No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011
The religious settlement of 1553–4 rested no less upon the royal authority than its predecessor, or that which followed in 1559. Like the Elizabethan establishment it was the result of political compromise. To base a persecuting regime upon compromise was, as Elizabeth realised, both illogical and dangerous, but Mary's convictions did not allow her to acknowledge, or enable her to understand the foundations upon which her Church was built.
page 54 note 1 Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, v, 422.
page 54 note 2 The request was made through Henry Penning, a confidant of Pole. Penning's report, 21 October 1553: Cal. Ven., v, 429.
page 54 note 3 Cardinal Pole to the Master of the Sacred Palace, 8 September; same to pope Julius III, 7 September: Cal. Ven., v, 408, 406.
page 55 note 1 Renard to the emperor, 19 October 1553: Calendar of State Papers, Spanish, xi, 307.
page 55 note 2 The ambassador was also insistent from the first that Elizabeth was a source of danger: Cal. Span., xi, 194.
page 55 note 3 Cal. Span., xiii, 46.
page 55 note 4 It was not until 4 August 1554 that the negotiations were eventually authorised. Marc Antonio Damula to the Doge and Senate: Cal. Ven., v, 526.
page 56 note 1 1 Mary 2, c.2.
page 56 note 2 Renard to the emperor, 20 December 1553: Cal. Span., xi, 443.
page 56 note 3 Renard to the emperor, 12 April 1554: Cal. Span., xii, 216.
page 56 note 4 This was in spite of the presence of 19 bishops in the House: Journals of the House of Lords, London 1846, i, 459–60Google Scholar. There is no record of the details of these proposals.
page 56 note 5 Renard to the emperor, 14 March 1554: Cal. Span., xii, 152. The chancellor made an attempt to hold the parliament at Oxford, which caused great indignation in London.
page 57 note 1 Renard had reported as early as 22 March that Gardiner was proposing to introduce a measure to safeguard the holders of abbey lands: Cal. Span., xii, 170. This measure was passed by the Commons only four days before the ‘heretics bill’ was rejected by the Lords. The exact development of this tangled episode is far from clear.
page 57 note 2 There are several full descriptions of this sitting, notably that sent by Don Pedro de Cordova to the king of the Romans on 10 December 1554: Cal. Span., xiii, 118.
page 57 note 3 5 Richard II, 2, c. 5; 2 Henry IV c. 15; 2 Henry V c. 7. There were several dissentient voices raised against these measures, which may be connected with the fact that about forty members of the Commons withdrew to their homes before the session was over: KB27/1176 Rex XVI (Placita Coram Rege in the P.R.O.).
page 58 note 1 Renard to the Philip, 5 February 1555: Cal. Span., xiii, 138.
page 58 note 2 Philip's mind was divided between his own zeal and deference to his father's wishes. The influence of his followers is uncertain; many of them were undoubtedly horrified by the prevalence of heresy in England (see e.g., Cal. Span., xiii, 61), but the persecution was originated by the English clerical party, which was anti-Spanish. The presence of such strong persecutors at the English court as Alfonso y Castro (whose Adversus Haereses was republished in Antwerp in 1556 with an exhortatory dedication to Philip) suggests a secret influence over the queen's mind which may have fortified her determination, but cannot be blamed for the inception of the policy.
page 58 note 3 Foxe, John, Acts and Monuments, ed. Townsend, , 1846, vi, 703.Google Scholar
page 58 note 4 Ibid.
page 58 note 5 Memorandum by the queen: Cal. Ven., vi, pt. iii; Appendix, 1647.
page 59 note 1 Pole's Visitation Articles and returns are printed in Strype, Ecclesiastical Memorials, Oxford 1822, III. ii, 389–413Google Scholar. A similar visitation, with similar results, was conducted in the diocese of Canterbury by archdeacon Harpesfield in 1557: Catholic Record Society, xlv, xlvi (1950–1), ed. Whatmore, L. E. and Sharp, W..Google Scholar
page 59 note 2 Renard to the emperor, 6 May 1554: Cal. Span., xii, 243.
page 59 note 3 Surian to the Doge and Senate, 3 and 21 April 1557: Cal. Ven., vi, pt. ii, 1004, 1018.
page 59 note 4 The protestant leaders were quick to denounce mere vandalism, but the confusion persisted, both at the time and since. The Marian authorities tended to treat all vandalism as heresy, and there has recently been a tendency among historians to regard all their victims as hooligans or sectaries. The evidence supports neither of these extreme viewpoints. Foxe, while occasionally guilty of concealing undesirable aspects of his subjects, provides a substantially accurate guide to the genuine Protestants.
page 60 note 1 Huggarde, Miles, Displaying of the Protestantes, London 1556, 121.Google Scholar
page 60 note 2 I.e. a sport, or game. Dickens, A. G., Lollards and Protestants in the Diocese of York, 1509–1558, Oxford 1959, 232.Google Scholar
page 60 note 3 Strype, , Eccl. Mem., Oxford 1822, iii, pt. ii, 392.Google Scholar
page 60 note 4 B.M. Cottonian MS. Tiberius B.11, fol. 99.
page 60 note 5 Frere, W. H., The Marian Reaction in its relation to the English Clergy (Church Historical Society, xviii), 1896, 78.Google Scholar
page 60 note 6 For example, 28 July 1557: Acts of the Privy Council, vi, 135.
page 60 note 7 B.M. Cottonian MS. Titus B 11, fol. 104.
page 61 note 1 Ambassadors to the emperor, 8 August 1554; Cal. Span., xiii, 23.
page 61 note 2 Renard to the emperor, 21 December 1554: Cal. Span, xiii, 125.
page 61 note 3 Acts of the Privy Council, v, 154: 30 June 1555.
page 61 note 4 Ibid., 316.
page 61 note 5 Op. cit., vi, 135.
page 61 note 6 Ibid., 144. Butler was held responsible for the action of his deputy.
page 61 note 7 Bonner to Pole, July 1558: Petyt MS. 538, vol. xlvii, fol. 3, Reported in the Second Report of H.M.C., Appendix, 152.
page 61 note 8 Hence the apparently senseless outbursts of rage with which the commissioners frequently seem to have reacted to obstinacy.
page 62 note 1 ‘The narrative of Edward Underhill’ in E. Arber, An English Garner, iv, 81.
page 62 note 2 In spite of the fact that Parker was a notorious Protestant and an associate of Northumberland, no attempt ever seems to have been made to apprehend him. A story related in DNB., that he fell from his horse while escaping from the government's wrath, is quite unsupported.
page 62 note 3 Extract from the Bedingfield Papers, printed in the Transactions of the Norfolk Archaeological Society, iv (1855), 150.Google Scholar
page 62 note 4 Acts of the Privy Council, v, 150: 23 June 1555.
page 62 note 5 A. G. Dickens, Lollards and Protestants, 220.
page 63 note 1 Dickens, A. G., ‘Robert Parkyn's narrative of the Reformation’ in English Historical Review, lxii (1947), 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 63 note 2 Ibid., 79.
page 63 note 3 See especially, Cranmer's letter to Peter Martyr, written from prison in 1555, printed in Original Letters relative to the English Reformation, 1537–1558, P.S., 1846–7, i, 30.
page 63 note 4 Chronicle of Queen Jane, ed. Nichols, J., Camden Society, xlviii (1849), 34.Google Scholar
page 64 note 1 Cal. Ven., vi, 45.
page 64 note 2 Acts of the Privy Council, v, 224: 14 January 1556.
page 64 note 3 Don Pedro de Cordova to the king of the Romans, 10 December 1554: Cal. Span., xiii, 118. Similar scenes had greeted Bonner on his release from the Tower.
page 64 note 4 Cal. Ven., vi, pt.1, 94. It is fairly clear that, quite apart from protestant sympathisers, by 1555 heresy was no longer regarded by most people in the south-east as being in itself a justification for death. No such sympathy was shown with the victims of equally barbarous punishments at Tyburn.
page 65 note 1 On 11 February 1555 a licence, ‘notwithstanding the statute of Mortmain’, was granted to William Roper Esq. of Eltham to found a chantry in the church of St. Dunstan-without-Westgate, Canterbury (Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Philip and Mary, II, 225). On 25 July 1556 the Guild of Jesus in the chapel of St. Faith at St. Paul's cathedral was re-erected: ibid., iii, 274. There were certainly some other erections but they were not numerous.
page 65 note 2 Michieli to the Doge and Senate, 18 November and 3 December 1555: Cal. Ven. vi, 251, 270. The Bill was eventually passed by the exercise of the full weight of the Crown's authority, by 183 votes to 120.
page 65 note 3 Count Feria to Fr. Ribadeneyra, S.J., 22 March 1558: Cal. Span., xiii, 370. The failure to introduce an effective counter-reformation in England was partly due to the rupture of relations with the papacy after the election of Paul IV in 1555, and partly to the dearth of trained and competent preachers capable of speaking the English language. No serious attempt was made to tackle this problem until the development of the seminary system: Crehan, J. H., ‘St. Ignatius and Cardinal Pole’, Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu, xxv (1956), 72–98.Google Scholar
page 65 note 4 Acts of the Privy Council, vi, 18, 216, 276.
page 66 note 1 Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Philip and Mary, III, 158.