out effect; he had made up his
mind; the victory, as he said, had been won.

Cromwell was deeply affected. In his passionate regret, he exclaimed,
that he had rather his only son had lost his head than that More should
have refused the oath. No one knew better than Cromwell that
intercession would be of no further use; that he could not himself
advise the king to give way. The parliament, after grave consideration,
had passed a law which they held necessary to secure the peace of the
country; and two persons of high rank refused obedience to it, whose
example would tell in every English household. Either, therefore, the
act was not worth the parchment on which it was written, or the
penalties of it must be enforced: no middle way, no compromise, no
acquiescent reservations, could in such a case be admitted. The law must
have its way.

[Sidenote: More, with Fisher, is committed to the keeping of the Abbot
of Westminster.]

[Sidenote: Debate in the Council]

[Sidenote: Cranmer urges that they may take the oath in a modified
form.]

The recusants were committed for four days to the keeping of the Abbot
of Westminster; and the council met to determine on the course to be
pursued. Their offence, by the act, was misprision of treason. On the
other hand, they had both offered to acknowledge the Princess Elizabeth
as the lawful heir to the throne; and the question was raised whether
this offer should be accepted. It was equivalent to a demand that the
form should be altered, not for them only, but for every man. If persons
of their rank and notoriety were permitted to swear with a
qualification, the same privilege must be conceded to all. But there was
so much anxiety to avoid extremities, and so warm a regard was
personally felt for Sir Thomas More, that this objection was not allowed
to be fatal. It was thought that possibly an exception might be made,
yet kept a secret from the world; and the fact that they had sworn under
any form might go far to silence objectors and reconcile the better
class of the disaffected.[269] This view was particularly urged by
Cranmer, always gentle, hoping, and illogical.[270] But, in fact,
secresy was impossible. If More's discretion could have been relied
upon, Fisher's babbling tongue would have trumpeted his victory to all
the winds. Nor would the government consent to pass censure on its own
conduct by evading the question whether the act was or was not _just_.
If it was not just, it