. A few words only of personal explanation seem to be called for to inform the reader how this book came into being, and for what purpose. It has grown imperceptibly out of a series of circumstances. Some ten or eleven years ago, I undertook to index a mass of loose papers, extracts from various manuscript sources made by the late Richard Simpson, Esq., during his Elizabethan studies preparatory to writing his admirable Edmund Campion. This directed my attention to the value of these papers; but as Mr. Simpson's work extended mostly from 1580 onwards, I determined, under Abbot Gasquet's advice, to make a similar collection for the earlier half of Elizabeth's reign, up to 1580. This task of mere transcription from original documents resulted in some four or five years of assiduous work, which taught me much of the actualities of things, of which I had previously had but a dim conception, formed from the usual printed sources of information. There then came into my hands, amongst others, two books in particu- lar, recently published; Dr. Mandell Creighton's Elizabeth and Rev. H. Gee's The Elizabethan Clergy, 15 58-1 564, which ran counter so completely to my own growing con- victions, that I determined to set forth the facts as the original documents had presented them to me. It was only when a huge mass of papers, gathered from widely scattered sources, came to be dovetailed together, that the true con- clusion from the facts grew on my mind and at last took definite shape. I started to write with no preconceived notion of proving a thesis already held. But the very fitness of things seemed to require an explanation wholly wanting in books of the nature referred to, yet which was adequately supplied in the papers here presented in sub- stance or in outline to the reader. PREFACE xiii I do not suppose for one instant that I shall be fortunate enough to produce material hitherto unknown to serious students of Elizabethan history ; this book is not meant so much for persons accustomed to study original sources for themselves, as it is intended to help the ordinary reader with no opportunities of diving below the surface, and who must therefore be content to accept the conclusions of others. And in the domain of history, especially, it is so often the case that a judgment is pronounced, and the student is constrained to follow it without the possibility being open to him in most cases of verification or control. Moreover, in general histories, isolated events or phases must be treated broadly, and the happenings of months or years are dismissed in a few words or sentences. But when a particular series of events or a special period is singled out for separate treatment, details can be set out more fully, and judgments can in consequence be more matured through the full presentment of contemporary document- ary evidence. This has been the purpose actuating the following pages. The student is enabled to read for himself the very words and sentiments of the people whose actions have had such a momentous influence on the religious life of England, and can form his own judgment. To render the task as easy as possible, while the diction has been left untouched, the orthography has been modernised throughout. In conclusion, I have to express my deep obligations to Abbot Gasquet for valuable advice at every stage of my long task: what that advice has meant to me, his reputa- tion as an historical student sufficiently testifies. Henry Norbert Birt, O.S.B. 1st August, 1907. THE ELIZABETHAN RELIGIOUS SETTLEMENT CHAPTER I ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN THE genealogy of Queen Elizabeth is too well known to need rehearsal in this place. At the same time it should be borne in mind that a subservient Parliament had placed the disposal of the royal crown completely in Henry VI IPs hands. 1 The astute Archbishop Cranmer, who had pronounced Henry's marriage with Catherine of Aragon null and void, after having secretly united Henry with Anne Boleyn, was equally prepared to declare that this union had no sanction either by divine or ecclesiastical law. This declaration nullified what had been at best but a doubtful legitimacy as regards the Princess Elizabeth, the fruit of that ill-starred union. It is a fact not without significance that Elizabeth would never have the question raised, at least in a definite form, and so settled, by Parliament : she preferred to let her origin pass into oblivion, not wishing to arouse unpleasant memories about her mother, to whom she never referred. In this she offered a marked contrast to the solicitude exhibited by Queen Mary to vindicate the honour of her mother Catherine. 2 1 35 Hen. VIII, c. i. 2 " In this Parliament [the first of Elizabeth] there passed an act for recognising the Queen's just title to the Crown, but without any act for the validity of her mother's marriage, on which her title most depended. For which neglect most men condemned the new Lord Keeper [Sir Nicholas Bacon], on whose judgment she relied especially B 2 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE " The two Houses of Parliament," wrote Nicholas Sander, " in the first year of the reign of Queen Mary, 1 declared the marriage of Henry and Catherine valid, and the issue thereof, by human and divine law, to have been born in lawful wedlock; repealing at the same time all Acts, pro- cesses, and sentences to the contrary. The marriage of Anne, therefore — for Catherine was still living — could not be valid, and her issue . . . was incapable, naturally, of succeeding in any way according to the . . . law, . . . and to this day 2 this law has not been repealed even by Eliza- beth herself. She, it is true, claimed the throne as her right, and willed that everybody should acknowledge her right in her first Parliament, but she never grounded her right upon anything else than on the power of Parliament; she never claimed the crown as her birthright. Care was taken afterwards to make it a capital offence to deny the right of the King and the estates of the realm to give the kingdom to whom they pleased. 3 No word was ever uttered for the purpose of making her legitimate, or clearing away the taint of her birth; on that point the silence was com- plete." 4 Parliament had, however, granted the disposal of the Crown to the King, who in pursuance of this Act 5 arranged for the succession of Mary and Elizabeth to the throne, failing lawful heirs either to himself or his son Edward. These facts need to be borne in mind in order properly to appreciate the terms in which Elizabeth an- in point of law ; in whom it could not but be looked on as a great incogitancy, to be less careful of her own and her mother's honour, than the ministers of the late Queen Mary had been of hers . . . pos- sible it is that he conceived it better for the marriage of the Queen's mother to pass unquestioned, as a matter justly subject unto no dis- pute, than to build the validity of it on no better ground than an Act of Parliament, which might be as easily reversed as it was agreed to." — Heylin, Hist. Reform., iii, p. 107. 1 I.e., in the second session of Parliament, but in the first regnal year, 1 Mariae, c. 1. 2 I.e., 1585. 3 13 Eliz., c. 1. 4 Sander, Anglican Schism, ed. 1877, ch. ii, pp. 230-1. s 35 Hen. VIII, c. 1. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 3 nounced to Philip II, King of Spain, the husband of her deceased sister and predecessor, and her own brother-in- law, her accession to the throne of England, as its lawful heir. Five days after her actual accession and proclama- tion, writing from Hatfield, she informed her royal kins- man, " by the singular mercy of God, and by the consent and approval of all ranks, and to the entire joy of her subjects, that the kingdom and dominion of England had devolved on her, as being the undoubted and most legi- timate sole heiress by highest right of her most dear father of happy memory, Henry VIII." 1 Moreover, writing to the English Commissioners treating with the French for peace at Cateau Cambresis, to announce her accession and to renew their powers, Elizabeth used the expression: " whereby, as thereof ye be not ignorant, the Crown of this Realm is by natural blood and lawful succession descended unto us as to the only right heir thereof." 2 The wording of these announcements may be commended for their cleverness in joining in one the ideas of lawful succession and of descent by blood. But, as Parliament had conferred on Henry a statutory power of settling the suc- cession, there was no call to bring into question the taint of blood. Accordingly, immediately on Queen Mary's demise, Lords and Commons met, and the Lord Chancellor, Nicholas Heath, Archbishop of York, proclaimed Elizabeth as Queen by undoubted right. Elizabeth's religious leani most intimately brought into contact with her; few were deceived by her shallow compliance with Queen Mary's 1 The letter, preserved in the Simancas Archives, is in Latin. The exact words are as follow: "Exponet Vestrae Serenitati hie noster nuntius quam singulari Dei benignitate, et quam consentiente omnium ordinum voluntate et applausu, tranquillo etiam et omni laeto omnium subditorum nostrorum haec regna et dominia nostra ad nos tanquam ad praecharissimi patris nostri felicis memoriae Henrici Octavi in- dubitatissimam et maxime legitimam unicam haeredem jure optimo devoluta sunt " {Collection de Chrom'oues Beiges ine'dites, Doc. CCXXXI, i, p. 299). 2 P.R.O., Foreign, Eliz., I, No. 22; 23rd November, 1558. 4 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE desire that she should conform in all things to the usages of the Catholic Church. Thus, on the 25th of November, 1558, Christophe d'Assonleville wrote to his royal master, King Philip, from Westminster, that though no change was hitherto apparent in one short week since Elizabeth's acces- sion, yet that already indications were not wanting to show in what direction her leanings lay, and how matters would eventually shape themselves. " The said Queen at once made proclamation of the protection due to the people as from their natural and legitimate Queen, directing in general terms that the orders and customs at present observed in the kingdom should in no way whatever be disturbed, changed, or altered, under penalty of her displeasure, and of incurring severe punishment according to the exigency of the case. This is well-timed to repress the novelties which already some wish to introduce into the churches. " The Queen that now is, since the death of Queen Mary, has so far continued to hear Mass and Vespers, as she used formerly to do. One thing to be noticed, however, is that many of her new councillors and officers are suspected of sectarianism [de la secte\ and are, for the most part, of the number of those who served King Edward; add to this that the Londoners hope much for change. I have learnt from someone who is in a position to know [qui entend une partie des affaires'] that it is her intention to settle religion as it was eight years before the death of King Henry, when the forms of the ancient religion were followed except as regards the power of the Pope, and what is connected with that. Should any great change be effected, it would only be with grave danger of a rising among the people, namely those of the North and in Cornwall, who are still stout [dons] for the Catholic Faith." ' In the same letter he indicated that it would be easy to guess the trend of events in the choice Elizabeth should make for her Chancellor and for Cardinal Pole's successor in the See of Canterbury, that distinguished prelate having died but a few hours after Queen Mary. D'Assonleville accompanied this letter with 1 Chron. Belg., No. ccxxxvn, i, p. 313. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 5 a special paper or enclosure giving an account of the death of Mary and the accession of Elizabeth, from which it will be appropriate to make some extracts, as the minuteness of the details shows that the Ambassador was well in- formed. His narrative, moreover, preserves otherwise un- recorded particulars. Mary had been taken ill in the Palace of St. James's on 17th August, 1558, so that her malady, the latter stages of which pointed to certain death, gave plenty of time to Elizabeth's partisans to perfect their dispositions for her unopposed accession. Mary prepared for death most piously, communicating on several of the Sundays during the three months that her illness lasted, and received the Last Sacraments on Sunday, 13th November. On Tues- day the 15th, she was seized with faintness, but, though all her attendants thought the end had come, she rallied. On Thursday the 17th, she assisted at Mass said in her bed- chamber, and then, before 6 a.m., 1 her soul passed from this world, and her end was in keeping with her personally saintly life. Two hours later Elizabeth was proclaimed Queen by the Lords of the Council, who repaired for the purpose to Westminster, where the Parliament was in session. This formality was repeated in Cheapside in presence of the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London. D'Assonle- ville comments with some asperity on the rejoicings in- dulged in on the occasion by the citizens ; for it struck him that there was a certain indecency in such manifesta- tions of joy at the proclamation of a new Sovereign on the very day of Mary's demise. 2 The French were disposed to dispute Elizabeth's right/ to the throne, and Lord Cobham, one of the English com- 1 Lingard says "about noon" {Hist, of Engl., ed. 1825, vi, p. 342). 2 " Ce mesme jour au soir furent faicts par toute la ville de grands feu et recreations, comme Ton dit estre la maniere accoutumee le jour de la proclamation: chose toutefois qui sembleroit plus decente en aultre temps que au mesme jour de la mort de leur prince." — Chron. Belg., No. ccxxxvn, i, p. 312, 25th November, 1558. 6 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE missioners treating for peace with France at Cercamp, wrote to inform Elizabeth that they "did not let to say and to talk openly how your Highness is not lawful Queen of England and that they have already sent to Rome to disprove your Majesty's right." l This disposition to ques- tion her right to the throne took a more serious turn when it began to affect the peace negotiations themselves, in- cluding the vexed subject of the restoration of Calais. Bishop Tunstall and his fellow commissioners reported that, on a request for the re-delivery of that town, the French commissioners retorted : " Put the case that Calais were to be re-delivered and that we did owe such debt to the Crown of England. To whom shall we re-deliver Calais? To whom shall we pay the debt? Is not the Queen of Scots true Queen of England? Shall we deliver Calais and those debts to another, and thereby prejudice the right of the Queen of Scots and of the Dauphin her husband?" 2 It may readily be imagined how galling this questioning of her right would be to Elizabeth. Nor was she slow in letting the English envoys know her mind on the subject, for she roundly told them they were sadly bungling their business. She had " great cause ... to mislike certain matters that touch our estate too nigh . . . neither we may, nor ever will, permit any over whom we have rule, or may have, to make doubt, question or treaty of this matter ... we like not the matter as it is handled." * Instead of upholding Elizabeth's honour, her commis- sioners had met the French objections very lamely, sug- gesting, in effect, that the Crown or nation might be accounted the debtor, and that the question of the rightful wearer and ruler thereof might stand over for future dis- cussion, on the plea that at the moment they were not pre- pared to meet the French objections on that score. Nor 1 Chron. Belg., No. ccni, i, p. 332; P.R.O., Foreign, Eliz., 1, No. 82, 13th December, 1558. - Ibid., No. cccvn, i, p. 455, 2nd March, 1558-9. 3 Ibid., No. cccxn, i, p. 460, 7th March, 1558-9; P.R.O., Foreign, Eliz., Nos. 390-392. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 7 did it add to the Queen's sense of security to be told by her commissioners that "the French labour at Rome to the Pope for the disabling of your Highness to the Crown, and entitling of the Queen of Scots thereunto." ' Without a moment's delay Sir John Mason was hurried off to Cateau Cambresis "to show them how much we mislike their doings," and, as the envoy-extraordinary's instruc- tions expressed it, " will you not to fail but plainly declare to them how much this annoyeth us." 2 A more serious personal reflection on their own loyalty was contained in those words of the document referred to, in which Elizabeth said she could "not tell how interpret their meaning, first to suffer such words with patience, and next to make a doubt of it themselves." Sir John Mason was henceforth to be joined with them in their commission, to watch and report their proceedings, and to stiffen their loyalty. The English envoys had referred to French intrigues at Rome to secure the Pope's influence on behalf of the Queen of Scots as against Elizabeth. It is necessary, therefore, to enquire here more fully into Paul IV's attitude towards Queen Elizabeth at the time of her accession, since it has been customary hitherto to represent the Supreme Pontiff as refusing to acknowledge Elizabeth's legitimacy, and, as a necessary consequence, thus driving her, in sheer self- defence, into a breach with Rome. That this view is riot in accordance with the actual facts may be realised by referring to a letter in the Hatfield Papers. 3 Queen Mary's ambassador at the Papal Court was, at the time of her death, Sir Edward Carne, who continued to act in the same capacity for Elizabeth during a very short period after her accession; and, in the fulfilment of his functions, he forwarded to her certain despatches, still extant. 1 1 Chroti. Belg., No. CCCVli, i, p. 455, 2nd March, 1558-9. 2 Ibid., No. cccxi, i, p. 459, 7th March, 1558-9. 3 I, p. 182. 4 "Whereas the late Queen had an old civilian, viz., Sir Edward Carne, resident at the Court of Rome," so wrote Strype, " the present 8 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE Amongst these is one dated \6th February, 1559. The fixing of this date is of importance in the present enquiry. At the period under discussion the modern system of reckoning the year as commencing on 1st January had already been adopted on the continent, but not in Eng- land, where the mediaeval style still prevailed of making the new year begin on Lady Day, 25th March. Between 1st January and 25th March, therefore, a document maybe ascribed to two different years according to the " style " adopted. Hence the date \6th February, 1559, as we should calculate nowadays, and as it was at that period calculated in Rome, was nevertheless then reckoned in England as belonging to 1558; or if due caution were not observed, a modern historian might take the date 16th February, 1559, as it was employed by Sir Edward Carne, writing from Rome, in the Roman and modern style, but calculating it according to the prevailing Tudor custom, might describe it as equivalent to 1560. Precisely this mistake was made in calendaring Sir Edward Carne's des- patch when the Hatfield Papers were published. But the internal evidence of the letter itself shows that the terms of Queen intending to have little correspondence with that Roman pre- late, gave him a check very early, not to meddle in the transferring of any causes within her dominions to that Court. And there being now a controversy about a matter of matrimony ... a letter was despatched to him from her Council, requiring him, that forasmuch as he was heretofore placed there as a public person by reason of his embassade, he should therefore from henceforth forbear to use his authority in soliciting or procuring of anything in the said business (cf. Acts of the Privy Council, vii, p. 11, 1st December, 1558). And so he abode there privately till February following (1558-9), when it was signified unto him by the Council, that the Queen was pleased, in consideration there was no further cause why he should make any longer abode there, to command that he put himself in order to return home, at such time and with such speed as he should think most meet. But March ult. (31st, 1559), the Pope . . . required this knight . . . under pain of . . . excommunication, and forfeiture of all his goods, that he should not stir out of the City of Rome, and take upon him the English Hospital near St. Jerome's Church (cf. Strype, Ann., i.P-35). FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 9 reference were to the French intrigues that were being pushed forward in the early part of 1559, not to anything belonging to the year 1560, as calendared. Out of its proper setting its importance has perhaps hitherto been overlooked ; restored to its proper place in its relation to the sequence and interdependence of events, it assumes a character of considerable consequence as throwing a truer and clearer light upon what really took place. By 1560 the breach with Rome had been so fully effected that the attitude of the Pope towards Elizabeth had ceased to bear any relation to events in England, and could be, as it mainly was, disregarded. Early in 1559, however, it had still to be reckoned with. Sir Edward Carne, then, repeat- ing news sent by him on 9th and nth February, 1558-9, further informed the Queen on 16th February following: "... that the French here can obtain nothing at his Holiness' hands against your Majesty; and that his Holiness hath such respect to your Majesty and to your realms, that he will attempt nothing against your realms, unless the occasion be given first thence, as I am credibly informed. One of the Cardinals that is greatest with his Holiness showed me that he and others, that be chief with his Holiness, do mind to move his Holiness to send his Nuncio to your Majesty thither, but that they stay till your Majesty do send hither first to his Holiness ; whereof I thought good to advertise your Majesty. . . ." From this despatch it is clear that no opposition was then being offered by the Pope to Elizabeth's accession ; that the in- trigues of the French as reported by the envoys at Cer- camp had a real existence, but had hitherto failed of their purpose; that Paul IV was ready to acknowledge Eliza- beth in due course after she had observed the formality of notifying her accession officially to him. The discourteous withholding of this customary formality was the first in- dication that opened the eyes of the Court of Rome to the possibility of a renewal of Henry VIII's schism. The possibility soon appeared to be an imminent probability, and Sir Edward Carne, writing from Rome on 1st April, io ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE 1559/ made it plain that the Curia was growing restive under the hostile attitude Elizabeth was assuming, and at the evident trend of the religious policy of the Queen, her ministers, and Parliament. The story of how Sir Edward Carne secured that, though recalled, he should not be per- mitted to leave Rome, does not belong to this subject; but it is clear that about that date the " practisings " of the French were beginning to take effect, and that the Pope was being prevailed upon to look into the question of Elizabeth's title to the throne. In an abstract of various letters 2 under date of 3rd [or 5th] April, 1559, is one from the former Roman Ambassador, thus epitomised : " Sir Edward Carne, revoked by the Queen, could neither get access to the Pope, or leave to depart, because the Pope understood that the Queen of England was revolted from the obedience of that See. And therefore by Bernardinus Cardinal of St. Matthew he is commanded from the Pope upon penalty of excommunication that he is not to depart, assigning him the government of the Hospital of the Eng- lish nation for his maintenance. And he perceiveth that the French had attained somewhat of their purpose the month before, but in what particular he cannot learn." 3 1 Cotton MSS. Galba B. vi, No. 5, f. 9. 2 Ibid. Caligula B. ix, No. 86, f. 203. 3 Cf. Strype {Annals, i, p. 35), who records Sir E. Carrie's death on 1 8th January, 1560, and his burial in the church of St. Gregory on the Coelian Hill; but his monumental inscription as given by Strype makes out that he died in 1561. It will be noticed that the foregoing account differs from that given by Lingard, or by Canon Tierney, in his edition of Dodd's History. They, relying upon Sarpi, Pallavicino, and other foreign writers, state that Came was ordered to notify the Pontiff of Elizabeth's accession, but that Paul IV, persuaded by the statements of the French ambas- sador, had replied " that he was unable to comprehend the hereditary right of one who was not born in lawful wedlock ; that the Queen of Scots claimed the Crown as the nearest legitimate descendant of Henry VII ; but that if Elizabeth were willing to submit the contro- versy to his arbitration, she should receive from him every indulgence which justice could allow " (Hist, of Engl., vi, p. 347). It appears that, later, both Lingard and Tierney acknowledged that they had been FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN u Meanwhile Elizabeth herself was proceeding with ex- treme caution. It has always been a matter of difficulty to determine what was exactly her own religious standpoint. Her conformity, outwardly at least, to the usages of the Church of Rome during her sister's reign may be dismissed at once as mere policy to avert unpleasantness; that she was a reformer in the sense that the bishops of her creation, or that Cecil and Bacon were reformers, is equally un- tenable. It would seem that her leanings were rather to the side of the Catholics, but that self-interest determined her to throw in her lot with those of the New Learning. Even before her accession she had given her confidence to Sir William Cecil, who had been secretary to Edward VI, but had had no employment under Mary, who distrusted him. When Mary's death gave the throne to Elizabeth, she immediately appointed Cecil secretary, and, by the help of misled (Cf. Rambler, November, 1861, pp. 124-9). The Pope's bene- volent attitude towards England and the Queen, even at a later date, is shown by his statements to an Englishman, Thomas Sackville, afterwards Lord Buckhurst and subsequently Earl of Dorset. This gentleman was in Rome in 1564, and was there imprisoned (P.R.O., Foreign, Eliz., lxvii, No. 92; 29th January 1563-4, Cecil to Gurone Bertrano) on suspicion of heresy, but was liberated through the good offices of the English exiles there in residence at that time. He was even accorded an interview with the Pope, who, using him as an informal channel of communication, commissioned him, on his return to Eng- land, to bring to the Queen's knowledge his, the Pope's, sentiments towards her. These leave nothing to be desired. The Pope showed that he was anxious to smooth over difficulties of a temporal nature, such as the alienation of ecclesiastical property ; and, in a document drawn up to embody and attest his assurances, expressed himself thus : " If ever the most serene Queen shall be willing to return to union with the Church and the Obedience of this See, his Holiness promises that he will receive her with fatherly affection and with all the love that she can desire. And as for the above-mentioned diffi- culties, he will apply to them such remedies as the Queen's Majesty and Parliament and the united will of the entire realm shall judge most fit for the stability of the throne and assurance of peace and quiet of the whole people ; and that in every particular he will confirm whatever shall be judged just and pious " {Cath. Record Soc.j Mis- ceila?iea, ii, pp. 5-6). 12 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE his advice, formed her council. The constitution of this body furnished a key to her policy. To those of her sister's council who had gone to Hatfield to announce to her her accession, she said that she meant to retain in her service some of those who had been employed during the last three reigns. Lingard says that she added eight to those of the old body whom she did not dismiss, and, following Camden, points out that the old element comprised staunch adherents of Rome, while those she introduced were all reformers. 1 But this council was not the true ruling force; that which really had the ear of the Queen and virtually controlled everything was an inner council composed of Cecil and his friends — those whose names appear regularly in the council books. 2 1 Hist, of Engl., vi, pp. 344-5 ; Camden, i, pp. 26-7. 2 Edwin Sandys, writing to Henry Bullinger on 20th December, 1 558, told him that " the Queen has changed almost all her councillors ; and has taken good Christians into her service in the room of Papists" (1 Zurich Letters, No. 11, p. 3). A note to the above statement may be here reproduced. "The Queen's [Mary's] councillors towards the latter end of her reign were those that follow; whereof, says Strype (Memor. Ill, ii, p. 160), those that have asterisks were laid aside the next reign, as I took them out of a Journal of the Lord Burghley's ; the rest continued Privy Councillors to Queen Elizabeth, viz. : ♦Reginald, Cardinal Pole. *Edward, Lord Hastings of ♦Nicholas, Abp. of York, Lord Loughborough. Chancellor. *Sir Thomas Cornwallis. Powlet, Mqs. of Winchester, *Sir Francis Englefield. Lord Treasurer. *Sir Edward Waldegrave. Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel. *Sir John Mordaunt. Talbot, Earl of Shrewsbury. Sir Thomas Cheyney. *Henry, Earl of Bath. Sir William Petre. Stanley, Earl of Derby. Sir John Mason. Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. Sir Richard Sackville. Edward, Lord Clynton, Lord *Sir Thomas Wharton. Admiral. *Sir John Brown. Lord Howard of Effingham. *Dr. Wootton, Dean of Canter- # Browne, Viscount Montagu. bury. *Thirlby, Bp. of Ely. *Dr. Boxall. ♦William, Lord Paget. *Sir Henry Jernegam. ♦Lord Wentworth. # Sir Henry Bedingfeld. ♦Richard, Lord Riche. *Sir Edmund Peckham. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 13 The situation as it presented itself to a keen observer — one, too, destined to be a leader in the work of reforma- tion, is not without interest. John Jewel, on his return to England from exile, thus depicted affairs to Peter Martyr as they were on 20th March, 1558-9: " The Roman Pontiff was not yet cast out; no part of religion was yet restored; the country was still everywhere desecrated with the Mass; the pomp and insolence of the bishops was unabated. . . . The bishops are a great hindrance to us; for being, as you know, among the nobility and leading men in the Upper House, and having none there on our side to expose their artifices and confute their falsehoods, they reign as sole monarchs in the midst of ignorant and weak men, and easily overreach our little party, either by their numbers, or their reputation for learning. The Queen, meanwhile, though she openly favours our cause, yet is wonderfully afraid of allowing any innovations: this is owing partly to her own friends, by whose advice everything is carried on, and partly to the influence of Count Feria, a Spaniard, and Philip's ambassador. She is, however, prudently, and firmly, and piously following up her purpose, though some- what more slowly than we could wish." 1 As a matter of fact, events were shaping themselves more rapidly than Jewel's impatience would lead the student to imagine from the wording of the foregoing letter. In order to give an appearance of legality to such alterations as might be determined upon, it had been decided to do nothing till *Sir Robert Peckham. *Sir Clement Higham. *Sir William Cordell. *Sir Richard Southwell." It will be seen, therefore, that Mary's Council contained thirty-five mem- bers, reduced to thirty-four by Cardinal Pole's death. Of these, eleven only were retained, while twenty-three were dismissed, to replace whom the following eight were introduced : William Parr, Marquess of North- ampton, the Earl of Bedford, Sir Thomas Parry, Sir Edward Rogers, Sir Ambrose Cave, Sir Francis Knollys, Sir Nicholas Bacon (who was created Lord Keeper), and Sir William Cecil. As several of the eleven old Councillors conformed, a preponderance of anti-Catholics was at once secured. 1 I Zur., No. iv, p. 10. i 4 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE Parliament met, and then to make the desired changes through the instrumentality of the legislature. The lead- ing spirits were, of course, Sir William Cecil and his brother-in-law, Sir Nicholas Bacon, who was made Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal on 22nd December, 1558, as soon as Archbishop Heath, probably by inducement or pressure from without, resigned his temporal offices. 1 During this time various schemes were being brought to the notice of Cecil and other intimate advisers of the Queen. One may be usefully considered here, as foreshadowing future developments. In the Calendar of State Papers 2 it is entitled " Notes respecting the form of Public Prayer to be established. Arguments against the power of the Church of Rome. The Queen and her subjects may law- fully use the English Litany of the time of Henry VIII." This document is endorsed " Goodrych. Divers points of Religion contrary to the Church of Rome." Its writer was Richard Goodrich. 3 After endeavouring to make points of various very lame mediaeval instances of imagined rejec- tions of papal spiritual authority in England, the writer proceeds : " My Lord Rich hath, I think, old gatherings of Records and other matters for the proof of [i.e., to disprove] the Papists . . . which matter will be good to stir the Nobility and Commoners to devotion of the liberty of this Realm and against the usurpation of the Pope. Like peril is it in mine opinion to touch his authority in part, as utterly to abolish it; therefore it seemeth very necessary well to consider of this matter for his weight and for the danger that may ensue before it be meddled either by Parliament or otherwise. . . . And before the Parliament, nothing against him may be attempted, but dissembled withal in the meantime; nor at the Parliament if it be holden before or in March next. I think his authority not to be touched nor anything to be attempted there of 1 But see his own account of the transaction, dated 26th September, 1573 {Cotton MSS., Vespasian F. XIII, No. 229, f. 229). 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., I, 68 and 69; 1558. 3 Cf. Diet. Nat. Biogr., xxii, p. 134. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 15 matters in religion except the repeal [of statutes revived by Queen Mary]. All proceedings by the bishops, ex officio, shall be thereby taken away, and thereby all quiet persons may live safely. In the meantime her Majesty and all her subjects may by licence of law use the English Litany and suffrages used in King Henry's time, and, besides, her Majesty in her Closet may use the Mass with- out lifting up above the Host according to the ancient canons and may have also at every Mass some communi- cants with the ministers, to be used in both kinds. Her Majesty may also wink at the married priests so as they use their wives secretly. ... It were also good that certain Homilies in English were published to be read in every church. ... I think it most necessary that before any pardon published after the old manner at the Coronation, that certain of the principal prelates be committed to the Tower, and some other their addicted friends and late Councillors to the Queen that dead is, and all the rest com- manded to keep their houses . . . nor the sending to Rome any Message or Letters, and if be any, I would have letters sent to the Agent there to continue his residence and to advertise as occasion shall be given without desire of any audience; and if he should be sent for, that he should signify that he understood from hence that there was a great embassage either already despatched or ready to be despatched for the affairs, whose despatch I would should be published with the persons' names, and yet traited so as it should pass the most part of the next summer, and in the mean time to have good consultation what is to be done at home and do it, and thereafter send." To this advice, so deceitful in parts, may probably be ascribed the imprisonment of Bishop White, of Winchester, for his sermon at Mary's funeral obsequies, and the perse- cution to which Sir Edward Waldegrave, Sir Thomas Wharton, Sir John Bourne, and others were subjected at no distant date. 1 To this document, too, may be traced the 1 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xvi, No. 50, 19th April, 1561. Earl of Oxford to the Council, about the arrest of two of those knights, con- 16 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE immediate order of the Privy Council to the Justices of Essex, for the purpose of stopping further persecution of gospellers. 1 On the other hand, the indiscreet precipitancy of zealots had to be restrained. For that purpose, the Queen's proclamation on her accession to the throne contained the charge " not to attempt upon any pretence the breach, alteration or change of any order or usage presently established." 2 This was followed, on 27th December, 1558, I by another, silencing all preachers, but ordering the Epistle and Gospel to be read in English, as also the Lord's Prayer and the Creed and the Litany; otherwise no change in the services was to be introduced, " until consultation may be had by Parliament, by her Majesty and her three estates of the Realm for the better conciliation and accord of such causes as at this present are moved in matters and cere- monies of religion." 3 The intention to effect some altera- tion, here sounded with no uncertain note, also showed that preparations were in progress to bring proposals before the coming Parliament, summoned for 23rd January, a few days after the ceremony of the Coronation. What the nature of those proposals was transpires from an important document preserved among the Cotton MSS. This is " A copy of the device for alteration of religion at the 1st year of Queen Elizabeth." 4 It is significant that the suggestions therein contained practically found their fulfilment in one shape or another before many months had elapsed. There- fore, whether it was official, or merely the outcome of officiousness on the part of a private enthusiast, is of small consequence beside the fact that, if it was nothing else, it was an extremely intelligent anticipation of events, and as such it deserves consideration. The forecast of possible or probable opposition, and the quarters whence it might be expected, may be passed by with the remark that it is a taining, also, an interesting inventory of church stuff found at New Hall, Essex. (Cf. also, C0U071 MSS. Galba C. 1, No. 29, f. 87.) 1 Strype, Ann., i, p. 25 ; Harl. MSS., vol. 169, No. 1, f. 25^. 2 Ibid., Ann., i, App. No. 1. 3 Wilkins, Concilia, IV, p. 180. 1 Julius F VI, No. 86, f. 161. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 17 tribute to the writer's perspicacity: some of the remedies he suggested are what here concern us. Those of Mary's Council who were specially noted for their Catholic sym- pathies " must be searched by all law as far as justice may extend, and the Queen's Majesty's clemency to be ex- tended not before they do fully acknowledge themselves to have fallen in the lapse of the law. They must be based [debased] of authority, discredited in their countries so long as they seem to repugn to the true religion or to maintain their old proceedings. . . . and contrariwise, as those men must be based, so must her Highness' old and sure servants, who have tarried with her, and not shrunk in the late storms, be advanced with authority and credit." With regard to the bishops and the clergy, the govern- ment " must seek as well by Parliament as by the just laws of England in the Praemunire or such other penal laws, to bring again in order, and being found in defaults, not to pardon till they confess their fault, put themselves wholly to her Highness' mercy, abjure the Pope of Rome, and conform themselves to the new alteration." As regards the magistrates, it was suggested that those then in office should be removed from the Commission of the Peace, and in their place should be substituted " men meaner in substance and younger in years." The same drastic remedy was pro- posed for military commands : in fact, " No office of juris- diction or authority to be in any discontented man's hand, so far as justice or law may extend." The Universities, together with Eton and Winchester Colleges, were to be looked to, that is, purged of the old leaven, and the new service book to supersede the old Liturgy was to be drawn up ready for the opening of Parliament, by a committee of divines. For this purpose the following suggestions, which, as will be seen, were adopted almost to the letter, were made. " This consultation is to be referred to such learned men as be meet to show their minds herein, and to bring a platt [scheme] or book hereof, ready drawn, to her Highness. Which being approved by her Majesty, may be so put into the Parliament house, to the which for the time it is C 18 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE thought that these are apt men; Dr. Bill, Dr. Parker, Dr. May, Dr. Cox, Mr. Whitehead, Mr. Grindal, Mr. Pilk- ington. And Sir Thomas Smythe to call them together, and be amongst them." Even the actual place of meeting, namely, Sir Thomas Smythe's residence in Canon Row, Westminster, was indicated. The framer of this " device " * had even provided for the ad interim arrangements till Parliament should have made a settlement, and for that end proposed " to alter no further than her Majesty hath, except it be to receive the Communion as her Highness pleaseth on high feasts. And that where there be more chaplains at Mass, that they do always communicate with the executor [celebrant] in both kinds. And for her Highness' conscience till then, if there be some other devout sort of prayers or memory said, and the seldomer Mass." In pursuance of the above plan, the service books used in the reign of Edward VI were referred to the divines there named, as well as to Sir Thomas Smythe, and to them was added Edmund Ghest. As a result of their deliberations, the Committee adopted the Second Book of 1552 in preference to the First of 1549. The reason of the selection is not far to seek. The earlier book approximated more nearly than the later one to the old services, con- taining as it did such popish leaven as crossings, proces- sions, vestments, prayers for the dead, etc., the abolition of all which these revisers suggested. With a view to reconciling Catholics to the use of this book, they omitted from the Litany the petition praying for deliverance " from the Pope and all his detestable enormities," which had 1 Strype says : " At the very beginning of her reign, some there were of considerable rank engaged in a deep and very secret delibera- tion about the method and way of restoring religion again . . . who of the Queen's Council were first to be made acquainted with the design. . . . There was about the beginning of December [1558] such a device drawn up by some notable hand, and offered to Secretary Cecil. . . . By whose pen it was writ doth not appear." Strype ascribes it either to John Hales, clerk of the hanaper to Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth, a zealous Protestant, or to Sir Thomas Smythe himself, in- clining rather to the latter. — Annals, i, pp. 51-2. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 19 figured in both the Edwardine Prayer Books. The book was then submitted to the Queen, but she did not approve of the omission of certain ceremonies; and, in the end, caused a proviso to be added to the Act of Uniformity to the effect that " such Ornaments of the Church, and of the ministers thereof, shall be retained and be in use, as was in the Church of England, by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI, until other order shall be therein taken by the authority of the Queen's Majesty, with the advice of her commissioners appointed and authorised, under the Great Seal of Eng- land, for Causes Ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan of this Realm." 1 Some years afterwards, Archbishop Parker reminded Sir William Cecil, when a question had arisen as to the proper kind of bread to be used in celebrating the Communion service, that the Queen, acting on the powers thus reserved to her, had issued certain injunctions to regulate the observance, adding that her Majesty had de- clared: "but for which law her Highness would not have agreed to divers orders of the Book." 2 Though the Queen showed in this instance that she did not approve of the lengths to which the more advanced reformers wished to go, nevertheless she soon evinced a disposition to sanction certain innovations in the Liturgy; and the Count de Feria told King Philip that, little by little, changes were being introduced: how Owen Ogle- thorpe, Bishop of Carlisle, was forbidden to elevate the sacred Host when about to celebrate Mass in the Queen's presence: his courageous answer to the effect that he did not take his rubrical directions from her: the Queen's departure from the Chapel after the Gospel, in displeasure: how, at the obsequies celebrated in memory of the Emperor Charles V, the celebrant, an heretical minister, omitted the name of the Pope in the Canon, said the Pater Noster in English, and that a Litany was recited without the in- 1 Statutes of the Realm, IV, pt. i, p. 355. 1 Eliz. c. 2 adjinem. 2 Parker, Corresp., p. 375. No. cclxxxiii. 8th January, 1 570-1. 20 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE vocation of any saint, as in the reign of Edward VI. 1 Indeed, so marked was the departure from the normal Catholic usage, that the Spanish ambassador felt con- strained to absent himself from the ceremony of the Coronation, being conscientiously unwilling to participate in a maimed function; although, to do Elizabeth personal honour, he accompanied her to the doors of Westminster Abbey. This fact is gathered from Philip's reply, approv- ing of the course adopted by his representative. 2 That the Count de Feria had legitimate grounds for his appre- hensions and for his abstention may be inferred from Sander, who relates that " she took the usual oaths of Christian kings, prescribed by tradition and by law, in the most solemn way, to defend the Catholic Faith, and to guard the rights and immunities of the Church. . . . She was also anointed, but she disliked the ceremony and ridiculed it; for when she withdrew, according to the custom, to put on the royal garments, it is reported that she said to the noble ladies in attendance upon her: ' away with you, the oil is stinking ! '" 3 The tendencies towards change so far indicated, were of their nature official and regulated. But in all movements, widespreading, nay national, these tendencies also exhibit themselves in another form, not necessarily antagonistic or contradictory, but rather complementary the one of the other. These are represented by popular and, to some extent at least, irresponsible action. The successive steps taken by the Council, and, at a later period, by the Reformed bishops acting under them, may be likened to the incoming tide, irresistible in its force and volume. The popular move- ment, on the other hand, is to be compared with the fitful 1 Cf. Chron. Belg., No. CCLXXi, i, pp. 365-6; 29th December, 1558. 2 Chron. Belg., No. CCXCIH, i, p. 411 ; 28th January, 1558-9. Lingard, following Camden, merely says he was " invited but refused to attend " without mentioning the qualification indicated above. — Hist, of Engl., vi, p. 351. 3 Sander, Anglican Schism, ed. 1877, p. 243. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 21 gusts of the wind, blowing now this way, now that, never constant in force or direction. Something must be said here about this manifestation of public feeling. A bare fortnight after Elizabeth's accession, she made it plain through her Council that the religious policy of the previous reign was to undergo a change, and an order went down "to Sir Ambrose Jernin (a Justice, as I think, in Suffolk)," says Strype, 1 " to stay the further persecution of the professors of the Gospel." This, it is true, is but negative evidence ; and according to our views about toleration, it was an act not merely of mercy, but of right and justice. In those days, however, such a circumstance was calculated to set men pondering on what the near future might have in store. Nor had they long to wait for developments. Exactly a month after the Queen's accession, II Schifanoya, writing to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Mantua, says: " I hear that at the Court, when the Queen is present, a priest officiates, who says certain prayers with the Litanies in English, after the fashion of King Edward ; . . . They then say Vespers and Compline in the old style." 2 But, as is always the case, where rulers may be desirous of proceeding slowly and cautiously, the unquiet spirits, with nothing to lose and everything to gain through change, force the pace, regardless of consequences. The death of Mary had put heart into the religious exiles at Geneva, Frankfort, and elsewhere on the continent, and they came flocking back as soon as they knew that their necks were safe. By the middle of March, II Schifanoya calculated that some three hundred of them had returned. 3 They had been firebrands in Edward's reign. It was because of their revolutionary and inflammatory language that they had made their position intolerable during Mary's short rule, and forced the hand of authority to silence them by coercive measures, even unto what is called persecution. Abroad, their disputatious natures still asserted themselves in the Frankfort squabbles; and now, once more back at home, 1 Ann., i, p. 25. 2 Venetian Papers, No. 1, 17th December, 1558 3 Ibid., No. 45, 21st March, 1558-9. 22 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE they had brought with them all the acrimony and bitterness engendered by their bickerings at Frankfort. Their turbu- lence, far from abating, created further trouble, and they recommenced their disputes in London, their leading spirit being Thomas Bentham who, to the credit of his courage, had even during the later part of Mary's reign officiated as a reformed minister in London, at imminent risk to his liberty and life. The new Queen set a fashion in change. II Schifanoya relates that " on Christmas Day, the Bishop of Carlisle [Oglethorpe] sang High Mass; and her Majesty sent to tell him that he was not to elevate the Host; to which the good bishop replied that thus had he learned the Mass, and that she must pardon him as he could not do otherwise; so the Gospel being ended, her Majesty rose and departed, and on other days it has been so done by her chaplains." l In this same letter II Schifanoya relates that various brawls had taken place during the previous week. At the church of the Austin Friars a mob burst in, and the leaders held forth against the government of the late Queen. Disorders of this nature continued for some days. These and similar events determined Elizabeth to issue her proclamation of 27th December, 1558, whereby it was " commanded that no one of whatever grade or condi- tion should presume to preach, say, treat, or teach in any other mode, nor according to any other use than had hitherto been customary in the churches, nor to alter or change any ecclesiastical ceremony, except that they were to recite both the Gospel and the Epistle, and the Ten Command- ments in English, not adding to them nor giving other interpretations, together with the Litany, in the mode used and practised in her Majesty's own chapel." 2 As Jewel informed Peter Martyr, 3 the proclamation was sent to the 1 Venetia.fi Papers, No. 2, 31st December, 1558 ; see also letter of Sir Wm. Fitzwilliam to Mr. More, Losely Papers; Ellis's Original Letters, v, p. 262, 26th December, 1558. "-Ibid.; Wilkins's Concilia, iv, p. 180; H. Dyson's Proclamations, f. 3; 11 Zur., p. 16. 3 I Zur., p. 7, No. 3, 26th January, 1558-9. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 23 Lord Mayor of London on 28th December, with orders to see it enforced. Jewel suggests in explanation of the need for it: " some think the reason of this to be, that there was at that time only one minister of the Word in London, namely Bentham, whereas the number of Papists was very considerable; others think that it is owing to the circum- stance that, having heard only one public discourse of Bentham's, the people began to dispute among themselves about ceremonies, some declaring for Geneva, and some for Frankfort. Whatever it be, I only wish that our party may not act with too much worldly prudence and policy in the cause of God." l This proclamation, as has already been stated, was to hold good only " until consultation may be had by Parlia- ment." 2 II Schifanoya also gave this information to his correspondent, and enclosed a Latin copy of the document, at the same time telling him that " hitherto every one says Mass and the Office in the old way, and the friars and priests follow the usual ritual; but in certain places in the realm they have commenced going in procession without a cross, and saying the Litanies used in the time of King Edward." It is useful to remember that, so far, entire freedom of worship was accorded to all, for a letter written to the Doge and Senate of Venice on 2nd January, 1558-9, states that already " the greater part " of the people, following the Queen's example, " have entirely renounced the Mass, but she does not prevent any of the few who attend it from continuing to do so in safety, and without being outraged in any way." 3 But the feelings of adherents of the old order were seriously outraged in other ways, which showed no less unmistakably the trend affairs were taking. II Schifanoya, writing on 23rd January, 1558-9, mentions " the mummery performed after supper on the same day [Twelfth 1 See, too, Strype, Ann., i, p. 41. 2 Proclamation : Wilkins's Concilia, iv, p. 180; I Zur., p. 16 {note), No. 1. 3 Venetian Papers, No. 5, 2nd January, 1558-9. 24 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE Night] of crows in the habits of cardinals, of asses habited as bishops, and of wolves representing abbots"; as also " the masquerade of friars in the streets of London." l Writing on 6th February, 1558-9, he says: "There are yet many frivolous and foolish people who daily invent plays in derision of the Catholic faith, of the Church, of the clergy, and of the religion ; and, by placards posted at the corners of the streets, they invite people to the taverns, to see these representations, taking money from their audience." 2 Con- trast with these scenes the summoning before the Council of John Morren (or Morwen), chaplain to Bishop Bonner and Rector of St. Martin's, Ludgate, " for preaching contrary to the Queen's proclamation, and expounding the Gospel in the church; which, when he was before them, he could not well deny; wherefore he was committed to the Fleet, there to be kept without conference of any until he were examined." 3 And there he remained from some time in February, 1558-9, till his release on the 16th March follow- ing. It is clear that exhibitions such as have been mentioned above, permitted unrebuked, could have but one purpose: the casting of ridicule upon all that had hitherto been held in reverence. With such an example before them, the mob, ever ready for riot and violence, would not be slow to go to greater lengths; and on the 8th or 9th of January, the rabble, intent on mischief, threw down and broke the statue of St. Thomas of Canterbury, patron of the Mercers, which stood over the chapel door of their Guild or Company. 4 II Schifanoya adds the detail that the rioters glutted their senseless hatred by stoning and beheading the image, which was replaced by the " stucco statue of a little girl." 5 By the 6th of February, the use of English Litanies had been intro- duced into several London churches, following the example of the Chapel Royal. It is this circumstance which perhaps led Giovanni Michiel, writing in France, on hearsay, to allege that the English nation had " entirely renounced the 1 Venetian Papers, No. 10. 2 Ibid., No. 18. 3 Strype, Ann., i, p. 42. 4 Ibid., i, p. 48. 5 Venetian Papers, No. 10, 23rd January, 1558-9. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 25 Mass,'" for II Schifanoya, on the spot, distinctly states, five weeks later, that "Mass is nevertheless [i.e., notwithstanding many changes he mentions] said in all the churches, the Host being elevated as usual in the presence of numerous congregations who show much devotion ; so it is evide?it that the religion has not such a sorry footing or foundation as was supposed, for everybody is now at liberty to go or to stay away." 2 But the factious among the reformers would allow no other liberty than their own to the more peaceful and peaceable folk. As is always the way with innovators, aggressiveness and intolerance took the place of argument; and worse outrages followed as a matter of course. II Schifanoya relates that "others rob the churches by night, break the windows, and steal whatever they can, as they did two nights ago, 3 at the church of the Italian nation, where they stole the tabernacle of the Sacrament, which they thought was of silver, but they found it to be of gilt copper, nor did it contain the Sacrament; and a pall with other trifles, worth about two or three crowns, not having from fear of discovery dared to enter the sacristy, which contained the sacerdotal ornaments, chalices, crosses, etc. ; the thieves remaining unpunished." 4 Strype also re- cords that during the course of the next month, "several got together privately and undiscovered," broke into Bow church, where they " pulled down the images and the Sacra- ment, and defaced the vestments and books." 5 II Schifanoya ascribed these and similar outrages to the direct incitement of the preachers. " These accursed preachers," he says, " who have come from Germany, do not fail to preach in their own fashion, both in public and in private, in such wise that they persuaded certain rogues forcibly to enter the church of St. Mary-le-Bow, in the middle of Cheapside, and force the shrine of the Most Holy Sacrament, breaking the tabernacle, and throwing the most precious consecrated 1 Venetian Papers, No. 5, 2nd January, 1558-9, already quoted. 2 Ibid., No. 18, 6th February, 1558-9. 3 4th February, 1558-9. * Venetian Papers, No. 18, 6th February, 1558-9. 5 Ann., i, p. 49. 26 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE Body of Jesus Christ to the ground. They also destroyed the altar and images, with the pall and church linen, break- ing everything into a thousand pieces. This happened this very night, which is the third after Easter." ' Such violence, however, outstepped all limits of endurance or connivance; the Council, perturbed by such " outrageous disorder," issued instructions for an enquiry in order to discover the perpe- trators, and commit them to prison, but with small result. So far, outwardly and officially, no violent change had been made, no irrevocable break with the past effected, due, as time showed, merely to a policy of temporising while more sweeping measures were in preparation. The proclamation of 27th December, 1558, did not abolish the Mass, which for another six months was to continue to be the legal form of divine worship, the elevation of the Host alone being omitted, the Epistle, Gospel, Creed, and Lord's Prayer being read in the vernacular. The out-and-out reformers were by no means satisfied with the caution displayed by the Queen; and, as Collier puts it: "pre- suming on the favour of the government, ventured beyond the protection of the constitution ; and thus meeting first in private houses, and afterwards in churches, preached their persuasion, and drew great audiences after them." a Jewel, writing to Peter Martyr on 14th April, 1559, says: " The Mass in many places has of itself fallen to the ground, without any laws for its discontinuance. If the Queen herself would but banish it from her private chapel, the whole thing might easily be got rid of. Of such im- portance among us are the examples of princes. For whatever is done after the example of the Sovereign, the people, as you well know, suppose to be done rightly. She has, however, so regulated this Mass of hers (which she has hitherto retained only from the circumstances of the times), that although many things are done therein which are scarcely to be endured, it may yet be heard without any great danger." 3 1 Venetian Papers, No. 51, 28th March, 1559. 2 Eccl. Hist., vol. vi, p. 411. 3 1 Zur., p. 18, No. 6. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 27 The Litany, which was used for a short while almost immediately after Elizabeth's accession, contained the petition of its Edvvardine prototype: "From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities," as well as another clause marking its date of publication, " That it may please Thee to keep Elizabeth thy servant our Queen and Governor." But as has been already pointed out, the petition in the edition issued in 1559 was omitted, and the latter clause was thus expanded : " That it may please Thee to keep and strengthen in the true worshipping of Thee, in righteousness and holiness of life, Thy servant Elizabeth, our most gracious Queen and Governor." It may be doubted if the earlier recension was ever recited in the hearing of the Queen in the Chapel Royal. But notwithstanding the Queen's caution, and her en- deavour to restrain the fiery zeal of the returned exiles, it is clear that these were not over scrupulous in their ob- servance of the Christmas-week proclamation. In defiance of its terms, the Edwardine Prayer Book was introduced, as we learn on the unimpeachable authority of Bishop Pilkington, into some of the churches. " Did not many in the University and abroad in the realm," he boasts, as early as 1 563, " use this service openly and commonly in their churches, afore it was received and enacted by Parlia- ment ? " * Thomas Lever informed Bullinger on 8th August 1559, that "there had been a congregation of faithful persons concealed in London during the time of Mary . . . under Elizabeth they openly continued in the same congregation. But as their godly mode of worship was condemned by the laws of the realm, the magistrates, though they connived at their frequent assembling in private houses, would not allow them, notwithstanding, to occupy the parish churches. In consequence of which, large numbers flocked to them not in the churches, but in private houses. ... I have frequently been present on such occa- sions." 2 It is not surprising, then, that shortly after Par- liament commenced its sittings, II Schifanoya should in- 1 Pilkington's Works, p. 626. 2 II Z«r., p. 29, No. 13. 28 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE form Vivaldino that " in several churches in London they have commenced singing the Litanies in English, as is done in the Chapel Royal." * Another letter from London of the same date, enclosed in one of 17th February, from Paulo Tiepolo, records that " The offices of the Church, and the ministration of the sacraments, continue in all the churches as during Queen Mary's reign, except in the Queen's chapel, where, at the Mass, they do not elevate the Sacrament; and the Litanies are said in the vulgar English, omitting the invocation of Saints, and the prayers for the Pope; which practice is also observed by the incumbents of some few churches ; but they are not compelled to do so. The Epistle and Gospel are also read in English, after the Litanies." 2 But, at the same time, a watch was kept on those who might be suspected of inflaming men's minds, and of urging them to resist impending changes. II Schifanoya, in the letter just quoted, goes on to say: "Persons in authority, however, do not fail to try the ford, as they did the other day by accusing two Doctors of Law, the one a priest, and the other a layman, of speaking evil of the affairs of religion; to which they bravely and prudently answered the Lords of the Council, and especially the layman, by name Master Storye [Dr. John Storye], who said: ' you need not interrogate me about these matters, as I know better than any of you both the Canon Laws and those of this kingdom; let my accusers appear and prove what I have said, for I certainly said nothing at which you could reasonably take offence; but should her Majesty will otherwise, I do not refuse to die for the Church.' The other said the like, telling the Lords of the Council besides that her Majesty could not do them a greater favour. So, from what I hear, all the clergy are united and confirmed in their holy and good resolution. Some of them will perhaps change their minds, but they will be esteemed for what they are." This passage is here reproduced, as the incident does not appear in the minutes 1 Venetian Papers, No. 18, 6th February, 1558-9. 2 Ibid., No. 19. MONTHS OF I FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 29 of Council that have come down to us. The challenge may perhaps have been somewhat braggart and premature, for the day of actual death by martyrdom was still a long way off; but martyrdom of another sort, calling for heroism only less exalted than that needed to face a terrible death, was even then casting its shadow over many, both priests and laity. On 14th March, II Schifanoya could still say, that although the debates in Parliament were adverse to the retention of the old Faith, " nevertheless all over London they still persevere in saying the Masses and divine service as formerly, except in the Chapel Royal." ! It may be said once for all that this faith in the strength of tradition and attachment to ancient custom proved to be misplaced. It could not stand for long against adverse legislation. The devotion or obstinacy — call it which we may — of indi- vidual priests, or even of the whole body of clergy, only deferred the inevitable day of submission. It was Parlia- ment, not Convocation, which was to decide the future. It is to Parliament then that we may direct our attention; for in the proceedings of that legislative assembly we may best trace the abolition of the old order, and the fashioning of the new. Cox wrote on 20th May, 1559, to Wolfgang Weidner, when the revolt from Rome was an accomplished fact, that " we, that little flock [of returned exiles], are thundering forth in our pulpits, and especially before our Queen Eliza- beth, that the Roman Pontiff is truly Antichrist, and that traditions are for the most part mere blasphemies." 2 Although written in the present tense, the context makes it refer to a period anterior to the Westminster Conference, and this accords with facts. Though general preaching was forbidden by proclamation, nevertheless there were public sermons at Paul's Cross, or before the Queen in her chapel during Lent ; and the preachers were selected from amongst the reformers. Richard Hilles, writing to Bull- inger on 28th February, 1558-9, told him that although " silence has been imposed upon the Catholic preachers (as 1 Venetian Papers, No. 40. 2 I Zur., p. 27, No. 11. 30 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE they are called) by a royal proclamation . . . sufficient liberty is allowed to the Gospellers to preach three times a week during this Lent before the Queen herself, and to prove their doctrines from the Holy Scriptures." ' Cox's own notable contribution to this form of polemic was made on the occasion of the opening of Parliament, 25th January, when he seized the opportunity to make a furious attack on the Catholic Church, whose clergy, he said, had caused the martyrdoms of Protestants in the previous reign, and he called for Elizabeth's vengeance upon them. He also besought her to destroy images and to root out all popish idolatry and superstition. 2 II Schifanoya mentioned with disgust another of these " thunderings " which he had attended the day before he wrote. It was delivered by Dr. Scory, formerly Bishop of Chichester, " who said so much evil of the Pope, of the Bishops, of the Prelates, of the regulars, of the Church, of the Mass, and finally of our entire Faith, in the presence of the Queen and of her Council, the rest of the congregation consisting of more than 5,000 persons, that I was much scandalised, and I promise never to go there again, after hearing the outrageous and extravagant things which they say; and yet more was I surprised at the concourse of people who madly flock to hear such vain things." 3 Writing a month later, he says : " The Court preachers in the pre- sence of her Majesty and the people are doing their utmost to convert the latter, seeking to prove by their false argu- ments that the Pope has no authority, and uttering the most base and abominable things that were ever heard against the Apostolic See. . . . These cursed heretics," he continues, "who till now have been in Germany, sow such bad seed that, owing to their sermons hitherto in London alone, there are some ten sects of heretics utterly opposed one to the other, . . . Nevertheless, all over London they still persevere in saying the Masses and divine service as 1 11 Zur., p. 16, No. 7. 2 Cf. Venetian Papers, Nos. n and 12, 25th January, 1558-9. 3 Ibid., No. 23, 13th February, 1558-9. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 31 formerly, except in the Chapel Royal." 1 Writing on 21st March, II Schifanoya expresses his hatred for the returned exiles in words too uncharitable for repetition ; but he en- lightened Vivaldino as to the methods they employed to undermine the old Faith, and his remarks are instructive. " They are clever, loquacious, and fervent, both in preach- ing, and in composing and printing squibs and lampoons, or ballads as they entitle them, which are sold publicly, of so horrible and abominable a description that I wonder their authors do not perish by the act of God. I thought of sending you a copy, but repented, not wishing to sow evil seed in your country." 2 As another example of the tendency to go in advance of the law, it is interesting to note that at Easter, 1559, as II Schifanoya wrote on Easter Tuesday, March 28th, " they [presumably the Council] had ordered and printed a pro- clamation for everyone to take the Communion in both kinds [sub utraque specie). Some other reforms of theirs had also been ordered for publication, but subsequently nothing else was done, except that on Easter Day her Majesty ap- peared in Chapel, where Mass was sung in English, accord- ing to the use of her brother, King Edward, and the Com- munion was received in both kinds, kneeling . . . nor did he [the celebrant] wear anything but the mere surplice, having divested himself of the vestments in which he had sung Mass." 3 The proclamation in question was issued on 22nd March, the Wednesday in Holy Week, and justified the action on the ground that " great numbers not only of the nobility and gentlemen but also of the common people of this realm be persuaded in conscience" that reception of the Holy Communion under one kind constituted a mangled Sacrament. 4 On 24th March the Spanish ambassador wrote to his Sovereign, saying Elizabeth had haughtily asked if the King would be angry at hearing that Mass was said in 1 Venetian Papers, No. 40, 14th March, 1558-9. 2 Ibid., No. 45, 2 1 st March, 1558-9. 3 Venetian Papers, No. 51, 28th March, 1559. 4 Dyson, Proclamations, fol. 5. 32 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE English? ' The attempt, however, was for the present con- fined to the Easter celebration, for II Schifanoya said that " since that day things have returned to their former state, though ... a relapse is expected. . . . Many persons have received Communion in the usual manner, and things continue as usual in the churches." 2 Writing on 25th April, he states that " With regard to officiating and changing the service of the Church nothing more has been done, but it is supposed that everything will return as in the time of King Edward to the English tongue." 3 Elizabeth was the de- spair of those who hoped great things of her as regards re- formation. A characteristic example is related by II Schi- fanoya in the letter just quoted from. " Last Sunday was the festival of St. George, patron ... of the Order of the Garter, when the knights of the Order kept the feast as usual with the accustomed ceremonies and vestments. . . . They made the procession through the whole Court in their usual robes, not preceded by the cross, her Majesty being present. . . . It is true that she asked where the crosses were, and was told that being of gold and silver they were kept in the Tower. She desired them to be sent for, but as the Tower was too far off, and the time late, they hastily sent to Westminster for some, but found that those had in like manner been removed for safety ; so without further scruple, the procession was made sine cruce. . . . On the morrow, Mass for the Dead was sung, all the knights attending it, and her Majesty was also to have been present, but she changed her mind, objecting perhaps to the Mass for the Dead . . . Mass for the Dead was sung as usual, except that they said the Epistle and Gospel in English, and that they did not elevate the Host . . . the priests having said the De Profundis, they all went to their houses, having arranged among themselves the day when they were bound to perform this solemnity for the dead at their principal church at Windsor. . . ." i Writing on 4th May, Paulo 1 Chron. Belg., No. cccxxvn, i, p. 481, 24th March, 1558-9. 2 Venetian Papers, No. 51, ut supra. 3 Ibid., No. 64, 25th April, 1559. 4 Ibid. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 33 Tiepolo corroborates the above account of II Schifanoya in every particular. 1 On 10th May, Feria informed his royal master that " from Easter they were to begin to say the service everywhere in English, and they have already com- menced to do so in the Queen's chapel. They tell me that everything is worse even than in the time of King Edward." 2 While the Queen thus blew hot and cold, those who wished her to push forward the work of reformation, and those whose main aim was to trim their sails according to the direction of the wind, knew hardly what to think or what to do. If, on the one hand, Elizabeth stayed away from a Mass for the Dead, nevertheless she was punctilious about requiring the use of crosses ; if she favoured Communion under both kinds, she showed marked repugnance to allow- ing marriage amongst the clergy. These contrarieties and inconsistencies had perhaps at least the merit of putting a check upon too fiery zeal and preventing too hasty an adoption of extreme measures. While these excesses were engaging men's attention, and to some extent withdrawing their observation from what was passing in the political world around them and in the Council Chamber of the Queen, attempts were being made to come to terms of peace with France. During the summer preceding Mary's death, the representatives of France, together with those of the allied English and Spanish monarchs were endeavouring to find a basis of conciliation; but no conclusion was arrived at, owing to Philip's insistence on the restitution of Calais to the English. 3 On Elizabeth's accession, it became the object of the French to detach her from her confederacy with the Spaniard; but as such a course would have subjected England to France, it did not find favour with the re- 1 Venetian Papers, No. 69, 4th May, 1559. 2 Chron. Belg., No. CCCXLVi, i, p. 519. 3 See Cotton MSS., Vespasian c. xiii, No. 125, f. 414, for Cecil's (holograph) mendacious statement to the exact contrary, written about iS7i. D 34 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE sponsible ministers. 1 The King of Spain's loyalty to Eng- lish interests here outlined by Dr. Wootton, finds frequent expression in that statesman's correspondence. Philip, though anxious to end a war that was draining the re- sources of his treasury, nevertheless held out against any terms which, though acceptable to him personally, could not be accepted by the English without dishonour. In England, too, peace was desired, but the national pride could not submit to the final abandonment of Calais. The poverty of the Exchequer, however, forbade the protraction of the war. The envoys were, therefore, at last instructed to make peace on the best terms they could secure; these were that Calais was to be retained by France for eight years, and at the expiry of that term to be restored to England ; but that should any warlike attempt be made by England during the interval, that then the English claim should become forfeit. It was easy to see that France would somehow secure the infraction of the treaty, and that virtually from the moment of the signing of peace, Calais was lost to England for ever. These negociations are referred to here to show that the Spanish alliance had hitherto worked well for England; and the goodwill of Philip to this country was displayed in a remarkable way in the proposal made by the Count de Feria that he should obtain dispensation to marry Elizabeth, she being his de- ceased wife's sister. This project was mooted as early as four days after Mary's death. 2 This scheme was not al- 1 Thus, Dr. Nich. Wootton, one of the envoys, wrote to Cecil: " Although they [the French] require to talk of peace and will make gay overtures to that intent, I cannot but remember that so did the wolf to the shepherd too, when he would have had his dog from him, that made all the debate betwixt them . . . [thinks the offers of the French are like to the wolfs] ... As long as we shall continue good amity with the King of Spain, it shall not be so easy for the French to obtain their purpose in England, as they would it were. If they may by crafty means and vain promises dissever us once from Spain, then shall they think they have good cause to sing Io Paean " (Chron. Belg., No. CCLXXXI, i, p. 393, 9th January, 1558-9). 2 Chron. Belg., No. ccxxx, i, p. 297, Count de Feria to the King, 21st November, 1558. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 35 together displeasing to Elizabeth, though her Council saw grave objections to it, the chief one being that it would frustrate their plans for religious reform. Philip, too, was unwilling to proceed when he learnt of the various steps by which Elizabeth was breaking with the Church.' Eliza- beth, on her side, had received these proposals favourably, saying she would have to lay them before Parliament ; 2 but, shortly after, she cooled in her attitude towards Philip, and gave the Count de Feria to understand that she would not marry at all. 3 It will be understood from this necessarily short sum- mary of affairs, how intimate were the relations of King Philip's representative with Elizabeth. The nature of Philip's interest in England, as having been co-Sovereign with Mary, emphasises the knowledge which the Count de Feria must have possessed of everything of importance which was passing in this kingdom; and this it is which gives such peculiar value to his reports of the events of the first six months of Elizabeth's reign, during which he was ever at her side to exhort, to encourage, to remonstrate, and to warn. He never feared or hesitated to speak his mind openly to her, and though she sometimes resented the frankness of his language, nevertheless, on his de- parture, she expressed herself to Philip as fully cognisant of his merits.' Turning from these foreign and personal concerns to those of domestic importance, the first and most moment- ous are connected with the Queen's coronation, and the summoning of her first Parliament. The steps which have already been referred to, whereby 1 Chron. Belg., No. ccxcvm, i, p. 417, Philip to Feria, 12th February, 1558-9. 2 Ibid.) No. CCLXXXIX, i, p. 406, (?) 20th January, 1558-9. Ana- lysis only of the letter, said to be at Simancas, but not found there. 3 Ibid.) No. ccci, i, p. 43S, 20th February, 1558-9. Count de Feria to Philip. 4 B.M. MSS., Reg. 13, B. 1, 17th May, 1559. 36 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE the Queen plainly showed that she meant to break with the Church, determined the bishops to decline to officiate, since it was probable that if she did not refuse to take the ancient coronation oath to maintain the liberties of the Church, she would certainly violate it within a short period. However, as the Queen was not prepared at that moment to throw off the mask, and as the act of Corona- tion carried with it a very sacred pledge between Sovereign and subjects in the minds of the bulk of the nation, it could by no means be omitted. Hence pressure was brought to bear on the bishops ; and at last, Owen Oglethorpe of Carl- isle consented to perform the ceremony on condition that the Roman Pontifical was followed. No doubt he acted as the representative of his own Metropolitan of York, Dr. Nicholas Heath, to whom it fell by prescription to conduct such a ceremony during a vacancy in the primatial See of Canterbury. 1 It is of interest to note that, as the Northern prelate was not possessed of the quantity of vestments re- quired on such rare occasions, nor probably of any of sufficiently costly nature, " The Lords [of the Privy Coun- cil] sent to Bonner, Bishop of London, to send to the Bishop of Carlisle, who was appointed (as they writ) to execute the solemnity of the Queen's Majesty's Coronation, universum apparatum pontificium, que uti solent episcopi in Jiujusmodi magnificis illustrissimorum regum inauguration- Urns; i.e., all the pontifical habit that bishops were wont to use in such glorious inaugurations of most illustrious 1 Cardinal Allen, commenting in after years {i.e., 1584) on this refusal of the bench of bishops to officiate, said : " Whose courage and resistance for quarrel of God's religion was such in them, and especially in the said Archbishop [Heath], that he worthily, as became his excellency, refused to anoint or crown the Queen's Majesty that now is . . . and so did all the rest of the bishops refuse the same, until with much ado they obtained the Bishop of Carlisle, the inferior almost of all the rest, to do that function. . . . The cause why they durst not then, nor could be adduced by any human fear or authority to invest her was, that they had evident probabilities and arguments to doubt that she meant either not to take the oath, or not to keep the same, which all Christian kings (and specially ours in England) do FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 37 kings." 1 This was on 3rd January, 1558-9. Nicholas San- der explained in his Report to Cardinal Moroni for what reasons Bishop Oglethorpe was induced at length to act, " not as a favourer of heresy, but lest the Queen should be angry if no one would anoint her, and be more easily [moved] to overthrow religion. Nor at this time were things so desperate, but that many hoped it might still be possible to turn her from her purpose. The rest of the bishops assisted at the anointing, until they saw that part of the ancient rite in the celebration of the Mass was changed." ' Lingard is clearly at fault, therefore, when he writes that " the absence of the prelates threw an unusual gloom over the ceremony," 3 for Sander wrote in 1561, and his statement is corroborated by Machyn, who records: "there [Westminster Hall] met all the bishops, and all the Chapel with three crosses, and in their copes, the bishops mitred, and singing Salve festa dies! ' ' Though Oglethorpe performed the actual ceremony of coronation and anoint- ing, it would seem that he had drawn the line at cele- brating Mass, and this is hinted at, though not stated, by Sander in the passage already quoted. II Schifanoya, how- ever, writing to the Castellan of Mantua on 23rd January, 1558-9, after describing the pageants preceding the corona- tion, continues: "And then the choristers began the Mass, which was sung by the Dean of her Chapel, her chaplain [Dr. George Carew], the bishops not having chosen to say Mass without elevating the consecrated Host, 3 as that make in the Coronation, for maintenance of Holy Church's laws, honours, place, and privileges, and other duties due to every state, as in the time and grant of King Edward the Confessor. They doubted also lest she should refuse, in the very time of her sacre, the solemn divine ceremony of unction" (cf. True, Sincere, Modest Defence of English Catholics, p. 51). 1 Strype, Ann., i, 29; Hart. MS., 169, No. 1, f. 24^. 2 Cath. Record Soc, vol. i, p. 31. 3 Hist, of Engl, vi, 351. 4 Diary, p. 187. 5 The actual translation of the Calendar says " without elevating the Host or consecrating it," which must be clearly due to a misunder- standing of the Italian text. 38 ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE worthy individual did ; the Epistle and Gospel being re- cited in English. After the Epistle, the Bishop of Carlisle commenced the Coronation according to the Roman cere- monial, neither altering nor omitting anything but the outward forms. . . ." l There exists an unintelligent ac- count of the ceremony, evidently by an eye-witness, 2 which, however, preserves one or two particulars of interest, as that the Epistle and Gospel were read both in Latin and in English, just as those portions are chanted both in Greek and in Latin at a papal Mass. This observer, more- over, makes mention of a sermon, and records the fact of the corporal homage made to the Queen by the bishops who were present. " And then the Lords went up to her Grace kneeling upon their knees, and kissed her Grace. And after the Lords had done, the Bishops came one after another kneeling, and kissed her grace." II Schifa- noya pointed out 3 that the return to Westminster Abbey was made " in the same order as at first, except that the bishops remained in the Abbey." This would seem to endorse the statement of Sander that they retired finally from the function, when they realised that Dr. Carew was conforming himself to the alterations in the ceremonies of the Mass which the Queen had enjoined at Christmas time. The next and all-important step in the work of breaking with Rome was to be taken in Parliament. That assembly, therefore, becomes the point of interest for the next three months. The indications of coming change already referred to aroused great fears in the minds of the Catholics as to what enactments would there be made; and the manner of opening her first Parliament by Queen Elizabeth did not tend to allay them. The Lords and Commons had been 1 Venetian Papers, No. 10. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Add. Eliz., ix, No. 9. This contemporary transcript "from Mr. Anthony Anthony's Collection," is identical with that published in Nichols's Progresses of Q. Elizabeth, and is taken from Ashmole MS. 863, f. an. 3 Venetian Papers, No. 10. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 39 summoned to appear at Westminster on 23rd January; but at the last moment the date of assembly was, owing to the Queen's indisposition, altered to the 25th. On that day, according to II Schifanoya, the members of both Houses " went to the place appointed them, and awaited the arrival of her Majesty at the church as usual for the Mass of the Holy Ghost, which custom was not observed this year, the Mass having been sung at an early hour in Westminster Abbey, without elevating the sacrament, as is done in the Chapel Royal." In the afternoon, the Queen proceeded to the Abbey, where " the Abbot, robed pontifically, with all his monks in procession, each of them having a lighted torch in his hand, received her as usual, offering her first of all incense and holy water; and when her Majesty saw the monks, who accompanied her with the torches, she said : ' Away with those torches, for we see very well ' ; and her choristers singing the Litany in English, she was ac- companied to the High Altar under her canopy. There- upon Dr. Cox, a married priest . . . preached the sermon, in which after saying many things freely against the monks, proving by his arguments that they ought to be persecuted and punished, . . . exhorting her [the Queen] to destroy the images of the Saints, the churches, the monasteries, and all other things dedicated to divine worship; proving . . . that it is very great impiety and idolatry to endure them; and saying many other things against the Christian religion." * The Count de Feria told his royal master much the same thing in his despatch of 31st January,* pointing out that it was expected that three matters would prin- cipally occupy the attention of Parliament during the forthcoming session. The first would be to effect a change of religion; the second, to repeal the legislation of the late Queen; and the last, the granting of a subsidy. The de- tails of what took place in that assembly may be left to a separate chapter; but the concurrent action of the Third Estate may be briefly summarised here. 1 Venetian Papers, No. 15, 30th January, 1558-9. 2 Citron. Be/g., No. ccxcv, i, p. 413. 4 o ELIZABETH'S ACCESSION AND THE At that period, Convocation as usual met at the same time as Parliament, although, owing to the delay already re- ferred to, it assembled on that occasion one day in advance. Little came of the meeting, except for the presentation which the Lower House made to the bishops of certain articles embracing the chief points in dispute between Rome and the Reformed Churches, wherein they declared their firm adhesion to Rome. The bishops, as requested, handed them on through Bishop Bonner to Sir Nicholas Bacon, the Lord Keeper; and that was the last that was heard of them. These articles, however, are of importance, for as Mr. Child says: 1 "it is a fact to which modern historians of the English Church do not frequently draw attention, that the only Convocation during the earlier Reformation period which was evidently elected without any pressure from the Government, and was the freely-chosen repre- sentative of the clergy of England, should thus have de- clared its opinion, to all appearance unanimously, in favour of the Roman faith and the Roman obedience. 'It is idle to pretend that this was not, as fully as any other Convoca- tion, a fair representative body. On the other hand, its out-and-out opposition to the Oueen and the Government of the day prove plainly that it was so." Now, it is well to bear in mind that this last declaration of a " fair repre- sentative body " made known its belief in the Real Pres- ence, in Transubstantiation, in the Sacrifice of the Mass, in the Pope's spiritual Supremacy, and put it on record that the decision on matters of doctrine, on the sacraments or discipline, belonged, not to a lay assembly like Parliament, but to the lawful episcopate. 2 These articles were, with the exception of the last, also agreed to by the two Uni- versities. As will be seen later, this uncompromising oppo- sition of the clergy, calculated to defeat the projects of Elizabeth's advisers, was countered by the ingenious device of resorting to a public disputation. For it must be borne in mind that this statement or confession was not drawn 1 Church and State under the Tudors, p. 1 80. 2 Cf. Wilkins's Concilia, iv, p. 1 79. FIRST MONTHS OF HER REIGN 41 up independently of what was passing in Parliament, but after the introduction of the Bill of Supremacy showing what was the purpose of the Government, and was there- fore in direct defiance of the Queen and her Council and of Parliament. It is this that gives the action of Con- vocation its special value. Note. — The name " II Schifanoya," so frequently recurring in the foregoing pages, requires perhaps a word of explanation. Mr. G. Cavendish Bentinck, the writer of the preface to vol. vii of the Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts existing in the Archives and Collec- tions of Venice, says that the letters from which so many quotations have been made were "addressed by an individual signing himself ' II Schifanoya,' to the Mantuan Ambassador and the Mantuan Secretary resident at the Court of Brussels, and also to the Castellan or Governor of the City of Mantua. Mr. Rawdon Brown always believed that the designation of ' II Schifanoya,' which in English signifies a lazy, idle fellow, was an assumed name; but, as I could see no reason why 'II Schifanoya' should have desired to conceal his identity, I obtained, through the kind intervention of the late Commendatore Bartolomeo Cocchetti, Director of the Venetian Archives, a communication from the Cavaliere Antonio Bertoletti, Director of the State Archives of Mantua, and Signor Davari, Keeper of the Gonzaga Archives at Mantua, who gave their joint opinion that ' II Schifanoya' or ' Schifenoia' was the true name of the writer; firstly, because there is in the province of Mantua a small district now called ' Schifenoglia,' but described in ancient documents as 'Schifenoia'; and, secondly, because during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, several Mantuans of note bore the name of ' Schifenoia ' and ' Schifenoia,' to one of whom, the most reverend Don Luigi Schifenoia, the Duke of Mantua is recorded to have given a recommendation to the Imperial Court in 1563, and this personage is mentioned to have been alive in 1565. " II Schifanoya [probably identical with Don Luigi] . . . was in the service of Sir Thomas Tresham, the Prior of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England, and was apparently himself a member of that Order. Sir Thomas Tresham died on 8th March, 1558-9, and the house of the Priory and the property belonging to it having been seized by order of the Crown, II Schifanoya went to reside with Monsignor Priuli, the intimate friend and testamentary executor of Cardinal Pole." CHAPTER II ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT ONE point stands out clearly and distinctly in the record of religious change in Elizabeth's reign. Every move away from Rome was carefully legalised by sanction of Parliament. Although it was impossible, for many reasons, that Elizabeth could accept the Supremacy of the Roman See, yet she did not cast it off except by Act of Parliament. The religious innovations effected in her reign were each and all made binding on her subjects by Act of Parlia- ment. 1 The " Church of England as by Law Established " is an apt and an accurate definition of the ecclesiastical body evolved from the polity of Elizabeth's first Parlia- ment. The legislation of that Parliament is therefore of prime importance, marking as it does each successive step whereby Mary's work of reconciliation with Rome was undone, and displaying the whole process whereby the fabric of the national Church as we know it at this day was built up. Whether we accept this settlement or whether we con- demn it is nothing to the point. It is not a matter of pre- dilections; the historical student has to concern himself merely with the facts, and with the results which are the outcome of a given series of facts. Judgment on them may be favourable or adverse; but such judgment will 1 Cf. I Zur., No. 6, Jewel to Peter Martyr, 14th April, 1559: "But this woman, excellent as she is, and earnest in the cause of true religion, notwithstanding she desires a thorough change as early as possible, cannot however be induced to effect such change without the sanction of law. 42 Emery II 'a Iker pilot '<>. ] [National Portrait Gallery SIR WILLIAM CECIL AFTERWARDS LORD BURGH LEV LORD TREASURER ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 43 not alter the facts themselves or their interconnection. Accompanying circumstances may have an important bear- ing on the trend of events, and the study of them may influence the standpoint from which the facts are viewed ; but an appeal can always be made to the safe dictum that facts speak for themselves, and rarely suffer themselves to be explained away. The historical enquirer, then, may safely watch the de- velopment of the national Church in the debates and divisions of Elizabeth's first Parliament, since it is there that it took its rise and its shape, and not in the studies of churchmen nor in the deliberations of Convocation. It follows that the shaping of the national Church is largely, nay mainly, the outcome of the work of laymen. Indeed, as will be seen, churchmen of the Old Learning strenuously opposed its formation from first to last; and it had taken definite shape before any single churchman of the New Learning had gained place or power to exercise influence or control over its development, except in so far as influence might have been, and undoubtedly was, exerted over individual members of Parliament by those who, hold- ing no office, could impose their desires on others only unofficially and ab extra. In order the better to understand what took place in this momentous Parliament, it will be necessary to study somewhat closely the personnel of the legislative body assembled at Westminster two months after Elizabeth's accession. The House of Lords consisted, then as now, of spiritual and temporal peers ; but the proportion between these con- stituent elements was markedly different from what it is now, though in Elizabeth's reign it also differed greatly from what had been customary before Henry VI IPs re- pudiation of Roman Supremacy, and before the suppression of the religious houses. Before the great breach with Rome in 1535 and the suppressions completed in 1539, the temporal peers, never numerous, had been, since the Wars of the Roses, still 44 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT fewer in number. But the spiritual peers, who were sum- moned to aid their Sovereigns in council, formed a large and compact body greatly outnumbering their lay asso- ciates. With the downfall of the great abbeys and the consequent disappearance from Parliament of their mitred superiors, the ecclesiastical element of the Upper House had been reduced to the diocesan bishops, twenty-five in number in England and Wales. After Mary's restoration of Westminster Abbey, the Abbot of that ancient founda- tion resumed his place in the House of Lords; so that, on Elizabeth's accession, a possible attendance of twenty-six churchmen might have been counted upon. But during the last months of Mary's reign several Sees fell vacant, and by some mischance they had not been filled up by Cardinal Pole before his royal kinswoman died. This over- sight was bitterly felt at the time, and found strong ex- pressions in one of Bishop Alvaro de Quadra's letters. 1 Add to this a remarkable mortality amongst the bishops between Elizabeth's accession and the opening of her first Parliament, which had so thinned their ranks, that ten Sees were unrepresented in the House of Lords.' 2 The Bishops of Lincoln (Watson) and of St. Asaph's (Goldwell) were absent through ill-health, and were unre- presented by proxies. Goldwell had, in December, 1558, asked, through Secretary Cecil, for leave to absent himself; but in the letter conveying his request, he states that he had not received a writ of summons. " I am so bold," he 1 About 10th March, 1558-9, Chron. Belg., No. cccxv, i, p. 464. Feria, writing to Philip on 20th February, 1558-9, said: " That accursed Cardinal left 12 bishoprics to be filled, which will now be given to as many ministers of Lucifer instead of being worthily bestowed" {Ibid., No. CCCI, i, p. 442). 2 These were: Canterbury, Pole (t 17th November, 1558); Salisbury, Salcot or Capon (t 7th September, 1557); Oxford, King (t 4th Dec- ember, 1557); Bangor, Glynn (t2ist May, 1558); Gloucester, Brooks (t7th September, 1558); Hereford, Parfew or Wharton (t 22nd Sept- ember, 1558); Rochester, Griffin (t20th November, 1558); Bristol, Holyman (t 20th December, 1558) ; Chichester, Christopherson (t December, 1558); Norwich, Hopton (t December, 1558). ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 45 said, " as by writing to desire you to show me so much favour that by your Lordship I may have licence to depart hence, considering my poverty and that I am not by the Queen's Highness' writ called to be present at the Parlia- ment, for the which 1 am nothing sorry, though, indeed, it seemeth somewhat strange unto me, for I am still Bishop of St. Asaph, the which bishopric I never did nor could resign. And as Bishop of St. Asaph I was present and gave my voice in the last Parliament." l Six other bishops were absent, but were represented by proxies. Thirlby of Ely was at that time employed abroad on embassy. He returned to England before the close of the session, and attended the final debates, joining the intrepid band of opponents of innovation. The aged Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of Durham, had written to know the Queen's pleasure in his regard; and she, in consideration of his advanced years, dispensed with his attendance either at her Coronation or in his place in the Upper House, but directed him to appoint his proxy. 2 David Poole of Peter- borough wrote on 28th December, 1558, asking Cecil to procure Elizabeth's permission for him to absent himself, on the plea that his physicians feared the wintry weather might render him " likely to fall either to consumption or a quartan ague," either of which might prove mortal to him at his age. 3 Bourne of Bath and Wells, Morgan of St. David's, and Sir Thomas Tresham, Prior of St. John of Jerusalem, were also absent from various unrecorded reasons. 4 Thus it happened that for the whole of the ses- 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., I, No. 52, December, 1558. The meaning of GoldwelFs reference to his being '■'■still Bishop of St. Asaph " is that he had been offered translation to the See of Oxford by Queen Mary, but had refused, and evidently after that had voted in Parliament as Bishop of St. Asaph ; hence he was entitled to a writ of summons for that See. 2 Ibid., 1, No. 37, 19th December, 1558. 3 Ibid., 1, No. 48. 4 Mr. Frere, in his Hist, of the Engl. Church in the reigns of Eliz. and fas. I, p. 1 5, says of the Prior of St. John of Jerusalem that " it would seem that his proxy was refused and his membership of the House 46 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT sion fifteen, and for the greater portion of it sixteen, of the votes that would most certainly have been cast on the Catholic side were lost. Only ten prelates assisted at the debates; and, though they could not avert the catastrophe they so manfully strove against, they earned for them- selves, by reason of the intrepidity they showed, the re- spectful admiration even of their adversaries. These ten were Nicholas Heath, Archbishop of York; Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London; John White of Winchester; Richard Pate of Worcester ; Anthony Kitchin or Dunston of Llandaff; Ralph Bayne of Coventry and Lichfield; James Turberville of Exeter; Cuthbert Scott of Chester; Owen Oglethorpe of Carlisle, who had so recently crowned the Queen; and Dr. Feckenham, Abbot of Westminster. To these was added, after 17th April, 1559, Thirlby of Ely. The lists of the House of Lords give 81 names of peers, spiritual and temporal, who had a right to sit during any portion of this Parliament. Of these, 17 were strictly spiritual, and 63 were lay peers. Sir Thomas Tresham may, however, be omitted once for all, who otherwise would, by reason of the title by which he sat, have ranked amongst the spiritual peers, raising their number to 18. It is almost superfluous to point out that the spiritual peers were throughout, as shown by the voting, frankly papist in their sympathies. Of the 63 temporal peers, 20 were ostensibly as certainly Catholic to the core as were the bishops. These were the Marquesses of Winchester and Northampton; the Earls of Arundel, Pembroke, Northum- berland, Westmoreland, Shrewsbury, Worcester, Cumber- land, and Hertford ; Viscount Montague; and Lords Morley, Dacre of Gilsland, Lumley, Latimer, Vaux of Harrowden, Windsor, Wharton, Rich, and Hastings of Loughborough. disallowed." There does not seem to be any proof of this statement ; but the point is one of little consequence, for Sir Thomas Tresham died on 8th March, 1558-9 (cf. Venetian Papers, No. 40, 14th March, 1558-9), when the proxy would naturally have lapsed, and hence no crucial voting was affected by it. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 47 This at first sight represents a solid Catholic vote of 37. On the reforming side certain members of the Upper House of course stand prominently forward. Such are Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal; the Duke of Norfolk; the Earls of Rutland, Huntingdon, Bedford, and Sussex ; and Lord Clynton. 1 To these should be added the five new peers created by Elizabeth at her Coronation and summoned to her first Parliament, all of whom were staunch upholders of the new opinions. These were Vis- count Howard of Bindon, Lord Hastings, Lord Darcy of Darcy, Lord Cary of Hunsdon, and Lord Oliver St. John of Bletsho. To this solid phalanx of twelve should be joined nine others of whose Protestantism there can be no reason- able doubt, though they do not stand prominently forward as leaders, at least at the time in question. They are the Earl of Oxford, and Lords Grey of Wilton, Dudley, Went- worth, Mordaunt, Sheffield, Williams of Thame, North, and Chandos. Another section of the Upper House consisted of those whose religious opinions cannot be accurately gauged ; at one time evidence seems to point to their being Catholics, at another it as distinctly marks them out as conforming to the new order. These " trimmers," as they may be called, were the Earl of Derby, together with Lords Howard of Effingham, Stafford, Scrope, Latimer, Sandes, and Paget. A residue still remains concerning whom no- thing can be affirmed one way or the other at the date indicated. That most, if not all of them, conformed in process of time need not necessarily oblige us to infer that in 1559 all or any were other than Catholic. These were the Earl of Bath, and Lords Abergavenny, Audley, Strange, 1 " The Catholics are very fearful as to the conclusion they will come to in this Parliament. Of those in the Council, Cecil and the Earl of Bedford are those who busy themselves most to destroy this [i.e., religion], and of those outside [the Council], the Earl of Sussex does what he can" (Feria to Philip, 31st January, 1558-9, Chron. Belg., No. ccxcv, i, p. 413). "The Earl of Sussex is he who most signalised himself as a thorough villain, such as I have always thought him to be, for he never deceived me" (Feria to Philip, 19th March, 1558-9, Chron, Belg., No. cccxxn, i, p. 475). 4 8 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT Zouche, Berkeley, Cobham, 1 Talbot, Mountjoy, Ogle, Mounteagle, Burgh, St. John, Evers, Willoughby, and Darcy of Chechie. This gives point to a memorandum by the Bishop of Aquila, in which he estimated the opposing forces as follows: " Amongst the nobility, all those of little estimation, and the greater part of those advanced in age, are given over to heresy. . . . There are also many heretics in London, in the sea-ports, and in the county of Kent. All the rest of the nation, it is said, are steadfast and one in faith with the handful of bishops, so that reckoning them all together, the Catholics are in the majority." ' To sum up the opposing forces: there were 37 solidly Catholic peers as against 21 as decidedly Protestant. The 7 "trim- mers" and 16 who form the "unknown quantity" — 23 in all — complete the entire 81 who then constituted the Upper House. 3 If these figures be examined closely, the explanation of the results of this Parliament will be more apparent. If the 24 "trimmers" be divided equally between the opposing camps, there would be 49 Catholics against 32 Protestants. But as has already been pointed out, the 1 The Count de Feria in a letter to King Philip, speaking of Lord Cobham, said: "This man held no office in the household of the Queen [Mary], nor had he nor his brothers a good reputation here, because they have always been declared followers of the new Queen, and she liked him well " (cf. Chron. Belg., No. CCXXXVI, i, p. 307). The inference is that he was a reformer. - Chron. Belg., No. cccxv, i, p. 464, about 10th March, 1558-9. 3 Froude, Hist, of Engl., vii, p. 40, makes a slightly different calcula- tion : " Four new peers had been created at the coronation. The Earldom of Hertford was revived in favour of Edward Seymour, son of the Protector. Lord Thomas Howard, Surrey's younger brother, was made Lord Howard of Bindon. Sir Henry Cary, the Queen's cousin, became Lord Hunsdon ; and Sir Oliver St. John was created Baron St. John of Bletsho. Including these, the lay peerage of England consisted but of 61 persons, of whom it is to be observed that 18 were either unable or unwilling to appear at Elizabeth's first Parliament, while 12 who were present at the opening very soon discontinued their attendance. Their proxies for the most part were held by Bedford and Clynton, and their votes, therefore, were given to the Government." ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 49 entire voting strength of the 81 peers was, for one reason or another, never available; several deductions have there- fore to be made from the strength of both parties. To deal first with the Catholics: of the sixteen bishops, never more than ten were ever present, but five had entrusted their proxies to the safe hands of Archbishop Heath, the pro- tagonist of the Catholic cause. Before the session ended, however, White, of Winchester, and Watson, of Lincoln, found themselves in the Tower of London, to which they were committed on the ist of April, and thenceforth their support was entirely lost, as they had not taken the pre- caution to appoint proxies. 1 Goldwell, of St. Asaph's, was also unrepresented by proxy, presumably as he had not received the writ of summons, for which reason also he was not present throughout the entire session. An investigation of the appointment of proxies dis- closes a singular anomaly, for Protestants and Catholics in some cases selected religious opponents to represent them in their absence. Thus, Lord Windsor, a Catholic, gave his proxy to Lord Clynton, an advanced Protestant, while Lord Mordaunt, a Protestant, entrusted his vote to the Earl of Arundel, nominally at least, a Catholic, who acted for him in divisions on the religious debates on two occasions; the Earl of Bedford, however, also employed his vote on two other days. The case of the Earl of Arundel calls for further explanation. He was, for in- stance, the Earl of Northumberland's proxy; but it is clear that for personal motives he was false to his trust as a Catholic, "won over by the expectation of marrying the Queen, held out to him by Elizabeth herself," according to Rishton, the continuator of Sander, 2 and thus used a Catholic vote as well as his own to overturn his own Church; for Northumberland was ordered to stay in the 1 " Your friend White, Bishop of Winchester, and Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, were committed to the Tower for open contempt and con- tumacy " (cf. I Zur., p. 16, No. 5, Jewel to Peter Martyr, 6th April, 1559)- ' 2 Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism, ed. 1877, p. 255. E 50 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT North on Scottish business, and as Warden of the Marches. 1 Since his lieutenants could have acted under his instruc- tions during his absence, his being kept thus at a distance leaves the impression that the Council availed themselves of the pretext of public business to rid themselves of a staunch opponent. Indeed, Feria told Philip that "the Queen has entire disposal of the Upper Chamber in a way never seen before in previous Parliaments." 2 The Earl of Cumberland was represented once at least by a Protestant. Even after the policy of the Government could no longer be mistaken, Lord Morley, a particularly staunch Catholic, appointed, on 18th March, the Earl of Bedford, as staunch a Protestant, as his proxy, though, as events proved, he never gave him the occasion to exercise the trust, being himself invariably present Lord Vaux of Harrowden, too, selected the Earl of Bedford to represent him, who did so on at least two crucial divisions, those of 18th and 24th March, and probably also during the fateful closing days of the session. Lord Wharton was another of the Catholic group represented by a Protestant, Lord North, who voted in his stead certainly on four occasions, probably more. These instances alone mean a distinct loss of eight votes to the Catholic side, four counting eight on a division. The Marquess of Northampton, who appointed no proxy, and whose attendance was spasmodic, failed to render his support on some of the occasions when it would have proved useful ; the same may be said of the Earl of West- moreland during the later part of the session. The Earl of Hertford did not attend Parliament till 4th April, nor had he appointed a proxy. Lord Hastings of Lough- borough was absent without a proxy on two days when very important divisions were taken, namely, 18th and 24th March. In these various ways, it will be readily seen that the Catholic vote was weakened, even assuming that ! Harl. MS. 169, f. 24'' ; P.R.O. Foreign, Eliz., No. 230, nth January, 1558-9. Privy Council to the E. of Northumberland. "He is to stay in the North and not come to Parliament." 2 Chron. Be/g., No. CCCI, i, p. 442, 20th February, 1558-9. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 51 every Catholic would have voted in the Catholic interest. But in the face of certain ascertained facts, this is alto- gether too large an assumption. For instance, at the third reading of the Bill for Restitution of First Fruits to the Crown, namely, on 4th February, whereas the bishops then present unanimously dissented for themselves and for those whose proxies they held — in all, a negative vote of 15, — we are expressly told by Sir Simon D'Ewes that "all the other Temporal Lords present . . . did all {nullo contradicente) say, Content'^ These included 10 Catholics and 28 others, together with 15 proxies; thus the motion was carried against the bishops by a majority of 38. This measure, it is true, was one which even a staunch Catholic might have conceived himself at liberty to support, for it did not neces- sarily imply the upholding or rejection of any dogmatic principle. It might have been understood by them as embodying a policy rather than any principle; and when that policy dealt with the retention of English money within England's shores, old difficulties on that score with the Roman Curia might easily account for the arraying of a solid temporal vote against any possibility of a recurrence of the obnoxious papal exactions of past times. Even Collier remarks that the unanimity of the Lords in favour of the Bill was "somewhat strange considering they were almost all of them the same members which made the Act for returning these things to the Church in the late reign." 2 Possibly, it may have been hoped, by a timely concession to insular and anti-papal feeling, to stay further aggression. If so, it was a singularly misguided policy, for it served to whet rather than to dull the appetite of the Reformers. On the side of the Protestants, it will be observed that although the Earl of Oxford was absent from his par- liamentary duties continuously from 9th February till 1 6th March, this period covered only one important divi- sion, and the same remark applies to the absence of the 1 Journal of the House of Lords, ed. 1682, p. 19. 2 Eccl. Hist., vol. vi, p. 213. 52 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT Earl of Huntingdon. It is also worthy of notice that, although it may be inferred that Lord Howard of Bindon entered the House of Lords specially to champion the Protestant cause, he failed to attend and vote for the Bill of First Fruits on 4th February, and had not appointed anyone as his proxy. This omission was subsequently supplied, and the Earl of Sussex voted for him, certainly on 24th March, possibly also during the remainder of the session. The votes of two lords were entirely lost. Lord VVentworth was not once in his place in Parliament; and having been for a portion of the session under arrest for his supposed share in the loss of Calais, was probably not en- titled to cast a vote by proxy. Lord. Latimer was also absent for the whole session without having provided a proxy. This cursory survey of the situation will suffice to show that the Protestant vote outnumbered that of the Catholics; but it must be borne in mind that our judg- ment has been arrived at long after the event, when we have learnt something of the subsequent careers of most, if not of all, of the actors in that momentous drama. At the time, however, it would have been impossible accurately to gauge the real sentiments of each peer. The ebb and flow of religious opinion following on the rapid changes in the occupation of the throne must have been bewildering to a degree we are almost incapable of realising. One short generation had seen England in communion with the See of Rome as it had been for a thousand years ; then schism- atical and independent, both under Henry; Lutheran and heretical under Edward ; once more united to Rome under Mary, and now under Elizabeth every prospect of another breach presented itself. But Elizabeth was unmarried; no one knew exactly what were her real sentiments and inten- tions ; and the possibility was never absent that the Crown might still fall to a Catholic, in the event of anything unto- ward happening to the daughter of Anne Boleyn. Where conscience was blunted, if not stifled, and conviction un- settled with so many previous changes, it was difficult to know how to act to the best personal advantage. Every ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 53 man at that time almost necessarily suspected his neigh- bour's sincerity. This uncertainty would appear to have ruled the appointment of proxies. It would have been only natural for a peer really Protestant or Catholic at heart to appoint one of like convictions to act for him. Such being the case, many of the selections made were singularly unfortunate. As regards the constitution of the House of Commons, it is difficult, if not impossible, to be precise. Sir Thomas White, once Lord Mayor of London, a founder of colleges and schools, and a staunch Catholic, courageously protested in this Parliament that "it was unjust that a religion begun in such a miraculous way, and established by such grave men, should be abolished by a set of beardless boys." 1 Froude, too, points out 2 that as regards the Lower House "the Catholics were loud in their complaints of the unfair- ness of the elections; and it may be assumed as certain that a Government which had contemplated the removal of every Catholic magistrate in the kingdom 3 exerted itself to the utmost in securing the return of its friends, . . . the universal horror of the late reign forced the defenders of its principles into the shade, and the moving party, though numerically the weakest, were the young, the eager, and the energetic. The Catholics left the field to their adversaries, and the towns and country chose their representatives among those who were most notorious for their hatred of popes and priesthoods." That picturesque writer relies for proof of his last phrase on a passage in a letter from Feria to Philip, 4 in which he refers to : "... the wickedness which is being planned in this Parliament, which consists of 1 Quoted in Simpson's Life of Campion, ed. 1896, p. 7. Elsewhere (pp. 4-5) this capable student speaks of a " packed party in the ' beard- less Parliament,'" and of the " House of Lords, from which by threats and cajolery she [Elizabeth] had caused the chief Catholic nobles to absent themselves." 2 Hist, of Engl., vii, pp. 40-41. 3 Cf. passim, " The device for the alteration of Religion," Cotton MSS., Julius F. vi, No. 86. 4 Chron. Belg., No. ccci, i, p. 442, 20th February, 1558-9. 54 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT persons chosen throughout the country as being the most perverse and heretical." The method of choice hardly conveys the idea, accord- ing to modern notions, that the members were in any sense the representatives of the people ; for, in Lingard's words, "a majority had been secured by the expedient of sending to the sheriffs a list of court candidates, out of whom the members were to be chosen. 1 Diego Yepez, writing before the close of Elizabeth's reign, and therefore in the enjoy- ment of the possibility of learning his facts from eye- witnesses, thus explained the Court procedure: "for the purpose of suborning justice at its source, by bribery and manipulation in the name and with the authority of the Queen, they managed that the members who were returned for the counties and boroughs should be selected and nominated to their liking." 2 Proof of this statement is necessary from native sources. The returns for Parliament 1 Hist, of Engl., vi, p. 351. 2 " Pero estos para corromper la justicia en su fuente, con sobornos y negociacion, y nombre, y autoridad Real, procuraron, que los Diputados se embiassen de las Provincias y Ciudades escogidos y nombrados a su gusto " (Historia Particular de la Persecucio?i de Inglaterra, etc., Madrid, 1599, p. 13). In order to show that this writer was well informed, the context of the above passage may be quoted with ad- vantage : " Non pudieron prevalecer contra los Prelados : porque la Reyna Dona Maria los aura escogido tales, que todos, fuera de uno solo, murieron constantes en la Fe Catolica, en destierro, 6 en prision : pero ganaron a muchos de los Cavalleros por artificio, para que viniessen en su perversa voluntad. Al Conde de Arundel (que podia mucho con los demas) enganaron con falsas esperangas, que la Reyna se casaria con el, si quisiesse dar su voto en las Cortes, como ellos le pidieron. A este siguieron el Duque de Norfolque su yerno, y otros sus amigos, que pendian de su privan^a. A otros ganaron con dadivas y pro- messas, y a otros convencieron con amenazas. Y finalmente tanto hizieron, que a pesar de los obispos, y de los demas que defendian la verdad, salieron con su intento, aunque con solos tres votos mas por la parte de la Reyna, que por la de los que contradezian a la mudan£a de la Religion." Surian and P. Tiepolo informed the Doge and Senate of Venice on 8th January, 1558-9, that "the Queen . . . announces her intention of marrying the Earl of Arundel, who is a native Englishman " ( Venetian Papers, No. 7). ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 55 for Mary's last, and for Elizabeth's first, session form a basis of comparison. These latter are by no means perfect, for about one hundred returns, more or less, are wanting. By an inspection of those that are extant, some fifty only of the members who sat in Mary's Parliament in 1558 found seats in Elizabeth's in 1559. Mr. F. W. Maitland, the writer on this period and on this subject in the Cambridge Modern History, 1 has come to a different conclusion. He says: "The Government's control over the electoral machinery must have been unusually weak. Our statistics are imperfect, but the number of knights and burgesses who, having served in 1558, were again returned in 1559, was not abnormally small, and with the House of 1558 Mary had been well content. Also we may see at West- minster not a few men who soon afterwards are 'hinderers of true religion,' or at best only 'faint professors.' " Depend- ing on the proof already given, our dissent from this writer's conclusions is apparent. It is clear, therefore, that a very thorough and sweeping change was effected. This could have been brought about only by Court influence. In other words, the Parliament was a packed one; and the historian Hume supplies the explanation. "It appears," he says, "that some violence . . . was used in these elections; five candidates were nominated by the Court to each borough, and three to each county ; and by the sheriffs' authority the members were chosen from among the candidates." 2 Hume's statement is based upon a document of the reign of Charles I among Secretary Windebank's papers. 3 With such a subservient Lower House, Elizabeth's ministers got to work. It does not fall within the scope of this survey to consider those measures which were of a purely secular character; but careful attention must be bestowed on all those which in any way tended to bring about or to facilitate religious changes. They fall easily into two groups: those which directly effected a radical altera- tion in the religious polity of the nation and brought into 1 Vol. ii, p. 566. 2 Ed. 1854, iv, p. 7. 3 State Papers collected by Edward, Earl of Clarendon, p. 92. 1/ 56 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT being the Established Church practically as we know it at this day ; and others of a subsidiary character. The first group contains three measures of paramount importance since they effected the severance from Rome, made a break in Catholic usage, and founded a national Church, by striking at Catholic revenues, jurisdiction, and worship. The first, the Bill for the Restoration of Tenths and First Fruits, 1 seized the papal revenues derivable from this country by ancient and long-standing custom, which, though recently abrogated by Henry, had been still more recently restored by Mary. These were finally annexed to the Crown of England. The Bill for the Supremacy 2 wholly abolished the spiritual jurisdiction of the Holy See in this country, and restored to the Crown that ecclesiastical jurisdiction assumed by Henry VIII and Edward VI, but relinquished by Mary. The Bill of Uniformity 3 authorised the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI {i.e., that of 1552) with a few slight alterations, enjoining its exclusive use in divine service, in the administration of the Sacraments, and in the Ordering of Bishops and Ministers, instead of forms found in the ancient Liturgy of the Catholic Church. It would indeed be enough to follow the fortunes of these three Bills without troubling about the remainder, which were really ancillary, supplementing them, but not modifying them. After the formal opening of Parliament by the Queen, on 25th January, both Houses at once settled down to serious work. On Monday, 30th January, the Commons thought well to appoint a Committee to enquire into and report upon a difficulty that had been raised, which, if not at once settled, might cause serious complications by possibly invalidating all their acts. Henry VIII had added to his ancient style and title that of " Supreme Head of the English Church." Edward of course invariably employed the same formula, as also did Mary until such time as by parliamentary action she was free to renounce it and restore it to the Holy See. The writs of summons to her 1 1 Eliz., c. 4. 2 1 Eliz., c. 1. 3 1 Eliz., c. 2. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 57 last Parliament, in 1558, did not contain the recital of this title; those issued for Elizabeth's first Parliament followed this recent precedent. Some one now raised the question whether the omission in Mary's writs had not invalidated all the Acts passed in that Parliament; and if this should prove to be the case, whether the Acts of the present Parliament would not be equally illegal. Four days later the Committee — a strong one of twenty-four members — ■ reported that the said writs were valid and in good form, notwithstanding the omission of the title " Supremum Caput y The objection was a legitimate one, and needed to be met, to secure the acts of the Parliament against possible hostile critics; but the raising of the question at all was significant of the pervading desire to retain, not only the shadow of an empty title, but to secure in addition the substance the words clothed; a substance renounced by Mary as being untenable by her and her successors, since it belonged by right to another. 1 The battle between the old order and the new was opened in the Upper House, where, if some of the peers were hostile or only unreliable, there always remained the solid phalanx of the bishops to contend for the maintenance of the Catholic Faith. Their hands were, moreover, con- considerably strengthened by the action of Convocation. Undoubtedly that particular Convocation was really repre- 1 II Schifanoya did not quite understand the purport of this debate, confounding it with the rumours which must have been already in the air as to the intention to restore the spiritual Supremacy of the Crown. Three days before that Bill was introduced, he wrote thus to Vivaldino: "Here, Parliament goes on briskly, and in the Lower House there was great talk about giving the title of Supreme Head of the Anglican Church {Supremum Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae) to the Queen, much being said against the Church [of Rome] ; but nothing has been yet settled" (Venetian Papers, No. 18, 6th February, 1558-9). On the same date we get the following particulars from another letter : " Respecting the title Caput Ecclesiae, it was debated incidentally, but nothing has been settled or even proposed, but should any motion be made to that effect, as is expected, I hear that many members who have hitherto been silent will commence speaking, so that there will be much matter for debate" {Ibid., No. 19, 6th February, 1558-9). 58 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT sentative of the clergy who had sent their proctors to attend its deliberations. The unanimity displayed by this, the last Convocation held under Catholic auspices, was remarkable, and, if the events of the succeeding twelve months be borne in mind, also not without significance, for therein they discovered their true minds, without coercion or fear of consequences. After several sessions, the Lower House of Convocation drew up a series of " Articles " which were, practically, in the nature of a protest against any contemplated reversion to Edwardine religion, and this they did " for the dis- burdening of their consciences and a profession of their faith." These articles they presented to the Upper House of Convocation on 28th February, 1558-9, begging the bishops to support and lead them in their defence of doctrine and practice. These articles were five in number. 1 The first three will be found to be textually identical with the theses disputed at Oxford in 1 554, "as the great xpirvipiov of Popery" (to employ Strype's description of them), 2 against Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, when they were condemned to the stake for heresy. The fourth upheld the Supremacy as vested in the Holy See, and the fifth claimed for eccle- siastics alone the right and authority of deciding on matters pertaining to Faith, the Sacraments, and church discipline. The others dealt with the doctrine of the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, and the real sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass. It will be seen that these articles covered the main subjects in dispute between the Church of Rome and the Reformers, and ranged the clergy of England through their accredited representatives, on the side of Rome. Attention has already been called (p. 40) to the inferences Mr. G. Child has drawn from the facts ; hence considerable im- portance attaches to this expression of opinion from a body so free from subservience as was the Convocation of 1559. And Mr. Child further deduces that it exercised its freedom " in a much greater degree than any other Convocation of 1 Cf. Wilkins, Concilia, iv, p. 179. 2 Ann. i, p. 56. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 59 the period ; while the completeness with which its decisions were ignored shows clearly how very little the opinions of the Clergy, as a body, really affected the course of the Reformation." ' This deliberate verdict further corroborates the statement already ventured (p. 43) that the shaping of the national Church is largely, if not wholly, the work of laymen. The general inferences to be gathered from this view of the case will become apparent at a later stage of this study of the period; meanwhile the fact remains that when the clergy were free from fear for personal safety, they declared themselves through their representatives in favour of the Roman Faith and the Roman Obedience. It was self- interest alone, the dread of loss of liberty and goods, that in the end prevailed against conscience and conviction. The Lower House, when presenting these Articles to the bishops, requested their lordships to lay a copy of them, by way of petition, before the House of Lords. Their " petition " had been strengthened by the adhesion of both Universities to the first four articles it embodied, their objection to the last being probably due, not to dissent to the principles there enunciated, but to the fact that, in their estimation, not sufficient weight had been attached to their own function as a theological teaching body. Bishop Bonner took charge of the petition, and in due course reported to Convocation that he had presented it to Sir Nicholas Bacon, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, who, according to Strype, " received them [i.e., the Articles], as appeared, gratefully; but gave no answer." 2 The^answer was given in the Westminster Conference, and, still more decisively, in parliamentary legislation. The real attack had been opened in the House of Lords by the introduction of a Bill " for the Restitution of First Fruits and Tenths, and Rents reserved nomine Decimae, and of Parsonages Impropriated, to the Imperial Crown of this Realm." 3 It was read a first time on 30th January, a 1 Church and State under the Tudors, p. 1 80. 2 Ann. i, p. 56. 3 1 Eliz., c. 4. 60 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT second time on the following day, and after the third reading, on 4th February, on being put to the vote, was carried by a majority of thirty-eight, the only dissentients to the measure being the Spiritual Lords. The Bill was then sent down to the Commons, where it was received with all customary solemnities on 6th February, and there read a first time, probably that same day, though no mention of the fact occurs in the Journals of the House. It passed its second reading, however, ten days later, when some amendments were added to it which were read a first and second time on 20th February. The third reading of the Bill (with its amendments) took place next day, 21st February, whereupon, after being voted, it was sent back to the Lords and there straightway read a first time in its amended form. It reached the second reading on 22nd February ; and, though the Journals are silent on the point, it would appear that it was referred to a Committee, for it received further amendment, and, in this form, passed its second reading in the Lords on 13th March, and thereupon it was ordered to be engrossed. The third reading was taken on 15th March, on which occasion it passed with eight dissentients, according to D'Ewes — seven bishops and the Abbot of Westminster. The voting strength that day in the House, either in personal attendance or by proxy, represented fifteen for the dissentients against thirty- six in favour of the measure in that stage — a majority of twenty-one. Once more sent down to the Commons, it was there read the first, second, and third times on 1 6th, 20th, and 22nd March respectively, when it passed, and was returned to the Lords, there to await the royal assent, which it received in due course on 8th May. Attention may now be given to several Bills, which, while bearing, more or less, on the religious question, were mainly non-contentious in their scope. They are of im- portance, however, in this survey, inasmuch as they afford proof that the bishops and others were not unreasonable opponents of all measures indiscriminately; but that, where they could do so without sacrificing principles, they showed ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 61 their loyalty equally with the most demonstrative, and that they did not obstruct merely for obstruction's sake. On ist February, the House of Lords had before it for the first time a Bill for the Recognition of the Queen's Majesty's Title to the Crown. As already narrated, Archbishop Heath, in proclaiming Elizabeth's accession to the throne, had asserted her undoubted right to it by the will of the nation in no uncertain terms. Now, with glad alacrity, the Bill was hurried through the customary stages on ist, 4th, and 9th February, 1 and was passed unanimously, " communi omnium procerum assensu," and was sent forthwith to the House of Commons. Here it was dealt with less expe- 1 Burnet, Hist, of Reform., ed. Pocock, 1865, ii, p. 609. " On the 9th of Feb. the Lords passed a bill for the recognising of the Queen's title to the Crown. It had been considered, whether, as Q. Mary had pro- cured a former repeal of her mother's divorce, and of the Acts passed upon it, declaring her illegitimate, the like should be done now. The Lord Keeper said, the Crown purged all defects ; and it was needless to look back to a thing which would at least cast a reproach on her father; the enquiring into such things too anxiously would rather prejudice than advance her title. So he advised, that there should be an Act passed in general words asserting the lawfulness of her descent, and her right to the Crown, rather than any special repeal. Q. Mary and her Council were careless of K. Henry's honour; but it became her rather to conceal than expose his weakness. This being thought both wise and pious counsel, the Act was conceived in general words, 'that they did assuredly believe and declare, that by the laws of God and of the realm she was their lawful Queen, and that she was rightly, lineally, and lawfully descended from the royal blood, and that the Crown did without all doubt or ambiguity belong to her, and the heirs to be lawfully begotten of her body after her; and that they, as representing the three estates of the realm, did declare and assert her title, which they would defend with their lives and fortunes.' This was thought to be very wise counsel ; for if they had gone to repeal the sentence of divorce which passed upon her mother's acknowledg- ing a pre-contract, they must have set forth the force that was on her when she made that confession ; and that, as it was a great dishonour to her father, so it would have raised discourses likewise to her mother's prejudice, which must have rather weakened than strength- ened her title ; and, as has been formerly observed, this seems to be the true reason why in all her reign there was no apology printed for her mother." 62 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT ditiously, the dates of its three readings being nth and 1 6th February, and ist March, when it was returned to the Upper House (2nd March) in due course, receiving the royal assent at the close of the session. A Bill of somewhat similar import, declaring the Queen to be heritable in law to her mother, the late Queen Anne Boleyn, touched on extremely delicate ground, for the stain on Elizabeth's birth still legally remained; this measure in a roundabout and veiled way affirmed her legal right to inherit through her mother, without referring in express words to the awkwardness of the situation created by Cranmer's decree of nullity. In the Lords the Bill was introduced on 10th February; and so anxious were the peers to give proof of their devotion to the Queen's cause that it passed its second reading the same day, and was ordered to be engrossed. It came up for third reading on the 15th, 1 passed at once, and was sent to the Lower House, where it passed through the usual stages on 16th, 1 8th, and 21st February, when it at once went back to the peers, there to await the royal assent. Two other Bills, also nearly concerning the Queen, were introduced at this time. One, declaring certain offences to be treason, was read in the Lords: the first time on 9th February, the second on 10th February, when it was ordered to be engrossed, and after the third reading on the follow- ing day, it was transferred to the Commons, to be read a first and second time on 15th and 16th of the same month. In committee it received some amendments, and in that form passed its third reading on the 23rd, thereafter return- ing to the Lords to be further considered, on 27th February. The peers seem to have met a committee of the House of Commons in order to deal jointly with the amendments. This conference of the two Chambers took place on 3rd March; but the next stages are involved in a certain amount of obscurity, for a second reading of amendments devised by the Lords is registered by D'Ewes as having taken place on 10th March, while he at the same time 1 Or 16th. Some authorities give one date, some the other. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 63 records, from the Journals of the Upper House, a second reading there of an amendment on the 1 ith, on which occa- sion also it was ordered to be engrossed ; and in the same House the amendment was submitted to a third reading, and passed, on 13th March. Three days later this last amend- ment came before the Commons for its third reading, and was passed. It is not traceable further in the Journals of either House beyond its inclusion in the list of measures receiving the royal assent at the closing of the session. Another Bill, prompted by officiously zealous loyalty to the new Sovereign, was framed to render certain slanderous words against the Queen punishable. The real object of the measure was to close the mouths of such men as had hitherto talked too freely about the questionable nature of her Majesty's title to the Crown according to the laws of primogeniture. This Bill was read in the Lords the first time on 9th February, passing next day to the second reading, when it was ordered to be engrossed, and on the nth was hurried through the third reading and went down to the Commons, where it was read a first time on the 15th, but did not come forward for second reading for nearly a month, 13th March, and reached its third stage on the 17th. Some unrecorded amendment was added to it, it would seem, which engaged the attention of the Lords on 20th March, and was doubtless adopted, as nothing further transpires of the passage of the measure till its inclusion in the list of Bills receiving the royal assent on 8th May. A group of measures may here be mentioned together. As they did not pass through all the necessary stages to the final one of the royal assent, they are in reality of little importance if considered on their own merits. But they are at least of interest, and, indeed, of subsidiary importance, as bearing witness to the temper of the legislative body, and furnish unmistakable indications of the trend of opinion amongst those who wished to bask in the royal sunshine. They fall into three main divisions. The first comprises only one Bill, whose object (" To revive the Act for punish- ment of rebellions "), it is somewhat difficult to determine, 64 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT seeing that the original Bill for Treasons passed its third reading nearly a month before, on 16th March. But as D'Ewes schedules this one as " I nova " when it was intro- duced into the Commons on 13th April, it may, presumably, be taken to represent a suggested amendment to the terms of the original Bill. It passed the second reading, and was ordered to be engrossed on 17th April, and was taken for the third time on the following day. Whether it then went up to the Lords, or whether it was incorporated in the earlier Bill is not disclosed by the Journals of either House. A specially significant measure was introduced into the House of Commons on 8th March. It was a Bill " to restore spiritual persons that were deprived for marriages or heresies, to be restored to their benefices." The object in view was nothing less than an attempt to set aside the Canon Law still in force, and, in fact, to legalise the marriage of the clergy. Henry VIII would have none of it, and one clause of his " Six Articles " enforced the continued observance as of yore of clerical celibacy. The boy-king Edward's Council permitted the marriage of priests, and many availed them- selves of the concession. When Mary's Parliament abrogated the anti-Roman ecclesiastical enactments of her father and brother, one of the first duties to whose performance she applied herself, was to cleanse those parishes which were burthened by it, of the scandal of a clergy living in defiance of this universal law. All beneficed clergy who had taken to themselves wives, were summarily deprived of their livings, unless they consented to put their wives away. This apparently harsh procedure was founded on the ecclesiastical law which rendered clergy incapable of contracting matri- mony, and, therefore, whatever local law might permit, by the Church's law they were living, not in wedlock, but in sinful concubinage. The Bill introduced into Elizabeth's first Parliament was clearly meant to undo Mary's and to restore Edward's Act; but its promoters counted without their new Queen, or had not as yet rightly gauged her sentiments on the subject of a married clergy. No more was heard of the Bill : it was quietly let drop. The Queen's ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT intense dislike for a married clergy must have made it- self known without delay; the measure could not but have been a popular one in a reforming House; only a higher authority which would brook no opposition could have caused it to be so rapidly and summarily shelved. The main object of the Bill was, however, attained in other ways, as will be seen later. This Bill was followed by an equally abortive one: to secure the restoration of certain deprived bishops. Had it passed, it would have benefited old Miles Coverdale, Edwardine Bishop of Exeter; John Scory, Edwardine Bishop of Rochester and of Chichester; John Hodgkyns, Edwardine suffragan Bishop of Bedford ; and William Barlow of Bath, whose consecration is disputed ; but if it indeed took place, was performed in 1536 under the Roman Pontifical, when he was appointed to the See of St. David's. The Bill was introduced into the Lower House on 15th March; but the Journals make no further mention of it till 6th April, when it is entered as the third reading of the Bill " to restore spiritual persons deprived by Queen Mary." This is possibly an oversight, and that the second reading was meant, as it would appear that it was then entrusted to Mr. Goldsmyth and a committee for further consideration, after which it came in again as a new Bill on 27th April, in the form " that the Queen, by com- mission, may restore spiritual persons deprived," when it was read a first and second time, and ordered to be engrossed, according to the Journals; but D'Ewes here differs slightly, as he states that the second reading occurred on 29th April. He agrees with the Journals, however, in fixing the third reading for 2nd May, when it was sent up to the Lords, though no mention of the fact is made in the Journals of that House; nor does it appear amongst the measures which received the royal assent. Nevertheless, the results it was designed to secure were attained as effectually, if not more so, by the Supremacy Act. It was possibly dropped at the last stage, as being superfluous. On 1 6th March another Bill, aiming at the then occupants of the English Sees, was brought before the Commons. If F 66 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT we may trust the records, it never got beyond its first reading. As its purport was " to make lawful the depriva- tion of Bishops and Spiritual persons," it is not improbable that it was dropped because the ground it covered was already occupied by a clause in a much more important Bill to be discussed later on. These Bills were, it can hardly be doubted, introduced as a desperate expedient, when the fortunes of the Supremacy Act were hanging in the balance. Had the plan of restor- ing at any rate three of the deprived Edwardine bishops to their Sees succeeded, their votes would have been in- valuable in the House of Lords, and the loss to the Catholic vote this would have entailed would have added further strength to the Protestant side, for on a division those votes would of course have counted as six. With their failure, however, the Government were placed in an awkward position. To extricate themselves from this, to destroy, if possible, the prestige of the bishops, recourse was had to other measures. The Easter recess gave time to reorganise the plan of campaign; a trap was skilfully baited: the Catholic party stepped into it : the Westminster Conference was held, and two bishops were disposed of. Every effort was made to discredit the Catholic party through the official version of that abortive meeting, and the tide at length began to turn in favour of the Government. The third group consists of six measures. The first of these was a Bill laid before the Lower House on 27th Feb- ruary, "for making of ecclesiastical laws by 32 persons." It reached its second reading on 1st March, was engrossed, and read a third time on 17th March, then, finding its way to the Upper Chamber on the 20th, was read a first time there on the 22nd, after which no more was heard of it in that particular form, though its provisions, whatever they may have been, possibly found expression elsewhere. On 17th March another straw to show the direction of the current was sent down the stream in the Lower House. On that day a Bill " that no persons shall be punished for using the Religion used in King Edward's last year " was ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 67 read a first and second time and was ordered to be en- grossed. It passed the third reading at the next sitting, but then drops out of notice. The object aimed at was secured in a more permanent form later in the session. Meanwhile, the House of Lords had a similar measure before it, " to take away all pains and penalties made for Religion in Queen Mary's time." This was on 20th March, but it appears to have been at once shelved, for its purpose was otherwise attained ; it was as useless as its congener. On 4th April a Bill " for leases to be made by Spiritual Persons " was, in the Upper House, entrusted for further consideration to a committee on which were the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Rutland, the Bishop of Carlisle, Lords Rich, North, and Hastings of Loughborough, and the Abbot of Westminster. What may have been the precise scope of this Bill does not transpire ; probably it was to limit the length of the leases made by ecclesiastics, bishops especially. The Journals for this portion of the session are, however, defective, and no mention occurs of any formal introduction of the Bill, nor is any subsequent allusion to it to be met with. It must have reached a second reading, how- ever, to have been sent to committee. D'Ewes's notes imply as much, as he puts down the first reading for the 4th, and that it went to committee on the 5th. A Bill was introduced in the Lower House on 6th April, very significant in its tendency. It was to secure that all such chantries and colleges as had been granted to King Edward VI should be made over to Elizabeth. It was read a second time on 8th April, after which no more is heard of it; but as it was not ordered to be engrossed, it may be assumed that it was thrown out. Another Bill got a stage further, according to the Lords' Journal, for it reached a third reading. No mention occurs, however, of its having been sent to the Commons, or of any debate upon it in the Lower Chamber. But, according to D'Ewes, the Bill originated there, whence it went to the Lords. It was " An Act for the admitting and consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops," according to the wording of 68 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT the Journals. It was read a first and second time on 22nd March, and passed its third reading on the following day; but there is no further reference to it, and what its final fate was may be left to conjecture: it was certainly not amongst the Bills which received the royal assent on 8th May ; but it may well be that its substance was incorporated in a Bill that will be discussed presently, and hence there was no call for it to reach maturity as a separate measure. Five Bills that received the royal assent and took their place amongst the statutes of the realm yet remain to be dealt with. They are consequently of importance, but in varying degree. Three may be classified as of the lesser grade, and may therefore precede the two of vital interest. All three originated in the Lower House, and may be taken here in their chronological sequence. The first was the " Bill touching Colleges and Chantries surrendered to Henry VIII," ' which was read the first time on 10th March, and came up for second reading on the 20th of the same month, when it was ordered to be engrossed. Its object was to empower the Queen to make laws regulating the government of these institutions. It passed its third read- ing on the morning of 21st March, and was instantly sent to the Lords, who read it the first time in the course of the same forenoon! With almost feverish haste it passed its second reading in the afternoon of the same day, and its third and final reading on the 22nd, and had then merely to await the Queen's assent at the end of the session. 1 The second Bill 2 of importance was to the effect " that the Queen shall collate or appoint bishops in bishoprics ; being vacant." This measure was read a first and second 'time on 21st March, and thereupon ordered to be en- grossed. It passed its third reading next day and was sent to the Lords, where, according to D'Ewes, it was received and read a first time on that same date, 22nd March. The Journals of the House put down its second reading as hav- ing been taken on 6th April, and that it passed its third stage on 7th April, when it was returned to the Commons; 1 1 Eliz. c. 22. 2 1 Eliz. c. 19. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 69 but D'Ewes is categorical in his statement that it was read " tertia vice et conclusa" on Thursday, 23rd March. The Journals record that it was read a third time, and passed on 7th April, and the statement is added that certain Spiritual Peers voted against the Bill, no mention being made of any support being accorded them by any lay lords present on that day. The dissentients were Archbishop Heath, the Bishops of London, Worcester, Coventry and Lichfield, Exeter, Chester, and Carlisle, together with the Abbot of Westminster. The strength of the vote on either side cannot be ascertained. If D'Ewes is right as to 23rd March being the date for the taking of the vote, then the Journals record no sitting on that day. If 7th April be the correct date, then the Journals omit the fact that Drs. Heath and Bonner were in attendance, though they are distinctly stated to have voted in the minority. Under these circumstances, it is enough merely to record the fact that the Bill passed, and was entrusted to the Solicitor- General and Mr. Dr. Vaughan for transfer to the House of Commons. During its passage through the Upper House it had received many additions, and, in its amended form, as it reached the Commons on 7th April, there to be read a first time on that same day, it not only enabled the Crown to take possession of episcopal temporalities during a vacancy, but also to effect a forced exchange of them for a nominal equivalent of tithes and impropriated livings. To what good purpose this measure was put when it had become statute law, the next few months were to show. It was read a second time on 8th April, but D'Ewes says that no mention is made either that it was referred to a committee, or ordered to be engrossed, " because it had been formerly sent from the Lords." This statement may, of course, be referred to the considerable amendments it had received at their hands. Its third reading was taken on 17th April, on which occasion it passed the Lower House, and the numbers for and against it are recorded. This solitary instance is the more valuable, as it shows that the Commons were not so subservient as the Lords ; and 70 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT though those voting in favour of the Bill were in a majority of 44 in a house of 224 members, the 90 of the minority do at least afford a ray of consolation, as representing a solid phalanx of support to old institutions. Even a Protestant historian like Collier was moved to exclaim, "Could I recover the names of those ninety gentlemen who dissented, I would do them the justice to transmit their memory to posterity. But they will suffer nothing by the silence of records. For if the rest of their lives answered this vote, they will always stand in a much better register of honour than history can give them." * Feria's report to King Philip about this Bill is short and to the point. " In the Parlia- ment during these last days they have debated about taking away the valuable possessions of the bishoprics, in order that the Queen may confer them upon whom she wished, and appoint to each bishop by way of compensation, certain tithes, things of small moment and of little worth." 2 II Schifanoya, though less exact in his information, neverthe- less conveyed to the Castellan of Mantua an impression not far removed from the truth. " A statute has been en- acted in Parliament," he wrote, " limiting the revenues of bishops to (I believe) £500 annually, and it seems to me that the bishops will be deprived of all impropriated bene- fices, a great number of which the good and holy Queen Mary had restored to them." 3 The Journals are silent as to the further progress of this Bill through the House of Lords ; but its scope ensured its safe passage. Burnet points out that a similar measure found favour in Edward VI's reign, since the courtiers practically got all the Church lands divided amongst themselves. He suggested that it was currently believed in 1559 that this statute would result in another robbery of the Church without any enrichment of the Crown. I f so, the courtiers of 1 5 59 had not yet learnt to understand Elizabeth's character. 4 1 Eccl. Hist., vi, p. 221. ' l Chron. Belg., No. cccxxxv, i, p. 495, nth April, 1559. ' J Venetian Papers, No. 58, nth April, 1559. 4 " Many had observed that in Edward VI's time under a pretence of ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 71 After what had already passed, it was unlikely that much, if any, opposition would be offered to the Bill for the " Dissolution of Monasteries erected since the death of Edward VI," 1 introduced into the House of Commons on 24th April. On that date it had its first, on the 25th its second, reading, and on the 27th a proviso was added; and in this form it passed its third reading and was sent to the Lords. D'Ewes gives the 29th as the date of the third reading, but the discrepancy is immaterial. The Lords' Journal is silent, but that of the Commons notes that on 6th May the Bill came back from the Lords with three provisos, which had been added by them. D'Ewes supple- ments the Journals in some small degree, noting that on 28th April provisos to this Bill were read in the Commons a first and second time, that on the 29th they passed the third stage, and that the Bill was then sent to the Lords, whence it returned on 6th May, " with three provisos of their lordships." Though the details may be defective, the result is definite enough. The Bill became law; and, thereby, Dartford, Sheen, Greenwich, St. Bartholomew's, Smithfield, and Westminster ceased to exist after a short renewal of conventual activity.* From the first, the result giving some endowments to the Crown, the courtiers got all the Church- lands divided amongst themselves ; so it was believed the use to be made of this would be the robbing of the Church, without enriching the Crown." — Hist. Reform., ed. 1679, pt. ii, pp. 394-5. ' 1 Eliz. c. 24. 2 On 2nd May II Schifanoya informed the Castellan of Mantua that " Parliament will rise this week, the two Houses having enacted that all the convents and monasteries of friars, monks, nuns, and Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem are to be suppressed as hereto- fore, and all these religious to be expelled. Such of them who will take the oath against the pontifical authority, and approve the new laws, abjuring their own professions, are to receive pensions for their maintenance ; but the greater part of them have left the kingdom in order not to take such an oath " ( Venetian Papers, No. 68). Though this statement was slightly premature, II Schifanoya had realised that the final steps could not be averted. On 4th May, Tiepolo wrote to the Doge of Venice that "in the Lower House fresh measures have been proposed and they talk about expelling the friars and nuns, the 72 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT was so far a foregone conclusion, that II Schifanoya wrote thus, on 25th April, to Vivaldino: "Already in the Lower House they have carried the Bill to expel all friars and monks, nuns and hospitallers, destroying everything, and assigning the revenues to the Queen, who will gain but little in the end; for they all make demands of her — some for a piece of land, some for a garden, some for a house, and some for the fee simple of estates for their residence; nor can she refuse, not having anything else to give them, from the poverty of the Crown ; so for this reason every- thing will go to the bad. There is no doubt of the Bill passing, as it favours personal interests, and also because they will not hear mention made of friars or nuns, whom they call 'rabble.'" 1 It now remains to consider in some detail the two most I important Acts passed in this momentous session. The one is the Act repudiating the Supremacy of the Pope and annexing that Spiritual Headship to the Crown; 2 the other was for the purpose of establishing the Book of I Common Prayer, and the rites and ceremonies to be observed in the parliamentary Established Church. 3 The former of these two measures was, of course, the corner stone of the edifice of the Establishment: on it all else depended. It occupied the attention of the legislators in both Houses throughout the session, and, as it was frankly recognised, it overshadowed in importance all other business. The battle raged so fiercely over it, passions were so aroused by it, that it has become impossible to follow the measure through all the stages and changes necessitated by violent and strenuous opposition in both Houses. Nevertheless, the main features of the discussion come out with sufficient clearness for all practical purposes in the Journals of the Houses and in Sir Simon D'Ewes's account of the parliamentary transactions of that period. result being very doubtful"— a piece of optimism not justified by the events of the preceding three months. (Cf. Venetian Papers, No. 69.) 1 Venetian Papers, No. 64. 2 1 Eliz. c. 1. 3 I Eliz. c. 2. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 73 The Bill took its rise in the House of Commons, where it was read arrTrst time on 9th February. As it was then worded, it was " A Bill to avoid," that is, to eject or annul the papal Supremacy; but, for obvious reasons, this title was at a later stage altered to that under which it now stands in the statute book : " An Act to restore to the I Crown the ancient jurisdiction over the estate ecclesiasti- cal and spiritual, etc." The former was too crude, as frankly expressing the real state of the case — a break with the past; the second conveyed the impression of securing a return to a former condition. Much as rumour had spread abroad that a change in religion was about to be effected in Parliament, the terms of the Bill must have been unsatisfactory, or they must have come almost in the nature of a surprise to those who were not cognisant of the secret meeting which had taken place in Canon Row; and time was needed to grasp the significance of its clauses. Recourse must be had to some such explanation to account for the fact that no further discussion is recorded as following this first reading for four days; but the 13th, 14th, and 15th of February were devoted to debating the terms of the measure. Though it is not so stated in the Journals, it is probable that the second reading took place on the 13th. On that day II Schifanoya wrote to Vivaldino, and his remarks evidently refer to the debate following the introduction of the Bill. " The affairs of religion in this kingdom are going from bad to worse," he said, "although a proposal was twice debated, and not carried, to give her Majesty the title of Supreme Head of the Anglican Church; yet from what is seen, it will inevit- ably pass. They have already settled to give back to the Crown all the benefices and tenths, which for conscience' sake had been restored by the late Queen, none of whose Acts now remain valid, those of Cardinal Pole likewise being annulled." 1 On 15th February the Bill was com- mitted to Sir Anthony Coke and Mr. Knollys, two ardent champions, be it noted, of the new order. Nearly a week 1 Venetian Papers, No. 23. 74 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT passed, while it was being subjected to revision ; and then on 2 1 st February it again came before the House, on which date it was entered in the Journals as a first reading, with the significant addition of ' nova,' showing that in the interval it had been practically remodelled. What were the differences between the original draft, as it was read on 9th February, and the revised version, as it was presented on the 2 1st, will, perhaps, never be known ; one thing, how- ever, is evident: so energetic had the opposition been to the original draft that its promoters found it expedient to modify its terms to avoid the danger of its being thrown out altogether. On 22nd February it passed its second reading, and was ordered to be engrossed; and on the 25th it was read a third time : an indication that it met with a more favourable reception from the members after having under- gone its pruning ; for the expedition of the later stages is in somewhat marked contrast with the leisureliness of the previous week. In the Journals of the Lower House it is entered on 25th February, as " the Bill for Supremacy of the Churches of England and Ireland, and abolishing of the Bishop of Rome." It contained some provisos con- nected with certain petitions about matrimonial dispensa- tions lately made to Rome, with the object doubtless of giving point to the necessity of keeping such applications for settlement in the Consistorial Court of Canterbury. 1 Feria throws some light on the methods by which the Bill was apparently jockeyed through the Lower House by Cecil. Writing to King Philip, on 26th February, he said: " I hope to see her [the Queen] to-morrow and speak to her about the matter of religion, because yesterday those of the Lower House of Parliament voted that the supreme ecclesiastical power should be attached to the Crown of the 1 Cf. Acts of the Privy Council, vii, p. II, 1st December, 1558. "A letter to Sir Edward Carne at Rome, requiring that forasmuch as he was heretofore placed there as a public person by reason of his ambassade, he should therefore from henceforth forbear to use his authority in soliciting or procuring of anything in the matter of matri- mony depending between Mr. Chitwood and Mr. Tyrrell." ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 75 kings of England, notwithstanding that some spoke in favour of moderation, in so much that it was necessary, in order to succeed with his iniquitous scheme for Secretary Cecil to throw the matter into confusion, and so passed it. 1 To-morrow the Bill will go to the Upper House, where the bishops and some others are resolved to die sooner than agree to it because they [the reformers] seek to bring it to pass that the entire kingdom shall swear to observe this clause, and that those who refuse to do so shall be ac- counted traitors, as in the time of King Henry."" As Feria had stated, the Bill was sent to the Lords on 27th February, its committal from the Commons, and its reception in the Upper House on the same date being both scrupulously recorded in the Journals. It was read a first time in the Lords on 28th February. Then an interval of a fortnight occurred before the second reading was reached on Monday, 13th March. That interval of supposed rest is but apparent : due to the silence of the Journals as to any intermediate debates. But II Schifanoya has preserved for us the fact that a fierce contest had been waged during that time. Writing on 14th March to Vivaldino he said: " Although the Lower House passed the Bill appointing Queen Elizabeth Supreme Head of the Church, neverthe- less, in the Upper House, after very great altercatio?i and disputes on the part of the bishops and of other good and pious peers, the question has been consigned to silence for the . last few days. . . . But in the meanwhile the Court preachers, in the presence of her Majesty and the people, are doing their utmost to convert the latter, seeking to prove by their false arguments that the Pope has no authority, and uttering the most base and abominable things that were ever heard against the Apostolic See. 3 1 " De manera que fue necesario, para salir con su maldad, que el Secretario Sicel se metiese la cosa en garbullo, y asi paso." The con- temporary English phrase ran: "to throw into a garboyle." - Chron. Belg., No. CCCIII, i, p. 444. 3 This corroborates Cox's own statement to Weidner, that he and others had been " thundering forth in our pulpits, and especially before 76 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT For this and other reasons many persons are of opinion that the Bill will pass the Upper House likewise, against the consent of the prelates and of other pious lay peers, as will be known in the course of this week, for they talk of proroguing Parliament before the end of the month." 1 -Mr. Maitland, discussing this debate in the Cambridge Modern History, says that the bishops were opposed to the Bill because in it they saw " a measure which would leave the lives of all open Romanists at the mercy of the Government." 2 That is a true statement,as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. Such a motive, though adequate in itself, by no means accounts for their opposition, as their subsequent history attests. It is absolutely certain that the sole principle for which they were fighting was the pre- servation of the unity of the Church. To return, however, to the Bill. D'Ewes has preserved for us the names of the Peers, Spiritual and Temporal, to whom the Bill was entrusted for revision in committee on 13th March. Two bishops, Turberville of Exeter, and Oglethorpe of Carlisle, were assigned a place on this com- mittee, and they had the support of the Marquess of Win- chester, the Earls of Westmoreland and Shrewsbury, Viscount Montague, and Lords Morley, Rich, and North; while those whose sympathies were more or less openly with the reformers were the Duke of Norfolk, the Earls of Rutland, Sussex, and Pembroke, and Lords Clynton and Willoughby. As the terms of the original Bill are not known to us, it is impossible to state what precise form the labours of this committee finally assumed, since the changes they may have suggested were, possibly, incorporated in the Bill as it was voted upon. On 15th March it is simply recorded that there was read a first time the " Bill agreed our Queen Elizabeth, that the Roman Pontiff is truly antichrist, and that traditions are for the most part mere blasphemies. At length many of the nobility, and vast numbers of the people, began by degrees to return to their senses, etc." (1 Zur., p. 27, No. 11, 20th May, 1559)- 1 Venetian Papers, No. 40. s Vol. ii, p. 567. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 77 upon by the Lords to be annexed to the Bill of Suprem- acy." Mr. Maitland, however, says in the Cambridge Modern History x that " the project had taken a far milder form ; forfeiture of office and benefice was to be the pun- ishment of those who would not swear." So far as may be gathered, the original draft contained clauses to regulate the liturgical services; in committee these proved so ob- noxious to the majority that they were eliminated. Thus much appears from the account written by II Schifanoya, a portion of which evidently refers to the work of this com- mittee. "The Earl of Pembroke, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Viscount Montague and Lord Hastings [of Loughborough] did not fail in their duty like true soldiers of Christ to re- sist the Commons, whom they compelled to modify a book passed by the Commons forbidding the Mass to be said or the Communion to be administered except at the table in the manner of Edward VI ; nor were the divine offices to be performed in church; priests likewise being allowed to marry, and the Christian religion and the Sacraments being absolutely abolished; adding thereto many extra- ordinary penalties against delinquents. By a majority of votes they have decided that the aforesaid things shall be expunged from the book, and that the Masses, Sacraments, and the rest of the divine offices shall be performed as hitherto; but some persons say that this decision cannot last long, the Catholics insisting at any rate on retaining the Mass, the Offices, and the rest of the Sacraments, and the Protestants insisting on the contrary. Although the latter increase in number, they are not so powerful as the Catholics, who comprise all the chief personages of the kingdom, with very great command in their estates, having also many followers ; and the greater part of the common people out of London, in several provinces, are much attached to the Roman Catholic religion." 2 It was this failure on the part of the Government to secure a parliamentary abolition of the Mass which was responsible for a royal proclamation, as recorded by II 1 Vol. ii, p. 567. - Venetian Papers, No. 45, 21st March, 1558-9. 78 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT Schifanoya. " During this interval they had ordered and printed a proclamation for everyone to take the Communion in both kinds (sub utraque specie). Some other reforms of theirs had also been ordered for publication, but subse- quently nothing else was done, except that on Easter Day her Majesty appeared in chapel, where Mass was sung in English, according to the use of her brother, King Edward, and the Communion was'received in both kinds, kneeling . . . nor did he [the celebrant] wear anything but the mere surplice, having divested himself of the vestments in which he had sung Mass; and thus her Majesty was followed by many Lords, both of the Council, and others." ' From this digression a return must be made to the pro- ceedings in Parliament. The Journals of the Upper House merely mention, that on 17th March, the second reading " for certain provisos and amendments to be put in the Bill of Supremacy," passed, and the order for engrossing was made, as before stated; and that next day, 18th March, it passed the third reading, notwithstanding the opposition of the Spiritual Peers, namely, the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Winchester, Worcester, Llandaff, Cov- entry and Lichfield, Exeter, Chester, Carlisle, and the Abbot of Westminster, supported by the Earl of Shrews- bury and Viscount Montague. Feria furnishes a few valuable details, such as the absence of some of the peers, and he evidently ascribed their non-attendance to antipathy to the Bill yet a lack of courage to be found amongst its open opponents. " This is how things stand up to the present moment," he wrote to Philip. " All this time these heretics have been endeavouring to see how they could attain what they had before proposed ; and, for the sake of peace, on Wednesday, the 1 5th of this month, they proposed 1 Venetian Papers, No. 51, 28th March, 1559. The proclamation referred to was issued on 22nd March, and is thus entered in Dyson's Proclamations of Q. Eliz. : "A Proclamation for the execution of the Act of 1 Ed. VI, made against such as speak unreverently of the Sacrament of the Altar, and commanding that the same Sacrament should be received in both kinds," fol. 5. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 79 what had been introduced at the opening of Parliament, but in more moderate terms, so that, as regards the Su- premacy, she might take the title if she wished to, in any case rejecting the Pope's authority; and that all who held office or benefice of the Queen, should take an oath, and that if they refused it, that they should suffer deprivation ; and for the same offence that all ecclesiastics [would be de- prived] of their offices and benefices, that graduates of the Universities and Fellows of colleges would lose the places and emoluments which they hold. All voted in favour of this except the Earl of Shrewsbury, Lord Montague, the bishops, and the Abbot of Westminster. I believe that some of the lords were not present; but I shall find out more exactly how each one acted so as to inform your Majesty. . . . Paget did not leave his house because he had a double quartan, and was very unwell." 1 Later on, Feria bore testimony to Paget's evident earnestness. " Paget is better," he wrote, "and has gone twice or thrice to the palace in a litter. . . . He is greatly persecuted and out of favour; and wishes to assure me that he is sound in religious matters." 2 In the earlier despatch, Feria rightly told his royal master that it would be well to look into the conduct of these peers, many of whom were in receipt of pensions from Philip, and to consider the advisability of transferring his bounties elsewhere. " All these bishops are determined to die for the Faith, and in such a way that your Majesty would be astonished if you realised how firm and praiseworthy they have been and are. If I had money and permission from your Majesty I would spend it to better profit in giving it to them, than in paying pensions to these false men who have thus bartered God and the honour of His kingdom." Then his foresight failed him, for he continued: "I am convinced that religion will not be overturned here, because the Catholic party is greater than the rest by two-thirds." 3 1 Chron. Belg, No. CCCXXli, i, p. 475, 19th March, 1558-9. 2 Ibid., No. cccxxxv, i, p. 494, nth April, 1559. 3 Ibid., i, p. 475, /// supra. So ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT On 1 8th March, as an inspection of the Journals attests, the distribution of the voting strength in the Lords was as follows: Forty-five Peers, Spiritual and Temporal, were present, and the proxies held by one or another brought up the votes cast to seventy-two. Twenty-eight might have been at the service of the Catholic party as against forty- four controlled by those leaning towards reform, leaving the victory in their hands by a margin of sixteen votes. This is based on the most favourable estimate of the strength of the Catholic interest ; but if D'Ewes be correct as to the names of those who alone stood by the past against innovation, a revision of the distribution must be made, and the votes must have been, Content, 52; Non- Content, 20; or a majority of thirty-two against the bishops. It will readily be seen that under no circum- stances could they have prevailed against such odds; hence the pluck they displayed in their fight cannot but commend them to us even at this distance of time, as it did to those who were witnesses of the stand they made against the encroachments of heresy and secularism. The speeches delivered by Archbishop Heath and Scot, Bishop of Ches- ter, have been preserved, and will repay perusal. 1 The Archbishop opposed the transfer of Supremacy from Pope to Queen on the ground that forsaking the Holy See in- volved the abandonment of all the General Councils, of all the canonical and ecclesiastical laws of the Church of Christ, of the judgment of all other Christian princes, of the unity of the Christian Church, and " by leaping out of St. Peter's ship, hazard ourselves to be overwhelmed and drowned in the waters of schism, sects, and divisions." His strongest point, however, was to show, in considering the nature of the Supremacy, that it was neither within the competence of Parliament to bestow such a power, nor within that of the Sovereign to accept it. The Bishop of Chester further developed a portion of his Metropolitan's 1 They need not here be reproduced, as they are available in print, being given more or less in extenso in Strype, Collier, Parker's Synodalia, Tierney's Dodd, etc., etc. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT Si argument, laying stress on the importance of working for unity rather than with a view of multiplying divisions, and pointed out that even at that date there were " thirty-four sundry sects in Christendom." He, moreover, reminded his hearers that what had been done in Henry VIII's reign had been ultra vires, and that those who had brought about the schism had repented of it, or had helped later to undo their own handiwork. But the majority was not to be per- suaded either by the earnestness or the eloquence of the prelates; and the Bill, having passed the Upper House, was immediately sent back to the Commons, where it was received the same day, Saturday, 18th March. The Lower House set to work upon " the proviso and reformation in the Bill of Supremacy " on Monday, 20th March, and got through the second and third readings on the two following days, and forthwith sent back the result of their delibera- tions to the Lords, who, if the Journals may be trusted, pushed them through three readings on that very day. The Journals are obscure, but it is possible that these hasty divisions were taken over a new proviso stated to have been added in the House of Commons. The prelates were the only dissentients. D'Ewes says: " these popish clergymen, who having before opposed in vain the passing of the Bill on Saturday, 18th March, do here likewise do their utter- most to stop even the proviso which was added unto it by the House of Commons." II Schifanoya, writing to Vivaldino on 21st March, evidently refers to this difference of opinion which had manifested itself between the two Houses, when he said : " The members of the Lower House, seeing that the Lords passed this article of the Queen's Supremacy of the Church, but not as the Commons drew it up — the Lords cancelling the aforesaid clauses, 1 and modifying some others — grew angry, and would consent to nothing, but are in very great controversy, as they must of necessity ratify what the Lords have done in the Upper House. From this discord still greater good is anticipated." a 1 See ante, about liturgical matters. 2 Venetian Papers, No. 45. G 82 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT Considerable obscurity here hangs over this much-de- bated Bill for the Supremacy. The Journal of the Lords registers the provisos as passed on 22nd March. Nothing more, therefore, should have been heard of the Bill if things had taken a normal course, till the Queen's assent was given to it at the end of the session. But II Schifanoya wrote to Vivaldino on 28th March, 1559, informing him that " Parliament was not only prolonged till last Wednes- day, but has been sitting ever since, these ' Fathers ' being unable to agree ; as, although they had passed the clause about the Supremacy of the Church, they did so under such restrictions that the Commons would by no means consent to it. They are therefore in greater discord than ever, and on Thursday after the Easter holidays, they will sit again and re-consider the matter, which is committed to four good and Catholic bishops, and to four of their Protestants." ' Meanwhile Feria, in one of his interviews with Elizabeth, expostulated with her as to what was going on in Parliament as regards religion. She assured him that she did not intend to call herself " Head of the Church," 2 and a few days previously she had explained to him that, " as regards the title of ' Head of the Church,' she would not take it ; but that they sent every year so much money out of her kingdom to the Pope, that she could not otherwise remedy it," 3 thus seeking to justify the projected schism. Hence Feria ventured to suggest to his royal master that " it would be well that the Pope were informed of the way in which what has been done in Parliament against religion has been effected ; because it is very dif- ferent from what took place in the time of Kings Henry and Edward; and if he [the Pope] decided to proceed against the Queen and the kingdom, he should except the bishops and others who opposed them in Parliament, and the ecclesiastics who had met in Convocation in the great church of London, who drew up a document very Catholic 1 Venetian Papers, No. 51. 2 Chron. Belg., No. CCCXXVli, i, p. 482, 24th March, 1558-9. 3 Ibid., No. cccxxn, i, p. 475, 19th March, 1558-9. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 83 in tone, protesting that they confessed the Catholic Faith, and did not agree to the discussion of points adverse to it . . . and also all the Catholics in the kingdom who had no voice in Parliament [i.e., in the election of its members], who are the majority of them; and to my mind, it is of great importance that, in a Bull, this distinction should be made, to favour and encourage the Catholics, and to bring confusion and shame on the heretics." l Easter had come and gone, the prorogation which had been in contemplation had been perforce abandoned since the main work of the session still dragged on ; a hence, as the point of the royal Headship seemed to be the principal bar to progress, 3 Sir William Cecil, seeking to find a way round the difficulty, came down to the Lower House on 1 oth April, bearing a royal message. Feria thus described the situation to King Philip: " The Queen has declared in Parliament that she did not wish to call herself [Supreme] Head of the Church; whereupon the heretics were dis- pleased. Yesterday Cecil went to the Lower House and said to them on the Queen's behalf that she thanked them greatly for the good will with which they offered her the title of Supreme Head of the Church, but, out of humility, she did not wish to take it, and ordered them to devise some other form to express the Supremacy and Primacy. He was answered that this was contrary to the Word of God and the Gospel, and that they wondered that each day he should come to them with new and contradictory pro- posals." 4 However, though the temper of the House seemed to be none too complaisant, a Government Bill, already drafted, was then and there introduced, 10th April, and 1 Chron. Belg., No. cccxxvn, i, p. 483, 24th March, 1558-9. 2 Cf. Venetian Papers, No. 51, 28th March, 1559. 3 II Schifanoya wrote on 28th March : " I do not believe the report that the Queen, seeing the opposition to her title, Sufiremum Caput Ecclesiae Anglicanae, has determined her no longer to accept it " ; and on nth April " The title of ' Supreme Head of the Church ' passed through the two Houses, but her Majesty is expected for some reason not to accept it" {Venetian Papers, No. 58). 4 Chron. Belg., No. cccxxxv, i, p. 497, nth April, 1559. 84 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT read a first time, D'Ewes in his Journal calling it " a new Bill to avoid the usurped power claimed by any foreigner in this realm, and for the oath to be taken by spiritual and temporal officers." It may here be asked in what this Bill differed from its predecessor? D'Ewes suggests an ex- planation, but was more in the fog about the actual facts than we are; he had not the advantage of Feria's cor- respondence. " Whether the many new additions and altera- tions in this foregoing Bill had made some confusion in it, or that the House of Commons disliked that their Bill formerly passed with them had received so much reforma- tion in the Upper House, or for what other cause I know not; most certain it is, that they had no desire the said former Bill should be made a perpetual law by her Majesty's royal assent; and thereupon they framed a new Bill to the like purpose, in which I suppose they included also the substance of all the additions, provisos, and amendments which the Lords had annexed to their former Bill." The liturgical portion of the old Bill did not find a place in this one; it was reserved for separate treatment. In this truncated form it passed its second reading on 12th April, was ordered to be engrossed, and came up for third reading on 13th April. The following day it was sent up to the Lords. It is clear that this prolonged discussion inspired Jewel's words to Peter Martyr: "Meanwhile many altera- tions in religion are effected in Parliament . . . they are not yet publicly known, and are often brought on the anvil to be hammered over again." ' In the Lords the Bill was once more subjected to close criticism, the first reading being taken on 15th April, and on 17th April, after its second reading, it was entrusted to a special committee 2 for further consideration. 1 1 Zwr., p. 18, No. 6, 14th April, 1559. 2 Consisting of the Duke of Norfolk (Prot.) ; the Earls of Arundel (Cath.), Shrewsbury (C), Worcester (C), Rutland (P.), Sussex (P.), Bedford (P.); Viscount Montague (C); the Bishops of Ely (C.) and Carlisle (C.) ; Lords Clynton (P.), Howard of Effingham (P.), Rich (C), Hastings of Loughborough (C), and St. John of Bletsho (P.). ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 85 While the Bill was still in their hands (for the protracted period of nine days) Feria wrote to Philip: "The Queen having told Parliament that she did not wish to take the title of Head of the Church, and having ordered them to devise another form, they have granted her the title of Governess [Gobernadora] of the Church, seeming to think that this form is different to the other. In the same Bill it is decreed that those who refuse to accept it, shall lose their places and emoluments if servants or officials of any degree whatsoever of the Queen ; if ecclesiastics or prebendaries in colleges, they shall lose their dignities, benefices and prebends; to which is further added that any who shall harbour or help any of these with their goods or in any other way, shall incur the same penalty, and their lives shall be at the mercy of the Queen — a form of penalty contained in one of the statutes of the realm entitled Praemunire, which they now apply to this case. This Bill has already passed in the Lower House ; in the Upper it has been read, and the Archbishop of York has opposed it." 1 II Schifanoya, writing on 25th April to Vivaldino, said : " On my return to London, I find that Parliament has come to no further conclusion about the title ' Supremum caput in terris Ecclesiae Anglicanae' because her Majesty does not wish it; but they have settled for her to be Governess-general of spiritual and temporal matters in this kingdom." 2 The conclusions arrived at in committee were submitted to the House of Lords on 26th April, when the Bill passed its third reading and was sent back to the Commons with a proviso added. No further reference to it occurs in the 1 Chron. Belg., No. CCCXXXVIII, i, p. 502, 18th April, 1559. In this long letter Feria thus writes of Heath, Watson, and Thirlby : " He of York is a good man ; and never can England have had such bishops. The others [Watson and White] still remain prisoners, he of Lincoln very ill. It would be a great loss if he were to die, because he is a man of greater vigour and learning than the rest. . . . The Bishop of Ely has done well up to now in the affairs connected with religion ; but here they entertain but a low opinion of him." 2 Venetian Pafiers, No. 64. 86 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT Journals, so it may be taken for granted that the Lords' amendments were acceptable to the Commons; and when the royal assent was given to the Bill on 8th May, that recension which we have represents the draft sent down by the Lords, agreed to in the Lower House; and when the Bill was enrolled amongst the statutes of the realm, England was once more severed from Rome and from the unity of Christendom by Act of Parliament. This most important Act, placing England once more in a state of schism, may be thus summarised. It repealed Mary's Act of repeal, thus reviving certain statutes made under Henry VIII, 1 and one passed during Edward's reign. 2 It also repealed the statute of I and 2 Phil, and Mary, c. 6, which had revived the heresy Acts. As to its own new legislation, all foreign authority within the Queen's dominions was abolished; ecclesiastical jurisdiction was annexed to the Crown; ecclesiastical commissioners were to be appointed, by whom the oath of Supremacy provided by the Act was to be enforced on those liable to take it ; the form of the oath was incorporated in the Act, and graduated penalties of deprivation, fine, imprisonment, and death were to be incurred by those refusing the said oath. Recalcitrants were, moreover, incapacitated from holding various offices in Church and State, with this limitation, that those who held office and refused the oath and were therefore deprived, were to be restored to the use and exercise of their said office if they subsequently submitted and complied with the Act. It may be noted in passing that no provision was made for the benefit of ad interim holders of such offices ; but as such a case never de facto occurred, the objection and conjecture are purely of aca- demic interest. There remains for consideration the Act of Uniformity which carried the nation once more beyond the point where 1 23 Hen. VIII, c. 9; 24 Hen. VIII, c. 12; 24 Hen. VIII, c. 20; 25 Hen. VIII, cc. 19, 20, 21; 26 Hen. VIII, c. 14; 28 Hen. VIII, c. 16; 32 Hen. VIII, c. 38; 37 Hen. VIII, c. 17. 2 1 Ed. VI, c. 1. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 87 Henry VIII had placed it, and restored the conditions that prevailed under his son and successor, Edward VI. As early as 16th February, 1558-9, a " Bill for Common Prayer and administering the Sacraments" passed its first reading in the House of Commons, where it had been in- troduced ; but nothing further seems to have come of it — at least for the time being. The explanation is not, per- haps, far to seek. Convocation, in the name of the English Church, was speaking just then with no uncertain voice in favour of the old order; and those whose avowed and de- termined purpose it was to subvert this, felt they would be on unsafe ground till they had such a trusty weapon in their hands as was provided by the Supremacy Act, in the oath with its attendant pains and penalties. When, how- ever, this Act was so far forward as to be practically safe, there would appear to have been no longer any hesitation about proceeding with the ancillary Bill ; hence on Tues- day, 1 8th April, it reappeared in the Commons in a slightly altered form, at least as to title; and the "Bill for the unity of the service of the Church and ministrations " was read the first time. Heylin throws some useful light upon the policy underlying the measure; but neither he, nor possibly those who were in the first instance responsible for it, fully appreciated the fundamental differences which caused the cleavage between Catholics and Protestants, and that, explain it as they would, retain what they would, expunge what they would, the reformers could never make the new form of worship acceptable to Catholics, if it were to be suitable to their own wants and beliefs. As has been said epigrammatically: " It is the Mass that matters" — no substitute can be found for that. Heylin states ' that in revising the copy of Edward's Book of Common Prayer, annexed as a schedule to the Act of Parliament, " great care was taken for expunging all such passages in it as might give any scandal or offence to the popish party, or be urged by them in excuse for their not coming to church. ... In the Litany . . . there was a prayer to be delivered 1 Hist, of Reform., ed. 1670, p. ill. 88 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT from the tyranny and all the detestable enormities of the Bishop of Rome, which was thought fit to be expunged. . . . In the first Liturgy of King Edward, the Sacrament of the Lord's Body was delivered with this benediction. . . . ' The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for the preservation of thy body and soul to life everlasting: the Blood, etc.,' which . . . was altered unto this form in the second Liturgy. . . . ' Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving: Take and drink, etc' But the revisers of the Book joined both forms together, lest under colour of rejecting a carnal, they might be thought also to deny such a Real Presence as was defended in the writings of the ancient Fathers. Upon which ground they expunged also a whole Rubric at the end of the Communion Service [tending to the denial of a Real Presence]. And to come the closer to those of the Church of Rome, it was ordered by the Queen's Injunctions that the sacramental bread . . . should be made round, in fashion of the wafers used in the time of Queen Mary [etc.]. By which compliances, and the expunging of the passages before remembered, the Book was made so passable amongst the Papists, that for ten years they generally repaired to their parish churches, without doubt or scruple, as is affirmed not only by Sir Edward Coke . . . but also by the Queen herself, in a letter to Sir Francis Walsingham . . . the same confessed by Sander also in his book de Schismate." 1 On 19th April the second reading was taken, and the Bill was engrossed. After it had passed the third reading on 20th April, it was sent to the Lords on the 25 th by the hands of Sir Anthony Coke and others. Here, in D'Ewes's Journal, it first received the title by which we know it: " A Bill for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the Church, and administration of the Sacraments." 1 This quotation is given for what it is worth : it contains inaccuracies, as for instance about the attendance of Catholics at Common Prayer, which will be dealt with later; but it serves to show how an effort was made to render the book palatable to the Catholics. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 89 D'Ewes also states that its first reading took place on 26th April, followed by the second on the 27th, and it may be presumed that the third reading was passed on the 29th, though this is not mentioned. It was in opposition to the second reading, no doubt, that the Bishop of Chester made a vigorous speech, and was supported by the Abbot of Westminster in an equally plain-spoken denunciation of it. 1 Feria, writing on 29th April to King Philip, further records that " the Bishop of Ely to-day spoke in Parliament very well and very Cathohcly, saying he would sooner die than consent to any change of religion. 2 Thirlby, the bishop referred to, had been absent on embassy till the latter part of April. Immediately on his return, however, he had taken his stand alongside his episcopal brethren, and in person ratified what hitherto had been voted for him by his proxy. But no matter how strenuous might be the efforts of the bishops, they were of little or no avail against the element frankly favouring reform, and the larger section of the peers who had not the courage of their inmost convictions and were apparently afraid of in- curring the royal displeasure. The attendance on 29th April and the voting strength it represented are not known to us; we do know, however, that those who voted " not con- tent " were the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Ely, Worcester, Llandaff, Coventry and Lichfield, Exeter, 1 Parker's Synodalia, C.C.C.C. ; Cotton MSS., Vesp. D. 18, and many printed sources : Strype, Collier, Dodd, etc. 2 Chron. Belg., No. cccxlii, i, p. 514. Jewel, writing to Peter Martyr, said : " The cause of the Pope is now agitated, and with much vehemence on both sides. For the bishops are labouring that they may not seem to have been in error, and this delays and hinders the progress of religion ; but it is indeed no easy matter to accelerate its course, as the poet says, with such slow-paced horses. Feckenham, the Abbot of Westminster, in order, I suppose, to exalt the authority of his own profession, in a speech that he made in the House of Lords, placed the Nazarites, the prophets, nay, even Christ Himself and His Apostles in the monastic orders ! No one more keenly opposes our cause than the Bishop of Ely [Thirlby], who still retains his seat in Parliament, and his disposition along with it" (1 Zur., p. 20, No. 7, 28th April 1559). 90 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT Chester, Carlisle, the Marquess of Winchester, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Viscount Montague, and Lords Morley, Shef- field, Dudley, Wharton, Rich, and North — eighteen peers in all; but with the proxies held by some, counting about twenty-five votes. Other lay peers, however, must have absented themselves on one pretext or another on the crucial day, for Feria, writing to Philip two days after the closing of the session, informed him that "the saying of : the Office in English and the giving up of the Mass passed by three votes only in the Upper Chamber, and with much opposition from the bishops and certain peers." 1 1 Chron. Belg., No. cccxlvi, i, p. 519, 10th May, 1559. The follow- ing passage from Mr. F. \V. Maitland's chapter on the Elizabethan settlement of religion, in the Cambridge Modern History, ii, p. 569, will serve to show that the views quoted above find acceptance by responsible historians to-day. " In the last days of an unusually long session," he writes, "a Bill for the Uniformity of Religion went rapidly through both Houses (i8th-28th April). The services prescribed in a certain Book of Common Prayer, and none other, were to be lawful. The embryonic history of this measure is obscure. An informal com- mittee of Protestant divines seems to have been appointed by the Queen to prepare a book. . . . Our guess may be that, when men were weary of the prolonged debate over the Supremacy, and its con- tinuance was becoming a national danger (for violent speeches had been made), the Queen's advisers took the short course of proposing the Book of 1552 with very few changes. . . . The changes sanctioned by Parliament were few. An offensive phrase about the Bishop of Rome's 'detestable enormities' was expunged, apparently by the House of Lords. An addition from older sources was made to the words that accompany the delivery of the bread and wine to the com- municant, whereby a charge of the purest Zwinglianism might be obviated ... a certain 'black rubric' which had never formed part of the statutory book fell away. . . . But to return to Elizabeth's Parliament, we have it on fairly good authority that nine Temporal Lords, including the Treasurer (the Marquess of Winchester) and nine prelates (two bishops were in gaol) voted against the Bill, and that it was only carried by three votes. Unfortunately, at an exciting moment, there is a gap, perhaps a significant gap, in the official record, and we cease to know what lords were present in the House. But about thirty Temporal Peers had lately been in attendance, and so we may infer that some of them were inclined neither to alter the religion of England nor yet to oppose the Queen." ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 91 Bishop Scot and Abbot Feckenham, in their speeches against the Bill for Uniformity, had challenged their hearers to produce a single instance where the bishops were not consulted and listened to in a controversy of this kind. The Bill became law without one single episcopal vote in its favour. This fact has been animadverted on as rendering the whole passage of the Act illegal and invalid, and thus invalidating subsequent legislation based upon it. In a paper drawn up in James I's reign, or possibly in that of Charles I, it is said: "The aforesaid Act of 1 Eliz. seemeth not of force, having been enacted without any consent of the Lords Spiritual, as appeareth in the con- text, but only of the Lords Temporal and Commons; and by necessary consequence, all penal laws made with refer- ence to this seem also ipso jure, not to have force of parlia- mentary laws, supposing that the presence of the Lords Spiritual be necessarily required to a Parliament, as the lawyers seem to judge." ' It is vain, however, to specu- late; the only useful method is to accept the fait accompli as the final arbiter. Had peers voted according to con- science, had so many Sees not then been vacant, had all the bishops been free (whereas some were ill, some in prison), there can be no doubt that the "change of re- ligion " would have been averted, for a time at least, and the new Prayer Book would have been rejected. As it 1 State Papers, collected by Edward, Earl of Clarendon, pp. 91-92. A recent writer admits that this aspect must be taken into account. Referring to the deprivation of the bishops in 1559, he says the lawyers questioned the legality of the proceedings against them " on the ground that they were made the victims of laws which concerned the ecclesi- astical polity, but which they, the ecclesiastical authorities, had never accepted on behalf of the Church. The lawyers' scruple was per- fectly justified — the proceedings were irregular," he admits, "the ecclesiastical changes of both the Supremacy Act and the Uniformity Act ought, properly speaking, to have received that ' assent of the clergy in their Convocation ' which the Supremacy Act itself recognised to be the proper authorisation, reinforced, if need be, by a ratification of Parliament, in questions of ecclesiastical legislation " (Frere, A Hist. 0/ the Engl. Church in the reigns of Eliz. and fas. I, p. 39). 92 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT was, however, the Elizabethan settlement of religion is based upon the infallibility of the odd three 1 to whom Feria referred. The day after this momentous conclu- sion was reached, Edwin Sandys, in a letter to Matthew Parker, made some interesting remarks, showing how the returned exiles now looked expectantly for the dawn of better days for themselves. " They never ask us in what state we stand, neither consider that we want; and yet in the time of our exile we were not so bare as we are now brought. But I trust we shall not linger here long, for the Parliament draweth towards an end. The last Book of Service is gone through with a proviso to retain the orna- ments which were used in the first and second year of King Edward, until it please the Queen to take other order for them. Our gloss upon this text is, that we shall not be forced to use them, but that others in the mean time shall not convey them away, but that they may remain for the Queen. " After this Book was passed, Boxall and others quarrelled with it, that according to the order of Scripture we had not gratiarum actio, ' for,' saith he, ' Dominus accepit pattern, gratias agit, but in the time of consecration we give no thanks.' This he put into the Treasurer's head, and into the Countie de Feror's [Feria's] head, and he laboured to alienate the Queen's Majesty from confirming of the Act, but I trust they cannot prevail. Mr. Secretary [Cecil] is earnest with the Book, and we have ministered reasons to maintain that part." 2 The Act of Uniformity, technically known as " i Eliz. c. 2," may be thus summarised. Mary's Act (i Mary, Sess. 2, c. 2), repealing Edward VI's ecclesiastical legisla- tion, was repealed, and Edward's Book of Common Prayer (with the alterations and additions already indicated) was re-established. Penalties of deprivation and imprisonment for life, as also heavy fines, were to be incurred by those presuming to use any other form of divine service or adminis- 1 Cf. Gasquet, A Short Hist, of the Cath. Church in Engl., p. 77. 2 Parker Corresp., No. 49, p. 65, 30th April, 1559, where the writer's Christian name is given as Edmund : a palpable error. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 93 tration of the Sacraments, or for speaking against the Book of Common Prayer, from and after the Feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist next ensuing (24th June, 1559) after the passing of the Act. The archbishops and bishops were empowered to employ Church censures in enforcing the terms of the Act; Justices of the Peace were enjoined to hear and to deal with the cases arising out of its enforce- ment. The ornaments of the Church and the ministers were to continue till further notice as they had been appointed by authority of Parliament in the second year of King Edward VI, the Queen reserving to herself the right, if need should arise, of ordaining further rites and ceremonies. A final clause enacted that all ordinances, etc., establishing, etc., other services, were to be utterly void and of none effect. It is this clause which renders the Established Church hide-bound and unable to develop according to the wishes of a section of its more ardent or advanced members. But the Establishment was created by the law, is maintained by the law, and must perforce abide by the law, so long at least as it continues to be, as its legal title proclaims, the " Church of England as by Law Estab- lished." Legislation might sanction changes; as, indeed, it did a few years later: not in altering the status or the doctrine of the Church, but only in increasing the severity of the penalties for non-conformity with the standard fixed by the Act of Uniformity of 1559. It may be stated broadly that what Parliament made the Church of England in 1559, that it has been ever since, that it is now, and that it must and will continue to be till Parliament shall be pleased to sanction' any alteration. Such an eventuality does not seem to be within the range of probability, more especially as Parliament is now composed of many hetero- geneous, not to say conflicting, elements. The House of Commons embraces within its ranks members of the Estab- lished Church, sectarians of every shade of opinion, Jews, Agnostics, Freethinkers, and a fair proportion of adherents of that Church against which the religious enactments of 1 559 were mainly, if not wholly, directed. 94 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT The first Parliament of Queen Elizabeth had now done its work, and was dissolved by the Queen in person on 8th May, on which date she gave her royal assent to forty- two Bills which had been before the two Houses during the past session. Not all of these Acts concerned the question of religion ; of those in any way bearing on that burning topic, and briefly referred to in this chapter, ten found a place amongst the statutes of the realm; but none were of such vital and far-reaching importance as the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity. They are the foundation stone and the keystone of the establishment. Their application in practice and their incidence during the next few years of settlement must therefore engage the attention of any student of Elizabethan religious policy and politics. Much of our information as to details about this eventful Parliament has come down to us, strange to say, from foreign sources — from keen, observant ambassadors. Feria, to whom we owe so much, left England shortly after the close of the session, and was replaced by Alvaro de Quadra, Bishop of Aquila. This prelate was of Bolognese descent on his father's side, Spanish on that of his mother. He became Bishop of Venosa in 1542, and was translated to the See of Aquila in 1 55 1. In his estimation, ecclesiastical dignities were but a means for raising him in the favour of his Sovereign, and he had already acquitted himself of various diplomatic missions, when he was appointed ambassador in London, in succession to Feria. " He rejoiced greatly at it," he wrote to Granvelle, Bishop of Arras, above all, because by this means he could quit the Church, wherein, from a worldly point of view, it was impossible to attain either honour or power, and he had felt no desire to embrace the ecclesiastical state, to which he had taken, only in the hope of a seat at the Council. 1 Although, on another occasion, he proclaimed himself a philosopher, 2 this did not prevent him from regarding his diplomatic career as a purgatory, and from registering the determination to abandon it, especially 1 Cf. Chron. Belg., No. ccccxxi, ii, p. 11, 2nd September, 1559. 2 Ibid., No. ccccxxxix, ii, p. 49, 3rd October, 1559. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 95 if he could attain to a Cardinal's Hat or the Archbishopric of Toledo. 1 Brantome, who had seen Quadra in England, gives him the character of being a straightforward prelate, worthy of the post he filled; but he thought it curious that a Catholic bishop should be at the Court of a Protestant Queen, who appeared to make much of him, and that he was there the representative of a monarch who, Catholic as he was, sent a Huguenot ambassador to the Pope. 2 Alvaro de Quadra had said of himself that he was not so much a bishop as the ambassador of the King of Spain. 3 Greedy of luxury and ostentation, though without the means of gratifying his tastes, 4 too given to pleasure, for which he occasionally expressed his remorse, he owed the influence he undoubtedly exercised in England to two characteristics very different from those just referred to. He never hesitated to employ extreme boldness and firmness in his dealings with Elizabeth and Cecil, and, in the pur- suit of his intrigues, he showed untiring activity. Such was the man who took up Feria's work at a critical and interesting moment. He wrote his first despatch to King Philip on the 24th May, 1559, from London, inform- his royal master that his predecessor had just presented him to Queen Elizabeth. 5 Not many days elapsed before he reported that the Act of Supremacy so lately passed was being put into execution by the tendering of the oath. Shortly after, 19th June, he not only told Philip that the said Act had been put in force against some of the bishops, and that Bonner and the Dean of St. Paul's had been 1 Chron. Belg., No. CCCCLXVin, ii, p. 88, 12th November, 1559, to Feria ; No. dcxxiv, p. 366, 30th April, 1560, Granvelle to Aquila; No. dlxxv, p. 250, 7th March, 1560, to Feria; No. dccclx, iii, p. 12, 30th April, 1562, to Granvelle. 2 QLnvres de Brantome, ed. Lalanne, iii, p. 96. 3 Chron. Belg., No. dcclxiv, ii, p. 563, 4th May, 1561, to Cecil. 4 Ibid., No. ccccxxv, ii, p. 21, 9th September, 1559, to Feria; No. CCCCXLii, p. 56, 5th October, 1559, to Granvelle. 5 Ibid., No. CCCLI, i, p. 524. 6 Ibid., No. cccliv, i, p. 532, 6th June, 1559. g6 ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT deprived, but he also showed that the Act of Uniformity was coming into operation, even before the statutory date (24th June); for the form of divine service had been changed at the Cathedral, and the Blessed Sacrament had been removed therefrom on Sunday, nth June. 1 This letter is of particular value, as it shows how quickly Quadra was making himself conversant with our laws, and it corro- borates the view already quoted as to the illegality of the Act of Uniformity, for he points out that difficulty would be experienced in legalising Bonner's deprivation, because he says that those learned in such questions even then held that the bishops could not be deprived for disobeying that statute, since they had all along opposed it; it was held that it could not have the force of law according to the customs of the country, for it had received the support of no portion of the ecclesiastical body, either in Convocation or in the House of Lords. He also stated that a certain hesitancy in proceeding with the deprivations was ob- servable, and ascribed it to the fact that the Goverment realised the difficulties in which they would involve them- selves if they persevered as they had begun ; and yet, so long as they delayed, there was no chance of effecting the religious changes to which they had made up their minds. During the past half century, it has been the object of a certain school of historians here in England to prove that what took place in Elizabeth's reign, notably as a result of the legislation of the Parliament of 1559, was not a change of religion ; but as England refused to acknowledge the Supremacy of the Holy See, the Church of Rome broke away from that of England. Hence, the present "Church of England, as by Law Established," is by unbroken continuity one and the same with that which existed here before the great schism under Henry VIII. The despatches of these episcopal and ambassadorial onlookers which have here been so frequently put under contribution are espe- cially valuable in this connection, for, as if foreseeing the interpretation which a future age would seek to put on the 1 Chron. Belg., No. CCCLVI, i, p. 537. ELIZABETH'S FIRST PARLIAMENT 97 events of which they were eye-witnesses, keen, alert, and well-informed, they explained what was passing under their very eyes with a candour and frankness that carry the stamp of truth and reliability, for they were writing their secret despatches meant primarily for the eye of their royal master. To him, and to us, they make it clear that the rupture was sought here, not in Rome; that it was the work of Parliament; and the measure of the change wrought was to be gauged by the resultant difference that marked off the adherents of the new order from themselves. It is admitted that in Mary's reign the religious status of Eng- land was restored to what it had been before Henry VIII's rupture with Rome: therefore, to what it had been at any period since, say, the Norman Conquest. The Bishop of Aquila died, as he had lived, in union and in unison with Rome, and he was also one in Faith with the episcopate of England as he found it on his arrival ; hence he could only deplore the rapid overthrow of the old order. With such facts before the impartial enquirer, there is but one answer to be given to the query, did Rome drift away from England, or did England drift away from Rome? The question presented itself in only one aspect to those who were the actors in these events, and they, at least, knew what they were about, what were the actual facts. It is suf- ficient to refer to the secret meeting at Canon Row, without seeking quotations from the writings of the period, to show that the purpose of the adherents of Elizabeth was to break away from Rome. It may be conceded that many of the re- formers thought that in following the line they had marked out for themselves, they were going back to a primitive usage from which the Church of Rome had gradually re- ceded. That is not the point. It is not now a question as to the corruptness or otherwise of the Church of Rome, but whether the Church as established by law in 1559 is essen- tially the same as that which existed before the breach with Rome. Whatever views may be put forward at this day, it is clear that those who helped to effect the change meant to create something entirely different. And they succeeded. H CHAPTER III THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE, MARCH— APRIL, I 559 THE meeting of certain reformers at Sir Thomas Smythe's house in Canon Row previous to the open- ing of Parliament, and the measures there concerted for effecting a change in religion, were indicative of the aggres- siveness of the adherents of the new order. The correspond- ence of this period reveals the high hopes entertained by the men who had been such a short while before exiles in Frankfort, Geneva, Strasburg, and elsewhere on the Con- tinent. No sooner had they learnt that the breath was out Queen Mary's body, than they commenced to flock back to their native shores, sure of countenance and preferment. In October, 1558, they would not have dared to show their faces in England, for very fear of their necks ; in January 1558-9, they were already discussing the division amongst themselves of the ecclesiastical spoils. Hence the measures introduced in Elizabeth's first Parliament fed their hopes; and a jubilant note may be heard in the letters written by the advanced guard of the returned exiles to their yet laggard brethren in Germany. Thus Thomas Sampson, writing to Peter Martyr exactly a month after Elizabeth's accession, says: "In case this Queen should invite me to any ecclesiastical office, such, I mean, as the government of a Church, . . ." 1 Ardent reformer though he was, he quite looked to bask in the sunshine of the royal favour, though further down in the same letter he disclaims any such ambition. " As far as I am personally concerned, I am not writing as if I were expecting anything of the kind 1 1 Zur., p. 1, No. 1, 17th December, 1558. 98 Emery Walker phoic {National Portrait Gallery SIR NICHOLAS BACON LORD KEEPER THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE 99 . . . but I ask your advice . . . that in case of any such event taking place, I may be the better prepared how to act." Three days later, Edwin Sandys, on the eve of setting out on his journey to England, wrote to Henry Bullinger, asking him " to entreat God in behalf of the Church of England, and of us, miserable ministers of the Word, upon whom a heavy and difficult burthen is imposed." l Jewel, writing to Peter Martyr, on 26th January, 1558-9, tells him that he has heard that Sandys, Home, and others had reached England, and " that their return was very accept- able to the Queen, and that she has openly declared her satisfaction." ' Then follows a letter from the same writer to the same correspondent, dated 20th March, 1558-9, 3 from which it will be necessary to make a lengthy extract, both because of its intrinsic interest, and as introducing the particular event here to be discussed. " I found ... on my return home," he writes, "... the Roman Pontiff was not yet cast out; no part of religion was yet restored; the country was still everywhere desecrated with the Mass ; the pomp and insolence of the bishops was unabated. All these things, however, are at length beginning to shake and al- most to fall. " The bishops are a great hindrance to us ; for being, as you know, among the nobility and leading men in the Upper House, and having none there on our side to expose their artifices and confute their falsehoods, they reign as sole monarchs in the midst of ignorant and weak men, and easily overreach our little party, either by their numbers, or their reputation for learning. The Queen, meanwhile, though she openly favours our cause, yet is wonderfully afraid of allowing any innovations; this is owing partly to her own friends, by whose advice everything is carried on, and partly to the influence of Count Feria, a Spaniard, and Philip's ambassador. She is, however, prudently and firmly and piously following up her purpose, though somewhat more slowly than we could wish. And though the begin- 1 I Zur., p. 6, No. 2, 20th December, 1558. - Ibid., p. 6, No. 3. 3 Ibid., 1, p. 10, No. 4. ioo THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE nings have hitherto seemed somewhat unfavourable, there is nevertheless reason to hope that all will be well at last. In the meantime, that our bishops may have no ground of complaint that they are put down only by power and authority of law, a disputation is determined upon, wherein nine on our side, namely, Scory, Cox, Whitehead, Sandys, Grindal, Home, Aylmer, a Cambridge man of the name of Ghest, and myself, are to confer upon these matters before the Council with five bishops, the Abbot of Westminster, Cole, Chedsey, and Harpsfield. Our first proposition is, that it is contrary to the Word of God, and the practice of the primitive Church, to use in the public prayers and administration of the Sacraments any other language than what is understood by the people. The second is, that every provincial Church, even without the bidding of a General Council, has power either to establish, or change, or abrogate ceremonies and ecclesiastical rites, wherever it may seem to make for edification. The third is, that the propitiatory Sacrifice, which the Papists pretend to be in the Mass, cannot be proved by the Holy Scriptures. " The first discussion is to take place on the 3 1 st of March. The bishops in the meantime have been long mightily ex- ulting, as though the victory were already achieved." This letter was followed by another on 6th April, in which Jewel gave Peter Martyr his account of what took place when the champions of the Old and of the New Learning met. 1 From this and other sources we are able to reconstitute the proceedings. Lingard 2 says that the opposition to religious change was so manifest, both in Convocation and in the House of Lords, that " to dissolve or neutralise this opposition an ingenious expedient was devised." Representatives of each party " received the royal command to dispute in public on certain controverted points." Froude is equally clear in his understanding of the underlying motives. " The Mass still continued; the Catholic ritual had possession of the ' Cf. I Zur., p. 13, No. 5, 6th April, 1559. 2 Hist. Engl., ed. 1825, vol. vi, pp. 356-7. THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE 101 Churches, and the Litany with parts of the Communion service alone as yet were read in English. The clergy, with remarkable unanimity, had pronounced against all change ; and decency required that for a religious reformation there should be some semblance or shadow of spiritual sanction. . . . On the 31st [March] therefore, there was held in West- minster Abbey a theological Tournament." ' After pointing out that the Catholic party was designedly placed at the disadvantage of always having to open the debates, he remarks : " They did not and would not understand that they were but actors in a play, of which the finale was al- ready arranged, that they were spoiling its symmetry by altering the plans." 2 That this is the accepted explanation of the inception of this famous meeting is also clear from Richard Cox's narrative of the event, written for the in- formation of his friend and fellow-reformer, Wolfgang Weidner. " The bishops, the Scribes and Pharisees opposed it 3 in . . . Parliament; and because they had in that place but few who durst even open their mouths against them, they always appeared to gain the victory. Meanwhile, we ... are thundering forth in our pulpits, and especially before our Queen, Elizabeth, that the Roman Pontiff is truly Antichrist, and that traditions are for the most part mere blasphemies. At length many of the nobility, and vast numbers of the people, begin by degrees to return to their senses ; but of the clergy none at all. For the whole body remain unmoved. . . . The matter at last came to this, that eight [Catholics] were to dispute concerning some heads of religion with eight [reformers]." 4 Dr. Cardwell says, 6 that Elizabeth, or her Council, warned 1 Hist, of Engl., vol. vii, pp. 72-3. 2 Ibid., p. 75. 3 I.e., " the sincere religion of Christ." 4 I Zur., p. 27, No. 11, 20th May, 1559. It is hardly worth while reconciling the discrepancy between those who give eight and those who give nine champions to each side. Sandys is usually omitted from the list of the reformers, and Abbot Feckenham from the Catholic side. It is, however, of little consequence whether there were "eight, nine, or ten," according to the royal Injunctions. 5 History of Conferences, p. 24. 102 THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE by the strong tokens of hostility exhibited in Convocation and Parliament to the projects of reform which were before them, and by " the great influence of the Romanists in the country at large," . . . resolved upon withdrawing the Bill of Uniformity for the present, and adopting some method of turning the stream of public opinion more strongly in favour of the reformers. She decided upon a conference between the most eminent divines of the two rival parties . . . being convinced that whatever in other respects might be the issue of it, much advantage would be obtained for the direction of her future measures." The conference once decided upon, the next thing to be done was to settle the details of procedure. This was effected in consultation with Archbishop Heath. The only widely known account of these details hitherto accessible to the general public comes to us from the Protestant side alone, which, in face of the manipulation both of documents and evidence practised at that period, engenders suspicion of its entire impartiality and accuracy, telling, as it does, strongly against the Catholics and as strongly for the Protestants. 1 An independent Catholic account, now avail- able, 2 controls or checks the other, corroborating it, or indicating points that needed fuller explanation and elucida- tion. According to the traditional version, certain members of the Privy Council approached the Archbishop of York (Nicholas Heath), with the request that he would arrange with the other bishops to appoint from eight to ten theo- logians to confer in public disputation with as many 1 Cf. The Declaration of the proceeding of a Conference begun at Westtninster the last day of March, 1559, concerning certain articles of religion, and the breaking up of the said Conference, by default and contempt of certain Bishops, parties of the said Conference. From the original among Abp. Parker's papers in Library of C.C.C.C., vol. 121, entitled Synodalia. Cf. also Burnet, Hist. Reform., ii, p. 483 ; Collier, Eccl. Hist., vi, pp. 197, sqq. A longer and more minute account of this Conference is given by Foxe, Acts and Monuments, viii, pp. 679, sqq., ed. 1839. 2 Catholic Record Soc, vol. i. Dr. Nicholas Sander's Report to Cardinal Moroni, pp. 3, sqq. ; 26, sqq. THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE 103 reformers. The bishops expressed their willingness to accept the challenge, and, in Archbishop Heath's words, " to render an account of their faith in those matters . . . although they thought the same so determined, as there was no cause to dispute upon them." ' The Queen, or the promoters in her name, expressed the wish that the conference should be conducted by written papers " for avoiding of much altercation in words." 2 Then, under cloak of deference to the dignity of the episcopate, an insidious trap was laid, the effect of which could not have been perceived at the time, or surely the bishops would have demurred to it at once. " The said bishops should, because they were in authority of degree superiors," so ran the official account, " first declare their minds and opinions to the matter, with their reasons in writing. And the other number ... if they had anything to say to the contrary, should the same day declare their opinions in like manner. And so each of them should deliver their writings to the other to be considered what were to be improved therein, and the same to declare again in writing at some other convenient day; and the like order to be kept in all the rest of the matters." 3 It will be noticed that, by this arrangement, the last word was secured in each debate to the reformers, an obvious and one-sided advantage; and as the papers the latter were to bring prepared were clearly not answers to those of the Catholics, but would contain their own independent exposition of the subjects under discussion, the effect produced by them on the bystanders was calculated to sink deepest and to leave the most lasting impression on their minds. It is matter for surprise that this result was not foreseen by the bishops. The official narrative merely says that " all this was fully agreed upon with the Archbishop of York, and also signified to both parties." 4 In the face of what sub- sequently happened, it may reasonably be doubted whether this is an accurate record of what really took place. Indeed, 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., in, No. 54. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 104 THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE Sander gives a different complexion to the incident. He says, writing in the middle of 1561, only slightly more than two years after, be it remembered : " And because in that controversy they [the reformers] thought they would have it all their own way, they moved some councillors belonging to their faction to institute public disputations, in which Lutherans should take the judges' seats, and without ado pass sentence in favour of the heretics. To be brief, the bishops were warned to prepare themselves for disputations in six days. But they, simple men, made answer that they were secure against all assailants. . . . They would therefore not institute a controversy, as plaintiffs, as if uncertain of their cause; but, on the con- trary, being in possession, would leave it to their opponents to bring proof before a lawful judge. . . . And although the judge was not then known, yet confident in the good- ness of their cause, they left themselves in the hands of the Council." * Neither account records any drawing up of terms in writing signed by the opposing parties. Possibly all was arranged verbally at a personal interview with Archbishop Heath. In any case the preliminary negotiations occupied some days, as hinted at by Sander. In the first place, the three subjects for debate were announced. Then, " the next day, the Catholics met to choose, according to the custom of the Schools, the person to defend the Catholic cause, and they elected Doctor Cole, Dean of St. Paul's in London. On the third day the question began to be considered in what language the discussion should be held. For, as the Lutherans wished it to be in the vulgar tongue, the Catholics applied to the Queen that it might be in Latin, and when they seemed to have gained that point, they were on the fourth day given to understand that all would be carried on in the vulgar tongue. Then the Catholics began to perceive that nothing was intended except that they were to be overcome by a constant change of proceeding while yet unprepared. Lastly, on the day 1 " In potestate senatus." Cath. Rec. Soc, i, pp. 26, 27. THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE 105 appointed for the disputation, the Catholics were asked whether their arguments would be written down." ' A clear misunderstanding was here and hereby created, whether intentionally or not it may be impossible, perhaps, to de- termine; but suspicion is aroused against the good faith of the reformers, in the light of the subsequent proceedings. The Catholics replied that " they much wished that what passed in the discussion should, in order to avoid mis- representation, be reduced to writing, believing that this would be done by notaries there present," 2 which course would certainly seem to be the more usual and satisfactory. Under these conditions, Catholics and Reformers were ready to enter the lists of debate, before a specially selected audience, which consisted largely of the nobility and of members of Parliament, the sittings of both Houses having been specially suspended to enable their members to attend the Conference, which was to be held in Westminster Abbey. The official report states that "both for good order, and for the honour of the Conference, by the Queen's Majesty's commandment, the Lords and others of the Privy Council were present, and a great part of the nobility also." The Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, Sir Nicholas Bacon, acted as President or Chairman, though Collier observes " not that he had any commission from the Queen to determine between the parties, or overrule any point in the controversy." 3 This is an important admission; for, such being the case, whence did he assume authority to commit two of the bishops to the Tower for alleged con- tempt of his ruling? According to Sander, " some of the Council sat by his side, among whom was the Archbishop of York." 4 The Conference was opened on 31st March, 1559, the Catholics being on one side of the Abbey Choir, the Reformers opposite, and the President, with the others, being seated at a cross table. When, as by agreement, the bishops were called upon to open the debate, and Dr. Cole 1 Cath. Rec. Soc, i, 27. 3 Ibid. 3 Eccl. Hist., vi, 198. * Cath. Rec. Soc, i, 27. 106 THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE commenced his speech, he was stopped, and the Catholics were required to put in their written defence of the first proposition. They replied that they had none: that they had not so understood what was required; but that they were prepared to meet their adversaries in verbal debate, and so to argue the first point. As Archbishop Heath is credited both by Foxe and Strype with the suggestion that the Conference should be by way of written papers, the unpreparedness of the Catholics would be simply inex- plicable and inexcusable under any other supposition than the one already suggested. Much has been made of the fact that they could not have been so unprepared as they alleged, since Dr. Cole, who was "the utterer of their minds, who, partly by speech alone, and partly by reading of authorities written, and at certain times being informed of his colleagues what to say, made a declaration of their meanings and their reasons." l This fact is appealed to as a proof that the Catholic party was fully prepared, and as an argument against the statement that Dr. Cole's speech was extempore. But such a subterfuge should surely be dismissed as unworthy of serious consideration, for it is merely playing with the usually accepted employment of the word extempore. Dr. Cole's speech was extempore, inas- much as it was not a written oration fully completed in all its parts beforehand, nor was it of the like nature learnt by rote. Extempore also means the delivery of a speech, the matter of which had been prepared beforehand, but the form being left to the ready eloquence of the speaker at the moment of delivery. This does not preclude, but pre- supposes a careful previous study of the subject, with authorities copied out ready for reference, to be read ver- batim when they should be wanted. Such a method also admits of the speaker's memory being aided by colleagues with suggestions and notes, — additions to the matter he had himself collected. The Bishop of Winchester (White) explained the reason of their not having a paper prepared ; after some arguing 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., ill, No. 54. THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE 107 they were allowed, as already stated, to make a verbal defence of the Catholic standpoint in support of the use of Latin in the services of the Church. If we were to accept, without further enquiry, the account of Dr. Cole's speech furnished to Peter Martyr by Jewel 1 as anything else but a jocose though spiteful travesty of his powers of oratory, it would be difficult to recognise therein any signs of the learning for which, as attested by Leland and Ascham, he was famous. * When at last Dr. Cole opened the Conference, he ob- served, as recorded by Sander, " that he had come not so much to speak as to refute what might be put forward on the opposite side." Dr. Sander furnishes the heads of his speech, which thus proves to be a well-ordered and power- ful argument, very unlike Jewel's version of it. He con- concluded by exclaiming: " Now I await the arguments of our adversaries, to which, when I shall reply, it will be evident that what I have said is true." Sir Nicholas Bacon then asked if the Catholics had any further arguments to adduce: to which they answered that they had nothing more to say "before the disputation: one preface was enough." This was certainly a clever manoeuvre to obtain the wind-gauge, but it was not allowed to avail them. The Reformers were then called upon to reply, and Dr. Robert Home (soon to be " restored " to the Deanery of Durham, and later to become Bishop of Winchester) undertook the task, in a paper which has come down to us intact 3 — cer- tainly able, but full of sophistries. The Catholics had previously obtained the concession that they might prepare their written statement, embodying Cole's speech, ready for the next meeting; but when Dr. Home had concluded the reading of his paper "the bishops, thinking that all these things were merely introductory, expected that he would have put the arguments into syllo- 1 1 Zur., p. 14, No. 5. 2 Cf. Wood, i, p. 155 ; Cooper, i, p. 417 ; Dodd, i, p. 520; Diet. Nat. Biog., xi, p. 266. 3 Cf. Strype, Ann., i, App. xv. 108 THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE gistic form," that is, that the real debate would then be commenced. " But the Moderator, as had been settled between him and the Lutherans, demanded that the speeches of each side should be given to him. ' What speechl 1 asked the Catholics; 'What Cole said, he de- livered not as a complete exposition of his case, but merely as an opening with which disputations usually begin.' ■ Have you then nothing in writing on the topic? ' " rejoined Bacon. " When the bishops had answered that it was not usual to debate in writing, the Moderator replied : f But so it was agreed amongst you.' The bishops admitted that mention had been made of writing, but that they had understood differently, viz., that the arguments were to be reduced into writing after having been verbally recited, and not that the whole was to be delivered in the form of a continuous speech [or treatise]. The Moderator laughed scornfully, appearing as if he had already gained the victory, and ordered the Catholics to write what they had said, and what they intended to say. The bishops asked time to do this, and also that the speech of their opponents should be issued to them. Two days were given for writing out what they thought fit on that day's topic ; and it was arranged that in future each party should afterwards de- liver its speeches to the other. It was further ordered that they should also prepare for the second question against the same day." l The meeting was then adjourned till the following Mon- day, 3rd April. It is evident that during the interval the bishops had realised the serious disadvantage in which the Catholics were placed by the opening of each discussion being left to them. Accordingly, in order to manoeuvre themselves out of this prejudicial position, when the Con- ference met again on 3rd April, Dr. White, on behalf of his colleagues, demanded that what they had put into writing during the adjournment in defence of the first proposition might then be read. The Lord Keeper, however, ruled that the Catholics were to open the discussion on the 1 Cath. Rec. Soc, i, p. 29. THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE 109 second point. Sander says that " the bishops were sur- prised at this ; for though they had prepared what to say on the second question, they objected to enter upon it until the first was finished. In the first place they respectfully asked that, as the Lutherans had given public utterance to their opinions, by which the people might be led into schism, they might be allowed in like manner to read in public what they had now brought in writing. The Moder- ator replied that if they had anything written they might leave it with him, but should not read it in that place or on that day, as they must now proceed with the second question." 1 A lengthy argument thereupon arose, growing more heated as it proceeded ; and Dr. Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, roundly declared that they were not being allowed fair play. Dr. Bayne, of Coventry and Lichfield, also demanded an impartial hearing: that they might "be heard with indifferency." They appealed for an observance of the ordinary form of procedure both in School disputa- tions and in legal pleadings: that one who attacks estab- lished conditions should commence a discussion, and that the upholder of accepted usages should answer: that the plaintiff always opens a case, the defendant following. And since the Catholic doctrine was, as it were, on trial, that in each proposition it was impugned, it was only in accord- ance with precedent that the Reformers who sought to over- turn it and wanted change should open their batteries on those who were purely on the defensive in their support of accepted and long-standing doctrine. The Lord Keeper, however, was obdurate on the point of adhering strictly to the order as originally agreed upon : the bishops were now equally firm in their determination to suffer no further prejudice to the Catholic cause. There was a deadlock, all the other disputants supporting Watson and Bayne, with the exception of Abbot Feckenham, who, " though declar- ing that the demand made to them was unjust, neverthe- less, having been so brought up, that he could never fear a heretic, he would not refuse to dispute on the second ques- 1 Cat A. Rec. Soc, i, p. 30. no THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE tion." Sander, who reports this compromise for peace' sake, evidently disapproved of so conciliatory a concession, for he says that " the others, with reason, differed from this opinion." It at least showed that the unwillingness of the Catholics did not proceed from any desire to shirk the en- counter, but that they were fighting in an honest endeavour to secure some measure of fair play and impartiality. But Bacon availed himself of the advantage the recalcitrance of the Catholics appeared to give him, and the Conference was accordingly broken up, the Lord Keeper dispersing the meeting with the ominous words: " My lords, sith that ye are not willing, but refuse to read your writing after the order taken, we will break up and depart; and for that ye will not that we should hear you, you may perhaps shortly hear of us." 1 And they did; for that very afternoon the bishops were summoned to the palace. What precisely took place there is nowhere recorded. It may be surmised that they had to appear before the Council, but this is not definitely stated. However, in the Acts of the Privy Council under that date, it is noted that a letter was sent " to the Lieutenant of the Tower, with the bodies of the Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln, whom he is willed to keep in sure and several ward." In other respects they were to be treated in accordance with their rank, in parti- cular Dr. Watson, who was at that time in indifferent health. The Privy Council was not, however, content with these measures of severity, but deputed two of its members, Sir Ambrose Cave and Sir Richard Sackville, "to repair to the houses of the said Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln, here in London, and both to peruse their studies and writings, and also to take order with their officers for the surety and stay of their goods."" The other disputants were bound over in their own recognisances to appear daily before the Council, or, if attending Parliament, before the Lord Keeper, till judgment should be passed upon them. Their several appearances are recorded in the Council 1 Foxe, Acts and M on., ed. 1839, viii, p. 692. 2 Vol. i, p. 263. THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE in Register till ioth May, when they were all subjected to a heavy fine, varying in each case according to the degree of the opposition they had offered to Sir Nicholas Bacon at the Conference. 1 The official account 2 of this celebrated meeting, furnished the version of it which it was desired that the public should accept. Even in that one-sided statement, it is impossible not to see that a hard measure of justice was meted out to the Catholic champions: indeed, that fair play was denied them. When another contemporary account is consulted that conviction is strengthened. The Count de Feria sent a full and minute description of the Conference to Philip the day after its close, and the details it contains shows that he must have been present, and therefore his evidence is important as being that of an eye-witness. 3 Feria's version proves the substantial accuracy of the official one; but it brings out clearly the points there glossed over. Before, however, considering that important letter, it will be well to bring into the light some of the inner history of the inception of the Conference, which may be gathered from a letter of his of a week earlier, 4 in which he says that shortly before that date the Queen had laid her commands on the disputants to meet in conference. He then con- 1 See, too, Jewel's narration to Peter Martyr, i Ziir., p. 16, No. 5, " On the day after [this is wrong ; it was, as the Acts of the Privy Council show, on the very afternoon] your friend White, Bishop of Winchester, and Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, were committed to the Tower for open contempt and contumacy. There they are now em- ployed in castrametatioti, and from weak premisses draw bold con- clusions. The rest are bound in recognisances to appear at Court from day to day, and await the determination of the Council respecting them." Machyn, in his Diary, p. 192, is correct; for under 3rd April he says: "the sam nyght, my lord bysshope of Wynchester and my lord of Lynkolne was send to the towre of London by the gard by water, to the Old Swane, and to Belynsgatt after . . ." - P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., in, No. 54, signed by Bacon, Bedford, Shrews- bury, Pembroke, Rogers, Knollys, Cecil, Cave, and Clynton. 3 Chron. Belg., No. CCCXXXlll, i, p. 489, 4th April, 1559. 4 P.R.O., Foreign, Eliz., Spanish, I, No. 22; Chron. Belg., No. cccxxxi, i, p. 487, 30th March, 1559. ii2 THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE tinues: " I have been pleased to bring the matter to this point, and am now trying to devise means to avoid any trick or subtlety in the form of the dispute, which the heretics may take advantage of afterwards. The best way that has occurred is that the dispute should be in Latin and in writing, and that each disputant should sign what he says. The Queen at first had consented to this; but afterwards they sent to the Catholics to say that the discussion was to be conducted in the vulgar tongue, by speech, and in Parliament, which would be very bad. I shall go to the Queen to-morrow and see whether I can- not persuade her to return to the former conditions." It would seem from this letter that Feria had been consulted about the project, but that the advice he had offered was rejected, after it had been, apparently, accepted. His plan, formulated to checkmate any tendency on the part of the reformers to have recourse to "trick or subtlety," was used to secure the undoing of the Catholics, for in a careful manipulation of the Conference was seen to be an oppor- tunity for belittling the bishops, as had been suggested at Sir Thomas Smythe's house in the previous December. It is clear that, as Foxe has pointed out, the proposal to have the Conference in writing, or that the debate should be re- ported by secretaries, emanated from the Catholics, or rather from the Spanish ambassador; but that this arrange- ment was altered by the reformers. The bishops falling in with the alteration came prepared for a verbal discussion, but Bacon and his colleagues went back upon this under- standing without giving their adversaries due notice. Naturally, therefore, the bishops complained of the trick that had been played upon them to their manifest dis- advantage, and exerted every sinew to have the deception rectified. If the Count de Feria's letter of 4th April 1 be now consulted, it becomes plain that the bishops were told only of the altered decision as to having the discussion in English instead of in Latin ; but whoever informed them of 1 P.R.O., Foreign, Eliz., Spanish, 1, No. 21 j Chron. Belg., No. cccxxxm, i, p. 489- THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE 113 that portion of the changed arrangements, failed to ac- quaint them with the other most important part that it was to be in writing, as had been originally suggested, and not a verbal argument. Under all the circumstances of the case, though the misunderstanding may have been due to an oversight, it is difficult not to see in it the outcome of deliberate " trick or subtlety." When, therefore, on open- ing the Conference, Bacon called on the Catholics to read their presentment of their case, they were unprepared to do so, " having been deceived in all this." 1 The official account of the Conference records that before Dr. Home commenced to read his reply to the first ques- tion, one of that party " made a prayer and invocation most humbly to Almighty God for the induing of them with His most Holy Spirit, and a protestation also to stand to the doctrine of the Catholic Church builded upon the Scriptures, and the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles."" Sander's version reads as follows: " They, in their sanctimonious manner, falling on their knees, began to pray. The judge [Bacon] did the same; so did the Council and almost all the audience. The Archbishop of York alone neither came down from the tribune, nor un- covered his head, nor moved his lips, but erect and unmoved kept his seat, obeying the ancient canon of Laodicea, which declares it unlawful to receive the blessing of heretics, or to pray with them, I q. I c. ' Non oportet ' [i.e., Canon xxxil]. The Catholic Bishops and doctors followed his example." :! Feria shows why Archbishop Heath and the others acted as they did, and, moreover, proves that the official account kept back a not unimportant detail. He relates that im- mediately Dr. Cole had finished his speech, " one of the heretics rose, and kneeling with his back towards the altar 1 " Haber sido enganados." The translation in the text is that of Major A. M. Hume, whose intimate knowledge of Spanish has led him to adopt that rendering rather than milder equivalents such as misled or jnistaken. The difference is not without significance. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., in, No. 54. 3 Cath. Rec. Soc, i, pp. 28-9. I ii4 THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE wJiere the Blessed Sacrament was, he offered a prayer, etc." Thus openly to outrage the feelings and beliefs of the Catholics in their tenderest point was truly characteristic, not only of the men who perpetrated the insult, but also of the tendency of the times. Incidentally, too, we learn that the three points for discussion were selected by Bacon him- self, who with a very bad grace at last gave a reluctant consent that the bishops should reduce to writing what had been brought forward by Dr. Cole at the first sitting, and that it should be put in at the second meeting. When the Monday came, and the bishops were ready with their written paper dealing with the first subject of discussion as had been agreed upon, it does not seem to have alto- gether surprised Feria that objections were raised to hear- ing their treatise, for he says that what followed shows that the Reformers realised that the bishops had much to say, and feared the result of their rejoinder to Home. The account of the altercation that followed Bacon's refusal to hear the bishops' paper to the first question, and his insist- ence on their passing to the second subject of debate, is much the same in Feria's letter as in Foxe's or the official reports, though we learn that four separate attempts to get a hearing for the delayed paper were fruitlessly made. Bacon tried to end the impasse by suggesting that their paper might be put in unread ; but the bishops, now fully alive to the danger of further concession, stoutly insisted on fair play, saying that equal opportunities should be accorded to them as to their opponents. Bacon then played his trump card. He informed them that it was the wish of the Queen that they should pass on to the second point, and asked them whether they were willing to obey or not. " The bishops replied that they could not do so without great prejudice to their cause; and, complaining of the other and many unfair and injurious things that had been done to them, remained firm in their determination." By thus adroitly placing their refusal in the guise of disobedience to the Queen, Bacon put the bishops in an exceedingly awkward position. Abbot Feckenham, with the THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE 115 intention of saving the situation, here intervened. Feria puts an altogether different construction on his words from that suggested by Foxe or in the official account. " The Abbot of Westminster said," according to Feria, "that although the bishops had good grounds for their com- plaints, and that they suffered injury in being forced to pass to the second article, having come provided only to discuss the first; 1 yet, in order to obey the Queen's orders, he offered to reply to the adversaries' arguments on the second proposition; to which, although the others did not approve of it, nevertheless they would have consented, if the heretics had propounded their case. But even this could not be agreed upon with them, for Bacon insisted that the Catholics should open the discussion on the second article." Bacon was undoubtedly technically within the terms regulating the discussion, which had conferred this dubious honour on the Catholics. It is not surprising, therefore, that, availing himself of the advantage, he check- mated this attempt on the part of the bishops to extricate themselves from so hampering a stipulation. His ruling brought the Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln once more to their feet, protesting against their being thus forced to open discussions against Catholic teaching, " though they were content," they asserted, " to reply to them, and give proofs of the Catholic doctrine to those who sought it, even though they were manifest heretics." A passage of arms then took place between Bishop Bayne and some of the preachers, which ended in the discomfiture of the latter, as Feria distinctly states, and as may be inferred from Foxe's narrative. It was after this that the Conference was broken up. Feria's account, here drawn upon, was, it must be re- membered, written the very day after the occurrences 1 This is not strictly accurate, but it is in a minor detail. The bishops were prepared to discuss the second topic, but only after the first had been satisfactorily disposed of. This appears clearly from the other accounts. Sander's version, already quoted, agrees closely with Feria's, and he could hardly have been made acquainted with the Ambassador's private despatch to King Philip. n6 THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE related took place, and when every detail was fresh in the writer's memory. The dramatic and graphic touches are, therefore, all the more reliable. Feria also shows that Abbot Feckenham escaped the fate of his colleagues simply be- cause he had said that he offered to discuss the second ques- tion in order to show his desire to obey the Queen. Foxe and the rest endeavour to separate him from the bishops ; but his constancy was proof against such a supposition, as the history of his remaining years of life, many and sorrowful, spent in prison or restraint, amply testifies. The Council had succeeded, though not in the way they had originally intended, in creating a plausible case in prejudice of the bishops ; two of their most uncompromising and outspoken opponents they were able to remove from the House of Lords for the critical remainder of an important session; and, as Feria told Philip, they lost no time in discussing whether a case had not been made out for depriving them of their dignities, or at least for a confiscation of their revenues. Feria concluded his narrative by remarking that " the Catholics, as well they might be, are disturbed to see the violence and injustice with which this matter is being conducted." It was the object of the Reformers to fasten the entire blame for the break-up of the Conference on the Catholics. Thus Jewel, in his controversy with Cole a year later, wrote, 1 " You are bound, you say, and may not dispute, 2 . . . But when you were at liberty, and a free disputation was offered you at Westminster before the Queen's most honourable Council and the whole estate of the realm, I pray you, whether part was it that then gave over? " Dr. Cole re- joined: "... We refused not to write neither. But when our book could not be read, as yours was, we refused not utterly to dispute, but only in the case, if our book could not be suffered to be read as indifferently as yours was." 3 Jewel retorted point by point in a subsequent reply; but one 1 Works, i, p. 59, 8th March, 1559-60. 2 Cole was then under recognisance. 8 Jewel, Works, i, p. 59, 8th April, 1560. THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE 117 paragraph alone concerns us here: it is Jewel's version of the order of the Conference. " The order of the disputation was," he wrote, " that both parts should the first day bring in their assertion all in writing, and that the next day either party should answer the other's book, and that also by writing ; which was your own request, as it will appear by your protestation sent to the Council in that behalf." ' This " protestation " is evidently what is referred to in the official account, 2 where, discussing the unpreparedness of the bishops with written material on the opening day, it says: "This variation from the former order, and specially from that which themselves had, by the said Archbishop in writing before required (adding thereto the reason of the Apostle, that to contend with words is profitable to nothing, but to the subversion of the hearer, 3 seemed to the Queen's Majesty's Council somewhat strange," etc. It is to be noted that in this " challenge " or " protestation," the Catholic party had very distinctly stated that being " in possession " of Catholic truth and practice, they considered that the omis lay with their adversaries to produce objections there- to in writing, signed by themselves to obviate future mis- understandings and falsifications. They also suggested that opportunity should be given to both parties to refute and answer one another as often as should be found needful, but in Latin and in writing. Finally, in case of disagree- ment as to the meaning of any passages of Scripture, they appealed to the interpretation of the Church and of the Fathers for decision between them. Jewel proceeded : " The first day ye came without any book at all, contrary to the order taken, and also, as I have said, to your own request. The second day ye refused to proceed any farther, and stood only upon this point, that, unless ye might have the last word, ye would not dispute. For ye said, whosoever might have that, were like to discedere cum applausu ; for these very words two of your own company [Scot and 1 Works, i, p. 60, 18th May, 1560; cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., m, No. 51, March, 1559. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., in, No. 54. 3 2 Tim., ii, 14. n8 THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE Feckenham] uttered in Latin, even by the same terms as I do now; otherwise ye said ye would not dispute." ' As Cox, in the account he sent to Wolfgang Weidner, 2 is in substantial agreement with Jewel and Feria, we possess the assurance that through these three eye-witnesses we have the main facts: the opposite points of view taken by them enables us to understand fully what really occurred ; and, while not wholly exonerating the Catholics from blame for the negligence or want of astuteness which characterised their conduct of the preliminary settlement of terms, thereby placing themselves and their cause at unnecessary and fatal disadvantage, it cannot be denied that the Reformers were guilty of underhand and deceptive tactics. After all, they were but carrying out the policy they had marked out for themselves. The Catholics, in their " challenge," asked to be allowed to meet the objections of the Reformers. Bacon and the Council saw their opportunity, and so arranged that the very opposite course was forced upon them. But, unknowingly and unconsciously, the Catholics played still more into the hands of their enemies. The Canon Row conciliabulum had decided that the upholders of the old order " must be based of authority, discredited in their countries, so long as they seem to repugn to the true religion, or to maintain their old proceedings." 3 They could not have desired a better case to serve their turn than the bishops' refusal to continue the Conference, interpreted into constructive contempt of the Queen and disobedience to her express orders ; and Bacon was prompt to seize the chance thus given. It is difficult to see in what way the bishops were guilty of disobedience ; but in those days it was im- possible to argue such a point; and with the apparent leniency and favour earned by Abbot Feckenham's so- called and much-vaunted submission to authority, men's minds were easily inflamed against the bishops for their determination to defend their charge. The Canon Row 1 Works, i, p. 60, 1 8th May, 1560. 2 1 Zur., pp. 27-U, No. 11, 20th May, 1559. 3 Cotton MSS., Julius F. VI, No. 86, f. 167. THE WESTMINSTER CONFERENCE 119 suggestions included this one: "No office of jurisdiction or authority to be in any discontented man's hand, so far as justice or law may extend." With such directions under his eyes, Bacon was driving the Catholic party into such an appearance of opposition as might justify their being pro- ceeded against, and " based of authority." The Conference which it was hoped by Feria and others might make for the triumph of the Catholics, was adroitly turned to the purposes of their enemies. The Reformers feared the in- fluence of the bishops in the Upper House. 1 But when the Catholics fell into the trap prepared for them in the West- minster Conference, they lost two of their staunchest henchmen from the voting strength of their party in the House of Lords. As the Act for Uniformity of Worship was carried by only three votes, 2 the importance of detach- ing, if possible, some of the most formidable opponents of change from the steady phalanx arrayed against them, was not lost upon Cecil and Bacon. The lesson, too, was meant to be impressed upon the members of the Lower House ; and the official account of the Conference given to the public served the purpose of making it appear that the Reformers had triumphed. Mr. Child 3 sums up the result with the trenchant words: " While no one was really con- vinced on either side, the henchmen of the ruling party were credited with the victory, though in fact it was but a barren display." On the other hand, Feria told Philip that " the effect has been a good one, and the matter ended in their seeing that they were doing an injustice to the bishops, who, however, refused to allow a wrong to be done to their cause, and this has greatly encouraged the Catholics and thrown the heretics into some confusion." 4 1 1 Zur., p. 10, No. 4, Jewel to Peter Martyr, 20th March, 1558-9. 2 Chron. Belg., No. CCCXLVi, i, p. 519, 10th May, 1559; Count de Feria to Philip II. 3 Church and State under the Tudors, p. 1 84. 4 Chron. Belg., No. CCCXXXV, i, p. 495, nth April, 1559. CHAPTER IV THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY I. — The Dismissal of the Religious and the Nor then: Visitation THE bishops, with one exception, remained steadfast in their refusal to accept the religious changes in- augurated and legalised by Acts of Parliament. They paid the penalty of their consistency by undergoing imprison- ment of varying degrees of severity ; but, whether the re- straint put upon their movements and their freedom was suffered in a prison or in a bishop's house, it was equally a restriction endured for conscience' sake. It remains to be seen how the rest of the clergy fared; and at once it becomes necessary to join issue with most historians from the reign of Elizabeth down to the present day. That severity was exercised towards the recalcitrant is not denied by any of them; by some the fact is not even deplored, by others it is justified by the exigency of times and circumstances. If an attempt is made to extenuate and mitigate the facts of persecution and coercion, the com-> parative fewness of the individuals who fell victims to the rigours of the laws recently enacted against those who were unwilling to accept the new order is appealed to. Modern historians, as Hallam, Froude, Creighton, and a host of others, rely for their statements on this subject upon Collier, Burnet, Strype, Fuller, Heylin, and Camden. But all writers subsequent to Camden, as indeed those just cited are, may be found on examination to have adopted his presentation of the facts without independent enquiry or personal re- THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS 121 search. Since, then, these writers are reducible to Camden, they may be disregarded, and it will be sufficient for present purposes to quote Camden as being nearest to the events and to the period with which we are here concerned. As an example of the modern estimate of the disturb- ance created by the change, Dr. Mandell Creighton, some- time Bishop of London, may be quoted : " In England generally the religious settlement was welcomed by the people and corresponded to their wishes. The English were not greatly interested in theological questions. They detested the Pope; they wished for services which they could understand, and were weary of superstition. The number of staunch Romanists or strong Protestants was very small. The clergy were prepared to acquiesce in the change. Out of 9,400 clergy in England, only 192 refused the oath of Supremacy." * This verdict is supported by Rev. H. Gee, who published the result of his studies in The Elizabethan Clergy, professing to have made consider- able original research, and devoting an entire chapter to a calculation of the numbers deprived. This writer states as his matured conclusion that " on the whole, then, we cannot believe that many more than 200 were deprived for such refusal, within the limits that we have taken," [that is, 1558-65]. The Rev. W. H. Frere, the latest writer on the subject, endorses Mr. Gee. " Marian changes had involved the ejection of something like one-third of the clergy of the parishes," he writes; but, as a contrast to this, he points out that "the crisis of 1559 passed off without disturbance, and by gentleness and judicious management the cases of hardship and of actual deprivation of the clergy were kept down to a quite inconsiderable figure; in the first six years of the reign no more than 400 are recorded to have been deprived for all causes, and of these probably not more than half were Marians." 2 1 Queen Elizabeth, p. 53, ed. 1899. 2 The English Church in the Reigns of Elizabeth and James /, 1904, p. 40. On p. 104, speaking specifically of the Marian clergy, he again states that "a small number were deprived — not more than 122 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS The unanimous conclusion of the latest historians coin- cides with fair closeness with Hallam's statement. 1 " In the summer of 1 5 59 the Queen appointed a general ecclesiastical visitation," he wrote, " to compel the observance of the Pro- testant formularies. It appears from their reports that only about one hundred dignitaries and eighty parochial priests resigned their benefices or were deprived." In a note, he refers to Burnet and to Strype as his authorities for the above statement. The note then proceeds : " Pensions were reserved for those who quitted their benefices on account of religion." 2 " This was a very liberal measure, and at the same time a politic check on their conduct. Lingard thinks the number must have been much greater; but the Visitors' reports seem the best authority. It is, however, highly probable that others resigned their preferments afterwards, when the casuistry of their Church grew more scrupulous. It may be added that the Visitors restored the married clergy who had been dispossessed in the preceding reign ; which would of course considerably augment the number of sufferers for Popery." It is evident that when Hallam dismissed Lingard with the curt reference to the Visitors' reports, he can never have seen them, and that his opinion rests on information which was, at best, second-hand. In the first place, Visitors' reports are unfortunately singularly wanting for the particular period referred to; and had Hallam had the opportunity of seeing and studying the one report which, though fairly full, is nevertheless incom- plete and inconclusive, he could never have committed him- self to the statement above quoted. As will be seen later, the results of the Northern Visitation do not bear out the customary conclusions, but tell rather the other way. Hallam is generally so conspicuously fair and impartial as an historian that it seems necessary to point out that if he has been misled in this matter, others, not so painstaking as he, either through want of knowledge, bias, or failure or about two hundred, so it appears, — in the first six years of the reign." 1 Hist, of Engl., i, p. in. a Burnet, ii, p. 398. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 123 carelessness in consulting and understanding the documents which would have provided a truer solution of this question, have helped to perpetuate or, at least, to prolong the life of the accepted fable. This chapter and others to follow will show that Lingard's intuitions were not only nearer to the real facts, but also more intrinsically probable than the conclusions of other historians who have either preceded or succeeded him in point of time. Camden, the noted antiquary, was a diligent collector of manuscripts and other remains bearing on the history of England. His Annals are a fitting monument to his in- dustry: but it may be conceded that the many excellences of that work do not necessarily imply that he sifted his materials or weighed his evidence. As a collector of facts he is famous : as an historian, those who have occasion to consult his pages realise that he is not to be taken as a final authority; and as he but seldom adduces documentary proof for his statements, their correctness is open to the ordinary test of research, and under this test they not infrequently break down. His version of the deprivations of 1559 is explicit. After briefly recounting the course of events subsequent to the rising of Parliament, including the tendering of the oath of Supremacy, his narrative pro- ceeds thus : " such as refused the oath were deprived of their livings, bishoprics, and other ecclesiastical prefer- ments. The number of whom, all the kingdom over, accord- ing to their own accounts (and we may reckon in England above 9,400 ecclesiastical preferments), amounted to no more than eighty parish rectors, fifty prebendaries, fifteen heads of colleges, twelve archdeacons, and as many deans, six abbots and abbesses, and fourteen bishops, being all that then sat (except only Anthony, Bishop of Llandaff, who was the scourge of his diocese)." l In Baker's Chron- icle, Camden's words are reproduced almost verbatim, with the omission of the reference to the nuns. As another in- stance of the close similarity of his copyists to their original, 1 Annals (ed. 1706), vol. ii, p. 376. 2 Ed. 1730, p. 329. 124 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS Fuller may here be quoted : " Nor were there more than eighty rectors of churches, fifty prebendaries, fifteen mas- ters of colleges, twelve archdeacons, twelve deans, with six abbots and abbesses deprived at this time of their places throughout all England." ' Another point to be taken into consideration is that Camden professedly relied for his figures, not on the result of any independent research of his own, but on Catholic sources, as he said: "according to their own accounts." These sources are, of course, Sander's list, and that to be found in Bridgewater's Concertatio. But it has never been claimed for these lists, either by their compilers or by any one else with a knowledge of the circumstances under which they were drawn up, that they were final and exhaustive. They were no more than attempts to collect such informa- tion as could be gathered under difficult and well-nigh impossible conditions. Further, whereas Camden referred to " 9,400 ecclesiastical preferments" Creighton, following Strype, writes of "9,400 clergy in England." These are by- no means synonymous statements. Nine thousand four hundred is certainly a maximum limit to assign for the number of parishes in England and Wales at Queen Eliza- beth's accession, but it is altogether too high for the total of clergy actually serving them, for the evidence goes to show that not only were many parishes destitute of a par- son, but that many of the clergy were, owing to the paucity of their numbers, pluralists. This paucity of numbers in the ranks of the clergy was due to several causes. The Universities which had suffered greatly on the dissolution of the religious establishments under Henry VIII, had been almost denuded of students during Edward VI's short reign, and the restoration of Catholicism under Mary had not lasted long enough to counteract the results of the previous falling-off in the number of the candidates for Holy Orders. The difficulty experienced in the early years of Elizabeth's reign in providing ministers in sufficient numbers to fill up the many vacant cures, when it was 1 Church History (ed. 1655), Bk. IX, p. 59. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 125 found necessary to press into the service somewhat by wholesale, cobblers and such like unlearned mechanics, was not, therefore, altogether a new one, or entirely due to the change of religion then effected. But the difficulty then experienced proves clearly that preferments and clergy were not in equal proportions. It also helps to dispose of another contention. It has been customary hitherto to argue by percentages, and to assert that 200 only out of 9,400 clergy refused to conform ; but the proportion is altered if, say, 500 out of 8,500 proved recalcitrant. A readjustment of figures, as here indicated, will, at a later stage, be at- tempted. Meanwhile, the results as hitherto chronicled were brought about by a series of steps, well-defined, clear, and orderly. With the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity at their command wherewith to enforce submission, the Council is- sued a Royal Commission on 23rd May, 1559, for the pur- pose of tendering the oath of Supremacy to the clergy. Those to whom the execution of this measure was entrusted were, some of them laymen, some of them ecclesiastics, but all of advanced reforming tendencies — Puritans, as they came to be called at a later date. 1 The terms of the Com- mission and the names of the members composing it may be seen in Rymer's Foedera? The immediate result of this Commission was the removal of all save one of the bishops from their Sees within the following six months. It also got rid of the Dean of St. Paul's, and of the few existing religious communities, whose fate may here be briefly recorded. During Mary's short reign, she managed to refound six religious houses, four for men and two for women, out of the scattered remnants of the monks, friars, and nuns 1 R. Simpson, Life of Campion (ed. 1896), p. 192, quotes Sir Robert Cotton as saying that this epithet, now so universally associated with the extremists of that period, "was first pinned to their skirts by Father Sander about 1 570." 2 Vol. xv, pp. 518-9. 126 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS who had formerly peopled the hundreds of abbeys, mon- asteries, and convents established throughout the length and breadth of England before the Dissolution. These so reconstituted were at Westminster, Smithfield, Greenwich, Sheen, Syon, and King's Langley (afterwards Dartford, Kent). The Franciscan Observants of Greenwich had been among the stoutest defenders of the legality of Catherine of Aragon's marriage with Henry VIII, and had in conse- quence experienced the full force of the King's vengeance. It was but natural, therefore, that Mary, like her deeply- wronged mother, should cherish a particular affection for that Order, and that she should take a keen interest in re- instating the friars in their old home. They had begun to reassemble there in 1553, shortly after Mary's accession; and in 1555 the friary and church were solemnly and canonically reopened. 1 But Mary's death so soon after dashed their hopes ; and Elizabeth's first Parliament, having decreed the suppression of the newly restored religious houses, the Franciscans availed themselves of the earliest opportunity that presented itself to get out of the country, and succeeded in withdrawing to the Continent unmolested, taking with them all their belongings. 2 Machyn furnishes us with the precise date of their departure, which was a full month before any of the other religious followed them. " The 12 day of June, the friars of Greenwich went away." Those of the austere Carthusians who had survived the savage butcheries of Henry VIII, came together from their places of individual retreat in Flanders or in England at the earliest opportunity, and began once more the strict observance of their Rule in common, in a former house of their Order at Sheen, near Richmond in Surrey, under the priorship of Dom Maurice Chauncy, a survivor of the heroic band of Fathers of the London Charterhouse. 1 Fr. Thaddeus, Franciscans i?i England, p. 1 7. 5 These details are contained in a letter written by Fr. Ric. Har- grave, O.P., to the Master-General of the Dominicans, printed in Pio's Delle Vite de gli Huo?nini de S. Domtnico, 1607, p. 377. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 127 In 1555 a community of Dominican friars was re- organised by Queen Mary in London; but as their ancient foundation at Blackfriars was not available, they were in- stalled in the Priory of St. Bartholomew in Smithfield, in the year 1556. Machyn says, incorrectly, that it was "the [first] house that was set up by Queen Mary's time." Fr. William Perin was appointed to the priorship of the con- vent, composed of English, Spanish, and Belgian friars; but he died in 1558, when Fr. Richard Hargrave was elected to take his place. The Letters Patent of the Mas- ter-General of the Order confirming Fr. Hargrave's election only reached England at the Easter of 1559. The friar to whom they were directed, fearful of incurring a praemunire, handed them over to the Privy Council, who took measures to prevent Fr. Hargrave from entering upon his office. Fr. Hargrave, from whose pen we have an account of these transactions, states that after Fr. Perin's death, some more of the friars, presumably old men, also died, while others who were foreigners returned to their own countries, no doubt when suppression was looming in the near future. Thus it came about that when, as Machyn records, on " the 13 day of July the Black Friars in Smithfield went away," there were then in residence to quit the convent but three priests and one young man ; and these, to quote Fr. Har- grave's words : " chose to remain in England and enjoy the flesh pots of Egypt to being abject in the house of the Lord." ] What became of them is not recorded ; but from the above words, it may be suspected that they conformed. From the time of the landing of St. Augustine on the shores of Kent in A.D. 597 till the Dissolution of the greater monasteries in 1539, for well-nigh a thousand years, the sons of St. Benedict had taken an important part in the social, political, and, above all, religious life of the country. They had reared many magnificent abbeys, such as, to name but a few, St. Alban's, Glastonbury, Westminster, Bury St. Edmund's, Ely, Peterborough, Gloucester, and Evesham. Twelve of the cathedrals of England had been 1 Pio, Delle Vite de gli Huomini de S. Dovu'nz'co, p. 377. 128 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS founded and served by Benedictine communities, who ful- filled in their regard the functions of canons in secular Chapters. Canterbury, Durham, Winchester, and Worcester, for example, attest their labours. Yet all were dispersed by Henry VIII. On Mary's accession, when she began her heroic efforts to repair the ravages of the preceding few years, the ancient Benedictine body was not forgotten, nor its historical claim to recognition, and a beginning was made with the work of restoration by reinstalling the monks in their famous abbey of Westminster. Plans were even discussed for reviving the ancient glories of Glaston- bury ; but all such ideas were rendered nugatory by Mary's death and Elizabeth's advent to power. Dr. John Fecken- ham (or Howman) had, before the Dissolution, been a monk at Evesham, and had taken the degree of Bachelor of Divinity at Oxford, being a student of " Monk's College " or Gloucester Hall, now known as Worcester College. When Evesham was suppressed, Feckenham returned to Oxford to continue his studies, but soon became chaplain to the Bishop of Worcester. In 1543 he joined Bishop Edmund Bonner in London, and received the living of Solihull in Warwickshire, and during the reign of Ed- ward VI suffered imprisonment for his staunchness to his religious views, but somehow escaped deprivation. On Mary's accession he was released, again became chaplain to Bishop Bonner (then also released from prison), and was nominated a prebendary of St. Paul's in 1554. Other pre- ferment rapidly followed: he was made one of the Queen's chaplains and her confessor, and before the end of that year he was appointed Dean of St. Paul's. But Feckenham was anxious to resume his religious life at the earliest opportunity, and, in short, resigning his Deanery, was, on the restoration of the abbey of Westminster, appointed Abbot, and there gathered under his rule a fairly numerous community, composed partly of members of suppressed houses(as he himself was),partly of aspirants to the monastic life. When Mary died he had a community of about forty monks and novices. Machyn has preserved the date of the OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 129 re-opening of the abbey, as well as other interesting details. On 2 1 st November, 1556, "the new Abbot of Westminster put in, Dr. Feckenham, late Dean of Paul's, and fourteen more monks shorn in; and the morrow after, the Lord Abbot with his convent went a procession after the old fashion in their monks' weed, in cowls 1 of black say, with two vergers carrying two silver rods in their hands ; and at evensong time the vergers went through the cloister to the Abbot ; and so went into the church afore the high Altar ; and there my Lord kneeled down and his convent, and after his prayer made, was brought into the Choir with the vergers and so into his place, and incontinently he began evensong." The crowning scene was enacted a week later, when on " the 29 day of November was my Lord Abbot consecrated at Westminster Abbey; and there was great company, and he was made Abbot, and did wear a mitre ; and my Lord Cardinal was there, and many bishops, and my Lord Chancellor did sing Mass, and the Abbot made the sermon." Machyn relates in his diary several instances showing that the old privileges were regained and exer- cised ; and we read of the great ceremony attending the replacing of the body of King Edward the Confessor in its shrine, on 20th March, 1557; of many sermons preached by Abbot Feckenham; of the part taken by him and his monks at the funeral of Lady Anne of Cleves, the repudiated wife of Henry VIII; of the ceremonious making of the great Paschal Candle, of the weight of three hundred pounds of wax, for use in the Abbey. This function took place on St. Benedict's day, 21st March, 1558; the Master and Ward- ens of the Waxchandlers' Company were present, and were afterwards entertained at a " great dinner." Only two of the numerous communities of nuns which had existed in England before the Dissolution, were revived during the short period of Mary's reign. One of these was " the monastery of St. Saviour and St. Bridget of Syon " — to give it its full designation — which from its foundation in 141 5 till its suppression in 1539 had been situated at Isle- 1 "Collys": read by Strype {Mem. Ill, ii, p. 506), as "cottys," coats. K 1 3 o THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS worth, Middlesex. The nuns at that time withdrew to a monastery of their Order in Flanders. Through Cardinal Pole's good offices, fifteen choir-nuns and three lay-sisters returned to their old home by the banks of the Thames, in 1557. Machyn furnishes the details. "The first day of August the nuns of Syon was closed in by my Lord Bishop of London and my Lord Abbot of Westminster, and certain of the Council, and certain friars of that Order [clothed in habits] of sheep colour as the sheep beareth; and they had [given them] as great a charge of their living, and never to go forth as long as they do live, but ever . . ." The manu- script of the diary is here defective. The defect was, how- ever, significant of the near future; two short years sufficed to render the " charge " nugatory, and to send the nuns once more adrift. They had, of course, been for some time in England before taking part in the ceremony of" enclosure " thus described in halting fashion by Machyn. The surviv- ing monks of Syon who, on the occasion described, re- sumed the wearing of their undyed woollen habits, were three in number. The last community to be restored was that of the sisters of the second Order of St. Dominic, formerly resident at Dartford in Kent, the only house of Dominicanesses in England. Out of nineteen choir-sisters pensioned when their house was suppressed by Henry VI II's commissioners, seven still survived, and they petitioned Queen Mary to be allowed to resume their conventual life. Their request was acceded to; but as the convent at Dartford had been bestowed on Lady Anne of Cleves for her life, in June, 1548, in exchange for Richmond Palace, 1 the nuns had to seek some other habitation. Cardinal Pole, at Philip's and Mary's request, erected the late priory of King's Langley into a convent for them in due canonical form, in June, 1557. On the death of the Lady Anne of Cleves, on 1 6th July following, the priory of Dartford reverted to the Crown, whereupon the King and Queen were enabled by grant, dated 8th September, 1 558, to restore the house to its former 1 Miscell. Bks. of the Court of Augmentations, vol. 219, f. 87. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 131 occupants. The sisters speedily removed thither from King's Langley ; but Mary died two months later, and the hopes so wonderfully raised were dashed to the ground. 1 The Act of Elizabeth's first Parliament which gave over the possessions of these newly-formed communities into the Queen's hands, 2 as also the obnoxious Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, caused their dispersal once more, and this time finally. II Schifanoya, writing at the end of May to the Castellan of Mantua, 3 says: " The Count [de Feria] de- parted a fortnight ago, and it has not yet been heard what present the Queen made him at his departure, saving that he asked of her as a special favour, instead of gifts, a pass- port for passage to Fianders of all the monks, friars, and nuns now here, who were required to renounce their pro- fession, swear against the Pope, and observe the articles lately enacted against the Christian and Catholic Church, besides being expelled and driven out of their monasteries and convents, had they been men to consent to this; but they had determined to die rather than change their pur- pose." A week later II Schifanoya informed his Mantuan correspondent about Bishop Bonner's troubles, and that he had taken sanctuary in Westminster Abbey; but he added that " the abbey cannot last long." Feckenham was too influential a personage to be left unassailed. He had been submitted to an ordeal like to that Bonner had undergone, and had " made a similar reply, when it was offered to him to remain securely in his abbey with his habit, and the monks to live together as they have done till now, provided that he would celebrate in his church the divine offices and Mass, administering the Sacraments in the same manner as in the other churches of London, and that he would take the oath like the other servants, officials, pensioners, and 1 Cf. Rev. C. F. Raymund Palmer's Obituary Notices of the Friars Preachers . . . of the English Province, p. 1 ; Life of Card. Howard, pp. 69, sqq. ; Notes of the Priory of Da7'tford, Kent, p. 3 ; History of the Priory of Dartford, p. 29. a 1 Eliz., c. 24. 3 Venetian Papers, No. 77, 30th May, 1559. 132 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS dependents of the Crown, and acknowledge this establish- ment as from the hands of her Majesty. To these things the Abbot would by no means consent; so after St. John's day, the term fixed by Parliament for all persons to con- sent and swear to all the statutes and laws, or to lose what they have, all of them will go about their business, though no one can leave the kingdom. The Count de Feria had obtained permission to take to Flanders all the religious. Since his departure this concession has been limited to those who were in being at the time of the other schism, and who are very few in number." * Paulo Tiepolo wrote in precisely the same sense to the Doge of Venice. 2 This offer of promotion, or rather of freedom from moles- tation as a reward for conforming, has been called in ques- tion as intrinsically improbable, nor does it occur in any official document. Hence it has been dismissed as due to exaggeration on the part of the writer, or to misunder- standing of our insular methods on the part of a foreigner. But as will be shown further on, this alleged instance tallies exactly with the offers which, as he himself has left on record, were made to Fr. Hargrave. Hence in this case too, it may well be that II Schifanoya stated what he knew absolutely as an actual occurrence of which he had accu- rate cognisance. On 27th June II Schifanoya, after mentioning the de- privation of some of the bishops which followed on their refusal to take the oath of Supremacy, proceeded to say that " the Abbot of Westminster with all his monks did the like, and are therefore now deprived of the revenues of the monastery and of all the rest of their property. We have no longer Masses anywhere except in the houses of the French and Spanish Ambassadors. All the friars and monks of every sort having received their passport, some of them have gone away, and will be followed by the others, although the Carthusians do not choose to depart till they are compelled to do so by force, which will soon 1 Venetian Papers, No. 78, 6th June, 1559. 3 Ibid., No. 79, nth June, 1559; No. 81, 16th June, 1559. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 133 be used." 1 The "some" referred to clearly indicates the Franciscans who, according to Machyn, left Greenwich on 1 2th June. Sander says that they were dispersed in exile in Lower Germany. The process of disbanding the Dominican communities has fortunately been preserved in the account of it by one of the actual victims; it is a valuable document, since it adumbrates the methods adopted in the other cases. Fr. Hargrave, himself a Dominican, and confessor to the nuns at Dartford, says that the three Visitors appointed for that house were members of the Privy Council, and that their commission under the Great Seal authorised them to pro- ceed with the suppression of the newly-erected religious houses, and to disperse the inmates. It is clear that this commission was subsequent to the departure of the Fran- ciscans on 1 2th June. The Visitors arrived at Dartford early in July, and summoning Fr. Hargrave and a fellow friar to their presence, " tendered the oath and Book [of Common Prayer] and promised great dignities and favours if they would leave the Order, and conform to what was required of them." Both were, however, proof against their temptations and inducements; but the nature of the offer, thus vouched for by one of these to whom it was made, corroborates the statement of II Schifanoya that similar inducements were held out to Abbot Feckenham and his Benedictine monks. The nuns were then called before the Visitors singly and urged to yield obedience, but one and all refused. Thereupon the convent possessions were valued and sold at nominal prices; with the sum realised the debts of the house were paid, and the scanty balance was divided between the nuns. The Visitors were careful, how- ever, to take away with them the sign of the corporate ex- istence of the community, its common Seal, as also the patents of revenues or title-deeds. The religious were then ordered to quit their home within twenty-four hours. This they perforce did, taking with them their books and best clothing. Four days later, in company with the nuns of 1 Venetian Papers, No. 82. 134 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS Syon they embarked in a vessel prepared for them at King Philip's expense, and crossed over to the Low Countries. Machyn says: "The iiij [xiii] day of July, the Thursday, 1 the priests and nuns of Syon went away, and the Charter- house." This furnishes approximately the date for the Dartford disbandment, more especially as Machyn records that the Smithfield Dominicans were sent adrift on 13th July. The Dartford Dominicans were twelve in number, consisting of the two priests, five choir-nuns, four lay sis- ters and a postulant. The nuns were all advanced in years, the youngest being fifty, and three being over eighty years of age. One of these latter, Elizabeth Wright, was half- sister to Blessed John Fisher, the Cardinal and martyred Bishop of Rochester. It was to her that the saintly prelate dedicated his Spiritual Consolation, a treatise written while he was a prisoner in the Tower. The nuns kept together in the Low Countries; but Time did its work, and in 1574 the three surviving members of this English community were charitably admitted into a foreign house of their Order; and on their death, not long after, the ancient English Province of the Dominican Order became ex- tinct. As Machyn stated, the Carthusians escaped from Eng- land together with the nuns, after being despoiled of home and goods. They maintained a corporate existence in the Low Countries till past the middle of the eighteenth cen- tury, when the last survivor of this interesting community died. The nuns of Syon kept together through many wan- derings in Zealand and Brabant, and then effected a settle- ment in Lisbon, whence they migrated once more, in 1861, no longer into exile, but home to England. Their present establishment is at Chudleigh in Devonshire. A peculiar pathos and interest centre in this community, being the sole one existing in England to-day, which in its corporate 1 So in the edition published by the Camden Society. But in the year 1559 Thursdays fell on the 6th and 13th; the editors have there- fore read an "x" as "i"; the latter date, the 13th (xiii) would there- fore be the correct one. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 135 capacity can trace an unbroken descent from pre-Reforma- tion times, and will soon be celebrating the quincentenary of its foundation by King Henry V. Amongst the Cotton MSS. at the British Museum is a document ' relating to these exiled communities, as also to other persons, lay and clerical, living abroad on account of their religion. Its probable date is 1570; but, by internal evidence, certainly not earlier than 1568. It was drawn up by Sir Francis Englefield, himself an exile for conscience' sake, its purpose being to furnish a detailed list of the King of Spain's pensions to these exiles for religion. From this list we learn that Philip allowed 1,120 florins yearly " to the Convent of Carthusians, being 24 persons in num- ber"; a like sum "to the nuns of Syon, being 26 in num- ber"; and 360 florins "to the nuns of Dertforde, being 8 in number." From another paper in this collection it ap- pears that the Carthusians and Dominicanesses had found a temporary refuge in Bruges, while the Bridgettines of Syon were at that date in " Myssagen by Antwerp." To this place they had moved in 1568, remaining there for between three and four years. The Benedictines at Westminster Abbey did not fare so well as the other dispersed communities. Machyn records without giving a date for the event, that " the Abbot of Westminster and the monks was ' reprevyd.' " He evidently meant " deprived," and merely voiced Parkhurst's intelli- gent anticipation of events, when, writing to Bullinger on 2 1 st May, 1559, he informed him that " the monasteries will be dissolved in a short time." 2 No records concerning individual members of Fecken- ham's community are known to exist. None of them has been traced abroad : none of them is known for certain to have conformed or to have accepted livings under the new Establishment; but prison lists drawn up during the next few years reveal the fact that more than one monk pre- ferred to follow Feckenham's example, and endured im- prisonment rather than deny their profession and their 1 Vesp. C. xiii, No. 108. a I Zur., p. 30, No. 12. 136 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS creed. Others, thrown back into the world, are met with here and there in stray notices, and they are represented as living obscurely, teaching, or saying Mass in secret. The younger members and the novices no doubt resumed lay life. The ancient English branch of the great Benedictine Order, so bound up with the history of the country, was in danger of extinction, like so many other of the Orders that were formerly represented here; this fate was averted in a singular manner. Sigebert Buckley was one of the monks professed at Westminster by Abbot Feckenham. He, like his superior, preferred prison to denial of his allegiance to the Pope. In prison he remained throughout Elizabeth's long reign of forty-four years ; and, almost a centenarian, revived the ancient English Congregation of which he was then the sole known survivor and representative, in the early years of the reign of James I. All the honours, dig- nities and privileges which, by devolution, were accumu- lated and centred in his venerable and enfeebled person, he passed on to certain secular priests who sought the re- ligious habit at his hands; and in aggregating them to himself he was the means of reviving and perpetuating the English Benedictines, a body which is to-day both numer- ous and flourishing. The monks and nuns had been summarily dealt with. The turn of the secular clergy had now come. They had spoken with no uncertain voice through Convocation during the previous January and February. It was clear that their desire was for a continuance of the ancient union with, and submission to, Rome; and they had, by means of the Pro- test presented to Parliament, proclaimed their faith in certain impugned articles of belief with a unanimity which, at that time, was beyond question. How came it, then, that so complete a downfall was witnessed within the next few years? Many reasons may be found which will account, at least partially, for such downfall as there was ; but, as will be seen later, lamentable as it undoubtedly was, that downfall was neither so sudden nor so entire as it has been the fashion to assume and to proclaim. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 137 It has been customary, for instance, beginning with Camden, to taunt bishops and clergy alike with inconsist- ency because in Elizabeth's reign they refused to do what they had not boggled at under Henry VIII. Thus, Tunstall, the aged Bishop of Durham, who had subscribed to Henry's Supremacy, would have none of it when Elizabeth was in question. This change in his attitude should surely not be called inconsistency, but is rather the result of a fuller per- ception of the theological points involved. Tunstall does not stand alone, but may be taken as a type. The situation which men had had to face, when Henry VIII threw off the yoke of Rome and proclaimed himself Supreme Head of the Church of England, was so unprecedented and novel in all men's experience, that they might readily be pardoned if they did not, at once, grasp the full meaning and bearing of the oaths they were called upon to take, with the added terror, be it borne in mind, of a knife held to their throats by a brutal and unsparing tyrant, to hasten and compel compliance. Such methods are not conducive either to clear or dispassionate thinking. Issues are apt to be confused and the line of least resistance is sought. But the lapse of years brought with them leisure to realise the con- sequences, to grasp the logical outcome of acts whose incid- ence and significance they had at the time but dimly appre- ciated, if, indeed, they had appreciated them at all. Hence, when through further enlightenment, the realities had been perceived ; when, too, they had repaired, as far as was in their power, the error and weakness of the past by a dutiful and whole-hearted submission to Rome during Mary's reign, it was the remembrance of the past which made them, not inconsistent, but determined to hold themselves guiltless of any repetition of their former weakness, which they could atone for only by more strenuous opposition when they were confronted with this fresh but similar trial of their constancy. Hence the attitude of the recalcitrant in Elizabeth's reign. Extenuating circumstances may be found, not, indeed, to justify, but to explain the conduct of those who bowed to fate and, accepting the legislation of 138 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS 1 559» conformed, perhaps for a second time in their lives, to national religion and ideals as opposed to those of the Church Universal. In the first place, some allowance must be made for human nature. Few of us are moulded of the stuff from which martyrs are made. Less robust natures seek comfort in a middle term and salve their consciences with com- promise. The martyrs are like the sturdy oaks which either stand the storm unmoved, or are shivered in their resistance to the elemental forces. Ordinary mortals resemble the reeds which bend before the blast ; and, as a result of their very weakness, are found where they were, unhurt, when the tempest has subsided. But our admiration is for the oak, not for the reed. Again, the changes in belief and religious practice which had been witnessed within one generation — therefore within the memory of persons of middle age in the year 1559 — had been frequent in number and had suc- ceeded each other at close intervals of time. They could not but have proved bewildering to persons of less than extraordinary intelligence; hence men were so confused as hardly to know what to think, and consequently what to do for the best, both from a worldly and a spiritual point of view. Some of the changes, too, affected matters, not of doctrine, but merely of discipline, as the celibacy of the clergy, Communion under one kind, and the use of Latin in the Liturgy. The substitution of a married priest- hood, of Communion under both kinds, and of a ver- nacular Liturgy, while they might be far-reaching in their effects, and might shock the sense of those who clung not unnaturally to the ancient ideals of submis- sion to a central authority which they accepted as divinely established, nevertheless did not in their essence imply a breach with Rome. It was perfectly thinkable that, for sufficient and wise reasons, a Pope might motu proprio sanction such changes, or that a General Council, such as that still in session at Trent, might do so. The acrimoni- ous disputes of Calvinists and Zwinglians about Transub- stantiation, or the mode of Christ's presence in the Sacri- OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 139 fice of the Mass, or of the Last Supper, were above the comprehension of ordinary men ; they might argue that it would be time enough to consider such abstruse questions when the various Schools of the innovators had settled amongst themselves some platform of mutual agreement. Both discipline and doctrine were, therefore, to some extent at least, in a state of fluxion ; and men might be pardoned if, in the perplexity engendered by such constant theologi- cal wrangling, they held their judgment in suspense, or leaned this way or that, as here or there they seemed to perceive some respite from the war of controversy, some breathing-space from the buffets of doubt and debate, nay, even of coercion. Many of the clergy, too, who were buried in their country cures, and had little converse with the outer world (and this applies still more to their parishioners), were unlikely to be well acquainted with the latest phases of the many con- troversies which were then disturbing men's minds in the busier haunts of cities; hence they could rarely have had the chance of understanding the true purport of the oaths they were suddenly called upon to take, and may thus have set their names to any form of subscription presented to them with no very accurate perception of the gravity or consequences of their act. Many of these parish clergy, who thus subscribed, were known to their Elizabethan bishops as being merely outward conformists; and, as episcopal Injunctions record, were quietly "waiting for a day," expecting the next turn in the wheel of fortune, when Catholicism would again be uppermost. How they came to reconcile such an attitude with their consciences it is not for us to enquire. It is enough for present purposes merely to record the fact. Under these circumstances it becomes necessary to follow the course of events by which a bold and aggressive minority succeeded in imposing its will upon a majority which, had it possessed leaders equal to the occasion, might have succeeded in retaining the old Faith. Such leaders as the bishops, who had shown a fearless front, and 140 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS might have been able to fight for the preservation of the old order, were removed; the flock, scattered, divided, left to their individual resources, and individually confronted, succumbed. This is the true explanation: the only one that can reasonably account for facts otherwise wholly unaccountable. The situation created by the passing of the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity found the clergy unresponsive. On 20th May, Cox reported to Weidner that " the whole body [of the clergy] remain unmoved;" 1 and that while "many of the nobility, and vast numbers of the people" were ranging themselves on the side of the reformers, " of the clergy none at all." 2 At that very date, too, Jewel told Bullinger that the reformers were meeting with opposition, " for we have at this time not only to contend with our adversaries, but even with those of our friends who, of late years, have fallen away from us, and gone over to the opposite party; and who are now opposing us with a bitter- ness and obstinacy far exceeding that of any common enemy." 3 Edmund Grindal, writing to Conrad Hubert, told him that "it is therefore commonly supposed that . . . many other beneficed persons will renounce . . . their functions, as being ashamed after so much tyranny and cruelty exer- cised under the banners of the Pope, and the obedience so lately sworn to him, to be again brought to a recantation, and convicted of manifest perjury." 4 The only practicable method of dealing with the situ- ation as thus revealed was by a general visitation of the entire country. Such a visitation was accordingly ordered ; the commissioners appointed to carry it out were carefully selected from men of whose adherence to the principles of the Reformation the Council were sure; and they were thus able to overawe and coerce the simple parish clergy sum- moned singly before them. The royal Letters Patent directing the holding of the 1 I Zur., p. 27, No. 11. 2 Ibid. 3 1 Zur., p. 32, No. 14, 22nd May, 1559. * II Z#r., p. 19, No. 8, 23rd May, 1559. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 141 visitation of the Northern Province, and appointing the commisioners to carry it out, may be seen in the com- mencement of the official report thereof, now forming vol. x of P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. ; but neither these, nor those for the Southern Province, are enrolled on the Patent Rolls. The terms of both are, however, sure to have been practically identical, but directed of course to different sets of com- missioners. The Letters for the Northern visitation were issued on 24th June, 1559, the very day on which the Act of Uniformity came into force. It may be assumed that the Letters for the Southern Province were of the same date. We do not now possess any formal record, such as that for the Province of York, of the visitation that was carried out in that of Canterbury; but lists of signatories and other documents afford conclusive proof that it undoubtedly took place. From the neatly-written volume now lying at the Record Office ' may be learnt not only the names of the Visitors, but also the terms and limits of their powers. 2 The follow- ing directions are significant : ". . . We . . . have appointed [commissioners] to visit . . . criminous [clerks] and those obstinately and peremptorily refusing to subscribe the form of religion accepted, or in any other way offending or blameworthy; and with befitting penalties, even to the deprivation of the fruits or revenues of their benefices, dignities or offices, and the sequestration of the products of the churches or places over which they rule, or to be punished and corrected by any other fitting and sufficient coercion inclusively . . . and to decree and declare the churches and other places of the [? incumbent] vacant, and to hold and have them vacant; and to assign and limit legitimate fitting and sufficient pensions to those who shall cede or resign the like," etc. "Articles of Enquiry" 3 and also some " Royal Injunc- 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., vol. x. - The full text of the Letters containing them may be consulted in print in Cardwell's Documentary Annals, i, pp. 219, sqq. 3 Cf. Cardwell's D. A., i, p. 41. i 4 2 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS tions " were prepared as further guidance for the Visitors. A comparison of the Elizabethan Injunctions with those issued by Edward VI in 1547 makes it clear that the earlier document furnished the model on which the later one was framed; but the Injunctions of 1559 were an amplified and enlarged edition of those of 1547. They consisted of fifty- three articles and an Appendix explaining the scope of the Act of Supremacy for the relief of mind of those who " find some scruple in the form " thereof. The first twenty-eight are almost identical with those of 1547; from that point onward they are either embodiments of later regulations or are entirely new. They enjoined on all ecclesiastical persons to accept the royal Supremacy and to preach against all usurped and foreign power, also against images, relics, miracles and suchlike superstitions; upholders of papal Supremacy were to be denounced; regulations were laid down about Bible reading, proper licensing of preachers, keeping of registers, support of the poor, and of students at the Universities, the upkeep of chancels and clergy- houses, the payment of tithes, the parochial duties of in- cumbents, the substitution of Litanies for processions (except for " beating the bounds ") ; the treatment of notorious sinners; the removal of shrines and suchlike " monuments of feigned miracles, idolatry, and super- stition"; the imposition of humiliating rules to be observed by clergy proposing to marry; methods of teaching and catechising, and so forth. From this brief summary it will be gathered that the Injunctions were both minute enough and searching enough to satisfy the most inquisitorial taste. Armed with such far-reaching powers, the newly-appointed commissioners were become for the time being the sole dispensers of ecclesiastical law and the depositaries of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. From the lists of Visitors which are extant ' it appears that the whole country was divided into six districts, each being apportioned its separate set of Visitors; each of the Universities, also, had special provi- sion made for it in this respect. But the lists as drawn up 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., IV, No. 34. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 143 in the document referred to were evidently tentative, for they do not agree, at least as regards the Northern Province, in all respects with the names as recorded in the official report. Possibly they underwent revision. Of course, all those whose names appear in the Letters Patent did not necessarily have to attend the sessions of the visitation regularly; the terms of their appointment make it clear that they constituted a reserve from which a quorum was to be formed. In fact, more than one of those nominated to serve could have been in no sort of sympathy with the purpose underlying the visitation ; and, of the fourteen in- dividuals selected to make the visitation of the Northern Province, some never attended at all ; others attended but seldom ; and, indeed, the conduct of the visitation was confined, practically, to Sir Thomas Gargrave, who was vice-President of the Council of the North; Sir Henry Gates, a local knight; Henry Harvey, D.D.; and Edwin Sandys, a reforming divine, soon to become Bishop of Worcester, then of London, and finally Archbishop of York. Of these four, Harvey and Sandys were most constant in attendance: they were, indeed, the moving spirits of the visitation. The record of the visitation, after the manner of such official documents, in the first place recites the royal Letters of Commission bringing the visitation into being, appointing the Visitors, and defining the limits of their duties and powers. This, of course, may be taken to repre- sent the tenor of the similar documents issued for the South Province, no one of which is known now to exist. It is not without significance that it bears date 24th June, 1559, the very day that the Act of Uniformity became operative. Then would come in due order the announcement to the various local officials of the approaching visitation, followed by citations to the clergy of each district to meet at an appointed centre on a date named or to be named. In the Register of the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury l is pre- 1 P. 4. 144 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS served a letter of inhibition directed to them, which first recites the terms of the Commission, and then relieves the local ecclesiastical officials of their jurisdiction during the holding of the visitation. This document was technically known as the Mandatum Citatorium, and the Visitors in- variably enquired as to whether it had been received and made known to all concerned. This detail is not without its bearing on actual occurrences, for it makes the absten- tion of so many of the clergy the more deliberate and remarkable. To follow the working of this momentous visitation, it will be well to give in brief the details preserved to us of the rapid yet fairly thorough enquiry conducted in the four dioceses of York, Chester, Durham, and Carlisle, which constitute the Northern Province. The visitation was opened in the church of Our Lady at Nottingham on Tuesday, 22nd August, 15 59, before Sandys, Gargrave, Gates, and Harvey. The roll of all the clergy of that deanery was first called, those not answering to their names being declared contumacious. Churchwardens were ordered to attend at a given hour furnished with answers to articles of enquiry and charges against parishioners. Incumbents were enjoined to produce their Letters of Orders, dispensations, and the like. At the appointed hour these papers, as well as inventories of church goods, were exhibited, whereupon the commissioners proceeded to examine them, also enquiring into the doctrine and be- haviour of the incumbents. The immediate result of this enquiry was that the church of Adbolton, being found to be without an incumbent, was sequestrated, and administrators were appointed. On Thursday, 24th August, Gates, Sandys, and Harvey continued their work, at Southwell. Wynthorpe was found destitute of an incumbent and was sequestrated. Head- ingley (Edinglee) and West Drayton shared the same fate. On 25th August the collegiate church itself of Southwell was visited, and the report furnishes sundry details about the prebendaries. Seven appeared by proxy, four prebendaries OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 145 and four vicars-choral appeared in person, four were absent without offering any excuse, and of one no information was vouchsafed. It will be needful to speak individually of the twenty referred to, for only some of the names appear in Bridgewater's Concertatio. Robert Pursglove, suffragan Bishop of Hull and prebendary of the second portion of Oxton, was deprived at this time. His name is, of course, sufficiently known, and therefore needs no further comment here. It may be of interest to point out that his successor in the prebendal stall, Goddard Kiddall, was also deprived before 26th March, 1563, the date of induction of his suc- cessor. 1 Whether he justified himself in taking the oath of Supremacy or not in 1559 is of small moment beside the fact that finally he could not reconcile his position in the newly established Church with his peace of conscience. Galfrid Downes, prebendary of Palyce Hall in Norwell, had been installed as early as 1535, before Henry VI IPs final breach with Rome. He had weathered the storms of the intervening twenty-four years by veering with every change of doctrine; but now in his old age he refused to temporise any more, and was at once sequestered. There can be no reasonable doubt that the matter ended in his complete deprivation. George Palmes, prebendary of North Muskham, had been admitted to that stall on 7th September, 1558, shortly before Mary's death. He was definitely de- prived." William Mowse, prebendary of Halloughton, did not appear either in person or by proxy, but Le Neve says nothing about his subsequent fate. He had been collated to his stall as recently as 2nd May, 1559; his disappearance, therefore, at this moment cannot have been due to any other cause than refusal to accept the royal Supremacy. He may have been given time to consider his position, and thus did not come within the limit of the present report. Henry Bowell, prebendary of Normanton, was represented by proxy, but on his refusal to subscribe the oaths, he was deprived. 3 George Dudley, prebendary of Woodborough, 1 Le Neve, Fasti, iii, p. 451. 2 Ibid., iii, p. 430. 3 Ibid., iii, p. 425. L 146 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS was a very old man, having been installed at the remote date of 1 8th January, 1 507-8. Notwithstanding former com- promises and compliances, he now stood his ground firmly and courageously, appearing neither in person nor by proxy. As his successor was inducted on 8th October, 1 561, there can be little doubt that, unless he died during the interval, he suffered deprivation. William Taylor, prebendary of South Muskham, refused submission, and was in consequence de- prived in due form. 1 Robert Drury, prebendary of Rapton, made his personal appearance. His attitude towards the royal Supremacy is not made clear by the report; but he was succeeded in his stall as early as 1561. Since Le Neve assigns the vacancy to his death, Drury's case must remain indeterminate. George Lamb, prebendary of Northleverton, absented himself, and was deprived. 2 John Rokesbye, Henry Harvey (one of the Visitors), Robert Cressye, Robert Snell, and Richard Hopkins accepted the royal Supremacy with- out any demur. William Saxye, prebendary of Beckenham, absented himself; but although his name is omitted from this stall by Le Neve, it appears elsewhere as that of a Canon of Windsor, which preferment he held till his death in 1566; 3 hence, whatever scruples he may have felt at the moment of the Southwell visitation, he managed to allay them, and by subsequent submission retained his stall. There remains Thomas Wilson, prebendary of New- hall in Norwell, about whose fate some uncertainty exists. His successor was admitted to the stall in question on 1 8th July, 1562, the vacancy being ascribed to Wilson's re- signation. Since his subsequent career has eluded research, it must remain an open question whether he enjoyed other preferment elsewhere, or whether, on reflection, he repudi- ated a too hasty submission at the moment when he was facing the Visitors. Four vicars-choral are referred to in the report, but perhaps, as being minor clergy, their cases were not of sufficient importance to occupy the attention of the Visitors; no record of their fate reaches us. Of the 1 Le Neve, Fasti, iii, p. 433. 2 Ibid., iii, p. 427. 3 Ibid., iii, p. 396. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 147 sixteen prebendaries, however, six certainly conformed, five were as certainly deprived, while it is hardly open to doubt that three more shared the same fate, leaving two about whom definite information is wanting; such as we have, pointing perhaps rather towards conformity than to recalcitrance. When Henry VIII's Visitors were making their rounds of the monasteries, the characteristic note of their proceed- ings was the extraordinary rapidity with which their in- vestigations were conducted, entirely militating against the possibility or probability of a fair and full enquiry. The itinerary and horarium of Elizabeth's Visitors, while not open to this objection to the same extent, was nevertheless carried out with such speed that it is difficult to with- stand the impression that their work must have been rushed ; indeed, with the enormous mass of business con- fronting the commissioners, it could hardly have been otherwise ; and instances are not wanting of the appoint- ment of deputies to go on with enquiries which the Visitors themselves had initiated, but which, no doubt in order to keep a fixed appointment elsewhere and not to get behind- hand with their time-table, they were forced to leave unfinished. Gates, Sandys, and Harvey were at Blythe on 26th August, where, amongst other matter, a matrimonial suit engaged their attention, as also a couple of ecclesiastical cases of minor importance. Thence they proceeded to Pontefract where, on 28th August, and again at Halifax on 31st August similar cases were gone into. On 4th Septem- ber the same trio opened their enquiry at Otley, where they had before them several incumbents who proved obstinate, necessitating their dealing roundly with them. William Boyes, parson of Gresley " ut susceptae religioni subscribat expresse et obstinate recusavit" — so runs the record ; in con- sequence of which he suffered sequestration, and was bound over in £ 500 to appear at a later date before the commissioners in London. His example was followed by Robert Wood, vicar of Otley, Christopher Mygley, vicar of 148 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS Kyldewicke, and Alexander Jennynges, vicar of Bingley, who one and all, moreover, denied the Queen's Supremacy. For this contumacy they were remanded in custody, to be brought before the Visitors again two days later in York. The work of the royal commissioners at York was natur- ally very heavy since it was crowded into four days, and fell upon the indefatigable Sandys, Harvey, Gates, and Gargrave. On 6th September the session took place in the metropolitan Chapter House. After the transaction of the formal business usual on such occasions, the registrar read out " distincte " the articles of the new religion as by law just established. The oaths were then tendered to John Rokeby who " bono spiritu ductus, ut pauci arbitrantur, voluntarie subscripsit." The form of subscription appended in the report was collective in its terms and received the signatures of those willing to conform to the " suscepta religio" " We, the clergy of the Cathedral and Metro- political Church of York, whose names are subscribed," — so runs the document, " do humbly confess and acknowledge the restoring again of the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual to the Crown of this Realm; and the abolishing of all foreign power repugnant to the same according to an [Act] thereof made in the late Parliament, begun at Westminster the 23rd [or rather 25th] day of January in the first year of the reign of our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth, and there continued and kept until the 8th day of May next after ensuing. We confess also and acknowledge the administration of the Sacraments, the use and order of divine service in manner and form as it is set forth in the Book commonly called the Book of Common Prayer, etc., established also by the same Act, and the orders and rules contained in the Injunctions given by the Queen's Majesty, and exhibited unto us in this present visitation, to be according to the true Word of God, and agreeable to the doctrine and use of the primitive Church. In witnesses whereof and that the premisses be true, we have unfeignedly hereunto subscribed our names." It is much to the purpose to observe that those who OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 149 signed this formula gave their adhesion not only to the oaths of Supremacy and Uniformity with whose terms they had had opportunities of becoming acquainted during the previous four months or thereabouts, but also to the lengthy and rambling Injunctions whose clauses could only have come to their knowledge then and there. So easy an acceptance of such a mass of minute regulations affecting them in every relation of life argues neither a high order of conscientiousness nor an adequate sense of responsibility in those who so summarily engaged to adapt themselves to the new conditions. Even the brightest intelligence might be supposed to require some little time wherein to assimi- late the bearings of so momentous a departure from the hitherto accepted groove in which most at least of their lives had been passed. It will be useful to enquire somewhat closely into the information to be gleaned from the official report on this visitation, since Mr. Gee, who has summarised it in his book on The Elizabethan Clergy, does not draw quite the same conclusions as are here indicated. " Several of the York prebendaries," he writes, " put in no appearance at all, viz., J. Warren, Archdeacon of Cleveland, Alban Lang- dale, Arthur Lowe, J. Seaton, Peter Vannes, T. Arden, Geoffrey Morlaye, T. Clement, T. Cheston, G. Blithe. Four only of these, we shall find, were eventually deprived." ' The four referred to were Alban Langdale, Arthur Lowe, John Seaton, and Thomas Arden. Something, however, may here be said by way of supplement concerning the other six mentioned in the foregoing list. Sander's cata- logue of deprived clergy contains a Clement; but no Chris- tian name, no name of the benefice he had served, is fur- nished. Le Neve shows that Thomas Clement was admitted to the prebendal stall of Apesthorpe in May, 1554; and the next institution which he records is that of Melchior Smith, in June, 1564. 2 It is necessary to utter here a word of caution. Deprivation is the entire taking away of all right not only to the fruits but to the possession of a 1 P. 78. 2 Le Neve, Fasti, iii, p. 167. 150 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS benefice, followed by the induction of a successor, just as if the person so deprived were dead. The causes of depriva- tion a beneficio, as given in Giles Jacob's Law Dictionary {sub voce), are many: amongst the rest, "if a clerk be a non-conformist to the Canons: if a parson refuse to use the Common Prayer, or preach in derogation of it: do not ad- minister the Sacraments or read the Articles of Religion, etc. . . . And refusing to use the Common Prayer of the Church, is cause of deprivation ipso facto, in which case the Church shall be void, without any sentence declaratory; and avoidances by Act of Parliament need no declaratory sentence. . . ." Jacob then enumerates the rights of in- criminated clerks, but concludes : " none of these formalities are required where the living is made ipso facto void." Such cases as refusing to use the Common Prayer came within the limits of causes punishable by deprivation subsequent to this date; but there remain non-conformity to the Canons and parliamentary avoidances to account for many instances, otherwise inexplicable, of change of incumbency at this period. Sequestration, so far as it concerns the cases under discussion, is the inhibition of an incumbent from the performance of any pastoral or ecclesiastical function, and the confiscation of all the fruits of the benefice: but the living is not declared vacant. Usually, an administrator is appointed to collect the fruits of the benefice and to apply them as he shall be directed by the sequestrators. This duty is most frequently imposed upon the churchwardens ; and some clergyman is appointed to perform the clerical duties attached to the living, for doing which he receives a salary out of the sequestered revenues of the benefice. Should the penalised incumbent, however, subsequently purge himself of his offence, the sequestration may be re- moved, and he would be entitled and enabled once more to enjoy all the fruits and emoluments of his benefice, as he did before the sentence of sequestration was passed upon him. But unless a benefice be declared vacant, as in a case of deprivation, no other name will occur in episcopal and such-like Registers as occupying the living, till after the OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 151 death or subsequent deprivation of the cleric under sen- tence of sequestration. These explanations and distinctions have an important bearing on the obscure and complicated history of institutions to livings at this particular period, and may serve to account for innumerable cases which are a standing puzzle to those whose researches lead them along these lines of enquiry. Bearing these cautions in mind, therefore, it is not to be assumed that because Melchior Smith became prebendary of Apesthorpe in 1564 that Thomas Clement held it till then, at least in the sense of enjoying its emoluments. If he ceased to perform his pastoral duties and to enjoy the revenues of his living in 1559, and yet cannot be shown to have received another benefice in this or any other diocese, then, although he may not have been formally deprived, he was either driven out of the ministry under colour of sequestration, or forced to abandon it without process of law (" forsaking the ministry ") with exactly similar results so far as personal loss for conscience' sake is implied. Such seems to be Clement's case. It is not, therefore, extra- vagant to connect the deprived " — Clement " of Sander's and Gee's lists with this " Thomas Clement," and to sur- mise that after the close of this visitation, and the drawing up of the report thereof, he underwent formal deprivation. Thomas Cheston's case seems to be identical with Clement's. George Blithe, prebendary of Tokerington, is not men- tioned by Le Neve, who gives William Robinson as having been collated in 1545, while the name that immediately follows is that of " Anthony Blake, collated circa 1 562 or 1 563." Warren {or Warner) is said to have resigned in 1 563 or 1 564 : he was also Dean of Winchester, and was de- prived of that important preferment. The only two of these ten, therefore, who may be stated with any degree of certainty to have conformed, were Peter Vannes and Geoffrey Morlaye. It would seem that the idea which Mr. Gee wishes to convey to his readers is that six conformed. Two prebendaries, Robert Bapthorpe and George William- son, expressed their willingness to accept the Supremacy, 152 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS but asked to be given time for deliberation about the other points. A week's grace was accorded, at the expiration of which they proved to be ready to submit, which one did " voluntarie nt opinatur" and the other " lib enter? Seven of the prebendaries — namely, Peter Hedd, John Herde, William Rokeby (already mentioned), Jone Grene, Richard Peter, John Hebden, and Richard Norman, conformed without any ado; two, Richard Drury and Baldwin Nor- ton, appear to have conformed at first, but later to have reconsidered their decision, and, in consequence, to have suffered deprivation. There is some difficulty in deciding John Wyatt's case. He is named in the report as pre- bendary of Stillington ; but Le Neve makes no mention of him, giving Burland as admitted in August, 1558, and as succeeded by Atkinson in March, 1559-60. Wyatt was not personally present at the visitation, but a proxy appeared for him; nothing further, however, is recorded about him. William Taylor, also represented by proxy, was followed in his prebend of Fenton on 10th July, 1560, but the cause of voidance is not mentioned. It is practically certain, how- ever, as Mr. Gee admits, that he suffered deprivation. The same fate seems to have befallen William Bell, prebendary of Tokerington, though his name does not find a place on Mr. Gee's list of deprived clergy. Finally, it is not a little surprising that the name of Maurice Clenock is not to be found on that same list. The report of the visitation merely refers to him as " prebendary of the said church, appeared by proxy." He is not included in Le Neve's Fasti; but he is the same well-known individual who later figures in the story of the early days of the English College at Rome. 1 The general result of the visitation of York Cathedral in its members was that nine prebendaries conformed, either straightway or after short deliberation, while ten suffered sequestration or were shortly after deprived. The re- mainder of the visitation of the diocese of York is not of prime importance for the purposes of this investigation ; but it may be mentioned that only a few of the clergy put 1 Cf. Diet. Nat. Biog., xi, p. 37 ; Gillow, Diet, of Cath. Biog., i, p. 501. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 153 in an appearance, although duly summoned. Of those few, some may have submitted, though there is no evidence that such was the case; but Henry More, rector of St. Martin's in Middlegate, flatly refused to subscribe, and was subjected to the penalty of sequestration. A like fate, and for a similar cause, befell Thomas Jeffrison, vicar of Ledes- ham, and Richard Salvyn, rector of Hinderwell, the latter being, in addition, bound over to appear a week later before the same Visitors at Durham. The commissioners then proceeded to this most northern of the English Sees, where they were destined to encounter a stubborn resistance. It is worthy of note that some of the stalls were still held by those who had obtained them by the Charter of Foundation; in other words, that they had been members of the former convent of Benedictine monks. They had fallen into schism under Henry: of this they had purged themselves under Mary; and although, doubtless by dispensation, they did not then return to their monastic profession, nevertheless, since they had learnt by- sad experience " that it is an evil and a bitter thing to have left the Lord their God," 1 in this new hour of trial they resolved to atone for former subservience by the sturdy opposition born of maturer years and knowledge. The visitation was opened at Buckland on 21st Septem- ber, 1559; thence it was transferred to roomier quarters in the episcopal palace at Durham. Dr. Thomas Sigewick, in obedience to the royal summons, appeared in person; but, obstinately refusing the oaths, was remanded under sureties till the 25th, when, persisting in his refusal, he was form- ally deprived of his benefice of Gainsford, with all its fruits and emoluments. Robert Dalton, vicar of Billingham, was the next to be dealt with ; and proving equally obdu- rate, was also remanded till the 25th, when, far from sub- mitting, he boldly gave utterance to sentiments which so shocked the registrar of the visitation, that he recorded them in the vernacular, evidently as being of prime importance. Dalton told the commissioners " that he believeth that he 1 Jer., ii, 19. 154 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS who sitteth in the Seat of Rome hath and ought to have the jurisdiction ecclesiastical over all Christian realms." As no argument availed to move him from this position, his benefices were then and there sequestrated, and eventu- ally he was formally deprived both of his prebendal stall and of his other preferments. William Bennet was equally emphatic in his refusal of the oaths, and suffered sequestra- tion as a consequence; while William Whitehead, vicar of Heighington, at the same time and for the like causes, underwent the same punishment. It is significant, in the case of these two last named, that in Surtees' Durham} where the lists of the incumbents of their respective livings are given, they are not said to have vacated through any legal process of sequestration or deprivation — their names are simply followed by those of their successors, as if the vacancy had been due to natural causes some years subse- quent to these events. To anyone who knew nothing more than he might read in Surtees' lists, the natural inference to draw would be that they conformed on further considera- tion ; thus William Bennet was succeeded by a Robert Throckmorton as late as 1584; William Whitehead was replaced only in 1576 by William Hardinge: in this in- stance the cause of voidance is actually stated to be the death of Whitehead. The explanation would seem to be that the livings were only sequestrated, and so continued till the death of the defaulting incumbents; but only a true knowledge of the facts can enable a right interpreta- tion to be put on what actually took place. Meanwhile, Bennet and Whitehead, though nominally incumbents till 1584 and 1576 respectively, were ejected from their livings and receiving none of their fruits and emoluments — a por- tion going to the curates in charge, the residue accruing to the Crown. These two instances may be taken as prob- ably typical of hundreds of others throughout the length and breadth of England and Wales. If there are no means, as there rarely can be, of getting behind apparent facts, sufferers for conscience' sake, like Bennet and Whitehead, 1 Vol. iii, pp. 327, 305. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 155 run the risk of being denied the merit before men of the penalties they endured as a punishment for daring to think otherwise than the Queen, through her Parliament, had ordained. Many scores — nay, hundreds — of such cases have doubtless been recorded as examples of conformity which, in reality, were no more so than the two here fortunately traced. Students of the religious changes of this troubled period must, in these circumstances, use the utmost caution in accepting off-hand such sweeping statements as that less than two hundred refused to acquiesce in the new form of religion. While it cannot be denied that only too many sacrificed conviction to self-interest, it must not be over- looked that large numbers of empty livings point to the conclusion that there were many more followers of Bennet and Whitehead than it has hitherto been the fashion to admit. On 23rd September, 1559, began the visitation of the Cathedral Chapter itself: the result affords evidence of the uncompromising attitude of that body as a whole. The Visi- tors were in greater numbers than usual, there being present William, Lord Ewers, Sir Henry Percy, Sir Henry Gates, Edwin Sandys, and Henry Harvey. After the customary formal business, and Sandys' inevitable sermon, the more important business was taken in hand. The Dean, Dr. Thomas Robertson, had been appointed to that honourable post in 1557. His predecessor (not immediate) had been Dr. Robert Home, who was deprived after Mary's acces- sion, as not properly ordained, having been promoted to the priesthood by the Edwardine Ordinal. The policy of the moment was to ignore such Marian deprivations, and to restore these ejected Edwardine clergy to their former preferments, on the plea that their deprivations had been unjust and unlawful and were therefore void and of no effect. Under these circumstances the Register does not state that Robertson was deprived; but since he stoutly affirmed before the commissioners "that the Bishop of Rome ought to have the jurisdiction ecclesiastical of this Realm," and obstinately refused to take the proffered oaths, 156 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS he was bound over in his own recognisances in £500, and two sureties in «£ioo apiece, to present himself in London when he should be summoned to do so, to be there further dealt with. Home was at once reinstated as Dean, so that Robertson's removal was, although not so registered, tanta- mount to a deprivation. Of ten prebendaries who were dealt with, two, Roger Watson and Thomas Sparkes, con- formed. The last-named was suffragan Bishop of Berwick, and retained his stall at Durham and other preferments till his death in 1571, but there is no record of his ever having exercised episcopal functions after the Elizabethan settle- ment of religion. William Todd was not present, but the other prebendaries explained that he was laid up with a broken leg. This excuse did not save him from the ordeal : he was solemnly visited where he lay in bed, refused the oaths, and was penalised by sequestration, but he did not undergo deprivation till 1567. 1 The remainder, John Craw- forth, John Tuttyn, Stephen and Nicholas Marley, George Bullock, Anthony Salvyn and George Cliffe, all suffered immediate sequestration, which ended in due time in deprivation for most of them; but Salvyn underwent that fate there and then. Carlisle diocese was the next to be taken in hand by the tireless commissioners, who opened the proceedings at the Cathedral on 3rd October, 1559. They met with no op- position; but although Lancelot Salkeld, the Dean, sub- scribed the oaths " voluntarie et bono animo" this subser- vience did not avail him ; for, as he had taken the place of Sir Thomas Smythe, who was a mere layman, in 1553; so he was now compelled to give way for the restoration of the man he had supplanted, notwithstanding the latter's lack of qualification. As Salkeld is enumerated amongst those acknowledged to be " deprived," he must subsequently have returned to his allegiance to the Holy See, and that shortly after these events. Next day, in the same place, the clergy of the deaneries of Carlisle and Allerdale were visited, but the record merely states, without further particulars, " all 1 Le Neve, Fasti, iii, p. 319. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 157 absentees were pronounced contumacious," and that pro- ceedings would be taken against them. This might signify little or much, but there are no means for testing the re- sults. The same formalities, with a like inconclusive out- come, were gone through on 6th October at Penrith in the case of the deaneries of Cumberland and Westmoreland. Here William Burye, rector of Marton, underwent the penalty of sequestration, but the reasons leading thereto are nebulously expressed as being " ex certis rationabilibus causisT If this priest is the same individual as the one said to have been deprived at St. Nicholas's Hospital, Richmond, then this " reasonable " cause was contumacy. The diocese of Chester comes next in order in the Regis- ter of the royal commissioners ; but in point of time its visitation preceded that of Carlisle, having been opened at Richmond on 18th September. It will, of course, be remem- bered that, at the period in question, Richmondshire, though situated in Yorkshire, formed part of the more western diocese, and not of that of York. On 18th September, then, the clergy of Richmond, Catterick, and Borough- bridge deaneries appeared before the Visitors; there is no record of any one offering opposition ; but in the light of subsequent official estimates of the conformity of that neigh- bourhood, it is open to doubt whether all the clergy were really in such a complaisantly conforming mood in 1559. On 9th October, the commissioners were at Kendal, visit- ing that deanery and those of Copeland and Furness as well. There, again, but little information transpires, the re- gistrar employing merely general terms. Lancaster shows no clearer results, so far as the Register records. This town was visited on 12th October, then Wigan was taken in hand on 16th October, and Manchester was reached on 1 8th October. On the following day the College there was visited, but Lawrence Vaux, the Master or Warden, was returned as having gone to London. At a later date he was deprived for his refusal to accept the religious altera- tions. John Copage (or Cuppage), one of the Fellows, did not appear before the commissioners; but all the rest pre- 158 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS sented themselves, and, with one sole exception, sub- scribed. This was Richard Hart, who altogether refused to do so, and was bound over to appear before the com- missioners in London some time during the following November. The Fellows were then ordered to exhibit their deeds, but they managed to evade doing so, on the convenient pretext that the Warden had them all in his keeping, and that in his absence they could do nothing. On 20th October the commissioners proceeded to North- wich, but, finding urgent business awaiting them elsewhere, they beat an immediate and precipitate retreat thence, subdelegating their powers to certain local gentlemen as their surrogates, empowering them to finish the work they were abandoning " for certain reasonable causes, and es- pecially on account of the plague raging both in the city of Chester and in the surrounding districts." These surro- gates, amongst whom (to the credit of his courage) is numbered Edmund Scambler, soon to be Bishop of Peter- borough, held a session at Tarvyn on 24th October, going thence to Chester Cathedral on 26th of the month, where " all " the clergy willingly subscribed. Of course this state- ment applies only to those who were present ; for by known facts it cannot be doubted that, as the diocese shows a considerable number of recalcitrants, a certain number must evidently have abstained from presenting themselves before the Visitors. The surrogates report that the See had been long vacant, the deanery for two years, and of the prebendaries, two only were resident. The statement that the See had been "long" vacant certainly requires qualifica- tion, for Cuthbert Scot, the lawful pastor, was then living, and had suffered deprivation only as recently as the pre- ceding July. The Cathedral was found to be in such reduced straits financially, that neither were the needs of the poor relieved, nor did the officials of the Church receive their salaries. With this presentment the visitation Register closes, so far as records go. How it came to an end officially will be related hereafter. Meanwhile some of the judicial acts re- OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 159 main to be considered, as they help to throw a few gleams of light across the general darkness which has settled down on this particular period. Thus, a case came before the commissioners at Nottingham, which not only brings into prominence the spirit actuating the reformers, but must also help to a clearer understanding of the true causes of unexplained changes of incumbency at this time. A cer- tain Oliver Columban was rector of Stanford in King Edward's reign, and like many more of the clergy at that time, took unto himself a wife. On this account he was ejected from his living during Mary's reign, and Eliseus Umfreye succeeded him as incumbent. Columban now petitioned the commissioners of 1559 to restore him to his living. According to the terms of their powers they were entitled to do so: Umfreye made no objection, and Colum- ban was accordingly reinstated. Umfreye may possibly have received another living in place of the one he relin- quished in Columban's favour; but this does not appear in the visitation Register. All holders of livings, confronted with similar demands to retire, were not so complaisant. Thus, when the commissioners were in session at South- well, one Christopher Sugden, who had been ousted from his vicarage of Newark in the late reign, sought to be reinstated at the expense of John Taverham, who had replaced him. Taverham resisted Sugden's demand; never- theless, the Visitors, as perhaps in duty bound, restored Sugden. It is not here a question as to whether Taverham expressed his willingness to conform, or not; but merely that he was adjudged to be holding the benefice illegally ; hence his ejectment would not be accounted as a depriva- tion in the Register, although in fact it was so, as Sugden had been canonically proceeded against in the first in- stance. On the supposition that Taverham was unwilling to fall in with the parliamentary change in religion, there would here be an undoubted instance of deprivation, yet unrecorded and not accounted as such. As a matter of fact, Taverham was no loser by the transaction. He con- formed then or later, and was inducted into a prebend in 160 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS Southwell Minster in 1562. 1 In the same way Anthony Blake succeeded in ousting John Hudson from the vicarage of Doncaster, and John Atkynson from the rectory of Whyston. Others to suffer for the same cause were Thomas Helme, ejected from Latheley, Richard Summerscall from Burnsall, Robert Blunston (consenting) from Ordsall." William Burye from St. Nicholas's Hospital, near Rich- mond, and also from Kirkby in Cleveland, 3 John Thornton from Settrington, 4 George Cliffe from Elwick, George Bullock from the 10th stall at Durham, Robert Dalton from Norton vicarage, John Yates from Orme's Head, Robert Pates from Bottell, William Graye from Bridekirk, and Thomas Redman from Eversham ; in this case the restored incumbent being no other than Edwin Sandys, one of the commissioners in whose decision the matter rested. Moreover, Thomas Atkinson was removed from Sedbar, Thomas Dobeson from Orswicke, John Jakeson from Bol- mer, John Hanson from the archdeaconry of Richmond, David Ethell from Mottram, Robert Percivall from Rip- leye, 5 and Thomas Huddlestone (consenting) from Hock- erton. This summary of the proceedings of the Northern com- missioners makes it now possible partially to analyse the results of their work. In the first place, in order to calculate on a uniform system of averages and percentages, an ap- proximate idea of the real totals must be obtained both of livings and of personnel. For what has already been pointed out must be constantly borne in mind, namely, that at this particular period, 1559, the number of livings and the number of incumbents to occupy them were by no means identical. Nor is the reason far to seek. Henry VIII had, 1 Le Neve, Fasti, iii, p. 427. 2 This priest preached for the Visitors at Blythe, hence he had proved his conformity at an early date, and no doubt got a living in exchange for Ordsall. 3 But in both cases he lodged an appeal to the Queen and Council against the action of the Visitors. 4 But he appealed to the Queen and Council against the judgment. 5 This case was referred to London. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 161 by dispersing the monks, thrown a large body of priests on the world without adequate means of subsistence and with- out employment. They had, it is true, been accorded pen- sions, usually a miserable pittance, till such time as they could be provided, if they so wished it, with livings. In the natural course of events, some of these pensioners died, others obtained cures as they fell vacant, and were thus provided for; so that when Mary mounted the throne in 1553, her father's pension lists were already much relieved. But then came the purging of the Church which, during Edward's short reign and the use of the vitiated Ordinal ascribed to him, had come to be served by a certain pro- portion of clergy whose Orders the Roman Church refused to acknowledge as valid. The vocations to the priesthood during the five years of Mary's reign by no means sufficed to fill the gaps caused by death or deprivation ; hence, of necessity, there had to be recourse to the evil in se of the practice of granting dispensation to hold in plurality more than one benefice. Even a cursory examination of the de- privations of the next reign and of episcopal registers will suffice to prove this statement. Hence, taking as a basis that England and Wales contained at this time not 9,400, as Creighton stated, but 8,911 parishes, 1 it by no means follows that there were, again, not 9,400 beneficed clergy- men, as Strype states in his Life of Parker? but even the lesser number of 8,911. Thus, between February, 1559-60 and 1570, over one thousand dispensations were issued for the holding of two or more benefices by one clergyman at one time, 3 or, on an average, at the rate of one hundred a year, more or less ; but, of course, year by year the numbers naturally decreased, as the candidates for ordination under the Elizabethan settlement increased. In the first year (really only eleven months) there were 191 such dispensa- tions granted. Again, a special feature of this particular period which forces itself on the attention of anyone who 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cvi, No. 7. 2 P. 125. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., vol. lxxvi. M 1 62 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS will examine the episcopal certificates made during the first six years of Elizabeth's reign (and more particularly those of 1565), is the large number of livings returned as " having no curate " ; so that even after taking into account the wholesale methods of providing pastors adopted by the bishops of the Elizabethan appointment, there still remains a remarkable shortage to be accounted for. Hence it may be assumed with a certain degree of safety and confidence that 7,500 would more probably represent the actual number of clergy holding livings in 1559. This inference is of some importance from another standpoint; for it is clear that, if we accept for the moment Camden's statement (in round numbers) that only 200 refused to conform, then the per- centage of 7,500 which they represent is greater than if compared with 9,400. On the other hand, however, if 200 is too low an estimate to accept as the number of the active adherents of Rome, as it undoubtedly is, then 300, 400, 500, or whatever the number of recalcitrants may eventually prove to be, forms a much larger proportion of 7,500 than of 9,400. In fact, the more the question comes to be looked into with the aid of figures whose accuracy cannot fairly be gainsaid, the more equal, or, rather, perhaps, the less dis- proportionate, will prove to be the balance between con- formists and recalcitrants. The Northern Province, though perhaps comprising nearly a third of the acreage of England and Wales, never- theless was made up of four only of the sixteen dioceses into which the country was then divided. Nor did it in those days contain the teeming populations of the modern industrial centres of Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, and many other such hives of human industry. The centres of population were scattered, and the country parts were thinly inhabited, vast tracts of moorland separating town from town and hamlet from hamlet. It is needful to realise these conditions in order to arrive at a just estimate of the percentages now to be considered. From the Valor Ecclesiastiais it may be gathered that about this period the diocese of York contained 600 livings. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 163 From returns made early in Elizabeth's reign, 1 it appears that Carlisle diocese contained 1 1 1 parsonages and chapels- of-ease, that Chester held 383, and Durham 213. In all, therefore, the Northern Province shows a total of some 1,300 livings. In the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to be certainly accurate or to make a final state- ment; but, taking into consideration what has already been pointed out as regards dispensations to hold in plurality, it will probably not be far wide of the mark, either above or below it, if it be assumed that the Northern Province claimed the obedience of 1,000 clergy at the time of the visitation of 1559. The detailed proceedings of the visitation (as recorded in P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., vol. x) show only 90 priests as formally summoned, of whom 21 appeared and took the oaths required of them, 36 appeared and refused to take them, while 33 absented themselves, 16 of whom were, however, represented by proxies, and 17 were wholly unrepresented. Thus it may be inferred that of these 90, 37 only conformed, while 53 desired to maintain the Papal Supremacy. The register, however, in a less detailed fashion, gives an abstract of the numbers of beneficed and unbeneficed clergy who refused to attend the visita- tion, although duly preconised. These abstracts furnish a total of 314, thus distributed: York, 158; Chester, 85; Durham, 36; Carlisle, 35. Unfortunately the register does not offer any information as to the number who attended and refused to accept the oaths ; nevertheless, it proves one point conclusively, namely, that in the Northern Pro- vince 360 priests for absolute certainty, probably double that number, either refused to take the oaths or would have refused had it been found possible or politic to bring pressure to bear upon them. Mr. Richard Simpson 2 may be quoted to show that one Province alone, and that the smaller and more thinly populated, "gives a total much higher than the 192 which Protestant historians give as the 1 Harl. MS. 594, No. 9, f. 85 ; No. 10, f. 89; No. 16, f. 186. 2 Life of Campion, ed. 1896, note 128, p. 523. 1 64 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS number of recusant clergymen for the whole of England, or the 250, the number stated by Allen and Bridgewater, after Sander." Again, taking the estimate at 360 and not at 720 recusants, it is evident that fully one-third, possibly two- thirds, or something between these limits, of the entire clergy of the Northern Province were hostile to religious changes. It cannot, therefore, be far wide of the mark to deduce that between one-half and two-thirds of the North- ern clergy were, if not actually hostile to the principles of the reformation, at least more in sympathy with the religion of Mary and Pole than with that of Elizabeth and Matthew Parker. This leaning towards the old order may be ascertained in another way from the pages of the visitation register. Although the Act of Uniformity had come into force on 24th June, 1559, nevertheless, three or four months later, several churches, as Orston, Apontborowe, and Arncliff, were returned as still being without the books needed to perform the English service. The reason for this is simple enough, if there happened at those three churches what is definitely stated to have taken place at many others, namely, that the service books provided during Edward's reign had been burnt or otherwise destroyed when the Mass was restored under Mary. In other cases, church- wardens, as those of St. Peter's, Nottingham, lodged a complaint that their curate " doth not use the Lord's Prayer, the Belief, and the Ten Commandments," that is, that the priest had not begun to interpolate those formularies in English into his Latin Mass — the first and the least con- cession to the spirit of reform. The curates of Radcliffe and of Bury were delated for similar remissness. Elsewhere, where the priest had proved willing to conform, as at Fish- lake, his parishioners " do despise the Common Service" ; and here and there an individual is denounced because he showed his dislike of such innovations openly, and "troubleth the curate in time of Common Prayer." Others, again, were complained of because they " do wilfully absent themselves from the church and from the divine service, to the evil OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 165 example of all the parish"; and at Richmond the people generally " come not well to the church." These instances are negative rather than positive; but still stronger marks of disaffection towards the new order were exhibited and duly noted. At Doncaster "the images be in the vestry not destroyed," waiting for a future order to set them up again. At Osmotherley " their images be conveyed away, but by whom they know not." At Beynton " the image of our Lady hath been used for pilgrimage," and at Bridlington " the images be secretly kept," while at Rotherborn " their images stand still in the church." " The rood still remaineth " at Rewle ; and, perhaps the most flagrant case of all, in York Cathedral itself " altars still stand, all saving the High Altar," whose removal was perhaps considered as a matter of policy, and in the nature of a temporary concession to expediency. The boldness of the clergy was seconded by the laity; and in Chester city their efforts to save church property and adornments, ready to be produced and set up once more upon another submission to Rome, are noticeable. Thus, " Mistress Dutton keepeth secretly a rood, two pictures, and a Mass book " belonging to St. Peter's there ; while Peter Fletcher, who " hath certain images which he keepeth secretly," they being really the property of St. Mary's church, was denounced to the Visitors, not because he was defrauding the church of its posses- sions, but because he was saving them from destruction. Such details as these, taken singly, are trivial enough, it may be ; but repeated over a wide area of country, they cannot but be recognised as local indications of a wide- spread feeling; and rightly interpreted, they show that the Elizabethan settlement was not instantly accepted either by clergy or laity as the fulfilment of their ardent aspira- tions, but rather that they would have been content to be left in the exercise of that form of worship in which they had been brought up ; and that if finally they acquiesced in the changes then forced upon them, it was due, not to con- viction, but to a desire to escape molestation in purse, property, and person. CHAPTER V THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY II. — The Southern Visitation and the general Sequel. THE records of the Northern Visitation afford results, if somewhat incomplete, nevertheless fairly satis- factory, by reason of the existence of an official report. Turning our attention to the Southern Province, however, we are met by no such report, and such information as has come down to us is of such an altogether fragmentary char- acter as to be well-nigh useless. No formal returns have survived, or, at least, are at present known to exist; no such return is referred to by any writer, if it ever did exist. Under the circumstances, it may be doubted whether any such document was ever drawn up at all. Such knowledge, therefore, as we possess, has reached our times mainly through letters and other such-like disconnected sources. From such materials we are thrown back upon the necessity of reconstituting for ourselves a conjectural picture of what must have taken place. This picture, thus made up of a mosaic of minute details gathered here and there, differs little or not at all from that presented in the official returns from the North. Whichever way we turn, the general impres- sion that confronts us is, that the religious change was not acceptable to the body of the clergy any more than to the laity; that such acquiescence as was exhibited does not necessarily imply conviction, and, indeed, rather points to the adoption of the line of least resistance ; that is to say, that the apparent acceptance of the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity was in the great majority of cases outward and 1 66 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS 167 hollow and insincere, accorded solely for the purpose of avoiding in the immediate present the unpleasant conse- quences of recalcitrance; and that this, to us, disgraceful temporising was due to a blunting of conscience, the in- evitable result of the constant kaleidoscopic changes through which the clergy had been passing for the last quarter of a century. The much-sung " Vicar of Bray " stands for a type; his is not an isolated case. Judging by the past, the clergy had no assurance that the changes they were wit- nessing in the early years of Elizabeth's reign would not in a short time be reversed once more; they, therefore, bowed before the storm, smothered their convictions, if they had any left, and for the most part, at that period at least, hardly appreciated the significance of those theological subtleties which came to be emphasised only in the course of time, such as the want of apostolic succession, the rejec- tion of true Orders, the Real Eucharistic Presence and the like. This has been well expressed in Mr. R. Simpson's Life of Edmund Campion. " It was only a suspension of discipline," he writes, " an authoritative stoppage of the persecution which had disgusted the people by its cruelty. In country parishes where the people were all Catholic, and where the forced communion with heretics was therefore a dead letter, there was positively no change but the un- popular substitution of the English for the Latin service. It appeared to be only a toleration that must at times be practised by all Establishments, when their evil members are too numerous and powerful to be severely dealt with. 1 Its true character only came out step by step, year by year, and its full consequences were only revealed when custom and habit, enforced by policy, and irritated by many clumsy attempts to change them, had become too strong to be conquered." 2 The frame of mind here indicated would account for the falling away of a large part of the clergy from Catholic unity. Undoubtedly the greater part of the 1 Cf. St. Aug., lib. iii, c. 2, Cont. ep. Parmenmnz, and Can. Non potest., 23, q. 4. 2 P. 201 (ed. 1896). 168 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS clergy did so fall away; but the number of those who refused to conform to the new religion was, as undoubtedly, much greater than has been commonly supposed. How else can the great number of ordinations which took place in the early years of Elizabeth's reign be accounted for? The large number of priests and deacons thus promoted prove that there must have been a great number of vacancies in the livings of the country. And it has already been seen that in many dioceses a considerable proportion of the parishes were not served at all. 1 The Marquess of Winchester wrote to Sir W. Cecil very shortly after the Act of Uniformity became operative: " This Friday morning I sent you my son St. John's letter sent me from Hampshire, with other writings made by the Dean and Canons of the Cathedral Church and from the Warden and Fellows of the New College and from the Master of St. Cross, whereby it appeareth they leave their service and enter to no new, by cause it is against their conscience, as it appeareth by their writings, wherein order must be taken with letters." 2 This information was correct: Winchester city proved to be exceptionally staunch to the old traditions; and, as will be seen later, Home, the Bishop of that diocese, made frequent complaint of the backward- 1 Mr. N. Pocock, writing in The Guardian, 9th November, 1892, p. 1715, says: " In the first year of Grindal's episcopate many of the clergy had obtained licence to live beyond seas, upon what was called ' misliking of religion,' and their places were partially filled by thirty different ordinations which he held, at which he admitted 160 deacons and nearly as many priests to Holy Orders, a much larger number than can be accounted for by the deaths of incumbents or curates .... Archbishop Parker, too, held five ordinations at Lambeth in less than three months after his consecration, at the last of which alone there were 155 priests and deacons ordered." Further on, in the same com- munication, this capable historian, speaking of the clergy who con- formed, says that they did so, " holding in some cases the Faith they had before, and thinking that the Real Presence in the Sacrament was not denied in the new Prayer- Book after the words of the First Book of Edward had been restored and added to the Zwinglian words which had been substituted for them in the Second Book." a P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., IV, No. 72, 3°th June, 1559. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 169 ness of his flock in accepting the new parliamentary Faith. Many got into trouble for their contumacy, as, for instance, Peter Langridge and John Earle, prebendaries; for, by 2nd November, 1559, they were prisoners in the Marshal- sea, at which date the Council wrote to Matthew Parker about their enlargement under bail, on account of sickness. 1 London may take precedence of other places in this en- quiry, as being of chief importance ; also as leading the way in providing the largest proportion of conforming clergy, just as in other cases it has usually shown itself as the prominent favourer of change. Its proximity to the Court ; its constant intercourse with the Continent; the steady flow of all descriptions of foreigners flocking to it, may readily account for this phenomenon. But it would be a mistake to draw conclusions about the rest of England from the conditions prevailing in the capital. London, then, being the stronghold of Protestantism at the commence- ment of Elizabeth's reign, we must expect to find here the most numerous and most important indications of adhesion to the new Acts; even so, Jewel's statement to Peter Martyr a must not be altogether forgotten, or credited with having no application to London. " Now that religion is everywhere changed," he wrote, "the Mass-priests absent themselves altogether from public worship, as if it were the greatest impiety to have anything in common with the people of God." Machyn notes in his Diary that " the xi day of August, the Visitors sat at Paul's : Master Doctor Home and Master [Huyck] and Master [Salvyn] upon Master [John] Harpsfield and Master [Nicholas] Harpsfield and divers others." This marks the opening of the visitation of the Southern Province. The seven weeks that had elapsed since the Act of Uniformity came into operation had given time for the discovery of much difference of opinion. Thus Strype, speaking of the introduction of the new Service Book on 24th June, records that "hitherto the 1 B.M. Add. MS. 5842, f. 367. 2 \Zur., No. 16, 1st August, 1559. 170 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS Latin Mass-book remained, and the priests celebrated ser- vice, for the most part, as they did before." ' When the fateful day arrived, however, those who were fearful of what might happen to them if they did not give way, of course conformed ; " but the popish priests, that is, the majority of them, utterly refused." He points out shortly after, as the consequence of this refusal : " now,also, since many churches were left destitute, the ministers that remained, and that were put into the places of the popish priests, especially in London, were fain to serve three or four churches on Sundays and holydays." 2 Injunctions yet exist, directing these ministers how they were to attend to their multiplied parishes. 3 Meanwhile evidence is forthcoming that Visitors or other energetic persons anxious to bring ecclesiastical practice into line with the provisions of the Act of Uniformity, were busy among the London churches. Thus in a list of church ornaments belonging to St. Christopher-le-Stock, the in- ventory of which was taken on 24th July, 1559, are to be seen an interesting number of articles of furniture, many of which, judging by the difference of ink, were ruled out at a later date, with the significant marginal note — " The parcels are sold." They comprise a cross, candlesticks, holy-water vat, pyx, vestments and tunicles, a corporas-case, " a vayle of lynen to drawe athwarte the pyxe," antiphonars, Mass- books, grayles, legends, psalters, and a lamp. Some of the church-stuff met with a worse fate, for " a lynnen clothe paynted with the takyng downe of Chryst fro ye Cross," and " iij Baner clothes for crosses paynted and gylded " were " brent." A chalice, a cope, altar and table and herse cloths, carpets and surplices, even a chrysmatory, were retained for use. Another inventory made two years later mentions only these objects as being then in the possession of the churchwardens; hence the approximate date of the dis- persal or destruction of the remainder is clearly indicated. 4 1 Ann., i, p. 135. - Ibid., p. 136. 3 Strype, Life of Parker, p. 130; Petyt MSS. G. 4 Archaeologia, vol. 45, pp. 121-3. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 171 Many similiar instances may be come across, up and down the country. To return, however, to the Cathedral Church of St. Paul's, and the opening there of the visitation. Our chief source of information is Strype, who merely reproduces the matter of the original register. All the members of the Chapter were cited, " but very few appeared. The absent were pro- nounced to incur the pain of contumacy." The Articles of Enquiry and the Injunctions were then read. Next day subscription was called for, whereupon John and Nicholas Harpsfield and John Willerton {or Willanton) refused, asserting they so acted, not with malicious or obstinate minds, but because they were not resolved in conscience about them. They further refused to obey an order to re- move " images, idols and altars " from the church. Sebas- tian Westcote, the Master of the Choristers, was another who refused subscription. These and the other contumaci- ous members of the Cathedral body were bound over, and the task of removing signs of Catholic worship was en- trusted to others who showed themselves more pliant. Those who remained obstinate in their contumacy had sentence of sequestration passed on them, with the further threat of deprivation if they did not submit before the 12th October following, to which day the visitation was ad- journed. The enquiry was then further adjourned till 3rd November, when several others besides those already mentioned proved intractable, and all, in consequence, suffered deprivation. The London rectors and vicars were summoned to attend on this last-named day; those who failed to put in an appearance were warned to do so at a later fixed date, under pain of deprivation. 1 Machyn some- what differs in his dates, but corroborates the main facts. He noted that "the 23rd day of October [the Visitors sat at St. Paul's, when] Master Harpsfield, the Archdeacon of London . . . was deposed, and divers prebendaries and vicars." When the church goods of St. Christopher-le- Stock were " brent," this fate befell them, probably " by the 1 Strype, Ann., i, 168-172. 172 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS Queen's Visitors and by her injunctions; which was exe- cuted about Bartholomew-tide, when," as Strype records, " in St. Paul's Churchyard and Cheapside, as well as Smith- field, the roods were burnt to ashes, and together with them, in some places, copes also, vestments, altar-cloths, books, banners, sepulchres, and such like." ' For at that time there was an outbreak of mob violence; and, as may be gathered, it was incited and inflamed by some of the fanatical preachers lately returned from the continent. Stowe records that " on the Eve of St. Bartholomew, the day and the morrow after, etc., were burned in Paul's Churchyard, Cheap, and divers other places of the City of London, all the roods and other images of the churches; in some places the copes, vestments, altar-cloths, books, ban- ners, sepulchres and rood-lofts were burned." 2 Machyn, also, noted that " the time afore ' Bathellmytyd ' [Bartholo- mewtide, i.e., 24th August] and after, was all the roods and Marys and Johns and many other of the church goods, both copes, crosses, censers, altar-cloths, rood-cloths, books, banners and banner-stays, wainscot, with much other gear about London. . . ." The incompleteness of this entry is sufficiently supplemented by another : " The 24 day of August, . . . against Ironmonger Lane and against St. Thomas Acres, two great [bonfires] of roods and Marys and Johns and other images, there they were burned with great wonder; and the 25 day of August, at St. Botulph's without Bishopsgate, the rood, Mary and John [patron of that church] and books; and there was a fellow within the church[yard] made a sermon at the burning of the church goods . . . cross of wood that stood in the church yard . . ." News of these lawless doings quickly got abroad ; and Sir Thomas Chaloner found it difficult to make people in the Low Countries understand the motives underlying these excesses, and therefore sought for instruction from Cecil as to the explanation it were best for him to offer. " The burning of the images in Bartholomew Fair is here much spoken of with divers constructions" ; — so he wrote from 1 Ann., i, p. 175. 2 Annals, ed. 1600, p. 1082. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 173 Antwerp : " some esteeming it done of purpose to confirm the Scottish revolt ; others not marvelling at the plucking down of them, seeing it is a consequent of our religion re- formed, do yet think that public burning, through the novelty, a matter rather envious than of necessity. It is here affirmed that such windows of our churches as are historied with images shall be broken down generally. I beseech you, Sir, let me (if ye think it so meet) be somewhat hereof informed from you, that I may know what to answer at this Court to such as not so much curiously as spleen- fully will herein be in hand with me." 1 The postscript of this letter contains a further reference to these events. " I pray you, Sir," wrote Chaloner, " let me know whether ye know of an extraordinary fashion used by those that had charge of taking down the rood at Paul's. I heard it should be used with contumely of King Philip and Queen Mary. If not, then there be over-knavish letters sent over from thence." Whatever exaggeration, if any, may have coloured Chaloner's information in this specific instance, the general impression was faithful enough; and though experience should warn the student from making a sweeping judg- ment on the evidence afforded by one episode, it is also a recognised truism that an ignorant mob, once egged on to violence, and not checked, will commit excesses whose effects must later seriously compromise the reputation and interests of those leaders or instigators who never, in the first instance, intended that resort should be had to such lengths. But the philosophical maxims : " qui est causa causans est causa causati," and " qui facit per alium,facit per se" must always hold good; hence the government that could permit, nay instigate such mob-violence, must ultimately bear the responsibility. It is clear that no attempt was made to check this iconoclasm, for we have it on Machyn's authority, that, notwithstanding Chaloner's appeal, "the 16 day of September was [the] rood and Mary and John and St. Magnus burned at the corner of 1 Chron. Belg., No. ccccxxn, ii, p. 16 ; and P.R.O., Foreign, Eliz., vol. vii, No. 662, 2nd September, 1559. 174 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS Fish Street, and other things." This is proof sufficient that this drastic method of purifying the churches was an organised and officially approved onslaught, at least im- plicitly, on every remaining vestige of the practices of the old Faith. What took place between these dates may be supplied by the imagination. The Visitors appointed for the London diocese of course held sessions elsewhere than at St. Paul's, as at the Savoy ; St. Margaret's, Westminster; St. Bride's; St. Lawrence Jewry ; St. Michael's, Cornhill ; at Clerkenwell, for the parishes of North Middlesex; and at Weald, Chelmsford, Bishop's Stortford, Dunmow, and Colchester, for the parishes of Essex and Hertfordshire within the London diocese. As the commissioners had completed their labours by the end of August, it would seem that their work must have been somewhat perfunctorily performed. As there were about eight hundred clergy at that time in the London diocese, and only four hundred signed their sub- scription to the Acts, it is plain that the remainder, what- ever they may have done later, at that period at least, either refused outright to conform, or, like so many of the northern clergy, simply put in no appearance. It is well to place on record here, that at least twelve of those who signed at the period of the visitation, were at a subsequent date deprived, showing that when they had leisure to think out for themselves what their subscription really meant, they repented of their hasty compliance, and would have nothing to do with the new-fangled religion, when once all that it implied was fully brought home to them. On the ether hand, it may not be doubted that of the four hundred who abstained from signing in August, 1559, many must have finally acquiesced, either tacitly or explicitly. Outside London, opposition to the Act of Uniformity was stronger and more open. The leaders of the reforming party had consequently still cause for misgiving as to the ultimate success of their efforts. Thus, Jewel wrote on 1 6th November, 1559, to Peter Martyr: "If my friend Julius should come to us, I promise him every kindness; I OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 175 advise him, however, to wait a little while, lest we should be obliged to return together to Zurich." 1 On 19th June, 1559, Bishop Quadra told King Philip that " the Judges of England, as they are called, who have come here [London] for the terms, have refused to take the oath [of Supremacy] and have gone to their homes without their [the Council] having dared to press them to it ; and many others have done the same, and it is thought that they will not venture to press anyone as they had intended . . . the constancy and num- ber of the Catholics frightens them, because they see that they have not been able to gain a single man of them, either by promises, threats, or in any other way." 2 Quadra added to this information on 27th June, reporting that "there is news that in the neighbourhood of Winchester they have refused to receive the service-book, which is the Office these heretics have composed ; and all the clergy of this diocese had met to consult as to what they should do ; neither were they celebrating Mass, and the populace were in conse- quence much disturbed." 3 On 1st July, the Spanish am- bassador, in writing to his royal master, again referred to the prevailing discontent. " They also say that the Queen has had news that in the North there are disturbances on account of religion, and that there they refuse to adopt this new service-book. In the bishopric of Winchester, I know for certain they have not accepted it, nor will they take the oath, and that at the present moment all is confusion there, and that here they have not dared to press them." 4 From the reformers' point of view matters can hardly be said to have much improved in this neighbourhood, even after the lapse of more than twenty years, for the Hampshire Justices of the Peace, complaining to the Lords of the Council about various forms of opposition they were encountering in 1583, state that "others have boldly affirmed that it is necessary to have Mass, and they hope to hear it ; and that 1 1 Zur., No. 24. 2 Chron. Belg., No. CCCLVi, i, p. 540. 3 Ibid., No. CCCLix, i, p. 544. 4 Ibid., No. CCCLXii, i, p. 548. 176 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS they had rather hear bear-baitings than the divine ser- vice." 1 This widespread attitude of uncompromising op- position had to be broken down somehow, since, if allowed to continue, it might have constituted a grave danger to the plans of the reforming party. Hence, the visitations were pressed forward in the first instance ; they were, later, abandoned from the same motives, and their very partial success has already been obscurely indicated. That the unpleasant personal consequences of deprivation cowed the spirit and overcame the scruples of many incumbents cannot be denied; that all but about two hundred submitted cannot, however, be maintained, or such a sentence as the following, written by Bishop Cox (who certainly knew the real facts) to Peter Martyr, about (but after) 21st Decem- ber, 1559, could have little or no meaning: "The popish priests amongst us," he said, " are daily relinquishing their ministry, lest, as they say, they should be compelled to give their sanction to heresies." 2 How the dislodgment of the Marian clergy was effected may be gathered in part from the political correspondence of the period, pieced together. Bishop Quadra, writing on 1 3th August, 1 559, to King Philip, told him that " they have commenced to carry out the laws of this Parliament re- specting religion very rigorously. They have appointed six Visitors who examine everybody, to whom, by the law of Parliament, they have to administer the oath, deprive those who will not take it, 3 and proceed against those who are found to be disobedient. They have just removed from St. Paul's and all the other churches of London the crosses and altars. 4 As regards the oath, they find resistance as ever; for the rest, they do as they please; but it is thought that outside London they will not proceed without oppo- sition." B 1 Cotton MS., Titus B. Ill, No. 29. - 1 Zur., No. 28. 3 This important clause is entirely omitted in Major Martin Hume's translation, v. Calendar of Spanish State Papers. 4 Major M. Hume adds images. 3 Chron. Belg., No. CCCXCIX, i, p. 595. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 177 What happened " outside London " it is impossible to record with precision, owing to the fact that the official report of the Southern visitation was either never drawn up, or if drawn up, has been lost — at any rate it is not at present known to be in existence, nor is any direct reference to it to be met with. But the signatures of those in certain dioceses who conformed at this visitation remain in a Lambeth MS. 1 In default of definite official information, recourse must be had to other but not less authentic sources. Thus, on 1st August, Jewel informs Peter Martyr that he is " on the point of setting out upon a long and troublesome commission for the establishment of religion, through Reading, Abingdon, Gloucester, Bristol, Bath, Wells, Exeter, Cornwall, Dorset and Salisbury." This itinerary sufficiently indicates the dioceses of Salisbury, Oxford, Gloucester, Bristol, Bath and Wells, and Exeter. No signatures, however, attest the success of the Visitors' efforts. The commission under which Jewel was acting was dated 19th July, 1559, and was addressed to himself, William, Earl of Pembroke, Henry Parry, Licentiate in Laws, and William Lovelace, Lawyer. 2 Jewel proceeded to tell his friend that " the extent of my journey will be about 700 miles, so that I imagine we shall hardly be able to return in less than four months." Four months later, almost to the day, Jewel reported to Martyr the results of his labours; and the conclusion he had arrived at was that the clergy, at least, showed scant signs of conformity, for, as he expressed it, " if inveterate obstinacy was found anywhere, it was altogether amongst the priests, those especially who had once been on our side. They are now throwing all things into confusion, in order, I suppose, that they may not seem to have changed their opinions without due con- sideration. But let them make what disturbance they please; we have in the mean time disturbed them from their rank and office." 3 This " disturbance " here alluded to doubtless represents sequestrations and deprivations. It 1 Cartae Miscell., xiii, pt. 2. 2 I Zur., p. 39, note, No. 16. 3 Ibid., No. 19, 2nd November, 1559. N 173 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS may also be connected with the " relinquishing of the ministry " referred to by Cox, 1 and seems to be further hinted at by Jewel in the letter just quoted from. " The ranks of the Papists," he continues, " have fallen almost of their own accord. Oh! if we were not wanting in our exer- tions, there might yet be good hopes of religion. But it is no easy matter to drag the chariot without horses, especially uphill." He then sums up the results in words which, since they exhibit violent bias, must be, to some extent at least, discounted. But they are, nevertheless, of value, as showing that in the large tract of country he had traversed, the people were at that date still thoroughly Catholic in their sentiments. " We found everywhere the people sufficiently well disposed towards religion, and even in those quarters where we expected most difficulty." At most these words would mean that where the issues were but ill compre- hended amongst a rude people little in touch with the movements in the capital, no great opposition was offered to changes whose significance was not immediately ap- parent and on the surface. Thus, where the new Service was said to be the Mass merely in English, the matter of language was not held to be sufficient cause for riot. But Jewel went on to state that he had found it "hardly credible what a harvest, or rather what a wilderness of superstition had sprung up in the darkness of the Marian times. We found in all places votive relics of saints, nails with which the infatuated people 2 dreamed that Christ had been pierced, and I know not what small fragments of the sacred Cross. The number of witches and sorceresses 3 had everywhere become enormous. 1 The Cathedral Churches were nothing else but dens of thieves, or worse, if anything worse or more foul can be mentioned." 5 If this picture were even approximately near the truth, it may justly be 1 i Zur., No. 28. 2 " Fatui " in original ; = fools, or foolish people. 3 " Magarum et veneficarum numerus." 4 " Ubique in immensum excreverat." 5 I Zur., No. 19, 2nd November, 1559. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 179 asked how it is that deprivations were not more numerous than historians state, merely in the interests of morality and justice, putting aside altogether those of conform it)-, the immediate object in view. The diocese of Norwich furnishes, from the Lambeth MS., 525 names of subscribers. Of these, eight were subse- quently deprived, discounting from the value of their ad- hesion to the new order, in September, 1559. Dr. Jessop in- formed Mr. Gee that at that period there were some six hundred clergy resident in the diocese to see to the spiritual wants of 1,200 parishes. 1 This estimate hardly agrees with Parkhurst's own, which gives y6y livings having incum- bents. This was but shortly after, in 1563 ; 2 while in a return made to the Queen about 1 565, the number of vacant livings was given as then being only 104. 3 In any case, the number of 525 subscribers represents a high percentage; but it is lessened if the total is taken as Parkhurst's 767 instead of Jessop's 600. Ely furnished 94 subscribers. But Mr. Gee's list, when confronted with Add. MS. 5828, f. 28, etc. (being extracts from the institutions of Bishop Cox's register) discloses the incompleteness of his researches. Thus, parson " Darner " of Hockington, should be " Dande," who was deprived of that living in 1564; and the many names occurring in that register go to show that, for some considerable time at least, no pressure was brought to bear on many who evidently absented themselves from the visitation of 1559. J. Etwold, vicar of Chesterton, subscribed in 1559; and yet, by October, 1566, his successor, John Todd, vacated that living by cession. How and when did Etwold vacate? These and many other such like unexplained difficulties go to show that a number of incumbents, although out of sympathy with the new order, continued to hold their livings for a longer or shorter period after a settlement is supposed to have been reached. In fine, adhesion is not to be taken as a mark of enthusiastic conviction, but might 1 Elizabethan Clergy, p. 96, note 2. 2 Lansd. MS. 6, No. 60. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., Add. XII, No. 108. i8o THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS more truly be ascribed to fear of the consequences of refusal and of expectation for another turn in the wheel of chance. This aspect of the case has been well described by Mr. Simpson, writing even of several years later. " They were all waiting for something to turn up ; . . . they were wait- ing for Burghley to die, or for Elizabeth to die or to marry a Catholic husband, or for the King of Spain to come and depose her . . . forgetting that fate, unresisted, overcomes us, but is conquered by resistance. It was this English dilatoriness, this provisional acquiescence in wrong, this stretching of the conscience in order that men might keep what they had, which made it possible that England should be lost to the Church." l When Elizabeth's first Parliament was being dismissed, and when the anti-Catholic Bills became law, but before their meaning and tendency could have percolated into the country districts, the Conde de Feria, commenting, in his despatches to the King of Spain, on what had passed, re- minded him that " the Catholics are in a great majority in the country; and if the leading men in it were not of so small account, things would have gone differently." 2 A quarter of a century later, Rishton, in his continuation of Sander's history of the schism, corroborates this judgment, for, he says, speaking of the earlier years : " Besides the very large number of the nobility, of whom I have spoken before, the greater part of the country gentlemen was un- mistakably Catholic ; so also were the farmers throughout the kingdom, and in that kingdom they are an honourable and wealthy people. They all hated the heresy. Not a single county except those near London and the Court, and scarcely any towns except those on the sea-coast, will- ingly accepted the heresy." 3 Rishton goes on 4 to say that 1 Life of Campion, ed. 1 896, p. 9. 2 "Es gran parte la de los Catolicos que hay en el reino, y, si los hombres principales que hay en el no fueran tan de poco, las cosas hubieran ydo diferentemente." Cf. Chron. Belg., No. cccxlvi, i, p. 519. 3 Ed. 1877, p. 265. 4 Ibid. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 181 many others, though " Catholic at heart, nevertheless thought they might to some extent outwardly obey the law, and yield to the will of the Queen ; if in so doing there was any sin, that must be laid at the Queen's door, not at theirs, for they were of opinion that the straits they were in somehow or other might be held to excuse them. This opinion was adopted also by the lower clergy, simple and parish priests, not a few canons of Cathedral or Collegiate churches, who in their hearts hated the heresy, and for a time, listening to the voice of conscience, refrained from the use of the new Service. So general was this, that after the day appointed by the statute on which the true Sacrifice was to cease and the false rites were to begin, many churches throughout the kingdom remained shut for some months; for the old priests would not willingly use the schismatical service, and the new ministers were not yet numerous enough to serve so many places." From these contemporary indications, it is clear that the acceptance of the change on the part of the clergy, where it did take place, was not, in the beginning, sincere. And it can hardly be said that it was accepted by the bulk of the laity. Bishop Quadra, writing on ist July, 1559, to King Philip, informed him that " They also say that the Queen has had news that in the North there are disturbances on account of religion, and that there they refuse to adopt this new service- book." ' This tallies with the information he had already given about the southern diocese of Winchester, and corro- borated in the present letter, thus fully bearing out the words just quoted from Rishton. Quadra, writing to Feria on 16th January, 1 5 59-60, told him that many Masses were still being said in London; 2 and on 7th March, 1559-60, he pressed upon him his urgent need of money. Such appeals he had been reiterating now for a considerable while; his own means had been swallowed up; he was in debt; and yet the calls on him were incessant. " Not a day passes," he said, " that I am not besieged by poor clergymen and students, whom 1 Chron. Belg., No. ccclxii, i, p. 548. See ante, p. 175. 2 Ibid., No. dxxviii, ii, p. 186. 1 82 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS they have turned out of their benefices and colleges, and who come to beg for charity. I cannot help relieving them. ... I gave Rastelo [? Rastall] 25 crowns the other day for clothes; he is preaching secretly in the desert like an apostle. Every day I have to find money for somebody." l The course of the visitations of the two ecclesiastical provinces had been brought to a finish by the end of October, 1559; but the task set the Visitors had been by no means completed, as has been seen. Too much stress must not be laid upon this fact, for it is clear that in so gigantic an undertaking more time would have to be allowed than in the nature of the case the commissioners could possibly bestow upon it in the short while that had elapsed since they entered upon their labours. This had been foreseen; and a permanent and stationary commis- sion had been created by the Queen's Letters Patent on 19th July, 1559. 2 As has been narrated, many cases of contumacy which occurred during the provincial visitations were held over to be dealt with at leisure by this central commission, and the delinquents had been bound over under recognisances to appear before it in London at different dates, late in the autumn. This commission, after disposing of the cases thus relegated to it by the itinerant royal commissioners, continued in being to direct and enforce the Elizabethan settlement of religion as a central authority acting in the name of the Queen with almost unlimited and plenary authority. And it had much to do; for, as has been gathered from the quotations taken from episcopal Injunctions and Articles of Enquiry during a long series of subsequent years, the royal com- missioners had left behind them altars and rood lofts and images intact, and a large body of unsworn clergy. Even where the clergy submitted, the bishops were generally under no illusion as to the worth of such subscription. Bishop Pilkington, indeed, likened his frustrated efforts to reduce his clergy to St. Paul's encounter with wild beasts 1 Chron. Belg., No. dlxxv, ii, p. 250. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., v, No. 18. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 183 at Ephesus. 1 Since, however, this central court, or ecclesi- astical commission, had been constituted, the local or itinerant court could only clash with it. The Queen was accordingly advised to recall the powers conferred in the previous June, and pursuant to this policy, in the December of 1559 she issued letters to the commissioners of both provinces, to suspend their proceedings, and to determine only such matters as had been already commenced. 2 The Elizabethan bishops who replaced the deprived Marian bishops or who filled up the other Sees left vacant by death, got to work with a will to purge their respective dioceses of such remnants of Popery as they could discover, and these were plentiful enough. Shortly after their con- secration they set about making visitations; but their eagerness seemed likely to create more embarrassment for the Government than was convenient; their zeal was there- fore checked by the Primate, acting under instructions. Accordingly, on 27th May, 1560, Archbishop Parker issued letters to Grindal, Bishop of London, to be communicated by him to the other suffragans, whereby he inhibited them from visiting their dioceses under pain of contempt, on the plea that both clergy and laity had been already over- burthened by the expense of such visitations; the bishops were therefore to defer their proceedings to a more con- venient time. 3 No document can be traced which might give the explanation of the motives underlying this with- drawal of the powers entrusted to the commissioners ap- pointed in June, 1559. It was clear that the Government was anxious to proceed, if possible, without having recourse 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xx, No. 5, 15th October, 1561. - Ibid., vn, No. 79. "... We now have thought it convenient to will and require you to surcease from any further intermeddling therein . . . and that ye deliver your acts registered together with the seal of your jurisdiction ... to our principal secretary . . . re- serving nevertheless unto you power and authority to examine and determine all such matters only [and no others, added in Cecil's hand- writing] ... in as large manner as if our said Commission had not been revoked." — Draft. 3 Reg. Parker, i, f. 220 b . Parker Corresp., p. 115, No. 80. 1 84 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS to severe coercive measures. The time had not yet arrived for it to embark upon its subsequent policy of terror- ism by imprisonment, rack, and halter. Hence it may be surmised that it recoiled from the consequences of en- forcing its own Acts ad pedem litterae, the penalties they contained in the first instance, mild as they were in com- parison with others of a later date, having been placed on the statute book doubtless more in terrorem than to be put into execution. It may therefore be surmised that the commissions issued in June, 1559, were withdrawn in view of the strong body of opposition met with in the course of the summer and autumn of that year. As, however, these recalcitrants could not be left in- definitely in a state of opposition to the new state of things, fresh Letters Patent were issued, dated 20th October, 1559, empowering the permanent commission to enforce the oath of Supremacy. The document in question 1 recites that since certain ecclesiastical persons had, during the late visitation, "refused to observe the rites, ceremonies and divine ser- vice within our said kingdom and other our dominions, as ordained and provided by our laws, statutes and injunc- tions," therefore these officials were thereby empowered to administer the said oath to all archbishops, bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons, and their acceptance or refusal thereof was to be certified into Chancery. With what result their labours were rewarded may be gauged by indications rather than by positive proofs. The Crown had a large amount of patronage in the shape of presenta- tions to livings. Amongst the Lansdowne MSS. 2 is a list of such presentations arranged according to regnal years. Taking an average of the first fifteen years, i.e., from the Queen's accession till 17th November, 1573, it would appear that 112 livings fell yearly to the Queen's patronage. In her first year, however, those presentations actually amounted to 201, while in the next they were 144. In other words, in those two years more livings were vacated than should have been voided in any three average years. But it must 1 Rymer, Foedera, xv, p. 546. * No. 443. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 185 be pointed out that this average has been struck from years of Elizabeth's reign, including the years when de- privations were being carried out. To make a really just comparison, other reigns, and periods of rest, should be taken as the normal standard ; but this would be a matter of such extreme difficulty that it cannot be attempted. However, it may be noted that in Elizabeth's fifth to eighth years, when, presumably, matters had somewhat settled down, the royal presentations were 80, 94, 86, 86, giving an average of 86 a year. Compared with this, it will be seen that the average of 1 12 above indicated is exceedingly high, and if we take the numbers presented in 1559 and 1560, the movement in the* ranks of the clergy during that period of unrest is very significant indeed, in fact wholly abnormal. This interesting MS. (Lansd. 443) may be approached from another standpoint. It comprises two parts: Queen's presentations (a) by Privy Seal; (b) through the Lord Chancellor. From the Queen's accession till the end of September, 1559, i.e., for \o\ months, 31 presentations were made. In October, 20, in November, 37, and in December, 22 presentations are recorded, that is, in one- third of the earlier period twice and a half more presenta- tions are registered, while for the remainder of the second regnal year, i.e., \o\ months, 54 further appointments are registered. On examining the Chancellor's appointments, they appear in the following proportions during the months °f 1 559- January, 4; February, 14; March, 21; April, 25; May, 26; June, 32; July, 16; August, 11; September, 3; October, 40; November (incomplete), 9; thus June and October, the months of the application of the Act of Uniformity and of the visitations, stand out with the largest number of vacancies to be filled. It is usual to refer to the lists of deprived clergy as drawn up by Bridge- water in his Concertatio, and by Sander in De Visibili Monorchia^ as proof that, even on the evidence and admis- sion of Catholics themselves, their number was very small. The answer to this is simple. Bridgewater and Sander 1 86 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS lived abroad, and, therefore, it was practically impossible for them to acquaint themselves with what actually took place in all the 9,400 livings with which it is customary to credit the English Church at that period. It would be difficult to do this with accuracy to-day, with the aid of Crockford's Directory; what would it have been in those days, if slowness of communication, the many circum- stances connected with personal safety, the safe-guarding of the interests of the laity, and the like, be taken into account? The lists of ejected clergy as drawn up by Bridgewater and Sander were not, therefore, exhaustive, nor were they printed by them as being so. They were tentative, merely, and Sander expressly states this. After giving a long list of deprived canons, he said: "But it must not be understood that these whom I have here set down are the only prebendaries of Cathedral Churches who lost country, goods, liberty, and life on account of their adhesion to the Roman See; for I am sure that very many more are deserving of this praise. But I have named those whom either I knew, or had learnt from others that they had been removed from their dignities. But parish priests and other clergy . . . are much more difficult to enumerate." A little further on, Sander states that those who up to the period of writing, 1571, had been ejected from the Uni- versities, could not have been less than 300 in number, "whom I was unwilling to put down here, partly lest I should weary the reader, partly because I could with difficulty learn the individual names." l Various other aspects of the case have also to be con- sidered. Mr. Richard Simpson, in his Life of Campion? thus summarised the results of the Northern Visitation. "Out of 90 clergymen summoned, 21 came and took the oath, 36 came and refused to swear, 17 were absent without proctors, 16 were absent with proctors. Yet of the 36, the lists of Bridgewater and Sander only contain 5 names; of the 17, four; of the 16, seven. If those lists are perfect, it proves that the rest were connived at, and perhaps 1 Ed. 1 57 1, pp. 688, sqq. 2 Ed. 1896, p. 197. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 187 retained their livings till their deaths." Those who refused to attend the visitation although summoned, numbered alto- gether 314, thus distributed: 158 in the archdiocese of York, 85 in Chester, 36 in Durham, and 35 in Carlisle. There is, however, no abstract of those who attended and refused the oath. But the return proves that in the Northern Province at least 370 priests — probably 600 — either refused to swear, or would have refused if they had been pressed to do so. It is this aspect of the case that may be presumed to have carried some weight in the royal decision to bring the visitation to so sudden a termination. Moreover, it may be noted that in the great return referred to, 43 livings appear as " vacant." Some of those vacancies were, no doubt, due either to the deaths of the late incumbents or to the other usual causes; but it is to be suspected, in the light of the above evidence, that some at least of the livings had been abandoned for conscience' sake, or through fear of the consequences of recusancy. The total number of the clergy of the Northern Province was 1,130. Of these, a minimum estimate of 370 — more probably 600 according to Mr. Simpson's calculation — refused to swear. Even the lower figure furnishes a per- centage of 33 who were in favour of maintaining Catholic Faith and the old order. Can it be supposed then for one moment that, throughout the length and breadth of Eng- land, only 192 priests of all grades were found averse to the royal Supremacy and the parliamentary settlement of religion? If the Northern visitation had been permitted to take its course and come to a normal conclusion, all the clergy refusing to appear would have been at least se- questered, if not deprived, for their contumacy; but these extreme measures appear to have been resorted to with regard to comparatively few individuals, possibly the most obstinate or the most influential. This fact cannot be explained by appealing to the supposition of subsequent submission on the part of the clergy arguable from their continuance in their livings, for there is no direct evidence of it. Nor can leniency on the part of the Visitors be 188 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS invoked as a solution of the mystery, for the whole tenor of their proceedings conveys the impression that they were terribly in earnest over the task that they had been set to carry out; so earnest, indeed, that the Queen had perforce to stay their energy, "lest, while too eagerly scouring off the rust, the vessel itself should be broken." 1 We are now furnished with sufficient evidence to discuss the accepted fable that of all the clergy of England, but an insignificant fraction was averse to the rejection of the See of Rome and its distinctive doctrines, effected by Parlia- ment in 1559. The late Dr. Mandell Creighton, Bishop of London, whose epitaph praises him inasmuch as "he tried to write history," wrote in his Queen Elizabeth' that "The clergy were prepared to acquiesce in the change. Out of 9,400 clergy in England, only 192 refused the oath of supremacy." Hence he argued that "In England generally, the religious settlement was welcomed by the people and corresponded to their wishes . . . they detested the Pope; they wished for services which they could understand, and were weary of superstition." These conclusions have more recently been endorsed by Rev. W. H. Frere in The Eng- lish Church in the Reigns of Elisabeth and James I, — accepted as the last word on the subject. He writes :! : "The clerical body remained almost entirely the same . . . a small number were deprived — not more than about 200, so it appears — in the first six years of the reign." D'Ewes, Fuller, Collier, Strype and other writers all reproduce the figures 9,400 and 192 (or something near it, as 189); but, as already pointed out, each one has bor- rowed his information from Camden. Camden says: "but certes as themselves [i.e., the Catholics] have certified, etc.," showing that his authority was Sander, and it has already been seen that Sander had drawn up at most an ad interim list. Had this list been final and complete, the assertion of Bishop Creighton would be amply justified, for if only between 2 and 3 per cent, of the clergy opposed the 1 Rule of St. Benedict, ch. lxiv. a P. S3- ' p - io 4- OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 189 changes, it would follow that an overwhelming majority "were prepared to acquiesce" in them. But is this the fact or anything approaching it? If various necessary factors of the enquiry be taken into account, it would seem not to be the case. In the first place there were not 9,400 bene- fices in England and Wales at that time. From some MS. notes of Lord Burghley in an atlas that belonged to him, taken from the official records of First Fruits and Tenths, they were set down as being only 8,731 in number. 1 It should, however, be noted that admitting for argument's sake that the benefices amounted to 9,400, it by no means follows that the clergy to possess them were 9,400 in number, as Bishop Creighton stated; clergy and livings were not correlative terms at that date, as he found it convenient to assume. When Queen Mary set about un- doing the work of schism and heresy inaugurated by her father, and carried to greater lengths by the Protectors of her brother, the boy-Supreme Head of the Church of Eng- land, she endeavoured to purge the Church of two classes of clergy: (1) those who had outraged their solemn obliga- tions by contracting so-called marriages (for they were null and void in the canon law); (2) who had been ordained according to her brother's Ordinal, adjudged inadequate in form. The result of this was, as records and registers show, that an extraordinary change took place in the personnel of the incumbents, those who refused to give up their wives being summarily deprived, and those who held livings on their Edwardine ordinations being ejected as mere laymen. Their places were filled either by Henrician monastic pensioners or dispossessed chantry priests waiting to be absorbed into vacant livings, and by others ordained during her reign ; but even so, various returns 2 show that many livings were vacant through the dearth of priests, and as a result many of the clergy were of necessity pluralists. As a matter of fact the record of Elizabethan 1 O. R. Lib. 18, D. in. 2 E.g., P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., x, passim; XII, No. 108; and those of the bishops, already fully referred to. i 9 o THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS deprivations shows that some of them then displaced were stripped of the emoluments of from two to ten benefices. Though my investigations cannot pretend to completeness, they go some way to establish that at Elizabeth's accession there could not have been, in England and Wales, more than 8,000 individuals holding preferment. Another ex- pedient adopted by Protestant controversialists to keep down the numbers of those who suffered loss and depriva- tion for causes of religion, is to eliminate those who were not priests, oblivious of the custom of conferring benefices on deacons or even on those only in minor orders. Further, they exclude a few laymen holding University emoluments such as fellowships and professorships; but this is also unreasonable, inasmuch as such emoluments were free- hold preferments counted amongst the 9,400 benefices to which reference has been made. If these happened, as was the case in a few instances, to be held by laymen, who suffered deprivation for refusal to accept the parliamentary religion, they surely have earned the right to rank as deprived. Another objection raised is, that those who took degrees at the Universities or accepted benefices after 15 59. and later underwent deprivation, should be eliminated from the Catholic lists, as it is assumed that by accepting these promotions they must necessarily have accepted the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, and have taken the oaths. As a matter of fact, it is known that early in Elizabeth's reign these oaths were not strictly enforced in the Universities, and non-compliance was openly winked at, indeed, more than tolerated. Not all men, even with tender consciences, could at once adjust their views on the questions then vexing men's minds, questions which were sorely puzzling even deeply learned theologians in some of the intricacies of their bearings. Can it be wondered at if they waited to see what would be decided ; if they hesi- tated to commit themselves irrevocably too soon, and in hesitating and wavering, sank gradually into acquiescence? Had the Catholic writers of the period, such as Allen, Persons, Sander or Rishton, foreseen how invaluable would OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 191 now have been the information as to men and things which they, and perhaps they alone, could have furnished, doubt- less they would have preserved details which were then looked upon by them as trivial and unimportant. It must also be remembered that they passed their lives, and wrote, abroad, and hence were in ignorance of much that was passing in England, and, in most instances, of the men working in England. Even Bridgewater's list, it must be borne in mind, was drawn up a generation after Elizabeth had effected the final severance from Rome; and thus, only those figured in it who had somehow become notable above their fellows, and had made their mark. The mere rank and file, the men who, as best befitted the dangerous times in which they lived and who literally carried their lives in their hands, worked secretly and silently for the purpose of remaining unnoticed and unknown, for thus only could they accomplish their mission. Though we learn in general terms from Persons of the "mingle- mangle" which went on in so many parishes, he is dis- creetly silent as to place and incumbent Sander likewise has told us that some incumbents, before performing the Service according to the Book of Common Prayer in their churches, would celebrate Mass in their own houses at an early hour, and the staunch Catholics gathered there to fulfil their obligations j 1 but is also careful not to be explicit as to who those priests were. In a paper of the year 1596, the writer stated that there were still at that date labouring in England between forty and fifty of the old Marian clergy. 2 But for like obvious reasons, though he may have known their names, following the example of Persons and Sander, he withheld them. But if 40 or 50 of the 350 priests labour- ing on the English mission at the end of the sixteenth century were members of the Marian clergy, their number would evidently have been very considerable during the first ten years of the schism, before death had begun to thin their ranks. If it should be objected that such statements are 1 Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism, ed. 1877, P- 2 °7- 2 Records of English Catholics, Appendix, No. Liv. 192 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS general, it must not be forgotten that the only chance of success in the dangerous work undertaken by these priests layin the secrecy with which they surrounded their existence and their whereabouts. A priest who had abandoned, or been deprived of, his benefice because he would not accept the new religion, if he remained at large and in England was not likely to let it be publicly known where he lived, or that he was still endeavouring to discharge the functions of his priesthood, more especially as the penal enactments of the law made the punishment so severe not only for him, but also for those who availed themselves of his ministra- tions. 1 The Elizabethan bishops tried by every means in their power to find out these "lurkers," but rarely did suc- cess attend their endeavours. Bishop Cox told Peter Martyr that "there is everywhere an immense number of Papists, though for the most part concealed; they have been quiet hitherto, except that they are cherishing their errors in their secret assemblies. . . . The heads of our popish clergy are still kept in confinement . . . others are living at large, scattered about in different parts of the kingdom, but without any function, unless, perhaps, where they may be sowing the seeds of fmpiety in secret." 2 In March, I 563-4, Jewel says that he is troubled "with some of the popish satellites, who are giving as much disturb- ance as they can in their corners and hiding-places." 3 In the same year, Whittingham, Dean of Durham, complained of the severity shown to the rising sect of Puritans and of the lenity extended to the Papists, and averred that "many Papists enjoy their livings and liberty who have not sworn obedience." 4 Cox, writing to Bullinger on 10th July, 1570, shows that even after the collapse of the Northern Rising, Catholics had not given up all hopes of obtaining tolera- tion, for there were "some Papists, and those not of the lowest rank, who strain every nerve that they may be per- mitted to live according to their consciences, and that no 1 Cf. Statutes of the Realm, 5 Eliz., c. I. 2 1 Zur., No. 49, 5th August, 1562. n Ibid., No. 66. 1 Strype's Parker, vol. iii, p. 47, Appendix. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 193 account of his religion be demanded from anyone. Mean- while many iniquitous practices take place in secret:" 1 by which the bishop plainly refers to the celebration of Mass ; and writing to Rodolph Gualter on the 12th of February, 1 571-2, he inveighed against the Puritans and their secret conventicles, whom he compared to the "Papists, who run up and down the cities, that they may somewhere or other hear Mass in private." 2 To show that matters did not, from the reformers' point of view, mend in this respect, Sandys, then Archbishop of York, may be quoted, from a letter to Gualter, written on 9th December, 1579, in which he refers to "■veteran Papists {veteranos Pontiftcios) who celebrate their divine service in their secret corners." 3 Although, of course, seminary priests were by that date working in England, the terms of reference can apply only to the Marian, or old, clergy, and are interesting as carrying on the chain of evidence. From the remains that have been preserved to us, we know that the bishops as a body were from the very be- ginning in favour of going to extremities with those who, later, came to be known as " recusants." But Archbishop Parker, tactful and statesmanlike, acted as a drag upon their impetuosity; and his milder and gentler spirit, tem- pered, too, by a certain cautious slowness, enjoined upon his episcopal brethren the need for a greater circumspection than they had hitherto exhibited. 4 Reverting once more to the proceedings of the Northern Visitation of 1 5 59, the student must be struck by the fact that stringent measures were not taken with all those who, in the words of the Letters Patent, were in the category of " obstinate et peremptorie recusantes subscribere susceptae re- ligioni." Those who thus " flatly and roundly refused " to subscribe were somehow not all deprived. If example was made of some then and there, a greater number were put off for further consideration, the guilty clergy being bound 1 I Zur., No. 88. 2 Ibid., No. 94- 3 Ibid., No. 134. * Cf. Collier, Ecclesiastical History, ed. 1846, vi, p. 359. O 194 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS under recognisances to put in an appearance, when and where to be determined. With the summary stoppage of the visitation, we lose sight, in most cases, of these recu- sants; but because their trial did not happen to come to a conclusion, it is clear that they do not deserve to be classed with those conformists by conviction, or those craven spirits who are known to have submitted at once to the terms of the Act of Supremacy. The number of recalcitrant clergy proved to be so considerable that it caused the responsible rulers to pause in the execution of their first-formed plans; but many, seeing what was eventually to be enforced, abandoned their livings rather than await the onslaught and its terrifying after-consequences, and thus brought it about that very soon after the Elizabethan bishops came into office, they were constrained to admit to the ministry, to supply so many vacant cures, " such as came from the shop, from the forge, from the wherry, from the loom," and other such "unskilful" men, as Calfhill, one of the re- formers, styled them. Another clause in the Letters Patent defining the func- tions of Elizabeth's ecclesiastical Visitors is worthy of notice. Just as Henry VIII had facilitated the acquiescence of the monks in the surrender of their houses by the promise of pensions, so, to smooth the way for the retirement of malcontents, of whom it was not desirable to make example by severity, Cecil empowered the Visitors to assign to those who chose to " cede " or resign their livings " legiti- mas,congruas, et competentes pensiones." This very important clause seems not to have had the prominence attached to it which it really deserves, notwithstanding that the his- torian Burnet fully appreciated its drift. " The prudence," he wrote, " of reserving pensions for such priests as were turned out was much applauded ; since thereby they were kept from extreme want, which might have set them on to do mischief; and by the pension which was granted them upon their good behaviour, they were kept under some awe, which would not have been otherwise." ' It is a mere 1 Hist, of Ref., ii, p. 801 ; quoted in Card well, D. A., i, p. 217. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 195 detail that there is no evidence of the " applause " showered on this scheme, nor of the effects it is supposed to have wrought in keeping the recipients " under some awe " ; but many of the remarkable number of resignations which took place at this precise period may with fair show of reason be ascribed to this inducement. It may be questioned, how- ever, in the absence of documentary evidence, whether, on after reflection, those who had thus qualified for them, applied for or received those pensions. The motive of such abstention would be obvious; the whereabouts of the pen- sioners would be known, and there would always remain the contingent likelihood of the proffer of the oath of Supremacy. Considerations such as those above rehearsed may, partly at least, account for the regrettable scantiness of our in- formation concerning the results of the visitation of the Province of Canterbury. Mr. Richard Simpson many years ago suggested a possible means of supplying this defect. He had observed that the changes in the personnel of the clergy seemed to be quite phenomenal during the first few years of Elizabeth's reign, and realising that an adequate explanation of this " movement " in the ranks of the incumb- ents was called for, suggested that a detailed examination of the lists of rectors and vicars of the several parishes throughout England and Wales, such as are usually found for each parish in good county histories, might, perhaps, furnish a portion at least of the information sought. 1 I have endeavoured to carry out his idea, and in the course of my investigation have had occasion to consult not only hundreds, but thousands of county and local histories and topographical collections. These works, of course, vary greatly in merit and completeness from the point of view indicated, hence my survey remains still imperfect, for only thirty counties of the Canterbury Province are represented, and several even of those in a fragmentary manner. 2 Manu- ' Cf. Life of Campion, p. 523, note 138. 2 Rev. F. W. Weaver's Somersetshire Incumbents is a model of re- search in this field of enquiry, and has proved helpful ; so also Rev. 196 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS script sources are of course plentiful but uncertain, extracts of registers have occasionally proved of some use, while the Record Office papers have, here and there, often merely incidentally, furnished valuable information. Un- fortunately, where the searcher would naturally look for most light, there least help has been forthcoming — in episcopal registers. These records have been in several instances either badly or inadequately posted up, or in many cases they have been lost, or at least their present location is unknown. A special cause of exasperation is found in the fact that they fail, not as a whole, but pre- cisely at the period when their help, for the purposes of this enquiry, would have been most valuable. 1 Mr. Gee, in the course of his enquiry, somewhat arbi- trarily limited it to the end of 1564. As the cause of deprivation, however, after that date might possibly be found in Puritan rather than in Papist tendencies, it may be well in the present enquiry to accept that limit in practice though not in principle, and not to travel beyond 1565 in our search for " movement." Many difficulties beset the determination of cases of deprivation. Thus, in the instructions to her Visitors, Eliza- beth had empowered them " ad . . . causas deprivationum examinandum, et cotitra statuta et ordinationes hujus regni nostri Angliae vel juris ecclesiastici ordinem deprivatos resti- Geo. Hennessy's edition of Newcourt's Novtim Repertorium Eccle- siasticum Parochiale Londinense, 1 898. 1 As Rev. Mr. Gee's experience coincides with mine, he may suit- ably be quoted in support of my statement. f The records required," he says, " have disappeared entirely in the dioceses of Bristol, Bangor, Llandaff, St. Asaph. At Lincoln there is a lamentable gap from 1547 to 1595. At York the usual register appears to be wanting for the critical years 1558 to 1565. . . . Happily the lacuna is made up to some extent by two books of institutions, the one labelled 1547-1553, the other 1 553-1571. In the latter, however, there is a gap from Sept- ember, 1558, to May 24, 1561. At Worcester there is a curious omission of all entries between November, 1563, and the year 1 571. At Ely there is no record between June, 1559, and October, 1562. The same is true of Carlisle between November, 1558, and 1 561 " {The Eliza- bethan Clergy, p. 237). OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 197 tuendum" that is, to restore to their livings those clergy who had been deprived by her sister. The canonical action of the Marian bishops in the case of married clergy or those ordained under the Edwardine ordinal was accounted irregular, and on that plea those who had been thus ejected were, in numerous instances, restored. The extant episcopal registers of that date rarely contain any formal record of the change of incumbent ascribable to this particular cause. 1 The Marian appointment was apparently ignored and treated as non-existent; the de facto holder of the benefice was ousted as an intruder with no rights, and the former Edwardine occupant as dejure possessor, reinstated. Pro- testant writers ignore the claim of these ousted Marian priests to be ranked amongst the deprived ; but with strange inconsistency admit in the lists of acknowledged deprived clergy, many who were forced to give up their livings to Edwardine predecessors. I have collected ninety-six such cases; and here it may be well to state that, including these gathered from the various printed and manuscript sources already indicated, I have the names of over 700 holders of benefices who underwent deprivation before the end of 1565. But as has already been pointed out, the catalogue of deprived incumbents does not end the difficulties. There are in addition a very large body of men about whom more definite particulars than we at present possess would be in every respect desirable. The number of resignations during the period selected seems to be out of all proportion to those registered during any similar space of time. Thus in the years from Elizabeth's accession till the end of 1580 I have collected particulars referring to over 700 livings, representing over 1,800 presentations to vacancies occurring during that time, concerning all of which precise and de- tailed information is wanting. But the salient feature is this, that the vacancies during the first seven years exceed in number those of the fifteen years next following, and the resignations are so numerous and so frequent that there 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., vol. x, furnishes a few examples. 198 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS must be some reason for them other than promotion, more especially as the particular instances here referred to con- cern only those livings, the incumbents of which I have not hitherto been able to trace in the possession of any other benefice. As a concrete example, take the diocese of Bath and Wells. At the commencement of Elizabeth's reign this diocese comprised 382 parishes. The register of Bishop Berkeley, the first Elizabethan prelate, covering the period from 26th April, 1560, to 28th October, 1581, 1 contains 623 entries, of which all but thirteen are institutions to vacant benefices. During these twenty-two years, therefore, there were 610 vacancies provided for. For purposes of comparison, an average of yearly institutions may be taken from the register of another episcopate covering a some- what equal period of time, but one not marked by such unrest. 2 Bishop John Clerk presided over the western See for eighteen years, from 1523 to 1541. His register records 235 institutions, giving an average of thirteen a year. During the eight months from the opening of Bishop Berkeley's register to the end of 1560, there were thirty institutions, or at the rate of forty-five for one year. In 1 561 thirty-two are recorded, and they rise to thirty- nine in 1562. A drop to twenty in 1563 is a prelude to a rise of thirty-two in 1564 and 1570, thirty-six in 1572, and thirty-four in 1574 and 1577, while during the intervening years the average keeps well above twenty, and the general yearly average is twenty-eight, or more than double that of the earlier episcopate. An examination of other registers, or other lists of institutions will reveal not dissimilar results, proving that the " movement" of incumbents in the early years of the Elizabethan regime was abnormal. But in striving to fathom the causes, the lack of detail at once baffles the enquirer. In the diocese of Bath and Wells there are seventy-four instances of vacation of livings during the first fifteen years of Elizabeth's reign, in no one of which is any reason vouchsafed. Of these seventy-four, thirty may 1 For Hutton's transcript of this, cf. Harl. MS. 6967. 2 Cf. F. W. Weaver, Somerset Incumbents. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 199 be put aside on the score that they entered on their cures after Elizabeth's accession, though thirteen, judging from the dates of their induction, would probably have been Marian priests. Of the remaining forty-four, all inducted during Mary's reign, nineteen replaced clergy deprived either for marriage or defective Orders. The presumption is, therefore, that they were sound Catholics, and that on Elizabeth's accession their predecessors were restored, and they themselves ejected as unlawful possessors, without any legal form of deprivation. A further feature presents itself in this list. In thirty-three cases, not only is no reason given for the voidance of a living, but the date of institu- tion of the successors of those so voiding is wanting. The probabilities favour the supposition that these clergymen left their livings without going through any legal form of resignation; or, in plain terms, that they abandoned their cures. Another difficulty besets the path of enquirers in this field of research. It is the persistent recurrence of gaps in registers or in lists of incumbents, and precisely covering the particular period now under survey. It is not pretended that gaps do not occur at other periods ; but it may safely be said that at no other period are they so prevalent through- out the length and breadth of the land. Reference to any county history will furnish evidence of this. Consult, for instance, Clutterbuck's Hertfordshire. In that one county alone, of no great extent, thirty-five parishes show lacunae in the lists of their incumbents just for this period, rang- ing from 1540 to the close of the century. The diocese of Bath and Wells offers no exception to this unfortunate lack of information just at the very period when it could be wished that documentary evidence should be as complete as possible. The lacunae in the registers of this diocese, with which we may legitimately deal, number ninety-one, divisible into two separate categories comprising respect- ively forty and fifty-one cases. It is a matter of common knowledge that the average length of life was shorter in Tudor times than it is to-day, 200 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS and was, indeed, considerably under sixty years. But fixing it at that figure, it would be safe to say that, allow- ing for exceptions, no incumbency would exceed a stretch of thirty-five years. In fact, taking thirty cases from the registers at haphazard, all belonging to the period under discussion, but confining the selection to those who died incumbents, the average tenure works out at 12.5 years. The limit of thirty-five years here suggested is, therefore, a generous one. The first category of lacunae comprises the cases in which the last incumbents registered before Eliza- beth's accession were inducted thirty-five or more years before that event, that is, before 1523. The second list contains those who were inducted in or after 1523, up to Mary's accession, only three, indeed, acquiring benefices so late as during Edward's reign. These ninety-one institu- tions have no assignable cause for termination, either by re- signation, deprivation, death, or otherwise ; they are simply followed by the next institution, or by the next cause of voidance in Elizabeth's reign. To each of the livings in the first category, to which the previous institutions were made before 1523, it is morally certain that another institution must have been made before 1559. When did this take place; and, more import- ant still, when and for what reason did it terminate? In eight cases the recorded successors were appointed (or vacated) between 1559 and the end of 1564. In default of proof to the contrary, there is no reason for supposing the previous voidances or resignations would have taken place but for the religious upheaval of the period; further, till proof to the contrary is produced, the holders of livings, whoever they were, should be considered as being in sym- pathy with the settlement as it was when they were enjoying their benefices: i.e., they should be accounted Papists. The second section, containing fifty-one names of those collated in or after 1523, also provides matter for specula- tion. The gaps in several instances cover so long a period of time as to necessitate the presumption of at least one in- OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 201 termediate institution. But assuming that all the fifty-one priests concerned could, possibly, have held their livings from the dates of their respective institutions up to Eliza- beth's accession, it is remarkable that vacancies occur from 1 559 to the end of 1564 in twelve cases, of which one is attributed to deprivation, and four to death. It will be realised from the above enumeration of diffi- culties, that it is no easy thing to determine this question of acquiescence and recalcitrance, as affecting the voidance of preferments in the Church. Resignation of a living may have been made for the sake of a pension ; but as has been seen, this cause seems to have been rare indeed. Or it might have been for promotion ; in which case the incum- bent shows himself as having accepted the new order. Within the limits of a county, or preferably of a diocese, it is sometimes easy to trace a man's career from his ordina- tion to his death; but, generally speaking, it has proved a matter of chance whether an individual vacating a living in the years from 1559 to 1565 will turn up elsewhere. In the vast majority of cases that have been dealt with, their names disappear altogether. Where no reason for void- ance is given, a choice is left between death and resignation for one or other of the causes enumerated. Death can be invoked in a fixed proportion of cases to be determined by the ordinary rules employed by an actuary. But after eli- minating this proportion, the residue has still to be ac- counted for. My own investigations have furnished me with 1,934 names of those who "disappeared" between June, 1559, and the end of 1565. Not more than five per cent, per annum can have died. It is of importance to note, too, that fully three-fifths of these priests had been collated to their livings in Mary's reign, most of them in the years 1554, 1555, when the greatest activity was being displayed in purging the Church of unworthy priests, or ot those whose Orders were deemed deficient, thus furnishing a clue to their convictions, and accounting possibly for a voidance on their parts to detach themselves from the new order inaugurated in 1559. It has been suggested by Mr. 202 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS Gee that many of the deprivations effected in 1 562-5 ought not to be reckoned, since those thus ejected must have conformed in 1559. Such an argument has little weight, for it precludes the contingency of a change of mental atti- tude. Matters were so shifting and unstable in those days, religious changes had been so frequent, that men might be pardoned if they decided to bend like reeds before a storm, rather than play the part of the oak which in withstanding the tempest is shivered to atoms. Such an attitude it must be allowed, is far from being heroic ; but alas! it is human, and as such it must be taken into account. Lastly, it must not be forgotten that many of these voidances may have been for promotion, and, therefore, that the clergy in such cases had conformed. Allowing as much as 30 per cent, to cover such a category, there remain 1,175 cases still unexplained. Of these, the notes already referred to show that 124 are definitely known to have gone abroad (in- dependent of deprived priests who may have done so); while 198 are also known to have resigned in obedience to conscience. The remaining 853 may well represent (the priests who were lurking in holes and corners up and down England and Wales, ministering as they best could to those of their former flocks who remained staunch, and for years proving such a source of anxiety to the Eliza- bethan prelates. Though this sounds a large number, it works out at fifteen for each county; and though fifteen might be too many to expect to find in Rutlandshire, fifty or sixty would, in the circumstances, not be too many to assign to such counties as Yorkshire or Lancashire. 1 These clergy, as we know, acting as school-masters or disguised as physicians and artisans earning their livelihood, contrived to help their distressed brethren, and did their best to keep 1 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xxxi, No. 47, ? 1563. This document furnishes a detailed account of certain of the parishes of Lancashire. The summary with which it concludes is as follows: "In all the deaneries there are 102,500 communicants, 56 churches, 34 Dtimb dogs [? Papists\ 6 insufficient preachers, 6 preachers non-resident, 3 preachers not painful, one preacher infirmed, and 7 able and painful preachers." OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 203 alight the lamp of Faith. 1 But the student will not fail to realise that the 700 deprived, and the 1,175 who aban- doned their livings for conscience' sake — 1,875 in all — offer a different aspect to that imagined by Camden, and afford a percentage of irreconcileables much more reason- able and more in accordance with the probabilities of the case, than that usually presented. With these figures, that is 1,875 out of 8,000, the percentage falls not far short of twenty-five, thus justifying Mr. Simpson's estimate formed many years ago. The figures here given are, as already stated, incomplete ; but even this partial and tentative conclusion differs but little from Mr. Simpson's, that the number of clergy who abandoned their livings from conscientious inability to conform would prove to be about 2,000, or one quarter of all the priests then beneficed. Something must here be said about the visitation of Eton College in 1561, and the purgation from Popery which it then underwent, for it serves to disprove the assertions of more than one writer that at the commence- ment of Elizabeth's reign only the prominent churchmen, as bishops, deans, and heads of colleges, were displaced; it further emphasises some of the difficulties to which refer- ence has been made. Amongst the heads of colleges displaced in 1559 was Dr. Henry Cole, who, together with other preferments from which he was then summarily ejected, was also deprived of the Provostship of Eton College. His place was taken by Dr. William Bill, who was an adherent of the new order, but he died on 15th July, 1561. The members of the royal College took the choice of a successor into their own hand, and without waiting for the customary conge d'e'lire, 2 or for any intimation of the royal wishes, proceeded to fill up the vacancy by electing Richard Bruerne {or Brewarne), who was, at least at that period, certainly a Catholic. Such 1 Cf. Cotton MS. Vitellius C i, No. 12, f. 118, sqq. a P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xxi, No. 30. The Queen to Abp. Parker, 22nd August, 1 561. 20 4 THE CLERGY AND THE ACTS an act is eloquent of the sympathies of the College elector- ate at that date, and disposes of the fiction that the oath of Supremacy must necessarily have been administered in 1559. But bold and independent action like this could not be suffered to go unchecked. Bishop Grindal wrote strongly to Sir William Cecil, exclaiming against the contumacy exhibited by the Fellows, and urging a visitation to en- quire into and set aside as irregular the election of one who was doubtless looked upon as most unsuitable for the post of Provost. 1 As the result of his and Archbishop Parker's representations, commissioners were sent down to hold an enquiry, and the visitation occupied from 9th to nth September, 1 561. As regards the Provost, when Bruerne realised that he was likely to be deprived, he forestalled this ending by a voluntary (?) resignation, securing for himself thereby a pension of .£10 a year out of the College funds. The whole process of the visitation was drawn up by the registrar to the commissioners; 2 and from this document it would seem that on 10th Sept- ember the oath of Supremacy was formally tendered to two only of the Fellows. It was accepted by one of them, Nicholas Smith, but Thomas Thurston flatly refused it — expresse recusavit juramentum hujusmodi praestare. Mr. Maxwell Lyte, in his History of Eton College* says: "Three Fellows, Kirton, Ashbrooke and Pratt, and one of the chaplains named Leg, did not appear, and were ac- cordingly deprived of their places for contumacy. The like penalty was inflicted on John Durston, one of the 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xix, No. 18, nth August, 1561. The passage referred to is to be found in a postscript. The letter is printed in Grindal's Remains, p. 244, but the postscript is there entirely omitted. 2 Harl. MS. 791, f. 1, sqq.; also printed at length in Messrs. Hay- wood and Wright's Statutes of King's College, Ca?nbridge, pp. 634-8. 3 P. 162. It will be noticed that Mr. Maxwell Lyte speaks of John Durston, a Fellow, as being deprived, whereas the register refers to Thomas Thurston. This is probably due to some slight confusion of names, arising from the fact that at that date amongst the chaplains was one Thurston, whose Christian name does not appear, but it may have been Thomas. OF SUPREMACY AND UNIFORMITY 205 Fellows, who though he answered to his name, refused to acknowledge the royal Supremacy." The non-appearance of the three contumacious Fellows is rightly ascribed by Messrs. Haywood and Wright to their religious con- victions; for, in discussing the episode in the preface to their work already referred to, 1 they say: "Eton College was subjected to a visitation in 1561 which led to the expulsion of its Roman Catholic members." That this was really the case may be gathered from the Acts of the visitation. These Acts further say that Thomas Kirton, John Ashbrooke, Richard Pratt, John Durston, Fellows, and Reginald Legge, a "conduct" or chaplain of the College, were "removed from all right title and room," and the Visitors "pronounced and declared them to be held and considered as removed and expelled for ever." 2 This is the official record. In possession of its terms, we are in a position to appreciate the confusion and con- tradiction in the narration of these events as found in letters written at the very time by the actual persons who passed these sentences. Owing to the fact that in these letters names are not mentioned, we are at a loss for proof that those named in the registrar's report are the same individuals referred to by Archbishop Parker, Bishop Home, and Sir Anthony Coke. These three Visitors wrote a joint letter to Sir William Cecil on 10th September, and thus described their doings. After telling him of Bruerne's resign- ation, which forestalled their avowed intention of depriving him, they proceed: "As for some of the Society, utterly denying or refusing to acquit their duty to the Prince, and to accept the order of Prayer now established, we have deprived ; and some others frowardly absenting them- selves at the time and for other demeanours we have sus- pended, by decree, from all commodities of the House, leaving yet sufficient persons of that Society to oversee the state of the House." 3 If the phrasing of the decree, already quoted, be borne in mind, it will be observed that 1 P. xi. 2 Original in Latin. 3 Harl. MS. 7047, No. 5. 206 THE CLERGY AND THE ACT no mention was made of suspension; only of deprivation. On the following day Archbishop Parker wrote to Cecil on his own account, and stated that "Three Fellows we have left there for the necessary preservance of the state of the College till the rooms be supplied " ; and in a postscript is added: "Three contemptuously absent we have by decree suspended from all interest in that House, not pro- ceeding yet to the flat sentence of deprivation, upon policy and law, and one recusant (Durston) is after Michaelmas fully deprived." At that date the College consisted of Pro- vost, Vice-Provost, six Fellows, an " informator puerorum," the "ostiarius sive hipodidascalus," six conducts or chap- lains, four clerks or cantors, and a notary — twenty-one in all. As the Visitors do not specifically name those they refer to, the possibility remains that those they "suspended" may be other than the five named by the registrar as "deprived": "removed and expelled for ever." But in view of this contemporary confusion, suggesting that com- plete accuracy was apparently unattainable even at the very date the events referred to were occurring, it is small cause for wonder if finality should be impossible of attain- ment three hundred years later, even with the help of the care and minuteness of modern research. ry Walker phott NICHOLAS HEATH ARCHBISHOP OF YORK AM) LORD CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND CHAPTER VI THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW THE opposition offered during the session of Elizabeth's first Parliament to the work of the reformation by the bishops, the natural guardians of the Faith, was powerless to stem the torrent of change. There remained for them, however, the opportunity of exhibiting an example of fear- less confession, and a readiness to suffer any extremity, even, if need be, death, as a protest against innovations, as a gage of their fidelity to their trust, and as an earnest of their inviolable union with the centre of unity, the Vicar of Christ. Even before Parliament came to an end, two of their number had found their way to prison on various pretexts. White of Winchester, for his boldness when preaching at Queen Mary's obsequies, was sent to the Tower; but it is not proposed to lay any stress on that imprisonment, since the truth or falsehood of the charge that his discourse contained covert seditious allusions is not here in question. He had not been long released, however, from that first detention, when he again incurred displeasure, this time by the vehemence of his utterances at the Westminster Con- ference; he therefore, in company with Thomas Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, was lodged in the Tower. But at the close of the session, 8th May, 1559, the whole bench of bishops were confronted with immediate and per- sonal danger to liberty and even to life. A sure weapon lay ready to hand against them in the Act of Supremacy with the oath for its acceptance, which might be tendered at any moment. An equally crucial test was contained in , 207 208 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW the Act of Uniformity. There still remained a respite of seven weeks from the operation of the latter Act, during which time they might have reviewed the situation and have concerted a common plan of action; but as the former Act became operative at once, their enemies were determined that the storm should not be long in breaking upon them. On 23rd May the Queen issued a commission to eighteen lay peers, noblemen and knights, conferring plenary powers upon them to administer the oath of Supremacy to all bishops and ecclesiastical persons, and all lay persons holding offices, under pain, on refusing to take it, of deprivation of office. 1 The Act of Supremacy had become law by royal assent on 8th May, 1559; on 10th May II Schifanoya wrote that "the bishops, deans, and other prelates and beneficed clergy will likewise be confirmed, if they will take the oath against the Pope and against their consciences. From what I hear there will be few who will do so, the greater part of them having determined rather to lose all and even die if need be." 2 That this was not an impossible con- tingency may be inferred from the temper displayed by some of their enemies. Thus Parkhurst (soon to become Bishop of Norwich), writing on 21st May, 1559, to Bullinger, said of them: "They are worthy of being suspended, not only from their office, but from a halter." 3 Grindal, too, writing on 23rd May, said: "It is therefore commonly supposed that almost all the bishops, and also many other beneficed persons, will renounce their bishoprics and their functions, as being ashamed, after so much tyranny and cruelty exercised under the banners of the Pope, and the obedience so lately sworn to him, to be again brought to a recantation, and convicted of a manifest perjury." 4 1 Rymer, Foedera, xv, p. 518. 2 Venetian Papers, No. 71, 10th May, 1559. 3 Digni, qui non solum ab officio, sed et capistro suspendantur, I Zur., p. 30, No. 12. 4 11 Zur., p. 19, No. 8, 23rd May, 1559. Grindal to Conrad Hubert. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 209 Collier,' following Strype and other earlier writers, chroni- cles with some minuteness (giving the gist of speeches, etc.), a supposed interview said to have taken place between Queen Elizabeth and the bishops. Some writers, Strype for example, have mentioned 1 5th May as the date on which this meeting took place; others say it occurred fourteen days after the dissolution of Parliament: but FF. Bridgett and Knox 2 show that no contemporary writer mentions the incident, which first appeared in 1683 in The Hunting of the Romish Fox. Such discredit attaches, however, to the veracity and reliability of Robert Ware, its author, as to th row suspicion on the story of a special interview unless substantiated by better and contemporary authority. For the present the special interview may be dismissed as apocryphal. But the Count de Feria, writing on 10th May to King Philip, stated that "In the presence of the Queen, he who holds the office of Chancellor [Nicholas Bacon] told the bishops that none of them were to go home to their Sees 3 without permission. 4 It is evident, then, that the bishops saw the Queen; but whether it was on the occasion of her proroguing Parliament on 8th May, or sub- sequently on the same day or the one following, is not determined. If the former supposition be correct, then the additional insult implied in a restriction of liberty publicly imposed upon them has to be taken into account. The royal commission issued on 23rd May conferred such far-reaching powers upon those entrusted with them, that, as Alexander Nowell wrote: "Certain bishops, (as the Bishops of York [Heath], London [Bonner], Lichfield [Bayne], and of Carlisle [Oglethorpe]) do put away their men, because (as men think) they will give over their bishoprics." 5 There does not then seem to be any necessity 1 Eccl. Hist., vi, p. 431. 3 Queen Elizabeth and the Catholic Hierarchy, p. 49. 3 A su casa, in the original Spanish. 4 Chron. Belg., No. CCCXLVI, i, p. 519. 5 P.R.O., Foreign, Eliz., Spanish, No. 781 ; cf. also Churton, Life of Nowell, p. 392. P 210 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW for supposing that there was a special interview between the Queen and the bishops. They had already sufficiently shown their mettle both in the House of Lords and in refusing to crown Elizabeth; they were not likely, there- fore, to collapse in the event of a personal discussion with the Queen ; no one has ever questioned their courage. The commissioners proceeded at once to put their powers to the test, selecting Bishop Bonner as the first object of attack. This may have been mere chance, or due to the fact that he was the local Ordinary, or, as most writers prefer to suggest, because of the intense dislike entertained towards him; a dislike which the Queen herself is said to have shown in a marked way, by refusing to extend her hand to him when he met her on her first entry into London after her accession. The Privy Council Acts are not, so far as is known, extant for the period 12th May, 1559 — 28th May, 1562; a record of events has, therefore, to be sought for elsewhere, when the proceedings of the Queen's ministers are mentioned. II Schifanoya, writing on 30th May, said: " With regard to religion, they live in all respects in the Lutheran fashion, in all the churches of London, except St. Paul's, which still keeps firm in its former state, until the day of St. John the Baptist [24th June], when the period prescribed by Parliament expires, the Act being in the press, and soon about to appear; but the Council neverthe- less sent twice or thrice to summon the Bishop of London to give him orders to remove the service of the Mass and of the divine office in that church; but he answered them intrepidly: 'I possess three things, soul, body, and pro- perty; of the two [last] you can dispose at your pleasure, but as to the soul, God alone can command me.' He remains constant about body and property, and again to-day he has been called to the Council, but I do not yet know what they said to him." l The result of that visit to the Council was his instant deprivation; and a week later II Schifanoya supplied some interesting particulars as to what had taken place both at that memorable visit and in the interval up to 1 Venetian Papers^ No. 77, 30th May, 1559. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 211 the time of writing. " The Council summoned the Bishop of London," he said, " and requested him earnestly to resign the bishopric to one Master Grindal, telling him that such was the will of her Majesty; and yesterday the Dean and Chancellors of St. Paul's, by commission of the Queen, were to make the election, to which they would by no means consent, neither would the Bishop, although they offered him a very good pension for life; to which he in- trepidly replied that he would never do so, and preferred death. He was answered : ' Consider well your case, and how you will live.' He rejoined : ' It is true nothing else remains to me, but I trust in God, who will not fail me, and in my friends, by so much the more as I shall be able to gain my livelihood by teaching children, which profession I did not disdain to exercise, although I was a Bishop ; and should I not find anyone willing to accept my teach- ing, I am Doctor in the Laws, and will resume the study of what I have long forgotten, and will thus gain my bread ; and should this not succeed, I know how to labour with my hands in gardens and orchards, as in planting, grafting, sowing, etc., as well as any gardener in this kingdom ; and should this also be insufficient, I desire no other grace, favour, or privilege from her Majesty than what she grants to the mendicants who go through London from door to door, begging, that I may do the like if necessary.' " ' The fact here disclosed should not be lost sight of, namely, that there had been a scheme to remove the bishops quietly, by securing their resignations on the pros- pect held out to them of receiving pensions. But so in- glorious a solution was in no way acceptable to the Marian prelates; hence the letter already quoted from goes on to say that " when the Council heard this his [Bonner's] final determination, they said : ' Well, we have nothing more to do with you for the present, so her Majesty will provide herself with another bishop ' ; and she has done so." " This statement was partly correct, inasmuch as Bonner was de- 1 Venetian Papers, No. 78, 6th June, 1559. 2 Ibid. 212 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW prived on 30th May; but at the time of writing no suc- cessor had been chosen. The temporalities were seized on 2nd June, and the conge cPelire for his successor, not, how- ever, designating him by name, was issued on 22nd June. 1 On 6th June the Spanish ambassador, the Bishop of Aquila, informed his royal master that " Lately they tried to induce the bishops to take the oath of Supremacy. Finally, meeting with no success, they have begun to put the Act in force. The first whom they summoned was the Bishop of London, in order to give an example to the rest of the kingdom. Asking if he was willing to take the oath, he replied that he abided by his decision \que tenia], and departed laughing at them, and took refuge in the monastery of Westminster, which is a sanctuary, because, besides having deprived him, they endeavoured to commit him to prison on the score of certain pecuniary fines in which they had mulcted him, at the same time despoiling him of his house and of all he possessed. The next day they summoned the Abbot of Westminster, and the next the Dean of St. Paul's, with whom they held lengthy con- ferences, using severe threats, and in the end deprived them." 2 Writing on 19th June, Bishop Quadra told Philip that " they have just begun to carry out the Act of Parlia- ment against the bishops, and have actually deprived the Bishop and the Dean of London, ejecting them from their church, where also they have altered the divine service, and removed thence the Blessed Sacrament; this took place on Sunday the nth of this month." 3 With these accounts fresh in mind, it may be well to return to II Schifanoya's letter of 6th June. Having, as already quoted, mentioned that Bonner suffered deprivation, he went on to say: " The poor bishop has taken sanctuary in Westminster Abbey, to avoid molestation from many per- sons who demand considerable sums of money from him; but the abbey cannot last long, as the Abbot made a 1 Rymer, Foedera, xv, p. 532. 2 Chron. Belg., No. CCCLIV, i, p. 535. 3 Ibid., No. ccclvi, i, p. 539. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 213 similar reply, when it was offered to him to remain securely in his abbey with his habit, and the monks to live together as they have done till now, provided that he would cele- brate in his church the divine offices and Mass, administer- ing the Sacraments in the same manner as in the other churches of London, and that he would take the oath like the other servants, officials, pensioners and dependents of the Crown, and acknowledge this establishment as from the hands of her Majesty. To these things the Abbot would by no means consent; so after St. John's day [24th June], the term fixed by Parliament for all persons to consent and swear to all the statutes and laws, or to lose what they have, all of them will go about their business, though no one can leave the kingdom. The Count de Feria had ob- tained permission to take to Flanders all the religious. Since his departure this concession has been limited to those who were in being at the time of the other schism, and who are very few in number. . . . All the bishops are expecting hourly to be deprived, not only of their revenues, but also of their dignities, and everybody marvels at so much constancy. The Bishop of Ely abandons 15,000 crowns revenue, the Archbishop of York, late Lord Chan- cellor of England, little less, and all the others in propor- tion to their grade. I hear that owing to this great constancy, it is determined in secret to proceed more adroitly in enforcing the oath to observe the statutes." ' According to the evidence here adduced, Abbot Fecken- ham and Dr. Henry Cole, the Dean of St. Paul's, were thus the next after Bishop Bonner to suffer the penalty of re- fusing the oath. Machyn could not have written his diary day by day, for he is hopelessly at variance both with official accounts and with those given by persons who, from the official positions which they occupied, enjoyed the best and fullest opportunities of learning the exact truth. The old tailor-undertaker must have " posted up " his journal only from time to time, which might of course easily account for his inexactitudes. For example, he states that 1 Venetian Papers, No. 78, 6th June, 1559. 214 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW Bishop Bonner was deprived on 29th May, and then jots down as a fact what at best was at the time but common rumour and expectation, namely that " in his [Bonner's] place, Master Grindal; and [Nowell] elected Dean of Paul's, and the old Dean deprived, master [Cole]"; but Quadra, writing on 6th June, clearly shows that Bonner was de- prived on 30th May, while Feckenham and Cole were dealt with on succeeding days. 1 Machyn goes on, however, to describe how on " Sant Barnabe day," nth June, "the Apostles' Mass made an end that day, and Mass at Paul's was none that day, and the new Dean took possession." It is important to note that by the strict letter of the law all this was wholly illegal, since Bonner and Cole were justified by the terms of the Act of Uniformity in continuing the Mass till 24th June. But the abolition had been determined upon, resistance was useless, and the impatience of the reformers, who were now in the ascendant, could brook no further delay. The die was now definitely cast, and the tendering of the oath was proceeded with expeditiously. During the month of June it was offered to the Justices of the Peace in the various counties as a preliminary to employing them in ex- acting it of the clergy and others liable to take it in their several districts. Meanwhile, in London, other bishops were being dealt with. II Schifanoya, in his letter of 27th June, 4 gives a list of bishops, making categories of those already deprived and those still awaiting the same fate. He made the mistake, however, of numbering Kitchin of Llandaff amongst the former, while saying that Morgan of St. David's still retained his See; by transposing the names, his list would have accorded with facts. These are his own words: " Here the only fresh intelligence is that six or eight bishops have been deprived not only of their bishoprics, but of all their revenues, being bound also not to depart from England, and not to preach or exhort whatever in public or private, and still less to write anything against the orders and 1 Chron. Belg., No. CCCLIV, i, p. 535. 2 Venetian Papers, No. 81. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 215 statutes of this Parliament, nor to give occasion to insurrec- tion or any other scandalous act, under pain of perpetual imprisonment; the Queen's ministers demanding security and promise to be given by one [bishop] for the other." The Bishop of Aquila's account usefully supplements that of II Schifanoya. Writing also on the 27th June, he told Philip that "last week they ordered five bishops to be called before the Council, and offered them the oath with great promises, and menaces as well; none of them, however, would take it, and yesterday they were ordered to go back to the house of the Sheriff of London, whither they brought also the two [White and Watson] who were in the Tower, and attempted to persuade them to take the oath; but neither of them would do so. They were very badly treated, and then they scoffed at them, and in the end gave them orders not to leave London till the end of September, nor to go further than Westminster under penalty of £500 apiece, and that they should give security for this. The two were returned to prison, and they and the others deprived of their Sees ipso facto, because the learned in the law here are still of opinion that they cannot be deprived for refusing to swear by the laws of this country, and they were not willing to swear. They ordered the Bishop of Ely to be sum- moned with the other five, then they sent word to say that he need not come till they sent for him ; it is said that he is firm." ' Some of these dates need to be reconciled. Machyn, in his diary, says that five of the bishops were deprived on 21st June. That they were summoned before the Council on that day seems clear from the wording of Bishop Quadra's letter: "•last week they ordered five bishops to be called"; but that same letter is equally explicit in stating that seven were de- prived on 26th June. Machyn's record runs as follows, but it is so faulty, that Quadra's must perforce be preferred: "The xxi. day of June was v. bysshopes deprevyd, the bys- shope of Lychfeld and Coventre [Bayne], and the bysshope of Carley [Carlisle: Oglethorpe], the bysshope of West- 1 Chron. Belg., No. CCCLix, i, p. 545. 216 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW Chester {Chester-. Scot], the bysshope of Llandaffh [Kit- chin: not deprived; he should have said Morgan of St. David's], and the bysshope of {blank: should have been Pate of Worcester] " ; and for 26th June he records: "the same day was deprevyd of their bysshoprykes, the bysshope of Wynchester [White] and the bysshope of Lynckolne [Watson], at Master Hawse the King's shreyff in Mynsyon [Minchin] Lane; and the bysshope of Wynchester to the Towre agayne, and the bysshope of Lynckolne delevered a-way." 1 On 1st July, Quadra told Philip that the Bishop of Lincoln had been released from the Tower because he was very ill. 2 Machyn further records that on 23rd June, five new bishops were elected, and, amongst this number, Grindal, to the See of London. But it will be recalled that on the previous 29th May, he had made the statement that Grindal had then been raised to that dignity; it is clear then, that at the earlier date he was only designated to that office. The other four Sees then provided for were vacant by the natural death of their former occupants, and were now to be given to reforming prelates. Machyn, who is nothing if not inaccurate, says they were " come from beyond the sea," and immediately names "Master Parker, Bishop of Canterbury," who was not a returned exile, but had remained in England during the whole of Mary's reign ; the statement was correct enough, however, as applied to the rest : Scory, for Hereford ; Barlow, for Chichester ; Bill, for Salisbury ; and Cox, for Norwich. The two last named appointments were not eventually confirmed. Though Cox was actually elected for Norwich, he was transferred to Ely within a few weeks, and before his consecration. Bill never attained to episcopal rank, but had to content himself with the Provost- ship of Eton, and the Deanery of Westminster, when that ancient monastic foundation was by royal proclamation of 2 1st June, 1560, converted into a Collegiate Church with a Dean and twelve prebendaries. 3 But this is anticipating. 1 Camden Soc. PubL, 1848, pp. 200-1. 2 Cf. Chron. Belg., No. CCCLXII, i, p. 548. 3 Rymer, Foedera, xv, p. 590. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 217 What Machyn was in reality referring to was the issue of the conges delire. These documents are dated 22nd June for the Sees of Hereford and London ; l but that for Canterbury bears the date of 18th July, and that of Salisbury 27th July. 2 II Schifanoya, writing to Ottaviano Vivaldino on 27th June, said: "The Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Ely, your Lordship's friend, remain for the last to be sum- moned, in hope of gaining them, all possible temptations not wanting, being such rare men as they are, and necessary in affairs of State; but there is no doubt of their faith and con- stancy, both of them having spoken so candidly in Parlia- ment, and still persevering in their integrity." 3 On Friday, 5th July, Archbishop Heath and Thirlby, the Bishop of Ely, were at length summoned for the purpose of having the oath of Supremacy tendered to them by the Council. Machyn records that on that date " was deposed of their bishoprics the Archbishop of York, Doctor Heath, and the Bishop of Ely, Doctor Thirlby, at my Lord Trea- surer's place at 'Frers Augustyne' [Austin Friars]." The appreciation of the high qualities of these two prelates evinced in II Schifanoya's letter finds an echo in the account of their deprivation sent by Quadra to King Philip. "Last Friday they deprived the Archbishop of York and the [Bis- hop] of Ely. He of Ely had high words with Bacon and told him that if the Queen continued as she had begun to be influenced by those she had about her, both she and her kingdom would be lost." 4 There were only five of the old bishops now left: Turber- ville of Exeter, Bourne of Bath and Wells, Tunstall of Dur- ham, Poole of Peterborough, and Goldwell of St. Asaph's. Hence Grindal was correct when, on 14th July, 1559, he wrote to Conrad Hubert that "the popish bishops are almost all of them deprived ; and if any yet remain, they will be deprived in a few days for refusing to renounce their obedi- 1 Rymer, Foedera, xv, p. 532. J Ibid., xv, pp. 536-7. 3 Venetian Papers, No. 82, 27th June, 1559. ' Chron. Belg., No. CCCLXXii, i, p. 561, 12th July, 1559. 2i8 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW ence to the Pope." x Goldwell, having no illusions as to how matters would finally shape themselves, and having no mind to spend his remaining years in durance, escaped to the Continent some time on or after 26th June, on which date he wrote from St. Alban's to his brother Stephen, saying that he was determined to leave his bishopric. 2 The next day his servants arrived at Stephen Goldwell's house at Chart in Kent, saying they did not know what had become of their master, the Bishop. 3 In his absence he was deprived. In Tierney's Dodd the date is given as 15th July, 1559; but Quadra, writing to King Philip on 13th August, informed him that "they have this week deprived the Bishops of St. David's and Exeter." 4 The Bishop of St. David's has, how- ever, been mentioned as deprived on 26th June; it is likely, therefore, that at that date he had been told to consider him- self deprived, but that the legal instrument giving actual effect to the sentence of deposition is dated later. Young, his successor, writing to Cecil in March, 1560, says that his "Bill of Restitution, which was made to take effect a die de- privations, being the 10th day of August last," 5 and thus ex- actly fixes the date, which may also be taken as that when Turberville of Exeter was deprived, being just three days before Quadra wrote to Philip. This serves to correct the the late Fr. Bridgett, who conjectured that the date of his deprivation was in November, 1559, saying that "the date of his deposition can only be gathered from the fact that the spiritualities were seized 16th November, 1559."° Quadra, in his letter just quoted, goes on to say: " He of Durham, who is a very old man and learned, came here from his See, [tierra] on purpose to give the Queen his opinion about these things; he also showed her the last will of King Henry in his handwriting, and other papers of the same King, which are all against the heresies which have been accepted here, and in particular against that of the Sacra- 1 II Zur., No. 10. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., IV, No. 71, 1. 3 Ibid., iv, No. 71, 11. 4 Citron. Belg., No. cccxcix, i, p. 595. 5 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz, XI, No. 38. 6 Q. Eliz. and the Cath. Hierarchy, p. 96. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 219 mentarians [i.e., the followers of Calvin and Zwinglius], and besought her at least to respect the wish of her father, even though she would not adhere to the Universal \todd] Church; but he did no good, and they only derided him, as he might well have done them. They tell me that this bishop will remain true, and that his opinion is of great weight and authority in his own country." ' An entry in Machyn's diary for 20th July has reference to the foregoing incident. " The xx day of July the good old Bishop of Durham came riding up to London with three score horse, and so to South- wark unto Master Dolman's house, a tallow-chandler, and there he lies against the Chain gate." Meanwhile, on 24th June, there had issued from Westminster the Letters Patent directing the holding of a visitation of the Northern Province. 2 The end and object of this visitation aroused the indignation and antagonism of the sturdy old prelate; and on 19th August he wrote to Cecil, saying frankly and boldly that " where I do understand out of my diocese of a warning for a visitation to be had there, this shall be to ad- vertise your mastership that ... if the same visitation shall proceed to such end in my diocese of Durham, as I do plainly see to be set forth here in London, as pulling down of altars, defacing of churches by taking away of the cruci- fixes, I cannot in my conscience consent to it, being pastor there . . . nor to have any new doctrine taught in my diocese." 3 Further, on 9th September the royal assent to Matthew Parker's election as Archbishop of Canterbury was issued, and it included a mandate to Tunstall, Bourne, Poole, Kitchin, Barlow and Scory to proceed to his conse- cration. 4 Barlow and Scory were, of course, quite to be de- pended upon; Kitchin, too, having by that date shown his willingness to subscribe the oattfof Supremacy, was doubt- less reckoned on as being amenable in the matter of the consecration. He was the only one of the Marian bishops 1 Chron. Belg., No. CCCXCIX, i, p. 595, 13th August, 1559. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., vol. x, p. 1. 3 Ibid., vi, No. 22. 4 Rymer, Focdera, xv, p. 541. 220 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW who proved untrue to his trust. The Bishop of Aquila, writing on 12th July, said then of him: " I understand that the Bishop of Llandaff, who is an avaricious old man with- out much learning, is hesitating, and it is feared that he may take the oath, for of late he is again wearing a bishop's dress. I learnt this and so went to visit him and encourage him as well as I was able ; but notwithstanding this he has given way." ' On 5th August Paulo Tiepolo wrote to the Doge and Senate of Venice: "... we hear from those parts [England] that amongst all the bishops there, the only one who would take the form of oath which I, Paulo, sent to your Serenity, was the Bishop of Llandaff."- To his credit, be it said, however, that he took no part in Parker's conse- cration ; Tunstall, Poole and Bourne would of course have nothing to say to it ; therefore, at a later date another writ had to be issued to prelates more subservient, gathered from any quarter whence the Council could procure them. The next step to be taken, therefore, if the Northern Visitation was to proceed in the diocese of Durham, was to remove Tunstall from ' being pastor there,' for he had sufficiently warned them that he would consider it his duty vigorously to oppose the Visitors' doings. The oath was accordingly tendered to him at some date later in September, but not hitherto definitely fixed. Machyn says: " The 28th day of September, was Michaelmas-even, was the old Bishop of Durham, Doctor Tunstall, was deposed of his bishopric of Durham, because he should not receive the rents of that quarter." It would almost seem, however, that the sentence of deprivation must have been passed a few days earlier, for on 27th September, the Council committed him to Matthew Parker's keeping, suggesting that he should " have conference with him in certain points of religion wherein he is to be resolved." 3 Dr. Parker at once, apparently, under- took the task committed to him, and found his aged prisoner 1 Simancas Transcr., B.M. Add. MS. 26056*. 3 Venetian Papers, No. 91 ; but see Estcourt, Anglican Ordinations, P-93- 3 Parker Corresp., No. 63. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 221 courteous and willing to listen patiently to anything he might have to say. Misled by what was merely the good breeding of a truly religious man, Parker evidently thought that he was making a convert of Tunstall, and wrote to the Council to acquaint them with the fact, as we learn from a reply which came to him from Cecil, dated 2nd October, assuring him that " it is much liked the comfort that ye give of the Bishop of Durham's towardness," adding with a caution bred of experience, " wherein I pray God ye be not deceived." The sentence that follows is also signifi- cant: " It is meant, if he will conform himself, that both he shall remain bishop and in good favour and credit; other- wise he must needs receive the common order of those which refuse to obey the laws." ' Strype was beguiled by these let- ters into making the absurd, and indeed calumnious, state- ment that "before his death, by the Archbishop's means, he was brought off from papistical fancies." a Whatever hopes Dr. Parker may have entertained at first, he was soon un- deceived, as Cecil had evidently feared he would be; for, as early as 5th October, Cecil wrote to him, again in answer to a letter from him : " the Queen's Majesty is very sorry that ye can prevail no more with Mr. Tunstall, and so am I, I assure you ; for the recovery of such a man would have furthered the common affairs of this realm very much." 3 Bishop Tunstall did not long survive to witness the progress of the work of reformation, for he died at Lambeth on the following 1 8th November, and was buried there on the mor- row. 4 On the day of his death Dr. Parker wrote to Cecil, and after making some suggestions about his interment, re- ferred, in the extract that follows, to the documents the old Bishop had brought up to London with him to show to the Queen. " I have sealed up two small caskets," he said, " wherein I think no great substance, either of money or of writings. There is one roll of books which he purposed to deliver to the Queen, which is nothing else but King Henry's Parker Corresp., No. 64. ' 2 Strype's Parker, i, p. 94. Parker Corresp., No. 65. l Machyn's Diary. 222 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW testament, and a book Contra communicationem utriusque speciei, and such matter." 1 Bishops Bourne of Bath and Wells and Poole of Peter- borough now alone remained in nominal possession of their Sees. It is difficult to understand why they had been overlooked and thus "lagged superfluous on the stage," unless, groundlessly, some measure of compliance had been hoped for from them as in the case of the aged Bishop of Durham. With their refusal, however, to take any part in Parker's consecration, any hopes of their sub- mission that may have been entertained must have van- ished; therefore, on 18th October, 1559, a commission was directed to four Somersetshire Justices, empowering them to administer the oath of Supremacy to their Ordinary. 2 This proves that Gilbert Bourne was at that date residing in his diocese, and had not been summoned to appear before the Council. He was one of those who had been ordered not to leave London before the end of September; whether that order had been relaxed or rescinded does not transpire; but in the light of Tunstall's case, it is difficult to understand how he, too, had not been hitherto recog- nised as obdurate, and therefore put in the same con- demnation with the Bishop of Durham. The oath was refused by him when it was tendered, and the legal depriva- tion followed, certainly before 26th October, when the See of Bath and Wells was bracketed with others in a list of vacant dioceses. 3 Nothing definite is known about the circumstances attending Bishop Poole's deprivation; but it must have taken place at or about the same time as Bourne's. One fact helps to fix it approximately. The spiritualities of the See of Peterborough were seized on nth November, 1559. 4 Thus were the men who barred the way of the reformers removed out of their path. Death had signally aided them also ; the mortality amongst the bishops had been strangely 1 Parker Corresp., No. 74. a Rymer, Foedera, xv, p. 545. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., vn, No. 19. 4 Bridgett and Knox, Q. Eliz. and the Cath. Hierarchy, p. 81. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 223 rapid and had claimed many victims during this eventful period. When Mary died there were five Sees standing vacant, namely, Salisbury, Hereford, Gloucester, Bangor, and Oxford. Cardinal Pole, Archbishop of Canterbury, survived Mary but a few hours; and before the few re- maining weeks of that waning year were sped, there were four more vacancies, namely, in the Sees of Norwich, Rochester, Bristol, and Chichester. Tunstall did not survive his deprivation many weeks, as he died on 18th November, 1559; and he was followed to the grave in quick succession by Bayne of Coventry and Lichfield (fiSth November, 1559); Morgan, of St. David's (f 23rd December, 1559); Oglethorpe, of Carlisle (f December, 1559); and White of Winchester (-f*i2th January, 1559-60). 1 Thus, within twenty-five months, death had widowed fifteen of the twenty-six Sees of England and Wales, and legal measures had emptied the remainder. These important places had to be filled. Who were the men from whose ranks the choice would be made? It had been recognised for some little while before the actual date of her death that Queen Mary had not long to live. The reformers, who had preferred exile to the risk they ran of suffering death for their opinions if they remained in Eng- land, were therefore eagerly looking forward to the dawn of a better day for their propaganda, and awaited Eliza- beth's accession to the throne with impatient expectation. These men were of unquiet spirit, whose ardour for con- tentious debate, not even adversity had succeeded in cooling; their conduct while in exile furnishes ample evi- dence of their untractable natures. Sometimes it is family squabbling, as in the case of John Burcher, who mixed up secular concerns with spiritual aims in most incongruous 1 Writing to Peter Martyr on 5th March, 1559-60, Jewel informed him that " your friend White, who so candidly and kindly \gui ita candide et amice] wrote against you, is dead, as I think, from rage ; and religion, which you may be surprised at, has not suffered in the least. It sorely vexed this patient man to see both himself and his party laughed at by the very boys in the street" (cf. I Zur., No. 30). 224 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW fashion. In a letter to Henry Bullinger, dated ist March, 1 5 57-8, l he is anxious about a brewery business he is inter- ested in; on the 16th March 2 the same topic occupies his mind; later in the year, 27th October, 3 he waxes wroth over the "uncandid and unchristian conduct" of a relative over some debts. " Rotaker, contrary to the duty of a Christian, not to say of a preacher, is contriving how to retain possession of [my] property"; and this he had "all but fraudulently extorted." Then the exiles at Frankfort fell foul of one another over questions of ceremonies. As the story may be seen at length elsewhere, there is no need here to give anything more than a short resume of the dispute, sufficient for an understanding of the temper of those engaged in it, and who transferred their differences to England when they came back. Even the experience of a common fate, the speechless death Which robs my tongue from breathing native breath. 4 had been insufficient to secure toleration amongst them- selves towards the free exercise of private judgment which each loudly claimed for himself, but assiduously denied to anyone else. The exiles in Frankfort had not been satisfied with the Liturgy of Edward's books of Common Prayer, denouncing both of them as too papistical; accordingly, the form of service which they devised to replace them followed Calvinistic rather than Lutheran models, not even a surplice being worn by the minister when celebrating. The exiles in Strasburg, Zurich and elsewhere, however, were satisfied with the reformed service as used in England in Edward's reign. Certain ministers went, by invitation from Strasburg, Zurich and Geneva, to Frankfort; where- upon a furious contest arose. John Knox, from Geneva, was all for change, and was supported by Calvin, who had not a good word to say for the English Prayer Book ; but 1 Parker Soc. Pub. Original Letters, ii, No. 330. 2 Ibid., No. 331. 3 Ibid., No. 332. 1 Rich. II, act i, sc. 3. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 225 a compromise was effected, whereby the rival forms of service were to be used alternately. At this juncture Richard Cox appeared upon the scene, and the weight of his influence was cast on the side of the English Prayer Book. The rival factions immediately ranged themselves under the captaincy of these two champions, and were known henceforth as the Knoxians and the Coxians. Richard Cox was a redoubtable leader. He had first come into prominence in Henry's reign. While at Oxford he had developed Lutheran tendencies and had to quit the University; but he was appointed Head Master of Eton, and received much other preferment later, as the Deaneries of Christ Church, Oxford, and of Westminster, and the Chancellorship of Oxford University. In the last-named capacity he made himself answerable for irreparable mis- chief by causing the destruction of priceless manuscripts. On Mary's accession he was imprisoned for a short period on political grounds, and was also deprived of his ecclesi- astical preferments ; but he managed to escape abroad in 1554, and straightway concerned himself in the squabbles which had broken out at Frankfort. He pitted himself against men of whom Heylin says: "The names of Whit- tingham, Williams, Goodman, Wood and Sutton, who appeared in the head of this congregation, declare suffi- ciently of what principles and strain they were, how willing they would be to lay aside the face of an English Church, and frame themselves to any Liturgy but their own." l The whole course of the dispute may be studied in Heylin's History, or better still, in Collier's. 2 It is enough here to record that the Coxians emerged triumphant from the struggle; but the fiery spirit of the Knoxians, identical with that of modern militant non-conformity, only needed rekindling in the years to come, to burst out with greater fury than ever. On Queen Mary's death, the exiles, who had placed all their hopes in Elizabeth's Protestant sympathies, began at 1 Hist, of Reform., ed. 1670, pt. ii, p. 59. 2 Eccl. Hist., vi, pp. 144-53. Q 226 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW once to flock back to England with spirits unsubdued by adversity. The same contentious spirit which had char- acterised them at Frankfort was transferred to England, there to show itself only in increased bitterness. It is of importance to realise this, as it is the key to much of the religious trouble of Elizabeth's reign. It is fruitless to speculate on what might have been the course of the Elizabethan settlement of religion if these turbulent spirits had remained abroad; certainly a workable and working compromise of toleration for Papists and Reformers alike might have been effected; or, at least, such a solution is thinkable. But the arrogant intolerance exhibited against one another by both sections of the Frankfort dispute, while still continuing unabated after the return of the exiles to England, was combined into a semblance of peace and unanimity against the common enemy — those who adhered to the Pope and to the Mass. No sooner, then, were these exiles back in England, than, as Heylin expresses it: 1 "Many unadvised zealots amongst the Protestants, who, measuring the Queen's affections by their own, or else presuming that their errors would be taken for an honest zeal, employed themselves as busily in the demolishing of altars, and defacing of images, as if they had been licensed and commanded to it by some legal warrant." It was this unrestrained zeal that elicited the Queen's proclamation of 27th December, 1558, prohibiting all manner of preaching; for it was altogether counter to Tudor notions of order and good government that private enterprise should go in advance of official sanction and commendation. The Prayer Book was, it can hardly be disputed, the cause of contention between the two wings of the reforming party, the moderates and the extremists, as trfey may be termed. The former, content with the Edwardine formu- laries, felt that they had sufficiently expunged from them the ideas of sacrifice and of the powers of the priesthood in the sense accepted and taught by the Catholic Church, 1 Hist, of Ref., pt. ii, p. 104. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 227 while yet attached in some slight degree to the outward forms observed by the ancient Church in the conduct of divine worship, as safeguards of decency and decorum. Thus it was that the Prayer Books of Edward VI enjoined the use of surplice and cope, and the employment of crucifix and candles on the altars. The extremists, however, would have none of these "trifles and dregs"; 1 and hence, from the first, a violent opposition was offered to the Liturgy even as by law established. Moreover, the exiles, full of hope and expectation, flocked back hungry for speedy preferment, and lost no time in carving out (in prospect) amongst themselves the good and fat emoluments of the English Church. For even after the spoliations of Henry's and Edward's reigns, the revenues of the higher ecclesiastical offices were still considerable. But events did not travel as fast as they had anticipated ; and at the end of April, Jewel complained to Peter Martyr that although four months had elapsed since the return of the exiles, "as yet not the slightest provision has been made for any of us." 2 Another six months went by, and Jewel had to lament that the repatriated reformers were still labouring under the same disappointment. "With your usual affection to the common cause," he wrote, "you were grieved at hearing that no provision had been made for any one of us. You may now resume your grief, for nothing whatever has been done up to the present moment . . . the Queen herself both favours our cause and is desir- ous to serve us. Wherefore, although these beginnings are painful enough, we do not lose our spirits, nor cease to hope for better things." 3 A few days later Jewel expressed the misgivings which he and others felt at the disadvantageous exchange of episcopal lands which the Queen had enforced, and also at the royal annexation of the revenues of vacant Sees ; the yearning of the expectant exiles for the sweets and fruits of office is betrayed. "The bishops are as yet 1 Collier, Ecd. Hist., vi, p. 153. 2 I Zur., p. 21, No. 7, 28th April, 1559. 3 Ibid., p. 53, No. 23, 5th November, 1559. 228 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW only marked out, and their estates are in the meantime gloriously swelling the Exchequer." ' Edmund Sandys bewailed his poverty to Matthew Parker in the following words: "They never ask us in what state we stand, neither consider what we want ; and yet in the time of our exile we were not so bare as we are now brought ; but I trust we shall not linger long, for the Parliament draweth to an end." 2 As their needs pressed, they forgot all claims of decency, and unblushingly petitioned not only for vacancies, but even for the reversion of places actually occupied, which their prescience assured them would soon be rendered vacant by sentence of deprivation against their present holders. Thus, for example, Edmund Ghest, writing on 31st August, 1559, 3 solicited Secretary Cecil for the favour of his influence, having an eye on the Deanery of Wor- cester, which Mr. Seth Holland, then in enjoyment of it, would probably have to vacate for recusancy. Ghest reports of Seth Holland that he "will not renounce the Pope . . . wherefore most humbly I beseech you to be so good master to me, as to be suitor to the Queen's Highness, that I may succeed him in his Deanery of Worcester." In November, 1 561, one Roger Kelk besought Cecil to bestow on him the Deanery of Lincoln, which was soon to be vacated. "It is not my wont, believe me," he wrote, "to push or intrude myself into such delicate and difficult functions. Now, however (if only you will press my suit and help me to the best of your power), my country calls me, as does that most congenial state of life amongst those to whom I am most closely united both by nature and friendship. Do not refuse me; nor, in such a dearth of workers, blush to reward my lengthy studies and daily labours. It is neither honour, glory, ambition, nor even the greatness of the stipend that impels me; but, I call God to witness, I am influenced by His glory, my own conscience, my native soil, and the office itself." * Lawrence Humphry, 1 1 Zur., p. 55, No. 24, 16th November, 1559. 2 Parker Corresp., p. 65, No. 59, 30th April, 1559. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., VI, No. 32. 4 Ibid., XX, No. 18, Latin. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 229 stern Puritan though he was, in saluting Cecil on occasion of the new year "to the glory of God, your comfort and our commodity," found himself moved by "conscience and good reason" to secure, if possible, his own preferment; or, as he explained this conscientious desire further on in the letter, "moved of necessity and not for profit or pleasure; of a care of my family, and not for love of having much." However, although the Queen and her advisers had not shown such precipitation in providing places for the re- turned exiles as their estimate of themselves and their necessities had prompted them to look for, nevertheless it had been indicated with sufficient clearness that a change was coming. No effort was made to fill the bishoprics vacant at the Queen's accession, to which might be added the other vacancies that had been so rapidly created by death. Rather it was determined to empty the remaining Sees of their occupants, and then to supply all with prelates en- tirely subservient to the royal will, for the Queen and Cecil had discovered during the sitting of Parliament that as the bishops there assembled would never be bent to con- formity and to the acceptance of the royal Supremacy, they would have to be got rid of by the process of legal de- privation. Plans v/ere already being formulated as if these Sees were actually vacant. Thus, in a paper drawn up about May, 1559, 2 may be seen a list of twenty -six "spiritual men without promotion at this present." It in- cludes three ex-bishops of Henrician or Edwardine ap- pointment, six future bishops, two future deans, and a residue who never attained to high promotion after all, probably on account of their attitude of hostility to the Book of Common Prayer. The next paper in the same volume of Elizabethan documents 3 of about the same date 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xxi, No. 5, 8th January, 1 561-2. ■ Ibid., iv, No. 38. 3 Ibid., iv, No. 39. The precise date is not determinable ; but the latest date that can be assigned to it, must be one some appreciable time before the first of the appointments which actually took place which is a departure from the proposals it makes. 230 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW (May, 1559) contains a series of jottings in Cecil's own handwriting, wherein he tabulates the Sees, writing oppo- site each one the names of divines whom he evidently sug- gests as the most suitable to be placed over them. Thus Parker is bracketed with Canterbury; Bill, with London (changed to Grindal) ; Whitehead, with Norwich (changed to Cox); Pilkington, with Chichester (changed to Barlow); Sandys, with Hereford (changed to Scory) ; Home is given Winchester; Sampson, Salisbury; Jewel, Lincoln; Bentham, Coventry and Lichfield; Nowell, Carlisle; Beacon, Rochester; Pullen, Chester; Davis, Worcester; Aylmer, Gloucester; Wisdom, Bangor; and Ghest,St. Asaph's; while Pedder, Lever, and Alley, although appearing in the list, have no promotion suggested for them. The interest of this list lies in its foreshadowing many of the appointments which in a few months actually took effect, and that, too, months before some of the Sees were vacated ; but it must be noted also that every one of those who subsequently became bishops did not obtain the See here projected for him by Cecil, while others here marked out to be bishops had finally to content themselves with deaneries, and others, again, with nothing. The value, then, of the list consists in furnishing a proof that before the day of limit, before even the Sees were legally at the Queen's disposal, Cecil had already determined in his own mind that they should be vacant, and in pursuance of that eventuality had drawn up a scheme for filling them with men v/ho would work in the interests of the changes projected or effected by Parliament. Goodrich, as more than once referred to already, had drawn up a plan for the alteration of religion, as early as December, 1558. Only a few weeks before, Nicholas Heath, Archbishop of York and Lord Chancellor of England, had proclaimed Elizabeth as Queen, with commendable loyalty and warmth of devotion. Nothing had happened to show that his fellow bishops were not in full accord with his senti- ments ; nevertheless Goodrich thought right to counsel that " before any pardon published after the old manner at the UN' . THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 2^1 Coronation, that certain of the principal prelates be com- mitted to the Tower." ' The suggestion, though not carried out in its entirety, nevertheless furnished the motive for im- prisoning White and Watson. But imprisonment alone was not enough: the chief opponents of change must be removed for good and all, and be replaced by others, as outlined in Cecil's memoranda. And here the belief in themselves enter- tained by the returned exiles found expression ; for, so cer- tain were they from the first that the contemplated changes would necessarily work in their favour, that they did not hesitate to conjecture as to who amongst them would be selected for the coveted posts. Thus Jewel, writing to Peter Martyr on some date unknown before the end of May, 1559, said, "Some of our friends are marked out for bishops; Parker for Canterbury; Cox for Norwich; Barlow for Chi- chester; Scory for Hereford, and Grindal for London; for Bonner is ordered to vacate his See." 2 Writing later, on 1st August, Jewel told Martyr that " some of us are appointed to bishoprics: Cox to Ely; Scory to Hereford; Allen to Rochester ; Grindal to London ; Barlow to Chichester ; and I, the least of the apostles, to Salisbury." 3 This letter is a curious comment on the source of jurisdiction. At the date of writing, Jewel was not yet elected, the conge d'elire being issued only on 27th July ; 4 yet, on the strength of that instru- ment, he spoke of himself, correctly, as already appointed. Allen never became bishop of Rochester, though he was down in Cecil's memoranda for it. He died soon after. The main preoccupation of the chief advisers of the Queen was to select a suitable person for the primatial See of Canterbury. On him, whoever he should be, a weighty burthen would lie. On him would fall the duty and respon- sibility of shaping the destinies of the new settlement of re- 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., 1, No. 69. 2 I Z?/r., No. 9. As Bonner was deprived on 30th May, the letter must have been written before that date. The other Sees here men- tioned were already vacant by the death of their former occupants. 3 Ibid., No. 16, 1st August, 1559. 4 Rymer, Foedera, xv, pp. 536-7. 232 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW ligion, so that on the one hand anything distinctively Roman should be avoided and abolished, while the aim was to secure as wide a comprehensiveness as possible, avoiding, as far as might be, so violent a break with the past as wholly to alienate the sympathy and adhesion of that section of the nation which seemed disposed to hold fast to the Pope at all costs. A man was wanted who should be at the same time revolutionary and conciliatory; learned, and yet not a schoolman ; one to whom all could look up as a man above reproach. And Cecil, knowing the man who seemed most adequately to satisfy the required conditions, "laid hands on him as the one sensible man within his reach, who was re- ligious without being a fanatic, and Christian without being a dogmatist. . . . Parker's name alone redeems the first list of Elizabeth's bishops from entire insignificance." ' Matthew Parker was born at Norwich on 6th August, 1 504, and when sixteen years of age entered Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Here he took his degrees, was ordained priest, and was elected to a Fellowship. Promotion came to him rapidly: he became chaplain to Anne Boleyn,and in 1552 Dean of Lincoln. In Mary's reign he was deprived of all his preferments on the ground of being married ; but he lived quietly in retirement and therefore escaped molestation and the necessity of having to fly abroad to avoid risk to life or liberty. Through his connection with Anne Boleyn he was naturally known to, and liked by, Queen Elizabeth, and he had friends of weight at Court in the persons of Sir Nicholas Bacon and Sir William Cecil, both his contemp- oraries at Cambridge. At the very dawn of the new era, these powerful statesmen had cast their eyes on Matthew Parker as a fit instrument for their ecclesiastical purposes. Between 9th and 20th December, 1558, Parker had written to Sir Nicholas Bacon : " I received your letters to this effect, that I should repair up unto you at London, upon occasion, as ye wrote, which may turn me to good. ... I would be inwardly heavy and sorry that [Sir W. Cecil's] favourable affection should procure me anything above the reach of 1 Froude, Hist, of Engl., vii, p. 175. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 233 mine ability. . . . But to tell you my heart, I had rather have such a thing as [the mastership of] Benet College is in Cambridge, a living of twenty nobles by the year at most, than to dwell in the Deanery of Lincoln, which is two hun- dred at the least." ' But he was destined to something higher than the mastership of a college or a deanery ; and on 30th December, Sir William Cecil, " the Queen's Highness mind- ing presently to use your service in certain matters of im- portance," summoned him to London ; " at which your com- ing up I shall declare unto you her Majesty's further plea- sure, and the occasion why you are sent for." 2 Sir Nicholas Bacon added his injunctions to those of the Secretary. 3 On Parker's arrival in London, some hint must have been given to him of what was in contemplation, his advice must have been asked, or an order conveyed to him to formulate his views in writing on the choice of a primate; for, on 1st March, 1558-9, he wrote at considerable length to Bacon, painting an admirable picture of the kind of man who ought to be chosen for the archiepiscopal office. " I shall pray to God ye bestow that office well," he wrote ; " ye shall need care the less for the residue. God grant it chanceth neither on arrogant man, neither on faint-hearted man, nor on covetous man. The first shall both sit in his own light, and shall discourage his fellows to join with him in unity of doc- trine, which must be their whole strength; for if any heart- burning be betwixt them, if private quarrels stirred abroad be brought home, and so shall shiver them asunder, it may chance to have that success which I fear in the conclusion will follow. The second man should be too weak to com- mune with the adversaries, who would be the stouter upon his pusillanimity. The third man not worth his bread, pro- fitable for no estate in any Christian commonwealth, to serve it rightly." 4 This remarkable analysis closely portrayed the character of many of the men subsequently chosen to fill the vacant Sees: the covetous, " profitable for no estate . . . to serve it rightly"; the arrogant, "sitting in their own 1 Parker Corresp., No. 41. - Ibid., No. 43. 3 Cf. ibid., No. 44. l Ibid., No. 46. 234 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW light"; the pusillanimous, cringing before Elizabeth and Cecil ; and a shrewd hit at Richard Cox " if private quarrels stirred abroad be brought home," who he feared might perhaps be selected for the post, through the connection he had formerly had with Edward VI. The letter then went on, though in veiled language, to emphasise the writer's own personal unfitness both in mind and body for the great office. But Elizabeth and her trusty councillors were al- ready resolved on their choice. After a lapse of more than two months, during which the momentous Bills of Supre- macy and Uniformity were being hotly debated in Parlia- ment and engaging all Bacon's attention, he was free, after the close of the session, to think of Parker. On 17th May, " perceiving this day, by a resolution made in the Queen's Highness' presence " that Parker had been designated for the archbishopric and that he would not be permitted to escape the burthen, Bacon wrote to inform him of the fact, at the same time adding: "If I knew a man to whom the description made in the beginning of your letter [above] might more justly be referred than to yourself, I would pre- fer him before you ; but knowing none so meet, indeed I take it to be my duty to prefer you before all others, and the rather also because otherwise I should not follow the advice of your own letter." 1 Accordingly, on 19th May, Parker was summoned to repair speedily to London ; 2 and a more urgent message followed on 28th of the same month. 3 At an undetermined date, but almost certainly in June, Parker had received the formal offer of the high post; whereupon, to his infinite credit, he wrote to the Queen herself, disparaging his own fitness and ability. " I have understanding of your most favourable opinion toward me . . . concerning the arch- bishopric of Canterbury . . . yet calling to examination my great unworthiness for so high a function ... I am bold . . . beseeching your honour to discharge me of that so high and chargeable an office, which doth require a man of much more wit, learning, virtue, and experience . . . besides 1 Parker Corresp., No. 51. 2 Ibid., No. 52. 3 Ibid., No. 53. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 235 many other imperfections in me as well for temporal ability ... as also infirmity of body." ' Shortly after this he learnt from his constant friend Bacon that " the former resolution concerning you is now confirmed by a second." " Further resistance being plainly useless, he acquiesced ; and his acceptance of the primatial See must soon have become matter of common knowledge, for Machyn notes that he was elected on 23rd June. This is clearly an error, for the conge d'elire was issued only on 18th July. 3 The delay over his election may be accounted for by the absence of the Dean of Canterbury, Doctor Nicholas Wootton, who was in France concluding the treaty of Cateau Cambresis; but, on 19th July, the Queen directed a commission " to the Reverend Father in God Matthew Parker, nominated Bishop of Canterbury, and Edmund Grindal, nominated Bishop of London," and others, for the tendering of the oath of Su- premacy, and for repressing opposition by word or deed or printing, to the new order in religion. 4 Doctor Wootton was back at Canterbury by the end of the month; ' and then, by an arrangement previously made, the four prebendaries who appeared for the election on 1st August left the choice to the Dean, who thereupon selected Matthew Parker; and his election was straightway ratified by the prebendaries." It may be noted that a week later the Archbishop-elect signed an order to Cambridge University as "Mattheue Cant," ' and on 27th August signed a letter to the Council as " Matth. C." 8 Estcourt lays stress on this slip as " per- haps owing to their entertaining the notion ... of the election being the most important part of the process, that Parker and the others began to use the episcopal style and title at once." 9 A controversialist might feel himself entitled to make a point out of this matter of etiquette; but no such 1 Parker Corresp., No. 54. - Ibid., No. 55. 3 Rymer, Foedera, xv, pp. 536-7. 4 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., v, No. 18. 5 Ibid., Foreign, No. nil. 6 Haddan's Bramhall, vol. iii, pp. 190-7. 7 Parker Corresp., No. 56, 8th August, 1559. 8 Ibid., No. 58. 9 Anglican Ordinations, p. 85. 236 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW question need be raised here. Even an official document to some of the bishops-elect, dated 20th October, gives them the title of Bishop without the qualification; x hence it need cause no surprise if they themselves, without the opportunity of being trained by older bishops, fell into such a simple mistake. By October, however they had evidently made themselves acquainted with, and conformed to, usage and precedent, for five of these new prelates signed a joint letter to the Queen with the correct limitations. 2 The royal assent to Parker's election was given on 9th September, and a mandate was issued for his consecration, addressed to certain bishops. 3 Bacon forwarded to Parker this " royal assent, sealed and delivered within two hours after the receipt thereof, wishing unto you as good success therein as ever happed to any that have received the like." 4 This mandate was directed to four of the five bishops still, at that date, in possession of their Sees, namely, the aged Tunstall of Durham, Bourne of Bath and Wells, Poole of Peterborough, and Kitchin of Llandaff, omitting Turberville of Exeter. But joined with these were Barlow and Scory, ex- Bishops of Bath and Wells and Chichester respectively, who had fled the realm during Mary's reign. It cannot be doubted that three of the bishops named, Tunstall, Bourne, and Poole, refused point-blank to take any part in the consecra- tion. Perhaps Kitchin did so likewise, seeing that eventually he had no share in it. But in any case, Kitchin, Barlow, and Scory by themselves did not suffice to satisfy the legal re- quirements. 5 The Act of 25 Henry VIII, c. 20, laid down 1 Rymer, Foedera, xv, p. 546. 2 Parker Corresp., No. 68, about 15th October, 1559. 3 Rymer, Foedera, xv, p. 541. 4 Parker Corresp., No. 61, 9th September, 1559. 5 Messrs. Denny and Lacey, in their joint work De Hierarchia Anglicana, p. 9, distinctly say: Quae tamen litterae, renuentibus Tuustallo Dtinelmensi, Bournio Bathonensi et Polo Petriburgensi, irritae Jiebant ; and, in a note, lay down the principle that de litteris patentibus tali modo editis ut falsarias introduci prorsus impossibile sit; vide Mason, Vindic. Feci. Angl., lib. iii, cap. 18. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 237 that on any vacancy of the archiepiscopal See, the royal mandate should be issued to any other archbishop and two bishops; or, failing another archbishop, to "four bishops within this realm, or within any other the King's domin- ions." This clause created a hitch in the proceedings, and delayed the consecration ; the delay so caused was prolonged through other circumstances connected with the temporali- ties of the Sees, to which reference will be made presently. Meanwhile, certain of the Sees were provided with bishops. Thus John Scory was elected by the Chapter of Hereford on 15th July, 1559, 1 in compliance with the conge d'elire issued on the previous 22nd June. 2 Barlow was also ac- cepted by the Chapter of Chichester about the same time, but the exact date is not known. The conge d'elire for that diocese, as for London, was issued at the same time as Scory's. Edmund Grindal was " nominated " to London, and so referred to in a royal commission dated 19th July, 3 whereas his formal election took place only on 26th July, 1 559- 4 This appointment was quickly followed by that of Richard Cox to Ely on 28th July, 15 59/ the conge d'elire being dated the 1 8th of the same month, as was Parker's for Canterbury." John Jewel, also, was selected for promo- tion at about the same time as the foregoing batch ; for the notification of the Queen's pleasure to the Chapter of Salis- bury was dated 27th July. 7 This body dutifully chose him for their bishop on 2 1 st August, 1 5 59/ It will be noted that, with the exception of the diocese of London, these appoint- ments were all to Sees actually vacant by the deaths of their late occupants. In Rymer's Foedera 9 are given two copies of a conge' d'elire issued to the Dean and Chapter of Roches- ter, the first dated 27th July, 1559, the second 22nd June, 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., v, No. 16. 2 Rymer, Foedera, xv, p. 532. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., v, No. 18. * Cooper, Athenae Cantab., i, p. 471. 5 Diet. Nat. Biogr., xii, p. 413. 6 Rymer, Foedera, xv, p. 536. 7 Ibid., xv, p. 537. 8 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., XI, No. 12. 9 Vol. xv, pp. 537 and 566. 238 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 1560. The earlier one was abortive. Jewel mentions Ed- mund Allen as then Bishop-designate ; ' but Allen died to- wards the end of August, and was buried on the 30th. 2 But then came an unexpected pause. No further conges cTelire were issued for some time, and those expecting preferment doubtless wondered what the reasons could be, and what might be about to happen. Thus, Edmund Ghest was down on Cecil's list as a prospective candidate for the See of St. Asaph in May (?), 1559. 3 In the meanwhile, as he, probably, knew nothing of the good things projected for him, and nevertheless desiderated some sort of lucrative post for him- self, he cast about for a likely and imminent vacancy, and having found one, wrote to Cecil on 31st August, 1 559, when after considerable expenditure of paper and circumlocution to wrap up and palliate his objective, he finally stated the real purpose of his letter. " I do well understand by my friends that you wish me no less than I do sue for (God re- ward you for it). Sir, your honour knoweth that Mr. Seth Holland, Dean of Worcester, will not renounce the Pope, but as he came from him not long since, so he is thought he will shortly return to him again. Whom though he hath left in place, yet he hath not left in heart. Wherefore most humbly I beseech you to be so good master unto me, as to be a suitor to the Queen's Highness that I may succeed him in his Deanery of Worcester." 4 Ghest's application for a deanery was answered by the bestowal of a bishopric ; but, as has been pointed out, for this he had to wait a while. The explanation seems to be, in his case as in that of several others, that the plan in- vented during the session of Parliament lately ended had been found to work so exceedingly well for the enrich- ment of the Crown at the expense of the Church, 5 that the Queen's councillors took .advantage of the vacancies of the Sees to keep them unfilled for some considerable time while they effected the exchange of episcopal lands for im- 1 I Zur., No. 16, 1st August, 1559. 2 Ibid., p. 46 note. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., iv, No. 39. 4 Ibid., XX, No. 18; XXI, No. 5. 5 1 Eliz., c. 19. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 239 propriate tithes. Till this object was attained, the Sees might wait for pastors. Even before the Act was available as an instrument, the royal claim to the impounding of the temporalities of vacant Sees as a source of revenue was eagerly enforced by the Council almost immediately upon Elizabeth's accession. On 24th December, 1558, the minutes of the Privy Council re- cord the despatch of " a letter to the Lord Treasurer [Mar- quess of Winchester] to cause process to be made with all speed out of the Exchequer for the answering of the tem- poralities of these bishoprics, viz.: — Canterbury, Norwich, Rochester, Bristol, Oxon, Chichester, Hereford, Sarum, Gloucester and Bangor, signifying also unto his Lordship that the Queen's Majesty's pleasure is that Sir John Mason shall have the care to see this presented with speed. . . . " l As other vacancies occurred, either by death or deprivation, the temporalities of the Sees concerned were taken posses- sion of by the Queen's commissioners. On 13th September, 1559, letters were directed by the Queen to the Lord Trea- surer, the Marquess of Winchester, Sir Richard Sackville, Sir Walter Mildmay, and Mr. Kellaway, " knowing your approved wisdoms, diligences, and dexterities in such causes " as she truly expressed it. 2 The duty which was im- posed upon them was to examine the certificates of bishops' lands with a view "to consider what parcel of the said lands, tenths, and hereditaments shall be meetest for Us to take into our hands and possessions"; and right well did they acquit themselves of the task with which they had been entrusted ; for, when the new incumbents entered on their respective Sees, they soon found that the best portions of their landed estates had been torn away to reward the real or pretended services of various courtiers or their de- pendents. Even before being put in possession, however, of these attenuated temporalities, as soon as the bishops- elect began to look into the accounts of their new Sees, they 1 Harl. MS. 169, No. 1, f. i6 b , Draft of the Acts of the Privy Council. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., vi, No. 42. 240 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW realised that the exchanges now being effected were wholly one-sided, altogether to the advantage of the Crown. As Strype expresses it in his Life of Parker, the exchange meant that the Queen could convert the temporal revenues of the Sees, " or part thereof, unto herself, settling in ex- change church-lands in lieu thereof, such as impropriations formerly belonging to monasteries dissolved, and tenths; taking into her own hands good old lordships and manors for them. The inequality of which exchanges was, that to these impropriations were oftentimes considerable charges annexed, by necessary reparations of houses and chancels, and yearly pensions payable out of them. And tenths would often fall short and be unpaid by reason of the poverty, or inability, or death of the poor curates and ministers. Nor could the bishops have any good title to them, it being doubtful whether they could be alienated from the Crown, being by Act of Parliament given to it." l This was not at all to the fancy of the new bishops, two of whom, Scory and Barlow, had, previous to this reign, enjoyed not inconsider- able revenues. Five of the bishops-elect accordingly jointly memorialised the Queen, reminding her that Henry VIII had encouraged ministers, and that they trusted to her for like favour ; and therefore begged her to stay the present proceedings of which they complained. They even proposed to meet her wishes by some sort of compromise, the bishops of the Southern Province offering to compound for their estates by a lump sum of 1,000 marks payable yearly. They had apparently no great confidence that this suggestion would prove acceptable, for they formulated an alternative scheme whereby to lessen the loss they feared ; and further craved the indulgence of being allowed to receive the half- year's rents due the preceding Michaelmas, and also that the payment of First-Fruits might be both reduced and spread over a longer period. 2 The answer to this appeal took the form of a Queen's mandate to the Lord Treasurer and the Barons of the Ex- chequer, under date 26th October, 1559, wherein is recited VI, p. 88. 2 Cf. Parker Corresp., No. 68. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 241 the fact that the bishops-elect remain "unmade," z>.,uncon- secrated, because the proposed exchange of temporalities with the Crown was still unsettled. The officials were there- fore directed to effect the completion of the exchange ex- peditiously, but in such a way as not too seriously to cripple the episcopal revenues, and their petition for the Michaelmas rents was granted, " as of our reward, towards the maintenance of their charges." ' Particular attention is invited to the specific reason alleged for the delay in the " making " of three out of the five and the induction of the other two, already bishops. This fact, as also the refusal of the Marian bishops to perform the ceremony, must be the cause of the unique circumstance of the issue of a second mandate to certain bishops to proceed to the " making " of the Metropolitan. The same document that had stayed the " making " of Parker, Grindal, and Cox, directed the commissioners " to proceed to the like exchange with the rest of the bishoprics that be richly endowed, as York, Win- chester, Durham, Bath, Sarum, Norwich, Worcester " ; and this process of exchange was to be completed "with all speed possible ... so as upon election of men meet for those rooms, the same may be placed with convenient speed." 2 When this matter was settled, needless to say, entirely to the satisfaction of the Queen and her Council, a new royal assent to the election of Matthew Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury was issued on 6th December, 15 59," embodying also a commission to certain bishops to proceed to his con- secration. The ecclesiastics named were Anthony Kitchin of Llandaff, the only Marian bishop who, by accepting the new order, had retained his See; William Barlow, lately Bishop of Bath and Wells, now elect of Chichester; John Scory, lately Bishop of Chichester, now elect of Hereford ; Miles Coverdale, once Edwardine Bishop of Exeter; John ' Hodgkyns, formerly suffragan Bishop of Bedford; John Salisbury, formerly suffragan Bishop of Thetford; and John Bale, ex-Bishop of Ossory in Ireland. 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., VII, No. 19, 26th October, 1559. 2 Ibid. 3 Rymer, Foedera, xv, p. 549. 4 By Rymer named Richard. R 242 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW Although the way seemed now to be clear for proceeding to the long-delayed consecration, the difficulties confronting Parker were only beginning. Cecil and Bacon were cogni- sant of them. A paper is extant ' of quite extraordinary interest. Canon Estcourt has produced it in facsimile in his Anglican Ordinations?- On the left side of the paper there are marginal notes by Cecil, and in the right-hand margin appears one in Parker's handwriting. This document gives the steps to be taken in the matter of the consecration. The Calendar of the Record Office ascribes this paper to July, 1559; but internal evidence shows that it cannot have been drawn up before 30th September; for Cecil notes " there is no archbishop nor 4 bishops now to be had." This could not have been correct before Tunstall's deprivation ; after that event there were available only Kitchin, Bourne, and Poole. Again, the steps to be taken commence with a reference to the " Significavit " — the royal assent ; hence Parker's election had already taken place when the memor- andum was made; and that election, as has been already stated, was made and ratified on 1st August. The document reads as follows: " 1. Suit to be made for the Queen's Let- ters Patents, called ' Significaverunt', to be addressed to the Archbishop of the Province, for the confirmation of the elect, and for his consecration. [Cecil's marginal note: " The copy of this would be sent hither."] 2. When the See archiepiscopal is vacant, then after election, like Letters Patents for the confirmation of the elect are to be direct to any other archbishop within the King's dominions. If all be vacant, to four bishops to be appointed by the Queen's Letters Patents, declaring her Grace's assent royal with re- quest for his consecration and Pall. [Cecil's note: "There is no archb. nor 4 bishops now to be had. Wherefore Querendum, Stc.']^ 3. The fealty for the Temporalities of 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., v, No. 25. 2 P. 86. 3 The official who drafted this memorandum, drew it up evidently according to precedent, not according to knowledge of the royal inten- tions. He did not advert to the fact of the breach with Rome and the THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 243 the See is to be made to her Majesty. The Oath also to be given. And the ordinary fees to be paid to her Majesty's officials. [Parker's marginal note: "Anno 15, Henr. VIII, cap. 20, the order is set out at large, so that the restitution to the temporalities is done after the consecration, as it seemeth to me, by the said Act."] 4. The consecration is to be on such a Sunday as the consecrators with the assent of the consecrand shall accord. And in such place as shall be thought most requisite. 5. The order of King Edward's Book is to be observed, for that there is none other special made in this last session of Parliament. [Cecil's note: "This book is not established by Parliament"]" It will be seen, then, that Cecil raises two difficulties or objections; the first, "that there is no archbishop nor four bishops now to be had," because Kitchin was the only one of those who might possibly be found willing to act, who tech- nically and legally fulfilled the conditions of the definition of a " Bishop within the King's dominions," as laid down by the Act, 25 Hen. VIII, c. 20. Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Bale had been legally deprived of their Sees, while Salisbury and Hodgkyns had no legal status, having been merely suffragan bishops. The second objection raised by Cecil was that the particular rite to be followed at the con- secration had not at that moment any legal and recognised standing; it had been promulgated by Edward VI, but it had been abrogated by Mary; and, as Cecil drily notes: " this book is not established by [the] Parliament [just closed]." Hence he added " Querendum " : the difficulties likely to arise from these objections ought to be more fully and carefully considered. In order to find some way out of these embarrassments, the debatable points were sub- mitted to certain canonists and lawyers, who, after closely scrutinising the points, drew up another commission for the confirmation and consecration of Matthew Parker in the usual form, but with the addition of " a clause dis- past effected by Act of Parliament as recently as the previous May ; he, therefore, inadvertently inserted the clause based on the ancient custom of petitioning the Holy See for the Pall. 244 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW pensing with any disabilities in the acts done by them under it." ' The " Supplentes " clause runs thus, translated from the Latin : " we nevertheless supply, by our supreme royal authority, acting upon our own mere motion and certain knowledge, if anything in these matters according to our aforesaid mandate should be done by you, or there should be wanting or shall be wanting, either in you or any of you, as to your condition, state, or faculties, of those things which are required by the statutes of this our realm or by the ecclesiastical laws made on this behalf, or are necessary for fulfilling the aforesaid [commission], the time and cir- cumstances being taken into account." 2 The original draft in the Record Office differs from the Patent enrolment copy, inasmuch as it contains the following additional clause signed by the jurisconsults who drew it up. "We whose names be here subscribed do think in our own judg- ments that by this commission in this form penned, as well the Queen's Majesty may lawfully authorise the persons within named to the effect specified, as the said persons 1 Estcourt, Anglican Ordinations, p. 88. The original, signed by the six who drafted it, now in P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., vn, No. 56, differs but slightly, and in unimportant words, from the deed engrossed on the Patent Rolls, whence it is printed in Rymer, Foedera, xv, p. 549. It may be noted that Hodgkyn's Christian name is mistakenly given in this document as Richard. An argument has been founded on this circumstance against the authenticity of the commission ; but this cannot be upheld ; the draft was submitted to Cecil for his supervision ; the clerk who copied it did not know the name of Bale's See in Ireland and left a blank space for it, which Cecil filled in himself in his well- known handwriting: " Oseresi EpoP The mistake about Hodgkyn's Christian name, being so trivial, escaped his usually lynx-eyed detec- tion even of minute errors. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., VII, No. 56. Supplentes nihilotninus suprema auctoritate nostra regia ex mero motu et certa scientia nostris, si quid aut in his quae juxta mandatum nostrum praedictum per vosfient, aut in vobis aut vestrum aliquo, conditioner statu, facultate vestris, ad praemissa facienda desit, aut deerit, eorum quae per statuta hujus nostri regni aut per leges ecclesiasticas in hac parte requiruntur aut necessaria sunt, temporis ratione et rerum necessitate id postulante. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 245 may exercise the act of confirming and consecrating in the same to them committed. Signed: William Mey, Robert Weston, Edward Leedes, Henry Harvy, Thomas Yale, Nicholas Bullingham." Summarising Canon Estcourt's analysis of this document, it may be pointed out that in a matter about which such great care was exercised, and on which so many legal minds had been at work, every word used would have been signifi- cant, and would have been employed in a strictly legal and technical sense. Thus the clause " in his quaejuxta manda- tum nostrum per vos fient" [in those things which shall be done by you according to our mandate], appears to refer to their use of a form that was without legal sanction, namely, King Edward's Ordinal, which was admitted by Cecil to be " not established by Parliament," because Mary's repeal of it had not been rescinded. It is noteworthy that, in the Register, mention of the Book used is carefully avoided, and the reference to it is that it was " published by authority of Parliament." " Facultate" may be understood to refer to the jurisdiction of the consecrating prelates. Kitchin, alone, had no canonical right to consecrate a bishop, and none of the others had jurisdiction to perform any episcopal act what- soever. The Queen therefore took on herself to supply this jurisdiction from the supreme authority vested in her by the recent Act of Parliament. That a purely lay organisation ! has the power to confer such purely spiritual powers is wholly denied. " Conditione " appears to define their legal position as not fulfilling the description of " Bishops within this realm or any other of the King's dominions " as laid down and required by the Act of 25 Henry VIII, c. 20. "Statu" opens out the whole field of controversy as to Bar- low's alleged defect of consecration, since it means, technic- ally, " the ecclesiastical state." This question need not here be discussed, since the objections of Catholics to the validity of Parker's consecration rest, not on Barlow's qualifications, but on the validity or invalidity of the Form used; and that 1 This is strictly true in this particular case, as no bishop voted for these Acts. 246 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW point has been set at rest for ever for Catholics by the de- cision of Leo XIII contained in the Bull Apostolicae Curae, issued on 1 3th September, 1 896. Were it proved to demon- stration that Barlow had been duly consecrated, the objection of Catholic theologians to the validity of Parker's consecra- tion would still stand in full force; it is difficult, however, in face of the grave doubts that exist as to Barlow's having ever been consecrated, to explain why he was selected as the consecrating prelate. It has been suggested that his name gave an appearance of connection with the old hierarchy in which he had held the Sees of St. David's and Bath and Wells. Scory, Coverdale, and Bale had been consecrated according to King Edward's Ordinal; therefore, the value of their consecration stands or falls by the validity or invalidity of that Ordinal; and Leo XIII's Bull has given the final and adverse decision. Strype admits that this ques- tion of the validity of the Form used is the real issue, and not the lack of due qualification in Barlow, nor the farce of the Nag's Head fable. " But before this fable came to light (which was not heard of a great many years after Parker's consecration)," so he wrote, " it was the old Papists' prime endeavour to invalidate his ordination. For they knew, if they could bring it about that he was no true archbishop or bishop, then as a sequel all the bishops that he afterwards consecrated should be no bishops, because he was none him- self, and therefore could not consecrate nor give Orders to others . . . their great argument in those days to prove our Archbishop's ordination to be null was, that he was made Archbishop by King Edward's Book of Ordination, which had been repealed under Queen Mary, and not restored by authority of Parliament when he was consecrated." l Strype, relying on Parker's Register, maintains that the contention that the Ordinal was not restored is false : against this, we have it on Cecil's word, who presumably knew best, that at the moment it was not a legal formulary. That, of course, in itself would have affected only the liceity, and not the validity of Orders; but even had Strype been correct in his 1 Life of Parker, I, p. 160. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 247 statement, Parliament is incompetent, in matters purely spiritual in their nature, to vote that to be valid which Canon Law and ecclesiastical authority declare to be insufficient and consequently invalid. The Edwardine Ordinal has all along from the very beginning been declared, at least impli- citly, by the Roman Church to be deficient in essential parti- culars, and hence Rome has always steadily rejected and re- fused to recognise as valid, Orders conferred by its means. Nor should it be forgotten that the omission of certain forms and ceremonies held by the Catholic Church to be essential to the integrity of the Sacrament of Orders, was the subject of boast at the time, by the very men participating in the Acts referred to. Thus Jewel, writing on 2nd November, 1 559, to Josiah Simler, said: " As to your expressing your hopes that our bishops will be consecrated without any superstitious and offensive ceremonies, you mean, I suppose, without oil, without the Chrism, without the tonsure. And you are not mistaken ; for the sink would indeed have been emptied to no purpose, if we had suffered those dregs to settle at the bottom. Those oily, shaven, portly hypocrites we have sent back to Rome from whence we first imported them ; for we require our bishops to be pastors, labourers, and watchmen." 1 This letter does not, of course, cover the whole ground of the dispute between Catholics and Angli- cans; but it is a valuable contemporary corroboration of the spirit that, as Catholics maintain, animated the Elizabethan reformers. Their views informed the intention with which they acted, and explain the exact powers they meant to convey by ordination, and thus limited what they trans- mitted to those who hold their " spiritual " powers in direct descent from them, precisely within the bounds they then set. Bishop Pilkington, who, it must surely be allowed, spoke with knowledge and authority, says: "In Durham I grant the Bishop that now is [Pilkington himself] and his predecessor [Cuthbert Tunstall] were not of one religion in divers points, nor made Bishops after one fashion. This [Pil- kington] has neither cruche [crozier] nor mitre, never sware 1 I Z«r., No. 22. 248 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW against his Prince his allegiance to the Pope; this has neither power to christen bells, nor hallow chalices and superaltars, &c, as the other had ; and with gladness praises God that keeps him from such filthiness, . . . God defend all good people from such religion and bishops." ' Hodgkyns and Salisbury had been consecrated according to the Catholic Pontifical, and it is an extraordinary cir- cumstance that neither one of these, about whose consecra- tion there hung no shadow of doubt, was invited to be the chief consecrating prelate on the occasion of Parker's con- secration. Kitchin, although summoned to take part in that ceremony, excused himself or absented himself from Lon- don on some pretext; he took no part in it. In his absence, Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkyns, acting in virtue of the Queen s commission, dated 5th December, proceeded on 9th December to Bow Church, Cheapside, and there carried out the customary formalities of confirmation. Parker was not himself present on the occasion, but by the mouth of his proxy, Nicholas Bullingham, took the oath of the Queen's Supremacy. 2 The minutes of this transaction are preserved in Parker's Register. All legal requirements having now been fulfilled, the " making " of the first Pro- testant Archbishop of Canterbury by the Protestant rite 3 took place on Sunday, 17th December, 1559, in the chapel of Lambeth Palace. The " consecrators " were the four ecclesiastics above named as having carried out the cere- mony of confirmation. A full and minute account of this im- portant and epoch-making function was carefully drawn up, and has been made accessible in various publications, where it may be consulted. 1 By this eventful act was the ancient hierarchy of England supplanted, and the Eliza- 1 Parker Soc. Publ. Pilkington's Works, p. 586. " The Burning of St. Paul's." 3 Denny and Lacey, De Hier. Angl., p. 14, § 16. 3 Cranmer had been consecrated by the Catholic Pontifical, and took his oath of allegiance to the Pope, having beforehand, in secret, declared that he would do so without prejudice to Henry's interests. 4 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., vn, Nos. 68, 69; Denny and Lacey, De Hier. Angl., App. iii, p. 208 ; Parker's Register. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 249 bethan settlement of religion was at last furnished with its ecclesiastical and episcopal head. Froude's words may fitly find a place here, as he rightly points out that " a Catholic bishop holds his office by a tenure untouched by the acci- dents of time"; and then goes on to say: " The Anglican hierarchy, far unlike its rival, was a child of convulsion and compromise; it drew its life from Elizabeth's throne, and, had Elizabeth fallen, it would have crumbled into sand. The Church of England was a limb lopped off from the Catholic trunk; it was cut away from the stream by which its vascular system had been fed ; and the life of it, as an independent and corporate existence, was gone for ever. But it had been taken up and grafted upon the State. If not what it had been in its essence, it could retain the form of what it had been — the form which made it respectable, without the power which made it dangerous. The image in its outward aspect could be made to correspond with the parent tree; and to sustain the illusion, it was necessary to provide bishops who could appear to have inherited their powers by the approved method, as successors of the Apos- tles" ; but, as he truthfully, if cynically admits, the Anglican Episcopate is " a thing merely of this world — a convenient political arrangement." ] A word needs to be said about the legend of the Nag's Head. The fact of the consecration of Archbishop Parker in the chapel of Lambeth Palace seems to be as reliably attested as any one other fact in English history. Hence the Nag's Head story is mentioned only for the sake of re- pudiating it. At one time grave doubts were cast on the reliability of the record in Parker's Register, and, indeed, on the allegation that any function whatsoever had taken place at Lambeth. A fable gained currency, and did duty in con- troversy for many long years, to the effect that the indi- viduals who were deputed to carry out Parker's consecration met him at a tavern in Cheapside, called the Nag's Head, and there went through a travesty of the sacred rite. 2 Low 1 Hist, of Engl., vn, p. 174. 2 Cf. Strype, Life of Parker, I, pp. 117 sqq. 250 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW as may be our opinion, on legitimate grounds, of Barlow or Scory; little as Coverdale may have believed in the efficacy of Orders as a sacrament ; we have nevertheless the known piety, soberness, moderation, and integrity and the general uprightness of Matthew Parker himself to fall back upon ; and these alone should shield him from the imputation of having lent himself, or that he could possibly lend himself in any way, to the perpetration of such a meaningless and impious act. The Nag's Head fable, the source of so much bitter feeling in the past between Catholics and Protestants in their controversies and differences, has been long ago exploded. As a serious cause of dispute it should never again waste time and space. According to the concept of the episcopal office and character that is received in the Church of England as by law established, Parker was duly and legally a bishop and the head ecclesiastical official of the realm. Acting in that exalted capacity he proceeded at once to supply the other vacant Sees with pastors, and in pursuance of this object, went on 20th December to Bow Church, Cheapside, and there confirmed the elections of Grindal, Cox, Sandys, Meyrick, Scory, and Barlow. 1 On the morrow, St. Thomas's Day, 2 1 st December, the new Archbishop, using the same rite as that by which he had a few days before been conse- crated, " made" Grindal Bishop of London, Cox Bishop of Ely, Sandys Bishop of Worcester, and Meyrick Bishop of Bangor. On 21st January, 1560, five more Sees were pro- vided with pastors in the persons of Young for St. David's, Bullingham for Lincoln, Jewel for Salisbury, Davies for St. Asaph, and Ghest for Rochester. On 2nd March Pilking- ton was consecrated Bishop of Durham, and on the same day Best was provided to the See of Carlisle. Later in the month (24th) Berkeley and Bentham were made Bishops of Bath and Wells and Coventry and Lichfield respectively. 2 Thus were nearly all the Sees which had become vacant 1 Strype, Life of Parker, I, p. 125. 2 Ibid., I, pp. 125-7 ; Stubbs' Episcopal Successio?i, pp. 82-3. THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW 251 by death or deprivation, refilled by reformers ; the re- mainder of the Sees were not provided with bishops till later. The delay had been long and tedious. When at last the new order was launched and got under way, an attempt was made to make up for lost time; but the narrative of those events belongs to another chapter. It ought, however, in justice to be mentioned that while some of the new pre- lates had certainly sought promotion, others had as earn- estly endeavoured to avoid it. Thus, Edwin Sandys, writing to Peter Martyr at a later date (1st April, 1560), after in- forming him that in the preceding August he had gone to the North by the Queen's command "as an inspector and Visitor as they call it, for the purpose of removing the abuses of the Church, and restoring to it those rites which are consistent with true religion and godliness," he added that on his return to London, " my services were required by the Queen for the government of the See of Worcester; and the episcopal office is at length imposed upon me, though against my inclination. I wished, indeed, altogether to decline this bishopric, as I did that of Carlisle, to which I had been nominated before ; but this could not be done without drawing upon myself the displeasure of the Queen, and in some measure deserting the Church of Christ." l Park- hurst, too, told Josiah Simler (20th December, 1559) that " I myself also was to be enrolled among their number; but I implored some of our leading men, and my intimate friends, that my name should be erased from the list which the Queen has in her possession ; and ... I have hitherto . . . kept my neck out of that halter. When I was lately in London, one of the Privy Councillors, and Parker, the Archbishop of Canterbury, threatened me with I know not what bishopric. But I hope for better things; for I can not be ambitious of so much misery." 2 He was elected, nevertheless, Bishop of Norwich on 13th April, 1560, 3 and 1 1 Zur., No. 31. 2 Ibid., No. 26. 3 Diet. Nat. Biogr., XLIII, p. 308. 252 THE OLD EPISCOPATE AND THE NEW thus Sampson, to whom that See had previously been offered, and by whom it had been refused, may be added to those who at that time, on various pleas, urged Nolo Episcopari. 1 1 I Zur., No. 32, 13th May, 1560. CHAPTER VII THE UNIVERSITIES IN tracing the course of the Reformation, a prominent place must necessarily be given to the influence exerted on and by the Universities, as being the chief centres of learning, the nurseries of the Episcopate, and, indeed, of the vast majority of the holders of spiritual preferment. Calvin endeavoured to impress this view of their importance on the youthful Edward VI, telling him they were "the seed- plots of future pastors. 1 Both Oxford and Cambridge had their share in the vicissitudes of the various phases of the Reformation. Cambridge was in advance of Oxford in embracing the movement for reform, and this was recognised at an early period. Burcher, advocating the calling in of another German as a successor to Bucer at Cambridge, wrote thus to Henry Bullinger, as early as ioth August, 1551: " Nor will he find the Cambridge men so perversely learned as Master Peter [Martyr] found those at Oxford. For the scholars of that University have been always suspected of heresy, as they call it, by the ancient members, learned and unlearned; by which you may easily judge that their studies have always been of a purer character than those at Oxford. For from thence came forth Cox, Hooper, 2 and (whom I ought to mention in the first place), Cranmer, and other most learned men of that class." 3 It might be difficult, it would certainly be fruitless, to 1 in Zur., p. 710, No. 336. 2 This is incorrect; he was an Oxford man. :1 ill Zur., p. 680, No. 322. 254 THE UNIVERSITIES enquire into the causes that effected this difference; it is enough to recognise the fact. But it may help the student of these times and events, if a bird's-eye view of the con- nection with either University of the chief actors in the religious tragedy of the sixteenth century can be obtained. Thus, of the principal laymen nurtured in either seat of learning, Oxford proudly claims Blessed Thomas More, Henry VII I's great Chancellor, and then, at a great dis- tance from him, the bold, if violent, lawyer and canonist, Dr. Storey; and, as opposed to them, Sir John Mason. Against this trio may be ranged another three from the sister Uni- versity, all of the first rank of importance, who exercised on the course of events unlimited influence in the direction of reform. These are Sir Nicholas Bacon, Sir William Cecil, afterwards Lord Burghley, and Sir Francis Walsingham. Indeed, but for these three, the Elizabethan settlement of religion would have been impossible. To them, more than to any other three men, the final separation from Rome may be ascribed, and amongst those three Bacon and Cecil in point of time take precedence of Walsingham. Turning to the Episcopate, it is noticeable that Cam- bridge produced most reforming bishops, Oxford on the other hand furnishing the majority of those who suffered deprivation under Elizabeth. In the earlier period, that is, before Elizabeth's reign, the only reforming bishop of historic importance hailing from Oxford is John Hooper, Bishop of Gloucester and Worcester. On the Catholic side are Cardinals Wolsey and Pole, and Archbishop Warham. Cambridge produced Cardinal Fisher and Bishops Stephen Gardiner of Win- chester and George Day of Chichester, against John Poynet, Miles Coverdale, and the " martyrs " — Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Hugh Latimer, and Nicholas Ridley. Coming to Elizabethan worthies, the contrast becomes very marked. Cambridge reared fewer Catholic bishops than did Oxford. Oxford claims as sons the following reforming bishops: Young, Jewel, Parkhurst, Berkeley, Barlow, Bentham, Bullingham, "foul-mouthed" THE UNIVERSITIES 255 Bale, and the discredited Kitchin; nine, against the fol- lowing twelve recusant prelates: Cardinal Allen, Arch- bishop Heath, and Bishops Bonner, Bourne, Goldwell, Oglethorpe, Pates, Poole, Tunstall (of both Universities), Turberville, White, and Abbot Feckenham. Cambridge can muster only Bishops Bayne, Scott, Thirlby, Tunstall (of both Universities), and Watson, five in all, against more than double that number of reformers, namely, Archbishop Matthew Parker, together with Grindal, Sandys, Cox, Home, Pilkington, Ghest, Scory, Scambler, Aylmer, and Cheyney. Cambridge can show only three lesser churchmen of special note, namely, Edward Dering, Gabriel Goodman, and Thomas Sampson, all reformers; but not a single Catholic champion hailed from the banks of the Cam. Oxford, on the contrary, can unfold a very different story. Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr, reformers from abroad, held professorial chairs there. Foxe, the Martyrologist, Lawrence Humphrey, the Puritan, and Dean Alexander Nowell, make up the tale of prominent Oxford reformers. On the Catholic side a brilliant constellation of divines, historians, and ecclesiastics, well-nigh dazzles us. The names of the following celebrated persons rep/esent every kind of learning and activity: John Boxall, Henry Cole, Alan Cope, Maurice Clenock, William Chedsey, Thomas Dorman, Roger Edgeworth, Richard Bristow, Seth Hol- land, the two Harpsfields (Nicholas and John), Thomas Stapleton, Thomas Harding, Nicholas Sander, Gregory Martin, John Marshall, Edward Rishton, Richard Smith, John Bridgewater, Edmund Campion, and Robert Persons. Lesser names on either side might swell these lists inde- finitely, but are not needful. The above are perhaps, it may be urged, mere lists of names; but behind each one lies the activity of a life, the influence its bearer exercised upon his neighbours, the con- tribution brought by each one to the heated religious con- troversy that raged, the efforts each one of them made for the triumph of the party to which his own religious con- victions attached him. As we pass each one in mental 256 THE UNIVERSITIES review and sum up his share in the conflict, the following results seem to stand out clearly. Cambridge, speaking generally, had lost the Catholic sense much more fully than had Oxford. " Reform," or rather, intolerance of the Roman obedience, is much more the note of Cambridge than of Oxford. Cambridge musters twenty-two of the New Learn- ing as against eight Catholics; Oxford can show only six- teen reformers to thirty-six Catholics. The deduction follows that the religious " atmosphere " of the respective Universities must be held accountable for this phenomenon ; and that as it had proved with the leaders, so, conse- quently, it was to hold good as regards the rank and file. And this estimate will be found to be approximately accurate. We read of the occurrence of disturbances at Cambridge; they are rarely traceable to a conservative spirit ; instead, the more sober amongst the reformers had to restrain the intemperate ardour of the fiery spirits that were anxious to force the pace regardless of circumstances. At Oxford, on the other hand, for many years after Eliza- beth's reign began, the troubles arose almost entirely from the fact that the conservative Catholic element still clung to the colleges in such considerable numbers that the pro- gress of the Reformation was sensibly delayed in their midst. These conclusions must now be justified by proof. The securing of the Universities by one party or the other at a time when the religious questions in dispute were still in the balance, would doubtless have meant much. It was capturing the enemy's depot of supplies. The reformers who returned from exile in 1559 were fully alive to this aspect of the situation and to the possibilities it involved. It was the realisation of this that gives point to Jewel's remark made to Peter Martyr on 28th April, 1559: "In the meantime there is everywhere a profound silence re- specting schools and the encouragement of learning. This, indeed, is driving out one devil, as they say, by another." * Writing on 21st May, 1559, Parkhurst actually dissuaded 1 1 Z«r., p. 20, No. 7. THE UNIVERSITIES 257 Henry Bullinger from his expressed intention of sending his son Rudolph to Oxford, " for it is as yet a den of thieves, and of those who hate the light. There are but few Gospellers there, and many Papists. But when it shall have been reformed, which we both hope and desire may ere long be the case, let your Rudolph at length come over." l This advice was based on a similar verdict to that passed on Oxford University by Jewel, in a letter addressed by him to Peter Martyr on 20th March, 1559. According to his judgment, " Two famous virtues, namely, ignorance and obstinacy \inscitia et contumacia\, have wonderfully increased at Oxford since you left it; religion and all hope of good learning and talent is altogether abandoned." " When Park- hurst was penning his warning to Bullinger, Jewel was also writing to him in the same strain : " Our Universities are so depressed and ruined," he said, " that at Oxford there are scarcely two individuals who think with us; and even they are so dejected and broken in spirit, that they can do nothing. That despicable friar, Soto, and another Spanish monk, I know not who, 3 have so torn up by the roots all that Peter Martyr had so prosperously planted, that they have reduced the vineyard of the Lord into a wilderness. You would scarcely believe so much desolation could have been effected in so short a time." Hence he dissuaded the Germans from sending over their pious youths "either for a learned or religious education, unless you would have them sent back to you wicked and barbarous." 4 "There is a dismal solitude in our Universities," exclaims Jewel to Martyr on 1st August, 1559. " The young men are flying about in all directions, rather than come to an agreement in matters of religion." 5 Later in the same year Jewel in- formed Martyr that his old lectureship at Oxford was being kept open for him, and bewailed that, from the reformers' point of view, of course, " nothing can be in a more desperate 1 1 Zur., p. 29, No. 12 . 2 Ibid., p. II, No. 4. 3 John de Villa Garcia; cf. Strype, Mem., ill, ii, p. 473. He was de- prived of his professorship in 1559. 4 I Zur., p. 11, No. 14, 22nd May, 1559. 5 Ibid.,^. 40, No. 17. S 258 THE UNIVERSITIES condition than the [Divinity] school is at present. You will think, that when you were formerly there, you had employed all your exertions to no purpose, so greatly do now infelix lolium et steriles dominantur avenae x in that harvest-ground once so fruitful." 2 A fortnight later, 16th November, he again reverted to the state of the Uni- versities. " Both our Universities," he wrote, " and that especially which you heretofore cultivated with so much learning and success, are now lying in a most wretched state of disorder, without piety, without religion, without a teacher, without any hope of revival." 3 On 22nd May, 1560, Jewel, now become Bishop of Salisbury, again ap- proached the subject of the possibility of Martyr being invited back to England. This invitation was indeed offered in the following year, but was declined. 4 Jewel went on, however, to say that "in the meantime, our Uni- versities, and more especially Oxford, are most sadly deserted ; without learning, without lectures, without any regard to religion." 5 It is not altogether easy to reduce such lamentations to mathematical terms; and yet figures will, perhaps, give the nearest indication of the essential truthfulness of Jewel's statement. Unfortunate gaps occur in the Oxford regis- ter of degrees during the latter half of the fifteenth century ; but the entries begin again with regularity in 1 506. From that date till 1535, when the suppression of the lesser religious houses began, the yearly average of degrees conferred was 127; but in 1535 the number fell to 108, and in 1536 to 44; and for the rest of Henry's reign that average never rose to 57. During Edward VI's short occupation of the throne the average fell still further to 33, and it is worth noting that in the years 1547 and 1550 no degree of any kind whatsoever appears to have been conferred. Under Mary, however, the situation had so far 1 Virg., Georg., I, 154. 2 1 Zur., p. 46, No. 19, 2nd November, 1559. 3 Ibid., p. 55, No. 24. 4 Cf. Strype, Ann. 1, p. 381. 5 1 Zur., p. 77, No. 33. THE UNIVERSITIES 259 improved that the degrees conferred show an average of 70. 1 For the state of learning at Cambridge reference may- be made to a rare copy in the possession of the British Museum of a Catalogus Cancellariorum, etc., ab Anno D. 1 500 ad annum 1 571, of the University of Cambridge, bound up with a copy of Archbishop Parker's De Anti- quitate B ritannicae Ecclesiae (1572). 2 From this valuable and reliable compilation it may be inferred that although many more degrees were conferred at Cambridge each year of Edward's reign than was the case at Oxford, the yearly average of the degree of B.A. granted was only 32.4. During Mary's reign, however, the Catholic reaction showed itself so strongly at Oxford that, as Mr. J. Bass Mullinger states, at that University " the number of students had in- creased in much greater proportion than at Cambridge." 3 He proceeds, moreover, to point out, in a note, that " the number of those admitted B.A. at Oxford during the years 1555-9 was 2J 6; at Cambridge it was only 175." Relying on the evidence of the Catalogus already referred to, one slight correction may be suggested. The Cambridge total was not 175, but 176, giving a yearly average of 35. It may be noted, for purposes of further comparison, that during the thirty years, 1506-35, the yearly average of Bachelor's degrees had been 44. The state of things revealed by these figures can easily account for the fact that Matthew Parker, shortly after his election to the See of Canterbury, was constrained to license his old University to elect as their Preacher some one without degrees, " in respect of extreme necessity." 4 Strype admits further that " the Universities were now so much infected with the late popish leaven, that but few came up from thence to receive Orders from the hands of Protestant bishops." J 1 Cf. Gasquet, The Eve of the Reformation, new ed. 1900, pp. 39, 42. 2 B. Mus. C. 24, b. 7. 8 The Univ. of Cambridge, from the Royal Injunctions of 1535 to the Accession of Charles /, p. 168. 4 Parker Corresfi., No. 66, 8th August, 1559. „ 5 Life of Grindal, p. 74. 26o THE UNIVERSITIES These and such-like evidences go to show that a move- ment took place in these two centres of learning which can only be explained by recognising that, in both, the hold of Catholicity was strong ; but the adhesion to the old order was staunchest at Oxford. They would further indicate that an attack on these strongholds of opposition to the " Queen's Majesty's proceedings " in matters ecclesiastical would not be long delayed; because, with their capture, the future might reasonably be considered assured. When, therefore, a visitation of the dioceses of England and Wales was determined upon, the Universities were naturally and necessarily included in this scheme of reform, and the writs of commission to visit them were issued in June, 1559. That directing the visitation of Cambridge University had placed at its head Sir William Cecil; and as Mr. J. Bass Mullinger remarks, he and his colleagues were " en- trusted with exceptionally important functions." 1 They were not only empowered to reform and reorganise the University, but were especially instructed to administer the oath of Supremacy; and, he goes on to remark: "if, among its eight members, there were those to whom excep- tion might be taken as men approaching a weighty responsi- bility under the influence of strong prejudices, it cannot be denied that, taken collectively, the names were well cal- culated to inspire confidence as those of statesmen and divines . . . well qualified for the task which lay before them." The commissioners were, in addition to Cecil, Sir Anthony Coke, Dr. Bill, Dr. William Mey, Dr. Matthew Parker, Walter Haddon, Thomas Wendy, Robert Home, and James Pilkington. 2 Mr. Mullinger says that their written instructions " were little more than a transcript of those of the commissioners of 1549." 3 1 Hist, of St. John's College, p. 52. 2 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., iv, No. 34. 3 Hist, of St. John's Coll, p. 174. The terms of the commission for the visitation of Cambridge may be consulted in P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., IV, No. 53; or in Lambeth MS. 1166, No. 3, from which Rev. Mr. Gee prints a version in his Elizabethan Clergy, pp. 133, sqq. THE UNIVERSITIES 261 As soon as the religious policy of the new reign had sufficiently declared itself, some of the Heads of Colleges are accused of having endeavoured to turn the impending changes to their own advantage — a line of conduct in which they were forestalled by the vigilance of Matthew Parker, who wrote to Cecil: "some Masters be about to resign to their friends chosen for their purposes peradven- ture, to slide away with a gain." l Even at that early date they had evidently been afraid that an adverse visitation might be held, but perhaps had brought themselves to think that the danger had passed away. Parker reminded Cecil that a similar attempt had been frustrated by Queen Mary, and urged Cecil to follow the precedent then set, by ordering the Masters to hold themselves in readiness " de coram sistendo, et interim bene gerendo until farther order"; for, he declared, he would be loth " Colleges should sustain hurt by any sleight, you not understanding the likelihood." 2 Thus at Queen's College, Dr. Peacock, the Principal, aided by several of the Fellows, tried to push through the election of three Fellows, who all belonged to other Colleges. This they evidently did with a view to strengthening the Catholic party in their own College, by filling up vacancies with men of their own way of thinking introduced from outside. An appeal was made to Cecil, as Chancellor of the Univer- sity, against these proceedings. The documents relating to the dispute may be seen amongst the State Papers. 3 Dr. Peacock's action was, if sharp, yet legal, and in the upshot two of the elections were confirmed; but, notwithstand- ing this small success, he thought it prudent to resign his office during the following May, after the proceedings at the close of Parliament had but too clearly indicated what the near future might entail. A similar change had already taken place at Trinity ; while Dr. Cosyn, the Master of St. Catherine's, also retired voluntarily both from the Vice- 1 Parker Corresp., p. 54, No. 45, 1st March, 1558-9. 2 Ibid. See there, also, Queen Mary's orders issued to Bishop Gardiner. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz , ill, Nos. 3, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38. 262 THE UNIVERSITIES Chancellorship and from his College before the Visitors, in the course of their duties, would have been compelled to eject him. Dr. Porye, also, informed Cecil l that " the Mastership or the office of the Master of Christ's College, in Cambridge, is at this present void, and hath been so since Friday or Saturday last past " [23rd or 24th June]. He went on to say that Dr. William Taylor, the Master referred to, had departed " somewhat strangely, leaving his chamber much disordered, certain of his garments cast in corners, and the rushes tumbled on heaps, and the College writings scattered here and there." He suggested that Edward Hawford should be appointed to the vacancy ; and this was accord- ingly done on 23rd July, 1559. Mr. J. Peile, the historian of this foundation, says of him, that he was a moderate Puritan; that he knew Elizabeth's mind as to vestments, etc. ; and that, accordingly, " he refused to get rid of the vestments, books, etc., reintroduced by Bishop Scot, pro- bably thinking it unsatisfactory to sell at a loss what he might have to buy again at a great price. According to Dering 2 he conveyed all the best and richest to some place of which none of the Fellows knew. But in 1566 some ' books ' were sold ' by consent of the Fellows,' possibly on the hint given by the sale of the University Cross. ... In 1568 three chalices were sold . . . also certain 'chapel stuff.' In 1570 there was received fifteen pounds for copes, vestments, tunicles, and altar oloths." 3 Mr. J. Bass Mullinger, in his History of the University of Cambridge, says : " The other Heads preferred to await the arrival of the commissioners, which took place on 17th September, and was soon followed by further important changes. The oath of Supremacy was tendered to all the academic authorities and functionaries, and its refusal was followed, in most instances, by immediate expulsion from P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., IV, No. 66, 27th June, 1559. Cf. Strype's Parker, ill, p. 219, App., No. lxxviii. Coll. Histories: Christ's, p. 71. THE UNIVERSITIES 263 office." l Dr. George Bullock was removed from the Mas- tership of St. John's ; Grindal replaced Dr. J. Young at Pembroke; Dr. Henry Harvey, just then engaged on the visitation of the Northern Province, was appointed to Trinity Hall in the stead of Dr. William Mowse; Thomas Redman, the Master of Jesus College, gave place to Edward Gascoigne; and Dr. Thomas Bailey was expelled from Clare Hall ; while Roger Kelk, the Puritan, replaced Richard Carr at Magdalene College. The exact cause of vacancy at the last named College has not been precisely ascertained; but there can exist little doubt, under the circumstances, as to the real reason. The historian of the College, Mr. W. A. Gill, says : 2 " Carr was deprived by Elizabeth, or resigned, in 1 5 59, when the oath of Supremacy was imposed." A few further notes may here be appended concerning some of the persons above named. Mr. A. Gray, in his History of Jesus College, says 3 that Redman, "de- scribed in 1 561 as an unlearned popish recusant, was deprived in the early months of 1560." The change that now took place, not only in Jesus College, to which the specific reference belongs, must have been similar through- out the University. In the Jesus account books we learn that whereas in the year 1557-8 five shillings had been expended " for wine and singing-bread," this item fell, with the abolition of the daily Mass, to ten pence in the year 1559-60. 4 Of Thomas Bailey, the Master of Clare Hall, and of his expulsion, Mr. J. R. Wardale thus writes in his history of that College:' 5 " Some time was, however, allowed the holders to determine whether they would accept the new order or not; and accordingly we find that Bailey did not quit the Mastership till 1560." The exact date of his departure is not known, but existing documents in the 1 P. 177. And yet, with this statement under his eyes, to which in a footnote he even refers his readers, Mr. Gee permits himself to say in The Elizabethan Clergy, p. 133, that "though no special details have been traced of ejected Fellows, it is probable that a few [italics mine] were dispossessed by the Visitors." 2 P. 55. 3 P. 64. 4 P. 63. 5 P. 50. 264 THE UNIVERSITIES College archives show that it must have been some time between the middle of May and the middle of October. Thomas Heskyns, 1 a Fellow of this College, and also Chancellor of Sarum, refused to acknowledge Elizabeth's Supremacy, and was in consequence deprived of all his preferments, but managed to retire to Flanders. Mr. Gee, in his Elizabethan Clergy, does not note his connection with Cambridge University. This is unfortunate; for the case of Dr. Philip Baker, the Provost of King's College, Cambridge, makes it clear that deprivation from one office did not necessarily imply deprivation from another; one man might, therefore, undergo two or more sentences distinct and separate in time. Hence there might even be some justification for counting the number of instances of recorded deprivations, rather than only the number of per- sons deprived. In November, 1559, Robert Brassie, the Provost of King's College, Cambridge, died. The vacancy thus created was immediately filled up by the appointment of Dr. Philip Baker. How the appointment ever came to be made under the circumstances must remain a mystery, for he was never anything but a Papist. It is evident, however, that some laxity existed, either in tendering the oath to newly-appointed Heads, or it may have been thought politic, in the dearth of suitable men, to wink at non-compliance with the law until action should be forced on the authorities by too glaring and open resistance to the new order. Be this as it may, Baker retained his post unmolested till 1565, when a visitation was made, and eleven of the Fellows wrote to Cecil, formulating as charges against him that he never preached, though a Doctor of Divinity; that he had no regard to Divinity in others, nor had he caused the Fellows to study it; that no Sacrament was administered, but once, or at most twice, in the whole year. The conducts and singing men were mani- festly Papists; he maintained some apparently super- stitiously minded, and his ordinary guests were the most suspected Papists in all the country, as Mr. Bedill, Mr. 1 Cf. Lansd. MS. 980, f. 280. THE UNIVERSITIES 265 Gardiner, and others who visited him weekly, and Mr. Webb continually till he went to Louvain, and secretly entertained Dr. Heskyns, the famous Papist already re- ferred to; that he encouraged blasphemous talk at his table in defence of pilgrimages, and had hidden vestments and other church gear ' against another day.' ' Mr. Leigh, the historian of the College, points out 2 that " Baker had already been deprived of the living of St. Andrew's, in London, for refusing to renounce the Pope and his doc- trine." It is instructive that, although Mr. Gee, not in this instance confining himself to his self-imposed limits of date, classes Dr. Baker as a deprived Head of a College, and includes him amongst the deprived incumbents of the dioceses of Ely (Elsworth) and of Hereford (Pembridge), which livings he lost only in 1570, and nevertheless does not mention the London incumbency of St. Andrew by the Wardrobe, which Dr. Baker vacated in 1562, on account of his refusal to subscribe to a confession of faith which Bishop Grindal required from all his clergy. 3 Attention is here directed to the fact that on this occasion, 1565, the Visitor merely " admonished the Provost, and enjoined him to destroy a great deal of popish stuff, as Mass books, couchers and grails, copes, vestments, candlesticks, crosses, pyxes, paxes, and the brazen rood, which the Provost did not perform, but kept them in a secret corner," as before; for, as he shrewdly remarked on another occasion, 'that which hath been, may be again ' ; on this point at least, being of the same mind as Edward Hawford, the Master of Christ's College. Four years passed, and then the old complaints were renewed ; for, as Mr. Leigh observes, " the fact that Baker was at heart a Romanist will account for most of his shortcomings ... he was evidently out of harmony with the new order of things." Grindal wrote, 4 informing Cecil that " the visitation hath continued at the 1 Cf. Lansd. MS. 8, No. 53. 2 P. 60. 3 Diet. Nat. Biogr., iii, p. 14 ; cf., too, Hennessey, Nov. Repert. Eccl. Paroch. Lond., p. 88, and g. 140, p. lxi. 4 23rd February, 1569-70; cf. Lansd. MS. 12, No. 33. 266 THE UNIVERSITIES K[ing's] College these fifteen days last past. . . . D. Baker, the Provost, hath not appeared either in person, or by proctor. He hath put away his man, made a deed of gift of his goods, and is gone no man can tell whither. Some think he is fled to Louvain. In this visitation . . . the said Baker is said to have defrauded the College of divers good sums of money. It is supposed that my Lord of Ely [Cox] pronounced sentence of deprivation against the said Baker yesterday." This news was too soon after the event to be strictly accurate. He was formally deprived, as stated, on 22nd February, and about that date, as above related, lost all his other preferments ; but, as admitted by Fuller, when he fled, far from defrauding the College, he gave a proof of his integrity by resigning the College money and plate which was in his custody, and even sending back the College horses which had carried him to the sea side. 1 Another notable instance of connivance on the part of the authorities, or unwillingness to see and drive things to extremities, is furnished by the case of the famous Dr. Caius, the virtual founder of Gonville and Caius College. Dr. Bacon, the master of Gonville Hall, died on ist January, 1558-9. Dr. Caius, a physician practising his profession in London, was elected to succeed to the vacancy on the 24th of the same month. Mr. J. Venn, the modern historian of the college, says of him : ■ " He was a fervent admirer of the past, and had little sympathy for new views whether religious, political, or educational. There is reason to be- lieve that he never ceased to be at heart a decided Roman Catholic. On the other hand, the Fellows were mostly of the new way of thinking, not only Puritans, but apparently narrow-minded and bitter in spirit." This incompatibility inevitably led to dissension; and during the next seven years, " when his subordinates were troublesome, he just expelled them one after another, dealing thus with twenty." The Chancellor, when complained to by these aggrieved Fellows and their sympathisers, upheld the expulsions, but 1 Leigh, Hist, of King's Coll., pp. 60-2; Did. Nat. Biogr., iii, p. 14. 2 P- 55- THE UNIVERSITIES 267 urged caution on Dr. Caius. 1 In the library of Lambeth Palace is a manuscript catalogue of complaints against him, amongst others, that " he maintaineth within his College copes, vestments, albs, crosses, tapers . . . with all Massing abominations, and termeth them the College treasure. He hath erected and set up of late a crucifix and other idols with the image of a doctor kneeling before them ; " — with much more to the same effect. At last, in December, 1572, the strain of the situation reached snapping point, and the Vice-Chancellor of the University presided in person over the " pillage of his rooms, and the destruction of a number of church ornaments which he had retained there." 2 The account of this outrage has come down to us from the pen of Dr. Byng himself, the Vice-Chancellor. " I am further to give your honour advertisement," he wrote to Lord Burghley, " of a great oversight of Dr. Caius, who hath so long kept superstitious monuments in his College, that the evil fame thereof caused my Lord of London to write very earnestly to me to see them abolished. I could hardly have been persuaded that such things by him had been reserved. But causing his own company to make search in that College, I received an inventory of much popish trumpery; as vestments, albs, tunicles, stoles, manicles, corporas cloths, with the pyx and sindon and canopy; beside holy water stoups with sprinkles, pax, censers, super- altars, tables of idols, Mass books, portuisses and grails, with other such stuff as might have furnished divers Masses at one instant. It was thought good by the whole consent of the Heads of houses, to burn the books and such other things as served most for idolatrous abuses, and to cause the rest to be defaced ; which was accomplished yesterday with the willing hearts, as appeared, of the whole company of that house." 3 Dr. Caius left the College soon after this event; and in May or June, 1573, he resigned the Master- ship. He did not long survive this severance, for he died 1 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., XXXIX, Nos. 4, 5, 7, 1565-6. 2 Venn, Coll. Hist. Series: Hist, of Caius Coll., p. 65. 3 Lansd. MS. 15, No. 64, 14th December, 1572. 268 THE UNIVERSITIES on 29th July, 1573. That this large accumulation of " popish trumpery " was not merely the result of anti- quarian acquisitiveness, but evinced a clinging to the old ways, is made clear by his having opened the doors of his College as a refuge for adherents of Rome. Thus Mr. Venn points out that, amongst the residents there, was Dr. Cosyn, who had been Master of St. Catherine's during Mary's reign and had retired to Gonville " after his expulsion or retirement." William King, formerly Archdeacon of North- umberland, who " must now also have been in retirement," was also living there. Another was Henry Stiles, who had been a monk at Westminster during the recent revival of that ancient abbey under Feckenham. 1 Others were Wil- liam Whinke, formerly Vice-Provost of King's, deprived of that post on account of his opinions, at the accession of Queen Elizabeth ; Richard Hall, who later fled to the Con- tinent, became a Canon of Cambrai, and died at Douay. Dr. Caius was succeeded in the Mastership of his College by Dr. Legge, who, though nominally accepting the Eliza- bethan settlement of religion, did not escape the charge of betraying popish tendencies. Indeed, the accusation may be considered to rest on fair grounds, if a judgment may be formed from the subsequent careers of some of the students who entered the College during the first twelve or fifteen years of his tenure of office. Mr. Venn thinks " it is worth calling attention to the degree and kind of accession to the Romish cause supplied by one College, and that not a large one, during a few years of Elizabeth's reign." 2 The list he furnishes may here be summarised. It comprises John Fingley, afterwards a priest, executed in 1586; Wil- liam Deane, a priest, executed in 1588; John Weldon, a priest, first exiled, afterwards executed; Francis Mounde- ford, ordained in Rome, executed for his priesthood in 1592; 3 John Ballard, a priest, executed for his share in Babington's conspiracy. The following students entered ' Cf. Gasquet, Henry VIII and the English Monasteries, ii, pp. 475-6, and note. 2 Hist. 0/ Cains Coll., p. 82. 3 Cf. Dodd, ii, p. 120. THE UNIVERSITIES 269 the Society of Jesus: Richard Holtby, William Flack, Reginald Eaton, Christopher Walpole, Henry Coppinger, Robert Markham, and Charles Yelverton. Robert Sayer, first a seminary priest, afterwards became a Benedictine monk at Monte Cassino. Others to become priests were Henry Rookwood, John Roberts, Edward Osburne (re- ferred to in a complaint of the Fellows as one " who, being convicted of Papistry, the Master did not expulse him "), Edward Dakyns, and Richard Cornwallis. Mr. Venn further points out ' that " besides the above priests, there were over twenty members of the College who suf- fered subsequently for their opinions, either by imprison- ment, by fine as recusants, or in some other way. Many of these belonged to important Yorkshire families, etc. Thus we find amongst the subsequent recusants St. Ouen- tin, Wentworth, Stapleton, Cresswell, Aske; and from other counties, Drury, Rookwood, Huddleston." The records of the other Colleges do not furnish us with such detailed particulars about their respective students. Nevertheless, contemporary indications exist, to show that all was not smooth sailing for the adherents of the Reforma- tion. Sander reported to Cardinal Moroni on the subject of Cambridge University as early as 1561, showing that " there withdrew from the single College of Trinity sixteen priests, some of whom went over the sea; others went to their friends, and many other learned men withdrew from other Colleges. Lastly, there was manifested so much constancy of every kind in the students, that bribes and flattery were needful to gain them. Even the laws were dispensed in their favour, so that while for others the ecclesiastical offices are said in the vulgar tongue, they are allowed to retain the Latin." 2 But while it may be allowed that possibly no other College was so infected with Popery as was Caius and Gonville, nevertheless it may be assumed as certain that each foundation held some proportion, how- ever small, of adherents of the old order, who entered the 1 P. 84. 2 Cath. Record Soc. Publ. i, p. 44. Sander's Report to Card. Moroni. 270 THE UNIVERSITIES University and escaped the tests of the oaths either by the connivance of some of the authorities or by recourse to some form of sharp practice on their own account. Certain it is that Cecil was so advised; for at the time of the Northern Rising, amongst the notes he made " of measures to be taken on the emergency of the Rebellion," dated ist December, 1569, occurs the following: "That in Cam- bridge and Oxford order be given to stay all young men being the sons or kinsfolk of any of the rebels in the North, or of any suspected persons for religion." ' These and the like repressive measures seemed to have their effect ; for in 1 577, Richard Howland, then Vice-Chancellor, received an order from the Privy Council, bearing date 15th November, enjoining him forthwith to certify to them the " names, degrees and qualities, with the value of the lands and goods of such as remaining within the University and town of Cambridge do refuse to come to the church." In his answer, dated 22nd November, the Vice-Chancellor was able to certify, after careful enquiry, that he could learn of no one "at this time remaining, whom we can charge, either openly to impugn the truth, or that doth wilfully refuse to come to church or to communicate according unto her Majesty's laws." 2 The real value of this attesta- tion, however, may be gauged not only by the information already furnished in connection with Caius College under the mastership of Dr. Legge, but also by a letter addressed to Lord Burghley as late as 4th February, 1 591-2 by some Heads of Cambridge University, asking for instructions " how far they were to go, and with what sort of Papists to deal; whether also with close Papists so noted, and vehemently suspected and such as had by their malicious and bold speeches and otherwise bewrayed themselves . . . and . . . that it were very necessary that the other kind of Papists that come to church (though notwithstanding, little better than the seminaries), were looked unto and found out, specially in the University, where they have done and still do much harm in corrupting of youth . . . that such 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., lx, No. 4. 2 Ibid., cxvm, No. 35. THE UNIVERSITIES 271 dangerous members of this body . . . may ... be dealt with . . . whereby just knowledge may come to your honour of this kind of Papists also, who they are that lurk in Col- leges amongst us, more in number, and more dangerous than commonly is thought; and less to be tolerated in the Universities (in our opinion) than in any part of the land." l Mr. Gee is one of a school who accept the conclusions he has published in his volume on The Elizabethan Clergy, 1558-64. Rigorously confining himself to the narrow limits of date he had selected, namely, the first six years only of Elizabeth's reign, he has satisfied himself that the number of clergy deprived really falls within the two hun- dred first fixed on by Camden. Under such circumstances his estimate about the University of Oxford is of interest. The facts here to be adduced, however, will hardly be found to corroborate the results of his investigations. He points out that "when Elizabeth came to the throne, Oxford theology was thoroughly in sympathy with the Marian reaction. ... To press the oath of Supremacy very rigor- ously would have meant to turn out practically all the Heads of Colleges and the majority of the Fellows. Accordingly it was determined, as we gather from the result, to proceed gently, ... or as Wood puts it, ' to make a mild and gentle, not rigorous, reformation.' " 2 Mr. Gee, notwithstanding these admissions, then proceeds to dis- count the results tabulated by Canon Tierney, and even those of Anthony a Wood ; rejects Coveney, the Master of Magdalen, from the lists, asserting that he was deprived, not for refusing the oath of Supremacy, but for not being in Orders; and, generally, records his conviction that he does " not think it possible to prove that many were turned out in 1559," while admitting that those who conformed did so unwillingly, in this relying on Wood who says: "Many conformed for a certain time till they saw how matters would be determined." 3 This, it is submitted, is hardly a fair way to deal with the question. Many considerations, over and above the bare fact of subscrib- 1 Lansd. MS. 66, No. 46. 2 Pp. 130-1. 3 Ibid., p. 132. 272 THE UNIVERSITIES ing or refusing the oath, have to be taken into account. The limit (1558-64) so arbitrarily fixed by Mr. Gee, is wholly inadequate; for, granting that the Visitors pro- ceeded warily at first, it could only be after pressure had begun to be applied, that the real state of feeling would manifest itself; and even according to Mr. Gee's admis- sion, that pressure was not brought to bear on Oxford till 1565, a date beyond the period he has allowed himself to investigate. Yet the doings of 1559, 1561, and 1565 are closely connected, and must necessarily, therefore, be studied together. At the same time that the writ was issued to the com- missioners appointed for the visitation of Cambridge Uni- versity, a similar document was directed to those selected for the like purpose at Oxford. This writ is not known to be extant ; but doubtless its terms were similar to, if not identical with, that prepared for the sister University. The names of the Visitors are preserved in more than one document. The commissioners were Sir Thomas Parry, Treasurer of the Household; Sir John Mason, Sir Thomas Smythe, Sir Thomas Benger, Richard Gooderick, " D. Joannes, Mr. Medicus " [i.e., Mr. Dr. Master], Alexander Nowell, and David Whithede. 1 Wood names Cox as an alternative to Nowell. Evidence goes to show that, from the reformers' point of view, their presence was much needed ; it is undeniable, too, that they did not make any great clearance of the disaffected towards reform, for a letter exists written by one Prat, a clergyman, to his friend, Mr. John Fox, at Norwich, wherein he gives an account of a sermon, described as 'excellent,' preached at Paul's Cross in January, 1 560-1, by Mr. James Calfhill, Sub-Dean of Christ Church in Oxford," lamenting the misery of Oxford that it was yet under the papistical yoke." 2 The truth of this can best be shown by a rapid survey of the conditions prevailing at the various Colleges during these and the next few years. Part of the work entrusted to the commissioners 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., IV, No. 34 ; Lambeth MS. 959, f. 424. 2 Lansd. MS. 981, f. 90; cf. also Harl. MS. 39, B. 1. THE UNIVERSITIES 273 was to restore to their former position those who had been "unjustly" ejected during the late reign. This way of pre- senting the matter at issue is, of course, a begging of the whole question. But it enables the supporters of that view to rule out such " restorations " as not implying the " deprivation " of the then holders. This subject of con- troversy will recur at a later stage of the present enquiry, and may, therefore, for the present be passed by without farther comment. The Rev. H. A. Wilson, the historian of Magdalen Col- lege, 1 says that: "In the year ending July, 1560, seven Fellowships became vacant. Three of the outgoing Fellows were apparently ' recusants,' but one of them (Alan Cope, who afterwards became a canon of St. Peter's, Rome), was still Fellow in 1560, and was therefore probably not dis- placed by the commissioners. The three were imprisoned for a time in 1560. ... A fourth had leave of absence protnotionis causa, with a condition which suggests that he was not inclined to accept the Book of Common Prayer. In the year ending July, 1561, the number of outgoing Fellows was larger, and included several of the probationers admitted in 1559." Under the circumstances it would seem natural to conclude that disaffection towards the religious changes, and unwillingness to conform to them, brought about these departures. But the writer states that, in his opinion, " there is nothing to show that anyone retired by compulsion in either year." The point, however, would seem to be, not that compulsion had had to be exercised, but that conscience drove out many who other- wise would have taken degrees or retained Fellowships, and, generally, would have contributed to the prosperity of the University. And this view is practically admitted in the following passage on the same page: "The influence of the Commission may perhaps have hastened the removal of the altars and images from the chapel, . . . and it is not unlikely that these and other proceedings following on the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity led to the withdrawal 1 College Histories Series: Magdalen College, p. 114, note. T 274 THE UNIVERSITIES of several members of the College in 1559 and 1560." Bearing in mind Mr. Gee's interpretation of the removal of the Master, Dr. Coveney, as being due not to recusancy, but to his not being in Orders, it may be of interest to learn the reasons as set forth by so competent an authority as the Visitor himself. Robert Home, Bishop of Winchester, writing to Cecil on 26th September, 1561, informed him that he had found Magdalen College "thoroughly in those matters conformable . . . also many toward in learning and therewith in religion forward, for whose cause and for very many and notable enormities objected to D. Coveney, their President, being also thought an enemy to the sincere religion of Christ, and therewith an evil husband for the Col- lege, whereof much matter appeareth by his own confession, upon his examination, I have with good deliberation and just ground deprived him of his said office." ' Bishop Home's letter, just quoted, did not deal exclu- sively with the case of Magdalen College, for at the same time he had likewise visited New, Corpus, and Trinity Colleges. He says that he only tried to enforce the Supremacy oath, the Order of the Book of Common Prayer, and the Queen Majesty's Injunctions, explaining his moderation by admitting that at first he found three of the Colleges " wholly bent, and did in effect refuse to acknowledge them [i.e., the points proposed for their accept- ance] with the subscription of their hands, in such wise as if I had as I might peremptorily have proceeded, I should not scarcely have left twain in some one house, and finally with such toleration as I used in respecting them some time to be advised, had very few did it, and yet not with- out some protestation." As regards Corpus Christi College, he says that although he found the President [William Bocher or Butcher] " unfit," 2 " yet because I could not by the statutes there so well proceed against him, as I did against the other {i.e., Dr. Coveney], by reason the company 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xix, No. 56. 2 Anthony a Wood explains this term by calling him K in am'mo Catholicus"; cf. Fasti, i. p. 717. THE UNIVERSITIES 275 would not object against him, I have therefore thought good to travail with him voluntarily to resign his place, which finally he hath done into mine hands, so as the matter nowresteth upon my acceptation." William Butcher had but lately come into office, succeeding Dr. William Chedsey, who, elected President as recently as 8th Sep- tember, 1558, was ousted by the royal commissioners in the autumn of 1559, certainly before 15th December, the date of Dr. Butcher's admission. The Rev. T. Fowler, the historian of Corpus Christi College, 1 admits that "the ground of [Chedsey's] ejection must have been the refusal to take the oath of Supremacy." Corpus Christi College was not purged of Popery for a considerable period. Home's Register contains detailed particulars of a subse- quent visitation held by his commissary, Dr. George Ackworth, in 1 566, when charges were brought against Jerome Reynolds, one of the Fellows, George Atkinson, a chaplain, and Richard Joyner, clerk of accompts, of con- cealing church plate and vestments in the first year of Elizabeth's reign, to save them from destruction, and of having forged an Indenture to enable a certain Thomas Windsor to claim them, the further to secure their safety, thus preserving them " for future use should there be a turn of affairs and a favourable opportunity present itself." ~ It is also well to note that in 1568 there was further trouble over the presidency of the college, the incidents of which attest "the strength and numbers of the Roman Catholic party still holding its ground in Corpus." 3 The author quotes Anthony a Wood thus: "But when the prefixed time for election came, the Fellows who were most inclined to the Roman Catholic persuasion made choice of one Robert Harrison, M.A., not long since removed from the College for his (as 'twas pretended) religion." This at least shows that for the moment the Catholic party was in a majority; but means were speedily taken to have this election quashed. Strype is more explicit as to what hap- 1 Coll. Hist. Series, p. 68. - Ibid., p. 70. ' Ibid., p. 73. 276 THE UNIVERSITIES pened at Corpus. He says that Bishop Home had to make a special visitation, in the course of which he " placed the said Cole (a learned and good man, once an exile, appointed by the Queen, but rejected by the members of the College) by force in the said Presidentship, breaking open the gates of the house which they had shut against him. And when the said Bishop had made some progress in visiting the house, in order to the purging it of some of the worst affected Fellows, they were so refractory and abusive, that the visiting Bishop sent a letter to Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, showing that it was his judg- ment that the irregularities of this College, as likewise of New College and Winchester, would be better remedied by the Ecclesiastical Commission than his private visitation, the Archbishop signified this to the Bishop of London, and withal sent him Winchester's letter. He, considering the stubbornness of these University men, approved of the counsel of bringing them before the Commission, per- ceiving well what seminaries of irreligion and disobedience they might prove; and sending the letter back again, he wrote his mind at the bottom briefly in these words: ' My Lords, I like this letter very well, and think as the writer, if by some extraordinary ready [means] that house and school be not purged, those godly foundations shall be but a nursery of adder's brood, to poison the Church of Christ. — Edm., London.' " ' Bishop Home added to this letter already quoted from 2 a postscript in which he referred to the visitation he had just made at New College. He wrote: " It may evidently appear the cause why they of the New College have refused to subscribe (although they pretend lack of my authority to exact it), upon the examination of two of the young scholars, having refused to come to the service in the church, who have said plainly, because by their statutes they are bound to have Mass, and are generally prohibit by the same to admit and receive nothing contrary or diverse; that therefore they ought not to allow any other service. 1 Life ofGrindal, pp. 196-7. a P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xix, No. 56. THE UNIVERSITIES 277 And so in the rest is their meaning to be gathered, that albeit they do indeed come to the service, yet being against their oath and the observation of their statutes, they will not affirm it with the subscription of their hands. . . . Those young scholars standing obstinately herein I have committed to be punished in prison by the Vice-Chancellor." 1 This incident serves to indicate the general temper of the College; and, indeed, its history for the next few years is largely taken up with instances of opposition to the Queen's Majesty's proceedings in matters of religion ; in so much that the Rev. Dr. Rashdall, its recent historian, re- marks : " " that such a nest of crypto-Papists should have been allowed to remain undisturbed for so many years is a curious instance of the precarious and transitional posi- tion of Church affairs in these years," explaining, and ex- plained by, the fears expressed in Bishop Home's letter above cited. Strype, writing of the incidents of 1568, says that " complaints came up this year concerning the preval- ency of Popery in Oxford; and particularly in Corpus Christi, and the New College, and that of Winchester appertaining to it. Wherein were strong parties of such as inclined that way." 3 Certainly New College has no reason to be ashamed of such alumni as John and Nicholas Harpsfield, Thomas Harding, Nicholas Sander, Thomas Dorman, Robert Poyntz, Thomas Hyde, and John Marshall (the Head and second Masters respectivelyof Winchester School), Thomas Staple- ton (whom Wood calls "the most learned Roman Catholic of all his time " 4 ), John Rastall, Richard White (elected Fellow in 1557, but deprived for absence in 1564, later well known as a professor of law at Douay), John Munden (elected a Fellow in 1562, but expelled in 1566, and becoming a priest abroad, was in the end hanged for his religion at Tyburn in 1582, 5 ) and John Pits (or Pitseus), who became a proba- 1 Froude partly quotes this letter in his History of England (vii, p. 468); but with characteristic inaccuracy ascribes it to Bishop Jewel. - Coll. Hist. Series, Hist. 0/ New College, p. 114. 3 Life of Grinded, p. 196. 4 Diet. Nat. Biogr., lxi, p. 70. 5 Gillow, Diet, of Cat h. Biogr., v, p. 142. 278 THE UNIVERSITIES tioner in 1578, but in 1580, before becoming a full Fellow, fled for conscience' sake to the Continent, was well known as an author, and died in 16 16, having attained the dignity of Dean of Liverdun. 1 Dr. Rashdall enumerates ~ fifteen Fellows, etc., who left the College of their own accord, or who were ejected after Elizabeth's accession ; but, not- withstanding this numerous secession, he states that " the purge thus effected was very inadequate. It was only the most conscientious men who disappeared ; the majority of those who remained were very reluctant conformists." His list comprises Richard White and Robert Poyntz, both already referred to, as also William Knott, John Gatacre, Thomas Butler, John Hardy, John Noble, Thomas Daryll, Edward Astlow, the famous physician, John Fowler,'' the two brothers, Robert and John Fenne, 4 Owen Lewis, after- wards to become Bishop of Cassano, John Hunnyngton, and William Pomerell. 5 It is also interesting to note that the Fennes had a brother, James, who was originally a chorister at New College, but went to Corpus, whence he was ejected for refusing the oath of Supremacy, without taking his degree. He subsequently suffered death, in February 1582-3, at Tyburn, for his priesthood. 6 Contemporary evidence having always a special value, it may be well to quote here what Nicholas Sander reported about Oxford University to Cardinal Moroni, as early as 1561. Writing about "what the University of Oxford has suffered for the Faith," he said: " On the Visitors going to the Colleges severally, they did not obtain oath or subscrip- tion from one in twenty. I will relate what happened in one College which is very well known to me, because I belonged to it, and hence what happened in others may be conjectured. I speak of the College of the Blessed Virgin, commonly called ' New.' From this, first of all, there de- 1 Diet. Nat. Biogr., xlv, p. 339; Coll. Hist. Series: Hist. 0/ New College, pp. 1 1 1-2. 2 P. 114. 3 Cf. Wood, Athenae, i, p. 152. * Cf. Athenae, i, pp. 240, 320, 321. 5 Cf. Wood, Fasti, i, p. 324. 6 Cf. Athenae, i, p. 321. THE UNIVERSITIES 279 parted ten priests, who were chaplains ; then the six senior Fellows professed the Faith with such freedom that they were placed in custody — Bromborough, Rastall, Fox, Giblett, Dirrham, and Davis, all learned and very good men. The Visitors were unwilling to call more, because they heard that they would find the same constancy in fifty others. So, having recourse to flattery, they begged them merely to go to church, doing which they should be free from the oath, subscription, and all penalties. Fourteen have crossed the sea from this College, and many others besides have left who were unable or unwilling to cross the sea. Lastly, out of a hundred persons who belonged to the choir, never yet have even ten been induced to receive the schismatical Communion at Easter." 1 The visitation of New College, conducted by Dr. George Ackworth in Bishop Home's name in 1 566, 2 must here be referred to as a useful instance that 1564 is an unduly early limit to set to Romanising tendencies, as Mr. Gee would have the readers of his book infer. Charges of Popery, re- criminations about the possession and circulation of popish controversial literature were freely flung at one another's heads by various members of the College. Master Henslow was accused of not having communicated for seven years past; and failing to purge himself of "papistical heresy," was deprived. Munden suffered the same fate for the like offences. Blandy was deprived for failing to purge himself of Papistry. The Warden (White) was accused of conniving at Papistry in the College, and that he was exceedingly slack in enforcing attendance in chapel and in administer- ing the Communion. Certain absentees were deprived for non-appearance. Dr. Rashdall finally says that " during the following years a considerable sprinkling of Fellows were removed for non-residence, most of whom were prob- ably men who could no longer reconcile themselves to an enforced conformity." These details may appear to be out 1 Cath. Record Soc. Publ., vol. i, p. 43. Nicholas Sander's Report to Card. Moroni. 2 Cf. RashdalFs History, pp. 115-29. 280 THE UNIVERSITIES of proportion and trivial; but by such details alone is it possible really to gauge what was the true state of affairs at Oxford, and to grasp that what the visiting bishops and others said about the Universities early in Elizabeth's reign was true, and that the picture handed down by Camden and his copyists is fanciful and misleading. University College furnishes another instance of the in- adequacy of Mr. Gee's treatment of this disturbed period. He does not include in his list of deprived Heads or Fellows either Anthony Salvyn or James Dugdale; and yet Mr. A. C. Hamilton ' points out that Salvyn resigned his post almost immediately on the death of Queen Mary, and the following year suffered deprivation of his preferment of the Mastership of Sherburn Hospital, near Durham. Mr. Hamilton then proceeds to say : " Amongst the number deprived was James Dugdale, Master of University College. He was not present at the visitation by the Vice-Chancellor's commissary on 17th November, 1 561 ; and as the Senior Fellow made oath that he had been duly cited, the Master for non-appearance was pronounced contumacious." That this event had been expected is made plain by the appoint- ment of his successor that very same day. The fact that he had held office for nearly three years, and had, like many more, survived the visit of the commissioners in 1559, is of itself significant. Mr. Hamilton says distinctly elsewhere ' that he refused to acknowledge the Queen's supremacy; and he suggests that even after Dugdale's departure, the College showed Catholic leanings, since it offered refuge to William Hawle when he was expelled from Merton. 3 At All Souls' College only two Fellows, Thomas Dol- man and Thomas Dorman, appear to have been ex- pelled for " non-compliance " in refusing to take the oath of Supremacy. Jasper Haywood, who afterwards entered the Society of Jesus, was, in the opinion of Mr. C. G. Rob- 1 Coll. Hist. Series : Hist, of University College, p. 84. ' P. 83. 3 Cf. for the form of Dugdale's deprivation, P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., XX, No. 26. 1 THE UNIVERSITIES 281 ertson,' probably also forced to leave the College on the same grounds and at the same time. John Warner was Warden of the College on Elizabeth's accession, and man- aged to pass muster with the commissioners of 1559; but on his retirement in 1565, his successor, Richard Barber, when there was question of destroying the College church plate and vestments, showed strong opposition, and, in Mr. Robertson's words, " revealed to the Government the obstinate courage of the party of the old tradition," a in this apparently merely following the " tradition " handed on to him. Archbishop Parker had written in 1 564, urging the authorities of All Souls' College to sell their " superfluous plate"; his order was unheeded, and on 5th March, 1566-7, he again urged, somewhat peremptorily, 3 that " certain plate reserved in your College whereat divers men justly be offended to remain in such superstitious fashion as it is of," " should be defaced " ; and that a " perfect inventory " of all the church stuff should be forwarded to him. The inventory may be seen in the volume just quoted from, 4 and from this it may be gathered that they still possessed a goodly stock of articles " which serve not to use at these days," as the Archbishop phrased it. 5 The inventory was duly sent, but the Archbishop had still reason to complain on 26th March, 1567, that they "do retain yet . . . divers monuments of superstition," " and therefore ordered them in the Queen's name to forward to him at the earliest opportunity " wholly and entirely, every thing and things " mentioned in the inventory. Moreover, the Warden and two of the Fellows, Humphrey Brooksby and Master Foster, were summoned to present themselves in London, there to answer for their contumacy. Later, on 19th April, 1567, four more Fellows, J. Mallocke, R. Braye, Robert Franklin, and Stephen Brill, were in addition ordered to make their personal appearance before the Ecclesiastical 1 Coll. Hist. Series, Hist, of All Souls, p. 67. s P. 67. 3 Parker Corresfi., No. 227. 1 P. 297, note. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid., No. 228. 282 THE UNIVERSITIES Commission. 1 Mr. Robertson says 2 that the College Re- gister, under the date of 23rd April, contains the order given to Barber to cause the church plate (with specified exceptions) " to be defaced and broken," and a certificate, that the order had been obeyed, sent up. 3 Archbishop Parker wrote to Cecil 4 that " as for All Souls' College plate, [it] is turned whole and reserved as bullion among them, their church books only turned out of the way." Mr. Robertson points out 5 that much must have been kept back secretly, for " five years actually elapsed, and then in May °f I 573> a new a °d largely Puritan Commission . . . brought them to book. ' As you will answer to the contrary at your peril,' the order ran, 'within eight days, all copes, vest- ments, albs, Mass books, crosses and such superstitious and idolatrous monuments must be defaced.' The College made the eight days eight months. In December, 1573, a final peremptory command ' to make the true certificate ' was issued, and at length was grudgingly obeyed. It had taken nine years to bring about the ' defacing '; and the hoarded ' monuments of superstition ' now shared the same fate as the reredos and the altars of the Chapel." Mr. H. W. C. Davis in his History of Balliol College 6 points out that whatever may have been the religious com- plexion of that foundation under the Edwardine lapse, during the Marian reaction it "became Catholic to the core, so that many years of Elizabeth's vigilant regime barely sufficed to make the College Anglican again." 7 In illustration of this somewhat common and general experi- ence, he mentions the fact that William Wryght retired from the Mastership owing to his unwillingness " to adopt the new settlement," and was succeeded by Francis Bab- ington. Three Fellows retired in 1559 and another in 1 Parker Corresp., No. 230. 2 Hist. 0/ All Souls, p. 70. 3 This document is printed in Parker Corresp., p. 301, note. 4 Parker Corresp., No. 233, 12th August, 1567. 5 Hist, of All Souls' Coll., p. 70. e Coll. Hist. Series. 7 P. 89. THE UNIVERSITIES 283 1560, and one Barker, who was admitted as a chaplain in August, 1559, threw up his Fellowship before a year was out. " Others, however, refused to retire from the battle." What degree of conformity was displayed by Babington to secure his tenure of the Mastership does not transpire ; but "there is no reason to believe," according to Mr. Davis, " that his conformity at Elizabeth's accession was in the least sincere . . . the hypocrisy of Babington might long have remained unsuspected " but that " his record was sub- jected to a searching examination, and in 1565 ... he was publicly proclaimed a Romanist, and all his benefices were declared forfeit. It was less easy to destroy the traces of his influence. For some years afterwards, Lincoln l re- mained ... a Romanist seminary." 2 Mr. Davis also mentions that in 1 567 a brother of Father Henry Garnet, S.J., "was expelled from his Fellowship; although the cause is not stated, we can hardly account for it otherwise than on religious grounds." 3 Father Robert Persons, the well-known Jesuit, and Christopher Bagshaw were also members of Balliol. It may be useful to quote here another testimony as to the religious leanings of this foundation even after several years of Elizabethan supervision. The Record Office possesses documents which, although un- dated, are provisionally ascribed to the year 1580. The one now to be laid under contribution is probably of still later date, but internal evidence proves that it cannot be earlier, for the Master therein mentioned, Dr. Lylye, was elected to that post in August, 1580. The unnamed writer of the paper in question states: — " That Balliol College hath not been free from the suspicion of Papistry this long time, it appeareth by the men that have been of the house, namely Brian and Persons. With Persons, and since his departure from the College hath Turner, Bagshaw, Staverton, and one Pilcher been Fellows, all which were grievously suspected of religion. And certain it is that this Pilcher is gone this year from thence to Rheims, looking daily for Bagshaw as 1 To which he had removed in 1560. 2 P. 105. 3 P. 106. 284 THE UNIVERSITIES he did report to one Caesar. Staverton is in like manner departed the College ; and it is thought that both Bagshaw and he be gone over the seas. It is said that Turner also either is gone or shall go beyond the seas with a physician to whom the Queen's Majesty hath given leave to pass and to take one with him. It is thought that some of these have left their resignations of their Fellowships with their scholars whom they have trained up, as Bagshaw to Elis his scholar, and Staverton to his scholar Blount, which if they be Fellows, the College will remain in his deserved name of suspicion of Papistry. This may be foreseen in causing the Master, who is Dr. Lylye, to place those which be known to be zealous and godly ; the election is at St. Katherine's Day [25th November] or after presently." l Babington, the Head of Balliol, had, as already men- tioned, migrated to Lincoln College, there taking the place of Henry Henshaw [or Heronshaw], who was elected Rector a few weeks before Queen Mary's death, but was ejected by Elizabeth's Visitors about the middle of 1560. 2 Ac- cording to the College historian, Babington " did nothing to discourage Romanism, and, finding his fidelity to his patrons suspected, he resigned his Rectorship in the be- ginning of 1563. In 1565 he was deprived of his benefices for Romanism." 3 Mr. Clark does not find that any Fel- lows left with him ; but surmises that " some five of the eleven Fellows may have gone out at the same time [as Henshaw], but we cannot be certain, the records being so incomplete." It is just this incompleteness of records that baffles any hope that might be entertained of attaining finality in the particular line of research now engaging our attention : that incompleteness seems, however, to be the prop upon which those rely who endeavour to prove that there were comparatively few persons who underwent de- privation; and such finality as can be attained can be 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxlvi, No. 10. Christopher Bagshawe left his Fellowship in 1582 ; cf. Wood, Athenae, i, p. 426. 2 Rev. A. Clark, Coll. Hist. Series: Hist, of Lincoln Coll., p. 42. 3 P- 45- THE UNIVERSITIES 285 arrived at only by a minute piecing together of scattered fragments of evidence; by a comparison of analogies; by drawing probable inferences from carefully ascertained, if isolated, facts. Babington's influence was not altogether destroyed by his removal. He was succeeded by John Bridgewater, M.A., of Brasenose College, appointed 14th April, 1563; "and soon the College became permeated with Romanist feel- ing." l This is not surprising, if his subsequent career be borne in mind. Wood says that he resigned his office in 1574 to avoid expulsion; Mr. Clark distinctly states that his deprivation took place on 20th July, 1574." Many, afterwards distinguished for their labours in the cause of the Catholic Church, as he himself was, were his pupils at Lin- coln College, such as Walter Harte, John Gibbon, William Harris, Thomas Marshall, and William Giffard, who entered Lincoln as a commoner in 1570, postulated his B.A. in 1573, but was refused as a "suspect," 3 finally, after be- coming Dean of Lille, and resigning that preferment to join the Benedictine Order in which he held high offices, he was appointed Archbishop of Rheims, and thus became First Peer of France. Mr. Clark says that on Bridgewater's departure and the appointment of John Tatham as his successor in the Headship, " the one record of this Rector- ship is that the College was still under suspicion of Ro- manism." * Mr. Brodrick, in his Memorials of Merton College? says that " of the grounds upon which he [Dr. Reynolds] was now deposed, we have no direct evidence; but there is an entry in the College Register, dated 7th September, 1559, which shows how summary the process was. On that day, Lord Williams, Dr. Wright, and Dr. White called on the Warden at his lodgings, and announced to him in the presence of several Fellows, that his place was vacant, the sentence having been recorded against him three days earlier by the Queen herself." It is said that he died not 1 P. 45- ' P- 45- 3 P. 47- 4 P. 49- 5 Oxford Historical Society Publications. ° P. 49. 286 THE UNIVERSITIES long afterwards; by some, in prison at Exeter, 1 by others, in the Marshalsea. 2 Dr. Tresham is expressly stated by Mr. Brodrick to have refused the oath of Supremacy; 3 and the Bishop of London, in a letter dated 3rd December, 1 560, sent down the order of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the expulsion of three Fellows : Robert Dawkes, David de la Hyde, and Anthony Atkyns, 4 for " denying the Queen's Superiority." Reynolds's successor as Warden was Dr. Gervaise; but he took his departure early in 1563. Mr. Brodrick says: 5 "it is not certain whether his resignation was voluntary or forced upon him by the Visitor in conse- quence of his popish sympathies." In May, 1562, a visita- tion had been held which resulted in the expulsion of William Hawle the sub-Warden, who had hidden the old Mass books and other " monuments of superstition," and was accused of persuading his pupils to Papistry. 6 He found an asylum in University College, and died there shortly after. Heylin gives a more graphic and explicit account of what happened at Merton College. 7 " A spirit of sedition had begun to show itself in the year last past [1 561] " he wrote, 1 P. 49. 2 P. 165. 3 P. 49. 4 Cf. Parker Corresp., p. 75, No. 60 and note. He died in poverty not long after, and was buried in the church of Sibbertoft, near North- ampton, where the following pathetic monumental inscription may still be seen : Presbyteri dudum fuerat qui munere notus Atkynus solide et religionis amans Dum vagus hac iliac incerto tramite oberrat Hie fato functum terrea gleba tegit. Anno Dni 1564. Septembris 20. Atkyns, priestt, religious & lerned Not haveing where to dwell Wandering, sycke, at last here stayed Till death did lyfe expell. 3 P. 165. c Cf. B. W. Henderson, Coll. Hist. Series, Hist, of Merton Coll., pp. 89-90. 7 The Reformation in England, ed. 1670; Hist, of Q. Elis., p. 153. THE UNIVERSITIES 287 "... which seeds being sown, began first to show them- selves in a petit rebellion in Merton College in Oxon; sufficiently discovered by those small beginnings, that some design of greater consequence was in agitation. The War- denship of that House being void by the death of Gervaise, one Man is chosen to the place. But his election being questioned, and his admission thereupon opposed by a contrary faction, the government of the College devolved of course upon one Hall, a Senior Fellow, sufficiently known to be of popish inclinations, though for the saving of his place he had conformed as others did, to the present time. No sooner was he in this power, but he retrieves some old superstitious hymns, which formerly had been sung on several Festivals in the time of Popery, prohibiting the use of such as had been introduced by Gervaise the late War- den there. This gave encouragement and opportunity to the popish party to insult over the rest, especially over all those of the younger sort who had not been trained up in their popish principles; so that it seemed a penal matter to be thought a Protestant. Notice whereof being given to Archbishop Parker (the ordinary Visitor of that College in the right of his See), he summoneth Hall on the 20 May [1562] to appear before him, and caused the citation to be fastened to the gate of the College. But his authority in that case was so little regarded, that the seal of the citation was torn off by some of that party. Hereupon followed a solemn visitation of the College by the said Archbishop. The result whereof was briefly this, that all were generally examined; Man confirmed Warden, Hall justly expelled, his party publicly admonished, the young scholars relieved, the Papists curbed and repressed, and Protestants counten- anced and encouraged in the whole University." Trinity College, having been founded only in Mary's reign, was, not unnaturally, Catholic in tone; hence, when the visitation of 1559 began its sifting-out process, Thomas Slythurst, its first President, finding himself unable to take the required oaths, suffered deprivation in September, 1 559, and is said to have died in 1560, a prisoner in the 288 THE UNIVERSITIES Tower. The Rev. H. E. D. Blakiston says * that " it is im- possible in the absence of the Computus for the years 1557- 1560 to give exact dates; but it appears that five more of the Fellows and some of the scholars quitted their places in 1 560-1." He goes on to say that "it is not certain that they were all sufferers for conscience' sake, since some . . . are afterwards found in possession of benefices " ; but it has already been pointed out that this argument is not con- clusive, and that the reason which determined anyone one way or another in 1559 may have been overridden in 1560 or 1 56 1. Certain it is that though the first Elizabethan visitation might be supposed to have purged the house, nevertheless, long after that the taint of Popery betrayed itself. In 1567 two Fellows resigned, no doubt as a con- sequence of Bishop Home's visitation in September, 1 566 ; one of these, Leonard Fitzsymons, went to Hart Hall, and later became a priest ; 2 Christopher Wharton threw up his Fellowship in 1 569, was ordained abroad, and died for his priesthood in 1600. In 1570 there was trouble over the church plate, as there had been at All Souls', and in the end it was defaced; in the following year no less than six of the Fellows resigned or were ejected, of whom Thomas Forde became a priest and was subsequently martyred in 1582; George Blackwell retired to Gloucester Hall till 1574, when he went abroad and later was created Archpriest over the English Mission; and Thomas Allen went to Gloucester Hall, where he managed to remain till his death at an advanced age in 1632. Mr. Blakiston gives in addition the names of many more who were refused de- grees on suspicion of being Papists, or who left Oxford for Rheims ; and this as late as 1583. Hertford College became a recognised " refuge for those adherents of the old religion to whom a College without a chapel furnished an oppor- tunity to evade attendance at the new services." 3 St. John's College was, as Mr. R. Simpson says: 4 "A 1 Coll. Hist. Series : Hist, of Tritiity, p. 76. 2 P. 77. 3 S. G. Hamilton, College Histories Series: Hist, of Hertford, p. 15. * Life of Edmund Campion, ed. 1896, pp. 6-7. THE UNIVERSITIES 289 nursery for Catholics." The founder, Sir Thomas White, was a Catholic; and, when Elizabeth abolished the Mass, and the President, Dr. Alexander Belsire, was deprived by the royal commissioners in 1559 or 1560 for Popery, 1 White " took away all the crucifixes, vestments, and holy vessels that he had given, and hid them in his house, to be restored in happier times." Belsire's successor, Dr. William Ely, who was elected by the scholars and confirmed by White, was as much a Catholic as his predecessor; but he managed to hold his post till 1563 without acknowledging the Queen's Supremacy. In that year the oath was tendered to him, and he was ejected. William Stock, Principal of Gloucester Hall, succeeded Ely, but was also ejected [withjin a year for Popery. In 1564, Sir Thomas White made John 1 Mr. W. H. Hutton, in his History of St. fohn's College (College Histories Series), endeavours to divest Dr. Belsire of the honour of deprivation for conscience' sake, and whittles away the College Re- gister phrase "propter religionem," by resort to the safe methods of suggestion, relieving himself of the responsibility of adducing proof, by stating that his deprivation was due to " the fact that he cheated, or was said to have cheated, the Founder of ^20" [p. 19]. No shred of proof is forthcoming beyond Sir Thomas White's reasons for the dismissal of the President of his College ; but, fortunately, there fol- lows Dr. Belsire's denial of the justice of those reasons. Happily Mr. Hutton writes with such evident bias that he discounts the value of his own suggestions. It may be useful to refer here to a statement on p. 21. Mr. Hutton points out that Dr. Ely was deprived of any pre- ferments he stood possessed of, and says, " his only benefice in the English Church had been the Rectory of Crick, Northamptonshire" ; — which, by the way, is incorrect. Cf. Gee, Elizabethan Clergy, p. 257. It is of interest to note, as indicative of the difficulty of tracing to their true sources disappearances from incumbencies about this date, that in Bridge's History of Northamptonshire, i, p. 561, the list of incumb- ents of Crick there furnished mentions Robert Cosen as collated thereto on 4th January, 1548; and then, without naming Dr. Ely, gives, as immediately following, William Stoke, M.A., as rector there in 1 561. This Stoke is surely he who was also Dr. Ely's successor in the Mastership of St. John's. On such evidence it might conceivably be denied that Dr. Ely had ever held this living or been deprived of it ; and, indeed, Mr. Gee does not refer to it in his lists. 2 They were given back to the College in 1602 by White's niece, Mrs. Leach. U 290 THE UNIVERSITIES Robinson President ; he remained so for eight years, till July, 1 572, when, White being dead, and the Puritan Home, Bishop of Winchester, having succeeded in upsetting White's arrangements which deprived the bishops of that See of the visitation of the College and vested it in trustees . . . the character of the College underwent a complete change. Tobie Mathew was made President (1572), the suspected Papists (nine out of twenty), were ejected from the Fellow- ships, and their places were filled by Puritans." Mr. Hutton is not a particularly safe guide; but in cases where he can be controlled by other evidence, such as that furnished by Mr. Simpson or Anthony a Wood, there is less danger in following him. 1 It remains to mention some of the members of this College, of many amongst whom its annalist records: " al- terata religione aut cessit aut amotus est." 2 John Bavant, Ralph Windon, Leonard Stopes, Gregory Martin, Edmund Campion, Thomas Bramstone (who received Sir Thomas White's leave to reside with Abbot Feckenham), 3 John 1 Mr. Hutton complains, p. 67, note, of Mr. Simpson's Campion, a work evidently very distasteful to him. " Of the accuracy of this in- teresting biography," he writes, "some idea may be obtained by observing that in it William Roper is called ' the descendant of Thomas More.'" It is fractious and hypercritical to cavil at the use of such a phrase. It may be, perhaps, somewhat loose in application, but inas- much as Roper was More's daughter's husband, it is measurably cor- rect ; but such petty criticism comes badly from one who can admit into his pages so egregious a blunder as the statement that Campion was "executed at Tyburn in 1608" [v. p. 45]. 2 Quoted by Hutton, p. 45. 3 Thomas Bramstone's career is of particular interest. He himself gave it in his examination, 30th April, 1586; cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., CLXXXVin, No. 46. He admitted that he had taken no degrees in Schools. " He was brought up in his youth in the grammar-school in Canterbury under old Mr. Twyne ; from Mr. Twyne he went to West- minster, and there continued a year, and was novice in the Abbey. From thence he went to Mr. Roper of Eltham, where he continued about a year. From thence he went to St. John's College, where he continued about three or four years, and was Fellow of that College. From thence he went to wait upon Dr. Feckenham who was in the Tower, where he continued so about two years. From thence he went THE UNIVERSITIES 291 Bereblock, a skilful artist; Henry Shaw, William Wiggs, John Meredith, George Russell, 1 Cuthbert Mayne, John Roberts and John Jones (the last two here named both be- came Benedictines early in the seventeenth century), were all either converts to Rome from St. John's, or else ' defended the Pope's jurisdiction.' Many of these names stand out pro- minently in the lists of protagonists of these troubled days; their very number is an eloquent testimony to the tendency of religious thought that clung to Sir Thomas White's foundation, and is a disproof that Oxford was conformable to the religious changes till several decades had elapsed. There remain two Colleges whose records furnish points of peculiar interest. They are Worcester College, formerly known as Gloucester Hall, and Exeter College. Gloucester Hall had, up to the time of the suppression, been the Oxford house of studies for members of the Benedictine monasteries throughout England. With the dispersal of those who had supported and peopled it," Monks' to serve Sir Thomas Tresham, to whom he did belong, coming and going, about ten years, and was schoolmaster in his house until such time as the Act of Parliament was made that none should teach etc. . . . which, as he thinketh, was about the 18th year of the Queen's Majesty's reign. From Sir Thomas Tresham's service he went over sea ; and only confessing that he is a priest, he will not further answer etc. ; but saith he was no priest when he was schoolmaster, which was ten or eleven years since. Ordained at Rheims by Cardinal Guise." 1 Mr. Hutton's methods are, to say the least, curious. Of this Fellow he says, p. 46: "the annalist tells of one who was Bursar, became a Papist, embezzled the College money, and fled." Note the order, with the implied interdependence: mention of office, change of religion, act of felony and injustice, flight. The Latin on which these state- ments are founded is as follows : " Bursarius Collegii parum fidelis abiit non sine solvendo, postea mutata religione, etc." I venture to submit a different version of these words from that furnished by Mr. Hutton: "The Bursar of the College, not altogether trustworthy, took his departure, but not without settling his accounts; afterwards he changed his religion, etc." Again note the order: mention of office not properly fulfilled, departure after making good any default, change of religion. This correction seems only an act of justice due to the memory of a man upon whom such a stigma has been put, or at- tempted to be put, by Mr. Hutton. 2 9 2 THE UNIVERSITIES Hall " fell on evil times. Sir Thomas White, the founder of St. John's College, bought the premises in 1560, and leased them to William Stock, a Fellow of St. John's, for a term of twenty years. The historian of the house : says of him : "In 1563 William Stock left Gloucester Hall to become President of St. John's, and he assigned his lease, or sublet, to William Palmer, an old member of Brasenose, who lived to suffer much for the Catholic religion which he professed. But after little more than a year William Stock came back, having resigned the Presidency of St. John's from a whimsical fear of being deprived, and he remained Prin- cipal till 1 573 ... In 1 574 he left of his own accord . . . died . . . always in animo Catholiciis, in 1607." In his time the College was put to a strange use : its rooms were let out to tenants who were neither undergraduates nor tutors, but were refugee Catholics,open or concealed, including amongst their number George Blackwell, Thomas Allen, and Thomas Warren. Such a proceeding hardly served to gain a repu- tation for " soundness " for the Hall ; and in later days it was constantly referred to as being a hot-bed of Popery. Thus the College historian quotes some writer (without reference) as saying: " Fanatics keep their children at home, or breed them in private schools under fanatics, or send them beyond seas, though before the war they did not, but did send them to the University to Gloucester College." 2 Besides Blackwell and Thomas Allen, already men- tioned, others to find shelter within the gates of Gloucester Hall were Edmund Rainolds, who lived there for sixty years; Dr. William Bishop, resident about 1572; Sir Wil- liam Catesby, there with his wife in 1577, who, during their residence, gave birth to a daughter, baptised, not by the vicar of the parish, but by a " popish priest." Two of their sons (one connected with the Gunpowder Plot of 1605) were members of the Hall, as were also Ralph Sheldon and Henry Lawson, who belonged to families long noted for their devotion to the Catholic cause. Small 1 Coll. Hist. Series: Hist, of Worcester Coll., p. 96. ! P. 98. THE UNIVERSITIES 293 wonder it Is, therefore, if the notice of the University and other authorities was attracted to such a centre of dis- affection. In 1577 William Meredith, "in the College of Gloucester," was presented as " suspect to be a horrible Papist, and one that hath not received the Communion at any time to our knowledges ; also the common fame goeth that he is a maintainer of Papists beyond the seas, and that of late he hath been there to have conference with them ; also, he being offered to take the oath of the Supremacy ministered by the Ordinary, he utterly refused the same: we esteem him to be worth .£50." l In an appen- dix 2 some explanation is attempted to account for the phenomenon of this College's extended immunity from coercion. The suggestion mooted is that a certain propor- tion of members who were " precluded by religious scruples from matriculating, only remained so long as the Univer- sity would allow them to dispense with the formality ; and the pronounced Catholic reputation of Gloucester Hall would lead one to suppose that the number of such students was large. . . . An examination of the list leads to an almost irresistible conclusion that the matriculation system was extremely lax . . . the Hall either saved up its students in order that as many as possible might matri- culate at one time [35 in January, 1574; 15 in 1577; 33 in 1578], or that they did not matriculate at all [none in 1575, !576, 1579, or 1580] till the University insisted on it. If any such irregularity as this existed, it was inevitable that some should slip through the net and pass through Glou- cester Hall without having matriculated at all. And it is very noticeable how many of those who were undoubtedly at Gloucester Hall are not to be found in the matriculation lists." As will be seen when the case of Exeter College is considered, Gloucester Hall was frequented largely by West of England and Welsh families; and these retained and clung to the old Faith perhaps longest of any in any other part of the kingdom. As the historian of Worcester 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvin, No. 24. - Hist, of Worcester Coll., p. 256. 294 THE UNIVERSITIES College puts it: "altogether Wales, Gloucester, Devon, Cornwall and Somerset were responsible for no less than 45 per cent, of the members of the Hall." Mr. W. K. Stride, in describing Exeter College, 1 says that in Elizabeth's time that foundation appeared to be " most distinctly Catholic, for it was then that men had definitely to take their side. John Neale, the first ' per- petual Rector,' was deprived [in 1570] for refusing to attend the reformed service in chapel. About the same time several Fellows fled the country, one of whom, Bris- towe, became President of Douay." Sherwin and Cornelius, both Fellows of Exeter, were eventually executed for their priesthood. John Cornelius (or Cornellis) was expelled by the royal commissioners in August, 1578, for Popery." In 1570, William Wyot, the sub-Rector, was imprisoned in the Castle and in Bocardo, for refusing to declare what Papists he knew to be in the College. 3 Strype, as quoted both by Mr. Boase and Mr. Stride, records, indeed, that at the visita- tion of 1578-9, " in Exeter College, of eighty were found but four obedient subjects; all the rest secret or open Roman affectionaries, and particularly one Savage of that house, a most earnest defender of the Pope's Bull and excommunication of the Queen. These were chiefly such as came out of the western parts, where Popery greatly prevailed, and the gentry bred up in that religion." Thomas Percy, later to become one of the Gunpowder conspirators of 1605, was at Exeter College in 1578. Robert Yendall, vicar of the College living of Menheniot, in Cornwall, was one of those (not mentioned by Mr. Gee) who abandoned their livings in 1559 rather than fall in with the religious changes as imposed by Act of Parliament. 4 Others whose consciences would not suffer them to retain their prefer- ments were John Feazard, Stephen Marks, Roger Crispin, Richard Reede, Christopher Smale, Francis Bauger, and 1 Coll. Hist. Series: Hist. 0/ Exeter Coll., p. 47. 1 Boase, Register of Exeter Coll., p. 78. 3 Gutch, Collectanea, ii, p. 169. 4 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., VII, No. 7- THE UNIVERSITIES 295 Edward Risdon, not all of whom find a place in Mr. Gee's partial lists. That this estimate of the religious condition of the Uni- versities may be accepted as approximating to the facts, it might be sufficient to point to the multitude and variety of the witnesses here cited in the persons of the various modern historians of the different Colleges in both centres of learning. But the evidence of that sober judge, Arch- bishop Parker, should be conclusive. Writing in his own name and in that of his fellow commissioners to Sir William Cecil, on 16th April, 1568, 1 the Archbishop attests the presence of many Papists at both Universities, for he states that " having in fresh memory our continual proceedings in this commission since the first time of it . . . and have done therein (as we trust) good service to God, the Queen, and the realm, removing by authority of our said commis- sion, out of both Universities, divers stubborn Papists, and head adversaries of God's true religion, to the number of forty and more." "It seems established that the royal com- missioners concerned themselves mainly with the ' head adversaries,' leaving the lesser opponents to be dealt with in ordinary visitations or by local authority; hence the evidence hitherto adduced has been kept sedulously within the limits of actual facts. The points that seem to be emphasised by this study of such cases as have come down to us, is the general dis- satisfaction which undoubtedly existed in both Universi- ties with the Elizabethan settlement of religion, though this discontent, evincing itself in open recalcitrance, was always much more marked at Oxford than at Cambridge. It will be noticed, too, that in the majority of instances, no information is vouchsafed about the undergraduates; only the placemen, those whose emoluments and preferments were coveted by necessitous exiles and reformers, attract 1 Such is the date given in a contemporary endorsement of it in Lansd. MS. 10, No. 48; but in the Parker Soc. edition of the Arch- bishop's Correspondence, No. 264, p. 343, it is given as 13th April, 1569. 296 THE UNIVERSITIES attention. But when we are permitted to get a glimpse below the surface, as in the cases of Gloucester Hall and Exeter College, the undercurrent of sentiment existing among the students shows itself just as strongly as amongst their seniors. The importance of this cannot be exag- gerated. These young lads, in the vast majority of instances, would not have been influenced after going up to Oxford or Cambridge. They took their religious convictions with them, and these they had imbibed in their own homes. Hence, if there was such an appreciable percentage of staunch Catholics, whether open or secret, amongst the University students, it is clear that they merely represented in two centres the feelings and aspirations prevailing in the midst of their homes, and amongst the dependents of their families. And just as the opposition to religious change manifested itself for so long at Oxford, and in a lesser degree at Cambridge, so that opposition, in spite of bishops' reports to the contrary, will have been equally determined, though circumspect, throughout the length and breadth of the land. In other words, England ceased to be Catholic only by degrees; and the change was due not to conviction, but to the steady pressure of coercion, as applied by an ever increasing accumulation of penal enactments. CHAPTER VIII THE TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS I. — The Northern Province LAUNCHED upon their way, the new bishops quickly- got to work. Very soon, however, they discovered that the task before them was not so easy as perhaps in their first enthusiasm they had imagined it would be. The parliamentary power that had put them in possession of a great public trust could not transfer the allegiance of their nominal spiritual subjects from their predecessors to them- selves as land passes from hand to hand by a stroke of the pen. If the new bishops had thought that they had but to appear in their respective spheres of work and that sub- mission would instantly follow, they were quickly unde- ceived, and for the whole period over which this enquiry extends, the disappointment of disillusionment makes itself felt in the voluminous correspondence that has sur- vived to this day. From that correspondence shall the story unfold itself, related to us by the chief actors them- selves — by those who were best qualified to know the truth of the facts they disclose. And at once it is as well to notice that the bishops speak with a double voice. Occa- sionally, writing officially, presumably for the Queen's perusal, they refer optimistically to the good progress of the Reformation in their dioceses ; but this class of docu- ment is rare. The vast majority of the letters they penned, mostly for Cecil's private information, are full of despond- ency, of confessions that circumstances are too strong for them — in a word, of failure. In the beginning this might not be wondered at ; but even after long years of continuous 297 298 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS pressure, the resistance was still strong; and it was only by the wearing-down process of more than a generation of imprisonment and fining and exclusion from office, that at last any real impression was made upon the steadfast- ness and Faith of the nation. Truly has it been said that the old religion was not abandoned knowingly and willingly by its adherents, but that it was filched from them. This conclusion hardly tallies with the usually accepted one, which may be given in the words of the late Bishop Mandell Creighton: 1 "In England, generally, the religious settle- ment was welcomed by the people, and corresponded to their wishes. The English were not greatly interested in theological questions. They detested the Pope; they wished for services which they could understand, and were weary of superstition. The number of staunch Romanists or strong Protestants was very small. The clergy were prepared to acquiesce in the change." Which statement is more nearly in accordance with facts will appear in the sequel. That many of the clergy accepted the oaths of Supre- macy and Uniformity cannot be denied. That this imme- diate acceptance represented the inner convictions of the moment of those so conforming is not merely doubtful, it is in numberless cases, on the showing of the bishops them- selves, absolutely impossible. Many stayed in their cures and conformed, " hoping for a day " when the present storm would blow over and the old state of things would be re- stored. For the time-being they were willing to bend before the blast, not realising that in thus weakly acquiescing out- wardly they were jeopardising not only their own souls, but those of the flocks committed to their care. Many would not accept the oaths and were displaced; still more could not bend their consciences to take them, nor dared they face the consequences, and therefore abandoned their livings ; but instead of escaping to the Continent, remained secretly in England, ministering to the wants of the " staunch Romanists " by stealth, thereby proving a serious 1 Queen Elizabeth, ed. 1899, p. 53. THE NORTHERN PROVINCE 299 obstacle to the progress of the Reformation and a cause of much concern in consequence to the bishops of the new establishment. Even as regards the conforming Marian priests, the bishops did not in all cases feel that their professions were implicitly to be trusted. Not all men can at once adjust their old views to new and contradictory propositions. Bishop Scambler of Peterborough, for one, had learnt to appreciate this factor in dealing with men, and in parti- cular with clergy, and had come to realise that time only could bring about true and hearty adherence, that patience was needed, that considerable latitude would have to be allowed, and that many things would have to be overlooked and winked at. He expressed this to Lord Burghley in after years in the following pregnant passage: " If a man may be won, great haste is not to be required ; if a man in recanting and turning to the truth profess at the first no more than he is fully persuaded in, and speak no more than he believe, he is liker to prove a good member of Christ's Church, than some other that speak otherwise and better to please, in haste." ' Many of these outward conformists showed how little their hearts were in accord with their mouths, for as Cardinal Allen wrote to Dr. Vendeville, on 16th September, 1578 (or 1580): " Not only laymen, who believed the Faith in their hearts and heard Mass at home when they could, frequented the schismatical churches and ceremonies (some even communicating in them), but many priests said Mass secretly and celebrated the heretical offices and Supper in public, thus becoming partakers often on the same day (O horrible impiety!) of the chalice of the Lord and the chalice of devils. And this arose from the false persuasion that it was enough to hold the Faith interiorly while obeying the Sovereign in externals, especially in singing psalms and parts of Scripture in the vulgar tongue, a thing which seemed to them indifferent, and, in persons otherwise virtuous, worthy of toleration on account of the terrible 1 Lansd. MS. 21, No. 2, 27th March, 1575. 300 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS rigour of the laws." ' Nicholas Sander also bears witness to this scandalous and dishonest form of temporising. He relates that Catholics " had Mass said secretly in their own houses by those very priests who in church publicly cele- brated the spurious liturgy, and . . . very often in those disastrous times were on one and the same day partakers of the table of our Lord and of the table of devils, that is, of the blessed Eucharist and the Calvinistic supper. Yea, what is still more marvellous and more sad, sometimes the priest saying Mass at home, for the sake of those Catholics whom he knew to be desirous of them, carried about him Hosts consecrated according to the rite of the Church, with which he communicated them at the very time in which he was giving to other Catholics more careless about the Faith the bread prepared for them according to the heretical rite." 2 These weak temporisers were not, however, the men who did, or were likely to do, much lasting good amongst the adherents of the proscribed Faith. There were many more who had abandoned their livings rather than share in the new schism, and who yet ministered secretly to the wants of those who like themselves remained staunch. Writing on ioth August, 1577, Cardinal Allen informed Prior Maurice Chauncy of " many of the elder sort of priests, long since made in England, coming hither [Douay] to see our trade." 3 And in the letter to Dr. Vendeville, already quoted from, he says: " We likewise invited from England some of the older priests who had been ordained many years before, and were labouring in the Lord's vineyard, but were insufficiently instructed for the necessities of the present time in all the duties of religion and the Church's censures." 4 At the close of the sixteenth century, when memory concerning what happened at the time of Eliza- beth's accession was becoming dim, and the survivors were 1 Records of the English Catholics, vol. i, Introd., p. xxiii. 2 Sander, De origine ac progressu schismatis Anglicani, Lib. iv, c. iv. Coloniae Agrippinae, 1585. Lewis's translation, Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism, p. 267. 3 Records, ut supra, Introd., p. xlvi. 4 Ibid., p. xxxv. THE NORTHERN PROVINCE 301 growing fewer in number, Fr. William Holt, S.J., in a paper dated 1 596 drawn up to show how the Catholic Faith had been maintained in England during more than a generation of persecution, asserted that there were still at that date between forty and fifty of the old Marian clergy labouring on the mission ; but for obvious reasons of safety, though he may have known their names, he withheld them. This fact is not without its bearings on the controversy as to the exact number of conformists and deprived clergy. For it may be noticed, too, that in Bridgewater's list, the indi- viduals who there found mention mostly lived abroad ; the workers in the Lord's vineyard were not named, because there was every reason to conceal their identity. But now and then a stray reference to some of these old priests is met with. For example, in 1593, Robert Abbot, later the famous Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote a book against " a secret cavilling Papist in the behalf of one Paul Spence, priest, yet living, and lately prisoner in the castle at Wor- cester." ' In the preface to this brochure, Abbot says that this Paul Spence was " not of the Seminary, but begotten in his order, as I suppose, in the time of Queen Mary." Spence does not find a place, either in Bridgewater's or Mr. Gee's lists. Again, as Father Knox observes : 2 " For the first sixteen years of the schism, from 1558 to 1574, it [the maintenance of the Faith] was due to the priests, some regular, but mostly secular, ordained in the previous reigns, and to them alone ... a large number, especially of the parochial clergy, remained steadfast at their posts. . . . Such a one, for example, was the Rev. John Peel, of whom the Diary records on the occasion of a visit which he paid to Douay in May, 1576, that 'he laboured for sixteen years in England at the peril of his life, reconciling to the Catholic Faith those who had gone astray, and animating others to perseverance.' " 3 The testimony of Dr. Hum- phrey Ely, of St. John's College, Oxford, an exile for the Faith, is also requisitioned by Father Knox: "The second 1 Cf. Lansd. MS. 945, f. 184''. - Records, ut supra, Introd., p. lxi. 3 P. 104. 3 02 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS praise, of planting and teaching this better opinion, be- longeth as well to many ancient priests of Queen Mary's days that stood firm and stable in their Faith, and drew daily some out of the mire of schism by preaching and teaching; whereof I myself am a witness, having known many that were reconciled by them many a year before any religious, either from beyond the sea or at home, brought this doctrine." * Allen, in the letter to Vendeville already quoted from, writes to the same effect: " We under- stood that not only our own priests, of whom we had but few in the beginning, but others also who were ordained in England formerly in the Catholic times, had by the secret administration of the Sacraments and by their exhortations confirmed many in the Faith, and brought back some who had gone wrong." Another testimony to the secret labours of these Marian priests is to be found in Campion's letter to the General of the Jesuits, dated November, 1580, wherein he acknowledges that "for the ministration whereof [i.e., the Sacraments] we are ever well assisted by priests whom we find in every place \iibique~\, whereby both the people is well served, and we much eased of our charge." 2 At the date of writing, there were of course several seminary priests from Douay and Rome at work in Eng- land; but it is significant that Campion, who traversed large tracts of England before his capture, testifies to hav- ing come across priests ubique "in every place." After making due allowance for the possible exaggeration con- tained in so general an expression, the numbers cannot but have been considerable — many more, in fact, than the seminaries could at that early period of their activities account for. If, then, forty or fifty of the three hundred and fifty priests labouring on the English mission at the end of the century were, according to Fr. Holt's testimony, of the Marian clergy, their number would have been considerably greater when Campion wrote, and would evidently have 1 Records, etc., p. lxii. Dr. Humphrey Ely, Certain Brief Notes, etc., p. 67. 2 Simpson, Life of Campion, ed. 1896, p. 248. THE NORTHERN PROVINCE 303 been larger still during the first ten or twelve years of the schism, before death had begun to thin their ranks. It may be objected that such statements are too general, and that the inferences drawn from them are therefore hardly warranted ; but, on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that a very important element of success in the dangerous work done by the Marian priests lay in the secrecy with which they surrounded their existence or whereabouts. A priest who had abandoned, or been de- prived of, his living because he refused to accept the parlia- mentary religion was hardly going to let it be publicly known where he lived, or that he was still fulfilling the functions of his priesthood, more especially as the penal enactments of the law made the punishment so severe not only for him but also for those who availed themselves of his ministrations. 1 He would naturally, therefore, have taken every precaution against being brought under official notice. This may serve, too, to explain why it is rare to identify any of the old clergy amongst the early lists of recusants in prison. The majority of the priests so labour- ing in England were doubtless never caught. But even with all these chances against any record of their work and persons existing or surviving, evidence is not wholly want- ing to show how considerable their number must have been. Thus a catalogue of ninety-nine Catholics confined in various prisons in London and certain other parts of Eng- land in 1 579 is preserved in Lansd. MS. 28, No. 97. The use of" superintendens" to designate certain Protestantfbishop- custodians shows that the list was drawn up by a Catholic. It contains the names of one archbishop (Richard Creagh, of Armagh), one bishop (Thomas Watson, late of Lincoln), one abbot (Feckenham), described as " venerabilis Abbas Westmonasteriensis," and two of his monks, together with twenty-six of the secular clergy; also twenty-one " nobiles " or men of gentle birth, six " laics," eight women, a doctor of laws, a master of arts, and five " schoolmasters," as also twenty-six of no designation, thus very possibly hiding the 1 Cf. Statutes of the Realm, 5 Eliz., c. I. 304 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS identity of some more priests who had escaped the de- tection of their sacred character. Of the priests, four, possibly a fifth, were seminarists; the rest, as might be gathered from the ages appended to their names (though this is not in itself conclusive proof), to say nothing of the negative testimony of the College Diaries, where their names do not occur, were of Marian or even pre-Marian ordination. Jewel, writing to Peter Martyr on ist August, 1559, tells him that "the Mass priests absent themselves altogether from public worship, as if it were the greatest impiety to have anything in common with the people of God." * And three months later he tells the same correspondent that " if inveterate obstinacy was found anywhere, it was altogether amongst the priests." 2 After 21st December, 1559, Cox told Peter Martyr that the " popish priests " were " daily relinquishing their ministry, lest, as they say, they should be compelled to give their sanction to heresies." 3 The Duke of Norfolk, writing to Cecil from Durham, 10th January, 1559-60, says in a postscript, that he finds " this town and country hereabouts far out of order in matters of religion ; and the altars standing still in the churches contrary to the Queen's Majesty's proceedings." l Robert Home, the restored Edwardine Dean of that northern Church, soon to become Bishop of Winchester, wrote to complain of the religious state of that part of the country, and after reporting his conviction that " the face of the Church in these parts is so blemished with ignorance and licentious living," goes on to say that " there is such continuance in superstitious behaviour, contrary to the order taken for religion, such contempt and neglecting of God's service at the times and places appointed, and such uncleanness through fleshly life, yea, such horrible incests 1 1 Zur., No. 16. 2 Ibid., No. 19, 2nd November, 1559. 3 Ibid., No. 28, but signed, " Richard Cox, Bishop of Ely," to which See he was consecrated on 21st December, 1559. 4 Haynes, Hatfield Papers, p. 222. DURHAM 305 as hath not been heard of among the heathen." ' The sug- gested remedy is of course the introduction of conforming prebendaries in place of three or four Catholic ones who had already refused, or were likely soon to refuse the oaths. Dean Home, on 13th November, 1 560, bewailed the dearth of clergy, writing to Cecil specifically about the needs of Berwick : " I am right sorry that the ministry is so barren and destitute of a sufficiency of worthy men to satisfy the want there and in other places also." a His interest in ec- clesiastical reform was henceforth to be transferred to the southern parts of England where we shall meet with him again as Bishop of Winchester. But James Pilkington the first reformer Bishop of Durham has much to say on similar topics. His first letter to Cecil on 20th May, 1561, 3 is not worth quoting; but on 2nd August, 1561, he reports that " according to my commission, also, I administered the oath unto the Justices of the Peace, who all received it will- ingly that were present, except Sergeant Meynell, who is one of the Council at York, and has all offices here under me and has ruled this country alone above 20 years with the evil report of all men. He would neither take the oath for Justices of the Peace, nor for the Queen's Supremacy, but thought he had wrong to have it proffered him, because he said that none of his calling had taken it. He never took any oath since the Queen began her reign RobertLawson also would take the oath of Justice,but not for the Queen. Robert Tempest, being Sheriff and therefore no Justice, would make no full answer; but it is thought he will deny for the Queen. Michael Wainsford absented himself and yet pro- mised to have been there ; but few thinks he will acknow- ledge the Queen's Highness." 4 On 13th October of the same year, Pilkington thus disburthened himself to Cecil : " Paulus cum bestiis pugnavit Ephesi: ego hie imprimis habeo iij belluas ; utinam cum Paulo vincam. The more I try the 1 P.R.O. Dom.Eliz., xi, No. 16,1 8th February, 1559-60. Cf. also Pilk- ington to Cecil, 2nd August, 1561 ; P.R.O., Borders, Eliz., IV, No. 295. - Ibid., XIV, No. 45. 3 Ibid., Add. XI, No. 13. 1 P.R.O., Borders, Eliz., IV, No. 295. X 306 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS more griefs I find ... If it please your honour to under- stand the state of the country, he [Mr. Fleetwood] can cer- tify you at full ; in writing, possible it were I should touch those things which your honour would not most gladly understand. But in my judgment this I see, that here needs rather authority and power to be given than taken away. They understand the taking away of the Bishop's living, whereby his power is the less, and so less is he regarded. . . . The worshipful of the shire is few and of small power, the people rude and heady, and by these occasions more bold. I cannot find ten able Justices of Peace of wisdom and authority of neither religion. ... If Mr. Meynell and other refusing the oath of their allegiance may be on the Council in authority still, and have their doings for good, it will encourage others to the like or worse ... I cannot tell whether men marvel more to see a poor or preaching Bishop here; and the outward pomp and power taken away makes them much bolder." L A month later, on 14th Nov- ember, he reverted to these troubles, thus: " For the nature of the people, I would not have thought there had been so froward a generation in this realm. I do not see that they will be ruled without a great power, and of him whom they fear. They see how small the Bishop's power is, and there- fore they contemn it. I am grown into such displeasure with them, part for religion and part for ministering the oath of the Queen's Superiority, that I know not whether they like me worse, or I them ; so great dissembling, so poisonful tongues and malicious minds I have not seen." 2 He then complained of the conduct of various Justices of Peace, who, notwithstanding they had refused the oaths, yet remained in possession of posts of trust ; his own officers were underpaid, or the posts were vacant for want of proper pay. " The troubles be so great," he says, " the complaints so many, the rude importunity of the people so incredible, my experience so unable to determine them, that the griefs and cares of them, where I had a little wit at my coming, now have left me almost none. . . . The Queen does not 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xx, No. 5. 2 Ibid., XX, No. 25. . DURHAM 307 take away so fast but everyone here goes about to encroach on me and make a hand for themselves thinking all will away, and I see no remedy but I must either try the law with divers of the mightiest, or else lose a great portion of my right, howsoever it will prove in the end ; and surely the law here is ended as a many is friended." A lengthy post- script informs Cecil that " the last day of my visitation, a young priest being called with his churchwardens to take his oath as the rest, . . . refused to swear because he said those Injunctions hang on a further authority, which he could not allow. This he spake openly afore all the people ... he said he thought that neither temporal man nor woman could have power in spiritual matters but only the Pope of Rome. This boldness the people grow into because they see that such as refuse to acknowledge their due allegiance, escape not only punishment, but are had in authority and estimation." Dean Whittingham, writing to Cecil on 19th December, 1563, tells him that "the people in the country are very docile and willing to hear God's word," but that in Durham itself they were " very stiff, not- withstanding they be handled with all lenity and gentle- ness: the best hope I have that now of late they begin to resort more diligently to the sermons and service." ' The value of his hopes, and the sincerity of their supposed ac- quiescence is to be gauged only by their conduct in 1569. Moreover, a letter in the Parker Correspondence? ascribed to the year 1 564, written by Pilkington to the Archbishop, shows that, in the North, Catholics still had it very much their own way. He is calling Parker's attention to things amiss in archiepiscopal " peculiars " situated in Lancashire and adjacent parts. " It is too lamentable to see and hear how negligently they say any service there, and how seldom . . . Your cures, all except Rochdale, be as far out of order as the worst in all the country. The old vicar of Blackburn, Roger Linney, resigned for a pension, and now Whalley has as evil a vicar as the worst, and there is one come thither that has been deprived, and changes his name, and now 1 Lansd. MS. 7, No. 12. 2 P. 221, No. 168. 308 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS teaches school there, of evil to make them worse". The Rebellion of the North in 1569 tells its own tale as regards the true sentiments of Durham in religious matters, and Pilkington had to fly south with his wife and daughters for their lives. At the close of the short rebellion he had serious misgivings about returning, as well he might, seeing how obnoxious he was to the Northerners, as a married prelate. He says : " The country is in great misery . . . the number of offenders is so great, that few innocent are left to try the guilty. . . . What comfort it is to go now into that country, for him that would live quietly, your wisdom can easily judge! " 1 His fears were not without foundation, and in 1 571 he twice wrote to Cecil, pointing out how the families of the chief rebels still set him at defiance, not only in matters of religion, but by harbouring and aiding proscribed persons. 2 Bishop Pilkington died in 1576, and Barnes was brought from Carlisle in the following year to replace him. He had evidently had an eye to the reversionary possibilities of this neighbouring and still rich See, for a very interesting letter of his is extant, 3 and is a good example of the de- pendence of the bishops on the all-powerful minister, and of the art of keeping oneself en evidence with a view to securing something suitable or desirable. He says that he has nothing but love and service to offer, being so poor ; " yet since one can have no more of the cat than the skin, accept the same my good Lord, donee uberiora Deus," and then excuses himself from any self-seeking. One of the first duties that fell to him in his new diocese was to make the return of recusants asked for by the Council in the autumn of 1 577, together with a valuation of their lands and goods. In county Durham eight are named, mostly poor, and evidently as a result of the fines levied after the Rising, for they had all been connected with it. No informa- 1 Lansd. MS. 12, No. 29, 4th January, 1569-70. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., IX, Nos. 41 and 99, 23rd April and 15th October, 1571. 3 Lansd. MS. 20, No. 66, 28th October, 1575. DURHAM 309 tion was given as to Northumberland, as none had come to hand at the time of writing. 1 Shortly after his transfer to Durham, he reported progress. " My travail is but simple, yet (I praise God) it hath sorted very good and prosperous success and effect, ad miraculum usque in this short space. And since my last letters I have sent throughout North- umberland, and found such and so humble obedience and such conformity unto all good orders even of the wildest of those people, as (truly and before God) I think better and more plausible cannot be found {saltern ad oculuni) . . . I doubt not but that within this half year, your good Lord- ship shall see a wonderful reformation there, for . . . those that were of late rebels . . . that are noted to talk unseemly ... in private assemblies, yet openly they all profess an obedience; and now, within all Northumberland I cannot find one person that wilfully will refuse to come to the church and communicate (a few women excepted). For I have driven out of that country the reconciling priests and Massers, whereof there was store ; they are now gone into Lancashire and Yorkshire, but we are rid of them; and surely such and so full presentments are daily given in of all defaults there, as I think they leave almost no little trifle untouched, which doth much confirm my hope of speedy good reformation of that country ; yet in the mean time . . . these people are far more pliable to all good order than these stubborn churlish people of the county of Durham and their neighbours of Richmondshire who show but (as the proverb is) Jack-of-rapes charity, in their hearts and doings: as hard, stubborn and rebellious as ever they were. I grant that . . . the lives of these people (as their country is) are savage; but truly such haste to amend (though it be for some fear), as is marvellous ; and yet none extremity showed to any, otherwise than by threatenings, which hath wrought Pannicum timorem in their minds, and in the clergy a good readiness to apply their travails to their callings; only that Augiae stabulum, the church of Durham, excepted, whose stink is grievous in the nose of 1 P.R.O. Dom. Add. Eliz., xxv, No. 42, 24th October, 1577. 310 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS God and of men ; and which to purge far passeth Hercules 1 labours. I have an external show of some dutiful obedience, but their dealings underhand are nothing less." l This in- teresting letter touches on many other topics, such as Barnes's attitude towards the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Grindal, then under sentence of sequestration for opposing the Queen's will as to the suppression of prophesy- ing, etc. ; but these subjects do not here concern us. What is of immediate interest, however, is to read between the lines that the very submission of the Northerners which he extols, was, as he himself suspected, saltern adoculum: it was hollow, insincere, a mere pretext to avoid any further trouble, an outward show of comformity to prevent " threatenings " from being translated into " show of ex- tremity." It is impossible to suppose that he deluded him- self into the belief that this sort of " towardness " was of the slightest value: it is still less credible that he could impose on so astute a man as was Lord Burghley: what his object could have been, therefore, in composing so extraordinary an epistle it is difficult to fathom, unless, indeed, extracts artfully arranged might please the Queen. She, too, was far too shrewd to be deceived, did she ever see the entire letter. The neighbouring Bishop of Carlisle had to deal with a people of similar temperament to those who so troubled Pilkington. John Best was consecrated to that See on 2nd March, 1 560-1, and, soon after, he made a visitation of his diocese. His report thereon to Cecil would make but sorry reading were it not necessary to allow a certain discount due to the prejudices of the reformer. Assuring Cecil that " my letters, the express image of my faithful heart . . . declaring to you the state of the country, may be unto your wisdom as it were a mean to redress things amiss," he proceeds to say that " the common people who much re- joiced, affirmed they had been deceived," after hearing him expound the new doctrines ; " the gentlemen of the country- received me in every place with much civility," which 1 Lansd. MS. 25, No. 78, nth February, 1577-8. CARLISLE 311 evidently to some extent deluded the Bishop for a time at least, as to the real sentiments of the tract over which he ruled; but "the priests are wicked imps of Antichrist and for the most part very ignorant and stubborn, past measure false and subtle; only fear maketh them obedient. Only three absented themselves in my visitation and fled because they would not subscribe, of the which two belong to my Lord Dacres, and one to the Earl of Cumberland, unto which I have assigned days [to appear] under danger of deprivation. About twelve or thirteen churches in Gilsland all under my Lord Dacre do not appear, but bearing them- selves upon my Lord refuse to come in ; and at Stapleton and sundry of the other have yet Mass openly, at whom my Lord and his officers wink, and although they stand excom- municate I do not further meddle with them until I have some aid from my Lord President and the Council in the North lest I might trouble the country with those that are in a manner desperate." 1 The next letter we have of his, written 14th January, 1561-2, gives ample reason for the dis- cretion for which he took such credit to himself; and though he finds fault with Lord Dacre of Gilsland and the Earl of Westmoreland, he does not venture to name those powerful noblemen, but contents himself with hints such as Cecil would be sure to understand, leaving him to gather the rest, if he will but " talk secretly with the bearer hereof." The letter, however, contains information explicit enough to show us what men were thinking about. " Here is such rumours, tales and lies secretly blown abroad, partly by writings in French, partly by evil-disposed Papists, secretly whispered in corners, that every day men look for a change and prepare for the same. The people desirous of the same do in manner openly say and do what they will concerning religion and other matters right perilous, without check or punishment. The rulers and Justices of Peace wink at all things and look through the fingers ; for my exhortation to have such punished I have had privy displeasure . . . for punishing and depriving of certain evil men which ' P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xvm, No. 21, 19th July, 1561. 312 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS neither would do their office according to the good laws of this realm, neither acknowledge the Queen's Majesty's Supremacy, neither yet obey me as Ordinary. Such men as these are not only supported and borne withal, but also had in place of councillors and brought into open place, whereby those of evil religion are encouraged to be stub- born, and they which embrace the true doctrine defaced and discouraged. And such are kept still in household, though contrary commandment was given . . . and I for my part dare not say it is wrong, nor any other that I know. For though I am bold to utter unto you such matter, whose secrecy and wisdom I have great trust in, yet here I open no such things to any man, well pondering the danger thereof ... so long as the high authority is in his hands that now hath it, God's glorious gospel cannot take place here, for not even those that thoroughly favour it dare be known thereof unto him, for fear of a shrewd turn." * Writ- ing to Cecil on 25th April, 1563, he had grievous complaints to make about the condition of things at his Cathedral Church, which was going to decay; the woods "almost destroyed ; a great part of the livings under colour conveyed to their {i.e., the prebendaries'] kinsmen ; themselves taking the profits, and that for three or four score years, their statutes appointing but only twenty-one. Where for repara- tions is allowed yearly £100, there is nothing done. And where £30 is allowed for the poor and mending highways, almost as little is done; no residence kept; no accounts; the prebendaries turning all to their own gain ; which, when I go about to reform in my visitation, can take no place because they are confederate together and the losses their own. Three of them are unlearned, and the fourth unzeal- ous. Briefly, the city is decayed by them, and God's truth slandered." 2 Bishop Best wrote in the same sense to Grindal, his brother of London, who passed on the information to Cecil with the following gloss of his own : " All his pre- bendaries (Sewell only excepted, who is discredited by reason of his inconstancy), are ignorant priests, or old un- 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xxi, No. 13. 2 Lansd. MS. 6, No. 49. CARLISLE 313 learned monks." l Grindal, the Bishop of London, a native of Cowpland in this diocese, assured Cecil that " for regard to that little angle" it was "the ignorantest part in religion ... of any one part of this realm, to my knowledge." a Another time he told Cecil that " there be marvellous practices to deface [John Best, the Bishop] in my lawless country; and, by him, the cause." 3 Strype, commenting on this letter, 4 says that that country was "replenished with Papists and such like." That the general causes of complaint did not right themselves is proved not only by the events accompanying the Rising in the North in 1569, but also by a letter written to Cecil shortly before the Bishop's death, wherein he refers sorrowfully to the " many hollow hearts of our people here touching their obedience unto the Queen's Highness; and but a small number (in mine opinion) of just and true servitors in these parts." ' Best died on 22nd May, 1570, and his place at Carlisle was taken by Richard Barnes, Bishop of Nottingham and Suffragan of York, who was translated to Carlisle in June, 1570. Three days after Best's death, Sir Thomas Gargrave wrote to Cecil asking him to prefer Barnes to the vacancy. " He is in mine opinion a very meet man for the place, both for his sound doctrine, his stoutness, etc." G Though first ap- pearances are so often deceptive, Bishop Barnes did not hesi- tate to pen a glowing account of his new charges, very unlike the estimate formed of the same people by his predecessor, but for which the reader is in some measure prepared by his subsequent letter as Bishop of Durham already cited, showing that his wish moulded his thought and guided his pen, before more intimate knowledge sobered his judgments in either case. To Cecil, then, he wrote as follows on 27th 1 Lansd. MS. 6, No. 86, 27th December, 1563. 3 Ibid., 6, No. 51, 17th May, 1563. 3 Ibid., 7, No. 57, 21st January, 1563-4. 1 Life of Grindal, p. 126. 5 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., Add., xvn, No. 36, 20th January, 1569-70. c Ibid., xviii, No. 58, 25th May, 1570. N.B.— " Stoutness 5 ' in the original becomes "holiness" in the abstract in the Calendar! 314 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS October, 1570: "I am for the time settled in my charge, where I doubt not to work great good to this people and good service to the Queen my gracious Lady ; for of a truth I never came in place in this land where more attentive ear was given to the Word than here; and in time I trust good effect will grow thereupon. ... I have for these ten years been exercised in these north parts, and know the people's disposition right well, as I persuade myself. And to say the truth, I find these Cumberland and Westmoreland commonalty far more conformable, pliable and tractable in all matters of religion than ever I found in the better sort in Yorkshire. All will most quietly and reverently hear, none will reclaim by word nor fear by deed (saving the Lowland men, and certain gentlemen), but attentively and gladly seem to hear and yield to the truth, so that I seem to promise great good success (if God so will), in this so rude a country; and yet not by far so rude as in many places the Southern people be, nor so far from God's religion as they have been thought." ' He appended to this letter a long list of gentry to many of whose names he attached such pithy but violent descriptions as"sanguinarius Papista" etc.; somewhat belying his roseate estimate of the two north-westerly counties ; but he is not so hopeful of Lanca- shire, where " more great assemblies are daily than were fit; on all hands the people fall from religion, revolt to Popery, refuse to come at church ; the wicked popish priests reconcile them to the Church of Rome, and cause them to abjure this (Christ's religion); and that openly and un- checked. Since Felton set up the excommunication, in some houses of great men (you know whom I mean), no service hath been said in the English tongue, but Browne and other traitorous priests openly received, entertained, and maintained . . . neither durst I have done this much [i.e., have given the above information] but that I presume and am assured of your honour's good affection to me, and thereupon persuade myself that this advertisement shall not tend to my hurt." ' Much the same report was sent by 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., LXXiv, No. 22. 2 Ibid. CHESTER 315 Bishop Barnes to the Earl of Sussex a few days previously, " how in Lancashire all things savoured of open rebellion . . . how in most places the people fell from their obedience, utterly refusing to come at any divine service said in the English tongue; how since Felton set up the Bull, etc., the greatest there never came at any service, neither would suffer any to be said in their house but have openly enter- tained sundry runagate Lovanists Massers with their Bulls, etc. ... I have learned also of my kinsfolks that country- men, that omnia apud illos sapiunt seditiones et apertavi rebellionem!' ' A year later, Bishop Barnes still held the same views, as may be seen in a letter to Cecil dated 20th October, 1 571. " Praised be the Lord," he exclaims, " Who even in this angle and utmost corner amongst these savage people, hath reared up the Church of his Christ, and mightily pros- pered his Gospel and my simple ministry, whereof I doubt not but in short time to yield great good fruit to God and to the Queen's Majesty. I dare boldly assure your Lord- ship that at this day, there is not one known gentleman or other within this little diocese that openly repineth against religion, that refuseth to communicate or come to the church to hear divine service, or that forbeareth or shunneth sermons, or openly speak against the religion established or the ministers thereof; those of the Lowlands excepted, amongst whom is neither fear, faith, virtue, nor knowledge of God, nor regard of any religion at all ; which are but four parishes, Arthureth, Kirklinton, Bencastle, and Stapleton. Some indeed are not in all things yet reclaimed or satisfied, but surely in a good way, and come well forwards." " The Bishopric of Chester had still more to do with Lan- cashire than had Carlisle; and that See afforded no bed of roses for its occupant, William Downham, on the whole an easy-going man, who did not care to harry and persecute his flock, however individuals might differ from him in opinion. As a consequence he got into trouble from above and from below. He became Bishop early in 1 561 , but 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., Add., xix, No. 16. I, 16th October, 1570. ■ Ibid., xx, No. 84. 316 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS though he was a member of the Ecclesiastical Commission for enforcing the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, he did not even visit his diocese till pressure was put upon him to do so. Pilkington, his neighbour bishop, was much scandalised at his negligence, and complained of it to Arch- bishop Parker. " The Bishop of Chester has compounded with my Lord of York for his visitation and gathers up the money [i.e., the visitation fees] by his servant; but never a word spoken of any visitation or reformation ; and that, he says, he does of friendship, because he will not trouble the country, nor put them to charge in calling them together. I beseech you . . . help to amend that [which] is amiss." l This continued slackness as regards coercing the reactionary tendencies of his flock at last brought down on him the displeasure of the Queen, who sharply rebuked him. The draft of this remarkable letter, corrected by Cecil himself, is in the Record Office, 2 and may be quoted almost in full, as illustrating the royal methods of dealing with the State bishops. " We greet you well. We think it not unknown to you how we of our mere motion for the good opinion we conceived of you in your former service of us, admitted you to be the Bishop of that diocese of Chester, expecting in you that diligence and carefulness for the containing of our subjects in the uniformity of religion and service of God according to the laws of our realm, as now upon the credible reports of dis- orders and contempts to the contrary in your diocese and specially in the county of Lancaster, we find great lack in you, being sorry to have our former expectation in this sort deceived. In which matter of late we wrote unto you and others our commissioners joined with you, to cause certain suspected persons to be apprehended, writing also at the same time to our R. R. T. and R. W. Cousin and Councillor the Earl of Derby for the aiding of you in that behalf. Since which time, and before the delivery of our said letters to the Earl of Derby, we be duly informed 1 Parker Corresp., No. 168, about 1564, p. 222. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., XLVi, No. 33, 21st February, 1567-8. CHESTER 317 that the said Earl hath, upon small motion made to him, caused all such persons as have been required to be appre- hended, and hath showed himself therein according to our assured expectation very faithful and careful for our service. " Now, therefore, considering the place you hold to be the principal minister in these causes, and such disorders found within your diocese, as we hear not of the like in any other parts of our realm, we will and charge you further to have other regard to your office, and specially to foresee that all churches and cures be provided of honest and as well learned curates as you can cause to be pro- vided, using therein the ordinances and censures of the Church to the remedy of the defaults, and suffer not for lack of your own personal visitation of your diocese, by repairing into the remoter parts and specially into Lan- cashire, that obstinate parsons, having been justly deprived of offices of ministry, be secretly maintained to pervert our good subjects within any part of your diocese, as we under- stand they have now of long time been. And herein we have the more cause to blame you, for that besides your episcopal jurisdiction, you have had also other good au- thority l to reform these disorders by our special commis- sion to you and others directed for the reformation of these kinds of abuses in matters ecclesiastical, which you did instantly require to have, with promise thereby to have preserved your diocese from these disorders." Urged at last into activity by this peremptory reminder of the purpose for which he had been made a bishop, Down- ham set about his long delayed visitation. Three months later he rendered an account of his doings, which report is remarkable for the outward results apparently secured, so little in consonance with any real change of attitude on the part of the gentry and others of Lancashire, as shown not 1 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., XXIII, No. 56, 20th July, 1562. "Appoint- ment of Commission for Ecclesiastical Causes within the diocese of Chester, to enforce the Acts for the Uniformity of Common Prayer, and for restoring to the Crown the ancient jurisdiction over the estate ecclesiastical and spiritual." 318 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS only during the remainder of Elizabeth's reign, but through- out the two centuries of the continuance of the penal laws. Looking back across the intervening centuries in the light of all that has happened in the interval, we can see that any submission or promise of reformation made to Bishop Downham on the occasion referred to was hollow, insincere, and a mere outward show to allay suspicion for the mo- ment, and to secure practical connivance for another period of respite. The Bishop wrote thus to Cecil on ist November, 1568: "... I have sent unto you ... a true copy of all such orders as I . . . have taken with the gentlemen of Lancashire, who, one only excepted whose name is John Westby, with most humble submission and like thanks unto the Queen's Majesty and to her honourable Council received the same, promising that from henceforth they will live in such sort that they will never hereafter give occasion of offence in anything concerning their bounden duty as well towards the Religion as their allegiance to- wards their Prince; but, for the better performance of the same, we have bound every of them in recognisances in the sum of 100 marks, for their appearance from time to time, as doth appear in the said order. The punishment of these men hath done so much good in the country that I trust I shall never be troubled again with the like, besides that Mr. Dean of Paul's [Alex. Nowell] at his being in the country, with his continual preaching in divers places within the county of Lancashire, hath brought many obstinate and wilful people unto conformity and obedience. ... I have this last summer visited my whole diocese which is of length about six score miles, and have found the people very tractable and obedient, and nowhere more than in the furthest part bordering upon Scotland, where I had most gentle entertainment of the worshipful, to my great comfort; my journey was very painful by reason of the extreme heat, and if I had not received great courtesy of the gents, I must have left the most of my horses by the way, such drought was never seen in those parts." l 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xlviii, No. 36. CHESTER 319 Bishop Downham's estimate of the Lancashire folk is in every particular the direct opposite of that arrived at by others who had been observing and reporting upon them and their attitude. Thus, writing to Cecil on 7th May, 1568, Thomas Young, Archbishop of York, complained that the commission for ecclesiastical causes had not been well drawn up, " for whereas Notts is part of my diocese of York and more subject to the malicious practices of the enemies of God's true religion," and that being on the limits of the diocese it was in consequence " farther from due means of reformation and correction," and, further, " nigh neighbour to the counties of Derby and Lancashire where the most of the lewdest sort hath remained and be cherished," he also pointed out that " there are within Notts some places where these seditious people receive great re- lief, having already infected very grievously some of good calling in that country." ' Lancashire was a source of anxiety to the Government and of preoccupation to Burgh- ley and Walsingham as late as 1580; 2 ten years later, matters were worse rather than better, as may be gathered from "An Information touching the Recusants of Lan- cashire," sent up to London. This document points out that " the county of Lancashire is mightily infected with Popery: the number of Justices of Peace within that county are but few that take any care in the reformation thereof; the wives, children and servants of some Justices of the Peace . . . are notable recusants ; . . . there are that stand indicted upon the statute of recusants 800 persons at the least within that county . . . ; the estate of that county of Chester is much like to that of Lancashire, but not sore wounded with Popery as is Lancashire . . . ; it hath been of late vehemently suspected that Massing-priests and such like resort at their pleasures to the recusants in the Castle of Chester, etc." 3 Downham's disinclination to per- secute again asserted itself; and, such being the case, again 1 Lansd. MS. 10, No. 43. a Cf. Bar/. MS. 6992, No. 62, f. 123. 3 Cotton MS. Titus B. ill, No. 20, f. 58, February, 1589-90. 3 20 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS he got into trouble with the Queen and her Council, who wrote to him on 12th November, 1570, that "whereas the Queen's Majesty is informed of sundry disorders committed within his diocese, specially in Lancashire by such as refuse to obey the laws established by consent of the realm for the use of Common Prayer and other ecclesiastical orders, and because her Majesty supposeth the same hath come to pass through his remissness in not looking so diligently to the charge committed to him as had been convenient, his Lordship is required to make his repair hither, bringing with him such matter for declaration of his proceedings towards such as have refused to come to Common Prayer as may best serve for his purgation and for the answering of all other things committed to his charge." ' This was followed by another letter on 13th January, 1 570-1, to the Arch- bishop of Canterbury " to call before him the Bishop of Chester and to understand of him what account he is able to make of the government in the charge committed to him within that diocese; for that the Queen's Majesty is signified of sundry disorders that of late have been com- mitted in the county of Lancaster and the archdeaconry of Richmond in matters concerning religion." 2 The result was evidently so unsatisfactory to the authorities that the Archbishop of York, as Metropolitan, nominated the Bishop of Carlisle to hold a visitation of Chester diocese in his name; and the Council, to further the matter, directed letters to the Sheriffs and Justices within Chester diocese " as well to the furtherance of true religion as to the repressing of errors and reformation of evil life " to be " aiding and assisting unto " the Visitor and his officials, and when called upon to do so, to " apprehend, attach and to imprison all such as shall be detected obstinately to disobey the godly laws for religion." 3 The results do not transpire; but it is the disposition of the people that called for such measures which chiefly concerns us here. Some- 1 Lansd. MS. 981, f. 165; Council Book, Q. Eliz., 1570. - Ibid. 3 Acts of the Privy Council, New series, vol. viii, p. 26, 12th May, 1571. CHESTER 321 thing similar again occurred, as may be gathered from a letter of Bishop Downham to the Privy Council, written on 1st February, 1575-6, in response to an order received from them, dated 22nd November, 1575, "for redress of such as . . . have not of long time come to any church or public place of prayer." The Bishop replied that he had " made diligent inquisition throughout the said diocese what such gentlemen and other persons there be that re- fuse to come to the church, and thereby have been informed of divers such whom we have sent for, of which some have come before us and by good persuasions have showed themselves conformable to. The others have not come but either remain in their wilfulness still, or else have showed in the country where they dwell some token of obedience as we have understanding from those whom we judge worthy of credit. And for more certain and plain certificate of the premisses, we have herein sent their names enclosed." 1 The certificate referred to 2 gives the names of over one hundred persons of all degrees, many of whom are specially noted as "obstinate," and two only as " conformable," while twelve are particularly singled out as leaders, for the Bishop says they are, in the opinion of his officers, " of longest obstinacy against religion, and if to your good wisdoms these could be reclaimed, we think the other would as well follow their good example in em- bracing the Queen's Majesty's most godly proceedings, as they have allowed their evil example in contemning their duty in that behalf." Even at the time of the Bishop's death (which occurred on 3rd December, 1577), as G. Fyton, writing to Walsingham, 3 points out, the Council had re- cently sent letters to the much-harassed prelate " for certi- fying the names of such wilful and stiff-necked Papists as refusers to come to public and divine prayer." Fyton hints that the Bishop was not quite impartial as to whom he haled before him for recusancy, for after mentioning a few thus summoned " who in flat terms refused to reconcile them- 1 Harl. MS. 286, No. 19, f. 27. - Ibid., 360, No. 39, f. 67. 3 29th November. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvin, No. 48. Y 322 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS selves," he proceeds: "besides these, the chief ringleaders and captains are not by us touched, for that the Bishop hath not had them presented to him, neither to any com- missioners in causes ecclesiastical, yet the speech is that they have Mass daily: at the church they were not this many years." Finally, he points out that " there is not so many favourers of God in Cheshire as within this seven year were, by seven thousand." The certificate left behind him by the Bishop when he died, and which was forwarded to Walsingham by Robert Leche the Chancellor, contains the names of sixty-nine recusants, most of them being repetitions of the previous list; 1 another catalogue, of later date, giving the " names of the gentlemen whose houses are greatly infected with Popery, and not looked unto," 2 contains several new names of distinguished per- sons guilty of recusancy. William Chaderton succeeded to the See of Chester in 1 579 ; and, as an uncompromising sup- porter of coercive measures to secure conformity, as his pre- vious record while at Cambridge proves, he was not long in taking stock of the backslidings of his new charge. Writing on 8th August, 1580, to the Earl of Leicester, 3 he reported of the gentry of Lancashire: " although they have received her Highness' process, yet have they not appeared; neither yet being fined ^40 for their contumacy, have they made any appearance or submission, or given any token of con- formity." On 4th October, 1580, 4 he reported to Walsing- ham that " many of the gentlemen continue still in their contempt and obstinacy . . . almost all those who are conformed, but especially the gentlemen, will not yield to communicate: we bear with their weakness, or rather with their hardness for this time, and only bind them to come to service and sermons, etc.; desiring to understand the Lords of the Council's pleasure, how their Lordships would advise us to deal with them, if in reasonable time we shall not be able to win them." Writing four days later to 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. cxvm, No. 49. 8 Ibid., Add., xxvn, No. 94. 3 Ibid., Add. xxvn, No. 28. 4 Ibid., Dom., cxliii, No. 7. YORK 323 Burghley and Walsingham, 1 he says: "I have sent unto your honours herein enclosed the names of all such as were indicted at our last sessions holden at Richmond, .Manchester and Prescot. At these sessions we have (God be thanked) reclaimed a number of all sorts, 'as your honours shall understand hereafter: and yet still there remain many obstinate, who in time (we have good hope) will be conformed if action may be continued with dilig- ence." In the same letter he calls these recusants "ob- stinate and dangerous people." In a return made in 1582, the number of recusants in Lancashire was stated to be 428/ The evidence still available all goes to show that the diocese of Chester was honeycombed with Popery: in other words, that that portion of England at least did not take the view ascribed to the nation at large by Dr. Man- dell Creighton. The great and extensive diocese of York, holding the prominent position of dignity in the North which it did, was naturally much under the eyes of Elizabeth's ministers, and certainly was a source of anxiety and care to them. The Earl of Rutland, writing to Cecil on 25th February, 1 560- 1, added as a postscript to his letter: " I do not find the country so forward in religion as I wish it to be. Wherefore I think it good ye move the Archbishop to bring some good preachers with him." 3 When Thomas Young, who had been made Bishop of St. David's in 1560, was promoted to York the following year, through Parker's recommendation of him as " witty, prudent, and temperate, and man-like," 4 he had not been long acquainted with his charge, before he had put his finger on a weak spot in the armour of the old school, and urged the enforcing of the oath of Supremacy on the Justices of the Peace. No sooner had he begun, than opposition was offered to him, " as divers, of worship . . . affirmed 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxliii, No. 11, 8th October, 1580. 2 Did. Nat. Biogr., vol. xii, p. 150. n P.R.O., Borders, Eliz., IV, No. 683. 4 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xiv, No. 22, 16th October, 1560. 324 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS there was no such thing required nor given before." He persuaded them at last to submit, but it struck him "that there hath been some sinister practices touching that oath heretofore; and some men think that either the fault was in the Justices of the Circuit . . . wherefore, for avoiding of division . . . and for setting forth of uni- formity ... I think it good that a commission were directed into these parts to minister and receive the oath as well of all Justices of the Peace, as of other min- isters, and officers of the laity." l It is clear that he saw little else but Popery around him, and his conclusion was shared by others in authority. For instance, the Earl of Bedford, writing about York to Cecil, told him : " I have found here in these parts great courtesy among the gentle- men, and do fear that the Popery rooted among them will bring forth evil fruit, without some magistrate come among them to restrain them with authority." 2 Others looking on from afar also noticed that the Reformation was not work- ing altogether smoothly, for Alvaro Quadra, the Bishop of Avila, wrote to Philip as early as 27th November, 1561: " It is said publicly that [Lady Margaret Douglas] . . . shows favour to the Catholics in the Province of York, and that consequently the Bishop dares not visit his diocese or punish any Papist." ' For the Queen a somewhat more hope- ful picture was painted. Archbishop Young wrote to her personally on 30th June, 1564. 4 Therein he assured her " that this country wherein you have doubly placed me, is at this present in good quietness, the common people being rightly handled both tractable and corrigible touching re- ligion"; the clergy, too, appeared to be " now thoroughly agreed . . . and every preacher through my charge doth quietly and honestly with diligence apply his office. I 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xxi, No. 27, 25th January,'i 561-2 ; cf. also Earl of Rutland to Cecil, 10th June, 1561 ; P.R.O., Borders, Eliz., iv, No. 190. 2 P.R.O., Borders, Eliz., vn, No. 208, 23rd March, 1563-4. :! Hume, Cal. of Span. Papers, i, p. 144. 4 P.R.O., Borders, Eliz., VII, No. 450. YORK 325 would the rest of your realm were in no worse case than we in these parts now be in that behalf. And verily there is great hope that we shall so continue. And as for the stay against religion in these parts, it was only the nobility, gentlemen, and clergy. And although the nobility remain in their wonted blindness, yet the gentlemen begin well to reform themselves, and the clergy also." After recounting his dealings in terrorem with Prebendary George Palmes, whom he had kept in prison for two years and then ad- ministered the oath to him, which he refused, he proceeds: " I do not know one of the ecclesiastical sort here that will now make any countenance to stand in the same." The Archbishop's declared policy was to keep the people in awe by fear of punishment; this appears many times in his cor- respondence. He was thus, as to the result he hoped to obtain by his policy, in harmony with the Queen who pro- posed not to enquire into consciences, but was satisfied with outward conformity to the laws. Thus, writing to Cecil on 29th April, 1565, after detailing his dealings with Sir W. Babthorpe and the effect these had had upon the neigh- bouring gentry, he remarks: " It seemeth to me that they are now in great awe and good obedience, wherein it is meet they be kept. And as touching myself (God willing), I shall not fail to do my part in that behalf." ' A characteristic postscript to a letter written by him to the Queen may here be given, showing still further his attitude towards the Catholics, also giving a glimpse be- hind the scenes painted by him illustrative of the conformity and good order of his Province. " This inconstancy and murmuring of the people in these parts touching the altera- tion of religion doth . . . arise . . . chiefly through the trifling and late remiss dealing of the judges and lawyers of your Majesty's Court called the King's Bench (who make and wrest the laws at their pleasure) with Mr. Bonner, late Bishop of London, and Doctor Palmes sent from thence, where, nor elsewhere, (I take it), there will be no 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. Add., XII, No. 58. 326 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS good stay, until some good order be taken with them and such as they are ; for experience now showeth, and so will daily more and more, that they have been too long dallied withal. And yet have they and others your people vainly persuaded themselves, and so do continue, that your Ma- jesty would have none of that sort so offending your laws punished. And what hereof in the end is like to grow, I doubt not." ' 111 health now began to put a check on his activities, and he died just three years later. The vacancy in the northern primacy was not filled till 1 570, when Grindal was promoted from London. He reached his See on 17th August, and on the 29th of that month he wrote his first impressions to Cecil. He had been hurt by the coldness of the reception accorded him : " I was not received with such concourse of gentle- men at my first coming into this shire, as I looked for " ; but he found a legitimate excuse for abstainers in the amount of sickness then prevalent. He then proceeded: " I cannot as yet write of the state of this country as of mine own knowledge, but I am informed that the greatest part of our gentlemen are not well affected to godly religion, and that amongst the people there are many remanents of the old superstitions. They keep holydays and fasts abro- gated ; they offer money, eggs, etc., at the burial of their dead ; they pray on beads, etc. ; so as this seemeth to be, as it were, another Church, rather than a member of the rest. And for the little experience I have of this people, me- thinketh I see in them three evil qualities: which are, great ignorance, much dullness to conceive better instructions, and great stiffness to retain their wonted errors. I will labour as much as I can to cure every of these, committing the success to God. I forbear to write unto her Majesty of these matters, till I may write upon better knowledge." ' Recovering from his attacks of ague, 3 he rapidly got to work, and by 10th November, he was able to report to 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. Add., xn, No. 68, 23rd June, 1565. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., lxxiii, No. 35. 3 1 Zur. t No. 100, p. 259. YORK 327 Cecil a raid he had made upon the old Countess of North- umberland's house, and the capture therein of three priests. 1 Writing to Henry Bullinger on 25th January, 1571-2, he told him that since his arrival in the North, " I have laboured to the utmost of my power, and still continue to do, in the visitation of my Province and diocese, and in getting rid of those remaining superstitions which have maintained their place more firmly in this part of the country, suffering as it does under a dearth of learned and pious ministers. After the suppression of the late rebellion I find the people more complying than I expected, as far as external conformity is concerned; the reason is that they have been sufficiently distressed [satis afflicti\ and therefore humbled, by these calamities which are always the concomitants of civil war. I wish I had found them as well instructed in the true re- ligion, as I left my flock in London and Essex to my suc- cessor." a Sir Thomas Gargrave made an independent sur- vey of the condition of Yorkshire, sending the " names of the principal gentlemen of Yorkshire " to Lord Burghley on 18th September, 1572. He drew up his list in four cate- gories : 4 3 Protestants ; 1 9 of the " worst sort " of Catholics ; 22 " mean or less evil," though on a perusal of the names, it is difficult, in the face of history, to realise in what way they were "less evil"; 39 "doubtful," though amongst these, too, are to be found the names of many who were staunch Catholics; and the list is clearly incomplete, for it ends with the significant statement: " Many more evil and doubtful." 3 The Injunctions issued for this visitation 4 show that there were many Catholic practices still to be stamped out. Strype 5 thus comments on and sums them up. " By the heeding of which Injunctions one may observe how old popish customs still prevailed in these northern quarters, and therefore what need there was of this general 1 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., lxxiv, No. 32. - I Zur., No. 100, p. 259. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Add. Eliz., xxi, 86 ii. 1 Cf. Grindal's Remains, pp. 123, sqq. 5 Life and Acts of Archbishop Grindal, p. 250. 328 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS visitation; as the frequent use and veneration of crosses, month's minds, obits and anniversaries, the chief intent whereof was praying for the dead ; the superstitions used in going the bounds of the parishes; morris-dancers and minstrels coming into the church in service-time, to the disturbance of God's worship; putting the consecrated bread into the receiver's mouth, as among the Papists the priest did the wafer; crossing and breathing upon the elements in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, and elevation; oil, tapers, and spittle in the other Sacrament of Baptism ; pauses and intermissions in reading the ser- vices of the Church ; praying Ave- Marias and Pater-nosters upon beads; setting up candles in the churches to the Virgin Mary on Candlemas-day, and the like." ' 1 The evidence of these Articles, here summarised by Strype, may be drawn upon at greater length, for the information they convey is eloquent not only of the state of the country and of its attitude towards the Reformation, but also of the standards and ideals the chief pro- moters of it had set themselves to attain. Grindal asks : " Whether in your churches and chapels, all altars be utterly taken down and clean removed, even unto the foundation, and the place where they stood, paved, and the wall whereunto they joined, whited over, and made uniform with the rest, so as no breach or rupture appear. And whether your rood-lofts be taken down, and altered, so that the upper parts thereof with the soller or loft be quite taken down unto the cross beam, and that the said beam have some convenient crest put upon the same. . . . Whether all and every Antiphonars, Mass books, Grails, Portesses, Processionals, Manuals, Legendaries, and all other books of late belonging to your church or chapel, which served for the super- stitious Latin service, be utterly defaced, rent, and abolished ; and if they be not, through whose default that is, and in whose keeping they remain? And whether all vestments, albs, tunicles, stoles, phanons, pixes, paxes, hand-bells, sacring-bells, censers, chrismatories, crosses, candlesticks, holy-water stocks, images, and such other relics and monuments of superstition and idolatry be utterly defaced, broken, and destroyed. And if not, where and in whose custody they remain? W T hether your parson . . . use . . . any gestures, rites, or ceremonies, not appointed by the Book of Common Prayer, as crossing or breath- ing over the sacramental bread and wine, or showing the same to the people, to be worshipped and adored, or any such like ; or use any oil or chrism, tapers, ' spattle,' or any other popish ceremony in . . . Baptism? Whether any holydays or fasting days heretofore abrogated YORK 329 With such methods of repression in use, it can hardly cause surprise if the people found they could purchase peace by an outward conformity which in no wise represented inner conviction. Hence a true estimate may be formed of the value of the return made by Grindal to Burghley on 13th ... be either proclaimed ... or be superstitiously observed. . . . Whether, when any man or woman is in passing out of this life, the bell be tolled to move the people to pray for the sick person. . . . And whether on All Saints' Day, after evening prayer, there be any ringing at all, or any other superstitious ceremony used, tending to the mainten- ance of popish Purgatory, or of prayer for the dead. . . . Whether there be any in your parish, that openly or privately say Mass, or hear Mass. . . . Whether any popish priests, or runagate parsons, mislikers or depravers of true religion ... do resort secretly or openly into your parish. . . . Whether there be any man or woman in your parish that resorteth to any popish priest for shrift or auricular confession, or any that within three years now last past, hath been reconciled unto the Pope or to the Church of Rome. . . . Whether there be any person or persons . . . that of late have retained ... or that read, sell, utter, disperse, carry or deliver to others any English books, set forth of late years at Louvain, or in any other place beyond the seas, by Harding, Dorman, Allen, Sander, Stapleton, Marshall. . . . Whether there be any in your parish that useth to pray in English or in Latin, upon beads, or other such like thing, or upon any superstitious popish Primer, or other like book?" The Injunctions accompanying the Articles cover the same familiar ground, but the order to destroy altars is coupled with the further order that " the altar stones be broken, defaced, and bestowed to some common use." Further, none of the laity " shall wear beads, or pray either in Latin or in English upon beads or knots, or any other like superstitious thing; nor shall pray upon any popish Latin or English Primer or other like book, nor shall burn any candles in the church superstitiously upon the feast of the Purification of the Virgin Mary, commonly called Candlemas Day; nor shall resort to any popish priest for shrift or auricular confession in Lent, or at any other time ; nor shall worship any cross or any image or picture upon the same, nor give any reverence thereunto ; nor superstitiously shall make upon themselves the sign of the cross when they first enter into any church to pray ; nor shall say De Profundis for the dead, or rest at any cross in carrying any corpse to burying, nor shall leave any little crosses of wood there." (2nd Report of Ritual Commission, 1868, App. E., pp. 41 1-5.) In 1578, Sandys, Archbishop of York, put much the same queries in a series of Articles. (Cf. Life and Acts of Archbishop Grindal pp. 421-4.) 330 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS November, 1574, 1 wherein he says: " Only five persons have been committed [during the past term] for their obstinacy in papistical religion." He deprecated, too, any leniency being shown to Papists. They had been petitioning for re- lease from prison : " But certainly my Lord President and I join in opinion, that if such a general jubilee should be put in use in these parts, a great relapse would follow soon after." In view of such methods of securing conformity, small wonder was it, if Grindal complained to Archbishop Parker of "letters full of slander, terming my doings and the other commissioners to be like the Spanish Inquisi- tion." - The irony of the charge lies in the fact that it was levelled at him, not by a Papist, but by one Lowth, a Puritan preacher. How near Grindal felt himself to be touched by this home-thrust, may be gauged by the views expressed by him to Lord Burghley on 2nd June, 1572. " I and some other Bishops, according to the order taken by the Higher House, were yesternight with the Queen's Majesty, to move her Highness, that the Bill for coming to divine service might by her assent be propounded. ... I send . . . here- with to your Lordship the said Bill and the articles of the same, with some increase of penalties as may appear; pray- ing your Lordship to take some opportunity to move her Highness in the premisses. The passing of this Bill will do very much good, especially in the North parts where pecuniary mulcts are more feared than bodily imprisonment ; for thereby some of them grow richer than they were before, and fall to purchasing of land in prison, which being at liberty they were not able to do." 3 Here it may be well to deal once for all with this question of coercion by force. Not that it can be condoned or excused in any person or period. Still, the habit of mind of a particular century must be taken into our calculation when estimating the cir- 1 Remains, No. 76, p. 350. 2 Ibid., No. 78, 4th March, 1574-5, p. 353. *■ P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., lxxxviii, No. 5. Cf. also P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., CXiv, No. 22, Aylmer to Burghley, 21st June, 1577, where the same course is suggested. YORK 33i cumstances; and in this respect there may even be some- thing to say in defence of a system which was resorted to generally. On the other hand, it must not be forgotten that Bonner was credited, rightly or wrongly, with the perpetra- tion of cruelties, and execrated for them by the very men, who, when they themselves came into power, resorted to force and cruelty to compass their ends. Had they merely taken the view that cruelty was an unfortunate necessity : that, therefore, they would only be doing what their pre- decessors were charged with doing ; though we cannot with our present more enlightened views endorse theirs, still we could find excuse for them. But the Elizabethan bishops professed to execrate Bonner's alleged cruelties; they thus set up a higher standard of ethics in theory, and failed to reach it in practice; for they were not merely the local agents of the central authority simply carrying out orders ; they were urgent to have those orders made. In proof, the following instances may be cited. On 17th April, 1561, Bishop Grindal wrote to Cecil, sending him the confession of one John Coxe alias Devon, a priest, " for Mass matters," and then urged: "Surely for this magic and conjuration your honours of the Council must appoint some extra- ordinary punishment for example." ' He asks for greater severity, specifically because the Chief Justice "will not meddle." In 1 562, the Bishops of London and Ely (Grindal and Cox) had some popish prisoners before them for ex- amination, but could extract nothing from them. They complained to the Privy Council, adding: "Some think that if this priest Havard might be put to some kind of torment, and so driven to confess what he knoweth, he might gain the Queen's Majesty a good mass of money by the Masses that he hath said; but this we refer to your Lordships' wisdom." 2 The title of a certain document will suffice to prove that the bishops were prepared to sacrifice life to compass their ends. " Reasons presented to the Queen's Majesty by the Bishops to prove that she may 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xvi, No. 49. : Hatfield Papers, i, No. 865, 13th September, 1562. 332 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS lawfully put the Scottish Queen to death, by the word of God. In the time of the Parliament holden at Westminster, 1572." ' There is no need to quote more from this blood- thirsty document ; its title alone is sufficient to show whence pressure was exerted on the Government to secure the per- petration of a judicial murder. Home wrote to Cecil on 2 1st January, 1569-70, complaining of "what troubles and charges overmuch forbearing of the Papists hath wrought," and in consequence begged for the issue of a commission. " It shall not fall out," he says, " that a sword is put into a madman's hand. I hope to do good service thereby . . . I grow into years, I would gladly do some good in God's Church before my departure." 2 Sandys, when Bishop of London, frenzied by the news of St. Bartholomew's Mas- sacre, wrote to Burghley, saying: " Thus am I bold to un- fold a piece of my mind on the sudden, and to make you partaker of my simple cogitations." Amongst which ap- pears: "Forthwith to cut off the Scottish Queen's head. Ipsa est nostri fundi calamitasT In the same document he further suggested that " the chief Papists of this realm are to be shut up in the Tower, and the Popish old Bishops to be returned thither." 3 Even in calmer moments he had no more regard for life. In 1575, when troubled with some Dutch Anabaptists, he suggested that those who refused to recant should be banished ; " and if they return to lose their lives for it." 4 In 1577, Aylmer was baffled by a priest he had examined; he therefore suggests: "but if he were showed the rack, I think he would not be so close, for he seemeth somewhat timorous. ... It is time, my Lord, to look about . . . and to use more severity than hitherto hath been used, or else we shall smart for it." 6 Thomas Cooper, Bishop of Lincoln, when sending in a certificate of recusants in his diocese, is quite apologetic for the, to him, unfortunate exiguity of his list: "If my certifi- 1 Cotton MS. Caligula c. 11, No. 243, f. 524. 2 Lansd. MS. 12, No. 31. 3 Ibid., 15, No. 41, 5th September, 1572. 4 Ibid., 20, No. 61, nth April. 6 Ibid., 25, No. 30. Aylmer to Burghley, 27th June, 1577. YORK 333 cate do not note unto your honours so many persons as in these corrupt days may seem proportionable to so large a circuit as my diocese containeth, I humbly desire your honours favourably to interpret the same, and not to im- pute it either to negligence in searching, or timorousness in dealing with them." ' This spirit may account for the savagery of a suggestion made by him in 1584, when, as Bishop of Winchester, he complained that Hampshire was overrun with Papists; and the plan he indicated was "that a hundred or two of obstinate recusants, lusty men, well able to labour, may by some convenient commission be taken up and sent to Flanders as pioneers and labourers [for the army there], whereby the country shall be dis- burdened of a company of dangerous people, and the re- sidue that remain be put in some fear." 2 Finally, the Elizabethan episcopate should hardly with grace have in- veighed against their Marian predecessors for committing heretics to the stake. It was at least the law which the latter administered. But it was not the law under Eliza- beth; and yet Edmund Freake, while Bishop of Norwich, committed at least two 3 ignorant men to the flames in punishment of their religious opinions : Matthew Hamount, sentenced by the Bishop on 14th April, 1579, to lose both his ears, which were cut off on 13th May, and to be burnt at the stake, which was carried into effect in the castle ditch on 20th May.' Again, on 18th September, 1583, he tried and condemned to be burnt one John Lewes. 5 With all his efforts, however, Grindal did not succeed in making any real impression on the Yorkshire folk ; and when he succeeded Parker in the See of Canterbury at the end of that year, there was a vacancy of over a twelvemonth before it was refilled by Edwin Sandys from London. During the 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvii, No. 13. Cooper to Council, 25th Octo- ber, 1577- 2 Egerton MS. 1693, f. 117 ; Lansd. MS. 97, No. 20. 3 Cardinal Newman says there were three. Cf. Lectures on present position of Catholics, 1st edition, No. v, p. 206. 4 Hart. MS. 538, No. 29, f. 113. 5 Kennett MS. 482, f. 38. 334 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS interval, the Earl of Huntingdon, Lord President of the North, a bitter Protestant, gave Lord Burghley his impres- sion of the religious condition of those parts. " Truly, my Lord, the declination in matters of religion is very great, and the obstinacy of many doth shrewdly increase . . . those that are in these matters most peevish, so far as I yet see, are in this town [York], women ; and in the country, very mean men of calling. And, as it is told me, their number is great." ' He also impressed upon Lord Burghley his views as to the qualifications needed in an Elizabethan bishop. It may be supposed that Edwin Sandys fulfilled his ideal: "comfortable to the godly, and a terror to the adversary." He pointed out, moreover, that " next to a sound judgment and zeal in religion, which are two most necessary points to be in a bishop, he that shall be in this place had need to be a man which otherwise should be both wise and stout." " A return being required by the Coun- cil of all the recusants, Archbishop Sandys duly complied, and in his covering letter said : " As yet I have not visited my diocese, and so cannot come by full understanding of the offenders. But these are too many, whose intolerable insolency, perverse and contemptuous disobedience is with speed to be repressed, or else hardly the State can stand in quiet safety. ... I have already laboured what I can since my coming hither, as well by persuasion as by execution of discipline to reform them, but little have I prevailed; for a more stiff-necked, wilful, or obstinate people did I never know or hear of. Doubtless they are reconciled to Rome and sworn to the Pope. They will abide no conference, neither give ear to any doctrine or persuasion. Some of them, when the prayer for the Queen's Majesty hath been read unto them, have utterly refused to say Amen unto it. Others do glory (and that not of the simplest sort), that they never knew what the Bible or Testament meant. To some I have offered lodging and diet in my house, that I mi°"ht have conference with them for their conformity, but 1 Harl. MS. 6992, No. 26, f. 50, 12th September, 1576. 2 Lansd. MS. 20, No. 50, 24th June, 1575. YORK 335 they chose rather to go to prison." The lengthy certificate which accompanied this letter afforded ample evidence that the Bishop's statements were in no way overdrawn. The only grain of comfort to him was that he was " credibly informed that there is not one in Nottinghamshire which refuseth to come to church." ' Unfortunately for the Bishop, further enquiry convinced him that his reliance on the conformity of Nottinghamshire had been misplaced; supplementing his first report by a later one, he says : " I well hoped that none such should have been found there. But I perceive that no part of this north country standeth clear and not infected." 2 On 16th April, 1578, Archbishop Sandys wrote to Burghley thus: " I have ended my visita- tion, which I did by myself and not by deputies, to my great charge. Now knowing the state of my diocese, I have by my letters advertised her Majesty thereof, declaring to her Majesty that here is great want of teachers, by reason whereof an ignorant people. . . . The obstinate which refuse to come to church, whereof the most part are women, neither can I by persuasion nor correction bring them to any conformity. They depend upon Comberford [a priest] and the rest in the Castle at Hull. If order be not taken for them, I fear great inconvenience will follow." Nor does he speak highly of the bulk of his flock: "The meaner people here is idle . . . given to much drinking, whereof followeth great incontinency, as well appeared by the great multitude of fornicators presented in this my last visita- tion. Truly, the cause hereof is the want of good instruc- tion." 3 About the same time the Earl of Huntingdon corroborated these views in a report to the Queen, wherein he said : " As touching the state of this country, your Majesty's subjects here (thanks be to God) do to our knowledges in all outward appearance remain quiet, without any notable disorders or open disobedience, except such as be obstinate in religion, or will not assent to say Amen to 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvn, No. 23, 28th October, 1577. 2 Ibid., cxvm, No. 2. Sandys to Council, 1st November, 1577. 3 Lansd. MS. 27, No. 12. 336 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS any prayer set out in the Book of Common Service, no, not to those godly prayers that be for your Majesty; we have tried them therewith before ourselves, and they have refused so to do, and also refuse to come to the church." l The proceedings of the commissioners for causes eccle- siastical in the summer of 1580, and their report that the " Archdeaconry of Richmond hath been and is very obstin- ate and rebellious," and that " they were there more afraid of these times lately past than they had been of the former Rebellion," shows that after twenty-three years of endeavour, very little real headway had been made with the stamping out of the old Faith. 2 A return made in 1 582 states that the number of recusants in Yorkshire was 327.' Hitherto the evidence adduced has been, though first hand and valuable, nevertheless, in a certain sense private, or at least unofficial. Another class of documents may, however, be here appealed to, which, as being the outcome of questions put, or orders issued by the Privy Council, are of their very nature official and public. In the summer of 1563 the Privy Council, as the head executive of the State Church of which the Queen whom they represented was Supreme Head, as so named by Act of Parliament — or Supreme Governor, as she preferred to style herself — issued a letter to all the bishops of both Provinces, calling on them to furnish particulars about their respective dioceses, under certain designated heads. The answers sent in, though complying with the requirements of the Privy Council, were not all drawn up on precisely the same plan, rendering it at this date difficult to tabulate the results with accuracy. Moreover, in process of time, these various returns have found their way into different collections of papers; some even may have been lost; at any rate it is not possible to secure complete returns from all the dioceses. But for general purposes those that are available will serve all practical ends. Some are fuller and 1 P.R.O. Dom. Add. Eliz., xxv, No. 21, 18th May, 1577- - Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxli, No. 3, 5th August, 1580. ' J Did. Nat. Biog., vol. xii, p. 1 50. STATISTICS OF NORTHERN PROVINCE 337 more detailed than others: some give not only the names of the parishes, but even of the incumbents, and are there- fore of particular value to any one anxious to complete lists of incumbents, which for that particular date are strangely and almost uniformly deficient in the county his- tories and other works of a like scope. That aspect of their usefulness is not, however, of interest in this place. The information required of the bishops may be gathered from their answers, and were as follows: (1) the shires com- prised in the diocese; (2) how the diocese was divided, whether into deaneries, archdeaconries, etc., for purposes of government and administration; (3) the list of peculiars within the limits of the diocese, and to whom belonging; (4) the number of churches and chapels; how many had in- cumbents; (5) the number of householders in each parish; (6) information, if possible, about the peculiars, as above. Of these, only Nos. 4 and 5 need concern us here ; and, as a matter of fact, the question of population is of purely academic interest, unless from it could be deduced the pro- portion of Catholics and Protestants. But this is impossible. Before discussing the figures contained in these episcopal returns, the reader's attention is invited to another docu- ment from a Catholic source, which gives a useful synopsis of the English and Welsh dioceses,together with the counties comprised in each, and the number of parishes within each jurisdiction. 1 The grand total of parishes, as given by this list, reaches 9,285, of which 1,083 are in the Northern Province, distributed as follows: York, 582; Chester, 256; Carlisle, 93; Durham, 135; Sodor and Man, 17. It is clear that this list does not include chapels of ease. The York return would be interesting, but it is not forth- coming. Another return, however, probably made in 1565, of "vacant" livings,names thirty -three so deprived of pastors. The reason for the vacancy is, in most instances, the poverty 1 Cf. Records of the English Catholics, p. 93. " Recensio antiquorum Angliae Episcopatuum, cum Comitatibus singulorum ambitu conten- ds ; cui adjungitur numerus Parochiarum quae unicuique Dioecesi subjectae sunt." This is, of course, a sixteenth century list. Z 338 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS of the living. It is strange, however, that this " exility " was, in the majority of cases, only discovered when a married clergy was allowed. 1 The Carlisle return 2 is meagre, giving only the names of parishes, and whether they are served by vicars, rectors, or curates. In all, 1 1 1 churches and chapels are named ; the discrepancy between this total and that given above being accounted for by the inclusion of chapels of ease. The number of householders is not given, nor is any information afforded as to what cures were vacant. Bishop Downham's certificate for the diocese of Chester 3 is fuller. From it may be gathered that the Council's letter was dated 9th July 1 563, and that in his case it was re- ceived on 25th July. The Bishop enumerates 432 churches and chapels serving the needs of 47,212 households, or a population (taking as a basis 5 to a household) of 236,060 souls. No information, however, is given as to vacant cures. The Durham certificate 4 was forwarded to the Council on 16th August, 1563. It is fairly full, as it furnishes the names of the incumbents ; and thus it becomes possible to trace vacancies, which appear to have been but six in all. The presence of some twenty-seven Scotch priests is speci- ally noted. The number of churches and chapels enumer- ated is 201 ; but the returns as to households are incom- plete, 47 of the parishes being without these figures. The rest give a total of 19,816, or a population of 99,080. Strik- ing an average for the remainder, the number of souls in the diocese may be conjectured as being 120,000. Another return " of vacant livings," most probably made in 1565, may here be appealed to. 6 Only three are noted in Dur- ham: Felton, Kirkhaile, and North Bailey (Durham), un- served for four, four, and seven years respectively. The following memorandum tells its own tale: " In the diocese of Durham . . . the parishes be great, the people many, 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., Add., XII, No. 108. 2 Harl. MS. 594, No. 9, f. 85. 3 Ibid., 594, No. 10, f. 89; No. 11, f. 97. 4 Ibid., 594, No. 16, f. 186. 5 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., Add., XII, No. 108. STATISTICS OF NORTHERN PROVINCE 339 the wages small, priests bad and very few to be had, and fewer to be hoped for." The other series of documents to which appeal is here made may be described in the words of the preface with which the late Miss Bateson introduced them to the Cam- den Society for which she edited them. 1 Speaking of these replies sent by the archbishops and bishops to questions put to them by the Privy Council in a letter of 17th October, 1564, she says: " This letter is not now known to be extant, but from the answers of the bishops it appears that they were asked to classify those who were already Justices of the Peace according as they were favourable, indifferent, or hostile to the proceedings of the Government in matters of religion, and also to name the persons who in their opinion were fit to be put into office, and those who should be re- moved from office. . . . As the same method is not adopted by each bishop it is difficult to tabulate the results with accuracy; roughly estimated, the total of Justices marked favourable is 43 1 ; marked indifferent, neuter, or not favour- able, 264; hinderers or adversaries, 157. 2 The dioceses re- ported to be most hostile to the Government were those of the north and west; Carlisle, Durham, York, Worcester, Hereford and Exeter were strong in opposition. Stafford- shire was troubled by a knot of 'hinderers' led by the Vernons, and in Buckinghamshire Sir Robert Drury, Sir Robert Peckham, and Sir William Dormer were the leaders of a large band of men ' not fit to be trusted.' Where the towns are mentioned these are found to be in nearly every case more hostile to the Government than the counties. Newcastle-on-Tyne alone is an exception." 3 The editor further remarks that " the administrators of local govern- 1 1895. Camden Miscellany, vol. ix. A collection of Original Letters from the Bishops to the Privy Council, 1 564, with returns of 'the fust ices of the Peace and others within their respective dioceses, classified ac- cording to their religious convictions. - The two latter categories are in reality but one, subdivided. It maybe said therefore that there were 431 "favourable" to 421 "un- favourable." 3 P. iii. 340 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS ment are here classified according as they supported or opposed the doctrines of the Church of Rome; the bishops were not as yet concerned to exclude the advanced re- formers from office, and there is nothing in these lists to show that they included among the men ' not fit to be trusted ' any persons other than those who were reputed to have leanings towards Roman Catholicism." x Miss Bateson pointed out that " several of the bishops were obliged to re- commend the retention of the services of men who were ' noted adversaries of religion,' either by reason of their in- timate acquaintance with the law, or because they could not recommend any persons as fit to fill their places." - The comment, which is obvious to any one who will read these letters, is also made that " the remedies for disorders suggested by the bishops are the favourite remedies of the time and show no originality; they recommend those in authority to receive the Communion frequently in order to set a good example, and to hear sermons and discourses before quarter-sessions in order to keep their religious duties well in mind; oaths cannot be too frequently administered to suspected persons and to those in authority." 3 Archbishop Young forwarded a detailed list of Justices according to Ridings, etc.; it is well to notice that several of the " favourers " hold office in more than one locality, and hence the names recur more than once ; but the total number of "favourers" is even thus only 58, against 50 " no favourers." The return for the county of Cheshire is particularly well tabulated and is very full, being a model in that respect: summarised, it names 22 only as " favour- able" as against 42 "not favourable." Bishop Pilkington, writing about his See of Durham, mentions that " My Lord of Bedford says that within his charge there is never a Justice of the Peace, nor none that he can recom- mend as meet for that purpose." As regards Northumber- land he reports about Sir R. Ellercar that he " is a very Papist and altogether unlearned," he " mislikes " Thomas Bates, and "doubts" Sir J. Mitforde. He commends as 1 P. h. 2 P. iv. 3 P. vi. STATISTICS OF NORTHERN PROVINCE 341 passable the mayor and ten aldermen of Newcastle-on-Tyne, who were all ex officio Justices of the Peace ; and concerning his own " Bishopric " of Durham he reports 29 favourers, 15 "indifferent," and 2 hinderers. He also mentions 14 who " live quietly and obey the laws," but an inspection of the list proves that several of them were well-known Catholics all their lives. " John Swynborne kept a priest to say him Mass, but he has paid his fine for it." Finally, the Bishop points out that " there be two other things in my opinion which hinder religion here much. The Scottish priests l that are fled out of Scotland for their wickedness and here be hired in parishes on the borders because they take less wages than other, and do more harm than other would or could in dissuading the people. I have done my diligence to avoid them, but it is above my power. The other thing is the great number of scholars born here about, now lying at Louvain without licence, and sending in books and letters which cause many times evil rumours to be spread and disquiet the people. They be maintained by the hospitals of the Newcastle and the wealthiest of that town and this shire, as it is judged, and be their near cousins." ' John Best, the Bishop of Carlisle, who, as has been shown before/ was, to say the least, timorous for the safety of his own person, again owns that " with men of contrary religion I durst have no conference"; but by consulting certain " grave, witty men, good in religion as favourers of the policy of the realm now established," he arrived at the fol- lowing conclusions. In Westmoreland, " such are suffered to pass through the country unapprehended as talk at their pleasure and some have in the wild mountains preached in chapels. The Queen's receivers and other officers of the lower sort, being not good themselves, discourage often such as dare not displease them. And to speak plainly to your honours, the noblemen's tenants in this country dare 1 Like those already referred to, p. 338 ante. ~ P. 67. r> Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xvin, No. 21, 19th July, 1561 ; xxi, No. 13, i^th January, 1 561-2. 342 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS not be known to favour that way for fear of loss of their farmholds. And finally, the Justices of Assize which, only making a good face of religion in giving of the charge, in all other their talks and doings show themselves not favour- able towards any man or cause of religion." ' He then points out that, in his diocese, of twenty Justices of the Peace, twelve are " not good " or "evil," or " to be reformed " in religion, and eight only, including himself, are of good religion and to be continued in office; while he suggests the names of thirteen as fit to be put into the commission. The evidence which has been brought together points to the fact that in the Northern Province, at least up to the end of 1580, it can hardly be maintained that the Eliza- bethan settlement was either welcomed by the people, or that they were "weary of superstition," or that "the num- ber of staunch Romanists was very small." 1 P- 49- Emery Walker photo, ,] [Lambeth Patau MATTHEW PARKER FIRST ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY CONSECRATED KV THE EDWARDIXE ORDINAL Reproduced by kind permission of the Archbishop of Canter! /try CHAPTER IX THE TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS II. — The Southern Province THE preface to the Camden Society's edition of the Bishops' Letters written in 1564, already put under contribution in these pages, says that in the Southern Pro- vince, " Worcester, Hereford and Exeter were strong in opposition" to the Elizabethan settlement of religion. In this present survey of the dioceses, with a view to keeping some sort of geographical order, before commencing with these English Sees and so working gradually towards Lon- don and the primatial See of Canterbury, the reader is in- vited to study the problem as it exhibited itself in Wales. In Elizabeth's days that portion of her dominions, now a stronghold of Nonconformity, was then also in opposition to the State religion ; then from a spirit of conservatism, as now of radicalism. How the change has come about need not here be discussed, for it is outside the purpose of these pages. It is, however, interesting to note, and having noted, to pass on. As a background for the picture that can be painted out of the material furnished by the many letters of the bishops still existing, it may be useful to take a survey of bishops' certificates of their dioceses which were made and returned early in Elizabeth's reign. On 1 8th November, 1560, the Archbishop of Canterbury wrote to Anthony Kitchin, Bishop of Llandaff, requiring him to make a return of much the same information as three years later was demanded of all the bishops by the Privy Council. Amongst the various questions,however,one stands 343 344 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS out strangely, requiring as it does a list of incumbents who were neither priests nor deacons! The answers to the Arch- bishop's queries l were sent by Bishop Kitchin on 20th January, 1 560-1. Two of the prebendaries and a parish rector proved to be merely laymen. Twelve out of thirteen prebendaries were not resident ; some were in their parishes ; some living out of the diocese; one was at Oxford at his studies; and the lay rector referred to was also a student at Christ Church, Oxford. Though the Douay list of dioceses gives Llandaff 177 parishes, Anthony Kitchin enumerated only 141, including the prebends; of these parishes, 25 had incumbents who were non-resident, many of them pursuing their studies at Oxford ; 11 of the incum- bents were pluralists, and 1 1 of the parishes were certified to be void. A further return was made by Kitchin on 4th August, 1 563, in compliance with the Privy Council's letters, received on 28th July." This document enumerates 222 churches and chapels, thus accentuating the discrepancies already pointed out. The number of households was not there given, being promised later, but the incumbents' names are, in most cases, set down. The number of void livings was stated as being fourteen, one of which, however, was being served by a curate. Rowland Meyrick forwarded the certificate for his bishop- ric of Bangor on 13th August, 1 563- 3 This document may be summarised by merely giving its figures. There were 116 parish churches and 72 chapels, or 188 in all, in this differing from the Douay list, which gives a total of 107. These were served by 82 parsons, 26 vicars, and 59 curates — 167 in all. The method resorted to by Meyrick makes it difficult to say how many void livings there were; only six instances are specially noted. The number of households was put down as 7,068, representing a population of about 35,340. 1 Cf. Harl. MS. 7049, No. 23, f. 575. - Cf. ibid., 595, No. 2, f. 10. 3 Cf. ibid., 594, No. 2, f. 17 ; No. 3, f. 29. ST. ASAPH'S 345 The information to be gathered about the diocese of St. David's is contained in two separate papers: (a) Harl. MS. 595, ff. 80-4, of 28th July, 1563; and {b) Harl. MS. 595> ff- 79 and 85-92, of 1 2th October, 1563, which have been mixed up in binding. Comparing these two returns, the resultant details appear to be 317 churches and 130 chapels 1 serving 24,161 households, or an estimated popu- lation of 120,805. Nine only of the parishes are specifically stated to be void; but from the terms of the Bishop's covering letter, this item cannot be altogether accurate, for it is pointed out " that some one curate (for lack of suffi- cient number of ministers and for lack of living), sometime serveth two or three cures next adjoining." Finally, we have the return for the diocese of St. Asaph's, made by its Bishop, Thomas Davies, on 18th August, 1 563.' This list was carefully drawn up, with the names of incumbents, but without the number of households. Most of the livings, 125 in number, 3 had vicars or curates. The returns concerning Justices of the Peace in 1564 are not of much use for Wales, as only Llandaff is represented. Kitchin, too, was then dead, so it fell to Archbishop Parker, during the vacancy, to forward the required in- formation. The Archbishop gives the names of eleven for Glamorganshire and six for Monmouthshire as worthy of commendation and trust, under the cover of a sub-acid letter, plainly showing his own dislike of such inquisitions: " Sir, I send your honour the names of such as be com- mended to me in these shires; what these be, and what others be, your honours of the Council know much better than we can inform you ; and as for myself, I know them not, and sometime informers serve their own turn and gratify their friends." 4 Bishop Richard Davies, of St. David's, wrote to Cecil on 30th January, 1565-6, and said he had heard "that one 1 Compare this with the Douay list giving 308. - Harl. MS. 594, No. 1, f. 1. : ' Douay list names 12 1. 1 Letters, etc., 1564, p. 81. 346 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS Mr. Hughes sueth for Llandaff, a man to me unknown." If he be the same who, in 1573, was made Bishop of St. Asaph, it does not speak well for the standard of choice, for Bishop Davies proceeded to say that " by divers I have heard of him that he is utterly unlearned in divinity, and not able to render a reason of his faith"; hence he begs that such an incompetent man may not be put " in that place that of all other places in England, hath of long time most lacked good doctrine and true knowledge of God, and where in matters of religion, no reformation or redress hath been since the time of the Queen's Majesty's visitation." ' This may very well be true of the diocese presided over by Anthony Kitchin, said to have been " the calamity of his See." A year after his appointment to the See of Bangor (1 566), Nicholas Robinson thus described to Cecil the state of his charge. As regards Caernarvon, Anglesey, and Merioneth, he says the inhabitants " live in much obedience." That regarded their civil allegiance. In matters of religion, how- ever, there was a different tale to tell. " But touching the Welsh people's receiving of the Gospel," he said, " I find by- small experience amongst them here, that ignorance con- tinueth many in the dregs of superstition, which did grow chiefly upon the blindness of the clergy joined with greedi- ness of getting in so bare a country, and also upon the closing up of God's Word from them in an unknown tongue; of the which harms though the one be remedied by the great benefit of our gracious Queen and Parliament, yet the other remaineth without hope of redress, for the most part of the priests are too old (they say) now to be put to school. Upon this inability to teach God's Word (for there are not six that can preach in these three shires), I have found since I came to this country images and altars standing in churches undefaced ; lewd and indecent vigils and watches observed ; much pilgrimage-going, many candles set up to the honour of saints, some relics yet car- ried about, and all the countries full of beads and knots 1 Cf. Lansd. MS. 8, No. 75- BANGOR 347 besides divers other monuments of wilful serving of God." ' Determined as he was to eradicate these " dregs of super- stition," he severely punished any manifestation of Popery when he came across it. Thus on 24th May, 1570, he gave the Privy Council details of the action he had taken against the clergy of Beaumaris for a " disordered service over the corpse of one Lewis Roberts," adding that he had preached " against such faithless prayers " and that he " openly for- bade all prayers and ceremonies over the dead not author- ised by law." 2 Ten years later, in response to the Council's desire for a return of recusants, together with a valuation of their wealth, he wrote to the Bishop of Worcester, and considered himself justified in saying that " I have made diligent search, and at this present can find none that re- fuseth to come to the church, saving one old priest, called Humphrey Barker . . . who being a very poor man hath no goods that be known." However, he knew of certain gentry and yeoman, who previous to that same year used to conform, yet " were detected to have withdrawn them- selves and their families from the time of Lent afore." He had argued with them and hoped to hear of their submis- sion, but could not state the certainty of it at the date of writing. 3 The value of the above statement about the general con- formity of the diocese was not long after discounted by a letter despatched by the Privy Council to Bishop Robin- son/ wherein he is instructed to make secret search in several houses duly specified, in order to find papers im- plicating the owners with one Hugh Owen fled abroad. The Bishop's answer, dated 24th March, 1577-8, shows that however much he had tried to observe the secrecy enjoined by the Council, news had leaked out about the commis- sion he had received, clearly showing the hidden sympathy of some apparently loyal official, "insomuch that at our 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xliv, No. 27, 7th October, 1567. - Ibid., lxix, No. 14. :i Cf. ibid., cxvin, No. 8, 3rd November, 1577- 1 Ibid., CXXlll, No. 1, 2nd March, 1577-8. 348 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS present search now made, some of their wives reported the same, and as it is reported, if any such Papistry or letters were in their said houses, they caused the same to be taken away and either turned or conveyed to other secret places." l And so in this instance a carefully laid trap miscarried, and the Bishop was only able to send up records about abbey and chantry and other concealed lands which he had been able to seize, as also some other papers, in which he sur- mised " that there is meant some other thing than is writ- ten, and that they use some strange and dark phrase of writing that the same their letters might not be under- standed to such as should read the same." He further pointed out that " there be no subscription unto some of the same, and as we take it, that is done of policy lest the letters should be opened or read in the carrying by the way." Thomas Davies replaced Goldwell, the last Catholic Bishop of St. Asaph's, after his deprivation and flight to the continent. Very little is heard of this prelate. But on 16th November, 1570, he wrote to Cecil asking for further assistance in the shape of a commission of visitation, on the grounds that " having reduced my diocese to a better order and reformation than I found it, as well in good and godly religion as life, and yet perceiving a number of wilful and incorrigible persons of evil life and corrupt religion to re- main and escape my hands unreformed and punished within my said diocese, not only by the weakness of my ecclesiastical authority," 2 but also by the remissness of his officials, he needed external help. It is clear from another short letter to Cecil, written on the following 27th January," that his prayer was granted ; but a veil falls over the sub- sequent proceedings and their results. In 1577, when the enquiry was afoot as to the number of recusants, William Hughes, the successor of Thomas Davies, who had died in 1573, reported to Whitgift, then Bishop of Worcester, that he " can understand of none ... so refusing or neglecting to come to the church and hear divine service in such wise 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxxm, No. 11. 2 Ibid., LXXIV, No. 37. 3 Ibid., lxxvii, No. 8. ST. DAVID'S 349 as by the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions and laws is limited and appointed." ' With this cautious and guarded reply, and a promise to report any recusants whom he might hear of later, St. Asaph's passes out of view. St. David's, in South Wales, does not come before us in documentary form till 1 569-70 ; but on 2 5thjanuary, 1 569-70, Richard Davies answered the Council's letters of 6th Nov- ember, 1569, dealing with the ever-recurring theme of administering the oath of Supremacy to the Justices of the Peace. The matter was then of supreme importance, owing to the disaffection in the North just then breaking out into open revolt. A few days earlier, a detailed list of 174 subscribers from all the counties of Wales was sent up; amongst these are the names of several whose religion was undoubtedly Catholic. The turn which events took in the north, however, must have allayed all scruples, and it can- not be doubted that most of the Welsh Justices signed: there is no evidence that any refused, except in the case of the notorious Sir Edward Stradling." Bishop Richard Davies also sent up a detailed and minute report. 3 In this interesting document, he asks the Council " to consider all the spiritual sores and diseases of the diocese and to remedy the same according to your godly wisdoms." He certifies that he cannot find anyone refusing church ser- vices or sacraments: "notwithstanding that, I perceive a great number to be slow and cold in the true service of God. Some careless for any religion, and some that wish the Romish religion again." Certainly, one of his canons, William Luson, who was not only archdeacon of Car- marthen, but also a canon of Hereford, was, at the latter place, and many years later than this, clearly a Catholic, 4 though the Bishop of St. David's does not appear to have suspected it at this time. The " Disorders in the Diocese " 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvm, No. 10, 4th November, 1577. 2 Cf. ibid., lxvi, No. 19, 22nd January, 1569-70, as also all the 13 enclosures. 3 Ibid., LXVI, No. 26, and enclosure 26 i. 4 Cf. Downside Review, vol. vi, p. 54, and Egerton. MS. 1693, f. 81. 350 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS which he enumerates form a curious commentary on the alleged entire conformity in St. Asaph's; and also it con- firms the obstinate spirit exhibited amongst the magis- trates. " There be in the diocese more than two hundred persons vicious livers that have remained excommunicated, some a twelve month, some two years, some three, and some four years and more." The remedy suggested sounds strange to modern ears: " men of a right judgment in re- ligion and uncorrupt conscience ... to have authority to apprehend excommunicate persons, to imprison them or otherwise compel them to reconciliation and amendment of life ... to imprison also, make irregular, and deprive priests incorrigible. To punish pilgrimages to wells, and watchings in chapels and desert places. To call before them the supporters and bearers of superstition and idolatry, etc." That this was not altogether unnecessary may be gathered from a sentence in the Injunctions issued as late as 1583 by Middleton, Bishop of St. David's. " Item that altars and rood lofts may be pulled down and utterly de- faced . . . for as yet, they stand in most churches little or nothing blemished." Further, " whereas heretofore in sun- dry places, it hath been a foolish use amongst a sort of ignorant blind priests that . . . they would take the bread and wine in their hands, lift it up and show it unto the people; whereupon hath ensued horrible idolatries and re- ligious adoration of the Sacraments themselves, or rather of the bread and wine, as by kneeling, knocking of the breast, lifting up of hands, closing of their eyes with the finger and the thumb. For the avoiding whereof it is decreed, etc." l The enquiry set on foot by the Privy Council in 1577 produced a letter from the Bishop of St. David's to Whit- gift of Worcester, wherein occur these passages : " howso- ever some be affected in heart and infected with Papistry, yet can I understand of none that refuseth to come to the church, saving only one . . . he is a very poor man. There is one libertine sometimes in my diocese . . . which although he detest both Papistry and also the religion now established 1 Second Report, Ritual Commission, 1868, App. E, pp. 426-7. LLANDAFF 351 in the Church of England, yet doth he not refuse to come to the church; for one property of that sect is that they think it lawful for them to dissimule." ' Bishop Davies got into a heated personal controversy with Fabian Phillips some time after this; and in a self-exculpatory letter written 24th July, 1579, to Lord Burghley, complains that his adversary's attempts to discredit him tended " to the great encouragement of such as in that town [Carmarthen] yet remain inclined to Papistry." An enclosure accompany- ing this letter contains a sad admission on the Bishop's part as to the immorality then prevalent in his diocese. " But for whoredom indeed, it is so frequent in my diocese, that lamentable it is to hear . . . there be in my diocese put to open penance . . . five hundred persons every year." 2 When Anthony Kitchin died in 1563, the diocese of Llandaff, a very poor one, remained vacant till 1566, when Hugh Jones was appointed. We hear nothing of him till his reply to the Privy Council's enquiries as to the state of the dioceses, issued 6th November, 1569. His answer, dated 26th January, 1569-70, gives an assurance that he had " diligently and carefully . . . from time to time travelled . . . throughout [his] said diocese, making diligent inquisi- tion of the estate and conformity of the people . . . and by preaching and teaching and other good means have reformed all such disorders as I found or could come to the knowledge of. . . . And concerning the resorting of the people to the church to the Common Prayers, I find none disobedient. And as touching the receiving of the Com- munion, I find every man obedient saving . . . two [who] have not received . . . this three years last past, because (as they say) they cannot frame themselves as yet to be in charity " 3 This quaint excuse may be found resorted to not infrequently, in different parts of England : it served as well as any other to stave off the evil day of enforced outward conformity. Hugh Jones died in 1 574, and William Blethyn succeeded him in the following year, and duly certified to 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvin, No. 11, enclosure i, 28th October, 1577. 2 Ibid., CXXXI, No. 42. 3 Ibid., lxvi, No. 29. 352 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS Bishop Whitgift in 1577, the state of his diocese, and for- warded a list of some twenty persons " all obstinate and rich, able to pay their charges and good fines, besides their corporal punishments," including a Justice of the Peace, a schoolmaster, and George Morysse, " who did refuse his livings for that he would not subscribe." These he singles out for the Council to " punish them according to their de- merits," and as a consequence he " would trust that the rest being in number about 200 besides them would rather come and submit themselves." ! The difference between the "none save two " of 1 570 and the more than 200 of 1 577 will doubt- less not be lost on the reader. Most of the names occurring in the above return are repeated in a subsequent one dated 3rd February 1 577-8 ; 2 but the amended detail is given about Morysse that he was " M.A. and a preacher in Queen Mary's days, who did forsake his living for his Romish religion &c, and hath neither lands nor goods." Just a year later, in consequence of receiving a further commission " for the apprehension of popish and Massing priests," feeling that his honour was touched, and " lest (he) should be thought negligent herein," he reminded Walsingham of the above two returns " of all Papists notoriously known within my diocese and to whose houses they repaired for their maintenance " and then entered on a full account of the pro- ceedings of George Morris [Morysse], as above. 3 The point of the letter lies in this, that it makes it clear that twenty years after the parliamentary change of religion, and after it had been certified that Papistry had been practically extin- guished in Wales, we are afforded practical proof, not only of the presence of priests, who had evidently been at work all that time secretly ; but that, of necessity, they had had " maintainers," supporters, followers, and sympathisers. Such a conclusion not only prepares the way for the following documents, it also shows that the action taken by the Privy Council was, from the point of view of the reform- ing party and of the notions of the time, a necessity. 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvin, No. 11, enclosure ii, 25th October, 1577- 2 Ibid., cxxn, No. 31. 3 Ibid., cxxix, No. 30, 3rd February, 1578-9- WALES 353 Nevertheless practical proof is given, if proof were needed, in an official and State document, that the efforts to crush out Catholicism had been futile, and up to 1580 had met with failure. Richard Prise, writing to Lord Burghley on 31st January, 1575-6, gave him, from the reformers' point of view, but a sorry account of the evil state of religion in Wales. " The people," he says, "... do still in heaps, go on pilgrimage to the wonted wells and places of superstition, and in the nights, after the feasts, when the old offerings were used to be kept, at any idol's chapel, albeit the churches be pulled down, yet do they come to the place where the church or chapel was, by great journeys barefoot, very superstitiously, &c. . . . near generally all dare to profess and maintain [Popery]." ' An undated paper, 2 but belonging to about 1580, amongst other complaints contained in it levelled against the in- habitants of North Wales, points out that " Truly at this day, if you look thoroughly to the whole number of gentle- men and others of all sorts in North Wales, ye shall scarcely find any (the bishops and some few others excepted) yet in any sort well instructed in the faith of Christ ; for of the whole multitude, such which be under thirty years of age [z'.e., born in and after 1550] seem to have no show of any religion; the others well near generally all dare to profess and to maintain the absurdest points of popish heresy, according to which knowledge (most lamentable to be spoken) the greatest number of them do frame their lives in looseness, licentiousness, contention and other such like." In June, 1579, Instructions were drawn up by the Privy Council for the guidance of the Council of the Marches of Wales. This lengthy document came into being because the Queen " hath been to her great grief given to under- stand that . . . through lack of good teaching and negligence of the clergy, certain evil disposed persons being sent from Rome and termed Reconcilers, have crept among her High- ness's subjects of those parts and seduced many of them from the true religion." Hence, after enquiries to be made 1 Ellis, Original Letters, vi, pp. 41-50. 2 Lansd. MS. Ill, No. 4. A A by them as to the number, competency, and assiduity of the " preachers," further points of enquiry are indicated, such as : " whether divers of the best benefices are not bestowed upon children under colour of finding [i.e., sup- porting] of them in the Universities; or else upon persons not admitted to the ministry; and how many benefices have been bestowed upon gentlemen and other laymen." After other clear indications of the existence of grave irregularities within the Establishment itself, subjects more germane to the present survey present themselves. " Whether there have not been in any of those parts certain disguised persons, or otherwise, who under the colour of being school- masters, physicians, surgeons, serving men and such like, have dispersed abroad many Bulls from the Bishop of Rome, Agnes [sic] Dei, Beads, Grains, and such like superstitious and popish stuff; and dissuaded any person from coming to the church and conforming himself to the religion now established . . . who have been the harbourers, receivers, maintainers and conveyers away of any such persons. . . . Whether any of the said persons or other whatsoever have at any time said Mass in the houses of any such receivers or harbourers, and who were present at the saying of the said Mass. . . . Whether any person or persons have been by such disguised persons rebaptised or married ; by whom and in whose presence. . . . Whether such schoolmasters as have been admitted to teach children, either in public places or in private houses, have been duly examined of the sincerity of their doctrine . . . and what they be that have been otherwise tolerated. . . . What persons within these seven years past have been in the parts beyond the seas, unless they shall be known to be merchants, . . . What persons have for the space of seven years last past willingly absented themselves from coming to the church. . . . Assure all and every such person [so offending " especially of the meaner sort "] that they shall [on submission and amend- ment] be forborne from all manner of further punishment . . . provided always that unto the priests and others which have said Mass, or otherwise shall be found principal WORCESTER 355 offenders and ringleaders of the rest you grant no such favour. . . . And further, whereas among some other par- ticular disorders reported to be daily committed in those parts, we have been informed that the people hath hereto- fore used to repair in great numbers unto a certain Well in the county of Flint called St. Winifred's Well after a super- stitious sort and manner of pilgrimage, although it be by some coloured to be for the water, which is pretended to be medicinable, which we notwithstanding are credibly in- formed is not, you shall first cause a substantial trial to be made, whether the said well-water be medicinable or no. And if it shall fall out to have any such virtue, then . . . that only such diseased persons be admitted to the use of the same as it is likely may thereby be cured; and that the repair of such great confused multitudes of others be restrained. But if it shall ... be found not to have any such medicinable quality at all, but only to have been fre- quented for some other vain and superstitious use, then . . . that . . . the buildings and walls of the said well or fountain ... be defaced and taken down and . . . that no such repair of people be suffered to assemble themselves there under any such pretext or colour hereafter. . . ." ' When Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries he pre- served some for a special purpose, refounding them as colleges of canons, when they were attached to existing cathedrals, as Canterbury, Winchester, Norwich, and Wor- cester. Others, as Carlisle and Peterborough, he erected into cathedrals, thus increasing the traditional number of dioceses. His provisions for the maintenance of the fabrics and for the observance of divine service were carefully drawn up and indentured. Those for Worcester, for ex- ample, may be seen, in effect, in a document now at the Record Office. 2 They there appear in a complaint lodged that already, so early in Elizabeth's reign, the Chapter, under the new regime were scandalously unobservant of their ob- ligations. Moreover, they were despoiling the goods of the 1 Cotton MS. Vitellius C. I, No. 12, f. 118. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xxvm, No. 35, ? April, 1563. 356 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS church for their own personal enrichment. " The pipes of a great pair of organs, which cost £200 the making, being one of the most solemn instruments of this realm," says the complaint aforesaid, " are molten into dishes, and divided amongst the prebendaries' wives. The Case hath made bedsteads; the like is done and become of certain timber and wainscot which Queen Mary gave for the new making of the Choir. The silver plate is divided amongst the said prebendaries, who likewise intend [ed] to divide the copes and ornaments, and had so done, had not some of them being unmarried, resisted ; sustaining therefor the displeasure of some of their fellows, being married." The great steeple, " called the leaden steeple," and the Charnel House, " the lead whereof is worth £600, were lately appointed to be pulled down ... if order to the contrary had not come from this honourable Board [the Privy Coun- cil] or her Majesty, as it is said." Many other abuses and instances of wrong-doing are enumerated, showing the need for instant and strict investigation and redress. At the same time serious charges were made by Sir John Bourne against Edwin Sandys, the Bishop of Worcester. The details of accusations and rebutments, countercharges, and apologies, do not concern this narrative. 1 But they show that affairs in the diocese were not satisfactory, and perhaps had some bearing upon the enquiry shortly after set on foot as to the state of all the dioceses generally. That enquiry, as regards Worcester diocese, elicited the fact that out of 259 churches (or 305 if the 46 exempt churches be included) 20 were, at the date of the certificate, 20th September, 1563, then void and unserved: 14 were void but were served by curates, and 4, though not vacant, had non-resident incumbents and were otherwise unserved. The number of households is stated to be 11,165, gi vm g an estimated population of 55, 825. 2 The following year saw the enquiry set on foot by the Privy Council concern- ing the conformableness of the Justices of the Peace. Bishop 1 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xxvm, Nos. 36-9, 42-6. 2 Harl. MS. 595, No. 28, f. 205 and f. 209. WORCESTER 357 Sandys's reply was distinctly discouraging. He reports on 112 gentlemen. Of these $6 are stated to be " favourers," 46 are labelled as " adversaries," while the residue, 30, are " indifferent." He includes himself, the Dean of his Cathe- dral and his Chancellor amongst the favourers, and it is to be noted that, amongst the so-called "indifferent." several known Catholics are to be recognised. As these " indiffer- ent " Justices could clearly have been counted on to declare for the Catholic side on an emergency, it is not too venture- some to say that 76 " adversaries " to 36 " favourers," or more than two to one, constituted a real element of danger in case of recourse to severe measures against the recus- ants of the diocese. In acquainting the Privy Council with these facts, the Bishop suggested certain methods of counteracting the evil: " If all such as mislike and contemn true religion, now by common order set forth, were put out of authority and public office. If the oath for the Queen's Majesty's Supremacy were tendered to all such as bear rule or be of authority in their country and yet known to be adversaries to true religion. If such as be put in commission for the peace, or are called to other offices in the common- wealth, should take their oaths openly at the sessions or some other public place for the Queen's Supremacy. If gen- tlemen and such as be in authority were enjoined every quar- ter to receive the Communion and to hear a sermon to the good example of others." Of more immediately practical value, however, is the following: " If popish and perverse priests which, misliking religion, have forsaken the ministry and yet live in corners, are kept in gentlemen's houses and had in great estimation with the people, where they marvel- lously pervert the simple and blaspheme the Truth, were restrained of their liberty and put to the oath for the Queen's Majesty's Supremacy." 1 This is a pregnant passage; for, in a few lines is pictured the true situation in England at that period, and for long afterwards. Many in- cumbents left their cures rather than take the oaths of 1 Camden Miscellany, vol. ix, Letters from the Bishops to the Privy Council, 1564, pp. 1-8. 358 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS Supremacy and Uniformity. Yet it was these, rather than those who took their places, rather than those, also, who conformed, who were " kept in gentlemen's houses and who were had in great estimation with the people"; — plainly showing the real sentiments of the majority of the nation. It was a minority, backed by laws made in a packed and subservient Parliament, which imposed its will on an un- willing majority. Sandys's methods were drastic rather than persuasive; and, in the early days of his episcopate, he seems to have been taken to task by his Metropolitan, the gentle and moderate Parker, for the unnecessary harshness and severity of his rule. His reply 1 is worth reading in extenso; but only two sentences need here be quoted, as showing the spirit that animated him, and the merely out- ward observance which that spirit had secured. That it was merely outward is proved by what has been quoted from his report made in 1564, and receives confirmation from subsequent correspondence. He thus expressed himself in 1560: " How his [the Bishop of Hereford's] folks go I can- not well tell, but I assure you mine go so soberly and decently as they offend no piece of the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions. For if I be under the yoke, such as pertain to me shall draw in the same yoke with me." The next glimpse afforded us of the Bishop's sentiments in regard to his flock is in a letter written during the fears and alarms caused by the Rising in the North. Bearing this fact in mind, the main references of the following letter are suffici- ently clear. It was penned for Cecil's information on 12th December, 1569: "... I have here long laboured to gain good will: the fruits of my travail are counterfeited coun- tenances and hollow hearts : this small storm maketh many to shrink: hard it is to find one faithful. The rulers will not displease, but so serve the time that they may be safe in all times. Religion is liked as it may serve their own turn: not one that is earnest and constant. . . . But I have at hand a constant and cruel enemy, who desireth nothing more than my destruction: he daily molesteth me and 1 Parker Corresp., No. 90, 24th October, 1560. WORCESTER 359 maketh me weary of mine office; he will, if he can, work my woe. None love him for himself, but for his religion many like of him. 1 In the appointing of soldiers from hence [i.e., to serve against the rebels] no respect was had to religion, a matter to have been minded in my opinion ; they well considered to spare their own tenants, and to send forth mine. . . . Wales with the borderers thereof is vehem- ently to be suspected. . . . Sundry Justices here have not yet subscribed; which thing to avoid, suddenly some of them went out of the country. It will give great offence and much hinder the cause, except they be in short time compelled to do as others have done. More give their hands than their hearts, and may say with Euripides: ' Lingua juravi ; vientem injuratam gero."' 2 The true im- port of this letter and its complaints is made still clearer, were there any hesitancy in the matter possible, from the endorsement of this letter, placed there by the receiver's secretary: " Bp. of Worcester to my master: complaining of such as dissemble with him. Papists or favourers of them in those parts. The danger from them at this junc- ture." Earlier in the same year Bishop Sandys held a visitation of his diocese ; and prepared for the same a series of forty-seven articles of enquiry for the whole diocese, 3 and a supplementary series of thirty-four for the Dean and Chapter. 4 Those that are of a routine nature, as of course most of them are, may be passed over; but attention is called to the following points: (7) " Item, whether that your minister be an earnest setter-forth of true religion ... or that he rather in private talk or by the contemptuous using of his office is an hinderer of the same." (25) " Item, whether you have removed out of your church all rood lofts, altars and altar stones, images, crosses, candlesticks, with all other monuments of idolatry and superstition, and what is become of the same ; whether they be reserved or 1 There can be little doubt that the person referred to is Sir John Bourne, brother to the deprived Bishop of Bath and Wells. 2 Lansd. MS. 11, No. 70. 3 Cf. ibid., 11, No. 94. ' Cf. ibid., 11, No. 95. 3 6o TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS burned; and if they be reserved, in what place they be, and who hath the keeping of them." (26) Item, whether there be any Latin books, Mass books, grayles, portesses, and such other books of Popery reserved in your church, or in any private man's hand, who hath the keeping of them, and whether any abrogate holydays be observed, and by whom." (28) " Item, whether there be any . . . being of lawful age that hath not received the Communion every year thrice." (29) " Whether there be any . . . that use to pray upon Latin books, or beads, or have the same in their keeping." (30) " Item, whether there be any . . . that by speech or otherwise deprave the service of the Church now received, or speak against true religion now set forth, or either by word or writing maintain the usurped authority of the Bishop of Rome, the blasphemous private Mass, or any other point of Popery." (32) " Item, whether there be any . . . that hath in his keeping any of Mr. Harding's books, or such other as came from Louvain or elsewhere, impugning religion now by common order received." (34) " Item, whether you know any . . . defamed, reported, or vehemently suspected to have said or heard Mass since such time as it was abolished . . ." (35) Item, whether you know any that have forsaken the ministry as misliking true religion now by order set forth, and notwithstanding in corners say Mass and labour by all kind of persuasion to pervert and seduce the simple people. . . ." (42) " Item, whether there be any that have refused or neglected to have his or their children baptised in the Church, according to the order received. . . ." Such questions would not have been asked unless the conviction had existed that some affirmative answers were sure to be forthcoming. In the same way Nos. 32 and 33 of the queries put to the Dean and Chapter were framed to detect lurking Catholicism. (32) " Item, whether there be any that do refuse to follow and obey the Queen's proceedings appointed by the statutes of this realm and the Common Book of Prayers in any thing." This is, it is true, applicable to Puritan as well as to Papist; but the next article shows what class of delinquent was up- WORCESTER 361 permost in the minds of the Bishop and his officials. (33) " Item, whether there be any that do withdraw themselves from the Communion and sermons, or which maintain by talk or otherwise Popery, idolatry and superstition." Edwin Sandys was translated to London in 1570, and thence to York in 1577. At first he refused the See of London, and thereby annoyed Cecil. When he learnt this fact, he wrote a propitiatory letter, in which the follow- ing passage occurs: "If you glome 1 upon me, I shall serve Christ's Church with less comfort and to less profit. The world thinketh that you are my very good friend and that I may do somewhat with you ; if the Papists may learn misliking, they will easily overcrow me, and it will much weaken my work in God's Church." ' Such words show that the Catholics were still in some force and had to be reckoned with. To the end of his life Sandys was pursued not only by their undying hatred, but by that of others as well, the animosities aroused during his tenure of the See of St. Wulstan never having been allayed. The reasons are not far to seek. If he was determined to secure conformity in others, he was also careful not to miss any opportunity of enriching himself and his relatives at the expense of his Sees. The disgust created in men's minds by such glaring rapacity and nepotism was at the bottom of much of the opposition shown to him by Sir John Bourne and others. That this disgust was not ill-founded may be seen in docu- ments relating to the See of Worcester still existing.' Even Lord Burghley was constrained at last to take notice of it; and in May, 1586, annotated a most damaging catalogue of the grants and leases which Sandys, then Archbishop of York, had made in favour of his family. This paper ' enumerates twenty-six grants made during a nine years' tenure of the See of York, of which, as Lord Burghley sums up at the end, six leases went to his son Samuel, five to Myles, four to Edwin, and two each to Henry, Thomas, 1 Frown. 2 Lansd. MS. 12, No. 82, 26th April, 1570. Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., CXI, Nos. 24, 25, 26. * Lansd. MS. 50, No. 34. 362 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS and George, while another was bestowed upon his son-in- law, Anthony Awcher, worth in all about .£1750 yearly — an enormous sum. The Archbishop defended his action. " I grant," he wrote to Lord Burghley, " that I gave (as I lawfully might), to my six sons, every one two leases in reversion. ... I am bound in conscience to take care over my family"; and in justification cited the example of his predecessor, Grindal, who, " within two months that he was translated unto Canterbury, gave unto his kinsmen, his servants, and for round sums of money to himself, six score leases and patents." The whole letter is instructive. 1 The returns about recusants asked for by the Privy Council, as to date, really belong to Whitgift's episcopate; but the in- formation they give, properly concerns Sandys's tenure of the See. Forty-nine persons were " detected " for not attend- ing divine worship at their parish churches; but the per- functory character of these enquiries, coupled with the admissions already quoted, shows that many more recusants must have escaped detection. This surmise is made clear by a letter from Whitgift to the Privy Council, dated 5th Nov- ember, 1577, in which he states that the diocesan officials, "have not hit the meaning . . . of your letters; for in that visitation there was not one gentleman nor person of wealth presented for not coming to hear divine service ; and yet it is well known that there are both men and women of great countenance and revenues within my diocese guilty there- in." 2 The gist of his remarks, which are too general for quotation, may be summed up in part of the endorsement of the letter: "... to reform the disorder of Popery in those parts." The diocese of Hereford, which long remained one of the most opposed to the principles of the Reformation, was provided with a prelate in every possible way distasteful to the sentiments of both the clerical and lay elements within its borders. John Scory had originally been a Dominican; and after the dissolution of the religious houses, 1 22nd May, 1586; Lansd. MS. 50, No. 33. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvm, No. II. HEREFORD 363 he went with the reformers. In 1551 he became Bishop of Rochester, and shortly after was transferred to Chichester. His episcopal consecration was questioned, indeed not acknowledged, under Mary; but on Elizabeth's accession, he was not restored to his old See; his services could not be dispensed with altogether as he formed a useful link with the past, and he was therefore appointed to Here- ford. These facts will partly account for the unceasing strife that marked the whole of his episcopate, and caused him, at one time, to seek transfer elsewhere. He earnestly petitioned Lord Burghley to that effect in the following pathetic terms: "help me out of this country, wherein I am persuaded that I can never do much good . . . who hath lived here these fifteen years (as they say) in a purgatory. Therefore, my good Lord, have pity on my grey head, that it may be brought to the grave (if it be God's pleasure) with some more quiet than hitherto it hath had." l He was, how- ever, left at Hereford till his death ten years later. His first grievance was personal and very real, for, finding a new survey of his lands necessary, and making application for this purpose, he begged of Cecil that one Richard Harford (or Harvard) might not be one of the commissioners, since he was "the very root from whence my whole adversity and trouble doth spring out — a man without the fear of God, abhorring His Gospel and the embracers of the same. . . . Then an archdeacon . . . now a layman lewdly hinder- ing all godliness and the cause of the godly, whose endeavour against me hath so prevailed that my book {i.e., statement of revenues, etc.] hath been thrice altered, and now my living hardly left with £400 yearly, and yet no remedy: I must pay tenths and first fruits after the rate of .£700 yearly, and above." ' The letter then refers to the affairs of the diocese at large: " the disorder of the Cathedral Church of my bishopric is such that it may justly be accounted a very nursery of blasphemy, whoredom, pride, superstition and ignorance; and yet no power in me to reform it, the 1 Lansd. MS. 20, No. 63, 13th June, 1575. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xvn, No. 32, 21st June, 1561. 364 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS same being exempt from my jurisdiction, contrary to the usage in all other like churches." On 17th August, 1561, he showed Cecil that his own sense of freedom under the " liberty of the Gospel " was rudely shocked by the observ- ances retained around him. " Understanding by my man that your honour desireth further to be instructed touching the hindrance of religion in this country by popish Justices, it may please you to be advertised that upon Thursday last past there was not one butcher in Hereford that durst open his shop to sell one piece of flesh; and the next day being Friday there was not one in the whole city, Gospeller nor other, that durst be known to work in his occupation or to open his shop to sell anything, so duly and precisely was that abrogate fast and holyday ' there kept. . . . And this disorder in observing abrogated fasts and holydays hath divers times happened since my coming into this country; and although I have (God be thanked) brought the country to conformity of the laws herein . . . yet the city being exempt from my jurisdiction, remaineth as before." As an instance of his utter helplessness, Scory declared that " Mugge, Blaxton, Arden, Gregory, Ely, Havard the priest [all priests], and such like enemies of the truth that were driven out of Exeter, Worcester, and other places," found a safe asylum in Hereford, with the connivance of the local Justices, and were " so maintained, feasted and magnified with bringing them through the streets with torchlights in the winter, that they could not much more reverently have entertained Christ Himself, if they had known Him visibly and personally among them. 2 He had tried, unsuccessfully, to arrest the above-named " Massers," but had been thwarted by the Justices who spirited them away when he began to search for them in Hereford. Hence, in the bitterness of his soul, he exclaims: " I am in this country a mere stranger, abhorred of the most part for religion, lying among them not without danger (which I 1 Vigil and Feast of the Assumption B.V.M. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xix, No. 24. HEREFORD 365 am sure to feel, if God do not frustrate the expectation of many of them, as my trust is He will) ... I assure your honour that among the worshipful of this shire, there be not many favourers of true religion." l Archbishop Parker and Grindal, Bishop of London, saw the seriousness of the impasse, and, coming to Scory's aid, applied for "her Highness' letters to authorise the now Bishop to visit the same Church from time to time as occasion shall serve, whereby that Church shall be purged of many enormities." J Nothing seems to have resulted, however, from their inter- vention ; so that, more that twenty years later, Aubrey, the Vicar-General of the Province of Canterbury, writing to Walsingham, stated that the Chapter of Hereford had " always pretended they be exempt by their charters and privileges as well from the Archbishops of Canterbury as they were from their own Bishops." As the only remedy, he suggested a " commission to visit sufficient to exclude them from all quarrels and colour of exceptions . . . im- mediate from the Queen's Majesty, whose authority only they do [admit] for visitation and all other kinds of correc- tion." 3 The Privy Council enquiry in 1563 as to the state of the various dioceses, elicited little of interest from Bishop Scory; but " The Cathedral Church of Hereford and the prebendaries and ministers of the same Church are ex- empted from my ordinary jurisdiction, and under the juris- diction of none that I know (except the Queen's Majesty). Also every canon and prebendary in his own house is his own Ordinary, and Ordinary to all his family : so that neither I nor the Dean of the Cathedral Church have anything to do with them." 4 Bishop Scory's letter to the Council, in 1564, about the religious tendencies of the Justices, is, of course, merely corroborative of what has gone before: " although I am persuaded," he says, " that to certify . . . may procure me more hatred (which needeth not) and what 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., XIX, No. 24. 2 Ibid., XXII, No. 12, 13th March, 1561-2. 3 Egerton MS. 1693, f- 95> Ioth May, 1582. * Lansd. MS. 6, No. 84. 366 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS as hatred can do, yet " he furnishes a list, not quite in the terms asked for, but sufficiently distinct for the present purpose. The totals amount to 54 who are " favourers," 49 " adversaries," and 20 " neuters." His opinion had been asked only about Justices of the Peace, but his return em- braced others, presumably those whom he was anxious to see included in the commission for the peace. It remains to observe that many distinctly " Catholic " names occur amongst those classed as " neuters." Likewise, the Bishop asserts, doubtless with accuracy, that " of the whole Council of Hereford (city) there is not one that is counted favour- able to this religion." In the same way, he remarks of the Justices in Radnorshire, that "none . . . are counted favourers of this religion; but the best of them is judged but a neuter." Ludlow is credited with six "favourers"; but "the rest of this town are counted either enemies or neuters." The details about individual gentlemen are occasionally very full ; and a suspicion is engendered that the Bishop took an unfair advantage of the confidential nature of his communi- cation to damage the reputations of his personal enemies. Thus he writes of Thomas Havard, " Justice of Peace, which by common fame is a daily drunkard, a receiver and main- tainer of the enemies of religion, a maintainer of superstition and namely of abrogated holydays. He useth to pray upon a Latin Primer full of superstitions. His wife and maidens use beads; and, to be short, he is a mortal enemy to Christian religion." His griefs, as already recounted, re- appear on this occasion, he evidently considering it a favourable opportunity for securing a hearing for them. "There be also in this diocese and county of Hereford divers fostered and maintained that be judged and esteemed some of them to be learned, which in Queen Mary's days had livings and offices in the Church, which be mortal and deadly enemies to this religion. Their names be Blaxton, Mugge, Arden, Ely, Friar Gregory, Howard, Rastall of Gloucester, Jonson, Menevar, Oswald, Hamerson, Ledbery, and certain others whose names I know not. These go from one gentleman's house to another where they know HEREFORD 367 to be welcome. . . . The chief and principal receivers and maintainers of these are William Luson, canon residentiary of Hereford, the vicars of the choir there," etc., etc. (twelve in number). " And of these there be certain thought to have Masses in their houses, which come very seldom or not at all to church, which never received the Communion since the Queen's Majesty's reign openly in the church, which keep, as it were, schools in their houses of Popery, deriding and mocking this religion and the ministers thereof. ... I must needs confess that I am not able to reform these, except I should be mightily backed by your honourable authority, and have those worshipful Justices which are deemed favourers of religion to be more earnestly aiding than they have been." " Besides mine own knowledge, Mr. John Ellys, Dean of the said church [of Hereford], hath certified me as followeth: that all the canons resid- entiaries (except Jones, qui dicit, et non facit, which is rash, hasty, and indiscreet), are but dissemblers and rank Papists. And these have the rule of the church, and of all the ministers and officers of the same, and are neither subject to the ordinary jurisdiction, neither of the Dean, nor of the Bishop, but were reserved immediately to the usurped jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, and now to the Queen's Majesty (as they say), which they claim and hold by pre- scription, so that now they may do what they list without controlment. They neither observe the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions given unto them in her Highness' visitation, nor the Archbishop of Canterbury's Injunctions given them in his visitation, nor yet the Injunctions of the Queen's Majesty's High Commission. . . . The Communion was not ministered in the Cathedral Church since Easter (as I am informed). The canons will neither preach, read homilies, nor minister the holy Communion, nor do any other thing to commend, beautify, or set forwards this religion, but mutter against it, receive and maintain the enemies of religion. . . . The said Dean hath also certified me that the vicars of the choir, the deacons and sextons, be all mortal enemies to this religion, receivers and main- 368 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS tainers of such as themselves be." ' This letter is undated, but was written about the end of October. On 1 7th February following, Bishop Scory wrote to Archbishop Parker, say- ing he had lately received an order from the Queen to make a return concerning the observance of the Act of Uniformity in his diocese. He complains that, as before mentioned, the greatest disorders prevailed in the Cathedral Church. " The Communion (as I am informed) was not above once ministered there since Easter." " Blaxton, Mugge, Arden and divers others such like, enemies of God and true religion, were entertained of some of them [the canons] as if they are God's angels . . . the railing, seditious, and false books of Harding and Dorman are there common, and magnified and extolled to the sky." " The remainder of this long letter contains much the same matter as that sent to the Privy Council in the previous autumn. About this time, too, approximately 1565, a return of vacant livings in various dioceses names thirteen then unprovided in that of Here- ford.' 1 That Scory was not altogether without grounds for apprehending personal violence appears from a letter sent by Lord Burghley to the President and Council of Wales, 1 dated 30th June, 1 571, ordering them to enquire into an attack on the Bishop's servants, in the town of Bromyard, in the course of which it is said that Scory " dare not well without a great guard travel from his dwelling house," and the letter concludes with the following words: " And herein we have the more cause to warn you to be earnest for the safety of the Bishop, for that in this last Parliament we understand he was in like manner assaulted by such as we presume are parties to this last riot." Bishop Scory's letter, asking to be translated to Norwich, 5 has already been quoted from ; but other portions may here be cited, show- 1 Camden Miscellany, vol. ix, Letters from the Bishops to the Privy Council, 1564, pp. 1 1-23. - Harl. MS. 6990, No. 30, f. 64. 3 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. Add., XII, No. 108. 4 Harl. MS. 4943, f. 256. 5 13th June, 1575 ; Lansd. MS. 20, No. 63. HEREFORD 369 ing, through the hatred he experienced, that Popery was still rife in the diocese. He reminds Lord Burghley that he " objected that [he] heard evil of me, namely that I should be an usurer." Though, as has been seen, Scory complained of the poverty of his revenues, and though, nevertheless, he managed to make ample provision for his family, 1 yet judg- ing by a list appended to this letter, he had ready cash always at command, which he loaned to those needing help. At the date of writing 59 individuals had repaid him, but 19 were still in his debt. To the Bishop's credit be it said, that the loans were not made " upon usury," as had been charged against him. 2 The Bishop pathetically complains: " it is no new thing for the people of this country to speak evil of me (whom they have so often and so diversely slandered) . . . the two certificates that I made of the names of the Papists of this country at the commandment of the most honourable Privy Council, the one about 10 or 12 years [1564], the other about five years past (whereof they were shortly after as privy as myself) . . . will never out of their hearts; besides the common grief they have against me for religion; which I, my men and friends have found and felt at assizes and sessions and elsewhere." Notwithstanding the obloquy cast upon him by his flock for previous delations, the Privy Council, in 1577, demanded yet another certificate of recusants of him in common with the rest of the bishops. While complying, however, with the orders of the Privy Council, mindful of past ex- periences, he begs them " to take such order that these our faithful means and doings be not disclosed to the ' spialls ' of the Papists of this country that be about the Court, who I think be not unknown to your honours, who have been wont in times past to give notice to their friends here of such matters." 3 The two gentlemen he consulted as to the values of recusants' property differed in their estimates. 1 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., CXXXVii, No. 72, and Athenae Ca7itabrig. sub nomine. 2 Cf. ibid., cv, No. 8, 5th July, 1575, John Abington to Bp. Scory. 3 Ibid., cxvm, No. 7, 2nd November, 1577. B B The Bishop adopted the lower valuation, for, as he cau- tiously remarked, " it were better to offend in estimating men too little than too much." l The appended list con- tains over fifty names of substantial recusants: those who were not worth fining were, probably, not worth reporting. Some of the details given in this list furnish a better commentary on the value of outward conformity than pages of explanation and description could do. Thus : " James Eton of Hereford, Chapter Clerk to the Dean and Chapter and Registrar to the Dean there, cometh to the Church but sitteth so far that he neither heareth nor can hear, whereat many are offended." " John Vicares, of Here- ford, brewer, cometh to St. John's, his parish church . . . but he walketh up and down in time of divine service in a place so far off that he cannot hear." " John Hareley, of Brompton, Esq., cometh to church, but doth there in the time of divine service read so loud upon his Latin popish Primer (that he understandeth not), that he troubleth both the minister and people." a A marginal note also called the Council's attention to the fact that the three mentioned in the following extract were priests. " Richard Powle, school- master, lately of Sutton; Richard Fitzsimons, joiner; Miniver, priests, all three false seducers and teachers in corners." 3 Exeter was ruled by William Alley for ten years (71570); but no correspondence of his bearing on the con- formity of his diocese is worth quoting. His report on the state of his diocese in 1563, dated 19th July, 4 is meagre, and the little that can be learnt from it is that three churches in Exeter itself were vacant, and that the youthful arch- deacons of Totnes and Barnstaple were both pursuing their studies at Oxford. Next year, in answering the de- mands of the Privy Council about the disposition of the Justices of the Peace within his jurisdiction, he was not much more explicit. Cornwall showed four " very great" or 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvm, No. 7, 2 November, 1577. 2 Ibid., cxvm, No. 7 i. 3 Ibid. 4 Harl. MS. 594, No. 18, f. 202. EXETER 371 " extreme " enemies, while nine were recommended to be included in the commission. In Devon, two of the Justices were "not counted worthy"; but the rest, not named, though "not so earnest to maintain the ecclesiastical policy " were nevertheless " for their learning, knowledge, and wisdom," considered indispensable on the bench of magistrates. He then proceeded to give "the names of those which are no Justices, yet being of some authority, are judged no favourers of the foresaid state." " The great Arundell of Cornwall" 1 heads the list; nine other names follow, Tregian, Tremayne, etc.; and "others there be which are of a contrary disposition ; but these be the chief- est, or at the least so counted." 2 Alley was succeeded by William Bradbridge, who does not appear to have been as active as most of his episcopal brethren. Only two records of his tenure of Exeter concern this enquiry. The one is a letter he wrote to Lord Burgh- ley on 3rd December, 1576, in which he asked him "to have some remembrance of the Cornishmen which are com- manded to wait above for their refusal to come to the church, Mr. Robert Beckote, Richard Tremayne, and Francis Ermyn, with whom as yet I cannot prevail to work any good conformity, whether the cause be the bold- ness that they have conceived by reason of the lenity used in these our days, or rather their hope of alteration in time to come, because I see they crave ever respite of time, and in time grow rather indurate than reformable." 3 The other document is his reply to the Council on 28th October, 1577. 4 He states that Cornwall is the portion of his diocese " where are the greatest number of Papists." The list pre- pared by him and his confidants contains over thirty names of persons of wealth or substance, most of whom had already been " indicted," some had been " condemned," while three had " fled." The condition of affairs in this 1 Sir John Arundell of Lanherne. 2 Camden Miscellany, vol. ix, Letters from the Bishops to the Privy Council, 1564, pp. 67-71. s Lansd. MS. 23, No. 8. * P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. cxvil, No. 25. 372 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS diocese has, however, been sufficiently indicated in a pre- vious chapter l and confirms the statement that for many- years the West of England held out against the new order of religion. Richard Cheyney was made, much against his will, Bishop of Gloucester in 1 562 ; as it was, however, one of the poorest of the English Sees, he also received the revenues of Bristol for a time. But by 17th September, 1563, he wrote to Cecil, asking to be allowed to resign, since as he said, he had " much rather live a private life like a poor man. ... I have already enough of Lording, wherein I find nothing but splendidam mdseriam." 2 His episcopate of seventeen years was one of trouble and unhappiness ; but these were inflicted on him by reformers, — Puritans who as- sailed his doctrine, and denounced him for Romanising tendencies. He was not inclined to persecute the Catholics ; and, when he made his return about the Justices in 1564, he had only praise for those dwelling in his diocese, and in- veighed instead against certain " preachers," and the rising puritanical spirit: "These things I can rather lament than amend and reform, or give your honours so meet advice tending to the redress thereof as your great wisdoms of yourselves can conceive, being indeed a man of small ex- perience and little observation in matters of policy and government." 3 The state of the diocese in 1563 does not appear to be forthcoming, the return bound up with the others already quoted from belonging to 1603-5. We are therefore confined to the return of those refusing to go to church, made in 1577. Again the attention of the Privy Council is called to the delinquencies not so much of the Papists as of the Puritans. The passage is worth quoting, as affording a solitary instance of a bishop indicating mem- bers of this sect. " The persons [thirty-nine are named] in this schedule inserted, upon examination of the cause of 1 The Universities, pp. 40-1, ante. 2 Lansd. MS. 6, No. 72. 3 Camden Miscellany, vol. ix, Letters from the Bishops to the Privy Council, 1564, pp. 51-3. GLOUCESTER; BATH AND WELLS 373 their refusal . . . some (supposed to savour of Papistry) alleged sickness; some other alleged debt, and therefore refused, fearing process. The third sort, commonly called Puritans, wilfully refuse to come to church, as not liking the surplice, ceremonies, and other service now used in the Church ; whereupon they have been arraigned and indicted, in divers several sessions, upon the statute, and now remain in prison upon the same." ' A few weeks later, he sent up an amended list containing eighty names; but as these were, probably, Puritans as well as Papists, our interest in them ceases. 2 The western fringe will be completed by considering the state of the diocese of Bath and Wells. On the deprivation of Gilbert Bourne, Gilbert Berkeley was appointed to the See, being consecrated on 24th March, 1560. Within a year from that date, he wrote a piteous letter to Cecil, asking for help to overcome the difficulties that beset him, or for leave to resign. The main difficulties were pecuniary. Al- though, as he admits, his predecessor, " the said Gilbert earnestly did seek to augment the possessions of his bishopric [despoiled under Henry and Edward], and to preserve the right of the same " ; nevertheless he conveyed leases of a large part of his lands, fictitiously as may be supposed, as soon as he saw how matters were tending under Elizabeth, to the grave impoverishment of his sup- planter. His aiders and abettors were Humphrey Coles, a Somersetshire Justice — " a man learned in the common laws of this realm," and his own brother, Richard Bourne, a citizen of London. The point is that the con- veyances complained of were executed out of a desire to hamper the professors of the new creed, by men, who, as specifically stated by Berkeley, " be professed enemies to God's truth and your Majesty's most godly proceedings." s 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvn, No. 12, 24th October, 1577. 2 Ibid., cxvm, Nos. 32 and 32 i, 20th November, 1577. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xvi, No. 27, 7th March, 1 560-1 ; Encl. i, Sup- plication to the Queen's Majesty ; Encl. ii, Note of manors, etc., con- veyed away from the See. The whole episode is not without its 374 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS Coles had evidently instructed Bourne how he could defeat the law without infringing it. Nor was this a solitary case ; for, from a passage in Bishop Pilkington's works, it would seem that Bourne's act was merely one example of an almost common practice on the part of the deprived bishops. Pilkington says that some Protestant bishops had no lands to forsake even if they would, because " their popish predecessors have provided too well for them, against reason. . . ." ' " Divers of these holy prelates [Cath- olics] . . . had so leased out their houses, lands and parks, that some of the new bishops had scarce a corner of a house to be in, and divers not so much ground as to grese - a goose or a sheep ; so that some were compelled to tether their horse in their orchard; and yet have these holy fathers provided that if they be restored (as they look for, as many think) that they shall have their commodities again." 3 humorous aspect, and these documents are well worth perusing. Their substance appeared in the Dublin Review, October, 1897, pp. 125-50. 1 Parker Soc. : Pilkington's works, Confutation ofa?i Addition, § 10, p. 592. He goes on to ask: "If ye demand why some bishops have so little lands?" and supplies the answer. "Some of their lands . . . he exchanged by order of law ; but the most part, the malicious popish prelates, that were their predecessors, seeing their kingdom decay, and that the professors of God's Gospel should follow in their places, would rather give it ... by lease, patents, annuities, than any that loves God should enjoy it. . . . How many bishoprics in the realm have they impoverished by these means! So that they which now succeed, are not able to relieve themselves nor the poor as they would and should. . . ." It is well to state, however, that Pilkington himself had not much cause to complain of his own particular lot, since (and we have it on Fuller's authority) he was able to dower his two daugh- ters, Deborah and Ruth, with ,£4,000 apiece. A modern writer goes so far as to say that one of Pilkington's daughters had a portion of ,£10,000, making no mention of the other; this statement may, how- ever, be an exaggeration. As Pilkington certainly went to his diocese a poor man, such wholesale fleecing of the See naturally created no little scandal at the time. Cf. Fuller, Church History, ed. 1665, Bk. v, P- 2 53, § 55, an d Bk. IX, p. 109, § 21. 2 Graze. 3 Parker Soc: Pilkington's works, Confutation of an Addition, § 10 PP- 594-5- BATH AND WELLS 375 Bishop Berkeley furnishes the true key to the manoeuvres executed by Coles in conjunction with Bishop Bourne; for, in the words with which he concludes the recital of his woes, " it appeareth by the stubbornness of the people here, that all this above written was done only to deface the Gospel and to discredit the successor of Bourne for lack of ability to keep hospitality, as they do not stick to say: ' here is a goodly prelate succeedeth my Lord Bishop Bourne!' " l Berkeley's " supplication," here put under contribution, contains a paragraph of more than ordinary interest, on account of the glimpse it affords of the results of the coer- cive system adopted under Elizabeth against the clergy who refused to acknowledge the royal Supremacy, and of the explanation suggested between its lines of the reason which most probably conduced to keep them staunch in their adherence to the Pope. Berkeley complained that the advowsons of all the greatest and best spiritual promo- tions within the diocese had been distributed by Bishop Bourne, so that there was nothing left wherewith to reward his own following, or over which he might exercise his right of patronage and presentation. Still worse, however, in his eyes, was the fact that many livings had been given " to such persons as either refuse to subscribe, or else in hope of a new day revealing their good wills, had fled the realm." Just as this " hope of a new day " had made some cross the seas to seek safety and freedom of conscience, so, acting differently on other minds and natures, it had in- fluenced the majority of the clergy in the direction of time- serving, temporising, bartering inward conviction for a continued tenure of their livings, " such is the fear of punishment by the purse, more than of God's curse," as Bishop Home of Winchester neatly expressed this frame of mind." They trusted that time would set things straight, and undo the harm they saw being done under their very eyes. That looked-for time never came; so they died, some perhaps still hoping for better things; but most had 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xvi, No. 27 ii. 2 Ibid., xix, No. 36. 376 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS learnt to stifle conscience, and for worldly considerations had come to acquiesce in " the Queen's Majesty's godly proceedings in matters of religion." It was thus, and thus only, that the parliamentary form of religion was imposed upon the English people. Gilbert Berkeley sent in two certificates in 1 563 ; but one was hastily drawn up and incorrect, and so was supple- mented by another more carefully prepared. 1 Even so, this amended report is an unsatisfactory and incomplete docu- ment. From both, taken together, we find that the diocese was credited with 400 churches and chapels, and 49 " ex- empts." The Douay Diaries enumerate only 388. Vacan- cies are not indicated, but may be supplied from a return made to the Queen about 1 565. This document gives the number of livings in various dioceses unsupplied with an incumbent at that date. Bath and Wells had 21 such. The neighbouring diocese of Bristol had 26, though smaller in extent. 2 The numbers of households are not consistently given. Those that are mentioned are 8,226 in number, representing an approximate population of 41,130 souls. It would be nearer the mark to double or even to treble these figures. The return of Justices in 1 564 is surprisingly meagre, considering the complaints made but three years before; but on the present occasion the Bishop wrote: " I have not much to say against any man, but only by report, wherewith to trouble your honours I have not thought it good," 3 and three individuals were commended by him. In 1 569, news was sent to Cecil about the use made of Bath for meetings of Catholics and other suspected persons, under cover of taking the waters there ; but strange as it may seem, it came, not from the Bishop who received his title from that city, but from William Alley, Bishop of Exeter, who forwarded a letter he had received from one Thomas Churchyard, writing from Bath on 24th May/ This in- former alliteratively said: " I do advertise your honour of 1 Harl. MS. 594, No. 7, f. 45, and 7* f. 57. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. Add., XII, No. 108. 3 Bishops' Letters, 1564, p. 63. ' Lansd. MS. u, No. 56. BATH AND WELLS 377 such things as I have seen suspiciously handled among the Papists, whose practices drives me to presume that they have or may pass their compass with some proud attempt or folly. And surely the unbridled braying and talk of Bonner's disciples doth argue some cureless corrsy is closely crept in their cankered minds. The truth is, most honourable, having occasion to lie in Bath twenty days, I saw such assembly and company of gentlemen as made me to muse of so great a repair; and weighing their callings and Christain religion, I found by good proof and trial that all the whole troop in a manner were hinderers of God's Word and His Gospel." After naming one or two promin- ent Catholics, the informer proceeds: "The most of all Bonner's blood and kinsfolk are dwelling in this town ; and undoubtedly under the colour of coming to the bath, many mad meetings there are"; and justifies his suspicions by " hoping withal that the nest of wasps, wheresoever they may be found shall have their stings taken from them and be learned a new lesson ; and God doth know and His Church doth witness . . . that in all these countries is such liberty of speech as may be lamented, if dutiful ears durst rebuke that they hear." It is quite possible that Bath may at this period have been a trysting place for those concert- ing measures of support for the abortive Rising in the North six months later; but there is no evidence forth- coming to that effect. The value of Thomas Churchyard's letter, however, lies in its attestation of the numbers and possible influence of Catholics in the diocese of Bath and Wells, ten years after Elizabeth's accession. The Privy Council's requirements as to recusants, in 1577, met with a ready response from Bishop Berkeley, who expressed himself eager to obtain the information for them which they sought. The first and fullest certificate, originally attached to its covering letter dated 24th October, 1577, 1 is not forthcoming; but a supplementary one, forwarded on 1 oth November, 1577, 2 contains the names of eight persons " lately declined and grown to be recusants, these whose 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvn, No. II. a Ibid., cxvm, No. 17 i. 378 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS names are newly added to the certificate herewithal sent to your honours, over and besides those whom I certified unto you by my former letters." Sir William Cecil, writing to Archbishop Parker on 12th August, 1561, complained to him of the "nakedness of religion" in Suffolk and Essex; and told him that "the Bishop of Norwich is blamed even of the best sort for his remissness in ordering his clergy. He winketh at schis- matics and Anabaptists, as I am informed." 1 After the change of religion, John Parkhurst had been appointed to the See of Norwich, thus holding jurisdiction over Suffolk, one of the incriminated counties ; he had not sought a bishopric ; nay, he had sought to escape one, for as he said, 2 he could not " be ambitious of so much misery." Once he had taken on himself the duties, however, he endeavoured to discharge them; and on 23rd May, 1561, complained to Henry Bullinger that he had but little leisure, " being occupied whole days together in the dis- covery and extirpation of errors and irregularities." 3 This refers to the preliminary visitation of his diocese, upon which he was then engaged. His methods of correction could not have risen to the standard then approved of, or he would not have incurred Cecil's censure. Norwich already could boast of a Dutch church, and it may be sur- mised that his energies were directed solely against the Papists, since Cecil complained that he " winked at " the ex- cesses of the others. That he meant to be diligent in stamp- ing out Popery is clear from the Injunctions he issued in 1 56 1, wherein occur the following directions: " Item, that they neither suffer the Lord's table to be hanged and decked like an altar, neither use any gestures of the popish Mass in the time of ministration of the Communion, as shifting of the book, washing, breathing, crossing or such like. . . . Item, that they see the places filled up in walls or else- where, where images stood, so as if there had been none there. The stones, foundations, or other places, frames or 1 Parker Corresp., No. 107, p. 148. 2 I Zur., p. 61, No. 26. ' Ibid., p. 97, No. 41. NORWICH 379 tabernacles devised to advance imagery, holy water stones also to be quite and clean taken away; and the places where they were set, comely and decently to be made up with convenient expedition, or else to declare to the Ordin- ary the lets and stays thereof as soon as may be." Amongst the Interrogatories to be answered, occur the following: " Whether that any images, beads, books of service or vestments not allowed by law be reserved of any man or in any place, by whom and where they be reserved. . . . Whether any man is known to have said or heard Mass since it was abrogate by law; whether any man maketh any singing cakes to say Mass withal, reserveth vestments, superaltaries, Mass books or other instruments of this superstition. . . . Whether any man keepeth in his house any abused images, namely such as he removed out of the church, or St. John's head, S. Catherine, S. Nicholas, or such like. Whether any body useth beads, Latin Primers or any other prayer books than that be allowed by public authority to be used." 1 This attitude of hostility to the old Faith is also shown in another letter to Bullinger, in which he says : " I received a letter from my Lord of Canter- bury four days ago; the substance of it is this, that I should diligently ascertain by every means in my power, though secretly, who, and how many there are in my diocese, who do not comply with the true religion. ... I shall carefully attend to this, and shall give every intelligence, as soon as possible, concerning the enemies of Christ." 2 The oppor- tunity he sought was not long after afforded him ; for, in the summer of 1 563 came the demand from the Privy Council for the general return of the state of his diocese in common with the rest throughout England and Wales. Bishop Parkhurst's answer was despatched on 17th July, and its information, if meagre in some respects, yet in others is full and catagorical. From early days Norwich had been noted for the large number of its churches. Parkhurst 1 Second Report of Co7)unissioners on Rubrics, 1868, App. E, pp. 401-2. - I Zur. p. 122, No. 53, 20th August, 1562. 380 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS pointed out that " there have been heretofore many more chapels of ease within my diocese than are at present standing; which have been so ruinous of long time that they are quite fallen down and grown out of memory amongst the people." a Notwithstanding this diminution, dating, of course, from the reign of Edward VI, the Douay Diaries give a total of 1,121 churches, while Parkhurst himself enumerated 1,201 parish churches. Of these he says that j6j livings were provided with incumbents, while the astoundingly high number of 434 livings were then void; though in Norwich archdeaconry where there were 80 such; in Norfolk archdeaconry where the vacancies amounted to 182 ; and in Sudbury archdeaconry, where they were 42, " some of them were served by curates " ; while in Suffolk archdeaconry " many" of the 130 void livings were stated to be thus served by curates. Even allowing that half of these parishes devoid of incumbents were not en- tirely destitute of spiritual aid, there remain 217 left entirely unprovided for. 2 This shows that a very much larger num- ber of the clergy abandoned their livings rather than con- form to the Elizabethan settlement of religion, many more than it has been customary hitherto to acknowledge, and this independently of those who underwent the final penalty of deprivation. The recognition of this circumstance is not without its bearing on modern controversies connected with this subject. What became of some of these clergy has already been learnt from the episcopal correspondence previously quoted. Others certainly did follow the example of Matthew Carewe, Archdeacon of Norfolk, of whom Parkhurst wrote that he " remaineth beyond the sea, where I know not"; and of Nicholas Wendon, Archdeacon of Suffolk, who " is likewise beyond the sea, where I know not." Bishop Parkhurst's certificate in the following year, 1 Lansd. MS. 6, No. 60. ' J It should be pointed out, however, that in a return of the vacant livings in various dioceses, made to the Queen about 1565, those of Norwich are stated to be only 104 in number — still a high percentage. (Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. Add. XII, No. 108). NORWICH 381 as to the towardness of the Justices of the Peace in his dio- cese, is a model of caution and fear of excess. The result is perhaps disappointing as lacking vigour both of description and of detail. In Norfolk and Suffolk but twelve Justices in all are named as being " not so well bent unto the advancement of the godly proceedings of this realm in causes ecclesiastical " as might be altogether desirable. More, he professes himself unwilling to commit himself to, " lest the malice of the one part or the other might be occasion for me to certify more than truth"; and even in naming these suspect gentlemen, he is careful to qualify this delation with: "yet I must testify . . . that I neither know or yet can learn probably of any fact that [they] are to be charged withal ; but for the rest I dare not testify so far, being not by common fame accounted of such zeal and good affection toward the religion now established as is necessarily required in men of their authority and calling." 1 The general neglect of his diocese with which he has been charged, as it would seem rightly, does not enter into the scope of this enquiry ; but from the Parker Correspondence * it is clear that his Metropolitan grieved over his remiss- ness, both as regards the diocese itself and also in connec- tion with the Papists, who seemed to be able to run free there. 3 So things went on until Parkhurst's death in 1575 ; whereupon a man of a different stamp was appointed to succeed him. This was Edmund Freake, who had been for between two and three years Bishop of Rochester. He, too, 1 Camden Miscellany, vol. ix, Letters from the Bishops to the Privy Council, 1564, pp. 47-8, 58-9. - Nos. 306, 308, 317, 339 and 344. a In 1569. Parkhurst's Injunctions still needed the inclusion of a question like the following: " Item, whether you have in your church a decent pulpit and Communion Table," and as a set-off: " Item, whether your rood-lofts, images, tabernacles, and all other monuments of idolatry be pulled down and defaced, and your church and chancel decently reformed. And whether you know of any popish and super- stitious books, images, vestments, or such like, remaining within your parish, and in whose hands they be" {Second Report of Ritual Com- mission, App. E, p. 405). 382 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS had his own internal troubles, episcopal and domestic, with which these pages have nothing do; 1 but he laboured under the disadvantage of being considered by his contempor- aries as being under the control of Mrs. Freake, and so suffered in his popularity and influence. " This is vox populi, a principle well known throughout all Norfolk, spread by his household, that whatsoever Mistress Freake will have done, the Bishop must and will accomplish." Also witnesses were to be found to whom he had confessed (doubtless out of the hearing of this lady, " noted through- out the country a greedy covetous scraping woman," as well as a " scold ") " his misery with tears ; for that what- soever she would have my Lord do, if he did not accom- plish it accordingly, she would make him weary of his life." 2 Whatever the Bishop might be within the walls of his palace, without he was active enough, perhaps on ac- count of uxorious incentive, against the Papists and " the peevish preciser sort," which latter retaliated on him by exposing his domestic broils to the public. In writing to the Council on 29th October, 1577, 3 when sending up his certificate of recusants " to come to church," he apologises, on account of insufficient time for making enquiry, that it is drawn up " confusedly without distinction of the men and matter." This is unfortunate, as Papists and " the peevish preciser sort " [i.e., the Puritans) appear together in one list. However, of the fifty-one names which the list con- tains, twenty-six are those of well-known Catholics of fair or ample fortunes: many of the remainder would also undoubtedly prove on enquiry and research to be Papists. One gentleman mentioned in this list, Robert de Graye, Esq., received more particular attention at the Bishop's hands a few years later. 4 The following year, 1578, gives proof of his activity against recusants, in conjunction, of course, with his magistrates, for fifteen gentlemen were enforced to 1 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., vols, cxxvi and cxxvn ; also Addenda, xxv, No. 119. 8 Ibid., Add., xxv, No. 119, 5th November, 1578. 3 Ibid., cxvn, No. 27. 4 Cf. ibid., Add., xxvn, No. 4. NORWICH 383 " remain in Norwich [or other cities] to be conferred withal by the Bishop or such as he shall appoint" ; a few conformed and were either ordered to bring certificates of having done so, or were " dismissed with favour"; while five others were " committed close prisoners " to various gaols within the diocese. 1 In February, 1578-9, the Justices of Bury St. Edmund's in their zeal for reform, drew up a series of regu- lations for punishments to be inflicted upon delinquents against any of the articles there laid down. They read like the items of interrogation in an episcopal visitation charge, and could only have been inspired by the Bishop: "whoso- ever shall keep in his house any monument of idolatry or superstition . . . whosoever shall be known or voiced commonly to be a Papist or maintainer of Popery ... if any person shall be known secretly to say or hear Mass, etc., etc." 2 Such being by proof incontestable the severity of Bishop Freake towards Catholics, there is a touch of pathos (not, however, without it humorous side) in the fact that amongst his own household, he unsuspectingly harboured members of that hated religion. On 14th January, 1583-4, he found it necessary to write to Lord Burghley, in order to fore- stall the malice of his enemies. " There have been of late certain persons detected for repair to Mass here in Norwich, amongst which company two of my retinue are discovered, the one being my butler, the other a labourer, men of small reckoning, and, before this detection, such as did frequent divine service both in my house and at church ; in whom I have been notably deceived by reason of their conformity ; and therefore least of all feared any such sequel as is fallen out. ... I am moved to think that they [the Justices] seek to pervert the actions of these men to my reproach, and so consequently thereby to confirm the untrue reports given out of my supportation of Papists. ... I hope that your Lordship, knowing partly mine adversaries in these parts, will accept their informations accordingly, who with vigil- 1 Cotton MS. Titus B. in, No. 22, f. 69. 2 Lansd. MS. 27, No. 70. 384 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS ant eyes do watch all opportunities to discredit me, being ready to wrest every event to the worst sense." x It is not a little astonishing, considering the attitude of Park- hurst, Freake, and his successor, Scambler, towards every- thing savouring of Popery, to find, notwithstanding, some of the practices they most condemned still lingering on long after the Elizabethan settlement of religion was sup- posed to have ousted them. Thus we may read in the Churchwardens' accounts for Great Yarmouth, payments made for the Paschal Candle. 1 564. For setting up the Paschal. For a new forelock for the Paschal. For painting the Paschal. For making a wheel for the Paschal. 1580. For taking down the Paschal. 1586. For hanging the Paschal. For a new line for the Paschal. 2 Edmund Scambler was Bishop of Peterborough through- out that portion of Elizabeth's reign with which this enquiry is concerned. His leanings towards Puritanism, and his support of the prophesyings of that sect may be passed over; he made the usual return of the state of his diocese in 1563, but the only information to be gathered from it, is that its eleven deaneries contained in all 301 parishes, 3 thus closely approximating to the Douay Diaries' estimate of 293. Next year, however, in making his return to the Privy Council of Justices of the Peace, he proved somewhat more communicative, making mention of twenty-nine who were " earnest " in support of Protestantism, while 3 were classed as " indifferent," and 1 1 proved to be " hinderers." He had, too, some suggestions " to be considered " by the Privy Council, amongst which the following are of interest. " First the learned adversaries being ecclesiastical persons to be either banished or sequestered from conference with 1 Lansd. MS. 40, No. 14. 2 Manship, Hist, of Great Yarmouth, ii, p. 118. 3 Lansd. MS. 6, No. 58. PETERBOROUGH 385 such as be fautors of their religion, or else the oath to be tendered unto them [notwithstanding the frightful nature of the consequences entailed by the refusal to take it] . . . they be more stubborn and encouraged than they were before. Item, that the straggling doctors and priests who have liberty to stray at their pleasures within this realm do much hurt secretly and in corners, therefore it were good that they might be called ... to show their con- formity in religion by subscribing or open recantation or else to be restrained from their said liberty. . . . Item, there be divers gentlemen of evil religion that keep school- masters in their houses privately, who be of corrupt judg- ments and do exceeding great hurt as well in those houses where they teach as in the country abroad about them, 1 that it might be provided that the said gentlemen should not keep privately in their houses no manner of school- masters but such as should be examined of the diocese and admitted thereunto by licence under his seal of office. Item, that the prebendaries of every Cathedral Church may be enforced by authority to make a manifest and open de- claration of their faith, etc." 2 Though, as has been said, he had leanings towards Puritanism, Protestants of this par- ticular shade gave him great trouble, and in a remarkable letter he wrote to Cecil, he made an admission which is worth reproducing here, as it shows the general helpless- ness of the Elizabethan bishops unless backed by secular power, in dealing, not only with Puritans, but also with Papists. He owns that after God and Elizabeth, Lord Burghley is his " only trust and stay," and as such, begs 1 In some "Regulations for Schools and Schoolmasters" (undated) it is said : " Divide all the Papists of England into 4 parts, and 3 parts of them were not 12 years old when the Queen came to her Crown, but have learnt it in the time of her reign. So it appeareth that the Queen's trust hath been deceived in the education of the youth of her subjects, which must be imputed to those that challenge the whole order thereof to their jurisdiction, and who have had of the Queen and the realm large allowance both of honour and haviour to do such duties carefully". {Lansd. MS. 155, No. 40.) 2 Camden Miscellany, vol. ix, Bishops' Letters, 1564, pp. 34-7. C C 386 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS him " to aid me with your counsel for the better discharge of my office. ... I am without God's assistance and yours, very weak and unable to execute and discharge the same in these troubles now moved and procured by those whom men do call Puritans, and their fautors." 1 In 1577, when making his return of persons who refused to attend divine service, he pointed out to the Privy Council that attend- ance at church did not necessarily imply acceptance of the reformed religion — a very necessary distinction at that time. " But if you had charged me or any other bishop in this realm (I utter it not without desire of pardon in that I dare take in hand to give your honours advice) to certify you of those that refuse to receive the Communion, you should have had a larger certificate of persons dangerous in mine opinion to be unknown to your honours." 2 As it was, of the more determined and scrupulous class of Catholics he was at the moment only able to name five in Northamptonshire, and one in Rutland, " Mr. [John] Cham- bers of Ediweston, priest, brother to my Lady St. John of Bletsho." Evidently dissatisfied with the meagreness of this return, the Bishop set to work to make further enquiries, and on 18th November supplemented his first list by another, wherein he repeats the names of the earlier letter, and adds those of two more wealthy gentlemen. Of one he says, he is "equal to the backwardest in my diocese"; what he says of the other throws much light on the methods employed by Catholics to avoid being brought to book: " Also there is one Mr. Standish supposed to be a man of 500 marks yearly revenue and worth £1,000 in substance, that dwelleth some time at Wolfax, a house in Northamp- tonshire in the parish of Brixworth, but for the most part he dwelleth in Lancashire as I am informed, where he is said to be ever when I send for him, so that I could never get him to any conference as yet. But I am certified by very credible report and do believe he never came to the church since the Queen's Majesty's reign. And as he hath ' Lansd. MS. 17, No. 27, 13th April, 1573. 2 P.R.O. Dom Eliz., cxvn, No. 16, 26th October, 1577. ELY 387 shift to escape my conference by change of dwelling, so hath the most in my diocese of that opinion that he is of, and therefore it is a busy matter to bring them before me." ' This clearly shows that there were more than merely eight or ten households in his diocese that were refractory. The diocese of Ely brings us into close connection with Richard Cox, one of the protagonists of the English Re- formation. His former record must here be passed by un- noticed ; even the larger aspect of his career as one of the leaders of the advanced reform movement during Eliza- beth's reign cannot receive the prominent notice really due to it; but rather, he will here be portrayed as a diocesan Bishop, dealing with the affairs belonging to his immediate charge, and even merely to one portion of those affairs, namely, as connected with the popish recusants. In thus confining our attention to one of the many aspects in which this remarkable man may be viewed, his career may be re- duced to the manageable limits suitable for these pages, and for the sole purpose of illustrating the particular study now engaging the reader's attention. Richard Cox had been originally destined for the See of Norwich, to which, indeed, he was formally elected; but he was shortly after transferred to Ely. This small diocese, though at the same time one of the best endowed, gave greater leisure than its larger and more populous neighbour, and left the Bishop freer for the pur- suit of more than diocesan interests: a freedom of which this fanatical man fully availed himself. He had been one of the first on whom Archbishop Parker laid hands after his own consecration. He was a strong supporter of clerical matrimony, as his extant correspondence proves ; and when the Queen's Injunction appeared forbidding women to dwell within collegiate or cathedral precincts, he was afire with in- dignation. The regulation somewhat hit his own cathedral, even at that early date; for in August, 1561, he wrote to Parker that at that very time " there is but one prebendary continually dwelling with his family in Ely Church. Turn 1 P.R.O. Dom. KHz., cxvm, No. 29. 388 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS him out, doves and owls may dwell there for any continual housekeeping. . . . What rejoicing and jeering the adver- saries make! " ' This non-residence was not peculiar to the cathedral : it was a fault somewhat common throughout the diocese. And there were vacancies too, due no doubt to the cause specified by him to Peter Martyr : " The popish priests among us are daily relinquishing their ministry, lest, as they say, they should be compelled to give their sanction to heresies."" Late in 1560, Archbishop Parker wrote to Bishop Cox, as he had done to Bishop Kitchin, requiring a detailed return about his diocese. Cox's certificate, one of the fullest extant, was forwarded to his Metropolitan on the following 24th January, 1 560-1, with a letter partly in English, partly in Latin, 3 in which he says "the whole sum of the cures in my diocese, which is 152 parsonages and vicar- ages and other cures. There are duly served but only 52 cures." He then tabulates the remaining 100 as follows: vacant rectories, 34; vacant vicarages, 13; in all, 47; bene- fices having non-resident incumbents, 53/ This was a shocking state of things certainly, and Cox remarked that if the same prevailed elsewhere, the condition of the newly established Church was sad indeed : " miseranda sane et deploranda hujus dioecesis fades ; et si passim in locis aliis perinde se res habeat, miserrima quidem est Ecclesiae Angli- canae conditio" The rector of one living, Croxton, was a layman, not resident there, but in London or at Court; that his position was accepted as lawful is clear from further notes about him: he was an M.A. not able to preach, but kept hospitality on his cure through his " farmer." Some of the names of incumbents that figure on this certificate recur at later dates; for these priests were deprived for refusing the oath of Supremacy. The work done by such as these, and the others who had been " daily relinquishing their 1 1 Zur., p. 151, No. 109. ' J Ibid,, p. 66, No. 28. ' Add. MS. 5813, f. 78. 4 Ely is credited with but ten vacant livings in a return of them in various dioceses prepared for the Queen, presumably about 1565. Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. Add., xil, No. 108. ELY 389 ministry " is attested by Bishop Cox in a letter to Peter Martyr: "When we consider the temper and fickleness of mankind, when we regard either the contempt of the Word [of God] or the neglect of a religious life, we can hardly dare to expect a long continuance of the Gospel in these parts. There is everywhere an immense number of Papists, though for the most part concealed ; they have been quiet hitherto, except that they are cherishing their errors in their secret assemblies . . . the heads of our popish clergy are still kept in confinement. They are treated indeed with kindness, but relax nothing of their Popery. Others are living at large, scattered about in different parts of the king- dom, but without any function, unless perhaps where they may be sowing the seeds of impiety in secret." 1 More than a year after, Bishop Cox wrote to Cecil, defending the clergy against the aspersions generally cast upon them: " laymen (say ye) talk in corners, that example in preachers were never worse, so covetous, so indiscreet, so rash, so negligent they be." He deprecated such sweeping judg- ments, but rather " let every priest high and low be burth- ened particularly. . . . Let them not be slandered generally and snatched at in corners. That is no charity nor godly policy. For this is the fetch of the adversary of the truth, whether they be neuters, Papists, or carnal Gospellers, to deface the parsons that the Word may be discredited. . . . Hosius' books fly abroad in all corners unica gloriatio omnium Papistaruiu, who swarm in all corners, saying and doing almost what they list. ... If God's adversaries and the Queen's maybe thus tolerated against God and the Queen and we preach and cry against them, and be mocked and jeered at, and daily slandered in corners, intolerabilis fuerit Dei offensa, formidandaque pietatis et regni ruina." ' This grievance continued to harass him for some years, and he voiced it, as also other characteristic aspirations, with no uncertain sound, in the following words written to Bul- linger: "Many of the heads of antichrist yet remain to 1 1 Zitr., p. 112, No. 49, 5th August, 1562. 2 Lansd. MS. 6, No. 87, 28th December, 1563. 390 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS be cut off, which from time to time occasion us much trouble. I wish you would in earnest use your endeavours for their extirpation. . . . Lastly, there are among us some Papists, and those not of the lowest rank, who strain even- nerve that they may be permitted to live according to their consciences, and that no account of his religion be de- manded from anyone. Meanwhile many iniquitous practices take place in secret, and by the bad example they afford are a stumbling block to the godly." * As time went on, however, this spirit of mitigated toleration, regarded by Cox as a blemish on the thoroughness of the Reformation, was replaced by a severity more in consonance with the views of this amiable prelate, so that he could write to his German friend, Rudolph Gualter, with some show of satis- faction, about "our Papists, who run up and down the cities, that they may somewhere or other hear Mass in private." " This growing intolerance explains why " certain of our nobility, pupils of the Roman Pontiff, either weary of their happiness or impatient of the long continued progress of the Gospel, have taken flight, some into France, some into Spain, others into different places" to find an asylum where they could serve God according to their consciences in peace, not as Cox told his correspondent, Bullinger, " with the view of plotting some mischief against the professors of godliness." 3 Moreover, that this was the true reason was fully realised even by Cox himself; for, in a later letter to Bullinger, in which he informed him that the Puritans were being kept under some sort of control by the Government "through fear of punishment," he adds: "and by the same fear do they keep within bounds the fury of the Papists." * That such measures commended themselves to the old Bishop of Ely is clearly shown in a letter he addressed to Lord Burghley from " the unsavoury Isle with turves and dried-up loads," in which he expressed himself as "much I Zur., p. 221, No. 88, ioth July, 1570. Ibid., p. 237, No. 94, 12th February, 1571-2. Ibid., p. 309, No. 121, 20th July, 1574. Ibid., p. 314, No. 125, 25th January, 1575-6- ELY 39i rejoicing that her Majesty is somewhat severe against her enemies the Papists. Would God that all her magistrates, high and low, would follow diligently her good vein. I trust hereafter her Highness and her magistrates will prosecute severely the same trade." 1 The diocese of Ely is especially serviceable, for our pur- poses, as supplying two returns of its status made within three years. That called for by the Privy Council in the sum- mer of 1563 (the second one), enumerates only 139 parishes, as against 152 in the former certificate; but, further to com- plicate matters, attention may also be called to the " Douay Diaries" total, which is 141. The number of households in these parishes was stated to be 7,367, giving an average population in 1563 of 36,835 souls. Nothing further is to be gleaned from this later certificate, except that the number of livings stated to be vacant was given as 17, two vacancies being caused by the death of the last incumbent, the rest being due to "exility of living." The wholesale way in which these vacant livings must have been provided for between the dates of the two returns, will doubtless be explained by the ease with which unlettered mechanics were ordained in the early days of the Elizabethan settlement, and will also account for the low opinion expressed by Bishop Cox for the character and attainments of the conforming clergy at a later date. Writing to Lord Burghley about the attempts then being made to suppress the " prophesyings " as they were then called — clergy conferences as they would be named to-day — he upheld their desirability and usefulness, expressing the hope that the Queen "may be moved to have farther consideration of this matter. And when the great ignorance, idleness and lewdness of the great number of poor and blind priests in the clergy shall be deeply weighed and considered of, it will be thought most necessary " rather to encourage them." The certificate about the Justices, called for in the autumn of 1 564, produced a letter from Bishop Cox, in which he gave it as his opinion that "true religion" 1 Lansd. MS. 27, No. 16, 29th August, 1578. 2 Ibid., 25, No. 29, 12th June, 1577. 392 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS was " dangerously declining in the most parts of the churches in this realm." He classified the Justices within the limits of his own jurisdiction as either " good," of whom there were 20; "conformable," to the number of 12 ; or" mis- liked," who were but 5, and included Philip Baker, D.D., Provost of King's College, Cambridge, and Rector of Els- worth, of both which preferments he was at a later date deprived as being a Catholic. 1 By 1577 this vigilant re- former had succeeded in " reducing " the majority of his flock, if not to conformity, at least from Popery; and in the return of " recusants to come to church " which he made in accordance with the Privy Council's requisition, on 30th October of that year, it would appear that he could name but ten recalcitrants, one of whom was " in prison in Cambridge for wilful standing in his errors." The Bishop explained that he found it a matter of difficulty to deal with them, because when he endeavoured to " reduce them from their errors," " some of the chief of them shifted their habi- tations out of this shire into the diocese of Norwich, &c." yet that they maintained their domiciles in Ely diocese " unto the which by starts privily they resort." 2 This elusiveness, resembling a game of hide-and-seek, doubtless saved many a Catholic from the consequences of his obstin- acy for a long time. Lincoln has always enjoyed the reputation of comprising the largest number of parishes within its borders, of any diocese. The "Douay Diaries" list gives Lincoln 1,255 churches; the returns of the Privy Council made in 1563 mention only 794. The difference, as is most likely, will be found to be accounted for by chapels of ease. The number of households throughout the diocese was 53,148 at that date, giving an average population of 265,740 souls. 3 No in- formation can be gathered from either of these documents 1 Camden Miscellany, vol. ix, Bishops' Letters, 1564, pp. 23-6. - P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvn, No. 28, and enclosure, No. 28 i. 3 Lansd. MS. 23, f. 39, 28th July, 1563; also ibid., 618, which, though undated, must from internal evidence belong to the same year. LINCOLN 393 as to vacancies ; it must be sought elsewhere. A return of vacant livings made for the Queen, presumably in 1 565, men- tioned by name 1 1 1 cures without incumbent at that date. 1 On Bishop Watson's deprivation in 1559, the ecclesiastic selected to replace him was Nicholas Bullingham. He did not leave much evidence behind him that will serve to throw light on the present survey; but in making a return to the Privy Council in 1564 as to the Justices acting within the limits of his diocese, he showed that he was earnest for the suppression of Popery. In calling the Council's atten- tion to certain disorders, he offered a series of suggested remedies, amongst which occur the following: "That the said commissioners have authority to reform all such papistical orders and usages in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches as by their discretion shall appear worthy reforma- tion. Some convenient order to be taken with the Romish sectuaries, as well being in durance as straggling abroad, for reformation of their obstinacy which doth much harm amongst the people of God and the Queen her Majesty's subjects."- The tabulated lists of Justices disclose that there were 106 "earnest"; against these were precisely half as many " hinderers," namely, 53; whilst 63 others were " indifferent," or more likely to prove Papists than Reform- ers. Bullingham was translated to Worcester in 1571, and his place at Lincoln was taken by Thomas Cooper. The reader has already had an insight into this prelate's savagery of character.' In making his reply to the Privy Council in 1577 about recusants to attend church service, he excuses himself as follows: " If my certificate do not note unto your honours so many persons as in these corrupt days may seem proportionable to so large a circuit as my diocese containeth, I humbly desire your honours favourably to interpret the same, and not to impute it either to negligence in searching, or to timorousness in dealing with them. I thank God there is none within my diocese with whom in : P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. Add., XII, No. 108. 2 Camden Miscellany, vol. ix, Bishops' Letters, 1564, p. $"$. 8 P. Ivv 394 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS this quarrel I would not deal boldly." l He names only nine or ten persons of wealth who had been giving him much trouble ; one or two had at last consented to attend service but would not communicate, and hence he did not put much trust in their promises of amendment. He concluded by saying: " My diocese is long; it cannot be but there are some lurkers unknown to me." Some of his officials also wrote on their own account to the Council; 2 from these communications it would seem that the diocese of Lincoln had by that time really attained a degree of conformity somewhat approaching the Bishop's standard ; for though they expressed themselves as exceedingly suspicious about many individuals, yet they were unable to charge any directly with being recusants. But the Bishop had no mind to let anyone escape his zeal, if he could prevent it, more particularly when he had been set openly at defiance; and on 14th November, 1580, he wrote at length to Walsing- ham in order to get a Mrs. Price back into his clutches, "otherwise they will think I let her escape of purpose, as being content to wink at her " — the last thing he was likely to do! 3 Evidence then, so far as it exists, would prove that Lincoln diocese had practically ceased to be Catholic, but it would also seem that the zealous Bishop still had his doubts. These were not without justification ; for on 24th July, 1580, was drawn up a list of "names of persons in- dicted in Lincolnshire for attending at Mass," many of whom had been " sundry times indicted for hearing of Mass"; others were " indicted for not coming to service." The list contains fifty-two names, including such well- known ones as Dymoke, Tyrwhitt, Parker, and Thimbleby.' Coventry and Lichfield diocese, which contained some districts which long remained very Catholic in sentiment, fell to the lot of Thomas Bentham, who, to his infinite credit be it recorded, returned to England while his reform- ing brethren remained in Frankfort and Geneva during 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvn, No. 13, 25th October, 1577. 2 Cf. ibid., cxvn, No. 19; cxvin, No. 9. 3 Ibid., cxliv, No. 26. 4 Lansd. MS. 30, No. 75. COVENTRY AND LICHFIELD 395 Mary's reign, and fearlessly ministered to the wants of the Protestants who still lurked in London. His zeal for reform may therefore be understood, and that he had an ample field in which to exercise it. The first information about his diocese is contained in the return he made concerning it in 1563 to the Privy Council. He held spiritual sway over 31,286 households, or a population of 156,43c. 1 Other details which he furnished on 27th July, 1563, were that the diocese contained 359 parishes, eleven of them being exempt peculiars; of these thirty-eight were void, or about 9 per cent. The " Douay Diaries " list ascribes a much higher number of parishes to this diocese, putting them at 55/. J The return of vacant livings made for the Queen in 1565 names twenty-nine in this diocese at that date. 3 Next year, when called upon by the Council to tender his opinion about the Justices of his diocese and other matters con- nected with submission to the State religion, he suggested amongst other things: "Whereas the country is too much hinderly in all good things pertaining to religion ; yet the abiding of Dr. Poole, late Bishop of Peterborough, in that shire [Staffordshire] with Bryan Fowler, Esquire, a little from Stafford, causeth many people [to] think worse of the regiment and religion than else they would do, because that divers lewd priests have resort thither; but what conference they have I cannot learn. Wherefore if it please your honours to remove him from thence, you shall do much good to the country, and frustrate the expectation of evil disposed persons. . . . Many offenders are either borne with ... or else fly into exempt places and peculiar juris- dictions, and so avoid ordinary correction." The summary of the Justices, tabulated according to their supposed re- ligious leanings, shows forty-seven "favourers," fifteen hinderers," and six " indifferent." But the reader is re- quested to observe that the forty-seven " favourers " com- prise several well-known Catholics, such as Bryan Fowler who suffered fine and imprisonment for his convictions. 1 Hurl. MS. 594, No. 14, f. 155. - Ibid. 594, No. 15, f. 172. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. Add., XII, No. 108. 396 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS Bishop Bentham, however, put down this gentleman's name amongst thirteen Staffordshire Justices "meet to continue in office," while he designated four others as " a knot hurtful to justice and great maintainers" or "adversaries of religion." The Bishop specially named six influential gentlemen, in- cluding Bryan Fowler, saying that they were " accounted of good men adversaries to religion and no favourers thereof, neither in deed nor word." Three of this group, however, including Bryan Fowler, though " no favourers of religion," were " better learned than the rest," and so their continued presence on the bench was to be suffered. Bishop Bentham, like others of his episcopal brethren, though ready enough to damage honourable gentlemen by stealth and behind their backs, either by his own or his officials' reports, was not anxious to be called upon to stand by his words in the open. Thus, he pleaded: " concerning the hurtful knot and Henry Vernon, Esquire, I need say no more. For I look that that which is by others confessed will be laid to my charge, if you stand not my good Lords." ' On 28th April, 1565, he drew up some Instructions for his commissary, Wm. Sale, prebendary of Weeford in his Cathedral, 2 whom he charged to carry out a visitation. This action had evidently been forced upon him, for the docu- ment opens : " whereas I and my diocese are accused of disorders used of my clergy." A special interest attaches to the copy of these Instructions now remaining in the Public Record Office, 3 for a memorandum on it states: " This is Bishop Bentham's own hand. I had it of his own son." The Instructions to be given to the clergy, contain amongst their twenty-five paragraphs, certain passages it may be well to reproduce here. "(1) That your altars be clean taken away and that there be no monument of them left; but instead thereof, you do erect a decent and simple table upon a frame covered with a fair carpet and a fine linen table cloth upon it . . . and see that you set up the Table of the Commandments in the place where the Sacra- ' Camden Miscellany, vol. ix, Bishops' Letters, 1564, pp. 39-47. 8 Le Neve, Fasti, i, p. 636. 3 Dom. Eliz., xxxvi, Nos. 41-2. COVENTRY AND LICHFIELD 397 ment did hang, with other godly sentences which be lately- set forth. (2) That you call upon the people daily that they cast away their beads with all their superstitions that they did use praying upon them; and to follow the right use of prayer which doth consist in lifting up the mind unto Almighty God calling for mercy and grace, and not in numbering of their beads, prating with their lips, their hearts and minds in the meantime being occupied about their worldly business. (4) . . . the people . . . not to walk up and down in the church, nor to jangle, babble nor talk in service time. ... (5) That you cast away your Mass- books, your portesses and all other books of Latin service, . . . and in any wise away with your lights at the burial of the dead. ... (8) That you do say your divine service distinctly . . . and not to mumble nor tumble all things without devotion as you did at such time you had the service in the Latin tongue. (16) They [the churchwardens] shall diligently note and mark them that wear any beads; and if they will not put them away, [to be fined]. (17) That . . . your parishioners ... set not down the corpse of any dead body by any cross by the way, as they bring it to the burial, nor that any man, woman, nor child say De Pro- fundis nor the Lord's Prayer for the dead. . . . (21) That you do take down your rood lofts unto the lower beams and do set a comely crest or ' wault ' upon it. . . . and that you do abolish and put away clean out of your church all monuments of idolatry and superstition as holy water stocks, sepulchres which were used on Good Friday, hand bells and all manner of idols which be laid up in secret places in your church where Latin service was used, and all manner of books that were used in the church ; and that you beat down all manner of stones and blocks where- upon images were set, and that you dam up all manner of hollow places in your chancel or church walls, and that you do white-lime your church, and do make it decent and fair. (23) That you suffer no ringing of bells for the dead but only to knoll a bell at the hour of death for the space of half an hour." 398 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS These quotations show that Bishop Bentham was aware that such practices as he required to be put down were still in vogue, and that in many churches, articles connected with the worship of the old Faith were " laid up in secret places." A few years later the freedom with which Catholics were able to practice their religion in this diocese, was animadverted upon in a letter to Lord Burghley by the Earl of Shrewsbury. Writing on 20th January, 1572-3, that nobleman said: "Since my last letters ... I have caused diligent search to be made in Derbyshire, and Staffordshire and a part of Shropshire. . . But . . . they be all fled, saving one Avery, servant, ... it is very like that Avery can discover very much matter right necessary to be known. ... I caused my men to apprehend one Thomas Comber- ford, of Comberford, gent, where the said Revel made his most abode and where Masses were frequented. And also two Mass priests that have said so many Masses (as appear by confession, if law will take place, as I dare affirm will amount [in fines] unto 10,000 marks at least). I wish that bishops and others of authority in the countries would have more regard unto their charges and not suffer such danger- ous vagabonds to rest unpunished in their jurisdictions." 1 When the Privy Council, in the autumn of 1577, required the bishops to inform them about the wealthy recusants in their respective dioceses, perhaps the fullest, and therefore to us most satisfactory, answer was furnished by Bishop ' Harl. MS. 6991, No. 12, f. 25. A postscript to this letter runs as fol- lows : " I thought good to send to your Lordship the plates of gold that the scholars made Revel believe to have virtue of getting my favour and saving him from all perils. . . ." Upon this Humphrey Wanley, librarian to the Earl of Oxford, has inserted the following luminous note, — a sample of gratuitous assumption that goes far to explain how some history is " made." " I suppose," he wrote, " the Papists procured this Revel to be willing to get himself into the service of the Earl her [Queen of Scots] keeper at Sheffield Castle ; and by virtue of these charmed plates of gold, together with the Masses spoken of before for the good success, made him believe he should get into his favour, and thereby have opportunity either of killing him, or making him willing to wink at the Queen's escape." Surely there are some credulous fools in the world, and Humphrey Wanley was one of these in his day ! COVENTRY AND LICHFIELD 399 Bentham. His covering letter, too, is a highly curious and instructive document, for it may possibly serve to explain why other episcopal returns were so meagre. It is to be believed that throughout England the under-sheriffs, and, indeed, the gentry in general who had already conformed and subscribed the oaths, were for the most part on friendly terms with their recusant neighbours; and in most cases, even though they were themselves conformers, were no favourers of the persecuting spirit which manifested itself in some quarters. It thus came about that some of those who held public offices of trust, although they might scrupulously comply with the letter of their instructions for the return of the names and valuations of the recusants within the limits of their jurisdiction, yet not infrequently they could hardly have fulfilled their spirit, and either frankly expressed inability to procure the required informa- tion, or else made returns so bald and jejune as to give very little encouragement and less help to the authorities at headquarters, whether ecclesiastical or civil. The proof of this is ready to hand in the State records. Bishop Bentham was determined, however, that, in his diocese at least, the efforts of the Council should not be rendered abortive through the slackness of other officials, so he sup- plemented the returns of the under-sheriffs of Staffordshire by private information of his own. His letter to the Council may be given almost in its entirety : "... I have had and used the opinion and judgment of Mr. Trentham and Mr. Bagott for the state of Staffordshire, which I find to be so small in mine opinion, that, where they give any, I set it down rather secretly than in sight, being bold to signify unto your honours mine own opinion and judgment of them in open view, which I take to be rather too little than too much, considering their states and doings, which I have known above these sixteen years. . . . Concerning Warwick- shire I do not understand of any person that there absenteth himself from church in this case. . . . But touching Derby- shire and so much of Shropshire as is of my jurisdiction . . . I have only sent unto you the names of such as have been 400 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS presented and are openly known not to come to the church ... I dare boldly affirm that the most part of them be very wealthy." l The accompanying schedule contains the names of 105 people in Staffordshire alone (besides unnamed and unnumbered "servants"), all of whom are at least what we should call " well-to-do " ; the valuations of the sheriffs and of the Bishop show considerable discrepancies ; thus Richard Fitzherbert of the parish of Hamstall Ridware is assessed at £3 6s. Sd. and at £100; Erasmus Wolseley of Colwich at £26 13s. 4d. and at £200; Hugh Erdeswick of Sondon at £40 and .£200 ; Francis Gatacre of Swynnerton at £13 6s. %d. and 200 marks, and so forth. Three names have had a cross prefixed to them, evidently to mark them out as retired or Marian priests, possibly in enjoyment of a pension. They are : John Bradbury, chaplain to Mrs. Dorothy Heveningham of Stone ; Thomas Chedleton, clerk, of Castlechurch ; B. Barber, D.D., of Penkridge. The list for Derbyshire contains 38 names, and that for part of Shropshire 20 names, besides " the most part " of the family of John Talbot of Peperhill, Esq. " John Lathom, schoolmaster to the Lady Stanley her son and heir," has a cross prefixed to his name, evidently marking him out as being in reality a Marian priest. Although this lengthy list of 163 (and more) names might have been considered ample, nay exhaustive, it did not satisfy the zealous Bishop; so he set to work to revise it, and on the following 1st February, 1577-8, forwarded the result to the Privy Council, specifically stating as his reason for so doing that the earlier certificate " was not in all points so full and per- fect as was expected," due to the short time allowed for gathering the information. Even so, notwithstanding the care and trouble the Bishop had expended on the work, it was not all that he would have wished. He wrote: " I have here sent unto you the same certificate in effect renewed and augmented so much as I can learn, either by myself or such as I have put good confidence in. And I perceive the case to be of great difficulty for that I can find few trusty 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eiiz., cxvin, No. 17, 10th November, 1577. COVENTRY AND LICHFIELD 401 to deal with, and fewer willing to utter what they know." ' The lists enclosed with the letter give 118 names in Staf- fordshire, 53 in Derbyshire, and 27 for part of Shropshire — 198 in all; compare these figures with the 163, as given in the first return. Bishop Bentham died in 1579, and was succeeded by William Overton. Into the details of his episcopate it will be unnecessary to enquire; but he wrote to Walsingham that he had "the stubbornest diocese in all this land," 2 and later, he justified his refusal to induct a clergyman whom he considered unfit, on these grounds: " considering that in Stafford archdeaconry, where are about 150 cures, there are scarce the thirtieth parish furnished with a tolerable * preacher: the country otherwise being so dangerous and superstitious . . ." s It remains only to add that as late as 1584, Bishop Overton found it needful to formulate the following questions for the visitation he then held. Besides the stereotyped enquiry into the defacing of altars and destruction of vestments and books, he further wanted to be informed if the ministers " be known or suspected as favourers of the Romish Church, Superiority, or religion." Also if there were " Massing priests . . . known or suspected to frequent or haunt to any person or persons," etc., " And whether you know or have heard of any sometime in Orders, that now do live as lay men? " 4 These and such like queries afford proof that the Reformation was making but slow and, to some extent at least, unwilling progress. In other words, a quarter of a century of effort had not succeeded in de- Catholicising the diocese of Coventry and Lichfield. 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxxn, No. 28. 2 Ibid., cxlix, No. 37, nth June, 1581. 3 Egerton MS. 1693, f. 118, 19th July, 1584. * Second Report of Ritual Commission, 1868, p. 428. D D CHAPTER X The Task of the Elizabethan Bishops III . — The Southern Province {continued) THE diocese of Oxford, having been carved out of Lincoln when Henry VIII increased the traditional number of English Sees, was not of great importance either as to size or revenues, nor indeed as to influence, except perhaps from the fact that within its confines was situated one of the great centres of English thought and learning. It was, too, during no inconsiderable portions of Elizabeth's reign, vacant; hence, perhaps, the subsidiary role it played at this period in the conflict between the old order and the new. Robert King, first Bishop of Oxford, died at the end of 1557, from which time the See was vacant till the trans- lation of Hugh Coren {or Curwen) from Dublin in 1567. 1 This prelate died the following year, and the See was again vacant till 1589, and yet again from 1592 to 1604. As a consequence it was ruled by commission, sede vacante, by the Metropolitan. Its status in 1563 does not appear to be forthcoming; but the " Douay Diaries" list credits it with 195 churches. Lord Burghley, in a notice of the number of parsonages and vicarages in the various counties extracted from the Exchequer records of First Fruits and Tenths, assigns but 166 churches to Oxfordshire. 2 Of these, ten were returned as vacant about 1565. 3 It fell to Archbishop Parker to make a return of the religious tendencies of its Justices of the Peace in 1564. His response, showing his 1 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xliii, No. 61, August, 1567. 2 Old Royal Libr. MS. 18, D. in, f. 3. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. Add., XII, No. 108. 402 OXFORD 403 distaste for such inquisitions, has already been quoted l ; he merely enclosed the names of the Oxfordshire Justices without further note or comment; there were thirteen in the diocese outside the city of Oxford whose names are wholly undistinguished ; within the city there were nine, one or two of whom were undoubtedly Catholics, others as certainly Reformers. Beyond this it is impossible to go.- When Hugh Curwen was brought to Oxford from Ireland in 1 567, he was in such a state of health as to need a co- adjutor as soon as he was appointed — " in his such im- potency," as Archbishop Parker told Cecil ; at the same time he could not approve of those suggested by Curwen, " being, I fear, of such inclination that neither they will serve God in good religion nor do their duty to the Prince, their contemplations being otherwhere set." 3 George Dan- vers wrote to Cecil on 28th April, 1570, to say that "the 25th of this present April, being at Oxford about . . . privy seals, but more troubled there with examination of certain Mass-mongers about their celebrations then appre- hended, as by a certificate thereof, if you have not already heard, I am sure you shall shortly hear, than with, etc." 4 Seven years later, when the Privy Council were desirous of finding out those recusants who were able to bear the drain of fining, Archbishop Grindal wrote to the Dean and Chap- ter of Oxford, reciting to them the tenor of the Council's letter to him. In transmitting to them the orders therein contained he remarked : " I am informed, that the diocese of Oxford is more replenished with such recusants, for the quantity thereof, than any other diocese of this realm." s His information was not inaccurate. Dr. Herbert Westfaling, then canon of Christ Church, Oxford, later to become Bishop of Hereford, sent the desired return to Archbishop 1 P. 345- 2 Camden Miscellany, vol. be, Bishop? Letters, 1564, pp. 81-2. 3 Parker Corresp., p. 305, No. 235, 5th October, 1567. 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., lxvii, No. 76. 5 Remains of Abp. Gri?idal, p. 362, No. 84, 18th November, 1577- 404 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS Grindal on 3rd December following. He alleged many reasons as excuse for its want of fulness, quite needlessly it might seem, amongst others, " the lothness of many to utter their knowledge . . . and yet when all is done, I think it will not answer the report that goeth of this dio- cese; for though these that are named in this certificate be too many ; yet by reason of the common speech I looked myself to have found in the visitation a great store more." 1 The certificate contained the names of 119 "presented or otherwise thought not at all to come to divine service," 21 " that have not been known to receive the Communion this year or more, but come sometimes to the church," and 10 **. that come very seldom to divine service." These 1 50 " suspects," were exclusive of members of the University, whose tendencies have already been to some extent ana- lysed. Archbishop Grindal further certified that those whose names were included in the two smaller categories had made promise to amend their faults. 2 It may be noted that this interesting list contains such well-known Catholic names as Arden, Belson, Davey, Etheredge, Greenwood, Roland Jenks, Oglethorpe, Owen, Piggott, Pitts, Sheldon, Stonor, and Yate. Again, at some date before the death of Archbishop Heath on 5th May, 1579, a list of recusants was drawn up for purposes of taxation for levying of musters. The limit for inclusion was £40 and upwards in value of land, £200 and upwards in value of goods. Ox- ford contributed forty names to the total, 3 repeating many of those mentioned above. The diocese of Sarum brings the reader into touch with one of the most remarkable men of the period, John Jewel, the famous apologist of the Established Church. He was a Reformer during Edward's reign, abjured those tenets on Mary's accession to save his skin, but later fled to the Con- tinent, and bewailed the temporary weakness of which he had been guilty. When Mary passed away he returned to England and took part in the Westminster Conference, 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., CXIX, No. 5. 2 Ibid., CXix, No. 5 i. 3 Ibid., cxlii, No. 33. SALISBURY 405 which he described with some minuteness and more bias to Peter Martyr, but rightly designated it " an useless confer- ence, and one which indeed can hardly be considered as such." ' Being a man of energy and action, he chafed under the delays occasioned by the procedure of settling religion by parliamentary debate and vote; hence in his next letter to Martyr he reminded him that their " adversaries acted always with precipitancy . . . while we manage everything with so much deliberation, and prudence, and wariness, and circumspection. . . . This dilatoriness has grievously damped the spirits of our brethren, while it has wonderfully encouraged the rage and fury of our opponents. Indeed, you would hardly believe with how much greater boldness they now conduct themselves than they ever did before ; yet the people everywhere, and especially the whole of the nobility, are both disgusted with their insolent exaltation, and exceedingly thirsty for the Gospel. Hence it has hap- pened, that the Mass in many places has of itself fallen to the ground, without any laws for its discontinuance. . . . Meanwhile many alterations in religion are effected in Par- liament, in spite of the opposition and gainsaying and disturbance of the bishops. These, however, I will not mention, as they are not yet publicly known, and are often brought on the anvil to be hammered over again." 2 Writing on 28th April, he complained: "As yet not the slightest provision has been made for any of us." 3 Then when the Parliament had risen and people were able to take stock of what the new religious legislation implied, he was dis- satisfied with the gains of his party, and with the small share they had had in the shaping of the results. " So miserably is it ordered," he wrote to Martyr, " that false- 1 4 Jewel, p. 1204, Letter IX, 6th April, 1559; Habes hnvfy ±ts\? et pene ovevteuktov. " 4 Jewel, p. 1205, Letter x, 14th April, 1559. 3 4 Jewel, p. 1208, Letter XI. Cf. also, Letter xm, p. 1212, which better explains this allusion : " not one of us has yet had even his own property restored to him." Cf. also, Letter xvm, p. 1223, 5th Novem- ber, 1559. 4 o6 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS hood is armed, while truth is not only unarmed, but also frequently offensive. The scenic apparatus of divine wor- ship is now under agitation ; and those very things which you and I have so often laughed at are now seriously and solemnly entertained by certain persons (for we are not consulted) as if the Christian religion could not exist with- out something tawdry." ' His views toned down when the weight of the mitre was on his brow. 2 He also mentioned the appointment of various reformers to some of the Sees, and informed Martyr that " a commission is now appointed for the whole of England, with a view to the establishment of religion. Sandys will go into Lancashire, I into Devon- shire, others into other parts." On ist August, 1559, he an- nounced to Martyr his own appointment to the bishopric of Salisbury, though he assured him that " this burthen I have positively determined to shake off." 3 He was, too, on the point of setting out on the work of the ecclesiastical commission to which he had referred in a previous letter. " I have now one foot on the ground, and the other almost on my horse's back. I am on the point of setting out upon a long and troublesome commission for the establishment of religion, through Reading, Abingdon, Gloucester, Bris- tol, Bath, Wells, Exeter, Cornwall, Dorset, and Salisbury. The extent of my journey will be about 700 miles, so that I imagine we shall hardly be able to return in less than four months." l The next letter, dated 2nd Novem- ber, 1559, gives Martyr, soon after he had "returned to London with a body worn out by a most fatiguing jour- ney," some general account of the results of his labours, quoted elsewhere.' 1 The gist of his remarks may be summed up in one triumphant sentence: "the ranks of the Papists have fallen almost of their own accord " ; and yet, in the same breath, he admitted that it was " no easy matter to 1 4 Jewel, p. 1210, Letter XII. 2 Cf. 4 Jewel, p. 1272, Letter xliv, 24th February, 1567-8, to Bul- linger. 3 Cf. also, p. 1221, Letter xvn, 2nd November, 1559. 1 4 Jewel, p. 1215, Letter xiv. 5 P. 177. SALISBURY 407 drag the chariot without horses, especially up-hill." With- out doubt the reference was to the departure of such clergy as refused to conform ; the " up-hill " nature of the work as surely indicates the opposition already shown, and, as will be seen, which continued to be displayed for long after. 1 On the same date Jewel wrote to Josiah Simler," and, as from a previous letter the reader will have judged of Jewel's Puritan tendencies, from his contemptuous reference to ritual,' so, by this one, that impression will be strengthened. " As to your expressing your hopes that our bishops will be consecrated without any superstitious and offensive ceremonies, you mean, I suppose, without oil, without the chrism, without the tonsure. And you are not mistaken ; for the sink would indeed have been emptied to no purpose if we had suffered those dregs to settle at the bottom. Those oily, shaven, portly hypocrites we have sent back to Rome from whence we first imported them. For we re- quire our bishops to be pastors, labourers, and watchmen." 4 On 2 1st January, 1559-60, Jewel was consecrated without the ancient rites his soul so abominated; and yet, so strongly did he feel on the question of the retention of the cross on the Communion tables of the new Faith, that he was prepared at once to relinquish his See rather than con- sent to their being reintroduced. " Matters are come to that pass," he wrote to Peter Martyr, " that either the crosses of silver and tin, which we have everywhere broken in pieces, must be restored, or our bishoprics relinquished." ' It has been necessary to give these various references to Jewel's correspondence, for they exhibit the tendency of the mind which largely shaped the policy of the Establishment, and which most ably championed it against its opponents 1 Cf. 4 Jewel, p. 12 17, Letter xv. 2 Letter xvi, p. 1221. 3 Cf. too, p. 1223, Letter xvm, 5th November, 1559, in which he speaks of scenic dress, veste scenica, and theatrical dress, veste iovi/ca, etc.; and p. 1225, Letter xix, 16th November, 1559. 4 The original reads thus : " Unctos istos, et rasos, et personatas ventres Romam remisimus," etc. " 4 Jewel, p. 1229, Letter xxi, 4th February, 1559-60. 4 o8 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS and detractors. So busily, indeed, was he engaged over public business — " prevented by a thousand hindrances " — that he did not reach his diocese till 23rd May. He was pleased it turned out so, for the spire of Salisbury Cathe- dral was struck by lightning on 7th May; and Jewel re- marked to Martyr: "It so happened that I had not yet arrived there: had I done so, so foolish and superstitious are men's minds, that all this mischief would have been as- cribed to my coming. I shall, however, go thither to- morrow." l This little incident shows that Jewel's flock were not thought by him to be in sympathy with him. The same letter states with approval that several persons, bishops and others, had been " sent to prison, for having obstinately refused attendance on public worship, and everywhere declaiming and railing against that religion which we now profess. For the Queen . . . declared that she would not allow any of her subjects to dissent from this religion with impunity." While still in London between the date of his consecration and of his taking formal pos- session of his See, he preached at Paul's Cross the famous sermon against transubstantiation, in the course of which he threw out, for a second time, his celebrated challenge, pro- mising that if he were convinced of error he would submit. But a perusal of the challenge a will exhibit it to a candid reader as somewhat disingenuous, for it is a medley of doc- trine and practice, of revelation and observance of human and therefore changeable law and custom, which must have proved wholly confusing to any but a trained mind. Dr. Henry Cole, though in prison, took him at his word, and a correspondence ensued, which from the nature of the cir- cumstances attending it, could only be one-sided and end one way — in a cheap victory for Jewel. But the cudgels were taken up to some purpose by Dr. Thomas Harding, a fugitive living in Louvain: Jewel had to answer his doughty opponent, and the able Apology for the Church of England was the result, published in 1 562. This elicited from Harding 1 4 Jewel, p. 1234, Letter xxm, 22nd May, 1560. 3 Cf. 1 Jewel, p. 20-1. SALISBURY 409 his " Answer to the Apology," which was countered by Jewel's " Reply " ; whereupon Harding rejoined with his " Confutation of the Apology," drawing from Jewel his " Defence of the Apology," published in 1 567. l The Earl of Warwick asked Archbishop Parker "to grant an injunc- tion . . . that every minister may be bound to have one " ; J and later, Archbishop Parker suggested to Bishop Park- hurst of Norwich that he should " commend the late Bishop of Sarum's last book to be had in the rest of the parish churches within your diocese, wherein they be not." 3 Parkhurst did not approve of the idea, for as the book printed Harding's objections, he thought it might " be a great occasion to confirm the adversaries in their opinions, that having not wherewith to buy Harding's books, shall find the same already provided for them ; where like unto the spider sucking only that may serve their purposes, and contemning that is most wholesome, will not once vouch- safe to look upon the same." 4 This digression may be pardoned as its purpose is to show the important position held by Jewel amongst the Elizabethan prelates. Return- ing, now, to the survey of Jewel's episcopal work, it may be noted that on 6th November, 1560, he informed Martyr that " I am now preparing for the assembling of my clergy, and the visitation of my diocese." 5 He further said: "our Church, by the blessing of God, is at length at peace . . . we are only wanting in preachers; and of these there is a great and alarming scarcity. The schools also are entirely deserted; so that, unless God look favourably upon us, we cannot hope for any supply in future." It is true these words may be understood generally, and that they may be taken to apply to the whole of England; but it maybe also that they are the result of his outlook over his own diocese. Whichever way they are taken, however, they are of in- 1 Cf. Did. Nat. Biogr., xxix, p. 380. - Parker Corresp., p. 319, No. 243, 3rd May, 1568. 3 Ibid., p. 417, No. 319, 24th February, 1572-3. ' Ibid., p. 417, note. 6 4 Jewel, p. 1 24 1, Letter xxvi. 410 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS terest. The same may be said of his verdict — " the ob- stinacy of the Papists is now greater than ever," — which he gave to Peter Martyr at a later date. 1 What transpired in that visitation may possibly find a place in Jewel's Regis- ter: but nothing has survived in his correspondence. How- ever, something may be learned about the diocese from the information he had to furnish to the Privy Council in 1 563. He catalogued 448 churches and chapels where the " Douay Diaries " list mentions but 248. A portion of the dis- crepancy is accounted for by the fact that Jewel's grand total includes 54 exempts or peculiars. With this total of 394 may be compared a note of Lord Burghley's 2 in which he enumerates 401 parsonages and vicarages in Wiltshire and Berkshire. Of these, Jewel admitted that three were simply "void "; two "void: a curate"; but 37 livings were put down with a " curate only, or ought to have," showing either that they had not, or else indicating the Bishop's own uncertainty on the point. 5 But in a return of vacant livings made for the Queen's information, probably in 1565, Sarum would appear to have not three but fourteen such. 4 When called upon in 1564 to give his opinion about the religious " inclination towards the furtherance of God's truth " of the Justices of Berkshire and Wiltshire, he tabu- lated them as 10 " furtherers earnest," 8 " furtherers," and 10 " no hinderers." He likewise recommended 4 gentlemen for inclusion in the commission. Against these 18 stalwart and 10 lukewarm supporters, he had the satisfaction of having to name but three Catholics openly and firmly op- posed to the Reformation. These were " Edmund Plowden of Shiplake, as it is supposed, a hinderer," — a matter on which there should never have been a doubt ; " William Hyde of Denchworthe, no furtherer," and " Jo. Yate of Buckland, never yet received the holy Communion since the beginning of the Queen's Majesty's reign, and therefore ' 4 Jewel, p. 1256, Letter xxxm, 14th August, 1562. 2 Old Royal Libr. MS. 18, D. ill, f. 3. 3 Harl. MS. 595, No. 27, f. 195, 19th July, 1563. 4 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. Add., xn, No. 108. SALISBURY 411 now excommunicate, and returned into the King's Bench for the same." ' Writing to Simler on 23rd March, 1563-4, Bishop Jewel, speaking about the Ubiquitarians troubling his German colleague, said: "our Church, by the blessing of God, is free from these monsters. We have only to do with some of the popish satellites, who are making as much disturb- ance as they can in their corners and hiding-places." 2 His activity was great with pen and tongue, for, besides his printed controversies, which occupied much of his time, he was indefatigable in going about his diocese preaching; and again early in 1569 he made another visitation of his See. 5 His labours were ended by death, in September, 1571. Edmund Ghest was transferred from Rochester to replace him, and died as Bishop of Salisbury early in 1 577, without leaving any record behind him of dealings with recusants. John Piers, who had succeeded him in Rochester, also followed him to Salisbury; during his occupancy of it, it naturally fell to him to make the returns about the recusant members of his flock asked for by the Privy Council. Some of these were furnished by himself, some by lay officers of the Crown. In 1577 the diocese is represented by 59 names of Catholics, many of whom were people of considerable means ; 49 lived in Berkshire, the remainder in Wiltshire. 4 The Earl of Pembroke in forwarding the short Wiltshire list, remarks: "some other there be that are much suspected ": hence the list is evidently incomplete; but it is interesting as showing that those whose names were sent up, had one 1 Camden Miscellany, vol. ix, Bishops' Letters, 1564, pp. 37-9. For further details about these Justices, more especially the famous Ed- mund Plowden, cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., LX, No. 47, and enclosures, 22nd December, 1569; also, to prove that after the publication of the Bull in 1570, Plowden ceased to conform outwardly, cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. cxliv, Nos. 45, 46, 2nd December, 1580. - 4 Jewel, p. 1261, Letter xxxvn. 3 Ibid., p. 1274, Letter xlvi, 18th January, 1568-9. 4 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvn, Nos. 17 and 17 i, Bp. Piers and Hy. Nevill to the Council, 26th October, 1577; P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvn, Nos. 26 and 2& i, Earl of Pembroke to the Council, 28th October, 1577. 4 i2 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS and all steadily refused to go to Communion, some since the beginning of the Queen's reign. Further, a certain George Brytayne of Monkton Farley, " hath passed away his estate in Monkton Farley and takes it now by lease " — an ingenious method of trying to evade forfeiture. In a general list of recusants in the various counties to show those who held land or goods above a fixed minimum, Berkshire yielded 18, and Wiltshire 5 names — 23 in all. 1 Not long after, " an information concerning certain recu- sants in Berkshire " contained the names of twenty-seven people. The paper is otherwise of little value. 2 Robert Home was Dean of Durham during Edward's reign : this post he lost together with all his other prefer- ments when Mary came to the throne, but escaped to Zurich. He remained abroad till Mary's death permitted of his return to England, and was at once restored to the deanery of Durham. On the deprivation of White, then Bishop of Winchester, in November, 1560, Home was nominated to succeed him, and was consecrated by Arch- bishop Parker on 16th February, 1560-1/ and filled that See for just the period covered by this enquiry, that is, till his death in 1580. He was strongly Puritan in his convic- tions 4 ; and it is noticeable that his life's work was cast always amid antagonistic surroundings. As he found him- self in the extreme north at Durham the head of a Catholic Chapter, and the leader of a Catholic laity, so when re- moved to the extreme south, he lived and moved in a similar atmosphere. The Marquess of Winchester, writing to Cecil a few days after the Act of Uniformity came into 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., CXLll, No. 33, circa 1579. - Cotton MS. Titus B. ill, No. 23, f. 63; undated, but after 1581, for it speaks of Sir Fr. Drake, who was knighted in that year. 3 Diet. Nat. Biogr., xxvii, p. 360. 4 Writing a common letter with Grindal to Bullinger and Gualter, he mentions with approval that "The Church of England, too, has entirely given up the use of [prayers in] a foreign tongue, breathings, exorcisms, oil, spittle, clay, lighted tapers, and other things of that kind, which, by the Act of Parliament, are never to be restored." I Zur., p. 178, No. 75, 6th February, 1566-7. WINCHESTER 413 operation, said : " This Friday morning, I sent you my son St. John's letter, sent me from Hampshire, with other writings made by the Dean and Canons of the Cathedral Church, and from the Warden and Fellows of the New College, and from the Master of St. Cross', whereby it ap- peareth they leave their service and enter to no new, be- cause it is against their conscience, as it appeareth by their writings, wherein order must be taken. . . ." 1 At the same time, the Bishop of Aquila wrote to King Philip: "the news is that in the neighbourhood of Winchester they have been unwilling to receive the service book which is the Office which these heretics have made up; and that the clergy of the diocese have met to consult as to what they ought to do ; and that no Mass was being said, at which the laity were much disturbed." 2 A few days later he in- formed his master that: " It is certain that in the diocese of Winchester they have not accepted it [i.e., the new form of religion], nor will they take the oath; and that all is now in confusion, and that up to now they have not ven- tured to press (or punish) them." 3 Shortly after Bishop Home entered on his charge, he undertook a much-needed visitation of his diocese. Some time after he had com- menced this duty, he reported progress to Sir William Cecil. " Hitherto I have proceeded in my visitation through Surrey and a good part of this shire, and so am going for- ward to Southampton and the Isle of Wight. As to the state of that I have passed, for such as have hitherto ap- peared before me, I have not found any repugning to the ordinances of the realm concerning religion, neither the ministers dissenting from the same, but conforming them- selves as it was required of them, and in testification thereof have subscribed to the declaration for Uniformity of doctrine." So far the letter conveys the impression that Bishop Home found all ready to submit themselves to the change; but then comes the corrective: "Nevertheless I 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., iv, No. 72, 30th June, 1559; see, too, p. 168. 2 Chron. Belg., i, p. 544, No. ccclix, 27th June, 1559; see, too, p. 175. 3 Ibid., i. p. 548, No. CCCLXH, 1st July, 1559. 4H TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS have found many absent, and many churches destitute of incumbents and ministers and, much more, of good and able men to perform the charge, and many churches of so small livings as they cannot entertain any minister at all. The absence of many proceedeth partly through the wilful- ness of some who have purposely withdrawn themselves, or otherwise under colour absenting them, and partly under pretence that they serve noblemen, against all which I mean to proceed as may seem best to appertain, meaning to have them come to me, my visitation ended." ' A state- ment contained in this interesting letter is endorsed in a remarkable way by a contemporary document. In the first place, Lord Burghley once made a note of" the number of all the parsonages and vicarages within every city and county of the realm of England, extracted out of the Queen's Majesty's records of the First Fruits and Tenths remaining in the Exchequer."- This gives in all 8731 livings. There is a volume in the State archives, a Register of grants of dispensation to hold benefices in plurality, during the years 1560-70. 3 This also was known to and used by Lord Burghley, in whose own handwriting it has been endorsed "Dispensations." During those eleven years 1,377 dispen- sations were granted to 1,070 different clergymen. The proportion between these figures and the number of livings is interesting, as showing the need created by the dearth of ministers, bewailed by so many of the bishops, evidently a consequence of the unwillingness of a large body of clergy to take the Elizabethan oaths of Supremacy and Uni- formity. Towards the end of the period covered by the Register, the reason suggested would have ceased in great measure to hold good; but the numbers are significant. The dates of entry are not always in exact chronological order; but, roughly, the numbers run as follows: dispensa- tions granted during the first year were 191 in number, then 180, 132, 60, 90, 82, and so on. Now it would be pre- 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., XVII, No. 23, 8th June, 1561. 2 Old Royal Libr. MS. 18, D. ill, f. 3. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., lxxvi. WINCHESTER 415 cisely during the first three years that the largest number of livings would have become vacant by deprivation, resig- nation owing to conscientious scruples, and abandonment through fear. But another point is also made clear through the pages of this Register. No less than 95 1 of those entries of grants of pluralities were made to chaplains of bishops or noblemen. The Bishop of Sarum had 12 chap- lains, who were dispensed with to be pluralists ; Lord Pem- broke 23, while Bishop Home had 5. Some 60 of these clergy were chaplains to well-known Catholic noblemen, and therefore without much doubt were Catholic priests who were shielded by the powerful influence of their patrons ; and relying on the " pretence that they serve noblemen " had, as Bishop Home complained, " purposely withdrawn themselves " from his visitation, endeavouring by this ruse to escape the necessity of taking the oaths, or by their refusal, exposing themselves to the risk of deprivation. On 29th August, 1 561, Bishop Home wrote again to Cecil at greater length, to inform him of the progress of his work. Reading between the superabundant lines of pompous verbiage, it seems that some order had been re- ceived from the Privy Council for the Justices of the shire to make enquiries similar to those pursued in the course of the episcopal visitation. The Bishop suggests an amalgama- tion of forces, ecclesiastical and civil, with the result that " it might disclose a great part of the estate of the country and strike such awe and fear in the minds of the gentry and other the subjects, that infinite profit would grow thereby." The context makes it clear that reference was mainly to the observance of the civil law ; but he pro- ceeded : " As touching religion, I have found more dis- orders by this inquisition in my [civil] division, and Sir W. Kellaway in his, Mr. Poynings in his, and Mr. Uvedall in his . . . than I could in my visitation by the churchwar- dens, such is the fear of punishment by the purse more than of God's curse. But whatsoever is found and reformed by us in these divisions, we cannot perceive that much is done elsewhere in the shire, making as it seemeth little 4 i6 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS sort thereof. For by means of small correction done in other parts, many idle persons and evil disposed shift from us into other hundreds, whereof disorder increaseth the more, and giveth occasion to some amongst us to murmur for that they are redressed and brought to order, and not others." 1 Though the language is somewhat cryptic, the facts stand out clearly enough, indicating that Papists shifted their dwellings to avoid being brought to book, just as has already been seen in the case of other dioceses. That he had to deal with the persistent opposition of many " evil disposed " appears from a subsequent letter. Writing again to Cecil on 12th January, 1 561-2, the Bishop said : " having many ways endeavoured and travailed to bring and reduce the inhabitants of the city of Winchester to good uniformity in religion, and namely to have the cures there served as the Common Prayer might be frequented, which hath not been done since the Massing time ; and also that good and sound doctrine might be taught amongst them, which they as yet do not so well like and allow, I could not by any means hitherto bring the same to pass." For a remedy he suggests uniting some of the city livings, " with- out which I see no way how to have them well served, but that they shall continue and be further nursled in supersti- tion and Popery, lacking not of some priests in the Cathe- dral Church to inculcate the same daily into their heads . . . and the rather for the said inhabitants are very stub- born, whose reformation would keep the greatest part of the shire bent that way . . . some of them have boasted and avaunted that do what I can, I shall not have this my pur- pose [i.e., of uniting certain livings] ; whereby it seemeth they have some privy bearing, that giveth them courage thus to say. And I do not think the contrary, but that sundry there are in the shire which have borne some great countenance in the late times, which hinder as much as they can the proceedings in religion, and to be found not to have communicated since the Queen's Majesty's reign began, or since the Mass-saying, against whom I think 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xix, No. 36. WINCHESTER 417 hereafter I must proceed to enforcement." 1 That the Bishop was not without justification for his suspicions that there were those in his diocese " which hinder as much as they can the proceedings in religion," appears more plainly in a subsequent letter, wherein he asks Cecil's help to secure a living for a "common preacher of God's Word very earnest and diligent in the same." So little preferment was in his own hands, and so little could he count on the help of any of those who held the patronage of livings, that Bishop Home relied only on Cecil to get his nominee a foothold in the diocese. " It standeth so that there is likely very shortly that two benefices will be void here of the gift of the Countess of Southampton, which I doubt will be bestowed by unseemly manner to men unworthy, unless your honour's letters effectually written to the said Countess in the bearer's behalf may obtain one of those benefices for this bearer." 2 This communication and the list of dispensations to hold a plurality of benefices lately referred to, throw light on one another mutually, for the Catholic Countess of Southampton was one of those whose private chaplains were so licensed. The Bishop continued to hold her in suspicion, for, in 1564, he suggested to the Privy Council that her son, the young earl, " might now in his youth be so trained in religion that hereafter ... he should not hinder the same." 3 This general survey of the condition of religion prevail- ing in Bishop Home's diocese serves as a useful preface to the return he was required to make in 1563. This he did on 12th July of that year. In all, 421 churches and chapels were enumerated, being thus distributed: 313 in the arch- deaconry of Winchester, and 108 in that of Surrey. The exempt parishes were 49 in number, bringing down the total of churches for which Bishop Home was responsible to 372, and being thus closely in agreement with the total of 362, as given in the " Douay Diaries " list. As no details 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xxi, No. 7; printed in full in Dodd's Church History, ii, p. cccxviii. a P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xxv, No. 2, 3rd October, 1562. 3 Camden Miscellany, vol. ix, Bishops' Letters, 1564, p. 54. E E 4 20 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS perilous Papist did speak it, although as yet I can come by no proof thereof; for the party to whom it was spoken did tell it me, although he were loth to be the author thereof for neighbourhood's sake." 1 This attachment of the inhabitants of Hampshire to the Faith of their fathers received confirmation not very long after from another source. Some time in 1 572 there was pre- pared for Lord Burghley's information, and endorsed by him " Hampshire," a list containing " The names of the noblemen, gentlemen, yeomen and chief franklins within the county of Southampton, with note of every of their dispositions." The names are headed by that of the Bishop and six noblemen, but without any comment. Two of them, however, Lord St. John and Lord Chideock Paulet, figured in 1564 among the Justices who were " mislikers or not favourers " ; and the latter nobleman appeared for many years after in various returns of recusants. 2 Then followed 246 persons arranged according to the Hundreds where they dwelt; 102 have no distinguishing label : these were people of whose conformity Lord Burghley could make sure; others have " pp " or " p " against their names. A cursory examination of the list establishes the fact that these letters represent that those opposite whose names they were set were either " earnest Papists " or merely " Papists." There were 47 of the former, 97 of the latter. 3 It was about this time that a casual remark, in a letter of Bishop Home to Bullinger, furnished the probable cause of the compilation of this list, the history of which really belongs to another part of this subject. On 10th January, 1572-3, he wrote: "The Church . . . is . . . not without danger; not so much from the opposition of the Papists, who are daily restrained by severe laws, as," etc. 4 That list, doubtless, had something to do with the incidence of the penal laws upon the recus- ants. That the work of stamping out opposition to the Reformation had not as yet altogether succeeded in Win- 1 Lansd. MS. 12, No. 31. 2 Cf., ex.gr., P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., Lix, No. 46, 28th November, 1569. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xc, No. 18. 4 1 Zur., p. 277, No. 105. WINCHESTER 421 Chester diocese is proved from the Articles of Enquiry framed by Archbishop Parker in 1575 for use in his metro- political visitation of that diocese. At that late date he asks, inter alia: "whether any, being once ordained priest . . . doth not still continue in their calling, or frequenteth and resorteth not to the Common Prayer. . . . Item, whether any of them say or sing in private conventicles Mass. . . . Item, whether any parsonage or vicarage or any other spiritual living in this diocese be holden by the name and title of any beyond the seas?" 1 The usual questions about the destruction of altars, images, Mass-books, etc., etc., of course, recur. The next transaction shedding light on the present enquiry is the certificate of recusants required in 1577 by the Privy Council. As this entailed a valuation of their lands and goods, it boded for them further spoliation. The Bishop furnished the return with alacrity, spurred on, it may be inferred, by the chagrin he must have experienced by the defection of his nephew Adam Home, who had just been reconciled to Rome. 2 Hence there was some justifica- tion for the bitterness of his comment: "And so most heartily desirous to hear that your wisdoms will devise some such remedy in these causes as their most wilful obstinacy may be the better restrained and corrected, which daily groweth more and more." 3 The actual list was commenced thus : " First, whereas by the same your honourable letters it is required that certificate shall be made without respect of person or degree, it was thought good only to name the Earl of Southampton, leaving further to deal therein, for that his Lordship and the value of his lands and goods is not unknown unto your honour- able Lordships." After this discreet challenge to the Coun- cil to " deal " with a nobleman too powerful for Home himself to meddle with, the usual tabulated list follows, con- taining fifty-seven names, nearly all of them of prominent 1 Second Report of Rubrics Cofntnission, 1868, App. E, pp. 415-6. 2 Douay Diaries, p. 128. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvn, No. 10, 24th October, 1577. 4 i8 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS whatsoever were furnished about the 108 churches in the archdeaconry of Surrey, our comparisons must be based solely on the Hampshire figures. The exempt churches were thus situated: 41 in Hampshire, 8 in Surrey. Of the 313 churches in the archdeaconry of Winchester, 233 were parish churches, while 80 were chapels of ease. Thirty-two churches were void, and 62 of the 80 chapels were unserved. 1 This state of things gives point to Bishop Home's remark, made to Bullinger, that he was strenuously engaged in " teaching, warning, and enforcing what was right," "lest the flock committed to our charge should, through our fault, be scattered by those inveterate errors which are still circu- lated by the Papists in secret." 2 In the following year, when the return of Justices was asked for, specifically as re- garded their religious convictions, Bishop Home was not as communicative as was his wont. But he confirmed the fact, already established, that " Winchester is most noted in Hampshire either for good example or evil," and that " all that bear authority there except one or two [were] addict to the old superstition and earnest fautors thereof." When we consult the tabulated lists, 8 " mislikers " con- front us, as against 2 " favourers," mentioned by the Bishop, and two more added in Cecil's hand. In the county of Hampshire the Bishop mentioned 6 " mislikers " and 23 "favourers," including himself, his chancellor, and one or two similar officials. In Surrey the proportion was more balanced, there being in that county 8 " favourers " against 4 " mislikers." Even amongst the magistrates thus labelled as "favourers," there were those who were so outwardly only, for at a later date, when the Rising in the North was sifting men's in- clinations, the Bishop wrote to Cecil : " I would have no other gentlemen than those I have named in the commis- sion, for avoiding partiality and bearing with friends, neigh- bours and kinsfolks; of which faults, even of the best, Pro- testants are not void. They will do in Hampshire as in 1 Harl. MS. 595, No. 31, f. 258. 2 1 Zur., p. 135, No. 61, 13th December, 1563. WINCHESTER 419 Northumberland. They will detect unto me some secretly, yet will not in anywise be seen in the matter, but leave it to myself to pick out so well as I can." 1 Though he did not seem to appreciate the way in which these Justices shifted unpleasant work from their own shoulders on to his, he was, unlike some of his episcopal brethren, ready to bear the burthen and take the possible risks, and the letter just cited shows that his hands were not empty, " The excom- municates I will deal withal after the form of the statute. But for that, experience heretofore hath taught me, how little hope there is to do any good that way, unless the Courts were reformed, which I look not for"; so that even when making his suggestions, given above, about the con- stitution of his local bench, he was not confident as to the result. Hence he cast around for a more effective remedy, and, perhaps in the spirit of his age, could discover it in no other form than in coercion. Thus, still harping on the need of providing a commission of the peace more attached to the throne and the parliamentary religion, he wrote again to Cecil, on 21st January, 1569-70, and thus expressed his views : " Sir, what troubles and charges overmuch forbear- ing of the Papists hath wrought, is manifest; and some wise men feareth that the self same cause will bring forth hereafter a more grievous effect. The Papists stamp and stare at the rebels, and crieth out at their lewd enterprise ; but, certainly, this is that which grieveth them, that they dealt the matter so foolishly that it could take no better effect. For, most assuredly, they looked and were in good hope in all this country (I mean the Papists), whatsoever they said, that the matter would have gone otherwise. And that may appear by such talk as this is : \I trust ere it be long, the Queen's Majesty herself shall not choose but to alter this religion, and that with her own hands' This and such like talk immediately before the commotion began was among them, as I am informed, and that among those that be of good place. I hope to get some proof of this; but I am persuaded before God in conscience, that one who is a 1 Lansd. MS. 12, No. 27, 2nd January, 1569-70. 422 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS and well-known Catholics: as Cotton, Shelley, Vachell Wells, Beconsawe. Banister, Udall, Tichborne, Pounds, White, and Warneford. 1 This list dealt solely with Hamp- shire ; another one was prepared for Surrey by Sir William More of Loseley and Sir Thomas Browne. They set about their task very thoroughly, " albeit all those persons whose names the said Lord Bishop hath certified us as recusants are utterly unknown unto us, for that they inhabit in the farthest part of the shire from us, and that we have not before this time been made privy who have been presented as recusants." 2 Notwithstanding these drawbacks and dis- advantages, however, they managed to furnish one of the most interesting of these documents which have survived, from the fulness and picturesqueness of the details they had collected about the twenty-four incriminated individ- uals who there figure. Andrew Silvertop, gent, of Camber- well, and his wife, had been presented for not attending church or communicating, and about a year previously had been indicted " for Massing at Westminster . . . and suf- fered the penalty of the law." This example may do duty for several similar entries. We learn that John Strang- man, of Bermondsey, had as his wife a lady, " late the wife of Mr. Felton, executed for the Pope's Bull." The list con- cludes with the following item: "Doctor Heath, priest, doth not come to the church. Other lands and goods to maintain himself withal than Chabham Park we know not." Small wonder if this " priest" was a recusant, for he was no other than the Archbishop of York, deprived eighteen years before! The list of Papists drawn up in 1579, for the purpose of assessing them with a view to a military levy, gives the names of twenty-six Catholics of considerable wealth, and includes Archbishop Heath, but without esti- mating his resources. 3 These references bring us to the end of Bishop Home's episcopate, but not of the proofs that 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvn, No. 10. i. 2 Ibid., cxvn, No. 14, Sir W. More, etc., to Council, 25th October, I577- 3 Cf. ibid.) cxlii, No. 2,3- WINCHESTER 423 might be adduced of the continued attachment of the people of Hampshire to the Catholic Faith. John Watson, who succeeded Bishop Home in the diocese of Winchester, although, as his letters show, an undoubted opponent of the Papists and in favour of employing extreme measures against them, was nevertheless thought by many to be slack in his duty as regarded them. The truth is that circum- stances were too strong for him. Strype is quoted for the statement that in the Hampshire portion of this diocese Papists were in large numbers, " and so multiplied by re- volting from religion, that the Bishop of Winchester, in whose diocese it lies, near about this year, 1580, sent intel- ligence thereof to the Lord Treasurer and other Lords of the Council, in order to repress the boldness and wayward- ness of the recusants in that county. 1 Even last Easter (he said) upon some secret pact purposely wrought, 500 per- sons have refused to communicate more than did before [refuse to do it]." 2 A return made in 1582 states the num- ber of recusants in Hampshire as 132, — more than in any county except York and Lancashire. 3 In 1584, on the death of Bishop Watson, " the condition of this diocese," as Strype records, "was at present but ill as to its religion. For by rea- son of the vacation of three or four months, upon the death of Home, the predecessor of Watson, and this Bishop's re- missness, the non-residence of the ministers, and the dili- gence of seminary priests, and want of an ecclesiastical commission, Papistry had got much ground in those parts in Hampshire."' There can be no question that, in this diocese, the Catholics had, for some time, been growing in boldness; for during 1583 the Justices of Hampshire wrote to the Privy Council complaining, amongst other disturb- ing incidents, that some had " boldly affirmed that it is necessary to have Mass, and they hope to hear it; and that 1 Cf. for this "petition" Egerlon MS. 1693, f. 117. It is really later than 1580, being from the pen of Bishop Cooper. 2 I Zur., p. 322, note. 3 Diet. Nat. Biog., xii, p. 1 50. Notice of Cooper, Bishop of Winchester. 4 Life 0/ Whitgift, i, p. 261. 4 2 4 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS they had rather hear bear-baiting than divine service." 1 Severe measures had to be resorted to. Where fines could be inflicted, as upon the rich, they were extracted without pity; as in the case, for example, of Mr. George Cotton, of Warblington, who actually paid £260 a year for over twenty years for refusing to go to church. 2 In the case of people too poor to be able to stand such systematic mulct- ings, there was always prison to fall back upon, and as the records show, they began to be filled with recusants; and it was even stated that not a few recusants were publicly whipped through the streets of Winchester for the offence of refusing to worship after a fashion that their consciences did not approve. 3 In 1583 a list of at least 230 names of recusants in Hampshire alone was returned. 4 The State papers for the remainder of the reign all furnish exactly the same details, almost to weariness of repetition, leaving it beyond cavil that throughout Elizabeth's reign Hampshire was Catholic to the core. In the distribution of reforming bishops, made in 1559, Chichester diocese was particularly unfortunate in the in- dividual allotted to it, for William Barlow came with a tarnished reputation from St. David's and Bath and Wells, the Sees he had held under Henry VIII and Edward VI. The first instance that remains to us of his zeal for the ex- tirpation of Romanism is in a letter, written probably to Cecil, wherein he states that " Thomas Stapleton and Edward Goddeshalfe, prebendaries of Chichester, being evil affected towards Christian religion, are now in Louvain; and as it is bruited, were the last summer at Tridentine Council. 5 This Stapleton is a young man, and was Fellow 1 Cotton MS. Titus B. in, No. 29, f. 75. 2 Pells Receipt Books, No. 51. Cf. Abbot Gasquet, Hampshire Recusants, pp. 24-36, and passim. 3 Douay Diaries, p. 357. * P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., clx, No. 26. Many of the entries are in general terms, as " Eliz. Beconshaw, widow, and all her family." s This gives the clue to the date of the letter. In the Calendar to P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. it is suggested that the date is February, 1560. The Council of Trent, after an interval of some years, was re-convoked CHICHESTER 425 of New College in Oxford, traded up in Papistry from his childhood, who, misliking the proceedings of the realm, conveyed himself over the seas without licence, under the wings of Count Feria. Howbeit, since, he obtained pardon with a licence to continue there three years, whereof the term is almost expired. " Edward Goddeshalfe is an obstinate Papist, and refus- ing to subscribe to the Supremacy, he procured a licence to absent himself for three years, which shall be determined the 1 2th of March next. His pretence was for printing of Eusebius, very corruptly translated in sundry places by Bishop Christopherson, and like to be worse set forth by him to the hurt of religion. If I be not stayed by renewing of his licence, I intend for just causes to deprive him of his prebend, being one of the best of my gift, which shall be at your disposition." This letter has been given in extenso, because, beyond giving an insight into Bishop Barlow's disposition, it also suggests the means resorted to, no doubt, by others as well as the two prebendaries there named, to avoid hurting their consciences by taking the oaths imposed by Parliament in 1559, and endeavouring at the same time to hold on to their preferments in the hope that a short period would see a reversion to the old order once more. The means to prove this are not avail- able, it is true, but the probabilities remain. Like his brother bishops, Barlow made a certificate for the information of the Privy Council, about the state of his diocese as it was in 1 563. The document is an unsatisfactory one, being incomplete as regards many of the answers ex- pected from him ; for example, the numbers of households are not given, nor are the names of the incumbents. The churches and chapels named amount to 287, not including two exempt peculiars, thus being 39 in excess of the num- ber mentioned in the " Douay Diaries " list. Of these livings, 5, though void, were served by curates, while 4, though in the possession of incumbents, were as if void, for in November, 1560; hence this letter at the earliest must be February, 1 561 -2. (Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., XI, No. 24.) 426 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS the incumbents were non-resident and did not trouble to have their duties performed by substitutes ; while 45 cures were wholly unprovided. Thus it would really be correct to amalgamate the last two groups for purposes of comparison; in other words, nearly a fifth of the livings were vacant. 1 Next year, although assuring the Privy Council that his diocese was " free from all violent attempts either to afflict the godly or to disturb the stablished good orders of this realm," Barlow was not altogether without suspicion as to the value of this conformity, for he expressed his " doubt of secret practices which perhaps might break out into open violence, were it not for fear of your Lordships' vigilant authority." This confession of discontent is further corro- borated by the following words : " Concerning the matter, I have used conference with Mr. Dean of Sarum [William Bradbridge] and Mr. Augustine Bradbridge, my Chancellor, both of them born in the shire and thoroughly acquainted with the state of the same. I refrained to communicate so frankly with others because I doubted of their secret- ness, that retinue and alliance being so great in these parts." 2 The sum of his information is that 10 justices were " favourers," while 1 2 were " mislikers." He went beyond the requirements of the Privy Council, by letting them under- stand that the county possessed 10 other gentlemen, not Justices, who were "favourers," as against 17 who were not. Grouping Justices and others together, the result shows 20 on whom the Bishop could rely, overweighted by 39 oppon- ents of religious change, upon whom he bestowed such epithets to ticket their dispositions, as : " very superstitious : extremely perverse: stout scorner of godliness: wickedly obstinate: common harbourer of obstinates: frowardly superstitious: and, notorious obstinate adversary." Bishop Barlow died on 13th August, 1568, and the See of Chichester was vacant for almost two years. William Overton, then Treasurer of the diocese, wrote to Cecil to announce Barlow's death, and took the opportunity of sug- 1 Cf. Harl. MS. 594, No. 12, f. 109, 19th July, 1563. 2 Camden Miscellany, ix, Bishops' Letters, 1564, pp. 8-1 1. CHICHESTER 427 gesting care in the choice of a successor; for, as he assured Cecil, everywhere in their midst, almost every corner was full of Papists and Popery : " Undique enim apud nos Papistarum et Papismatis plena fere sunt omnia." ? It was not without cause, therefore, that in the course of 1 569, dur- ing the vacancy, Archbishop Parker made a metropolitical visitation of the diocese by a commissary, of which a minute statistical account exists." The results there gathered to- gether throw much light on the condition of religion at that time in Sussex. The first grave disorder that reveals itself is the fact that five of the prebendaries were laymen, one of them, moreover, apparently residing in Italy. A list is given of the people who did not go to church or receive communion: Viscount Montagu " and his family " head the list, and eighteen names, mostly of well-known Catholic families as Pole, Shelley, Gage of Firle, follow. One of the names is of peculiar interest: that of" Anne Lyne, wife of Mr. Lyne, gentleman." It is probable that this is the lady who was hanged at Tyburn, 27th February, 1600- 1, for the high crime and misdemeanour of harbouring priests, and so ended a long life of constant adherence to the ancient Faith by dying a martyr's death. The report mentions that " there are some beneficed men there which did preach in Queen Mary's days and now do not nor will not, and yet keep their livings." These were: Graye (Withyham), Rob. Parkhurst (Washington), Wm. Foster (Billinghurst), Sir Davie Spencer (Clapham), Nich. Hicket (Pulborough), Story (Findon). Then three priests, Stephen Hopkins, Davy Michell and Thomas Cotesmore, " are fostered in gentlemen's houses, and run between Sussex and Hampshire, and are hinderers of true religion, and do not minister." Racton parish still remained very Catholic, and " Mr. Arthur Gunter is the cause there- of, which ruleth the whole parish though he refuse to come unto church." This gentleman had associated with him in this misdemeanour several more, who also did not " receive 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xlvii, No. 40, 14th August, 1568. 2 Cf. ibid., LX, No. 71. 428 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS the holy Communion at Easter, but at that time get them out of the country until that feast be past, and return not again until then." Another manifestation of this unwilling- ness to conform is shown by the statement that " many gentlemen receive the Communion at home in their chapels at Easter times ; and they choose them out a priest for the purpose to minister unto them there, fetched a good way off . . . and therefore there is some suspicion of false pack- ing among them in the ministering of the Communion otherwise than is in the Book established." The witness cites definite instances in support of his complaint. The parish of Racton appeared to bear a sinister reputation in the Visitor's estimation, and not without cause, seeing it provided support for some of the fugitives beyond seas, notably for " Mr. Stapleton, who being excommunicated by the Bishop, did fly and avoid the realm." Within that parish, too, there were " many books that were made be- yond the seas." Add to this that " there be certain priests that have and do keep Dr. Sander's book entitled the Rock of the Church, wherein he doth not account the bishops that now be, to be any bishops," Sir David Spencer being one of those thus incriminated and also as being an intermediary between the fugutives and their friends and supporters at home. The following official evidence clearly proves that Catholic practices still lingered: hopes for a Catholic revival were not yet extinguished after more than ten years of revolt from Rome. At Arundel " certain altars do stand yet still"; and there were "yet in the diocese in many places thereof images hidden up, and other popish ornaments ready to set up the Mass again within 24 hours' warning, as in the town of Battle," here described as "very blind and superstitious," and elsewhere called " the popish town in all Sussex," whose inhabitants were not afraid openly to express their real sentiments, and " when a preacher doth come and speak anything against the Pope's doctrine, they will not abide, but get them out of the church." " In some places the rood lofts do yet stand though they were commanded to be taken down; CHICHESTER 429 and the timber of them that be taken down lieth still in many churches ready to be set up again." " In some places because the rood was taken away, they painted there in that place a cross with chalk ; and because that was washed away, with painting ; and the number of crosses standing at graves in the churchyard taken also away; since, they have made crosses upon the church walls, within and with- out." It was a grim and determined struggle that was going on between Papist and Puritan in this corner of England; but it furnished its humorous episodes, as, for instance, that vouched for by the Visitor; that in certain churches the Papists had " set crosses upon their stalls whom they favour not, and upon my farmer's stall they have chalked up a gibbet." Complaint was made of the majority of the " ministers" — surely priests, — for not fulfilling their obliga- tions as fixed by Parliament, and it is stated that " they use in many places ringing between Morning Prayer and the Litany," — possibly a survival of the Sacring Bell ; as also " all the night following All Saints' Day, as before in time of blind ignorance and superstition taught by the Pope's clergy." These relics of Popery survived through the help of "schoolmasters which teach without licence and authority so to do, and be not of a sound and good religion." Their efforts were aided by a certain " Father Moses sometime a friar in Chichester, and he runneth about from one gentle- man's house to another with news and letters, being much suspected in religion and bearing a popish Latin Primer about him with Dirge and the Litany, praying to Saints, and in certain houses he maintained the popish Purgatory and the praying to dead Saints." Of the clergy it is stated that "in many places they keep yet still their chalices looking for to have Mass again . . . hoping for a day for the use of the same; and some parishes feign that their chalices were stolen away, and therefore they ministered in glasses and profane goblets " rather than change the form of their chalices into that of Communion cups, as they had been enjoined to do. As regards the laity, " there be many in the diocese of Chichester which bring to the 430 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS church with them the old popish Latin Primers, and use to pray upon them all the time when the Lessons be a- reading and in the time of the Litany . . . some old folks and women there used to have beads in the churches, and those I took away from them ; but they have some yet at home in their houses." The Visitor further called the Arch- bishop's attention to the fact that " in the city of Chichester few of the aldermen be of a good religion, but are vehem- ently suspected to favour the Pope's doctrine, and yet they be Justices of Peace," notwithstanding the Privy Council's inquisition five years previously! In the face of all this evidence, the Visitor's verdict eleven years after the acces- sion of Elizabeth about the Catholicity of the diocese of Chichester must be accepted, though the words in which he expresses it cannot be endorsed: "Except it be about Lewes and a little in Chichester, the whole diocese of Chichester is very blind and superstitious." Richard Curteis, who had been appointed Dean of Chichester in 1566, was selected to succeed Barlow. His zeal, though unbounded, was not tempered by tact or dis- cretion ; hence he fell foul of the principal laity, who were strong enough to oppose him, carry their complaints to Court, and finally secure a severe reprimand for the Bishop for his over-officiousness. The story, briefly, is this. Bishop Curteis, as he informed Secretary Walsingham, 1 "finding that they that be backward in religion in this country grow worse and worse upon report of Don John d'Austria's com- ing into the Low Countries . . . sent for such as are most suspected." His list contains thirty-two names, including four parsons, Marian priests, " some of them that pretend well and yet be not sound in religion." He desired that those of them who were Justices should be put out of the commission, or else that the oaths should be administered to them, " for it is commonly and credibly thought that some of them never took the oath although it be otherwise returned." He had already required them to answer six Articles, as to whether they had been to church since 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., CXI, No. 45, 24th March, 1576-7. CHICHESTER 431 1st January, 1575-6, or communicated, or attended sermons, or sent letters or money to the fugitives beyond seas, or had any of the books published by Harding, Stapleton, Rastall, Sander, or Marshall, or harboured those guilty of such misdemeanours. 1 This produced an indignant com- plaint to the Privy Council from some of the gentlemen incriminated, followed by further letters on both sides, end- ing with the formulation of serious charges against the Bishop. 2 A commission of enquiry was appointed, with the result that the Bishop was ordered to make satisfaction to his opponents and to " reconcile himself with such gentle- men and clergymen as he was at variance withal " ; to ask pardon for his "disorderly manner of proceeding in his diocese sundry ways," and that " some convenient way may be thought on by the Lords of the Privy Council as well for the satisfaction of the country as also that the Bishop discharging his duty may not be had in contempt." 3 That he was " had in contempt " by some of his flock cannot be gainsaid; they pursued him with their dislike, and had the satisfaction of paying off old scores through his brother Edmund, vicar of Cuckfield, who had been denounced to Walsingham as "void of all learning and discretion, a scoffer at singing of psalms, a seeker to witches, a drunkard, infected with a loathsome disease." 4 Thereupon Walsingham wrote to Bishop Curteis, desiring him to deprive his brother, unfit " not only for his insufficiency of knowledge . . . but also for his unworthiness to have any such pastoral charge at all in the Church, his ignorance being so great and his life so vile as for modesty's sake I spare to name some par- ticularities delivered to me for proof of the same." 5 The Bishop, not unnaturally, demurred, 6 and finally the Bishop 1 Cf., too, P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., CXll, No. 9, 6th April, 1577. 2 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., CXll, Nos. 13, 13 i, 20, 29, 291, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 4°, 41, 42, 43, 44- 3 Ibid., cxn, No. 49 j see also No. 50, the Bishop's reply to the fore- going orders. 4 Ibid., cxxx, No. 2, 6th March, 1578-9. 5 Ibid., cxxx, No. 1, 6th March, 1578-9. G Cf. ibid., CXXX, No. 22, 30th March, 1579. 432 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS of London was directed to proceed to the deprivation of the delinquent. 1 This incident is not of importance in itself; but it is use- ful as affording an instance of the want of a sense of even common justice in the Elizabethan episcopate, in their frantic efforts to extirpate Popery almost at the sacrifice of every other consideration. It was apparently this failing in Bishop Curteis that aroused such bitter animosity against him, animosity that went the length of accusing him at that very time, that "the sixteenth day of April last past being the general sessions day, at the house of Mr. John Sherwyn, citizen and alderman of the city of Chichester [he] was so far overcome with drink as was too unseemly to behold, and especially in a man of his calling." For the honour of that " calling " he found six gentlemen willing to deny so disgraceful an allegation, under their hands and seals. They had all been present at the dinner and testified that "the said Bishop behaved himself and talked then and there both wisely, soberly, gravely, and learnedly; and that he neither spake nor did anything whereby any well-meaning man could conjecture any such thing in him." 2 These bickerings gave place to more serious business; for in the autumn came the order from the Privy Council to furnish a list of recusants to attend service with a valuation of their property and possessions. The bishop's list contains twenty- two names of the wealthier members of his flock, and most of those had found a place in his previous lists which had brought so much trouble upon him. 3 Some two years later, in the general list of recusants throughout England, drawn up on the same plan, Chichester diocese furnishes ten names. The little diocese of Rochester is illustrious in the annals of the English Church, through the gentle virtues and un- flinching constancy of its martyr-Bishop, Blessed John Fisher, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church. Later, in his 1 Athenae Cantabrig., i, p. 457. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxiv, No. 8, 2nd June, 1577. 8 Ibid., cxvn, No. 15, 26th October, 1577. ROCHESTER 433 place, had sat Poynet and Scory of evil fame; and, later still, when Elizabeth came to the throne, Rochester was one of the Sees without an occupant, through the death of Maurice Griffin, which took place but three days after that of Queen Mary. The diocese remained vacant throughout 1559, but early in the following year Edmund Ghest was consecrated its Bishop. Singularly little evidence survives of his dealings with those of his flock who persisted in believing and worshipping as their fathers had done ; hence it may be surmised that his sentiments towards them were not on the whole unfriendly, for he, together with Cheyney of Gloucester, appears to have departed less definitely and less violently from the ancient teaching than the rest of his episcopal brethren ; and, in consequence, fell under a certain amount of suspicion. In 1563 Bishop Ghest, like the rest of the bishops, furnished the Privy Council with certain details about his diocese. From these we learn that there were but 91 parish churches within its confines, though the " Douay Diaries " list credits it with 98. Of these 9 1 parishes, 65 had resident incumbents, and 11 others, whose incumb- ents were non-resident, were looked after by curates. Eight others were practically vacant, for though they were in the possession of incumbents, these were non-resident, and had no curates as proxies, while 7 more were actually vacant and unserved. Thus 76 had their spiritual wants provided for, while 15, or, roughly, one-fifth of the livings, were en- tirely neglected. 1 About two years later, the number of vacant livings in Rochester diocese was returned as being four ; two had been void for six years, another for twelve, while the remaining one had been unserved for twenty-two years.' 2 Passing over some fourteen years, during which time Ghest had been promoted to Salisbury, Edmund Freake had replaced him for a while and then gone to Norwich, and John Piers ruled in their place, we reach the year 1577, the autumn of which brought with it the Privy Council's 1 Cf. Lansd. MS. 6, No. 57, 12th July, 1563. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. Add., XII, No. 108. F F 434 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS letters informing him that it was " the Queen's Majesty's pleasure that you shall certify unto us with all the diligence you may, as well the names of all persons within your diocese that refuse to come to the church to hear divine service, as also the value of their lands and goods as you think they are in deed and not as they be valued in the Subsidy Book." 1 Bishop Piers forwarded the names of seven people of wealth, including William Roper of Eltham, Esq., the husband of the great Sir Thomas More's favourite daughter Margaret, who "neither receiveth the Communion, neither cometh to the church " ; another had not communi- cated for seven years, but as a set-off against this, it was mentioned to his credit that he once attended a sermon preached by the Bishop, while another had never communi- cated since the Queen's accession, though he was accustomed to attend service. 2 Two years later, or thereabouts, in a general list of recusants, Rochester furnished but four names ; two, including Roper's, being ruled out as " dead," while one other is new, being that of the son of the other departed recusant. 3 London naturally always takes, and has ever taken, the lead in all questions, not only of politics, but also of religion. Hence, in Elizabeth's reign, the chief object of the states- men who tried to guide her policy was to secure the adhesion of the capital to " her Majesty's godly proceedings in matters of religion " ; and this once effected, they might feel tolerably assured of the submission of the rest of the country, since, as Strype puts it, the first chief care was " for the reforming of the city of London, that commonly gave the example to all the rest of the realm." * It was even more forcibly expressed by Archbishop Parker in 1565, when his mind was exercised about the Puritan revolt then threatening. He urged upon Cecil the need for "reformation in all London; and you know there is the most disorder, 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvi, No. 15, 15th October, 1577. 2 Ibid., cxvn, No. 2, 20th October, 1577. 3 Ibid., No. CXLii, No. 33. 4 Life of Grindai, p. 36. Emery Walker photo I Lambeth Palac EDMUND GRINDAL SUCCESSIVELY BISHOP OF LONDON AND ARCHBISHOP OF YORK AND CANTERBURY Reproduced by kind pe of the Archbishop oj Canterbury LONDON 435 and then is the matter almost won through the realm." l An estimate made shortly after the massacre of St. Bar- tholomew results in the statement that " it is terrible to consider that not every fortieth person in England is a good and devout Gospeller (unless it be in London)." This again shows that London was acknowledged by others as taking the lead in reform, and yet not too vigorously, from a reformer's point of view. 2 Thus it was a matter of great moment to place over the diocese of London one who should promote the cause of the Reformation most rapidly, most effectually, and at the same time most discreetly. The man likely to fulfil these requirements most nearly was thought to be Edmund Grindal, formerly chaplain to Bishop Ridley, who had fled to the Continent to escape his master's fate. Immediately on Elizabeth's accession he had returned; and so highly was he thought of amongst the reforming party that he was at once employed on the re- vision of Edward's Book of Common Prayer, prior to its submission to Parliament to be attached as a schedule to the Act of Uniformity. His selection for this task was that, as Strype says, having as Ridley's chaplain been "well acquainted with the reasons and methods used under King Edward in the composing the Common Prayers, wherein [Ridley] with Archbishop Cranmer had the chief hand," * he could render the body of revisers important help and information. He had also been selected as one of the champions on the Protestant side in the Westminster Con- ference. Shortly after the Parliament ended, Bonner being deprived of the See of London, Grindal was appointed on 23rd June, 1559, to replace him. 4 Hence, on 19th July, 1559, in the Queen's Commission to him, Parker, and others, for carrying into execution the Acts of Uniformity and Supremacy, he was styled " nominated Bishop of London." 5 Shortly before his selection for the See of London, he 1 Lansd. MS. 8, No. I, 3rd March, 1564-5. 2 Cf. Ibid. 109, No. 31. 3 Life of Grindal, p. 33. 4 Machyn's Diary, p. 101. 5 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz, v, No. 18. 436 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS sufficiently expressed his own views as to the religious situation in a letter to Conrad Hubert: "Now at last . . . there has been published a proclamation to banish the Pope and his jurisdiction altogether, and to restore religion to that form which we had in the time of Edward the Sixth. If any bishops or other beneficed persons shall decline to take the oath of abjuration of the authority of the Bishop of Rome, they are to be deprived of every ecclesiastical function, and deposed. No one, after the feast of St. John the Baptist next ensuing, may celebrate Mass without subjecting himself to a most heavy penalty. It is therefore commonly supposed that almost all the bishops, and also many other beneficed persons, will renounce their bishoprics and their functions, as being ashamed, after so much tyranny and cruelty exercised under the banners of the Pope, and the obedience so lately sworn to him, to be again brought to a recantation, and convicted of manifest perjury. We are labouring under a great dearth of godly ministers: for many, who have fallen off in this persecution, are now become Papists in heart; and those who had been here- tofore, so to speak, moderate Papists, are now the most obstinate." l This extract has been given as showing the situation he had so soon to face, and the spirit with which he approached it. Shortly after, when he knew that he was to be Bishop of London, he again informed the same cor- respondent of the progress of events. " The state of our Church," he wrote, "is pretty much the same as when I last wrote to you, except only that what had heretofore been settled by proclamations and laws with respect to the reformation of the churches, is now daily being carried into effect, the popish bishops are almost all of them deprived ; and if any yet remain, they will be deprived in a few days for refusing to renounce their obedience to the Pope. They are, however, treated with sufficient lenity, not to say too much so, for they are allowed to retire into private life, and devour, as Master Bucer used to say, the spoils of the 1 uZur., p. 19, No. 8, 23rd May, 1559. LONDON 437 Church. . . . Many of our friends, who were in exile in Germany, are now marked out for bishops." l In the interval that elapsed between Grindal's appoint- ment to London and his consecration, he was employed in the North, being one of the commissioners appointed for the visitation of that Province. 2 On 21st December, 1559, he was consecrated by Archbishop Parker, a few days after that prelate had himself been consecrated. His acts as Bishop of London have been chronicled with some pretence at minuteness by Strype; but, as usual with that prolix though undiscriminating writer, without co-ordination of parts, or in all cases a true adjustment or even perception of the relation of various events to one another. Much, too, that is known to have taken place finds no mention what- ever in his pages : but the reader is here referred in general to his works. London was, from its being the centre of government, the residence of the Court and of foreign ambassadors, as also in many other respects, in a unique and peculiar position as one of the most important dioceses of the realm. Hence, the history of the religious struggles as seen in this diocese naturally partakes somewhat of the nature of a general his- tory of the whole country, and the work of its Bishop was, therefore, specially difficult and exacting. Indeed, Grindal spoke feelingly out of the abundance of his own experience, when, some years later, he wrote to Archbishop Parker about Edwin Sandys, who had followed him in the bishop- ric of London: " if my successor at London have ministered any occasion of his own disquiet, 1 am sorry. But surely he, the Bishop of London, is always to be pitied." 3 The nature of the man and his religious views need to be known, if we are rightly to understand his attitude. Something we have learnt already from his correspondence with Conrad Hubert; more may be gathered from a letter written by him to Bullinger on 29th August, 1567, in which, telling 1 II Zur., p. 23, No. 10, 14th July, 1559. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., x, passim. 3 Remains of Abp. Grindal, p. 347, No. 73, 9th December, 1573. 438 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS him about the religious changes going on in Scotland, he also thus gave him the heads of various Acts " by which the true religion of Christ is established, and the impious superstition of the Papists abolished . . . not only are all the impious traditions and ceremonies of the Papists taken away, but also [the papal] tyranny ... is altogether abol- ished ; and it is provided that all persons shall in the future acknowledge him to be the very antichrist and son of per- dition, of whom Paul speaks. The Mass is abolished, as being an accursed abomination and a diabolical profanation of the Lord's Supper." ' Being thus in possession of Grin- dal's sentiments on these crucial questions, it becomes easier to understand his treatment of Catholic practices, and his determination to extirpate anything savouring of the old Faith. He would therefore have found himself thoroughly in harmony with the opposition offered to a Rogation pro- cession in May, 1559, as recounted by II Schifanoya. 2 In- deed, next year, when, as Bishop, he was in a position to assert his authority with reference to such matters, he issued distinct injunctions, — " the Rogation time drawing on, when many superstitious processions were wont to be used in London and other places," 3 — to discard any religious idea in connection with them, and to turn the old processions into a mere " beating of bounds." " For avoiding of superstitious behaviour," so runs the instruction to the Archdeacon of Essex, " and for uniformity to be had in the Rogation week, now at hand ; these shall be to require you to give notice and commandment within your archdeaconry, that the ministers make it not a procession, but a perambulation ; and also that they suffer no banners, nor other like monu- ments of superstition to be carried abroad." 4 But Strype, in recounting this prohibition, adds: "yet I find in many places of the realm this year gang-week, as they call it, was observed. And in divers places, of Bucks and Cornwall, 1 1 Zur., p. 199, No. 81. 1 Cf. Venetian Papers, No. 71, 10th May, 1559. 3 Strype, Grindal, p. 55. * Remains, No. 9, p. 240. LONDON 439 especially, the people went in procession with banners, and had good cheer after the old custom." 1 Grindal had early deplored to Conrad Hubert the dearth of godly ministers; 2 no sooner was he in a position to remedy that need, than he set about the task in a somewhat wholesale fashion. During one year of his episcopate, that is, from 27th March, 1560, to 14th March, 1560-1, no fewer than 27 ordinations were held in London, mostly by Grin- dal himself, at which 85 candidates received deacon's Orders, and 104 were promoted to the priesthood, certain individuals, in defiance of the canons, receiving both grades on the same day. At one ordination (25th April, 1560) no less than 30 priests and 29 deacons were admitted; and by the end of July 61 priests and 50 deacons had been promoted. In this year about 140-50 men were admitted to Orders to supply the vacancies caused by deprivation on refusal to take the oaths of Supremacy and Uniformity, or by the abandon- ment of livings for conscience' sake by those who would not face the ordeal of deprivation. It is important to note, moreover, that only 21 out of all these candidates were scholars or graduates or fellows of either University; while many, though advanced in years, " being grave and sober persons," as Strype puts it, " though no scholars, but perhaps tradesmen before, were thought convenient to be admitted into Orders, to supply the present necessity of the Church." 3 This wholesale pitchforking of unlearned men into the ministry naturally proved distasteful to many; and Archbishop Parker, who admitted that he had not been sin- less in this respect himself, had to restrain not only the Bishop of London's ardour, but also that of the other bishops. 4 The difficulties and inconveniences created in this way were recognised by Reformer and Catholic alike. James Calfhill admitted that " the inferior sort " of their ministry were "such as came from the shop, from the forge, from the wherry, from the loom," and regretted the necessity that 1 Grindal, p. 56. 2 11 Zur., p. 19, No. 8. 3 Life of Grindal, p. 59. 4 Cf. Parker Corresp., p. 120, No. 86, 15th August, 1560. 440 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS compelled them to employ such " unskilful " men. 1 John Rastall, in his answer to Bishop Jewel's Challenge, gibed at the Reformers as being " constrained to suffer cobblers, weavers, tinkers, tanners, cardmakers, tapsters, fiddlers, gaolers, &c, ... to climb up into pulpits, and to keep the place of priests." 2 The need of recourse to such a desperate measure could have been forced on Grindal and his brother bishops by one reason only : a sudden departure from their livings of an abnormally large number of the clergy. This fact it has been the fashion hitherto to overlook, but the time has come to put aside the ill-informed statements of Camden and his copyists and to face the truth as it is dis- closed by contemporary documentary evidence. As Archbishop Parker had had to curb Grindal's activity in one branch of his episcopal duties, so, also, he had to in another; for, on 27th May, 1560, he was constrained to for- bid Grindal and the rest of his suffragans to visit their dioceses as many of them had proposed to do during that year. 3 The prohibition was based on the poverty of the clergy, who could not afford the customary fees, and they had already been sufficiently mulcted the previous year during the great visitation of both Provinces. In 1 56 1, however, Grindal began the visitation of his diocese, and on the very day he opened it, a letter he wrote to Cecil shows the temper with which he undertook it. " I send you," he said, " the confession of Coxe, alias Devon, the priest, for Mass matters, taken this present day, after receipt of your letters. Surely for this magic and conjura- tion your honours of the Council must appoint some extra- ordinary punishment for example. My Lord Chief Justice saith the temporal law will not meddle with them : our ecclesiastical punishment is too slender for so grievous 1 Works, p. 51. 2 P. 152; quoted by Heylin in his Hist, of the Reform., ed. 1670, p. 175, who ruefully admits that though Rastall "were a Papist . . . yet ... he hath faithfully delivered too many sad truths in these particulars." 3 Cf. Parker Corresp., p. 115, No. 80. LONDON 441 offences." 1 Certainly, it may be taken for granted that should he find any such practices in the course of his visit- ation, he would act with great severity towards those thus detected. 2 Strype, as usual, gives a confused account of the happenings, and from it, it might be gathered that Sebastian Westcote alone got into trouble "for refusing the Com- 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xvi, No. 49, 17th April, 1561. 2 Ibid. Add., xxvm, No. 58, enclosure v (7th February, 1584), is a Book of Miscellanies, found upon Lancelot, brother of John Boast, the priest. This book is an instance of the greedy faith of the English Catholics in prophecies. It seems to have been an early specimen, as it fixes 1563 for its date of fulfilment. But there seems to be some coincidence in a possible allusion to Don John of Austria, the brood of Philip's blood who should reduce the Turk. The book begins : " But sorrow and plague for their offences Battle and famine and all pestilences As a desolate land brought it shall be," etc. Here is a word of warning : " England take this monition Be wise, change thy condition Doubt not, but think it sure This storm thou shalt endure. With heart contrite confess thee And to heavenward address thee." Lamentations over England in rhymed verse, and prophecies of its downfall, may be met with. Thus : "If thou be wise O Germany, Frenchmen, English flee, And suffer not the Venice land to join in league with thee. Behold ! — for out of Philip's blood a worthy brood shall rise Who shall redeem the world's misdeeds with warlike enterprise. And the proud Turk he shall constrain the true Faith to embrace And thee deprive of princely post, and put thee out of place. When five three hundred years are gone since Christ our Lord was born, And six times ten with three by course to us are worn. All this the ruler of the skies, who sitteth in Heaven so high, Bade me to tell unto the world, as stars had told to me." It contains also a letter on the birth of Antichrist, and fourteen lines of English verse, prophecying the time when : " The Mass shall last for ever and aye." 442 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS munion, and upon suspicion of adhering to popish princi- ples." 1 Every effort was made to induce him to conform, but in vain ; and finally he suffered deprivation in 1 563? He was Master of the Choir at St. Paul's; hence his influ- ence amongst the choristers had to be counteracted or re- moved; he remained in London, doubtless under the pro- tection of Lord Dudley, and in 1577 was returned as living under the shadow of his old home in " St. Gregory's by Paul's, and is still called Master of the Children of Paul's Church, being valued at £100 in goods." 3 The only other clergyman deprived at this time, according to Strype, was Dr. Philip Baker, rector of St. Andrew's, Wardrobe, as well as being Provost of King's College, Cambridge. As a matter of fact, many more lost their preferments then or later, as a careful study of Rev. Geo. Hennessy's edition (1898) of Newcourt's Novum Repertorium Ecclesiasticum Parochiale Londitiense reveals. 4 Moreover, many clergy who received their preferments in Mary's reign appear to have been superseded or succeeded after no cause of vacancy assigned, during 1560-3. Unless proof can be adduced to show that they held livings elsewhere subsequent to those dates, it is not stretching argument beyond what the premisses will allow to claim them as popish priests who abandoned their livings, or at the best, who resigned them to preserve the freedom of their consciences. Others again were simply ejected to make room for Edwardine clergy deprived during Mary's reign. 5 Reverting once more to 1 Grindal, pp. 88 sqq. 2 Cf. Ibid., pp. 113^^., and Remains, p. 261, No. 23, to Lord Robert Dudley, August, 1563. 8 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvm, No. 73. 4 E.g., Thos. Byam, Henry Wootton, William Massenger, John Morren, Richard Marshall, Arthur Cole, Thomas Reniger, Hugh Griffith, Oliver Stoning, Nicholas Palmer, Henry Symonds, Thomas Harvey, Francis Mallett, George Leades, William Est, John Dale, Lawrence Field, William Musmere, Robert Jones, George Barton, John Thornton, Thomas Wood, Thomas Buckmaster, Oliver Lingard. 5 Instances of such cases are John Dale, George Strowger, Robert Gooday, William Wright, Robert Rogers, Matthew Myers, Thomas LONDON 443 Grindal's letter to Cecil, of 17th April, 1 561, 1 it becomes evident that already, notwithstanding the severity of the enactments against saying or hearing Mass, the Papists in London braved the very real dangers surrounding them, and high and low alike faced the risks rather than abandon the Faith and worship of their fathers. In the summer of 1563 the Privy Council demanded of Grindal a statement about the statistics of his diocese. Strype 2 gives the text of the Council's letter and a portion of the Bishop's answer, but just that section from which most might have been learnt he omitted on the convenient plea that it was too long to be inserted and might be con- sulted in the episcopal Register! 3 The Register document is, of course, a copy of the original which was forwarded to the Council on 25th July, 1563, which may serve our pur- pose here. 4 The " Douay Diaries " list credits the diocese of London with 623 churches. The Bishop of London enu- merates a grand total of 641 churches, of which 47 were "exempts" or "peculiars," leaving 594 within his own juris- diction. These, about which alone, naturally, does he fur- nish any particulars, fall into two groups: 91 within, 503 outside, London. In London 10 parishes were vacant, 2 of them from the tenuity of the living, while 3 other churches, though not returned as void, nevertheless have no name of an incumbent attached to them. In the country 98 churches are named as vacant, 19 of them through the poverty of the living ; 1 3 livings, though vacant, were served by curates, or had only curates; while 6, if provided with incumbents, do not disclose their names to us. The main point to notice, however, is that out of 594 churches, 108, i.e., over 18 per cent., or nearly one-fifth of the parishes were vacant and unserved, and returned as such. It should be noted that such a state of things was confessed to even after the fre- Wells, Robert Peerson, Thomas Parker, Adam Richardson, Richard Taylour, Anthony Hewetson, John Kellet, John Peerse, etc. 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xvi, No. 49. 2 Grindal, pp. 101-4. 3 Ibid., p. 104. * Harl. MS. 595, No. 24, f. 60. 444 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS quent and large ordinations already mentioned, besides the others of a later date before the time of this return. What the situation must have been like, therefore, during the years 1560 and 1561 may be left to the imagination. It cannot be gainsaid, however, on the strength of such evid- ence as these figures afford, that in the earlier days of Grindal's episcopate, many more than one out of every five parishes had either to go unserved entirely, or could have been attended to only occasionally by neighbouring clergy. In 1564 Bishop Grindal was called upon to furnish an- other official return ; this time about the reliability of the Justices of Peace, from the religious standpoint. Naturally, under the very eyes of the Privy Council, want of con- formity was less likely to be met with in London than else- where. Indeed, Grindal pointed this out: "The state and government of the city of London is always subject unto the eyes of your honours, and therefore I have not thought it greatly necessary to make any report at this time of the governors thereof, being well enough known." There were, however, in Middlesex, Hertfordshire, and Essex, exactly fifty favourers of the new order, while twenty-six were re- turned as indifferent, or uncertain, or actually "hinderers;" while one gentleman, " one Birkenhead, clerk of the peace in the said County [Herts] a notorious adversary to religion . . . and a great afHicter of the godly " was indicated as a fit subject for dismissal. 1 Grindal held a peculiar position, for not only was he a bishop, but, from the fact that his jurisdiction extended over the centre of government, he was much involved in the efforts made by Elizabeth's executive to enforce compliance with the laws enacted against Popery. Bishop Grindal's methods of carrying out the Council's wishes in this respect will naturally throw some light on the opposition that con- tinued to exist and to be offered to the attempts to Pro- testantise the bulk of the people. In the first place, those who then formed what are now styled the " professional classes," and represented, of course, the trained and edu- 1 Camden Miscellany, vol. ix; Bishops' Letters, 1564, pp. 59-63. LONDON 445 cated intellects of the laity, that is, the medical and legal professions, remained, mostly, true to the Faith of their fathers. Thus, in 1 576 a memorandum was drawn up, show- ing that the College of Physicians had hitherto resisted any interference from without, and hence had enjoyed immunity from the religious inquisitions that had purged, to some extent at least, the Universities. Thus it had come about that the Papists in that learned profession had remained more or less undisturbed. As the " recital " complained, Papists, as Caius, Sinnings, and Astlowe, " have continually occupied the chief rooms," i.e., held the principal offices ; "that men expelled their Universities for religion," not being forced to take oaths against their conscience on admission to the College of Physicians, " by this means have from time to time been . . . advanced to their credit"; that the members made the College a close corporation, and " that either they do wholly repel, or not without much impor- tunity admit any whom they think to be well affected to- wards the true religion now received; that such as have gone beyond the seas to take the degree of a Doctor, be- cause they would avoid the oath of the Supremacy (minis- tered according to the statute in our Universities), have shortly upon their return been admitted without any oath. . . . That such as have been imprisoned for religion . . . have kept themselves in office . . . ; that some of the electors who have fled for religion out of the realm have been kept in their offices . . . until they died [Dr. Clement at Louvain is instanced], etc." The names of the members of the College appended to this paper, twenty in number, show that twelve at least, probably more, were Papists. The numbers would have been greater earlier in the reign. 1 Some entries in the Acts of the Privy Council give point to the above remarks. On 22nd May, 1575, a letter was des- patched to the Lieutenant of the Tower " to appoint some trusty and honest person to attend upon Drs. Good and Atleslow, prisoners in the Tower, being fallen into some sickness"; and on the following 10th June, that official was 1 Cf. Lansd. MS. 21, No. 60. 446 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS further instructed " to permit Sir Henry Lee to have access to Dr. Atselow, prisoner under his charge, for counsel in physic." x William Herle, too, the spy and informer, wrote to Cecil on 19th March, 1 571-2, accusing a certain James Chillester of coining, etc. Amongst other items of his sup- posed misdemeanours appears: " He hath been a means for the delivery of one Dr. Edriche, a physician, out of the Marshalsea upon his bond and another's, who are of no value, which Edriche was there for Popery and Mass- mongering about Oxford, and is one of so great malice to- wards the Queen's proceedings and against this present state as none can be more; but Chillester wisheth he might deliver all the Papists out of prison by such colourable means." 2 Dr. George Etheridge, thus referred to, lived till 1588. He had been in trouble since early in the reign. The Council thus dealt with him: "St. James's. 23 Nov. 1564. A Letter to the Sheriff of Oxfordshire and Henry Norris Esq., to cause one George Etheridge of Thame in Oxfordshire, physician, to be sought for and apprehended, and sent to the commissioners for causes ecclesiastical, and to send all such books as they shall find worthy the knowledge of the said commissioners — to answer sundry notorious disobediences in causes of religion." 3 He was a schoolmaster as well as a medical man, and one of his pupils was the distinguished William Giffard, afterwards Archbishop of Rheims. 4 The situation as regards the followers of the Law was very similar. On 10th March, 1565-6, John Hales wrote to Cecil: 5 "... I hear that Mr. Caryll the attorney of the Duchy is sick to death, a man whose life, for his learning, if his religion were agreeing, were to be redeemed with 1 Acts 0/ the Privy Council, stib anno, pp. 390, 396. 2 Lansd. MS. 13, No. 61. For an insight into Herle's methods, cf. Cotton MS. Caligula C. Ill, passim. 3 Ibid. 982, f. 125. 4 Wood, Athenae, I, p. 191 ; Gillow, 11, p. 181. 5 Lansd. MS. 9, No. 8. For an account of Hales, cf. Strype's Life of Sir Thos. Smith, p. 92 ; Diet. Nat. Biogr., xxiv, p. 29. LONDON 447 thousands. . . . If now it hath pleased God to appoint the time for him, it is to be sought who is most meet to suc- ceed." Hales suggests "George Bromley of the Temple"; " ye shall thereby, I know, win the hearts of a great many Protestants who, now discouraged, will take some hope, if they may hear a Protestant lawyer beareth some authority in Westminster Hall." The ejectment of men learned in the Law from their profession would have complicated the business of the Courts so materially that the reformers in power could do nothing but wink at non-compliance with religious changes on the part of the lawyers until such time as men favourable to reform had been trained to take their places. Nor was it easy to get the better of such men as Edmund Plowden, whose acumen and advocacy on behalf of accused Papists often stood these unfortunates in good stead. But the difficulty was not lessened to any great ex- tent while Catholics continued to study for the Bar and to be admitted to practice. Hence the meaning of the follow- ing letter penned by Bishop Grindal to Cecil and endorsed " for restraining of ill-affected in religion to be called to any degree in Law." " Sir, I like this letter very well, only I wish added thereto, a commandment to the Benchers of every House, that in calling men to the Bench or Bar, they reject all those that are notoriously known or vehemently suspected to be adversaries to true religion, until they have sufficiently purged themselves, etc." ' Two years later Archbishop Parker wrote to Cecil, then become Lord Burghley, reminding him that though the action taken in 1569 had had good effect, yet that the Inns of Court were again grown " very disordered and licentious in over bold speeches and doings touching religion," and asked him to renew these regulations " for the putting out of commons, expulsion and reformation of sundry the corrupt and per- 1 Lansd. MS. 11, No. 55, 20th May, 1569. The "letter" referred to ordered six persons to be excluded from commons (Parker Corresp., p. 384 note 2). Cf. also Lansd. MS. 109, No. 4; Calendar of Inner Temple Records, vol. i, Introd., pp. 1-li ; P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., LX, No. 70: CXVlll, No. 69. 448 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS verse sort in religion in the Inns of Court," for the Benchers had received back those previously expelled and preferred other suspect persons to " degrees and callings there." 1 Even then the state of these nurseries of lawyers ceased not to cause anxiety; and as a consequence, during 1572 the Privy Council enjoined on Sandys, then Bishop of London, to be more vigorous " to understand of the said contempts," which, as they state, continued to be there practised. " The former disorders," say they, " are revived or rather increased." The subject need not here be followed out further; it may be found in the records of the various Inns of Court. It is sufficient here to recall that in 1572 the state of these Inns was far from satisfactory. 2 The Privy Council refer to efforts they had previously made; these were during Grindal's episcopate and are mentioned in Strype's Life of that prelate. 3 " Many popish gentlemen being known to reside in the Temple as students of the Law, the Council by their letters appointed the Bishop (in whose diocese they were), with the rest of the ecclesiastical commissioners, to call for several of them before them ; and to put interrogatories to them concerning their fre- quenting the Temple Church and the Communion there; concerning their going to hear Mass celebrated in the Temple, in White Friars, and the Spital; concerning their having and reading the books of Harding, Dorman, and others, against the Queen's Supremacy; and their seeing of letters written from those authors ; and lastly, concern- ing divers bad speeches and expressions uttered by them against religion and the preachers. Some of these after examination were committed to the Fleet." Naturally, the lawyers were not the only Papists who en- 1 Parker Corresp., pp. 384-5, Nos. 290 and 291, 17th June, 1571. 2 Cf. Lansd. MS. 15, No. 74. A modern hand has endorsed this paper " Puritanism," but internal evidence, and the reference to previous action which was certainly directed against Catholic students, shows that that endorsement betrays a misconception of the drift of the paper, which should have been more properly endorsed " Popery." 3 P. 224. LONDON 449 deavoured to obey the laws of their Church, and to hear Mass and frequent the Sacraments. Hence the difficulties put in their way by fine and imprisonment were to some extent met by stealth and secrecy. Ambassadors' resid- ences being extra-territorial, many Catholics strove to practice their religion by having recourse to these houses, where, by international law and custom, chapels were, like the rest of the buildings, free from molestation or intrusion. This plea, however, was over-ridden, when the Privy Council discovered that Catholics were in the habit of regularly attending such chapels, when it was no longer safe to hear or say Mass in private, in gentlemen's houses. The Spanish Ambassador, as already stated elsewhere, was at this time Alvaro de Quadra, Bishop of Avila. In all his interviews with Elizabeth he was fearlessly out- spoken, particularly as to the religious attitude she had assumed; indeed, as he stated to Cardinal Granvelle in a despatch dated nth July, 1562, he must have told her some unpleasant truths in brutally frank language, since he said he had never written anything about the Queen which he had not had the courage to say to her, to her face. 1 Thus it came about that, owing to this uncompromising attitude as ambassador, coupled with his character as a Catholic bishop who naturally sympathised with the troubles of the imprisoned Marian bishops and of the Catholics generally, his position in England daily became more and more difficult. The Privy Council, on their side, were not slow to heap upon him every kind of indignity; and having obtained knowledge of his political schemes from a traitor- ous secretary of his, his messenger was waylaid, his des- patches were rifled, and, since copies were forwarded to Cecil, it is hard to acquit the Council either of connivance or instigation in this outrage. 2 From that time guards were placed by the Council night and day at the gates of Durham Place, the Ambassador's house, with orders to 1 Chron. Belg., No. dcccxcv, iii, p. 72. 2 Cf. ibid., No. DCCCLXXlll, iii, p. 36, 24th May, 1562; P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., v, No. 170, Cecil to Chaloner, 8th June, 1562. G G 450 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS arrest any Englishman attempting to enter, so that no one dared set foot in the place, and Quadra became virtually a prisoner. 1 In September the report was current that Quadra would be arrested; 2 and at last, early in January, 1562-3, the Council resorted to extreme measures as recounted by Quadra in the following lengthy despatch to King Philip: " I wrote to your Majesty the news here on the 4th inst. ; and since then the Queen's Council [under pretext of out- rages committed by Quadra, and of harbour given to an Italian assassin] have brought to a head what they have long been hankering to do, namely, to try to turn me out of the kingdom by ill-treatment, or, at all events, to disarm me from opposing them during this Parliament . . . They sent . . . the Marshal to tell me it was the Queen's will that I should give up the keys of all the house doors — both those leading to the street and those to the river and the garden, — to the custodian, in order that he might render an account of all those who went in and out. This custo- dian is an Englishman and a very great heretic. [Quadra of course refused, and] on the following day, which was Twelfth Day, at the hour when certain people were coming hither to hear Mass, some locksmiths were sent, without any respect or consideration, to change the locks and keys on the doors and hand the new keys to the custodian. [Quadra protested against this to the Council, demanding redress, or that a new house should be assigned him, and that these molestations should cease.] They consulted what answer they should give me, and replied through Cecil in a very long discourse, the substance of which was that the Queen did not desire that I should remain longer in her house . . . The reasons . . . were . . . because conspiracies had been hatched there against the Queen's interest, of which I was the prime mover and fomenter; ... In addi- tion to this, all the Papists in London came by water here to Mass . . . [Quadra denied taking part in conspiracies &c. ; but] with regard to certain persons attending Mass, I 1 Chron. Belg., No. dccclxiv, iii, 5th May, 1562. 2 Ibid., No. dccccxxxvi, iii, p. 134, 7th September, 1562. LONDON 45i did not know of or believe that anybody came but your Majesty's vassals, and people who had a perfect right to come, and, whoever were the persons who were in the habit of visiting my house, they were honest people and he had no right to speak of them in the terms he had used. . . . They have thought well to begin by turning me out of this house which they had decided upon long ago, as I can prove; and to offer me this incivility on the eve of the meeting of Parliament both to dishearten the Catholics who come hither from all parts of the kingdom, and to encourage the heretics, and also because they feared that this house which from its being a thoroughfare, offers great facilities for the secret admittance of many different persons, might be used by me to arrange some plot against them of which they go in great fear, and with ample reason. Besides this, the heretics are so perfectly furious to see that / keep these Catholics together with some amount of unity, that they can- not bear it, and the Chancellor said the other day that whilst I was here the Queen need not expect to establish her authority and religion in the country. ... If they dared, I believe they would behead every Catholic in the country, but the godly ones are many and would sell their lives dearly if it were to come to this. I say nothing of London, for certainly it is the worst place in the kingdom. . . . They told me finally that it must be understood that if I did anything outside my functions as ambassador, the Queen would take steps in accordance with what the laws of the land provided, and by these laws I should be judged." 1 This document explains the situation more fully than any other description could do; but Quadra's appearance before the Council on the day after the outrage, in order to pro- test against this infringement of his privileges can be further elucidated from home sources. From Cecil's "very long discourse," the following extracts fill up lacunae in the Spaniard's narrative. " And where you justified the good using of the house, it is to be proved that you not only 1 Hume, Spanish State Papers, Simancas, No. 202, 10th January, 1562-3. 452 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS admitted some of our subjects to the hearing of your private Mass, but had also conference with some traitors, letting them in through the water-gate; and, to be plain, that under colour of religion, you are the cause that a great number of the Queen's subjects be seditious." . . . Quadra is then reported to have thus replied: "I protest . . . that I ever did meddle in anything contrary to the orders of the realm, if it have not been in matters of religion, wherein I do not only dissent, but think it allow- able and commendable for me so to profess therein." He expressed himself at a loss to guess who was the traitor he was accused of conferring with, but the report makes this clear: " but of Adrian Fortescue the arch-traitor, with whom he had all this last summer frequent conference, he would not once speak." * The withdrawal of Durham Place from the Spanish ambassador's use had been suggested long before, precisely on the score that it was a " thoroughfare," i.e. y that it had a back entrance from the Thames, as well as the principal one from the Strand. Sir Thomas Chaloner, writing to Cecil from Antwerp on 2nd September, 1559, made a grimly humorous reference to the possibilities thus afforded for clandestine meetings and for escape. Speaking of the Bishop of Aquila, he said: " I trust (with an honest pretence of removing), ye will remember my former letters, to lodge him where good espy may be had over his espies. Durham Place is too great a house for his small train, and is an ill air, too near the water. Our deposed B[ishops] I understand, do visit him now and then." 2 These extracts have been necessary to show that politics were to some extent mixed with religion in this case, and that the Council were justified in looking after national interests so far as those interests were endangered. But it would seem that the plea of politics was a convenient one to justify religious rancour and persecution ; and with this prelude the way is opened for the appearance of Bishop Grindal on the scene, as one of the London magistrates to whom the 1 Cotton MS. Vespasian C. VII, No. 70, f. 259, 7th January, 1562-3. 2 P.R.O. Foreign, Elizabeth, VII, No. 662. LONDON 453 task was entrusted by the Privy Council of arresting any- one entering Quadra's house to attend Mass. Quadra gives the details in a letter to Philip: " On the day of the Purifica- tion of our Lady . . . they sent at dawn of day six or eight persons, who, posted in the house-steward's room, wrote down the names of everybody who entered my house; and two of them, whilst I was at Mass, went up to the chapel and took note of everyone who was therein, and, as soon as Mass was finished, began to arrest within my house whomsoever they pleased. . . . When the Marshal entered he went up to my apartment and told me in the Queen's name to deliver up all the English people in the house, as her Majesty had been informed that over 200 of them had come to Mass. I told him I had seen no English people and he would find none, which was true. . . . As there were no English, they arrested Spaniards, Italians and Flemings at their will. ... It appears as if they were determined to prohibit anyone from coming to Mass, even foreigners, and to make those who are naturalised in London pay the same penalty as if they were English." 1 The English Government had gone too far, and Sir John Mason wrote to Sir Thomas Chaloner, our Ambassador in Spain, to put as good a face on the matter as possible. " It may fortune to come to your ears," he said, " that the Spanish Ambassador hath lately been here very ill used, as indeed the matter might have been better used by such as were put in trust, who abused their commission. The truth was that on Candlemas Day, the Queen's Highness being advertised that sundry of her subjects would that day to both the Ambassador's house to hear Mass and to be present at the rest of the ceremony wont to be used on that day, took order by her Council that certain should be sent to try the truth thereof. Who, mistaking their instruc- tions, went malapertly to the place where the Ambassador was at service, and there laid hands upon certain of her said subjects. The meaning was they should not have 1 Hume, Spanish State Papers^ Simancas, No. 211, 7th February, 1562-3. 454 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS entered within the gates, which hath been declared to the Ambassador, and I suppose he be satisfied." 1 This lame account is also untrue, as Quadra says there were no English subjects present on that occasion; notwithstanding this, however, writing later, he repeats to his royal master that " these Councillors persist in refusing to allow any of your Majesty's subjects to attend Mass." 2 Bishop Quadra's troubles were ended by his death on 26th August, 1563, at Langley: he fell a victim to the plague then ravaging Eng- land and which had already carried off several of his attendants; but before that event, he was suspected of having been instrumental in aiding the escape of Dr. Story. He wrote a lengthy account of the whole matter to King Philip, showing how Story, unknown to him, had taken refuge in Durham Place after escaping from the Marshalsea, but that Quadra's chaplain induced him to leave the house, and that after exciting adventures he had got away to Flanders. 3 As a matter of fact, though Quadra had had nothing to do with the affair, he thought it prudent to get his chaplain out of England for the following reasons which are of peculiar interest as regards the English Catholics. Quadra states that this Mathias Rodarte " is a man who knows every Catholic in the place and has absolved and administered the Sacraments to many"; hence the neces- sity of getting him out of the country, for, were he to be summoned for examination before the Council, "he is a simple kind of man of small courage who would not be able to deny the truth of anything," and he might thus be brought to " expose many people to suffering and injury. . . . God grant that I may be able to send the chaplain off safely, for certainly, if they take him, the injury would be very serious." * The difficulties which had beset the Council 1 Cotton MS. Galba C 1, No. 29, f. 87, 27th February, 1562-3. 2 Hume, Spanish State Papers, Simancas, No. 215, 18th March, 1562-3. 3 Cf. Chron. Belg., No. mlxxxvi, iii, p. 364, Aquila to Cardinal de Granvelle, 8th May, 1563. 4 Hume, Spanish State Papers, Simancas, No. 223, 9th May, 1563. LONDON 455 in this case, and the complications which had almost arisen might have been thought sufficiently grave to have taught a useful lesson in caution for the future. Yet almost pre- cisely the same infringement of ambassadorial privileges took place at the Portuguese envoy's house at Hoxton. Bishop Grindal's letter to shift the blame from his own shoulders to those of his menials ' need not be given here, as it is already in print. 2 To the original in the Record Office is appended the depositions of the constables, from which it appears that the raid, made the day before, resulted in the attempt to arrest eight Englishmen found kneeling in the chapel, hearing Mass. The Ambassador came to the constables " very fiercely, calling them villains, dogs, and such like, and enquired by what authority they came: whereupon the constable caused the letter of the commis- sioners to be read, and a Portugal that understood English standing by, declared the effect thereof to the Ambassador. Then the Ambassador enquired whose hands [i.e., signa- tures] were at the same letters, unto whom answer was made: the Bishop of London and others that were in com- mission for such matters. Whereunto the Ambassador said he cared not for the Bishop of London his hand, if the Queen's hand were not at it; and so, with most vile words caused them to be thrust out of the gates, and so all the English persons there at Mass conveyed away." A note or memorandum is added to the effect that " the gate is never left open at any time all the day but when as they be at Mass, to them that are English persons that come to it, may straight go to the Chapel without stay or let, and not to be seen." 3 A similar occurrence is recorded by Strype as having taken place in 1576, that time at Lord Burghley's own order; hence, since previous experience of misunder- standing of orders should have taught caution, and yet again a forcible entrance into an ambassador's house was effected, it seems fairly established that such an entry had 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xlviii, No. 26, 25th October, 1568. 2 Remains of Abp. Gritulal, p. 300, No. 52, to Cecil. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., XLVIII, No. 26 i. 456 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS been planned not only then, but previously ; and the devious policy followed in those days found an explanation that would avert the ordinary consequences by shifting the blame on to the shoulders of underlings. 1 In 1572 or 1573, a letter was sent by Lord Burghley to Lord Buckhurst, ordering him to call upon the French Ambassador and re- quire him in the Queen's name " not to suffer such recourse of all strangers to his house to hear Mass." This letter was drafted by Sir Thomas Smythe, and was corrected by Lord Burghley himself. 2 The missive states that since the massacre of St. Bartholomew, " there is now more resort than was accustomed of English, Scots, Italians and French- men to the Mass permitted to the French King's Ambas- sador's [house, to hear Mass there] to be said to him and his family only, which seemeth rather to be done of a ' braverie ' and rejoicing of that cruelty, or else that they, more emboldened upon some hope, dare now do that which before they durst not." But it was not only under the aegis of an ambassador that the Catholics ventured to hear Mass. Some nobles adhering to the old Faith were, at least in the early days of Elizabeth's reign, too powerful to be attacked with impunity, and thus their continuance in the old worship was tolerated, or rather winked at, by the Council ; but where the practice could be safely attacked, no effort was spared to eradicate it and to punish both sayers and hearers. Thus the petition exists of one who had incurred the penalty attached to hearing Mass, and who abjectly be- sought the favour of the Council on promise of future conformity. 3 Bishop Grindal busied himself in magisterially enquiring into " Mass matters," when such were brought before his cognisance; and thus we learn of Mass said at Boreham, Essex, in Sir Thomas Wharton's house 4 ; at New- hall, Essex, the same knight's residence; at Borley, Essex, Sir Edward Waldegrave's place; " in one Stubbe's house, in 1 Cf. Strype, Ann. II, pp. 24-30. 2 Cf. Harl. MS. 4943, " Letters touching Religion," f. 330^. 3 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., XII, No. 13, ? 1560. 4 Ibid. LONDON 457 Westminster, in the Broad Sanctuary"; and "in my Lady Carew's house, beside St. Dunstan's in the West." ' Two letters from Quadra to King Philip refer to some of these cases. Writing on 3rd June, 1561, he said, "... with the object of preventing any disturbance in the country this summer which could give an excuse for the interference of their neighbours, they have thought fit to apprehend all the Catholics they could lay hands on, and so to make sure of them. Any cause, however small, has sufficed for their imprisonment, and even in cases where nothing is proved against them but hearing Mass, the punishment for which on the first occasion is only a fine of 200 ducats, they have shut them up where no one can see them, and refuse to punish them according to the law as they are determined to keep them fast." 2 At the close of the same month Quadra wrote: " the news now is that Waldegrave and his wife and Wharton and some more of the Catholics recently arrested, have been sentenced to the penalty provided by the statute for hearing Mass. Although the sentence was pronounced at Westminster with all the solemnity usual in cases of treason, nothing was found against them but the hearing of the Mass." 3 In respect to Lady Carew, above mentioned, a letter exists, which, by reason of the importance of its contents, must be here quoted almost in extenso. It was written by Bishops Grindal and Coxe to the Council. "We laboured the 10th of this month to ex- amine the sayer and hearers of the Mass at my Lady Carew's house . . . meaning thereby to find knowledge of more of that sort ; so it is that we can come to no know- ledge of any more matter. The cause is only this: neither the priest nor any of his auditors, not so much as the kitchen-maid will receive any oath before us, to answer to Articles, but stoutly say they will not swear, and say also they will neither accuse themselves nor none other. This is grown now lately, as we find by examinations, to be a 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., XVI, Nos. 49 and 49 i and ii, 17th April, 1561. * Hume, Spanish State Papers, Simancas, No. 132. 3 Ibid., No. 134, 30th June, 1561. of ~ ■ •RSITY 458 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS rule to all the scholars of that school, . . . great inconveni- ences may follow hereof, if some remedy be not devised . . . some think that if this priest Haverd might be put to some kind of torment, and so driven to confess what he knoweth, he might gain the Queen's Majesty a good mass of money by the Masses that he hath said." 1 The early Tower and Prison Lists preserve the above-given names and several more as being in durance solely for hearing Mass. 2 In 1567 letters were sent to Bishop Grindal from the Council, urging him to take measures for putting a stop to the Mass-saying which they realised was still far from being an uncommon offence, for the Council refer to "sundry conventicles of evil-disposed subjects" who "do obstinately . . . refuse to obey the laws ... by using to have the private Mass and other superstitious ceremonies in their houses." He was therefore instructed to give orders to the Sheriff " that he with speed enter into the house . . . and take sure order that none escape . . . until due search be made of all persons there to be found. And further, to search for all writings, letters, books and other things be- longing to the usage of the Mass . . . and . . . if you think any other place likely to be also suspected of the like dis- orders, that you cause the like proceedings to be used as circumspectly as you may." 3 These domiciliary visits spared no one: even a student could not collect books for his studies without the risk of getting into trouble. Thus, in 1568, Stowe the historian was subjected to the inquisi- torial visit of Grindal through his commissary, who confis- cated a large number of " popish books and superstitious writings " which that eminent antiquary had gathered to- gether." 4 1 13th September, 1562, Haynes, Burghley State Papers, p. 395. 2 Cf. Bar/. MS. 360, ff. 7 and 34; P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xvi, Nos. 55, 65, 65^; vii, No. 19; xvm, Nos. 1-5; xxin, No. 40; all lately printed in Catholic Record Society's Publications, I, pp. 48-57. 3 Strype's Grindal, App. Ill, p. 472. 4 Ibid., p. 184, and App. xvn, p. 516. Thomas Wattes, in sending to the Bishop of London a catalogue of Stowe's books, accompanied his list with the following letter, dated 21st February, 1568-9: " Mr. Beale LONDON 459 In 1570 Grindal was translated to the Northern Metro- politan See, and it was proposed to bring Edwin Sandys from Worcester to take his place in London. Sandys re- fused on the plea of ill-health, but brought on himself Cecil's displeasure for so doing. This so scared him that he determined to accept what he had before refused. The letter is characteristic, as showing that the bishops recog- nised that what power they exercised was based wholly on lay support and Court sunshine. " You will not in honour and good nature cast away your poor friend without all cause: if you glome 1 upon me, I shall serve Christ's Church with less comfort and to less profit. The world thinketh that you are my good friend, and that I may do somewhat with you; if the Papists may learn misliking, they will easily over-crow me, and it will much weaken my work in God's Church. I have, as it were, already lost the Earl of Leicester ... if you shall mislike of me also, evil is my hap. Sir, ... if you bid me come up, I will, and take that office upon me, whatsoever become of me." 2 This reliance on secular support was an abiding characteristic. Sandys, writing to Lords Burghley and Leicester on 5th August, 1573, about the excesses of the Puritan fanatics, twice sug- gested that "a sharp letter from her Majesty would cut the and I with Mr. Williams have been this forenoon at Stowe's house and have [perused all his books. He hath a great store of foolish fabulous books of old print as of St. Degory, Triamont, etc. He hath also a great sort of old written English Chronicles, both in parchment and in paper, some long, some short; he hath besides as it were Miscellanea of divers sorts both touching physic, surgery, and herbs with medicines of experience, and also touching old fantastical popish books printed in the old time, with many such also written in old English in parchment. All which we have pretermitted to take any inventory of. We have only taken a note of such books as have been lately set forth in this realm or beyond the seas for defence of Papistry, with a note of some of his own devices and writings touching such matter as he hath gathered for chronicles ; whereabout he seemeth to have bestowed much travail. His books declare him to be a great fautor of Papistry" (Lansd. MS. 11, No. 3). 1 I.e., look gloomy, or lour. 2 Lansd. MS. 12, No. 82, 26th April, 1570. 460 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS courage of these men" or would secure that they should not " meddle in matters of this State neither admit any of her Majesty's subjects to their communion." The power rested with them : " it is high time to lay to your hands, if you mind the good of God's Church. . . . For my part I will do what I can . . . but I am too weak; yea, if all of my call- ing were joined together we are too weak, our estimation is little, our authority is less, so that we are become con- temptible in the eyes of the basest sort of people." 1 Of William Herle's multitudinous" informations" to Lord Burghley, one only need occupy the reader's attention here. It is dated 28th September, 1572, dealing with certain ex- aminations conducted by the Bishop of London, and show- ing the underhand work to which Sandys could on occasion lend himself. But the principal item indicates that priests were supported by noblemen, that Papists were numerous and that ambassadors' houses were places of resort for them. " There is one Douglas in prison," wrote Herle, "committed by the Bishop, who is a priest, and hath changed his habits, having £\o a year pension of the Lord Vaux; which priest lives very gentlemanlike in this town resorting familiarly to the French Ambassador, and is favoured of a great number of Papists, of whom, if I can understand any more par- ticular matter, I will advertise the Bishop with speed . . ," 2 This resort to the foreign ambassadors had always been a crux to the Government. Hence Sandys, evidently in- structed by Cecil, made a sudden descent on Signor Giraldi's house in Tower Street, that gentleman being the Portuguese Ambassador, " who of too much boldness and without any colour of authority," as Sandys wrote to Lord Burghley in recounting his exploits, " hath fostered Mass-mongers of long time in his house. ... I understanding of it . . . re- quired the Sheriff of London ... to apprehend such as he should find there committing idolatry. Sundry he found there ready to worship the Calf, only he apprehended four students at law . . . those I committed to the Fleet. . . . Francis Gerald the Portingale offered to shoot daggs. . . . 1 Lansd. MS. 17, No. 43. 2 Ibid., 15, No. 86. LONDON 461 There was found the altar prepared, the chalice, and their bread-God ; and in the house as I hear, a good number of Englishmen hid, as minded to hear Mass. Because the Sheriff had neither apprehended the Portingale, neither the Mass-priest, I gave commission ... to apprehend them both, but . . . the Portingale is at the Court to complain." l At the same time he wrote to Lord Leicester, expressing his sentiments about Giraldi the " calf-worshipper " and his Faith, in outrageously violent terms. Sandys was certainly " thorough." " The Portingale hath complained at the Court as if he should have been evil used ; no, my Lord, he hath been evil suffered. . . . This idolatrous proud Portin- gale hath daily, Sundays and holydays, had Mass in his house this twelvemonth, as I am credibly informed, where- unto hath resorted from time to time twenty at the least of her Majesty's subjects. . . . This wicked blasphemy, this vile idolatry, her Majesty in conscience may not suffer: to suffer it were to be partaker of it. . . . The Sheriff apprehended a few of the simple sort, but he suffered the author of this evil to escape." 2 About this same period Sir Thomas Smythe informed Lord Burghley that " here was this day with me two men to whom my Lord of Shrewsbury gave commission to seek out conjurers and Mass-mongers, who, as appeareth, hath done their endeavours very diligently . . . with a dis- covery of a pretty nest of Papists." Later, he wrote : " here is also come more judicia of those conjurers who be already taken, and a foul knot of papistical Justices of Peace dis- covered, and of Massing priests." 3 Sandys having been brought to London as being a strong reformer, set about justifying his selection, and his term of office in London was punctuated by periodical descents upon suspected houses. The hauls thus made showed that the determina- tion of the Papists had not been daunted, and that there were considerable numbers of them braving every risk in 1 Lansd. MS. 16, No. 25, 2nd March, 1572-3. 2 Ibid., 16, No. 26, 4th March, 1572-3, not signed, but endorsed by L. Burghley, " The Bp. of London to my L. of Leicester." 3 Ibid., 16, Nos. 42, 43, 12th and 14th February, 1572-3. 462 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS order to follow the requirements of their Faith. Thus, on the 4th April, 1574, a list was drawn up of " persons appre- hended at Mass." This list contained upwards of forty-five names. Twenty-three persons were arrested at "Lady Mor- ley's chamber, by Aldgate," including Dolman the priest; Oliver Heywood, a priest, and eleven others were seized at " Lady Guildford's in Trinity Lane, beside Queen Hive [Queenhithe]"; while "at Mr. Carus's at the Lime House, beside London " ten named persons besides " others " were captured by the Recorder of London "not at Mass, but all things prepared for the saying of Mass." 1 Bishop Sandys, as has been already seen, held strong views, which he expressed as strongly, on the subject of the Mass in general, and on its being allowed at the " Portin- gale" Ambassador's in particular. Notwithstanding the raid made on that gentleman's house early in 1573, the usual practices of a Catholic household were resumed. This was too much for Sandys, apparently ; and his representations led to another forcible entry being made into the same privileged domicile, this time in the autumn of 1576. The whole history is graphically told in a series of papers in the Lansdowne collection of MSS. 2 The strangers arrested on that occasion do not concern us; but the Sheriff named twelve Englishmen seized and put into the Counters of Wood Street and Poultry, while Lord Burghley added the name of another. From the Sheriff's covering letter it is evident that some others effected their escape. The Portu- guese Ambassador made serious representations to the Queen about the indignity offered to him ; and to pacify him, Fleetwood, the Recorder of London, immediately re- sponsible for the raid, was sent to the Fleet, whence he wrote to Lord Burghley about his share in the outrage, " touching the repair of these lewd people the Queen's sub- jects that come to his [Guarras's] Mass." The real nature of Fleetwood's incarceration may be gauged from this same letter. The scapegoat wrote to Burghley: "I do beseech your Lordship thank Mr. Warden of the Fleet for his most 1 Lansd. MS. 19, No. 21. 2 Vol. 23, Nos. 52-8. LONDON 463 friendly and courteous using of me, for surely (I thank God for it) I am quiet and lack nothing that he or his bedfellow are able to do for me. This a place wherein a man may quietly be acquainted with God." In his deposition, Fleet- wood states that he said to Signor Guarras, while pro- secuting his search, " Sir, if I had done my duty to God and to the Queen, I had taken 200 here upon All Hallow day last, and as many more upon All Souls day also." Fleetwood concludes his " confession " by saying that at the previous Easter he had sent Guarras warning " not to suffer the Queen's subjects to repair to his Mass," so that it is abundantly evident that a long-established practice was being interfered with. That same Easter, too, twenty- three people were arrested while hearing Mass on the great festival at John Pynchin's house, celebrated by " Hugh Phillips, late monk in Westminster." Six of these were " arraigned and condemned according to the statute " on 29th May, 1576. 1 These rigorous proceedings naturally resulted in forcing some of those who valued their con- sciences above worldly possessions, to seek refuge abroad; and at the end of 1576 a list was prepared containing "the names of all such as be certified into the Exchequer to be fugitives over sea, contrary to the statute of anno 13 ." The list is evidently very incomplete, as the London dio- cese provides but ten names. 2 From these multiplied instances it is clear that the eradication of Popery was still far from being accomplished. Meanwhile, Sandys had been transferred to York, and had been succeeded in the bish- opric of London by John Aylmer, a man of similar senti- ments towards the Catholics as was Sandys. Aylmer quickly cast about for some new and more effective method of dealing with the problem. On 21st June, 1577, he imparted to Secretary Walsingham the result of his cogitations in a letter from which the following passage may be quoted. " My Lord of Canterbury and I have received from divers of our brethren, bishops of this realm, that the Papists do 1 Lansd. MS. 23, No. 59. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., ex, No. 9, 26th December, 1576. 464 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS marvellously increase both in number and in obstinate with- drawing of themselves from the church and service of God : for the remedy whereof, the manner of imprisoning of them which hath been used heretofore for their punishment, hath not only little availed, but also hath been a means by sparing of their housekeeping, greatly to enrich them ; and such as here upon suit have been enlarged, and upon hope of amendment sent into their countries, have drawn great multitudes of their tenants and friends into the like mali- cious obstinacy; wherefore, with conference had with the rest of our colleagues, we have thought good to forbear the imprisoning of the richer sort, and to punish them by round fines to be imposed for contemptuous refusing of re- ceiving the Communion according to our order and com- mandments; for if we should directly punish them for not coming to the church, they have to allege that the penalty being already set down by statute (which is \2d. for every such offence), is not by us to be altered or aggravated. This manner of fining of them will procure the Queen £1,000 by year to her coffers ; whatsoever it do more, it will weaken the enemy, and touch him much nearer than any pain heretofore inflicted hath done." 1 This pleasing little plan evidently commended itself to the civil executive, and after the ways and means had been sifted, resulted in the orders issued during the autumn of that year to all the bishops, requiring a return of those refusing to attend divine ser- service, together with an estimate of each one's worth in lands and goods. This scheme was meant to strike Puritan and Papist alike; but since the bishops proposed to fine only "the richer sort" it is clear that only the Catholics would, as a general rule, suffer, for the Puritan element was so far confined almost wholly to the lower orders, and had hardly invaded the ranks of the county gentry. Aylmer had, together with his brethren, foreseen all this, and hence he impressed on Walsingham that " in conferring with her Majesty about it, two things are to be observed : first, that her Majesty be given to understand that it is meant hereby 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxiv, No. 22. LONDON 465 as well to touch the one side as the other indifferently, or else you can guess what will follow; secondarily, if her Majesty by importunate suits of courtiers for their friends be easily drawn to forgive the forfeitures, then our labour will be lost, we shall be brought into hatred, the enemy shall be encouraged, and all our travail turned to a mockery. Therefore her Majesty must be made herein to be animo obfirmato, or else nothing will be done." Aylmer himself was not likely to be unduly harassed by scruples, either as to the ends he might suggest or as to the methods whereby they were to be attained. Thus, writing to Lord Burghley, on 27th June, 1577, about one Meredith, whom he had been examining, who would "name none nor in any wise confess that he came from Rome," he did not hesitate to suggest that " if he were showed the rack, I think he would not be so close, for he seemeth somewhat timorous." Further, he thought " it were not amiss to call into close prison in these dangerous times the chief captains of the obstinate Papists. ... It is time ... to use more severity than hitherto hath been used, or else we shall smart for it; for as sure as God liveth, they look for invasion, or else they would not fall away as they do." 1 This important letter gives further insight into Aylmer's methods, and is of particular interest, since it shows this ultra-Protestant Bishop advocating the very principle of doing evil that good may come, of the end justifying the means, which has since been so industriously fathered on the Catholics. After referring to Watson, Feckenham, and other papist prisoners, he went on : " There are three or four persons 1 Lansd. MS. 25, No. 30. It maybe of interest to note what Bishop Aylmer reported as having been found on Meredith: " His trinkets which he carrieth be these: chalice and paten of tin, a painted crucifix to be in the Mass-book at the time of their consecration, which they use to kiss at the Memento, a portasse daily used for Latin service, whereby I gather he is a priest and hath said Mass all Lancashire over, but he confesseth but one place of abode above named. Item, he hath divers Agnus Dei, a hallowed candle, beads and other trinkets. It should appear that he hath bestowed many, and these be the refuses" {ibid). H H 466 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS here lurking in London of a contrary pitch to Feckenham and the rest, and yet in mine opinion not much less hurt- ful in hindering the unity and quietness of the Church than they be, namely Clarke, Chapman . . . Field and Wil- cocks [strong Puritans]. . . . These men in mine opinion might by toleration be profitably employed in Lancashire, Staffordshire, Shropshire, and such other like barbarous countries to draw the people from Papism and gross ignor- ance. And though they went a little too far, yet would it be less labour to draw them back, than it is now to hale them forward." 1 What sort of evangelising is this! Two days later, he replied to Lord Burghley, who had asked him for a post for one Dethick: "The officialship which your Lordship writeth for is long since passed by my pro- mise to ... a very poor man, in respect only of his poverty, as God knoweth. But rather than your Lordship should think any unkindness in my denial ... I will rather revoke my promise and hazard my credit that way, than I will adventure your misliking . . . therefore, if it be your pleasure that I shall deal with the other man, who, as official, is in possession, I will do it effectually, however I crack my credit in it." 2 It can hardly be claimed that Aylmer's sense of justice was of a high order. Bishop Aylmer's letter to Lord Burghley of 27th June, 1577, contained an enclosure he had received from some officials in one of the prisons, who signed themselves " name- less because we would be blameless," and under cover of that anonymity gave information about many Catholic prisoners and of their communication with the outer world ; possibly about the same time the Council received news of " divers bold disorders and riotous assemblies of divers Papists at Colchester and there near about ... by 20 or 30 at a time . . . Mass said commonly," 3 affording evidence of the wide-spread existence of the hated Catholics ; hence Aylmer might be relied upon to use every endeavour to get at the facts, secure the names of recusants and so pre- 1 Lansd. MS. 25, No. 30. 2 Ibid., 25, No. 31, 29th June, 1577. 3 P.R.O. Dom; Eliz., CXX, No. 26, 27, ? 1577. LONDON 467 pare the way for effectually dealing with them by fine and imprisonment. In support of this, reference may be made to a document of slightly later date, being extracts of letters written by a foreigner, Antonio Fogaga, to correspondents abroad, and evidently intercepted. 1 Under date of 24th December, 1575, he told the Duke of Guise: "the good Catholics here, who do dearly love you, did greatly lament when they heard you were in danger of your life, praying continually to God for your health, in many Masses which are daily said in this town." To Don John of Austria he wrote on 3rd January, 1577-8, "My friend and I met at Mass in a chapel of this city, where the Holy Sacrament is continually kept." A table drawn up at the end of 1577, showing the number of such recusants for the whole of England (1,387) credits London with 99, and the rest of Aylmer's diocese with 62, or 161 in all. 2 That this was not accurate can be shown from several other documents. Thus, a certificate of recusants in the Middle Temple names 26 gentlemen, differently tabulated. Three " forbear to come to the church here at the Temple " ; three " refused their coming to their church "; three others were " fugitives at Louvain"; nine " have been removed from the fellowship for backwardness in religion and never reconciled them- selves " ; while eight had " been removed from the fellow- ship for a time, and after reconciled, and so continue as we think." 3 This list, it is to be noted, contains the names of well-known Catholics, such as Edmund Plowden, John and Edward Yates of Buckland, Vavasour, Tempest, etc. The return for the Inner Temple contains 58 names, some said to be " notoriously suspected to be obstinately bent to Papistry," others, formerly "vehemently suspected, and now of what disposition they are in religion we know not " ; others, while vehemently suspected, yet occasionally at- tended church; others again, "publicly noted to be very backward in religion." A cursory glance at the names is 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxxxvi, No. 64, 17th March, 1579-80. 2 Ibid., CXix, No. 20, 30th December, 1577. 3 Ibid., CXVIII, No. 68, 15th November, 1577. 4 68 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS enough to show that it was not Puritanism, but Popery, of which they were " suspected." They include Arden Waferer, Thomas Copley, Michael Hare, Sampson Erdeswick, Stradlings, Shelleys, Gawens, Yates, Dymocks, Tichbornes, and Wisemans. 1 Lincoln's Inn furnished a list of 5 gentle- men expelled in 1 569 for recusancy, and never yet reconciled ; 17 called before Bishop Sandys and never reconciled; 7 others similarly treated, yet since reconciled ; another ex- pelled in 1576 for his recusancy; and 11 others ordered to go to Communion and hitherto disobedient: 41 in all, of whom 34 were at that moment certainly recusants. 2 Gray's Inn could show 11 "put out of the house for religion and so remain," while 2 others similarly treated had been re- stored ; 24 are named as " be not known to come to church " ; 13 as " come very seldom, and be reported to be backward in religion"; while Jasper Haywood, Fr. Morden, B. Bas- ford are "Jesuits beyond the sea": 53 in all, of whom 51 may most certainly rank as recusants. 3 Thus, out of the Inns of Court alone, simply in the ranks of the legal pro- fession, there were at least 161 recusants, exactly equal to those named in the London diocese outside the limits of the City. These returns were made by the officials of the various Inns. In this connection the reader is referred for yet more minute details to an examination conducted in 1 569 at the Inns of Court, betraying a state of things exactly similar to what is here shown as existing in 1577. 4 Grindal suggested, indeed, to Cecil, that there should be issued "a commandment to the Benchers of every House: that in calling men to the Bench or Bar, they reject all those that are notoriously known or vehemently suspected to be adversaries to true religion, until they have sufficiently purged themselves," etc. This letter is endorsed: "For restraining of ill-affected in religion to be called to any degree in Law." 5 The Bishop's own return is very elaborate 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvm, No. 69, November, 1577. 2 Ibid., cxvm, No. 70, November, 1577. 3 Ibid., cxvm, No. 71, November, 1577. * Cf. ibid., lx, No. 70. 5 Lansd. MS. 11, No. 55, 20th May, 1569. LONDON 469 and contains the names of poor persons, " of no value," as well as those who were likely to afford round fines. But it is not exhaustive, since it names but 34 of London's 91 parishes. In London itself, 94 recusants at least are enumerated; but as " household " not infrequently occurs, the exact number must remain indeterminate. Outside London 81 names appear, amongst them " the wife of Doctor Story late executed at Tyburn — nothing worth " ; " the wife of William Bird, one of the gentlemen of her Majesty's Chapel " — this is the famous musician and composer. 1 The Bishop's list thus contains 175 names at least, probably representing many more individual recusants, and the diocese altogether shows a minimum of 336 recusants. Not only Aylmer, but the Privy Council as well, made efforts to secure the conformity of recusants. Thus, while the Council were accompanying the Queen on one of her periodical progresses, we find that in Essex during the spring or summer of 1578, several Papists appeared before them and were variously dealt with: some to confer with preachers, and if refractory, to be committed to gaol ; one who conformed on the spot was "dismissed with favour"; others merely conformed ; others are stated to " come to the church" — for what that outward show was worth; Sir Henry Tyrrell was, fortunately for himself, sick; while a few, though summoned, failed to appear. 2 The next evidence of personal activity on Bishop Aylmer's part against Catholics comes at the close of 1579, when he succeeded in tracking a printing press which he, of course, seized. His predecessor, Sandys, met with a like piece of good fortune in 1573, but as it was a Puritan office that was raided, this narrative is not concerned with the event. 3 But Aylmer was fortunate in securing Carter, "a very lewd fellow, who hath been divers times before in prison for printing of lewd pamphlets. But now in search of his house, amongst 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvm, No. 73, November, 1577. 3 Cotton MS. Titus B. in, No. 21, f. 60, endorsed, "1578. Papists in Essex dealt withal by my Ld. in this progress." 3 Cf. Lansd. MS. 17, No. 45 (a), 28th August, 1573. 470 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS other naughty papistical books, we have found one written in French entitled The Innocency of the Scottish Queen, a very dangerous book, wherein he calleth her the heir appar- ent of this Crown . . . [he] is now near you in the Gate- house. ... I can get nothing of him, for he did deny to answer upon his oath." 1 This William Carter finally suf- fered death at Tyburn as a traitor, in 1584, his alleged offence being the publication of A Treatise of Schism? While Aylmer was thus busy in trying to make Papists conformable, he was himself being harried almost as severely as his own victims. And he turned upon his persecutor, Lord Burghley, in characteristic fashion. " To be plain with your Lordship," he wrote, " you are the man that doth most discourage me, ... in that, by your words and countenances my government is hindered. For when such words shall pass from you, that such and such things be not of the substance of religion, that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction (which you yourself by statute have confirmed) is mere papal, that you would such and such should preach which are disturbers, &c, it cannot be, my Lord, but three words from your mouth hujus generis, shall more embolden them and hinder our labours, than our toil and moil shall in many years be able to help and save. These are the things, my Lord, that do discourage me and make me weary, that on the one side we shall be bawled on by them and not backed nor countenanced by such great magistrates as you are ... it must needs make us desperate, as by my writing you may see." 3 This same year, 1579, in a general list of recusants of England, drawn up with a view to assess- ment, on a basis of a minimum of £\o in land and £200 in goods, London diocese furnished 20 names. 4 Finally, a re- markable " Catalogue of Papists remaining confined in different prisons in England " containing reference to more than 100 persons, shows that in London there were then 1 Lansd. MS. 28, No. 81, 30th December, 1579. 2 Gillow, Bibliogr. Diet, of Engl. Cat/is., i, 414. 3 26th May, 1579; Lansd. MS. 28, No. 72. 4 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxlii, No. 33. CANTERBURY 471 (1579)111 durance 49 Catholics, thus distributed amongst the various prisons: 2 in the Tower, 7 in the Fleet, 17 in the Marshalsea, 3 in the White Lion, and 5 each in the King's Bench, the Gatehouse, Newgate, and the Counter. 1 The last diocese to be considered is the primatial See of Canterbury. This brings us into contact with Matthew Parker, and we at once pass into a purer and sweeter atmosphere than has hitherto surrounded us. As he was the first of the line of Elizabethan prelates, so he was un- doubtedly the most distinguished, both for his learning and statesmanship, and for his own personal qualities. His nature was more genial, sober, and gentle than that of his colleagues: he always stands forth as a restraining influence over their more fiery temperaments ; and it may be safely said that he misliked much of what the necessities of the times forced upon him: that, on the whole, he was averse to the methods of compulsion or persecution so dear to the other bishops, being in this distinctly ahead of the times in which he lived. The pity is that his saner counsels were unable to prevail more than they actually did, for they would have made for toleration and peace. Parker's official career as Archbishop of Canterbury can best be viewed from two standpoints; as superintendent of his own See, and as Primate of All England. In the latter capacity only can we study the man effectively; but for present purposes it must suffice to follow his relations with his own diocese, and leave the larger issues for a more general survey of the policy of the country. In other words, he is here to be considered merely as a bishop, not as a primate or as a statesman. In pursuance of this limitation, the first document to be consulted is, of course, the return prepared by him of the state of Canterbury diocese, made in 1563 for the informa- tion of the Privy Council. This certificate gives a total of 276 churches and chapels, being 19 in excess of the" Douay Diaries" estimate of 257. The households served by those churches were 10,948 in number, giving an estimated 1 Lansd. MS. 28, No. 97. 472 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS population, therefore, for the greater part of Kent, of 54,740. No information is afforded as to the number of livings then vacant, 1 but in a return of vacant livings made about 1565, the diocese of Canterbury figures as showing 24. 2 As Archbishop Parker had declared his dislike for in- quisitorial methods when forwarding certificates about Justices of the Peace for the dioceses of Oxford and Llan- daff, so the more emphatically did he express his dissent when obeying the Council's behests in regard to his own immediate jurisdiction. He simply forwarded the names of 45 knights and gentlemen without in any way labelling them or their opinions, with the following curt remarks: " These persons in schedule inserted may well continue to serve, with three others lastly named, of all which persons, though not of like zeal in religion, yet such as I must say that the furthest off in favourable affection toward the state of religion, be outwardly men conformable, and not charge- able to my knowledge of any great extremities uttered by them in afflicting the honest and godly, or in maintaining the perverse and ungodly, as your letters do speak." 3 It is clear that Parker did not place much reliance on mere out- ward conformity, and that he was suspicious of those who thus bartered conscience for place. The most important information about the diocese that is extant is contained in a minute statistical account of a visitation made in 1569. 4 Thus, in the Archbishop's private chapel, prayers were read daily, Communion was celebrated four times a year, and there were frequent sermons, but " neither Drs. Thirlby and Boxall nor their servants come to Communion." Since 1st March, 1564-5, i.e., during four or five years, 250 preachers had been admitted after subscribing to the Articles of religion. The select preachers of the diocese are named, together with the places where, and how often, they had preached, since Michaelmas, 1 568. There follows an elabor- 1 Harl. MS. 594, No. 8, f. 63, 9th July, 1563. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., Add., XII, No. 108. 3 Camden Miscellany, vol. ix; Bishops' Letters, 1564, pp. 57-9. 4 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., LX, No. 71. CANTERBURY 473 ate table, giving the deaneries, with the number of churches, which there appear to be 294; the preachers; the churches then vacant, 11 in all, but 2 only were entirely unserved; the patrons of livings ; how the people attended Common Prayer; how they attended Communion; the number of families, of communicants, and of children confirmed that year. The attendance at Prayers is mostly entered as " raro"; but the communicants are given as 43,097 out of 11,074 families or a population averaging 55,370, which seems abnormally high. The number of children confirmed was 1,695. Nine people are mentioned as not having com- municated for ten years, i.e., since the Queen's accession ; another for two years, and these all stood excommunicated in consequence. To these may be added a further list of recalcitrants living in archiepiscopal peculiars. Some are said specifically to be Puritans. Of the rest, 45 in number, many are recognisably Catholics, and the others were prob- ably so. It may possibly throw some light on the vacancies in livings to refer to a list of fugitives beyond seas, drawn up in 1576, wherein Kent is shown to have supplied two to the category, both "clerks." * It fell to Parker's successor, Edmund Grindal, to prepare the great return called for in 1577. This he did through the Justices of Kent, who certified the Council of twenty-five recusants of means. 2 This number had dwindled to thir- teen, when the general list for England was made out in I579- 3 Archbishop Parker, from the very position he occupied, was burthened with the task of seeing that the principles of the Reformation were complied with, and it fell to his lot in the pursuance of his duty to bring to his brother bishops any backslidings on their part in this respect. Instances have already been quoted, and need not be re- ferred to again in this place. His own watchfulness in the 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., ex, No. 9, 26th December, 1576. 2 Ibid., CXVll, No. 5 and 5 i, 21st October, 1577, and Abp. Grindal's covering letter — of no consequence (ibid., No. 9, 24th October, 1577). 3 Ibid., cxlii, No. 33. 474 TASK OF THE ELIZABETHAN BISHOPS case of the See he personally ruled may be seen in the Injunctions he issued in 1 563, at his visitation. The Articles of Enquiry include the following: " Whether your altars be taken down . . . whether images and all other monuments of idolatry and superstition be destroyed and abolished . . . whether the rood loft be pulled down . . . whether you do hear or know any that doth use to say or hear the private Mass, or do use any other service than is prescribed by the laws of this realm." x As far, therefore, as in him lay, it is clear that he was adopting the means then thought suitable for stamping out the old Creed and anything that might be suggestive or reminiscent of it. 1 Second Report of Ritual Commission, 1868, App. E, p. 403. The Articles of 1569, which are very similar, may be seen in Wilkins, Con- cilia, iv, p. 257. CHAPTER XI THE RISING OF THE NORTH, I 569 IN order adequately to understand the most serious domestic attempt made against Elizabeth's authority, it will be necessary to make a rapid survey of the causes which led up to the Rebellion of the Northern Earls. It has been customary to consider this as mainly a rising depending for success upon religious motives. This is only partly true. Religion was a strong incentive, but it was permeated by others, dynastic and personal. Henry VII's daughter Mary married James IV of Scot- land. Their son, James V, by his marriage with Mary of Guise, had a daughter Mary, who succeeded her father when she was but a few hours old. This child grew up to be the remarkable woman known to history as Mary, Queen of Scots, the extraordinary vicissitudes of whose life, darkened by a protracted and cruel captivity, and end- ing so tragically on the scaffold, have been the subject of the deep and romantic interest of all succeeding ages. It will be seen that her descent from Henry VII made her a formidable rival to Elizabeth as a claimant for the English throne, if the law of primogeniture is accepted as regulating matters of succession. Henry VIII left three children. Edward, the son of Jane Seymour, born in lawful wedlock, had naturally been his father's immediate successor. Then Mary, the daughter of the much injured Catherine of Aragon, had mounted the throne. If her claim had at one time been cast into doubt through the violent passions of her father, they had been recognised once more before his death upon her reconciliation with him after Anne Boleyn's 475 476 THE RISING OF THE NORTH execution; and in 1544 she had been placed by Act of Parliament next in succession to the throne after Prince Edward and his heirs, and any possible sons by Catherine Parr or any other wife succeeding her. But the case of Anne Boleyn's child, Elizabeth, was very different. When Anne Boleyn was declared guilty of adultery and incest in May, 1536, Cranmer, who had previously blessed her union with Henry, now subserviently declared that marriage, the work of his own hands, to be null and void, and con- sequently that Elizabeth was illegitimate. An Act of Parlia- ment had declared both Mary and Elizabeth to be illegiti- mate, so that both in civil and in ecclesiastical law Elizabeth was removed from the succession. Before Henry died, he had provided by statute that Elizabeth should stand next after Mary in the succession, in other words Parliament enacted that Henry might leave the Crown to whom he would. By statute, therefore, Elizabeth stood once more lawfully in the succession. When Mary was on the throne, she was careful to have annulled all Acts reflecting on her mother's honour and her own legitimacy. But Elizabeth did not follow her sister's example, and, perhaps wisely, refused to reopen the question of her mother's marriage. Eccle- siastically, therefore, Elizabeth remained a bastard. On Mary's death, Nicholas Heath, Archbishop of York and Chancellor of England, relying solely upon the statute, proclaimed Elizabeth as lawful Queen of England, and she was so accepted by the bulk of the nation. But this accept- ance of one ecclesiastically a bastard upset the theory of the divine right of kings descending in legitimate proces- sion of primogeniture, dear to her successor, James, son of the unfortunate Mary, Queen of Scots. As neither Edward VI nor Mary left direct heirs, those who refused for one reason or another to accept the right of a king or his Parliament to dispose of a Crown as they would, naturally looked for the nearest representative according to primogeniture. This was undoubtedly Mary, the youthful Queen of Scots. At the date of the death of Mary of England and the accession of Elizabeth, Mary of THE RISING OF THE NORTH 477 Scotland was the bride of Francis, the Dauphin of France. She, urged to make her claim to the English throne, assumed the title of Queen, and began to use the English royal arms — an unfortunate step, which excited the implacable resentment of Elizabeth. Francis died at the end of 1560, and Mary, a widow at eighteen, returned to Scotland. Here, in 1565, she married Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, eldest son of the Earl of Lennox, who, through his mother, was, after Mary, the nearest in succession to the throne of England. The fruit of that union was James, who, on Elizabeth's death, united the Crowns of England and Scot- land. Early in 1567 Darnley was murdered, and, it is sup- posed by some, with his wife's connivance. Bothwell, the chief conspirator against Darnley, carried Mary off by force and married her. This audacious proceeding was the cause of a rising, resulting in Mary's capture by the rebels, and her imprisonment in Lochleven Castle. Elizabeth's share in fomenting these troubles is known, but need not here be insisted upon. Mary escaped from Lochleven in 1568, when a body of nobles rallied toiher standard, only to be defeated at Langside. Mary fled from the field, and, in spite of the remonstrances of her friends, resolved to throw herself on Elizabeth's generosity and protection, and therefore crossed into England. Three courses were open to Elizabeth, now that she had her rival in her power. She might have restored Mary to her throne, or have granted her an asylum in England, or have permitted her to retire to France. But in the opinion of her advisers, all these three courses were likely to be a danger and a menace to herself and her throne. In violation both of justice and humanity, but in keeping with her usual policy of selfishness and dilatori- ness, she refused to make any definite decision, merely detaining the Scottish Queen as a prisoner, the pretext for so doing being the need for an enquiry into Mary's com- plicity in Darnley's murder. Though the question was entirely outside Elizabeth's jurisdiction, Mary was induced to submit her cause to Elizabeth's arbitration. Although an investigation, protracted through many months, was 478 THE RISING OF THE NORTH opened, no definite decision was arrived at, giving Eliza- beth a further pretext for continuing to keep her rival in captivity. This procedure aroused deep resentment. Had Elizabeth followed in her sister's footsteps instead of throw- ing in her lot with the Reformers, it may be doubted if any attempt would have been made against her throne. But as has been seen, she repudiated the papal Supremacy, established a national Church with herself as its Head, and by severe penal enactments tried to stamp out the ancient worship. So long as men were buoyed up with the hope that marriage or some other event would change Elizabeth's sentiments, they remained quiet. But when she was firmly fixed on her throne; when, above all, her chief rival was in her power; then the more fiery spirits felt that the time for waiting was past, and that a move must be made. But many conflicting policies stood in the way of each other. There were foreign ambitions to be considered, and their possible effect on English ascendancy. There was the traditional enmity between England and France on one side, and England and Scotland on the other. Many men, therefore, who recognised Mary of Scotland as lawfully entitled to the English Crown, preferred to sup- port the more doubtful claims of Elizabeth rather than subject their country to the domination of France, or Scot- land, or both. Philip II, King of Spain and the Nether- lands, and Consort of Mary of England, naturally favoured Elizabeth, so as to use England as a foil against France, his enemy in the Low Countries. At first he had even entertained the idea of a marriage between himself and Elizabeth in furtherance of this policy. It will be seen, therefore, that England was averse just then to any foreign alliance that by throwing the country into the arms of one of the contending continental parties, would place it in subjection to that one, and in a state of enmity with the other. For that reason too, a large section would have welcomed an alliance with one of the Protestant German states, or with Sweden. When, however, one suitor after another was rejected, and the nation began to realise that THE RISING OF THE NORTH 479 Elizabeth meant to marry neither a foreigner nor one of her own subjects, the question of the succession began to agitate men's minds, and added fuel to the fires of religious animosity. For Mary, Queen of Scots, if not accepted as reigning sovereign, was at least next heir, and adherents of the old Faith rested their hopes of a reversal of the exist- ing persecution of their creed on Mary's ultimate succes- sion, or at least on that of her son James. For the same reason, Cecil and those whose interest it was to maintain the Reformation, looked with dread on the possible advent of Mary to the throne. Elizabeth's health had once or twice given grave cause for alarm, and the attack of small- pox which she had in October, 1562, had made all men hope, or fear, for her death. Hence, whatever their religious tendencies, all Englishmen were united in trying to get from their Queen some indication of her wishes, some settle- ment that would let them know where they stood. But that was just what Elizabeth would not do. The uncer- tainty thus engendered increased her control of her ministers and subjects; and, though doubtless, had she followed her personal inclinations, she would have associated with her- self on her throne the Earl of Leicester, she consulted best for her dominant influence by dallying with those who wished her to marry, at the same time refusing to declare anyone her heir. Another solution that presented itself to some of those tired of waiting both for the dynastic and the religious settlement was to depose Elizabeth, and replace her by Mary; and in order to avoid continental complications, they further proposed to marry Mary to an English noble- man. This was the situation during the latter half of 1568 when Mary was Elizabeth's prisoner at Tutbury. During the early years of Elizabeth's reign, the Spanish ambassador accredited to the Court of St. James's was Don Guzman de Silva, who had taken the Bishop of Avila's place on that prelate's death in 1563. Don Guzman had maintained the most friendly personal relations with Eliza- beth, who apparently sincerely regretted his recall. He was 4 8o THE RISING OF THE NORTH succeeded in his delicate office by Don Guerau de Spes, a fiery, tactless man, who, it would seem, had been selected for the post with a special view to render the situation, between England and Spain, as acute as possible. No sooner had he set foot in England than he began plotting with the disaffected, that is, with the partisans of Mary, Queen of Scots, and with the Catholics. The English nobleman who was suggested as Mary's possible husband was the Duke of Norfolk, who, though not then a Catholic, it was thought might easily be persuaded to become one. In fact, some thought he was one. Shortly after taking up his residence in London, Don Guerau de Spes wrote to his royal master as follows: " I enclose the demands made by the commis- sioners in York. Two of each party have arrived here to consult with this Queen who is at Hampton Court. I am of opinion that this would be a good opportunity of handling Scotch affairs successfully, and restoring this country to the Catholic religion, and if the Duke were out of his present anxiety and your Majesty wished, it could be discussed." 1 He was himself sanguine of the success of a rising against Elizabeth, and wrote on 6th November to Philip: "it ap- pears as if the time was approaching when this country may be made to return to the Catholic Church, the Queen being in such straits and short of money. I have already informed your Majesty of the offer made by Viscount Montagu's brother-in-law [either Thomas, Lord Dacre, or Leonard Dacre] on condition that they may hope for protection from your Majesty. He still presses it, and I await your orders." 2 Later, he suggested that pressure might be brought to bear on Elizabeth, not by force of arms, but by a commercial war: "Whenever Flemish matters are calm, and your Majesty and the French king choose to stop English com- merce, without even drawing the sword, they will be obliged to adopt the Catholic religion." 3 At the same time he sent the Spanish monarch a "sketch" of an address he might 1 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 81, No. 57, 30th October, 1568. 2 Ibid., p. 83, No. 60. 3 Ibid., p. 85, No. 62, 1 2th December, 1568. THE RISING OF THE NORTH 481 make to Queen Elizabeth, which says more for the fieriness of his zeal than for his wisdom and discretion. Nevertheless this draft contains some home-truths as to the state of re- ligion in England at that time. " No maze has so many paths as the new religion has conflicting sects," he says ; but he admitted that "in all that had passed, the moderation shown by [Elizabeth] has been conspicuous, in sustaining the churches and preserving to the clergy their ecclesiastical vestments, as well as maintaining a large portion of the Catholic observances, the veneration on the altar of the Cross on which our Lord died, and the checking of the mad and furious insolence of those unhappy men, vulgarly called ministers, but who really are coarse clowns and charlatans." ' The notion of a commercial war took Don Guerau's fancy, and he returned to its prospects in a later despatch. " In the meanwhile, many means will be found to bring this country to its senses and convert it to the Catholic Faith. Those who have spoken to me about a rising for the Queen of Scots, will not fail to return to the subject, and I will inform the Duke [of Alba] as ordered by your Majesty. . . . The Earl of Northumberland came, disguised, to see me at 4 o'clock in the morning, and is ready to serve your Majesty." He likewise described Cecil in the following words: "These heretic knaves of the Council are going headlong to perdition, incited by Cecil, who is indescribably crazy in his zeal for heresy." 2 The dependence on Philip's help here referred to is not so despicable as it appears on the surface, if it be remem- bered that for about four years he had been, jointly with Mary, Sovereign of England. Philip was smitten by the sug- gestion mooted by his ambassador, though with his usual caution, he felt his way very slowly. Writing to the Duke of Alba, his Lieutenant in the Low Countries, he said: "Don Guerau points out . . . the good opportunity which now presents itself to remedy religious affairs in that country by deposing the present Queen and giving the Crown to the 1 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 85, No. 63. 2 Ibid., p. 95, No. 70, 8th January, 1568-9. I I 482 THE RISING OF THE NORTH Queen of Scots, who would immediately be joined by all the Catholics. It will be well for you to enquire what foundation there is for this, and what success would prob- ably attend such a design ; as, if there is anything in it, I should be glad to carry it out; as it appears to me that, after my special obligation to maintain my own States in our holy Faith, I am bound to make every effort in order to restore and preserve it in England as in former times. If there is any foundation for the suggestion, no time more opportune than the present could be found for carrying it out; and, in order not to miss it, I have thought well to refer it to you. If you think the chance will be lost by again waiting to consult me, you may at once take the steps you may consider advisable in conformity with this my desire and intention, which would certainly give me great plea- sure." l With the encouragement afforded by this most important document, of the contents of which he could not have been ignorant, Don Guerau de Spes proceeded with his negocia- tions with Mary's partisans, as the two following extracts show. He informed the Duke of Alba that " the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Arundel . . . say that they will re- turn to the Catholic religion, and that they think a better opportunity never existed than now. Although Cecil thinks he has them under his heel, he will find few or none of them stand by him. I have encouraged them. . . . Cecil in the meanwhile is bravely harrying the Catholics, imprisoning many, for nearly all the prisons are full "; and referring to his own extraordinary detention within his own house by Elizabeth's orders, he said " [Norfolk and Arundel] tell me not to distress myself about my detention, and that it was ordered to prevent any Catholic from communicating with me." 2 The Government, always well informed through its spies, knew that some plot was afoot, though it had not as yet learnt its precise details ; hence the activity in putting the 1 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 109, No. 80, 18th February, 1568-9. 2 Ibid., p. in, No. 82, 29th February, 1568-9. THE RISING OF THE NORTH 483 leading Catholics in a position to neutralise any harm they might be contemplating. But Don Guerau said: "Many Catholics write letters secretly to me saying that the moment they see your Majesty's standards raised in this country, they will all rise to serve you. ... If your Majesty com- mands measures to be taken ... I do not think it will be difficult to bring them [the Reformers] to subjection, or, at least, to change the Government and religion." 1 It is of importance to realise the situation as here de- veloped : on the one hand the eagerness of the Catholics to rise, but always contingently on sufficient and efficient help from Philip; on the other the cold caution of Philip and the distrust evinced by his Lieutenant in the Low Countries, on account of the duplicity so frequently experienced in all dealings with Englishmen. The Duke of Alba wrote to Philip on 4th April, 1569: "Notwithstanding what Don Guerau writes, I am not yet convinced that they [the Earls] are not deceiving him." 2 This attitude of mutual distrust ruined the plot. The Duke of Alba withheld aid for fear of treachery: the English Catholic gentry who should have risen according to promise, did not do so when the Northern Earls were forced into action by Elizabeth, because they did not see any sign of the essentially necessary Spanish stand- ards; the Earls, deceived in the support they counted on, beat a retreat, — and the fiasco was complete. Don Guerau de Spes, however, was enthusiastic as to the success of the undertaking. On 9th May, 1569, he wrote to his royal master : " The Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Arundel will, I believe, openly declare themselves when your Majesty pleases to signify your approval. The Earl of Northumberland also has verbally promised the same. He is a very worthy gentleman, and there are numberless others with the same desires. All the North and Wales are, for the great part, Catholic, and many of the people are attached to the Queen of Scots, although 1 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 139, No. 90, 2nd April, 1569, Don Guerau de Spes to Philip II. 2 Ibid., p. 141, No. 92. 484 THE RISING OF THE NORTH the heretic portion fear her because she is a Catholic." 1 The same note, clearly with no intent either at dramatic effect or contrast, but quite unconsciously on the Ambassa- dor's part, furnishes a reason, almost a justification, for the contemplated rising, from its religious aspect. " They are treating all Catholics with great rigour," Don Guerau wrote, " and the prisons are full of them. At midnight last night many armed royal officers entered the house of Antonio de Guarras in search of him. . . . After having taken there- from a great number of religious images and crucifixes, as well as figures of Our Lady and the Saints, beautifully carved in bulk and gilded, they carried them through most of the streets in the morning, as if in procession, with great mockery and laughter, saying that these were the gods of the Spaniards. . . . They burnt half of these images piled on a cart wheel before Guarras's house, and the other half they burnt in the market-place." Excesses of this kind could serve but one purpose — that of fanning the smoulder- ing embers of discontent into an active flame, and such a result was even then considered not improbable, for in the middle of July, Don Guerau de Spes informed Philip that " a rising in the North is feared, as some of the heretic ministers are arriving here, having been driven out by the people." 2 It is not suggested that the intolerance exhibited in London had this direct influence on the far North ; but the happenings in London are merely a sample of what was going on in a greater or less degree up and down the country. Complicated cross currents of politics and religious rancour might unite to sway the educated; but simpler issues sufficed to arouse the illiterate to action. Such were provided by the steady pressure of persecution and repression exerted against all that the peasantry held most dear. Hence the time was almost ripe for revolt. Mean- while the leaders were trying to get the vexed question of the succession settled ; and the proposal to marry Mary to the Duke of Norfolk was even debated in Council. At one 1 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 147, No. 95. 2 Ibid., p. 174, No. 119, 14th July, 1569. THE RISING OF THE NORTH 485 moment Elizabeth appeared to look on the project with favour; at the next she wavered and drew back, unwilling to commit herself to a declaration of policy, fearful of what that union might bode to herself. All this appears in Don Guerau's despatches. In a summary of his letters to Philip and the Duke of Alba, may be seen the nucleus of the forces arrayed against Elizabeth and Cecil. " Norfolk, Arundel and Lumley desire a change of religion. The two latter may be considered Catholics, and they say they will make Norfolk become one. This will be aided by the Earls of Northumberland, Derby, Cumberland, Montagu, Dacre, Morley and many other Catholics, as well as by the North country, Wales and Cornwall." l Then the Spanish Am- bassador employed his master's gold to strengthen the disaffected, and it cannot be doubted that along with the money came exaggerated promises of physical aid of which that was but an earnest. " I have disposed of the 6,000 crowns in the way I wrote to your excellency, and I see they will produce great fruit. . . . Norfolk and the other adherents of the Queen of Scots are very busy trying to get her declared the Queen's successor, and this Queen is already somewhat suspicious of the Duke. There certainly will be some turmoil about it. The Duke, the Earl of Arundel, and Pembroke are pushing the business forward, with the support of Northumberland, Cumberland, West- moreland, Derby, Exeter, Montagu, Morley and others, and they all assert that if they succeed, religion shall be restored. Leicester says that he will be with them in the matter of the succession, and Cecil says he will not prevent it, but these two are not trusted by the others." 2 Had this knotty point been satisfactorily settled, as indeed it ought to have been, there would most likely have been no rising. But Elizabeth took alarm; and the Spanish Ambassador wrote on 14th September to King Philip: " The Queen has declared her will that the Duke of Norfolk should not 1 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 158, No. 102, 31st May and 1st June. a Ibid., p. 183, No. 126, 1st August, 1569, Don Guerau de Spes to the Duke of Alba. 486 THE RISING OF THE NORTH marry the Queen of Scots, notwithstanding that the Council had decided that the interests of the country would be served thereby. As the majority of the Council is on the side of the Duke in this, I think that certainly there will be, in a short time, great turmoils here." 1 Three days later he again wrote : " The Queen has already re- turned to Hampton Court, whither she has summoned all the members of her Council for this day week ; she has let the Duke of Norfolk know her will that he should not marry the Queen of Scots, but I do not believe the Duke will desist from his enterprise in consequence. A stronger guard has been placed around the Queen of Scots, although I have understood she will, nevertheless, soon find herself at liberty, and this country greatly disturbed. All the North is ready, and only awaits the release of the Queen of Scots. . . . Events are now coming to a head. . . . Your Majesty can then decide what will be best for your service. Perhaps God is now opening a wide door which shall lead to the great good of Christendom." 2 But it was one thing for Elizabeth to negative the proposed match, another for the Duke " to desist from his enterprise," as Don Guerau said. He showed no disposition to acquiesce in the Queen's decision, and the nobles who favoured the marriage were just as loth to let the scheme drop. The Earls of Arundel and Pembroke and Lord Lumley were in consequence arrested, 3 and the Queen made it clear that she meant to get the Duke as well into her hands. On 22nd September, Don Guerau de Spes informed Philip that " a servant of the Earl of Northumberland whom I know came to me [on 2 1 st September] and made the sign which his master and I had agreed upon. He said that his lord and his friends in the North had agreed to liberate the Queen of Scots, as thereby they would assure the Catholic religion. ... His master wished to know if you would approve of this. . . . 1 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 191, No. 139. 2 Ibid., p. 192, No. 140, 17th September, 1569. 3 Ibid., p. 197, No. 146, 30th September, Don Guerau de Spes to King Philip. THE RISING OF THE NORTH 487 The Duke of Norfolk is here [London] preparing all his friends." 1 On 27th September he wrote: "Since my letter of 22nd . . . the Duke of Norfolk, who was in London, having learnt that the Queen desired to have him arrested, suddenly departed for his country, and on the road sent a letter to the Queen. . . . The Queen is greatly alarmed about it, and has summoned to Windsor, where she is, all the members of the Council. . . ." 2 A long des- patch of 8th October to King Philip, throws further light on the succeeding events which hastened the final outbreak. " Arundel, Pembroke and Lumley . . . were judicially interrogated by Cecil and four other commissioners as to who had initiated the plan of marrying the Queen of Scots to the Duke of Norfolk; and they replied jointly that it was the unanimous wish of all the Council. ... In the meanwhile couriers . . . were . . . despatched ... to the Duke of Norfolk, urging him ... to come into her [Elizabeth's] presence. The Duke, either to avoid the first fury falling upon his own head, or with the idea that his friends were not yet ready . . . has abandoned for the present his attempt at revolt, and returned with a few horse [to the vicinity of the Court] where ... he is now detained. He has been interrogated like the others. The prisoners expect to be free shortly. . . . The friends of the prisoners who are the Earls of Northumberland, Westmoreland, Cumberland, Derby, and many others, all Catholics, are much grieved at this cowardice, if such it can be called, of the Duke of Norfolk; and they have sent ... to say that they will by armed force release the Queen [of Scots] and take possession of all the North country, restoring the Catholic religion. . . . They only ask that after they have released the Queen they should be aided by your Majesty with a small number of harquebussiers. ... I feel sure they will attempt the task, and it will be better carried through by them than by the Duke of Norfolk, as they are more fit for it, and the Queen of Scots will have more 1 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 195, No. 142. 2 Ibid., p. 196, No. 145. 488 THE RISING OF THE NORTH freedom afterwards in the choice of her husband. ... It is thought that they will not dare to take the Duke to the Tower, although in this they may be deceived, because they who now rule are all Protestants, and most of them creatures of Cecil." l So long as the release and marriage of Mary to the Duke of Norfolk were possibilities, the danger of revolt was re- mote: when the Duke put himself into Elizabeth's power, the Catholic Earls determined that the time had come to act independently. Had Mary been released, they might have been content to go on waiting for an amelioration of the lot of their co-religionists following on Elizabeth's demise; but now that the spontaneous release of Mary seemed less likely, they resolved to hazard the attempt to set her free themselves. Attention is called to the sequence of events as here recorded, in order to compare it with that given, for instance, in Sharon Turner's Modern History of England? That historian, it is true, relied for his informa- tion upon contemporary writers like Catena and Gabutius; but, though this gave him the verisimilitude of accuracy, a moment's consideration would show that as they were not actors in the events they chronicled, but wrote from afar, they were peculiarly unsafe guides. Thus, Sharon Turner represents Pius V as plotting against Elizabeth; that Ridolfi started the idea of marrying Mary to the Duke of Norfolk, and that the Pope published a Bull in order to help forward the chances of an insurrection ; that the Bull was smuggled into England, and a copy fastened on the Bishop of London's gate. Mr. Turner then proceeds: "The con- tents so excited the public mind to obey Elizabeth no longer, that if they had found out at the moment a leader, they would have rushed to a sudden revolt. Alarmed at such symptoms, Elizabeth immediately armed; and the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, dreading an arrest . . . raised a rebellion . . . failed. . . . But it occa- sioned the Duke of Norfolk to be placed in ward, from 1 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 198, No. 147. 2 1838, vol. xii, pp. 192-3. THE RISING OF THE NORTH 489 suspicion ; and some others, with Ridolfi, to be imprisoned; but Elizabeth being unable to find out the secrets of the conspiracy, they were all set at liberty, excepting the Duke." It is enough here to point out that the Duke was in the Queen's hands before the Northern Rising, which took place in November, 1569: that the famous Bull was only published in March, 1570, and affixed to the Bishop of London's gate in May, 1570: to show that the above account is wrong in every particular. It is at this period that the religious aspect of the rising began to be put in the forefront as the cause most likely to rally to the Earls' standard the peasantry of the North; for, as Sir Ralph Sadler wrote at the time: "there be not ten gentlemen in all this country [i.e., the North] that do favour and allow of her Majesty's proceedings in the cause of religion," and he described the common people as "ignor- ant, superstitious, and altogether blinded with the old popish doctrine." l Sir Cuthbert Sharpe has well described the situation in the following words : " the ancient Faith still lay like lees at the bottom of men's hearts; and if the vessel was ever so little stirred, came to the top." 2 It was on such material that the Catholic Earls set to work ; and it was this knowledge of the real state of things that so alarmed Cecil and Elizabeth's other intimate advisers, and nerved them to promptness in meeting the danger. Meanwhile, the Spanish Ambassador's schemes were simmering in Philip's calculating brain; but his caution lagged behind the hurrying sequence of events. Some days after the die had been cast, the King wrote to his repre- sentative in England: "if the marriage of the Duke of Norfolk with the Queen of Scots is effected in the way, and with the objects of which you are informed, there is no doubt that it would be of great moment and importance for the restoration of our true and ancient religion in Eng- land, and would console the good Catholics who are at present so oppressed. I desire these objects very warmly 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., Add., xv, No. 77, 6th December, 1569. 2 Memorials of the Rebellion of 1569, Introd., p. x. ■ 490 THE RISING OF THE NORTH as you know; but they must be very careful how they undertake the business, for if they make a mistake they will all be ruined." 1 These pompous platitudes might perhaps have been of some use, if the prophetic warning with which they terminate had been given six weeks earlier; as it was, they only accentuated the folly of the English Earls in trusting Spanish promises of aid. The Duke of Alba, indeed, had somewhat sharply rebuked Don Guerau de Spes's imprudent zeal, and had written to him on 4th September, 1569: " leave the direction of these affairs en- tirely to me: do not you interpose in anything; I have written to you fifty times to keep out of any negociations." 2 On the strength of such peremptory instructions, the Governor of the Low Countries may have considered that the matter would be dropped. But Don Guerau was not the man to abandon his pet schemes so easily. He con- tinued to urge on King Philip the desirability of interven- tion. Doubtless, however, on Alba's reports Philip may have thought that de Spes's schemes were coming to nothing, or at least were being delayed ; for, on 18th Novem- ber, he was still persuaded that the Northern Earls were even then waiting for a sign from him, and had not got be- yond the stage of preparation. But that stage was then past, and the Rubicon had been crossed. On 23rd October, Don Guerau wrote to the Spanish King that " The Duke is still in the Tower. The Earls of Arundel and Pembroke, Lord Lumley and Nicholas Throckmorton are prisoners at the Court or near to it. . . . The Earl of Northumberland's servant returned last night to assure me that whenever your Majesty wished, they would release the Queen of Scots, would marry her to your Majesty's liking, and try to restore the Catholic religion in this country." 3 The scene now shifts from the Ambassador's house to the North. The Council learnt from the Earl of Sussex, Lord President of the North, that active preparations of some 1 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 209, No. 157, 18th November, 1569. 2 Chron. Belg., No. mdccccliv, v, p. 455. 3 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 201, No. 149. THE RISING OF THE NORTH 491 sort were in progress in that country ; that there was much restlessness and going to and fro, and the truth began to be suspected. Thus, a paper, endorsed by Cecil, Notes of uncertain brutes, dated 2nd November, 1569, states that " The persons that by the uncertain ' brutes ' be named to be great doers in these matters, be all evil of religion, as Robert Tempest and John Swinburn, of the Bishopric of Durham; Thomas Markenfield, Francis Norton, Thomas Hussey, and one Heighington, of Yorkshire; and amongst them is also named Christopher, son of Sir Christopher Danby." 1 The Spanish Ambassador was always early in possession of the latest information. Thus, on 8th Novem- ber, he wrote to Philip: " The Queen has ordered the Earl of Northumberland and others from the North Country to come to Court ; they, however, have no intention of doing so, as they are suspicious that they might be detained like the rest." 2 This summons had but just been sent, for on 9th November, the Earl of Sussex wrote to Sir George Bowes, his lieutenant nearest to the probable scene of out- break : " Yesterday I received letters from the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland. The Earl of North- umberland promiseth to come, but he writeth not when, and is yesternight come to Topcliffe [one of his seats in Yorkshire]. The Earl of Westmoreland refuseth to come, for fear of his enemies, except he should come with force, which would be cause of offence; and, therefore, I intend to write the Queen's commandment to them for their re- pair to her Majesty presently [i.e., at once]." 3 A few hours later he again wrote : " I have sent my letters to my Lord of Westmoreland ... to repair to the Queen's Majesty, whereof I have yet no answer; and for that my Lord of Northumberland did dally with his confederates after he came to Topcliffe, I sent the like to him yesterday." 4 1 Cotton MS. Caligula C. 1347. J Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 208, No. 155. 3 Sir C. Sharpe, Memorials of the Rebellion of 1569, p. 13. 1 Ibid., p. 13, Sussex to Bowes: "At York, in haste, 10th Novem- ber, 1569, at midnight." 492 THE RISING OF THE NORTH The Earls were waiting to hear news of help from Philip ; but here was a plain summons from their Sovereign which had to be obeyed, or open rebellion must be declared. By this means they were hurried into action before they were fully prepared. Through anticipation of personal danger they refused to obey, issued their proclamation, and marched into Durham from Brancepeth, the seat of the Earl of Westmoreland, which had been made the rendez- vous. The Council of the North wrote to the Queen : " The Earls do not intend to obey your commandment for their repair to your presence; and that they have been at Dur- ham with their force in armour, to persuade the people to take their parts, and some of the company have thrown down the Communion table, and torn the Holy Bible in pieces, so as it appeareth directly they intend to make re- ligion their ground." 1 This was so, as maybe seen from their proclamation: " Thomas, Earl of Northumberland, Charles, Earl of Westmoreland do the people to under- stand that they intend no hurt unto the Queen's Majesty nor her good subjects; but for as much as the order of things in the Church and matters of religion are presently set forth and used contrary to the ancient and Catholic Faith; therefore their purposes and meanings are to reduce all the said causes in religion to the ancient customs and usages before used ; wherein they desire all good people to take their parts." 2 The course of the ill-considered enterprise need not here be recapitulated in detail ; it is well known and may be studied in every history. It is supposed that Chiappino Vitelli, the great Italian general, sent ostensibly as an envoy to Elizabeth, was really in England to take com- mand of the forces that should rally to the standard of rebellion. But he was not so employed; and the leaders who actually took the field proved utterly incompetent for the task. The situation is in part well described by Sir 1 Memorials, p. 35, 15th November, 1569. 2 From Staindrop, 15th November, 1569; cf. Cotton MS. Caligula B. IX, No. 189, f. 342*. THE RISING OF THE NORTH 493 Cuthbert Sharpe, the close student of this unfortunate undertaking. " The confederates, however, having no con- trolling spirit to direct their proceedings," he wrote, " wasted their time in idle and angry discussions, and their councils were distracted by conflicting opinions; and when the fre- quency of their meetings attracted the jealous observation of the Government, they still remained in doubt and hesita- tion, till the indiscreet zeal of a few headstrong and reckless partisans hurried the Earls into measures for which they were unprepared; and although their rank and station, and the ' cause ' they espoused, drew many to their standard, who beheld in the 'rising' the eagerly desired triumph of the ancient Faith, it was soon discovered that, in the leaders, whom circumstances had placed in the front of this perilous enterprise, there was neither unity of council, singleness of purpose, commanding talent, nor moral courage." l When Sir Cuthbert Sharpe made these strictures, the Record Office, the Simancas Archives, and other sources of original and first-hand information were not available. It was not " the indiscreet zeal of a few headstrong and reckless par- tisans " that caused the final outbreak, but the royal sum- mons to proceed to Court, and, as the Earls very well knew, this was merely a stage on the journey to the Tower, pos- sibly to the scaffold. They relied on the promises with which Don Guerau de Spes had plied them, and trusted to the uprising of all the English Catholics. Hence, when they refused to obey the Queen's commands, they further irrevocably committed themselves by entering Durham in arms on 14th November, and having Mass publicly sung in the Cathedral. For a short time they acted with vigour, and marched rapidly to Ripon, Wetherby, and Tadcaster, and made their main assembly on Clifford Moor. But the object of this southward movement, the liberation of the Queen of Scots, was frustrated by the timely removal of that unfortunate lady from Tutbury to Coventry, and the Earls hesitated as to what course to pursue. Some think that this hesitation was due to distrust or disagreement; 1 Memorials^ pp. xiii-xiv. 494 THE RISING OF THE NORTH more probably it was because the leaders perceived no response to their movements on the part of the great body of their co-religionists of England, who in their turn were waiting for some indication of the arrival of foreign aid. The rebel Earls then suddenly retreated, returning to the county of Durham, where they wasted further time in be- sieging Sir George Bowes in Barnard Castle. This able soldier offered a prolonged and gallant resistance; and when at last after many of his garrison had deserted to the rebels, he was forced to capitulate, the Earls in recognition of his bravery let him depart with the honours of war. But this minor success was dearly bought. As soon as the rebellion broke out, the Queen wrote to the Earl of Sussex, desiring him, if he had sufficient strength, to " set upon the rebels "; but if he were weak, then to entertain them " with talk and other devices " for " drawing forth of time " until the arrival of Lord Hunsdon with the royal forces, " but not to let the rebels think that delay ariseth from weak- ness." x The Northern Earls " drew forth the time " and played into the Queen's hands by their useless siege of Barnard Castle, during which precious ten days the army of the south, commanded by the Earl of Warwick and Lord Clinton, hurried up to Doncaster. Sussex, thus powerfully reinforced, advanced rapidly towards Durham ; and on his approach, the Earls, without waiting for an attack, suddenly fled towards Hexham, disbanded their motley foot, never of any great strength, and finally took refuge with a few- hundred horsemen in Scotland. Sir Cuthbert Sharpe con- cludes his admirable preface by remarking: " Thus termin- ated an enterprise, begun without foresight, conducted without energy, and ending in dastardly and inglorious flight ; entailing on the families of those concerned lasting misery; and inflicting on the leaders attainder, proscrip- tion and death." 2 It may be of interest to see how these events presented themselves to their chief instigator, the 1 Memorials, p 49, Lord Sussex to Sir G. Bowes, 18th November, 1569. 2 Ibid., p. xix. THE RISING OF THE NORTH 495 Spanish Ambassador. On 1st December, 1569, he reported to the Duke of Alba that "the people in the North are strong and have 12,000 infantry and 3,000 horse together. They intended to go towards Tutbury to release the Queen of Scots; but as they hear she has been conveyed to Coventry they have stopped with the intention of giving battle to the Queen's forces, for which purpose the Northern people will gather 30,000 men." ' This Falstaffian and swollen estimate is a fair sample of the material upon which the rising was grounded. Two days later the first misgivings appear in a despatch to Philip: "I enclose a copy of their [i.e., the Earls'] proclamation, and of that of the Queen. The Catholics in Wales and the West have not yet followed the example of those of the North, although it is said they are about to do so. . . . The Catholics appear to be waiting in their own country, where they have fortified themselves on the banks of the Trent, to be attacked by the troops from here. In the meanwhile they will see what their friends do and what aid can be sent them." 2 Still later, the same to him unaccountable hesita- tion of the Catholic gentry is again pointed out. " The Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland tarry in their own country in the North, preferring to await there the arrival of the Queen's troops. . . . Their Catholic friends, from all of whom they hold signed pledges, have made no movement yet. It is true that they are much disturbed, and it seems that, if they can count upon some foreign aid, they, too, will rise." 3 In this same despatch he casually mentions the activity of the Government in forestalling any possible gathering of Catholics in aid of the Northern Earls. " The Councillors think only of afflicting the Catholics," he writes, "who are being taken to prison in great troops." When it was too late for them to be of any use, the royal instructions from Madrid, for which de Spes had so earn- 1 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 213, No. 160. 2 Ibid., p. 214, No. 161, 3rd December. 3 Ibid., p. 218, No. 166, 1 8th December, 1569, Don Guerau de Spes to Philip II. 496 THE RISING OF THE NORTH estly and so long pressed, at length arrived. Philip wrote to Alba on 24th December, 1569: "It will be well for Vitelli to depart with a show of bravado, and for recourse to be had to force, as reason has been of no avail. We have justice on our side in coming to the aid of the Scottish Queen. Seize the opportunity without waiting for further orders, lest the favourable moment should slip by. Nevertheless we must provide for our own safety, and weigh prudently how this resolution will be received by France and the Protestant princes of Germany." l The final phase, however, appears in a letter of a week earlier from Philip to Alba, in which he remarks: "Our reputation begins to suffer by deferring for so long to apply a remedy to the harm this woman is causing my subjects and my friends. Perhaps our best course would be to furnish monetary help, secretly, to the Catholics of the North and in Ireland. Examine this prudently." 2 Early in the next year the Spanish Ambassador, in a lengthy despatch to his master, recapitulated the main features of the abortive rebellion, adding that when the Earls published their proclamation they thought " by this means to raise the other Catholics, many of whom had already pledged their words. No movement, however, was made to aid them, and less still when their second pro- clamation was published. . . . The Queen mustered her army promptly; and, on their approach, although West- moreland wished to fight, the other Earl and many gentle- men, seeing their troops were few and badly armed, and that they were without artillery, decided to take refuge in Scot- land." 3 Thus vanished the opportunity which had seemed so favourable, and the seizure of which Don Guerau de Spes had so urgently advocated. Nothing more remained but for the Catholics to pay the penalty of their rashness. The Earl of Westmoreland 1 Chron. Belg., v, p. xxvi, uned. Doc, t. xxxviii. 2 Ibid., v, p. xxvi, uned. Doc, t. xxxviii, 16th December, 1569. 3 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 225, No. 172, 9th January, 1570. THE RISING OF THE NORTH 497 escaped to the Continent to eke out his life in poverty; the Earl of Northumberland fell into the Queen's hands, and suffered the fate of a traitor, along with many others of the leaders. Elizabeth herself had said to Chiappino Vitelli " that she meant to have some heads." ' Surrey, no doubt acting under instructions, certainly gratified her wish, by causing to be executed an estimated fifth of those who had risen, purposing by this cold-blooded vindictiveness to strike terror into the hearts of the North Country folk, whose homes he also harried. Surrey sent a list of 314 to be exe- cuted in Durham alone. 2 Sir Thomas Gargrave wrote to Cecil on 4th February, 1569-70, that, "by martial law" there had been " already executed above 500 of the poorer sort," 3 and suggested that others might be attainted. Fifty- six were so dealt with. 4 The vengeance was complete, ruth- less, terrible. Some of those implicated escaped to the Continent to become poverty-stricken pensioners of the King of Spain and to plot against Elizabeth from a safe distance. The result of the Rising was, through its com- plete failure, to show how firmly Elizabeth was seated on her throne. It had been thought, both at home and abroad, that Elizabeth ruled simply by sufferance and that the majority of her subjects were opposed to her: that at the first serious uprising she would fall. The opportunity, dreaded by some, longed for by others, came, and served to prove that on the whole Elizabeth could depend on the affection of her people. Rebellion, then, was useless as an engine for her overthrow ; hence began the resort to spiritual weapons wherewith to intimidate the English Queen — weapons which, though 1 Chron. Belg., No. mmx, v, p. 548, Chiappino Vitelli to Alba, 17th December, 1569. "Elle me diet qu'elle estoit devenue maistresse de ses rebelles du quartier de Noort et en avoit denyche les chiefs, dont elle estoit bien a son repos, et que de brief elle en feroit coupper des testes." See, too, Elizabeth's letter to the Earl of Sussex, on nth January, 1569-70, exhibiting a savage thirst for blood. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., Add., xvn, No. 17. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., Add., xvn, No. 14, 8th January, 1569-70. 3 Ibid., xvn, No. 68. 4 Cotton MS. Titus C. VII, No. 4, f. 9 b . K K 498 THE RISING OF THE NORTH they to some extent succeeded in the purpose for which they were employed, still they were met by penal enact- ments against their original users, whose lot was thereby rendered worse than it had been before. On 18th January, 1 569-70, Don Guerau de Spes wrote to Philip that " the Bishop of Ross also tells me that the Catholics here wish that his Holiness would publish a Bull in some place whence its purport would reach here, absolving them from the oath of allegiance they have taken to this Queen, as she is not a Catholic, and calls herself Head of this Church. This, they think, would be desirable, and would add prestige to their claims." ' A month later the Ambassador reported that " the sentences against persons and property in the North are being carried out with great rigour, which will again force them into revolt. All the other Catholics are on the watch for help from abroad, but so much alarmed that they dare not trust one another." 2 The hopelessness of a peaceful solution of the religious differences in England being by now established, and the resort to a warlike effort to secure the rights of Catholics having failed, the councils of those who invoked the spiritual interference of the Pope as Head of Christendom at length prevailed, and the Bull Regnans in Excelsis was launched against Elizabeth. Its publication by affixion to the Bishop of London's palace gates, carried out by the intrepidity of John Felton, is a matter of common history, and need not here be further dwelt upon. The date of the famous Bull is 25th February, 1569-70. Felton's bold exploit was carried out on 25th May; and a memorandum of letters written by Antonio de Guarras of the dates of 1 ith, 17th, and 22nd June, contains the following references to the subject : " The de- claration of the Pope against the Queen has been posted on the Bishop of London's gate, which has caused great sorrow to the bad people, and much delight to the godly . . . the first result of the declaration has been the persecution and imprisonment of Catholics ■ but the Council finding them 1 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 229, No. 174. 2 Ibid., p. 235, No. 180, 25th February, 1569-70. THE RISING OF THE NORTH 499 constant and that some people of position were passing over to Spain and Flanders to escape the ban of his Holi- ness, the Queen had ordered that the Catholics should not be persecuted for their religion. This, however, was only the result of fear. . . . She herself has answered the Pope's declaration in Latin verse, scoffing at the Apostolic au- thority, saying that the barque of Peter should never enter a port of hers." l The action of the Pope in thus intervening is not outside criticism. It is true that he was urged to adopt this extreme measure by Englishmen ; but by Englishmen who, by reason of their long absence from home, were hardly in a position to form a judgment both dispassionate and well- informed. Philip, with all his irritating caution and calculat- ing slowness, was, after all, from his intimate acquaintance with all the circumstances, in a far better position to offer sound advice; but he was not consulted or, indeed, com- municated with in any way. Hence, when Don Guerau informed him of the fait accompli, he wrote his opinion about it with considerable warmth, and concluded with words of prophetic wisdom. " The copies I received from you of the two briefs [Bulls] despatched by his Holiness, one declaring the Queen schismatic, and depriving her of her throne, and the other written to the Earls of West- moreland and Northumberland, were the first information I had received upon the subject. His Holiness has taken this step without communicating with me in any way, which certainly has greatly surprised me, because my know- ledge of English affairs is such that I believe I could give a better opinion upon them and the course that ought to have been adopted under the circumstances than any one else. Since, however, his Holiness allowed himself to be carried away by his zeal, he no doubt thought that what he did was the only thing requisite for all to turn out as he wished; and if such were the case, I, of all the faithful sons of the Holy See, would rejoice the most. But I fear that, not only will this not be the case, but that this sudden and unexpected step will exacerbate feeling there, and drive 1 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 251, No. 191, June, 1570. 500 THE RISING OF THE NORTH the Queen and her friends the more to oppress and persecute the few good Catholics still remaining in England." l The unwisdom of the step, as pointed out by Philip, was acknow- ledged by one of Pius V's successors. When Urban VIII was besought by Cardinal Borgia to excommunicate the Kings of France and Sweden and to declare himself for the Catholics, he refused on these grounds : " You say that the King of Sweden is ipso jure excommunicated, as being an heretic ; and therefore, to make him more infamous, at least among the Catholics, we ought to declare and solemnly anathematise him for an excommunicate. We know that the Protestants, although they are out of the Catholic Church, for so much as concerns the Faith and common vows and suffrages, yet are they not in the point of juris- diction, and therefore we may declare them excommunicate, as Pius V declared Queen Elizabeth of England, and before him Clement VII the King of England, Henry VIII. . . . But with what success? The whole world can tell. We yet bewail it with tears of blood. Wisdom does not teach us to imitate Pius V or Clement VII, but Paul V, who . . . being many times urged ... to excommunicate James [I] King of England, never would consent unto it." 2 It is easy to be wise after the event, and to censure errors of judgment when their results have already condemned them : but in this case the errors are so glaring, the ex- tenuating and impelling circumstances so conspicuously wanting, that unqualified condemnation alone can be meted out to the leaders and chief agents in this ill-considered enterprise. It is more difficult to apportion blame for the actual resolution to attempt a rising. If a nation, or a reasonable portion thereof, is never to express a determina- tion to secure a ruler to its liking, or to depose one who has forfeited its esteem and loyalty, then the Rising of the North must be execrated by one and all. But then, notwith- standing Macaulay's splendid advocacy of the Rebellion of 1 Spanish State Papers, ii, p. 254, No. 193, 30th June, 1570. a P.R.O., Foreign, Italy, 1641-65, quoted by R. Simpson, Life of Campion, ed. 1896, p. 518. THE RISING OF THE NORTH 501 1688, that revolt, too, must be unhesitatingly condemned, together with all its consequences. But if the righteousness of rejecting James II is to be maintained, as it is maintained by the majority of English historians: if Parliament, speak- ing for the nation, or a victorious faction, succeeds in de- posing one ruler and substituting another in his place; then, what was right for the patriots of 1688 cannot have been wrong for the insurgents of 1569. Their crime was their failure, as indeed the only justification for the plotters of 1688 was their success. For in the latter case, a lawful Sovereign was deposed and in his place was set up a foreigner allied to the English throne merely by marriage. In the former instance it was not so much the deposition of the reigning Sovereign that was aimed at, as the determina- tion to force from her a settlement of the succession for the quiet of men's minds. Deposition was intended to be kept for a last resort; or, if it might be defended on another plea, it was the setting aside of a doubtfully legitimate Sovereign for one whose claims were above any suspicion. That much must be admitted, though the folly, under the special circumstances of the particular enterprise, cannot but be condemned. CHAPTER XII ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES, AND THE HARRYING OF THE PAPISTS WITH the close of Queen Elizabeth's first Parlia- ment, the authority of the Pope in matters spiritual, wrested from him by Henry and restored by Mary, was once more repudiated, and it became criminal to look to him as Spiritual Head, and to render to him allegiance as such. Moreover, the Mass, the central act of Christian worship, was rejected, and it became unlawful either to say or to hear it on and after 24th June, 1559. By law, by decree of the legislature, the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament was denied to the Faithful ; and little time was lost in set- ting a royal example of expulsion, for as Bishop Quadra wrote to the Duke of Alba on 10th May: " Yesterday they removed the Sacrament from the Palace chapel and some sort of Mass was performed in English, as they are doing in many parish churches." x The Spanish Bishop's comment, further on in the same letter, furnishes a valuable key to- wards understanding the polity of nations in those days. At the present time the doctrine of complete toleration is accepted, at least in theory, in every civilised state, except Russia. In Tudor times outward conformity in matters of religion was considered essential to the well-being of every State; but it was reserved to England to endeavour to secure internal adhesion to the State religion, by the method of coercion of conscience. " To force a man to do a thing 1 Hume, Spanish Papers, Eliz., No. 32. Machyn's Diary contains a similar corroborative entry : " The xii day of May began the English [service] in the Queen's Chapel." 502 \Plowden Hall, Salop EDMUND PLOWDEN CATHOLIC LAWYER THE LAITY AND RELIGIOUS CHANGES 503 whether he likes it or not," remarked Quadra, " has at all events some reason, however unjust; but to force him to see a thing in the same light as the King sees it, is absurd, and has no reason either just or unjust; and yet such is the ignorance here that they pass such a thing as this. Religion here now is simply a question of policy." 1 It was the con- crete application in practice of the dictum now condemned as wholly indefensible: Cujus regio, ejus religio. There were in existence, then as at other times, men who, from one motive or another — the despicable one of gain, or the more exalted one of enthusiasm — were ready enough to denounce any one who showed unwillingness to conform. Thus, as early as 21st May, 1559, a certain John Cock wrote Sir William Cecil a lengthy Latin epistle, plentifully inter- larded with Greek quotations. The gist of this formidable- looking document, when stripped of its embellishments and superfluities, is a complaint against the vicar of Shirburn, who, it would seem, refused to accept the Book of Common Prayer. The informer's bombastic farrago was to urge on the responsible authorities strictness in enforcing the newly- passed laws. 2 Edmund Allen, the Bishop-designate of Rochester, writ- ing to Abel, told him that " on Whitsun Monday [ 1 3th May] did Mr. Grindal preach at the Cross ... in the which ser- mon, he did proclaim the restoring of the Book of King Edward, whereat as well the Lords as the people made, or at least pretended, a wonderful rejoicing, never a bishop or canon of Paul's being present thereat. . . . Because the penalty for the not receiving of the Book shall not take place till midsummer, therefore Paul's and certain other churches keep their popish service still, but the most part in the city are reformed. 3 1 Hume, Spanish Papers, Eliz., No. 32. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz. iv, No. 26. 3 28th May, 1559. Churton's Life of Nowell, p. 392. This letter has been hitherto ascribed to Alex. Nowell: but a correction in the R.O. Calendar, Foreign, Elizabeth, points out that Edmund Allen was the writer. 504 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY This enthusiasm for the new service (real or pretended, Edmund Allen did not venture to determine) led to some disgraceful ebullitions of mob-violence. Writing so soon as ioth May, II Schifanoya noted that "already in many churches of London the crucifixes have been broken, the figures of the Saints defaced, and the altars denuded." l The same letter chronicles an interesting example of the methods pursued by fanatics, unchecked and unpunished. " On Ascension Day, 2 while the procession of the parish under the great church of St. Paul's was going round the precincts with a large company of people, a rascally lad- servant of these new printers against the Catholics, violently and publicly took the Cross out of the hand of the bearer, and struck it on the ground two or three times, breaking it into a thousand pieces. He was not molested, and nothing was said to him, save by some good men, who exclaimed : 'Begone, you scoundrel'; but no one attempted to hinder him. Then he took a small figure from the said Cross, and went off, saying, as he showed it to the women, that he was carrying away the devil's guts (horrible and wicked words). Little less was done in another parish of London by two scoundrels, who, when the procession was about to issue forth from the church, placed themselves at the gate with naked swords in their hands, swearing that the ecclesi- astics should not carry such an abomination, and that if they came forth, they should never re-enter. Thus your Lordship may see how the affairs of God and of the religion are faring. I say nothing about the printed stories and lam- poons, and innumerable books which are sold publicly, in English, Latin and French, against the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, and in fact against all the Catholics and pious people, and against the Christian religion, as it is a shame and reproach to have already written about them." 3 The observance of the Feast of Corpus Christi naturally disappeared with the faith in the doctrine in whose honour 1 Venetian Papers, No. 71. 2 ? Eve : i.e., the last of the three Rogation days preceding the Feast. 3 Venetian Papers, No. 71, ioth May, 1559. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 505 it was instituted; and on that occasion, in 1559, for the first time, possibly, the people might have been seen pur- suing their ordinary avocations ; the shops were open and business went on as usual. 1 II Schifanoya further recorded that "with regard to religion, they \i.e., the Londoners] live in all respects in the Lutheran fashion, in all the churches of London, except St. Paul's, which still keeps firm in its former state until the day of St. John the Baptist [24th June], when the period prescribed by Parliament expires, the Act being in the press, and soon about to appear; but the Council nevertheless sent twice or thrice to summon the Bishop of London (Bonner) to give him orders to remove the service of the Mass and of the divine office in that church; but he answered them intrepidly: ■ I possess three things, soul, body, and property; of the two last you can dispose at your pleasure ; but as to the soul, God alone can command me.' " ' A contrast with what was taking place in London is offered by the manifestation of Catholic devotion displayed at Canterbury at the very same time. Bishop Quadra in- formed King Philip that " on Sunday last they had a pro- cession of the Holy Sacrament in Canterbury, in which three thousand people and many persons of worth of the country side took part." 3 Jewel told Peter Martyr in his fifth letter to him that "our Papists oppose us most spitefully, and none more obstinately than those who have abandoned us. This it is to have once tasted of the Mass! . . . they perceive that when that palladium is removed, everything else will be endangered." 4 At the rising of the Parliament, Cox wrote to Wolfgang 1 Cf. Venetian Papers, No. 77, 30th May, 1559. 2 Ibid. 3 Chron. Bet?., No CCCLlll, i, p. 530, London, 30th May, 1559. 4 I Zur., No. 9, undated; but the 3rd is dated 14th April ; then comes another dated 28th April; and the next dated one is 1st August, 1559 (1 Zur., Nos. 6, 7, 16); internal evidence points to this one being between Nos. 7 and 16. Jewel's view is equivalent to the sound dictum of the Rt. Honble. Augustine Birrell, that "it is the Mass that matters." 506 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY Weidner that " at length many of the nobility, and vast numbers of the people, began by degrees to return to their senses ; but of the clergy none at all. For the whole body remain unmoved." 1 He likewise referred to the dearth of ministers of his own way of thinking — a matter that was to engage the attention of the reforming leaders for a con- siderable time to come. " We are already endeavouring," he said, "to break down and destroy the popish fences, and to repair under happy auspices the vineyard of the Lord. We are now at work ; but the harvest is plenteous and the labourers few." 2 Edmund Grindal, writing to Con- rad Hubert on 23rd May, sounds the same note : " We are labouring under a great dearth of godly ministers," he laments, " for many who have fallen off in this persecution are now become Papists in heart ; and those who had been heretofore, so to speak, moderate Papists, are now the most obstinate." 3 Jewel, too, in a letter to Bullinger on 22nd May, says : " We have at this time not only to contend with our adversaries, but even with those of our friends who, of late years, have fallen away from us, and gone over to the opposite party ; and who are now opposing us with a bitter- ness and obstinacy far exceeding that of any common enemy." 4 It is evident from these and such like passages, that, though the mob might follow the first leader who pre- sented himself and clamoured for change, the more thought- ful, the men who had the brains and education, or those with a stake in the country, like the local magnates, were not, as a whole, favourable to the work of the reform. This view is further borne out by Jewel in the same letter quoted above. " Our Universities are so depressed and ruined, that at Oxford there are scarcely two individuals who think with us ; and even they are so dejected and broken in spirit, that they can do nothing." 5 This despondent survey is but a repetition of what the same writer had stated earlier to Peter Martyr. " Two famous virtues, namely ignorance and obstinacy, have wonderfully increased at Oxford since you 1 1 Zur., No. 11, 20th May, 1559. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid., No. 8. * Ibid., No. 14. 5 Ibid. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 507 left it : religion, and all hope of good learning and talent is altogether abandoned." ' Parkhurst complained to Bullinger in reference to Oxford that " there are but few Gospellers there, and many Papists." 2 Jewel, writing to Martyr on 1st August, bewailed the fact that there was " a dismal solitude in our Universities. The young men are flying about in all directions, rather than come to an agreement in mat- ters of religion." 3 A year later, a similar story is unfolded by the same writer to the same correspondent. " In the meantime," wrote Jewel, "our Universities, and more es- pecially Oxford, are most sadly deserted ; without learning, without lectures, without any regard to religion." 4 This unrest amongst the young students at the Univer- sities is a reflex of the same spirit not only amongst their elders, the Fellows of Colleges, but still more in their own homes. In connection with this subject, it is well to bear in mind that the reformers were compelled to be very chary about proceeding to extremities at Oxford Univer- sity at least, although they had the Acts of Parliament at their backs. But as Mr. R. Simpson points out in his Life of Campion, no oath was required of the future Jesuit as a student till he took his degree in 1564, 5 remarking that " the authorities did not want to make Oxford a desert by forcing too many consciences." And Father Persons has left it on record that it was through Campion's interven- tion that " the oath was not tendered to me when I took my M.A. degree." 6 So that it may be gathered that other Fellows, though, like Campion, conforming outwardly themselves, saved others from doing so. As a further proof of this spirit of resistance, or rather of staunchness to all that they had been taught to regard as sacred, it may be of interest to quote a passage from a letter written on 15th November, 1 561, by Bishop Quadra 1 I Zur., No. 4, 20th March, 1558-9. 2 Ibid., No. 12, 21st May, 1559. 3 Ibid, No. 16. 4 Ibid., No. 33, 22nd May, 1560. 5 Life of Campion, ed. 1896, p. 5. 6 Ibid., p. 6, quoting Stonyhurst MS. Collect. S.f, vol. i, p. 149. 5o8 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY to the Duchess of Parma in the Low Countries. " Two days ago," he said, " six young students from Oxford were thrown into the Tower of London, because, when sum- moned before the Council on a charge of having resisted the Mayor who had gone to remove a Crucifix from their College chapel, they not only did not deny it, but openly confessed that they were Catholics, and that they had communicated as Catholics; and they offered to dispute publicly with the heretics, more especially on the subject of the Blessed Sacrament. The Council were very an- noyed to hear them talk so openly; but the Mayor assured them that the whole place was of the same opinion and there were not three houses in it, wherein there were not Papists. This news far from pleased the Council ; and they ordered the Mayor to be careful not to speak of this with others." x While, however, the Council were being thus defied by beardless boys, the party of change began to find, as is ever the case, that their persistence was beginning to over- come opposition. On 5th March, 1560, Jewel told Peter Martyr that " religion is now somewhat more established than it was. The people are everywhere exceedingly in- clined to the better part." The causes he alleges as pro- ducing this greater appearance of conformity are char- acteristic, not only of the time, but of future " revivals." " The practice of joining in church music," he thinks, " has very much conduced to this. For as soon as they had once commenced singing in public, in only one little church in London, immediately not only the churches in the neigh- bourhood, but even the towns far distant, began to vie with each other in the same practice. You may now sometimes see at Paul's Cross, after the service, six thousand persons, old and young, of both sexes, all singing together and praising God. This sadly annoys the Mass priests, and the devil. For they perceive that by these means, the sacred discourses sink more deeply into the minds of men, and that their kingdom is weakened and shaken at almost every 1 Chron. Belg., No. DCCCXXIV, ii, p. 643. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 509 note." Then in sinister and cynical reference to the great fines imposed for hearing Mass, he continued: "There is nothing, however, of which they have any right to com- plain: for the Mass has never been more highly prized within my memory : each being now valued, to every indi- vidual spectator, at not less than 200 crowns." x In London, therefore, the Reformation took hold much more rapidly, and more in accordance with the Council's wishes. Nevertheless, the fickle, ignorant mob quickly went in advance of the caution displayed by responsible rulers. Though the results of the mob's action might not have been in themselves distasteful to the inclinations of their betters, the methods employed to secure them could not but be alarming. An incomplete jotting in Machyn's diary is suggestive; other entries are plain enough to understand. " The time afore Bartholomewtide and after, was all the roods and Marys and Johns and many other of the church goods, both copes, crosses, censers, altar-cloths, rood-cloths, books, banners, books and banner-stays, wain- scot, with much other gear, about London " What is here wanting may thus be supplied. On 21st August, 1559, the royal Visitors sat at St. Bride's, and the churchwardens were sworn to bring in a true inventory of church goods. On 23rd August, " the Visitor sat at St. Michael in Corn- hill, likewise for the church goods." On 24th August was the great civic fair at Smithfield. The traditional bonfires, which helped to celebrate the festival, were replenished with the spoils from the churches, and Machyn tells us that as the Lord Mayor was returning through Cheapside from Smithfield, " against Ironmonger Lane, and against St. Thomas Acres, two great [bonfires] of roods and Marys and Johns and other images, there they were burned with great wonder . . . and the 25 th day of August, at St. Botolph's without Bishopsgate, the rood, Mary and John, [patrons of that] church, and books; and there was a fellow within the church[? yard] made a sermon at the burning of the church goods . . . threw in certain books 1 1 Zur., No. 30. 510 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY into the fire, and there they [took away the] cross of wood that stood in the churchyard. . . ." On 16th September, this orgy of destruction was still in progress, for Machyn says that on that date " was the rood, and Mary and John and Saint Magnus burned at the corner of Fish Street, and other things." In a series of extracts of letters sent abroad, now preserved in the Harleian Collection of MSS., is a passage corroborating the tailor-diarist. On 29th August, 1559, the unknown writer records that " since the day before our Bartlemewe Fair, even every day we have had such bonfires that passeth all the blazes that were made for the winning of St. Quintin's [1557]; for all our church patrons, Maries, Johns, roods, and all the rabblement of the Pope's ornaments were sent to Terra Santa in this fiery sacrifice." l Many years later (1575), Sir Richard Shelley penned a letter from abroad to Lord Burghley, wherein, recalling a conversation during Mary's reign, he has put on record an interesting forecast and estimate of such doings. Explain- ing the reasons for his remaining abroad in 1559 for purposes of personal business, he continued : " But while I tarried in Antwerp longer than I had thought . . . there came news that the Crucifix, being honoured (as the abridgement of all Christian Faith) in the Queen's Chapel and Closet by her most Excellent Majesty, and by your Lordships of her most honourable Council, nevertheless in Smithfield broken in pieces and burned in bonfires; which made me call to remembrance that I had heard your Lordship say to the old Lord Paget (that God forgive) ; to whom pretended he that Queen Mary of famous memory had returned the realm wholly Catholic, your Lordship answered : ' My Lord, you are therein so far deceived that I fear rather an inundation of the contrary part, so uni- versal a boiling and bubbling I see of stomachs that cannot yet digest the crudity of that time.' That saying of your Lordship, upon the news of burning the Crucifix I called to remembrance ; and albeit I was encouraged to come 1 Harl. MS. 169, No. 2, f. 32. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 511 home with remembrance of my service done to her Majesty in the time of her adversity . . . yet, finally, I was feared with that fury of the people; and then saw that your Lordship foresaw the wind and tide so strong that way, that I determined . . . secedere . . . duni Mae silescerent turbae." l Another contemporary record of these excesses may here be quoted. Speaking of the great change, the writer says: " Lastly, certain Articles were published touching matters of religion, and commissioners (for whose authority a special Act was made) to visit every diocese in the realm, and to establish religion according to the same Articles. The orders which these commissioners set were both em- braced and executed with great fervency of the common people, especially in beating down, breaking and burning images which had been erected in the churches ; declaring themselves no less disordered in defacing of them, than they had been immoderate and excessive in adoring them before; yea, in many places walls were rased, windows were dashed down, because some images (little regarding what) were painted on them. And not only images, but rood-lofts, relics, sepulchres, books, banners, copes, vest- ments, altar-cloths were in divers places committed to the fire; and that with such shouting and applause of the vul- gar sort, as if it had been the sacking of some hostile city. So difficult it is, when men run out of one extreme not to run into the other, but to make a stable stay in the mean. The extremes in religion are superstition, and profane either negligence or contempt; between which extremes it is extremely hard to hit the mean." 2 At last the danger likely to accrue from this failure to " make a stable stay in the mean," as also the vandalism, separately or together, made an impression on the Council, and a Proclamation was issued on 19th September, 1560, 1 Harl. MS. 4992, No. 4, f. 7. 2 Ibid., 6021, No. 3, f. 120. Having compared this manuscript with Speed, Stowe, and Holinshed, I find it is by some other author, but follows closely on their common lines. It is both interesting and descriptive. 512 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY " against breaking or defacing monuments of antiquity being set up in churches or other public places, for memory and not for superstition." 1 It had at last dawned upon the Council that, to quote the proclamation, " sundry people, partly ignorant, party malicious or covetous," had not confined their attentions merely to roods and images of saints, but had, after the nature of their kind, without discrimination and from wanton love of destruction, "of late years spoiled and broken certain ancient monuments, some of metal, some of stone ... to the slander of such as either gave or had charge in times past only to deface monuments of idolatry and false feigned images." The concern displayed by the Council was not so much for the loss of antiquities as for a possible loss of evidence of descent of ancient families : hence the sudden awakening to the wholesale destruction that would seem to have been going on, and the imposition of heavy penalties for any further repetition of the offence, and an order to incum- bents and churchwardens to repair the damage as far as might be possible. But while the lower orders gave rein to their insensate love of plunder and destruction, and so played into the hands of the directing spirits of the Reformation, the more sober portion of the population found the argument directed against their pockets the most telling and convincing. The Act of Uniformity enforced attendance at the new form of worship on Sundays and holydays, except a reasonable excuse for absence could be shown, under penalty of the censures of the Church, and a fine of twelve pence for each abstention. 2 When the pressure of this fine began to be felt, conformity to the new order increased. The con- formity of so many of their clergy, would, also, no doubt have great influence with many of the laity, who for a generation had not had the benefit of the regular instruc- tion which had been imparted to their fathers. Dodd, speaking of the number who conformed in the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI, while admitting their " sur- 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., XIII, No. 32. 2 1 Eliz., c. 2. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 513 prising complaisance and tameness," says that it "was rather a corruption of morals than an error in Faith that occasioned their defection . . . conforming more for bread than out of principle." 1 In the same way, of those who copied their example in Elizabeth's reign, " many who were cordially affected to the interest of the Church of Rome dispensed with themselves as to outward conformity; and it was strongly believed that the greatest part com- plied against their consciences, and would have been ready for another turn, if the Queen had died while that race of incumbents lived." 2 Lingard, also, truly states: "Among the lower order of churchmen, there were many who took the oath, some through partiality for the new doctrines, some through the dread of poverty, and others with the hope of seeing in a short time another religious revolu- tion." 3 The laity, seeing their old clergy in so many instances continuing to officiate, and not being sufficiently versed in theology and the controversial aspect of the differences of belief which had arisen, saw little or no harm in continuing to frequent the ministrations of those who till then had supplied their spiritual wants. The main difference, so far as they perceived, lay in the use of English rather than Latin; and, although many may possibly have regretted the abolition of what they had been accustomed to, the alteration did not seem necessarily to be so important as to call for violent protest. It pertained to the domain of changeable discipline, not to unchangeable Faith. More- over, even Elizabeth was willing to show herself accom- modating in this matter, and sanctioned the use of Latin in the services conducted in collegiate churches and in the Universities. 4 The policy of drift, coupled with the un- 1 Hist., ed. 1789, vol. ii, p. 7. 2 Ibid., p. 8. 3 Hist, of Engl., vii, p. 358. 4 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xvi, No. 7, 12th January, 1 560-1 : "... We will that where we have caused our Book of Common Service to be trans- lated into the Latin tongue for the use and exercise of such students and others learned in the Latin tongue : we will also that by your L L 514 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY settling of consciences during the religious upheavals of the past thirty years, accounts for much of what happened following on the pecuniary pressure of the Act of Uni- formity on the laity, and the harder measure of depriva- tion, imprisonment, and death dealt out by it to unwilling clergy. Sometimes, then, we hear of a district or a town show- ing a remarkable promptitude in falling in with the new order, as was the case, for instance, at Shrewsbury, whence Sir Hugh Paulet wrote to Cecil as early as 25th June, 1 559: " There is a great lack of Books of Common Prayer in these parts; yet with such as are gotten here, the service is set forth in this town and the [district] about it as far as the books will extend unto, and the official hath pro- mised to see the rest supplied; finding also the Justices of Peace and men of worship of this shire (the more part of them being here with me this last week) very conformable and forward thereunto." x Further time was to give plenty of occasion for modifying this estimate of Shropshire con- formity ; but the readiness of the magistrates to subscribe was emulated by their brethren of the Essex Commission of Peace, eighteen of whom took the oath of Supremacy before the Earl of Oxford at Chelmsford on 26th August, 1559, 2 thereby renouncing their allegiance to the Roman See and Church. Contemporary documents still exist prov- ing the pressure applied to those who had become entangled in the meshes of the law through their adherence to the old form of worship. They are not very numerous, but they are doubtless merely the survivals out of large numbers of similar " submissions." They are full of pathos too, for they represent the mastery of opportunism over conscience and conviction: they do not ring true and sincere; and in some cases subsequent reconciliation with Rome furnishes wisdom and discretions ye prescribe some good orders for the col- legiate churches, to which we have permitted the use of the divine service and prayer in the Latin tongue, in such sort as ye shall con- sider to be most meet to be used." 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., iv, No. 63. 2 Ibid., vi, No. 29 i. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 515 overwhelming evidence of the real motives for compliance, namely, vague fear of consequences, and weakness of reso- lution. Thus, Thomas Lardge, who found himself in prison for that he "at Boreham in Essex, in the house of Sir Thomas Wharton . . . heard the old service commonly- called the Mass," whereby he had " run in the danger and penalty therefor provided . . . either the payment of an hundred marks, or else imprisonment by the space of six months, the payment of which money were my utter un- doing, and the time of so long imprisonment, my weak body much subject to sickness with mine age considered, will bring great danger to my life," moved by these menaces to body and purse, he craved " for mercy and pity trusting . . . hereafter to live as an obedient subject." l William Travers, confined in the Marshalsea, " in regard of sickness which he is fallen into through his long imprisonment, humbly craveth enlargement upon his submission," which he subsequently duly made. 2 Drew Drury signed a sub- mission on 15th January, 1 561-2, but its terms leave us in doubt as to the cause of offence; 3 there may, however, not improbably be some connection between this infringement of law, and an information laid at some later date against " Doctor Drewrie, dwelleth at Wivenhoe near Colchester upon the water's side, and there dwelleth one Lone, a mariner, whom he maintaineth; this Lone is a shipmaster and carrieth news and bringeth news (as it seemeth). He carried Mrs. Awdley's son and a Mass priest from her house, over the sea to Douay." 4 Thomas Parker, a de- pendent of Sir Edward Waldegrave's, found himself in prison for too faithfully serving his master. Like Thomas Lardge, fear for his health and for his purse brought him to abject submission. 5 These victims, however, were of small account compared with the gentry and nobility who 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., XII, No. 13. 2 Ibid., XV, Nos. 48, 49. 3 Ibid., xvi, No. 4. 4 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxx, Nos. 26, 27, ? 1577. "An advertisement touching certain Papists in Essex," etc. 5 Ibid., Add., XI, No. 9, ? April, 1561. 516 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY got into trouble for similar causes. These classes were to prove more obstinate; but even amongst them are to be found instances of compliance on compulsion. Thus, Lord Hastings of Loughborough, called " a strong Romanist," ' in which Faith he died in 1573, was imprisoned in 1561 for having been found hearing Mass. On 5th July in that year he wrote to the Lords of the Council a somewhat abject appeal for mercy, offering his submission, and thereupon was released, 2 but the record of the commissioners ap- pointed to administer the oath of Supremacy leaves no doubt as to Lord Hastings' repugnance to it, though in the end he yielded, as also did Sir Thomas Wharton. " The oath he [Wharton] could have been contented to have foreborne." Another prisoner, Ryce, " using very reverent and humble talk, refused nevertheless to give presently the oath ; whom after all the ways and reasons made unto him that we could devise to persuade him thereunto, and thereby to, receive the benefits of the Queen's clemency, seeing him with tears in his eyes to stand therein and to desire a time to consult and to persuade with himself, we left him in the same state and terms we found him in, pro- mising nevertheless we would advertise your lordships of his humble demeanour and of his request also for time of deliberation." 3 At a later date, Gabriel Goodman, ;Dean of Westminster, was employed on a favourite method with the Reformers, that of holding conference with prisoners on religious grounds, for the purpose of " resolving " their scruples. In the summer of 1567 he tried his hand with Sir Thomas Cornwallis, Mr. Provost (? Dr. Henry Cole, late Provost of Eton), and Mr. Harpsfield, but he reports : " Sorry I was that it had no better success, considering how willing Sir Thomas was to be resolved, so it might have been with his conscience." He found the subject of his solicitude while upholding the spiritual Supremacy of the Pope, "doth utterly mislike of" any such Supremacy 1 Diet. Nat. Biogr., xxv, p. 113. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xvm, Nos. 8 and 19, July 16th, 1561. 3 Ibid. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 517 " in matters temporal," and in other respects would be willing to see certain things " of manners and due disci- pline " changed ; and, according to the Dean's report, even as regards doctrine there were things " he could wish to be altered to the better, and to the order of the primitive Church." His case seemed so hopeful, that the Dean urged patience with him, and in the end he was cajoled into sub- mission. 1 Next year William Roper was restored to favour after signing the needful papers. His fault had been ag- gravated by aiding the English fugitives in Louvain and elsewhere on the Continent with money, thereby enabling Harding, Dormer, and others to attack the established re- ligion by their writings. 2 The value of this submission may be gauged by the fact that only a year later, when Justices and ex-Justices of Peace were required to subscribe the oath of Supremacy, this gentleman was too ill to attend the sessions. But he did not thus escape the importunity of his brother magistrates, three of whom repaired to his house to receive his declaration. He begged to be excused on the plea that he was " a man very aged and likewise subject to great infirmities and diseases, and so making unto us lamentable request ... to bear with him touching his conscience," professing himself nevertheless a faithful subject, they contented themselves with taking recognis- ances of him of 200 marks for his good behaviour/ In the early part of 1574 the Council succeeded in securing the Earl of Southampton's submission; but although it was only in general terms, doubtless the powerful position of this nobleman forced them to be content with so unsatis- factory a performance. 4 The Council were not, however, always so successful in coercing their prisoners. There is in the Record Office 5 the submission to be extracted from 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xliii, Nos. 9, 10, 10 i. 2 Ibid., xlvii, No. 7, 8th July, 1568. 3 Ibid., Lix, No. 2>7, 2 °th November, 1569. The memorandum of recognisance is in vol. Lix, No. 37 ii. * Lansd. MS. 16, Nos. 22, 23. 5 Dom. Eliz., xlvii, No. 12 i. 5i8 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY Sir John Southworth, a great landowner in Cheshire. It is somewhat general in terms, but though it might be con- sidered satisfactory to the Council, Sir John " refused to submit himself to any such subscription; his conscience cannot serve him in most points of that order." So wrote Archbishop Parker, to whose discretion the refractory knight had been committed. 1 Another instance of this failure to coerce great laymen into submission is furnished by the case of Sir Thomas Fitzherbert. Grindal reported to Cecil that he was " a very stiff man." His gaolers were nevertheless anxious to release him on easy terms, and so perhaps to wheedle him into some outward show of com- pliance. They offered to set him free " if he would be bound ... to go orderly to the church without binding him to receive the Communion. That Sir Thomas refused." 2 From the reports of bishops and other officials elsewhere quoted, it is known that the local magistrates were by no means sound as a body in their attitude towards the re- ligious changes being enacted. This was a source of real danger, when religious disaffection was increasing and the Rebellion in the North was hatching. It then became necessary to ascertain precisely who were to be relied upon to support Elizabeth: who, by reason of their religious leanings, were to be ranked as suspect. Accordingly, on the eve of the outbreak, a form of subscription was devised to be administered to all Justices of Peace throughout the country. 3 This document was subscribed by a very large number of Justices in every county throughout the king- 1 Parker Corresp., Nos. 252 and 253. A note says, "he afterwards consented to sign the submission. In the next year (1569), however, he was taken up and committed to the custody of the Bishop of London, and afterwards of the Dean of St. Paul's." It is only reliance upon Strype, so frequently inaccurate (cf. Strype's Parker, iii, pp. 525-6), that seems to justify the notion of submission : this nowhere appears. But he was released on the undertaking not to harbour persons ob- noxious to the Council — in other words, priests. This, of course, he could easily promise. 2 Lansd. MS. 6, No. 56, 12 July, 1563. 3 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xlviii, No. 69. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 519 dom. But in perusing their names, 1 some thousand in number, any reader versed in the biographies of the period will be struck by the large number of names of men who are known to have been loyal Catholics, and who later proved themselves to be so. How they reconciled it with their consciences to sign this declaration at the end of 1569 must remain a mystery, except the supposition be adopted that they did so by way of dissociating themselves from the Northern rebels, and of proclaiming their loyalty to the throne. There were, of course, exceptions to this spiritual subservience, as in the case of William Roper, already re- ferred to. John Scudamore, of Kenchurch, Hereford, Esq., J. P., " did there and then expressly and more earnestly than became him refuse to subscribe, which he had also done by his letters," — so reported his brethren of the bench. Both he and others as well even refused to be bound in recognisances. Scudamore had written : " I am . . . resolved not to subscribe nor yet to be bound of the good abearing simply. Marry, if it will please you to take my bond of 100 marks for the good abearing, saving coming to church or not coming, and saving matters of religion or any manner thing touching the same, or touching my poor conscience therein, I can be contented ... I do not refuse of obstinacy but for conscience' sake." This manly, straight- forward letter, breathing a spirit of Christian forbearance and forgiveness of injuries, was of no avail, and the writer subsequently suffered much persecution. 2 James Courtney, Esq., in the county of Devon, while protesting his loyalty to Elizabeth, endeavoured to escape the oath on the plea that its imposition was not applicable to him; 3 but such subterfuges were never allowed to be of avail. The famous lawyer, Edmund Plowden, of course made a better fight for 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., Lix, Nos. 20; 21 i and ii ; 22; 25 i; 36; 37 i ; 39 ; 44 ; 45 ; 46 i ; 48 i ; 49 i and ii ; 50 ; 67 ; LX, Nos. 1 i and ii ; 12 i ; 13 ; 17 i ; 18 i ; 21 i ; 22 i ; 27 i ; 30 i ; 38 i ; 39 i and ii ; 47 and i and ii ; 531 and ii ; 62 i, ii, iii, iv ; 63 i ; lxvi, Nos. 12 i ; 19 i and xiii ; 28 ; LXVIl, Nos. 24 i; 57 i and ii ; 79; 80. 2 Cf. ibid., LX, No. 22 and 22 ii. 3 Ibid., LX, No. 39 and 39 ii. 520 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY himself, claiming time to study the question from all points of view; having taken his time accordingly, which of course could hardly be denied him, he treated his brother Justices to a learned and lengthy disquisition, wherein he admitted that he had attended the Protestant service occasionally; but, as to subscribing, " he said he could not with safe con- science " do so, " for he said he could not subscribe but belief must precede his subscription, and therefore he said great impiety should be in him if he should subscribe in full affirmance or belief of those things in which he is scrupulous in belief," assuring the Council " that he did not upon stubbornness or wilfulness forbear to subscribe, but only upon scrupulosity of conscience." He escaped further molestation than that implied in entering into recognisances for 200 marks " for his good abearing." ' As might be ex- pected, Lord Morley refused to take the oaths, 2 and his example was followed by other territorial magnates like Sir Henry Bedingfeld, and Thomas Rous, Esq., in Suffolk, 3 or Sir John Arundell of Lanherne, in Cornwall. 4 It is clear from a communication concerning the Justices of Sussex, made a year later, that the subscription of the oath did not mean very much, and that many under one pretext or another had escaped making it. 5 Time, of course, wrought a gradual change in the minds of men who were Catholics at Elizabeth's accession ; their children were brought up in Protestant principles, and so lost the Catholic tradition; but on the whole, the verdict might be registered that " once a Papist, always a Papist " ; or, as the same idea was expressed much about this time, " sepulchrum quantumvis dealbatur, sepulchrum est ; vetusque et senex Papista, licet plurimum veritatis verbo testetur, Papista est." 6 Hence even the acceptance of the oath did not engender trust or confidence; or if it did, only too frequently it was proved 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., LX, No. 47 and ii. 2 Ibid., LX, No. 57 ii. 3 Ibid., LX, No. 62 ii and iii. 4 Ibid., lxvii, No. 57 and ii. 5 Ibid., lxxiv, No. 44, November, 1570. 6 Lansd. MS. 1 5, No. 69. Maurice O'Brien, Bishop-elect of Killaloe to Lord Burghley, 24th October, 1572. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 521 to have been misplaced. One of Lord Burghley's many correspondents on one occasion reminded him that " the Papists in this realm find too much favour in the Court. As long as that continueth, practising [i.e., plotting] will never have end. The double-faced gentlemen, who will be Protestants in the Court, and in the country secret Papists, [aquam] frigidam suffundunt." l This insincerity or time serving, it may be added, never really deceived the leaders of the Reformation. For example, Thomas Cooper, Bishop of Lincoln, analysed the adherents of the old order thus in a sermon : "Oi Papists there be three kinds. 1. The open Papist which dwelleth among us and forsaketh our Communion . . . manifestly protesting that we be departed from the Catholic Church, and therefore that they may not in conscience join with us. The second sort are fleeing Papists, which fling over the sea and return again . . . with traitorous mean- ing ... to steal away the hearts of the subjects from the Prince and magistrates &c. . . . The third kind ... is the cunning Papist, which can hide himself under the colour of loyalty and obedience to the laws, and will needs be ac- counted a faithful, true and good subject, and yet carrieth in his bosom in effect the same persuasion that the other do, and for fear of danger or discredit, they are contented to obey the law." 2 With this description may be compared another "character of a Church-Papist; i.e. a Papist who attends the Established Church to avoid penalties." The writer of this clever criticism cynically says: " A Papist is one that parts religion between his conscience and his purse, and comes to church not to serve God but the King. The fear of the law makes him wear the mask of the Gospel, which he useth, not as a means to save his soul but charges. He loves Popery well, but is loth to lose by it; and though he be something scared by the Bulls of Rome, yet he is struck with more terror at the Apparitor. Once a month he presents himself at the church to keep off the 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., lxxxi, No. 52. Thos. Assheton to Lord Burgh- ley, 23rd October, 1571. 2 Lansd. MS. 945, f. 172. 522 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY churchwardens, and brings in his body to save his bail; kneels with the congregation, but prays by himself and asks God forgiveness for coming thither. If he be forced to stay out a sermon, he puts his hat over his eyes and frowns out the hour; and when he comes home, he thinks to make amends for his fault by abusing the preacher. His main subtlety is to shift off the Communion, for which he is never unfurnished of a quarrel, and will be sure always to be out of charity at Easter. He would make a bad martyr and a good traveller, for his conscience is so large he could never wander from it, and in Constantinople would be circumcised with a mental reservation. His wife is more zealous in her devotion and therefore more costly, and he bates her in tyres what she stands him in religion." 1 This cruel yet accurate portrait is here given as furnishing the very keynote of the ultimate success of the Reforma- tion; it was the result not of conviction, but of expediency. Notwithstanding the oaths taken by Justices of Peace in 1569, the Council wrote to the Bishop of London in 1578, complaining that, during a recent royal progress through several shires, the Queen had discovered on diligent enquiry " that sundry persons being in commission of the Peace within divers counties, have of late years forborne to come to the church to any Common Prayer and divine service; whereby not only God is dishonoured, [and] the laws infringed, but very evil example given to the common sort of people." 2 This survey, extending over twenty years of Elizabeth's reign, makes it easier to understand the Bishop of Carlisle's complaint to Cecil, made early in 1562, to the effect that " every day men look for a change and prepare for the same. The people desirous of the same do in manner openly say and do what they will concerning religion and other matters right perilous, without check or punishment. The rulers and Justices of Peace wink at all things and look through the fingers; for my exhortation to have 1 Harl. MS. 1221, No. 5, f. 65 3, and 6038, f. 2. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xlv, p. 16. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 523 such punished I have had privy displeasure ... for punish- ing and depriving of certain evil men which neither would do their office according to the good laws of this realm, neither acknowledge the Queen's Majesty's Supremacy, neither yet obey me as Ordinary. Such men as these are not only supported and borne withal, but also had in place of councillors and brought into open place; whereby those of evil religion are encouraged to be stubborn, and they which embrace the true doctrine defaced and discouraged." 1 At the same period, the Archbishop of York, when he en- deavoured to administer the oath to the Yorkshire Justices, found that hitherto they had by some means escaped taking it, and objected then to do so. The Archbishop thought that there must have been " some sinister practices touching that oath heretofore," and therefore suggested a special commission "directed into these parts to minister and receive the oath as well of all Justices of the Peace, as of other ministers and officers of the laity." 2 No doubt the Archbishop secured the commission he asked for, as there exists one issued to the Earl of Derby and others, on the lines suggested, but for the diocese of Chester. 3 Meanwhile, although the Council were anxious about securing conformity on the part of acknowledged Papists, they were not unmindful that the progress of the Reforma- tion had its drawbacks and inconveniences. Grindal, Bishop of London, writing to Cecil, reminds him that for long he had thought " that in no one thing the adversary hath more advantage against us than in the matter of fast, which we utterly neglect: they have a shadow." 4 A successor of his in the See, Aylmer, writing also to Cecil, then Lord Burghley, about a form of prayer for a public fast, reminds him that their enemies " commonly upbraid us that we never fast and seldom pray." 5 This godless character had 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xxi, No. 13, 14th January, 1561-2. 2 Ibid., xxi, No. 27, 25th January, 1561-2. 3 Ibid., xxiii, No. 56, 20th July, 1562. 1 Lansd. MS. 6, No. 68, 21st August, 1563; Letter 24 in Remains. 5 Ibid., 30, No. 49, 22nd April, 1580. 524 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY been perhaps not undeservedly earned ; and Cecil, too, was concerned about the backsliding of the nation generally in this matter. The State Papers of the period contain many evidences of his solicitude for the observance, but it is little short of comical to realise that the motive underlying his anxiety was not from any wish to benefit his countrymen spiritually, but in the interests of the fishing industry. The incident, however, shows the laxity and looseness of prin- ciple that was growing upon the country. In February, 1562-3, Cecil had drawn up a paper of arguments to prove the necessity of restoring the Navy of England by a greater consumption of fish, and proposing to institute Wednesday as an extra abstinence day. The paper, a very lengthy one, shows copious corrections and emendations in his own handwriting, and is exceedingly interesting, for Cecil therein made a calculation as to the effect the suppression of the religious houses had had on the fishing industry. 1 This is followed by some notes drawn up by Cecil for the drafting of a Bill for observance of Fast, 2 together with the text thereof, 3 and some calculations as to the number of fish days in the year, also made by Cecil, amounting to 147. 4 The subject turns up from time to time at later dates. Thus, there exists an imperfect draft for — amongst other matters — observing Wednesdays as fish days, of the year 1568, corrected by Cecil. 6 And yet, so careless were the people about obeying these royal orders, that the Company of Fishmongers was constrained to petition Parliament to come to their aid; this in 1571. The document reminds the Lords and Commons that notwithstanding the publication of a proclamation yearly, the butchers did a better trade in Lent than the fishmongers. 6 This resulted in an Act being passed enforcing the observance of Wednesday as a fast, or, as we should say, an abstinence day ; 7 and it became 1 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xxvil, No. 71. 3 Ibid., No. 72. 3 Ibid., xxvin, No. 11, 22nd March, 1562-3. 4 Ibid., xxxi, No. 42. 5 Lansd. MS. 10, No. 23. 6 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., lxxvii, No. 69. 7 Ibid., lxxviii, No. 35, 29th May, 1571. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 525 part of the duties of the local magistracy to see that its provisions were obeyed/iand they had to send in reports to the Council as to the success of their endeavours. Even so, with the loosening of the bonds of spiritual authority, the laxity continued to grow ; and a further order " for the better observance of Lent" was issued in 1575.* It will be seen, therefore, from this summary, that on one side and on the other the intentions of the Council were met with opposi- tion; but while the laxity of the Protestants was not violently curbed and continued to increase, the earnestness of the Catholics in trying to secure for themselves the practice of their religion was sternly repressed. This por- tion of the work of the Council must now receive closer attention, excluding from our purview the trouble created by the Puritan element, and the embittered vestiarian con- troversy as outside the limits of this enquiry. For that purpose we have to divest ourselves of modern notions and accepted theories, and must endeavour to think in the thoughts of the sixteenth century. To-day it is acknow- ledged that no man owes to any State allegiance outside the province of civil obedience and loyalty; that for his attitude towards questions of Faith and religious practice he is answerable to God alone, and the Jew and the Gentile alike are free to worship according to conscience. In the sixteenth century, however, such liberty was not under- stood; and it belonged to English polity, as to that of other nations, to force all subjects to worship God in one way at the will of the ruler. Such a view is to-day preposterous ; but if we would understand our own history of three hun- dred and more years ago, we must endeavour to accept it for argument's sake, as a really existent factor, even though we reject it mentally. It is this point of view that alone justifies persecution, whether it was practised by Henry, Edward, Mary, or Elizabeth. The phases of belief and practice represented by these Sovereigns followed one another in quick succession; but the interval separating 1 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., lxxxvi, Nos. 21, 22, 27, 28. 2 Ibid., cvi, No. 70. Draft, with Lord Burghley's corrections. 526 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY them covered the span of many a life. Thus, a man of from thirty-five to fifty in 1565 had known the life of Catholic England as it was before the breach with Rome, when the monasteries stood as they had done for nigh a thousand years. The majority of the nation, at least that part of it which had attained man's estate when Elizabeth ascended the throne, had been brought up in the tenets and practices of the Church of their fathers, and were not likely to be willing to desert them at the bidding of a Parliament, more especially having made their peace with Rome after the schism in which they had taken part, largely through ignorance. Thus it came about that when Elizabeth's Councillors began to enforce the new English service and to impose the oaths, the grown-up population of educated, and therefore of ordered convictions, refused to be coerced into accepting oaths, negations, forms of worship, of which their consciences disapproved. Hence, when the purpose of Elizabeth's Council had become manifest to those who wished to maintain their union with the Centre of Christen- dom, two courses were open. One was to leave the country and seek freedom of conscience by exiling themselves to a land where their religion was safe from molestation. The Reformers who went to Geneva and Frankfort in Mary's reign acted on this principle ; and, under her successor, many Catholics, unwilling or fearful to come into collision with authority, hastened to do the same. In these days no objec- tion would be raised to so obvious a course; but in the sixteenth century such a method of securing freedom was accounted as little less than treason to the land of one's birth; and, in fact, no one was permitted to leave the country without the sanction of the Government, and much legislation was enacted to enforce this view. On the other hand, many practical difficulties stood in the path of the bulk of English Catholics seeking relief in this way. The love of country and home stands first; and then the ties of property and all things connected with them put such a solution out of the question. Of those who remained at home — the vast majority, it will be re- TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 527 membered — there were some whose faith or constancy was not proof against penalty, and who thought, for some years at least, that they might show outward conformity to the laws while continuing to consider themselves really and truly attached to Rome; these are the unfortunate people dubbed cunning Papists. Lastly, there were the fearless, open Papists, whose views of their inherent, inalienable right to worship as they thought fit and as they had been accustomed, coincided with our modern theories of free- dom. They held, as we do, that the domains of temporal and spiritual allegiance stand apart, and need not encroach one upon the province of the other. Elizabeth had yet to learn that the cunning Pap ist had to be reckoned with; and her Council bent all their efforts, in the early days of her reign, to coerce the open Papist into submission. The drastic dealings with the clergy have already been con- sidered, and the result shows that about one-fourth must have ranged themselves in the ranks of open Papists, while possibly half, say 4,000, while really attached to Rome, yet for motives of self-interest or fear gave an open adhesion to the new order, and for a time at least might be classed amongst the cunning Papists, till they lapsed altogether into acquiescence. The remaining quarter were, doubtless, more or less sincerely attached to the principles of the Reformation. Amongst the laity, it was really, as countless documents prove, only the influential people who engaged the serious attention of the Council. The lower orders, in those days of small account, might be trusted to follow the lead of their betters. 1 Hence the names of the poor do not figure largely in the prison returns of the early years of Eliza- beth's reign. It is only after 1580 that the strength of the recusants in all walks of life can be gauged with any degree of accuracy. Till that time, to argue as to the proportion of 1 "The common sort of the people, who may easily be brought to conform themselves to the better sort of them in dignity and reputa- tion, as they see them bent to set forward." — Bishop Home to Cecil, 29th August, 1561. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xix, No. 36. 528 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY Catholics to Protestants by prison lists would be extremely misleading — as misleading, in fact, as the inferences drawn from printed lists of deprived clergy, as has been shown elsewhere. The first indication of repressive measures against the liberty of the laity to worship according to conscience is conveyed in a note of Cecil's, early in 1 561. Jottings con- cerning Anthony Draycot, Dr. John Ramridge, and Bishop Bonner in connection with some intercepted correspondence, maybe passed over; but there follow these words: "Ex- amine Etheridge upon a letter entitled Unknows, 17 July 1 560. Examine both Mr. Walgrave and Parker." 1 Etheridge was a well-known doctor residing in Oxfordshire. The next scene is laid in the Tower of London, where Sir Edward Walgrave (or Waldegrave) together with several others, including priests, found themselves, " for Mass matters," as Grindal states in his letter to Cecil, dated 17th April, 1 561, enclosing the examination of certain prisoners. The persons concerned were one Jolly and John Devon alias Coxe, priests ; Dr. Ramridge, late Dean of Lichfield ; Thomas Langdon, "late a monk in Westminster"; Mrs. Parpoynte, "once a nun"; Sir Edward and Lady Walde- grave, Sir Francis Englefield, Mr. Edward Thurland, Sir Thomas and Lady Wharton, two gentlewomen, Goodman, a Westminster bedesman, and an old woman named Parally- day. The confessions showed that Mass had been said at Borley and Newhall in Essex, in the Broad Sanctuary at Westminster, at Lady Carew's, and in Winchester. 2 The Earl of Oxford made a domiciliary visit to Newhall and Borley, in the hope of finding incriminating documents pointing to treasonable practices, apparently without suc- cess, and Sir Thomas Wharton protested he could be found to be an offender " only touching the Mass." At Sir Edward Waldegrave's the Earl made a great capture of church- stuff, the inventory of which he forwarded. Though exceed- ingly interesting, exigencies of space preclude its inclusion 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xvi, No. 14, 6th February, 1 560-1. 2 Ibid. % XVI, No. 49, 17th April, 1561. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 529 here. 1 As has been stated elsewhere, Sir Thomas Wharton and Parker were scared into making their submission. 2 Even Lady Waldegrave did not escape a searching examina- tion, not only as regards dabbling in treason, but of help given to deprived clergy: about how often and where she had received Communion, if at all, since the Queen's acces- sion according to the Queen's laws : where and when she had heard Mass. 3 And at the same period a list of prisoners was drawn up, endorsed, " The names of the prisoners for the Mass "; opposite many of the names there was specially added by Cecil the illuminative word, " Mass." The list contains twenty-eight names. 4 In connection with this epi- sode, it may be of interest to mention that Sir Edward Waldegrave's son was removed from his father's care, and entrusted for his education to the Marquess of Winchester's son. 5 The exact reason for this arrangement is not alto- gether apparent; but, at least, the lad was being looked after during his father's imprisonment; and, while under the Mar- quess's supervision, there was less chance that he might be spirited away to the Continent. The young, moreover, could be utilised as hostages for the good behaviour of their parents in more ways than one. Thus, at the time of the Northern Rising in 1 569, Cecil, not unwisely, noted " that in Cambridge and Oxford order be given to stay all young men being the sons or kinsfolk of any of the rebels in the North, or of any suspected persons for religion." 6 In some cases the Council contented themselves with leaving their victims at seeming liberty, restricting them, however, within certain defined territorial limits. In the 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xvi, No. 50, and enclosures i-iii, 19th April, 1561 ; cf. also Nos. 51, 61-68. 2 Ante, p. 515-6. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., Add. XI, No. 7. 4 Ibid., Add. xi, No. 8; cf. also Dom. Eliz., xvi, Nos. 55 and 65; xvn, No. 13, 26th May, 1561; xvn, No. 18, 3rd June, 1561 ; xvm, No. 3, 3rd July, 1 561 ; xvm, No. 7, 4th July, 1561. 5 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xix, No. 9, 8th August, 1561. "Sir Edward Waldegrave's son and heir is schooled with my son's children, the Lord Chideock Paulet [another Catholic] in Sir Thomas White's house." 6 Ibid., LX, No. 4, 1st December, 1569. MM 530 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY early days this practice was almost wholly confined to clerics ; ' but as time elapsed this method of supervision, especially in cases of prisoners on parole, was extended to the laity, and, in fact, was then resorted to, for them solely. But a careful watch was kept on the coming and going of all the Queen's lieges, and, in addition to the cases of attendance at Mass at ambassadors' houses, already men- tioned, there are many instances of " conventicles " or gatherings being interrupted by the Council's orders and the Queen's emissaries. Thus the Council addressed a letter to the Bishop of London, informing him that " there be sundry conventicles of evil disposed subjects which ... do obstinately not only refuse to obey the laws . . . (using to have the private Mass and other superstitious ceremonies celebrated in their houses), but also do make secret collec- tions of money which they send out of the realm to the maintenance of such as are notoriously known enemies to the authority of the Queen and her Crown," and ordered him, through the sheriffs, " with speed [to] enter into the houses at such hours as you shall appoint, and take sure order that none escape the same houses until due search be made of all persons there to be found." 2 In consequence of this order a raid was made on the house of James Tinne, goldsmith, in Westminster, on 4th March, when seventy- seven people, forty-seven men and thirty women, were found there gathered. None of the names are familiar, but can it be doubted, in the light of the Council's letter, that they are those of Papists, who had assembled to hear Mass? 3 This work of domiciliary search was not unpleasing to Bishop Grindal, and was prosecuted by him in the North as well as in London. He ordered Sir Thomas Gargrave, an earnest Gospeller, whose name has already appeared in connection with the first visitation of the Northern Province in 1559, to search the house of the Countess of Northumberland, when the capture of no less than three priests rewarded 1 Cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., Add., XI, No. 45, ? 1561. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xlvi, No. 44, 1st March, 1567-8. 3 Ibid., xlvi, No. 46. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 531 their raid, one of whom, Henry Comberford, had seen the inside of many prisons since the commencement of the reign. He was one of the many priests at that time de- prived. 1 This intrepid confessor was on that occasion sub- jected to examination, when he fearlessly upheld "the Mass to be good, and saith he will maintain the same ever until his death. Also . . . affirmeth the Pope to be supreme head of the Universal Church." 2 There were always in- formers ready to betray the Catholics who were endeavour- ing to observe the precepts of their religion by stealth. Thus, one of this crew, David Jones, informed Mr. Mills, secretary to Walsingham, that such practices were going on to his knowledge. " I was confessed in the Marshalsea," he wrote, "and twain more with me . . . there shall be upon Sunday on sevennight a Mass at my Lord Bishop Heath, who was Bishop of York, and he doth dwell a little way off Windsor [Chobham] as I heard say; but I will see afore it be long. Also there doth come thither a great sort. Also there is a Mass upon Sunday next at one Mr. Tyrell's, which doth dwell in a place called Rawreth in Essex, and he hath a priest." As usual, this information is followed by a request for money; and though he admitted having re- ceived charity from Abbot Feckenham, then in the Mar- shalsea, he repaid this kindness by further telling Walsing- ham : " you would not think who they of the Marshalsea doth draw unto them : lying men which doth come unto them daily." 3 This betrayal was followed up a month later by further information about a benefactress of his, "Mistress Cawker a notorious Papist," formerly the wife of Tyrell the Warden of the Fleet. He particularly noticed that she wore a chain of gold. " I have seen," he says, " more books in her house of Papistry than in any place else. But concern- ing the Papists that doth come to her Mass to the Charter- house, there be to the number of 10 the last Sunday, and outlandishmen [foreigners] a great number; in all there was there that received, about 40 . . . but [Mrs.] Cawker 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., LXXIV, No. 32, 10th November, 1570. 2 Ibid., enclosure i. 3 Ibid., xcvn, No. 27, 5th July, 1574. 532 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY confessed unto me that she was in no Church this 15 years ... I pray you to desire my master that I may have the benefit of that she doth lose by the statute, and if it be but the chain that she doth wear. There is a certain priest named Rand, come from beyond the seas, and he is in one Mr. Randall's house in Wood Street." ' A list, drawn up by this traitor-spy, is extant, giving the names of thirty-one Papists in London, of all grades of society, together with six priests. 2 Thus was the Council aided in its efforts to stamp out the practice of the Catholic religion. It is one of the manifestations of the activity specially noticeable during that year. In the course of April several houses in different parts of London were raided, as Lady Morley's in Aldgate, Lady Guildford's in Trinity Lane, Oueenhithe, and Mr. Carus's in Limehouse. Two priests were captured, and about fifty of the laity. 3 Several others were indited for hearing Mass at Easter in John Pynchin's house, includ- ing Hugh Phillips, "late monk in Westminster, the priest that said Mass." 4 Later in the year, on 4th November, the Portuguese Ambassador's house was searched, when to- gether with many foreigners, twelve Englishmen were dis- covered assisting at Mass. 5 In proof that these searches were not confined to London, it may suffice to refer to a list of persons indicted in Lincolnshire for attending at Mass. It includes forty-four names, amongst them being four " clerks " — presumably dispossessed priests ; they were Nicholas Tirwhite, Handlebie, Richard Parker, and Bartholomew , of Kyme. 6 Notwithstanding the disabilities, and worse, attending the observance of the precepts of the Catholic Church, in those districts where the principles of the Reformation had made little or no progress, the boldness of the recusants was remarkable. Lancashire has always been noted for its 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xcviii, No. 10, 13th August, 1574. 2 Ibid., Add. xxv, No. 118. The calendar dates it, ? October, 1578. It more probably belongs to 1574. 3 Lansd. MS. 19, No. 21, 4th April, 1574. 4 Ibid., 23, No. 59. 5 Ibid., No. 52. 6 Ibid., 30, No. 75, 24th July, 1580. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 533 solidarity in this respect; hence it may be absolutely in accordance with facts, that as one Richard Harleston reported to the Earl of Pembroke on 20th December, 1 567, he had " heard by Mr. Gerard, Recorder of Chester, that there is in Lancashire a great number of gentlemen and others of the best sort, it is reported five hundred, that have taken a solemn oath amongst themselves that they will not come at the Communion nor receive the Sacrament during the Queen's Majesty's reign." 1 Such a spirit of; open opposition clearly indicates the presence of priests in the midst of these Lancashire gentry, giving them the services they were willing to attend. Accordingly, the; Council took action; and, on 3rd February, 1567-8, sent orders to the Bishop of Chester and others, to institute a rigorous search for the discovery of all who might be lurk- ing within their jurisdictions. 2 At the same time, as a spur to his energies, the Queen wrote the Bishop of Chester a severe reprimand for the remissness hitherto characterising his rule. 3 Nevertheless, the courage of the Lancashire re- cusants increased rather than diminished, and many who had hitherto conformed outwardly, began to make their submission and to be " reconciled " with Rome, for their former pusillanimousness. 4 Further, it was reported that, as before stated, the gentry had sworn to forswear the Established Church, and " to maintain the Mass and Papis- try " ; as a consequence " many church doors be shut up and the curates refuse to serve as it is now appointed to be used in the Church." 5 Measures were in consequence taken to summon many of the leading gentry, but the results were hardly encouraging, for, as a whole, the in- 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xliv, No. 56. 2 Ibid., xlvi, Nos. 19,20, etc., 32, 21st February, 1567-8, which speci- fically mentions the presence of hiding priests, "who having been late ministers in the Church, were justly deprived of their offices of ministry for their contempt and obstinacy, be yet (or lately have been) secretly maintained in private places in that our county of Lancaster." 3 Ibid., xlvi, No. 33, 2 1 st February, 1567-8. 4 Cf. ibid., XLVlll, No. 34, 1st November, 1568. 5 Ibid., xlviii, No. 35, 1st November, 1568. 534 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY criminated gentlemen confessed to their recusancy, but refused to conform themselves. 1 Bishop Barnes, of Carlisle, corroborated the difficulties his colleague of Chester every- where met with. Writing to Cecil on 27th October, 1570, he said: " In Lancashire ... on all hands the people fall from religion, revolt to Popery, refuse to come at church. The wicked popish priests reconcile them to the Church of Rome, and cause them to abjure this, Christ's religion, and that openly and unchecked. Since Felton set up the excommunication, in some houses of great men (you know whom I mean) no service hath been said in the English tongue." 2 A list of thirty-two gentlemen of Westmoreland and Cumberland attached to this letter, with his comments on each individual, somewhat belies the Bishop's report on the diocese he himself ruled : " of a truth I never came in place in this land where more attentive ear was given to the Word than here." Ten were either favourable to the Reformation, or, at least, not openly hostile; these are classed as Evangelio fav ens, amicus veritatis,aulicae religionis nee inimicus ; the rest are branded with such terms as sanguinarius Papista, vir vafri ingenii, cordis obdurati veri- tatem odit, cane pejus, alter Jehu, spirans minas, etc. At a later date, a list was drawn up of Cheshire gentry whose houses were " greatly infected with Popery and not looked unto"; 3 the term of our enquiry leaves this part of the country as little well disposed to the Reformation as it had been more than twenty years before. Notwithstanding the rigour of the treatment meted out to the rebels of the Northern Rising, during 1570, the fol- lowing year Pilkington, Bishop of Durham, reported that there were in his diocese many who " come at no church." And this, though he had " called them and done some cor- rection on the men, but without any their amendment." 4 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xlviii, No. 36, and enclosures i-x. 2 Ibid., LXXIV, No. 22. Cf. also, same to Earl of Sussex, 16th October, 1570; P R.O. Dom. Eliz., Add. xix, No. 16 i. 3 Ibid., Add. xxvn, No. 94. 4 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., lxxxi, No. 48, 15th October, 1571. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 535 Archbishop Grindal, on taking possession of his northern See, writes that he is " informed that the greatest part of our gentlemen are not well-affected to godly religion." l Earlier in the year, Cecil had had full information sent to him about the activity of Papists in the North, of the celebra- tion of Mass, etc. 2 Shortly after the rebellion, Sir Thomas Gargrave made out a list of Yorkshire gentry for the Privy Council, showing how much each of the persons it con- tained could contribute towards a loan. All were ticketed as "Protestant" or " Catholic." There were twenty-five of the latter, three being set down as good for one hundred marks, and the rest for £$o apiece, showing they were all of considerable wealth. There were of course a large number of less standing, but their names were not in- cluded. 3 The same official, at a later date, drew out for Lord Burghley a list of the chief gentry of Yorkshire. Each name has a " mark " prefixed to it, which, as explained by Gargrave, represented " Protestant " ; " worst sort " [of Catholic]; "mean or less evil"; "doubtful or neuter." It will be readily understood that the last two divisions really represent the cunning Papists. The list contains the names of 128 gentlemen, thus divided: 47 Protest- ants; 19 staunch Catholics; 22 of a weaker calibre; and 40 doubtful. 4 Turning to another part of England, a similar state of things is disclosed. One of Cecil's spies reported to him concerning Norfolk, Suffolk, and that portion of England generally, showing that Catholics were there on the increase and active. 5 In Essex, Catholics were just as bold; meeting by twenties and thirties at a time for Mass. Near Colchester "there hath been Mass said commonly; it is like to be so still." Justices of Peace " lean over-much to them " — the Papists; are Papists themselves and have not taken the 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., lxxiii, No. 35, 29th August, 1570. 2 Ibid., Add. xvn, No. 72, 6th February, 1569-70. 3 Ibid. y Add. xvm, No. 39 i. 4 Ibid., Add. xxi, No. 86 ii, 18th September, 1572. 5 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., lxxiii, No. 10, 10th August, 1570. 536 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY oath; this, too, in 1577. 1 Next year several were judicially proceeded against, and a few were induced to conform; but, after the elimination of the weaker brethren, there remained a considerable number who refused to give way, and were in consequence dealt with by conference and the other methods of persuasion favoured by the Reformers. 2 The diocese of Winchester has already been indicated as, from the very first, hostile to the changes effected in 1559; and, notwithstanding Home's efforts that the Protestant service " mought be frequented," this had not been brought about even by 1562, "since the Massing time"; the new teaching " they as yet do not so well like and allow " ; and his schemes for furthering the work of the Reformation in his Cathedral city he " could not by any means hitherto bring the same to pass," 3 more especially as he realised that " they shall continue and be further nursled in super- stition and Popery, lacking not of some priests in the Cathedral Church to 'inculke' the same daily into their heads." The character he gave his subjects was hardly hopeful : " the said inhabitants are very stubborn, whose reformation would help the greatest part of the shire bent that way, . . . some of them have boasted and avaunted, that, do what I can, I shall not have this my purpose. . . . Sundry there are in the shire which have borne great countenance in the late times, which hinder as much as they can the proceedings in religion; and to be found not to have communicated since the Queen's Majesty's reign began, since the Mass-saying, against whom I think hereafter I must proceed to enforcement." 4 The energetic Bishop was as good as his promise, and laboured hard to bring his diocese into conformity ; but notwithstanding all he might do, Catholic he found it and Catholic he left it. In 1572 a list was drawn up of the " Noblemen, gentlemen, 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxx, Nos. 26, 27. 2 Cotton MS. Titus B. ill, No. 21, f. 60; No. 22, f. 69, and P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., clxii, No. 43. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xxi, No. 7, 12th January, 1561-2. Home to Cecil. 1 Ibid. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 537 yeomen and chief franklins within the county of South- ampton, with note of every their dispositions." 1 This interesting document contains the names of 248 people of substance, thus distributed according to the " notes " fur- nished about each individual. One hundred and five, having no mark, are presumably ranked as Protestant, though some of the names thus undistinguished are those of un- doubted Catholics, as future years of persecution endured were to prove. Ninety-six are noted " p," which indicates that they were quiet men, though Papists ; while forty-seven, against whose names are placed " pp," were, as their re- cords attest, very earnest and militant Papists. From this it may be adduced that fully two-thirds of the diocese were still attached to the religion of their fathers. 2 On 9th June, 1576, the Council, hearing of other " disorders," sent down a commission to search the house of one Alexander Dering for " great store of vestments, books, and other Massing tools to serve lewd purposes, when any so evil given is disposed to have the use of them ; he him- self being a man very perversely bent against the present state of religion." 3 Having now seen that the number of Papists in various parts of England was not only considerable, but formidable, far into the reign, it remains to summarise the proposals formulated at different times to cope with the supposed danger, and to gather into one purview the chief legisla- tion against the recusants within the limits of this enquiry. It was speedily realised that the penalties imposed by the legislation of 1559 was in no way adequate to suppress the old Faith and practice. Accordingly, in the second Parliament convened by Queen Elizabeth in the fifth year of her reign, 12th January, 1563, an Act was passed further to define her power over all estates and subjects within her dominions, 4 whereby any one upholding the authority or jurisdiction of the Pope would incur the penalties of 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xc, No. 18. 2 Cf. also ibid., xcil, Nos. 3, and 3 i, 2nd July, 1573. 3 Ibid. % cvm, No. 40. 4 5 Eliz., c. 1. 538 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY Praemunire. Bishops were empowered to administer the oath of Supremacy to any spiritual person ; and the Lord Keeper might direct a commission to tender the oath to any person whomsoever, the penalty after conviction for a first refusal was that entailed by Praemunire, for a second that of treason. 1 The passage of this measure through Parliament was rendered notable by two speeches, pre- served to us, in opposition to it, one by Mr. Atkinson in the lower Chamber, 2 the other by Lord Montagu in the upper House. 3 Though these intrepid opponents of a popular Government measure were helped by the resistance of other members, their efforts were unavailing. The Convocation which sat at the same time had before it for revision the Forty-two Articles of Edward VI; by certain omissions and one addition, they issued forth once more as the famous Thirty-nine Articles, to this day the pillar and foundation of the Church of England as by Law Established ; but any further consideration of these formulas would fall outside the scope of this enquiry. Their hands strengthened by the provisions of the new Act of 1563, the bishops were eager to bring their im- prisoned predecessors to book. Watson and Bonner, as the most obnoxious to them, were the first to be experimented on. On 2nd May, 1564, Grindal, referring to this fact, wrote to Cecil: "For D. Bonner's oath, I did of purpose not trouble you with it aforehand, that if any misliked the matter, ye might liquido jurare ye were not privy of it. Notwithstanding I had my Lord of Canterbury's approba- tion by letters, and I used good advice of the learned in the laws . . . and no more meet man to begin withal, than that person." 4 It might have been better had Grindal and Home not been so precipitate ; for when the latter tendered the oath to Bonner, then a prisoner in the Marshalsea, and so within the territorial limits of the diocese of Win- 1 Cotton MS. Titus B. in, No. 24, f. 65. 2 Cf. Tierney's Dodd, ed. 1839, ii, p. ccliv, App. xxxvii, Part II. 3 Ibid., Part I, p. ccli. 4 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xxxiv, No. 1. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 539 Chester, the former Bishop of London refused to be sworn, whereupon, to quote Mr. James Gairdner's notice of him in the Dictionary of National Biography ,■ " he was indicted of a Praemunire; but by his legal astuteness he raised the question whether Home had been rightly consecrated as bishop even by statute law, and the objection was found so important that an Act of Parliament had to be passed 2 to free the titles of the Elizabethan bishops from ambiguity. The charge was then withdrawn, and the oath was not again tendered to him." It became necessary to cast about for some more suitable way to punish recusants, more especially as it may reasonably be doubted if this savage legislation had been meant to be otherwise employed than in terrorem. A paper belonging to 1565 shows that some, at least, favoured fining; "so will it procure to the Queen's Majesty such present profit, without any her charge, and restore her to such perfect knowledge how when and where to punish all that from time to time will wilfully offend, as that it will redound to such her continual great gain, as none of her ancestors for this three hundred years had ever more, or the like." 3 Another instance of episcopal persecution is furnished by the Archbishop of York, who was seeking a handle against Sir William Babthorpe; 4 but more statesmanlike views prevailed, at least for a time. Sir Nicholas Bacon was no advocate at that date, or indeed for a long while after, of what he rightly designated " bloody laws." On 28th November, 1567, the Lord Keeper made a speech in the Star Chamber, wherein he said : " for extreme and bloody laws I have never liked them "; but to repress religious sedition he was prepared to go con- siderable lengths, illustrating his meaning by a comparison, differentiating between whipping and hanging. " Indeed, 1 Vol. v, p. 360. 2 8 Eliz. c. 1. "An Act declaring the making and consecrating of the Archbishops and Bishops of this realm to be good, lawful, and perfect." 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xxxvm, No. 41. 4 Ibid., Add., XII, No. 58, 29th April, 1565. 540 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY though whipping may be thought extreme," he said, " yet by whipping, a man may escape hanging . . . and better it were for a man to be twice whipped than once hanged." 1 These sentiments have a bearing on the policy occasionally practised by the Council. Thus at a later date, perhaps 1 579, some one in a position of authority, probably Walsing- ham, wrote a secret word of warning to some over-zealous official, pointing out to him that although " it were fit that Papists who will not conform . . . should receive punish- ment due to their contempt, . . . yet the time serveth not now to deal therein ; and therefore I cannot but advise you ... to forbear to prosecute by way of indictment such as lately were presented . . . for that if you shall proceed therein, you shall not prevail to do that good you shall desire, but shall rather receive foil through some commandment from hence, prohibiting you to surcease in proceeding in that behalf, which would breed no less discredit unto you than encouragement to the Papists." 2 But if, at times, policy dictated caution and moderation in the Council's dealings with recusants, the same could not be predicated always. Sometimes the influence at work is clearly the possibility of a matrimonial alliance between Elizabeth and one or another of her many suitors, as the Due d'Alencon or the Due d'Anjou, both Catholics. But when such projects were in abeyance, the subject of re- straining the Papists was always well to the fore, once the papal excommunication had been published by Felton's means in 1570. Very shortly after that audacious chal- lenge, Lord Burghley drew up a paper dealing with the need of enforcing the statutes against those who refused to conform. But in place of the \2d. hitherto leviable for every abstention from church services, it was proposed to raise the fine to £20 a month, counting four Sundays to the month, or thirteen months to the year. 3 The Legisla- ture was in a state of panic and indignant loyalty; hence 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xliv, No. 52. 2 Ibid., xlv, No. 27. 3 Cotton MS. Titus B. in, No. 18. f. 63. Lord Burghley's holo- graph. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 541 Lord Burghley was able to push through various measures of extreme harshness against the priests who were now beginning to come over from Louvain, Douay, Rheims, and Rome. The priests who " reconciled " the Queen's subjects were to suffer as traitors; those who aided and maintained them incurred the penalties of a Praemunire, while those who concealed them were liable to the punish- ment of misprision of treason — forfeiture of goods and profits of lands, and imprisonment at the Queen's pleasure. 1 These measures were embodied in the Act known as 13 Eliz. c. 2, "An Act against the bringing in, and putting in execution of Bulls, writings or instruments, and other superstitious things from the See of Rome." This Act of Parliament was followed by a royal Proclamation against recusants in general. 2 In the following April a Bill was prepared " against disguised priests," showing the alarm with which the Government witnessed the increase of recus- ancy notwithstanding the heavy penalties which weighed down the Papists. 3 Although this Bill never became law, it is nevertheless interesting, as showing the growing spirit of hostility, and as foreshadowing the enactments from 1584 onwards. 4 So impressed were the bishops with the neces- sity of strictly enforcing existing laws, and, indeed, of reinforcing them with more stringent penalties, that Edmund Grindal, then Archbishop of York, wrote on 2nd June, 1572, to Lord Burghley, telling him that he and other bishops had been with the Queen the day before to urge on her the need for increased severity, and taking with them the draft of a Bill for that purpose. " The passing of this Bill will do very much good," he wrote, especially in the North parts, where pecuniary mulcts are 1 Cf. Cotton MS. Titus B. in, No. 19, f. 64; No. 26, f. 68. 2 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., LXXiv, No. 33, 14th November, 1570. 3 Ibid., lxxvii, No. 60, 27th April, 1571. 4 Cf. also P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., lxxxiii, No. 29. This document is a draft of a Bill on similar lines, but increasing the penalty for recusancy, on the plan of a sliding scale for the length of time during which the obstinacy may have been prolonged. 542 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY more feared than bodily imprisonment; for thereby some of them grow richer than they were before, and fall to pur- chasing of land in prison, which, being at liberty, they were not able to do." 1 In this connection it may not be without interest, as showing the prevalence of Papist tendencies still mani- fested amongst the clergy, notwithstanding their apparent outward conformity, to call attention to the " Act for the ministers of the Church to be of sound religion." 2 This imposed on all the clergy the obligation of subscribing and assenting to the Thirty-nine Articles, and of reading them- selves in publicly, under pain of deprivation ipso facto unless performed within two months of induction. A case arose in Essex where a newly-inducted minister, by default, fell under the penalty of the statute. Grindal, as his dio- cesan, wrote to the Earl of Sussex to shield the clergyman, who, " ignorant of the late statute, omitted the reading of the Articles two months after his institution, and the statute saith that for default therein ipso facto he is deprived. The parishioners there take hold of the words of the statute rather than of the meaning, and labour by what means they can to remove him from that his charge and living. This statute was made for popisJi priests that had no liking of true religion. These men would have it executed upon a zealous, honest young man well affected towards religion, who hath read the said Articles three or four times openly in the Church since, with great protesta- tion of his good liking thereof." 3 Legislation had failed to effect the purposes of the Council ; those who were anxious to attain some measure of success for their projects now turned to the idea of employing methods of coercion to bring about the ends desired. The Attorney-General was consulted, and in con- junction with other lawyers propounded various plans for the consideration of the Government. The details are of 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., LXXXVlll, No. 5. - 13 Eliz. c. 12. 3 Cotton MS. Vespasian F. XII, No. 91, f. 131. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 543 no particular consequence for the purposes of this enquiry. 1 They resolve themselves into a more strict imprisonment for priests, carried out later by their being deported to Wisbeach, and to a searching enquiry into the qualifications and conformity of schoolmasters. Finally, one Norton drew up a paper of suggestions on precisely similar lines, but in greater detail, dealing not only very fully with the im- portant question of schoolmasters, but also with the Inns of Court and the bench of magistrates. 2 The legal profession as a whole, like the members of the other learned profession of medicine, remained for long a centre of opposition to the parliamentary religion. At the time of the Rising of the North, when the Justices of Peace were being confronted with the oath of Supremacy, the members of the Inns of Court were also subjected to a searching examination. This disclosed a most unsatis- factory state of things from the Council's point of view, for large numbers were found utterly irreconcilable ; others were patently merely outward conformists ; few were sin- cere adherents of the Reformation. 3 Many refused to answer, standing on the ground that they were not bound to incriminate themselves. Such an attitude is signi- ficant of their real sentiments. Again, in 1577, when returns were being demanded by the Council from all the dioceses as to the recusancy there existing, the legal col- leges were also the subject of enquiry. Six of the Inns of Chancery furnish the names of 25 who refused to attend the Protestant service. The other two Inns, Clement's and 1 They may be seen, however, in a series of documents ; cf. Lansd. MS. 155, No. 13, 3rd December, 1578; P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxxvn, No. 7 ; ibid., cxxvn, No. 6. " The means whereby such as are back- ward and corrupt in religion may be reduced to conformity, and others stayed from the like corruption"; P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., xlv, pp. 10-11 ; p. 21, ? Walsingham to the Bishop of London. 2 Lansd. MS. 155, Nos. 32, 40, 41, 42,45 ; Cotton MS. Titus F. III. No. 26, f. 267. 3 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., LX, No. 70. Abstract of examinations of gen- tlemen of the Inns of Court summoned before the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes. 544 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY Lyons', had no recusants. 1 The Middle and Inner Temple returned the names of 18 and 60 respectively, while Lin- coln's Inn showed 40, and Gray's Inn 51 members, all more or less infected with Popery, and hostile to the reformed service. 2 The important point connected with this large number of educated and more or less influential body of recusants lies in the fact that they represent not only the individual sentiments of these students and legal practi- tioners, but also those of their families and households in the country. It is therefore easy to understand the import- ance of Norton's suggestions " for establishing religion in the Inns of Court and Chancery " already referred to. 3 Some reference must be made to another class of Eliza- beth's recalcitrant subjects. Bishop Cooper, already quoted, called them Fleeing Papists; they were, however, officially known as, and usually called, Fugitives. As soon as the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity of 1559 had been passed, large numbers of families and individuals, clerical and lay, passed beyond the seas, in the hopes of finding in exile on the Continent that freedom to practice their religion denied them in their own country. There, safe from persecution and vengeance, but leading lives of penury and ofttimes of destitution, some, as might be expected, plotted against the Queen ; others prepared themselves for the priesthood with the avowed purpose of returning to render spiritual aid to their countrymen in danger of being totally deprived of the consolations of their Faith as time wore on. All these Englishmen abroad were considered by the Queen and her Council as constituting a menace and a danger to the peace and quiet of the kingdom ; and this fear was accent- uated when their numbers were augmented by the escape of many of the proscribed rebels of the Northern Rising of 1569. It was after that event that active measures began to be taken against them. An Act (13 Eliz. c. 3) was passed, depriving them of their lands and possessions, and 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvm, Nos. 38 and 38 i, 24th November, 1577. 2 Ibid., cxvm, Nos. 68, 69, 70, 71, November, 1577. 3 Lansd. MS. 155, No. 42. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 545 nullifying any transfer they may have made thereof in order to escape any such confiscation. Lands seized in this way were freely granted. Thus, for example, many of the lands belonging to Thomas Leedes were by royal grant made over to Sir Thomas West. 1 Frequent mention is made of these fugitives, and the Council endeavoured to secure as accurate lists as possible of the names and whereabouts of those who had fled the country; even prisoners were sub- jected to searching examination in order to elicit informa- tion not only as to such details, but also as to the sources whence help reached them. Thus, Henry Simpson of Dar- lington, under examination, furnished particulars about 79 named fugitives, several of whom represent many more unnamed persons, members of their households. 2 Another list, dated 29th September, 1572, referring to the Low Countries alone, mentions 53 individuals, but also gives general information of " divers other Papists at Doway, to a great number," " divers gentlemen and their wives dwell- ing at Lier town." " One Father Prior, whose name is Mr. Chayssey, 3 with his convent, being all Englishmen, and himself maintainer and succourer of poor rebels, Papists and priests, with others." Also, a matter specially obnoxious to the Council, " Item, John Fowler, printer [at Antwerp] for all rebels and Papists their books." 4 A list drawn up in 1575 gives the names of 47 recipients of bounty from the King of Spain to enable them to support themselves in their exile. 5 Another list of the same date 6 is even fuller; and yet another, dated 26th December, 1576, fur- nishes additional names. 7 At home, the numbers of recusants became a matter of extreme solicitude to the Council. Thus, on 1st December, 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., LXXXVlll, No. 51, 14th July, 1572. 2 Ibid., Add., XX, Nos. 73 and 78, 8th and nth October, 1571. 3 Maurice Chauncy, Carthusian. 4 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., lxxxix, No. 16. 5 Ibid, cv, No. 9, 6th July, 1575, 6 Ibid., cv, No. 10. 7 Ibid., ex, No. 9; cf. also Lansd. MS. 683, No. 17, which, though dated 29th January, 1576-7, is evidently only a copy of the former one. NN 546 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY 1 569, during the height of the Northern Rising, Cecil noted amongst other things in his memoranda, " that the Bishop of London be written unto to consult with the Archbishop of Canterbury to make a register of all the obstinate per- sons being deprived for religion, or imprisoned or put to bail, with notice where they are residing." L A highly important and interesting list of recusants dating from 1574 is extant. 2 It is contained in a i2mo note-book, en- dorsed " Recusants' names," and internal evidence points to its being the compilation of a Papist. There are 376 Catholics named, all of the rank of Esquire or above, hence people of position and property. These names are fol- lowed by those of 216 people then living in exile, giving a total of 592 Catholics of the upper classes. The special value of this list is that it furnishes very full particulars about a portion of the country concerning which little, or, indeed, any information is forthcoming elsewhere — Wales and the adjacent counties. This list may serve as a basis of comparison with the many emanating from official sources, which must now claim attention. For, being official, there is a danger that they may be accepted as final, in the same way as the clergy lists have been accepted as final ; whereas, it is as true of these lay lists as of the clerical ones that they are at best provisional. At this juncture, a very important letter written by Aylmer, Bishop of London, to Secretary Walsingham, serves to throw a flood of light on the policy soon to be adopted against the wealthier sort of recusants. " My Lord of Canterbury and I," he writes, " have received from divers of our brethren, bishops of this realm, that the Papists do marvellously increase both in number and in obstinate withdrawing of themselves from the church and service of God ; for the remedy whereof, the manner of imprisoning of them which hath been used heretofore for their punish- ment, hath not only little availed, but also hath been a means, by sparing of their housekeeping, greatly to enrich 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., LX, No. 4. 2 Ibid., xcix, No. 55. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 547 them ; and such as here upon suit have been enlarged and upon hope of amendment sent into their countries, have drawn great multitudes of their tenants and friends into the like malicious obstinacy. Wherefore, with conference had with the rest of our colleagues, we have thought good to forbear the imprisoning of the richer sort, and to punish them by round fines to be imposed for contemptuous refus- ing of receiving the Communion according to our order and commandments; for if we should directly punish them for not coming to the church, they have to allege that the penalty being already set down by statute (which is 1 2d. for every such offence), is not by us to be altered nor aggravated. This manner of fining of them will procure the Queen ;£ 1,000 by year to her coffers; whatsoever it do more, it will weaken the enemy, and touch him much nearer than any pain heretofore inflicted hath done. In conferring with her Majesty about it, two things are to be observed: first, that her Majesty be given to understand that it is meant hereby as well to touch the one side as the other indifferently, or else you can guess what will follow ; secondarily, if her Majesty by importunate suits of courtiers for their friends be easily drawn to forgive the forfeitures, then our labour will be lost, we shall be brought into hatred, the enemy shall be encouraged, and all our travail turned to a mockery. Therefore, her Majesty must be made herein to be animo obfirmato, or else nothing will be done." 1 This Machiavellian suggestion, without doubt, attracted the attention of the Council, who saw in it a sure and easy method of augmenting the royal revenue. As a direct con- sequence of Aylmer's suggestion, the Council sent letters to each of the bishops, under date 15th October, 1577, wherein each one was told: " the Queen's Majesty's pleasure is that you shall certify unto us with all the diligence you may, as well the names of all persons within your diocese that refuse to come to the church to hear divine service, as also the value of their lands and goods as you think they are in deed, and not as they be valued in the Subsidy 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxiv, No. 22, 21st June, 1577. 548 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY Book. . . . praying you that we may' receive full answer . . . within seven days after your receipt hereof, and that the same be done without respect of person or degree." l All hastened to fulfil the task imposed upon them, and the result is embodied in a series of documents of considerable interest. But the value of the different returns varies greatly, as, in studying them, can easily be seen. Some returns are full and minute: others are so meagre as to be well-nigh worthless. Some contain details not demanded by the Council ; others, — but these are few in number, — not confining their investigation to the wealthy alone, make mention of men who are " poor," or " of little worth." But it will be seen that, in the main, these lists furnish us with a long array of recusants of substance, ninety-nine hun- dredths of whom are indubitably Papists. The bishops did not, as a body, direct their enquiries to the Puritans, Chey- ney of Oxford alone calling attention to their recalcitrance. We have, therefore, in these returns, as far as they go, a body of first-hand evidence as to the prevalence and per- sistence of Popery throughout the kingdom. And, though it is not stated totidem verbis in these documents, by im- plication we are forced to realise that each name, being that of a head of a family, represents the other members of it, as well as a suitable number of servants and dependents, most, if not all, of whom would have been almost certainly recusants as well as their masters. Nevertheless, the returns are, as a whole, unsatisfactory, for it is evident that they are far from being complete in regard to many of the counties. Durham diocese, for instance, being avowedly very popish in sentiment, should show more than eight names; and, in fact, the return states: "and of others in Northumberland, presently we cannot advertise your honours of any certainty." 2 Archbishop Sandys sent a full report concerning his diocese and those of his suffragans. He was new to his post at the time, so could not " come by full understanding of the offenders; but these are too 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvi, No. 15. 2 Ibid., Add., xxv, No. 42 i. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 549 many, whose intolerable insolency, perverse and contempt- uous disobedience is with speed to be repressed, or else hardly the State can stand in quiet safety. ... I have already laboured what I can since my coming hither, as well by persuasion as by execution of discipline to reform them, but little have I prevailed ; for a more stiff-necked, wilful, or obstinate people did I never know or hear of. Doubtless they are reconciled to Rome and sworn to the Pope. They will abide no conference, neither give ear to any doctrine or persuasion. Some of them when the prayer for the Queen's Majesty hath been read unto them, have utterly refused to say Amen unto it. Others do glory (and that not of the simplest sort) that they never knew what the Bible or Testament meant. To some I have offered lodging and diet in my house, that I might have conference with them for their conformity, but they chose rather to go to prison. Thus much I write to give your Lordships a taste of their evil dispositions ; and most of them have been corrupted by one Henry Comberford, a most obstinate popish priest, now prisoner at Hull." l His certificate con- tains 168 laymen and one priest as being within the arch- diocese, and some eighteen other names out of the suffragan Sees; while a supplementary return for Nottingham fur- nishes a further batch of fifteen. 2 Certain Lancashire Justices in making their return afford a useful example of friendly caution in extenuation of a wholly inadequate list from so Catholic a county; but their excuse is: "We hear an un- certain rumour of some lately revolted who do not dutifully come to the divine service; but forasmuch as we certainly know not the same, we dare not impart the same to your Lordships till the undoubted truth be known to us." They sent up only thirty-five names; while from the Chester diocese, a magistrate could muster no more than seven recusants. Another return, however, prepared by the Bishop before his death makes mention of sixty-nine, together with " two old priests very wilful and obstinate remaining in the 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., CXVll, No. 23. 2 Ibid., No. 23 i and ii, cxvni, Nos. 2 and 2 i, ii. 55o ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY Castle of Chester." 1 Another group is represented by three of the Welsh dioceses and the border dioceses of Hereford, Gloucester, and Worcester; and here comparison is invited with the Catholic list of 1574, showing how thoroughly in- adequate were the returns of 1577. The Bishop of Bangor wrote that he had " made diligent search, and at this pre- sent can find none that refuseth to come to the church saving one old priest." 2 The Bishop of St. David's could mention but one recusant, " howsoever some be affected in heart and infected with Papistry." 3 The diocese of Llandaff provides fourteen laymen and four priests, but there is a veiled reference to " about 200 besides them." 4 A later supplementary return gave fifteen of these.' Worcester was burthened with thirty-nine Papists, while Warwickshire adds another ten to the total 'of the diocese. 6 With Scory at the head of Hereford diocese a fuller return might be expected; and though it is not so instructive as the list of 1574, neverthless it sets forth fifty-three names. But the main interest of the list consists in the graphic details it affords of the opposition offered by the laity of his diocese to the reformed service. We learn of one man who attends divine service, but sits so far away that " he neither heareth nor can hear"; another "walketh up and down in time of divine service in a place so far off that he cannot hear." John Breynton, of Crednill, is a " mocker of preachers and of this religion " ; while John Hareley, Esq., though attend- ing his parish church, " read so loud upon his Latin popish Primer (that he understandeth not) that he troubleth both the minister and the people." 7 From Gloucester diocese there come two lists, containing, the first thirty-eight, the second seventy-nine, names. In the second list twenty-nine of those in the first re-appear, hence the real number of recusants is eighty-six. 8 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvm, Nos. 45, 45 i and 49. 2 Ibid., cxvm, No. 8. 3 Ibid., No. 1 1 i. 4 Ibid., No. 11 ii. 5 Ibid., cxxn, No. 31. 6 Ibid., 11 iv and v. 7 Ibid., cxvm, Nos. 7 and 7 i. 8 Ibid., cxvn, No. 12 i, and cxvm, No. 32 i. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 551- From the eastern side of England comparatively few names come. Peterborough diocese furnishes, by means of two lists, five and six names respectively; but, on com- parison, the real number of recusants is found to be but six, one of whom was reported to be " Mr. Chambers of Ediweston, priest, brother to my Lady St. John of Bletsho." 1 Ely could muster only nine names, 2 and the extensive diocese of Norwich, once so fervently Catholic, could show only 49 adherents of position. The return, now extant, refers only to the county of Norfolk, it must be remem- bered, and not to the whole diocese. Such leading names as Bedingfeld, Lovell, Huddlestone, Downes, and Jerning- ham, of course, figure largely in its pages, and the wealth of many of these recusants appears to have been consider- able. 3 For the rest, it is not a satisfactory document, for Bishop Freake wrote : " having no time either to take knowledge of the one sort, nor order with the other, I am enforced to signify very confusedly without distinction of the men and matter"; hence in some cases it is impossible now to distinguish in every instance between Papist and Puritan. The Midlands, with the possible exception of Staffordshire, Shropshire, and Oxford, seem early to have embraced the reformed religion more or less whole-heartedly; hence the returns, though incomplete, do not disclose names in any number. Two very full returns, replete with minute details of very great interest, show that Oxfordshire, with the University in its midst, was a special centre of Catholicity. The first 4 contains 87 names, not counting several priests referred to here and there; the second 5 gives the names of 145, a large number of whom were of fair or considerable wealth. It may be taken as certain that the fuller list represents the actual position of affairs, and that for all practical purposes it repeats and includes the shorter list, which, however, is of great value for the intimate details it affords. The great 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvn, No. 16, and cxvm, No. 29. 2 Ibid., cxvm, No. 28 i. 3 Ibid., cxvn, No. 27 i. * Ibid., cxvm, No. 37 i. s Ibid., cxix, No. 5 i. 352 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY diocese of Lincoln is represented by only seven names of wealthy recusants. 1 Only four gentlemen are returned from Leicestershire as unwilling to attend divine service. This perhaps represents nearly the truth, for the Justices who made the return express the fervent hope that " all countries under her Majesty's government [may be] as free from this pernicious sect of Papists as this country is." ' Bedfordshire was almost as denuded of adherents of Rome, apparently harbouring but nine Papists of social standing. 3 The diocese of Coventry and Lichfield still maintained a goodly number of Papists. Two lists, comprising Derby- shire, Staffordshire, and that portion of Salop within the limits of the diocese, 4 give the following figures: Stafford- shire, 105 and 119; Derbyshire, 38 and 53; Salop, 22 and 26. Striking an average, it may be said that this portion of England had still 182 Catholics of means. The West and South of England, including the diocese of London, makes a final group. The Bishop of Bath and Wells sent up the names of eight recusants in Somerset- shire. 5 Cornwall, which retained its Catholic character for a longer period, had 30 recusants, most of whom were men of standing and large possessions. 6 Devon furnishes no return, and Dorset is represented by a solitary recusant " who hath neither lands nor goods," and so was not worth troubling about. 7 Wiltshire is represented by 10 recusants/ Berkshire by 49, including such well-known names as Yate, Fettiplace, Wyndham, and Perkins. 9 Surrey, amongst its 25 recusants, numbered the deprived Archbishop Nicholas Heath, who is entered as "priest, doth not come to the church." Andrew Silvertop, of Camberwell, Esq., had been " convented before the commissioners " nearly two years previously "for Massing at Westminster; he was indicted 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvn, No. 13. - Ibid., CXVIII, No. 34. 3 Ibid., cxviii, No. 50. * Ibid., cxvm, No. 17 i, and cxxil, No. 28 i. 5 Ibid., cxvm, Nos. 16 i and 72. ° Ibid., cxvn, No. 25 i. ' Ibid., cxvn, No. 21. 8 Ibid., CXVll, No. 26 i. 9 Ibid., cxvn, No. 17 i. TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 553 for the same, and suffered the penalty of the law." A like fate had befallen Hugh Ursley. The rest in the list were as little amenable as the above. 1 The obstinate recusancy of the Winchester diocese has more than once been referred to in the foregoing pages. Lapse of years could not show much improvement, for in 1 577 Bishop Home sent in a certificate containing 58 names of the most considerable people of Hampshire, of whose continued refusal to submit he then complained, with a confession of his own inability to deal with them: "most heartily desirous to hear that your wisdoms will devise some such remedy in these causes as their most wilful obstinacy may be the better restrained and corrected, which daily groweth more and more." 2 The Bishop of Chichester forwarded 22 names to the Council, for the county of Sussex, the home of the Gages of Firle, Ash- burnhams, Shelleys of Michelgrove, Carylls of West Grin- stead, Coverts, and Hares. 3 Kent, representing the dioceses of Rochester and Canterbury (but only a part of it), sent in 31 names, including that of William Roper of Eltham, Esq., of whom mention has already been made. 4 It is not surprising that London, while in the van of reform or love of change, should from its size, its power of absorption, the ease with which it could hide those who wished to escape notice, and its central position, also harbour large numbers of recusants. That Aylmer should have collected but 173 names, very many of no use to the Council as being those of persons of the working class, worth nothing in lands or goods, speaks much for the value of the city as a hiding place. The utter insigni- ficance of most of the names precludes the possibility of identifying any but a few as certainly Papists rather than as, possibly, Puritans. 5 Moreover, this list includes Middlesex and portions of Essex. A separate return for the arch- P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvil, No. 14 i, ii. Ibid., cxvn, Nos. 10 and 10 i. 3 Ibid., cxvn, No. 15. Ibid., cxvn, Nos. 2 and 5 i. 5 Ibid., cxvin, No. 72. 554 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY deaconry of Colchester 1 adds 18 names for Essex, while 4 more come from Hertfordshire. 2 In estimating the recusancy of the diocese of London, the returns from the Inns of Court and Chancery previously dealt with must not be omitted ; as has been seen, they give close on 200 more names. Some of the foregoing returns were drawn up as late as February, 1577-8. It is of importance to bear this in mind, for the totals of the documents referred to amount to 1,650 at least, whereas the Record Office contains a "Table, showing the number of Recusants" as being but 1,387. This was made out on 30th December, 1577, and is, there- fore, incomplete. 3 These notes may fittingly close with a reference to the difficulties experienced by the recusants in providing a suitable education for their children. If they wished to bring them up at home, then the bishops had something to say as to the schoolmasters they employed, realising as they did that ofttimes they were priests, who combined the prosecution of their sacred ministry with their pedagogic duties, and thus helped to keep the Catholic Faith alive. If they sent them abroad for education in pro- perly constituted colleges and schools, to be trained amid Catholic surroundings and companions, then they fell under statutory penalties. It is of interest, then, to study a 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxvm, No. 44. 2 Ibid., cxvii, No. 22. 3 Ibid., CXIX, No. 20. For purposes of comparison with the Catholic list of 1574, especially, but also in a minor degree with the returns of 1577, reference may be made to a catalogue of names of the most wealthy people in the kingdom, for their levy of lances (or tax for militia). Those who are marked as being recusants are 204 in number, all being persons whose names, from their position in their respective counties, are well known (cf. ibid., CXIX, No. 26, ? December, 1577). Another term of comparison may be found in a document dated 28th April, 1580, giving the "names of such persons as have been con- vented before the Commissioners for Causes Ecclesiastical at London and remain abroad upon Bonds." They were 104 in number, while 36, seven of whom were priests, were in prison (cf. Lansd. MS. 360, No. 30, f. 49). Another list belonging to the same year gives the principal recusants as being 256 in number (cf. P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., CXLli, No. 23)- TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 555 list of persons having their sons at school abroad, partly because it is of comparatively early date, partly because of the varied nature of the names. There were at that time at least 45 youths abroad known to the Government spies ; but the list does not pretend to be exhaustive. 1 I have endeavoured, in the foregoing pages, to state the facts connected with the Elizabethan religious settlement without any regard as to whether what was effected was, in itself, good or bad. So far as that is concerned, people will still continue to hold their own opinions. From what- ever standpoint, however, the subject has been approached, the same result has been arrived at. Convocation opposed the Reformation in 1559; the Marian bishops, as represent- ing the Church in Parliament, without a single exception voted against the severance from Rome implied and effected by the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity; and, in fact, that severance was eventually secured only by the narrowest of majorities, after the voting strength of the bishops had been lessened by stratagem. The clergy of all ranks suffered deprivation in fairly large numbers, or abandoned their livings, rather than acquiesce in the consequent changes in Faith and practice. Many who outwardly conformed re- mained, as the Elizabethan bishops repeatedly confessed, Papists at heart; while others, who had retired from their livings either by choice or under compulsion, continued to minister by stealth to those Catholics who remained staunch to Rome. The bishops complained of the prevalence of Popery in their respective dioceses during the period covered by this enquiry, and most of them found it difficult to make any real headway against the steady opposition they encountered. Whatever might have been the political motives underlying the Rising of the North in 1569 — the sole instance of a popular outbreak against Elizabeth's government — it was at least avowedly in order to restore the old Faith and worship, but not to harm the Queen. 1 P.R.O. Dom. Eliz., cxlvi, No. 137. 556 ATTITUDE OF THE LAITY The learned professions were Papist to the core; and that part of the nation then alone thought worthy of considera- tion, that is, the local magistracy, the county gentry and the landowners, long remained faithful to the old Creed ; and their dependents naturally followed their lead, while their sons at the Universities showed themselves no less determined to maintain their connection with the Church Universal. These are not gratuitous assertions or ex parte statements: they are founded on the witness of contempor- aries whose authority cannot be impugned, for they have been taken almost wholly from those whose interest it would best have served had they been able to boast of triumph rather than been compelled to confess failure. That Elizabeth's ministers succeeded in the end in Protest- antising England is only too patent; but it was not an easy task, notwithstanding even their astuteness and the unscrupulousness of their methods; nor was it one, as Dr. Mandell Creighton supposed, which " was welcomed by the people and corresponded to their wishes." Such a state- ment, in the face of the evidence here adduced, can no longer be maintained, and ought never to be repeated. The period embraced by this enquiry found England, at its close, in much the same position, from the standpoint of the religious sentiments of the people, as it had been at its opening. It was realised by the leaders of reform that differ- ent measures from those hitherto employed, more stringent and severe, must be resorted to, if the ends desired were ever to be attained. The grounds to justify Elizabeth's ministers in adopting this sterner policy were supplied by the outburst of Catholic activity which followed on the arrival of the Seminary priests and the Jesuits. As a result of the labours of these missionaries amongst all classes, lukewarm and timorous Catholics took courage and openly ranged themselves on the side of the old order by refusing any longer to show even outward conformity to the parlia- mentary religion, notwithstanding the terrible nature of the penalties to which they not only laid themselves open, but which they cheerfully and unflinchingly suffered. The TO THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES 557 number of avowed and practising Catholics increased by leaps and bounds, and this revolt was met by the infliction of the death penalty with all the accompanying barbarities reserved for the crime of treason. Till then, as even Lord Burghley had boasted, resort had not been had to these extremities. It is possible, — it is at least thinkable, — that if the missionaries from beyond the seas had one and all con- fined their labours strictly within their legitimate sphere — that of discharging their purely spiritual functions — (and the vast majority of them certainly never outstepped these limits), England might without much difficulty have been won back and restored to the Unity of the Church. The new phase entered upon in 1580 has so little in common with the conditions that have here been under investiga- tion, as to require separate treatment, and this enquiry may, therefore, be brought to a close. NDEX ABBOT, Rob. (Abp. of Cant.), refers to Catholic priest, 301. Ack worth, Dr. Geo., visits Corpus Christi Coll., Oxon, 275; visits New College (1566), 279. Act to validate consecration of Bishops, 539 and n. ; for ministers of the Church to be of sound religion, 542. Acton, Lord, (late), vii, x. Adbolton parish, sequestration of, 144. Alba, Duke of, distrusts sincerity of English Catholics in desire to rise against Elizabeth, 483 ; forbids Guerau de Spes to plot against Elizabeth, 490. Allegiance, spiritual and temporal, held not to clash, 526-7. Allen, Edmund, designated for Roch- ester diocese, 231, 238; died, 231, 238; doubtful as to real conformity of people, 503 and n. Allen, Thos., of Trin. Coll., Oxon, re- cusant, 288; at Gloucester Hall, 292. Allen, William, Cardinal, educated at Oxford, 255; on refusal of Bishops to crown Elizabeth, 36 n. ; gives no information about deprived clergy remaining in England, 190; records sacrilege of some Marian priests, 299 ; refers to staunchness of some Marian clergy, 300; refers to secret labours of Marian clergy, 302. Allerdale, deanery of, all absentees in, pronounced contumacious, 156. Alley, William (Bp. of Exeter), with- out promotion, 230; reports on dio- cese, 370. All Souls College, Oxon, 280. Antwerp, English Papist printer at, 545- Apology for the Ch. ofEng. , Bp. Jewel's, 408. Apontborowe parish without reformed service books, 164. Apostolicae Cnrae, Bull, and Anglican Orders, 246. Arden, Thos., absent from visitation, deprived, 149; a priest harboured in Hereford, 364, 366, 368. Arden, recusant family of Oxfordsh., 404. Arncliff, parish of, without reformed service books, 164. Arthureth, parish of, popish, 315. " Articles " drawn up by Convocation, 58; (Grindal's) to root out Catholic practices in Yorkshire, 328 n. Arundel, Altars still standing at, 428. Arundel, Earl of, expresses willingness to rejoin Catholic Church, 482, 483 ; said to desire change of religion, 485 ; arrested, 486 ; questioned by Council, 487; imprisoned, 490. Arundell, Sir John, of Lanherne, a Papist, 371 ; refuses oath of Supre- macy, 520. Ashbrooke, John, priest, deprived, 204, 205. Ashburnham, family, recusants, 553. Assheton, Thos., explains hollowness of outward conformity, 521 and n. Astlow, Astlowe, Atleslow, Atselow, Dr. Edw., of New Coll., Oxon, 278; a recusant, 445-6; ill in the Tower, 445- 6 - 59 560 INDEX Atkinson, Geo., chaplain, charged with concealing church stuff, 275. Atkinson, Mr., speaks in House of Commons against anti-papist legisla- tion, 538. Atkinson, Thomas, "ousted," 160. Atkyns, Ant., of Merton Coll., Oxon, deprived, 286 and n. Atkynson, John, "ousted," 160. Aubrey, Vicar-Genl. of Cant., urges visitation of Hereford Cathedral, 365. Avery, a servant, recusant, 398. Awdley, Mrs., her son sent abroad, 515- Aylmer, John (Bp.), educated at Camb., 255; proposed for See of Gloucester, 230 ; suggests use of rack, 332 ; be- comes Bp. of London, 463; proposes plan for dealing with Papists by illegal fining, 463-4; instances of his want of principle, 465-6 ; suggests Puritan ministers to be sent to Lancashire, 466; promises post for Dethick un- justly, 466 ; reports Mass being said at Colchester, 466; seizes printing press, 469 ; captures Carter, a Catho- lic printer, 469; complains to L. Burghley of want of support, 470; says Protestants are upbraided for not fasting, 523 ; wants to increase fines from recusants by illegal means, 546-7; makes list of recusants in diocese of London, 553. Babington, Fras., of Balliol Coll., Oxon, recusant, deprived, 283; at Lincoln Coll., 284. Babthorpe, SirW., recusant, 325; per- secuted by Abp. of York, 539. Bacon, Sir Nicholas, educated at Cam- bridge, 254; leading spirit of Re- formation, 14; made Chancellor, 14; President of Westminster Conference, 105 ; endeavours at Westm. Confer- ence to put Catholics in the wrong, 118; breaks up Westm. Conference, 1 10; orders Cath. Bishops not to re- turn home without permission, 209; selects Parker as Abp., 232 sqq.; an- nounces to Parker his selection as Abp. of Cant., 234; forwards to Abp. Parker royal assent to his election, 236; averse from "extreme and bloody laws, " 539. Bacon, Dr. Thomas, Master of Gon- ville Hall, Camb., 266. Bagshaw, Christopher, of Balliol Coll., Oxon, 283, 284. Bailey, Dr. Thos., expelled from Clare Hall, Camb., 263. Baker's Chronicle on number of de- prived clergy, 123. Baker, Dr. Philip, account of, 264-6; deprivation of, 392; deprived of Lon- don living, 442. Bale, John (Bp. ), educated at Oxford, 255 ; mandate to, to consecrate Abp., 241 ; name of See in Ireland, 244 ».; consecrated by K. Edw. 's Ordinal, 246. Ballard, John, priest, of Gonville, 268. Balliol Coll., Oxon, account of, 282 sqq. Bangor Dioc, report on and statistics about, 344; report on, much Popery prevalent, 346-7. Banister, recusant family, in Hants, 422. Bapthorpe, Rob., conformed, 1 5 1-2. Barber, B., priest, 400. Barber, Ric, Warden of All Souls Coll., Oxon, recusant, 281. Barker [Roger], of Balliol Coll., Oxon, resigned, 283. Barker, Humphrey, " old priest ... a very poor man," in Bangor diocese in 1577, 347- Barlow, William, Bp., educated at Ox- ford, 254; account of, 424; if con- secrated, then by Roman Pontifical, 246; proposed for See of Chichester, 230; designated for Chichester, 231; appointed to Chichester, 216; elected by Chapter of Chichester, 237 ; royal mandate to, to consecrate Parker Archbishop, 219, 236; second man- date to, to consecrate Abp., 24 1; consecrates Parker Abp., 248. INDEX 561 Barnes, Richard, Bp., promoted to Durham, 308; makes a return of re- cusants, 308; gives good report of Northumberland, 309; gives bad re- port of stubbornness in Durham and Richmondshire, 309; translated to Carlisle, 313; gives glowing account of new diocese, 313 ; reports rumours of rebellion in Lancashire, 315; re- ports on his diocese, mostly conform- able, 315. Bartholomew (no surname), priest in Lincolnshire, 532. Barton, Geo., priest, deprived, 442 n. Basford, B., S.J., 468. Bates, Thos., a Justice "misliked" for recusancy, 340. Bateson, Miss, on Bishops' certificates of state of dioceses, 339-40. Bath, gatherings of Papists there, 376-7 ; Bonner's kinsfolk residing there, 377- Bath and Wells, Diocese of, Institutions to benefices in, 198; Popery in, 373- 7 ; recusants in, 552. Battle, "the popish town in all Sus- sex," 428. Bauger, Fras., of Exeter Coll., Oxon, resigns, 294. Bavant, John, of St. John's, Oxon, 290. Bayne, Ralph (Bp.), educated at Camb., 255; present in Parliament, 46; de- mands impartial hearing at Westmin- ster Conference, 109; dismisses his servants, 209; deprived, 215; death of, 223. Beacon, Thomas, proposed for See of Rochester, 230. Beaumaris, clergy of, use "disordered service " for the dead, 347. Beckote, Rob., a Papist, 371. Beconsawe, recusant family, in Hants, 422. Bedford, Earl of, reports on Popery in York diocese, 324; reports unfavour- ably on Durham Justices, 340. Bedfordshire, free of recusants, 552. Bedill, Mr., suspected Papist, 264. O Bedingfeld, Sir Henry, refuses oath of Supremacy, 520. Bedingfeld, family, recusants, 551. Bell, Wm., probably deprived, 152. Belsire, Dr. Alex., Head of St. John's, Oxon, deprived, 289; memory of, defended, 289 n. Belson, recusant family, in Oxfordshire, 404. Bencastle, parish of, popish, 315. Benedictines, restored under Mary, 127 sqq.; disbanded, 132; fate of, 135; English, causes of, escaping extinc- tion, 136. Benger, Sir Thos., Visitor of Oxford Univ., 272. Bennet, Wm., sequestered, 154. Bentham, Thomas (Bp.), educated at Oxford, 254; account of, 394-5; leading spirit among reformers, 22; proposed for See of Cov. and Lichf., 230; consecrated Bp. of Cov. and Lichf., 250; instructions for visitation of diocese of Cov. and Lichf., 396-7; reports on Popery in his diocese, 399 sqq. ; revises list of recusants, 400. Bentinck, Mr. G. Cavendish, on identi- fication of II Schifanoya, 41 n. Bereblock, John, of St. John's, Oxon, 291. Berkeley, Gilbert (Bp.), educated at Oxford, 254; consecrated Bp. of Bath and Wells, 250, 373 ; institutions during his Episcopate, 198 ; im- poverished, 373; explains action of Catholic Bishops in leasing their lands, 375 ; reports on diocese, 376. Best, John, consecrated Bp. of Carlisle, 250; 310; deluded as to real senti- ments of diocese, 311; gives bad re- port of stubbornness, etc., of priests, 311 ; reports rumours of risings, 311 ; Justices "wink at all things," 311; reports badly on Justices, 341 ; com- plains of recusancy in diocese of Car- lisle, 522; death of, 313. Beynton, image of Our Lady at, used for pilgrimage, 165. 562 INDEX Bill, Dr. Wm., appointed Provost of Eton College, 203; said to be ap- pointed to Salisbury, 216; Dean of Westminster and Provost of Eton, 216; proposed for London diocese, 230 ; appointed Visitor of Cambridge, 260; death of, 203. Bill for Recognition of Queen's Title to Crown, 61 sqq.; Bill declaring certain offences to be Treason, 62; Bill declaring Queen heritable to Queen Anne Boleyn, 62; Bill for Treasons, 63; Bill to render certain slanders against Queen punishable, 63; Bill to restore spiritual persons deprived, 64; Bill to restore de- prived Bishops, 65; Bill to legalise deprivation of Bishops, etc., 65 sqq. ; Bill for making eccl. laws by thirty- two persons, 66 ; Bill that no persons shall be punished for using Edward's religion, 66; Bill for leases to be made by spiritual persons, 67; Bill for giving Chantries to Crown, 67, 68; Bill for admitting and conse- crating Abps. and Bishops, 67; Bill for collation of Bishops, 68; Feria on, 70; II Schifanoyaon, 70; Burnet on, 70; Bill for Dissolution of Mona- steries, 71; II Schifanoya on, 71 n., 72 ; Bill of Supremacy, 72 sqq. ; sup- porters and opponents of, in H. of Lords, 76, 78. Bills that effected severance from Rome, 56. Bird, Wm., composer, wife of, recusant, 469. Birkenhead, , Clerk of the Peace in Herts, a recusant, 444. Birrell, Rt. Hon. A., "it is the Mass that matters," 505 n. Bishop, Dr. Wm., resided at Gloucester Hall, 292. Bishops (Catholic) to be coerced, 17; refuse to crown Elizabeth, 36; pre- | sent in Parliament, list of, 46; oppose Bill of Supremacy, 79 ; influence of, j in H. of Lords, feared, 119; ordered to remain in London, 215; leased lands, etc., to hamper Protestant suc- cessors, 374 and n. Bishops, Elizabethan and Marian, com- pared on subject of persecution, 333. Bishops (Protestant) begin making visitation of dioceses, inhibited from continuing, 183; -elect, petition Eliz. against exchange of bishops' lands, 240; admit failure of Reformation, 297; suggest putting Q. of Scots to death, 331-2; Act to validate con- secration of, 539 and n. Blackwell, Geo., of Trin. Coll., Oxon, recusant : Archpriest, 288 ; at Glou- cester Hall, 292. Blakiston, Rev. H. E. D., on Popery in Trin. Coll., Oxon, 288. Blandy [Wm.] of New Coll., Oxon, deprived for Popery, 279. Blaxton [John], a priest harboured in Hereford, 364, 366, 368. Blethyn, Wm., Bp. of Llandaff, reports state of diocese, 351-2. Blithe, G., absent from visitation, 149. Blount, scholar of Balliol, suspect Papist, 284. Blunston, Rob., "ousted" (consenting), 160. Blythe, visitation at, 147. Boast, Lancelot, recusant, prophecies found on, 441 n. Bonner, Edmund (Bp.), educated at Oxford, 255 ; ordered to provide vest- ments for Coronation, 36; present in Parliament, 46; ordered to stop Mass at St. Paul's, refused, 505 ; dismisses his servants, 209; ordered to vacate See of London, 231; succeeded by Edm. Grindal, 435 ; oath of Supre- macy administered to him, 210; de- prived, 95, 210; intrepidity of, 211; Abp. Young wishes him proceeded against, 325 ; 528 ; oath administered to, successfully questions Bp. Home's right, 538-9. Boreham, Mass at, 456, 515. Borley, Mass at, 456, 528; raided for Mass-stuff, 528. INDEX 563 Bothwell, murders Darnley, carries off Mary Q. of Scots and marries her, 477- Bourne, Gilbert (Bp.), educated at Oxford, 255 ; absent from Parliament, 45, 217; receives mandate to con- secrate Parker Abp., 219, 236; re- fused, 220, 236; credited with good management of dioc. of Bath and Wells, 373; deprived, 222. Bourne, Sir John, imprisoned, 15; quarrels with Bp. Sandys, 356. Bourne, Ric. , helps his brother, Bp. Bourne, 373. Bowell, Hy., deprived, 145. Bowes, Sir George, besieged in Barnard Castle, 494. Boxall, Dr. John, educated at Oxford, 255 ; does not attend Protestant ser- vice, 472. Boyes, Wm., sequestered, 147. Bradbridge, Augustine, Chancellor of Chichester, 426. Bradbridge, Wm., Dean of Sarum, 426; Bp. of Exeter, 371 ; reports on Papists, 371. Bradbury, John, priest, 400. Bramstone, Thos., of St. John's, Oxon, 290 and n. Brassie, Rob., 264. Braye, R., of All Souls Coll., Oxon, recusant, 281. Breynton, John, recusant, 550. Brian, Fr., of Balliol Coll., Oxon, 283. Bridge, Hist, of Northamptonshire, 289 n. Bridgett, Fr., denies interview between Q. Eliz. and Cath. bishops, 209; correction of statement by, 218. Bridgettines restored under Mary, 129 ; dispersed, 134; supported in exile by K. Philip, 135. Bridgewater, John, educated at Oxford, 255; Rector of Lincoln Coll., Oxon, deprived, 285; unable to arrive at true numbers of deprivations, 186; list of deprived clergy confessedly incomplete, 191; omissions in, 301. Bridlington, images there kept, 165. Brill, Stephen, All Souls Coll., Oxon, recusant, 281. Bristol Dioc. of, vacant livings in, 376. Bristow, Ric, educated at Oxford, 255. Bristowe, R., of Exeter Coll., Oxon, fled, 294. Brodrick, Mr., on Popery in Merton Coll., Oxon, 285-7. Bromborough [Edward], of New Coll. , Oxon, put in prison, 279. Bromley, Geo., recommended, as a Reformer, for legal post, 447. Brooksby, Humphrey, of All Souls Coll., Oxon, contumacious, 2S1. Browne, , "a traitorous priest" openly maintained in Lancashire, 314. Bruerne {or Brewarne), Richard, elected Provost of Eton College, deprived, 203 sqq. Brytayne, Geo., recusant, 412. Bucer, Martin, professor at Oxford, 255 ; at Cambridge, 253. Buckland, visitation at, 153. Buckley, Sigebert, means of saving English Benedictines from extinction, 136. Buckmaster, Thos., priest, deprived, 442 n. Bullingham, Nicholas (Bp.), educated at Oxford, 254; succeeds Watson as Bp. of Lincoln, 393; consecrated Bp. of Lincoln, 250. Bullock, Dr. Geo., sequestered and later deprived, 156; "ousted," 160; re- moved from St. John's, Camb., 263. Burcher, John, character of, 223-4; praises Cambridge, 253. Burghley, Lord. See Cecil, Sir Wm. Burnet, Gilbert, dependent on Camden, 120; on Bill for recognising Queen's title to Crown, 61 n. ; on Bill for collation of Bishops, 70 and n. • on number of deprived clergy, 122; on offer of pensions to facilitate resigna- tions, 194. Bury, recusancy of clergy in, 164. 564 INDEX Burye, Wm,, sequestered, 157 ; " ousted," 160. Butcher, Dr. Wm., urged by Bp. Home to resign Mastership of Corp. Christi Coll., Oxon, 274. Butler, Thos., of New Coll., Oxon, 278. Byam, Thos., priest, deprived, 442 n. Byng, Dr., superintends pillage of Dr. Caius' rooms, 267. Caius, Dr. John, account of, 266-7; a Papist, 445. Caius and Gonville Coll., Papists from, 268-9. Calais, negotiations about restoration of, to England, 34. Calf hill, James, on ignorance of new Protestant clergy, 194; acknowledges ordination of ignorant mechanics, 439; laments that Oxford is still Papist, 272. Calvin urges importance of Universities on Edw. VI, 253. Cambridge University leader in reform, 2^sqq.; praised by Burcher, 253; produced most reforming bishops, 254 ; lists of reformer alumni, 254-5 ; Catholic ditto, 254-5; statistics of degrees at, in sixteenth cent., 259; visitation, and Visitors of, 260 ; Latin services allowed at, 269; in 1592, many Papists reported in Colleges, 270. Camden ultimate authority for many on Elizabethan history, 120; relies on Sander and Bridgewater for informa- tion on deprived clergy, 124; on de- privation of clergy, 123; on number of deprived clergy, 188. Campion, Edmund, S.J., educated at Oxford, 255; of St. John's, Oxon, 290 and n. ; refers to secret labours of Marian clergy, 302 ; saved Oxford students from taking oath of Su- premacy, 507. Canterbury city, Corpus Christi proces- sion at, 505. Canterbury Diocese, suitable bishop needed for, 231 sqq. ; conge a* Hire is- sued, 235; particulars and statistics of, 471-4; recusants in, 553. Cardwell, Dr., on motives underlying holding of Westminster Conference, 101. Carew, Dr. Geo., sings Mass at Corona- tion, 37. Carew, Lady, has Mass in her house, 457, 528. Carewe, Matthew, Archdeacon of Nor- folk, fled beyond the sea, 380. Carlisle Cathedral, dilapidations at, 312; prebendaries badly reported of, 312. Carlisle Deanery, all absentees in, pro- nounced contumacious, 156. Carlisle Diocese, visitation of, 156^^.; number of livings in, 163; return of vacant livings in, 338; opposed to Reformation, 339; bad report on Justices of, 341; Popery in, 310.^.; recusancy in, 522. Came, Sir Edw., English Ambassador at Rome, 7. Carr, Ric, expelled from Magdalen Coll., Camb., 263. Carter, Wm., printer, seized, 469; ex- ecuted, 470 ; Treatise of Schism, 470; The Innocency of the Scottish Queen, 470. Carthusians revived under Mary, 126 ; dispersed, 134; supported in exile by K. Philip, 135. Carus, Mr., house of, raided to find priests and Papists, 462, 532. Caryll, of West Grinstead, family, re- cusants, 553. Caryll, Mr., high opinion of, 446-7. Catalogus Cancellariorum, 259. Catesby, Sir Wm., and family, resided at Gloucester Hall, Oxon, 292. Catholics, strength of, 79; in prison, list of, 303 ; their willingness to rise in favour of Mary, Q. of Scots, 483 ; treated with rigour before Rising of the North, 484. See also Papists. Cave, Sir Ambrose, seizes papers of bishops, no. INDEX 565 Cawker, Mrs., " notorious Papist," has Mass in her house in Charterhouse, 53i- Cecil, Sir William, appointed Secretary, II; leading spirit of Reformation, 14; keen on reformation, 47 n. ; edu- cated at Camb., 254; foretells mob violence years before Elizabeth's reign, 510; brings royal message to Commons to expedite Bill of Supre- macy, 83; projects promotions for Protestants, 230; determined on new occupants for Sees before they were vacant, 230; selects Parker as Abp., 232 sqq. ; notes by, on legal diffi- culties about consecration of Abp., 242 sqq. ; expresses pleasure at sup- posed conformity of Bp. Tunstall, 221; appointed Visitor of Cambridge, 260 ; on John Bale's Irish See, 244 «. ; orders papist students at Universities to be "stayed" in 1569, 270; treat- ment of Bp. Downham, 316; notes nepotism of Bp. Sandys, 361 ; orders enquiry as to violence offered to Bp. Scory, 368 ; remonstrates with French Ambassador for having Mass in his house, 456; dreaded Mary Q. of Scots' advent to English throne, 479; Spanish Ambassador's description of, 481; notes disposition of leaders in North, 491 ; regulations made by, for better observance of Lent, 524-5 ; increases fines for recusancy, 540 ; organises a register of recusants, 546. Ceremonies, Catholic, lingering, evid- ence of, 328 n. Chaderton, Wm., Bp. of Chester, re- ports obstinacy of recusants, 322. Chaloner, Sir Thos., at loss to explain abroad burning of roods, 172-3; sus- picious of Bp. Quadra, 452. Chambers, John, of Ediweston, priest, 386, 55i- Chapman, — , Puritan minister, 466. Chauncy, Dom Maurice, Prior of Car- thusians, 126; maintained abroad, 545- Chedleton, Thos., priest, 400. Chedsey, Dr. Wm., educated at Ox- ford, 255. Chedsey, Dr. Wm., Head of Corp. Christi Coll., Oxon, causes of his re- signation, 275. Cheshire, almost as popish as Lanca- shire, 319. Chester Diocese, visitation of, 157 sqq.; number of livings in, 163; Church property being preserved for restora- tion of Catholicism, 165; return of state of, 338; Popery in, 315 sqq. ; catalogue of recusants in, 322; recu- sancy in, 533, 549. Cheston, T., absent from visitation, 149; probably deprived, 151. Cheyney, Richard (Bp.), educated at Camb., 255; Bp. of Gloucest., 372; not inclined to persecute Catholics, reported on Puritans instead, 372; reports on Puritans rather than Pa- pists, 548. Chichester, City of, very popish in feel- ing, 43°- Chichester Diocese, particulars and statistics of, 424-32; recusants in, 553- Child, Mr., on attitude of Convocation towards Reformation, 40; on result of Westm. Conference, 119. Chobham, Mass at, 531. Church of England, now, not con- tinuous with pre-Reformation Church, 96 sqq. Churches shut against Protestant ser- vice, 181. Churchyard, Thos., reports on meet- ings of Papists at Bath, 376-7. Clark, Rev. A., on Popery in Lincoln Coll., Oxon, 284. Clarke, — , Puritan Minister, 466. Clement, T., absent from visitation: identification of, 149 sqq.; probably deprived, 151. Clement, Dr., a fugitive Papist, 445. Clement's Inn free of recusants, 543- 4- Clenock, Maurice, educated at Oxford, 255 ; fate of, 152. 566 INDEX Clergy, married, treatment of, under Mary and Elizabeth, 159; charged with inconsistency, 137; defence of, from charges, 137 sqq.; number of, in England in 1559, 124; numbers of, in Mary's and Elizabeth's reigns, 161 ; numbers of, 162; Marian, num- ber of, in 1596, 191 ; number of, who were recusants, greater than sup- posed, 168; number of, deprived, 203; resignations or disappearances of number of, 201, 203; deprived by Mary, restoration of, 196; Catholic, both say Mass and conduct reformed service, 191 ; many, accept Act of Supremacy, 298 ; attitude of, to Re- formation, 140; unresponsive to Re- formation, 140; real disposition of, 298; of London, list of, deprived, 442 n. ; numbers of, made up with ignorant mechanics, 125; new Pro- testant, ignorant, 194. Clerk, Bp. John, institutions during his episcopate, 198. Cliffe, Geo., sequestered and later de- prived, 156; "ousted," 160. Clifford Moor, headquarters of rebels at, 493. Cobham, Lord, informs Eliz that French dispute her right to Crown, 5; supposed to be a reformer, 48 n. Cock, John, urges severity on Cecil, 5°3 ; Coercion, question of, discussed, 330. Coke, Sir Ant., reports on Eton Col- lege, 205; appointed Visitor of Camb., 260. Colchester, Archdeaconry of, recusants in, 554- Colchester, Mass said at or near, 466, 535- Cole, Arthur, priest, deprived, 442 n. Cole, Hy., Dr., educated at Oxford, 255 ; opens Westminster Conference, 104, 107; refuses to conform, 516; Dean of St. Paul's, deprived, 95, 212-3-4; deprived of Provostship of Eton College, 203 ; takes up Bp. Jewel's challenge, 408; controversy with Jewel, 116. Coles, Humphrey, lawyer, helps Bp. Bourne, 373. Collier, dependent on Camden, 120; explains duties of President of West- minster Conference, 105 ; on number of deprived clergy, 188; describes interview between Queen Eliz. and Cath. bishops, 209; about Frankfort dispute, 225. Columban, Oliver, restored, 159. Comberford, Hy., priest, in Hull pri- son, 335 ; affirms papal Supremacy, 531 ; recusancy of, reported on, 549- Comberford, Thos., recusant, to be arrested, 398. Commission, Royal, of 1559, issued, 125. Commission for Ecclesiastical Causes created, duties of, 182; to administer oath of Supremacy, appointed, 208; for consecration of Abp. , legal opinion on, 244-5. Committee for remodelling religion, suggested, 18. Commons, House of, Constitution of, 53 m-_ Communion under both kinds, intro- duced, 31. Concertatio, Bridge water's, 145. Conformists and recusants, percentages of, 162. Conformity, how viewed in Tudor days, 502; of clergy, Lingard on, 513; hollowness of outward, 520-1. Consecration of Abp. Parker, legal difficulties in way of, 237 sqq., 242 sqq. ; of bishops delayed to effect exchange of bishops' lands, 241. Convocation declares for Roman Faith and Obedience, 40, 59; representa- tive of clergy, 58; draws up "Arti- cles," 58. Cooper, Thos., becomes Bp. of Lin- coln, 393; his treatment of Papists, 332-3; suggests deportation, 333 on different kinds of Papists, 521. INDEX 567 Copage (or Cuppage), John, absent from visitation, 157. Cope, Alan, educated at Oxford, 255; 273- Copley, Thos., recusant, 468. Coppinger, Hy., S. J., of Gonville, 269. Cornelius, John (or Cornellis), of Exe- ter Coll., Oxon, martyred, 294. Cornwall, papist in character, 371 ; recusants in, 552. Cornwall's, Ric, priest, of Gonville College, 269. Cornwallis, Sir Thos., refuses to con- form, 516. Coronation, description of, 38 and n. Corpus Christi Coll., Oxon, Bp. Home urges Master of, to resign, 274. Corpus Christi feast still observed, 504-5. Cosyn, Dr. Edmund, resigned Master- ship of St. Catherine's, 261 ; at Gon- ville and Caius Coll., 268. Cosen, Robt., 289 n. Cotesmore, Thos., priest, 427. Cotton, Geo., Hants recusant, heavily fined for many years, 424. Cotton, family, recusants in Hants, 422. Council, Lords of, proclaim Elizabeth Queen, 5 ; order Abp. Parker to take Bp. Downham to task for remiss- ness, 320; require diocesan statistics, 336; order monuments despoiled and damaged in churches to be repaired, 511-2. Courtney, James, refuses oath of Su- premacy, 519. Coveney, Dr. T. , Master of Magdalen Coll., Oxon, rejected as deprived, by Rev. H. Gee, 271 ; Bp. Home gives reason for removal of, 274. Coventry and Lichfield Diocese, par- ticulars and statistics of, 394-401 ; instructions for visitation of, 396-7; " stubbornest in all this land," 401; many recusants in, 552. Coverdale, Miles, educated at Camb., 254; consecrated by K. Edward's Ordinal, 246 ; mandate to, to conse- crate Abp., 241 ; assists at Parker's consecration, 248. Covert, family, recusants, 553. Cowpland, Carlisle Dioc, very " ignor- ant," 313. Cox, Richard, Bp., career of, 225; en- gaged in Frankfort dispute, 225 ; educated at Cambridge, 253, 255; preaches at opening of Parliament, 30, 39; supports Bill of Supremacy in pulpit, 75 n. ; Abp. Parker fears selection of, for Canterbury, 234; proposed for See of Norwich, 230 ; appointed to Norwich, 216, 231 ; transferred to Ely, 216, 231; dates of nomination and election to Ely, 237; confirmed Bishop of Ely, 250; favours clerical matrimony, 387; re- grets that Protestant ministers are discredited, 389 ; desires extirpation of Papists, 390; refers to preaching of reformers against the Pope, 29; refers to efforts of Catholics to obtain toleration, 192; suggests use of tor- ture, 331 ; and that Haverd, a priest, should be tortured, 458; on attitude of clergy to Reformation, 140; records unwillingness of priests to submit, 304; records that many priests relin- quish the ministry, 176, 3S8 ; reports presence of concealed priests every- where, 192; who say Mass secretly, 193; reports that nobility begin to reform, 505-6; clergy unmoved, 506; states there are immense numbers of Papists, but concealed, 389; reports that Papists practice their religion in secret, 390. Coxe, John, alias Devon, indicted for saying Mass, 331 ; in prison for say- ing Mass, 440, 528. Coxians, 225. Cranmer, Thomas (Abp.), educated at Cambridge, 253-4; and Henry VIII's marriages, 1 ; consecrated according to Roman Pontifical, 248 n. Crawforth, John, sequestered, and later deprived, 156. 568 INDEX Creagh, Ric, Abp. of Armagh, in prison, 303. Creighton, Dr. Mandell, xi, xii ; depend- ent on earlier historians, 120 ; explains English attitude towards Reformation, 121; views of, on popularity of Re- formation and number of deprived clergy, 188; on religious leanings of English people, 298; recusancy in England, erroneous estimate of, 323. Cressye, Rob., conformed, 146. Crispin, Roger, of Exeter Coll., Oxon, resigns, 294. Cumberland, County of, thought by Bp. Barnes to be "pliable," 314; recusancy in, 534. Cumberland Deanery, absentees in, pronounced contumacious, 157. Cumberland, Earl of, maintains popish priests, 311; wants Q. of Scots de- clared Elizabeth's successor, 485. Curteis, Edm., brother of Bishop, de- prived for serious crimes, 431. Curteis, Ric, Bp. of Chichester, finds diocese backward in religion, 430; opposed by recusants, 431; forced to apologise, 43 1 ; falsely accused of drunkenness, 432. Curwen (or Coren), Hugh, Bp. of Oxford, 402. Dacre, Leonard, 480. Dacre, Thomas, Lord, maintains popish priests, 311; 480. Dakyns, Edw., priest, of Gonville, 269. Dale, John, priest, probably deprived, 442 n. Dalton, Rob., withstood Visitors, 153; deprived, 154; "ousted," 160. Danby, Christopher, noted as "evil of religion," 491. Dande, A., deprived, 179. Darnley, Lord, married to Mary Q. of Scots, murdered, 477. Daryll, Thos., of New Coll., Oxon, 278. D'Assonleville, Chr., on Elizabeth's religious leanings, 4. Davey, recusant family, in Oxfordsh., 404. Davis, Ric, proposed for See of Wor- cester, 230; gives bad account of suitor for Llandaff diocese, 345-6; reports on diocese of St. David's un- favourably, 349 ; dispute with Fabian Phillips, 351 ; reports on immorality prevalent in St. David's, 351. Davies, Thos. (Bp.), consecrated Bp. of St. Asaph's, 250 ; furnishes statistics of diocese of St. Asaph's, 345; re- ports unfavourably of St. Asaph's, 348. Davis, — , of New Coll., Oxon, put in prison, 279. Davis, Mr. H. C.W., History of Balliol Coll., 282 sqq. Dawkes, Rob. , of Merton Coll. , Oxon, deprived, 286. Day, Geo., (Bp.) educated at Camb., 254. Deane, Win., priest, of Gonville, 26S. De Antiquitate Brit. Ecclesiae, 259. Denny, Mr., on Mandate for Abp. Parker's Consecration, 236 n. Deprivation, definition of, 149-50. Deprivations by Mary ignored under Elizabeth, 155; at Eton College, 204-6. Deprived clergy, number of, 203. Derby, Earl of, to help Bp. Downham in reforming dioc of Chester, 316 ; wants Q. of Scots declared Elizabeth's successor, 485. Derbyshire, "where most of the lewd- est sort hath remained," 319 ; reported full of Papists, 399; number of re- cusants in, 552. Dering, Alexander, has store of Mass stuff, 537. Dering, Edw., reformer, educated at Camb., 255. Dethick, — , Aylmer, promises a post for him with injustice to another, 466. " Device for alteration of religion," 16. Devonshire, no return of recusants in, 552. INDEX 569 D'Ewes, Simon, on opposition of Bi- shops to Bill of Supremacy, 81 ; mis- understands difficulties over title "Supreme Head," 84; on number of deprived clergy, 188. Dirrham, [John], of New Coll., Oxon, put in prison, 279. Disorders in churches, 22. Dispensations for pluralities, grant of, 161; number of, granted, 1560-70, 414. Dobeson, Thos., "ousted," 160. Doctors of Medicine mostly Papists, 543- Dodd, on number of conforming clergy, 512. Dolman, Thos., All Souls Coll., Oxon, deprived, 280. Dolman — , priest, caught saying Mass, 462. Dominicanesses restored under Mary, 130; supported in exile by K. Philip, 135- Dominicans revived under Mary, 127; details of disbanding of, 133. Doncaster, images not destroyed at, 165. Dorman, Thos., educated at Oxford, 255 ; of New Coll. , Oxon, 277 ; of All Souls Coll., Oxon, deprived, 280. Dormer, Sir Wm., "hinderer," 339. Dorsetshire, one recusant in, 552. Douay Diary, list of English parishes, 337 n. Douay, papist fugitives at, 545. Douglas, Lady Margaret, favours the Catholics in York Province, 324. Douglas, — , a priest in prison, 460, Downes, Galfrid, sequestered, 145. Downes, family, recusants, 551. Downham, Bp. of Chester, troubles of, 315 sqq.; scolded by Q. Elizabeth for slackness, 316; a second time scolded by Q. Elizabeth for remiss- ness, 320; makes visitation of Chester Diocese, 317; reports favourably of conformity of diocese, 317; punishes Papists by fine, 318; deceived as to conformity of Chester Diocese, 319; reports on obstinacy of recusants, 321 ; accused by G. Fyton of parti- ality, 321 ; certificate of Chester Diocese, 338. Draycot, Anthony, 528. Drayton, West, sequestration of, 144. Drury, Drew, conforms outwardly: helps fugitives, 515. Drury, Ric, deprived, 152. Drury, Robt. (preb.), fate of, 146. Drury, Sir Robt., "hinderer," 339. Dudley, Geo., probably deprived, 145-6. Dudley, Lord, protects Sebastian West- cote, 442. Dugdale, James, Master of Univ. Coll. , Oxon, deprived, 280. Durham Cathedral, visitation of, 155 sqq. Durham City entered by rebels, Mass said in Cathedral, 493. Durham Diocese, visitation of, 1 53-^.; number of livings in, 163; return of state of, 338; opposed to Reforma- tion, 339; served by priests from Scotland, 341; Popery in, 304^^.; recusancy in, 534; popish in senti- ment, 548. Durston, John, deprived, 204 «., 205, 206. Dymock, Dymoke, family, recusants, 394, 468. Dyson, Proclamations of Q. Eliz., 78 n. Earle, John, imprisoned for recusancy, 169. Earls, Northern, Proclamation of, 492 ; rising of, for religion, 492 ; flight of, 494. Eaton, Reginald, S. J., of Gonville, 269. Edgeworth, Roger, educated at Oxford, 255- Edinburgh Review, viii, xi. Education of recusants' children, 554. Elis, — , scholar of Balliol, suspect Papist, 284. Elizabeth, refused to settle question of Anne Boleyn's marriage, I, 476; de- clared illegitimate ; placed in succes- 57o INDEX Elizabeth — continued. sion, 476; title to Crown, Heylin on, in.; N. Sander on, 2; announces her accession to Philip II, 3; and to Commissioners at Cateau Cambresis, 3 ; religious leanings of, 3,11; Chr. d'Assonleville on, 4; proclaimed Queen by Abp. Heath, 3 ; proclaimed Queen by Lords of the Council, 5 ; rightof, toCrown disputed by French, 5 ; attitude of Paul IV towards, 7 ; appoints Sir W. Cecil Secretary, 1 1 ; appoints her Council, 12 and n. ; dis- approves of certain alterations in Prayer Book, 19; objects to ceremony of anointing at Coronation, 20 ; issues proclamation against alterations in Liturgy, and preaching, 22 ; vacilla- tion of, 33 ; proposal that she should marry Philip II, 34; bishops refuse to crown her, 36 ; her first Parliament, 42 sqq. ; first Parliament, personnel of, 43 sqq.; influence of, in H. of Lords, 50; objects to marriage of clergy, 64; upbraids Bp. Downham for his slack- ness, 316; scolds Bp. Downham for remissness a second time, 320; re- calls powers of Commissioners for visitation, 183; selects Parker as Abp. of Cant., 234; gets Mary Q. of Scots into her hands, 477; forbids D. of Norfolk to marry Q. of Scots, 485-6; instructs generals as to deal- ings with rebels, 494; "meant to have heads " after Northern Rising, 497 ; shown to be secure on throne, byresult of Rising, 497 ; scoffs at papal Bull, 499 ; allows Latin in Collegiate Churches, 513 and n. ; possible mar- riage of, with a Catholic, causes re- laxation of persecution, 540. Ellercar, Sir R., "a very Papist," 340. Ellys, John, Dean of Hereford, certifies to Papistry in Cathedral Chapter, 367. Ely Diocese, visitation of, 179; statistics °f) 179, 391; particulars about, 387- 392 ; vacant cures in, 388. Ely, Dr. Humphrey, records work of Marian clergy, 301-2. Ely, Dr. Wm., Head of St. John's, Oxon, a Papist, deprived, 289. Ely, — , a priest harboured in Hereford, 364, 366. Englefield, Sir F., and pension lists of exiled religious, 135; in prison for hearing Mass, 528. Erdeswick, Hugh, wealthy recusant, 400. Erdeswick, Sampson, recusant, 468. Ermyn, Fras. , Papist, 371. Essex, Justices take oath of Supremacy, 514; recusancy in, 535; recusants in, 554- Est, Wm. , a priest, deprived, 442 n. Estcourt, Can., on election of Abp. Parker, 235-6; on legal difficulties about consecration of Parker, 2\2sqq. ; on commission for consecration of Abp. Parker, 244 «. ; argument of, on Parker's consecration mandate and legal difficulties, 245 sqq. Ethell, David, "ousted," 160. Etheridge, Dr., reported on, 446. Etheredge, recusant family, in Oxford- shire, 404. Eton College to be purged, 17; visita- tion of, 203 sqq. Eton, Jas., Registrar of Hereford, a Papist, 370. Etwold, J., subscribed, 179. Ewers, Wm., Lord, Visitor at Durham, 155- Exeter Coll. , Oxon, 294 sqq. Exeter Diocese opposed to Reforma- tion, 339, 343 ; statistics of, 370-372. Exeter, Earl of, wants Q. of Scots de- clared Elizabeth's successor, 4S5. Exiles, religious, return of, 98; return to England, temper of, 226; expect- ant of preferment, 227. Feazard, John, of Exeter Coll., Oxon, resigns, 294. Feckenham,Abbot,biographical account ot, 128; educated at Oxford, 255; present in Parliament, 46; opposes Bill of Uniformity, 89 w.; speech of, against Bill of Uniformity, 91; ex- INDEX 571 presses willingness to proceed with Westminster Conference, 109; offer made to, to remain, on conformity, 131, 213; deprived, 213; in prison, 303 ; betrayed by a spy, 531 ; 465. Felton, parish in Durham, vacant, 338. Felton, John, fixes papal Bull to Bp. of London's palace gates, 49S. Felton, John, widow of, married to John Strangman, 422. Fenne, James, John, Robert, 278. Feria informs Philip of religious inno- vations, 19; absents himself from Elizabeth's Coronation, 20; informs Philip that Mass is said in English, 31; on Mass in English, 33; posi- tion of, at English Court, 35; tells Philip of work to be done in Parlia- ment, 39; on attitude of certain peers towards reform, 47 «., 48/2. ; on Eliza- beth's influence in H. of Lords, 50; reports to Philip on Bill for collation to vacant bishoprics, 70 ; tells Philip of Cecil's ruse to pass Bill of Suprem- acy, 74, 75 n. ; reports to Philip on Bill of Supremacy, 78; expostulates with Elizabeth on parliamentary action against the Church, 82; sug- gests to Philip to inform Pope of Catholic protest against Bill of Su- premacy, 82 ; informs Philip of diffi- culties in Plmt. over title "Supreme Head," 83; tells Philip Elizabeth does not want title " Supreme Head," 85 ; his opinion of Catholic bishops, 85 «. ; reports to Philip on debate on Bill of Uniformity, 89 ; influence of, with Elizabeth, recognised by Jewel, 99 ; sends full account of Westmins- ter Conference to Philip, 1 1 1 ; nego- ciates details of Westminster Confer- ence, 112; relates Protestant insult to Catholic religious feeling atWestm. Conference, 113; explains Abbot Feckenham's attitude atWestm. Con- ference, 115; criticises result of Westm. Conference, 1 19 ; records dis- turbances in North on account of re- ligion, 175; also in Winchester, 175; on numbers of Catholics, 180; re- ports interview between Q. Eliza, and Cath. bishops, 209; obtained permission to deport religious, 132, 213; departure of, from England, 94. Fettiplace, family, recusants, 552. Field, Lawrence, priest, deprived, 442 n. Field [John], Puritan minister, 466. Fines for hearing Mass cause people to conform outwardly, 512. Fingley, John, priest, of Gonville, 268. First Fruits and Tenths, Bill for Re- storation of, 56; Bill for Restoration of, introduced in H. of Lords, 59 sqq. Fisher, Bl. John, Cardinal, educated at Cambridge, 254 ; Bp. of Rochester, 432- Fishlake, recusancy of laity at, 164. Fitzherbert, Ric, wealthy recusant, 400. Fitzherbert, Sir Thos., refused to con- form, 518. Fitzsimons, Ric, a joiner, really a priest, 370. Fitzsymons, Leonard, of Trin. Coll., Oxon, recusant, 288. Flack, Win., S.J., of Gonville, 269. Fleetwood, Wm., Recorder of London, sent to Fleet for raiding ambassador's house, 462. Fogaca, Antonio, reports Masses said in London, 467. Forde, Thos., of Trin. Coll. Oxon, re- cusant and martyr, 288. Fortescue, Adrian, 452. Foster, Mr., of All Souls Coll., Oxon, contumacious, 281. Foster, Wm., priest, 427. Fowler, Bryan, recusant, supports Bp. Poole, 395, 396. Fowler, John, of New Coll., Oxon, 278. P'owler, John, printer of fugitives' books at Antwerp, 545. Fowler, Rev. T., on causes of Dr. Chedsey's resignation, 275. 572 INDEX Fox, — , of New Coll., Oxon, put in prison, 279. Foxe, John, the Martyrologist, edu- cated at Oxford, 255 ; endeavours to make distinction between bishops and Feckenham, 116. France, negociation of terms of peace with, 33.^. Franciscans revived under Mary, 125; suppressed, (1559), 125; date of de- parture of, 133. Frankfort, dispute, 224 sqq. Franklin, Rob., of All Souls Coll., Oxon, recusant, 281. Freake, Edmund, Bp. of Norwich, 381-384; ruled by his wife, 382; has papist servants, 383; active against recusants, 382 ; makes list of recus- ants in Norwich diocese, 551 ; burns men for heresy, 333 ; succeeded Ghest at Rochester, 433. Frere, Rev. W. H., on absence of Sir Th. Tresham from Parliament, 45 n. ; on Bill of Uniformity, 91 n.; on number of deprived clergy, 121, 188. Froude, Mr. J. A., vii, viii, ix, x; de- pendent on earlier historians, 120; on creation of new peers by Eliza- beth, 48 n. ; on constitution of House of Commons, 53; expresses underlying motive of Westminster Conference, 100; on significance of Parker's con- secration, 249. Fugitives, 526; Bp. Cooper on, 544; legislation against, 544, 545. Fuller, dependent on Camden, 120 ; on number of deprived clergy, 124, 188. Fyton, G., accuses Bp. Downham of partiality in treatment of recusants, 321. Gage, of Firle, family, recusants in Surrey, 427, 553. Gairdner, Mr. James, on Home's tender of oath to Bp. Bonner, 539. Gang-week still held, 438. Gardiner, Mr., suspected Papist, 265. Gardiner, Stephen (Bp.), educated at Cambridge, 254. Gargrave, Sir Thos., eccl. Visitor, de- tails of work of, 143 sqq. ; recommends Ric. Barnes for bishopric of Carlisle, 313; reports on Papists in York- shire, 327; reports executions after Rising, 497 ; searches houses for Mass saying, 530; makes list of Papists in Yorkshire, 535. Garnet, [Richard], of Balliol Coll., Oxon, deprived, 283. Gascoigne, Edw., made Head of Jesus Coll., Camb., 263. Gasquet, Abbot, vii, xii, xiii; quoted, 424 «. Gatacre, Fras., wealthy recusant, 400. Gatacre, John, of New Coll., Oxon, 278. Gates, Sir Hy., eccl. Visitor, work of, 143 W> Gauthier, M. Jules, ix. Gawen, family, recusants, 468. Gee, Rev. H., xii; on visitation of York Diocese, 149; on visitation of Nor- wich, 179; mistakes of, in Ely Dio- cese, 179; enquiry of, into changes of incumbency, 196 and n.; on time limit of deprivations for recusancy, 202; on number of deprivations at Universities, 263 n. ; selects too short limit for investigations, 272; on de- privation of Phil. Baker, 265; on number of deprived clergy, 121; omits names of deprived, belonging to Univ. Coll., Oxon, 280; omissions of deprivations, 264; 289 «.; 301 ; his estimate of Oxford conformity, 271. Gervaise, Dr., Master of Merton, sym- pathiser with Popery, 2S6. Ghest, Edmund (Bp.), educated at Cambridge, 255; to help in re- modelling service books, 18; peti- tions for preferment, 228, 23S ; pro- posed for See of St. Asaph's, 230; designated to St. Asaph's, 238; made Bp. of Rochester, 433; conse- crated Bp. of Rochester, 250; not INDEX 573 unfriendly to Papists, 433 ; trans- lated to Salisbury, 411. Gibbon, John, of Lincoln Coll., Oxon, recusant, 285. Giblett, of New Coll., Oxon, put in prison, 279. Giffard, Wm., O.S.B., Abp. of Rheims, of Lincoln Coll., Oxon, recusant, 285 ; pupil of Dr. Etheridge, 446. Gill, Mr. W. A., on deprivation of Ric. Carr, 263. Giraldi , Fras. , Portuguese Ambassador, raid on house of, to find priests and Papists, 460-1. Glastonbury, contemplated restoration of, under Mary, 128. Gloucester Diocese, reports on, 372; recusancy in, 550. Gloucester Hall, Oxon, 291 sqq. ; how its students escaped persecution, 293. Goddeshalfe, Edw., prebendary of Chi- chester, 424-5. Goldwell, Stephen, 218. Goldwell, Thos. (Bp.), educated at Ox- ford, 255; without proxy in Parlia- ment, 49; absent from Parliament, 44; escapes to Continent, 217, 218. Gonville and Caius Coll., Camb., Popery in, 266 sqq. Good, Dr., a recusant, ill in prison, 445- Gooday, Rob., priest, probably de- prived, 442 n. Goodman, — , in prison for hearing Mass, 528. Goodman, Gabriel, educated at Cam- bridge, 255 ; has conference with re- cusants, 516. Goodrich, Ric, proposes scheme of re- form, 14; plan of, to imprison Marian bishops, 230-1; Visitor of Oxford Univ., 272. Government responsible for burning of roods, etc., 173. Gray, Mr. A., on deprivation of Th. Redman, 263. Gray's Inn, recusants in, 468; con- tained many recusants, 544. Graye, — , a priest, 427. Graye, Rob. de, recusant, 382. Graye, Wm., " ousted," 160. Greenwood, recusant family, in Ox- fordshire, 404. Gregory, a priest, harboured in Here- ford, 364, 366. Grene, John, conformed, 152. Griffith, Hugh, priest, deprived, 442 n. Grindal, Edmund (Bp.), educated at Camb., 255; made Bp. of London, account of, 435 ; proposed for See of London, 230; designated for London, 231; appointed to See of London, 214; commission to, as "nominated Bp. of Lond. ," 235 ; date of nomina- tion to London, 237; consecrated, 250, 437; says "Bp. of London is always to be pitied," 437 ; describes course of Reformation, 436; becomes Abp. of York, 326, 459 ; reports on popish practices in York diocese, 326 ; under sentence of sequestration, 310; on attitude of clergy to Reforma- tion, 140; complains of Eton Col- lege, 204; reports on constancy of Catholic bishops against oath of Supremacy, 208; records depriva- tions of bishops proceeding, 217; visits King's Coll., Camb., 265-6; urges strong measures with Corpus Christi Coll., Oxon, 276 ; reports on backwardness of Carlisle Diocese, 313; reports to Bullinger on repres- sive measures against Papists in York, 327; articles by, to root out Catholic practices in Yorkshire, 328 n. ; deprecates leniency with Papists, 330; likened to a Spanish Inquisitor, 330 ; urges visitation of Hereford Cathedral, 365; makes re- port on Popery in Oxford Diocese, 404; his opinion on the Mass, 438; abolishes Rogation processions, 438 ; deplores dearth of godly ministers, holds many and large ordinations, 439, 506; makes visitation of London Diocese, 440; anxious to increase penalties against Papists, 440; finds Justices of London Diocese satisfac- 574 INDEX Grindal, Edmund (Bp.) — continued. tory, 444; concerned about Popery in Inns of Court, 447 ; raids ambas- sador's house for Mass-hearers, 455 ; busies himself about "Mass matters," 456; suggests torture for Haverd, a priest, 458 ; suggests use of rack, 331 ; makes domiciliary searches to find Papists and priests, 458; suggestions for extirpating Popery in Inns of Court, 468; makes return of Kent Justices, 473; preaches at Paul's Cross on restoration of K. Edward's Prayer Book, 503 ; reports on obstinacy of Sir Thos. Fitzherbert, 518; reports laxity in observance of fast and abstinence, 523; refers to prisoners for "Mass matters," 528; ordered to search houses for Mass-saying, 530; reports on activity of Papists in the North, 535 ; urges that oath be tendered to Bp. Bonner, 538; urges on Queen need for increased severity, 330, 331, 541 ; says Act enforcing Thirty-nine Articles was made to discover popish priests, 542. Guarras, Antonio, Portuguese Ambas- sador, protests at raiding of his house, 462-3 ; house of, pillaged, 484 ; reports posting of papal Bull in London, 498. Guildford, Lady, house of, raided to find priests and Papists, 462, 532. Gunter, Arthur, recusant in Sussex, 427. Haddon, Walter, appointed Visitor of Cambridge, 260. Hales, John, reports on Popery in Inns of Court, 446-7. Hall, Ric, of Gonville, 268. Hallam, dependent on earlier historians, 120; on number of deprived clergy, 122; could never have seen original documents, 122. Hamerson, — , a priest, harboured in Hereford, 366. Hamilton, Mr. A. C, on deprivations at Univ. Coll., Oxon, 280. Hampshire, recusancy in, in 1583, 175; recusants in, 418-9; list of recusants in, 420; large number of Papists in, recorded by Strype, 423; Papists in, 537 ; recusants in, 553. Handlebie, — , priest in Lincolnshire, 532. Hanson, John, "ousted," 160. Harding, Thos., educated at Oxford, 255; of New Coll., Oxon, 277; attacks Bp. Jewel, 408; Confutation of the Apology, 409; Answer to the Apology, 409. Hardy, John, of New Coll., Oxon, 278. Hare, Michael, recusant, 468. Hare, family, recusants, 553. Hareley, John, of Brompton, Esq., a Papist, 370; a recusant, 550. Harford {or Harvard) Ric, opposed to Bp. Scory, 363. Hargrave, Fr. Rich., Prior of Domini- cans, 127; describes disbanding of Dominicans, 133. Harleston, Ric. , reports on recusancy in Lancashire, 533. Harpsfield, John, educated at Oxford, 255; of New Coll., Oxon, 277; at visitation of London Diocese, 169; refused to subscribe, 171; deprived, 171; refuses to conform, 516. Harpsfield, Nicholas, educated at Ox- ford, 255; of New Coll., Oxon, 277; at visitation of London Diocese, 169; refused to subscribe, 171; deprived, 171. Harris, William, of Lincoln Coll., Oxon, recusant, 285. Harrison, Robt., though Papist, elected Presid. of Corp. Christi Coll., Oxon, 275- Hart, Ric, refused to subscribe, 158. Harte, Walter, of Lincoln Coll., Oxon, recusant, 285. Harvard, Thos., J. P., a Papist, 366. Harvey, Dr. Hy., Head of Trinity Hall, Camb., 263; eccl. Visitor, work of, 143 sqq. ; conformed, 146. Harvey, Thos., priest, deprived, 442 n. INDEX 575 Hastings of Loughborough, Lord, makes submission: had been im- prisoned for hearing Mass, 516. Havard, Haverd, Howard, — , a priest harboured in Hereford, 364; (Howard), 366; a priest, suggested by Bp. Cox that he might be put to torment, 331, 458. Hawford, Edw., made Head of Christ's Coll., Camb., 262; character of, 262. Hawle, Wm., expelled from Merton, received at Univ. Coll. , 280 ; restores popish hymns, 287; summoned before Abp. Parker, deprived, 286, 287. Haywood, Jasper, of All Souls Coll., Oxon, deprived, 280; an S. J., 468. Headingley, sequestration of, 144. Heath, Nicholas (Abp.), educated at Oxford, 255; proclaims Elizabeth Queen, 3, 230, 476; resigns Chan- cellorship, 14; present in Parliament, 46 ; speech against Bill of Supremacy, 80; arranges details of Westminster Conference, 102; Feria's opinion of, 85 n. ; dismisses his servants, 209 ; abandons great revenue, 213; oath tendered to, refused, 217; deprived, 217; Mass at house of, at Chobham, 531; returned as a recusant, 422, 552. Hebden, John, conformed, 152. Hedd, Peter, conformed, 152. Heighington, — , noted as "evil of religion," 491. Helme, Thos., "ousted," 160. Hennessey, Rev. Geo. , edition of New - court's Repertorium, 442 and notes. Henry VII, marriage of, 475. Henry VIII, creationof new dioceses by, 355; Act 25, c. 20, about consecra- tions of abps., 242 sqq. ; family of, 475- Henshaw, Hy., Rector of Lincoln Coll., Oxon, deprived, 284. Henslow, Mr., of New Coll., Oxon, deprived for Popery, 279. Herde, John, conformed, 152. Hereford Cath. Chapter, complaints of independence of, 367. Hereford City, priests harboured in, 364, 366. Hereford Diocese opposed to Reforma- tion, 339, 343; Popery in, 362-70; recusancy in, 550; disorders in, re- counted by Bp. Scory, 363; old fasts and feasts kept, 364; books of Harding and Dorman, common in, 368. Herle, Wm., spy, reports on Dr. Etheridge, 446; gives information about Papists hearing Mass, 460. Hertford Coll., Oxon, refuge for re- cusants, 288. Hertfordshire, recusants in, 554. Hertfordshire, Clutterbuck's, gaps in institutions to livings in, 199. Heskyns, Thos., deprivation of, 264. Hewetson, Anthony, priest, probably deprived, 443 n. Heylin, Peter, on Elizabeth's title to Crown, 1 n. ; dependent on Camden, 120; on policy underlying Bill of Uni- formity, S"] ; on Frankfort dispute, 225 ; on temper of returned religious exiles, 226; on ignorance of Pro- testant ministers, 440 n. ; account by, of troubles at Merton Coll., Oxon, 286-8. Heywood, Oliver, caught saying Mass, 462. Hicket, Nich., a priest, 427. History, function of, vii-viii. Hodgkyns, John, mandate to, to conse- crate Abp., 241; Christian name of, 244 n. ; consecrated according to Roman Pontifical, 248; assists at Parker's consecration, 248. Holland, Seth, educated at Oxford, 255; recusant, his place sought, 228, 238. Holt, Fr. Wm., on number of Marian clergy at end of century, 301. Holtby, Ric, S.J., of Gonville, 269. Hooper, John (Bp.), not of Cambridge, but of Oxford, 253-4. Hopkins, Ric, conformed, 146. Hopkins, Stephen, a priest, 427. Home, Adam, nephew of Bp. Home reconciled to Rome, 421. 576 INDEX Home, Rob., Bp. of Winchester, ac- count of, 412; opens Protestant de- bate at Westminster Conference, 107 ; insults Catholic religious feeling at Westminster Conference, 113; de- prived of Deanery of Durham in Mary's reign, 155; reinstated, 156; educated at Cambridge, 255; pro- posed for See of Winchester, 230; one of theVisitors of London Diocese, 169; reports on Eton College, 205; ap- pointed Visitor of Cambridge, 260; gives reason for removal of Dr. Cove- ney, 274; visits New Coll., Corpus, and Trinity, 274; gives details of visitation of New Coll., Oxon, 276 sqq.; bewails dearth of clergy, 305; reports rejection of popish cere- monies by Ch. of England, 412 n.; asks for extended powers to punish Papists, 332; complains of want of power to make preferments, 417; thinks lower orders will follow gentry if latter are forced to submission, 527/2.; makes visitation of Winton Dioc, finds it full of Popery, 413; reports backwardness of Winton Dioc. in Reformation, 415-6; on recusancy in Winchester Dioc, 304, 536; makes a return of recusants in Hants, 553. House of Lords, voting strength of op- posing parties in, 80. Howland, Ric, reports in 1577 that none refuse to attend church in Cam- bridge, 270. Huddlestone, Thos., "ousted" (con- senting), 160. Huddlestone, family, recusants, 551. Hudson, John, "ousted," 160. Hughes, Mr. [Wm.], " sueth for Llan- daff," bad opinion of his merits, 346; can find no recusants in diocese in 1573, 348. Hume, David, proves that Elizabeth's first Parlmt. was packed, 55. Hume, Major M. A., 113 n., 176 n. Humphrey, Lawrence, educated at Oxford, 255 ; seeks preferment, 229. Hunnyngton, John, of New Coll. , Oxon, 278. Hunting of the Romish Fox, 209. Huntingdon, Earl of, reports on re- cusancy in North, 334, 335 ; views of, on qualifications of Elizabethan bishops, 334. Hussey, Thos., noted as "evil of re- ligion," 491. Hutton, Mr. W. H., Hist, of St. John's Coll., Oxon, attack of, on Dr. Belsire, 289 n. ; mistakes of, corrected, 290 n. ; on Geo. Russell, 291 n. Huyck, Master, Visitor of London Dio- cese, 169. Hyde, David de la, of Merton Coll., Oxon, deprived, 286. Hyde, Thos., of New Coll., Oxon, and Winchester School, 277. Hyde, Wm., recusant, 410. II Schifanoya. See Schifanoya, II. Incumbents, index of, needed, 195; re- cords of, very incomplete, 196; attempted statistics of changes of, 197 sqq.; three, not priests, in Llan- daff Diocese, 344. Index of incumbents needed, 195. Injunction, Queen's, for changes in Liturgy, 16. Injunctions of Elizabeth compared with those of Edw. VI, 142. Inns of Court, Popery in, 447-8; mem- bers of, hear Mass, 448; recusancy in, 554- Institutions to benefices in diocese of Bath and Wells, 198; of incumbents, gaps in lists of, 199. Instructions for visitation of Cov. and Lichf. Dioc, 396-7. Jack-of rapes Charity, 309. Jacob, Giles, Law Dictioitary quoted, 150. Jakeson, John, "ousted," 160. James V of Scotland marries Mary of Guise, 475. Jeffrison, Thos., sequestered, 153. INDEX 577 Jenks, Roland, recusant, of Oxfordshire, 404. Jennynges, Alex., fate of, 148. Jerningham, family, recusants, 551. Jesus Coll., Camb., signs of Popery in, 263. Jewel, John, Bp. of Sarum, account of, 404; complains that exiles get no promotion, 405 ; educated at Oxford, 254; on situation after Elizabeth's accession, 13, 99; on Proclamation against preaching, 23 ; on attitude of clergy to Reformation, 140; their un- willingness to submit, 304; fears for success of Reformation, 174; reports on obstinacy of clergy against Re- formation, 177, 506; testifies to hold of the Mass on priests and people, I 78, 505; reports priests in hiding, 192; announces Bp. White's death, 223 ».; on candidates for Sees, 231; sets out to visit western dioceses, 177, 406; explains Anglican omission of Papal ceremonies in consecration of Bishops, 247, 407; looks for pro- motion, 99; laments want of prefer- ment, 227 ; proposed for See of Lin- coln, 230; designated for Salisbury, 231; conge ctelire to Salisbury, 237; elected, 237 ; consecrated Bp. of Salisbury, 250; deplores inactivity in Universities, 256; accuses Oxford of "ignorance and obstinacy," 257; says there are few reformers there, 257 ; reports on Popery in Sarum Diocese and in Oxford, 409; com- plains of "dismal solitude " in Uni- versities, 257; says religion is back- ward in Oxford, 257 ; says Univer- sities are deserted, 258, 506-7 ; says Universities are "without religion," 258 ; hopes Peter Martyr may return to Oxford, 258; reports slight pro- gress of Reformation and gives reason for it, 508; exults over fines inflicted for hearing Mass, 509; on abolition of the Mass, 26; on diffi- culties over title, "Supreme Head," 84; on debate in H. of Lords on Bill of Uniformity, 89; describes Westminster Conference, 100; re- ports imprisonment of bishops, 1 1 1 n. ; blames Catholics for break-up of Westm. Conference, 116; records progress of Reformation, 405-7; preaches against transubstantiation, 408; his famous challenge, 408; taken up by Henry Cole, 408 ; con- troversy with Dr. Cole, 116; his Apology for the Ch. of Engl, 408; Reply to Harding's Answer, 409; Defence of the Apology, 409. Jolly, — , priest, in prison for saying Mass, 528. Jones, David, spy, informs about Mass saying, 531. Jones, Hugh, Bp. of Llandaff, reports favourably of diocese, 351; reports people "out of charity," and so unable to communicate, 351. Jones, John, O.S.B., of St. John's Coll., Oxford, 291. Jones, Robt., priest, deprived, 442 n. Jonson, a priest harboured in Hereford, 366. Joyner, Ric, charged with concealing Church stuff, 275. Justices of Peace, oath tendered to, 214; oath of Supremacy required of, 5iS. Kelk, Roger, seeks preferment, 228; becomes head of Magdalene Coll., Camb., 263. Kellaway, Mr., to look to exchange of bishops' lands, 239. Kellet, John, priest, probably deprived, 443 »• Kendal, visitation at, 157. Kent, recusants in, 553. Kiddall, Goddard, deprivation of, 145. King, Rob. , first Bp. of Oxford, 402. King, Wm., seeks refuge at Gonville Coll., 268. Kirkhaile, parish in Durham, vacant, 338. Kirklinton parish, popish, 315. Kirton, Thos., deprived, 204, 205. PP 573 INDEX Kitchin, Anthony (Bp.), educated at Oxford, 255 ; present in Parliament, 46; retains his See, 214; conforms, 220; receives mandate to consecrate Parker Abp., 219, 236; second man- date to, for consecration of Abp., 241; not legally sufficient for consecration of Abp., 243; not present at Parker's consecration, 248 ; required to report on diocese of Llandaff, 343. Knott, Wm., of New Coll., Oxon, 278. Knox, John, and Frankfort disputes, 224 sqq. Knox, Father, T. F., denies interview between Q. Eliz. and Cath. bishops, 209; on work of Marian priests, 301. Knoxians, 225. Lacey, Mr., on Mandate for Abp. Parker's consecration, 236 ft. Lacunae in Episcopal registers of In- stitutions, examples of, 200. Lamb, Geo., deprived, 146. Lancashire, priests driven from Durham into, 309 ; badly reported on by Bp. Barnes, 314; "where most of the lewdest sort hath remained," 319; "mightily infected with Popery," 319; recusants in, 323 ; recusancy in, 532-3, 533 «•. 534, 549- Langdale, Alban, absent from visita- tion, deprived, 149. Langdon, Thos., "a monk of West- minster " in prison for saying Mass, 528. Langridge, Peter, imprisoned for recu- sancy, 169. Lardge, Thos., conforms, 515. Lathom, John, priest, 400. Latimer, Hugh (Bp.), educated at Camb., 254. Latin services allowed at Camb., 269; allowed by Elizabeth in collegiate churches, 513 and n. Lawson, Hy., at Gloucester Hall, Oxon, 292. Lawson, Robt., refuses oath of Su- premacy, 305. Lawyers, mostly Papists, 543. Laymen, effect severance from Rome, 43- Leades, Geo. , priest, deprived, 442 n. Ledbery, a priest harboured in Here- ford, 366. : Lee, Sir Henry, to be allowed to visit sick doctors in the Tower, 446. Leedes, Thos., recusant, lands of, granted to Sir Thos. West, 545. Legge, Dr., Head of Gonville Coll., results of his Mastership, 268. Legge, Reginald, deprived, 204, 205. Leicester, Earl of, declares willingness that Q. of Scots should be declared Elizabeth's successor, 485. Leicestershire, but few recusants in, 552. Leigh, Mr., on deprivation of Phil. Baker, 265. Lent, inobservance of, by Reformers; legislation to secure observance of, 524-5- Leo XIII and Anglican Orders, 246. Lever, Thomas, on worship by re- formers in Mary's reign, 27 ; without promotion, 230. Lewis, Owen, of New Coll., Oxon, later Bp. of Cassano, 278. Lincoln's Inn, recusants in, 468; con- tained many recusants, 544. Lincoln College, Oxford, 284. Lincoln Diocese, particulars about, 392-4; seems to have conformed easily and quickly, 394 ; but few re- cusants in, 552. Lincolnshire, Mass said in, 532. Lingard, Dr. John, on Pope's attitude towards Elizabeth, 10 «. ; on selec- tion of Elizabeth's Council, 12; on attitude of bishops towards Corona- tion, 37; on elections to Parliament, 54; gives reason for Westminster Conference, 100; on number of de- prived clergy, 122; on conformity of clergy, 513. Lingard, Oliver, priest, deprived, 442 «. INDEX 579 Linney, Roger, vicar of Blackburn, re- signed for pension, 307. Litany, English, introduction of, 27. Livings, number of, in England, 189- 90, 414; unserved, number of, 162; returns of vacant, 1 S7. • Llandaff Dioc, statistics about, 344; in need of able bishop, 346; Popery and Papists in, 352; recusancy in, 55°- London, City of, stronghold of Pro- testantism, 169; leader in reform, 434; chief centre of Reformation, 509; number of recusants in, 467; catalogue of Papists in, 470; Cath- olics in prisons of, 471. London Diocese, clergy of, many recu- sants, 169; visitation of, 1 6gsgq. ; many churches in, destitute of pastors, 170; places in, where Visitors held sittings for visitation, 174; deprivations in, 174; temporalities of, seized, 212; particulars of, 434-71; vacant livings in, number of livings in, 443; num- ber of recusants in, 469 ; churches in, sacked and defaced, 509-11; recu- sants in, 553-4. Lone, a shipmaster, takes Catholic fugi- tives abroad, 515. Lords, House of, composition of, 43 sqq. ; voting strength of, 89. Lovelace, Wm., Visitor for Western dioceses, 177. Lovell, family, recusants, 551. Lowe, Arthur, absent from visitation, deprived, 149. Lumley, Lord, said to desire change of religion, 485; arrested, 486; ques- tioned by Council, 487 ; imprisoned, 490. Luson, Wm., Canon of St. David's and Hereford, certainly a Catholic, 349 ; and other Papists, 367. Lylye, Dr., favours Popery in Balliol Coll., 283. Lyne, Anne, recusant, in Sussex, 427. Lyons' Inn, free of recusants, 543-4. Lyte, Maxwell, Mr., Hist, of Eton College, 204. Macaulay, Lord, his defence of Rebel- lion of 1688, defence of Rising of North, 1569, 500-1. Machyn, on presence of bishops at Coronation, 37; reports imprisonment of bishops, in n. ; records dispersal of Dominicans, 127; records visitation of London, 169; records depriva- tions, 171 ; records burning of roods, etc., 172-4; records Bp. Bonner's deprivation, 214; records abolition of Mass at St. Paul's, 214; records deprivation of bishops, 215; records appointment of Protestant bishops, 216; reports deprivation of Abp. Heath and Bp. Thirlby, 217; records intrepidity of Bp. Tunstall, 219; re- cords deprivation of Bp. Tunstall, 220. Magdalen College, Oxon, departure of Fellows of, 273. Magistrates, to be replaced, 17. Maitland, Mr. F. W., on Constitution of Parliament, 55 ; on passage of Bill of Supremacy, 76, 77; on Bill of Uniformity, 90 n. Mallet, Fras., priest, deprived, 442 n. Mallocke, J., of All Souls Coll., Oxon, recusant, 281. Man [John], elected Warden of Merton Coll., opposed, 287. Manchester College, visitation at, 157- Manchester, recusants in, 323. Mandate, to consecrate Parker Abp., 236; Messrs. Denny and Lacey on, 236 n.; Royal (second), for conse- cration of Abp. Parker, 241. Mandatum Citatorium, 144. Markham, Rob., S.J., of Gonville, 269. Markenfield, Thos., noted as "evil of religion," 491. Marks, Stephen, of Exeter Coll., Oxon, resigns, 294. Marley, Nich., sequestered, and later deprived, 156. Marley, Stephen, sequestered, and later deprived, 156. 58o INDEX Marshall, John, educated at Oxford, 255; of New Coll., Oxon, and Win- chester School, 277. Marshall, Ric, priest, deprived, 442 n. Marshall, Thos., of Lincoln Coll., Oxon, recusant, 285. Marshalsea, confessions heard in, 531. Martin, Gregory, educated at Oxford, 255 ; of St. John's, Oxon, 290. Martyr, Peter, at Oxford, 253; pro- fessor there, 255 ; invited back to Oxford, declines, 258. Marj% Queen of England, annulled Acts against her mother, 476 ; legis- lation of, against married clergy, 64 ; work of, to purge the Church, 189; last illness and death of, 5. Mary, dau. of James IV of Scotl., mar- ries Henry VII, 475. Mary Q. of Scots, parentage of, 475; rival to Elizabeth, 475 sqq. ; nearest to Engl. Throne by primogeniture, 476 ; married to Francis, Dauphin of France; widowed; claims Engl. Throne; marries L. Darnley; gives birth to son, James, later K. of Eng- land, 477; L. Darnley murdered; carried off by Bothwell; marries him; captured and imprisoned in Loch- leven; escapes; Battle of Langside; takes refuge in England, 477 ; submits her case to Elizabeth for arbitration ; delays; kept prisoner; Englishmen sympathise, 477-8; in prison at Tut- bury, 479; cause of, espoused by D. Guerau de Spes, 480; English nobles try to get her declared Eliza- beth's successor, 485 ; guard over, in- creased, 486 ; removed to Coventry, 493- Mason, Sir John, educated at Oxford, 254; sent to Cateau Cambresis, 7; ordered to see to seizure of temporali- ties of Sees during vacancy, 239; Visitor of Oxford Univ., 272; seeks to excuse bad treatment of Quadra, 453- Mass, for the Dead celebrated by Knights of the Garter, 32 ; many re- nounce the, 23; desire for retention of, in H. of Lords, 77 ; frequency of, 456 ; at Sir Thos. Wharton's houses, 456; in French ambassador's house 456 ; punishment for hearing or say ing, 457 ; people in prison for hear ing, 458; Papists arrested for hear ing, 462 ; many attend, 463 ; Papist arraigned and condemned for hearing, 463; rejected, unlawful after fixed date, 502 ; fines for, exulted over by Jewel, 509 ; prisoners for hearing and saying Mass, 528, 529; at ambas- sadors' houses, 453-6, 530; at various houses, 531 ; said in many houses in London, 532 ; in Lincolnshire, 532 ; "it is the, that matters," 87. Massenger, Wm., priest, deprived, 442 n. Master, Dr., Visitor of Oxford Univ., 272. Mathew, Tobie, Head of St. John's Coll., Oxon, 290. Mayne, Cuthbert, of St. John's Coll., Oxon, 291. Meredith, John, of St. John's Coll., Oxon, 291. Meredith, Wm., of Gloucester, Hall, Oxon, "a horrible Papist," 293; a priest, examined, 465 and n. Merton Coll., Oxon, Memorials of, 285-7. Mey, Dr. Wm., appointed Visitor of Cambridge, 260. Meynell, Sergeant, stubborn Papist, 305- Meyrick, Rowland, confirmed and con- secrated Bp. of Bangor, 250; reports on diocese of Bangor, 344. Michell, Davy, priest, 427. Michiel, Giovanni, on abolition of Mass, 24. Middleton, Marmaduke, Bp. of St. David's, reports on Popery there, in 1583. 35°- Midlands, mostly conformable, 551. Mildmay, Sir Walter, to look to ex- change of bishops' lands, 239. Ministers, dearth of, 506. INDEX 581 Miniver (or Menevar), a priest, har- boured in Hereford, 366, 370. Mitforde, Sir J., a Justice "doubted" for recusancy, 340. Monasteries suppressed by royal com- mission, 125; revival of, under Mary, 126 sqq. "Monks' Hall," 292; bought by Sir Th. White, 292. Montagu, Viscount, and family, recu- sants, 427; wants Q. of Scots de- clared Elizabeth's successor, 485; speaks in House of Lords against anti- Papist legislation, 538. Morden, Fr., S. J., 468. More, Henry, sequestered, 153. More, Bl. Thomas, educated at Oxford, 254. Morgan, Henry, Bp., absent from Par- liament, 45; deprived, 214, 216; exact date of deprivation of, 218; death of, 223. Morlaye, Geof., absent from Visitation, 149; conformed, 151. Morley, Lady, house of, raided for priests and hearers of Mass, 462, 532. Morley, Lord, wants Q. of Scots de- clared Elizabeth's successor, 485 ; refuses oath of Supremacy, 520. Morren, John, imprisoned for preach- ing, 24; priest, deprived, 442 n. Morysse (Morris), Geo., priest, deal- ings with, 352. Moses, Father, a 429. Moundeford, Fras. Mowse, Wm., Dr. friar in Chichester, of Gonville, 268. 145; removed from Trinity Hall, Camb., 263. Mugge, a priest harboured in Hereford, 364, 366, 368. Mullinger. Mr. J. Bass, on Visitors of Cambridge Univ., 260; on expulsions of Heads of Colleges at Camb., 262-3. Munden, John, of New Coll., Oxon, 277; deprived, 279. Musmere, Wm. , priest, deprived, 442 n. Myers, Matthew, priest, probably de- prived, 442 n. Mygley, Christopher, fate of, 147. Nag's Head fable, 249. Neale, John, Rector of Exeter Coll., Oxon, deprived, 294. Newcastle-on-Tyne, favourable to Re- formation, 339. New College, Fellows of, recusant, 168; Bp. Home's visitation of, 276 sqq. ; distinguished alumni of, 277; visitation of, in 1566, 279. New Hall, Essex, inventory of church stuff at, 16 n., 52S; Mass said at, 456, 528 ; raided for Mass stuff, 528. i Newman, Card., on burning for heresy by Elizabethan bishop, 333 n. Noble, John, of New Coll., Oxon, 278. Norfolk, County of, recusants in, 551; recusancy in, 535. ! Norfolk, Duke of, records unwilling- ness in North to submit, 304; sug- gested as husband for Mary, Q. of Scots, 480; proposal to marry Q. of Scots debated in Council, 484; ex- presses willingness to rejoin Catholic Church, 482, 483; said to desire change of religion, 485 ; preparing friends for rising, 487; flees from Court, 487 ; captured, 487. Norman, Ric, conformed, 152. North Bailey parish, Durham, vacant, 338. } North of England willing to rise against Elizabeth, 483. Northern Province, visitation of, 140 sqq. ; statistics of conformists and re- cusants in, 163; number of clergy in, 163; visitation of, Mr. R. Simp- son's analysis of results of, 186 sqq.; not all priests who refused oath de- prived, reason of this, 193-4; visita- tion of, ordered, 219. Northumberland, Countess of, raid on house of, 327. Northumberland, Earl of, plots with Spanish ambassador, 481 ; verbally promises him to rise, 483; wants Q. of Scots declared Elizabeth's succes- sor, 485; summoned to Elizabeth's presence, 491 ; refuses to obey Queen's summons, 491; captured, 497. 582 INDEX Northwich, visitation and plague at, 158. Norton, Baldwin, deprived, 152. Norton, Fras., noted as "evil of re- ligion," 491. Norton, — , draws up suggestions for control of schoolmasters, 543 and «., 544. Norwich, City, men burnt for heresy there, 333. Norwich Diocese, statistics of, 179; visitation of, 179; Injunctions against popish practices in, 378-9; account of, statistics of, 378-384 ; large number of vacant livings in, 380. Nottingham, visitation at, 144; recus- ancy of clergy in, 164; recusancy in, 549- Nottinghamshire, " subject to mali- cious practices" of Papists, 319; wrongly reported to be conformable, 335- Nowell, Alex., educated at Oxford, 255; Visitor of Oxford Univ., 272; appointed Dean of St. Paul's, 214; reports that Cath. bishops are dis- missing their servants, 209 ; proposed for See of Carlisle, 230; preaches in Lancashire, 318. Oath of Supremacy ordered to be en- forced, 184; not strictly enforced at first, 190. O'Brien, Maurice, on Papists, 520. Oglethorpe, Owen, Bp., educated at Oxford, 255 ; refuses to make rubrical changes, 22 ; consents to crown Eliza- beth, 36; present in Parliament, 46 ; dismisses his servants, 209 ; deprived, 215; death of, 223. Oglethorpe, recusant family, in Oxford- shire, 404. Orders, Anglican, Leo XIII and, 246; Strype on Roman objections to, 246. Ordinal, K. Edward's, not legal in Elizabeth's reign, 245 ; defective and invalid, 246; condemned by Rome as deficient, 247. Orston parish, without reformed service books, 164. Osburne, Edw., priest of Gonville, 269. Osmotherley, images at, saved, 165. Oswald, a priest harboured in Here- ford, 366. i Otley, visitation at, 147. j Overton, Wm., Bp. of Coventry and Lichfield, says he has "stubbornest diocese," 401 ; Treasurer of Chiches- ter, 426; reports Popery in diocese, 427. Owen, Hugh, fled abroad, 347. Owen, recusant family in Oxfordshire, 404. Oxford, City, declared by Mayor to be thoroughly Papist, 508. Oxford Diocese, particulars of, 402-4; vacancies in, 402. Oxford, Earl of, raids Borley and New- hall for Mass stuff, 528. Oxford Univ., produced most recus- ants, 254; Catholic alumni in, 254-5; Reformer alumni in, 254-5; charged with " ignorance and obstinacy," 257 ; many Papists there, 257 ; statistics of degrees in sixteenth cen- tury, 258; conformity in, 271; com- mission to visit, issue of, 272. Oxfordshire, recusant families in, 404; recusancy in, centre of Catholicity, 55i- Paget, Lord Wm., 510. Pallavicino, on Pope's attitude towards Elizabeth, 10 «. Palmer, Geo., deprived, 145; in prison for recusancy, 325. Palmer, Nich., priest, deprived, 442 n. Palmer, Wm., leases Gloucester Hall, a Papist, 292. Papists in Universities, Abp. Parker on, 295 ; subterfuges of, 300 ; immense number of, but concealed, Bp. Cox's statement about, 389 ; different kinds of, 521 ; subterfuges of, to escape Communion and conformity, 522; sons of, used as hostages, 529. INDEX 583 Parallyday, old woman, in prison for hearing Mass, 528. Parishes, number of, 337. Parker, Abp. , career of, 232 ; educated at Cambridge, 255 ; character of, 471 ; proposed for Canterbury, 230; de- signated for Canterbury, 231 ; selec- tion of, as Abp., 216, 232 sqq.; de- scribes qualities necessary in Abp. of Cant., 233 ; desires to refuse Abpric, 234; accepts, 235; elected, 235; commission to, as "nominated Bp. of Cant.," 235; royal assent to elec- tion of, 219, 236; mandate to conse- crate, 236 ; second royal mandate for consecration of, 241 ; mistakes in signature when only elect of Cant., 235-6; on legal difficulties about his consecration, 242 sqq. ; legal diffi- culties in way of consecration of, 242 sqq. ; legal difficulties connected with consecration of, 237 sqq. ; con- secration of, 248; and Nag's Head fable, 249-250 ; consecrates bishops, 250 ; reminds Cecil of Queen's powers over Church, 19; inhibits suffragans from continuing visita- tions, 183 and n. ; prevents bishops from enforcing oath, 193; reports on Eton College, 205-6; has hopes of conformity of Bp. Tunstall, 221; De Antiquitate Brit. Ecclesiae, 259; per- mits Cambridge to appoint Preacher without degrees, 259; appointed Visi- tor of Cambridge, 260; warns Cecil not to let Heads of Colleges "slide away with a gain," 261; orders de- struction of church stuff at All Souls Coll., Oxon, 281 ; intervenes to purge Merton Coll. of Popery, 287; on Papists in Universities, 295 ; ordered to take Bp. Downham to task for re- missness, 320; reports on Justices of Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire, 345 ; dislikes inquisitions, 345 ; urges visitation of Hereford Cathedral, 365 ; grieved over remissness of Bp. of Norwich, 381 ; demands return about Ely diocese, 388; furnishes return about Oxford diocese, 402; recom- mends Bp. Jewel's Apology, 409; makes visitation of diocese of Chi- chester, 427; credits London with leading in Reformation, 434 ; forbids ordination of ignorant mechanics, 439; forbids bishops to hold visita- tion of their dioceses, 440 ; concerned about Popery in Inns of Court, 447; issues Injunctions for visitation of Canterbury diocese, 474 ; put in charge of Sir John Southworth, 518. Parker, Ric, priest, in Lincolnshire, 532. Parker, Thos. , sent to prison : conforms, 515; outwardly conforms, 529 ; to be examined, 528; priest, probably de- prived, 443 n. Parker, family, recusants, 394. Parkhurst, John (Bp.), educated at Ox- ford, 254 ; announces his appointment to Norwich, 251 ; elected, 251; bit- terness of, against recusants, 208; warns Bullinger against Oxford, 256 ; 378; earnest in extirpating errors, 378; issues Injunctions, 378; for- wards statistics of Norwich diocese, 380; charged with neglect of Diocese of Norwich, 381 ; deplores dearth of ministers, 507. Parkhurst, Rob., priest, 427. Parliament, gives disposal of Crown to Henry VIII, 1; opening of, 39; un- fairness of elections to, 53 ; casts off Rome, 42; founder of Church of England, 93 ; dissolution of First, of Elizabeth, 94. Parry, Hy., Visitor for western dioceses, 177- Parry, Sir Thos., Visitor of Oxford Univ., 272. Pate, Richard (Bp.), educated at Ox- ford, 255; present in Parliament, 46; deprived, 216. Pates, Rob., "ousted," 160. Paul IV, attitude of, towards Elizabeth, 7 sqq., II ft. Paulet, Lord Chideock, recusant, 420, 529 n. 5 8 4 INDEX Paulet, Sir Hugh, records rapid con- j formity of Shrewsbury, 514. Paul's Cross, reformers preach at, 29. Peacock, Dr., endeavoured to secure papist Fellows, 261; appealed against in vain to Cecil, 261. Peckham, Sir Robt., " hinderer," 339- Pedder, John, without promotion, 230. Peel, John, Marian priest, 301. Peers, Spiritual, in House of Lords, 44; list of, in 1559, 46 sqq.; analysis of, ibid. ; occasional absence from sittings of Plmt., 50 sqq. ; Catholic, did not always vote against Govern- ment, 51. Peerse, John, priest, probably deprived, 443 n. Peerson, Rob., priest, probably de- prived, 443 n. Peile, Mr. J., on character of Edw. Hawford, 262. Pembroke, Wm., Earl of, Visitor for western dioceses, 177; arrested, 486; questioned by Council, 487; impri- soned, 490. Pensions offered to induce resignation, 194. Percivall, Robt., "ousted," 160. Percy, Sir Hy., Visitor at Durham, 155- Percy, Thos., of Exeter Coll., Oxon, 294. Perkins, family, recusants, 552. Persecution, how understood and why practised in sixteenth century, 525. Personnel of Elizabeth's First Parlia- ment, 43 sqq. Persons, Robt, S.J., educated at Ox- ford, 255; of Balliol Coll., Oxon, 2S3; took no oath of Supremacy whil^e at Oxford, 507 ; gives no details about deprived clergy remaining in England, 190. Peter, Ric, conformed, 152. Peterborough Dioc, Popery in, 384-6; details about recusants in, 3S4; re- cusants in, 551. Philip II, loyalty of, to England, 34; proposal that he should marry Eliza- beth, 34; supports exiled religious, 135; favours Elizabeth as against Mary Q. of Scots; thought of marrying Elizabeth, 478; cautiously considers feasibility of deposing Elizabeth, 481 sqq.; approves of rising in favour of Q. of Scots, 489; gives permission for recourse to force in aid of Q. of Scots, 495-6 ; suggests monetary help, 496 ; annoyed at publication of papal Bull against Elizabeth, 499 ; supports English fugitives abroad, 545. Phillips, Fabian, disputes with Bp. of St. David's, 351. Phillips, Hugh, " late monk in West- minster," says Mass, 463, 532. Physicians, College of, mostly Papists, 445 ; a close corporation, 445. Piers, John, Bp. of Rochester, 433; translated from Rochester to Salis- bury, 41 1 ; makes return of Berks and Wilts recusants, 411. Piggott, recusant family, in Oxford- shire, 404. Pilcher — , of Balliol Coll., suspect Papist, 283. Pilgrimages made to wells, etc., 350. Pilkington, James (Bp.), educated at Cambridge, 255; appointed Visitor of Cambridge, 260 ; proposed for See of Chichester, 230; consecrated Bp. of Durham, 250; on introduction of Prayer Book of Edward VI, 27 ; on the frustration of his efforts, 182; ex- plains difference of his episcopal powers compared with Bp. Tunstall's, 247; reports stubbornness of Pa- pists in Durham, 305 ; deplores lack of power, 306; disheartened, opposed, 306; reports stubbornness of Lanca- shire, 307; and family, forced to fly from Durham, 308; complains of re- missness of Bp. Downham, 316; re- ports unfavourably on Justices, 340; provides dowers for his daughters out of Durham revenues, 374 n. ; com- plains that Prot. bishops were out- INDEX 585 witted by predecessors, 374 and «.; reports on recusancy in Durham Dio- cese, 534 ; death of, 308. Pits, John, of New Coll., Oxon, 277. Pitts, recusant family, in Oxfordshire, 404. Pius V, excommunicates Elizabeth, 499- Plays against religion, II Schifanoya on, 23. * Plowden, Edm., recusant, 410; 467; recusancy of, 411 n., 447; refuses oath of Supremacy, gives reasons for so doing, 519-20. Plurality necessary in Q. Mary's reign, 189. Pocock, Mr. N., on recusancy of clergy, 168 «. Pole, Reginald (Cardinal), educated at Oxford, 254 ; death of, 223. Pole, family, recusants in Sussex, 427. Pomerell, Wm., of New Coll., Oxon, 278. Pontefract, visitation at, 147. Poole, David (Bp.), educated at Ox- ford, 255; asks to be excused from attending Parliament, 45 ; 217; royal mandate to, to consecrate Parker archbishop, 219, 236; refused, 220, 236; deprived, 222; living in Salop, 395- Popery in Universities means more in families of students, 296. Pounds, recusant family, in Hants, 422. Powle, Ric, schoolmaster, a priest, late of Sutton, 370. Poynet, John (Bp. ), educated at Cam- bridge, 254; Bishop of Rochester, •433- Poyntz, Rob., of New Coll., Oxon, 277-8. Praemunire, penalties of, incurred by Papists, 538; penalties of, for re- cusancy, 541. Pratt, Ric, deprived, 204-5. Prayer Book of Edward VI introduced, 27 ; cause of contention at Frankfort and in England, 226. Preachers incite to rioting in churches, 25- Prescot, recusants in, 323. Presentations to livings, movement of clergy gauged by, 184 sqq. Price, Mrs., recusant, persecuted by Bp. of Lincoln, 394. Priests, Marian, work in England, 300-1 ; number of, secretly labouring in England, 302; difficulties of, la- bouring in England, 303 ; kept in gentlemen's houses, 357. Proclamation against alterations in Liturgy and preaching, 22 ; for Com- munion to be given under both kinds, 31, 78 n. ; against recusants and dis- guised priests, 541 and n. Promotions of Protestants projected, 229. Proxies in House of Lords, 49 sqq. Pullen, [John], proposed for See of Chester, 230. Pursglove, Robt. (Bp.), deprived, 145. Pynchin, John, Mass at house of, in Westminster, 463, 532. Quadra, Alvaro de (Bp. ), Spanish Am- bassador, 94 sqq. ; records refusal of many to conform, 175; records progress of visitations, 176; reports disturbances in North about religion, 181; reports celebration of many Masses in London, 181 ; aids recusant priests, 181 ; reports deprivation of Bp. Bonner and Dean of London, 212; records deprivation of bishops, 215; records release of Bp. Watson from Tower, 216; relates intrepidity of Bp. Tunstall, 218; informs Philip that Bp. Kitchin had conformed, 220; reports on Popery in York diocese, 324; speaks fearlessly to Elizabeth, 449; spied upon, 450; turned out of house, 450; recounts his bad treat- ment, 450-51; aids Catholics, 451; has interviews with deposed bishops, 452; Mass said in house of, 453; shows how Catholics were helped in London, 454; reports abolition of 586 INDEX Quadra, Alvaro de (Bp.) — continued. Mass, 502; comments on outward conformity, 503; reports Corpus Christi procession at Canterbury, 505 ; reports boldness of Oxford students, 507-8. Quarterly Review, viii, ix, x. Racton parish, Sussex, remains Catholic, 427. Radcliffe, recusancy of clergy in, 164. Rainolds, Edm., lived sixty years at Gloucester Hall, 292. Ramridge, Dr. John, 528. Rand, — , a priest in Wood St., 532. Randall, Mr., keeps priest in his house in Wood St., 532. Rashdall, Dr., on number of Papists in New Coll., Oxon, 277; gives list of Fellows of New Coll., Oxon, who left, 27S; on number of Fellows at New Coll., Oxon, who left for con- science, 279. Rastall, John, helped by Quadra when in want, 182; of New Coll., Oxon, ■ 277 ; put in prison, 279 ; of Gloucester, ! a priest harboured in Hereford, 366; j twits Protestants with ignorance of their ministers, 440 and n. Recusants, and conformists, percentages - of, 162; prefer prison to lodging in : bishop's house, 334; lists of, 546; ! Council require register of lands and | property of, for fining, 547; a table 1 of, 554 and n. Redman, Thos., "ousted," 160; re- 1 moved from Jesus Coll., Camb., 263. Reede, Ric, of Exeter Coll., Oxon, resigns, 294. Reformation, English attitude towards according to Dr. M. Creighton, 121. Renan, Ernest, viii. Regnans in Excelsis, promulgation of ' Bull, 498. Reniger, Thos. , priest, deprived, 442 n. Resignations facilitated by offer of pen- sions, 194; of clergy, number of, un- accounted for, 197; numbers of, 201, Restoration of clergy deprived by Mar)-, 196. Revel, — , a recusant, 398 and n. Rewle, rood still standing at, 165. Reynolds, Dr., Master of Merton Coll., Oxon, deprived, fate of, 285-6. Reynolds, Jerome, charged with con- cealing church stuff, 275. Richardson, Adam, priest, probably deprived, 443 n. Richmond, visitation at, 157; remiss- ness of laity of, in attending reformed service, 165; recusants in, 323. Richmondshire, "very obstinate and rebellious," 336. Ridley, Nich. (Bp.), educated at Camb., 254- Rioting in London, 24. Ripon, rebels at, 493. Risdon, Edw., of Exeter Coll., Oxon, resigns, 295. Rishton, Edward, educated at Oxford, 255; on numbers of Catholics, 180; gives no details about deprived clergy remaining in England, 190. Rising of the North, 1569, 475 sqq. ; commencement of, 492; result shows Elizabeth secure on throne, 497 ; de- fence of principle of, 500. Roberts, John, priest, of Gonville, 269. Roberts, John, O.S.B., of St. Johns College, Oxon, 291. Robertson, Mr. C. G., on Popery in All Souls Coll., Oxon, 280-2. Robertson, Dr. Thomas, deprived, 155. Robinson, John, Head of St. John's College, Oxon, 290. Robinson, Nich. Bp., reports that Popery is prevalent in Bangor Dio- cese, 346; ordered to search houses for popish papers, 347. Rochdale, only parish in Lancashire not " far out of order," 307. Rochester Dioc, conge d'ettre to, 237; particulars and statistics of, 432-4; recusants in, 553. Rodarte, Matthias, helps Dr. Story to escape, and administers sacraments to Catholics in London, 454. INDEX 587 Rogers, Robt., priest, probably deprived, 442". Rokeby, John, conformed, 146, 148, 152. Rome, French intrigues at, against Elizabeth, 7 sqq. ; cast off by Act of Parliament, 42. Roods burnt in London, 172 sqq. Rookwood, Hy., priest, of Gonville, 269. Roper, Sir Wm., "descendant" of Thomas More, 290 n. ; recusant, of Kent, 434; "outwardly" conforms, 517; refuses oath, 519; recusant, 553- Rotaker, Chr., character of, 224. Rotherborn, images still standing at, 165. Rous, Thos. , refuses oath of Supremacy, 520. Russell, Geo., of St. John's, Oxon, 291 and n. Rutland, Earl of, reports recusancy in York diocese, 323. Ryce, — , refuses to conform ; a prisoner, 516. Sackville, Sir Ric, seizes papers of bishops, no; to look to exchange of bishops' lands, 239. Sackville, Thomas, interview of, with Paul IV, 11 ». Sadler, Sir Ralph, says religion is cause of Rising of the North, 489. St. Asaph's Dioc, statistics of, 345; reported on unfavourably, 348; no recusants reported in, in 1573, 348. St. Christopher-le-Stock, Church of, inventory of goods and their fate, St. Cross, Master of, recusant, 168. St. David's Diocese, statistics of, 345 ; "disorders" in, reported, 349-50; recusancy in, 550. St. George's Feast, celebration of, by Knights of the Garter, 32. St. John's Coll., Oxon, 288; very- papist in tone, 291. St. John, Lord, recusant, 420. St. Paul's, removal of Bl. Sacrament from, 96. St. Winifred's Well, pilgrimages to, 355- Sale, Wm., commissary of Bp. Ben- tham, makes visitation of diocese of Cov. and Lichf., 396. Salisbury, John, Bp., mandate to, to consecrate Abp., 241; consecrated according to Roman Pontifical, 24S. Salisbury Cathedral, struck by light- ning, 408. Salisbury, Diocese, particulars of, 404- 12; statistics of, 410. Salkeld, Lancelot, conformed, 156; later deprived, 156. Salvyn, Ant., deprived, 156; of Univ. Coll., Oxon, deprived, 280. Salvyn, Master, Visitor of London diocese, 169. Salvyn, Ric, sequestered, 153. Sampson, Thos., educated at Cam- bridge, 255; looks for promotion, 98; proposed for See of Salisbury, 230; got no bishopric, 252. Sander, Nicholas, educated at Oxford, 255; of New Coll., Oxon, 277; on Elizabeth's title to Crown, 2; ex- plains why Oglethorpe crowned Elizabeth, 37 ; on details of conduct of Westminster Conference, 104; re- bukes Abbot Feckenham's com- plaisance at Westminster Conference, no; relates Protestant insults to Catholic religious feeling at Westm. Conference, 113; unable to arrive at true numbers of deprivations, 186 gives no details about deprived clergy remaining in England, 190; reports to Card. Moroni on Trin. Coll., Camb., 269; reports to Card. Moroni on Catholicity of New Coll., Oxon, 278-9; records sacrilege of some Marian priests, 300; Rock of the Church, by, found in Sussex, 428. Sandys, Edwin (Bp.), educated at Cambridge, 255; looks for promo- tion, 99; bewails poverty and lack of 588 INDEX Sandys, Edwin (Bp.) — continued. preferment, 228; eccl. Visitor, work of, 143 sqq.; "restored" to living, 160; proposed for See of Hereford, 230; confirmed and consecrated Bp. of Worcester, 250; announces his consecration to Peter Martyr, 251; charges against, 356 ; Articles of Enquiry at visitation of Worcester diocese, 359; translated to London and York, 361; 459; his reliance for support on L. Burghley, 459; makes raid on Portuguese Ambassador's house for priests and Papists, 460-1, 462-3 ; sends unfavourable report on recusants in Yorkshire, 334, 335; reports on recusancy in the North, 548-9; instances of nepotism, 361-2; defends his action, 362; becomes Abp. of Cant., 333; suggests putting Q. of Scots to death, and sending Cath. Bps. to prison, 332 ; and that Anabaptists should be put to death, 332 ; on passage of Bill of Uniformity, 92 ; refers to old Marian priests say- ing Mass secretly in 1579, 193. Sarpi, Paolo, on Pope's attitude to- wards Elizabeth, 10 n. Saxye, Wm., fate of, 146. Sayer, Robt., O.S.B., of Gonville, 269. Scambler, Edmund (Bp.), educated at Cambridge, 255; bravery of, 158; advocates patience, 299; Bp. of Peterborough, 384; dependent on L. Burghley for his power, 385. Schifanoya, II, meaning of name, iden- tification of, 41 n. ; on religious in- novations, 21; mentions return of religious exiles, 21; on plays against religion, 23 ; on proclamation against preaching, 23 ; on rioting in London churches, 25; on religious prosecu- tions, 28; on steadfastness of Catho- lics, 29; on Bp. Scory's sermon | against the Pope and the Mass, 30; on the methods of the Reformers, 31; describes coronation, 37; on j title, "Supreme Head," 57 «.; on I Bill for collation of Bishops, 70; on Bill for dissolution of monasteries, 71 «., 72; on retention of the Mass, 78; on Bill of Supremacy, 73; says it is being hotly debated, 75, 77; on opposition to Bill of Supremacy, 82 ; on difficulties in Plmt. over title, " Supreme Head," 83 n. ; says Eliza- beth does not want title "Supreme Head," 85; on dissolution of monas- teries under Elizabeth, 131; records disbanding of Benedictines, 132; re- ports on refusal to take oath of Su- premacy, 208 ; reports that Bp. Bon- ner is ordered to remove the Mass, 210 ; describes deprivation of Bp. Bonner, 212; records deprivations of bishops, 214; records steadfastness of Catholic bishops, 217; deprivation of Abp. Heath and Bp. Thirlby, 217; records abolition of Rogation pro- cessions, 438; reports mob violence against Papists, 504; reports aboli- tion of Mass except at St. Paul's, 505. Schoolmasters keep up Catholicism, 385 n. Scory, John (Bp. ), educated at Cam- bridge, 255; Bp. of Hereford, account of, 362-3 ; Bp. of Rochester and Chi- chester, 363, 433; consecrated by K. Edw.'s Ordinal, 246; preaches against the Pope and the Mass, 30; proposed for See of Hereford, 230; designated for Hereford, 231; ap- pointed to Hereford, 216; election of, by Chapter of Hereford, 237; receives mandate to consecrate Par- ker Abp., 219,236; second mandate to, to consecrate Abp., 241; assists at Parker's consecration, 248 ; desires Lord Burghley to remove him from Hereford, 363; complains of Ric. Harford, 363; confesses he is hated in Hereford Diocese, 364 ; complains of independence of Cathedral and Chapter of Hereford, 365 ; in fear of personal violence from Papists, 368 ; provides amply for his own family, INDEX 589 369 ; fears vengeance of the Papists, 369; makes out list of recusants, 55o. Scot, Cuthbert, Bp. of Chester, edu- cated at Cambridge, 255 ; present in Parliament, 46; speech of, against Bill of Supremacy, 80; speech of, against Bill of Uniformity, 91; de- privation of, 158; deprived, 216. Scudamore, John, refuses oath of Supremacy, 519. Seaton, John, absent from visitation, deprived, 149. Sees, vacant in 1559, 44 and n. ; vacant at Mary's death, 223; exchange of lands of, 238 sqq. Sequestration, definition of, 150; how this sentence sometimes misleads re- search, 154. Service books referred to Committee, 18. Sewell, Hugh, Preb. of Carlisle, only commendable canon, 312. Sharpe, Sir Cuthbert, viii; says reli- gion was cause of Rising of North, 489 ; criticism by, of Rising of North, 493 ; remarks of, on ending of Rising, 494. Shaw, Hy., of St. John's, Oxon, 291. Sheldon, Ralph, at Gloucester Hall, Oxon, 292. Sheldon, recusant family, in Oxford- shire, 404. Shelley, Sir Ric, gives reasons for re- maining abroad, 510. Shelley, recusant family, in Hants, 422. Shelley, family of recusants in Sussex, 427. Shelley family, recusants, 468. Shelley, of Michelgrove, family, re- cusants, 553. Sherwin, Ralph, Fell, of Exeter Coll., Oxon, martyred, 294. Shrewsbury City, conforms at once, 514. Shrewsbury, Earl of, complains of freedom of Papists in dioc. of Cov. and Lichf., 398; seeks for priests and Papists, 461. Shropshire, reported full of Papists, 399; recusancy in, 551; number of recusants in, 552. Sigewick, Dr. Thos., deprived, 153. Silva, Don Guzman de, Spanish Am- bassador in England, 479. Silvertop, Andrew, recusant, 422, 552. Simpson, Henry, examined about fugi- tives, 545. Simpson, Mr. Richard, xii; on number of conformists and recusants, 163 ; on reasons urging to conformity, 167; on attitude of Marian clergy in 1559, 180; analysis by, of results of North- ern visitation, 186 sqq.; suggestion by, for finding out fate of clergy, 195; estimate by, of deprived or dis- appearing clergy, 203 ; on Popery in St. John's Coll., Oxon, 288; shows oath was not enforced in Univer- sities, 507. Sinnings, Dr., a Papist, 445. Slythurst, Thos., President of Trin. Coll., Oxon, deprived, 287. Smale, Christopher, of Exeter Coll., Oxon, resigns, 294. Smith, Melchior, instituted to prebend, 149, 151. Smith, Nicholas, conformed, 204. Smith, Ric, educated at Oxford, 255. Smythe, Sir Thomas, to convene com- mittee to remodel religion, 18; a layman restored as Dean of Carlisle, 156; Visitor of Oxford Univ., 272; states that Mass is frequently said in London, 456; reports on raids to find priests, 461. Snell, Rcb., conformed, 146. Somerset, recusants in, 552. Soto, Friar, at Oxford, 267. Southampton, Countess of, recusant, 417. Southampton, Earl of, recusant, 42 1; outwardly conforms, 517. Southern visitation, 166 sqq.; no formal returns of, 166. Southwell Cathedral, visitation at, 144; fate of prebendaries of, 146-7. Southwell College, visitation of, 144. 590 INDEX Southworth, Sir John, refused to con- form, committed to Abp. Parker, 518. Sparkes, Thos., Suffragan Bp. of Ber- wick conformed, 156. Spence, Paul, Marian priest, 301. Spencer, Sir Davie, priest, 427, 42S. Spes, Don Guerau de, Spanish Ambas- sador in England; his intrigues; plots for Mary Q. of Scots, 480 sqq. ; suggests means for restoring England to Catholic religion, 480; his esti- mate of Protestant religion, 481 ; suggests commercial war to reduce England to Catholic religion, 481 ; plots with E. of Northumberland, 481 ; describes Cecil, 481 ; encourages Catholics, 482; receives letters from Catholics secretly, 483; trusts suc- cess of Rising against Elizabeth, 483; sums up leaders of discontent against Elizabeth, 485 ; uses money to push forward Rising, 485; says Elizabeth is unwilling that D. of Norfolk should marry Q. of Scots, 485 ; says English nobles agreed to liberate Q. of Scots, 486; forbidden to plot, continues, 490; reports that Northern Earls had been summoned to Court, 491 ; estimates falsely forces of rebels, 495; gives reasons for failure of Rising, 496; wants Bull against Elizabeth after Rising, 498; reports executions, 498. Spiritual Consolation of Bl. John Fisher, 134. Staffordshire, full of Popery, 399; wealthy recusants in, 400 ; recusancy in, 551; number of recusants in, 552- Standish, Mr., wealthy Papist, escapes conference, 386. Stapleton parish, Mass openly cele- brated in, 311; popish, 315. Stapleton, Thos., educated at Oxford, 255; of New Coll., Oxon, 277; prebendary of Chichester, 424, 428. Staverton, — , of Balliol Coll., suspect Papist, 283-4. Stiles, Henry, monk of Westminster, 268. Stock {or Stoke), Wm., Head of St. John's Oxon, ejected, 289 and n. ; Principal of Gloucester Hall, 292. Stoning, Oliver, priest, deprived, 442 n. Stonor, recusant family, in Oxfordshire, 404. Stopes, Leonard, of St. John's, Oxon, 290. Story, — , priest, 427. Story, Dr., educated at Oxford, 254; interrogated by Council, 28; helped to escape, 454; wife of, recusant, 469. Stowe, John, library of, ransacked to find popish books, 458 and n. Stradling, Sir Edw., recusant, 349. Stradling family, recusants, 468. Strangman, John, recusant, 422; mar- ried to Felton's widow, 422. Stride, Mr. W. K., Hist, of Exeter Coll., Oxon, 294. Strowger, Geo., priest, probably de- prived, 442 n. Strype, on deliberations for remodelling religion, 18 n. ; on rioting in London churches, 25 ; on number of deprived clergy, 122; 188; dependent on Camden, 120; comments on popish practices in Yorkshire, 327; on se- lection of Elizabeth's Council, 12 n. ; on Popery in Exeter Coll., Oxon, 294; reports strength of Popery in Carlisle Diocese, 313; admits much "popish leaven" in Universities, and refusal to take Orders, 259; on election of Papist as Pres. of Corpus, Oxon, 276; account of visitation of St. Paul's, 171; on observance of Act of Uniformity in London, and on recusancy of clergy, 169-70; on interview between Q. Eliz. and Cath. bishops, 209; falsely records submis- sion of Bp. Tunstall, 221; on ex- change of bishops' lands, 240; on Roman objections to Anglican Orders, 246 ; records raid for Mass-hearers in ambassador's house, 455; instance of INDEX 59i his unreliability, 443; records ordi- nation of ignorant mechanics by Elizabethan bishops, 439; records j holding of "gang-week" in Corn- wall, etc., 438; says London always leads in reform, 434; records large number of Papists in Hants, 423. Stubbe's house in Westminster, Mass at, J 456. Suffolk, recusancy in, 535. Sugden, Chris., restored, 159. Summerscall, Ric, "ousted," 160. Supplentes Clause, 244 and n. Supremacy, Bill of, 56; Act sum- [ marised, 86; Act of, put into execu- tion, 95; Clergy and Act of, 120 sqq.; | Act of, 208. Supreme Head of English Church, Committee to investigate omission of title in writs, 56. Surrey, recusants in, 422, 552. Surrey, Earl of, sends list of 314 exe- cuted in Durham after Rising, 497. Surtees' Durha m sometimes misleading, 154- Sussex, priests in, 427; full of relics of Popery, 428-9. Sussex, Earl of, ardent reformer, 47 n. ; reports active preparations in North for rising, 490; reports refusal of Earls to obey Queen's summons, 491 ; drives back rebels, 494. Swinburn, John, noted as " evil of religion," 491. Swynborne, John, a Justice, "kept a priest to say him Mass," 341. Symonds, Hy., priest, deprived, 442 n. Tadcaster, rebels at, 493. Talbot, John, recusant, 400. Tarvyn, visitation at, 158. Tatham, John, Rector of Lincoln Coll., Oxon, suspect favourer of Popery, 285. Taverham, John, gives up living to former incumbent, 159. Taylor, Dr. Wm., departure of, from Christ's Coll., Camb., 262; fate of, probably deprived, 152; deprived, 146. Taylour, Ric, priest, probably deprived, 443 »■ Tempest, Robt., likely to refuse oath of Supremacy, 305; noted as "evil of religion," 491. Tempest, — , recusant, 467. Temple, Inner, contained many recu- sants, 544. Temple, Middle, recusants in, 467; contained many recusants, 544. Thimbleby, family, recusants, 394. Thirlby, Thomas (Bp.), educated at Cambridge, 255 ; Feria's opinion of, 85 n. ; absent from opening of Par- liament, 45; opposes Bill of Uni- formity, 89 and n. ; great revenue abandoned by, 213; summoned be- fore Council, 215; oath tendered, refused, deprived, 217; does not attend Protestant service, 472. Thornton, John, " ousted," 160; priest, deprived, 442 n. Throckmorton, — , prisoner after Rising, 490. Thurland, Edw., in prison for hearing Mass, 528. Thurston, Thos., deprived, 204 and n. Tichborne, recusant family, in Hants, 422, 468. Tiepolo, Paulo, on liturgical changes, 28 ; on Mass in English, 33 ; on Bill for dissolution of monasteries, 71 «.; records conformity of Bp. Kitchin, 220. Tierney, Canon, on Pope's attitude towards Elizabeth, 10 n. ; Dodd, on deprivation of certain bishops, 218. Tinne, James, Mass in house of, 530. Tirwhite, Nich., priest in Lincoln- shire, 532. Todd, Wm., sequestered, and later deprived, 156. Torture, advocated by Elizabethan bishops, 331. Travers, Wm., conforms, 515. Tregian, — , a Papist, 371. Tremayne, Ric, a Papist, 371-2. 592 INDEX Tresham, Dr., of Merton Coll., refused oath of Supremacy, 286. Tresham, Sir Thos., Prior of Order of St. John of Jerusalem in England, 41 n. ; absent from Parliament, 45 and «., 291 n. Trinity Coll., Oxon, 287-8. Tunstall, Cuthbert (Bp.), educated at Oxford and Cambridge, 255 ; excused from attending Parliament, 45; 217; intrepidity of, 218; refuses to allow innovations in Durham Diocese, 219; royal mandate to, to consecrate Parker archbishop, 219, 236 ; re- fused, 220, 236 ; deprived, 220 ; sup- posed conformity of, 221; death and burial of, 221-2; admitted to have greater episcopal powers than his successor, 247. Turberville, James (Bp.), educated at Oxford, 255; present in Parliament, 46; 217. Turner, Sharon, misconception of, about events of Rising, in his History of England, 488. Turner, — , of Balliol Coll., suspect Papist, 283, 284. Tutbury, Mary Q. of Scots in prison at, 479- Tuttyn, John, sequestered, and later deprived, 156. Twyne, "old Mr.," of Canterbury, 290 n. Tyrell, Mr., Mass at house of, in Essex, 531- Tyrrell, Sir Hy., recusant, 469. Tyrwhitt^family, recusants, 394. Ubiquitarians: Jewel says there are none in England, 411. Udall, recusant family, in Hants, 422. Umfreye, Eliseus, gives up living to former incumbent, 159. Uniformity, Bill of, 56; introduced, 86 sqq. ; list of opponents of, 89 sqq. ; objections against validity of, 91 and n. ; Act of, summary of, 92 sqq. : came into operation before assigned statutory date, 96; clergy and, I20sqq. Universities, to be purged, 17; endorse most of Petition of Convocation, 59 ; depopulated under Henry VIII and Edward VI, 124; 2535^.; "seed plots " of bishops, 253 ; compared, as regards Reformation, 256; inactivity in, 256; deserted, 258; to be visited, 260; oath not uniformly enforced in, 5°7- University Coll., Oxon, 280. Urban VIII, refuses to excommunicate Kings of France and Sweden — con- demns action of Pius V, 500. Ursley, Hugh, recusant, 553. Vachell, recusant family, in Hants, 422. Valor Ecclesiasticus, quoted for number of livings, 162. Vannes, Peter, absent from visitation, 149; conformed, 151. Vaux, Lawrence, deprived, 157. Vaux, Lord, supports Douglas, a priest, 460. Vavasour, — , recusant, 467. Venn, Mr. J., on Dr. Caius, 266. Vernon, Hy., recusant, 396. Vernon family, ' ' hinderers " of Re- formation, 339. " Vicar of Bray," a type, 167. Vicares, John, brewer of Hereford, a Papist, 370. Villa Garcia, Friar John, at Oxford, 257 and n. Visitation: of clergy, ordered, 140; Northern, names of Visitors, 143; of Northern Province, analysis of, 160 sqq. ; ordered, 219; plea of popish clergy to escape, 415 ; South- ern, 166 sqq.', no formal returns of, 166. Visitors (Ecclesiastical), haste of, 147. Vitelli, Chiappino, supposed to be desig- nated leader of Rising of North, 492. Waferer, Arden, recusant, 468. Wainsford, Michael, likely to refuse oath of Supremacy, 305. Waldegrave, Sir Edw., Mass at his house, 456; imprisoned, 15; in prison INDEX 593 for Mass matters, 457, 528; to be examined, 528; his son at school with Lord Chideock Paulet's son, 529 and «. Waldegrave, Lady, in prison for hear- ing Mass, 528; examined about help- ing priests, 529. Wales, popish practices in, 353-5 ; sup- posed to be willing to rise with Cath- olics against Elizabeth, 483. Walpole, Chris. S. J., of Gonville, 269. Walsingham, Sir Fras., educated at Cambridge, 254. Wanley, Humphrey, ridiculous com- ments of, 398 n. Wardale, Mr. J. R., on deprivation of Thos. Bailey, 263. Warham, William (Abp.), educated at Oxford, 254. Warneford, recusant family, in Hants, 422. Warner, John, Warden of All Souls Coll., Oxon, 281. Warren, {or Warner), J. absent from visitation, 149; deprived, 151. Warren, Thos., at Gloucester Hall, 292. Warwickshire, not supposed to be re- cusant, 399; recusancy in, 550. Watson, John, Bishop of Winchester, 423- Watson, Roger, conformed, 156. Watson, Thomas, Bp. of Lincoln, educated at Cambridge, 255; absent from Parliament, 44; without proxy in Plmt., 49; Feria's opinion of, 85 n.; protests at Westminster Conference against want of fair play, 109; sent to the Tower, no, 207; reason of imprisonment of, 231 ; deprived, 216; released from Tower, 216; in prison, 303; 465- Wattes, Thos. , reports on Popish books in Stowe's library, 458 n. Weaver, Rev. F. W., Somersetshire Incumbents, 195 n. Webb, Mr., suspected Papist, 265. Weldon, John, of Gonville, 268. Q Wells, Thos., priest, probably deprived, 443 »• Wells, recusant family, in Hants, 422. Wendon, Nicholas, Archdeacon of Suf- folk, fled beyond the sea, 380. Wendy, Thos., appointed Visitor of Cambridge, 260. West, Sir Thos., receives grant of re- cusant's lands, 545. Westcote, Sebastian, refused to sub- scribe, 171 ; recusant for many years, 441-2. Westfaling, Herbert (Bp. of Hereford), sends return of Oxford diocese — full of Popery, 403-4. Westminster, Mass said in, 528. Westminster Abbey restored to Bene- dictines, 128. Westminster Conference, need for, 66 ; 98 sqq. ; determined on, 100; de- scribed by Jewel, 100; opening of, 105; adjourned, 108; broken up, no; disputants at, bound over, no; official account of, III; Jewel blames Catholics for break-up of, 116; Mr. Child on result of, 119. Westmoreland, County of, thought by Bp. Barnes to be "pliable," 314; recusancy in, 534. Westmoreland Deanery, absentees in, pronounced contumacious, 157. Westmoreland, Earl of, supports Popery, 311; wants Q. of Scots declared Elizabeth's successor, 485 ; refuses to obey Queen's summons, 491 ; escapes to Continent, 496-7. Wetherby, rebels at, 493. Whalley, parish, has recusant vicar, 307; deprived priest working there as schoolmaster, 308. Wharton, Christopher, of Trin. Coll., Oxford, recusant and martyr, 288. Wharton, Lady, in prison for hearing Mass, 528. Wharton, Sir Thomas, imprisoned, 15; Mass at his houses, 456, 515; in prison for Mass matters, 457, 528; outwardly conforms, 516, 529. Whinke, Wm, of Gonville Coll., 268. 594 INDEX White, Dr., deposes Master of Merton Coll., 285. White [Gabriel], Warden of New Coll. , accused of conniving at Popery, 279. White, John (Bp.), educated at Oxford, 255; imprisoned, 15; present in Par- liament, 46 ; without proxy in Plmt. , 49; asks for fair play at West- minster Conference, 108; sent to the Tower, no, 207; reason for imprison- ment of, 231; deprived, 216; death of, 223; recorded by Bp. Jewel, 223 n. White, Ric, of New Coll., Oxon, 277, 278. White, Sir Thomas, on constitution of House of Commons, 53; and St. John's Coll., Oxon, 289 sqq. ; buys " Monks' Hall," 292. White, recusant family, in Hants, 422. Whitehead (or Whitehede), David, pro- posed for See of Norwich, 230; Visitor of Oxford University, 272. Whitehead, Wm., sequestered, 154. Whitgift, John, Bp. of Worcester, sends report of diocese to Council, 362. Whittingham,Wm.,Dean, reports many Papists enjoying livings who have not taken oath, 192; reports stubborn- ness of Durham, 307. Wigan, visitation at, 157. Wiggs, Wm., of St. John's, Oxon, 291. Wilcocks [Thomas], Puritan minister, 466. Willerton (or Willanton), John, refused to subscribe, 171. Williams, Lord, deposes Master of Merton Coll., 285. Williamson, Geo., conformed, 151-2. Wilson, Rev. A. H., on Popery in Magdalen Coll., Oxon, 273-4. Wilson, Thos., fate of, 146. Wiltshire, recusants in, 552. Winchester City, Protestant service book refused in, 175; Feria records same, 175; opposed to Reformation, 413; Mass said in, 528. Winchester College, to be purged, 17. Winchester Diocese, recusancy of clergy of, 168; particulars of, 412- 24; statistics of, 417; recusancy in, 536; recusants in, 553. Winchester, Marquess of, on recusancy of clergy in Hampshire, 168: to look to exchange of bishops' lands, 239 ; on recusancy in Hants, 412-3. Windon, Ralph, of St. John's, Oxon, 290. Windsor, Thos., conceals church stuff, 275- Wisdom [Robert], proposed for See of Bangor, 230. Wiseman, family, recusants, 468. Wood, Ant. a, on Papistry in Corpus Christi Coll., Oxon, 275. Wood, Robt., fate of, 147. Wood, Thos., priest, deprived, 442 n. Wolseley, Erasmus, wealthy recusant, 400. Wolsey, Thomas, Cardinal, educated at Oxford, 254. Wootton, Henry, priest, deprived, 442 n. Wootton, Dr. Nich., on Philip IPs loyalty to England, 34 and n. ; selects Parker as Abp. of Cant., 235. Worcester, County of, recusancy in, 550. Worcester Diocese, disorders amongst Chapter of, dilapidations in, 355-6; statistics of, 356-62; opposed to Reformation, 339, 343; Popery in, 356-62; recusancy in, 550. Wright, Dr., deposes Master of Merton Coll., 285. Wright, Eliz., half-sister of Bl. John Fisher, 134. Wright, Wm., priest, probably de- prived, 442 n. Wryght, Wm., Master of Balliol Coll., resigned, 282. Wyatt, John, fate of, 152. Wyndham, family, recusants, 552. Wynthorpe, sequestration of, 144. Wyot, Wm., sub-Rector of Exeter Coll., Oxon, imprisoned, 294. INDEX 595 Yarmouth, Gt., relics of Popery in, 384. Yate, Edward, recusant, 467. Yate, John, recusant, 410, 467. Yate, recusant family, in Oxfordshire, 404; recusants, 468, 552. Yates, John, "ousted," 160. Yelverton, Chas., S. J., of Gonville, 269. Yendall, Rob., of Exeter Coll., Oxon, flees from England, 294. Yepez Diego, on elections to English Parliament, 54 and n. York Cathedral, most altars still stand- ing in, 165. York City, visitation at, 148. York Diocese, visitation of, 144 sqq. ; form of subscription and submission in, 148; visitation of, results of, 152 ; number of livings in, 163; 323 sqq. ; return of vacant livings in, 337 ; op- posed to Reformation, 339 : recus- ancy of Justices of, 523. Yorkshire, priests driven into, from Durham, 309; Papists in, 327; num- ber of recusants in, 336. Young, Dr. J., made Head of St. John's, Camb., 263. Young, Thomas (Abp.), educated at Oxford, 254; records exact date of deprivation of Bp. of St. David's, 218; conscrated Bp. of St. David's, 250; complains of Popery in North, 319 ; appoints Bp. of Carlisle to visit Chester diocese, 320 ; reports on recusancy amongst magistrates, 323- 4; reports favourably on his diocese to Q. Elizabeth, 324; wishes Bp. Bonner proceeded against, 325; re- ports on Justices, 340; reports re- cusancy of Justices, 523. CHISWICK PRESS: PRINTED BY CHARLES WHITTTNGHAM AND CO. TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. 3 f U DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. RENEWALS ONLY—TEL. NO. 642-3405 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Kenewed books are subject to immediate recall TED B£Cjjjjj_SEP43 70-5P»18 DEI 21 123? N0f6~T97Z-fc* General Li brary University of CalifMM LD21A-60m-3 '70 (N5382sl0)476-A-32 I U. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES CDHTHmHTM UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY