History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Death of Elizabeth. Vol. II.Froude, James Anthony
History
History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Death of Elizabeth. Vol. II.
Froude, James Anthony
Great Britain -- History -- Tudors, 1485-1603
After the execution of the Carthusians, it became a question what should
be done with the Bishop of Rochester and Sir Thomas More. They had
remained for a year in the Tower, undisturbed; and there is no reason to
think that they would have been further troubled, except for the fault
of one, if not of both. It appeared, however, on the trial of Father
Reynolds, that Fisher's imprudence or zeal had tempted him again to
meddle with dangerous matters. A correspondence had passed between the
bishop and the king,[442] on the Act of Supremacy, or on some subject
connected with it. The king had taken no public notice of Fisher's
words, but he had required a promise that the letter should not be
shown to any other person. The unwise old man gave his word, but he did
not observe it; he sent copies both of what he had himself written and
of the king's answer to the Sion monks,[443] furnishing them at the same
time with a copy of the book which he had written against the divorce,
and two other books, written by Abel, the queen's confessor, and the
Spanish ambassador. Whether he was discovered to have held any other
correspondence, or whether anything of an analogous kind was proved
against More, I am unable to discover. Both he and Fisher had been
treated with greater indulgence than was usual with prisoners.[444]
Their own attendants had waited on them; they were allowed to receive
visits from their relatives within the Tower walls, and to correspond
with their families and friends.[445] As a matter of course, under such
circumstances, they must have expressed their opinions on the great
subject of the day; and those opinions were made known throughout
England, and, indeed, throughout Europe. Whether they did more than
this, or whether they had only indirectly allowed their influence to be
used against the government, must be left to conjecture. But the
language of a document under the king's hand speaks of their having
given some cause of provocation, of no common kind; and this is
confirmed by Cromwell, who was once deeply attached to More. "When they
were in strait keeping," say the instructions to the Bishop of Hereford,
"having nevertheless the prison at their liberties, they ceased not both
to practise an insurrection within the realm, and also to use all the
devices to them possible in outward parts, as well to defame and slander
his Majesty, and his most virtuous doings and proceedings, as also to
procure the impeachment and other destruction of his most royal
person."[446] Cromwell speaks also of their having been engaged in
definite schemes, the object of which was rebellion;[447] and although
we have here the _ex parte_ statement of the government, and although
such a charge would have been held to be justified by a proof that they
had spoken generally against the Act of Supremacy, it may be allowed to
prove that so far they were really guilty; and it is equally certain
that for these two men to have spoken against the act was to have lent
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account