Marginalia1556. Iuly.Supplication of the plaintife, and Submission of the parties, and likewise by the Queenes pardon graunted vnto them, may well appeare.

By all which proufes and circumstances thus debated, it remaineth manifest for al men to perceaue, what crueltie and wrong was wrought agaynst these poore women aboue specified, and no lesse matter offered, in a case so vniust iustly to expostulate, or rather to wonder at the hard hartes of these mē, but especially of the Catholicke Clergie of Garnesey, who professing the Gospell of peace and charitie, should after the example of Christ, walke in the steppes of mekenes and mercy, & yet contrary, not only to all Christian charitie & mansuetude, but also agaynst all order of equitie or humanitie, were so extreme and rigorous to condemne them to the burnyng fire, vnder the pretensed colour of heresie.MarginaliaThe cruell dealing of þ^e Garnesey mē against these three women. Who if they had bene heretickes in deede, yet mercy would haue corrected the errour and saue life, equitie would haue considered mans weake fragilitie, at least true iustice would haue heard both the parties aduisedly, and also substancially haue surueyed the cause, and not to rash out the Sentence of death so hastely as they did: yea & though they had bene heretickes in deede, yet true christiā charitie would haue stretched farther, and at least to haue giuen them laysure and respite of tyme, to reclame them selues. But now what is here to be sayd, they beyng no heretickes at all, as neither it could then, nor yet cā be proued? For if king Edwardes Religion (which was obiected to them) were heresie, yet were they thē no heretickes, whē they reuoked the same: and if Q. Maryes Religion were heresie, then were they much more heretickes them selues whiche condemned them of heresie.

MarginaliaMaister Harding in hys Reioynder agaynst M. Iewell. pag. 184.But most of all we haue herein to wonder at M. H. who in his late Reioynder written agaynst the Byshop of Salisbury, notwithstandyng all these euidēces and demonstrations so certeine and manifestly appearing, yet goeth about, first to deny the story, termyng it to bee a fable, afterward beyng force to flye a statu inficiali, and to admitte the story, hee remoueth ad translationem criminis, & there seeking by all meanes to cleare the Clergie from the spotte of crueltie, transferreth the whole blame onely vppon the women that suffered, but principally vpon poore Perotine: Marginalia2. Crimes obiected agaynst Perrotine Massey.whom he specially chargeth with ij. capital crimes, to wit, whoredome, and murder.

And first touching his accusation of whoredome, let vs heare, how he proueth his matter. MarginaliaMaister Harding in hys Reioynder. fol. 184. pag. 2.Because (sayth he) by story it is graunted, that she was with childe: and yet the Historiographer doth not declare (neither durst for shame) who was her husband, or father to the child. &c. As though Historiographers beyng occupyed in settyng forth the persecution of Gods people suffering death for Religion and doctrine of Christ, were bound or had nothyng els to do but to play the Sumner, and to bryng forth, who were husbandes to the wiues and fathers to their children: which newfound law of history, beyng neuer required before, nor obserued of any storywriters, if M. H. now shall exact of me, first let him begyn with him selfe and shew vs (as wise as he is) who was his own father, if he can. And yet I thinke not contrary, but his mother was an honest woman. And no lesse do I thinke also of this Perotine aforesayd, wherof more shalbe sayd (God willyng) hereafter.

MarginaliaPerrotine vntruly accused of whoredome.But in the meane tyme here commeth in the cauillyng obiection of M. H, and beareth the reader in hand, as though for shame I durst not, or of purpose would not expreße it. &c. My aunswere wherunto is this. First to expresse euery minute of matter in euery story occurrēt, what storywriter in al the world is able to perfome it? Secondly, although it might be done, what reasonable reader would require it? Thirdly, and albeit some curious readers would so require, yet I suppose it neither

requisite, nor conuenient to be obserued. And fourthly, what if it were not remēbred of the author? What if it were to him not knowen? what if it were of purpose omitted as a matter not materiall to the purpose? Many other causes besides might incurre, which the reader knoweth not of. And shall it then by and by be imputed to shame and blame, what soeuer in euery narration is not expressed? or doth M. H. him selfe in all his Sermōs neuer pretermit any thing, that conueniently might be inferred? Who was the husbād of this Perotine, the Historiographer hath not expressed: I graunt, and what therof? Ergo thereupon, concludeth he, that for shame I durst not. Nay I may marueile rather that he durst for shame vtter such vntydy Argumentes, or so asseuerantly to pronoūce of another mans mind & purpose, which is as priuie to him,MarginaliaM. Harding requireth of others to doe that, which he is not able to do him selfe. as then it was to me vnknowen what was her husbandes name. And though it had ben knowen, what was that materiall in the story to be vttered? or what had it relieued the cruell partes of them, which burned both the mother and infant together, though the infantes father had bene expressed? And how then did I for shame conceale that, which was not in my knowledge at that tyme (if I would) to expresse, nor in my suspicion to misdeeme?

Neuertheles if he be so greatly desirous (as he pretendeth) to know of me, who was this infantes father, I will not sticke with M. H. although I can not sweare for the matter, yet to take so much payne for his pleasure, to goe as neare it as I may. For precisely and determinatly to point out the right father either of this, or of any child: I trow, neither will M. H. require it of me, neither is he able peraduenture him selfe beyng asked, to demonstrate his owne. And yet as much as I may, to satisfie his daintie desire herein, and partly to helpe the innocencie of the woman, touching this demaunde, who should be the infantes father, who, say I, but his own mothers husbād? the name of which husband was MarginaliaDauid Iores husband to Perrotine Massey.Dauid Iores, a Minister, MarginaliaPerrotine maried, where, and by whom.and maryed to the sayd Perotyne in kyng Edwardes tyme, in the Church of our Ladyes Castle Parish at Garnesey: the partie which maryed them beyng called M. Noel Regnet a French man, & yet alyue, wytnes hereunto, and now dwelling in London in S. Martyns Le grande.  

Commentary     Close

Regnet was clearly Foxe's informant here. At Mary's accession, Regnet had fled Guernsey and went into exile in Geneva (see D. M. Ogier, Reformation and Society in Guernsey [Woodbridge, Suffolk: 1997], p. 53). David Jores, Massy's husband, had fled back to his native Normandy (Ogier, Guernsey, p. 53).

[Back to Top]

Thus then, after my knowledge, I haue shewed forth, for M. H. pleasure the right husband of this Perotyne, and what was his name, who was also alyue, his wife beyng great with child, and partaker of the persecution of the same time, and a Scholemaster afterward in Normandie, &c. Now if M. H. can take any such aduantage hereof to disproue that I haue said: or be so priuie to the begettyng of thys child, that he can proue the sayd Dauid Iores, which was the right husband to this wife, not to be the right father to this infant, let him shew herein his cunning, by what mightie demonstrations he cā induce vs to deeme þ^e contrary, and as I shall see his reasons, I shall shape him an aunswere, in such sorte (I trust) that he shall well perceaue, that whoredome, wheresoeuer I may know it, shall finde no bolsterying by me: I wishe it might finde as litle amongest the chaste Catholickes of M. H. Church.

MarginaliaPerrotine falsely accused of murder.From this I procede now to the second part of his infamous accusation, wherein he chargeth her of murder. A straūge case, þ^t she which was murdered her self, with her child, and dyed before him, should yet be accused to murder the childe. Murder doubtles is an horrible iniquitie in any person. But the mother to bee the murderer of her owne infant, it is a double abomination, and more then a monster, so farre disagreeyng from all nature, that it is not lightly to be surmised of any, without vehement causes of manifest probation.

Wherefore, to try out this matter more thorowly touchyng this murdering mother, let vs see. First, what hād did she lay vpon þ^e child? None. What weapon vsed