reservations, could in such a case be admitted. The law must take its course.
The recusants were committed for four days to the keeping of the Abbot of Westminster; and the Council met to determine on the course to be pursued. Their offence, by the Act, was misprision of treason. On the other hand, they had both offered to acknowledge the Princess Elizabeth as the lawful heir to the throne; and the question was raised whether this offer should be accepted. It was equivalent to a demand that the form should be altered, not for them only, but for every man. If persons of their rank and notoriety were permitted to swear with a qualification, the same privilege must be conceded to all. But there was so much anxiety to avoid extremities, and so warm a regard was personally felt for Sir Thomas More, that this objection was not allowed to be fatal. It was thought that possibly an exception might be made, yet kept a secret from the world; and the fact that they had sworn under any form might go far to silence objectors and reconcile the better class of the disaffected.[1] This view was particularly urged by Cranmer, always gentle, hoping, and illogical.[2] But, in fact, secrecy was impossible. If More's discretion could have been relied upon, Fisher's babbling tongue would have trumpeted his victory to all the winds. Nor would the Government consent to pass censure on its own conduct by evading the question whether the Act was or was not just. If it was not just, it ought not to
