trusted among the bishops attempted an obstructive resistance. The clergy of the north were notoriously disobedient. The Archbishop of York was reported to have talked loosely of 'standing against' the King 'unto death.'[1] The Bishop of Durham fell under suspicion, and was summoned to London. His palace was searched and his papers examined in his absence; and the result, though inconclusive, was unsatisfactory.[2] The religious orders again (especially the monks of such houses as had been implicated with the Nun of Kent) were openly recusant. At the convent at Sion, near Richmond, a certain Father Ricot preached as he was commanded, 'but he made this addition, that he which commanded him to preach should discharge his conscience: and as soon,' it was said, 'as the said Ricot began to declare the King's title,' 'nine of the brethren departed from the sermon, contrary to the rule of their religion, to the great slander of the audience.'[3] Indeed it soon became evident that among the regular clergy no compliance whatever was to be looked for; and the agents of the Government began to contemplate the possible consequences, with a tenderness not indeed for the prospective sufferers, but for the authorities whom
- ↑ Ellis, third series, vol. ii. p. 373.
- ↑ John ap Rice to Secretary Cromwell, with an account of the search of the Bishop of Durham's chamber: Rolls House MS.
- ↑ Bedyll to Cromwell: State Papers, vol. i. p. 422. Bedyll had been directed by Cromwell to observe how the injunctions were obeyed. He said that he was 'in much despair of the reformation of the friars by any gentle or favourable means;' and advised, 'that fellows who leave sermons should be put in prison, and made a terrible example of.'
