into treason, and punished the convicted heretic, not as an heretic, but as a traitor.

You begin your account of the reign of Mary by informing us, that "the Suffolk men were the first "who declared for queen Mary; that the protestant

religion had taken root among them; and that they "had obtained a promise from her, that no altera❝tion should be made in the religion which her "brother had established." Doctor Lingard has sufficiently shown that no such promise was made. Mr. John Gage, in his "History and Antiquities of Hengrave in Suffolk,"-the work of a gentleman and a scholar, has inserted Mary's proclamation to the men of Suffolk: it contains no such promise; and they refer to none, in the long petition which they afterwards presented to Mary in favour of their religion.

I have now to mention an instance, in which, to aggravate the conduct of queen Mary's government, and the odium which you think it should bring upon the roman-catholics, you introduce a perfect fancy piece. You tell us, that, "on the day on which "Ridley and Latimer suffered at Oxford, the duke "of Norfolk dined with Gardiner; and that the "dinner was delayed some hours, till the bishop's "servant arrived from Oxford, post-haste, with

tidings that he had seen fire set to them; that "Gardiner went exultingly to the duke of Norfolk "with the news, and said, 'Now let us go to din

ner;' that, before he rose from table he was "stricken with a painful disease, and being carried "to his bed, lay there in intolerable torments for

66

66

66

66

"fifteen days."... and died. This tale was quickly refuted. The author of Fox's life, in the Biographia Britannica, mentions it " among the many facts, in the relation of which Fox is not to be depended upon."-" To disprove this tragical story, it may," says the biographer," be suf"ficient to observe, that Gardiner appeared in "the house of lords after he is reported to have "been seized with the mortal distemper; and the "old duke of Norfolk had been dead above a year, "when Fox makes him at dinner with the bishop of "Winchester; for he died at Framlingham Castle, September 1554, and was succeeded by his grand66 son, who could not then be an old duke, as the story says. As to Gardiner, he died of the gout, "and not of a suppression of urine, as Fox says. The important epithet " old," by which the duke of Norfolk is described, you omit.—The falsehood of the story was noticed by doctor Lingard *; still it found its place in the first edition of your work. Articles afterwards appeared in different newspapers, showing the falsehood of Fox's narrative: you have, however, retained it in your second edition ;—and long may it there remain, as proof of the little reliance that should be placed on those writers, who place their trust in Fox.

You collect several contumelious expressions, which father Persons, in his Examination of your favourite author, has applied to many of the sufferers in the reign of queen Mary. Supposing your representation of them to be accurate, I sincerely Note (D.) p. 100 & 106.

66

condemn them; but are they as objectionable as those which father Fox,-you have informed us, that queen Elizabeth distinguished him by that appellation, or, (I am sorry to add),-as those which you yourself, throughout your work, incessantly apply to us? I learn from you, that father Persons calls the generality of the sufferers "contemptible " and pitiful rabblement, . . . obscure and unlearned 66 fellows, . noxious, wilful beasts, ... artificers, spinsters, and the like people." I wish father Persons had used no offensive expression: "Res "est sacra miser:" the sufferings, I willingly add,—the unjust sufferings of those, to whom he applies them, should have led him, whatever were his own opinion of the merits of their case, to mention them with tenderness. But how do you speak of us and our religion? There scarcely is a chapter, in either of your two volumes, which does not contain some expressions much more opprobrious than any used by father Persons. It should also be taken into account, that father Persons wrote in the days of fierce controversy; that he had before his eyes the racks and the gibbets, by which his brethren in faith had suffered, were then suffering, or were to suffer. Does not this greatly extenuate the bitterness of his pen? You write in an age of temper and philosophy;-when decency and politeness have banished polemic abuse from all the liberal parts of society; when oblivion of past animosities is universally recommended; when the mention of irritating subjects is avoided; when all denominations of christians wish for good humour,

for mutual forbearance and charity; when some of the most amiable and most wise of your contemporaries have advocated the abolition of the penal code against the roman-catholics; when those, who think that the time for it is not arrived, avow their wish for its arrival, and ardently and anxiously exhort both parties to goodwill, to kindness, to all that can sooth, and all that conciliate:In the midst of this general disposition to unity,-you,-a gentleman and a scholar,--have coolly and deliberately compiled a thousand pages, admirably calculated to revive past animosities, to inflame prejudice, to perpetuate discord; and,--by holding in full view all that you think likely to injure us, and concealing almost all that you think likely to do us honour,have endeavoured to ruin our moral and religious character, and to hold us up to our fellow-subjects as an abomination. In this, where is wisdom, where is good policy, where is charity? How different is it from the conduct and the manners,— I will not say of Pitt, of Fox, of Burke, of Canning,--but of our most honourable and most estimable adversaries, lord Liverpool in the upper, and Mr. Peele in the lower, house! How different is the spirit of Your Book from that which animated our sovereign, when he invited the duke of Norfolk,-a man, who does honour to man, but a member of that religious community which it pleases you to vilify, to officiate at his coronation?which led him to carry the olive branch to Ireland? -which led him to sanction the act for dispensing with the earl marshal's obligation of taking the oath of supremacy? and the act for reversing the attainder

of lord Stafford? For these exertions of kindness, of enlarged wisdom, and of liberal policy, eight millions of his majesty's British subjects bless his name:-there is not one of them who does not read your book with every feeling of insulted integrity and so confident are they of the universal goodwill of their fellow-subjects to them, that they are quite assured that, if you should offer the services of your pen to any of those, who, in either house, oppose, or rather seek to postpone catholic emancipation,-half-a-dozen members in both houses would not be found who would accept your offer.

The time is gone by,"-would be the almost unanimous voice ;-" no good subject now reads "with pleasure any abuse of the roman-catholic church, or its members. Take it to the admirers of father Fox! his mantle has descended to you!" Don't wear it! you are qualified for much better things.

XIV. 2.

Archbishop Cranmer and Bishop Latimer.

THAT archbishop Cranmer and bishop Latimer were guilty of high treason, by an active co-operation, in the attempt of the duke of Northumberland, to place lady Jane Grey on the throne, to the exclusion of Mary, their lawful sovereign, and of the princess Elizabeth, the presumptive heir, is universally allowed. My opinion, that the sentence which, after the pardon of their treason, condemned them to the flames for heresy, was execrable, I have explicitly averred in my "Historical