into every municipal act, deed, or covenant; will they tell us, that he holds this title from the "Man of Sin, Antichrist, and the scarlet whore"? Will they thus defame that sove

reign, whom they, at the same time, call on us to honour and obey? Yet this they must do; or they must confess, that their revilings, their foul abuse of the Catholic Church, have all been detestably false.

109. The King's predecessors had another title. They were called Kings of France; a title of much longer standing than that of Defender of the Faith. That title, a title of great glory, and one of which we were very proud, was not won by "Gospellers," or Presbyterians, or New Lights, with Saint Noel or Saint Butterworth at their head. It was, along with the Three Feathers, which the King so long wore, won by our brave Catholic ancestors. It was won while the Pope's supremacy; while confessions to priests, while absolutions, indulgences, masses, and monasteries existed in England. It was won by Catholics in the "dark ages of monkish ignorance and superstition." It was surrendered in an age enlightened by "a heaven-born" Protestant and pledge-breaking Minister. It was won by valour and surrendered by fear; and fear, too, of those whom, for years, we had been taught to regard as the basest (as they certainly had been the bloodiest) of all mankind.

110. It would be time now, after giving a rapid sketch of the progress which the tyrant had made in prostrating the liberties of his people, and in despatching more of his wives, to enter on the grand scene of plunder, and to recount the miseries which immediately followed; but these must be the subject of the next Letter.

No IV.

LETTER IV.

HORRID TYRANNY. BUTCHERY OF THE COUNTESS OF SALISBURY. CELIBACY OF THE CLERGY.-BISHOPS OF WINCHESTER.

HUME'S CHARGES AND BISHOP TANNER'S ANSWER.

MY FRIENDS,

Kensington, 28th February, 1825.

111. We have seen, then, that the "Reformation," was engendered in beastly lust, brought forth in hypocrisy and perfidy, and we have had some specimens of the acts by which it caused innocent blood to be shed. We shall now, in this Letter and the next, see how it devastated and plundered the country, what poverty and misery it produced, and how it laid the sure foundation for that pauperism, that disgraceful immorality, that fearful prevalence of crimes of all sorts, which now so strongly mark the character of this nation, which was formerly the land of virtue and of plenty.

12. When, in paragraph 97, we left the King and CRANMER at their bloody work, we had come to the year 1536, and to the 27th year of the King's reign. In the year 1528, an act had been passed to exempt the King from paying any sum of money that he might have borrowed; another act followed this, for a similar purpose; and thus thousands of persons were ruined. His new

Queen, JANE SEYMOUR, brought him, in 1537, a son, who

D

was afterwards King, under the title of EDWARD VI.; but, the mother died in child-birth, and, according to Sir RICHARD BAKER, "had her body ripped up to preserve the child"! In this great "Reformation man all was of a piece: all was consistent: he seemed never to have any compassion for the suffering of any human being; and this is a characteristic which WHITAKER gives to his daughter ELIZABETH.

113. Having a son for a successor, he, with his Parliament, enacted, in 1537, that MARY and ELIZABETH, his two daughters, were bastards, and that, in case of a want of lawful issue, the King should be enabled, by letters patent, or by his last will, to give the crown to whomsoever he pleased! To cap the whole, to complete a series of acts of tyranny such as was never before heard of, it was enacted in 1537, and in the 28th year of his reign, that, except in cases of mere private right, "the King's Pro"clamations should be of the same force as Acts of Par"liament"! Thus, then, all law and justice were laid prostrate at the feet of a single man, and that man a man with whom law was a mockery, on whom the name of justice was a libel, and to whom mercy was wholly unknown.

114. It is easy to imagine that no man's property or life could have security with power like this in the hands of such a man. MAGNA CHARTA had been trampled under foot from the moment that the Pope's supremacy was assailed. The famous act of EDWARD THE THIRD, for the security of the people against unfounded charges of high treason, was wholly set aside. Numerous things were made high treason, which were never before thought criminal at all. The trials were, for a long while, a mere mockery; and, at last, they were altogether, in many cases, laid aside, and the accused were condemned to death, not only without being arraigned and heard in their defence; but, in numerous cases, without being apprized of the crimes, or

pretended crimes, for which they were executed. We have read of Deys of Algiers and of Beys of Tunis; but, never have heard of them, even in the most exaggerated accounts, deeds to be, in point of injustice and cruelty, compared with those of this man, whom BURNETT calls, "the firstborn son of the English Reformation."" The objects of his bloody cruelty generally were, as they naturally would be, chosen from amongst the most virtuous of his subjects; because from them such a man had the most to dread. Of these his axe hewed down whole families and circles of friends. He spared neither sex nor age, if the parties possessed, or were suspected of possessing, that integrity which made them disapprove of his deeds. To look awry excited his suspicion, and his suspicion was death. England, before his bloody reign, so happy, so free, knowing so little of crime as to present to the judges of assize scarcely three criminals in a county in a year, now saw upwards of sixty thousand persons shut up in her jails at one and the same time. The purlieus of the court of this "first-born son of the Reformation" were a great human slaughter-house, his people, deserted by their natural leaders who had been bribed by plunder, or the hope of plunder, were the terri-. fied and trembling flock, while he, the master-butcher, fat and jocose, sat in his palace issuing orders for the slaughter, while his High Priest, CRANMER, stood ready to sanction and to sanctify all his deeds.

115. A detail of these butcheries could only disgust and weary the reader. One instance, however, must not be omitted; namely, the slaughtering of the relations, and particularly the mother, of CARDINAL POLE. The Cardinal, who had, when very young, and before the King's first divorce had been agitated, been a great favourite with the King, and had pursued his studies and travels on the Continent at the King's expense, disapproved of the divorce, and of all the acts that followed it; and, though called home by

the King, he refused to obey. He was a man of great learning, talent, and virtue, and his opinions had great weight in England. His mother, the COUNTESS OF SALISBURY, was descended from the PLANTAGENETS, and was the last living descendant of that long race of English Kings. So that the Cardinal, who had been by the Pope raised to that dignity, on account of his great learning and eminent virtues, was, thus, a relation of the King, as his mother was of course, and she was, too, the newest of all his relations. But, the Cardinal was opposed to the King's proceedings; and that was enough to excite and put in motion the deadly vengeance of the latter. Many were the arts that he made use of, and great in amount was the treasure of his people that he expended, in order to bring the Cardinal's person within his grasp; and, these having failed, he resolved to wreak his ruthless vengeance on his kindred and his aged mother. She was charged by the base THOMAS CROMWELL (of whom we shall soon see enough) with having persuaded her tenants not to read the new translations of the Bible, and also with having received bulls from Rome, which, the accuser said, were found at COURDRAY HOUSE, her seat in Sussex. CROMWELL also showed a banner, which had, he said, been used by certain rebels in the North, and which he said he found in her house. All this was, however, so very barefaced, that it was impossible to think of a trial. The judges were then asked, whether the par liament could not attaint her; that is to say, condemn her, without giving her a hearing? The judges said, that it was a dangerous matter; that they could not, in their courts, act in this manner, and that they thought the par liament never would. But, being asked, whether, if the parliament were to do it, it would remain good in law, they answered in the affirmative. That was enough. A bill was brought in, and thus was the Countess, together with the Marchioness of Exeter and two gentlemen, relations of the