victim, it will be observed, being quite decided by the King himself before any judicial investigation. How to satisfy his thirst for blood and save appearances as regards the law might sometimes be a problem; and little more than a fortnight after advising the King not to insist on too many executions, Norfolk was thrown into serious perplexity by the acquittal of one William Levenyng of Acklam, who was tried at York on the 23rd and 24th March for complicity in Bigod's rebellion.1 Sir Ralph Ellerker was his chief accuser, and five of the jurors upon his evidence were ready to have found the prisoner guilty. But the other seven, who were well acquainted with Levenyng as a neighbour, believed that Ellerker had given evidence against him out of malice, having had a promise of his lands from the King. One of the jury, who reports their consultations, maintained stoutly that the King would give away no man's lands till he was attainted; but apparently he was not believed. The jury suffered themselves to be locked up from 9 on Friday morning until Saturday night, and in spite of urgent pleadings for a conviction from one of their own body, brought in an acquittal at last. Shortly after noon on Saturday the duke of Norfolk had sent his gentleman usher to know if they were agreed, and the majority answered that they were, but the minority still held out, and as a more effectual way of promoting unanimity they were deprived of all means of warmth. At night the Duke sent to them again, and they all fell to prayer; after which they returned their

verdict.2

Norfolk, having a too sure foreboding that the King would not be satisfied, sent for Levenyng himself next morning, and hoped to make out something more by

examining him after acquittal as to the reasons of his absence from home nine or ten days after Bigod had fled from Beverley. But he gave a perfectly clear explanation on this point, and Norfolk could only offer to send him up if desired to London, for Cromwell to examine further. A few days later we find the Duke promising to ascertain for Cromwell the names of the grand juries who found indictments in Yorkshire, and who apparently had disappointed expectations by finding so few; but he cannot help suggesting that if they were sent for to appear before the Council it would lead to rumour "that men should be compelled to pass otherwise than their consciences should lead them." He himself, he said, if he could have leave to come up (which he was now earnestly pleading to be allowed to do, for he was very ill in health and was anxious besides to see to his own private affairs at home), could tell many things and bring up with him besides those jurymen who had done best service in urging that the indictments should pass. The King appears to have taken Norfolk's warning not to send for more jurymen than would willingly come up, but he did not mean to allow the Duke to come up himself, however inconvenient he might find it to remain in Yorkshire. As to Levenyng, however, the King insisted on knowing the names of the jury and the whole circumstances of his acquittal, as his guilt appeared to him perfectly obvious, and the matter, if investigated, would probably lead to further disclosures.3

By a letter of the 30th March, which does not appear to be now extant, the King had informed Norfolk of certain reasons why his presence in the North could

3 Nos. 863, 864. It was perhaps, in consequence of this instruction that the deposition of Thomas Delaryver was taken (No. 731) relative to the disputes among the jury. See No. 942.

not yet be dispensed with; and though the Duke chafed and endeavoured to minimise the importance of these considerations, he was told in reply that the King's orders were imperative. Henry's survey of the political horizon was certainly far more complete than his; for the King did not make the mistake of under-estimating dangers which, if they had come to a head, would have been serious enough. By Norfolk's aid he had now got the North into subjection; but if foreign assistance came to his disaffected subjects, especially on the return of James V. to Scotland, the flames might break out anew. And Henry knew by this time that a legate was on his way from Rome, an Englishman, too, by birth, and of noble blood related to his own, for the very purpose of compelling him to return to his obedience to the Church, or of turning him off the throne. That Englishman was Reginald Pole, who had been created cardinal on the 22nd December preceding, and legate on the 7th February, though it was only on the 31st March after he had started on his journey that the bull was issued, which gave him full powers, if necessary, to fan the flame of rebellion anew.s

2

The situation, it must be said, was none of his seeking. Educated at Henry's cost (though this was perhaps intended as some slight compensation to the family for the judicial murder of his uncle Warwick in the preceding reign) he seems to have been at the outset not only an ardent lover of letters but a warm friend and admirer of the King; so much so that in 1530, much to his regret in after years, he had allowed himself to be employed as Henry's agent in procuring opinions from the University of Paris in favour of the divorce.1 But when Henry endeavoured to bind him 1 Nos. 809, 863. 2 Vol. XI., No. 1353. 3 Nos. 367, 368, 779. 4 Vol. IV., Nos. 6003, 6252, 6383, 6394, 6505.

further to his service by offering him the archbishopric of York on Wolsey's death, he refused the bribe, and with some difficulty got leave to go abroad again to pursue his studies in philosophy and literature.1 He himself tells us that he was driven to this on perceiving the growing ascendancy of Cromwell and the immoral influence which he exercised in the King's Councils;2 and even before he left England he had written a book which Cranmer noted to be "much contrary to the King's purpose." But Henry loved the appearance, at least, of an independent mind if there was any hope that it would do him service in the end, and he still expected much from the personal regard which he was well aware that Pole bore to him. however, passed passed by, and Pole remained simply a student at Venice and Padua, cultivating the acquaintance of men like Sadolet and Contarini, and making for himself a name in letters and philosophy. If, then, the King was to have his service at all, it must be by the use of his pen; and though hitherto he had not given complete satisfaction about the divorce he might possibly be induced to write something, merely from a philosophical point of view, on the question of the royal supremacy over the Church, which the King could make use of for purposes of his own.

Years,

In the beginning of the year 1535, Henry made some inquiries about Pole's opinions from one Thomas Starkey, a man of literary tastes who had spent some time with him in Italy as a member of his household. Starkey was unable to answer for Pole's precise sentiments touching the Pope's authority, a subject on which he had always been discreetly reticent; but he was

1 Vol. V., No. 737. VII., 1040, 1368. See also No. 444 in this volume. 2 See his Apologia ad Cæsarem in Epp. I., 132, 136.

3 Vol. V., App. No. 10.

sure of his willingness to serve the King and thought he knew his mind on political subjects generally. Indeed, he went so far as to set forth Pole's ideas

in

an imaginary dialogue supposed to have taken place some years before between him and the deceased scholar Thomas Lupset at the family seat at Bisham. This dialogue is a composition of singular interest, exhibiting Pole as an idealist and social reformer, republican in theory and jealous of the royal prerogative and dispensing power, on which he expresses himself in a way worthy of a contemporary of John Lock. He can tolerate a monarchy, however, under a sagacious and patriotic king like Henry VIII., who never abuses his power. Such was the picture of Pole's mind that Starkey thought himself justified in painting for Henry's edification, and, as he doubtless thought, for Pole's own advancement in life.' Henry was not quite so easily satisfied, but he authorised Starkey to write to him that Pole would do him a service by declaring candidly what he thought about the King's divorce and the authority of the See of Rome. If he found that he could endorse the King's views on these subjects, Henry would be glad of his return to England and do much for the advancement of him and his family; if he could not, let him still return and the King would find employment for him in other ways.2

Enjoined thus to write his sentiments, Pole took his time to do so; and not only Starkey in England, but Harvel at Venice, who saw him daily labouring at the task, at first believed that the result when completed would give the King satisfaction. The barbarous execution of the Carthusians, followed by those of Fisher and More, seems to have created some misgivings in Starkey's 1 Vol. VIII., No. 217 (1 and 2). 2 Ib., Nos. 218, 219.

3 Ib., Nos. 535, 575, 874.