red her. She said that, in
the unsettled condition of England, the presence of a legate with
supreme authority was absolutely necessary; and she implored Paul to
reconsider a decision so rash and so unkind.

The council added their separate protest.[604] "They had heard with
infinite grief that the legate was to be taken from them. There was no
precedent for the recall of a legate who had been once commissioned,
unless from fault of his own; and for themselves, they were
unconscious of having misconducted themselves in any way since the
reconciliation. Cardinal Pole had been the saviour of religion. Before
his coming to England, the queen, with the best intentions to do good,
had failed to arrest the growth of heresy, and the name of the Holy
See was held in detestation. Pole, the noblest and most distinguished
of the cardinals, had made what was crooked straight; he had
introduced reforms everywhere; in a few years the wound would heal,
and all would be well. If, however, he were now removed, the
convalescent, deserted too soon by his physician, would relapse, and
be worse than before. They entreated his holiness, therefore, to
listen to them, and allow him to remain. When they were reconciled,
the pope then reigning had promised that the customary privileges and
immunities of the English nation should be maintained. It was the
special prerogative {p.289} of English sovereigns to have a legate
perpetually resident in the person of the Archbishop of Canterbury;
and from immemorial time there was no record of any archbishop to whom
the legatine character had not attached as of right. The queen, who
had risked her life for the faith of the church, did not deserve that
the first exception should be made in her disfavour. The bishops did
not deserve it. The few who, in the late times of trial, had remained
faithful, did not deserve it. Even if the queen would consent and give
way, they would themselves be obliged to remonstrate."[605]

[Footnote 604: Printed by Strype, _Memorials of the
Reformation_, vol. vi. p. 476, and described by him
as a letter of the parliament. But at this time
there was no parliament in existence; the last had
been dissolved eighteen months before, the next did
not meet till the ensuing January. The queen's
letter is dated the 21st May, and the letter which