The extinction of the ancient hierarchy : an account of the death in prison of the eleven bishops honoured at Rome amongst the martyrs of the Elizabethan persecution; Archbishop Heath of York, Bishops Tunstall, Bonner and companions

Front matter

Ay, —wittre AS Up <A ogien1, sewn ee Ot ota

Section ow

4 TS, re hia %

Preface

THE subject which is dealt with in the following pages, viz., the extinction of England’s ancient Hierarchy under Elizabeth, and the fate of the faithful Catholic Bishops whom that Queen deposed, is one which long has occupied the writer’s thoughts.

Without making any real examination of the facts, historians went on for centuries contentedly repeating the interested and deceitful account of the matter given by Lord Burghley, who was himself the chief actor in effecting that extinction ;—and thus it came at last to be regarded as a fixed tradition to be accepted without question, that, excepting one or two, the ousted Prelates had been pleasantly allowed to end their lives in comfortable ease and quiet.

The writer (who at the time had only heard the above stereotyped version of the story) well remembers his surprise on being shown in younger days, in the Library of his College, the picture placed here as frontispiece, with its inscription recording the death of the Eleven Bishops from their sufferings in prison for the faith. “What?” he asked, “did eleven Bishops really die in prison,” and, though assured at the time that there must have been some exaggeration, the impression made upon him did not quickly vanish.

His early interest in the subject naturally was revived by the beatification, in 1886, of so many of the English martyrs represented in the very pictures, to the series of which belonged the one just mentioned ; and still more by the appearance three years later of the late Father Bridgett’s Queen Elizabeth and the Catholic Hverarchy, to which continual references will be found in the ensuing pages.

vii

Viii PREFACE

In this last-named work the learned Redemptorist laid bare for the first time the deceitfulness of the account, which had been handed down by writers such as Burghley, Andrewes, and Camden, proving it to be at hopeless variance with official records, which the throwing open of State Papers has now made accessible to all.

In this book of Father Bridgett’s, no reference was made to the English College pictures, or to the inscription set up to commemorate the eleven Bishops dead in prison ; but, in a review of the work by the late Father John Morris, S.J.,! which appeared soon afterwards, this last was briefly touched upon; although, to the disappointment of the present writer, Father Morris gave up almost at once, as hopeless, the identification of the eleven there referred to.

At the same time—though so ardently devoted to the cause of our English martyrs and to everything connected with it—Father Morris made no profession of having given any special study to this particular question, and, on the other hand, he let it be clearly seen that, at the time that he was writing, he had not had by him the chief authorities that he referred to. In fact, on turning to the passage in Sander on which he had grounded his chief difficulty, it became evident at once that, through not having it before him when he wrote, the good Father had unconsciously misquoted his authority on more than one important point.

It happened, too, a little later, that the principal real difficulty in the way of identifying the eleven Bishops was entirely removed by the publication of the Acts of the Privy Council belonging to the year 1565. For these Acts prove beyond all question that a certain Bishop, who is wanted to make up the eleven—Bishop Pate of Worcester— whom modern writers have all represented as having fled abroad upon Elizabeth’s accession,” was really still in England, and a prisoner, in the year 1565—in which actual

1 Month, November 1889, ‘The Deposed Bishops of England.”

2 The first to assert this (as will be shown in its own place), was the Protestant Bishop Andrewes in the following century, who erroneously applied to the time of Elizabeth some words of Sander referring really to an earlier period.

PREFACE ix year the Bishop died. Thus the Catholic writers of the time itself, who numbered him amongst those dead in prison, are confirmed in their assertion.

This and other difficulties, as to the identification of the Bishops, having been removed, a statement of the case regarding them was made by the present writer, in the Ushaw magazine of July 1901, which reappeared shortly after in the Zadlet.

In the following autumn, on occasion of their annual meeting held at Ushaw, the Bishops of the six northern Dioceses addressed a communication on the subject, through the Bishop of Middlesbrough, to Cardinal Vaughan, begging his Eminence to take steps to bring before the Holy See the claim of the eleven Bishops to be honoured like the other Martyrs represented in the English College pictures.

The following is the answer of his Eminence to the Bishop of Middlesbrough’s letter :—

““ ARCHBISHOP’S HOUSE, “WESTMINSTER, S.W., October 2nd, 1901. “MY DEAR LORD,

“T will take care to appoint at once a court to make a preliminary examination into the claims of the eleven Bishops to be ranked among our Beati: and will communicate with Rome upon the subject without delay.

“Your devoted brother, “ HERBERT, CARD. VAUGHAN.”

A little later, the present writer was commissioned by the Cardinal and his own Bishop to draw up a formal statement of the case of the eleven Bishops, with a view to the introduction of their cause at Rome; and the preparation of the necessary documents for presentation to the Sacred Congregation of Rites was at once begun.

Before these, however, had been yet completed, it was realised by those most interested in the cause, that its formal introduction at Rome would be much facilitated by the previous publication of the story of the imprisoned Bishops’ sufferings in some simpler and more popular form.

bs PREFACE

In the case of some of them, moreover, for example in that of the good Bishop Bonner—some such step seemed almost necessary in consequence of the long-standing, though as now can be proved unjust, detestation, with which the malice of his enemies has caused him to be regarded; kind and gentle though he really was.

The immediate purpose, therefore, of the present volume, is to lay before the reader the true story of the death for the faith in prison of the eleven Bishops, as proved from State Papers and other contemporary writings; which story the deliberate efforts of their persecutors have caused to be so long suppressed.

In his endeavour to carry out this purpose the writer feels that he may justly claim the sympathy of all those who love the truth for its own sake; whether or not they actually hold the faith for which these holy Bishops devotedly gave up all that this world values, to end their days in prison.

He cannot but think, moreover, that the violent extinction of our country’s ancient Hierarchy, and the. sudden substitution of a new one in its place, is in itself an event of consequence sufficient to demand a closer attention from historians than it has commonly received.

Most of all does that event seem to claim the careful thought of those who would fain have it be believed that the “Church of England,” which was set up by Elizabeth and her Parliament in 1559, was in some entirely inexplicable manner a continuation of that of the good Queen Mary and of the times before the so-called Reformation.

From first to last the writer has to own his deep indebtedness to the late lamented Father Bridgett, without whose Queen Elizabeth and the Catholic Hverarchy the present work would have never probably been undertaken. To him is due the praise of having been the first to throw light on a corner of history, which till then had been very dark.

In spite of this, however, Father Bridgett has naturally left much still to be done to bring out the whole truth as to an event so long concealed.

PREFACE xi

At times his cautious fear of being betrayed into exaggeration had led him to underrate the full significance of certain acts, or words; whilst, in other cases, evidences of the continuation and of the severity of the Bishops’ imprisonment had entirely escaped him, which have since been brought to light. |

Moreover, an examination of the Catholic writings of the period (of which Father Bridgett seems to have had the opportunity of consulting very few), has brought out into strong light the profound veneration in which their Catholic contemporaries held the imprisoned Confessors, or rather Martyrs, as they generally called them. Of these writers, those whose names will naturally be found to recur most often, are Nicholas Sander and Cardinal William Allen.

Of the latter it would be quite unnecessary here to make any eulogium ; nor with reference to Sander can there be any longer need to clear him from the virulent aspersions which formerly were cast upon him by writers such as Heylin, Burnet, and Strype, since even Protestants themselves have grown ashamed of these. It cannot be out of place, however, to quote here the judgment passed in our day on Sander by the non-Catholic writer of the notice of him in the Dictionary of National Biography.

“ Recent historians have shown that, notwithstanding his animus and the violence of his language, Zzs narratzve of facts ts remarkably truthful. ... Even inthe extreme case of the impossible story regarding Anne Boleyn’s birth, it is proved to have been at least no invention of Sander’s, but was reported by him, in apparent good faith, on the authority of Rastall’s Lzfe of More, to which he refers, and of common gossip. In respect to information derived from Roman sources, Sanders is particularly accurate.”

To Catholics, the best testimony to the high character -of Sander is the confidence which was reposed in him by the highest ecclesiastical authorities of his own time. Thus Cardinal Allen, in his letters, spoke of him continually with unbounded esteem and reverence; whilst Pope St Pius V. named him one of his Apostolic Delegates for England, xii PREFACE with powers usually entrusted alone to Bishops; and his successor, Pope Gregory XIII., despatched him as Papal Nuncio to Spain and Ireland, where he died about the April of 1581.

Amongst the many friends, from whom the writer has received assistance and encouragement, his thanks are due especially to Father John H. Pollen, S.J., to whom he is indebted, not merely for continual help and counsel, but also for the loan of many valuable transcripts of papers of Sander’s, Persons’, and others yet unpublished. His special thanks are due to Father Pollen for the loan of Sander’s Report to Cardinal Morone. From this the writer has translated numerous passages, without thinking it necessary to supply the Latin text,—the publication of the entire text of this invaluable Report being promised very shortly by the Catholic Record Society.

In quoting English books and papers of the sixteenth century, the writer has thought it best, as a rule, to modernise the spelling.

The writer’s special thanks are also due to Mr R. Raikes Bromage for his kindness in supplying him with very many transcripts of papers from the Record Office and the British Museum, as also for other valuable help.

He has also to thank many of his colleagues at St Cuthbert’s College for their help in various ways, and especially the Rev. Dr T. Kane for his patience in revising the entire manuscript.

Contents

CHAP.

I.—The English College Pictures, and the Beatification of the Martyrs represented in them . : : :

II.—The Picture of the Imprisoned Bishops, and the names of the Eleven, as made certain by lists belonging to the time

Chapter II

THE PICTURE OF THE IMPRISONED BISHOPS, AND THE NAMES OF THE ELEVEN, AS MADE CERTAIN BY LISTS BELONGING TO THE TIME

THE eleven Bishops described as having died in prison are now the only ones, amongst the sufferers distinctively referred to in the inscriptions of the English College pictures! to whom the honours of the Blessed have not yet been decreed; although everything appears to show that ¢zey were intended to be held up to the same public veneration as the rest. In fact, these eleven Bishops, who had “died worn out by long imprisonment,” are there placed as the first victims of Elizabeth, and their death is recorded as the first event of her persecution.

To typify the close confinement, in which they had been made to end their days, the painter had depicted a fortress standing on a river bank, and with windows strongly barred and grated—meant most likely for the Tower—beneath which were set the following words: Propter Sedis Romane et fide Catholice confesstonem, undecim R™ Episcopt Catholict ex diuturna carceris molestia contabescentes obierunt. In the lower part of the same picture were exhibited the martyrdoms of Blessed Thomas Plumtree and John Felton, who suffered in 1570; of B. Thomas Percy, put to death in 1572; and of B. Cuthbert Mayne, the proto-martyr of the Seminarists, with five others of Elizabeth’s first victims.

1 The precise mention of the umber of the Bishops is clear proof that the reference is to definite individuals, and not merely (as in one of the other pictures) to general examples of the tortures inflicted by the persecutors. 1

Thus this picture truthfully exhibited the commencement of the Elizabethan persecution, the first blow of which fell upon the faithful Bishops, who were gradually, though none less surely, extinguished in their prisons. And indeed, even in that fierce persecution, there cannot have been many incidents more worth recording than this extermination of the ancient Hierarchy; nor is it possible to read the above inscription without desiring to know the names of the eleven holy Prelates, of whose death in prison our Catholic forefathers endeavoured thus to perpetuate the memory. |

It is easy to see how, to the Catholics living at the time of its erection, the eleven Bishops spoken of in the inscription would naturally be so well known, as to make it needless to express their names. Moreover, there was then one still living, and upon the spot, to give them full information; who had himself been intimate with each of the eleven—viz., Bishop Goldwell of St Asaph, the last survivor of the ancient Hierarchy. But when at last the beatification of the Martyrs there depicted came about, more than three centuries after the time, the history of the imprisoned Prelates had become meanwhile so much obscured by false traditions and false statements, that it was then no easy thing to say at once who precisely the eleven were.

In the similar case of the three Abbots and their unnamed companions, the method followed was to go back to books and documents belonging to the time, and to compare the statements found in these with that of the Roman inscription.

The same method has been adopted by the present writer with reference to the Bishops deposed and imprisoned by Elizabeth, of whom, fortunately, many lists are to be found in books and papers of the period; and the result of a careful study of these lists and other like authorities has been to remove all doubt from his mind as to the identity of the eleven.

The result of this examination, with the authorities on which it rests, must now be laid before the reader.

He is, however, requested to remember that authorities are only cited here, in so far as they help us to identify the individuals; although they cannot well be quoted for this purpose without necessitating some anticipation of what will be told more fully later as to the holy Bishops’ sufferings.

A complete list of the twenty-seven English Sees existing at the commencement of the reign of Queen Elizabeth is found, very conveniently for our purpose, in a letter of Il Schifanoya, the Mantuan representative in London, dated June 27, 1550.

At that time no less than ten Sees were already vacant, owing to their occupants having died, either just before, or immediately after, Elizabeth’s accession; and the process of depriving the survivors had already been commenced. The following is Il Schifanoya’s enumeration of the Sees :—

“ st. Bishops dead :—Canterbury, ze, Cardinal Pole; Rochester, Norwich, Chichester, Oxford, Salisbury, Gloucester, Bristol, Hereford, Bangor.

“2nd. Bishops deprived :—London, Worcester, Chester, Carlisle, Lichfield, Llandaff, Winchester (in the Tower), Lincoln (in the Tower).

“3rd. Bishops living, and not yet deprived :—York, Ely, Exeter, Bath, St Asaph, Durham, Peterborough, St Davids, Man (Mona Insula).” 4

Thus, when I] Schifanoya wrote, the whole number of the Bishops still surviving was but seventeen.”

1 Venetian Calendar, 1558-1580, p. 105.

2 Besides these there were two others living (though not holding Dioceses), whom Henry VIII. had named “Suffragans,” but who, after abjuring the schism under Mary, unhappily fell back under Elizabeth. The first of these, Thomas Spark, Bishop Suffragan of Berwick, was still in possession, at his death in 1571, of a stall at Durham and other preferments. The other—Robert Pursglove, Bishop Suffragan of Hull—at first refused the oath of supremacy under Elizabeth, and was deprived. Dodd (whom Father Bridgett follows) represents him as having continued faithful. But this appears irreconcilable with the fact that he received on June 5, 1563, letters patent from the queen for the foundation at Guisborough of

Out of these seventeen we may at once put aside, in our search for the eleven :

Ist. Bishop Kitchin of Llandaff, who—though he at first (as this letter shows) allowed himself to be deprived— ended miserably by conforming to the new religion.

2nd. Bishop Morgan of St David’s, who was saved by illness from being put in prison, and who died with relatives near Oxford before the end of the same year 1559."

And 3rd, Bishop Stanley of Sodor and Man, who seems to have retained his bishopric until his death ; and who, so far from dying in a prison, is thought by some to have renounced his religion.”

When, however, passing these three over, we look to see what writers of the time can tell us with reference to a school and hospital “placed under the visitatorial power of the Archbishop of York” (article in Dict. Wat. Biog.). In any case he died at liberty, at Tideswell in Derbyshire, in 1580; and is not found named in any of the contemporary lists of. sufferers drawn up by Catholics. A copy of his will, dated March 31, 1580, and proved on the following August 22, is preserved at Ushaw.

1 See the account of Bishop Morgan in Father Bridgett’s £/zz. and Cath. Hier, p. 62. In spite of his fidelity, Bishop oreae is nowhere me ioned in the lists of sufferers.

2 The wording of the writ which appointed a successor to Stanley in 1570, would seem to show that he himself had continued to be recognised as Bishop by Elizabeth ; since it describes the See as vacant, not by the deprivation (as in the case of the other deposed Bishops), but “by the natural death of Thomas Stanley, the last occupant of that episcopal dignity.” (Rymer, /oedera, tom. vi., pars. iv., p. 141.) Pilkington, the first Protestant Bishop of Durham, wrote from Lancashire about 1564 to Parker, saying: “The Bishop of Man here lies at ease, and as merry as Pope Joan” (Parker Correspondence, Pp. 222). In this, however, it is not quite clear whether he was regretting the liberty allowed to Stanley, or blaming him for not furthering the new religion more actively. It seems just possible that, without apostacy, Stanley may have enjoyed some immunity, under the protection of the Earl of Derby, the Patron of his See, who was then still looked on as a Catholic, and was accused of having Mass in his house in 1571 (Dom. Calendar, 1566-1579, p. 362). The Consistorial Act of Paul IV., June 26, 1555, by which Stanley was provided to the See of Man, speaks of it “as done at the instance of the Earl of Derby ” (Dr Maziere Brady, Epzscopal Succession, vol. i., p. 108).

the fourteen that remain, we find them everyone extolled by Catholics, as having, either in exile or in prison, made a glorious confession of the faith.

Thus, to take first Dr Allen, in answering an allusion made by Burghley to the so-called “ martyrs” put to death by Mary, we find him begin, as follows, his own enumeration of the Catholic sufferers under Elizabeth :—

“For these we yield unto the Libeller, first, fourteen noble and most worthy Bishops at one time, such as himself upon evil intent commended even now so highly (and indeed they were inferior in virtue and learning to none in Europe), who all were deprived of their honours and high callings, and most of them imprisoned and spitefully used in all respects.” +

The erection of the English College pictures, in which Allen was so much concerned, had taken place about a year before the time of his writing the above; and the engravings of them were published almost simultaneously with his answer to Lord Burghley in 1584, from which it is taken. At the moment of his writing? one of the fourteen Confessors whom he refers to—Bishop Watson of Lincoln, who only died on September 27 of the same year, was still lingering on in Wisbeach Castle; whilst another, the exiled Bishop of St Asaph, is described by him in it, as “yet alive in Rome.”

The names of the rest of these fourteen Confessors (or Martyrs, as Allen calls those that had already died in prison) are made known to us in part by his allusion to the insidious praises bestowed on them (as more “loyal” than the later sufferers) in the book that he was answering ;* but with entire certainty by an actual list of the

1 True, Sincere, and Modest Defence of English Catholics, 1584, p. 45.

2 Writing from Paris on July 23, 1584, Father Persons spoke of the printing, as then already nearly finished, of this reply of Allen’s to Burghley’s Execution of Justice in England (“ Letters and Memorials of Card. Allen,” p. 240, note).

3 In this way we get the names of Archbishop Heath, and of Bishops Tunstall, White, Oglethorpe, Poole, Thirlby, and Turberville— all spoken of by Burghley as already dead ; and of Bishop Watson, fourteen, which was brought out next year by Father Persons, at the end of Sander’s History of the English Schism, under the heading: Names of the Bishops, who, in prison or tn exile, have died for the same cause (2.e. for the Catholic faith).

The great intimacy which there was between Allen himself and Father Persons gives special importance to this list; nor was any book upon the persecution so widely circulated as that in which it was published, and of which a second edition was brought out in 1586 at Rome itself, the very place where already was exposed to view the inscription regarding the eleven dead in prison.

In this list supplied by Father Persons—in addition to the two above-mentioned Bishops of Lincoln and St Asaph (both of whom had meantime died)—we find named the twelve following: Archbishop Heath of York, and Bishops Bonner of London, White of Winchester, Tunstall of Durham, Oglethorpe of Carlisle, Pate of Worcester, Bayne of Lichfield, Thirlby of Ely, Poole of Peterborough, Bourne |.of, Bath, Durberville, of, ‘Exeter, and \Sootttof Chester.!

The above same fourteen names—as those of the Bishops that “suffered imprisonment or banishment,” occur again in a later work of Father Persons, published in 1603;? and again a third time in his yet unpublished “Story of Domestical Difficulties,’ which he left unfinished at his death.

In this last, Persons refers to “the deprivation of all mentioned by him as “‘yet living.” (Execution of Justice in England, Somers’ Tracts, vol. i, p. 192, ed. 1809, quoted by Father Bridgett, Dp.-2), \

1 “ Nomina Episcoporum qui in carcere, vel in exilio, pro eadem causa mortui sunt. Nicolaus Hethus, Archiepiscopus Eboracensis et Cancellarius, Edmundus Bonerus, Londinensis,” etc. (Printed at the end of “ Doctissitmt virt Nicolat Sanderi, de origine ac progressu Schismatis Anglicani liber... . Editus et auctus per Edouardum Rishtonum. Colonie Agrippine, Anno Domini, 1585.”) Mr Lewis, in translating the above work of Sander, unfortunately omitted this and other tables at the end of the original edition.

2 A Treatise of Three Conversions of England, 1603, vol.i., p. 264.

such Catholic Bishops, which would not subscribe to that wicked decree and swear against the Pope, who were as many as then were alive, and in possession of the Bishoprics, which at the Parliament time were in number but fourteen... . To wit Bishop Heath of York,” etc. (as given above).!

In the next century, moreover, when a controversy arose between Cardinal Bellarmine and the Protestant Bishop Lancelot Andrewes with reference to Elizabeth’s ill-treatment of the Catholic Bishops, no other names were mentioned but those of these identical fourteen. For when Bellarmine had remarked upon the “very many Bishops” named by Sander, as cast by her into prison,? Andrewes retorted that the “very many” were but these fourteen, whom he went on to speak of individually ;* attempting, however, in each case to disprove the persecution, with what success we shall see later on.

Nor does Camden mention any others in speaking of the deprived Bishops in his Aznals, unless we take note of the evident blunder by which, after expressly saying that the deposed Prelates only numbered fourteen,‘ he goes on to make them //¢een ; naming as one of them, Christopherson, Bishop of Chichester, who died, as Sander says, of fever, and in December 1558, before as yet a single

1 The above is from a transcript of Father Persons’ manuscript, kindly lent to the writer by Father J. H. Pollen, S.J. Bishop Kitchin, who had also voted in Parliament against the oath, is apparently disregarded here by Persons on account of his subsequent apostasy. Bishop Morgan was hindered by his illness from attending, and Bishop Stanley had no seat in Parliament.

2 Responsio Matthei Torti ad Apologiam pro Juramento Fidelitatis, Col. Agrip. 1608, p. 38.

3 Tortura Torti, sive ad Matthet Tort librum Responsio, Londini, 1609, p. 145.

5 In his Report to Cardinal Morone in 1561 (Vat. MS. 64, t. 28, fol. 260), Sander tells how Bishop Christopherson died of a fever caught in attending Cardinal Pole’s funeral at Canterbury. He had indeed desired to die a Martyr in the troubles which he saw were coming, but Sander says expressly, “won erat apprehensus a satellibus neque in vincula ductus.” The imprisonment of Christo-

B

Bishop had been deprived, and before Elizabeth’s first Parliament had met. Even so, however—to say nothing here of other errors into which Camden falls—his enumeration is not right; since professing, as he does, to name all the Bishops whom Elizabeth declared deposed, he ought also to have mentioned Bishop Morgan of St David’s, who, though saved by death from other penalties, was at all events deprived.

Although it is evident that the names of the eleven we are seeking must be included amongst these fourteen, we have still for our purpose to find out, more precisely than the lists yet quoted tell us, which out of the fourteen died in prison, and which of them in exile. With regard, however, to the latter, we learn from the same book of Dr Allen’s that the exiles were no more than fwo in number ; and on this point it is impossible that he could be mistaken, since he had every means of knowing the full number of the Bishops that escaped abroad. “Next we yield you,” he says a little further on in the same passage, “in banishment two worthy English Prelates of the same dignity, the one dead, the other yet alive in Rome.” + pherson has, it is true, been affirmed by Cooper (Athen. Cantad. vol. i., p. 189), and even by Father Bridgett (p. 16) ; whilst Mr Gillow, in his Dict. of Eng. Cath., actually says he died in prison! This, however, is based simply on the mistaken word of Sandys (Zurich Letters, 1st series, Ep. 2), who from Strasburgh, where he was still in exile, wrote to Bullinger on December 20, (558, telling him that he had heard that, for a sermon preached by the Bishop of Chichester on the 2nd Sunday after Elizabeth’s accession, the Queen had ordered him to prison. The mistaken rumour had arisen evidently from the confinement of the Bishop of Winchester to his house for his sermon at Queen Mary’s funeral.

1 True, Sincere Defence, etc. p. 45. A Latin version of this, published under the title of Ad VPersecutores Anglos in the Concertatio of 1588, inaccurately renders the above sentence as follows: Opponimus deinde duos alzos ejusdem dignitatis Presules Anglos, alterum jam mortuum, alterum Romz adhuc superstitem. Here the insertion of a/éos makes it seem as if Allen spoke of two Bishops additional to the fourteen; whereas it is quite certain that the one “yet alive at Rome” was Goldwell—

IDENTIFICATION OF THE ELEVEN ¥g

The same thing, as regards the number of the exiled Bishops, was again a few years later expressly stated by Father William Holt, S.J.,in a report made to the Holy See in 1596.

“When Elizabeth,’ wrote Father Holt, “deprived all the Bishops and faithful clergy of their benefices, and cast them into prison, . . . all the Bishops, in their prisons till their death, with the greatest fortitude, defended the same faith which they had most diligently taught before ; two only excepted, who, in exile, with like fortitude professed and bore witness to the self-same faith.” ?

The banished Prelate spoken of above by Allen, as “yet alive in Rome,’ was of course Bishop Goldwell of St Asaph, who there survived until April 3, 1585; whilst the exiled Bishop “dead” is disclosed to us in a still earlier list of the fourteen Bishops, published in 1571 by Sander, the historian, in his great work De Veszbili Monarchia Ecclesia.