willed me to tel you, that he is not so cruell or hastye to sende men to pryson as some be slaunderous and wilful to do naught, and laye theire faultes on other men's shoulders.

"Moreover my sayd lord bishop willed me to declare unto you, that upon Wednisday next at eight of the clocke in the morning, there shall be heare at Paules a sermon before the generall procession; and, that sermon beynge done, there shal be a generall procession throughe this citye, according to the tenor of the counsail's letters; and I do warne here this assemblye, and, by them, al other of this citye, to be present at the same."-Fox, vol. vii. 286. First Ed. p. 1217.

This Declaration, as I have already stated, I do not fully understand; and I do not pretend to say who they were whom Bonner in so public a manner charged with doing naught and laying their faults on other men's shoulders. The whole passage was, I believe, omitted in every edition of Fox after the first, until it was restored by Mr. Cattley1; and this, whatever people may think of the story now, looks as if the martyrologist on reflection, or a hint from some wiser head than his own, thought that it was one which might as well be forgotten. I apprehend that we may be indebted to Mr. Cattley and his odd edition for a good many such particulars.

§ 7. BONNER'S DEALINGS WITH HIS OWN PRISONERS

RESUMED.

Returning to the account of Bonner's dealings with his own prisoners, I am anxious to say at once, that it is not my purpose to weary the reader with a notice of each one of them in regular succession, though I have thought it fairest, most convenient, and every way best, to take a few of the first just in the order in which they occurred.

4 As I have repeatedly said, I quote Mr. Cattley's edition for the convenience of my readers as well as for my own. It was however so evident that the unhappy editor had in this passage (as in others replaced by him from the first edition) incorrected it into nonsense, that I did not venture to do what can be of comparatively little consequence where the reader may refer to older editions. Through the kindness of my friend Mr. Holmes of the Museum I am enabled to give it as it stands in the first edition. Mr. Cattley not understanding the end of the third paragraph, has printed it thus, "he is not so cruel or hasty to send men to prison as some beslanderous and wilful to do naught, and lay their faults on other men's shoulders." This might indicate something omitted, but it is It is merely that the editor did not understand it. It is obvious that there should be a comma after "prison."

not so.

I can truly declare that if I were merely desirous to make out a case, and it could be done without intolerable prolixity and repetition, I should be glad to go regularly through all the processes in which Bonner was concerned; and that, if I feel it necessary to select a part only, not a single one is omitted from a fear that it would contradict any fact which is stated, or any opinion which is maintained, in this volume.

But, in truth, the cases, as they are reported to us, are chiefly of two kinds; namely, those which relate little more than the capture of the prisoner, his examinations, his constancy in maintaining his opinions and withstanding the flattering and threatening by which he was assailed, and the catastrophe which followed-these accounts, given on one authority or another, or perhaps on none at all, form one class. The other, and much more valuable, consists of those narratives which were written by the parties themselves or their immediate relations or friends. These are not only more circumstantial, and more graphic, but, what is still more important, they are plainly the most unexceptionable as it regards both the facts stated, and the animus of the parties most interested. The reporter, we are sure, does not write to eulogize Bonner, or dispraise the subject of his narrative.

The two cases which occur next after the interruption of the Royal Letter, are fair specimens of this. The first is the joint one, already mentioned, of ;

66

(18.) JOHN SIMSON, and (19.) JOHN ARDELEY. They were both husbandmen in the town of Wigborough in Essex. At some time, which is not stated, they were brought up both together by the under-sheriff of Essex to Bonner, Bishop of London, upon the accusation (as in that time it was called) of heresy." Afterwards (how long of course does not appear, but it was on the 22nd of May, 1555) articles were objected to them. They answered either on the same day or on some other, and then, "the bishop, according to the old trade of his consistory court, respited them to the afternoon." At that time he repeated the said articles to them, "and beginning with John Ardeley, did urge and solicitate him, according to his manner of words, to recant. To whom John Ardeley

5 Fox, vii. 86, 88.

' again, constantly standing to his professed religion, gave answer in words as followeth: My lord,' quoth he, "neither you, nor any other of your religion, is of the 'catholic church; for you be of a false faith: and I doubt 'not but you shall be deceived at length, bear as good a face 'as ye can. Ye will shed the innocent blood, and you have 'killed many, and yet go about to kill more, etc.' When a husbandman of Essex, aged thirty, was thus publicly addressing the Bishop of London, sitting as a judge in his court, it is more natural to wonder at the patience which bore with it, than to blame the mistaken and impotent good-will that still persisted in endeavours to procure an abjuration; and it is not necessary for us to enter into the further particulars of the case. It is more to the purpose to notice that of,—

(20.) THOMAS HAUKES, gentleman, who tells his own story, with many very interesting particulars, and with a degree of self-complacency, and undisguised abomination of all papistry, which make his testimony respecting Bonner's temper, and mode of dealing with a rather provoking prisoner, particularly worthy of attention. I sincerely wish the reader would study the whole of it; for I believe it was the reading of this case, many years ago, which first raised in my own mind a suspicion that the bishop was not altogether such a person as Fox and some others would have us suppose him to have been. I could not avoid feeling that the young man, vaunted of by Fox as one who might seem to nobilitate the whole company of other holy mar'tyrs, and as a bright star to make the church of God and 'his truth, of themselves bright and clear, more gloriously 'to shine by his example," was, in his conduct and carriage, very unlike a humble Christian; while I could not escape the impression, that within the rough exterior of the bishop there must have been something more or less resembling that charity which is not easily provoked, nay even suffereth long, and is kind. Such an effect must, I think, be produced by the study of the history in Fox; and perhaps a few extracts, if they do nothing more, may show what I mean; though of course the prolixity, and repetition, which we are anxious and constrained to avoid, is a very impor

6 Fox, vii. p. 97.

tant feature in the case. It is not that the bishop let a forward young man say his say out, once or even twice, and then despatched him; but, that, after such a beginning, he had him on his hands for near a twelvemonth.

It seems that Thomas Haukes "entered service with the Earl of Oxford" (in a way which does not preclude his being qualified as "gentleman" in his history) during the preceding reign; and that when, on the change of religion, his patron conformed, he was not so accommodating, but quitted the Earl's service and lived at home. "But," says Fox, "what paradise' in this world shall a man find so secret for ' himself, whither that old wicked serpent' [the law of the 'land, I suppose] 'cannot creep, whereby he may have some ' matter to overthrow the quietness of the godly?" From what I can learn of Thomas Haukes' character I should not think that he was a person who concealed his opinions, or wished particularly for shade and secrecy; but Fox proceeds :

"Now in the mean season (as it happened) Haukes, keeping his house at home, had born unto him a young son, whose baptism was deferred to the third week, for that he would not suffer him to be baptized after the papistical manner; which thing the adversaries not able to suffer, laying hands upon him, did bring him to the earl of Oxford, there to be reasoned with, as not sound in religion, in that he seemed to contemn the sacraments of the church.

"The earl, either intending not to trouble himself in such matters or else seeing himself not able to weigh with him in such cases of religion, sent him up to London with a messenger, and letters; and so, willing to clear his own hands, put him in the hands of Bonner, bishop of London; the contents of which his letter sent to Bonner be these.

"A Letter of the Earl of Oxford to Bonner.

"Most reverend father in God, be it known unto you, that I have sent you one Thomas Haukes, dwelling in the County of Essex, who hath a child that hath remained unchristened more than three

7 So it stands in Mr. Cattley's edition, and perhaps correctly; for I have not the edition of 1583 which he professed to follow. The edition of 1597, which I suppose to be the best text of the Martyrology, reads "place" instead of "paradise," and it is followed by the edition of 1641, the only other black letter edition to which I can conveniently refer. These editions furnish other various readings in the account of Thomas Haukes, some of which will be noticed as they occur. Of course I shall not be understood as representing the two editions as of equal authority, having already said that I suppose the earliest of them to contain the best text that exists.

weeks; who, being upon the same examined, hath denied to have it baptized as it is now used in the church; whereupon I have sent him to your good lordship, to use as ye think best, by your good discretion."-vii. 98.

Soon after this we meet with a "Private Talk or Conference between Haukes and Bonner," in which after some introductory conversation about the baptism of his child, and other matter, Bonner inquired whether he knew Knight and Pygot, and the conversation proceeded thus:

"Haukes. Knight I know, but Pygot I do not know.'

"Bonner. "I thought ye were acquainted with him: it seemeth so by your judgment. What preachers do ye know in Essex ? ' "Haukes. 'I know none.'

"Bonner. "Do ye not know one Baget there? '8

"Haukes. "Yes forsooth, I know him.'

"Bonner. "What manner of man is he?'

"Haukes. An honest man, so far as I know.'

"Bonner. 'Do you know him if you see him?'

"Then said he to one of his servants, 'Go call me Baget hither.' And then he said to me, 'You seem to be a very proud man, and a stubborn.' He that brought me up stood all this while by.

"Haukes. What should move your lordship so to say?'

"Bonner. 'Because I see in a man that came with you, much humility and lowliness.'

66

9

"Haukes. 'It seemeth your lordship speaketh that to me, because I make no courtesy to you:'-and with that came Baget. Then the bishop said to Baget: 'How say ye, Sir? know ye this man?' Baget. 'Yea forsooth, my lord: '-with that Baget and I shook hands. Then said the bishop to Baget, Sir, this man hath a child which hath lain three weeks unchristened (as I have letters to show); who refuseth to have it baptized, as it is now used in the church :how say you thereto ?'

Baget. Forsooth, my lord, I say nothing thereto,' [with low courtesy to the hard ground.]

"Bonner. 'Say you nothing thereto? I will make you tell me whether it be laudable, and to be frequented and used in the church or not.'

Baget. 'I beseech your lordship to pardon me: he is old enough; let him answer for himself.'

"Bonner. 'Ah, sir knave! are ye at that point with me?' 'Go call me the porter,' said he, to one of his men: Thou shalt sit in the stocks, and have nothing but bread and water. I perceive I have kept you too well. Have I made thus much of you, and have

I you at this point?'

8 Rector of Fordham since 1554; which he seems to have held until 1558.-Newcourt.

9 "No more courtesy," ed. 1597.