knees, he was subjected to another tedious examination (chiefly upon controverted points), which it is unnecessary to describe. The Lord Treasurer entered freely into the examination, but treated Mr. Barrow with great mildness, although declaring that he thought him "a fantastical fellow." It being observed that he did not pay such reverence to the Archbishop and the Bishop of London as to the temporal lords," the Lord Chancellor, at the close of the examination, asked him if he did not know those two, pointing to them. 1 "Yes, my lord, I have cause to know them.” 66 Well, is not this the Bishop of London?" "I know him for no bishop, my lord." "What is he, then?" "His name is Aylmer, my lord." ("The Lord pardon my fault," exclaims Barrow in his narrative, "that I laid him not open for a wolf, a bloody persecutor, and an apostate!") "What is that man?" asked Hatton, pointing to the Archbishop. give the year; only "the 18 day so in fixing the date of this second of the third month," i. e. March. But this date and the narrative which follows it occur after his narrative of the twenty-fourth of March. From this fact, and from the fact that in 1586 and in 1587 with the exception of a few hours in the Clink he had been confined only in the Gate-house, I think it clear that my date in the text is correct. I am often obliged to make calculations for dates by comparing isolated statements in different authorities before me. I have done arrest of Mr. Barrow and Mr. Greenwood; for I do not find it stated anywhere. From the time of this arrest they were kept in the Clink thirty weeks, as stated in the text. Supposing them to have been in the Fleet two weeks before Mr. Barrow was summoned to Whitehall, this would have been thirtytwo weeks. Dating back thirty-two weeks from March 18th, we arrive at the close of August, the date which I have assigned for their last arrest. 1 Neal, I. 202. "A monster! a miserable compound! I know not what to make him. He is neither ecclesiastical nor civil; even that second beast spoken of in the Revelation." "Where is that place?" inquired the Lord Treas urer. Mr. Barrow began to read Rev. xiii. 11, and 2 Thess. ii. 4; when the Archbishop rose, much excited, and exclaimed, "Will you suffer him, my lords?" His keeper then took him in charge to conduct him away; when he prayed the Lord Treasurer that he might have the liberty of the air, but received no answer.1 We have transcribed this episode with sorrow ; and only because we have no right to throw a mantle over the misconduct of those whose history we trace. In this instance, the examinate was certainly foolhardy; and, so far as we can see, transgressed those rules of decorum which are obligatory upon all, and pre-eminently upon the disciples of Christ, save in those rare instances where courtesy cannot consist with public or official duty. "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall!" said the Apostle Paul to the High-Priest; but when he understood that he was the High-Priest, he apologized. We and, however, that Mr. Barrow, after the moment when he may have been moved by strong provocation, asked pardon of God that he had not been equally severe upon the Bishop of London. There may, therefore, have been something in the circumstances of the case which, if known and appreciated by us, would cause us to modify our censure. 1 Harleian Miscellany, IV. 337. The severities we may say, the lawless and heartless cruelties of these two prelates, may have been palliating reasons for such public and defiant words. Certainly, the same prelates in their own day were censured by others in high rank and authority;1 and few in these days will question the literal truth of Mr. Barrow's words, when describing the mongrel behavior of his Grace of Canterbury.2 We confess that we do not perceive the object of this examination. Nor do we understand how it happened that, after Mr. Barrow and Mr. Greenwood had been confined seven months in the Clink, and thence transferred to the Fleet, and after Mr. Barrow had been put upon examination, both should have been arraigned before the High Commission and recommitted. But so stands the testimony: They were again committed to the Fleet, July 20, 1588";" where we leave them for the present, fellow-prisoners with Mr. Cartwright. 66 1 Marsden, 175. 2 Mr. Hanbury (I. 37), lamenting and professing not to palliate this indecorous outburst of Mr. Barrow, yet refers, as if to soften it, to "the then inconceivable excitement of the times and the unappalled spirit which oppression itself had excited"; and charitably concludes 4 by saying (p. 38), "On a return of CHAPTER XIV. THE INDEPENDENTS. THE BISHOPS THEIR OWN ENEMIES.-INCREASE OF THE INDEPENDENTS. THEIR SECRET ASSEMBLIES. A CHURCH ORGANIZED IN LONDON. - MIDNIGHT ARREST OF GREENWOOD AND JOHNSON. FIFTY-SIX PERSONS ARRESTED AT ISLINGTON. OTHER ARRESTS. PRIVATIONS OF PRISON LIFE. - PRISONERS DETAINED WITHOUT TRIAL. THEIR COMPLAINT. THE JAILFEVER. FLOGGING WITH CUDGELS. THE TORTURE OF LITTLE EASE.” DEATH IN PRISON. CHAINS AND DUNGEONS. MANY DIE; SOME THRUST FORTH TO DIE. WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE HORRORS, AND HOW FAR. THE FACTS CONCEALED FROM THE QUEEN. THE INQUISITION OF ENGLAND AND THE INQUISITION OF SPAIN COMPARED. 1588-1593. "AND all to clip the wings of the bishops," wrote Mr. Strype, when giving an account of bills ecclesiastical introduced to the Parliament of 1584-5.1 As we refer to their own doings from the beginning, and especially to their dominant influence in the cases of Mr. Cawdrey and Mr. Udal, we cannot but echo the words, "And all to clip the wings of the bishops." Though screened behind bench and jurybox, it was well known, or at least believed, that their influence upon the queen guided prosecution, verdict, and judgment. Thus their apparent success was unreal. The moral effect of each decision was deceptive, apparently triumphant and stunning, but really reactive, and in the end terribly retributive. 1 Ante, Vol. II. p. 476. They had more reason to regret than to exult over each of these cases, and had they not been bleareyed and infatuated, characteristics of despotism, they would have regretted them; for, as we have already suggested, the popular indignation had been roused against the bishops by these doings of the servile courts, as much as by those of the Commissioners in the case of Mr. Cartwright. Thus, without being conscious of it, the prelates had already clipped the tips of their own wings. The truth now and thus began to be foreshadowed, that "might is on the side of him who suffers, not of him who torments."1 Puritanism was invigorated, when supposed to have been weakened; and even Independency throve under the prelatic frown and the prelatic finger. The dangling corpses of Thacker and Copping had provoked inquiry into their crime and murmuring against their executioners. Thus, in mockery of the burning of their books, their ecclesiastical principles were enstamped in large letters upon the very posts of their gibbet; and thus again these principles, far more consonant with the instincts of humanity than those of the Puritans, which blended Church and State, were imbibed with the greater rapidity. During a single decade of yearsfrom 1582 to 1592- the grain of mustard-seed had become a sheltering tree; an insignificant sect had been multiplied to twenty thousand of Elizabeth's stoutest subjects, having wives and children.2 All this increase was the result of the simplest means, — no oratory, no scholarship, no patronage, no promise or vision of aggrandizement, only the 1 Marsden, 182. 2 D'Ewes, 517. |