Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:59:48.957Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Popular Disturbance and the Fall of Thomas Cromwell and the Reformers, 1539–1540

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Susan Brigden
Susan Brigden
Affiliation:
Lincoln College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 28 July 1540 Thomas Cromwell went to execution, and two days later Robert Barnes, Thomas Garret and William Jerome, leading protestant preachers and the minister's protégés, were burned at the stake.1 These reformers were sacrificed to implicate Cromwell in apostasy, but their deaths were more than judicial murder; they died for making a reality of the conservatives’ old fears that religious radicalism would engender social disorder. With the coming of the Reformation issues of faith for the first time deeply divided the people, and the rift went beyond the schism between orthodox and reformed alone. Many who witnessed the confusion thought that ‘the devyll reyneth over us nowe’ and believed that ‘alle thys devysyon comyth through that ffalse knave that heretyke Doctor Barnys and such other heretiks as he ys’.2 The faction struggles in court and council which dominated the last years of Henry VIII's reign produced the shifting policies of reaction or toleration towards reform, but while political intrigue determined the incidence of persecution and decided the victims the events of 1540 were to reveal that Protestantism was spreading independently, thwarting the restoration of Catholic orthodoxy, whatever the policy of government. The religious history of London was inextricably linked with the feuds of contending factions at court in the confused months of the spring and summer of 1540, not least because many of the protagonists and persecuted were Londoners themselves. The tensions witnessed in the capital between orthodox and reformed, and popular disturbance there, underlay all the machinations in high politics and influenced the outcome.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 1981 , pp. 257 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The fall of Thomas Cromwell and the swirl of fraction which lay behind it has been explained by Elton, G.R. in ‘Thomas Cromwell's decline and fall’, Cambridge Historical Journal, x (1951), 150–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Merriman, R.B., The life and letters of Thomas Cromwell (Oxford, 1902), 1, 286 ffGoogle Scholar; Muller, J.A., Stephen Gardiner and the Tudor reaction (Cambridge, 1926), ch. xiiiGoogle Scholar; Scarisbrick, J.J., Henry VIII (London, 1968), pp. 376–83Google Scholar; Beckingsale, B.W., Thomas Cromwell: Tudor minister (London, 1978), pp. 132–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the reformers, see Lusardi, James P., ‘The career of Robert Barnes’, Yale edition of the complete works of St Thomas More (New Haven and London, 1973), 8, part III, 1365–1417Google Scholar; Davis, J.F., ‘Heresy and the Reformation in the south east of England, 1520–1559’ (Oxford, D.Phil, thesis, 1968), pp. 318–21.Google Scholar

2 Sir Thomas Corthop, curate of Harwich, 1535, Public Records Office, SP 1/99, fo. 202 (Letters and papers, foreign and domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII (hereafter cited as L.P.), ix, 1059).

3 Thomas Starkey to Henry VIII, 1536 L.P. xi, 156.

4 Henry Brinklow, ‘Lamentacyon of a Christen agaynst the Cytye of London’, ed. J.M. Cowper (Early English Text Society (hereafter cited as E.E.T.S.) extra series, XXII), 96.

5 Examination of Rowland Phillips, 28 July 1536, SP 1/123, fos. 125–8 (L.P. XII (2), 361). For the excesses of reformist preachers, see Elton, G. R., Policy and police: the enforcement of the Reformation in the age of Thomas Cromwell (Cambridge, 1972), pp. 34–45, and my unpublished dissertation, ‘The early Reformation in London, 1520–1547: the conflict in the parishes’ (Cambridge, Ph.D., 1979), pp. 153–60.Google Scholar

6 SP 1/94, fos. 1–2 (L.P. viii, 1000).

7 William Marshall to Cromwell, 18 Aug. 1536, SP 1/106, fo. 22 v (L.P. xi, 325).

8 Anthony Waite to Lady Lisle, 10 Oct. 1535, SP 3/14, fo. 14 (L.P. ix, 583); cited in Smith, L. B., Tudor prelates and politics, 1536–1558 (Princeton, 1953), p. 187.Google Scholar

9 Brigden, ‘Early Reformation in London’, pp. 150 2.

10 Elton, Policy and police, pp. 35 41; Brigden, ‘Early Reformation in London’, pp. 153–8.

11 Miles, Huggarde, The displayinge of the Proleslantes (London, 1556), sig. Biii; Elton, Policy and police, pp. 162 4; Brigden, ‘Early Reformation in London’, pp. 161 2, 192–3.Google Scholar

12 John, Foxe, Acts and monuments, ed. Townsend, G. and Cattley, S.R. (London, 1837–1841), v, 385–7; Corporation of London Records Office, Repertory 10, fo. 90v.Google Scholar

13 Charles Wriothesley, A chronicle of England during the reigns of the Tudors, ed. V.D. Hamilton (Camden society, new series, xi, 1875),1, 83; SP 1/156, fo. 187 (L.P. xiv (2), appendix 48); Original Utters relative to the English Reformation, 1531–1558, chiefly from the archives of Zurich (London, 1846–7), ii, 624; Foxe, v, 35–6.

14 Wriothesley, 1, 83.

15 P.R.O., Prerogative Court of Canterbury, Prob. 11/27, fos. 93ff, 149, 189, 227, 232V–233W 245.

16 Sir John Rose to John Goodyn, 18 Oct. 1533, SP 1/79, fo. 222 (L.P. vi, 1311); Foxe, iv, 706–7.

17 Original letters, 1, 200- 1; C.L.R.O.. Journal 13, fo. 476; see below, pp. 272—3.

18 C.L.R.O., Repertory 10, fo. 34b; Wriothesley, 1, 79–81; Foxe, v, 404–9.

19 Original letters, ii, 624–5.

20 C.L.R.O., Repertory 10, fo. 8gv.

21 The Reformation was subversive of relations between the generations. See, for example, the petition of the parishioners of St Benet Gracechurch to Cromwell against their curate, 1538. P.R.O., E 136/120, fo. 107 (L.P. XIII (1), 1111 (2)); Huggarde, Displayinge of the Protestantes, preface; sig. L vii; John Feckenham's sermon, Jan. 1547, SP 1/228, fo. 55V (L.P. xxi (2), 710); John, Christopherson, An exhortacwn to all menne to take hede and beware of rebellion (London, 1555), sig. T iiGoogle Scholar; cited in Thomas, K. V., ‘Age and authority in early modern England’, Proceedings of the British Academy, lxii (1976), 45.Google Scholar

22 Dugmore, C.W., The Mass and the English Reformers (London, 1958)Google Scholar; Clark, F., Eucharistic sacrifice and the Reformation (London, 1960)Google Scholar; Thomas, K.V., Religion and the decline of magic: studies in popular beliefs in sixteenth and seventeenth century England (London, 1971), pp. 33–6.Google Scholar

23 Cranmer to Cromwell, 22 June 1538, SP 1/133, fo. 174 (L.P. XIII (1), 1237).

24 Tudor Royal proclamations, ed. P.L. Hughes and J. F. Larkin (New Haven, 1964–9), 1, no. 186 (hereafter cited as T.R.P.); Documents illustrative of English church history, ed. Gee, H. and Hardy, W. (London, 1896), pp. 275–81.Google Scholar

25 Original letters, 11, 624.

26 Ibid.

27 Deposition of Christopher Chaitour, Dec. 1539, SP 1/155, fo. 196 (L.P. xiv (2), 750); examination of Parson Tunstall, 6 Jan. 1540, SP 1/157, fo. 23v. (L.P. xv, 31).

28 SP 1/117, fos. 150–9 (L.P. XII (1), 755–6); Elton, Policy and police, p. 102.

29 Cromwell's remembrances, April 1540, British Library, Cotton MS Titus B1, fo. 477 (L.P. xv. 438).

30 Examination of Parson Tunstall, 6 Jan. 1540, SP 1/157, fo. 23 (L.P. xv, 31).

31 Deposition of Chaitour, Dec. 1539, SP 1/155, fo. 196 (L.P. xiv (2), 750); Lambeth Palace Library, Register Cranmer, fo. 70v; Original letters, 11, 627.

32 L.P. xiv (1), 655; Elton, ‘Cromwell's decline and fall’, p. 164.

33 T.R.P. 1, no. 191; Heinze, R. W., The Proclamations of the Tudor kings (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 139–41.Google Scholar

34 Statutes of the realm, iii, 743; Elton, ‘Cromwell's decline and fall’, pp. 164–8.

35 Wriothesley, 1, 101; Original letters, 1, 215; Thomas Warley to Lord Liste, 6 July 1539, SP 3/8, fo. 41 (L.P. xiv (i), 1219).

36 SP 1/153, fo. 27 (L.P. xiv (2), 41); Foxe, v, appendix xvi.

37 SP 1/158, fo. 124 (L.P. xv, 414); Sermons by Bishop Latimer, ed. Corrie, G.E. (Parker society, Cambridge, 1844), p. 64.Google Scholar

38 SP 1/243, fo 75 (L.P., Addenda 1 (2), 1463).

39 Bishop Hilsey to Cromwell, 23 July 1539, L.P. xiv (1), 1297.

40 Original letters, ii, 627; John Butler to Bullinger, 24 Feb. 1540, L.P. xv, 259.

41 Wriothesley, 1, 100. There had been doubts about the advisability of gathering the citizenry together for the general muster in May; Lehmberg, S.E., The later Parliaments of Henry VIII (Cambridge, 1977), pp. 59–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 In 1528 the midsummer watch was stopped because of the plague (John Stow, Annales, or a general chronicle of England, ed. E. Howe, London, 1631, 540). In 1534 Chapuys thought that the watch would be halted because the city was so unsettled (Calendar of letters, despatches and state papers, relating to negotiations between England and Spain, ed. Bergenroth, G.A.el al. (London, 1862–1954), iv, 1091). In 1545 the watch was again prevented (Wriothesley, 1, 156).Google Scholar

43 Elton, , ‘Cromwell's decline and fall’, pp. 153–60, 171.Google Scholar

44 Elton, , Reform and Reformation: England, 1509–1558 (London, 1977), pp. 287–95Google Scholar; Muller, , Gardiner and Tudor reaction, pp. 13–18, 84.Google Scholar

45 Original Utters, i, 210.

46 L.P. xvi, 106. For Professor Scarisbrick Luther was ‘only half right’ about the king's attitude for Henry was not author of Barnes's death nor knew how it came about (Henry VIII, pp. 382–3). Yet the king must have been aware of the moves against Barnes in July; he had himself examined Barnes in March 1540, as he had examined John Lambert in 1538, and had specifically asked for a report of Barnes's recantation (see below, p. 265).

47 Gardiner and Sampson, bishop of Chichester, had been excluded from the Privy Council at the end of 1539; Gardiner apparently for objecting to the use of his old enemy, Barnes, as envoy in the Cleves negotiations, and Sampson for holding against the new opinions (L.P. xiv (2), 423, 750 (1, 2)).

48 Original letters, 11, 627.

49 Ibid. 11, 614.

50 Wriothesley, 1, 113; Original letters, 11, 616.

51 Muller, J.A., The letters of Stephen Gardiner (Cambridge, 1933), pp. 168–9. Gardiner's claim that the first sermon was impromptu and the second reluctantly given hardly rings true; nor does his assertion that his chaplain set the date for the second sermon without Gardiner's prior approval.Google Scholar

52 Ibid. pp. 169–70; Edward, Hall, The Union of the two noble and illustre families of Lancastre and Yorke, ed. Ellis, H. (London, 1809), pp. 837–8Google Scholar; Correspondance politique de MM de Castillon et de Marillac, ed. Kaulek, J. (Paris, 1885), pp. 168 9; L.P. xv, 306.Google Scholar

53 Letters of Gardiner, p. 172.

54 Hall, p. 838.

55 Wriothesley, 1, 115; Foxe, v, 530. The verdict upon the hanged man was suicide, but to Protestant propagandists at least the parallels with the murder of Hunne were clear (Brinklow, ‘Complaynt of Roderyck Mors’, ed. J.M. Cowper (E.E.T.S, extra series, XXII), 29; John, Bale, Yet a course at the Romyshe Foxe, compyled by J. Harryson (Zurich, 1543), p. 32). At about this time too an account of the Hunne case was published: The enquirie and verdite of the quest panneld of the death of R. Hunne. The death of this priest supports Hall's account of Barnes's encounter with Gardiner as the schoolmaster who ‘made suche a rod to beate his skoler that he beate hym as small as ashes, or he left hym’ (Hall, p. 838).Google Scholar

56 B.L. Cotton MS Cleo. Ev, fos. 98, 99 (L.P. xv, 312); Foxe, v, 432–3.

57 Original letters, ii, 616–17.

58 SP 1/158, fo. 50 (L.P. xv, 345); 158, fo. 120 (L.P. xv, 411 (2)); Foxe, v, appendix viii.

59 SP 1/158, fo. 50 (L.P. xv, 345).

60 Correspondance de Marillac, p. 169; L.P. xv, 334.

61 Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London (Camden society, Liii, 1852), 43.

62 SP 1/158, fo. 124 (L.P. xv, 414). Henry Dowes's report to Henry VIII.

63 SP 1/158, fo. 120 (L.P. xv, 411 (2)); Foxe, v, appendix viii (2).

64 SP 1/158, fos. 124–5 (L.P. xv, 414).

65 Foxe, v, appendix xxi.

66 Guildhall Library, MS 9531/12, fo. 37 (Bonner's Register); Foxe, v, appendix VII. The extant text may be a digest of the recantations of the three reformers, for although claimed to be by Barnes it is signed by all three; Davis, ‘Heresy and Reformation’, p. 319.

67 Hall, p. 838; L.P. xv, 425.

68 Letters of Gardiner, p. 174.

69 Nothing is known of it in detail, but Wriothesley reported that Garret ‘recanted nothing’; 1, 114. See Foxe, v, 433.

70 Letters of Gardiner: p. 174.

71 Wriothesley, 1, 114; Correspondance de Marillac, p. 175; L.P. xv. 485.

72 Elton, ‘Cromwell's decline and fall’, pp. 171 3. See Thomas Former's letter to Cromwell. 22 May 1537, SP 1/120, fo. 172 (L.P. xii (1), 1260); Lusardi, ‘ Career of Robert Barnes’, p. 1403.

73 L.P. xv, 486; Elton, ‘Cromwell's decline and fall’, p. 172.

74 Ibid. p. 174; Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 376; Correspondance de Marillac, p. 179; L.P. xv. 567.

75 Lambeth Palace Library, Register Cranmer, fo. 69.

76 L.P. xv, 697, 598, 615, 650, 730, 939, 1005; Proceedings and ordinances of the Privy Council of England, ed. Nicolas, H. (London, 1834–1837), vii 11 22; Hall, p. 838; Wriothesley, 1, 119; Stow, Annales, p. 580.Google Scholar

77 Dr Wilson had abetted conservative traitors (Original letters, 1, 211: L.P. xv, 736. 747; xiv (2), 748–50). The reasons for Sampson's arrest were less clear (L.P. xv, 719; State papers of King Henry VIII (London, 1830–52), 1 (ii), 627; Elton, ‘Cromwell's decline and fall’, p. 175.

78 L.P. xv, 737; Elton, ‘Cromwell's decline and fall’, p. 175.

79 L.P. xv, 736–7. There is a letter from Barnes dated 21 May, written from the house of Parnell, his scholar, in London. It isjust conceivable that Barnes was indeed out of prison, rather than that his letter was misdated, as Muller suggests; Muller, Gardiner and Tudor reaction, p. 355 n. 28; Foxe, v, 415–6; Original letters, 11, 616–17.

80 Hall (p. 838) curiously dates Cromwell's arrest to 9 July; Original letters, 1, 202; L.P. xv, 766.

81 Lehmberg, S.E., ‘Parliamentary attainder in the reign of Henry VIII’, H.J. xviii (1975), 693.Google Scholar

82 L.P. xv, 498 (60); Foxe, v, 399.

83 L.P. xv, 766, 824; Foxe, v, 402; Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, pp. 379–80; Elton, ‘Cromwell's decline and fall’, pp. 177 83.

84 Original letters, 1, 202 3.

85 L.P. xv, 498 (11, cap. 49); Original letters, 1, 207; Lehmberg, ‘Parliamentary attainder’, p. 693 n. 61.

86 Paul, J., Catherine of Aragon and her friends (London, 1966).Google Scholar

87 L.P. xv, 598.

88 Elton, Reform and Reformation, pp. 292–4; Scarisbrick, Henry VIII, p. 383.

89 Foxe, v, 420.

90 Hall, p. 840; William, Turner, The huntyng of the Romyshe Vuolfe (Zurich, 1554), sig. Eiiiiv.Google Scholar

91 Foxe, v, 435.

92 Ibid, v, 434. Latimer was to use similar imagery in his ‘Sermon of the plough’, Sermons of Latimer, p. 60.

93 Waite to Lady Lisle, 27 May 1535, L.P. viii, 771.

94 Thomas More, ‘The confutation of Tyndale's answer’, Complete works, 8, part i, 302; Lusardi, ‘Career of Robert Barnes’, Complete works, 8, part iii, 1395 See also, ‘The viii boke in whyche is confuted doctour Barons chyrche’, Complete works, 8, part 11, 831–992.

95 L.P. vi, 403.

96 Foxe, v, 228.

97 Ibid, v, appendix xxi.

98 Tunstal's register, Guildhall Library, MS 9531/10, fos. 137r-v; Foxe, v, appendix vi; Hall, p. 736; Davis, ‘Heresy and Reformation’, pp. 237–9; SP 1/113, fo. iogv (L.P. xi, 1424); Dickens, A.G., Lollards and protestants in the diocese of York, 1509–1558 (Oxford, 1959), pp. 59–60, 79–80.Google Scholar

99 More, ‘Confutation of Tyndale's answer, preface’, Complete works, 8, part 1, 30 ff. See above, pp. 34, 36–38 and below, pp. 41–2.

100 See, for example, Walter Blount to Dr Lygh, 6 Dec. 1534, SP 1/239, fo 83 (L.P., Addenda 1 (i) 953); SP 1/99, fos. 201–2 (L.P. ix, 1059).

101 Brigden, ‘Early Reformation in London’, pp. 175–80.

102 Francis Halle to Lord Lisle, 17 Nov. 1536, SP 3/4, fo. 4 (L.P. xi, 1097); Bishop of Faenza to Mons Ambrogio, 4 Dec. 1536, L.P. xi, 1250.

103 Latimer to Cromwell, 15 July 1537, L.P. xii (2), 258.

104 Correspondence de Marillac, p. 209; L.P. xv, 953.

105 Miles, Coverdale, A confutation of that treatise which John Standish made against the protestation of D. Barnes in the year MDXL in Coverdale's Remains, ed. Pearson, G. (Parker society, Cambridge, 1846), p. 350.Google Scholar

106 Ibid. p. 333. Standish stressed Barnes's use ofironia in his protestation.

107 Foxe, v, 434–6.

108 See in particular Simon Fish's ‘Supplicacyon for the beggers’, ed. J.M. Cowper (E.E.T.S., extra series, xiii, 1871); White, Helen C., Social criticism in popular religious literature of the sixteenth century (New York, 1944), pp. 82–109.Google Scholar

109 Brinklow, ‘Lamentacyon’, p. 80.

110 Ibid. p. 91.

111 L.P. xv, 486.

112 Original letters, 1, 210.

113 Owst, G.R., Literature and the pulpit in medieval England (Oxford, 1966), pp. 237–375.Google Scholar

114 Cohn, N., The Pursuit of the millennium (London, 1962 edn), p. 204.Google Scholar

115 Hall, pp. 586–7.

116 Owst, Literature and the pulpit, pp. 149–209. See, for example, B.L. Harleian MS 2252, fo. 85.

117 John, Gough, The lytell treatyse called / or named the lokynge glasse of lyfe (London, 1532), fo. 13. For changing attitudes to poverty and charity in Reformation London, see my ‘Early Reformation in London’, pp. 354–63.Google Scholar

118 SP 1/121, fo. 83 (L.P. XII (2), 65). For a medieval precedent, see Owst, Literature and the pulpit, pp. 297–8.

119 C.L.R.O., Repertory 10, fos. 178v, 194. The Carkkes's servant had been imprisoned in 1532 for reformist views (Foxe, v, 39), and William Carkke was still be associated with protestantism in the 1540s (P.R.O., P.C.C., Prob. 11/31, fo. 17V; Guildhall Library, MS 9531/12, fo. 45V). In 1544 Carkke was assessed to have 100 marks worth of goods; P.R.O., E 179/144/123 m. 22).

120 Sermons of Latimer, p. 280.

121 SP 1/153, fos. 27–8 (L.P. xiv (2), 41).

122 Bale, Yet a course at the romyshefoxe, fo. 88v; sig. G iiiiv; cited in Horst, I. B., The radical brethren: Anabaptism and the English Reformation to 1558 (The Hague, 1972), p. 94.Google Scholar

123 Collins to Cromwell, SP 1/144, fos. 221–2 (L.P. xiv (1), 647); C.L.R.O., Journal 13, fo. 476; Original letters, 1, 200–1.

124 Foxe, v, 251.

125 Original letters, 1, 201.

126 Wriothesley, 1, 115.

127 Correspondance de Marillac, p. 175; L.P. xv, 485.

128 Ibid, xv, 566.

129 Stow, Annales, p. 579; L.P. xv, 651; Original letters 1, 200–1. The ‘John a painter’ who was martyred in 1539, according to Foxe (v, 654), may have been one of those who suffered in 1540; he may also have been involved in the iconoclasm at St Margaret Pattens in 1538 (C.L.R.O., Repertory 10, fo. 34b).

130 Wriothesley, 1, 119. Dr Horst suggests that Collins may have been the first English Anabaptist, but this is impossible of proof; Radical brethren, pp. 90–2.

131 Hall maintained that the inquisition took place ‘in short time after the passage of the act’ (that is, after June 1539), and Foxe dated the first quest to 1541 (v, 443–51). Yet persecution would come only with the triumph of the conservatives, which must place this purge in the summer of 1540 (see L.P. xv, 953). Hilles reported that just before the grant of the general pardon on 15 July many were imprisoned in London for holding reformist opinions (Original letters 1, 208). Original indictments for twenty suspects were endorsed ‘ billa vera’ by Hollys, the mayor, on 17 July 1540 (SP 1/243, fos. 60–80; L.P., Addenda 1 (2), 1463; Davis, ‘Heresy and Reformation’, pp. 43–5). Thomas Lancaster, a priest accused of disseminating heretical books, was in the hands of the city authorities by i July (C.L.R.O., Journal 14, fo. 210). Of the contemporary chroniclers Hall alone mentioned this first quest under the Six Articles, and that Richard Grafton, himself among the persecuted in 1540, wrote this account would explain its anger, (p. 828). See Victoria history of the counties of England: London (London, 1909), p. 277 n. 30; Gairdner, J., Lollardy and the Reformation in England, 4 vols. (London, 1908–1913), ii, 200–2.Google Scholar

132 Hall, p. 828. Many of these suspects had been discovered to be guilty of heretical offences the previous Easter; L.P. xv, 697.

133 Brigden, ‘Early Reformation in London’, pp. 122–3.

134 Original letters, I, 232.

135 Hall, p. 828.

136 Original letters, 1, 232.

137 Brinklow, ‘Lamentacyon’, p. 80.

138 Ibid. p. 79.

139 34 & 35 Henry VIII c. 1; Lehmberg, Later parliaments, pp. 186–8.

140 P.R.O., E 179/144/92–3, 96–114, 122–3.

141 R.M. Fisher, ‘Reform, repression and unrest at the Inns of Court’, H.J. xx (1977), 792–3.

142 See Davis, N.Z., ‘Strikes and salvation at Lyons’, Society and culture in early modern France (London, 1975), ch. 1.Google Scholar

143 Foxe, v, 539–42, 547–50.

145 Ibid. 442.

146 Original letters 1, 208.

146 Hall, p. 828; Foxe, v, 451, 441; Strype, J., Ecclesiastical memorials, relating chiefly to religion, and the reformation of it... under king Henry VIII, king Edward VI and queen Mary I (Oxford, 1822), 1 (i), 565–6.Google Scholar

147 C.L.R.O., Letter book P, fo. 219v.

148 See, for example, Guildhall Library, MS 9531/12, fos. 43v–44; Turner, Huntyng of the Romyshe Vuolfe, sigs. B iiiv, E iiiiv; The Writings of John Bradford, ed. Townsend, A. (Parker society, Cambridge, 1848), pp. 283, 288Google Scholar; The prayers of Thomas Becon, ed. Ayre, J. (Parker society, Cambridge, 1844), p. 11Google Scholar; Select works of Bishop Bale, ed. Christmas, H. (Parker society, Cambridge, 1849), p. 394. Even fifteen years on Londoners spoke of the deaths of the reformers as a landmark when trying to date an event; Greater London Records Office, DL/C/209 (unfoliated).Google Scholar

149 A lytle treatyse composyd by Johan Standysshe against the protestadon of R. Barnes at the tyme of his death (London, 1540); A confutacion of that treatyse which one J. Standish made against the protestation of D. Barnes (Zurich, 1541?).

150 The metynge of Doctor Barons and Doctor Powell at Paradise gate (London, 1548).

151 I am much indebted to Professor G. R. Elton for reading and commenting upon this paper.