Letters 1536. 29 Feb 1536. R. O. 371. Doubtful Divinity.

"The deposition of Tristram Reuel, late scholar of Christ's College, Cambridge, touching the translation of the book called the Sum of Christianity, ultimo Februarii, ao xxviimo."

About Easter last he borrowed of Dr. Leonard, a physician dwelling about the Crossed Friars, a book called Farrago Rerum Theologicarum, from which he made "the collection of the book aforesaid, translating the same word for word without addition, saving the epistle, which was of his own device." He first presented it to my Lord of Canterbury's brother, who showed it to my Lord himself. The Archbishop committed the examination to my Lord of Worcester and his said brother¹, the archdeacon of Canterbury; and the Bishop of Worcester gave it to a monk, one of his doctors, to examine. Meanwhile, deponent carried the book printed to Mr. Latymer, the Queen's (age 35) cha[pla]in, "requiring him to present it to her [Grace, who], two days after, gave him .... Queen's (age 35) grace thanked him .... [b]ut she would not trouble herself .... oke. And hereupon it was committed to [the sai]d monk, of whom the said Tristram had none answer." But my Lord of Worcester said there were two or three extreme points in it that might not be borne; "nevertheless, in case it should come before them that had authority to put forth books, he would say his opinion in it."

He says he desired Redman to print, as he wished to dedicate it to the Queen (age 35), because his writing was not very legible; also that his father would have had him a priest, to which he was not inclined, and he had enterprised this translation in the hope of getting some exhibition from the Queen.

In Wriothesley's hand, pp. 2. Endd.

Note 1. Edmund Cranmer, Archdeacon of Canterbury.

Pepy's Diary. 29 Feb 1664. Up and by coach with Sir W. Pen (age 42) to Charing Cross, and there I 'light, and to Sir Phillip Warwick (age 54) to visit him and discourse with him about navy business, which I did at large and he most largely with me, not only about the navy but about the general Revenue of England, above two hours, I think, many staying all the while without, but he seemed to take pains to let me either understand the affairs of the Revenue or else to be a witness of his pains and care in stating it. He showed me indeed many excellent collections of the State of the Revenue in former Kings and the late times, and the present. He showed me how the very Assessments between 1643 and 1659, which were taxes (besides Excise, Customes, Sequestrations, Decimations, King and Queene's (age 54) and Church Lands, or any thing else but just the Assessments), come to above fifteen millions. He showed me a discourse of his concerning the Revenues of this and foreign States. How that of Spayne was great, but divided with his kingdoms, and so came to little. How that of France did, and do much exceed ours before for quantity; and that it is at the will of the Prince to tax what he will upon his people; which is not here. That the Hollanders have the best manner of tax, which is only upon the expence of provisions, by an excise; and do conclude that no other tax is proper for England but a pound-rate, or excise upon the expence of provisions. He showed me every particular sort of payment away of money, since the King's coming in, to this day; and told me, from one to one, how little he hath received of profit from most of them; and I believe him truly. That the £1,200,000 which the Parliament with so much ado did first vote to give the King (age 33), and since hath been reexamined by several committees of the present Parliament, is yet above £300,000 short of making up really to the King (age 33) the £1,200,000, as by particulars he showed me¹.

Note 1. A committee was appointed in September, 1660, to consider the subject of the King's revenue, and they "reported to the Commons that the average revenue of Charles I, from 1637 to 1641 inclusive, had been £895,819, and the average expenditure about £1,110,000. At that time prices were lower and the country less burthened with navy and garrisons, among which latter Dunkirk alone now cost more than £100,000 a year. It appeared, therefore, that the least sum to which the King (age 33) could be expected to 'conform his expense' was £1,200,000". Burnet writes, "It was believed that if two millions had been asked he could have carried it. But he (Clarendon) had no mind to put the King (age 33) out of the necessity of having recourse to his Parliament".-Lister's Life of Clarendon, vol. ii., pp. 22, 23.