MarginaliaAnno. 1556. Iuly.who was his owne father, if he can. And yet I thinke not contrary, but his mother was an honest woman.MarginaliaPerrotine vntruly accused of whoredome. And no lesse do I thinke also of this Perotine aforesaid, wherof more shalbe said (God wiliyng) hereafter.

But in the meane tyme here commeth in the cauillyng obiectiō 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 answere wherunto is this. First to expresse euery minute of matter in euery story occurrēt, what story writer in al the world is able to perfome it? Secondly, although it might be done, what reasonable reader would require it? Thirdly, & albeit some curious readers would so require, yet I suppose it neither requisite, nor conueniēt to be obserued. And fourthly, what if it were not remembred 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 narratiō is not expressed? or doth M. H. him selfe in all his Sermons neuer pretermit any thing, that conueniently might be inferred?MarginaliaM. Harding requireth of others to doe that, which he is not able to do him selfe. Who was the husband of this Perotine, the Historiographer hath not expressed: I graunt, and what therof? Ergo therupon, concludeth he, that for shame I durst not. Nay I may marueile rather that hee durst for shame vtter such vntydy Argumentes, or so asseuerātly to pronoūce of an other mās mind and purpose, which is as priuie to him, as then it was to me vnknowen what was her husbandes name. And though it had ben knowē, what was that material in the story to be vttered? or what had it relieued the cruel partes of them, which burned both the mother & infant together, though the infantes father had ben expressed? And how then did I for shame conceale that, whiche was not in my knowledge at that tyme (if I would) to expresse, nor in my suspicion to misdeeme?

[Back to Top]

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 cā 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 owne mothers husband? the name of which husband was MarginaliaDauid Iores husbād 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, and yet alyue, wytnes hereunto, and now dwelling in London in S. Martyns Le grande.  

[Back to Top]

Thus then, after my knowledge, I haue shewed forth, for M. H. pleasure the right husbād of this Perotyne, and what was his name, who was also alyue, his wife beyng great with child, & partaker of the persecution of the same time, & 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 this child, that he can proue the sayd Dauid Iores, which was the right husbād to this wife, not to be the right father to this infant, let him shew herein his cunning, by what mightie demonstrations he can induce vs to deeme the contrary, & as I shall see his reasons, I shall shape him an answere, in such sorte (I trust) that he shall well perceaue, that whoredome, wheresoeuer I may know it, shal finde no bolsterying by me, I wish it might finde as litle amōgst the chaste Catholickes of M. H. Church.

[Back to Top]

MarginaliaPerrotine falsly accused of murder.From this I procede now to the second part of his infamous accusation, wherein he chargeth her of murder. A straunge case, that 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 be 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.

[Back to Top]

Wherefore, to try out this matter more thorowly touchyng this murdering mother, let vs se. First, what hand dyd she lay vpon the child? None. What weapon

vsed she? None. Did she then drowne it, or cast it in some ponde, as we read of the strompetes at Rome, whose childrēs heads were taken vp in Pope Gregoryes mote, by hundrethes, what time Priestes began first to be restrained of lawfull wedlocke: witnes the epistle of Volusianus.  

pag. 1129.MarginaliaVide supra pag. 1129. col. 1. or els did she throw it by the walles into some priuie corner, as I am credibly certified, the in that viij. yeare of Q. Elisabeth, MarginaliaA story of yong infantes murdered in Lentō Abbay, & found in the 8. yeare of Q. Elizab.certeine scalpes & other yong infantes bones were found and taken out with a sticke in the hole of a stone wall in Lenton Abbay, by certeine Gentlemen within the Country of Nottyngham, Iames Barusse, Richard Loueyt, & W. Louelace walkyng in the Prior chamber: witnes the sayd W. Louelace, with other which saw the bones aforesayd? Or otherwise did shee take any hurtfull drinke to impotionate þ^e child within her, as commonly it is reported, fewe Nonneries to haue beene in England, wherin such a tree hath not beene growing within their ground, meete for practising of such a purpose? Neither so, nor so. What then? did she purposely and wyttyngly thrust her selfe in ieoperdy, to the destruction of her childe, when shee needed not, MarginaliaPope Ioane murdered of her childe.as Pope Ioane, whē she might haue kept her bed, would needes aduēture forth in procession, where both she her selfe, and her infant perished in the open streete?  

[Back to Top]

Wel then, thus much by this hetherto alledged and graunted, we haue gottē this womā here to be accused of murderyng her child, which neither layd hand vpon it, nor vsed weapon agaynst it, neyther vsed any other practise, in drownyng, hangyng, breakyng, burying, poysoning, or any other wilfull meanes, wherby to destroy it. And how then? by what maner of waye was this woman a murderer of her young babe? Forsoth: (saith M. H.) MarginaliaHow and by what reason M. Harding proueth Perrotine to be a murderer.when she was accused and condemned to be burned, she did not clayme the benefite of her bely, whereby the life both of her selfe for the tyme might haue bene delayed, and the child preserued.

[Back to Top]

Whether she did or no, I haue not perfectly to say: no more, I weene, hath M. H. Howbeit this is certeine, and by witnes knowen, that she vttered no lesse to her ghostly father in confession. And what if she had opened the same vnto the Iudges? They would (sayth he) haue spared her life for the tyme, and so the innocēt had ben preserued. And how is M. H. sure of this, MarginaliaLady Iane thought to be with childe at her death.more then was the life spared of the yong Lady, & mistres sometime of M. H who suffered, notwithstandyng she was reported of some to be with childe? MarginaliaThe law beneficial to womē claming the benefite of their belly.Because the law (sayth he) is beneficiall to women in her case, clayming the benefite therof.

[Back to Top]

The law so giueth, I graunt. But it foloweth not therfore, what soeuer the law giueth or prescribeth, the same to be put by and by in executiō. But many times the law goeth as pleaseth them which haue the handlyng of the law. As for example, MarginaliaVnlawful proceding in the death of Perrotine.the law willeth none to be condemned by sentēce of death, for heresie, which the first time reuoke their opinion, and yet contrary to this law, they condemned her vnlawfully. Agayne, the like law prescribeth, none to be executed for heresie, before the writte be sent downe de comburendo, and yet cōtrary to this law, without any such writ (as farre as I yet vnderstand) they burned her most cruelly. And what law then was here to be looked for of these men, who in their doynges herein seemed, neither to obserue law, nor to regard honesty, nor much to passe for charitie? And albeit she had claimed neuer so much the priuiledge of the law, what had that auayled with those men, whose huntyng altogether (as by their procedynges may appeare) semeth to be for the houshold goods of these women, whiche after their death immediatly they encroched into their owne handes.

[Back to Top]

But be it admitted, that neither she demaunded this benefite of the law, nor that the Iudges would euer haue denyed her, if she had so done: yet had it bene the part of a graue accuser, before he had descended into such a raylyng action of murder against a poore womā now dead and gone, first to haue aduised wisely with him selfe, whether it might be, that she had no such intelligēce, what benefite the law would haue giuen, in case it had bene required. MarginaliaPerrotine defended by simple ignorance.For not vnlike it is, and wel may be thought rather yea, then no, that the simple woman, brought vp al her life long in her mothers house in an obscure Ileland, & in such an outcorner of the realme, farre of from the Court, & practise of English lawes, neuer heard before of any such benefite of the law: and therefore vpon mere simplicite, and for lacke of skill required it not, because she knew not what to require.

[Back to Top]