Knights, William Coke, Thomas Martyn, Richard Dobbes, 'Knights, besides a very great multitude more present."?

There seems indeed to have been not only a great multitude present, but another much greater multitude who wished to be present, but could not get into the Church. Rogers, who drew up an account of his own examination there says that "the thousandth man came not in," and that when he and Hooper were remanded, they " had much to do to go in the streets."8

On this occasion the Commissioners "called before them 'these three, Master Hooper, Master Rogers, and Master 'Cardmaker, who were brought thither by the sheriffs; 'from whence after communication they were committed to 'prison till the next day, but Cardmaker this day submitted 'himself unto them."" Bishop Hooper and Rogers were remanded till the next day.

Tuesday, January 29, the Commissioners sate again at the same place. Measures seem to have been adopted for keeping out any such crowd as had been collected the day before, and Rogers says "they kept the doors shut, and would let none in but the bishops adherents and servants in a manner." There must however have been a good many persons present if the assembly consisted (as Strype says it did) of "the bishops above named, together with George Bishop of Chichester," beside "those noblemen, ' and Knights and others before mentioned, and these more'over; Clement Higham, Richard Dobbes, Knight, Thomas 'Hungate Esq., John Seton, Thomas Watson, professors of 'Divinity, Nicholas Harpesfield, David Pole, Hugh Corens, 'doctors of the laws; Henry Jollif, Philip Morgan 'bachelors of divinity; Francis Allen, William Smyth, and 'John Vaughan Esqrs. and many more.' 112 Fox tells us that on that occasion, "Hooper, Rogers, Dr. Taylor and 'Bradford were brought before them; where sentence of excommunication and judgment ecclesiastical was pro'nounced upon Master Hooper and Master Rogers, by the 'bishop of Winchester, who sat as judge in Caiaphas's seat; 'who drave them out of the church according to their law

7 Mem. III. ii. 286.

9 Fox, vi. 582.

2 Mem. III. i. p. 288.

8 Fox, vi. 598. 599. 649.
1 Ibid. 598.

'and order. Dr. Taylor and Bradford were committed to 'prison till the next day."

66

On Wednesday the 30th of January was the fourth session; at which, according to Strype, the bishops of Durham, Worcester, Ely, Lincoln, Bath and Wells, Norwich, Lichfield, and Carlisle were co-assessors," and there were also present, "the Duke of Norfolk, the Lord Whar'ton; the Lord Lumley; Leonard Chamberlayn and Robert Drury, Knights; Thomas Hussey, John Vaughan, Thomas Martyn, Esqrs. R. [it may be Edward] Wotton, and John 'Warner, doctors in physic; Hugh Coren, David Poole, 'Nicholas Harpesfield, doctors of law; Thomas Watson, 'John Seton, doctors of divinity; Philip Morgan, John 'Boxal, Seth Holland, bachelors in divinity; Richard 'Chandler, archdeacon of Sarum and very many others."4

On this occasion, according to Fox, "Dr. Taylor, Dr. 'Crome, Master Bradford, Master Saunders, and Dr. Ferrar, some time bishop of St. David's, were before the said 'bishops; where three of them, that is to say Dr. Taylor, 'Master Saunders, and Master Bradford were likewise excommunicated, and sentence pronounced upon them; 'and so committed to the sheriffs. Dr. Crome desired two 'months respite, and it was granted him; and Master 'Ferrar was again committed to prison till another time."5

Whatever may have been the precise constitution or composition of this Tribunal, the names which I have copied show that it was not in the nature of a secret Inquisition. I do not see that it ever met afterwards at Southwark, or elsewhere in the same form. It seems as if it had been formed for some special purpose which it either accomplished, or abandoned; which of the two, it is not our present business to inquire.

§ 4. WHAT HAD BONNER TO DO WITH THE MARTYRS

CONDEMNED BY THE COMMISSION.

(1.) JOHN ROGERS is one of those who have been already mentioned as being before the Commissioners. The first

3 Fox vi. 588. Strype says of Taylor, "The Bishop assigned him to appear there again between three and four in the afternoon. What was done then appears not."-Mem. III. pt. i. P 296. 5 Fox, vi. 588.

4 Mem. III. i. 290,

occasion in which I find Bonner charged as having anything to do with him is, that according to Fox, after his second trouble with the Council "he remained in his own house as 'prisoner a long time, till at length through the uncharit'able procurement of Bonner bishop of London, who could 'not abide such honest neighbours to dwell by him, he was ' removed from his own house to the prison called Newgate.'

It will be seen by referring to the list of events in the foregoing section, that Rogers was removed from his own house to Newgate on the 27th of January, 1554, the day after preparations began to be made in earnest for the reception of Wyatt and his rebels. It may have been a mistake, but certainly since the affair of Bourn's preaching at Paul's Cross on the 13th of August (to say nothing of anything previous) Rogers was considered, not simply as a believer in false doctrine, but as a demagogue, and seditious person. How much Bonner had to do with his being removed from his house to a place of greater security, I cannot tell; but I suppose the bishop is only brought in here by way of a gratuitous flourish. Certainly Rogers says, in his own account of his examinations', "I asked him [Gardiner not Bonner] "Wherefore he put me in prison, He said, because I preached against the Queen;" and as far as I can see he throws the whole blame on the bishop of Winchester, and makes no complaint of the bishop of London.

After his sentence on the 29th of January, he made an application to the Chancellor in the court, for leave for his wife to visit him; which was refused (p. 602). I do not see that Bonner had anything to do with him until the morning of his execution, when "he was had down first to 'Bonner to be degraded. That done, he craved of Bonner 'but one petition. And Bonner asking what that should 'be; 'Nothing' said he 'but that I might talk a few words 'with my wife before my burning.' But that could not be 'obtained of him. 'Then' said he 'you declare your charity, 'what it is." (p. 609.) Whether Bonner had the power to grant such a request, even if it had not been previously made to, and refused by, the Lord Chancellor, I do not know.

6 Vol. vi. 593.

7 Fox, vi. 598.

(2.) LAURENCE SAUNDERS. The facts relating to the apprehension and commitment of this martyr have been so fully stated before (pp. 269, 273) that it is unnecessary here to repeat them. With regard to Bonner's share in those transactions, I have endeavoured to represent it fairly, and I do not see how any bishop of London could have done less than he did.

8

66

It has already appeared that Saunders was brought up before the Commissioners on January 30. It was I presume on that occasion when Saunders was declaring that he had been brought up to disbelieve the supremacy of the Pope, the Chancellor asked him whether it was by consent and authority" that he had received all his heresies respecting the Sacrament of the altar. He tried to evade the question by an irrelevant answer about the papal supremacy, including that species of personal reflection which Fox calls a "privy nip" to the Chancellor. On this Bonner (referring to the writing made before him some fifteen months before) said "and it like your lordship I have his hand against the blessed sacrament. How say you to that?" Saunders answered "What I have written, that I have written; and further I will not accuse myself."

I do not observe that Bonner had anything more to do with him, except what is thus briefly recorded by Fox; "The 4th day of February the bishop of London did come 'to the prison where he was to degrade him; which when ' he had done Laurence Saunders said to him, 'I thank God 'I am none of your church.'" (p. 627.) I do not find that

the bishop made any reply.

(3.) BISHOP HOOPER, as has been stated, was "sent for by a pursuivant to be at London" for two causes; the first being the business of Dr. Heath, whom he had succeeded at Worcester; and "secondarily, to render an account to Dr. Bonner, Bishop of London, for that he in King Edward's time was one of his accusers"," 9" &c. But Fox tells us that before he could come to the aforesaid Drs. Heath and

8 If so, Fox calls it erroneously "The first Examination of Laurence Saunders," and represents him as being "convented before the Queen's most honourable Council, sundry bishops being present."-Vol. vi. p.

625.

9 Vol. vi. p. 645. See Hooper's Denunciation of Bonner addressed to the King. Fox, vol. v. p. 747.

Bonner, "he was intercepted and commanded violently against his will to appear before the Queen and her 'Council to answer, to certain bonds and obligations, 'wherein they said he was bound unto her." This was on August 29, 1553, and on the 1st September a second time1, and was committed to the Fleet.

On the 5th of March in the next year a Commission, as we have seen, issued; and on the 19th he was deprived. Bonner's name is among those of the Commissioners, but it does not appear that he took any part, or said a word, or had had any kind of intercourse with Hooper since his own deprivation about four years and a half before.

After several months more of imprisonment Hooper was, as we have already seen, brought before the Commissioners on the 22d, 28th, 29th of January, 1555; after which he "was delivered as close prisoner to the keeper of Newgate, where he remained six days."

66

'During this time, Bonner bishop of London, and others at his appointment, as Fecknam, Chedsey, and Harpsfield, etc. resorted divers times unto him to assay if by any means they could persuade him to relent, and become a member of their antichristian church. All the ways they could devise, they attempted: for, besides the disputations and allegations of testimonies of the Scriptures, and of ancient writers wrested to a wrong sense, according to their accustomed manner, they used also all outward gentleness and significations of friendship, with many great proffers and promises of worldly commodities; not omitting also most grievous threatenings, if with gentleness they could not prevail: but they found him always the same man, steadfast and immovable."-Fox, vol. vi. p. 650.

Fox cannot let this pass however without adding what is illnatured, and probably altogether untrue.

"When they perceived that they could by no means reclaim him to their purpose with such persuasions and offers as they used for his conversion, then went they about, by false rumours and reports of recantations (for it is well known, that they and their servants did spread it first abroad), to bring him and the doctrine of Christ which he professed, out of credit with the people. So the bruit being a little spread abroad, and believed of some of the weaker sort, by reason of the often resort of the bishop of London and others, it increased more, and at last came to master Hooper's ears: wherewith he was not a little grieved, that the people should give so light credit unto false rumours, having so simple a ground; as it may appear by a letter which he wrote upon that occasion, the copy whereof followeth."-1bid.

1 Fox, vi. 393. He makes it the first appearance, p. 645.