Queen Elizabeth

AND THE

Catholic Hierarchy

BRIDGETT AND KNOX

:jqq1

oeU

THE
TRUE STORY OF THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY

gjcrmfeiu ©ufieirtonim.

(nte« &BBiaf. ¦ Eduardus B. O'Laverty, C.SS.R.,
Censor Deputatus.

Smprimofur.

Henricus Eduardus, Card. Archiepus. Westmov.

i6 die Julii, iSSq.

c
THE TRUE STORY

CATHOLIC HIERARCHY

DEPOSED BY QUEEN ELIZABETH

WITH FULLER MEMOIRS OF ITS LAST TWO SURVIVORS

BY THE
Rev. T. E. BRIDGETT, C.SS.R.
AUTHOR OF "LIFE OF THE BLESSED JOHN FISHER"
AND THE LATE
Rev. T. F. KNOX, D.D.
OF THE LONDON ORATORY

LONDON: BURNS & OATES, Limited
NEW YORK : CATHOLIC PUBLICATION SOCIETY CO.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Preface, . ... vii
CHAPTER I. Misrepresentations and Ignorance,
II. Before Deprivation, . . . 14
in. Confessors in Prison, . 28
IV. Bishops Tunstall, Bayne, Morgan, Ogelthorpe, and
White, . . .51
V. Bishops Scott, Pate, Poole, Bonner, . 72
VI. Bishops Bourne, Turberville, and Thirlby, 91
VII. Archbishop Heath, . . 108
VIII. Full Memoir of Bishop Watson, . . 120
IX. Full Memoir of Bishop Goldwell, . . . 208

PREFACE.

WHEN the violent and uncontrolled passions
of Henry VIII. rose up against the unity
of God's Church, only one member of the
English Hierarchy was found faithful to his trust.
Blessed John Fisher stood alone in his refusal to
incur the guilt of schism. His blood, however, was
not shed in vain ; for when the policy of Henry's
illegitimate daughter Elizabeth led her to break
again with the Holy See, the divinely created centre
of unity, and to involve the country once more in
schism and heresy, of the whole Hierarchy only one
member proved faithless. The rest imitated the
constancy of Fisher, if not to martyrdom, yet to
the endurance of deprivation, poverty, and imprison
ment. In a former book I have tried to state the
authentic facts regarding the Martyr Bishop of
Henry VIII.^ I have here done the same for the
Confessor Bishops of Elizabeth. The two books
thus illustrate one subject — the glad obedience paid
by the true guardians of God's Church to the civil
power when acting within its divinely appointed
sphere, and their resistance, at any cost to them-
1 Life of Blessed fohn 'Fisher (Burns & Oates, 1888).

PREFACE.

selves, to its encroachments and usurpations. The
books, however, were not composed on a precon
ceived plan.
In 1876, I edited a volume of Sermons on the
Sacraments, by Dr. Watson, last Catholic Bishop of
Lincoln. In collecting the materials for a short
memoir of the author, I was much struck by the
strange misstatements regarding him and the other
deprived bishops in almost all the books I examined,
both Catholic and Protestant. Not one gave accu
rately the facts that I had made sure of from un
published but authentic documents ; and there had
been a studious desire on the part of a long series of
writers to denj', or conceal, or underrate the amount
of suffering and persecution endured by the un
flinching Catholic prelates.
Just at the same time the late Father Thomas
F. Knox, of the London Oratory, published in
The Month an interesting biography of another of
the deprived bishops, Thomas Goldwell of St.
Asaph's. Watson and Goldwell were the last
survivors of the» ancient Hierarchy, and their his
tories were in many respecfs a contrast. Watson's
life was spent altogether in England, Goldwell's for
the most part on the Continent. Watson was
involved in Henry's schism, whereas Goldwell had
passed his early manhood in communion with the
Church. But while Watson proved the sincerity of
his return by twenty-five years oi imprisonment for
the faith, Goldwell again managed to escape to Italy,
and manifested his zeal in active labours and the
observances of regular discipline as a Theatine. It

PREFACE.

occurred to both Fr. Knox and myself that the
two lives, if reprinted together, would add interest
one to the other, especially if accompanied by some
general account of the sufferings and constancy of
the other members of the Hierarchy. We left the
matter for a future day, as we were both engaged in
other work, and since then the death of Fr. Knox
has thrown the duty of preparing this account upon
me. It has involved not only the examination of a
great number of printed books, but still more of
original manuscripts. The examination of printed
books has disclosed that very few of them could be
trusted. The contradictions and mistakes, not to
say misrepresentations, were gross and almost in
numerable. But the Calendars of State Papers and
the Catalogues of MSS. in the British Museum
indicated many sources of authentic information,
of which I have availed myself. I have found, not
• without some regret, that my narrative must neces
sarily be of a contentious character. It would have
been much more pleasant to have given the simple
facts of my story, leaving aside all controversy ; but
such a course would have been unavailing against
widespread mistakes and accepted historical myths.
It is easy to erect a house on open ground in the
countr}', but not so to build in an ancient city. The
ground has to be cleared, old buildings pulled down
and carted away, old foundations dug up, and old^
sewers filled.
In thus finding fault with others I am, of course,
claiming accuracy and challenging verification my
self. I cannot have escaped some minor incidental

PREFACE.

mistakes, but as regards the substance of the fol
lowing notes — the extent of the imprisonments of
these victims of Queen Elizabeth's supremacy — I
have no fear of refutation. Most of the documents
quoted have been copied from the original MSS. ;
and even when they had been printed by Strype or
others I have generally taken the precaution to verify
their accuracy. Strype was laborious, but is by no
means to be implicitly trusted. I have shown else
where the credulity of Strype in accepting certain
gross forgeries, and, at the same time, his unfairness
in seeking to accredit them by reference to documents
he had never seen, and which, in fact, never existed.^
I have been able to supply several links of evidence,
not merely from papers in the Public Record Office
and the British Museum, but by extracts from the
Privy Council Registers. For these last, as well as
for much other help, my thanks are due to the kind
ness and indefatigable zeal of Miss Lambert, eldest '
daughter ofthe Right Hon. Sir John Lambert, K.C.B.,
member of Her Majesty's Privy Council, as well as
to the courtesy of C. Lennox Peel, Esq., C.B.,
Secretary of the Council. I have also to thank
R. T. Gunton, Esq., Private Secretary to the Mar
quis of Salisbury, for transcripts of the valuable
and pathetic letter of Bishop Watson, and that of
Horn, given at pp. 184-7. To the Rev. Joseph Steven
son, S.J., and the Rev. J. Morris I am indebted for
the use of a transcript of Sanders' Report to Cardinal
Morone of the things done in England at the acces-
' Letters in The Tablet, beginning 13th April, i88g.

PREFACE. XI
sion of Elizabeth. This valuable document, still
unprinted, and hitherto, I believe, unused, is in the
Secret Archives of the Vatican, Ixiv. 7-28, ff. 252-273.
The report was written in the third year of Elizabeth,
1561.1 Sanders tells what he had himself seen, and
what he had ascertained from the relation of others.
There are a few inaccuracies in his narrative, as
there will always be if a man tries to write down
from memory, and without the assistance of any
documents, the public events of which he has been
an eye-witness, or in which he has been an actor.
He will not always observe the exact order of events,
or may attribute to one a speech made by another.
To anyone who shall write a full history of the
Reformation this authentic report of Sanders will be
indispensable. Thus far as to the sources of my book. As regards
its character it is purely historical. I do not discuss
the deprivation of the bishops theologically or canoni
cally. The righteousness of their cause I here
presuppose. Their names have been long in oblivion,
and their constancy but partially known even to the
few. But God, who counts every hair on the heads
of His martyrs, and every weary hour in the endur
ance of His confessors, to bestow a full and everlasting
reward, has also in His providence preserved for our
days the documents which, if properly known and
weighed, should make them illustrious on earth.
But if the reader must not look here for a theo
logical or a controversial treatise, neither must he
1 " I will run over such things as have happened to us in the last
two and a half years " (foi. 252).

xu PREFACE.
expect to find a series of interesting biographies.
He will find the authentic records of a brave and
multiform endurance. Though the names of fifteen
confessors of the faith are here commemorated, of
two only have complete lives been even attempted.
Of the remainder, not the achievements but the
disappointments are recorded ; not the labours of
their youth and manhood, but the privations and
sufferings of their maturity and old age. They were
zealously engaged in reorganising and re-establishing
the Catholic Church in England, when, by the death
of Queen Mary and the accession of the daughter
of Anne Boleyn, their labours were cut short and
exchanged for sufferings. " Alas !
Vain earth ! false world ! Foundations must be laid
In heaven, for 'mid the viTeck of Is and Was,
Things incomplete and purposes betrayed,
Make sadder transit o'er truth's mystic glass,
Than noblest objects utterly decayed."^
I have tried to put before the reader the story of
men who had laid the foundation of their work in
heaven, and, if I mistake not, their broken croziers
and empty thrones show more grandly in the glass
of truth than would their recumbent effigies, had
they been laid to rest with solemn rites in the aisles
of their cathedral churches. Their work was not
incomplete, because they preached their faith by
sufferings rather than by words ; nor were their pur
poses betrayed when they refused to betray the trust
which God and the Church had committed to them.
^ Wordsworth, " Sonnet on Malham Cove ".

PREFACE. xiii
It is a sad history indeed, that of the overthrow of
the re-erected Church in England, yet it is in some
respects a bright and glorious one, as is the history
of many a wreck, in which the officers perish
heroically in their efforts to save the vessel and
the crew.
I am aware that there are not biographical details
sufficient to leave distinct impressions connected
with each name that will be recorded ; yet my pur
pose will be the more evident on that account. I
have not chosen out of many centuries a number of
the more illustrious English prelates, but have
related the trial which at the same moment fell on
a whole hierarchy, and how it was encountered.
The lesson of their faith and charity will not be
obscure, even though the reader may fail to keep
distinct in his memory the special heroism of each.
Among the " great cloud of witnesses " mentioned
by St. Paul there were several of whom no inspired
biography had been written. One heroic deed
accomplished, one cruel death accepted for God,
was in many instances all that the name recalled ;
yet the words of the Apostk ring in our ears :
" They recovered from their infirmity, and became
valiant in war . . . they had trial of mockeries and
stripes, moreover also of bonds and prisons . . .
they were approved by the testimony of faith ".^
T. E. BRIDGETT.
i Heb. xi.

CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.

CHAPTER I.
MISREPRESENTATION AND IGNORANCE.
THE deposition ofa whole Hierarchy by the civil power,
as it is one of the most important acts in English
history, ought to be most fully and accurately
recorded by historians. Yet there is probably no great
event to which so little attention has been given, or with
regard to which so many errors are current. One after
another our historians, both Protestant and Catholic, have
been satisfied to reproduce almost the very words of Camden
and Lord Burghley, without an attempt to test or verify their
assertions. Yet those writers were both mere partisans of
Elizabeth, and on this subject, at least, they practised
deliberate suppression of the truth, while half their state
ments are not only inaccurate, but false, as may be proved
by unimpeachable documents. The object of this sketch
is to correct these misrepresentations by an accurate narra
tive of facts. I shall in this chapter reproduce the accounts
which have been considered authoritative, merely noting
falsehoods and omissions, but reserving the proofs.
Lord Burghley comes first, both in time and in import
ance. He also wrote more cautiously, as being nearer to
those who were well informed. His book, called Execution
I

2 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
of f ustice in England, written in reply to Allen's Apology,
or Defence of the Jesuits and Seminarists, appeared in
1583, and was published in several languages. Its purpose
was to convince the world that the English martyrs had
been put to death for treason, not for religion. One of his
arguments is that the deposed bishops, who professed the
same religion, were neither put to death nor persecuted.
" Though there are many subjects known in the realm,
that differ in some opinions of religion from the Church of
England, and that do also not forbear to profess the same,
yet in that they do also profess loyalty and obedience to Her
Majesty, and offer readily in Her Majesty's defence to
impugn and resist any foreign force, though it should come
or be procured from the Pope himself, none of these sort
are for their contrary opinions in religion prosecuted or
charged with any crimes or pains of treason, nor yet willingly
searched in their consciences for their contrary opinions,
that savour not of treason. And of these sorts there have
been and are a number of persons, not of such base and
vulgar note as those were which of late have been executed,
as, in particular, some by name are well known, and not
unfit to be remembered. The first and chiefest by office
was D. Heath, that was Archbishop of York and Lord
Chancellor of England in Queen Mary's time, who, at the
first coming of Her Majesty to the crown, showing himself
a faithful and quiet subject, continued in both the said
offices, though in religion then manifestly differing, and yet
was he not restrained of his liberty, nor deprived of his
proper lands and goods, but leaving willingly both his
offices, lived in his own house very discreetly, and enjoyed
all his purchased lands during all his natural life, until by
very age he departed this world, and then left his house and
living to his friends — an example of gentleness never matched
in Queen Mary's time. The like did one D. Pool, that had

MISREPRESENTATION AND IGNORANCE. 3
been Bishop of Peterborough, an ancient, grave person, and
a very quiet subject. There were also others that had been
bishops, and in great estimation, as D. Tunstall, Bishop of
Durham, a person of great reputation, and also whilst he
lived of very quiet behaviour. There were also others — D.
White and D. Oglethorpe, one of Winchester, the other of
Carlisle, Bishops, persons of courteous natures ; and he of
Carlisle so inclined to dutifulness to the Queen's Majesty,
as he did the office at the consecration and coronation of
Her Majesty in the Church of Westminster; and D.
Thurleby and D. Watson, yet living, one of Ely, the other
of Lincoln, Bishops — the one of nature affable, the other
altogether sour, and yet living. Whereto may be added the
Bishop (then) of Exeter, Turberville, an honest gentleman,
but a simple Bishop, who lived at his own liberty to the end
of his life, and none of all these pressed with any capital
pain, though they maintained the Pope's authority against
the laws of the realm ; and some abbots, as M. Feckenam,
yet living, a person also of quiet and courteous behaviour
for a great time. Some also were deans, as D. Boxall, Dean
of Windsor, a person of great modesty, learning, and know
ledge ; D. Cole, Dean of Paul's, a person more earnest than
discreet ; D. Reynolds, Dean of Exeter, not unlearned ; and
many such others having borne office and dignities in the
Church, and that had made profession against the Pope,
which they only began in Queen Mary's time to change; yet
were these never to this day burdened with capital pains,
nor yet deprived of any of their goods or proper livelihoods,
but only removed from their ecclesiastical offices, which they
would not exercise according to the laws. And most of
them, and many others of their sort, for a great time were
retained in bishops' houses in very civil and courteous
manner, without charge to themselves or their friends, until
the time that the Pope began, by his bulls and messages, to

4 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
offer trouble to the realm, by stirring of rebellion; about
which time only some of these aforenamed, being found
busier in matters of State, tending to stir troubles, than was
meet for the common quiet of the realm, were removed to
other more private places, where such other wanderers as
were men known to move sedition might be restrained from
common resorting to them to increase trouble, as the Pope's
bull gave manifest occasion to doubt; and yet without
charging them in their consciences or otherwise by any
inquisition to bring them into danger of any capital law, so
as no one was called to any capital or bloody question upon
matters of religion, but have all enjoyed their life as the
course of nature would ; and such of them as yet remain
may, if they will not be authors or instruments of rebellion
or sedition, enjoy the time that God and nature shall yield
them without danger of life or member." ^
The main assertion here of Lord Burghley — that the
deposed bishops were neither slaughtered nor maimed — is
doubtless true;^ but the assertion that because they were
peaceable subjects they were allowed to live quiet and
peaceable Hves is altogether false. He does not in so many
words deny their imprisonment ; yet, by allowing that there
was just so far an exception to their perfect freedom — that
they were at one period the quasi-guests of Elizabeth's
hospitable bishops, and by the declaration that they "all
enjoyed their life as the course of nature would " — he utterly
excludes the notion of real imprisonment. Who could
possibly have guessed from his words that Watson of
Lincoln had already spent four-and-twenty years in confine
ment; Thirlby of Ely nearly eleven; Bonner of London
ten ; Bourne of Bath and Wells, Turberville of Exeter,
^ From Reprint in Somers' Tracts, vol. i., p. 192. (Ed. 1809.)
" Watson's loss of sight and sciatica through imprisonment come,
however, very near to maiming.

MISREPRESENTATION AND IGNORANCE. 5
Scott of Chester, Pate of Worcester, and Heath of York —
more than three? Who could have gathered that the
"courteous" White of Winchester was kept in the Tower
till he contracted a deadly sickness, and was then sent to
his brother's house to die ? — that Tunstall of Durham, not
withstanding his " high reputation and quiet behaviour," was
confined in Parker's house till his death? — and that the
liberty of Poole of Peterborough consisted in ranging
within three miles of London ? Yet these things are facts
that I shall presently prove. They were known to be facts
by Lord Burghley, since he was the chief author of them.
Camden, the royal historiographer, wrote thirty years later,^
yet he could have told the truth if he would. All docu
ment — even the records of the Privy Council — were acces
sible to him. Besides several positive mis-statements, he has
adopted, like Lord Burghley, the two forms of deceit —
suppression of the truth, and suggestion of what is false.
He makes a general eulogy of the old bishops, as if to
display his candour, and then lets the reader conclude that
if such men were, for necessary reasons of State, deprived of
office, they were at all events treated with eminent courtesy.
"As many as refused to swear," he writes, "were turned
out of their livings, dignities, and bishoprics . . . and
fourteen bishops, being all which then sat, saving only
Anthony, Bishop of Llandaff, to the calamity of his see,
namely, Nicholas Heath, Archbishop of York, who of late
had voluntarily given over his office of Chancellor, and
lived securely many years, serving God and following his
studies in his manor of Cobham, in Surrey, being in such
great grace with the Queen that she visited him many times
with marvellous kindness.
'•^Edmund Bonner, Bishop of London, one that had been
employed in embassies to the Emperor, the Bishop of
1 The first part ofthe Annals appeared in 1615.

O CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Rome, and the French King, but with his authority had
joined such a sourness of nature that amongst all men he
underwent the note of cruelty, and was kept in prison a
great part of his life." He was, as Camden well knew, kept
in prison from his deposition till his life's end, and surely
" sourness of nature " is no just ground for imprisonment,
nor is "note of cruelty,'' unless maladministration of law
were brought home as a legal offence, which it never was.
Camden continues his enumeration : " Cuthbert Tunstall,
Bishop of Durham, a man passing well seen in all kind of
more polished literature, having run through many degrees
of honour at home, and worthily performed embassies
abroad, who, being a young man, sharply impugned the
Pope's primacy in a long epistle to Cardinal Pole, and, being
an old man, died at Lambeth in free custody ".
Free custody (libera custodia) is a happy expression, like
clean dirtiness or cold warmth : whether it was a happy state
we will consider later on.
"At Lambeth, also,'' continues Camden, ^^ Thirlby, Bishop
of Ely, let his life, having gotten great commendation of
wisdom by an embassy to Rome, about tendering obedience
to the See of Rome, and by the treaty of Cambray ". For
his wisdom, instead of "commendation,"' he received at the
hands of Elizabeth nearly four years' imprisonment in the
Tower, and seven with Matthew Parker. It was more con
venient for Camden to slur this over. He also passes in
silence the three years' prison of " Gilbert Bourne, Bishop of
Bath and Wells," merely saying, " who had deserved well of
his see ". Next come "John Christopherson, Bishop of Chi
chester, who, being a very learned Grecian, most faithfully
translated much of Eusebius and Philo for the use of
Christendom ; John White, Bishop of Winchester, meanly^
1 " Meanly" seems to be equivalent to " fairly well " — in orig., vuU
gariter doctus.

MISREPRESENTATION AND IGNORANCE. 7
learned and a tolerable poet, as those times afforded;
Thomas Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, learned in deep divinity,
but surly with an austere gravity". This is very unfair of
Camden. The only surliness in Watson was his patient en
durance, for conscience' sake, of twenty-five years' hardship in
prison. He goes on : " Ralph Bayne, Bishop of Coventry
and Lichfield, who was a second restorer of the Hebrew
tongue, and the King's professor thereof at Paris, when good
letters reflourished under Francis the First ; Owen Ogelthorpe,
Bishop of Carlisle ; James Turberville, Bishop of Exeter ;
David Pole, Bishop of Peterborough — these men were first
sent to prison, but most of them were shortly after com
mitted to the custody of their friends or of bishops, save
two that were more perverse, namely, Lincoln and Win
chester, who threatened to excommunicate the Queen. But
three — namely, Cuthbert Scott of Chester, Richard Pate of
Worcester, Thomas Goldwell of St. Asaph — voluntarily
departed the land."^ In this passage Camden says the
number was fourteen, and then goes on to name fifteen.
Even so he is wrong, for he puts in the list Christopherson,
who was dead, and omits Bishop Morgan, of St. David's.
He next distinguishes between those sent to prison and
others who left England. Goldwell alone escaped to the
Continent without imprisonment. He says that shortly
afterthey were delivered from prison. Now Tunstall, Bayne,
White, Ogelthorpe, and Morgan died within a few months.
All the rest, except Poole, endured not months but years of
imprisonment in jails, before the modified restraint after
wards conceded to some.
These words, "shortly after," have been constantly
interpreted to mean " after a few days or weeks," and were
no doubt intended thus to be understood. Burnet, Speed,
1 Camden's Annals, transl. by R. N. {i.e., Norton), p. 17. London,
1635-

8 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Heylin, Fuller, Strype, Collier, repeat what Burghley and
Camden had told them, each endeavouring to soften the lot
of the deposed bishops more and more. It is not necessary
here to transcribe their general account. Any special mis
statement shall be noticed in its place. From these the
tradition has come down to our own day. The following is
the account given by the late Dean Hook : " It reflects
great credit upon the Primate," he writes, in his life of
Parker, " and upon Elizabeth's government in general, that,
notwithstanding their dissent, the deprived prelates were
treated with the greatest consideration and kindness. Parker
was very lenient in pressing the oath of supremacy. Heath,
the Archbishop of York, being a man of fortune, lived at
his own private house at Chobham, within four miles of
Windsor, and at his residence he frequently received visits
from the Queen. Bishop Thirlby lived with Parker, both at
Lambeth and at Bekesbourne, the archiepiscopal residence
near Canterbury. He did not die till 26th August, 1570,
and, according to Bishop Godwin, he found more happiness
— though nominally under restraint — during this period of
his life than he had done heretofore in the midst of the
fullest stream of his highest honours.^ On his death, the
Archbishop had him decently buried within the chancel of
the parish church of Lambeth, where a fair stone was laid
upon his grave. Dr. Tunstall, the ex-Bishop of Durham,
and Parker had long been friends, and the friendship was
not disturbed by differences of opinion.
"The plan adopted with the recusant bishops was to
quarter them upon one of the conforming prelates ; and, as
was the case with Parker, the prelate upon whom this duty
was imposed permitted his prisoner, if he was to be sp
accounted, to live as one of the family. The custodian was
'¦ Godwin's assertion is an empty flourish of a man who knew
nothing on the subject.

MISREPRESENTATION AND IGNORANCE. 9
only responsible for the prelate under his care, that he should
not leave the country. 'These prelates,' says Fuller, 'had
sweet chambers, soft beds, warm fires, plentiful and whole
some diet, each bishop faring like an archbishop, differing
nothing from their former living, saving that was on their
own charges, and this at the cost of another.'^ Something
must have depended, of course, upon the temper of the
host, and something also on that of the compulsory guest.
. . . Bishop Bonner was a low, coarse, vulgar man.
He was at first quartered on the Bishop of Lincoln, but
made himself so disagreeable that, at last,- he was placed
within the rules of the Marshalsea prison ; that is, he was
permitted to occupy within a prescribed circuit a house of
his own, being restrained from passing beyond certain
boundaries. The bishops thus accommodated conformed
more or less to the new order of things, but to this Dr.
White and Dr. Watson could not conscientiously submit.
Watson was at first committed to the custody of Grindal,
Bishop of London, and afterwards to that of Cox, Bishop of
Ely. Instead, however, of meeting courteous treatment with
courtesy, Watson was found ' preaching against the State,' '
and it was deemed necessary to place him under closer
restraint. Wisbeach Castle was assigned to him for a resi
dence, and there, in 1584, he died." ^
Later oh Dr. Hook writes : " The consideration, kind
ness, and marked humanity evinced by Parker in all his
deahngs with these distinguished and unfortunate person
ages may be fairly produced as telling in his favour, and as
^ What could Fuller know about their beds and diet ?
2 He was never quartered on the Bishop of Lincoln. His making
making himself disagreeable is, therefore, an amiable fancy of the
Dean's. 3 This has not a shadow of foundation.
'' L'lfe of Pariter, p. 259.

IO CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
proving him to be — what he really was — a kind-hearted
man. And the praise which is due to him must be shared
by Elizabeth and her government, and the more so when
we call to mind the rude and heartless manner in which the
laws against heresy were enforced by such coarse-minded
men as Bonner, in the reign of Queen Mary." ' As regards
these last words of Dean Hook, I am at a loss as to their
meaning. Where is the basis of comparison between two
things altogether different ? The treatment of heretics may
have been severe or heartless in the reign of Mary, but
what has that to do with the treatment of bishops, who were
neither guilty of heresy nor accused of it, nor punished for
heartlessness towards heretics, nor deposed for any canonical
cause, nor accused of any crime but that of fidelity to what
had been honoured in England for a thousand years ? Yet
another modern writer. Canon Perry, in his sketch of the
Reformation in England, begins his account of the treat
ment of the deposed bishops by the triumphant boast:
" There were no retaliatory burnings ".^ There is little
excuse for the gross ignorance of Dean Hook on a
subject he was bound to investigate carefully, after having
undertaken to write, in the fullest detail, the lives of the
Archbishops of Canterbury. Since his main contention is to
prove that those who preceded and those who followed the
Reformation form one unbroken series, it beloriged essen
tially to his subject to discover and record accurately the
resistance made by the ancient hierarchy to the new
doctrines and discipline, and the treatment of the bishops
^ Life of Parker, p. 541.
^ This author has managed to compress into a few paragraphs every
error of his predecessors, and I could hardly draw up a better list of
statements to be examined and refuted than by transcribing this page
of a handbook, provided under high sanction, for the correct and
scientific teaching of history, in 1886.

MISREPRESENTATION AND IGNORANCE. II
after their deposition. Yet he seems to have consulted no
original documents, and with the exception of the limits
placed upon Bonner's movements, and the last transfer of
Watson to Wisbeach, he knows nothing of imprisonments.
A still more surprising instance of ignorance on this
subject is to be found in some words of Dr. Jessopp. " Of
the deprived bishops all, except Scott, Bishop of Chichester,
and Goldwell, of St. Asaph, who slipped away across the
Channel, were suffered to remain unmolested, though under
surveillance, and, as far I know, absolutely unprovided for." ^
Dr. Jessopp is treating of later matters, and was not bound
by his subject to make any special research into the fate of
the bishops. Yet this statement of a writer so well informed
in history, and who delights, above all things, in accuracy,
serves to gauge the general ignorance on this matter. Yet
Dr. Jessopp, even when writing a rapid review, should not
call Scott Bishop of Chichester, instead of Chester, nor
omit the name of Pate of Worcester, if he mentions those who
left England. He might, too, have known something of the
prisons of Watson and Bonner, even if he had never heard
of the shorter confinements of so many others, which I shall
presently notice.
Even Catholic writers came to acquiesce in the accuracy of
the Protestant tradition regarding Elizabeth's gentle courtesy.
The early writers knew better, though they had no means
of examining records ; but when Strype was bold enough to
"doubt whether any of the bishops were imprisoned after
deprivation," and accused " Protestants of taking on credit
what Popish authors wrote," ^ Catholics became afraid lest
there had been some exaggeration, and, having no means
of learning the truth, thought it better to follow their Pro
testant teachers. Charles Butler, one of the best informed
1 One Generation of a Norfolk House, p. 72.
^ Annals, vol. i., part i., p. 206.

12 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
men of his day in Catholic affairs, summed up his knowledge
of the fate of the bishops in the following short paragraph.
After stating that sixteen bishops refused the oath of
supremacy and were displaced and imprisoned, he adds :
" But the imprisonment was gently managed, and the greater
part of them were left prisoners at large. Some were per
mitted to cross the seas and died abroad. In consequence
of some real or alleged imprudence, Watson of Lincoln was
placed in strict confinement in Wisbeach Castle ; he appears
to have been the only prelate against whom the Govern
ment proceeded with severity." ^ Every word in this
paragraph is incorrect. No one was permitted to cross the
sea, though three escaped, two of whom had previously
endured years of imprisonment in the Tower. But I need
not anticipate. I have shown cause for reopening this
subject. My purpose, however, is not to re-write such parts
of this history as have been accurately related, but to fill up
some omissions and correct some mis-statements. After a
general account of the action of the bishops on the accession
of Elizabeth, and of their deprivation and heroic constancy
under persecution, I shall trace the history of each in the
chronological order of their deaths.
"^Historical Memoirs of the English Catholics, vol. iii., 142.—
Lingard was not so easily misled. He says that the bishops " were
objects of persecution, with perhaps one exception, as long as they
lived "- I will not give the whole passage, because it contains some
errors, but it merely understates the amount of the persecution.

13

NOTE TO CHAPTER I.
Perhaps the worst offender of all is Mr. S. Hubert Burke, since he
has in the third volume of his Historical Portraits a chapter on the
Marian Bishops, and makes profession of a special study of his subject.
Among the deposed bishops of 1559, he places Dr. Day of Chichester,
who died in August, 1556 ; he tells us that the Bishops of Winchester
and Lincoln were committed to the Tower at the close of the West
minster Conference for not taking the oath of supremacy, though the
Act of Supremacy was not then passed ; that Dr. Watson of Lincoln
was confined in Wisbeach Castle for twenty-four years, whereas his
imprisonment there was only of four years' duration ; that Queen
Elizabeth sent Bishop Thirlby of Ely as her ambassador into Scot
land, which is of course quite untrue ; that Bishop Kitchin of Llandaff
supported the Bill of Uniformity in Parliament, and was one of the
four consecrators of Parker, two assertions which the slightest reference
to books would have shown him to be false. These and many other
fables he affirms, on the authority of writers, of whom all that can
be said is that their MSS. and their names were known only to him
self. He interprets the well-known clause "benefit of clergy" to
mean the right to be assisted by the clergy before execution, and to
receive the sacraments, and complains that the bishops were treated
like murderers and outlaws, being denied the benefit of clergy and
"the rights of all religious consolation at the hour of death," and this
too though not one of them was executed ! I have not cared to ex
amine Mr. Burke's volumes beyond this chapter.

CHAPTER II.
BEFORE DEPRIVATION.
QUEEN MARY died 17th November, 1558, at St.
James's, and on the same day, at Lambeth, died
"" her relative and faithful friend. Cardinal Reginald
Pole, Archbishop of Canterbury. A few days later, his
friend and executor, Monsignor Luigi Priuli, wrote to his
brother in Venice : "On the 17th instant, seven hours after
midnight, the Queen passed from this life, and my Most
Reverend Lord followed her at seven o'clock on the evening
of the same day ".^ On loth December, the same day on
which Queen Mary's funeral began in Westminster, the
Cardinal's body was carried towards Canterbury. Bishops
Pate of Worcester and Goldwell of St. Asaph's, by desire of
Priuli and consent of the Queen, attended the funeral.
Thus the Hierarchy was deprived of its leader and head.
1 For Priuli's letter see Report upon the Documents in the Archives
of 'Venice, by T. D. Hardy (1866), p. 59 ; or Calendar of 'Venetian
State Papers, vi., part iii., n. 1287-1292. Priuli, as an eye-witness, is
of course correct, and Sanders, in his letter to Cardinal Morone,
writes that the Queen and Cardinal were removed in one day. It is
curious, however, how many variations there are regarding the date
of Pole's death. Machyn in his Diary says that he died " the igth,
between 5 and 6 in the morning" (p. 178). Philipps and Strype,
Lemon, Spencer Hall, and Kennett, all put his death on the i8th ;
and Cecil, who was in or about London at the time, enters his death
on the i8th in his Memoria Mortuorum, and also in his notes on
Elizabeth's reign (Murdin, State Papers, 745, 747). As Pole died in
the evening of the 17th, no doubt the news only got out on the 18th.

BEFORE DEPRIVATION. 1 5
The dioceses of Oxford, Salisbury, Bangor, Gloucester,
and Hereford were vacant by the recent deaths of their
occupants. Dr. Maurice Clenock had been nominated to
Bangor, Dr. Thomas Reynolds to Hereford, Dr. Francis
Mallett to Salisbury, and Dr. Thomas Wood to St. Asaph's,
in place of Dr. Goldwell, translated to Oxford. Some of
these appointments had not been confirmed by the Pope,
and all were set aside by Elizabeth. These men, by their
subsequent sufferings in English prisons, or labours in exile,
showed themselves worthy of the choice that had been made
of them ; but as they were not in possession of their sees, I
do not here undertake their history.
Before the end of the year 1558 four more dioceses
became vacant. Maurice Griffin of Rochester died 20th
November, John Hopton of Norwich, John Christopherson
of Chichester, and John Holyman of Bristol in December.
Of these it is not necessary to say anything here. They
died in communion with the Catholic Church, and in pos
session of their sees. Thus, then, at the opening of the
year 1559, of the whole English Hierarchy^ only sixteen
bishops survived.^ No one of the bishops had made any
opposition whatever to the accession of Elizabeth. All who
were in London hastened to meet her and kiss her hand.
Yet Elizabeth and some of her friends had made up their
minds to an " alteration in religion ". A document of Sir
^ There is a mystery about the date of the death of the Bishop of
Man (lately united to the Province of York) which I have been unable
to clear up. Mr. Lea has carefully discussed the matter in his
Succession of Spiritual furisdiction in the Church of England, yet he
has not solved all the difficulties.
2 There were also in the country several suffragan bishops, with
whose subsequent history I am not here concerned. One of them at
least lived and died a staunch Catholic, Robert Pursglove, about
whom there is much to tell. But I confine my notes to the
Hierarchy.

1 6 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
William Cecil or Sir Thomas Smith is still in existence, in
which the full scheme is drawn out in detail.' Until
things were ripe, the Holy Mass was to continue, and no
innovation to be allowed. '* As for Her Highness' con
science till then, if there be some other devout sort of
prayer or memory and the seldomer Mass." The plotter
anticipated that " bishops and all the clergy will see their
own ruin. In confession and preaching they will persuade
the people from it. They will conspire with whosoever will
attempt, and pretend to do God a sacrifice in letting the
alteration, though it be with murder of Christian men and
treason." To counteract these supposed dangers it was
proposed that " the bishops and clergy, being all made and
chosen such as were thought the stoutest and mightiest
champions ofthe Pope's Church . . . these Her Majesty,
being inclined to use much clemency, yet must seek, as well
by Parliament as by the just laws of England, in the prce
munire and other such penal laws, to bring again in order ;
and being found in the default, not to pardon, till they con
fess their fault, put themselves wholly to Her Highness'
mercy, abjure the Pope of Rome, and conform themselves
to the new alteration. And by these means well handled,
Her Majesty's necessity of money may be somewhat
relieved." The change that was thus sketched soon came to be
suspected, partly from Elizabeth's well-known opinions,
partly from the men with whom she was seen in consulta
tion, and partly from some of her own acts and words.
The imprisonment of the Bishop of Chichester in the
Tower for his sermon, and the confinement of the Bishop of
Winchester in his own house for his funeral sermon on
' It is printed in Strype, and in Tierney's Dodd, vol. ii.. Appendix
33 ; and more correctly in Mr. Pocock's edition of Burnet, vol. v.,
P- 327-

BEFORE DEPRIVATION. I 7
Queen Mary,^ were no doubt intended as warnings. An
eye-witness thus describes what happened on Christmas
Day, 1558 : "This night I came home late from London,
and for news you shall understand that yesterday, being
Christmas Day, the Queen's Majesty repaired to her great
closet, with her nobles and ladies, as hath been accustomed
at such high feasts, and she perceived a bishop preparing
himself to Mass, all in the old form, she tarried there until
the Gospel was done ; and when all the people looked for
her to have offered, according to the old fashion, she, with
her nobles, returned again from the closet and the Mass
unto her privy chamber, which was strange unto divers ".^
Two days afterwards came out a proclamation forbidding all
preaching and all alteration in ceremonies " until consulta
tion might be had in Parliament by Her Majesty and her
three estates of the realm ".
Knowing then what was coming, the bishops all refused
to perform the ceremony of the coronation. Cardinal
Allen, writing twenty-four years later of their conduct at this
period, says : " Whose courage and resistance for quarrel of
God's religion was such in them, and specially in the said
Archbishop" [Heath of York], "that he worthily, as became
his excellency, refused to anoint or crown the Queen's
Majesty that now is . . . and so did all the rest of the
bishops refuse the same, until with much ado they obtained
the Bishop of Carlisle, the inferior almost of all the rest, to
do that function. . . . The cause why they durst not then,
nor could be adduced by any human fear or authority to
invest her was, that they had evident probabilities and
arguments to doubt that she meant either not to take the
oath, or not to keep the same, which all Christian kings (and
1 This will be mentioned later on, in the particular account of that
bishop. 2 Sir William Fitzwilliam, apud Ellis Orig. Lett., ii. 262.
2

1 8 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
specially ours in England) do make in the coronation, for
maintenance of Holy Church's laws, honours, peace, and
privileges, and other duties due to every state, as in the
time and grant of King Edward the Confessor. They
doubted also lest she should refuse, in the very time of her
sacre, the solemn divine ceremony of unction." '
Sanders, in his letter to Cardinal Morone, written in 156 1,
thus relates the matter : " The Archbishop refused the
function, having understood that, in some respects, it was
intended to perform the ceremony in a schismatical manner.
Many other of the bishops also refused, but at length the
Bishop of Carlisle undertook it, not as a favourer of heresy,
but lest the Queen should be angry if no one would
anoint her, and so have a better excuse for overthrowing
religion. Nor at this time were things so desperate, but
that some hoped it might still be possible to turn her from
her purpose. The rest of the bishops assisted at the anoint
ing." ^ This presence of several bishops at the ceremony
is confirmed by Machyn in his Diary,^ and by the detailed
account in Nichol's Royal Progresses. The Queen
found it easy, on this occasion, to take the required oath,
and to conform with, or at least to endure, all the Catholic
ceremonial, including the Unction, the Pontifical Mass, and
the Communion.
In execution 'of her secret plan, the Queen soon began to
remove Catholics from places of trust. Archbishop Heath
had voluntarily resigned the Chancellorship as soon as he
could after her accession; and, in February, 1559, Bishop
Bourne, of Bath and Wells, was deprived of the Presidency
of Wales.'' She had promised, in her proclamation of 27th
1 Allen's Answer to English Justice, p. 60.
2 Vatican MS., f. 258, trans, from Latin.
5 Machyn, p. 187.
* See later, under their names.

BEFORE DEPRIVATION. 1 9
December, to consult her three estates, but she had no
intention whatever of listening to the estate of the clergy,'
whether in Parliament or Convocation. It will not be
necessary here to enter at any length into the history of
Ehzabeth's first Parliament. I do not wish to re-write what
may be found accurately stated in ordinary histories, and on
this subject there was no room for mistake, since both in
the Journal of the House of Lords and in the collection of
D'Ewes, the presence and action of each bishop is stated.
It is enough to make a brief summary.
The Parliament began on Wednesday, 25th January,
1559, and was dissolved on Monday, 8th May, following.
The Bishops of Durham (Tunstall), Peterborough (Poole),
Bath and Wells (Bourne), and St. David's (Morgan), were
not present. All of them appointed the Archbishop of
York (Heath) as proxy, with others, in case of his absence.
The Bishop of Lincoln (Watson) was also absent through
sickness.'' The Bishop of Ely (Thirlby) was on an
embassy in France, but took his place in Parliament on his
return in April. He also had appointed the Archbishop to
be his proxy. The Bishop of St. Asaph's (Goldwell) had
not received his writ.' Sir Nicolas Bacon, the Lord
Keeper, in his opening speech, declared that "the good
King Hezekiah had no greater desire to amend what was
amiss in his time, nor the noble Queen Hester a better
heart to overthrow the mighty enemies of God's elect, than
our Sovereign Lady and Mistress hath to do that " [i.e., what]
1 The three estates are, of course, the Clergy, the Peers, and the
Commons. See Stubbs, Const. History, vol. ii., ch. xv., who re
marks that " a pious courtesy gave the first place to the clergy" (p. 168).
2 I find no mention of his proxy. He probably expected his illness
to abate, so as to allow of his presence.
3 He had asked for leave of absence ; but mentions that he had
received no writ (Domestic Eliz., i. 52).

20 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
"may be just and acceptable in God's sight". This was
ambiguous ; but there was no ambiguity in the bills brought
into Parliament. They are well known — a bill for the
restitution and annexation of first fruits to the Crown,
one for the supremacy of the Crown and abolition of all
foreign jurisdiction, one for conformity of common
prayer and administration of sacraments, certain bills
detrimental to the temporal interests of the Church, and
one for restoring the Queen in blood. To this last no
opposition was offered by any bishop.' To all the
others they made a united and vigorous resistance, but
without effect.
The Bishop of Llandaff, who afterwards weakly yielded
by taking the oath of supremacy, opposed the imposition of
the oath in all the stages of the Bill and in the final 'division
on 29th April.
In opposing the Supremacy Bill, the Archbishop of York
said : " If by this relinquishing of the See of Rome there
were none other matter than a withdrawing of our obedience
from the Pope's person, Paul, the fourth of that name, which
hath declared himself to be a very austere, stern father to
us, ever since his first entrance into Peter's chair, then the
cause were not of such great importance, as it is in very
deed, when, by the relinquishing and forsaking of the See
of Rome, we must forsake and flee from these four things :
ist, all general councils ; 2nd, all canonical and ecclesi
astical laws of the Church of Christ ; 3rd, the judgment of
all other Christian princes ; and 4th, we must forsake and
flee the unity of the Christian Church, and by leaping out
of St. Peter's ship, hazard ourselves to be overwhelmed and
drowned in the waters of schism, sects, and divisions".

1 " Billa communi omnium procerum assensu conclusa est," says
the Lords' Journal.

BEFORE DEPRIVATION. 21
He then goes on to prove these four points, and after
wards considers the nature of the supremacy, and that
it neither belonged to Parliament to give, nor could a king,
much less a queen, receive it.'
The speech of the Bishop of Chester (Cuthbert Scott)
has also been preserved. He develops the necessity of
unity, using the ordinary texts and arguments in defence of
the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors, the bishops
of Rome. He mentions that there were already " thirty-four
sundry sects in Christendom ". He replies to certain objec
tions : " There is alleged," he says, " a provincial council or
assembly of the bishops and clergy of this realm of England "
[the convocation of 1534] " by which the authority of the
Bishop of Rome was abolished and disallowed. But, first,
a particular or provincial council can make no determination
against the universal Church of Christ. Secondly, of the
learned men that were the doers there, so many as be dead,
before they died, were penitent, and cried God mercy
for their act ; and those that do live, as all your lordships
do know, hath openly revoked the same, acknowledging
their error."
He then objects that such waverers cannot be trusted.
He replies : " He which once has run so hastily or rashly
that he hath overthrown himself and fallen and broken his
brow or his shin, will after that take heed to walk more
warily, as we have seen by the Apostles of Our Saviour
Christ, which did all forsake Him and run away when He
was apprehended by the Jews, and specially by St. Peter,
which did thrice deny Him. And yet after, as well Peter as
all the rest of the Apostles, did return again to their Master,
1 This speech is clearly genuine. It was probably written out by
Heath. Strype has printed it from Fox's MS. and Parker's Synodalia,
CCCC. ; Annals, vol. i., part ii., p. 399. Also vol. i., part i., p. 107,
where he defends its genuineness against Burnet.

22 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Christ, and never would after, for neither persecution nor
death, forsake or deny Him any more.'' In these last
words, Scott answers beforehand the sneer of Burnet and
others, who make much of the unworthy yielding of some
of these bishops under Henry VIIL, and explain their
constancy under Elizabeth, either as mere obstinacy, caused
by shame, or temporising in the hope of a change.'
The same Bishop Scott made another speech against the
new liturgy, which has also been preserved. One of the
preceding speakers had lamented the blindness of his
Popish forefathers. Scott replied, that if those fore
fathers could appear, they would say — " NoUte flere super
me sed super vos et filios vestros " (Weep not for me, but for
yourselves and for your children). He warned them of
the frightful account they would render to God if they not
only erred themselves, but caused a whole realm to err, and
that, in their ignorance of Divine things, they were in the
greatest danger of thus doing. ^
I must now turn from Parliament to Convocation. It is
not necessary, however, to recite here at length what will be
found in every history — the five articles of a profession of
faith, drawn up by the Lower House, and presented by
them on the 17th February, 1559, to the bishops. The
first three regard the Blessed Sacrament of the altar, the
last the exclusive right of the pastors of the Church to
determine matters of faith and of ecclesiastical discipline.
The fourth was as follows : " The supreme power of
feeding and governing the militant Church of Christ, and
of confirming his brethren, was given to St. Peter, the
Apostle, and to his legitimate successors in the Apostolic
1 Mr. Froude attributes their " fierce doggedness " to their hopes
of being reinstated by Philip (History, i. gi). Yet when all possible
hope was gone, they were just as "fierce," or firm.
^ Strype, Annals, i. 448.

BEFORE DEPRIVATION. 23
See, as Vicars of Christ". On the 28th February, the
bishops promised to present these articles to the Upper
House of Parliament the very next day (ist March). On
the I oth March, the Bishop of London informed the Con
vocation that a copy of these articles had been forwarded to
each of the Universities, and that all the articles, except the
last, had been subscribed by those bodies. The Bishop of
London, as President of Convocation, presented the articles
to the Lord Keeper (Bacon), who received them graciously,
but made no reply. No attention was given in Parliament
or by the Queen to this unanimous action of the clergy.
A short digression may be allowed here regarding a
strange statement recently put forward by Mr. Gladstone.'
He says that " it is plain that while the lower clergy framed
a document which, if a little ambiguous, was clearly hostile "
[to the Royal Supremacy], " the bishops took no part. It is
not," he adds, " too much to say, that they carefully and
steadily avoided taking a part. There were, indeed, but
four of them present." ^ This is really an amazing state
ment. If few bishops attended Convocation, it was because
all who were in London were engaged day after day in
Parliament, in fighting the very battle in behalf of the
supremacy of the Sovereign Pontiff, which the Lower
House of Convocation declared to be a Divine law
of the Church. But, says Mr. Gladstone, the Convo
cation of both Houses, that is to say, the English Church,
had denied this supremacy in 1534, and that act had never
been retracted by the Church, though it had by the State.
Hence the mere declaration of the Lower House in 1559
and the individual action of the bishops were incapable of
establishing an ecclesiastical law or definition of faith. "The
1 Article in The Nineteenth Century (July, 1888), on " The Eliza
bethan Settlement of Religion ".
2 Ibid., p. 12.

24 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
oath," he says, "which was legally tendered to the bishops,"
and refused by them, "asserted, on behalf of the crown,
less than was contained in the unrepealed and, therefore,
still effective declarations of the Anglican Convocations." '
But is it true that Convocation had never retracted its
own proceedings in 1534 ? We have just listened to Bishop
Scott's declaration in Parliament that " those that do live,
as all your lordships do know, hath openly revoked the same,
acknowledging their error''. Nor had this been a mere
private or individual act. In the petition of both Houses of
Convocation to Philip and Mary, with regard to the
secularisation of ecclesiastical property, made on 7th
December, 1554, they speak of this secularisation as in itself
invalid, having been made " during the mischievous time of
schism " — in pernicioso hujus regni prceterito schismate — but
because of the trouble it would cause to revoke it, they ask
that Cardinal Pole should obtain a dispensation from the
Holy See to allow it.^ The Lower House had also petitioned
the Upper " that the statute of the submission of the clergy
(made anno 25, Henry VIIL), and all other statutes made
during the time of the late schism, in derogation of the
liberties and jurisdiction of the Church, from the first year
of King Henry VIIL, may be repealed, and the Church
restored in integrum," " and this had been done in Parlia
ment. Mr. Gladstone does not find a dogmatic decree,
drawn up by the Convocation in the time of Queen Mary,
reversing in so many words the article to which the Con-
¦vocation of 1534 had assented, under the pressure of Henry
VIII. He writes : " It is most remarkable that, although
the actual bishops and clergy had, through expulsions and
burnings, become sufficiently conformable, there was no
^ Article in The Nineteenth Century, p. 12.
'^ Cardwell's Synodalia, vol. ii. , p. 430.
^Ibid., p. 436.

BEFORE DEPRIVATION. 25
doctrinal and no legislative action of the Convocations ".
What need of doctrinal action ? It was notorious to every
one that Convocation in 1534 had not been free. There
fore, in 1554, all the acts of that and the following Convoca
tions were simply put aside as null and void, as done in the
time of schism, and the only desire was that Parliament also
should revoke its acts.' To return, then, to the conduct of
the bishops in 1559. Instead of paying attention to the
declaration of the Lower House of Convocation which had
been presented to Parliament, Elizabeth, by the advice of
her crafty counsellors, arranged for a public conference on
certain matters of religion at Westminster. A detailed
history of this conference may be found in Collier,^ and in
1 Since I wrote the above, Mr. Gladstone's article has been admir
ably answered in an article in the Dublin Review for October, 1888
by Rev. J. Morris, S.J., and by Mr. St. George Mivart, in the Tablet
of 15th December, 1888. Mr. Mivart says : " "The Act of Convocation '
[under Henry] " was one ultra vires, and one necessarily null and void,
ipso facto, in the eyes of all those who adhered to the old system,
although in the eyes of non-papal statesmen it was accepted as a
valid surrender of the spirituality to the temporality. . . . When the
Government " [under Mary] " chose to restore papal supremacy, the
Parliament by itself alone could do, and did do, all that was necessary
in the eyes either of Catholics or Protestants to eff'ect that end, apart
firom the action of the Pope himself. The State would have no need
of the co-operation of Convocation, which had already effaced iiself.
... In the eyes of the anti-papal party Convocation colild not of
its own will and power take back that which it had ceded 10 the
Crown ; and in the eyes of the papal party it was not less impotent to
restore that which never had been, and never could be, abolished.
Nevertheless, the National Church did all it need have done in the
eyes of either party. Its bishops knelt with the lords temporal, the
commons, and their Queen, to receive papal absolution. ... On
Elizabeth's accession, the National Church, already in full com
munion with Rome . . . had nothing to do (from the papal point of
view) save to defend as much as it could the then existing state of
.things." ^ Vol. vi., p. 207.

26 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
my memoir of Bishop Watson I have treated of it sufficiently
for my purpose. I shall, therefore, here pass it by, and
merely mention its results.
The conference was held in the last days of March, 1559,
and on Monday, 3rd April, 1559, White (Bishop of Win
chester) and Watson (of Lincoln) were sent to the Tower.
The other Catholic disputants — Baynes (of Lichfield), Scott
(of Chester), and Ogelthorpe (of Carlisle), and Henry Cole,
John Harpsfield, and William Chedsey, Archdeacons of
Lewes, Canterbury, and Middlesex — were commanded hy
the Council to give bonds to make their appearance before
the Lords of the Council as often as they sat, and not to
depart from the cities of London and Westminster, and to
pay such fines as should be imposed on them for their
contempt of the Queen's order. The Bishop of Lichfield
was bound in 2000 marks, the Bishop of Chester in ;^iooo,
and the Bishop of Carlisle in 500 marks. They waited
personally on the Council every day till 12th May, and on
the nth they were fined as follows: Lichfield, ^^333 6s. 8d. ;
Carlisle, ^£^250; and Chester, 200 marks (or ;;^i33 6s. 8d.).
After relating this, Strype remarks : " Thus gently did these
bishops feel the displeasure of the Lords of the Council "- '
Probably a more appropriate reflection would be: Thus did
Ehzabeth's Councillors begin to carry out their scheme of
relieving the emptiness of the Exchequer, by seizing every
opportunity of fining the prelates.
It is worthy of admiration that the names of these three
bishops, then under the daily threats of the Court, appear,
nevertheless, in every division in Parliament during that
time as opponents to the Government measures.^ So far
^ Strype, Annals, i. 140.
2 For proof of this, I refer to the Journal of the Lords, or to that of
Sir Symonds D'Ewes.

BEFORE DEPRIVATION. 27
were they from being intimidated or seeking to avoid the
threatened fine, by either voting against their conscience or
absence from Parliament.
Parliament having been dissolved on 8th May, the bishops
had to await the operation of the new laws that had been
passed for " the alteration of religion ". Hitherto they had
acted with absolute unanimity, with the single exception of
the consent of the Bishop of Carlisle to perform the corona
tion service. The Queen, speaking to the Spanish ambas
sador De Feria, on 19th March, 1559, had called the bishops
" a set of lazy scamps " ; and the ambassador had replied
that the scamps were the preachers to whom she had been
listening — that the bishops, if necessary, were ready to die
for the truth. This De Feria related to Philip, adding:
"Your Majesty would admire the courage they are
showing ".' ' See Froude, i. 67.

CHAPTER III.
CONFESSORS IN PRISON.
WE have seen the energy and unanimity with which the
bishops sought to avert the threatened catastrophe,
or at least to clear their souls of all responsibility for
what they were unable to prevent. Hitherto we have
walked on a fairly well-beaten track, but in future the
ground is full of pitfalls. We must tread cautiously. We
have to consider not the law only but the facts, what could
be done legally, and what actually was done.
The Act of Supremacy (as it is commonly called), or
" Act to restore to the Crown the ancient Jurisdiction over
the Estate Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, and abolish all Foreign
Powers repugnant to the same " (as it was legally designated),
revived most of the ecclesiastical legislation of Henry VIII.
and Edward VL, that had been abolished by Queen Mary.
It decreed that no foreign prince or prelate, spiritual or
temporal, should at any time exercise any manner of juris
diction or authority within this realm ; and that all such
jurisdictions, pre-eminences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by
any spiritual or ecclesiastical power had heretofore been, or
might lawfully be exercised, for the visitation of the ecclesias
tical state or persons, and for reformation of the same, and
of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, &c., should for ever be
annexed to the Imperial Crown. And to enforce this, it was
enacted that every bishop or other ecclesiastical officer,
every temporal judge or justice, and every other person
receiving the wages of the Crown, should " make, take, and

CONFESSORS IN PRISON. 29
receive a corporal oath upon the evangelist " to this purpose.
The form of oath was prescribed. In case of refusal of the
oath, the person refusing was to forfeit all promotion,
benefit, and office, and be disabled from receiving any other
office. The Act further decreed that if any person, after the end
of thirty days from the close of the session, should, by
writing, or express words, deed, or act, advisedly, maliciously,
and directly affirm or defend the authority or jurisdiction of
any foreign prelate heretofore claimed, used, or usurped
within this realm, such person, being thereof lawfully con
victed, for his first offence should forfeit all his goods and
chattels, as well real as personal ; for a second offence,
should incur the dangers and penalties of prcemunire ; and
for a third offence be judged guilty of high treason, and
suffer the pains of death.
It is to be noted that there is no mention of any penalty
of imprisonment for refusing the oath. The imprisonments
of which I am going to speak were altogether arbitrary and
illegal.' Commissioners were at once'' appointed to require and
receive the oath, and before the end of the year 1559 it
had been offered to all the bishops. But the Commissioners
proceeded slowly and cautiously. They waited many
months for some, in the hopes of conformity. They
delayed also in the vain endeavour to persuade some of the
1 The penalties were, however, increased in the second Parliament of
1563, as well as the classes of persons liable to take the oath. The
first refusal of the oath became prcemunire, the second high treason.
The oath could be tendered a second time to all who had held
ecclesiastical office in the reigns of Henry, Edward, or Mary. The
penalties for defending the power of the Sovereign Pontiff were also
increased. The first offence was praemunire, the second high treason.
2 The Lord Keeper and seventeen others. Letters in Rymer,
dated 23rd May, 1559.

30 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
existing Hierarchy to consecrate Parker and other well-known
heretics, in order to fill up the vacant sees. The exact
date of deposition will be given under the name of each
bishop. It is enough to say here that Bonner of London
was deposed in May; the Bishops of Lichfield, Chester,
Carlisle, Lincoln, Winchester, and Worcester, in June ; those
of York, St. Asaph, Ely, in July ; the Bishop of Durham in
September ; those of Bath and Wells and of Peterborough in
October, and of Exeter in November. The date of the
deposition of St. David's I have not been able to ascertain
with certainty.
A few words will be sufficient about the Bishop of
Llandaff, Anthony Kitchin (alias Dunstan). Machyn
mentions him as having been deprived, with four others, on
2 ist June.' But though he made some difficulty at taking
the oath, he asked time to deliberate, and was lost.
Whether he ever actually swore is uncertain, but he did
what was equivalent. On the i8th July he gave a written
promise that, "with all his power, cunning, and ability, he
would set forth in his own person, and cause all others
under his jurisdiction to accept and obey the whole course
of religion now approved, and would require the oath from
others receiving office "?
He only lived till October, 1563, to enjoy the dignity and
ease to which he sacrificed his conscience, and bears as
little reputation among Protestants as with Catholics.
Camden calls him the " calamity of his see," apparently for
his alienation of its estates. Heylin says, that "having
formerly submitted to every change, he resolved to show
himself- no changeling in not conforming to the higher
' Diary, pp. 200, 201.
2 MS., CCCC, n. 114, p. 155. Also printed in Canon Estcourt's
Question of Angl. Ordin., p. 93.

CONFESSORS IN PRISON. 3 1
powers ''. Godwin is more vehement, and calls him " the
shame and reproach of his see ".
Before the deposition of the Bishops of Durham, Bath,
and Peterborough, a commission, dated 9th September, was
issued to them, together with Kitchin, Barlow, and Scory,
commanding them to consecrate Parker to be Archbishop
of Canterbury. " It is difficult," writes Canon Estcourt,
" to understand how anyone could expect that a commission
would be executed which bore so gross an insult in the face
of it. Not merely to require them to consecrate a married
priest, notoriously suspected of heresy, but to join with them
two suspended, excommunicated, ecclesiastics, calling them
selves bishops, relapsed heretics, and apostate religious,
was sufficient bf itself to prevent the execution of the mandate.
There is no record whether they were ever formally cited, nor in
what manner their refusal was given.'" Even Kitchin in this
matter seems to have had a conscience, and courage to obey it.
Sanders' remarks on this man are curious : " Of Llandaff,
it is doubtful if he ought to be considered a bishop,
because, after the reconciliation of the kingdom unto Mary,
he alone is said not to have sought confirmation from the
Apostolic See. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at that
he yielded to the schism and consecrated bishops outside
the Church. Nor is that holy band of bishops contaminated
by his defection, who never was a lawful bishop."^
' Question of Angl. Ordin., p. 85.
^Vatican MS., f. 266 (6). This clause is very strange. No author.
Catholic or Protestant, now asserts that Kitchin took part in the con
secration of Parker or of any other member of Elizabeth's hierarchy.
Yet the rumour had reached Sanders that he had done so. The well-
known story of the Nag's Head consecration, derived from the
prisoners at Wisbeach, has two parts— (i) that Kitchin was about to
consecrate, when deterred by the threats of Bonner ; (2) that Scory
thereupon carried out some mock consecration. Sanders' assertion
in the text certainly lends some support to the first half of the story.

32 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Thus, then, by the end of the year 1559, fifteen bishopsi
had been deprived of their sees by the civil power, and
many dioceses were vacant by death; one only of the
ancient hierarchy remained in possession of his episcopal
throne, though by an act which forfeited it canonically. It
is somewhat curious that as early as 1583 confusion pre
vailed in the minds of the Catholic exiles as to these
transactions. In that year Dr. Gregory Martin, in a letter
addressed to his sister, and afterwards pubhshed under the
title of The Love of the Soul, writes of "twenty-three
bishops all deprived of their livings these' twenty years, and
now but two of them alive ". Another Cathohc writer, Dr.
Champney, in his book called Vocation of Bishops, written
in 1 6 16, says: "At the Nag's Head, in Cheapside, by
accorded appointment, met all those that were nominated to
bishopricks, vacant either by death, as was ihat of Canterbury
only, or by unjust deposition, as were all the rest ".
Rishton ought to have been accurate, since he introduces
his list, written in 1585, as follows: "To preserve the
names of these illustrious confessors from oblivion, I give
them here". Yet he names only twelve, omitting Bishop
Morgan of St. David's, Bishop Pate of Worcester, and, most
strangely, Bishop Watson of Lincoln.'
These authors had some excuse for their errors, as they
were living in exile, without documents. But it was mere
carelessness made Stow speak of those deposed as thirteen
or fourteen, and Strype, with his followers, put them at
fourteen. Heylin also makes up a list of fourteen, by
omitting the Bishops of Worcester and St. Asaph, and
inserting the Bishop of Chichester, who was dead. Even
Wharton, the learned and accurate, in the book written
expressly to correct the errors of Burnet, states that " in all,
1 In his additions, or fourth book of Sanders, p. 260 (Ed. Lewis).

CONFESSOKS IN PRISON.

33

fourteen bishops were deprived," though he only gives the
names of thirteen, omitting the Bishop of Bath and Wells
and the Bishop of St. David's.'
Has any other important fact of history been treated after
this fashion by so large a number of writers ? The frequency
of error will be my excuse for stating once more that the
oath of supremacy was tendered to sixteen bishops, of
whom fifteen refused it and were deprived.
Far worse are the mistakes and false reports regarding
the numbers imprisoned, and the length and severity of
their imprisonment. Some specimens have been given in
the first chapter of this sketch ; I shall notice others when
dealing with the bishops singly. I confine myself in this
chapter to imprisonment in the strictest sense of the word,
confinement in buildings set apart for restraint on liberty.
The first question that arises is : Who had authority to
imprison, and for what cause, or by what law, could
imprisonment be inflicted ? The writer on ecclesiastical
affairs in Knight's Pictorial History of England says :
" Although the deprived prelates were also at first sent to
prison, in conformity with one of the provisions of the
statute, only Bonner, White, and Watson were retained in
confinement ".^ It would be difficult to compress more
errors into the same number of words. There is in the
statute no provision whatever imposing the penalty of
imprisonment for refusal of the oath. In the second place,
not one bishop was imprisoned consequently on his refusal,
nor until after an interval of several months. Thirdly, when
the imprisonment was inflicted, no less than eight bishops
were "retained in confinernent " for years; yet one of the
three mentioned by this writer was not among the number,
¦^Specimen of Some Errors, p. 151.
2 P'lctor'ial History of England, hook vi., ch. ii., p. 738.
3

34 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
for he was dead. I refer to Bishop White, whose imprison
ment preceded his deposition, and was inflicted, not by the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, but by the Council, for his
supposed contumacy at the Westminster Conference, and
before the Bill of Supremacy had passed the Parliament.
Another modern writer, the poet and historian Southey, •
in his Book of the Church, has given a different explanation
of the imprisonments. He seeftis to have noticed that there
was a considerable interval between the deposition and the
committal to prison, and writes as follows : " When it
appeared that some of these bishops preached against the
new order of things, and encouraged a seditiqus spirit in
those who flocked to them (White and Watson venturing
even to threaten the Queen with excommunication), it was
found necessary to place them under some degree of
restraint ".' Everything in this passage is pure fiction or
mere conjecture. The imprisonments by the Commissioners
began in May, 1560. White was then dead. ^Vatson had
been released at the conclusion of his first term of imprison
ment for contumacy. It is not pretended by anyone
except Southey that he provoked a second imprisonment by
threat of excommunication. That charge in Camden, its
first author, regards his committal to the Tower during the
session of Parliament, fourteen months before. The other
reasons mentioned by Southey, the preaching sedition and
the flocking of disaffected people to the deposed prelates,
are not grounded on any state paper or contemporary
chronicler. The truth then appears to be, that when the Commis
sioners, in virtue of the new law, had required the oath, and
punished its refusal by privation, they were embarrassed at
the presence of so many illustrious men remaining at liberty
in the country. The only legal oft'ence they could lay to
^Book of the Church, ch. xv., p. 392.

CONFESSORS IN PRISON. 35
their charge was their absence from the new worship,
and this especially at Easter in 1560. They, therefore,
procured the excommunication of three at least — Arch
bishop Heath of York, Bishop Bonner of London, and
Bishop Thirlby of Ely' — probably of the rest. More
over, as regards imprisonment, in the days of the Tudors
no legal charge or trial was considered essential before
punishment. The Privy Council possessed or assumed
judicial powers of a very vague and extended nature. They
had the general superintendence of the Commonwealth, and
supplied for the weakness or deficiency of the law. , " They
pretended," writes Mr. Dicey, in his essay on the Privy
Council,^ "not merely collectively as the Council, but
individually as councillors, to possess the privilege of
arresting their fellow-citizens." This power the Queen and
Council could delegate to a commission, as is well known
from the history of the Star Chamber.
We need not then look for any violated statute, or any
special charge made against the bishops. Their existence
at liberty in England was judged to be injurious to the
new order of things. Policy required their incarceration or
¦¦ Strype (Annals, i. 212) gives the date of Bonner's excommunica
tion as 28th July, 1560, and of the others as Feb., 1560. This is 1561
(N.S.). Strpye copied from Machyn, who mentions the excommuni
cation of Heath and Thirlby in Feb., 1561, and that they were then
in the Tower.
- Arnold Prize Essay, i860 ; reprint in 1887, p. 116. The growth,
decay, and variations of the functions of the Privy Council are the key
of English history. " Anyone who examines the most certain facts
of history," says Mr. Dicey, " will be convinced that from the acces
sion of Henry VII. till the meeting of the Long Parliament the
Council interfered in all matters, small as well as great " (p. 105).
Towards the end of Elizabeth's reign the judges petitioned " that Her
Majesty's subjects be not committed or detained in prison, by the
command of any nobleman or councillor, against the laws of the
realm, to the grievous charge and oppression of Her Majesty's sub
jects" (p. 119).

36 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
restriction to certain places. The discretion given to
the Commissioners seems to have been very wide. In a
return made by them in 1561, we find that, while some re
cusants were sent for an indefinite period to the Tower, the
Marshalsea, the Fleet, or other prisons, others were confined
to certain counties, others to a limited range about the
place assigned for their dwelling, others were left free as to
all England, with the exception of the localities where they
were known, or liable to influence or be influenced. Thus,
e.g., John Rastall, William Giblett, and other "late
scholars of Oxford," are simply "restrained from the
Universities"; Alexander Beesar, who is described as "old,
wealthy, and stubborn," is confined to two miles round
Hanbury ; John Dale, late of Cambridge, not altogether
unlearned, but very perverse, " is restricted within ten miles
of Newmarket, save towards London or Cambridge " ;
Henry Cumberford, late of Lichfield, is confined to county
Suffolk, "with liberty to travel, twice every year, into
Staffordshire, allowing six weeks each time " — he is said to
be "learned but wilful, and meet to be considered";
"Purseglove, late suffiagan of Hull," is said to be "very
wealthy, stiff in papistry, and of estimation in the country "
— his range is fixed "within twelve miles of Ugthorpe,
county York ". These are a few of a long list of such
restraints, the schedule being signed by Edmund (Grindall),
Bishop of London ; Richard (Cox) of Ely ; William (Down-
ham) of Chester, and three other Commissioners.' They
return also lists of those who have " fled over the seas " ;
those who are " prisoners by order of us " in the Fleet, the
Marshalsea, the King's Bench, and the two counties ; and
lastly, of " evil-disposed persons, who lurk so secretly that
process cannot be served on them ".
iP. J?. 0., Dom. Eliz., Addenda, xi. 45.

CONFESSORS IN PRISON. 37
From all this it is apparent that if some of the bishops
were locked up in the Tower, the Marshalsea, and the
Fleet, it was not because they were guilty of any offence
against any statute, but that the Commissioners did not
judge their public appearance desirable, while they consi
dered that the imprisonment of men so conspicuous, and so
" stout in papistry," might serve as a salutary example to all
inclined to be obstinate. The period of confinement was
not limited, but perpetual or indefinite, at the will of the
Queen or Council.
For these reasons then, in the summer of 1560, the
Commissioners issued arrests against eight of the deposed
bishops — that is to say, against all then alive in England,
with the single exception of Dr. Poole of Peterborough; for
though fifteen had been deposed, one had since left the
country, and five had died within a few months of their
deposition. Dr. Bonner, the Bishop of London, was thrown
into the Marshalsea on 20th April, there to remain until his
death, nearly ten years later. As there is no controversy as
regards the length of his imprisonment, I will leave the
details to be discussed under his own name.
Dr. Scott of Chester was imprisoned in the Pleet on May
13, 1560, and was liberated four years later, to be placed
under a milder restraint. The proofs and details of his case
I will also reserve.
Six other bishops were committed to the Tower. On this
fact, and on the length of their imprisonment, I must dwell
with some detail, since it has been persistently ignored by
one writer after another. Southey, affecting to give a full
account of the treatment of the deprived bishops, has not a
word about it, except that he says that " Heath, after a
short imprisonment, was allowed to reside upon his own lord
ship of Chobham ". Now the short imprisonment of Heath
lasted for three years and a half, and was (I repeat) shared

38 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
by five other bishops. Strype " doubts much whether any
of the bishops were imprisoned after their deprivation,"
adding that Protestant writers have taken on credit what
popish authors write.' If he had said immediately after
their deprivation he need not have written with hesitation.
But Strype has himself been the principal false guide on this
road. His words have been taken to deny any imprison
ment of the recusants as recusants, with a few later and trivial
exceptions, which he attempts to explain. He is wholly
silent on the long and general imprisonment. The only
hint at it is the following : " Some of the bishops were
under some confinement for some time in the year following,
viz., 1560, for then I find six of them, together with an
abbot and a dean, in the Tower. . . . These were now per
mitted to come together to their meals . . . but after a
little time they were all committed to easier restraints, and
some restored to their perfect liberty."^ This is all — a few
months community or collegiate life in the Tower in 1560 !
In his particular account of each bishop even this is
omitted. Thus he writes of Bishop Thirlby of Ely that
"he had his liberty till he began to preach against the
Reformation, but being pardoned afterwards, was in the
custody of the Archbishop". Now Bishop Thirlby was one
of the six bishops mentioned above as shut up in the Tower
in 1560, and as he remained there, shut up in close confine
ment, until September, 1563, at which period he was trans
ferred direct from the Tower to the custody of Parker, it is
quite evident that he had no opportunity of " preaching
against the Reformation,'' except, indeed, by the example of
his patient endurance.
Let us turn, then, from these misleading annalists to the
State Papers. There exists a return, made by Sir Edward
Annals, i., part i., p. 206. 2 /jj^.^ ;_ 211.

CONFESSORS IN PRISON. 39
Warner, Lieutenant of the Tower, on 26th May, 1561, of all
the prisoners in the Tower. It runs as follows : " Dr. Heath,
late Bishop of York, committed loth June, 1560; Dr.
Thirlby, late Bishop of Ely, committed 3rd June, 1560;
Dr. Watson, late of Lincoln, Dr. Pate, late of Worcester
(and Dr. Feckenham, late Abbot of Westminster), com
mitted on 20th May, 1560 ; Dr. Turberville of Exeter,
Dr. Bourne of Bath, and Dr. Boxall (Dean of Peterborough
and Windsor), committed on i8th June, 1560. The causes
of these eight foresaid persons is known to your Lordships,
and needeth no further rehearsall.'" These dates are con
firmed from Machyn's Diary, but on the 20th May he enters
by mistake the name of Dr. Cole, Dean of St. Paul's, for
that of Dr. Pate. Cole, as he rightly says a little later, was
sent to the Fleet.
Another return, made on the 3rd July, 1561, gives the
same list, with the same days of commital.^
Thus, then, at the time of this document they had already
been more than a year in confinement. They had been
committed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and other
Commissioners ; and a letter from the Council to the Arch
bishop, of 4th September, 1560, is quoted by Strype,
allowing them to dine together at two tables, should he
approve ofit. But it is quite untrue that after a little while
this was exchanged for liberty, or even for easier restraint.
On the 14th June, 1562, the Lieutenant writes to the
Lords of the Council as follows : " First he putteth your
Lordships in remembrance that the late bishops, with Mr.
Feckenham and Mr. Boxall, being all eight in number,
be close and severally kept, for the which they continually
call upon him to make in their names humble suit to have
more liberty ; informing your Lordships therewith how
1 P. R. 0., Dom. Eliz., xvii. 13. ^ Ibid., xviii. 3.

40 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
troublesome it is to serve so many persons severally so long
together ".'
We have no evidence that the proposal of the Council of
permitting the bishops to meet at meal-time was ever carried
out. It was left to the disci-etion of Dr. Parker. But the
above letter of the Lieutenant is evidence that, if the per
mission was ever granted, it was soon withdrawn, for he
complains that it had been a great trouble to him to serve
them separately so long. This must be well noted, since
prison discipline was by no means uniform in those days.
Sometimes prisoners frere allowed or could purchase great
liberty, and boarded themselves ; sometimes they dined at
a common table, paying as at a modern table d'hote ; while
some lived in a most wretched fashion on the proceeds of
the alms box." The six bishops in the Tower had not been
allowed to range freely within their enclosure, nor to meet
and converse even for an hour. They were shut up in
separate cells even at their meals, and, though waited on by
their own servants, both masters and servants had to board
themselves, and that too at exorbitant prices.
The same six bishops are still found in a list of prisoners
dated the -5th September, 1562,^ and they all continued
until the following September, 1563, as will be seen pre
sently in the account of their deliverance.
Allusions to the imprisoned bishops occur in the writings
of the Protestant reformersi Thus Jewell, in a letter to
Peter Martyr, 7th February, 1562, says: "The Marian
bishops are still confined in the Tower, and are going on in
their old way " ; and again to BuUinger, 9th February :
"Some few of the bishops who were furious in the late
' P. R, O., Dom. Eliz., xxiii. 40.
2 See Dr. Jessopp's interesting Introduction to the Economy of the
Fleet (Camd. Soc, 1879).
^ P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., xxiv. 39, i.

CONFESSORS IN PRISON. 4 1
Marian times cannot as yet, in so short a time, for very
shame, return to their senses. They are therefore confined
in the Tower, lest their contagion should infect others."
This last clause indicates that they were imprisoned, not for
violation of any law, but as a measure of State policy. Cox
of Ely writes, 5th August, 1562 : " The heads of our
Popish clergy are still kept in confinement. They are
treated indeed with kindness, but relax nothing of their
Popery. Others are living at large, scattered about in
different parts of the kingdom, but without any function,
unless, perhaps, where they may be sowing the seeds of
impiety in secret."'
These things are told in a few lines, but how much they
contain ! Let us try to realise what is meant by three years'
imprisonment in the Tower, the Fleet, and the Marshalsea,
in the first years of Elizabeth. Several writers talk of it as
a pleasant, easy life, without dignity, indeed, but without
cares. " Even the murderous Bonner," writes Mr. Froude,
" had no worse fate to fear than some ' roorh befitting his con
dition,' in the Tower or the Marshalsea, with the garden
walls for the limit of his exercise — such a fate as for 1 200
years the religious orders throughout Christendom had
voluntarily chosen for themselves, in retiring from a world
with which intercourse imperilled their souls." ^ One
hardly knows whether this is intended as mockery of the
bishops, or a sneer at the religious orders ; perhaps the
two are mingled. But even Mr. Froude would probably
admit that monastic seclusion would be intolerable to monks
without the monastic life, without choir, without Mass,
without Communion, and without occupation, manual or
mental. Very inconsistently with the above words, but with far
1 Zurich Letters, i. 43, 44, 49. ^ History of Eliz., i. 89.

42 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
more truth, Mr. Froude, in describing the death of Cardinal
Pole, writes, that he " was taken away in mercy, to escape a
second exile, or the living death of the Tower ".' It would
be to no purpose, even if it could be proved that the prison
diet was wholesome and abundant, and that garden exercise
was not denied. Educated, learned, distinguished men were
deprived of their liberty, of social intercourse, of correspond
ence, of books, and of all the external consolations of re
ligion, and in the vigour of their life condemned to drag out
weary, purposeless days and nights for years, and that for no
crime, by no law, at the caprice of a woman whom they had
helped to place on the throne. But they had not that limited
freedom or " free custody " which historians seem to. think
so delightful. They were kept " close and severally,'' i.e., in
separate cells, and without even solitary exercise.
Not only were they not allowed Catholic worship, they were
threatened, on one occasion, that if they persisted in refusing
to receive the Protestant Communion at Easter in the same
form as the Queen, their heads should fall on the scaffold.
They refused to a man. So, at least, runs the report of the
Spanish Ambassador.^ This was in 1562. A similar threat
was held out in 1563, if they continued to refuse the oath of
supremacy ; ° and this, at least, was no idle threat, for the
Parliament that met early in that year had given authority
to propose the oath a second time, and made a second
refusal high treason, with penalty of death. Either the
clemency or the fears of the Queen kept back the hands of
the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as we learn from a letter
of Dr. Parker ; * but, as this reluctance was unknown, it did
1 History of Eliz., i. 5.
2 Documents of Simancas (Ed. 1865), p. 80. The document is
placed by the editor at the end of 1562.
^Ibid., p. 85.
* I will give this in the account of Dr. Bonner.

CONFESSORS IN PRISON. 43
not prevent the penalty of death being held in terrorem
over the bishops and other deprived ecclesiastics.
There were some, indeed, outside clamouring for the
blood of the bishops. Nowell, the new Protestant Dean of
St. Paul's, preached in Westminster, and Day, Provost of
Eton, preached in St. Paul's at the opening of Parliament
and Convocation on 12th January, 1563. The subject of
both was the propriety of " kilHng the caged wolves ".'
These things were reported to the Emperor Ferdinand,
and he bestirred himself in their behalf From a letter
written on 24th September, 1563, a few days after the release
of the bishops from the Tower, but before the news could
have reached the Emperor, we find that already, some months
previously, he had interceded in favour of the imprisoned
bishops.^ In the translation made at the time, he says : —
" We were right glad for to understand that your Grace did
accept, in very good part, the letters which we sent unto
your Grace certain months afore this. In the which we did
heartily require your Grace that you would not execute any
rigorous languor upon the bishops in prison, and the sub
jects of your realm which profess the Catholic religion." '
The Queen replied, 3rd November, that it was a matter of
great moment for her to act so gently with those who had so
insolently acted against her laws and the quiet of her subjects,
amongst whom the chief were those who, during the reign of
her father and brother, offered the doctrine to others which
they now so obstinately reject. These men she had spared
at his request, but not without offending her own people.*
' See Froude, Hist., vii. 479, 541.
2 See MS., Cotton Vesp., f. 3 (in B. Mus.), p. 487.
' P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., Addenda, Vol. xxviii., n. 58 v.
* P. R. O., Foreign, 1361, p. 581. The Emperor also asked for
liberty of worship. This the Queen altogether refuses. Camden
(Annals, p. 20, Eng. tr.) gives this wrongly in 1559. The letters are
also in Strype, Annals, i., part ii., p. 572.

44 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
The release of the six Taishops from the Tower took place
in the middle of September, 1563. Dr. Heath of York
and Dr. Turberville of Exeter were thenceforth merely
restricted to certain localities. Dn Pate of Worcester
escaped to the Continent. The remaining three were
transferred to another kind of prison, the custody of the
Protestant Prelates : Bishop Thirlby to that of Dr. Parker
of Canterbury, Bishop Bourne to that of Dr. BuUingham of
Lincoln, the Bishop of Lincoln tothat of Dr. Cox of Ely.
Bishop Scott of Chester still remained for a time in the
Fleet, and Bishop Bonner of London in the Marshalsea.
Stow thus relates the matter in some notes which he did
not venture to publish: "Anno, 1563. In September,
the old bishops and divers doctors was removed out of the
Tower into the new bishops' houses, there to remain
prisoners under their custody. The plague being in the
city was thought to be the cause. But their deliverance, or
rather change of prison, did so much offend the people that
the preachers at Paul's Cross, and on other places, both of
the city and country, preached, as it is thought of rnany
wise men, very seditiously, as Baldwin at Paul's Cross,
wishing a gallows set up in Smithfield, and the old bishops
and other papists to be hanged thereon. Himself died of
the plague the next week after." '
The Emperor Ferdinand still continued his care. Among
the instructions to Don Diego Guzman de Silva, in January,
1564, one was that " he was to intercede pressingly in
behalf of the bishops, and to convince the Queen that it
was opposed even to the spirit of the reformed religion to
compel men to renounce the faith they held ". Conse
quently, De Silva sought private interviews with the Queen,
1 Three Fifteenth Century Chronicles and Contemporary Notes of
Occurrences in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, by John Stow (Ed. by
James Gairdner ; Camd. Soc, 1880), p. 126.

CONFESSORS IN PRISON. 45
and explained to her that, although his instructions forbade
him to meddle with religious questions, he yet felt that it
was his duty relative to the bishops and other principal
men, and assured her the adherents of the old faith were
more dutifully inclined to her than those of the new. This
she admitted, and gave orders to mitigate the confinement
of the Bishop of London, and assured De Silva she did not
read German books, but St. Jerome and St. Augustine." '
Having given in this chapter some account of the united
action and constancy of the bishops, with their first imprison
ments, I shall in the next trace out the heroism of each one
of them in greater detail, and carry on the story to their
deaths. This general review may be appropriately con
cluded by recording the impression made by their constancy
on their Catholic and Protestant contemporaries.
Laurence Vaux was the last warden of the collegiate
church of Manchester.^ He had refused the oath, and been
deprived, and bound over to remain in the county of
Worcester.^ In 1561 he escaped to Louvain. In 1566 Dr.
Harding and Dr. Sanders received a commission from St.
Pius V. to promulgate in England the decision made by the
Fathers ofthe Council of Trent in 1562, and confirmed by
St. Pius himself in 1566, that the EngUsh committed mortal
sin, and were guilty of schism or heresy, if they attended the
places of worship of the Establishment, under the circum
stances that then existed. Lawrence Vaux was one of those
who were appointed to enter England and publish the papal
decision, with special faculties to absolve and to reconcile.
On 2nd November, 1566, he wrote a long letter to one of
his friends in Lancashire, which fell into the hands of the
1 Simancas Documents, pp. 88, 93.
¦^ Now the Protestant cathedral, but commonly called by the people
"the old church ".
3 P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., Addenda, xi. 45.

46 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Government.' In this letter he uses, among others, the
following argument : " There is not one of the old bishops
or godly priests of God that will be present at the schis
matical service or damnable communion now used, for the
which cause they have lost their livings — some be in
corporal prison, some in exile, and, like good pastors, be
ready to suffer death in that cause, as it is the duty and
office of bishops to go before their flock, and to be their
leaders in matters of faith and religion. So the clergy and
laity are bounden to follow their example, if they intend to
be partakers, with the bishops, of the joys of heaven. And,
thanks be to God, a number not only of the clergy, but as
well of the temporality, both of them that be worshipful and
inferiors to them, do follow their bishops constantly, and
will in no wise come to the schismatical service. And such
as frequenteth the schismatical service now used in the
Church in England must either contemn them as fond,
foolish men, that refuse to be present at service, or else
their own consciences will accuse them that they do naughty,
in that they do contrary to the example given them of the
bishops." Even had no proofs come to us, we might have been sure
that language like this among Catholics would haye exas
perated the intruded Protestant bishops beyond endurance.
Their feelings, however, have been left on record. In 1563
a short paper or tract had been cast abroad by an anonymous
Catholic regarding the great fire that had burnt down the
steeple of St. Paul's, London. In this the writer had men
tioned the constancy of the Catholic bishops. Pilkington,
whom Elizabeth had placed at Durham, was transported
into one of his paroxysms of ribald fury : " I think the holy
bishops he cracks so much of have their calling of the
1 P. R. 0., Dom. Elis., xli. i. It is printed at length by Mr.
Simpson in The Rambler for December, 1857.

CONFESSORS IN PRISON. 47
Dutch name that signifies bitesheep, rather than of the
Greek that teaches to save sheep by his painful diligence ".'
The Catholic writer had said that they were "ready to
suffer death afore they will consent to any part of this
religion ". Pilkington replied : " If they were opposed as
they opposed other, I doubt not but they would as soon eat
the faggot as feel it burn them. . . . And when he cracks
much that they have lost their livings, and be in prison, and
banished, let the world judge whether they ever lived more
merrily, quietly, fared better, lay easilier, had more plenty of
all things, than they have now. They are as pale in prison
as a butcher's boll, they are lean as a fat hog, they lie at
ease unto their bones ache with rising early. . . . They
would fain be counted to suffer for religion, if any man
would believe it. The poor Protestant, which has his
liberty, lives in more misery, need, debt, reproach, and
contempt than these Pope's prisoners, who, he says, have
lost all. It is better in the world to be Pope's prisoner than
Christ's preacher. God amend all."" The real cause of
this tirade was that Queen Mary had assisted the Catholic
bishops to recover estates alienated under Henry and
Edward; whereas Queen Elizabeth, before any of her
bishops were consecrated, had exchanged some of their
fairest estates for pretended equivalents in benefices. This
generosity of the Catholic Queen, and rapacity of the Pro
testant Queen, were thus interpreted by Pilkington : " The
world gives to the Papist honours, castles, towers, and all
that it has. To the Protestant, if he give anything, it is
thought too much; and of those things that it gives, it gives
the worst that can be picked out, and yet thinks it too
good." »
^Burning of St. PauVs, p. 495 (Pilkington's 'Works, Parker Soc).
^Ibid., p. 622.
^ Ibid,., p. 594.

48 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
The language he used of his venerable predecessor (Dr.
TunstaU) was as follows : " In Durham, I grant, the bishop
that now is, and his predecessor, were not of one religion in
divers points, nor made bishops after- one fashion. This
has neither cruche " [i.e., crosier] " nor mitre, never sware
against his Prince his allegiance to the Pope ; this has
neither power to christen bells, nor hallow chalices and
superaltars as the other had, and with gladness praises God
that keeps him from such filthiness." ' As his predecessor
not only submitted to imprisonment, under Elizabeth, for
allegiance to the Pope, but also under King Edward for
resisting the division and spoliation of the bishopric of
which Pilkington was now in enjoyment, one might have
expected, if not gratitude,- at least decency towards Ws
memory. Time did not soften this man's hatred. At his death, in
1575, he left a writing unfinished, in which he thus alludes
to the one Catholic bishop then surviving — Dr. Watson of
Lincoln, who had been his fellow-student at St. John's,
Cambridge: "The Lord suffereth some of His enemies to
live in shame, who in so long time cannot repent, but are
given up to their own lusts and hardened hearts, so far as
man can judge ; besides many other young whelps of their
teaching, which can bark in corners and make themselves
merry with railing and scoffing at the Holy Scriptures of
God,' the ministers and professors of it. Yea, some become
so shameless that they would call their dogs by the names
of the first writers and professors of it."^ As Pilkington
generally spoke' of the Catholic bishops as '"the Pope's
horned cattle," in allusion to their mitres, called Cardinal
Pole " Carnal Fool," and Pope Hildebrand " Hellbrand,"
he should not have thought the Catholic gentlemen so
^Burning of St. Paul's, p. 586. ^ Expos, upon Nehemiah, p. 401.

SOME APOCRYPHAL STORIES. 49
shameless for calling a bull-dog by the name of Luther, a
snappish cur by that of Calvin, or a fawning spaniel by that
of Cranmer. These were innocent jokes, and a pardonable
retaliation for the fines and imprisonments that were wearing
them out.
One other paper will complete this chapter, by telling
what was thought of the confessors in Rome. It is among
the letters of Cardinal Morone, de rebus Anglice. It bears
no date, but was certainly written between July, 1560, and
September, 1563, while the six bishops were in the Tower,
and under the hope that Elizabeth might yet be reconciled
with the Church. It is a proposal for filling up the vacant
sees. It was proposed to translate the Archbishop of York
to Canterbury, and Dr. Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, to York;
Dr. Scott, Bishop of Chester, to Durham. The other sur
viving bishops were to retain their sees, and names were
proposed for filling up those that were vacant. There are a
few omissions and mistakes in this document that show the
writer could not have been then in England.' The bishops
were to prove themselves not unworthy of the high esteem
with which they were regarded. We will now pursue their
histories individually.
1 Published from the original in the Vatican by Dr. M. Brady, in
his Episcopal Succession, vol. ii. 322.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER III.
SOME APOCRYPHAL STORIES.
In the preceding sketch I have purposely omitted certain incidents
that are put forward conspicuously by some modern writers. These
incidents are four in number : I. The discovery by the, Council, after the
death of Queen Mary, of treasonable correspondence compromising to
some ofthe bishops, and the generous forbearance of Elizabeth and her
4

so CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Council thereupon. 2. The verbal protest addressed to the Queen by the
bishops, on 15th May, 1559, and the Queen's defiant reply. 3. The re
monstrance written by five bishops to the Queen, in December, 1559,
and her letter to them. 4. Their threatening letter to Parker, in 1560,
and his retort. I have said'nothing of these things in relating the his
tory of the bishops, because I believe them all to be mere fables and
forgeries .
Not one of these incidents is mentioned by any author whose work
appeared within a hundred and twenty years from the dates assigned ;
yet, had they taken place, they could not have failed to be known and
recorded. No trace will be found of them in the writers and chroniclers
of the sixteenth century — such as Burghley, Hayward, Fox, Stow,
Holinshed ; nor in any Catholic writer of the same period — such as
Sander, Allen, Harding, Rishton, &c. Nor, again, is there any allusion
to them in the historians ofthe seventeenth century — such as Camden,
Fuller, or Heylin. They are derived from a small book published in
Dublin in 1683, called The Hunting of the Romish Fox, &o., by
Robert Ware. This book is often quoted as the production of Sir James
Ware, the well-known Irish antiquary, since it is professedly drawn
from his Historical Collections. It is really a farrago of forgeries
by Sir James Ware's second son, Robert, who, after his father's death,
in 1666, first wrote his own mischievous concoctions among his father's
papers, and then drew them out and printed them in books and pamph
lets. I have laid bare the history of these forgeries in a series of papers
in the Tablet newspaper, beginning 13th April, 1889. I do not think it
necessary to repeat their refutation here. I will merely say that they
were adopted by Strype, who, while giving marginal references to
Ware's book, states either in note or text that the original authority is
Sir William Cecil, or Sir Henry Sidney, whose " memorials " came
through Archbishop Usher into the papers of Sir James Ware. The
strength of a chain is that of its weakest link, and here the weak link is
Robert Ware. The "memorials" never existed; and the supposed
events are both intrinsically improbable and historically impossible.
Yet fiom Strype they were adopted by Collier, and are found in most
modern historians.

CHAPTER IV.
BISHOPS TUNSTALL, BAYNE, MORGAN, OGELTHORPE, AND
WHITE.
I HAVE no thought of writing a series of biographies of
the Catholic bishops who survived Queen Mary.
Notices of them may be found in many books, and the
diligence of Anthony h AVood and his editor, Mr. Bliss, as
well as that of Mr. Cooper, has collected almost everything
that can now be learnt about their early life.' All that I
shall attempt to do is to set down succinctly those facts of their
later life which prove their invincible constancy and the
extent of their sufferings for Catholic faith and unity. This
will necessitate some slight repetition of things already said,
but the whole matter will gain in clearness, and help to pre
vent a repetition of the mistakes hitherto current. I shall
arrange these notes in the chronological order of the
bishops' deaths, and thus the two complete lives to which
this sketch is an introduction will fall naturally into their
places. It has been already said that the number of bishops
deposed by Queen Elizabeth was fifteen.
Cuthbert Tunstall (of Durham),
Deposed 28th September, 1559; died isth November, 1559.
At the time of his deprivation, Tunstall was eighty-five
years old. His name had long been famous, not only in
1 See Athence Oxonienses (Ed. Wood, Bliss), and Cooper's Athence
Caniabrigienses.

52 catholic HIERARCHY.
England but throughout Europe. Erasmus had written of
him in 1516, that he was a man of the most exquisite judg
ment, both in Greek and Latin literature, beyond any of his
countrymen, but at the same time of incredible modesty, and
of sweet and joyful manners. Sir Thomas More, who had
been associated with him in an embassy, wished to com
memorate his friend's virtues even in his own epitaph : Quo
viro vix habet orbis hodie quicquatn eruditius, prudentius,
melius. Yet when Sir Thomas and he were tried in the
furnace in 1534, Tunstall showed that there was dross
mixed with the gold. In his studies at Oxford and Cam
bridge, or more probably in his legal studies at Padua, he
had imbibed what have been caUed Gallican principles in
their extremest form.
Dr. Knight has written of him : " It may be remarked of
this man, that though he was so inflexible in the latter part
of his life, and so stiff in his Popish principles, yet in the
reign of Henry VIIL he was a strenuous assertor of the
King's supremacy, and wrote a very severe letter to Cardinal
Pole, then abroad, upon this head, and bid fair — as it was
then thought — to be a zealous Protestant, but stopped short
and became immovably attached to Popery". ^ This is a
mistaken estimate. Of Protestantism, in the ordinary sense of
the word, he had no taint whatever at any period of his life.
But he had at first a false estimate of the supremacy of the'
Holy See, which he hved to correct; and his exaggerated
view of royal authority in the Church had been reduced to
absurdity by the logic of facts in the reigns of Henry and
Edward. When Pole, not long after the martyrdom of
More and Fisher, sent his MS. treatise ''¦ to the King of
England, in refutation of his claim of supremacy and in re-
¦^ Knight's Life of Erasmus.
2 Published many years afterwards with the title De Unitate
Ecclesice.

BISHOP CUTHBERT TUNSTALL. 53
proach of his tyranny and cruelty, Henry put the treatise into
the hands of Tunstall, who in the spring of 1536 wrote a letter
to Pole. In this he says : " Ye presuppose for a ground the
King's. Grace to be swerved from the unity of Christ's
Church, and that' in taking upon him the title of Supreme
Head of the Church of England he intendeth to separate
his Church of England from the unity of the whole body of
Christendom, taking upon him the office belonging to spiritual
men — grounded in the Scripture — of immediate cure of souls,
and attribute to himself that [which] belongeth to priesthood,
as to preach and teach the Word of God and to minister the
sacraments, and that he doth not know what longeth to a
king's office and what unto priesthood. Wherein, surely
both you and all other so thinking of him do err too far
. . . for his first purpose and intent is to see the laws
of Almighty God purely and sincerely preached and taught,
and Christ's faith, without blot, kept and obeyed in his
realm, and not to separate himself or his realm anywise from
the unity of Christ's Catholic Church, but immovably, at all
time, to keep and observe the same, and to reduce his Church
of England out of all captivity of foreign powers heretofore
usurped therein, into the pristine estate that all churches of
all realms were in at the beginning ; and to abolish and
clearly put away such usurpation as heretofore in this realm
the Bishops of Rome have [exercised] to their great advan
tage, and impoverishing of the realm and the King's subjects
ofthe same."' This was his theory of royal supremacy, based
entirely on the presumption that the Catholic faith and dis
cipline could remain integral and intact by their own co
herence, and that England's kings would always be Catholic,
and act as zealous Defenders of the Faith and promoters of
discipline. No wonder that after witnessing the vacillations
of him who was to keep the Church "immovable at ah times,''
1 Cotton MS., in Br. Mus., " Cleopatra," E. vi., p. 389.

54 -catholic HIERARCHY.
and the entire revolution in religious matters during the reign
of Edward, he reconsidered his theory and rejected it.
In the same letter to Pole he had written as foUows :
"And where ye do find a fault with me, in that I fainted in my
heart and would not die for the Bishop of Rome's authority,
when the matter was first purposed unto me, surely it was not
fainting that made me agreeable thereunto, for I never saw
the day — since I knew the progress and continuance of
Christendom from the beginning, and read such histories
ecclesiastical and ordinances, from age to age, as do
manifestly declare the same — that ever I thought to shed
one drop of my blood therefor. For sure I am none of
them that heretofore had advantage, by that authority, would
have lost one penny thereof to have saved my life, nor will
not do to save yours if it should be in such necessity."
To these last words, so unworthy ofa Catholic bishop, Pole
answered as foUows : " Good my Lord tell me, — my Lord of
Rochester or Master More, did they hope of such succour ?
Did they think the Pope would send a host to deliver them
from death ? What words be these in so great a matter, for
the gravity of such a man as you ever have been esteemed !
. . . It is Christ's cause, my Lord, and for His sake
died these great men, your great friends, whom you may not
think of so little spirit, nor of so vile mind, that they saw not
wherefore they died, or that they died for any respect,
advantage, or thing to be looked for in this world.
" But you say : ' There be now as great learned men in
Divinity in this realm as be in other countries '. But how
much more greater than my Lord of Rochester or Master
More, or other holy, learned men that died for this cause ?
I can say no more, but God send you a livelier spirit than
you show now to His honour."'
1 Letter dated ist August, 1536. It is printed in full by Strype,
Memorials, vol. i., part ii., n. 83, p. 306.

BISHOP CUTHBERT TUNSTALL. 55
Tunstall did indeed show a livelier spirit at the accession
of Elizabeth than he had done five-and-twenty years before.
Strype says, most falsely and calumniously : " Before his death,
by the Archbishop's (Parker's) means, he was brought off
from papistical fancies ".' This is contradicted by both acts
and words. Tunstall was in Durham at Queen Mary's death.
On account of his great age he was specially exempted
by Elizabeth from being present either at her coronation
or in Parliament.^ But after the passing of the Act of
Supremacy, and the appointment of the Commission to
require the oaths of the clergy, it was necessary for him to
come to London. On the 14th of July, 1559, he was at
Doncaster, " onward of his journey to Court . . . taking
small journeys, though they were great to him, carrying
his old carcass with him," as he wrote to the Earl of
Shrewsbury.' Machyn writes in his Diary : " The 20th day
of July, the good old Bishop of Durham came riding to
London with threescore horse, and so to Southwark, unto
Master Dolman's house, a tallow chandler, and there he lies
[i.e., resides] against the chaingate ".''
He found all things in London undergoing change. The
new Anghcan Prayer Book was to have' become obligatory
on the Feast of St. John Baptist (24th June), but in the
Chapel Royal and many other places the Protestants had
not waited so long. On i ith June the Blessed Sacrament
had been removed from St. Paul's;^ images were being
pulled down and altars destroyed. Ten bishops and many
priests had been deprived. The Grey Friars of Greenwich,
1 Strype's Parker, book i., cap. a., p. 94.
2 P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., i. 37.
3 Strype, Annals, i., pt. i., p. 30.
* Diary, p. 204.
s Documents from Simancas. p. 26 ; also, Strype, Annals, i. 254,
260, 287.

56 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
the Black Friars of Smithfield, the priests and nuns of Syon
and the Charterhouse, the Abbot and monks of Westminster,
had been deposed or had left ; ' furious sefmons were being
preached at St. Paul's Cross. A visitation was being made
of the diocese of London by Horn and others, and great
bonfires were burning in the streets, fed with roods and
sacred images.^
De Quadra, the new Spanish ambassador, informs Philip
that the old Bishop of Durham had reminded the Queen
that her father had enjoined in his will the maintenance of
the Catholic religion, at which remonstrance the Council had
laughed.* By a letter still extant, written on 19th August, to
Sir William Cecil, we find how eager the bishop was to see
the Queen, though he should have to travel to Hampton
Court or Windsor or elsewhere. He then adds : " And
where I do understand out of my diocese ^ of a warning for
a visitation to be had there, this shall be to advertise your
Mastership, that albeit I would be as glad to serve the
Queen's Highness, and to set forward all her affairs to her
contentation as any subject in her realm, yet if the same
visitation shall proceed to such end in my diocese of
Durham, as I do plainly see to be set forth here in London,
as pulling down of altars, defacing of churches by taking
away of the crucifixes, I cannot in my conscience consent to
it, being pastor there. Because I cannot myself agree to be
a ' sacramentary,' ^ nor to have any new doctrine taught in
my diocese. Whereof I thought meet to advertise your
Mastership, humbly beseeching the same not to think me
1 Machyn, p. 204.
^ Ibid., p. 207.
^ Simancas, p. 64,
* I.e., whereas I have received news from my diocese.
5 The name given to the disciples of Calvin and Zuingli, who made
light of the sacraments.

BISHOP CUTHBERT TUNSTALL. 57
thereunto moved either for any forwardness, malice, or con
tempt, but only because my conscience will not suffer me to
receive and allow any doctrine in my diocese other than
Catholic, as knoweth Almighty Jesu, who ever preserve
your Mastership to His pleasure and yours.
"From London, the 19th of August, 1559.
" Your Mastership's humble most assured loving friend,
"CUTHBERT, DURHAM."'
Notwithstanding this protest, on 9th September he was
placed in the Commission for the consecration of Parker,^
but in this he decUned to act. Nothing, therefore, remained
but to exact from him the oath of supremacy. On what
day this was done is not ascertained; but on 27th Septem
ber the Privy Council write from Hampton Court to Parker
to lodge the Bishop of Durham in his own house at Lam
beth, to confer with him on matters of religion, to let him
have one man to attend on him, to let him have meat and
drink and all things necessary as to him appertain, but to
have a vigilant eye that none have access to him but those
whom Parker shall appoint.*
Probably, before this letter was received his deposition
had taken place. Machyn writes : " The 28th day of
September was Michaelmas eve, was the old Bishop of
Durham, Dr. Tunstall, deposed of his bishopric, because he
should not receive the rents for that quarter".* But as
Parker hastened to send the Council good hopes of the
pliability of his prisoner, the following answer was returned
on the 2nd October :
^ P. R. 0., Dom. Eliz., vi. 22. A similar letter isaddressed to Sir
Thomas Parry.
^ Ibid. , n. 41.
3 Parker Corresp., p. 77 (Parker Soc.) This is what Camden calls
" firee custody ".
* Diary, p. 214.

58 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
" My good Lord, the contents of your yesterday's letter I
have imparted to Her Majesty and others of Her Majesty's
Council. It is much liked the comfort that ye give of the
Bishop of Durham's towardness, wherein I pray God ye be
not deceived. It is meant, if he will conform himself, that
both he shall remain bishop and in good favour and credit ;
otherwise, he must needs receive the common order of those
which refuse to obey laws. Good my Lord, travaU herein
as ye may with speed. — 2nd October [1559].
"Yours assuredly, "W. CECIL."'
Parker had been too hasty, and had mistaken courtesy
for submission or vacUlation. Three days later Cecil wrote
again : " My good Lords the Queen's Majesty is very sorry ¦
that ye can prevail no more with Mr. Tunstall, and so am I,
I assure you ; for the recovery of such a man would have
furthered the common affairs of this realm very much.
Her Majesty would that he should have liberty to send to
Durham for discharge of his household. And further, ye
may say to him that I trust Her Majesty will be pleased to
appoint him some convenient pension, in consideration of
his reverend age, which shall also be the larger as his con
formity shall give occasion.
"From Westminster, the 5th October, 1559,
"W. CECIL." ^
Of the last six weeks of the venerable confessor's life on
earth we have no record. He died on the 15th November,
1559- From the following letter it seems that his death was
sudden :
" My Lord of Durham hath one of his executors here,
' Parker Corresp., p. 77.
^ Ibid., p. 78.

BISHOP CUTHBERT TUNSTALL. 59
the Other is in the north, where also is his testament. This
executor saith that his mind was to be homely and plainly
buried. Consider you whether it were not best to prescribe
some homest manner of his interring, lest it might else be
evil judged that the order of his funeral were at the Council's
appointment, not known abroad that the handling of it were
only at his executors' liberality. I have sealed up two small
caskets, wherein I think no great substance, either of money
or of writings. There is one roll of books which he pur
posed to deliver to the Queen, which is nothing else but
King Henry's Testament, and a book. Contra communica
tionem utriusque speciei, and such matter. The body, by
reason of his sudden departure, cannot be long kept. Thus
Jesus preserve you. This i8th of November [1559].
" Your headman,
"M. EL. C."'
The funeral took place the next day, and he was buried
in the church at Lambeth. ^ Holinshed writes that Alex
ander Nowell, soon after Dean of St. Paul's, preached his
funeral sermon, and gave him great commendation.
It is not with a wish to deprive Parker of the credit of an
act of kindliness, but for the sake of truth, that I remark
that authors have stated wrongly that the expenses of
Tunstall's funeral were defrayed by the Archbishop-elect.
It is evident from the letter just given that Tunstall left
some money, and the funeral was paid for by the executors.
That such a man as NoweU should have been called in to
preach at his funeral was either the doing of Parker or of the
CouncU. It is equally incorrect to say, as Southey does,
that TunstaU "lived at Parker's table, and was treated by
him as an honourable guest ". He was ordered by the
CouncU to receive convenient diet, but whether he shared
1 Parker Corresp., p. 106. Machyn, p. 218.

6o CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
the table of Dr. and Mrs. Parker we do not know. We
should like to think that he was spared the indignity. But
even should a prisoner be summoned to dine with his jailor,
he is no guest, but a prisoner stUl.
An epitaph on a brass plate was placed under the com
munion table. It was the composition of Walter Haddon,
an elegant Latin writer, but has no great merit.'
An interesting notice of the TunstaU family may be found
in the Rev. T. Gibson's History of Lydiate? The
famUy remained Catholic. They removed from the viUage
of Tunstall, in North Lancashire, to Wickliffe, in Yorkshire.
Cuthbert TunstaU, in 17 18, took the name of Constable. Sir
F. T. Constable, Bart, of Burton Constable and Wickliffe,
is lineal descendant of the Tunstalls.
Ralph Bayne (of Lichfield and Coventry),
Deposed 21st June, 1559 ; died i8th November, 1559.
This bishop had never been involved in schism. An
alumnus of the College of St. John's at Cambridge, he had
profited by the foundation of Blessed John Fisher, and
followed in his footsteps. He was resident in France
during the troubles of Henry VIII. and Edward VL, having
been appointed Professor of Hebrew in the University of
Paris. He published two works on Hebrew Grammar ajid
an exegetical treatise, In Proverbia Salamonis.
He was a staunch opponent of all the Anti-CathoUc
measures in Elizabeth's first Parliament. As one of the
1 Mr. J. G. Nichols, in his Notes on Machyn, says that Tunstall
died on 15th November. If Ducarel, in his History of Lambeth, has
rightly copied the epitaph, he died on the i8th.
Mr. Cave-Brown, the most recent historian of the Palace, makes
the prodigious blunder that Tunstall lived at Lambeth with Parker,
" the large-hearted and the tolerant," for above ten years " ("p. 227}.
2 P. 202.

BISHOP RALPH BAYNE. 6 1
champions of the Catholic side in the Westminster Confer
ence, he was condemned to appear personally each day on
which the Council sat for six weeks, and at last to pay a
fine of ^333 6s. 8d.' On his refusal to take the oath of
supremacy, he was deposed 21st June, 1559.''
Sanders, in his letter to Cardinal Morone, gives the follow
ing interesting account of him : " He was of such constancy
of mind in this persecution that he always went with joy to
any questioning, and returned still happier. But having
been deposed and sent away on bail, he was sitting, both
sick and sorrowful, in his chair, when he heard a voice say
ing to him : ' Be of good courage, for thou shalt suffer
martyrdom'. He is said, by persons worthy of all credit,
to have related this occurrence, but without saying what
kind of martyrdom he would endure. But it was thus. He
suffered such excruciating torment from the stone for six
days, that to the bystanders, among whom were the Bishop
of Chester and the Dean of St. Paul's, the pain seemed
quite unbearable : yet he did not complain, but lifting his
eyes at one time to heaven, and at another resting them on
a crucifix, he invoked the Name of Jesus to the last moment
of his life." *
His death took place at Islington, i8th November, 1559,
and on the 24th he was buried in the Church of St. Dun-
stan-in-the-West, in Fleet Street, as appears by the parish
register* It is a mistake of Wharton to say that he was
buried in Islington, and an error of Dodd to say that his
illness was increased by imprisonment.^
' Council Register, p. 286.
2 Machyn, p. 200.
3 Vatican MS., f. 261.
* Mr. Nichols, note to Machyn, p. 378.
ii Wharton (Anglia Sacra), p. 458, who quotes W. Whitlocki
Dodd, Church History (Biographical Part).

62 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Henry Morgan (of St. David's),
'Deposed 21st June (?), 1559 ; died 23rd December, 1559.
The Bishop of Menevia or St. David's was excused from
attendance in the first Parliament of Elizabeth. He gave
his proxy to Archbishop Heath. It is certain that he was
deposed, since, at the licence for the election of a successor,
the see is declared vacant per legitimam deprivationem
Henrici Morgan} Of the day I can find no certain record.
Machyn, however, states that five bishops were deprived
2ist June, 1559. He mentions the Bishops of Lichfield,
Carlisle, Chester, and Llandaff (who at first seems to have
refused the oath), and the Bishop of  , leaving the name
blank. As all other dates of deprivation are known, this can
only be the Bishop of St. David's or the Bishop of Worcester.
His health was, probably, failing, and he was left at
liberty, and died 23rd December, the same year, 1559.^
Dodd says that, after his deprivation, he lived with his
relations near Oxford, especiaUy with Mr. Owen of Godstow,
leaving behind him a very great character for his innocent
life and charity towards the poor. By his last will he
ordered that his body should be buried in Woolvercote
Church. He left f,d, yearly to be paid to two Masters of
Arts at Oxford, to pray for his soul during the term of five
years.'' Masses, of course, were now illegal, and this was
the only form in which such a legacy could be made.'
Owen Ogelthorpe (of Carlisle),
Deposed 21st June, 1559; died (end of) December, 1559.
The name of Bishop Ogelthorpe appears rather con-
^ ^yracx, Foedera, xv. 561.
^ Stubbs, Reg. Sacr.
3 Fox has a story that he died a horrible death, which Anthony a
Wood refutes.

BISHOP OWEN OGELTHORPE. 63
spicuously in the records of the early days of Elizabeth.
He was present in the Parliament January to May, 1559,
and, together with the other bishops, gave all the opposition
he could to the revolutionary measures of the Government.
I have already ' given the account of an eye-witness of the
Christmas Mass of 1558. " The Queen," he says, " left the
Chapel immediately after the Gospel ". Other authors tell
us that the celebrant, on this occasion, was the Bishop of
Carlisle. Cardinal Allen, who was in England at the time,
and may be considered well informed, has left the following
account. He is explaining why the bishops distrusted
Queen Elizabeth, and expected her to refuse the unction at
the Convocation : " They doubted," he says, " because
they saw, not long before. Her Highness, at her first entrance
to that high estate, command a certain bishop, even the
same Carlisle now named, standing ready to say Mass before
her, not to elevate the holy consecrated Host, but to omit
that ceremony, because she liked it not. Which the said
bishop, to his great honour, constantly refused to obey, — a
thing that in one of us poor men now, perchance, would be
accompted high treason and disloyalty towards our Sovereign.
And of this his courage in God's cause it never repented
him ; but for doing the other office at the coronation, when
he saw the issue of the matter, and the Church's holy, law
and faith, against the condition of her consecration and
acceptation into that Royal room, violated ... he sore
repented him all the days of his life, which were for that
special cause both short and wearisome afterwards unto
him." ^
He was one of those chosen to maintain the Cathohc side
in the Conference of Westminster in March, 1559, and I
have already related that, on account of what the Council
1 See p. 17. ^ True and Modest Defence, p. 51.

64 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
were pleased to consider contempt of Her Majesty's orders,
after the daily humiliation of reporting himself to the Council
for six weeks, he was fined in the sum of ^^133 6s. 8d.'
Such was the gratitude of the Queen for his conciliatory
spirit in performing the coronation service. Lord Burghley
says not a word of the fine when he praises the bishop's
" courteous nature and inclination to dutifulness ".^
He was cited to take the oath of supremacy, and on his
refusal was deprived, 21st June, 1559.° He died in London
(of apoplexy, according to Heylin) towards the end of
December. He was buried in St. Dunstan's-in-the-West,
4th January, 1560, as the worthy undertaker, Machyn,
remarks, " with alff a dosen skochyons of armes," * but, of
course, without dirge or requiem.
As the refusal of the Bishop of Carlisle 'to omit the
elevation at the bidding of the Queen has been called in
question, I wUl add two contemporary accounts to those
already given. The Spanish ambassador, De Feria, dis
tinctly names him, and adds that, when the Queen sent
word to him not to elevate, the bishop replied that she
should be mistress of his goods and life, but not of his con
science, whereupon she left the Chapel after the Gospel.*
Sanders, in his letter to Cardinal Morone, writes : "it
having been customary that, at the Feast of the Nativity,
^ Council Register, p. 286.
2 See supra, p. 3.
¦* Machyn, p. 200.
* Diary, p. 221. " Scocheons," says Mr Nichols, " were the
lowest description of heraldic ensign allotted for funerals. Mere
gentlemen had no penon, but as many scocheons as were desired.
But the funerals ofthe higher ranks were also provided with scocheons
in addition to their other insignia. They were made of metal, silk,
buckram, or paper. They bore the arms of the family, the bishopric
or the society to which the deceased belonged."
^ Simancas Documents, p. 48.

BISHOP OWEN OGELTHORPE. 65
one of the bishops should say Mass in the Royal Chapel,
the Bishop of Carlisle, being vested, stood at the altar, when
two messengers of the Queen forbade him to elevate the
Sacred Host. He was astounded at this novelty, but boldly
replied : ' Whether he should say Mass at that altar or
not was as the Queen pleased ; but with what rite and with
what ceremonies it should be said, he, being a bishop, knew
quite well, nor would he make any change '. When the
messengers departed, he began the celebration, and pro
ceeded in all things according to the ancient rite. But the
Queen, not enduring to pay adoration to so great a Sacra
ment, left after the reading of the Gospel, satisfied (as I
think) with a Mass of the catechumens, though she was not
worthy of that rank." ' This was written about two years
after the event.
Sanders adds that, after his deprivation, he was cast
into prison, and that his grief for having crowned Elizabeth
hastened, as many thought, his death. Of this imprison
ment I have seen no other mention. But Sanders was in
England at the time.
In addition to the above testimonies, we have the
sworn evidence of Edmund Daniel, Dean of Hereford,
made in Rome in 1570. " I was present," he says, "when
the Queen Elizabeth in her chapel,^ when the Bishop of
Carlisle was celebrating Mass, while the choir was singing
the Gloria, sent her secretary to him, bidding him not to
elevate. But the bishop, as I have heard, replied that he
should elevate the Host according to the custom of the
Catholic Church. The Queen, therefore, left before the
Gospel, and her secretary told me she left not to witness
the elevation. .\nd the dean [of the chapel] commanded
1 Vatican MS., 64, 7, 28, f. 260.
- He says sub anno 1559. The date was Christmas, 1558.
5

66 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
me to celebrate on St. Stephen's Day, without elevating.
This I refused to do. Therefore she sent her own chaplain,
named Minter, who celebrated without elevation, and I saw
the Queen assisting at his Mass." '
John White (of Winchester),
Deposed 26th June, 1559; died 12th Jan., 1560.
John White, a natiye of Farnham, in Surrey, had been
educated at Winchester and New CoUege, Oxford, and had
been Warden of Winchester. He had refused to conform
to Protestant innovations under Edward VI. , and under
Mary had been promoted to the See of Lincoln, and therice
translated to Winchester. He was a good Latin poet, as
well as a learned controversialist.
After Elizabeth's accession, he had preached at the
funeral of the Bishop of Rochester, in the Church of St.
Magnus, in London, on the 30th November, 1558,^ and at
the funeral of Queen Mary, in Westminster Abbey, on the
14th December. This sermon has been preserved.^ The
eulogy of Queen Mary was supposed to reflect on the known
opinions and anticipated conduct of her sister, and gave so
much offence that the bishop received orders from the
Council to consider himself a prisoner within his house in
Southwark. This, however, was not of long duration. He
•was admonished and set at liberty on 19th January;* was
probably present at the coronation, as he certainly was at
the Parliament. He was one of the eight Catholic dis
putants in the Conference in Westminster Abbey.* On
^ Ladercius, iii. 204, quoted by Lewis in note to Rishton's additions
to Sanders. ^ Machyn, p. 180.
^Strype, Memorials, App. iii. ; Tierney's Dodd, ii,, App. xxxii.
'' Council Register.
' For this, see the Life of Watson.

BISHOP JOHN WHITE. 67
Monday, the 3rd April, the Conference having been broken
up, the Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln were sent
prisoners to the Tower.' The Council ordered them to be
kept in sure and separate wards, suffering them to have
attendance by their own servants, and to provide their own
bedding and furniture. They were to be appointed " some
convenient lodging meet for persons of their sort, using
them also otherwise well ".
The CouncU also at once sent Sir Ambrose Cave and Sir
Richard SackvUle, two of their number, to the bishops'
London houses, " to peruse their studies and writings, and
to take order with their officers for the surety of their
goods ".'
Two entries in the Council Register show the nature of
this imprisonment. On the 9th May a letter was written to
the Lieutenant of the Tower, "to suffer the Bishop of
Winchester's cook from time to time to attend upon him for
the dressing of his meat, so as he speak only with hira in his
[the Lieutenant's] presence, or such as he shall appoint.
And, in like sort, to suffer the Lady White, his sister, '^ to
repair unto him at such times as he [the Lieutenant] shall
think meet, so as ut supra" — i.e., the interview not to be a
private one.
Again, on the nth, certain officers to repair to the Bishop
of Winchester for the understanding of his reckonings and
accounts ; but they must only speak with him in the
Lieutenant's presence.
On the 26th June the Bishop of Winchester was brought
¦^ Machyn, p. 192.
^ Council Reg., vol. i.
' This may mean his sister-in-law. Both his sister and his sister-
in-law were named Lady White. His brother was Sir John White,
his brother-in-law Sir Thomas White. See note of Mr. Nichols in
Machyn's Diary, p. 378.

68 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
from the Tower to the Sheriffs house in Mincing Lane,
where the oath was proposed to him by the Commissioners,
and by him refused. He was at once re-conveyed to the
Tower.' Machyn tells us that, on the 7th July, my good Lord of
AVinchester, Dr. White, came out of the Tower, with the
Lieutenant, Sir Edward Warner, by six in the morning, and
so to my Lord Keeper ofthe Broad Seal [Sir Nicolas Bacon],
and from thence unto Master Whyte, alderman, and there
he lies.''' He had thus been in strict, solitary confinement
for rather more than three months, and during that time
deprived of all opportunity of public worship or reception of
the holy Sacraments.
His brother-in-law. Sir Thomas White, alderman, had a
house at South Warnborough, in Hampshire.* Thither he
retired ; but his health had been seriously affected in the
unhealthy prison, and he suffered for the next six months
from an ague, which carried him off on the 1 2th January,
1560. He left large legacies to his servants, says Machyn.*
He desired by his will to be buried in his own cathedral,
and this was not refused him. The funeral took place on
15th Janiiary.
Strype has said : " White died in liberty. Although he
had liberty to walk abroad, he would not be quiet, but he
would needs preach, which he did seditiously in his Romish
pontifical vestments ; but, upon his acknowledgment of his
misdemeanour, he was set free.'' I cannot tell the source
from which this is derived, nor have I sufficient trust in
Strype's accuracy to accept it simply on his word. If, how-
^ Machyn, p. 201.
2 Diary, p. 203. The Lord Keeper was one of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners. ' Milner's Winchester, i. 282 ; 3rd ed.
^ Diary, p. 223.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IV. 69
ever, it is true, it is all the more honourable to the zeal of
the good bishop.
His reason for wishing to be buried in his cathedral,
as expressed in his will, was : Ut in novissima die resurgatn
cum patribus et filiis quorum fidem teneo} He had, when
warden of Winchester CoUege, prepared his burial-place, and
written his epitaph there. '^^006., Athen. Ox.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IV.
Though my purpose in this sketch is to correct historical misstate
ments, I should weary my readers if I noticed all the blunders in Miss
Strickland's account of the first years of Elizabeth. Every sentence
teems with inaccuracies. In one place ^ she says : " There were but
five or six Catholic bishops surviving the pestilence, and these all
obstinately refused to perform the ceremony " of coronation. A few
pages later : " Thirteen prelates, in consequence of refusing to take
the oath declaring the Queen's supremacy, were ejected by this
Parliament from their sees ".^
In her account of the coronation. Miss Strickland writes : " The
Queen's perplexity regarding the prelate who was to crown her must
have continued till the last moment, because had Dr. Oglethorpe, the
Bishop of Carlisle, been earlier prevailed on to perform the ceremony,
it is certain proper vestments could have been prepared for him,
instead of borrowing them firom Bonner, which was actually done on
the spur of the moment ". Now, nothing whatever was done on the
spur of the moment. The coronation took place on Sunday, 15th
January, 1559. Long before, the part of each bishop had been
assigned, for several took part in the ceremony, though the Bishop of
Carlisle was the officiant and the celebrant. He was not the preacher.
As regards the vestments, there were some of special magnificence,
reserved for such regal ceremonies, and these were naturally in the
custody of the Bishop of London. The order of the Council for
their delivery at Westminster was issued four days before the cere
mony. The following is the entry in the Council Register : " nth
^ Vol. iv., p. 144; ed. 1851. -Ibid., p. 157.

70 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
January. A letter to the Bishop of London to lend to the Bishop of
Carleol, who is appointed to execute the solemnity of the Queen's
Majesty's coronation universum apparatum Pontificium quo uti
solent Episcopi in hujusmodi magnificis illustrissimorum regum in-
augurationihis." Again, Miss Strickland writes : " Elizabeth attended in person at
her sister's interment, and Hstened attentively to her funeral sermon,
preached by Dr. White, Bishop of Winchester, which was in Latin.
. . . Had Dr. White preached in English his sermon might have
done her much mischief. ... In conclusion, he observed that Queen
Mary had left a sister, a lady of great worth also, whom they were
bound to obey ; ' for,' said he, ' melior est canis vivus leone mortuo '.
Elizabeth was too good a Latinist not to fire at this elegant simile.
... As the bishop descended the pulpit stairs, Elizabeth ordered
him under arrest. He defied her, and threatened her with excom
munication, for which she cared not a rush. He was a prelate of
austere but irreproachable manners, exceedingly desirous of testifying
his opinions by a public martyrdom. Elizabeth was too wise to
indulge him with that distinction."
Everything in this passage is incorrect. The sermon was preached
in English, not in Latin, though texts of Scripture are quoted in
Latin, according to the custom.' Queen Elizabeth does not seem to
have been present, but the bishop spoke in every way honourably of
her : " Let us comfort ourselves in the other sister whom God hath
left, wishing her a prosperous reign, in peace and tranquillity, with
the blessing which the prophet speaketh of, if it be God's will tit
videat filios filiorum et pacem super Israel, ever confessing that,
though God hath mercifully provided for them both, yet Maria
optimum partem elegit ; because it is still a conclusion : laudavi
mortuos magis quam viventes ". The words about the live dog and
dead lion occur in a different part of the sermon, and a meaning is
given them that could by no possibility reflect on the Queen. " One
living dog," says White, " one vigilant minister in the Church barking
against sin and heresy, is better than ten dreaming dead lions, or
.great ecclesiastics who let things take their course." It is not clear
what gave offence, not so much to the Queen as to her Council.
Probably it was the praise given to Mary for not calling herself Head
ofthe Church, and the saying that if a woman could be Head the
Church would have a dumb head, since it is forbidden to a woman to
1 It is printed fully by Strype in his Memorials, App. iii.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IV. 7 1
speak in the Church. But it had been resolved to seize every oppor
tunity to find fault with and humble the bishops.
Miss Strickland's description of the bishop threatening the Queen
there and then with excommunication is an application of her own to
this occasion of what Camden wrote regarding the Westminster Con
ference, four months later, though it is equally untrue of either.
Bishop White's manners were in no way austere ; on the contrary,
he was of a courteous nature, according to Lord Burghley. His
wish and efforts to provoke martyrdom have no grounds either in
history or historians.

CHAPTER V.
BISHOPS SCOTT, PATE, POOLE, BONNER.
Cuthbert Scott (of Chester),
Deposed 21st June, 1559; died 1565.
THERE is no one of the bishops about whom so many
mistakes are made as about the Bishop of Chester.
Mr. Bruce, in his notes to Hayward, whom he edited
for the Camden Society, writes as follows : " AU the lists of
the deposed bishops differ ; the following I believe to be a
correct one ". He has gathered.it from Rymer's authentic
documents, and it is correct, with one exception ; for he has
omitted from his list Cuthbert Scott, Bishop of Chester,
though with regard to his deprivation there was neither
doubt nor obscurity. His name, however, had not been
mentioned by Lord Burghley nor by Andrewes. Camden
had merely said that "he voluntarily departed the land".
Heylin mentioned his deposition, but told nothing of his
subsequent history. Collier writes : "As for Cuthbert
Scott, Bishop of Chester, Richard Pate of Worcester, and
Thomas Goldwell of St. Asaph's, they had the liberty of
retiring beyond the sea, which they made their choice".
Yet this is probably the very last kind of liberty the Queen
would have granted them ; and it was not till after long
imprisonment that two of them contrived to escape.
Southey is content with the single phrase : " Three of,
the ex-bishops withdrew to the Continent ". Even Lingard
does not seem to be aware of the imprisonments of Scott

BISHOP cuthbert scott. 73
and Pate, for he classes them with Goldwell : " Scott of
Chester, Goldwell of St. Asaph, and Pate of Worcester
found the means of retiring to the Continent " ; which is
quite true, but inadequate and misleading. Lastly, Charles
Butler says : " Some were permitted to cross the seas, and
died abroad ".
I have spoken sufficiently in a former chapter of Scott's
zeal in Elizabeth's first Parliament, and given some extracts
from his speeches. I have also mentioned his treatment by
the Council, and the fine imposed on him after the Con
ference of Westminster. He was deposed for refusing the
oath of supremacy on 21st June, 1559.'
A document, apparently in the handwriting of the
principal jailor of the Fleet prison, runs as foUows : "This
yis the names off aU the bysshopes doctors and pristes
that were prisoners in the flytte for Religion synse the fyrste
yere of the raygne of quene Elizabethe an. dom. 1558"
Amongst them is : " A byshoppe Mr. Cutberte Skotte was
commyttyd on ye 13 of May 1561 ". In the same list are
Dr. Nicolas Harpsfield, committed 20th August, 1559; his
brother, Dr. John Harpsfield, committed 9th July, 1561 ;
Mr Thomas Wood, " priste and electyd a bisshope," com
mitted the 20th November, 1561, and several more.'' But
the writer must have made an error in the year as regards
Dr. Scott, since in a return made on 3rd July, 1561, to the
Council, the warden of the Fleet says : " Cutberd Scott
som tyme byschopp of Chester was committied presoner to
the fflete the xiii of maij an. dom. 1560 by the Quenis
Majesties commyssioners. And his cause ys to me un
known."^ ^ Machyn (p. 201), who calls him the Bishop of Westchester.
¦^ Harl. MS., " Pluto," L. E. 360-7.
•* P. R,,0., Dom. Eliz., xviii. 5.

74 catholic hierarchy.
Of the nature of Dr. Scott's imprisonment, in addition to
what has been said in a former chapter, some special con
jecture may be made . from a document still preserved
among the Petyt MSS. in the Inner Temple. In the first •
year of the bishop's imprisonment some constitutions were
made for the government of the Fleet prison. The 12th
article runs as follows : " That the Warden shall take of
every man or woman that shaU sit at the parlour-commons
2s. 4d. weekly for his bed and chamber, and of every man
or woman that shall sit at the hall-commons i4d. for his bed
and chamber, lying like prisoners two in a bed together".
In addition to this 2s. ^d. for the privUege of sleeping
alone, the bishop had to pay iSs. 6d. a week for his board.
This we know by a document signed by him : " We, the
prisoners undernamed, having deliberately consulted there
upon, do now agree, with the assent of the Warden, that
every person of the degrees hereunder written, for their
weekly commons and wine, over and besides the rate for
their bed and chamber, shall weekly pay — a knight, a
doctor of divinity, and other having 200 marks a year
living, i8s. 6d. An esquire, a gentleman, or other person
at parlour-commons shall pay for their weekly commons and
wine loi-."' Thus, then, for board and lodging in the Fleet,
the unfortunate prisoners who wished to maintain some
decency paid more than j£i a week, or about ;^io a week
in modern value.
After four years' confinement in this jail, the bishop was
released, on his bond that he would remain within twenty
miles distance from Finchingfield in Essex, and make his
personal appearance before the Ecclesiastical Commissioners
1 The document is printed in the Eleventh Report of the Historical
Manuscripts Commission, App., part vii., p. 247 (1888). The names of
Cuthbert Scott, Henry Cole, and Nicholas Harpsfield are signed to
it, with those of several laymen.

BISHOP CUTHBERT SCOTT. 75
when duly summoned.' This was a penal obligation, and
not a parole d'honneur ; and the bishop did not consider
himself bound by it, but managed to escape into Belgium.
His flight acted unfavourably on some other prisoners ; for
when Dr. Boxall, Dean of Windsor, who had been several
years confined in the Tower, and in September, 1563, had
been transferred to the custody of Dr. Parker, petitioned for
his release, the answer sent to him by the Council was as
follows, on 23rd June, 1564: "Forasmuch as one Dr. Scott,
sometime Bishop of Chester, receiving favour upon his own
bond and the bond of his friends, hath withdrawn himself
without regard had either of his own bond or the danger of
his friends, and therein hath committed the act of contempt
of the Queen's Majesty, a matter much noted and many
ways evil reported unto us, we cannot therefore con
veniently accord Mr. Boxall's suit, seeing the former lenity
and gentleness used to others in this case hath so freshly
wrought a lack of consideration in the person of the said
Scott, which Mr. Boxall, being a wise man, can consider ".^
Probably Dr. Boxall, being a wise man, made some other
reflections than on the " lenity and gentleness " of the
CouncU. He reflected that he, as well as Dr. Scott, was
enduring prison for no offence, and by no law.
I have been fortunate enough to discover one other notice
of Dr. Scott. In a Latin life of Blessed John Fisher,
written in Paris early in the next century, the writer
says : " In this same college " — Christ's College, Cambridge
— " was brought up that Bishop of Chester, Cuthbert Scott,
who, being in Louvain at the time when that sacred war was
beginning to be waged by Dr. Harding and his companions
with so much success, by his authority and his money gave
1 P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., xxxv. 38.
2 MS. in C C C C, n. 114 ; printed in Strype's Parker, p. 218.

76 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
no litde help ".' He aUudes to the controversy with Jewell.
Dr. Scott died some time in 1565, but I have not been able
to discover the exact date. His epitaph was written by
Richard Shacklock, a lawyer and scholar, who was living as
an exile for his faith in Belgium.^
Richard P.a.te (of Worcester),
Deprived June, 1559 ; died 23rd November, 1565.
The Bishop of Worcester has the distinction of having
been one of the two bishops who represented the English
Church in the Council, of Trent." Having been sent by
Henry on an embassy in 1540, he refused to return to
England, and was attainted. He was appointed to the
bishopric of Worcester by the Pope on 8th July, 1541,
and was probably consecrated in Italy, but he did not
receive the temporalities of his see tUl the reign of Queen
Mary. He was present in the Council of Trent on 29th
December, 1546,* as weU as in 1552. He returned to
England, in 1554.
Throughout the first Parliament of Elizabeth he voted
with the rest of the bishops against every anti-Catholic
measure of the Government. The exact date of his
deprivation is not ascertained, but as the spiritualities of
^ " In eodem collegio enutritus erat Episcopus Cestrensis, Cuth-
bertus Scott, qui tunc Lovanii agens, quando sacrum illud bellum a
D. Hardingo et sociis feliciter inchoatum erat, auctoritate sua et
opibu^ sine dubio haud mediocriter juvit." — Harl. MS., 7030.
^ See Extracts from the Registers of the Stationers' Company, by
J. Payne Collier, p. 121. A counter epitaph or epigram seems to have
been written and printed by Thomas Drant, 1565-6.
^ The other was Thomas Goldwell, of St. Asaph's. There was of
course another, and a very illustrious. Englishman, but Cardinal Pole
was not a bishop, nor even a priest, when president of the Council.
^ Pallavicini's History of the Council, book viii., ch. xvii.

BISHOP RICHARD PATE.

77

the vacant see were seized on 30th June, 1559,' it is
probable that he was deposed about the 24th or 25 th June.
Cardinal Bellarmine, under the name of Tortus, had com
plained of the imprisonment of so many bishops. The
Protestant Andrewes replied to him in a work called Tortura
Torti. He writes of Pate and Goldwell as follows : " I
grant that Pate of Worcester and Goldwell of St. Asaph's
left the country, but neither of them by any sentence of
the law, but by their own free will "?¦ It is curious that
this is literally true, while conveying an utterly false
meaning. Andrewes implies that the law left them free to
go, whereas they had to escape the vigilance of the Govern
ment. He implies also that neither of them was imprisoned.
I have already given the documents which prove that Bishop
Pate was committed to the Tower on 20th May, 1560, and
was not delivered until September, 1563.*
He is said by Dodd to have been present at the close of
the Council of Trent on 3rd December, 1563, and sub
scribed in the name of the Catholic Church in England ;
but of this I can find no confirmation. His death is thus
entered in a list of obits written on an old Psalterium now
in Exeter CoUege, Oxford : " Nov. 23 Obitus venerabUis
Richardi Pates episcopi Wigornensis 1565".*
His wiU, drawn up by him on 12th February, 1561,
whUe in the Tower, is stUl preserved in the English
College, Rome. I give the most interesting parts.* "In
1 Reg. Cant, apud Harmer {i.e., Wharton), Specimen, p. 151.
2 " De Pato Wigornensi, de Goldwello ibidem Asaphensi et illos
excessisse regno fatemur, neutrum tamen ex legis sententia aliqua,
tantum quia ipsi voluerunt " (p. 147).
3 See p. 39.
^ See letter to the Academy, by Mr. C. W. Boase, 15th April, 1876.
^ It is printed at length by Dr. Maziere Brady in his Episcopal
Succession, vol. ii., 283.

78 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Dei nomine. Amen. I Richard Pate, the late Bushop
of Worcester, being at this present in competent bodyly
helth and of perfyte rtiemorye, for the uncertainty of my
caUing oute of this transitorie lyfe by syckness or otherwyse,
as almyghty God shall despose, have thought it good and
expedient without further delai to make now my last wiU
and testament in manner and forme foUowing : First I doe
commend my sowle into the merciful hands of almyghty
God, my creator, trusting to have hir saved by the merits
of Jesus Christ his only begotten Son my redeemer : and
the sam by the intercession of our blessed lady his mother
the Virgin Marye, and of all holly saynts of his Catholyke
Church, as well triumphant in heaven as yet militant in
earth : And my body to be decently buried in that parish
churche where it shall fortune me to die, or otherwhere, at
the appoyntment of myne executors." He then bequeaths
certain sums invested in Rome at the monte de la fede and
the monte della farina to the " Right Rev. Father in God
Thomas Goldwell, my Lord Assaphen, and my dear friend
Mr. Henry Pinynges " to dispense as directed. They were
at once to make an instrument conveying these monies "to
my See and the Cathedral Church of Worcester". " During
the tyme this scisme goes in the realme, my wyll ys that no
penny of the sayd annuities, nor yet any knowledge thereof,
shold come unto the mencyoned Cathedral Church, but the
disposycyon of the same, duryng the said scisme, shalbe
hoUye at your discretions and at the discretyon of the
longest lyving of you bothe, to be bestowed in almes upon
our poore country men and women, as well religiouse as
secular, which at this present for conscience sake are fled
into those partyes, and have not wherewith to susteyne
themselves. " When it shall please God to send the return of our
realme to the unite of Christes Churche, then I wold have

BISHOP RICHARD PATE. 79
you convey the instrument before made by you of my
donacyon thereof, unto my Cathedral Church ; and then
the sayd annuities to be employed upon an obit once in
the year for my sowle, my father and mother, John and
Ehnor Pate, and Mr Seth HoUaindes, the late dean of the
same, and the ministers of the Church to have 20 nobles
for theyr payns, and to the poore people of Worcester on
the same day to be distributed in almes 20 marks, and
other 20 marks yearly to be given in exhibycion to the
helpe and furthirance of 4 scholars and students in Gloceter
College, in the Universitie of Oxford," &c.'
" And whereas my sayd testament unto you mayd ys not
so formally as the lawe paraventure requirethe, the same
not being confirmed by any notaryes scale, I must request
you, . and those unto whom the approbacyon thereof shall
appertayne, to consyder myne estate at the makyng thereof,
and how 1 was at that present a cloose prisoner for my
faythe and defence of the unite of Christ's Church in the
Tower of London, and could have none other better mean
to expresse my mynde unto you."
Mass, says Dr. Brady, is stUl said for Richard Pate in the
Church of the English CoUege, Rome, on the 5th of October,
annually ; but, if we may trust the entry in the Calendar
given above. Dr. Brady is wrong in considering the 5th
October the day of his death.^

^ A noble was 6s. 8d., a mark 13s. 4d.
2 Le Plat, in his list of bishops present in the Council of Trent,
wrongly puts Bishop Pate's death in 1559. Ricardus Patus, Anglus
Episcopus Vigornensis, EL, 1534 ; Ob. 1559. It is curious also that the
writ Significavit for the confirmation of Edwin Sands (l8th Dec, 1559)
speaks of the See of Worcester as vacant by the death of the last
bishop (unnamed) ; but the writ for the restitution of the temporalities
mentions the " deprivation of Richard Pate, the late bishop " (Rymer,
XV. 550, 553).

8o CVTHOLIC HIERARCHY.
David Poole (of Peterborough),
Deposed November, 1559 ; died June, 1568.
Not much can be told about Dr. Poole, or Pole.' There
exists a letter of his to Sir William Cecil, dated 28th
December, 1558, thanking him for a gift he had sent him of
a buck and a doe. In the same letter he begs the Queen
to accept a small gift of twenty marks, and that she wiU
excuse his attendance in Parliament.^ From this it would
appear that there was some friendship between him and the
new Secretary. And, writing twenty years later, Cecil
speaks of him as " an ancient, grave person and very quiet
subject ".*
His history is one on which the various Protestant
historians dwell with emphasis. " Pole of Peterborough,"
writes Andrewes, "was treated with the greatest courtesy,
by the kindness ofthe Queen enjoyed continuous freedom,
till he at last died at a good old age in his own estate."*
What could Bellarmine or the English Catholics on the
Continent have to say against such a splendid jproof of
tolerance and liberality ? There is, however, another view of
things ; and though Dr. Poole did not 'share the Tower or
the Marshalsea with his brother bishops, he had oppor
tunities of proving his constancy and of acquiring the merit
of a confessor. He refused to consecrate Parker when his
name was placed on the Commission ; and when the oath
1 Burnet calls him a brother of Cardinal Pole, but is refuted by
Harmer (i.e., Wharton). — Specimen, p. 145.
2 P. R. 0., Dom. Eliz., i. 48.
'' See supra, p. 3.
* "Polus Petriburgensis summa comitate habitus, liber semper
principis beneficio, et in agro suo matura setate discessit" (Tortura
Torti, p. 146). Heylin repeats this word for word, except that he
translates in agro suo " on one of his farms," to give the reader
a vision of large possessions quietly enjoyed.

BISHOP DAVID POOLE. 51
of supremacy was tendered, he endured the penalty of
deprivation rather than take it. The spiritualities of his see
were seized on the nth November, 1559. His deposition
must have preceded by a few days.'
In a return of " recusants which are abroad and bound to
certain places," placed by Mrs. Green in the Calendar in
1561, there is the following entry: "David Poole, late
Bishop of Peterborough, to remain in the city of London
and suburbs, or within three miles compass about the
same ". And opposite his name the following character is
given : " A man known and reported to live quietly, and
therefore hitherto tolerated "?
If he continued to be tolerated it was not owing to the
tolerant spirit of the new bishops. Among the MSS. of
the Marquis of Salisbury is a letter of Thomas Bentham,
Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, to the CouncU, dated
loth November, 1564, in which he complains that "whereas
the country is too much hindered in all good things per
taining to religion, yet the abiding of Doctor Poole, late
Bishop of Peterborough, with Bryan Fowler, Esq., causeth
many people to think worse of the regiment and religion
than else they would do, because divers lewd priests have
resort thither". The bishop therefore suggests that his
removal would do much good to the country.*
Bishop Willis says : " In his wiU, which I have seen,
dated 17th May, and proved 6th July, 1568, he names no
place of burial, but leaves it to his executors, who were his
1 Harmer's Specimen, p. 151. Willis, in his Survey of Cathedrals
(iii. 505), says he was deposed about June. This is clearly wrong,
since his name was in the Commission for Parker's consecration on
gth September.
^ P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., Addenda, xi. 45.
3 " Calendar of MSS. of Marquis of Salisbury," part i. 309, in the
App. oi Historical MSS. Commission, 1883.
6

82 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
own Archdeacon Dr. Binnesley, and one Wilkinson. How
ever, as his death seems to have happened in London in
Jurie, 1568, I presume he was interred in St. Paul's
Cathedral in that city, though I find no memorial for him
there or anywhere else. In his said will he bequeathed his
books at London and Peterborough, of Divinity and Law, to
All-Souls' CoUege Library (Oxford)."'
It is pleasant to think that, resident in a Catholic house.
Bishop Poole may from time to time have been able to
celebrate the Divine Mysteries, and perhaps received the
last sacraments at the hands of one of those " lewd priests,"
as Bentham calls them, who resorted to him, a privilege
shared by few of his episcopal brethren.
Edmund Bonner (of London),
Deposed 29th May, 1559; died 5th September, 1569.
From the Council Register we find that a letter was sent
to the Bishop of London by the Council, on 3rd January,
1559, "that he should come the next day to the Vice-
Chamberlain, and bring with him all such commissions as
were made to him and others for the examination and
ordering of heresies and other misorders in the Church in
the time of the late Queen ". And, a few days previously
(i8th December, 1558) a return had been asked ofthe official
of the Arches of the persons who had been called before the
Bishop of London by commission, and of the judgment and
fines.'' These measures show that it was the hope of Sir
William Cecil and Elizabeth's other Protestant advisers that
proof might be found that Bishop Bonner had gone beyond
his commission, or exceeded the limits of the law. As no.
such charge was brought against him, it may be presumed
that no such proofs were found.
1 Survey of Cathedrals, iii. 505.
^ Council Reg., Eliz., vol. i. (MS.).

BISHOP EDMUND BONNER. 83
There is a curious entry in the Council Register, on
1 8th December, 1558, which shows that even Elizabeth's
CouncU imposed unpleasant judicial tasks upon him : " A
letter to the Bishop of London, with certain examinations
.-taken of men that practised conjuring in the city of London,
sent unto him by Mr. Attorney, wherein he is willed to pro
ceed by such severe punishment against them that should
be proved culpable herein, according, to the order of
ecclesiastical laws, as he shall think meet ". Yet, according
to Miss Strickland and the authorities she quotes, Eliza
beth's confidential maid, Blanche Parry, was an adept in the
art of conjuring, and the Queen would not be crowned until
Dr. Dee, the conjuror, had chosen for her a lucky day.
The Bishop of London, the See of Canterbury being
vacant, was asked by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury
to preside in Convocation. But his duties were merely
formal, and his action was confined to presenting the
petition of the lower House of Convocation to the House of
Peers in Parliament in favour of the Catholic doctrine.
He was active in Parliament, and voted with the other
bishops. He was the first among the bishops to whom the
oath was offered, and he has therefore the credit of being
the first to have refused the oath and incurred the penalties.
He was deprived on 29th May, 1559.
It has been asserted by many writers that Bonner was
confined in prison for his own security. Andrewes was, I
believe, the originator of this myth. " It was not safe for
him to go out, lest he should have been stoned."' The
myth was developed by Fuller : " Bonner was imprisoned
in the Marshalsea, a jail being conceived the safest place
to secure him from the people's fury, every hand itching to
I " Ut nee tutum esset ei prodire in publicum, ne saxis obrueretur "
{Tortura Torti, p. 147).

84 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
give a good squeeze to that sponge of blood ". Southey
goes one step farther : " Though Bonner was allowed to go
abroad, he dared not, because of the hatred of the people.
He never betrayed the slightest shame or compunction for
the cruelties which he had committed, but maintained to
the last the same coarse and insolent temper ; indeed, it
was rumoured and believed that he looked for no life
but the prespnt, and therefore had no hope or fear
beyond it."' Thus our historians write according to the
fancy of the moment. If the bishop is known to have
been active in Parliament, he is painted by Mr. Froude as
" standing out with unshaken daring to brave the execra
tions that were heaped upon his name ". If he is known to
have been shut up in prison, he is painted by Mr. Southey
as not daring to show himself Now the simple fact is this.
After his deprivation, on 29th May, 1559, he remained at
liberty in London for nearly a year, not flying before the
infuriated people, nor, as far as we know, molested by them ;
and his committal to prison was neither for his own safeguard
nor in punishment for present or past offences, but by a
measure in which he shared the fate of Heath and Bourne
and TurberviUe, who are acknowledged to have been men
in great esteem and every way popular.'^
A return of prisoners in the Marshalsea, made on 2nd
July, 1 56 1, gives: "Dr. Bonner, sent in the 20th April,
1560, upon the commandment of the Lord Archbishop of
Canterbury and others, the Queen's Majesty's Commis
sioners — viz., for matter of religion ".^
1 Book of Church, ch. xv. Surely Bonner's most malignant enemy
never accused him of passing judgment of heresy on such grounds as
those on which Southey passes judgment of atheism.
^ Sanders, however, in his letter to Cardinal Morone, admits that
he was so hated by the London populacs that he could scarcely
venture abroad. He tells this to his honour.
' P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., xviii. 2.

BISHOP EDMUND BONNER. 85
Our imaginative, historians are equally positive as to the
mildness with which the bishop's imprisonment was con
ducted. As they could not deny that it lasted till his
death, that is to say, for nine and a half years, they were
determined it should be only a pleasant retirement.
Andrewes seems again to have the credit of the invention.
" It is true," he says to Bellarmine, "he grew old in prison,
but if you had seen where, you would not have said that he
was worn out with hunger. He lived luxuriously ; there
were gardens and orchards if he wished to walk ; in fact,
with the exception that his range was limited, there was
nothing whatever like a prison." This has been repeated
by succeeding writers as if the testimony of Andrewes had
been that of an eye-witness, though he wrote about forty
years after Bonner's death. I do not pretend to know the
exact treatment of Bonner ; but if Heath and Watson,
Pate and Turberville, were condemned to " close and
several " confinement in the Tower,' there is no likelihood
that greater indulgence was granted to Bonner in the
Marshalsea. We know, too, that at the intercession of
De Silva, the Spanish ambassador, in 1564, the Queen
" gave orders to mitigate the confinement of the Bishop of
London"^ — an expression which proves the severity exer
cised till then, whatever it may imply as to the future.
The Marshalsea prison was in Southwark, and thus in the
diocese of Winchester. The Parliament of 1563 had
authorised the Protestant bishops to require the oath of
supremacy from any who had held office in the last three
reigns, and had made the penalty of the first refusal per
petual imprisonment, and of the second death. But in
AprU, 1564, Archbishop Parker, in consequence of a conver
sation with CecU, drew up a form of circular to the bishops,
1 See ante, p. 39. ^ Documents of Simancas, p. 93.

86 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
which Cecil corrected and completed.' In this they were
instructed not to tender the oath to anyone a second time,
without first referring the matter to himself They were to
keep this instruction secret to themselves, but Parker kept
secret from them that he did this by the Queen's wish,
since, as he says, he had found them to be very leaky —
pleni rimarum — and it would have " discouraged the honest
Protestants and rejoiced the (Popish) adversaries " too much
had the Queen's leniency become known .^
An exception, however, was made as regards Bishop
Bonner. It was agreed between Archbishop Parker of
Canterbury, Bishop Grindal of London, and Bishop Horn
of Winchester, to readminister the -oath and entangle him in
the penalties of refusal. This we learn from the following
letter of Grindal to Sir W. Cecil : " For Dr. Bonner's oath
I did of purpose not trouble you with it aforehand, that if
any misliked the matter ye might liquido jurare ye were not
privy of it. Notwithstanding I had my Lord of Canterbury's
approbation by letters, and I used good advice of the learned
in the laws. I could wish that the judges were moved that
expedition may be used before them. A thing obtained
with such difficulty would not the better lie without all exe
cution, and no more meet man to begin withal than that
person. God keep you. Yours in Christ, Edm. London.
2nd May, 1564."
Grindal had miscalculated. He and his brother intruders
were eager to execute the new law, "obtained with such
difficulty," against those whose places they filled; but
Bonner was not the man to begin with. He was skilled in
civil no less than in canon law, and he thoroughly baffled
them.^ He pleaded before the judges that he could not be
1 Parker Corresp., p. 174. 2 Ibid., p. 173.
^ He was allowed the help of Plowden and Wray to defend his

BISHOP EDMUND BONNER. 87
indicted for violation of the law of 1563, since, though it
empowered bishops to exact the oath, Horn was not lawful
Bishop of Winchester. "That the said Mr. Robert Horn
not being lawful Bishop of Winchester, but an usurper,
intruder, and unlawful possessloner thereof, for that ' accord
ing to the laws of the Catholic Church, and the statutes and
ordinances of this realm, the said Mr. Robert Horn was not
elected, consecrated, or provided," &c.' The judges allowed
the plea, but the cause never came to trial. The plea caused
great alarm. Randolph wrote from Edinburgh to Cecil,
30th March, 1565 : " The tale is, that Bonner in his defence
at his arraignment said that there was never a lawful bishop
in England, which so astonished a great number of the best
learned that yet they know not what answer to give him ; and
when it was determined he should have suffered, he is
remitted to the place from whence he came, and no more
said unto him ".'' It is weU known that an Act of Parlia
ment was made in eighth Elizabeth to heal all legal infor
malities in the consecration of the first Anglican bishops.
In her thirty-ninth year another law was made that all sen
tences of deprivation made against bishops and deans up to
I oth November in her fourth year should be taken for good
and sufficient.
In the meantime Bonner had written a long Latin letter
to the Queen protesting his allegiance to her, notwithstanding
his refusal of the oath of supremacy, which he justifies on the
plea of conscience.^ There are some stories of his repartee,
which show good humour rather than sense of dignity. On
his way to prison, on return from this trial, or on his first
1 See Strype, Annals, i., part i., pp. 5, 6.
2 P. R. O., Scotland, 1^. 66.
3 The original is in the Petyt MSS. in the Inner Temple. It is
printed by Strype in the Appendix to his Life of Grindal, p. 487.

88 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
committal in 1560, one called out from the crowd: "The
Lord confound or else turn thy heart ". Bonner is said to
have replied: "The Lord send thee to keep thy breath to
cool thy porridge". To another who cried tauntingly,
" Good-morrow, bishop quondam" he answered, " Farewell,
knave semper ".'
The rest of his history I give from Strype's Life of
Grindal, in which the reader will easily discern between
what is fact and what is merely Strype's surmise or opinion.
"Bonner, late Bishop of London (whose memory is
stigmatised for his cruel burnings of so many Protestants
under Queen Mary), after he had lived divers years in the
King's Bench and Marshalsea, not without often feasting
and banqueting there, yielded up the ghost not many days
after the beginning of September (1569),^ having stood
excommunicated divers years ; and at this time probably
concerned in, or at least privy to, the popish plot against the
Queen which broke out in the north this month, since
his relations and friends at Bath, with a great sort of
popish gentlemen besides . . . were so close in their
seditious cabals there, and so free in treasonable speeches.
Concerning which the forementioned Churchyard, in his
letter to the Secretary, wrote ' that the unbridled braving
and talk of Bonner's disciples (there at the Bath) argued
some cureless cares* too closely crept into their cankered
minds, and most of Bonner's blood and kindred dwelt in that
town; and that upon colour of coming to the Bath many
mad meetings there were '. And of these things the said
Churchyard discoursed with the Bishop of Exon, whose,
hand he got to his letter.
"Bonner was buried in the churchyard of the parish
^ Wood, Ath. Oxon. ^ He died on the 5th.
* " Cuerless corrsij " in original. Lansdown MSS., Burghley
papers, n. 11, foi. 126.

BISHOP EDMUND BONNER. 8g
wherein the Marshalsea stood. However, he was ex
communicated, and so might have been denied burial
either in church or churchyard, but the bishop and some
other of the Commissioners aUowed him burial there, but
that it should be late at night, for the preventing any
hubbub among the people. And of this the Bishop of
London sent the Secretary word from Fulham, 9th Sep
tember, that the truth might be known at Court about it,
which he imagined was apt enough to be misrepresented
in such matters as these . . .
" ' Sir, as I doubt not but ye have hearde of B. Bonner's
death, so think I it good to certifie you of the order of his
burial. The sayd D. Bonner had stand excommunicate
by a sentence in the Arches eight or nine years, and never
desired absolution. Wherefore by the law Christian sepul
ture might have ben denied him : but we thought not good
to deal so rigorously, and therefore permitted him to be
buried in St. George's churchyard, and the same to be done
not in the day solemnly, but in the night privily : which I
and some other, with whom I conferred, thought requisite
in that person for two causes. One was, I heard that
divers of his Popish cousins and friends in London as
sembled themselves, intendyng to honour his funeral so
much as they could : of which honour such a persecutor
was not worthy, and specially in these days. Another was,
for that I feared that the people of the city (to whom
Bonner in his life was most odious), if they had seen
flocking of Papists about his coffin, the same being well
decked and covered, &c., they would have been moved
with indignation ; and so some quarrelling or tumult might
have ensued thereupon. By his night burial both the
inconveniences have been avoided, and the same generally
here well liked. What shal be judged of it at the Court, I
cannot tell : it is possible the report of his burial shall not

90 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
there be made truly. But this I write unto you is the very
truth.' " But, however, as it was well observed at that time,
concerning Bonner's burial, he was buried among thieves
and murderers, carried to the grave with confusion and
derision of men and women, and his grave was stamped
and trampled upon after he was laid into it ; and that was
all the persecution he suffered."'
According to the modern taste of writing history like a
romance, Mr. Spencer Hall has thus rendered Strype's
description of the burial : " Shouts of derision accom
panied the bearers. By the glare of the torches, amid
the confusion and the hasty pressure of friends and foes,
his body was cast into the Gehenna set apart for thieves
and murderers. Then the crowds rushed together, a wild
cry arose, and the corpse of Bonner was trampled down in
his grave beneath the pale stars." ^ This is in rather striking
contrast with the official report of Grindal, that by the
night burial " all tumult was avoided ".*
' Strype, Life of Grindal, pp. 208-210 (1821).
^ Introduction to the Documents of Simancas, p. 13.
' Into the controversy as to Bonner's cruelty I have not entered,
since in any case it was not the cause of his imprisonment. His
character is given with great fairness by Mr. Gairdner in his biogra
phical notice in Stephen's Dictionary of National Biography .

CHAPTER VI.
BISHOPS BOURNE, TURBERVILLE, AND THIRLBY.
Gilbert Bourne (of Bath and Wells),
Deposed October, 1559 ; died loth September, 1569.
THE Bishop of Bath and Wells held, at the accession
of Elizabeth, the important secular office of President
ofthe Council of Wales. His duties kept him absent
from Parliament, and he appointed the Archbishop of York
to act as his proxy. In February, 1559, he received a letter
from the Queen, saying that she " was informed he had
served her well, and done the part of a good justice," and
thanking him for his service, but intimating that she had
appointed Lord Williams of Thame in his place.' This was
in execution of her general plan to deprive Catholics of
offices of trust. Some hope must have been entertained of
his conformity, since he was put in the commission with
Tunstall, Poole, and Kitchin, on 9th September, for the
consecration of Parker. When it was found that he would
not comply, the oath of supremacy was offered to him, and
refused, and he was deprived. Special commissioners had
been appointed, i8th October, for this purpose.^
He was sent to the Tower by the Ecclesiastical Commis
sioners, i8th June, 1560,' and remained there, with five
other bishops, until the autumn of 1563,* when the plague
1 P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., ii. 49. " Rymer, Fcedera, xv. 545.
3 Machyn, p. 238. * See supra, p. 40.

92 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
raging in London caused them to be dispersed among the
Protestant bishops, to the great dismay of the latter, as will
be seen in the notice of Bishop Thirlby. Dr. Bourne was
quartered upon Nicolas BuUingham, Bishop-intrusive of
Lincoln, and with him he remained until May, 1566.
From the following letter it is probable that, during a few
weeks, he exchanged this confinement for a residence in his
own house. The Archbishop of Canterbury writes to Sir
W. CecU :
" Sir, — My Lord of Lincoln desired me to be a suitor to '
your honour to obtain licence that his guest, Mr. Bourne,
might be at his own house, which he hath here in London,
for the present time, being sufficiently bound to be quiet
and to return again with him, or otherwise when the said
bishop should repair home, because his own lodging here at
Lambeth is so strait. If ye think that we by the commission
may do it, we shall not wish it to be moved to the Queen's
Majesty or the Council. Praying your honour to grant this
desire, and thus. . . .
"This 4th of January, 1565 [ie., 1566 N.S.]
" Your honour's always,
"MATTH. CANT."'
A deed, dated Barton, 31st May, 1566, by which Dr.
Bourne promises to appear when summoned by the Arch
bishop, shows that he had then been set free from the
restraint of residence in the Bishop of IJncoln's house.^
Dodd writes that " he was a prisoner at large under the
inspection of the Bishop of Exeter, but more immediately
of Dr. Cary, the dean. He died at Silverton, in Devonshire,
loth September, 1569." I do not know the authority for
this, except that Heylin says he died in the Dean of Exeter's
' Lansdowne MSS., viii., foi. 184..
2 MS. at C C C C, n. cxiv. 137.

BISHOP GILBERT BOURNE. 93
house. But neither Dodd nor Heylin makes any mention
whatever of Bourne's imprisonment either in the Tower or
with the Bishop of Lincoln. Neither Burghley, nor An
drewes, nor Camden had given them the slightest hint of it.
What, now, was the nature of this imprisonment in the
house of a Protestant bishop, to which Dr. Bourne was sub
jected for nearly three years, and Dr. Thirlby and Dr.
Watson for a still longer time ? Heylin describes it as
being "kindly entertained"; Strype speaks of Thirlby
"living with much ease"; and others caU the prisoners
"honoured guests".' The word guest is ambiguous. The
Catholic bishops were no more truly guests of their Protes
tant keepers than travellers are guests in a hotel. Their
entertainment was paid for. The Council, when sending
Dr. Thirlby and Dr. Boxall to the care of Dr. Parker, pre
scribe the lodging and attendance, and then promise that
they will "satisfy his Lordship for the charges of their
commons ". Andrewes says " they lived free of cost, in
plenty, in ease, and with no discomfort " — gratis sine
sumptu, copiore sine defectu, in otio sine molestia omni. This
is a pretty picture, but it rests on no evidence. Indeed,
there is a letter of Lord Henry Howard to Burghley, of 26th
April, 1572, written from Lambeth, in which he says he
would rather have an open imprisonment in the Fleet than
the close keeping in the Archbishop's palace.^ But, sup
posing Andrewes' picture true as regards the body, what
does it imply with regard to the soul? What is the meaning
of otium under such circumstances ? Surely the very bitterest
of pains that could be inflicted oij a priest zealous for the
faith and the Church, as these men undoubtedly were.
Even supposing they could forget the souls of which they
• ^ Rev. J. Cave-Brown, in his Lambeth Palace, p. 226. He speaks
also of "honourable captivity, if captivity it could be called ".
- P. R. 0., Dom. Eliz., Ixxxvi. 125.

•94 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
were the legitimate pastors, and from whose care they were
violently torn, what kind of natural activity or of study could
they pursue in the houses of their fanatical hosts ? When
the new bishops were issuing inj.unctions for the utter
destruction of all breviaries (portuouses) and other books of
Latin service, is it to be thought they would grant the use of
them within their own houses ? We must not think of these
first intruders into the Catholic sees of England as if they
were modern Anglican bishops, gentlemen of refinement
and of enlarged and liberal minds, who, if we could imagine
them in the position of unwilling jailors to Catholic bishops,
would seek by every means to alleviate their lot. The first
Protestant bishops were, almost without exception, the
bitterest of Puritan fanatics, and they were under the
-express orders of the Council to seek by every means
to bring their prisoners to conformity. Their unfortunate
"guests" — deprived of mass, of communion, of confession,
¦of the divine office, of books of Catholic theology — were
-continually urged to read their heretical treatises, or to listen
to their wearisome disputations and negations.
However, among the new prelates there was much variety.
Parker of Canterbury must have been a much pleasanter
host than Horn of Winchester ; and Horn was in every way
•preferable to the foul-mouthed Pilkington of Durham. Of
Dr. Bourne's treatment by BuUingham we must remain in
ignorance. How little room there was for the least morose of these
¦gentlemen to grant those indulgences of comfort, plenty, and
liberty imagined by our historians, may be seen from the
¦code of discipline drawn up by the Council and sent to each
•of the custodians.
"That the lodging be in such convenient part of your
house, as he may be both there in sure custody, and also
have no easy access of your household people unto him.

BISHOP JAMES TURBERVILLE. 95
Other than such as you shall appoint and know to be settled
in religion and honesty, as that they may not be perverted
in religion or any otherwise corrupted by him.
" That he be not admitted unto your table, except upon
some good occasion to have ministered to him there in that
presence, of some that shall happen to resort unto you, such
talk whereby the hearers may be confirmed in the truth ;
but to have his diet by himself alone in his chamber, and
that in no superfluity, but after the spare manner of scholars'
commons." None to have access to him except his attendants, none
to discuss religion with him except in presence of his
custodian. " That he have ministered unto him such books of learned
men and sound writers in Divinity as you are able to lend
him, and none other.
" That he have no liberty to walk abroad to take the air,
but, when yourself is at best leisure to go with him, or
accompanied with such as you shall appoint.
" That you .do your endeavour by all good persuasions to
bring him to the hearing of sermons and other exercises of
religion in your house, and the chapel or church which you
most commonly frequent." '
James Turberville (of Exeter),
Deposed November, 1559; died 1570.
Bishop Turberville has had the singular fate that his long
sufferings for religion have been ignored by almost every
writer, Protestant and Catholic. Lord Burghley disposed of
him by the one phrase, that he was "an honest gentleman, but
a simple bishop, who lived at his own liberty to the end of his
life". But as Lord Burghley was one of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners by whom he was imprisoned, we may know
^ Lansdowne MSS., 155, fol. 198.

96 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
what to think of his truthfulness. Camden admits that he
was first sent to prison, but adds that " shortly after he was
committed to the custody of hi?" friends ". Heylin, know
ing nothing on the subject, except what he found in Burghley,
develops it thus : " He was suffered to retire to what friend
he pleased, and being by birth a gentleman of an ancient
family, he could .not want friends to give him honest enter
tainment". Strype echoes the words of Lord Burghley.
Among Catholics, Dodd gives no hint of imprisonment, nor
does Charles Butler, while Dr. M. Brady writes : " He was not
imprisoned but lived, according to Godwin, for many years
as a private person in full liberty". Let us now compare
the legend with ascertained facts.
We have seen that Dr. Turberville was active and zealous
throughout the first Parliament of Elizabeth. He went with
the rest of his brethren in his votes, and in his refusal of the
oath. The date of his deposition can only be gathered from
the fact that the spiritualities were seized i6th November,
1559. He was committed to the Tower i8th June, 1560.'
He remained in the Tower, with five other bishops, until
September, 1563.^ These things are written in a few hnes,
but when we think what three years and a quarter of " the
living death of the Tower " signifies, we shall wonder how
the man who inflicted it could dare to extol the full liberty
of Bishop TurbervUle simply because he passed the last
years of his life out of prison, though, without any doubt,
under some limitations and surveiUance — in a word, with what
in modern language is called " a ticket of leave ". He is
said by some to have died in 1570, by others in 1559, which
is false. I have faUed to ascertain the real year of his death."
^ Machyn, p. 238, who calls him " Docthur TrobuUfeld ".
^ See the documents in proof, supra, p. 39.
3 In Hardy's Le Neve it is said that letters of administration were
granted in 1567, but his death is put on ist November, 1559. He
was certainly in the Tower in September, 1563.

BISHOP THOMAS THIRLBY. 97
Thomas Thirlby (of Ely),
Deposed 5th July, 1559 ; died 26th August, 1570.
The Bishop of Ely was absent on an embassy in France
at Elizabeth's accession. On 2nd April, 1559, he concluded
the treaty of Castle Cambray. He had no sooner returned
to England than he joined the other bishops in opposition
to the Bill of Royal Supremacy. His name appears in the
divisions 17th and 26th AprU, as well as in opposition to
th^ third reading of the Bill of Common Prayer, 28th
April, and that for the Suppression of Religious Houses, 5 th
May.' De Feria tells us that Elizabeth had a personal
dislike to Dr. Thirlby, and did not wait for his return to
England to depose him from his office of Dean of the
Chapel Royal, which he had held under her sister.^
He refused the oath and was deposed 5th July, 1559.''
He was committed to the Tower 3rd June, 1560,* and excom
municated 25th February, 1561.^ He endured the miseries
of the Tower in close and separate confinement until Sep
tember, 1563. During that year the plague raged in
London. Stow tells us: "This year, 1563, in September,
the Queen's Majesty, lying in her castle of Windsor, there
was set up in the market-place of Windsor a new gallows to
hang up all such as should come there from London, so that
no person, or any kind of wares, might come or be brought
from London, to or through . . . upon pain of hanging
without any judgment "." Such being the panic at Court, it
was but natural that the Protestant bishops should feel
^ D'Ewes' jfournal. ^ Documents of Simancas, pp. 40, 45.
<* Machyn, p. 203. Yet the spiritualities were not seized (accord
ing to Whartofi) until 23rd November.
¦• Ibid. , p. 237. See also supra, p. 39. ^ Ibid., p. 249.
^ His Notes, published by Camden Soc, p. 126. Camden says
there died of the plague in London, in 1563, 21,130 persons {Annals,
p. 52). 7

98 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
somewhat uneasy, when the decision of the Council was
announced to them that the illustrious prisoners of the
Tower should be dispersed among their houses.
Dr. Matthew Parker, the Archbishop - of Canterbury,
received orders, 15th September, 1563, to admit Dr. Thirlby
and Dr. Boxall, Dean of Windsor, " to give them convenient
lodging, each of them being allowed one servant man, and
to use them as was requisite for men of their sort, and that
the Council would satisfy his Lordship for the charges of
their commons ".' This letter is the sole foundation upon
which Andrewes built his description of easy and luxurious
living, and Fuller his "sweet chambers, soft beds, warm fires,
plentiful and wholesome diet" Dr. Thirlby wrote to the
Archbishop, " that he was an unbidden guest, who, accord
ing to the proverb, wotteth not where to sit, and that he
would bring aU his family with him, that is, his man and his
boy ''. He adds : " I doubt what ways we may come without
danger of the plague to your Grace, all the places on the
way being so sore infected. Yet they say need maketh the
old wife to trot. I pray God to bring us well to you, and to
preserve your Grace to His pleasure."
The Archbishop replied politely enough : " Sir, an un
bidden guest, as you write, knoweth not where to sit, so a
guest, bidden or unbidden, being content with that which he
shaU find, shall deserve to be the better welcome. If you
bring with you your man and your chorister too, ye shall not
be refused. And if your companion in journey [i.e., Dr.
BoxaU] can content himself with one man to attend upon
him, your lodging shall be the sooner prepared. Your best
way were to Maidstone the first night, and the next hither [he
was then at Bekesbourne]. I would wish your coming were
the sooner' afore night, that such as shall come with you,
being once discharged of their charge, may return that night
' MS., a C C C, cxiv. 27.

bishop THOMAS THIRLBY. 99
to Canterbury, two mUes off, to their bed. And thus God
send you a quiet passage. 20th September, 1563." '
Dr. Thirlby's threat of bringing the plague with him, as
well as his man and boy, had thoroughly alarmed Dr.
Parker. The same day he wrote to Sir W. Cecil : " I understand,
by letters sent to me from Mr. Dr. Thirlby, that the Council
had appointed himself and Mr. Boxall to remain with me in
house, under what conditions he writeth that I shall know
by their letters, which their keeper shall deliver unto me at
their repair hither, which is purposed upon Wednesday next.
Pleaseth it your honour to signify to the honourable Council
that I trust it may stand with their pleasure, if for the fear
that my household is in of them their coming from a con
tagious air, I do place them in the town not far from my
house here at Bekesbourne, in an house at this present void
of a dweller, till such time as they were better blown with
this fresh air for a fourteen days. For their provision I
shall see to [it], and for jeopardy of- the custody of their
persons I am surely persuaded of the one not to disappoint
your expectations ; as for the other, I know not so well his
nature. Whereupon, if aught should chance in the mean
time tUl I receive them myself, I trust the Council wiU
rather bear with me in avoiding the danger of infection, as
may be feared, than for their behoof endanger my whole
family. I mean not in respect of my own person to repine
at such appointment, nor yet would I be thought slack to
gratify my old acquaintance, so far as my faith to God and
His Word, and my aUegiance to my Prince and her Govern
ment may bear with it. Nor I mean not to alledge the
small room of my house already pestured (?), having not
many under a hundred persons uprising and downlying
therein, besides divers of my family which, for straitness of
1 Printed by Strype from MSS. in C. C. C C, cxiv. 27.

loo CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
lodging, be otherwhere abroad. But if any perU should arise,
the. country here would make much exclamation, for I see
they so wonderfuUy afeard of all such as come from London.
I thought it good, therefore, to signify this much to your
honour aforehand, praying the same to be a mean that my
doings may be taken to the best. And thus I leave, wishing
you God's favour as to myself, this 20th of September.
" Your honour's assuredly,
" MATTHEW, CANTUAR." '
With the Archbishop Dr. Thirlby remained for seven
years, when he was released by death. During the whole of
that time he was without confession or holy mass, as well as
without occupation. Yet Strype informs us that " he took
more pleasure, as Bishop Godwin assured himself, in this
time of his imprisonment than ever heretofore in the midst
and fullest stream of his highest honours ". This, of course,
is meant rather as a compliment to the liberality of Parker
than to the resignation of Thirlby. Yet it is adding insult
to injury. Godwin assured himself, says Strype, as if God
win had some special channel of information. In quoting
the words of the Council to Parker, that Dr. Thirlby and
Dr. BoxaU should have such attendance "as is requisite for
men of their sort," Strype omits the words which follow
immediately, " foreseeing that there be no other access or
conference with them than you think meet, considering for
what causes they be restrained from their liberty ".^ These
words would have jarred with the pleasant theory of
" honourable guests " and " perfect liberty ". The truth is,
the bishops had merely exchanged jail for jail. They
' Lansdowne MSS. , vi. , fol. 178.
- The whole is now printed in Parker's Correspondence (Parker
Soc), p. 92.

BISHOP THOMAS THIRLBY. lOI
were guarded and watched if they left their rooms, lest they
should escape, and their rooms were watched lest any but
the authorised servant should see or speak with them.'
On the 6th February, 1564, when there was fear of an
invasion by the French, Parker wrote to Cecil to ask what
were best to be done with Thirlby and Boxall, although, he
says, " I judge by their words that they be true Englishmen,
not wishing to be subject to the governance of such insolent
conquerors ".^ Dr. Thirlby remained at Bekesbourne till
June, 1564, and then went with Dr. Parker to Lambeth.
Just before he left, the French ambassador, Monsieur de
Gonor, passed through Bekesbourne, and some of his young
gentlemen attendants heard of the two illustrious Catholic
dignitaries who were in confinement. Parker writes to
Cecil : " I noted unto them the Queen's clemency and
mercy for the preservation of them from the plague, and for
the distribution of them among their friends. They seemed
to be grieved that they were so stiff not to foUow the
Prince's religion. . . . They were contented to hear evil
of the Pope, and bragged how stout they had been aforetimes
against that authority." If this is true, the young French
men belonged to the then very prevalent party of the
Politici, or were infected with the common disease of young
men — human respect. The • Archbishop concludes his
letter : " I would fain know what is meant or determined
concerning my two guests, because I intend, God wiUing,
now shortiy to repair to Lambeth. This country is very
dear to dwell in." *
1 Dodd makes a very strange blunder: he says that Thirlby "had
the satisfaction of conversing daily with Bishop Tunstall and Secretary
Boxall, his fellow prisoners" Tunstall died 1559, four years before
Thirlby came to reside with Parker. Whether Thirlby and Boxall
were allowed to converse is quite uncertain.
2 Parker Corresp., p. 203.
2 Letter of 3rd June, 1564. P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., xxxiv. 26.

102 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Naturally no record has been kept of Dr. Thirlby's long
residence with Dr. Parker. There are, however, several
papers in which his name occurs in reference to another
affair and another personage. The whole have been very
amusingly abridged by Mr. Hubert Hall, of the Record
Office, in his book caUed Society in the Elizabethan Age.
"Amongst the non-conforming prelates who were deprived
during Elizabeth's first Parliament by virtue of that Queen's
Act of Uniformity was Dr. Thomas Thirlby, the Popish
Bishop of Ely. His successor was Richard Cox, a good
scholar, and a prominent member of that Protestant party
which, during its exile for religion, had, by its feuds and
outrages against public decency, cast scandal, not merely
upon the cause of the Reformation, but upon that of
Christianity itself in many cities of the Continent. By the
time that this successor to the Apostles had been duly
anointed and instaUed, and the little matter of commission
and tribute arranged to her Highness' satisfaction, it was
discovered that a slight oversight had been committed. It
was easy enough to depose the former prelate, but it was by
no means easy to induce him to lend a finishing hand to
the work of emptying out of his own pockets. This, in
fact, was the state of affaits. Cox had learnt that money
was to be gotten — that it was indirectly owing to him, and
the mere thought cast him into a fever of avarice, from which
he did not raUy for ten years. The Bishopric of Ely had
received a Royal endowment of £to6 13s. 4d. in the reign
of Edward IIL, as a capital fund or ' Implement ' ; and
this sum was to be accounted for, and handed over by each
outgoing bishop to his successor. According to Cox's own
account, Henry VIIL, of famous memory, bethinking him
how that, during the last 42 years of his reign [sic'], the
revenues of that see had fallen into decay, owing, as Cox
observes, to the fact that its bishop 'then was and for

BISHOP THOMAS THIRLBY. 1 03
a long time had abode in Rome,' made a grant by Privy
Seal to bring the stock in question up to the old standard,
namely, hy an increase of 430 cattle, at 13s. 4d. per head,
and 41 horses for the plough, at 20s. Strict measures were
further taken to ensure the future payment of this capital to
each incoming bishop, who was to stand in the west porch
of his cathedral, before installation, and receive the same
from his predecessor.' But, though we may credit Cox with
a readiness to have stood for almost any length of time at
the appointed place to receive a far smaller sum than about
,^5000 of our money, it is certain that, in the present
instance, he waited in vain. The new powers that were
could depose Thirlby, and hustle him before the Council,
and ' lay him by the heels ' in the Tower, but they could not
coin him into money, and nothing less than money would
satisfy his successor. The Government, therefore, seems to
have given the matter up as a bad job ; but not so Cox.
We find him writing a pious letter to Cecil : ' I am so
troubled,' he says, ' with Dr. Thirlby, that I fear I shall be
obliged to trouble the Queen's Majesty at last. For he is so
strong in the Tower that I can get no right at his hands.' " ^
Mr. Hall then goes on to relate the various efforts made
year after year by Cox to get the money — unsuccessfully.
The bishop had conveyed the remains of his private fortune
to some relatives : Richard BlackwaU, citizen of London,
and Margaret, his wife, who administered it for the bishop's
use. " Staunch to the end, he baffled his harsh creditor
by dying intestate." There were thus no executors account
able for the estate of the deceased, and to aU appearance
there was no estate at aU. Cox, however, made a last effort,
and commenced a Chancery suit against the Blackwalls.
These admitted the trust, but showed that the whole amount,
^ I suppose from his executors, if the see became vacant by death.
2 Letter, 2nd Nov., 1561.

I04 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
smaU as it was, had been faithfully administered by them to
the doctor's own use ; only five marks remaining — that is to
say, after his funeral, " who, in August last past at Lambeth,
died, and none of his other allies or kinsfolk, being thereunto
requested, would meddle with his body ; tUl Margaret
BlackwaU, out of charity, caused it to be convenientiy laid
in the earth at her own charge ".
The concluding of this episode has made me anticipate.
On 2Sth August, 1570, Parker wrote to CecU: "The
cause of my wTiting is partly of the motion of Master Dr.
Thirlby, who (as hiniself desireth) would wish, in this his
great sickness, to be removed from my house to his friends
for better cherishing, and in hope of his recovery. I would
grant no further, but the choice of three or four large
chambers within my house, except you can agree thereto,
and for this cause this messenger cometh to your Honour to
know the Queen's Majesty's pleasure. ... I thought by his
presence (being both of us much of an age) to learn to for
sake the world and die to God [sic], and hereto I trust to
incline myself what length or shortness of life soever
may follow.'" The choice among three or four rooms
came too late. Dr. Thirlby died the very next day, and
went, as we may well believe, to that Father's House
where there are many mansions, and for whose sake he
had renounced ease and liberty, and witnessed a good
confession. To the man who endured these ten long years of imprison
ment for his convictions, Burnet could give no better
character than the following : " He was a learned and
modest man, but of so fickle and cowardly a temper, that
he turned always with the stream, in every change that was
made, till Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown ; but then,
1 Parker Corresp., p. 369.

BISHOP THOMAS THIRLBY. 105
being ashamed of so many turns, he resolved to show
he could once be firm to somewhat ".'
Dr. Thirlby died on 26th August, 1570, and was buried
in the Chancel of St. Mary's, Lambeth, close by Bishop
TunstaU. The expenses of his funeral and burial were
defrayed, as we have seen, by his faithful friends, the Black-
waUs. These good people had, at one period, perhaps
between his deposition and imprisonment, entertained Dr.
Thirlby in their house, as we learn from a letter of the
Recorder of London to the Lord Treasurer : " My good
Lord . . . Katharine Carus, the late Justice's wife, my
country woman, with all her pride and Popery, is this week
gone (as I trust) to God. She died in Bishop Thirlby's
chamber, in Mrs. Blackwall's house in the Blackfriars. . . .
" This first Sunday after Michaelmas. At Baem House,
in London, 1577.
" Your Lord, most humble, " W. FLEETWOOD, Recorder." ^
The register of Dr. Thirlby's burial is as follows :
"1570, Aug. 28th day, buried Mr. Thomas Thirlby
Doctor of the Civil Law, born in Cambridge, a student
sometime of Trinity Hall there, and sometime Bishop of
Westminster,' afterwards Bishop of Norwich, and, in Queen
Mary's days. Bishop of Ely, who, in the time of the noble
King Edward, professed the truth of the Holy Gospel, and
afterwards, in the time of Queen Mary, returned to Papistry,
and so continued in the same to his end, and died tlie
Queen's Majesty's prisoner, within my Lord Grace's house, at
''¦History of Reform, book iii., p. 430.
2 Lansdowne MSS., n. 24, fol. 196.
3 He was the first and last.

I06 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Lambeth ". From this it appears that the theory of hon
oured guest and full liberty was not yet invented.
The following interesting particulars of the state of Bishop
Thirlby's body, two hundred years after his death, are from
Ducarel's History of Lambeth : ' "On opening the grave
for the interment of Archbishop Cornwallis, in March, 1783,
a stout leaden coffin was discovered, 6 feet 6 inches long,
I foot 8 inches wide, and but 9 inches deep ; in which had
been deposited the remains of Bishop Thirlby. The coffin
was in fashion somewhat like a horse-trough, and had all
the appearance of never having been covered with wood ;
the earth around it being perfectly dry and crumbly. By
the iU-judged officiousness of the gravedigger, who had acci
dentally struck his pickaxe into it, and afterwards enlarged
the hole, the discovery became so public, that the Church
was crowded before the matter was known to the proper
officers, and before such observations could be made as
the curiosity of the subject deserved. The principal cir
cumstances that occurred were, that the body, which was
wrapped in fine linen was moist, and had evidently been
preserved in some species of pickle, which still retained a
volatile smell, not unlike that of hartshorn ; the flesh was
preserved, and had the appearance of a mummy ; the face
was perfect, and the limbs flexible ; the beard of a remark
able length, and beautifuUy white. The linen and woollen
garments were all well preserved. The cap, which was of silk,
and adorned with point lace, had probably been black, but
the colour was discharged ; it was in fashion like that repre
sented in the pictures of Archbishop Juxon. A slouched
hat, with strings fastened to it, was under the left arm. There
was also a cassock so fastened as to appear like an apron
with strings, and several smaU pieces of the bishop's gar
ments, which had the appearance of a pilgrim's habit. The
^ Appendix xxii.

BISHOP THOMAS THIRLBY. I07
above curious particulars were communicated by Mr. Buck-
master to Dr. Vyse, who directed every part to be properly
replaced in the coffin. Mr. Buckmaster saw the bishop's
head entire ; and the gravedigger put his hand into the
coffin, and said, ' The legs and body were so '. The re
mains of Archbishop Cornwallis were afterwards deposited
in an adjoining grave. . . ."

CHAPTER VII.
Nicholas Heath (of York).
Deposed 5th July, 1559 ; died April, 1579.
THE Archbishop of York survived his deprivation
twenty years. He is the pet specimen of Elizabeth's
clemency, for the historians have all followed the lead
of Lord Burghley. I have given his words in full already,
but it is necessary now to examine them in detail. He says
that at Elizabeth's accession Heath held the two offices of
Archbishop and Chancellor, and " continued in both offices,
though in religion manifestly differing " ; that, later on, he
" left willingly both his offices " ; that he "was not restrained
of his liberty ". AU this is utterly false, and Lord Burghley
knew it was false. Heath did not continue in both offices,
for he resigned the Chancellorship on the very day of
Elizabeth's accession.' He did not resign the archbishopric
in any way, but was wrongfully deprived of it, and then
excommunicated. He was "restrained of his liberty,"
and that by more than three years of close and painful
confinement in the Tower.
I must begin by giving two letters concerning the resigna
tion of the Chancellorship. I give them at length, and in
the original spelling, because I do not find them quoted
elsewhere. The reason of these letters I do not understand.
It would seem as if Lord Burghley had to clear himself from
1 See Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors. Bacon, however,
was not appointed Lord Keeper for some weeks.

BISHOP NICHOLAS HEATH.

109

some charge regarding the appointment of Sir Nicholas
Bacon to be Keeper of the Great Seal at the beginning of
the reign.
" Syr, — For your most gen tyll and lovyng letter, I have
great cause both to honoure you and thanke you. And
concernyng the matter therof, your lordshyp wysely con-
syderyth as the truthe ys, that for the space of so many yers
havyng abandonyed myselfe vtterly from all meadlyng or
myndyng of worldye thyngs, and my memorye also beyng
very muche decayed, yt ys very hard for me to remember
thyngs so many yers past. And beyng yn myne own con-
scyence very scrupulous to say ony vntrouthe, wyll neverthe-
lesse (as I possyble can) remember myselfe of the matters
you wryte of, and by Godd's grace never say but the trouthe
as nere as I can. And your lordshyp may be that assured,
that yf I shall be examyned of any thyng towchyng of the
matter wrytten by you, I wyll answere wythout any corrupt
mynde, or any evyl affectyon towards your lordshyp, and
nothyng but the very trewthe, as neare as the grace of God
and my symple memory can serve me, puttyng away all
respect to the world or any worldely person. And further
vpon the contents of your letter : I mynde to repayre to
London eyther to-morow or on thursday, wheare I may by
mou the make further declaratyon, eyther to anye that your
lordshyp shal send, or to any other that shal wyth any
authoryte have anye conference wyth me of the matter, for I
assure your honorable lordshyp that yt ys a great griefe and a
rare thynge for me to wryte ij lynes wyth myne own hand
as thys ys. And thus as your lordshyp's poore lovyng ffrend,
yf yt be decent for me so to terme myselfe towards your
lordshyp (and as one that never could perceave by any your
dealyng, ye contrarye yn you towards me, by reason wherof,
and by the gracyous favoure of the Queen's Maiestye,
through the medyatyon of my synguler good lorde of

no catholic HIERARCHY.
Leycester, I have lyved these many years yn greate quyet-
ness of mynde to my syngular cumforth) I commend your
lordshyp to Almyghty God. From chobbam, thys 22 of
September (1573).
" Your lordeshypps to hys lytyll power,
" NICO. HEYTH."'
The old bishop at once set out for London, and on thfe
26th wrote another letter as follows :
" Syr, — Pervsyng your lordshyp's letter agayn after the
departure of the pursuyvant, and therby perceyvyng that
your lordshyp requyreth to have myne answere in wrytyng
to the matter theryn conteynyd, I have thought yt my
dewtye to certifye what I have or can of myselfe remember
theryn, as foloweth : I doo not remember that I had ever
any talke wyth you touchyng the offyce of Chancellour, but
onely one tyme, which was as I thynke about iu or iiij days
afore the death of Queen Marye, yn myne own house,
whyther you gently came at my desyre. At whyche tyme,
after a long discourse of dyvers thyngs wherin I was
desyrous to conferre wyth you, both touchyng the Queen's
Maiestie that now ys (whome I beseche Almyghty God
always to preserve), and touchyng the state of ihe realme,
and also the matter of rellygyon (the particulers wherof I
have cleane forgoten), I doo remember that I dyd erneastly
move you to stande my frend, and to be a meane to the
Queen's Maiestie that now ys, that I myght be vtterly dis-
burdyned of myne offyce, vnto the whych offyce, although I
dyd ever thynke and know myselfe for many respects most
vnmeate, both before I had ytt and when I had ytt, and ever
synce, and for myne own vnmeatnesse was very loth at the
' P. R. 0., Dom. Eliz., xcii. 28. The letter is endorsed 1573.

BISHOP NICHOL.\S HEATH. ITI
fyrst to take ytt, and very sone was werye of ytt, and took yt
for a greatt burdon ever after, yet bycause I thought and
partly hard by some that were about Her Grace, that the
Queen's Maiestie that now ys, of her own onely good dis-
posytyon, wythout any cause or meryte on my parte, had a
gracyous and favourabyll mynde towards me, and lyked
better of my servyce and doyngs yn the offyce then I was
worthye, as afterward Her Maiestie (whan I delyveryd vp
the seale yn to her own hands) dyd by her own mowthe
declare yn a great and an honorable presence — for the whych
I am most bound to honour and love Hyr Maiestie perpetu
ally, and thought my servyce therwyth better rewarded then
yt coulde have ben by any other wordly recompense. Vpon
thys consyderatyon I thought yt good to prevent the matter,
- and so craved your frendshyp and ayde that I myght yn any
wyse leave the offyce, whyche my request and earnest desyre
you declaryd yourselfe to myslyke, praysyng and commend-
yng me and my servyce, wheron I conceyvyd that you were
not so ready to set forward my sute as I dyd wysshe. How
be yt I was so erneast wyth you that at length yt came yn
talke betwyxt vs — and as I thynk you demanded of me whom
I could name to be a fytte and a sufficyent man for the office
of whome the Queen's Maiestie myght be advysed ' — wher-
vnto I answered that, God be thanked, theare was choise
ynough ; but whether I named any particular man or noe I
can not tell, but I rather thinke that I named none, and
because I staggered to name anye, as I remember, you, to
healpe me, sayd, what thynke you of such a man or such a
man, namyng thre or fowre, but, afore God, I remember none
of them but only D. Wotton, and me thinks that I am well
assured yt theare was noe wourd spoken of my Lord Reaper
that now is ; but, for my own point, I thought theim all that
were na [mutilated] to be sufficient, for soe my self were ridd
1 So far in Archbishop Heath's own handwriting.

112 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
of the office I nothing doubted but the Queen's Maiestie
wold provide noe man for the office but she wold be assured
that he shold be sufficient ynough, and, God bee praysed
therfore, Her Maiestie had choise ynough of souch at that
tyme, and yet hath ; and this is all I can remember of that
matter. Now, what you did or how you proceded afterward
touching the office eyther with the Queen's Maiestie or other
wise I am vtterly ignoraunt, for I doe not thinke that ever
you or any other talked with me therof afterward. But
because the Queen's Maiestie what tyme I delyvered vp the
seale sayd that all though Her Maiestie [tnutilatecf] toke the
seale from me in to her owne custodye for order's sake, yet
she wold not vtterly discharge me of the office, I remayned
still in feare least I might bee burdened therewith agyne
vntill the seale was delyvered to my Lord Keeper yt now is;
of whome I heard noe speaking vntill he had the office, but
I was very glad that one had yt. Thus I commend your
lordshyp to God. Ffrom my house in Southwarke, the
xxvj th of September, 1573.
" Your lordshyp's always assured to hys lytyll power,
" NICO. HEYTH."
From the expressions of courtesy and gratitude in these
letters the reader would be wrong in concluding that the
venerable archbishop owed any very great debt to Sir
WUliam CecU, now become Lord Burghley and Lord Trea
surer. It is unnecessary to repeat what has been previously said
of the archbishop's defence of the Church's rights in Parlia
ment and his speech in behalf of the supremacy of the
Sovereign Pontiff. He was deposed on his refusal to accept
the oath of the Queen's supremacy, 5th July, 1559,' com
mitted to the Tower loth June, 1560, and not released
' Machyn, p. 203.

BISHOP NICHOLAS HEATH.

n.-^

until Septembter, 1563.' It is surprising that Mr. Edward
Foss, F.S.A., now that the State archives are thrown open,
should repeat in our own day what he found in Fox or
some old misinformed writer: "The deprived archbishop
. . . was allowed after two or three months' confinement
to retire to his own property " f and equally surprising that
Lord Campbell, writing the Lives ofthe Chancellors, should
have taken no trouble to ascertain the truth. After men
tioning the archbishop's deprivation, he writes : " He
retired to a small property of his own at Chobham in Surrey,
where he devoted the rest of his days to study and devo
tion ".' Not one syUable about his three years' imprisonment ! *
After his release from the Tower Dr. Heath was not sent,
like Thirlby, and Watson, and Bourne, to reside with any of
the Protestant bishops. He was allowed to retire to his
own house. Miss Strickland says that this was " one of the
houses belonging to his see in Yorkshire ".° Dr. Lee is
more precise : " He was permitted to retire to the manor-
house in York, formerly the residence of the Abbot of St
Mary's, and subsequently one of the official houses of the
See of York "^ But both of these writers have adopted, as
referring to the deposed archbishop, an entry in the
Council Register of 22nd June, 1565, which probably
belongs to some other Nicholas Heath. The entry is as
foUows : " Letter to the Lord Scrope, in answer to his
letters written to Mr Secretary, with the examination by him
taken of Nicholas Heath, whom his Lordship is required to
proceed somewhat sharply withal to the end he should
declare the full truth, why he wandereth abroad. And if
he will not be plain, to use some kind of torture unto him,
1. See supra, p. 40. ^ The fudges of England, v. 380.
^ Lives of the Chancellors,
* The same remark applies to Drake, the historian of York.
^ Lives of the Queens, vi. 259. ^ Church under Elizabeth, i. 157.

114 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
SO as it be without any great bodily hurt. And to advertise
of his (Lord Scrope's) doings therein, &c., according to the
minutes in the Council chest." '
From this entry Miss Strickland, followed by Dr. Lee,
has dilated on the insignificance of the offence, taking
" wandering abroad " to mean a short stroll for exercise into
the country, and on the enormity of torturing an old man of
eighty. To say nothing of the fifteen years Miss Strickland
has added to Dr. Heath's age, there is nothing whatever to
identify this Nicholas Heath, not called "late Bishop," or even
" Doctor," or " Master," as is the case in nearly all simUar
entries, with Archbishop Heath. " Wandering abroad "
may mean excursions into Scotland, of which the Govern
ment was just then very jealous. Besides aU this, from the
letters given above, it seems very unlikely that either CecU
or the Earl of Leicester had been parties to any torturing of
Dr Heath. Yet their names are signed to the letter in
question. Lord Scrope also was at that time warden of the
Scottish borders, and would have no jurisdiction or action
about York.
Besides this, a rule was invariably followed of restricting
the recusants to districts where they had no influence, and
excluding them from places where they had formerly lived ;
and as I know of no other grounds for supposing Dr. Heath
to have resided in Yorkshire after his release from the
Tower, I think we may follow the writers who make him
retire immediately after his release to Chobham, on the
borders of Surrey, and not far from Windsor.^
It is true, however, that at the beginning of June, 1565,
it was seriously proposed in Council to commit the released
' From the original, p. 190. Were present on this day, the Lord
Keeper, the Marquis of Northampton, the Earl of Leicester, Mr. Secre
tary, Mr. Cave, Mr. Petre, Mr. Sackville.
^ This must not be confounded with Cobham, also in Surrey.

BISHOP NICHOLAS HEATH. I15
bishops once more to prison. This is related by Camden,
but I prefer to give the exact- words of the consultation,
which have been preserved among the State archives.' The
questions proposed were two : i. What dangers were likely
to arise to England from the marriage of Mary Queen of
Scots and Darnley? 2. What remedies should be used? The
Councillors thought the marriage would strengthen the
hopes of the Papists, and among the remedies one was " that
the quondam bishops and others which had refused to acknow
ledge the Queen's Majesty's power over them, according to
the law, and now of late dispersed in the plague time- to
places abroad, where it is known they cease not to advance
their faction, might be returned to the Tower, or some other
prison, where they might not have such liberty to seduce and
inveigle the Queen's Majesty's subjects as they daily do ".
Bishop Watson had been already re-committed to the
Tower, but no such measure was taken with regard to
Heath or the other surviving bishops. Neither do we know
of any molestation at the time of the Northern rising in 1569,
or at the publication of the bull of St. Pius V. Heath had
purchased from Queen Mary a house and farm that had
formerly belonged to the monastery of Chertsey. There
was a manor-house surrounded by a moat, and with a chapel
attached. There was also a house, garden and orchard, and
five hundred acres of land. He lived on this property, as
he says in his letter, " in great quietness of mind ". Camden
writes that in his house "the Queen visited him many times
with marvellous kindness". Lord Campbell has rendered
this, " she was in the frequent habit of visiting him " ; and
some authors have multipUed it into " she was accustomed
to make him a visit once a year "? He had other visitors,
1 P. J? O., Dom. E/;^., xxxv., 65.
"- Brayly and Britton, History of Surrey, ii. 160.

Il6 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
as we find from the letter of a spy named Davy Jones.
This rascal, who was a Protestant minister, by going to con
fession to a Catholic priest in the Marshalsea, had got into
Catholic secrets. He frequented the houses where mass
was said and received communion, and then sent informa
tion to his employers what priests said mass and what
Catholics received communion or were present. In a letter
written on 6th July, 1574, he says: "This shall be tolet
you understand that I was confessed in the Marshalsea, and
twain more with me were confessed. . . . I do give you to
understand that there shall be upon Sunday se'nnight a
mass at my Lord Bishop Hethe, which was Bishop of
York, and he doth dwell within a little way of Windsor, as
I heard say, but I will see afore it be long. Also there
doth come thither a great sort. ..." On 20th July he
wrote again : " I desire you to send me a word what your
pleasure is afore Saturday at three o'clock afternoon, whether
I shall go to Doctor Hethe or not, for I will travel all night
an if you will ".' Whether the venerable archbishop got
into any trouble through this spy, or whether he was deprived
of the occasional mass, history has not told.
We learn from a return made to the Council that he was
still alive on 25th October, 1577. "The certificate of the
names of all such persons inhabiting in the County of
Surrey, which do refuse to come to the Church, with the
just value of their lands and goods. . . . Chobham, Doctor
Heath, priest. Other lands or goods to maintain himself
withal than Chobham Park we know not." ^ He is supposed
to have died in the spring of 1579. Wood quotes from a
document in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury that on
^ P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., xcvii. 27-39; given at length by Rev. J.
Morris in The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers, 2nd series, pp.
30I-303- - P. R. 0., Dom. Eliz., cxvii. 14, i.

BISHOP NICHOLAS HEATH. II 7
5th May, 1579, Thomas Heath had a commission granted
to him to administer the goods, debts of Nicholas Heath,
S.T.P., sometime Archbishop of York, deceased.' He adds
that he was buried in the chancel of the church of
Chobham, but that the inscription on the brass plate had
in his time been taken away and the stone itself broken.
" The picture of the said archbishop I have many times
seen," says Wood, " which shows him to have been proper
in person, black-haired, pale-faced, thin, and macerated."
This picture was in the house of Mr. Ralph Sheldon, near
Long-Compton, in Warwickshire.'
The account given of Archbishop Heath by Sanders in
1561 is the following: "Being willing neither to crown
the Queen, nor to take the oath of supremacy of a woman,
and having been left in freedom for a year and a few
months after his spoliation, he is now again placed in
confinement. But liberty of living where he pleased was
offered him, by the authority of the Queen and Council, if
only he would promise to be present at the ecclesiastical
offices, but he would on no terms accept this offer ; ' And
why I am unwilling to do so,' he said, ' the Council have
often enough heard me say in Parliament, all of which
may be summed up thus : Whatever is contrary to the
Catholic faith is heresy ; whatever is contrary to unity is
schism. And when the visitors objected that he should not
be required to receive communion, he answered that it is
the same thing in reason to act a part of schism as the
whole ; neither by word or deed of mine (said he) will I
approve of what you do, nor would I that ever my back
should be seen where scandal might be given, since the
heart cannot be read.' He then petitioned the Queen that
h^ might be placed with some friends, for otherwise he
should prefer the Tower of London. He added this
1 From this it appears that he died without making a will.

Il8 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
because they were wont to commit Catholics to the custody
of the pseudo-bishops, which custom he could not endure,
because there is no agreement between light and darkness,
between Christ and Belial. It was peculiar to the bishop
that the other bishops regarded him as monks do their
abbot." '
I think it will be in harmony with the character of these
notes if, in the place of any reflections of my own, I conclude
with those which were published in 1582, after the death of
Archbishop Heath, but before the death of Bishop Watson
and Bishop Goldwell, by Cardinal AUen, in his defence of
the seminary priests : ^
" First and foremost for the clergy, it is wholly destained
and destroyed, as the world knoweth. The chief prelates,
bishops, and others, all spoiled of their dignities and liveli
hoods, thrust into prisons, forced into banishment, tiU by
manifold and long miseries they be almost all wasted and
worn away. These then, so many, so notable, and so worthy,
for whom both God, nature, and their place of birth do
challenge a part of this so much praised prosperity, feel none
of it ; but for mere conscience and confession of the truth,
which their holy predecessors laid and left with them in
depositum, have lost their terrene lot, and either are dead or
have passed so many years in misery, as those other good
fellows, their intruders, have lived in joy and felicity ; who,
indeed, are filii hominum qui nubunt et nubuntur, that is,
certain fleshly companions, unordered apostates, and con
temptible ministers, who, entering into the right and room
of others, provided not for them, do think all fair weather
in England, and have good cause to like of the luck of
these late years, which maketh true men mourn whUe
such thieves be merry."
1 Vatican MS., fol. 265.
- Cardinal Allen, A Sincere and Modest Defence, p. 171.

BISHOP NICHOLAS HEATH. II9
And as Lord Burghley had drawn (as we have seen) an
elaborate contrast between the quietness and loyalty of the
deposed prelates and the consequent most gentle measure
dealt out to them, with the treasons of the Jesuits and
seminary priests lately put to death, Cardinal Allen replied :
" All this we put down that no man he abused by the
enemy to think that the reverend prelates at the first were
less zealous (which he calleth more loyal) or more obedient
to the prince in lawful things than we their scholars and
offspring be ; or we less loyal than they, and therefore more
punishable than they were. Though indeed their perpetual
imprisonment and pining away in miserable desolation,
their tossing and shifting from one superintendent's house
to another, from one keeper to another, from one prison to
another, subject to extreme wants and to a thousand daily
villainies besides, whereof some of them now have tasted for
twenty years together, is worse than any death in the world.
This, then, is a true persecution indeed, when such men, for
such causes, against all reason and laws, be so vexed by
such as owe them all reverence, duty, and obedience."

CHAPTER VIII.
THOMAS W.4TS0N, BISHOP OF LINCOBN.
Section I. — In the Reign of Henry VIII.
IT was the misfortune of Thomas Watson, the subject of
this biographical notice, to have lived in the reigns of
Henry VIIL, Edward, Mary, and Elizabeth. It was
his happiness to have learnt wisdom by experience, and to
have expiated, by his long sufferings for the Catholic faith,
the schism, if not heresy, of his early years.
There exists of him no contemporary biography, ' and we
can only glean the facts of his life from incidental notices in
the documents of the time, and can do little more than con
jecture his character from the part he played in its varied
drama. Yet his heroic constancy during a quarter of a
century of imprisonments, and his" having been the last of
the old Catholic hierarchy who died in England, entitle him
to our love and reverence, and make us regret the scantiness
of our information.
1 Pitts has a page or two of little value. Godwin, Burnet, Strype,
and the rest have scanty notices, and those often incorrect. Baker
has given the principal facts of his life in his History of the CoUege of
St. fohn the Evangelist, Cambridge, part i., pp. 137-40 (ed. Mayor,
1869), and Cooper has added a few more details, and given a copious
list of references, in his Athence Cantabrigicnses "- These I have
consulted, as well as other contemporary works. But it is from the
State Papers I have derived the most important and trustworthy
information, especially regarding the sufferings of his later liie.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 121
The precise date of his birth is not known. In the
records of the trial of Gardiner, which took place in June,
1550, and in which Watson appeared as a witness, he is
stated in one place to be then " of the age of 33, or there
abouts," and in another to be " 34 or 35 years old ". ' He
was, however, older, for in a letter written by himself in
October, 1578, he says he is past 65. He was born,
therefore, in 15 13. He was ofthe diocese of Durham, and
is said to belong to the family of the Barons of Rockingham.
Nothing is known of his early life ; but as he took his
degree of B.A. at Cambridge in the year 1533-34, at the
age of twenty, he must have been sent at an early age to
that University.
The College of St. John the Evangelist, in which he
Studied, and of which he was elected a feUow immediately
after taking his degree, though but recently founded, then,
and for some years after, was famous for the group of
scholars it contained, and for the lead it took in the revival
of letters.
Its foundress was the famous Lady Margaret, Countess
of Richmond and Derby, and mother of Henry VII. ; but
as she died before her pious intentions were realised, the
college really owes its existence to the zeal and labours of
her confessor, the Blessed John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester,
afterwards cardinal and martyr.^
The college had been opened in 15 16, and in a decree of
Archbishop Warham for its further endowment in 15 19 it is
said that he gladly co-operates in the work, " considering
' Foxe, Acts and Monuments, vol. vi., pp, 151, 205 (ed. CatleyJ.
'¦* See Cooper's Memoir of Lady Margaret, edited by Mr. Mayor
(1874). Both as a Catholic and as an alumnus of St. John's College,
I would express my gratitude to the author and the editor for the
noble monument which their patient research has erected to this holy
lady.

122 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
what great advantages, both private and public, both spiri
tual and temporal, daily accrue to the Christian faith from
the study of letters. For by means of them the salvation of
souls is promoted, rising controversies are settled, peace and
tranquillity procured," &c. At that very moment, however,
a controversy was arising in Germany, from the teaching of
Luther, which was to frustrate the pious hopes of Warham,
of Fisher, and the Lady Margaret, by unsettling the minds
of those whom their liberality was educating. Before half a
century had passed from its foundation the College of St.
John's was so entirely transformed, that the doctrine of the
Supremacy of the Holy See, for which Fisher laid down his
life, was forbidden to be taught within its walls, and the
Holy Sacrifice, which Lady Margaret loved more than life,
was banished from its desecrated chapel, and impiously re
pudiated by all its members. The life of Watson will show
that in his case, at least, the labours of the founders were
not in vain.
When Watson entered St. John's, and for the first three
years of his residence as a fellow, the college was governed
by Dr. Nicholas Metcalf, who had been chaplain to Fisher,
and was master from 1518 to 1537. His character has
been thus sketched by Roger Ascham, the tutor of the
Princess Elizabeth, and a contemporary of Watson's : " Dr.
Nicholas Metcalf, that honourable father," he writes, " was
Master of St. John's College when I came thither — a father
to everyone in the college. There was none so poor, if he
had either wiU to goodness, or wit to learning, that could
lack, being there, or should depart from thence for any need.
I am certain myself that money many times was brought
into young men's rooms by strangers that they knew not.
In which doing this worthy Nicholas foUowed the steps of
good old St. Nicholas, that learned bishop. He was a
Papist, indeed ; but would to God, among all us Protestants,

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 23
I might once see but one that would win like praise, in
doing like good, for the advancement of learning and virtue.
And yet, though he were a Papist, if any young man, given
to new learning (as they termed it), went beyond his fellows
in wit, labour, and towardness, even the same neither lacked
open praise to encourage him, nor private exhibition to
maintain him, as worthy Sir J. Cheke, if he were alive, would
bear good witness, and so can many more." '
Watson was one of those who profited most by the care
of this worthy man. He had good talents and a great love
of study, so that with the helps he found in his college he
became eminent as a classical scholar.
The reader need scarcely be reminded of the struggle
that was then going on in England between the old scholastic
form of learning and the zeal for polite literature, which we
call the Renaissance." Fisher was both a good scholar and
an ardent promoter of classical studies, and his influence
had drawn many young men of talent to the new foundation.
Sir John Cheke, the famous Greek lecturer, was elected
fellow of St. John's in 1529, about the time Watson came
into residence, and the youth had the advantage of his
public lectures and private instructions. Among his con
temporaries and fellow-coUegians I may mention the names
of Roger Ascham ; George Day, afterwards Bishop of Chi
chester ; John Christopherson, afterwards Master of Trinity
and Bishop of Chichester; WiUiam BiU, who died in 1560,
holding the threefold dignities of Master of Trinity, Provost
of Eton, and Dean of Westminster ; WUliam CecU, after
wards the famous Lord Burghley ; James POkington, after
wards Bishop of Durham ; Robert Horn, afterwards Bishop
of Winchester ; John Seton, the logician ; Walter Haddon
and Dr. Redman, two great revivers of classical learning.
1 Ascham's Works, p. 315,

124 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY,
Roger Ascham writes : " At Cambridge, in St. John's
College, in my time, I do know that, not so much the good
statutes, as two gentlemen of worthy memory. Sir John
Cheke and Dr. Redman, by their only example of excellency
in learning, of godliness in living, of diligence in studying,
of counsel in exhorting, by good order in all things, did
breed up so many learned men in that one College of St.
John's, at one time, as I believe the whole University of
Louvain in many years was never able to afford "
In another place he makes honourable mention of Wat
son: " Cambridge," he says, " at my first coming thither, but
not at my going away, committed this fault, in reading the
precepts of Aristotle without the example of other authors.
But herein, in my time, these men of worthy memory, Mr.
Redman, Mr. Cheke, Mr. Smith, Mr. Haddon, Mr. Watson,
put so to their helping hands, as that university, and all
students there, as long as learning shall last, shall be bound
unto them, if that trade in study be truly foUowed which
those men left behind them there." '
When Ascham wrote this, in the time of Queen Elizabeth,
Watson was in prison for his faith, and it does the author of
The Schoolmaster no little credit that he was not afraid
to declare his esteem and friendship for one now in disgrace,
and who differed from him in religion. This is not the only
passage in which he is mentioned ; and as we have too little
knowledge of the private and personal life of Watson, I am
glad to transcribe the few traits recorded by his feUow-
student. Ascham and Watson were about the same age ;
both took their degrees in arts, and were elected fellows of
their college at the same time, and remained together in
residence for several years. A great friendship seems to have
sprung up between the young men, from similarity in literary
' Ascham's Works, p. 314,

BISHOP THOMAS W.\TSON. I25
tastes,' though they were already taking different courses in
matters of religion.
"When Mr. Watson," says Ascham, "in St. John's Col
lege, wrote his excellent tragedy of Absolon, Mr. Cheke,
he, and I had many pleasant talks together in comparing
the precepts of Aristotle and Horace with the examples of
Euripides, Sophocles, and Seneca. Few men in writing of
tragedies in our days have shot at this mark here in England ;
more in France, Germany, and Italy also have written
tragedies in our time, of which not one, I am sure, is. able
to abide the true touch of Aristotle's precepts and Euripides'
example, save only two, that ever I saw, Mr. Watson's
Absolon and Georgius Buchanan's Jephte." ^
Ascham also tells us that Watson was so great a purist in
Latin that he would never allow this tragedy to be published,
because he himself considered that there was in one or two
lines some licence in the metre which the best models did
not sanction. It is to be feared that the work has perished.
From another passage it appears that the young classics
would have set themselves to mould English verse after the
pattern of Greek and Roman metres, " avoiding barbarous
rhyming," and attending to "quantity" in the syllables.
He gives as a specimen two English hexameter verses of
Watson's.' But if Watson's University career was happy and brilliant
1 Ascham writes : " One of the best scholars that ever St. John's
College bred, Mr. Watson, mine old friend, sometime Bishop of
Lincoln". ^ Ibid., p. 320.
3 Mr. Cole, in his MS. Notes to Baker (in the British Museum)
wonders at Ascham's praise of such " doggrel ". He evidently did
not notice that the lines were hexameters, though even as such they
are only interesting as very early (the earliest ?) attempts in that
metre. Among Watson's writings Mr. Cooper mentions a translation
into English verse of part of the first book of Homer's Odyssey, now
lost.

126 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
in a literary point of view, it was far otherwise as regards
religion. WhUe he was still an undergraduate those momen
tous changes began which have severed England from
Catholic Christendom. The minds of several of his feUow-
students were infected with the new heresies. The University
was agitated by disputes about the divorce between Henry
and Katharine, and the marriage with Anne Boleyn.
Cranmer had become Archbishop of Canterbury (consecrated
30th March, 1533), and men were awaiting an open rupture
with the Holy See. In 1534 the schism was consummated,
the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff abolished by Act of
Parliament, and the Royal supremacy substituted. In June,
1535, Cardinal Fisher, the venerable founder of St. John's,'
whom Watson had probably often seen, and whose blessing
he may have often received, laid down his life rather than
acknowledge that supremacy, and after a few days his
example was followed by Sir Thomas More. Surely a thriU
of horror must have gone through the hearts of the fellows
and students of his coUege when they heard that the body
of the saintly bishop, stripped naked, had been left to lie all'
day in the gaze of the people on Tower Hill. Yet when the
oath of supremacy was exacted from them, terror prevailed
and none refused.
To the shame of the University it must be said that in
May, 1534, a public document had been obtained by the
court, signed by the Vice-Chancellor and a great number of
the doctors and masters, in which they deny that the Roman
Pontiff has by Scripture any greater power or authority in
England than any other foreign bishop.^ What made this
more shameful was the fact that their Chancellor, Fisher,
was at that very time in the Tower for his rejection of this
1 Though he would never allow this title, there is no doubt that it
rightfiiUy belongs to him after the Lady Margaret.
^ Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, vol. i., p. 367.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 27
heresy. They knew well that their decision was utterly
false, and extorted from them by fear Even if they had
forgotten the teaching of all Catholic doctors, they were not
ignorant that, only a few years before, the king, in his book
against Luther, had proved that (to use his own words)
" since the conversion of the world all Churches have been
obedient to the See of Rome," and that, " by the unanimous
consent of all nations, it is forbidden to change or move the
things that have been for a long time immovable " ; and that
he had declared that Luther was " void of all charity, not
only by perishing himself through fury, but much more by
endeavouring to draw all others with him into destruction,
by striving to dissuade them from their true obedience to
the chief bishop ".
On the 3rd June this same year, 1534, all the scholars of
the University took the oath of succession,' which for the
clergy included that of the king's supremacy, in St. Mary's
Church. Cromwell succeeded as Chancellor of the Uni
versity in the place of Fisher, and in October, 1535, made
a visitation. Among his injunctions were the following :
I. By a writing sealed by the University they were to
swear "to obey all statutes made, or to be made, for the
extirpation of Papal usurpation ".
2. No more lectures were to be read upon any doctors
who had commented the Master of the Sentences, nor after
the manner of Scotus.
3. No more lectures were to be given in canon law, nor
degrees in canon law to be conferred.^
Contemporary histories tell us how, after this visitation,
the scholastics were cast aside, and Scotus especially con
demned to the most ignominous uses.
Watson would not thank me were I to try to excuse him for
•" Cooper, Annals of Cambridge, vol. i., p. 368. ^ Ibid., p. 375.

128 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
the part he must have taken in these and other schismatical
acts. Still it may be remembered that he was a very young
man at this period, and that his studies in theology had not
begun, and that by these very injunctions he was cut off
from the streams of Catholic tradition in his future studies.
Stapleton, a most learned theologian, has made an apology
even for men who were older and more learned in ecclesi
astical matters than Watson then was. Writing in 1567, he
said :
" This matter of the Pope's supremacy and ofthe Prince's
was at the first, even to very learned men, a strange matter, but
is now to meanly learned a well-known and beaten matter.
Sir Thomas More — whose incomparable virtue and learning
all the Christian world hath in high estimation, and who for
this quarrel suffered death, for the preservation of the unity
of Christ's Church, which was never, nor shall be, preserved
but under this one head — as good a man, and as great a
clerk, and as blessed a martyr as he was, albeit he ever
weU thought of this primacy, and that it was at the leastwise
instituted by the corps of Christendom for great urgent
causes for avoiding of schisms ; yet that this primacy was
immediately institute of God (which thing all Catholics now
do believe) he did not many years believe. It is the less
marvel, therefore, if at the first, for lack of mature and deep
consideration, many good and well-learned men otherwise
were carried away with the volume of this storm and
tempest." '
Whatever may be the value of this apology for bishops
and priests, it seems certainly appUcable to young men like
Watson, who followed the example of priests and bishops.
In the Parliament which assembled 8th June, 1536, an
Act was passed " for extinguishing the authority of the
1 Stapleton's Counterblast to Mr. Horn's Blast, pp. 37, 38.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 29
Bishop of Rome ". It required every person, promoted to
any degree of learning in any University, to make oath that
he "from henceforth shall utterly renounce, refuse, re
linquish, or forsake the Bishop of Rome . . . and shall
accept, report, and take the King's Majesty to be the only
supreme head on earth of the Church of England . . .
and in case any oath hath been made by him to any person
in maintenance, defence, or favour of the Bishop of Rome,
he reports the same as vain and annihUate. So help him
God, all saints, and the holy Evangelists."
This oath must have been taken by Watson when he
received his Master's degree, even if he had not taken it
before. If, however, he lived in a state of schism for nearly
twenty years {i.e., from 1533 to 1553), he expiated his error
by more than twenty years' imprisonment in behalf of the
supremacy of the Pope and the unity of the Church. But I
am anticipating, and must go back to his earlier years.
He had been elected fellow of St. John's on Ashton's
foundation in 1533. In due time he must have taken holy
orders. He commenced M.A. in 1537, and was for several
years dean of the college and one of its preachers. Dr.
Metcalf had resigned his master^ip in July, 1537, and was
succeeded by Dr. George Day, who governed the coUege
for a year. Both these were staunch Catholics in the rest
of their doctrine, however they may have yielded with regard
to the supremacy» When Day was elected provost of King's
College in June, 1538, he was replaced in St. John's by Dr
John Taylor. The career of this man was very singular,
and characteristic of the times. Soon after his election to
the mastership he had preached a sermon in London in
defence of Transubstantiation. This sermon aroused the
zeal of a priest and schoolmaster named Lambert, a disciple
of Tyndal's, and he presented Taylor with a paper of reasons
against his doctrine. For this paper Lambert was tried for
9

130

CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.

heresy, first by Cranmer, and then on appeal by Henry in
person, and condemned to the stake. Taylor, who by
making known the paper was one of the causes of Lambert's
death, was so touched by his fate or moved by his arguments
that he became a convert to the opinions against which he
had preached, and was imprisoned for a short time on sus
picion of heresy in 1540. But he seems to have retracted,
for he was soon restored to his college. He was, however,
involved in continual disputes with the feUows, so that the
Bishop of Ely had to interfere in 1543, and the disputes
StiU continuing, he resigned in 1546. In Edward's reign he
openly professed heresy, and defended the marriage of the
clergy, and was one of the compUers of the Common Prayer-
book. He was rewarded in 1552 with the Bishopric of
Lincoln, of which he was deprived in March, 1554, and
died in the following December.
Watson was one of the appellants to the Bishop of Ely
against Taylor's government, but it is not necessary to
investigate the nature or the merits of these quarrels, which
seem to have regarded* the government of the college rather
than serious questions of religion.
It was complained in the reign of Edward ' that the Uni
versity had greatly fallen off in numbers and in learning ; and
it is admitted that the continual changes in religion both
alienated men from theological studies, and deterred many
from an ecclesiastical career. On the band of talented
young men at St. John's the effect seems to have been to
make them give themselves almost exclusively to classical
studies. In these they met on a neutral ground, and by
this means kept up a literary friendship. But it was im
possible at that time to avoid taking a side, or engaging in
1 Latimer's Sermon, 6th April, 1549. Leaver's Sermon, December,
1550.

BISHOP THOMAS W.^TSON. 131
theological disputes, and these seem at last to have made
Watson glad to leave the University.
Dr. Lingard has truly described the miserable state of
things from the time of the schism to the end of the reign of
Henry : " The creed of the Church of England depended
on the theological caprice of its supreme head. The clergy
were divided into two opposite factions, denominated the
men of the old and the new learning. The chief of the
former was Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester. . . . The
latter acknowledged for their leaders Cranmer, Shaxton,
Latimer, and Fox. . . . But none of the prelates on either
side aspired to the palm of martyrdom. ... If, on the
one hand, Gardiner and his associates, to avoid the Royal
displeasure, consented to renounce the Papal supremacy,
and to subscribe to every successive innovation in the
established creed ; Cranmer and his friends, on the other,
subraitted with equal weakness to teach doctrines which
they disapproved, to practise a worship which they deemed
idolatrous or superstitious, and to consign men to the stake
for the open profession of tenets which, there is reason to
suspect, they themselves inwardly believed. Henry's infal
libility continually oscillated between the two parties." '
The fellows of St. John's College were divided in senti
ment like the prelates. That Watson openly defended the
" old learning," that is, the Catholic faith, especially on the
sacraments, is certain ; for at the accession of Edward he
was looked to as one of the champions of that faith against
the novelties of Calvin and Zuinglius. But the greater
number seem to have taken the other side.
Cheke was disposed to heresy, and by his fame and posi
tion as lecturer had much influence on the younger members
of the college. Ascham relates how he himself nearly got
into trouble by his audacity, and might have lost his fellow-
^ History of England, vol. v.,'ch. ii., p. 100 (Ed. 1849).

132 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
ship but for the support of Dr. Metcalf Cecil was there
from 1535 to 1541, and, while diligently studying Greek and
Latin under Sir John Cheke and Sir Thomas Smith, imbibed
that spirit of heresy and hypocrisy which made him in later
years so great a persecutor of Catholics, and especially of
Watson. John Taylor, William Bill, John Redman, Walter
Haddon, James Pilkington, Robert Home, Thomas Leaver,
who were fellows of St. John's during Watson's residence,
were all infected with heresy, as their subsequent career
proves. On the other hand, George Day, who was master
in 1537, and became Bishop of Chichester, courageously
resisted the innovations under Edward, and suffered depri
vation of his bishopric and imprisonment. John Seton,
who was some years older than Watson, seems to have been
closely united to him in friendship whUe they resided as
fellows, and, subsequently, when they were both chaplains to
Bishop Gardiner; and Seton suffered exile rather than
acknowledge the supremacy of Elizabeth.
Another of Watson's friends was Alban Langdale, well
known both as a scholar and a theologian, who in Mary's
time became Archdeacon of Chichester, and for refusing the
oath of supremacy was imprisoned under Elizabeth, and
died in exile.
Another fellow of St. John's, of about Watson's standing,
was John Young, who took the Catholic part in several dis
cussions in Edward's reign, and in that of Mary became
Master of Pembroke, Vice-Chancellor of the University, and
Regius Professor of Divinity. With Watson he suffered
twenty-four years' imprisonment under Elizabeth, and died
in Wisbeach Castle in 1580 or 1581, probably assisted by
Watson in his last moments.
In the year 1540, after the execution of Cromwell, Stephen
Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester, was made Chancellor of
the University of Cambridge, and became acquainted with

BISHOP THOMAS W.\TSON. 133
the talents of Watson, and in 1545 appointed him his
domestic chaplain, at the same time conferring on him the
rectory of Wyke Regis, in Dorsetshire. By the erection of
the See of Bristol in 1542, Dorsetshire had been taken from
the diocese of Salisbury and transferred to the new see, so
that Watson was under the jurisdiction of Paul Bush, its first
bishop. " The church of Wyke Regis," wrote Mr. Hutchins '
in 1779, "is a large structure, very ancient, and one of the
best in these parts. It is the mother-church of Weymouth."
Indeed, Weymouth at that time had only a small chapel-of-
ease, dedicated to St. Nicholas. The patron was the Bishop
of Winchester ; and Watson succeeded to William Meadow,
who was also domestic chaplain to Gardiner. Watson
certainly held a second benefice in 1550, as appears from
the records of Gardiner's trial, but what it was is not
mentioned. He is said to have been presented to the
vicarage of Buckminster, in Leicestershire, in the diocese of
Lincoln, in 1547. He does not seem to have resided in
either of these places, at least not before 1550 ; and I have
not been able to discover any particular which will help to
make him known to us as a parish priest.
From several circumstances it is clear that Gardiner had
a great esteem for the learning and judgment of his chaplain.
He eraployed him to negotiate with the Lords of the Counci'l
about the famous sermon which he was required by them to
preach in the beginning of Edward's reign ; he took his
advice as to the matter of the sermon itself, and Watson is
said to have greatly assisted Gardiner in the composition
of his answer to Cranmer, called Confutatio Cavillationum.
A few words about Gardiner and his troubles will be
necessary in order to understand the movements of Watson
in Edward's reign, though a full account would belong more
properly to a biography of Gardiner than of Watson,
^ History of Dorsetshire, vol. i., p. 602.

134 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Section II. — In the Reign of Edward VI.
The Protestant party who gathered round the deathbed
of Henry both hated and feared Gardiner, and at once
began a series of vexations and persecutions, which ended
in his imprisonment in the Tower for more than five years.
The first pretext found against him was that he had written
some warm letters to the Lord Protector Somerset, and to
the Archbishop Cranmer, against the introduction of changes
during Edward's minority. In consequence, he was sum
moned before the Council, and required to promise
obedience to the Royal injunctions which had just been
issued. He replied that should he commit any legal offence
he would submit to punishment. But as the object of
Cranmer and his party was to keep him out of Parliament
during the ensuing session, he was committed to the Fleet
prison without crime or trial. Watson had accompanied the
bishop to London, to the Council Chamber, and to the
Fleet. He was himself committed there soon after.'
The cause of Watson's imprisonment appears to have
been the complaints laid against him by two preachers
named Tonge and Ayre. They had been sent to Win
chester to preach by order of the Duke of Somerset, the
Lord Protector, and to be instituted canons in that church.
The bishop himself deposes that he received them very
kindly and hospitably, and in no way disgraced them."
They, on the other hand, declared that the bishop said to
the people : " I understand there be new preachers sent
down ; but I suppose there is none of my flock so mad as
to believe them that they never saw before, neither that
doctrine that they never heard before ". The same Sunday
^Foxe, vol. vi., p. 151. " Before this deponent was committed to
the Fleet." The deponent was Watson.
^ See the bishop's deposition, Foxe, vol. vi., p. 129.

bishop TH0M.4S WATSON. I35
afternoon Tonge preached, and Ayre on the Tuesday.
"And the Sunday after that," so says Ayre, "Watson, the
bishop's chaplain, did preach in the said church, and in
veighed against the said Dr. Tonge and this deponent,
as this deponent heard say ; " for which cause this deponent
and the said Dr. Tonge did complain to my Lord of Somer
set's grace ; and this deponent gathered certain articles
touching the misordering of the said Dr. Tonge and this
deponent by the bishop and his said chaplain, which articles
the said deponent delivered, within these three days, to
Master Secretary Cecil.'
No record appears to exist of Watson's committal, and I
can only conjecture that he was made a victim to the
indignation of the Protector or the archbishop for the
cause I have just mentioned. While in prison, Gardiner
indignantly protested against this abuse of power. In a
letter to Somerset he writes : " Men be mortal and deeds
revive, and methinketh my Lord of Canterbury doth (not)
well to entangle thus your Grace with the matter of religion,
and to borrow of your authority the Fleet, the Marshalsea,
and the King's Bench, with imprisonment in his house,
wherewith to cause men to agree to that (which) it pleaseth
him to call truth in religion, not stabhshed by any law of
the realm, but contrary to a law. At the least, a law is not
yet ; and before a law is made, I have not seen such a kind
of imprisonment as I sustain." ^
Watson was kept in separate confinement, for Gardiner
complains : " Here I remain . . . without comfort of any
of my friends or servants ... no chaplain to accompany
me in prayer " ; and in another letter, written towards the
end of November, 1547: "I have remained here seven
weeks without speaking to any man saving my physician".*
1 Foxe, vol. vi., p. 154. ^ Ibid., p. 48. '" Ibid., p. 53.

136 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Mr. Cooper says that Watson remained in the Fleet for
two or three years, and was still there when he was brought
as a witness in Gardiner's trial in 1550. This is a mistake.
A general pardon was granted by the King on 6th January,
1548, and Watson was liberated as well as Gardiner. The
bishop, however, was ordered to remain in his own house in
Southwark on another frivolous charge, and was not allowed
to return to Winchester till Lent. Watson was his constant
attendant. From his own evidence we learn that he always
kept the bishop's company at table, and waited on him
when he went out.' It was, however, another chaplain,
William Meadow, a mari sixty years old, formerly rector of
Wyke Regis, and then master of Holy Cross Hospital, who
acted.as the bishop's confessor.^ He also had been con
fined in the Fleet at the same time as Watson and the
bishop.' On their return to Farnham, the parish priest of the place
told Watson, who was staying at his house, that the people
were much exasperated at the changes that had been intro
duced in the manner of worship by the visitors sent into the
diocese by the Government during the bishop's absence in
London, and he requested Watson to preach to them and
to appease their minds. Watson, however, communicated
the matter to the bishop, and the latter undertook the un
welcome duty himself.
The changes indeed had been great. All images had
been removed from the churches, the procession at Candle
mas had been forbidden, with a number of other acts and
ceremonies, all of which had been solemnly approved by
the same archbishop a few years before as " most godly,
and to be retained". These innovations were trifling com
pared with those that soon followed — first the mass sung in
' Foxe, vol. vi., p. 207.
' Deposition of Coppinger. Ibid., p. ig2. ^ Ibid., p. 202.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 37
English, then the abolition of all the guilds and chauntries,
the communion in both kinds, the Book of Common
Prayer instead of the Missal and other service-books, the
freedom for the clergy to marry, and, stUl more, the repeal of
the Statute of the Six Articles, and the consequent leave to
preach Lutheran and Calvinistic doctrines. And while
preaching was prohibited to all (even to the bishops) who
had not a special licence from the King or his visitors, this
licence was only given to fanatics of the new opinions. " A
set of noisy declaimers," says Mr. Froude, " first to cry
reform while reform was in the ascendant, first to fly
or to apostatise in time of danger, made the circuit of the
towns and parishes."' I have not been able to discover
how far Watson yielded to any of these measures, or by
what means he evaded compliance. A few facts only have
come down to us of his conduct in this reign, and these I
proceed to give.
Gardiner was not long left in peace. He was again sum
moned to London in June, 1548, by the CouncU, and
commanded to preach before the young King at West
minster, and to write out his sermon and submit it to the
Protector's revision before preaching. This he absolutely
refused. He was then commanded to preach on certain
topics and to avoid others, and to this he partly yielded.
Watson was present at the bishop's house in the Clink when
William Cecil was sent, on the part of the Protector, to
convey his instructions about the sermon, and next day was
the bishop's messenger to Somerset to complain of Cecil's
behaviour — a circumstance which Cecil probably did not
forget when he had power to revenge himself in the days of
Elizabeth. The sermon was preached on St. Peter's day.
Watson accompanied the bishop to Westminster, and
' History, vol. v., p. 97.

138 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
during the sermon was present among the throng.' The
sermon was ^certainly neither seditious nor dangerous from a
Protestant point of view. It inveighed against the supre
macy of the Pope; but as it also defended the Real
Presence, a point on which Gardiner had been forbidden
by Somerset to touch, the bishop was considered con
tumacious, and the next day was committed to the
Tower. For two years and a half Gardiner remained in prison
without trial, and during the whole of that time his chaplains
were forbidden any access to him, except that once when he
was supposed to be dying, and at Easter his confessor, William
Meadow, spent a few hours with him.^ Watson appears to
have returned to Farnham to await events ; for in June,
1550, when there was a rumour that the bishop was about
to be released, Watson, with the rest of the household at
Farnham, took horse at ten o'clock at night, and riding all
night, reached London at seven in the morning in hopes to
welcome their master.' They were however disappointed.
In December, 1550, the bishop was brought to trial, and
Watson was summoned to give evidence both for the
prosecution and the defence. Foxe has preserved the records
of this trial. The bishop ably defended himself against
the various charges ; but by a flagrant abuse of power, he
was condemned (February, 1551), deprived of his bishopric,
and sent back to the Tower, from which he was only
released on the accession of Mary, to be restored to his see
and become Chancellor of the kingdom.
Meanwhile the lands and revenues of the diocese of Win
chester were divided into eight portions, of which one was
given to the Crown, and the other seven to the friends of
^ Watson's Evidence. Foxe, vol. vi., pp. 151-53.
^ Gardiner's Articles. Ibid., p. 72. ^ Ibid., p. 220.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 139
the Government. The infamous Poynet of Rochester' suc-
ceded Gardiner in the See of Winchester, and received
various rectories and other lands for his support. With this
man's accession Watson's connection with the diocese ter
minated. The next time we meet with him is in a
theological conference held in December, 1551. It is thus
related by Strype : "^
" About this time Cheke, with some others, was engaged
in two disputations, or rather friendly conferences, privately
with Feckenham (who was afterwards Dean of St. Paul's
and Abbot of Westminster), and one or two more of his
party, in the great controversy of the Real Presence in the
Sacrament. The first was held at Secretary Cecil's house,
and the latter at Sir Richard Morison's. The auditors were
but six — viz., the Lord Russel, Sir Thomas Wroth, of the
Bedchamber ; Sir Anthony Cooke, one of the King's
instructors ; Throgmorton, Chamberlain of the Exchequer ;
Mr. Knokes, and Mr. Harrington, with whom were joined
the Marquis of Northampton and the Earl of Rutland in the
second conference. The disputants were Sir John Cheke,
and with him Sir William Cecil, Secretary of State ; Horn,
Dean of Durham ; Whitehead, and Grindal, who were
against the Real Presence ; Feckenham, Young, and, at the
second disputation, Watson, who were for it. Some account
of these disputations is still extant in Latin, in the MS.
library of Bene't College in Cambridge. And to preserve
what remainders we can of Cheke's, and hkewise to satisfy
any that are desirous to look into the Church history
of England in those days, I have translated, them into
Enghsh and exemplified them here; only first premising
1 For an account of Poynet, very different from that given by
Burnet and others, see an article in the Saturday Review, i8th July,
1868. - Strype's Life of Sir John Cheke, p 69 (Ed. 1821).

I40 C.4TH0LIC HIERARCHY.
that I suppose this conference might be occasioned from an
appearance of the said Feckenham before Cheke by public
order, to be examined by him." Thus far Strype.
I do not think it necessary to transcribe this disputation.
It is imperfectly given by Strype as regard's Watson's argu
ments, since he takes the liberty sometimes to abridge after
this fashion : "Watson here cavUled much of I know not
what spiritual eating, which yet was proper and without any
necessity of suffering " ; or again, " Watson eluded the argu
ment with I know not what logical distinction " ; or, "Watson
did endeavour to evade by certain distinctions " ; or, " In
which place Watson laboured after a wonderful manner " ;
or, finally, "Watson again gainsaid somewhat, I know not
what, and the most part rose up that here might be an
end ". This is what Strype calls translating into English
and exemplifying.
The conference left the disputants convinced of their own
opinions as before. It is chiefly interesting as bringing
together, under new circumstances, men like Cheke, Cecil,
Young, and Watson, who had studied together, perhaps
disputed together, at the same college, and were now finaUy
ranged on different sides in the great political and religious
struggle of the age.
Whether Watson, after the deprivation of Gardiner, resided
at Wyke Regis or at Buckminster, or what were his move
ments or his acts during the remainder of this reign, I have
not been able to discover.' The only event mentioned is
one without time or place, but as it has been supposed
to cast a slur on the character of Watson I cannot pass it
over. It is thus narrated by Foxe :^
" Moreover, as touching the said Master Rough, this is
further to be noted, that he, being in the north country
1 No register exists at Wyke of that period.
^ Acts and Monuments, vol. viii., p. 447.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. I4I
in the days of King Edward the Sixth, was the mean to
save Dr. Watson's life (who in Queen Mary's time was
Bishop of Lincoln) for a sermon that he had made there.
The said Watson after that, in the said days of Queen
Mary, being with Bonner at the examination of the said
Master Rough, to requite the good turn in saving his life,
detected him there to be a pernicious heretic, who did more
hurt in the north parts than a hundred besides of his
opinion. Unto whom Master Rough said again, ' Why, sir,
is this the reward I have for saving your life when you
preached erroneous doctrine in the days of King Edward
the Sixth ? ' "
It is not easy to know what to make of this story. No
documents are quoted, and we have to rely for its truth first
on the veracity of Foxe, and next on that of Rough, a
Scotch monk, who had taken a wife and the office of
reformer in England. What is to be understood by
"erroneous doctrine"? And what doctrine could have
endangered Watson's life in that reign ? The only doctrine
that was treasonable, and the preaching of which would
have subjected its holder to loss of life, was the denial of
the King's supremacy. But Watson can scarcely have
jjreached against this, since, in his evidence given in
December, 1550, he had admitted the first article proposed
in Gardiner's trial, which ran as follows : " That the King's
Majesty justly and rightfully is, and by the laws of God
ought to be, supreme head in earth of the Church of
England, and also of Ireland ; and so is by the clergy of
this realm in their Convocation, and by Act of Parliament,
justly, and according to the laws of God, recognised".'
Moreover, it is not easy to conceive how Rough could have
saved Watson's life had he been publicly guilty of treason,
or how no record of danger or escape should exist except in
1 Foxe, vol. vi., p. 151.

142 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
this ambiguous boast of Rough. That Watson may have
preached in defence of the Real Presence, or spoken against
the recent innovations, is likely enough ; but to have done
this might have exposed him to fine or imprisonment, not to
the penalty of death. We must, therefore, leave this matter
in its obscurity. But it ' would be unfair to accuse Watson
of cruelty on such uncertain grounds.
Section III. — In the Reign of Mary.
We must now pass on to the reign of Mary. Edward
expired on 6th July, 1553. Watson was about forty years
old. He had now learnt by experience what was meant by
Royal supremacy, and what were the consequences of cast
ing off that of the successor of St. Peter. He had always
firmly held the Catholic faith except in this particular.
He had been conspicuous for his zeal in defending the
Real Presence. There is no proof that he ever subscribed
to the forty-two articles drawn up by Cranmer, for the
King's command to all clergymen to do so was only issued
shortly before his death. On the other hand, not only had
he seen the communion service substituted for the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass, but the altars removed from the
churches, and the churches themselves robbed of their
ornaments by Act of Parliament, in virtue of the Royal
supremacy. His eyes were opened to the divine constitu
tion of the Church, and in future we shall find him, not
only defending with Fisher the sacraments against Luther,
but ready also like Fisher to lay down his life rather than
again renounce his allegiance to the Vicar of Christ.
Mary entered London 31st July, and Watson was so well
known for his attachment to the old faith that three weeks
afterwards he was ordered to preach in her presence. The
matter is thus related by Stow :' " The twentieth of August
1 Stow's Annals of England, p. 614 (Ed. 1615).

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 43
Dr. Watson,' chaplain to the Bishop of Winchester, preached
at Paul's Cross, by the Queen's appointment ; and for fear
of the like tumult as had been the Sunday last past, certain
Lords of the Council repaired to the sermon, as the Lord
Treasurer, the Lord Privy Seal, the Earl of Bedford, the
Earl of Pembroke, the Lord Wentworth, the Lord Rich,
and Sir Henry Gernigam, Captain of the' Guard, with two
hundred of the guard, which stood about the preacher with
halberts. Also the Mayor had warned the companies of
the city to be present in their liveries, which was well
accepted of the Queen's CouncU, and the serraon was
quietly ended."
Mr. Nichols, in his notes to Machyn's Diary, has given
us the matter of this sermon from a letter, writen in London
22nd August, by William Dalby: "On Sunday last was a
sermon at Paul's Cross, raade by one Doctor Watson.
There was at his sermon the Marquis of Winchester, the
Earl of Bedford, the Earl of Pembroke, the Lord Went
worth, the Lord Rich. They did sit where my Lord
Mayor and the Aldermen were wont to sit, my Lord
Mayor [Marquis ?] sitting uppermost. There was also in
the window over the Mayor [sic] the old Bishop of London
[Bonner, the late bishop], and divers others. There was
120 of the guard, that stood round about the Cross with
their halberts, to guard the preacher, and to apprehend
them that would stir. His sermon was no more eloquent
than edifying — I mean it was neither eloquent or edifying
in my opinion, for he meddled not with the gospel, nor
epistle, nor no part of Scripture. After he had read his
theme, he entered into a by-matter, and so spent his time.
Four or five of the chief points of his sermon, that I can
remember, I will, as briefly as I can, report unto you, viz.,
' He did not take his Doctor's degree until some months after this,
but he was doubtless already thus named by courtesy or popular fame.

144 CATHOLIC hierarchy.
he required the people not to believe the preachers, but
that their faith should be firm and sure, because there is
such vanities amongst them ; and if any man doubt of his
faith, let him go to the Scriptures, and also to the in
terpreters of the doctors, and interpret it not after their
own brain. He wished the people to have no new faith,
nor to buUd no new temple, but to keep the old faith, and
edify the old temple again. He blamed the people, in a
manner, for that heretofore they would have nothing that
was man's tradition, and now they be contented to have
man's tradition, showing that in the reign of the first year
of our Sovereign Lord King Edward VI. there was a law
established that in the sacrament there was the body and
blood of Christ, not really but spiritually ; and the next
year after they established another law, that there was the
body of Christ neither spiritually nor really. These two in
themselves are contraries, therefore they cannot be both
true. He showed that we should ground our faith upon
God's Word, which is Scripture, and Scripture is the Bible,
which we have in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and now
translated into English ; but he doubteth the translation
was not true. Also, he said there hath been in his time
that he hath seen twenty catechisms, and every one varying
from other in some points ; and well, he said, they might
be aU false, but they could not be all true; and thus
persuading the people that they had followed men's tradi
tion, and had gone astray, wishing them to come home
again and re-edify the old temple. Thus, with many other
persuasions, he spent the time till eleven of the clock, and
ended." 1
No doubt Watson had hastened to ¦ London to welcome
Gardiner on his release from his long captivity, which hap-
' From the Harl MS., 353, f. 141, quoted in note to Machyn's Diary,
P-'332-

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 45
pened on August the 3d ; and it was probably by Gardiner's
suggestion that he had been chosen to preach this sermon.
It was also by Gardiner's authority, as Chancellor of Cam
bridge, about a month afterwards, on 2Sth September, he
was deputed to proceed to Cambridge to act on his behalf
in restoring the old religion, and to make a report on the
state of the colleges.
At the same time he was elected Master of St. John's
College, and admitted, in the person of Christopher Brown,
his proxy, by John Young, Vice-ChanceUor, then fellow of
Trinity CoUege, at his chamber there, Roger Ascham being
present as President of St. John's, with several other fellows
of that society. The instrument of his admission is dated
28th September, 1553.'
To understand his position we must glance back upon the
state of his college since he had left it. The Protestant party
had succeeded in getting a new code of statutes in 1545 by
the authority of Henry VIIL, with whom Cheke was in great
favour.^ Taylor had resigned his mastership at the beginning
of the reign of Edward, and had been succeeded by Williara
Bill, recoraraended for election by the Protector The
fellows, who were enamoured of the new opinions, having
now no fear of the terrible penalty which, while Henry lived,
attached to all who denied the Real Presence, began openly
to profess their heresy. They even went so far as to hold
open controversies against the most Holy Sacrament in the
chapel. " After they had overthrown the Mass in their dis
putations," writes Baker, " because the Host was not
removed, the pix that hung over the altar was cut down by
a private hand, which cost them some apology with the
archbishop (Cranmer), to whom Mr. Leaver (one of the
leaders in these doings) was sei»t up to excuse the thing ".'
' Baker's History of St. John's, vol. i., p. 137.
^ Ibid., pp. 118-21. ^ Ibid., p. 125.
10

146 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
They had, however, only anticipated by a few weeks the
action of the Government. The coUege chapel which the
martyred Fisher had solemnly consecrated in 15 16, and in
which he had hoped that the Holy Sacrifice would be daily
offered by the fellows of the college, for whose education
and maintenance he toiled so much, was now after thirty
years to be devoted to the novel rites against which Fisher
had so warmly written. " It is a strange thing," he wrote in
1523, "that Luther should have the impudence to lay down
new laws for the sacraments, as if he thought that men at the
present day were so utterly stupid as to be willing at the
bidding of an insignificant friar to depart from the ancient
rites observed by the Church."' But the age, in its pride of
learning, was more spiritually stupid than Fisher believed.
Luther's laws, or those of Calvin or of Cranmer, were pre
ferred to those of the saints and doctors, and the Holy
Sacrifice was abolished, the vestments sold for profane uses,
the liturgical books given to the flames, the altar-stones
broken or thrown aside, and the college statutes again
reformed " by taking out the venom of Popery and supersti
tion," to use the words of the Protestant historian bf the
college.^ At the end of 155 1 BiU had been replaced in the
mastership by the famous Protestant preacher Thomas
Leaver, who continued until the accession of Queen Mary,
when he fled into Switzerland to Calvin. It is enough to
quote the words of Baker, " that the Reformation noVvhere
gained more ground, or was more zealously maintained, than
it did here under this man's example and the influence of
his government "."
It was into such an abode of spiritual desolation that
Watson now entered. Twenty-four of the fellows had
''¦ Assertiqnis LutherancE Confutatio, fol. Ixxv. (Ed. 1523).
2 Baker's History of St John's, vol. i., p. 127. ^ ihid., p. 133.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. I47
resigned or been deprived,' and as it was of course impos
sible to supply their places at once with men equally skilled
in ancient literature, Ascham, who despised and hated
theology, canon law, and scholastic philosophy, complained
grievously of the ignorance of the new fellows and the
decline of the literary reputation of the college. Had
Watson remained master, he would no doubt have still more
effectually promoted his favourite studies than he had done
when one of the junior fellows. When he first quitted the
college, a copy of Fisher's Statutes had been left with him
in trust. These he brought back and enforced, and in other
ways sought to carry out the intentions of the founder.^
But at the end of seven months from his election he resigned
his office, probably because he found its duties incompatible
with his other appointment as Dean of Durham.
A few words will be necessary to explain this dignity. In
1540 Hugh Whitehead, the last Prior of Durham, surren
dered to Henry ; and 12th May, 1541, the King appointed a
dean and twelve prebendaries in the place of the monastic
society, Whitehead himself being the first dean. He had
been succeeded by Robert Horn, one of Watson's contem
poraries at St. John's. Under him Protestantism had
triumphed, especially as the bishop, Cuthbert Tunstall, was
imprisoned. The Duke of Northumberland had got bills
through Parliament to suppress the bishopric, and divide it
into two new ones (viz., Durham and Newcastle), hoping,
under the new arrangements, to get into his own hands the
great possessions of the see, when his plans were defeated
by the death of Edward. The Parliament of the ist of May
1 1 am not sure that they were all deprived during Watson's master
ship. According to Strype the vacancies were not all made until
October, 1554. Baker .speaks hesitatingly (vol. i., p. 141).
2 See Baker, vol. i., 138, 139.

148 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
repealed these Acts.' Although the country was not yet
reconciled with the Holy See, the canon law had been
restored, and by its provisions married priests were at once
removed from their benefices. Among these was the Dean
of Durham. The appointraent, being in the gift of the
Crown, was, probably by Gardiner's recommendation, con
ferred on Watson, who was by origin of that diocese. His
nomination was i8th November, 1553. In October he had
been one of the proctors of the Convocation, and had
strenuously maintained the Catholic faith against John
PhOpot, James Haddon, Richard Cheyney, and other
learned Protestants.^ His position as Master of St. John's
exempted him from residence in any of his benefices,' yet
he resigned his rectory of Wyke on his appointment to the
deanery.' An Act passed by the first Parliament of Mary
enabled her to make statutes for the cathedrals, and by her
appointment Heath of York, Bonner of London, Tunstall of
Durham, Thirlby of Ely, and William Armistead drew up
those of Durham. By the nth chapter of these statutes
the dean was bound to residence, without some reason
able excuse, such as attendance on the King or Queen as
chaplain, business of the Crown or Church, attendance on
Parliament or Convocation, &c. He might be absent a
hundred days in the year on private affairs.'^ I am unable
to state the proportions of Watson's residence, or to give

1 For the detail of all these changes, see Hutchinson's History of
Durham, vol. i., p. 430, and vol ii., p. 102.
2 There is an ex parte account of the proceedings in this Convoca
tion published by Foxe. It is also published in Philpot's Examinations,
&'C. (Parker Society).
' Act of Parliament of 1536.
* Thomas Haywood succeeded in 1553 (Hutchin's Dorsetshire).
* The dean's stipend was £40, and 12s. 5d. each day he was pre
sent in choir or lawfully absent.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 49
details of his government of the cathedral.' As his zeal for
the Blessed Sacrament was so great, it would be very inte
resting if any records could be discovered of the manner in
which he re-established the Catholic worship, and endea
voured to bring back something of the cathedral's ancient
splendour. In December, 1554, the decrees of the Cardinal
Legate ratified the erection of dioceses, chapters, and col
leges which had been made by Henry VIII.
On the third and fifth Fridays of Lent, 1554, Watson
again preached before the Queen two sermons which he
afterwards published, one on the Real Presence, the other
on the sacrificial character of the Mass.^ We have a sin
gular testimony to the reputation of Watson as a preacher in
an answer that was published in the time of Elizabeth to
these two sermons by Robert Crowley, rainister of Cripple
gate. He says in his introduction : " Having occasion
oftentiraes to be in place where such as are not yet per
suaded that the Pope's Church can err, have been bold to
utter their minds freely, affirming that the doctrine which
the Protestants teach is erroneous and false, especially con
cerning the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of His Body
and Blood, and the Sacrifice of the Mass : I have perceived
that the same have been chiefly persuaded and stayed by
these two sermons made by Dr. Watson in the first year of
Queen Mary's reign. I have therefore wished that some
man of like learning would have published in print an
answer to those sermons; that thereby such as have been

1 Surtees unfortunately did not live to write the history ofthe abbey
and cathedral.
2 " Two notable sermons made the 3rd and 5th Fridays in Lent
last past before the Queen's Highness, concerning the real presence
of Christ's body and blood in the Blessed Sacrament, also the Mass
which is the sacrifice of the New Testament." London, 4to and
l2mo, 1354. Printed by J. Cawood.

150 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
deceived by the subdety thereof might, by the plain and
simple answer, be brought to the knowledge of the truth."
And again, in his address to Dr. Watson, he Says :
"The estimation that you have in the Pope's Church is
such, that whatsoever is known to be of your doing is of that
sort thought to be so learnedly done that none can be found
amongst us able to answer any part thereof".' As Watson
was in prison when Crowley's book was written, the latter
was left to enjoy in peace his imaginary triumph.
In April, 1554, being still Master of St. John's and Dean
of Durham, Watson was one of the divines deputed by the
University of Carabridge to proceed to Oxford to dispute
with Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, on which occasion he
was incorporated Doctor of Divinity in that University, hav
ing already taken his Doctor's degree at Cambridge at the
beginning of the year. From the account of these disputes
given by Foxe, Watson took no part in the contests with
Cranmer or Latimer, and only a slight one in those with
Ridley. They all turned on the Real Presence. He was
no doubt in London when the Legate, Cardinal Pole,
arrived towards the end of November of this year, 1554,
and present in Convocation when the clergy were solemnly
absolved from all censures and irregularities at the beginning
of December.
Cardinal Pole had summoned a National Synod of both
Provinces for the restoration of religion. Dr. Watson was
present ; and it is a clear proof of the estimation in which
he was held for his character, learning, and eloquence, that
when the Council assembled, 21st January, 1555-56, in the
1 " A setting open of the subtyle sophistrie of Thomas Watson, &c.,
written by Robert Crawley, Clearke.'' Printed by Henry Denham,
1569. Ridley also made annotations on Watson's sermons, which he
sent to Bradford. In his letter he calls Watson" a man of acute
parts" See Bradford's Writings, vol. ii., p. 207 (Parker Society).

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 151
Archbishop's Chapel in Lambeth, to hear the promulgation
of the legatine constitutions. Dr. Watson was the orator
selected to deliver the sermon in Latin, in presence of the
Cardinal Legate, the bishops and clergy, " and a great
multitude of people ".i
This is the place to say something of the work by which
Watson is now best known, his Sermons on the Seven Sacra
ments, for though the volume did not appear until the
summer of 1558, it was begun in consequence of the
Synod. Printed sermons are of two sorts. They are either
intended to preserve the memory of a discourse which the
author has already made, or they are written that they may
be preached by others. Watson's sermons on the sacra
ments belong to the latter class. Their place in Catholic
hterature will be better understood if I draw up a list of the
principal sermons that had been previously published in
English, after the invention of printing. It will not be very
long. The sermons by John Myrc, called the Liber Festivalis
had been translated and were printed by Caxton in 1483,
and were frequently reprinted by Wynkyn de Worde, Pynson,
and others. The Blessed John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester,
had preached on the Penitential Psalms, as well as against
the heresies of Luther, and funeral sermons at the death of
Henry VIL, and of the Lady Margaret, Countess of Rich
mond and mother of Henry VII. His sermons on the
Psalms had passed through at least six editions during his
lifetime. Cuthbert Tunstall published the sermon which he
preached in 15 18, in praise of marriage, at the espousals of
Mary, daughter of Henry VIII. with Francis I. (Pynson) ;
and another when he was Bishop of Durhara in 1539
(published by Berthelet). John Longiand, Bishop of
1 Wilkins, Concilia, vol. iv., p. 132.

152 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Lincoln, published in 1531 three sermons preached at
Westminster : one against Luther, one when the Legates a
Latere began their visitation, and a third at the foundation
of Westminster College. These were printed by Pynson.
Petit in 1538 printed a fourth sermon preached by the
same prelate at Greenwich.
Latimer's first printed sermon seems to have appeared in
1537, and in due time several others. The first book of
Protestant HomUies was printed in 1547 by Grafton. Other
Protestant sermons by Hooper, Leaver, and Ponet, were
printed in the reign of Edward VI.
The only other Catholic serraons with which I am
acquainted are :
Three godly and notable sermons of the most honorable
and blessed sacrament of the altar, by William Peryn
(printed in 1546 both by Hill and by Herforde). Five
HomUies by Leonard Pollard, Prebendary of Worcester,
printed by Jugge in 1556. These were corrected and edited
by Bonner. Bonner's Homilies, printed by Cawood in
1555. Sermons preached at S. Paul's Cross, by Brookes in
1554, by Hugh Glasier in 1555, by John Harpsfield in
1556. (Printed by Robert Caley.) A Sermon by Fecken
ham, Abbot of Westminster, on the death of Joan, Queen
of Spain, in 1555, and two HomUies by the same preacher
on the first, second, and third Articles of the Creed (Caley).
Sermons by Roger Edgeworth, Canon of Salisbury, printed
in 1557. These are on the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost,
on the articles of Christian faith, on ceremonies, and of
man's law, and an exposition of the first Epistle of St. Peter
(printed by Caley). Lastly, Two Sermons on the Real
Presence, by Dr. Watson, preached before Queen Mary in
1554- It will be seen from this list how very scanty was the
help afforded to a priest anxious to announce the Word of

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 53
God to his people. He had neither discourses prepared for
his use, nor models to direct him in composing. Most of
the sermons of the above list were too ambitious for his
flights ; they were preached by great .dignitaries of the
Church on solemn occasions. Old John Myrc's Liber
Festivalis was out of date. Not only was its English
antiquated, but it was unsuited to a people whose minds
were agitated by theological discussions, and prejudiced by
the sarcasms and invectives of the Reformers.
On the other hand, the Catholic clergy were not yet well
prepared for instructing and exhorting the people bj their
own efforts and from their own stock of learning. More
than twenty years had passed since the schism. Theological
studies had been thrown into utter confusion in the
Universities. The controversies that raged, while they tended
to produce a few champions of the faith, such as Watson,
only perplexed ordinary minds, or disgusted them, and
turned them from the study of truth. Many priests simply
floated with the stream, and were carried round in its eddies
at the bidding of men in power. I When Cardinal Pole,
therefore, assembled a Council to remedy all these evils, its
attention was at once directed to the subject of preaching
and the instruction of the people. Among other measures
taken one was that homilies should be prepared, to be used
by rectors and vicars unable to compose instruction them
selves.' The Institution of a Christian Man, which had
been composed in the time of Henry VIIL, was brought up
for examfiiation. It was divided into three parts, and some
of the lower house of Convocation were chosen to raake
homilies from it. This was in December, 1555. They

1 " Ubi defuerint concionandi periti rectores aut vicarii, homilias
ex hujus synodi mandato conscriptas, dominicis et aliis festis diebus
legere tenebuntur " (Wilkins' Contilia, vol. iv., p. 123).

154 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
also ordered a translation of the New Testament to be
prepared, and a treatise on the seven sacraments.
The Council was prorogued from time to time, and
never reassembled. But in the Convocation of January
to March, 1558, the subject was again treated.' It was
ordered that four books of sermons should be raade :
ist. On the eucharist, on penance, confession, and the
other sacraments ; on free will, justification, and good works ;
on the Church and its authority, unity, and ministers.
2nd. On the articles of the faith, the Lord's Prayer,
angelic salutation, decalogue and sacraments.
3rd. Sermons for the Sundays of the year and for saints'
days. 4th. On ceremonies, on virtues and vices, and on the
last judgment.
The death of Mary prevented the full carrying out of
these measures. Yet something was done. Bonner's
Book of Homilies was published. But as no one was more
capable of supplying the want, so no one more zealously
undertook to do so than Dr. Watson. Hence his book,
called Wholesome and Catholic Doctrine concerning the Seven
Sacraments of Christ's Church, "expedient to be known
of all men, set forth in manner of short sermons to be
made to the people ".^
Being intended for general preaching, or rather public
reading, these sermons are, of course, unirapassioned and
colourless. We cannot judge from them of Bishop
Watson's own style of preaching. We cannot gather from
them, as from the sermons of Latiraer and Leaver, pictures
of the manners and passions of the times. They scarcely
even reflect Watson's personal character, except by the very
1 Wilkins, vol. iv., p. 156.
^ These sermons were reprinted by the present writer in 1876.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 155
absence of invective, and the simple dignity which dis
tinguishes them. As specimens of old English before the
great Elizabethan era they are interesting to students of our
language, especially as being the work of one of the best
classical scholars of the day.
From this digression we raay now return to the story of
Watsotfs life.
We may suppose that the greater part of the years 1555
and 1556 was spent by hira in Durham. On 7th December,
1556, the Queen issued a licence for filling up the See
of Lincoln, and Watson was elected to that bishopric. On
the 24th of the same month he had a grant of the
temporalities, with all the profits accruing since the vacancy.
His bull of confirmation by the Pope is dated 24th March,
1557, but he was not consecrated till August.
Lincoln had forraerly been one of the richest, as it was
the largest, diocese in England. But during the episcopate
of John Longiand (1521-47) Henry VIII. had carried off
all the treasures ofthe cathedral, 2621 ounces of gold, 4285
ounces of silver, and an immense number of pearls,
diamonds, and other precious stones.' Longland's suc
cessor, Henry Holbeach, surrendered in one day to the
Crown all the episcopal estates,^ and reduced the see to utter
poverty. He also abandoned the episcopal palace in
London. During his time the church was again plundered
of the few ornaraents that remained.
Holbeach died in 1551, and was foUowed by John Taylor,
whose acquaintance we have already made as Master of St.
John's. Taylor was deprived on the accession of Mary, and
John White elected ist AprU, 1554. The translation of
White to the See of Winchester caused the vacancy which
1 A complete list is given by Dugdale, vol. viii,, pp. 1279-86.
" Rymer, vol. xy., p. 66.

156 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
was filled by the election of Dr. Watson. Owing to the
poverty of the see, Cardinal Pole (29th May, 1557)
empowered him to hold the deanery of Durham pro tempore
in commendam with his bishopric. He did so till his .con
secration. He succeeded in recovering many rich vest
ments, articles of plate, and other furniture, of which his
church had been despoiled; and, 9th November, 1557,
obtained, by letters patent, a re-grant of certain of the estates
which had been ahenated by Holbeach, and also the
patronage of certain benefices in his diocese which had
belonged to the dissolved religious houses. But his
Protestant successors did not much profit by his zeal, since
Nicholas BuUingham, who usurped his place- in January,
1560, " surrendered all that his predecessors had obtained,"
says the historian of Lincoln ; " and when he had stripped
the see of its recent wealth, he procured himself to be trans
lated to a richer one, Worcester, leaving to his successor the
pious opportunity of conforming himself more strictly to the
apostolical example of contentment with little ". '
I have not been able to discover any documents throwing
light on Dr. Watson's spiritual government of his diocese,
and must be content to give, in chronological order, the few
scattered notices of him which occur in the last two years of
his freedom.
Shortly after his election to Lincoln he was named by
Cardinal Pole as one of .his delegates to visit the University
of Cambridge, of which the Cardinal had been elected
Chancellor after the death of Gardiner. The incidents of
this visitation have been recorded day by day, and almost
hour by hour, by an eye-witness, John Mere, the Esquire
Bedell, and with more than usuaUy blasphemous com-
1 History of County of Lincoln, by Allen, vol. i., p. 151. Willis,
in his Survey of Cathedrals, enumerates the benefices (about 150 in
number), all in the diocese of Lincoln (vol. iii., p, 65).

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 157
mentary by Foxe.' The account of the inspection of the
various colleges has no general interest. The event that has
-made this visitation memorable was the burning of the
bodies of Bucer and Fagius. Martin Bucer and Paul
Fagius, two foreign heretics, had been invited to Cambridge
in 1549, and appointed professors of Divinity and of
Hebrew. Their stay was not very long, for Fagius had died
the November after his arrival, and Bucer in February,
fi55i. Theyhad both had public funerals given to them
by the University, and Fagius was buried in St. Michael's,
Bucer in St. Mary's Church. Cardinal Pole considered that
the University ought to make a solemn act of reparation for
this apostasy from the Church, and had given instructions
for the reversal of all the honours paid to the foreign
reformers. They were consequently accused and tried as
heretics, then exhumed, and their coffins and bones burnt
in the market-place with heretical books. This act will
probably appear barbarous ; but at least it was more
humane than the burning of living heretics ; and it would
seem to have been the wish of Pole, as well as of the
visitors, to spare the living, while vindicating the faith. It
is, however, probable that the effect was misjudged, and that
the burning of these dead bodies caused greater disgust and
indignation than the burning of one or two obstinate dis
putants would have done. The latter course would have
been defended as necessary severity ; the former was
generally condemned as a needless outrage.
Watson, however, was not the principal visitor. He was
accompanied by Scott, Bishop of Chester, and Christo
pherson, Bishop of Chichester, and by Nicolas Ormaneto,
1 Mere's Diary was published in 1838 by Dr. Lamb, in his Collection
of Letters, dfC, illustrative of the History of the University of Cam
bridge. A very full account, taken from Lamb and Foxe, is also given
by Cooper in his Annals of Cambridge.

158 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
an Italian prelate who had accompanied the Cardinal into
England, and who is commonly called in the records by his
title of Datary. He seems to have guided the English
theologians in their proceedings.
I need merely add that Foxe gives a sumraary of a sermon
preached on Candlemas Day, 1557, during the visitation, by
Dr. Watson, which- anyone who has read his published
sermons will at once see to be utterly untrustworthy. Dr.
Watson also preached in St. Mary's Church while the bodies
of the reformers were being burned in the market-place,
" setting forth Bucer's wickedness and heretical doctrine,"
says Mere. Foxe has also given an abridgment of this
sermon, but as he himself was then on the Continent, and
only knew what some sympathising friend of Bucer's chose
to report, it would be useless to reproduce it here. The
day after the Church of St. Mary's, which had been inter
dicted as regards the Mass, was reconciled, the Blessed
Sacrament was brought to it in solemn procession, and
Mass was celebrated, the Bishop of Chester preaching. On
the 17 th February the Bishop (elect) of Lincoln returned to
London. Of his stay in the capital we have the following notices in
the diary of the worthy citizen Machyn :
"The 17th March, preached afore the Queen, the new
Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Watson."'
" The 3rd day of April, did preach Dr. Watson, Bishop
of Lincoln, at AU Hallows the More, at afternoon, where
was great audience of people."^
" The 22nd of April, did preach at St. Mark's, Spital, Dr.
Watson, new chosen Bishop of Lincoln, a godly sermon.'"
He was consecrated on the Feast of the Assumption
15th August, 1557), at Chiswick, by Nicholas Heath, Arch-
1 Machyn's Diary, p. 128. ^ Ibid., p. 131. ' Ibid., p. 132.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 159
bishop of York, acting under a commission from Cardinal
Pole, assisted by Thomas Thirlby, Bishop of Ely, and
William Glynn, Bishop of Bangor. '
His duties in Parliament and in Convocation often re
quired his presence in London, and it was probably on such
an occasion that he preached another sermon thus noticed
in Machyn's Diary : " The 20th day of February (1558), did
preach at Paul's Cross, Dr. Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, and
made a godly sermon, for there were present ten bishops,
beside my Lord Mayor, and the aldermen and judges, and
men of the law, and great audience there was".^
But we have now to turn to very different scenes.
Section IV. — In the Reign of Elizabeth.
On the 17th November, 1558, Queen Mary died, and a
few hours later Cardinal Pole. Though Elizabeth's plans
were already formed for the establishment of Protestantism,
yet she acted cautiously at first, hoping to gain over the
bishops. The Protestant exUes at Strasburg, Frankfort, and
Zurich, as soon as they heard of Mary's death, came back
into England ; and Elizabeth, with the advice of her
Council, ajjpointed a solemn conference to be held between
thera and the bishops, professedly to prepare the minds of
the nobility and legistators for the questions regarding
public worship which were about to come before them in
the Parliament then being held. The conference having
been resolved on, the disputants on the Catholic side were
the Bishops of Winchester (White), Lichfield (Bayne),
Chester (Scott), and Lincoln (Watson) ; and theologians,
Drs. Cole, Harpsfield, Langdale, and Chedsey. On the
Protestant side were Scory, Coxe, Whitehead, Grindal,
Horn, Guest, Elmer, and Jewel. The place was West-
1 Stubbs, Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum, p. 82.
2 Machyn's Diary, p. 166.

l6o CVTHOLIC HIERARCHY.
minster Abbey, where a table was set for the bishops and
Catholics on one side of the choir, and for their opponents
on the other, the Lords of the Council being seated at a
cross table. The nobility and members of Parliament were
to be present.
The points to be urged against the bishops were these :
I. That it is against the Word of God and the customs of
the ancient Church to use a tongue unknown to the people
in common prayer, and in the administration of the
sacraments. 2. That every Church hath authority to appoint, take
away, and change ceremonies and rites, so the same be to
edification. 3. That it cannot be proved by the Word of God that
there is in the Mass offered up a sacrifice propitiatory for
the living and the dead.^
Of what happened in these conferences we have only a
one-sided statement, all to the disadvantage of the bishops.
The third Article never carae into discussion, and there was
no orderly disputation regarding the ' others. It had of
course been intended that the bishops should be worsted
or declared so. Hayward concludes his account by these
words: "Then the Assembly was dissolved, the expectations
frustrated, the purpose defeated ". The contrary would be
the truth. "It is very probable," continues Hayward,
" that the bishops could either not be provided in so short
a time, their minds being somewhat clogged with former
pleasures and present cares; or else that they discovered
such an inclination against them that all their hopes did
plainly vanish. And being men no more able to endure

1 Letter of Jewel to Peter Martyr (20th March, 1559), Zurich
Letters, ii. Also Hayward's Annals of Queen Elizabeth (Camden
Society), p. 20,

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. l6l
adversity than they had been to moderate prosperity, they
weakly yielded, and abandoning both their credit and their
cause, gave full way to their own ruin." So far the annalist.
Whether Watson's mind was clogged by pleasure the reader
knows, and whether he was not able to endure adversity the
rest of his life will declare. " Afterwards," says Hayward,
" the Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln, who behaved
themselves — especially Lincoln — more indiscreetly than
others, were for this contempt committed to the Tower.''
Camden has given another, and in some respects fairer,
account of these proceedings.! He says the bishops com
plained that Bacon, the Lord Keeper, was appointed judge
in such matters, of which he knew nothing, and that no
good ever carae of such disputations which do always bend
that way that the sceptre inchnes.
But Camden adds, that the Bishops of Winchester and
Lincoln threatened the Queen with excommunication, and
this statement has been since copied by a multitude of
writers. It is intrinsically improbable, for the excommuni
cation of the Queen would not belong to a simple bishop ;
nor is it in harmony with anything we know of Watson's
character, to suppose him thus hastily uttering such a
threat. Besides this, Camden's statement rests on no
previous and contemporary authority, nor is it borne out by
other historians who lived nearer to the events. Hayward
has nothing of it, nor has Holinshed,^ who, however, copied
his account from a statement published soon after the
conference by authority of the Queen. The original
memorandum, signed by Bacon, the Chancellor, the Earls
of Bedford, Shrewsbury, Pembroke, by Cecil and others, is
still in existence," and has not a word about excommunica-
' History of Elizabeth, book i.
2 Holinshed, vol. iii., p. 1183 (Ed. 1586).
^ P. R. 0., Dom. Eliz., vol. iii., n. 52.
II

l62 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
tion. This paper says : " Afterwards, for the contempt so
notoriously made, the Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln,
having most obstinately both disobeyed common authority
and varied manifestly from their own order, and especially
Lincoln, who showed more folly than the other, were
condignly committed to the Tower of London ".
If it be said that the CouncU would not make public so
great an outrage on the Queen as a threat of excommunica
tion, I reply that most certainly the eye-witnesses of the
conference, who wrote an account of it in private letters at
the very time, could not have passed over such a matter.
Now Cox and Jewel, two of the disputants, each wrote
independent accounts of what took place within a few days
of the events, and yet neither of them, while dilating on the
contempt and contumacy of the Bishops of Lincoln and
Winchester, mentions any threats against the Queen. Yet
Jewel gloats over their punishment. " White and Watson,"
he writes to Peter Martyr, " were committed to the Tower.
There they are now employed in castrametation." i
For some months the Bishop of Lincoln had been suffer
ing from a severe attack of ague. The report of his death
had reached Strasburg in January.^ This will explain why
his name does not occur in the journals of the House of
Lords in the debates in which the other bishops nobly
defended the Catholic faith. He had not yet entirely
recovered, as appears by the letter of the Council to the
Lieutenant of the Tower for his committal, dated 3rd April,
1559: " He is wiUed to keep in sure and several ward the two
bishops, suffering them nevertheless to have each of them
1 Letter, 6th April, 1559, in Zur^ich Letters, 1., p. 13. Cox's letter
to Weidner is dated 20th May, 1559. Ibid., i., p. 28.
^ Letter of Jewel, written firom Strasburg, 26th January, 1559.
Zurich Letters, i. 6.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 63
one of their own men to attend upon them and their own
stuff for their bedding and other necessary furniture, and to
appoint them to some convenient lodgings meet for persons
of their sort using them also otherwise well, speciaUy the
Bishop of Lincoln, for that he is sick, for which respect also
and because this is his sick night, the said lieutenant is
wiUed to have the rather regard unto hira, and to spare hira
sorae of his own lodging and stuff for this night, and also
to suffer his surgeon and such other as shall be needful for
his health to have access unto him from time to time.
" My Lords of the Council did this day appoint Sir
Ambrose Cave and Sir Richard SackviUe to repair to the
houses of the said Bishops of Winchester and Lincoln here
in London, and both to peruse their studies and writings,
and also to take order with their officers for the surety and
stay of their goods." '
Another letter written on the 27 th of AprU gives instruction
to the lieutenant " to suffer the Bishop of Lincoln to come,
at such times as he by his discretion shall think meet, to
his table for the better relief of his quartan ague ; and also
to have that liberty of the house, as prisoners heretofore
having the liberty of the Tower hath used, the ordering
whereof is referred to his discretion "."
On the 26th June the Queen deprived the two bishops
of their sees. For this purpose they were brought, says
Machyn, " to Master Hawse, the King's Sheriff, in Mincing
Lane, and the Bishop of Winchester to the Tower again,
and the Bishop of Lincoln delivered away ".' If this means
that he was set at liberty, whither he then repaired I can
1 Council Register, vol. i., A 1558-1559. Mary, Elizabeth, p. 263.
Machyn notes in his Diary that the two bishops were sent to the
Tower by the guard by water, to the Old Swan, and to Billings
gate after {Diary, p. 192).
^ Ibid., p. 278. ^ Diary, p. 201.

164 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
only conjecture. It was probably to his brother's house in
London. This brother is mentioned in 1556 in Mere's
Diary as having corae to Cambridge during the visitation .^
His name was John. It was probably to him that a lease
was granted, when Dr. Watson was Master of St. John's, of
a tenement belonging to the college, mentioned in the
coUege registers.^ He is then called " John Watson, of
London, gentleman," and he has permission to alienate the
lease to William Roper, of Lincoln's Inn, probably the son-
in-law of Sir Thomas More. In the State papers of 1578
there is a list given by an informer of the names and
addresses of certain Papists in London, with particulars of
those who keep chaplains, attend mass, &c. Among these
is mentioned Watson, of Great St. Helen's, attorney of
GuUdhall." This is all the information I can glean about
this brother, unless he is the same John Watson who is men
tioned in 1579 as laying complaints before the Privy Council
against the Protestant Bishop of Lincoln, and who is said to
be non compos mentis.^ But to return to the year 1559.
Sanders, writing to Cardinal Morone in 1561, gave the
following account : " Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, surpasses
all the rest in learning. Being offered his liberty if he
would attend the services, he refused, saying that if his
conscience permitted him to assent thus far, it would aUow
him both to preach and comraunicate. Being required by
the visitors to give his reasons, he answered that experience
had not taught him, nor was he prepared to dispute on
religion without first knowing who was to be his judge." ^
! Lamb's Collection, p. 207.
s See Cooper's Notes to Baker's History of St. John's, vol. i., p.
374, n. 163, 165, and p. 377, n. 182.
' P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., Addenda, vol. xxv., n. 118.
¦• Privy Council Register, i6th October, 1579, p. 641.
^Vatican MS,, fol. 266.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 65
If in truth he was left in liberty, after his release from the
Tower on 25th June, 1559, he was once more sent to the
Tower on 20th May, 1560.' Strype tells usHhat he was
committed thither by the Archbishop of Canterbury (Parker)
and other Ecclesiastical Commissioners. There were at thC)
same time five other bishops, the Abbot of Westminster, and
Dr. BoxaU, who had been secretary to the late Queen,
as well as Dean of Peterborough and of Windsor.
A letter from the Privy Council to the Archbishop, 4th
Sept., 1560, allowed them to come together for their meals
if he approved of it ; the Archbishop of York (Heath), the
Bishop of Worcester (Pate), the Abbot of Westminster
(Feckenham), and Dr. Boxall, at one table ; the Bishop of
Ely (Thirlby), the Bishop of Bath (Bourne), the Bishop of
Exeter (Turberville), and the Bishop of Lincoln, at another
table. Strype adds, that "after a while they were all com
mitted to easier restraint, and some restored to their perfect
liberty". This is incorrect, as we have seen. As to Dr.
Watson, he is returned by the Lieutenant of the Tower " a
year afterwards, 26th May, 1561, as still under his charge; and
so far from the restraint becoming easier, in June, 1562, the
lieutenant writes to " put their Lordships ofthe Privy Council
in remembrance that the late bishops, with Mr. Feckenham
and Mr. BoxaU, being all eight in number, be close and
severally kept, for the which they continually call upon him
to make in their names humble suit to have more liberty,"
and he informs their Lordships that " it is very troublesome
to serve so many persons so long together ".* What result
this application may have had I cannot say. The Bishop
1 Machyn's Diary, p. 235.
^ Annals of the Reformation, vol. i., part i., p. 211.
^ P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., vol. xvii., n, 13.
* Ibid., vol. xxiii., n. 40.

1 66 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
of Lincoln was stiU in the Tower on September 5, 1562.1
In March, 1563, an Act was passed ^ enabhng the Protestant
bishops to require the oath of the Queen's supremacy from
any who had ever held office in the Church during the last
three reigns, or who should say or hear a private mass, &c.
The refusal to take this oath when tendered the first time
subjected the refuser to perpetual imprisonment ; a second
refusal subjected him to death, as in cases of high treason.
The Queen, however, secretly warned the bishops not to
proceed to tender the oath a second time without her leave.
Had this not been the case, Watson would be now ranked
among the martyrs instead of the confessors.
In the autumn of 1563 Watson was given into the custody
of Edmund Grindal, Bishop of London, one whom he had
known at Cambridge, and whom he had met more than once
in disputation since." But if he had been ready to discuss
with him when they met on equal terms, he wisely refused to
renew the encounter with one who was his jailor. This we
learn from the following letter of Grindal to Cecil (iSth Octo
ber, 1563): " I thank you that . . . ye remembered to ease
me of one guest . . . My Lord of Ely received him on
Sunday last past, and writeth that he is welcome for their
sakes that send him, otherwise not. I signified to Dr.
Watson that, if he had tarried, I was willing to have conferred
with him in divers points, but he answereth that he will not
enter in conference with no man. The reason is, he will
not incur penalties of laws. I said only one law was penal,*
that might be forborne ; but he persisted in his opinion. I
here said, ' Mr. Feckenham is not so precise, but could be
ip. R. 0., Dom. Eliz., vol. xxiv. 39, I.
^ See Lingard, vol. vi., p. 83.
^ E.g., at Sir Richard Morison's in 1551, at the Convocation of
1553, and at the Westminster Conference in 1559.
^ Denying the Queen's supremacy, by statute i Eliz., c. i.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 67
contented to confer '. The Bishop of Winton,' when he was
with me, said that if he should have any, he could best deal
with Feckenham, for in King Edward's days he travailed
with Feckenham in the Tower, and brought him to subscribe
to all things, saving the Presence, and one or two more
articles. Ye might do very well (in my opinion) to ease the
poor Dean of Westminster,'^ and send the other also" {i.e.,
Feckenham) " to some other bishop, as Sarum or Chichester,
&c. It is more reason that we bishops should be troubled
with them than the poor dean." "
It appears from the above letter that Watson, after being
about a month in the custody of the Bishop of London, had
been transferred in October, 1563, to that of Coxe, Bishop
of Ely. With him he remained rather more than a year,
for by a letter from the Privy Council,* dated 9th January
(apparently of the year 1564-5), the Bishop of Ely is ordered
to send him to the Tower again, whUe at the same time
the Lieutenant of the Tower is instructed " to keep him in
safe ward, without having conference with any ".
This is an indication of what we shall see explicitly stated
by the Government on another occasion, that Watson both
had and exerted great influence in keeping Catholics faithful
to God and His Holy Church, in spite of persecution.
Five years after his recommittal, a return of the prisoners
in the Tower, made AprU, 1570, shows him to have been
still confined in the State prison." Baker says that, on the
1 Horn.
2 Goodman, in whose custody Feckenham then was.
s Grindal's Remains, p. 281 (Parker Society). Feckenham was
sent to Horn, who was not so successful as he had hoped. For an
account of the controversy between Horn and Feckenham see Staple-
ton's Counterblast.
* Privy Council Register, Eliz., vol. i., p. 143.
^ P. R. 0., Dom. Eliz., vol. Ixvii., n. 93.

1 68 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
publication of the bull of excomraunication against the
Queen by St. Pius V. in February, 1570, Bishop Watson was
interrogated, together with Feckenham, Cole, and Harps
field, concerning the bull, and that his answers (given under
his hand) were very temperate, and with due regard to his
allegiance to the Queen.'
Baker refers to Goldast, a German, who wrote in Latin.
I have consulted Goldast and find the following declaration
attributed to Watson :
" Respondeo me eam rem non aliter quam ex auditu
compertam habere. Neque enim Bullam prsefatam aut legi
unquam aut vidi. Confiteor reginam nostram Elizabetham,
non obstante Pontificis Romani buUa, aut declaratione qua
cunque, veram nostram esse et legitimam Anglise et Hiber
nise Reginam, eique ut Reginse ab omnibus suis subditis
obedientiam debere praestari. Confiteor me, non obstante
bulla prefata, vel quacunque alia jam facta aut deinceps
facienda, Reginse Elizabethse, ut subditum legitime principi
suse, obedientiam et fidelitatem debere." ^
I have taken much trouble to investigate this matter, but
with only partial success. Dr. Lingard, in a Tract" pub
hshed in 1 81 2, and Mr. Charles Butler, in his Historical
Memoirs of English Catholics,*' quote Caron's Remonstrantia
Hibemorum for the fact of the above declaration. Lingard
adds that to the same questions similar answers were given
by the. deposed bishops, Heath, Pool, TunstaU, White,
Ogelthorpe, and Thirlby, referring in a note to Lord
Burghley's Execution of Justice in England. But as Tun
staU, White, and Ogelthorpe died ten years before the bull
' History of St. John's, p. 140.
^ Goldast, Monarch, tom. iii., p. 66 (Ed. Francof., 1613).
^ Reprint of 1826, p. 275.
¦* Vol. i. 422.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 69
of St. Pius v., and before any question whatever arose on
the subject of allegiance, there is here evidently some
confusion. On reference to Caron, who wrote in 1665,
I find that Lingard has copied from him both his assertions,
and that Caron refers to Burghley for the second, although
his authority for both is really an Apology of the Catholics
of England, presented to King James I., and printed at
Douai in 1604.'
A book printed in Tournai in 1623, caUed The Image of
Both Churches, by P. D. M. [Pattinson], is more explicit
than Cai^on. " I will show you the opinion of the bishops
and prelates of Queen Mary's time. The new devised six
articles (composed by D. Haramon) were proposed to all
priests as the touchstone of their loyalty, i. Whether the
bull of Pius V. were a sentence to be obeyed? 2. Whether
Queen Elizabeth were a lawful queen, notwithstanding the
bull ? 3. Whether the Pope had power to give authority to
her subjects to rebel and depose her, &c. Upon these
questions Bishop Watson, Abbot Feckenham, D. John
Harpsfield, D. Nicolas Harpsfield, and others were
curiously examined. Some of them answered they never
see [sic] the bull, but all of them professed their obedience
notwithstanding the bull, ei ut verce regincc obediendum.
And fully Nicolas Harpsfield resolved them : ego regalem
ejus auctoritatem in omnibus rebus causisque civilibus et
temporalibus agnosco, the which Goldastus (tom. iii., de
Monarchia S. Imperii Rom.) doth report."^
Here again there is confusion. " The six articles pro-
1 The words of Lord Burghley may be seen at p. 2. They are
general, and refer to contemporaries. Though he goes on to com
mend the peaceable behaviour of the bishops who were dead, he does
not say they made any profession of resisting the Pope. This mistake
has been too often repeated.
^ The Image of Both Churches, p. 347.

170 CATHOLIC HIER.'^RCHY.
posed by D. Hamraon " are referred to, and then only three
questions are given. Dr. John Haramond was one of the
Queen's Commissioners who presided at the trials of the
Blessed Everard Hanse, the Blessed Edmund Campion,
and others who were executed in 1581 and 1582. The
Government published in 1582 an account of the six
questions proposed and of the answers given by these
holy martyrs, to show that all who were executed were
guilty of treason, and that such as answered satisfactorily
were pardoned.' Now, the questions, as drawn up by Dr.
John Hararaond in 1581, could not have been proposed to
Archdeacon Nicolas Harpsfield, who died in 1575, nor to
his brother John, who died in 1578, nor to Dean Cole, who
died in 1580. And on referring to Pattinson's authority,
Goldast, I find that the date he gives for the questioning
ofthe deposed priests is 1570, at least this date is placed in
the margin. The first edition of Goldast's book appeared
in 161 1. He was a laborious compiler, but all was fish
that carae to his net. It is clear that he got his informa-
mation frora an Englishman, or from an English book ; but
we have no guarantee of its authenticity. He gives three
questions and distinct answers by each of the five prisoners,
viz., Watson, the two Harpsfields, Feckenham, and Cole.
Watson answers as follows : " i. I reply that I only know
the matter by hearsay ; I have never read or seen the bull.
2. I confess that our Queen Elizabeth, notwithstanding the
bull of the Roman Pontiff, or any declaration whatever, is
the true and lawful Queen of England and Ireland, and to
her as to the Queen obedience should be paid by her
subjects. 3. I confess that, in spite of the foresaid bull, or
1 The greater part of this Government manifesto has been reprinted
by Charles Butler in his Historical Memoirs, vol. i., pp. 208-235.
The questions and answers may also be found in "Bridgewater's Con
certatio.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 171
any other already made or to be made hereafter, I owe
obedience and fidelity to Queen Ehzabeth, as a subject to
his lawful prince." '
I do hot venture to deny the authenticity of this docu
ment ; yet I would make the following observations : The
declaration is not found in any of the Calendars of State
Papers, nor in the reports of the Historical Manuscripts
Comraission. It is not alluded to in the manifesto of the
Council in 1582. They give the answers of the " traitors,"
adding that " two of them only now acknowledge their true
duty of allegiance, though in points of religion not reconciled,
as also one other named Edward Rishton that did before
openly at the bar, at the time of his arraignment, acknow
ledge his said duty and aUegiance to Her Majesty. Towards
whom Her Majesty doth mean to extend her grace and
mercy.'' The two not named were James Bosgrave and
Henry Orton. It would have suited the purpose of the
Council to allege the declaration of the more dignified
confessors in prison ; yet they do not. Nor did Lord
Burghley in his Defence of the Execution of Justice in
England, published in 1583, except in very general terms.^
That some priests as well as laymen made a declaration
similar to that attributed to Watson is clear. The words
of Bosgrave and Orton were published at the time ; and
in the Record Office is still to be seen the profession of Dr.
Oxenbridge, one of Watson's fellow-prisoners in Wisbeach at
a later period. It runs as follows :
" 14 Maii, 1583, at Wisbiche Castell.
I, Andrewe Oxenbridge, doctor of the lawes, doe francklie
1 Goldastus, Monarchia, tom. iii., p. 66 (Ed. Francof, 1613). From
a copy in the Bodleian, the third volume not being in the British
Museum. I have given the Latin above.
=¦ See p. 2.

172 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
and from my harte acknowledge and^ avowe the moste
gratious Ladie Elizabeth, nowe Queene of England, to be
most rightfuU and Lawfull Queene thereof, de jure, as
Whereof shee is most justelie possessed from the first dale of
hir Raigne till nowe. And to hir ma"^ alone, as to my
most juste and sole soveraigne magistrate I owe all my
Lyoelltie, service and whoUe dutie of subjection next under
God. And even soe will I repute hir ma''= duringe Lifife,
against the BuU (if anie be) of Pius 5, Gregorie or anye
other Pope heartofore or hearafter. Ffurthermore, if any
man pretendinge Catholike Romaine religion be of minde that
the Pope for one cause or other may depose her or dispence
with her subjects othe of Loialltie, I hould it a Trayterous
article such as doe beleve. But contrarilie am redie and
vowe to spend my Liffe and goodes ^^ the Peace and quiet
of Queene Elizabethe and this present state againste every
invador, disturbor, or undemyner, by what authoritie, Bull
or Direction he shall doe yt, of Prince or prest, or Potentate
or prelate, namelie of the pope himselfe, by what jurisdiction,
power or name be yt soever he comaunde." '^
It is not pretended that the Bishop of Lincoln wrote so
strongly as Dr. Oxenbridge, but if he wrote the words
reported by Goldast (which I consider uncertain), I wUl
neither venture to commend him with Lingard and Butler,
nor am I so bold as to condemn hira. Dr. WiUiam
Bishop (as Charles Butler remarks) used much stronger
language, notwithstanding which he was appointed Vicar
Apostolic bythe Pope, without any retractation being required
from him. The power of the Sovereign Pontiff over Chris
tian princes, whether direct or indirect, was not an article of
' The words in italics are altogether or nearly illegible froip the
mutilation of the paper.
^ P. R. 0., Dom. Eliz., vol. cix,, n. 44.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 73
Catholic faith, and in judging of men's conduct at a particular
crisis it behoves a modern writer to be very reserved, especi
ally when he has to judge between a pope who is a canonised
saint and a bishop who proved his fidelity to the Catholic
Church, and especiaUy to the Sovereign Pontiff, by twenty-
five years of imprisonment. I repeat, however, that, for
anything we know to the contrary, the declarations of Watson
and the rest may be a forgery framed on the paper of Oxen
bridge.' But to return to the record of the bishop's imprison
ments, I may here insert a letter written about this time
by Grindal, Bishop of London, to Cecil, on February 3,
1569-70 :
" Sir, — I pray you most instantly to be a mean that I be
not troubled with the Bishop of Ross.^ He is a raan of
such quality as I like nothing at all. If needs I raust have
a guest, I had rather keep Mr. Hare " still. If it please you
to know mine opinion in genere, surely I think it were good
that such as deserve to be committed should be sent ad
custodias publicas. Experience declareth that none of those

' Dr. Milner has treated the subject in his Sixth Letter to a Pre
bendary. He takes for granted the protestation of allegiance ot
Bishop Watson, of which he approves, and defends his loyalty to St.
Pius v., by the remark that that pope " did not require the English
Catholics to receive or observe his bull," and that " he never published
or signified it to them ". But this is beside the question. It was one
dejure, not de facto, and of any future possible bull, not ofthe exist
ence or publication of that of 1569. That "Gregory XIII., his
successor, explicitly declared that the bull did not regard the con
sciences of English Catholics," as Milner says, is both incorrect and
not to the point. Gregory did not deny the binding force of the bull
of Pius, but suspended it as regards English Catholics. But according
to the supposed declarations, no such suspension was needed.
' John Leslie.
* Michael Hare, Esq., a Catholic gentleman.

174 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
are reformed which are sent to me and others, and by
securing of them the punishment lighteth upon us."i
Whether in consequence of this remonstrance, or for other
reasons, Watson, as I have said^ was kept in the Tower, An
anonymous letter, dated 2nd August, 1570, shows the bitter
zeal with which some opposed the least relaxation of his suffer
ings : " There was one died lately in the Tower of the
plague, as it is suggested, whereby is some hope of deliver
ance, or, at least, great suit. There be some in the Tower,''
to whose cases I would otherwise turn it, that their men
come no more abroad to fetch the plague, nor themselves
go too far abroad to carry a worse plague. Close prison is
best for all sides." " This cruel plan of incarcerating innocent
men, without law or trial, while the weary years rolled on,
and in the hope of their more speedy death by prison
plague, lest the sight of them should encourage any heart
to fidelity to England's religion of a thousand years, was
being constantly urged by the Protestant bishops. If
there was any relaxation, it never came from their pro
posal, nor met with their approval.
So years passed on with Bishop Watson. In July, 1574,
we find him in the Marshalsea. I have not been able to
discover the time of his removal thither from the Tower.
At that date the Privy CouncU * sent " a letter to the Bishop
of Canterbury in the behalf of Dr. Watson, prisoner in the
Marshalsea, that upon sufficient sureties and bonds taken to
the Queen's Majesty's use, that the said doctor, shall not by
speech, writing, or other means, induce or entice any person
to any opinion or act to be done contrary to the laws esta-
1 Grindal's Remains, p. 320.
- On the margin is here written Episcopi quondam.
' P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., Addenda, xix. i.
* Privy Council Register, Eliz., vol. ii., p. 246.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 175
blished in the realm for causes of religion, to give order that
he may be delivered to his brother, John Watson, to remain
with him at his house, and not to depart from thence at any
time, without the licence of the lords of the Council ; nor
that any person shall resort to the said doctor Watson any
time, other than such as shall have occasion to resort to the
said John Watson ".
These various imprisonments have taken but a few pages
to relate, but they had extended over fifteen years. When
the bishop was sent to the Tower at the close of the West
minster Conference, he was scarcely forty-five years old ; he
is now sixty-one. We know that at his first committal he
was suffering from a severe attack of ague ; he can scarcely
have escaped relapses in such places as the Tower and the
Marshalsea. In a letter of Grindal's, written 15th August,
1569, he says; "The prison sickness reigns usually at this
time of the year. Milerus, the Irishman, in my custody, is
very sick of an ague." Nothing can be raore piteous than
the description which Richard Creagh, Catholic Archbishop
of Arraagh, who was confined there at the sarae time as the
Bishop of Lincoln, gives of his various infirmities brought
on by bad air, bad food, and confineraent.' Frora a letter
of Watson's, to be quoted presently, we find that during his
imprisonment in the Marshalsea, he lost the sight of one
eye and became lame with acute sciatica. We have no
other details of the nature of his imprisonment, of the books
allowed him, or persons who could resort to him. In those
days prisoners sometimes purchased the connivance of their
jailors and managed to say or hear Mass ; and priests found
their way to them in disguise and heard their confessions
and gave them Holy Communion. Whether and how far the
' Published by the Bishop of Ossory in his Spicilegium Ossoriense,
from the State Papers.

176 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Bishop of Lincoln gained any such consolations can only
be a matter of conjecture. We can, however, easily imagine
the joy of the venerable confessor when in the security of
his brother's house he might once more offer the holy sacri
fice, recite his breviary, study and converse with Catholics.
He could not, indeed, go out, and visitors were forbidden
under penalties to communicate with him. Dodd writes as
if he " administered confirmation and gave advice on matters
regarding government and discipline " to the afflicted
Catholics, now without a bishop to direct them, and with
only fugitive priests to instruct or feed them with the sacra
ments. But Dodd is here clearly writing from conjecture.'
He says also in his short biographical notice: "While
Bishop Watson lived, he was consulted and regarded as the
chief Superior of the English Catholic clergy, and, as far as
his confinement would permit, exercised the functions of his
character".^ This is vague, yet it is somewhat borne out
by the documents I am about to produce. After the bishop
had remained three years with his brother, viz., in July,
1577, the following letter was sent by Walsingham to the
Bishop of London :
" After my very hearty commendations unto your Lord
ship, the inconvenience and mischief being daUy found to
increase, not only to the danger of Her Majesty's person,
but to the disturbance of the common quiet of this realm ;
and the lenity that hath been showed to such persons as
obstinately refuse to come to the Church in the time of
sermons and common prayer. It is resolved, therefore,
that for the redress thereof, there shall be some consultation
and thereupon some general order to be set down, which
shall not be changed. And because it is intended that your
1 Dodd's Church History, vol. iii., p. 45 (dE. Tierney).
^ Ibid., part iii., book ii., art. 3 (original edition).

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 77
Lordship shall be present at the said consultation, I am for
that purpose also appointed by my lords to require you to
be there upon Thursday, and to bring with you Mr. Doctor
Hamon, your Chancellor, and such as you shall think meet.
And forasmuch as the special point of the said consultation
wUl stand upon the order that may be taken generally with
aU them that refuse to corae to the Church, and in particular
what is raeetest to be done with Watson, Feckenhara,
Harpsfield, and others of that kind that are thought to be
the leaders and the pillars of the consciences of great num
bers of such as be carried with these errors, whether it be not
fit they be disputed with, all in some private sort, and after
disputation had with them, and they thereby not reduced
to conformity, then whether it shall be better to banish them
the realm, or to keep them here together in some strait sort,
as they may be kept from all conference to the further
maintenance of this corruption. ... I have thought meet
to give you of the same these short remembrances, that by
thinking thereupon, and of some such other things as may
further this good intention, your Lordship raay come the
better prepared to the furtherance of so good a purpose.
And so I bid your Lordship most heartily farewell." '
Enclosed with this letter were the foUowing memo
randa : ^
How such as are backward and corrupt in Religion may be
reduced to confortnity, and others stayed from like cor
ruption.
" For the reducing to conformity of such as are corrupt in
religion, and refuse to yield obedience to the laws of the
realm provided in that behalf, and the staying of others
1 P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., vol. xly., n. 21, , ^ IUd., n. 10.
12

178 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
from falling into like corruption, three things principally are
to be put in execution.
"i. The first in taking order generally with such as. are
recusants, as that they may be brought to obey the laws.
" 2. The second in providing, either by banishment or
restraint, that Watson, Feckenham, and the rest upon whose
advice and consciences the said recusants depend, may do
no harm.
"Touching the second point for the restraining or
banishing of Watson and the rest : if banishment be
not thought meet, then it is to be considered how they
may be restrained in such sort as there raay be no access
had unto them, which may be performed by putting these
things following in execution :
' ' First, in making choice of some apt place for the keep
ing of them.
"Secondarily, in appointing some man of trust to take
charge of them.
" Lastly, in taxing upon the bishops and clergy such as
are non-residents, and have pluralities, some yearly contri
bution for the finding of them, and a convenient stipend to
be given to their keeper."
The result of all these deliberations was that the following
letter was addressed by the Council to those into whose
charge the poor Catholics were committed : '
" After our right hearty commendations unto your Lord
ship, whereas Her Majesty heretofore, after the restraining
of Feckenham, Watson, and others, very backward and
obstinate in religion, upon persuasion and some opinion
conceived that by granting them liberty they might be drawn
in time to yield themselves conformable unto Her Highness'
' P. R. 0,, Dom. Eliz., vol. cxiv., n. 69.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 79
laws, she was contented to have them enlarged, and bonds
taken of them for their good behaviours, as that they
should refrain all manner of conference, secret practices, or
persuasions to seduce her said subjects by withdrawing of
them from the religion presently received within this realm,
and their dutiful obedience towards Her Highness and her
laws : forasmuch as it is informed that Feckenham, Watson,
and the rest, contrary to their bonds, promise, and hope
conceived of their amendment, have and do daily and
manifestly abuse the liberty granted unto thera, whereby
raany of Her Highness' said subjects are by their secret
persuasions lately fallen and withdrawn from their due
obedience, refusing to come unto the church, and to perform
that part of their duties which heretofore they have been
dutifully contented to yield. Upon consideration whereof
Her Majesty foreseeing of what consequence the effects of
these lewd persuasions and practices may be, if in time they
shall not conveniently be met withal, hath thought it con
venient again to restrain them of their liberties, and to make
choice of sorae of your calling, unto whom they might be
committed, and carefully looked unto, and, namely, hath
appointed the person of A. B. unto your Lordship's custody,
to be straitly kept and dealt withal, according to a form which
we send your Lordship herewith in writing, requiring you in
Her Majesty's name, at such time as the said A. B. shall be
sent unto you to receive him, and in all points to do your
endeavour strictly to follow the said form for the usage of
him during the time he shall remain with you, unless upon
sorae good report raade by you of hope of his conformity,
it shall be by Her Majesty or us ordered, that he shall be
more favourably dealt withal."
" Wherein not doubting but you will thoroughly perform
the expectation had of your care in this behalf, we bid your
Lordship right heartily."

l8o CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
A form to be observed by my Lords the Bishops in the ordering
of such as were committed to their custody for Popery.
" I. That his lodging be in such a convenient part of
your house as he may both be there in safe custody and
also have no easy access of your household people unto
him other than such as you shall appoint, and know to be
settled in religion and honesty, as that they may not be
perverted in rehgion or any otherwise corrupted by him.
" 2. That he be not adraitted unto your own table except
upon some good occasion to have ministered to him there,
in the presence of some that shall happen to resort unto you,
such talk whereby the hearers raay be confirraed in the
truth ; but to have his diet by himself alone in his chamber,
and that in no superfluity, but after the spare manner of
scholars' commons.
" 3. That you suffer none, unless some one to attend
upon him, to have access unto him ; but such as you shall
know to be persons well confirmed in true religion, and are
[not] likely to be weakened in the profession of the said
religion by any conference they shall have with him.
" 4. That you permit him not at any time and place while
. he is with you to enter into any disputation of matters of
religion, or to reason thereof otherwise than upon such
occasion as shall be by you, or in your presence with your
good liking by some other, ministered unto him.
" 5. That he have ministered unto him such books of
learned men and sound writers in divinity as you are able to
lend him, and none other.
" 6. That he have no liberty to walk abroad to take the
air, but when yourself is at best leisure to go with him, or
accompanied with such as you shall appoint.
" 7. That you do your endeavour by all good persuasions
to bring him to the hearing of sermons and other exercise of

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON, l8l
religion in your house and the chapel or church which you
most commonly frequent."
I do not think that it is a rash conjecture that Watson's
old antagonist Grindal was at the bottom of these severe
measures. In 1570 he had been promoted from the See of
London to that of York, and in the beginning of 1576 to
that of Canterbury. We have seen him express his opinion
that the recusants should be confined in the public prisons
rather than in the bishops' houses. Whenhewas Archbishop of
York (on November 1 3, 1 5 74) he did not disguise his vexation,
in a letter to Lord Burghley, at the news which had reached
him of the greater measure of freedom lately granted to Dr.
Watson. I give a long extract from this letter, because it con
tains some interesting details regarding one of Watson's old
companions at Cambridge, Thomas Vavasor, a physician :
" My VERY GOOD Lord, — We of the Ecclesiastical Commis
sion have here sent a certificate to my Lords of the Council
of our proceedings this term. Only five persons have
been comraitted for their obstinacy or papistical religion.
For the number of that sect (thanks be to God !) daily
diminisheth, in this diocese especiaUy. None of note was
committed, save only your old acquaintance, Doctoi- Vavasor,
who hath been tolerated in his own house in York almost
three-quarters of a year. In his answer, made in open
judgraent, he showed himself the same man which you
have known him to be in his younger years : which was
sophistical, disdainful, and eluding arguments with derision
when he was not able to solute the same by learning. His
great anchor-hold was in urging the literal sense of hoc est
corpus meum, thereby to prove transubstantiation, which to
deny, saith he, is as great an heresy as to deny consubstan
tiation," defined in the Nicene Council. The diversity was
1 The consubstantiality ofthe Son with the Father.

l82 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
sufficiently declared unto him by testimonies of the fathers.
Sed ipse sibi plaudit. My Lord President and I, knowing
his disposition to talk, thought it not good to commit the
said Dr. Vavasor to the castle of York, where some other
like affected remain prisoners ; but rather to a sohtary prison
in the Queen's Majesty's castle at Hull, where he shall only
talk to walls.
" The imprisoned for religion in these parts of late made
supplication to be enlarged, seeming, as it were,"to require it
of right, by the example of enlarging Feckenham, Watson,
and other papists above (i.e., in London). We here are to
think that all things done above are done upon great causes,
though the same be to us unknown. But certainly my Lord
President and I join in opinion that if such a general jubilee
should be put in use in these parts, a great relapse would
follow soon after." '
We may, then, well suppose that when Grindal becarae
Archbishop of Canterbury, he should have looked with a
jealous eye on the liberty enjoyed by Dr. Watson, however
restricted it was, and should have used his influence to
destroy it.
There was, however, another whose malice has been left
on record. This was Aylmer, appointed to be Bishop of
London in March, 1577. Strype quotes a letter from him
to the Lord Treasurer, written in June, 1577, urging him
" to use more severity than hitherto hath been used, or else
we shall smart for it. For as sure as God liveth they look
foran invasion, or else they would not fall away as they do."
Strype remarks that at this time— which, it must be observed,
was at the very beginning of the preaching of the first
missionaries sent from Douai — many who had outwardly
complied now withdrew from Church, many refused the
' Grindal's Remains, p. 350.

bishop THOMAS WATSON. 183
oath of supremacy, and many converts were being made
from among the Protestants. Aylmer, therefore, suggested
that the " chief captains " should be placed in close prison,
among whom he mentions Sir Thomas Fitz-Herbert and
Townely, and Watson, Feckenham, and Young. He pro
posed that they should be again quartered on the bishops,
such as Winchester, Lincoln, Chichester, or Ely ; and that,
for his part, if he were out of his first fruits, he could be
content to have one of them.'
In July, 1577, then, Bishop Watson was given over to
the custody of Dr. Horn, Bishop of Winchester, with the
instructions given above.^ At the sarne time Young was
sent to the Dean of Canterbury, Harpsfield to the Protestant
Bishop of Lincoln, and Feckenham to the Bishop of Ely,
Robert Horn, who was now Bishop of Winchester, has
been already mentioned as one of the fellows of St.
John's, contemporary with Watson. He had been one of
the leaders of the Protestant movement, and had been made
Dean of Durham during the reign of Edward. He had been
deprived because of his marriage and heresy, and had been
succeeded by Watson. He would naturally, therefore, not
look very favourably on his theological opponent and
ecclesiastical rival. Mr. Cooper thus gives his character :
" Bishop Horn was no doubt a man of considerable learn
ing and ability, although he appears to have had an
imperfect control over a somewhat unhappy temper. His
memory is obnoxious for his furious zeal in defacing the
monuments of the piety of a forraer age." ' Horn had also
brought an action against the Bishop of Lincoln for some
goods and books which he said had been unjustly taken
' Strype's Aylmer, p. 24 (Ed. 1821).
2 Privy Council Register, Eliz., vol. iv., p. I.
^ Cooper's Athence Caniabrigienses.

184 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
from him when he was deprived of his deanery of Durham.
This was in February, 1560, after Watson himself had been
deposed from his bishopric' It seems, then, quite natural
that he should not have relished the company of Watson,
any more than Watson his guardianship.
In August the CouncU wrote to the Bishop of Winchester :
" That whereas Dr. Watson hath been a suitor unto their
lordships to have a man of his own to attend upon him
during his being in the custody of the said bishop, whereof,
although their lordships made difficulty, for that his man is
of his religion, they are notwithstanding upon consideration
that it is less danger to let one already corrupted than a
sound person to attend upon him, he is required to permit
his said man to attend upon him so he shall be contented
to repair unto the church ; and withal his lordship to take
heed that in using the company of his men, none of them
do receive infection from him ".^
Bishop Watson remained under Horn's custody, princi
pally at Farnham, for eighteen months. I can here,
fortunately, give two letters not hitherto printed, from the
CecU Papers, in the possession of the Marquis of Salisbury.",
They were written, by mutual agreement, by Watson and
Horn. Watson's letter, which is dated October 6th, 1578,
is as foUows. It is addressed to Lord Burghley :
" Right honourable and my singular good LoRD,-^In
all my distresses, I thank God, which I have sustained these"
many years, I have had no refuge to find relief but at your
honour's hand and good means. For the which I render
most humble thanks, and do not fail but to be your daily
' See Letter.of Horn to Cecil, P. R. O,, Dom. Eliz., vol. xi., n. 16.
^ Council Register, Eliz., vol. iv. , p. 10.
' They are given in abridgment in the Report ofthe Historical MS.
Commission, 1888. Cal. of MS. of Marquis of Salisbury, part ii.,
n. 621 and 624.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 85
orator to Almighty God, that hath prepared your heart to
be always a succour to me in my necessities. And now
two special infirmities drive me to run again and crave your
honour's succour and aid, which be blindness and lameness.
For before four years ago, in the Marshalsea, I lost one of
my eyes, and though afterwards I found remedy to have the
deformity {diffusio albiginis, to be taken away) yet the use
and sight thereof is now gone. And the other eye also is so
dimmed with suffusions that I can scarcely see my meat upon
the table but with great light, and fear daily to lose it also.
" My other infirraity of lameness cometh by raeans of
sciatica in both my thighs, which, though I mitigate it with
warm sheets in the night and with furs and other warm
clothes in the day, yet if I sit any little whUe I halt when I
rise. And in riding I can neither get on nor off my horse
but with great help of other and pain of myself (I beseech
your honour to pardon my rudeness in expressing mine
infirmities after this sort; 'need,' they say, 'thinketh no
shame '.) And besides that I carae hither to my good Lord
of Winchester's custody being sick, and was also this last
summer in his house sick of an ague, my strait keeping in
divers prisons these twenty years together heretofore hath
wrought in me great weakness and decay, both in memory
and mind, senses and body, especially being aged of three
score and five years already past, and age, they say, is a
sickness itself, though no other cause or occasion be added.
"The effect of my most humble suit to your honour is
now, that by your honour's good help, I may be released
from the custody of my good Lord of Winchester, who hath
dealt with me this whole year and quarter as if I had been
his natural brother, and be committed again to the custody
of my brother, John Watson, to remain at his house at
London, or (if the sickness be near unto him) at his house
in the country four miles off, where I may have such attend-

l56 - CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
ing and keeping as mine age and weakness requireth. He
and I will gladly undergo and keep such bonds and condi
tions as your honour shall appoint; only craving most
humbly that I may once a week with my brother take the
open air in the field, without which, they say, my sight will
be altogether soon gone. As for matters of religion already
established within this realm, as I havc not meddled in
them with any person when I was before in his house, so
also will I promise and be bounden to do hereafter. And
as for resort of any persons to me, I shall admit none, only
craving that the barber, tailor, physician, and other artificers
be not accompted for resorters.
" My good Lord of Winchester, I hope, wUl report well of
my quiet behaviour in his house, which kind of life I intend
to keep to my life's end, and daily meditate how I may end
it well. Good my lord, I most humbly beseech your honour
that, among all your good and charitable deeds, this your
reheving of me in my necessities at this time may be one,
and I shall accompt myself most bounden to pray for your
honour to my life's end to Almighty God, Who ever preserve
to His good will. Amen.
"Written at Farnham this 6th day of October, 1578, by
your honour's most humble and daily orator,
"THOM. WATSON." ,
The letter of Dr. Horn was as follows :
" Immanuel.
" Gr. et pa. in Xo. —
"Right honourable, — I am to trouble your honour
with a double suit, pardy for myself, partly for D. Watson,
who rernaineth with me by th' order of the most honour
able Council. I am very desirous to be delivered of the
charge for many respects, but chiefly for that I am myself
shortly to be brought to London if the plague cease, or

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 87
if not, yet must I needs be there to consult and to deal
with some physicians, whereby to be eased of such griefs as
I am much vexed and tormented withal, if it shall please the
Almighty to send me some ease of my pains. I think it not
meet to have such a charge when I myself cannot see thereto
— your wisdom can conceive what may follow. As to Mr.
Watson himself, my humble suit is, that your honour will be
a mean that he may be returned to his brother's keeping
upon good bonds, if it shall so seem good to the honotirable
Council. Surely his griefs are no less than he writeth him
self unto your Lordship; so that he is very troublesome to me
and mine, and no less to himself I think he will not be a
meddler with any in disorderly sort, for he hath seemed to
have much mislike of Feckenham, whom he calleth abbot,
and D. Young for the unwise usages of themselves. He is
old, impotent, and was of mine old acquaintance in St.
John's College, as your honour knoweth. I wish well to his
soul, which is sore infected with an incurable disease ; yet
would I have his body to descend into the grave in peace,
and so to leave him to God's merciful judgment. Thus your
honour hath my suit ; I humbly beseech you to help me
therein, and I shall not cease, God willing, to make my
hearty prayers to God, as I do daily, for you, that you may
continue long time among us, in health and welfare, to God's
glory, the good of the land, and the comfort of yourself and
all yours.
"At Farnham Castle, 7th Oct., 1578. Your honourable
Lordship to command in Xto., " ROB. WINTON." '
The plague continued to rage in London, and the suffer
ing old man remained three months longer at Farnham, and
' Both the above letters are addressed to Lord Burghley. It may
be remarked that Horn spells the name Burleigh, and Watson, Burlee.
— Cecil Papers, 161/69.

186 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
at the end of that time was not given to his brother's charge,
but delivered to another Episcopal jailor. There is an entry
in the Privy Council Re^^ister (i6th January, 1579) that a
letter should be written to the Bishop of Winchester :
"That whereas he desireth to be discharged of the
custody of Dr. Watson, in respect that his Lordship
intendeth for recovery of his health to repair to London,
his Lordship is required to bring the said Watson thither
with him, who for like infirmity desireth to go, thither ; and
further orders shall be taken for his custody ".'
Their lordships resolved to transfer him to the custody of
the Bishop of Rochester, John Young, who had been
appointed to that see in 1578. They accordingly wrote to
him (on 19th February, 1578-9) :
" That whereas Dr. Watson, committed to the keeping of
the Bishop of Winton, is, by occasion of sickness of the
bishop, to be removed, and is ordered to remain with the
said Bishop of Rochester ; his Lordship is required to take
him into his charge, to use all good means to bring him to
conformity, and to have regard that he have no such con
ference nor repair as he may corrupt others.
" To Bishop of Winton to give him notice what is done,
and to require him to give order that the said Watson may
be safely delivered into the custody and charge of the
Bishop of Rochester." ^
It would be interesting to know in which of the houses of
this bishop he resided. It is not likely that in any place he
would forget the example left him by the Blessed Cardinal
Fisher, whom he had known in his youth.
The only incident on record connected with Dr. Watson's
imprisonraent under this official is, that a certain Portuguese,
'- Council Register, Eliz., vol iv., p. 376.
'-Ibid., vol. iv., p. 403. Also Strype's Annals, vol. ii., part ii.,
app., p. 660.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 189
named Antonio Fogaga, induced the Bishop of Lincoln, then
in London, and the Archbishop of Armagh, who was im
prisoned in the Tower, to sign two letters, one to the King of
Portugal, the other to His Majesty's Confessor. These were
intercepted. Antonio, on being interrogated, declared that
he himself indited the two letters in Spanish, and gave
money to Dr. Watson's servant to obtain his master's hand
to the letters.'
This was in AprU 1580. The bishop's servant was also
interrogated, and as his answers contain some interesting
particulars I will transcribe them. I omit the questions for
brevity's sake, as the answers will speak for themselves.
The answer of William Whiting, unto such interrogatories as
were ministered unto him the i^th of March, 1579-80.
"To the first interrogatory he saith, that he knoweth
Fogaga if he see hira, and hath only known hira but since
one month before Christmas, and never saw him before that
time, nor ever since but once, meeting him by chance in the
streets ; and saith that at the first time of his acquaintance
with the said Fogaga he carae unto hira in the streets, but
where about in the streets he cannot remember, at which
time the said Fogaga demanded of him if he were not Dr.
Watson's servant, and this examinate answering 'yea,' the
said Fogaga desired him to carry two letters from him to his
master, and to procure hira to sign thera ; which at the first
he refused, for that (as he saith) his master had forbidden
him to bring him any letters, but afterward (at the earnest
instance of the said Fogaga, declaring unto him that the
contents of the letters were only to signify what good deeds
he had done here to good men, and that the commendation
thereof confirmed by Dr. Watson would do him much good),
^ P. R. 0., Dom. Eliz., vol. cxxxvii., n. 647, 649.

190 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
he was contented, and did thereupon carry them unto his
said master.
" To the second he saith, that he knoweth no Catholic
prisoner by name, but only some few in the Marshalsea —
Wood, Bilson, Pound, Bluet, Webster, with whom he came
acquainted, being himself prisoner in the Marshalsea by the
space of one-half year, committed upon suspicion to be a
priest. And to these men he hath sundry times repaired
since his enlargement as of himself, but never carried or
received anything to or fro between his master and them.
"To the third he saith, he hath had recourse unto his
master since the time of his commitment unto the Bishop of
Rochester, at the least every week once, but never carried
any letters or writing unto his master from any man ; neither
ever brought any letters or writings from his master to any
other person.
" To the fourth he saith, that he knoweth not any man
from whom his master hath ever received any exhibition
or relief, but only from John Watson, his brother; but
what he hath had from him, this examinate knoweth
not. " To the fifth he saith, that he never delivered any other
letters, writings, or papers untd his master than the two
letters he received from Fogaga, unto whom he restored them
after his master had subscribed them, within one day, at his
house in Mark Lane, where (as he saith) he never was before,
but had notice of the place of Fogaga's dwelling at the time
when he received the letters of him ; of whom he had a
crown in money at the bringing of the letters unto him : and
no speeches he had with Fogaga, but was asked of him how
his master did, and he answered him that he was weU, and
no more.
" To the sixth he saith as in the first, that the letters con
tained only matters of Fogaga, his commendation.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 191
" To the seventh he saith, that he knoweth not by whora
the letters were penned, nor whose handwriting they were,
and were received by him and delivered as is above said.
" Signed by me,
WM. WHITING."'
When the Archbishop of Armagh was interrogated why he
signed these letters, he replied that " he was persuaded that
thereby there should grow some relief unto such as are in
prison for religion". ^ Hugh Kenrick, a Sheriff's Protono-
tary, who had helped to convey the letters, being questioned,
" confessed that one William Whiting, servant to Dr. Watson,
did bring unto him, a little before Christmas, a letter,
written in a Roman hand, directed unto the King of Portugal
... and touching the reading of the said letters, he saith he
never read them, for that he conceived that being subscribed
by Watson, they did contain no undutiful matter "
There are other papers on this matter, which may be truly
described as "much ado about nothing". The incident is
interesting, as bringing together two great confessors of the
faith, and in proving the truth of the long imprisonment in
the Tower of the Archbishop of Arraagh, which Mr. Froude
has recklessly denied.
There exists, araong the State Papers, a raeraorandum, in
Lord Burghley's handwriting, seemingly made in July, 1580.
It runs as follows :
" Things to be considered — That all the deposed ecclesi
astical Papists be coUected together, and sent to divers
castles, as to Wisbeach [or] Banbury. That all the Papistical
laymen, being manifest recusants, remaining upon bonds,
may be sent for by the Commissioners, and be bestowed
into some convenient places near London, under sure guard.
1 P. R. 0., Dom. Eliz., vol. cxxxvi., n, 62. '' Ibid., n. 54.

192 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
" That their armour be seized.
" That generaUy all such others as will not come to the
Church may be fined and imprisoned by virtue of the
Ecclesiastical Commission." '
The result of the Council's deliberations was the choice
of AVisbeach Castle, in Cambridgeshire, as a fit receptacle for
the unfortunate priests, and thither in consequence Bishop
Watson was committed, in August or September.
Strype says that " when certain Roman emissaries came
into the realm, and began to disturb the Church, Watson
(being too conversant with them) was committed to Wisbeach
Castle a close prisoner ".^
These " Roman emissaries " were the seminary priests
frora Douay and the Jesuits. Into the history of this
movement I must not enter. It is being iUustrated by
better hands than mine. I will raerely say that the epoch
of Catholic martyrdoms had now begun. " Cuthbert Maine
had led the way in 1577, the first of the glorious holocaust
of Douay priests. In 1578, one priest had been martyred,
John Nelson ; and one layman, Thomas Sherwood, a Douay
student. Four priests suffered in 1581, Campion's year;
and in 1582 no less than eleven." "
Baker says : " Upon the alarm given by the coming over
of Parsons and Campion, Jesuits, Watson and others were
committed to Wisbeach, where they lived in a coUegiate and
friendly manner, no one assuming authority, over the rest tiU
after the Jesuits coming among them ".*
He also tells us that Bishop Watson " greatly disliked the
violent proceedings of the Jesuits ". This is also repeated
^ P. R.O., Dom. Eliz., Addenda, vol. xxvii., n. 21.
- Annals of the Reformation, vol. i., part i., p. 214.
2 The Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers, by Father, Morris (2nd
series, 1875), p. 13.
^ History of St. John's, vol. i., p. 140.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON.

193

by Mr. Cooper. A few words must be said in explanation
of these statements, which are likely to be misunderstood.
By " violent proceedings " is meant the method of acting of
the Jesuit missionaries, adopted generally in England. By
"assumption of superiority," reference is made to an un
happy dispute which arose aniong the prisoners at Wisbeach.
Though these two matters are perfectly distinct, yet they
were confounded and worked up together in some passionate
paraphlets published in the years 1601-3, and it will be
necessary at least to disentangle the truth regarding Dr.
Watson, though I have no intention of reviving the memory
of former quarrels. I begin then with some extracts frora a
pamphlet, printed in 1601, called Important Considerations
by the Secular Priests, which gives a review of the policy of
the government, and of the treatment of Catholics, from the
schism until the death of Bishop Watson.
" It cannot be denied," say these writers, "but that for'
the first ten years of Her Majesty's reign the state of
Catholics in England was tolerable, and after a sort in
some good quietness. Such as for their consciences were
iraprisoned in the beginning of her coraing to the Crown
were very kindly and mercifully used, the state of things
then considered. Some of them were appointed to remain
with such of their friends as they themselves made choice of.
Others were placed, some with bishops, some with deans,
and had their diet at their tables, with such convenient
lodgings and walks for their recreation as did well content
them. They that were in the ordinary prisons, had such
hberty and other commodities, as the places would afford,
not inconvenient for men that were in their cases.
" The Catholics here continued in sort, as before you
have heard, till the said Rebellion broke forth in the North,
1569, a little before Christmas ; and that it was known that
the Pope had excommunicated the Queen, and thereby
13

194

CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.

freed her subjects (as the buU iraporteth) from their sub
jection. And then there followed a great restraint of the
said prisoners.
"Their [the Jesuits] first repair hither was Anno 1580,
when the realm of Ireland was in great combustion, and
then they entered (viz., Mr. Campion, the subject, and Mr.
Parsons, the provincial) like a tempest, with sundry such
great brags and challenges, as divers of the gravest clergy
then living in England (Dr. Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, and
others) did greatly dislike them, and plainly foretold that
(as things then stood) their proceedings after that fashion
would certainly urge the State to make some sharper laws,
which should not only touch them, but likewise all others,
both priests and Catholics.
" Besides, to the further honour of Her Majesty, we may
not omit that the States of the whole realm assembled in
Parliament, Anno 1576, were pleased to pass us over, and
made no laws at that time against us. The ancient pri
soners that had been restrained more narrowly in the year
1570, were (notwithstanding the said enterprises in Ireland)
again restored to their former liberty, to continue with
their friends as they had done before.
" But when the Jesuits were come, and that the state had
notice of the said excommunication, there was then within a
while a great alteration . . . thence was a greater restraint
of Catholics than at any time before. Many, both priests
and gentlemen, were sent into the Isle of Ely, and other
places, there to be more safely kept and looked unto. . . .
"The same month [January, 1581] also a Parliament
ensued, wherein a law was made agreeable in effect to the
said proclamation, but with a more severe punishment
annexed; for it was a penalty of death for any Jesuit or
seminary priest to repair into England, and for any to receive
and entertain them, which fell out according to Bishop

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. I95
Watson's former speeches or prediction, what raischief the
Jesuits would bring upon us.
" Such of us as remained in prison at Wisbeach (and were
committed thither 1580, and others not long after committed
also thither, to the nuraber of about thirty-three or thirty-
four), continued stUl in the several times of all the said
most wicked designments, as we were before ; and were
never brought into any trouble for them, but lived there,
college-like, without any want, and in good reputation with
our neighbours that were Catholics about us." '
On these extracts I would observe that it is certainly true
that the persecution of Catholics in the latter part of Eliza
beth's reign was more severe than in the first twenty years,
and that the change was produced in part by the action of
the Sovereign Pontiff, of the seminary priests, and of the
Jesuits. But this is easily explained without blaming any
for " violent proceedings ". At the beginning of Elizabeth's
reign, those who remained faithful to the Church waited to
see what would happen. They had been accustomed to
changes in the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Mary.
Elizabeth might marry a Catholic, or she might die, and
another change occur in favour of the Catholics. But as
years rolled on, it became clear that the whole policy of the
Government was to- bring about external conformity at least
to the State religion, and that no toleration would be granted
to nonconformity. The priests, therefore, who by the efforts
of Cardinal AUen and others were educated with a view to
this new state of things, carae into England with the clear
purpose of resisting this absorption of the Catholics into the
national schism and heresy with all their power. In this work
the Jesuits zealously co-operated. Their policy was exacdy
the same as that of tfie seminary priests, of Cardinal Allen,
¦'¦Important Considerations by the Secular Priests, a.d. 1601.
From a Reprint : London, 1688. Pp. 34-49.

196 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
and of the Holy See. It would perhaps be rash to assert
that Dr. Watson never let faU any expression of fear as to
the results of Father Campion's public challenge, which was
afterwards distorted by the enemies of the Society into a
dislike for their general policy. But to say that he reaUy
blamed the boldness, the zeal, and self-sacrifice with which
the new race of priests sought to arouse the faith and con
stancy of the Catholics, as well as to bring back heretics,
would be absurd. He had himself suffered in that cause for
twenty years. He is mentioned in State documents as one
of the most active in persuading Catholics to refuse any
compromise, and in winning back those who had yielded.
In 1577 he was called by Walsingham one of "the leaders
and pillars of the consciences of great numbers " ; while
Strype tells us that the very reason why he was committed
to Wisbeach was that he was too conversant with the new
" Roman emissaries ".
I conclude therefore that, in the heat of subsequent dis
putes, the little party of secular priests, who resisted the
archpriest, and coraplained of the rigour of the persecution,
wiUing to strengthen their cause by an appeal to great names,
exaggerated some casual expression of Dr. Watson, or
wrested it from its meaning, just as they in the same way,
after Cardinal Allen's death, reported that he too had made
use of some expression in conversation derogatory to the
illustrious Society of which he had been always the warmest
friend. These appeals to the unwritten obiter dicta of great
and holy men after their decease are very uncertain grounds
on which to base historical conclusions.
As it is evident that the writers of the pamphlet highly
over-estimated the small amount of liberty or comfort
granted to Bishop Watson and the others in their long
imprisonments, for the sake of contrasting with it the fierce
ness of the subsequent persecution which they laid to the

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 97
charge of the Jesuits ; so would they exaggerate the quiet
endurance of the holy bishop into a condemnation of the
aggressive activity of the younger men who came into
England at his death. The truth, however, is, as we shall
see directly, that in many respects the imprisonraent which
the bishop endured at Wisbeach was far raore severe than
that of which, these writers speak. Some time after his
death a good deal of freedom was granted to the prisoners
and even facilities for public worship, but I find no trace of
this during his lifetime.
In 1582 Father Parsons wrote an account of the persecu
tion, which he published. In this he describes the treatment
that the Bishop of Lincoln and his companions were then
enduring at Wisbeach — that they were deprived of all their
books, and not aUowed any intercourse one with another,
except at table.' Whether even that degree of freedom was
granted at first I should doubt from the following letter,"'
written i6th October, 1580, by the keepers of Wisbeach to
the Privy Council :
" All duty and obedience unto your honourable Lordships
— We crave pardon in that we have not so shortly observed
your honours' direction in advertising the state of the
recusants in Wisbeach Castle as was set down. The greatest
reason for our excuse is to crave more tirae than the allow
ance of one raonth for certifying the state of our proceedings
therein ; for else, by not searching into the particular con
ditions of the parties, we raight inforra more for order than
for matter, and so in vain. Let it therefore please your
honours to understand that the recusants here now im
prisoned are eight in number, namely, Watson, Feckenham,
Young, Windham, Oxenbridge, Metham, Wood, and Bluet.
^ De Persecutione Anglicana Libellus, p. 60 (Ed. 1582).
- P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., vol. cxliii., n. 17 ; given by Father Morris in
his Life of Weston, p. 226.

198 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
And we, according to your lordships' letters and articles to
the same adjoined, have (as duty have charged) performed
carefully what was enjoined, as well to the Bishop [of Ely],
Gray the keeper, as the prisoners themselves. Advertising
further that the lord bishop hath appointed a preacher unto
the recusants, a man of holy life, learned, and able to give
account of his doctrine strongjy. The men restrained before
us both, and others have been called divers times, and as
often required to hear the preacher, and abide the prayer ;
but they all with one voice generally, and after that every
man particularly answering for himself, denied to allow
either, saying that they are not of our Church, or, they will
neither hear, pray, nor yet confer with us of any matters
concerning religion. Yet, as touching conference, we must
confess that Oxenbridge, Metham, and Bluet (being privately
dealt with) were contented to abide some conference with
the learned ; but when the place and time was appointed for
disputation upon their own questions, the first of them that
spoke made his protestation that, for obedience' sake and
our pleasings, they were content to dispute before us, upon
divers causes between their Church and ours now in question;
nevertheless, with such minds, as what and whatsoever could
be said against thera, they meant not to be reformed. The
disputation held by the space of two hours, the Lord be
thanked ! to the great profit of us and such as stood by,
though to them a hardening.
" We have also, according to the article, with the preacher
perused their books and writings, of which we restrained all,
saving the canonical Scriptures and the allowed writers,
which to forego (together with their, Romish notes upon the
same) was a great grief unto their hearts, aUeging that the
Book of God simply carrieth not such force and comfort to
their consciences as when the same is unfolded by the
Councils and Church of Rome.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 1 99
" It may further please your honours that divers of the re
cusants have their servants to attend upon them, and yet for
them to be allowed is not warranted. We have suffered thera
(as restrained only within the walls) to attend their masters
till we know your further pleasure, and in the meantime we
find that their repairing together and not so abridged as their
masters, is in manner all one as if their masters might as well
confer as eat together, which conferring, as it is restrained,
so we wish their eating together were. For if they be such
offenders as in your honours' letters appear, ordinary meeting
at meals doth not only strengthen them in error, but also
layeth a persuasion before thera that this late earnest re
straint, with such favour added, will end with restoring of
their former liberty. But it were too much boldness for us
to show any further our opinions before your wisdoms, what
we think meet for such obstinates, without further under
standing of your honourable minds herein.
" Even thus, therefore, beseeching the Lord our God to
endue your honours with all knowledge, judgment, and obedi
ence, of and to His will in this behalf, and that even upon
these monsters somewhat may be wrought by your authority
that may yield to His glory and the godly peace of this part
of His church, in the preservation of the life and continuance
of the prosperous government of her most excellent Majesty,
with increase of all grace, we most humbly take our leaves.
From Wisbeach Castle the i6th of October, 1580. — Your
honours most humbly in the Lord at commandment,
"GEORGE CARLETON,
"HUMPHREY MICHELL."
The Castle of Wisbeach was an old, dilapidated palace of
the Bishops of Ely, surrounded by a moat, and being situated
in the fens was a most unwholesome residence for an old man
(Dr. Watson was now sixty-seven years old) subject to ague.

200 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
It is no wonder that he did not survive more than four
years. But few events connected with these four years have been
recorded. Not long after the arrival of the prisoners at
Wisbeach, Dr. William Fulke, a busy and disputatious Puri
tan, was sent by order of the Privy CouncU, for the purpose
of conferring with them, and persuading them to resort to
church. They had had enough of these unprofitable dis
cussions, and refused to gratify this man's vanity. Parsons,
in the book above referred to, charged him with thrusting
himself upon them without authority in order to get the
credit with his party of disputing cum magnatibus, and with
having put out a foolish and false account of the occurrence.
An account, indeed, had been published, but if we may
believe Fulke, without his knowledge. The matter is of no
importance.' If we may give credit to a letter,^ written in 1581, in
Latin, by a Catholic prisoner in the Tower, the venerable
bishop had to bear worse insults than the intrusion of
Dr. Fulke. " Not many days since," says this letter, "an
infamous woman, the tool of some ruffians, was introduced
into the chamber of the Bishop of Lincoln (who remains
still in prison at Wisbeach), and dared in the most shame
less way to solicit to sin that holy man, worn out as
he is with cruel treatment. When the old man with
all his might endeavoured to drive the impure beast
from his cell, her evil instigators, who awaited the result,
even threatened him with blows." This history seems almost
incredible, but unfortunately it is not without parallel in the
records of those days.
One more paper existing in the public records" throws
1 Fulke's version is in Strype's Annals of the Reformation, ii. 243.
' P. R. O., Dom. Eliz., vol. cxlix., n. 61.
^ Ibid., vol. clxviii., n. i.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 20I
some light on the character of the bishop's jailors. It is
anonymous, but from internal evidence seems to have been
written by the Bishop of Ely, and to be addressed to Lord
Burghley. " My right honourable Lord, I ara in some conscience
moved to write, but yet this world liketh rae so iU, that I have
no hope of good success therein. The recusants of Wisbeach
Castle are the men of whom all the rest do depend. They
are sworn against Christ, and His Church here. I see how it
fareth amongst our grave Reformers. I like them so well that
I will not trust them in so good a service. Therefore upon
your Lordship and the rest of my Lords, and upon the con
sciences of you all, do I lay this burden. The former letters
from the Lords to me directed, was to lay upon the recusants
a learned preacher, to offer them conference and disputation,
and withal to bring them to the service of our Church. They
refuse all, they obey nothing, they regard not what ye enjoin.
" If my boldness might not be disliked, I would make
my suit thus : The care shall be mine, much charge shall
be mine, and the danger shall be mine. Let the Lords then
make Gray's number of the recusants to be twenty. They
and their lodgings shall be all enclosed within a brick wall :
they shall eat and speak together : they shaU conspire and
do what they list. I and mine, my lands and goods shall
answer for all. For I mean if walls, locks, and doors will
separate them from out practice, they shall not want a
sufficient provision of such. Now let it not be thought, and
as some bishops have reported, that I have, or ever mind to
make trade or gain by overruling such wretches. Only
Thomas Gray is faithful in his calling ; to him, therefore,
let that belong. I have obtained of him a consent, if his
number might be twenty, certain and special, to give out of
his commodity rising from them, unto two preachers, four
score pounds by year. For the considerations before, and

202 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
my care therein, let me then have the favour of naming the
preachers, upon which point all hope of doing good and
winning glory to God doth consist ; for your honour must
know that formality and goodly words of consent to all
traditions whatsoever screeneth not the reins [?] of an
obstinate mind. But it must come from them, that by holy
life and deep judgments are able to set down God's anger
and wrath to come.
" May it, therefore, please your Lords to be' a mean that of
these four here named two of them may be preferred to
preach, confer, and dispute within — viz., Lancelot Andrewes,
of Pembroke Hall ; Lawrence Dewse, of St. John's College ;
Bartholomew Dod, of Jesus' College ; and William Flood.
The assembly shall be in Wisbeach Castle hall. The
recusants shall be conveyed thither by a secret way without
seeing any ; they shall have a secret place for themselves to
be in, to hear and not be seen.
" The Lords must give me authority to see all this per
formed, and what else they shall think good and meet to be
done. This is the holy ordinance of God. He wUl bless
His own ways. Other courses have not prospered with
them. If it please God to move your hearts to consider
hereof, you shall try the success. And as I have thus
boldly presumed upon your Lordships, so have I done the
like with Mr. the right honourable Secretary. Thus most
humbly I take my leave, this first of February, 1583 " [i.e.,
1584]- Whether the suggestions contained in this letter were
acted on I cannot say. To force money out of poor
Catholic prisoners, in order to pay preachers to annoy them,
was a device worthy of the Reformers. But to say, " This
is the holy ordinance of God, He wUl bless His own ways,"
was a consummation of impudence that must have startled
even the Privy Councillors of Elizabeth.

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 203
The other question touched on in the pamphlets already
alluded to is the demeanour of Bishop Watson to his fellow-
prisoners. Happily I can extract what they have said of
him without concerning myself with the purpose for which
they brought it forward.
A book published in 1600 asserted that the fear of
incurring a prcemunire " made the late reverend Bishop of
Lincoln to refuse all external jurisdiction offered him over
his fellow-prisoners ". In answer to this, another book
called A Brief Apology accused the writer of misstate
ment. In 1603 a reply was published to this Apology, and
the statement is reiterated on the authority (alleged) "of
those who were priests and fellow-prisoners with Bishop
Watson, and who were present at the offer and his refusal,
and are ear-witnesses thereof ".'
We are, however, left in the dark as to the nature of this
jurisdiction. If it were episcopal, he still had it by right in
his own diocese, but how could priests offer it to him in the
diocese of Ely? If, as it .seems more likely, they merely
asked him, being a bishop, to rule them as a community,
it seems far-fetched to connect his refusal with fears of
prcBviunire. However this may be, I am glad to extract the following
account of Dr. Watson from the ugly controversy in which
it is related — a controversy which began long after the
bishop's death, and in which he is in no way concerned.
"In the year 1580," says an anonymous writer,'' " Doctor
Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, Doctor Feckenham, Abbot of
Westminster, Doctor Young, Master Metham, Doctor Oxen
bridge, and Master Bluet, were sent to remain as prisoners in
.the Castle of Wisbeach, where they lived in great unity and
brotherly kindness ; every man intermeddling only with his
1 A Reply to a notorious Libel intituled A Brief Apology, p. 127.
2 Christopher Bagshaw, according to Dodd.

204 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
own affairs and private meditations. They were all in
commons with the keeper, and for their recreation had a
garden there to walk in, and to solace themselves as they
thought good. Such money as was sent to any particular
man he had himself the disposition of it, as he thought it
convenient ; that which came for the common use was by
all their consents delivered stUl to Master Bluet, who
divided the same to every man alike. There was then
no affectation of superiority, but every man yielded of his
own accord that duty and precedency which to everyone
was due, the keeper having the commandment over them
all. Afterwards, within about three years, eight or nine
gentlemen were likewise sent to remain there as prisoners,
upon certain speeches that the Duke of Guise had some
intendment against England, whereby the number of the
prisoners increased, without any disturbance at all to the
foresaid unity. These gentlemen hved at their own
charges, and as most dutiful children, demeaned themselves
towards their fellow-prisoners and spiritual fathers. If at
any time some little indiscretion happened in any, a word
(especially of his ghostly father) was more than sufficient to
reform it : or if upon such like an occasion Bishop Watson
were moved to reprove this or that, his answer was : ' What,
are we not fellow-prisoners ? Are we not at the command
ment of another? Shall I add affliction to one that is
afflicted ? Are we men who profess ourselves to be ex
amples to others in suffering for our consciences, and shaU
we not be thought then able, without controllers, to govern
ourselves ? Be content ; I will not take upon me to reprove
my fellow-prisoners.' And indeed this was the coprse that
every man held, so as by subraitting themselves one to
another every man had a commanding power one over
another ; such was the most Christian and brotherly affection
amongst them. In this sort they lived till all were either

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 205
dead or gone, but Master Metham and Master Bluet, which
was for the space of about six or seven years." '
We have now exhausted our information regarding Bishop
Watson. We know nothing of the length or nature of the
disease of which he died. We do not know who assisted
him, though it is probable that one or other of the priests
then in Wisbeach was not denied access to him in his last
moments. It is related of Bishop Gardiner that " when he
was lying on his death-bed, he caused the Passion of Christ
to be read unto him, and when he heard it read that Peter,
after the denying of his Master, went out and wept bitterly,
he, causing the reader to stay, wept himself full bitterly,
and said, ' Ego exivi sed nondum.flevi amare ' : ' I have gone
out, but as yet I have not wept bitterly ' "? Gardiner died
in the possession of dignity and wealth ; his chaplain. Dr.
Watson, was more happy. The sincerity of his repent
ance for the schism of his early years, of his love to
the Church, and fidelity to the Holy See, had been
proved by twenty-five years of suffering. He died on
27th Septeraber, 1584, at the age of seventy-one. He was
the last survivor of the Catholic bishops in England, and
with the death of Thomas Goldwell, Bishop of St. Asaph's,
in the year following, the ancient hierarchy of England
ceased to exist. He was buried in the parish church of
Wisbeach. The register, still in existence, contains simply
the entry " 1584, 27th September : John" Watson, Doctor,
sepultus ". No memorial was ever erected,* owing to the
1 A True Relation of the Faction begun at Wisbeach, printed in
1601 (pp. 1-3).
2 Stapleton, Counterblast, p. 368.
3 By mistake for Thomas. He may have died that day or the day
before. ¦» Cole, the antiquarian, searched for one in vain in 1748. See
Cole's MS., vol. xvii., p. 90 (British Museum).

2o6 CATHOLIC HIER.4RCHY.
circumstances of the times ; but I will venture to express a
hope that before many years each diocese of our restored
hierarchy will commemorate by some fitting monument its
confesssors and martyrs ; and that Hexham in which Watson
was born, and was dean, Nottingham which contains his See,
and Northampton which contains his university, as well as his
prison and his grave, may each inscribe on its list the name
of Thomas Watson. I have sought in vain for any portrait,
nor am I aware of any description of his personal appearance.
His character may be gathered from his life and writings.
Strype calls him " altogether a sour and morose man,"' pro
bably for no other reason than his refusal to sully his priest
hood by a sacrilfegious marriage, like some of his fellow
collegians, or to preserve the honours and revenues of his
episcopate by apostasy. On the other hand, Thomas Nash
bears testimony, not merely to his merit and scholarship,
but to his wit and good humour. There is a calmness and
absence of invective in his sermons very unusual in those
days ; and in the various disputations in which he was en
gaged you will seek in vain for a word of bitterness against
an opponent. Even Foxe, who rails incessantly at all the
Catholic champions, makes no charge of unfairness or
overbearing temper against Watson. The only apparent
exceptions that I have met with are his treatment of Rough,
1 Annals of the Reformation, vol. i., p. 214. He has merely copied
Godwin in this, and Burnet and others repeat the same thing on the
same authority. Mr. Cooper says that the reflection on Watson's
temper is not only entirely unwarranted by facts, but the very
reverse of the truth. The first author of this description was Lord
Burghley, who in his book called Execution of Justice in England,
published in 1583, thus calumniated the man whose constancy he had
vainly endeavoured to break during four-and-twenty years. From
him Camden borrowed, saying that Watson was " spinosa Theologia
eruditus sed austera gravitate morosus". Godwin goes still further:
" a very austere, or, rather, a sour and churlish man ".

BISHOP THOMAS WATSON. 207
which I have discussed already, and his resistance in the
Westminster Conference. But even then he is not charged
with pride towards the disputants, but with contumacy
towards those who had power to commit him to prison, and
" his folly and violence," as they are called, were merely the
bold vindication of the dignity of his office and the rights of
the Church. He was a man who, by his learning, his
talents, and his energy, would in aU probability, had God
allowed him to govern the church of Lincoln longer, have
left a name in that see as famous as that of Robert Grosteste.
But in the prime of his age and beginning of his career God
permitted him to be torn from his flock, and, as men niight
say, to waste his mature years in inactivity. But though his
pen was wrested from his hand and his tongue was silenced,
he glorified God and edified the Church by patient suffering
and invincible constancy as the opponent of heresy and
schism, and his name will ever be in benediction in the
Catholic Church in England, as the last and not degenerate
successor of St. Hugh. ,

CHAPTER IX.
{By the late Rev. Thomas F. Knox.)
Thomas Goldwell, Bishop of St. Asaph.
AT the beginning of the sixteenth century Europe was
still one vast Christian land, whose inhabitants,
though divided in race, nationality, language,
manners, and form of government, were knit together in the
unity of the one faith under the spiritual rule of the one
Roman Pontiff. Everywhere, throughout the whole length
and breadth of the Continent, men worshipped at the same
altars, according to the same rite, the same Incarnate God.
No other pretended form of Christianity was even tolerated.
Its divergence from the one traditional faith and ecclesias
tical organisation would have alone sufficed to brand it in
the eyes of all, whether governors or governed, as an impos
ture, and therefore as a pestilence. Nor, did this unity oi
belief manifest itself only in matters of religion. The
supernatural truths of faith interpenetrated and influenced
the whole fabric of political and social life, ruling over
philosophical speculation, leavening literature, and conse
crating art.
Such was the state of Europe at the birth and during the
early youth of Thomas Goldwell, sometime Bishop of St.
Asaph, the last survivor of the ancient Enghsh hierarchy.
Born when that period, which has been truly termed the
age of faith, was about to close, he saw Europe one. And
he also saw the coming in of a new era, of which the

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 209
unlooked-for and almost instantaneous break-up of Europe's
religious unity was at once the herald and the cause. On a
sudden, at Luther's fiery exhortations to spiritual rebellion
(15 1 7), a wUd lust of independence in belief, thought, and
action seized upon the multitudes, spreading far and wide
like a conflagration. Kings and nobles took advantage of
it to lay their hands upon the Church's property which their
forefathers had consecrated to God. And they saw their
way by the ruin of the spiritual polity to concentrate in
themselves all authority, spiritual as well as temporal.
Thenceforth, freed from the check which Christ's Vicar had
till then placed upon their passions, they would bow to no
will but their own. Thus it came to pass that nation after
nation fell away or was torn violently from the centre of
unity, until in a few years only southern and part of central
Europe remained true to the ancient faith, while the scattered
few who elsewhere clung to the religion of their ancestors
were despoUed of their goods, driven into exile, or perse
cuted to death.
Thomas Goldwell was a witness of all this ; and he beheld,
too, that revival of fervour among the faithful — that new
spiritual life which God breathed so abundantly into His
Church, and which followed close upon and characterised
this period of widespread apostasy. He saw saint after
saint arise and grow to perfection ; among whom not a few
became the founders of new religious orders and congrega
tions, destined not only to labour araong the faithful, but to
bring back nuraerous wanderers to the fold. Moreover, it was
during his lifetirae that the Ecumenical CouncU of Trent be
stowed permanence on the work of reform and reconstruction
within the Church, by adapting the ecclesiastical laws to the
needs of the new epoch, and giving to the dogmas which Pro
testantism had deniedamore definite and completeexpression.
But Goldwell was not merely a witness of the events of
14

2IO CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
this momentous period. He was an actor in them ; busily
engaged throughout the greater part of his long life of
eighty-four years in the very thick of the contest. Nor was
he, like so many of his countrymen, an uncertain waverer
between God's Church and God's enemies ; but he was
always, from first to last, on the right side, heedless whether
it might bring him honour or dishonour, high position in
this world or martyrdom.
The life of such a man must be interesting, even though
the few facts about him which have corae down to us furnish
matter for an outline rather than a picture. And yet scanty
as these facts are, one whole portion of them has entirely
escaped the notice of English writers, whether Catholic or
Protestant, ancient or modern. No one apparently was
aware of Goldwell having been a Theatine, much less of his
having lived, though a bishop, the life of a religious among
his Theatine brethren, during the many years of his banish
ment from England at Queen Mary's death. Nor, again,
has the work he did at Rome as vicar of St. John Lateran,
and as suffragan to the Pope, been put into due prominence
even by writers who were acquainted with the facts. In the
following pages an attempt has been made to supply from
foreign sources, especially from the chronicles ofthe Theatine
Order, this gap in Bishop Goldwell's history ; and, so far at
least, this biographical notice may claim to be a real addition
to our knowledge of a man whose memory deserves to be
cherished with veneration by all English Catholics.
Thomas GoldweU was born in or about the year 1500.
He was of ancient and gentle lineage. His family had
lived for several centuries in the parish of Great Chart in
Kent, on their manor of GoldweU, from which they derived
their name. One of his ancestors was Sir John Goldwell,
Knight, a commander of considerable note in the reign of
King John. Dr. James Goldwell, principal Secretary to

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 211
King Edward the Fourth, Ambassador from that monarch
to the Pope, and Bishop of Norwich from 1472 to 1498,
was his great-grandfather's brother.' In 1520 Thomas
Goldwell was admitted a scholar of All Souls College,
Oxford, of which his kinsraan, the Bishop of Norwich, had
been formerly a scholar and a considerable benefactor, as
the list of benefactors, on which his name stands first,
testifies.^ In 1527 he took the degree of B.A., in 1531 that
of M.A., and in 1533 that of B.D." During this period he
appears to have applied hiraself with considerable success to
the study of astronoray and other branches of mathematics,
since the memory of his acquirements in this department of
learning lingered as a tradition at Oxford long after he had
left the University.* We do not know the year in which he
^ Halsted's Kent, iii. 246 ; Blomefield's Norwich, iii. 252, 540.
2 Wood's Oxford, continued by Gutch, 262.
3 Wood's Fasti. Edit. Bliss., 76, 87, 96.
^ Wood's Athen. Edit. Bliss., ii. 823 ; Dodd, i. 507. Compare the
following passage from a contemporary Protestant writer, which, in
spite of several absurd errors of fact, bears testimony to Goldwell's
acquaintance with mathematics ; for the science which deals with
geometrical figures and calculations is evidently meant by "the black
art". "Oxford hath Oxfordshire onlie, a verie young jurisdiction,
erected by King Henrie the Eighth, and where in the time of Queene
Marie, one Goldwell was bishop, who (as I remember) was a Jesuit,
dwelling in Rome, and more conversant (as the constant fame went)
in the blacke art than skilfull in the Scriptures, and yet he was of
great countenance amongst the Roman monarchs. It is said that,
observing the canons of his order, he regarded not the temporalities
of that see ; but I have heard since that he wist well enough what
became of those commodities, for by one meane and other he found
the sweetness of 354 pounds, sixteen shillings, threepence halfe penie
yearelie growing to him, which was even inough (if not too much) for
the maintenance of a firier toward the drawing out of circles,
characters, and lineaments of imagerie, wherein he was passing
skilfull, as the fame then went in Rome, and not unheard of in
Oxford " (The Description of England by William Harrison, booke
ii., ch. ii., prefixed to Holinshed's Chronicles).

212 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
resigned his scholarship, though the registers of All Souls
College may supply the date. At any rate, he must have
left Oxford before the middle of 1535, since his name does
not occur in an official list of the warden and scholars of
AU Souls made about that time.' It is possible that in 153 1
he was presented to the rectory of Cheriton, near Folke
stone, in the diocese of Canterbury ; for one Thomas
Goldwell, M.A., was certainly admitted to that church on
March 11, 1531, as appears from Archbishop Warham's
register; 2 but the mere identity of name, unsupported by
other evidence, hardly warrants the conclusion that the
rector of Cheriton and the future Bishop of St. Asaph were
the same person. Thoraas Goldwell was still " the parson
of Cheriton " at the beginning of 1535."
Hitherto the false doctrines of the Reforraation had been
unable to penetrate into England. King and people were
Catholic in faith, and obedient sons of the Apostolic See.
But a storm had been gathering for some years past. A
time of trial and sifting was at hand, in which it would be
seen who were ready " to render to Csesar the things which
are Cesar's, and to God the things which are God's ". On
March 30, 1534, the Royal assent was given to the Bill by
which the kingdom was formally severed from the com
munion of Rome, and during the following summer the
1 " 'Valor Ecclesiasticus, or the returns of a survey instituted to
ascertain the amount of the first-fruits and tenths of all the English
' dignities, benefices, and promotions spiritual,' given to Henry VIII.
by an Act of Parliament passed on January 15, 1535. The survey
was made by sworn commissioners, and it appears to have been
executed by them chiefly between January and June, 1535 " (Note in
the Catalogue of the Library of the London Institution, vol. ii., p.
237)- 2 Registr, Warham, quoted in a note to Wood's Athence. Edit.
Bliss, ii. 824.
2 Valor Eccles., vol. ii., pp. 51, 95.

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 213
King's coramissioners were occupied throughout the length
and breadth of England in extorting frora the reluctant
" clergy and clerical bodies, and from the monks, friars, and
nuns in their several abbeys and convents," a declaration
and subscription under oath, "that the Bishop of Rome
had no more authority within the realm than any other
foreign bishop, and a recognition, under the same oath, that
the King was the supreme head of the Church of England,
without the addition of the qualifying clause — as far as the
law of Christ will allow — which had been in the first
instance (May, 1531) admitted".' There were not many
who had the courage to refuse this oath ; for to do so
entailed the pains and penalties of high treason. Fisher,
More, many of the Carthusians, the Franciscans of the
Observance, and some others, chose rather to die on the
scaffold or in prison than to take it. Reginald Pole, that
he might have no share in these transactions, had retired to
the north of Italy. Goldwell seems to have left England on
the sarae account; for in Deceraber, 1538, we find hira, and
several other servants of Cardinal Pole, included by name
in the same Act of attainder with their master, " for casting
off their duty to the King, and submitting themselves to the
Bishop of Rome ".^ GoldweU was now an exile for the faith,
and, with the exception ofthe brief interval of Mary's reign,
he spent in banishment from home and country the remain
ing fifty years of his life.
There was at this time in Rome, in the Via di Monserrato,
an hospital for the reception of English pilgrims and travel
lers which had been founded about the year 1362, under
the patronage of the Blessed Trinity and St. Thomas, by
John Shepherd, a London merchant. This hospital, to
1 Lingard, History of England, v. 33.
- Strpye, Mem., vol. i., pt. i., p. 477.

214 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
which another similar institution in Trastevere had been
united in 1464, began to decline during the dispute between
Henry the Eighth and the Holy See. As the schism ad
vanced, its resources gradually failed, and the supplies
which it had hitherto received from England ceased. In
1538, almost all the resident members were dead. In that
year, Pope Paul the Third, anxious to preserve the hospital
for the English nation, ordered the vacant places to be filled
up, and committed the superintendence of it to Cardinal
Pole.' Thomas Goldwell was at the same time appointed
warden, Hilliard, another of Pole's followers, who had been
attainted with him, being named rector.^
For the next ten years we have no particulars of Gold
well's history ; but as we know that he was for several years
Reginald Pole's chaplain," it could only have been during
this period that he filled that office. In after times he used
to relate that " when the Cardinal was abroad in any place
of retirement, at Caprancia or the like, he would order Mass
to be said, and then serve the priest as acolyth, and help
him to vest and unvest, leaving it only to one of his
servants to hold the napkin ".*
Thus far we have beheld in Goldwell the man of letters,
the priest, and the confessor for the faith. But a new and
higher vocation now opens out before him. The readiness
with which he forsook country, kindred, and temporal
prospects found its reward in the further call to give up all
things for Christ by entering religion. The order which
attracted him was that of the Clerks Regular, or Theatines,
founded in 1524 by St. Cajetan and Caraffa, Archbishop of
^ Tierney's Dodd, ii. i6g, note.
^ Strype, Mem., vol. i. , pt. ii., p. 481.
3 Beccatelli's Life of Pole. Pye's trans., i6o.
* Ibid.

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 215
Chieti, afterwards Paul the Fourth, and stUl in the full
fervour of primitive observance. It was the first in time of
many similar orders of Clerks Regular, which, under the
naraes of Barnabites, Somaschi, Jesuits, Clerks Minor,
Ministers of the Sick, Clerks of the Mother of God, and
Clerks of the Pious Schools, sought to combine the strict
discipline of the regular with the apostohc life of the secular
clergy. The aim of the Theatines was the reformation of
the secular clergy and the sanctification of the faithful.
WhUe raaintaining the most rigorous poverty within their
houses, they strove to honour the Divine Majesty by the
splendour of their churches and the regularity of their cere
monial observance. Men of birth and position seem to
have been especially drawn to them, and several cardinals
and not a few holy and zealous bishops were taken from
their ranks. An unworldly spirit was in the popular mind
so associated with the order that devout seculars were com
monly nicknamed Chietini, or Theatines.'
On 7th August, 1547, St. Catejan died at Naples in the
Theatine house of St. Paul, of which he was the founder
and superior. The following year, on 23rd November,
1548, Thomas GoldweU began his novitiate in the same
house,^ the Blessed John Marinoni " being then its rector.
It was no light or easy undertaking for a man of forty-seven,
already a priest, and accustomed to have the charge of
others, to become, as it were, a child again and to recast his
1 Moroni, Dizionario Ecclesiastico, vol. Ixxiii., p. 124.
2 Vita del S. P. Paolo IV. Fondatore della Religione dei Chieric,
Regolari, e Memorie d'altri cinquanta Padri, ehe in essa fiorirono il
secolo passato M.D. Raccolte dal P. D. Gio. Battista Castaldo dell'
istessa religione, p. 240. Roma, 1615 ; Historia Clericorum Regularium.
Auctore Josepho Silos, Clerico Regulari, i. 302. Romae, 1650.
' Pope Clement the Thirteenth authorised his cultus in 1762.
Moroni, Dizion. Eccles., vol. xxxi., p. 40.

21 6 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
whole life in the mould of religion. It needed great graces,
and great faithfulness to these graces. The high esteem in
which Goldwell was held in his order, and the offices of
trust subsequently confided to him, are a proof that neither
of these were wanting to him, but that he fully acquired the
spirit and perfection of a true religious.
The first year of his novitiate was not quite completed
when an event occurred which obliged him to return for a
short time to the world which he had forsaken. On loth
November, 1549, Pope Paul the Third died, and Cardinal
Pole at once applied to Goldwell's superiors that his former
chaplain and friend might be allowed to attend upon him at
the approaching Conclave.' This request, so honourable
to Goldwell, was granted, and during the time the Conclave
lasted, frora 29th November, 1549, to 7th February, 1550,
he remained in waiting on the cardinal. At length the
election of Julius the Third set him free to return from the
excitement and intrigues of the Conclave to the quiet of
the novitiate at Naples, where he was admitted to make
his solemn profession, 28th October, 1550.^
In England, the prospects of the Church were as yet no
brighter. During the short reign of Edward the Sixth,
though Catholics were not persecuted with the same virulence
as under Henry the Eighth, the ancient faith was still pro
scribed. In 1553, an Act of Parliament was passed, granting
a general pardon to offenders, but from it were specially

^ Silos, i. 305.
2 Castaldo, 240. It appears, from a letter of St. Andrew Avellino,
that it was not the custom in the early days of the Order to give a
postulant the habit until many months after his entry (Bonaglia, Vita
del B. Cardinale d' Arezzo, p. 174. Roma, 1772). This may account
for the long time which elapsed between Goldwell's entry and pro
fession. The intertuption of his novitiate by the Conclave would be
a further reason.

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 21 7
excepted by name Cardinal Pole, Goldwell, and others.'
Queen Mary's accession, 6th July, 1553, was the dawn of
better things for England. On 5th August, 1553, Pope
Julius the Third held a Consistory, in which he appointed
Cardinal Pole his legate to Queen Mary. In accepting
this arduous legation, it was natural that the cardinal's
thoughts should ttirn to his old and trusted servant, Father
GoldweU, and he at once obtained an express precept from
His Holiness requiring Goldwell to accompany hira to Eng
land.'' Father Tufo, the chronicler of the Order, who knew
Goldwell personally, says that he possessed peculiar qualifi
cations for this work. To a more than average knowledge
of philosophy he added a familiar acquaintance with
theology, the doctrine of the Fathers, and Holy Scripture.
His reputation stood high in the Order, and even at Rome,
as an excellent religious. He was, moreover, gifted with
singular goodness and zeal for God's glory and the salvation
of souls ; while at the sarae tirae he was naturally a man of
great prudence and remarkable dexterity in the management
of affairs." The Theatine Order acquiesced in his appoint
ment with satisfaction, and, as a testimony to his raerit, con
ferred on him, at the General Chapter' which was held that
year at Venice, the right of voting at the capitular assemblies
of the Order.''
In September, 1553, Goldwell joined Cardinal Pole at the
Benedictine monastery of Maguzzano on the Lake of Garda,
where he had been living for some time past in retirement,
and at the end of the month set out with him towards the
' 7th Edward VI., ch. 14 ; Statutes of the Realm, iv. 193.
^ Silos, i. 315.
^ Historia della Religione de' Padri Chiereci Regolari. Raccolta
da Gio. Battista del Tufo, vescovo dell' Acerra, dell' istessa Religione,
p. 43. Roma, 1609.
* Silos, i. 315.

2l8 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Low Countries, on his way to England. At the instance of
the Emperor Charies the Fifth, who feared that the cardinal's
presence in England might interfere with the proposed
marriage of his son, Philip the Second of Spain, with Queen
Mary, Pole was stopped at Dillingen. Thence he despatched
GoldweU to England, with full written instructions, the sub
stance of which he was to communicate by word of mouth
to the Queen.' Goldwell reached Calais on 30th Novem
ber, but as he stated on examination that he came from
Cardinal Pole, and had been in his service, the governor,
Lord William Howard, refused him permission to cross
over, and sent to the Queen's Council for directions how to
act.^ The reply of the Council being favourable, GoldweU
was allowed to continue his journey to England, and, after
fulfilling his comraission to the Queen, rejoined the cardinal
in Germany, and proceeded with him to Brussels. From
this city he wrote, on i6th June, 1554, apparently by the
legate's direction, a severe but affectionate letter of repri
mand to Dr. Richard Thorndon," suffragan Bishop of Dover,
whose reconciliation and absolution he had obtained,
though not without difficulty, from Cardinal Pole. It is
as follows :
" RicHT Reverend and my good Lord, — After my hearty
thanks for your good cheer at my last being with your Lord
ship, this shall be to certify you that as soon as I arrived
with my Lord's grace [Cardinal Pole], I gave him your letter :
1 British Museum, Cotton MSS., "Titus," B. ii. 170.
^ P. R. Foreign, Mary, 1553, Dec. i,
3 Strype, Mem., vol. iii., pt. i., p. 211. " Richard Thorndon was a
Benedictine monk of Christ Church in Canterbury, and educated in
Canterbury College, Oxford, of which he was warden about 1528. He
was in great esteem for his profound knowledge in divinity, in which
faculty he proceeded doctor, loth October, 153 1. He died, suffragan
Bishop of Dover, in the year 1577 " (Dodd, i. 483).

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 219
but I had much work to obtain anything of him for you.
For there have been given very evil informations of
you, and it hath been said that you have concurred with all
manner of evil proceedings, the which hath these years past
been in England, as well against the holy Sacrament of the
Altar and against the supreme authority of Christ's Vicar on
earth, as with the use of the abominable late communion
and with the marriage of priests, as well religious as secular ;
and that you have given orders to (I cannot tell how many)
base, unlearned, and evU disposed people, by reason of the
which they have taken upon them to preach and do much
hurt in Kent. So that men think that yet, if any new
mutation (the which God forbid) should chance, you would
be as ready to change as any other. And indeed it maketh
me to fear the same, by reason that notwithstanding it hath
pleased Almighty God to provide that absolution was sent
unto you (not looking, I dare say, for any such thing) of all
manner of matters past, yet your Lordship (raore regarding
the vanity of the world than the offence of God, the which
He only knoweth how much it grieves me, for the due love
I bear unto you) presuraed to sing Mass in pontificalibus the
holy-days iramediately following ; and also to ministrate to
children the Sacrament of Confirmation, because that one
(being a member of the devil) did somewhat comfort you so
to do.
" O my Lord, what honour should it have been both to God
and to yourself, and also edification to all good people
(though all worldly men and heretics would therefore have
laughed you to scorn), if you, considering your great offences
towards God, and His goodness again toward you, would,
like as you have offended in the face of the world to the
damnation of many, likewise have showed yourself penitent
in the face of the world to the edification of many, and not
only not to have celebrated for vanity pontificalite'r, but also

2 20 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
for a time to have abstained for reverence totaliter from the
altar according to the old custom of the Church ; the which
I have also observed of some honest men, not being thereto
enjoined of any man : but that which is past cannot be
called again. And I thought it not my part to leave your
Lordship, mine old friend and master, in the mire. Where
fore I ceased not to solicit your cause with my Lord's grace,
till at last I obtained of his grace for your Lordship all the
faculties of the which I send you a copy here inclosed
partly for your own consolation, and partly for others, de
siring your Lordship so to use them to the honour of God,
that there come to me therefore no rebuke ; not publishing
them to any person, but to such as you know will gladly
receive them ; for hitherto there is never a bishop in Eng
land who hath granted to him so great authority concerning
those which be under his cure. Only Master Archdeacon
[Plarpsfield'] hath the like, and in one thing more great
than be these your Lordship's. Wherefore your Lordship
shall do well to remit unto him all such priests as have cure
of souls, whether they be beneficed men or parish priests.
For he hath not only authority to absolve them, as you
have, but also to give them authority to absolve such as be
underneath their cures. And thus I commit your Lordship
to the protection of Almighty God.
"Written at Brussels, the i6th of June, 1554.
"Your Lordship's bead-man,
"THOMAS GOLDWELL." 2
It was not until the middle of November, 1554, that
matters were so far arranged as to permit the cardinal
^Dr. Nicholas Harpsfield, fellow of New College, Oxford, in 1536,
was distinguished for his knowledge of civil law. He was made
Archdeacon of Canterbury in 1554.
-Fox's Acts and Monuments, vol. vii., p. 297 (Ed. Townsend).

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 221
legate to enter England. Goldwell doubtless accorapanied
him thither, and was present at that touching ceremony on
St. Andrew's Day, when the cardinal, as the Pope's legate,
appeared in Parliament and solemnly absolved the realm
from all heresy and schism, and restored it once more to
the unity of the Catholic Church. Soon after this Gold-
well was nominated by the Queen to the vacant bishopric
of St. Asaph, and the customary writ was issued in her name
on February 12, 1555, by which the temporahties of this
see were intrusted to his custody and granted to his use, as
"the now nominated and elected bishop of the aforesaid
Cathedral Church of St. Asaph," from "the time of the
vacancy of the see by the translation of the last bishop, and
so long as the see should be without a bishop, and until we
or our heirs shall set free and restore the temporalities of
the bishopric to Thomas Goldwell, now elected to the
same ".' The sovereign raay nominate to a bishopric and
consign the temporal possessions of the see to the person
nominated, but only the Pope, as Christ's Vicar on earth,
can give the necessary jurisdiction, or spiritual authority, by
which a bishop has power to govern the sheep of Christ's
flock who live within his bishopric. Hence the next step
was for the Queen to write to the Sovereign Pontiff, praying
His Holiness to make Goldwell Bishop of St. Asaph. We
do not possess a copy of this letter ; but it was probably the
same in form as the following one, which was addressed by
Henry the Eighth on a similar occasion to Pope Leo the
Tenth. " To our most holy and clement Lord, the Pope.
" Most blessed Father, after most humble commendation
and most devout kisses of the blessed feet, — When it was
^ Rymer, Foedera, vol. vi., pt. iv., p. 38.

2 22 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
announced to us that the Cathedral Church of St. Asaph,
in our principality of Wales, had become vacant by the
death of the Rev. Father in Christ, Edmund, the last bishop,
and is now without its pastor, we, thinking to make pro
vision for it, have deemed the venerable and religious man,
Henry Standysh, of the Order of Friars Minor conventuals,
professor of sacred theology, and not unknown as a preacher
of the Divine Word, dear to us, moreover, through his
eminent learning, modesty, probity, circumspection, and
integrity of life and morals, to be worthy of having the care
and burden of the said. Church entrusted to him. Where
fore we earnestly commend him to your Blessedness, and
pray you, as a special favour to us, to deign to set over the
same Church the aforesaid Henry, and to constitute him its
bishop and pastor, which, as we hope it will prove to the
honour and profit of the said Church, so will it also be very
pleasing ¦ to us. May your Holiness enjoy all happiness,
and may the Almighty God grant you a long life.
"From our palace at Woodstock, 28th April, 15 18.
"Your Hohness' most devoted and most obedient son,
by the grace of God King of England and France and Lord
of Ireland,
" HENRY." '
Early in the summer of 1555, Father GoldweU was in
Rome. He had gone thither on business of Cardinal Pole,
who, having only consented at the Queen's request to accept
the archbishopric of Canterbury, on condition that the Pope
would allow him to remain in England and reside in his
''¦Theiner, Monumenta Hibemorum et Scotorum, n. 931. Romje,
1864. It may be remarked, by way of contrast, that in the Pro
testant Established Church of England, the nomination to bishoprics,
virtual election, and spiritual jurisdiction all proceed from the sove
reign as supreme governor ofthe Church of England.

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 223
diocese, had sent GoldweU to Rome to negotiate this and
other matters for him.' In the preceding February, Queen
Mary had despatched to Rorae as her ambassadors the
Bishop of Ely, Viscount Montague, and Sir Edward Carne,
representing the three orders of the kingdom, to tender to
the Sovereign Pontiff the obedience of the whole nation.
They were still on their road when the death of Julius the
Third occurred, March 23. Then followed the three weeks'
pontificate of MarceUus the Second ; so that they did not
arrive at Rome until after the election (May 23) of Cardinal
Caraffa, who took the name of Paul the Fourth. The new
Pope received thera in soleran Consistory on June 21, and,
after accepting the subraission of the kingdom which they
offered to him, provided with bishops the Sees of York,
Norwich, Bristol, Ely, Exeter, and Bangor. He also con
firmed the appointment to the See of Coventry and Lichfield,
which had been made by Cardinal Pole in virtue of his
faculties as legate.^ Father Goldwell must have been pre-
conised Bishop of St. Asaph at one of the next Consistories
which occurred, as his episcopal consecration took place in
the summer of that year." When he returned to England,
Paul the Fourth gave him two letters for the Queen, which
he presented to her on reaching London in the month of
December. We do not know their contents ; but Goldwell,
in a letter to Cardinal Scotti, of the Theatine Order, speaks
of the pleasure they caused to the Queen, and he adds that,
considering the difficulties she had to contend with in re-
1 BeccatelH, Life of Pole, p. 137.
^ Raynaldus, Annales, 1555, pp. 25, 26.
' Tufo, Supplim., 94; Silos, i. 335; Godwin, Deprresul. Angl., 642.
Godwin calls the Bishop of St. Asaph a Benedictine monk, evidently
confusing him with his namesake, Thomas Goldwell, Prior of Christ
church, Canterbury, at the suppression and for twenty-three years
previously.

2 24 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Storing the ancient religion, it would be advisable for the Pope
to write to her occasionally and encourage her to persevere
courageously in the good work which she had undertaken.'
Bishop Goldwell arrived in tirae to be present at the
national synod which Cardinal Pole was then holding as
legate. A raonth after his return, he obtained the restitution
of the temporalities of his see. The Queen's writ, dated
January 22, 1556, was to the following effect: "Inasmuch
as the Supreme Pontiff, on the late vacancy of the Cathedral
Church of St. Asaph by the translation of the last Bishop of
that Church, has by apostolic authority provided the person
of our beloved Thomas Goldwell, bachelor of sacred theology,
elect of the same Church, for the Church of St. Asaph afore
said, and has set hira over it as bishop and pastor ; all which
appears from the bulls of the Supreme Pontiff directed to us ;
we . . . desiring to deal graciously with the said Thomas,
have received his homage, and restored to him according to
custom the temporalities of the said bishopric of St. Asaph".'''
The temporal possessions of the See of St. Asaph, thus made
over to Bishop Goldwell, were of small value; for the
revenues of the bishopric, which were never large, had been
greatly reduced by the prodigality of the late Bishop, Warton,
who, to raise the money he required for his sumptuous style
of living, had leased the episcopal lands at a low rent for a
very long term of years." The see was considered so poor
that four years later Queen Elizabeth authorised the first
Protestant bishop, Davys, to hold at the same time with the
bishopric several other benefices in comnmidam, as the re
venues of St. Asaph did not exceed ;2^i 87 iis. 6d. perannum.^
In the spring of this year Bishop Goldwell was called upon
to be present at the consecration of Cardinal Pole, who had
been appointed Archbishop of Canterbury by Pope Paul the
1 Silos, i. 335. 2 Rymer, vol. vi., pt, iv., p. 40.
3 Godwin, De. prcesul. Angl., 642. * Rymer, vol. vi., pt, iv., p. gi.

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 225
Fourth in a Consistory held December ii, 1555. The
ceremony was performed on Passion Sunday, March 22,
1556, in the Church of the Observantine Friars Minor at
Greenwich, by Nicholas Heath, Archbishop of York, with
the assistance of six bishops, among whom was the Bishop
of St. Asaph.' The thoughts of Bishop Goldwell would
now naturally turn to the diocese committed to his charge.
A series of injunctions for the better ordering of the clergy
and laity of St. Asaph, which he issued in the year 1556,
are a testimony to his pastoral solicitude.^ He was zealous
in promoting pilgrimages to St. Winefrid's Well in Flintshire,
and obtained from the Pope a renewal of the indulgences
granted to those who visited it." The only other thing we
find recorded about his occupations in his diocese is that, on
September 27, 1556, "John Griffith was instituted Dean of
St. Asaph by Bishop Goldwell, at Denbigh, where he lived ".^
It is not surprising that our information on this head is so
scanty, since none of the registers of the diocese before the
Reformation have been preserved.^
^ Strype, Mem., vol. iii., pt. i., p. 473.
^ Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 145.
3 Wood's Athen., vol. ii. , p. 823.
^ Brown Willis, Survey of the Cathedral Church of St. Asaph, p.
102. London, 1720.
^ " As to the old registers before the Reformation, there is a tradi
tion that Bishop Goldwell carried them to Rome ; though I see not
the least grounds for that tradition, there scarcely appearing to have
been any care taken about keeping registers by reason of the bishops'
non-residence before Bishop David Owen's time (1629-1651), since the
conflagration of this church in 1402, when it seems they were all de
stroyed except one called Coch Asaph " (Brown Willis, Survey of St.
Asaph, p. 123). Bishop Humphreys, who states as an unquestioned
fact the charge against Bishop Goldwell which Brown Willis sees not
the least grounds for believing, adds that " Coch Asaph was also lost
in the late wicked times of rebellion against King Charles the Martyr "
(Hearne's Otterbourne et Wtthamstede, 727).
IS

226 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Bishop GoldweU's merits and services were not unappre
ciated by the Queen. In October, 1558, she nominated
him, though without his knowledge or consent, to the vacant
See of Oxford, and by a writ of November 9, granted him
the custody of the temporalities of this diocese, the custody
of those of St. Asaph having been conferred four days before
on Thomas Wood, nominated to that see in Goldwell's place.'
Queen Mary's death, eight days later, and the change of
religion in England which ensued under Elizabeth, prevented
the translation from being carried out. A stiU further proof
of the high confidence Queen Mary placed in Bishop Gold-
well raay be seen in his appointraent as her ambassador to
the Sovereign Pontiff, in place of Sir Edward Carne, who
had prayed to be relieved of that office. The letter of
credence to Paul the Fourth, which the bishop was to take
with him, dated St. James', October 31, 1558, stiU exists.^
The only thing wanting is the Queen's signature, which
death prevented her from affixing to it. An order of ObuncU
had been already made " for aUowance of five marks per
diem for dyet and five hundred pounds in prest for the
Bishop of St. Asaph to be sent the Queen's Embassadour to
Rome "."
• Queen Mary died November 17, 1559. Cardinal Pole
survived her only twenty-two hours.* The Bishop of St.
Asaph was in constant attendance upon his ancient master
and friend. "He gave him Extreme Unction, and was
always in the room with him. An hour before the cardinal
expired, he asked if the 'book of recommendatory prayers to
be used at the soul's departure was ready ; which, when the
^ Rymer, vol. vi. , pt. iv. , pp. 65, 64.
^ British Museum, Lansdowne MSS., 116, n, 2.
3 British Museum, Lansdowne MSS., Kennett's Collections, vol.
xlvii., p. 165. Extract from Council-book — Philip and Mary.
¦* [Only twelve hours. T. E. B.]

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 227
bishop showed him, he looked upon it and said, ' Now then
is the time to use it,' and with these words he expired."'
Beccatelli heard this from Goldwell's own lips. Afterwards
the Bishop of St. Asaph, together with Bishop Pate of Wor
cester, attended Cardinal Pole's funeral by Queen Elizabeth's
express command, she having at the instance of Signor
Prioli, the Cardinal's devoted friend and executor, signified
to them through the Lords of the Council that such was her
desire.^ On the accession of Elizabeth all hope of England's per
manent restoration to Catholic unity soon disappeared. The
measures which she took to root out the ancient faith are too
well known to require mention. Her first Parliaraent was
convoked for January 23, 1559, the writs of suramons to the
Peers bearing date December 5 of the preceding year. In
this month Bishop Goldwell wrote as follows to Secretary
Cecil : "
"Right honorable Mr. Secretary, — I would gladly
have come unto you myself at this present, but that I am
informed that, by reason of your continual occupation in the
affairs of the Queen's Highness, I should not have com
modity to speak unto you. Wherefore I am so bold as by
writing to desire you to show me so much favour that by
your help I may gain licence to depart hence, considering
my poverty and that I am not by the Queen's Highness'
writ caUed to be present at the Parliament ; for the which I
am nothing sorry, though indeed it seeraeth somewhat
Strange unto me, for I am stiU Bishop of St. Asaph, the
which bishopric I never did nor could resign. And as
Bishop of St. Asaph I was present and gave my voice in the
^ Beccatelli, p. 130.
^ British Museum, Lansdowne MSS., Kennett's Collection, vol.
xlvii., p. 163. Extract from Council-book — i Elizabeth.
3 P. R., Domestic, Elizabeth, 1558, vol. i., u. 52.

2 28 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
last Parliament, though before my coming to London, with
out mine other knowledge or consent, I was named to
Oxford, the which bishopric, if I may otherwise have the
Queen's Highness' favour, I do never intend to accept : for
I, longing not for heaven in this world, am very well con
tented with my little benefice. Truth it is that the Queen's
Highness that dead is, God have her soul, having considera
tion of my poverty and certain other respects, gave me the
vacancy of Oxford, the which I trust that the Queen's
Highness, by yours and other good friends' favour, will of
her goodness suffer me to enjoy. And if it be your pleasure
to speak with me, I will be ready at any time that you will
appoint me. And thus fare you well.
" Yours to my little power,
" THOMAS, ASAPHENS.
" To the Right Honourable Sir WiUiam Cecil,
Secretary to the Queen's Highness."
From this letter it is clear that Bishop Goldwell was not
sumraoned to Queen Elizabeth's first Parliament, probably
on the pretext that by his nomination to Oxford he had
ceased to be Bishop of St. Asaph, but had not as yet done
homage for the temporahties of Oxford. His enforced
absence from Parliament will explain why his name does
not appear in the protests which the bishops, who were
present, made against the various Acts which were passed
in this Parliament subversive of the Catholic faith in
England. On May 15, 1559, seven days after the Parliament had
been dissolved, fourteen bishops, among whom was the
Bishop of St. Asaph, were " caUed together by the Queen,
and she told them that they should take into their serious
consideration the affairs of the Church, and expulse out of it

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 229
all schisms and the superstitious worship of the Church of
Rome".' Three days later. May i8, "the Council met
upon the bishops' business, and advised the Queen to
tender them the oath of supremacy and allegiance, and they
refusing were all expulsed from their bishoprics ".^ Queen
Elizabeth, however, did not use threats only to obtain her
end ; she made great offers to Goldwell, promising him a
rich bishopric if he would take the oath acknowledging her
as the " chief governor of the English Church "."
It was now plain to the Bishop of St. Asaph that he could
no longer remain in England and exercise there the
functions of a Catholic bishop. In the deposition which
he made at Rome in 1570, before the judge appointed by
St. Pius the Fifth to investigate judicially the misdeeds of
Queen Elizabeth, we have in his own words a statement of
the reasons which moved him to abandon his diocese and
return once more into exile. " Being asked why he left
England and came to Rome, the Bishop of St. Asaph made
answer : I quitted England because I was no longer able to
perforra a bishop's office, of which all the bishops that then
were had been despoUed by the Queen of England.
Wherefore, though I was Bishop of St. Asaph, which is a
bishopric in the realm, as I was unable to celebrate Mass,
minister the sacraments and preach, and was unwilling to
give security as other bishops not to leave the kingdom, I
thought it best to betake myself to Rome." *
1 Strype, Annals, vol. i., pt. i., p. 206. [These statements about
the summons to the bishops on May 15 and 18 are founded on
documents forged by Robert Ware, as I have shown in the Tablet for
May 25, 1889.— T. E, B.]
2 Ibid., 209. Goldwell was deprived of his see July 15, 1559
(Tierney's Dodd, vol. ii., p. 138, note).
3 Tufo, 45.
^ Laderkius, Annales, 1570, xxv.

230 C.\THOLIC HIERARCHY.
But it was no easy matter for one so well known as
Bishop Goldwell to leave England undiscovered. We learn
from documents in the Record Office the following circum
stances of his escape: Sunday night, June 25, 1559, the
bishop with four of his servants lay at St. Albans, the shrine
of the protomartyr of England. The next day, Monday, he
came to London, where he dismissed his servants, telling
them to go with a letter from him to his brother Stephen, at
Great Chart in Kent. But he took one servant with him
untU he came to the bank which leads to Lambeth ferry,
and there he bade his man return and leave him alone.
He then proceeded in disguise to the sea-coast, and crossed
over to the Continent without being recognised.
Meanwhile the servants journeyed on horseback to
Stephen Goldwell's house, which they reached on Tuesday
night, bearing the bishop's letter, and they said that they
knew not where their master was. This letter, which was
dated St. Albans, June 26, and addressed on the outside,
"To my loving brother, Mr. Stephen GoldweU, in the
parsonage. In great haste," ran as follows :
" Brother, — After hearty commendations this shall be to
certify to you that I am determined to leave my bishopric.
Wherefore, I being now no longer able to retain my poor
servants that came to London with me, am so bold as to
send four of them to your house, desiring that they may
continue with you till you may provide them with masters.
And where I am in debt to the Queen's Highness about
three hundred pounds, part in fuU payment of a subsidy
due the 25th of March, 1558, and part for a whole subsidy
due at October last past, and was not nor yet am able to
pay this money out of hand, I wrote in Easter term last
past to my Lord Treasurer and to Sir Edward Rogers,
desiring them to obtain me hcence to put in sureties for this
money to be paid at reasonable days, specially seeing that I

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 231
had spent a great part of it in the service of the realm as it
was then pretended ; nevertheless, I could not be heard. I
am, therefore, now compelled to desire you to travel into
Wales as soon as you may conveniently, and to sell such
goods as I have there left behind me, and to pay my said
debt out of hand. For I would be loath that any man,
much more that the Queen's Highness, should be defrauded
of anything through me. And if peradventure my said
goods will not amount to so much as my debt is (as indeed
I fear that they wUl not), then I desire you to supply the
rest, and to see my said debt satisfied, and if I live and be
able I will thoroughly recompense you again. And as
touching the tenth due at Christmas last past, and the sub
sidy due 25 th of March last past, they remain as yet
ungathered, partly that by reason of the death of your bed
fellow I could not well have you to take the pains, and
partly because that I could not tell whether the Queen's
Highness would have the whole tenth or the half, and by
that means was ignorant what to demand for the foresaid
subsidy. And thus fare you well, as weU as I would myself,
and commend me to my brother Goldwell and his wife, to
my sister Alice, and all the rest of my friends. And if it
had been my fortune to continue in Wales, I would have
wished you a good wife there. But now I pray God send
you a good one in your own country.
"At St. Albans, the 26th of June.
" Your brother,
"THOMAS, ASAPHENS."
Stephen GoldweU, on receiving this letter, in evident
alarm lest he should be held responsible by the Queen as
privy to the bishop's intended escape, went at once to his
brother, John GoldweU, to consult with hira how he ought

232 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
to act. By his advice, and furnished with a letter from him
to the Lord Keeper Nicholas Bacon, Stephen started for
London the next day, taking with him two of the bishop's
servants and leaving the other two in sure custody, and on
his arrival laid the whole matter, together with the bishop's
letter, before the Lord Keeper.- On the same afternoon,
June 29, Bacon wrote an account of what had happened to
Secretary CecU, enclosing the bishop's and John Goldwell's
letters, and adding that he had issued orders to those who
had charge of the ports to be " well ware what men they
suffer to pass ".' But these precautions were too late. The
Bishop of St. Asaph was already safe from his pursuers
beyond the sea.
On reaching the Continent, Bishop Goldwell set off at
once for Rome, but, faUing ill on the way, was obliged to
return to Louvain, where he spent the next winter. In
February, 1560, he visited Antwerp to provide necessaries
for his journey to Rome, for which place, as we learn from
Sir John Legh's letter to Queen Elizabeth,' he had already
started on March 8." The report at Antwerp was that He
would be made cardinal on his arrival.
But Bishop Goldwell's thoughts were fixed on something
very different from dignities. After a short stay at Rome,
he pursued his journey to Naples, where he returned once
more to the Theatine house of St. Paul's, in which he had
been formeriy professed, and resumed, though a bishop, the
manner of life and exercises of a simple religious.* Still, his
heart never ceased to yearn towards his native country, and
¦'P. R., Domestic, Elizabeth, 1559, vol. iv., n. 71, with two in
closures; Silos, i. 301.
" P. R., Foreign, Elizabeth, 1560, 838.
' Dodd, vol. i., p. 513, adds that he travelled thither with Dr. Maurice
Clenock. * Silos, i. 382,

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 233
he refused at different times rich bishoprics which were offered
him in Italy, that he might be raore free, as opportunities
should arise, to labour for his countrymen.' Often in con
versation he would give vent to his burning desire for the
conversion of England to the Catholic faith, and he used to
say to Father Tufo, when talking familiarly with him, that
"he could never have brought himself to return to Italy and
leave those unhappy souls, especially those of his own diocese,
a prey to the heretics, like sheep to wolves, if he had enter
tained any hope of being able to help them, even by shedding
his blood for them, as so many others of his countrymen
had done. But that when he saw every way of saving these
souls from the devil's hands intercepted, he had determined
to return to his Order.'"'
Bishop Goldwell had not been many months at St. Paul's
when the General Chapter of the Order, which met at Rorae,
January, 1561, appointed him Superior of that house."
There were then living at St. Paul's, Blessed Paul of Arezzo,
afterwards Cardinal and Archbishop of Naples, whom Gold-
well succeeded in the office of Superior ; Blessed John
Marinoni, who was Superior after him ; and St. Andrew of
Avellino, who filled the post of Master of Novices. To be
chosen Superior with such men for subjects shows the
extraordinary opinion which the General Chapter must have
entertained of Goldwell's virtue and capacity. " He exer
cised this office," Father Tufo writes, " in a paternal manner,
with great charity and prudence, and to the entire satisfaction
of his fathers and brothers." *
But Bishop GoldweU was not destined to remain long in
1 Jufo, 46.
^ Tufo, 45. Father Tufo was received into the Theatine Order in
1568 (Silos, i. 493).
' Tufo, 45 ; Silos, i. 446.
* Tufo, 45.

234 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
this position ; for in the month of March or April he was
sent for to Rome by Pope Pius the Fourth, at the petition
of the English Catholics, on some matter of grave importance
to the interests of the Church in England, though what its
nature was has not been left on record. When this affair
was ended, he at once prepared to return to Naples ; but
was prevented from doing so by an order from the Pope to
attend the Ecumenical CouncU, which had been summoned
to resume its sittings at Trent on Easter Day, 1561. Before,
however, he set out for Trent, he was appointed Master of
the EngHsh Hospital at Rome, in succession to the last
master. Sir Edward Came.' On Sunday, June 15, the
Bishop of St. Asaph arrived at Trent, and on Wednesday,
the 25th of the same month, being the vigil of St. Vigilius,
the Protector and Advocate of Trent, he officiated at Vespers
in the presence of the Legates and all the Fathers of the
Council.' " His arrival," Pallavicino says, " was regarded as
a matter of honour and joy ; but it was a cause of no less
indignation to the Queen of England, as implying contempt
and non-recognition of her as head of the Anglican Church.""
Secretary Cecil was duly informed by his agent, Guido
Giannetti, in a letter dated Venice, March 14, 1562, that
besides bishops from Italy and other countries there was
then at Trent, " I will not say from England, but rather from
the Roman Court, Thomas Goldwell, called Bishop of St.
Asaph". ' Queen Elizabeth's annoyance at the presence of
an English bishop at Trent is evident from a letter which
she wrote to Mundt, her envoy in Germany, March 21, 1562.
"As to the first matter," she says, "we think it may be
^ Tierney's Dodd, ii. 169, note.
' Acta Cone. Trid. Massarello, i. 668. Edit. Theiner.
^ Pallavicino, 1. iv., ck. xi. , n. 4.
^ P. R., Foreign, Elizabeth, 1562, 935.

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 235
that one Goldwell, a very simple and fond man, having in
our late sister's time been named to a small bishopric in
Wales called St. Asaph, though never thereto admitted,
flying out of the realm upon our sister's death, is gone to
Rorae as a renegade, and there using the name of a bishop,
without order or title, is perhaps gone in the train of some
cardinal to Trent, and so it is likely the speech hath arisen
of a bishop of England being there." ' The Queen would
not have told such a palpable falsehood to her envoy, if
Goldwell's presence at the Council had been a matter of
indifference to her.
On the part of Bishop Goldwell, however, there was no
reluctance to serve the Queen at Trent, if she had been
willing to give him the opportunity of doing so. On May
4, 1562, he wrote as follows to Cecil :
"Right Honourable Mr. Secretary, — I, seeing
SO mariy ambassadors and prelates sent hither from
other princes, and none to be here in the name of our
Queen, thought it my duty to advertise you how things
go here; not that I seek thereby, God is ray witness,
any profit, but only to do Her Highness and my country
service, if it is in my power. We here of late keep
congregations almost every day, the holidays except.
In the which hitherto we have entreated nothing but such
as pertains to the reformation of the Church : so that
though much matter be meetly weU digested, yet there is
nothing decreed ; for that we do only in the sessions, of the
which we have hitherto kept but two. The first was only
the opening of the Council. In the second was granted
that there should be safe-conduct given to all men that would
require it to come hither of what faith soever they were.
And in this session were admitted the ambassadors of the
1 P. R., Foreign, Elizabeth, 948.

236 catholic hierarchy.
Emperor, and of the King of Portugal, and other. The
third session shall be kept the 14th day of this month ; in
the which the ambassadors of Venice and other shall be
admitted. But I think that the decrees shall be deferred
eight days longer at the instance of Mgr. Lansac, who
desireth, if he can, then to be present. The number and
names of the prelates and ambassadors here you shall
perceive by the bill inclosed. If you be disposed to write
unto me, wrap your letters in a piece of paper and make
•the superscription, Al Mag™- M. Bap'^- Burdono, m''°
delle poste in Trento, and cause your letters to be
directed to the master of the post in Antwerp, and
they shall come as safely to my hand as if you sent
a post for that purpose. So that without expenses,
rumour, or knowledge of any man we may entreat any
thing that shall seem good to the Queen's Highness.
And thus fare you well.
"At Trent, the 4th of May.
"Yours to my power,
"THOMAS, ASAPHENS."'
The letter was directed to Sir William Cecil. It bears an
endorsement by Cecil's secretary : "4 May, 1562. Goldwell
to my master, from Trent, with the names of those that were
present at the Council." No answer seems to have been
sent to this communication; probably the writer expected
none. We may now turn to the Bishop of St. Asaph's occupa
tions at the Council.
The correction of the Roman Breviary and Missal had
been long recognised by the Sovereign Pontiff as an urgent
' P. R., Foreign, Elizabeth, vol. xxxvii., p. 14.

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 237
necessity. But a work of such grave importance required
much time and labour before it could be brought to
completion. Already, in 1529, Pope Clement the
Seventh had encouraged the Theatines to make this
matter the object of their special study, and he even
permitted them to put to a practical test the result of
their labours, by giving them leave to recite the Divine
Office and celebrate Mass, for the space of one year,
with such changes and corrections as they might judge
to be expedient. Paul the Fourth, who when a Theatine
had paid great attention to the subject, on becoming
Pope granted permission to adopt certain minor aUera-
tions, but he did not consider that the matter had been as
yet discussed with sufficient completeness to admit of his
imposing any of these corrections on the Universal Church.
When the Council of Trent met anew under Pope Pius the
Fourth, His Holiness referred the whole question to the
Fathers of the Council ; and he sent them at their request
the annotations made by Paul the Fourth and preserved in
the Theatine archives. The Council entrusted the work of
revision to a Commission, of which the Bishop of St. Asaph,
as a Theatine, was naturally appointed a meraber. There
is a letter written by him in this capacity to the Theatine,
Bernardino Scotti, Cardinal of Trani, who had been long
occupied with the subject of liturgical reform. It is as
follows :
" To the most Illustrious and Ra'erend Lord Cardinal of
Trani.
" Your most illustrious lordship's very courteous letter of
the 5th inst., and the information it contains, have given no
small consolation to these most reverend prelates, who by
commission of the CouncU have been charged with coUect-

238 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY,
ing the abuses regarding the holy Mass, and who, knowing
that our Lord [the Pope] has intrusted to your most Ulus
trious Lordship the care of correcting the Breviary, and aware
that the emendation of the Missal is connected with that of
the Breviary, hope that in the reform both of the one and
the other you will surpass our expectations, so that they will
not have to give themselves any more trouble about the
Missal, but wiU only have to make some canons concern
ing the abuses. We are labouring hard here in preparing
things for the coming session. Last week we buried
the most reverend Monsignor elect of Turli. The other
prelates, by God's grace, are very well. The most
illustrious legates, Monsignor Seripando and Monsignor
of Ermeland, salute your most Ulustrious Lordship. The
most reverend Monsignor Cerenda and I most humbly
kiss your hand.
"At Trent, 24th August, 1562.
"Your most iUustrious and reverend Lordship's most
humble servant, " DON THOMAS, Bishop of St. Asaph." '
The Council of Trent had not time to bring this important
work of reformation to a conclusion. It was obliged in its
last session to refer the matter back again to the Sovereign
Pontiff, praying him to do by his own authority whatever
he might judge necessary.^ Accordingly, Pope Pius the
Fourth appointed a special Congregation at Rome, of
which the Bishop of St. Asaph was a member, to con-
1 Tufo, Supplim., 13 ; Silos, i. 94-98, 448. The The'atines, as
Regular Clerks, retained at first for a time the title of Don, which was
usually borne by the secular clergy.
" Cone. Trid. Sessio xxv. De indice librorum et catechismo, breviario
et missali.

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 239
tinue the work of revision. St. Pius the Fifth added
to this Congregation other learned men, and was able
at length (July 9, 1568) to bring the labours of so
many years to a conclusion, by giving to the Universal
Church the Roman Breviary and Missal in their present
amended form.'
The Bishop of St. Asaph took an active part in another
question of iraportance which was at one time agitated in
the Council. In June, 1563, there was much debate among
the Fathers as to whether it would not be advisable for the
Council to pronounce a solemn sentence of excommunication
against Queen Elizabeth of England. For two days the
matter was greatly discussed, and at length it was resolved
to refer the decision of it to the Sovereign Pontiff. Bishop
Goldwell did his best to induce the Council to excom
municate the Queen, and he also wrote to the Cardinal
of Trani, begging him to use all his influence with the
Pope for the same object. Pius the Fourth was per
sonaUy in favour of what had been proposed ; in de
ference, however, to the express wishes of the Emperor
Maximilian the Second, he judged it more prudent to let
the matter drop.^
Bishop Goldwell' remained at Trent until the end
of the Council. During the whole of his stay there
he was treated, as he mentions in a letter to the
Cardinal of Trani, with singular kindness by the Car
dinal Legate, Hosius, Bishop of Ermeland, who even
obliged him, in spite of his reluctance, to live with him
as his guest."
On December 4, 1563, the Bishop of St. Asaph was
1 Merati, tom. iii., p. 15. , Edit. Venet.
2 Silos, i. 447.
» Ibid.

240 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
present at the concluding Session of the Council, and signed
the decrees. He was now free to leave Trent. But a work
of great difficulty and iraportance was awaiting him. St.
Charles Borromeo was anxious to introduce without delay
into his vast and long-neglected diocese of Milan the
reforms of Trent. But it was impossible for him to do
this in person, since he could not leave Rome, where,
as cardinal-nephew to Pope Pius the Fourth, he had to
bear no small portion of the solicitude of the Universal
Church. He needed, therefore, some one of zeal and
spirit like his own to represent him at Milan ; and finding
no one better suited for this work than the Bishop of St.
Asaph, he appointed him his Vicar-General.'
Scarcely, however, had Bishop Goldwell entered upon
his new office, when he was obliged to leave it, owing
to the Pope having sent him a command to go into
Flanders, with the view of crossing thence into Engr
land. There is an allusion to this in a letter from
St. Charles to the Blessed Paul of Arezzo, at that
time Superior of St. Paul's at Naples* It is interesting
as showing once more how greatly the Theatines valued
GoldweU. The Blessed Paul, having been compeUed
by express precept of the Pope to accept the office
of Ambassador from the city of Naples to Philip the
Second of Spain on a matter of very great importance to
the city, wrote to St. Charles to entreat that the Bishop of
St. Asaph might be sent to take his place as Superior of St.
Paul's during his absence. St. Charles replied (May 27,
1564) : "As to the Bishop of St. Asaph, His Hohness has
thought of sending him into Flanders, where he will be able
to render some service to his Church, though not altogether
as much as would be needful. Have patience, then, if he
^ Silos, i. 469.

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 24I
cannot go to Naples in your place." ' On leaving Milan,
Bishop Goldwell went to Rome to receive the Pope's
instructions relative to his mission to England. While there
he became acquainted with Richard Creagh, a young Irish
priest, who had been sent thither by the Nuncio in Ireland
as a fit person to fill one or other of the vacant sees of
Armagh and Cashel. Creagh's own desire was to become a
Theatine, but instead of obtaining permission to carry out
this wish, for which he had petitioned the Pope, he received
a command from His Holiness, under pain of excommunica
tion, to accept the archbishopric of Armagh. He was
accordingly consecrated bishop on Easter Day, 1564, and set
out on his return to Ireland in the month of July following.
Being taken prisoner and sent to England next year, he was
examined on February 22, by Sir William Cecil, and in reply
to the question. How many English or Irish he was
acquainted with in Rome ? he answered : " I saw and spake
some time with ... the Master of the English Hospital,
called there the Bishop of St. Asse, and others dwelling in
the said hospital ". Again, in the report of another examina
tion to which he was subjected in the Tower of London,
March 17, it is recorded that "he saith that Goldwell and he
dined and talked together divers times, and at one time this
examinate heard that a Frenchman of the Pope's palace
should report that Frenchmen had entered and invaded
England, the which talk Goldwell doubted to be true, and
thereupon they sent to the palace to inquire the certainty,
and then after the Frenchman denied it, and so they found
it untrue ".^

' Tufo, 93 ; Supplimento, 94.
2 The original examinations are given in Shirley's Letters and
Papers illustrative of the History of the > Church of Ireland,
1851. 16

242 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
The news of Bishop Goldwell's intended journey to Eng
land seeras to have preceded him. For it was in vain that
he and those who accompanied him tried to cross from
Flanders. They found that the English coasts were
watched, that portraits of the bishop had been sent to the
different seaports, and a reward offered for his arrest.
Nothing remained but to abandon the attempt and return
to Italy.
The Bishop of St. Asaph seems to have stopped for a
short time at Milan on his way back to Rome, for on June
25, 1565, we find him addressing the following letter of
congratulation to his friend the Archbishop of Armagh, on
the occasion of the latter's miraculous escape from the
Tower of London :
"Most illustrious and reverend Lord, — As I grieved
much on hearing that your Grace, after reaching Ireland,
had been treacherously seized and taken to the Tower of
London, so I rejoiced exceedingly when I heard that you
had escaped thence, as it seems, miraculously, and had
gone to Louvain, where you are the guest of your friend
and mine, good Master Michael, who I doubt not re
joiced as much at' your arrival as I was glad at your
escape. And when your Lordship has leisure, you would
•do rae a very great pleasure if you would kindly write
to me the particulars of your deliverance. For when
I first heard of it, the thing appeared to me so stu
pendous, that it seemed like St. Peter's vision when
the angel led him forth from prison. But however
it happened, praise be to God for having been pleased
to take care of His servant ; and to His divine protec
tion I commend your Grace, and myself to your prayers.
And as it is reported here that your Lordship was accom
panied to Ireland by an English Father of the Society of
Jesus, some of those who are here desire much to know

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 243
what has become of him. There lives in this city a very
worthy Irish Jesuit, named Maurice, who was exceedingly
rejoiced at hearing of your escape. May it please your
Lordship to salute in my name the reverend Master Michael,
your host.
"At Milan, 20th June, 1565.
" Your most illustrious Lordship's unworthy brother and
servant, "Thomas Goldwell, Bishop of St. Asaph."'

It was in the second half of 1565 that Bishop Goldwell
returned to Rome, and took up his abode at the Theatine
house of St. Sylvester on Monte Cavallo.^ Here he hved a
life of the strictest retirement, avoiding the courts, punctual
in every religious observance, and only distinguished from
his brethren by his episcopal insignia." Outside the house
he was occupied in works of charity, and he especially
devoted himself to the service of the Enghsh exiles, who,
after abandoning their kindred and possessions for the
^ Analecta Sacra, nova et mira de rebus Catholicorum in Hibernia,
pt. iii., p. 17. Coloniae, 1617. By David Rooth, or Rothe, Bishop
of Ossory. Archbishop Creagh was subsequently recaptured in
Ireland and recommitted to the Tower of London, where he died of
poison, October 16, 1585, after a captivity for the faith of eighteen
years. See a sketch of his life in the Rambler, vol. xi., p. 366,
1853. ^ The House and Church of St. Sylvester continued in the posses
sion ofthe Theatine Order until 1801, when for a compensation of
four or five thousand scudi, they were transferred by Pius the Seventh
to Father Paccanari and his companions. In 1814, at the dissolution
of Father Paccanari's society, they were given by Pius the Seventh
to the Congregation ofthe Mission, or Vincentians (Moroni, Dizion
ario, vol. Ixxiii., p. 131).
' Silos, i., 477 ; Castaldo, 241.

244 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
faith, flocked for aid and consolation to the common
centre of Christendom. The mastership of the English
Hospital, which he continued to hold until 1567, gave
him greater opportunities of exercising his charity in their
regard. An incidental proof of his kindness towards
his countrymen may be found in a letter of Arthur
HaU to Cecil, dated Venice, August 7, 1568, in which
the writer says that at Rome "he found divers English
men. Mr Goldwell, late Bishop of St. Asaph, used
him courteously, but the rest being about fourteen or
sixteen, the most being in a hospital there, reported him
a heretic.'" On February i, 1566, Bishop Goldwell consecrated the
Theatine Church of St. Sylvester, attached to the convent
of this name, in which he lived, and also the high altar of
the same church. Seventeen years later, September 14,
1583, on the occasion of the enlargement of the sanctuary
of the church, he consecrated anew the high altar, as an
inscription in the case of relics testifies.^ In the spring of
1566 the bishop presided over the General Chapter of his
Order, which was held at Venice. He had been appointed
to this office by the General Chapter of the preceding year.
Under his presidency it was resolved to urge the Superiors
of the different houses to tighten the reins of discipline,
lest the great increase of the Order which had taken place
should lead to laxity of religious observance." On two
other occasions, namely, in 1567 and in 1572, Bishop
Goldwell presided over the General Chapter of the
Theatines.* ^ P. R., Foreign, Eliz., 1568, 2404.
2 Tufo, 51.
^ Silos, i. 483.
* Ibid., ^85, 511.

BISHOP THOM.\S GOLDWELL. 245
But the Bishop of St. Asaph was not long suffered to live
in retirement at St. Sylvester's. The office of Vicar, or
representative of the Cardinal Archpriest, in the Lateran
Church had lately fallen vacant, and St. Pius the Fifth,
knowing no one more fit than Bishop Goldwell to watch
over the conduct of the clergy and the due performance of
divine worship in the Basilica, appointed him about the
year 1567 to this responsible post. Goldwell fulfilled the
duties of his charge to the ¦ complete satisfaction of St.
Pius the Fifth and of the succeeding Pope, Gregory
the Thirteenth, who confirmed hira in the appointment.
At length, however, perceiving that the canons of the
Basilica bore with difficulty the strictness of his govern
ment, he resigned the office, and retired once more
to St. Sylvester's, where he resumed the life of re
ligious observance and sacred study which was so dear
to him.'
On August I, 1568, we find him taking part as assistant
bishop in the consecration of one of his religious brethren,
the Blessed Paul of Arezzo, the Superior of St. Sylvester's,
whom St. Pius the Fifth had compelled, under a precept of
obedience and the pain of mortal sin, to accept the bishopric
of Piacenza.''
In 1570, St. Pius the Fifth, before publishing to the
whole Church the sentence of excomraunication and
deposition which he had pronounced against Queen
Ehzabeth, ordered a judicial process to be formed, in
which evidence of her guilt was taken according to the
strict forms of law before the delegated judge, Alexander
Riario, general auditor of the Apostolic Camera. Twelve
witnesses were interrogated regarding eighteen articles.

1 Tufo, 45 ; Silos, i. 492.
2 Tufo, 105 ; Silos, i. 491.

246 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Bishop GoldweU was cited to give evidence, and his
deposition, which was received on February 6, 1570, may
StiU be seen, transcribed from the original process, in
Laderkius' Annals.^
About the year 1572, Bishop GoldweU addressed the
foUowing letter to Laurence Vaux, warden of the Col
legiate Church of Manchester in Queen Mary's reign,
and an exile for religion under Elizabeth. Father Vaux,
after joining the Regular Canons of St. Augustine
at Louvain, in 1572, returned as a missionary to
England in 1580, where he was soon afterwaids ap
prehended, and condemned to death for the faith in
1585. He died the same year, in prison, of hunger and
privations. " Dearest Father Laurence, — I am very glad to hear
that you have not only left dignities and possessions for the
Catholic faith in England, but have also lately entered the
Order of Regular Canons. This Order of yours has existed
since the times of the Apostles, before St. Augustine, who
reformed it. And it was held in such high esteem, that
eight merabers-' of this Religious Order were successively
elected Sovereign Pontiffs, one of whora was Adrian the
Fourth, an Englishman, our countryman. For five years
under Pius the Fifth I presided over the Church of St.
John Lateran, which, being the mother and first church
of the whole world, was formerly in your Religious Order.
I found there many ancient monuments in praise of your
Order, and many privileges granted to your Order." ^
' Laderkius, Annales, 1570, xxv.
^ Molanus, Histories Lovaniens'ium, lib. v., cap. 32. See a life of
Vaux in the Rambler, N.S., vol. iii., p. 399, 1857. Pope Boniface the
Eighth, in 1295, substituted Secular Canons for the Regular Canons
of St. Augustine at St. John Lateran, which, from being the first in
dignity of the five Roman Basilicas, is termed the mother and first
church of Rome and of the whole world.

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 247
The Bishop of St. Asaph's merit was too well known in
Rome to allow of his long remaining unemployed. In
1574, James, Cardinal Savelli, the Cardinal Vicar, a pre
late most exact in sacred and ecclesiastical ceremonies,
appointed him his suffragan, or, as it would now be
termed, Vicegerent.' As the Cardinal Vicar's office is
to represent and replace the Pope in those duties and
functions which belong to him, not as Pope, but as
Bishop of the diocese of Rome ; so it is the Vicegerent's
place to act as a kind of vicar-general in pontificalibus
to the Cardinal Vicar. Hence the office of Vicegerent
involves great labour and responsibihty. Bishop Gold-
well, however, in spite of his advanced age, performed
the duties of his new post with marvellous diligence and
alacrity. Among the various functions which belonged to
him as Vicegerent, he was very frequently caUed upon to
administer the Sacrament of Holy Orders ; and since many
persons from different nations came to Rome for ordination,
priests ordained by him were to be found in all parts of
Christendom. This gave occasion to Dr. Robert Turner,
Rector of the University of Ingolstadt, when writing to him,
to say : " God willed that England should reject thee as
bishop, in order that the whole world might honour thee as
bishop. It is a thing too evident to need mention that
there are scattered abroad throughout Italy, England, France,
and Spain, priests anointed by thy hand, and called into

1 Tufo, 45 ; Silos, i. 527. Before 1558 the Pope's Vicar for the
City of Rome was sometimes a cardinal and sometimes a bishop, but
in 1558 Paul the Fourth united the office to the Sacred College of
Cardinals. The office of Vicegerent began with the vicariate of
Cardinal Savelli, who was made Vicar in 1560. Until 1717 the Vice
gerent was named by the Cardinal Vicar, with the Pope's approval ;
since then the appointment is made by the Pope himself (Moroni,
Dizion. Eccles., vol. xcix., pp. 64, 163).

248 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
being by the power that is in thee.'" Bishop Goldwell,
when exercising the functions of office, never seemed to be
fatigued. In performing ecclesiastical ceremonies it was his
custom to say the prayers by heart, instead of from a book,
and he went throughs everything very expeditiously. The
pontifical which he was in the habit of using was full of cor
rections and notes in his handwriting. After his death the
Fathers of the Congregation of Rites begged earnestly to
have this book, and they made great use of it in the correc
tion of the old Roman Pontifical, and many emendations
were adopted in conformity with the bishop's sentiments.
Subsequently this book passed into the hands of the
Cardinal of Monte Reale, who gave it back to the Theatines.
When Father Silos wrote his Chronicle of the Order, it was
still preserved as a precious treasure in the sacristy of St.
Sylvester's.''' The English College of- St. Thomas of Canterbury, at
Rome, which was founded by Pope Gregory the Thirteenth
in 1578, and endowed by him on 24th December, 1580,
with the possessions of the English Hospital, must neces
sarUy have been an object of great interest to the Bishop of
St. .A.saph. The aged bishop testified on all occasions the

1 Tufo, 48. Anthony Munday, ' ' a rambling stage-player, and,
according to his own account, an apostate Seminarist of the Roman
College, in a scurrilous piece called The English Romaync Life "
(Tierney's Dodd, vol. iii., p. 16, note), printed in 1582, and reprinted
in the Harleian Miscellany, vol. vii., p. 150, alludes to Bishop Gold
well's office of Vicegerent, where he says that Goldwell, Bishop of
St. Asaph, " maketh all the English priests in the College, and liveth
there among the Theatines very pontifically "- Mr. Brewer, who
quotes this passage in a note to his edition of Fuller's Church History,
vol. iv., p. 279, has, without remark, substituted Florentines for Thea
tines, not knowing apparently what to make of the latter word as it
stands in the original,
- Silos, i. 527.

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 249
warmest affection for the students who were preparing there
for the toUs and dangers of the English mission. It was
also partly due to him that the College was placed under
the care of the Jesuit Fathers, for he was one of those
who petitioned the Holy Father to intrust it to that
Order.' But Bishop Goldwell was not satisfied with labouring
in Rome for the salvation of his countrymen. He was
ready, nay eager, though in his eightieth year, to en
counter the perUs to which the Catholic missioner in
England was then exposed. And an occasion arose
at this time in which he gave proof of his readiness.
In 1580 there were only two bishops surviving of the
ancient English hierarchy : GoldweU, Bishop of St. Asaph,
who lived at Rome, and Watson, Bishop of Lincoln,
who had been long confined in various prisons. The
want of a bishop in England was therefore keenly felt
by the English Catholics. There was no one in the
country to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation,
and there was no ecclesiastical superior to give unity and
direction to the affairs of the mission. For these reasons
the English Catholics petitioned the Pope to send them a
bishop. His Hohness, however, after due consultation
thought it unadvisable to coraply with their request, for
he feared to expose to certain and iramediate danger
one whose dignity as a bishop would mark him out
as an object of special persecution to the enemies of
the faith. When the Bishop of St. Asaph heard of this,
he went at once to the Pope, and earnestly besought
His Holiness' leave and blessing to undertake this
dangerous mission ; and with great difficulty, on account
of his advanced age and the high esteem in which he
^ Silos, i. 598.

250 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
was held, at last obtained, or rather wrung, from the
Pope the permission which he craved.' A number of
priests were at that tirae about to leave Rome for
England ; some of them were old or Marian priests, as
they were termed, others had been educated and ordained
in the newly-founded seminaries on the Continent; and,
last not least, were Fathers Campion and Persons of the
Society of Jesus, which had just then decided to send its
members on the English mission. It was arranged that
Bishop Goldwell should be the leader of this little com
pany to the scene, as he fondly hoped, of his future
labours. An intercepted letter, dated Rome, i8th April,
1580, from Robert Owen to Dr. Humphry Ely, at
Rheims, tells us " how that my lord of St. Asaph and
Mr. Dr. Morton are gone hence, some say to Venice,
some to Flanders, and so further ; which, if it be true,
you shall know sooner than we here. God send them
well to do whithersoever they go, and specially if they
be gone to the harvest. The sale that Mr. Dr. Morton
made of all his things, maketh many think quod non
habet animam revertendi." ^ The letter goes on to say that
the rest of the company, " with good Father Campion," had
started from Rome on foot that very day. Their first des
tination was Rheims, to which the CoUege for English priests
which Dr., afterwards Cardinal, Allen had founded at Douay
had been temporarily transferred. The story of their pro
ceedings wUl best be told in the following entries extracted
from the Douay Diary, and made day by day as the events
'¦ Bridgewater's Concertatio, pt. i., p. 69, verso ; Simpson's Cam
pion, p. 105 ; Tufo, Suppl., 94; Silos, i. 597.
2 P. R., Domestic, Elizabeth, vol. cxxxvii., n. 38. " Dr. N. Morton
was a prebendary of York in Queen Mary's reign, who leaving Eng
land for conscience' sake in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth, resided
for the most part in Rome" (Dodd, ii. 114).

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 25 1
occurred.1 "May 24, there came to us from Rome the
Reverend Father in Christ, the Bishop of St. Asaph, and
Doctor Morton, with only one servant attending them ; who
did not disdain to go to table with us in our common
refectory, but desired to give us daily the consolation of
their presence, until the Reverend Father Bishop was pre
vented by sickness from coming to the refectory." It may
be observed by the way that Father Campion, Persons, and
the rest reached the College on 31st May, and left for
England 7th June. "On the same day [June 11], immedi
ately after Vespers in the President's [Dr. Allen] room, the
Lord Bishop of St. Asaph fortified with the Sacrament of
Confirmation in the constant profession of the Christian
warfare, Hubert, gentleman, and Hauseworth, also gentle
man, Johnson, Sherson, Jodocadoe, wife of our steward,
and her little son, Vavasor, Sherwold, WiUiam Powell,
Philippa Coffin." "On 14th June there started for
Paris the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph, with Dr. Morton,
and Edward, the Bishop's servant. They had for con
ductor on their journey Henry Brown, the President's
servant." "On the same day [June 19] there returned
from Paris the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph, Dr. Morton,
and the Bishop's servant Edward." "On July 27 there
came from Paris Mr. Greene . . . whose arrival is said
to have displeased the Governor [of Rheims], because of
the plague raging at Paris." " On July 28 were confirmed
in the President's room Mr. Leie, Mr. Daniel, the boy
Eydon, and two of our steward's children." " On August 7
there were confirmed in St. Stephen's Church, by the Lord
Bishop of St. Asaph, Mr. Grimston, Mr. Catheriacke, Mr.
' The Douay Diary is written in Latin. The volume of it from
which the Rev. John Morris, S.J., kindly made the above quoted
extracts, is in the Archivium of the Archbishop of Westminster. [It
was afterwards edited by Father Knox.— T. E. B.]

252 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
Coniers, Mr. Clibborne, Pibushe." "On August 8 de
parted the Reverend Father in Christ, the Lord Bishop
of St. Asaph, and Dr. Morton, with Edward the Bishop's
servant." Thus ended, according to the narrative of the Douay
Diary, Bishop Goldwell's attempt to return to England.
As might have been expected considering his great age, the
fatigues of the journey had broken down his health, and a
continual cough from which he suffered made it clear that
he had no longer sufficient strength for a missionary life in
England. Besides this, his intention of returning to
England had become known there, and special measure^
had been taken to prevent his entering the country or to
seize him on his first arrival. Prudence, therefore, obliged
him to make the sacrifice of his cherished desires, and
while his companions, as we have seen, proceeded on
their journey to England, he wrote on 13th July as fol
lows to the Pope, placing himself at His Holiness' dis
position. "Most Blessed Father, — If I could have crossed
into England before my coming had been known there,
as I had hoped to do, I think that my going thither
would have been a consolation to the Catholics and a'
satisfaction to your Holiness, whereas now I fear the
conti-ary, since there are so many spies in this king
dom, and my long stay here has made my going to
England soweU known there, that I doubt now it wiU
be difficult for me to enter the kingdom without some
danger. Nevertheless, if your Holiness is of a different
opinion, I wiU make the attempt, even though it should
cost me my hfe. StUl it would be impossible for me
alone to supply the needs of all those Catholics, who are
many thousand more than I had thought, and in almost
every part of the kingdom. The most, I think, I possibly

bishop THOMAS GOLDWELL. 253
could do would be to supply for the City of London and
some miles round it. And therefore in my ignorance I
cannot but wonder that, when God has given your Holiness
the grace to plant, as it were, anew and to maintain the
Catholic faith in that kingdom, you make such great
difficulty about creating there three or four titular bishops
to preserve and propagate it, although this might be
done at as little cost as your Holiness pleases; since
God has so inclined the minds of those priests to
spend their lives in helping to bring back that king
dom to the Catholic faith, that, if they were made
bishops, they would be content to live as poorly as
they do now, just as the bishops of the primitive Church
did. May God inspire your Holiness to do whatever
shall be most for his honour, and prosper you many
years. I humbly kiss your feet.
"From Rheims, 13th July, 1580.
" Your Holiness' most devoted servant,
"THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH."'
On the same day Bishop Goldwell wrote the following
letter to the Cardinal of Como^ on behalf of one of the
English exiles who had been deprived of his pension from
the King of Spain !
" Most illustrious and reverend Lord, my most respected

1 Theiner, Annales, vol. iii., p. 700.
2 Tolomeo Galli, born in 1525, was raised to the Cardinalate by
Pius the Fourth in 1565. He was called the Cardinal of Como from
the city to which his family belonged. Among other important offices
he held that of Secretary of State to Gregory the Thirteenth. He
died Bishop of Ostia and Dean of the Sacred College, in 1607.

2 54 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
master, — Owing to the King of Spain having withdrawn all
the pensions which His Majesty has hitherto given in
Flanders, there are many persons there suffering great
poverty, among whom the most illustrious Charles Neville,
Earl of Westmoreland,' has -been forced on this account
to have recourse to His Majesty. Although he is not
known to your most illustrious Lordship, he kisses your
hand as the Protector of our nation. And seeing that
he is not only a Catholic, but is also ruined in his
estate and property, and banished from his country for
the Catholic faith, he beseeches your raost illustrious
Lordship to be pleased to be his protector, and to obtain
frora our Lord [the Pope] that His Holiness will deign
to write on his behalf to His Catholic Majesty : which
if your most Ulustrious Lordship will do, it will oblige him
to be always at your command. In truth, most illustrious
Lord, he is worthy to obtain this favour from His Holi
ness through your most Ulustrious Lordship's means be
cause, besides being a Catholic and suffering for the faith,
he belongs to a most illustrious house, of great power and
following, and he is connected in blood with almost all
the old nobility of England, and especially with the raost
iUustrious Cardinal Pole, of good memory ; and, more
than this, he has served with honour His Catholic Majesty
in these his wars in Flanders, as is well known to the Duke
of Alva and the Prince of Parma ; and since Mr. Maurice

' " Charles Nevil, Earl of Westmoreland, was a zealous main
tainer of the old religion and ready to support its interest upon
any occasion. On the 15th of November, 1569, he joined in an
insurrection with Thomas Piercy, Earl of Northumberland, whose
forces being routed and dispersed, he fled into Scotland. From
thence he transported himself into Flanders, where he obtained a
pension and a regiment under the King of Spain " (Dodd, vol. ii.,
P- 38)-

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 255
[Clenock '] can fully inform your most iUustrious Lordship
concerning him, I will say no more. As to myself, I
know not what to write to your most illustrious Lordship.
For a month past, through God's grace, I have been
free from the fever, and yet I am not well either in body
or mind. I am waiting for His Holiness' decision ;
and I pray your Lordship to do me the favour of letting
me receive it as soon as possible. I humbly kiss your
hand. "From Rheims, July 13, 1580.
" Your most illustrious Lordship's servant,
"THE BISHOP OF ASAPH." ^
The Pope's decision, which the bishop was so anxiously
expecting, soon arrived; and in accordance with it on 8th
August he set out," as we have seen, with a heavy heart for
Rome, after first bidding farewell to Ralph Sherwin, who
' Dr. Maurice Clenock, a native of Wales, was Professor of Canon
Law (B.C.L., 1548) and Doctor of Divinity at Oxford. In Queen
Mary's reign he was a prebendary of York, almoner and secretary to
Cardinal Pole, and Chancellor of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury.
Shortly before the Queen's death, in 1558, he was nominated to the
bishopric of Bangor, but never consecrated. He left England at
Queen Elizabeth's accession, and went to Rome, where he was made
Master of the English Hospital in 1578. At the foundation of the
English College he was appointed by Gregory the Thirteenth its first
Superior ; but he only held the office for a short time, until the
College was transferred to the care of the Jesuits (Dodd, vol. i., p.
513)- ' Theiner, Annales, vol. iii., p. 701. Bishop Goldwell was himself
in receipt of a pension from the King of Spain, if we may trust a list
of pensioners in the Public Record Office. P. R., Domestic, Elizabeth,
vol. cxlvi., n. 18.
" Dodd, vol. i., p. 507.

256 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
had stayed behind to wait on him when ill at Rheims,
and who was soon afterwards to die a martyr's death in
London.' The Bishop of St. Asaph on reaching Rome went back
again to St. Sylvester's, and resumed once more his
functions of Vicegerent. We will group together here
the few remaining incidents of his life. If some of them
seem hardly worth recording, they will at least help us to
picture him to ourselves in his everyday occupations.^
"Qn the 7th [March, 1579]," Mr. Haddock writes from
Rorae, "there was a Solemn Mass sung at the Minerva
by my Lord of St. Asaph's, before thirty-three Cardinals,
upon St. Thomas' Day."" In 1583, on the Feast of the
Purification, Bishop Goldwell tonsured St. Camillus of
Lellis, and on the following Sunday, being the feast of
St. Matthias, gave him Minor Orders in the sacristy of St.
Sylvester's. In 1584 he conferred upon the same saint
the subdiaconate on an ember day in Lent, the diaconate
on Sitientes Saturday, and the priesthood at Pentecost*
In 1584 he consecrated several altars in the Basilica of
St. Csecilia across the Tiber.' He led Matthew Cudner,
a young English confessor for the faith, to enter the

^ Concertatio , pt. i., p. 70.
^ Cole, in a note to Wood's Athena, Edit. Bliss., says that in 1569
Goldwell was executor to Sir Robert Peckham, who died at Rome.
Laderkius mentions that he had seen Bishop Goldwell's name on the
tomb of Robert Peckham in St. Cecilia's Church at Rome {Annates,
vol. iii. , p. 212). Peckham was a member of the Privy Council in
Queen Mary's reign, and died in exile on account of the faith (Dodd,
vol. ii., p. 56).
^ Richard Haddock's letter to Dr. Allen frora Rome, gth March, 1579 ;
Tierney's Dodd, vol. ii., p. ccclix.
* Vita di S. Camillo, p. 32. Roma, 1837.
^ Laderkius, Annales, vol. iii., p. 212.

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 257
Theatine Order, in which he lived and died holily.' He was
consulted by Dr. Allen, afterwards cardinal, upon everything
of moment, as appears from a letter of the bishop to Allen,
which Dodd has printed, "in which he gives Allen his
opinion concerning the Apology he was publishing for the
seminaries, and other writings of that doctor". The letter
is as follows :
" To our very loving and assured friend Dr. Allen, at Rheims.
" Right Reverend Mr. President, — By the last post,
save this, I received your letters common to Father Rector
and me ; and we both together did what we could with my
Lord Cardinal Como. But of him we could get no great
hope. Me thinketh that our cause doth scant penetrate into
these men. We also delivered your letters, and a copy of
the proclamation, to my Lord Cardinal Sti. Sixti. But with
him, according to your counsel, we intreated your need but
superficially, who gave us gentle audience and good words.
Thus, because the Pope was at his villa, it seemed good to
Father Rector to send a copy of your common letter to the
Master of the Chamber, who did both present it and read it
to His Holiness; and of this and of what has folfowed, I doubt
not but Father Rector has certified you at length. Upon
the 14th of this month, after Evensong, I received your
letters of the 14th of the last month ; but not the part of
your apology, because the Father gave it to be translated as
soon as he had read your letter. Wherefore, the next day,
as soon as I had said Mass, I went to the College and in
formed Father Rector that out of England you had been
prayed to use no words and terms towards the Queen but
honourable : for fear lest it should turn to the poor Catholics
1 Castaldo,, 244 ; Silos, i. 612.
17

258 catholic hierarchy.
more trouble at home. I ordered also that in the title
should be written : ' Authore Gulielmo Alano, Prsesidente
CoUegn Rhemensis ' ; and that the colleges should be called
the Pope's Colleges, with such other things which yourself
ordained in your letters. If you have written any other
letters to me, I have not had them ; nor Mr. Baily's letter
of the receipt and distribution of His Holiness' alms ever
came to my hands. Insomuch that at this present, if Mr.
Martin had not written to me a courteous letter of the receipt
of his part, I had not to this hour known that Mr. Baily had
received it. At which I have sometimes so much marvelled
that I was half determined never to entangle myself any
more in that matter. For it is no smaU danger for me to
stand here bound to be countable for it. Wherefore, I pray
you, desire Mr. BaUy to think by what way he sent me that
letter ; that I may either have it, or that he wiU be content
to take the pains to write me another of that matter for my
discharge. I pray you commend me to Mr. Martin, and
thank him for his long letter. It doth hurt me to write
much, and therefore I trust he will be content that I write
not particularly to him. You know that I am old and not
very lusty. But this notwithstanding, I wUl advertise you of
such things in your book, De Eucharistia, which do not
please all men, although peradventure you wUl be able to
defend them. As in the third chapter of the first book,
where you do intreat the difference between this sacrament
and the others, you say in this very w^ell : ' Quod forma
hujus sacramenti applicatur ad materiam, et non dicitur
super recipientem, ut in cseteris, ubi dicitur applicando
materiam ad personam : Ego te abluo,' &c., more had
bettered by it, if you, using the common words of the
Church, had said : ' Ego te baptize '. In the eleventh
chapter, where you write, 'De vino congelato,' you have
almost all here against you, becau»e they follow the common

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 259
Doctors : Sylvester, verbo Eucharistia, viz., prope finem: 'Si
vinum in calice congeletur, sacerdos illud ante consecra-
tionem resolvat ; ut habeat rationem actualem potus. Si
tamen non resolvat, adhuc conficit, quia vinum congelatura
a non congelato specie non differt, sed solum accidentali
qualitate.' Io de Lapide, cap. vii., art. 4, in fine : 'Sacerdos
curam adhibere debet ut vinum congelatum resolvatur, vel
per applicationem prunarum, vel alio modo, ut recipiat
rationem actualem potus. Si tamen non resolveretur,
nihUominus posset confici, quia per congelationem natura
vini non est corrupta.' ArmUla, verbo Missa, n. 24 : 'Si
vinum congeletur in calice ante consecrationem, debet
liquefieri, si potest, et sic consecrari, ut sit actu potabile.
Si autem congelatum consecretur, erit consecratum, quia
non differt ab alio non congelato specie, sed tantum quali
tate.' Io de Lapide, cap. vii., art. 5, n. 4 : ' Quid agendum,
si cum sumi debet sanguis, species vini sit congelata?
Solutio. Fiat resolutio.' The whole leaf of the thirty-first
chapter does almost wholly displease them. When in the
thirty-first chapter you say: 'Quod Papa solemniter cele-
brante, cardinales etiam assistentes et ministri communicent'.
This is not true. But if you would peradventure have said :
' Quod cardinalis diaconus et subdiaconus communicent de
eadem hostia quam de calice ; et sic de utraque specie,' you
should have said truth. Thus fare you well, as I should
myself "At Rome, the 17th of April, 1581.
" Yours,
"THOMAS, ASAPHENS."'
Lasdy, as the Sovereign Pontiffs and the Council of Trent
1 Dodd, vol. i., p. 507; vol. ii., p. 224.

26p CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
had at an earher period employed Bishop Goldwell in the
correction of the Roman Breviary and Missal, so towards the
close of his life, in 1582, he was appointed by Gregory the
Thirteenth a member of the Congregation for the revision of
the Roman Martyrology.^
The Bishop of St. Asaph's life was now drawing very near
its close. The death of Watson, Bishop of Lincoln, in
Wisbeach Castle on 27th September, 1584, had left him the
sole survivor of the English hierarchy. But he was not long
to outlive his brethren. The foUowing year, 3rd April, 1585,*
he died at St. Sylvester's, 'fortified with the last Sacraments,
in his eighty-fifth year. On his deathbed he predicted that
the Sovereign Pontiff, Gregory the Thirteenth, would die
within a few days ; and though the Pope was at that time
well enough to be able to hold a Consistory on the following
Monday, two days later, namely, on Wednesday, which was
the seventh day after Godwell's death, he expired.' The
Bishop of St. Asaph was buried in the cemetery of St.
Sylvester's and his funeral was attended by the principal
English gentlemen at Rome, who bewailed in him one who
had been to them a refuge in their exile, and whom they
loved and venerated as a father. He was also tenderly
lamented by his fathers and brothers in religion, to whom he
had endeared himself by many years of loving intimacy.
And as the purity and sincerity of his heart, says Father Tufo,
shone in his face, so did he ever bear himself with a gay and
cheerful demeanour towards all men, but especially towards
' Tufo, 47 ; Silos, i. 638.
2 Tufo, 47 ; Castaldo, 243 ; Silos, i. 637. Wood, whom other
English writers follow, gives the date incorrectly. Strype is correct as
to the year. He says : " Anno 1559. Goldwell . , . went privately
away beyond the sea. . . . [He] lived afterwards at Rome twenty-six
years, and there died" (Annals, vol. i., pt. i., p. 215).
\Silos, i. 639.

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 261
his brothers in religion, with whom he was very courteous
and affable in his manners. He was very strict in following
all the regular observances of the community, and until his
last illness, though he had been a bishop thirty years, he
always went to the common refectory, nor would he allow
anything additional to be set before him. It was with great
difficulty that the fathers prevailed upon him to add to his
morning meal two eggs, which they thought his advanced age
rendered absolutely indispensable. In like manner he was
most regular in attending the choir, and, up to the end of his
life, he used to rise every night with the fathers to say
Matins. He had a particular devotion to the Most Holy
Sacrament, and made a practice of saying the first Mass at
St. Sylvester's, every morning, winter and summer.' He
would never accept any privilege or dispensation from the
rule on account of his episcopal dignity ; and he was not
only most exact himself in regular observance, but, when
Superior, he insisted on no less exactness in others, alleging
as a reason that the religious state is an hospital for souls not
bodies, and. that our chief solicitude should be about the
former, not the latter. He gave a remarkable proof of this
in the Ulness of which he died; for though repeatedly pressed
to do so, he never would show the slightest wish for anything
but what the infirmarian had got ready for him, and he would
say to the brother, "Prepare what God inspires you with,
and I will eat as much of it as I am able".^ Cardinal
Baronius, in his notes on the Roman Martyrology, published
in 1586, has left the following testimony to the high esteem
in which he held Bishop GoldweU. After referring to the
accounts older writers have given of the miracles worked at
St. Winifred's Well, he adds : " But I have heard greater
things than these from a most faithful eyewitness, the most
i Tufo, 47. ^ Castaldo, 243.

252 CATHOLIC HIERARCHY.
reverend Thomas, Bishop of St. Asaph, suffiagan of the
Roman Pontiff for the performance of episcopal functions, a
man conspicuous for holiness of life, the confession of the
faith, and learning, who lately died at Rome, to the sorrow
of all good persons." ? Nicholas Sanders, or rather Sanders'
continuator, Rishton, when reckoning up the bishops who
had been deprived of their sees by Queen Elizabeth at the
beginning of her reign, says : " Thomas Goldwell, Bishop of
St. Asaph, lived for twenty-six years full of piety and days at
Rome, and not long since died most happily and holily in
the Lord ".^ At the beginning of the last century there was
a portrait of Goldwell stUl existing in the Theatine Convent
at Ravenna. It bore this inscription : "R.D, Thomas Gould-
wellus, Ep. Asaph. Trident. Concilio contra hsereticos et in
Anglia contra Elizabeth Fidei confessor conspicuus ".''
There is another portrait of him in the English College at
Rome. Thus lived and died Thomas Goldwell, the last Bishop of
St. Asaph, in whom ended that long line of bishops who for
nearly one thousand years, from St. Augustine downwards,
had ruled and fed Christ's flock in England. This ancient
hierarchy has passed away with that England which knew but
one Christian faith and one spiritual Sovereign. Since then,
a new hierarchy has taken its place, the creation of the same
hand which caUed its predecessor into being. Pius the
' Baronius, Martyrologium Romanum, November 3. St. Philip
Neri must have been well acquainted with Bishop Goldwell, since,
according to a Theatine writer, the Saint " used often to come to our
house of St. Sylvester " {Vita di Orsola Benicasa, p. 75. By Bagatta,
Clerico Regolare. "Venetia, 1671).
^ Sanders, De Schismate Angl., lib. iii. Sanders mentions that he
was himself ordained priest by Bishop Goldwell (De visib. Monarch.,
p. 662).
' Addison's Travels through Italy and Switzerland in the years
1701, 1702, 1703. Mavor's Collection, vol. xiv., p. 55.

BISHOP THOMAS GOLDWELL. 263
Ninth has done in our day what St. Gregory the Great did in
his. But the memory of the saints, martyrs, and saintly raen
who once filled those elder sees has not passed away.
Their deeds and sufferings are still as household words
among us. And therefore it is pleasant to reflect that, when
England's ancient hierarchy came to an end, its last survivor
was one whose life had proved him not unworthy of such
ancestry.

THE END.

SELECTION

BURNS c^ OATES'

Catalogue

PUBLICATIONS

LONDON: BURNS AND OATES, Ld.
ORCHARD ST., "W., & 63 PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
NEW YORK : 9 BARCLAY STREET.

NEW BOOKS.
Holy 'Wisdom ; or, Directions for the Prayer of Contemplation, &c.
Extracted from Treatises written by the 'Ven. Father F. AUGUS
TIN Baker, O.S.B., and edited by Abbot Sweeney, D.D. A
new Edition. Crown 8vo., bound in half leather, 6s.
A Memoir of the late Sir James Marshall, C.M.G., K.C.S.G-.,
taken chiefly from his own letters. By the 'Very Rev. Canon
Brownlow, 'V.G. With Portrait. Crown Svo, cloth, 3s. 6d.
A Martyr from the Quarter-deck— Alexis Clerc, S.J, By
Lady Herbert. Quarterly series. Cloth, 5s.
The Blind Apostle and A Heroine of Charity. By the late
Kathleen O'Meara. 'Vol. III., "Bells of the Sanctuary"
Series. Crown Svo, cloth, gilt. 4s. 6d.
Lady Merton. A Tale of the Eternal City. By J. C. Heywood,
Author of "Herodias," "Antonius," "Salome," "Sforza," &c.
In Two Vols. Cloth, Ss.
Life of the Blessed Angelina Marsciano, Foundress of the
Third Order Regular of St. Francis of Assisi. By the Hon. Mrs.
Montgomery. Fcap, Svo, cloth, 2s. 6d.
The Christian 'Virgin in her Family and in the World. Her
Virtues and her Mission at the Present Time. From the Third
French Edition. Fcap Svo, half-bound in leather, gilt top,
price 6s.
Peter's Eock in Mohammed's Flood. ByT. 'W. Allies, K.C.S.G.
This forms the seventh volume of Mr. Allies' great work on the
"Formation of Christendom." Demy Svo, cloth, los. 6d.
Meditations on the Gospels for every Day in the Tear. By
the Rev. P. Medaille. Translated into English from the new
Edition, enlarged by the Besanfon Missionaries, under the direc
tion of the Rev. W. H. Eyre, S.J. Crown Svo, cloth, 6s. (This
work has already been translated into Latin, Italian, Spanish,
German, and Dutch.)
The Life and Labours of St. Thomas Aquin. By Archbishop
Vaughan, O.S.B. Abridged and edited by Dom Jerome
Vaughan, O.S.B. Second Edition. (Volume I., Benedictine
Library.) Crown Svo, cloth, 6s. 6d.
Mary in the Epistles ; or. The Implicit Teaching of the Apostles
concerning the Blessed Virgin set forth in devout comments on
their writings. Illustrated from Fathers and other Authors, and
prefaced by Introductory Chapters, by the Rev. T. Livius,
C.SS.R. Crown Svo, cloth, 5s.
The Science of the Saints in Practice. By Joh n Baptist Pagani,
Second General of the Institute of Charity. Complete in three
volumes. Price 5s. per volume.
Life and Writings of Sir Thomas More, Lord High Chancellor
of England and Martyr under Henry VIII. By the Rev. T. E.
Bridgett, C.SS.R. (Ready in March.)

No. I. 1891.
SELECTION FROM
BURNS AND OATES' CATALOGUE
OF PUBLICATIONS. — "^^^^^ <-«-«" —
ALLIES, T. W. (K.O. S.G.)
Formation of Christendom. Vol. I., (out of print.)
Vols. II. , III  each £o 12 o
Church and State as seen in the Formation of Christen
dom, Svo, pp. 472, cloth  o 14 o
The Throne of the Fisherman, built by the Carpenter's
Son, the Root, the Bond, and the Crown of Christ
endom. Demy Svo  ; o 10 6
The Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations.
Demy Svo  o 10 6
Peter's Rock in Mohammed's Flood. Demy Svo. . o 10 6
"It would be quite superfluous at this hourof the day to recommend
Mr. Allies' writings to English Catholics. Those of our readers who
remember the article on his writings in the KathoHk, know that
he is esteemed in Germany as one of our foremost writers." —
Dublin Review.
ALLIES, MARY.
Leaves from St. John Chrysostom, With introduction
by T. W. AUies, K.C. S.G. Crown Svo, cloth . 060
"Miss Allies ' Leaves ' are delightful reading; the English is re
markably pure and graceful ; page after page reads as if it were
original. No commentator, Catholic or Protestant, has ever sur
passed St, John Chrysostom in the knowledge of Holy Scripture,
and his learning was of a kind which is of service now as it was at
the time when tne inhabitants of a great city hung on his words." —
Tablet.
ALLNATT, 0. P. B.
Cathedra Petri. Third and Enlarged Edition. Paper. 050
*' Invaluable to the controversialist and the theologian, and most
useful for educated men inquiring after truth or anxious to know
the positive testimony of Christian antiquity in favour of Papal
claims." — Month.
¦Which is the True Church ? Fifth Edition . .014
The Church and the Sects  010
Ditto, Ditto. Second Series. . . .016
ANNUS SANCTUS :
Hymns of the Church for the Ecclesiastical 'Vear.
Translated from the Sacred Offices by various
Authors, with Modem, Original, and other Hymns,
and an Appendix of Earlier Versions. Selected and
Arranged by Orby Shipley, M.A.
Popular edition, in two parts . . each 010
In stiff boards  036
Plain Cloth, lettered .... .050
Edition de luxe . , . . o 10 6

SELECTION FROM BURNS ^^ OATES' ,

ANSWERS TO ATHEISTS: OR NOTES ON
IngersoU. By the Rev. A. Lambert, (over 100,000 copies
sold in America). Ninth edition. Paper. . . . £0 o 6
Cloth . .  010
B.N. . .
The Jesuits : their Foundation and History, 2 vols.
crown Svo, cloth, red edges . . . , . o 15 o
"The book is just what it professes to be — a fopular history,
drawn from well-known sources, ' &c. — Month.
BORROMEO, LIFE OF ST. CHARLES.
From the Italian of Peter Guissano. 2 vols. . . o 15 o
. *'A standard work, which has stood the test of succeeding ages; it
is certainly the finest work on St. Charles in an English dress." —
Tablet.
BOWDEN, REV. H. S. (ofthe Oratory) Edited by.
Dante's Divina Commedia : Its scope and value.
From the German of Francis Hettinger, D.D.
With an engraving of Dante. Crown Svo , . o 10 6
"All that Venturi attempted to do has been now approached with
far greater power and learning by Dr. Hettinger, who, as the author
of the 'Apologie des Christenthunis,'and as a great Catholic theolo
gian, is eminently well qualified for the task he has undertaken." —
The Saturday Review.
Natural Religion. Being Vol. I. of Dr, Hettinger's
Evidences of Christianity. Edited, with an Intro
duction on Certainty, by the Rev. H. S, Bowden.
Crown Svo, cloth  076
(Other volumes in preparation.)
*' As an able statement of the Catholic Doctrine of Certitude, and
a defence, from the Romanist point of view, of the truth of Christian
ity, it was well worth while translating Dr. Franz Hettinger's
* Apologie des Christenthums,' of which the first part is now pub
lished." — Scotsman.
BRIDGETT, REV. T. E. (C.SS.R.).
Discipline of Drink  036
"The historical information with which the book abounds gives
evidenceof deep research and patient study, and imparts a per
manent interest to the volume, which will elevate it to a position
of authority and importance enjoyed by few of its compeers." — The
Arrow. Our Lady's Dowry ; how England Won that Title.
New and Enlarged Edition  050
*'This book is the ablest vindication of Catholic devotion to Our
Lady, drawn from tradition, that we know of in the English lan
guage. " — Tablet.
Ritual of the New Testament. An essay on the prin
ciples and origin of Catholic Ritual in reference to
the New Testament. Third edition . . .050
The Life of the Blessed John Fisher. With a repro
duction of the famous portrait of Blessed John
Fisher by Holbein, and other Illustrations. 2nd Ed. 076
_ "The Life of Blessed John Fisher could hardlyfail to be interest
ing and instructive. Sketched by Father Bridgett's practised pen,
the portrait of this holy martyr is no less vividly displayed in the
printed pages ofthe book than in the wonderful picture of Holbein,
which forms the frontispiece."— rai&A

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS.

BRIDGETT, REV. T. E. {O.^B.'R)-continued.
The True Story of the Catholic Hierarchy deposed by
Queen Elizabeth, with fuller Memoirs of its Last
Two Survivors. By the Rev. T. E. Bridgett,
C.SS.R., and the late Rev. T. F. Knox, D.D., of
the London Oratory. Crown Svo, cloth, ^o 7 6
" We gladly acknowledge the value of this work on a subject which
has been obscured by prejudice and carelessness." — Saturday Review.
BRIDGETT, REV. T. E. (C.SS.R.), Edited by.
Souls Departed. By Cardinal Allen. First pub
lished in 1565, now edited in modern spelling by the
Rev. T. E. Bridgett  060
BROWNE, REV. R. D. :
Plain Sermons. Sixty-eight Plain Sermons on the
Fundamental Truths of the Catholic Church.
Crown Svo . . . . . . . . 060
" These are good sermons. . . . Thegreat merit of which is that
they might be read verbatim to any congregation, and they would
be understood and appreciated by the uneducated almost as fully as
by the cultured. They have been carefully put together; their
language is simple and their matter is solid." — Catholic News.
BUCKLER, REV. H. REGINALD (O.P.)
The Perfection of Man by Charity : a. Spiritual
Treatise. Crown Svo, cloth. . . . o 5 ' o
"We have read this unpretending,, but solid and edifying work,
with much pleasure, and heartily commend it to our readers. ...
Its scope is sufficiently explained by the title." — The Month,
OASWALL, FATHER.
Catholic Latin Instructor in the Principal Churcb
Offices and Devotions, for the Use of Choirs, Con
vents, and Mission Schools, and for Self-Teaching.
I vol., complete  036
Or Part \. , containing Benediction, Mass, Serving at
Mass, and various Latin Prayers in ordinary use . o I 6
May Pageant : A Tale of Tintern. (A Poem) Second
edition  020
Poems  050
Lyra Catholica, containing all the Breviary and Missal
Hymns, with others from various sources. 32mo,
cloth, red edges  026
CATHOLIC BELIEF: OR, A SHORT AND
Simple Exposition of Catholic Doctrine. By the
Very Rev. Joseph Fai di Bruno, D.D. Tenth
edition  Price 6d. ; post free, o o 8J
Cloth, lettered, . . . . . . . o o 10
Also an edition on better paper and bound in cloth, with
gilt lettering and steel frontispiece . . . ,020

SELECTION FROM BURNS &- OATES'

OHALLONERi BISHOP.
Meditations for every day in the year. New edition.
Revised and edited by the Right Rev. John Virtue,
D.D., Bishop of Portsmouth. Svo. sth edition . ;^o 3 o
And in other bindings.
COLERIDGE, REV. H. J. {S.Z:)(See Quarterly Series.)
DEHARBE, FATHER JOSEPH, (S.J.)
A History of Religion, or the Evidences of the
Divinity of the Christian Religion, as furnished by
its History from the Creation of the World to
our own Times. Designed as a Help to Cate
chetical Instruction in Schools and Churches.
Pp. 628  net o 8 6
DEVAS, 0. S.
Studies of Family Life : a contribution to Social
Science. Crown Svo  050
"We recommend these pages and the remarkable evidence brought
together in them to the careful attention of all who are interested in
the well-being of our common humanity." — Guardian.
*'Both thoughtful and'stimulating." — Saturday Review.
DRANE, AUGUSTA THEODOSIA.
History of St. Catherine of Siena and her Companions.
A new edition in two vols  o 12 6
**It has been reserved for the author ofthe present work to give us
a complete biography of St. Catherine. . . . Perhaps the greatest
success of the.writer is the way in which she has contrived to make
the Saint herself live in the pages of the book." — Tablet.
EYRE, MOST REV. CHARLES, (Abp. of Glasgow).
The History of St. Cuthbert : or, An Account of his
Life, Decease, and Miracles. Third edition. Illus
trated with maps, charts, &c., and handsomely
bound in cloth. Royal Svo  o 14 o
"A handsome, well appointed volume, in every way worthy o its
illustrious subject. . . . The chief impression of the whole is the
picture ofa great and good man drawn by a sympathetic hand." —
Spectator. FABER, REV. FREDERICK WILLIAM, (D.D.
All for Jesus  050
Bethlehem  070
Blessed Sacrament  076
Creator and Creature  060
Ethel's Book of the Angels  050
Foot of the Cross  060
Growth in Holiness  06
Hymns  060
Notes on Doctrinal and Spiritual Subjects, 2 vols, each 050
Poems , . . , , , _ _ .oi;o
Precious Blood  050
Sir Lancelot .•.•... ..050

o

o

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS.

FABER, REV. FREDERICK WILLIAM, iji:^:^— continued.
Spiritual Conferences  ;^o 6 o
Life and Letters of Frederick William Faber, D. D. ,
Priest of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri. By John
Edward Bowden of the same Congregation . .060
FOLEY, REV. HENRY, (S.J.)
Records of the English Provmce of the Society of
Jesus. Vol. I., Series I. . . . . net 160
Vol. IL, Series IL, IIL, IV. . . . net I 6 o
Vol. IIL, Series v., VL, VIL, VIII. . . net i 10 o
Vol. IV. Series IX., X., XI. . . . net i 6 o
Vol. v., Series XII. with nine Photographs of
Martyrs  net I 10 o
Vol. VI. , Diary and Pilgrim-Book of the English Col
lege, Rome. The Diary from 1579 to 1773, with
Biographical and Historical Notes. The Pilgrim-
Book of the Ancient English Hospice attached to
the College from 1580 to 1656, with Historical
Notes  net 160
Vol. VII. Part the First : General Statistics of the Pro
vince ; and Collectanea, giving Biographical Notices
of its Members and of many Irish and Scotch Jesuits.
With 20 Photographs  net 160
Vol. VII. Part the Second : Collectanea, Completed ;
With Appendices. Catalogues of Assumed and Real
Names: Annual Letters; Biographies and Miscel
lanea. ....... net 160
**As a biographical dictionary of English Jesuits, it deserves a
place in every well-selected library, and, as a collection of marvel
lous occurrences, persecutions, martyrdoms, and evidences of the
results of faith, amongst the books of all who belong to the Catholic
C^\xt^."— Genealogist.
FORMBY, REV. HENRY.
Monotheism : in the main derived from the Hebrew
nation and the Law of Moses. The Primitive Reli
gion of the City of Rome. An historical Investiga
tion. Demy Svo.  050
FRANCIS DE SALES, ST. : THE WORKS OF.
Translated into the English Language by the Very Rev.
Canon Mackey, O.S.B., under the direction of the
Right Rev. Bishop Hedley, O.S.B.
Vol. I. Letters to Persons in the Worid. Cloth . 060
*' The letters must be read in order to comprehend the charm and
sweetness of their style." — Tablet.
Vol. II.— The Treatise on the Love of God. Father
Carr's translation of 1630 has been taken as a basis,
but it has been modernized and thoroughly revised
and corrected.  .090
"To those who are seeking perfection by the path of contemplation
this volume will be an armoury of help."--.S"<»/wr(/«^ Review.

SELECTION FROM BURNS 6- OATES*

FRANCIS DE SALES, ST, : WORKS OY— continued.
Vol. III. The Catholic Controversy. . . . ,?^o 6 o
"Noone who hasnot read it can conceive how clear, how convinc
ing, and how well adapted to our present needs are these controversial
* leaves.*" — Tablet..
Vol. IV. Letters to Persons in Religion, with intro
duction by Bishop Hedley on "St. Francis de Sales
and the Religious State." . . . .' , 060
"The sincere piety and goodness, the grave wisdom, the knowledge
of human nature, the tenderness for its weakness, and the desire for
its perfection that pervade the letters,'make them pregnant of in
struction tor all serious persons. The translation and editing have
been admirably done."-^-LS'co/j?«ii«.
*jt* Other vols, in preparation.
GALLWEY, REV. PETER, (S.J.)
Precious Pearl of Hope in the Mercy of God, The.
Translated from the Italian. With Preface by the
Rev. Father Gallwey. Cloth  046
Lectures on Ritualism and on the Anglican Orders.
2 vols. ( Or may be had separately. ) 080
Salvage frora the Wreck. A few Memories of the
Dead, preserved in Funeral Discourses. With
Portraits. Crown Svo. . ...076
GIBSON, REV. H.
Catechism Made Easy. Being an Explanation of the
Christian Doctrine. Fourth edition. 2 vols., cloth 076
"This work must be of priceless worth to any who are engaged in
any form of catechetical instruction. It is the best book of the kind
that we have seen in English." — Irish Monthly.
GILLOW, JOSEPH.
Literary and Biographical History, or. Bibliographical
Dictionary of the Enghsh Catholics. From the
Breach with Rome, in 1534, to the Present Time.
Vols. /., //. and III, cloth, demy Sz/o , . eack. o 15 o
*^* Other vols, in preparation.
*'The patient research of Mr. Gillow, his conscientious record of
minute particulars, and especially his exhaustive bibliographical in
formation in connection with each name, are beyond praise." — British
Quarterly Remeiv.
The Haydock Papers. Illustrated. Demy Svo. . 076
*' We commend this collection to the attention of every one that
is interested in the records of the sufferings and struggles of our
ancestors to hand down the faith to their children. It is in the
perusal of such details that we bring home to ourselves the truly
heroic sacrifices that our forefathers endured in those dark and
dismal times." — Tablet.
GROWTH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF OUR LORD.
Meditations for every Day in the Year, exclusive of
those for Festivals, Days of Retreat, &c. Adapted
from the original of Abbe de Brandt, by Sister Mary
Fidelis. A new and Improved Edition, in 3 Vols.
Sold only in sets. Price per set, . . . .126
"The praise, though high, bestowed on these excellent meditations
by the Bishop of Salford is well deserved. The language, like good
spectacles, spreads treasures before our vision without attracting
attention to itself." — Dublin Review.

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS.

HEDLEY, BISHOP.
Our Divine Saviour, and other Discourses. Crown
Svo  ^06
_**A distinct and noteworthy feature of these sermons is, we cer
tainly think, their freshness — freshness of thought, treatment, and
style ; nowhere do We meet pulpJt commonplace or hackneyed phrase
— ever3rwhere, on the contrary," it is the heart of the preacher pouring
out to his flock his own deep convictions, enforcing them from the
'Treasures, old and new,' ofa cultivated mind." — Dublin Review.
HUMPHREY, REV. W. (S.J.)
Suarez on the Religious State : A Digest of the Doc
trine contained in his Treatise, * 'De StatH Religionis ."
3 vols., pp. 1200. Cloth, roy. Svo. . . . i 10
"This laborious and skilfully executed work is a distinct addition
to English theological literature. Father Humphrey's style is quiet,
methodical, precise, and as clear as the subject admits. Every one
will be struck with the air of legal exposition which pervades the
book. He takes a grip of his author, under which the text yields
up every atom of its meaning and force." — Dublin Review..
The One Mediator; or, Sacrifice and Sacraments.
Crown Svo, cloth  05
"An exceedingly accurate theological exposition of doctrines
¦which are the life of Christianity and which make up the soul of the
Christian religion. ... A profound work, but so far from being
¦dark, obscure, and of metaphysical difficulty, the meaning of each
paragraph shines with a crystalline clearness." — Tablet.
KING, FRANCIS.
The Church of my Baptism, and why I returned to
it. Crown Svo, cloth  02
" A book of the higher controversial criticism. Its literary style
is good, its controversial manner excellent, and its writer's emphasis
¦does not escape in itaHcs and notesof exclamation, but is all reserved
for lucid and cogent reasoning. Altogether a book of an excellent
spirit, written with freshness and distinction."— J^ff^/j' Register.
LEDOUX, REV. S. M. ^ , r
History of the Seven Holy Founders of the Order of
the Servants of Mary. Crown Svo, cloth . .04
"Throws a full light upon the Seven Saints recently canonized,
whom we see as they really were. All that was marvellous in their
call, their works, and their death is given with the charm of a
picturesque and speaking s,ty\s."— Messenger ofthe Sacred Heart.
LEE, REV. F. G., D.D. (of All Saints, Lambeth.)
Edward the Sixth : Supreme Head. Second edition.
Crown Svo  • . . • ° ^
" In vivid interest and in literary power, no less than in solid his
torical value. Dr. Lee's present work comes fully up to the standard
of its predecessors; and to say that is to bestow high praise. The
took evinces Dr. Lee's customary diligence of research in amassing
facts, and his rare artistic power in welding them into a harmonious
and effective whole." — John Bull.
LIFE OF FATHER CHAMPAGNAT
Founder of the Society of the Little Brothers of Mary.
Containing a portrait of Fr. Champagnat, and four
full page illustrations. Demy Svo . . . . 08
"A serious and able essay on the science and art of the Christian
«ducation of children, exemplified in the, career of oiie who, gave his
life to it." — Dublin Review.

SELECTION FROM BURNS &= OATES'

LIGUORI, ST. ALPHONSUS.
New and Improved Translation of the Complete Works
of St. Alphonsus, edited by the late Bishop Coffin : —
Vol. I. The Christian Virtues, and the Means for Ob
taining them . Cloth elegant  £0 4 O
Or separately : —
I. The Love of our Lord Jesus Christ . . .014
2. Treatise on Prayer, (in the ordinary editions a
great fart of ihis work is omitted) . , .014
3. A Chnstian's rule of Life  010
Vol. II. The Mysteries ot the Faith — The Incarnation ;
containing Meditations and Devotions on the Birth
and Infancy of Jesus Christ, &c. , suited for Advent
and Christmas  036
Cheap edition  020
Vol. III. The Mysteries of the Faith— The Blessed
Sacrament  036
Cheap edition  020
Vol. IV. Etemal Truths— Preparation for Death . 036
Cheap edition  020
Vol.V. The Redemption Meditations on the Passion,
containing " Jesus hath loved us," &c. . .030
Or separately : — Jesus hath loved us. . . .009
Cheap edition . . . . . . .020
Vol. VI. Glories of Mary. New edition . . .036"
With Frontispiece, cloth  046
LIVIUS, REV. T. (M.A., C.SS.R.)
" St. Peter, Bishop of Rome ; or, the Roman Episcopate
of the Prince of the Apostles, proved from the
Fathers, History and Chronology, and illustrated by
arguments frora other sources. Dedicated to his
Eminence Cardinal Newman. Demy Svo, cloth . o 12 o
** A book which deserves careful attention. In respect of literary
qualities, such as effective arrangement, and correct and lucid
diction, this essay, by an English Catholic scholar, is not unworthy
of Cardinal Newman, to whom it is dedicated." — The Sun.
Explanation of the Psalms and Canticles in the Divine
Office. By St. Alphonsus Liguori. Translated
from the Itahan by Thomas Livius, C.SS.R.
With a Preface by his Eminence Cardinal Manning.
Crown Svo, cloth  076
** To nuns and others who know little or no Latin, the book will
be of immense importance." — Dublin Review.
** Father Livius has in our opinion even improved on the original,
so far as the arrangement of the book goes. New priests will find
it especially usetul." — M 071th.
Mary in the Epistles ; or, The Implicit Teaching of
the Apostles concerning the Blessed Virgin, set
forth in devout comments on their writmgs.
Illustrated from Fathers and other Authors, and
prefaced by introductory Chapters. Crown Svo.
Cloth  050

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS.

Sth edition. Wrapper
3rd edition. Wrapper

Sth edition
gth edition.

Wrapper

MANNING, CARDINAL.
England and Christendom
Four Great Evils of the Day.
Cloth
Fourfold Sovereignty of God.
Cloth
Glories of the Sacred Heart.
Grounds of Faith. Cloth.
Cloth ....
Independence of the Holy See. 2nd edition .
Internal Mission of the Holy Ghost. 5th edition
Miscellanies. 3 vols  the set
National Education. Wrapper
Cloth 
Petri Privilegium ....
Religio Viatoris. 3rd edition, cloth
Wrapper .....
Sermons on Ecclesiastical Subjects. Vols. I., II..
and III  each
Sin and its Consequences. 7th edition
Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost. 3rd edition
Temporal Power of the Pope. 3rd edition
True Story of the Vatican Council. 2nd edition
The Eternal Priesthood. Sth edition
The Office of the Church in the Higher Catholi
Education. A Pastoral Letter
Workings ofthe Holy Spirit in the Church of England.
Reprint of a letter addressed to Dr. Pusey in 1864
Wrapper .
Cloth
Lost Sheep Found. A Sermon
On Education ....
Rights and Dignity of Labour
The Westminster Series
In handy pocket size.
The Blessed Sacrament, the Centre of Immutabl
Truth, Wrapper
Confidence in God. Wrapper ....
Or the two bound together. Cloth
Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ according
to St. John. Cloth 
Holy Ghost the Sanctifier. Cloth .
Love of Jesus to Penitents. Wrapper
Cloth 
Office of the Holy Ghost under the Gospel. Cloth

0

10

6

0

2

6

0

?<

6

0

2

fr

0

.S

6

0

6

0

0

I

o-

0

I

6

0

S

0

0

8

6

0

18

0

0

2

0

0

2

6

0

10

6

0

2

0

0

I

0

0

6

0

0

6

0

0

8

6

0

.¦5

0

0

S

0

0

2

6

MANNING, CARDINAL, Edited by.
Life of the Cure of Ars. Popular edition

SELECTION FROM BURNS &- OATES*

MIVART, PROF. ST. GEORGE (M.D., F.R.S.)
Nature and Thought. Second edition . . . ^o 4 o
"The complete command of the subject, the wide grasp, the
subtlety, the readiness of illustration, the grace of style, contrive
to render this one of the most admirable books of its class."—
British Quarterly Review.
A Philospphical Catechism. Fifth edition . 010
'* It should become the vade tnecutn of Catholic students." — Tablet.
MONTGOMERY, HON. MRS.
Approved by the Most Rev. George Porter, Archbishop of
Bombay.
The Divine Sequence : A Treatise on Creation and
Redemption. Cloth  036
The Eternal Years. With an Introduction by the
Most Rev. George Porter, Archbishop of Bombay.
Cloth  036
The Divine Ideal. Cloth . . . . . .036
"A work of original thought carefully developed and expressed in
lucid and richly imaged style." — Tablet.
" The writing of a pious, thoughtful, earnest woman." — Church
Revietx], "Full of truth, and sound reason, and confidence." — American
Catholic Book News.
MORRIS, REV. JOHN (S.J.)
Letter Books of Sir Amias Poulet, keeper of Mary
Queen of Scots. Demy Svo  0106
Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers, -related by them
selves. Second Series. Svo, cloth. . . . o 14 o
Third Series . . . . . . . o 14 o
The Life of Father John Gerard, S.J. Third edition,
rewritten and enlarged  o 14 o
The Life and Martyrdom of St. Thomas Becket. Second
and enlarged edition. In one volume, large post Svo,
cloth, pp. xxxvi., 632,  o 12 6
or bound in two parts, cloth  o 13 o
MORRIS, REV. W. B. (of the Oratory.)
The Life of St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland. Fourth
edition. Crown Svo, cloth  05°
"The secret of Father Morris's success is, that he has got the
proper key to the extraordinary, the mysterious life and character of
St. Patrick. He has taken the Saint's own authentic writings as
the foundation whereon to huWi."— Irish Ecclesiastical Record.
" Promises to become the standard biography of Ireland's Apostle.
¦ For clear statement of facts, and calm judicious discussion of con
troverted points, it surpasses any work we know of in the literature
of the subject." — American Catholic Quarterly.
MURPHY, J. N.
Chair of Peter. Third edition, with the statistics, &c.,
brought down to the present day. 720 pages.
Crown Svo  060
"In a series of clearly written chapters, precise in statement,
excellently temperate in tone, the author deals with just those
questions regarding the power, claims, and history of the
Roman Pontiff which are at the present time of most actual interest."
'—Dublin Review.

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS. 13

NEWMAN, CARDINAL.
Church of the Fathers  ;^o 4 o-
Prices of other works by Cardinal Newman on
application.
NORTHCOTE, VERY REV. J. S. (D.D.)
Roma Sotterranea; or, An Account of the Roman
Catacombs. New edition. Re-written and greatly
enlarged. This work is in three volumes, which
may at present be had separately —
Vol. I. History  [40
Vol. II. Christian Art. . . . . .140
Vol. III. Epitaphs of the Catacombs o 10 o
The Second and Third Volumes may also be had
bound together in cloth . . . . .1120
Visit to the Roman Catacombs : Being a popular
abridgment of the larger work. . . . .040
Mary in the Gospels .  036
PAYNE, JOHN ORLEBAR, (M.A.)
Recordsof the English Catholics of 171S. Demy Svo.
Half-bound, gilt top  o 15 o
"A book of the kind Mr. Payne has given us would have astonish
ed Bishop Milner or Dr. Lingard. They would have treasured it,
for both of them knew the value of minute fragments of historical
information. The Editor has derived nearly the whole of the inform
ation which he has given, from unprinted sources, and we must
congratulate him on having found a few incidents here and there
which may bring the old times back before us in a most touching
manner." — Tablet.
English Catholic Non-Jurors of 1715. Being a Sum
mary of the Register of their Estates, with Genea
logical and other Notes, and an Appendix of
Unpublished Documents m the Public Record
Office. In one Volume. Demy Svo. . .110
"Most carefully and creditably brought out . . . From first to last.
full of social interest and biographical details, for which we may
search in vain elsewhere." — Antiquarian Magazine.
Old English Catholic Missions. DemySvo, half-bound. o 7 &
" A book to hunt about in for curious odds and ends." — Saturday
Review. " , . . .. , . . , .
" These registers tell us in their too brief records, teenjing with inter-
est for all their scantiness, many a tale of patient heroism." — Tablet.
POOR SISTERS OF NAZARETH, THE.
A descriptive Sketch of Convent Life. By Alice Meynell.
Profusely Illustrated with Drawings especially made
by George Lambert. Large 4to. Boards . 026
A limited number cf copies are also issued as an Edition
deLu'xe, containing proofs of the illustrations printed
on one side only of the pai)er,and handsomely bound. 0106
"Bound in a most artistic cover, illustrated with a naturalness
that could only have been born of powerful sympathy ; printed clearly,
neatly, and on excellent paper, and written with the point, aptness,
and ripeness of style which we have learnt to associate with Mrs.
Meynell's literature."— ro^/s^

14 SELECTION FROM BURNS S^ OATES'

QUARTERLY SERIES Edited by the Rev. H. J.
Coleridge, S.J. 74 volumes pubhshed to date.
Se'tection.
The Life and Letters of St. Francis Xavier. By the
Rev. H. J. Coleridge, S.J. 2 vols. . . . ;^o 10 6
The History of the Sacred Passion. By Father Luis
de la Palma, of the Society of Jesus. Translated
from the Spanish.  050
The Life of Dona Louisa de Carvajal. By Lady
Georgiana Fullerton. Small edition . . .036
The Life and Letters of St. Teresa. 3 vols. By Rev.
H. J. Coleridge, S.J  each 076
The Life of Mary Ward. By Mary Catherine Elizabeth
Chalmers, of the Institute of the Blessed Virgin.
Edited by the Rev. H. J. Coleridge, S.J. 2 vols. o 15 o
The Retum of the King. Discourses on the Latter
Days. By the Rev. H. J. Coleridge, S.J. . . 076
Pious Affections towards God and the Saints. Medi
tations for every Day in the Year, and for the
Principal Festivals. From the Latin of the Ven.
Nicolas Lancicius, S.J.  076
The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ in Meditations
for Every Day in the Year. By Fr. Nicolas
Avancino, S.J. Two vols  o 10 6
The Baptism of the King : Considerations on the Sacred
Passion. By the Rev. H. J. Coleridge, S.J. . . 076
The Mother of the King. Mary during the Life of
Our Lord  076
The Hours of the Passion. Taken from the Life of
Christ by Ludolph the Saxon . . . .076
The Mother of the Church. Mary during the first
Apostolic Age  060
The Life of St. Bridget of Sweden. By the late F. J.
M. A. Partridge ... ...060
The Teachings and Counsels of St. Francis Xavier.
From his Letters . . . . . , .050
Garcia Moreno, President of Ecuador. 1821 — 1875.
From the French ofthe Rev. P. A. Berthe, C.SS.R.
By Lady Herbert . . . . . . .076
The Life of St. Alonso Rodriguez. By Francis
Goldie, of the Society of Jesus . . . .076
Letters of St. Augustine. Selected and arranged by
Mary H. Allies .  066
A Martyr from the Quarter-Deck — Alexis Clerc, S.J.
By Lady Herbert . . . . . . .050
Volumes on the Life of Our Lore^
The Holy Infancy.
The Preparation of the Incarnation . . . .076
The Nine Months. The Life of our Lord in the Womb. 076
The Thirty Years. Our Lord's Infancy and Early Life. 076
The Public Life of Our Lord.
The Ministry of St. John Baptist ... 066

CATALOGUE OF PUBLICATIONS. 15

QUARTERLY SERIES— (j^/^^wk) continued.
The Preaching of the Beatitudes .... £0 6 6
The Sermon on the Mount. Continued. 2 Parts, each 066
The Training ofthe Apostles. Parts I., II., III., IV.
each  066
The Preaching of the Cross. Part I. . 066
The Preaching ofthe Cross. Parts II,, III. each 060
Passiontide. Parts I. and II. , each . . . .066
Chapters on the Parables of Our Lord . . .076
Introductory Volumes.
The Life of our Life. Harmony of the Life of Our
Lord, with Introductory Chapters and Indices.
Second edition. Two vols  o 15 o
The Works and Words of our .Saviour, gathered from
the Four Gospels  076
The Story of the Gospels. Harmonised for Meditation 076
Full lists on application.
RAM, MRS. ABEL.
"Emmanuel." Being the Life of Our Lord Jesus
Christ reproduced in the Mysteries ofthe Tabernacle.
By Mrs. Abel Ram, author of "The most Beautiful
among the Children of Men," &c. Crown Svo, cloth 050
'*The foundation of the structure is laid with the greatest skill and
the deepest knowledge of what constitutes true religion, and every
chapter ends with an eloquent and soul-inspiring appeal for one or
other of the virtues which the different scenes in the life of Our
Saviour set prominently into view." — Catholic Times.
RAWES, THE LATE REV. Fr., Edited by.
The Libra-ry of the Holy Ghost : —
Vol. I. St. Thomas Aquinas on the Adorable Sacra
ment of the Altar. With Prayers and Thanksgiv
ings for Holy Communion. Red cloth . . .050
Little Books ofthe Holy Ghost: — (List on application.)
RICHARDS, REV. WALTER J. B. (D.D.)
Manual of Scripture History. Being an Analysis of the
Historical Books of the Old Testament. By the Rev.
W. J. B. Richards, D.D., Oblate of St. Charles ; In
spector of Schools in the Diocese of Westminster.
Cloth  040
"Happy indeed will those children and young persons be who
acquire in their early days the inestimably precious knowledge
which these books impart." — Tablet.
RYDER, REV. H. I. D. (ofthe Oratory.)
Catholic Controversy: A Reply to Dr. Littledale's
" Plain Reasons. " Sixth edition . . . .026
"Father Ryder of the Birmingham Oratory, has now furnished
in a small volume a masterly reply to this assailant from without.
'The lighter charms ofa brilliant and graceful style are added to the
solid merits of this handbook of contemporary controversy." — Irish
Monthly.

l6 BURNS e^ OATES' PUBLICATIONS.

SOULIER, REV. P.
Life of St. Philip Benizi, of the Order of the Servants
of Mary. Crown Svo  £° ^ ^
"A dear and interesting account of the life and labours of this
eminent Servant of Mary." — A-merican Catholic Quarterly.^
"Very scholar-like, devout and- complete." — Dublin Review.
STANTON, REV. R. (of the Oratory.)
A Menology of England and Wales ; or, Brief Mem
orials of the British and English Saints, arranged
according to the Calendar. Together with the Mar
tyrs of the 1 6th and 17th centuries. Compiled by
order of the Cardinal Archbishop and the Bishops
of the Province of Westminster. Demy Svo, cloth o 14 o
THOMPSON, EDWARD HEALY, (M.A.)
The Life of Jean-Jacques Olier, Founder of the
Seminary of St. Sulpice. New and Enlarged Edition.
Post Svo, cloth, pp. xxxvi. 62S . . . . o 15 o
" It provides us with just what we most need, a model to look up to
and imitate ; one whose circumstances and surroundings were suffi
ciently like our own to admit of an easy and direct application to our
own personal duties and daily occupations." — Dublin Review.
The Life and Glories of St. Joseph, Husband of
Mary, Foster-Father of Jesus, and Patron of the
Universal Church. Grounded on the Dissertations of
Canon Antonio Vitalis, Father Jose Moreno, and other
writers. Crown Svo, cloth, pp. xxvi., 488, . .060
ULLATHORNE, ARCHBISHOP.
Endowments of Man, &c. Popular edition. . .070
Groundwork of the Christian Virtues : do. . .070
Christian Patience, . . do. do. . .070
Ecclesiastical Discourses . . . . . .060
Memoir of Bishop Willson.  026
WARD, WILFRID.
The Clothes of Religion. A reply to popular Positivism 036
"Very witty and interesting." — Spectator.
" Really model s of what such essays should be. " — Church Quarterly
Review.WATERWORTH, REV. J.
The Canons and Decrees ofthe Sacred and CEcumenical
Council of Trent, celebrated under the Sovereign
Pontiffs, Paul III., Julius III., and Pius IV., tran
slated by the Rev. J. Waterworth. To which
are prefixed Essays on the Extemal and Internal
History of the Council. A new edition. Demy
Svo, cloth  o 10 6
WISEMAN, CARDINAL.
Fabiola. A Tale of the Catacombs. . . 3s. 6d. and 040
Also a new and splendid edition printed on large
(juarto paper, embellished with thirty-one full-page
illustrations, and a coloured portrait of St. Agnes.
Handsomely bound. . . . . 1 i o

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 05644 4749