The amount and character of the evidence on which these charges were brought we have no means of judging; but the majority of them carry probability on their front; and we need not doubt that the required testimony was both abundant and sound. The case, of course, had been submitted in all its details to the King before the first step had been taken; and he was called upon to fulfil the promise which he had made of permitting justice to have its way. How was the King to refuse? Many a Catholic had gone to the scaffold for words lighter than those which had been sworn against Cromwell, by Cromwell's own order. Did he or did he not utter those words? If it be these to which he alluded in a letter which he wrote from the Tower to the King,[1] Sir George Throgmorton and Sir Richard Rich were the witnesses against him; and though he tried to shake their testimony, his denial was faint, indirect—not like the broad, absolute repudiation of a man who was consciously clear of offence.[2] Could he have cleared himself on this one point it would have availed him little, if he had suspended the action of the law by his own authority, if he had permitted books to circulate secretly which were forbidden by Act of Parliament, if he had allowed prisoners for high treason or heresy to escape from con-
- ↑ Burnet's Collectanea, p. 500.
- ↑ 'Most Gracious Lord, I never spoke with the chancellor of the augmentation and Throgmorton together at one time. But if I did, I am sure I never spake of any such matter, and your Grace knows what manner of man Throgmorton has ever been towards your Grace's proceedings.'—Burnet's Collectanea, p. 500.
dition on the Parliament roll. Burnet has placed it among his Collectanea.
