THE KING’S SISTER.
1547-1553.
At the time of her father’s death, Mary was thirty-one years old. Her
youth had passed away amid storms such as few women are called upon
to weather, and they had left their traces on her character no less
than on the brilliant beauty for which she had been famed throughout
Europe. The slightly _mutine_ expression, which we notice in Holbein’s
fascinating portrait, had changed into a thoughtful, self-contained and
rather sad look. She had acquired a thorough knowledge of the world,
of men’s foibles, ambitions, passions and intrigues, and thus came
well-equipped and undismayed into the new struggle that awaited her
with her brother’s Privy Council. In spite of her many friends (for her
popularity had increased rather than diminished) she was necessarily
somewhat isolated in her exalted position, and her enemies were
powerful.
By the terms of her father’s will she was now the first lady in the
land, being placed in the line of succession, as was her right,
immediately after Edward, in default of male heirs of his body.
Projects were formed for her marriage with the Duke of Ferrara, with
the King of Poland, with Albert Marquis of Brandenburg, and with Don
Loys of Portugal, who was again put forward as a suitable husband, but
the Council were not more eager to send her out of the country than
Henry had been.
So far as Edward was allowed to entertain any warmth of affection, he
was, it may be said, sincerely attached to both his sisters, but he
was entirely a puppet in the hands of his uncles the Seymours. He was
nine years old at the time of his accession, and but for them might
have regarded Mary something in the light of a mother. She was in fact
his godmother, and had watched over him as well as circumstances would
allow, from his birth, but those who surrounded him were careful that
her interest in her young brother should not assume a more definite
shape than the bestowal of countless presents, and the constant
providing of juvenile amusements. One of his letters to her shortly
before his father’s death contains a pretty passage: “_Amo te, sicut
frater debet amare charissimam sororem, quæ habet omnia ornamenta
virtutis et honestatis in se_”.[252] In May 1546, he told her that
God had given her the wisdom of Esther, and that he looked up to her
virtues with admiration.[253] But scarcely was he on the throne, when
his uncles made him the mouthpiece of the narrow Puritan views to which
they were committed, and we find him writing to Katharine Parr, to
entreat her “to preserve his dear sister Mary from the enchantments of
the Evil One, by beseeching her to attend no longer to foreign dances
and merriments, which do not become a Christian princess”. When left to
himself, however, he showed her simple, child-like affection.[254] The
rapid decline of Henry’s health had been a signal to the Seymours to
seize what extra power they could. They even went so far as to amend
the King’s will, a few days before his death, conferring on themselves
more authority than had been already decreed. Henry had refused to
sign the amendment, but they, disguising the fact that it did not bear
the royal sign manual, carried matters with so high a hand that their
powers were taken for granted. The supreme authority had originally
been vested in sixteen executors, but the two Seymours claimed the
entire guardianship of the boy-king. Henry had had little regard for
his brothers-in-law. He knew them to be ambitious, and had been sparing
of his favours towards them. He suspected them moreover of a secret
fondness for the new doctrines, to which he was again strenuously
opposed, but as there was no kinsman of the blood royal to whom he
could confide his son, he was obliged to accept the inevitable.
Thomas and Edward Seymour were at Henry’s death, the one a simple
knight, the other Earl of Hertford and Lord Chamberlain. Not content
with these mediocre honours, they at once busied themselves with
their own advancement. Hertford caused himself to be created Duke of
Somerset, while Sir Thomas was made Lord Seymour of Sudley. Besides
this, the latter coveted the patent of High Admiral, held by the Earl
of Warwick, and as with the Seymours to covet was to have, Warwick was
obliged to resign the patent in his favour. Neither of the brothers was
sensitive in regard to the outspoken criticism of the other members of
the Council, who suggested that it would have been well to await the
King’s majority, to be rewarded according to their merits; and in spite
of murmurs of dissatisfaction the new Duke of Somerset had himself
proclaimed Protector, and procured letters patent under the Great Seal,
conferring on his person the whole authority of the Crown.
The ambition of Admiral Seymour had, it is said, further led him
to solicit the hand of Elizabeth, immediately after her father’s
death,[255] and, meeting with a rebuff, he at once offered himself to
the widowed Queen, greatly to the indignation of Henry’s daughters when
the fact became known to them. The indecency of the proceeding could
scarcely have been more accentuated, for as soon as Henry’s body was
laid in the tomb, the Admiral was secretly married to Katharine Parr.
Henry died on the 28th January, and an undated letter from Katharine to
the Admiral, bearing intrinsic evidence that she was his wife when she
wrote it, also contains irrefragable proof that it could not have been
written later than the middle of February next following.[256] Thus the
marriage was an accomplished fact weeks before his appeal to Edward for
permission to marry his stepmother. To marry a queen dowager, without
the royal consent was a misdemeanour involving fine and imprisonment,
and he therefore by means of flattery, and by supplying the boy
secretly with large sums of money, so wormed himself into his favour,
that Edward being made aware of his uncle’s wishes, affectionately
urged him to marry Katharine, and afterwards thanked him for doing
so. It is probable that Henry’s children never knew the extent to
which they had been deceived, although in the subsequent indictment
of Seymour, one of the charges brought against him was, that he had
married the Queen Dowager so quickly after the King’s death, that if
she had had a child within the next nine months, disputes might well
have arisen regarding the succession.
There had been little difficulty in gaining Edward’s consent, but
it was no such plain sailing to win Mary’s good-will towards the
marriage. In spite of all she had suffered at her father’s hands, Mary
was astonishingly devout to his memory, and her letter in answer to
the Admiral’s hypocritical pleading that she would intercede with
the Queen in his behalf, when he had already been married to her for
months, is dignified and sensible.
“MY LORD,
“After my hearty commendations, these shall be to declare that
according to your accustomed gentleness, I have received six
warrants from you by your servant this bearer, for the which,
I do give you my hearty thanks, by whom also I have received
your letter wherein (as me thinketh) I perceive strange news,
concerning a suit you have in hand to the Queen for marriage,
for the sooner obtaining whereof, you seem to think that my
letters might do you pleasure. My lord, in this case I trust
your wisdom doth consider that if it were for my nearest kinsman
and dearest friend on live, of all other creatures in the world,
it standeth least with my poor honour to be a meddler in this
matter, considering whose wife her grace was of late, and besides
that if she be minded to grant your suit, my letters shall do
you but small pleasure. On the other side, if the remembrance of
the King’s Majesty my father (whose soul God pardon) will not
suffer her to grant your suit, I am nothing able to persuade her
to forget the loss of him, who is as yet very ripe in mine own
remembrance. Wherefore I shall most earnestly require you (the
premisses considered) to think none unkindness in me, though I
refuse to be a meddler any ways in this matter, assuring you,
that (wooing matters set apart, wherein I being a maid am nothing
cunning) if otherwise it shall lie in my little power to do you
pleasure, I shall be as glad to do it as you to require it, both
for his blood’s sake that you be of, and also for the gentleness
which I have always found in you. As knoweth Almighty God, to
whose tuition I commit you.
“From Wanstead, this Saturday at night, being the 4th June.
“Your assured friend to my power,
“MARYE.”[257]
[Illustration: [++] FACSIMILE OF MARY’S LETTER]
The marriage was concealed till the end of June, when it was supposed
to have taken place at Edward’s request. Elizabeth’s indignation, real
or feigned, was thus expressed in a letter to Mary:—
“PRINCESS, AND VERY DEAR SISTER,
“You are very right in saying, in your most acceptable letters
which you have done me the honour of writing to me, that our
interests being common, the just grief we feel in seeing the
ashes, or rather the scarcely cold body of the King our father
so shamefully dishonored by the Queen our stepmother, ought to
be common to us also. I cannot express to you, my dear Princess,
how much affliction I suffered when I was first informed of this
marriage, and no other comfort can I find, than that of the
necessity of submitting ourselves to the decrees of heaven; since
neither you nor I, dearest sister, are in such a condition as to
offer any obstacle thereto, without running heavy risk of making
our own lot much worse than it is, at least so I think. We have
to deal with too powerful a party who have got all authority into
their hands, while we, deprived of power cut a very poor figure
at court. I think then, that the best course we can take is that
of dissimulation, that the mortification may fall upon those who
commit the fault. For we may rest assured that the memory of the
King our father, being so glorious in itself, cannot be subject to
these stains which can only defile the persons who have wrought
them. Let us console ourselves by making the best of what we
cannot remedy. If our silence does us no honour, at least it will
not draw down upon us such disasters as our lamentations might
induce. These are my sentiments, which the little reason I have
dictates, and which guides my respectful reply to your agreeable
letter. With regard to the returning of visits, I do not see that
you who are the elder are obliged to this; but the position in
which I stand obliges me to take other measures, the Queen having
shown me so great affection, and done me so many kind offices,
that I must use much tact in manœuvring with her, for fear of
appearing ungrateful for her benefits. I shall not however, be in
any hurry to visit her, lest I should be charged with approving
what I ought to censure. However I shall always pay much deference
to your instructions and commands, in all which you shall think
convenient or serviceable to you, as being your highness’s,” etc.,
etc.[258]
Although we have no authority but Leti, for the authenticity of this
letter, a remarkable production for a girl of thirteen, it cannot be
denied that there is a striking resemblance between the shrewdness
displayed therein, and the clever fencing in which Elizabeth afterwards
so greatly excelled. Before long, the writer was an inmate of the
Queen’s household, and an adept in that “dissimulation” which she
recommended to Mary. The Admiral, already repenting his hasty marriage,
was carrying on an intrigue with Elizabeth, whom Katharine one day
surprised in his arms; and there were rumours of still greater
familiarities. The unhappy Queen died soon after in childbed, and an
inquiry into the nature of Elizabeth’s relations with the Admiral
revealed a sink of depravity and corruption. But self-defence was an
art in which Elizabeth excelled, and in the characteristic words of
Mrs. Ashley, her governess, “She would not cough out more matter than
it suited her purpose to confess”.[259]
Meanwhile, so great was the enmity between the Protector and his
brother, each seeking to supplant the other with the King, that Edward
could scarcely be expected to retain a spark of natural affection for
either. Somerset, bent on the Admiral’s ruin, accused him of a design
for upsetting the Government, and caused him to be attainted for high
treason, without bringing the least particle of real evidence against
him. There is something repulsive in the succinct manner in which the
whole affair of his uncle’s attainder and execution is disposed of in
the young King’s Journal: “Also the Lord Sudley, Admiral of England was
condemned to death, and died in the March ensuing”.[260]
But these were days when human life was held cheap, and not only did
Somerset sign the warrant for his brother’s execution, but Cranmer,
who, as a Churchman, was prohibited by Canon law from all participation
in judgments of blood, did not refrain from setting his sign manual
to the deed.[261] Latimer preached the funeral sermon, which, in his
anxiety to curry favour with the Council, became a further indictment.
“Whether he be saved or no, I leave it to God,” said the Bishop of
Worcester, “but surely he was a wicked man, and the realm is well rid
of him.”[262]
The Protector did not long enjoy his triumph over his brother. His
assumption of the supreme power in the State was an eyesore to others
besides the Admiral. The Earl of Warwick soon proved a redoubtable
adversary and rival in the Council, and accused him of arbitrary and
tyrannical abuse of his authority.
Edward, who sometimes smarted under the despotic control of his uncle,
was not unwilling to be released therefrom, and was easily persuaded
to sign a writ for his committal to the Tower. The arrest of the most
powerful advocate of the new doctrines appeared to the reformers to
threaten the existence of all that they had worked for with so much
success, and it was felt that the decisive moment had arrived, for
striking a final blow for the total abolition of the old faith.
Henry’s last years had been marked by a strong reaction in its favour.
This reaction had set in with Cromwell’s waning influence, had not a
little to do with the Chief Secretary’s disgrace, and had continued
till his own death, at which time he was more Catholic than he had ever
been since his youth. In his anxiety to guard against the introduction
of Genevan heresies into England, he revived the statute against
Lollardy, and the Protestants were burned for propagating the new
opinions. Stringent measures were adopted to prevent the importation
of books concerning religion from the continent, and in his last will,
Henry put his belief in the Mass on record, by ordering that it
should be offered daily, “perpetually while the world shall endure,”
for the repose of his soul. Edward VI. had been crowned according to
ancient Catholic rites, so far as the religious part of the ceremonies
was concerned, although several departures from precedent were made
as regarded the administration of the oath. High Mass concluded the
ceremony. But in two years, vast changes had come about, mainly through
Somerset’s influence, and a circular letter had been sent to the
clergy, informing them of the King’s intention to proceed with the
reformation of the Church of England. They were commanded to deliver
up all books containing any portion of the service of the Mass, that
such might be burnt, or destroyed publicly. An act was passed ordering
that “all books, manuals, legends, pics, grailes, primers in Latin and
English, journals, ordinals or other books or writings whatsoever,
heretofore used for service of the Church, written or printed in the
English or Latin tongue, other than such as shall be set forth of the
King’s Majesty, shall be by authority of this present act, clearly
and utterly abolished, extinguished and forbidden for ever to be
used or kept in this realm, or elsewhere within any of the King’s
dominions”.[263]
It was further enacted, that all images already taken out of the
churches and chapels should be utterly defaced and destroyed by the
mayor, bailiff, constable or churchwardens within three months, under
the penalty of ten shillings for the first default, four pounds for the
second, and imprisonment during the King’s pleasure for the third.[264]
Those bishops who resisted the new laws were sent to the Tower,
among them were Heath, Day and Gardiner, who denounced as illegal
all ecclesiastical changes made during the King’s minority. Cranmer
had long since joined the Protestant party, and it was observed in
1549 that “this year the Archbishop of Canterbury did eat meat openly
in Lent in the hall of Lambeth, the like of which was never seen
since England was a christian country”. But the proceedings of the
Council were marked by singular inconsistency, for although most of
the changes tended towards a shaking off of old beliefs, freedom of
conscience was by no means allowed. The statute _De Heresia_ was
again called into play, and a woman was tried, condemned and burned
for denying the Incarnation of our Lord. On the 2nd May 1549, Edward
wrote in his Diary, “Joan Bocher, otherwise called Joan of Kent, was
burnt for holding that Christ was not incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
being condemned the year before, but kept in hope of conversion, and
the 30 of April, the bishop of London, and the bishop of Ely were to
persuade her. But she withstood them, and reviled the preacher that
preached at her death.” The three bishops, Hooper, Latimer and Ridley
followed Cranmer’s lead, and distinguished themselves in the cause of
the Reformation.[265] But the people rose in protest, a revolt that
was everywhere stamped out in blood. Cranmer’s _Book of Common Prayer_
superseded the Missal and Breviary, and an order of the Privy Council
provided that from thenceforth, “no printer should print or put into
vent any English book but such as should first be examined by Mr.
Secretary Petre, Mr. Secretary Smith, and Mr. Cecil, or the one of
them, and allowed by the same, under pain of imprisonment”.[266]
The triumph of the Reformation all along the line was celebrated by
the pardon and release of Somerset, on his subscribing a document
consisting of twenty-nine charges brought against him, in which he was
made to confess his presumption, negligence and incapacity.
During this time, Mary was living, for the most part, in great
retirement, at her favourite residence, Beaulieu (New Hall) in Essex,
rarely appearing at court, and hoping that by attracting little
attention she might be able to practise her religion unmolested. The
Mass, although abolished by Act of Parliament, and celebrated only at
the risk of pains and penalties, was still said openly in her house.
The Statute of Uniformity by which heavy penalties were inflicted on
all priests saying Mass, and on every individual who should be found
present at Mass, was a formidable weapon in Somerset’s hands. The
Protector summoned Mary, in his capacity as head of the Council, to
embrace the new form of worship. Her answer was a spirited protest:—
“It is no small grief to me to perceive that they whom the King’s
Majesty my father (whose soul God pardon) made in this world of
nothing, in respect of that they be come to now, and at this last end,
put in trust to see his will performed, whereunto they were all sworn
upon a book (it grieveth me I say) for that love I bear to them, to see
both how they break his will, what usurped power they take upon them,
in making (as they call it) laws, clean contrary to his proceedings
and will, and also against the custom of all Christendom, and in my
conscience, against the law of God and his Church, which passeth all
the rest. But though you among you have forgotten the King my father,
yet both God’s commandment and nature will not suffer me to do so,
wherefore with God’s help, I will remain an obedient child to his laws
as he left them, till such time as the King’s Majesty, my brother shall
have perfect years of discretion, to order the power that God hath sent
him, to be a judge in these matters himself, and I doubt not, he shall
then accept my so doing better than theirs, who have taken a piece of
his power upon them in his minority.”[267]
On the 22nd June 1549, she was admonished to send her chaplain and
comptroller of her household before the Council, but she replied
haughtily that she could not spare her comptroller, and that her
chaplain had been sick, that the law made by Parliament was not
worth the name of a law, that King Henry’s executors were sworn to
his statutes, that her house was her flock, and that she deferred in
obedience to King Edward’s laws, till his Majesty were of sufficient
years, all of which of course gave great offence. Nevertheless,
Edward, in a letter dated August 1549, merely marvelled at his sister’s
refusal to conform to the order of Common Prayer lately set forth, and
gave a dispensation to the Princess and her household to have private
service in her own chamber.[268]
The secret of this forbearance lay in the fact that Mary had appealed
to the Emperor, who had threatened war if she were molested, and as
the country was already entangled in hostilities with France, Edward’s
Council thought it prudent to allow her temporarily to practise the
old religion. But as soon as peace was signed, and friendship with
the Emperor was less important, messengers were again sent to her,
and letters from the King, offering to supply her with teachers, who
would instruct her ignorance and refute her errors. The permission to
have Mass, granted at the point of the sword, was declared to have
been limited to a few months only, and to have included none of her
servants. She was again warned “to be conformable and obedient to the
observation of his Majesty’s laws, to give order that the Mass should
be no more used in her house, and that she would embrace and cause
to be celebrated in her said house, the communion and other divine
services set forth by his Majesty”.[269]
On the 3rd February 1551, Mary thus wrote to the King:—
“My duty most humbly remembered to your Majesty, please it the
same to understand, that I have received your letters by Master
Throckmorton this bearer; the contents whereof do more trouble
me than any bodily sickness, though it were even to the death;
and the rather for that your highness doth charge me to be both
a breaker of your laws, and also an encourager of others to do
the like. I most humbly beseech your Majesty to think that I
never intended towards you otherwise than my duty compelleth me
unto; that is to wish your highness all honour and prosperity,
for the which I do and daily shall pray. And where as it pleaseth
your Majesty to write, that I make a challenge of a promise made
otherwise than it was meant, the truth is, the promise could not
be denied before your Majesty’s presence, at my last waiting upon
the same. And although I confess the ground of faith (whereunto
I take reason to be but an handmaid) and my conscience also hath
and do agree with the same, yet touching that promise, for so much
as it hath pleased your Majesty (God knoweth by whose persuasion)
to write ‘it was not so meant’; I shall most humbly desire your
Highness to examine the truth thereof indifferently, and either
will your Majesty’s ambassador now being with the Emperor, to
inquire of the same, if it be your pleasure to have him move it,
or else to cause it to be demanded of the Emperor’s ambassador
here, although he were not within this realm at that time....
“And albeit your Majesty (God be praised) hath at these years
as much understanding and more, than is commonly seen in that
age, yet considering you do hear but one part (your Highness not
offended) I would be a suitor to the same, that till you were
grown to more perfect years, it might stand with your pleasure
to stay, in matters touching the soul: so undoubtedly should
your Majesty know more, and hear others, and nevertheless be at
your liberty, and do your will and pleasure. And whatsoever your
Majesty hath conceived of me, either by letters to your council
or by their report, I trust in the end to prove myself as true to
you as any subject within your realm, and will by no means stand
in argument with your Majesty, but in most humble wise beseech
you even for God’s sake, to suffer me as your Highness hath done
hitherto. It is for no worldly respect I desire it, God is my
judge: but rather than to offend my conscience I would desire of
God to lose all that I have, and also my life, and nevertheless
live and die your humble sister and true subject. Thus, after
pardon craved of your Majesty, for my rude and bold writing, I
beseech Almighty God to preserve the same in honour, with as
long continuance of health and life as ever had noble king. From
Beaulieu the third of Feb.
“Your Majesty’s most humble and unworthy sister,
“MARYE.”[270]
On the 18th March, Edward made the following entry in his Journal:—
“The Lady Mary my sister came to me at Westminster, where after
salutations, she was called with my Council into a chamber, where
was declared how long I had suffered her Mass, in hope of her
reconciliation and how now being no hope, which I perceived by her
letters, except I saw some short amendment, I could not bear it.
She answered that her soul was God’s, and her faith she would not
change, nor dissemble her opinion with contrary doings. It was said
I constrained not her faith, but willed her not as a king to rule,
but as a subject to obey, and that her example might breed too much
inconvenience.”
On the 19th and 20th he added:—
“The Emperor’s ambassador came with a short message from his master,
of war if I would not suffer his cousin, the princess to use her mass.
To this was no answer given at this time. The bishops of Canterbury,
London and Rochester did consider [that] to give licence to sin was
sin; to suffer and wink at it for a time might be borne, so all haste
possible might be used.”[271]
Already the Council had written to Sir Richard Morysine, their envoy
extraordinary at the court of Charles V., to inform him that “of late
the Emperor’s ambassador has moved them that the Lady Mary might freely
retain the ancient religion in such sort as her father left it in this
realm, according to a promise made to the Emperor, till the King should
be of more years. They denied that such promise had been made, except
to this extent, that the King was content to bear with her infirmity,
that she should for a season hear the mass in her closet or privy
chamber only, whereat there should be present no more than they of her
chamber, and no time appointed, but left to the King’s pleasure. But in
spite of their repeated assurances, that no promise had been made, he
would not receive their flat denial.”[272]
But Morysine was not a _persona grata_ with the Emperor, and the
Council sent over Dr. Wotton in the hope of propitiating him. From
Augsburg, where the imperial court was then residing, Morysine wrote
to the Council saying that he was in no better favour than any in his
case would be, though the Emperor had changed his testiness for a
more gentle behaviour towards him. But he does not desire to buy the
Emperor’s love at the price at which he holds it, and he is certain
that he shall not hereafter be able to live on it. The fault, he begs
their Lordships to believe, lies in the matter and not in him, and he
continues: “Mr. Wotton hath a more mannerly nay than I had, but even as
flat a nay as mine was. The Emperor’s choler spent upon me hath taught
him to use others with more gentleness.”[273]
Wotton’s account of his interview with Charles is extremely
interesting. The Emperor said: “Ought it not suffice you that ye spill
your own souls, but that ye have a mind to force others to lose theirs
too? My cousin, the Princess is evil-handled among you, her servants
plucked from her, and she, still cried upon to leave Mass, to forsake
her religion, in which her mother, her grandmother, and all our family
have lived and died.” Wotton told him that when he left England, she
was honourably entertained, in her own house, with such about her as
she best liked, and he thought she must be so still, since not hearing
to the contrary, he was driven to think there was no change. “Yes, by
St. Mary,” saith he, “of late they handle her evil, and therefore, say
you hardly to them, I will not suffer her to be evil-handled by them.
I will not suffer it. Is it not enough that mine aunt, her mother was
evil entreated by the King that dead is, but my cousin must be worse
ordered by councillors now? I had rather she died a thousand deaths,
than that she should forsake her faith and mine. The King’s Majesty
is too young to skill of such matters.” Hereupon, Wotton, professing
that it became him not to dispute with his Majesty, yet being forced
somewhat to answer him, said that he knew the King was young in years,
but yet “the Lord be praised for his gifts poured upon him, as able
to give an account of his faith as any prince in Christendom being of
thrice his years. And as for the Lady Mary, tho’ she had a king to her
father, hath a king to her brother and is akin to the Emperor, yet in
England there is but one king, and the king hath but one law to rule
all his subjects by. The Lady Mary being no king must content herself
to be a subject.”
“A gentle law I tell you,” said he, “that is made, the King’s majesty
being no ——” (illegible).
Wotton then asked, that Chamberlain, the English ambassador in
ordinary, might have the service of the Book of Common Prayer in his
house, without access of strangers. But the Emperor exclaimed, “English
service in Flanders! speak not of it. I will suffer none to use any
doctrine or service in Flanders that is not allowed of the Church.” If
his cousin the Lady Mary might not have her Masses, he would provide
for her a remedy, and in case his ambassador were restrained from
serving of God, he had already given him order that if the restraint
come to-day, that he should to-morrow depart.[274]
The Council replied to Wotton’s letter, that the Lady Mary might no
longer do as she had done, and that the laws would be henceforth
executed in her house. They concluded their ultimatum by saying that
“his Majesty also considers the Emperor’s demands for his ambassador
in England to use the Mass, and his denial to suffer his Majesty’s
ambassador within his dominions to use the Communion, too much unequal
and unreasonable, and therefore he doubts not the Emperor will
otherwise consider this matter”.
The law of Uniformity once passed, Edward’s ministers could only
justify it by carrying it out logically; but in thus doing they cut
through marrow and bone, and the acts of the Privy Council show the
drastic nature of their dealings with the disobedient. On the 19th
March, Sergeant Morgan had been summoned before the Council for hearing
Mass at St. John’s, in the Lady Mary’s house, two or three days
previously, “and not being able to excuse himself, because that, being
a learned man, he should give so ill an example to others, he was
committed to the Fleet prison”.[275]
On the 24th, Sir Anthony Browne was examined as to whether he had of
late heard any Mass or not, when he answered, “that indeed twice or
thrice at the New Hall; and once at Romford, as my Lady Mary was coming
hither about ten days past, he had heard Mass. Which being considered
as a notable ill example, was thought requisite to be corrected, and
therefore he was committed to the Fleet.”[276]
On the same day, Rochester, Comptroller of Mary’s household, was
interrogated as to “how many ordinary chaplains her Grace had”. He
answered that she had four, namely Drs. Mallet, Hopton, Barker and
Ricardes. But it was not until August that definite steps were taken to
coerce the Princess into subjection. The story of the proceedings as it
is told in the _Acts of the Privy Council_ is dramatic.[277]
The English envoys having signified to the Emperor the ultimatum of
Edward’s government on the 9th August, on the 15th, three of Mary’s
servants, Rochester, Waldegrave and Sir Francis Englefield appeared
before the Council, and were commanded on their return home, to call
Mary’s chaplains together, and to inhibit them from further saying Mass
in her house, or in any other place, contrary to the King’s laws, under
pain of the King’s high indignation and displeasure. As Rochester made
many excuses “to avoid the report of this matter unto her Grace and
the execution thereof in her house, he was finally commanded on his
allegiance to see it performed, and in case her Grace should dismiss
him, and the rest out of her service, upon the receipt of this message
(as he pretended she would) then was he and the rest commanded on the
King’s Majesty’s behalf, neither to avoid her service nor to depart
from her house, but to see this order prescribed unto them fulfilled
until they should have further commandment from hence”.[278]
They were then dismissed, and returned to Mary, but were summoned to
appear again on the 24th, to give an account of their doings. In the
meanwhile, the Princess wrote the following letter to Edward, which
was perhaps more forcible than anything she had hitherto said in her
defence:—
“My duty most humbly remembered unto your Majesty. It may please
the same to be advertised, that I have by my servants received
your most honourable letter, the contents whereof do not a little
trouble me, and so much the more for that any of my servants
should move or attempt me in matters touching my soul, which I
think the meanest subjects within your realm could evil bear
at their servants’ hands; having for my part utterly refused
heretofore to talk with them in such matters, and of all other
persons least regarded them therein; to whom I have declared
what I think, as she which trusted that your Majesty would have
suffered me, your poor humble sister and beadswoman, to have used
the accustomed Mass, which the King your father and mine, with
all his predecessors evermore used; wherein also I have been
brought up from my youth, and thereunto my conscience doth not
only bind me, which by no means will suffer me to think one thing
and do another, but also the promise made to the Emperor, by
your Majesty’s Council, was an assurance to me, that in so doing
I should not offend the laws, although they seem now to qualify
and deny the thing. And at my last waiting upon your Majesty, I
was so bold to declare my mind and conscience to the same, and
desired your Highness rather than you should constrain me to leave
the Mass, to take my life, whereunto your Majesty made me a very
gentle answer. And now I beseech your Highness to give me leave to
write what I think touching your Majesty’s letters. Indeed they
be signed with your own hand, and nevertheless in my opinion not
your Majesty’s in effect, because it is well known (as heretofore
I have declared in the presence of your Highness) that although
our Lord be praised, your Majesty hath far more knowledge, and
greater gifts than others of your years, yet it is not possible
that your Highness can at these years be a judge in matters of
religion. And therefore I take it, that the matter in your letter
proceedeth from such as do wish these things to take place, which
be most agreeable to themselves, by whose doings (your Majesty not
offended) I intend not to rule my conscience. And thus, without
molesting your Highness any further, I humbly beseech the same,
ever for God’s sake to bear with me as you have done, and not to
think that by my doings or ensample any inconvenience might grow
to your Majesty, or your realm; for I use it not after any such
sort, putting no doubt but in time to come, whether I live or die,
your Majesty shall perceive mine intent is grounded upon a true
love towards you, whose royal estate I beseech Almighty God long
to continue, which is and shall be my daily prayer, according to
my duty. And after pardon craved of your Majesty, for these rude
and bold letters, if neither at my humble suit, nor for regard of
the promise made to the Emperor, your Highness will suffer and
bear with me as you have done, till your Majesty may be a judge
herein yourself, and right understand their proceedings (of which
your goodness yet I despair not) otherwise rather than offend God
and my conscience, I offer my body at your will, and death shall
be more welcome than life with a troubled conscience.
“Most humbly beseeching your Majesty to pardon my slowness in
answering your letters, for my old disease would not suffer me
to write any sooner. And thus I pray Almighty God to keep your
Majesty in all virtue and honour, with good health and long life
to his pleasure.
“From my poor house at Copped Hall, the xix of August.
“Your Majesty’s most humble sister,
“MARYE.”[279]
On the 24th, the officers of Mary’s household appeared duly before the
Lords, and in the words of the minutes of the Privy Council, “declared
unto their Lordships that upon Saturday the 15th of this present,
they arrived at Copped-hall somewhat before night, by reason whereof
they did not the same night execute their charge committed to them
at Hampton Court, the 14th of this present. The Sunday following,
being the 16th of this present, because they understood that her Grace
received the Sacrament, for so they termed it, they did abstain to
deliver their letters before noon, considering that the same would
trouble and disquiet her so as after dinner, taking commodity to
deliver their letters, after that her Grace had read them, they made
offer to her to declare what charge they had received of the Lords to
execute, praying her Grace to be contented to hear the same. Whereunto
her Grace made answer, that she knew right well that their commission
was agreeing with such matter as was contained in her letters, and that
therefore they need not to rehearse the same, howbeit they pressing her
Grace, she was finally content to hear them. And when they had said,
she seemed to be marvellously offended with them, and charged them that
they should not declare that same they had in charge to say, neither to
her chaplains nor family, which if they did, besides that they should
not take her hereafter for their mistress, she would immediately depart
out of the house. Upon this, the said Rochester, Inglesfeld (_sic_) and
Walgrave said to the Lords that forasmuch as she oftentimes altered her
colour, and seemed to be passioned and unquiet, they forbare to trouble
her any further, fearing that the troubling of her might perchance
bring her to her old disease, and besought her to consider the matter
with herself, and pause thereupon against Wednesday next, when they
would wait on her Grace, and know her further pleasure; which they said
they did, hoping to have found her then, upon more ripe deliberation,
and debating of the matter with herself, more conformable. And in
the meantime, they forbare also to declare to her chaplains and
household the charge they had received. But replying to her Grace, the
Wednesday, being the xxth of this present, they did not only not find
her conformable, but in further choler than she was before, utterly
forbidding them to make declaration of their said charge and commission
to her chaplains and household; adding that where she and her household
were in quiet, if they would by any means disturb her and them, if any
inconvenience did ensue thereof to her or them she would erect it to
the said Rochester, Inglefeld and Walgrave, which thing considered,
they thought it better to return without doing their commission, and
declare thus much to their Lordships, without meddling any further,
than to proceed in the execution of their charge before they had
advertised their Lordships of the premisses.”[280]
They brought with them Mary’s letters of the 19th, addressed to the
King, and the next day were again summoned to receive a sharp rebuke
for having “troubled her Grace” with delivering their message to
her, contrary to the directions given to them, and for doing nothing
in regard to the prohibition to her chaplains and household. They
were then each commanded separately, to return and do the business
required of them. But this they one and all refused to do, Rochester
and Waldegrave saying that they would rather endure any punishment,
and Sir Francis Inglefield declaring that he could find it neither in
his heart nor his conscience to do so. They were therefore dismissed,
with orders to be in readiness to appear, whenever their Lordships
should summon them, until such time as they should know their further
pleasure. Meanwhile, the Lord Chancellor Rich, Sir William Petre, one
of the secretaries, and Sir Anthony Wingfield, Comptroller of his
Majesty’s Household, repaired to Copt Hall, taking with them “a trusty
skylfull man” who, it was intended, should for the time being replace
Rochester in the management of Mary’s household. The following is their
own account of their proceedings:—
“Windsor, 29th August 1551. First having received commandment and
instructions from the King’s Majesty, we repaired to the said Lady
Mary’s house at Copthall in Essex, on Friday last, being the 28th of
this instant, in the morning, where, shortly after our coming, I, the
Lord Chancellor delivered his Majesty’s letters unto her, which she
received upon her knees, saying that for the honour of the King’s
Majesty’s hand, wherewith the said letters were signed, she would kiss
the letters, and not for the matter contained in them, for the matter
(said she) I take to proceed not from his Majesty, but from you of the
Council. In the reading of the letter, which she did read secretly
to herself, she said these words in our hearing—’Ah! good Mr. Cecil
took much pain here’. When she had read the letters, we began to open
the matter of our instructions unto her. And as I, the Lord Chancellor
began, she prayed me to be short, for (said she) I am not well at ease;
and I will make you a short answer, notwithstanding that I have already
declared and written my mind to his Majesty plainly, with my own hand.
“After this, we told her at good length, how the King’s Majesty, having
used all the gentle means and exhortations that he might, to have
reduced her to the rights of religion and order of Divine Service set
forth by the laws of the realm, and finding her nothing conformable,
but still remaining in her former error, had resolved, by the whole
estate of his Majesty’s Privy Council, and with the consent of divers
others of the nobility, that she should no longer use the private Mass,
nor any other Divine Service than is set forth by the laws of the
realm; and here we offered to show her the names of all those that were
present at this consultation and resolution; but she said she cared
not for any rehearsal of their names, for (said she) I know you be all
of one sort therein. We told her further, that the King’s Majesty’s
pleasure was, that we should also give strait charge to her chaplains
and servants, that none of them should presume to say any Mass or
other Divine Service than is set forth by the laws of the realm, and
like charge to all her servants that none of them should presume to
hear any Mass or other Divine Service than is aforesaid. Hereunto her
answer was this: First, she protested that to the King’s Majesty she
was, is, and ever will be, his most humble and most obedient subject
and poor sister, and would most willingly obey all his commandments
in anything (her conscience saved)—yea and would willingly and gladly
suffer death, to do his Majesty good; but rather than she will agree
to use any other service than was used at the death of the late King,
her father, she would lay her head on a block and suffer death; but
(said she) I am unworthy to suffer death in so good a quarrel. When
the King’s Majesty (said she) shall come to such years that he may be
able to judge these things himself, his Majesty shall find me ready to
obey his orders in religion; but now in these years, although he, good,
sweet King, have more knowledge than any other of his years, yet is it
not possible that he can be a judge in these things. For if ships were
to be sent to the seas, or any other thing to be done, touching the
policy of the government of the realm, I am sure you would not think
his Highness yet able to consider what were to be done, and much less
(said she) can he in these days discern what is fittest in matters
of divinity. And if my chaplains do say no Mass, I can hear none, no
more can my poor servants, but as for my servants, I know it shall be
against their wills, as it shall be against mine, for if they could
come where it were said, they would hear it with good-will. And as for
my priests, they know what they have to do. The pain of your laws is
but imprisonment for a short time, and if they will refuse to say Mass
for fear of that imprisonment, they may do therein as they will, but
none of your new service (said she) shall be used in my house, and if
any be said in it, I will not tarry in the house.”
They then went on to blame Rochester and the others for not executing
the orders of the Council, upon which Mary replied that “it was not the
wisest counsel to appoint her servants to control her in her own house,
and if they refused to do the message unto her and her chaplains and
servants as aforesaid, they be (said she) the honester men, for they
should have spoken against their own consciences”.
The promise to the Emperor was then discussed.
“I have (quoth she) the Emperor’s hand, testifying that this promise
was made, which I believe better than you all of the Council; and
though you esteem little the Emperor, yet should you show more favour
to me for my father’s sake, who made the more part of you, almost of
nothing. But as for the Emperor (said she), if he were dead I would say
as I do, and if he would give me now other advice, I would not follow
it, notwithstanding (quoth she) to be plain with you, his ambassador
shall know how I am used at your hands. After this we opened the King’s
Majesty’s pleasure, for one to attend on her Grace for the supply of
Rochester’s place during his absence. To this her answer was that she
would appoint her own officers, and that she had years sufficient for
that purpose, and if we left any such man she would go out of her
gates, for they two would not dwell in one house. And (quoth she) I
am sickly, and yet I would not die willingly, but will do the best I
can to preserve my life; but if I shall chance to die, I will protest
openly that you of the Council be the causes of my death; you give me
fair words, but your deeds be always ill towards me. And having said
this, she departed from us into her bedchamber, and delivered to me,
the Lord Chancellor a ring, upon her knees, most humbly, with very
humble recommendations, saying that she would die his true subject and
sister, and obey his commandments in all things, except in this matter
of religion, touching the Mass and the new Service, but yet said she
this shall never be told to the King’s Majesty. After her departing, we
called the chaplains, and the rest of the household before us, giving
them strait commandment upon pain of their allegiance, that neither the
priests should from henceforth say any Mass or other Divine Service
than that which is set forth by the laws of the realm, nor that they
the residue of the servants should presume to hear any. The chaplains
after some talk, promised all to obey the King’s Majesty’s commandment
signified by us.”
Each one was ordered on his allegiance, to inform the Council if this
command were disobeyed, and when after some time, the commissioners
were waiting outside the house for one of the chaplains who had not
been present when the charge was given, they go on to say that, “the
Lady Mary’s Grace sent to us to speak with her one word at a window.
When we were come into the court, notwithstanding that we offered to
come up to her chamber, she would needs speak out of the window, and
prayed us to speak to the Lords of the Council, that her comptroller
might shortly return, for said she sythens his departing I take the
account myself of my expenses, and learn how many loaves of bread be
made of a bushel of wheat, and ye wis my father and my mother never
brought me up with baking and brewing, and to be plain with you, I am
weary of mine office, and therefore, if my Lords will send my officer
home, they shall do me pleasure, otherwise if they will send him to
prison, I beshrew him if he go not to it merrily, and with a good-will.
And I pray God to send you to do well in your souls and bodies too, for
some of you have but weak bodies.”[281]
Instead of granting this last request, the Council committed the three
officers, Rochester, Waldegrave and Inglefield to the Tower, where
they remained till the 18th March 1552, and a month later, the same
Lords addressed letters to the Lady Mary’s Grace, that her servants
be sent unto her according to her desire. By that time, another wave
had swept over Mary’s destiny. For some reason that has never been
apparent, the King’s counsellors changed their tactics, and the
Princess was henceforth allowed to practise her religion in peace.
Edward’s health was rapidly declining, and the bold design of the Duke
of Northumberland to set aside her rights, and annul her father’s will,
had not yet been framed. It might, therefore, have been judged prudent,
somewhat to conciliate one who stood so near the throne, and who might
soon be called upon to mount it. Moreover, in 1550, Sir John Masone
informed the Council that the Emperor had serious thoughts of carrying
her off, and in 1551 we find that certain pinnaces were prepared for
her secret transport over sea.[282]
Perhaps both these considerations weighed with the Council, and the
fall of Somerset further turned the scale in her favour by ridding Mary
of her bitterest enemy. He was again arrested in December 1551, lodged
in the Tower, and tried for high treason. Acquitted of this charge, he
was condemned for felony, and executed within six weeks. The fact is
notified in Edward’s Journal in the words: “The Duke of Somerset had
his head cut off upon Tower hill, between eight and nine o’clock in the
morning” (22nd January 1552).
None of Edward’s ministers had been so violently opposed to the old
religion, so active in the advancement of the Reformation as Somerset.
Calvin wrote to him from Geneva, a letter in which he praised the
spiritual work done by the Protector in England, and gave him sundry
advice as to the disposal of matters in the Church, thanking him for
having presented his works to the young King, and for having taken
into his service a boy whom he had recommended.[283] It was not likely
that a man whose doings were singled out for approval by Calvin would
ever tolerate Mary’s attitude towards Popery, and therefore his fall
may be considered a factor in the liberty granted to her. Henceforth,
to the end of the reign, she was on good terms with her brother’s
ministers, and her name only occurs in the minutes of the Privy Council
Registers in reference to warrants for payments to her comptroller, Mr.
Rochester, for the maintenance of her household, or for the repairing
of her lands “damaged by the rage of the water this last year”. One
entry mentions the committal of a man “for stealing the Lady Mary’s
hawks”.
An account of a visit paid to her at Hunsdon, in September 1552 by
Bishop Ridley shows the complete religious freedom which she then
enjoyed. She received him courteously, and talked with him very
pleasantly for a quarter of an hour, reminding him that she knew him at
court, when he was chaplain to her father; and she mentioned a sermon
which he had preached at a certain wedding. Then she dismissed him to
dine with her household. After dinner, he offered to preach to her
in the church, on which she replied, that he might preach, but that
neither she nor any of hers would listen.
“Madam,” he expostulated, “I trust you will not refuse God’s Word.”
“I cannot tell what ye call God’s Word,” answered Mary. “That is not
God’s Word now which was God’s Word in my father’s days.”
“God’s Word is all one in all times, but is better understood and
practised in some ages than in others,” replied Ridley.
[Illustration: THE PRINCESS MARY.
From the original portrait in the possession of the Marquis of Exeter.]
“You durst not for your ears have avouched that for God’s Word in my
father’s days that now do you,” she retorted, “and as for your new
books, I thank God I never read any of them; I never did nor ever will
do.”
In dismissing him she said, “My lord, for your gentleness to come and
see me, I thank you; but for your offering to preach before me I thank
you never a whit”.
Before leaving, he drank according to custom a stoup of wine with
Mary’s steward, but suddenly felt a qualm of conscience, and exclaimed,
“I have done amiss. I have drunk in that place where God’s Word offered
hath been refused. I ought, if I had done my duty, to have departed
immediately, and to have shaken the dust off my shoes for a testimony
against this house.”[284]
Although the Puritans had set the fashion of sober colours and rigid
simplicity of dress, which was followed by most people during Edward’s
reign, the Princess and her friends continued to assume a considerable
amount of state in their retinue and attire. Strype[285] records
that on her going to court in 1550, Mary rode through London with
fifty knights and gentlemen in velvet coats and chains of gold before
her, while following her were fourscore gentlemen and ladies. On her
arrival, the Comptroller of the King’s Household received her, and
many lords and knights escorted her through the hall to the presence
chamber, where she remained two hours “being treated at a goodly
banquet”. But when she visited the King at Greenwich in 1552, it was
observed that her company was only half the number which a nobleman
chose to come with a week afterwards.[286]
Edward had always been a delicate boy, and his weak constitution was
still further debilitated in 1552, by a combination of diseases, so
that even the most hopeful began to fear the worst. Nothing was however
done to alter the succession till the spring of the following year.
In May, took place the marriage of Lord Guildford Dudley, fourth son
of the Duke of Northumberland, to the Lady Jane Grey, granddaughter
of Henry VIII.’s sister Mary, who, first married to the King of
France, became afterwards the wife of Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. This
marriage of his son to one so nearly related to the royal family was
Northumberland’s first step in what Turner calls “that nefarious
combination,” by which the Crown was to be alienated from its rightful
possessor, and placed on the head of a usurper. The injustice of the
proceeding was threefold: 1. Henry VIII. had determined the succession
by virtue of a statute of the realm, and it could not legally be set
aside. 2. In the event of the failure of both his daughters, the
next in succession would have been Mary Stuart, but Northumberland
passed her over with the inconsistent pretext, that Henry had excluded
the issue of his elder sister, Margaret, from his will. 3. The Lady
Frances, daughter of the Duchess of Suffolk, married to Henry, Lord
Grey, created Duke of Suffolk, was also set aside, in favour of her
eldest daughter, the better to satisfy Northumberland’s ambition by
marrying this young lady to his son. On the 25th June Edward was so ill
that it was reported he was dead, and one of his physicians told the
French ambassador that he could not get beyond the month of August. He
died on the 6th July, having been persuaded to exclude both his sisters
from the succession, in defiance of his father’s will, and to leave the
Crown to the Lady Jane Grey.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 252: Harl. MS. 5087, art. vi., Brit. Mus. Ellis’s _Letters_,
ii., 134, 1st series.]
[Footnote 253: _Letters of the Kings of England_, vol. ii., p. 8,
edited by J. O. Halliwell.]
[Footnote 254: “And when the Lady Mary his sister (who ever kept her
house in very Catholic manner and order) came to visit him, he took
special content in her company (I have heard it from an eye witness)
he would ask her many questions, promise her secrecy, carrying her
that respect and reverence, as if she had been his mother. And she
again in her discretion, advised him in some things that concerned
himself, and in other things that touched herself; in all shewing great
affection and sisterly care of him. The young king would burst forth in
tears, grieving matters could not be according to her will and desire.
And when the duke his uncle did use her with straitness and want of
liberty, he besought her to have patience until he had more years, and
then he would remedy all. When she was to take leave, he seemed to
part from her with sorrow; he kissed her, he called for some jewel to
present her, he complained that they gave him no better to give her.
Which noted by his tutors, order was taken that these visits should be
very rare, alleging that they made the king sad and melancholy; and
consulted to have afflicted her officer and servants; for that contrary
to the then made law, she had public Mass in her chapel, if they could
draw any consent from the king. But he, upon no reasons, would ever
give way to it, and commanded strictly that she might have full liberty
of what she would. He sent to her, inquiring if they gave her any
trouble or molestation, for if they did, it was against his will, and
he would see her contented. But it was not safe, nor did it stand with
prudence, as the times went, for the Lady Mary to complain” (_The Life
of Jane Dormer, Duchess of Feria_, pp. 61-62).]
[Footnote 255: Gregorio Leti in his _Historia di Elisabetta_ publishes
a letter written by Elizabeth to the Admiral (vol. i., p. 171) in
which she declined the offer of his hand. There is no possibility of
verifying the fact, as the original letter to which Leti had access has
since disappeared; but as he has proved himself careful in instances
which have been verified, there is no reason to doubt his accuracy in
those which cannot be submitted to a like scrutiny.]
[Footnote 256: Ellis’s _Letters_, vol. ii., p. 151, 1st series.]
[Footnote 257: Lansdowne MS. 1236, f. 26. Printed in Ellis’s _Letters_,
vol. ii., p. 149, 1st series (a facsimile of this letter in Mary’s own
hand is on the next page).]
[Footnote 258: Leti, _Historia di Elisabetta_, vol. i., p. 180. Printed
in _Letters of Royal and Illustrious Ladies_, vol. iii., p. 193.]
[Footnote 259: Record Office, State Papers, vol. vi., 19, 20, 21, 22
Feb. 1549.]
[Footnote 260: _Journal of King Edward’s Reign, written in the King’s
own hand._]
[Footnote 261: Burnet, _History of the Reformation_, vol. ii., p. 187.]
[Footnote 262: _Latimer’s Sermons_, 1st edition, 4th sermon. The
passage was expunged in the later editions.]
[Footnote 263: Add. MS. 5151, f. 308, Brit. Mus.]
[Footnote 264: _Statutes of the Realm_, iv., 110.]
[Footnote 265: Ridley ordered the altars in his diocese to be taken
down, as occasions of great superstition and error; and tables to be
set in their room, in some convenient place in the chancel or choir.
The Catholics ridiculed the tables as “oyster-boards” (Strype, _Annals
of the Reformation_, p. 355).]
[Footnote 266: _Acts of the Privy Council_, new series, vol. ii., p.
312, edited by John Roche Dasent.]
[Footnote 267: Lansdowne MS. 1236, f. 28, Brit. Mus.]
[Footnote 268: Lemon, Dom., _Edward VI._, vol. i., p. 22, art. 51.]
[Footnote 269: _Acts of the Privy Council_, vol. ii., p. 291, new
series.]
[Footnote 270: Foxe, vol. vi., p. 12.]
[Footnote 271: _Journal of King Edward’s Reign_, 21.]
[Footnote 272: Turnbull, _Cal. State Papers_, Edward VI., Foreign,
1547-53, p. 75.]
[Footnote 273: Turnbull, _Cal. State Papers_, Edward VI., Foreign,
1547-53, p. 137.]
[Footnote 274: Turnbull, _Cal. State Papers_, Edward VI., Foreign,
1547-53, p. 137.]
[Footnote 275: _Acts of the Privy Council_, vol. iii., p. 239, new
series.]
[Footnote 276: _Ibid._]
[Footnote 277: _Ibid._, p. 240.]
[Footnote 278: _Ibid._, p. 329.]
[Footnote 279: Harl. MS. 352, f. 186. Ellis’s _Letters_, vol. ii., p.
176, 1st series.]
[Footnote 280: _Acts of the Privy Council_, vol. iii., p. 336 _et
seq._, new series.]
[Footnote 281: _Acts of the Privy Council_, vol. iii., p. 348 _et seq._]
[Footnote 282: Turnbull, _Cal. State Papers_, Foreign, p. 53. Strype,
_Ecclesiastical Memorials_, vol. ii., pt. i., p. 457.]
[Footnote 283: Lansdowne MS. 2, f. 141.]
[Footnote 284: Foxe, _Acts and Monuments_, vol vi., p. 354, Cattley’s
ed.]
[Footnote 285: _Ecclesiastical Memorials_, vol. ii., pt. i., p. 444.]
[Footnote 286: Sharon Turner, _History of England_, vol. xi., p. 325
note.]