His son and high spirited successor, _Henry VIII_, would doubtless be careful to continue the practice of all the rites and ceremonies appertaining to the royal function, which had been handed down to him from his father: and there is every reason to believe that the operation in question would not be forgotten or omitted, were it only to be even with his neighbour and rival, _Francis I_, who certainly performed it, and would not be likely to be suffered or allowed to go beyond him on such an occasion. Henry therefore may be safely set down among our said royal practitioners, and even among the most able and powerful of them all. But the _King’s Evil_ was not the only Evil in whose cure or removal he was particularly concerned: He was no less concerned in the cure or removal of the _Pope’s Evil_, another dreadful malady, which had long and grievously afflicted most of the good people of this country, and which was generally deemed incurable, till he took it in hand. All the world know how powerfully and effectually _his royal touch operated_ on that occasion.—It seems he had also the reputation of being endowed with extraordinary gifts for the cure or prevention of the _cramp_; and we find that he distinguished himself by the consecration of _cramp rings_, which Stephen Gardiner says were much esteemed every where, and often sought for. {308} So very eminent was Henry among our royal doctors, and miracle mongers. _Edward VI_, Henry’s amiable son and successor, is not known to have been at all an adept at this princely practice, or even to have been in the least partial to it. He probably thought so very lightly of it as entirely to omit and discard it, as he is also said to have done with respect to the _consecration of cramp rings_, by which his royal father so much distinguished himself. It is likely that Edward, young as he was, had imbibed some sectarian notions which might unfit him for the performance of these sublime operations. Even the royal and episcopal work of _burning heretics_, so much approved of and delighted in by his predecessors, and afterwards by his immediate successor, and so much called for and applauded by ecclesiastics, was to him an object of utter aversion; and if he once suffered it to be done, it was involuntary and against his own better judgement, through the importunate intreaties and urgent expostulations of his bishops, and particularly Cranmer, to whom therefore the guilt and infamy of the deed must properly or chiefly belong. {309} There is reason to believe that no such doings would have sullied or disgraced his reign had he been left to judge and act for himself. It is probable he was left so to judge and act with respect to the _royal touch_; so that we need not be surprised at his declining the practice.