1550.
When Warwick and the council of regency began to exercise their power, they found themselves involved in the same difficulties that had embarrassed the protector. The wars with France and Scotland could not be supported by an exhausted exchequer; seemed dangerous to a divided nation; and were now acknowledged not to have any object which even the greatest and most uninterrupted success could attain. The project of peace entertained by Somerset had served them as a pretence for clamor against his administration; yet, after sending Sir Thomas Cheney to the emperor, and making again a fruitless effort to engage him in the protection of Boulogne, they found themselves obliged to listen to the advances which Henry made them, by the canal of Guidotti, a Florentine merchant. The earl of Bedford, Sir John Mason, Paget, and Petre, were sent over to Boulogne, with full powers to negotiate. The French king absolutely refused to pay the two millions of crowns, which his predecessor had acknowledged to be due to the crown of England as arrears of pensions; and said, that he never would consent to render himself tributary to any prince: but he offered a sum for the immediate restitution of Boulogne; and four hundred thousand crowns were at last agreed on, one half to be paid immediately, the other in August following. Six hostages were given for the performance of this article. Scotland was comprehended in the treaty: the English stipulated to restore Lauder and Dunglas, and to demolish the fortresses of Roxburgh and Eymouth.[*] No sooner was peace concluded with France, than a project was entertained of a close alliance with that kingdom; and Henry willingly embraced a proposal so suitable both to his interests and his inclinations. An agreement some time after was formed for a marriage between Edward and Elizabeth, a daughter of France; and all the articles were, after a little negotiation, fully settled:[**] but this project never took effect.
* Burnet, vol. ii. p. 148. Hayward, p. 310, 811, 312. Rymer,
vol. xv. p. 211.
** Hayward, p. 318. Heylin, p. 104. Rymer, tom. xv. p. 293.
The intention of marrying the king to a daughter of Henry, a violent persecutor of the Protestants, was nowise acceptable to that party in England: but in all other respects the council was steady in promoting the reformation, and in enforcing the laws against the Romanists. Several prelates were still addicted to that communion; and though they made some compliances, in order to save their bishoprics, they retarded, as much as they safely could, the execution of the new laws, and gave countenance to such incumbents as were negligent or refractory. A resolution was therefore taken to seek pretences for depriving those prelates; and the execution of this intention was the more easy, as they had all of them been obliged to take commissions, in which it was declared, that they held their sees during the king’s pleasure only. It was thought proper to begin with Gardiner, in order to strike a terror into the rest. The method of proceeding against him was violent, and had scarcely any color of law or justice. Injunctions had been given him to inculcate in a sermon the duty of obedience to a king, even during his minority; and because he had neglected this topic, he had been thrown into prison, and had been there detained during two years, without being accused of any crime except disobedience to this arbitrary command. The duke of Somerset, Secretary Petre, and some others of the council, were now sent, in order to try his temper, and endeavor to find some grounds for depriving him: he professed to them his intention of conforming to the government, of supporting the king’s laws, and of officiating by the new liturgy. This was not the disposition which they expected or desired.[*] A new deputation was therefore sent, who carried him several articles to subscribe. He was required to acknowledge his former misbehavior, and to confess the justice of his confinement: he was likewise to own, that the king was supreme head of the church; that the power of making and dispensing with holydays was part of the prerogative; that the book of common prayer was a godly and commendable form; that the king was a complete sovereign in his minority; that the law of the six articles was justly repealed; and that the king had full authority to correct and reform what was amiss in ecclesiastical discipline, government, or doctrine. The bishop was willing to set his hand to all the articles except the first: he maintained his conduct to have been inoffensive; and declared, that he would not own himself guilty of faults which he had never committed.[**]
* Heylin, p. 99.
** Collier, vol. ii. p, 305., from the council books. Heylin,
p. 99.
The council, finding that he had gone such lengths, were determined to prevent his full compliance by multiplying the difficulties upon him, and sending him new articles to subscribe. A list was selected of such points as they thought would be the hardest of digestion; and, not content with this rigor, they also insisted on his submission, and his acknowledgment of past errors. To make this subscription more mortifying, they demanded a promise, that he would recommend and publish all these articles from the pulpit: but Gardiner, who saw that they intended either to ruin or dishonor him, or perhaps both, determined not to gratify his enemies by any further compliance: he still maintained his innocence; desired a fair trial; and refused to subscribe more articles till he should recover his liberty. For this pretended offence his bishopric was put under sequestration for three months; and as he then appeared no more compliant than before, a commission was appointed to try, or, more properly speaking, to condemn him.
1551.
The commissioners were, the primate, the bishops of London, Ely, and Lincoln, Secretary Petre, Sir James Hales, and some other lawyers. Gardiner objected to the legality of the commission, which was not founded on any statute or precedent; and he appealed from the commissioners to the king. His appeal was not regarded: sentence was pronounced against him; he was deprived of his bishopric, and committed to close custody; his books and papers were seized; he was secluded from all company; and it was not allowed him either to send or receive any letters or messages.[*]
Gardiner, as well as the other prelates, had agreed to hold his office during the king’s pleasure: but the council, unwilling to make use of a concession which had been so illegally and arbitrarily extorted, chose rather to employ some forms of justice; a resolution which led them to commit still greater iniquities and severities. But the violence of the reformers did not stop here. Day, bishop of Chichester, Heathe of Worcester, and Voisey of Exeter, were deprived of their bishoprics, on pretence of disobedience. Even Kitchen of Landaff, Capon of Salisbury, and Samson of Coventry, though they had complied in every thing, yet, not being supposed cordial in their obedience, were obliged to seek protection, by sacrificing the most considerable revenues of their see to the rapacious courtiers.[**]
These plunderers neglected not even smaller profits. An order was issued by council for purging the library at Westminster of all missals, legends, and other superstitious volumes, and delivering their garniture to Sir Anthony Aucher.[***]