"Upon the 4th of February, that is the same day master Rogers was burned, Bonner bishop of London came to the Compter in the Poultry, to degrade Dr. Taylor, about one of the clock at afternoon. But before he spake to master Taylor, he called for John Bradford which was prisoner there, whom when he saw, he put off his cap, and gave him his hand, saying:

"Bonner. Because I perceive that ye are desirous to confer with some learned men, therefore I have brought master archdeacon Harpsfield to you. And I tell you, you do like a wise man. But I pray you go roundly to work, for the time is but short.'

"Brad. My lord, as roundly as I can I will go to work with you: I never desired to confer with any man, nor yet do. Howbeit if ye will have one to talk with me, I am ready.'

"Bonner. "What,' quoth the bishop in a fume to the keeper, ‘did you not tell me that this man desired conference?'

"Keeper. No, my lord, I told you that he would not refuse to confer with any; but I did not say that it is his desire.'

"Bonner. "Well, master Bradford, you are well beloved, I pray you consider yourself, and refuse not charity when it is offered.

"Brad. 'Indeed, my lord, this is small charity, to condemn a man as you have condemned me, which never brake your laws. In Turkey a man may have charity; but in England I could not yet find it. I was condemned for my faith, so soon as I uttered it at your requests, before I had committed any thing against the laws. And as for conference, I am not afraid to talk with whom ye will. But to say that I desire to confer, that do I not.'

"Bonner. "Well, well.' And so he called for master Taylor, and Bradford went his way."-Fox, vol. vii. p. 165.

I believe that I have fairly stated all the concern which Bonner had with Rogers, Saunders, Hooper, Taylor, and Bradford; who seem to have been the only persons actually condemned by the Council at the sittings of January 1555. Two others (Ferrar and Cardmaker) did aftewards suffer martyrdom, and will be mentioned hereafter. Two, Crome and Tomson, seem to have recanted. This however makes only nine out of the eleven who are said to have been brought up, and who probably were far from being all the persons examined. Who the others were I know not. But whether there were more or fewer prisoners before these Commissioners is of little consequence in our inquiry; for, if more who afterwards suffered as martyrs, were examined on these occasions, they will come before our notice again in the history of their sufferings; and if they escaped, we have no business with them.

The point for us to observe is, that after these four sittings of the Council, there seem not to have been any similar proceedings. The view of the matter given by Fox,

and followed I believe by most writers, may be seen by the following extract.

"After that Stephen Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, had got the laws and the secular arm on his side, as ye have heard, with full power and authority to reign and rule as he listed, and had brought these godly bishops and reverend preachers aforesaid under foot, namely, the archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Ridley bishop of London, master Latimer, master Hooper bishop of Worcester and Gloucester, master Rogers, master Saunders, Dr. Taylor, and master Bradford, all which he had now presently condemned, and some also burned, he supposed now all had been cock-sure, and that Christ had been conquered for ever, so that the people, being terrified with example of these great learned men condemned, never would nor durst once rout against their violent religion."-Fox, vol. vi. p. 703.

Then, after a good deal intended to shew that the Commissioners were not only as bad as the Turks but particularly and specifically like them, Fox proceeds:

"And thus condemned they these godly learned preachers and bishops aforesaid, supposing, as I said, that all the rest would soon be quailed by their example. But they were deceived; for within eight or nine days after that Stephen Gardiner had given sentence against master Hooper, master Rogers, master Saunders, Dr. Taylor, and master Bradford, being the eighth of February, six other good men were brought likewise before the bishops for the same cause of religion, to be examined, whose names were William Pygot, butcher; Stephen Knight, barber; Thomas Tomkins, weaver; Thomas Hawkes, gentleman; John Laurence, priest; William Hunter, apprentice.

"Stephen Gardiner, seeing thus his device disappointed, and that cruelty in this case would not serve to his expectation, gave over the matter as utterly discouraged, and from that day meddled no more in such kind of condemnations, but referred the whole doing thereof to Bonner bishop of London; who supplied that part right doubtily, as in the further process of this history hereafter evidently and too much may appear. Thus bishop Bonner taking the matter in hand, called before him in his consistory at St. Paul's (the lord mayor, and certain aldermen sitting with him,) the six persons aforenamed, upon the 8th of February in the year aforesaid, and on the next day, being the 9th of February, read the sentence of condemnation upon them, as appeareth in Bonner's own registers: such quick speed these men could make in despatching their business at once."-Fox, vol. vi. p. 704.

A reader would naturally suppose that within eight or nine days after sentencing the five martyrs of whom we have spoken, Bishop Gardiner and everybody else was taken by surprise, and startled, by the apparition of six fresh men who had suddenly sprung forward to take the places of their

fallen comrades. Burnet would confirm his notion by telling him in plain terms "soon after the condemnation of these men, six others were apprehended on the account of heresy." Wily Winchester one would suppose was not prepared for anything of the sort, and finding that the five martyrs had revived in six fresh ones, "as if in death were propagation too," he turned them over to Bonner, who was always ready for any cruelty, and called them before him the very day that they came into his hands, scarcely asked what they were charged with, sentenced them the next day, and killed them out of hand without grace or mercy"such quick speed these men could make in despatching their business at once" such care they took to 66 SPARE NONE." Strype, who generally lays hold on Fox's skirts, and follows him blindfold through all sorts of places, even where one might think that he must have known the way better, says that Gardiner "left the rest of this bloody work 'to Bishop Bonner; and those six before mentioned he 'began with; who having been convented before him but the day before, were condemned this very next day." Savage work certainly; but what can one expect from bloody wolves, and forests of wild beasts?

But what if it should turn out that these six new martyrs whom Bonner "began with were persons whom he had known a long time, and with whom he was particularly well acquainted? and what if the "quick speed " should prove to be mere habitual misrepresentation, not meaning to tell an elaborate and well considered untruth about these particular facts, but naturally as it were, from long practice, colouring with different colours, and commenting with fulsome flattery or childish malice on the acts of different parties, and thus, in the most unprovoked and reckless manner casting abroad the firebrands of personal calumny and historical falsehood? Facts and dates which Fox himself supplies, afford sufficient information; and show that Bonner did not first become acquainted with these persons on the 8th of February, 1555. Thomas Hawkes had certainly got the character of a heretic, and committed his alleged heresy, in Essex, and been sent up with a letter under charge of a special messenger to his ordinary Bonner from the Earl of Oxford, and was in actual

9 Hist. of Ref. vol. ii. p. 282.

1 Mem. III. i. 332.

66

custody in the bishop's house, before Midsummer 1554. Thomas Tomkins the weaver was also a prisoner there; if indeed one should so characterize a man making hay at Fulham, with the bishop sitting by chatting with him. When he went there I know not, but certainly in or before July, 1554. As to William Hunter, he had been formally denounced as a heretic nearly a year before, and had fled from London on that account. I do not find precisely on what day he came into Bonner's hands, but he had continued in prison three quarters of a year," when he was brought before Bonner on the 8th of February, 1555. Of the other three, Pygot, Knight, and Laurence, I do not find the exact time when they came into Bonner's custody: but as Bonner in the first conversation that he had with Hawkes, at Midsummer 1554, asked him if he knew Knight and Pygot, it is plain that he must by that time have known something of them himself. I find also certain "Articles and Interrogatories objected by the Bishop of London" to these three jointly, in which the seventh is as follows:

"7. Whether is it true, that you being suspected, or infamed to be culpable and faulty in speaking against the sacrament of the altar, and against the very true presence of Christ's natural body, and the substance thereof in the said sacrament; and thereupon called before me upon complaint made to me against you; have not been a good space in my house, having freely meat and drink, and also divers times instructed and informed, as well by one being our ordinary, as also by my chaplains and divers other learned men, some whereof were bishops, some deans, and some archdeacons, and every one of them learned in divinity, and minding well unto you, and desiring the safeguard of your soul, and that you should follow and believe the doctrine of the catholic church, as afore, concerning the said sacrament of the altar; and whether you did not at all times since your said coming to me, utterly refuse to follow and believe the said doctrine concerning the said sacrament?"-Fox, vol. vi. p. 738.

It would seem as if the same articles had been objected to the other three, but really Fox's way of writing is such that it is difficult to get at the bottom of any story. After giving these articles, he says, "Their answers to these articles were not much discrepant from Tomkins, and other like martyrs above mentioned, as here followeth to be seen;"3 and then he gives, "The Answers of Pygot and Knight to the afore

2 Fox, vii. 99.

Fox, vol. vi. 738.

said Articles," omitting Laurence. It is likely that the latter made a separate confession1.

This is, I think, enough to shew how very unfair and untrue it is to represent the condemnation of these six men as having been carried with careless and merciless dispatch. Bad as it was to burn them, there is no pretence for saying that it was done in a hurry. Even after Bonner had passed sentence on them, and they had been delivered to the secular power, it can hardly be said that "quickspeed" was used in carrying that sentence into execution. The earliest sufferer of the six was allowed an interval of five weeks for reflection, and the others were burned on the 26th, 28th, and 29th of March and the 10th of June.

I say thus much here respecting these six prisoners, partly to refute on the spot the idle calumny with which their history is introduced; and partly because they are said to have been (though I know not when or where) before “the bishops," by which I suppose we are to understand the Commission. They were however, as may be seen, in a peculiar manner Bonner's prisoners (those "he began with "), and their cases will come more properly before us in the history of his dealings with those heretics who were proceeded against in his court.

§ 5. BONNER'S DEALINGS WITH HIS OWN PRISONERS.

Having seen how much Bonner had to do with the martyrs examined by the Commission in Southwark, let us briefly inquire what he did afterwards. Let us allow the King, Queen, and Council, the Commissioners, and the Chancellor, to follow their own pleasure unnoticed, while we attend on the proceedings of Bonner. Let us suppose that (as some writers represent it) the whole business of the persecution was turned over to him, and cursorily look at his course,

4 Pygot (as has been already stated) was a butcher, and Knight a barber; and they seem as if they had received their opinions from Dr. Taylor of Hadley. Laurence was a priest, and I do not find any account of the reason, or the time, of his coming into trouble; unless he was the same person as "Master Laurence of Barnhall," who is mentioned as "the first" in a list of the "Principal Teachers of Heretical Doctrine in London by Stephen Morris's Confession" (Fox. viii. 384);— but who Stephen Morris was, or when he made his confession, I do not know, nor have I found anything more about him in Fox.