will never violate the law.

The belly cheer' must be curtailed, and no meat used, on the days commanded by my Church."

Before closing this chapter it may be worthy of mention that the higher classes of England imitated in the costliness of their cuisine the profusion of the Roman patricians, especially in their partiality for banquets of fish, in which few could indulge unless possessed of much wealth. "Jack, lucie, or pike" as it is now called, was much esteemed by our ancestors. In the reign of Edward I. the price of "jack" in the London market was double that of salmon, and ten times that of the best sea fish. In the days of Edward III. jack were carefully kept and fed in "stew ponds." Chaucer speaks in commendation of "a supper of jack, washed down with old sack wine." In Henry VIII.'s reign jack "cost as much again as houselamb in February; and a very small pickerel was dearer than a fat capon." For many generations pike held a place on the royal table, and it was also a favourite dish with the bishops. On one occasion "King Hal" was invited by Archbishop Cranmer to supper, when the monarch playfully inquired after the "bill of fare." Dr. Cranmer first named a savoury dish of jack. "That will do nicely," said the King. "And now for another question. Who will be the chief story-tellers?" continued the convivial monarch. "Dr. Bonner and Roger Ascham," was the reply. Very good, "said the King. Then I will be amongst your guests." The merrie meeting took place at Lambeth Palace, and the company, preceded by the King's torch-men and musicians, did not separate till long after midnight. On those occasions Henry Tudor permitted the utmost latitude

of speech. A good story-teller was always a welcome guest at the royal table; and the King himself had an excellent gift of relating stories of the chase, or of the many strange characters whom his convivial habits brought him acquainted with.

In the days of Cardinal Beaufort, the most sumptuous fish banquets were given by the English bishops, and jack was the favourite dish with the Cardinal. Whilst in the Tower, unfortunate Henry VI. "turned his tears one day to smiles," when his old Cumberland cook announced "a dish of savoury jack" for the poor captive's dinner. And, after so long a lapse in fashion's time, Charles V. enjoyed a fish banquet at Windsor, when the jack was "served up in royal style" before King Henry and Queen Katharine.

Old kindly Izaac Walton, in his work, entitled "A Compleat Angler," gives instructions how to transform a jack by cooking into "a dish of meat too good for any but anglers or very honest men."

In the Sloane MSS. are to be found the recipes followed in the royal kitchens three hundred and sixty years ago, for cooking jack and other fresh-water fish.

CHAPTER XXI.

DR. CRANMER'S LAST ACTS AS A STATESMAN.

Ir Archbishop Cranmer believed that his judgment in the case of Katharine of Arragon, and that in reference to Anna Boleyn, were equitable and lawful, he might, indeed, with some consistency, advocate the claim to the Crown of Jane Dudley, as the grand-daughter of Mary Tudor; although the young Queen of Scots, as descended from Margaret, Henry's eldest sister, could claim precedence of Jane and Catharine Gray. According to Cranmer's decisions, both Mary and Elizabeth had been set down as illegitimate; but the King's "last testament" practically abrogated the decision of Dr. Cranmer, at Dunstable, as well as the subsequent pronouncement at Lambeth Palace. In his "will," Henry provided that in case of failure of issue on the part of his son Edward, the Crown should go in succession to his daughters, Mary and Elizabeth. His disposition in that solemn document proves that Henry did not believe in the justice and legality of Cranmer's divorces. though the pliant prelate had pronounced them at his own command. And again, there is now abundant proof that the Archbishop did not himself believe in the equity or legality of his compelled decisions. If Cranmer could be credited with a conscience, this conviction might account for the hesitation which he evinced in siguing the document by

which the young King disinherited his sisters; but the far greater probability is, that he recoiled from the peril of the act, and yielded at length to his fear of Northumberland; the Duke and his co-conspirators suspected and dreaded each other. The chief of the conspiracy could not act without Dr. Cranmer, nor the Archbishop without the Duke. Northumberland could not forget the manner in which Cranmer at first clandestinely, and then openly, aided him in the overthrow of the Protector Somerset whose Protestantism was more acceptable to the people, because more open, than that of Cranmer. The interests of both duke and prelate seemed not identical at the juncture, but the approaching death of the King brought about an understanding amongst parties who, still from private considerations, hated each other with mutual ardour. The provident hesitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury arose from his conviction that the attempt to raise Lady Jane Dudley to the throne might end in disaster to her supporters. this he was foreseeing-be it, as his defenders aver, from a sense of justice, or, as others allege, from calculation. When Cranmer at last consented to sign the patent letters for the transfer of the Crown, he stated that he had sworn to maintain the 'will' of Henry VIII., and if he signed the document in question, then he was a perjured man." Northumberland and the Council replied "that they had also sworn to execute King Henry's will, and if he had a conscience so had they?' Cranmer still hesitated, but

In

ultimately complied, for he had good reason to dread the resentment of Northumberland.

* State Papers (Domestic) of the reign of Edward VI.; Archbishops of Canterbury, vol. vii.

In Strype's Life of Cranmer it is stated that when Queen. Mary interrogated the Archbishop as to his treason to her, he said "he did it unfeignedly, and without dissimulation." A contemporary of Cranmer remarks that "the circumstances of the times were critical: Northumberland was as wicked as he was daring; the people divided between the two religions, and Cranmer become timid, and therefore liable to do wrong, just as the Apostles did before him." The man who argued the merits of the Six Articles or any other written assumption, with Henry VIII., could not be deficient in courage. So this "explanation" vanishes

before inquiry.*

Mr. Froude looks upon the "good Archbishop" as a man. who was never influenced by "vulgar worldly considerations." "While the lay ministers of Edward the Sixth," he observes, "were sowing the wind where the harvest in due time would follow, Archbishop Cranmer, keeping aloof more and more from them and their doings, or meddling in them only to protest, was working silently at the English Prayer Book.'t

Let the reader mark this. Strype, the enthusiastic biographer of Cranmer, makes a statement the very opposite to that of Mr. Froude, who has entered the field assegai in hand for his idol, the Archbishop. Strype affirms that "during Edward's reign the Archbishop of Canterbury was very active, and great deference seems to have been given to his judgment by the King and his Council in the matters that were

* See Foxe, vol. ii. p. 372. Burnet (vol. i. p. 258) sustains this view of Cranmer's courage (Defence against Gardyner, p. 286), and represents him as acquiescent in the sentiments of the royal theologian.

Froude's History of England, vol. v. p. 390.