POLITICAL HISTORY 



opinions which Elizabeth preferred, were chiefly prevalent in London 

 and in the commercial districts of the east and south-east. Rural Surrey 

 lay back from the stir of foreign trade and of the opinions which came 

 in its train. Neither Gardiner nor White would have hesitated to con- 

 demn heretics had they found any. The same sheriffs of Surrey and 

 Sussex, John Covert, William Saunders and Sir Edward Gage, who were 

 responsible for putting the law in force in Sussex against twenty-seven 

 persons, put none to death in Surrey. John Ashburnham was sheriff of 

 both counties when the three were burnt in Southwark. He executed 

 none in Sussex. The opinions were driven into concealment there per- 

 haps. In Surrey they must have been throughout rare and obscure. 



In May, 1557, Lord Montague, from his house at St. Mary 

 Overie's, sent his warrant to William More of Loseley and John 

 Skynner of Reigate to muster men in Surrey for the defence of 

 Calais. 1 War with France was imminent then. When in the next 

 year Calais was taken, the men gathered in the southern counties were 

 at Dover hindered from crossing by bad weather. The ill-starred reign 

 ended on November 17, 1558, and Cardinal Pole died at Lambeth the 

 next day. It was not till December, 1559, that Parker reigned in his 

 stead at Lambeth, consecrated there on December 17. John White, 

 Bishop of Winchester, had been deprived earlier in the year, and was 

 succeeded by Robert Home. In the secular rule of Surrey there was 

 not much change. The Earl of Arundel was continued as lord lieutenant 

 till April, 1559, and was then succeeded by Lord Howard of Effing- 

 ham, late Lord William Howard, who though uncle to Anne Boleyn 

 had been a steady supporter and privy councillor of the late queen. 

 William More became sherifF. He had been continued as a justice 

 of the peace under Mary. His immediate care was the return of two 

 knights of the shire to Elizabeth's first Parliament who might be trusted 

 to vote for the restoration of the royal supremacy. It was by no means 

 universally expected, even by some who wished it, that a freely elected 

 Parliament would do this. It is interesting to find how generally men 

 who knew what they were about applied to the sherifF as the person 

 who could direct the elections. Charles Howard, afterwards Lord Ad- 

 miral and Earl of Nottingham, was recommended by the powerful voice 

 of his father, Lord Howard of Effingham. Sir William Fitz William and 

 Richard Bydon, a gentleman of influence and a justice, had their views. 

 Thomas Browne and Sir Henry Weston and Sir Thomas Copley recom- 

 mended themselves. Thomas Browne indeed changed his mind, and at 

 one time declined to be put forward, recommending Sir Thomas Cawar- 

 den and Copley, but on the persuasion of his father again named him- 

 self. 2 Weston and Copley were at least doubtful on the ecclesiastical 

 question ; perhaps Charles Howard also was thought so then. Sir 



i Loseley MSS. May 4, 3 & 4 Ph. & M. 



* Ibid. December 7, 1558, ii. 35 (Copley) ; December 14, 1558, ii. 1 6 (Browne) ; December 16, 

 1558, ii. 45 (Fitz William) ; December 18, 1558, ii. 17 (Browne) ; December 29, 1558, ix. 12 (Lord 

 William Howard) ; December 27, 1558, ii. 25 (Bydon). 



377 



