PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP     

SECTION 1.

Queen Elizabeth proclaimed. The present ill condition of the kingdom. What presently to be done. Counsels taken. A fleet set out. A plot already against the queen. Conjurers. Dangers from France and Scotland. The queen makes warlike preparations. She removes from Hatfield. France intends a conquest of England. FOR entrance into this present undertaking, of shewing the happy steps queen Elizabeth made for bringing in and settling religion reformed from popery in her kingdom, it is necessary to see with what policy and counsel she began her reign. Without which, and a wonderful success attending her affairs, it had been impossible she should so soon have attempted, and so fortunately proceeded in this great work. And I shall the rather do this, because our printed historians are so silent, or so short and superficial in these matters, which were the very basis of her succeeding prosperous government; and have been all taken by me, partly out of a book of the minutes of the council, sometime belonging to this queen’s secretary, and partly out of divers other authentic MSS. either in the king’s paperhouse, the Cotton library, or elsewhere.

Queen Mary deceased the 17th day of November anno 1558, and about eleven or twelve o’clock aforenoon, the lady Elizabeth was proclaimed queen by divers heralds of arms, trumpets sounding, and many of the chiefest of the nobility present, as the duke of Norfolk, the lord treasurer, the earls of Shrewsbury and Bedford; also the lord mayor and his brethren the aldermen, with many others. In the afternoon the bells in all the churches in London rung in token of joy; and at night bonfires were made, and tables set out in the streets, where was plentiful eating and drinking, and making merry. The next day being Friday, it was not thought decent to make any public rejoicings, out of respect, I suppose, to the day, being a fasting-day. But on the next, viz. Saturday, November 19, Te Deum laudamus was sung and said in the churches of London. Thus the satisfaction generally conceived by the people for this new queen superseded all outward appearances of sorrow for the loss of the old one.

And no wonder, since the nation was not pleased with her administration, having left the kingdom in as low and miserable an ebb as ever it was known to have been in, in any former times: embroiled in war with France and Scotland, the exchequer very low, that queen having contracted great debts. By this means Elizabeth had formidable enemies before her and behind her: but illy guarded at Portsmouth, the Isle of Wight, Dover, against France: so that an invasion was feared on that side. And on the Scotch quarters, Berwick was in a woful condition, wanting both fortifications and men. Thus the new queen’s hands were now full, to secure herself and kingdom.

And indeed what to think of the queen at this time, as to her religion, one might hesitate somewhat: who in her sister’s reign went to mass, and complied outwardly with her practice; as John Knox told her in a letter dated from Edinburgh; though indeed (as he added) it was for fear of her life, that she declined from religion, and bowed to idolatry. And sir Richard Shelly, called lord prior of St. John’s of Jerusalem, but living beyond sea under this queen, in a private letter to her, speaking of what he had lost for his diversity of conscience in religion, disagreeable to the law established, “Whereunto,” saith he, “your majesty’s self at the first was not easily brought to condescend;” and mentioning the schism, as he called the religion reformed, “whereof,” said he, “your majesty was not the cause efficient, but one without which it could not take effect.” She protested also to count Feria, whom king Philip had lately sent into England,) that she acknowledged the real presence in the sacrament. Which he signified to the said Philip in a letter dated in November, but the day before queen Mary died. The same also she protested to the lord Lamac; and also that she did now and then pray to the virgin Mary.

And moreover, to see in what ill case the kingdom was when queen Elizabeth came to the crown, hear what one at that time spake. “She received it at the hand of her sister entangled (I will not say oppressed) with foreign wars: the French on the one side, and the Scots on the other: which sucking out of their ancestors’ poisoned breasts immortal and deadly hatred against this realm, lay in wait like thieves to invade and spoil it. The French, though in truce, when he heard of queen Mary’s death, kept still his Germans about him, upon hope, that if there had been any stirs in England, he might have set in a foot. And for that purpose had willed the cardinal of Lorrain to confer with our churchmen to see what might be done. Whether he did so or no, God knoweth: but it was certain that the cardinal had such commission. And besides that she was thus left, who saw not the realm not philipped, but fleeced for Philip’s sake, by maintaining all the last summer such a navy on the seas, and an army on the land; besides some tokens of love [money and provisions sent over] that past, I am sure, from the queen to her spouse, to shew that she was a loving wife?”

This was well known and observed by the wise men in those days.

Insomuch that the lord keeper Bacon in his speech, at the opening of her first parliament, spared not to call it the ragged and torn estate of her kingdom by misgovernance: and noted “the great decays and losses of honour, strength, and treasure, and the peril that happened to this imperial crown of late time, the marvellous waste of the revenue of the crown, the inestimable consumption of the treasure, levied both of the crown and of the subject, the exceeding loss of munition and artillery, the great loss of divers valiant gentlemen of very good service, the incredible sums of money owing at that present, and in honour due to be paid, and the biting interest that was to be answered for forbearance of this debt.”

These evils the said statesman, under the commendation of the present queen, laid to the charge of the former, saying, “that she [the present queen] was a princess, that was not so wedded to her own will and fantasy, that for the satisfaction thereof she would do any thing that were likely to bring servitude or bondage to her people; or give any just occasion to them of any inward grudge, whereby any tumults or stirs might arise, as had been done of late days, [by the Spanish match.] Things most pernicious and pesthent to the commonwealth: a princess that never meant nor intended, for any private affection, to advance the cause or quarrel [of another] with any foreign prince or potentate, [as Mary did with France for her affection to king Philip,] to the destruction of her own subjects, to the loss of any of her dominions, or to the impoverishing of her realm.”

Of this queen’s first course she took in her government, this account was given by one who had opportunity of knowing well the court, and lived at that time: “That whereas the former queen did all in haste in the beginning of her reign, her sister did every thing with more advisement and less trust. For she knew,” said he, “that to be true which Seneca saith, Velox consilium sequitur paenitentia , i.e. Repentance follows that counsel that is taken too speedily. Whereas she, being God’s chosen instrument to represent here among us his majesty, walked wisely in the steps of him that called her; and studied diligently to represent a lively image in her mortality of the incomparable and infinite Majesty, by using correction without severity, by seeking the lost with clemency, by governing wisely without fury, by weighing and judging without rashness, by purging evil humours with deliberation; and to conclude, in doing her duty without affection.”

The choice of her counsellors bespake also her wariness and great discretion, and contributed much to her first successes. For such she picked out to serve her (as the former observing man related) as were neither of common wit nor common experience. Of whom some by travel in strange countries, some by learning, some by practice, and like authority in other rulers’ days, some by affliction, either one way or other, for their gifts and graces which they had received at God’s hand, were men meet to be called to such rooms.

Add, that this wisdom and caution wherewith she managed herself and her affairs, took place in her in a great measure by occasion of the hardships and misusages she underwent before: whereof she had a greater share than commonly falls to the lot of princes born; but out of which dangers God miraculously delivered her. She was taught by afflictions. I think (saith the person before mentioned) no Englishman is ignorant, that her afflictions were far above the condition of a king’s daughter; for there was no more behind to make a very Iphigenia of her, but her offering up upon the altar of the scaffold. How she behaved herself in those storms and tempests, let them witness, who, being her adversaries, had the muying of her: of which he would say nothing, though he could say much. But this he must say, that then she must be in her afflictions marvellous patient, who shewed herself now in her prosperity to be utterly without desire of revenge, or else she would have given some token, ere this day, of remembrance how she was handled. And then he descends to some particulars of her unjust sufferings; “Was it no wrong, think you, that she sustained to be first a prisoner, and guarded with a sort of cut-throats, which ever gaped for the spoil of her house, that they might have been fingering of somewhat? Then with great solemnity, with bands of harnessed hangmen (happy was he that might have the carrying of her) to be fetched up as the greatest traitor in the world; hoisted into the Tower; there kept, not like a king’s daughter, nor a queen’s sister, but as one that had come out of Turkey to betray England. What assemblies and councils, what examinations and wrackings of poor men were there, to find out the knife that should cut her throat!

What gaping arming many lords of the clergy to see the day wherein they might wash their goodly white ratchets in her innocent blood!”

But through all these difficulties the divine Providence brought Elizabeth safe to the government; which nevertheless ended not her dangers, beginning her reign at so great disadvantage, as was shewn before. But she, by taking other measures than her sister did, and using more moderate counsels, and favouring a reformation of religion, was as prosperous to this church and nation, and retrieved again its ancient splendour and glory.

Insomuch that within four or five years after her accession to the crown, by means of her wise and careful administration, she was extolled among her people for a princess, “worthily to be compared with the most noble, most peaceable, most honourable, most merciful, and most godly governors that ever reigned in the world.”

And what methods she took we may perceive by a paper or memorial drawn by her great counsellor, sir William Cecyll, November the 17th, (that is, on the very day of the former queen’s decease,) the Cotton library, viz.

I. “To consider the proclamation, and to proclaim it; and to send the same to all manner of places, and sheriffs, with speed, and to put it in print.

II. “To prepare the Tower, and to appoint the custody thereof to trusty persons: and to write to all the keepers of forts and castles in the queen’s name.

III. “To consider for removing to the Tower: and the queen there to settle her officers and council,

IV. “To make a stay of passages to all the ports, until a certain day. And to consider the safety of all places dangerous toward France and Scotland; especially in this change.

V. “To send special messengers to the pope, emperor, the kings of Spain and Denmark, and to the state of Venice.

VI. “To send new commissioners to the earl of Arundel, and the bishop of Ely, (who were treating a peace at Cambray.) And to send one into Ireland with a new commission, and letters under the queen’s hand, to all ambassadors with foreign princes, to authorize them therein.

VII. “To appoint commissioners for the interment of the late queen.

VIII. “To appoint commissioners for the coronation; and the day.

IX. “To make a continuance of the term, with patents to the chief justice, to the lord treasurer, justices of each bench, barons, and masters of the rolls; with inhibition, quod non conferant aliquod officium.

X. “To appoint new sheriffs and justices of peace, or continue the old, by a proclamation to be sent to the sheriffs under the great seal.

XI. “To inhibit by proclamation the making over of any money by exchange, without knowledge given to the queen’s majesty; and to charge all manner of persons, that either have made any, or have been privy to any exchange made by the space of one month before the 17th of this month.

XII. “To consider the condition of the preacher of Paul’s Cross, that no occasion be given by him to stir any dispute touching the governance of the realm.”

As to the first of these articles, she took care with speed to have her right and title proclaimed to the imperial crown of this realm, “as the only right heir by blood and lawful succession to the kingdoms: giving knowledge by the same proclamation to all her subjects, that from the beginning of the seventeenth day of November, at which time her sister departed this life, they were discharged of all bonds and duties of subjection towards her, and bound only to Ehzaheth, as their only lady and queen. And then professing on her part no less love and care towards their preservation, than had been in any of her progenitors. And lastly, straitly charging all her subjects to keep themselves in peace. And [as though she meant the better to conceal her intention of altering religion] not to “attempt upon any pretence the breach or alteration of any order or usage at that time established in the realm. The proclamation may be read in the Repository.”

The lady Elizabeth was at her seat at Hatfield when queen Mary died.

Thither some great persons forthwith repaired to her, namely, the earl of Pembroke; lord Clinton, lord admiral; the earl of Arundel, lord chamberlain: which three, with sir Thomas Parry, sir William Cecil, sir Ambrose Cave, sir Ralph Sadleir, (who was sent from the lords at London,) and sir Richard Sackvile, sat at Hatfield in council with her, being the first privy council she held. (Yet the lords of the deceased queen’s council sat at London.) The chief matters then done were, that sir Thomas Parry, knt. aforesaid, who had been a servant much about her, was by her command, and in her presence, declared the comptroller of her household, and sworn of her privy council; sir Edward Rogers, knt. her vicechamberlain and captain of her guard, and one of her privy council; sir William Cecil, knt. her principal secretary, and one of her privy council.

And letters were despatched by this present council to Dr. Walter Haddon to repair thither: and in like manner to John Norris, esq. late gentleman usher of the deceased queen’s privy chamber.

The next day, viz. November 21, the earl of Bedford came to Hatfield, and sat in council with the rest before named.

And whereas robberies were now very rife, the robbers expecting their pardon of course upon the coronation; this occasioned the drawing up of a proclamation touching such as robbed on these hopes: which was sent to the lords of the council at London by sir Ralph Sadleir; who also carried letters to the said lords.

The late queen’s commissioners were now treating beyond sea about Calais, lately lost. And now at this council, November 21, a letter was dated from Hatfield, sent by the queen and her council there to Malyn, vice-admiral of the narrow seas, to equip the ships in his charge to the seas, to keep the passage, and to hinder as much as he might the victualling of Calais, and to see good wafting of such as should come from the commissioners; and to set none over, except he had a passport from hence.

And this order was so strict to Malyn, that not so much as fishermen or coasters were allowed to go out. But the inconvenience arising hence made the lords of the council soon after, viz. November 24, to send a letter to the lord admiral, that he would take order, “that fishermen and other coastmen, that crossed not the seas, should be suffered to go to sea about their occupations and business, notwithstanding the former restraint: yet foreseeing that such as had charge of the ports should have good eye unto them that were so suffered, that they carried not out any of the commodities of the realm, or any persons not having licence; and to stay all persons that should be found suspicious herein.”

And on the same November 24, this restraint was taken off in a great measure by another order to the lord warden of the cinque ports, to set the passages at liberty, and to suffer all men that were not otherwise prohibited by the law to pass thereby. And the lord admiral was required to suffer such lords as had been stayed, to pass to the seas.

The queen and council, still at Hatfield, are taking care of her remove to London; and considering what noble persons to have present. Whereof the marquis of Winchester, and the earls of Shrewsbury and Darby were sent for by a letter; in which were enclosed the names of such other noblemen as her highness thought good to attend upon her to London; and the archbishop of York, with sir William Petre and sir John Mason, appointed in the interim to transact any urgent business emerging. The letter may be consulted in the Repository.

There were some already of the popish faction contriving mischief against the queen, by setting up the Scotch queen’s title, and by getting assistance from the Guises in France to carry on their designs in her behalf, and by dealing with some conjurers, to cast their figures to calculate the queen’s life, and the duration of her government, and the like. In this plot cardinal Pole’s brothers were concerned. The knowledge of this coming to the queen and her council, it was ordered at council, November 22d, that Anthony Fortescue, who had been comptroller to the cardinal, should be apprehended; a letter being sent for that purpose to the earl of Rutland; and that he should have conference with nobody. Sir John Mason had the bodies of two more charged in the said accusation, viz. Kele and Prestal.

He was willed to examine them diligently upon such points as the said Kele should open unto him, and to keep Kele in safe custody in his house; so as none should have conference with him. Accordingly examinations were taken by Mason and the earl of Rutland: which examinations the lords perused November 25, and resolved, they should be forthwith set at liberty; bonds being first taken of each of them for their forthcoming, when they should be called by the lords of the council.

One named Thirkel, a tailor, was now also in hold for conjuring about the matters aforesaid, and in the custody of John March, esq. who was ordered, November 24, to examine him, and to keep him in safe custody without conference with any. And Richard Parlaben was another of these conjurers, taken up, and in custody of Thomas Sackford of Greys-inn, esq.

Thus early did this excellent lady’s enemies plot, and continue their devices of mischief against her, and combine to dethrone her, when she had been scarcely possessed of her crown.

Divers other conjurers were now also in custody, of the same design and purpose, I suppose, with the former; and were examined. And December 18, the lords sent their letters to the bishop of London, viz. Boner, with certain examinations, sent withal by Mr. Attorney: and he was willed to proceed by such severe punishments against them that should be proved culpable herein, according to the order of the ecclesiastical law, as he should think meet; and to signify back what he did herein.

It is strange to consider, how these sorceries prevailed about this time, and so on for some of the first years of the queen’s reign, and the mischiefs they did, and the fears many good and sober men had of their bewitching the queen herself. This is evident from a passage in a sermon of bishop Jewel’s before the queen: wherein he thus addresseth himself to her: “By the way to touch but a word or two of this matter, for that the horrible using of your poor subjects enforceth thereunto. It may please your grace to understand, that this kind of people, I mean witches and sorcerers, within these few last years are marvellously increased within your grace’s realm. These eyes have seen most evident and manifest marks of their wickedness. Your grace’s subjects pine away even unto the death, their colour fadeth, their flesh rotteth, their speech is benumbed, their senses are bereft.

Wherefore your poor subject’s most humble petition unto your highness is, that the laws touching such malefactors may be put in due execution. For the shoal of them is great, their doings horrible, their malice intolerable, the examples most miserable: and I pray God they never practise further than upon the subject.”

This I make no doubt was the occasion of bringing in a bill the next parliament, for making enchantments and witchcraft felony.

And now because this Scotch business falls thus in our way` we shall relate what the acts and practices of the friends of that party were; from whence we may conclude, what just jealousies were raised in the queen’s mind hereby. Mary queen of Scotland, and the dauphin of France, to whom she was married, gave broad signs of their pretences to the crown of England, by the coat of arms that they gave: whereby the queen became in danger at this time of two nations invading her. It was borne baron and femme: in the first was the coat of the dauphin of France, which took up the upper half of the shield; the lower half contained the arms of Scotland. This impaled quarterly. 1. The arms of Scotland. 2. The arms of England.

The third as the second. The fourth as the first. Over all, half an escutcheon of pretence of England, the sinister half being as it were obscured or cut off: perhaps so given to denote that another (and who should that be but queen Elizabeth?) had gotten possession of the crown in her prejudice.

Under the arms were writ these rhymes in the Scottish dialect: The arms of Mary queen dolphiness of Fraunce, The noblest lady in earth, for till advaunce:

Of Scotland queen, and of England, also Of Fraunce, as God hath providit so.

This escutcheon being lately brought out of France, was delivered to the duke of Norfolk, earl marshal of England; who sent it to the office of heralds for their judgment upon it, June the 13th, 1559. Their answer was to this tenor: “Hyt may please your grace, that upon good delibera tion, we, garter and clarencieux, with others of the office, have perused this escutcheon of arms, delivered by your grace; and we find the same prejudicial unto the queen’s majesty, her state and dignity; and that hyt doth not appertain to any foreign prince, what marriage soever he hath made with England, to quarter, bear, or use the arms of England otherwise than in pale, as in token of marriage. And albeit James, late Scottish king, grandfather to the Scottish queen that now is, married with one of the daughters of king Henry VII. And the said Scottish queen, being but one of the collaterals, cannot nor ought not to bear any escutcheon of the arms of England: nor yet the dolphin her husband in the right of her, or otherwise. “Furthermore, we find the said escutcheon falsely marshalled, contrary to all law and order of arms.”

But that the French king might keep his pretence to England, he would not forego usurping the title, and quartering the arms of England and Ireland with Scotland. July the 27th. The arms of the Scotch queen, with the arms of England, were set up at the marriage solemnized for the king of Spain with the French king’s daughter, and those verses written, The arms of Mary queen dolphiness of France, &c. as before. And in November, the queen of Scots made her entry into the Castle Heraut, where her style was published as queen of England. And four verses were made upon her; whereof the two last were, Nunc Gallos totoque remotos orbe Britannos, Unum dos Mariae cogit in imperium.

But queen Elizabeth in the treaty did require Francis of France, and Mary of Scotland, to leave off this usurping title and arms. To which they gave no direct answer, but solicited pope Paul IV. to declare the queen’s title not good.

And this was long after, viz. anno 1572, laid to the Scotch queen’s charge, when she was detained in England, (among other articles drawn up against her,) namely, “her claim to the crown of England in possession, with refusal and delay to remove the same: giving the arms of England without difference, in escutcheons, coat-arms, plate, altar-cloths, which were openly seen at the triumph; writing of the style of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, in letters patents during her coverture; and of her pedigree, conveying her three ways to the crown: first, as descending from the eldest daughter of king Henry VII. another, from the Duke of Somerset: the third, from a daughter of Edmund before the conquest.”

To which may be added, that there was a grant, dated Jan. 16, 1558, of certain things made to the lord Fleming, by the dauphin of France, and his wife the queen of Scots, by the style of king and queen of Scotland, England, and France, and Ireland.

And the queen had still more reason to be jealous of the Scotch title, since her sister, the late queen Mary, used to taunt her by telling her often, that the queen of Scots was the certain and undoubted heir of the crown of England, next after herself. Add to this, that the cardinal of Lorrain in a conference with some delegates from Spain at Cambray about this time asserted, that his niece, the said queen of Scots, was most just queen of England.

Which consideration might well be the reason of the queen’s and council’s forementioned order to the vice-admiral, forthwith to set out a fleet to guard the narrow seas: and that in the beginning of December strict inquiry was made what ammunition was in the Tower, in order to a supply thereof.

For December 6th, the council sent a letter to sir Richard Southwel, master of the ordnance and armory, to make his repair to the lords, and to bring with him a perfect declaration of the state of his office, as well touching the provisions, expenses, and remains, as also of the present wants of the same.

Care was also taken about Portsmouth and the strong places on that coast.

For at the same council Richard Worsely, esq. was ordered to repair to Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight, and the forts, castles, and bulwarks thereabouts; and consider the state of the same.

Now these were the several removes of the queen before she came to the palace at Westminster. And she sat in council every day, except her days of travelling. She sat first in council at Hatfield, (where she was saluted queen,) November the 20, 21, 22. The next day, being the 23d, she removed towards London, attended with a thousand or more of lords, knights, gentlemen, ladies, and gentlewomen, and came to the Charterhouse, then the lord North’s place; where the archbishop of York and the earls of Shrewsbury and Darby came to her. Here she remained six days, and sat in council November the 24, 25, 26, 27, 28. Her next remove thence was to the Tower, which was on the 28th day of November. All the streets she was to pass, even to the Tower, were new gravelled. And so she rid through Barbican and Cripplegate, and along London-wall unto Bishopsgate, and thence up to Leaden-hall, and so through Grasschurchstreet and Fanchurch-street, turning down Mark-lane into Tower-street, and so to the Tower. Before her rode many gentlemen, knights, and nobles; after them came the trumpeters blowing; then all the heralds in array, my lord mayor holding the queen’s sceptre, riding with garter: my lord of Pembroke bare the queen’s sword. Then came her grace on horseback, apparelled in purple velvet, with a scarf about her neck: the sergeants of arms being about her person. Next after her rode sir Robert Dudley, (afterwards earl of Leicester,) master of her horse: and so the guard with halberds. There was great shooting of guns, the like was never heard before. In certain places stood children, who made speeches to her as she passed; and in other places was singing and playing with regals. Here at the Tower she lay until the 5th of December, which was the eve of St. Nicolas.

The 1st, 2d, and 4th of which month, with the last day of the month preceding, were council days there.

Then, December the 5th, she removed a little nearer to Westminster; viz. to the Strand-house, or Somerset-house, going by water, and shooting the bridge, trumpets sounding, much melody accompanying, and universal expressions of joy among the people. Here she sat also in council daily, viz.

December the 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. And now at last she came to Westminster; that is, the 23d day of December; where she kept her Christmas, and continued all the ensuing winter; her first parliament then sitting there; and where she was in April 1559.

And now having brought the queen to her palace, let us proceed in shewing her present cares. It was concluded at court, and taken for granted, that the French meant to endeavour the conquest of this realm, by reason of the prefence of title which they made thereto, in these four regards; their open challenge at the treaty of Cambresey; the beating of the arms; the using of the style, and the making commissions under the seal, and with the style of England and Ireland. It was likewise concluded, that the French would attempt this conquest this present year; and that upon these grounds which secretary Cecil drew up. “First, they would not defer it, because of the doubt of the queen [of Scots] life. Secondly, they had now got an occasion to conquer Scotland, and had already men of war there, and prepared a great army, both out of France and Almain. Their captains were appointed; their victums provided, their ships in rigging. Thirdly, they reckoned within a month to have their wills in Scotland.

Fourthly, that done, it seemed most likely they would prosecute their pretence against England; which had no fort but Berwick to stay them: and that was unperfect, and would be these two years day. Fifthly, if they offered battle with Almains, there was great doubt how England would be able to sustain it; both for lack of good generals and great captains; and principally for lack of people, considering the waste that had lately been by sickness and death these three last years. Again, if it were defended with strangers, the entertainment would be so chargeable in respect of money, and so hurtful to the realm, as it could not be borne.”

Hence these questions were propounded by the said secretary. First, what to do. Next, whether it were better to impeach the enemy in Scotland now in the beginning, before their army were come; and so to take away their landing places: or to permit them therein, and to provide for the defence of the realm?

Upon the question, it was to be considered, as convenient to be done: “First, that the queen’s majesty did with speed send to king Philip to understand his mind, and to obtain his friendship. Item, That one be sent to the king of Denmark, to stay him, and to cause him to doubt of the French. Item, To send to the princes of Almain. Item, To provide all manner of ways for money, armour, &c. Item, To send with all speed to the French king, to declare to him what occasions the queen hath to doubt his proceedings: and therefore to let him know her purpose of defence. And that if his proceedings increased as they were begun, her majesty must needs provide to prevent the dangers. Item, That in the mean season, the ships lie in the Frith of Edenburgh, and to pike as many quarrels as they might of themselves, to impeach any more succours to come out of France to Lethe. And this to be done by them upon their own heads, without notice of a commandment so to do; and so to use the matter as the cause might come of the French. Item, That if the French armed any greater navy to the seas, which by appearance should annoy ours in the Frith; then also the like to be armed by the queen’s majesty. Item, The duke of Norfolk, lord lieutenant of the north, to have a power of horse and foot ready upon the borders, both to defend, and invade, or offend, if cause were given.”

And upon this it was moved that sir Nicolas Throgmorton should be despatched to France; and the lord Mountague and sir Thomas Chamberlain to Spain. And so they were.

SECTION 2.

The queen procures money diligently. She calls in her debts. She requires her myzes from Wales. She looks to her forts and castles.

Betwick: orders for that place, and for Newcastle; and the east and middle marches. Letters to the lord warden. The assured Scots.

Peace with Scotland. FURTHERMORE the queen, for the better strengthening herself, and providing against her enemies, besides what she had already done, saw that money was with all speed to be procured. Presently therefore she employed her merchant and agent, sir Thomas Gresham, knight, to take up at Antwerp divers sums of money; and the city of London gave their bonds for payment; a letter having been sent from the queen’s council to the lord mayor; aldermen, and common-council, for sealing bonds for that end: which service towards her they readily shewed their goodwill by doing.

She was diligent also in calling for the remainders of the fifteens and tenths given by act of parliament to her sister, which had not. yet been brought into her exchequer. And because several of the collectors were behindhand in their accounts, letters from the lords of the council, dated in December 1558, were sent forth to the sheriffs of the several counties of Bucks, York, Gloucester, Nottingham, Oxon, Berks, Stafford, and Warwick; and to the mayors of the towns of Northampton, Darby, King’s Lyn, and Southampton, to apprehend the collectors of the fifteens and tenths, in the said shires and towns behind of their collections; and to bind them into good bands in treble the sums, to make payment of all that was by them due in the Exchequer, within fifteen days after the bands taken. Again, letters were sent to John Aylworth, receiver of the counties of Somerset, &c. and to the sheriffs of the counties of Lincoln, Nottingham, Darby, and Chester, to make payment forthwith into the receipt of the exchequer, of all such sums as were by them due in their several collections at Michaelmas last, as they would answer for the contrary at their utmost peril. And when it was understood, that some of her own household were behind in their payments of the subsidy, a letter proceeded from the council to the tellers of the Exchequer, to send them a perfect book of the names of all such as were behind, within the queen’s house, of the payment of the last subsidy granted to the late queen.

And for the better understanding of the debts, the lord Paget, with others, having been appointed commissioners in the time of the late queen, for the taking knowledge of what was owing to her, was prayed to give a particular note of what he had found touching the same matter.

The queen began thus early to look intently also into her own revenue, and unto all such as were the chief farmers of it. And in this business sir Walter Mildmay, one well versed in accounts, (having a great while belonged to the Augmentations,) was chiefly to be employed. And a letter was directed to him from the lords, to send to all the auditors, and such others as he thought good for his better instructions in the matter, for the names of all the head farmers, within the realm, of the queen’s majesty’s revenue; and especially of all the copyholders westward; requiring him thereof to make a book out of hand, and to send the same to court with all convenient speed.

And the next council-day, the lord treasurer (who was the marquis of Winchester) was ordered to cause process to be made with all speed out of the exchequer, for the answering of the temporalities of these bishoprics now void, viz. Canterbury, Norwich, Rochester, Bristol, Oxon, Chichester, Hereford, Sarum, Gloucester, and Bangor; signilying also unto his lordship, that the queen’s pleasure was, that sir John Mason, treasurer of her chamber, should have the care of seeing this prosecuted with speed.

And that she might know the true state of her purse, Mr. Damsel was sent to certify all manner of debts due in the in the court of wards: and so was sir Ambrose Cave, chancellor of the duchy, to do the like in the court of the duchy. And the lord treasurer at the same time, namely December 24 to cause speedy certificate to be made to the queen, of all manner of debts due in the exchequer; to the intent, the same being known, order might be given by such as she had appointed in commission, to see the same answered with all expedition.

To this may be added, that she appointed a commission A to understand what lands had been granted from the crown in the late queen’s reign. The commissioners whereof were the marquis of Winchester, the lord Rich, the lord North, Mildmay, &c.

In the same month she also took her advantage against certain Italian merchants for bringing in commodities from the enemy: ordering her customers of London to levy and get into their hands the sum of 2542l . 7s. 4d. [by way of fines and forfeiture] due to her from Germin Ciol, Alexander Bonvice, Augustin de Sexto, and John Heath, for the impost of certain wines and other French wares. And also laid Ciol in prison.

Nor did she forget her myzes; that is, what was due to her from the people of Wales, by ancient custom due to the princes of Wales, and to all the princes of the realm at their first entrance upon the supreme government.

Which thing was anciently an honorary present to the prince, of corn and wine from each county towards the expense of his family: but afterwards paid in money. For the receiving of this she appointed a commission, which, in February 1558, met with some opposition in the town of Carmarthen, chiefly by one Thomas Lloid, of Llan Stephan, gent. and certain others his complices, making a disorder against her commissioners in that county; who were therefore committed to ward; and a letter was sent to the lord president and council of Wales, to send for them to the marches, and to take such order at their coming thither, as to send up forthwith unto the queen’s council, under safe custody, the said Lloid, and two or three other most faulty; and to commit to ward the rest there, to remain till the principals had been brought up and received condign punishment for their said disorders. The names of the others sent up with Lloid, were David ap Gorwared, John Palmer, and William Jack: all which were presently committed to the Tower. But it being for a contempt only, and for the terror and example of others, the letter from the council had instructed the lieutenant to use them honestly; but to keep it to himself.

They were committed March 18, 1558, and discharged April the 8th following. And of this the lords of the council advertised the lord president of Wales; and mentioned withal, how they alleged, that after the death of king Henry VIII. and king Edward VI. greater sums were levied for the myzes in the county of Carmarthen, than was answered to the prince. The said president therefore was willed to hear what the said Thomas Lloid could say herein: and to call for such before him as should, be found faulty in this matter; and to cause them to repay to the queen’s use what they had detained; and further to punish them as the quality of their default should demerit.

Let me here add one passage more in transitu concerning this custom. In the month of March the inhabitants of Wales, and of the county palatine of Chester, presented the queen a supplication for their ancient liberties and customs to be allowed, m respect of their myzes, of certain debts, felonies, &c. Which business the queen committed to the lord president and council of the marches of Wales.

And upon another petition of theirs, an order was made in the queen’s first parliament, by the queen with the consent of the Lords, that in this year wherein a subsidy was to. be paid the queen, they should not be charged with the payment of the myzes: nor at any other time that she received them, her subsidies should not be paid that year.

But to return a little backward, to observe further this part of the new queen’s state-wisdom, in her care of her treasure: she also called upon Sir Anthony St. Leger, late lord deputy of Ireland, and Andrew Wise, of Baigtiss in the kingdom of Ireland, esq. vice-treasurer of that kingdom, requiring their accounts, (as well as she had done others,) especially being in considerable arrears with her. The former she wrote to, to this purport, “that being indebted to her in great sums of money, he was willed to make payment thereof forthwith to her use; and to signify with speed to the lords what he minded to do.” And in February certain soldiers of Ireland claimed their wages for one and twenty months, due in the time that he was deputy there, and he ought to have paid; which made the lords write to him another letter. And a third was sent him in March, with order to pay the poor soldiers of Ireland such sums of money as were due to them: and if it should be found that he ought not to pay the same, it should be defalked out of such sums as he owed to the queen. As for Wise, he was put into the Fleet: and a little after, viz. about the middle of January, a bond of 12,000l . was taken of him, with two sureties, to discharge all such sums of money with which he stood charged and indebted to the queen. And the lords appointed sir William Petre, sir John Mason, sir Richard Sackvile, and sir Walter Mildmay, to audit his account. But it seems he was not able to give up his accounts to the satisfaction of the queen, and so his bond was forfeited, and he committed again to the Fleet, April l2th, 1559.

Nor would the queen release the merchant adventurers of a new impost laid by queen Mary upon cloth and other commodities: which the said merchants did earnestly sue to the council to be released of: refusing a good while to answer such sums as were by them due upon the same account. Whereupon, in January 30, they were summoned before the lords, where they declared they would stand to such end as should be ordered by law: and this they subscribed to in a bill, which was delivered to the lord great seal. But after divers appearances before the privy council, they were finally answered, March the 30th, that the queen’s majesty could by no means (her great charges considered) either undo or mitigate the same.

Nevertheless they gave the merchants further day to be again before them; who were pleased both to hear what they could further say in this matter, and also to consider certain licences which they claimed of the grant of the late queen, for the carrying out of cloths.

Thus did the queen play the good husband, that she might have treasure, for the better providing for the charges of her royal estate: for she saw round about her vast expenses necessary to be laid out, for the defence of herself in this state of hostility, wherein she found the kingdom involved.

She was to pay off her sister’s debts, besides her funerals; the garrisons and army were behind in their wages; the strength and fortifications on the frontiers, both against France and Scotland, very defective; her number of soldiers too few, and her forces to be increased.

And that the queen might the more effectually look to herself, a letter was wrote in the beginning of January to the lord treasurer, to send thither a perfect book of all the castles, forts, and bulwarks of the realm; and what captains and soldiers were placed in the same, and what entertainment each of them had. Which letter was in order to what was agreed to by the board, a day or two before, viz. that the lord admiral should have the consideration of all the forts and bulwarks of the realm, and to understand the present state of the same.

And now let us see what care was taken for Berwick, whereof the lord Eure was captain. The place was found to be in great danger of being taken by the Scots, wanting both men and strength. Some fortifications had been begun under that lord; and a letter, dated in November 1558, was sent to him, that he should go forward as the season of the year would suffer; so as at the least, so much might be done as should have been done by the late queen, had she lived. Ordnance and munition was also hastened thither, and the lord admiral had instructions to give order for the wafting of it.

And in the same month a letter was sent to the lord Eure for the garrisons at Berwick; requiring him, for the better meeting with such fraud as was used at musters, and for that it appeared that the numbers appointed to serve were not full, and divers wanting, to cause on a sudden, without warning given, musters to be taken by some fitting persons, and to observe what defects were in their numbers and in their arms. The queen also encouraged the said lord, captain of Berwick, upon his suit, granting him 20s. a day, by way of her majesty’s relief, towards the entertainment of an hundred horsemen serving there under him, though not as captain of Berwick: but whereas he sued to come up, and leave his charge for a time with Mr. Bowes, the marshal there, he was by the lords required to forbear, until a more convenient time hereafter, that her highness might be moved, and her pleasure therein signified unto him.

Abyngton, the surveyor of victuals for Berwick, had bought up at Hull, for the better furniture of that place, an hundred quarters of wheat, and as many of malt. And a letter was despatched to Alrede, customer of Hull, requiring him to suffer it to pass unto Berwick; yet to keep a perfect docket of the very quantity that passed.

And because the soldiers in those parts were too apt to be absent from their quarters, (a thing of very dangerous import, while invasion was daily expected,) therefore the queen caused a proclamation to be made for Berwick, as also for the frontiers governed by the earl of Northumberland, that all captains and soldiers that were absent from their charge should repair thither upon pain of forfeiture of all such wages as were due unto them, from the last pay unto the first of January next, if they were not found there at that day. She also confirmed the liberties and corporation of this town of Berwick.

Newcastle was now in great danger of being surprised by the French, who intended that way to invade England: but some secret intelligence thereof coming to the queen, she endeavoured timely to prevent the danger by fortifying the place, and supplying it with sufficient forces, to be sent from the neighbouring parts, the duke of Norfolk being lord lieutenant of the north. This present danger she signified to the earl of Shrewsbury, lord lieutenant (as it seems) of Derbyshire: and by her letters in December, committed a special charge to him for the defence of the realm, against these attempts of the French that had been lately discovered (as the lords of the council wrote to him) though not disclosed, to levy certain horsemen, both demilances and corselets: and she sent also her letters to divers persons of good livelihood within that county, to will them with all speed to make ready certain horse, and to send them to Newcastle by the 25th of January. The council gave the earl particular instructions in this emergence, as to send for the sheriff, and for other of the principal in every quarter of the shire, and to confer with them how this charge and service might best be performed. The queen also at this time ordered the said earl to levy certain numbers of footmen to be raised in Yorkshire, to be sent to Berwick. And secretary Cecyl in a letter shewed him, that the French had pressed fifteen thousand Almains in Germany, and were arming all their ships to the seas.

On Thursday the latter end of December, the abovesaid lord Eure, governor of this place, did some service against Scotland, (for which he received a letter of thanks from above,) namely, in annoying the enemy, and burning the mill, the kill, and other houses near unto Aymouth: but he was required utterly to forbear to embrace any Frenchman’s offer (of which nation several supplies were already sent to Scotland) that should run away from Scotland, if they might be suffered to pass through the realm; nor other wise to use any one of them during the wars, than to procure intelligence at their hands, and to learn somewhat that might advance the service of the queen.

Care was also taken to send treasure to Sir William Engolby, treasurer of Berwick; that is, so much as should make the full pay for the old ordinary garrison there; and for what should be due February 14. And the same month a thousand ton of timber was bought by the queen’s order of sir Richard Lee, at 10s. the ton, to be sent to Berwick, and delivered at Hull.

For which the queen’s council sent order to Richard Whalley, esq. to go forward in the bargain: and the said sir Richard Lee not to make. sale of any wood that he should fell, but to keep the same for the queen’s majesty’s use at the said price. And in March they were very busy in making strong the fortifications there. And Abyngton, surveyor of the victuals, received a letter from the council, signifying unto him, that the queen’s highness might be the better answered of such money as should be due by the labourers and workmen of the fortifications there, for their victuals; her highness’ pleasure was, that he should appoint certain particular victuallers under him, to take upon them the care and charge of the victualling of the same labourers from time to time; and to be present also themselves at every pay, and to defalk so much of their wages as should be due by them for the said victuals so received at their hands.

And finally, Sir James Croft, knt. who had been employed by the queen in overlooking, and examining, and ordering of all matters relating to Berwick, by many particular letters wrote to him from the council, at length in March had a commission under the great seal of the captainship of the town and castle of that place, in the room of the lord Eure. Crofts had desired a continuance of a benevolence for the increase of the wages of the old garrison (which was 3d. a day) granted the last year: but it was answered him, that forasmuch as this was a new charge, the lords did not think meet the same should be continued. And therefore he was required to persuade the soldiers to be contented with their ordinary entertainment, until her highness should be of better ability to consider them. The sick and unserviceable men he was ordered to cass, by taking up money of the merchants at Newcastle, which should be repaid them at the coming down of the treasure, that should be shortly.

And this was the provision and care the queen took for Berwick, for the restoring it to its pristine condition and strength, to be able to maintain itself against Scotland.

The like also she took for the frontiers of the east and middle marches, which were under the government of the earl of Northumberland, lord warden thereof. There was an evil practice among the soldiers for these borders, which was of very dangerous consequence: it was, that their numbers being not full, but divers of them wanting, at the musters persons were procured to appear then only, that it might seem as though none were wanting. Therefore for the better meeting with this fraud, as sir Henry Percy had reported it, the lord warden was appointed to cause forthwith, in most secret manner, certain discreet gentlemen, not being Northumberland men, or borderers, to repair at one instant time to all the several places where any numbers were set, and to take musters of them, to see how many were wanting, how many were Northumberland men, and how many inland men; how they that remained were appointed and furnished with arms; and to signify the same up to council: and what other device he thought meet for redress hereof: as order was also given for the like purpose to the lord Eure aforesaid for his government. This was done in November. And sir Henry Percy, (who was the carl’s son,) as he had been lately despatched out of the north from the earl to the court, so he was sent back again to him with these instructions.

Orders were also given to the said earl to see the bands diligently furnished. An hundred hagbutters were sent to the frontiers from the lord Dacres, lord deputy of the west marches: and the earl was required to be careful in mustering the bands; to have espials in Scotland; to keep the fords and watches: and as the queen added 3d. a day to the pay of the soldiers, so it was to be publicly declared, for the better encouragement of the soldiers in their duty.

And to secure the loyalty of sir Ralph Grey in those parts, who had before the grant of leading an hundred men, in consideration of his losses upon the borders, and his good forwardness in service, she caused a letter to be wrote to him, signifying her good pleasure that he should be continued in his place, and that he should also have an augmentation, by way of reward, for the said number; and so was required to shew himself answerable to her majesty’s expectation in service, as she might think this charge to be well bestowed: otherwise it was plainly told him, she would not fail to place another in that charge.

There was a proclamation to be issued out for these east and middle marches, to be published in those parts, viz. that all captains and soldiers having charge upon the frontiers, being absent from it, should repair thither, upon pain of forfeiture of all their wages that would be due the first of January. The lord deputy was required accordingly to put this proclamation in execution upon all such as should not accomplish the contents thereof. And all this care was taken for these borders in the month of December.

According to a late order, the earl of Northumberland sent up the musterbook of garrisons under his charge, together with his letters for instruction in certain points. It was signified to him from above, “that as the lords did very well like his diligence and secrecy in taking of the musters upon the frontiers, so it could not but much mislike them that there were such deficiencies in the numbers. And whereas he wrote that the garrison of the enemy was increased, the lords thought, that if the numbers under his charge and the garrison of Berwick were reduced into one number, the same would far exceed the power of the enemy: and considering that the enemy’s force was for the most part placed in forts, and that they would not leave the same in danger to come to the frontiers; yet nevertheless his lordship’s request was allowed, to have some further relief, wherein order should be taken.”

In the mean time the lord Eure was writ to, to help the lord warden in time of necessity only, with some horsemen out of Berwick, in the day time, so as they might return to Berwiek before night, for the guarding of that piece: for it was thought the enemy would attempt nothing before the next light night.

Orders also were sent to the bishop of Durham, to send men from the bishopric in case of necessity. And finally the earl was desired to stand upon his guard.

And when, toward the beginning of January, Leonard Dacres, the lord Dacres’ son, had by his valour and conduct done some considerable service against the Scots, the lords of the council sent him the queen’s thanks; and required him to thank captain Tutty, and the rest that served with him. And that as the lords did very well like his forwardness, so they would have wished he had forborne the annoying of them, and stood only upon his own guard, considering that they would seek to revenge it: and indeed so it proved; for the Scots soon after did some exploit upon the English, and increased their former forces upon the frontiers.

Whereat the queen determined to send forthwith to the borders a thousand men: and for that purpose, as she had addressed her letters to the bishop of Durham, January 7, to put the force of the bishopric in such readiness as they might, upon any sudden warning, be ready to serve under sir George Conyers: so four days after, by another letter, he was enjoined to levy in the bishopric five hundred footmen; and that he should confer with sir J.

Croft concerning fit gentlemen to have the leading them; and to have special foresight, that none of the officers used any frauds for the sparing of any man from this service; a disorder which as it had been practised in the south, so the lords would be sorry it should creep into the north.

Letters were also written to certain gentlemen of the north riding of Yorkshire, to levy two hundred men in that part of the shire; and to the earl of Northumberland, to levy three hundred men in Richmondshire, where he was steward. And he was also willed to confer with sir James Croft, who was newly sent down there, touching the placing the same numbers upon the borders in such sort as might most annoy the enemy; and that he should always have good espials.

The queen also now took occasion to let the earl know of the notice she took of his son sir Henry Percie’s activity and forwardness, commending it; but adding, that she would not in any case he should hazard himself, otherwise than that he should be at all times ready to make his party good.

And lastly, she advised, that the lord Dacres (which now came from her) and he, the earl, should confer, for the better annoying of the enemy: which the lords thought would be best done, if they agreed upon some enterprise against them at one time. These were the transactions of January and February.

In March, the lord deputy of the east and middle marches discharged the garrison of the Northumberland men; and orders were sent to him to discharge and cass many others, as by reason of sickness, or any other respect, should be thought unfit or superfluous for their present service: yet so, that his doings tended not to the weakening or danger of his charge.

Now about the middle of March there was a cessation of arms between the English and Scots; and instructions were sent to the lord Dacres, upon his letter, how to use the assured Scots during the abstinence from war: he was willed to signify their names and behaviours, and to send a copy of the articles of their assurance; to the end some order might be taken for them upon the conclusion of the peace: and in the mean time give them in charge to forbear to make any incursions into Scotland, but to use themselves quietly as the subjects of this realm, as they minded the preservation of their security.

Now there being a fair prospect of peace, the earl of Northumberland was ordered to proceed in casting the number of horsemen ors the frontiers, for the abridging of the queen’s charges, so far forth as he should perceive the same might be done without any danger to the frontiers; and to cass all such as might conveniently be spared, especially Northumberland men, and those that joined upon them. And for the better understanding what he was to do in this matter, to have good espial of the Scots doings. And a mass of money was soon after sent down.

And in the beginning of April 1559 peace was concluded with the Scots: which occasioned another letter from the council to the earl of Northumberland, signifying the same; and therefore requiring him to give order, that none serving under him should annoy the Scots, but to use them as friends. And he was willed to stay the publishing of this by proclamation, until he should further understand from the queen. And the like was sent from sir James Croft, now captain of Berwick.

The queen’s commissioners for Scotland were, the earl of Northumberland, the bishop of Durham, the lord Dacres, and sir James Croft; (whereof the bishop was of the quorum;) these met the commissioners of Scotland: and in July 1559 they fully concluded the articles of peace with the Scots accordingly. And the 14th of the said month the said bishop was at Doncaster, onward of his journey to court, to make a full relation of the said commission: taking small journeys, though they were great to him; “carrying his old carcass with him,” as he wrote from Doncaster to the earl of Shrewsbury.

Now the English forces were revoked from the marches of Scotland; but as for the French, the queen’s other neighbour enemy, their army’ continued still in Scotland, and increased by secret supplies out of France. The galleys were appointed to be brought from Marseilles: a great navy prepared in France for the marquis D’Albeuf, to pass into Scotland with wonderful preparation. Monsieur Martiques assembled the nobility of Scotland, moving them to invade England: but they, after deliberation, answered, that the success would never be good. Captains were sent into tho east parts of Germany for soldiers, and put aboard two men of war, not signifying where they should be employed. Hereupon the queen amassed some numbers of men both by sea and land, and sent them into Scotland: where an accord was made, that the French should avoid.

This was two or three years afterwards urged by the queen’s ambassador to France, for the restoration of Calais; viz. upon the breach of an article agreed upon at the treaty at Chasteau, in Cambresis: her ambassador (sir Thomss Smith, if I mistake not) arguing from these aforesaid attempts, that the French thereby had lost their pretended right to Calais, according to the orders of that treaty; since this evidently was attentare, armis innovate et moliri vel directe vel indirecte, as the article ran: and had also thereby forfeited 500,000 crowns, nomine poenoe.

SECTION 3.

Provision for Portsmouth; and the Isle of Wight; and Dover; and the cinque ports; and for Wales; and Guernsey; and Ireland. The condition of the ordnance. Commissioners appointed for the care of the kingdom. Treaty with France. The queen inquires into the loss of Calais. Embassy from Sweden. Her respect to Spain.

Preparations for the coronation. A call of sergeants; and some to be ennobled. The queen comes to the Tower. Goes through London triumphantly. A Bible presented her there. Crowned. Queen Mary’s funeral celebrated. Letters to the sheriffs for elections.

Other miscellaneous matters.

AND as the queen took this care of her northern confines against her enemies the Scots, so she had the like caution for her southern quarters, against her other enemies the French. For this purpose provision was made for Portsmouth, and the Isle of Wight especially. To that intent an hundred soldiers were commanded from Guernsey, left there September last, to be conveyed to Portsmouth: and the lord Chidiock Poulet, who had the charge of the government there, was instructed to receive them, or so many of them as should be thought necessary. And Rich. Worsely, esq. was ordered to repair to Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight, and the forts, castles, and bulwarks thereabouts; and to view and consider the state of the same. The said Worsey, and one Peter Smith joined with him, were appointed to muster the garrison at Portsmouth: and the lord Chidiock Poulet was sent to, to be aiding unto them therein, and in such other things as they had commission to do there.

And the lord marquis of Winchester, lord treasurer, had a note sent to him of such provisions as were thought re quisite to be made for the fortifications there, and at the Isle of Wight; which note sir Richard Lee brought him. And the said marquis was desired by the queen’s council to confer with the said sir Richard herein; and if he thought it needful, to appoint some trusty and skilful person for the providing of the same. The queen also ordered the garrisons here should be paid by Peter Smith, by the money brought down with him, according to certain instructions; and to use the advice of the foresaid lord Poulet herein. And that being done, to proceed to the viewing of the forts and munition at Portsmouth and thereabouts, according to former directions, and to make Worsely privy to his doings; who was then indisposed in his health. And that no unjust embezzlement of powder and munition might be concealed, the lord Poulet, the governor of Portsmouth, was sent to, to signify with speed, how much powder was spent the last year, and for what purpose, and what remained of that quantity that was sent thither, that order might be taken therein. And all this was done in the month of December.

In the beginning of March, the queen made the said Rich. Worsely captain of the Isle of Wight; as about the same time sir James Croft was made captain of Berwick, as is before said.

The like care was taken for Dover: the soldiers whereof were behind of their pay now, in March 1558, for seven months; of which they complained to the council. Order was taken for the looking carefully into that piece, lying also against France. And Tho. Wotton, esq. (who, if I mistake not, was now high sheriff of Kent,) was required, either by himself in person, or to appoint one Rudston, or some other trusty gentleman, to repair thither, to take the muster of the soldiers on the sudden; and to learn whether any of them were wanting; how long they had served there; and what money they had already received; and what armour and weapon they had. And soon after, the queen sent them their full pay.

There was a decay of the pier and black bulwark there: a complaint of which the mayor and jurats of Dover made to the queen. Therefore the said Wotton was willed to cause the same to be viewed, and to signify what should be done therein. And in April following, she sent thither sir Will.

Woodhouse, knt. to view and consider the state of the said pier and black bulwark; and to take order for the repair of the same, according as was prescribed him. And a letter was now also sent to the said mayor and jurats, and such other to whom it did appertain, to attend upon the said Wood-house, and to shew him what they thought meet to be known for the redress thereof.

The lord warden of the cinque ports, sir Thomas Cheyne, Order, eat being lately deceased, the queen well considered those places, to the and caused five several letters to be writ to the said five ports, Jan. ports; willing all the officers and inhabitants to continue the accustomed good order, in keeping of peace, justice, and quietness, until she would appoint a lord warden there. And in the mean time, if any wreck or other casualty should happen in any of the ports or members of the same, to signify it up to her; and to take care that the thing were kept to the queen’s majesty’s use, or such as her highness should appoint.

Wales was another of her extreme borders that she found needful to be looked after: here being a government constituted, called the president and council of the marches of Wales, was signified unto them, in November, the queen’s pleasure for their continuance in their commission; and that the instructions they had already they were to follow, until the contrary should be signified unto them. And if they thought any thing necessary to be added to their instructions, when they should be signed anew by the queen, they were willed to put the same in articles, and to send them up for that purpose.

In April 1559, the council sent down sir Hugh Poulet to be vice-president there in the absence of the lord Williams, who was appointed president.

Sir Leonard Chamberlain was captain of Guernsey. He now wrote to the queen for greater forces to be sent thither; and licence to be granted him to repair to her: which he had accordingly.

In Ireland also things were but in ill case: for sir Anthony St. Leger, lord deputy there, and Andrew Wise, treasurer, consulting their own profit more than the good of that kingdom, had left great debts upon the queen, and the soldiers unpaid, notwithstanding the sums they had received for public uses. The queen therefore called them to account, as was shewed before. And the lords set apart a day on purpose, about the beginning of February, to bestow it wholly, forenoon and afternoon, for the considering the state of that kingdom, and taking order therein.

For the better strengthening herself in the midst of her dangers round about her, she had a careful regard to her arms and ammunition. In order to which, in December, sir Richard Southwel, master of the ordnance and armory, was ordered to make his repair to the council; and to bring with him a perfect declaration of his office, as well touching the provisions, expenses, and remains, as also of the present wants of the same. And on the 17th of December, the said sir Richard made suit to the lords, to make a declaration before them of the state of his office: when it was resolved, the earl of Bedford, the lord admiral, Mr. Vice-chamberlain, and sir Ambrose Cave, should hear the same, and make report thereof.

The like care the queen took about her ammunition in the north; whereof Thomas Gower was master. For in this month of December he was ordered by the council’s letter to set all things in his charge in good order; and thereupon to repair up with speed, bringing with him all such books and writings, for declaration of the state of his office, And in the beginning of February, the council sent a letter to sir James Croft and sir Will. Engleby, to consider what proportion of munition, ordnance, and other things the said master had issued out of his office for the queen’s service at Berwick; and to comptrol his books from time to time. And when they would have any thing out of the said office for the service and furniture of the town, they were required to address their warrant to the said Gower, signed with the hands of both of them.

Information was someways brought, that certain pieces of ordnance were delivered by John Benet, late master of the ordnance in the north, and were concealed by certain inhabitants of Newcastle; and that they had caused the queen’s into. arms and mark to be defaced and taken out of the said ordnance: whereupon a letter was sent from the council to the mayor of Newcastle, to Bartram Anderson,.and to the said Tho. Gower, to examine diligently where and in whose hands any of those pieces remained, and to cause the same to be returned to the office of the ordnance; and to signify what they had found therein.

Thus exactly and pensively did the queen mind her business at home. And in short, December 23, to put the cares of her kingdom into a method, she distributed them into several commissions.

First , for the care of the north parts towards Scotland and Berwick, the earls of Arundel, Shrewsbury, Bedford, and Pembroke, the lord admiral, and sir Ambrose Cave were commissioners.

Secondly , to survey the office of the treasury of the chamber, and to assign orders of payment, lord chamberlain, Mr. Comptroller, Mr. Secretary, and sir Walter Mildmay.

Thirdly , for Portsmouth, Mr. Worsely and Mr. Smith.

Fourthly , for consideration of all things necessary for the parliament now suddenly to meet, the keeper of the great seal, the judges, sergeants, attorney, solicitor, sir Thomas Smith, and Mr. Goodrike.

Fifthly , to understand what lands have been granted from the crown in the last queen’s time, marquis of Winchester, keeper of the seal, lord Rich, lord North, Mr. Mildmay.

Only I may insert here a note of this early care that was taken for staying the further persecution of the professors of the gospel, by an order from the queen’s privy council to sir Ambrose Jermin, (a justice, as I think, in Suffolk,) dated Nov. 28 this year: on this occasion: commissions were given out under queen Mary to certain persons in the countries, for the giving information of all such, which the commissioners made their privy use and benefit of; by getting money out of such as they found of that sort, to prevent any prosecution of them: or by virtue of some order given, to lay a pecuniary punishment upon them. But now sir Ambrose Jermin, upon this change of government, put a stop to the practice of these men and their doings: which the queen’s council being made acquainted with, sent him their letters of approbation of what he had done, and gave him some further instructions to deliver to the other justices in those parts in this matter; and of requiring an account of those in the aforesaid commission, viz.

The council then sitting at the Charter-house, sent their letter of thanks to him, “for his discreet doings, touching the stay of that commission, granted to John Shepherd and his fellows. Whereof he was both required by them to warn the justices of peace his neighbours in those parts to do the like; and also to certify thither to them, what sums of money had been extorted, or otherwise received, by any colour of the said commission, of the queen’s subjects there; with such further particularites, as he could by examination learn of that matter. To the end the same being objected there [at court] to the parties, they might be further proceeded withal as should be thought convenient.”

And as became a prince that intended not to rule with rigour, but with justice and clemency, one of her earliest actions was to relieve the captives, and to restore liberty to those that were freeborn; especially if their faults were pardonable, or none at all. Of this matter we shall have the particulars hereafter.

These were the queen’s cares at home for her own security and her kingdoms. Now to look abroad, and to see what was to be depended upon from France, as she had brought herself to good terms with Scotland, as was shewed before. Thirleby, bishop of Ely, and Dr. Wotton, dean of Canterbury, were queen Mary’s commissioners to treat with France, about the restoration of Calais, and for making peace. To them queen Elizabeth sent a new commission, and in January 1558, by her council, writ to them to proceed according to that commission; sending now the earl of Arundel, lord chamberlain, to join with them: for she was much disposed to be at peace with her neighbours, having great matters to do at home, and in no very good condition to go to war.

The pains of these her commissioners succeeded. For in the beginning of April, the council sent a letter to the lord mayor, declaring the peace concluded between the queen and the French and Scots: which he was willed to cause to be proclaimed in such places within the city, and in such decent manner, as had been accustomed. And letters were likewise sent the same day to the customers, comptrollers, and searchers of the five ports, Southampton, Pool, Bristol, Plymouth, and Dartmouth, to have special care, that now, upon the publishing of the peace, no bullion or money be suffered by them to be transported out of the realm.

Several Frenchmen, prisoners, were in hold at Rie, that expected now to be set at liberty freely, without paying their ransom. But the lords of the council let the mayor and jurats of the town understand, that it was not meant otherwise by the conclusion of the peace, but that such French as were taken and remained in the town should pay their ransoms to their takers, notwithstanding the peace: which they were willed to declare unto them; and upon the payment of their ransoms to set them at liberty.

And now peace being effected, but Calais still in the hands of the French, and a great question whether it were ever like to go out thence again, the queen thought it convenient to look into the causes of the loss of it. And if any of the captains or officers had not done their duty, she resolved to frown upon them, and call them to a strict trial for their lives, in case she found any want of trust and faithfulness in their respective charges; though perhaps this was more for a cover, to satisfy the angry people in a loss so dishonourable to the English nation. Therefore several of them were indicted of high treason. And among the rest Harleston, captain of Ricebank, one of the forts of Calais: which Harleston, now in the beginning of April 1559, being come over, was retired among his friends in Essex.

But this coming to the ears of the queen and her council, a letter was speedily despatched to Tho. Mildmay, esq. high sheriff of the county, importing, that it could not but seem very strange, that he, the said Harleston, being indicted of high treason, and being come over, and presently remaining in Essex, was suffered to go at liberty. He was therefore commanded in the queen’s name to cause search to be made for him; and to apprehend him, and send him to the lords under safe custody.

He was soon brought up: for in two or three days after, he was by the order of the lords sent to the Tower; and by a letter to the lieutenant he was willed to keep him in ward, without conference with any, until he were examined. And within a few days after, the lord Wentworth, the late governor of Calais, was also committed by the council’s letter to the said lieutenant to receive him, and to keep him in safe ward without having conference with any, until he should receive order from the lord marquis of Northampton, appointed high steward of England for the time. But he was acquitted by his peers. Harleston nevertheless, and another captain, called Chamberlain, were cast; but pardoned. I was willing to lay these French matters together, though this last mentioned belong to the beginning of the year following.

It was not least in the wise queen’s thoughts and endedvours to carry all fair abroad, and to express all obliging behaviour towards the states and princes her neighbours. The king of Sweden had already sent an ambassador to her, as well to court her for a wife, as to congratulate her accession to the throne of England. But upon some disgust to the ambassador, occasioned I know not how, a great uproar was made at his house by the common people, December 16, at night, against the ambassador, and certain of his servants. But the very next day the queen caused a letter to be sent to the lord mayor, willing him to send some discreet persons to the said ambassador, to learn the circumstances of this matter, and the doers thereof: and thereupon to cause them to be committed to ward, and further punished according to the quality of the fault. And that the said ambassador might understand, that it was not otherwise meant, but that he and his should be courteously treated here.

The said mayor was also ordered to signify to the ambassador the time, when the mayor minded to proceed to the punishment of the offenders, to the end, the ambassador might send some one that he trusted, to see the doing thereof.

She was also very respectful towards Spain, being loath to give any offence to king Philip: as appeared by these two or three passages. John Galarzo and John de Sarausse, servants to certain officers of the king of Spain, were going in December by ship from Rie to Spain: but they were arrested, by occasion, I suppose, of the order of the council to stop all passengers from going over sea, especially carrying bullion with them. But a letter was sent from above to the mayor of Rie, and all the queen’s officers of that port, requiring them to suffer those two to pass in their intended voyage to Spain, with their provision of wax, rosin, and 1300 ducats in money, which they had in their pinnace, for the furniture of the king of Spain’s army: commanding the said officers further in her majesty’s name, friendly to aid them with victuals, and all other things necessary to their voyage, for their reasonable money.

And some days before this, certain merchants of Finnders complained to Dassolevile, the king of Spain’s ambassador, concerning wrongs and delays of justice done them here The king laid this before the queen’s council.

Whereupon, December 18, they sent a letter to Dr. Lewis, judge of the admiralty, with a note of these complaints, willing him to consider them, and to signify to them the state of the same suits in the court of the admiralty, the sooner to give them justice and despatch.

Again, the king of Spain had coined money in the Tower: but his implements of coinage were for some time stopped by some officers, supposing they might belong to the queen’s mint. But upon Mr. Stanley, comptroller of the mint, his certificate to the council, a letter was directed to the lieutenant of the Tower, to suffer seignior Frauncis de Lixaide, treasurer of the king of Spain, to carry and convey out of the Tower at his pleasure certain iron tools and other instruments belonging to the said king, and not to the queen’s majesty, as did appear by letters addressed in the matter to Mr. Secretary.Cecil from Stanley.

Having seen these trarisactions of the queen for the security of herself and kingdoms, let us proceed to relate another of her first cares, which was for her coronation. Which that it might be done with the greater magnificence, the customers of London were appointed in November last, to stay all crimson-coloured silk as should arrive within their ports, until the queen should first have her choice towards the furniture of her coronation; and to give warning to the lords of the council, if any such should arrive there: but nevertheless to keep the matter secret. And perhaps that was the reason of another order of council the next day by letters to sir Nicolas Throgmorton, and sir Gawen Carew, to desire seignior Prioli, executor to cardinal Pole lately deceased, to suffer certain parcels of that cardinal’s plate, which were thought meetest by the officers of the jewel-house for the service of the queen, to be bought; and that some of his own folks might bring them. That the same being viewed he might receive the value thereof, or of so much of it as should be thought meet for her highness’s use; and the rest to be safely returned back to him again; which, as the letters ran, they might be bold in her majesty’s name to assure him.

Another provision was also thought fit by the council to be made respecting the coronation. The hopes of pardon and grace, usually accompanying it, occasioned many enormities, and especially robberies, to be committed. Therefore, for the preventing of it as much as might be, a copy of a proclamation was sent, November 21, from Hatfield, to the lords of the council at London, wherein public warning was given, that such violators of peace and good order should expect but little favour by any such acts of grace.

In order to this inauguration, preparation was making for Preparation the queen’s coming up to London, and reception at me queen’s Tower.

Therefore, November 21, those of the nobility and coming to council that were with her at Hatfield, wrote to the marquis of Winchester, and the earls of Shrewsbury and Darby, to attend upon her to London, with a schedule enclosed of the names of certain other noblemen, whose company she thought good to have at that time. And letters soon after were sent to sir Tho. Cavarden and others at the Tower, willing them, for the making room against the queen’s being there, to take order for the removing of certain persons out of their lodgings there: and particularly Dr. Weston, late dean of Windsor, committed in the last reign [not for his goodness,] of him to take sureties, such as he had in a readiness, for his good behaviour; and to suffer him thereupon to have the liberty of the Tower, until such time as his cause might be further considered. He was, for sickness, soon after removed to one Wintour, a friend’s house in Fleet-street, where he died, December 8, and was buried at the Savoy.

And as for certain others, namely, Dudley, Bowyer, Mylford, Pollard, and Flabell, (persons, I suppose, or some of them, concerned in a late insurrection, headed by stafford, wherein Scarborough castle was taken,) they were all to be appointed to one lodging; there to remain, till upon further examination of their several cases the same might be further ordered. Of these, Bowyer soon after had the queen’s pardon.

One Henry Middlemore was sent beyond sea, December the 13th, into Flanders, to provide things necessary against the coronation: for which he had a passport to the mayor and jurats of Dover, to suffer him to pass without search, for that reason.

Now the queen also made a call of sergeants, accustom ably practised at such times: and December 11 commanded Martin, clerk of the crown, to make writs after the usual manner to the persons following, being appointed to be sergeants at the law, viz. to Who. Carus, Reignold, Corbet, John Welsh, and John Southcote, of the Middle Temple; William Symonds, George Walle, Richard Harper, of the Inner Temple; Randolph Cholmely, of Lincoln’s Inn; Nicholas Powtrel and John Birch, of Gray’s Inn. And to Oliver St. Johns, esq. the lords wrote, that the queen’s highness, for his worthiness and estate, was determined to advance him to the degree of a baron at her coronation. And therefore that he was required both to put himself in readiness, and to repair to the court to receive the same accordingly. With him also she raised to honour sir Will. Par, Edward Seymour, lord Thomas Howard, and Henry Cary; and no more.

Let me add one particular more, as preparatory to the queen’s coronation.

The lords sent to Boner, bishop of London, to send to the bishop of Carlisle, who was appointed (as they writ) to execute the solemnity of the queen’s majesty’s coronation, universam apparatum pontificium, quo uti solent episcopi in hujusmodi magnificis illustrissimorum regum inaugurationibus, i.e. ali the pontifical habit that bishops were wont to use in such glorious inaugurations of most illustrious kings.

In Christmas week scaffolds began to be made in divers places of the city, for pageants against the day the queen was to pass through to her coronation, which was to be January 14, and the conduits to be new painted and beautified On the 12th day, the queen took barge at Whitehall, and shooting the bridge went to the Tower; the lord mayor and all the crafts waiting upon her in their barges, adorned with streamers and banners of their arms.

On the l3th day the queen made knights of the bath within the Tower.

On the 14th she came in a chariot from the Tower, with Rides all the lords and ladies, all in crimson velvet, and their horses the city. trapped with the same; and trumpeters in scarlet gowns blowing their trumpets, and all the heralds in their coat armour; the streets every where laid over with gravel.

The city was at very great charge to express their love and joy, in the magnificent scaffolds and pageants they had erected, in adoming the conduits, appointing music, preparing speeches and verses to be said to her; which the queen took very well, and promised to remember it: besides the present of a purse of a thousand marks in gold, which they presented her at the lit fie conduit in Cheap, where the aldermen sat; and the recorder, in the name of the city, made a speechto her. But for a full relation of all the splendour of this day, recourse may be had to Holinshed’s Chronicle.

Yet let me mention one particular, as having some more special respect to religion. In a pageant erected near the said little conduit in the upper end of Cheapside, an old man with a scythe and wings, representing Time, appeared, coming out of a hollow place or cave, leading another person all clad in white silk, gracefully apparelled, who represented Truth, (the daughter of Time,) which lady had a book in her hand, on which was written, Verbum veritatis, i.e. the word of truth. It was the Bible in English: which, after a speech made to the queen, Truth reached down towards her, which was taken and brought by a gentleman attending, to her hands. As soon as she received it, she kissed it, and with both her hands held it up: and then laid it upon her breast, greatly thanking the city for that present; and said, she would often read over that book. Which passage shews as well how the citizens stood affected to religion, (notwithstanding the persecution that had raged among them for some years before,) as what hopes the kingdom might entertain of the queen’s favour towards it.

On the 15th day she was crowned with the usual ceremonies at Westminster-abbey. She first came to Westminster-hall. There went before her trumpets, knights, and lords, heralds of arms in their rich coats: then the nobles in their scarlet, and all the bishops in scarlet: then the queen and all the footmen waiting upon her to the hall. There her grace’s apparel was changed. In the hall they met the bishop that was to perform the ceremony, and all the chapel, with three crosses borne before them, in their copes, the bishop mitred; and singing as they passed, Salve festa dies. All the streets new laid with gravel and blue cloth, and railed in on each side. And so to the abbey to mass: and there her grace was crowned. Thence, the ceremony ended, the queen and her retinue went to Westminster-hall to dinner; and every officer took his office at service upon their lands; and so did the lord mayor of London, and the aldermen.

On the 16th day, in honour of the queen’s coronation, were great justings at the tilt; there being four challengers, whereof the duke of Norfolk was the first.

And on the 17th was tourneying at the barriers at Whitehall.

Now, to set down a few more historical collections of less moment, yet not fit to be lost, of things that happened between the queen’s first taking the sceptre, and the conclusion of this year 1558.

November the 20th, Maurice Griffin, bishop of Rochester, and parson of St. Magnus on London-bridge, died. November 30, he was carried from his place in Southwark unto the said church; and had a hearse of wax, and five dozen of pensils, and the quire hung with black, and with his arms; two white branches, and two dozen of torches, and two heralds of arms, attending: sir William Petre chief mourner, sir William Garret, Mr. Low, and divers others, mourners. Twelve poor men with black gowns, and twelve of his men bearing torches, waited. White, lord bishop of Winchester, preached his funeral sermon. The funeral was adorned with a great banner of arms, and four banners of saints, and eight dozen of escutcheons. And after he was buried, they all repaired to his place to dinner.

December the 10th, the late queen Mary was brought Queen out of her chapel, (where her corpse had been laid,) with all the heralds, lords, and ladies, gentlemen and gentlewomen, attending, and all her officers and servants in black; and brought to St. James’s. On the 13th day she was brought from St. James’s in great state in a chariot, with an image resembling her, covered with crimson velvet, her crown on her head, and sceptre in her hand, and many goodly rings on her fingers. And so she was attended along Charing-cross to Westminster-abbey. December the lath was the queen’s mass said, and all offered on the high-altar. The bishop of Winchester preached her funeral sermon.

About this time of this queen’s death and burial, being a very sickly season, many other men and women of quality, and eminent churchmen, died, and had honourable burials, as attendants of her into another world. November the 22d, Robert Johnson, gentleman to the bishop of London, was buried in Jesus’ chapel, [a chapel, I suppose, in St. Paul’s,] with many mourners accompanying, and the masters of [the fraternity of] Jesus, with their black satin hoods. November 26, Basset, esq. one of queen Mary’s privychamber, was buried in the friars’ church in Smithfield. November 30, the bishop of Rochester, as is above mentioned. December 7, lady Cholmely, wife of sir Roger Cholmely, knt. late lord chief baron of the Exchequer, buried in St. Martin’s, Ludgate. December 8, Dr. Weston, dean of Westminster, and after of Windsor, buried at the Savoy. December 9, Dr. Gabriel Dun, buried honourably at St. Paul’s. December 10, Cardinal Pole was removed and carried forth to his burial, from Lambeth towards Canterbury, being the same day the queen’s funerals began. Ditto 12, sir George Harper, knt. buried at St. Martin’s, Ludgate. And the same day, Verney, master of the jewel-house, buried within the Tower. At or near the same day, was the lady Windebank (late of Calais) buried in St. Edmund’s, Lombard-street. The 16th, the lady Rich, wife of the Lord Rich, was carried in a chariot from St. Bartholomew the Great, into Essex, to the place where she dwelt there; [which was either Lees or Rochford;] and on the 18th she was buried in the parish church in great state. The 23d, was performed at Westminster the solemnity of the obsequies of Charles V. emperor of Germany. The 28th, Christopherson, bishop of Chichester, was buried at Christ-church, London, with all the popish ceremonies. A great banner was carried of the arms of the see of Chichester, and his own arms; and four banners of saints. Five bishops did offer at the mass, and two sung mass. And after, all retiring from the place of burial, were entertained at a great dinner. In January, the lord Cheyne, (who died December the 8th,) master treasurer to the late queen, lord warden of the cinque ports, and knight of the order of the garter, was buried in great state in the Isle of Shepey. The same month also was sir John Baker, knt. sometime chancellor of the augmentations, buried with much state in Kent. Finally, in the beginning of February, was the marchioness of Winchester carried down in a chariot to Basing to be buried: and sir Thomas Pope, knt. a great man with the former queen, buried with much magnificence in Clerkenwell.

But now to some other remarks.

The lord chief justice of the queen’s bench, sir Edward Saunders, had made out an attachment against the judge of the admiralty, Dr. Lewis; upon pretence that he had intermeddled within his jurisdiction, in a matter depending between one Adam Wintrop, of London, and John Combes, a frenchman. The lords of the council, December 3, upon the hearing of both the said judges, and what either of them could allege for himself, ordered that the process awarded against the said judge, and the said matter in controversy between Wintrop and Combes be stayed, until their lordships should take some further order therein, upon consideration of what should be alleged on both sides, for the maintenance of their several jurisdictions.

For the better doing whereof, they were commanded to bring to then lords of the council a note in writing, of the causes wherein they have contended, or may contend, for their said jurisdictions: that thereupon the lords might determine some stay and order between them, according to equity and justice.

December the 9th, Gilbert Gerard, esq. was sworn in the council-chamber the queen’s attorney general; and Thomas Sackford, esq. was also in the same day and place sworn one of the masters of requests in ordinary.

December 25, the marquis of Northampton, queen Katharine Parr’s brother, condemned, but pardoned in the late reign, was by the queen’s command declared by Mr. Secretary to be sworn one of her privy council.

December ult. the council wrote to Sir John Mason and Clement Throgmorton, to examine diligently a complaint made to the queen’s highness, by certain near kinsmen of Dr. Ridley, late bishop of London, for divers parcels of his goods, that came into the hands of the bishop of London that now is, [viz. Boner,] and to signify to them what they should find out therein.

January the 7th, letters were despatched from the council to Thomas Mildmay, esq. high sheriff of Essex, touching the choosing of knights of that shire at the next county court, according to the minutes in the councilchest.

Such letters to the high sheriffs, instructive of the persons to be elected parliament-men for the shires, were not unusual in former times. At least, so it was done by queen Mary, this queen’s immediate predecessor. There be extant her letters, which I have seen, to the sheriffs, for choosing such parliament-men “as were of the wise, grave, and catholic sort, such as indeed meant the true honour of God, with the prosperity of the commonwealth: the advance-meat whereof she and her dear husband, the king, did chiefly profess and intend, without alteration of any particular man’s possessions, as, among other false rumours, was spread abroad to hinder her godly purpose, by such as would have their heresies return, and the realm by the just wrath of God to be brought to confusion. From which she had seen the same marvellously delivered; and minded, by God’s help, and the advice of her counsellors and estates of that parliament, to uphold and continue:” as she wrote in the said letters.

The same day Robert Gascoyn, John Foster, John Winter, Tho. Clark, John Man, and Robert Kicheman, messengers, being sent with letters, [to the high sheriffs, I suppose, for the purpose abovesaid,] sir John Mason, treasurer of the chamber, was ordered to pay them such sums as he should think necessary.

Against the time of this election, the lord Rich (who was a great man in the county) had taken up one Scot’s house in Chelmsford. Afterwards the said Scot let his house to sir John Rainesford: but upon this, Hainesford was ordered to appear before the council: and, January the 5th, a letter was writ to him from thence, requiring him to give place to the said lord Rich, considering it was first appointed for him, and for avoiding all inconvenience that might otherwise arise.

Thomas Nele, bachelor of divinity, had the reading of the Hebrew lecture in Oxford, according to the foundation of king Henry VIII. The council, January 16, wrote to the dean and chapter of Christ-church, to pay to him all such money as was due to him for the reading of the said lecture, and to continue the payment thereof, until they should receive further order from thence. They writ again to the same dean and chapter, February 20, to the same purpose, requiring them to pay the said Hebrew reader, whose salary they had detained without just cause. This Nele was of New college, chaplain to bishop Boner, and rerosined reader to the year 1569.

January the 19th. This day the bishop of Winton, who had been before commanded to keep his house for such offences as he had committed in his sermon at the funeral of the late queen, was called before the lords of the council; and after a good admonition given him, he was set at liberty, and discharged of his said commandment of keeping his house.

Ditto, a letter was sent from the council to Thirleby, bishop of Ely, and Dr. Wotton, commissioners now abroad, for settling terms of peace with France and Scotland, signifying the queen’s determination to send the lord chamberlain, lord Arundel, to join with them: and that they should in the mean time proceed according to their commission now sent. And John Malyn, admiral of the float in the narrow seas, received an order the same day, to waft John Sommers presently sent with these letters to the commissioners; and to provide shipping for six geldings of the lord chamberlain’s to be transported over.

ANNALS OF THE REFORMATION OF RELIGION, UNDER QUEEN ELIZABETH.

CHAPTER 1.

Prohibition to Carne, resident with the pope. Cardinal Pole’s burial. Letters in favour of his executor. The queen dismisseth prisoners for religion. Orders from the council for that purpose. A late commission against Lollards looked into. Preaching prohibited. Notwithstanding papists preach; and protestants.

Slanderous words of papists. Pulling down images in churches.

The council’s letter to the city about it. WHAT with more special regard to religion was transacted or fell out upon queen Elizabeth’s first assumption of the crown, we shall now proceed to declare.

According to the twelfth article of the memorial given to the queen by Cecyl the first day of her government, the next Sunday after, being the 20th of November, Dr. Bill, her chaplain and almoner, a prudent and learned man, preached at St. Paul’s Cross, and made a pious sermon.

Whereas the late queen had an old civilian, viz. sir Edward Carne, resident at the court of Rome, the present queen intending to have little correspondence with that Roman prelate, gave him a check very early, not to meddle in the transferring of any causes within her dominions to that court. And there being now a controversy about a matter of matrimony, depending between Mr. Chetwood and Mr. Tyrrel, a letter was despatched to him from her council; requiring him, that forasmuch as he was heretofore placedthere as a public person by reason of his ambassade, he should therefore from henceforth forbear to use his authority in soliciting or procuring of any thing in the said busihess. And so he abode there privately till February following, when it was signified unto him by the council, that the queen was pleased, in consideration there was no further cause why he should make any longer abode there, to command that he put himself in order to return home, at such time and with such speed as he should think most meet. But March ult. the pope, hearing that the queen had received the discipline of protestants, required this knight, by virtue of his command by the oracle from his own mouth, under pain of the great excommunication, and forfeiture of all his goods, that he should not stir out of the city of Rome, and take upon him the English hospital near St. Hierom’s church.

But before the year came about he dies, viz. January the 18th. And though the aforesaid command of the pope was pretended for his not coming home, yet in truth it was his own choice to remain where he was: as appears by his monumental inscription, which was as followeth; giving some account of him, and the time of his death, though not a word of his being rector of that English hospital.

EDWARDO CARNO, Britanno, equiti aurato, jurisconsulto, oratori, summisque de rebus Britanniae regum ad imperatores, ad reges, bisque ad Romanam et apostolicam sedem, quarum in altera legatione a Philippo Mariaque piis regibus, misso. Oborto deiude post mortem Marias in Britannia schismate, sponte patria carens ob catholicam fidem, cum magna integritate, veroeque pietatis existimatione decessit.

Hoc monumentum Galfrid. Vachanus et Thomas Freemannus amici ex testamento pos. Obiit MDLXI. 14 cal. Febr.

The above said cause, being an appeal depending at Rome, (which this Carne solicited there,) had it seems obtained so much favour in the queen’s first parliament, that in the of Rome diction over the state ecclesiastical, wherein the pope’s pretended authority was extinguished over all the queen’s subjects; there was notwithstanding a clause, that if the sentence in the said appeal should be given at the court of Rome before the end of threescore days after the session of that parliament, then it should be judged and taken good and effectual in the law. The matter was thus: one Richard Chetwood, esq. and Agnes his wife, by the name of Agnes Woodhull, in a case of matrimony solemnized between them, at the suit of Charles Tyrrell, gent. were brought into the consistory at St. Paul’s, before certain judges delegate, by the authority legatine of cardinal Pole; and a sentence was obtained against them, as it seems, to annul the marriage, in favour of Tyrrel. From this sentence they, the said Chetwood and Agnes, appealed to the court of Rome: which appeal depended there till queen Elizabeth came to the crown; and yet while the parliament was sitting was undetermined. Perhaps it stopped by the council’s letter to Carne abovementioned. But now in favour of the said Chetwood the cause was Permitted to go on, and the sentence in that court to stand good in law, if it could be obtained in sixty days, for the reversing of the pretended sentence given against him by cardinal Pole’s delegates. But if not, then the said Richard and Agues, and either of them, at any time hereafter might commence, take, sue, and prosecute the said appeal from the said pretenced sentence, within the realm, as was used to be done at any time since the 24th year of king Henry VIII. upon sentences given in the court or courts of any archbishop within the realm; and the sentence therein to be judged good and effectual in law.

Cardinal Pole, who died at his palace at Lambeth, November 17, between five and six in the morning, (or about three, according to the author of the British Antiquities,) lay there till the council gave order for his burial, both as to the time and place. And his corpse being intended and allowed to be interred at Canterbury, seignior Prioli, his executor, requested the queen and council, that two bishops, of the cardinal’s great acquaintance, and who formerly had adhered to him, when he was an exile, might attend his funerals; namely, Pate, bishop of Worcester, and Goldwell, (who had been his chaplain,) bishop of St. Asaph. Whereupon a letter, dated the latter end of November, was directed from the council, then at the Charter-house, to the said bishops, signifying that it was the queen’s pleasure they should attend upon the said funerals, according to seignior Prioli’s request; which two bishops perhaps performed, the one the Latin, the other the English oration pronounced at his funeral, The council sent another letter in December to Sir Tho. Finch, (to whom was committed the keeping of the park at Canterbury after the cardinal’s death,) to deliver to the said executor all such cattle, hay, and wood felled in that park, belonging to the said cardinal, and in the house of St. Augustin’s; and six or eight does, and one hundred couple of conics, for the furnishing of the funeral of the cardinal.

The said executor was courteously assisted by the council for the better recovery of debts and arrears due to the cardinal; there being an open letter, dated in December, from the council to all the receivers, bailiffs, and tenants of the late cardinal, to pay all such rents as were by them due at the feast of St. Michael the archangel last, of the revenues of the archbishop of Canterbury, to Mr. Pynning, for the use of the said cardinal’s executor.

And whereas by the act of the 2 and 3 of Philippians and Mary, the tenths, impropriations, and other spiritual rents and pensions due to the crown, were given for augmentation of small livings and better maintenance of the clergy; and the payments of them to be made to the cardinal, who was to dispose thereof according to his discretion; (and of these were many arrears;) the queen and her council were so obliging to this executor, that, in the beginning of January, letters were sent to all the bishops of the realm, and where bishops wanted, to the deans and chapters of the cathedral churches, to make payment in the city of London, by the last of January next, such sums of money due of the revenues arising of the firstfruits, and tenths, and benefices, impropriate within every several diocese; either to the ministers of the late lord cardinal, that were appointed for this purpose, or to such as should be appointed by the archbishop of York, and the rest of the council.

Another letter was written the same month by the council to the same purpose, to the mayor of Chichester, and the bailiff of Lewes; to make several proclamations in the same towns where they had charge, upon the next market-days, that all and singular persons, as well spiritual as temporal, that had not yet paid such rents as were by act of parliament granted to the disposition of the late cardinal, within the diocese of Chichester, should make payment of the same within six or seven days after the publishing of the proclamation, at the bishop’s palace in Chichester, to Peter Adished, appointed collector for this purpose: or else to, repair forthwith to the council, to make payment of the same there to such as the same collector should appoint. This gives me occasion to suspect, that a great share of these tenths and pensions, designed for augmentations, were converted to Pole’s own use, and went partly to maintain that cardinal’s port and family, and partly distributed among his retinue.

And this is the last tidings we hear of the cardinal and his concerns here in England. For the Italian his executor, as soon as he could pick up the cardinal’s debts, and had distributed his legacies, which were chiefly to Italians, retired into Italy.

The queen was not backward upon her first coming to the crown, to shew her merciful nature (so different therein from her late sister) towards the afflicted professors of the gospel in bonds and imprisonment; and for putting a speedy stop to the cruel methods used before, for the detecting them in all places, and taking them up by a kind of Spanish inquisition; so as became a prince that intended not to rule with rigour, but with justice and clemency. One of her earliest actions was to release the captives, and to restore liberty to the freeborn. Therefore order from above was sent to the keepers of the prisons, wheresoever these honest and pious people were detained, that they should set them at liberty, taking their own bonds for their appearance, whensoever they should be called to answer.

In the queen’s bench were detained John Morice, Henry Burgess, Robert Seulthroppe, Henry London, committed, I make no doubt, for heresy.

Concerning whom an order was despatched from the council to Richard Mallory and Henry Fallowfield, officers of that prison, to take bonds of these persons to be forthcoming when they should be called, and so to dismiss them, and set them at liberty. “For that they, the lords, by such examination as they the said Mallory and Fallowfield had taken, found no great cause of stay for them there:” as they expressed it in this their order, which bore date December 7.

John Tother, priest, was delivered out of the Tower by a special order from the lords to Sir Edward Warner, lieutenant there, December 12. And four days after, the sheriffs of London were sent unto to set at liberty the bodies of one Mather Mainard, remaining in Newgate; and one Burden in one of the counters; taking their own bonds to be forthcoming, when they should be called for to answer to what should be objected against them. And also one Gilbert Gennings, remaining in one of the counters for the like cause, to be in like manner discharged of his imprisonment.

If we look out of London, in Colchester gaol were detained Richard George, John Pilgrym, James Wilson, Elizabeth Yong, and three others.

Concerning whom, December 21, a letter from above was directed to John Taye and William Carnal, (or Cardinal,) esquires, justices of the peace of Essex, to call unto them the bailiffs of Colchester, and to examine for what causes these were committed to their castle, and to certify the same.

In Salisbury gaol lay certain prisoners committed thither by the bishop’s officers, and others; and there still remaining. Concerning whom the lords sent a letter, December ult. to the lord Montjoy, Sir Will. Keylway, and Sir John Zouch; willing them to examine what the cause of their committing was. And if they found that there was no cause by law to detain them, then to set them at liberty; taking first their own bonds to be forthcoming, when they should be called to answer that which should be objected against them.

In Maidstone gaol now remained Joan Saunders, Agnes Terre, Joan Valeant, and Margaret Atterbury. For the setting of whom at liberty, Mr. Wotton, high sheriff of Kent, was sent to, January the 4th, by special letters from the lords; taking first their several bonds to be of good behaviour and quietness. And no doubt many more such letters from the council were despatched to other prisons in the realm on the same account.

For those in Colchester castle mentioned before, (who it seems refused to give their bonds, standing upon their own innocency, and their unjust imprisonment, which was certified up by the two justices, January 14,) another order came to the said justices; requiring them to take order with the bailiffs of Colchester, for the enlarging and setting at liberty those that remained in the castle there, committed thither in the late queen Mary’s time, as persons suspected in religion; naming the four abovesaid, and four more, viz. Alice Michel, Christian Crampe, John Hoste, and Edward Grewe: taking nevertheless their own several bonds, to be of quiet behaviour, and forthcoming when they should be called. Which if they should refuse, then to cause them to be sent up to the lords of the council, with whom further order should be taken.

To give account next of a commission for inquisition after such persons as had any inclination towards the gospel; by means of which those above mentioned, and many others, had been laid up: this commission was so disliked by the queen, a lady of a more mild and merciful disposition, that it was presently taken notice of. But to fetch this commission from its first beginning. It was made anno 1556. against the Lollards, (as the professors of the gospel were called,) for the more effectual extirpating them; and went forth from the king and queen. The commissioners were the lords of the council, and many bishops and others. And besides this general commission, there were many other commissions more particular; as one for Norfolk and Suffolk, another for Essex. This last was directed to the earl of Oxon, the lord Darcy, Terryl, and other gentlemen of Essex: who were empowered to impose an oath upon whomsoever they called, to answer to what should be demanded of them. Whereby they were to swear in effect to accuse themselves and all their friends that were of the same opinion, and held the same doctrine with themselves. And these commissioners might seize the lands, tenements, and goods of such as fled from their houses: which by inventories taken were to remain in safe keeping. This was an effectual way to ruin infinite numbers of persons, and reduce poor widows and children to beggary, in case the fathers fled for their lives from the tyranny that pursued them. And by this means great numbers of men and women were clapt up every where, or skulked in woods and by-places from their houses. And yet the names of those that fled were brought and given in, as persons suspected for treason, or fugitives, or disobedient to law. These commissioners, and those under them, had scraped together much money and goods of Poor honest people by these means; and the queen had thoughts of calling them to account for them.

For London and other parts adjacent were three chief commissions: wherein the bishop of London, and sir Roger Cholmely, a judge, but a turncoat and a covetous man, among others were concerned. And these commissions had registers appointed them. To those three commissions aforesaid, William Say, Robert Warrington, (or Warnington,) and Will.

Babham, proctors of the arches, were registers. To these three, three private letters were sent from the lords of the council, ordering them to make a particular and perfect note of all such matters as had been brought before the bishop of London and the said Cholmely and other commissioners, appointed to call before them certain persons of this realm: and to signify withal, what judgments had been passed against them, and what fines were cessed and levied of them; and to whom the same were paid. And in the mean time they were commanded, as they would answer for the contrary, to keep this matter close to themselves, and that they were written unto herein; because they were registers attendant upon the said commissioners. These letters were dated December the 18th. Present at this council, the marquis of Winchester, the earls of Arundel, Shrewsbury, Bedford, Pembroke; the lord admiral, i.e. lord Clinton; the lord chamberlain, i.e. lord Howard of Effingham; Mr. Vice-chamberlain, i.e. sir Edward Rogers, who was also captain of the queen’s guard; secretary Cecil; sir Ambrose Cave, (chancellor of the duchy;) sir John Mason, (treasurer of the chamber;) and sir Richard Sackvile.

Likewise, the council wrote in the beginning of the next month to Boner, bishop of London, to repair thither on the morrow at two of the clock afternoon: and at his coming to resort to Mr. Vice-chamberlain: and to bring with him all such commissions as were made to him and others, for the examination and ordering of heresies and other misorders in the church, in the time of the late queen.

Again, to those three registers aforesaid were three several letters directed in January following, from the privy council, to pay to Mason, treasurer of the chamber, all such sums of money as remained in their hands, of such fines as had been levied of divers persons in the time of the late queen, by order of the bishop of London, and other commissioners for the examination of heretics, and other misdemeanours in the church.

Now did both the evangelics and the papalins bestir themselves for their parties. The former were afraid the queen would not set upon the work of reforming religion, or make too much delay in so necessary a work: the latter were very jealous of her, by the little she had already done towards a reformation, that she would in the end throw down the late new raised structure of their religion. Therefore on the one hand, many of the gospellers, without authority, abhorring the superstitions and idolatry remaining in the churches, were guilty of great disorders in pulling down images and such other relics there. The others spared not for lewd words poured out against the queen, without measure or modesty. And both took their occasions to speak freely their minds in the pulpits.

Of which last the queen being aware, forbad all preaching, and especially in London. And the latter end of December, a letter was sent to the lord mayor of London, with ten proclamations of one tenor, for the inhibition of preachers; which he was required to cause to be published the day after in divers parts of the city, and to be set up where the people might see and read. By virtue of which proclamation, not only all preaching was forbidden for a time, but all hearing and giving audience to any doctrine or preaching. And nothing else was allowed to be heard in the churches, but the epistle and gospel for the day, and the ten commandments in the vulgar tongue; but without any manner of exposition, or addition of the sense or meaning thereof. And no other manner of prayer or rite to be used than was already used, and by law received, except the litany used then in the queen’s chapel, and the Lord’s prayer and creed in English. And so to last till consultation might be had by parliament, for the accord of matters and ceremonies of religion. This proclamation may be found in the Repository.

But it happened that on the very day that this proclamation was given forth, at Worcester-house was an assembly got together for this purpose: which occasioned an order to be sent the same day to the said lord mayor, with the body of one Thomas Parrys; whom he was willed to commit to ward in one of the counters, to remain there, until further order should be taken by the council; for suffering, contrary to the queen’s proclamation, assemblies of people to be at the said house, whereof he had the keeping.

For though these gospellers could not yet get the churches, yet, instead of them, they held congregations in other places, convenient for the capacity and largeness of them.

Yet, although preaching was thus inhibited, in the Lent following sermons were preached at court, however not so much as allowed at Paul’s Cross.

Some of these court preachers I can name. On Ash-Wednesday, or the first day of Lent, February 8, Dr. Cox, sometime dean of Westminster, preached before the queen. Friday after, preached:Dr. Matthew Parker, who was afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. Sunday following, Skory, late bishop of Chichester: and the Wednesday following, Mr. Whitehead.

The rest of the preachers axe not mentioned in my MS. till February the 22d, when Grindall preached. And on the 25th, Sandys, and next, Cox again.

The next month, when the prohibition against preaching seems to have been taken off, the preachers of the Spiral sermons were, March 27, Dr. Bill; the 28th, Dr. Cox; and the 29th, Mr. Horn. And April 2, being Low Sunday, Mr. Sampson preached at Paul’s Cross. Where, by observing what sort of learned men were put up to preach at court, might be gathered how the queen stood affected to religion, however at present she concealed herself. But to return back again.

Now also, but especially a while after, when the parlia ment came together, and by their authority, a common form of prayers in the vulgar tongue was like to be brought in, instead of the old mass; the popish priests that could preach, bestirred themselves every where in the churches, to prejudice the people against receiving it. Thus in February, John Murren, [Morwen perhaps,] chaplain to the bishop of London and parson of Ludgate, was summoned before the lords of the council, for preaching contrary to the queen’s proclamation, and expounding the gospel in the church: which, when he was before them, he could not well deny. Wherefore he was committed to the Fleet, there to be kept without conference with any, until he were examined.

On which day the said bishop of London, Boner, was ordered to be before the council; perhaps to be present when this chaplain of his made his appearance, and to understand whether what he had done was by the bishop’s knowledge, suggestion, or connivance. But this contempt Murren some time after being content to declare and confess in the same church, according to a bill thereof subscribed by him, remaining in the council chest, the lords therefore sent an order in March to the warden of the Fleet to set him at liberty.

About the same time, Henry Cumberford, one of the canons of Litchfield, had also preached lewdly, and misdemeaned himself; (those are the words in the minutes of the council-book;) of which the lords had information sent them by the bailiffs of Litchfield. Which occasioned the said lords to send the said Cumberford a letter to appear before them, and another to the bailiffs and burgesses of Litchfield, to send some one sufficiently instructed at the time of the appearance of the said Cumberford, to object such matters against him as he was to be charged with. But Cumberford, pretending sickness, stayed fourteen or fifteen days: when the lords sent another letter to the said bailiffs and burgesses, to signify to them, that if it were so indeed, that he had been sick, then when he should be able to travel, to command him in the queen’s name to repair up; and then they to send one sufficiently instructed to charge him. This matter (whatever it was)proving so lewd on Cumberford’s part, when he appeared before the council, on the 20th of March, the lords thought fit, that the disorder committed by him, and complained of by the bailiffs, should be referred to the hearing and examination of the lord chief justice of England, and master solicitor. This man was detained in prison unto April the 17th, 1559, when he was bound in a recognisance to the queen of an hundred mark, to make his personal appearance before the lords of the council about Michaelmas next; and then not to depart before he should have licence so to do; and further to stand to such order as should be taken with him for such matter as was objected to him. The last I find of this man was, that he was discharged the 2d of December, until the town of Litchfield began their suit again, having reasonable warning.

Likewise in Canterbury, a zealot there, namely the curate of St. George’s, the first Sunday in Lent had given such offence, that the mayor gave in a declaration thereof to the council. Him they willed the said mayor, by their letter wrote the beginning of March, to commit to ward, and there to keep him, till he could be content to resort to the place where he offended; and there in humble sort to acknowledge his folly, and recant the same. Which if he should refuse to do, and continue his obstinacy, to signify it up; that he might receive further order how to proceed with him.

Here was also another priest, named sir Loye, curate of All Saints, who had also now transgressed in the same nature. Concerning which the lords ordered the said mayor to call unto him two of the next justices of the peace, and having substantially examined him, to give such order for his punishment, as the quality of his offence should seem to him and the said justices to have deserved. And to observe the like order henceforth towards such offenders, without further troubling or molesting the council with any such matters. The very words or matters spoken by these priests are not expressed in the council-book; but very probably they were such as tended to charge the queen as a promoter of heresy, or some reflections upon her mother’s marriage, and the like.

In Devon and Cornwall also the priests were very officious now in seditious preaching: insomuch that letters were sent to the sheriffs of those two counties, “that where the lords were given to understand, that notwithstanding the queen’s majesty’s proclamation, certain within that county had taken upon them without authority to preach; they were required to call such of the justices unto them as they knew to be serviceable to her highness; and upon conference with them to take order, that all such as should so attempt to preach, might be apprehended and committed to ward: and to signify up from time to time what they should do therein.”

The queen herein shewed herself impartial. For on which side soever they were, she punished the breach of her proclamation: which evidently appeared in that two protestant preachers, viz. Mr. Pullen and Mr. Dodman in Colchester, were commanded to be sent up to the lords under safe and sure custody: a letter to that intent being sent from the council to Thomas Mildmay, high sheriff of the county of Essex, the bailiffs of Colchester, and other justices of the peace thereabouts. And a few days after, another letter was wrote from the council to the said sheriff of Essex, and to the rest of the justices, to give order for the apprehending, and committing to ward, such preachers as used to preach in that shire [noted to be well affected in religion] as was informed, without a licence, and against tho queen’s late proclamation in that behalf. And thereupon to signify their names, and further proceedings herein, together with the faults of the said preachers.

But the popish priests and other zealots took frequent occasion not only to preach (as was said before) but to speak very untoward words against the queen, reflecting (as it seems) upon queen Ann Bolen, her mother, and her own legitimacy and title to the succession, and in favour of the queen of Scots. For they had a great eye upon her as the next heir (at least) to the crown: and reckoned queen Elizabeth, being accounted no better than an heretic, was to be put by. Which they imagined and suggested would come to pass either by the French’s invading England, (whereof indeed there were great preparations,) or by the shortness of her life; wizards and conjurers prognosticating that she should not live out a year. Many were the complaints of this nature that were brought to the council. Thus, beside what was mentioned before, one Robert Forrest in Lincolnshire, had spoken slanderous words. Which caused the council in December to send order to sir Edward Dimock, knt. to commit him to ward, there to remain for a month: and then to be set on the pillory in the market-town next to the place of his dwelling, with a paper on his head containing in great letters these words, For false and slander ous reports. And in case he should not shew himself repentant for his fault, then to cause one of his ears to be cut off.

John Shory also, sacristan of the cathedral church of Chichester, in the said month of December spoke lewd words; whom the council directed to be punished by pillory, or otherwise, as should seem good to sir Thomas Palmer, John Palmer, and John Appesly, esquires.

There was also one John Buke, in Surrey or Sussex, that had also spoken lewd words, whom sir Edward Gage had apprehended, and certified the same to the council: who sent to the said knight, and thanked him for his diligence therein; willing him to send unto them the said Buke under safe custody, that the matter objected against him might be further examined.

And he was willed to do the like with all others, whom he should find touched in that matter.

In the same month of December, a lewd malicious fellow of Ashford in Kent spake treasonable words against the queen. Sir Thomas Moyle, sir Thomas Kempe, sir Thomas Finch, knights, and Thomas Wotton, esq. were sent unto by the council, to call this man before them; and to examine him of his misdemeanours. And if the matter should upon sufficient testimony be found true, to send up the examination and the person himself, to be further ordered according to the laws.

In the month of January from Southampton a supplication was brought to the lords of the council, exhibited by certain inhabitants of that place, touching a disorder, and certain lewd words uttered by sir Thomas, priest of St. Michael’s in the said town, and others. Whereupon the lords sent their letter to the mayor of Southampton, Thomas Pacy, and other magistrates there, to consider of the same. And if they should find the matter so as was represented in the said supplication, to cause the party culpable to be apprehended, and committed to safe ward: and to signify what they should find in the matter; that order might be taken in the same, agreeable to equity, and the quality of the offence.

In the same month, the council wrote to the archdeacon of London upon a complaint against Geffrey Frauncis, sumner, some forward man against the professors of the gospel; and by their order he, the said Frauncis, was committed to the Gatehouse in Westminster. And one sir Edward Clypsham, priest, was, by the like order to the mayor of London, committed to one of the counters. But both soon dismissed again.

In February, Mountford, commissary to the bishop Lincoln, and one Sabcots, scribe, were, by virtue of a letter to the alderman of Stamford, and two of his brethren, to give to the said two persons letters of appearance before the lords, upon an information of the said nature against them.

John Gregyl, of Barking in Essex, had spoken maliciously. Wherefore the lords directed their letters to sir Anthony Cook and sir Thomas Wroth, with the information exhibited against him by one Thomas Pierson: which they were willed to examine; and to send for the parties: and to signify what they should find. Afterwards he was committed to the Fleet without having conference with any. But after he had been in hold about two months, he promised to make a public recantation. The lords hereupon sent to sir Anthony Cook and sir Peter Mewtas, requiring them, for that they were neighbours, to be present (at least one of them) at the said vicar’s acknowledging his late offences before his parishioners; and referring it to their discretions to appoint the time and place.

Information was also brought against one Christopher Savery, living, as it seems, in the west. The lords sent to sir Rich. Edgecomb, Mr. Hogmore, and Mr. Reignolds, to examine diligently the said information touching lewd words by him spoken, and to signify what they should find therein.

To Dr. Harpsfield, archdeacon of Canterbury, a letter of appearance was sent upon the like account. For in February information had been brought against him, that he used himself of late very disorderly, in stirring up the people, as much as in him lay, to sedition. And that it was reported by some of the servants of the college of Christ’s church, Canterbury, that religion could not nor should not be so altered. And that one man of the college had well near an hundred harnesses. So a letter, dated February 11, came from the lords to sir Thomas Finch, and George May, an alderman of that city, to examine this matter diligently; and to call before them all such, whom they should think meet, to be examined herein, or culpable touching the same. And thereupon to cause such as were faulty to be committed to ward; and to signify what they should find. And also to search what armour was in the said college; and what had been delivered out; and by whom; and for what purpose; and to whose hands. And to write their knowledge in these particulars.

Thomas Malet wrote a lewd and untrue letter to his uncle Dr. Malet: for which he was by the lords committed to the Gatehouse; and there to remain without conference with any. And soon after was bound in a recognisance of an 100l . to be of good abearing; and personally to appear, and make his attendance upon the lords of the council every council day betwixt that and Easter, and not to depart without licence.

One Thomas Hall, of Huntington, spake certain lewd words also: which the justices of assize in that county were wished to consider: and finding them culpable, to commit him to ward, and to see him further punished according to the quality of his offence, to the terror of others.

One William Bassenden, parson of St. George’s in Canterbury, had also spoken lewd words: whose body the mayor of Canterbury was ordered to send up under safe custody, with some one that was present when he spake the same.

In the month of March, a Spanish priest in Bristow, called Francisco del Gado, used much unseemly talk of the queen’s highness. Whereupon the mayor and aldermen stayed him: and took an examination of him; which they sent up to the council. Who in a letter thanked them for what they had done, and gave. order to keep him still in prison, till he could be content to be sorry and acknowledge his fault. In which case he should be suffered to depart; or otherwise remaining stubborn and without repentance, the same to be signified to the lords, and to receive further order thereupon.

Thomas Pain, of Castle Acre in Norfolk, was sent up for upon the same account. Thomas Birch, vicar of Witley, and John Deuton, parson of Spelhurst in Kent, for the like ill behaviour, were ordered to be committed to ward. Sir Raphe Backhouse, parish priest of Little Wenham in Suffolk, had spoken lewd and seditious words; whereof sir Henry Doyle, and Christopher Goldingham informed the council. Who in answer required them, if they knew the accusers to be of honesty and credit, to cause the said priest, upon the next market-day to be holden at Ipswich, to be set on the pillory, and one of his ears to be cut off, and after committed to prison, there to remain until the justices of assize shall come next into the country: and then to be brought before them, and further ordered.

One sir Peter Walker, priest, living in Colchester, uttered certain lewd and untrue reports. For which the bailiffs of Colchester were by the lords ordered to put him in the pillory the next market-day in Colchester, with a paper on his head, having these words written in great letters, For false seditious tales: and after, if he can find sureties for his good behaviour, to be set at liberty, or otherwise to be committed to gaol. The vicar of Hoo in Kent was also by order of the lords to be apprehended, and sent up in safe custody. All these in the month of March.

I will add but one more of these delinquents, namely, Robert Forster, parson of Over-Watton; against whom matter had been exhibited. The lords sent to Hercules Rainsford and Thomas Gibbons, esquires, to examine him upon the same: and in the mean time to keep him in safe ward. This was in April 1559. But I intend to stop here; because I will not step over the present year.

One would admire the new good queen should have so many ill-willers every where, as appeared by these slanders and false reports given out and spread against her, to breed disaffection in her subjects towards her from her first coming to the crown, and to shake her title to it. Hence no question it came to pass, that one, two, or three of the first bills brought into the queen’s parliament, that sat in January, were designed to meet with these defamatory reports and libels: as the bill for the recognition of the queen’s title to the imperial crown of this realm; and the bill, wherein certain offences be declared treason; and that against slanderous and seditious words. These bills ripened into acts before the parliament ended.

That entitled, An act whereby certain offences be made treason, was but the renewing of the like act made in queen Mary’s reign. But that act extended no further than to that queen’s person: so that if the like offences mentioned and contained in that statute happened to be committed against the queen that now was, viz. queen Elizabeth, there was no due remedy or condign punishment provided. This statute therefore was now made and declared to be in force in behalf of the present queen. It was made against such as should maliciously compass or imagine to deprive the queen’s majesty and her heirs of her body from the style, honour, and kingly name of the imperial crown of this realm, or to destroy her or any of her heirs, or to levy war within the realm; or to utter by open preaching or express words the same compasses or imaginations.

Ecclesiastical persons for every such offence, immediately upon such attainder, to be deprived of all their benefices and promotions. This act also reached to such as affirmed by writing or printing, or some overt act, that the queen ought not to have the style, honour, and kingly name of this realm: or that any other person beside the queen ought to have and enjoy the said style: or that the queen that then was ought not to be queen of this realm during her life. This was made high treason.

That other bill against slanderous words, when it became an act, was entitled, An act for the explanation of the statute of seditious words and rumours: which was also a former act, made 1 and 2 of Philip and Mary.

This act the same parliament thought most convenient to revive and reenforce, rather than to frame a new one. Wherein they made every branch, article, word, and sentence to be expounded and judged to extend to the queen’s highness, as fully to all intents and constructions as it had to the former queen. And that all persons that should maliciously speak or utter any false, seditious, or slanderous news, rumours, sayings, or tales of the queen or of her heirs, being kings or queens of this realm, should incur such pains and penalties as in the said act [of queen Mary] was limited and appointed. Which punishment was the pillory, and the cutting off both ears, or the payment of an hundred pounds, and imprisonment three months, for him that of his own imagination spoke false, seditious, or slanderous rumours of the king or queen. And the reporting thereof from any other was the pillory, and cutting off one ear, or 100 mark, and imprisonment one month.

And for malicious writing or printing, and setting forth any book, rhyme, or ballad, containing false matter, clause, or sentence of slander of the king or queen, or to the stirring or moving of sedition or insurrection; his right hand that had so done was to be stricken off, for the first time; and for the second, imprisonment during life, and forfeiture of all his goods and chattels.

And surely these severe laws afterwards terrified and restrained these malecontents and ill-willers to the queen, and bigots for popery, which appeared already so numerous.

There was also in this beginning of the queen’s reign much zeal shewn on their side that desired reformation of corrupt religion. Who not being able to away with the superstitions practised, and the images in the churches, commitred great disorders by their own hands, pulling them down without any public authority, and defacing the churches where they were. Of this I shall give some instances; coming to the ears of the queen’s council. It was but about the beginning of December, that one Thomas Pike committed some such disorder in the church of Sholisbury, (Shobury in Essex perhaps,) of which the parson of the said church sent up a complaint to the council. Who listening to it, sent it back enclosed in a letter to the lord Rich, living in those parts, and no very good friend to protestants: willing him to send for the said Pike; and if, upon examination of the matter, he should find the same true, then to cause him to be punished according to the quality of his offence.

What acts of this nature happened afterwards I do not find (only that on the 8th or 9th of January the image of St. Thomas, that is, Thomas Becket, the patron of the mercers, that stood over their chapel door, was thrown down and broken) until the beginning of March; when a notable disturbance was made in the churches of Dover. Upon which the lords of the council sent to Thomas Keyes, sergeant porter, and Edward Boys, esq. to examine it diligently; and to cause such as they should find faulty there, to be apprehended, and bound in good bonds to appear at the council to answer their doings. Which if they refused to do, then to commit them to ward; and to signify what they had done herein. The next month I find John Castle of Dover, mariner, Tho. Ramsden of the same town, shoemaker, and John West of the same town, butcher, were each bound in’ recognisances of 20l . on condition that every of them should henceforth be of good abearing; and should also on the Sunday next, each of them in the parish church of Dover, whereof he was a parishioner, declare openly in the time of service, that he did very ill, and without order, to pluck down the images of that church, before a law did authorize him so to do.

And in the latter end of March, the parish church of Halylesham in Sussex was spoiled, and that by the inhabitants of the said town: whereof Tho.

Busshop and John Thatcher, justices of the peace, made complaint to sir Rich. Sackvile, one of the council. This (whatsoever it was they had done) the council styled a heinous disorder; and by their letters to the said justices willed them, for the better punishment thereof, to call for the assistance of sir Nicholas Pelham and sir Edward Gage, and other justices dwelling nigh unto them: and having found out who were the authors and ringleaders of that matter, to commit them to ward; and to put them to such fines for their offence, as by their discretions should be thought most meet, and agreeable to the laws.

In Bow church, London, also about this very time, several got together privately and undiscovered, and pulled down the images and the sacrament, and defaced the vestments and books: which notwithstanding was so well liked by many, that no complaint was preferred thereof to the council. But some information coming to them, they sent a letter to sir Thomas Lee, lord mayor, calling it an outrageous disorder; and not hearing of any order by him taken for redress thereof, they found it very strange. He was therefore put in remembrance of an exhortation made by the queen’s majesty unto him on Candlemas-day last past, and straitly commanded to use the best means he could to bolt out the doers hereof, and to cause them to be apprehended and committed to ward; and to signify unto them [the council] what he should find therein. Thus even and impartially did the state carry it toward both parties, until some further law should be made to direct the subjects in their public worship and service of God.

CHAPTER 2.

Cardinal Poles message to the lady Elizabeth before his death.

The carriage of the bishops to the queen. The posture of rely.

Secret counsels for restoring it. parliament; and convocation: what was done there; and in the parliament. The act of supremacy; and uniformity. Private acts. Manet bishoprics become void by the act of supremacy; and other ecclesiastical preferments. EARLY interest was made with Elizabeth for the continuance of the old religion. For, when the papalins saw their power was unequal to put her by from reigning after her sister, they laboured to persuade her to let religion remain as she found it. There was a secret message sent from cardinal Pole but three or four days before his death, to her, being now but lady Elizabeth, together with a letter; whereof Seth Holland, dean of Worcester, his chaplain, was the bringer. The letter was as follows: “It may please your grace to understand, that albeit the long continuance and vehemency of my sickness be such as justly might move me, casting away all cares of this world, only to think of that to come; yet not being convenient for me to determine of life or death, which is only in the hand of God, I thought it my duty, before I should depart, so nigh as I could, to leave all persons satisfied of me, and especially your grace, being of that honour and dignity that the providence of God hath called you unto. For which purpose I do send you at this present mine faithful chaplain, the dean of Worcester; to whom may it please your grace to give credit in that he shall say unto you in my behalf. I doubt not but that your grace shall remain satisfied thereby. Whom Almighty God long prosper to his honour, your comfort, and the wealth of the realm.”

By your grace’s orator, Reg. Car. Cantuarien .”

From Lambehith, the 14th of November, 1558.

By this letter and message, as it seems to me, he drove at two things: the one, to satisfy the lady Elizabeth, that he was in none of the faction against her life and reign; and thereby to recommend himself and his friends unto her, when she should come to the crown, which he saw was not far off, the present queen being past hopes. The second, to leave with her certain counsels and instructions for her future government and behaviour of herself, especially in regard of the Roman religion, that then ‘was in place, and to continue it: importing this in point of Policy to be her safest course; and the extraordinary danger hanging over her head, should she attempt the alteration of it. Which no question the cardinal’s chaplain set as home upon the queen as possible, Yet surely it tended not a little to disaffect the queen towards that religion, that the clergy and bishops from the very first shewed themselves so very wayward and disobliging. Many instances of this in the inferior clergy we have related already: now some passages concerning the bishops, which I take from a Roman author of great fame. Oglethorp, bishop of Carlisle, standing ready to say mass before the queen, she commanded him not to elevate the consecrated host, to prevent the idolatry that the people were wont then to commit; but to omit the ceremony, because she liked it not.

Which the said bishop nevertheless (to his great honour, said the writer) constantly refused to obey. When she was to be consecrated by some bishop at her coronation, they all refused, till with much ado the foresaid bishop was prevailed upon to do it, who was the inferior almost of all the rest. For his former refusal he never repented it, but for the doing the other office towards her, when he saw the issue of the matter, and both himself and all the rest of that order deprived, and the church’s holy laws and faith, (as that writer expresseth himself,) against the condition of her consecration, violated, he sore repented him all the days of his life; which were, for that special cause, both short and wearisome afterward to him.

And the reason those bishops refused to crown her, (as that Romanist relates,) and that they durst not invest her, was, for that they had evident probabilities and arguments to doubt, that she meant either not to take the oath, or not to keep the same, which all Christian kings, and especially ours in England, did make in their coronation, for maintenance of holy church’s laws, honours, peace, and privileges, and other duties due to every state, as in the time and grant of king Edward the confessor. They doubted also, lest she would refuse, in the very time of her sacre, the solemn divine ceremony of unction, through the evil advices of certain young counsellors, being then in the heat, prime, and pride of their heresy; whereby great scandal might arise, and hurt to the realm. Upon this surmise of her future misgovernment, they did, what in them lay, reject her from being their queen. These carriages might well estrange her mind from them.

But whether she were determined in her mind before or no, certain it is, that the affairs of the church continued for a while in the same posture and condition they were in before, abating persecution for religion: mass celebrated in the churches; the ejected and exiled clergy not restored to their former places and preferments; the popish priests keeping Possession; orders, that things in the church should for the present continue as they were; such punished as innovated any thing in the church or public worship: which put the favourers of the gospel under great fears and jealousies; and they began to suspect the queen intended to make none, or very little amendment in religion.

But as certain it is, (and we may believe the queen privy to it,) that, at the very beginning of her reign, some there were of considerable rank engaged in a deep and very secret deliberation about the method and way of restoring religion again; and what was to be done in matter of Policy for securing the inconveniencies that might arise at home and abroad, from the reformation of religion; who of the queen’s council were first to be made acquainted with the design; what learned men to be employed in making the alterations; and concerning the appointments of time and place. There was about the beginning of December such a device drawn up by some notable hand, and offered to secretary Cecyl; and which, by the steps that afterward were taken, appeared to have been followed. By whose pen it was writ doth not appear. I suspect it to have been either John Hales, a man of a politic and working head, and a zealous protestant, and clerk of the hanaper to this queen, as he had been to king Edward VI. or sir Thomas Smith, a very wise man, and secretary of state to king Edward: and I am rather inclined to think it the latter.

In which device are these questions, with practical, apt answers to them.

I. When the alteration shall be first attempted? The answer to which is, At the next parliament.

II. What danger may ensue upon the alteration? The answer to which weighs the danger from the bishop of Rome, from the French king, from Scotland, from Ireland, and from many people here at home.

III. What remedy for these matters? Answer to which is given particularly and distinctly, as to France, Rome, Scotland, Ireland, and at home.

IV. What the manner of doing it? The answer to which propounds certain learned men to contrive and bring in a book, or platform of religion ready drawn, to the queen; and having her approbation, to be put into the parliament-house. The men named for the drawing this up, are Bill, late master of Trinity college, Cambridge; Parker, late dean of Lincoln; May, late dean of St. Paul’s, doctors in divinity; all under king Edward heads of the university of Cambridge, but cashiered by queen Mary, and remaining obscurely in England in her reign: and beside these, Cox, Whitehead, Grindal, and Pilkington, who were exiles, and newly come home; and sir Thomas Smith, a learned knight, and doctor of the civil law, was to call them together, and assist with them in the work. And before this, it was thought necessary that all innovation should be strictly forbidden, until such time as the book should come forth.

By the sequel it appears, that this advice was taken, whosoever was the giver of it; those being the persons appointed for the revising king Edward’s book of common prayer: and a proclamation being issued out in the latter end of the month of December to the effect aforesaid, as shall be told by and by.

But proceed we to the other questions.

V. What might be done of the queen, for her own conscience, openly, before the whole alteration? Or, if the alteration must tarry longer, what order is fit to be in the whole realm, as an interim? The resolution was, to make no further alteration than the queen had already done: except, to receive the communion as she pleased on high feasts; (that is, whether in one or both kinds;) and ‘that the chaplains at mass receive in both kinds; and that some devout sort of prayers be framed and used for a while, and mass said more seldom.

VI. What noblemen might be thought to be most fit to be made privy to these proceedings, before the privy council should have it propounded? To which four are mentioned, Northampton, Bedford, Pembroke, and Grey.

VII. What allowance should be assigned to the learned men, while they were reviewing the book of common prayer; and where to meet?

The answer to which is, Sir Thomas Smith’s lodgings in Chanon-row; and sufficient provision to be made of meat and other things. This excellent paper is summed up by Camden in his History of Queen Elizabeth, but first saw the light by the means of the right reverend the bishop of Sarum, who hath printed it in his History of the Reformation, from the MSS. of the lord Grey of Ruthen, now lord viscount Longuevil. But there being another MS. of it in the Cotton library, somewhat different from that used by him, and explanatory of it in some places, and more correct, I am therefore tempted to put it into the Repository from that MS.

A difficult work this was now taking in hand: the reformation of corrupt religion being the harder to bring to pass, because there was not only in this juncture a formidable popish party to struggle with, but a Lutheran party also. For there was not a few now that, in the alteration of religion, would endearour to have it settled according to the Augustan Confession: whereby a real and substantial presence might be acknowledged in the eucharist; crucifixes and images might be retained in the churches; the wafer put into the receiver’s mouth, and such like. And of this the learned men of the foreign reformed churches were much afraid. I find a letter written anno 1559, from Bullinger, chief pastor in Zurich, to Utenhovius, another learned man, now at Frankford, (but under king Edward VI. belonging to the Dutch church in London,) signifying, how many strove to have the Augustan Confession received I see,” saith he, “no little disturbances like to arise even in England, if, as some do require, the Confession of Augsburg be there received; a thing unsuitable in “many respects.” He went on, and shewed how this confession had caused vexation in all the sincerer churches, and laboured to infect all with its leaven. That Utenhovius knew what it had done in Poland; and bade him take heed, and give his assistance that it took not place. And that king Edward’s reformation satisfied the godly, But notwithstanding this stay of religion enjoined by the queen, as was said before, divers of those that were ministers in king Edward’s days now soon returning home from abroad, and others concealed within the realm, began to shew themselves, and exercise their ministry, especially in London, after the order of the reformation in that reign; great numbers of people assembling at those times. And this the queen shewing herself displeased at, upon pretence of the occasion it gave to unfruitful disputes and contentions, declared the same by a proclamation sent out December 27, from Westminster: wherein she charged all, as well such as were called to the ministry, as others; the one to forbear to preach or teach, and the other to hear any doctrine or preaching, than the gospel and epistle for the day, and the ten commandments in English, without exposition or addition of any manner of sense or meaning to be applied. Nor any manner of public prayer to be used in the church, but what then was used, and by law received; except the litany, the Lord’s prayer, and the creed in English, as she used in her own chapel. Yet this order of the queen’s was somewhat mitigated, by adding, that it was to last only till she and her three estates in parliament should meet, and consult for some reconciliation of matters as were then moved in point of religion: withal promising, that she meant, by all means possible, to procure and restore the advancement of religion among her people; but threatening severe punishment to those that should disobey this her proclamation. Which proclamation I have also placed in the Repository. And accordingly, Jan. 1, the litany, epistle, and gospel in English, began to be said in London, by virtue of that proclamation of the queen, according as was used in her chapel.

But the day of the parliament’s meeting now drawing on, being January the 23d, we shall proceed to look upon their transactions, especially in the matters of religion, wherein so much was to be done. As we must also look into the con vocation-house, where the clergy sat at the same time upon the same business.

The sitting of the parliament this day, by reason of the queen’s bodily indisposition, was prorogued till January the 25th, when the lord keeper, sir Nicolas Bacon, opened it with a long and eloquent speech: and that branched into three general matters: which the queen, he said, had called the parliament together for. The first whereof was, for the well making of laws for the according and uniting of the people into an uniform order of religion. This he touched tenderly and wisely, as representing the queen not inclinable to one side or other, but only aiming to settle the religion, to be professed among her subjects, upon true principles. The sum of what he said relating to this point was, “that the queen had God before her eyes, and was not unmindful of precepts and divine counsels; and therefore meant chiefly in this conference, that the advancement of God’s honour and glory should be sought, as the sure and infallible foundation whereupon the policies of every good commonwealth were to be erected; and was as the straight line, whereby it was wholly to be directed and governed; and as the chief pillar and buttress, wherewith it was continually to be sustained. And as the well and perfect doing of this could not but make good success in all the rest, so the remiss ‘and loose dealing in it could not but make the rest full of imperfection and doubtfulness: which must needs bring with them continual change and alteration; a thing to be eschewed in all good governances, but most of all in matters of faith and religion. That the queen therefore principally required them, for the duty they bore to God, and their service to her and their country, that in this consultation they would, with all humbleness, singleness, and pureness of mind, use their whole endeavor and diligence to establish that which by their wisdoms should be thought most meet for the well preserving of this godly purpose: and this without respect of honour, rule, or sovereignty, profit, pleasure, or ease; or of any thing that might touch any person in estimation or opinion of wit, learning, or knowledge; and without all regard of other affection. “And that in their conference about this, they should wholly forbear, as a great enemy to good counsel, all manner of contention, reasonings, disputes, and sophistical, captious, and frivolous arguments and quiddities, matters for ostentation of wit, rather than consultation of weighty matters; comelier for scholars than counsellors. And because commonly they were causes of much expense of time, and bred few good resolutions. “He advised, that by counsel provision should be made, that no contentious and contumelious words, as heretic, schismatic, papist, and such like, being nurses of seditious factions and sects, should be used, but banished out of men’s mouths, as the causers, continuers, and increasers of displeasure, hate, and malice; and as utter enemies of all concord and unity, and the very marks they were now come to shoot at. And that as nothing should be advised or done, that might any way breed or nourish any kind of idolatry or superstition, so heed was to be taken, that by licentious or loose handling, any occasion were given, whereby contempt or irreverent behaviour towards God and godly things might creep in. “That the examples of fearful punishments that followed these four extremities, that is to say, idolatry, superstition, contempt, and irreligion, in all ages and times, were more than he could declare: and yet not so many as the blessings and benefits of God to those that had forsaken them, and embraced their contraries. That for their better encouragement to run this right and straight course, he thought he might affirm, that the good king Hezekiah had no greater desire to amend what was amiss in his time, nor the noble queen Hester a better heart to overthrow the mighty enemies of God’s elect, than their sovereign lady and mistress had to do that which might be just and acceptable in God’s sight. And so forced to this by their duties to God, feared thereto by his punishments, provoked by his benefits, and drawn by their love to their country and their wives, and lastly, encouraged by so princely a patroness, he exhorted them in God’s name to go about this work.”

Now before we observe what impression this speech had upon the parliament, let us first see a little what was done among the members of the convocation.

Herein the popish clergy did notably bestir themselves. It began the 24th day of the said month; that is, the next day after the parliament were called together, Nicolas Harpsfield, archdeacon of Canterbury, being prolocutor: when, by the order of the bishop of London, president, the lower house drew up articles, and desired the bishops of the upper house to present them to the parliament. The history of it was thus; as I take it from archbishop Parker’s volume, entitled Synodalia.

In the fourth session, the bishop of London asked the clergy of the lower house, whether they had thought of anything which they would explain that day? When the prolocutor, with Thomas Reynold, John Harpfield, and William Chedsey answered, that they knew not for what cause, and concerning what things they were to treat; and they prayed, that a way might be considered of, how religion might be preserved. To which the bishops answered, that it seemed expedient, that the clergy should make a supplication to the queen, that no burden might be imposed upon the clergy in that parliament; and that then they should consider about the supply of a subsidy, and the way of raising it.

Session 6. The prolocutor and the clergy offered to the bishops certain articles in writing, which the said clergy had devised, for the disburdening of their consciences, as they said, and the protestation of their faith: and petitioned the bishops, that they would head them in the same.

Session 7. Febr. ult. They exhibited their articles conceived in the former session; which were read, and the bishops promised to present them to the upper house of parliament the next day. The articles were these:

I. That in the sacrament of the altar, by virtue of the words of Christ, duly spoken by the priest, is present realiter, under the kinds of bread and wine, the natural body of Christ, conceived of the virgin Mary, and also his natural blood.

II. That after the consecration there remains not the substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of God and man.

III. That in the mass is offered the true body of Christ, and his true blood, a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and dead.

IV. That to Peter the apostle, and his lawful successors in the apostolic see, as Christ’s vicars, is given the supreme power of feeding and ruling the church of Christ militant, and confirming their brethren.

V. That the authority of handling and defining concerning the things belonging to faith, sacraments, and discipline ecclesiastical, hath hitherto ever belonged, and ought to belong only to the pastors of the church; whom the Holy Ghost for this purpose hath set in the church; and not to laymen.

The three former of these were solemnly disputed at Oxford, the first year of queen Mary, as the great krith>rion of popery, against Cranmer, Ridley, and Latymer.

The next session, the prolocutor and clergy asked the bishops, whether they had presented the articles? The bishop of London said, he had presented them to the lord keeper of the great seal; and that he received them, as appeared, gratefully; but gave no answer. They desired the upper house, that they would before the next session inquire the good pleasure of the keeper concerning them.

In a session following, the bishop of London told them, that the articles under the hand of a public notary were exhibited, (one only article, viz. the last, excepted,) being before approved by the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

Nothing more followed, but adjournments, until the middle of May 1559, when, I suppose, this convocation was concluded, the parliament being dissolved a little before, viz. the eighth day of the said month.

All this while the clergy that favoured sincere religion clergy not were but private standers by, and were not consulted with: which put them into some disturbance, fearing the issue; their hearts trembling, as old Eli’s did, for the ark of God: and well they might, there being neither any order taken for the restoration of the old protestant bishops to their sees, whereof there were four surviving; nor of the inferior clergy, that married wives under king Edward, and were deprived under queen Mary, to their former dignities and benefices.

But now let us look into the parliament, and see what was done there about religion, and for the establishment of the queen upon her throne.

First, Richard Cox, D.D. (sometime dean of Westminster, and of Christ church, Oxon, but that had lived abroad all the late reign, and now lately come home,) preached before the parliament at the opening of it. But queen Mary’s bishops and prelates only sat in the house, from whom was to be expected all the opposition that could be against casting off the pope’s usurpation, and restoring of true religion. They were indeed few, some being newly dead, as Canterbury, Salisbury, Norwich, Chichester, Rochester, and some others; several absent, who had sent their proxies, as Durham, Peterborough, Ely, (now abroad in an embassy,) Bath and Wells, St. David’s: to which add, one prior, sir Tho. Tresham, lord prior of St. John’s of Jerusalem, who also sent his proxy. Those that appeared were, Heath, archbishop of York, that had been lord chancellor, Boner, bishop of London, White of Winton, Pate of Worcester, Kitchin of Landaft, Bayne of Coventry and Litchfield, Turbervile of Exeter, Scot of Chester, and Oglethorp of Carlisle, with Feckenham, lord abbot of Westminster.

The chief bills brought in, which this present history especially requireth our taking notice of, shall follow. The most whereof passed into act, (but some were rejected,) to all which, the bishops that sat in the house, generally, one and all dissented and protested.

The first bill preferred in the upper house was read on Monday, January the 30th. The substance was, for the restitution and annexation of the firstfruits, tenths, &c. to the imperial crown of this realm. Which, by reason of the present impoverished state of the revenues, was thought highly necessary to be restored again to the crown, to help to uphold the “huge, innumerable, and inestimable charges” of the royal estate, as the bill expresseth it; mentioning how these first-fruits, tenths, yearly rents of impropriations, rectorles, &c. had been given away by queen Mary from the crown, which they accounted a great disherison and decay done to the crown and royal estate of the realm, and the succession thereof. This bill was read the third time, and passed Saturday, February 4. To this bill all the bishops present, which were eight, dissented, viz. York, London, Worcester, Landaff, Coventry and Litchfield, Exeter, Chester, Carlisle. But all the temporal lords consented nemine contradicente: as appeared easily by the standing up, first of the temporal lords, who voted in the affirmative, and then of the spiritual lords, who voted the negative: in respect of the apparent inequality of their voices.

The second and next bill brought in, and read in the lords’ house, was on Wednesday, February the 1st, which was still in order to uphold the queen’s estate, being for recognition of her title to the imperial crown of this realm. This bill was finished February the 9th, and by universal consent concluded. Observe that here the bishops did not dissent. This bill was conform to the practice of queen Mary’s first parliament, wherein such a bill was brought in and passed, declaring and recognising her to have been born in a most just and lawful matrimony; and so consequently their rightful queen.

The third bill that was read in the said house was on the said 9th of February, still relating more nearly to the queen, By this bill certain offences were declared treason.

And the fourth bill was read the same day, against slanderous and seditious words. What need there was of such a bill to restrain the tongues of many against the queen and her proceedings, is evident from what hath been related before.

The next (being the fifth bill proper here to be taken notice of) was read February the 10th, wherein the queen was made inheritable to the late queen Anne, her majesty’s mother. And it is remarked by the author of the history of the journal of this parliament, concerning this bill, that after the reading two other bills the same day, it was read again, and ordered to be engrossed. Which speed, he saith, the house took for the passing of this bill, to express their zeal and affection to her majesty. February the 13th, this bill was read the third time, whereby the queen was restored in blood to the late queen Anne, her mother, and concluded with the common consent of all the lords: neither is there any mention in the journal of the house, of the bishops dissenting to this: which because it is a private act, and unprinted, I exemplify it in the Appendix.

February the 27th came a very material bill from the house of commons, where it had been despatched; it was for the restoring the supremacy to the imperial crown of this realm; and for repealing divers acts made to the contrary. This bill was tossed about in both houses, and many alterations made, and many provisoes added. Once it was entitled, “A bill to avoid the usurped power claimed by any foreign potentate in this realm; and for the oath to be taken for spiritual and temporal officers.” This was the reason it was read so often in the upper house, as the 27th and 28th of February: again the 13th, 15th, 18th of March: on which day it is said in the journal to be concluded; these two temporal lords dissenting, viz. the earl of Shrewsbury and viscount Mountague; and these spiritual, being nine bishops and one abbot, that is, I suppose, all that were in the house, viz.

York, London, Winton, Wigorn, Landaft, Coventry and Litchfield, Exon, Chester, Carlisle, and the abbot of Westminster. And after, March the 18th, by reason of some additions, provisions, and reviews of so weighty a bill, it came into this house again several times before it was finished.

March the 20th, fourteen bills were brought up from the commons to the house of lords: whereof one was to take away all pains and penalties for religion in queen Mary’s time; and another for making ecclesiastical laws by thirtytwo persons. The rest of the fourteen were about temporal matters. The former was taken into the bill of the supremacy. The latter bill, being for an emendation of the civil and ecclesiastical laws, (wherein infinite pains had been taken by archbishop Cranmer, and divers of the learnedest men in king Edward’s reign,) had been often brought into that king’s parliaments, and had found difficulty to pass, though earnestly desired by the best men: nor had it better fortune in this reign. Men did not then care to be restrained by church discipline.

March the 22d, the bill for the restitution of the firstfruits and tenths was returned from the lower house, and concluded by the lords. And likewise the bill for restoring the supremacy to the imperial crown, with a new proviso added by the commons; which was read the first, second, and third time, and concluded; the bishops of York, London, Winton, Landaff, Coventry and Litchfield, Exon, Chester, Carlisle, and the abbot of Westminster, dissenting.

The same day, the bill for admitting and consecrating archbishops and bishops was sent from the lower house, and was read then, and read again the second time: and the next day, viz. March the 23d, was read the third time, and concluded. This bill also was put into the bill for the supremacy.

April the 4th, 1559, the bill, that the queen, upon the avoidance of any archbishopric or bishopric, might exchange the temporal possessions thereof with parsonages impropriate, was read now the first time. April the 5th, the same bill was read again, but worded thus; “That the queen, upon the avoidance of any archbishopric or bishopric, may resume the temporal possessions thereof into her hands; recompensing the value thereof with parsonages impropriate,” &c. The next day the same bill was read the third time, and concluded; the bishops of York, London, Wigorn, Coventry and Litchfield, Exon, Chester, Carlisle, and the aforesaid abbot, dissenting.

April 14, Friday, four bills were brought from the commons: whereof one was to review the act 5 Edw. VI. for keeping of holydays and fasting-days.

This bill either came to nothing, or was taken into the bill of Uniformity.

And another, for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, and for abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same: both which were read. Here this important bill of the Supremacy came into the upper house again, and received the title wherewith it stands in the statute: but by reason of other provisoes added yet unto it, it was not fully completed until the 29th day of April; as will appear in the sequel.

April the 17th, the bishop of Ely was in the house; being now returned home from his embassy abroad with Dr. Wotton. For this day, to him and some other bishops and peers was committed the bill for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction; now having been read the second time.

April the 25th, nine bills were brought from the commons to the lords.

Those concerning religion were, first, touching uniformity of common prayer, and service in the church, and administration of the sacraments: which passed in the commons’ house April the 20th. Secondly, To make good the leases and grants of offices and copyholds, made by Nicolas Ridley, late bishop of London. This bill, May the 1st, was rejected after a third reading.

The case was this, (as I have it from an authentic paper:) Boner, bishop of London, was deprived by two several commissions, dated the eighth and seventeenth days of September, in the third year of Edward VI. The commissions and sentence of deprivation both of record.

From which sentence of deprivation Boner appealed, as appeareth by record.

The privy council examined and rejected the appeal by sentence definitive.

Which sentence is of record: but the commission whereby they did it cannot as yet be found, Upon the rejectment of the appeal, Dr. Ridley was translated to be bishop of London, and made leases of certain lands, parcel of the said bishopric. Primo Mariae, Boner was restored: who made leases of the same lands unto others; supposing Ridley to be but an usurper.

So that upon the validity or invalidity of their two leases, the question was, whether Ridley were lawfully bishop of London in the reign of king Edward VI. or no.

The inconveniences that might grow thereof were reserved to the considerations of the good and godly: for that many titles did depend thereon.

April the 26th, Wednesday, again the bill for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, &c. with a proviso added thereunto by the lords, read a third time, and concluded; the bishops of York, London, Ely, Wigorn, Landaff, Coventry and Litchfield, Exon, Chester, Carlisle, and the foresaid abbot of Westminster, dissenting, with viscount Mountague only of the lords temporal. It was yet read again the 28th of April, because of a new proviso added by the commons. And April 29 read a third time, and concluded.

This 26th day, the bill for uniformity of common prayer, and service in the church, sent the day before from the commons, was read the first time in the lords’ house. April the 27th, the same bill was read the second time:

April the 28th, read the third time, and concluded; the bishops (as before) of York, London, Ely, Wigorn, Landaff, Coventry and Litchfield, Exon, Chester, Carlisle, dissenting; (the abbot is not mentioned here in the Journal among the dissenters: I suppose he was now absent.) The dissenting temporal lords were nine, viz. the marquis of Winchester, the earl of Shrewsbury, viscount Mountague, barons Morly, Stafford, Dudley, Wharton, Rich, and North.

The 27th day likewise were three bills brought from the lower house; of one I will take notice, having been twice read, though it passed not into an act this session; but in the next parliament it did: by this bill the use and practice of enchantments, witchcraft, and sorcery, was made felony. The reason of bringing in this bill was, because conjurers and charmers, and such as invoked evil spirits, were so frequent and busy upon the queen’s first coming to the crown, and perhaps before: who meddled in matters of state, and endeavoured by sorcery and the black art to deprive the queen of her kingdom. Besides, that many people nowadays were strangely taken, deprived of their speech, bereft of their senses, pined away, their flesh rotting; which were justly supposed to be the effects of conjurations and enchantments: and so the preamble of that act doth set forth.

Another of these three bills, for the security of the queen’s in her proceedings, and to prevent popular tumults, did pass the lords’ house April the 29th, confirming all act made in the first of queen Mary, against unlawful and rebellious assemblies. Which as it served that queen, so it was like to prove very serviceable now to this, in the present alteration of religion. For by this act were stopped any intents or attempts to alter or change, by force of arms, any laws made or established for religion; if any persons to the number of twelve or above, of their own authority, should meet together for such purpose.

April the 29th, (i.e. the same day,) another proviso annexed by the commons to the bill for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical, was read the third time, and concluded.

May the 2d, several bills came from the commons to the lords: whereof one was, that the queen by commission might examine the causes of deprivation of spiritual persons, and restore them again. This was in favour of such of king Edward’s clergy, (whereof were great numbers,) that in the beginning of queen Mary’s reign were thrown out of their ecclesiastical preferments and places, and others clapt in their rooms, (either because they were married, or for that they favoured the gospel,) without, or contrary to law. But this bill, for some political reasons, I suppose, passed not, being not found among the printed acts.

Another of these bills was, to annex to the crown certain religious houses, and to reform certain abuses in chantries. These bills were this day read; and read again the next day: and May the 5th, both read the third time, and concluded: but the bishops and abbot dissenting to the bill for annexing to the crown religious houses; to which three provisoes were added. This also is not among the printed acts.

Let me add the mention of one temporal bill, and that was for the subsidy and two fifteens and tenths; to shew in what low circumstances the crown now was, and how sensible the nation was of it. This bill was first read in the house of commons, February the 3d, and brought up to the lords February the 11th. This subsidy was extremely free, and readily granted without any special labour or desire of the queen, but out of most necessary consideration had by the court of parliament for the wealth and public affairs of the realm. For the parliament in their consultations well saw what great’debts had been left to the queen’s majesty to pay on the other side of the seas, (which yet remained and grew intolerable to the realm,) and what other great charges and debts had been left to her, by reason of the wars as well towards Scotland as in Ireland: a great part whereof, with no small care, pains, and consideration, had been defrayed; together with other charges lying now upon her since the late queen’s death, for her funerals, and for her own coronation.

The queen, soon after the parliament’s breaking up, sent forth her commissions for the levying this subsidy throughout England: and the lords of the council backed the said commissions with their letters for the more effectual and true assessing and collecting of it. In their letter to the lord president of the north, (whence I have taken what is above written,) they write further, “that they could not but lamentably report, that the burdens, debts, and charges had been and were intolerable, which daily did appear.

And they prayed him and the rest of the commissioners in those northern parts, (as they should have occasion offered them in the execution of this commission,) by their earnestness and diligence to further this subsidy, which was so frankly given, as with more good-will and fuller accord never was any granted: and that they would shew themselves to have respect to this time. And so to use the demands and assessment of this subsidy, that it might appear (as true it was) nothing to the particular benefit of her majesty, but only towards the discharge and alleviating of some part of that burden wherewith her majesty found her imperial crown overcharged by the late queen’s great debts.” This was written from Westminster, May the 22d. But to return a little back again.

Let me now shew several things transacted in the lower house (as I have hitherto chiefly done in the upper) concerning bishops and spiritual persons, and their deprivations, and the alienations of their lands, or other matters respecting religion.

February the 15th, a bill was brought into the commons’ house for the restoring of the patentees of the bishop of Winchester’s lands. Of which lands they had been thrown out in queen Mary’s reign, and their patents from king Edward evacuated; and the said lands procured back to Gardiner, bishop of Winchester, and his successors: this bill was, February 18, read again the second time. And again, ten days after, (viz. February 28,) the bill was amended, or rather renewed, and now entitled, A bill for assurance of lands, late parcel of the bishopric of Winchester, granted to king Edward VI. and by his letters patents granted to the earl of Pembroke, sir Will. Fitzwilliams, sir Philip Hobby, sir John Mason, sir Henry Seymour, sir Henry Nevil, and sir Richard Sackvile. This bill was now read the first time.

One of these patentees (though not mentioned in the Journal among the rest above named) seems to be the marquis of Northampton, whose authority now might give some speed to the passing this bill. He had, in the year 1552, made an exchange with the king; and had of him the lordship and manor of Southwark, sometime belonging to the bishop of Winchester, for the chief and capital mess of Lambeth, sometimes parcel of the estate of the duke of Norfolk, attain ted with treason; as I find in the book of grants, passed under the bishop of Ely, lord chancellor: unless perhaps the marquis having been attainted under queen Mary, this lordship with the rest of his lands were forfeited to the crown; and so not mentioned among the patentees.

But to see further how this bill proceeded. March the 1st, being Wednesday, White, the bishop of Winton, in proper person came, and required the copy of the bill exhibited here, touching his lands; which was granted: and further, it was allowed him to bring in his answer and counsel on Saturday next at nine of the clock. March the 2d, Mason required that the counsel of the patentees for the bishop of Winchester’s lands might be there the next.day, to hear what the bishop and his counsel would say: which request was granted by the house.

March the 4th, Saturday, the bishop of Winchester in proper person opened his title to his manors, [taken away by king Edward, and given to his patentees,] saying they had been parcel of the bishopric for a thousand three hundred years, and required justice of this house. The queen’s attorney, hearing the talk of the bishop, required that he might be heard for the queen touching these lands. And day was given as well to Mr. Attorney as to the bishop, to be heard on Monday next, at half an hour before nine.

Master chancellor of the duchy, who was sir Ambrose Cave, took this opportunity (the bishop being now in the house of commons) to complain, that Mr. White [so he termed the said bishop] had called him a witness, not to like the book of service, [which the bishop, it seems, had said while he was arguing against the said book in the lords’ house.] But the bishop answered, in excuse, or for the rectifying the report, “That Mr. Chancellor said, he wished the book to be well considered of. But since the house did take it, that he [the bishop] did misrepresent him, therefore he standing up asked him forgiveness: which Mr. Chancellor again took thankfully from the bishop.”

March the 6th, Monday, the bishop of Winchester brought learned counsel with him; and divers arguments were had about the late bishop’s lands.

Then the queen’s attorney desired, that he and the rest might say their minds, whereby they might fully answer. The bishop now seemed to delay the cause, saying, that his counsel was not yet instructed. Notwithstanding Mr. Attorney answered at large. The effect of his speech was, that the appeal made by bishop Gardiner in the last reign, when he was deprived, [which appeal seemed most to be insisted upon,] was not of effect. For that in the commission at his deprivation was contained, cum omni appellatione remota. And so the appeal made to king Edward VI. by that bishop n’ay point d’effect. Mr. Noel and Mr. Bell, of counsel with the patentees, declared in effect for the patentees, as Mr. ‘Attorney had shewn for the queen.

The next time we hear of this business was March 9. Then the bill to assure lands late of the bishopric of Winton, to the queen and certain patentees of Edward VI. was read the second time.

The bishop of Winchester had, it seems, in this cause took upon him to cancel records; which the house was informed of. And thereupon, March 14, articles were devised for the punishment of the bishop: and it was ordered that a bill should be thereof drawn by Mr. Keilway. And March 21, a new bill was read against cancelling of records by warrant or otherwise.

March 16, the bill for the assurance to king Edward’s patentees of the lands late parcel of the bishopric of Winchester was read the second time.

And March 18, the third time: and upon the question passed the house.

To the rest this may be worthy noting, that on March the 23d, it was reported to the house by one of the burgesses, that Mr. [or Dr.] Story (who was a very hot papist) had not well used himself, being a member of this house, in going before the lords, and being of counsel with the bishop of Winchester, against the patentees. Which by the house was taken to be a fault, [in so open a disallowance and opposition of that which had passed the house whereof he was a member,] and, it seems, to the breach of some order of the house in such cases. Whereupon Story excused himself by ignorance of any such order: and nevertheless that he had since considered it, and did acknowledge it not to be well done; and therefore required the house to remit it: which accordingly by the house was remitted.

The foresaid bill was, with several other bills, brought up to the house of lords March the 20th, and March the 22d read the third time, and passed; yet the archbishop of York, and the bishops of London, Winton, Wigorn, Landaft, Coventry, Exon, Chester, and Carlisle, and the abbot of Westminster, and these temporal lords, Winchester, Stafford, Dudley, and North, dissenting.

There were other bishops’ lands alienated from the bishoptics under king Edward VI. and given away to particular persons after the deprivation of the said bishops, and the bishoprics being then vacant; which lands were restored again under queen Mary. And in this parliament endcavour was made to recover them back again: as appears by these bills following.

March the 1st, a bill was read the second time in behalf of the lord Wentworth, and others, who had got much of the lands of the bishop of London in king Edward’s reign, and now endeavoured to obtain a bill for the holding them. It was entitled, A bill for the assurance of certain lands, parcel of the bishopric of London, to the lord Wentworth, the lord Rich, and the lord Darcy. And the next day, another bill was read the first time in the house of commons, (where the former was ,read,) for confirmation of the bishopric of London to the now bishop of London, [viz. Boner.] Which seems to be put in, in opposition to the bill read before, craftily framed by the said bishop.

March the 11th, a bill to confirm bishop Ridley’s leases and grants was read the second time, and ordered to be engrossed. Two days after, viz.

Monday, March the 13th, Boner, bishop of London, in proper person came, and required a copy of a bill put in for confirmation of leases granted by Dr. Ridley, usurper of the bishopric, as he styled him. Which copy was granted him; with addition, that the house did intend to take Ridley’s title in the bishopric as it was: and that he should make his answer by words on Wednesday next peremptory at nine of the clock. Accordingly, on Wednesday March 15, the bishop of London in his proper person came, and shewed the untruth of the bill, as, he said, he took it; and concluded, that the king’s commissioners for his deprivation did not according to their commission. And yet by his appeal then, and by his letters patents from queen Mary, he affirmed, that he stood still bishop. And therefore finally, that the grants made by Dr. Ridley were void.

But notwithstanding, April the 15th, the bill for confirmation of these leases, grants of offices, and copyholds, made by Ridley, late bishop of London, had its third reading, and passed the house.

This bill set forth, “How the said Edmond Boner, bishop of London, was upon good and just causes and considerations, by just sentence, and order of the law of the realm, deprived, deposed, and put from his said bishopric, and all other his spiritual promotions, for his contumacy; and that afterwards the said bishopric was justly collated and giver, to Nicolas Ridley, D.D. by letters patents of King Edward VI. with all the lands and tenements thereunto belonging. And that he being placed and possessed in the said bishopric, did make divers leases of manors, lordships, meses, lands, tenements, meadows, pastures, &c. by his several deeds under the seal and confirmation of the dean and chapter of Paul’s, for term of years and term of lives: and also divers demises of his lands, tenements, &c. customary by copy of court-roll; and took and received divers fines for the same; and granted also to divers persons divers offices, as stewardships, bailiffwicks, &c. That the said farmers had been at great cost and charges in and about reparations and buildings upon their farms, or otherwise: that afterwards the said Boner was restored in the time of queen Mary, by colour of a certain appeal, and other surmised causes; whereas indeed, by right, he could have had none: since which the said leases, grants, copyholders and customary tenants had been, and daily were, with great cruelty, expulsed, and put out of their said farms, offices, and copy-holds by the said Boner: surmising the same leases, grants, offices, and copies of court-rolls to be void; for that the said Nic. Ridley did not, as he surmised, lawfully possess, occupy, and enjoy the said bishopric of London, by reason of the said appeal, or other causes, by the said Edmond Boner untruly and insufficiently alleged: “That therefore it might be ordained, published, and enacted, that all leases, demises, and grants, &c. offices, bailiffwicks, and stewardships to any one, lawfully made by the said Ridley, during the time of his possession of the bishopric, should be judged, expounded, deemed, construed, &c. as good and effectual in the law, to. all intents and constructions, against the said Nicolas and Edmond, and the successors of them, &c. as the same should have been, if the said Edmond Boner had been dead at the time of his said deprivation, or had never made any kind of appeal, &c. And that the said leases and demises of any of the said lands, &c. and their executors, administrators, &c should and might have such like benefit, commodity, and advantage by all ways and means, &c. against the bishop of London, or hereafter for the time being, and their successors, and every other person, persons, bodies politic or corporate, to whom the reversion of the same lands, tenements, &c. so demised shall belong, as the said leases or demises, &c. might or should have had against the leasor or leasors.”

But, whatever was the reason, it was rejected in the lords’ house, May the 1st, after a third reading that day, as was mentioned before.

Such another bill for the confirmation of lands taken from the bishopric of Worcester, under king Edward, was brought into the lower house, March 4, viz. for the assurance of Hartlebury and Wickenford, late the bishop of Worcester’s lands, to sir Francis Jobson and Walter Blount, severally: and March the 7th, read the second time, and ordered to be engrossed. The next day Pate, the present bishop of that see, in proper person came and required the copy of a bill exhibited against the bishopric, (to which it seems those lands were reunited under queen Mary,)and that a day might be appointed him to make answer in writing, or otherwise.

The bishop of Coventry and Litchfield (being belike in the like case) the same day made the same petition. And it was ordered, that the bishop of Worcester should have the said copy, and make his answer upon Saturday next; and the bishop of Coventry on Monday following: and it was likewise granted, that the other parties should then and there have their counsel, to hear the bishops.

Here D’Ewes, the publisher of the Journals, interposeth this observation, “That these and other bishops, notwithstanding their stiff opposition against the reformation of religion moved in this parliament, had free liberty to de fend their own cause, either in person or by counsel: which shewed the queen’s incomparable clemency and moderation, who so impartially dealt with them, and so patiently suffered their opposition, and gave way to their allegations.”

March the 11th, Saturday, the bishop of Worcester came with his counsel, and declared that Hooper (late bishop of Worcester) was not lawful bishop, by reason of the appeal of bishop Hethe, when he was deprived under king Edward VI. and so his grants not good. And so prayed the house to consider of it.

Upon the appointed day, Bain, bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, came also with his counsel, and declared, that, for the fine levied, Mr. Fisher had no cause to complain. To which Mr. Fisher’s counsel alleged, that the fine was made by compulsion.

Now we go on to take notice of some other bills of remark, relating to bishops or spiritual persons.

March the 15th, a bill was brought in to restore bishops and spiritual persons, that had been deprived in the time of queen Mary: which was read again April the 6th. This bill went, it seems, but heavily, considering how long the space was between the first reading and the second: but surely it was a necessary bill, since so many ecclesiastical persons of unblameable life were most injuriously deprived of their livings and livelihoods, most of them for being married, which the law expressly allowed. This bill passed, and went to the upper house, and there failed, (whatever the reason was,) as was said before.

The next day, viz. March 16, a bill was brought in to make lawful the deprivation of bishops and spiritual persons. This bill is somewhat obscure, not mentioning in what reign these deprivations happened. If by it be meant the deprivations under king Edward VI. Boner and other bishops then deprived seemed to give the occasion thereof, who had insisted in the house, that their deprivations were unlawful; as, the day before, the said Boner had the confidence to urge to them in the house of commons. And so the grants to be void, which were made by Dr. Ridley, as he called him, his immediate predecessor in the see of London, not vouchsafing him the name of bishop. And it appeared by the reading of this bill the next time, viz. March 21, to be meant in the foresaid sense, when the bill ran, to make lawful the deprivation of the bishops of Loft, Winchester, Worcester, and Chichester.

March the 17th, a bill was brought in, that no person should be punished for exercising the religion used in King Edward’s last year: read the first and second time, and ordered to be engrossed. This bill seems to be grounded upon this good intention, to free all such as were put in prison under queen Mary, for the exercise and profession of the gospel.

March 21, a bill was read now the second time, that the queen shall collate or appoint bishops in bishoprics being vacant, and that without rites and ceremonies, [used, I suppose, in popish ordinations,] and ordered to be engrossed. And the next day the bill was read the third time, and passed the house, and sent to the lords.

March the 24h, Friday, for weighty affairs to be done in this parliament, according to the example of the upper house, the house of commons, according to former precedents, adjourned until Monday the 3d of April next. And in the mean time I find in the minutes of the council, that on the 27th of March, letters were sent from the queen’s privy council to the sheriffs of the several counties, to admonish and give warning to the knights and burgesses of their several counties, that were departed from this parliament without licence, that in no wise they fail to be there on Monday next, being the 3d of April, as they would answer for the contrary.

D’Ewes saith, that it did not appear upon what occasion that adjournment was, but he conjectureth it was by reason of a disputation held that day in the forenoon, between the popish bishops and some learned men of the protestant religion, lately returned from exile; (of which, account will be given hereafter.) At which the lords of the upper house, and the knights, citizens, and burgesses of the house of commons, some did desire, and some were desired, as it should seem, to be present.

April the 17th, 1559, a bill that the queen should have divers temporal lands of the archbishops and bishops, in recompence of tenths and parsonages impropriate, (to be settied upon the bishops instead thereof,) was read in the commons’ house the third time, and passed, upon the question and division of the house: with the bill were 104; against the bill 90. We shall hear more also of this bill in the process of this history.

April 18, the bill for uniformity of common prayer in the church was read the first time. April 19, read the second time, and ordered to be engrossed.

April 20, read the third time, and passed the house. So current, it seems, this bill went.

This bill was sent up with nine others to the house of lords, and brought by sir Anthony Cook, knt. a man of great learning and abilities, who was, no doubt, a great dealer in this bill.

April 27, a bill was read, that the queen by commission may examine and restore spiritual persons deprived: read the first time. It seems the old bill of the same import, that had been twice read, was thrown by, and this new one brought in, in the place of it. April 29, the said bill to restore such persons to their benefices, as had been unlawfully deprived, was read the second time, and ordered to be engrossed. May the 2d, it was read the third time, and passed the house, and sent up to the lords, being brought by Mr. Sadleir and others, with some other bills. May the 5th, this bill was read a third time in the upper house, and concluded. Yet I do not find it was enacted and passed into a law.

April 29, a bill for abbeys, priories, nunneries, hospitals, and chantries, founded since the reign of queen Mary, to be annexed to the crown, was read the third time, and passed the house upon the question; and was sent up to the lords, who concluded it the 5th of May, the bishops and abbot, and one temporal lord, viz. viscount Mountague, dissenting.

This parliament was dissolved May the 8th, after the queen had given her royal consent to the bills. Immediately before the doing of which, the lord keeper Bacon made a speech to the parliament: the sum of that part of it that concerned religion was, “that as to the observation of the uniform order in religion, they of the parliament, in their several places, should endeavour, to the best of their powers, to further and set forth the same: which by great and deliberate advice in that parliament had been established. That watch should be had of the withdrawers and hinderers thereof; especially of those that subtilly and by indirect means sought to procure the contrary. Among these he comprehended as well those that were too swift, as those that were too slow; those that went before the law, or behind the law, as those that would not follow.

For good government could not be, where obedience failed, and both these alike broke the rule of obedience. That these were they that in all likelihood would be the beginners and maintainers of factions and sects, the very mothers and nurses of all seditions and tumults. Of these therefore great heed would be taken: and upon them being found, sharp and severe corrections should be imposed, according to the order of law: and that in the beginning, without respect of persons, as upon the greatest adversaries that could be to unity and concord; without which no commonwealth, he said, could long endure.”

The public acts passed this first parliament are well known, being printed in the statute book: yet those that settled the supremacy, and the public service of God, may have some short account given of them, for enlightening the rest of the history. By the act of supremacy, called, An act for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abolishing foreign power, no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, spiritual or temporal, should use, enjoy, or exercise any manner of Power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence, &c. within this realm, or any of her majesty’s dominions: but from henceforth the said Power, jurisdiction, &c. to be clearly abolished out of the realm; and that all jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, preeminences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or ecclesiastical power or authority have been lawfully exercised in the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons, and for the reformation, order, and correction of the same; and of all manner of errors, heresies, abuses, offences, &c. should for ever be united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm: and that the queen and her successors should have power by their letters patents under the great seal, to assign, name, and authorize, and as often as they should think meet, and for so long time as they should please, persons, being natural born subjects, to use, occupy, and exercise under her and them all manner of jurisdictions, privileges, and preeminences, touching any spiritual or ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the realm of England and Ireland, &c. to visit, reform, redress, order, correct, and amend all errors, heresics, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities whatsoever.

And further by this act, for the better observation and maintenance of it, all archbishops, bishops, and other ecclesiastical persons, and ecclesiastical officers and ministers, and every temporal judge, justice, mayor, and other lay and temporal officer, and other person having the queen’s fee or wages, should take a corporal oath upon the evangelists, utterly to testify and declare in their consciences, that the queen’s highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and all other her highness’s dominions and countries, as well in spiritual and ecclesiastical causes as temporal: and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, &c. within this realm. And therefore utterly to renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, &c. and to promise to bear faith and true allegiange to the queen and her heirs and lawful successors; and to their power to assist and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, preeminences, and authorities granted or belonging to the queen’s highness, her heirs and successors, as united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm. The penalty of the refusal to take this oath was the losing, during life, all ecclesiastical promotions, benefices, and offices, and every temporal and lay promotion and office. And the same oath was to be taken of all that should hereafter be preferred to any such spiritual or temporal benefice or office.

Further, this act did restrain all writing, printing, teaching, preaching, express words, deeds, or acts, whereby any did affirm, hold, or stand with, set forth, maintain, or defend the authority or preeminence of any foreign prince, prelate, Person, state, &c. whatsoever, heretofore claimed, used, or usurped within this realm, or the putting in ure or exercise of any thing for the extolling, advancing, setting forth, or defence of any such pretended jurisdiction. They that should so do, as also their abettors and alders, being thereof convicted, to forfeit all their goods and chattels. And if they had not, or were not worth to the value of 20l . then, besides the forfeiture of their goods, to suffer imprisonment by the space of one whole year. And spiritual persons so offending, to lose also their benefices, prebends, or other ecclesiastical preferments. And for the second offence, every such offender to incur the dangers, penalties, and forfeitures, ordained and provided by the statute of provision and premunire, made the 16th year of Richard II. And for the third time, such offences to be deemed and adjudged high treason, and the offender being thereof lawfully convicted and attainted, to suffer the pains of death; and other penalties, forfeitures, &c. as in cases of high treason.

One ground of this act was, as is mentioned in the preamble, the great intolerable charges and exactions formerly unlawfully taken and exacted by such foreign power and authority. Of which therefore king Henry VIII. by divers good laws and statutes had disburdened his subjects: but which had been laid oh them again by the late queen Mary.

This act was thought very rigorous by some in those times, especially for some of the penalties. But in answer to this, see what is said in a little book long since set forth and dedicated to Robert earl of Leicester: “ Queen Elizabeth following the steps of her father and brother, had it enacted in her first parliament, that the authority of the bishop of Rome, and of all other foreign powers and potentates, spiritual and temporal, should be utterly driven away, and removed out of her majesty’s territories and dominions: and that upon such penalties unto all her subjects, that to uphold, maintain, or set forth any such foreign authority within this realm, is in some points and degrees high treason. So, that they lose and forfeit their lives, lands, and goods, who are guilty of it. A statute that may seem severe, and perhaps accounted of some over-rigorous. But they who mark it wisely, cannot choose but see how sharp tools were necessary to root out this weed; which many godly princes before king HenryVIII. did endeavour to nip off by sundry good laws; but it budded still again, and brought forth such blossoms, or rather fruits of rebellion, ambition, covetousness, hypocrisy, and wicked superstition, as it was to be feared would have poisoned the whole land, had not our gracious prince used such sharp instruments to root it out utterly.” So that author.

But beside these things aforesaid contained in the said act, there was another notable branch of it, that renewed and revived a great many good laws of king Henry and king Edward, that had been repealed by queen Mary, viz. first, an act that no person shall be cited out of the diocese where he or she dwelleth, except in certain cases. Another act, that appeals in such cases as have been used to be pursued in the see of Rome, shall not be from henceforth had nor used but within the realm. Another, for the restraints of payments of annates and first-fruits of archbishoprics and bishoprics to the see of Rome. Another, concerning the submission of the clergy to the king’s majesty. Another, restraining the payment of annates and first-fruits to the bishop of Rome, and of the electing and consecrating of archbishops and bishops within the realm. Another, concerning the exoneration of the king’s subjects from exactions and impositions, heretofore paid to the see of Rome; and for having licences and dispensations within this realm. Another, for nomination and consecration of suffragans within the realm. Another, for the release of such as have obtained pretended licences and dispensations from the see of Rome. Also, so much of another act as concerned precontracts of marriage, and touching degrees of consanguinity, as in the time of king Edward VI. by another act or statute was not repealed. Also another, that doctors of the civil law being married, may exercise ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Besides these acts made in king Henry the eighth’s reign, was revived an act made in the reign of king Edward VI. (which likewise had been repealed by queen Mary,) viz. against such persons as should irreverently speak against the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ; and for the receiving thereof in both kinds. And lastly, as this act for the supremacy revived all the foresaid good acts that had been repealed by queen Mary, so it repealed a severe act made by her, for the reviving of three statutes made for the punishment of heresies: and the three statutes mentioned in the said act, abrogated by the same.

So that by this single act of the supremacy, a great and notable step was made towards the restoring of religion, and bringing it on in effect as far, as with much pain and great opposition it had gotten in many years before under the two kings of most noble memory, viz. king Henry and king Edward.

Especially if we join to this, one other act made this parliament, viz.for the uniformity of common prayer and service in the church, and administration of the sacraments. By which act king Edward’s Book of Common Prayer, that had been abolished in the first of queen Mary, was established again, and enjoined to be used with the order and service, and the administration of the sacraments, and rites and ceremonies; with certain alterations and additions therein added and appointed: and to stand and be, from and after the feast of the nativity of St. John Baptist, in full force and effect. Those additions mentioned before were certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year: and two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants: and the alterations were in the form of the litany. In this act are penalties appointed for aleprayers of the said book, and such as should speak in derogation of any thing contained In it.

This for the public acts: the private ones were these that follow, as they were taken out of the clerk of the parliament’s book.

An act for assuring lands to the lord Wentworth, lord Rich, and others.

An act for assuring lands, parcel of the bishopric of Winchester, to king Edward’s patentees. An act giving authority to the queen’s majesty, upon the avoidance of any archbishopric or bishopric, to take into her hands certain of the temporal possessions thereof, recompensing the same with parsonages impropriate and tithes.

An act to annex to the crown several religious houses, &c. those, I suppose, as had been lately refounded by queen Mary.

By the laws made this first parliament of the queen, the ancient supreme authority of the kings of this realm was vindicated from the papal encroachments and usurpations upon it, popery overthrown, true religion, founded upon the word of God, brought in again and established, notwithstanding all the policy, laws, commissions, inquisitions, and rigours made and used in the former reign, to prevent its taking footing for ever after. And all this work done within little more than three months; and that even while all the bishops, zealous creatures of Rome, and many other popish lords, sat in the parliament house, and had free votes there, and bestirred themselves as much as they could. So averse did the universality of the nation stand against popery.

By virtue of one of these acts, viz. that of the supremacy, the bishops and the clergy, as well as others of the laity, that enjoyed places and offices under the queen, were bound to take an oath (as was shewn before) to renounce all foreign jurisdiction and power: which those that obstinately refused to do, did forfeit and lose all their preferments. Whereby the abbot of Westminster, and some other abbots and abbesses, were deprived some time after the end of the parliament. And in the month of July (according to Stow) the bishops, some archdeacons, prebendaries, and others of the clergy, were summoned and required by certain of the council, or other commissioners, to take the said oath; which they wilfully refusing, lost their bishoprics, deaneries, archdeaconries, prebends, or other ecclesiastical benefices. And that was all the penalty they suffered for the said refusal.

But if some of them were imprisoned, (as Camden and others write,) it was for another breach of this act, viz. either for teaching, preaching, or by express words or deeds affirming, holding, or defending the authority of the foreign prelate, the pope, or for other misdemeanours, as we shall read afterwards.

This voidance of so many bishoprics happened well for the furthering of the reformation of religion; that their places being vacant, men of other principles, and such as favoured true religion, might succeed therein: but by a calculation then taken of all the clergy in the land, of 9,400 ecclesiastical persons, settled in their several promotions, but 177 left their livings, rather than to renounce the pope, and change their idolatrous mass for the use of the English liturgy.

In one of the volumes of the Cotton library, (which volume seemeth once to have belonged to Camden,)the whole number of the deprived ecclesiastics is digested in this catalogue.

Bishops — Prebendaries — Deans — Rectors of churches — Archdeacons — Abbots, priors, and abbesses — Heads of colleges — In all — Camden, in his Annals, little varies; only reckoning 12 deans, and as many archdeacons.

The answerer to the English Justice (supposed to be cardinal Allen) mentions the deprived after this reckoning: viz. fourteen bishops; (and in Ireland the archbishop of Armagh, and an uncertain number of other bishops there;) three elects; one abbot; four priors, or superiors of religious convents; a dozen deans; fourteen archdeacons; above threescore canons of cathedral churches; not so few as an hundred priests; fifteen heads or rectors of colleges in Oxford and Cambridge; and above twenty doctors of divers faculties, that fled the realm, or were in the realm imprisoned.

CHAPTER 3.

Some bishops and the abbot of Westminster their speeches in the house against the bill for the supremacy, and the English common prayer book. The two religions compared by Harpsfield. Remarks upon some other bills. Dr. Story’s impudent speech in parliament.

Two private acts. Bill for marriage of priests. The English litrugy of king Edward established. HAVING shewn before briefly what was brought to pass in the parliament for the regulating of religion, and extinguishing the pope’s power in this kingdom; (a thing which no doubt met with great opposition, especially from the bishops and the Romish party;) I shall look back and observe the endeavours of these men to stop these proceedings, and especially what discourses they made in the house to preserve the pope’s authority in England, and to hinder the abolishing of the mass.

When, February the 21st, the bill for giving the queen the supremacy, and restoring that ancient jurisdiction to the crown of this realm, was read, and the matter agitated in the house, Hethe, archbishop of York, stood up, and made a long solemn speech against it. Which speech the right reverend author of the History of the Reformation saith, he had seen, but did believe it forged, because it spake of the supremacy “as a new and unheard of thing;” so undoubtedly it was in the copy he saw. But there is a copy of it in the Bene’t college library; and another among the Foxian papers; wherein there is no such expression: and I, having perused both, do find so much learning, and such strokes therein, that we need not, I think, misdoubt but that it is his under whose name it goes. Herein he speaketh of two points: “The former, that by this act they must forsake the see of Rome, and the weight and force, danger and inconvenience thereof. And the latter, to consider what this supremacy, to be given the queen, was; whether it consisted in spiritual government or temporal. If in spiritual, then to consider in what points that spiritual government consisted: and then, whether the house could grant such a government to the queen; and whether her highness were an apt person to receive it. These things he went over. And as to the first, he said, that, by forsaking and fleeing from the see of Rome, they must first forsake and flee from all general councils; secondly, all canonical and ecclesiastical laws; thirdly, the judgment of all other Christian princes; fourthly, the unity of Christ’s church; and by falling out of Peter’s ship hazard themselves to be drowned in the waters of schisms, sects, and divisions. And then. as to the second head, wherein the spiritual government consisted, it he made to stand in four things: 1. In binding and loosing; 2. In those words, pasce, pasce, pasce, that is, in feeding the flock of Christ; 3. In confirming the brethren, and ratifying them by wholesome doctrine and administration of the sacraments; 4. In excommunication and spiritual punishment: these things, as the scripture allowed them not to a woman, so it was not, he said, in the parliament’s power to grant them to the queen.”

But I refer the reader to the whole speech, as I have diligently transcribed it into the Repository.

Scot, bishop of Chester, also, after the second reading of this bill, which was February 28, stood up, and pronounced an oration against it at sufficient length, which I have placed also before the reader’s eye: wherein that bishop made answer to somebody in the house, that had questioned, whether ever the Greek church had acknowledged the pope of Rome.

Whereat, he said, he marvelled, seeing that church remained eight hundred years in obedience to the Roman church; and since her falling off, had fourteen times returned with submission again unto it.

Herein the bishop laboured also to answer other matters, which some lords had urged for abolishing the pope’s authority, and restoring the supremacy to the imperial crown of this realm: as, namely, that this had been done before at a solemn provincial council and assembly of the bishops and clergy of the land. And whereas some of these had afterwards revoked what they had done, it was said by one, that he would never trust those men again which once denied the pope’s authority, and now stood in defence of the same. It was urged also, that the spiritual supreme power must be in the prince, otherwise he could not confer authority in spiritual matters upon others. For no man could give that to another which he had not himself.

By this speech of the bishop of Chester also we gather, that several other speeches were made in the house against this bill: and that the lords, to whom this bill was committed, to be weighed and considered by them, were such as favoured the popish religion. For it appeared they would not suffer the old service of the church and administration of the sacraments to be altered, but to be still retained; as they mitigated the rigour of the punishment mentioned in the bill, as it was, it seems, at first drawn up against such of the clergy as refused to comply with the supremacy.

I know not any more that was said in the house in behalf of the supremacy, there being no protestant bishops yet made, and so none sitting there; but I meet with the heads of a notable discourse, or rather a treatise, designed to vindicate the queen’s right to the supremacy, and to display the usurpations of popes; calculated, I suppose, for this matter and purpose.

See it in the Repository.

February 15, a bill was brought in for casting away the old service, and bringing in the English liturgy; but this was laid aside; and in April another bill was brought in, for uniformity of common prayer and service in the church, and administration of the sacraments. This also the Roman prelates in the house did tooth and nail stickle against. And Feckenham, abbot of Westminster, made a set speech against it in the best manner he could, which I suppose was at the second reading, April 26th. This speech the right reverend the author of the History of the Reformation makes the aforesaid Hethe to be the speaker of, finding in the Bene’t college volume, where this speech is, these words, (writ by somebody as his conjecture:) That Dr. Hethe was thought to be the penner of the said speech, and that it was spoken to the queen’s council. But it appears that he that wrote this was but an ignorant or heedless conjecturer, in that he makes this to be a discourse exhibited to the queen’s council, whereas it is plain it was spoken to the house of lords. But I have met with the same oration in a Cotton volume, where it is expressly entitled thus: The oration of Dr. Feckenham, abbot of Westminster, made in the parliament house, anno 1559. In this oration he makes a boast in the beginning, “that they and their fathers had been in possession of the old religion for the space of 1400 years. Then he propounded their honours three rules, whereby they should be able to put a difference between the true religion and the counterfeit.

The first rule was, to see which of the two had been most observed in the church, of all men, and at all times.

Secondly , which of them both is the most staid religion, and always agreeable to itself.

Thirdly , which of the two did breed the more humble and obedient subjects unto God and unto the queen.”

In the prosecution of this his speech, he made very unworthy and unbecoming reflections upon the foreign protestants of greatest eminence, as Luther, Melancthon, Zuinglius, Martyr, for their different sentiments about the sacrament; and especially upon two of our own bishops, Cranmer and Ridley. Cranmer he makes to contradict himself in two books, which he set forth in one year, viz. the catechism in the English tongue, dedicated to king Edward, wherein he affirmed the real presence: and another book which he shortly after set forth, “wherein” (to use Feckenham’s own expression)” he did shamefully deny the same, falsifying both scriptures and doctors.” This charge he did but take up from others of his persuasion; as bishop Gardiner and Dr. Rich. Smith in their books against archbishop Cranmer’s admirable book of the sacrament. But Feckenham thought fit to take no notice of the answer that the said archbishop in his last excellent book gave to this accusation: which was, that he then, when he put out the catechism, and when he put out his other book after that, did hold and teach the same thing; namely, that we receive the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament truly; and he that received it spiritually received it truly.

But he no where writ really and substantially: which were the papists’ terms to express their carnal presence. So that it was not fairly done of Feckenham, to urge that in such an audience against him, which he had so publicly and sufficiently cleared himself of; and especially to belie a man whom they had cruelly burnt to ashes before. Of bishop Ridley, whom he called the notablest learned man of that opinion, he said, that he did in a sermon at Paul’s Cross publicly set forth the real presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament; repeating certain words, which, he said, he heard him speak; and that shortly after, at the same Paul’s Cross, he did deny the same. This was also a calumny; and a calumny which before now he had cast upon him, namely, in a sermon which he preached at Paul’s, in the beginning of queen Mary’s reign. And Feckenham had heard Ridley vindicating himself soon after against this slander of his; telling him to his face in the Tower, before the lieutenant, secretary Bourn, Cholmely, late lord chief justice, and divers others, that speaking in his sermon of the sacrament, he inveighed against them that esteemed it no better than a piece of bread, and bade them depart, as unworthy to hear the mystery: and that then he quoted Cyprian, that he should tell how it was that Christ called it, viz. “the bread is the body, meat, drink, flesh. Because unto this material substance is given the property of the thing whereof it bears the name.” And then Ridley added, that he took this place to maintain that the material substance of bread did remain. At this clear vindication which Ridley then made of himself, (which was in the year 1553,) it was observed, that Feckenham, as privy to his false report made of Ridley, was as red as scarlet in the face, and answered him never a word. And yet now again, five years after, did he lay the same thing to his charge in the parliament house,, now he was dead; though before, being alive, he had so sufficiently refuted it to his face. This was not fair, to say no worse. But I must remember I am not now writing an apology, but an history: and therefore I forbear to add any thing more on this subject. This speech of Feckenham aforesaid I have placed in the Repository with the rest; that it may be seen what the learnedest men of that persuasion could then say for the retaining of the old religion.

Dr. Scot, bishop of Chester, also made another long speech upon the third reading of the foresaid bill, which was April 28; and according to his hot temper began after this manner: “That the bill was such as it was much to be lamented, that from so honourable an assembly it should be suffered to be read, or any ear to be given to it of Christians: for it called into doubt such things as ought to be reverenced without any doubt; [meaning the mass:] and, which was more, made earnest request for alteration, nay, for the abolishing of the same. He proceeded upon these heads: that their religion consisted of certain inward things, faith, hope, and charity; and certain outward, the common prayer and holy sacraments. Now he laboured to shew how this motion did extinguish those outward things, and put in their place he could not tell what. And it shook those inward things, and left them very bare and feeble. That by this bill Christian charity was taken away, which consisted in unity. And it was evident, that divers of the articles and mysteries of faith were not only called into doubt, but partly openly, and partly obscurely denied. And faith and charity being gone, hope was left alone, or presumptuously set in higher place: whereupon, for the most part, desperation followed. He dwelt much upon the unlawfulness of calling into doubt the matters of faith which had been decreed. And if Athanasius did think that a man ought not to doubt of matters determined in the council of Nice, where were present but 308 bishops, how much less ought we to doubt of matters determined in the catholic church by 300,000 bishops, and how many more he could not tell. And that if the certainty of faith should hang upon an act of parliament, we had but a weak staff to lean to. For, for matters of religion, he doubted not, that it ought not to meddle with them, because of the certainty which ought to be in faith, and the uncertainty of statutes and acts of parliament. But that the parliament consisted partly of noblemen, and partly of commoners, which were laymen; and so not studied or exercised in scriptures, nor doctors, nor practice of the church, so as to be accounted judges in such matters. And then, the better to convince them that these matters belonged not to them, he enlarged upon these things: the weightiness of the matter of this bill; the darkness of the cause; and the difficulty in trying out the truth; and the danger, if they took the wrong way. And under each of these heads occasionally, he shewed the defectiveness of the new book, so much extolled, as he said. He spake of a certain lord, that in a speech the day before did say, that he believed that Christ was received in the communion set out by that book. And being asked, if he did worship him there, he said, No, nor never would, so long as he lived. Which, this bishop said, was a strange opinion, that Christ should be any where, and not be worshipped. Some had said, they would worship him in heaven, but not in the sacrament: which the bishop compared to a man that should say, he would honour the emperor in cloth of gold, and under his cloth of state, but not in a frieze-coat in the street.”

His speech went on to a good length; and what it was, from the beginning to the end, is set down in the Repository. But notwithstanding these speeches, the bill for uniformity of common prayer passed April 28, all the prelates dissenting, viz. the archbishop of York, the bishops of London, Ely, Wigorn, Landaff, Coventry and Litchfield, Exeter, Chester, Carlisle; as was shewn before.

There was also about this very time some man of learning, (whether it were Harpsfield, or somebody else,) procured to write a discourse, whereby the two religions should be compared, viz. the Roman catholic, and that now endeavoured to be established. “Which discourse, he said, he wrote upon short warning, without meditation or help of books: yet he esteemed it so well grounded, that it could not well be answered: which by God’s grace, he said, should be tried, when he should see a direct answer made.” This paper consisted of several notes of the church, which he accommodated to the Roman church, and made the protestants to fail in. As, “that the church is one; that it is apostolic; that it is holy ; that it is catholic; that there is but one sheepfold, and one shepherd, John 18:And that one sheepfold is no where, but that which he is head of. But all other churches distinct from that of Rome have so many shepherds as there be divers realms. The cities of Germany each of them one, Geneva another, England another, &c. But all that be now called papists have but one head: and therefore they are so much the nearer to the unity of the church. Again, that church is apostolic that can shew her descent from the apostles: no church can do that so well as the papists. We can, saith he, in Canterbury, and in every other see, shew you, how our bishops came from the apostles. Because they could by chronicle go up from William Warham, the apostolic last before Cranmer, to the first, who was sent by pope Gregory. And then they could bring Gregory up to St. Peter. But in Canterbury, Cranmer disagreed from all his predecessors; and in Exeter, Miles Coverdale, and so forth. Now it was not enough for these bishops to leap up from these present days unto the apostles’ times, by saying, they agree with them; but they who challenge the see apostolic must bring their pedigree by lineal descent unto the apostles, as we do. He proceeded, that their church was catholic; that is, spread abroad through all places, times, and persons. And apostolic, because they shewed the succession from the apostles downward, and could go upward lineally to the apostles. Therefore the church, called papistical, having one head, the pope; being holy , [that is, as he interpreted it,] having benefits of God by flourishing miracles; ca tholic, that is, spread in all times, in all places, through all persons universally; that is to say, for the most part being able to shew their pedigree, even to the apostles, without any interruption; that church, I say, is only the true church.” This discourse in full is placed in the Appendix, with the rest of the same nature.

And as these hot and earnest speeches before mentioned happened in the upper house, so the house of commons had some popish members as hot, or hotter. Dr. Story was one of these, who had been one of queen Mary’s trusty commissioners, for the taking up, imprisoning, and burning the gospellers. This man made a bold and bitter speech in the house, justifying himself in his doings under that queen, when so many by his sentence were burnt. “He wished, be said, he had done more than he did, and that he and others had been more vehement in executing the laws; and impudently told the house, how he threw a fagot into the face of one, (an earwig, as he styled him,) at the stake at Uxbridge, as he was singing a psalm, and set a bush of thorns under his feet: and that it was his counsel to pluck down men of eminency that were heretics, as well as the more ordinary sort; and mentioned two such, brought into trouble by his means; Sir Philip Hoby, and another knight of Kent. And that he saw nothing to be ashamed of, nor sorry for: and that it grieved him, that they laboured only about the young and little twigs, whereas they should have struck at the root.”

By which words it was well enough known he meant the queen herself.

This man afterwards left England, and became an officer under the king of Spain at Antwerp. Whence divers years after he was craftily seized on board an English vessel, and brought into England, and being found guilty of treason, died the death of a traitor.

This man, and his impudent speech this parliament concerning the queen, was not soon forgotten. A book was writ in the year 1569, entitled, A warning, against the dangerous practice of papists, &c. wherein he and such as he are glanced at: viz. “Other some are such, as one of them, even openly in her majesty’s high court of parliament, made such moan that his counsel was not followed in queen Mary’s time, to hew up the root, as all men plainly saw and understood his grief, that the queen’s majesty was not in her sister’s time despatched. And it is said, that some others made grave motions for her disinheritance.”

But that it was not their consciences that led these zealous men (as we related before) thus to stickle against the queen’s supremacy and the English liturgy, but rather some other politic ends, is evident, by what they and other such chief papists did in cool blood declare in king Edward’s days: which convinced Bernard Gilpin, a diligent inquirer, and contemporary with them, of the unsoundness of the papal religion. Of which matter we have this notable relation, in his own letter to his brother George Gilpin, 1575: “That in his desires to search out truth, he repaired to [Tonstal] the bishop of Durham, that he might be further instructed: who told him, that in the matter of transubstantiation, Innocentius, pope the third of that name, had done unadvisedly, in making it an article of faith. And further confessed, that the pope committed a great fault in the business touching indulgences, and other things. That in conferring with Dr. Redman, a man of eminent virtues and great scholarship, he affirmed to him, that the Book of Common Prayer, [then newly composed,] was an holy book, and agreeable to the gospel. That afterwards one of the fellows of Queen’s college told him, that he heard Dr. Chedsey say among his friends, that it must come to this point, that the protestants must grant unto them [papists] a real presence of Christ in the sacrament, and they likewise give way unto the protestants in the opinion of transubstantiation. Dr. Weston [another chief papist in Oxford] made a long oration touching the supper of the Lord, to be administered under both kinds. Mr. Morgan [another great disputant] told him, [Gilpin,] that Dr. Ware, a man most famous for life and learning, affirmed unto him, that the principal sacrifice of the church of God was the sacrifice of thanksgiving. This was his answer, when Gilpin demanded of him, what could be said for the sacrifice of the mass. And lastly, that the bishops in this kingdom, at that time, confuted the primacy of the pope both in words and writing.”

Among other acts passed this session, there were two private ones; one concerning cardinal Pole, and the other concerning cathedral and collegiate churches; which must have some mention here.

That relating to the late cardinal was, that whereas a parliament in the first and second of king Philip and queen Mary had repealed and taken off his attaint, that lay upon him by act of parliament in the 31st of king Henry VIII. and had cleared him of every branch and article of that act, and also of all indictments and processes of outlawry procured against him, many questions had been moved upon some words in the said act of repeal: as, from what time that act should extend or take effect; it was declared by this present act, that it should take effect, as touching any estate, right, or title, from the time of making the said act. And that the act made under king Henry should be of force and effect, for all the mean acts and things, happening or done before the making of the said act of repeal: which was a prudent act for the stopping or ending many contentious lawsuits that might be, or probahly had been commenced, for the recovery of any estates or lands belonging to the said cardinal, and disposed of by king Henry unto others.

The act concerning cathedral and collegiate churches, was to empower the queen to make statutes for divers such ecclesiastical foundations and schools erected either by king Henry VIII. king Edward, queen Mary, or cardinal Pole, in case of some defect of good rules, orders, and constitutions thereunto appointed. And that she might, at her pleasure, alter or change, augment or diminish those statutes and ordinances of the foresaid churches, schools, and corporations. And that all such statutes, which the queen should appoint under her great seal of England, should be kept and observed, notwithstanding any former rule or constitution whatsoever: and that they should remain good and effectual to all intents and purposes. This was an act of great use and service for the intended reformation. Both these private acts I have thought not unworthy a room in my Repository.

But among the good acts made by this parliament, one was wanting, though, as it seems, laboured by the protestant divines to be brought about.

It was, to revive king Edward’s act for the marriage of priests, which queen Mary had repealed. But the queen would not be brought so far to countenance the conjugal state of her clergy. This troubled not a little the divines, especially such as were married, as was Dr. Sandys, and Dr. Parker, and Mr. Lever now very lately, and divers more. Of this matter Sandys speaks in a letter, dated April ult. to Parker, then in the country; telling him, “that no law was made concerning the marriage of priests, but that it was left, as it were, in medio; and that the queen would wink at it, but not establish it by law: which is nothing else, said he, but to bastard our children.” The inconvenience hereof was, that the clergy was fain to get their children legitimated So I find did Parker his son Matthew.

But to return to the English liturgy: notwithstanding this opposition of speeches and arguments made by popish bishops and others against this bill for the Book of Common Prayer, it passed, as was said before, into an act of uniformity: and was to begin to take effect at St. John Baptist’s day ensuing. This was but the reestablishment of king Edward’s book, set forth in the fifth and sixth year of his reign, with these few changes, as they are mentioned in the said act; one alteration or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year; the form of the litany altered and corrected; and two sentences added in the delivery of the sacrament to the communicants. But besides these mentioned in the act, there were some others, as shall be shewn by and by.

CHAPTER 4.

Divines review the Common Prayer Book. Secretary Cecil’s influence therein. Guest, a very learned man, his labours about it.

Posture of receiving. King Edward’s ornaments. An objection of Dr. Boxal against the communion office: wherein the present book varied from king Edward’s book. Dr. Haddon’s account of the English service. Foreign churches rejoice at it: but some English dislike it. BUT great pains had been used in reviewing of the old Common Prayer Book, and weighing all things in it; to render it fit to be presented to the parliament, to confirm it by an act. In this business the divines, Dr. Sandys, Dr. Bill, and the rest above mentioned, were diligently employed at sir Thomas Smith’s house in Westminster. And in this affair, sir William Cecil, the queen’s secretary, was a great dealer and director; and was very earnest about the book. Here let me insert what Dr. Sampson, the great puritan, in the year 1574, wrote to him, being then lord Burghley, when the said doctor urged him to reform the established government in the church, and to alter the episcopacy for Calvin’s discipline, which he was too wise and too knowing to do. He called to mind what he did in the beginning of the queen’s reign in repairing of religion. “What your authority,” said he, “credit, and doing then was, you know, God knows, and there are witnesses of it.” And when Edward Dering, another great labouter for the abolishing of episcopal government, had charged him with neglect of religion, and unhandsomely and untruly told him, “that he [the lord Burghley] had for many years looked upon religion eminus, and now scarcely loved it;” he, in a concern to be charged so unjustly, answered Dering’s letter with another, shewing him therein, “how active he was above others in propagating religion in the beginning of the queen, ‘and that he underwent many and great labours in anxieties and disquiets of mind: and that he did cominus dimicare in establishing it, enduring great contestation in it.” And he said true; for there was indeed great opposition now made to the reformation of religion by many men at court. And had it not been for Cecil’s wisdom, diligence, and interest with the queen, in all likelihood it had not proceeded with that roundness it did. This I set down here, as a debt of gratitude owing from this church to his memory.

But to go no further in this place in discourse concerning him, than as to his influence in the English liturgy; he appointed Guest, a very learned man, (afterwards archdeacon of Canterbury, the queen’s almoner, and bishop of Rochester,) to be joined ,with the rest of the revisers of the book; and, as I conjecture, substituted him in the room of Dr. Parker, being absent, at least some part of the time, by reason of sickness. Him the secretary required diligently to compare both king Edward’s communion books together; and from them both to frame a book for the use of the church of England, by correcting and amending, altering and adding, or taking away, according to his judgment, and the ancient liturgies: which when he had done, and a new service book being finished by him and the others appointed thereunto, the said Guest conveyed it unto the secretary, together with a letter to him containing his reasons for his own emendations and alterations; and therein particular satisfaction given unto divers things, many whereof seem to have been hints and questions of the secretary’s, pursuant to the settlement of the liturgy.

As first , Whether such ceremonies as were lately taken away by king Edward’s book might not be resumed, not being evil in themselves?

II. Whether the image of the cross were not to be retained?

III. Whether processions should not be used?

IV. Whether in the celebration of the communion, priests should not use a cope beside a surplice?

V. Whether the communion should be divided into two parts? [that is, the office or book of the communion.] And whether a part thereof should be read to all without distinction, and another to the communicants only, the rest being departed?

VI. Whether the creed is rightly placed in the communion office; as though it were to be repeated by the communicants only?

VII. Whether it be not convenient to continue the use of praying for the dead in the communion?

VIII. Whether the prayer of consecration in the first communion book should be left out?

IX. Whether the sacrament were, according to the first book, to be received into the communicant’s mouth, or to be delivered into his hand?

X. Whether the sacrament were to be received standing or kneeling?

To all these Guest gave learned answers: and thereby vindicated what alterations were newly made in the book prepared to be laid before the parliament. And by this writing it appears, that the main care of the revisal and preparation of the book lay upon that reverend divine, whom I suppose Parker recommended to the secretary to supply his absence. And for his pains was soon after by him, when archbishop, rewarded with the archdeaconry of Canterbury. But thus Guest having shewed good cause, as he thought, why the service was set forth by him and his company as it was, he concluded his paper, “beseeching God, for his mercy in Christ, to cause the parliament with one voice to enact it, and the realm with true heart to use it.” This discourse of Guest, shewing him to have been a solid and well-read man, I have transcribed from the original, and put in among the monuments in the end of the book.

What the original draught of the service book was, as it came from the divines’ hands, and was presented to the house, would be worth knowing:

I suppose very little was altered by the parliament; yet something, it seems, was. For it appears, by Guest’s paper, that the posture of receiving the sacrament, either kneeling or standing, was left indifferent in the book by the divines, and that every one might follow the one way or the other: for this reason, to teach men that it was lawful to receive either way. But the parliament, I suppose, made a change here, enjoining the ancient posture of kneeling, as was in the old book.

April was almost spent before the divines had finished this new service book; wherein was a proviso to retain the ornaments which were used in the church in the first and second years of king Edward VI. until it pleased the queen to take order for them. “Our gloss upon this text,” saith Dr. Sandys in a letter to Dr. Parker, “is, that we shall not be forced to use them, but that others, in the mean time, shall not convey them away; but that they may remain for the queen.” But this.must be looked upon as the conjecture of a private man.

The particular exceptions that were made to this book, when it lay before the parliament, I cannot tell; but I find Boxal, who was dean of Windsor, and had been secretary to queen Mary, and still it seems at court, found much fault with one passage in the communion office; namely, that in the consecration of the elements there was not a thanksgiving: for Christ, said he, took bread, and gave thanks; and in the consecration here they give not thanks. This he put into the lord treasurer’s head, and endeavoured, according to the interest he had with the queen, to alienate her from passing the act. The divines gave their reasons for what they did; and their particular reason for this may be seen in Guest’s paper beforesaid. But by the means of secretary Cecil, and the great esteem the queen had for him and his advice, the divines were in good hope their enemies should not prevail; and their hopes were not deceived.

The book came out with small variation from the second book of king Edward. I will set down a note of the differences verbatim, as archbishop Whitgift afterwards, upon some reasons, sent them to the lord treasurer Burghley. Which note was thus endorsed by that lord’s own hand:

Archbishop of Canterbury; Differences betwixt the Book of Prayers of K.

Edward and of Q. Elizabeth.” “ First , King Edward his second book differeth from her majesty’s book in the first rubric, set down in the beginning of the book: for king Edward’s second book hath it thus; “The morning and evening prayer shall be used in such place of the church, chapel, or chancel; and the minister shall turn him, as the people may best hear. And if there be any controversy therein, the matter shall be referred to the ordinary, and he or his deputy shall appoint the place. And the, &c. “Whereas the queen’s book hath it thus; “The morning and evening prayer shall be used in the accustomed place of the church, chapel, or chancel, except it shall be otherwise determined by the ordinary of the place. And the chancels shall remain as they have done in times past. “Again, King Edward’s second book hath it thus; “Again, here is to be noted, that the minister at the time of the communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope. But being archbishop or bishop, shall have and wear a rochet; and being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only. “The queen’s book hath it; “And here is to be noted, that the minister at the time of the communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use such ornaments in the church, as were in use by authority of parliament in the second year of the reign of king Edward the sixth, according to the act of parliament set forth in the beginning of this book. “ Secondly , In king Edward’s second book, in the litany there are these words; From the tyranny of the bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities; which are not in her majesty’s book. “ Thirdly , In the litany, her majesty’s book hath these words more than are in king Edward’s second book, viz. Strengthen in the true worshipping of thee in righteous ness and true holiness of life, &c. “ Fourthly , In the end of the litany there is no prayer in king Edward’s second book for the king, nor for the state of the clergy. And the last collect set in her majesty’s book next before the first Sunday in Advent, and beginning, O God, whose nature and property is ever to have mercy, is not in king Edward’s second book. Further, there are two collects appointed for the time of dearth and famine, whereas her majesty’s book hath but one. And in king Edward’s second book this note is given of the prayer of St. Chrysostom, The litany shall ever end with this collect following; which note is not in her majesty’s book. “ Fifthly, King Edward’s second book appointeth only these words to be used, when the bread is delivered at the communion, Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee; and feed on him in thine heart by faith with thanksgiving. And when the cup is delivered, Drink this in remembrance that Christs blood was shed for thee, and be thankful. [Whereas in her majesty’s book, at the delivering of the bread, these words must be said, The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life. Take and eat this, &c. And at the delivery of the cup these words, The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto ever lasting life. Drink this,” &c.] And thus the pure worship of God was again happily established in this nation. It highly indeed offended papists abroad, as well as at home: and they represented it to the world, as though hereby all religion were abandoned in England. Thus did Hieronymus Osorius, a Portuguese bishop, (a man famed in those times for eloquence,) in an epistle which he took the confidence to write to queen Elizabeth about the year 1562: that” all rites and sacraments and sacred things were overthrown to the very foundations.” But Dr. Haddon, master of requests to the queen, a grave and wise civilian, and who very well knew what was done in this reformation of the church of England, took occasion hence, in his epistle responsory to this foreigner, (in no less eloquent a style,) briefly to give him and the world this account of our rites of religion now reformed. “ First , Because faith,” said he, “cometh by hearing, we send teachers of the holy scriptures to all the coasts and corners of our country, to instruct the people in all the duties of piety, and to inform them in the true worship of God. Then, we have a public form of prayers, collected out of the sacred scriptures, ratified by authority of parliament as we call the assent of the three estates of the commonwealth; from whence we do not suffer any to stray or vary. Providing in both, as much as we can, that the precept of the Holy Ghost be obeyed, that proclaimeth, He that speaketh in the church must use the oracle or word of God in it; and then, that all be of one mind. The sacrament we do, as near as possible, take care to administer according to the prescript of scripture and the example of the ancient church, as our Lord Jesus Christ first instituted it with his disciples. All this is set forth in our mother tongue: inasmuch as it is a great folly to utter that before God which we know not what it is; and it manifestly impugneth the sound doctrine of St. Paul, together with all ancient examples of the apostolical churches.

We perform the imposition of hands, the celebration of matrimony, the bringing to church women after childbirth, and the burial of the dead, with solemn and public offices: that all things may be done in the churches conveniently and in order, as we know well we are admonished to do in the New Testament. As for times, places, days, and other circumstances, there is in effect no change made among us: nor in all our religion is any thing new, unless what had either evident absurdity in it, or express impiety.” Thus Haddon.

And indeed concerning our holy service thus settled, to be used in the public worship, it was commonly urged by the friends of the reformation in those times, how agreeable it was to the holy scripture; that some part of it was the very word of God, and the rest was framed according to that word. And as to that part of it that consisted of the catechism, it was also a great part of it God’s express words, (as the ten commandments and the Lord’s prayer,) and that it taught young people so much of the knowledge of scripture, that is, God’s word, that children hereby knew more of Christian religion, than the oldest before, bred up in the former superstition. For thus did another great divine and bishop (sometime an exile) speak to these offended papists: “Our service hath nothing in it but what is written in God’s book, the holy Bible, (where no lie can be found,) saving Te Deum, and a few collects and prayers; which, although they be not contained in the scripture, yet, differing in words, they agree in sense and meaning with the articles of the faith, and the whole body of the scripture. None is so ignorant, but he sees the popish service and doctrine to agree little with the scriptures, and ours to contain nothing else but scriptures....... Is that newfangled and schismatical, [as they had charged it,] that containeth nothing but the doctrine of the prophets and apostles?”

And then again, to prove that our faith is right, as well as our worship, he added, “that the faith of a Christian man is generally contained in the creed, and particularly declared in the scripture at large.” And then he proceeded, “that we do esteem these articles of the Christian faith so much, with the Lord’s prayer and the ten commandments of Almighty God, that by common order it is appointed (and good ministers practise it) that children might learn them, not in a tongue they understand not, as the pope would have them, but in their mother tongue; with such a short declaration of it by a catechism, that now a young child of ten years old can tell more of his duty towards God and man, than an old man of their bringing up can do of sixty or eighty years old.”

The great and good archbishop Cranmer’s judgment of king Edward’s Book of Common Prayer may deserve here to have a place. When bishop Gardiner would have fortified his corrupt doctrine of the sacrament out of that book, and asserted that the receiving of the body and blood of Christ into our mouths was a teaching set forth there, and there catholicly spoken of, the said archbishop thus answered: “That the Book of Common Prayer neither used any such speech, nor taught any such doctrine; and that he [the archbishop] did not in any point improve [i.e. disprove] that godly book, nor vary from it; and that no man could mislike it, that had any godliness in him, joined with knowledge.”

To which passages let me add, that, as in the beginning of this settlement of religion by this Book of Common Prayer, the papists were the chief persons that were disgusted, and opposed it, so afterwards divers protestants among ourselves found great fault with it: the vindication of which Dr. Bancroft (another archbishop of Canterbury afterwards) undertook, in a sermon at St. Paul’s, February 1588. Wherein he told his auditory, how glad all the churches of Europe were at this establishment of religion in the beginning of this queen’s reign. Then he shewed what pains were taken in reforming the book; and brought divers testimonies of godly learned men, to prove that the book was in a manner void of all reprehension.

Yet it is true, that divers of our English, in the time of their exile, living and conversing in some of the reformed churches abroad, had imbibed a better opinion of the model of their church-worship than this at home now established, and were very desirous to bring it in, and use it instead of our liturgy; and certain eminent members of those foreign churches had applied to the queen, for an indulgence to these her subjects in this matter. But she, resolving firmly to adhere to her laws, would not permit of this variety of public worship; and wrote thus courteously, but steadfastly, in answer to them: “That it was not with her safety, honour, and credit, to permit diversity of opinions in a kingdom where none but she and her council governed; not owning either imperial or papal powers, as several of the princes and states there did, and were glad to compound with them.” And thereby she satisfied several of them.

CHAPTER 5.

A disputation at Westminster in parliament time, between some papists and protestants, before a great assembly of the nobility.

The questions. The papists decline the dispute. The argument of the protestants. Jewel’s wish for a disputation. The popish disputants punished. DURING this session of parliament, there be two or three other things that must be remembered, relating to religion. The first is concerning a conference between some popish bishops and other learned men of that communion, and certain protestant divines, held in the month of March, by order of the queen’s privy council, to be performed in their presence: eight on one side, and eight on the other.

For whereas it is said by the fight reverend the author of the History of the Reformation, that there were nine and nine on a side, according as Holinshed indeed sets it down, it is an error; as appears by a letter of Dr. Richard Cox, one of the disputants on the protestants’ side, written to Weidner, a learned man at Wormes, therein giving a relation of this conference, mentioning but eight; as likewise by the account thereof kept in the paper office, and transcribed thence into the Collections of the said History of the Reformation, that speaks of four bishops and four doctors only appointed to dispute. And these were White, Watson, Baine, and Scot, bishops of Winchester, Lincoln, Coventry and Litchfield, and Chester; and the doctors Cole, dean of St. Paul’s; Langdale, Harpsfield, and Chedsey, archdeacons of Lewes, Canterbury, and Middlesex: and on the protestants’ side were these eight only; John Scory, late bishop of Chichester, David Whitehead, John Jewel, John Aelmer, Richard Cox, Edmund Grindal, Robert Horne, and Edmund Guest; as they are set down by Dr. Matthew Parker’s own hand, at the end of his MS. paper, conmining the protestants’ discourse upon the first proposition. So the bishop of Carlisle on the papists’ side, and Sandys on that of the protestants’, are misadded to the aforesaid disputants, though probably they were present at the conference: and we find that the bishop of Carlisle was present the second day; and so was Turbervile, bishop of Exeter, too, and abbot Fecknam.

But because the bishop of Sarum in his History, and Mr. Fox before him, have set down at large the transactions of this conference, therefore I shall pass it over with more brevity, only relating somewhat perhaps by them omitted, and rectifying somewhat mistaken. Hethe, archbishop of York, did make the motion, that this dispute should be managed especially by writing: which way was most acceptable also to the protestants; and was once propounded by Hoper, and some other divines in prison under queen Mary, after they saw how unfairly the disputation was carded (all by noise and confusion) with Cranmer and Ridley at Oxford. Bramhall, archbishop of Armagh, approved and required such a way of disputing with some papists that he had to do with. Conferences,” saith he, “in words do often engender heat, or produce extravagancies and mistakes: writing is a way more calm, more certain, and such as a man cannot depart from:” in his letter to Mrs. Cheubien, in the nunnery. And, according to this motion, the queen ordered it should be managed in writing on both parties, for avoiding of much altercation in words: and she ordered likewise, that the papist bishops should first declare their minds, with their reasons, in writing; and then the others, if they had any thing to say to the contrary, should the same day declare their opinions. And so each of them should deliver their writings to the other, to be considered what were to be disproved therein; and the same to declare in writing at some other convenient day.

All this was fully agreed upon. And hereupon divers of the nobility and estates of the realm, understanding that such a meeting should be, made earnest means to her majesty, that the bishops and divines might put their assertions into English, and read them in that tongue, for their better satisfaction and understanding, and for enabling their own judgments to treat and conclude of such laws as might depend thereupon. And so both parts met at Westminster abbey: the lords and others of the privy council were present, and a great part of the nobility and of the commons. But while all were in expectation to hear these learned men and their arguments, the bishop of Winchester, Dr. White, said, they were mistaken, that their assertions and reasons should be written, and so only recited out of a book: adding, that their book was not then ready written; but that they were ready to argue and dispute: and therefore that they would only at that time repeat in speech what they had to say to the first proposition. This, with some words, was passed off: and then the bishop of Winchester and his colleagues appointed Dr. Cole, dean of St. Paul’s, to be the utterer of their minds: who, partly by speech, and partly by reading authorities written, and at certain times being informed by the colleagues what to say, made a declaration of their meanings, and their reasons to their first proposition.

Which being ended, they were asked by the privy council, if any of them had any more to say. They said, No. Then the other part was licensed to shew their minds, which they did according to the first order; exhibiting all that they meant to propound, in a book written: which, after a prayer and invocation made to Almighty God, and a protestation to stand to the doctrine of the catholic church built upon scripture, was distinctly read by Dr. Horn (who was the penner of the same) upon the first proposition. And so the assembly was quietly dismissed. This was on Friday, the last day of March. The question then disputed was, That it was against the word of God, and the custom of the primitive church, to use a tongue unknown to the people in common prayer and administration ode sacraments.

When Monday, the second day of conference, came, and all the grave assembly were set, White, bishop of Winchester, and the rest of that side, refused to proceed on the second question, but would by all means insist still upon the first, argued the last day; and, pretending they had more to say of it, were resolved to read upon that argument only: urging much, that they and their cause should suffer prejudice, if they should not treat of the first. And Watson, bishop of Lincoln, striving to have his turn of speaking, hotly said, that they were not used indifferently, that they might not be allowed to declare in writing what they had to say of the first question; and added, that what Dr. Cole spake in the last assembly was extempore, and of himself, and with no forestudied talk, and that it was not prepared to strengthen their cause. These sayings made the nobility and others the auditors frown, knowing that Cole spake out of a paper which he held in his hand, and read in the same: and that according to the instruction of the bishops, who pointed unto several places in his paper with their fingers, for his direction. Watson also complained that their adversaries had longer warning than they: and that they themselves had notice of it but two days before, and were fain to set up the whole last night. But Bacon, the lord keeper, told them, that at the last conference, when Cole had done, he asked them, the bishops, whether what he had spoken was what they would have him say, and they granted it: and whether he should say any more ha the matter, and they answered, No. But for their satisfaction the lord keeper added, that they should at present, according to the order agreed upon, discourse upon the second question; and at another meeting, when the day came for them both to confirm their first question, they should have liberty to read what they had further to say upon the first. To which all the council there present willingly condescended: but this also the bishops would not be contented with. At last Hethe, archbishop of York, told them they were to blame, for that there was a plain decreed order for them to treat at this time of the second question, and bade them leave their contention. Then the bishops started another matter of quarrel, and said, it was contrary to the order in disputations that they should begin; for that their side had the negative, said the bishop of Chester: and therefore they that were on the affirmative should begin: that they were the defending party: and that it was the school manner, and likewise the manner in Westminster hall, that the plaintiff should speak first, and then the accused party answer. To which the keeper told them, they began willingly on the first question; and the protestants told them, that they had the negative then. Horne wondered that they should so much stand upon it, who should begin. Then the bishops charged the protestants to have been the propounders of the questions. But the keeper told them, that the questions were of neither of their propounding, but offered from the council indifferently to them both. Then Bayne, bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, minding to run from the matter, began to question with the protestants, what church they were of? saying, that they must needs try that first: for there were many churches in Germany; and he demanded of Horn, which of those churches he was of? who prudently answered, that he was of Christ’s catholic church. The keeper told them, they ought not to run into voluntary talk of their own inventing. The bishop of Litchfield said, that they, on their part, had no doubt, but assuredly stood in the truth. But those other men pretended to be doubtful. Therefore they should first bring what they had to impugn them, the bishops, withal. And the bishop of Chester told the lords plainly, if themselves began first, and the others spake after, then they speaking last should have the advantage to come off with applause of the people, and the verity on their side not be so well marked. And therein indeed he spake out the true cause of all this jangling.

And hereupon Winchester in short said, he was resolved, except they began, he would say nothing. When the lord keeper could not persuade them, he spoke of departing. And Winchester, as though this were the issue he desired, presently cried, Contented, and offered to go. But the keeper first asked them man by man, to know their resolution, and they all, save one, Fecknam, abbot of Westminster, utterly denied to read, without the other party began; and some so very disorderly and irreverently as had not been seen in so honourable an assembly of the two estates of the realm, nobility and commons then assembled, besides the presence of the queen’s council.

And so, without any more dispute, all was dismissed. But the lord keeper at parting said these words to them; “For that ye would not that we should hear you, perhaps you may shortly hear of us.” And so they did; for, for this contempt, the bishops of Winchester and Lincoln were committed to the Tower of London; and the rest, saving the abbot of Westminster, were bound to make their personal appearance before the council, and not to depart the cities of London and Westminster till their order. A brief account of this which I have set down is given in a small book, printed long since by Jug and Cawood, by the queen’s authority. The original copy whereof is in the Paperoffice; and published from thence by the bishop of Sarum in his History. It is also extant in Holinshed’s History of Queen Elizabeth, and at the end of Fox’s Acts.

Dr. Cole’s paper upon the first question, together with that of Dr. Horn, remains among archbishop Parker’s MSS. in the volume entitled Synodalia: whence they are both published in the History of the Reformation. But I observe Horn’s excellent preface omitted there, as indeed it is in the MS. the author made use of; which I have therefore supplied in the Appendix. And a great part of Horn’s discourse, about the middle thereof, is also left out; consisting of authorities out of St. Ambrose, Hierom, Chrysostom, Dionysius, Cyprian, and a Constitution of Justinian: which may be supplied out of Fox’s Acts, towards the conclusion, where the same learned discourse is preserved. And let it be marked, that that discourse which the right reverend author of the History of the Reformation sets down, as that which Cole first read, must be mistaken: for it plainly appears not to be read before Horn’s discourse, but after it, being a reply to him. For thus Cole begins; “Most honourable, Whereas these men here present have declared openly, it is repugnant and contrary to the word of God to have the common prayer and ministration of sacraments in the Latin tongue; ye shall understand, that, to prove this their assertion, they have brought in as yet only one place of scripture, taken out of St. Paul his first epistle to the Corinthians, chap. 14:with certain other places of holy doctors, whereunto answer is not now to be made; but when the book which they read shall be delivered unto us according to the appointment made in that behalf, God willing, we shall make answer,” &c. as it follows in Colds paper. By this preface it is undeniably evident, that this cannot be the paper that Cole first began with.

And I conclude it was that which the bishops had prepared, and made all that ado to have read at the second meeting, but would not then be permitted.

The second question which was to be disputed, but was not, by reason of the refusal of the popish side, as is above said, was, That every particular church hath authority to institute, change, and abrogate ceremonies and rites of the church, so that it be to edification. A learned discourse in writing was prepared by the protestant side for the proof of this; which follows in the said MS. where the other discourses are. And because little account is given of this in the bishop of Sarum’s History, only what we find thereof a page or two after, I will here shew briefly the arguments. The method was, to prove this assertion by God’s word, by ancient writings, and by examples. The proof from the word of God consisted in these six particulars following:

I. All ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies are things that appertain to order and decency. But St. Paul committed to the church of Corinth the disposition of all such things: and committing that authority to that particular church, he consequently committed it to all other particular churches.

II. That the principal foundation, whereupon may be gathered, that any council or assembly hath authority to change or institute rites and ceremonies, stood upon those words of Christ, Wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name. But in a particular church, not only two or three, but also great numbers may be met together in the name of Christ.

III. The authority of the church, both universal and particular, to institute, abrogate, and change rites and ceremonies, dependeth only upon obedience to Christ and his word, in directing of all things to the edification of faith and charity.

IV. Ceremonies, that were profitable at first, may grow by continuance to abuse, and be hurtful. And as for general councils, they come together but seldom; nor can do other, by reason of wars and troubles in the world. So that if particular churches may not remove rites tending to idolatry, great numbers of souls may perish before general councils can come together.

V. Look what authority the seven several pastors and churches in Asia had to reform the things that were amiss among every of them; the same authority now have the several pastors and churches in all kingdoms and provinces.

VI. If a particular church were bound to retain and exercise, and might not abrogate evil rites and customs instituted by men, then were the same church also bound to obey men more than God; who hath commanded, that all things should be done in the church to edify.

But because their adversaries stayed themselves most upon old councils, and the writings of doctors and fathers, therefore, to match them with their own weapon, the rest of the discourse consisted partly in the proof of their allegations from thence, (which is very large,) and partly in examples in ancient times. Lastly, they proceeded to answer objections, which they promised to consider more at large, when their adversaries’ book should be exhibited. This, though long, is an excellent learned discourse, but by whom composed I know not, perhaps by Jewel or Guest, though I make no doubt the whole club was concerned in it, and contributed their assistance.

The whole is recommended to the reader’s perusal in the Appendix.

Therein they said, “that the old councils thought it a thing commodious for the church to have variety in ceremonies. That such uniformity of rites and ceremonies as was then seen in the popish churches, was not in the church when it was most pure, but was brought in after, when the bishop of Rome had unjustly aspired to the primacy, and was continued in those churches rather for a public recognition of his monarchy, than for any edification. That it was more for the profit of the church to have some variety of ceremonies in divers places, than to have all one; that the liberty of the church might remain, that in indifferent things every church might abound in their own sense; and that ceremonies might not be too much esteemed, and be made equal with God’s word. That late experience in this our country shewed, that the abrogation of many ceremonies established by general authority was lawful and profitable. For that in king Henry’s time many superstitious observations and idolatrous rites were abolished; and that by the consent of many of them which now were, or lately had been, adversaries; as pilgrimages, pardons, superstitious opinions of purgatory, holy water, masses for cattle, scala coeli, &c. And that even in that late time of queen Mary it appeared that they were ashamed to restore the same again.

Then they proceeded to instance in several superstitious fables out of the Festival Book, which in time past were propounded to the people for wholesome doctrines, but indeed were occasions of dissolute life and sin. One whereof was, of a woman which never did good deed, but only that she had continually kept a candle burning before our lady; and of a candle that by our lady’s appointment was kept burning before her when she was in hell; which light the devils could not abide: and by reason thereof she was rescued from hell, and restored to life again; and then became a good woman. They demanded whether, when in the late days there was so much preaching against reading the scriptures in the vulgar tongue, there was ,any inveighing against this Festival, or such like superstitious books; and when strait inquisition had been made for English Bibles and Testaments, to have them burned, they left others to judge whether the like diligence had been used for abolishing those books.”

They ended this their learned argument with some brief consideration of their adversaries’ reasons concerning “the authority of general councils, the continuance of time, and their possession in the church. As to the two last, they bade their adversaries prove their things true, and then allege time. For against the eternal truth of God’s word, no continuance of time can make prescription. And that they should never be able to prove the bishop of Rome head of the universal church by the scriptures, (by which title he claimed his authority,) nor that under his obedience all Christians ought to live, under pain of damnation: this they should never be able to do, as had been often proved in the realm and elsewhere: and that therefore the authority of their church was nothing, and their possession unjust.”

Great pity it was this disputation ended so abruptly, and proceeded not as was designed, that this discourse beforementioned might have been read to that grave, honourable, and numerous audience; and that this argument might have been further pursued, by considering and answering the adversaries’ papers, as the protestant side were prepared to do. But the popish disputants thought it their wisest course to forbear, lest they might have been too closely pinched in their cause, if they had gone on; and therefore warily declined entering further into this contest, lest the weakness of their arguments might more openly appear to all.

It was Jewel’s desire that this disputation had gone on; and his wish that some such public conference might have been appointed, for the full satisfying men’s minds in these controversies, and for making the truth more evidently appear to all. Thus in one of his sermons, reflecting upon this last disputation, he hath these words: “That however it might not become him to set order in these things, yet, if it were lawful, he would wish that once again, as time would serve, there might be had a quiet and a sober disputation; and that each part might be required to shew their grounds, without selfwill, and without affection, not to maintain or breed contention; (for he trusted it should be the way to take away all contention;) but only that the truth might be known, many consciences quieted, and the right stone tried by comparison of the counterfeit. For at the last disputation that should have been, every one knew which part gave over, and would not meddle. And whereas some would say, the judge would not be indifferent; alas! said he, what man that doubted his own matter would ever think the judges indifferent?

But, he added, [none should be appointed judges; but] let the whole world, let our adversaries themselves be judges here, (affection put apart.) What can we offer more? Let them call for their doctors and councils. If they come, said he, but with one sufficient doctor or council, they may have the field. That he spake not this to boast himself of any learning, but that the goodness of the cause made him the bolder. Neither would he have said so much as he had in this behalf, saving that the matter itself, and very necessity, forced him so to do: since it were great pity that God’s truth should be defaced with privy whisperings, that whole houses should be overthrown, men’s consciences wounded, the people deceived.”

The resentments of the court, for this sullen and refractory behaviour of the popish disputants, appeared soon after, by these orders of the council against them. April the 3d, the lords sent a letter to the lieutenant of the Tower, with the bodies of the bishops of Winton and Lincoln, (who had given most offence,) and willed him to keep them in sure and several wards: suffering them nevertheless to have each of them one of their own men to attend upon them, and their own stuff for their bedding, and other necessary furniture; and to appoint them to some convenient lodging meet for persons of their sort: using them also otherwise well, especially the bishop of Lincoln, for that he was sick. For which respects also, and because this was his sick night, the said lieutenant was willed the rather to have regard unto him, and to spare him some of his own lodging and stuff for this night: and also to surlier his chirurgeon, and such other as should be needful for his health, to have access to him from time to time. And the same day the lords of the council did appoint sir Ambrose Cave and sir Richard Sackvile, [two of the council,] to repair to the houses of the foresaid bishops here in London, and both to peruse their studies and writings, and also to take order with their officers for the surety and stay of their goods.

And the next day, being April 4, this order passed upon the rest of these offenders, that Rare, bishop of Coventry and Litchfield, Cuthbert, bishop of Chester, and Owin, bishop of Carlisle, Henry Cole, LL. D. John Harpsfield, S. T. P. and William Chedsey, S. T. P. should all (and accordingly did) enter into bonds severally to make their personal appearances before the lords of the council as often as they sat, and not to depart the cities of London and Westminster, and the suburbs, until they should have licence so to do: and further to stand unto and pay such fines as should be by the lords of the council assessed upon them, for their contempt committed against the queen’s majesty’s order, as the obligation ran. The first of these bishops was bound in 2000 marks sterling, the second in 1000l . the third in 500 mark, Dr. Cole in 1000 mark, Dr. Harpsfield in 500 mark, and Dr. Chedsey in 300l .

And so accordingly they all, both bishops and doctors, did from day to day come personally and wait upon the council from the 5th of April till the 12th of May next, desiring daily their appearances to be recorded. The day before, viz. May the 11th, the council came to assess the lines which each of them were bound to stand to for their contempt, and were as follows: the bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, 333l . 6s. 8d.; the bishop of Carlisle, 250l .; the bishop of Chester, 200 mark; Dr. Cole, 500 mark; Dr. Harpsfield, 40l .; and Dr. Chedsey, 40 mark. The next day, May the 12th, when they came to make their personal appearances, Dr. Harpsfield paid his 40l . into the hands of William Smith, clerk of the council; and Dr. Chedsey his 40 mark. And so they were discharged, recognisances of their good abesring being first taken of them. How and when the greater fines were paid by the rest, I know not, only I find these favourable orders of council for the two bishops in the Tower.

April 27, letters were sent from the lords to the lieutenant of the Tower, to suffer the bishop of Lincoln, presently remaining in his ward, to come at such times as he by his discretion should think meet to his table, for the better relief of his quartan ague: and also to have the liberty of the house, as prisoners heretofore, having the liberty of the Tower, have used: the ordering whereof was referred to his discretion. And May the 10th, the lords sent to the lieutenant their letters, to suffer the bishop of Winchester’s cook from time to time to attend upon him, for the dressing of his meat; so as he spake only with him in his presence, or such as he should appoint. And in like sort to suffer the lady White, his sister, to repair unto him at such times as he should think meet. Thus gently did these bishops and divines feel the displeasure of the lords of the council.

CHAPTER 6.

The queen’s marriage motioned. Exchange of bishops’ lands.

Bishop Cox’s letter to the queen. The bishops elect, their secret app1ication to the queen about it. Considerations about bishops’ temporalities. Commissions for the exchanges. THE parliament had a great desire to see the queen well married, that there might be an heir to the crown: nor did she want suitors in the very entrance upon her kingdom. Philip, king of Spain, late husband to her sister queen Mary, was one of the first. And almost as soon as he, did the emperor make a motion for either of his sons, as I find by some papers among the Burghleian MSS. George Van Helfenstein, baron of Gundelfingen, was in England with the queen, soon after her first coming to the crown, in quality of agent or ambassador from the emperor: then there happened communication between him and sir Thomas Chaloner about the queen’s marriage, which Chaloner and all good men then had their thoughts much bent upon: they talked together of the emperor’s son, the archduke of Austria. And now Van Helfenstein being departed, and at Brussels, wrote March 21, 1558, to Chaloner, and sent him the picture of that duke, which he might shew as he should think most convenient: this representation of him shewed him to be a most comely person, but his mind and inward abilities exceeded his person, as the noble German told Chaloner in his letter; “That if the most excellent virtues and gallant endowments of his soul were known as well to him, as they were to himself and others, he would soon acknowledge they did by many degrees surpass the beauty of his body.” But that picture receiving some damage by the wagons in which it was brought, he promised to send Chaloner another of the duke’s whole body, and of his brother also; wishing that he might have a sight of them both alive, without the help of paint and colour. He told him all the report at Brussels was, that the king of Spain was to marry the queen; although, as he subjoined, men of great authority, when he was in England, seemed not a little to misdoubt it. But he prayed Chaloner, out of their great friendship, to give some account of that whole matter. For that indeed was the very reason why the emperor, who intended to offer to the queen either of his sons, did forbear at present to do it; because he would not any ways disoblige one so nearly related. But if the king’s suit succeeded not, he then requested his friend, the said sir Tho. Chaloner, to give him with all silence an account of it: and then would the emperor put in strongly for one of his sons. And so he did afterwards. But the queen, though she would sometimes retain suitors, yet was not minded to wed herself, but to her kingdom only. How this affair proceeded, and what hand the papists had in it, hoping to effect some benefit to themselves hereby, we shall see hereafter.

In this parliament was a bill (mentioned before) for exchange of bishops’ lands, and it passed into an act, remaining among the private and unprinted acts of parliament. By virtue whereof authority was given to the queen, on the avoidance of any archbishopric or bishopric, to take into her hands certain of the temporal possessions thereof, recompensing the same with parsonages impropriate and tenths. And soon after this time, there being an avoidance of all, or almost all, the bishoprics, the queen and her courtiers had a fair opportunity to pick and choose what houses, lands, and revenues they pleased, belonging to the episcopal sees throughout England, that were the fairest and the best, and that had no incumbrances upon them; which, no question, was now done; and in lieu thereof were made over to those sees certain parsonages formerly belonging to the monasteries. To many of which parsonages appertained decayed chancels and ruinous houses, and sometimes pensions to be paid out for the maintaining of vicars and curates. And for the tenths, which were also to go in exchange for the bishops’ good lands, these were and would be but ill paid, being to be collected from the clergy, many whereof were indigent, and some obstinate, and so could not or would not pay them without great trouble.

And, which was worse than this, the tenths being so peculiarly settled upon the crown, the bishops could not have a fight to receive them, unless some law were made in that case, and provided. These and many other inconveniences arising from this act, and well perceived by the clergy, and especially Parker, and other bishops elect, made them sad.

But to help the matter as well as they could, they put up an address to the queen, suing to her” to stay and remit this exchange, and not to use this liberty which the parliament had given her. And that if they could not obtain that, (to make the best terms they could for themselves,) that the exchanges might be even and equal, and that consideration might be had of the expenses of parsonages, and the ill payment of tenths, and of the advantages and benefits of their lordships and manors. In this address they signified, how much this, if it came to pass, would endanger the decay of hospitality and of learning, and discourage men from serving the church in the ministry.” And to incline the queen to grant this their suit, and lest they should not appear to consider the queen’s great charges daily sustained, (which, it seems, was one of the pretences for this bill,) Parker and the other four elects, who made the address in the name of the province of Canterbury, did offer to give unto her yearly a thousand marks during their lives and continuance in their bishoprics, for and in consideration of the exoneration of the said exchange.

They took this opportunity also to pray the queen in their own behalf, that they might be discharged of all arrearages of subsidies and tenths past in the days of their predecessors, and in times of vacation; and to be discharged of their own subsidies the first year of their fruits-paying; and that in consideration of their necessary expenses, as in furniture of their houses, and the payment of great fees, to suffer them to enjoy the half year’s rent last past, and that their first-fruits might be abated somewhat, and distributed unto more years, and that she would take their own bonds for payment. In the behalf also of the new bishoprics erected by king Henry, they besought her for their continuance: and that the bishops thereof might nominate and appoint the prebendaries, as other bishops did, for the maintaining of learned men and preachers; and that Cliff might be joined to the see of Rochester; and that from the see of Chester the benefice lately annexed might not be dismembered, in consideration of the smallness of the revenues of those bishoprics. And here let me add, that Cox, bishop of Ely, an ancient and very learned man, and in great esteem both with the queen’s father and brother, and likewise with her, privately on this occasion addressed himself to her, against taking away the bishops’ temporalities by exchanges; in some papers of arguments sent her, shewing the inconvenience and evil, not to say unlawfulness of them. “Forasmuch” (writeth he in one paper to her) “as I am fully persuaded, that God’s Holy Spirit hath adorned your majesty with three excellent graces; first, that you are well instructed in God’s sincere and true religion; secondly, because I have heard you say, that you are not in fear of death, whensoever it shall please our heavenly Father to call you; thirdly, necessarily to follow upon this former, that you work uprightly in conscience and in the fear of God; I am the more bold to become an humble petitioner to your highness, and that alone, without the knowledge or consent of others; to the intent that, if your highness incline to my petition, the grant may come only of your own bountifulness; or if your grace grant not my petition, it may pass in silence, as though never motion had been made thereof. “Mine humble request unto your Majesty is, that it might stand with your highness’ pleasure, to command your officers not to proceed any further in the exchange appertaining to your grace’s bishoprics: which will be as noble and as famous an act as the like hath seldom been seen. The causes which move me to sue unto your majesty are these.”

This paper goes no further: but in anther paper of the same bishop, in the name of the rest, there be divers considerations urged to her, all writ with his own hand. But whether it was actually delivered her, or only prepared for her, I cannot tell. It begins with apt arguments, taken from scripture, viz.

I. Genesis 47:Joseph brought all the lands of the kingdom of Egypt unto the possession of king Pharaoh in the extremity of famine; but the lands of the priests remained untouched.

II. 1 Esdras 7:King Artaxerxes, sending great riches m the building of God’s temple in Jerusalem, commanded all the Jews to be contributors to the same; the priests and Levites being excepted from all impositions and contributions. These examples are written by the Holy Ghost not in vain, but to admonish princes liberally to use God’s ministers, and not withdraw things from them.

III. Agg. 1:God threatened sore plagues to his people, because they were negligent in building up of the earthly temple. If now then the builders of Christ’s heavenly church be diminished of their wages, God cannot be well pleased.

IV. Malachi 1:God was mightily angered with his people, because they offered unto God the blind, lame, and worried sacrifice; which therefore was counted Polluted and foul. And God was very angry with his priests, because they would receive such things to be sacrificed.

Wherefore, if the best be taken from his ministry, and worse put in t