from the course possibly which the many debates had taken—would be acceptable to the two Houses. A penal statute would be required to enforce the resolutions; and it was for their lordships to determine the character and the extent of the punishment which would be necessary. To give room for differences of opinion, two committees were this time appointed—the first consisting of Cranmer, the Bishops of Ely and St David's, and Sir William Petre; the other of the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of Durham and Winchester, and Dr Tregonwell.[1] The separate reports were drawn and presented; the peers accepted the second. The cruel character of the resolutions was attributed, by sound authority, to the especial influence of Gardiner.[2] It was not, in its extreme form, the work of the King, nor did it express his own desires. His
- ↑ 'Per Dominum cancellarium declaratum est quod cum non solum proceres spirituales verum etiam regia majestas ad unionem in precedentibus articulis conficiendam multipliciter studuerunt et laboraverunt ita ut nunc unio in eisdem confecto sit regia igitur voluntatis esse ut penale aliquod statutum efficeretur ad coercendum suos subditos, ne contra determinationem in eisdem articulis confectam contradicerent, aut dissentirent, verum ejus majestatem proceribus formam hujusmodi malefactorum hujusmodi committere. Itaque ex eorum communi consensu concordatum est quod Archiepiscopus Cant., Episcopus Elien., Episcopus Menevensis et Doctor Peter, unam formam cujusdam actus, concernentem Punitionem hujusmodi malefactorum dictarent et componerent similiterque quod Archiepisc. Ebor., Episc. Dunelm., Episc. Winton et Doctor Tregonwell alteram ejusmodi efFectus dictitarent et componerent formam.'—Lords Journals, 31 Henry VIII.
- ↑ Foxe's rhetoric might be suspected, but a letter of Melancthon to Henry VIII. is a more trustworthy evidence: 'Oh, cursed bishops!' he exclaims; 'oh, wicked Winchester!'—Melancthon to Henry VIII.: printed in Foxe, vol. v.
