XI "Other news have we none notable, but that one Frith, CHAP which was in the Tower in prison, was appointed by the King's Grace to be examined before me, my Lord of London, my Lord of Winchester, my Lord of Suffolk, my Lord Chancellor" [Audley], "and my Lord of Wiltshire, whose opinion was so notably erroneous that we could not despatch him, but was fain to leave him to the determination of his ordinary, which is the Bishop of London. His said opinion is of such a nature, that he thought it not necessary to be believed as an article of our faith, that there is the very corporal presence of Christ within the host and sacrament of the altar; and holdeth of this point most after the opinion of Ecolampadius. And surely I myself sent for him three or four times to persuade him to leave that his imagination; but for all that we could do therein, he would not apply to any counsel. Notwithstanding, now he is at a final end with all examinations, for my Lord of London hath given sentence, and delivered him to the secular power, where he looketh every day to go unto the fire. And there is also condemned with him one Andrew" [Hewett] "a tailor" ['s apprentice]" of London, for the self-same opinion." Both Frith and Hewett were burned a few days afterwards, on July 4, 1533, in Smithfield. Two other such victims of the cruel Statute de hæreticis comburendis in this reign will be mentioned, though they suffered at a later date, as they add further illustration with respect to the character of the anti-Church party. burned A.D. 1538 The first is John Lambert, alias Nicholson, who Lambert was burned in Smithfield in the year 1538. This for heresy Lambert was a friend of Bilney, being a young priest of Cambridge. He had been in prison under Archbishop Warham, and had shown a wonderfully contentious and self-conceited spirit in the contro 4 Jenkyns' Cranmer, i. 32. Frith himself was the son of a tavernkeeper at Sevenoaks. CHAP versy which had arisen out of that imprisonment. ΧΙ Being set free he voluntarily gave up all clergyman's work and wandered about on the Continent. Returning to England he took pupils, but could not keep them, and thus they not keeping him he turned grocer. In 1538 his old odium theologicum was revived by a sermon which he heard preached by Dr. Rowland Taylor, who, with Dr. Barnes, informed the Archbishop of Lambert's heretical opinions.5 Cranmer tried to reclaim Lambert, but the young priest was far too self-opinionated to yield to argument. He wrote a book on the subject of the Eucharist, which he sent to the King, and this led to the public trial before Henry in person. His opinions were simply those held by modern anti-Sacramentarians, and were, of course, intolerable to the King. Lambert was sentenced to death by Cromwell in the presence of the King, Cranmer, and the court, and suffered shortly afterwards. Anne Askew burned A.D. 1546 The other victim to be mentioned is the lady known as Anne Askew, who was burned in the year 1546, at the close of Henry's reign. She was the daughter of Sir William Askew or Ayscough of South Kelsey, in Lincolnshire. Although always spoken of by her maiden name she was, in reality, the wife of a country squire named Kyme, whom and her two children she deserted, and whose name she dropped. Her sister had previously been married to him, so that the whole business was one of a disgraceful character, which no party apologies can make respectable. When brought before the Council this was the 5 Taylor, Barnes, and Cranmer were all afterwards put to death in the same manner as Lambert. ΧΙ first matter about which she was questioned. She CHAP declined—as these people almost always did-to give a straightforward answer, but told the Chancellor that he already knew her mind on the subject. On further demands for her explanation of such conduct, she said that she would explain to the King; and when told that the King could not be personally troubled with her cause—a most reasonable reply-she quoted Scripture about the wisest king hearing two poor women, &c. &c. In the register of the Privy Council this examination is recorded as follows: "At Greenwich, June 19th, 1546.-Thomas Keyme, of Lincolnshire, who had married one Anne Ascue, called hither, and likewise his wife, who refused him to be her husband without any honest allegation, was appointed to return to his country till he should be eftesoones sent for, and for that she was very obstinate and heady in reasoning of matters of religion wherein she showed herself to be of a naughty opinion. Seeing no persuasion of good reason could take place, she was sent to Newgate to remain there to answer to the law. Like as also one [Christopher] White, who attempted to make an erroneous book, was sent to Newgate, after debating with him of the matter, who showed himself of a wrong opinion concerning the blessed sacrament." Mrs. Kyme, alias Askew, seems to have had secret communications with Queen Catherine Parr, the Duchess of Suffolk (Catherine Baroness Willoughby d'Eresby, not the King's sister), the Countess of Sussex (herself also separated from her husband, and charged with endeavouring to marry Sir Edmund Knyvett while her husband was liv ing), the Duchess of Somerset, and other ladies of 6 In Edward VI.'s reign (1552) prisoned with Anne Hartlepool on this Countess of Sussex was im- a charge of sorcery and of asserting XI CHAP the court. These communications she denied, but Henry VIII. had evidence of them, and supposing them to be of a treasonable nature, had her examined (some say with torture, but on no very good evidence) in the Tower, for the purpose of eliciting all she knew on the subject. There was, no doubt, something mysterious about Queen Catherine Parr's conduct towards the close of Henry's life, and that astute head of hers may have been scheming to countermine by some plot Henry's usual treatment of his wives. Extreme cruelty of Henry these years Whether Anne Askew was really guilty of the treason alleged against her, it is impossible to say certainly. By dragging in her religious opinions, which were Anabaptist, she diverted in some degree the charge of treason, and acquired a claim to the veneration of those who then and afterwards craned up all the misbelievers of this period to the dignity of witnesses for the truth. She was burned in Smithfield, in June 1546, with John Lascelles, a gentleman of the court, and two others. 8 In considering these cases of execution for alleged heresy it must be remembered that they took place VIII. in in that part of King Henry VIII.'s reign which was otherwise so fearfully stained with judicial slaughter. Foxe narrates twenty-six such executions between 1533 and 1546. During those thirteen years the King sent to the scaffold an infinite number of the that a son of Edward IV. was yet 7 See it summed up in Nicholls' Narratives of the Reformation, pp. 303-309. 8 This name is mixed up with the proceedings in the Privy Council against Queen Catherine Howard. XI nobility, clergy, country gentry, and persons of all CHAP other classes. His own queens, Sir Thomas More, Bishop Fisher, Cromwell, the good old Abbot of Glastonbury, all the other victims of the Dissolution, all those of the Pilgrimage of Grace; these, and a vast number of others, were all sacrificed, justly or unjustly, during this time: and thus, even the burning of twenty-six "heretics" was but one painful episode among many of this fearful slaughter. loveable or The instances given above are those of the persons The "marabout whom most is known; and they have been tyrs" not given for the purpose of showing what kind of venerable persons they were who set themselves up in opposition to the Church and its authorities. The historian, however much he may try to be impartial, is tempted to write tenderly about them because of their piteous fate, or rather because of the manner of it. But dissociated from this, there is little to love, or to respect in the so-called "martyrs" of this reign. They were harsh, ungentle persons; disloyal to all that Englishmen loved and venerated; contentious to the last degree; strong partizans in religion, but giving evidence of little practical holiness: and, in short, persons who, if they had not suffered the cruel deaths they did, would have had no claims to the respect or sympathy of posterity. All that can be said in their favour is that they were among the best of their party, and that wrongheaded as they were, nothing which we should now call criminal was alleged against them. They were representatives of the antiChurch party, and circumstances brought forward some of the least odious of that party to represent it." 9 A prominent member of the party was Nicolas Udal, Head Master of Eton. He was made |
