OATH OF SUPREMACY

67

At first the lay peers were exempt from taking the oath, which was aimed specially at the bishops and clergy, and it was not till 1579 that it was required of the justices; and in Warwickshire, out of thirty magistrates, Sir John Throckmorton, Simon Arden, and eight others refused to be thus sworn. Up to 1579, then, one third of the magistrates of Warwickshire were Catholics. There is no proof whatever that John Shakespeare ever had the oath of supremacy tendered to him as a qualification for his municipal office. On the contrary, it is in the highest degree improbable that the Sheriff of the County (1568-69), Robert Middlemore, himself a recusant, should have administered to him an oath which he refused to take himself. As regards the oath of supremacy, then, there is no valid argument for John Shakespeare's Protestantism during these years.

Mr. Carter argues that the Protestantism of John Shakespeare is sufficiently proved by the fact that he remained a member of the Corporation, which under Elizabeth became strongly Puritan, as is seen, he says, by the defacement of crosses, images, and the sale of vestments effected under their rule.

Let us consider the value of this argument. In Elizabeth's first parliament Mass was suppressed throughout the kingdom, and by the Queen's injunction (1559), all shrines and altar-candlesticks, pictures, &c., were to be destroyed "so that not a memory of them remains," and inventories of the

vestments, plate, and books were to be given to the visitors. These measures were universally carried out. But though shrines and altars were mutilated and desecrated, and the churches had become "barns," Protestantism only slowly made its way. With equal violence Catholicism had been suppressed under Edward VI. to be reintroduced four years later under Mary. Nor did the mass of the people know now what the new creed meant, or whither it would lead. It must further be remembered that for the first years of her reign, before the northern rising (1569) and the excommunication of Elizabeth by Pius V. (1570), Catholics, apart from the open exercise of their religion, were comparatively tolerated. "Until the eleventh year

of Queen Elizabeth," writes Sir Robert Cotton, "a recusant's name was scarcely known." So, too, Parsons and Creswell write to the Queen: "In the beginning of thy kingdom thou didst deal something more gently with Catholics. None were then urged by thee, or pressed either to thy sect or to the denial of their Faith. All things did seem indeed to point to a far milder course. No great complaints were heard. Then were seen no extraordinary contentions or repugnancies. Some there were that to please and gratify you went to your churches," 2

In fact, Elizabeth, as long as she could usurp

1 "Posthuma," 149 (1651).

Watson's "Important Considerations," 1601.

RELIGION IN STRATFORD

69

unquestioned, the Church's authority and appropriate its goods, was content to let things be. And Catholics, it must be said, whether in good or bad faith, offered no opposition. "The majority," writes Father Parsons, " attended the heretical church and services, opinions being divided on the subject." 1 The priests who had conformed and publicly celebrated the "spurious liturgy," said Mass in private for the benefit of the more faithful Catholics, and would even bring consecrated hosts to the public service to communicate those who would not receive the bread prepared according to the heretical rite. 2 "It was indeed a mingle-mangle which every man made at his pleasure, as he thought would be most grateful to the people.'

"3

Thus the fact that John Shakespeare was a member of the Corporation of Stratford during this period proves absolutely nothing as to his change of religion. On the contrary there are strong indications that the Corporation of Stratford was far more inclined to Catholicism than to Puritanism at this time. First, John Brethgirdle, the vicar appointed on February 27, 1560, in succession to Roger Dios, the Marian priest, was both unmarried and had no licence to preach; the Bishop of Worcester apparently being unsatisfied as to his orthodoxy. Both these facts point to the probability of his having

1 "Brief Apologie," 2.

2 Sander's "Anglican Schism," 269.

3 Parsons, "Three Conversions of England," ii. 2c6, ed. 1688.

L

been one of the numerous conforming priests.

In

any case, as he had no licence to preach, the new doctrines must have made but little progress up to June 1565, when he died from his labours in the plague. From 1565 to 1569 Stratford was apparently without a vicar. In 1569 Henry Heycroft was appointed, but he again had no licence to preach till January 7, 1571, when, as we shall see, a change began. From all, then, that can be gathered from the registers, Stratford never heard a sermon for eleven years; and John Shakespeare's ears were unassailed during this period by the eloquence of any Puritan Boanerges.

But Mr. Carter quotes the sale of church vestments by the Corporation as an additional proof of John Shakespeare's Puritanism. Now, the time and manner in which the Queen's injunctions on this subject were carried out in any place, offer a fair indication of the state of religious feeling then prevalent. In London, for instance, where the Puritan feeling was strong, at St. Bartholomew's Fair, August 24, 1559, or within a few months of the issue of the injunction, there were blazing in St. Paul's Churchyard two great bonfires for three whole days, of church furniture and vestments.2 Again, at St. Mary's, Woolnote, in the same year

1 His will, made the day before his death, of which we have seen a copy by the courtesy of Mr. Savage, Librarian of the Shakespeare Memorial Library, Stratford, gives no indication of his religious belief.

2 "Maehyn Diary," 207, 208. Stow, 640.

JOHN SHAKESPEARE'S REVERSES

71

(1559), the copes, vestments, and ornaments were sold with consent. Again, at St. Martin's, Leicester, in 1561, the vestments were sold for 42s. 6d.1 In contrast with this prompt action, we find that the vestments at Stratford were not sold till September 1571, and their sale then coincides with the concession of a preaching licence to Heycroft, and was probably due to his newly kindled zeal. Thus, as far as this sale proves anything, its late date points to the predominance of a Catholic rather than of a Puritan element in Stratford up to 1570. In that year a new penal statute against Catholics, Elizabeth's answer to the excommunication, was passed. By this act, reconciliation to the Roman faith was made a capital offence; any person harbouring any one holding any Bull or instrument from Rome became guilty of treason, and the possession of crosses, pictures, beads, or an Agnus Dei blessed by the Pope or his authority, incurred forfeiture of all goods and imprisonment. Such a measure evidently rendered Catholics subject to continuous and harassing persecution, and from the date of its enactment the fortune of John Shakespeare appears to decline. In 1575 he begins to sell and mortgage his property. In 1577 he was assessed at a lower rate than the other aldermen. In 1578 he was not rated for the poor at all. In 1579 his name occurs among the defaulters for the armour and weapon tax, and in the Spring

1 Churchwarden Accounts; Month, December 1897.

2 I3 Eliz. C. 2.