far wrong) that the cases of martyrdom which occurred during the whole of Mary's reign amounted to 277. If anybody can show that Bonner had anything to do, directly or indirectly, with more than about 120 I shall wonder. Some reader may say "Was it not bad enough to kill 120 in three years and three quarters?" But I beg him to observe that I have not made any such admission; and that when I speak of Bonner's having "anything to do" with a case of martyrdom, I wish my words to be taken as strictly as possible. For instance, no reasonable person would think of saying that Bonner had anything to do with the martyrdom of Cranmer; yet I include that case in the number of those with which he was concerned, simply because he was one of the bishops who went by a special commission to Oxford to perform the ceremony of degrading the Archbishop.

But this will be clearer presently;-to proceed with Fuller: he tells us that Bonner took upon him as if he had been metropolitan of all England, "and that he stood not on distinction of dioceses, but martyred all, wheresoever he met them." I believe this to be absolutely and entirely untrue. A caviller might say, though I believe it is the only case in which he could say anything of the kind, that when Bonner went, by special commission, to Oxford to perform the ceremony of degrading Cranmer, he "met" him out of his own diocese. But except this (which is no real exception) I suspect it would be impossible to name a case in which Bonner martyred, or examined, or meddled with anybody whatever, except upon the particular ground, distinctly stated in articles officially ministered, that the prisoner had been "met" in the Bishop of London's diocese, and was under his jurisdiction; and further that it was on this ground, and by virtue of this jurisdiction, that the bishop was interfering in the business.

Moreover, I know of only one case in which that claim grounded on diocese and jurisdiction was questioned by a prisoner; and that is the very one of Philpot which Fuller quotes; but which is so far from giving colour to his statement, that it most clearly exposes its gross falsehood. Philpot, in the course of an examination, said that he had not offended my Lord of London, and asked why he should be called before him. Bonner (according to Philpot's own account of the matter) did not answer by roaring like a

forest of wild beasts, or by pretending to be a metropolitan, but soberly and articulately replied "Yes, I have to lay to your 'charge that you have offended in my diocese, by speaking 'against the blessed sacrament of the altar; and therefore I 'may call you, and proceed against you, to punish you by 'the law." To this Philpot says he answered, "I have not 'offended in your diocese: for that which I spake of the " sacrament was in Paul's Church in the Convocation house, 'which (as I understand) is a peculiar jurisdiction, belonging 'to the dean of Paul's, and therefore is counted of your 'lordship's diocese, but not in your diocese." This seems to have been new light to Bonner, who exclaimed "Is not Paul's Church in my diocese? well I wot it costeth me a good deal of money by the year, the leading thereof." It is not to our purpose to enter into this dispute, which was repeatedly renewed between the parties; but I will add in a note one specimen which may be enough to show, that Bonner did not take upon him to examine Philpot either as a wild beast, or a metropolitan, but (whether right or wrong in fact or in law) simply on the ground of jurisdiction in his own particular Diocese3.

3 Fox, vii. 614. The passage quoted in the text occurred at Philpot's fourth examination. The subject had been repeatedly discussed before, and was touched on again at his fifth, Ibid. 620; resumed in his seventh, Ibid. 639; again in a private conference with Bonner, Ibid. 646; and perhaps on other occasions; but by the tenth the Bishop seems to have got rather tired of it, and the following conversation is reported to have taken place. The first speaker was one of "two homely gentlemen " unknown to Philpot, who happened to be present, and seems to have said nothing but what is here recorded.

"Gentleman. Why do you not require absolution at my lord's hands 'here now?

"Philpot. Because he is not mine ordinary, neither hath by the law 'any thing to do with me of right.

"London. What an obstinate fool is this! I tell thec, I will be thine 'ordinary, whether thou wilt or no.

"Philpot. And because of this your unrighteous force towards me, 'I have appealed from you, and require you, master registrar, that my appéal may be entered in writing.

London. Have you heard such a froward fellow as this? he seemed yesterday to be very tractable, and I had a good hope of him. I tell thee, thou art of my diocese.

Philpot. I am of Winchester diocese, and not of London diocese. "London. I pray you, may not a man be of two dioceses at once? "Philpot. No, that he cannot.

"London. Lo, will you see what an ignorant fool this is in the law, in

But in dealing with such a story can no one help remarking that it is rather strange, and like the absurdity into which party writers are apt to be led, to ask our sympathy, and try to move our feelings, in behalf of a poor pious puritan who "pleaded in vain" to be put into the hands of Gardiner? Will it not be thought maudlin nonsense even by readers, who only know Fox's reports of Philpot's "boldness" in the days of King Edward, and his "divers conflicts with Gardiner the bishop in the city of Winchester "--by those who have never been particularly informed that "Stephen, bishop of Winton, ever bare ill-will against this godly gentleman," and who have never seen the humourous "passage Mr. Sternhold, one of King Edward's Privy Chamber, told afterwards to that King for entertainment's sake;" namely, how the said bishop of Winchester (in our story the defrauded Ordinary) sent for Philpot to meet certain justices at his house, and called him "rogue," and then finding that he could dispend ten pounds by the year, and was his own nephew's landlord, 66 was afraid and ashamed for making so loud a lie upon a gentleman, and a learned gentleman." Whether this account of Strype's is verbatim the Old Version of our good Psalmist, I do not know, or how far it is true, but it leads one to think that there was no particular cruelty in keeping Philpot out of Gardiner's hands. Indeed I think one hint was dropped by Bonner at a later period, which seems to look quite a contrary way. If I remember right, he suggested that Philpot had been emboldened to imagine that he should

4

'the which he would seem to be seen? I tell thee, a man may be of 'three dioceses at once: as if thou wert born in London, by reason 'thereof thou should be of my diocese or else if thou wert not born ' here, but hadst a dignity, also thou art to be counted of my diocese: or 'else by reason of thy habitation in my diocese.

Philpot. In none of these respects I am of your lordship's diocese ; but for all that, this will not follow, that I, dwelling at Winchester, am 'at that present of London diocese.

"London. What wilt thou lay thereof? wilt thou recant, if I prove it? Philpot. But what shall I win, if you do not?

"

London. I will give thee my bishopric, if I prove it not.

Philpot. Yea, but who shall deliver it me, if I win?

"London. Thou art an arrogant fool. Enter their oaths, and take 'these witnesses' depositions.

'house."-Ibid. p. 655.

4 Strype, Mem. III. i. 438.

I must be gone to the parliament

escape burning through the death of Gardiner. But perhaps enough has been said of this case; only I must beg the reader to reflect on the almost incredible assurance of bringing it forward with a "THUS" as if it were given off hand, and by chance, as the first that came to recollection from among scores or hundreds, to prove that Bonner "stood not on distinction of Dioceses, but martyred all wheresoever he met them."

One remark, however, I must add on the phraseology in which this falsehood is expressed, because words have their nods and winks, and frequently exercise a strong, though subtle influence on readers, even when the objection to them is such as seems at first sight to be nothing more than cavil or petty criticism. Fuller says he martyred all "wheresoever he met them." Now I have already stated that the "wheresoever" was, without any real exception that I know of, within his own diocese and jurisdiction; but, beside this, there is something implied in the word "met," which is not applicable to the real circumstances of the case. When bodies are said to be "met," it is implied that the meeting body, at least, was in motion; we should hardly think of saying that a man "met" a post, unless he ran against it; and, at all events, we should not use such a word to describe his contact with a body thrown in his face, or into his lap, by an external force. Fuller's language would naturally convey, and of course he meant it to convey, the idea, that Bonner was on the look out, and went forth, and prowled like a wild beast to seek his prey. That he desired to meet with heretics, and catch them, and kill them. What ground he might have for the suggestion I know not; but I must say that from all that I have hitherto learned I am inclined to believe that Bonner never either by himself, or his agents, searched for heretics, or was the original cause of any man's being brought into trouble on the score of religion, except so far as he might be said to be so by the effect of official documents set forth by him in his character of a Bishop or an Ecclesiastical Judge. Or to put the matter in another form,-what I see leads me to doubt whether he ever imprisoned, or examined, or even took cognizance of the existence of any suspected individual on the accusation of any informer, spy, or private individual, or even on the reports which he officially monished his clergy to make (and

X

which I presume they did make) to him of those who refused to go to church, to confess, to communicate, &c. I cannot prove this (and further inquiry may produce some cases to show I am mistaken), but I believe that he never dealt with any alleged heretic who was not brought before him in his official character as Bishop of London, in due course of law, by the warrant of some magistrate, or other person, acting directly under a Commission from the Government.

These points will appear more clearly hereafter. In the mean time I am afraid the humane reader will think that I am postponing, and shrinking from, and not daring to confront, the most shocking part of Fuller's account. What are we to say to the general statement that, "No sex, quality, or age escap'd him"? and the particular cases of "John Fetty a lad of eight years old, by him scourged to death," and "Hugh Laverock a Creeple, sixty-eight years old, whom he caused to be burnt"?

As to the first part of this it is obviously mere declamation. One knows perfectly, and is tired of being told over and over again, that the law for burning heretics was a very bad law; and ought never to have existed. But, in fact, it did exist, and it was the law of the country; and did anybody ever hear of a country where there were laws and judges, and where either sex or quality, or age, was considered as a legitimate ground of escape from the penalty of the law? Has any nation ever tried the experiment? Does anybody wish to have it tried? If they do let them say so.

To come then to the consideration of John Fetty in particular. I do not wish to say what is harsh or coarse, and therefore I will abstain from using some of the words which I have just quoted from our venerable Psalmist's narrative, though they run in my mind; and I really do hope that if his own book, and Fox's had been held up before Fuller's eyes, he would have been "afraid and ashamed for making" such an unfair use of his authority. If merely the truth of the story were in controversy, instead of the more serious question of the credit and respect due to the historian, it would be sufficient to reply that Fox does not venture to say as a matter of fact,-no, nor even as a matter of his own belief,-either that the child was