exonerated his own master: and, as it may seem, not unjustly. Philip was, it is true, cruel enough. In his other realms he afterwards enjoyed Acts of Faith of a far more exquisite atrocity than the plain English burnings with their roaring and cheering mobs, their bags of powder, and their knocks on the head with stake or halbert, had to offer, if he had chosen to witness any of them. But Philip was a man of intelligence: he was able to judge that persecution would not succeed in England. He desired to make himself popular and in spite of the suspicion of history it may be doubted whether satisfactory proof exists that Philip advised or instigated the severities of Mary's reign.*

Cabrera, the historian of Philip, ascribes the persecution to him, and many other things of religion that happened in England, as among his glories. "Mando proceder contra los perseverantes en la eregia," &c. Lib. I. c. 6, page 28. But he gives no proofs. The only things that can be examined as proofs, so far I can see, are these, and very inconclusive they are. 1. Prescott in his Life of Philip, vol. i. 112, has this. "Philip in a letter to the regent Joanna dated Brussels, 1557, seems to claim for himself the merit of having extirpated heresy in England by the destruction of the heretics. Aviendo apartado deste Reyno las sectas i reduzidole a la obediencia de la Iglesia, i aviendo ido sempre en acrecentamiento con el castigo de los Ereges tan sin contradiccones, come se haze en Inglaterra" (from Cabrera, p. 68). It is not clear that Prescott thought that Philip was writing this about himself: but if not, little can be made of it as a proof of what he says that Philip claims for himself in it. Philip was not writing about himself but about the Pope, with whom he was at variance: and the whole passage refers to the Pope. Philip, writing from the capital of the Netherlands, says that "he (the Pope) having cast away from this kingdom (the Netherlands) the sects, and reduced it to the obedience of the Church, and the country itself having progressively improved through the punishment of the heretics, with so few contradictions, as it is done in England," has wished and still notoriously wishes to disturb it (the Netherlands) without any due regard to his own dignity. England is brought in allusively, but in the allusion Philip makes no claim to have done what had been done there. I may add that this passage is taken to refer to the Pope in Llorente's Hist. of the Inquisition, p. 182.-2. Prescott goes on to quote a letter of the Emperor's from Yaste to the Princess Parma, of May 25, 1558: to which he gives no reference beyond MS.: which he says "endorses this claim of his son to the full extent."

His father the emperor, who allowed the Inquisition to have full sway in Spain and the Netherlands, constantly

As the son has been shown to make no such claim, this letter must not be thought of as endorsing any such. The Emperor says that in England severities had been practised, and still were being practised toward bishops (or else by bishops) by Philip's order, as if he had been their natural king: and that they permitted it. [Pues en Ynglaterra se han hecho y hacen tantar y tan crudas justicias hasta obispos, por la orden que alli ha dado, como se fuera su Rey natural, y se lo permiten.] The only fact on which this could be founded was the letter which Philip and Mary, in their conjoint style, sent to the bishops to use diligence against the heretics, May 24 of this year: (see below, p. 363.)— -3. Mr. Stevenson, in the Preface to his Calendar of the Foreign State Papers of Elizabeth (p. lxxii), is inclined to give a share of the responsibility for the persecution to Philip. "The administration of the affairs of England did not rest exclusively with Mary. Philip was as much a king as she was a queen and while it was her misfortune to forget the queen in the wife, he was always much more of the monarch than the husband." How can that be said, when Philip was never crowned (a thing which he greatly resented), was excluded from the administration by the marriage treaty, and from the succession to the throne, if he survived the Queen? He was commonly called not the king, but "the Queen's husband," and gave for his reason of keeping out of England as much as he could that he felt himself no king there. Mr. Stevenson proceeds, "Even while he resided abroad the English Government submitted their reports to him, and received his instructions, in which he was sometimes guided by the Inquisitor of Flanders." For the last observation Mr. Stevenson makes reference to "R. O. Domest. Mary, ix. 30" (rather 34). This document is a letter from Philip at Ghent to the English Council, Sept. 30, 1556: of which in Mr. Lemon's Calendar the account is, " Has referred the matter of the four persons, who obstinately maintain their absurd opinions, to the Inquisitor of Flanders." Cal. of St. Pap. Dom. Mary, p. 87. This is too slight a foundation to build a charge upon. The general testimony is that Philip interfered not with English affairs. For instance the Venetian ambassador, Michiel, says, " He has not only abstained hitherto from interfering and commanding as master, but would scarcely hear about anything at all, leaving this care to Queen Mary and her Council, and referring himself to them." To the Doge, June 11, 1555. Ven. Cal p. 107. Some historical writers of repute have held Philip guilty: but I have never seen a proof that he was. They argue from his character and the character of the theologians whom he brought with him. The late Archdeacon Churton wrote three papers in the British Magazine of 1839 and 1840 entitled "Spanish Accounts of the Marian Persecution." But he brings no proof that it was instigated by Philip. I see that the Rev. Canon Perry has recently called the persecution "the Spanish Revenge," and ascribes much of it to Philip. Refn. in Engl. 120. But he gives no

counselled moderation in England. Alphonso the preacher was, it is true, himself author of a treatise on the punishment of heretics: but when he made himself the mouthpiece of the Spanish party, in denouncing the proceedings in England, he may have spoken sincerely. They all knew that there was no power, no machinery in England to carry out a persecution: no means of making it general: nothing of the nature of the Inquisition or Holy Office, which took the business out of the incompetent hands of the ordinaries, and conducted it with the skill of experts. The spirit of the nation, as they must have perceived, was not of the kind to endure a general persecution. In the nation, which had betrayed itself, a kind of rage proof. With regard to the foreign theologians and their sermons before the King, it may be observed that more than one of them preached something out of the common sort, and may have favoured moderation. Friar Bartholemeo Carranza de Miranda, who afterwards ended so miserably by persecution himself, preached about this time more than one sermon before the King which had a doubtful, if not more than doubtful sound to the sharp ears of others of his country. Pedro de Castro, another of the band that came to England with Philip, declared afterwards that Carranza in one sermon preached before the King spoke of Justification in terms approaching to Lutheranism: that another time, preaching before the King he said that some sins were irremissible: and that in another sermon he denounced before the King the indulgences granted by the Bull of the Crusade; and that he thought this to be dangerous language to hold in England in the midst of heretics. And the astute Friar Villagarcia, who played so conspicuous a part in Cranmer's tragedy, said that he had heard one of those sermons before in Valladolid, and thought it reprehensible. Llorente's Hist. of the Inquisition, p. 416.

* De Justa Hereticorum Punitione, Libri Tres. Some say that he wrote it now; no, it was first published in 1547, at Salamanca. The second edition was published at Leyden in 1556. Alphonso was author also of a huge treatise De Heresibus, which was sometimes given to the religious prisoners to study. It is in fourteen books, arranged according to subjects. It is written in an animated style, and seems not illiberal. He puts the authority of the Pope below that of a general council in matters of faith. The last edition was Antwerp 1565, dedicated to Philip II. The author was known among the prisoners for religion, whom he sometimes visited, by the nickname of "Fons." Alphonsus Castrensis was a high authority among the doctors of the Inquisition.

was rising already: the general liability was waking alarm. The Spaniards lost no time in exculpating themselves, and they were not hypocritical in the sense of secretly fomenting that which they openly disavowed. Where they cast the blame, there it remained: and one of the bishops in especial became the scapegoat of the national delinquency.

The Bishop of London had not taken a leading part in the execution of the martyrs. At their examinations he had been nearly silent, speaking only once or twice as to matters of fact. After their condemnation he visited them repeatedly, perhaps more often than another prelate might have done, in the hope of inducing them to recant. But it had also been his office to degrade them and whether his errand was mercy or judgment, he had been seen passing from prison to prison, from Newgate to the Fleet, attended by his chaplains and apparitors. As if by common consent, the blame of the persecution was cast upon him. him. “The Bishop of London," wrote Renard to the Emperor, "with the other bishops assembled here, has burnt three heretics; one in London, two in the country." * The furious abuse of writers like Bale, founded on nothing more solid than the part which Bonner had taken in the Henrician persecutions under the Six Articles, † had paved the way for a convenient general execration: and the voice of history has echoed without scruple down to late years the objurgations of interested contemporaries. One historian, who is usually

"L'evesque de Londres avec les aultres evesques assemblez en ce lieu pour l'exécution du statut conclu ou dernier parlement sur le faict de la religion, a fait brusler trois héréticques, l'ung en ce lieu et les deux autres ou pays et sont aprés pour continuer contre les obstinez qui ne vouldront obéir au lois du parlement, dont les nobles et le peuple héréticque murmure, et s'altère, selon que l'ay faict ententre au roy par ung billet par escript," &c. Renard to the Emperor, February. Granvelle, Papiers d'Etat, iv. 399 + As to that, see Vol. II. 265 of this work.

*

[CH. XXV. sober enough, has for once indulged his fancy by inventing for Bonner an extraordinary soliloquy, with which the bloody butcher exultingly takes his place within the garnished shambles. Another declares that he not only ravaged his own diocese, but inordinately roamed for prey that ought to have fallen to other hunters. A poet sings that he enjoyed the spectacle of the sufferings of his victims. Unhappily for his fame, at this very moment the Bishop was brought into notice again by a new piece of business, which under the pressure of the new laws he may have been unable to avoid: and the second circle or series of martyrs begins with the final examination and despatch of a number of prisoners for religion, most of whom Bonner had long had in hand. These were persons of another mark from the learned bishop and priests who went before them: handicraftsmen or gentlemen, there was but one priest, John Lawrence, among them, of

But

*“ Well then," said Bonner to himself,“I see the honour of this work is reserved for me, who fear neither the Emperor's frowns nor the people's curses. Which having said (as if he had been pumping for a resolution), he took his time to make it known unto the other two (Pole and Gardiner) that he perceived they were as willing as himself to have the Catholic religion entertained in all parts of the kingdom, though neither of them seemed desirous to act anything in it, or take the envy on himself—I plainly see that neither you, my Lord Cardinal, nor you, my Lord Chancellor, have any answer to return to my present argument which is sufficient to encourage me to proceed upon it. I cannot act canonically against any of them but such as live within the compass of my jurisdiction, in which I shall desire no help nor countenance from either of you. as for such as live in the diocese of Canterbury, or that of Winchester, or otherwise not within my reach, in what place soever, let them be sent for up by order from the Lords of the Council, committed to the Tower, the Fleet, or any other prison within my diocese: And when I have them in my clutches, let God do so and more to Bonner, if they escape his fingers." Heylin, ii. 150 (Robertson). Maitland, who has done much to clear Bonner's memory, remarks particularly on the falseness of the charge, which Fuller also brings, that Bonner" stood on no distinction of dioceses," but sought to interfere beyond his limits. Essays, 409, &c. It is Cowper, in his Expostulation, who figuratively speaks of Bonner dancing round the stake. Now it is not known that Bonner ever witnessed a burning.