Friday, Jan. 25.

"The day of the conversion of St. Paul, there was a general and solemn procession through London, to give God thanks for their conversion to the catholic church: wherein (to set out their glorious pomp) there were fourscore and ten crosses, and one hundred and sixty priests and clerks, who had every one of them copes upon their backs singing very lustily. There followed also, for the better estimation of the sight, eight bishops; and, last of all, came Bonner, the bishop of London, carrying the popish pix under a canopy.

"Besides, there was also present the mayor, aldermen, and all the livery of every occupation. Moreover, the king also himself, and the cardinal, came to Paul's church the same day. From whence, after mass, they returned to Westminster again. As the king was entered the church at the steps going up to the choir, all the gentlemen that of late were set at liberty out of the Tower, kneeled before the king, and offered unto him themselves and their services."-Fox, vi. 588.

Monday, Jan. 28.

"The bishop of Winchester and the other bishops had commission from the cardinal to sit upon, and order, according to the laws, all such preachers and heretics (as they termed them) as were in prison; and according to this commission, the same day the bishop of Winchester and the other bishops, with certain of the council, sat in St. Mary Overy's church."-Fox, vi. 588.

§ 3. THE COMMISSION IN SOUTHWARK.

Thus we have cursorily run over the first year and a half of Queen Mary's reign, noticing very little beside what relates to those persons with whose history we are more particularly concerned. The reader will have observed several committals for political and religious offences; and the number might have been much increased but that the mention of them would only have served to divert or encumber us in our present inquiry. The truth seems to be, that by the latter part of the year 1554, the government had got a great many prisoners on its hands, and was anxious to dispose of them as soon as it well could; which was not until the Parliament had completed the business of the reconciliation of the country and the revision of the laws.

On Friday, Jan. 18th, therefore (only two days after the parliament had been "clean dissolved") the "Council went to the Tower, and discharged all or most part of the prisoners." (Fox, vi. 587.) We may do the same; for with those state prisoners we have little, if anything, to do.

It is more to our purpose to observe that the attention,

of the Council was next turned to those who had been imprisoned on religious and ecclesiastical grounds.

I have already mentioned the Declaration which the imprisoned preachers put forth on the 8th of May. Whether there actually was a current report that they were to be sent to Cambridge, and this Declaration was really intended to meet it, or whether it was meant to remind those who seemed to have forgotten it, that they were in existence, I do not pretend to decide. That there is nothing either improbable, or uncharitable, in the latter supposition, is evident from the course which they after pursued. "They BOLDLY and BRAVELY," says Strype, "made a Declaration to the Queen and Parliament that sat this year;" and this remarkable Declaration," as he justly calls it, he ascribes to the pen of John Bradford, and has "reposited in the Appendix" to his memorials of Cranmer. In this Declaration the imprisoned preachers went to the point at once by beginning; "We poor prisoners for Christ's religion, require 'your Honours, in our dear Saviour Christ's name, earnestly now to REPENT, for that you have consented of late to the 'unplacing of so many godly lawes, set furth touching the 'true religion of Christ before, by two most noble Kings," &c. They vouch for it, "that there was not one Parish in 'al England, that ever desired again to have the Romish 'Superstitions and vaine service, which is now by the Popish, 'proud, covetous clergy placed again in contempt not only ' of God, al Heaven, and al the Holy Ghostes lessons in the 'blessed Bible: but also against the honors of the said two 'most noble Kings," &c. They declare that, "God's great plagues must needs follow," and desire the King, Queen, and Parliament in their assembly, "to seek some effectual REFORMATION for the aforewritten DEFORMATION in this Church of England." They request to be brought up before those authorities, and they add "if we be not able both to 6 prove and approve by the catholic and canonical rules of 'Christ's true religion, the church Homilies and Service set 'furth in the most innocent K. Edward's days: and also to 'disallow and reprove by the same authorities the Service 6 now set furth since his departing; then we offer our bodies 'to be immediately burned," &c.

8 No, LXXXIV. p. 950, referring to p. 506.

As far as I am personally concerned, it would be uncandid not to state the doubt which I feel whether this document was actually presented to the Queen and Parliament in its present form. Strype however is the authority; and he gives it, without the least expression or appearance of doubt, from the Foxian MSS. and remarks upon it, "This now is the second time a PUBLIC CHALLENGE was made to justify King Edward's reformation," and he then proceeds to speak of a "third public challenge" made by these prisoners which, as it is given by Fox, he does not think it necessary to transcribe. I confess that I cannot help feeling some suspicion that this third challenge which Fox calls a "Supplication of the persecuted preachers to the King and Queen," is only a modification of the document already mentioned. It is enough, however, for our purpose that its principal object is the same; and the prayer of it is that the petitioners might be called before the King, Queen, and Parliament, to answer before them, or "indifferent arbiters" to be appointed by their Majesties, to such charges of heresy as had been brought against them.-Fox, vi. 589.

The exact date of these documents I do not find; but it is enough to know that they are said to have been delivered during this session of parliament which (as we have already seen) began in November, and was clean dissolved on the 16th of January. It has also been stated, that on Friday the 18th the Council went to the Tower to clear it. On the following Tuesday the 22nd of January they addressed themselves to the business of the "persecuted preachers," and a meeting at Gardiner's house, which has been already mentioned, took place.

In this month of January, a tribunal sat four times in Southwark, which in order to save trouble I follow many writers in calling a Commission'. The first session was on the 22nd of January, when "ALL the Preachers that were

9 It is not worth while to discuss the question whether it was the Council meeting at the Lord Chancellor's house the first time, and a Commission afterwards; or whether it should uniformly be called by one of the names, or never by either. Its true nature and character will appear sufficiently from what follows; and that is all that is of real consequence. Writers have described it variously, but those only require contradiction who represent it as if Gardiner was sitting in his "ordinary jurisdiction," and carrying matters out of his own head and with his own hand, in his own house or Church in Southwark.

' in prison were called before the bishop of Winchester Lord 'Chancellor, and certain others, at the bishop's house at 'St. Mary Overy's." Strype says that beside the Lord Chancellor, there were present the bishops of Durham, Ely, Worcester, Chichester, Carlisle, the Lord William Howard, Lord Paget, Sir Richard Southwell, Secretary BournR.

While, according to Fox, the persons brought before this commission consisted of "all the preachers that were in prison," Strype mentions Bishop Hooper, Dr. Crome, Harold Tomson, Rogers, beside "divers others, to the number of eleven persons besides two more that were not then sent for," as being "arraigned" on that occasion3.

The object in view does not appear to have been a scholastic disputation with these preachers, as with persons whose tenets were unknown or doubtful, but solemnly to inquire, and obtain a definite answer, whether they meant to maintain the opinions which they had professed, and to repudiate the reconciliation with the Church of Rome which the King, Queen, and Parliament had just made. Dr. Rowland Taylor, in the letter containing and reporting "The Talk had between him and the Lord Chancellor, and other Commissioners" on this occasion, says :-"First, my 'Lord Chancellor said, 'You among others are at this 'present time sent for, to enjoy the King's and Queen's Majestie's favour and mercy, if you will now rise again 'with us from the fall which we generally have received in 'this realm; from the which (God be praised!) we are now 'clearly delivered miraculously. If you will not rise with us now, and receive mercy now offered, you shall have 'judgment according to your demerit.' To this I answered 'that so to rise, should be the greatest fall that ever I 'could receive: for I should so fall from my dear Saviour 'Christ to Antichrist." 194

6

6

Of course the men for the most part were well known and well tried. It was understood that their minds were made up. It was sinful and hateful to think of burning them, but it would have been absurd to propose disputing with them. They were, as they would have phrased it, "at a point;" and when the case stood as Taylor had pithily

stated it, what room was there for argument? The time seemed to be come in which, according to the ideas of all parties concerned in the matter, either the preachers or the parliament must "repent"-in which the prisoners must be either acknowledged to be injured innocents, and dismissed in triumph; or condemned as heretics, and put to execution. Yet as far as I can see (except receiving the submission of two of the party whose names are not specified") the Council did nothing but remand the prisoners until the following Monday.

January the 28th therefore the Commissioners sate again; not now however at the Bishop's Palace, but at the church of St. Saviour, or St. Mary Overy hard by. Strype names as present the bishops of London, Worcester, Ely, Bath and Wells, Gloucester, Bristol, Durham, Carlisle, Lincoln, St. David's, Norwich, Coventry and Lichfield; and adds Anthony Hussey, Robert Johnson and William Say public notaries being appointed actuaries in this affair. "Besides 'there were present also the Duke of Norfolk, Anthony 'Lord Montague, Thomas Lord Wharton, Richard Southwel, 'Francis Englefield, Christopher [perhaps mistaken for 'Robert] Rochester, Thomas Wharton, John Hurleston, 'John Tregonwell, Philip Draycot, and John Germyngham,

5 It seems probable that one of these was Harold Tomson abovementioned; as I see nothing more about him in the subsequent sessions. Besides, I do not find any account of him except this single notice in Strype, which is a mere copy from Machyn, who says, "The xxii day of Januarii was raynyd [arraigned] at my lord Chansseler plasse by-syd 'sant Mare Overes ser John Hoper latt bysshope of Glosetur, doctur 'C[rome], as the parsun of Wyttyngtun colege, harold Tomson, Rogars 'parsun or veker of sant Pulkers, and dyvers odur."-p. 80. Mr. Nichols refers to him in the Index as "Tomson, the herald," I dare say that is what is meant; though not finding any such herald mentioned in Noble, I applied to Sir Charles Young, Garter, who kindly informs me that he finds no trace of him at the College of Arms, but suggests the probability that he was not properly speaking a herald, but a herald-painter. 6 Strype in one place tells us that "they sat in commission ". -that is, under and by virtue of a Commission from Cardinal Pole dated that same 28th of January, and it is amusing to find him catching at this circumstance to expose the eagerness of the bloodthirsty persecutors-"the very same day (such haste they made) they sat in commission." Cran. ii. 495. In another place giving an account of the same Session he says bishop of Winton, by his ordinary authority, sat judicially in St. Mary Overie's church." The reader will see that it is as absurd to talk about hasty proceedings, as it is to represent the Bishop of Winchester as merely sitting in his official capacity of Ordinary in his diocese.

"the