“ HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION.” 19] 
Burnett thus describes the behaviour of Sancroft to him upon his 
promotion to the mitre :—When his election to the bishopric of Sa- 
rum was returned and confirmed, the precept of consecration went, 
of course, to Archbishop Sancroft, who said that he would not obey 
it. Some bishops tried to persuade him, but in vain. The Earl of 
Nottingham tried ; but succeeded no better. The party, says the 
Bishop, got it among them, that he had promised them not to do it. 
But as the time came on, and he saw that he must be sued in a pre- 
munire, when this was tried before him, he all of a sudden ordered 
two commissions to be drawn, both of which he signed and sealed, 
and both are yet extant: one, directed to the Archbishop of York, 
and all the bishops of England; the other, to the Bishop of Lon- 
don, and all the bishops of the province, to execute his metropolitical . 
authority during his pleasure. This last was made use of, and, 
pursuant to it, the doctor was consecrated, so that this was as much 
the archbishop’s own act as if he himself had consecrated him. His 
vicar general produced this commission, and was present at his conse- 
cration ; and all the fees were paid to his officers ; for care was ta- 
ken to receive them. “ Here is only half of the story,” says the bi- 
shop; “a blacker scene follows. It seems, the party complained of 
this, and he, to give them some satisfaction, sent by Mr. Wharton 
a message (unless he went in his name without his order) to Mr. 
Tillet, the registrar, to send him that commission. It was sent and 
withdrawn. This was not only the violating of registers, but it 
was a plain robbing me of that writing upon which the canonical- 
ness of my own consecration, and my legal right to this bishopric, 
was founded. By telling this, I am far from wishing to lay any 
hard character on the memory of that archbishop. I look upon it as 
an effect of the injustice and violence of the party, by which he 
might be carried too easily to some thoughts against his own mind. 
Thus it continued till many months after his death, when notice was 
given to the bishop of it by me, who had occasion to know it.— 
Upon enquiring he found it to be true, and took advice of it upon 
oath ; and, to prove the tenor of the commision, the bishop gave no- 
tice of his design to Mr. Tillet, and let him know, that if he did 
not recover that commission between that time and Michaelmas 
Term, he would sue him in Chancery, in order to the discovery 
of the matter. ‘“ He best knew,” continued the bishop, ‘‘ how he 
bestirred himself upon this occasion. The commission was brought 
back to him, but by whom I have never made it my business to en- 
quire.” When these aggravating circumstances are impartially com- 
pared together, it can hardly be denied that Burnett had weighty 
