Foxe could not resist exploiting the irony of the fact that Sir Thomas More was given a special permission to read and reply to heretical texts on 7 March 1528 (see Guildhall Library, MS 9531/10 Register Tunstal 1522-9/30, fol.138; David Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae. 4 vols. (London, 1737), 3, pp.711-2). According to Richard Marius, the immediate result of this privilege was More's great treatise, A Dialogue Concerning Heresies (see Richard Marius, Thomas More [New York, 1985], p.339).

This sentence is largely to recounting the ordeals of a number of evangelicals, who suffered during an extensive crackdown on heresy conducted in 1531-2 while Thomas More was Lord Chancellor. More was clearly acting in an unofficial partnership with John Stokesley, bishop of London, and he played a major role in the persecution of three of these martyrs: Richard Bayfield, John Tewkesbury and James Bainham. There are also a few other individuals whose sufferings are described here: an obscure and unnamed old man in Buckinghamshire; John Randall, a Cambridge student and evangelical who was allegedly murdered around 1531, and Edward Freese, who was arrested for heresy in 1534.

Foxe's major source for these accounts, particularly those of Bayfield, Tewkesbury and Bainham, was now lost court books of Bishop Stokesley and Tunstall.. In one case, Foxe drew on Tunstall's register (Guildhall MS 9531/10, fo. 123r-v). He also drew on works by John Bale and Thomas More (see especially Bale, Catalogus; Bale, The epistle exhortatorye of an English Christiane [Antwerp, 1544?], STC 1291.5, fo. 13v; The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, ed. L. A. Schuster, Richard C. Marius, James P. Lusardi and Richard J. Schoeck, CWTM 8[3 vols., New Haven, CT, 1973], I, p. 8). Foxe, however, also drew on information supplied by individual informants, particularly for the accounts of Tewkesbury, Randall, Freese and Bainham. One of these sources was Joan Fish, the widow of James Bainham (For Joan Bainham as a source for other accounts in Foxe see Thomas S. Freeman, 'The importance of dying earnestly: the metamorphosis of the account of James Bainham in "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" in The Church Retrospective, ed. R. N. Swanson, Studies in Church History 33 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 272-3). In the case of John Randall, Foxe's source was clearly his wife or his wife's family.

These sources presented several problems for Foxe. The first was that of confusion, because Foxe was getting different information on the same people for different sources at different times. As a result, the material on Bayfield and Bainham, in particular, is badly organised. In fact, the description of a recantation, which is attributed to John Tewkesbury in the first edition, is attributed to James Bainham in subsequent editions. The second problem is that the material coming from individual informants was, occasionally, unreliable. The account of Randall's murder is almost certainly an exaggeration of a family tragedy (for instance, Nicholas Harpsfield questioned how a murderer could have killed Randall, place him in a noose, and then leave the room, with the door bolted from the inside?), while the account of Bainham's last words is probably a pious invention (Thomas S. Freeman, 'The importance of dying earnestly: the metamorphosis of the account of James Bainham in "Foxe's Book of Martyrs"' in The Church Retrospective, ed. R. N. Swanson, Sudies in Church History 33 (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 278-81).

Thomas S. Freeman

According to one contemporary, Bayfield was burned on 4 December 1531. (See Charles Wriothesley, A Chronicle of England during the reigns of the Tudors, ed. W. D. Hamilton, Camden Society, new series, 11 and 20 {2 vols., London, 1875-77], I, p. 17).

This material on Bayfield's background comes from a knowledgeable informant (Robert Barnes attended the University of Louvain in the years 1517-21 (ODNB). Edmund Rougham matriculated there in 1520 (Emden A, p. 243). The knowledge of the activities of Maxwell and Stacy (see comment after next) and the account's greater detail on what happened to Bayfield in London suggest that this informant was based in the capital.

I.e. a monk in the great Benedictine abbey at Bury St. Edmunds.

On Laurence Maxwell see 1563, p. 418. On James Stacy also see 1563, p. 418 as well as 1570, p. 1161 and p.1185; 1576, p. 993 and 1014; 1583, p.1021 and pp. 1041-1042

Edmund Rougham. In 1545, now apparently more theologically conservative, Rougham would preach at the burning of John Kirby in Bury St. Edmunds. Edward Rougham had formerly been an evangelical sympathiser and a friend of Richard Bayfield and Robert Barnes.

Robert Barnes attended the University of Louvain in the years 1517-21 (ODNB). Edmund Rougham matriculated there in 1520 (Emden A, p. 243). This accurate detail helps to establish the general accuracy of this account.

I.e. in the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds.

This must have taken place before Christmas Day 1525, when Robert Barnes would preach a sermon that embroiled him in heresy charges (ODNB).

Foxe's account presents difficulties here. Bayfield apparently left Cambridge and went to London before Robert Barnes was convicted of heresy early in 1526. In 1528, he was tried for heresy by Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall of London. Bayfield abjured and various penances were imposed upon him: most notably, that he was to resume wearing his monastic habit, to return to the abbey of Bury St. Edmunds and never to re-enter the diocese of London without episcopal permission. After his abjuration, Bayfield definitely fled overseas. He then began importing heretical works into England, on a large scale. In 1531, Bayfield was again arrested (as Foxe describes) visiting a bookbinder. Either Bayfield went abroad twice, once before and once after, his first arrest for heresy or (more likely) Foxe was confused in dating Bayfield's flight.

The coal house of the bishop of London's palace in the capital was frequently used as an ad-hoc detention centre for prisoners whom the bishop was examining.

Thomas Patmore, of Much Hadham. Susan Brigden has persuasively argued that the two Thomas Patmores mentioned by Foxe were, in fact, the same person and that Patmore while still vicar of Much Hadham, became free of the Drapers's Company (Susan Brigden, London and the Reformation [Oxford, 1989], p. 206). She suggests that the purpose of this was to remain incognito and that the Drapers were chosen because of a significant evangelical presence in their membership. But Patmore's purpose may simply have been to acquire London citizenship. And the Drapers's Company may have been chosen beecause his father had been a member of the company. He was arrested but released due to petitions from his supporters to Anne Boleyn and Thomas Cromwell (L&P VII, p. 348).

The articles charged against Bayfield, his answers to them, the sentence of degradation imposed on him and the letter to the mayor and sheriffs of London, are taken from a now lost court book of Bishop John Stokesley. Because Foxe does not mention Bayfield's first trial for heresy, the reader is likely to be confused by the references below to punishments already imposed on Bayfield. This was Bayfield's second trial for heresy.