irtues, thenceforward more required by England
than cloistered asceticisms, had been blighted under the shadow of the
papacy. The Catholics had chosen the alternative, either to crush the
free thought which was bursting from the soil, or else to be crushed by
it; and the future of the world could not be sacrificed to preserve the
exotic graces of mediaeval saints. They fell, gloriously and not
unprofitably. They were not allowed to stay the course of the
Reformation; but their sufferings, nobly borne, sufficed to recover the
sympathy of after-ages for the faith which they professed. Ten righteous
men were found in the midst of the corruption to purchase for Romanism a
few more centuries of tolerated endurance.

[Sidenote: The prior with three others are sent to the Tower,]

[Sidenote: And brought to trial, April 28.]

To return to the narrative of Maurice Channey. Notice of the intention
of the government having been signified to the order, Father Webster and
Father Lawrence, the priors of the two daughter houses of Axholm and
Belville, came up to London three weeks after Easter, and, with
Haughton, presented themselves before Cromwell with an entreaty to be
excused the submission. For answer to their petition they were sent to
the Tower, where they were soon after joined by Father Reynolds, one of
the recalcitrant monks of Sion. These four were brought on the 26th of
April before a committee of the privy council, of which Cromwell was
one. The act of supremacy was laid before them, and they were required
to signify their acceptance of it. They refused, and two days after
they were brought to trial before a special commission. They pleaded all
"not guilty." They had of course broken the act; but they would not
acknowledge that guilt could be involved in disobedience to a law which
was itself unlawful. Their words in the Tower to the privy council
formed the matter of the charge against them. It appears from the record
that on their examination, "they, treacherously machinating and desiring
to deprive the king our sovereign lord of his title of supreme Head of
the Church of England, did openly declare and say, the king our
sovereign lord is not supreme Head on earth of the Church of
England."[432]

[Sidenote: Haughton's language at the bar.]

But their conduct on the trial, or at least the conduct of Haughton,
spared all difficulty in securing a conviction. The judges pressed the
prior "not to shew so little wisdom