Archaeologia Volume 23 Section V
Archaeologia Volume 23 Section V is in Archaeologia Volume 23.
V. Transcript of an original Manuscript, containing a Memorial from George Constantyne to Thomas Lord Cromwell. Communicated by Thomas Amyot, Esq. F.R.S., Treasurer, in a Letter addressed to Henry Ellis, Esq. F.R.S., Secretary.
Read 21st and 28th January, 1830.
James’ Street, Westminster, January 20, 1830.
My Dear Sir
By the kindness of my friend Mr. John Payne Collier, I am enabled to transmit to you an original MS. belonging to him, of the time of Henry the Eighth, which, as it relates to contemporaneous events of much historical importance, you will perhaps deem sufficiently interesting to be laid before the Society. Though it bears the title of "Instructions to my Lord Privy Seal," it was evidently intended by the writer, George Constantyne, to serve as his defence against misrepresentations which had been made to Thomas Lord Cromwell, concerning certain verbal communications in which he had recently been engaged with John Barlow, Dean of Westbury, and Thomas Barlow, a Prebendary of that Collegiate Church.
Before I proceed to notice the public events to which the Manuscript refers, it may be proper to say a few words respecting the history and character of George Constantyne, who appears to have been an active instrument in the hands of the early promoters of the Reformation. He tells us himself that he had been bred a Surgeon, but it would appear from a subsequent passage in his paper that he had afterwards taken Holy Orders. The first public notice I find of him is in Hall’s Chronicle, where, about the year 1530, he is stated to have been apprehended by the order of Sir Thomas More, then Lord Chancellor, on suspicion of certain heresies. The charge appears to have been founded on his connection with Tindall, Joye, and other reformers, in translating and printing the New Testament abroad. Upon being questioned by More as to the funds by means of which these operations were carried on, Constantyne replied, that the Bishop of Londona had been their best supporter, having expended large sums of money in the purchase of their Testaments, for the purpose of burning them. The adroitness of this answer seems to have amused More, who observed, that he had himself told the Bishop so, when he went about to buy them: yet it does not appear to have made Constantyne’s peace, for we are told by another authorityb, that More caused him to be set in the stocks — an indignity from which I should be glad to rescue the hero of my narrative. However, if we may believe the story, though for a time he had been, like Hudibras, "in circle magical confin’d," he contrived to effect his escape from it, greatly to the discomfiture of the Chancellor, who, as his enemies relate, behaved like "a choleric and passionated man," even refusing food for three days, during which his anger lasted. But More’s biographer denies the latter statement, and tells us, that he consoled himself for his loss with a pleasant jest (more suitable certainly to his general character), by merely ordering his porter to "repair and amend the stocks, least the fellow that ran away might haply run in again," — a precaution which Constantyne, for his own sake, probably took especial care to render unnecessary.
The above story, as related by Hall, and without the episode of the stocks, is repeated by Foxc, who, on the authority of More himself, in his Preface against Tindalld, adds, that Constantyne betrayed his associates, as well as the shipmen who had brought the books to England. Whatever may have been the fact, he evidently continued to attach himself to the reforming party, being, not long after, the follower of Norris, who suffered on the scaffold with Anne Boleyn, and subsequently the Registrar of the Diocese of St. David’s, first under Barlow the reformer (as it would appear from the following Manuscript), and afterwards under Farrar (or Ferrar), who in Mary’s reign was burnt as a heretic. Farrar had been deprived of his See in the time of Edward the Sixth, upon charges of mismanagement, unconnected with his religious faith, partly upon the evidence of Constantyne, whom, in a Letter published by Foxe, the Bishop accused of falsehood, ingratitude, and avarice.
Note a. Tunstall was probably the Bishop of London here alluded to, as he had purchased the first edition of Tindall’s translation, by means of a negociation with Augustine Packington, of which an amusing account is given by Hall. He had, however, been translated to Durham just before More’s promotion to the Seals, and had been succeeded by Stokesley, who was equally zealous in the suppression of English Bibles.
Note b. b Life of Sir Thomas More, by an unknown author, edited by Dr. Wordsworth, from a MS. in the Lambeth Library. See Ecclesiastical Biography, vol. ii. p. 93.
Note c. Acts and Monuments, vol. ii. p.287, edit. 1641.
Note d. More says, "George Constauntine, ere he escaped, was redy to have, in worde at the least wise, abjured al the holy doctrine. What his heart was, God and he knew, and peradventure the Devill to, if he entended otherwise." He adds, that "he semed verye penitent of his misseusing of hymself in falling to Tyndalle’s heresies agayne, for which he knoledged hymselfe worthy to be hanged that he hadde so falsely abused the kynge’s gracious remission and pardon geven hym before." Sir T. More’s Works, p. 346. May it not be conjectured that Constantyne’s disclosures, as well as his penitence, were fictitious, and were meant to deceive More, and to pave the way for his escape?
Note e. Acts and Monuments, vol. iii, p. 217.
It appears, however, by a Letter addressed to Fox by Richard Prat, quoted by Strype, and still remaining in the Harleian Libraryf that Farrar and Constantyne, as well as Young (Constantyne’s son-in-law, afterwards in Elizabeth’s reign Archbishop of York, who had also been one of Farrar’s accusers in the former proceedings against him) became reconciled before Farrar’s death; "so that," as Prat says, "they were in brotherly love, and they all professed one religion, for he died and they fled." Prat, in the Letter here quoted, strongly urges Fox to suppress or alter the passage relating to Constantyne and Young in a subsequent edition, in such sort as no "man be defamed, whereby religion may sustain no hurt: otherwise the Papists may have a just occasion to triumph." From this it is evident that Constantyne adhered to his faith, having endured exile for it about the year 1555, the period of Farrar’s execution. In 1560, the date of Prat’s letter, Constantyne was lately dead, but I am at a loss to ascertain whether he died abroad, or returned to England at Elizabeth’s accession, to partake of the triumph of the reformers. The elevation of his son-in-law Young, to the See of York, under Elizabeth’s patronage, seems to throw discredit on the charge made against both of them by Farrar, and to justify the character elsewhere given of Farrar’s administration of his episcopal duties at St. David’sg.
Note f. MS. Harl. 416, fol. 170.
Note g. See Wood’s Ath. Oxon. and Godwin de Praesul. Ang. Young, indeed, after his promotion was accused of rapacity, of which an amusing anecdote is related by Sir John Harington, in his satirical Supplement to Godwin’s Catalogue.
The impression of Constantyne’s character which the foregoing statement and his own narrative seem calculated to make, is that he was a man of a shrewd, bustling, and intriguing spirit, possessing qualifications for business, which the peculiar circumstances of the times were likely to bring into action, in situations affording very favourable opportunities for observation on passing events of public interest. The caustic humour with which his remarks abound, serves to give them additional point and effect.
Of the other actors in the drama before us, John Barlow, Dean of Westbury, and Thomas Barlow, his brother (the former remarkable for his unceasing inquisitiveness, and the latter only for his taciturnity), I have not found satisfactory information. Some passages, however, in the Manuscript before us, lead me to infer that they were connexions of the distinguished reformer, William Barlow, at that time Bishop of Saint David’s. John Barlow appears to have been Archdeacon of Caermar then in the Bishop’s diocese, and, at a subsequent period, was, I believe, the Dean of Worcester who was deprived by Mary in 1553, having been installed in June 1544h, five years after his journey and conversation with Constantynei.
Note h. Le Neve’s Fasti Eccles. p. 300.
Note i. Browne Willis supposes the Archdeacon of Caermarthen to have been afterwards Dean of Worcester, and to have been son or kinsman to the Bishop. Survey of St. Davids, p. 174. That he was the Bishop’s son is rendered improbable by dates.
With respect to the Manuscript itself, its value is partly derived from the picture it furnishes of the state in which the contending parties in the Church had been placed by the unexpected enactment of the Statute for abolishing diversity of opinions, usually called by the Protestants "the Act of the Six Bloody Articles." By this celebrated measure, which asserted the doctrine of the real presence, enforced the celibacy of priests, and recognized private masses and auricular confession, a great triumph had been effected for the Catholic party, through the exertions of Tunstall and Gardiner, in conjunction with Lee, Archbishop of York, and in opposition to the influence and arguments of Cranmer, the latter having on this occasion failed to receive support from Cromwell, who had given the Bill a temporizing assent. It would appear from Constantyne’s account that the reformers were not much dismayed, and that Shaxton and Latimer, who had resigned their Sees in consequence of the Act, had received grants of pensions from the King for their support; — a fact which I do not find elsewhere noticed, and which it is difficult to reconcile with their subsequent and long-continued imprisonment.
Another portion of the Manuscript relates to the negociations at that time in progress for the King’s marriage with Anne of Cleves, and to a similar treaty, supposed to have been recently broken off, with the Duchess of Milan. The pledges of personal safety which Constantyne reports to have been demanded by one of these parties, serves to show the alarm which the violence of Henry’s character had excited abroad.
But the most interesting passage of the Manuscript before us, is that which relates to the execution of Anne Boleyn, of which Constantyne was an eye-witness. His opinion, it will be seen, was unfavourable to her innocence. It appears, however, not to have been grounded upon any communication made to him by Norris, whom he then served, nor upon any personal observation which he had enjoyed the opportunity of making while holding that situation. It had been derived merely from the information or belief of those persons with whom he had conversed at the time of the execution. An opinion thus formed, will not, perhaps, be allowed to have much weight; yet it should be recollected that Constantyne, both as a reformer and a follower of Norris, was a partizan of the Queen, and was naturally reluctant (as he in fact appears to have been) to receive an impression of her guilt. In the absence of all evidence, owing to the destruction of the proceedings on the trial, the judgment of the public will probably continue to take the more favourable side, acquitting Anne of positive guilt, though not of indiscretion. The levity of her manners, acquired during her education in France, might have contributed to influence the decision of her Judges, as it had already urged the jealous and irritable temper of the King to an act of violence, for which, without some suspicion of her actual guilt, his growing passion for Jane Seymour could hardly have supplied a sufficient motive. Henry, it may be observed, though feared by his subjects, was never unpopular with them, his excesses being attributed more to his ungovernable temper than to any obliquity of heart.
The remaining topic of interest in Constantyne’s narrative is the doubt which he entertains as to the authorship of the book against Luther, which bears Henry’s name — a doubt which appears to have arisen partly from common report, but more directly from his personal knowledge of the extent of the King’s scholarship. It will be seen that he attributes the work to Lee and Sir Thomas More. Burnet, it will be recollected, notices Luthers belief that Lee was the writer of it, but endeavours to show that More could have had no other share in it than that of "digesting it into method and orderk." Others have supposed it to be the composition of Fisher and Wolsey; while Fuller, for the sake perhaps of a pun, says, that "some other Gardner gathered the flowers, though King Henry had the honour to wear the posyl." It has lately been observed, with much appearance of justice, that "from Henry s general character, and proneness to theological discussion, it may be inferred that he had at least a considerable share in the work, though piobably with the assistance of some who had more command of the Latin languagem."
Believe me to remain, my dear Sir,
Yours, very sincerely,
Thomas Amyot.
To Henry Ellis, Esq. F. R. S. Secretary.
Note k. Hist. Ref. vol. iii. p. 171.
Note l. Church Hist, book v. p, 168.
Note m. Hallam’s Constitutional Hist. vol. i. p. 80, note. Since the above Letter was written, I have been favoured by Mr. Bruce with an elaborate summary of the evidence on this interesting question, which will be found appended as a note to the passage of Constantyne’s Memorial in which the doubt has been raised. See page 67.
Apon Setterdaye, beinge the xxiij daye of August, we rode toward Kermarddyn [Map], And in our journey in the mornynge we communed as foloweth:
Deane. George.
A my fayth the gere ye showed us of the maryage ys lyckly. But I never hearde of the Quenes that they shuld be thus handled.
George. In good fayth nor I; nother yet I never suspected, but I promise you there was moch mutteringe of Quene Annes deeth.
Deane. There was in deade.
George. And it ys the thinge that I marked as well, as ever I marked any thinge.
Deane. Did ye so? And I can tell nothinge of it for I was at that tyme at St. Dauids.
George. Na, ye were in the diocese of St. Assaph. For my Lorde was that tyme in Scotlonde. And I was the same tyme Mr. Norice’s (age 54) servante. I wrote a Letter of comforth vnto hym, and that after he was condemned. I haue the copie of the same Letter in my howse.
Deane. He had not your Letter.
George. Yes I delyvered it vnsealed vnto Mr. Lieutenant, And he delyvered it Mr. Noryce.
Deane. I pray the what canst thow tell of the matter? Let us heare.
George. The first that was taken was Markys (age 24), And he was at Stepneth in examinacyon on Maye even. I can not tell how he was examined, but apon Maye daye in the mornynge he was in the towre, the trewth ys he confessed it, but yet the sayeing was that he was fyrst grevously racked, which I cowlde never know of a trewth. Apon May daye Mr. Noryce justed. And after justinge the Kynge rode sodenly to Westminster, and all the waye as I heard saye, had Mr. Noryce in examinacyon and promised hym his pardon in case he wolde utter the trewth. But what so ever cowld be sayed or done, Mr. Norice wold confess no thinge to the Kynge, where vpon he was committed to the towre in the mornynge. And by the waye as his chapleyn tolde me he confessed, but he sayed at his arrayning, when his owne confession was layed afore hym, that he was deceaved to do the same by the Erie of Hampton that now ys1. But what so ever he sayed, he was cast.
Note 1. Sir William Fitzwilliam (age 46), Treasurer of the Household, who was created Earl of Southampton in 1537, the year after Anne’s execution. In the absence of all documentary evidence relating to the examinations, the Letters of Sir William Kyngston and Edward Baynton (all of them unfortunately mutilated), will not fail to be interesting. See Ellis’s Original Letters, first series, vol. ii. p. 52, et seq.
Deane. But what can ye tell of Brerton?
George. By my troeth, yf any of them was innocent, it was he. For other he was innocente or els he dyed worst of them all.
Deane. How so?
George. Apon thursdaye afore Maye daye in the mornynge I spake with hym abowt nyne of the clocke, And he tolde me that there was no waye but one with any matter. For I did aske hym & was bold apon hym because we were borne within foure myles together, And also we wente to grammar scole together. And the same daye afore ij of the clock was he in the towre as ferre as the best. What was layed against hym I know not nor never hearde. But at his deeth these were his wordes: I haue deserved to dye if it were a thousande deethes, But the cause wherfore I dye judge not: But yf ye judge, judge the best. This he spake iij or foure tymes. If he were gyltie, I saye therfore that he dyed worst of them all.
Deane. Why, how dyed the others?
George. Mary in a manner confessed all but Mr. Norice, who sayed allmost nothinge at all.
Deane. How do ye know it?
George. Mary I hearde them, and wrote every worde that they spake.
Deane. What sayed the others?
George. The lorde of Ratchforde, after many wordes, to the effecte sayed this. I desyre you that no man wilbe discoraged from the Gospell for my fall. For if I had lyved accordinge to the gospel as I loved it, and spake of it, I had never come to this. Wherfore sayed he Syrs for Gods love, leave not the gospel, but speake lesse and lyve better. For I had rather have one good lyver accordinge to the gospel then ten bablers. And Weston sayed, I had thought to haue lyved in abhominacion yet this twenty or thrittie yeres & then to haue made amendes. I thought little it wold haue come to this: willinge all other to take example at hym. And Markes sayed: Masters I pray you all praye for me, for I haue deserved the deeth. And the Quene sayed: I do not entende to reason my cause, but I committe me to Christ wholy, in whome ys my whole trust, desirynge you all to praye for the Kynges maiestie that he maye longe regne over you, for he ys a veraye noble prince and full gently hath handled me.
Deane. Know ye any thinge of the examinacyon of her?
George. Her brother and she were examined at the towre. I hearde saye he had escaped had it not byn for a Letter. Almost all the lordes that were in the realme were there. And the duke of Northfolke, uncle to them both, he was, as it was told me, in the Kynges place and Judge. It were pittie he shuld be alyve if he shuld judge them against right.
Deane. A marvelouse case, and a great fall.
George. So it was. Now Syr, because that she was a favorer of Gods worde, at the leest wise so taken, I tell you few men wolde beleve that she was so abhominable. As I be saved afore God I cowld not beleve it, afore I hearde them speake at their deeth. For there were that sayed that moch money wold haue byn layed that daye, & that great oddes, that the Lorde Ratchforde shulde haue byn quytte.
Deane. I never hearde so moch before, as that the Duke of Northfolke was judge.
George. So I hearde saye, And that the water ronne in his eyes. I blame hym not though it greved hym.
