etext History of the Catholic Church from the
Rev. James MacCaffrey

HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
FROM THE RENAISSANCE TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION



VOLUME II

by Rev. JAMES MacCAFFREY
Lic. Theol. (Maynooth), Ph.D. (Freiburg i. B.)
Professor of Ecclesiastical History, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth



Nihil Obstat:
Thomas O'Donnell, C.M.
Censor Theol. Deput.

Imprimi Potest:
Guilielmus,
Archiep. Dublinen.,
Hiberniæ Primas.

Dublini, 16 Decembris, 1914.





HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

From the Renaissance to the
French Revolution



CHAPTER I

RELIGIOUS CONDITION OF ENGLAND BEFORE THE REFORMATION

  Wilkins, /Concilia Magnae Britanniae/, iii., 1737. /Historia Regis
  Henrici Septimi a Bernardo Andrea Thosolate/ (André of Toulouse),
  edited by J. Gairdner, 1858.  Capella-Sneyd, /A Relation or True
  Account of the Isle of England ... under Henry VII./ (written by
  Capella, the Venetian Ambassador, 1496-1502, and edited by C. A.
  Sneyd, 1847). /A London Chronicle during the reigns of Henry VII.
  and Henry VIII./ (Camden Miscellany, vol. iv., 1859). Sir Thomas
  More's /Utopia/ (written 1516, edited by E. Arber, 1869). More's
  English works, edited by William Rastell, 1557. Bridgett, /Life
  and Writings of Sir Thomas More/, 1891. Busch-Todd, /England under
  the Tudors/, 1892-95. Gasquet, /The Eve of the Reformation/, 1900;
  /Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries/, 1888; /The Old English
  Bible/, etc., 1897; /The Great Pestilence/, 1893; /Parish Life in
  Mediaeval England/, 1906; /English Monastic Life/, 1904. Capes, /A
  History of the English Church in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
  Centuries/, 1909. Seebohm, /Oxford Reformers/ (3rd edition), 1877.
  Stone, /Reformation and Renaissance Studies/, 1904. Gairdner,
  /Lollardy and the Reformation/, vol. i., 1908. Lilly, /Renaissance
  Types/, 1901. Bridgett, /History of the Holy Eucharist in Great
  Britain/ (new edition, 1908). Rivington, /Rome and England/, 1897.
  Lingard, /History of England/, 10 vols., 1849. Hunt-Poole,
  /Political History of England/, v., 1910. /Cambridge Modern
  History/, vol. i., 1902.

With the advent of Henry VII. to the throne (1485) a new era opened in
the history of England. The English nation, weakened by the Wars of
the Roses and tired of a contest that possessed little interest for
the masses, was not unwilling to submit itself without reserve to the
guidance of a strong ruler provided he could guarantee peace both at
home and abroad. Practically speaking, hitherto absolutism had been
unknown. The rights that had been won by the barons on the plains of
Runnymede were guarded jealously by their descendants, and as a result
the power of the king, more especially in regard to taxation, was
hedged round by several restrictions. But during the long struggle
between the houses of Lancaster and York many of the great feudal
barons had fallen on the field of battle or by the hands of the
executioner, and the power of the nobles as a body had been
undermined. While the Lords could muster their own retainers under
their standard and put into the field a strong army almost at a
moment's notice, it was impossible for the sovereign to rule as an
absolute monarch. It was because he recognised this fact that Henry
VII. took steps to enforce the Statute of Liveries passed by one of
his predecessors, and to provide that armies could be levied only in
the king's name.

The day of government by the aristocracy had passed for ever to be
succeeded by the rule of the people, but in the interval between the
sinking of one and the rise of the other Tudor absolutism was
established firmly in England. In selecting his ministers Henry VII.
passed over the nobles in favour of the middle classes, which were
gaining ground rapidly in the country, but which had not yet realised
their strength as they did later in the days of the Stuarts. He
obtained grants of tonnage and poundage enjoyed by some of his Yorkist
predecessors, had recourse to the system of forced grants known as
benevolences, set up the Star Chamber nominally to preserve order but
in reality to repress his most dangerous opponents, and treated
Parliament as a mere machine, whose only work was to register the
wishes of the sovereign. In brief, Henry VII., acting according to the
spirit of the age, removed the elements that might make for national
disunion, consolidated his own power at the expense of the nobility,
won over to his side the middle and lower classes whose interests were
promoted and from whom no danger was to be feared, and laid the
foundations of that absolute government, which was carried to its
logical conclusions by his son and successor, Henry VIII.

By nature Henry VII. was neither overbearing nor devoid of tact, and
from the doubtful character of his title to the throne he was obliged
to be circumspect in his dealings with the nation. It was not so,
however, with Henry VIII. He was a young, impulsive, self-willed
ruler, freed from nearly all the dangers that had acted as a restraint
upon his father, surrounded for the most part by upstarts who had no
will except to please their master, and intensely popular with the
merchants, farmers, and labourers, whose welfare was consulted, and
who were removed so far from court that they knew little of royal
policy or royal oppression. The House of Lords, comprising as it did
representatives of the clergy and nobles, felt itself entirely at the
mercy of the king, and its members, alarmed by the fate of all those
who had ventured to oppose his wishes, would have decreed the
abolition of their privileges rather than incur his displeasure, had
they been called upon to do so. The House of Commons was composed to a
great extent of the nominees of the Crown, whose names were forwarded
to the sheriffs for formal confirmation. The Parliament of 1523 did
show some resistance to the financial demands necessitated by the war
with France, but the king's answer was to dissolve it, and to govern
England by royal decrees for a space of six years. Fearing for the
results of the divorce proceedings and anxious to carry the country
with him in his campaign against the Pope, Henry VIII. convoked
another Parliament (1529), but he took careful measures to ensure that
the new House of Commons would not run counter to his wishes. Lists of
persons who were known to be jealous of the powers of the Church and
to be sympathetic towards any movement that might limit the
pretensions of the clergy were forwarded to the sheriffs, and in due
course reliable men were returned. That the majority of the members of
the lower House were hostile to the privileges of the Church is clear
enough, but there is no evidence that any important section desired a
reformation which would involve a change of doctrine or separation
from Rome. The legislation directed against the rights of the Pope
sanctioned by this Parliament was accepted solely through the
influence of royal threats and blandishments, and because the
Parliament had no will of its own. Were the members free to speak and
act according to their own sentiments it is impossible to believe that
they would have confirmed and annulled the successive marriages of the
king, altered and realtered the succession to meet every new
matrimonial fancy of his, and proved themselves such negligent
guardians of the rights of the English nation as to allow him to
dispose of the crown of England by will as he might dispose of his
private possessions. Henry VIII. was undisputed master of England, of
its nobles, clergy, and people, of its Convocation, and Parliament.
His will was the law. Unless this outstanding fact, royal absolutism
and dictatorship be realised, it is impossible to understand how a
whole nation, which till that time had accepted the Pope as the Head
of the Church, could have been torn against its will from the centre
of unity, separated from the rest of the Catholic world, and subjected
to the spiritual jurisdiction of a sovereign, whose primary motive in
effecting such a revolution was the gratification of his own unbridled
passions.

It is not true to assert, as some writers have asserted, that before
the Reformation England was a land shrouded in the mists of ignorance;
that there were no schools or colleges for imparting secular education
till the days of Edward VI.; that apart from practices such as
pilgrimages, indulgences, and invocation of the saints, there was no
real religion among the masses; that both secular and regular clergy
lived after a manner more likely to scandalise than to edify the
faithful; that the people were up in arms against the exactions and
privileges of the clergy, and that all parties only awaited the advent
of a strong leader to throw off the yoke of Rome. These are sweeping
generalisations based upon isolated abuses put forward merely to
discredit the English mediaeval Church, but wholly unacceptable to
those who are best acquainted with the history of the period. On the
other side it would be equally wrong to state that everything was so
perfect in England that no reforms were required. Many abuses,
undoubtedly, had arisen in various departments of religious life, but
these abuses were of such a kind that they might have been removed had
the Convocations of the clergy been free to pursue their course, nor
do they justify an indiscriminate condemnation of the entire
ecclesiastical body.

It is true that the Renaissance movement had made great progress on
the other side of the Alps before its influence could be felt even in
educated circles in England, but once the attention of the English
scholars was drawn to the revival of classical studies many of them
made their way to the great masters of Italy, and returned to utilise
the knowledge they had acquired for the improvement of the educational
system of their country. Selling and Hadley, both monks, Linacre, one
of the leaders of medical science in his own time, Dean Colet of
Westminster whose direction of St. Paul's College did so much to
improve the curriculum of the schools,[1] Bishop Fisher of Rochester
described by Erasmus as "a man without equal at this time both as to
integrity of life, learning, or broadminded sympathies" with the
possible exception of Archbishop Warham of Canterbury,[2] and Sir
Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England and one of the earliest
martyrs for the faith in the reign of Henry VIII., were but a few of
the prominent men in a movement that made itself felt throughout the
entire country. Nowhere did Erasmus find a more enthusiastic welcome
or more generous patrons and nowhere were his writings more thoroughly
appreciated than in England.

Nor is it true to say that the advocates of classical learning were
animated by hostility to the Catholic Church in their demand for an
improvement in educational methods. Some murmurs were, indeed, heard
in certain quarters, and charges of unorthodoxy were formulated
vaguely against Colet and others of his party, but these were but the
criticisms levelled in all ages against those who are in advance of
their time, nor do they require serious refutation. The English
Humanists had nothing in common with the neo-pagan writers of the
Italian Renaissance as regards religion, and they gave no indication
of hostility to Rome. Whatever other influences may have contributed
to bring about the religious revolution in England, it was certainly
not due to the Renaissance, for to a man its disciples were as loyal
to the Catholic Church as were their two greatest leaders Fisher and
More, who laid down their lives rather than prove disloyal to the
successor of St. Peter.

Nor was education generally neglected in the country. The lists of
students attending Oxford and Cambridge[3] in so far as they have been
preserved point to the fact that in the days immediately preceding the
Reformation these great seats of learning were in a most flourishing
condition, and that for them the religious revolt fell little short of
proving disastrous. The explanation of the sudden drop in the number
of students attending the universities is to be found partially at
least in the disturbed condition of the country, but more particularly
in the destruction of the religious houses, which sent up many of
their members to Oxford and Cambridge, and which prepared a great
number of pupils in their schools for university matriculation, as
well as in the confiscation of the funds out of which bishops,
chapters, monasteries, religious confraternities, and religious
guilds, presented exhibitions to enable the children of the poor to
avail themselves of the advantages of higher education. Nor was
England of the fifteenth century without a good system of secondary
schools. It is a common belief that Edward VI. was the founder of
English secondary colleges, and that during the first fifty years
after the Reformation more was done for this department of education
than had been done in the preceding three hundred years. That such a
belief is entirely erroneous may be proved from the records of the
commissions held in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., from
which it appears that there were close on three hundred secondary
schools in England before 1549, and that Henry VIII. and particularly
Edward VI. ought to be regarded as the despoilers rather than as the
patrons of the English colleges. Distinct from the universities and
from the mere primary schools there were in existence at the beginning
of the reign of Henry VIII. seven classes of educational
establishments, namely, cathedral, collegiate, and monastic colleges,
colleges in connexion with hospitals, guilds, chantries, and
independent institutions. These were worked in perfect co-ordination
with the universities, and in most cases exhibitions were provided for
the poorer scholars. "The Grammar Schools which existed," says a
reliable authority, "were not mere monkish schools or choristers'
schools or elementary schools. Many of them were the same schools
which now live and thrive. All were schools of exactly the same type,
and performing precisely the same sort of functions as the public
schools and grammar schools of to-day. There were indeed also
choristers' schools and elementary schools. There were scholarships at
schools and exhibitions thence to the universities, and the whole
paraphernalia of secondary education. Nor was secondary education
understood in any different sense to that in which it was understood
up to fifty years ago. It was conducted on the same lines and in the
main by instruments of the same kind, if not identically the same, as
those in use till the present generation."[4]

It cannot be said with justice that the English people at the time
were either badly instructed in the principles of their religion or
indifferent to the practices of the Church to which they belonged. The
decrees of the Synod of Oxford (1281), commanding the clergy who had
care of souls to explain regularly in simple language, intelligible to
their hearers the articles of the creed, the commandments, the
sacraments, the seven deadly sins and the seven works of mercy, were
renewed more than once, and presumably were enforced by the bishops.
The books published for the instruction of the faithful as for
example, /The Work for Householders/, /Dives et Pauper/, /The
Interpretation and Signification of the Mass/, /The Art of Good
Living/, etc., emphasise very strongly the duty of attending the
religious instruction given by the clergy, while the manuals written
for the guidance of the clergy make it very clear that preaching was a
portion of their duties that should not be neglected. The fact that
religious books of this kind were multiplied so quickly, once the art
of printing had been discovered, affords strong evidence that neither
priests nor people were unmindful of the need for a thorough
understanding of the truths of their religion. The visitations of the
parishes, during which some of the prominent parishioners were
summoned to give evidence about the manner in which the priests
performed their duty of instructing the people, were in themselves a
great safeguard against pastoral negligence, and so far as they have
been published they afford no grounds for the statement that the
people were left in ignorance regarding the doctrines and practices of
their religion. Apart entirely from the work done by the clergy in the
pulpits and churches, it should be remembered that in the cities and
even in the most remote of the rural parishes religious dramas were
staged at regular intervals, and were of the greatest assistance in
bringing before the minds even of the most uneducated the leading
events of biblical history and the principal truths of Christianity.

That the people of England as a body hearkened to the instructions of
their pastors is clear enough from the testimony of foreign visitors,
from the records of the episcopal visitations, the pilgrimages to
shrines of devotion at home and abroad, from the anxiety for God's
honour and glory as shown in the zeal which dictated the building or
decoration of so many beautiful cathedrals and churches, the funds for
which were provided by rich and poor alike, and from the spirit of
charity displayed in the numerous bequests for the relief of the poor
and the suffering. The people of England at the beginning of the
sixteenth century were neither idol-worshippers nor victims of a blind
superstition. They understood just as well as Catholics understand at
the present day devotions to Our Lady and to the Saints; Images,
Pictures and Statues, Purgatory, Indulgences and the effects of the
Mass. Nor were they so ignorant of the Sacred Scriptures as is
commonly supposed. The sermons were based upon some Scripture text
taken as a rule from the epistle and gospel proper to the Sunday or
festival, and were illustrated with a wealth of references and
allusions drawn from both the Old and New Testament sufficient to make
it clear that the Bible was not a sealed book either for the clergy or
laity. The fact that there was such a demand for commentaries on and
concordances to the Scriptures makes it clear that the clergy realised
sufficiently the importance of Scriptural teaching from the pulpits,
and the abundant quotations to be found in the books of popular
devotion, not to speak of the religious dramas based upon events in
biblical history, go far to show that the needs of the laity in this
respect were not overlooked.[5]

It is said, however, that the use of the Scriptures in the vernacular
was forbidden to the English people, and a decree of a Synod held at
Oxford in 1408 is cited in proof of this statement. The Synod of
Oxford did not forbid the use of vernacular versions. It forbade the
publication or use of unauthorised translations,[6] and in the
circumstances of the time, when the Lollard heretics were strong and
were endeavouring to win over the people to their views by
disseminating corrupt versions of the Scripture, such a prohibition is
not unintelligible. It should be borne in mind that French was the
language of the educated and was the official language of the English
law courts and of the Parliament till after 1360. The French or Latin
versions then current were, therefore, amply sufficient for those who
were likely to derive any advantage from the study of the Bible, while
at the same time the metrical paraphrases of the important books of
the Old Testament and of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, and the
English prose translation of the Psalms, went far to meet the wants of
the masses. From the clear evidence of writers like Sir Thomas More,
Lord Chancellor of England and one of the best informed men of his
time, of Cranmer, the first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, and
of Foxe the author of the so-called Martyrology, it can be established
beyond the shadow of a doubt that prior to the Reformation there
existed an English Catholic version of the Scriptures, which was
approved for use by the ecclesiastical authorities.[7] It is true,
indeed, that the bishops of England made extraordinary efforts to
prevent the circulation of the versions made by Tyndale and Coverdale,
but considering the glosses, the corruptions, and the mis-translations
with which these abound no fair-minded person could expect them to
have acted otherwise. Their action was not dictated by hostility to
the reading of the Scriptures but by their opposition to heretical
doctrines, which it was sought to disseminate among the people by
means of dishonest versions of the Scriptures. The English bishops
were not content merely with prohibiting the use of these works. They
were most anxious to bring out a correct translation of the Scriptures
for general use, and were prevented from doing so only by the action
of Henry VIII. and of the heretical advisers, who urged him to make it
impossible for the bishops to carry out their design.[8]

It would, however, be far from the truth to assert that everything was
faultless during the years preceding the Reformation, or that all the
clergy were as perfect as they might have been. England, like every
other country at the same period, was afflicted with the terrible
evils resulting from the appropriation of parishes by laymen and by
religious establishments, a system which made it impossible for a
bishop to govern his diocese properly, from the non-residence of both
bishops and higher clergy, and from the plurality of benefices, which
meant that a person might be permitted to hold two or more benefices
to which the care of souls was attached, thereby rending impossible
the proper discharge of pastoral duties. More priests, too, were
ordained than could be provided with appointments, and consequently
many of the clergy were forced to act as chaplains and tutors in
private families, where they were treated as servants rather than as
equals, and where it was only too easy for them to lose the sense of
respect for their dignity and for themselves, and to sink to the level
of those with whom they were obliged to consort. It is not to be
wondered at if evidence is forthcoming that in particular cases, more
especially in Wales, clerical celibacy was not observed as it should
have been, or that in several instances the duty of preaching and
instructing the people was not discharged, nor is it surprising to
find that men who were comparatively unlearned were promoted over the
heads of their more educated companions to the disgust of the
universities and of those interested in the better education of the
clergy. Considering the fact that so many of the bishops were engaged
in the service of the State to the neglect of their duties in their
dioceses, and bearing also in mind the selfish use made too frequently
of the rights of lay patronage and the disorganisation to which even
the most enlightened use of such patronage was likely to lead, it is
little less than marvellous that the great body of the clergy were as
educated, zealous, and irreproachable as they can be proved to have
been.

As a result of the disorganisation wrought by the Black Plague, the
civil strife which disturbed the peace of the country, and the
constant interference of the crown and lay patrons, many of the
religious houses, influenced to some extent by the general spirit of
laxity peculiar to the age, fell far short of the standard of severity
and discipline that had been set in better days. While on the one hand
it should be admitted freely that some of the monastic and conventual
establishments stood in urgent need of reform, there is, on the other
side, no sufficient evidence to support the wild charges of wholesale
corruption and immorality levelled against the monks and nuns of
England by those who thirsted for their destruction. The main
foundation for such an accusation is to be sought for in the letters
and reports (/Comperta/) of the commissioners sent out to examine into
the condition of the monasteries and convents in 1535. Even if these
documents could be relied upon as perfectly trustworthy they affect
only a very small percentage of the religious houses, since not more
than one-third of these establishments were visited by the
commissioners during their hurried tour through the country, and as
regards the houses visited serious crimes were preferred against at
most two hundred and fifty monks and nuns.

But there are many solid grounds for rejecting the reliability of
these documents. The commissioners were appointed by Cromwell with the
professed object of preparing the public mind for the suppression of
the monasteries and convents. They showed themselves to be his most
obsequious agents, always ready to accept as testimony popular rumours
and suspicions founded in many cases on personal dislikes, and, like
their master, more anxious to extract money bribes from the religious
than to arrive at the truth about their lives or the condition of
their establishments. That they were prejudiced witnesses, arrogant
and cruel towards the monks and nuns, and willing to do anything that
might win them the approval of Cromwell and the king is evident from
their own letters and reports, while if we are to credit the
statements of contemporaries, backed by a tradition, which survived
for centuries amongst the Catholic body in England, they were most
unscrupulous and immoral in their attitude towards the unfortunate
nuns who were placed at their mercy. Indeed the charges which they
make are so filthy and repulsive, and the delight with which they
revel in such abominations is so apparent, that one is forced to the
conviction that they must have been men of depraved tastes quite
capable of committing or of attempting to commit the crimes laid to
their charge. Even if it had been otherwise, had the two commissioners
been unprejudiced and fair in their proceedings, it is impossible to
understand how they could have had an opportunity of making a really
searching investigation into the condition of the monasteries and
convents during the short time assigned for the work. They began only
in July 1535 and their work was completed in February 1536.

In favour of the reliability of these reports the fact is urged that
they were placed before Parliament, and that the members of both
Houses were so impressed by the tale of corruption and wickedness
which they disclosed that they decided on the immediate suppression of
the monasteries. If this were true and if Parliament in the days of
Henry VIII. enjoyed the same rights and privileges as it enjoys to-day
such action would be in itself a strong corroboration of the veracity
of the commissioners. But there is no sufficient evidence to prove
that the reports or compilations made from them were ever submitted to
Parliament. The king and Cromwell informed the Houses of the charges
made by the commissioners, and demanded their consent to the bill of
suppression. The whole measure was passed in a few days (11th to 18th
March, 1536) and there is no proof that the /Comperta/ or a "Black
Book" were presented to the members. On the contrary, it is clear from
the preamble to the Act that in the larger monasteries "religion was
right well kept and observed," and that it was only in the smaller
houses with less than twelve members that disorder and corruption
existed, whereas in the reports of the commissioners no such
distinction is observed, the charges being levelled just as strongly
against the larger as against the smaller communities. Had Parliament
been in possession of the reports or had there been any adequate
discussion, it is difficult to see how such an arbitrary distinction,
founded neither on the nature of things, nor on the findings of the
commissioners, could have been allowed to pass. It is noteworthy too
that many of the individuals, whose names were associated in the
/Comperta/ with very serious crimes, were placed in the possession of
pensions on the dissolution of the monasteries, and some of them were
promoted to the highest ecclesiastical offices in the gift of the
crown.

Besides, if the reports of Leigh and Leyton be compared with the
episcopal visitations of the same houses or with those of the royal
visitors appointed in 1536 to carry out the suppression of the smaller
monasteries, it will be found that in regard to the very same houses
there exists a very open contradiction between their findings.
Unfortunately the accounts of the visitations have disappeared to a
great extent except in case of the diocese of Norwich. In this diocese
the visitations were carried out very strictly and very minutely, and
although some abuses were detected the bishop could find nothing of
the wholesale corruption and immorality discovered a few years later
by the minions of Cromwell. Similarly the commission appointed in 1536
to superintend the suppression decreed in that year, the members of
which were drawn from the leading men in each county, report in the
highest terms of houses which were spoken of as hot-beds of iniquity
only a few months before. Finally, if the monasteries and convents
were really so bad as they are painted, it is a curious fact that
although Leigh and Leyton were empowered by Cromwell to open the doors
to many of the monks and nuns they could find in the thirteen counties
which they visited only two nuns and fifty-three monks willing to
avail themselves of the liberty which they offered.[9]

As a general rule the monasteries were regarded with kindly feelings
by the great body of the people on account of their charity and
hospitality towards the poor and the wayfarer, their leniency and
generosity as compared with other employers and landlords, their
schools which did so much for the education of the district, and their
orphanages and hospitals. Many of them were exceedingly wealthy, while
some of them found it difficult to procure the means of existence, and
all of them suffered greatly from the financial burdens imposed upon
them in the shape of pensions, etc., by the king or by the family by
whom their endowments were provided originally. For this reason some
of the religious houses, imitating the example of the landowners
generally, began to form grazing enclosures[10] out of their estates
which had been hitherto under cultivation, a step that led in some
cases to eviction and in all cases to a great reduction in the number
of labourers employed. Others of them set up tanneries and such like
industries that had been best left to the laymen. These measures led
to ill-feeling and to a certain amount of hostility, but that the
religious houses were not hated by the people is proved to
demonstration by the rebellions which their suppression evoked in so
many different parts of the country.

It may be said in a general way that the relations between priests and
people were neither particularly close nor particularly strained. The
rights and privileges claimed by the clergy did indeed give rise to
murmurings and complaints in certain quarters, but these were neither
so serious nor so general as to indicate anything like a deep-rooted
and sharp division between priests and people. The question of the
rights of sanctuary, according to which criminals who escaped into the
enclosures of monasteries and churches were guaranteed protection from
arrest, led to a sharp conflict between the ecclesiastical and secular
jurisdictions, but with a little moderation on both sides it was not a
matter that could have excited permanent ill-feeling. In the days when
might was right the privileges of sanctuary served a useful purpose.
That in later times they occasioned serious abuses could not be
denied, and on the accession of Henry VII. the Pope restricted the
rights of sanctuary very considerably, thereby setting an example
which it was to be expected would have been followed by his
successors. The /privilegium fori/, by which clerics were exempted
from punishment by a secular tribunal, was another cause of
considerable friction. In 1512 Parliament passed a law abolishing this
privilege in case of clerics accused of murder, etc., and though it
was to have force only for two years it excited the apprehension of
the clergy more on account of what it heralded than of what it
actually enacted. When it came up again for discussion in 1515 even
those of the clergy who were most remarkable for their subservience to
the king protested vehemently against it. In a discussion that took
place in the presence of Henry VII. one of the friars brought forward
many arguments to prove that such a law was not outside the competence
of the state, much to the disgust of the bishops and of Cardinal
Wolsey. The king was most emphatic in his declaration that he intended
to take such action as would vindicate and safeguard his rights as
supreme lord of England, but notwithstanding this sharp reproof to his
opponents the measure was allowed to drop.

The excessive fees charged in the episcopal courts for the probate of
wills, the gifts known as mortuaries claimed on occasions of death,
the absence of the bishops and the clergy from their dioceses and
parishes to the consequent neglect of their duties to the people, the
bestowal of benefices oftentimes on poorly qualified clerics to the
exclusion of learned and zealous priests, the appointment of clerics
to positions that should have been filled by laymen on the lands of
the bishops and monasteries, and the interference of some of the
clergy both secular and regular in purely secular pursuits were the
principal grievances brought forward in 1529 by the House of Commons
against the spirituality. But in determining the value of such a
document it should be remembered that it was inspired by the king, and
in fact drafted by Thomas Cromwell, at a time when both king and
minister were determined to crush the power of the Church, and that,
therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that it is exaggerated and
unfair. According to the express statement of Sir Thomas More, Lord
Chancellor of England, who was in a position to know and appreciate
the relations between clergy and people, the division was neither so
acute nor so serious as it was painted by those who wished to favour
religious innovations or to ingratiate themselves with the king and
his advisers.[11]

But, even though there existed some differences of opinion about
matters concerned with the temporalities of the Church or the
privileges of the clergy, there is no indication during the thirty
years preceding the revolt of any marked hostility to the doctrines
and practices of the Church. In an earlier age the Lollards, as the
followers of Wycliff were called, put forward doctrines closely akin
to those advocated by the early Reformers, notably in regard to the
constitution of the Church, the Papacy, the Scriptures,
Transubstantiation, Purgatory, and Tradition, but the severe measures
adopted by both Church and State had succeeded in breaking the
influence of Lollardy in England. Very few if any followers of this
sect remained to disturb the peace of the community in the early years
of the reign of Henry VIII., though it is quite possible that the
memory of their teaching and of the sturdy struggle which they had
waged did not fail to produce its effects at a later period. It is
true that in 1512 the statement is attributed to the Bishop of London
in connexion with the trial of an ecclesiastic, that on account of
their leaning towards heresy any twelve men of the city would bring in
a verdict of guilty against a cleric placed on his trial before
them,[12] but it is impossible to believe that such a statement
conveys an accurate view of the state of affairs. It is out of harmony
with the results of the episcopal visitations, with the records of the
few trials for heresy which took place, most of which resulted in the
repentance of the alleged culprits, and with the considered judgment
of such a well qualified contemporary authority as Sir Thomas More.

It is certain that during the first quarter of the sixteenth century
the student of history will search in vain for any evidence of
opposition among the clergy and people of England to the spiritual
supremacy of the Holy See. Disputes there had been, some of which were
peculiarly bitter in their tone, between the English sovereigns and
the Pope. Complaints had been made by the clergy against what they
considered the unwarranted interferences of the Roman Curia in
domestic affairs; but these disputes and complaints were concerned
either with purely secular matters, as for example the annual tribute
claimed by the Holy See since the famous surrender of the kingdom made
by King John, or with the temporal side of the spiritual jurisdiction.
The clergy and people resented generally the wholesale rights of
reservation exercised by the Pope in regard to English benefices, the
appointment of foreigners to offices in England, the heavy taxes
levied by the Roman Curia directly or indirectly in the shape of
Annats or First Fruits, the withdrawal of comparatively trivial cases
from the local courts, and the exercise of jurisdiction over the
highest dignitaries of England by the legates commissioned by the Holy
See. But it is one thing to criticise the actual working of papal
supremacy as interpreted by Roman officials, or to seek to limit its
exercise in the every-day life of any particular church, and another
to call in question the supremacy itself. The English clergy and
people did, indeed, object to allow papal supremacy to be pushed too
far in what they regarded as purely domestic affairs, but even in the
most prolonged and heated discussions they never once questioned the
fact that the Pope was Supreme Head of the Church in England, or that
he was Supreme Head of the Catholic Church throughout the world.

The Statute of Provisors (1350-1), by which all appointments to
English benefices were to be made by canonical election or by the
nomination of lay patrons to the exclusion of papal provisions, is
cited sometimes as a proof that the English nation disregarded the
claims of the Holy See, but with equal justice and for a similar
reason it might be maintained that the Council of Trent rejected the
Supremacy of the Pope (Session xxiv., chap. 19). The Statute was
called for, owing to the spiritual and economic losses inflicted on
the country by the appointment of foreigners, and its passage was
secured mainly by the lay patrons, whose rights of patronage were
infringed by the constant stream of papal provisions. It was neither
inspired by hostility to the Holy See, nor by any doubt about the
supremacy of the Pope, and in itself it was a piece of legislation
that might have merited the approval of the most loyal supporters of
Rome. But as a matter of fact, lest their acceptance of such a measure
might be misunderstood, the English bishops offered the most strenuous
opposition to the Statute of Provisors and insisted that their
protests against it should be registered, a policy which, it might be
added, was followed by the University of Oxford. The bishops demanded
later on that it should be repealed. Their request was not granted,
but from the numerous provisions made to bishoprics in England and
from the appointments made to English benefices during the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries it is evident that the Statute was allowed to
fall into abeyance. Similarly the Statute of Praemunire (1353) by
which it was forbidden under the penalty of forfeiture and outlawry to
bring cases cognizable in the English courts before foreign courts, or
to introduce into the realm provisions, reservations, or letters
contrary to the rights of the king or his subjects, was passed to
prevent an undoubted abuse at the time, and was enforced rarely as the
frequent appeals to Rome amply prove.

These measures serve to indicate at most only the attitude of the
Crown towards the Pope, not the attitude of the English clergy and
people. The loyal submission of the latter is evidenced from the papal
appointments to bishoprics and benefices, from the First Fruits paid
willingly to the Holy See by those who were called upon to pay them,
by the constant interference of the Holy See in regard to the division
and boundaries of parishes, the visitation of monasteries, the rights
of bishops, etc., as well as by the courts held in England in virtue
of the jurisdiction of the Pope. That the Pope was above the law and
that to dispute the authority of a papal decree was to be guilty of
heresy was a principle recognised by the English ecclesiastical
authorities and accepted also in practice by English jurists. The
oaths of loyalty to the Holy See taken by all the archbishops and
bishops, the tone and form of the letters addressed to the Pope, the
assertion of papal rights against the errors and attacks of Wycliff
and Luther, the full admission of papal supremacy contained in Henry
VIII.'s /Assertio Septem Sacramentorum/, and in the formal dying
declaration of Archbishop Warham of Canterbury (1533), and the
resolute attitude of two such learned representatives of the English
clergy and laity as Bishop Fisher of Rochester and Sir Thomas More,
are in themselves sufficient to establish the fact that in the days of
Henry VIII. England joined with the rest of the Catholic world in
recognising the supreme spiritual jurisdiction of the Bishop of
Rome.[13]

The controversies which had raged were not concerned with spiritual
supremacy nor were they peculiar to England. Much worse ones had
arisen to disturb the friendly relations that should exist between the
Holy See and France or Spain, and yet nobody would care to deny that
both of these nations acknowledged their subjection to Rome. Neither
were they between the English clergy or the English people and the
Pope; they were waged rather between the Crown and the Holy See. As
royal absolutism began to develop in Europe the policy of kings was to
increase their power over the ecclesiastical organisation in their
dominions by lessening the authority of the Pope. This tendency is
brought out clearly in the concessions wrung from the Pope by
Ferdinand I. of Spain and Louis XII. of France, but more especially in
the Concordat negotiated between Leo X. and Francis I. (1516),
according to which all appointments in the French Church were vested
practically in the hands of the king. Henry VIII. was a careful
observer of Continental affairs and was as anxious as Francis I. to
strengthen his own position by grasping the authority of the Church.
He secured a /de facto/ headship of the Church in England when he
succeeded in getting Cardinal Wolsey invested with permanent legatine
powers. Through Wolsey he governed ecclesiastical affairs in England
for years, and on the fall of Wolsey he took into his own hands the
control that he had exercised already through his favourite and
minister. Had Leo X. consented to a concordat similar to that
concluded with France, whereby the royal demands would have been
conceded frankly and occasions of dispute removed, or else had he
taken the strong step of refusing to delegate his authority
indefinitely to a minister of the king, he would have prevented
trouble and misunderstanding, and would have made the battle for royal
supremacy much more difficult than it proved to be in reality.
----------

[1] Lupton, /Life of Dean Colet/, 1887.

[2] Gasquet, /Eve of the Reformation/, 142.

[3] Chalmers, /History of the College ... of Oxford/. Mullinger, /The
University of Cambridge to 1535/.

[4] Leach, /English Schools at the Reformation/, 1896, p. 6 (a
valuable book).

[5] Gasquet, op. cit., ix-xiii., English works of Sir Thomas More,
1557, (especially /The Dyalogue/, 1529).

[6] Wilkins, /Concilia/, iii. 317.

[7] Gasquet, op. cit., chap. viii., /The Old English Bible/, iv., v.
Maitland, /The Dark Ages/, 1845, no. xii.

[8] Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation/, vol. ii., 221-303.

[9] On this subject, cf. Gasquet, /Henry VIII. and the English
Monasteries/. Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation/, vol. ii.,
3-221. Jessopp, /Visitation of the Diocese of Norwich/, 1492-1532
(Camden Society).

[10] /Cambridge Modern History/, i., chap. xv.

[11] On the relations between the clergy and the laity, cf. Gairdner,
op. cit., vol. i., 243-86. Gasquet, op. cit., chap. iii.-v.
Gairdner, /History of the English Church in the Sixteenth
Century/, 41-59.

[12] Gairdner, /History of the English Church/, p. 31.

[13] On this subject, cf. Lingard, /History of England/, iii., 126-33.
    Wilkins, /Concilia/ (for documents bearing on the authority of the
    Pope in England, see Index to this work). Lyndewood's /Provinciale
    seu Constitutiones Angliae/ (1501, Synodal Constitutions of the
    Province of Canterbury). Moyes, /How English Bishops were made
    before the Reformation/ (/Tablet/, Dec., 1893). Maitland, /The
    Roman Law in the Church of England, and English Law and the
    Renaissance/, 1901. Gairdner, /Lollardy/, etc., i., 495-8.



CHAPTER II

THE RELIGIOUS CHANGES UNDER HENRY VIII. AND EDWARD VI.

  See bibliography, chap. i., /Calendar of Letters and Papers Henry
  VIII./, 18 vols., 1862-1902. Brewer Gairdner, /The Reign of Henry
  VIII./, 2 vols., 1884. Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation/, 4
  vols., 1908-13. Dodd, /Church History of England (1500-1688)/,
  1737-42 (a new edition by Tierney, 5 vols., 1839). Sander, /Rise
  and Growth of the Anglican Schism/ (trans. by Lewis), 1877.
  Gasquet, /Short History of the Catholic Church in England/, 1903.
  Dixon, /History of the Church in England from 1529/, 6 vols.,
  London, 1878-1902. Cobbett, /A History of the Reformation in
  England and Ireland/ (edited by Gasquet). Pocock, /Records of the
  Reformation/ 2 vols., 1870. Burnet, /History of the Reformation/
  (edited by Pocock), 1865. Gasquet and Bishop, /Edward VI. and the
  Book of Common Prayer/, 1890. Taunton, /The English Black Monks of
  St. Benedict/, 2 vols., 1897. Camm, /Lives of the English Martyrs/
  vol. i., 1904. Stone, /An Account of the Sufferings of the English
  Franciscans, during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries/,
  1892. Pollen, /Acts of English Martyrs/, etc., 1891. Spillman,
  /Die Englischen Martyrer unter Heinrich VIII./, 2 auf., 1900.
  /Martyrum Monachorum Carthusianorum in Anglia passio/, etc. (/An.
  Bolland./, 1903). /The Month/ (1882, 1883, 1902, 1905).

The accession of Henry VIII. (1509-47) was hailed with joy by all
classes in England. Young, handsome, well-developed both in mind and
body, fond of outdoor games and amusements, affable and generous with
whomsoever he came into contact, he was to all appearances qualified
perfectly for the high office to which he had succeeded. With the
exception of Empson and Dudley, who were sacrificed for their share in
the execution of his father, most of the old advisers were retained at
the royal court; but the chief confidants on whose advice he relied
principally were his Chancellor Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury and
Lord Chancellor of England, Richard Fox, Bishop of Winchester and Lord
Privy Seal, and Thomas Howard, afterwards Duke of Norfolk, Lord
Treasurer of the kingdom. Soon, however, these trusted and loyal
advisers were obliged to make way for a young and rising
ecclesiastical courtier, Thomas Wolsey[1] (1471-1530), who for close
on twenty years retained the first place in the affections of his
sovereign and the chief voice in the direction of English affairs. As
a youth, Wolsey's marvellous abilities astonished his teachers at
Magdalen College, where the boy bachelor, as he was called because he
obtained the B.A. degree at the age of fifteen, was regarded as a
prodigy. As a young man he was pushed forward by his patrons, the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester, and won favour
at court by the successful accomplishment of a delicate mission
entrusted to him by Henry VII., till at last in 1511 he was honoured
by a seat in the privy council. New dignities were heaped upon him by
Pope and sovereign in turn. He was appointed Bishop of Lincoln and
Archbishop of York (1514), was created a cardinal of the Roman Church
(1515), and in a short time he accepted the offices of Lord Chancellor
and papal legate for England. If he did not succeed in reaching the
papal throne, a dignity to which he was induced to aspire by the
promise of Charles V., his position as legate made him at least
virtual head of the English Church. Instead of being annoyed, Henry
VIII. was delighted at the honours showered upon his Lord Chancellor
by the Roman court. With Wolsey as his obedient minister and at the
same time an ecclesiastical dictator, he felt that he had more
authority in ecclesiastical affairs than was granted to Francis I. by
the Concordat of 1516, and, though possibly at the time he did not
advert to it, he was thus preparing the way for exercising in his own
name the control that he had exercised for years through his chief
minister in the name of the Pope.

The dream of reconquering the English possessions in France induced
Henry VIII., during the early years of his reign, to side with the
Emperor Maximilian and Ferdinand of Spain against Louis XII.; but the
comparative failure of the expeditions undertaken against France, the
resentment of the people who were burdened with taxation, and the
advice of Cardinal Wolsey, led him to forego his schemes of conquest
for a time in favour of a policy of neutrality. The election of
Charles V. in 1519 changed the whole aspect of affairs on the
Continent, and raised new hopes both in the minds of Henry VIII. and
of his faithful minister. An alliance with Charles V. might mean for
England the complete subjugation of France, and for Cardinal Wolsey
the votes of the cardinals at the approaching conclave. While
pretending to act the part of mediator between the rival sovereigns,
Henry concluded a secret alliance with the Emperor in 1521, and
prepared to make war on France. The failure of the forces dispatched
under the Earl of Surrey, the disappointment of Wolsey when he found
himself deceived by Charles V. at the conclaves of 1521 and 1523, and
the outcry raised in Parliament and throughout the country against the
French war, induced Henry VIII. to reconsider his foreign policy. The
defeat and capture of Francis I. at Pavia (1525) placed France at the
mercy of the Emperor, and made it necessary for Henry to come to the
relief of his old enemy unless he wished to see England sink to the
level of an imperial province. Overtures for peace were made to
France, and in April 1527 Grammont, Bishop of Tarbes, arrived in
England to discuss the terms of an alliance. The position of Cardinal
Wolsey, which had been rendered critical by the hatred of the nobles,
who resented his rule as the rule of an upstart, and by the enmity of
the people, who regarded him as the author of the French war and of
the increased taxation, was now threatened seriously by the public
discussion of difficulties that had arisen in the mind of the king
regarding the validity of his marriage.

The Lutheran movement that broke out in Germany two years after
Cardinal Wolsey's acceptance of the twofold office of papal legate and
royal chancellor, found little favour in England. Here and there, at
Oxford, at Cambridge, and in London, individuals were found to
subscribe to portion of Luther's programme; but the great body of the
people remained unmoved by the tirades of the German reformers against
Rome. Henry VIII., whose attention to religion was noted as one of his
characteristics by the observant Ambassador of Venice, did not
hesitate to take the field against the enemies of the Holy See and
more especially against Luther himself. In a work entitled /Assertio
Septem Sacramentorum/ (Defence of the Seven Sacraments)[2] published
against Luther in 1521, he defended in no uncertain terms the rights
and privileges of the Holy See, and in return for the very valuable
services that he rendered to religion he was honoured by Leo X. with
the title /Fidei Defensor/ (Defender of the Faith, 1521).[3] The
example of the king, and the activity of Cardinal Wolsey and of the
bishops, made it impossible for the few individuals who favoured the
German movement to spread their views.

Were it not for Henry's eagerness to secure a separation from his
wife, Catharine of Aragon, it is highly improbable that the anti-Roman
agitation would have made any considerable progress in England.[4] In
1499 Henry's wife, Catharine of Aragon, had been betrothed by proxy to
his brother Prince Arthur, heir-apparent to the English throne. She
arrived in England two years later, and the marriage was solemnised at
St. Paul's on the 14th November, 1501. Prince Arthur was then only a
boy of fifteen years of age, and of so delicate a constitution that
fears were entertained by many that his wife must soon don the widow's
weeds. Unfortunately these fears were speedily justified. In April
1502 the Prince fell a victim to a pestilence that raged in the
district round Ludlow Castle to which he and his wife had retired. To
prevent quarrels between Ferdinand and Henry VII. regarding
Catharine's dowry, a marriage was arranged between Catharine and
Prince Henry. The necessary dispensation for a marriage with a
deceased brother's wife was granted by Julius II. (December 1503), and
according to the agreement between the courts of England and of Spain,
the marriage should have taken place as soon as Henry reached the age
of puberty; but owing to certain political changes in Spain, and the
prospect of securing a better match for the heir presumptive to the
English throne, Henry VII. arranged that Prince Henry should appear
before Fox, Bishop of Winchester, and lodge a formal protest against a
marriage agreement that had been concluded during his minority and
which he now declared to be null and void (17th June, 1505). This
protest was kept secret, but for years Catharine was treated with
neglect and left in doubt regarding her ultimate fate. As soon,
however, as Henry was free to act for himself on the death of his
father, the marriage between himself and Catharine was solemnised
publicly (1509), and on the 24th June of the same year the king and
queen were crowned at Westminster Abbey.

For years Henry and Catharine lived happily together as man and wife.
Several children were born to them, all of whom unfortunately died in
their infancy except the Princess Mary, afterwards Queen Mary of
England. Even before there was any question of separation from his
wife, Henry's relations with some of the ladies at court were not
above suspicion. By one, Elizabeth Blount, he had a son whom he
created Duke of Richmond and to whom at one time he thought of
bequeathing the crown of England. In a short time Mary, the eldest
sister of Anne Boleyn, succeeded to Elizabeth in the affections of the
king. The fact that Catharine was some years older than her husband,
that infirmity and sorrow for the death of her children had dimmed her
charms, and that there could be no longer any hope for the birth of an
heir to the throne, preyed on Henry's mind and made him not unwilling
to rid himself of a wife, whom, however, he could not but admire even
though she had forfeited his love. Were he to die there was no one to
succeed him but the Princess Mary, and her right to the throne might
be contested. Even though she succeeded, her marriage must inevitably
create great difficulties. Were she to marry a foreign prince, he
feared that England might become a province; were she to accept the
hand of an English nobleman, a disputed succession ending in civil war
was far from being improbable. His gloomy anticipations were shared in
by many of his advisers; and Wolsey, who had set his heart on uniting
the forces of England and France against the Emperor, was not
unwilling to set a seal on the new French anti-imperial alliance by
repudiating Henry's marriage with the Emperor's aunt, if such a
dissolution could be brought about without infringing the laws of God.

Though it would seem that doubts had long since arisen in Henry's mind
regarding the lawfulness of his marriage to his deceased brother's
wife, and that questions of policy may have influenced the attitude of
his advisers towards the projected separation, yet it is certain that
it was the charms of the young and accomplished Anne Boleyn, that
brought matters to a crisis. With her experience of the gay and
corrupt court of France, she was not likely to be mistaken about the
influence of her charms or the violence of the king's passion. She
would be the king's wife if he wished; but she would not be, like her
sister, the king's mistress. Overcome by the force of his desires, he
determined to rid himself of a wife of whom he was tired, in favour of
her young and more attractive rival. The fact that Catharine had been
married to his brother Arthur was seized upon by him to furnish a
averred, reproached him for such an incestuous alliance, and for his
own peace of mind it was necessary, he maintained, to submit the
validity of his marriage to the decision of the Church.

There is no convincing evidence that the idea of a separation from
Catharine originated with Cardinal Wolsey, though the latter, longing
for a matrimonial alliance of his king with a French princess, and not
aware of Henry's intention with regard to Anne, was probably not sorry
when he learned of Henry's scruples; and it is not true to say that
the first doubts regarding the illegitimacy of the Princess Mary were
raised by the French Ambassador in 1527. The whole story of the
negotiations with France regarding Mary's marriage at the time, makes
it perfectly clear that her legitimacy was assumed. The divorce
proceedings originated in Henry's own mind, and the plan of marrying
Anne Boleyn was kept a secret from Wolsey and from most of the royal
advisers. When exactly the question of a separation from Catharine was
first mooted is uncertain; but there can be no doubt that early in
1527 active steps were taken to secure a condemnation of the marriage.
Wolsey entered warmly into the project, but most of the bishops whom
he consulted were not anxious to assist him; and what was still more
serious Fisher, the learned and saintly Bishop of Rochester, declared
himself from the beginning a determined opponent. The capture of Rome
by imperial troops (1527) made it imperative that the terms of the
French alliance should be completed at once, and Cardinal Wolsey set
out for Paris as the representative of England. While Wolsey was
absent in France arranging the terms of the alliance, Anne Boleyn took
occasion to warn Henry that his great minister was unreliable, that in
his heart he was opposed to the separation, and that without his
knowledge or consent negotiations should be opened directly with the
Roman court. An agent was dispatched to Rome and succeeded in securing
an interview with Clement VII., after the latter had made his escape
from Rome to Orvieto (December 1527). It was contended on behalf of
the king that the dispensation granted by Julius II. was null and
void. In proof of this it was contended: that in the Bull it had been
stated that Henry desired to marry Catharine, and that the marriage
was necessary for preserving peace between England and Spain, both of
which statements, it was alleged, were false; that at the time the
disposition was granted Henry was only twelve years of age and
therefore incapable of accepting it; that several persons mentioned in
the Bull, as for example, Queen Isabella and Henry VII., had died
before the marriage took place; and lastly that when Henry reached the
age of puberty he had protested against the marriage, thereby
renouncing for himself the favours granted in the Bull of
dispensation.[5] Later on it was contended, by those who favoured the
separation, that the dispensation was issued by the Pope on the
supposition that the marriage between Arthur and Catharine had not
been consummated, and that therefore, since this condition was not
verified, the dispensation was invalid. But here they were faced with
the difficulty that the great weight of evidence favoured the view
that the marriage had not been consummated; that in any case the
dispensation was ample enough to cover both the impediment of affinity
and public honesty; and that, whatever might be said against the Bull
of dispensation, no such objection could be urged against the brief
said to have been forwarded by the Pope to the court of Spain.[6] As
the English agents had been instructed to seek not merely the
appointment of a commission to declare the invalidity of the
dispensation, and consequently of the marriage, but also for a
dispensation which would permit the king to marry a woman related to
him in the first degree of affinity, whether the affinity had been
contracted by a lawful or unlawful connexion, it was thought prudent
not to lay stress on the argument that marriage with the deceased
brother's wife was prohibited by the divine law, and that, therefore,
the Pope could not grant a dispensation such as had been issued by
Julius II. At a later date great stress was laid upon this argument.

Clement VII., while not unwilling to grant the dispensation
requested,[7] did not think it consistent with his own honour or that
of the king, to grant the commission according to the terms drawn up
for him in England. A new embassy, consisting of Edward Foxe, and Dr.
Stephen Gardiner, Wolsey's secretary, was dispatched, and arrived at
Orvieto in March 1528. The victorious progress of the French armies in
Italy (1527-28), by relieving Clement VII. from the pressure of the
imperial party, favoured the petition of Henry VIII. Arguments drawn
from canon law and from theology were driven home by Gardiner with a
fluency and wealth of knowledge that astonished the papal advisers,
and when arguments failed, recourse was had to threats of an appeal to
a general council, and of the complete separation of England from the
Holy See. The decretal commission demanded by the English ambassadors
was, however, refused; but, in its place, a decree was issued
empowering Cardinal Wolsey and Cardinal Campeggio to try the case in
England and to pronounce a verdict in accordance with the evidence
submitted to them. As this fell very far short of what had been
demanded by the English envoys, new demands were made for a more ample
authority for the commission, and in view of the danger that
threatened the Catholic Church in England, Clement VII. yielded so far
as to promise that he would not revoke the jurisdiction of those whom
he had entrusted with the trial of the case (July 1528).[8]

Meanwhile news of what was in contemplation was noised abroad. Many of
the English merchants, fearing that hostility to the empire would lead
to an interruption of their trade especially with the Netherlands,
detested the new foreign policy of the king, while the great body of
the people were so strongly on the side of Catharine that were a
verdict to be given against her a popular rebellion seemed inevitable.
So pronounced was this feeling even in the city of London itself, that
Henry felt it necessary to summon the Lord Mayor and the Corporation
to the royal palace, where he addressed them on the question that was
then uppermost in men's minds. He spoke of Catharine in terms of the
highest praise, assured them that the separation proceedings were
begun, not because he was anxious to rid himself of a wife whom he
still loved, but because his conscience was troubled with scruples
regarding the validity of his marriage, and that the safety of the
kingdom was endangered by doubts which had been raised by the French
ambassador regarding the legitimacy of Princess Mary. To put an end to
these doubts, and to save the country from the horror of a disputed
succession, the Pope had appointed a commission to examine the
validity of the marriage; and to the judgment of that commission
whatever it might be he was prepared to yield a ready submission. He
warned his hearers, however, that if any person failed to speak of him
otherwise than became a loyal subject towards his sovereign condign
punishment would await him. To give effect to these words a search was
made for arms in the city, and strangers were commanded to depart from
London.[9]

Though the commission had been granted in April, Cardinal Campeggio
was in no hurry to undertake the work that was assigned to him. He did
not leave Rome till June, and he proceeded so leisurely on his journey
through France that it was only in the first week of October that he
arrived in London. In accordance with his instructions, he endeavoured
to dissuade the king from proceeding further with the separation, but
as Henry was determined to marry the lady of his choice even though it
should prove the ruin of his kingdom, all the efforts of Campeggio in
this direction were in vain. He next turned his attention to
Catharine, in the hope of persuading her to enter a convent, only to
discover that her refusal to take any step likely to cast doubts upon
her own marriage and the legitimacy of her daughter was fixed and
unalterable. At the queen's demand counsel was assigned to her to
plead her cause. The situation was complicated by the fact that Julius
II. appears to have issued two dispensations for Henry's marriage, one
contained in the Bull sent to England, the other in a brief forwarded
to Ferdinand in Spain. The queen produced a copy of the brief, which
was drawn up in such a way as to elude most of the objections that
were urged against the Bull on the ground that the marriage had been
consummated. The original of the brief was in the hands of the
Emperor, and various attempts were made to secure the original or to
have it pronounced a forgery by the Pope; but the Emperor was too wily
a diplomatist to be caught so easily, and the Pope refused either to
order its production or to condemn it without evidence as a
forgery.[10] This question of the brief was seized upon by Cardinal
Campeggio as a good opportunity for delaying the trial. At last on the
31st May 1529, the legates Wolsey and Campeggio opened the court at
Blackfriars, and summoned Henry and Catharine to appear before them in
person or by proxy on the 18th June. Both king and queen answered the
summons, the latter, however, merely to demand justice publicly from
the king, to protest against the competence and impartiality of the
tribunal, and to lodge a formal appeal to Rome. Her appeal was
disallowed, and on her refusal to take any further part in the trial
she was condemned as contumacious; but even still she was not without
brave and able defenders. Bishop Fisher of Rochester spoke out
manfully against the unnatural and unlawful proceedings,[11] and his
protest found an echo not merely in the court itself but throughout
the country. The friends of Henry, fearing that the Pope might revoke
the power of the legates, clamoured for an immediate verdict; but this
Campeggio was determined to prevent at all costs. By insisting upon
all the formalities of law he took care to delay the proceedings till
the 23rd July, when he announced that the legatine court should follow
the rules of the Roman court, and should, therefore, adjourn to
October. Already he was aware of the fact that Clement VII., yielding
to the entreaties of Catharine and the demands of the Emperor, had
reserved the decision of the case to Rome (19th July), and that the
summons to the king and queen to proceed there to plead their cause
was already on its way to England.[12]

Henry, disguising his real feelings, pretended to be satisfied; but in
reality his disappointment was extreme. Anne Boleyn and her friends
threw the blame entirely on Wolsey. They suggested that the cardinal
had acted a double part throughout the entire proceedings. For a time
there was a conflict in the king's mind between the suggestions of his
friends and the memory of Wolsey's years of loyal service; but at last
Henry was won over to the party of Anne, and Wolsey was doomed to
destruction. He was deprived of the office of Lord Chancellor which
was entrusted to Sir Thomas More (Oct. 1529), accused of violating the
statute of Praemunire by exercising legatine powers, a charge to which
he pleaded guilty though he might have alleged in his defence the
permission and authority of the king, indicted before Parliament as
guilty of high treason, from the penalty of which he was saved by the
spirited defence of his able follower Thomas Cromwell (Dec.), and
ordered to withdraw to his diocese of York (1530). His conduct in
these trying times soon won the admiration of both friends and foes.
The deep piety and religion of the man, however much they might have
been concealed by his fondness for pomp and display during the days of
his glory, helped him to withstand manfully the onslaughts of his
opponents. His time was spent in prayer and in the faithful discharge
of his episcopal duties, but the enemies who had secured his downfall
at court were not satisfied. They knew that he had still a strong hold
on the affections of the king, and they feared that were any foreign
complications to ensue he might be recalled to court and restored to
his former dignities. They determined therefore to bring about his
death. An order for his arrest and committal to the Tower was issued,
but death intervened and saved him from the fate that was in store for
him. Before reaching London he took suddenly ill, and died after
having received the last consolations of religion (Nov. 1530).

Henry, having failed to obtain a favourable verdict from the legatine
commission, determined to frighten the Pope into compliance with his
wishes by showing him that behind the King of England stood the
English Parliament. The most elaborate precautions were taken to
secure that members likely to be friendly were elected. In many cases
together with the writs the names of those whose return the court
desired were forwarded to the sheriffs.[13] The Parliament that was
destined to play such a momentous part in English affairs met in 1529.
It was opened by the king in person attended by Sir Thomas More as
Lord Chancellor. At a hint from the proper quarter it directed its
attention immediately to the alleged abuses of the clergy. The
principal complaints put forward were the excessive fees and delays in
connection with the probate of wills, plurality of benefices, and the
agricultural and commercial activity of priests, bishops, and
religious houses, an activity that was detrimental to themselves and
unfair to their lay competitors. Measures were taken in the House of
Commons to put an end to these exactions and abuses, but when the
bills reached the House of Lords Bishop Fisher lodged an emphatic
protest for which he was called to account by the king. When
Parliament had done enough to show the bishops and the Roman court
what might be expected in case Henry's wishes were not complied with
it was prorogued (Dec. 1529), and in the following month a solemn
embassy headed by the Earl of Wiltshire, Anne Boleyn's father, was
dispatched to interview the Pope and Charles V. at Bologna. The envoys
were instructed to endeavour to win over the Emperor to the king's
plans, but Charles V. regarded their advances with indignation and
refused to sacrifice the honour of his aunt to the friendship of
England. The only result of the embassy was that a formal citation of
Henry to appear at Rome was served on the Earl of Wiltshire, but at
the request of the latter a delay of some weeks was granted. Unless
some serious measures were taken immediately, Henry had every reason
to expect that judgment might be given against him at Rome, and that
he would find himself obliged either to submit unconditionally or to
defend himself against the combined forces of the Emperor and the King
of France.

To prevent or at least to delay such a result and to strengthen the
hands of the English agents at Rome, he determined to follow the
advice that had been given him by Thomas Cranmer, namely, to obtain
for the separation from Catharine the approval of the universities and
learned canonists of the world. Agents were dispatched to Cambridge
and Oxford to obtain a verdict in favour of the king. Finding it
impossible to secure a favourable verdict from the universities, the
agents succeeded in having the case submitted to a small committee
both in Cambridge and Oxford, and the judgment of the committees,
though by no means unanimous, was registered as the judgment of the
universities.[14] Francis I. of France, who for political reasons was
on Henry's side throughout the whole proceedings, brought pressure to
bear upon the French universities, many of which declared that Henry's
marriage to Catharine was null and void. In Italy the number of
opinions obtained in favour of the king's desires depended entirely
upon the amount of money at the disposal of his agents.[15] To support
the verdict of the learned world Henry determined to show Rome that
the nobility and clergy of his kingdom were in complete sympathy with
his action. A petition signed by a large number of laymen and a few of
the bishops and abbots was forwarded to Clement VII. (13th July,
1530).[16] It declared that the question of separation, involving as
it did the freedom of the king to marry, was of supreme importance for
the welfare of the English nation, that the learned world had
pronounced already in the king's favour, and that if the Pope did not
comply with this request England might be driven to adopt other means
of securing redress even though it should be necessary to summon a
General Council. To this Clement VII. sent a dignified reply (Sept.),
in which he pointed out that throughout the whole proceedings he had
shown the greatest regard for Henry, and that any delay that had
occurred at arriving at a verdict was due to the fact that the king
had appointed no legal representatives at the Roman courts.[17] The
French ambassador also took energetic measures to support the English
agents threatening that his master might be forced to join hands with
Henry if necessary; but even this threat was without result, and the
king's agents were obliged to report that his case at Rome was
practically hopeless, and that at any moment the Pope might insist in
proceeding with the trial.

When Henry realised that marriage with Anne Boleyn meant defiance of
Rome he was inclined to hesitate. Both from the point of view of
religion and of public policy separation from the Holy See was
decidedly objectionable. While he was in this frame of mind, a prey to
passion and anxiety, it was suggested to him, probably by Thomas
Cromwell, the former disciple of the fallen cardinal, that he should
seize this opportunity to strengthen the royal power in England by
challenging the authority of the Pope, and by taking into his own
hands the control of the wealth and patronage of the Church. The
prospect thus held out to him was so enticing that Henry determined to
follow the advice, not indeed as yet with the intention of involving
his kingdom in open schism, but in the hope that the Pope might be
forced to yield to his demands. In December 1530 he addressed a strong
letter to Clement VII. He demanded once more that the validity of his
marriage should be submitted to an English tribunal, and warned the
Pope to abstain from interfering with the rights of the king, if he
wished that the prerogatives of the Holy See should be respected in
England.[18]

This letter of Henry VIII. was clearly an ultimatum, non-compliance
with which meant open war. At the beginning of 1531 steps were taken
to prepare the way for royal supremacy. For exercising legatine powers
in England Cardinal Wolsey had been indicted and found guilty of the
violation of the stature of Praemunire, and as the clergy had
submitted to his legatine authority they were charged as a body with
being participators in his guilt. The attorney-general filed an
information against them to the court of King's Bench, but when
Convocation met it was intimated to the clergy that they might procure
pardon for the offence by granting a large contribution to the royal
treasury and by due submission to the king. The Convocation of
Canterbury offered a sum of £100,000, but the offer was refused unless
the clergy were prepared to recognise the king as the sole protector
and supreme head of the church and clergy in England. To such a novel
proposal Convocation showed itself decidedly hostile, but at last
after many consultations had been held Warham, the aged Archbishop of
Canterbury, proposed that they should acknowledge the king as "their
singular protector only, and supreme lord, and as far as the law of
Christ allows even supreme head." "Whoever is silent," said the
archbishop, "may be taken to consent," and in this way by the silence
of the assembly the new formula was passed.[19] At the Convocation of
York, Bishop Tunstall of Durham, while agreeing to a money payment,
made a spirited protest against the new title, to which protest Henry
found it necessary to forward a reassuring reply. Parliament then
ratified the pardon for which the clergy had paid so dearly, and to
set at rest the fears of the laity a free pardon was issued to all
those who had been involved in the guilt of the papal legate.

Clement VII. issued a brief in January 1531, forbidding Henry to marry
again and warning the universities and the law courts against giving a
decision in a case that had been reserved for the decision of the Holy
See. When the case was opened at the Rota in the same month an
excusator appeared to plead, but as he had no formal authority from
the king he was not admitted. The case, however, was postponed from
time to time in the hope that Henry might relent. In the meantime at
the king's suggestion several deputations waited upon Catharine to
induce her to recall her appeal to Rome. Annoyed by her obstinacy
Henry sent her away from court, and separated from her her daughter.
After November 1531, the king and queen never met again. Popular
feeling in London and throughout England was running high against the
divorce, and against any breach with the Emperor, who might close the
Flemish markets to the English merchants. The clergy, who were
indignant that their representatives should have paid such an immense
sum to secure pardon for an offence of which they had not been more
guilty than the king himself, remonstrated warmly against the taxation
that had been levied on their revenues. Unmindful of the popular
commotion, Henry proceeded to usurp the power of the Pope and of the
bishops, and though he was outwardly stern in the repression of
heresy, the friends of the Lutheran movement in England boasted
publicly that the king was on their side.

When Parliament met again (Jan. 1532), the attacks on the clergy were
renewed. A petition against the bishops, drawn up by Thomas Cromwell
at the suggestion of Henry,[20] was presented in the name of the House
of Commons to the king. In this petition the members were made to
complain that the clergy enacted laws and statutes in Convocation
without consulting the king or the Commons, that suitors were treated
harshly before the ecclesiastical courts, that in regard to probates
the people were worried by excessive fees and unnecessary delays, and
that the number of holidays was injurious to trade and agriculture.
This complaint was forwarded to Convocation for a reply. The bishops,
while vindicating for the clergy the right to make their own laws and
statutes, showed themselves not unwilling to accept a compromise, but
Parliament at the instigation of Henry refused to accept their
proposals. The king, who was determined to crush the power of the
clergy, insisted that Convocation should abandon its right to make
constitutions or ordinances without royal permission, and that the
ordinances passed already should be submitted to a mixed commission
appointed by the authority of the crown. Such proposals, so contrary
to the customs of the realm and so destructive of the independence of
the Church, could not fail to be extremely disagreeable to the
bishops; but in face of the uncompromising attitude of the king they
were forced to give way, and in a document known as the /Submission of
the Clergy/ they sacrificed the legislative rights of Convocation (May
1532). They agreed to enact no new canons, constitutions or ordinances
without the king's consent, that those already passed should be
submitted to a committee consisting of clergy and laymen nominated by
the king, and that the laws adopted by this committee and approved by
the king should continue in full force. Sir Thomas More, who had
worked hard in defence of the Church, promptly resigned his office of
Lord Chancellor that he might have a freer hand in the crisis that had
arisen.

In March 1532 another step was taken to overawe the Roman court and
force the Pope to yield to Henry's demands. An Act was passed
abolishing the Annats or First Fruits paid to Rome by all bishops on
their appointment to vacant Sees. If the Pope should refuse to appoint
without such payments, it was enacted that the consecration should be
carried out by the archbishop of the province without further recourse
to Rome. Such a measure, tending so directly towards schism, met with
strong opposition in the House of Lords from the bishops, abbots, and
many of the lay lords, as it did also in the House of Commons. In the
end, it was passed only on the understanding that it should not take
effect for a year, and that in the meantime if an agreement could be
arrived at with the Pope, the king might by letters patent repeal it.
Henry instructed his ambassador at Rome to inform Clement VII. that
this legislation against Annats was entirely the work of the
Parliament, and that if the Pope wished for its withdrawal he must
show a more conciliatory spirit towards the king and people of
England.[21]

The Pope, however, refused to yield to such intimidation. When news
arrived at Rome that Henry had sent away Catharine from court, the
question of excommunication was considered, but as the excommunication
of a king was likely to be fraught with such serious consequences for
the English Church, Clement VII. hesitated to publish it in the hope
that Henry might see the error of his ways. The trial was delayed from
time to time until at last in November 1532 the Pope addressed a
strong letter to the king, warning him under threat of excommunication
to put away Anne Boleyn, and not to attempt to divorce Catharine or to
marry another until a decision had been given in Rome.[22] By this
time the king had given up all hope of securing the approval of Rome
for the step he contemplated. Even in England the divorce from
Catharine found much opposition from both clergy and laity. Sir Thomas
More and many of the nobles were on the side of Catharine, as were
also Bishop Fisher of Rochester and Bishop Tunstall of Durham. Even
Reginald Pole, the king's own cousin, who had been educated at Henry's
expense, and for whom the Archbishopric of York had been kept vacant,
refused the tempting offers that were made to him on condition that he
would espouse the cause of separation. He preferred instead to leave
England rather than act against his conscience by supporting
Catherine's divorce.[23] Fortunately for Henry at this moment Warham,
the aged Archbishop of Canterbury, who was a stout defender of the
Holy See,[24] passed away (Aug. 1532). The king determined to secure
the appointment of an archbishop upon whom he could rely for the
accomplishment of his designs, and accordingly Thomas Cranmer was
selected and presented to Rome. After much hesitation, and merely as
the lesser of two evils, his appointment was confirmed.

Thomas Cranmer was born in Nottingham, and educated in Cambridge. He
married early in life, but his wife having died within a few months,
he determined to take holy orders. His suggestion to submit the
validity of Henry's marriage to the judgment of the universities,
coming as it did at a time when Henry was at his wits' end, showed him
to be a man of resource whose services should be secured by the court.
He was appointed accordingly chaplain to Anne Boleyn's father, and was
one of those sent on the embassy to meet the Pope and Charles V. at
Bologna. During his wanderings in Germany he was brought into close
relationship with many of the leading Reformers, and following their
teaching and example he took to himself a wife in the person of the
well-known Lutheran divine, Osiander. Such a step, so highly
objectionable to the Church authorities and likely to be displeasing
to Henry, who in spite of his own weakness insisted on clerical
celibacy, was kept a secret, though it is not at all improbable that
the secret had reached the ears of the king. At the time when the
latter had made up his mind to set Rome at defiance, he knew how
important it was for him to sacrifice his own personal predilections,
for the sake of having a man of Cranmer's pliability as Archbishop of
Canterbury, and head of the clergy in England. On the 30th March,
1533, Cranmer was consecrated archbishop, and took the usual oath of
obedience and loyalty to the Pope; but immediately before the
ceremony, he registered a formal protest that he considered the oath a
mere form, and that he wished to hold himself free to provide for the
reformation of the Church in England.[25] Such a step indicates
clearly enough the character of the first archbishop of the
Reformation in England.

To prepare the way for the sentence that might be published at any
moment by the Pope a bill was introduced forbidding appeals to Rome
under penalty of Praemunire, and declaring that all matrimonial suits
should be decided in England, and that the clergy should continue
their ministrations in spite of any censures or interdicts that might
be promulgated by the Pope. The bill was accepted by the House of
Lords, but met with serious opposition in the Commons. An offer was
made to raise £200,000 for the king's use if only he would refer the
whole question to a General Council, but in the end, partly by threats
and partly by deception regarding the attitude of the Pope and the
Emperor, the opposition was induced to give way and the bill became
law. By this Act it was declared that the realm of England should be
governed by one supreme head and king, to whom both spirituality and
temporality were bound to yield, "next to God a natural and humble
obedience," that the English Church was competent to manage its own
affairs without the interference of foreigners, and that all spiritual
cases should be heard and determined by the king's jurisdiction and
authority.[26] The question of the divorce was brought before the
Convocation in March 1533, and though Fisher spoke out boldly in
defence of Catharine's marriage, his brethren failed to support him,
and Convocation declared against the legitimacy of the marriage.

Henry was now free to throw off the mask. He could point to the
verdict given in his favour by both Parliament and Convocation, and
could rely on Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury to carry out his
wishes. In order to provide for the legitimacy of the child that was
soon to be born, he had married Anne Boleyn privately in January 1533.
In April Cranmer requested permission to be allowed to hold a court to
consider Henry's marriage with Catharine, to which request, inspired
as it had been by himself, the king graciously assented. The court sat
at Dunstable, where Catharine was cited to appear. On her refusal to
plead she was condemned as contumacious. Sentence was given by the
archbishop that her marriage with Henry was invalid (23rd April,
1533). Cranmer next turned his attention to Henry's marriage with
Anne, and as might be expected, this pliant minister had no difficulty
in pronouncing in its favour. On Whit Sunday (1533) Anne was crowned
as queen in Westminster Abbey. The popular feeling in London and
throughout the kingdom was decidedly hostile to the new queen and to
the French ambassador, who was blamed for taking sides against
Catharine, but Henry was so confident of his own power that he was
unmoved by the conduct of the London mob. In September, to the great
disappointment of the king who had been led by the astrologers and
sorcerers to believe that he might expect the advent of an heir, a
daughter was born to whom was given the name Elizabeth.

The Pope, acting on the request of the French and English ambassadors,
had delayed to pronounce a definitive sentence, but the news of
Henry's marriage with Anne and of the verdict that had been
promulgated by the Archbishop of Canterbury made it imperative that
decisive measures should be taken. On the 11th July it was decreed
that Henry's divorce from Catharine and his marriage with Anne were
null and void.[27] Sentence of excommunication against him was
prepared, but its publication was postponed till September, when an
interview had been arranged to take place between the Pope and Francis
I. Francis I. was not without hope even still that an amicable
settlement could be arranged. Throughout the whole proceedings he had
espoused warmly Henry's cause, in the belief that England, having
broken completely with Catharine's nephew Charles V., might be forced
to conclude an alliance with France; but he never wished that Henry
VIII. should set the Holy See at defiance, or that England should be
separated from the Catholic Church. To the Pope and to Henry he had
addressed his remonstrances and petitions in turn, but events had
reached such a climax that mediation was almost an impossibility. The
interview arranged between the Pope and Francis I. took place at
Marseilles in October 1533. Regardless of all the rules of diplomatic
courtesy and of good manners, Henry's representative forced his way
into the presence of the Pope, and announced to him that the King of
England had appealed from the verdict of Rome to the judgment of a
General Council. Notices of this appeal were posted up in London, and
preachers were ordered to declaim against the authority of the Pope,
who was to be styled henceforth Bishop of Rome, and whose sentences
and excommunications, the people were to be informed, were of no
greater importance than those of any other foreign bishop. The way was
now open for the final act of separation.

Parliament met in January 1534. The law passed the previous year
against the payment of annats was now promulgated. According to this
Act the Pope was not to be consulted for the future regarding
appointments to English Sees. When a bishopric became vacant, the
chapter having received the /Congé d'élire/ should proceed to elect
the person named in the royal letters accompanying the /Congé/, and
the person so elected should be presented to the metropolitan for
consecration. In case of a metropolitan See, the archbishop-elect
should be consecrated by another metropolitan and two bishops or by
four bishops appointed by the crown. Another Act was passed forbidding
the payment of Peter's Pence and all other fees and pensions paid
formerly to Rome. The Archbishop of Canterbury was empowered to grant
dispensations, and the penalties of Praemunire were levelled against
all persons who should apply for faculties to the Pope. By a third Act
a prohibition against appeals to Rome was renewed, although it was
permitted to appeal from the court of the Archbishop of Canterbury to
the king's Court of Chancery. Convocation was forbidden to enact any
new ordinances without the consent of the king, and those passed
already were to be subject to revision by a royal commission. Finally,
an Act was passed vesting the succession in the children of Henry and
Anne to the exclusion of the Princess Mary. The marriage with
Catharine was declared null and void by Parliament on the ground
principally that no man could dispense with God's law, and to prevent
such incestuous unions in the future a list of the forbidden degrees
was drawn up, and ordered to be exhibited in the public churches. To
question the marriage of Henry with Anne Boleyn by writing, word,
deed, or act was declared to be high treason, and all persons should
take an oath acknowledging the succession under pain of misprision of
treason. That the Parliament was forced to adopt these measures
against its own better judgment is clear from the small number of
members who took their seats in the House of Lords, as well as from
the fact that some of the Commoners assured the imperial ambassador
that were his master to invade England he might count on considerable
support.

In Rome the agents of Francis I., fearing that an alliance between
France and England would be impossible were Henry to throw off his
allegiance to the Church, moved heaven and earth to prevent a
definitive sentence. The fact that the Emperor was both unable and
unwilling to enforce the decision of the Pope, and that instead of
desiring the excommunication and deposition of Henry he was opposed to
such a step, made it more difficult for the Pope to take decisive
measures. Finally after various consultations with the cardinals,
sentence was given declaring the marriage with Catharine valid and the
children born of that marriage legitimate (23rd March, 1534). When the
news of this decision reached England Henry was alarmed. He feared
that the Emperor might declare war at any moment, that an imperial
army might be landed on the English shores, and that Francis I.
yielding to the entreaties of the Pope might make common cause with
the imperialists. Orders were given to strengthen the fortifications,
and to hold the fleet in readiness. Agents were dispatched to secure
the neutrality of France, and preachers were commanded to denounce the
Bishop of Rome. As matters stood, however, there was no need for such
alarm. The Emperor had enough to engage his attention in Spain and
Germany, and the enmity between Charles V. and the King of France was
too acute to prevent them from acting together even in defence of
their common religion.

Meantime it was clear to Henry that popular feeling was strong against
his policy, but instead of being deterred by this, he became more
obstinate and determined to show the people that his wishes must be
obeyed. A nun named Elizabeth Barton, generally known as the "Nun of
Kent," claimed to have been favoured with special visions from on
high. She denounced the king's marriage with Anne, and bewailed the
spread of heresy in the kingdom. People flocked from all parts to
interview her, and even Cranmer pretended to be impressed by her
statements. She and many of her principal supporters were arrested and
condemned to death (Nov. 1534). It was hoped that by her confession it
might be possible to placate Bishop Fisher, who was specially hated by
Henry on account of the stand he had made on the question of the
marriage, and the late Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas More. Both had met
the nun, but had been careful to avoid everything that could be
construed even remotely as treason. In the Act of Attainder introduced
into Parliament against Elizabeth Barton and her confederates, the
names of Fisher and More were included, but so strong was the feeling
in More's favour that his name was erased. Fisher, although able to
clear himself from all reasonable grounds of suspicion, was found
guilty of misprision of treason and condemned to pay a fine of £300.
Fisher and More were then called upon to take the oath of succession,
which, as drawn up, included, together with an acknowledgement of the
legitimacy of the children born of Henry and Anne, a repudiation of
the primacy of the Pope, and of the validity of Henry's marriage with
Catharine. Both were willing to accept the succession as fixed by Act
of Parliament, but neither of them could accept the other
propositions. They were arrested therefore and lodged in the Tower
(April 1534).

Commissions were appointed to minister the oath to the clergy and
laity, most of whom accepted it, some through fear of the consequences
of refusal and others in the hope of receiving a share of the monastic
lands, which, it was rumoured, would soon be at the disposal of the
king. A royal commission consisting of George Brown, Prior of the
Augustinian Hermits, and Dr. Hilsey, Provincial of the Dominicans, was
appointed to visit the religious houses and to obtain the submission
of the members (April 1534). By threats of dissolution and
confiscation they secured the submission of most of the monastic
establishments with the exception of the Observants of Richmond and
Greenwich and the Carthusians of the Charterhouse, London. Many of the
members of these communities were arrested and lodged in the Tower,
and the decree went forth that the seven houses belonging to the
Observants, who had offered a strenuous opposition to the divorce,
should be suppressed.[28] The Convocations of Canterbury and York
submitted, as did also the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.

When Parliament met again in November 1534 a bill was introduced
proclaiming the king supreme head of the Church in England. The
measure was based upon the recognition of royal supremacy extracted
from Convocation three years before, but with the omission of the
saving clause "as far as the law of Christ allows." According to this
Act it was declared that the king "justly and rightly is and ought to
be the supreme head of the Church in England, and to enjoy all the
honours, dignities, pre-eminences, jurisdictions, privileges,
authorities, immunities, profits and commodities" appertaining to the
dignity of the supreme head of the Church.[29] An Act of Attainder was
passed against Fisher, More, and all others who had refused
submission. The First Fruits, formerly paid to the Pope, were to be
paid to the king, and bishops were allowed to appoint men approved by
the crown to be their assistants.

By these measures the constitution of the Church, as it had been
accepted for centuries by the English clergy and laity, was
overturned. The authority of the Pope was rejected in favour of the
authority of the king, who was to be regarded in the future as the
source of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. This great religious
revolution was carried out without the consent of the bishops and
clergy. With the single exception of Cranmer the bishops to a man
opposed the change, and if they and the great body of the clergy made
their submission in the end, they did so not because they were
convinced by the royal arguments, but because they feared the royal
displeasure. Neither was the change favoured by any considerable
section of the nobles and people. The former were won over partly by
fear, partly by hope of securing a share in the plunder of the Church;
the latter, dismayed by the cowardly attitude shown by their spiritual
and lay leaders, saw no hope of successful resistance. Had there been
any strong feeling in England against the Holy See, some of the
bishops and clergy would have spoken out clearly against the Pope, at
a time when such a step would have merited the approval of the king.
The fact that the measure could have been passed in such circumstances
is in itself the best example of what is meant by Tudor despotism, in
the days when an English Parliament was only a machine for registering
the wishes of the king.

In January 1535 an order was made that the king should be styled
supreme head of the Church of England. Thomas Cromwell, who had risen
rapidly at court in spite of the disgrace of his patron, Cardinal
Wolsey, was entrusted with the work of forcing the clergy and laity to
renounce the authority of the Pope. The bishops were commanded to
surrender the Bulls of appointment they had received from Rome, and to
acknowledge expressly that they recognised the royal supremacy.
Cromwell was appointed the king's vicar-general, from whom the bishops
and archbishops were obliged to take their directions. Severe measures
were to be used against anybody who spoke even in private in favour of
Rome. The Prior of the London Charterhouse and some other Carthusians
were brought to trial for refusing to accept the royal supremacy
(April, 1535). After an able and uncompromising defence they were
found guilty of treason and were put to death with the most revolting
cruelty.[30] Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas More, who were prisoners in
the Tower, were allowed some time to consider their course of conduct.
Fisher declared that he could not acknowledge the king as supreme head
of the Church. While he lay in prison awaiting his trial, Paul III.,
in acknowledgment of his loyal services to the Church, conferred on
him a cardinal's hat. This honour, however well merited, served only
to arouse the ire of the king. He declared that by the time the hat
should arrive Fisher should have no head on which to wear it, and to
show that this was no idle threat a peremptory order was dispatched
that unless Fisher and More took the oath before the feast of St. John
they should suffer the penalty prescribed for traitors. Fisher,
together with some monks of the Carthusians, was brought to trial
(June 1535), and was found guilty of treason for having declared that
the king was not supreme head of the Church. The prisoners were
condemned to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. In the case of the
Carthusians the sentence was carried out to the letter, but as it was
feared that Fisher might die before he reached Tyburn he was beheaded
in the Tower (22nd June), and his head was impaled on London
bridge.[31]

Sir Thomas More was placed on his trial in Westminster Hall before a
special commission (1st July). Able lawyer as he was, he had no
difficulty in showing that by silence he had committed no crime and
broken no Act of Parliament, but no defence could avail him against
the wishes of the king. The jury promptly returned a verdict of
guilty. Before sentence was passed the prisoner spoke out manfully
against royal supremacy, and in defence of the authority of Rome. He
declared that the Act of Parliament, which conferred on the king the
title of supreme head of the Church, was opposed both to the laws of
God and man, that it was in flagrant contradiction to the Magna
Charta, and that the king of England could no more refuse obedience to
the Holy See than a child could refuse obedience to his father. Even
after his trial and condemnation another attempt was made to induce
him to submit, but he refused, and on the 6th July he finished his
career as a martyr for Rome.[32]

The execution of Fisher and More showed plainly to all that the breach
with Rome was not likely to be healed. When news of what had taken
place in England reached Rome Paul III. was anxious to issue a decree
of deposition against Henry. Had he done so, and had he been supported
by the Emperor and Francis I. there is no doubt that many of the
English noblemen would have joined the standard of the invaders, but
the hostility between France and the Emperor saved Henry. Neither
party was willing to aid the Pope lest the other should form an
alliance with England. Fearing such a union, however, between Francis
I. and Charles V. Henry hastened to seek the aid of the Protestant
princes of Germany. From 1531 he had been in communication with them
urging them to be careful about introducing religious innovations, but
he was now so alarmed lest the Emperor and the King of France might
join hands to assist the Pope in convoking a General Council, that
English envoys were directed to meet the Protestant princes at
Schmalkald (1535), to arrange for common action. A close union between
England and the Protestant states of Germany could not be effected,
because the Protestant princes insisted that Henry should accept the
Confession of Augsburg, and Henry refused to permit such interference
in the religious affairs of England. Still, English divines were
instructed to remain at Wittenberg, and Lutheran theologians were
invited to come to England for the discussion of religious
differences.[33]

Meanwhile Cromwell was engaged in a visitation of the monasteries of
England (1535). To bring home to the minds of the bishops the meaning
of royal supremacy, he suspended their visitations while the royal
visitors were at work. Cromwell, unable to undertake the duty himself,
appointed delegates, and supplied them with the list of questions that
should be administered. His principal delegates were Richard Leyton
and Thomas Leigh, both men, as is evident from their own letters, who
were not likely to be over scrupulous about the methods they employed.
They were harsh, rude, and brutal in their treatment of both monks and
nuns, especially in houses where they suspected hostility to the
recent laws. They used every means in their power to break up the
harmony of religious life, and to unsettle the minds of the younger
members of the communities. In a few months the visitations were
finished, and the reports of the visitors were presented to Cromwell.
According to these reports most of the monasteries and convents were
homes of sin and vice, and many of the monks and nuns were guilty of
heinous crimes, but, though in particular instances there may have
been some grounds for these charges, there is good reason for not
accepting as trustworthy this account of monastic discipline. In the
first place the royal visitors traversed the country with such
lightning-like rapidity that it would have been impossible for them to
arrive at a correct judgment even had they been impartial and honest
men. That they were neither honest nor impartial is clear enough from
their own correspondence. They were sent out by Cromwell to collect
monasteries and for confiscating the monastic possessions, and they
took pains to show their master that his confidence in them had not
been misplaced. Their only mistake was that in their eagerness to
black the character of the unfortunate religious they exceeded the
limits of human credulity. They positively revelled in sin, and the
scandals they reported were of such a gross and hideous kind that it
is impossible to believe that they could have been true, else the
people, instead of taking up arms to defend the religious houses,
would have risen in revolt to suppress such abominations. Nor is it
correct to say that the /Comperta/ were submitted to Parliament for
discussion, and that the members were so shocked by the tale they
unfolded that they clamoured for the suppression of these iniquitous
institutions. There is abundant evidence to prove that Parliament was
reluctant to take any action against the religious houses, that it was
only by the personal intervention of the king that the bill for the
suppression of the lesser monasteries was allowed to pass, and that it
is at least doubtful if any but general statements founded on the
/Comperta/ were brought before Parliament. The story of the production
of the "Black Book" supposed to contain the reports is of a much later
date, and comes from sources that could not be regarded as
unprejudiced. It had its origin probably in a misunderstanding of the
nature of the /Compendium Compertorum/, which dealt only with parishes
of the northern province. It is strange that though the commissioners
made no distinction between the condition of the larger and the
smaller monasteries, the Act of Parliament based upon these reports
decreed only the suppression of the smaller monasteries, as if vice
and neglect of discipline were more likely to reign in the small
rather than in the larger communities; and it is equally strange that
the superiors of many of the houses, about which unfavourable reports
had been presented, were promoted to high ecclesiastical offices by
the king and by his vicar-general, who should have been convinced of
the guilt and unworthiness of such ministers, had they trusted their
own commissioners. In the case of some of the dioceses, as for example
Norwich, it is possible to compare the results of an episcopal
visitation held some years previously with the reports of Cromwell's
commissioners, and though it is sufficiently clear from these earlier
reports that all was not well with discipline, the discrepancy between
the accounts of the bishops and the royal commissioners is so
striking, that it is difficult to believe that the houses could have
degenerated so rapidly in so short a space of time as to justify the
/Comperta/ of the commissioners. But what is still more striking is
the fact that after the decree of suppression had gone forth, other
commissioners, drawn largely from the local gentry, many of whom were
to share in the plunder of the monastic lands, visited several of the
houses against which serious charges had been made, and found nothing
worthy of special blame. These men were not likely to be prejudiced in
favour of the monks and nuns. They were well acquainted with the
people of the district, and had every opportunity of learning the
verdict of the masses about the discipline of the religious
communities. They were, therefore, in a much better position to arrive
at the truth than the royal commissioners who could only pay a flying
visit of a few hours or at most of a few days.[34]

The real object of the visitation and of the scandalous reports to
justify the king in the eyes of the nation in suppressing the
monasteries and in confiscating their possessions. The idea that the
monastic establishments enjoyed only the administration of their lands
and goods, and that these might be seized upon at any moment for the
public weal, was not entirely a new one either in the history of
England or in that of some of the Continental countries. Years before,
Cardinal Wolsey, for example, had dissolved more than twenty
monasteries in order to raise funds for his colleges at Ipswich and
Oxford, while not unfrequently the kings of England rewarded their
favourites and servants by granting them a pension to be paid by a
particular monastery. With the rise of the middle classes to power and
the gradual awakening of greater agricultural and commercial activity,
greedy eyes were turned to the monasteries and the farms owned by the
religious institutions. Unlike the property of private individuals
these lands were never likely to be in the market, and humanly
speaking a transfer of ownership could be effected only by a violent
revolution. Many people, therefore, though not unfriendly to the monks
and nuns as such, were not disinclined to entertain the proposals of
the king for the confiscation of religious property, particularly as
hopes were held out to the nobles, wealthy merchants, and the
corporations of cities and towns that the property so acquired could
take the place of the taxes that otherwise must be raised to meet
local and national expenditure.

For months before Parliament met (Feb. 1536) everything that could be
done by means of violent pamphlets and sermons against the monks and
the Papacy was done to prepare the country for the extreme measures
that were in contemplation. The king came in person to warn the House
of Commons that the reports of the royal commissioners, showing as
they did the wretched condition of the monasteries and convents called
for nothing less than the total dissolution of such institutions. The
members do not appear, however, to have been satisfied with the king's
recommendations, and it was probably owing to their feared opposition
to a wholesale sacrifice of the monasteries that, though the
commissioners had made no distinction between the larger and the
smaller establishments the measure introduced by the government dealt
only with the houses possessing a yearly revenue of less than £200.
Even in this mild form great pressure was required to secure the
passage of the Act, for though here and there complaints might have
been heard against the enclosures of monastic lands or about the
competition of the clerics in secular pursuits, the great body of the
people were still warmly attached to the monasteries. Once the decree
of dissolution had been passed the work of suppression was begun.
Close on four hundred religious houses were dissolved, and their lands
and property confiscated to the crown. The monks and nuns to the
number of about 2,000 were left homeless and dependent merely on the
miserable pensions, which not unfrequently remained unpaid. Their
goods and valuables including the church plate and libraries were
seized. Their houses were dismantled, and the roofless walls were left
standing or disposed of as quarries for the sale of stones.[35] Such
cruel measures were resented by the masses of the people, who were
attached to the monasteries, and who had always found the monks and
nuns obliging neighbours, generous to their servants and their
tenants, charitable to the poor and the wayfarer, good instructors of
the youth, and deeply interested in the temporal as well as in the
spiritual welfare of those around them. In London and the south-
eastern counties, where the new tendencies had taken a firmer root, a
strong minority supported the policy of the king and Cromwell, but
throughout England generally, from Cornwall and Devon to the Scottish
borders, the vast majority of the English people objected to the
religious innovations, detested Cromwell and Cranmer as heretics,
looked to Mary as the lawful heir to the throne in spite of the
decision of the court of Dunstable, and denounced the attacks on the
monasteries as robbery and sacrilege. The excitement spread quickly,
especially amongst the peasants, and soon news reached London that a
formidable rebellion had begun in the north.

In October 1536 the men of Lincoln took up arms in defence of their
religion. Many of the noblemen were forced to take part in the
movement, with which they sympathised, but which they feared to join
lest they should be exposed to the merciless vengeance of the king.
The leaders proclaimed their loyalty to the crown, and announced their
intention of sending agents to London to present their petitions. They
demanded the restoration of the monasteries, the removal of heretical
bishops such as Cranmer and Latimer, and the dismissal of evil
advisers like Cromwell and Rich. Henry VIII. returned a determined
refusal to their demands, and dispatched the Earl of Shrewsbury and
the Duke of Suffolk to suppress the rebellion. The people were quite
prepared to fight, but the noblemen opened negotiations with the
king's commanders, and advised the insurgents to disperse. The Duke of
Suffolk entered the city of Lincoln amidst every sign of popular
displeasure, although since the leaders had grown fainthearted no
resistance was offered. Those who had taken a prominent part in the
rebellion were arrested and put to death; the oath of supremacy was
tendered to every adult; and by the beginning of April 1537, all
traces of the rebellion had been removed.

The Pilgrimage of Grace in the north was destined to prove a much more
dangerous movement. Early in October 1536 the people of York,
determined to resist, and by the middle of the month the whole country
was up in arms under the leadership of Robert Aske, a country
gentleman and a lawyer well-known in legal services in London. Soon
the movement spread through most of the counties of the north. York
was surrendered to the insurgents without a struggle. Pomfret Castle,
where the Archbishop of York and many of the nobles had fled for
refuge, was obliged to capitulate, and Lord Darcy, the most loyal
supporter of the king in the north, agreed to join the party of Aske.
Hull opened its gates to the rebels, and before the end of October a
well trained army of close on 40,000 men led by the principal
gentlemen of the north lay encamped four miles north of Doncaster,
where the Duke of Norfolk at the head of 8,000 of the king's troops
awaited the attack. The Duke, fully conscious of the inferiority of
his forces and well aware that he could not count on the loyalty of
his own soldiers, many of whom favoured the demands of the rebels,
determined to gain time by opening negotiations for a peaceful
settlement (27th Oct.). Two messengers were dispatched to submit their
grievances to the king, and it was agreed that until an answer should
be received both parties should observe the truce. The king met the
demands for the maintenance of the old faith, the restoration of the
liberties of the Church, and the dismissal of ministers like Cromwell
by a long explanation and defence of his political and religious
policy, and the messengers returned to announce that the Duke of
Norfolk was coming for another conference. Many of the leaders argued
that the time for peaceful remonstrances had passed, and that the
issue could be decided now only by the sword. Had their advice been
acted upon the results might have been disastrous for the king, but
the extreme loyalty of both the leaders and people, and the fear that
civil war in England would lead to a new Scottish invasion, determined
the majority to exhaust peaceful means before having recourse to
violence.

An interview between the leaders and the Duke of Norfolk, representing
the king, was arranged to take place at Doncaster (5th Dec.). In the
meantime a convocation of the clergy was called to meet at Pomfret to
formulate the religious grievances, and a lay assembly to draw up the
demands of the people. Both clergy and people insisted on the
acceptance of papal supremacy, the restoration of all clergy who had
been deposed for resisting royal supremacy, the destruction of
heretical books, such as those written by Luther, Hus, Melanchthon,
Tundale, Barnes, and St. German, the dismissal of heretical bishops
and advisers such as Cromwell, and the re-establishment of religious
houses. Face to face with such demands, backed as they were by an army
of 40,000 men, Norfolk, fearing that resistance was impossible, had
recourse to a dishonest strategy. He promised the rebels that a free
Parliament would be held at York to discuss their grievances, that a
full pardon would be granted to all who had taken up arms, and that in
the meantime the monks and nuns would be supported from the revenues
of the surrendered monasteries and convents. Aske, whose weak point
had always been his extreme loyalty, agreed to these terms, and
ordered his followers to disband. He was invited to attend in London
for a conference with the king, and returned home to announce that
Henry was coming to open the Parliament at York, and that the people
might rely with confidence on the royal promises. But signs were not
wanting to show that the insurgents had been betrayed, and that they
must expect vengeance rather than redress. Soon it was rumoured that
Hull and Scarborough were being strengthened, and that in both cities
Henry intended to place royal garrisons. The people, alarmed by the
dangers that threatened them, attempted vainly to seize these two
towns, and throughout the north various risings took place. The Duke
of Norfolk, taking advantage of this violation of the truce, and
having no longer any strong forces to contend with, promptly
suppressed these rebellions, proclaimed martial law, and began a
campaign of wholesale butchery. Hundreds of the rebels, including
abbots and priests, who were suspected of favouring the insurgents,
were put to death. The leaders, Aske, Lord Darcy, Lord Hussey, Sir
Thomas Percy, Sir Francis Bigod, together with the abbots of Jervaux
and of Fountains, and the Prior of Bidlington were arrested. Some of
them suffered the penalty of death in London, while others were sent
back to be executed in their own districts. By these measures the
rebellion was suppressed in the north, and the rest of the counties
were intimidated into submission.[36]

Had the Emperor decided upon supporting the people of the north the
course of English history might have been different, but as war had
broken out once more between France and the empire, both nations,
anxious to maintain good relations with England, abstained from active
interference in English affairs. Pope Paul III., deeply interested as
he was in the English revolution, summoned to his assistance one who
understood better than most of his contemporaries the character of the
king and the condition of the country, namely, Reginald Pole. The
latter, turning his back on the favour of the king and the offer of
the Archbishopric of York, had left England rather than approve of the
king's separation from Catharine. Henry, however, hoping to induce him
to return to England, maintained friendly relations with Pole, and
requested him to state frankly his views on royal supremacy. Pole
replied in a long treatise afterwards published under the title /Pro
ecclesiasticae unitatis Defensione/ (1536), in which he reproved the
conduct of the king, and warned him of the dangers that his religious
policy might involve. Henry, though deeply mortified by the substance
and tone of this work, pretended not to be displeased, and in the hope
of silencing his distinguished kinsman whom he now both feared and
hated he urged him to come back to England. Pole's mother and brothers
besought him to yield to the royal wishes, or else he should prove the
ruin of all those who were dear to him. Though deeply affected by
their appeals, he preferred duty to family affection. He went to Rome
where he was created a cardinal (1536), and appointed to assist in
drawing up a scheme of ecclesiastical reforms in preparation for the
General Council. Soon news arrived in Rome that a rebellion had broken
out in England, that the people were ready to die in defence of their
religion, and that the king might be forced to adopt a more
conciliatory attitude towards Rome. It was decided to appoint Cardinal
Pole papal legate, and to send him to England. Such an appointment
coming at such a time filled Henry with alarm. He feared that James V.
of Scotland might be induced to lead an army across the borders to the
assistance of the northern rebels, and that France and the Emperor
might unite their forces against one who was regarded by both as
little less than a heretic. He induced the privy council to address a
letter to the cardinal (Jan. 1537) reproaching him for his ingratitude
and disloyalty to the king, and inviting him to come to Flanders for a
friendly discussion with the English agents. Before the legate could
leave Italy the Pilgrimage of Grace had been suppressed, and all hope
of a successful mission in England was lost. He passed through France
and Flanders, where he received a very cool reception from Francis I.
and the regent of the Netherlands, both of whom had been requested to
deliver him to Henry VIII. After a short stay in the territory of the
Prince-bishop of Liège he returned to Rome in August 1537.[37]

But though the rebellion in the north had been suppressed, it was
sufficiently grave to show Henry the danger incurred at home by
religious innovations, while the legatine mission of Cardinal Pole
made it advisable to prove to the Catholic rulers of Europe that
England had not gone over to the Lutheran camp. The greatest
objection taken by the conservative party in England to the /Ten
Articles/, drawn up by the king and accepted by Convocation in the
previous year (1536), was the absence of express reference to any
Sacrament except Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist. At the meeting
of Convocation (1537) the battle was waged between the Catholic-minded
bishops let by Tunstall of Durham and the Lutheran party let by
Cranmer. At last the other four Sacraments were "found again," and a
settlement agreeable to both parties arrived at and embodied in a
treatise known as /The Institution of a Christian Man/. It consisted
of four parts, the Apostle's Creed, the Seven Sacraments, the Ten
Commandments, and the Our Father and Hail Mary. Two separate articles
dealing with justification and purgatory taken from the Ten Articles
previously issued were appended. The bishops submitted /The
Institution/ to the judgment of the king, inviting him as supreme head
of the Church to correct whatever was amiss with their doctrine, but
Henry, anxious to hold himself free to bargain with the Lutheran
princes if necessary, refused to take any responsibility for the work
beyond ordering that it might be read in the churches for three years.
Hence it was called the /Bishop's Book/.[38]

Against this and as a concession to the reforming party in England
Henry was pleased to approve of a translation of the Bible presented
to him by Cranmer, and to order copies of it to be provided for the
use of the faithful in every parish church (1537-38). William Tyndale,
who had fled from England to Wittenberg, set himself to complete a
translation of the Bible, which translation was published and smuggled
into England in 1526. The translation was in itself bristling with
errors, and the marginal notes were stupidly offensive. The bishops
made desperate attempts to secure its suppression, but despite their
efforts the obnoxious translation and even many of the more
objectionable works written by the same author continued to find their
way into England. The king, though nominally supporting the bishops,
was not sorry that such works should be spread amongst the people, as
a warning to the Pope of the consequences of a refusal to comply with
the royal wishes. In 1530, however, he took counsel with the bishops
and learned men to see what might be done to procure a good English
translation of the Bible. They agreed that the reading of an English
version of the Bible was not necessary for salvation, that, though the
Scriptures in the vulgar tongue might be useful in certain
circumstances and for certain people, they were more likely to be
harmful at a time when erroneous books and heretical books were being
propagated. Furthermore they advised that a proper correct translation
should be made and placed in the king's hands, so that he might order
its publication whenever he thought that a favourable moment had
arrived for such a work.

Cromwell was, however, determined to push forward the new religious
teachings. He was in close correspondence with an apostate Augustinian
friar named Coverdale, who had been obliged to leave the country on
account of his heretical opinions. At Cromwell's instigation Coverdale
set himself to prepare a new translation of the Bible, and it was
completed and published about 1535. Unlike that of Tyndale, who had
gone to the Greek and Hebrew originals, Coverdale's Bible was made
from the Vulgate with the aid of the German Lutheran translation. It
was if anything even more objectionable than Tyndale's, but Cromwell
intended to force it upon the clergy in the /Injunctions/ drawn up for
their guidance in 1536, though apparently on further consideration he
doubted the prudence of such a step, and the clause regarding the
English Bible was omitted.[39] In 1537 Cranmer presented the English
Bible to Cromwell for approval. It was supposed to contain "the Old
and New Testament, truly and purely translated into English by Thomas
Matthew," but in reality it was only a compilation of the works of
Tyndale and Coverdale made by one John Rogers. Though very
objectionable from the point of view of Catholic doctrine it was
approved by Cromwell as vicar-general, and copies were ordered to be
placed in every church (1538). Nearly two years later Coverdale's
"Great Bible" with a preface by Cranmer was published.[40]

The results of the free use of such translations were soon apparent in
the religious discussions that took place in many parts of England.
Henry began to fear that he had acted unwisely in allowing the people
to make their religion for themselves, and besides, as Cromwell had
fallen, the conservative bishops like Gardiner of Winchester were in
the ascendant. In the Convocation of 1542 grave objections were raised
against these various translations, and with the approval of the king
it was resolved to undertake a revision of them; but while the
committee appointed for this revision was at work, a messenger arrived
from the king forbidding Convocation to proceed further, as His
Majesty had decided to take the matter out of the hands of the bishops
and submit it to the universities. The bishops protested against this
order, but their protests were unheeded, and an English Bible, that
had been condemned by Convocation, was forced on the clergy and people
against the advice of the ecclesiastical authorities. In 1543,
however, an Act was passed in Parliament at the request of the king
forbidding private individuals to take it upon themselves to interpret
the Bible in any public assembly; noblemen, gentlemen householders,
and even merchants might retain the English translation and read it,
but this favour was denied to the lower classes "unless the king
perceiving their lives to be amended by the doctrines he had set forth
thought fit to give them liberty to read it."[41]

Early in 1536 Queen Catharine died. Her heart had been broken by the
conduct of the king and by separation from her daughter the Princess
Mary. Time and again she had been commanded under threat of the
severest punishment to accept the sentence of Cranmer's court, but
both herself and the Princess refused steadfastly to subscribe to such
a dishonourable verdict. After Catharine's death and merely to save
her life Mary signed a document agreeing to the abolition of papal
supremacy and the invalidity of her mother's marriage, though nobody
attached any importance to a submission that was obtained in such
circumstances. The death of Catharine was a great relief to Henry and
Anne, more especially to the latter, who had some reason for believing
that she herself had lost her hold on the affections of the king.
Henry had already grown weary of the woman for whose sake he had put
his lawful wife away and separated his kingdom from the Catholic
Church, and the disappointment of his hopes for the birth of an heir
to the throne confirmed his intention of ridding himself of a partner,
who was regarded by his own subjects and the nations of Europe only as
his concubine. She was arrested on a charge of misconduct with her
brother and other gentlemen of the court, was tried before a body of
the peers, and was put to death at Tyburn (17th May, 1536). Cranmer,
who in his heart was convinced of her innocence, promptly held a court
and pronounced her marriage with Henry null and void. On the very day
of her execution he issued a license for the king to marry Jane
Seymour, one of Anne's maids of honour, and before the end of the
month the marriage was celebrated. In June Parliament confirmed
Cranmer's sentence by declaring the invalidity of Henry's previous
marriages, and the illegitimacy of Mary and Elizabeth, and by fixing
the succession on the heirs of the king and Jane Seymour. Furthermore,
in case there might be no children it empowered the king to determine
by his will who should succeed. The object of this was to enable him
to appoint as his heir his bastard son, the Duke of Richmond, but this
intention was frustrated by the death of the Duke (July 1537).

While Parliament was in session Convocation assembled once more.
Cromwell, as the king's vicar-general in spirituals, claimed the right
to preside either in person or by proxy. Many of the new bishops who
had been appointed since 1533 were distinctly Lutheran in their ideas
and tendencies. Latimer of Worcester, who was well known to favour
German theology, was supported by five others, Shaxton, Goodrich,
Edward Foxe, Hilsey, and Barlow. Though Latimer on a former occasion
had been censured by Convocation he was selected to deliver the
opening sermon, in which he inveighed against Purgatory, images,
altars, relics, pilgrimages, the carelessness of the clergy, and the
abuses of the spiritual courts. Convocation having approved of
Cranmer's verdict regarding Henry's marriage with Anne Boleyn, a
petition was sent up from the lower house to the bishops complaining
of the erroneous views propagated by various preachers in the province
of Canterbury. The vast body of the older bishops were determined to
condemn these heretical views, which were little less than the renewal
of the Lollard teaching with a slight admixture of Lutheran theology,
but Cranmer, Latimer, and Foxe were equally determined to prevent such
a condemnation. The dispute promised to be both warm and protracted.
Cromwell, however, appeared in the assembly with a book of /Ten
Articles/ drawn up by the king for securing religious unanimity, and
insisted that the prelates should accept them. The Articles were
moderate in tone, and generally were not in opposition to the old
theology. They approved of Transubstantiation, emphasised the
importance and necessity of Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist
without affirming that these were the only three Sacraments, declared
that good works were necessary for justification, that prayers might
be offered for those who were dead, that the use of the word Purgatory
was not to be recommended, that reverence should be shown to images
and pictures, and that the older ceremonies should be retained. The
great objection to these Articles was not the doctrine they set forth,
but the fact that they were issued by the king's authority. That the
King of England could revise the beliefs and ceremonies of the
Catholic Church was in itself a revolution, and should have opened the
eyes of the Catholic-minded bishops to the full meaning of royal
supremacy. Furthermore, Convocation declared that the Bishop of Rome
could not convene a General Council without the permission and
co-operation of the Christian princes. A few weeks later Cromwell
issued a set of /Injunctions/ to be observed by the clergy charged
with the care of souls. They were to set forth the Articles drawn up
by the king, to discourage pilgrimages and the observation of holidays
that had not been abrogated, not to lay too much stress upon images
and relics, and to warn the people to teach their children in English
the Our Father, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments; they were to give
one-fortieth of their incomes to the poor, one-fifth to the repair of
the churches, and those who held the richer benefices were commanded
to spend their surplus revenue in maintaining a student or students at
Oxford and Cambridge.

In the autumn of 1536 three sets of royal commissioners were at work,
one superintending the suppression of the lesser monasteries, a second
charged with communicating Cromwell's instructions to the clergy, and
removing those priests who were unwilling to accept them, and a third
entrusted with the collection of royal taxation on ecclesiastical
benefices. By these commissions the entire face of the country was
changed. The monastic institutions were suppressed and the servants
and labourers in their employment were turned adrift, the relief to
the poor and the wayfarer was discontinued, and the tenants awaited
with nervousness the arrival of the new grandees. The possessions of
the religious houses, instead of being spent on the development of
education and the relief of the taxes, found their way for the most
part into the royal treasury, or into the pockets of the officials
charged with the work of suppression. Oxford and Cambridge were
reduced to sullen submission, and obliged to accept a new set of
statutes, to abolish the study of canon law in favour of civil law, to
confine the divinity courses to lectures on the Scriptures, and to
place in the hands of the students the classical authors together with
the Humanist commentaries thereon, instead of the tomes of Duns Scotus
or St. Thomas. Such changes, as has been shown, led to rebellion in
different parts of the country, but especially in the north, where
loyalty to Rome was still regarded as compatible with loyalty to the
king.

After the suppression of the rebellions in the north and the failure
of Cardinal Pole to bring about an European coalition against Henry,
the war against the greater monasteries was begun (1537). Those
situated in the northern counties were charged with having been
implicated in the rebellion. Many of the abbots were put to death or
imprisoned, and the goods of the communities were confiscated. Several
others in order to escape punishment were induced to surrender their
property to the king's commissioners. In some cases the abbots were
bribed by promises of special favours for themselves, in others they
were forced to yield up their titles to avoid charges of treason on
account of documents supposed to have been discovered in their houses
or evidence that had been extracted from some of their monks or
retainers. During the years 1538 and 1539 the monasteries fell one by
one, while during the same period war was carried on against shrines
and pilgrimages. The images of Our Lady of Ipswich and of Our Lady of
Walsingham were destroyed; the tomb of St. Thomas à Becket was rifled
of its precious treasures, and the bones and relics of the saint were
treated with the greatest dishonour. Everywhere throughout the country
preachers inspired by Cromwell and Cranmer, the latter of whom aimed
at nothing less than a Lutheran revolution in England, were at work
denouncing images, pilgrimages, invocation of saints, and Purgatory.
So long as money poured into the royal treasury from the sale of
surrendered monastical property and of the ecclesiastical goods, or so
long as a blow could be struck at the Papacy by desecrating the tomb
of a saint who had died as a martyr in defence of the Holy See, Henry
looked on with indifference if not with pleasure.

But the news of such outrages could not fail to horrify the Catholic
world, and to prove to Paul III. that there was little hope of any
favourable change in Henry's religious policy. It was determined to
give effect to the Bull of excommunication that had been prepared for
years, and to call upon the Catholic powers of Europe to put it into
execution either by a joint declaration of war, or by an interruption
of commercial relations with England. The time seemed specially
favourable for the publication of such a sentence. After years of
active or smouldering hostility the two great rivals Charles V. and
Francis I. had arranged a ten years truce (June 1538), and Cardinal
Pole was sent as legate to Spain and France to induce the Emperor and
Francis I. to take common action. James V. of Scotland promised his
assistance, and a papal envoy was dispatched to Scotland to bear the
cardinal's hat to Archbishop Beaton, and to encourage the king to
co-operate with the Catholic rulers of the Continent.

When the news of these preparations reached England Henry was
thoroughly alarmed for the safety of his kingdom. The brothers of
Cardinal Pole, Sir Geoffrey Pole and Lord Montague, his mother, the
Countess of Salisbury, Henry Courtenay, Marquis of Exeter, Lord
Delawarr, Sir Edward Neville, Sir Nicholas Carew, and others were
arrested, nominally on the charge of treason, but in reality because
the Poles and the Courtenays were regarded as dangerous claimants to
the English throne. With the exception of Sir Geoffrey Pole, who
turned king's evidence, and the Countess of Salisbury who was kept in
confinement for years, the others were put to death, and commissioners
were sent into Cornwall to suppress all attempts at rebellion. During
the spring of 1539 preparations for repelling an invasion were pushed
forward with feverish activity, and so great was the loyalty of the
vast body of the English people, and so hateful to them was the idea
of a foreign invasion that many, who detested Henry's religious
policy, came forward with their assistance. The fortresses along the
coast and on the Scottish borders were strengthened, and replenished;
the fleet was held in readiness in the Thames; and a volunteer army
trained and equipped was raised to contest the progress of the
invaders or at least to defend the capital. Negotiations with the
Protestant princes of Germany for the conclusion of an offensive and
defensive alliance were opened, and to prevent a commercial boycott a
proclamation was issued that except in case of wool foreigners trading
in England should be obliged to pay only the duties and customs
imposed upon Englishmen. But as events showed there was no necessity
for these warlike preparations. Francis I. could not dare to forward
an ultimatum to England unless aided by the Emperor, and Charles V.,
confronted with a Turkish invasion and a Protestant rebellion in
Germany, found it impossible to undertake an expedition against
England. Nor was the project of a commercial boycott likely to be more
successful. The Flemish merchants in the Netherlands were too deeply
interested in English trade to permit them to look favourably upon a
scheme that was likely to prove as ruinous to their own country as to
England, particularly as the recent proclamation in favour of foreign
merchants offered them a special opportunity for pushing their wares
beyond the Channel.

A new Parliament was summoned to meet in April 1539. Cromwell, who was
a past master in the art of selecting and managing such assemblies,
took care that men should be returned who were likely to favour the
projects of the king, and in this action he succeeded beyond
expectation. An Act of Attainder was passed against Cardinal Pole and
against the Countess of Salisbury, as well as against those who had
been executed a short time before. As the /Ten Articles/ on religion
published by the king and the improved version of these Articles known
as the /Bishop's Book/ had not proved sufficient to suppress religious
controversy in the kingdom or to prevent England from being regarded
as a heretical nation on the Continent, Henry determined to lay down a
fixed rule of faith, that should be accepted by all his subjects, and
that should prove to the Emperor and to France that England, though
separated from Rome, was still loyal to the Catholic religion. A
commission of bishops was appointed to prepare a report on the
principal points of faith that had been called in question, but the
bishops were divided into two hostile camps. While Cranmer, Latimer,
Shaxton, Goodrich, and Barlow were strongly Lutheran in their
tendencies, Archbishop Lee of York, Gardiner of Winchester, Tunstall
of Durham, and Aldrich of Carlisle were opposed to all dogmatic
innovations. Though Cromwell supported secretly the reforming party it
soon became known that Henry VIII. favoured the conservatives. As no
agreement could be arrived at by the bishops, the Duke of Norfolk, who
was rising rapidly at court as the champion of conservative interests,
took the matter out of the hands of the bishops, by proposing to the
House of Lords Six Articles dealing with the main points of difference
between the Catholics and the Lutherans of the Continent. On these
Articles the laymen did not venture to express any opinion, but
Cranmer, Latimer and their friends held out till at last Henry
appeared himself and "confounded them all with God's learning."

The decision was embodied in an Act of Parliament entitled "An Act
abolishing diversity of Opinions," which having received the royal
assent was placed upon the Statute Book (1539). The Articles agreed
upon by Convocation and Parliament and published by the king's
authority were: (1) that in the Eucharist the substance of the bread
and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ; (2) that
Communion under both kinds is not necessary for salvation; (3) that
clerical celibacy should be observed; (4) that vows of chastity should
be observed; (5) that private Masses ought to be retained; and (6)
that auricular confession is expedient. Denial of the first article,
namely, that regarding Transubstantiation, was to be deemed heresy
punishable by death at the stake, and denial of the others was felony
punishable by forfeiture for the first and by death for the second
offence. Priests who had taken to themselves wives were commanded to
put them away under threat of punishment for felony, and people, who
refused to confess and receive the Eucharist at the usual times, were
to be imprisoned or fined for the first offence, and to be judged
guilty of felony for the second offence. The Act of Six Articles, as
it is commonly known, or "the whip with six strings," as it was
nicknamed contemptuously by the Reformers, marked a distinct triumph
for the conservative party, led by the Duke of Norfolk among the peers
and by Gardiner and Tunstall amongst the bishops. Cranmer made his
submission and concealed his wife, but Latimer and Shaxton with
greater honesty resigned their Sees rather than accept the Act. The
vast body of the clergy and people hailed it with delight as a
crushing blow delivered against heresy, and as proof that Henry was
determined to maintain the old religion in England.[42]

But if Cromwell had received a check on the question of dogma, he
determined to curry favour with the king and at the same time to
advance the cause he had at heart, by securing the suppression of the
remaining monasteries. An Act was passed through all its stages in one
day vesting in the king the property of all monasteries that had been
suppressed or that were to be suppressed. This was done under the
pretence that the monks, being ungodly and slothful, should be
deprived of their wealth, which if handed over to the king could be
devoted to the relief of poverty, the education of youth, the
improvement of roads, and the erection of new bishoprics. Under threat
of penalties nearly all the great monasteries surrendered their titles
and lands except the abbots of Glastonbury, Reading, and Colchester,
all of whom were arrested and put to death (1539). This punishment
struck terror into the hearts of the others, and by the surrender of
Waltham Abbey (March 1540) the last of the great English monasteries
disappeared. Finally, to show the state of complete subserviency to
which the English Parliament was reduced, it passed an Act giving to
the royal proclamation with certain ill-defined limits the force of
law (1539).

It was evident to all that the position of Cromwell at court had
become very insecure. While England was threatened with an European
coalition he had suggested an alliance with the Protestant princes of
Germany, and as Henry's third wife Jane Seymour had died (1537), after
having given birth to a son (later on Edward VI.), he determined to
cement the bond of friendship by a new matrimonial alliance. The Duke
of Cleves was brother-in-law to the Elector of Saxony and one of the
guiding spirits of the Schmalkaldic League, and as he had given mortal
offence to the Emperor by his acceptance of the Duchy of Guelders,
Cromwell decided that a marriage between the Duke's sister, Anne, and
Henry VIII. would secure for England both the alliance of the League
of Schmalkald and at least the neutrality of France. Though Henry
detested the Elector of Saxony and his friends as heretics, and though
the Six Articles aroused considerable resentment in the Lutheran camp,
the close union between Charles V. and Francis I. and the uncertainty
of what steps they might take made it imperative to push forward
Henry's marriage. The marriage treaty was signed in October 1539, and
in December Anne of Cleves landed at Deal. Henry, who had been led to
believe that Anne was both accomplished and moderately beautiful,
could not conceal his disappointment when he met his prospective
bride; but, as his trusted counsellors could devise no plan of escape,
he consented with bad grace to go through the ceremony of marriage
(6th Jan., 1540). Henry was displeased and made no secret of his
displeasure. Cromwell, whom he blamed specially for this matrimonial
misfortune, felt himself in considerable danger, though at the same
time he resolved not to yield without a struggle. The contest between
Cranmer, backed by the Lutheran party in the council, and Gardiner,
the Duke of Norfolk, and the conservatives was sharp though by no
means decisive. The king appeared at one time to favour one side, at
another the other side, unwilling to commit himself definitely to
either, especially as Cromwell was still reaping a rich harvest from
the suppression of the Knights of St. John and from the taxes imposed
on the clergy.

Parliament met again in April 1540. To the surprise of many Cromwell
was created Earl of Essex (17th April), while a little later Bishop
Sampson was arrested as a supporter of the Pope. The hopes of Cromwell
and of the reforming party rose rapidly, and they believed that
victory was within their grasp. The committee of bishops was at work
considering the sacraments, but as both the old and the new clung
tenaciously to their opinions no progress could be made. Suddenly on
the 10th June an officer appeared in the council chamber and placed
Cromwell under arrest. The long struggle was at last ended, and the
men who had followed Gardiner had won the day. The war clouds, that
had driven Henry to negotiate with the heretical princes of Germany,
had blown over, and Cromwell, who had taken a leading part in the
German negotiations, must be sacrificed to satisfy his enemies at home
and Catholic opinion on the Continent. He was committed to the Tower
to await the sentence of death which he knew to be inevitable, but,
before handing him over to the executioner, Henry insisted that he
should perform for him one last service. As Cromwell had involved him
in an undesirable marriage with Anne of Cleves, he should provide
evidence that might set his master free to seek for a more congenial
partner. At the command of the king Cromwell wrote a long letter, in
which he showed that Henry never really consented to the marriage with
Anne, against which marriage the existence of a pre-nuptial contract
was also adduced. On the strength of this, Parliament demanded an
investigation, and a commission was issued empowering the Archbishops
of Canterbury and York and others of the clergy to examine into the
validity of the marriage. Convocation decided that it was null and
void (July 1540), a decision with which Anne expressed her complete
satisfaction. She was assigned a residence and a pension of £4,000 a
year. On the 28th July, 1540, Cromwell was led to execution at Tyburn,
where he expressed publicly his adherence to the ancient faith, for
the destruction of which in England he had contributed more than any
single individual with the exception possibly of the king.[43] A few
days later Henry was married to Catharine Howard, a niece of the Duke
of Norfolk, the recognised lay head of the conservative party in
England.

The penalties prescribed in the Statute of the Six Articles were
enforced with great vigour, and at the same time those who maintained
papal supremacy were treated with equal severity. While the men who
denied Transubstantiation were burned as heretics at Smithfield, their
opponents, who dared to express views derogatory to royal supremacy,
were hanged, drawn, and quartered as traitors. Latimer retired into
private life; Cranmer showed no signs of open opposition to the king's
religious policy, and, practically speaking, all traces of the new
teachings that had disturbed England for years disappeared. The aged
Countess of Salisbury, mother of Cardinal Pole, was put to death in
1541, two years after sentence of attainder had been passed against
her by Parliament, as were, also, a large number of priests and laymen
suspected of having been implicated in an attempt to bring about
another rebellion in the north. In consequence of this plot Henry
determined to undertake a journey to York (1541) with the hope of
strengthening his hold upon the people, and possibly also of securing
the friendship of his nephew, James V. of Scotland, who had remained
loyal to Rome and to France. The Archbishop of York made his
submission on bended knees, presenting the king with a gift of £600 as
a sign of the repentance of the people for their recent disobedience,
an example that was followed in many of the cities and towns; but
James V., unwilling to trust his life and liberty to the king, refused
to cross the English border.

Henry returned to London only to find that serious charges of
immorality were being brought against his wife, Catharine Howard. She
was arrested and put to death with her chief accomplices (1542).
Though the king could not conceal his joy at finding himself free once
more, he hesitated for some time before choosing another wife; but at
last in 1543, his choice fell upon Catharine Parr, a young widow
twenty years his junior, who was believed to favour royal supremacy,
though she had been married previously to one of the leaders of the
Pilgrimage of Grace. It is said that once at least she stood in
serious risk because she ventured to disagree with her husband's
theological views, but, however that may be, it is certain that she
had the good fortune to survive the king.

The struggle between the old principles and the new continued,
notwithstanding all Henry's attempts to secure unanimity. As early as
1540 a set of questions had been circulated amongst the bishops, and
as a result of the replies received and of the discussions that took
place in Convocation a book was issued, entitled /A Necessary Doctrine
and an Erudition for any Christian Man/ (1543). It was issued by order
of the king, and for this reason is known as the /King's Book/ in
contradistinction to the /Bishop's Book/, published with his
permission but not by his authorisation. Just as the /Bishop's Book/
represented a revision of the Ten Articles, so the /King's Book/ was
an extension or completion of the /Bishop's Book/, in many respects
even more Catholic in its tone than the original. The king was now
nearing his end rapidly, and both parties in the royal council strove
hard for mastery. Gardiner and Bonner, Bishop of London, stood firm in
defence of Catholic doctrine, and once or twice it seemed as if they
were about to succeed in displacing Cranmer from the favour of the
king; but the danger of an attack from the united forces of France and
the Emperor, especially after the peace of Crépy had been concluded
(1544), made it necessary for Henry not to close the door against an
alliance with the Protestant princes of Germany by an attack on
Cranmer, who was regarded by them as an active sympathiser. Once
indeed Henry ordered that the archbishop should be arrested, but a
sudden change of mind took place, and the order for the arrest was
cancelled.

A new Parliament met in 1545. The royal exchequer had been emptied by
the war with France and Scotland, and to replenish it an Act was
passed empowering the king to dissolve chantries, hospitals, and free
chapels, and to appropriate their revenues for his own use. Henry
addressed the Parliament on Christmas Eve 1545 in a speech in which he
deplored the religious differences that divided his people,
differences which were due, he said, partly to the obstinacy of the
clergy, some of whom wished to cling to all the old ways, while others
of them would be content with nothing less than a complete renewal;
partly to the fault of the people who spoke scandalously of their
clergy, and abused the Scriptures they had been permitted to read. In
itself this speech was a sad commentary on Henry's religious campaign,
containing as it did a confession that despite all his violence and
persecution, religious formularies imposed by royal authority were not
sufficient to preserve religious unity. During the year 1546, though
many persons were still sent to the stake for denying
Transubstantiation, the power of Cranmer and his party was on the
increase. The Earl of Hertford, uncle of the young Prince Edward and
Cranmer secured the upper hand in the council, and the Duke of
Norfolk, together with his son the Earl of Surrey, was imprisoned in
the Tower (Dec. 1546). Surrey was tried and executed, and a similar
fate was in store for the Duke, were it not that before the death-
sentence could be carried out, Henry himself had been summoned before
the judgment-seat of God (28th Jan. 1547). For some weeks before his
death the condition of the king had been serious, but the Earl of
Hertford and his party kept the sickness and even the death a secret
until all their plans had been matured. On the 31st January Edward VI.
was proclaimed king, and the triumph of the Lutheran party seemed
assured.

On the death of Henry VIII. all parties looked forward to a complete
change in the religious condition of England. On the one hand, those,
who longed for a return to Roman obedience, believed that royal
supremacy must of necessity prove both unintelligible and
impracticable in the case of a mere child like Edward VI. (1547-53);
while, on the other hand, those, who favoured a closer approximation
to the theology and practices of Wittenberg or of Geneva, saw in the
death of Henry and the succession of a helpless young king an
exceptional opportunity for carrying out designs against which Henry
had erected such formidable barriers. To both parties it was evident
that at best Edward VI. could be but a tool in the hands of his
advisers, and that whichever section could capture the king and the
machinery of government might hope to mould the religious beliefs of
the English people.

For more than a year before the death of Henry VIII., Edward Seymour,
Earl of Hertford and uncle of Edward VI., the Earl of Essex, brother
of Catharine Parr, Viscount Lisle, Lord Admiral and afterwards Earl of
Warwick, all of whom were in favour of religious innovations, had been
advancing steadily in power, to the discomfiture of the conservative
section led by Bishop Gardiner, the Duke of Norfolk, and the Lord
Chancellor Wriothesley. The death of Henry VIII. had been kept a
secret until the Earl of Hertford had all his plans matured for
securing control, and for the proclamation of Edward VI.[44] (31st
Jan. 1547), then a boy of ten years. Henry VIII. had bequeathed the
crown to his son, and on his death without heirs to his daughters in
turn, the Princess Mary daughter of Catharine of Aragon, and Elizabeth
daughter of Anne Boleyn. By his will also he appointed a council the
members of which were to govern the kingdom as a body till the king
should attain his eighteenth year, but he sought to provide against
any serious innovations by authorising the king to repeal all changes
that might have been made by the council during his minority. If one
may judge from the terms of his will Henry's religious views at his
death were evidently what they had been when in 1539 he passed the
Statute of Six Articles, but, at the same time, it is a noteworthy
fact that he excluded Bishop Gardiner from the list of executors of
his will, and appointed two divines well known for their leaning
towards German theology as tutors to the young king.

In nearly every particular the council of executors failed to carry
out the wishes of the late king. The Earl of Hertford, created later
on Duke of Somerset, became Protector with almost royal powers, and
instead of defending the religious settlement the majority of the
council set themselves from the very beginning to initiate a more
advanced policy. Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury could be relied
upon to support such a course of action, while, of the principal men
who might be expected to oppose it, the Duke of Norfolk was a prisoner
in the Tower and the Lord Chancellor Wriothesley was dismissed to make
way for a more pliable successor. The bishops, who were regarded
merely as state officials, were commanded to take out new commissions.
Cranmer obeyed without protest, as did all the others except Gardiner,
who questioned the authority of the council to issue such a command at
least until the supreme head of the Church should have reached his
majority.[45]

Those who had been held in check by the repressive legislation of
Henry VIII. felt themselves free to renew the attacks on the practices
and doctrines of the Church. The royal preachers who had been
appointed for the Lenten sermons, Dr. Barlow, Bishop of St. David's,
Ridley one of Cranmer's chaplains, and others, not content with
abusing the Bishop of Rome, declared war on images, relics, and even
on the Lenten fasts and abstinences. Against such novelties Gardiner
addressed an indignant protest to the Protector and council, warning
them that during the minority of the king there was no power in
England competent to change the religious settlement that had been
accomplished by Henry VIII. But his protest fell on deaf ears. The war
against images was carried on vigorously, though legally only those
images that had been abused were forbidden, and even in Bishop
Gardiner's own diocese he was powerless to resist those who knew they
could count on the support of the Protector.

In July 1547 two important publications were issued, one, /The
Injunctions of Edward VI./, the other, /The Book of Homilies/,
composed by Cranmer, and issued by the authority of the council. The
former of these commanded that sermons should be delivered at fixed
intervals against the Bishop of Rome, that images which had been
abused, shrines, pictures, and other monuments of superstition should
be destroyed, that the Gospels and Epistles should be read in English,
that alms boxes should be set up in all churches, and that the clergy
should inform their people that the money spent on pardons,
pilgrimages, candles, and other blind devotions should now be devoted
to the support of the poor.[46] The /Book of Homilies/[47] was to
serve as a guide for preachers in their public services. A royal
commission was appointed to insist upon the observance of these
Injunctions, but in London Bishop Bonner refused at first to accept
the commands of the visitors, and though later on he weakened in his
resistance, he was committed to prison as a warning to others.
Gardiner boldly denounced the visitation as illegal and unwarrantable,
but the council instead of meeting his arguments and remonstrances
ordered his arrest (September 1547). In many places the proclamation
for the removal of images led to violent disturbances, and free fights
within the churches were not uncommon. To put an end to any
misunderstanding on this subject for the future the council ordered
the removal of all images from the churches (Feb. 1548).

For various reasons the Protector and council delayed assembling
Parliament as long as possible, but at last it was convoked to meet in
November 1547. As happened in the case of all the Parliaments in the
Tudor period, careful steps were taken to ensure that only men who
could be relied upon were returned by the sheriffs. Neither from the
lay members in the House of Lords, many of whom had been enriched by
the plunder of the monasteries, nor from the spiritual peers lately
appointed, could any effective resistance be expected, while the
bishops who were still strongly Catholic in tone were deprived of a
capable leader by the imprisonment of Gardiner. It was significant
that in the Mass celebrated at the opening of Parliament the /Gloria/,
Creed, and /Agnus Dei/ were sung in English. The bishops had been
taught a lesson already by being forced to take out new commissions
like other officers of the crown, by having their jurisdiction
suspended during the progress of the royal visitation, and by being
prohibited from preaching outside their own cathedrals. But, lest they
might have any lingering doubts about the source or extent of their
jurisdiction, Parliament enacted that for the future bishops should be
appointed not by election but by royal letters patent, and that all
their official documents should be issued in the king's name and under
his seal or some other seal authorised by him.[48] All the Acts
against heresy that had been passed since the days of Richard II.,
including the Statute of Six Articles, were repealed; most of the new
treason-felonies created during the previous reign were abolished;
and, though denial of royal supremacy was accounted still as treason,
it was enacted that by merely speaking against it one did not merit
the punishment of death unless for the third offence.

The question of the Blessed Eucharist had come to the front rapidly
owing to the violent and abusive sermons of some of the new preachers,
and the irreverent and sacrilegious conduct of those who accepted
their teaching. The bishops of the old school demanded that measures
should be taken to prevent such attacks on the very centre point of
Christian worship, while Cranmer and his supporters were determined to
insist upon Communion under both kinds. Apparently two different
measures were introduced, which were merged ultimately into one Act,
whereby it was decreed that all who spoke irreverently against the
Blessed Eucharist should be punished by fines and imprisonment, and
that Communion should be administered under both kinds except
necessity otherwise required. The linking together of these two Acts
was a clever move to ensure the support of the bishops who desired to
put down irreverence against the Eucharist, and it is noteworthy that
out of the eleven bishops present five voted against the measure even
in its improved form.[49]

Already an Act had been passed in the previous reign against colleges,
chantries, guilds, etc., but since most of these remained as yet
undisturbed, it was determined to replenish the royal treasury by
decreeing their immediate dissolution, and by vesting their property
in the king. This was done with the avowed object of diverting the
funds from superstitious uses to the erection of grammar schools, the
maintenance of students at the universities, and the relief of the
poor; but in reality the property of the guilds, and of the free
schools and chantry schools, was confiscated, and little if anything
was done for the improvement of education or for the relief of the
poor. Edward VI. is represented generally as the founder of the
English grammar schools and colleges, but it would be much more
correct to say that through his greedy ministers he was their
destroyer. True, indeed, he established a few colleges and hospitals,
but such beneficence was only a poor return for the wholesale
overthrow of more than four hundred flourishing educational
establishments, and for the confiscation of thousands of pounds
bequeathed by generous benefactors for the education of the poor.[50]

Convocation had met on the day after the assembly of Parliament. The
lower house presented four petitions to the bishops, the most
important of which was that the proctors of the clergy should be
admitted to Parliament, or at least that ecclesiastical legislation
should not pass until the clergy had been consulted, but the bishops
were too conscious of their helplessness to support such an appeal. It
is doubtful if the bill regarding Communion under both kinds was ever
submitted regularly to Convocation, though later on a proposal to
abolish the canons enforcing clerical celibacy was carried by a
majority. It is asserted, and apparently on good authority, that the
higher and more learned of the clergy consented to this proposal only
under pressure.

The year 1548 opened ominously for the Catholic party. Preachers,
licensed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and protected openly by the
court, delivered wild harangues against Catholic doctrines and
practices. Pamphlets, for the most part translations of heretical
works published in Germany or Switzerland attacking the Mass,
Transubstantiation, and the Real Presence, were sold publicly in the
market places without any interference from the authorities. In
January a royal proclamation was issued enjoining the observance of
the Lenten fasts, but ten days later an order was made forbidding the
use of candles on Candlemas Day, of ashes on Ash Wednesday, or of
palms on Palm Sunday. This was followed quickly by a command for the
removal of all statues, images, pictures, etc. from the churches. The
use of Communion under both kinds was to come into force at Easter
1548, and to prepare for this a royal proclamation was set forth
making obligatory the English /Order for Communion/. As the new rite
regarded only the Communion of the laity, the Latin Mass was to remain
in use as heretofore "without any varying of any rite or
ceremony."[51] The clergy were commanded to announce the Sunday on
which they proposed to distribute Communion to their flocks. After the
priest had himself communicated, the communicants, who did not wish to
go to confession, should make a general confession, and should receive
Communion under both kinds, the whole service being completed by the
usual blessing. This was a clever trick to prepare the way for still
greater changes. Owing to the retention of the Latin Mass it was
expected that the new Communion service would not lead to serious
trouble, while at the same time it would accustom the people to
portions of the Mass being read in English, and would imply both that
auricular confession was unnecessary and that Mass without Communion
of the laity was of no particular importance. The council anticipated
that the Communion service would prove unacceptable to many of the
clergy, and their anticipations were fulfilled, though, as shall be
seen, they adopted a novel method of allaying the trouble.

Bishop Gardiner, who had been kept in prison while Parliament was in
session lest his presence in the Upper House might lead to trouble,
was released in January 1548, but in May a peremptory summons was
issued commanding him to come to London without delay. He obeyed, and
for some time negotiations were carried on, until at last he was
ordered to preach against the Pope, monasteries, confession, and in
favour of the English Communion service (29th June). He was urged not
to treat of the sacrifice of the Mass, or of Transubstantiation, and
warned of the serious consequences that might ensue in case he
disobeyed; but Gardiner was a man who could not be deterred by such
means from speaking his mind, and as a consequence he was again placed
under arrest, and sent as a prisoner to the Tower. Cranmer, who had
rejected the authority of the Pope because he was a foreigner, finding
that he could get no support from the clergy or the universities--for
in spite of everything that had taken place the theology of Oxford and
Cambridge was still frankly conservative--invited preachers to come
from abroad to assist in weaning the English nation from the Catholic
faith. The men who responded to his call formed a motley crowd. They
were Germans like Martin Bucer and Paul Fagius, Italian apostate
friars like Peter Martyr (Pietro Martire Vermigli) and Ochino,
Frenchmen like Jean Véron, Poles like John à Lasco, Belgians like
Charles Utenhove, à Lasco's disciple, and Jews like Emmanuel
Tremellius.[52] The order for the total removal of images and for the
Communion service in English led to serious disturbances even in the
London churches, where the new opinions should have found the
strongest support, and confusion reigned throughout the country.

The Communion service in England was, however, only the prelude to the
total abolition of the Mass. Early in 1548 a series of questions had
been addressed by Cranmer to the bishops regarding the value of the
Mass as a religious service apart from the Communion.[53] The bishops
were asked to say also whether private Masses offered for the living
and the dead should continue to be celebrated, and what language
should be used. In their replies Cranmer and Ridley favoured
innovation, and were supported generally by Holbeach, Barlow, Cox, and
Taylor. One, Bishop Goodrich of Ely, expressed his willingness to
accept whatever might be enjoined, while the rest of the bishops
adopted a conservative attitude. But whatever might be the opinions of
the bishops generally the Protector and Cranmer were determined to
procure the abolition of the Mass. Later in the year an assembly of
the bishops was held to discuss the new English service to be
substituted in its place. It is difficult to determine what precisely
was done at this meeting. From the discussions which took place
afterwards in the House of Lords it is clear that the bishops could
not agree upon the Eucharist, that all with one exception signed their
names to a rough draft drawn up on the understanding that they did not
commit themselves thereby to Cranmer's views, and that the episcopal
report was changed by some authority before it was presented to
Parliament, especially by the omission of the word "oblation" in
regard to the Mass. That the Book of Common Prayer as such was ever
submitted to or approved by a formal convocation of the clergy cannot
be shown.[54]

Parliament met in November 1548. To put an end to the religious
confusion that had arisen an Act of Uniformity enjoining on all clergy
the use of the Book of Common Prayer was introduced.[55] The main
discussion centred around the Eucharist and the Mass. Bishop Tunstall
of Durham objected that by the omission of the Adoration it was
implied that there was nothing in the Sacrament except bread and wine,
a contention that he could not accept, as he believed in the Real
Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ both spiritual and carnal.
Bishop Thirlby of Westminster maintained that the bishops had never
agreed to the doctrine contained in the Book regarding the Eucharist
but had allowed it merely to go forward for discussion. The Protector
reproved him warmly for his tone and statement, but Thirlby stood
firmly by his point of view, adding the interesting item of
information that when the Book left the hands of the bishops it
contained the word "oblation" in reference to the Mass, which word had
since been omitted. Bonner of London pointed out that the Book of
Common Prayer, embodying as it did statements condemned abroad and in
England as heresy, should not be accepted. Cranmer and Ridley defended
strongly the Eucharistic doctrine it contained. When the disputation
between the bishops had been closed (19th Dec., 1548) the Bill for
Uniformity was brought down and read in the Commons. Of the bishops
present in the House of Lords ten voted in favour of the measure and
eight against it. Gardiner was still in prison, the Bishop of
Llandaff, who had spoken against Cranmer, was absent from the
division, and some others are not accounted for.[56]

The first Act of Uniformity (1548), as it is called, displaced the
Mass as it had been celebrated for centuries in the English Church,
and substituted in its place the new liturgy contained in the /Book of
Common Prayer/.[57] This latter while differing completely from any
rite that had been followed in the Catholic Church, had a close
affinity both in regard to the rites themselves and the ceremonies for
the administration of the Sacraments to the liturgy introduced by the
German Lutherans. According to the Act of Parliament it was to come
into force on Whit Sunday the 9th June (1549). That it was expected to
meet with strong opposition is evident from the prohibition against
plays, songs, rhymes, etc., holding it up to ridicule, as well as by
the heavy fines prescribed against those who might endeavour to
prevent clergymen from following it. Forfeiture of a year's revenue
together with imprisonment for six months was the penalty to be
inflicted on any clergyman who refused to follow the new liturgy.
Complete deprivation and imprisonment were prescribed for the second
offence, and the third offence was to be punished by life-long
imprisonment. For preventing any clergyman from adopting the new
liturgy the penalties were for the first offence a fine of £10, for
the second £20, and for the third forfeiture and perpetual
imprisonment. Finally Parliament satisfied Cranmer's scruples by
permitting clergy to contract marriages.

The attempt to abolish the Mass and to force the new liturgy on the
English people led to risings and disturbances throughout the country.
In London, where it might have been expected that the influence of the
court should have secured its ready acceptance, many of the churches
maintained the old service in spite of the frantic efforts of Cranmer
and his subordinates. Bishop Bonner was reproved sharply for
encouraging the disobedience of his clergy, and as he failed to give
satisfaction to the government he was committed to prison. In
Devonshire and Cornwall[58] the peasants and country gentlemen rose in
arms to protest against the new service which they had likened to a
Christmas game, and to demand the restoration of the Mass, Communion
under one kind, holy water, palms, ashes, images, and pictures. They
insisted that the Six Articles of Henry VIII. should be enforced once
more and that Cardinal Pole should be recalled from Rome, and honoured
with a seat at the council. In the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, where royal visitors and hired foreigners like Peter
Martyr, Bucer, and Ochino were doing their best to decatholicise these
seats of learning, violent commotions took place, that served to
arouse both students and people, and soon the country around Oxford
was in a blaze. The religious disturbances encouraged those who
preferred small farms and sturdy labourers to grazing inclosures and
sheep to raise the standard of revolt against the new economical
tendencies, and to accept the leadership of the Norfolk tanner,
William Kett.[59] By the strenuous exertions of the Protector and the
council, backed as they were by foreign mercenaries raised in Italy
and Germany to fight against Scotland, these rebellions were put down
by force, and the leaders, both lay and clerical, were punished with
merciless severity. The disturbed condition of the country, however,
the open dissatisfaction of the Catholic party, the compromises that
were offered to those who fought against inclosures, and the
unfortunate war with France into which the country had been plunged,
pointed to Somerset's unfitness for the office of Protector. A
combination was formed against him by the Earl of Warwick, assisted by
the leaders of the Catholic party. He was arrested, found guilty, and
deprived of all his offices (Dec. 1549), and the Earl of Warwick,
created later Duke of Northumberland, secured the principal share in
the new government.

Cranmer and his foreign assistants were filled with alarm for the
future of their cause. They feared that the new administration would
be controlled by Wriothesley, ex-Chancellor, the Arundels, Southwell
and other prominent Catholics, that Gardiner and Bonner might be
released from imprisonment, and that the demands of many of the
insurgents for the abolition of the Book of Common Prayer and the
restoration of the Mass might be conceded. The Catholic party were
filled with new hope; in Oxford and throughout the country the old
missals and vestments that had been hidden away were brought forth
again, and the offices and Mass were sung as they had been for
centuries.[60] But Warwick soon showed that the change of rulers meant
no change in the religious policy of the government. Gardiner and
Bonner were still kept in confinement; Wriothesley was dismissed from
the council; many of the other Catholic noblemen were imprisoned, and
Somerset who was supposed to have fallen a victim to the hatred of the
Catholics was released from his prison and re-admitted to the privy
council (1550). By the inglorious war with France and by the still
more inglorious peace of Boulogne the government felt itself free to
devote its energies to the religious situation at home. Warwick went
over completely to the camp of the reforming party and determined in
consultation with them to push forward the anti-Catholic campaign.

The Parliament that assembled in November 1549 was distinctly radical
in its tendencies. In the House of Lords the bishops complained that
their authority had been destroyed, and that their orders were set at
naught. In reply they were requested to formulate a proposal for
redress, but on such a proposal having been submitted, their demands
were regarded by the laymen as exorbitant. A commission was appointed
against the wishes of a strong minority of the bishops to draw up a
new Ordinal as a complement to the Book of Common Prayer. The
committee was appointed on the 2nd February 1550, and it appears to
have finished its work within a week. In the new /Ordinal/[61] (1550)
the ceremonies for the conferring of tonsure, minor orders, and sub-
deaconship were omitted entirely, while the ordination rites for
deacons, priests, and bishops were considerably modified. Just as the
sacrificial character of the Mass had been dropped out of the Book of
Common Prayer, so too the notion of a real priesthood disappeared from
the forms for ordination. In spite of the opposition of a large body
of the bishops, an Act was passed ordering the destruction of all
missals, antiphonals, processionals, manuals, ordinals, etc., used
formerly in the service of the Church and not approved of by the
king's majesty, as well as for the removal of all images "except any
image or picture set or graven upon any tomb in any church, chapel or
churchyard only for a monument of any king, prince, nobleman or other
dead person who had not been commonly reputed and taken for a
saint."[62] As a result of this measure a wholesale destruction of
valuable books and manuscripts took place in the king's own library at
Westminster and throughout the country. The royal visitors, entrusted
with the difficult work of Protestantising Oxford, acting under the
guidance of Dr. Cox, chancellor of the University or "cancellor" as he
was called, ransacked the college libraries, tore up and burned
priceless manuscripts or sold them as waste paper, and even went so
far as to demand the destruction of the chapel windows, lest these
beautiful specimens of art might encourage loyalty to the old religion
that had inspired their artists and donors.

As it had been determined to abandon completely the religious
conservatism of the former reign it was felt absolutely necessary to
remove the Catholic-minded bishops, to make way for men of the new
school on whom the government could rely with confidence. Gardiner of
Winchester and Bonner of London were already in prison. Heath of
Worcester, who had refused to agree to the new Ordinal, was arrested
in March 1550, as was also Day of Chichester in October. Tunstall of
Durham, whose conservative views were well known to all, was placed
under surveillance in May 1551, and thrown into prison together with
his dean in the following November. In a short time a sentence of
deprivation was issued against Bonner, Heath, Day and Gardiner. Bishop
Thirlby of Westminster, who had given great offence by his
uncompromising attitude regarding the Blessed Eucharist, was removed
from Westminster, where his presence was highly inconvenient, to
Norwich, and the aged Bishop Voysey was forced to resign the See of
Exeter to make way for a more reliable and more active man. At the
same time steps were taken in the universities to drive out the men
whose influence might be used against the government's plans. The Sees
of Westminster and London were combined and handed over to Ridley of
Rochester, one of Cranmer's ablest and most advanced lieutenants.
Hooper, who looked to Zwingli as his religious guide, was appointed to
Gloucester; but as he objected to the episcopal oath, and episcopal
vestments, and as he insisted on his rights of private judgment so far
as to write publicly against those things that had been sanctioned by
the supreme head of the Church, it was necessary to imprison him[63]
before he could be reduced to a proper frame of mind for the
imposition of Cranmer's hands (March 1551). Ponet was appointed to
Rochester, and on the deprivation of Gardiner, to Winchester, where
his scandalous and public connexion with the wife of a Nottingham
burgher[64] was not calculated to influence the longing of his flock
for the new teaching. Scory was appointed to Rochester and afterwards
to Chichester, and Miles Coverdale to Oxford.

The zeal of the new bishops in seeking out the suppression of
papistical practices and their readiness to place the property of the
churches at Northumberland's disposal soon showed that those who
selected them had made no mistake. On Ridley's arrival in London he
held a conference for the purpose of compelling the clergy to adopt
the new liturgy in place of the Mass. He issued an order for the
removal of altars, and for the erection in their places of "honest
tables decently covered," whereon Communion might be celebrated. The
high altar in the Cathedral of St. Paul was pulled down, and a plain
Communion table set up in its stead. As such a sacrilegious innovation
was resented by a great body of both clergy and people, the council
felt it necessary to instruct the sheriff of Middlesex to enforce the
commands of the bishop. The example thus set in the capital was to be
followed throughout the country. In November 1550 letters were sent
out to all the bishops in the name of the youthful head of the Church,
commanding them to pull down the altars in their dioceses, and for
disobedience to this order Bishop Day was arrested. Hooper, once his
scruples regarding the episcopal oath and vestments had been removed,
threw himself with ardour into the work of reforming the clergy of his
dioceses of Worcester and Gloucester, but only to find that nothing
less than a royal decree could serve to detach them from their old
"superstitions" (1552). While the wholesale work of destruction was
being pushed forward care was taken that none of the spoils derived
from the plunder of the churches should go to private individuals.
Warwick insisted on the new bishops handing over large portions of
episcopal estates to be conferred on his favourites, and royal
commissions were issued to take inventories of ecclesiastical
property. During the years 1551 and 1552 the churches were stripped of
their valuables, and the church plate, chalices, copes, vestments, and
altar cloths, were disposed of to provide money for the impecunious
members of the council.

Violent measures such as these were not likely to win popularity for
the new religion, nor to bring about dogmatic unity. Risings took
place in Leicester, Northampton, Rutland, and Berkshire, and free
fights were witnessed even in the churches of London. Rumours of
conspiracy, especially in the north, where the Earls of Shrewsbury and
Derby still clung to the Catholic faith, were circulated, and fears of
a French invasion were not entirely without foundation. A new Act of
Uniformity[65] was decreed (1552) threatening spiritual and temporal
punishments against laymen who neglected to attend common prayer on
Sundays and holidays. Acts were passed for the relief of the poor who
had been rendered destitute by the suppression of the monasteries and
the wholesale inclosures, and to comfort the married clergy, whose
children were still regarded commonly as illegitimate, a second
measure was passed legalising such unions. Fighting in churches and
churchyards was to be put down with a heavy hand. If spiritual
punishments could not suffice for the maintenance of order offenders
were to be deprived of an ear or branded on the cheek with a red hot
iron.

Though according to some the Book of Common Prayer had been compiled
under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, soon it came to be regarded by
many as unsatisfactory. The men, who had rejected the authority of the
Pope because he was a foreigner to follow the teaching of apostate
friars from Switzerland, Italy, Poland, and Germany, clamoured for its
revision on the ground that it seemed to uphold the Real and Corporeal
Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Cranmer, who had accepted
Transubstantiation in the days of Henry VIII., and had defended a kind
of Real Presence in 1549, veered gradually towards Calvin's teaching
on the Eucharist. In order to remove the ambiguities and difficulties
of the old Prayer Book, it was determined to subject it to a complete
revision by which everything that implied a real objective presence of
Christ in the Eucharist should be omitted. The second Book of Common
Prayer was submitted and approved by Parliament (1552), and its use
was authorised by royal proclamation. It was to come into force in
November 1552, but late in September, when some copies of the Book
were already printed, the council issued a command that the work
should be stopped until further corrections had been made. It seems
that by a new rubric inserted by Cranmer communicants were enjoined to
receive the communion on bended knees, and John Knox, who had arrived
lately in England and was high in the favour of the council, objected
strongly to such an injunction as flavouring of papistry.
Notwithstanding the spirited remonstrances of Cranmer, the council
without authority from Parliament or Convocation obliged him to insert
on a fly leaf the famous "Black Rubric" which remains in the Book of
Common Prayer till the present day, except that in the time of Charles
II. a change was made, by which "corporeal presence" was inserted in
place of the "real and essential presence" repudiated in the first
form of the rubric.[66]

One other matter was considered by Cranmer as necessary for the
success of the new religious settlement, namely, the publication of an
authoritative creed for the English Church. The great diversity of
opinion in the country, the frantic appeals of men like Hooper who had
tried in vain to make an unwilling clergy accept their own dogmatic
standard, and the striking success of the Council of Trent in
vindicating Catholic doctrine, made it necessary to show the English
people what could be done by the supreme head of the Church at home
even though he was only a helpless boy. In 1549 Cranmer drew up a
series of Articles to be accepted by all preachers in his diocese.
These he submitted to the body of the bishops in 1551, and later at
the request of the privy council to a commission of six amongst whom
was John Knox. They were returned with annotations to Cranmer, who
having revised them besought the council to authorise their
publication. Finally in June 1553 Edward VI., four weeks before his
death, approved them, and commanded that they should be accepted by
all his subjects. The /Forty-two Articles/ represented the first
attempt to provide the English Church with a distinct dogmatic creed.
In the title page it was stated that the Articles had been agreed upon
"by the bishops and other learned and godly men in the last
Convocation held in London in the year of Our Lord 1552"; but
notwithstanding this very explicit statement, it is now practically
certain that the Articles were never submitted to or approved by
Convocation. In other words, as Gairdner puts it,[67] the title page
is "nothing but a shameful piece of official mendacity" resorted to in
order to deceive the people, and to prevent them from being influenced
by the successful work accomplished by the Fathers of Trent.

The Duke of Northumberland, who had scrambled into power on the
shoulders of the Catholic party, deserted his former allies, and went
over completely to the party of Cranmer, Ridley, and Hooper. Taking
advantage of England's peaceful relations with France and Scotland and
of the difficulties of the Emperor in Germany, he had risked
everything to make England a Protestant nation. He had removed the
bishops whose influence he feared, and had packed the episcopal bench
with his own nominees. He had destroyed the altars and burned the
missals to show his contempt for the Mass, and his firm resolve to
uproot the religious beliefs of the English people. So determined were
he and his friends to enforce the new religious service that even the
Princess Mary was forbidden to have Mass celebrated in her presence,
and her chaplains were prosecuted for disobeying the king's law. Once
indeed the Emperor felt it necessary to intervene in defence of his
kinswoman, and to warn the council that if any attempt were made to
prevent her from worshipping as she pleased, he would feel it
necessary to recall his ambassador and to declare war (1551). The
situation was decidedly embarrassing, and the council resolved to seek
the advice of Cranmer, Ridley, and Hooper. The bishops replied that
though to give licence to sin was sinful Mary's disobedience might be
winked at for the time.[68] The suggestion was followed by the
council, but later on when the Emperor's hands were tied by the
troubles in Germany, the attempt to overawe the princess was renewed.
Mary, however, showed the true Tudor spirit of independence, and, as
it would have been dangerous to imprison her or to behead her, she was
not pushed to extremes.

In 1553 it was clear to Northumberland that Edward VI. could not long
survive, and that with his death and the succession of Mary, his own
future and the future of the religious settlement for which he had
striven would be gravely imperilled. In defiance therefore of the late
king's will, and of what he knew to be the wishes of the English
people, for all through Edward's reign the Princess Mary was a great
favourite with the nation, he determined to secure the succession for
Lady Jane Grey, the grand-daughter of Henry VIII.'s sister Mary. Such
a succession, he imagined, would guarantee his own safety and the
triumph of Protestantism, more especially as he took care to bring
about a marriage between the prospective queen and his son, Lord
Guildford Dudley. When everything had been arranged the Chief Justice
and the two leading law officers of the crown were summoned to the
bedside of the dying king, and instructed to draw up a deed altering
the succession. They implored the king to abandon such a project, and
pointed out that it was illegal and would involve everyone concerned
in it in the guilt of treason, but Northumberland's violence overcame
their scruples, particularly as their own safety was assured by a
commission under the great seal and a promise of pardon. When the
document was drawn up it was signed by the king, the judges, and the
members of the council. Cranmer hesitated on the ground that he had
sworn to uphold the will of Henry VIII., but as the situation was a
desperate one, he agreed finally to follow the example that had been
set (June 1553). The preachers were instructed to prepare the people
for the change by denouncing both Mary and Elizabeth as bastards. On
the 6th July Edward VI. died at Greenwich, but his death was kept a
secret until Northumberland's plans could be matured. Four days later
Lady Jane Grey arrived in London, and the proclamation of her
accession to the throne was received with ominous silence in the
streets of the capital.
----------

[1] /The Life and Death of Thomas Wolsey, written by one of his
    Servants/; ed. by Simpson, 1901. Cavendish, /The Life of Cardinal
    Wolsey/, 1885. Creighton, /Cardinal Wolsey/, 1888. Taunton,
    /Thomas Wolsey, Legate and Reformer/, 1902.

[2] O'Donovan, /Assertio Septem Sacramentorum/, etc., 1908.

[3] Id., 118-26.

[4] On the Divorce proceedings, cf. Harpsfield, /A Treatise on the
    Pretended Divorce between Henry VIII. and Catharine of Aragon/,
    (written 1556, ed. 1878). Hope, /The First Divorce of Henry VIII.
    as told in the State Papers/, 1894. Ehses, /Römische Dokumente zur
    Geschichte der Ehescheidung/, 1893. Thurston, /Clement VII.,
    Campeggio and the Divorce/ (American Cath. Quart. Rev., 1904).
    Id., /The Canon Law of the Divorce/ (Eng. Hist. Review, 1904).
    Gairdner, /New Lights on the Divorce/ (Eng. Hist. Rev., 1897, also
    1892). Friedman, /Anne Boleyn/, 2 vols., 1884.

[5] Ehses, op. cit., 21-7.

[6] Ehses, op. cit., p. xxxiii.

[7] Id., 14-16.

[8] Ehses, op. cit., pp. 28-31.

[9] /Political History of England/, vol. v., 280-1.

[10] Ehses, op. cit., p. xxxi., sqq.

[11] Brewer, /Reign of Hen. VIII./, ii., 346-51.

[12] Ehses, 120-5.

[13] Brewer, op. cit., 466-7.

[14] /Pol. Hist. of England/, v., 301.

[15] /Letters and Papers, Henry VIII./, iv., 64-78.

[16] Rymer, /Foedera/, xiv., 405.

[17] Ehses, op. cit., 163-4.

[18] Ehses, 167 sqq.

[19] Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation/, i., 300.

[20] Gairdner, /Hist. of Eng. Ch. in XVIth Century/, 114.

[21] /Letters and Papers/, v., 886.

[22] Ehses, op. cit., 200-1.

[23] Haile, /The Life of Reginald Pole/, 1910, p. 88.

[24] For his dying statement against Royal Supremacy, vid. /Dublin
    Review/ (April, 1894).

[25] /Pol. Hist. of England/, v., 318.

[26] /Pol. Hist. of England/, v., 318-19.

[27] Ehses, op. cit., 212-13.

[28] Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation/, i., 48-52.

[29] /Pol. Hist. of England/, v., 344.

[30] /Lollardy and the Reformation/, i., 424-35.

[31] Cf. Bridgett, /Life of Blessed John Fisher/, 1888. Stewart, /Life
    of John Fisher/, 1879. Baily (Hall), /Life and Death of John
    Fisher/, 1655.

[32] Cf. Roper, /The Life, Arraignment, and Death of ... Sir Thomas
    More/, 1629 (reprinted 1903). Bridgett, /Life and Writings of Sir
    Thomas More/, 1891. Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation/,
    (chap. iv., v.).

[33] /Pol. Hist. of England/, v., 361.

[34] Cf. Gasquet, /Henry VIII. and the English Monasteries/. Gairdner,
    /Lollardy and the Reformation, II./ (chap. ii., iii.).

[35] Turnbull, /Account of Monastic Treasures confiscated at the
    Dissolution/, etc., 1836.

[36] Gairdner, /Letters and Papers Hen. VIII./, xi., xii.

[37] Haile, /Life of Reginald Pole/ (chap. ix.-xi.).

[38] Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation/, vol. ii., 304 sqq.

[39] Gairdner, /Hist. of the Eng. Church in the XVIIth Cent./, 177-8.

[40] Gairdner, /The Story of the English Bible/ (/Loll. and the Ref./,
    ii. 221 sqq.).

[41] /English Statutes/, 34 and 35 Hen. VIII., c. 50.

[42] Gairdner, /German Protestants and the Act of Six Articles/ (op.
    cit., ii., 170-220.)

[43] Merriman, /Life and Letters of Thomas Cromwell/, 2 vols., 1902.

[44] Tytler, /England under Edward VI. and Mary/, 2 vols., 1839.

[45] Gasquet-Bishop, /Edw. VI. and the Book of Common Prayer/, 43-4.

[46] Cf. Dodd-Tierney, /Church Hist. of England/, ii., app. iii.

[47] Id., app. iv.

[48] Lee, /Edw. VI., Supreme Head/, 39.

[49] Gasquet-Bishop, op. cit., 69-77.

[50] Leach, /Eng. Schools at the Reformation/, 1-7.

[51] Gasquet-Bishop, op. cit., 92-96.

[52] /Cambridge Mod. History/, ii., 477.

[53] Gasquet-Bishop, op. cit., 83 sqq. Dixon, /History of the Church/,
    ii., 476.

[54] Gasquet-Bishop, op. cit., chap. ix.

[55] Dodd-Tierney, ii., app. ix.

[56] Gasquet-Bishop, op. cit., chap. x.

[57] /The First Prayer Book of King Edw. VI./, 1549 (Westminster
    Library). Proctor-Frere, /New History of the Book of Common
    Prayer/, 1901.

[58] Rose-Troup, /The Western Rebellion of 1549/, 1913.

[59] Russell, /Kett's Rebellion/, 1859.

[60] Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation/, iii., 125-7.

[61] /The Forme and Maner of makyng and consecratyng of
    Archebishoppes, Bishoppes, Priestes, and Deacons/.

[62] /Stat. 3rd and 4th, Edw. VI./, c. 10.

[63] Gairdner, op. cit., iii., 273.

[64] Lee, op. cit., 214.

[65] /Stat. 5th and 6th, Edw. III./, c. 50.

[66] Gairdner, op. cit., iii., 349-50.

[67] Gairdner, op. cit., iii., 376-77.

[68] Gairdner, op. cit., iii., 201.



CHAPTER III

CATHOLIC REACTION IN THE REIGN OF QUEEN MARY (1553-1558)

  See bibliography, chap. i., ii., /State Papers/ (Home, Foreign,
  Venetian). /The Diary of Henry Machyn, etc., from 1550 to 1563/
  (ed. by J. G. Nichols, 1854). Lingard, /History of England/ (vol.
  v.). Gairdner, /Lollardy and the Reformation/, vol. iv. 1913.
  Innes, /England under the Tudors/, 1905. Zimmermann, /Maria die
  Katholische/, 1896. Stone, /Mary I., Queen of England/, 1901.
  Haile, /Life of Reginald Pole/, 1910. Zimmermann, /Kardinal Pole,
  sein Leben, und seine Schriften/, 1893. Lee, /Reginald Pole,
  Cardinal Archbishop of Canterbury/. /Cambridge Modern History/,
  vol. ii., chap. xv.

Lady Jane Grey might be proclaimed queen, but until Mary had been
lodged safely in the Tower the triumph of the conspiracy was not
assured. Efforts had been made to induce her to come to London, but
warned by secret messages dispatched by her London friends, she fled
from her residence in Hundon to a castle in Suffolk, from which she
addressed letters to the council and to the prominent noblemen of
England asserting her rights to the throne. From all parts of the
country thousands flocked to join her standard, while the frantic
appeals of Northumberland and his colleagues failed to awaken any
genuine response even in London itself. Northumberland, much against
his will, consented to lead the army against Mary, who was advancing
towards the capital, but after his departure, the members of the
council, convinced that their cause was hopeless, deserted their
leader, and permitted Mary to be proclaimed (19th July).
Northumberland surrendered himself to the mercy of the new queen, and
was committed to the Tower together with his principal adherents. On
the 3rd August Mary made her formal entrance into London where she
received an enthusiastic welcome from the citizens. Her first care was
to liberate some of those who had been arrested during the previous
reign, Bishops Gardiner, Bonner, Heath, and Day, the Duke of Norfolk,
and Lord Courtenay, the latter of whom had been in confinement for
fifteen years. As a fervent Catholic, who had upheld the Mass in the
days of Edward VI. even at the risk of her life, there could be no
doubt about the new queen's religious views, and in many of the
churches in London and throughout the country the English service gave
place immediately to the Mass. In an interview with the lord mayor of
London, and afterwards in the public proclamation addressed to all her
subjects, she announced that, though it was her intention to follow
the Catholic religion, she had no desire of resorting to compulsion to
force it on her people against their will, and she exhorted them to
live together in Christian harmony, avoiding the "new found devilish
terms of papist and heretic." As a sign that vengeance and cruelty
were no part of her programme she exercised great mercy towards those
who had conspired to deprive her of the throne, only a few of whom,
including the Earl of Northumberland, were put to death. Possibly in
the hope of playing upon the feelings of the queen and of securing a
pardon Northumberland announced publicly his return to the old faith
and his acceptance of the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist.

Charles V., on whose counsel Mary relied, advised her to proceed
cautiously with the restoration of religion in England. Many of the
younger generation had been taught to regard papal supremacy as an
unwarrantable interference with English independence, while those who
had been enriched by the plunder of the Church had every reason for
upholding the Edwardine settlement. For their part in promoting the
conspiracy against the queen as well as for various other offences
laid to their charge Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Latimer, and Coverdale
were committed to prison; Bishop Ponet went into hiding, and Barlow
made his escape from the country. Later on all these were deprived of
their Sees. Gardiner was restored to his See of Winchester, and
appointed Lord Chancellor, Tunstall to Durham, Heath to Worcester, Day
to Chichester, and Voysey to Exeter. Foreign scholars like Peter
Martyr, John à Lasco and their friends, whom Cranmer had brought over
to teach the English people the new religion, were granted passports
and permitted to leave the kingdom. Their example was followed by John
Knox, and by many others of the married clergy.

In her heart Mary detested the title supreme head of the Church, and
was most anxious to bring about a reconciliation with Rome. When the
news of her accession reached Rome it brought joy to the heart of
Julius III. He determined at once to send a legate to England, and he
selected for this office the great English Cardinal, whose devotion to
his country was equalled only by his loyalty to the Church. Cardinal
Pole was appointed legate with full powers, and was entrusted also
with the work of effecting a reconciliation between the Emperor and
Henry II. of France. Charles V. had no desire to see Pole in England
installed as Queen Mary's chief adviser. He had planned a marriage
between Mary and his eldest son, afterwards Philip II. of Spain, and
fully conscious that Pole might oppose such an alliance as dangerous
both for England and for religion, he was determined to delay the
arrival of the legate until the negotiations for the marriage had been
completed.

In October 1553 Mary was crowned solemnly by Bishop Gardiner at
Westminster Abbey. She bound herself by oath to preserve the liberties
of her kingdom, and to maintain the rights of the Holy See. Four days
later she attended the Mass of the Holy Ghost at the opening of
Parliament, and listened to the address in which her Lord Chancellor
exhorted the members to show their repentance for and detestation of
the heresy and schism of which he and they had been guilty, by
returning to the unity of the Catholic Church. All the new treasons,
felonies, and praemunire penalties of the previous reigns were
abolished on the ground, it was declared, that Mary hoped to win the
obedience of her subjects through love rather than through fear. The
marriage of Henry VIII. with Catharine of Aragon was declared valid,
and consequently Mary was acknowledged as the lawful successor to the
throne. The Edwardine religious settlement, including the Acts of
Uniformity, the Book of Common Prayer, the Ordinal, the Forty-two
Articles and the permission for clergymen to marry, was swept away,
and an Act was passed against disturbing religious services or
exhibiting irreverence towards the Eucharist. All this legislation was
in perfect conformity with the wishes of Convocation, which had met
shortly after the meeting of Parliament, and which with only a few
dissentients condemned the Book of Common Prayer, and re-affirmed the
belief of the English clergy in the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
Though the queen announced her dissatisfaction with the title of
supreme head, and granted full freedom of discussion regarding it,
Parliament showed itself decidedly unwilling to restore the
jurisdiction of the Pope. It was not that the members had any real
objection to the change from the doctrinal point of view, but, fearing
that a return to Roman obedience might involve a restoration of the
ecclesiastical property seized or alienated during the previous reign,
they wished to secure their property before they made their submission
to the Pope.

For so far Mary had acted with considerable mildness and prudence in
carrying out her religious programme, against which as yet no serious
opposition had been manifested. The question of her marriage, however,
was destined to create dissension between herself and her subjects.
The Emperor and the imperial ambassador urged her to accept the hand
of Philip, on the ground that by such a marriage internal jealousies
and dissensions might be avoided, and the triumph of Catholicism might
be assured. Many of the members of the council and the vast majority
of the English people were opposed to such a union. They feared that
were a foreign ruler to become the husband of their queen he must have
of necessity the chief voice in English affairs. They believed,
therefore, that England would be involved in all the wars of Spain,
and that were an heir to be born of such a union, England, instead of
being an independent nation, might become a mere Spanish province. The
enemies of Mary's religious programme thought they saw in the Spanish
marriage an opportunity of overturning her government, and of
re-establishing Protestantism in the country. Taking advantage of the
unpopularity of this proposal they appealed to the patriotism and love
of independence of the English people, and succeeded in winning to
their side many who were at least neutral in regard to her religious
proposals. It was planned by some to bring about a marriage between
the Princess Elizabeth and Edward Courtenay, both of whom had claims
to the throne, and to set them up as rivals to Queen Mary. The French
ambassador, alarmed at the prospect of Mary's marriage with the
hereditary enemy of France, encouraged the conspirators with promises
of assistance, not, indeed, because France desired the accession of
Elizabeth, but in the hope that during the confusion that would ensue
it might be possible to assert the claims of Mary Queen of Scotland,
the prospective wife of the Dauphin of France.

Notwithstanding the petition presented against the Spanish marriage by
Parliament, Mary persisted in the policy suggested to her by the
Emperor. Flemish envoys arrived on New Year's Day 1554 to arrange the
preliminaries. The marriage treaty was signed and two days later it
was announced to the mayor and the chief citizens of London. This was
the signal for the conspirators, who had been working secretly for
months, to bring their designs to a head. News soon arrived in London
that Sir Peter Carew had risen in Devon and had captured Exeter, that
Sir Thomas Wyatt was rousing the men of Kent, and that Sir James
Crofts had gone to Wales and the Duke of Suffolk to the midlands to
rally the forces of disloyalty. But the great body of the English
people were too deeply attached to their sovereign to respond to the
appeal of the rebel leaders. Wyatt's movement alone threatened to be
dangerous. As his forces advanced to the gates of London, Mary, who
had shown the greatest courage throughout the crisis, went in person
to the Guildhall to call upon the citizens of London to defend their
sovereign. Her invitation was responded to with enthusiasm, and when
Wyatt had succeeded in forcing his way as far as Ludgate Circus, he
was obliged to retire and to surrender himself a prisoner to the
queen's forces. Mary, who for so far had followed a policy of extreme
mildness, felt that she could do so no longer, and that she must make
it clear to her subjects that to declare war on the throne was a
serious crime. Wyatt, the Duke of Suffolk, father of Lady Jane Grey,
and several of the leaders were tried and put to death. Already in
November Lady Jane Grey, her husband and Cranmer had been condemned to
death as traitors. The sentence was not, however, carried out, nor was
it likely to have been, had not the rebellion shown that Mary's
enemies might utilise such dangerous claimants to the throne for
stirring up new disaffection. Lady Jane Grey[1] and her husband were
put to death on Tower Hill (Feb. 1554); several of the other
conspirators were punished only by imprisonment, and a general pardon
was published for the great body of the insurgents. Mary's treatment
of the offenders, however the execution of Lady Jane Grey may be
regarded, was in striking contrast to what might have been expected to
have taken place in similar circumstances had the throne been occupied
by her father or even by her sister Elizabeth. From the confessions of
some of the rebels as well as from the correspondence of the French
ambassador serious evidence was furnished to show that Elizabeth was
implicated in the rebellion. She was summoned to London to answer the
charges brought against her, and though she protested her innocence
she was committed to the Tower. Many members of the council were
convinced of her guilt, but Mary, refusing to believe that her sister
was privy to the designs of the conspirators, ordered her release.

The terms of the marriage treaty having been confirmed by Parliament
(April 1554) Philip arrived in England, and on the 25th July the
marriage was celebrated in Westminster Abbey. Philip and Mary were
proclaimed "by the grace of God King and Queen of England, France,
Naples, Jerusalem, and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Princes of
Spain and Sicily, Arch-Dukes of Austria, Dukes of Milan, Burgundy and
Brabant, Counts of Habsburg, Flanders, and Tyrol." The Emperor had at
last carried his point, and, as the presence of Cardinal Pole in
England could no longer prove a danger to his designs, the latter was
now free to come to England. During the early portions of the year
steps had been taken to prepare England for the worthy reception of
the papal legate. In March four of the reforming bishops were deprived
of their Sees on the ground that they were married, and three others
who held their appointments only by letters patent of Edward VI. were
removed. On the 1st April six new bishops were consecrated by Gardiner
to fill the vacant Sees. Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley were sent down
to Oxford to defend their views in a public discussion, arranged
undoubtedly with the object of forwarding the national reconciliation
with Rome. There were still, however, difficulties that must be
removed before Cardinal Pole could be allowed to land on English soil.
The real objection to the return of England to the Roman obedience was
the ownership of the Church lands, and from what had happened in the
two previous sessions it was perfectly clear that those who had
benefited by the plunder of the Church lands were determined to refuse
to make restoration. After prolonged negotiations Pole agreed that,
while the Pope could not approve of what had been done, he would not
insist on the restoration of ecclesiastical property.

When everything had been arranged Parliament was summoned to meet in
November 1554. The sheriffs were instructed to see that men "of the
wise, grave and Catholic sort" should be returned. An Act was passed
immediately reversing the sentence of Attainder against Cardinal Pole.
The legate hastened on his way to London where he was welcomed by the
King and Queen and Parliament. A supplication was adopted unanimously
in the House of Lords, and with but one dissentient in the House of
Commons, requesting the King and Queen to procure from the legate
absolution from heresy and schism for the English people and a
reconciliation of the nation with the Pope. Cardinal Pole attended
Parliament on the 30th to pronounce the sentence of absolution, which
was received by the King, Queen, Lords, and Commons on bended knees.
This happy event was celebrated by a procession through the streets of
London in which the clergymen, aldermen, and citizens took part.
Parliament petitioned that the old jurisdiction of the clergy should
be restored, that the liberty granted to the Church by the Magna
Charta should be confirmed, and that the English religious service-
books of the previous reign should be delivered to the flames. Once it
was made clear that the owners of ecclesiastical property should not
be disturbed there was no difficulty in procuring a complete reversal
of all the laws that had been passed against the apostolic See of Rome
since the twentieth year of Henry VIII. (3rd January 1555).[2]

The close connexion of the leaders of the Reformers with the late
rebellion, the ugly pamphlets that made their way into England from
Frankfurt and Geneva, the fact that prayers were offered in secret for
the speedy death of the queen, that a shot had been fired at one of
the royal preachers while he was in the pulpit, and that a violent
commotion was being stirred up, that led later on to a priest being
struck down at the altar by one who is designated by Foxe as "a
faithful servant of God,"[3] made it necessary for the safety of the
crown and the advancement of religion to deal harshly with those who
themselves had relied on persecution for the promotion of their
designs. Mary herself, Philip, and Cardinal Pole did not favour a
recourse to violent measures, but they were overruled by the judgment
of those who should have known best the character of the opponents
with whom they had to deal. An Act was passed renewing the legislation
that had been made in the reigns of Richard II., Henry IV., and Henry
V. for the suppression of the Lollard heresy.

Parliament was dissolved in January 1555, and several of the political
prisoners were released from the Tower. The heretical leaders, who
though under arrest had been treated with great mildness and allowed
such liberty that they were able to meet together and to publish
writings and challenges against Mary's religious policy,[4] were
brought to trial before a commission presided over by Gardiner. A few
consented to sign a formula of recantation, but the majority,
persisting in their opposition, were degraded and handed over for
punishment to the civil authorities. On the 4th February the long
series of burnings began. John Rogers was committed to the flames in
Smithfield, Bishop Hooper in Gloucester, Taylor in Suffolk, Saunders
in Coventry, and before the year had elapsed about seventy prisoners
had met a similar fate. In September 1555 a commission was sent down
to Oxford to examine Latimer and Ridley. Both refused to admit
Transubstantiation, the sacrificial character of the Mass, or Roman
supremacy. They were condemned, and it must be said of them that they
met their fate like men. Judges were appointed by the Pope to take
evidence against Cranmer. He was charged with perjury because he had
broken his oath to the Pope, with heresy on account of his teaching
against the Eucharist, and with adultery. The minutes of the trial
were forwarded to Rome for the final decision, and after careful
consideration the Pope deposed him from the Archbishopric of
Canterbury, and excommunicated him. Meanwhile Cranmer's theological
views had been undergoing another revision. On the question of prayers
for the dead, Purgatory, and the Mass, he was willing to admit that he
might have been mistaken, and even on the question of papal supremacy
he professed himself ready to listen to argument. In his eagerness to
escape punishment he signed recantation after recantation, each of
them more comprehensive and more submissive than its predecessor,
acknowledging his guilt as a persecutor of the Church and a disturber
of the faith of the English nation, and praying for pardon from the
sovereigns, the Pope, and God. But in the end, when he realised that
his recantations could not save him and that he was face to face with
death, he deceived his chaplains at the last moment as he had deceived
many others, by withdrawing his previous admissions and announcing
that he still clung to his heretical views[5] (21st March 1556).

An embassy had been sent to Rome to inform the Pope that England had
returned to the Holy See. The envoys reported, too, that though Mary
had failed to secure a restoration of the ecclesiastical lands, she
had at least set a good example to the lay usurpers by returning the
possessions of the Church still held by the crown. The synod summoned
by Cardinal Pole to restore the discipline of the Church in England,
met in November 1555. It was agreed in the synod that the 30th
November should be kept as a national holiday in memory of the
reconciliation of England to the Church, that the decrees binding in
England before the troubles began under Henry VIII. should be
enforced, that the clergy should be mindful of their duties of
residence and preaching, that seminaries should be set up in each
diocese for the education of the clergy, that bishops should hold
frequent visitations, that a set of homilies should be compiled for
the guidance of preachers, and that an English version of the
Scriptures should be published without delay.[6] This new code of
constitutions issued under the title /Reformatio Angliae ex decretis
Reginaldi Pole/ is in itself a testimony to the ability, moderation,
and prudence of the papal legate. Some months later he was
consecrated bishop and took possession of the See of Canterbury to
which he had been appointed on the deposition of Cranmer. In pursuance
of her plans for the complete re-establishment of the Catholic
religion the queen took steps to ensure that the monastic
institutions, which had been suppressed during the previous reigns,
should begin to make their appearance once more in England. The
Carthusians returned to London, the Grey Friars occupied a house at
Greenwich, the Dominicans took possession of St. Bartholomew's, and
the Benedictines were installed in Westminster (1556).

The queen, who two years before had been full of courage and hope,
began to lose confidence in the success of her work. The Spanish
marriage was the beginning of her misfortunes, and the apparent
dependence of Catholicism on Spanish help proved to be the undoing of
the Catholic religion in England. Disappointed in the birth of an
heir, deserted by her husband who found enough to engage his attention
in Spain and the Netherlands, confronted with conspiracies promoted by
heretics and encouraged for its own selfish purpose by France,
doubtful of the real sentiments of Elizabeth, and with hardly any
friends upon whose advice she could rely with confidence, it is not to
be wondered at that Mary felt inclined to despair. She was determined,
however, to continue the work she had begun, and to see that at least
during her life heresy should be put down with a heavy hand.
Unfortunately for the success of her projects she was involved in
difficulties with Rome. Paul IV. (1555-59) was a man of stern,
unbending character, firmly resolved to maintain the rights and
liberties of the Holy See. Annoyed at the domineering policy of
Charles V., and of his son Philip II., he was anxious to put an end to
Spanish rule in Naples. The relations became so embittered that a
Spanish force under the command of the Duke of Alva crossed the
frontiers of the Papal States, and Paul IV. recalled his agents from
Philip's territories (1557). France decided to support the Pope, and
soon active hostilities began. Philip, for whose return to England
Mary had so often appealed in vain, came back early in 1557, but only
to request that England should join with him in a war with France.

Mary's position was a particularly cruel one. She could not well
resist the demands of her husband, particularly as France had lent its
patronage and assistance to the conspiracies plotted for her
overthrow. The position of Cardinal Pole was even more cruel. He had
done all that man could do to prevent the outbreak of war, and when
all his efforts proved unavailing, he retired from court lest he, a
legate of the Holy See, should be obliged to meet Philip who was at
war with the Pope. By the papal order (1557) recalling all his agents
from the Spanish territories the Cardinal found himself deprived of
the office of legate, to the astonishment of his friends and the grief
of the queen. Agents were dispatched to Rome to induce Paul IV. to
cancel the legate's recall. The Pope, however, having taken some time
for consideration refused to accede to the request, but agreed to send
a new legate in the person of the Observant, Friar William Peto (14
June 1557), who had preached so manfully against Henry's divorce, and
who was now created cardinal to prepare him for his new position. The
messenger dispatched to announce these tidings was refused admission
into England, although Pole who had learned of what had taken place in
Rome refused to act any longer as legate, and addressed a strong but
respectful letter of remonstrance to the Pope. Both from the point of
view of religion and of politics the French war, in which Mary's
husband had succeeded in involving England, proved disastrous. It led
to the loss of Calais and Guisnes (1558) the last of the English
possessions in France, to increased taxation, and to a strong feeling
against Mary and all her counsellors. Distrust of the Spanish alliance
led to distrust of the religion of which Philip had constituted
himself the champion, and helped to forward the schemes of those who
sought to identify patriotism with Protestantism. Though the great
body of the people had accepted the Catholic religion, and though to
all appearances its restoration was complete, Mary's last days were
embittered by the thought that under the reign of her successor the
religious settlement that had been effected might be overturned.
Already courtiers and diplomatists were abandoning her presence to win
favour with Elizabeth, who professed to be a sincere Catholic, but on
whose professions too much reliance could not be placed. On November
17th 1558 Mary passed away, and a few hours later her great counsellor
and friend Cardinal Pole was called to his reward.
----------

[1] Taylor, /Life of Lady Jane Grey/, 1908.

[2] Dodd-Tierney, ii., App. xxv.

[3] Gairdner, /Heretics Painted mostly by Themselves/, op. cit., iv.,
    305 sqq.

[4] Gairdner, /Hist. of Eng. Church in Sixteenth Century/, 348.

[5] Gairdner, op. cit., 370-7. Strype's /Life of Cranmer/ (Oxford
    edition of Strype's Works, 1812-24).

[6] Haile, /Life of Cardinal Pole/, 476-83.



CHAPTER IV

THE REIGN OF QUEEN ELIZABETH (1558-1603)

  See bibliography, chap. ii., iii. /Publications of the English
  Catholic Record Society/, 1904-14. Strype, /Annals of the
  Reformation/, 1708-9 (a complete edition of Strype's Works
  published, Oxford, 1812-24, 25 vols.; Index Vol., 1828). Birt,
  O.S.B., /The Elizabethan Religious Settlement/, 1907. Meyer,
  /England und Die Katholische Kirche unter Elisabeth und Den
  Stuarts/. Gee, /The Elizabethan Clergy and the Settlement of
  Religion/, 1898. Lee, /The Church under Queen Elizabeth/, 2 vols.,
  2nd edition, 1893. Bridgett, /The True Story of the Catholic
  Hierarchy/, 1889. Phillips, /The Extinction of the Catholic
  Hierarchy/, 1905. Gillow, /Literary and Biographical History of
  English Catholics/. Foley, /Records of the English Province of the
  Society of Jesus/, 7 vols., 1880. Challoner, /Memoirs of
  Missionary Priests/, etc. (1577-1684), 2 vols., 1803. Camm, /Lives
  of the English Martyrs/ (1583-88), 1914. Guilday, /The English
  Catholic Refugees on the Continent/ (1558-1795), 1914. Husenbeth,
  /Notices of the English Colleges and Convents on the Continent
  after the Dissolution of the Religious Houses in England/, 1849.
  Knox, /Records of the English Catholics under the Penal Laws/.
  /The Month/ (1900-2).

A few hours after Mary's death Elizabeth was proclaimed queen
according to the terms of her father's will, and messengers were
dispatched to Hatfield to announce her accession and to escort her to
the capital. During the reign of her brother her relations with Thomas
Seymour nearly led to a secret marriage and the loss of her rights to
the throne, while during the lifetime of her sister the disclosures of
Wyatt and his followers and the correspondence of the French
ambassador brought her to the Tower on suspicion of treason. Mary was,
however, averse to severe measures, more especially as Elizabeth
expressed her devotion to the Catholic religion and her willingness to
accept the new religious settlement. But in secret she treasured other
views, not because she was hostile to the Catholic religion, but
because opposition to Catholicism seemed to be the best means of
maintaining her claim to the crown and of resisting Mary Queen of
Scots, who from the Catholic point of view was the nearest legitimate
heir to the throne. Already, before the death of Mary, Elizabeth was
in close correspondence with those who were unfriendly to Catholicism
and to the Spanish connexion, and she had selected William Cecil,
whose religious views and practices during Mary's reign coincided with
her own, to be her secretary. Her accession was hailed with joy
throughout England, for Englishmen were glad to have a ruler of their
own so as to be rid of the Spanish domination, that had led to
taxation at home and disaster abroad. The official announcement of
Elizabeth's accession was as welcome to Philip II., who was still
England's ally, as it was distasteful to France, which regarded Mary
Queen of Scots as the lawful claimant to England's throne. It is
noteworthy, as affording a clue to Elizabeth's future policy, that no
official notice of her accession was forwarded to the Pope, nor were
the credentials of the English ambassador at Rome either confirmed or
revoked. Paul IV., notwithstanding the efforts of the French, was
unwilling to create any difficulties for England's new ruler by
declaring her illegitimate or by treating her otherwise than as a
rightful sovereign.[1]

Though many of Mary's old councillors were retained it is remarked by
many interested observers that the new members selected by the queen
belonged to the party likely to favour religious innovations, and that
her real advisers were not the privy council but a select coterie, the
principal of which were William Cecil, Secretary of State, and his
brother-in-law, Nicholas Bacon, appointed Lord Keeper of the Seal,
both of whom, while outwardly professing their devotion to the old
religion under Queen Mary, were well known to sympathise with the
Edwardian régime. The men who had fled to Frankfurt or Geneva began to
return and to preach their doctrines to the crowd, and the Italian
church in London was attacked by a mob. Outwardly no change took place
in the religious ceremonial. A royal proclamation was issued (27th
Dec., 1558) forbidding preaching or the use of other public prayers,
rites, or ceremonies save those approved by law until Parliament
should have determined otherwise, except in regard to the recitation
in English, of the Litany, the Commandments, the Creed, together with
the Epistles and Gospels.[2] Still the anti-Catholic party boasted
that the new ruler was on their side. The queen's own inclinations
were soon made clear by her prohibition addressed to Bishop Oglethorp
of Carlisle against the elevation of the Host in the Mass celebrated
in her presence on Christmas Day (1558), and by her withdrawal from
the church when he refused to obey her instructions. Bishop
Christopherson of Chichester was arrested for his sermon preached on
the occasion of the late queen's funeral, and Archbishop Heath of York
resigned the Chancellorship.

The coronation of the queen was fixed for the 25th January (1559), and
as her title to the throne might be questioned on so many points, it
was obviously of the greatest importance that the ceremony should be
carried out in the orthodox fashion so as to elude all the objections
of her rivals. The Archbishop of York and the bishops generally, well
aware of the religious changes that were in contemplation, refused to
take part in the coronation, though in the end Bishop Oglethorp of
Carlisle was induced to undertake the task, probably in the hope of
averting still greater evil. The bishops attended at Westminster to
welcome the queen on her arrival and to take the oath of allegiance,
but declined to be present at the Mass, as did also the Spanish
ambassador. The rite was carried out with punctilious attention to the
old rubrics, and the sermon was preached by Dr. Cox, a Frankfurt
exile, who regaled his hearers with a wild tirade against the monks,
clergy, and the existing idolatry.[3]

Parliament was summoned to meet in January 1559. In the House of Lords
the government was confronted with the fact that the bishops to a man
would oppose the religious changes that were to be introduced, but it
was hoped that by careful directions to the sheriffs a House of
Commons might be returned that could be trusted.[4] There was no
difficulty in procuring acts confirming Elizabeth's title to the
throne, more especially as the legitimacy of her mother's marriage
though implied was not directly affirmed, but the bill for the
restoration of First Fruits to the crown met with considerable
opposition and delay, especially at the hands of the spiritual peers,
and another for the restoration of those clergymen who had been
deprived in the previous reign on account of their non-observance of
celibacy was abandoned. The two great measures however on which
Elizabeth's ministers had set their hearts were royal supremacy and
the re-introduction of the Book of Common Prayer in place of the Latin
Mass, but from the first the bishops offered to these measures the
most determined opposition, and though the bishops were not supported
by a very large number of the lay peers, the idea of forcing such
momentous changes on the country against the wishes of the united
episcopate was so repugnant to the religious instincts of the nation
that the ministers found themselves again and again compelled to
withdraw or modify their proposals.

To add to their confusion Convocation met in February (1559) and
forwarded to the bishops for presentation to the queen a strong
document, in which the clergy without a dissentient voice affirmed
their belief in the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, the sacrificial
character of the Mass, Roman supremacy and the inability of laymen to
legislate regarding the doctrines, discipline, or sacraments of the
Church.[5] This judgment of Convocation though hardly unexpected was a
deadly blow struck against the government measures, showing as it did
that if Parliament undertook a new religious settlement it must do so
on its own responsibility and against the wishes of the ecclesiastical
authorities. The difficulties against the two bills were so great that
when Easter arrived the work upon which the queen and her advisers had
set their hearts was still incomplete. The Bill of Uniformity of
belief had been rejected, and though the Royal Supremacy Bill had
passed the two Houses in modified form it had not yet reached the
statute book. The inconvenience of according the title of supreme head
of the Church to a woman was disliked by many, and was distasteful
even to Elizabeth herself.

Parliament was prorogued for a few weeks at Easter, and recourse was
had to a clever expedient to win popular sympathy for the measures. A
disputation was arranged to take place between the bishops and the
Protestant exiles. Cecil took care that both in regard to the subjects
to be discussed and the manner of procedure the latter party should
have every advantage. The questions were the use of English or Latin
in the religious services, the authority of particular churches to
change their rites and ceremonies, and the propitiatory character of
the Mass. The Catholic representatives were to open the discussion
each day, but the last word was always reserved for the Reformers.
From the very beginning it was clear that the dice had been loaded
against the defenders of the old faith, and on the second day the
Catholic party refused to continue the discussion.[6] Their refusal,
however justified it may have been in the circumstances, could not
fail to make a bad impression. It was seized upon by their opponents
to show that the supporters of Rome had disobeyed the queen, had
quailed before the apostles of the new religion, and that, therefore,
even though they were bishops, they could not be regarded as
trustworthy guides in matters of religion. The Bishops of Winchester
and Lincoln were arrested because they refused to continue the
disputation, and by their arrest the Catholic peers were deprived of
two votes in the House of Lords at a time when the fate of the old
religion was trembling in the balance.

When Parliament re-assembled the queen announced her intention of
refusing the title of supreme head of the Church, and requested the
House "would devise some other form with regard to the primacy or
supremacy." A new bill conceding to the sovereign the title "supreme
governor" was introduced, but met with as strong opposition from the
bishops as its predecessors, and was passed against their unanimous
wishes. The Act of Uniformity, commanding the use of the Second Book
of Common Prayer with a few alterations, met with even a worse
reception, as several of the laymen joined the bishops in their
resistance, and in the end it was carried only by a majority of three.
Had the imprisoned bishops been free to cast their votes against the
measure, or had the lay peers who disliked it had the courage to be
present in their places at the division the whole course of English
history might have been altered.[7] As it was a religious revolution
had been effected. The Mass, Transubstantiation, the Real Presence and
Roman supremacy, all of which had been accepted without contradiction
from the days of St. Augustine till the reign of Henry VIII., were
abolished and a new church established that bore but a faint
resemblance to the old. And what was more extraordinary still, all
this was done solely by an assembly of laymen, against the wishes and
appeals of the united episcopate and against the practically unanimous
judgment of Convocation. "The Church of England as by law established"
is a parliamentary institution set up and shaped by Parliament in the
beginning, and dependent upon Parliament ever since for guidance and
protection.

By the Act of Supremacy the queen was declared to be supreme governor
of the Church in England; all foreign jurisdiction was abolished; a
body of commissioners was to be appointed to administer the oath of
supremacy and to carry on ecclesiastical functions in the name of the
queen; officials who refused to take the oath were to be deprived, and
penalties varying from fines to death were to be imposed on those who
were unwilling to accept the law. By the Act of Uniformity the English
service, as contained in the Second Book of Common Prayer with some
slight alterations, was made obligatory on all clergymen, as was
attendance at this service on all laymen. The Act was to be enforced
by the spiritual authorities under threat of excommunication against
offenders, and by the civil authorities by the infliction of fines or
imprisonment.

A royal commission was appointed (1559) to administer the oath of
supremacy to the clergy, and to enforce the provisions of the Act of
Uniformity. As was to be expected, the attention of the commissioners
was directed immediately to the bishops. If some of them could be
induced to submit--and the government was not without hope in this
direction--their submission would produce a good impression on the
country; but if on the contrary they persisted in their attachment to
the Mass and their obedience to the Pope, they must be removed to make
way for more trustworthy men. To their credit be it said, when the
oath of supremacy was tendered to the bishops they refused with one
exception to abandon the views they had defended with such skill and
bravery in the House of Lords, and preferred to suffer imprisonment
and deprivation rather than lead their people into error by
submission. Bishop Kitchin of Llandaff had opposed royal supremacy for
a time. The Spanish ambassador reported to his master that he was
about to follow the example of his brethren, but in the end he
submitted and consented to administer the oath to his clergy.[8] The
religious communities, the Observants, the Carthusians, the
Dominicans, the Benedictines, and the few communities of nuns that had
re-established houses in England during the reign of Queen Mary, were
suppressed; their property was seized according to an Act passed in
the late Parliament, and many of the monks and nuns were obliged to
depart from the kingdom. The commissioners proceeded through England
administering the oath to the clergy, a large percentage of whom seems
to have submitted. From the returns preserved it is difficult to
estimate accurately what number of the clergy consented to acknowledge
the supremacy of the queen or to abandon the Mass, but it is certainly
not true to say that out of 9,000 beneficed clergymen in England at
the time only about 200 refused the oath. On the one hand, the
disturbances during the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI. had
reduced considerably the number of priests in England, while on the
other, the fact that several clergymen did not put in an appearance
before the commission, that others were allowed time to reconsider
their views, and that not even all those who obstinately refused the
oath were deprived, shows clearly that the lists of deprivations
afford no sure clue to the number of those who were unwilling to
accept the change. It is noteworthy that the greatest number of
refusals were met with amongst the higher officials or dignitaries of
the Church, the deans, archdeacons, and canons, who might be expected
to represent the best educated and most exemplary of the clergy of
their time in England. In the universities, too, the commissioners met
with the strongest resistance. Several of the heads of the colleges,
both in Cambridge and Oxford, the fellows and the office-bearers,
either were deprived or fled, and men of the new school were appointed
to take their places. But notwithstanding all the government could do,
the universities, and particularly Oxford, continued during the
greater part of the reign of Elizabeth to be centres of
disaffection.[9]

The complete extinction of the old hierarchy by death, deprivation and
imprisonment, left the way open for the appointment of bishops
favourable to the religion. Matthew Parker, who had been chaplain to
Anne Boleyn and who had lived privately since he was removed from the
deanship of Lincoln on account of his marriage, was selected to fill
the Archbishopric of Canterbury, left vacant since the death of
Cardinal Pole. The royal letters of approval were issued in September,
and the mandate for his consecration was addressed to Tunstall of
Durham, Bourne of Bath and Wells, Poole of Peterborough, Kitchin of
Llandaff, together with Barlow and Scory. The three former, however,
refused to act, and apparently even Kitchin was unwilling to take any
part in the ceremony. New men were then sought, and found in the
persons of Barlow, Coverdale, Scory, and Hodgkin. But even still grave
legal difficulties barred the way. The conditions for the consecration
of an archbishop laid down by the 25th of Henry VIII., which had not
been repealed, could not be complied with owing to the refusal of the
old bishops, and besides the use of the new Ordinal of Edward VI.
without a special Act of Parliament for its revival was distinctly
illegal; but the situation was so serious that Elizabeth's advisers
urged her to make good the illegalities by an exercise of her royal
authority. In the end the consecration of Parker was carried out in
the chapel of Lambeth Palace on the morning of the 17th December,
1559. The story of the Nag's Head is a pure legend used by
controversialists for impugning the validity of Anglican Orders. As a
matter of fact the main argument against these Orders is drawn neither
from the fable of the Nag's Head nor from the want of episcopal orders
in the case of Barlow, the consecrator of Parker, though his
consecration has not been proved, but from the use of a corrupt form,
which was then as it is now rejected as insufficient by the Catholic
Church, and from the want of the proper intention implied both by the
corruption of the form and by the teaching of those who corrupted
it.[10] Once the difficulty about Parker's consecration had been
settled other bishops were appointed by the queen, and consecrated by
the new archbishop, so that before March 1560 good progress had been
made in the establishment of the new hierarchy in England.

With the establishment of the ecclesiastical commission (1559) to
search out and punish heresy and generally to carry out the provisions
of the Supremacy Act, and with the appointment of new bishops (1559-
60) the work of reforming the faith of England was well under way.
Still the new bishops were confronted with grave difficulties. From
the reports of the Spanish ambassador, who had exceptional
opportunities of knowing the facts but whose opinions for obvious
reasons cannot always be accepted, the great majority of the people
outside London were still Catholic, and even in London itself the
adherents of the old faith could not be despised. Quite apart,
however, from his reports, sufficient evidence can be adduced from the
episcopal and official letters and documents to show that the change
was not welcomed by a great body in the country. As the best means of
enforcing the Act of Supremacy and the Act of Uniformity a visitation
of both provinces was arranged. In London Masses were still
celebrated, and attended by great multitudes; in Canterbury itself
within sight of the archiepiscopal palace public religious processions
were carried out. In Winchester, where the memory of Gardiner was
still cherished, many of the clergy refused to attend the visitation;
the laymen were discreetly absent when their assent was required; the
churches were deserted and even the people attending the cathedral
"were corrupted by the clergy." In Hereford Bishop Scory described his
cathedral, "as a very nest of blasphemy, whoredom, pride,
superstition, and ignorance;" the justices threw every obstacle in the
way of his reforms; fasts and feasts were observed as of old; and even
the very butchers seemed leagued against him, for they refused to sell
meat on Thursdays. In Bath and Wells many of the justices were openly
disobedient, and even the people who conformed outwardly could not be
relied upon. In Norwich, Ely, Salisbury and Chichester "Popery" was
still strong amongst the clergy, people, and officials. At Eton it was
necessary to expel the provost and all the teachers except three
before the college could be reduced to subjection, and at Oxford the
visitors were driven to admit, that if they expelled the fellows who
refused to subscribe, and the students who would have no religious
service except the Mass, the houses would be deserted. In the northern
provinces where the visitation did not begin till some time later it
was discovered that matters were still worse. The principal noblemen
were openly Catholic, and many of the magistrates denied that they had
ever heard of the Act of Supremacy, while others of them "winked and
looked through their fingers." In York the diocese was in a state of
anarchy; in Carlisle the bishop confessed that he could not prevent
the public celebration of the Mass; in Durham the bishop wrote that he
found himself engaged in a conflict with wild beasts even more savage
than those which had confronted St. Paul at Ephesus. To make matters
worse it was reported that public sympathy was on the side of the
recusants, and that hopes were being expressed by many that the
present advisers of her Majesty might soon be displaced, even though
it were necessary to have recourse to France or Spain.[11]

Nor was it merely from the side of the Catholics that the bishops and
the government anticipated serious danger. The men, who, like Hooper,
objected to the Edwardine settlement as not being sufficiently
extreme, had approached more closely to Calvinism in doctrine and in
ritual during their enforced sojourn at Frankfurt and Geneva. They
were enthusiastic in their praise of Elizabeth for her attacks upon
Rome, but they found fault with her religious programme as flavouring
too much of idolatry and papistry. They objected to crosses, candles,
vestments, copes, blessings, and much of the old ritual that had been
retained in the Book of Common prayer, and insisted that, until
religion had been brought back to a state of scriptural purity, the
English people should not rest satisfied. Whatever sympathy some of
the English political advisers may have had with the Puritans in
theory they had no intention of yielding to their demands, as such a
policy would have stirred up all the latent Catholicity in the
country. The official church "as by law established" was to be a
church for the nation, standing midway between Rome and Puritanism, a
kind of compromise between both extremes. Elizabeth was determined to
put down Puritanism, irreverence, and unlicensed preaching with a
heavy hand. As a foretaste of what the champions of innovation might
expect, much to the disgust of the archbishop, she struck a blow at
the married clergy by ordering the removal of women and children from
the enclosures of colleges and cathedrals (1561).

It cannot be said that it was the opposition of Rome to her accession
that forced Elizabeth to establish a national church. Paul IV., whose
undiplomatic and imprudent proceedings had caused such grave
embarrassment to her predecessor, made no protest against the
recognition of Elizabeth's claims, although he was urged to do so by
France. The same attitude of friendly reserve was maintained by his
successor Pius IV. (1559-65).[12] Shortly after his consecration he
addressed a kindly letter to Elizabeth exhorting her to return to the
bosom of the Church.[13] His envoy was not allowed, however, to enter
England, nor had another envoy, dispatched in 1561 to invite the queen
and the English bishops to take part in the Council of Trent, any
better success. Though Elizabeth discussed the matter with the Spanish
ambassador and even made preparations for the reception of the papal
envoy, the necessary safe conducts were not forwarded to Flanders, and
in the end a notification was sent that the papal messenger could not
be received, nor would the English bishops attend the Council of
Trent. Possibly owing to the friendly attitude of the Pope, rumours
were put in circulation that he was not unwilling to accept the new
English Book of Common Prayer if Elizabeth would consent to
acknowledge the supremacy of Rome. That there was never the least
foundation for such a statement is now generally admitted, but at the
time it helped to confirm many Catholics in the view that to escape
fines and punishment it was lawful for them to attend the English
service, particularly as they took care to assist at Mass in secret
and made it clear both by their actions and demeanour that their
presence at the new religious rite was not voluntary. Others, however,
refused to follow this opinion, and in order to put an end to the
dissensions that had arisen a petition was drawn up and forwarded to
the Pope requesting him for permission to attend Common Prayer, but,
though the request was supported by the Spanish ambassador, the
permission was refused (1562).

Elizabeth's second Parliament (1563) met at a time when the downfall
of the Huguenots to whom England had furnished assistance, the failure
of a plot entered into by the nephews of Cardinal Pole for the
overthrow of Elizabeth's government, and the reports from the
ecclesiastical commissioners and the bishops, showing as they did that
contempt for the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity was still strong,
made it necessary to undertake more repressive measures against the
Catholics. An Act was passed entitled, "an Act for the assurance of
the queen's royal power" commanding that the oath of supremacy should
be administered to members of the House of Commons, schoolmasters,
tutors, attorneys, and all who had held any ecclesiastical office
during the reigns of Elizabeth, Mary, Edward VI. or Henry VIII., and
to all who manifested their hostility to the established religion by
celebrating Mass or assisting at its celebration. Refusal to take the
oath when first tendered was to be punished by forfeiture and life
imprisonment, and on the second refusal the penalty was to be a
traitor's death. Had such an Act been enforced strictly it would have
meant the complete extirpation of the Catholics of England, but
Elizabeth, having secured a weapon by which she might terrorise them,
took care to prevent her bishops from driving them to extremes by a
close investigation of their opinions regarding royal supremacy. Fines
and imprisonment were at this stage deemed more expedient than death.

Convocation met at the same time, but Convocation had changed much
since 1559 when it declared bravely in favour of the Real Presence,
Transubstantiation, the Mass, Papal supremacy, and the independence of
the Church. The effects of the deprivation of the bishops, deans,
archdeacons, canons, and clergy, and of the wholesale ordinations "of
artificers unlearned and some even of base occupations" by Parker and
Grindal and others were plainly visible.[14] Convocation was no longer
Catholic in tone. It was distinctly Puritan. A proposal was made that
all holidays and feasts should be abolished except Sundays and "the
principal feasts of Christ," that there should be no kneeling at
Communion, no vestments in the celebration of Common Service except
the surplice, no organs in the churches, no sign of the cross in
baptism, and that the minister should be compelled to read divine
service facing the people. The proposal was debated warmly and in the
end was defeated only by one vote.[15] One of the principal objects
for which Convocation had been called was to draft a new dogmatic
creed for the Church "as by law established." This was a matter of
supreme importance. But as it was necessary to affirm nothing that
would offend the Huguenots of France and the theologians of
Switzerland and Germany, or rouse the latent Catholic sentiments of
the English people, it was also a work of supreme difficulty. In other
words the creed of the established Church must be in the nature of a
compromise, and a compromise it really was. The Forty Two Articles of
Edward VI. were taken as the basis of discussion. As a result of the
deliberations they were reduced to Thirty Nine,[16] in which form they
were signed by the bishops and clergy, before being presented to
Elizabeth and her ministers for approval. As an indication to the
clergy that the office of supreme governor was no sinecure Elizabeth
would not authorise the publication of the Articles until a very
important one dealing with the Eucharist had been omitted, and until
another one regarding the authority of the Church to change rites and
ceremonies had been modified. That influences other than doctrinal
were at work in shaping the Thirty Nine Articles is evident from the
fact that the particular Eucharistic Article referred to was omitted
in 1563 lest it should drive away Catholics who were wavering, and
inserted again in 1570 when the government, then in open war with
Rome, was determined to give back blow for blow. The catechism drawn
up by Convocation for the use of the laity was promptly suppressed by
Cecil.

By the adoption of the Thirty Nine Articles as its official creed the
English Church "by law established," cut itself adrift from the
Catholic Church and from the faith that had been delivered to the
Anglo-Saxon people by Rome's great missionary St. Augustine. However
ambiguous might be the wording to which the authors of the Articles
had recourse in order to win followers, there could be no longer any
doubt that on some of the principal points of doctrine the new creed
stood in flagrant contradiction to the doctrines received by the
Catholic world. The Pope, whose spiritual powers had never been called
into question till the days of Henry VIII., was declared to have no
jurisdiction in England. The Sacrifices of the Masses (as it is put)
were denounced as blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits;
Transubstantiation was regarded as unscriptural and opening the way to
superstition; the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence of Christ
was implicitly condemned; the summoning of a General Council was made
dependent on the will of the secular princes; the fact that such
assemblies could err and did err in the past was emphasised; five of
the Sacraments, namely, Confirmation, Penance, Holy Orders, Matrimony
and Extreme Unction were declared not to be Sacraments of the Gospel,
and the Roman doctrine concerning Purgatory, Indulgences, the
invocation of saints, and veneration of images and relics was
pronounced to be a foolish and vain invention, contradictory to the
Word of God.[17]

The new repressive legislation, at least in regard to fines and
imprisonment, was enforced strictly against Catholics who were still a
strong body, especially in the north. On the accession of Pius V.
(1566-72) the friendly attitude hitherto maintained by Rome was
changed. There could no longer be any hope that Elizabeth would modify
her religious policy, as even her former ally and supporter Philip II.
was forced to admit, and there was grave danger that the opinion
entertained by some, that Catholics should be permitted to attend
Common Prayer was a purely legal function, might do considerable harm.
Hence a strong condemnation of the English service was published by
the Pope, and a commission was granted to two English priests, Sanders
and Harding, empowering them to absolve all those who had incurred the
guilt of schism (1566). As even this was not sufficient to put an end
to all doubts, and as the authority of the papal agent Laurence Vaux
was questioned by certain individuals, a formal Bull of reconciliation
was issued in 1567, authorising the absolution of those who had
incurred the guilt of heresy or schism by their obedience to the Acts
of Supremacy and Uniformity.

Apart from other considerations, this clear and definite statement of
the attitude of the Pope towards attendance at the English service
helped to stiffen the backs of the English Catholics, and to determine
even the waverers to stand firm; but in addition to this the question
of the succession to the throne raised considerable discussion.
Elizabeth was still without a husband, and for reasons probably best
known to herself she refused to allow her Parliament to drive her into
marriage, although partly through vanity, partly through motives of
policy she was not unwilling to dally with the advances of several
suitors both native and foreign. In the eyes of Catholics Elizabeth
was illegitimate, and except for her father's will and the
parliamentary confirmation of that will, as an illegitimate she had no
right to the throne. Mary Queen of Scotland, the grand-daughter of
Henry VIII.'s eldest sister Margaret, was from the legal point of view
the lawful heir; but as she was the wife of the Dauphin of France at
the time of Elizabeth's accession, Englishmen generally did not wish
to recognise her claim for precisely the same reasons that drove them
to oppose Queen Mary's marriage with Philip II. of Spain. After the
death of her French husband and her return to Scotland opinion began
to change in her favour, and this grew stronger in Catholic circles,
when she fled into England to claim the support of her cousin Queen
Elizabeth against the Scottish rebels (1568). A strong body even in
the council favoured the plan of a marriage between Mary and the Duke
of Norfolk, and the recognition of their rights and the rights of
their children to the throne on the death of Elizabeth, as the best
means of avoiding civil war and of escaping from the delicate position
created by the presence of Scotland's Queen in England. Norfolk was
regarded as a kind of Protestant and was backed by a very considerable
body of the council, but his communications with Philip II. of Spain,
who favoured the marriage, and with the Catholic lords of the north,
who, driven to extremes by religious persecution and by the treatment
accorded to Mary in England, were not unwilling to depose Elizabeth,
he professed his intention of becoming a Catholic. Elizabeth, however,
was strong against the marriage, and Cecil, though he pretended to
favour it, supported the views of his sovereign. Rumours of
conspiracies especially in the north were afloat. The noblemen of
Lancashire had met and pledged themselves not to attend the English
service; the Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland declared openly
their attachment to the Catholic Church; the attitude of Wales and
Cornwall was more than doubtful, and the Spanish ambassador was well
known to be moving heaven and earth to induce his master to lend his
aid.[18]

Elizabeth determined to strike at once before the plans of the
conspirators could be matured. The Duke of Norfolk was commanded to
appear at court and was soon lodged safely in the Tower (11th Oct.,
1569). A peremptory order was issued to the Earls of Northumberland
and Westmoreland to come immediately to London, and as they knew well
the fate that was in store for them they determined to stake their
fortunes on the chance of a successful rising. They appealed to the
Catholic lords of Scotland, to the Duke of Alva, and to Spain for
support, and mustered their forces for war. They entered Durham (10th
Nov. 1569), where they swept out from the cathedral both the Book of
Common Prayer and the communion table, set up the altar once more, and
had Mass celebrated publicly. They marched southwards with the object
of getting possession of the Queen of Scotland who was imprisoned at
Tutbury, but their design having been suspected Mary was removed
suddenly to Coventry. A strong force was sent to prevent their march
southward, while Moray, the regent of Scotland and Elizabeth's
faithful ally, assembled his troops on the border to prevent the
Scottish Catholic lords from rallying to the assistance of their
co-religionists. The insurgents, caught between the two fires, were
routed completely, and the leaders hastened to make their escape.
Westmoreland to the Netherlands, where he lived for thirty years in
exile, and Northumberland to Scotland only to be sold again to
Elizabeth for £2,000 and executed. Martial law was proclaimed and
hundreds "of the poorer sort" were put to death. The trouble seemed to
be over for the time, but suddenly in January 1570, encouraged by the
assassination of Moray and by the raids of the Catholic borderers,
Lord Dacre rose in revolt, and threw himself upon the queen's forces
on their march from Naworth to Carlisle. He was defeated and barely
succeeded in escaping with his life. All resistance was now at an end,
and more than eight hundred of the insurgents were executed. The
failure of the Northern Rebellion served only to strengthen
Elizabeth's power, and to secure for Protestantism a firm footing in
England.

While preparations were being made in England for the rebellion,
Catholic representatives in Rome, both lay and clerical, pressed Pius
V. to issue a decree of excommunication and of deposition against
Elizabeth. Such a decree, it was thought, would strengthen the hands
of those who were working in the interests of Mary Queen of Scotland,
and would open the eyes of a large body of Catholics who stood firmly
by Elizabeth solely from motives of extreme loyalty. Philip II. was
not acquainted with the step that was in contemplation, though
apparently the French authorities were warned that Rome was about to
take action.[19] Had the advice of the King of Spain been sought he
might have warned the Pope against proceeding to extremes with
Elizabeth, and in doing so he would have had the support of those at
home who were acquainted most intimately with English affairs. In
February (1570) the process against Elizabeth was begun in Rome, and
on the 25th of the same month the Bull, /Regnans in Excelsis/,[20]
announcing the excommunication and deposition of Elizabeth was given
to the world. Had it come five or six months earlier, and had there
been an able leader capable of uniting the English Catholic body, a
work that could not be accomplished either by the Duke of Norfolk or
the Northern Earls, the result might have been at least doubtful; but
its publication, at a time when the northern rebellion had been
suppressed, and when Spain, France, and the Netherlands were unwilling
to execute it, served only to make wider the breach between England
and Rome, and to expose the English Catholics to still fiercer
persecution.[21] For so far Catholics had been free to combine with
moderate Protestants to secure the peaceful succession of Mary Queen
of Scotland without any suspicion of disloyalty to Elizabeth, but from
this time forward they were placed in the cruel position of being
traitors either to the Pope or to Elizabeth, and every move made by
them in favour of Mary Queen of Scotland must necessarily be construed
as disloyalty to their sovereign. Copies of the Bull were smuggled
into England, and one man, John Fenton, was found brave enough to risk
his life by affixing a copy to the gates of the palace of the Bishop
of London. He was taken prisoner immediately, and subjected to the
terrible death reserved for traitors (8th August 1570).

While anti-Catholic feeling was running high, Elizabeth summoned
Parliament to meet in April 1571. As danger was to be feared both from
the Catholics and the Puritans special care was taken to ensure that
reliable men should be returned. Several measures were introduced
against the Catholic recusants, who had few sympathisers in the House
of Commons, but in the House of Lords, where the Duke of Norfolk, who
had been released, pleaded for moderation, and was supported by a
small but determined body of the Lords, the feeling was less violent.
Bills were both framed and passed making it treason to obtain Bulls,
briefs, or documents from Rome. The penalty of Praemunire was levelled
against all aiders and abettors of those offenders mentioned above,
together with all who received beads, crosses, pictures, etc., blessed
by the Bishop of Rome, or by any one acting with his authority;[22]
while those who had fled from the kingdom were commanded to return
within six months under penalty of forfeiture of their goods and
property. It was proposed too that all adults should be forced to
attend the Protestant service and to receive Communion at stated
times, but the latter portion was dropped probably at the request of
the Catholic lords. However subservient Parliament might be in regard
to the Catholics it was not inclined to strengthen the hands of the
bishops against the Puritans. Notwithstanding Elizabeth's refusal to
allow discussion of the Thirty Nine Articles, or to permit them to be
published under parliamentary sanction, the members succeeded in
attaining their object indirectly by imposing them on recusants.
Elizabeth was determined, however, to show her faithful Commons that
she and not the Parliament was the supreme governor of the Church.[23]
She took Convocation and the bishops under her protection and
empowered them to issue the Articles in a revised form, so that there
were then really two versions of the Thirty Nine Articles in force,
one imposed by Convocation and the queen and the other by Parliament.

To secure aid against Spain as well as to draw away the French from
supporting the Queen of Scotland Elizabeth made overtures for marriage
to the Duke of Anjou, and at the same time the party in favour of Mary
determined to make a new effort to bring about a marriage between Mary
and the Duke of Norfolk. Ridolfi[24] was the life and soul of the
conspiracy, assisted by the Duke of Norfolk and by the Bishop of Ross,
Mary's ambassador in London. It was hoped to enlist the sympathy of
the Duke of Alva, Philip II. and the Pope, none of whom were unwilling
to aid in overthrowing Elizabeth's rule, but before anything definite
could be done Cecil's spies brought him news of the steps that were
being taken. The Duke of Norfolk was arrested in September 1571, and
placed on his trial in the following January. He was condemned to
death, but as Elizabeth did not wish to take the responsibility of his
execution on herself she waited until it had been confirmed by
Parliament, after which he was led to the block (2nd June 1572).
Parliament also petitioned for the execution of the Queen of Scotland,
but for various reasons Elizabeth refused to accede to their request.

Though the new laws were enforced strictly it is clear from the
episcopal reports that in London itself, in Norwich, Winchester, Ely,
Worcester, in the diocese and province of York, and indeed throughout
the entire country Catholicism had still a strong hold.[25] The old
Marian priests were, however, dying out rapidly. The monasteries and
universities, that had supplied priests for the English mission, were
either destroyed or passed into other hands, so that it became clear
to both friends and foes that unless something could be done to keep
up the supply of clergy the Catholic religion was doomed ultimately to
extinction. This difficulty had occurred to the minds of many of the
English scholars who had fled from Oxford to the Continent, but it was
reserved for Dr. William Allen,[26] formerly a Fellow of Oriel
College, and Principal of St. Mary's Hall, Oxford, and later in 1587 a
Cardinal of the Roman Church, to take practical measures to meet the
wants of his co-religionists in England. He determined to found a
college on the Continent for the education of priests for the English
mission, and as Douay had a new university, in which many of the
former Oxford men had found a home, he opened a college at Douay in
1568.[27] Depending on his own private resources, the contributions of
his friends, and the pensions guaranteed by the King of Spain and the
Pope, he succeeded beyond expectation. Students flocked from England
to the new college, whence they returned on the completion of their
studies to strengthen and console their co-religionists at home. Could
Douay College boast only of the 160 martyrs whom it trained and sent
into England Cardinal Allen would have had good reason to be proud of
his work, but in addition to this the numerous controversial tracts of
real merit that were issued from the Douay printing-press, and
scattered throughout England, helped to keep alive Catholic sentiment
in the country. In Douay too was begun the translation of the
Scriptures into English, the New Testament being published at Rheims
(1582) whither the college had been removed in 1578, and the old
Testament in 1609. In 1576 Allen visited Rome and persuaded Gregory
XIII. to found a college in Rome for the education of English
priests.[28] Students were sent in 1576 and 1577, and a hospice was
granted in 1578 as an English seminary, over which the Jesuits were
placed in the following year. A college was established at Valladolid
by Father Persons (1589), another at Seville in 1592, and one at St.
Omers in 1594.

The failure of the northern rebellion, the repressive measures adopted
by Parliament in 1571, and the betrayal of Ridolfi's fantastic
schemes, did not mean the extinction of Catholicism in England. On the
contrary there was a distinct reaction in its favour, partly through
the failure of the Protestant bishops and clergy to maintain a
consistent religious service such as that which they had overthrown,
partly to the revulsion created by the fanatical vapourings of the
Puritans, but above all to the efforts of the "seminary priests," as
the men who returned from Douay and the other colleges abroad were
called. The older generation of clergy who had been deprived on
Elizabeth's accession were content to minister to their flocks in
secret, and were happy so long as they could escape the meshes of the
law; but the new men who returned from Douay were determined to make
the country Catholic once more or to die in the attempt. They went
boldly from place to place exhorting the Catholics to stand firm, and
they seemed to have no dread of imprisonment, exile or death. Many of
them were arrested and kept in close confinement, while others, like
Thomas Woodhouse (1573), Cuthbert Mayne (1577), John Nelson, and
Thomas Sherwood (1578), gloried in being thought worthy of dying as
their Master had died.[29]

Nor did their fate deter others from following in their footsteps. It
was reported in 1579 that a hundred students had been ordained and
sent into England from Rome and Rheims. The result of the labours of
these apostolic men was soon evident. The government, alarmed at the
sudden resurrection of Popery, urged the bishops and officials to make
new efforts for its suppression. Throughout the various dioceses
inquiries were begun which served only to show that recusancy was no
longer confined to Lancashire or the north. The bishops were obliged
to admit (1577) with sorrow that papists "did increase in numbers and
in obstinacy." They recommended the infliction of fines, and furnished
the authorities with a list of recusants and the value of their
property. In York the archbishop reported that "a more stiff-necked or
wilful people I never knew or heard of, doubtless they are reconciled
with Rome and sworn to the Pope," and what was worse they preferred to
be imprisoned than to listen to the archbishop's harangues. From
Hereford it was announced that "rebellion is rampant, attendance at
church is contemptuous, and John Hareley read so loudly on his latin
popish primer (that he understands not) that he troubles both minister
and people." In Oxford and amongst the lawyers in the Inns of Court
and in the Inns of Chancery popery and superstition were still
flourishing.[30]

To make matters worse it was soon bruited about that the Jesuits,
whose very name was sufficient to instil terror, were preparing for an
invasion of England. The invading force it was true was small, but it
was select. Persons and Campion,[31] both Oxford men, who having gone
into exile joined themselves to the Society of St. Ignatius, were
entrusted with the difficult undertaking. The government, warned by
its spies of their mission, had the ports watched to capture them on
their arrival, but the two priests contrived to elude the vigilance of
their enemies, and succeeded in arriving safely in London (1580). The
news of their arrival could not be kept a secret, and hence they
determined to leave London. Before they separated for the different
fields they had selected, to prevent future misrepresentation of their
aims, Campion wrote an open letter addressed to the lords of the privy
council in defence of his views, which letter having been published
was known as "Campion's challenge." Persons went through the country
from Northampton to Gloucester, while Campion preached from Oxford to
Northampton. They took pains to set up a small printing press, which
was removed from place to place, and from which was issued sufficient
literature to disconcert their opponents. Probably the most remarkable
volume published from the Jesuit printing-press was Campion's /Ten
Reasons/,[32] addressed particularly to the Oxford students amongst
whom it created a great sensation. At last after many hair-breadth
escapes Campion was captured at Lyford and committed to the Tower. He
had challenged his opponents to meet him in a public disputation, and
now that he was in their hands, worn out by his labours and
imprisonment, they determined to take up the challenge in the hope
that by overthrowing him they might shake the faith of his followers.
But despite his weakness and infirmity they found in him so dangerous
and so learned an adversary that the government thought it wiser to
bring the controversy to an end, or rather to transfer it to the law
courts. Even here the captive Jesuit showed that he was quite able to
hold his own with the lawyers. He had been guilty of no treason, he
averred; he acknowledged the queen to be his lawful sovereign; but he
refused to disown the Bull of Deposition. He was found guilty,
condemned to death as a traitor, and was executed with two other
priests in December 1581.[33]

During the wild start of alarm and vexation caused by the reports of
the rising strength of the recusants, the invasion of seminary priests
and of Jesuits, and the help given by Gregory XIII. to the Desmond
rebellion, Parliament met (Jan. 1581). An Act was passed immediately
making it high treason to possess or to exercise the power of
absolving or withdrawing anybody from the established church, and a
similar penalty was levelled against those who permitted themselves to
be reconciled or withdrawn, together with all aiders or abettors. The
punishment decreed for celebrating or assisting at Mass was a fine of
100 marks and one year's imprisonment. Fines of £20 per lunar month
were to be inflicted upon all those who absented themselves from
Common Prayer, and if their absence lasted for an entire year the
delinquents should be obliged to provide heavy securities for their
good behaviour. All schoolmasters or tutors not licensed by the bishop
of the diocese were declared liable to a year's imprisonment, and the
person who employed them to a fine of not less than £10 per month. The
Act was enforced with merciless severity. Fathers Campion, Sherwin,
and Briant were hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn (Dec. 1581);
eleven other priests met a similar fate before the end of the
following year, and two priests and two school-masters were hanged,
drawn and quartered in 1583.[34] The news of the execution of Campion
and his fellow labourers created a profound impression on the country.
In reply to the protests that were raised Elizabeth thought at first
of issuing an official statement, but in the end the idea was
abandoned and Cecil, now Lord Burghley, published anonymously two
pamphlets to justify the action of the government. The jails were so
filled with popish recusants that in order to escape the expense of
supporting them, a plan was formed to convey them to North America,
but it could not be executed owing to the opposition of the Spanish
Government. The seminary priests did not, however, allow themselves to
be drawn away from their work either by the terrors of treason or by
the echoes of the wordy war, that was being carried on between Lord
Burghley and his friends on one side, and Dr. Allen and his friends on
the other. A catechism introduced by them was bought up so rapidly
that in a few months it was out of print. A great body of the English
noblemen still held the old faith. In the north Catholics were
numerous and active, and even in the southern and western counties and
in Wales opinion was veering rapidly towards Rome. Had the seminary
priests been left free to continue their work, unimpeded by foreign or
English political plots on the Continent, it is difficult to say what
might have been the result. Unfortunately new plots were hatched under
the protection of France or Spain for the release of Mary Queen of
Scotland, and for her proclamation as Queen of England. Throckmorton,
who had taken the principal part in this affair, was arrested and put
to death; the principal conspirators, men like the Earl of
Northumberland and the Earl of Arundel were sent to the Tower; the
jails were filled with Catholics, and five priests were put to death
at Tyburn (1584).[35]

Parliament met (1585) at a time when the discovery of the plot against
Elizabeth and the news of the assassination of William of Orange had
created great excitement through the country. An association that had
been formed to defend the life of the queen or to revenge her death
was granted statutory powers by Parliament. The queen was authorised
to create a special commission with authority to deal with all
plotters and to exclude from succession to the throne everyone in
whose interest she herself might be assassinated. An Act was passed by
which all Jesuits and seminary priests were commanded to leave England
within forty days under penalty of treason; all persons not in holy
orders studying in any foreign seminary or college were ordered to
return within six months and to take the oath of supremacy within two
days of their arrival if they did not wish to be punished as traitors;
all persons harbouring or assisting a priest were to be adjudged
guilty of felony; all who sent their children abroad except by special
permission were to be fined £100 for each offence, and all who had
knowledge of the presence of a priest in England, and who did not
report it to a magistrate within twelve days were liable to be fined
and imprisoned at the queen's pleasure.[36] This Act was designed to
secure the banishment or death of all the seminary priests, and if any
of them survived it was due neither to the want of vigilance nor to
the mildness of the government. Spies were let loose into every part
of England to report the doings of the clergy and laity. Wholesale
arrests were effected, and great numbers of the clergy put to death
merely because they were priests, and of the laymen merely because
they harboured priests. Three were executed in 1585, thirteen in 1586,
and seven in 1587. To secure the conviction of the prisoners, though
the law had made the conviction sufficiently certain, but more
especially to create popular prejudice against them in the minds of
loyal Englishmen, a series of questions were administered to them
known as the "bloody" or "cut-throat" questions, as for example,
"whose part would you take if the Pope or any other by his authority
should make war on the queen."[37]

The dismissal of the Spanish ambassador after the discovery of the
Throckmorton plot and the assistance given by England to the rebels in
the Netherlands helped to increase the hostility between England and
Spain, and to induce Philip II. to make renewed efforts for the
overthrow of Elizabeth's government, while at the same time the
merciless persecution of the Catholics in England drove many of them
who wished to remain loyal to co-operate with their brethren abroad
and to assist Philip's schemes. This unfortunate combination of
English Catholics with Spanish politicians did more to mar the work of
the seminary priests, and to set back the rising Catholic tide than
all that could have been accomplished by Elizabeth's penal laws or
merciless persecution. The large and increasing body of English people
who began to look with a friendly eye towards the old faith were
shocked by the adoption of such means, and when they found themselves
face to face with the necessity of selecting between an Anglo-Spanish
party and Elizabeth, they decided to throw in their lot with the
latter. The discovery of the Babington plot for the rescue of
Scotland's queen led to the death of its author and the execution of
the lady in whose favour it had been planned (1587). The news of
Mary's execution created a great sensation both at home and abroad. To
prevent hostilities on the part of Mary's son, James VI. of Scotland,
or of the Catholic sovereigns on the Continent, Elizabeth, pretending
to be displeased with her ministers for carrying out the sentence,
ordered the arrest of Davison the secretary to the council, and had
him punished by a fine of £10,000 and imprisonment in the Tower.
Philip II. was not, however, deceived by such conduct, or influenced
by the overtures made for peace. Elizabeth's interference in the
affairs of the Netherlands, the attacks made by her sailors on Spanish
territories and Spanish treasure-ships, and the execution of Mary
Queen of Scotland determined him to make a final effort for the
overthrow of the English government. The great Armada was got ready
for the invasion of England (1588). But the Spanish ships were not
destined to reach the English harbours, nor the Spanish soldiers whom
they carried on board to test their bravery and skill in conflict with
Elizabeth's forces on English soil.

Though there is no evidence either from English or Spanish reports
that Catholics in England welcomed the Armada, since both Lord
Burghley[38] and Philip II. were convinced that Spain could not rely
on their co-operation, and though in many parts of the country
Catholics volunteered for service to fight the invader, the government
determined to wreak its vengeance on the helpless victims in prison.
Within three days six priests and eight laymen were executed near
London (August); nine priests and three laymen were put to death in
October, and before the end of the year thirty-one had suffered the
terrible punishment reserved for traitors, merely because they refused
to conform. The prisons were so full of recusants that new houses were
opened for their detention. The government reaped a rich harvest by
the heavy fines inflicted on the wealthy Catholics and took pains,
besides, to annoy them at every turn by domiciliary visits in search
of concealed priests. Yet the reports from the country, especially
from such places as Lancashire and Cheshire, showed that the Papists
were still dangerously strong. A new proclamation was issued against
seminary priests and Jesuits (1591). Nine priests and two laymen had
been put to death in the previous year (1590), and in 1591 fifteen
were martyred, seven of whom were priests and the rest laymen.
Throughout the remainder of Queen Elizabeth's reign Catholics in
England were not allowed to enjoy peace or respite. If priests, they
were by that very fact liable to be hunted down and condemned as
traitors; if they were laymen of substance, they were beggared by
heavy fines imposed for non-attendance at the English service, or
punished by imprisonment, and if they were too poor to pay a fine they
could be driven from the kingdom for refusing to conform. Apart
altogether from the immense sums levied on Catholics by fines and
forfeitures, and from the number of people who died in prison either
from confinement or torture, one hundred and eighty-nine were put to
death for the faith under Elizabeth, one hundred and twenty-eight of
whom were priests; and yet, notwithstanding this persecution,
Catholics were still comparatively strong at the death of Elizabeth,
and the supply of clergy showed no signs of being exhausted. Over
three hundred and sixty priests were in England attending to the wants
of their co-religionists in 1603.

Unfortunately the dissensions among the Catholic party in England and
on the Continent did more harm to their cause than Elizabeth's
persecutions. The close co-operation of Allen and Persons with Spanish
political designs for the overthrow of Elizabeth and the invasion of
England was as distasteful to a large body of the lay Catholics in
England as it was to many of the clergy.[39] Though serious disputes
had broken out long before, it was only after the death of Cardinal
Allen in 1594 that the crisis reached a head. Many of the secular
clergy objected warmly to the influence of the Jesuits, and ugly
controversies broke out in England and in the English colleges abroad.
Persons and his friends were supposed to be plotting in favour of the
succession of a Catholic to the throne on the death of Elizabeth,
while most of their opponents favoured the succession of James VI. of
Scotland, from whom they expected at least toleration. To put an end
to what the latter regarded as the excessive authority of the Jesuits
they insisted on the appointment of a bishop who would take charge of
English affairs, but for various reasons the Holy See refused to yield
to their request. As a compromise, however, George Blackwell was
appointed archpriest (1598) with secret instructions, it was said, to
consult Garnet, the Jesuit superior in England. The selection was
singularly unfortunate, as neither from the point of view of prudence
nor of reliability was Blackwell fitted for the extremely delicate
position which he was called upon to fill. The seculars refused at
first to obey his authority and appealed again to the Pope, who
confirmed the appointment. As many of the seculars were still
unwilling to yield some of the leaders were censured by the
archpriest. A new appeal was forwarded to Rome. In 1602 Clement VIII.
issued a document upholding the authority of the archpriest, and,
while firmly defending the Jesuits against the charges that had been
made against them, warned Blackwell that he should not take his
instructions from any person except from the Pope or the Cardinal
Protector of England.[40] This controversy could not be kept a secret.
It was known to the entire Catholic body, and it was used with great
force and success by their opponents. The government took sides with
the secular clergy and offered them facilities for carrying their
appeals to Rome, but news of the secret negotiations between the
seculars and the authorities having been divulged Elizabeth issued a
new proclamation (1602) in which she announced that she had never any
intention of tolerating two religions in England.[41] The Jesuits and
their adherents were commanded to quit the kingdom within thirty days,
and their opponents within three months under penalty of treason. To
give effect to this proclamation a new commission with extraordinary
powers was appointed to secure the banishment of the Catholic clergy.
The seculars, who had opposed the archpriest, encouraged by the
distinction drawn in the proclamation between the two classes of
English priests, the loyal and the disloyal, determined to draw up an
address to the queen proclaiming their civil allegiance,[42] but
before it was considered Elizabeth had passed away, and the fate in
store for them was to be determined by a new ruler.
----------

[1] Cf. F. W. Maitland in /Eng. Hist. Review/ (April, 1900). Father
    Pollen, S.J., in /The Month/ (Oct., 1900). Id., /Papal
    Negotiations with Mary Queen of Scots/, xxvi.

[2] Wilkins, /Concilia/, iv. 180.

[3] Birt, /The Elizabethan Religious Settlement/, 36-8.

[4] On the constitution of the House of Commons, cf. Froude, /Hist. of
    Eng./, vii., 40-41.

[5] Wilkins, /Concilia/, iv., 179.

[6] For an account of this Conference, cf. /English Catholic Record
    Society/, vol. i. Foxe, /Acts and Monuments/, 1839, viii., 679
    sqq.

[7] Birt, op. cit., 91-2.

[8] Phillips, /The Extinction of the Ancient Hierarchy/, 112-114.

[9] For a full treatment of the attitude of the clergy, cf. Blirt, op.
    cit., chap. iv. The best history of the resistance and sufferings
    of the Marian Bishops is to be found in Phillips' /Extinction of
    the Ancient Hierarchy/, 1905.

[10] Cf. Estcourt, /The Question of Anglican Orders/, 1873. Barnes,
    /The Pope and the Ordinal/, 1898. Smith, S.J., /Reasons for
    Rejecting Anglican Orders/, 1896. Moyes (in the /Tablet/, 1895,
    Feb.-May, Sept.-Dec., also 1897).

[11] Cf. Birt, op. cit., chaps. iv., v., xii. Kennedy, /Parish Life
    under Queen Elizabeth/, 1914, chap. vii. Frere, /History of the
    English Church in the reigns of Elizabeth and James I./, 1904,
    61-7.

[12] Pollen, /Papal Negotiations/, etc., xlvi-vii.

[13] Dodd-Tierney, op. cit., iii., app. cccxi.

[14] Frere, op. cit., 60.

[15] Id., op. cit., 99.

[16] Hardwick, /Articles of Religion/, 1859. Gibson, /Thirty-nine
    Articles/, 2nd edition, 1898.

[17] Cf. Newman, /Tract 90/ (/Tracts for the Times/). Duchesne,
    /Églises Séparées/, 1896. Lingard, vii., 384 sqq. Moyes, /A Talk
    on Continuity/ (C. T. Society, authorities cited). /Tablet/ (1911-
    12).

[18] /Political History of England/, vi., chap. xv. (The Crisis of
    Elizabeth's Reign).

[19] Meyer, /England und die Katholische Kirche/, 64.

[20] Printed in Dodd-Tierney, iii., app. ii.

[21] Meyer, op. cit., 70 sqq.

[22] /Statutes/, 13 Eliz., c. 2.

[23] /Political History of England/, vi., 363.

[24] Rev. J. H. Pollen, S.J., /The Month/, Feb., 1902.

[25] Kennedy, /Parish Life under Queen Elizabeth/, chap. vii., viii.

[26] Haile, /An Elizabethan Cardinal/, 1914. Knox, /Letters and
    Memorials of William Cardinal Allen/, 1882. /Allen's Defence of
    Eng. Catholics/, 1913 (The Cath. Library, ii.).

[27] Cf. /The English Cath. Refugees on the Continent/, i., 1914.
    Lechat, /Les Refugiés anglais dans les Pays-Bas espagnols durant
    le règne d'Elisabeth/, 1914. Bellesheim, /Wilhelm Cardinal Allen
    und die Engl. Seminare auf dem Festlande/, 1885.

[28] Foley, /Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus/,
    ii. /Cath. Record Society of Engl./, ii., 1906.

[29] Bede-Camm, /Lives of the Eng. Martyrs/, ii., 204-49.

[30] Frere, op. cit., 206-15.

[31] Persons, /Memoirs Cath. Rec. Society of Eng./, ii., iv., 1906-7.
    Simpson, /Edmund Campion/, 1896.

[32] Published in Cath. Library Series, vol. 6, 1914.

[33] Allen, /Martyrdom of Edmund Campion, and his Companions/, edited,
    Father Pollen, 1908.

[34] Bede-Camm, op. cit., 249 sqq.

[35] Burton-Pollen, /Lives of English Martyrs/, vol. i., 1583-88,
    1914.

[36] /Statutes/, 27 Eliz., c. 2.

[37] Burton-Pollen, op. cit., xvi. sqq.

[38] Burton-Pollen, op. cit., xxiv. sqq.

[39] Pollen, /Politics of the English Catholics during the reign of
    Elizabeth/ (/Month/, 1902-4). Law, /Jesuits and Seculars in the
    reign of Elizabeth/, etc., 1889. Id., /The Archpriest Controversy
    Documents/, etc., 1896 (Camden Society). /Eng. Catholic Record
    Society/, vol. ii.

[40] Dodd-Tierney, iii., app. xxxiv.

[41] Dodd-Tierney, app. xxxv.

[42] Id., app. no. xxxvi.



CHAPTER V

CATHOLICISM IN ENGLAND FROM 1603 TILL 1750

  See bibliography of chap. ii., iii., iv. /Calendars of State
  Papers/ (James I., Charles I., The Commonwealth, Charles II.).
  Knox, /Records of the English Catholics under the Penal Laws/, 2
  vols., 1882-84. Challoner, /Memoirs of Missionary Priests and
  other Catholics that suffered death in England/ (1577-1684), 2
  vols., 1803. Lilly-Wallis, /A Manual of the Law specially
  affecting Catholics/, 1893. Butler, /Historical Memoirs of
  English, Scottish, and Irish Catholics/, 3 vols., 1819-21. Id.,
  /Historical Account of the Laws respecting the Roman Catholics/,
  1795. Willaert, S.J., /Négociations Politico-Religieuses entre
  L'Angleterre et les Pays-Bas/, 1598-1625 (/Rev. d'Histoire
  Ecclés/, 1905-8). Kirk, /Biographies of English Catholics in the
  Eighteenth Century/ (edited by Rev. J. H. Pollen, S.J., and
  E. Burton, 1909). Morris, /The Condition of Catholics under
  James I./, 1871. Id., /The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers/,
  1872-77. Payne, /The English Catholic Nonjurors of 1715/, etc.,
  1889. Id., /Records of English Catholics of 1715/, etc., 1891.
  Pollock, /The Popish Plot/, etc., 1903. /The Position of the
  Catholic Church in England and Wales during the last two
  Centuries/, 1892. Hutton, /The English Church from the Accession
  of Charles I. to the death of Anne/.

With the accession of James I. (1603-25) Catholics expected if not a
repeal at least a suspension of the penal laws. As a son of Mary Queen
of Scots for whose rescue Catholics in England and on the Continent
had risked so much, and as one whose religious views were thought to
approximate more closely to Catholicism than to Nonconformity, it was
hoped that he would put an end to the persecution that had been
carried on so bitterly during the reign of his predecessor. But
whatever might be the sentiments he entertained secretly or gave
expression to while he was yet only King of Scotland, his opinions
underwent a sudden change when he saw an opportunity of strengthening
his hold upon the English people, and of providing for the penniless
followers who accompanied him to his new kingdom. Unfortunately a
brainless plot, the "Bye Plot," as it is called, organised to capture
the king and to force him to yield to the demands of the conspirators,
afforded the more bigoted officials a splendid chance of inducing
James to continue the former policy of repression. Two priests named
Watson and Clarke joined hands with a number of malcontents, some of
whom were Protestants, others Puritans anxious to secure more liberty
for their co-religionists; but news of the plot having come to the
ears of the archpriest and of Garnet the provincial of the Jesuits,
information was conveyed to the council, and measures were taken for
the safety of the king, and for the arrest of the conspirators. James
recognised fully that the Catholic body was not to blame for the
violent undertakings of individuals, especially as he knew or was soon
to know that the Pope had warned the archpriest and the Jesuits to
discourage attempts against the government, and had offered to
withdraw any clergyman from England who might be regarded as disloyal.
James admitted frankly his indebtedness to the Catholics for the
discovery of the plot, and promised a deputation of laymen who waited
on him that the fines imposed on those who refused to attend the
Protestant service should not be exacted. For a time it was expected
that the policy of toleration was about to win the day, and the hopes
of Catholics rose high; but in autumn (1603) when the episcopal
returns came in showing that Catholics were still strong, and when
alarming reports began to spread about the arrival of additional
priests, the wonderful success of their efforts, and the increasing
boldness of the recusants, an outcry was raised by the Protestant
party, and a demand was made that the government should enforce the
law with firmness.[1]

Shortly before the meeting of Parliament in March (1604) James
determined to show the country that his attitude towards Catholicism
was in no wise different from that of his predecessor. In a
proclamation (Feb. 1604) he deplored the increasing number and
activity of priests and Jesuits, denounced their efforts to win
recruits for Rome, declared that he had never intended to grant
toleration, and ended up by commanding all Jesuits and seminary
priests to depart from the kingdom before the 19th March, unless they
wished to incur the penalties that had been levelled against them in
the previous reign.[2] In his speech at the opening of Parliament
(March 1604) after announcing his adhesion to the religion "by law
established" he outlined at length his attitude towards Rome. "I
acknowledge" he said "the Roman Church to be our mother church
although defiled with some infirmities and corruptions as the Jews
were when they crucified Christ;" for the "quiet and well-minded"
laymen who had been brought up in the Catholic faith he entertained
feelings of pity rather than of anger, but in case of those who had
"changed their coats" or were "factious stirrers of sedition" he was
determined if necessary to take measures whereby their obstinacy might
be corrected. The clergy, however, stood on a different footing. So
long as they maintained "that arrogant and impossible supremacy of
their head the Pope, whereby he not only claims to be the spiritual
head of all Christians, but also to have an imperial civil power over
all kings and emperors, dethroning and decrowning princes with his
foot as pleaseth him, and dispensing and disposing of all kingdoms and
empires at his appetite," and so long as the clergy showed by their
practices that they considered it meritorious rather than sinful to
rebel against or to assassinate their lawful sovereign if he be
excommunicated by the Pope, they need expect no toleration.[3]
Parliament soon showed that it was guided by the old Elizabethan
spirit. An Act was passed ordering that the laws framed during the
late reign against Jesuits, seminary priests, and recusants should be
rigidly enforced; all persons studying in foreign colleges who did not
return and conform within one year, as well as all students who should
go abroad for instruction in future should be declared incapable of
inheriting, purchasing, or enjoying any lands, chattels, or annuities
in England; all owners or masters of vessels who should convey such
passengers from the country were to be punished by confiscation of
their vessel and imprisonment, and if any person should dare to act as
tutor in a Catholic family without having got a licence from the
bishop of the diocese, both the teacher and his employer should be
fined £2 for every day he violated the law.[4] Lord Montague, having
ventured to speak his mind openly in the House of Lords against such a
measure, was arrested for his "scandalous and offensive speech," and
was committed to the Fleet. The old penal laws and the new ones were
enforced with unusual severity. Courts were everywhere at work drawing
up lists of recusants and assessing fines. Never before, even in the
worst days of Elizabeth, were the wealthy Catholics called upon to pay
so much. Numbers of priests were seized and conveyed to the coasts for
banishment abroad; one priest was put to death simply because he was a
priest, and two laymen underwent a like punishment because they had
harboured or assisted priests.

English Catholics were incensed at such pitiless persecution. Had it
been inflicted by Elizabeth from whom they expected no mercy, it would
have been cruel enough; but coming from a king, to whom they had good
reason to look for toleration, and who before he left Scotland and
after his arrival in London had promised an improvement of their
condition, it was calculated to stir up very bitter feeling. Forgetful
of the warnings of the Pope conveyed to the archpriest and the
superior of the Jesuits, some of the more extreme men undertook a new
plot against the king. The leading spirit in the enterprise was Robert
Catesby, a gentleman of Warwickshire, whose father had suffered for
his adhesion to the old faith. He planned to blow up the Parliament
House at the opening of the session of Parliament when king, lords,
and commons would be assembled. Hence his plot is known as the
Gunpowder Plot. His followers had to be ready to rise when the results
of this awful crime would have thrown the government into confusion.
They were to seize the children of the king and to assume control of
the kingdom. The scheme was so utterly wicked and impracticable, that
it is difficult to understand how any man could have conceived it or
induced others to join in its execution. Unfortunately, however,
Catesby secured the assistance of Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, an
Englishman who had served in the Spanish army, John Wright, Thomas
Percy, cousin of the Earl of Northumberland, Sir Everard Digby, and
Francis Tresham. A mine was to be run under the House of Commons
charged with gunpowder, which Fawkes undertook to explode. An
adjoining house was secured, and the cellar stretching under the
Parliament buildings was leased. Everything was arranged for the
destruction of the king, lords and commons at the opening of
Parliament fixed finally for the 5th November 1605, but Tresham,
anxious to save his brother-in-law, Lord Monteagle, sent him a letter
warning him to absent himself on the occasion. By means of this letter
the plot was discovered, and Guy Fawkes was arrested. The other
conspirators fled to Wales, where they hoped to stir up an
insurrection, but at Holbeche where they halted they were surrounded
by the forces of the sheriff of Worcester. In the struggle that ensued
Catesby and several of his followers, who defended themselves with
desperate courage, were killed, and the remainder were put to death
before the end of the month (Nov. 1605).

Whether the plot had not its origin in the minds of some of the
ministers, who in their desire for the wholesale destruction of
Catholics had employed agents to spur on Catesby and his companions,
or, at least had allowed them to continue their operations long after
the designs had been reported it is difficult to determine; but
immediately an outcry was raised that the plot had been organised by
the Jesuits Garnet, Gerard, and Greenway, for whose arrest a
proclamation was issued. Garnet had undoubtedly done much to persuade
Catesby from having recourse to outrage or violence, and had never
been consulted except in such a vague way that he could not possibly
have suspected what was in contemplation. He had even secured from
Rome a condemnation of violent measures, and had communicated this to
Catesby. Greenway was consulted after the plot had been arranged, but
apparently under the seal of confession with permission, however, to
reveal it to none but Garnet, and according to Greenway's own
statement he had done his best to persuade Catesby to abandon his
design. Garnet was then consulted by his Jesuit companion, from whom
he obtained permission to speak about the secret in case of grave
necessity and after it had become public. When Garnet and Oldcorn had
been arrested they were permitted to hold a conversation with spies
placed in such a position that all they said could be overheard.
Garnet, when informed of this, told his story plainly and frankly. He
was condemned and put to death, as was also Father Oldcorn. There is
no evidence to show that the Jesuits urged on the conspirators to
commit such a crime. On the contrary, both from the statements of the
conspirators and of the Jesuits, it is perfectly clear that the
Jesuits had used every effort to persuade the plotters to abandon
their design, and the worst that could be said of Garnet is that he
failed to take the steps he should have taken when he found that his
advice had fallen on deaf ears.[5]

Though Blackwell, the official head of the Catholic body in England,
hastened to issue a letter urging his co-religionists to abstain from
all attempts against the government (7th Nov. 1605), Parliament,
without attempting to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty,
determined to punish Catholics generally. Recusants who had conformed
were commanded to receive the Sacrament at least once a year under
penalty of a heavy fine. In place of the £20 per month levied off
those Catholics who refused to attend Protestant service, the king was
empowered to seize two-thirds of their estates. Catholics were
forbidden to attend at court, to remain in London or within ten miles
of London unless they practised some trade and had no residence
elsewhere, or to move more than five miles from their homes unless
they got the permission of two magistrates, confirmed by the bishop or
deputy-lieutenant of the county. They could not practise as lawyers or
doctors, hold any commissions in the army or navy, act as executors,
guardians, or administrators, appoint to benefices or schools, or
appear as suitors before the courts. Fines of £10 per month were to be
paid by anyone who harboured a servant or visitor who did not attend
the English service. In order to test the loyalty of his Majesty's
subjects it was enacted that a bishop or two justices of the peace
might summon any person who was suspected of recusancy, and require
him to take a special oath of loyalty embodied in the Act. If any
persons not of noble birth refused to take the oath they should be
committed to prison till the next quarter sessions or assizes, and if
in these assemblies they persisted in their refusal they incurred
thereby the penalty of Praemunire.[6]

Both in its substance and particularly in its form the oath of
allegiance was objectionable, and whether or not it was designed with
the intention of dividing the Catholic body, it succeeded in producing
that effect. Many Catholics thought that, as they were called upon to
renounce merely the authority of the Pope to depose princes or to make
war on them, they could take it as a sign of civil allegiance without
abandoning their obedience to the Pope as their spiritual superior.
Others thought differently, however, and as a consequence a violent
controversy broke out which disturbed the England Catholics for close
on a century. The archpriest Blackwell condemned the oath at first,
but in a conference with the clergy held in July 1606 he declared in
its favour. Acting on this opinion the lay peers and many of the
clergy consented to take the oath. The other side appealed to Rome for
a decision, and a brief was issued on the 22nd September 1606, by
which the oath was condemned as unlawful. Blackwell neglected to
publish the brief probably from motives of prudence, though other
grounds were alleged, and in the following year a new condemnation was
forwarded from Rome (Aug. 1607). Meanwhile Blackwell had taken the
oath himself, and had published letters permitting Catholics to act
similarly. As he was unwilling to recede from his position
notwithstanding the appeals of Father Persons and Cardinal Bellarmine,
he was deposed from his office and George Birkhead or Birket was
appointed archpriest (1608). The controversy now became general. James
I. entered the lists with a book entitled /Apologie for the Oath of
Allegiance/, in which he sought to meet the reasons contained in the
papal documents and in the letters of Father Persons and Cardinal
Bellarmine. Both writers replied to the royal challenge, and soon
hosts of others, both Catholic and Protestant hastened to take part in
a wordy war, the only result of which was to disedify the faithful, to
turn away waverers from the Church, and to cause rejoicings to the
enemies of the Catholic cause. Birkhead, who had been empowered to
suspend all priests who did not show some signs of repentance for
having taken the oath, acted with great moderation in the hope of
avoiding a schism, but at last he was obliged to make use of the
powers with which he was entrusted (1611).[7]

The old controversies between the Jesuits and a large section of the
seminary priests were renewed both at home and on the Continent. The
seculars objecting to the control exercised by the Jesuits in England,
in regard to English affairs at Rome, and in the foreign colleges,
continued to petition for the appointment of a bishop. Ugly disputes
ensued and many things were done by both sides during the heat of the
strife that could not be defended. The Holy See found it difficult to
decide between the various plans put forward, but at last in 1623 Dr.
Bishop was appointed Bishop of Calcedon /in partibus infidelium/, and
entrusted with the government of the English mission. During these
years of strife one important work, destined to have a great effect on
the future of Catholicism in England, was accomplished, namely the
re-establishment of the English congregation of the Benedictines. The
Benedictine community had been re-established at Westminster in 1556
with the Abbot Feckenham as superior, but they were expelled three
years later. Of the monks who had belonged to this community only one,
Dom Buckley, was alive in 1607. Before his death he affiliated two
English Benedictines belonging to an Italian house to the English
congregation, and in 1619 the English Benedictines on the Continent
were united with the English congregation by papal authority.[8] The
houses of the English Benedictines on the Continent were situated at
Douay (1605), at Dieulouard (1606), at Paris (1611), Saint-Malo (1611)
and Lambspring in Germany (1643). The members bound themselves by oath
to labour for the re-conversion of their country, and the list of
Benedictine martyrs who died for the faith in England bears testimony
to the fact that their oath was faithfully observed.

While these unfortunate controversies were weakening and disheartening
the Catholics the penal laws were enforced with great severity. One
martyr suffered in 1607, three in 1608, five in 1610, two in 1616, and
five in 1618. Great numbers of priests were confined in prison or
transported abroad. Laymen were ruined by imprisonment, and especially
by the high fines required by the king to meet his own expenses.
According to his own statement he received from the fines of Popish
recusants a net income of £36,000 a year. Parliament and the
Protestant party generally were anxious about the marriage of Prince
Charles, the heir to the throne, and of the princess Elizabeth his
sister. If they were married into Protestant families the religious
difficulty, it was thought, might disappear; but, if, on the contrary,
they were united to the royal houses of France or Spain the old battle
might be renewed. Hence the marriage of Elizabeth to the Elector
Frederick of the Palatinate, one of the foremost champions of
Protestantism in Germany, gave great satisfaction at the time, though
later on it led to serious trouble between the king and Parliament,
when Elizabeth's husband was driven from his kingdom during the Thirty
Years' War.

Regardless of the wishes of his Parliament the king was anxious to
procure for Prince Charles the hand of the Infanta Maria, second
daughter of Philip III. of Spain. To prepare the way for such a step
both in Spain and at Rome, where it might be necessary to sue for a
dispensation, something must be done to render less odious the working
of the penal laws. Once news began to leak out of the intended
marriage with Spain and of the possibility of toleration for Catholics
Parliament petitioned (1620) the king to break off friendly relations
with Spain, to throw himself into the war in Germany on the side of
his son-in-law, and to enforce strictly all the laws against
recusants. But the king refused to accept the advice of his Parliament
or to allow it to interfere in what, he considered, were his own
private affairs. The marriage arrangements were pushed forward, and at
the same time care was taken to inform the magistrates and judges that
the laws against Catholics should be interpreted leniently. In a few
weeks, it is said that about four thousand prisoners were set at
liberty. The articles of marriage were arranged satisfactorily (1623),
due provision being made for the religious freedom of the Infanta, and
a guarantee being given that the religious persecution should cease,
but for various reasons the marriage never took place. Parliament
promised the king to provide the funds necessary for war if only he
would end the negotiations for a Spanish alliance, and this time James
much against his will followed the advice of his Parliament (1624). A
new petition was presented for the strict enforcement of the penal
laws against priests and recusants, to which petition the king was
obliged to yield. But hardly had the negotiations with Spain ended
than proposals were made to France for a marriage between the prince
and Henrietta Maria, sister of Louis XIII., and once more it was
necessary to be careful about offending Catholic feeling. By a secret
article of the agreement with France James promised to grant even
greater freedom to Catholics than had been promised them in his
dealings with the Spanish court, and as a pledge of his good faith he
released many prisoners who had been convicted on account of their
religion, returned some of the fines that had been levied, and gave a
hint to those charged with the administration of the law that the
penal enactments should not be enforced. Application was made to Rome
for a dispensation, which though granted, was to be delivered by the
papal nuncio at Paris only on condition that James signed a more
explicit statement of his future policy towards his Catholic subjects.
Louis XIII., annoyed by the delays interposed by the Roman court, was
not unwilling to proceed with the marriage without the dispensation,
but for obvious reasons James refused to agree to such a course.
Finally all difficulties were surmounted, though not before James had
passed away leaving it to his son and successor to ratify the
agreement. In May 1625, Charles was married by proxy to Henrietta
Maria, and in the following month the new queen arrived in London.[9]

During the later years of the reign of James I. the foreign policy of
the king rendered a relaxation of the penal code absolutely necessary.
In the course of the marriage negotiations with France James I. had
pledged himself by a secret agreement to adopt a policy of toleration,
and on his death the agreement was ratified more than once by his son
and successor Charles I. (1625-1649). But Charles, though personally
well disposed towards the Catholics, was not a man to consider himself
bound by any obligations if the fulfilment of them should involve him
in serious difficulties. At the time of his accession public opinion
in England as reflected by Parliament was intensely hostile to
toleration. On the one hand the Puritan party, who had grown
considerably despite the repressive measures of Elizabeth and James
I., was determined to bring the Church into line with Calvinism, while
on the other hand a body of able and learned men within the Anglican
Church itself longed for a closer approximation towards Catholic
beliefs and practices. With both the Bible was still in a sense the
sole rule of faith, but the Puritan party would have the Bible and
nothing but the Bible, while the High Church men insisted that the
Scriptures must be interpreted in the light of the traditional usages
of the Christian world, and that in matters of doctrine and practices
some jurisdiction must be conceded to the teaching authorities of the
Church. The opponents of the latter stirred the people against them by
raising the cry of Arminianism and Papistry, and by representing them
as abettors of Rome and as hostile to the religious settlement that
had been accomplished. As a result of this controversy, in which the
king sided with Laud and the High Church party against the
Presbyterians and Calvinists,[10] Parliament, which supported the
Puritans, clamoured incessantly for the execution of the penal laws.

In the first Parliament, opened the day after Queen Henrietta's
arrival in England (1625) a petition was presented to the king praying
for the strict enforcement of the penal laws. Yielding to this
petition Charles issued a proclamation ordering the bishops and
officials to see that the laws were put into execution, but at the
same time he took care to let it be known that the extraction of fines
from the wealthy laymen and the imprisonment or transportation of
priests would be more agreeable to him than the infliction of the
death penalty. Louis XIII. and the Pope protested warmly against this
breach of a solemn agreement. Charles replied that he had bound
himself not to enforce the penal laws merely as a means of lulling the
suspicions of Rome and of securing a dispensation for his
marriage.[11] Still, though the queen's French household was
dismissed, the king did everything he could to prevent the shedding of
blood. The Parliamentarians, who were fighting for civil liberty for
themselves, were annoyed that any measure of liberty should be
conceded to their Catholic fellow-countrymen. They presented a
petition to Charles at the very time they were safeguarding their own
position by the Petition of Rights (1628) demanding that priests who
returned to England should be put to death, and that the children of
Catholic parents should be taken from their natural guardians and
reared in the Protestant religion.[12] Charles defended his own policy
of toleration on the ground that it was calculated to secure better
treatment for Protestant minorities in other countries, yet at the
same time he so far abandoned his policy of not shedding blood as to
allow the death penalty to be inflicted on a Jesuit and a layman
(1628).[13] So long however as he could secure money from the
Catholics he was not particularly anxious about their religious
opinions. Instead of the fines to which they had been accustomed, he
compounded with them by agreeing not to enforce their presence at the
Protestant service on condition that they paid an annual sum to be
fixed by his commissioners according to the means of the individual
recusants.

The appointment of a bishop to take charge of the English Mission
(1623) did not unfortunately put an end to the regrettable
controversies that divided the Catholic party. On the death of Dr.
Bishop, Dr. Richard Smith was appointed to succeed him (1625), and was
consecrated in France. For a time after his arrival affairs moved
smoothly enough, but soon a more violent controversy broke out
regarding the respective rights and privileges of seculars and
regulars, and the obligation on confessors of obtaining episcopal
approbation. The dispute became public, and in a short time numerous
pamphlets were published in England and in France by the literary
champions of both parties. As the Puritans resented strongly the
presence of a bishop in England, Dr. Smith was obliged to go into
hiding, and ultimately made his escape to France, where he died in
1665. The Pope found it difficult to apportion the blame or to put an
end to the strife, but an opportunity was afforded him of learning the
facts of the case when an English agent deputed by the queen arrived
in Rome (1633). In return Urban VIII. determined to send an envoy into
England mainly to settle the controversy between the regulars and the
seculars, but also to discover the real sentiments of the court and
the country towards Rome. The person selected for this difficult work
was Gregory Panzani,[14] an Oratorian, who arrived in England in 1634
and had several interviews with the king and queen. Whatever might
have been the hopes of inducing Laud and some of the leading bishops
to consider the question of returning to the Roman allegiance, the
main object the king had in view in permitting the residence of a
papal envoy in London and in sending English agents to Rome was to
secure the help of Urban VIII. for his nephew of the Palatinate, and
especially to induce the Pope to favour a marriage between this nephew
and the daughter of the King of Poland. Very little was obtained on
either side by these negotiations, nor did the papal agents in England
succeed in composing the differences between the clergy.

In 1640 Laud published the canons framed by Convocation for the
government of the English Church. With the object of clearing himself
of the charge of Papistry he ordered a new persecution to be begun,
but the king intervened to prevent the execution of this measure. At a
time when Charles was receiving large sums of money by way of
compensation for non-attendance at the Protestant services, and when
he foresaw that in the conflict that was to come he could rely on the
Catholic noblemen to stand loyally by him, he had no wish to
exasperate the Catholics in England, or to outrage Catholic feeling in
France and at Rome. In 1640, however, Parliament returned to the
charge. The presence of papal agents in England, the payment of
£10,000 by the Catholic noblemen to help the king in his expedition
against the Scots, and the enrolment of a Catholic army in Ireland by
Strafford, were urged as arguments to prove that the king's failure to
carry out the laws against Catholics was due to causes other than had
been alleged. Indeed both before and after the outbreak of the Civil
War (1642) the king's cause was damaged badly by his secret alliance
with Rome. As a matter of fact the Catholics did rally to the standard
of the king, but the persecution to which they had been subjected
wherever the Parliament had control made it impossible for them to act
differently. During the years that elapsed between 1642 and 1651,
twenty-one victims, including priests, both secular and regular, and
laymen, were put to death for their religion.[15] When at last
Parliament had triumphed a new persecution was begun. An Act was
passed in 1650 offering for the apprehension of priests rewards
similar to those paid for securing the arrest of highway robbers.
Informers and spies were set at work, and as a result of their labours
many priests were captured and confined in prison or transported. Yet,
though the opponents of the king made it one of their main charges
against him that he refused to shed the blood of the clergy, they
adopted a similar policy when they themselves were in power. During
the whole Protectorate of Cromwell only one priest was put to death in
England. But recourse was had to other methods for the extirpation of
the Catholic religion, imprisonment, transportation, and above all
heavy fines exacted off those Catholics who held property in the
country.

From Charles II. (1660-1685) Catholics had some reason to expect an
amelioration of their sad condition. They had fought loyally for his
father and had suffered for their loyalty even more than the
Protestant loyalists. In the hour of defeat they had shielded the life
of the young prince, and had aided him in escaping from enemies who
would have dealt with him as they had dealt with the king. Mindful of
their services and of promises Charles had made in exile, and well
aware that he had inherited from his mother, Queen Henrietta, a strong
leaning towards the Catholic Church, they hoped to profit by the
Declaration of Breda, which promised liberty of conscience to all his
subjects. But Charles, though secretly in favour of the Catholics on
account of their loyalty to his father and to himself, was not a man
to endanger his throne for the sake of past services, more especially
as his trusted minister, the Earl of Clarendon, was determined to
suppress Dissenters no matter what creed they might profess. A number
of Catholics, lay and cleric, met at Arundel House to prepare a
petition to the House of Lords (1661) for the relaxation of the Penal
Laws. The petition was received favourably, and as there was nobody in
the House of Lords willing to defend the infliction of the death
penalty on account of religion, it was thought that the laws whereby
it was considered treason to be a priest or to shelter a priest might
be abolished. But dissensions soon arose, even in the Catholic
committee itself. The kind of oath of allegiance that might be taken,
the extension of the proposed relaxations so as to include the
Jesuits, and the anxiety of the laymen to get rid of the fines levied
on rich recusants rather than of the penalties meted out to the
clergy, led to the dissolution of the committee, and to the
abandonment of their suggested measures of redress.[16]

Clarendon was determined to crush the Nonconformist party
notwithstanding the promises that had been held out to them in the
Declaration of Breda. He secured the enactment of a number of laws,
the Act of Uniformity (1662), the Conventicle Act (1664) and the Five
Mile Act (1665) known as the Clarendon Code, which, though directed
principally against the Dissenters, helped to increase the hardships
of the Catholic body. Once, indeed, in 1662-63, Charles made a feeble
attempt to redeem his promise to both Catholics and Nonconformists by
announcing his intention of applying to Parliament to allow him to
exercise the dispensing power in regard to the Act of Uniformity and
other such laws, but the opposition was so strong that the proposed
declaration of indulgence was abandoned. The terrible fire that broke
out in London (September 1666) and which raged for five days,
destroying during that time a great part of the city, led to a new
outburst of anti-Catholic feeling. Without the slightest evidence the
fire was attributed to the Papists, and an inscription to this effect
placed upon the monument erected to commemorate the conflagration
remained unchanged until 1830. When Parliament met a committee was
appointed to inquire into the increase of popery, and a demand was
made that proclamations should be issued for the banishment of all
priests and Jesuits.

On the fall of Clarendon (1667) the Cabal ministers succeeded to
power. These were Clifford, who was a convinced Catholic, Arlington
who if not a Catholic at this time had at least Catholic tendencies,
Buckingham, Ashley, a man of no fixed religious opinions, and
Lauderdale, a Scotch Presbyterian (1670).[17] The contest for the
succession to the Spanish throne was at hand, and Louis XIV. was as
anxious to secure the support of England as was Charles to escape from
the Triple Alliance and the domination of Parliament. Besides, his
brother James, Duke of York, and heir-presumptive to the English
throne, had announced his adhesion to the Catholic Church, and his
example produced such an effect upon the king's mind that he
determined to imitate it if only France would promise support. It was
resolved to conclude a secret treaty with France by which Charles
should pledge himself to profess openly the Catholic religion and to
assist Louis in his schemes against Holland and Belgium, provided that
Louis would supply both money and men to suppress the disturbance to
which the king's change of religion might give rise in England. The
treaty was signed in May 1670, but as Charles was more anxious about
the subsidies than about the change of religion, and as Louis XIV.
preferred that the religious question should not be raised till the
war against Holland had been completed, very little, if anything, was
done, except to publish a Declaration of Indulgence (1672) in which
Charles by virtue of his "supreme power in ecclesiastical matters"
suspended "all manner of penal laws against whatsoever sort of
Nonconformists and Recusants." By this document liberty of public
worship was granted to Dissenters, while Catholics were allowed to
meet for religious service only in private houses.

A strong Protestant feeling had been aroused in the country by the
rumour of the conversion of the Duke of York, by the certainty that
his first wife, the daughter of the Earl of Clarendon, had become a
Catholic on her death-bed, and by the suspicion of some secret
negotiations with France. When Parliament met (1673) a demand was made
that the Declaration of Indulgence should be withdrawn. The Duke of
York urged the king to stand firm in the defence of his prerogatives,
but as neither Charles nor his ally Louis XIV. wished to precipitate a
conflict with the Parliament at that particular period, the king
yielded to the storm by revoking his original declaration. Immediately
the Test Act was introduced and passed through both houses despite the
warm opposition of the Duke of York and of Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.
According to the terms of this measure it was enacted that all civil
or military officials should be obliged to take the oath of supremacy
and allegiance, to receive Communion according to the English service,
and to make a declaration "that there is not any Transubstantiation in
the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of bread and
wine at or after the consecration thereof by any persons whatsoever."
James, Duke of York, resigned his office of Lord High-Admiral and his
example was followed by Clifford and most of the Catholic noblemen
(1673).

From this time forward the Protestant party concentrated their efforts
on securing the exclusion of the Duke of York from the English throne.
Charles II. had married Catharine of Braganza, by whom there was no
issue, and consequently his brother was the lawful heir. At the same
time it was clear to everybody, that James was so firmly attached to
the Catholic Church that neither the fear of losing the crown nor the
zealous efforts of Stillingfleet and other distinguished ecclesiastics
were likely to bring about his re-conversion to Protestantism. The
news, too, of his projected marriage with Mary the daughter of the
Duke of Modena, opening as it did the prospect of a long line of
Catholic rulers in England, was not calculated to allay the fears of
the Protestants. After he had been dismissed from office the Earl of
Shaftesbury set himself deliberately to fan the flames of religious
bigotry, in the hope of securing the exclusion of the Duke of York
from the throne. With this object in view it was proposed either that
Charles should procure a divorce from Catharine of Braganza, so as to
be free to marry some younger lady by whom an heir might be born, or
else that with the consent of Parliament he should vest the succession
in his illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth. Just then, when feeling
was running high in England, a wretch named Titus Oates came forward
with a story of a Popish Plot. Oates, formerly a preacher and minister
of the Established Church, had feigned conversion to Catholicism, and
had gained admission to the English colleges at Valladolid and St.
Omer from which he was dismissed. Acting in conjunction with Israel
Tonge he concocted the details of a plot, according to which the Pope
and the Jesuits were to bring about the murder of the king and the
overthrow of the Protestant religion. His story was so full of
contradictions and absurdities that it is difficult to understand how
it could have obtained credence among sane men, but in the state of
opinion at the time, it was seized upon by Shaftesbury and others as
the best means of stirring up a great anti-Catholic agitation that
would bar the way to the accession of the Duke of York. The mysterious
death of Sir Edmund Godfrey, a London magistrate to whom Oates had
entrusted a copy of his depositions, and the discovery of some French
correspondence amongst the documents of Father Coleman, the private
secretary of the Duchess of York, helped to strengthen public belief
in the existence of the plot. When Parliament met in 1678 both houses
professed their belief in the existence of a "damnable and hellish
plot," voted a salary to Oates, ordered all Catholics to leave London
and Westminster, procured the arrest of a number of Catholic peers,
and decreed the exclusion of Catholics from the House of Commons and
the House of Lords by exacting a declaration against the Mass,
Transubstantiation and the invocation of the Blessed Virgin (1678). It
was only with the greatest difficulty that the king succeeded in
securing an exemption in favour of the Duke of York. A number of
priests and laymen were arrested, one of whom was put to death in
1678, eleven in 1679, two in 1680 and one, the Venerable Oliver
Plunket, Archbishop of Armagh, the last victim put to death for
religion upon English soil, in 1681. In addition to this eight priests
were put to death during the agitation merely because they were
priests.[18]

Three times the Exclusion Bill was introduced, but it failed to become
law owing to the determination of Charles II. to uphold the rights of
his brother. At last the storm of passion began to die away, and the
absurd statements of Oates, even though supported by the testimonies
of infamous hirelings like Bedloe and Dangerfield, were no longer
accepted as trustworthy. Shaftsebury was obliged to make his escape
from England; the Duke of York returned from exile to take up his
residence at court, and for the remainder of the reign of Charles II.
Catholics enjoyed a comparative calm. In February 1685 Charles II.
became seriously ill, and died in a short time, after having been
reconciled to the Catholic Church by the ministrations of Father
Hudleston, who had helped to save his life years before, and who had
enjoyed the special protection of the king.

The accession of James II. (1685-88)[19] was welcomed by the vast
majority of the English people, who had come to admire his honesty and
courage, as well as to sympathise with him on account of the violent
persecution to which he had been subjected by his unscrupulous
adversaries. He had made no secret of his religion and of his desire
to abolish the penal laws from which his co-religionists suffered, but
at the same time he declared his intention of maintaining the Church
of England as by law established. The Tory landowners and the cities
were equally loyal to him, and the first Parliament he called was not
unwilling to do everything to gratify his wishes, provided, however,
he left religion untouched. When the Duke of Monmouth arrived in
England to stir up a rebellion (1685) the country in the main rallied
to the king, although the cry of "Protestantism in danger" had been
utilised to stir up discontent.

The violent persecution that followed the rebellion, and above all the
"bloody circuit" of Judge Jeffreys, whose conduct was unworthy of his
judicial position, helped to dull the edge of the king's popularity.
The selection of advisers like the unprincipled Earl of Sutherland,
the position occupied at Court by Father Edmund Petre,[20] the public
celebration of Mass at which the king assisted in state, and the
opening of direct negotiations with Rome, were calculated to stir up
strong Protestant opposition. During the rebellion the king had found
it necessary to dispense with the Test Act in the appointment of
officers, and to raise a well equipped standing army, and people began
to be alarmed lest he should ally himself with Louis XIV., and by
means of French subsidies attempt to make himself absolute ruler of
England. Parliament met once more in November 1685. The king had set
his heart on securing a modification of the Test Act, so as to be free
to appoint Catholics to positions of trust, and had dismissed the Earl
of Halifax from the council because he refused to agree to the
proposal. But on the two questions, the maintenance of the Test Act
and of a standing army, Parliament was unbending in its refusal to
meet the wishes of James II., and was on this account prorogued (Nov.
1685).

Most of the prominent opponents were dismissed immediately from their
offices. The fact that the late king had embraced the Catholic
religion before his death was made known officially, and two papers,
in which Charles II. explained the motives which induced him to take
this step, were given to the public. The papal nuncio at London was
received at court, and Lord Castlemaine was dispatched to Rome to act
as the agent of James II. Dr. Leyburn arrived in England as vicar
apostolic, to be followed by another in the person of Dr. Giffard, and
a little later England was divided into four vicarates, over which
were placed four vicars with full episcopal orders and jurisdiction.
Several of the Protestant ministers, alarmed by these measures, opened
a violent campaign against Popery, particularly in London where anti-
Catholic feeling was easily aroused. The king appealed to the Bishop
of London to moderate the fanaticism of his clergy, and as the bishop
was unable or unwilling to comply with this request, the king
established once more a king of High Commission Court, to be presided
over by a number of bishops and laymen, with the avowed object of
keeping the clergy in subjection.

As Parliament had refused to abolish the Test Act James II. determined
to make use of the dispensing powers which he claimed to have as king.
To compensate for the absence of parliamentary confirmation, it was
decided to secure the approval of the judges. For this purpose Sir
Edward Hales, a recent convert to Catholicism, was brought into court
for having accepted and retained a commission in the army without
having made the necessary declarations. Hales pleaded as his excuse
that he had received a dispensation from the king, and that
consequently he was not obliged to comply with the terms of the Test
Act. The plea was accepted by the judges and the case against the
defendant was dismissed. As a result of this decision James II. felt
free to confer civil and military offices on Catholics. Four Catholic
peers, Lord Bellasis, Powys, Arundell of Wardour and Lord Dover, were
sworn in members of the privy council (1687), and later on Father
Petre, a Jesuit, took a seat at the council board. For the latter the
king sought to obtain a bishopric and a cardinal's hat, but Innocent
XI., who was not an admirer of the imprudent haste shown by James II.
for the conversion of the English nation, nor of his alliance with
Louis XIV., refused to grant either request. By virtue of royal
dispensations a Catholic master and three fellows were appointed to
some of the Oxford colleges.

The Tory party that had been so loyal to the king hitherto, took
offence at the favour shown to the Catholic body, and as there could
be no hope of winning their approval for the measures he had in
contemplation, James II. determined to appeal to the Dissenters. The
Earl of Rochester was dismissed from his office, and the Earl of
Clarendon was recalled from Ireland. In April 1687 a Declaration of
Indulgence was published, granting freedom of worship to Dissenters
and Catholics, and abolishing all religious tests as necessary
qualifications for office. For a time it seemed as if the king were
likely to secure the support of the Nonconformists, particularly as
measures were taken through the lords-lieutenant of the various
counties to influence public opinion in their districts. But the
hatred entertained by the Dissenters for Rome overcame their gratitude
to the king for the liberty he had granted them, and they preferred to
live in bondage rather than allow the Catholics to share with them the
advantages of religious toleration. The appointment of several
Catholic lords to the very highest offices of state, the public
welcome given to the papal nuncio, and the attempt to force a Catholic
president on the fellows of Magdalen College helped to increase the
feeling of dissatisfaction. Dangerous riots broke out in London, and
to prevent still more dangerous manifestations a force of 16,000 was
concentrated on Hounslow Heath. In April 1688 a second Declaration of
Indulgence was published. By a order in council, published some days
later, the clergy were commanded to read this declaration on two
consecutive Sundays in all their churches.

A petition was presented to the king by Archbishop Sancroft of
Canterbury and six of his episcopal colleagues requesting him to
withdraw this command to the clergy (18 May 1688). To make matters
worse thousands of copies of the petition were printed immediately and
circulated throughout the country. Annoyed by such opposition the king
summoned the bishops before the council, and as they refused to give
securities for their attendance at the trial, they were committed to
prison. The trial opened on the 29th June 1688, and ended with a
verdict of acquittal to the great delight of the vast body of the
English people.

So long as James II. had no heir many Protestants were inclined to
keep silent on the ground that at his death the succession of a
Protestant ruler was assured. But during the popular excitement
following upon the arrest of the bishops the news spread rapidly that
the queen had given birth to a son. Already negotiations had been
opened up with William of Orange to induce him to take up the cause of
Protestantism in England, but the fact that an heir was born to the
throne gave a new impetus to the insurrectionary movement. The state
of affairs on the Continent favoured the designs of William of Orange.
Louis XIV. was at war with the Emperor and with the Pope, and as James
II. was regarded as an ally of France no opposition might be expected
from the imperial forces in case William determined to make a descent
upon England. Had James II. taken the bold course of inviting Louis
XIV. to assist him, the invasion of England from Holland would have
been attended with much more serious difficulties, but till the last
moment James affected to regard such an invasion as an impossibility.
When at last he realised the gravity of the situation he was willing
to make some concessions, but soon, finding himself deserted by a
great many of the men on whom he had relied, by some of his own
relatives, and even by his own daughter, he determined to make his
escape from England (Dec. 1688).

During the weeks that preceded the withdrawal of James II. to France
violent riots had taken place in London, where several of the Catholic
chapels were attacked, and in many of the other leading cities.
William III. was not personally in favour of a policy of religious
persecution, particularly as he had promised his imperial ally to deal
gently with his Catholic subjects. But the popular prejudice against
them was so strong that a policy of toleration was almost an
impossibility. The Catholics were excluded specially from enjoying the
concessions made in favour of the Dissenters, and in the Bill of
Rights (1689) it was provided that no member of the reigning family
who was a Catholic or had married a Catholic could succeed to the
throne, and that any sovereign of England who became a Catholic or
married a Catholic thereby forfeited the crown. Catholics were
prohibited from residing within ten miles of London; magistrates were
empowered to administer the objectionable oath of allegiance to all
suspected Papists; Catholics were forbidden to keep arms, ammunition,
or a horse valued for more than ten pounds; they were debarred from
practising as counsellors, barristers, or attorneys; if they refused
to take the oath they were not allowed to vote at parliamentary
elections; they were incapacitated from inheriting or purchasing land;
and prohibited from sending their children abroad for education; while
priests were to be punished with imprisonment for life for celebrating
Mass, and spies who secured the conviction of priests were offered
£100 as a reward.[21]

During the reign of Anne (1702-14) and during the early portion of the
reign of George I. the persecution continued, especially after the
unsuccessful rebellion of 1715 in which many Catholics were accused of
taking part.[22] After 1722 the violence of the persecution began to
abate, and Catholics began to open schools, and to draw together again
their shattered forces. Fortunately at the time there was one amongst
them in the person of Richard Challoner, who was capable of infusing
new life into the Catholic ranks and of winning for the Church the
respect even of its bitterest opponents. Richard Challoner (1691-1781)
was born in London, and was converted to Catholicism at the age of
thirteen. He entered Douay College, in which he remained twenty-five
years, first as a student and afterwards as a professor, and vice-
president. He returned to London in 1730, and threw himself into the
work of strengthening the faith of his co-religionists in all parts of
the city. He went about disguised as a layman, visiting the poorest
quarters, and celebrating Mass wherever he could find a place of
security. Already he had published a book of meditations under the
title /Think Well On't/ (1728), and a little later he found time to
prepare for the press /The Christian Instructed in the Sacraments,
etc/. In 1740, much against his own will, he was appointed coadjutor
to Dr. Petre, vicar-apostolic of the London district. As coadjutor he
undertook to make a visitation of the entire district as far as it was
situated in England. But his work as bishop did not interfere with his
literary activity. In quick succession he published /The Gardin of the
Soul/, /The Memoirs of Missionary Priests/, containing the Lives of
the English Martyrs (1577-1681), the /Britannia Sacra/, or a short
account of the English, Scottish and Irish Saints, an edition of the
New Testament (1749), of the old Testament (1750), together with a
revised edition (1752).

Besides all this he founded two schools for boys, one at Standon
Lordship, the other at Sedgley Park, and one for poor girls at
Hammersmith. Though more than once he stood in the gravest danger of
having his career cut short by the activity of the priest-hunters, he
had the good fortune to survive the storm and to see the First Relief
Act of 1778 placed upon the statute book.[23]
----------

[1] Frere, op. cit., 289-90.

[2] Dodd-Tierney, iv., app. no. iv.

[3] Id., iv., 10-13.

[4] /Statutes/, 1 James, c. 4.

[5] On the Gunpowder Plot, cf. Gerard, /What was the Gunpowder Plot/,
    1897. Rev. J. H. Pollen, /Arrest and Examination of Father
    Garnet/; /Trial and Execution of Father Garnet/ (/The Month/, July
    1888, Sept., 1888). /The Month/ (Oct., 1878, Sept.-Oct., 1897,
    Aug., 1898, Aug., 1904). Sidney, /A History of the Gunpowder
    Plot/, 1904.

[6] /Statutes 3/, 1 James, c. 4, 5.

[7] Many documents relating to this unfortunate controversy are to be
    found in Dodd-Tierney, op. cit., vol. iv. Appendix. /Memoirs of
    Gregorio Panzani/, edited by Berington, 1793.

[8] Guilday, op. cit., chap. vii.

[9] /Political Hist. of England/, vii., chap. v., vi.

[10] Hutton, /The Life of Laud/, 1895. Shaw, /The English Church
    during the Civil War and under the Commonwealth/, 2 vols., 1900.
    Neale, /History of the Puritans/, 4 vols., 1732-8.

[11] Lingard, vii., 157-9.

[12] Lingard, vii., 168.

[13] Burton-Pollen, op. cit., xxxvi.

[14] /The Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani/, 1634-36, etc. Transl. Ed. by
    Rev. J. Berington, 1793.

[15] Burton-Pollen, op. cit., xxxvi.

[16] /Memoirs of Panzani/, 308-11 (Supplement).

[17] /Political Hist. of England/, viii., 87.

[18] On the Titus Oates' Plot, cf. Gerard, /Some Episodes of the
    Oates' Plot/ (/Month/, Aug. 1894). Marks, /Further Light on the
    Oates' Plot/ (/Month/, Aug. 1903). Pollock, /The Popish Plot/,
    1903. Markes, /Who killed Sir Edmund Godfrey?/ 1905.

[19] Onno Klopp, /Der Fall des Hauses Stuarts/, 1875-9.

[20] Cf. Foley, /Records of the English Jesuits/, v., vii., /The
    Month/ (1886-87).

[21] Cf. Lilly-Wallis, /Manual of the Law specially affecting
    Catholics/, 1893.

[22] Payne, /Records of the English Catholics of 1715/, 1889.

[23] Cf. Burton, /The Life and Times of Bishop Challone (1691-1781)/,
    2 vols., 1909 (an excellent biography).



CHAPTER VI

THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND

  Lang, /History of Scotland/, 1900-2. Bellesheim-Blair, /History of
  the Catholic Church in Scotland/, 1887 (tr. from the German, 2
  Bde., 1883). Forbes-Leith, S.J., /Narratives of the Scottish
  Catholics/, 1885. Id., /Memoirs of Scottish Catholics during the
  Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries/, 2 vols., 1909. Walsh,
  /History of the Catholic Church in Scotland/, 1874. Grub, /An
  Ecclesiastical History of Scotland/, 4 vols., 1861. Dawson, /The
  Catholics of Scotland (1593-1852)/, 1890. Pollen, S.J., /Papal
  Negotiations with Mary Queen of Scots (1561-67)/, 1901. Lang,
  /Mystery of Mary Stuart/, 1901. /Catholic Tractates of the
  Sixteenth Century/ (edited by Law, 1901). Theiner, /Vetera
  Monumenta Hib. et Scotorum (1216-1547)/, 1864. /Works of John
  Knox/, (edited by Laing), 1855-64. Herkless, /Cardinal Beaton/,
  etc., 1891. Gordon, /Scoti-Chronicon/, 1867. Tytler, /History of
  Scotland/, 1879.

In Scotland a long succession of infant kings and weak regents helped
to increase the power of the lords at the expense of the crown. The
king or regent had no standing army at his disposal, nor were the
resources of the royal treasury sufficient to allow the ruler to
invoke the assistance of foreign mercenaries. As a result the king was
dependent more or less on the lords, who were prepared to support him
if their own demands were conceded, or to form private confederations
or "bands" against him if they felt that they themselves were
aggrieved. Parliament, which included the spiritual and lay lords,
together with representatives of the lower nobility and of the cities,
did not play a very important part in the government of the country.
For years Scotland had been the close ally of France and the enemy of
England. Such an alliance was at once the best pledge for Scotland's
independence, and the best guarantee against England's successful
invasion of France.

To put an end to the controversies regarding the primatial rights
claimed by the Archbishop of York over the Scottish Church, Clement
III. issued a Bull in 1188 declaring the Church of Scotland subject
directly only to the Apostolic See.[1] A further step was taken by
Sixtus IV. in 1472, when St. Andrew's was erected into a metropolitan
See, under which were placed as suffragans the twelve dioceses,
Glasgow, Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Moray, Brechin, Dunblane, Ross, Caithness,
Candida Casa, Argyll, the Isles, and Orkney.[2] This measure was
resented by many of the bishops, but more especially by the Bishops of
Glasgow, who were unwilling to submit to the jurisdiction of St.
Andrew's even after it had been declared that the latter in virtue of
its office enjoyed primatial and legatine powers over Scotland (1487).
In the hope of putting an end to the controversy Glasgow was erected
into a metropolitan See with four suffragan dioceses, Dunkeld,
Dunblane, Galloway and Argyll (1492). The bishops of Scotland were
supposed to be elected by the chapters, but in reality the king or
regent enjoyed a decisive voice in the selection of candidates
especially during the greater part of the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries.

As a result of this enslavement of the Church, men were appointed to
bishoprics without reference to their fitness for this sacred office,
and solely with the intention of providing themselves and their
relatives with a decent income. Thus for example, James, Duke of Ross,
brother of James IV., was appointed to the See of St. Andrew's at the
age of twenty-one, and he was succeeded by Alexander Stuart, the
illegitimate son of James IV., when he had reached only his ninth
year. What is true of St. Andrew's is almost equally true of many of
the other dioceses of Scotland, though it would be very wrong to
assume that all the bishops of Scotland during the latter half of the
fifteenth or the first half of the sixteenth centuries were unworthy
men.

The religious orders of men were well represented by the Benedictines,
Cistercians, Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, etc., while in
most of the large cities and towns flourishing convents had been
founded. The state of discipline in these various institutions varied
considerably according to circumstances, but although serious attempts
were made to introduce reforms especially in the houses of the
Cistercians, Franciscans, and Dominicans, it cannot be contended for a
moment that the Scottish monasteries and convents were free from the
gravest abuses. Possibly the erection of such a multitude of
collegiate churches in Scotland during the fifteenth century was due
to the sad condition of so many of the religious houses, but if it
was, the remedy was almost as bad as the disease. In connexion with
the monasteries, the chapters, and the collegiate churches, schools
were carried on with a fair amount of success, sufficient at least to
prepare students for the higher education given at the Universities of
St. Andrew's founded by Benedict XIII. (1410), of Glasgow, founded by
Nicholas V. (1451), and of Aberdeen established through the exertions
of the learned and holy Bishop Elphinstone with the approval of
Alexander VI. (1495) and of James IV. Owing to the close connexion
with France many of the Scottish ecclesiastics pursued their studies
at Paris.

The Church in Scotland was comparatively wealthy at the beginning of
the Reformation movement, though it should be remembered that out of
its resources it was obliged to maintain the schools, hospitals, and
institutes of charity. Still the wealth of the Church in Scotland
instead of being a source of strength was in reality a source of
weakness, and in the end it proved to be one of the main causes of its
overthrow. It excited the cupidity of the hungry nobles, and made them
anxious to share in the plunder of religious houses, particularly
after the example had been set across the border by Henry VIII.'s
attack on the English monasteries. But before any steps were taken to
bring about the forcible seizure of the ecclesiastical property the
rulers and lords of Scotland adopted other means of controlling the
wealth of the Church and of the monasteries. Members of the royal
family or sons of the nobles were introduced into the bishoprics
irrespective of their merits, and were induced to enrich their
relatives by bestowing on them portions of the diocesan property. Many
others of a similar class were appointed as commendatory abbots of
religious houses solely for the purpose of controlling the revenue of
these establishments. In some cases those so appointed were only
children, in nearly all cases they were laymen, and in no case did
they do anything for the maintenance of discipline, for the
cultivation of a good religious spirit, or for the promotion of the
wishes of the founders and endowers of the monastic institutions. What
was true of the monasteries was equally true of the convents, in many
of which discipline was completely relaxed. Several attempts were made
to bring about a reformation, but on account of the exemptions and
special privileges claimed by the religious houses, such attempts were
doomed to failure, whether they were made by the bishops or by the
regular superiors. Nothing less than a papal visitation, in which the
visitors could have relied upon the full power of the Church and
State, would have sufficed to put an end to the evil, and
unfortunately no such step was taken in time to avert the calamity.

As elsewhere, so too in Scotland, it was no uncommon thing to find one
man holding several benefices to which the care of souls was attached,
notwithstanding all the canons that had been passed against such a
glaring abuse. The clergy, following the example of so many of their
superiors, showed themselves entirely unworthy of their position. Many
of them were quite negligent about preaching and instructing their
flock, completely regardless of clerical celibacy, and oftentimes they
devoted more attention to their farms and to their cattle than to
their religious obligations. One has only to refer to the decrees of
the diocesan synods held by Archbishop Forman of St. Andrew's (1515-
22),[3] to the national synods of 1549-1552, and to the letter of
Cardinal Sermoneta to the Pope in 1557[4] to see how grievous were the
abuses flourishing in all departments of the Church in Scotland at the
time when the very existence of Catholicism in the kingdom was
trembling in the balance. The root of all this evil was the
destruction of the independence of the Church, and its complete
subjugation to the crown and to the lords. As a result, when the
crisis came and when most of the lords went over to the party of Knox,
they found but little resistance from their unworthy relatives, whom
they had introduced into positions of trust, not that they might
promote religion, but that they might live by it, and in the end
betray it.

It was during the reign of James V. (1513-42) that the religious
revolution began on the Continent and in England. Henry VIII. of
England was his uncle, and he left no stone unturned to detach his
nephew from his alliance with France and from his submission to Rome;
but despite Henry's endeavours James V. refused to join in Henry's
attacks on the Pope, or to listen to the proposals for a closer union
with England. The Scottish Parliament held in 1525 forbade the
introduction of Lutheran books into the kingdom or the preaching of
Luther's doctrine, and a papal envoy was dispatched to the Scottish
court to exhort the king to stand firm in the defence of the Church.
The reply of James V. was reassuring. Soon however the new heresy
began to make its appearance in the kingdom. Patrick Hamilton,
commendatory abbot of Ferne and closely related to some of the most
powerful families in Scotland, had come into contact with Luther and
Melanchthon during his wanderings on the Continent, and on his return
home he set himself to spread their teachings amongst his countrymen.
He was arrested, tried for heresy, and handed over to the secular
authorities who inflicted the death penalty (1528). His execution did
not put an end to the movement in Scotland. In 1533 the Benedictine,
Henry Forest, was condemned to death for heresy; in the following year
a priest and a layman met a similar fate, and before the death of
James V. several others including Dominicans and Franciscans, laymen
and clerics, were either burned or obliged to seek safety in flight.
James V. set himself resolutely to the task of suppressing heresy, and
was supported by Parliament, which forbade all discussion on Luther's
errors except in so far as it might be necessary for their refutation,
and ordered all who had Lutheran writings in their possession to
deliver them to the bishops within a period of fourteen days.

Political influences, however, favoured the spread of the new
doctrine. It had been the dream of Henry VII., as it was also the
dream of his son and successor, to strengthen England at the expense
of France, by bringing about an alliance and if possible a union
between England and Scotland. It was in furtherance of this design
that Henry VII. had given his eldest daughter in marriage to James
IV., who was slain with most of his nobles in a battle with the
English on the fatal field of Flodden (1513). The schemes for a union
with Scotland were continued by Henry VIII., particularly after his
rupture with Rome had shown him the danger that might be anticipated
from the north in case the French or the Emperor should declare war in
defence of the Church. A regular contest began at the Scottish court
between the friends of Rome and of France and the agents of Henry
VIII., the latter of whom took care to encourage those who favoured
religious innovations. The queen-mother, sister of Henry VIII., and
many of the nobles favoured the plans of Henry, who sought to induce
the King of Scotland to join him in the struggle against Rome, and who
promised him in return for this service the hand of his daughter the
Princess Mary and the friendship of the English nation. James V.,
backed by the bishops and encouraged by messengers from Rome, refused
to come south for a conference with Henry VIII., or to give any
countenance to the schismatical policy of his uncle. As a sign that
Scotland was still true to France he married the daughter of Francis
I. of France (1537), and on her death shortly after her arrival in
Scotland, he took as his second wife (1538) Mary of Guise, daughter of
the Duke of Guise and sister of the Cardinal of Lorraine.[5]

He was ably assisted in his struggle against heresy and English
interference by David Beaton, Archbishop of St. Andrew's (1539-46) and
a cardinal of the Roman Church. The latter was at once a churchman and
a politician, loyal to Rome and to France, earnest in his defence of
Scottish independence, and determined to defeat the English schemes
against both the religion and liberty of Scotland. As friendly
remonstrances and invitations failed to produce any effect, Henry
VIII. determined to have recourse to war. He felt that he could rely
upon the assistance or the neutrality of many of the Scottish nobles
whom he had won over to his side, and soon events showed that this
confidence was not misplaced. The Scottish army was put to a shameful
flight at Solway Moss, probably more by treachery than by the
cowardice of the Scottish nobles, and James V. was so heartbroken by
the news of this disaster that he died in a few weeks (Dec. 1542)
leaving behind him an infant daughter, to be known later as Mary Queen
of Scots.

After the death of James V. the Earl of Arran, who as one of the
Hamiltons was next after the king's daughter the heir-presumptive to
the throne, and who favoured the new religion and English influence,
was appointed regent despite the resistance of Cardinal Beaton and of
the clergy. Henry VIII. believed that the favourable moment had come
for carrying out his plans. He hoped to be able to imprison his old
enemy Cardinal Beaton, to seize the person of the young princess, to
arrange for a marriage between her and his own son Prince Edward, and
to make himself virtual sovereign of Scotland. To their shame be it
said he induced a number of the Scottish nobles, the Douglasses, the
Earls of Cassilis, Glencairn, Bothwell, and Angus, together with many
others, to agree to his designs and to promise their assistance.
Unmindful of their duty to Scotland they consented to sell both their
country and their religion for English gold. The regent was only too
willing to lend his aid, and before the end of January the English
agents were able to announce to "their Sovereign Lord" that the
cardinal was a prisoner. Everything seemed to favour the religious
change and the plans of union with England. Parliament met in March
1543. It decreed liberty to all to read or to have in their possession
a copy of the Bible in the English or the Scottish tongue, and
appointed commissioners to treat with Henry for the marriage of Mary
to his son. But popular opinion in Scotland supported strongly the
religious and political policy of Cardinal Beaton. The clergy of the
diocese of St. Andrew's refused to continue their ministrations until
their archbishop was released. The people supported them in their
demands, as did several of the nobles, and in the end, despite the
protests of the English party, among the lords, the cardinal was set
at liberty. The regent, the Earl of Arran, deserted his former
friends, became reconciled with the Catholic Church, joined himself to
the party of the cardinal and of the queen dowager, and welcomed the
arrival of the French forces that had come to defend the kingdom
against an English invasion.

The Scottish nobles in the pay of Henry VIII. were convinced, as was
Henry VIII. himself, that so long as Cardinal Beaton was alive to
guide affairs in Scotland no advance could be made in the work of
destroying both the religion and the independence of the kingdom.
Several of the Scottish enemies of the cardinal entered into
communication with Henry himself or with his agents. They offered to
murder the cardinal if only Henry promised a sufficient reward, and
Henry expressed his approval of the step that was in contemplation.[6]
Meanwhile the cardinal was busy preparing schemes for a genuine reform
of the Church to be submitted to a national synod called for January
1546, and in making a visitation of his diocese for the purpose of
suppressing heresy. George Wishart, formerly a Greek master at
Montrose, had returned from the Continent, and had begun to stir up
religious dissension in several cities of Scotland. He was the close
ally of the Scottish lords who were in the pay of Henry VIII., and he
himself was the trusted messenger employed by Crichton, Lord of
Brunston, to communicate to the English court the projected murder of
Cardinal Beaton and the destruction of certain religious houses in
Scotland.[7] The cardinal, who was probably aware of his plots as well
as of his preachings, secured his arrest, and brought him to St.
Andrew's, where he was tried and executed for heresy (1546). The news
of the execution created considerable commotion especially in those
centres where Wishart had preached, and gave new impetus to the
movement for the assassination of the cardinal. In May 1546 some of
the family of Leslie, who had grievances of their own to revenge, with
a number of other accomplices secured an entrance to the palace of the
Archbishop of St. Andrew's, put his servants and attendants to flight,
and murdered him before any help could be summoned. The murder of
Cardinal Beaton was an irreparable misfortune for the Catholic Church
in Scotland. He was at once an able churchman and a patriot,
determined to maintain the independence of his country against the
group of pro-English traitors, who were determined to change the
religion of Scotland at the bidding of Scotland's greatest enemy. John
Knox, a fanatical priest, who had gone over to the new religion,
welcomed the murder of the cardinal as a veritable triumph for the
gospel and as a "godly act." He hastened to join the murderers who had
taken possession of the castle of St. Andrew's, and to whom he
preached as the first reformed congregation in Scotland.[8] Henry
VIII., no less jubilant for the disappearance of his strongest
opponent, was not slow to assist the murderers.

But the assassination of the cardinal did not mean the triumph of the
English party. It served only to embitter the feelings of the vast
majority of the people, and to force the regent and queen-dowager to
throw themselves more unreservedly into the arms of France. A French
fleet arrived at Leith and forced the murderers assembled in the
castle of St. Andrew's to surrender. Those of them who were not
fortunate enough to make their escape were taken prisoners and
condemned to the French galleys. An English army led by the Duke of
Somerset marched into Scotland to enforce the English demands, and
especially to secure the person of the infant queen. But though it
inflicted considerable havoc on Scotland, particularly on several of
the religious houses, and though it overthrew the forces of the regent
in the battle of Pinkie (1547), it was obliged to re-cross the borders
without having secured the submission of the nation. In the following
year (1548) a new French force arrived in England to assist the Scotch
in their struggle against England. A Scottish Parliament renewed the
alliance with France, approved of the betrothal of the young queen to
the Dauphin of France, and determined to provide for the safety of her
person by sending her into France. After several fruitless attempts
made by the English to secure a foothold in Scotland they were obliged
to give up the contest in despair, and to conclude a nine years'
peace. For so far the alliance between Catholicism and independence
had won the victory against heresy and English influence (1550).

The murder of Cardinal Beaton helped to force the bishops and clergy
to realise the danger of their position. They urged the regent to take
stern measures in defence of the church, and what was of much more
importance they attempted to set their own house in order as the best
preparation for the conflict. John Hamilton, brother of the regent,
was appointed Archbishop of St. Andrew's in succession to Cardinal
Beaton (1547). He assembled a national synod at Edinburgh (1549) which
was attended by the bishops, abbots, and representatives of the
chapters, religious houses, and collegiate churches.[9] Though the
presence of men like Lord James Stuart, the illegitimate son of James
V., as commendatory prior of St. Andrew's was not calculated to
inspire confidence in the decrees of the assembly, a very wholesome
scheme of reform was carried through, which, had it been enforced,
might have gone far to save Catholicism in Scotland. Severe laws were
passed against concubinage of the clergy, their neglect of their
primary duties of preaching and instructing their flocks, and against
the alienation of ecclesiastical property. Measures were taken to
ensure that priests should explain the principal points of Catholic
doctrine and the Scriptures regularly in their principal churches.
Another synod held in 1552 continued the work of reform. Its
references to the question of marriage and to the non-attendance of
the people at their religious duties seem to indicate that religion
was not then in a flourishing condition. The synods ordered the
publication of a catechism, and enjoined all priests who had care of
souls to explain a portion of it every Sunday before the principal
Mass. In accordance with this decree an excellent catechism[10]
containing a very full exposition of Catholic doctrine was published.
Had it come earlier, or had the clergy even then been able and willing
to explain it to their people, Knox and his companions might have
found themselves confronted with a much more difficult task.

Mary of Guise had shown great abilities during the contest with Henry
VIII. and the Protector. Though the Earl of Arran was nominally regent
it was she who guided his counsels and inspired his policy. The French
government, distrustful of the regent who was also the next claimant
for the Scottish throne, induced him to resign his office, for which
he received in return the empty title of Duke of Châtelherault, and
Mary of Guise undertook the government of Scotland for her infant
daughter. About the ability of the new regent or her devotion to the
Catholic Church there could be no difference of opinion, but
unfortunately she was more anxious to strengthen the French hold upon
Scotland than to take the necessary measures for the peace of the
kingdom and the suppression of heresy. She filled her fortresses with
French subjects, showing thereby that in her opinion Scotchmen could
not be trusted. As a result she gave great offence to the native
lords, aroused Scottish patriotism against France as it had been
aroused against England by the aggressive policy of Henry VIII., and
prepared the way for the dissolution of the alliance between
patriotism and Catholicism, an alliance that had hitherto been the
main barrier against the success of the reforming English party.

The Scots began to fear that with their young queen united in marriage
to the King of France Scotland stood in danger of becoming a French
province, and though the Scottish Parliament took care to safeguard
the independence of the country in the marriage settlement drawn up in
1558, the leading men had grave suspicions that the agreement would
have little effect. Besides, Mary of Guise had no longer anything to
fear from English Protestantism, which was rendered powerless after
the accession of Queen Mary. England was now united to Spain, the
mortal enemy of France, and French political interests would best be
served by maintaining an attitude of friendly neutrality towards
English Protestants, who were likely to prove more dangerous to
Spanish designs than to France. Such a policy of neutrality might
result, too, it was thought, in securing the throne of England for the
young Scottish queen, whose claims as the nearest legitimate heir
could not be questioned. For these reasons the regent was not
unwilling to allow Protestant refugees to take up their residence in
Scotland, and to permit the followers of the new religion to continue
their campaign so long as they did not disturb the public peace. In
her correspondence with the Pope she paid little attention to the
religious danger that was threatening the kingdom, and seemed to be
more anxious to obtain permission to tax the clergy than to secure an
energetic reform of the abuses that she painted in such dark
colours.[11] The Scottish lords, many of whom were offended by the
preponderance of French soldiers and French officials, were only too
willing to assist the new preachers, and what was worse, to stir up
their clansmen against the old religion by holding up the bishops and
clergy as the friends of France and the enemies of Scottish
independence. National patriotism was now utilised to help forward the
cause of Protestantism, by the very men who a few years before had
agreed to betray their country for English gold, and had striven with
all their might to make Henry VIII. the protector of Scotland.

Some Protestant refugees from England were soon at work in different
centres of the country, and encouraged by the regent's policy of
neutrality, the man, who was destined to be the apostle of the
Reformation, returned to his native land (1555). John Knox,[12] who
had shown his devotion to the Gospel by applauding the murder of
Cardinal Beaton as a "godly act," and who had founded the first
reformed congregation among the murderers gathered in the castle of
St. Andrew's, having been released from the French galleys, became a
pensioner of Edward VI., and took up his residence in some of the
northern towns of England. In a short time he was appointed royal
chaplain, and might have had the Bishopric of Rochester had he not
expressed the view that such an office was incompatible with devotion
to the true evangelical religion. On the accession of Queen Mary he
fled from England to Geneva, from which he returned to Scotland in
1555. His violent and overbearing manner, his extravagant
denunciations of his opponents, his misrepresentations of their
actions and policy, and his readiness both as a speaker and as a
writer, qualified him perfectly for the leadership of a revolutionary
party, were it not that at certain critical moments his anxiety to
avoid personal danger was calculated to shake the confidence of his
followers. He was welcomed by many of the discontented nobles, amongst
others by Lord Erskine afterwards Earl of Mar, Lord Lorne and his
father the Earl of Argyll, Maitland Lord of Lethington, the Earl of
Glencairn, and Lord James Stuart prior of St. Andrew's, who as Earl of
Moray was soon to betray his sister, Mary Queen of Scots.

Encouraged by the protection of such powerful patrons he preached
freely and with great success in several districts of Scotland. The
clansmen were so united to their lords that they were prepared to
follow their example even in matters of religion. The bishops and the
regent, to whom these proceedings must have been known, were strangely
oblivious to their duties, and when at last they mustered up
sufficient courage to summon Knox to appear at Edinburgh (1556), they
were so alarmed by the strength of his following that they abandoned
the trial. Knox, encouraged by their cowardice, preached openly in the
capital, and even went so far as to address a letter to the regent
calling upon her to open her mind for the reception of the truth.[13]
By this public challenge, however, he overshot the mark, and not being
gifted with any particular desire to suffer martyrdom for the faith,
he left Scotland suddenly and retired to the Continent (1556). For
years he was the leading spirit in many of the fierce and unseemly
disputes between the English Protestant exiles in Geneva and
Frankfurt. Although summoned more than once by his followers to
return, he contented himself with sending them written exhortations to
stand firm in the faith, or by publishing violent pamphlets such as
/The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of
Women/, in which he undertook to prove that the rule of women is
repugnant to nature, contrary to God's ordinances, and subversive of
good order, equity, and justice. Though this document was aimed
principally against Catharine de' Medici, Queen Mary of England, and
Mary of Guise regent of Scotland, it rankled in the mind of Queen
Elizabeth after her accession, and did not serve to raise the apostle
of Scotland in her estimation.

The Protestant lords, undeterred by the absence of Knox, decided to go
forward with their programme. In December 1557 the Earl of Argyll, his
son Lord Lorne, Glencairn, Morton, Erskine of Dun, and others, met at
Edinburgh and signed a bond or covenant, by which they bound
themselves solemnly to establish the "Blessed Word of God," to
encourage preachers, to defend the new doctrines even with their
lives, and to maintain the Congregation of Christ in opposition to the
Congregation of Satan. They pledged themselves to introduce the Book
of Common Prayer, to insist on the reading of portions of the
Scriptures in the vulgar tongue on Sundays and holidays, and to
appoint preachers wherever the Catholic clergy were unable or
unwilling to undertake this work.[14] In many districts, where the
lords of the Congregation held sway, measures were taken at once to
enforce these resolutions. Confronted with this revolutionary step,
the regent and the bishops should have had recourse to strong action,
but the former was so interested in the approaching marriage of her
daughter to the Dauphin of France (1558) that she did not wish to
offend the lords, while the primate, as one of the Hamiltons, disliked
the regent because she had supplanted his brother, and contented
himself with gentle admonitions. The lords, confident in their
strength, met in November 1558, and presented a petition to the
regent, in which they demanded that the members of the Congregation
should be allowed to meet in the churches, and to follow their own
ritual in the vulgar tongue, that Communion should be administered
under both kinds, that private individuals should be at liberty to
explain difficult passages of the Sacred Scriptures, and that the
clergy should be reformed. The regent after consultation with the
primate consented to these requests, at least in regard to private
religious assemblies, but refused to yield to another petition
demanding the abolition of all laws against heresy.[15]

The religious controversies became more and more embittered during the
year 1559. The lords of the Congregation denounced the abuses of the
clergy, demanded permission to use the vulgar tongue in all public
religious services as well as in the administration of the sacraments,
and insisted on the admission of the lower nobles and of the people to
a voice in the appointment of bishops and of pastors. To put an end to
the abuses that were proving such a useful weapon in the hands of the
adversaries of the Church, and at the same time to give public and
formal expression to the faith of the Scottish nation, a national
synod[16] met at Edinburgh (April 1559). It denounced once again the
awful scandal of concubinage among the clergy, laid down useful
regulations regarding preaching and the appointment of bishops,
condemned plurality of benefices, nonresidence, and demands on the
part of the clergy for excessive fees. To raise the standard of
education among the clergy it ordained that those presented to
benefices should be examined, and that each monastery should maintain
some of its members at the universities. In its profession of faith
the synod emphasised the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,
Transubstantiation, the propitiatory character of the sacrifice of the
Mass, the sufficiency of Communion in one kind, the existence of a
real priesthood, and purgatory, prayers for the dead, invocation of
the saints, fasting, and holidays. In response to the demands of the
Congregation the synod pointed out that it had not the power to change
the rites and ceremonies that had been handed down for centuries, that
as the Church was the definitely appointed guardian and interpreter of
the Scriptures private individuals were not permitted to expound them
at their will, and that in the appointment of bishops and pastors the
rules laid down in canon law were quite sufficient to prevent abuses
if only they were followed.

About the same time Quintin Kennedy, Benedictine Abbot of Crossraguel,
conferred an immense service on religion by his written apology[17]
for the Catholic Church. Starting with the Bible and its relation to
ecclesiastical authority, he undertook to show that from the very
nature of the case such a book required the presence of a divinely
appointed official interpreter, that the reading of the Scriptures was
not necessary for salvation though in many cases it might be useful,
and that the authority of the Church should not be overthrown even
though the existence of scandals among churchmen could not be denied.
Turning to his adversaries, he demanded what was the source of all the
abuses and scandals which they charged against the Church? Was it not,
he asked, the unwarrantable interference of the nobles in the
nominations to ecclesiastical benefices, an interference that was
responsible for having even children who were too young to hold an
apple in their hands appointed to the charge of populous parishes, in
order that the relatives of these children might grow rich on the
revenues, and was it not the very men who were guilty of such conduct
who were loudest in their denunciation of the Church? On the nobles he
laid the blame for oppressing the Church, for introducing unworthy
ecclesiastics into offices of trust, for depriving the poor of
instruction and education, and for promoting thereby heresy and
revolution.

As the year (1559) advanced the state of affairs in Scotland became
daily more alarming. Preachers were everywhere at work under the
protection of the lords. The regent and the French authorities, who
had shown a fatal apathy in their dealings with Scottish heretics,
began to wake up to the political danger involved in such a movement.
A French agent, M. Béthencourt,[18] arrived in Scotland in April 1559,
and, whether it was due to his advice or not, the regent forbade the
preachers to continue their disturbances. On their refusal to submit
she summoned them to appear at Stirling for trial (10th May).
Encouraged by the return of Knox who had landed at Leith early in the
same month, and by the armed forces placed at their disposal by some
of their principal patrons, they refused to attend and were outlawed.
A number of the reforming lords immediately took possession of Perth,
and destroyed several Catholic churches in the city. When news of this
rising reached the regent she assembled her forces and marched against
Perth, but as neither side was anxious for civil war at the time, a
truce was agreed upon, and the forces of the regent were allowed to
occupy the town. From Perth the reforming lords retreated to St.
Andrew's, where they burned and destroyed the altars, pictures,
statues, and even the sacred vessels used for religious worship. The
abbey church of Scone, in which a long line of Scottish kings had been
crowned, was destroyed; Perth and Stirling were seized, and before the
end of June 1559 Edinburgh was in the hands of the lords of the
Congregation. The regent issued an appeal in the name of the king and
queen of Scotland calling upon all loyal subjects to defend the
government against the revolutionary Congregation, but her unfortunate
preference for French soldiers and officials gave the Protestant lords
the advantage of enabling them to pose as patriots engaged in the
defence of their country against foreigners. They were forced,
however, to capitulate and to surrender Edinburgh to the regent (26th
July).

Early in this same month (1559) Henry II. of France died, and was
succeeded by Francis II., the husband of Mary Queen of Scots.
Elizabeth and her advisers were alarmed at the prospect that opened
before them. Mary Queen of Scots, as the nearest legitimate heir to
the English throne, was a dangerous neighbour, especially at a time
when England was thrown into confusion by a new religious revolution,
and when English Catholics might rally to her standard with the
blessing of the Pope and of the Kings of France and Spain. Even though
the Queen of Scotland did not resort to extremes, the very existence
of a Catholic kingdom in Scotland, united by bonds of friendship and
interest to France, constituted a grave danger for England; whereas if
Scotland could be induced to accept the Protestant religion and to
throw in its lot with its southern neighbour, the enemies of England
on the Continent might rage in vain. The rebellion of the lords of the
Congregation was, therefore, very welcome to Elizabeth and to Cecil.
It gave them an opportunity of interfering in Scottish affairs, not,
indeed, in the untactful manner in which Henry VIII. had interfered,
but as the apparent defenders of Scottish independence against a
French protectorate. On this occasion Scottish patriotism was to be
made subservient to English political aims and at the same time to
Protestant interests.

The lords of the Congregation, realising that without assistance they
could never hope to overcome the regent, turned to England for
support. Their petitions were welcomed by Cecil and the leading
counsellors of Elizabeth, but the queen herself distrusted Knox, and
disliked allying herself with open rebels. To give the movement an
appearance of constitutionalism the young Earl of Arran, who had been
brought to France and who had secretly embraced Calvinism, was induced
to make his escape into England. As a near claimant to the Scottish
throne he was welcomed at the English court, and was led to believe
that if he acted prudently he might become the husband of Elizabeth,
and the king of a united England and Scotland. He was dispatched into
Scotland, where he succeeded in detaching his father, the Duke of
Châtelherault, and several other nobles from the side of the regent.
Relying on the protection of England, from which a plentiful supply of
money was dispatched to the rebels, and on the new accessions to their
ranks, the lords of the Congregation announced the suspension of the
regent from her office (Oct. 1559) though they hesitated to take the
further step of proclaiming the Earl of Arran or Lord James Stuart
sovereign of Scotland. The regent replied to this act of rebellion by
marching on Edinburgh, forcing the rebels to retreat to Stirling
(Nov.), while the Earl of Bothwell seized large sums of money that
were being forwarded to the rebel camp from England. The English
advisers began to realise that money and secret assistance were not
enough to secure the triumph of the Congregation in Scotland, and that
the time had come when more decisive measures must be taken.

In December 1559 and January 1560, an armed force was dispatched to
the north, and Admiral Winter was commanded to blockade the Forth
against a French fleet. A little later a formal agreement was
concluded between the Duke of Norfolk representing Elizabeth, and Lord
James Stuart the commissioner for the Congregation. At first it was
proposed to act in common for "the maintenance of the Christian
religion," but as these words might have given rise to serious
complications on the Continent, it was decided that an alliance should
be concluded for the defence of the ancient rights and liberties of
Scotland. An English army of eight thousand men marched into Scotland,
and the English fleet blockaded the fortress of Leith which was the
key to the capital. Owing to the Huguenot risings in France the
assistance that had been promised could not be sent, but nevertheless
the invaders were thrown back in their first assault. In June 1560,
however, Mary of Guise, worn out by the anxieties and cares of her
difficult office, passed away, and three weeks later the garrison was
obliged to surrender. English and French plenipotentiaries met to
arrange the terms of peace. It was agreed that the French soldiers,
with the exception of about one hundred and twenty men, should be
drafted from Scotland, that no foreigners should be promoted to any
office in the kingdom, that until the arrival of the king and queen
the country should be governed by a council of twelve, seven of whom
were to be selected by Mary and Francis and five by the Parliament,
that the entire question of religion should be submitted to a Scottish
Parliament convoked to meet on the 1st August (1560), and that, in the
meantime, a kind of religious truce should be observed by both sides.
It was agreed, furthermore, that the spiritual peers should hold their
seats in Parliament as before, and that they should not be disturbed
in their ecclesiastical possessions.

The successful invasion of Scotland by the English troops had turned
the scales in favour of the lords of the Congregation. They were now
masters in Scotland, but, had the bishops and clergy been zealous men
worthy of their sacred office, the cause of the old Church in Scotland
would not have been even then hopeless. While Knox and his friends
were straining every nerve to consolidate their work by the
appointment of preachers and superintendents for the rising
congregation, many of the Catholic bishops and abbots, several of whom
were allied by blood and friendship with the lay lords, either
contented themselves with doing nothing, or went over to the enemies
of the Church for the sake of securing for themselves and their
descendants the ecclesiastical property that they administered. The
Archbishop of St. Andrew's and Primate of Scotland was the brother of
the Earl of Arran. Though a convinced Catholic himself, he was not the
man either to make a struggle or to inspire confidence at such a
crisis. Archbishop Beaton of Glasgow had fled already from the
kingdom; the Bishop of Argyll, another illegitimate scion of the house
of Hamilton, was a Protestant or was soon to become one; Adam
Bothwell,[19] whom the Pope had appointed the previous year to the See
of Orkney on the petition of the king and queen of Scotland, could not
be trusted, as his subsequent conduct showed; Alexander Gordon, who
claimed to be Bishop of Galloway, though he was never consecrated, had
gone over openly to the enemies of the Church, as had also the
provincial of the Dominicans, the sub-prior of the chapter of St.
Andrew's, and John Rowe a former agent of the Scottish bishops at the
Roman Court. With men such as these to guard the interests of
Catholicism in Scotland there could be little doubt about the result.

In August 1560 the Parliament met at Edinburgh. In addition to the lay
lords and representatives of the lesser nobles and of the cities,
there were present a number of bishops and abbots. Amongst these
latter it is interesting and instructive to note the presence of Lord
James Stuart, the bastard brother of the queen and one of the leaders
of the Congregation, as prior of St. Andrew's, of Lord James Hamilton
son of the Earl of Arran and a follower of Knox as abbot of Arbroath,
of John Stuart abbot of Coldingham, of the son of the Duke of Argyll
as bishop-elect of Brechin, together with a number of other laymen,
who, though holding high office in the Church, were determined to
promote the new movement for the sake of the property that they hoped
to obtain. The discussion opened under the presidency of Maitland,
Lord of Lethington, the Scottish Cecil, a double dealer who was even
more dangerous than an open enemy. A petition was presented
immediately on the part of Knox and his friends that doctrines such as
Transubstantiation, the sacrificial character of the Mass, Purgatory,
prayers for the dead, meritorious works, etc., which had been forced
upon the people by the clergy should be rejected. A confession of
faith was drafted and submitted to the assembly. The Primate and the
Catholic bishops present protested against the discussion of such a
document on the ground that according to the terms of the Treaty of
1560 the religious question should have been submitted previously to
the king and queen, and also because the treaty had never been
confirmed owing to the fact that the French commissioners had exceeded
their instructions. It was no doubt for this reason that a large
number of the ecclesiastical and lay lords who were strongly Catholic
had refused to attend the Parliament. Indeed the supporters of the old
religion, relying on the help of the queen, seemed to think that any
religious settlement made by Parliament was of no importance. Their
refusal to discuss the confession of faith was taken, however, as a
sign of their inability to refute it, and the confession was passed
with but few dissentients. Later on (24th August) three other acts
were formulated with the object of uprooting Catholicism in Scotland.
The jurisdiction of the Pope was abolished, and the bishops were
forbidden to act under his instructions; all previous Acts of
Parliament contrary to God's word or to the confession of faith as now
approved were declared null and void; and all persons were forbidden
to celebrate or to hear Mass under pain of confiscation of their goods
for the first offence, banishment for the second, and death for the
third.[20]

/The Book of Discipline/ which contained an exposition of the
ecclesiastical policy of the Scottish Reformers was compiled by Knox
and his companions. It dealt with the preaching of the Scriptures, the
two sacraments Baptism and the Eucharist, the suppression of religious
houses of all kinds, the election and appointment of ministers, elders
and deacons, and with the means to be provided for their support and
for the maintenance of education. Though the separate congregations
were left more or less free regarding the kind of religious service
that should be followed, the Book of Common Prayer formerly accepted
in Scotland was abolished to make way for the Calvinistic Book of
Common Order. In the general assemblies of the reformed Church
(December 1560-May 1561) decrees were issued for the destruction of
the religious houses and of all signs of idolatry, and individuals
were appointed to see that these decrees were put into immediate
execution.[21]

Both parties in Scotland turned instinctively to their queen. Mary had
been married in 1558, and in 1559 her husband succeeded to the throne
of France under the title of Francis II. A minister was dispatched to
inform her of the proceedings in Parliament, but she refused to
confirm the terms of the treaty with England, or to sanction the
changes that had been decreed. The death of her husband Francis II.
(1560) threw her into great grief and forced her to consider the
question of returning at once to her kingdom. She believed that many
of those who opposed her previously, lest Scotland should become a
French province, might now abandon their league with Elizabeth, and
welcome home their own lawful sovereign. Nor was there anything at
this time to indicate that Mary had any intention of playing the part
of a champion of Catholicism,[22] or of running the risk of forfeiting
her throne in Scotland or her claims to the English crown by
undertaking a campaign against the new religion. Her years of
residence at the French court, where religious interests were only too
often sacrificed to political designs, could not fail to have produced
their natural effect. In February 1561 she sent commissioners to
assure the lords of her forgiveness for what they had done, and to
empower the Duke of Châtelherault and others to convoke a Parliament
in her name. At a meeting of the nobles held in January 1561 her
natural brother, Lord James Stuart, was deputed by the lords to offer
Mary their allegiance, while the Catholic party including the Earls of
Huntly, Atholl, Crawford, Sutherland, and some bishops, dispatched a
messenger to warn her against the Congregation, and to place at her
disposal a strong force in case she decided to land in the north. But
Mary, distrusting the motives of Huntly and his friends, treated their
offers of assistance with neglect, and welcomed as her saviour and
friend the man who even then was not unwilling to act as a spy on his
sister and his queen at the bidding of Elizabeth. Mary's selection of
him as her trusted adviser boded ill for the future of her reign.

At last with a heavy heart Mary determined to leave the country of her
adoption. As she was unwilling to confirm the treaty with England in
its entirety and to renounce her claims to the English throne,
Elizabeth refused to grant passports through England, but under the
shelter of a thick mist Mary succeeded in eluding all danger of
capture and landed safely at Leith (Aug. 1561). From the people
generally she received an enthusiastic welcome, but, when on the
following Sunday she insisted that Mass should be celebrated in the
private chapel of Holyrood, it required all the efforts of her brother
to prevent a riot. Knox and his brethren denounced such idolatrous
conduct as intolerable, and bewailed the misfortunes that God must
inevitably pour out upon the country in punishment for so grievous a
crime. A few days later Mary issued a proclamation announcing that no
change would be made in the religious settlement without the consent
of Parliament, but that in the meantime no attempt should be made to
interfere with her household. A new privy council was appointed, in
which the two principal members were Lord James Stuart and Maitland,
Lord of Lethington, both equally untrustworthy. None of the Catholic
bishops was offered a seat at the council board, and the Catholic
lords were represented only by the Earls of Huntly and Argyll. A
general assembly of the Reformers was held at Edinburgh (1561), which
succeeded in securing a share of the ecclesiastical endowments, and
another in 1562, which appointed John Craig as the assistant of Knox
in Edinburgh. For so far Mary could do little for her co-religionists
in Scotland, nor indeed does it appear that any serious effort was
made in that direction. Still her own example was not without its
effect. Several of the waverers especially in Edinburgh seem to have
returned to the Church. Pius IV., who was anxious to learn the true
state of affairs, commissioned the Jesuit Nicholas de Gouda (Goudanus)
to visit Scotland for the purpose of encouraging the queen and of
inviting the bishops to assist at the Council of Trent. He arrived in
Scotland (June 1561). After waiting six weeks in the house of a
Catholic nobleman he secured a secret interview with the queen at
Holyrood. With most of the bishops he was not even so successful.
Though he reported that they were for the greater part Catholics and
men of good intentions, some of them like Sinclair of Ross refused to
see him, from others he got no reply to his letters, and it was only
with the greatest difficulty he contrived to have a short conversation
with Bishop Crichton at Dunkeld.[23] There is no doubt that the
bishops were surrounded by powerful and watchful enemies, but it seems
strange that they should have effaced themselves so completely, at a
time when Knox and his opponents by means of general assemblies and
other such bodies were impressing the country with their strength and
activity. Even though the bishops were silent the old religion was not
without some able and energetic defenders in the person of Leslie,
soon to be the Bishop of Ross, Quintin Kennedy whose services have
been referred to already, and Ninian Winzet, who caused Knox
considerable embarrassment by his tracts, letters, and public
disputations.

In his report Father de Gouda alluded to the imminent peril in which
the queen stood owing to her complete reliance on her unworthy
ministers. Her brother Lord James Stuart, and Maitland, both hostile
to the Catholic religion, were her principal advisers. Although the
Earl of Huntly had not played a very noble part in the disputes
between the regent and the Congregation, he was the recognised head of
the Catholic party. He had offered his services to the queen while she
was still in France, but at the instigation of her brother she had
refused to accept them. After her return to Scotland Huntly found that
he was treated with coldness, and the earldom of Moray that belonged
to his family was taken from him and conferred on his old rival, Lord
James Stuart. During the queen's journey to the north (August 1562)
she refused to visit Huntly. A dispute having broken out regarding the
execution of one of his followers, who was unwilling to open the gates
of a Gordon castle to the queen, Huntly took up arms. He was
overthrown and slain at Corrichie by the Earl of Moray (1562). In a
Parliament held in May 1563 the Earls of Huntly and Sutherland and
eleven nobles of the house of Gordon were attainted, and their goods
confiscated. The overthrow of this nobleman, on whom the bishops had
counted for support, helped to strengthen the Congregation in
Scotland, and to encourage it to persecute more rigorously the
followers of the old religion. During the spring of 1563 some of the
Catholic clergy seem to have adopted a more forward policy, but they
were accused of violation of the law. The primate and close on fifty
others were tried before the courts in Edinburgh for celebrating or
hearing Mass, and were committed to custody by the queen. To show that
she was still Catholic, however, Mary dispatched a letter to the
Council of Trent. It was read to the assembled Fathers in May 1563,
and it gave entire satisfaction if we may judge by the answer that was
prepared. The papal legates were not unwilling that the council should
declare sentence of excommunication against Queen Elizabeth, thereby
preparing the way for Mary's claims to the throne, but the opposition
of the Emperor and of Philip II. of Spain put an end to the
scheme.[24]

The question of Mary's marriage was of paramount importance,
particularly as it was probable that the issue of the marriage would
succeed to the thrones of Scotland and of England. The Pope and the
French favoured the Archduke Charles of Austria who was disliked by
the Scottish nobles as being too poor; Philip II., more for the
purpose of defeating a proposed marriage of the Queen of Scotland to
Charles IX. of France, suggested his own son Don Carlos as a probable
suitor, but he showed little real earnestness in pushing forward the
project, while Elizabeth was inclined to support her own former lover,
Dudley, who was created Earl of Leicester, as it is said, to prepare
the way for his marriage with the Scottish queen. But Mary, bewildered
and annoyed by the varying counsels of her friends, put an end to the
intrigues by marrying her cousin Lord Darnley, who as the son of the
Earl of Lennox and of Margaret Douglas, granddaughter of Henry VII.,
had very strong claims on the English and Scottish thrones. A papal
dispensation from the impediment of consanguinity was sought, but it
would appear that the marriage was solemnised (29th July 1565) before
the dispensation was granted.[25] Darnley was a young man of
prepossessing appearance, and as a Catholic he was the idol of his
co-religionists in England. His marriage with the Queen of Scotland
was agreeable to the Pope and to Philip II. of Spain, who hastened to
send Mary financial assistance as well as congratulations. Such a
union was, as might be expected, distasteful to the Protestant party
in England, and particularly distasteful to Elizabeth, who foresaw the
disastrous consequences that might ensue to England from the union of
two such formidable Catholic claimants to the English throne.

The Earl of Moray and the other reforming lords, realising that the
marriage was likely to destroy their influence, determined to take up
arms. Encouraged by Elizabeth, the Earls of Moray, Glencairn, the Duke
of Châtelherault and others rose in rebellion, nominally in defence of
Protestantism but in reality to maintain their own supremacy at court.
Mary, displaying more courage than she had displayed hitherto,
assembled her forces, overthrew the lords, and forced Moray and his
confederates to escape across the borders into England (Oct. 1565).
This victory gave new hopes to the Catholics in Scotland. Darnley
began to attend Mass openly, as did several of the nobles, while the
queen took steps to secure appointments to some of the vacant
bishoprics.

But soon a new danger appeared from an unexpected quarter. Darnley was
a vain and foolish youth who treated his wife with but scanty respect.
He wished to be sovereign of Scotland, to secure the crown for the
family of Lennox to the exclusion of the Hamiltons, and to force the
queen to follow his counsels in all matters of state. As his wishes
were not granted he determined to revenge himself on Mary's secretary,
David Riccio, whom he pretended to regard as Mary's secret adviser.
For this purpose he turned for assistance to the reformed party whose
fears had been aroused by Mary's religious policy. A confederation was
formed consisting of Darnley, the Earl of Morton, Lord Ruthven, and
Lindsay for the murder of Riccio. The Earl of Lennox Darnley's father,
Moray, Argyll, and Maitland of Lethington, the English ambassador, and
apparently John Knox, were aware of the design and approved of it.[26]
When everything was ready for the opening of Parliament the murderers
forced their way into the presence of the queen, and slew her
secretary almost in her presence (9 March 1566). On the next day
Darnley issued a proclamation ordering those who had assembled for the
Parliament to leave Edinburgh, and on the same evening the Earl of
Moray arrived in the capital.

The conspirators had agreed to proclaim Darnley king of Scotland. For
this purpose the queen was to be held a prisoner or to be slain if she
attempted to make her escape, but she succeeded in eluding the
vigilance of her captors and in making her way to Dunbar, where she
was joined by Archbishop Hamilton, the Earls of Huntly, Atholl, and
Bothwell. She advanced on Edinburgh without meeting any resistance,
while the murderers of Riccio were obliged to make their escape into
England. Darnley deserted his fellow conspirators by communicating to
the queen the details of the plot. His desertion did not, however,
gain him the dictatorship he desired, as Mary pardoned Moray and
Argyll, and received them together with Huntly, Atholl, and Bothwell
into her councils. The birth of an heir to the throne would, it was
thought, lead to a better understanding between Mary and her husband,
but unfortunately it had no result. Though the baptism of the prince
was carried out in the chapel-royal of Stirling Castle with all the
pomp and splendour of Catholic ceremonial (December 1566) Darnley
refused to be present or to take any part in the festivities. A few
days later Morton and the other murderers of Riccio were pardoned, and
allowed to return to Scotland.

The Earls of Moray and Argyll and the other leading conspirators were
incensed against Darnley for having communicated to the queen their
share in the plot that led to Riccio's murder. Bothwell, who had done
so much to frustrate the conspiracy, detested Darnley almost as
fiercely as he himself was detested by both Darnley and the Earl of
Lennox. During the latter half of the year 1566 nearly all the great
lords of Scotland entered into a confederation or "band" against
Darnley. Whether they meant merely to assist the queen to procure a
legal separation from her husband with the support and approval of
Parliament, or whether they intended to bring about Darnley's death by
legal or illegal means is not sufficiently clear.[27]

Soon after the baptism of the prince, Darnley fell ill in Glasgow of
small-pox. The queen sent her physician to attend him, went herself to
visit him, and when he began to improve had him removed to a lonely
house outside Edinburgh, where she frequently spent hours in his
company. To all appearances a complete reconciliation had been
effected, and Darnley in his letters expressed his entire satisfaction
with the kindness and attention of his wife. Suddenly on the night of
the 11th February 1567 the house was blown up, and Darnley was killed.
Suspicion pointed to Bothwell as the author of the crime, and no doubt
the case against him was strong, though how far he was assisted and
encouraged by some of the other lords must for ever remain a mystery.
Mary's concurrence or implication in the design is not proved by any
reliable evidence, and were it not for her subsequent conduct it is
not likely that complicity in the murder of her husband would have
been laid to her charge. At the privy council on the day following the
murder an explanation was drawn up and forwarded to France, declaring
that a plot against the lives of the queen, king, and principal nobles
had been discovered, and that it was only by a happy accident that the
queen's life had been saved.

The Earl of Lennox, Darnley's father, charged Bothwell publicly with
the murder of the king and demanded that he should be brought to
justice. A day was fixed for the trial, but as Bothwell was powerful
in the councils of the queen and was both able and willing to resort
to force if force were necessary, it was very difficult to procure
evidence against him. Lennox pleaded unsuccessfully for a delay, and
as no one was prepared to come forward to prove the charges, Bothwell
was acquitted (12th April 1567). A few days later most of the lords
who had assembled in Edinburgh for the meeting of Parliament met at
Ainslie's tavern and signed an agreement (Ainslie's Band) pledging
themselves before God to defend Bothwell who had been declared
innocent of the murder, and, stranger still, to procure his marriage
with the queen. Various and contradictory lists of the signatories
have been published, but from an examination of these different lists
it is sufficiently clear that most of the great lords were attached to
the confederation.[28] As usually happened when a serious crisis was
approaching, Moray was absent from the country.

Bothwell, under pretence of punishing some of the robber bands,
mustered his forces, overcame the small guard that accompanied the
queen on her journey from Stirling to Edinburgh, and carried off
herself and Maitland as prisoners to Dunbar (19 April). That Bothwell
acted in collusion with Mary is not proved, but despite the advice of
her confessor, of the French representative, and of her best friends
Mary agreed to go through a form of marriage with Bothwell. Her new
husband was a Protestant, married already to the Earl of Huntly's
sister from whom he had obtained a separation. The marriage ceremony
was performed by the apostate Bishop of the Orkneys, who was soon to
prove as disloyal to his queen as he had proved dishonest towards the
Pope. Such a marriage celebrated under such circumstances created a
most painful impression amongst the Catholics at home as well as in
France and at Rome. It served to confirm their worst suspicions, and
made them fear that Mary was about to desert the religion of her
fathers. "With this act," wrote the papal ambassador who had been
deputed to come to Scotland but who remained at Paris, "so
dishonourable to herself, the propriety of sending any sort of envoy
ceases unless indeed her Majesty, in order to amend her error and
inspired by God, convert the Earl to the Catholic faith."[29]

Many of the lords, who had signed the bond to promote the marriage of
Bothwell and Mary, professed to be shocked when they learned that the
marriage had taken place. Relying upon the active intervention of
Elizabeth they took up arms to avenge the murder of their king. The
armies of the queen and of the lords met at Carbery Hill, where after
some discussion Mary surrendered herself to the lords, and Bothwell
was allowed to make his escape. The queen surrendered on the
understanding that she was to be treated as queen, but she soon
discovered that her captors intended to deprive her of her kingdom and
possibly of her life. As a first step in the proceedings she was
removed from Holyrood to Loch Leven (16th June). A document was drawn
up embodying her abdication of the Scottish throne in favour of her
infant son, and the appointment of her brother the Earl of Moray as
regent during the minority. Until Moray's return the government was to
be entrusted to a commission consisting of the Duke of Châtelherault,
Lennox, Argyll, Atholl, Morton, Glencairn and Moray. Lord Lindsay and
Sir Robert Melville were deputed to obtain the queen's signature,
which they succeeded in obtaining only by threats and violence (24th
July 1567). The young prince was crowned a few days later, John Knox
acting as preacher on the occasion, and the apostate Bishop of the
Orkneys as the chief minister. Steps were taken to ensure that Mary
should not make her escape from imprisonment, and Bothwell who had
fled to the Orkneys was forced to escape to Denmark, where he died in
1578. Moray hastened back from France, interviewed the queen at Loch
Leven, accepted the office to which he had been appointed, and was
proclaimed regent in Scotland. Severe measures were taken against the
Catholic clergy many of whom fled from the kingdom. The queen's chapel
at Holyrood was destroyed, and care was taken that the young king
should be reared in the Protestant religion.

The lords of Scotland had taken up arms to avenge the murder of
Darnley, but once they established themselves in power they took no
steps to bring the murderers to justice, for the obvious reason that
any judicial investigation must necessarily result in establishing
their own guilt. Sir James Balfour, who had been involved deeply in
the affair, was forgiven, on condition that he should surrender
Edinburgh Castle into the hands of the regent. Parliament met in
December 1567. It confirmed the abdication of the queen and the
appointment of Moray. The laws passed against the Catholic Church in
1560 were renewed. It was enacted furthermore that for the future the
kings and rulers of Scotland should swear to uphold the reformed
religion and to extirpate heresy. The queen had demanded that she
should be allowed to defend herself before Parliament against the
attacks of her enemies, but the regent and council refused to comply
with her request. Some of her friends, however, endeavoured to uphold
her good name, and when they were defeated in Parliament they appealed
to the people by publishing a defence of their sovereign.

Though every precaution was taken to ensure the safe-keeping of the
queen, she succeeded in escaping from Loch Leven (2 May 1568). She was
welcomed at Dunbar by the Primate of Scotland, the Hamiltons, Huntly,
Argyll, Seaton, Cassillis, and others, and soon found herself at the
head of an army of eight thousand men. She declared that her
abdication having been secured by violence was worthless, and that the
acts of the recent Parliament were null and void. She called upon all
her loyal subjects to flock to her standard. The regent, aware that
unless a sudden blow could be struck help would come to Mary from the
Catholics of the north as well as from France and Spain, determined to
take the field at once. The armies met at Langside, near Glasgow (13th
May), where the forces of the queen were overthrown. Mary accompanied
by a few faithful followers made her way south towards Galloway, and
at last against the advice of her best friends she determined to cross
the border to throw herself on the protection of the Queen of England.

The arrival of Mary in England created a great difficulty for
Elizabeth. If she were allowed to escape to France, both France and
Spain might join hands to enforce her claims to the English
succession, and if she were restored to the throne of Scotland, Moray
and his friends could expect no mercy. It was determined, therefore,
that Elizabeth should act as umpire between the queen and her
rebellious subjects, so that by inducing both sides to submit their
grievances to Elizabeth feeling between them might be embittered, and
that in the meantime a divided Scotland might be kept in bondage. In
her reply to the letter received from the Queen of Scotland Elizabeth
informed her that she could not be received at court nor could any
help be given to her unless she had cleared herself of the charges
brought against her. Both parties in Scotland were commanded to cease
hostilities, but at the same time Cecil took care to inform Moray
secretly that he should take steps to enforce his authority throughout
Scotland.[30]

Mary, while repudiating Elizabeth's right to sit in judgment on her
conduct, consented that a conference should be held between her
commissioners and those appointed by Elizabeth and by the rebel lords.
The Dukes of Norfolk, Sussex, and Sir Ralph Sadler were the English
commissioners; Bishop Leslie, Lord Livingstone, and Lord Herries
represented Mary; while Moray, Morton, and Maitland of Lethington
appeared to present the case of the rebel lords. The conference opened
at York (October 1568). Several days were wasted in attempts made by
Maitland to effect a compromise so that the production of charges and
counter-charges might be unnecessary, and in considering inquiries put
forward by the Earl of Moray regarding Elizabeth's attitude in case
the charges against the Scottish queen were proved. Some of the
letters supposed to have been written by Mary to Bothwell were shown
secretly to the English commissioners, but they do not seem to have
produced any great effect on the Duke of Norfolk or even on the Duke
of Sussex who was certainly not prejudiced in Mary's favour. The
latter reported that Moray could produce no proofs except certain
letters the authorship of which the Queen of Scots would deny. In
fact, Sussex believed that were the affair to come to trial it would
go hard with the queen's accusers.[31] In a short time Elizabeth
ordered that the venue should be changed from York to London, and
Mary, believing that she would be allowed an opportunity to defend
herself before the peers and representatives of foreign governments,
accepted the change. She sent Bishop Leslie and Lord Herries to
represent her in London, but on their arrival they found that Mary
would not be allowed to appear in person, though her accusers were
received by the queen, nor would the foreign ambassadors be admitted
to hear the evidence.

The new commission opened at Westminster (4th Dec. 1568). The lords
brought forward their charges against the queen accusing her of
complicity in the murder of her husband. In proof of this they
produced a number of letters that were supposed to have been contained
in a casket left behind him by Bothwell in Edinburgh, when he fled
from that city in June 1567. This casket contained eight letters and
some sonnets, which, if really written by Mary, proved beyond doubt
that she was hand in glove with Bothwell in bringing about the murder
of Darnley. The Casket Letters considered in the light of her own
conduct furnished damaging evidence of Mary's guilt. Whether these
letters were genuine or forged is never likely to be established with
certainty,[32] but considering the character of Mary's opponents,
their well-known genius for duplicity, the contradictory statements
put forward by their witnesses and the indecent haste with which the
whole enquiry was brought to a close, it is difficult to believe that
the evidence of Mary's authorship was convincing. The commissioners
acting on Mary's behalf laboured under grave disadvantages from the
fact that their mistress was not at hand for consultation. As a
consequence they made many mistakes in their pleadings, but they were
on sure ground when they demanded that copies of the incriminating
letters should be forwarded to Mary for examination. This demand,
though supported by the French ambassador, was refused, and Mary was
never allowed an opportunity to reply to the main charge brought
against her. An offer was made that proceedings should be dropped if
Mary would consent to resign the throne of Scotland in favour of her
son, and when she refused this offer the conference was brought to a
sudden termination. Moray and his friends were informed that "nothing
had been produced against them as yet that might impair their honour
and allegiance; and on the other part there had been nothing
sufficiently produced or shown by them against the queen their
sovereign, whereby the Queen of England should conceive or take any
evil opinion of the queen her good sister for anything yet seen" (Jan.
1569).[33] The Earl of Moray and his companions were allowed to return
to Scotland, and nothing more was done either to establish the
innocence or the guilt of the Queen of Scotland. The object of
Elizabeth and her advisers had been attained. They had blackened the
character of Mary; they had driven a wedge between herself and her
nobles, and had allowed Moray to return to Scotland to rule as an
English dependent.

To prevent Queen Mary from falling into the hands of the Catholic
lords of the north she was removed from Tutbury to Coventry (26th
January 1569). Whatever might be said of Mary's conduct during her
early years in Scotland, or whatever doubt might have been entertained
about her orthodoxy by the Pope and by the Catholic powers of the
Continent, everything unfavourable to her was forgotten by them in
their sympathy for her sufferings, and in their admiration for her
fortitude and sincere attachment to her religion. Pius V. and Philip
II. were as deeply interested in her fate as were the Catholics of
Scotland and of England. A scheme was arranged to promote her marriage
to the Duke of Norfolk and to secure her succession to the English
throne, but Elizabeth anticipated the design by imprisoning the Duke,
suppressing the rebellion of the northern lords (1569), and by braving
the terrors of the papal excommunication levelled against her the
following year.

When later on a new plot was discovered with the same object in view
Norfolk was put to death (1572). While Mary was alive in England she
was a source of constant danger to Elizabeth's throne. English
Catholics driven to desperation by the penal laws were certain to turn
to her as their lawful sovereign, while the Catholic nations on the
Continent could fall back on the imprisoned queen whenever they chose
to stir up disorder, or possibly to attempt an invasion. Dangerous as
she was in prison, she might be still more dangerous if she were free
to effect her escape either to Scotland or to France. In her death lay
Elizabeth's best hope of peace, and as the rigour of her confinement
failed to kill her, an attempt was made to induce the Scots to
undertake a work that the English feared to undertake.[34] At last an
opportunity was given of bringing about her execution and of covering
the measure with an appearance of legality. A scheme for her release
was undertaken by Babington,[35] with every detail of which the spies
of Cecil were intimately acquainted, if they did not actually help to
arrange them. Babington's letters to Mary and her replies were
betrayed and copied. It is certain that Mary knew what was intended,
but there is no evidence to show that she approved of the murder of
Elizabeth. When the proper time came Babington and his accomplices
were arrested and put to death (October 1586), and Mary's fate was
submitted to the decision of Parliament. Both houses petitioned that
the Queen of Scotland should be executed, but Elizabeth, fearful of
the consequences and hoping that Mary's jailer Paulet, would relieve
her of the responsibility, hesitated to sign the death warrant. At
last, however, she overcame her scruples, and on the 8th February
1587, Mary Queen of Scots was beheaded at Fotheringay. Her attitude to
the last was worthy of praise. She died a martyr for her religion, and
by her death she expiated fully the imprudences and waverings of her
youth. Elizabeth pretended to be horrified by the action of her
ministers. Her secretary was imprisoned and fined to prove to
Scotland, France, and Spain that the Queen of England had no
responsibility for the tragedy of Fotheringay.

Meanwhile how fared it with Catholicism in Scotland? The Regent Moray
returned from England early in 1569. Acting on the repeated requests
of the General Assembly he undertook new measures against the Catholic
Church. Catholic officials and professors were removed from Aberdeen
University; several priests were arrested and punished though the
regent was unwilling to inflict the death penalty, and many
distinguished clerics and laymen, including the Primate and Bishop
Leslie, were outlawed and their goods confiscated. The regent was not
destined however to enjoy long the fruits of his treachery against his
sister. In 1570, at the very time when he was plotting with the
English government to get the Queen of Scotland into his power, he was
shot in Linlithgow by one of the Hamiltons, the hereditary enemies of
his house.

On his death there were two strong parties in Scotland. The majority
of the nobles, including the Duke of Châtelherault, Argyll, Huntly,
Atholl, and even Kirkcaldy and Maitland of Lethington, two former
supporters of Moray, ranged themselves on the side of their imprisoned
queen, and might have succeeded in re-establishing her authority had
not Elizabeth espoused the cause of Morton, Mar, Glencairn and
Ruthven, backed as these were by Knox and the preachers. Two English
armies were dispatched into Scotland, and with the help of the English
forces the Earl of Lennox, Darnley's father, was appointed regent
(July 1570). It was not the first time that he had sought to destroy
the independence of his country by invoking the assistance of the
English, and as he had gone over to Protestantism he was determined to
throw himself into the arms of the Reformers. The castle of Dunbarton
was still in the possession of the queen's supporters. He laid siege
to it, and captured it in April 1571. Here he seized the Primate of
Scotland, and had him put to death after a summary trial. The chapter
met and elected Robert Hay, but he was never consecrated, and for more
than three hundred years St. Andrew's was without a Catholic bishop.
In September 1571 Lennox was slain, and the Earl of Mar was elected
regent. During his short reign he was unable to enforce his authority
in the country. Negotiations were opened with him by Cecil's agents to
induce him to undertake the execution of the Queen of Scotland, who
was to be sent back from England for the purpose, but his sudden death
in 1572 put an end to the scheme.

He was succeeded by the Earl of Morton, another of Elizabeth's agents.
At first Morton was not unfavourable to the Catholics owing to the
disputes that arose between himself and the preachers about the
re-establishment of the episcopal form of government, but later on he
adopted a policy of violent opposition to the old religion. Some of
the priests were put to death; others were arrested or banished; a
list of Catholics including Beaton the Archbishop of Glasgow, Leslie
Bishop of Ross, and Chisholm Bishop of Dunblane was drawn up for
proscription, and steps were taken to suppress Catholic holidays and
to remove from the churches everything that called to mind Catholic
devotions.

In 1578 the young king demanded Morton's resignation. A council of
twelve was appointed in his place, at the head of which stood the
Earls of Argyll and Atholl. Elizabeth was annoyed at the fall of her
minion, and took no pains to conceal her annoyance from the young
king. It looked as if friendly relations between the two courts might
be broken, and the Catholic party both at home and on the Continent
were filled with new hopes. In 1579 Esmé Stuart, Lord d'Aubigny, a
nephew of the former Earl of Lennox, arrived from France, where he had
been educated as a Catholic. He was welcomed at court by the king and
created Earl of Lennox. James fell completely under his sway, though
the preachers regarded d'Aubigny as a Catholic spy. Regardless of
Elizabeth's friendship, James was induced to open communications with
his mother, and when the Earl of Morton rose in rebellion against such
a policy he was arrested and put to death (1582). Though apparently
Lennox made profession of accepting the established religion in
Scotland, he was endeavouring secretly to bring about an understanding
between Mary and her son, to secure the release of the former from
captivity, and to assist the Catholic cause. The preachers took alarm
at the sudden and unexpected increase of Popery. "Before this French
court came to Scotland," said Walter Belcanqual in one of his sermons
in 1580 "there were either few or none that durst avow themselves
Papists, neither yet publicly in the country, neither in the reformed
cities, neither in the king's palace. But since that time, not only
begin the Papists within the realm to lift up their heads, but also
our Scottish Papists that were outside the realm swarm home from all
places like locusts, and have taken such hardihood unto them that not
only have they access to the French court, but also in the king's
palace, in the particular sessions of our kirks, and general
assemblies thereof, durst plainly avow their Papistry, and impugn the
truth, both against the laws of the realm and discipline of the
Church, contrary to all practice that we have had before."[36]

The members of the General Assembly, annoyed at the attempt of the
king to support the episcopal system of government, were determined to
remove Lennox, whom they regarded as an emissary of Rome. Elizabeth's
agents, too, were busy stirring up discontent. A plot formed by
Ruthven Earl of Gowrie, the Earl of Mar, and others, for the capture
of the king, was carried out successfully during a visit paid by James
to Ruthven's castle at Gowrie (The Gowrie Plot). He was seized and
lodged safely in Stirling. The Earl of Arran who attempted to rescue
his sovereign was made prisoner, and Lennox was obliged to flee to
France (1582).

For a time Melville and the preachers, who gloried in Gowrie's
successful machinations, held the king in bondage. The General
Assembly of 1582 expressed its approval of what had been done,[37] and
renewed its attacks upon the episcopal system. James, however,
succeeded in making his escape from confinement; the Earl of Arran was
recalled to court; Ruthven was declared a traitor and was beheaded,
and the other conspirators were obliged to make their escape to
England. James entered into close correspondence with some of the
Catholic powers abroad, and even went so far as to appeal to the Pope
for assistance against the enemies who surrounded him (1584). For a
time it seemed as if a great Catholic reaction was about to set in.
Priests who had escaped from England were labouring with success in
the Scottish mission-fields; a few Jesuits had arrived from the
Continent, and France, Spain, and the Pope were in correspondence
regarding the assistance that might be given to James and his mother.
But the spies of Elizabeth soon obtained knowledge of what was in
contemplation. France and Spain were too jealous of one another to
undertake an armed expedition, without which success was impossible.
Negotiations were opened up with a view of detaching James from the
Catholic party, and of inspiring him with distrust for his mother. As
he was always more anxious to secure his accession to the English
throne than to defend either his mother's life or her religion, he
succumbed completely to English influence.

Not even the execution of his mother in 1587 was sufficient to rouse
him to take serious action. Though he was urged by many of the
Scottish nobles to declare war he contented himself with angry
speeches and protests that passed unheeded. Even many of the
Presbyterian lords were ready to support him had he declared war, and
Catholic noblemen like the Earls of Huntly, Erroll, and Crawford, Lord
Maxwell, and Lord Hamilton, offered their assistance. It was well-
known, too, that Philip II. was preparing at the time for an invasion
of England. Had Scotland declared war the results might have been
disastrous for England, but James, instead of taking the offensive,
accepted a pension from Elizabeth and offered to assist in the defence
of the kingdom. He endeavoured at first to conciliate the Catholic
party by restoring John Leslie Bishop of Ross, who had been for years
a most zealous defender of Mary Queen of Scots, to his See and his
possessions, and by appointing the exiled Archbishop of Glasgow to be
his ambassador at the French court. The General Assemblies, however,
backed up by Elizabeth forced him to take strong measures against the
adherents of the old religion. In 1593 a proclamation was issued
ordering all Jesuits and seminary priests to leave Edinburgh within
two hours under pain of death, and a violent campaign was begun in
nearly every part of Scotland against the Catholic nobles and clergy.
The Catholic lords who were in close communication with Spain were
forced to take up arms. Their forces were mustered under the Earls of
Huntly and Erroll, and gained a complete victory at Glenlivet over the
Earl of Argyll who was dispatched against them. When the news of this
defeat reached the king at Dundee he displayed unwonted activity. He
assembled a large army to punish his rebellious subjects, and the
Catholic lords were at last forced to make their escape from the
country. With the flight of Huntly and Erroll (1595) and the dispersal
of their troops the triumph of Protestantism in Scotland was assured.

The great leader in the attack on the Catholic Church in Scotland was
John Knox who belonged to the Geneva school, and who worked hard for
the introduction of the Calvinist system of Church government. The
state of affairs in Scotland at the time was very favourable to his
designs. Obviously there could be no question of royal supremacy or of
a State Church being established after the English model, since the
Queen of Scotland was a staunch supporter of the Roman Church. Neither
could the principle of parliamentary control be accepted since the
Scottish Parliament was comparatively powerless. Had the revenues and
possessions of the Scottish bishoprics and ecclesiastical benefices
been left untouched the democratic form of government would have been
impossible, but as the hungry lords of Scotland had appropriated
already the wealth of the Church they had no special interest in the
ecclesiastical appointments. The result was that the General
Assemblies, composed of both preachers and laymen, became the
recognised governing body of the new religion, and they arrogated to
themselves full control of ecclesiastical affairs. The bishops who
were willing to conform were not, however, removed from office. They
were subjected to the control of the General Assembly, and were placed
on the same level as the recently named superintendents.

But the regents who governed Scotland during the minority of James VI.
were not inclined to receive with favour the idea of ecclesiastical
independence. In 1571 the Earl of Mar insisted on appointing an
archbishop to St. Andrew's without reference to the General Assembly,
and immediately the preachers were up in arms. They were handicapped
in their resistance by the fact that their great leader Knox was too
ill to afford them much assistance, and at last they were forced to
accept a compromise according to which the old system of
ecclesiastical government was left practically untouched. Archbishops,
bishops, deans and chapters were retained; the bishops were to be
elected by the chapters with the permission and approval of the king
and were to receive the temporalities by royal grant; and all persons
admitted to benefices were to promise obedience to their bishops. At
the same time it was agreed that the bishops should be subject to the
General Assemblies in spiritual matters, as they were subject to the
king in temporals. It was hoped that by means of this compromise peace
might be secured, but in a short time the attack on episcopal
government was renewed with still greater vigour. A new leader had
appeared in the person of Andrew Melville, the Principal of the
College of Glasgow, and the friend of the great Swiss Reformer, Beza.
Despite the fact that the regent espoused the cause of episcopacy the
General Assemblies were determined to continue the struggle for its
overthrow. The adoption in 1580 of the /Second Book of Discipline/,
involving as it did the overthrow of episcopal authority, the
rejection of state interference and the assertion that spiritual
authority was derived only from the people, was a severe blow to the
young king and his advisers; but they found some consolation in the
fact that the Scottish Parliament re-asserted the principle of royal
supremacy and recognised the authority of the bishops (1584).

A form of declaration was drawn up which all preachers were required
to sign under threat of dismissal. During the years 1585 and 1586
serious attempts were made by the government to reduce them to
subjection, but without any important result. In fact, at the
suggestion of Melville, the General Assembly pronounced sentence of
excommunication against Archbishop Adamson (1586), and the archbishop
was obliged to submit himself to the judgment of that body. From that
time things went from bad to worse till in 1592 Parliament gave its
formal sanction to Presbyterianism, though the /Second Book of
Discipline/ was not approved, nor were the bishops deprived of their
civil positions. Hardly had James been seated on the English throne
than he determined to make another effort to force episcopacy and
royal supremacy on the Scottish Church. He appointed several new
bishops to the vacant Sees (1603). As the preachers still offered a
strong opposition Melville was invited to a conference at Hampton
Court (1606) where a warm debate took place between the
representatives of the Presbyterians and their opponents. Melville and
his friends refused to yield, and when the former was summoned to
appear before the privy council to answer for certain verses he had
composed, he seized the Archbishop of Canterbury by the sleeves of his
rochet, denounced him as an enemy of the gospel truth, and assured him
that he would oppose his schemes to the last drop of blood. He was
arrested and thrown into prison. Parliament supported the king (1609);
a High Commission Court was established in 1610 to deal with the
preachers, and in the same year the nominees of James were consecrated
by English prelates. But despite the efforts of James and of his
successor Charles I., Presbyterianism still continued to flourish in
Scotland.

Though the flight of the Earls of Huntly and Erroll (1595) had assured
the triumph of Presbyterianism many of the people of Scotland,
particularly of those in the north, still remained devoted to the old
religion. The Jesuit Fathers had been untiring in their efforts, and
the labours of men like Fathers Creighton, Hay, Gordon, and Abercromby
were far from being unfruitful. Still the ecclesiastical organisation
had broken down; the supply of priests was likely to become exhausted,
and, unless some attempt was made to maintain unity and authority, as
well as provide means of education for clerical students, there was
grave danger that Catholicism might soon be extinguished. In 1598
George Blackwell received faculties as archpriest or superior of the
Scotch mission, and was provided with a number of consultors to assist
him in his difficult task. A Scotch college was established at Rome by
Clement VIII. to supply Scotland with priests (1600). Another college
of a similar kind was founded at Tournai in 1576 by Dr. James Cheyne.
Later on it was removed to Pont-à-Mousson and placed under the control
of the Jesuits, and finally it was brought to Douay. The old Irish
foundations at Würzburg and Regensburg were taken over by the Scotch,
and utilised for the education of priests. Scottish colleges were also
established at Paris and at Madrid (transferred to Valladolid).

The Catholics of Scotland expected some toleration from James I., but
they were doomed to disappointment. The king was unable and unwilling
to put an end to the violent persecution carried on by the kirk, which
aimed at wiping out every trace of Catholicity by directing its
attackings against the Catholic nobility of the north and against the
Jesuits, one of whom, Father Ogilvie was put to death (1516).
Similarly under Charles I. the persecution continued unabated, but,
notwithstanding all the penalties levelled against the clergy, many
priests were found willing and ready to help their co-religionists in
Scotland. Jesuits, Benedictines, Franciscans from Ireland, Capuchins,
and Vincentians[38] vied with each other in their efforts to confirm
the faith of those who remained true and to win back those who had
fallen away. During the Protectorate the Catholics could hope for no
mercy, nor did the accession of Charles II. make much change in their
sad condition. Under James II. they enjoyed a brief spell of liberty.
The chapel at Holyrood was opened once again, and some provision was
made from the private resources of the king for the support of the
missions, and of the foreign colleges.

But the favour of James II. led to still greater persecutions once he
had been overthrown to make way for William of Orange. During the
reigns of William and Mary, of Anne and of George I. the position of
the Scotch Catholics was even worse than that of their brethren in
England or Ireland. In his anxiety to encourage both the priests and
the laity Innocent XII. appointed Bishop Thomas Nicholson as vicar-
apostolic of Scotland in 1694, and, as it was impossible for him to
give sufficient attention to the districts in the north and west where
Catholics were still fairly numerous, Dr. Hugh MacDonald was appointed
vicar-apostolic of the Highlands in 1726. When the Pretender arrived
in Scotland the Catholics flocked to his standard, and when he was
defeated at Culloden (1746) they were obliged to pay a heavy penalty
for their loyalty to the old rulers. The Highland clans were either
cut up in battle or deported; the Catholic chapels were closed, and so
violent was the persecution that ensued that it seemed as if the
wishes of the kirk were about to be realised. But events soon showed
that those who imagined they had seen the extinction of Catholicism in
Scotland were doomed to disappointment.
----------

[1] Theiner, /Vet. Mon. Scot./, 8.

[2] Id., 465-68.

[3] Robertson, /Concilia Scotiae (1225-1559)/, cclxx.-cclxxxv.

[4] Pollen, /Papal Negotiations/, etc., 525-30.

[5] Forneron, /Les ducs de Guise et lour époque/, 1877.

[6] Herkless, /Cardinal Beaton/, 263 sqq.

[7] Id., 289-301.

[8] /Cambridge Modern History/, ii., 556.

[9] Robertson, /Concilia Scotiae/.

[10] Law, /Archbishop Hamilton's Catechism/, 1884.

[11] Pollen, op. cit., xxv., xxiv.-vi.

[12] For a reliable account of Knox, cf. Lang, /John Knox and the
    Reformation/, 1905.

[13] Grub, /Ecc. Hist. of Scotland/, ii., 45-6.

[14] Bellesheim, i., 389.

[15] Grub, op. cit., ii., 53-54.

[16] Wilkins, /Concilia/, iv., 204 sqq.

[17] Published in 1558. Dedicated to the writer's nephew, "Gilbert
    Maister of Cassillis."

[18] Pollen, op. cit., xxxii. sqq.

[19] Pollen, op. cit., 56.

[20] Bellesheim, op. cit., i., 424-32.

[21] Grub, op. cit., ii., 89 sqq.

[22] Pollen, op. cit., xlix. sqq.

[23] On the mission of Gouda, cf. Pollen, op. cit., liv.

[24] Pollen, op. cit., 162-76.

[25] Pollen, op. cit., lxxxv.-xcviii.

[26] Lang, /The Mystery of Mary Stuart/, 54-9.

[27] Lang, /The Mystery of Mary Stuart/, 74 sqq.

[28] Lang, op. cit., 148 sqq.

[29] Pollen, op. cit., 293, cxxvi.-xxxiii.

[30] /Political History of England/, vi., 272.

[31] Rait, /Mary Queen of Scots/, 145.

[32] Cf. Hosack, /Mary Stuart and her Accusers/, 2 vols., 1870-4.
    Henderson, /Casket Letters/, 2nd edition, 1890. Id., /Mary Queen
    of Scots/, 2 vols., 1905. Fleming, /Mary Queen of Scots/, 2 vols.,
    1897-8. Nau-Stephenson, /History of Mary Stuart/, 1883. Lang,
    /Mystery of Mary Stuart/, 1904.

[33] Lang, /The Mystery of Mary Stuart/, 160-1.

[34] Bellesheim, ii., 129.

[35] Pollen, /Mary Stuart and the Babington Plot/ (/Month/, 1907).

[36] Grub, op. cit., ii., 210.

[37] Grub, op. cit., ii., 229.

[38] Bellesheim, op. cit., 283-98.



CHAPTER VII

RELIGION IN IRELAND DURING THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY

  /Annals of the Four Masters/. /State Papers/, 11 vols., 1832-5.
  /Papal Letters/, 9 vols. /De Annatis Hiberniae/, vol. i., Ulster,
  1912; vol. ii., Leinster (app. ii. /Archivium Hibernicum/, vol.
  ii.). Brady, /The Episcopal Succession in England, Scotland and
  Ireland (1400-1873)/, 3 vols., 1876. Theiner, /Vetera Monumenta
  Scotorum (1216-1547)/, 1864. Ware's /Works/, 2 vols., 1729.
  Wilkins, /Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae/, iii. vol.,
  1737. /Reports of the Deputy Keeper of Public Records, Ireland/.
  /Reports of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts/. De
  Burgo, /Hibernia Dominicana/, 1762. Gilbert, /The Viceroys of
  Ireland/, 1865. Id., /Facsimiles of National Manuscripts of
  Ireland/, 4 vols., 1875. Lawlor, /A Calendar of the Register of
  Archbishop Sweetman/, 1911. Bellesheim, /Geschichte der
  Katholischen Kirche in Ireland/, 3 Bde, 1890. Malone, /Church
  History of Ireland from the Anglo-Norman Invasion to the
  Reformation/, 2 vols., 3rd edition, 1880. Brenan, /An
  Ecclesiastical History of Ireland/, 1864. Gogarty, /The Dawn of
  the Reformation in Ireland (I. T. Q.)/, 1913, 1914. Green, /The
  Making of Ireland and its Undoing (1200-1600)/, 1908. Bagwell,
  /Ireland under the Tudors/, 1885. Wilson, /The Beginnings of
  Modern Ireland/, 1912.

From the beginning of the fourteenth century English power in Ireland
was on the decline. The Irish princes, driven to desperation by the
exactions and cruelties of the officials, adopted generally a more
hostile attitude, while the great Norman nobles, who had obtained
grants of land in various parts of Ireland, began to intermarry with
the Irish, adopted their language, their laws, their dress, and their
customs, and for all practical purposes renounced their allegiance to
the sovereign of England.

Owing to the civil war that raged in England during the latter portion
of the fifteenth century the English colonists were left entirely
without support, and being divided among themselves, the Geraldines
favouring the House of York, and the Ormonds, the House of Lancaster,
they were almost powerless to resist the encroachments of the native
princes. Nor did the accession of Henry VII. lead to a combined effort
for the restoration of English authority. The welcome given by so many
of the Anglo-Irish, both laymen and clerics, to the two pretenders,
Simnel and Warbeck, and the efforts the king was obliged to make to
defend his throne against these claimants, made it impossible for him
to undertake the conquest of the country. As a result, the sphere of
English influence in Ireland, or the Pale, as it was called, became
gradually more restricted. The frantic efforts made by the Parliament
held at Drogheda (1494, Poynings' Parliament) to protect the English
territory from invasion by the erection "of a double ditch six feet
high" is the best evidence that the conquest of the country still
awaited completion.[1] In the early years of the reign of Henry VIII.
the Pale embraced only portions of the present counties of Dublin,
Louth, Meath and Kildare, or to be more accurate, it was bounded by a
line drawn from Dundalk through Ardee, Kells, Kilcock, Clane, Naas,
Kilcullen, Ballymore-Eustace, Rathcoole, Tallaght, and Dalkey. Within
this limited area the inhabitants were not safe from invasion and
spoliation unless they agreed to purchase their security by the
payment of an annual tribute to the neighbouring Irish princes; and
outside it, even in the cities held by Norman settlers and in the
territories owned by Norman barons, the king's writ did not run.[2]

Recourse was had to legislative measures to preserve the English
colonists from being merged completely into the native population.
According to the Statutes of Kilkenny (1367) the colonists were
forbidden to intermarry with the Irish, to adopt their language,
dress, or customs, or to hold any business relations with them, and
what was worse, the line of division was to be recognised even within
the sanctuary. No Irishman was to be admitted into cathedral or
collegiate chapters or into any benefice situated in English
territory, and religious houses were warned against admitting any
Irish novices, although they were quite free to accept English
subjects born in Ireland[3] (1367). This statute did not represent a
change of policy in regard to Irish ecclesiastics. From the very
beginning of the Norman attempt at colonisation the relations between
the two bodies of ecclesiastics had been very strained. Thus, in the
year 1217 Henry III. wrote to his Justiciary in Ireland calling his
attention to the fact that the election of Irishmen to episcopal Sees
had caused already considerable trouble, and that consequently, care
should be taken in future that none but Englishmen should be elected
or promoted to cathedral chapters. The Irish clerics objected strongly
to such a policy of exclusion, and carried their remonstrances to
Honorius III. who declared on two occasions (1220, 1224) that this
iniquitous decree was null and void.[4] As the papal condemnations did
not produce the desired effect, the archbishops, bishops, and chapters
seem to have taken steps to protect themselves against aggression by
ordaining that no Englishman should be admitted into the cathedral
chapters, but Innocent IV., following the example of Honorius III.,
condemned this measure.[5]

Notwithstanding its solemn condemnation by the Holy See this policy of
exclusion was carried out by both parties, and the line of division
became more marked according as the English power began to decline.
The petition addressed to John XXII. (1317) by the Irish chieftains
who supported the invasion of Bruce bears witness to the fact that the
Statutes of Kilkenny did not constitute an innovation, and more than
once during the fifteenth century the legislation against Irish
ecclesiastics was renewed. The permission given to the Archbishop of
Dublin to confer benefices situated in the Irish districts of his
diocese on Irish clerics (1485, 1493) serves only to emphasise the
general trend of policy.[6] Similarly the action of the Dominican
authorities in allowing two superiors in Ireland, one of the houses in
the English Pale, the other for the houses in the territories of the
Irish princes[7] (1484), the refusal of the Irish Cistercians to
acknowledge the jurisdiction of their English superiors, the boast of
Walter Wellesley, Bishop of Kildare and prior of the monastery of Old
Connal (1539) that no Irishman had been admitted into this institution
since the day of its foundation,[8] prove clearly enough that the
relations between the Irish and English ecclesiastics during the
fifteenth century were far from being harmonious.

In the beginning, as has been shown, the Holy See interfered to
express its disapproval of the policy of exclusion whether adopted by
the Normans or the Irish, but later on, when it was found that a
reconciliation was impossible, the Pope deemed it the lesser of two
evils to allow both parties to live apart. Hence the Norman community
of Galway was permitted to separate itself from the Irish population
immediately adjoining, and to be governed in spirituals by its own
warden (1484); and Leo X. approved of the demand made by the chapter
of St. Patrick's, Dublin, that no Irishman should be appointed a canon
of that church (1515).[9] But though the Holy See, following the
advice of those who were in a position to know what was best for the
interests of religion, consented to tolerate a policy of exclusion, it
is clear that it had no sympathy with such a course of procedure. In
Dublin, for example, where English influence might be supposed to make
itself felt most distinctly, out of forty-four appointments to
benefices made in Rome (1421-1520) more than half were given to
Irishmen; in the diocese of Kildare forty-six out of fifty-eight
appointments fell to Irishmen (1413-1521), and for the period 1431-
1535, fifty-three benefices out of eighty-one were awarded in Meath to
clerics bearing unmistakably Irish names.[10] Again in 1290 Nicholas
IV. insisted that none but an Irishman should be appointed by the
Archbishop of Dublin to the archdeaconry of Glendalough, and in 1482
Sixtus IV. upheld the cause of Nicholas O'Henisa whom the Anglo-Irish
of Waterford refused to receive as their bishop on the ground that he
could not speak English.[11]

But though attempts were made by legislation to keep the Irish and
English apart, and though as a rule feeling between both parties ran
high, there was one point on which both were in agreement, and that
was loyalty and submission to the Pope. That the Irish Church as such,
like the rest of the Christian world, accepted fully the supremacy of
the Pope at the period of the Norman invasion is evident from the
presence and activity of the papal legates, Gillebert of Limerick, St.
Malachy of Armagh, Christian, Bishop of Lismore, and St. Laurence
O'Toole, from the frequent pilgrimages of Irish laymen and
ecclesiastics to Rome, from the close relations with the Roman Court
maintained by St. Malachy during his campaign for reform, and from the
action of the Pope in sending Cardinal Paparo to the national synod at
Kells (1152) to bestow the palliums on the Archbishops of Armagh,
Dublin, Cashel, and Tuam. Had there been any room for doubt about the
principles and action of the Irish Church the question must
necessarily have been discussed at the Synod of Cashel convoked by
Henry II. to put an end to the supposed abuses existing in the Irish
Church (1172), and yet, though it was laid down that in its liturgy
and practices the Irish Church should conform to English customs, not
a word was said that could by any possibility imply that the Irish
people were less submissive to the Pope than any other nation at this
period.[12]

After the Normans had succeeded in securing a foothold in the country,
both Irish and Normans were at one in accepting the Roman supremacy.
The Pope appointed to all bishoprics whether situated within or
without the Pale; he deposed bishops, accepted their resignations,
transferred them from one See to another, cited them before his
tribunals, censured them at times, and granted them special faculties
for dispensing in matrimonial and other causes. He appointed to many
of the abbeys and priories in all parts of the country, named
ecclesiastics to rectories and vicarages in Raphoe, Derry, Tuam,
Kilmacduagh, and Kerry, with exactly the same freedom as he did in
case of Dublin, Kildare or Meath, and tried cases involving the rights
of laymen and ecclesiastics in Rome or appointed judges to take
cognisance of such cases in Ireland. He sent special legates into
Ireland, levied taxes on all benefices, appointed collectors to
enforce the payment of these taxes, and issued dispensations in
irregularities and impediments.

The fiction of two churches in Ireland, one the Anglo-Irish
acknowledging the authority of the Pope, the other the Irish fighting
sullenly against papal aggression, has been laid to rest by the
publication of Theiner's /Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum/,
the /Calendars of Papal Letters/, the /Calendars of Documents
(Ireland)/ and the /Annats/. If any writer, regardless of such
striking evidence, should be inclined to revive such a theory he
should find himself faced with the further disagreeable fact that,
when the English nation and a considerable body of the Anglo-Irish
nobles fell away from their obedience to Rome, the Irish people, who
were supposed to be hostile to the Pope, preferred to risk everything
rather than allow themselves to be separated from the centre of unity.
Such a complete and instantaneous change of front, if historical,
would be as inexplicable as it would be unparalleled.

Nor is there any evidence to show that Lollardy or any other heresy
found any support in Ireland during the fourteenth or fifteenth
centuries. During the episcopate of Bishop Ledrede in Ossory (1317-
60), it would appear both from the constitutions enacted in a diocesan
synod held in 1317 as well as from the measures he felt it necessary
to take, that in the city of Kilkenny a few individuals called in
question the Incarnation, and the Virginity of the Blessed Virgin, but
it is clear that such opinions were confined to a very limited circle
and did not affect the body of the people.[13] About the same time,
too, the dispute that was being waged between John XXII. and a section
of the Franciscans found an echo in the province of Cashel, though
there is no proof that the movement ever assumed any considerable
dimensions.[14] Similarly at a later period, when the Christian world
was disturbed by the presence of several claimants to the Papacy and
by the theories to which the Great Western Schism gave rise, news was
forwarded to Rome that some of the Irish prelates, amongst them being
the Archbishop of Dublin and the Bishop of Ferns, were inclined to set
at nought the instructions of Martin V. (1424), but the latter pontiff
took energetic measures to put an end to a phenomenon that was quite
intelligible considering the general disorder of the period. The
appeal of Philip Norris, Dean of Dublin, during his dispute with the
Mendicants, to a General Council against the decision of the Pope only
serves to emphasise the fact that throughout the controversy between
the Pope and the Council of Basle Ireland remained unshaken in its
attachment to the Holy See.[15] Although the first measure passed by
the Parliament at Kilkenny (1367) and by nearly every such assembly
held in Ireland in the fifteenth century was one for safeguarding the
rights and liberties of the Church, yet the root of the evils that
afflicted the Church at this period can be traced to the interference
of kings and princes in ecclesiastical affairs. The struggle waged by
Gregory VII. in defence of free canonical election to bishoprics,
abbacies, and priories seemed to have been completely successful, but
in reality it led only to a change of front on the part of the secular
authorities. Instead of claiming directly the right of nomination they
had recourse to other measures for securing the appointment of their
own favourites. In theory the election of bishops in Ireland rested
with the canons of the cathedral chapters, but they were not supposed
to proceed with the election until they had received the /congé
d'élite/ from the king or his deputy, who usually forwarded an
instruction as to the most suitable candidate. As a further safeguard
it was maintained that, even after the appointment of the bishop-elect
had been confirmed by the Pope, he must still seek the approval of the
king before being allowed to take possession of the temporalities of
his See. As a result even in the thirteenth century, when capitular
election was still the rule, the English sovereigns sought to exercise
a controlling influence on episcopal elections in Ireland, but they
met at times with a vigorous resistance from the chapters, the
bishops, the Irish princes, and from Rome.[16]

Towards the end of the fourteenth century, however, and in the
fifteenth century, though the right of election was still enjoyed
nominally by the chapters, in the majority of cases either their
opinions were not sought, or else the capitular vote was taken as
being only an expression of opinion about the merits of the different
candidates. Indirectly by means of the chancery rules regarding
reservations, or by the direct reservation of the appointment of a
particular bishopric on the occasion of a particular vacancy, the Pope
kept in his own hands the appointments. Owing to the encroachments of
the civil power and the pressure that was brought to bear upon the
chapters such a policy was defensible enough, and had it been possible
for the Roman advisers to have had a close acquaintance with the
merits of the clergy, and to have had a free hand in their
recommendations, direct appointment might have been attended with good
results. But the officials at Rome were oftentimes dependent on
untrustworthy sources for their information, and they were still
further handicapped by the fact that if they acted contrary to the
king's wishes the latter might create serious trouble by refusing to
restore the temporalities of the See. Instances, however, are not
wanting even in England itself to show that the Popes did not always
allow themselves to be dictated to by the civil authorities, nor did
they recognise in theory the claim of the king to dispose of the
temporalities.[17]

It is difficult to determine how far the English kings succeeded in
influencing appointments to Irish bishoprics. About Dublin, Meath, and
Kildare there can be no doubt that their efforts were attended with
success. In Armagh, too, they secured the appointment of Englishmen as
a general rule, and in Cashel, Waterford, Limerick, and Cork their
recommendations, or rather the recommendations of the Anglo-Irish
nobles, were followed in many instances. Outside the sphere of English
influence it does not seem that their suggestions were adopted at
Rome. At any rate it is certain that if they sought for the exclusion
of Irishmen their petitions produced little effect. During the early
years of the reign of Henry VIII. more active measures seem to have
been taken by the king to assert his claims to a voice in episcopal
appointments. In the appointments at this period to Armagh, Dublin,
Meath, Leighlin, Kilmore, Clogher, and Ross it is stated expressly in
the papal Bulls that they were made /ad supplicationem regis/.[18]

Unfortunately several of the ecclesiastics on whom bishoprics were
conferred in Ireland during the fifteenth century had but slender
qualifications for such a high office. On the one hand it was
impossible for Rome in many cases to have a close acquaintance with
the various candidates, and on the other the influence of the English
kings, of the Irish princes, and of the Anglo-Irish nobles was used to
promote their own dependents without reference to the effects of such
appointments on the progress of religion. The Archbishops of Dublin
and Armagh, and the Bishops of Kildare and Meath were more interested
as a rule in political and religious affairs than in their duties as
spiritual rulers. They held on many occasions the highest offices in
the state, and had little time to devote their attention to the
government of their dioceses. Absenteeism was as remarkable a
characteristic of the Church in the fifteenth century as it was of the
Established Church in the eighteenth, and in this direction the
bishops were the worst offenders. Very often, too, Sees were left
vacant for years during which time the king's officials or the Irish
princes, as the case might be, wasted the property of the diocese
either with the connivance or against the wishes of the diocesan
chapters. Of the archbishops of Ireland about the time of the
Reformation, George Cromer, a royal chaplain, was appointed because he
was likely to favour English designs in Ireland, and for that purpose
was named Chancellor of Ireland; John Alen, another Englishman, was
recommended by Cardinal Wolsey to Dublin mainly for the purpose of
overthrowing the domination of the Earl of Kildare; Edmund Butler, the
illegitimate son of Sir Piers Butler, owed his elevation to the See of
Cashel to the influence of powerful patrons, and Thomas O'Mullaly of
Tuam, a Franciscan friar, passed to his reward a few days before the
meeting of the Parliament that was to acknowledge Royal Supremacy, to
be succeeded by Christopher Bodkin, who allowed himself to be
introduced into the See by the authority of Henry VIII. against the
wishes of the Pope.

But, even though the bishops as a body had been as zealous as
individuals amongst them undoubtedly were, they had no power to put
down abuses. The patronage of Church livings, including rectories,
vicarages, and chaplaincies enjoyed by laymen, as well as by chapters,
monasteries, convents, hospitals, etc., made it impossible for a
bishop to exercise control over the clergy of his diocese. Both Norman
and Irish nobles were generous in their gifts to the Church, but
whenever they granted endowments to a parish they insisted on getting
in return the full rights of patronage. Thus, for example, the Earl of
Kildare was recognised as the legal patron of close on forty rectories
and vicarages situated in the dioceses of Dublin, Kildare, Meath,
Limerick, and Cork, and he held, besides, the tithes of a vast number
of parishes scattered over a great part of Leinster.[19] The Earl of
Ormond enjoyed similar rights in Kilkenny and Tipperary, as did the
Desmond family in the South, and the De Burgos in Connaught. The
O'Neills,[20] O'Donnells, O'Connors, McCarthys, O'Byrnes, and a host
of minor chieftains, exercised ecclesiastical patronage in their
respective territories. Very often these noblemen in their desire to
benefit some religious or charitable institution transferred to it the
rights of patronage enjoyed by themselves. Thus the monastery of Old
or Great Connal in Kildare controlled twenty-one rectories in Kildare,
nineteen in Carlow, one in Meath and one in Tipperary,[21] while the
celebrated convent of Grace-Dieu had many ecclesiastical livings in
its gift.

Owing to these encroachments the bishop was obliged frequently to
approve of the appointment of pastors who were in no way qualified for
their position. The lay patrons nominated their own dependents and
favourites, while both ecclesiastical and lay patrons were more
anxious about securing the revenues than about the zeal and activity
of the pastors and vicars. Once the system of papal reservation of
minor benefices was established fully in the fifteenth century, the
authority of the bishop in making appointments in his diocese became
still more restricted. Ecclesiastics who sought preferment turned
their eyes towards Rome. If they could not go there themselves, they
employed a procurator to sue on their behalf, and armed with a papal
document, they presented themselves before a bishop merely to demand
canonical institution. Though, in theory, therefore, the bishop was
supposed to be the chief pastor of a diocese, in practice he had very
little voice in the nomination of his subordinates, and very little
effective control over their qualifications or their conduct.

Very often benefices were conferred on boys who had not reached the
canonical age for the reception of orders, sometimes to provide them
with the means of pursuing their studies, but sometimes also to enrich
their relatives from the revenues of the Church. In such cases the
entire work was committed to the charge of an underpaid vicar who
adopted various devices to supplement his miserable income. Frequently
men living in England were appointed to parishes or canonries within
the Pale, and, as they could not take personal charge themselves, they
secured the services of a substitute. In defiance of the various
canons levelled against plurality of benefices, dispensations were
given freely at Rome, permitting individuals to hold two, three, four,
or more benefices, to nearly all of which the care of souls was
attached. In proof of this one might refer to the case of Thomas
Russel, a special favourite of the Roman Court, who held a canonry in
the diocese of Lincoln, the prebends of Clonmethan and Swords in
Dublin, the archdeaconry of Kells, the church of Nobber, the perpetual
vicarship of St. Peter's, Drogheda, and the church of St. Patrick in
Trim.[22]

This extravagant application of patronage and reservations to
ecclesiastical appointments produced results in Ireland similar to
those it produced in other countries. It tended to kill learning and
zeal amongst the clergy, to make them careless about their personal
conduct, the proper observance of the canons, and the due discharge of
their duties as pastors and teachers. Some of them were openly
immoral, and many of them had not sufficient learning to enable them
to preach or to instruct their flocks. It ought to be remembered also
that in these days there were no special seminaries for the education
of the clergy. Candidates for the priesthood received whatever
training they got from some member of the cathedral chapter, or in the
schools of the Mendicant Friars, or possibly from some of those
learned ecclesiastics, whose deaths are recorded specially in our
Annals. Before ordination they were subjected to an examination, but
the severity of the test depended on many extrinsic considerations.
Some of the more distinguished youths were helped by generous patrons,
or from the revenues of ecclesiastical benefices to pursue a higher
course of studies in theology and canon law. As the various attempts
made to found a university in Ireland during the fourteen and
fifteenth centuries[23] proved a failure, students who wished to
obtain a degree were obliged to go to Oxford, from which various
attempts were made to exclude "the mere Irish" by legislation,[24] to
Cambridge, Paris, or some of the other great schools on the Continent.
If one may judge from the large number of clerics who are mentioned in
the papal documents as having obtained a degree, a fair proportion of
clerics during the fifteenth century both from within and without the
Pale must have received their education abroad. Still, the want of a
proper training during which unworthy candidates might be weeded out,
coupled with the unfortunate system of patronage then prevalent in
Ireland, helped to lower the whole tone of clerical life, and to
produce the sad conditions of which sufficient evidence is at hand in
the dispensations from irregularities mentioned in the /Papal
Letters/.

As might be expected in such circumstances, the cathedrals and
churches in some districts showed signs of great neglect both on the
part of the ecclesiastics and of the lay patrons. Reports to Rome on
the condition of the cathedrals of Ardagh and Clonmacnoise[25]
indicate a sad condition of affairs, but they were probably overdrawn
in the hope of securing a reduction in the fees paid usually on
episcopal appointments, just as the account given by the Jesuit Father
Wolf about the cathedral of Tuam[26] was certainly overdrawn by
Archbishop Bodkin with the object of obtaining papal recognition for
his appointment to that diocese. The Earl of Kildare represented the
churches of Tipperary and Kilkenny as in ruins owing to the exactions
of his rival, the Earl of Ormond, while the latter, having determined
for political reasons to accept royal supremacy, endeavoured to throw
the whole blame on the Pope. Both statements may be regarded as
exaggerated. But the occupation of the diocesan property during the
vacancy of the Sees by the king or the nobles, the frequent wars
during which the churches were used as store-houses and as places of
refuge and defence, the neglect of the lay patrons to contribute their
share to the upkeep of the ecclesiastical buildings, and the
carelessness of the men appointed to major and minor benefices, so
many of whom were removed during the fifteenth century for alienation
and dilapidation of ecclesiastical property, must have been productive
of disastrous effects on the cathedrals and parish churches in many
districts. Yet it would be a mistake to suppose that such neglect was
general throughout the country. The latter half of the fourteenth
century and particularly the fifteenth century witnessed a great
architectural revival in Ireland, during which the pure Gothic of an
earlier period was transformed into the vernacular or national
composite style. Many beautiful churches, especially monastic
churches, were built, others were completely remodelled, and "on the
whole it would not be too much to say that it is the exception to find
a monastery or a parish church in Ireland which does not show some
work executed at this period."[27]

The disappearance of canonical election, the interference of lay
patrons, the too frequent use of papal reservations, and the
appointment of commendatory abbots and priors, led to a general
downfall of discipline in the older religious orders, though there is
no evidence to prove that the abuses were as general or as serious as
they have been painted. Even at the time when the agents of Henry
VIII. were at work preparing the ground for the suppression of the
monasteries, and when any individual who would bring forward charges
against them could count upon the king's favour, it was only against a
few members in less than half a dozen houses that grave accusations
were alleged. Even if these accusations were justified, and the
circumstances in which they were made are sufficient to arouse
suspicions about their historical value, it would not be fair to hold
the entire body of religious in Ireland responsible for abuses that
are alleged only against the superiors or members of a small number of
houses situated in Waterford or Tipperary. Long before the question of
separation from his lawful wife had induced Henry VIII. to begin a
campaign in Ireland against Rome, the Mendicant Friars had undertaken
a definite programme of reform. In 1460 the Bishop of Killala in
conjunction with the Franciscan Friar, Nehemias O'Donohoe, determined
to introduce the Strict Observance into the Franciscan Houses,[28] and
from that time forward in spite of obstacles from many quarters the
Observants succeeded in getting possession of many of the old
Conventual Houses, and in establishing several new monasteries in all
parts of Ireland, but particularly in the purely Irish districts. The
Dominicans, too, took steps to see that the original rules and
constitutions of the order should be observed. In 1484 Ireland was
recognised as a separate province, though the houses within the Pale
were allowed to continue under the authority of a vicar of the English
provincial, while at the same time a great reform of the order was
initiated. Several houses submitted immediately both within and
without the Pale, amongst the earliest of them being Coleraine,
Drogheda, Cork, and Youghal. The various religious orders of men did
excellent work in preaching, instructing the people, in establishing
schools both for the education of clerics and laymen, and in tending
to the wants of the poor and the infirm. In the report on the state of
Ireland presented to Henry VIII. it is admitted that, though the
bishops and rectors and vicars neglected their duty, the "poor friars
beggers" preached the word of God.[29] That the people and nobles,
both Irish and Anglo-Irish, appreciated fully the labours and services
of the Friars is evident from the number of new houses which they
established for their reception during the fifteenth century. The
convents of Longford, Portumna, Tulsk, Burishool, Thomastown, and Gola
were established for the Dominicans; Kilconnell, Askeaton,
Enniscorthy, Moyne, Adare, Monaghan, Donegal, and Dungannon for the
Franciscans; Dunmore, Naas, Murrisk and Callan for the Augustinians,
and Rathmullen, Frankfort, Castle-Lyons and Galway for the Carmelites.

The abuses that existed in the Irish Church at this period arose
mainly from the enslavement of the Church, and they could have been
remedied from within even had there been no unconstitutional
revolution. As a matter of fact those who styled themselves Reformers
succeeded only in transferring to their own sect the main sources of
all previous abuses, namely, royal interference in ecclesiastical
affairs and lay patronage, and by doing so they made it possible for
the Catholic Church in Ireland to pursue its mission unhampered by
outside control. It ought to be borne in mind that the faults of
certain individuals or institutions do not prove that the whole
organisation was corrupt, and that if there were careless and unworthy
bishops, there were also worthy men like the Blessed Thaddeus
MacCarthy of Cloyne, who though driven from his diocese by the
aggression of the nobles, was venerated as a saint both in Ireland and
abroad. The great number of provincial and diocesan synods held in
Ireland during the period between 1450 and 1530 makes it clear that
the bishops were more attentive to their duties than is generally
supposed, while the collections of sermons in manuscript, the use of
commentaries on the Sacred Scriptures and of concordances, the
attention paid to the Scriptures in the great Irish collections that
have come down to us, and the homilies in Irish on the main truths of
religion, on the primary duties of Christians, and on the Lives of the
Irish Saints, afford some evidence that the clergy were not entirely
negligent of the obligations of their office. Had the clergy been so
ignorant and immoral, as a few of those foisted into Irish benefices
undoubtedly were, the people would have risen up against them. And
yet, though here and there some ill-feeling was aroused regarding the
temporalities, probates, fees, rents, rights of fishing, wills, etc.,
there is no evidence of any widespread hostility against the clergy,
secular or regular, or against Rome. The generous grants made to
religious establishments, the endowment of hospitals for the poor and
the infirm, the frequent pilgrimages to celebrated shrines in Ireland
and on the Continent, the charitable and religious character of the
city guilds, and above all the adherence of the great body of the
people to the religion of their fathers in spite of the serious
attempts that were made to seduce them, prove conclusively enough that
the alleged demoralisation of the Irish Church is devoid of historical
foundation.

Nor could it be said that the Irish people at this period were
entirely rude and uncultured. Though most of their great schools had
gone down, and though the attempts at founding a university had
failed, learning had certainly not disappeared from the country.
Clerics and laymen could still obtain facilities for education at the
religious houses, the cathedral and collegiate churches, at the
schools of Irish law and poetry, and from some of the learned teachers
whose names are recorded in our Annals during this period. Many of the
clerics, at least, frequented the English universities or the
universities on the Continent. During the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries one can point to several distinguished Irish scholars such
as O'Fihely, the Archbishop of Tuam, who was recognised as one of the
leading theological writers of his day, Cathal Maguire the author of
the Annals of Ulster, Bishop Colby of Waterford, the author of several
commentaries on Sacred Scripture, the well-known Carmelite preacher
and writer Thomas Scrope, Patrick Cullen Bishop of Clogher, and his
arch-deacon Roderick O'Cassidy, and Philip Norris, the determined
opponent of the Mendicants, and the Dominicans John Barley, Joannes
Hibernicus, and Richard Winchelsey.[30] The catalogue of the books
contained in the library of the Franciscan convent at Youghal about
the end of the fifteenth century affords some indication of the
attitude of the monastic bodies generally towards education and
learning. In addition to the missals, psalteries, antiphonies, and
martyrologies, the convent at Youghal had several copies of the Bible
together with some of the principal commentaries thereon, collections
of sermons by well-known authors, several of the works of the early
Fathers and of the principal theologians of the Middle Ages, the
Decrees of Gratian, the Decretals and various works on Canon Law,
spiritual reading-books, including the life of Christ, and works on
ascetic theology, the works of Boetius and various treatises on
philosophy, grammar, and music, and some histories of the Irish
province of the Franciscans.[31]

Similarly the library of the Earl of Kildare about 1534 contained over
twenty books in Irish, thirty-four works in Latin, twenty-two in
English and thirty-six in French,[32] while the fact that Manus
O'Donnell, Prince of Tyrconnell, could find time to compose a Life of
St. Columba in 1532, and that at a still later period Shane O'Neill
could carry on his correspondence with foreigners in elegant Latin
bears testimony to the fact that at this period learning was not
confined to the Pale. Again it should be remembered that it was
between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries that the great Irish
collections such as the Book of Lecan, the Book of Ballymote, the
Leabhar Breac, the Book of Lismore, etc., were compiled, and that it
was about the same time many of the more important Irish Annals were
compiled or completed, as were also translations of well-known Latin,
French, and English works.[33]
----------

[1] Hardiman, /A Statute of the 40th Year of Edw. III./, p. 4.

[2] /State Papers, Henry VIII./, vol. ii., pp. 1-31 (/State of Ireland
    and plan for its Reformation/).

[3] Hardiman, op. cit., pp. 46-54.

[4] Theiner, /Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum/, etc., pp. 16, 23.

[5] /Calendar Pap. Documents/, an. 1254.

[6] Hardiman, op. cit., pp. 47-9.

[7] De Burgo, /Hibernia Dominicana/, p. 75.

[8] /State Papers Henry VIII./, xiv., no. 1021.

[9] Mason, /The History and Antiquities of ... St. Patrick's, Dublin/,
    1820, p. xviii.

[10] /De Annatis Hiberniae/, vol. i., 1912; vol. ii. (app. ii.
    /Archive Hib./ vol. ii.).

[11] Theiner, op. cit., 487-8.

[12] Wilkins, /Concilia/, ii., an. 1172.

[13] Carrigan, /History of Ossory/, i., 45-57.

[14] Theiner, op. cit., 261.

[15] Theiner, op. cit., 371. De Burgo, /Hib. Dom./ 68.

[16] /Irish Theol. Quarterly/, ii., 203-19.

[17] Capes, /History of the English Church in the Fourteenth and
    Fifteenth Centuries/, 1909, p. 222.

[18] Brady, /Episcopal Succession/ (see various dioceses mentioned).

[19] /Ninth Report of Commission on Hist. MSS./, pt. ii., 278.

[20] /Archiv. Hibernicum/, vol. i., 39-45.

[21] Id., app. ii., 40.

[22] /Archiv. Hibernicum/, app. ii., 6.

[23] By John de Lech, Archbishop of Dublin (1312); by his successor,
    Alexander Bicknor; by the Earl of Desmond in the Parliament at
    Drogheda (1465); by the Dominicans, 1475; and by Walter
    Fitzsimons, Archbishop of Dublin (1485-1511).

[24] Green, /The Making of Ireland/, etc., p. 271.

[25] /De Annatis Hiberniae/, i., 155-6.

[26] /Hib. Ignatiana/, 13.

[27] Champneys, /Irish Eccl. Architecture/, 1910, p. 172.

[28] Theiner, op. cit., pp. 425, 436. /Annals F. M./, 1460.

[29] /State Papers Henry VIII./, ii., 15.

[30] /Hib. Dom./, p. 540.

[31] Malone, op. cit., ii., 206 sqq.

[32] O'Grady, /Catalogue of Irish MSS. in British Museum/, p. 154.

[33] Green, op. cit., pp. 261 sqq.



CHAPTER VIII

THE CHURCH IN IRELAND DURING THE REIGNS OF
HENRY VIII. AND EDWARD VI. (1509-1553)

  See bibliography, chap. vii. /Annals of the F. M./ (ed.
  O'Donovan), 7 vols., 1851. /Annals of Loch Cé/ (ed. Hennessy), 2
  vols., 1871. Theiner, /Monumenta Scotorum/, etc. (/ut supra/).
  Moran, /Spicilegium Ossoriense/, 3 vols., 1874-85. Publications of
  Catholic Record Society of Ireland, /Archivium Hibernicum/, 3
  vols., 1912-14. /De Annatis Hiberniae/, vol. i. (Ulster), 1912.
  /State Papers/, 11 vols., 1832-51 (vols. ii., iii.,
  /Correspondence between the Governments of England and Ireland/,
  1515-46). Brewer and Gairdner, /Calendar of Letters and Papers ...
  of Reign of Henry VIII./, 13 vols., 1862-92. /Calendar of State
  Papers, Ireland/, vol. i. (1509-1573). /Calendar of State Papers/
  (Carew), 1 vol., 1515-1574. Morrin, /Calendar of Patent Rolls/
  (Ireland), 1 vol., 1861 (Hen. VIII., Ed. VI., Mary, Elizabeth).
  Shirley, /Original Letters and Papers in Illustration of the
  History of the Church of Ireland during the Reigns of Ed. VI.,
  Mary and Elizabeth/, 1851. /Holinshead's Chronicles of England,
  Scotland, and Ireland/, 6 vols., 1807 (/Chronicle of Ireland/, by
  Holinshead; Stanyhurst, 1509-47; John Hooker, 1547-86). D'Alton,
  /History of Ireland/, vol. i., 1903. Bagwell, /Ireland under the
  Tudors/, 3 vols., 1885-90. Bonn, /Die Englische Kolonisation in
  Irland/, 2 Bd., 1896. Bellesheim, op. cit. Brenan, /An
  Ecclesiastical History of Ireland/, 1864. Mant, /History of the
  Church of Ireland/, 2 vols., 1840. Killen, /The Ecclesiastical
  History of Ireland/, 2 vols., 1875. Cox, /Hibernia Anglicana/,
  etc., 1689. /Hibernia Pacata/ (ed. O'Grady, 2 vols., 1896). Ware's
  /Works/ (ed. Harris, 1764). /Harleian Miscellany/, 10 vols., 1808-
  13. Moran, /History of the Catholic Archbishops of Dublin since
  the Reformation/, 1 vol., 1864. Renehan-McCarthy, /Collections on
  Irish Church History/, vol. i. (Archbishops), 1861. Brady,
  /Episcopal Success in England, Scotland, Ireland/, 3 vols., 1876.

When Henry VIII. ascended the English throne, though he styled himself
the Lord of Ireland, he could claim little authority in the country.
The neglect of his predecessors, the quarrels between the English
colonists, especially between the Geraldines and the Butlers, and the
anxiety of both parties to ally themselves with the Irish princes, had
prevented the permanent conquest of the country. Outside the very
limited area of the Pale English sheriffs or judges dare not appear to
administer English law; no taxes were paid to the crown; no levies of
troops could be raised, and the colonists could only hope for
comparative peace by paying an annual tribute to the most powerful of
their Irish neighbours. The barony of Lecale in Down paid £40 a year
to O'Neill of Clandeboy, Louth paid a similar sum to O'Neill of
Tyrone, Meath paid £300 a year to O'Connor of Offaly, Kildare £20 to
O'Connor, Wexford £40 to the McMurroughs, Kilkenny and Tipperary £40
to O'Carroll of Ely, Limerick city and county £80 to the O'Briens,
Cork £40 to the McCarthys, and so low had the government fallen that
it consented to pay eighty marks yearly from the royal treasury to
McMurrough.[1]

During the early years of his reign Henry VIII. was so deeply
interested in his schemes for subduing France and in continental
affairs generally that he could give little attention to his dominions
in Ireland. Sometimes the Earl of Kildare was superseded by the
appointment of the Earl of Surrey (1520), and of Sir Piers Butler, the
claimant to the Earldom of Ormond (1521), and of Sir William
Skeffington (1529), but as a general rule Kildare, whether as Deputy
or as a private citizen, succeeded in dictating the policy of the
government. By his matrimonial alliances with the Irish chieftains,
the O'Neills, the MacCarthys, O'Carroll of Ely, and O'Connor of
Offaly, his bargains with many of the other Irish and Anglo-Irish
nobles, and by his well-known prowess in the field, he had succeeded
in making himself much more powerful in Ireland than the English
sovereign. But his very success had raised up against him a host of
enemies, led by his old rival the Earl of Ormond, and supported by a
large body of ecclesiastics, including Allen, the Archbishop of
Dublin, and of lay nobles. Various charges against him were forwarded
to England, and in 1534 he was summoned to London to answer for his
conduct. Before setting out on his last journey to London he appointed
his son, Lord Thomas Fitzgerald (Silken Thomas), then a youth of
twenty-one, to take charge of the government. The latter had neither
the wisdom nor the experience of his father. Rumours of his father's
execution, spread by the enemies of the Geraldines, having reached his
ears, despite the earnest entreaties of Archbishop Cromer of Armagh,
he resigned the sword of state, and called upon his retainers to
avenge the death of the Earl of Kildare (1534).

The rebellion of Silken Thomas forced Henry VIII. to undertake a
determined campaign for the conquest of Ireland. His hopes of winning
glory and territory in France had long since disappeared. He was about
to break completely with Rome, and there was some reason to fear that
Charles V. might make a descent upon the English coasts with or
without the aid of the King of France. Were an invasion from the
Continent undertaken before the conquest of Ireland had been finished
it might result in the complete separation of that kingdom from
England, and its transference to some foreign power. It was well known
that some of the Irish princes were in close correspondence with
France and Scotland, that Silken Thomas was hoping for the assistance
of the Emperor, and that once England had separated herself definitely
from the Holy See, many of the Irish and Anglo-Irish nobles might be
induced to make common cause with the Pope against a heretical king.
Hitherto the king's only legal title to the Lordship of Ireland was
the supposed grant of Adrian IV., and as such a grant must necessarily
lapse on account of heresy and schism a new title must be sought for
in the complete conquest of the country. The circumstances were
particularly favourable for undertaking such a work. The royal
treasury was well supplied; England had little to fear for the time
being from Francis I. or Charles V., as the energies of both were
required for the terrible struggle between France and the Empire; the
friends of Ormond and the enemies of Kildare, both Irish and Anglo-
Irish, could be relied upon to lend their aid, and even the Irish
princes friendly to Kildare might be conciliated by fair promises of
reward. Relying upon all these considerations Henry VIII. determined
to reduce Ireland to submission, and at the same time to put an end to
its religious and political dependence on the Holy See.

William Skeffington was re-appointed Deputy and sent over to quell the
rebellion, together with Sir Piers Butler who, in consideration of the
bestowal upon him of the territories of the former Earls of Ormond,
agreed to resist the usurped jurisdiction of the Pope especially in
regard to appointments to benefices[2] (1534). The campaign opened
early in 1535, but as the new deputy was physically unable to command
a great military expedition, Lord Leonard Grey, the brother-in-law of
the Earl of Kildare, was soon entrusted with the conduct of the war.
Though in the beginning Silken Thomas had met with success, the news
that the rumoured execution of the Earl was untrue, the murder of the
Archbishop of Dublin by some of the Geraldine followers, and the
excommunication that such a deed involved, disheartened his army and
caused many of those upon whom he relied to desert him. At last in
August 1535 he surrendered to Lord Grey who seems to have given him a
promise of his life, but Henry VIII. was not the man to allow any
obligations of honour to interfere with his policy. After having been
kept in close confinement in the Tower for months he and his five
uncles were hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn (1537). The king's
only regret was that the young heir to the Earldom of Kildare was
allowed to escape, and the failure to capture his own sister's son was
one of the gravest charges brought afterwards against Lord Leonard
Grey. As it was, the rebellion was suppressed; O'More of Leix,
O'Carroll of Ely, O'Connor of Offaly, and the other Irish adherents of
the Geraldines were reduced to submission, and thereby the work of
conquest was well begun.

In 1536, as a reward for the services he had rendered and in the hope
that he would carry the work of subjugation to a successful
conclusion, Leonard Grey was appointed Deputy. Henry VIII. had
separated himself definitely from the Catholic Church and had induced
a large number of English bishops, ecclesiastics, and nobles to reject
the jurisdiction of the Pope in favour of royal supremacy. In England
he owed much of his success to the presence of Cranmer in the
metropolitan See of Canterbury, and to the skill with which his clever
councillors manipulated Parliament so as to ensure its compliance with
the royal wishes. Hence, when he determined to detach Ireland from its
allegiance to Rome, he resolved to utilise the Archbishop of Dublin
and the Irish Parliament. Fortunately for him Dublin was then vacant
owing to the murder of Archbishop Alen during the Geraldine rebellion
(1534). After careful consideration he determined to confer the
archbishopric on George Browne, an Augustinian friar, who had merited
the royal favour by preaching so strongly against Henry's marriage
with Catharine of Aragon that most of the congregation rose in a body
and left the church. According to the imperial ambassador it was
Browne who officiated at the secret marriage of the king to Anne
Boleyn, and it was on that account he was created provincial of the
English Augustinians and joined in a commission with Dr. Hilsey, the
provincial of the Dominicans, for a visitation of the religious houses
in England.[3] The new archbishop received his commission from the
king without reference to the Pope, and his consecration from Cranmer
(1536). Browne was in every way a worthy representative of the new
spiritual dictator and of the "new learning." His nomination to Dublin
was condemned by the people of Lincoln because he had abandoned the
Christian faith. Hardly had he arrived in Dublin when he found himself
at loggerheads with Lord Grey, who treated him with studied contempt
and took very violent measures to cool his religious ardour. He was
assailed by his royal spiritual head for his arrogance and
inefficiency, and warned to take heed lest he who had made him a
bishop might unmake him. By his fellow-labourers and associates in the
work of spreading the gospel, Staples of Meath and Bale of Ossory, he
was denounced as a heretic, an avaricious dissembler, a drunkard, and
a profligate, who preached only two sermons with which the people
became so familiar that they knew what to expect once he had announced
his text.[4]

Before the arrival of Browne in Ireland careful steps were taken by
the deputy and the Earl of Ormond to ensure that only trustworthy men
should be elected as "knights of the shire," while the lawyers were
hard at work both in England and Ireland drafting the laws that
Parliament was expected to ratify. The assembly opened on Monday, 1st
May, at Dublin, was adjourned (31 May) to Kilkenny, then to Cashel (28
July), then to Limerick (2 Aug.), from which place it returned once
more to Dublin. The next session opened in September (1536), and after
several short sessions and long adjournments it was prorogued finally
in December 1537. As far as can be seen no representatives attended
this parliament except from the Pale and from the territories under
the influence of the Earl of Ormond and his adherents. It was in no
sense an Irish Parliament, as not a single Irish layman took part in
it, nor could it be described accurately even as a Parliament of
Leinster. It is generally assumed that together with the Act of
Attainder against the party of Kildare all the legislation passed
already in England, including the Act of Succession and of Royal
Supremacy, the Acts against the authority of the Bishop of Rome,
against appeals to Rome, and transferring to the king the First
Fruits, etc., were passed always immediately and with very little
opposition except a strong protest lodged by Archbishop Cromer of
Armagh. But an examination of the correspondence that passed between
the authorities in Dublin and in London reveals a very different
story.

It is true that on the 17th May Brabazon informed Cromwell that the
Act of Attainder against Kildare, the Acts of Succession, of Royal
Supremacy and of First Fruits had already passed the Commons, and that
on the 1st June the Deputy wrote that all these, including the Act
against Appeals to Rome, had passed the Parliament, and that in the
same month Cromwell expressed his thanks to some of the Irish
officials for having secured the assent of Parliament to all these
measures. But in spite of these assurances of victory secured before
Parliament had been a month in session, there must have occurred some
very serious hitch in the programme. In October 1536, Robert Cowley
wrote to Cromwell to complain that certain acts had been rejected
owing to the action of some "ringleaders or bellwethers," who had
decided to send a deputation to England to argue stiffly against them,
that Patrick Barnewall, the king's sergeant was on the side of the
discontents, and that he declared in the House of Commons that "he
would not grant that the king had as much spiritual power as the
Bishop of Rome, or that he could dissolve religious houses." As
nothing could be done, the session was adjourned till February (1537),
when the Deputy announced that owing to the confusion caused in the
Commons by the reported return of Silken Thomas, and to the boldness
of the spirituality on account of the religious rebellion which had
taken place in England, no measures could be passed, and a further
adjournment was necessary. When Parliament met again matters were
still going badly for the king. The Deputy informed Cromwell that the
spirituality was still obstinate; that the spiritual peers refused to
debate any bill till they should receive satisfactory assurances that
the spiritual proctors or representatives of the clergy should be
allowed to vote, and that as the Parliament had refused to pass the
bill imposing a tax of one-twentieth of their annual revenues on the
holders of benefices, he was obliged to adjourn till July. He warned
Cromwell that as the proctors and the bishops had formed a combination
little could be passed until the proctors were deprived of their
votes, and he suggested that as a means of overcoming the resistance
of the spirituality the king should send over a special commissioner
to be present at the opening of the next session.

Acting on this suggestion a royal commission, consisting of Anthony
St. Leger, George Poulet, Thomas Moyle, and William Berners, was
dispatched to Ireland (July 1537) to deliver the following acts to be
passed by Parliament, namely, acts depriving the spiritual proctors of
their right to vote, and against the power of the Bishop of Rome,
together with acts giving to the king the tax of one-twentieth on
benefices, enforcing the use of the English language and dress, and
prohibiting alliances with the "wild Irish." At the same time Henry
wrote to the Deputy and council warning them to obey the instructions
of the commissioners, and to the House of Lords ordering them to
ratify the bills to be submitted, and telling them that if any member
be unwilling to do so, "we shall look upon him with our princely eye
as his ingratitude therein shall be little to his comfort." When
Parliament met again in October the spiritual proctors were deprived
of their votes, and it was only then that the Act against the Bishop
of Rome could be carried. The threats of royal vengeance seem to have
produced the same effects in the Dublin assembly as in the English
Parliament. Probably, as happened in England, those who could not
agree with the measures were content to absent themselves during the
discussions.[5] The truth is, therefore, that Archbishop Cromer was
supported in his attitude by the bishops and the representatives of
the clergy, and that the acts against the jurisdiction of the Pope
were carried against the wishes of the spirituality.

But the placing of the acts upon the statute book did not mean that
the cause of the king had triumphed. Steps must be taken to enforce
the laws against the jurisdiction of the Pope. Already in October 1537
the royal commissioners, who had been sent over by the king to overawe
the Parliament, undertook a judicial tour through the south-eastern
portion of Ireland to inquire into the grievances of the people, and
especially to secure grounds of complaint against the ecclesiastics,
so as to enable the government to overcome the opposition of their
representatives in Parliament. During their journey they held sessions
at Kilkenny, Waterford, Wexford, New Ross, Clonmel, and Tipperary. In
the circumstances it is not difficult to understand how easy it was
for them to find individuals ready to come forward with accusations
both against the lay lords and the clergy, especially as the
commissioners in some cases at least suggested the points of
complaint. In Wexford, for example, the crime alleged against the Dean
of Ferns and three other priests of having "pursued" Bulls from Rome
has a very suspicious ring. Against many individual clerics, including
the Archbishop of Cashel and the Bishop of Waterford, the priors and
heads of several religious houses and certain rectors and vicars, it
was alleged that they levied various exactions like the lay lords,
that they demanded excessive fees on the occasion of their
ministrations, and that they asserted claims to fishing weirs, etc.,
to which they were not entitled. If it be borne in mind that the
bishops, priors, and heads of religious houses were also landlords
like the lay lords, against whom charges of almost similar exactions
were lodged, the presentments of grievances at least in this respect
were not very convincing. For the same reason the fact that the
Archbishop of Cashel was said to have been in a boat which robbed a
boat from Clonmel and that he caused a riot in the latter city, that
the Bishop of Waterford and Lismore took bribes, or that Purcell, the
Bishop of Ferns, joined with O'Kavanagh in an attack upon Fethard need
not cause any surprise. It was only against James Butler, the
Cistercian abbot of Inislonagh and his monks, the Augustinian monks of
Athassel, the Carmelite priors of Lady Abbey near Clonmel and
Knocktopher, and the abbot of Duisk that grave charges of immorality
were made. Even if these charges were true, and the evidence is by no
means convincing, they serve only to emphasise the downfall of
discipline caused in the individual religious houses by the
interference with canonical election, and the intrusion oftentimes by
family influence of unworthy men as abbots or commendatory abbots.[6]

Henry VIII. was anxious to complete the conquest of Ireland even
before he had broken with the Pope, but after the separation of
England from Rome he realised more clearly the dangers that might
ensue unless the Irish and Anglo-Irish princes were reduced to
submission. As things stood, Ireland instead of contributing anything
was a constant source of loss to the royal treasury, and, were an
invasion attempted by some of his Continental rivals, Ireland might
become a serious menace to England's independence. The complete
overthrow of the Geraldine rebellion (1535) had prepared the way for a
more general advance, but the failure of the Deputy to capture the
young heir to the Earldom of Kildare was as displeasing to the king
personally as it was dangerous to his plans. The boy was conveyed away
secretly by his tutor, a priest named Leverous, who was advanced
afterwards to the See of Kildare, and was brought for safety to the
territory of O'Brien of Thomond. When Thomond was threatened by the
rapid advance of the Deputy, the young Earl of Kildare was conveyed to
his aunt, Lady Eleanor MacCarthy of Cork, who on her marriage to Manus
O'Donnell, Prince of Tyrconnell, brought the boy with her to Donegal
(1538).

O'Connor of Offaly and O'Carroll had been compelled to sue for peace
(1535). In the following year Lord Grey made a tour of the south-
eastern parts of Leinster, proceeded through Tipperary, and directed
his march against the strongholds of O'Brien of Thomond. Partly by his
own skill and boldness, partly also by the treachery of one of the
O'Briens, he succeeded in capturing some of the principal fortresses
including O'Brien's Bridge. Had it not been for a mutiny that broke
out among his soldiers Lord Grey might have succeeded in forcing
O'Brien to make terms, but, as it was, he was obliged to desist from
further attack and to retreat hastily to Dublin. O'Brien soon
recaptured the positions he had lost; O'Connor of Offaly took the
field once more, and the unfortunate Deputy, harassed by his enemies
on the privy council and blamed by the king for his failure to get
possession of the hope of the Geraldines, found himself in the
greatest difficulties. But he was a man of wonderful military
resource, and knowing well that failure must mean his own recall and
possibly his execution, he determined to put forth all his energies in
another great effort. So long as the Irish in the Leinster districts
were active it was little use for him to undertake dangerous
expeditions towards the more remote districts, and for this reason he
turned his attention to O'Connor of Offaly. Before many months elapsed
he forced the MacMurroughs, the Kavanaghs, the O'Moores, the
O'Carrolls, MacGillapatrick of Ossory, and O'Connor to sue humbly for
peace.

But many difficulties still remained to be overcome before he could
boast of final victory. Con O'Neill, Manus O'Donnell, and many of
their adherents were still threatening; Desmond, O'Brien of Thomond
and the nobles of Munster generally could not be relied upon; while
the Irish and Anglo-Irish of Connaught paid but scanty respect to the
king or his deputy. Rumours, too, were in circulation that North and
South were about to unite in defence of the heir of the Geraldines,
that secret communications were carried on with Scotland, France, and
the Empire, and that the Pope was in full sympathy with the
movement.[7] Surrounded by discontented subordinates, who forwarded
complaints almost weekly to England in the hope of securing his
disgrace, Lord Grey was resolved to push forward rapidly even though
the campaign might prove risky. In 1538 he marched south and west,
passing by Limerick through the territories of O'Brien and Clanrickard
to Galway, having received everywhere the submission of the princes
except of O'Brien and the Earl of Desmond. In the following year
(1539) he directed his attention towards the North, but O'Neill and
O'Donnell, having composed their differences, and having strengthened
themselves by an understanding with the Earl of Desmond and the
adherents of the Geraldines, marched south in the hope of joining
hands with their allies. Having learned when in the neighbourhood of
Tara that the Deputy was on the march against them, they retreated
towards the confines of Monaghan, where they were overtaken and routed
at Bellahoe near Carrickmacross (1539). Their defeat seems to have
destroyed the spirit of the Irish princes. One by one they began to
beg for terms, so that before Lord Grey was recalled in 1540 he had
the satisfaction of knowing that he had vindicated English authority
in the country. Instead of rewarding his deputy for all that he had
done, Henry VIII., giving credence to the stories circulated by
Archbishop Browne and others that Lord Grey had connived at the escape
of the young Kildare and had supported the cause of Rome, committed
him to the Tower, and later on he handed him over to the executioner
(1541).

Meanwhile how fared it with the new archbishop who had been sent over
to enlighten the Irish nation? In July 1537 Henry felt it necessary to
reprove his spiritual representative for his lightness of behaviour,
his vain-glory, and his remissness in preaching the pure word of God,
and to warn him that if he did not show himself more active both in
religious matters and in advancing the king's cause he should be
obliged to put a man of more honesty in his place.[8] The archbishop
issued a form of prayer in English to be read in all the churches,
extolling royal supremacy and denouncing the Pope, but it produced no
effect. Once, when the archbishop attended High Mass in St. Andrew's,
the rector mounted the pulpit to read the prayer, but immediately one
of the canons gave a signal to the choir to proceed, and the
archiepiscopal message was lost to the congregation. In January 1538
he acknowledged that though the influence of the king ought to be
greatest within the city and province of Dublin, yet, notwithstanding
his gentle exhortation, his evangelical instruction, his insistence on
oaths of obedience, and his threats of sharp correction, he could not
induce any one to preach the word of God or the just title of the
king; that men who preached formerly till Christians were tired of
them, would not open their lips except in secret, when they gave full
vent to their opinions and thereby destroyed the fruits of the labour
of their archbishop; that the Observant Friars were the worst
offenders of all, refusing to take the oath and showing open contempt
for his authority; that he could not persuade the clergy to erase the
name of the Pope from the Canon of the Mass and was obliged to send
his own servants to carry out this work; that a papal indulgence had
been published in Ireland of which many had hastened to take advantage
by fulfilling the conditions laid down, namely, fasting on Wednesday,
Friday, and Saturday and receiving Holy Communion, and that all
bishops "made by the king" except himself were repelled to make way
for these appointed by Rome.[9] Although the chapter in Dublin had
been packed carefully to prepare the way for the election of Browne,
the archbishop was forced to complain that he had been withstood to
his face by one of the prebendaries, James Humfrey, and that of the
staff of the cathedral, twenty-eight in number, there was scarce one
"that favoured the word of God."[10]

In a letter sent to Cromwell (1538) Agarde informed him that the power
of the Bishop of Rome was still strong, that the Observant Friars
upheld it boldly, that nobody dared to say anything against them as
nearly all in authority were in favour of the Pope except Browne,
Alen, Master of the Rolls, Brabazon the Vice-Treasurer, and one or two
others of no importance, and that the temporal lawyers who drew the
king's fees could not be trusted.[11] Everywhere throughout the
country it was the same story. Those who should set an example to
others resorted to the Friars for confession, and were encouraged in
their boldness; Nangle, who had been intruded into the See of Clonfert
by the king, was driven out by Roland de Burgo, the papal bishop, and
dared not show himself in his diocese; never was there so much "Rome-
running" in the country, four or five bishops together with several
priors and abbots having been appointed lately by the Pope, while a
friar and a bishop, probably Rory O'Donnell of Derry, who had been
arrested, were tried and acquitted at Trim,[12] because the people in
authority were hypocrites and worshippers of idols.[13]

From 1536 therefore till 1538 the new gospel had made small progress
in Ireland. Had the men entrusted with its propagation been of one
mind they might have used the king's power with some effect, but the
Deputy, the Archbishop of Dublin, and the Bishop of Meath were at each
others throats almost continually. The Deputy treated the archbishop
with studied contempt, spoke of him as a "poll-shorn" friar and
obstructed his plans. According to Browne and his friends Alen and
Brabazon, the Deputy befriended the papists and the friars, knelt in
prayer before the shrine of Our Lady of Trim, and supported a bishop
appointed by Rome against one appointed by the king. Edward Staples, a
former protégé of Cardinal Wolsey, by whom he was recommended to Rome,
was appointed by the Pope to Meath in 1530, but being a steady
opponent of the Geraldines he was obliged to escape to his own country
in 1534. There he took the side of the king against Clement VII., and
on his return to Ireland, after he had received a sharp admonition
from the king, he undertook to preach in favour of royal supremacy.
But his views did not coincide with those of the Archbishop of Dublin.
The latter was obliged to complain that Staples denounced him as "a
heretic and a beggar with other rabulous revilings," and that not
content with this, he preached in the church at Kilmainham where "the
stations and pardons" were used as freely as ever, and attacked the
archbishop before his face with "such a stomach as I think the three-
mouthed Cerberus of hell could not have uttered it more viperously."
He glossed every sentence (of the archbishops sermons) after such
opprobrious fashion that every honest ear glowed to hear it, and "he
exhorted them all, yea, and so much as in him lay he adjured them, to
give no credence to (their spiritual guide) whatsoever he might say,
for before God he would not."[14] The Bishop of Meath replied that the
archbishop had given himself such airs that every honest man was weary
of him and that he (the bishop) had come to the conclusion that "pride
and arrogance hath ravished him from the right remembrance of
himself." In reply to Browne's covert hint that Staples was conniving
at the authority of the Pope, the latter charged the archbishop, whom
he described as his purgatory, with abhorring the Mass, and prayed
that an inquiry should be held.[15] An attempt was made to patch up
the quarrel, but the archbishop was far from content that his
authority had not been upheld.[16]

For so far the Reformation had made little or no progress in Ireland,
and apparently bishops, clergy and people were still strong on the
side of Rome. But during the successful military expedition undertaken
by Lord Grey into the centre, south, and west of Ireland in 1538, he
claimed to have achieved great success. In March 1538 O'Connor of
Offaly made his submission, promising at the same time not to admit
the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff or to allow others to admit
it.[17] The Earl of Ormond and the Butler family generally were
attached to the king's cause on account of their opposition to the
Geraldines. O'Carroll of Ely agreed to accept the king's peace, but
there is no evidence that he agreed to the king's religious programme.
At Limerick, according to the Deputy's own story, the mayor and
corporation took the oath of Royal Supremacy, and renounced the
authority of the Pope, as did also the bishop, who promised
furthermore to induce his clergy to follow this example. Similarly in
Galway, he assured the king, he had sworn the mayor, corporation and
bishop to resist the usurped jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.[18]
But as against the trustworthiness of this report it should be
remembered that it is contradicted in very important particulars by
another official account of the proceedings written by eye-witnesses,
that the Deputy's doings on this occasion were belittled and
disparaged by the privy council, that Browne charged Grey with having
deposed, while he was in the neighbourhood of Limerick, a bishop
appointed by the king to make room for a Franciscan friar provided by
the Pope,[19] and with having supported the Mayor of Limerick, who was
a strong adherent of the Geraldines, that according to the same
authority, while Grey was in Galway he entertained right royally a
bishop, probably Roland de Burgo, "who had expelled the king's
presentee from the Bishopric of Clonfert," and that, finally, in
Robert Cowley's opinion Grey's expedition had for its object not so
much the extension of the king's territory as the formation of a
Geraldine League amongst the Irish and Anglo-Irish of the South and
West to support O'Neill and O'Donnell.[20]

It is important to bear in mind that the highest English officials in
Ireland at this period were divided into two factions, one favouring
the Deputy, and another attempting to secure his downfall by charging
him with being too friendly towards the Papists and the Geraldines.
The leaders of the latter section, and, according to a trustworthy
witness, the only men in authority who favoured the campaign against
the Pope were Browne, Alen, the Master of the Rolls, Brabazon, the
Vice-Treasurer, and one or two others, amongst whom might be reckoned
Aylmer the Chief Justice.[21] They were annoyed at the reported
success of Lord Grey in 1538, and however much they tried to disparage
it, they felt that unless they could accomplish something remarkable
for the king's cause the triumph of the Deputy was assured. Early in
December 1538 a message had been received containing "an advertisement
for the setting forth of the Word of God, abolishing of the Bishop of
Rome's usurped authority, and extinguishing of idolatry."[22]
Immediately the members of the council hostile to Lord Grey saw their
opportunity of scoring a signal victory. If they could not penetrate
into the North or West they determined to make an excursion into the
"four shires above the Barrow" to assert the king's supremacy, "but
also to levy the first fruits and twentieth part with other of the
king's revenue." Leaving Dublin towards the end of December they
proceeded first to Carlow, where they were entertained by Lord James
Butler, and thence to Kilkenny, where they were welcomed by the Earl
of Ormond. On New Year's Day the archbishop preached to a large
audience setting forth the royal (or rather Cromwell's) Injunctions
(1536), several copies of which were supplied to the bishops and
dignitaries of the diocese for the use of the clergy. Something
si