[452] “Nothing has yet been settled respecting the marriage of the clergy, although some persons have very freely preached before the king upon the subject.”—John Butler to Conrad Pellican, March 8, 1539: Original Letters on the Reformation, second series, p. 624.
[453] Lady Exeter was afterwards pardoned. Lady Salisbury’s offences, whatever they were, seem to have been known to the world, even before Lord Southampton’s visit of inspection to Warblington. The magistrates of Stockton in Sussex sent up an account of examinations taken on the 13th of September, 1538, in which a woman is charged with having said, “If so be that my Lady of Salisbury had been a young woman as she was an old woman, the King’s Grace and his council had burnt her.”—MS. State Paper Office, second series, Vol. XXXIX. The act of attainder has not been printed (31 Henry VIII. cap. 15: Rolls House MS.); so much of it, therefore, as relates to these ladies is here inserted:—
“And where also Gertrude Courtenay, wife of the Lord Marquis of Exeter, hath traitorously, falsely, and maliciously confederated herself to and with the abominable traitor Nicholas Carew, knowing him to be a traitor and a common enemy to his Highness and the realm of England; and hath not only aided and abetted the said Nicholas Carew in his abominable treasons, but also hath herself committed and perpetrated divers and sundry detestable and abominable treasons to the fearful peril of his Highness’s royal person, and the loss and desolation of this realm of England, if God of his goodness had not in due time brought the same treason to knowledge:
“And where also Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury, and Hugh Vaughan, late of Bekener, in the county of Monmouth, yeoman, by instigation of the devil, putting apart the dread of Almighty God, their duty of allegiance, and the excellent benefits received of his Highness, have not only traitorously confederated themselves with the false and abominable traitors Henry Pole, Lord Montague, and Reginald Pole, sons to the said countess, knowing them to be false traitors, but also have maliciously aided, abetted, maintained, and comforted them in their said false and abominable treason, to the most fearful peril of his Highness, the commonwealth of this realm, &c., the said marchioness and the said countess be declared attainted, and shall suffer the pains and penalties of high treason.” I find no account of Vaughan, or of the countess’s connexion with him. He was probably one of the persons employed to carry letters to and from the cardinal.
[454] “Immediate post Billæ lectionem Dominus Cromwell palam ostendit quandam tunicam ex albo serico confectam inventam inter linteamina Comitissæ Sarum, in cujus parte anteriore existebant sola arma Angliæ; in parte vero posteriore insignia illa quibus nuper rebelles in aquilonari parte Angliæ in commotione suâ utebantur.”—Lords Journals, 31 Henry VIII.
[455] In quoting the preambles of acts of parliament I do not attach to them any peculiar or exceptional authority. But they are contemporary statements of facts and intentions carefully drawn, containing an explanation of the conduct of parliament and of the principal events of the time. The explanation may be false, but it is at least possible that it may be true; and my own conclusion is, that, on the whole, the account to be gathered from this source is truer than any other at which we are likely to arrive; that the story of the Reformation as read by the light of the statute book is more intelligible and consistent than any other version of it, doing less violence to known principles of human nature, and bringing the conduct of the principal actors within the compass of reason and probability. I have to say, further, that the more carefully the enormous mass of contemporary evidence of another kind is studied, documents, private and public letters, proclamations, council records, state trials, and other authorities, the more they will be found to yield to these preambles a steady support.
[456] 31 Henry VIII. cap. 8.
[457] The limitation which ought to have been made was in the time for which these unusual powers should be continued; the bill, however, was repealed duly in connexion with the treason acts and the other irregular measures in this reign, as soon as the crisis had passed away, or when those who were at the head of the state could no longer be trusted with dangerous weapons.—See 1 Edward VI. cap. 7. The temporary character of most of Henry’s acts was felt, if it was not avowed. Sir Thomas Wyatt in an address to the Privy Council, admitted to having said of the Act of Supremacy, “that it was a goodly act, the King’s Majesty being so virtuous, so wise, so learned, and so good a prince; but if it should fall unto an evil prince it were a sore rod:” and he added, “I suppose I have not mis-said in that; for all powers, namely absolute, are sore rods when they fall into evil men’s hands.”—Oration to the Council: Nott’s Wyatt, p. 304.
[458] The same expressions had been used of the Lollards a hundred and fifty years before. The description applied absolutely to the Anabaptists; and Oliver Cromwell had the same disposition to contend against among the Independents. The least irregular of the Protestant sects were tainted more or less with anarchical opinions.
[459] A considerable part of this address is in Henry’s own handwriting See Strype’s Memorials, Vol. II. p. 434.