Page:VCH Surrey 1.djvu/447

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