[385] “George Lascelles shewed me that a priest, which late was one of the friars at Bristol, informed him that harness would yet be occupied, for he did know more than the king’s council. For at the last council whereat the Emperor, the French king, and the Bishop of Rome met, they made the King of Scots, by their counsel, Defensor fidei, and that the Emperor raised a great army, saying it was to invade the Great Turk, which the said Emperor meaned by our sovereign lord.”—John Babington to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. III.

[386] Renewed agitation among the people. I attach specimens from time to time of the “informations” of which the Record Office contains so many. They serve to keep the temper of the country before the mind. The king had lately fallen from his horse and broken one of his ribs. A farmer of Walden was accused of having wished that he had broken his neck, and “had said further that he had a bow and two sheaves of arrows, and he would shoot them all before the king’s laws should go forward.” An old woman at Aylesham, leaning over a shop-window, was heard muttering a chant, that “there would be no good world till it fell together by the ears, for with clubs and clouted shoon should the deed be done.” Sir Thomas Arundel wrote from Cornwall, that “a very aged man” had been brought before him with the reputation of a prophet, who had said that “the priests should rise against the king, and make a field; and the priests should rule the realm three days and three nights, and then the white falcon should come out of the north-west, and kill almost all the priests, and they that should escape should be fain to hide their crowns with the filth of beasts, because they would not be taken for priests.”—“A groom of Sir William Paget’s was dressing his master’s horse one night in the stable in the White Horse in Cambridge,” when the ostler came in and began “to enter into communication with him.” “The ostler said there is no Pope, but a Bishop of Rome. And the groom said he knew well there was a Pope, and the ostler, moreover, and whosoever held of his part, were strong heretics. Then the ostler answered that the King’s Grace held of his part; and the groom said that he was one heretic, and the king was another; and said, moreover, that this business had never been if the king had not married Anne Boleyn. And therewith they multiplied words, and waxed so hot, that the one called the other knave, and so fell together by the ears, and the groom broke the ostler’s head with a faggot stick.”—Miscellaneous Depositions: MSS. State Paper Office, and Rolls House.

[387] Her blood was thought even purer than Lord Exeter’s. A cloud of doubtful illegitimacy darkened all the children of Edward IV.

[388] “At my lord marquis being in Exeter at the time of the rebellion he took direction that all commissions for the second subsidy should stay the levy thereof for a time.”—Sir Piers Edgecombe to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. X.

[389] “‘The marquis was the man that should help and do them good’ (men said). See the experience, how all those do prevail that were towards the marquis. Neither assizes, nisi prius, nor bill of indictment put up against them could take effect; and, of the contrary part, how it prevailed for them.”—Sir Thomas Willoughby to Cromwell: MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1, 386.

[390] Depositions relating to Lord Delaware: Rolls House MS. first series, 426.

[391] Depositions taken before Sir Henry Capel: Ibid. 1286.

[392] “A man named Howett, one of Exeter’s dependents, was heard to say, if the lord marquis had been put to the Tower, at the commandment of the lord privy seal, he should have been fetched out again, though the lord privy seal had said nay to it, and the best in the realm besides; and he the said Howett and his company were fully agreed to have had him out before they had come away.”—Rolls House MS. first series, 1286.

[393] Deposition of Geoffrey Pole: Rolls House MS.

[394] Jane Seymour was dead, and the king was not remarried: I am unable to explain the introduction of the words, unless (as was perhaps the case) the application to the painter was in the summer of 1537, and he delayed his information till the following year.

[395] Sir William Godolphin to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XIII.

[396] Ibid.

[397] Wriothesley to Sir Thos. Wyatt: Ellis, second series, Vol. II.

[398] Godolphin’s Correspondence: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XIII.

[399] Instructions by the King’s Highness to John Becket, Gentleman of his Grace’s Chamber, and John Wroth, of the same: printed in the Archæologia.

[400] “Kendall and Quyntrell were as arrant traitors as any within the realm, leaning to and favouring the advancement of that traitor Henry, Marquis of Exeter, nor letting nor sparing to speak to a great number of the king’s subjects in those parts that the said Henry was heir-apparent, and should be king, and would be king, if the King’s Highness proceeded to marry the Lady Anne Boleyn, or else it should cost a thousand men’s lives. And for their mischievous intent to take effect, they retained divers and a great number of the king’s subjects in those parts, to be to the lord marquis in readiness within an hour’s warning.”—Sir Thomas Willoughby to Cromwell: MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1.

[401] Deposition of Alice Paytchet: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXIX.

[402] Examination of Lord Montague and the Marquis of Exeter: Rolls House MS. first series, 1262.

[403] “The Lord Darcy played the fool,” Montague said; “he went about to pluck the council. He should first have begun with the head. But I beshrew him for leaving off so soon.”—Baga de Secretis, pouch xi. bundle 2.

[404] “I am sorry the Lord Abergavenny is dead; for if he were alive, he were able to make ten thousand men.”—Sayings of Lord Montague: Ibid.

[405] “On Monday, the fourth of this month, the Marquis of Exeter and Lord Montague were committed to the Tower of London, being the King’s Majesty so grievously touched by them, that albeit that his Grace hath upon his special favour borne towards them passed over many accusations made against the same of late by their own domestics, thinking with his clemency to conquer their cankeredness, yet his Grace was constrained, for avoiding of such malice as was prepensed, both against his person royal and the surety of my Lord Prince, to use the remedy of committing them to ward. The accusations made against them be of great importance, and duly proved by substantial witnesses. And yet the King’s Majesty loveth them so well, and of his great goodness is so loath to proceed against them, that it is doubted what his Highness will do towards them.”—Wriothesley to Sir T. Wyatt: Ellis, second series, Vol. II.

[406] Southampton to Cromwell: Ellis, second series, Vol. II. p. 110.

[407] Southampton to Cromwell: Ellis, second series, Vol. II. p. 114.

[408] Robert Warren to Lord Fitzwaters: MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1, 143.

[409] Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 494, &c.

[410] Hall, followed by the chroniclers, says that the executions were on the 9th of January; but he was mistaken. In a MS. in the State Paper Office, dated the 16th of December, 1538, Exeter is described as having suffered on the 9th of the same month. My account of these trials is taken from the records in the Baga de Secretis: from the Act of Attainder, 31 Henry VIII. cap. 15, not printed in the Statute Book, but extant on the Roll; and from a number of scattered depositions, questions, and examinations in the Rolls House and in the State Paper Office.

[411] The degrading of Henry Courtenay, late Marquis of Exeter, the 3d day of December, and the same day convicted; and the 9th day of the said month beheaded at Tower Hill; and the 16th day of the same month degraded at Windsor: MS. State Paper Office. Unarranged bundle.

[412] Examination of Christopher Chator: Rolls House MS. first series.

[413] Gibbon professes himself especially scandalized at the persecution of Servetus by men who themselves had stood in so deep need of toleration. The scandal is scarcely reasonable, for neither Calvin nor any other Reformer of the sixteenth century desired a “liberty of conscience” in its modern sense. The Council of Geneva, the General Assembly at Edinburgh, the Smalcaldic League, the English Parliament, and the Spanish Inquisition held the same opinions on the wickedness of heresy; they differed only in the definition of the crime. The English and Scotch Protestants have been taunted with persecution. When nations can grow to maturity in a single generation, when the child can rise from his first grammar lesson a matured philosopher, individual men may clear themselves by a single effort from mistakes which are embedded in the heart of their age. Let us listen to the Landgrave of Hesse. He will teach us that Henry VIII. was no exceptional persecutor.

The Landgrave has heard that the errors of the Anabaptists are increasing in England. He depicts in warning colours the insurrection at Münster: “If they grow to any multitude,” he says, “their acts will surely declare their seditious minds and opinions. Surely this is true, the devil, which is an homicide, carrieth men that are entangled in false opinions to unlawful slaughters and the breach of society.... There are no rulers in Germany,” he continues, “whether they be Popish or professors of the doctrines of the Gospel, that do suffer these men, if they come into their hands. All men punish them grievously. We use a just moderation, which God requireth of all good rulers. Whereas any of the sect is apprehended, we call together divers learned men and good preachers, and command them, the errors being confuted by the Word of God, to teach them rightlier, to heal them that be sick, to deliver them that were bound; and by this way many that are astray are come home again. These are not punished with any corporal pains, but are driven openly to forsake their errours. If any do stubbornly defend the ungodly and wicked errours of that sect, yielding nothing to such as can and do teach them truly, these are kept a good space in prison, and sometimes sore punished there; yet in such sort are they handled, that death is long deferred for hope of amendment; and, as long as any hope is, favour is shewed to life. If there be no hope left, then the obstinate are put to death.” Warning Henry of the snares of the devil, who labours continually to discredit the truth by grafting upon it heresy, he concludes:—

“Wherefore, if that sect hath done any hurt there in your Grace’s realm, we doubt not but your princely wisdom will so temper the matter, that both dangers be avoided, errours be kept down, and yet a difference had between those that are good men, and mislike the abuses of the Bishop of Rome’s baggages, and those that be Anabaptists. In many parts of Germany where the Gospel is not preached, cruelty is exercised upon both sorts without discretion. The magistrates which obey the Bishop of Rome (whereas severity is to be used against the Anabaptists) slay good men utterly alien from their opinions. But your Majesty will put a difference great enough between these two sorts, and serve Christ’s glory on the one side, and save the innocent blood on the other.”—Landgrave of Hesse to Henry VIII., September 25, 1538: State Papers, Vol. VIII.

[414] “They have made a wondrous matter and report here of the shrines and of burning of the idol at Canterbury; and, besides that, the King’s Highness and council be become sacramentarians by reason of this embassy which the King of Saxony sent late into England.”—Theobald to Cromwell, from Padua. October 22, 1538: Ellis, third series, Vol. III.

[415] The history of Lambert’s trial is taken from Foxe, Vol. V.

[416] Cromwell to Wyatt: Nott’s Wyatt, p. 326.

[417] Cromwell to Wriothesley: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 155.

[418] Christopher Mount writes: “This day (March 5) the Earl William a Furstenburg was at dinner with the Duke of Saxe, which asked of him what news. He answered that there is labour made for truce between the Emperor and the Turk. Then said the duke, to what purpose should be all these preparations the Emperor maketh? The earl answered, that other men should care for. Then said the duke, the bruit is here—it should be against the King of England. Then said the earl, the King of England shall need to take heed to himself.”—State Papers, Vol. I. p. 606.

[419] The negotiations for the marriages.

[420] Wriothesley to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 165.

[421] i.e., he was to marry the Princess Mary.

[422] Wriothesley to Cromwell: State Papers, Vol. VIII. p. 167.

[423] “Within these fourteen days, it shall surely break out what they do purpose to do; as of three ways, one—Gueldres, Denmark, or England; notwithstanding, as I think, England is without danger, because they know well that the King’s Grace hath prepared to receive them if they come. There be in Holland 270 good ships prepared; but whither they shall go no man can tell. Preparations of all manner of artillery doth daily go through Antwerp.

“All the spiritualty here be set for to pay an innumerable sum of money. Notwithstanding, they will be very well content with giving the aforesaid money, if all things may be so brought to pass as they hope it shall, and as it is promised them—and that is, that the Pope’s quarrel may be avenged upon the King’s Grace of England.”—March 14, —— to Cromwell; MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XVI.

[424] William Ostrich to the worshipful Richard Ebbes, Merchant in London: MS. State Paper Office, first series, Vol. II.

[425] Sir Ralph Sadler to Cromwell, from Dover, March 16: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXVII.

[426] Hollinshed, Stow.

[427] Letters of Sir Thomas Cheyne to Cromwell, March and April, 1539: MS. State Paper Office, second series.

[428] Cromwell to the King: MS. Cotton. Titus, B 1, 271.

[429] Philips’s Life of Pole. Four letters of Cardinal Alexander Farnese to Paul III.: Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. II. p. 281, &c.

[430] One of these, for instance, writes to him: “Vale amplissime Pole quem si in meis auguriis aliquid veri est adhuc Regem Angliæ videbimus.” His answer may acquit him of vulgar selfishness: “I know not where you found your augury. If you can divine the future, divine only what I am to suffer for my country, or for the Church of God, which is in my country.

For me, the heavier the load of my affliction for God and the Church, the higher do I mount upon the ladder of felicity.”—Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. III. pp. 37-39.

[431] Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. II. p. 191, &c. The disappointment of the Roman ecclesiastics led them so far as to anticipate a complete apostacy on the part of Charles. The fears of Cardinal Contarini make the hopes so often expressed by Henry appear less unreasonable, that Charles might eventually imitate the English example. On the 8th of July, 1539, Contarini writes to Pole:—

“De rebus Germaniæ audio quod molestissime tuli, indictum videlicet esse conventum Norimburgensem ad Kal. Octobris pro rebus Ecclesiæ componendis, ubi sunt conventuri oratores Cæsaris et Regis Christianissimi; sex autem pro parte Lutheranorum et totidem pro partibus Catholicorum, de rebus Fidei disputaturi; et hoc fieri ex decreto superiorum mensium Conventûs Francford; in quo nulla mentio fit, nec de Pontifice, nec de aliquo qui pro sede Apostolicâ interveniret. Vides credo quo ista tendunt. Utinam ego decipiar; sed hoc prorsus judico; etsi præsentibus omnibus conatibus regis Angliæ maxime sit obstandum, tamen non hunc esse qui maxime sedi Apostolicæ possit nocere; ego illum timeo quem Cato ille in Republicâ Romanâ maxime timebat, qui sobrius accedit ad illam evertendam; vel potius illos timeo (nec enim unus est hoc tempore) et nisi istis privatis conventibus cito obviam eatur, ut non brevi major scissura in ecclesiâ cum majori detrimento autoritatis sedis Apostolicæ oriatur, quam multis sæculis fuerit visa, non possum non maxime timere. Scripsit ad me his de rebus primus nuncius ex Hispaniâ; et postea certiora de iisdem ex Reverendissimo et Illustrissimo Farnesio cum huc transiret cognovi cui sententiam meam de toto periculo exposui. Ego certe talem nunc video Ecclesiæ statum, ut si unquam dixi ullâ in causâ cum Isaiâ, mitte me, nunc potius si rogarer dicerem cum Mose, Dominus mitte quem missurus es.”—Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. II. p. 158.

[432] Account of the Muster of the Citizens of London in the thirty-first Year of the Reign of King Henry VIII., communicated (for the Archæologia), from the Records of the Corporation of London, by Thomas Lott, Esq.

[433] Royal Proclamation: Rolls House MS. A 1, 10.

[434] In “Lusty Juventus” the Devil is introduced, saying,—

Hawkins’s Old Plays, Vol. I. p. 152.

[435] “The king intended his loving subjects to use the commodity of the reading of the Bible humbly, meekly, reverently, and obediently; and not that any of them should read the said Bible with high and loud voices in time of the celebration of the mass, and other divine services used in the Church; or that any of his lay subjects should take upon them any common disputation, argument, or exposition of the mysteries therein contained.”—Proclamation of the Use of the Bible: Burnet’s Collectanea, p. 138.

In a speech to the parliament Henry spoke also of the abuse of the Bible: “I am very sorry to know and hear how unreverendly that most precious jewel, the Word of God, is disputed, rhymed, sung, and jangled in every alehouse and tavern. I am even as much sorry that the readers of the same follow it in doing so faintly and coldly.”—Hall, p. 866.

[436] The Bishop of Norwich wrote to Cromwell, informing him that he had preached a sermon upon grace and free-will in his cathedral; “the next day,” he said, “one Robert Watson very arrogantly and in great fume came to my lodgings for to reason with me in that matter, affirming himself not a little to be offended with mine assertion of free will, saying he would set his foot by mine, affirming to the death that there was no such free will in man. Notwithstanding I had plainly declared it to be of no strength, but only when holpen by the grace of God; by which his ungodly enterprise, perceived and known of many, my estimation and credence concerning the sincere preaching of the truth was like to decay.” The bishop went on to say that he had set Watson a day to answer for “his temerarious opinions,” and was obliged to call in a number of the neighbouring county magistrates to enable him to hold his court, “on account of the great number which then assembled as Watson’s fautors.”—The Bishop of Norwich to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, first series, Vol. X.

[437] For instance, in Watson’s case he seems to have rebuked the bishop. Ibid.

[438] Very many complaints of parishioners on this matter remain among the State Papers. The difficulty is to determine the proportion of offenders (if they may be called such) to the body of the spiritualty. The following petition to Cromwell, as coming from the collective incumbents of a diocese, represents most curiously the perplexity of the clergy in the interval between the alteration of the law and the inhibition of their previous indulgences. The date is probably 1536. The petition was in connexion with the commission of inquiry into the general morality of the religious orders:—

“May it please your mastership, that when of late we, your poor orators the clergy of the diocese of Bangor, were visited by the king’s visitors and yours, in the which visitation many of us (to knowledge the truth to your mastership) be detected of incontinency, as it appeareth by the visitors’ books, and not unworthy, wherefore we humbly submit ourselves unto your mastership’s mercy, heartily desiring of you remission, or at least wise of merciful punishment and correction, and also to invent after your discreet wisdom some lawful and godly way for us your aforesaid orators, that we may maintain and uphold such poor hospitalities as we have done hitherto, most by provision of such women as we have customably kept in our houses. For in case we be compelled to put away such women, according to the injunctions lately given us by the foresaid visitors, then shall we be fain to give up hospitality, to the utter undoing of such servants and families as we daily keep, and to the great loss and harms of the king’s subjects, the poor people which were by us relieved to the uttermost of our powers, and we ourselves shall be driven to seek our living at alehouses and taverns, for mansions upon the benefices and vicarages we have none. And as for gentlemen and substantial honest men, for fear of inconvenience, knowing our frailty and accustomed liberty, they will in no wise board us in their houses.”—Petition of the Clergy of Bangor to the Right Hon. Thomas Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXVI.

[439] This story rests on the evidence of eye-witnesses.—Foxe, Vol. V. p. 251, &c.

[440] The late parliament had become a byword among the Catholics and reactionaries. Pole speaks of the “Conventus malignantium qui omnia illa decreta contra Ecclesiæ unitatem fecit.”—Epist. Reg. Pol. Vol. II. p. 46.

[441] “For your Grace’s parliament I have appointed (for a crown borough) your Grace’s servant Mr. Morison, to be one of them. No doubt he shall be able to answer or take up such as should crack on far with literature of learning.”—Cromwell to Henry VIII.: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 603.

[442] Letter to Secretary Cromwell on the Election of the Knights of the Shire for the County of Huntingdon: Rolls House MS.

[443] Lady Blount to the King’s Secretary: Ibid.

[444] The Earl of Southampton to Cromwell: MS. Cotton. Cleopatra, E 4.

[445] The two persons whom Cromwell had previously named.

[446] Letters of the Mayor of Canterbury to Cromwell: MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. V.

In the first edition this affair is referred to the election of 1539. We are left almost invariably to internal evidence to fix the dates of letters, and finding the second of those written by the Mayor of Canterbury, on this subject, addressed to Cromwell as Lord Privy Seal, I supposed that it must refer to the only election conducted by him after he was raised to that dignity. I have since ascertained that the first letter, the cover of which I did not see, is addressed to Sir Thomas Cromwell, chief secretary, &c. It bears the date of the 20th of May, and though the year is not given, the difference of the two styles fixes it to 1536. The election was conducted while Cromwell was a commoner. He was made a peer and Privy Seal immediately on the meeting of parliament on the 2d of July.

[447] Cromwell to Henry VIII.: State Papers, Vol. I. p. 693.

[448] “The King’s Highness desiring that such a unity might be established in all things touching the doctrine of Christ’s religion, as the same so being established might be to the honour of Almighty God, and consequently redound to the commonwealth of this his Highness’s most noble realm, hath therefore caused his most High Court of Parliament to be at this time summoned, and also a synod and convocation of all the archbishops, bishops, and other learned men of the clergy of this his realm to be in like manner assembled.”—31 Henry VIII. cap. 14.

[449] “Post missarum solemnia, decenter ac devote celebrata, divinoque auxilio humillimi implorato et invocato.”—Lords Journals, 31 Henry VIII.

[450] Lords Journals, 31 Henry VIII.

[451] A Device for extirpating Heresies among the People: Rolls House MS.

[452] “Nothing has yet been settled respecting the marriage of the clergy, although some persons have very freely preached before the king upon the subject.”—John Butler to Conrad Pellican, March 8, 1539: Original Letters on the Reformation, second series, p. 624.

[453] Lady Exeter was afterwards pardoned. Lady Salisbury’s offences, whatever they were, seem to have been known to the world, even before Lord Southampton’s visit of inspection to Warblington. The magistrates of Stockton in Sussex sent up an account of examinations taken on the 13th of September, 1538, in which a woman is charged with having said, “If so be that my Lady of Salisbury had been a young woman as she was an old woman, the King’s Grace and his council had burnt her.”—MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXIX. The act of attainder has not been printed (31 Henry VIII. cap. 15: Rolls House MS.); so much of it, therefore, as relates to these ladies is here inserted:—

“And where also Gertrude Courtenay, wife of the Lord Marquis of Exeter, hath traitorously, falsely, and maliciously confederated herself to and with the abominable traitor Nicholas Carew, knowing him to be a traitor and a common enemy to his Highness and the realm of England; and hath not only aided and abetted the said Nicholas Carew in his abominable treasons, but also hath herself committed and perpetrated divers and sundry detestable and abominable treasons to the fearful peril of his Highness’s royal person, and the loss and desolation of this realm of England, if God of his goodness had not in due time brought the same treason to knowledge:

“And where also Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, and Hugh Vaughan, late of Bekener, in the county of Monmouth, yeoman, by instigation of the devil, putting apart the dread of Almighty God, their duty of allegiance, and the excellent benefits received of his Highness, have not only traitorously confederated themselves with the false and abominable traitors Henry Pole, Lord Montague, and Reginald Pole, sons to the said countess, knowing them to be false traitors, but also have maliciously aided, abetted, maintained, and comforted them in their said false and abominable treason, to the most fearful peril of his Highness, the commonwealth of this realm, &c., the said marchioness and the said countess be declared attainted, and shall suffer the pains and penalties of high treason.” I find no account of Vaughan, or of the countess’s connexion with him. He was probably one of the persons employed to carry letters to and from the cardinal.

[454] “Immediate post Billæ lectionem Dominus Cromwell palam ostendit quandam tunicam ex albo serico confectam inventam inter linteamina Comitissæ Sarum, in cujus parte anteriore existebant sola arma Angliæ; in parte vero posteriore insignia illa quibus nuper rebelles in aquilonari parte Angliæ in commotione suâ utebantur.”—Lords Journals, 31 Henry VIII.

[455] In quoting the preambles of acts of parliament I do not attach to them any peculiar or exceptional authority. But they are contemporary statements of facts and intentions carefully drawn, containing an explanation of the conduct of parliament and of the principal events of the time. The explanation may be false, but it is at least possible that it may be true; and my own conclusion is, that, on the whole, the account to be gathered from this source is truer than any other at which we are likely to arrive; that the story of the Reformation as read by the light of the statute book is more intelligible and consistent than any other version of it, doing less violence to known principles of human nature, and bringing the conduct of the principal actors within the compass of reason and probability. I have to say, further, that the more carefully the enormous mass of contemporary evidence of another kind is studied, documents, private and public letters, proclamations, council records, state trials, and other authorities, the more they will be found to yield to these preambles a steady support.