of their fellow-countrymen,—an interest which Foxe's Book of Martyrs, chained to the "eagle brass" of many a parish church, did much to perpetuate. The prominence thus secured for that partial record was the means of winning for its contents an amount of attention from later historical writers greatly in excess of its actual merits. It needed,— however, neither misrepresentation nor partisanship to gain for many of the martyrs of Mary's reign the deep sympathy of observant contemporaries. John Rogers, once a prebendary of St Paul's and lecturer on divinity, followed to the stake by his wife and children, nerved by their exhortations, and expiring unmoved and unshaken before their gaze,—the reasonable defence and legally strong position of Robert Ferrar, the former Bishop of St David's,—the transparent honesty and scholarly acumen of John Bradford,—the fine qualities and youthful heroism of Thomas Hawkes (whom Bonner himself would gladly have screened),—all commanded sympathy and were entirely dissociated from that political discontent which undoubtedly called for prompt and stern repression.
With regard however to the three distinguished martyrs, who died at Oxford, there was a wide difference. In proportion to their eminence had been their offence as contumacious offenders. Cranmer, as signatory to the late King's will and thereby participant in the diversion of the Succession as well as in the actual plot on behalf of the Lady Jane, had two years before been condemned to suffer the penalty of high treason. And although the extreme penalty had been remitted, the sentence had carried with it the forfeiture of his archbishopric, and he remained a prisoner in the Tower. His captivity was shared by Ridley and Latimer, of whom the former had been scarcely less conspicuous in his support of the Lady Jane, while the latter, as far back as the reign of Henry, had been, for a time, a prisoner within the same walls, denounced as active in "moving tumults in the State." Had it not been for Wyatt's conspiracy they would probably have regained their freedom; but with that experience Mary came to the conclusion that her past clemency had been a mistaken policy, and in conjunction with Pole she now resolved to show no leniency to those convicted of heretical doctrine. Such a mode of procedure was convenient when compared with prosecutions for treason, as at once less costly, more expeditious, and allowing the use of evidence afforded by the culprits themselves. It was also certain that not one of the three distinguished ecclesiastics would have ventured to deny that heresy was an offence which called for the severest penalties. Cranmer, in conjunction with his chaplain Ridley, had pronounced sentence in 1549 on Joan Bocher, anJ in doing so had been perfectly aware that her condemnation involved her death by burning at the hands of the secular power. Ridley in his notable sermon at Paul's Cross in 1553 had denounced Mary as a usurper, not on the ground of the illegality of her succession but as one altogether intractable in matters of " truth, faith and obedience." Latimer, when Bishop of
