the authority formerly exercised by Rome, 'is a petty pope,' etc.1 He defends, upon the authority of the leading men in Christendom, the reversion to the Crown of the title 'supreme governor.'

,2

He warns his hearers by the example of Scotland. Even Robert Browne, the Separatist, held that presbyteries would be a greater tyranny than the established system.3 Continental writers of the Genevan type, he shows by quotation, would claim for the people power to depose evil princes, or such as refuse to support the Discipline. They also deny any pre-eminence in Church affairs to the civil magistrate. English writers are next decried. T. C. in his Second Admonition prophesied 'great troubles' if the new order 'be not provided for.' Udall in his Demonstration declared that the presbyteries must prevail; if 'by means which,' so he warns the Bishops, will make your hearts to ake, blame yourselves.' Martin, 'in his first booke''threateneth fists,' and urges Parliament, apart from the sovereign, to put down Lord Bishops and to bring in the looked-for reformation.* Bancroft urges that magistrates should suppress such spirits; they would be fewer had not Bishops and men in authority favoured them. 'Hir majestie is depraved, hir authoritie is impugned.' Among other deplorable things happening, democracy makes progress; the interest of the people in kingdoms is greatly advanced.' All this, and yet these men are tolerated.'" He urges his hearers not to believe these spirits. The doctrine of the Church is pure and holie'; its government by Queen and Bishops 'lawfull and godlie'; the Prayer Book contains nothing 'contrarie to the word of God.'"

The schismatics who condemn the pride of the Bishops, Bancroft declares, really aspire to a loftier pre-eminence, employing, as they do, the same arguments for tyrannising over princes and people as are used by the Pope for defending his principality. He again warns the laity who hold expropriated livings that the Reformers call them

1 Sermon, pp. 68, 69. 2 Ibid. pp. 69, 70. 4 Ibid. pp. 78-83. 5 Ibid. pp. 85, 86. 6 Ibid. p. 87.

3 Ibid. pp. 72-77.

7 lbid. pp. 89, 90.

cormorants, and would take away their plunder. What the Puritans object to in the authorised book of Common Prayer, they defend in their own book of Discipline.1 He claims that the three orders of the clergy date from apostolic times, and denies that Bishops are merely ministers of the word and sacraments, and without 'superiority.' Finally, he taunts his opponents with being divided among themselves, hinting at Giffard's attack on Greenwood, and Cartwright's attack on Robert Browne.

4

2

Bancroft's sermon called forth in due course a formal reply. Its anonymous author says of it in the title-page, This Short Answer may serve for the clearing of the truth, until a larger confutation of the Sermon be published.' It is not necessary to enter at large into its argument. It boldly takes up the position that the Bishops are the real schismatics. It disapproves of courtiers or great men enriching themselves by the patrimony of the Church, and equally of Bishops and chaplains living on the robbery of souls. Ecclesiastical government, it proposes, should be exercised by the Queen directed by clerical assessors, as in worldly matters' she is directed by her lawyers—a proposal distinctly amusing when we remember Elizabeth's character and her cavalier treatment of Bishops. The magistrates are to see that the Church is cleansed from Popery; the principle of intolerance is frankly admitted: 'they are to provide by law that all persons, both Ministers and others, doe submit themselves without contradiction unto all such things as shall be godly established in the Church.' 'We heartily agree with you that the people should avoid, and the magistrate punish, heretics.' The opinion of Robert Browne is despised. He is a 'noted schismatic.'

(11) ACTIVITY OF CENSOR AND PURSUIVANT.- -On the

1 Sermon, p. 97.

2 Ibid. pp. 99-102.

3 A Briefe Discovery of the Untruthes and Slanders (against the true Governement of the Church of Christ) contained in a Sermon, preached the the 8. [sic] of Februarie, 1588. by D. Bancroft, etc. 56 pp. 8vo. Dr. Dexter [The England and Holland of the Pilgrims, p. 170] attributes the volume to Penry-without evidence and no doubt wrongly.

4 That is by their commendams and pluralities.

Thursday, following the delivery of Bancroft's sermon at Paul's Cross, the Queen issued a stringent proclamation against certain seditious and euill disposed persons,' who had secretly published 'schismatical and seditious bookes, diffamatorie Libels and other fantasticall writings amongst her Maiesties Subiectes . . . against the godly reformation of Religion and Gouernement Ecclesiasticall established by Lawe, and so quietly of long time continued, and also against the persons of the Bishoppes' appointed by her authority, 'in rayling sorte and beyond the boundes of all good humanitie.' The tendency of these books is declared to be to bring in a monstrous and apparaunt dangerous Innouation' and to overthrowe her Highnesse lawfull Prerogatiue.' All copies are therefore to be delivered up to the Bishops, and a solemn warning is given against any who should be 'so hardie' as to print or help to print any books of like nature and qualitie.' Informers are promised pardon.1

Meanwhile the pursuivants were following up the traces of the Marprelate Press, which they had tracked to Mrs. Crane's house at Molesey. On the Saturday (Feb. 15th) of this same week, her servant, Nicholas Tomkins, was examined at Lambeth. He confessed to having seen the two Marprelate Tracts then issued. THE EPISTLE he had received from Giles Wigginton, or from Waldegrave. THE EPITOME he states definitely that he received from Wigginton, when Wigginton was staying at his mistress's house. He informed the Court how the press came to be lodged at Mrs. Crane's house at Molesey, as already narrated above, but 'insinuated' that both tracts were printed in Northamptonshire. He knows nothing of the author, publisher, or printer; but we are interested at this early stage to learn that rumour was ascribing the authorship to Master Field,' Master Wigginton,' 'Master Penry,' and 'Master Marbury a Preacher.' This was the gossip in reforming circles. Tomkins was liberated on bail. He was re-examined the following November and corrected a few details in his first

1 Cardwell's Documentary Annals, ii. 18; Arber's Sketch, 109.

N

examination, but added nothing of note to the information already gained. The following year it was found convenient to send him out of the country—either for his own safety, or, more probably, to avoid giving further evidence concerning the publication of the tracts.

(12) THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESS FROM FAWSLEY TO COVENTRY. At Fawsley House, when Waldegrave had departed after completing the printing of THE EPITOME, and when the gentleman in the sky-blue cloak no more haunted the grounds, things settled down into a state of security. Bookbinder Sharpe of Northampton, who had wormed himself into the secret of the printing and publishing of the dangerous pamphlets, boldly claimed some acquaintance with the great knight of Fawsley, Deputy Lieutenant for the county, whose wife was a Somerset. He questioned

Sir Richard what his action would be if a search were made at Fawsley House. There were divers persons, including 'Master Baker, the Officiall' who had the being of the Press there in their mouthes.' Sir Richard replied, 'Let me alone, yo Knaves durst not search my House, yf they had, I wo[u]lde have courst them, they know well inough, but now yt ys gone, and that danger is past.' Within the House we have a glimpse of the winter's evening spent in hearing Fox, the Fawsley schoolmaster, a man of booklearning, reading aloud the satirical account of 'John of Canterbury' to the high amusement of his auditory.2

1

Rumour, growing more persistent and definite, showed that the danger was not past, as Sir Richard Knightley had cheerfully supposed. Therefore about the close of the year (the date is variously given by the different witnesses 3) it was felt necessary to remove the printing-press and apparatus without delay. Valentine Knightley, Sir Richard's eldest son, had always regretted that 'his Father suffered any such thing about his Howse,' and was convinced that 'it would

1 Harl. MSS. 7042, 23 (i); Arber's Sketch, 96.

2 State Trials, ed. Hargrave, vii. 30.

3 The variation extends from Christmas to a few days after Twelvetide' -Dec. 25th to Jan. 9th.

bring his Father to great troubles.' 1 Stephen Gifford, Sir Richard's confidential man, and Wastal, a house servant, were therefore ordered to remove the press to a farm belonging to the estate at Norton, a few miles north of Daventry, where it lay unused for several weeks. The prelatical world was extremely active during these weeks. Besides the issue and the correction and re-issue of their manifesto, An Admonition to the People, they began on the first day of the year with an examination of Henry Barrowe. A copy of Some's recent Godly Treatise had been seized, containing some outspoken and critical marginalia by Barrowe. In the mystery surrounding the Marprelate writings no stone was to be left unturned.2 On Jan. 9th

we have an account of 6s. 2d. paid to the pursuivants for a two days' search for a secret press. We have no record that they were successful. They came perilously near finding Martin's press when they held their inquiry at Kingston. Some rumour that the centre of interest had moved to the Midlands must have reached them this month. For on the 29th day the house of Henry Godley at Northampton was raided. In Penry's study they discovered a copy of Udall's Demonstration and a manuscript reply of his own to Some's book.

1 Harl. MSS. 7042, 23 (h); Arber's Sketch, 96.

2 Ibid. 6848, 28a.

3 Arber's Transcript of the Stat. Reg. i. 248.

4 This raid is recorded in Penry's Appellation (p. 6. See Arber's Sketch, 173). But hitherto we have assumed that the dates inserted in Th' Appellation, Mar. 7' in the text and '1589' on the title-page, naturally referred to Mar. 7, 1589-90. The important discovery that the tract was actually written, though not necessarily printed, on Mar. 7, 1588-89 is due to the critical alertness of Mr. J. Dover Wilson, whose paper on the subject can be seen in The Library for October 1907. The determination of the year really rests upon the references to the sessions of Parliament contained in Th Appellation. The Parliamentary chronology for the years in question is as follows:

1586, Oct. 15. Parliament assembled.

When therefore Penry states that his Equity, printed at Oxford in 1587, was presented, and he in consequence imprisoned, during the 'last Parlia ment' (Th' Appellation, 40), it is clear he could not be writing in March