"beth's life had been in imminent danger during "her sister's reign;" and by noticing "the seve"rity with which she had been treated." But can you read the evidence produced by doctor Lingard*, of the concurrence of Elizabeth in Wyat's treason, and the earl of Devonshire's conspiracy, without believing her guilt? Can you say, that the evidence for it is not stronger than that upon which she caused the unfortunate Mary of Scotland to be executed? You then inform us, that "the cruelties of the preceding reign were regarded "with abhorrence by all, except those who had "been instrumental in them." The number of those must have been extremely small; justice, therefore, forbids that these cruelties should be imputed to the general body of catholics, and calls upon you to retract, in the next edition of your work, your repeated intimations to the contrary in the present.

Notwithstanding the dislike of Elizabeth, which I must necessarily feel, I have never read Heylin's account of her triumphant progress from the Tower, without participating in that brilliant hour of joy. To see the descendant of a hundred kings, in the prime of life, and adorned with every accomplishment, thus suddenly pass, amidst a general and -jubilant multitude, from a prison to a throne, is one of the brightest scenes that history displays. Most feelingly do I enter into it, and forget, at the moment, the multiplied miseries which it brought,

Vol. v. c. 1.

almost immediately afterwards, on numbers of those whose memories I must ever revere.

But did not the duty, which you owed to history, require that you should mention the loyal conduct of the leading roman-catholic clergy and laity on the accession of Elizabeth to the throne of England; and contrast it with the conduct of the protestant clergy and laity on the accession of Mary? Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer, and most of those who took a leading part in the religious innovations in the reign of Edward VI, supported the pretension of lady Jane Grey against their lawful sovereign. Northumberland's rebellion in favour of lady Jane was succeeded by Wyat's; and many of the leaders of each were protestants. At the moment of Mary's decease, both houses of parliament were sitting. Information of the event being brought to the house of lords, they sent a message to the house of commons, requesting their attendance. When the commons arrived, Heath, the lord chancellor and archbishop of York, (the see of Canterbury being then vacant), announced the event; he observed, that the succession of the crown belonged of right to the princess Elizabeth, and that she should be instantly proclaimed queen of England. The proclamation of her title immediately took place; first, in Westminster Hall, before the assembled lords and commons, and then, at the same place, before the lord mayor, the aldermen, and the companies of the city. The news reached the princess at Hatfield : she proceeded to London. At Highgate she was

met by all the roman-catholic bishops: all, except Oglethorpe, the bishop of Carlisle, by whom she was crowned, refused to assist at the ceremony of her coronation. They considered it to be certain, either that she would not take or would not observe the oath, which the kings of England took at their coronation,—“to maintain the laws, honour, peace and privileges of the church, as in the time ઠંડ "or grant of king Edward the Confessor." But the bishops did not make the smallest opposition to her coronation; they immediately did homage to her, and acknowledged her title to the crown. They afterwards saw her break her coronation oath, and establish the protestant church on the ruins of the national religion. At these measures, they sighed; but they sighed in silence; not a single act of a treasonable, a seditious, or even a disaffected tendency was ever imputed to their conduct upon this occasion.

May I not also ask, whether historic truth did not require you to mention the violence which the court party found it necessary to use in the election of members to serve in the first parliament which sat in the reign of queen Elizabeth? Five candidates were nominated by the court to each borough, and three to each county; and, by the authority of the sheriffs, the members were chosen from among these candidates. Can it be said, that, with a house of commons thus constructed, the parliament which established the reformation, was constitutionally formed?

Did not historic truth also require, that you

should mention the opposition of the clergy to the legal establishment of the protestant faith? and that all the bishops, both the houses of convocation, and both the universities, strenuously objected to it? These are important facts: was it proper to suppress them?

You assert, that "the policy of the romanists "fortunately accorded with the views of govern66 ment; for that, when it was perceived how well "and easily the places of the deposed bishops had "been supplied, the party changed their system, "and determined to retain what benefices they held "at the expense of outward conformity, thinking "the best service they could render to the papal cause, was to keep possession of their posts, in "the hope and expectation of better times. The "double purpose would thus be answered, of keep

66

ing protestant ministers out, and secretly fost"ering in their parishioners a predilection for all "the old superstitions; and their policy was, by "this means, reconciled with their interests. With "such unanimity did they act upon this deceitful system, that, of 9,400 beneficed clergy, only 177 resigned their preferments, rather than acknowledge the queen's supremacy."

66

The charge which you bring against the romancatholic clergy in this place, is altogether unfounded The outward conformity of which you accuse them, was never practised by them: no roman-catholic clergyman, who retained his benefice, could either officiate as minister, or take the oath of supremacy, without incurring the guilt of apostacy,

both in his own opinion and feelings, and in the opinion and feeling of the whole catholic world. If he had urged, in his defence, that he did it with the deceitful views you insinuate, his conduct would have been more strongly reprobated. I believe the whole of your statement to be a fable; I never heard the charge which it intimates, until I found it in your work: it remains for you to prove the facts, or produce the authorities, upon which you make the assertion.

I conjecture, that, in the hurry of composition, you have substituted an occasional conformity of your own imagination, for one of a very different nature, which, for some time, was practised by some lay roman-catholics. These, to avoid the dreadful penalties of recusancy, attended the service in the protestant churches on Sundays, but without professing themselves to be protestants, and without participating in the service further than by mere personal attendance upon it. On the lawfulness of this proceeding, a considerable difference prevailed, from the first, among the English catholic divines it continued till the year 1562, when some of the theologians, assembled at the council of Trent, were consulted upon it, and pronounced it unlawful*. Before this time, both cardinal Allen and father Persons had declared against it, in the most explicit manner; and each had published a treatise in support of his opinion.

I am not surprised by your assertion, that, of

* Dodd's Church Hist. vol. 2, p. 24.