of the blame, the considerable share that ought to have been borne by such a man as Gardiner being silently discharged. Of the Pope no mention was made, or of the papal authority, the bull of Julius the Second, that had sanctioned the marriage: as things still stood, it was necessary to pronounce it valid upon divine and moral sanctions only, which could not be increased or diminished by any authority, much less by a power that was not admitted in the realm.*

In the formidable Act, which followed, all the statutes of Edward regarding religion, to the number of nine, were annihilated at a blow. "As well the Divine Service and good administration of the Sacraments," ran the remarkable preamble of this edict, "as divers other matters of religion, which we and our forefathers found in this Church of England to be left by the authority of the Catholic Church, but partly altered, and in some part taken from us, and in place thereof new things assigned and set forth by divers the Acts hereafter mentioned, such as a few of singularity have of themselves devised, whereof hath ensued among us in very short time numbers of divers strange opinions, and diversities of sects, great unquietness, and much discord"; they repealed the Act for receiving in both kinds, the Act for the election of bishops, the two Acts for Uniformity, the two Acts to take away positive laws against the marriage of priests and legitimation of their children, the Acts for putting away divers

Sarpi (Coun. Trent, Bk. V.), followed by Heylin, observes that this Act "obliquely restored the Pope's supremacy, as it could not be good without the validity of the dispensation of Julius II." But, as Collier argues, the reason of the lawfulness of the marriage was made to be founded on Scripture: and certainly great care was taken to make it appear so, and to avoid reference to the papal sanction. Cardinal Pole, who wrote a criticism on the Act at the time, by no means perceived that it restored the Pope's supremacy, and pointed out, as its great defect, that it did not. See his Instructions to Goldwell, in Strype's Cranmer, App. LXXV.: of which there is an account further on in this chapter.

books and images, for Orders of ecclesiastical ministers, and concerning holidays and fasting days. They directed that Divine service should be used as in the last year of Henry, allowing however the English service to be continued to the twentieth of December.* Here may be observed again the omission of all reference to Rome: the neglect of the papal authority shown in the limitation of the statute by the last year rather than by the twentieth year of Henry the Eighth; by the year, that is, in which he enacted the Six Articles independently of Rome, rather than by the year in which he began to break the Roman yoke. Of the whole period that had elapsed since the abolition of the Apostolic See no more than the last seven were affected by the Act, as it regulated religion: in other words, no reference whatever was made in the Act to the abolition of the Apostolic See. For the rest, this enactment illustrated a lamentable tendency of the English legislature, which may be observed in every age; their perfect readiness to sacrifice any particular class of men to their own fears or interests. By a single vote the ministers of the Church, who had proceeded upon the order of the Reformation, were laid under incapacities, the bishops as it regarded their manner of appointment, the clergy in respect of matrimony. Howbeit this was not an Act of pains and penalties.

* 1 Mary, Sess. II. 2. This is called in the Journals "The Bill for the repeal of the nine statutes." It was much debated, but none of the arguments are preserved. The Acts that were repealed were 1 Edw. VI. c. I, on the Sacrament, c. 2, on Election of bishops (cf. vol. ii. 457, 8, huj. op.): 3 and 4 Edw. VI. c. I, for Uniformity (vol. iii. 1, huj. op.), c. 21, on Priests' Marriages (vol. iii. 6, huj. op.): 3 and 4 Edw. VI. c. 10, Books and Images (vol. iii. 160, huj. op.), c. II, English Ordinal (vol. iii. 159, huj. op.): 5 and 6 Edward VI. c. 1, Uniformity (vol. iii. 433, huj. op.): c. 3, Holidays (vol. iii. 436, huj. op.), c. 12, Priests' Marriages (vol. iii. 440, huj. op.).

This was Pole's opinion of the Act. See his Instructions to Goldwell, Strype's Cranmer, App. LXXV. Below, towards the end of this chapter.

It was followed by a punitive Act against disturbers of preachers and other ministers; which breathed the altered spirit of the times. This Act extended protection not only to licensed preachers, but to the curates of parishes; not only to the pulpit, but to the altar and the administration of the Sacrament. It was not directed against profane words, but against those who by action abused the Sacrament, and who defaced crucifixes. The penalties that it contained were moderate and specific, without further mention of punishment at her majesty's pleasure, after the style of the tyrannical edicts of Henry. The Act was declared not to be meant to traverse the spiritual Courts, and the punishments ordered by them: no offender who had been punished by an ordinary was to be punished again for the same matter by a justice.*

As yet the spirit of persecution was unable to assert itself. A bill "for those that come not to the church, or receive not the Sacraments," which would have been a new warrant of Uniformity, was read twice in the Commons, but went no further. At the same time,

* Mary, Sess. II. 3. It is called in the Journal "The Bill for disturbing preachers or priests at divine service."

+ Burnet says "The commons were now so heated that they sent up a bill against those who came not to church or the Sacraments after the old service should be again set up: the inflicting of punishments in these cases being left to the ecclesiastical courts. This fell in the House of Lords, not so much from any opposition that was made, as that they were afraid of alarming the nation too much by many severe laws at once." The laws of this session were not severe. Mr. Froude says, "Protestant theology had erected itself into a system of intolerant dogmatism, and had crowded the gaols with prisoners who were guilty of no crime but Nonconformity" (vi. 116). He means in the reign of Edward. Now we have no knowledge to enable us to assert any such thing. And by Noncon. formity is not meant, as to Edward's days, separation or dissent from the Church of England, though Mr. Froude's readers might think otherwise for aught he tells them. He goes on that it was the House of Commons that decided "after long consideration that no punishment should be inflicted on those who declined to attend" the Latin service. Yes: but it

however, a kind of Act for Uniformity was carried under the colour of an Act against unlawful assemblies: one of the provisions of which made it felony for twelve persons or more, purposing to alter by force any laws made or established for religion by authority of Parliament, to continue together after being required by the magistrate to disperse.* This was equivalent to the revival of one of the felonies of the late reign, which had just been repealed.

The interval occupied by the session was diversified by a mournful spectacle. On the thirteenth of November, out of the Tower, on foot, with the axe before them, were led Thomas Cranmer, Guilford Dudley, the Lady Jane, and two other Dudleys, Ambrose and Henry, to be arraigned at the Guild Hall for treason. The Lady Jane was attended by her two gentlewomen: she was dressed in black, a book in black velvet hung before her, and another was open in her hand. † They all pleaded guilty to their indictments, Cranmer protesting that he had acted unwillingly, in deference to the authority of the officers of the laws. Parliament confirmed the attainders, and condemned the attainted to death and forfeiture of goods, saving the lands of the see of Canterbury. On this, Cranmer was moved to appeal to the mercy of Mary in a characteristic letter, in which he owned and designated his heinous folly and offence in setting his hand to the alteration of the succession, but urged the reluctance with which he had done it, and the struggle that he had made before he yielded to the determination of the judges and the entreaties of the King. When," said he, “1 set my hand to the Will, I did it unfeignedly and without

was also the House of Commons that first started the question: and, according to Burnet, it was the House of Lords that stopped it, not the Commons.

dissimulation." * He hoped that the mercy that had been shown to so many would be extended to him: touched on the severe language that had been held in two Acts of Parliament (the one on the Queen's Mother's marriage, the other the confirmation of his own attainder) concerning him: and requested leave to write his mind. to the Queen in matters of religion; that so his conscience would be discharged, and he would leave to his sovereign, to whom it appertained, the reformation of things that might be amiss. He said that he asked this in consideration of the place which in times past he had occupied, declaring that he would never be the author of sedition, to move subjects from their obedience, but only desiring to open his mind.† His see being by his attainder void in law, Cranmer seems to have hoped for a dismission into private life. His letter remained unanswered, and he in the Tower: but there, with the other prisoners, he enjoyed the liberty that was possible: and no further proceedings were taken as yet against him or any of them. But within a month the jurisdiction of the vacant see was exercised by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, and for three years of the suspended life of Cranmer that decanal body held the large empire which included all vacant bishoprics, and issued the edicts for the consecration of bishops, the appointment of the judges of the metropolitical courts, and the institution to benefices.

* Comp. some remarks in Vol. III. p. 544 huj. op.

+ Letters in Remains, p. 443.

Burnet, after correctly saying that Cranmer's attainder made the see of Canterbury void, has fallen into the confusing error of adding that it was resolved still to esteem him archbishop till he should have been solemnly degraded according to the canon law. Wharton has fully confuted this error, showing from the registers of Canterbury that on December 16 the Dean and Chapter gave out commissions to several persons for exercising the archiepiscopal jurisdiction: and that they continued in possession till the publication of Pole's bulls of provision for the see, in the beginning of 1556. Of all that was done in the period a peculiar